I suppport the posts that go against the rules and would state if the illusion is capabable of influencing all your senses, i.e. taste, smell, site, hearing or touch, then it would flank, even if it was only the presence of an illusionary creature.
I find it hard to believe that if a player character or monster were flanked by two real creatures, that they would ignore the one that did not physically attack or harm it.
I would implement a mechanism for disbelief, but most illusions have this.
No, but he's not trying to make a person look like a box either, and you don't think that's allowed.So tell me, how does putting a wall in front of someone make that person look like a wall? Two walls? Four?Are you trying to make the person look like a wall?
If a cat looks like a box, how do they not seem like a cat -- they look like a box. Anyone who looks at the cat (and doesn't have special senses that would negate the illusion anyway) sees a box.
If a wall is placed behind a cat from the perspective of an observer, the cat looks like a cat in front of a wall. The same cat looks like a wall to an observer behind the wall. Just because the cat seems like a wall to one observer doesn't mean it's true for an observer on the other side of the wall. You don't have to make it work for everyone -- just one perspective is good enough. Cat to box is all perspectives.
No, but he's not trying to make a person look like a box either, and you don't think that's allowed.So tell me, how does putting a wall in front of someone make that person look like a wall? Two walls? Four?Are you trying to make the person look like a wall?If a cat looks like a box, how do they not seem like a cat -- they look like a box. Anyone who looks at the cat (and doesn't have special senses that would negate the illusion anyway) sees a box.
If a wall is placed behind a cat from the perspective of an observer, the cat looks like a cat in front of a wall. The same cat looks like a wall to an observer behind the wall. Just because the cat seems like a wall to one observer doesn't mean it's true for an observer on the other side of the wall. You don't have to make it work for everyone -- just one perspective is good enough. Cat to box is all perspectives.
You know, a box does not have to look like a box.
I'm in a graveyard. There's a zombie shambling after me. I create the illusion of a small mausoleum around the zombie. The zombie thinks it's trapped inside a mausoleum, and inside the illusion, it looks like a mausoleum. Outside, it also looks like a mausoleum. It's a matter of DM interpretation whether a mindless creature would go and attempt to pound on the doors or just stand there and wait, but that's immaterial to the question: the box can have both an inside and an outside.
Similarly, if pursued by undead through a graveyard, even intelligent undead, if my illusionist ducks behind a mausoleum then does an illusion of that mausoleum being a couple extra feet longer at the back? He's effectively created a duckblind from which to watch the undead, and unless the ghouls and vampires have X-ray vision, they're probably not going to notice that the ten foot mausoleum is now eleven feet long.
Would you folks consider that an illusion capable of flanking should also provoke Attacks of Opportunity?
I'd say as many or as few as the creature it's imitating, and attacking something definitely counts as interacting with it. However, if you fail that Will save, the illusionist just says "the manticore dodges" or "the manticore now has a slight nick on one side" and that's the end of it.
Would you folks consider that an illusion capable of flanking should also provoke Attacks of Opportunity?
Absolutely. Unless it tumbles at half-speed. ;)
But seriously: I'd give a free disbelief for attacking the illusion under any circumstance, and +4 if it's actually struck. Total fiat, but I'd rule it to have an AC equal to 10 + size mod + caster's key modifier. Likewise, the above tumble check would use the caster's Acrobatics modifier with Int/Wis/Cha replacing Dex, though I'd allow it untrained... and it would carry its own free disbelief for anyone who would normally get an AOO against it, because it's interacting with them. (Likewise any attack action from the illusion is an interaction with the target, even if it deliberately misses.)
For a silent image, I'd give an immediate free disbelief at +4 just for creating something highly mobile which should be making all sorts of noise.
Saving throws can fail. A good illusionist (especially a gnome) can still pull these stunts as often as not. But it's not just a freebie flanker, and I see no reason to throw a wet blanket over potential wacky hijinks in this situation. :)
Silent image is already one of the best spells of it's level. Now you are going to give it a bunch of additional abilities above and beyond the already broad scope that it has.
