Can Mirror Images Flank?

[Anubis]

Why would mirror images flank?
A: The foe considers them all a threat, and thus must defend from both sides.

That's how I would work it...

We've never really used mirror image, but I thought that the idea of using a counter for each one and keeping track of the real one was the way to go. If not, it's really a mis-named spell in my books.

It don't work like that. If a paranoid monster considered a harmless peasant with a butter knife (who had no intentions of attacking) a threat, that does NOT mean the peasant is actually threatening the monster, and the PC on the other side would NOT get a flanking bonus.

 

[the Jester]

I'd say that the images don't threaten, regardless of what the opponent might think. It isn't what you think threatens you; it's what actually, really, truly threatens you that matters. Even if you don't think a monk is threatening you (he don't got no weapons!) he DOES.

I'd say flanking is as much about teamwork as splitting your enemy's attention.

 

[ouini]

KaeYoss wrote:

Yes, but it won't grant you something that the spell is not meant to provide...two little questions: "is that what the spell is meant for" and "would that mean giving the spell an effect that is far beyond his possiblities and level".

I agree that the books are subject to GM interpretations such as the two little questions you ask. And I wouldn't argue with you were I in your game once you made that call.

Personally, I like your second little question, but would state the first little question a bit differently: "is this a believable effect of the spell in this situation?" And I can imagine situations both where I'd answer 'no' to little questions 1 & 2, or answer 'yes' and have the player roll an appropriate skill to get a flanking effect.

The rules try to be concise, but it's unrealistic to think the designers allowed for every possible situation. In fact, the game would be pretty boring if they had.

 

[IceBear]

Ouini, in my first post in this thread on this subject I agreed that a very strong case could be made to allow mirror images to flank. I won't argue with that. However, in general if something is not explicitedly stated in the rules I don't leap to the conclusion that it's possible without considering designer intent. The mirror image spell has been around a LONG time as a 2nd level spell, before there was such a thing as flanking. I seriously think that the designers didn't think through the new spell description throughly when when they created Mirror Image for 3E. If they planned on the spellcaster doing interesting tricks with the spell I am sure they would have provided a few examples. They didn't, and this coupled with historical useage of the spell, I don't think they intended for the spell to be used that way.

Then, what I did was imagine a rogue/wizard in my campagin using this spell to gain excellent miss chances and getting free flanking. Then I imaged how cheesy the game would become if the same character scribed a pile of mirror image scrolls. Better yet, we have a 5th level sorcerer adventuring with 2 fighter/rogues. He could use his mirror image spells to provide flanking for both fighter/rogues, all the while enjoying the defensive benefits of the spell. That's a little too much for a 2nd level spell, in my opinion, and the reason why I wouldn't allow it.

Now, this isn't saying I don't allow any creative useage of spells by sticking strictly to what's in the book, because that's not true. What I try to do is imagining having that use done in EVERY subsequent encounter and the effect it would have on balance. If it doesn't seem unbalancing (or very rare to occur) then I would allow it, otherwise, no. Remember, once you set the precedent, the players will attempt to push the envelope even more, and if you ever try to go back on your ruling you could have an even more bitter argument on your hands than if you had just overruled it in the beginning.

IceBear

 

[ouini]

Icebear,

You may have a different style of GMing than me. I like creative uses of spells, and appreciate players taking risks. I don't allow any half-baked idea to become a free add-on feature for all situations -- I make judgment calls with every unusual use attempt.

If a player attempts something reasonably doable with a spell, I may allow them to make a roll. If the idea is new or imaginative, I may even give them a beginner's luck bonus. On any given situation they might succeed, attain pyrrhic success, blow it and lose the spell, or not even have a shot. I don't mind that the designers didn't have the print space or foresight to explain every possible application for a spell. I try not to let that limit me or my players.

I wouldn't imagine for a moment that I'd be boxing myself in -- forced to allow free flanking for the caster and possibly other PCs with every casting of Mirror Image. In rules which I don't deem critical to balance or character play/development, I try not to veto a well-played idea by its worst imaginable scenerio.

And I do try to be consistent. If a player comes up with something new in good faith, I appreciate the effort, and try to incorporate the idea to the extent it's reasonable and makes for good drama. If the idea is something creative but not heroic (and so may get regular usage), the player can expect the results and governing rules to shift around a bit while the new idea gets its legs. I'd openly laugh at a player who tried to call 'foul' on a house rule I was tweaking in good faith for balance.

 

[Junkheap]

It maybe just me, but i think all the 1e and beyond players say NO to flanking(me! ive played basic d&d and 2e), but the new 3e players say YES.

Maybe thats the reason why they see mirror images flanking. The spell is pretty much the same as it was in previous editions. It is and always was used as a defensive spell. And again, unless it specifically says it in the books, you CANNOT do it.

