Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magus Coeruleus" data-source="post: 1143541" data-attributes="member: 1704">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</blockquote>

Verification