So this just popped in my head and I want to know how other GM's would deal with this situation.
Lets say you cast and image spell (silent image, minor image, major image)and you had said illusion move into a flanking position with say the fighter of the group, now the opponent gets a save to disbelieve the spell, but what if he fails the save? Would the fighter get a flanking bonus because the opponent thinks hes flanked and would act according?
Anyone?
I don't see why not.
As a GM I'd probably allow it in a home game, just based on the spirit of what "threatened" means linguistically, but by RAW no, the illusion doesn't provide a flank because it doesn't actually threaten... because it can't attack.
There is a gnome metamagic feat, Threatening Illusion, which allows a figment illusion to provide a flank, however.
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Illusions can't make melee attacks and therefore do not threaten and cannot flank.
Interestingly enough, I was thinking about this recently because of another illusion based thread.
I would personally say that if a creature failed their save to disbelieve, they should be considered threatened by the image (they think it can attack them, after all), and subsequently be legitimately flanked for the other person.
Of course, as said above, that doesn't work by RAW. In general though, a lot of illusions require creative application, with the players/GM figuring how they work. I'd think this would be a logical outcome if a player tried it.
...Or if a villain tried it actually. That could be fun too.
|
Interestingly enough, I was thinking about this recently because of another illusion based thread.
I would personally say that if a creature failed their save to disbelieve, they should be considered threatened by the image (they think it can attack them, after all), and subsequently be legitimately flanked for the other person.
Of course, as said above, that doesn't work by RAW. In general though, a lot of illusions require creative application, with the players/GM figuring how they work. I'd think this would be a logical outcome if a player tried it.
...Or if a villain tried it actually. That could be fun too.
This is how I've run it to, but then some punk had to go and put a race-specific feat related to the topic (which I've house-ruled is unnecessary):
Prerequisites: Spell Focus (illusion), gnome.
Benefit: You can use this metamagic feat only on illusion (figment) spells.
A threatening illusion spell causes one target to believe your illusion is a threat. Choose one 5-foot square within the area of your illusion; that square threatens the target as long as it is adjacent. Thus, if you or an ally is on the opposite side of the target, it is considered flanking. Normally the area must contain an illusory creature of Small or Medium size. However, you can select one square of a larger illusory creature to threaten the target. For example, an illusory Large ogre takes up four 5-foot squares; you select one square to be the source of the threat, and its other three squares do not threaten anyone. If the target has reason to believe there is an invisible creature in the vicinity, even an auditory illusion with no visual elements (such as ghost sound) is sufficient to convince the target that the selected square contains an actual threat. As long as you maintain the illusion, you can change the location of the threatening square as a swift action. When you threaten a target with this spell, the foe may make a Will save to disbelieve (DC 10 + threatening spell’s level + your spellcasting ability score modifier). If the target makes this save, the threatening effect of this feat no longer applies to it.
Level Increase: +1 (a threatening illusion takes up a spell slot one level higher than normal.)
Normal: Illusion spells do not threaten squares.
From Gnomes of Golarion, and apparently something about the physiology of Gnomes somehow changes their illusion spells. (I've always had a problem with inexplicably-race-specific feats. Why can't a Human or Orc figure out how to do this?)
At my table, like I said, we house-rule that this isn't necessary. We give the save when the illusion attacks, though, not because someone merely took advantage of the threat.
There is a metamagic feat that lets you threaten with illusions. That's why I would not allow it without the feat.
When this comes up in my games I give the target a will save when the spell is cast. If he fails the will save, the image will provide flanking for an actual PC on the other side. If the NPC attacks the illusion, he immediately realizes it is fake. If he continues to attack the PC he gets another will save whenever I think it makes sense.
If players use this against my NPCs, I would have no problem using the same tactic against the players' characters.
|
|
There is a metamagic feat that lets you threaten with illusions. That's why I would not allow it without the feat.
Just because someone made a feat for it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been allowed without one. Strike-Back is a fine example of something that nearly anyone would've allowed without a feat yet became one anyway. Some people are fine with just allowing it, others apparently thought it should require a feat.
If anything, I think that people put too many things into feat form. Just because it's a cool idea, doesn't mean you should force people to take a feat to do it. At best make people take a feat to be *good* at it.
And even discounting the above, I'd hardly take one of the race books as gospel for what you're supposed to be able to do with and without a feat.
Yeah, I'm kinda sad this is featified, to be honest (and race-specific, even). Really seems like a worthwhile use of an illusion.
Creatures already get saves to disbelieve. If they fail, the illusion should... well, do what an illusion does, i.e. trick someone into thinking something's happening that isn't. Flanking with an illusion seems like a very smart way to make use of one.
Honestly, if I were GM'ing and a player wanted to do something like that, I'd probably ignore the feat. Like I said, I think illusions already need a fair amount of GM adjudication in order to be used effectively. Major image, for example, doesn't explicitly do anything. It's all in how a player makes use of it. That feat feels more like it's just specifying something an illusion ought to be able to do in the first place.
But obviously, that would just be my ruling as a DM, and the fact that there is a feat to do it (with level increase, no less) kind of suggests otherwise... So, bleh.
I knew it wouldn't take someone long to refute it with RAW. Oh well. Guess the rule of cool is dead.