I'm pretty sure the 50% miss chance is being misinterpreted by some. If you close your eyes then you have a 50% chance of automatically missing, and 50% chance of getting to roll normally, not of automatically hitting.
As for Cleave and Great Cleave, they did work in 3.5, and I don't see any significant differences in PF. If you hit, you get another swing, illusion or not.
The spell specifically states that it has no effect on you if you close your eyes.
Thus closing your eyes means you get to attack them as though the spell weren't there (albeit with eyes closed)
If you blind yourself for the round (close your eyes), you make a normal attack against them as if you were blind (per the rules for attacking while blind). If you hit, you still have a miss chance of 50%. If you miss, you miss.
That's slightly better than 'You probably hit an image instead' when the spell is first cast.
The downside is, you're blind, so if that MI mage turns out to be a rogue who can either cast MI or used a wand, you are up the creek without a paddle as he sneak attacks you as many times as he can.
The spell specifically states that it has no effect on you if you close your eyes.
Thus closing your eyes means you get to attack them as though the spell weren't there (albeit with eyes closed)
I don't think anyone disputes this. What is your point here?
I'm pretty sure the 50% miss chance is being misinterpreted by some. If you close your eyes then you have a 50% chance of automatically missing, and 50% chance of getting to roll normally, not of automatically hitting.
As for Cleave and Great Cleave, they did work in 3.5, and I don't see any significant differences in PF. If you hit, you get another swing, illusion or not.
Except that in PF, all images are in your square, not adjacent to it. Cleave works on "two adjacent foes". My understanding of the term "adjacent", as used in 3.5/PF is a square next to the other square, which would rule it out for MI.
Hmmm.... question. Would Blindsense or Blindsight negate the effects of the Mirror Image spell?Blindsense does not overcome concealment so I'd say no.
Blindsight I'd say yes.
I don't see how Mirror Image would foil Blindsense. Unless you can't be seen. At which point Mirror Image isn't really what the attacker is overcoming are overcoming.
I suppose, but if the targets are actually closer than adjacent, then it doesn't seem like much of stretch to include them.
Edit: Ninja'd. My reply is re: Michael's post.
I'm pretty sure the 50% miss chance is being misinterpreted by some. If you close your eyes then you have a 50% chance of automatically missing, and 50% chance of getting to roll normally, not of automatically hitting.
As for Cleave and Great Cleave, they did work in 3.5, and I don't see any significant differences in PF. If you hit, you get another swing, illusion or not.
Yes, but you bypass the 1 in 9 chance you can have because of mirror image, so your chances go up quite a bit
Yes, but you bypass the 1 in 9 chance you can have because of mirror image, so your chances go up quite a bitI'm pretty sure the 50% miss chance is being misinterpreted by some. If you close your eyes then you have a 50% chance of automatically missing, and 50% chance of getting to roll normally, not of automatically hitting.
As for Cleave and Great Cleave, they did work in 3.5, and I don't see any significant differences in PF. If you hit, you get another swing, illusion or not.
Wasn't saying it was a bad tactic, altho it does have other shortcomings. Was just pointing out that it wasn't creating a 50/50 hit/miss ratio. You do still have to roll to hit the target's ac.
I suppose, but if the targets are actually closer than adjacent, then it doesn't seem like much of stretch to include them.
Edit: Ninja'd. My reply is re: Michael's post.
Then, there's also this nit to pick: Cleave works on two adjacent foes. Does the illusory image of a foe count as another foe?
(Not trying to threadjack this into a Cleave + MI thread, just an interesting side-note.)
Then, there's also this nit to pick: Cleave works on two adjacent foes. Does the illusory image of a foe count as another foe?(Not trying to threadjack this into a Cleave + MI thread, just an interesting side-note.)
Pretty sure it's another foe, it's the adjacency that seems to be a sticky wicket.
Pretty sure it's another foe, it's the adjacency that seems to be a sticky wicket.
Then, there's also this nit to pick: Cleave works on two adjacent foes. Does the illusory image of a foe count as another foe?(Not trying to threadjack this into a Cleave + MI thread, just an interesting side-note.)
In my mind, its more adjacent than normal foes for cleave and thematically makes more sense. Its a character making 1 swipe to deal with a group of illusionary foes. I think its a perfectly valid response to a very powerful lvl 2 spell. Its sacrificing your full attack action and 2AC to try to counter it.