Maybe this should be moved to the house rules section because the rules bit has been answered (Silent Image does not flank).
junk
over this.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
But a spell that would make enemies think they're flanked, and draws off their Attacks of Opportunity, and would do nothing else, would be a pretty powerful effect, all by itself, and would grow more useful as the party advanced in levels. Send it scrambling through a phalanx of feral ogres, right before your ranger ally plans to charge through, and watch her live to engage the nasty spell-caster standing behind the ogres.
I'd advise that, if you wanted illusion spells to be able to do that, you should advance them to the next higher level.
the rules bit has been answered (Silent Image does not flank).
Reference?
Seriously. As I gather, you're basing this on its inability to threaten. But I don't know what your basis is for that.
Here's a strategy:
cast silence on a party member who is out of the opponent's view
cast silent image of the party member emerging from hiding. The silent image moves to flank and attack. At which point it should be disbelieved.
cast silent image of the real party member emerging from hiding while the real party member also moves into view. Both the image and the party member move to flank and attack.
It may be too much set up for too little pay off - maybe it'd be more fun to use against the party...
I totally think a Silent Image should be able to flank. The "Flankee" though should get a save every round to disbelieve it.
the rules bit has been answered (Silent Image does not flank).Reference?
Seriously. As I gather, you're basing this on its inability to threaten. But I don't know what your basis is for that.
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.
An illusion cannot make a melee attack, thus it does not threaten any squares, thus it cannot flank.
The illusion DOES THREATEN IN THE MIND OF THE VICTIM. Hence he (the victim) will fight differently than if he had one enemy. So he will be flanked.
The illusion DOES THREATEN IN THE MIND OF THE VICTIM. Hence he will fight differently than if he had one target. So he will be flanked.
No need to shout. I was responding to a post that asked for a reference. I provided it. By RAW, an illusion cannot provide flanking. Anything beyond that is up to DM fiat/interpretation.
The illusion DOES THREATEN IN THE MIND OF THE VICTIM. Hence he will fight differently than if he had one target. So he will be flanked.No need to shout. I was responding to a post that asked for a reference. I provided it. By RAW, an illusion cannot provide flanking. Anything beyond that is up to DM fiat/interpretation.
Illusion is very open ended by RAW. I dont know how you can say by RAW it cannot provide flanking. It doesnt make sense to me that it can not, seeing as to the person being flanked it is a real combatant. And he is the one deciding the flanking status.
An illusory creature created with a figment spell cannot deal any damage. You can send it into combat, however. The figment has an Armor Class of 10 + its size modifier. The rules don't say what a figment's attack bonus is. Your attack bonus is a good default
Right, I'm completely flummoxed at why an illusion cannot make a melee attack.
It cannot deal damage with a melee attack. It interacts with the target if it makes such an attack, provoking disbelief. But unless you're ruling that a silent image of a bugbear can't do jumping jacks or climb a tree, the idea that it can't swing a club at someone doesn't work for me.
An illusion cannot make a melee attack, thus it does not threaten any squares, thus it cannot flank.
The difference here is between "cannot make" and "is not making." If a wizard holding a dagger counts as a flanker regardless of whether he ever takes a swipe, preferring to keep a held action for maybe something else, then the illusion of a wizard holding a dagger is just as much of flanker.
And if an invisible ally cannot flank until the person being flanked realizes he's there, then an illusory ally can flank until the person being flanked realizes he's not there.
And really, RAW business has to be subject to logical interpretation. By the new Pathfinder RAW, a halfling's backpack capacity defies the laws of physics and mathematics, specifically the square-cube law, and not because "a wizard did it" either. You have to subject the RAW to the RAI or else many parts of the game simply make no sense.
RAW is never a good idea because if taken literally the whole system collapses.
I agree, however when I deviate from RAW it's to make things more balanced, not to max out the benefit of already powerful options. It's not a good idea to take an already powerful spell and add on a bunch of bonus functionality.
