Pathfinder: can you use illusion to get flanking

[Scottlang]

I was asked an interesting question by one of my players:

If a player using complex hallucination to create an illusion of an ally flanking an enemy (which in current game its all giants) would they get the flanking bonus and/or the sneak attack on the enemy??

And who would be included in the spell, ie both the enemy and the PC roll will saves or just the enemy for this to work??

[tomandtish]

Depends on your in-game definition of why flanking works (why one gets the bonus).


I've always assumed that the one being flanked (defined as the victim) has to split their attention between two opponents. They are therefore not as effective as defending against each one (hence the bonus to hit).

So would an illusion work? Yes IF the victim fell for it and responded as if it were a real threat.

As soon as the victim decided/realized the illusion wasn't a threat, the bonus would end.

I'd assume only the victim needs a saving throw. The real attacker is simply taking advantage of the victim's distraction.

[Zaq]

Eh, spells do what they say they do. If the spell doesn't say that it distracts a target enough for it to be considered flanked, it probably doesn't.

That said, I also believe in Rule of Cool, so if you've got an entertaining explanation of why this should work, I'm not going to call that badwrongfun, but be careful with what kinds of precedents you're opening up.

[Scottlang]

Eh, spells do what they say they do. If the spell doesn't say that it distracts a target enough for it to be considered flanked, it probably doesn't.

That said, I also believe in Rule of Cool, so if you've got an entertaining explanation of why this should work, I'm not going to call that badwrongfun, but be careful with what kinds of precedents you're opening up.

They want to create flanking bonuses, so they would want to set it up so the rogue gets his sneak attack on every attack due to the flanking causes the NPC to be flat footed. I would be doing the will save as the hallucination will be interacting with the npc

[Aharon]

If you're a gnome, maybe:



Threatening Illusion (Metamagic)


You’ve mastered the art of making illusions that force foes to divide their attention in combat.

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.

[Hunter Noventa]

If you're a gnome, maybe:

Why is that limited to gnomes? And why does it even have a spell level increase when it already has a feat prerequisite?

[Necroticplague]

Why is that limited to gnomes? And why does it even have a spell level increase when it already has a feat prerequisite?

Why shouldn't it? It's a metamagic that does make the spell strictly superior to other spells as something intrinsic to the spell.

Or to look at it another way: If you had two spells, one of which is Ghost Sound, and the other is "Ghost Sound, but can threaten enemies", would you not expect the latter to be higher level?

[Sinewmire]

I'd say yes, but the victim would get a new save every round, as they are interacting with the illusion.

[Boci]

As long as the target isnt aware its an illusion, theres no logical reason they shouldn't be flanked. Powerwise, this may make some spells obselete/abilities, but its not going to break anything. The hard part is figuring out the mechanics of how a creature reaslises its an illusion, though an obvious solution is to count it as interacting and thus grant a willsave.


Or to look at it another way: If you had two spells, one of which is Ghost Sound, and the other is "Ghost Sound, but can threaten enemies", would you not expect the latter to be higher level?

If "ghostsound but can also threaten enemies" required two feats and was restricted to a single race? No.

[TotallyNotEvil]

I'd say yes, but the victim would get a new save every round, as they are interacting with the illusion.
Neat and easy. I like it.

[Psyren]

"Normal: Illusion spells do not threaten squares."

That's the (general) RAW answer.

Now for the feat itself - Racial Heritage gets it on non-gnomes. Personally I would open it up to all races (SF:Illusion is enough of a prereq, it doesn't need to be race-locked) but letting them flank for free, probably not. Flanking doesn't (just) come from the target's belief that he is surrounded after all - it's a bonus to the other attacker, not a penalty to the defender. In other words, an illusion might be behind your victim and they might even believe it's real, but that doesn't mean you can properly take advantage of whatever results that may have on your target's defenses.

[Boci]

"Normal: Illusion spells do not threaten squares."

That's the (general) RAW answer.

Now for the feat itself - Racial Heritage gets it on non-gnomes. Personally I would open it up to all races (SF:Illusion is enough of a prereq, it doesn't need to be race-locked) but letting them flank for free, probably not. Flanking doesn't (just) come from the target's belief that he is surrounded after all - it's a bonus to the other attacker, not a penalty to the defender. In other words, an illusion might be behind your victim and they might even believe it's real, but that doesn't mean you can properly take advantage of whatever results that may have on your target's defenses.

