[PF] Threatening Illusion?

[Mayito]

So I recently read this feat and am confused as to why they decided to limit illusion spells like this. If I see a summoned monster swinging its claws at me I am going to react and defend myself which is the whole point of the flanking bonus is that the creature needs to split its attention, if its real in the perception of the enemy until interacted with then why do we need metamagic to count as threatening? It shouldn't matter that its an illusion or not.

[TuggyNE]

So I recently read this feat and am confused as to why they decided to limit illusion spells like this. If I see a summoned monster swinging its claws at me I am going to react and defend myself which is the whole point of the flanking bonus is that the creature needs to split its attention, if its real in the perception of the enemy until interacted with then why do we need metamagic to count as threatening? It shouldn't matter that its an illusion or not.

I suspect it's because most illusion spells don't do a lot of the specialized processing to make a convincing imitation of a creature actively fighting.

[Mayito]

For many illusions sure I can go with that but let's look at just the image line of spells. Its duration concentration so more or less you are actively controlling it and hopefully if you are able to create the image of a lifelike troll you can imitate it swinging its club and be pretty dang convincing without the need of metamagic

[TuggyNE]

For many illusions sure I can go with that but let's look at just the image line of spells. Its duration concentration so more or less you are actively controlling it and hopefully if you are able to create the image of a lifelike troll you can imitate it swinging its club and be pretty dang convincing without the need of metamagic

That does seem a bit lame. Ah well.

[chaos_redefined]

Welcome to pathfinder, where any common sense you see in design is a bug, not a feature.

[ButtSoup]

Just make the argument you just made to your DM, maybe he/she will allow it. I've allowed players to do the same thing in one of my games. At one point the monster they fought swung right through the illusion, I rolled a 1 on his will save, and ruled that he assumed a spell cast by the illusionary fighter made his weapons go through it. He stopped attacking the illusion, but still defended against it for a few more rounds before he concluded it was non-threatening.

I figured if the wizard wants to concentrate on a spell that may divert an attack or offer a flank for a few rounds in combat- he's helping the melee crew instead of ending the fun with a more powerful spell.

[AttilaTheGeek]

I've never had a DM *not* grant that feat automatically.

[Psyren]

At least PF has an option for this. How would you flank with images in 3.5?

[Lord_Gareth]

At least PF has an option for this. How would you flank with images in 3.5?

Phantom Assailant, Complete Warrior.

[Psyren]

Phantom Assailant, Complete Warrior.

No such spell. Do you mean Phantom Threat? That's a Phantasm, not a Figment, and therefore not an (external) image.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I agree that this feat is simultaneously cool and lame.

Cool because what it does is cool in concept.

Lame because now the DM has a strong argument not to allow the effect without the feat.

[Occasional Sage]

Just make the argument you just made to your DM, maybe he/she will allow it. I've allowed players to do the same thing in one of my games. At one point the monster they fought swung right through the illusion, I rolled a 1 on his will save, and ruled that he assumed a spell cast by the illusionary fighter made his weapons go through it. He stopped attacking the illusion, but still defended against it for a few more rounds before he concluded it was non-threatening.


That would be Windy Escape; dru/mag/wiz1. It's one of those apprentice spells you never quit memorizing.

[Mayito]

I mainly bring this up because the past few times I did PFS the dm has been unfriendly towards illusions and so I have been trying to understand illusions as best as possible so that I can let my imagination soar but stay strictly within the rules, this rule just doesn't make sense unless they are trying to share good ideas because most people just think of silent image as a wall or a fake creature.

[Psyren]

Lame because now the DM has a strong argument not to allow the effect without the feat.

He already has a strong argument - it's not RAW.

Casters in general and illusionists in particular have enough cheese potential without adding combat advantage to their disposable figments. Besides, look at the reverse - once you take the feat, he has no leg to stand on to prevent you from doing this. So just take the feat.