• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 3E/3.5 Your take on Mirror Image, 3.0 or 3.5

Yeah, ruling that they're in the same square is simpler, but opens it up to the "Why can't I just swing my pole arm through the entire square?" argument.
.... Because your pole arm is a 1 inch wooden shaft with maybe a 2 inch thick piece of metal at the end. the images will duck dodge.
Or. Fine the giant sweeps his polearm thru your 5 foot square and auto hits you think that you are a mirror image. You fall in the lava. Roll up new pc.
... I always try to balance RAW and RAI. Because I had rules/grammar lawyers gripe to get their way but stay mute if their argument used against them would hurt their pc.

I subscribe to the "yes, but..." school of DMing...if a player tried this (or any of the crazy stuff I listed for the one image per 5' square interpretation) i'd allow it...but I would consider it an area attack, give it a substantial penalty to atk and/or damage because it isn't a normal attack and move on. I don't want to discourage my players from creative problem solving but I also don't want to spend too much time over interpreting rules. "Generally" may not be the same as "always" but it should cover a significant portion of the time the spell is used.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Consider these scenarios:

A mage, balancing on the tip of a pike, casts the spell. There's only one place for him to be.

If he is levitating waving a torch, so are his images. So now we have up to 9 wizards balancing on pikes which weave in, out, around and through one another.

A mage casts the spell then screams at the fighter, "Here I am! It's me, right here!"

In the midst of 9 constantly shifting images of the same wizard screaming exactly the same way. Why are we fooled into thinking the ventriloquist's dummy is speaking? We see its lips move, so we perceive it to be the one speaking. Even though we know better intellectually.
 

It looks like my outrageous and patently stupid examples weren't outrageous or stupid enough.

Why would the spell duplicate what the caster is standing on?

Why would the spell mimic the caster's voice?

My point was that it's always possible to propose an improbably example that defeats any interpretation of the spell.

There's nothing in the spell description to suggest the images are all in your same square.

There is text suggesting that they aren't.

What you do with that is your business.
 

It looks like my outrageous and patently stupid examples weren't outrageous or stupid enough.

Why would the spell duplicate what the caster is standing on?

It duplicates his gear. Why would "balancing on a pike" differ from "standing on 8" stiletto heels"?

Why would the spell mimic the caster's voice?

It doesn't need to unless the images are so far apart that the correct target can be differentiated by hearing (which the spell indicates is not possible).

There's nothing in the spell description to suggest the images are all in your same square.

A random target indicates they are. I cannot strike at any of nine different squares with a dagger, can I?
 

It duplicates his gear. Why would "balancing on a pike" differ from "standing on 8" stiletto heels"?
Because shows are worn, and thus attended items. (i.e. gear). The floor, bridge, tightrope or pike you're standing on isn't.
It doesn't need to unless the images are so far apart that the correct target can be differentiated by hearing (which the spell indicates is not possible).
I'll give you that one.
A random target indicates they are. I cannot strike at any of nine different squares with a dagger, can I?
You get to choose which square you approach and strike at with that dagger. How do you choose though? Roll a D9? :)

Random target is the general rule, since you can't distinguish one image from another. But given six versions of a person standing in a group, each in a separate squares, how else would you choose? You could make a tactical, logical decision. You could try to Search the area, wasting your round and allowing the caster to re-shuffle on his action, thus making your Search results utterly useless. Or you could roll a dice.

Rolling a dice is the general because it keeps play going, makes life simpler for the DM and players. It in no way implies that they're in the same square. Nor is "roll a dice" the only option. It's just the general rule.
 

Because shows are worn, and thus attended items. (i.e. gear). The floor, bridge, tightrope or pike you're standing on isn't.

A good question arises from that - if our Wizard is standing on a pillar of rock, or on a narrow ledge, do some or all of the images appear standing in mid-air? If the caster is holding a pike, do some of his images appear impales upon it? They should each have a pike, I assume, as that would be attended gear.

I'll give you that one.

Fair enough. So if half the images are in front of the attacker and half are behind, why can't he tell whether the wizard casting a spell is in front of him or behind him?

