D&D 3E/3.5 Your take on Mirror Image, 3.0 or 3.5
I'm not a 3E player but I don't mind heated discussion.
The following seemed to me some key features of the spell (from the SRD):
One thing I notice is that there's no indication as to who decides where the images are located. With 8 images, plus a caster, it seems they could be spread out over a 40' line. But that doesn't really make sense for many attack, especially melee attacks: presumably when a melee attack is made (which is targeting a particular entity in a given 5' square), the images all cluster together about the caster. But this doesn't really make much sense either: a blow against an illusory figment which is one of 8 in a 5' square, plus a caster, is almost certainly going to carry through and take out more figments (or the caster).
So maybe only one figment joins the caster, in the same square but (say) 2 or 3 feet away. But then the miss chance would only be 50%, not 1/(N+1), where N is the number of images.
My provisional conclusion: this is a spell whose mechanics made sense in AD&D, with abstract positioning and 1 minute rounds, but it really doesn't survive the translation into the much less abstract 3E positioning rules.
(EDIT to help warm things up: can we talk about Mirror Image as a "dissociated mechanic"?)
The following seemed to me some key features of the spell (from the SRD):
Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being
<snip>
The figments stay near you and disappear when struck
<snip>
These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.
<snip>
The figments stay near you and disappear when struck
<snip>
These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.
One thing I notice is that there's no indication as to who decides where the images are located. With 8 images, plus a caster, it seems they could be spread out over a 40' line. But that doesn't really make sense for many attack, especially melee attacks: presumably when a melee attack is made (which is targeting a particular entity in a given 5' square), the images all cluster together about the caster. But this doesn't really make much sense either: a blow against an illusory figment which is one of 8 in a 5' square, plus a caster, is almost certainly going to carry through and take out more figments (or the caster).
So maybe only one figment joins the caster, in the same square but (say) 2 or 3 feet away. But then the miss chance would only be 50%, not 1/(N+1), where N is the number of images.
My provisional conclusion: this is a spell whose mechanics made sense in AD&D, with abstract positioning and 1 minute rounds, but it really doesn't survive the translation into the much less abstract 3E positioning rules.
(EDIT to help warm things up: can we talk about Mirror Image as a "dissociated mechanic"?)
delericho
Legend
My take would be that the caster places the images, subject to the constraints of the spell (that is, each image must be within 5 ft of another). PCs can then pick a target normally, which may be the caster or may be an image. The "random roll" bit would generally apply to NPCs targetting the caster, where presumably the DM knows which is the 'real' version, so there's a need for a mechanism for determining which gets targetted.
(Naturally, a character who casts mirror image would generally be well-advised to use a move action immediately thereafter, to "shuffle the pack" as it were. Otherwise, it would be too easy for others to target the real version.)
(Naturally, a character who casts mirror image would generally be well-advised to use a move action immediately thereafter, to "shuffle the pack" as it were. Otherwise, it would be too easy for others to target the real version.)
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
IMO, the images all must share the same space, and so they'll usually overlap. I believe this was specified for 3.5.
Scrivener of Doom
Adventurer
Yeah, this is how I ran it. It's just easier.
Greenfield
Adventurer
I had a discussion on this with the friend who runs the local game shop. We were both a bit surprised when we read the actual text.
The caster has the option of laying the images out in a chorus line, which leaves the potential for some of the images (or the original) to be under complete cover vis-a-vis a given attacker, yet still have images visible and within reach.
Also, traditionally if a caster had 6 images out there, the DM or whoever was running the attack had to roll a dice for every attack to see who/what it struck. As written, though, if the first attack hit the actual caster, all others could be directed there as well. The caster can't shuffle with the images until their turn, after all, so once you've found him his spell is negated until his next action.
That last point was a bit of a shock.
Most people don't bother to mark where images are and simply treat the spell as ablative miss chance.
The caster has the option of laying the images out in a chorus line, which leaves the potential for some of the images (or the original) to be under complete cover vis-a-vis a given attacker, yet still have images visible and within reach.
Also, traditionally if a caster had 6 images out there, the DM or whoever was running the attack had to roll a dice for every attack to see who/what it struck. As written, though, if the first attack hit the actual caster, all others could be directed there as well. The caster can't shuffle with the images until their turn, after all, so once you've found him his spell is negated until his next action.
That last point was a bit of a shock.
Most people don't bother to mark where images are and simply treat the spell as ablative miss chance.
Uller
Adventurer
This is how I've always ruled it. You have 3 images? Then the next character to target you has only a 25% chance to get the 'real' you and 75% xhance to target an image. If the image is 'hit' it disappears. Repeat. If a player wanted to use it in a more creative way, I'd allow it though. But it has never come up before.
Greenfield
Adventurer
Interestingly, there's a vague line in the spell description that just begs for an exploitation.
The images stay "near you", according to the spell, but how close is "near"?
So my spell caster uses the spell while under concealment, then sends them out as spell fodder while never revealing him/herself at all. They only need to be near each other, after all.
This reduces the miss chance from, say, one in six to zero in five.
The images stay "near you", according to the spell, but how close is "near"?
So my spell caster uses the spell while under concealment, then sends them out as spell fodder while never revealing him/herself at all. They only need to be near each other, after all.
This reduces the miss chance from, say, one in six to zero in five.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Mirror Image has ruined my immersion!
In all seriousness, it's one of my least favorite 3e spells. Most generally agreed upon interpretations make it a fantastically powerful defensive spell for being second level.
