Can Mirror Images Flank?

[kreynolds]

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.

So then, you rule, that no matter what, if you (even a player) are attacked by an invisible creature, you automatically assume/believe that the threat lies in the direction of the attack, even though a strategic mind would recognize the very likely possiblity that the invisible threat would have moved, since it gave its position away, and you (even a player) have no choice in the matter?

If the flanking bonus of A relies upon the perception of a threat by B, you must logically carry that train of thought forward, which would lead to B not fully knowing where exactly the threat is, because he knows that C might have, and more than likely has, moved after the attack. Thus, B is threatened on all sides, because he is not 100% aware of the exact location of C.

The only way around this paradox would be for B to choose a direction that he believes he is most threatened from by C, but B might not automatically assume that the threat comes from the direction that C last attacked, especially not if B is possessed of a strategically thinking mind.

Fun, isn't it.

 

[ForceUser@Home]

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.

KarinsDad:

It's not unclear. Sir, no offense, but I can't help but wonder why you are acting obtuse. I am not giving my opinion but showing plain facts that anyone can see.

This:

Since mirror images can't attack, they can't threaten, and thus, they can't flank.

Is not my opinion. It's the rule! It's clear as day.

But, I guess the purpose of this forum is to debate things until everyone is blue in the face. To me, this is a non-issue, and you guys are putting way too much thought into something that requires only a couple of minutes to verify in the PHB.

I guess that means I'm done here. Carry on.

 

[Ristamar]

I would think this is about the time 'designer intent' comes into play... and I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that Mirror Image was never intended to act as an offensive oriented spell.

Of course, someone could just email Skip to wrap up the 'official' debate.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

If the flanking bonus of A relies upon the perception of a threat by B, you must logically carry that train of thought forward, which would lead to B not fully knowing where exactly the threat is, because he knows that C might have, and more than likely has, moved after the attack. Thus, B is threatened on all sides, because he is not 100% aware of the exact location of C.

That is exactly why Invisible characters get a +2 bonus to hit, and the defender loses his Dex bonus to AC... The invisible attacker is essentially flanking with himself.

 

[kreynolds]

You know, it occurs to me, that from a true rules-lawyer perspective, this forum should be renamed to D&D Rules (and Opinions, when rules do not exhist, or when said rules conflict with existing rules that are specificed by by another ruleset that directly modify/override/overlap the aforementioned rules)

 

[kreynolds]

That is exactly why Invisible characters get a +2 bonus to hit, and the defender loses his Dex bonus to AC... The invisible attacker is essentially flanking with himself.

But that does not answer the question as to why A would lose his flanking bonus based upon the perceptions of B, who's perception you see as being locked onto the last direction that C attacked from, even though the possibility exhists that B would consider the threat from a direction other than the one he was attacked from, or that he is threatened in all directions because he does not 100% know where C has moved to, if C has even moved at all.

Damn, this is fun!

 

[Jack Haggerty]

Or even better...

What if you have 2 characters attacking the same monster, but they aren't flanking each other. A 3rd character with Imp. Invis. attacks. Since the monster cannot tell which direction the Inivisible character is attacking from (from his perception, the character could be attacking from anywhere but where the other 2 attackers are standing), does everyone get a flanking bonus, regardless of where the II guy is attacking from?

 

[Junkheap]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since mirror images can't attack, they can't threaten, and thus, they can't flank.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all let me say that i have NEVER thought of this situation EVER being brought up with Mirror Image bing used to flank. It is a VERY imaginitive way of using a spell. My first thought, and also previous experience would say NO to flanking. But upon reading the thread, i would not know what to do, but i am still inclined to say that they would NOT flank.


The point of the above quote is not that the mirror images can't attack, it is that you do not know which is the real one. So in effect, if ever there was an opportunity where you were surrounded by mirror images, you would still not know where the attacks come from.

HOWEVER, since if you ever interact with an illusion you know what it is immediately, this situation would never come up because in combat you don't just wait for your turn to make an attack. There is always some sort of interaction in the battle.

It sorta remind me of the battle in Conan i think it was when conan was stuck in the room full of mirrors with the mage. You know specifically that there is only 1 person there and have to worry only about 1 person. And since you are aware 360 in 3e NO FLANK.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

Something else people need to realize is...

Whatever the PCs can do, so can the NPCs. The bad guys should not be so stupid as to fail to learn from their mistakes and their enemies successes.

Players... Do you really want your DMs using such a tactic against you?

DMs... If your players insist on such a tactic, use it against them.

 

[kreynolds]

It sorta remind me of the battle in Conan i think it was when conan was stuck in the room full of mirrors with the mage. You know specifically that there is only 1 person there and have to worry only about 1 person. And since you are aware 360 in 3e NO FLANK.

Ahhh, but Conan had to continuously attack the mirrors precisely because the threat lay all around him, in every direction at once, as what he initially perceived to be the real threat, was in fact a quasi-real reflection of the true threat. Thus, from Conan's perspective, he was threatened on all sides, which was proved by him attacking all of the mirrors. Why did he attack all the mirrors? Because the real threat was not just the quasi-real mage, but the mirrors as well, which were all around him, and he knew that the only way to harm to mage was to destroy the mirrors.