What "combat utility" should illusions explicitly have?

[SangoProduction]

I'm taking a look at the Illusion sphere, and thinking of homebrewing a few "Combat Utility" (name WIP) talents, which explicitly spells out functions for an illusion. Probably in bundle deals with other talents, so they aren't supposed to be overly impactful on their own. (Especially since illusions themselves, assuming the DM doesn't just outright have enemies ignore them, have "inherent" combat utility.)

Combat Utility only functions against targets that haven't yet disbelieved the illusion.

For example:
Distracting
-Spellcasting or concentrating on Spells within the area of a distracting illusion requires a Caster Level check (DC 20 + spell level). Using Skills that involve patience and Concentration requires a DC 20 Will save.
-If you have the Touch (sense) talent, also do [tiny] damage
(Bees, obnoxious noises, odiferous foods, bees, swirling lights)

Misdirecting
-A target in the area of your Misdirecting illusion must make a will save or moves [amount] feet in a target direction. This distance is taken out of the target's movement for next turn.
(thickets of brush, walls, crowd of people)

Threatening
-A Threatening illusion can flank any enemy adjacent to or within its area.
(soldiers / bears / other creatures, or hazards that require attention to avoid, like an active lava field)

Assisting
-You may perform Aid Another with any character in the area of your illusion as though you were adjacent to them.
(Action is too broad for real examples. Illusionary duplicates, obscuring mists or instruments, or so on)


Are there any other sort of "combat utility" things that I could add?

[Segev]

"Assisting" sounds a bit like an air-breathing mermaid talent. If only because I would see an illusionist turning to his DM and asking, "Can I assist Bardbob in his performance by making an orchestral illusion back him up?" without even considering that he'd need to be next to him or that it'd take a special talent to apply his meager perform skill with his illusion magics to get that Aid Another action off.

I think, perhaps, establishing a baseline of what you expect an illusion to be able to do without additional combat utility talents would be a better place to start than by first coming up with combat utility an illusion could have. The latter approach risks making illusions just wind up with a lot of talent taxes for things they should have been able to do baseline.


Having talents that ENHANCE baseline utility would be interesting. For example, your "distracting" one is unlikely to be a baseline feature, so is reasonable for an enhancement to your efforts to use your illusion to harass a mage. Similar could be said for the one that moves people. But first knowing what you think should be doable without an extra Talent, and then finding how to make the Talents that focus on that Better than they are without it, is probably the best way to go.

[Crake]

Theres a 3.5 spell that creates an illusory battlefield, which iirc, denies people attacks of opportunity by making them swing at the illusory fighters around them mistakenly, so perhaps distraction could both trigger concentration checks for spellcasters, and deny aoo for martials?

[icefractal]

Thing that spell-illusions can already do in combat, which I think sphere-illusions should also be capable of, without additional talents:

Create false creatures. Not necessarily ones that will keep being believed after a hit or two goes right through them, but if you "summon a demon" (actually casting an illusion) then foes should treat it the same way they would if you actually summoned a demon until they learn otherwise.

Create false obstacles. Same deal. Until they see through it, enemies should be treating an illusory wall of fire or portal to hell as seriously as they'd treat a real one.

Obscure things. Illusory fog, illusory walls, etc. They block you from seeing what's on the other side - so, same combat utility as non-illusions that block visibility.

Hide real obstacles. A combination of the above two, but if you cover a pit with fake floor, enemies are as likely to walk onto it as they would any other random spot on the ground (so, depends on the positioning, but they won't auto-avoid it).

Create flanking. This one is a little more controversial, but IMO there's no way to square "appears to be a real creature that's armed" with "doesn't provide flanking". The fact that they can't really hurt the flanked creature is irrelevant, because it's not like a real flanker has to ever successfully hit to provide flanking. You could send a halfling peasant armed with a small stick (1d4-1 damage) to flank a Balor, and they would provide flanking, despite being literally unable to hurt the Balor in any way.*

*Incidentally, this is kind of dumb, and it might be logical to house-rule that you can ignore flanking at some cost (treated as blind against the person you're ignoring?), but such a rule would be a pretty big nerf to Rogues, so that bears some consideration.

[Prime32]

A talent/archetype/PrC for creating frightening illusions, which are harder to disbelieve while under a fear effect. Possibly creating illusory creatures which gain bonus damage against scared targets. Or an ability similar to Insistent Illusions, called "Irrational Fear" - the ability to make demoralize attempts through your illusions which (if the target was already shaken) reset disbelief, forcing targets to start suffering from the illusion again even when they know it's not real.

