But even if you go with a separation between the game concept of Threatening and the regular English word "threatening," would you grant that there has to be a reason why the designers picked that particular verb to use for that particular game concept?
Because like any other term in the game that has a specific meaning, they chose the English word that most closly fits. The size categories come to mind. If my character orders a large frappachino, it doesn't come in a 10x10' cup (unless he's in Gianttown I guess).
You also need to realize that the duration of spells like Silent Image is "concentration," meaning that there is a caster who has active line of sight who is watching and controlling them. They're puppets, and in a far purer sense than a conjurers conjured monsters, an enchantress's charmed thralls, or a necromancer's undead minions. They have 0 INT and 0 WIS and yet move and act like sentient creatures because they're being puppeted by someone.
Realized, and agreed, 100%. In fact I think it helps support my argument. For instance, try playing a 3rd person action game of some sort with a NO-CLIP cheat turned on, but never actually running through any walls or characters. It's extraordinarily difficult, especially when fighting up close, to avoid putting even the slightest part of your avatar's body through part of the environment or another creature. And that's with a perfect, fixed view. In the middle of combat with other monsters or party members moving arond... I don't see it being possible to maintain very long at all.
I can understand your logic when you say that flanking is more than just standing there, it's something that includes all sorts of bouncing and dodging around and that requires an actual intelligence to accomplish that, but because Mr. Crocodile is in fact being puppeted by an actual intelligence that's giving that act his full concentration, well, that should be more than enough.
To get Mr. Crocodile to run on autopilot while the illusionist goes out and gets a coffee requires Programmed Image, which is a 6th level spell, and even then, the spell will fail if the parameters exceed the programming.
Also agreed, except for the "more than enough" part. :)
Okay, here, actual RAW. First off, to answer the business about illusions "shattering" the moment they're struck, look on p. 311 under Major Image:
The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately.
Now, to answer the questions of whether illusions can engage in combat, flank, and do all the other stuff real creatures do, check page 509, under Deck of Illusions:
When a card is drawn at random and thrown to the ground, a major image of the creature is formed. The figment lasts until dispelled. The illusory creature cannot move more than 30 feet away from where the real card landed, but otherwise moves and acts as if it were real. At all times it obeys the desires of the character who drew the card.
There, right there in the RAW. For an illusion to move and act as if it were real, it must be able to attack, flank, and all the rest. Any other interpretation goes against the RAW.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Well WOTC implicitly state that a figment can be used in combat.
Also you dont have to poke at something to theaten.
Ref for that "figment can be used in combat" statement. If it is not a general rule (like in a specific spell) then you can't extend it to a general thing.
You must poke to threaten, because the Wizard (with a Knife) wouldn't threaten if Stunned. The figment would need to be actively trying to attack (that is what threatening is simulating) to grant the flank.
The RAW back both arguments. They are not very good rules, as written, because of this.
I prefer to phrase it like this:
The "figments can threaten" are using the "it doesn't say I can't" way of thinking while the "if it doesn't say you threaten you don't threaten" people are using the "in order for a spell to behave like a person it needs to say it can do so" way of thinking.While fascinated ... Any potential threat to the target
if I make a Silent Image of someone coming up and holding a knife to his throat, this should also threaten him and thereby break the fascination.
"potential threat" != "threaten"
One is an english wording ("potential threat") and the other is a defined rules mechanic ("threaten")
Answering your question, an illusion could break Fascinate if the target believes the illusion but the same illusion would not threaten the target (and therefor grant Flanking.)
Incorporating the information from this article into the previous points brought up in the thread, it seems like Silent Image can be used to create an illusory warrior that would grant flanking to a rogue.
Nothing in that link hints or otherwise suggests your illusion would grant flanking bonus.
To add to that with a hypothetical situation. Lets say we have a PC on 1 HP. Does he tumble to Z and touch it or does he simply walk to Z and touch it. And if he tumbles, why does he do so?
He tumbles if he believes the illusions and he doesn't want to get hit, but that doesn't mean the illusions can make an AoO against him if he fails and failing (and thus not getting attacked) would provoke a disbelief save.
There, right there in the RAW. For an illusion to move and act as if it were real, it must be able to attack, flank, and all the rest. Any other interpretation goes against the RAW.
That doesn't mean it can flank or attack, and it doesn't go against the RAW to make this claim (by me.) Also, whatever a Deck illusion can do has absolutely no bearing on illusions in general.
FYI, figments (p210) can't attack and if you can't attack you can't threaten and if you can't threaten you can't provide a flanking bonus.
But what's wrong with allowing a will save against the illusion (even one per round, until successful) - if the save is successful, the illusion is recognized for what it is, and it does not Threaten (maybe also give the save a circumstance bonus for a silent image, since the lack of noise would be suspicious). If the save is failed then the illusion is real in the mind of the combatant, and it can Threaten. I mean, why would it be necessary to go beyond the save mechanism (already in place for the spell) to specifically disallow the tactic?
The save mechanic is good, which is why I think that 1 round, possibly a little longer depending on circumstances, is doable (assuming failed saves of course), as are circumstance bonuses and penalties to the save DCs. However the line under Illusions in the Magic section that states that proof of an illusion negates the need for a saving throw pretty much seals the deal for me. I think that said proof would be easy to come by in a combat situation.
Is it out of line with other possible effects from the same spell? What if the silent image was of a solid floor over an open spiked pit? Someone could fall to their death quite easily if they fail to notice the illusion - is that a more powerful effect than allowing an image to Threaten an opponent?
No, disguising a pit isn't, because chances are it's a one-time event. It's dependant on terrain, and therefore not something you'll be able to do over and over. Once one guy falls in (and I'd allow a reflex save, like any other pit trap), the proof that it's an illusion is there, all it takes is a (probably easy) perception check to see a guy fall through the floor.
But what's wrong with allowing a will save against the illusion (even one per round, until successful) - if the save is successful, the illusion is recognized for what it is, and it does not Threaten (maybe also give the save a circumstance bonus for a silent image, since the lack of noise would be suspicious). If the save is failed then the illusion is real in the mind of the combatant, and it can Threaten. I mean, why would it be necessary to go beyond the save mechanism (already in place for the spell) to specifically disallow the tactic?The save mechanic is good, which is why I think that 1 round, possibly a little longer depending on circumstances, is doable (assuming failed saves of course), as are circumstance bonuses and penalties to the save DCs. However the line under Illusions in the Magic section that states that proof of an illusion negates the need for a saving throw pretty much seals the deal for me. I think that said proof would be easy to come by in a combat situation.
