Mirror Image while mounted?

[Equinox]

Let's say a caster employs the Mirror Image spell (and creating 4 images) while riding a horse. What happens? They way I see it, there are two options:

Option 1: four images are created, floating in mid-air. Only the true caster is on a horse, making it easy for enemies to hit him, and rendering the spell useless.

Option 2: Screw it, it's magic. It just works. There are four images, therefore the chance for an enemy to hit the real caster is 20%. Don't overthink it.

Option 3: Well, you tell me. Is there an option 3?

[Morcleon]

I would let the spell similarly duplicate the caster's horse as well. :smalltongue:

[Feytalist]

This is a silly option, but sure why not:

If the mount is a familiar or animal companion, any spell the caster casts will also affect the mount. (I'm assuming a mount is generally 5 feet or less from its rider, yes?) Which neatly solves the issue.


But most probable answer? It's magic, just roll with it.

[ArcturusV]

Share spell with your mount, so there's four mounted images charging you? Almost any mounted character I actually run has some form of special mount that makes spell sharing a thing, even if it's just getting my DM to accept "Familiar: Light Horse" as a special option for my Wizard.

Edit: Celerity'd!

[Equinox]

Well, here's the thing. I could roll with mirror-imaged horses if it was a special mount, but it's not. It's just a Heavy Warhorse the character bought in town for some gold. Since it's a separate creature from the caster, I don't think it's appropriate to have Mirror Image to affect the horse as well.

[ArcturusV]

Maybe. But maybe not. I suppose it depends. Here's a line that I may, reasonable, draw.

If your Mirror Image was on an Item? It might be calibrated by the original enchantment just to mirror the owner and everything they are wearing. So you might get the "Copies floating in mid air". Which I'd find hilarious. But it's an item so you can pawn it off onto a ground pounding companion to get more use out of it.

If it's a spell you actually cast? Then you're controlling the illusion and crafting it on the fly for maximum effect. Unless you're a Sorcerer with 4 Int or something (I've played that character before....) You probably won't forget to make a copy of your horse as well as part of your images.

[Equinox]

But it's not about "forgetting" or not "forgetting" to make a copy of your horse. Mirror Image is a Personal spell. The horse is a different creature.

Let's focus the discussion slightly please. What I want is a solution that:

a. Doesn't break the rules. At least not too egregiously.
b. Doesn't completely screw the player over, a-la, "well your spell fails, deal with it"
c. Makes at least a modicum of sense ingame.


So far, the solutions I've seen:
1. Four images floating in midair. Fails (b)
2. "Screw it, it's magic, it just works". Fails (c)
3. Make copies of the horse too. Fails (a)

[John Longarrow]

I'd have the rules work as written.

If they target the caster, they have a 1 in 5 change of hitting.

If they target the horse, no problem.

visual description? "OK, you see what looks like 5 guys on the back of a horse and your brain hurts from looking at it, since the guys keep swapping who's in the saddle". Easy to visualize for a player? Probably not. Hence the "Your brain hurts". Easy to resolve in game? Yep.

When an attack is made, are you aiming at the guy sitting straight up in the saddle, the guy leaning to the right wiggling his fingers, the guy looking back over his left shoulder, or one of the other two? Since its magic it doesn't have to be easy to describe. The player just needs to know the effect in game.

[Curmudgeon]

Let's say a caster employs the Mirror Image spell (and creating 4 images) while riding a horse. What happens? They way I see it, there are two options:

Option 1: four images are created, floating in mid-air. Only the true caster is on a horse, making it easy for enemies to hit him, and rendering the spell useless.

Option 2: Screw it, it's magic. It just works. There are four images, therefore the chance for an enemy to hit the real caster is 20%. Don't overthink it.

Option 3: Well, you tell me. Is there an option 3?
Yes, Option 3: You share your mount's entire 10'x10' space while mounted, so all the Mirror Images in your horse's squares appear to be as much on the horse as you are. However, each Mirror Image is only guaranteed to be within 5' of another image or the caster, so not all of them will be in the horse's squares.

As a guestimage :smallwink:, I'd go with half of the Images on the horse, and half off, but that's just because I don't want to bother working out the probability distributions for random chains of figures 5' apart.

[Stitches]

Well, here's the thing. I could roll with mirror-imaged horses if it was a special mount, but it's not. It's just a Heavy Warhorse the character bought in town for some gold. Since it's a separate creature from the caster, I don't think it's appropriate to have Mirror Image to affect the horse as well.

I would say the horse is under your possession, just like your clothes, pouches, weapons, etc... Therefore, it would be duplicated until you got off, it would come back when you get on. Just like if you picked something up when invisible, it would disappear/reappear when dropped.

[Hecuba]

But it's not about "forgetting" or not "forgetting" to make a copy of your horse. Mirror Image is a Personal spell. The horse is a different creature.

Let's focus the discussion slightly please. What I want is a solution that:

a. Doesn't break the rules. At least not too egregiously.
b. Doesn't completely screw the player over, a-la, "well your spell fails, deal with it"
c. Makes at least a modicum of sense ingame.


So far, the solutions I've seen:
1. Four images floating in midair. Fails (b)
2. "Screw it, it's magic, it just works". Fails (c)
3. Make copies of the horse too. Fails (a)

There doesn't seem to be a solution that meets your criteria for the case provided. Specifically, you seem to be asking for a solution that both does and does not make a personal spell extend to a non-personal creature.

[Equinox]

Thanks, Curmudgeon and John, good ideas!

[Telonius]

Solution: always travel with five extra horses, for just such an occasion.

[TheTinyMan]

I would resolve the situation as follows:

Enemies who are specifically targeting you see four duplicates of both you and your horse, and suffer the usual effects of Mirror Image.

Enemies who are specifically targeting your horse are able to identify, as the action resolves, which is the real horse and which are the fakes. The fake ones are a little blurry or transparent because they're not really the spell target. But they can only do this when they've committed to their action - so they don't suffer the effect of Mirror Image. They have to focus their eyes and attention on the horse.

Because of the blurry visuals, enemies watching someone targeting the horse won't necessarily be able to tell which horse-rider image it was that was picked, so seeing someone else target the horse successfully won't invalidate your own image.

Is that too kludgey? :-\

[Fax Celestis]

Stop marrying fluff and mechanics. They are separate things.

[Segev]

The fact that Mirror Image always occupies your own space anyway tells me that it's more a "Agent Smith dodging bullets" type visual, anyway. You're only where you appear to be 1/5 of the time, and you appear to be in 5 other positions, but they overlap and jump like a bad editing effect. It's eye-jarring illusion magic. Doing it from horseback doesn't make aiming at the right "you" any easier.

[Curmudgeon]

The fact that Mirror Image always occupies your own space anyway tells me ...
Where did you get that idea from?
These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. The chain of images can be n x 5' from the spellcaster.

[Segev]

Hm, you're right.

That would make it seem odd that you'd roll randomly to determine if the foe targets you or an image. They should pick the square they're targeting.

I had assumed it was all one space because the spell says closing your eyes/being blind makes you immune to the spell's deception. Thus, you can target the square the wizard is in and fire, having only a 50% miss chance. If it's actually spreading you across several potential squares, that would make it harder to pinpoint your right one, one would think.

It's especially weird that closing one's eyes helps, when it says neither vision nor hearing will help you against the spell. But closing your eyes renders you immune.

[Scow2]

Stop marrying fluff and mechanics. They are separate things.
{Scrubbed}
Fluff and Crunch are both rules[/i][/b]. If they weren't, the spell wouldn't have four paragraphs describing how the spell works, but only half of one of them being relevant. If anything, Fluff Trumps mechanics, because the Fluff tells you what happens and how it happens, while the mechanics are merely telling you how to represent the action as it's described with dice and other artificial mechanics under normal circumstances. A dagger in the eye is still a dagger in the eye.



The spell "Fails" to work in its intended manner on a horse: It duplicates the caster and all his items properly, but they're all trying to ride horses that aren't there. This is why the mechanical resolution " roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment" is preceded with the word "Generally". The caster images are indistinguishable - but the ones just riding in midair, although visually identical to the one on the horse, are clearly nonsense not because of flaws in the illusion, but because they aren't on a horse. If the Caster were riding an invisible horse instead, it would be impossible to determine the real caster.

If there weren't situations where a person could distinguish flawlessly which one is the real caster, there wouldn't be rules about how to handle them, and what countermeasures the caster can take.

[Equinox]

In 3rd edition, Mirror Images occupied your space. In 3.5, they changed it, but left the "50% miss chance if you close your eyes" caveat in place (which is another can of worms altogether).

[Fax Celestis]

Feel free to do whatever you want, but marrying fluff to mechanics is a terrific way to keep having these arguments.

The spell says how it works (mechanics) and why it works (fluff). If those are independent, then you can change either one of them and retain the other without any undue harm. In this instance, you can change the fluff and retain the mechanics by simply saying that in this sort of case, the mirror image includes the horse. Magic, even lower level magic, has been known to do stranger things.

However, if the fluff and mechanics are linked to each other and cannot be divorced, then you end up with situations like the argument above.

Let me ask a question: would your argument change if the horse being ridden was created by a silent image, programmed image, or similar? What if it were a phantom steed? Created by a mount spell?

[GolemsVoice]

I'd let the spell just duplicate the horse, too, but rule that the hose can still be hit normally. It's not the most consistent solution, but it's better than arguing abut it for 10 minutes.

[Scow2]

Feel free to do whatever you want, but marrying fluff to mechanics is a terrific way to keep having these arguments.

