Mirror Images CAN'T all be in different 5' squares

[Hypersmurf]

The wizard that puts the images all single files is in trouble anyways.

I don't think he has a choice in the matter - my impression is that they distribute themselves fairly randomly, according to some law of Brownian Motion. It's possible for them to end up strung out in a line, but far more likely they'll cluster.

As DM, I'd rule that if the chain was broken, the remaining images would automatically redistribute themselves enough to cover the gap.

-Hyp.

 

[Rel]

If this spell gets changed to something that's a little less of a nightmare in 3.5E, that may be the single most compelling reason for me to switch to the new version.

I will note however that it is a real pleasure to see Hypersmurf and Elder-Basilisk debating this since they are two of my favorite posters in the whole, wide, EN World.

 

[Murrdox]

I don't have the PHB in front of me, but the SRD specifies that the images arrange themselves in a "cluster".

Furthermore, Since there is nothing in the spell about picking which SQUARE you are attacking, we always assume that the images cluster around the wizard in such a way that they are always in the same square. There may be a BIT of spillover into a bordering square, but nothing major.

Thus, you never have to choose which SQUARE you are attacking, only pick which image of the wizard you want to strike at. Even though the spell says that all images stay within 5' of another image or the caster, and this would ALLOW for lines of images and other such arrangements, the spell also seems to assume that for the most part, the images stay right next to the caster at all times, clustering around him, and confusing enemies.

Finally, you get NO choice as to "placing" your images. I'd be a little bit peeved if my DM arranged my mirror images in a straight line.

 

[Caliban]

If this spell gets changed to something that's a little less of a nightmare in 3.5E, that may be the single most compelling reason for me to switch to the new version.

I will note however that it is a real pleasure to see Hypersmurf and Elder-Basilisk debating this since they are two of my favorite posters in the whole, wide, EN World.

The wording does get tweaked.

 

[Maitre Du Donjon]

Maybe. What happens when you're standing in the same square as an image? It's obviously not the real one since you couldn't occupy his square without grappling and you're obviously not grappling. So, if you can stand in the same square as an image when you've got your eyes closed, why not with your eyes open? And if you can stand in the same square as an image and/or move through it, what's to stop you from moving through the images until one pushes back?

Like I said, why couldn't it be treated as an automatic overrun? You're in the same square as the figment, because you can pass through an occupied square if the person lets you, but if you want to know if the figment is real or not, you'll actually have to interact with it, ie make a grapple attempt.

But the again, its all hypothesises (sp?)

Maitre D

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This can lead to the same teleporting problem though--see the following diagram (images are numbered, W is wizard, and A is attacker)

-1A23
---4---
--5W6-

or

--A--------
1234W56

or

---A-----
----123--
-4W----

In all of these examples, the images could have to be rearranged. In example 1, eliminating image 4 makes images 1, 2, and 3 wink out or rearrange. In example 2, elimating image 3 makes images 1 and 2 wink out or rearrange. In the third example, eliminating images 1 and 2 (a real possibility for a character with two attacks or with cleave if you follow the Sage's ruling) would cause image 4 to be out of range.

Now your proposed solution works just fine as long as the stranded images aren't the real wizard. If they are the wizard then, as a DM you're faced with the need to either

A. Indicate the position of the real wizard through the direction in which the images consolidate
B. Teleport the wizard
C. Have the images wink out.

A and C are probably the most viable choices but I'm not sure I would want to have players playing Reversi/Othello with the images to get a clue as to the real wizard. That seems like a level of tactical complexity that is unnecessary to introduce with a second level spell. If the images are all more or less in one square, it doesn't crop up.

I don't think he has a choice in the matter - my impression is that they distribute themselves fairly randomly, according to some law of Brownian Motion. It's possible for them to end up strung out in a line, but far more likely they'll cluster.

As DM, I'd rule that if the chain was broken, the remaining images would automatically redistribute themselves enough to cover the gap.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Originally posted by Rel
I will note however that it is a real pleasure to see Hypersmurf and Elder-Basilisk debating this since they are two of my favorite posters in the whole, wide, EN World.

Hey, EB - we got us a fan club!

We'll be here all week... and we do requests!

Originally posted by Caliban
The wording does get tweaked.

Daaaaa-ad! Caliban's doing it agaaaaaa-ain!

Originally posted by Elder-Basilisk
A and C are probably the most viable choices but I'm not sure I would want to have players playing Reversi/Othello with the images to get a clue as to the real wizard. That seems like a level of tactical complexity that is unnecessary to introduce with a second level spell. If the images are all more or less in one square, it doesn't crop up.

I'd go with A, and I'd rather have the problems it introduces than the problems all-in-one-square introduces. And the spell specifies how far away images can be, which is very pointless if you cram them all into a 5' square.

I especially like the thought of nine Great Wyrms occupying the same space

-Hyp.

Edit: Overquote