Exactly. One successful saving throw seems like good proof to me. So a saving throw wouldn't need to be made every round until the spell expires, only until it was successful once. But consideration of proof from other sources, other than the saving throw, seem to me to be an unnecessary additional complication (unless someone else yells out - it's an illusion dummy! or something - but even that I would consider as just a modifier to the save).
Is it out of line with other possible effects from the same spell? What if the silent image was of a solid floor over an open spiked pit? Someone could fall to their death quite easily if they fail to notice the illusion - is that a more powerful effect than allowing an image to Threaten an opponent?No, disguising a pit isn't, because chances are it's a one-time event. It's dependant on terrain, and therefore not something you'll be able to do over and over. Once one guy falls in (and I'd allow a reflex save, like any other pit trap), the proof that it's an illusion is there, all it takes is a (probably easy) perception check to see a guy fall through the floor.
Right, so other party members would have a very easy time seeing through the illusion (maybe fail only on a 1) if someone else falls through. But for the person falling through (who I would probably also give a will save to, to detect the illusion first), it does not seem different than the combat situation of being threatened by a silent image. Either you believe the illusion is real (fail will save), or you don't (make will save). Until you make the will save, I think the illusion should be considered as real as any other opponent. Once the save is made, *poof*, illusion has no further effect on you.
This doesn't seem to require any further intervention or interpretation on the part of the DM (other than determining save DC). And to specifically try to disallow this seems to me to verge on making an illusionist underpowered (as Kevin was saying above - the spell requires concentration, and is easily disrupted anyway).
Nothing in that link hints or otherwise suggests your illusion would grant flanking bonus.
I didn't intend to give the impression that that single article provided all the answers. Taken with the previous article and ALL of the preceeding quotations of the RAW, it was my opinion that using an illusion to set up a flanking situation was defensible. I find particularly telling the assertion that you can use a figment to fool an opponent. Using the existing rules for the consequences of interacting with an illusion it does not seem to be an overly powerful tactic and I would therefore allow it.
The issue clearly is nowhere explicity resolved.
FYI, figments (p210) can't attack and if you can't attack you can't threaten and if you can't threaten you can't provide a flanking bonus.
It actually states that figments can't deal damage. Since a Wizard providing flanking is not required to actually deal damage, I am inclined to feel like a target believing that an illusion COULD deal damage to him might be enough to provide the flanking. The WotC article indicated that they were okay with figments making or seeming to make attacks. This is the primary reason that I feel like this might be a viable possibility. When you look at the potency of using Silent Image for the purpose of granting flanking it clearly only has significantly longevity if you're lucky and the target never hits the illusion and always fails the abundant disbelief saves that would be incurred when attempting to use an illusion in such a manner. This is why I would be comfortable allowing the tactic.
However, I don't think it is really wrong to disallow it. The issue of whether or not a figment can threaten in a rules sense is not addressed anywhere that I have seen and that is ultimately what the viability of this tactic hinges upon. This is just my humble interpretation and I'm more than willing to admit that it could very well be wrong.
Exactly. One successful saving throw seems like good proof to me. So a saving throw wouldn't need to be made every round until the spell expires, only until it was successful once. But consideration of proof from other sources, other than the saving throw, seem to me to be an unnecessary additional complication (unless someone else yells out - it's an illusion dummy! or something - but even that I would consider as just a modifier to the save).
The idea of proof negating the illusion exists outside of the saving throw, otherwise there would be no need to mention it at all. If an illusory fighter sticks his sword through your forehead with no effect whatsoever, you don't need a saving throw to know it's an Illusion. That's why they added that rule. Someone else pointing out an illusion is also covered by the rules, granting a new save with a +4 untyped bonus.
Right, so other party members would have a very easy time seeing through the illusion (maybe fail only on a 1) if someone else falls through. But for the person falling through (who I would probably also give a will save to, to detect the illusion first), it does not seem different than the combat situation of being threatened by a silent image. Either you believe the illusion is real (fail will save), or you don't (make will save). Until you make the will save, I think the illusion should be considered as real as any other opponent. Once the save is made, *poof*, illusion has no further effect on you.
I'll point out that to gain a saving throw vs. an Illusion you need to interact with it. Seeing a fake floor from across the room doesn't count as interacting as far as I'm concerned. I'd probably also grant the hapless victim of the floor trap a Will save to realize they were about to put their foot down on nothing, but I'd still ask them for a Reflex save to catch themselves from stepping forward. If they had made the Will save, I'd grant them a +2 circumstance bonus on the Reflex and they'd stop themselves from stepping in, instead of catching themselves on the lip of the pit having already fallen.
This doesn't seem to require any further intervention or interpretation on the part of the DM (other than determining save DC). And to specifically try to disallow this seems to me to verge on making an illusionist underpowered (as Kevin was saying above - the spell requires concentration, and is easily disrupted anyway).
I've played a couple of Illusionists in 3.5, having never tried to flank someone or provide anything more than obstructions or distractions with my illusions, and I've never felt underpowered. Far from it. Illusionists have plenty of other tricks up their sleeves like Colour Spray, various Invisibilities, Mirror Image, Phantasmal Killer and Shadow Conj/Evocation. And that's just from the core. My last Illusionist (Gnome Illusionist 3 / Master Specialist 7 or thereabouts) had a save DCs for a number of his 0-level spells clocking in at 18-20.
Exactly. One successful saving throw seems like good proof to me. So a saving throw wouldn't need to be made every round until the spell expires, only until it was successful once. But consideration of proof from other sources, other than the saving throw, seem to me to be an unnecessary additional complication (unless someone else yells out - it's an illusion dummy! or something - but even that I would consider as just a modifier to the save).The idea of proof negating the illusion exists outside of the saving throw, otherwise there would be no need to mention it at all. If an illusory fighter sticks his sword through your forehead with no effect whatsoever, you don't need a saving throw to know it's an Illusion. That's why they added that rule. Someone else pointing out an illusion is also covered by the rules, granting a new save with a +4 untyped bonus.