The spell says how it works (mechanics) and why it works (fluff). If those are independent, then you can change either one of them and retain the other without any undue harm. In this instance, you can change the fluff and retain the mechanics by simply saying that in this sort of case, the mirror image includes the horse. Magic, even lower level magic, has been known to do stranger things.

However, if the fluff and mechanics are linked to each other and cannot be divorced, then you end up with situations like the argument above.

Let me ask a question: would your argument change if the horse being ridden was created by a silent image, programmed image, or similar? What if it were a phantom steed? Created by a mount spell?If the horse is illusory or magic too, then it's duplicated by the spell. But that's not what happens. And, you're spending more casting resources on it, balancing it out a bit more.

Mirror image is a good defensive spell, but it has some huge, easily-bypassed holes in it. It's why it's only level 2, like Blur, while Displacement is level 3, and Greater Invisibility is level 4. The only reason we're having an argument is because of the silly belief that "the Crunch" should always be in effect even when it's as nonsensical as this case - especially since the wording of the spell has "it creates 1d4+1/3 Caster level unique images" as stronger implementation of crunch than "Generally, attacks have a random chance of targetting an illusion instead of the caster."

[Fax Celestis]

If the horse is illusory or magic too, then it's duplicated by the spell.

Got it. We're not going to agree on this. Good day.

[Equinox]

The spell says how it works (mechanics) and why it works (fluff).And here is the crux of the issue: what is fluff and what is crunch?

One interpretation:
Crunch: the spell gives the caster's enemies a miss chance equal to 100%*N/(N+1), where N is the number rolled on 1d4+1/3 levels.
Fluff: the spell does so by creating images of the caster

Another interpretation:
Main Crunch aka the spell effect: the spell creates 1d4+1/3 levels images of the caster.
Secondary Crunch aka consequences: generally, this means a miss chance equal to 100%*N/(N+1).
Fluff: the images twist and swirl, oooh, look at the nice images

The difference is small, but significant. If you're a fan of the first interpretation, you need to maintain the 100%*N/(N+1) miss chance at all costs. To you, this miss chance is what the spell does. Everything else - images floating or not floating in midair, for example - is fluff.

On the other hand, if you accept the second interpretation, all you require for crunch is the appearance of the images. The miss chance will be generally 100%*N/(N+1), but more specifically, it'll be whatever logic dictates it to be. And if you accept this interpretation, you will not have enemies swinging at images floating in midair with no horse under them.

[Segev]

Except that the spell specifically says, "observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image." If looking at the images to see which one(s) weren't on the horse could reveal which is the "real you," then that rule would be violated. That would be "use[ing] vision...to tell which one is you."

[Scow2]

Except that the spell specifically says, "observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image." If looking at the images to see which one(s) weren't on the horse could reveal which is the "real you," then that rule would be violated. That would be "use[ing] vision...to tell which one is you."

You can't tell which one's the real caster based on things like flaws/imperfections in the illusion - You can't make a spot check to see through/disbelieve it. Unfortunately, the horse is not part of the illusion. If the Horse was invisible, there would be no way to tell which one's real.

[Segev]

You can't tell which one's the real caster based on things like flaws/imperfections in the illusion - You can't make a spot check to see through/disbelieve it. Unfortunately, the horse is not part of the illusion. If the Horse was invisible, there would be no way to tell which one's real.

Except that the rules say nothing about "but you can use vision if it involves things not affected by the spell."

You don't get to appeal to "the RAW as I believe they are important" and then ignore the next sentence based on "but my logic about fluff says it should work this way."

[Ashtagon]

I would say the horse is under your possession, just like your clothes, pouches, weapons, etc... Therefore, it would be duplicated until you got off, it would come back when you get on. Just like if you picked something up when invisible, it would disappear/reappear when dropped.

Except if you cast invisibility while riding a horse, the horse doesn't turn invisible.

Personally, I like the "five guys riding a horse; your brain hurts to look at it" approach.

[supervillan]

Except that the rules say nothing about "but you can use vision if it involves things not affected by the spell."

You don't get to appeal to "the RAW as I believe they are important" and then ignore the next sentence based on "but my logic about fluff says it should work this way."

RAW is that you can't tell the images apart by using sight or hearing. But RAW doesn't say you can't tell that there is something very fishy about several identical copies of a man sat on a horse which are floating in mid air close-by. Which is pretty obvious isn't it?

The spell doesn't copy the horse. It can't. It has a "personal" range. It only produces copies of the caster (notwithstanding spell-sharing abilities).

My solution is that the copies do not appear on the horse, nor do they float in mid-air. They appear on the ground, apparently walking. Since copies can move through each other by RAW, I don't think that they are static. They must continue to obey RAW by remaining within 5' of at least one other image or the caster.

All that being said, a mounted wizard casting mirror image isn't being very clever.

[Sith_Happens]

I'd have the rules work as written.

If they target the caster, they have a 1 in 5 change of hitting.

If they target the horse, no problem.

visual description? "OK, you see what looks like 5 guys on the back of a horse and your brain hurts from looking at it, since the guys keep swapping who's in the saddle". Easy to visualize for a player? Probably not. Hence the "Your brain hurts". Easy to resolve in game? Yep.

When an attack is made, are you aiming at the guy sitting straight up in the saddle, the guy leaning to the right wiggling his fingers, the guy looking back over his left shoulder, or one of the other two? Since its magic it doesn't have to be easy to describe. The player just needs to know the effect in game.

I like this. It stops working/making sense if you spread the images out too far, but I don't think I've ever had my images not share my space anyways (though I can think of a few situations where I'd want to).

[Urpriest]

The Mirror Image spell is inherently inconsistent. It says that the images spread out 5 feet from each other, but it also implies that someone fighting them rolls randomly to target you which can only happen if they share your space.

As a DM, you have to rule one way or the other, or turn into some sort of silly Curmudgeon-beast and roam the forums baying for non-TWF rogue builds, mauling any Factotum you come across.

The options:

1. The images spread out from you. In this case, there has to be a moment when they are moving differently from eachother, since they have to move apart. So they start together, move apart, and some of them dismount the horse. The enemy doesn't know whether you dismounted or not, so must pick an image to target.

2. The images stay in your space. They all remain mounted on the same horse. It's a party.

[Scow2]

I'd have the rules work as written.

If they target the caster, they have a 1 in 5 change of hitting.
Except that's not how the spell works. If you target the caster, you must choose which caster you want to attack. For most purposes, this doesn't matter, because the caster has an equal chance of being any one of them, and each one is identical to the caster, and mimic the caster's actions. If the player hasn't chosen a way to distinguish between the 'real' one and a 'fake', then he has an equal chance of hitting any given image.

However, if the player does have a way of 'locking down' which one is the real one (Such as by readying an action to strike the real caster if someone else hits it, for example), a successful attack hits the real caster, not a copy.

What this means is that, if the caster's riding a horse, the Mirror Images are also riding - however, they don't have a horse to ride. If it weren't for the lack of horses, the riders would be completely indistinguishable, visually and audiably. Unfortunately for our caster, although they are visually indistinguishable in form, there's only one horse to ride

The "All the mirror images are riding the same horse" doesn't work because even then - you're still attacking the real caster, even if dupilicates are sharing the same physical space.

When it comes to "Are the mirror images in the same space or not?" - No, they don't have to be, as long they're at least adjacent to each other. However, choosing a square doesn't matter, because as far as the game is concerned, any of the figures can be the "real" one - Not even the caster's player knows which one is the 'real' one, or needs to care.

"Fluff" - Text saying what's actually happening in the world - trumps "Crunch" - the mechnical suggestions on how to model the in-world action in the metagame. Otherwise, you might as well switch to Parcheesi.

[Ashtagon]

When it comes to "Are the mirror images in the same space or not?" - No, they don't have to be, as long they're at least adjacent to each other. However, choosing a square doesn't matter, because as far as the game is concerned, any of the figures can be the "real" one - Not even the caster's player knows which one is the 'real' one, or needs to care.

I can think f a situation in which it does matter: any time you make an attack. If you attack with a melee weapon, it obviously must be one of the images adjacent to the target. Or one of those within 10 feet if using reach weapons. If you use a ranged weapon or spell, it must be an image close enough.

Since you end up being located in a Schrödinger space this way, I just rule that all five images remain in the same space for game purposes at all times. That's the rules description. In reality, just as noted in the various rulebooks, you are still darting back and forth, and may occasionally and briefly enter an adjacent space in the ebb and flow of combat.

So yeah. Five dudes sitting on a horse. It's magic Don't ask me how the horse doesn't collapse under the weight.

[Thanatosia]

The answer I like best and what i'd probably go with if I was DMing when this arouse is that the mirror images copy you, but not the horse, but don't float in air... instead they are constantly moving with the horse and mounting and dismounting.

I'd say you have the option of staying on the horse, in which case anyone who targets the mounted image hits you, but anyone targeting the dismounted images automatically misses you with no chance to hit you.

You also have the option of dismounting, in which case at least one image will always be mounted at any given time, which causes anyone targeting the mounted image to automatically miss you, but anyone targeting the unmounted images has one less image with which to roll their 'miss chance'.

YOu can change your mounted or dismounted status every turn, and the enemy has no way of knowing if it's an image or you thats mounted on any given turn.



Now ask me what happens when you cast Mirror Image while mounted on a flying pegasus without an independant method of flight... /runs away.