In my mind, its more adjacent than normal foes for cleave and thematically makes more sense. Its a character making 1 swipe to deal with a group of illusionary foes. I think its a perfectly valid response to a very powerful lvl 2 spell. Its sacrificing your full attack action and 2AC to try to counter it.Pretty sure it's another foe, it's the adjacency that seems to be a sticky wicket.
Then, there's also this nit to pick: Cleave works on two adjacent foes. Does the illusory image of a foe count as another foe?(Not trying to threadjack this into a Cleave + MI thread, just an interesting side-note.)
I see what you're saying, but it can plausibly be argued that RAW do not consider magical effects to count as foes. Personally, I don't think it's a game-breaker to allow Cleave to work on MI, but it IS taking liberties with the rules, IMO.
Another interesting question is: since you destroy an illusionary image on a 'near miss' does that count as a successful hit for triggering Cleave/great cleave?
Which I suppose also raises the question of: If you Cleave with your eyes closed, miss the target by less than 5 (a near miss), do you get to keep cleaving?
Another interesting question is: since you destroy an illusionary image on a 'near miss' does that count as a successful hit for triggering Cleave/great cleave?
Which I suppose also raises the question of: If you Cleave with your eyes closed, miss the target by less than 5 (a near miss), do you get to keep cleaving?
Another good argument for not allowing Cleave to work with MI -- saves a bit of headaching over this kind of thing! :)
I don't see how Mirror Image would foil Blindsense. Unless you can't be seen. At which point Mirror Image isn't really what the attacker is overcoming are overcoming.Hmmm.... question. Would Blindsense or Blindsight negate the effects of the Mirror Image spell?Blindsense does not overcome concealment so I'd say no.
Blindsight I'd say yes.
Mirror Image does not foil blindsense, that was never my claim. The point is if blindsense foils MI, and it doesnt.
Mauril explains it pretty well so I'll just quote his post.Blindsense merely lets you target the square (as scent), so no. Blindsight, on the other hand, would likely negate the effects of mirror image. It specifically bypasses displacement and blur effects, but they are illusion(glammer) effects, not illusion(figment) effects.
I would rule that, unless mirror images affected all five senses, that Blindsight would bypass it.
Another interesting question is: since you destroy an illusionary image on a 'near miss' does that count as a successful hit for triggering Cleave/great cleave?
Which I suppose also raises the question of: If you Cleave with your eyes closed, miss the target by less than 5 (a near miss), do you get to keep cleaving?
I'd rule a successful hit as an attack that equals or exceeds the target's AC. So, no and no.
Mirror Image has no effect on a blind opponent, so you couldn't Cleave the images with your eyes closed. See SKR's response above, which I think seems reasonable for the spell as it interacts with the game's figment/blindness rules.
Something to think about when considering if the images are "adjacent" to each-other.
More than one creature can share a 5' square if they're tiny or smaller, are they adjacent?
Blindsense merely lets you target the square (as scent), so no. Blindsight, on the other hand, would likely negate the effects of mirror image. It specifically bypasses displacement and blur effects, but they are illusion(glammer) effects, not illusion(figment) effects.
I would rule that, unless mirror images affected all five senses, that Blindsight would bypass it.
I would also agree that Blindsight would allow a creature to disregard the miss chances provided by Mirror Image. As Blindsight is usually a sense for creatures without visual organs (oozes and the like) it would seem reasonable to consider those creatures as blind for the purposes of adjudicating Mirror Image's effects, i.e. no effect on the blind.
Something to think about when considering if the images are "adjacent" to each-other.
More than one creature can share a 5' square if they're tiny or smaller, are they adjacent?
I'd be comfortable with a real world definition of adjacency (rather than a gaming definition) for squares containing multiple creatures. Usually the gaming definition of adjacency (5' square next to 5' square) is used to imply that creatures are relatively close to one another for a game effect to occur/apply, and creatures in the same square are even closer. Perhaps adjacency should be defined as in base to base contact with one another.
This reminds me of a 1st edition game where the GM banned MI.
Some cleaver player argued that MI makes 5 illusionary copies of me. I cast Magic Missile so my target believes that he is hit by a magic missile spell from 5 targets. (Back then falling into an illusionary pit could kill you if you didn't think to disbelieve and make your save)
QED Mirror image is over powered.
