Shadow Gambit questions


Rules Questions

Liberty's Edge

I'm playing a gnome rogue/sorcerer with a focus on illusions, and I'm thinking of taking the Shadow Gambit feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/shadow-gambit), but there were some things I was wondering about with regards to the rules:

1) Suppose, as per the example given in the spell, I create an illusion of a swordsman and use it to make a melee touch attack on an opponent to deal slashing damage. Suppose I am not adjacent to the target, but an ally is on the opposite side of the target such that, were it an actual swordsman, it would get a flanking bonus. Do I get a flanking bonus on the melee touch attack roll?

2) In a similar situation as above, suppose I get a flanking bonus or the target is denied their DEX bonus to their AC, and from where I'm standing I can see them well enough to pick out a vital spot that the swordsman could hit. Can I deal sneak attack damage with the illusion? Note the text for sneak attack is:

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."

"The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment."


1)Strictly speaking, only an actual, real creature can cause a flanking effect. Shadow Gambit lets you deal damage as if the illusion was real, but that's it. That being said, it makes sense that it would work and it's something I'd hope a GM would actually allow.

2)Your attacks deal sneak attack damage and Shadow Gambit has you make an attack roll, so by the rules that works. It's no different than a sneak attack with a Scorching Ray or whatever. But note that by the rules, YOU need to be flanking the target for it to work if you're using flanking to do it.

Here's a really odd application: If YOU are using invisibility/stealth, then your target is vulnerable Sneak Attack from your attacks - including Shadow Gambit. But Shadow Gambit will then break YOUR invisibility or stealth. Still, it does mean it's easy to hide again...


A really nifty trick you can use with shadow gambit, should you ever get 6th level spells, is to combine it with permanent image to preload a whole bunch of 6d6 nukes upon your person. Since the spell has a duration of Permanent (d) every day you have downtime you memorize it and cast it on yourself creating an image of whatever on your clothes or a small bright orb floating above your head or whatever you like. A very high level illusionist might have hundreds of these preloaded and ready to take advantage of at a moments notice. Furthermore you should be an unchained rogue as their sneak attack is super in that ignores some forms of concealment.

Regards,
DRS


BadBird wrote:

1)Strictly speaking, only an actual, real creature can cause a flanking effect. Shadow Gambit lets you deal damage as if the illusion was real, but that's it. That being said, it makes sense that it would work and it's something I'd hope a GM would actually allow.

2)Your attacks deal sneak attack damage and Shadow Gambit has you make an attack roll, so by the rules that works. It's no different than a sneak attack with a Scorching Ray or whatever. But note that by the rules, YOU need to be flanking the target for it to work if you're using flanking to do it.

Here's a really odd application: If YOU are using invisibility/stealth, then your target is vulnerable Sneak Attack from your attacks - including Shadow Gambit. But Shadow Gambit will then break YOUR invisibility or stealth. Still, it does mean it's easy to hide again...

I hadn't seen that about the flanking, could you maybe point me toward the rules on that? Also, your invisibility comment got me wondering, what happens if I'm in a position where I would get flanking, but the illusion is not?

That... is a really weird application. I suppose if I have Greater Invisibility I could keep hitting people with illusions...

Oh, also, just so I'm clear on this, what qualifies as an ongoing figment?


If you have greater invisibility then you wouldn't need to worry about flanking. Think of it like this, to get sneak attack damage you need to check YOUR status not your illusions's status. As long as your foe is sneak attackable by YOU then your bonus damage applies. There is a feat that can help you with this I think. Gnome only too threatening illusions or something like that. Its meta-magic. With magical lineage (ghost sound) you can create endless flankers with this combo. Lame, but combine that with Greater invisibility (or ring of invisibility) and the permanent image trick I mentioned earlier you can really extend your spell casting legs and murdertize individuals. Not exactly wizardly but reminds me slightly of the mesmer class from guild wars 2.

An ongoing figment is any figment spell cast without the duration having expired.

Regards,
DRS


Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether wrote:

I hadn't seen that about the flanking, could you maybe point me toward the rules on that? Also, your invisibility comment got me wondering, what happens if I'm in a position where I would get flanking, but the illusion is not?

That... is a really weird application. I suppose if I have Greater Invisibility I could keep hitting people with illusions...

Oh, also, just so I'm clear on this, what qualifies as an ongoing figment?

The rules on flanking from the core book basically say that flanking is a situation caused by "creatures", which would disqualify an illusion. The rules just weren't written with things like illusions in mind. As far as flanking for Sneak Attack, that's from the Sneak Attack rules - a Rogue can't Sneak Attack just because a target is being flanked, the Rogue has to be flanking the target. Again, it's not written with things like stabbing someone with an illusion in mind.

An ongoing figment for Shadow Gambit would be a figment spell that you're directly controlling. Mirror Image is an ongoing figment spell, but it's hard to say that you're really controlling the images since they just mimic you. Still, if you could convince a GM to let you use Shadow Gambit off of Mirror Image, commanding your mirrored images to strike targets would be pretty stylish. Shadow Gambit is a pretty weak effect in general, so I don't think it's a problem with 'game balance'.

