Grogg of the North
Adventurer
I've always played it that the images are all next to you (same square) and that the images are constantly shuffling about. We just have an attack roll a dice to see what he hit with 1 being the caster.
D&D 3E/3.5 Your take on Mirror Image, 3.0 or 3.5
The reason some people don't like the "images are all in the same square" ruling is that the spell can be defeated by closing your eyes. With 8 images, you have an 87.5% miss chance; when you close your eyes and are effectively blinded, you have a 50% miss chance. For this reason, it can be tactically better to have the images spread out into separate squares. I think the same-square method is by far preferable for ease of play, but I completely understand the caster who wants to be able to spread their images out; I also think the spread out method is completely supported by the rules.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
It might be clearer, but it's less balanced. In 3e, the mirror image AC was 10 + Dex + size, so usually less than your touch AC. It was always hit, so basically 3 images gave three miss chances. Good (because a wizard doesn't want to get hit) but also beatable without magic. The Pathfinder version has your AC -5 or so, which is actually missable, so 3 images might give you four or five miss chances.
Unfortunately, this means more bookkeeping, especially if you're using a battlemat. Rules need to be balanced, but they also need to be easy to use and not time consuming. (Fun too, but I don't think there's a massive movement to call Mirror Image unfun.)
Skyscraper
Explorer
If this is the only reason, then rule that the images can't be defeated by closing your eyes. I.e., the illusion is better than that. If you need a reason: if the illusion is only visual with no other component to it, you should allow perception checks to see if the image marks the dust on the ground with its feet, or if you hear somethign from the image 5 feet away from that other image... There is not end to it.
Just assume that a person with 8 images is a tough target, that's all. If you don't have AoEs, you indeed need to randomly target one image/creature. It's a strong defensive spell. So be it.
Do some groups really put images on the battle map? Really?
I think people are really splitting hairs. The heated discussion should be about rules-lawyering not about the spell
(I usually don't enter this kind of thread, don't know what's getting into me now
)But if ths is the case - especially if images are overlapping - then why can't I just carve through them and hit the caster? I mean, they're just figments - they don't actually block my sword!
But if the N images are spread out, why is the miss chance equal to 1/(N+1)?
I'm a fighter who sees a mage in front of me. Now the mage casts Mirror Image, and a line of casters is spread out in front of me. I still know which one was the mage, and if the furthest two images are each 20' from the caster, I can probably tell that they're illusory, can't I? No breathing (the spell is pretty clear that it's visual only). No footprints. No other signs of movement. If the caster casts another spell, or talks to his/her teammates, I can tell that the sound is coming from in front of me, and not 20' to either side.
In other words, I don't really understand what is happening in the fiction. As I said upthread, in AD&D it made sense - in the chaos of melee I am fooled by these illusory duplicates of the caster. But in 3E, not so much.
EDIT: I think my basic point is that Mirror Image is a spell that relies upon the idea of the chaos of melee, but 3E makes no attempt to model the chaos of melee, and lacks the mechanical support for those sorts of tropes.
Last edited:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
If you had Whirlwind Attack you could do so. Or you could close your eyes and reduce the miss chance to "only" 50%. (Is that grounds for not removing an image if you miss?) Otherwise you need to target[/], and could miss. If you had iterative attacks, you could go through a bunch of images in just one round, but the mage will probably be happy if you only hit them once (rather than 3 times, or 6 times, or whatever).
The images overlap if the mage moves even 5 feet. (Of course, that's assuming they're all in the same square, otherwise it's too obvious.)
I'm not confused by the mechanics. I'm saying I'm confused by the fiction. How does a mere figment, which has no solidity, stop a sword swing dead in its tracks?
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
The catch is you must actually attack one to tell if it's an illusion, which means an attack roll. The rules don't allow you to just slice down the middle of a square and hope to go through all the illusions. I suppose making an AoE attack against the square might work though such as with a War Hulk I think.
The miss chance is equal to 1/(N+1) because when there are N illusions and one caster, that's how the probabilities go. If it's 3 illusions and 1 caster then the chance to get the caster is 1/(3+1), or 1/4 since the caster is indeed the proper 1 target of 4 total targets.
