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

[Scrivener of Doom]

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! (snip)

True but you cannot attack the entire space a creature occupies with your sword. A 5' square (or cube, depending on how you look at it) has a lot of dead air that your sword will swing through on a normal miss, forgetting the whole mirror image issue.

 

[Uller]

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.

...and when you are effectively blind you grant combat advantage, sneak attacks, etc. Doesn't seem like a particularly effective counter.

 

[Vegepygmy]

IMO, the images all must share the same space, and so they'll usually overlap.

That's how I interpret it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm not confused about what the term "attack" means in the game. I'm just confused about the fiction that I'm meant to be imagining. [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] repeated my point for me upthread - I don't see how I'm supposed to immerse into the fiction when this spell is using these apparently wonky mechanics.

Because I haven't played much 3E I haven't seen this spell in action since my Rolemaster days - where it is called "Replica Images" creating simple figments about the caster, and the question of which one an attacker targets is resolved via Perception mechanics and common sense based on the fictional positioning of all involved. I saw it used in AD&D too, but back there it just modelled the chaos of melee within a 1 minute round. But this 3E version I don't really get at all!

The image doesn't stop the sword. It just gets you to swing at empty space.

But if there are 8 images plus a warm body within a 5' square, and I'm wielding (say) a great axe, how much space is there that is empty both of the body and of other images? I mean, if I know there's mirror images around it's not like I'm going to muck around with nuanced attacks that are aimed just-so - I can just heave-ho at the lot of them, because a clip is as good as a crit ("The figments . . . disappear when struck").

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.

OK. I think my plate armour wearing, greataxe wielding fighter is happy to run the risk of a 3rd level mage's OA with staff or dagger if that will eliminate an 80% miss chance (assuming a 3rd level caster with 4 images).

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.

I just noticed some more weird things from the spell description in the 3.5 SRD:

observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. . .

An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled.​

So why does it not fool me if I'm blind, but if I can see it then it fools my hearing too? Is that some sort of mind control? Well, the spell type says "figment", not "phanstasm", and there's no Will saving throw. So what's up with that? I would have thought Tremorsense or Blindfighting or just a good Perception/Listen skill would be the perfect counter for this spell.

And here's something else:

Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).​

So if I make an attack with a torch or a flask of oil - which is a roll to hit, dealing fire damage - I can destroy a figment; but if I drop a Fireball on the whole lot of them, I can't. Why is the hotter fire of a fireball less damaging than the flame from a torch or lantern oil.

Or if a disarmed kobold punches one of them with its puny fist, it pops; but if a dragon lands on the lot of them, triggering an AoE attack with a Reflex save, then it doesn't pop any (they just look very flat). Why is a kobold's fist tougher against Mirror Images than the weight of a whole dragon?

Putting the same point in game terms: why does the fiction of Mirror Image differ depending on the mechanical convention adopted to model an attack (saving throw rather than attack roll)? It doesn't really make much sense to me.

EDIT: I also just looked at the SRD, which says that Searching a 5' x 5' area (including for footprints) is a full round action, and that says using a skill that takes 1 action usually provokes an OA. I assume that taking a full round action to search therefore would provoke an OA. Nevertheless, as I said, an OA from a 3rd level wizard doesn't sound that fearsome (approx 15% chance to hit through my plate armour, for 1d4 damage or so). Giving up the full round seems worthwhile too if it lets me work out which one to attack (say if the mage provokes an OA by casting next to me), and/or tell my friends which one to attack (if they act after my Search check but before the wizard's next turn).

 

[Deset Gled]

If this is the only reason, then rule that the images can't be defeated by closing your eyes.

The spell description specifically states "An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect."

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,

Note that the spell has a somatic component. Moving in such a way to confuse an observer about which image is real could easily be part of that.

So why does it not fool me if I'm blind, but if I can see it then it fools my hearing too?

There's an old adage in the theatre world: "if you can't see them, you can't hear them".

It's magic. The visual component is necessary for the spell to take effect. Does it make scientific sense? Not really. Does it make scientific sense that you need a pound of gold to make a Wall of Iron? No, they're completely different elements. Sometimes you just gotta roll with it.

...and when you are effectively blind you grant combat advantage, sneak attacks, etc. Doesn't seem like a particularly effective counter.

It would be relatively trivial to close your eyes as a free action before you take a swing, and immediately open them afterwards. You're vulnerable to readied actions, but not much else.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6747056]Des[/MENTION]ert Gled: what's your opinion of using a Search check (as a full round action drawing an OA, per my reading of the SRD) to identify which of several images is the real caster (via footprints etc)?

 

[GaimMastr]

FRA

@Desert Gled: what's your opinion of using a Search check (as a full round action drawing an OA, per my reading of the SRD) to identify which of several images is the real caster (via footprints etc)?

Searching during combat is a full round action and "usually" triggers an AoO.

As for the difficulty check, I'd start it at 20 + the spell level (22).

 

[GaimMastr]

NIce...

It's relieving to know that there are so many different views on this. It doesn't, however, surprise me that some of you didn't even think to RAW.

While I dislike the simplified versions of the spell, I appreciate the input.

In my games I have multiple version available as I have players who believe that the spell should function in different ways and we agreed on having multiple versions. I have ruled that there are 2 versions of the spell. The one that functions like the PF version is Lv 2 and the version where the images spread out is lv 3.

If a fighter say for example is fighting a caster of MI. In order for the caster to even know what happened what the spell was cast would require knowledge of spellcraft. The spell description is designed to purposefully suspend belief of the true caster in the person attempting to attack. The method I use to determine that the caster was hit, for the simpleton version of the spell, is If there are 3 images and a caster I roll a d4; The number I roll is the caster and the player then rolls a d4, if the numbers match the caster was struck. In the advanced version where you can place the images withinn 5 feet of the caster or another image the attacker is forced to pick a random one within range using the same dice method. This does mean that some of them may even be out of the immediate threat range of the attacker, unless they were to move. This could potentially provoke AoO's from the caster OR even a figment which can give away the ruse of that particular figment as the attack would be insubstantial.

I find the description of the RAW on the spell very cut-and-dry personally so this helps with me being able to adjudicate on the fly like this.

And now to formulate my next inquiry for posthumous postulation. ...Look for it...

 

[Empirate]

I find it curious to see so many folk who seem to have serious problems with this spell. I find the spell description quite sufficient to rule how the spell works.

As for imagining it, or immersing myself into the "fiction" as somebody called it... I seem to say this a lot on this board, but please, please read the rules first, understand them second, and only then start to think about the way you'd imagine this or about the way it "works"! Don't go from basic assumptions like "swinging your axe just so should enable you to hit all the images", or "but you could look at the footprints" (as if a figment couldn't easily replicate those, too...), or "but the fireball is even hotter, so the magical figments should burn even better than from a torch" (can't believe I'm actually typing this).

I was very much impressed by the quantum effect hypothesis offered upthread. It basically takes care of everything. But other ways of explaining how the spell works in-game-world are very much possible. As long as you take a peek at what the spell actually does (in game terms) first and come up with your in-game-world explanations second!



And yes, it's a powerful spell for 2nd level, but so are others (Glitterdust, Silence, Invisibility...). When playing a Wizard, I usually try to memorize this every day, but it's not so stupidly powerful that it makes you "safe" (whatever that might mean in D&D), or that it's an automatic go-to in the first round of every combat. In fact, it's a good pick for Sorcerers, but far from mandatory. It's not Detect Magic or Dispel Magic, it's just rather good is all.

 

[Grogg of the North]

Mirror Image is actually pretty easy to defeat. It's called Pierce Magical Concealment.