Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nytmare 01-31-04, 03:01 AM	So I'm playing my first Illusionist. It would seem that every session we now play has at least one, ten to fifteen minute discussion over what I should and shouldn't be able to do with my illusions. The question of the moment: Can an illusionary attacker give flanking bonuses?
Another Gnome 01-31-04, 03:18 AM	Usually, no. Only creatures can flank. An exception could be an illusionary summoned creature from a (greater) shadow conjuration spell, as its effects are partially real.
Nytmare 01-31-04, 03:23 AM	Then the next question would be 'Why?'. What does it matter whether or not the creature is real, shouldn't the concern be whether or not the creature getting (illusionarily) flanked thinks that it's real?
Grayson 01-31-04, 03:36 AM	I'd allow illusions to flank in my game, provided the person affected by them believes them. It's pretty tough to do convincing creature illusions though. You need to cover sound, touch, and sight (no taste/smell usually), which is tough to do. If you're low level, your character most likely wouldn't know a lot about monsters either, so might have difficulty portraying realistic creatures.
aldymnor 01-31-04, 03:56 AM	Simply put, the creature isn't real. It's not like the target loses armor class when it's flanked. It's that the flanker gains a bonus. Since the illusion isn't real, just a collection of sensory stimula, it's not going to act more deadly just because of its position; its acting is entirely dependent on the consciousness of the caster. When UA comes up with facing rules in late february, this might change. For example, if the target is facing the illusion, and the real person is flanking from behind, that's almost like saying an illusion can flank. None of the above applies to "shadow creature" spells that are halfway real.
Nytmare 01-31-04, 04:09 AM	Originally posted by aldymnor It's not like the target loses armor class when it's flanked. It's that the flanker gains a bonus. Since the illusion isn't real, just a collection of sensory stimula, it's not going to act more deadly just because of its position; its acting is entirely dependent on the consciousness of the caster. But wouldn't the target be reacting as though it's facing two opponents, thereby granting the real opponent a bonus to hit? In the target's mind the illusion is real. In the target's mind it's a real guy with a real sword and when it hits it's going to be dealing real damage. What did you mean by that last sentence? I think I'm reading it differently than you wrote it. As the caster I can make the illusion act more deadly.
Capn Charlie 01-31-04, 04:24 AM	Can illusions flank? Yes. Until the flankee makes a save, or he realizes it isn't actually attacking him just "pretending" to. If two guys are standing on either side of me and one is trying to disembowel me while the other is just standing there, well, I am going to focus on the actual threat. It all comes down to whether the flankee thinks he is being flanked, and how effective the flanking illusion is. Flanking comes from the target having to divide his attention, and as such, an illusion can help flank. Now from a balance perspective, an illusion of high enough level to be advanced enough to fool someone it is attacking them is high enough so as to be well within reason. There is precedent for a spell that helps you flank, Summon Monster X and it does so much more.
Nytmare 01-31-04, 04:31 AM	Originally posted by Capn Charlie There is precedent for a spell that helps you flank, Summon Monster X and it does so much more. I'd beg to differ. Especially considering that Summoning is one of my prohibited schools. PS - 'Summon Monster X' would make a great title for a really bad Anime film.
Capn Charlie 01-31-04, 05:03 AM	I meant that there is a precedent for a spell that helps you flank, so the use of an illusion to flank isn't such a big deal. I didn't mean you should just use SMX. Oh, and don't say things like that, it might come true...
Grayson 01-31-04, 05:33 AM	Flanking is based on the target's reaction to the illusion, not the illusion's reaction to the target. Some folks here need to read the rules again! *wags finger* :p (Edited for clarity)
aldymnor 01-31-04, 06:03 AM	Originally posted by Nytmare But wouldn't the target be reacting as though it's facing two opponents, thereby granting the real opponent a bonus to hit? Apparently not. If that were the case, their AC would go down. The bonus to hit is representing the fact that you can see a LOT more of the enemy than he can see of you. The illusion merely sees what the caster sees. Like I said, (in my game) someone can gain benefit of a flank while cooperating with an illusion, but only if the enemy is primarily fighting the illusion. Since there are no rules for this, it's kind of up to the DM. Hopefully the alternate "facing" rules in UA deal with this. In short, the illusion itself can't gain squat, as it's not really there. It's a figment of the caster's imagination made real in pure sensory form. It has no consciousness. If flanking were dependent on the target, the target's AC would go down. It is indeed dependent on the attacker.
Nytmare 01-31-04, 11:23 AM	Originally posted by aldymnor Apparently not. If that were the case, their AC would go down. A very good point. However: Flanking states that the flanking bonus is granted "if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you". The definition given for threaten is "To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current square." I don't see how to infer from either of those that the bonus is anything other than opportunistic. It's the opposite flanker's threat of being able to attack. Not the fact that it's hitting, or doing damage. If you have a real person there who is not attacking, he's still granting the flank bonus because the target is afraid of being attacked. The bonus to hit is representing the fact that you can see a LOT more of the enemy than he can see of you. The illusion merely sees what the caster sees. The illusions point of view has nothing to do with things. The target's point of view is what's important. From the target's point of view there is another combatant that it has to defend itself from.
