Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IceBear" data-source="post: 316618" data-attributes="member: 1118">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</blockquote>

Verification