[Curmudgeon]

This "riding a horse" issue is manifested in other ways by Mirror Image figments. If the spellcaster climbs a narrow staircase, those "climbing" but not on the stairs are figments. Similarly, if the spellcaster walks down a narrow forested path, those figments walking through branches reveal themselves to be fakes. The problem is that on the spellcaster's next turn those figments can intermingle with the real person, so you've only got part of a round to take advantage of the reveal. Typically this means you need to Ready an action to trigger when a figment is revealed as bogus, and then you've temporarily eliminated only one of n Images. Or you can use Scow2's approach, but risk the chance of not acting at all.

[Big Fau]

3. Make copies of the horse too. Fails (a)

It only fails A if the horse gets attacked and you allow Mirror Image to protect it. If you rule that it makes copies of the horse to maintain the illusion, but that any attacks aimed at the horse don't suffer from the miss chance, it doesn't break the rule.

Remember that the spell Mirror Image doesn't place the duplicates in adjacent spaces; they share the caster's space and move with him. When mounted, your space is identical to that of your mount. It isn't unreasonable to have the spell make fake horses in the real one's space in order to maintain the effect, it's unreasonable to have the spell protect the horse unless it benefits from the Share Spell ability.

[Segev]

Honestly, the easiest way to handle it is to have the illusion have very eye-jarring effects. The mechanics state that sight and hearing cannot be used, and further state that "attackers must choose between indistinguishable targets." This means that the images are, in fact, indistinguishable, despite any potential environmental clues.

If you're trying to hit a mage on a horse with Mirror Image, you'll find that, when you focus on the mage, all the images seem to be on the horse. Or, rather, whichever image you focus on seems to be. Similarly, trying to focus on a mage on narrow stairs or walking down a forest path will have whatever mage you try to strike appear to be standing on the stairs or walking on the path. The illusion will warp the perceptions appropriately.

Focus on the horse, however, and you'll see only the real horse. Try to use this to then shift focus to the mage, again, though, and you'll lose track of it due to the shifting illusions.

[Chronos]

The rules allow people to use spells to do stupid things. The fact that you can use spells to do those stupid things does not reflect poorly on either the rules or on the spells. If you do choose to do stupid things, then that reflects poorly on you.

Thus, yes, you can cast Mirror Image while mounted. But it's stupid to do so, because being mounted significantly decreases the effectiveness of the illusion. The solution to this problem is not to make the spell more powerful to make up for your stupidity. The solution is to get off the horse before casting the spell.

And while we're at it, there's absolutely nothing wrong with blindness or closing your eyes stopping the effect of the illusion. Yes, you only have a 50% miss chance when fighting blind... but that's assuming you're targeting the correct square. If you have no way of knowing which of five squares your opponent is in, then fighting blind effectively gives you a miss chance twice as bad as keeping your eyes open.

[Talya]

Mechanically, you still have equal chance to hit a figment instead of the caster if aiming anything at her.

If you aim directly at the horse, your chance to hit is unaffected.

How does this work fluff-wise? It doesn't. it's "magic."

[Tock Zipporah]

I'd have the rules work as written.

If they target the caster, they have a 1 in 5 change of hitting.

If they target the horse, no problem.

visual description? "OK, you see what looks like 5 guys on the back of a horse and your brain hurts from looking at it, since the guys keep swapping who's in the saddle". Easy to visualize for a player? Probably not. Hence the "Your brain hurts". Easy to resolve in game? Yep.

When an attack is made, are you aiming at the guy sitting straight up in the saddle, the guy leaning to the right wiggling his fingers, the guy looking back over his left shoulder, or one of the other two? Since its magic it doesn't have to be easy to describe. The player just needs to know the effect in game.

This.

It's over-complicating the issue to think too hard about "Four images not riding the horse and one who is." The Mirror Image description says this:


Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck.

Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

The images would be "in a cluster" atop the horse. all within five feet. It'd naturally be hard to tell which is which, since you are basically seeing double (or quadruple) and having a hard time figuring out which image is which. They're also all shifting back and forth constantly--it says the images move through each other. So if you're picturing five images all standing perfectly still mirroring each other, you're doing it wrong. Picture them wavering back and forth, like in a cartoon when someone has a gong rung next to their head and starts seeing multiple images. You'd never be able to focus on them for long enough to say "THAT one is the one on the horse!"

[Chronos]

I think that the people who are saying "The rules say that you have an 80% miss chance, so that's what happens" are reading something into the rules that isn't actually there. The rules don't say that you have an 80% miss chance. The rules say that you have a bunch of duplicate images. They then say that the usual effect of those images is a miss chance, but this isn't a usual case.

[Segev]

I think that the people who are saying "The rules say that you have an 80% miss chance, so that's what happens" are reading something into the rules that isn't actually there. The rules don't say that you have an 80% miss chance. The rules say that you have a bunch of duplicate images. They then say that the usual effect of those images is a miss chance, but this isn't a usual case.
Perhaps, but you are ignoring that the rules do explicitly state that it is impossible via visual or audio means - not "impossible under most circumstances," but simply impossible - to tell which is really you and which are images. You are also ignoring that it further says, just before the part that says "generally...," that opponents "must select from among indistinguishable targets."

This isn't qualified. The "Generally..." bit says that one suggested way of resolving whether he picked the right one is to roll some dice to randomly pick one. But it doesn't change that the task of the enemy making the attack is to pick between "indistinguishable targets."

Not "indistinguishable under most circumstances," but "indistinguishable."

[Chronos]

So, what happens if the wizard with Mirror Image on yells "Hey, this one on the far right is the real me"? Would you argue that nobody would be able to hear him saying that, because it would be an auditory way of telling them apart? Because that's analogous to what the wizard is doing by riding a horse while using the spell.

[Segev]

So, what happens if the wizard with Mirror Image on yells "Hey, this one on the far right is the real me"? Would you argue that nobody would be able to hear him saying that, because it would be an auditory way of telling them apart? Because that's analogous to what the wizard is doing by riding a horse while using the spell.

Since all five of them are saying it, and he could be lying (or even mistaken), no. It doesn't tell the prospective attacker anything.

[jindra34]

So, what happens if the wizard with Mirror Image on yells "Hey, this one on the far right is the real me"? Would you argue that nobody would be able to hear him saying that, because it would be an auditory way of telling them apart? Because that's analogous to what the wizard is doing by riding a horse while using the spell.

They shift and move around. And would you really trust an enemy to tell you which one is real?

[Equinox]

Let's say you want to cast a beneficial touch spell on a mirror-imaged ally. And the caster says "hey, the one on the far right is me". Now, the spell's text says:


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

So, do you or do you not hear him saying "hey, the one on the far right is me"? At some point, you just have to admit that you can't always resolve this spell by RAW, because RAW doesn't always make sense.

[Segev]

Ironically, the RAW covers allies touching the right one, actually. It specifically says that enemies need to try to pick out the right one. Allies are not enemies.

[Equinox]

Ironically, the RAW covers allies touching the right one, actually. It specifically says that enemies need to try to pick out the right one. Allies are not enemies.
Ironically, you ignored the passage I quoted, probably because it was inconvenient for you to address.


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

Once again, CAN the ally hear the caster when the caster says "hey, I'm the one on the right!" or CAN'T? Straight answer, don't dance around it, don't defer to other portions of the spell's text.

[Segev]

Ironically, you ignored the passage I quoted, probably because it was inconvenient for you to address.



Once again, CAN the ally hear the caster when the caster says "hey, I'm the one on the right!" or CAN'T? Straight answer, don't dance around it, don't defer to other portions of the spell's text.

I find myself mildly irked that you call me to task for "dancing around it" or "ignoring" your quoted passage when those supporting your side of the argument have been doing so with far greater selectivity.

The RAW answer is that no, he can't tell them apart, but that, per the rules, he doesn't need to in order to target him with a touch spell. Does that make sense in a fluff-sense? No. Could I try to make it do so? Probably, but your snide attack on my intellectual honesty irritates me, so I have little wish to.

Per the RAW, you're right. The ally can't tell. And yet, per the RAW, because he's not an enemy, he doesn't have to pick between possible targets and risk choosing the wrong one.

[Equinox]

I don't have a "side of the argument", not sure where you got that from.

[Segev]

Okay, the "other" side of the argument, which has been claiming that the rules don't say that the suggested method of resolving whether a real target or an image have been hit are actual rules. And, from that, draws the conclusion that you can, in fact, tell the difference if you use external cues.

My apologies for assuming, from your tone and attack on my intellectual honesty, that you were on the side of the argument opposing mine. Your example adds to this sense because it appears to be an attempt at reductio ad absurdum on the reading I have given the RAW.

I stand by my reading of it. Normally, I would be all in favor of finding ways to make fluff work with crunch, or even house rule if it doesn't serve as a "screw you" to players when you do it. But the choice to accuse me not just of not addressing your question, but somehow doing so deliberately and with presumed intent to continue to "dance around" rather than deal with it, is obnoxious. Especially since you saw fit not to call anybody else who was selectively answering (as is the nature in forum discussions) out on it.

Since you only objected to me assuming you held the view that your tone and content suggested but did not out-and-out claim, I can only assume you meant to be insulting, and/or honestly believe me to be intellectually dishonest. I hope my answer, direct and irritated as it was, proves otherwise.

[Equinox]

I hope my answer, direct and irritated as it was, proves otherwise.Not really. Let's end this now, before you say even more things you'll regret later.

[Segev]

I note you continue to resort to indirect ad hominem. I don't believe I've said anything insulting to you, only expressed ire at your choice to attack.

But very well.

What remains unclear? I am willing to continue to discuss the RAW of the spell, but would appreciate no further aspersions be cast upon my character. I always endeavor to analyze completely, and never deliberately ignore something for my own convenience.

[John Longarrow]

Ally using touch spell does not need an attack roll. They simply waive their hand through the area and the magic works as soon as they make contact.