Tzor 01-31-04, 11:40 AM	I would say no. I would also raise the argument by asserting that an not only can't an illusion flank, it cannot even threaten. 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 notion of flank is dependant on the notion of threat. Basically when someone threatens they are actively poking their weapons at all the enemies that they threaten, although not in such an effective way that results in an attack. (Unless the opponent does something to lower his guard and allow an AOO.) The defender is likewise dodging or parrying the weapon. Thus in order to threaten there has to be some sort of physical interaction with the opponent. Illusions are useless for direct combat because they cannot contain enough physical force to maintain a threat posture. Patterns and Phantasms might be an exception because even though they cannot physically threaten they might appear to threaten in the minds of their victims. Shadows might threaten because they can cause physical damage. Shadows giving the illusions of threatening weapons should be able to provide flanking bonuses to others in my opinion.
Capn Charlie 01-31-04, 11:53 AM	I don't know if frothing at the mouth orc barbarian is wildly swinging at me I know I don't want to be anywhere near that axe. And thus I would divert some attention towards getting out of the way. However if the illusion is done badly, well then I agree, no flank. I think the best illusion for flanking would be one with a "blink" effect that seems to go ethereal randomly, thus any attacks on it can be explained away.
Nytmare 01-31-04, 12:04 PM	Originally posted by Tzor I would say no. I would also raise the argument by asserting that an not only can't an illusion flank, it cannot even threaten. The notion of flank is dependant on the notion of threat. Basically when someone threatens they are actively poking their weapons at all the enemies that they threaten, although not in such an effective way that results in an attack. (Unless the opponent does something to lower his guard and allow an AOO.) The defender is likewise dodging or parrying the weapon. Thus in order to threaten there has to be some sort of physical interaction with the opponent. The word 'threat' to me means just that. I don't have to prove to the guy that the illusion is real because he's already bought it. My illusion can attempt to attack, it can actively poke it's weapon, it can dodge out of the way, it can suffer illusionary wounds. When the target makes these physical interactions he can make another save to see if he's still falling for it. Illusions are useless for direct combat because they cannot contain enough physical force to maintain a threat posture. Again if the target thinks that it's real, I don't see what the argument is.
Tzor 01-31-04, 12:05 PM	Originally posted by Capn Charlie I don't know if frothing at the mouth orc barbarian is wildly swinging at me I know I don't want to be anywhere near that axe. And thus I would divert some attention towards getting out of the way. I agree, I'd personally make a 5' step move from anyone who appears to be threatening me, but for the most part my characters are of braver stock. :D The problem with the illusion of the wildly swinging barbarian is that the act of threatening exposes the illusion. One does not simply dodge, one dodges and parries. Yes an exceptionally good illusion might be able to have the illusion react to the parry, but he cannot have the real weapon react to the weapon that isn't there. When a simple attempt at parrying a wild barbarian's axe is met with zero or minor resistance, something is greatly amiss. Thus illusions can give the illusion that they might be able to threaten, should you enter their threat range, but they cannot actually threaten once you enter their threat range.
Capn Charlie 01-31-04, 12:26 PM	But could an expertly done illusion have dodge blows and parries? And even if the first parry did make the illusion obvious does that not just give a bonus on the save to disbelieve? At the very least could it not flank for the first round?
Cog 01-31-04, 02:30 PM	Originally posted by Tzor The problem with the illusion of the wildly swinging barbarian is that the act of threatening exposes the illusion. One does not simply dodge, one dodges and parries. Yes an exceptionally good illusion might be able to have the illusion react to the parry, but he cannot have the real weapon react to the weapon that isn't there. When a simple attempt at parrying a wild barbarian's axe is met with zero or minor resistance, something is greatly amiss. ...At that point, I think the opponent would need to make some sort of Int or Wis check to see if he thinks it's an illusion or ghost.... ;) Up until the moment the opponent realises the illusion is an illusion, then I would say that a flanking bonus applies. Each round, I'd say that there is some sort of percentile, say 50% (just for a figure), that an "attack" by the illusion is "parried", and the opponent realises something is wrong. When the illusion is figured out, then it no longer becomes a threat.
Gryllmyre 01-31-04, 03:28 PM	Flanking happens by causing the target creature to become occupied with what is on both sides of it, having to direct its defense in two directions. This is where the +2 to hit and sneak attack ability comes into play. On that logic alone, illusionary creatures should be able to flank if the target believes them to be a threat.
Another Gnome 01-31-04, 04:51 PM	On that logic alone, illusionary creatures should be able to flank if the target believes them to be a threat. That same logic dictates that a character can't be flanked by invisible attackers because he doesn't know there's a threat around him. I suggest not applying logic to rules that don't need it. :)
Jagyr Ebonwood 01-31-04, 06:25 PM	I'd rule that everytime the illusion would give a flanking bonus, the target gets to make another save (since it's being interacted with). If it fails the save, it believes that it's being threatened, and is effectively flanked. Every round, the target gets a new saving throw. The target may end up getting more than one save a round, like if he attacked it and was flanked by it in the same round.