And really, RAW business has to be subject to logical interpretation. By the new Pathfinder RAW, a halfling's backpack capacity defies the laws of physics and mathematics, specifically the square-cube law, and not because "a wizard did it" either. You have to subject the RAW to the RAI or else many parts of the game simply make no sense.
And its not like we are being ridiculous here. We are just reading as written. I have yet to see anything that disallows the flanking of an illusion on a failed save.
An illusion cannot make a melee attack, thus it does not threaten any squares, thus it cannot flank.The difference here is between "cannot make" and "is not making." If a wizard holding a dagger counts as a flanker regardless of whether he ever takes a swipe, preferring to keep a held action for maybe something else, then the illusion of a wizard holding a dagger is just as much of flanker.
And if an invisible ally cannot flank until the person being flanked realizes he's there, then an illusory ally can flank until the person being flanked realizes he's not there.
And really, RAW business has to be subject to logical interpretation. By the new Pathfinder RAW, a halfling's backpack capacity defies the laws of physics and mathematics, specifically the square-cube law, and not because "a wizard did it" either. You have to subject the RAW to the RAI or else many parts of the game simply make no sense.
Oh I fully agree that RAW must be subject to RAI. I simply don't believe that Silent Image was intended to provide actual, mechanical, combat advantages. Otherwise why would have WoTC created spells like Persistant Dagger? I seem to recall the Hexblade had a spell or curse to cause an opponent be flanked as well.
I will agree that logically, it makes sense. Target fails his saving throw, therefore he believes the illusion is real, therefore he should treat it as a real threat and be flanked. I could probably even be convinced to let it slide for one round. That's it though. Don't forget that "a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." The slightest bit of 'contact' with the illusion shatters it. Adjudicating the target attacking the illusion is easy enough, it has an AC of 10 + size modifier (nope, no bonus for caster level or anything, that's right in RAW). How do you adjudicate the caster not messing up though? To swing the illusory club and deliberately and completely miss while still being a convincing threat? Add that on top of the fact that combat is not all swings and misses or swings and hits. Attacks are parried, deflected, there is manuvering and jostling going on all the time. I really don't think it would take long at all to realize that the image isn't real.
So yeah, I'll soften my stance a little. One round, at most, depending on how initiative falls and such.
Ok Zappo,
I agree with you. What do you think about the silent image standing there.
All he does is "ready an attack". Lets say he has a rapier. He is standing there, Rapier drawn high, pointing down at his foe. He is doing a little "muhammed ali" back and forth in his square, waiting for an opening to appear in his enemy.
Would you ignore it?
Right, I'm completely flummoxed at why an illusion cannot make a melee attack.
It cannot deal damage with a melee attack. It interacts with the target if it makes such an attack, provoking disbelief. But unless you're ruling that a silent image of a bugbear can't do jumping jacks or climb a tree, the idea that it can't swing a club at someone doesn't work for me.
Same here. And after all the blather, I decided to look up the actual RAW. Read this:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
What this pretty much means is that figments and glamers can attack, but they do no damage. I can make an illusion of a dagger-happy halfling clinging to my back, repeatedly stabbing me with a knife as illusory blood spills out and I cover the lack of noise with real screams. Or I could have a real halfling rogue on my back stabbing me repeatedly with a trick prop dagger we got from the local theater company. Both are real attacks but they do absolutely no damage.
An illusion of a halfling with a dagger can threaten and attack the same as as an actual halfling can threaten and attack with a prop dagger.
Hell, let's even get away from the illusions and the props. Let's go with actual weapons. Let's say the Joe the Wizard has a wand of Touch of Idiocy. Are we all agreed that Joe can Threaten with that? Okay, unbeknownst to Joe, Bob the Rogue thought it would be a funny prank to swap it with a pencil painted up to look like the wand of Touch of Idiocy, or the "stupid stick" as Bob liked calling it. Joe doesn't need to make a Bluff check when he waves the pencil around thinking it's a wand. He thinks he still has the Stupid Stick. The BBEG thinks he has the Stupid Stick. In fact, everyone thinks Joe has the Stupid Stick except Bob. Question is, is Joe still threatening?