I'm struggling to picture how this work. In the targets mind, what is the differentce between a goblin popping up behind them, and the illusion of a goblin popping up behind them when they don't know its an illusion? There's literally no difference, that the point of an illusion. How are you attacking a "flanked" target differently if its only a illusion you are flanking with?

[Necroticplague]

I'm struggling to picture how this work. In the targets mind, what is the differentce between a goblin popping up behind them, and the illusion of a goblin popping up behind them when they don't know its an illusion? There's literally no difference, that the point of an illusion.
1. There is a difference. An illusion is a picture of something, not actually something.
2. The target's mind is irrelevant, because flanking is a penalty on the defender, it's a bonus to the attacker.


How are you attacking a "flanked" target differently if its only a illusion you are flanking with?
Well, for one thing, you can expect an actual person to harry the target as a distraction, something an illusion's lack of physicality cripplingly prohibits it from doing.

[Boci]

Well, for one thing, you can expect an actual person to harry the target as a distraction, something an illusion's lack of physicality cripplingly prohibits it from doing.

But the targets thinks its real. You're describing flanking as if the one side needs to do something. They don't, other than stand there and be armed. They don't need to harry the defender, their presence is enough. An illusion which the target doesn't see through has just as much presence. You are describing aid another on an attack roll, which yeah, illusions will struggle to do.

Let's approach from the other end: if the target doesn't know an invisible, armed creature is behind it, would an second attack in the right position get flanking bonus? I would say no, though ofcourse by raw the requirements are satisfied.

[tyckspoon]

But the targets thinks its real. You're describing flanking as if the one side needs to do something. They don't, other than stand there and be armed. They don't need to harry the defender, their presence is enough. An illusion which the target doesn't see through has just as much presence. You are describing aid another on an attack roll, which yeah, illusions will struggle to do.

Let's approach from the other end: if the target doesn't know an invisible, armed creature is behind it, would an second attack in the right position get flanking bonus? I would say no, though ofcourse by raw the requirements are satisfied.

Ruleswise, there is something the flanker needs to do: They have to threaten the defender. That's a game-defined term. So a normal illusion cannot create a flank, regardless of how apparently real, terrifying, or dangerous it otherwise is, because it does not threaten - it is incapable of fulfilling the requirement to flank. OP's question has a very clear, if potentially counterintuitive (not that this is anything unusual in D&D or Pathfinder rules questions) answer. That said, if the subject falls for the illusion, they will behave as if they are flanked and threatened by the illusion - they may be unwilling to move away from it for fear of of suffering an attack of opportunity, for example, or act unusually defensively if they now think they are at risk of being hit by a Sneak Attack. But as they are not actually flanked their attackers cannot claim these benefits.

For the other question, that as well is pretty clear RAW: The subject is flanked, despite presumably being unaware of the invisible enemy and in-world not having divided his attention between his attackers. Again, there is no consideration for whether or not the defender actually knows there is an opponent or how dangerous he thinks they may be - if he is threatened (can suffer an Attack of Opportunity from) by enemies that can draw a line across his space(s) to each other, he is flanked. If he doesn't know the invisible attacker is there, he'll behave as if he wasn't flanked - he may attempt to disengage from the opponent he can see and still draw an AoO from the one he can't, or fight a Rogue-type enemy aggressively assuming he has the upper hand in a solo fight when he is actually subject to much more danger. The weird part of this one is that the invisible fighter's ally benefits from the flank bonus as well, even if he is also unaware the invisible combatant is there..

[Boci]

Ruleswise, there is something the flanker needs to do: They have to threaten the defender. That's a game-defined term. So a normal illusion cannot create a flank, regardless of how apparently real, terrifying, or dangerous it otherwise is, because it does not threaten - it is incapable of fulfilling the requirement to flank. OP's question has a very clear, if potentially counterintuitive (not that this is anything unusual in D&D or Pathfinder rules questions) answer. That said, if the subject falls for the illusion, they will behave as if they are flanked and threatened by the illusion - they may be unwilling to move away from it for fear of of suffering an attack of opportunity, for example, or act unusually defensively if they now think they are at risk of being hit by a Sneak Attack. But as they are not actually flanked their attackers cannot claim these benefits.

