Flanking with figments?

[FrankTrollman]

That is because you are hide bound to the rules and pretend to not see the illogic.

No. It's not.

It is because the rules don't have a specific "real world" interpretation - they are just rules. You hit or do not hit because the dice tell you so, then you inflict damage if you hit, and don't if you don't. Whether you struck cleanly into your opponent's chest or struck against their weapon several times, herding them into your ally's shield opening up a strike to their shoulder is situationally dependent - and within the descriptive realms of the players at the table.

The rules don't make a distiction between those two "hits" - and game mechanically it isn't important.

Something that is visible and appears threatening does not give the flank bonus.

Something that is invisible and not known does give the flank bonus.

Right. Presumably because the flanking bonus represents actual interference by the other flanker and not the target's state of mind.

Fireballs do 1d6 of damage per caster level. How hot are they? They are hot enough to do 1d6 of damage per caster level. If you assign it a temperature in the game based upon your first impression of a "Fireball" - and that temperature later feels unrealistic at 1d6 of damage per caster level - you have simply assigned the wrong temperature.

Flanking is about real interference, not subjective discomfort. We know this because things give a flanking bonus if they are really interfering, and don't stop giving flanking bonuses just because the target does or does not acknowledge the presence of one or more of the attackers.

It's about objective position, not subjective position. Otherwise the flanking bonus would have rules and descriptive text consistent with subjective location - and it does not.

I honestly can't tell whether you are serious or just trying to hack people off - I don't think it matters.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

Right. Presumably because the flanking bonus represents actual interference by the other flanker and not the target's state of mind.

Which is why I'd be comfortable with a house rule that states that an invisible creature who provides an ally with a flanking bonus is automatically "detected" (though not necessarily pinpointed) by the opponent, since presumably interference requires interaction in some non-specified yet tangible fashion.

The problem KD and the Sage are both encountering, as you point out, is that there is no flavour text for flanking in the rules, and thus assigning mechanics based on flavour is doomed to multiple interpretations from DM to DM from the very beginning.

An Elemental or Ooze cannot be flanked because it has no clear front or back.

A Beholder or Xorn cannot be flanked because it can see in all directions.

An Assassin Vine can be flanked, despite the fact that it has no visual organs, and instead knows the location of any creature within 30 feet due to blindsense.

A zombie or golem can be flanked, despite an Int of --; how do you 'distract' the 'attention' of a mindless automaton?

The mechanics are clear - if you are making a melee attack and an ally directly opposite threatens the opponent, you are flanking.

The flavour is nebulous and murky, and doesn't account for various situations that aren't flanking, or for some that are.

I'll take clear over murky, personally.

-Hyp.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Frank, I'm with you except for two things:

1: The "panties in a knot" crack. What's up with that? Calm down; we're all friends here.

2: Your blatant error in argument. See below:

The rules define flanking as the interaction of real combatants - not as the impressions of the target of the attack. You may want to describe the flanking bonus as a division of attention - but the rules don't say that!

You are making up a "special effect" for the flanking bonus which is inconsistent with the rules - and then getting your panties in a knot because the rules are inconsistent with your explanation.

It is because the rules don't have a specific "real world" interpretation - they are just rules.

Flanking is about real interference, not subjective discomfort. We know this because things give a flanking bonus if they are really interfering, and don't stop giving flanking bonuses just because the target does or does not acknowledge the presence of one or more of the attackers.... Presumably because the flanking bonus represents actual interference by the other flanker and not the target's state of mind.

The bold sections are what I'm talking about. You insult KarinsDad for coming up with an explanation for flanking that's not in the rules, then come up with your own explanation that's not in the rules.

Please tell me where in the rules (like on page 153, where Flanking is discussed) the words "actual interference" show up?

Perceived threat, actual interference--none of this flavor text matters. And it's sloppy arguing if you first discredit flavor text, then use a flavor explanation in support of your own viewpoint.

-z

PS: the "actual interference" argument doesn't fly.

A B X

X is invisible, undetected by both A and B, and actively using the Hide skill/doing everything he can to not be detected. He has 1 hit point left and on his turn he plans on dropping his sword and using a healing potion. Yet he still threatens--according to the rules, he's still giving a flank to A--even though he is intentionally not "interfering" in any way, shape, or form.

Not that it matters. Rules are rules, regardless of flavor.

 

[MerakSpielman]

According to the rules figments cannot provide flanking bonuses. I think, really, that we have to agree on that, because the rules actually say so.

The only real discussion we can have from this point is whether or not the rules make any sense to each of us personally.

I think the rules on this subject do not make good sense. Say Villian A and Hero B are enagaged in melee. Hero C casts a spell, and a celestial badger appears in a flanking position on the other side. Hero C is capable of casting both illusions and Summon Monster I, and neither Villian A nor Hero B know which spell has been cast (if it was an illusion, they have both made their saves).

In this circumstance, by the rules, whether or not Hero B gets a flanking bonus depends entirely on which spell has been cast, despite the fact that whichever spell it was, the situation looks exactly the same. If Hero B is a rogue, then both he and Villian A will be able to tell if its an illusion based on whether or not Hero B gets his sneak attack.

Just silly, if you ask me.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here is the thing.

Rules are supposed to be there to assist DMs and players in understanding the events in the game. Effectively, they are a model so that DMs and players can make sense of the game in a consistent manner.

If they fail to do that, then you either have to just live with it and move on, or you have to adjust them so that they do make sense to you.

