Can Mirror Images Flank?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Conan uses Great Cleave. Images pop. Wizard crumples into little red-colored package.

I'd hate to let a wizard/rogue's second level spell give the "free" flanking.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I never act obtuse. I sometimes am obtuse due to lack of effort on my part, but I have little control over that.

I just am more open minded in interpretation in this case than you. Please do not use backhanded attempts at insults via the tired old qualifier "no offense".

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

It's a rule taken out of context.

The rule is talking about real creatures. Yes, you can extrapolate that to mean illusionary creatures as well and that's ok.

But, to state that it is the end all be all rule concerning the topic is invalid. Other people do not necessarily broaden the scope of rules on real creatures to always apply to illusionary ones.

In fact, 3E is notorious for lacking in good rules for illusions and it is a wide open area for interpretation.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

It's probably been said before in the tread;

The miror image are, well, miror images. If you are attacking your target, I see no reason to assume that your mirror image have enough sentience to orient themselves in such a way that they also appear to be attacking the same target. Most likely they all seem to be striking into thin air as they replicate the exact same combat move you just did but in the wrong location toward the wrong direction.

I mean; if X is the caster, I the images and T the target;

II
IXI
IT
II

X is facing south and attacking in that direction. Logically all the images will do the same since they are said to exactly mimic the actions of the caster. And since none of the images happen to be in the correct location to threaten T with an attack toward the south, they just appear to be striking into empty spaces.

 

[Jabba Von Hutt]

Hi Mal,
my only problem with your argument, is that it would supremely easy for the foe fighting the illusionist to figure out who the real guy is by using eye contact. When its his turn to attack just swing at the image that's facing him.

 

[ForceUser@Home]

I just am more open minded in interpretation in this case than you. Please do not use backhanded attempts at insults via the tired old qualifier "no offense".

Fair enough. But what you call open-mindedness I call sophistry.

It's a rule taken out of context.

The rule is talking about real creatures. Yes, you can extrapolate that to mean illusionary creatures as well and that's ok.

But, to state that it is the end all be all rule concerning the topic is invalid. Other people do not necessarily broaden the scope of rules on real creatures to always apply to illusionary ones.

In fact, 3E is notorious for lacking in good rules for illusions and it is a wide open area for interpretation.

I haven't dealt much with most illusions in 3E so I won't comment on their viability in general. But in the case of mirror image, which I play with every week, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Where you see endless room for interpretation, I see rock-solid evidence disallowing mirror images to flank opponents. I don't agree that the quotes I provided are out of context in this case. The combat rules aren't assuming anything; a mirror image can't threaten a target. Whether that target perceives he is threatened is irrelevant because he's not actually threatened and, thus, not flanked. You're talking about perceptions, and I'm discussing actualities.

 

[KarinsDad]

Fair enough. But what you call open-mindedness I call sophistry.

Fair enough? As if the word sophistry is not an insult? So, you trade one insult for another. First I am obtuse, then I am using sophistry. Hmmmm.

You're talking about perceptions, and I'm discussing actualities.

Err, illusions are about perceptions and are not handled well by the actuality interpretation of a lot of the rules. That's why they might be considered a special case by some DMs.

I have no doubt about it. The designers did not intend to have Mirror Image result in a flank. As such, they did not even consider to phrase the definitions of flanking and threatening to take into account illusions.

But, the spell description does allow an opponent to be surrounded by the images. And, as such, the opponent does not know which are real and which are not. Hence, he has to defend as if they are all real since he does not know which ones to ignore. You get the flanking bonus not because there are two characters on either side of an opponent, but because he has to change his defensive pattern to defend properly against both. Literally looking at the rules and not the rationale for the rules is not always best.

For example, when a character has two flanking opponents, nothing in the rules prevents him from ignoring one opponent completely (maybe he believes that one is an illusion for some reason, or maybe he believes one isn‘t a real threat) and concentrating on the other as if that one were the only opponent. Would you still be so literally rules minded to give both opponents a +2 Flank bonus in all cases? Or, would you sometimes give the one he is concentrating on no bonus and the one he is totally ignoring a Flank bonus and a Flat Footed consideration (i.e. he loses dex and dodge bonuses to him and cannot AoO him for moving or casting a spell)? It’s a tough call. Doing the latter would make Summon spells (and they are already pretty wimpy and should be house ruled) and Rogue sneak attacks less worthwhile, but doing the former prevents player innovation.