Mirror image is not a mage and his five copies standing in a line. They are constantly shifting and blurring into and out of each other in a 5' square. Otherwise if you get lucky and hit the mage in your first swing you would be allowed to ignore the images. Also if you see a friend hitting one you could help against his target.
Mirror image does not make more targets. At no time do you believe that there is more than one mage. Therefore, you may not use cleave on that mage and his images.
Another interesting question is: since you destroy an illusionary image on a 'near miss' does that count as a successful hit for triggering Cleave/great cleave?
Which I suppose also raises the question of: If you Cleave with your eyes closed, miss the target by less than 5 (a near miss), do you get to keep cleaving?
I'd rule a successful hit as an attack that equals or exceeds the target's AC. So, no and no.
Mirror Image has no effect on a blind opponent, so you couldn't Cleave the images with your eyes closed. See SKR's response above, which I think seems reasonable for the spell as it interacts with the game's figment/blindness rules.
If you close your eyes the mirror image spell would not work for you and as such you would also not get to cleave the images.
Cleaving only works if you do NOT close your eyes.
In my opinion you can continue cleaving till you miss, I would actually allow a near miss that destroys an image to be treated as an hit, since it supposedly reflects the lesser AC of the images.
Though I guess that last is purely a judgement call also based on what the spell was like in 3.5
In my opinion you can continue cleaving till you miss, I would actually allow a near miss that destroys an image to be treated as an hit, since it supposedly reflects the lesser AC of the images.Though I guess that last is purely a judgement call also based on what the spell was like in 3.5
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach.
The spells does not make multiple targets. There is only one target but you are unsure of exactly where. Otherwise a magic missile spell would instantly dispel Mirror image. (I target 5 images with separate missiles and they all disappear)
quote from spell description : Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll
affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments.
quote : Spells
that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to
destroy a figment.
well at least it destroys the figment ^^
the situation you are describing is more like displacement, actually you have too many targets that is about the whole problem :)
Even if magic missile required an attack roll I do not see a problem with it really, you assume at least a 9th level caster, the mirror image has 1d4 + 1 image per 3 levels to max 9 images, he might hit the wizard once, pop 4 images and still have some images left.
I definately count within 5 feet as adjacent by the way, even if there is a solid rule definition of what adjacent means I prefer common sense, I cant think of a reason why you couldnt.. figments seem ideal for this tactic, you hit it it poofs hardly slows your blade at all and all neatly bunched together.
Mirror image is not a mage and his five copies standing in a line.
Not anymore (and from a mechanical standpoint, thank goodness!), but right up until PF it was exactly that. As late as 3.5, each of the images had to be within five feet of another image or you, not all within a 5-foot area. I'm almost certain the original source material which inspired the inclusion of that spell is an episode of Kung Fu, and the images were all in a line there too.
I assume the images have to be within 5 feet distance of the caster, though not in adjacent squares, a creature does not have to fit exactly in a 5 foot square perse the squares and adjacent rules are there for the sake of simplicity and battlemapping.
it is perfectly acceptable for the images to be spread out over an 8 feet diameter area and still treat as a 5 foot square. it's a broad generalization for sake of mechanics.
mirror image will become so much fun if you have a simulacrum with a mirror image of it's own joining in the fun ^^ (random thought, I might actually spring this on pc's sometime)
Mirror image is not a mage and his five copies standing in a line. They are constantly shifting and blurring into and out of each other in a 5' square. Otherwise if you get lucky and hit the mage in your first swing you would be allowed to ignore the images. Also if you see a friend hitting one you could help against his target.
Mirror image does not make more targets. At no time do you believe that there is more than one mage. Therefore, you may not use cleave on that mage and his images.
Read the spell description:
"Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment."Selected target is real or a figment....sounds like images can be targets to me.
In my opinion you can continue cleaving till you miss, I would actually allow a near miss that destroys an image to be treated as an hit, since it supposedly reflects the lesser AC of the images.
Cleave and Great Cleave require you 'hit' your target. I don't see how a miss (even a near miss) qualifies as a hit.
Two things: 1. Mirror image only affects physical attacks and spells that require attack rolls. It does not affect AoE spells or Magic Missile.