Fair enough, but still, "proof" in less extreme cases is likely more subjective and difficult to determine (and quite difficult to separate player/DM knowledge from character knowledge), so the save seems like a much easier and more objective standard to apply (it could be houseruled that the bonus to the save is so high in a case with "proof" that the save is automatic - which would amount to the same thing, except perhaps for the chance to still fail on a 1). (and thanks for pointing out that rule - I had missed it)
Right, so other party members would have a very easy time seeing through the illusion (maybe fail only on a 1) if someone else falls through. But for the person falling through (who I would probably also give a will save to, to detect the illusion first), it does not seem different than the combat situation of being threatened by a silent image. Either you believe the illusion is real (fail will save), or you don't (make will save). Until you make the will save, I think the illusion should be considered as real as any other opponent. Once the save is made, *poof*, illusion has no further effect on you.I'll point out that to gain a saving throw vs. an Illusion you need to interact with it. Seeing a fake floor from across the room doesn't count as interacting as far as I'm concerned. I'd probably also grant the hapless victim of the floor trap a Will save to realize they were about to put their foot down on nothing, but I'd still ask them for a Reflex save to catch themselves from stepping forward. If they had made the Will save, I'd grant them a +2 circumstance bonus on the Reflex and they'd stop themselves from stepping in, instead of catching themselves on the lip of the pit having already fallen.
No disagreement there at all :) Though if they failed the will save, I might give them a -2 to the reflex save, for similar reasons.
I've played a couple of Illusionists in 3.5, having never tried to flank someone or provide anything more than obstructions or distractions with my illusions, and I've never felt underpowered. Far from it. Illusionists have plenty of other tricks up their sleeves like Colour Spray, various Invisibilities, Mirror Image, Phantasmal Killer and Shadow Conj/Evocation. And that's just from the core. My last Illusionist (Gnome Illusionist 3 / Master Specialist 7 or thereabouts) had a save DCs for a number of his 0-level spells clocking in at 18-20.
This doesn't seem to require any further intervention or interpretation on the part of the DM (other than determining save DC). And to specifically try to disallow this seems to me to verge on making an illusionist underpowered (as Kevin was saying above - the spell requires concentration, and is easily disrupted anyway).
good points - though I think illusions can be tricky to DM, and maybe you've had good ones (I've had both good and bad for illusionists). Still, if the DM frequently said: "well, it's obvious that so-and-so would see through the illusion, no save required", the character could not be as effective with certain tactics, which could take too much away from a character (particularly one with fewer of the other spells you mention).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It actually states that figments can't deal damage. Since a Wizard providing flanking is not required to actually deal damage
While the Wizard is not required to deal damage, he is required to be threatening (and therefore able to make an attack that would deal damage if it hits.)
This whole issues turns on the DM interpretation of whether or not the Figment that can't deal damage can deal damage if it attacks (or pretends to attack.)
It is my interpretation of RAW that if he can't attack (and be able to damage if it hits), he can't threaten.
It is your interpretation of RAW that despite not being able to attack, he still can deal damage if he could attack.
Does this mean you feel anytime a character is in Black Tentacles he is flanked also?
If an imagined magical attacker threatens wouldn't an actual magical threat? Considering the tentacles attack anyone in their area of effect I would think they would be much more likely to flank than a guy standing around looking scary.
(Isn't the whole illusion beaten to death? No one is going to concede the point...)
Does this mean you feel anytime a character is in Black Tentacles he is flanked also?
If an imagined magical attacker threatens wouldn't an actual magical threat? Considering the tentacles attack anyone in their area of effect I would think they would be much more likely to flank than a guy standing around looking scary.
(Isn't the whole illusion beaten to death? No one is going to concede the point...)
The tentacles are like a wall of fire or just a fireplace: They deal damage to creatures in their square. You can't designate them as an ally or as an enemy. They just are.
A giant squid, on the other hand, is either an ally or an enemy, unless it's some random giant squid that happens to be there, attacking both you and your enemy, and does not help you two flank each other.
It should also be pointed out that there is one spell which specifically can't be used for flanking, which is Spectral Hand, a necromantic spell. This is because the hand basically makes a beeline for whoever you want to poke, delivers a touch spell, then returns to you for further instructions.
Since I've yet to find a single illusion which includes the "can't be used to flank" text from Spectral Hand, it's reasonable to assume that all illusions can flank.
The tentacles are like a wall of fire or just a fireplace: They deal damage to creatures in their square. You can't designate them as an ally or as an enemy. They just are.
I have to disagree. Fire is just there, black tentacles creates physical tentacles that are reaching out and grabbing at you. You are continuously avoiding them the entire time you are in the area effect.
A giant squid, on the other hand, is either an ally or an enemy, unless it's some random giant squid that happens to be there, attacking both you and your enemy, and does not help you two flank each other.
There is essentially no difference between a giant squid who is trying to grapple all combatants and black tentacles.
Since I've yet to find a single illusion which includes the "can't be used to flank" text from Spectral Hand, it's reasonable to assume that all illusions can flank.
If you want to go there... Black tentacles doesn't say "Can't be used to flank" either, mostly because almost no spells say that because there is an assumption that they don't.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Since I've yet to find a single illusion which includes the "can't be used to flank" text from Spectral Hand, it's reasonable to assume that all illusions can flank.If you want to go there... Black tentacles doesn't say "Can't be used to flank" either, mostly because almost no spells say that because there is an assumption that they don't.
Kevin, that is absolutely not even remotely reasonable. It doesn't say I can't stomp my foot 3 times and have all enemies take 99999999 damage, so by your reasoning all PC's get "99999999 per round 900 foot radius" effects at will.
Ogre's example is an excellent illustration of why the "illusions grant flanking" is wrong. Entangle should also flank, as well as Grease (you could fall and take falling damage so Grease must flank too.)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
By that logic, if a monster has enough DR so that any melee attack by the character would be unable to do damage, the monster is then not flanked.
That's a different thread, but that's a reasonable claim.