Both the "perceived threat" and "actual interference" ideas are ways to interpret the rules. The first one is an idea to interpret the rules in a consistent manner for when certain rules do not make sense. In other words, the idea is to make sense of and attempt to "correct" certain specific nonsensical rules. The second one is an idea to interpret the rules in a consistent manner which agrees 100% with the rules as written. It is a metagaming (which is not a bad word btw) interpretation so that people can understand the rule. But, it is not an interpretation that necessarily fits all circumstances in the game and makes them clear from a common sense point of view. It is one which makes the rule itself all important, not the interpretation of what the rule represents.

Kind of a "because that is the way it works" interpretation.

And, there is nothing wrong with that if that is ok for you and your players. If it is not ok, then you might want to look for an interpretation that better fits what makes sense for you and your players.


I'll give an example from when DND 3E first came out. We had a group of second edition DND players who converted over to 3E.

One of the players was a bit hide bound with the 2E rules and had a real problem with the 3E rules. Partially because they were different, but partially because some of them just did not make any sense to him. In fact, he quit gaming completely because 3E did not make sense to him and nobody wanted to play 2E anymore.

One rule that did not make sense is the concept of no facing. All of us 3E players who have played the game for 3 years really do not have a problem with this rule. We have absorbed it into our culture and it has become just part and parcel of how the game is played.

But, it is TOTALLY nonsensical. The ability to defend in all directions with a shield makes zero sense. The ability to defend from behind, just as well as from in front makes zero sense. The ability to defend simultaneous equally as well against every opponent surrounding you makes zero sense.

But from an ease of play perspective, it makes a lot of sense and the "reality of it" becomes less important.


My point here is that it is extremely easy to start adapting an interpretation of the rules which does make sense, based on the rules themselves and not based on what would really make sense if you were actually standing there in the game as a "real character".

If you were actually standing there and originally came from our universe to the game universe, it would be bizarre that you defend from behind, just as well as you defend from in front. It would be bizarre that illusions did not really appear threatening. It would be bizarre when someone attacking you was suddenly inexplicitly doing 4 times as much damage (and later on, you found out it was because someone was hiding or invisible behind you, even though behind does not matter "in the game"). It would be bizarre to take twice as much damage from a 20 foot fall than a 10 foot one and four times as much damage from a 40 foot fall than a 10 foot fall (3E rules, not sure of 3.5 ones). It would be bizarre that one person could fall 500 feet and walk away from it and another person could fall 10 feet and die.

The ability to separate these two (an interpretation based on the rules versus an interpretation based on common sense) sometimes becomes difficult, especially when we play the game for a long time and become "set in our ways". For example, I doubt that many posters here have thought about the lack of facing issue for a long time, but when the books first came out, it was one of the first issues that was on peoples minds a lot.

 

[FoxWander]

I'm rather interested in this subject, since I made the "Flanking with Mirror Image" post that started it all. (Btw, I missed the images appearing in a cluster bit of that spell, so obviously Mirror Image could never be used that way- since they can't surround an opponent. But that's beside the point.) Anyway, here's a situation for you to illustrate this issue.

You are a hapless orc doing random patrol duty in a nameless dungeon somewhere. Suddenly a party of adventurers comes out of a corridor just ahead of you. The burly fighter types seem heavily injured, so only a halfling in leather armor wielding a short sword comes forward to fight you. Just as you're closing with the halfling there is a blur of shadow along the wall and before you can react there is a menacing black-garbed figure wielding a wicked blade that drips with venom behind you. Keeping an eye on the halfling you direct your attack against the seemingly more deadly opponent. It nimbly avoids every swing of your axe but is so caught up in defense that it luckily misses you completely with jabs from its poisoned blade. Then the halfling attacks...

Now. Does the halfling rogue get a flanking bonus and thus get to make a sneak attack? This situation is entirely possible whether the "assassin" figure is an actual character from the party, a summoned creature or an illusion. Does it really matter what it is to give the halfling a flanking situation? As far as I can see, it shouldn't.

If you want a "strictly by the rules" reasoning for this, then I'll remind you of all the SRD says about the relevant definitions...

"FLANKING
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."

"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. "

"Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly."

So- to flank you have to threaten, to threaten you have to attack. Nothing in the rules says that figments can't attack. It says "they can't cause damage" and that they're "useless for attacking", but that's not the same thing as not being able to attack. Attacking a Red Dragon with a fireball is useless, but it's still an attack. Attacking a Balor with a silver sword is useless, but it's also still an attack, and I'd bet everyone of you would argue that it would give an ally on the opposite side of the Balor a flanking bonus. A figment can make all the attacks their caster wants them to make, they just won't do anything or cause any damage- but until the critter being "attacked" by the illusion realizes that it's being "attacked" by an illusion (and presumably makes it's Will save) it is being "attacked" and is going to be effectively "threatened".

Honestly, if you rule it any other way, then illusions are patently useless in their role of "confounding or delaying foes". Because if an illusion can't "attack", no matter how useless and non-damaging those "attacks" may be, then what's the point. Also, knowing that the useless and non-damaging attacks of his illusions would quickly reveal them as the figments they are, any illusionist worth his salt would structure the appearance of those attacks like I described above- so that they make no contact but nonetheless appear quite "threatening".

So I ask again- in my example above, does the halfling get a flanking bonus?

 

[KarinsDad]

So I ask again- in my example above, does the halfling get a flanking bonus?

In my game he does.

There have been many people that have stated that figments cannot flank according to the rules.

That is incorrect.

Figments cannot flank according to the rules with one interpretation.

Figments can flank according to the rules with another interpretation.

Since the rules are not clear on this, I'll take the interpretation that makes more sense in the game.