Can Mirror Images Flank?

[KarinsDad]

There's also the explaination that they don't threaten someone, so they don't flank him (archers don't flank, either)

From the point of view of the caster, they might not threaten.

From the point of view of an opponent, they should.

If you do not know which image is the real one, you have to watch all of them if the actual caster attacks.

"These figments separate from the character and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or the character."

This could be a large area, probably as much as 3 spaces x 3 spaces worse case.

"Enemies attempting to attack the character or cast spells at the character must select from among indistinguishable targets."

As far as I can tell, it is possible to get a flanking bonus. The images threaten because the opponent thinks that they threaten or at least does not know which single one threatens and which others do not.

But, I think it would be a rare case that you actually get the flank bonus since you do not really control where the images move. So, I might make it similar to concealment where I give a flank chance, probably 5% per number of images available minus one.

Then again, the explanation of Mirror Image is kind of silly anyway. If the spell caster is not moving (such as on a horse or he just plain is standing still), then you just attack the immobile one. Err, no, the spell doesn't allow that.

 

[Zog]

So if the images spread out, do foes get AOO on them?

Oh, ick bad, unneccesarry complications!

So maybe they start out in the same 5ft spot and can spread by 5ft each round?

Complex, ugly - but do-able if you really wanted.

And so, after two of three rounds, if you still have images left, they could be flanking.

That is what I would do, if I really wanted to make things more interesting, at the cost of complexity.

Ohhh - but would the images offer flanking to other opponents? One's the caster is not engaged in melee with, if they spread out?

Ick. Well, there is no facing, so in theory it could work. And stating that images can spread by 5 ft, given that they stay within 5ft of caster or each other, each turn is fairly simple.

But all in all, I'd stick with the 'all images in same spot' as it is much less of a headache.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The images are obviously magical, and illusionary. The opponent knows that they're not real, and even watching for which one will attack him is pointless - as far as he is concerned, they are all poking at him.

Besides, you'd need a random table to determine accidental flanking ... which just slows combat down.

The only way they could flank is if you get a friend (hidden by Invisibility) to use Change Self or Alter Self to look exactly like you (calls for a Disguise check), follow you around, wait for you to cast Mirror Image, then appear and start attacking. When the opponent gets smacked from two different directions, he gets worried.

I think the confusion may come from the Major/Minor Image spells. Apparently, according to a Dragon Mag article, an illusion can flank an opponent (a weird dwarf PrC), because the foe believes they are real. (The exception, of course, is Mirror Image, where the foe knows they are fake, but disbelief isn't enough to banish the illusion.)

 

[Stalker0]

Seeing in believing. Your opponent knows the images aren't real, but he doesn't know who is real. Therefore, he considers each image to be a real threat, and flanking applies (the ability to threaten an opponent is based on the point of view of the person being threatened, that's why images can flank)

Now I'd let the opponent say (okay, I'm saying those four images aren't real, this guy is the one) he ignores all the other images, so he's not flanked. However, if one of those 4 was the real guy, I'd say he was an invisible attacker.

However, as is pointed out, you can't control the images. You'd have to roll randomly to see if any of them were flanking. By the rules, I'd allow it. But for convience I'd only pull it out when it was a very important battle.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Why don't we stop getting to scientific about that all, trying to get more out of the spells than they have in them? Mirror image is there to lessen the chance of you being hit, not to grant you a tactical advantage like flanking. If you could flank with them, the spell description would say. But it doesn't.

The reason why they don't employ to much laws of physics into D&D is to keep the game fairly easy and to cross munchkins who want more from spells than they're meant to give.

So, no "It's the guy on the horse, ignore the rest", no "they are around the enemy, so they flank", OK?

 

[Scion]

just to say the wrong thing at the wrong time

I'd have to say that the only time I'd ever let it give a flanking bonus is when you stand on the same square as the opponent

but then I'd give a cover bonus to said opponent higher than normal for having another character dancing with them ::chuckles::

so casting mirror image on the familiar actually has some modecrum of use.. pop him on the fighters shoulder and have the fighter run into battle surrounded by flying familars! woohoo!

 

[Numion]

Mirror image is pretty powerful as it stands now. No need to add flanking to that equation.

The key here is that the images don't threaten a space around them. If you don't threaten, you don't flank - simple as that.

 

[0-hr]

the ability to threaten an opponent is based on the point of view of the person being threatened,

So, in your campaign, invisible people don't get attacks of opportunity unless the vicitim knows that they are there? Interesting. Wrong, but interesting...

 

[ouini]

KaeYoss wrote

Mirror image is there to lessen the chance of you being hit, not to grant you a tactical advantage like flanking.

There's nothing wrong with being creative with a spell. Using "message" to quietly threaten a public speaker (no save, no SR) instead of communicate with cohorts isn't expected, but it's creative. Or using prestidigitation to give illusory tactical cues in a silenced area. The idea that there is no such flexibility in the game is, of course, bull.

I personally hate munchkins poring over the rules to min-max in 'gotcha!' fashion, but I have no problem with a spell being used imaginatively. It makes the game interesting. And when the rules are grey, it's case-by-case.

Numion wrote

The key here is that the images don't threaten a space around them. If you don't threaten, you don't flank - simple as that.

That's a workable interpretation. The images definately don't threaten surrounding space. On the other hand, it's just as reasonable to say that an opponent is flanked so long as they believe they have a threat on either side of them.

And lacking an impossibly detailed PHB, with descriptions of every possible situation, this falls firmly in the "GM's call" area. When you get right down to it, practically everything does.

 

[Jabba Von Hutt]

From what I'm reading the rules we have are open to interpretation and there doesn't seem to be an official ruling. Until there is, it would be up to the DM in each game to decide whether this is legal or not. Fair Enough.

Thanks Everyone