Flanking by figment

[kahlzun]

So, flanking rules apply where someone is 'being threatened' by multiple attackers on opposite sides.

If an enemy believes they are at risk of being attacked, by a figment or illusion, does an actual attacker gain the bonuses of flanking? Obviously this would only apply until they twigged the other attacker was an illusion.

I guess the ultimate use of this would be to spawn something like an illusory Colossal giant or something which potentially 'threatens' dozens of feet around it, giving the flanking benefit to an entire army. Or an illusory Swarm which takes up an entire battlefield or something.

[Deophaun]

RAW: No, because figments don't threaten unless the spell/effect says it does.

Rule of cool: Makes sense. Would be an automatic save to disbelieve, though, as that's definitely interaction.

[icefractal]

I think it would have to count as flanking, otherwise that's a dead giveaway that it's just an illusion. I'd agree that it would count as interaction though.

[Deophaun]

I think it would have to count as flanking, otherwise that's a dead giveaway that it's just an illusion.
There's nothing about figments that say they are forbidden from giving the game away the second they are brought into "existence," or that reality must bend to make sure people don't believe. Making sure that the illusions are believable and don't do things that scream "I am an illusion!" is the sole job of the caster.

[Fizban]

Further, since there are illusion spells that explicitly do the fake flanker effect, it is implied that normal illusions can't do that on their own.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder has the Threatening Illusion (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/threatening-illusion-metamagic) metamagic that you could port back to 3.5 to cover this.

[kahlzun]

Is this a general rule, in that "even if someone believes they're threatened, flanking only counts if they actually are at risk" or is this something specific to illusions?

[Deophaun]

Is this a general rule, in that "even if someone believes they're threatened, flanking only counts if they actually are at risk" or is this something specific to illusions?
It's a general rule in that things only do what they say they do. Things can only threaten if the rules say they threaten:

threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own.
A figment cannot attack--it doesn't even have a reach--so it cannot threaten unless there is a more specific rule that says it can.

[Telok]

I've also seen discussions about invisible characters granting flanking whether or not the victim was aware of them.

[Segev]

Which does lead to the odd situation that somebody is technically flanked by an invisible creature of which they are entirely unaware, but is not flanked by a figment they 100% believe is real. But those are the RAW.

[icefractal]

Is someone flanked by a creature who is (unknown to them) under the effect of Dominate Monster with an instruction not to harm them, but is still acting in a threatening way (and in the correction position, obviously)?

I think there are a lot of edge cases that just don't make sense unless you assume a consistent basis for flanking, and I think "considers themselves to be potentially attacked by" is a more consistent basis than anything based on the specifics of the flanking creature.

[Dagroth]

We've always had it a rule that invisible characters can't provide flanking bonus. An illusion incapable of doing damage (or even actually threatening) doesn't normally provide flanking bonus either.

Certain figments do, under their descriptions, provide flanking. That's it.

[Segev]

Is someone flanked by a creature who is (unknown to them) under the effect of Dominate Monster with an instruction not to harm them, but is still acting in a threatening way (and in the correction position, obviously)?By the RAW, only hostile creatures flank. It doesn't matter what YOU think about the creature; only what it's genuine intentions are. A dominated monster thus isn't hostile to you if its master tells it not to be, no matter what you think.


I think there are a lot of edge cases that just don't make sense unless you assume a consistent basis for flanking, and I think "considers themselves to be potentially attacked by" is a more consistent basis than anything based on the specifics of the flanking creature.

That has its merits. It's worth noting that it introduces another question, though: If you're willing to "expose your back" to a flanking creature, for some reason, shouldn't that negate the flanking bonus it grants? Sure, that should mean that it gets to attack your flat-footed AC, but if it's the fact that you're trying to deal with hostiles on opposite sides of you, and your ability to perceive and react, then it should be an option to focus only on one of them.

Things that are now possible which would not be if it were the flanked character's choice include having puny non-threat creatures still provide a flanking bonus (like the small fire elemental that a Swordsage has a boost he can summon, or the summon monster i fodder that a wizard might call forth to aid his friendly rogue), and having invisible creatures provide flanking bonuses despite taking no action which would break even the most basic of invisibility spells.

[Duke of Urrel]

The word "threatened" has both a subjective and an objective meaning. Whether you objectively are threatened and whether you subjectively feel threatened are two different things.

If you are successfully affected by Intimidate skill, you feel subjectively threatened, even if the creature using Intimidate skill doesn't really intend to harm you. I believe this is exactly what a scary illusion does if you believe it's real. It makes you feel subjectively threatened, even if it doesn't objectively threaten you. I would argue that it's feeling subjectively threatened that lets you be flanked, not being objectively threatened, because an objective threat that you're not aware of can't influence your behavior and therefore can't make you any more vulnerable to any attacker. That just doesn't make any sense. In contrast, the subjective feeling of being threatened does influence your behavior and therefore can make you more vulnerable to an attacker, even if you are not objectively threatened at all but are only deceived into feeling that way.

So I agree with IceFractal. I would also argue that an invisible creature can indeed threaten you and enable another creature to flank you, but only if you are aware of the invisible creature. You can't be subjectively threatened by something you're not aware of, and this has to be part of flanking.

I also agree with Deophaun and others who say that when an illusion is used to threaten you (that is, to make you feel subjectively threatened), you instantly get a Will save to disbelieve it, because the illusion must interact with you in order to seem to threaten you. If you disbelieve the illusion, you instantly no longer feel subjectively threatened by it and therefore are instantly no longer vulnerable to flanking by a real attacker from the opposite direction.

[Stegyre]

The word "threatened" has both a subjective and an objective meaning. Whether you objectively are threatened and whether you subjectively feel threatened are two different things.

If you are successfully affected by Intimidate skill, you feel subjectively threatened, even if the creature using Intimidate skill doesn't really intend to harm you. I believe this is exactly what a scary illusion does if you believe it's real. It makes you feel subjectively threatened, even if it doesn't objectively threaten you. I would argue that it's feeling subjectively threatened that lets you be flanked, not being objectively threatened, because an objective threat that you're not aware of can't influence your behavior and therefore can't make you any more vulnerable to any attacker. That just doesn't make any sense. In contrast, the subjective feeling of being threatened does influence your behavior and therefore can make you more vulnerable to an attacker, even if you are not objectively threatened at all but are only deceived into feeling that way.

So I agree with IceFractal. I would also argue that an invisible creature can indeed threaten you and enable another creature to flank you, but only if you are aware of the invisible creature. You can't be subjectively threatened by something you're not aware of, and this has to be part of flanking.

I also agree with Deophaun and others who say that when an illusion is used to threaten you (that is, to make you feel subjectively threatened), you instantly get a Will save to disbelieve it, because the illusion must interact with you in order to seem to threaten you. If you disbelieve the illusion, you instantly no longer feel subjectively threatened by it and therefore are instantly no longer vulnerable to flanking by a real attacker from the opposite direction.
The problem with this reasoning (as I see it) is that "threaten" is a defined game term, as pointed out by Deophaun. You don't get to resort to other definitions for such terms. You must use the game definition -- that's why they defined it.