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.
I use the Pathfinder version of mirror image, which behaves pretty much the same way as 1e/2e's version. I don't know what 3e's developers were thinking with the 3e version. They added a lot of fuss to a spell that was very simple at its core.
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.
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.
IMO, the images all must share the same space, and so they'll usually overlap.
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!Yeah, this is how I ran it. It's just easier.
But if the N images are spread out, why is the miss chance equal to 1/(N+1)?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.
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.
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?If you had Whirlwind Attack you could do so.
<snip>
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).
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.
Interestingly, there's a vague line in the spell description that just begs for an exploitation.
The images stay "near you", according to the spell, but how close is "near"?
So my spell caster uses the spell while under concealment, then sends them out as spell fodder while never revealing him/herself at all. They only need to be near each other, after all.
This reduces the miss chance from, say, one in six to zero in five.
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?