Invisible Things can't Flank: What's the big dealio?

[Magus Coeruleus]

The answer is yes, he is still threatening as long as the defender believes that he is still there and threatening. If the defender loses track of him, I would rule that his ally no longer gets a flank bonus. If the defender hears a thud of him hitting the ground, I would allow the defender to believe that the invisible opponent was unconscious or dead, even if it were only a book that hit the ground and the invisible guy is merely drinking a cure potion.

I prefer to keep the onus on the invisible guy to maintain flanking status by advertising the threat. Thus, I wouldn't normally impose upon the defender any risk of thinking the invisible guy still flanks if he has in fact left or stopped threatening. In my view, flanking requires maintenance of the apparent threat, and if that does not continue, the defender is automatically aware that he is no longer flanked as soon as someone attacks him that would have gained a flank bonus if the invisible guy were still there and threatening.

[I sense a potential misunderstanding, so to be as clear as possible--I'm not suggesting that the defender knows that something has changed as soon as the invisible guy leaves or stops threatening, but rather as soon as an attack is made that is no longer a flanking attack as a result.]

That said, I would be very interested in implementing a house rule allowing certain illusions to create flanking situations. Some have argued that that is consistent with the rules already. I disagree, but I'm not especially interested in arguing whether it's canon or house. More important, I think, is having a good way to adjudicating the effectiveness of such ploys if you choose to allow it.

You receive a save once you interact with an illusion. In illusory combat opponent situations, I've always rolled this save when either the defender first attacks the illusion, or the illusion first appears to attack the defender. If events occur (on other initiative counts) before either such condition occurs, I would not allow the saving throw unless there was something special to allow, because there is not yet interaction.

If I were to allow an illusion the chance to create a flanking situation, however, I would allow the save as soon as an ally of the illusionist makes the "supposed" flank attack. This is consistent with my proposal that flanking requires maintaining the appearance of a threat. Once the ally wants to take advantage of the illusion and make a flanking attack, the illusionist must make the illusion interact with the defender to create a credible-seeming threat. The defender gets a save, even though he has not necessarily attacked the illusion yet, and the illusion itself is not appearing to attack.

The crunchy bits come when you start to apply circumstance modifiers to the saving throw based on the sensory qualities of the illusion that would affect how convincing it is as a real threat. Clearly, higher-level illusion spells that incorporate more sensory qualities are harder to notice as fakery. This should lead to illusionists (I mean caster of illusions, not necessarily specialist) making an effort to choose the illusory opponents wisely.

For instance, one good choice for Silent Image is a ghost or other apparition. An opponent may receive no bonus to the save whatsoever if such an illusion is portrayed properly, because a ghost doesn't necessarily have sensory qualities other than visual. Choosing a stinky troglodyte is a very bad choice. Of course something like a ghost does not always work (in certain contexts, it would seem difficult to believe). A smart illusionist is going to think up a variety of illusory creatures and plan when to use them based on battle context and normal sensory quality profile, to maximize how convincing the illusory threat is. This of course applies even without letting illusions possibly flank, but if you choose to allow it, the issue becomes more pressing.

Cheers,
MC

 

[Celtavian]

re

Ok, it sounds like we are saying the same thing, just using different words.

I think so as well.

I guess the only question I have now is that the instant that you have the situation:

A B X

A does not have flanking if X is invisible until B is aware of X, X does have flanking regardless of whether B is alerted to the presence of X yet or not.

Bs awareness or lack of awareness of X does not take away from Xs ability to flank. Are you saying the same thing? I thought maybe not because of the following statement.

X would receive both a flanking bonus and invisibility bonus. I agree, B's awareness or lack of awareness doesn't not take away from X's ability to flank. A is threatening.

I am assuming that this is just a misunderstanding between what you wrote and what you meant.

I think what you might have meant here is that A does not get flank until B is aware of X (X attacks or is heard or some other condition of awareness).

What you wrote is that X does not get flank if he decides to not attack.

If you actually meant what you wrote, then I think it is a semantics issue. X does get flank, but it doesn't matter if X isn't attacking.

Yes. I think of "purposely decides not to attack while invisible" as "not threatening and standing there quietly giving a flank bonus for metagame reasons". That is something I won't allow.

As long as the invisible person alerts the attacker to his presence and proceeds to threaten the person by eventually attacking or at least fighting (irregardless of whether the attack actually hits), then he is flanking. Yes, I do expect them to attack. They just don't have to actually hit.

If you meant that A does not get flank once B is aware of X because X is not attacking B, then I totally disagree. That is not the rule if X is visible, so it should not be the rule if X is invisible.

I will give a situation where I will not consider B flanked rather than the conditions for. If X stands there quietly attempting to preserve his invisibility and not attacking at all, I am not going to consider B flanked after a number of rounds. It will be entirely arbitrary based on the certain factors like B's intelligence and general awareness.

Its really a hard thing for me to have a hard fast rule on. I don't allow metagame abuse. I know it when I see it, but a reasonable level of rules manipulation I allow so as not to discourage clever combinations on the part of the players.

Rules like "illusions don't threaten and can't flank" really hurt the game by ruining clever uses of illusion spells, an often overlooked branch of spells. I certainly don't want to create an unreasonable rule for invisibility. I would arbitrate according to the circumstances.

The example I used was how a scenario such as the one mentioned would happen in my game more than something that could be applied to everyones game.