For the other question, that as well is pretty clear RAW: The subject is flanked, despite presumably being unaware of the invisible enemy and in-world not having divided his attention between his attackers. Again, there is no consideration for whether or not the defender actually knows there is an opponent or how dangerous he thinks they may be - if he is threatened (can suffer an Attack of Opportunity from) by enemies that can draw a line across his space(s) to each other, he is flanked.

Yes, I understand the RAW. I'm asking how that works in game. In my expirience, unless its required for game balance, "its RAW" tends to be an unsatisfactory answer.

[Psyren]

But the targets thinks its real. You're describing flanking as if the one side needs to do something. They don't, other than stand there and be armed.

Creatures in combat aren't standing still though, they're constantly moving (within their square.) The stuff they do is abstracted down to static modifiers, but they're actively doing stuff. So yes, they are "doing something", because the modifier (flanking bonus) is on them, not the target.


Yes, I understand the RAW. I'm asking how that works in game. In my expirience, unless its required for game balance, "its RAW" tends to be an unsatisfactory answer.

At the risk of sounding facetious, it satisfied me just fine :smalltongue:

Or more accurately, I consider the balance implications (casters, even illusionists, don't need more help) to be worth whatever verisimilitude hiccups some folks feel.

[Boci]

Creatures in combat aren't standing still though, they're constantly moving (within their square.) The stuff they do is abstracted down to static modifiers, but they're actively doing stuff. So yes, they are "doing something", because the modifier (flanking bonus) is on them, not the target.

But they don't need to take any action to grant the bonus, they can stand there and delay their turn and an ally will gain the bonus. Yes, they aren't standing stock still, so the illusion would need to be able to move to fool the target, a still image isn't going to cut it, but it doesn't need to take any actions beyond that. There's no logical reason an illusion waving a sword at you won't provide flanking if you don't realize it isn't real. And your point below about "casters don't need help" is rather bizare.


Or more accurately, I consider the balance implications (casters, even illusionists, don't need more help) to be worth whatever verisimilitude hiccups some folks feel.

Yeah, because casters are going to be the ones benefitting from this. Not martial melee and rogues in particular (end sarcasm). If a caster wants to increase their chance to hit with a touch spell, true strike is probably a better option for them. Or any other number of spells.

I'll accept a few hiccups for balance implications as well. We agree there. I just don't see any on this issue. The illusionists allies are the ones missing out if this isn't allowed, not the illusionist.

[Psyren]

But they don't need to take any action to grant the bonus, they can stand there and delay their turn and an ally will gain the bonus. Yes, they aren't standing stock still, so the illusion would need to be able to move to fool the target, a still image isn't going to cut it, but it doesn't need to take any actions beyond that.

You keep saying "they can stand there" when that's not what's happening though.
As for a moving image providing the bonus, I would say that's what the feat does, or a shadow illusion. Without those, it's just not good enough.


There's no logical reason an illusion waving a sword at you won't provide flanking if you don't realize it isn't real.

But there is a logical reason - that your realization (i.e. that of the guy being flanked) is irrelevant.


I'll accept a few hiccups for balance implications as well. We agree there. I just don't see any on this issue. The illusionists allies are the ones missing out if this isn't allowed, not the illusionist.

Yeah except now the rogue no longer needs a tank to flank with at all, you can just bring an illusionist. And illusions are a lot easier to bring to bear (no pun intended) than summons too. You can fill a whole battlefield with them in less than a round with the right spell.

[Boci]

You keep saying "they can stand there" when that's not what's happening though.

I was using it as shorthand for "unlike aid another which requires a standard action, no action need be taken by the other to provide flanking". But I'll stop using it if it confuses you and just say the longer version.


But there is a logical reason - that your realization (i.e. that of the guy being flanked) is irrelevant.

That's not logical. That is in fact illogical. The idea that illusion, -which you don't know isn't real- moving to stab you in the back won't make is easier for the fighter to swing a longsword at your chest is illogical.