Another way to put it is, can you threaten with an unloaded gun, or a gun loaded with blanks? Can you threaten with a toy gun? If you bluff the goblins into thinking the chamberpot is the Cup of Al-Akbar, a legendary artifact capable of frying their brains just before it turns them in to effigies of marzipan, can you threaten with that?
And, in fact, looking at the flanking section of the PRPGCR, I see absolutely nowhere does it say that something has to be actually capable of damage to threaten. My flask of holy water may simply be bathwater (don't buy from priests you find in alleys no matter how good a Bluff check they make) but I can still threaten the vampire lord with it, even if all it will do is get him wet and make him smell like some rogue's gym socks.
And anyway, according to the PFSRD and the PFRPGCR, Figments and Glamours are used for "confounding foes" and Flanking someone is certainly a way to confound them.
Otherwise why would have WoTC created spells like Persistant Dagger?
Because it does not require concentration. The argument from this side is that Silent Image allows the caster to flank as a standard action each round, maybe that last bit needs emphasis? While maintaining this illusion the caster cannot do anything else.
A rogue can't learn silent image with the major magic trick to flank for himself, because he can't attack while concentrating.
Facts
Agreed. The topic would be more suited if it were: What the hell can Silent Image accomplish?
It can do alot, if you know what you're doing. And given all kevin's examples it is hard to refute...
And its not like we are being ridiculous here. We are just reading as written. I have yet to see anything that disallows the flanking of an illusion on a failed save.
The fact that flanking requires you be "threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner." and an illusion is neither?
The fact that an illusion can't threaten because it can't make a melee attack?
You pretty much have to ignore or hand wave everything written about flanking and threatening in the combat chapter.
Other than that it's fine.
A character (called "Rogue") is a high level rogue. Rogue has taken the rogue talent "Minor Magic" and "Major Magic." The choice for major magic is silent image.
If Rogue is engaged in melee combat, and creates a silent image of a fighter with a sword drawn in the square opposite, and the target believes the illusion, is Rogue now flanking the target?
In other words, if the target believes in an illusion, can that illusion be used to create a flanking bonus if the positioning is correct?
No, that won't work. I'm 99% certain that the game designers will agree with me. As a side note, in D&D 4th Edition illusions and conjurations can't flank, unless a certain power specifically states that (e.g. Shamans have a specific power that lets their spirit companions flank for a round).
"threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner." and an illusion is neither?
Are you high?
I'm not hand waving anything. The illusion IS a character/creature if not disbelieved.
The Illusion CAN MAKE AN ATTACK. It can also just stand there dodging and weaving waiting to attack.
All this will threaten in the mind of the victim and he will be vulnerable from both sides since he will be turning around and around to see wtf is going on with this guy behind him.
I will agree that logically, it makes sense. Target fails his saving throw, therefore he believes the illusion is real, therefore he should treat it as a real threat and be flanked. I could probably even be convinced to let it slide for one round. That's it though. Don't forget that "a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." The slightest bit of 'contact' with the illusion shatters it. Adjudicating the target attacking the illusion is easy enough, it has an AC of 10 + size modifier (nope, no bonus for caster level or anything, that's right in RAW). How do you adjudicate the caster not messing up though? To swing the illusory club and deliberately and completely miss while...
The slightest bit of contact does not shatter an illusion--it just forces the controller to behave in an appropriate manner: dodge out of the way, teleport "magically" (useful for illusions of wizards), get wounded and bleed, then spend the next round taking out a "healing potion" and "drinking it" causing the wounds to vanish. Honestly, you act like illusionists are complete idiots with no imagination.
