Seeking advice using illusions effectively

[UniversalMonster]

As a GM I would rule that illusions threaten opponents for purposes of flanking. This would also entail interaction, allowing for a saving throw, but I would definitely alow it.

 

[Henrix]

I'd say that the merely being in melee with an illusional creature entails a save. That is surely interacting.

Thus it is good if the illusions are things that the enemies have to respond to from a distance. A shield guardian protecting you, for instance, might dissuade many opponents from charging.

 

[Thanee]

John, what I'm saying is, that you need to talk to your DM about this, since all the tips in the world mean nothing, if your DM doesn't agree with how that stuff works in his game.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Someone]

The last doesn't work with programmed image, since a) programmed image, like mirror image, duplicate you as you are. If you are invisible, so is it, and b) programmed image requires line of sight. If it is invisible, you can't see it and it winks out (I suppose, see invisible might provide a loophole here...).

I think you´re thinking on project image.

 

[Orichin]

What I would like to see is an article with some suggested guidelines for bonuses and penalties to the save kind of like the modifiers to a bluff check. Perhaps making an illusion of something very simple but believable should have a harder save whereas pushing it to the max (complex changes in the illusion that require a lot of concentration) should make the save easier, or require a concentration check to keep up the high-detailed charade.

I'm 90% certain that in AD&D (and 3e too, I think), there is a clause under the 'adjucating illusions' section, that the DM is perfectly within rights to apply modifiers, or disallow a save, based on how believable/farfetched an illusion is in a case-by-case basis.

 

[Orichin]

Illusions should be rather effective on mindless opponents, like vermin and golems, who don´t learn and will be fooled once and again by the same trick.

Note that mindless opponents are immune to mind affecting effects, phantasms and patterns are noted specifically in 3.5 MM

 

[Particle_Man]

I think you´re thinking on project image.

D'oh! and...

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'd disagree. A percieved threat would be as good as a real threat for flanking.
There is nothing about this in the rules, but it is how I'd rule it when GMing.

I agree. The reason a person gets a flanking bonus, IMO, is because it forces the defender to worry about being attacked from two sides. So long as a person percieves a threat, he'll try and defend himself accordingly. This would grant the real person a flanking bonus against him.

Of course, I would also rule that such an illusion would be difficult to maintain. If you have an ogre appear behind you, most illusionists will have it "attack" (which I definately would count as "interaction"). If the ogre "hits" the person will know immediately that its not real, since the weapon just went right through him. And even if the illusionist has the Ogre attack and "miss", he will have a tough time convincing the person that the ogre is so super clumsy that it keeps missing time after time after time.

Whatever the illusion does, there can be some measure of suspicion involved. It takes a very clever player to maintain such an effect and fool someone for more than a couple of rounds.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

It may seem logical that an illusory attacker grants a flanking bonus, but then isn't it also logical that a Spiritual Weapon would do so as well (which it doesn't)?

 

[johnsemlak]

It may seem logical that an illusory attacker grants a flanking bonus, but then isn't it also logical that a Spiritual Weapon would do so as well (which it doesn't)?

Not exactly sure what the rules say but isn't a spiritual weapon or other similar magical creations not a full-sized attacking creature and thus not relavent for flanking, even though it is a threat to an opponent? An illusion of a real creature, on the other hand might be elegible to flank an opponent. That's how I would see it.