If you said its not flanking its aid another, sure that makes sense. But no difference? That's not how combat works, its distracting to fight two people at once on opposite sides of you, and this a sufficiently fundamental concept that even in D&D and PF you would expect the game to follow it.


Yeah except now the rogue no longer needs a tank to flank with at all, you can just bring an illusionist. And illusions are a lot easier to bring to bear (no pun intended) than summons too. You can fill a whole battlefield with them in less than a round with the right spell.

If all the tank is contributing to the party is a flanking bonus, then letting illusionist cover that role so they can reroll as someone who has more options to contribution to the party is a good thing for them.

You balance issues continue to baffle me. Yes, you could fill a battlefield with them. But they won't holds up as well as summons will. Nor can they grapple, or deal damage. Seems like a fair trade off.

I'm struggling to imagine a game where another way to get flanking, something that is already easy to get and provides a small bonus, is somehow having a noteworthy effect on balance.

[Psyren]

That's not logical. That is in fact illogical. The idea that illusion, -which you don't know isn't real- moving to stab you in the back won't make is easier for the fighter to swing a longsword at your chest is illogical.

Maybe without the feat, the illusion's movements seem real to the target but the fighter can't take advantage of them properly all the same. Remember, he's the one missing the bonus, not the target taking a penalty.


If all the tank is contributing to the party is a flanking bonus, then letting illusionist cover that role so they can reroll as someone who has more options to contribution to the party is a good thing for them.

Sure. *shrug*


I'm struggling to imagine a game where another way to get flanking, something that is already easy to get and provides a small bonus, is somehow having a noteworthy effect on balance.

Then houserule it. *shrug again*

[Boci]

Maybe without the feat, the illusion's movements seem real to the target but the fighter can't take advantage of them properly all the same. Remember, he's the one missing the bonus, not the target taking a penalty.

That doesn't make any sense. How can the fighter not take advantage? What part of swinging the sword is changed by having a real ally opposite?


Sure. *shrug*

So you admit you balance argument completly falls apart as soon as someone thinks about it?


Then houserule it. *shrug again*

No thought on why you feel +2 to hit is going to greatly effect? I mean, you don't have to share.

[Psyren]

That doesn't make any sense. How can the fighter not take advantage? What part of swinging the sword is changed by having a real ally opposite?

The "real" part?


So you admit you balance argument completly falls apart as soon as someone thinks about it?

No thought on why you feel +2 to hit is going to greatly effect? I mean, you don't have to share.

Taunting isn't going to accomplish anything, I didn't make the rule.

[Boci]

The "real" part?

How? How does the real-ness of the humanoid/animal standing opposite the person you are attacking effect your sword swing? You don't touch it with your sword, and it doesn't touch the enemy. As long as the enemy thinks its real, it wouldn't matter whether it actually is.


Taunting isn't going to accomplish anything, I didn't make the rule.

I'm not taunting you. You sited, and Iquote "I consider the balance implications" as a reason not to allow flanking illusions without a feat. These issues involves casters already being powerful, despite them hardly benefiting from this, and a rather unlikely scenario in which the ability to be a flanking buddy is a major feature the tank has to offer the party. When I pointed these out you dismisive, leaving me to at least consider the possibility that you realized the balance isn't actually an issues.

[Psyren]

How?

I gave my explanation in post #21 - that without the feat to do so, the illusion's movements are just off enough that the flanker doesn't get a bonus. If that's not enough, I don't think there's anything we can resolve here.

[Boci]

I gave my explanation in post #21 - that without the feat to do so, the illusion's movements are just off enough that the flanker doesn't get a bonus. If that's not enough, I don't think there's anything we can resolve here.

Given that I already explained how that makes no sense, pretty much yeah. Your explanation doesn't follow reality (an attacker behind you will aid an attacker in front of you, reguardless of how real it actually is if you think its real(. And yes, D&D isn't always realistic, but this is a pretty fundamental concept that you would expect it to follow. Also, don't accuse people of taunting you when you justify an descision with "I consider the balance implacations" and then provide two extremely prolematic scanrios and refuse to address their shortcomings in supporting your claim.

[Psyren]

Given that I already explained how that makes no sense, pretty much yeah.

Then see the rest of post #21.