Liberty's Edge

BadBird wrote:
Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether wrote:

I hadn't seen that about the flanking, could you maybe point me toward the rules on that? Also, your invisibility comment got me wondering, what happens if I'm in a position where I would get flanking, but the illusion is not?

That... is a really weird application. I suppose if I have Greater Invisibility I could keep hitting people with illusions...

Oh, also, just so I'm clear on this, what qualifies as an ongoing figment?

The rules on flanking from the core book basically say that flanking is a situation caused by "creatures", which would disqualify an illusion. The rules just weren't written with things like illusions in mind. As far as flanking for Sneak Attack, that's from the Sneak Attack rules - a Rogue can't Sneak Attack just because a target is being flanked, the Rogue has to be flanking the target. Again, it's not written with things like stabbing someone with an illusion in mind.

An ongoing figment for Shadow Gambit would be a figment spell that you're directly controlling. Mirror Image is an ongoing figment spell, but it's hard to say that you're really controlling the images since they just mimic you. Still, if you could convince a GM to let you use Shadow Gambit off of Mirror Image, commanding your mirrored images to strike targets would be pretty stylish. Shadow Gambit is a pretty weak effect in general, so I don't think it's a problem with 'game balance'.

Well, yes and no:

Quote:

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.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

You need a creature opposite where the melee attack is coming from, so unless it's a Threatening Illusion it couldn't give another person flanking. The only reference to the attacker being a character specifically is in the second section there, which if one wanted to rules lawyer, one could argue is written more for the sake of clarifying the positioning.

Also, just to add in, I'm fairly certain that, RAW, the attacker does not need to threaten to get a flanking bonus, they only need someone opposite who does threaten. So imagine, say a bar fight where a guy comes at you from one side with a knife, and another guy drunkenly drops his weapon and comes at you with his fists (without any training in unarmed combat, so he does not threaten). The knife wielder could provide a flanking bonus for the fistfighter, but not the other way around.

And then, to make things more confusing, the text of Shadow Gambit says you deal damage "as if the illusion were real". I think this is kind of the sticking point here. I agree that these rules weren't written with illusions in mind, so I think this wording is in here so that said illusion is treated as a real.

I apologize for going back and forth with the "post as" thing, I'm new to the messageboards and I'm not used to that being a thing.

Edit: Also, even funnier, with the invisibility trick, I just so happen to have Befuddling Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---r ogue-talents/befuddling-strike-ex) so they'd be confused by my movements and have a harder time hitting me even though I'd be invisible.


I was getting the flanking-to-sneak-attack qualifier from Sneak Attack:

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." So to qualify for a Sneak Attack, the Rogue must actually flank the target - because all of this is predicated on the fact that you're getting to make a Sneak Attack since it's actually your attack roll, wherever it's coming from. There's no mechanic to say that the illusion is a 'substitute you'.

Shadow Gambit says you deal damage as if the illusion were real, so I suppose you could technically say "Sneak Attack is part of the damage roll, so I get to inflict Sneak Attack as if the illusion was real because if the illusion was real then it would be a flanking situation". Seems like the kind of argument one might propose but not insist on if they wanted stay friends with a GM.

Liberty's Edge

BadBird wrote:

I was getting the flanking-to-sneak-attack qualifier from Sneak Attack:

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." So to qualify for a Sneak Attack, the Rogue must actually flank the target - because all of this is predicated on the fact that you're getting to make a Sneak Attack since it's actually your attack roll, wherever it's coming from. There's no mechanic to say that the illusion is a 'substitute you'.

Shadow Gambit says you deal damage as if the illusion were real, so I suppose you could technically say "Sneak Attack is part of the damage roll, so I get to inflict Sneak Attack as if the illusion was real because if the illusion was real then it would be a flanking situation". Seems like the kind of argument one might propose but not insist on if they wanted stay friends with a GM.

Okay, so it sounds like you're saying the illusion would get flanking but not sneak attack dice, because the rogue is not making the attack. That makes sense.


Chaucer Navermore wrote:
BadBird wrote:

I was getting the flanking-to-sneak-attack qualifier from Sneak Attack:

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." So to qualify for a Sneak Attack, the Rogue must actually flank the target - because all of this is predicated on the fact that you're getting to make a Sneak Attack since it's actually your attack roll, wherever it's coming from. There's no mechanic to say that the illusion is a 'substitute you'.

Shadow Gambit says you deal damage as if the illusion were real, so I suppose you could technically say "Sneak Attack is part of the damage roll, so I get to inflict Sneak Attack as if the illusion was real because if the illusion was real then it would be a flanking situation". Seems like the kind of argument one might propose but not insist on if they wanted stay friends with a GM.

Okay, so it sounds like you're saying the illusion would get flanking but not sneak attack dice, because the rogue is not making the attack. That makes sense.

Actually, I'm being really literal-minded about the rules and saying that as far as the 'game' is concerned, the Rogue is making an attack on the target, and so the Rogue must personally be flanking the target for it to cause a Sneak Attack. The rules couldn't care less about where the figment is, since the Rogue is making the melee attack.

However re-reading the whole flanking thing, I would say that as long as you're qualifying for that 'opposite border or opposite corner' clause with regards to an ally then distance doesn't stop you from "flanking". Making a melee attack from a distance really messes with the rules-logic.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shadow Gambit questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.