You get to choose which square you approach and strike at with that dagger. How do you choose though? Roll a D9? :)

I have to be standing somewhere. I may not even be able to get into range of some of those squares.

Rolling a dice is the general because it keeps play going, makes life simpler for the DM and players. It in no way implies that they're in the same square. Nor is "roll a dice" the only option. It's just the general rule.

OK, let's assume we are arranged as follows (C = Caster, E = Enemy and I = Image):

W I I I I I I I I

E

The enemy can attack W, or one of the I's. Two questions:

(a) He guesses wrong and hits. Do all the other images further right dissipate? They are no longer within 5' of the caster or another image.

(b) He misses. Can the Wizard take a 5' step, followed by a full round action, to rearrange the images as follows (the enemy, of course, not moving)?
..I I I I I I I I W

E

Not bad - a 50' step! But he must be able to - he can rearrange everything to his liking, right? If he can't, a shuffle that puts an enemy back to a random roll seems pretty unlikely.

Oh, and the enemy can fly, but the Wizard and his images are standing along a 5' wide ledge, so they can't move out of that line structure.
 

A good question arises from that - if our Wizard is standing on a pillar of rock, or on a narrow ledge, do some or all of the images appear standing in mid-air? If the caster is holding a pike, do some of his images appear impales upon it? They should each have a pike, I assume, as that would be attended gear.
Yes, if the caster is holding a weapon, so would the images. Would the be impaled? Only if the DM decides to functionally disallow the spell by being a jerk. The pike might pass through the square occupied by an image (or even the caster), but for the pike to impale an image, the caster would have to strike at it, making an attack. And, as we know, attacks pop images.

Fair enough. So if half the images are in front of the attacker and half are behind, why can't he tell whether the wizard casting a spell is in front of him or behind him?
Why are they behind the attacker?
I have to be standing somewhere. I may not even be able to get into range of some of those squares.
Unless the caster was standing right next to the attacker when the spell was cast, and the caster then failed to move (even a 5 foot step), there's no requirement that any of the images (or the original) be within striking distance of the attacker. The attacker would have to decide where to step up to, and where to strike.

And like I said, any caster who gives away his or her position deserves to get hit.
OK, let's assume we are arranged as follows (C = Caster, E = Enemy and I = Image):

W I I I I I I I I
E
Okay, so we're assuming that the images form a line, rather than the "cluster" described in the spell. With you so far...

The enemy can attack W, or one of the I's. Two questions:

(a) He guesses wrong and hits. Do all the other images further right dissipate? They are no longer within 5' of the caster or another image.
By your illustration, they're all within 5 feet of another image. They're just not within five feet of the caster. If the attacker has the Spellcraft to recognize the anomaly then they'll know that the caster, standing alone, has to be real.

(b) He misses. Can the Wizard take a 5' step, followed by a full round action, to rearrange the images as follows (the enemy, of course, not moving)?
..I I I I I I I I W
E
Are you asking if the caster can move 50 feet with a five foot step? I think the question answers itself. No. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Not bad - a 50' step! But he must be able to - he can rearrange everything to his liking, right? If he can't, a shuffle that puts an enemy back to a random roll seems pretty unlikely.
Okay, my question answered. Your example presumes an arrangement (a chorus line) that the spell description doesn't include. It talks about a "cluster", and never says that the caster has direct control, other than the chance to switch places with images. Also, I'm guessing that you're envisioning a wall at the left side of our text frame, so images couldn't shuffle past?
Oh, and the enemy can fly, but the Wizard and his images are standing along a 5' wide ledge, so they can't move out of that line structure.
Do you recall where I pointed out that the "roll randomly" part was the "general rule", not the universal/only rule? You're trying to invent scenarios where that general rule doesn't work. Which is why it's a general rule, not the universal/only rule.

Also, do you recall where I wrote that any interpretation of any spell can be shown to be invalid by someone concocting an unlikely scenario specifically designed to break the spell?

I actually meant that.

And when I said that the only way to avoid this was to get rid of all the spells, items, feats and non-real-world creatures?

Yeah, I meant that too.