When the illusion's miraculous ability to dodge starts to strain credibility, you change the illusion: "Why yes, yes, you finally kill him. He's been hacked to bloody mincemeat, all except one hand. One hand that's scuttling about the floor like a blind crab. It leaps! You can't feel it through your armor, but its horrible undead claws are holding onto your crotch!"
Yes, the character interacting with the illusion should get another Will save, but if he fails that, he's going to have to deal with the illusion of perverted necromancy.
Are you high?
Ahh yes, this topic is truly reached it's pinnacle.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Since someone that has yet to interact with an illusion has no reason to believe it isn't what they see it is.
This is a fairly valid interpretation of the spell in my opinion
Flanking requires threatening, and an image doesn't threaten. You seem to think getting a flanking bonus because you THINK someone threatens you, but you don't. You grant flanking to those on either side of you because they threaten (in effect because they are poking at you) because someone that can't take actions (like if stunned) can't threaten and therefore can't flank/grant flanking.
The illusion DOES THREATEN IN THE MIND OF THE VICTIM. Hence he (the victim) will fight differently than if he had one enemy. So he will be flanked.
There is no text in the spell that grants it an Attack Bonus nor gives it the ability to attack or threaten.
Well WOTC implicitly state that a figment can be used in combat.
Also you dont have to poke at something to theaten. A wizard and a rogue can flank, while all the wizard is doing is casting spells while holding a knife. So we replace him with an illusion and now suddenly the guy being flanked completely ignores the wizard and is no longer flanked?
Yet nothing has changed in the mind of the guy being flanked. And remember it is his decision to either be fighting both flankers or ignoring one.
This entire thread has repeated itself several times. You have a continuum of arguments between "Figments can simulate anything, and thus gain the benefits of anything they simulate" and "Figments can only do those specific effects which they are specifically allowed to do."
The RAW back both arguments. They are not very good rules, as written, because of this.
Heh... It seems completely clear to me but obviously it isn't. Some rules just read differently to different people.
Flanking requires threatening, and an image doesn't threaten. You seem to think getting a flanking bonus because you THINK someone threatens you, but you don't. You grant flanking to those on either side of you because they threaten (in effect because they are poking at you) because someone that can't take actions (like if stunned) can't threaten and therefore can't flank/grant flanking.
Could you give a citation for this concept? Actual page number and everything?
I've just started searching the PFRPGCR PDF and turned this up:
While fascinated, a target takes
a –4 penalty on all skill checks made as reactions, such
as Perception checks. Any potential threat to the target
allows the target to make a new saving throw against the
effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a
weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a weapon at the target,
automatically breaks the effect.
So, what this means is that if the bard has fascinated someone, I can break the fascination by pointing a dagger at his throat and threatening him. Since fascination doesn't apparently come with free True Seeing for its victims, 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.
Ergo, illusions can threaten. It may not be neatly in the combat section or in the illusion section, but it's there in the RAW. The illusion of someone holding a knife is a threat, regardless of whether it can actually do any harm.
BTW, I just looked it up, but there is an illusion spell which can cause physical damage even if you disbelieve it: Project Image, which is capable of delivering touch spells.
Unless they have absurd amounts of Spellcraft, exactly how does someone tell the difference between a Silent Image he's disbelieved and a Projected Image he's disbelieved, apart from the translucent insubstantial Projected Image delivering a touch spell?
Just when you thought disbelieved illusions were harmless there's some high level smart alec illusionist who uses Projected Image to make you revise your world view.
|
No, but he's not trying to make a person look like a box either, and you don't think that's allowed.So tell me, how does putting a wall in front of someone make that person look like a wall? Two walls? Four?Are you trying to make the person look like a wall?If a cat looks like a box, how do they not seem like a cat -- they look like a box. Anyone who looks at the cat (and doesn't have special senses that would negate the illusion anyway) sees a box.
If a wall is placed behind a cat from the perspective of an observer, the cat looks like a cat in front of a wall. The same cat looks like a wall to an observer behind the wall. Just because the cat seems like a wall to one observer doesn't mean it's true for an observer on the other side of the wall. You don't have to make it work for everyone -- just one perspective is good enough. Cat to box is all perspectives.