If the wizard doesn't want to be touched, ally would need to make a touch attack (being treated as an enemy). If wizard does want the touch spell, wizard moves to have flailing hand make contact. Since the illusions can pass through the caster and each other, but the spell doesn't let them go through someone else, the caster should be able to receive the touch spell.

[Segev]

Hm. I could be mistaken, but I think the rules actually require a touch attack against AC 10 in combat when the target is willing.

Most DMs waive this, if it is in fact a rule at all and I'm not simply misremembering. I know I would.

[Curmudgeon]

Perhaps, but you are ignoring that the rules do explicitly state that it is impossible via visual or audio means - not "impossible under most circumstances," but simply impossible - to tell which is really you and which are images. You are also ignoring that it further says, just before the part that says "generally...," that opponents "must select from among indistinguishable targets."

This isn't qualified. The "Generally..." bit says that one suggested way of resolving whether he picked the right one is to roll some dice to randomly pick one. But it doesn't change that the task of the enemy making the attack is to pick between "indistinguishable targets."

Not "indistinguishable under most circumstances," but "indistinguishable."
I don't see what you're so bothered about. Yes, it's impossible to visually distinguish the spellcaster from the Images. The spellcaster could be levitating nearby, mimicking riding a horse, and some of the figments could be on the actual horse and some others in the air. It's impossible to tell what the actual case is.

It's not impossible to make a guess that the "characters" in the air are all figments and ignore them. As I've pointed out, this could be dead wrong.

[Killer Angel]

I would say the horse is under your possession, just like your clothes, pouches, weapons, etc...

but...but... horses are not objects, they have a wisdom score (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0143.html)! :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

I don't see what you're so bothered about. Yes, it's impossible to visually distinguish the spellcaster from the Images. The spellcaster could be levitating nearby, mimicking riding a horse, and some of the figments could be on the actual horse and some others in the air. It's impossible to tell what the actual case is.

It's not impossible to make a guess that the "characters" in the air are all figments and ignore them. As I've pointed out, this could be dead wrong.

It doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out that the rules don't limit it to "the images" giving you the information to distinguish them. The rules simply say you can't tell. So no audio nor visual cues can give it away.

Ultimately, if I am the PC casting the spell, I want it to work as advertised and not find out that it actually backfires or does nothing because the enemy can guess which one is me unless I'm using it under white room laboratory conditions while the stars are properly aligned and the warranty hasn't run out and it's not a weekend or holiday.

[Curmudgeon]

Ultimately, if I am the PC casting the spell, I want it to work as advertised and not find out that it actually backfires or does nothing because the enemy can guess which one is me ...
An enemy can always guess which image to target; you have no control over their actions. So it seems you want something actually more than "as advertised" out of this spell.

The spell will work fine. Will you work with it effectively? That's the relevant question.

[Thanatosia]

The more I think about it the more I think that insisting that MI work under those conditions is like insisting on the fly spell letting you fly up 50ft in a room with a 10ft ceiling just because the fly spell doesn't say anything about ceilings in it's description. The spell is designed to work under certain conditions, and stubornly trying to shoehorn it's utility in conditions where it's unsuitable just isn't an effective use of the spell.

[Segev]

An enemy can always guess which image to target; you have no control over their actions. So it seems you want something actually more than "as advertised" out of this spell.

The spell will work fine. Will you work with it effectively? That's the relevant question.

I want the enemy's guess to not have greater accuracy than the spell indicates it should. "The enemy can guess with 100% accuracy because you're not in a white room under experimental controlled conditions" is definitely not working as advertised. And yes, I would count "you're on a horse" to be a situation that, if the DM decides the enemy can guess with 100% accuracy which image to target, the spell is not "working as advertised." Same with "walking up a narrow flight of stairs" or "walking through a forest on a trail."

[Segev]

The more I think about it the more I think that insisting that MI work under those conditions is like insisting on the fly spell letting you fly up 50ft in a room with a 10ft ceiling just because the fly spell doesn't say anything about ceilings in it's description. The spell is designed to work under certain conditions, and stubornly trying to shoehorn it's utility in conditions where it's unsuitable just isn't an effective use of the spell.

Fly also doesn't have language discussing how it cannot be limited nor foiled by such-and-such means. This spell does.

If Fly said, "no amount of vertical obstacle can prevent the character's ascent," then it would be a better analog to compare this on. Note that it lacks such language. While Mirror Image says quite clearly that no visual nor audio clues can help you discern the image from the reality.

[Chronos]

So does it also foil True Seeing? Because that works visually.

[John Longarrow]

Mirror Image
Illusion (Figment)

True Seeing
Sees through Illusions

True Seeing would see through Mirror Image as Mirror Image is an illusion.

[Curmudgeon]

I want the enemy's guess to not have greater accuracy than the spell indicates it should.
The spell cannot control the enemy's guesses; it doesn't have that capability. So you want something more powerful than what's specified in the spell description.

If you're on a horse and cast Mirror Image, I suggest you next cast Levitate and push off (take a 5' step) sideways, mimicking riding the horse in mid-air. This won't affect the enemy's guesses any more than if you stayed in the saddle — but it's the smart way to use Mirror Image. :smallsmile:
The rules allow people to use spells to do stupid things. Don't be one of those people. You've obviously taken some time to think about the problem, so spend some more time thinking about ways to deal with the problem (other than whining to your DM, that is).

[Segev]

Nobody's suggesting the spell affect people's guesses. What we're suggesting is that the spell does what it says it does, and creates INDISTINGUISHABLE (to vision and hearing) - even by external interaction - images.

True Seeing explicitly overcomes illusions, so obviously defeats Mirror Image.

"Being on a horse" doesn't have a clause that says it "gives visual cues that overcome effects which don't allow visual cues to help," nor does it do anything to illusions, nor to magic, nor anything else that Mirror Image might qualify as.

There are solutions to the problem that fit in with the definition of the spell and with fluff, if you must have them: the images all appear to sit on the horse together is probably the easiest. Personally, I'd let a wizard fluff it however he wanted as long as it didn't give the spell functionality it doesn't say it has. Removing functionality because you can't picture how it works, or worse, you don't like how it's described as working, is a DM's right, but is something which would ding my respect for and trust in him. It wouldn't be, by itself, anywhere near a deal-breaker, but it'd be a ding, and could add up with other things to form a discontent with his game if it became part of a pattern.

Especially if it became a pattern of things that only ever negatively affected me because I couldn't effectively use them against NPCs. It certainly would alter my decision as to whether to prepare, or maybe even learn, Mirror Image. If I intended to be on horseback frequently, I would not bother learning it. Thus, narrowing it to a niche spell rather than a general protective one.

[Sith_Happens]

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

It says that observers cannot tell you apart from the images. It does not say that they cannot make educated guesses. You are reading more meaning into a sentence than is there.

You're also ignoring a rather significant adjective clause. Requoting to illustrate:


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

After the images are initially generated, observers are free to look for whatever clues they might find helpful in locating you (e.g.- exactly one of you is currently supported by a surface), keeping in mind that the images continue to perfectly mimic your appearance, actions, and reactions.

[Segev]

That is a valid point; that clause is informative and somewhat restricting. The second paragraph's opening still holds, but more weakly in that light.

[Scow2]

I can think f a situation in which it does matter: any time you make an attack. If you attack with a melee weapon, it obviously must be one of the images adjacent to the target. Or one of those within 10 feet if using reach weapons. If you use a ranged weapon or spell, it must be an image close enough.

Since you end up being located in a Schrödinger space this way, I just rule that all five images remain in the same space for game purposes at all times. That's the rules description. In reality, just as noted in the various rulebooks, you are still darting back and forth, and may occasionally and briefly enter an adjacent space in the ebb and flow of combat.You're always in schroedinger space, and if the Images are in different squares than the caster, then the Caster has a chance of actually being in one of those other squares as the number of copies in that square divided by the number of copies he's made. "Schroedinger's Wizard" goes both ways


This "riding a horse" issue is manifested in other ways by Mirror Image figments. If the spellcaster climbs a narrow staircase, those "climbing" but not on the stairs are figments. Similarly, if the spellcaster walks down a narrow forested path, those figments walking through branches reveal themselves to be fakes. The problem is that on the spellcaster's next turn those figments can intermingle with the real person, so you've only got part of a round to take advantage of the reveal. Typically this means you need to Ready an action to trigger when a figment is revealed as bogus, and then you've temporarily eliminated only one of n Images. Or you can use Scow2's approach, but risk the chance of not acting at all.In the case of the narrow staircase and forested path, the mirror images would stay within 5' but also on the path/stairs, some further along, others trailing behind, probably marching single-file. The problem with the horse is there isn't enough space for the Images to all be on the horse AND far enough apart to be distinct targets.


Honestly, the easiest way to handle it is to have the illusion have very eye-jarring effects. The mechanics state that sight and hearing cannot be used, and further state that "attackers must choose between indistinguishable targets." This means that the images are, in fact, indistinguishable, despite any potential environmental clues.

Focus on the horse, however, and you'll see only the real horse. Try to use this to then shift focus to the mage, again, though, and you'll lose track of it due to the shifting illusions.This would only work if we were dealing with any other illusion than a Figment, which cannot create personalized images -Everyone else watching would see the exact same image, such as which one was riding the horse at any given time - they couldn't each see the horse on "The one they're focusing on", unless they're all focusing on the same wizard. The line about indistinguishable targets doesn't assume the wizard is doing something as boneheaded as riding a mount.


Fly also doesn't have language discussing how it cannot be limited nor foiled by such-and-such means. This spell does.