I'll report that Paizo's Chris Self reported Paizo's Cosmo Eisele's argument that "flanking" means more than just threatening an attack, that a flanker also distracts the center figure with blows to the knees, throwing a cloak over his head, and so forth. It seemed reasonable to some people, but I didn't buy it.
Since I've yet to find a single illusion which includes the "can't be used to flank" text from Spectral Hand, it's reasonable to assume that all illusions can flank.If you want to go there... Black tentacles doesn't say "Can't be used to flank" either, mostly because almost no spells say that because there is an assumption that they don't.Kevin, that is absolutely not even remotely reasonable. It doesn't say I can't stomp my foot 3 times and have all enemies take 99999999 damage, so by your reasoning all PC's get "99999999 per round 900 foot radius" effects at will.
Ogre's example is an excellent illustration of why the "illusions grant flanking" is wrong. Entangle should also flank, as well as Grease (you could fall and take falling damage so Grease must flank too.)
Oh good lord, I forget what the name of this logical fallacy is, but it's the same one where you prove a horse is a dog because they both have four legs. Don't be silly.
There is a difference between a mindless hazard, such as a blade barrier, and an intelligent attacker, such as a skeleton with a sword. It doesn't have to be very intelligent, but I think it should be obvious to everyone that that the skeleton is more intelligent than the blade barrier.
A flanker needs to be something intelligent enough to pick a team and play for it. An illusion is intelligent enough, in that it's either been programmed by someone intelligent and is thus basically an AI, or else it's a hand puppet of someone intelligent who's directly controlling its actions.
The business about a flanker being required to act like a rabid terrier going after someone's ankles is incorrect. A wizard casting a spell is a threat. A barmaid waving her hands and using a Bluff check while she mumbles impressive mumbo jumbo to convince you that she's casting a spell is also a threat, even if it's just a cocktail recipe in pig latin.
I should also note that I ran all this past my players last night, and everyone was fine with it, including the rogue players. In fact, jumping to the subject of the other thread, they also liked the idea of being able to ignore flankers. One said, "So can I go into a fight and act incompetent so someone lets their guard down while they concentrate on bigger threats and then I can stick them?"
"Why yes. Yes you can."
"Can we have the illusionist make doubles of me so they think I'm yet another stupid illusion when I run out to join the fight?"
"Yes. Good tactic."
Everyone actually liked it because it made combats more sneaky and more strategic.
But back to the original subject, you'd only be able to be flanked by a grease spell if it were one of those living spells from Eberron. Or to put it another way: Fire elementals can flank, campfires cannot flank, flaming spheres can flank. Flankers either need to be intelligent or else puppeted by someone with an intelligence.
If there were some version of black tentacles where you could actually direct the tentacles, yeah, then that could flank too. But since they're an utterly mindless hazard that will smack everyone including the caster, they can't.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
By that logic, if a monster has enough DR so that any melee attack by the character would be unable to do damage, the monster is then not flanked.
When you choose to ignore core rules (like you must threaten to flank) you start treading on all kind of odd nuggets.
The rules say you must threaten to flank, and the illusion doesn't say explicitly that it flanks (which some spells that produce effects that flank like Phantom Foe, Phantom Threat, etc)
Without an explicit call out combined with the prohibition on making an attack in the Figment rules, I don't see it as a reasonable interpretation of the rules to allow Figments to flank. While I don't agree it is what the rules say to do, I can accept that others have an alternate opinion. This essentially means "Ask your DM" for this issue and let your DM determine what he thinks the RAW says.
The argument is that a figment does no damage, hence does not threaten, therefore no flanking....
Then a real creature that is unable to damage should also not threaten, and therefore do not get AOOs or provide flanking.
No, the figment deals no damage therefore can't make an attack. If you can't make an attack, you can't threaten.
A real creature that can attack, but would deal no damage still threatens and therefore still provide flanking.
You framed the position in a favorable way that disagrees with the text in the rules to make your position sound better.
There is a difference between a mindless hazard, such as a blade barrier, and an intelligent attacker, such as a skeleton with a sword. It doesn't have to be very intelligent, but I think it should be obvious to everyone that that the skeleton is more intelligent than the blade barrier.
Mindless creatures can't flank?
I'm not sure what the difference between a mindless gelatinous cube trying to suck you in and mindless tentacles trying to grab you.
A flanker needs to be something intelligent enough to pick a team and play for it. An illusion is intelligent enough, in that it's either been programmed by someone intelligent and is thus basically an AI, or else it's a hand puppet of someone intelligent who's directly controlling its actions.
So a gelatinous cube trying to eat everyone doesn't flank?
What about a giant squid trying to grab anyone on the deck of a ship? Whether he has a mind or not he's more or less mindlessly grabbing anyone and not being selective.
.
.
PS: Not really part of the discussion but the phrase "an intelligent attacker, such as a skeleton with a sword" is quite ironic, they are defined in the rules as "mindless".
Skeletons are defined by the rules as "mindless" and yet they still somehow get a Wisdom score of 10.
The gelatinous cube, OTOH, gets a Wisdom score of 1.
But I think that proves they're not utterly mindless as per the standard English definition of the world.
And anyway, the giant squid flailing randomly and grabbing everything.... If there were two giant squid trying to take down the same floating shell filled with yummy treats, they'd give each other flanking versus the swarm of yummy treats they're trying to eat.
It is your interpretation of RAW that despite not being able to attack, he still can deal damage if he could attack.
No, that wasn't exactly what I was saying. In one of the articles I previous linked to, WotC provided a formula for figuring out the attack bonus of a figment. That suggests to me that it was their intent to allow figments to appear to make an attack. The rules for figments clearly indicate that they cannot deal damage. Therefore any attack that a figment did attempt to make would not deal damage (and would, by my estimate, cause the figment to be automatically disbelieved on a successful hit).
A real creature that can attack, but would deal no damage still threatens and therefore still provide flanking.
This I agree with and as the WotC article seemed to indicate that a figment could attack, then I concluded that a figment had the potential to threaten. Despite being illusory, while they are still believed they may very well function as though they were real.
Also, I would like to make clear that I advance this argument hesitantly. In my mind it makes a certain amount of sense and, as previously indicated, it does not seem to throw a terrible amount of additional power into Silent Spell. I would personally allow it, but as there seems to be dispute over the nessecity of pointing out whether individual illusion spells need to explicitly state how they function in regard to flanking I feel that its just as reasonable to disallow the spell in question to flank.