To further complicate the experiment we've left an unstable isotope within the illusory box. The cat will be both alive AND dead, until the box is disbelieved.
While fascinated, a target takes
a –4 penalty on all skill checks made as reactions, such
as Perception checks. Any potential threat to the target
allows the target to make a new saving throw against the
effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a
weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a weapon at the target,
automatically breaks the effect.So, what this means is that if the bard has fascinated someone, I can break the fascination by pointing a dagger at his throat and threatening him. Since fascination doesn't apparently come with free True Seeing for its victims, 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.
Ergo, illusions can threaten. It may not be neatly in the combat section or in the illusion section, but it's there in the RAW. The illusion of someone holding a knife is a threat, regardless of whether it can actually do any harm.
You know, while I happen to agree with your conclusion (that silent images can threaten), your logic here made my head spin.
"...this should threaten..." does not equal "Ergo, illusions can threaten". And it is your interpretation of RAW that you're saying is there in the RAW, not directly a statement (or the conclusion) that illusions can threaten, which seems to be the point people disagree on.
Still, I agree with your conclusion, and I would interpret "any obvious threat" to include an illusion that has not been disbelieved. I don't even know why I'm arguing here, except that the structure of this argument in particular made my head hurt.
I think the general consensus is that we don't like that they left the rules so vague. Some of use feel that it enables us to limit the spells only by our imagination, and some feel it has to be written.
It's really hard to judge and I'm thinking it will come down to DM decision. I don't know if i would accept anything short of an explicit answer from WOTC on what they meant, to change my opinion.
I don't know if i would accept anything short of an explicit answer from WOTC on what they meant, to change my opinion.
A link to the WotC "Rules of the Game" series for 3.5e in an early post didn't quite target the issues pertinent to discussion here. The subsequent articles in that series are more relevent. Summaries and links are below.
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. If flanking is interpreted as being a rules abstraction for a coordinated distraction in combat, then using the illusion to flank would likely count as an interaction between the target being flanked and the illusion and therefore allow for a saving throw to disbelieve. Even if this is not the case, when the flanked target attempts to attack the illusion they will recieve a saving throw regardless of whether they hit or miss and a successful hit will automatically result in their disbelieving an illusion. This makes sense because an illusion created by Silent Image has no substance. Now, a clever wizard might decide to make the illusion appear to be a ghost. This scenario doesn't seem to be addressed by the rules, but a reasonable ajudication would likely be to allow the wizard to use an opposed Bluff check to prevent the target from recieving a saving throw to disbelieve on a miss and changing the automatic disbelief on a hit to a save instead.
This article touches on what constitutes "making something look like something else". It appears that you can use Silent Image to create an object around a target, but the instantaneous appearance of the "box" would likely provoke a saving throw to disbelieve (and could be navigated around with a DM ajudicated opposed Bluff check on an intelligent target).
On the whole, this makes Silent Image a useful spell without allowing it to be overly abused. I could be wrong though.
You know, while I happen to agree with your conclusion (that silent images can threaten), your logic here made my head spin.
"...this should threaten..." does not equal "Ergo, illusions can threaten". And it is your interpretation of RAW that you're saying is there in the RAW, not directly a statement (or the conclusion) that illusions can threaten, which seems to be the point people disagree on.
Still, I agree with your conclusion, and I would interpret "any obvious threat" to include an illusion that has not been disbelieved. I don't even know why I'm arguing here, except that the structure of this argument in particular made my head hurt.
Well, what I was trying to point out with citing the fascination rules that there is RAW text to back up "threat" being in the eye of the beholder, rather than in the reality of the situation as viewed by some omniscient narrator.