Sorry if the post seemed rude. I didn't intend it to come out that way if it offends anyone. It would be an interesting poll.....to me anyway.

 

[IceBear]

Icebear,

You may have a different style of GMing than me. I like creative uses of spells, and appreciate players taking risks. I don't allow any half-baked idea to become a free add-on feature for all situations -- I make judgment calls with every unusual use attempt.

If a player attempts something reasonably doable with a spell, I may allow them to make a roll. If the idea is new or imaginative, I may even give them a beginner's luck bonus. On any given situation they might succeed, attain pyrrhic success, blow it and lose the spell, or not even have a shot. I don't mind that the designers didn't have the print space or foresight to explain every possible application for a spell. I try not to let that limit me or my players.

I wouldn't imagine for a moment that I'd be boxing myself in -- forced to allow free flanking for the caster and possibly other PCs with every casting of Mirror Image. In rules which I don't deem critical to balance or character play/development, I try not to veto a well-played idea by its worst imaginable scenerio.

And I do try to be consistent. If a player comes up with something new in good faith, I appreciate the effort, and try to incorporate the idea to the extent it's reasonable and makes for good drama. If the idea is something creative but not heroic (and so may get regular usage), the player can expect the results and governing rules to shift around a bit while the new idea gets its legs. I'd openly laugh at a player who tried to call 'foul' on a house rule I was tweaking in good faith for balance.

Maybe we do have different styles. I *do* allow for creative ideas and usage of spells, equipment, rules etc, BUT not at the cost of game balance. I've learn a lot in the past as a DM. One thing is, as innocent as a ruling may seem now, it will probably come back later and throw a wrench in the works. Please give me an example of when you would allow mirror image to flank and one where you wouldn't. I'd just like to see them, because I don't think you can come up with one that are so cut and dried that a player couldn't argue for it (other than throwing in monsters with blindsight or special abilities like that that aren't common enough to make a real difference). And if you then say that you will rule as you feel at the time, then that's not consistent DMing and will get you into trouble with your players.

Sure, my players are reasonably understanding when I overrule something that I allowed before when I see how much of a problem it's causing, but if I do that too much or at the wrong time (like when a PC's life is at stake) they don't tend to be as forgiving.

Anyway, I agree with junkheap and his take on the situation, but please don't think I'm an inflexible fuddy-duddy when it comes to the rules because I'm anything but that. I've just learnt that balance is VERY easily broken and so I'm cautious about reading more into something than was obviously intented by the designers.

If you still think that it should be allowed, please ask for the Sage's opinion - I'm pretty sure he will say that it's not allowed.

IceBear

 

[Pangias]

i totally agree with the side Mirror image can't flank.
but i would like to ask to the others how do they rule this situation.

A wizard and 4 rogues decide to attack the poor PC. The wizard use his images to flank on one side the character (without taking any risks simply beacause he is 5" away) helping the 4 rogues to get their flanking bonus without even have to move around the PC.(imagine the flyng wizard who goes behind the monsters and the 4 rogues who stays on the same side avoiding AoO). SO the 4 rogues would get sneak attack and flanking bonus?

 

[Pangias]

sorry i missed the post wher icebear state this example.....don't bother with my post....LOL
ICEBEAR Rules

 

[ouini]

as innocent as a ruling may seem now, it will probably come back later and throw a wrench in the works ... And if you then say that you will rule as you feel at the time, then that's not consistent DMing and will get you into trouble with your players.

It depends on the players, too. There are a lot of players who play with their eyes on a destination they'll never reach, and others who play for the journey. I don't mind balanced on-the-spot rules. So long as they don't change rules germane to my character's creation or development, I don't even mind a sincerely trying GM's unbalanced first-attempts at an on-the-spot rule.

...my players are reasonably understanding when I overrule something that I allowed before...but if I do that too much or at the wrong time (like when a PC's life is at stake) they don't tend to be as forgiving.

Even if a house-rule kills the character, if it's balanced and doesn't pull the rug out from under rules that are fundamental to my character, I won't complain. Maybe it's the groups I've played with, but life and death of a character always seemed tertiary to a fun game and trust between players. Remember, there's no law against asking the players themselves for feedback and advice on how to keep a rule balanced. And a player who thinks a rule is unbalancing should speak up -- they shouldn't be trying to get away with something.

Please give me an example of when you would allow mirror image to flank and one where you wouldn't

Examples I give may seem contrived, but if you'd still like, feel free to give me a few situations and I'll let you know how I'd handle them. As for the sage, I'd be more interested in his or an FAQ's suggestion on whether any type of illusion can ever give a flanking bonus.