An illusion will be able to flank and all that goes with it until the person being flanked makes its WILL save for interacting with the illusion which it will get every round whilst the perceived threat is present. This is how I handle it in my game.
I also make use of some old rules covering illusions from an old Dragon magazine. If anyone is interested I will post them.
*edit* in the case of silent image there would be a +4 bonus to the save
It is your interpretation of RAW that despite not being able to attack, he still can deal damage if he could attack.No, that wasn't exactly what I was saying. In one of the articles I previous linked to, WotC provided a formula for figuring out the attack bonus of a figment. That suggests to me that it was their intent to allow figments to appear to make an attack. The rules for figments clearly indicate that they cannot deal damage. Therefore any attack that a figment did attempt to make would not deal damage (and would, by my estimate, cause the figment to be automatically disbelieved on a successful hit).
You should note the text of the spell, where automatic disbelief on a successful hit only occurs if the illusion's controller fails to have it react appropriately: it dodges, it's barely nicked, it gives no resistance as you cleave it open revealing rot and maggots and yet the thing fights on, hideously and horribly still animated!
Honestly, quit pretending illusionists have no imagination. Only a ditz would let their illusion go *POOF* because some lunkheaded fighter stuck it with a sword.
The gelatinous cube, OTOH, gets a Wisdom score of 1.
But I think that proves they're not utterly mindless as per the standard English definition of the world.
I don't see why the tentacles are any less a directed 'intelligent' threat than a skeleton or an animated object. They are not just blindly striking out, they are programmed to act in a specific way, they feel around, grab a creature and squeeze. Animated objects and skeletons are likewise animated by magic and programmed to act in a similar way.
And anyway, the giant squid flailing randomly and grabbing everything.... If there were two giant squid trying to take down the same floating shell filled with yummy treats, they'd give each other flanking versus the swarm of yummy treats they're trying to eat.
If you are opposite the squid but not allied with it you don't get the benefits of flanking?
Skeletons are defined by the rules as "mindless" and yet they still somehow get a Wisdom score of 10.
I was just enjoying the play on words I wasn't trying to go anywhere with it. I got your point, that's why I set it aside the way I did.
The difference is that the skeletons can be instructed to proceed to new victims once the old ones are dead whereas the tentacles will strangle everything in their area willy-nilly, including corpses. They're as self-aware as a blade barrier which is a magical meatgrinder that will slice anything up that you put in it, regardless of sentience or life status.
The skeletons understand the concept of "team" and "coordinated attack." The tentacles and the blade barrier do not.
You should note the text of the spell, where automatic disbelief on a successful hit only occurs if the illusion's controller fails to have it react appropriately
I double checked to make sure I wasn't missing something, but the text of Silent Image says nothing about "reacting appropriately." All of my discussion has been solely focused on that spell, as it was the one cited by the OP. I appologize if I missed something and it would be helpful for me if you could clarify which spell and particular pages in the rulebook that you're refering to.
*EDIT: Kevin, if you're talking about Major Image then you are entirely correct and it would be a much more preferable alternative for this tactic given the fact that it won't simply vanish when hit.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, folks, to hypotheticals:
1) Arnold and Adriana are allies, and they're fighting Bob. Suddenly the lights go out, and Bob and Adriana, being human, are unable to see. Arnold, a dwarf, sneaks up silently on Bob so that he's in flanking position with Adriana.
Bob and Adriana each knows about the other, because each can hear the other. Obviously, Bob and Acriana are blind, with all the penalties that engenders. But does Arnold provide a flanking bonus to Adriana?
2) Arnold, a dangerous Rogue, and Adriana are flanking Bob, a middling-dense Barbarian. Bob's ally, Brunhilde the Learned, calls out, "Bob! The woman on your right is an illusion!" Bob makes whatever roll he needs to make, and believes that Adriana is a figment. (After all, Brunhilde has never lied to him before, and she's smart!)
This seems to be exactly the converse of our original situation. Instead of an illusory flanker the opponent believes to be real, Bob is faced with a real opponent he believes to be illusory. Does Adriana provide a flanking bonus to Arnold?
You should note the text of the spell, where automatic disbelief on a successful hit only occurs if the illusion's controller fails to have it react appropriately: it dodges, it's barely nicked, it gives no resistance as you cleave it open revealing rot and maggots and yet the thing fights on, hideously and horribly still animated!
Honestly, quit pretending illusionists have no imagination. Only a ditz would let their illusion go *POOF* because some lunkheaded fighter stuck it with a sword.
As pointed out above, Silent Image does not explictly allow this but Major Image (two full spell levels above) does. You've also completely ignored my points earlier regarding the difficulty of not allowing a mobile illusion to reveal itself in a fluid, combat situation (see me example of the No-Clip cheat in video games).
No one here is saying that illusionists have no imagination. What we're saying is that there are limits on what you can simulate with 1st, 2nd and yes, even 3rd level spells. Even when you're giving them your full concentration. Imagination is a requirement to being a successful illusionist, because of those limitations.
You should note the text of the spell, where automatic disbelief on a successful hit only occurs if the illusion's controller fails to have it react appropriatelyI double checked to make sure I wasn't missing something, but the text of Silent Image says nothing about "reacting appropriately." All of my discussion has been solely focused on that spell, as it was the one cited by the OP. I appologize if I missed something and it would be helpful for me if you could clarify which spell and particular pages in the rulebook that you're refering to.
*EDIT: Kevin, if you're talking about Major Image then you are entirely correct and it would be a much more preferable alternative for this tactic given the fact that it won't simply vanish when hit.
The reference is under Major Image, but since it says it's just like Silent Image except for having additional sound and so on, I view this as also applying to Silent Image. The limitation is that the Silent Image is silent, but there are ways around this: Make an illusion of something, such as a ghost or ninja, which is usually silent; Make enough noise from another source to cover the lack of sound from the Silent Image; put up a Silence Spell, so the fact that the illusion makes no sound is unremarkable.
If Major Image said something like "unlike Silent Image, which vanishes when hit" I'd agree with but the construction is such that this is simply a clarification about illusions that maybe should have been repeated elsewhere but is still the intended reading.