Someone being fascinated by a bard does not somehow gain a sixth sense to alert them to "obvious threats" which are obvious to everyone but them. If a deadly scorpion has crawled up behind the fascinated person and has it's stinger raised, ready to sting him, this is an obvious threat to everyone except the possible victim. Similarly, anything which the victim perceives to be a threat, whether it actually is, will break the fascination. If the fascinated person is a superstitious barbarian who believes that spellcasting is evil, the only good caster is a dead caster, and all spells are designed to kill you lots, then the bard's friend, the children's party magician, who says "Hocus Pocus!" and pulls a rabbit out of a hat using nothing more than slight of hand and a fake magic word, well, he's an evil mage who's conjured one of those rabbits from Monty Python and there's no end of obvious threats, even if they're obvious only to him. The actual mages and clerics in the audience with loads of Spellcraft can tell that's not a real spell and assume it's a regular rabbit continue to be fascinated, at most getting another save because they may have viewed the children's party magician as a potential threat.
Of course, what if the rabbit the children's party magician pulled out of the hat is actually one of those ones from Monty Python? That's more than a potential threat, it's an obvious threat, but until it decapitates someone, no one knows except for the DM, the children's party magician, and the paranoid barbarian who doesn't actually know for certain, he just perceives it as an obvious threat. And if he pulls out his broadsword and decapitates the beast before the evil children's party magician can release its ears and let the fell beast free to slaughter them all, well then, who's going to know?
At this point, the fascinated audience is not going to be fascinated anymore because they're going to perceive the crazy barbarian as an obvious threat, thereby ending the bard's fascination and her and her partner's scheme to hold the audience enraptured so the killer rabbit could get initiative and indeed slaughter them all before the rogue put it back in his hat.
Which is a long way round of pointing out that in the RAW, "threat" is something in the eye of the beholder, rather than something judged by an omniscient third party.
To add to that with a hypothetical situation. Lets say we have a PC on 1 HP. He needs to touch something at point Z to complete his quest. The layout is:
==BgBgBg=
PC======Z
==BgBgBg=
Bg is a warrior "Badguy" Illusion (with a sword). The PC has an acrobatics of 100 and 30ft speed. 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?
To add to that with a hypothetical situation. Lets say we have a PC on 1 HP. He needs to touch something at point Z to complete his quest. The layout is:
==BgBgBg=
PC======Z
==BgBgBg=Bg is a warrior "Badguy" Illusion (with a sword). The PC has an acrobatics of 100 and 30ft speed. 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 has a flair for the dramatic? ;)
I guess my biggest problem is that I don't like giving out mechanical advantages (or disadvantages for that matter) unless the rules explicitly say so, for fear of breaking balance. Spells like spiritual weapon and persistant dagger explictly state what they can and cannot do in a combat situation, and the rules simply don't do that for Silent Image and its ilk.
In response to KAM's discussion regarding the use of the word 'threat' in the bard's fascinate ability, let's be clear that it's not referring to the game construct of Threatening a square (capital-T Threat). It's using the english definition of threat, meaning a danger to that subject, real or otherwise. I wholeheartedly agree in this case that a Silent Image of a ravenous but otherwise cute bunny would break the fascination effect.
The idea of Threatening Squares and Flanking, as spelled out in the rules, is to limit the amount of adjudicating required in the middle of combat to determine if someone is flanked or not, to know if they provoke an AoO or not, etc. Are you armed with a melee weapon (or considered armed)? Can you reach that square? Then you Threaten it. Done, easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Alas I'm unable to check the WOTC articles linked to above from work, so I remain unconvinced that it was the intent of the rules to allow illusions to Threaten. Characters should react appropriately to illusions if they believe them to be real (attack them, avoid them, flip them the bird), but I don't think they should grant tangible bonuses to other character's attacks or actions. I realize that it makes no logical sense. I hate that it makes no sense. I would be beyond happy if an offical source came on and said "Zappo, you're wrong. Of course Illusions can flank."