So, having read what I wrote, you didn't have to go out of your way to prove me right. I mean, it's kinda nice that you did, but you didn't have to.

Let's think about the all-in-one-square interpretation, and a few of your own examples.

A wizard, holding a pike, casts Mirror Image. Are at least some of the images impaled? If they were in separate squares they wouldn't have to be, but all crowded into one? A lot harder to envision them not being impaled, isn't it?

A caster with his entourage is standing on a ledge, facing an attacker who can fly. Attacker swings his spiked chain at the caster. How does he "hit" only one image? He can't have images dancing aside, there's no place for them to dance to.

Or forget the spiked chain. Any slashing weapon presents the same challenge. Attacker can be close enough to slash his scimitar or saber through the square, striking sparks along the wall behind as he goes, and leaving no chance that he won't at least touch-attack *something*. How does he "hit" only one image, if they're all in the same square? Not really possible, is it?

Any explanation can be taken apart by contriving the right circumstance. So do we just say that the spell can't work at all? That's kind of what's left, isn't it?

Alternately, what we're left with is that always unsatisfactory explanation of "Because it's magic".

But I'm curious: When the spell says the images "separate from you", how/why do you read that as "The images don't separate from you"? Why would the description emphasize that the images have to remain within five feet of each other, or the caster, if in fact they never get even three feet from the caster, and remain in his/her square? Why not just write, "The images all stay with the caster"?

The spell says they separate. The description says they stay in a cluster, with none being more than one square (five feet) away from another image, or the original. It doesn't say that they don't separate, or that they remain with the caster.

Does that separation allow images to share squares with each other, or the original? Well, for the "pass through one another" aspect, they'd have to be able to. Which also means that they don't perfectly mimic the caster's actions all the time. If they did, they couldn't change places. Image has to move left while caster moves right at some point.

Now what happens if the caster throws a dagger? All the images throw daggers, naturally. Do all of the daggers converge on the single target? Or, once in the air, do the duplicates disappear. They're no longer attended objects, after all.

Treating it like science, they should disappear. The spell shouldn't cover them.

Treating it like magic, which works "the way it's supposed to", you'll see daggers converging on a target, to hit or miss together at that point.

So let the spell work "the way it's supposed to". Don't try to dissect it. Don't try to logic it apart. Play it as written, and get on with the game.
 
Last edited:

You could try to Search the area, wasting your round
Why would it be a waste? You now know who to take OAs against. You can also tell your friends who to attack. In a lot of cases that will be better than the whole party having to hack their way through half-a-dozen images.
 

Sweet. This is what I'm talking about.

Now I feel like I'm at the game table... AHhhhhh... It feels good to be back home, lol.


To address how I dealt with issus like on a rock or on a pike.

Presuming the caster could be standing on a pike the images would NOT be standing on pikes, they would be 5 feet from the caster down and to the side. On a rock same thing. The pike would NOT be duplicated.

As far as the in mid-air thing. The combat area is a 3 dimensional space and the spell says that the images need only appear within five feet of the caster or another image. You could have one Above you, one behind you one in front of you, so on and so forth. They would appear to be walking in mid air if you walked.
 

Why would it be a waste? You now know who to take OAs against. You can also tell your friends who to attack. In a lot of cases that will be better than the whole party having to hack their way through half-a-dozen images.
Why would it be a waste? Because it takes a full round action to search one five foot square.
That will tell you if that one image is real or not, nothing more. If you're searching the wrong square you only learn about that one square. Unless, of course, the image appears to avoid your groping hands, just as the real caster would. If that happens, you learn nothing.

Alternately, if all the images are in one square, constantly shifting and switching places, all you've done is verify something you already knew, that one of those images is the caster. But unless you've grabbed hold (something you can't do as part of a Search), you've got nothing. The image you identified can get lost in the shuffle. Earlier editions included the note that, once you identified an image as the caster you could continue to attack that image for the rest of the round. That text is notably missing from the 3.5 SRD.

Most people still play as if the text were there, but by RAW, identifying which image is real gives you nothing.

And whatever you do manage to learn becomes obsolete next round.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top