I think the objections people are having is that Silent Image is a 1st level spell.
You should note the text of the spell, where automatic disbelief on a successful hit only occurs if the illusion's controller fails to have it react appropriatelyI double checked to make sure I wasn't missing something, but the text of Silent Image says nothing about "reacting appropriately." All of my discussion has been solely focused on that spell, as it was the one cited by the OP. I appologize if I missed something and it would be helpful for me if you could clarify which spell and particular pages in the rulebook that you're refering to.
*EDIT: Kevin, if you're talking about Major Image then you are entirely correct and it would be a much more preferable alternative for this tactic given the fact that it won't simply vanish when hit.
The reference is under Major Image, but since it says it's just like Silent Image except for having additional sound and so on, I view this as also applying to Silent Image. The limitation is that the Silent Image is silent, but there are ways around this: Make an illusion of something, such as a ghost or ninja, which is usually silent; Make enough noise from another source to cover the lack of sound from the Silent Image; put up a Silence Spell, so the fact that the illusion makes no sound is unremarkable.
If Major Image said something like "unlike Silent Image, which vanishes when hit" I'd agree with but the construction is such that this is simply a clarification about illusions that maybe should have been repeated elsewhere but is still the intended reading.
I think the objections people are having is that Silent Image is a 1st level spell.
I don't think it's the first level spell that's the problem. I think that's it's the image is silent.
Very rarely does an attack simply "miss". Usually it is deflected in some way, and a deflection that feels like nothing and sounds like nothing would be a hard sell IMO. That's my only problem with a silent image that does not breathe, grunt, make a clang or thud granting a flanking bonus.
For Silent Image, it says that a Will save applies if interacted with. I would rule that interacted with, and thus a will save applies, any time the silent image attacks, is attacked, or is providing the flanking bonus. I would also say that the opponent should get some type of additional bonus like his base attack to notice that a foe that did not produce sound (among other things) was attacking him and defending from his attacks.
With a minor image, as long as it was being concentrated on, it could flank I would say, but with the same "base attack bonus" to will save on each "interaction." In the two additional rounds after concentration ends, an attack on the image ends anyone's belief in the spell.
With a major image, as long as it was being concentrated on, it could flank as normal. In the rounds after concentrated on, it would lose the flanking bonus. I would say this would represent the lack of actual "threatening" by the image itself, since it really couldn't act on it's own.
I got nothing on the ghost image for silent image, or having a silence spell as a powerful combo, however a flank is a physical interaction IMHO. And in the case of no sound, you would rely on your other senses more heavily so the fact that there was no physical presence would set off some alarms.
Also there is the chance that other members of the enemy party may not believe the image and notify the believers that it was indeed an illusion. That would be automatic disbelief in my book as well.
1) Arnold and Adriana are allies, and they're fighting Bob. Suddenly the lights go out, and Bob and Adriana, being human, are unable to see. Arnold, a dwarf, sneaks up silently on Bob so that he's in flanking position with Adriana.
Bob and Adriana each knows about the other, because each can hear the other. Obviously, Bob and Acriana are blind, with all the penalties that engenders. But does Arnold provide a flanking bonus to Adriana?
Adriana is essentially blind, which means all squares have Total Concealment. There's no word in the RAW that says you don't Threaten squares that have Total Concealment, but it does say you can't make AoO's into them. I'd assume then that you don't Threaten them either. Because Flanking requires both attackers to Threaten, there's no Flanking bonus.
Going logically as opposed to rules, where flanking is determined by knowledge and intent and all those fuzzy things we're debating, there's still no flanking. Adriana cannot coordinate her attacks with Arnold because she can't see him, nor Bob. Bob, while aware of both threats, cannot focus on one or the other and thus cannot be distracted. Besides, he's already got no Dex bonus and a -2 AC, does Arnold really *need* the flank to hit him? :)
2) Arnold, a dangerous Rogue, and Adriana are flanking Bob, a middling-dense Barbarian. Bob's ally, Brunhilde the Learned, calls out, "Bob! The woman on your right is an illusion!" Bob makes whatever roll he needs to make, and believes that Adriana is a figment. (After all, Brunhilde has never lied to him before, and she's smart!)
This seems to be exactly the converse of our original situation. Instead of an illusory flanker the opponent believes to be real, Bob is faced with a real opponent he believes to be illusory. Does Adriana provide a flanking bonus to Arnold?
It's the converse arguement, but it boils down the same. By RAW, there's a flank. Both A's Threaten with a melee weapon (I presume), so they Flank Bob.
The reference is under Major Image, but since it says it's just like Silent Image except for having additional sound and so on, I view this as also applying to Silent Image.
What? Seriously? So by that logic, Silent Image (1st level) can react appropriately, Major Image (3rd level) can react appropriately, but Minor Image (2nd level) cannot. After all, Minor Image does not include the text about reacting appropriately, nor does Major Image reference it.
Realized, and agreed, 100%. In fact I think it helps support my argument. For instance, try playing a 3rd person action game of some sort with a NO-CLIP cheat turned on, but never actually running through any walls or characters. It's extraordinarily difficult, especially when fighting up close, to avoid putting even the slightest part of your avatar's body through part of the environment or another creature. And that's with a perfect, fixed view. In the middle of combat with other monsters or party members moving arond... I don't see it being possible to maintain very long at all.
This is why you pick an avatar where this can be covered up: a ghost who routinely phases through things, a winged sprite who bounces around magically appearing and disappearing, etc.
There's also a reason why mages are supposed to have high intelligence so they can deal with stuff like this.
And, it should be also noted, even if my illusory ogre accidentally swings his club through the ceiling, is his opponent going to be looking the second I screw up? He doesn't have the perspective of a theatre goer sitting there munching popcorn while he laughs at the bad film edits and continuity errors, he's a guy fighting for his life against an ogre!
That said, the guy fighting the illusory ogre does get a Will save for interacting with it, which if you note, is a save based on intelligence and such. You can easily explain that the reason why he saved is because he saw the ogre swing its club through the ceiling or stuck its butt through a wall when it made that surprisingly acrobatic dodge to avoid his sword thrust.