I've always treated D&D combat as an abstraction. Even at 1st level characters are making more than one attack in 3-6 seconds, and that they can hit what they're aiming at more often than not. They simply can't hit hard or accurately or often enough for more than one d20 roll and damage roll. Swords cross and glance off armor and shields, occasionally snagging loose clothing or cloaks or those big foppish ostrich feathers that bards seem to like. I also don't assume that characters each fill a discrete 5' square and stay within it's boundaries the whole time. They move and bounce around, lunging into their opponent's square breifly and dodge and weave back. This is where the -4 penalty for shooting into melee comes from, even when you've got a clear shot of just your target's square.
This is why I don't think Illusions stand up in combat. Of course, none of that is spelled out in the rules either. What is spelled out is that to flank you need to Threaten. To Threaten, you need to be considered armed. Illusions aren't armed, they only look like they are. To my mind, without the rules telling me otherwise, that's not good enough. However, because it makes no logical sense, I'm willing (if it ever comes up) to allow 1 round or so of flanking benefit or whatnot. If the player controlling the illusioin can come up with some really creative reason why, I might let it go further (but I never would as a DM using this against a PC). Beyond that, I think there's just too much back and forth movement and attacking and defending that's going on for an illusion to stand up.
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?
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. The conjurer, the enchantress, and the necromancer can all go out and get coffee while leaving their dozens of minions behind with battle instructions whereas the illusionist only gets one illusion and it goes *POOF* the moment he leaves, goes unconscious, or just loses line of sight due to someone conjuring something that gets in the way.
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.
I guess my biggest problem is that I don't like giving out mechanical advantages (or disadvantages for that matter) unless the rules explicitly say so, for fear of breaking balance. Spells like spiritual weapon and persistant dagger explictly state what they can and cannot do in a combat situation, and the rules simply don't do that for Silent Image and its ilk.
In response to KAM's discussion regarding the use of the word 'threat' in the bard's fascinate ability, let's be clear that it's not referring to the game construct of Threatening a square (capital-T Threat). It's using the english definition of threat, meaning a danger to that subject, real or otherwise. I wholeheartedly agree in this case that a Silent Image of a ravenous but otherwise cute bunny would break the fascination effect.
The idea of Threatening Squares and Flanking, as spelled out in the rules, is to limit the amount of adjudicating required in the middle of combat to determine if someone is flanked or not, to know if they provoke an AoO or not, etc. Are you armed with a melee weapon (or considered armed)? Can you reach that square? Then you Threaten it. Done, easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Alas I'm unable to check the WOTC articles linked to above from work, so I remain unconvinced that it was the intent of the rules to allow illusions to Threaten. Characters should react appropriately to illusions if they believe them to be real (attack them, avoid them, flip them the bird), but I don't think they should grant tangible bonuses to other character's attacks or actions. I realize that it makes no logical sense. I hate that it makes no sense. I would be beyond happy if an offical source came on and said "Zappo, you're wrong. Of course Illusions can flank."
<snip>
This is why I don't think Illusions stand up in combat. Of course, none of that is spelled out in the rules either. What is spelled out is that to flank you need to Threaten. To Threaten, you need to be considered armed. Illusions aren't armed, they only look like they are. To my mind, without the rules telling me otherwise, that's not good enough. However, because it makes no logical sense, I'm willing (if it ever comes up) to allow 1 round or so of flanking benefit or whatnot. If the player controlling the illusioin can come up with some really creative reason why, I might let it go further (but I never would as a DM using this against a PC). Beyond that, I think there's just too much back and forth movement and attacking and defending that's going on for an illusion to stand up.
I can see where you're coming from, but have a couple comments -
There are people here with tons of game design experience (note that I don't include myself in that category), so that unless the actual people who wrote this rule are able to clarify, I don't think you'd get a better answer/rationale than you could get here, even if it's not "official".
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 saves give a fair opportunity to avoid being subjected to someone with combat bonuses gained from an illusion, but also rewards a clever use of the spell.
Does this give the spell too much power? If you think so, maybe give a large bonus to the save, so that it might work for at most one round (with an unlucky roll). If there is a silence spell in effect, maybe the save bonus should not be so large.
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?