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: 319306" data-attributes="member: 1118">Ah see, this is where the misunderstanding comes in.  You say that with my example you wouldn't allow it because of the complexity of the movements involved.  What I thought you were arguing, because that's what I understood others to be saying, was that the images could just be moved at will with no cost to the caster.See, several people in the pro-flanking camp are referring to the passage in the spell where it states that all images could be within 5ft of each other to mean that my example would be perfectly ok for mirror images flanking because the wizard casts the mirror image spell and then the images come into being and he just places them within 5ft of each other and him and the flanking scenario would just occur natually with no effort on the part of the caster.   That's what I was arguing against.Now, if you're going to require concentration on the part of the spellcaster to move them into position (to which the other faction will point out that there is nothing in the spell description requiring that - not that I'm arguing with you, just pointing out what I *thought* you were arguing for) then things get a little better (though the thought of easily setting up multiple sneak attacks with a 2nd level spell is still a little too much for me.  Anyway, to me it sounds like if you'd allow flanking, you wouldn't be running with the mirror image spell as written, but adding your house rule to it to incorporate the mechanism to allow flanking - which is a completely different kettle of fish than just allowing the images to flank as the rules are currently written.IceBear</blockquote>

Verification