If it weren't extraordinarily difficult to pull off convincing illusions, targets wouldn't get Will saves. But it is so they do.
Saying that they should immediately go *POP* when interacted with is wrong. They only do that when dealing with people with high WILL saves. But when dealing with Lunkhead the Barbarian with his high Reflex and high Fortitude but low Will? He's going to miss the bad edits and continuity errors that a smarter person wouldn't.
Also there is the chance that other members of the enemy party may not believe the image and notify the believers that it was indeed an illusion. That would be automatic disbelief in my book as well.
By the RAW, this only allows a new Will save at +4, not automatic disbelief.
The reference is under Major Image, but since it says it's just like Silent Image except for having additional sound and so on, I view this as also applying to Silent Image.What? Seriously? So by that logic, Silent Image (1st level) can react appropriately, Major Image (3rd level) can react appropriately, but Minor Image (2nd level) cannot. After all, Minor Image does not include the text about reacting appropriately, nor does Major Image reference it.
Minor Image too.
There's a lack of space for repeating the same text everywhere.
Hey, folks, to hypotheticals:
1) Arnold and Adriana are allies, and they're fighting Bob. Suddenly the lights go out, and Bob and Adriana, being human, are unable to see. Arnold, a dwarf, sneaks up silently on Bob so that he's in flanking position with Adriana.
Bob and Adriana each knows about the other, because each can hear the other. Obviously, Bob and Acriana are blind, with all the penalties that engenders. But does Arnold provide a flanking bonus to Adriana?
2) Arnold, a dangerous Rogue, and Adriana are flanking Bob, a middling-dense Barbarian. Bob's ally, Brunhilde the Learned, calls out, "Bob! The woman on your right is an illusion!" Bob makes whatever roll he needs to make, and believes that Adriana is a figment. (After all, Brunhilde has never lied to him before, and she's smart!)
This seems to be exactly the converse of our original situation. Instead of an illusory flanker the opponent believes to be real, Bob is faced with a real opponent he believes to be illusory. Does Adriana provide a flanking bonus to Arnold?
Devious!
1. No. Adriana gets no flanking bonus, because Bob is (presumably) unaware that Arnold has moved.
2. I would go with yes. Illusions (in my view) are essentially mind affecting magic, and so they can be confused with reality. Reality is not mind affecting magic, and so even the save is inappropriate. The downside of the alternative is that it seems to allow non-magical words to mimic a spell effect, so long as the target is not too bright. If I allowed a save at all, I think I would set a substantial bonus to it (in other words, Bob should believe Adriana is real), because there is no magic behind Brunhilde's words, and reality is pretty compelling.
The reference is under Major Image, but since it says it's just like Silent Image except for having additional sound and so on, I view this as also applying to Silent Image.What? Seriously? So by that logic, Silent Image (1st level) can react appropriately, Major Image (3rd level) can react appropriately, but Minor Image (2nd level) cannot. After all, Minor Image does not include the text about reacting appropriately, nor does Major Image reference it.Minor Image too.
There's a lack of space for repeating the same text everywhere.
I give up. To me, it's perfectly obvious that it's an additional feature that comes with a higher level spell. Any other interpretation, to me... I just don't even see how you come by it. They had enough room in the book to repeat themselves over and over with Cure x Wounds, Beast/Dragon/Giant/Whatever Shape I-x and Summon x I-x. Silly me, but I assume that a single sentence that appears only in one place is meant to be specific. I assume, unless it's an obvious typo, contradiction, or pointed out in errata, that the rules as written (that also haven't changed since 3.5), are accurate and intentional. What was I thinking?
Also there is the chance that other members of the enemy party may not believe the image and notify the believers that it was indeed an illusion. That would be automatic disbelief in my book as well.By the RAW, this only allows a new Will save at +4, not automatic disbelief.
I will concede on this and this alone.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
2) Arnold, a dangerous Rogue, and Adriana are flanking Bob, a middling-dense Barbarian. Bob's ally, Brunhilde the Learned, calls out, "Bob! The woman on your right is an illusion!" Bob makes whatever roll he needs to make, and believes that Adriana is a figment. (After all, Brunhilde has never lied to him before, and she's smart!)This seems to be exactly the converse of our original situation. Instead of an illusory flanker the opponent believes to be real, Bob is faced with a real opponent he believes to be illusory. Does Adriana provide a flanking bonus to Arnold?
2. I would go with yes. Illusions (in my view) are essentially mind affecting magic, and so they can be confused with reality. Reality is not mind affecting magic, and so even the save is inappropriate. The downside of the alternative is that it seems to allow non-magical words to mimic a spell effect, so long as the target is not too bright. If I allowed a save at all, I think I would set a substantial bonus to it (in other words, Bob should believe Adriana is real), because there is no magic behind Brunhilde's words, and reality is pretty compelling.
All right. Let's say that Brunhilde uses suggestion, or glibness. Does that make a difference?
2) Arnold, a dangerous Rogue, and Adriana are flanking Bob, a middling-dense Barbarian. Bob's ally, Brunhilde the Learned, calls out, "Bob! The woman on your right is an illusion!" Bob makes whatever roll he needs to make, and believes that Adriana is a figment. (After all, Brunhilde has never lied to him before, and she's smart!)This seems to be exactly the converse of our original situation. Instead of an illusory flanker the opponent believes to be real, Bob is faced with a real opponent he believes to be illusory. Does Adriana provide a flanking bonus to Arnold?
All right. Let's say that Brunhilde uses suggestion, or glibness. Does that make a difference?
2. I would go with yes. Illusions (in my view) are essentially mind affecting magic, and so they can be confused with reality. Reality is not mind affecting magic, and so even the save is inappropriate. The downside of the alternative is that it seems to allow non-magical words to mimic a spell effect, so long as the target is not too bright. If I allowed a save at all, I think I would set a substantial bonus to it (in other words, Bob should believe Adriana is real), because there is no magic behind Brunhilde's words, and reality is pretty compelling.
Absolutely, that would make a difference. I don't know if Glibness would help enough, to me this seems like it would be close to an epic level bluff, but possible (and then maybe sense motive would be more appropriate than a will save?). Even with suggestion, I would give Bob a save (likely versus the suggestion - rather than vs. some kind of illusion effect) every round until he succeeds at recognizing reality (with large bonus if Adriana hits him and causes damage) - so in essence the same solution as if Adriana is actually an illusion that Bob is interacting with.