2. While the images are illusions, making an attack against one does destroy it, not merely reveals it to be an illusion. While I can see Cleave working/not working based on interpretation, it is not a clear cut issue, as the images produced by mirror image fulfill some of the requirements for a target and not others.
I don't think it's a big deal to have a 3 feat progression feat potentially defeat a level 2 spell.
I don't think it's a big deal to have a 3 feat progression feat potentially defeat a level 2 spell.
+1
In my opinion you can continue cleaving till you miss, I would actually allow a near miss that destroys an image to be treated as an hit, since it supposedly reflects the lesser AC of the images.Cleave and Great Cleave require you 'hit' your target. I don't see how a miss (even a near miss) qualifies as a hit.
well it is simple really, you make an attack roll before determining wether you actually target a figment or the caster.
If you hit vs the caster's AC you see wether you targeted a figment or the caster.
If you miss against the target's AC by 5 or less you destroy a figment, more realistic would be to see wether the target is actually the caster or a figment.
It would be a miss on the caster and a hit on the figment since I believe also judging from previous editions that the figments supposedly do not have as good a defense as the actual caster.
This in my opinion is a concession to speed up play, you dont roll randomly since most likely it will be an image, making an extra roll for a 1 in 6 chance that it actually does hit the caster for example.
you can rule otherwise, but I'd allow it, it might end up rewarding a fighter a little more for taking cleave / great cleave, it is a judgement call.
It works two ways, one favours the caster one the warrior, I think MI is enough hassle as is for a 2nd level spell so I allow the cleave.
The original poster is the DM of our campaign,and he was originally going along with scent being able to ferret out the real image. He originally agreed to this since I made the following arguements:
The key argument is that in the scent description and in the invisibility ability description the phrases pinpoint your target are used!!!!
It's critical to understand that there's no mention of pinpointing a 5x5 square.
IE.....when i pinpoint a creature by visuals or scent,i'm pinpointing the creature's exact location, not roughly guessing where you are in a 5x5 square!
If I'm a regular human Joe and have normal eyes AND pinpoint a quasit in his 2.5x2.5 square,then I pinpoint the quasit,whether he's dodging around in his square,or hovering in one little corner of quasit's square.The eyes are advanced enough to pinpoint and track a creatures movements, so that you can line them up with your sword strikes.
Scent is worded with the words pinpoint a creature's location,so it should work exactly as normal visual perception does.When I'm within 5 feet of you...IE. immediately adjacent to you for simplicity sake, I should be able to track and pinpoint your movements by smell as long as you stay within 5 feet of myself.
The Invisibility ability description states that a creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means, which supports the idea I presented above that normal vision can pinpoint a visible cretaure's location.
Now in regards to mirror image, If i'm an intelligent lifeform with reasoning capabilities,i should be able to track and pinpoint my crafty imaged wizard by smell,and then just strike at the wizard i see in the location that my scent is telling me he is standing in as I launch my strike.I will know 100% due to scent,that i'm striking at the real wizard at this point,even though visually I might be told there's other possibilities,I would just trust my scent sense rather than my visual sense.
I'm not suggesting scent should work as well for animal intelligence level creatures,but for intelligent sniffers it should definitely be something that is beneficial to overcoming a low level figemnt spell that does not affect the sense of smell.
Ummm, yeah, don't know what to tell you. Pinpoint in this case means to detect your location in the most precise way possible. In this case, a 5x5 square. It really doesn't do all the other things you think it does.
What you've done is taken a useful ability and turned it into a game breaker based solely on the word "pinpoint." Don't you think that if Scent totally nullified Invisibility, Mirror Image, blur, displacement, and every other spell that relied on fooling the senses, that somewhere there might be a rule, or something, that mentions it? You know, like, "creatures with scent are immune to illusions and mental effects that fool the senses." Or, "Scent counters invisibility." Or "attacking an invisible character incurs a 50% miss chance unless the attacker has scent." Or, something. Somewhere?
I don't actually blame you of course. Almost every DM has a player of two who will try to squeeze out every possible advantage from every possible source. Not really anything wrong with that. It can certainly be tiresome sometimes, but that's for your DM to deal with. I assume since you came on the forum to argue your case, that he told you scent was going to be abjudicated differently and you objected. In the end, it's between you and him, but I don't think you're going to find much support.
Hi Jake, I met you last year at paizocon as an aside!
I do respect your opinions,but I think you've misread what I'm saying.