If Fly said, "no amount of vertical obstacle can prevent the character's ascent," then it would be a better analog to compare this on. Note that it lacks such language. While Mirror Image says quite clearly that no visual nor audio clues can help you discern the image from the reality.That line is to say you can't use a Spot or Listen check to determine which one's real, or locate oddities in the sound/appearance of the character. It says you can't use visual or audio cues (In the image) to make a judgement - no flaws or inconsistency in the character's image, no 'off' sounds, or the like. The issue that betrays the Horse-riding Mirror-imaged wizard isn't a visual or audio cue, but a logical one.


I want the enemy's guess to not have greater accuracy than the spell indicates it should. "The enemy can guess with 100% accuracy because you're not in a white room under experimental controlled conditions" is definitely not working as advertised. And yes, I would count "you're on a horse" to be a situation that, if the DM decides the enemy can guess with 100% accuracy which image to target, the spell is not "working as advertised." Same with "walking up a narrow flight of stairs" or "walking through a forest on a trail."The spell doesn't expect the caster to be On Another Creature. Saying the spell isn't working as advertised is like saying your cuisinart isn't working because you jammed it full of steel bars and you broke the blades off.

If the spell merely causes the character to "look confusing", why is its effect so much more powerful than Blur?

This is 3rd Edition D&D, not 4th. The world is more important than arbitrary rules.

[georgie_leech]

That line is to say you can't use a Spot or Listen check to determine which one's real, or locate oddities in the sound/appearance of the character. It says you can't use visual or audio cues (In the image) to make a judgement - no flaws or inconsistency in the character's image, no 'off' sounds, or the like. The issue that betrays the Horse-riding Mirror-imaged wizard isn't a visual or audio cue, but a logical one.


Pretty much this. To put it another way, the images not syncing up with the horse isn't a visual cue provided by the illusion, it's provided by the environment.

[John Longarrow]

If you start putting too much "REAL WORLD" into some of these spells the game both comes to a halt and too many problems rear their ugly head.

If you assume mundane methods could identify the PC, then you can always toss flower into the square and look for the one that the flower is moved by. This would work for ANY illusion that involves movement. If the flower isn't disrupted, its not real. NOTE: Means you get eaten by incorporeal creatures, but that is a separate issue.

Reason I'd have the spell work without having to worry about who's in the saddle is to avoid half hour to hour stops when ever the players try something "Inventive". If you allow too many mundane methods for overcoming magic you wind up with players delving into real world solutions for magical problems. Some of them would really work, but trying to model them in game becomes a nightmare.

If the wizard can't ride a horse because anyone could target the wizard on the horse, then you'd never use this spell if someone had a light source around. After all, all you would need to do is target the wizard who is casting a shadow and ignore the illusions that are not. Illusions can duplicate the wizard. They can't calculate how a shadow should fall based on light source/sources and then create the illusion of a proper shadow, especially if the wizards shadow is more than 5' because of his position relative to the light.

[tomandtish]

Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck.

Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).

While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.

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. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)


People do seem to be misreading the 5 foot rule. Note that not all the images have to be within 5 feet of you. They only have to be within 5 feet of you OR another image. it's perfectly possible to have a line of you and 5 images each 5 feet apart, so covering 25 linear feet.

Also in reading this, while figments may change places with each other, and you may choose to move into a figment, once the initial spread out occurs there's nothing that indicates a figment can move into you. You have to make the choice to merge into a figment, which is what starts the "Can't tell them apart" again.

As for the can't tell apart argument to begin with, remember that one of the big clues isn't the character, it's the horse. Barring animal companion, etc. the horse is not duplicated. If you decide riding is an action that is duplicated (since images are duplicating your actions), then it is pointless to cast on horseback, since the images will be appearing to ride nothing.

Even if you decide that riding itself is not duplicated (that is, that the other images will be walking, running, etc.), since there's only one horse you've taken out generally in one case. Once you've cast the spell, if you didn't get off the horse initially, anyone specifically targeting the person riding the horse has targeted you. Not because your image isn't indistinguishable, but because it's the only one on a horse.

The "generally" I marked above seems to be more along the line of "assuming the have no logical reason to pick a specific target, randomly choose which one they aim at". However, if only one target is on a horse, that provides logic to treat that one differently.

[ericgrau]

I'd put 1 image on the mount and the rest running on the ground. So only one is normally useful, but on your turn you can reshuffle and regain a destroyed image that was on the mount. Or you can double bluff and dismount, so if foes specify "I go for a target on the horse" they'll always miss you until both images are destroyed and they realize what's wrong.

The rule says within 5 feet not exactly 5 feet, btw, and images can even move through each-other. But the evasion works by separating them from you.

Other than that I don't think ultra strict RAW parsing is a good idea here. I'm not sure it can even work on any level that way.

[Chronos]

Quoth Curmudgeon:

Don't be one of those people. You've obviously taken some time to think about the problem, so spend some more time thinking about ways to deal with the problem (other than whining to your DM, that is).
Oh, sure, you could use the spell intelligently, such as by levitating next to the horse, or casting invisibility on the horse, or getting a horse you can share spells with. I'm just saying that if you just do nothing but sit on the horse and cast the spell, that counts as a stupid use of the spell, because it makes it too easy for your enemies.

[Scow2]

If you start putting too much "REAL WORLD" into some of these spells the game both comes to a halt and too many problems rear their ugly head.

If you assume mundane methods could identify the PC, then you can always toss flower into the square and look for the one that the flower is moved by. This would work for ANY illusion that involves movement. If the flower isn't disrupted, its not real. NOTE: Means you get eaten by incorporeal creatures, but that is a separate issue.

Reason I'd have the spell work without having to worry about who's in the saddle is to avoid half hour to hour stops when ever the players try something "Inventive". If you allow too many mundane methods for overcoming magic you wind up with players delving into real world solutions for magical problems. Some of them would really work, but trying to model them in game becomes a nightmare.

If the wizard can't ride a horse because anyone could target the wizard on the horse, then you'd never use this spell if someone had a light source around. After all, all you would need to do is target the wizard who is casting a shadow and ignore the illusions that are not. Illusions can duplicate the wizard. They can't calculate how a shadow should fall based on light source/sources and then create the illusion of a proper shadow, especially if the wizards shadow is more than 5' because of his position relative to the light.To counter your third paragraph - All the images would be casting shadows because the Caster is also casting a shadow. Unlike the horse, Light and Shadow aren't creatures (Well, except "Shadows", but those aren't true shadows. At least not the type cast by light), and thus can be affected by the figment.

Once you toss(A standard action) a flower (Which is an object, not a creature), it either counts as an Attack and winks out (Might as well have just shot an arrow at it), or the flower is duplicated among all the images (And the real caster gets an image of the flower). Still - you wasted a Standard Action trying to do something you could have done even more effectively with a weapon.

Mundane solutions to magical problems are perfectly valid. If a spell's function would need to be adjusted to keep the crunch working (Such as the "It hurts your eyes" explanation for Mirror Image, which is a different spell entirely), you're stretching the power of the spell too far. The easiest way to avoid problems is to read the full text of the spell and understand the implicit limitations, instead of trying to condense it to a flavorless, meaningless pile of crunch to something even less than the average 4th-edition power block.

[holywhippet]

I'd put 1 image on the mount and the rest running on the ground. So only one is normally useful, but on your turn you can reshuffle and regain a destroyed image that was on the mount. Or you can double bluff and dismount, so if foes specify "I go for a target on the horse" they'll always miss you until both images are destroyed and they realize what's wrong.

The rule says within 5 feet not exactly 5 feet, btw, and images can even move through each-other. But the evasion works by separating them from you.

Consider this case then, what if the wizard is carefully balancing atop a 50 foot pole when they cast the spell? If the others appear on the ground around the pole there is no way the wizard can swap with one of them in a single turn.

I'm 50/50 on how the spell would work. Given how it is intended I could see the horse being duplicated as observers should not be able to identify the real you easily. On the flip side, you could argue there are cases where the spell could not possibly work. Like if you were chained to the wall in a dungeon and you managed to cast the spell (either by making a check or use a still spell metamagic). It would be unreasonable to expect multiple copies of yourself to appear also chained to the wall as anyone familiar with the room would know where the real you would have to be.

[ericgrau]

It's "difficult to know which to attack", but not impossible. I imagine even with the regular use once someone hits you he and his allies know to direct the remainder of his attacks at you, until you reshuffle on your turn. As the spell explains that is the moment when you can't distinguish real from fake. If you set up such an extreme case I'd think you'd only do the work of overcoming the difficulty for your enemy and the spell would be moot.

In the context of the spell and the way it's explained, it seems like they put a lot of work into insuring that it's not impossible to identify the real caster. Only quite a bit more difficult than normal. In that there's a lot of work done to explain exactly how the confusion works. Which automatically invites ways to defeat it by overcoming the way it works.

And really anything done with the spell on a mount is fudging anyway.

[John Longarrow]

Scow2,

Thank you for validating paragraph 3. I am under the impression this thread has used more than half an hour of participants time. As that is the entire reason I'd avoid allowing too many mundane ways of overcoming magic, the rest of your post totally support how this kind of debate can stop a game in its track.

While you were trying to "Counter" the supports, your reasons support the topic. It wastes time. If this was at my table I'd have already moved far past this point. If this had continued, I'd have had to change the party line up and player list.

[Chronos]

Well, yes, it wastes time. That's the whole purpose of a game. The question is just whether it does so in a fun way. And most of the gamers I know do, in fact, consider it fun to find creative ways to solve problems.