So, that’s why we have DMs. To adjudicate situations (such as wanting to ignore one opponent) that are not explicitly covered in the rules.

Not everyone takes the literal interpretation that you do of the word threatened, especially with regard to illusions since some of us do not think that they even considered the question when they came up with the definitions for threatened and flanking.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that you are basically correct. According to a literal reading of the rules, flanking cannot occur. However, illusions is definitely one of the gray areas where it appears that the designers did not take it into consideration and hence, a literal interpretation may not work well for all DMs.

A literal reading of the Shield spell resulted in controversy and they ended up putting in an errata.

 

[ForceUser@Home]

KarinsDad:

I do play the game interpreting the rules in their literal sense - they are meant to be taken literally. I think that's one reason errata exists, to put rules in unequivocal, literal terms. Taking the rules literally is lot easier than saying "what if?" and then trying to justify that position, which is usually the case in this forum (And is why I usually don't post here heh. Every time I do I seem to come into conflict with some fellow who's ignoring the letter of the rules in order to justify something he wants his character to be able to do).

I am all for player innovation, but in this case it wouldn't work. I don't really understand how taking the word "threatened" literally could be construed as something unusual, inasmuch as I am simply using the definition from the PHB and applying the rule to the situation. Yeah, it took a little sleuthing but the designers couldn't dictate every situation in advance. While I agree that final arbitration is up to the DM, again, the guy's DM isn't talking here, so we fall back on the most "literal" interpretation of the rules. Although honestly, I feel that what you're calling "literal" is simply "accurate." And now we're in the world of semantics.

In the end, I would apply the same rules to illusory creatures that I did to real ones, unless the text of the illusion spell in question specifically allows otherwise. I guess that would be an opinion, though it is one I feel is grounded in common sense.

Anyway, I'm sorry for being rude.

 

[Kershek]

I haven't dealt much with most illusions in 3E so I won't comment on their viability in general. But in the case of mirror image, which I play with every week, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Where you see endless room for interpretation, I see rock-solid evidence disallowing mirror images to flank opponents. I don't agree that the quotes I provided are out of context in this case. The combat rules aren't assuming anything; a mirror image can't threaten a target. Whether that target perceives he is threatened is irrelevant because he's not actually threatened and, thus, not flanked. You're talking about perceptions, and I'm discussing actualities.

Would you consider that a Major Image of an illusionary fighter would flank an opponent? After all, he has all the sensory qualities of a fighter, and if the wizard concentrated, he could make him react properly as well. Of course, the illusionary fighter would be flanking for the benefit of the rogue.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do play the game interpreting the rules in their literal sense - they are meant to be taken literally. I think that's one reason errata exists, to put rules in unequivocal, literal terms. Taking the rules literally is lot easier than saying "what if?" and then trying to justify that position, which is usually the case in this forum (

Actually, I take the rules literally as a general rule as well. In this case, I would not allow the flanking in my game.

However, I also realize that illusions are a special case that is almost blantantly ignored in the rules.

If it looks like an Orc, and it sounds like an Orc, as far as the character knows, it is an Orc until proven otherwise.

That is hard to emulate in the game if the actual rules do not allow the Orc illusion to flank and do most things that a real Orc could do (within limits).


Mirror Image is one of those weird spells that goes beyond the standard capability of a Figment and partially into that of a Shadow.

For example, it is so believable that you cannot tell which image is the right one, even when the caster is on a horse or chained to a specific spot on a wall. At least by a literal reading of the rules and the spell.

As another example, I cannot swing a reach weapon and take all of the images out in one round. Not even with a feat like Whirlwind (which doesn't apply to reach only weapons anyway).

Or, another example is that Mirror Image is a figment that implies no saving throw even though the spell does not state that. However, most other figments do have a saving throw if interacted with.

So, when it comes to illusions, I tend to view them as magic which can do almost anything, take them with a grain of salt, and be a little less literal and a little more open minded.

 

[0-hr]

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

The purpose of the spell is to create several illusory duplicates of the character, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack.

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.

Can you tell me what page you are getting that from? I'm fairly certain that you cannot generally attack every creature in a square with one attack. There is all kinds of room for the images to move around. Granted, they may have to move through each other every so often as they shift about but luckily the spell supports that action.

Besides, there are other uses for this spell,

Yes there are, and you are welcome to discuss them in the House Rules forum all you like.

Run some play tests with images in their own squares and you will see all of the problems that crop up. Flanking is really one of the minor ones.