I am not stating that any form of senses can be used to ignore invisibility...please reread what i've stated!
I am only paraphrasing invisibility to show that... pinpoint with visual senses is used in the literature somewhere. In fact under invisibility it is stating that you cannot pinpoint an invisible creature with visual senses.
We all know how pinpointing works in real life.In the case of visuals,I track a baseball that is thrown at me at 90+ miles per hour and have a good chance of batting it,if I'm a professional player who practices.
If it's a trained police dog that sniffs out drugs,and you throw a drug under one of 9 pilons in a 5x5 square,the dog goes to that pylon and pinpoints the location of the drug.
D&D is an abstract game,and location and pinpoint can be argued until we are all blue in the face.This is not what I'm doing. I'm showing that there's 2 cases in the literature/official rules that mention that creature's locations are or are not pinpointed. Scent and vision in conjunction have no bearing on the way invisibility 50% miss chances operate. Perhaps scent and another sense could foil invisilbility;but that's another separate issue which I haven't even considered.The only reason I ever considered this,is because we have an evil party member who seems intent on turning againstour party.He favors mirror image and I can use scent,so I was preparing contingencies for the day he turns on us???
I don't think that what i'm proposing is a stretch of the imagination or the rules.An intelligent creature with reasoning capabilities could probably use the 2 senses in conjunction to ferret out the real wizard amongst mirror images.We all know how pinpoint works in real life,and we all know how it was meant to work in the game.
In the case of mirror image,I ignore the part of my vision that tells me the wizard is elsewhere since i've pinpointed the real wizard with scent,but i pay heed to the part of my vision that allows me to track the particular movements of the real wizard,so that I can connect with my sword swing as that real wizard dodges/weaves/ducks.
The only reason I'm believing you can outwit mirror image with the 2 senses mentioned above is because you are able to use BOTH senses in your discovery of the real wizard. If you just have scent then you can't see the wizard and have a 50% miss chance. If you just have vision,then you are forced to guess which image is the true image.Also if you are of animal or low intelligence,or had never been exposed to mirror image spells,then perhaps you would have trouble reasoning through the illusory puzzle? I know that creatures are in constant motion even though they are technically in a 5x5 square...I do understand that it's an abstract location ideal. This is why pinpointing with just one sense should not be guaranteed to overcome trickery/illusions in the game.
If there was not proof in the SRD and real-life that you can pinpoint with scent and vision,then I would not believe mirror image could be foiled.But because of the proof, I did present the idea to my DM.
Fair enough, but I still disagree. Oh, and wrong Jake. Haven't been to Paizocon yet. Good luck in your game.
'The creature detects another creature’s presence but not
its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a
move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square)
of the scent’s source, the creature can pinpoint the area
that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.'
I pasted that from the scent ability,
'It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible
creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once
a character has pinpointed the square that contains an
invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total
concealment (50% miss chance)'
, and this from the INVISIBILITY ability.
obviously they are talking about pinpointing an area, and yes so does invisibility, all it does is determine the square it is in. you wouldn't be able to distinguish the real caster out off several images that stay in the same square as the caster. though you can always close your eyes, but it wont negate the 50 % misschance.
Remco, the full SRD text for scent is that is needed to understand my argument is:
Scent (Ex)
This extraordinary special quality allows a creature to detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell. Creatures with the scent ability can identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights.
The creature can detect opponents within 30 feet by sense of smell. If the opponent is upwind, the range increases to 60 feet; if downwind, it drops to 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at triple normal range.
When a creature detects a scent, the exact location of the source is not revealed—only its presence somewhere within range. The creature can take a move action to note the direction of the scent.
Whenever the creature comes within 5 feet of the source, the creature pinpoints the source’s location.
.......The last sentence overrides the second last sentence...and it does have a limitation in that you must be within 5 feet of the target.
From the online dictionary pinpoint verb is defined as:
pin·point (pnpoint)
tr.v. pin·point·ed, pin·point·ing, pin·points
1. To locate or identify with precision.
2. To take precise aim at: pinpoint a target.
3. To direct attention to: We pinpointed the flaws in his argument.
I was talking with another friend,and I think I would just house rule that because the pinpointing is open for debate...i would rule that the mirror imaged wizard cannot benefit from more than 1 image when he's being perceived by both scent and vision in conjunction.There's a chance that at least one image would be close enough to the real wizard that it might still confuse the attacker....so i would just give the attacker a 50% miss chance until all of the images are destroyed.