[Segev]

Except that this isn't even about "creatively solving the problem of an enemy mage who casts Mirror Image." This is about "declaring that the spell was pointless because the DM 'cleverly' came up with a reason to disregard its effect."

Or perhaps it's a player who is being "clever" about saying "he's on horseback, so we can tell" about an NPC mage.

Regardless, it's nothing the "clever" person did. I'm all for rewarding creativity. I'm against determining ad hoc that mechanics don't work.

[georgie_leech]

Except that this isn't even about "creatively solving the problem of an enemy mage who casts Mirror Image." This is about "declaring that the spell was pointless because the DM 'cleverly' came up with a reason to disregard its effect."

Or perhaps it's a player who is being "clever" about saying "he's on horseback, so we can tell" about an NPC mage.

Regardless, it's nothing the "clever" person did. I'm all for rewarding creativity. I'm against determining ad hoc that mechanics don't work.

Imagine a scenario where a low-level Wizard is standing near the edge of a cliff, and the images are, for whatever reason, spread out in a line leading away from the cliff, over the edge. In that scenario, there is no plausible reason for someone attacking the Wizard on the cliff (closest one, possibly the only one they can reach) for the images to interfere with the attack on the Wizard.

In other words, there are scenarios where use of the images does not lead to the miss chance generally given. Depending on how the images are being used, I could see it failing on horseback for similar reasons; if one image is behaving differently than the others due to some quirk of the environment, I see no reason that that specific image couldn't be deliberately targeted. Heck, a clever Wizard could use that to his advantage, using one of the images as an obvious "That's the wizard there!" bait for at least 1 guaranteed miss.

[ericgrau]

Except that this isn't even about "creatively solving the problem of an enemy mage who casts Mirror Image." This is about "declaring that the spell was pointless because the DM 'cleverly' came up with a reason to disregard its effect."

Or perhaps it's a player who is being "clever" about saying "he's on horseback, so we can tell" about an NPC mage.

Regardless, it's nothing the "clever" person did. I'm all for rewarding creativity. I'm against determining ad hoc that mechanics don't work.
In a real game the DM picks something quickly and the game moves on ASAP. If it is not good for the mage and the mage would know this, then he warns the mage and gives him a chance to take back his action. Otherwise it's a risk the mage probably knew he was taking and the DM says "you wanna cast that on a horse?", the mage says "sure, ya" and then since the PC acknowledges the risk he ends up with whatever the DM determined good or bad. Only because the character is also experimenting. Or OTOH the player might know it's a good idea and if the player seems uncertain but his character would know it's effective, the DM tells him so before he decides.

The big dangers from a game standpoint are indecisiveness delays and surprising the player with calamity from an unknowable ad hoc rule on an action his character should know is bad.

[Segev]

Very true, ericgrau.

And, if the DM's ruling is out of line with player expectation to the point that the player feels the spell is useless, I would hope the DM will negotiate either a different ruling for future use, or allow the player to trade out the spell, since his character likely wouldn't have taken it if he'd known it wouldn't work with his style.

[georgie_leech]

Eh, even in the scenario where the images lack a horse to ride, you could always cast invisibility on the horse. Now you look like you're floating too! :smalltongue:

[Sith_Happens]

Eh, even in the scenario where the images lack a horse to ride, you could always cast invisibility on the horse. Now you look like you're floating too! :smalltongue:

Don't forget a Ghost Sound of someone clicking two halves of a coconut together.

[Equinox]

Good news! In tonight's gaming session, the horse was eaten by Dire Lions. The Mirror-Image-using PC is now on foot, and the question became moot before it even had to be addressed ingame.

[icefractal]

I think a lot of this can be resolved when you consider the fact that Mirror Image is an illusion spell directed by the caster. A spell with limits - the images must stay near each-other, but still one that's directed.

So - what do the images do when you're on a horse? Whatever you want them to do, within the limits of the spell.

If you want to keep them in your square, then you have five guys on a horse and you get the miss chance (it's actually a bigger area to swing into than having all the images in your square, so I don't see why you wouldn't). The top of the horse is a bit blurred as a result, but the bottom half isn't, so it doesn't get a miss chance.

If you want to spread them out, then they spread out, presumably by appearing to dismount the horse and walk alongside it, but they could also float off the saddle and appear to be flying next to you. And if you did dismount, one of the images could take your place in the saddle.

In either case, the rules for targeting multiple images in one square (1/N chance to hit, can instead swing blind) apply to targeting images in one square. Spread them out, and it's a normal attack where enemies have to guess which square, for better and worse. On the plus side, you can foil small AoEs and people with Blind-Fight. On the minus side, situational cues may lead to enemies picking the correct square more often than they would randomly.

That said, if your Mirror Image is coming from an item, it would depend on how the item was constructed. It's possible that said item would be less adaptive and you would indeed end up with images floating along pretending to ride a horse. Of course, I would think that most items would just default to the "same square" version.

[Curmudgeon]

I think a lot of this can be resolved when you consider the fact that Mirror Image is an illusion spell directed by the caster.
Except that's not true.
These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. ... The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on. There's absolutely no caster control after the spell is cast: it's all dictated by these specifications in the spell description.

The spellcaster doesn't get to say where the Images go, or what they do. If the caster moves far enough they can cause the figment chain to relocate, and if the caster changes their actions the figments will mimic those new actions. But that's not directing anything.

If some enemy casts Dominate Person on the Mirror Image caster, the figments will mimic the actions dictated by the dominating enemy, because there's no direction of those Images; they just follow the programming in the spell description.

[Gwendol]

Mirror image is one of those spells. It doesn't work very well under certain conditions, and it's up to the DM to decide the particulars. Riding on a horse when casting the spell will make it quite easy for the opposition to determine which is the real McCoy (Look for the riding wizard who actually has a horse between his legs!). As a DM I might decide another image or two may share the space of the horse, and thus providing some amount of protection.

[Segev]

Actually, the wizard does get to say where the images go, just not what they do. They mimic his actions. He directs their placement on the battlemap, and, being images, nothing prevents them from sharing spaces.

So he could, at the very least, put one on each of the four squares his horse occupies. And any of them could be "him," even going so far as to allow moving through them for the mixing-up effect.

[Talya]

The images don't stay in place even for a moment. They're constantly shifting and moving and trading places, and you can't see to distinguish them with the original. You can't target them individually because they never remain the same long enough to do so. I rather imagine them looking similar to enabling that annoying comet trail on a mouse pointer, and then moving your mouse in tiny circles...but this comet trail would leave the trail on top of the actual pointer instead of behind it.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, the wizard does get to say where the images go, just not what they do. They mimic his actions. He directs their placement on the battlemap, and, being images, nothing prevents them from sharing spaces.
What part of the spell makes you think that's the case? :smallconfused:

[Gwendol]

Actually, the wizard does get to say where the images go, just not what they do. They mimic his actions. He directs their placement on the battlemap, and, being images, nothing prevents them from sharing spaces.

So he could, at the very least, put one on each of the four squares his horse occupies. And any of them could be "him," even going so far as to allow moving through them for the mixing-up effect.

Eh, where do you get that? As Talya notes, the images are constantly in motion and trading places with themselves and the caster. The caster has no control over the images.

[Segev]

These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.

If they're to remain "within 5 feet of you or another image," somebody is choosing their orientation. If the wizard isn't, that means the DM is, and typically, things that are expressly outside a player's control when determining how their PCs' powers work are expressly labeled as such.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the wizard does choose their placement.

[Gwendol]

Well, I think you're wrong in that conclusion.

Here's the relevant part of the spell description:

These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

Note there is nothing here to suggest the caster does anything with the figments once the spell is cast.

[Segev]

So, then. What squares do they occupy?

[Scow2]

So he could, at the very least, put one on each of the four squares his horse occupies. And any of them could be "him," even going so far as to allow moving through them for the mixing-up effect.
Except horses and people aren't shaped like cubes, even if they are represented as squares on the battlemap. A horse may occupy four squares, but it still only has one saddle.

[Segev]

Per the rules, the rider of a creature may choose any of the squares the mount occupies as the one the rider occupies. And who says the rider stays in the saddle, or which one of the many directions he seems to be leaning is the real one?

Sure, you can aim for the seat-point, but that's an awfully small target comparatively, and the miss chance is as adequate a representation of that as anything.

Of course, the easiest solution is simply to shoot each of the apparent wizards at once. Takes a decent number of attacks, though.

[Scow2]

Per the rules, the rider of a creature may choose any of the squares the mount occupies as the one the rider occupies. And who says the rider stays in the saddle, or which one of the many directions he seems to be leaning is the real one?

Sure, you can aim for the seat-point, but that's an awfully small target comparatively, and the miss chance is as adequate a representation of that as anything.Except Mirror Image doesn't grant a miss chance at all. None. It gives a chance of attacking the wrong target. We're talking Mirror Image, not Blur or Displacement

[Segev]

Except Mirror Image doesn't grant a miss chance at all. None. It gives a chance of attacking the wrong target. We're talking Mirror Image, not Blur or Displacement

Fine, fine. I was using "miss chance" as shorthand for the actual effect. The extra images are still there. The spell still says the attacker must choose correctly which image to target. It does not say that he can choose to target "where he's sitting on the horse." Lacking called shots, as long as the images are not 100% overlapped, he still has to pick the right one, and his choice is essentially random.

[Gwendol]

Not at all. Even in an unmounted situation, if say, a ranger fires two arrows, picking two targets of X available, and manages to hit with both arrows of which at least one strikes the actual mage. His mates acting after him in the initiative order can all strike the same target, and thus all hit the mage.
As soon as the mages initiative order comes up again, he may move through an image as to confound his attackers again:

While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.

