Flanking with Mirror Image?

[FoxWander]

The thought just came to me- could a mage/thief use the extra images from Mirror Image to flank someone (with obvious sneak attack benefits)? I mean, the images don't have to be in a line, so you could "surround" someone with them; and, aside from illusion-detection fx or hitting them, there's no way to know which is the real 'you', so there's no way you could ignore all but one without opening yourself up. Sure, you'd only get a few rounds of sneak attacks in before they were all destroyed, and you might take a few licks yourself, but those few rounds could make the difference. And of course, that's not the "intention" of the spell, but what does that matter. Mainly, it's just a really neat trick for a mage/thief. [grin]

Here's the spell from the SRD for reference...

Mirror Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal; see text
Target: You
Duration: 1 min./level (D)

Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck.

Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).

While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.

An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)

 

[GamerMan12]

This is one situation where using minatures or tokens to represent what is happening is really needed.

I think the player should only move his character and then the DM
move the mirror images, if that means an opponent gets flanked then fair enough. The mirror images should not be moved by the player, they are like automatons with rules to keep within 5 feet of each other and copy what the player is doing, postioning of them would be random.

GM12

 

[dcollins]

This has been suggested before. It's really not a good idea to allow this -- it's one the prime reasons why everybody moans and groans about mirror image all the time.

Consider this: First, nowhere does the spell actually grant direction of the images to the caster. Secondly, the images just duplicate the actions of the caster, so it seems likle only the caster's movements would be in a direction to make a target feel threatened. Thirdly, if the images get stretched out in a thin loop or line, then destroying an image in the middle suddenly puts one at the end in violation of the "must be in 5 ft of another" rule, and there's no provision for handling that occurence.

Different adjudications of mirror image:
(1) By the book literally, images can be in a line or string with attendant problems.
(2) Per the Sage in the FAQ, where he recommends that the images to be presumed all in the same space with the caster.
(3) What I do, which is require the images to be as bunched up as possible, effectively one creature with larger face.

 

[youspoonybard]

Images don't threaten, so you can't flank, right?

 

[Nail]

Images don't threaten, so you can't flank, right?

Good catch. It doesn't say so directly, but it does imply that illusions don't threaten:

Illusion

Figment: .....(snip)...Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

As Figments cannot attack, they cannot threaten. Therefore, you cannot flank with Mirror Images.

 

[jgsugden]

Regarding figments in general: Figments are useless for actually attacking, but I see nothing in the rules that says they can not be used to gain a flanking bonus.

If there is nothing in the rules to deal with whether a figment can provide a flanking bonus, we must figure out whether it makes sense for it to be allowed. A flanking bonus is given because the target is splitting his attention in two directions. If he perceives a threat to be on both sides of him and he is defending himself against threats on both sides, I'd say he should be treated as flanked.

Figments, in general, should be allowed to provide a flanking bonus as long as they are believed.

Regarding Mirror Image specifically: Mirror image should not be allowed to do so. The spell creates duplicate images of you. They face in the same direction. They mimic your actions. They do not act independently. Even if one of your mirror images were to be located on the opposite side of your foe from you, it would be very apparent that it was not attacking your enemy at the same time. If you are facing your foe, the image would be facing away from it.

Further, people concentrate on the language in mirror image that says that the images must be within 5' of each other (or you), but they ignore the words right before those: that the images must be in a cluster. Not a line. Not a curve. A cluster. They should be as close to each other (and you) as possible to be in that cluster. Considering that they can be 5' apart *or less* apart, and they should be in a cluster, representing them all in the same square as you is a pretty good idea (as the sage has suggested.) The most images you can aquire is eight (even when empowered, the spell specifically limits you to 8 images). To maintain that cluster, even if the images are as spread out as possible, they would not be in a cluster if they did not occupy a 3 X 3 grid with you.

Even more: You do not control the location of the images. You can move through them, but other than that, they mimic your movements. You can't direct them to move to a certain location or spread out. They move as you move. Lacking this control, getting one into a position to flank with you would be difficult.

In the end, the sage advice: treat these images as if they all share the same square as the caster, is the best way to run the spell. You're free to disagree. Many people have different takes on this spell (as can be seen by all the MI threads on the various boards), but if your goal is to have a smooth, balanced game, IME, the best way to run this spell is just to ignore the physical issues of the spell and focus solely on the game mechanics.

 

[melkoriii]

I thought in 3.5 that all the images were in your squares. Just all moving about and such but still in the same square as you.

 

[jgsugden]

I thought in 3.5 that all the images were in your squares. Just all moving about and such but still in the same square as you.

The description is virtually the same in 3.5 as in 3.0. Sage advice has told us to treat them as if they were all in the same square, but that is only advice, not errata, so many people have chosen to ignore it.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Regarding figments in general: Figments are useless for actually attacking, but I see nothing in the rules that says they can not be used to gain a flanking bonus.

If there is nothing in the rules to deal with whether a figment can provide a flanking bonus, we must figure out whether it makes sense for it to be allowed. A flanking bonus is given because the target is splitting his attention in two directions. If he perceives a threat to be on both sides of him and he is defending himself against threats on both sides, I'd say he should be treated as flanked.

Figments, in general, should be allowed to provide a flanking bonus as long as they are believed.

I brought this up yesterday in the "flanking while invisible" thread. The argument in that thread hinges on whether or not the target's perception matters at all.

I'll start a new thread.

-z

 

[Hypersmurf]

A flanking bonus is given because the target is splitting his attention in two directions.

No, no.

A flanking bonus is given because you are making a melee attack and an ally directly opposite you threatens your opponent.

No threaten, no flank.

-Hyp.