Also thought i'd add from the dictionary:
source  –noun 1. any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin
IE. the source of blood is the creature,the source of dragons breath is the dragon, the source of a stink is the stinky man
And for my fellow camapigner's the source of Max's flatulence is his ass,although he does tend to drop bombs that linger in a cloudkill zone.
From the online dictionary pinpoint verb is defined as:pin·point (pnpoint)
tr.v. pin·point·ed, pin·point·ing, pin·points
1. To locate or identify with precision.
2. To take precise aim at: pinpoint a target.
3. To direct attention to: We pinpointed the flaws in his argument.
There's a certain risk in using a dictionary definition to interpret a rule. Sometimes, the rules have to define their own terms and what they mean for the game context rather than what they mean for a scientific context, or the context of gabbing with friends down at the local bar.
In this case, when the rules say that a creature with scent "can pinoint the area that the source occupies", I believe they are defining the degree of precision to an area, or square, that the target occupies. Since it's not enough precision to negate the miss chance due to concealment (like invisibility or complete darkness) or blur or displacement, I don't think there's a strong argument to be made that it's precise enough to tell one mirror image from the caster.
Using a dictionary definition, in this case, fails to convince in the face of how the game rules have defined the term.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pinpoint in the game means "determine a creature's square." It's one of those times where the game rule's definition of the word isn't the same as the common definition.
So what's the ruling? Would Great Cleave own this spell?It depends. Define adjacent.
I like the move action angle mentioned above for acquiring the blind condition temporarily to help overcome the massive miss chance. I don't think it should be of until-next-round duration, though. The problem with Mirror Image is that it's insanely good for a 2nd level spell, it should have some weakness. As mentioned above, it completely outperforms Displacement (a 3rd level spell), in effect AND duration. And if a mage wants use it as defensively as possible, the readying of an action to move if someone takes the move action for the blind condition seems about right to me. And make no mistake, I do love this spell, I just think it's a little too good without the eye closing tactic. And not every foe is smart enough to pull off this tactic.
Oh, and I do believe that Great Cleave should own it.
Except it is easily countered by a very common level 1 spell, Magic Missle. A level 9 wizard or sorc will kill 5 images a round(4 if one of the missles hit the caster). Rapid Shot and flurry of blows also do great because the images only get the casters dex bonus, and thus are a lot easier to hit even with the -2 to hit.
Except it is easily countered by a very common level 1 spell, Magic Missle.
Nope. Magic missile unerringly hits its target, which means it will always hit the mage and never hit any mirror images.
Except it is easily countered by a very common level 1 spell, Magic Missle. A level 9 wizard or sorc will kill 5 images a round(4 if one of the missles hit the caster). Rapid Shot and flurry of blows also do great because the images only get the casters dex bonus, and thus are a lot easier to hit even with the -2 to hit.So what's the ruling? Would Great Cleave own this spell?It depends. Define adjacent.
I like the move action angle mentioned above for acquiring the blind condition temporarily to help overcome the massive miss chance. I don't think it should be of until-next-round duration, though. The problem with Mirror Image is that it's insanely good for a 2nd level spell, it should have some weakness. As mentioned above, it completely outperforms Displacement (a 3rd level spell), in effect AND duration. And if a mage wants use it as defensively as possible, the readying of an action to move if someone takes the move action for the blind condition seems about right to me. And make no mistake, I do love this spell, I just think it's a little too good without the eye closing tactic. And not every foe is smart enough to pull off this tactic.
Oh, and I do believe that Great Cleave should own it.
note that mirror image has changed in prpg, voiding the 'they only have dex bonus to AC'.
Unable to think of a 1st or 2nd level spell that would be a great counter measure for mirror image now from the top of my head.
It unerringly hits the target you designate. Which means if you designate the missle to hit mirror image 1, then it hits mirror image 1. If image 1 happens to be the mage, then it will deal damage normally.
You cannot target individual images in Pathfinder. Mirror image only works against attacks and spells that allow attack rolls; it says so explicitly in the spell description.