[Scow2]

It does not say that he can choose to target "where he's sitting on the horse."Actually, he can choose his target by declaring which image on the horse he's shooting, and identify it through location. You target creatures (Identified however you want), not the space they occupy (Though you can choose to target a space to hit a creature that might be there, such as in the case of Invisibility and Displacement).
"Spaces" don't even have to be continuous. Although a person can choose whichever space they occupy on a mount, it doesn't change where they're sitting on the animal (If they're not in a saddle, they need to make a Ride check to not fall off). D&D 3.X does not require a grid to play.

[Segev]

Actually, he can choose his target by declaring which image on the horse he's shooting, and identify it through location. You target creatures (Identified however you want), not the space they occupy (Though you can choose to target a space to hit a creature that might be there, such as in the case of Invisibility and Displacement).
"Spaces" don't even have to be continuous. Although a person can choose whichever space they occupy on a mount, it doesn't change where they're sitting on the animal (If they're not in a saddle, they need to make a Ride check to not fall off). D&D 3.X does not require a grid to play.

Er, no. You're missing the point.

They can be separated by UP TO 5 feet. They need not be separated by much distance at all. Picture Agent Smith doing his bullet-dodge while sitting on a horse. Your task is to pick one of those Agent Smiths to target. You can do so by whatever "location" information you want, but you cannot, per the spell, tell which one is the real one by visual examination.

[Black Jester]

I have no idea why this is even an issue. the spell creates mirages of the caster, but not the horse. So.. there is one guy on the horse, and four very obvious fakes riding thin air, or the spell has no effect whatsoever until the caster dismounts. The rules only ever matter insofar they express the reality of the game... they are not a content, they are not an end in themselves, they solve purely the function to create a framework to express what actually happens in the game.If the rules conflict with the actual events in the game, they immediately lose their purpose and need to be readjusted. A little bit of thinking is always - ALWAYS! better than a blind adherence to the rules or any other conventions (you may ignore the last sentence if you are a Vogon).

The only at least somewhat debatable issue that could occur in this case would be that the player of the mage feels unfairly disadvantaged, and yes, he might be right. i personally think that this kind of stupidity requires no appreciation (it is pretty stupid), but if you need to appease that player because he is the throw over the table and leave in a fit type, I can understand to let the spell work. Even if it is wrong on principle.

[Scow2]

Er, no. You're missing the point.

They can be separated by UP TO 5 feet. They need not be separated by much distance at all. Picture Agent Smith doing his bullet-dodge while sitting on a horse. Your task is to pick one of those Agent Smiths to target. You can do so by whatever "location" information you want, but you cannot, per the spell, tell which one is the real one by visual examination.But you can still target whichever one you want by where they're sitting on the horse. In order to fool this, the caster would have to choose to sit in one of the more awkward positions the images are otherwise sitting in.

[Segev]

The only at least somewhat debatable issue that could occur in this case would be that the player of the mage feels unfairly disadvantaged, and yes, he might be right. i personally think that this kind of stupidity requires no appreciation (it is pretty stupid), but if you need to appease that player because he is the throw over the table and leave in a fit type, I can understand to let the spell work. Even if it is wrong on principle.

Of course, taking your reasoning here to as negative an assumption of you as you do of anybody who might object to your reasoning, one might suggest that players should perhaps avoid your tables if they don't like being marginalized and having their mechanics changed on them whenever you decide you have a "clever" way to screw them out of them working. After all, they were "stupid" for thinking that the rules would do what they say they will, rather than thinking of the situation as you believe it should work.


Let's not cast aspersions on people for daring to disagree with us, shall we? It doesn't take a "flip the table" style bully to dare to object to having their choices of how to build their character invalidated in play by sudden rulings from the DM based on "how it would work in real life."

Make a call and run with it for the session, sure, but then you'd best be willing to work with the player afterwards so that he can make changes to anything that your ruling has rendered less useful than other choices he could have made. And he's not some sort of bad person for wanting to change it out. Especially if he had a way for the visual to work and you simply said, "No, it doesn't work that way because I don't think it looks right."

[Segev]

But you can still target whichever one you want by where they're sitting on the horse. In order to fool this, the caster would have to choose to sit in one of the more awkward positions the images are otherwise sitting in.

Sure. But that's at most a ride or balance check not to fall out of the saddle. I imagine people trying to dodge arrows while on horseback do, in fact, contort and de-normalize their angle of spine to horse rather frequently.

[Fax Celestis]

But you can still target whichever one you want by where they're sitting on the horse. In order to fool this, the caster would have to choose to sit in one of the more awkward positions the images are otherwise sitting in.

Two (possibly differing) points:

First:

You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other.If you are sharing a space with an image, observers can presumably tell you apart from the image (or it effectively doesn't matter). When you are mounted, you share spaces with your mount:

A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.and so while mounted you are effectively Large-sized without being Large (basically, you take up your mount's whole space). Either your images share your space, in which case they are useless (since when they share your space, observers can tell you apart as outlined above), or they are in adjacent spaces (with the arguments about why this does or doesn't work preceding this post in this conversation). But the space-sharing thing doesn't work: if you're on a horse and your images are also in your square, on the horse, the images are ineffective. Sorry, Segev, no bullet time.

Second:

The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.
[...]
Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball). The illusion is intelligent enough to mimic equipment (as they appear as you), conditions (dead is a status condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead)), consumable resources (potions), intangible not-preexisting effects (spellcasting): why wouldn't it be intelligent enough to display you as riding a horse?

[Segev]

I don't quite follow the logic of "sharing your space" making them useless.

Imagine, if you will, them being in the same five foot square, but standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you. That's sharing your space. If it were an actual person, it would be interfering with combat maneuverability and likely would require grappling. But it's an illusion. You're real. The two of you move through each other just fine, so it's not in the way. Your enemies must still pick which one of you to attack. They don't get to attack "the right one" just because it's shoulder to shoulder with you.

[Chronos]

If there's only one image that appears to be sitting in the saddle, then you target that one. If there are multiple images that all appear to be sitting in the saddle, you still target that one. If they're that close together, then they're too close together to be effective decoys.

You could choose to place yourself somewhere other than the saddle, in which case the spell might be useful again, but now you're having to make ride checks, which a wizard probably isn't very good at.

[Fax Celestis]

I don't quite follow the logic of "sharing your space" making them useless.

Imagine, if you will, them being in the same five foot square, but standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you. That's sharing your space. If it were an actual person, it would be interfering with combat maneuverability and likely would require grappling. But it's an illusion. You're real. The two of you move through each other just fine, so it's not in the way. Your enemies must still pick which one of you to attack. They don't get to attack "the right one" just because it's shoulder to shoulder with you.

No, they don't. If it's in your space this line doesn't apply:

When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image.
Observers can only not tell which is which when you are not sharing the same space. It's not clarified whether this is because the illusion is obvious (picturing an afterimage sort of effect) or because it effectively doesn't matter at that point (since you're both in the same spot, shooting the fake with an arrow when its sharing a space with you will for all practical purposes shoot you).

[Maladaptive]

No, they don't. If it's in your space this line doesn't apply:

Observers can only not tell which is which when you are not sharing the same space. It's not clarified whether this is because the illusion is obvious (picturing an afterimage sort of effect) or because it effectively doesn't matter at that point (since you're both in the same spot, shooting the fake with an arrow when its sharing a space with you will for all practical purposes shoot you).

"Separate" doesn't really have a good definition anywhere. In this case, it would seem to refer to any time after the images all overlap you (which is the split second when you cast the spell). There's not anything that says them sharing a SQUARE negates the illusion.

[Segev]

If there's only one image that appears to be sitting in the saddle, then you target that one. If there are multiple images that all appear to be sitting in the saddle, you still target that one. If they're that close together, then they're too close together to be effective decoys.It does not say that anywhere in the rules. At no point does it specify a closeness of the images which negates the need to choose which you're attacking.

It may seem reasonable to you to house rule it that way, but as long as the images are "separate" from you - which has only its English definition to run on, and thus allows for a degree of separation such that they are not completely overlapping you - the need to pick out one to target is, in fact, in the RAW.[/QUOTE]

[Icarusthefallen]

What if any conclusion did the OP come to?

[Equinox]

As a result of a careful reading through this discussion, this is how I have decided to run a Mirror Image spell in my game:

When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image, however some environmental circumstances might give the true caster away or indicate one or more of the images as fake. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among generally indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.The player with the Mirror Image spell was warned and given an option to exchange it for another 2nd level spell (he actually chose to keep Mirror Image). A big thanks to everyone who participated in the debate.

Edit: in the specific circumstances of a caster riding a horse, there is room for 4 Medium creatures to share a space with a Large horse. Therefore, the caster and 3 of the images appear to be on a horse, in a way similar to what was described by John Longarrow in post #8. Any surplus images beyond the 3rd are floating in midair, and allow opponents to use logic to deduce they are fake.

[Segev]

That seems an equitable way to handle it for your game.

[Black Jester]

Of course, taking your reasoning here to as negative an assumption of you as you do of anybody who might object to your reasoning, one might suggest that players should perhaps avoid your tables if they don't like being marginalized and having their mechanics changed on them whenever you decide you have a "clever" way to screw them out of them working. After all, they were "stupid" for thinking that the rules would do what they say they will, rather than thinking of the situation as you believe it should work.

Yeah, blind adherence to the rules or marginalization... that is about the falsest dichotomy I have seen a long, long time.