The reference is under Major Image, but since it says it's just like Silent Image except for having additional sound and so on, I view this as also applying to Silent Image.
I am afraid I must respectfully disagree. If an editor somehow realized that an intended feature of all the Image spells had been left out, the most logical place to put the reference would have been with the spell that all the subsequent spells claim as a foundation. Even allowing for this to be a peculiar error, it originally appeared in the 3.5e PHB and was not corrected to a more logical form in Pathfinder. Further, those WotC articles are very explicit about how the majority of figment spells are dispelled instantly when hit. Given this evidence, your conclusion seems unlikely at best.
The reference is under Major Image, but since it says it's just like Silent Image except for having additional sound and so on, I view this as also applying to Silent Image.I am afraid I must respectfully disagree. If an editor somehow realized that an intended feature of all the Image spells had been left out, the most logical place to put the reference would have been with the spell that all the subsequent spells claim as a foundation. Even allowing for this to be a peculiar error, it originally appeared in the 3.5e PHB and was not corrected to a more logical form in Pathfinder. Further, those WotC articles are very explicit about how the majority of figment spells are dispelled instantly when hit. Given this evidence, your conclusion seems unlikely at best.
You have a common misapprehension in the gaming industry that an editor is going to realize everything, that books are not written by teams of writers with wildly different approaches and assumptions, that new editors don't come in with different interpretations, and that utter clarity in rules is always desirable.
There are two schools of thought in gaming: One is that the world should make logical sense and be internally consistent; The other is that play balance has to trump all logic and reality.
All the nonsense about 1st level spells vs. 4th level spells and intent and yadayadayada breaks down on this question.
Here. Let's just forget the illusions. Forget all magic. Forget even skill checks with Bluff. We have Bob the wizard who has a wand, but unbeknownst to him, the wand has been swapped with with a pencil painted up to look the same as his old wand. The wand was magical and dangerous, and Bob could threaten touch attacks with it, and everyone agrees that this is perfectly permissible for flanking. But now he's got a pencil. A pencil, one might add, that's worth a copper piece or less--far less than a 1st level spell. Can Bob flank with the harmless pencil? He's not Bluffing because he honestly thinks it's his wand. He's not suspecting that it's not his wand because sometimes people save versus the spell, and it's never been a wand that had gaudy special effects, so he's not going to miss those either.
I'm firmly on the reality and logic side of the fence. If you can flank with a 1 cp pencil and a convenient misapprehension, then you can certainly flank with an illusion.
Here. Let's just forget the illusions. Forget all magic. Forget even skill checks with Bluff. We have Bob the wizard who has a wand, but unbeknownst to him, the wand has been swapped with with a pencil painted up to look the same as his old wand. The wand was magical and dangerous, and Bob could threaten touch attacks with it, and everyone agrees that this is perfectly permissible for flanking. But now he's got a pencil. A pencil, one might add, that's worth a copper piece or less--far less than a 1st level spell. Can Bob flank with the harmless pencil? He's not Bluffing because he honestly thinks it's his wand. He's not suspecting that it's not his wand because sometimes people save versus the spell, and it's never been a wand that had gaudy special effects, so he's not going to miss those either.
Poor Bob. This made me laugh a little inside...
On the one hand - "woohoo! My wand doesn't run out of charges anymore!"
On the other hand - "Damn! No one's failed a save in forever. What's up with that?"
:)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Therefore, by your logic, the wizard can't threaten.
Basically, the RAW are inconsistent, illogical, and ambigious. But we all already knew that.
But the Wizard can make an attack, so he can threaten. The figment can deal no damage which is best though of as "when he attacks, the claw goes right through the target dealing no damage and granting a Will save to disbelieve." This is clearly different than "the wizard can make an attack, hit, but yet deal no damage."
As for the RAW being inconsistent (it isn't), illogical (it is very logical) and ambiguous (it isn't) I don't agree. You happen to believe it is all three, and I'll allow you your beliefs but I don't have to agree they are the most common beliefs based on the RAW.
their intent to allow figments to appear to make an attack ... automatically disbelieved on a successful hit).
The distinct difference, is when you make an attack it is a result of many attempted attacks. But when the figment makes it's first attack a Will save triggers. It doesn't get to make a whole round worth of attempts to then use the best in the period.
1) But does Arnold provide a flanking bonus to Adriana?
2) Does Adriana provide a flanking bonus to Arnold?
Yes (because he threatens)
Yes (because he threatens)
I think the objections people are having is that Silent Image is a 1st level spell.
No, the objection I am having is that it is a Illusion (Figment) spell. I'd have the same argument for a 9th level Illusion (Figment) spell so long as it doesn't say "this illusion can flank" in the spell.
The distinct difference, is when you make an attack it is a result of many attempted attacks. But when the figment makes it's first attack a Will save triggers. It doesn't get to make a whole round worth of attempts to then use the best in the period.
But doesn't having to make the Will save count for anything? I presume that if a Wizard cast any other spell requiring a will save in a similar situation (e.g., if the wizard were in place of the illusion), it would give flanking to another attacker.
Either by logic (he's distracted enough by the will save to not give his full attention to the other combatant), or by the rules (many thing that are certainly attacks require will saves) it seems to me to be sufficient to allow the flanking bonus.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm just repeating your mantra.
Only within the flawed logic, inconsistent, and ambiguious rules of a game.
You are also entitled to hold on to your religious worship of the RAW, and your ABSOLUTELY wrong opinions as well. Have a nice day :)
Well you didn't quite get my mantra correct.
See I don't see the flawed logic, inconsistency, nor ambiguity you see with the rules.
My view also matches the RAW (what we have on the matter) where your view adds words, meanings, and unusual interpretations to come to the conclusion something flanks when there is no words saying it flanks like in other spells that explicitly say the spell produces a flanking capable creature.
The burden of proof is more on your side, as you have to show how the figment can threaten in order to show how he can flank.
it seems to me to be sufficient to allow the flanking bonus.
Being distracted has no bearing (in RAW way) to granting flanking bonus. It is entirely about whether or not you threaten the opponent.