Also a pair of mechanics which could change up your tactics:


Mental Illusion (charm)
Prerequisites: Illusion sphere
You can create illusions within your target's mind which only they can see.

Lesser Charm: N/A
Greater Charm: You create an illusion as per the Illusion sphere (including the effects of any Illusion talents you possess), except that it uses the range of this charm and may only be perceived by targets of this charm. If this charm affects multiple targets, then they all see the same illusion.
Powerful Charm: As above, except that you have no knowledge or control over the illusion's exact appearance, instead providing a description which is filled in by the target's own mind. If this charm affects multiple targets, then the illusion appears differently to each of them. This illusion affects all of the target's senses, but due to the deeper mental intrusion your target is immediately entitled to a Will save to disbelieve. You must still specify the illusion's contents in the same amount of detail as normal, meaning you cannot give vague descriptions like "danger" or "the person you most admire". If you give your target a description they cannot follow (e.g. telling them "you see a pit fiend" when they don't know what a pit fiend is) then they gain a +5 bonus on their saving throw and their reaction to the illusion becomes unpredictable.




Mesmerist: You cannot create illusions normally, only through the Mental Illusion talent of the Mind sphere. Your Illusion base sphere and talents also count as talents of the Mind sphere for all purposes.

[Duke of Urrel]

Create flanking. This one is a little more controversial, but IMO there's no way to square "appears to be a real creature that's armed" with "doesn't provide flanking". The fact that they can't really hurt the flanked creature is irrelevant, because it's not like a real flanker has to ever successfully hit to provide flanking. You could send a halfling peasant armed with a small stick (1d4-1 damage) to flank a Balor, and they would provide flanking, despite being literally unable to hurt the Balor in any way.*

*Incidentally, this is kind of dumb, and it might be logical to house-rule that you can ignore flanking at some cost (treated as blind against the person you're ignoring?), but such a rule would be a pretty big nerf to Rogues, so that bears some consideration.

I agree that an illusory attacker should be able to bestow a flanking bonus on the attacks of a real attacker, provided that the enemy between them believes that the illusion is real.*

My agreement is based on the assumption that "being flanked" is a subjective feeling that divides the attention of the flanked creature, which flanking attackers can exploit by adding +2 to their attack rolls.


If "being flanked" is a subjective feeling, then we can also easily deduce that a flanked creature should bestow no attack bonus on two flanking attackers if one of these attackers isn't scary enough to pose a threat.

The rules ought to make sense, but it is up to us to make sense of them.

___________________
*Of course, this is controversial. But in my opinion, it should not be.

If a flanked creature added -2 to its Armor Class with respect to flanking attackers, there would be no controversy. But the rules don't do this; instead, they bestow +2 on the attack rolls of flanking attackers. This detail misleads us into assuming that being a threat is some objective quality of the attacker rather than a subjective quality of the defender. As a defender, you can't be threatened only by something you're not afraid of; you can be threatened only by something that you're afraid of. But can you feel subjectively threatened by an attacker that isn't objectively a threat? My answer is: Yes. Why not? The feeling is the same, even if the threat isn't real.

On the other hand, what if you fail to be afraid of something that really is a threat? Well, the rules cover this situation, too. If you don't feel threatened by a creature until the moment they choose to attack you, then you're flat-footed.

And what if you just don't feel threatened at all by a halfling wielding a flimsy stick? Well, you can ignore them and focus instead on an enemy who really does scare you, for example a fighter with a two-handed sword. When you choose to ignore the halfling, they become effectively invisible to you, they add +2 to their attacks with the flimsy stick, and they discount your Armor Class. The halfling is free to whack away at you with the stick, but you are free not to be worried. In contrast, at the same time, you are fully on guard against the fighter, so that she adds no +2 bonus to her attack rolls merely because you are flanked by a halfling wielding a flimsy stick.

This is how the game works when I am the dungeon master.

[Jay R]

My experience in SCA melees convinces me that being flanked is an objective fact. When a blow hits you from one side, even if it’s light and doesn’t count, it distracts you.

Your scenario with the halfling is based on an inaccuracy in the rules: that a single blow from a weapon can’t kill you. In a real combat, any foe could kill you will a single shot if you ignore them. That halfling you’re ignoring will stab that flimsy stick up under your armor into your most vulnerable spot. You’ll notice.