Except it is easily countered by a very common level 1 spell, Magic Missle. A level 9 wizard or sorc will kill 5 images a round(4 if one of the missles hit the caster). Rapid Shot and flurry of blows also do great because the images only get the casters dex bonus, and thus are a lot easier to hit even with the -2 to hit.So what's the ruling? Would Great Cleave own this spell?It depends. Define adjacent.
I like the move action angle mentioned above for acquiring the blind condition temporarily to help overcome the massive miss chance. I don't think it should be of until-next-round duration, though. The problem with Mirror Image is that it's insanely good for a 2nd level spell, it should have some weakness. As mentioned above, it completely outperforms Displacement (a 3rd level spell), in effect AND duration. And if a mage wants use it as defensively as possible, the readying of an action to move if someone takes the move action for the blind condition seems about right to me. And make no mistake, I do love this spell, I just think it's a little too good without the eye closing tactic. And not every foe is smart enough to pull off this tactic.
Oh, and I do believe that Great Cleave should own it.
note that mirror image has changed in prpg, voiding the 'they only have dex bonus to AC'.
Unable to think of a 1st or 2nd level spell that would be a great counter measure for mirror image now from the top of my head.
Still unless the mage has a lot of other buffs in play they should be pretty easy to hit, even with a -2. If the mage has a lot of buff spells up, then you are better off using dispel magic.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
We all know how pinpointing works in real life.In the case of visuals,I track a baseball that is thrown at me at 90+ miles per hour and have a good chance of batting it,if I'm a professional player who practices.
If it's a trained police dog that sniffs out drugs,and you throw a drug under one of 9 pilons in a 5x5 square,the dog goes to that pylon and pinpoints the location of the drug.
The big difference between the two is, of course, speed.
Vision is light based. Your eyes take in photons and your brain converts them to a representation of your environment. 'In real life' nothing is faster than electromagnetic wave energy.(Aside: Did you know... Someone listening to a live radio show miles away will hear a speaker before someone 10 feet away in the same recording booth does?)
Smell is particle based. Little bits of the matter we are smelling break off and are carried on the wind. They fly into our noses and onto special glands that analyze the smell.
Combat is fast paced. Like that 90+mph baseball, a trained warrior can anticipate his enemy's movements, dodge a blow, and riposte within seconds, knocking that puny wizard out of the park.
Now blindfold a bloodhound, and kick at it. See if he can smell your leg coming at you and avoid it. Those drugs under those pylons are 1) not moving, and 2) not trying to kill the dog.
That's why scent works for Track, but not pinpointing invisible creatures (no miss chance) in combat.
An earlier poster commented how cramming MI into a single square makes it obvious it is an illusion effect. How is spreading the images out make the effect any more believable or real?
I have a Rainbow-themed Gnome Abjurer named Royslydale Glimmerprism Bivinshadow whose Mirror Images (including himself) all become single colored copies (one red, one orange, so on). They all swap colors every round, so its impossible to know which one is the real Roy. (unless you have Blindsight.)
That is the intent of the spell.
Still unless the mage has a lot of other buffs in play they should be pretty easy to hit, even with a -2. If the mage has a lot of buff spells up, then you are better off using dispel magic.
Any spell that doesn't require an attack roll foils mirror image for that spell. Whether the images are easy hits or not is subject to case-specific circumstances. What's the source of this "-2" you keep mentioning?
Pinpoint in the game means "determine a creature's square." It's one of those times where the game rule's definition of the word isn't the same as the common definition.
So by this reasoning tremorsense can also be fooled by mirror images since it's worded exactly the same way.Again,this just doesn't make sense to me.
So by this reasoning tremorsense can also be fooled by mirror images since it's worded exactly the same way.Again,this just doesn't make sense to me.Pinpoint in the game means "determine a creature's square." It's one of those times where the game rule's definition of the word isn't the same as the common definition.
How can it be fooled exactly? Tremorsense is a "tactile" sense and MI a visual illusion. They don't even interact.
How can it be fooled exactly? Tremorsense is a "tactile" sense and MI a visual illusion. They don't even interact.So by this reasoning tremorsense can also be fooled by mirror images since it's worded exactly the same way.Again,this just doesn't make sense to me.Pinpoint in the game means "determine a creature's square." It's one of those times where the game rule's definition of the word isn't the same as the common definition.
Tremorsense is only accurate enough to tell you the square the caster is in. It never tells you "exactly" where someone is like blindsight does.