You can only ever be smart if there is any form of acting stupid as well. Your decisions only matter if they have a distinctly different outcome, and you can only make a really good one, if you have the chance to fail as well. Otherwise, all decisions are equally valid and, by default mediocre. So, if you truly want to marginalize any decision your players ever make, just make sure that there is no option of failure whatsoever. The "clever" way of providing failure for the players is actually without alternative if the decisions of the players should have any weight.
So, don't talk about 'marginalization' when what you obviously mean is "something opposed to player entitlement".



Let's not cast aspersions on people for daring to disagree with us, shall we? It doesn't take a "flip the table" style bully to dare to object to having their choices of how to build their character invalidated in play by sudden rulings from the DM based on "how it would work in real life."

Mechanics aren't important. The game's contents are. If the mechanics conflict with the simplest logic of the setting, they need to be adjusted, if only situational. The rules don't run the game; the GM does. The rules are a vehicle to allow him to do so and to grant a framework for the interaction between the PCs and their environment. That is their whole purpose and if they do not fulfill this role, they are utterly arbitrary and bear no meaning whatsoever. As soon as any rules mechanism gets in the way of something important - character development, story, fun - they become and obstacle and need to be removed or readjusted and not somewhen but exactly when the problem occurs.
And let's not overdramatize this. It is one spell slot wasted on a spell that didn't work. That happens from time to time. The player won't repeat that tactic, at least not while on horseback. That's a learning experience. You might even using that trick later on for a completely unrelated purpose (I don't know how, but a clever mage could probably come up with a useful application) and at the point when the players start to think out of the box, the game get really interesting.

If the only alternative to blind adherence to the rules were utter marginalization, I'd rather be marginalized. It might shock you, but when I walk home late at night and come to a completely abandoned crossway, I might not wait for a green light (or some ghost car that never comes). I might just walk across the road.

[Segev]

You missed my point utterly.

Re-read the very first sentence you quoted.

That's taking your attitude of "obviously anybody who would complain that you couldn't just ignore is a table-flipping bully" and applying it right back. I was illustrating your use of false dichotomy and ad hominem.

There is absolutely middle ground, where reasonable people can disagree and discuss without it being a national incident, as my second paragraph (which you also quote) indicates.

The point of the post was mainly the first sentence of that second paragraph: Let's not assume anybody who disagrees with our positions is an unreasonable jerk. The first paragraph illustrated how that assumption would view your holding of your position. The second was stepping back from that illustration and trying to make the point that such attacks on the character of those who would dare disagree are not useful.

[Fax Celestis]

"Separate" doesn't really have a good definition anywhere. In this case, it would seem to refer to any time after the images all overlap you (which is the split second when you cast the spell). There's not anything that says them sharing a SQUARE negates the illusion.

I would define 'separate' as 'not sharing a square', honestly, since a creature is said to completely fill its square as an abstraction to make things easier.

[Segev]

That's not entirely accurate, or you couldn't have two creatures share a square (as happens when really little creatures make melee attacks, or when two Medium creatures grapple, etc.)

[Fax Celestis]

That's not entirely accurate, or you couldn't have two creatures share a square (as happens when really little creatures make melee attacks, or when two Medium creatures grapple, etc.)

That's the abstraction the DMG discusses.

[Gwendol]

For more Mirror Image Q&A you can check out this link:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187521

[Grollub]

if you really need an explanation.. how bout all the mirror images riding the same horse you are on. :smallcool:

[Curmudgeon]

Except Mirror Image doesn't grant a miss chance at all. None. It gives a chance of attacking the wrong target. We're talking Mirror Image, not Blur or Displacement
I beg to differ.
miss chance

The possibility that a successful attack roll misses anyway because of the attacker's uncertainty about the target's location. Mirror Image specifies, in parts:

The figments are visually indistinguishable from the real target.
They separate to be within 5' of each other/the spellcaster, thus occupying multiple game grid locations.
This uncertainty about the target's location matches the specification. There is no proviso here requiring an effect to use the specific phrase "miss chance". The effect of Mirror Image meets the definition.

[georgie_leech]

This uncertainty about the target's location matches the specification. There is no proviso here requiring an effect to use the specific phrase "miss chance". The effect of Mirror Image meets the definition.

If they occupy multiple grid spaces, would choosing a specific one have miss chance? If it did still have miss chance when you target the actual Wizard, would targeting one of the images have a chance of "missing" the image by hitting the Wizard instead?

[Segev]

If they occupy multiple grid spaces, would choosing a specific one have miss chance? If it did still have miss chance when you target the actual Wizard, would targeting one of the images have a chance of "missing" the image by hitting the Wizard instead?

Given that the recommended means of telling if the wizard is the target of the attack or not, your question is meaningless. There is a chance that the wizard will be missed, per the rules. Whether that chance is rolled on percentile dice, on a series of coin flips, or based on having a number of index cards representing the images and the attacker picking one to see if he got the right one, it amounts to a miss chance.

It is not concealment. But it is a "chance to miss."

[georgie_leech]

Given that the recommended means of telling if the wizard is the target of the attack or not, your question is meaningless. There is a chance that the wizard will be missed, per the rules. Whether that chance is rolled on percentile dice, on a series of coin flips, or based on having a number of index cards representing the images and the attacker picking one to see if he got the right one, it amounts to a miss chance.

It is not concealment. But it is a "chance to miss."

It says generally, not always. If a player for whatever reason chose a specific one to attack, they have a chance of selecting the wrong one exactly equal to the miss chance it gets. Why would you penalise the player twice?

[Gwendol]

Only if you don't know which one is real. If you do, see my ranger example earlier in the thread, the spell offers no protection.

[Segev]

It says generally, not always. If a player for whatever reason chose a specific one to attack, they have a chance of selecting the proper one exactly equal to the miss chance it gets. Why would you penalise the player twice?

Who's penalizing them twice? If they choose a specific one, they've effectively picked the index card example from before. There would have to be some representation of them to indicate which they're choosing, and which is the real one would have to be known-but-hidden.

Their miss chance, if there are (say) 5 images, is 5/6. Whether this is achieved by having them choose 1 of 6 squares on the board that are occupied by images or wizard, or by having them roll a d6, or by rolling 6 d6s and taking the highest (with one marked as "the real wizard") as the target...

It all comes out the same.

If he picks one image, he has to indicate which he's picking. He has a 1/6 chance that the one he picked is the real one. If he doesn't have a particular criteria, then he jsut says he's shooting the wizard, and we can roll a d6 and see if he gets a "6" (indicating a hit). If there were only 5 total (4 images + 1 wizard), then we could even roll d% and have him hit on a 20 or less.

But he's not being penalized twice. HE either chose the right image or he didn't. The choosing is the determination of the "miss chance."

[Chronos]

If he's picking them randomly, then he effectively has a 5/6 miss chance. And under ordinary circumstances, you can't do any better than to pick them randomly. Under some circumstances, though, there might be other, nonrandom ways to pick them.

[Gwendol]

If you have scent, for example, you aren't fooled by the images, or have access to an animal with scent. Just have it indicate the right one and hammer away.

[Equinox]

If he's picking them randomly, then he effectively has a 5/6 miss chance. And under ordinary circumstances, you can't do any better than to pick them randomly. Under some circumstances, though, there might be other, nonrandom ways to pick them.I think this is a great conclusion to this debate.

[Scow2]

I beg to differ. Mirror Image specifies, in parts:

The figments are visually indistinguishable from the real target.
They separate to be within 5' of each other/the spellcaster, thus occupying multiple game grid locations.
This uncertainty about the target's location matches the specification. There is no proviso here requiring an effect to use the specific phrase "miss chance". The effect of Mirror Image meets the definition.

It's not a miss - it's a hit against the wrong target - you still hit (And destroy) what you aimed at, unlike the case of Blur. No forms are obscured. And, unlike a true "Miss chance", a Rogue can still apply sneak attack damage on a successful hit.

[Talya]

Remember, the forms shift so constantly and quickly that you cannot ever target a specific one.

For example, if you're taking a full attack, and your first attack hits the real target rather than shattering one of the five figments, you cannot, as your second attack, say "I want to hit the same one I just hit." You still have the same chance of hitting one of the figments as you did on your first attack.

There is absolutely no way ever to differentiate them short of trueseeing.

I always liked to fire off a magic missile with all 5 missiles going after a different image. Roll random on all of them, and pop 4 or 5 figments at once.

[Chronos]

Remember, the forms shift so constantly and quickly that you cannot ever target a specific one.
Where does it say that? Besides, if it were true, then it would make it easier to hit the real caster, since the spell doesn't make the caster move at all. If the fake ones are moving too quick to target, but the real one isn't, then the spell is useless.


I always liked to fire off a magic missile with all 5 missiles going after a different image.
And this is a contradiction: If you can't ever target a specific one, then you can't choose to target five different ones.

[jindra34]

And this is a contradiction: If you can't ever target a specific one, then you can't choose to target five different ones.

You can choose a specific one (e.g. I'm aiming at #'s 1-5 out of 6) you can't keep track well enough to make sure that if say number 3 was real last time you swung, its still the real one this time you swing.

[Curmudgeon]

You can choose a specific one (e.g. I'm aiming at #'s 1-5 out of 6) you can't keep track well enough to make sure that if say number 3 was real last time you swung, its still the real one this time you swing.
That contradicts what the spell says:
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.
If you've determined the real image, you have until the spellcaster's next turn to act without being confounded by the duplicates.

[Gwendol]

That contradicts what the spell says:
If you've determined the real image, you have until the spellcaster's next turn to act without being confounded by the duplicates.

Which I pointed out one page ago. :smallamused:

Furthermore, if using physical attacks, you don't even have to harm the wizard to know if you struck the right one, just hitting his touch AC is enough.