It also assumes that a fighter can simply ignore a moving, active enemy right there. This is also untrue. I can’t even consistently ignore a fly buzzing around my head, and I know it can’t hurt me.

Distractions are real, and people can’t simply decide that they aren’t.

[Segev]

My experience in SCA melees convinces me that being flanked is an objective fact. When a blow hits you from one side, even if it’s light and doesn’t count, it distracts you.

Your scenario with the halfling is based on an inaccuracy in the rules: that a single blow from a weapon can’t kill you. In a real combat, any foe could kill you will a single shot if you ignore them. That halfling you’re ignoring will stab that flimsy stick up under your armor into your most vulnerable spot. You’ll notice.

It also assumes that a fighter can simply ignore a moving, active enemy right there. This is also untrue. I can’t even consistently ignore a fly buzzing around my head, and I know it can’t hurt me.

Distractions are real, and people can’t simply decide that they aren’t.

How would this change - if at all - if the "flanker" were an illusion? Would it matter if it were a major image or a silent image or even just a fleeting shadow that sort-of looks like a person if you glimpse it out of the corner of your eye, or if it were just a sound of someone moving around, even if you couldn't see them?

[Jay R]

How would this change - if at all - if the "flanker" were an illusion? Would it matter if it were a major image or a silent image or even just a fleeting shadow that sort-of looks like a person if you glimpse it out of the corner of your eye, or if it were just a sound of someone moving around, even if you couldn't see them?

Good questions. Mostly, this would require a DM judgment call, but you're asking for personal experience.

I have sometimes used my shield or cloak to try to block an opponent’s view of my ally’s attacks. This is a good use of a silent image, because if the enemy believes the shield or cloak is real, then she cannot see what is behind it. And it wouldn’t make much noise. But if she "touches" it with sword or shield, she gets a saving throw, because she didn't feel it.

Similarly, a thrust towards the face is very hard to ignore. [But be sure not to have the illusion actually *hit* the face. That gets an immediate saving throw.]

With a major image, I once told the DM that the illusionary orc was spattered in swamp mud, and you could smell the swamp on him. This was just trying to increase the verisimilitude, to reduce the odds of a saving throw. Similarly, with a minor image, I make sure to mention the squeak of metal armor, the footsteps, and a few grunts.

It only works if the person believes it. That means a silent image would not work very well; enemies in a melee make noise, even if they “miss”. [Remember that a “miss” includes hitting you but not hard enough to damage you through the armor.]

I would rule that a fighter gets a saving throw against a silent image each round, because it isn’t making any noise. Each time any image throws a blow, the fighter gets a save, unless the illusionist specifically says, “He’s throwing blows that miss entirely,” or the attack roll would miss even with no armor at all. A blow that hits armor or shield and does no damage still contacts, and she can feel that nothing is there.

I also assume that each time an enemy throws a blow at an illusion, she gets a saving throw, unless the attack roll would have missed even a touch attack. She felt nothing when her sword contacted the illusion, and probably saw it go through without any resistance.

The major purposes for illusions in melee are distraction and absorbing blows that could have been aimed at my allies -- just like each copy in a mirror image takes one attack away from the caster. If I were using one to try to get a flank, I would probably have an illusion of somebody ten feet away with a longspear. It's in melee, but harder for the enemy to become sure it's an illusion. Of course, if the goal is to get the enemy to attack the illusion, then it needs to be in the enemy's range -- and it won't be long before she knows it's an illusion, and starts seeing through it.

Also, how many real and how many illusory foes are there? She can’t track several people carefully in the middle of the busiest moment of the day.

But really, it’s a messy, chaotic situation, and the DM needs to make judgment calls. Make the illusions valuable, but not overwhelming.

[RandomPeasant]

Your scenario with the halfling is based on an inaccuracy in the rules: that a single blow from a weapon can’t kill you. In a real combat, any foe could kill you will a single shot if you ignore them. That halfling you’re ignoring will stab that flimsy stick up under your armor into your most vulnerable spot. You’ll notice.

That's not an inaccuracy of the rules, it's a way D&D characters are different from real humans. It is true that someone with a sword could kill you or me even if they are not particularly strong or skilled with a sword. That does not imply they could kill a typical D&D character, because D&D characters are explicitly superhuman even at fairly low levels.