Flanking with Mirror Image?

[Zaruthustran]

No, no.

A flanking bonus is given because you are making a melee attack and an ally directly opposite you threatens your opponent.

No threaten, no flank.

-Hyp.

He's right, according to the rules.

Feel free to houserule.

-z

 

[KarinsDad]

A flanking bonus is given because you are making a melee attack and an ally directly opposite you threatens your opponent.

No threaten, no flank.

Except that there is a threat.

"threatened area: An area within an opponent's reach."

When you see an illusion, you believe it is real. If you are within the reach of an illusion of an opponent, then you believe that you are in a threatened area. As will the real opponent on the opposite side of you who believes that he has an ally who is giving him flank. As will every other character in the room.

Just like if an illusion is of the floor over a pit, you believe that the floor is solid.

Just because the floor is not really solid does not mean that you do not believe it is. Just because the illusion does not really threaten the area does not mean that you do not believe it does.

I will emphasize a different part of the same quote:

"Figment: .....(snip)...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."


The problem with illusions not resulting in a threat means that illusions of creatures are almost totally worthless. Everyone would immediately know that it is an illusion that just walked up and attempted to flank because the other opponent is not fighting against the target any better (i.e. from a metagaming point of view, he is not getting a bonus of +2 to hit and he cannot sneak attack).

How is the spell useful for confounding a foe if the foe can immediately figure out that it is an illusion because the foe does not react to it properly?


Lets take the following example.

A B X

where X is a moving illusion of an opponent of B and B is an NPC.

The player of A states: "I will flank B and attempt to sneak attack him."
The GM states: "You cannot do that."
A states: "Why not? Oh, X must not be real and since I know I am unable to use my sneak attack ability, my character knows it too (he knows that B is not giving him the proper opening). Since my character knows that, he can deduce that X is an illusion."


It is not that in this example that the illusion X is attacking directly, it is not. It is not attacking at all. But, it is threatening.

This is no different than the illusion of a wall. If X is an illusion of a wall, B would believe that it is a real wall and act accordingly (i.e. not try to back through it). If X is an illusion of an attacker, B will act accordingly (think he is threatened and might not attempt to do things like cast spells which would result in an AoO).


The problem with not running illusions as if they are real within the rules is that you then fall into the trap of making assumptions about which rules apply to illusions and which do not, as opposed to stating "All rules apply to illusions as if they were real with the exception that they cannot directly cause a real effect, they can only indirectly do that."

An illusion of a ceiling will still prevent people from seeing the sky above it, even in the daytime (no daytime light will shine through). An illusion of 5 lions roaring will still prevent most characters from hearing the two fighters talking in whispers on the other side of the room. Certain components (visual, audio, etc.) of illusions must be considered the same as real, otherwise illusions do not do anything.


In the case of A B X, the reason A can flank B and get a +2 bonus is because B is not defending properly 100% against both A and X, not because of any mystic change in environment because X is either real or an illusion. That is nonsensical.

A and B and X should all act and react identically, regardless of whether X is real or an illusion. Otherwise, they are acting and reacting differently which will indicate automatically to them that X is an illusion.

The rules are there to adjudicate the situation from a common sense point of view, not to dictate illogical occurrences.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Except that there is a threat.

"threatened area: An area within an opponent's reach."

You can't take one sentence out of the glossary without looking at the actual rules.

A creature threatens an area into which it can make a melee attack. The glossary definition is simplified and not comprehensive.

A figment cannot make a melee attack, and thus it does not threaten, and thus it cannot provide a flanking bonus.

The defender's perceptions are irrelevant.

If A thinks he can flank, more power to him... but whether A or B believe X is real, A is not flanking. He doesn't get a +2 to his roll - though the DM might not tell him that - and he doesn't get a sneak attack. For all he knows, B has Uncanny Dodge and can't be flanked.

But X cannot provide a flanking bonus.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

A creature threatens an area into which it can make a melee attack.

I agree 100% that this is the rule. But, ...


Who says that the illusion cannot make a melee attack?

Who says that the illusion cannot pick its nose?

An illusion can do anything, it just cannot directly affect anything (i.e. produce real effects).

It cannot be successful at damaging the target, but it can make a melee attack.

If the caster of the illusion wants the illusion to attack, does it suddenly stop its attack 3 feet from the target because it cannot damage the target?

Or does the caster of the illusion know that it cannot damage the target, so he has it attack and purposely miss so that the target does not guess that it is an illusion?

Your turn.

 

[youspoonybard]

Or does the caster of the illusion know that it cannot damage the target, so he has it attack and purposely miss so that the target does not guess that it is an illusion?

If I were an illusionist, and I knew my illusions couldn't do damage, I *WOULD* be doing this. All of the time.

 

[KarinsDad]

Five examples. Rule them as a GM on common sense, not on any "literal translations of rules in the book".

A B V
A B W
A B X
A B Y
A B Z

A and B are fighting. V, W, X, Y, and Z are allies of A.

V is visible. Does A get flank?
W is invisible, but neither A nor B knows he exists. Does A get flank?
X is invisible, but both A and B knows he exists. Does A get flank?
Y is an illusion, but both A and B think he's real. Does A get flank?
Z is an ugly threatening looking creature which is incapable of doing a melee attack, but neither A nor B know that. Does A get flank?

The literal book answers to these 5 examples are: yes, yes, yes, no, and no.
The common sense answers to these 5 examples are: yes, no, yes, yes, and yes.

So, for 3 out of the 5 examples, literal book rules do not make sense. The reason for this is that the designers of the game could not take every possible contingency into account.

That is why we have GMs.

 

[Snipehunt]

One reason not to allow flanking for mirror image and similar effects it is that it grants a power to figments they aren't meant to have, which is a "real effect" of flanking. Whether it makes sense is important, I agree. But figments are meant to be false sensations, and usually pretty minor false sensations.

Particularly with mirror image, where a horde of duplicates punches into existance in an instant, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief a little. I imagine that although the attacker can't differentiate between the images and the real when attacking, when defending, when the wizard attacks there are some subtle differences (maybe a scuffing boot, or a slightly more "realistic" angle of attack, or whatever) that lets the defender adjust to the real attack in time to negate any possible flanking. That "duplicates the caster" language makes it pretty difficult for me to believe it would grant flanking.

With Major Image, I would start considering letting an image flank (although it hasn't come up in any campaign I've been in, there's a lot of better ways to go about it).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Who says that the illusion cannot make a melee attack?

"These spells... are useless for attacking [creatures] directly."

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

"These spells... are useless for attacking [creatures] directly."

-Hyp.

If for some reason a character had a curse placed on them that all of their melee attacks always did 0 damage would they not also be useless for attacking in melee? Or if they were cursed to always miss their target? Would they still flank?

 

[The Souljourner]

"These spells... are useless for attacking [creatures] directly."

-Hyp.

There's a big difference between "useless" and "you can't do it" Casting a fireball at a salamander is useless, doesn't mean you can't do it.

An illusion can make all the melee attacks it wants, it's just useless... it'll never do damage.

Here's the thing, though - I think the person being attacked by the illusion would very quickly realize it's an illusion. Why? Because normal combat requires a lot of contact - you block sword blows with your shield, parry with your sword.... so unless the illusion was attacking a Monk with a huge touch AC, it's going to be quite apparent that it's not real, since it keeps missing your 11 touch AC, and yet manages to completely dodge your attack that hit AC 20 without even parrying with its sword.

-The Souljourner