Can Mirror Images Flank?

[Jack Haggerty]

Oh, that's easy, they are all in the same square as the caster. Then they remain in that cluster since each is within 5 feet of at least one other figment or the character.

What's the point of the spell, then? Why not just use Blink, Invisibility, Displacement or Shield?

Putting multiple images in a 5-ft. square defeats the purpose of the spell, since the enemy no longer has to decide which image to attack. They are stacked on top of each other, so hitting one is as good as hitting another. Go ahead and see how many people can stand in a 5-ft. square without getting in each other's way.

Besides, there are other uses for this spell, if you use it as is... I could have an image "look" around a corner, and if an arrow or spell "kills" it, I know there are enemies waiting for me. Using the same trick, you could lure a hidden enemy out into the open.

 

[kreynolds]

Quoting books and using them as exacting standards in situations the authors probably didn't think of is, well, silly.

Yeah. I agree. It's really silly to discuss the rules in the rules thread.

Does that mean that if there's a 3-party combat where a non-"ally" is attacking your opponent, you don't get a bonus because the "flanker" isn't your ally?

A creature attacking your target is an ally. They may be your enemy in the grand scheme of things, but right at that moment, they're your ally.

 

[KarinsDad]

In the case of Illusions, I think you have to use common sense in both directions because Illusions appear to be real.

So, anything (flanking, threats) that is dependent on the viewer of the illusion (his actions, his options) can be instigated by an illusion. Anything that is not, should not.

For example:

A
B
C

B is flanked (literal sense of the word, not game mechanic) by A and C.

If A is real and C is real, flanking (game mechanic) exists for both.

If A is real and C is real but Invisible, flanking exists for C, but not for A unless B is aware of C. If C has not attacked B yet and B is unaware of C, A does not get a flanking bonus. IMO. It's as if nothing is there yet. Once C attacks (say with Improved Invisibility), A gets a flanking bonus, even though B cannot see C. He is still aware that a threat exists there.

If A is real and C is an illusion, flanking exists for A since B is aware of C, but unaware that it is an illusion. IMO. If B becomes aware that C is an illusion, then A loses his flanking bonus since B can totally ignore C.

It matters not to me if the illusion C is from a Mirror Image (where the spell indicates that with enough images, you can have one 10 feet away in a flanking position), or something like a controlled Permanent Illusion. YMMV, but to me, this is the most common sense approach.

 

[kreynolds]

He is still aware that a threat exists there.

You could also argue that because C is invisible, and B doesn't know where C is exactly, because C might have taken a step or move after the attack, A can be anywhere within the threatened area and C would still receive the flanking bonus (and A, if aware of C), because as far as B is concerned, the invisbile threat, C, could be anywhere.

I wouldn't argue that, but someone else could.

 

[mikebr99]

Why can't you disbelieve this illusion?

 

[ForceUser@Home]

It's even simpler than ForceUser@Home is making it out to be . . . it's up to the GM. Simple as that.

Quoting books and using them as exacting standards in situations the authors probably didn't think of is, well, silly. It's like two different flavored Christians quoting the same Bible verse at each other telling the other they're not real Christians.

Just use what makes sense to you. All right, so on page 130 of the PHB, an ally directly opposite you has to threaten your opponent. So? Does that mean that if there's a 3-party combat where a non-"ally" is attacking your opponent, you don't get a bonus because the "flanker" isn't your ally?

That's what it says in the PHB. But I believe, as a GM, you should use common sense, instead. If you're GM and feel illusions can't flank, so be it. But never bother trying to read rules so they fit what you think (90% of this board). If you're playing in the grey, just use your noggin'.

I guess we just see things differently. Yes, the DM can rule zero anything, but Jabba didn't ask his DM, he asked us. This implys that he wants to know the actual rule. YOur Bible analogy is cute but flawed. The Bible is mostly subjective - the vast majority of D&D rules are not. They aren't suggestions, they're rules. This is how you play the game, man. If a rule is broken or unclear, it gets errated or nixed. This rule is clear, no interpretation is needed. By the rules, which Jabba asked us to clarify, a mirror image can't flank. That's as clear as can be.

 

[kreynolds]

The Bible is mostly subjective

Oh crap! *ducks out before the flames roar in*

 

[ForceUser@Home]

haha

Hey, I didn't start it!

 

[KarinsDad]

You could also argue that because C is invisible, and B doesn't know where C is exactly, because C might have taken a step or move after the attack, A can be anywhere within the threatened area and C would still receive the flanking bonus (and A, if aware of C), because as far as B is concerned, the invisbile threat, C, could be anywhere.

I wouldn't argue that, but someone else could.

Like I said, use common sense.

Attacks are a series of attacks in a round, so C is still there as long as he is still attacking from the point of view of B. If C attacks and moves, he stopped attacking, and A stops getting the flanking bonus. If C moved and attacks, he is still attacking, and A still gets the flanking bonus.

In other words, if C attacks and still is in the space, A still gets the flanking bonus. If C moves away, just like any other flanking attacker, A loses the flanking bonus.

 

[KarinsDad]

By the rules, which Jabba asked us to clarify, a mirror image can't flank. That's as clear as can be.

You haven't clarified anything.

You gave your opinion on an unclear situation. That's all.

Your opinion that "Since mirror images can't attack, they can't threaten, and thus, they can't flank." is just that, an opinion. The Threatened Area information on page 122 is not talking about Illusions, rather it is talking about real creatures, so it cannot be used to determine if Illusions threaten. Your source is invalid.

Illusions can threaten because their target perceives them as threatening. Otherwise, Illusions are totally worthless.

"I see it, but I ignore it." Ho hum.

The rules for flanking are just as valid as the rules against. In other words, it's unclear.