The catch with the 3E spell is it specifically says "When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image." Based on that and it saying that the images mimic your actions which presumably includes speaking, plus it saying the attacker must choose between the real caster and indistinguishable targets, I'd say that one can't use sight or hearing to tell which one is which, period.
Although upon looking at it, it seems like it's trying to set up a quantum superposition or something. What I mean by that is the caster and illusions effectively occupy all the squares simultaneously, and only by interacting with one (attacking it) is one able to reduce that superposition into just one thing being in that square. That idea seems a bit counter to the idea of always knowing which square your character is in (assuming the use of a typical map for 3E) since it sets up a situation where the "observer" can influence the outcome of whether it's an illusion or the caster in the square, which means the caster isn't in control of where he is upon using the spell if it behaves as a quantum superposition.
But if it's not a superposition and the caster's location is static and known to at least someone (such as the DM), then that means the rules for rolling whether a target is or isn't an illusion don't work at all if the caster's location is supposed to stay static.
I suppose one could do a mix of them where the caster's location is known during his turn, but unknown during another's. That would alleviate the issue of using certain spells which need to have a line of effect from a given square's corner while still having the defense rolls and rules be meaningful.
Considering the rules specifically say "These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you." I'd be inclined to say that it's not possible to send them out unless you're making a line of them. I think you're reading it as they can be in a cluster on their own away from the caster, but in my opinion the more likely reading, given the rest of the spell description, is at least one must always be within 5 feet of the caster, and the rest can chain from there or just clump up. Yes, if they meant it that way then they should have added the words "At least one illusion must always be within 5 feet of you," but that's WOTC's knack for not writing rules good enough to pass a lawyer test. *shrug*
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
It doesn't. Just because something has AC doesn't mean it stops anything. The abstraction is that the attack roll and AC interaction is meant to represent both the defender's skill and luck in defending as well as the attacker's skill and luck in attacking. Missing one of the illusions might mean it wobbled just the right way to cause a miss, or the attacker had bad luck and just couldn't hit (such as rolling a 1).
Greenfield
Adventurer
The image doesn't stop the sword. It just gets you to swing at empty space.
And listening for breathing or the sounds a body makes won't help. The spell says that creatures dependent on sight or sound won't be able to discern the difference.
As for the "I'm facing a mage and he casts a spell, I can still tell where he was." argument: You see a mage cast a spell, then do a 5 foot step. In five different directions. Or maybe not, since there's still one in the same square where he was.
You can stop and study the ground to look for footprints, in combat, but if I were the DM I'd say that taking your attention off the opponent that way is just begging for an AoO.
Try it some time in a fist fight. Stop and study the opponent's feet, and what his foot prints look like. You'll be studying his fist, close up, very quickly, and possibly studying the ceiling from a reclining position.
The spell description says that you can't tell, visually. Some might think that they're "special", and can do what the spell says they can't. If the DM is any good, they're wrong.
As for the idea of just waving them away with a sword is concerned: In 1st/2nd edition I knew people who decided that throwing a handful of sand at someone negated a Stoneskin, since it stopped a set number of attacks, and each grain of sand counted.
That's what the idea of just swinging through all the images at once sounds like: Somebody forgot what the term "attack" means in the game.
And listening for breathing or the sounds a body makes won't help. The spell says that creatures dependent on sight or sound won't be able to discern the difference.
As for the "I'm facing a mage and he casts a spell, I can still tell where he was." argument: You see a mage cast a spell, then do a 5 foot step. In five different directions. Or maybe not, since there's still one in the same square where he was.
You can stop and study the ground to look for footprints, in combat, but if I were the DM I'd say that taking your attention off the opponent that way is just begging for an AoO.
Try it some time in a fist fight. Stop and study the opponent's feet, and what his foot prints look like. You'll be studying his fist, close up, very quickly, and possibly studying the ceiling from a reclining position.
The spell description says that you can't tell, visually. Some might think that they're "special", and can do what the spell says they can't. If the DM is any good, they're wrong.
As for the idea of just waving them away with a sword is concerned: In 1st/2nd edition I knew people who decided that throwing a handful of sand at someone negated a Stoneskin, since it stopped a set number of attacks, and each grain of sand counted.
That's what the idea of just swinging through all the images at once sounds like: Somebody forgot what the term "attack" means in the game.
