| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I cast Mirror Image on myself while I am on a mount.
DM temporarily rules that I cannot benefit from this until he researches, as he thinks that because the REAL "me" is easily viewed as the one on my mount.
I dissagree and think that I should benefit from this regardless, as the purpose of these images is to "...make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you..." and the images "...remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly..."
Any thoughts, suggestions or answers are appreciated!
:)
Mirror Image:
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.
When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created.
These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).
You still get it. the images are still all in your space
|
Yeah, the images are little in front, a little behind, a little to the left, a little to the right...the way it's been illustrated or shown in Video Games makes people think it expands far away from you, but really, the images are pretty tight against you. You might also say that it makes you invisible for a fraction of a second and puts the illusion in a separate spot, and it does this so fast and frequently that the spell is protecting you.
Honestly, the DM should be thinking of this kind of thing on the spot. The DM's job is to make the game fun for everyone, not to be your adversary and Pluto your options and abilities.
I can see the GMs point and would rule the same way, just like heavy rain might give away your position when you are invisible and the like.
I can see the GMs point and would rule the same way, just like heavy rain might give away your position when you are invisible and the like.
I concur. While the spell makes copies of you, it does not make copies of your mount. While the images may be packed relatively tightly around you, only ONE will 'naturally' appear to be ON the mount -- the others, shaped like you (hence, sitting), will be on the saddle horn, or have a leg vanishing into the mount, and so on. I would think that the presence of the other images would provide concealment, however, as they alternately flick and group around you.
I am a SMALL Gnome Bard on a MEDIUM Riding dog, which take up a standard 5' square, not 10'.
I do not think this spell should affect the riding dog at all, that would be more of a SHARE SPELL ability or something.
But again, the purpose of the spell is to "...make it difficult for enemies to PRECISELY locate and attack you..." and the images "...move WITH you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly..."
This is not invisibility, but almost like COVER or BLUR of some sort, making it difficult to PRECISELY locate and attack you. An attacker does not really target your leg I think.
Does this mean if Im standing on a chair, then it negates the effect too? Or anything else? I think I need to remember that this is NOT based on reality or real world mechanics, because its MAGIC in a fantasy setting. Still getting feedback.
And once the DM made this ruling, I agreed to move the game forward with his ruling until we discussed it/researched it later. :)
I would definitely not let this affect the mount as well, it would trivialize the Share Spells ability (at least for this spell).
If your character is sitting in the saddle and there are mirror images just a few inches in front of him and behind him that look as if reality had bad collision detection a clever foe might get a hint of your PC's actual location. But the way I would handle it it would have to be a really clever opponent (say, Int/Wis 14+) that makes a Perception check of at least DC 20 as a standard action to get a halved miss chance for its next attack.
|
|
Does this mean if Im standing on a chair, then it negates the effect too? Or anything else?
This is why I don't stop spells from doing what they are meant to do when presented with a magic vs logic question. It gets far too sticky. Because by your DM's reasoning (a lot of these other posters) yes, a chair does negate the spell's effect. This is what I usually think to myself before I try to make a spell not work:
-Am I changing what the spell does because it is far too powerful when mixed with this situation/ is it broken? If yes, than hopefully the player can recognize the power they found in this break, let them possibly exploit it once for fun (maybe), and then never again.
OR
-Am I changing what the spell does because it makes no logical/visual sense, but it isn't actually broken? If yes, then I actually shouldn't mess with the spell. The player isn't actually hurting anything by doing what they are doing, and meanwhile, I'm trying to apply logic TO MAGIC.
Do I think mirror image on horseback is any more powerful than anything else? As in: Mirror Image + Horseback = Broken? No, I don't see it. So it doesn't make any sense. Meanwhile, the player wasted a spell, and gained no benefit, and only because I couldn't visualize it in my head, not because it was powerful. Meanwhile, I could say the spell creates clouds around the player, or only double images the character and horse when people attack the character, but when they attack the horse, there is only one horse...tons of ways I could make the rules of the spell work, make it make logical sense, and all without harming the player's options.
|
I would meet the player halfway on this one. Some of the images could be easily confused with the rider, especially if they are seen as sitting on the horse just slightly forward or slightly back, whereas images offset to one side or the other without a horse cleanly beneath them would be much more easily discerned. I would still give attacks a chance of hitting an image, but I would give them a better than even chance of hitting the actual character. For instance, if there were, say, five images, I would give it a random d8 roll, with 1-3 hitting the character, and 4-8 hitting an image.
|
|
Honestly, the DM should be thinking of this kind of thing on the spot. The DM's job is to make the game fun for everyone, not to be your adversary and Pluto your options and abilities.
It is also the DM's job to challenge the players. Sometimes this requires throwing a wrench into the gears, making things not *always* work exactly the way the players want them to, making the players think on their feet. A game where the DM always defers to the players wishes is no more fun than one where the DM never defers to the players wishes. While overburdening the game with logic can really drag things down, by the same token, tossing logic out the door just because the language of the spell doesn't account for every possible permutation is just as bad.
So there is no longer a possibility that this ILLUSION (Figment) spell COULD "Fool" someone in the midst of battle?
"...Whenever you are attacked...that requires an attack roll, there is a POSSIBILITY that the attack targets one of your images instead..."
"An attacker must be able to see the figments to be FOOLED"
Should an attacker be able to spend some amount of time to target or pay special attention "in combat" to which of the illusions that is "mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly..." could possibly be me, so they can "PRECICELY" locate me?
Just more things I'm thinking about.
Invisiblity specifically states how it can be negated.
Mirror Image does NOT. Only that it doesnt work if the attacker is blind or the user is also Invisible. Ultimately, its an ILLUSION spell meant to FOOL anyone attacking you in combat. Not someone stopping to say "hey...his foot isnt moving very much..."
Excellent new replies/posts...This is getting really helpful!
Logic vs Magic.
The DM didnt like that I was able to be mounted and have a better MOVE (Normally I have a 20 move for being small, but my dog legs me move 40). He said I couldnt benefit from both a higher movement AND the Mirror Image, then started ruling that being MOUNTED would negate the Illusions effectivenesss. 2 different and unrelated issues.
It may not be Logical, but its an Illusion.
I am not a huge damage person, the spell doesnt do anything but protect me if I am targeted in battle, and I dont think using it while being mounted makes it a BROKEN spell.
|
I can see the GMs point and would rule the same way, just like heavy rain might give away your position when you are invisible and the like.I concur. While the spell makes copies of you, it does not make copies of your mount. While the images may be packed relatively tightly around you, only ONE will 'naturally' appear to be ON the mount -- the others, shaped like you (hence, sitting), will be on the saddle horn, or have a leg vanishing into the mount, and so on. I would think that the presence of the other images would provide concealment, however, as they alternately flick and group around you.
It is a 6 second round and the images mix and flicker constantly. Identifying the "true" image by this kind of details would be very hard, especially as the target isn't immobile. It will maybe increase the chance of hitting the right image, but the spell effect would not be negated.
A possible houserule could be to add one to the chance of hitting the right "image", i.e., if you have 8 images and the true character, instead of rolling 1d10, with one being the character, 2-9 the images and 10 reroll, it can be 1-2 the character and 3-10 the images. It is a huge reduction in the spell efficiency but the effect remain basically the same.
Concealment, if meant as the game term, is something noticeably different.
Applying logic to a situation created by magic is not the same as applying logic to magic, if it creates a situation that is hard to imagine it is likely the caster is using his magic 'wrong'.
You do not use mirror image when on a mount, blur might be better but it would not function like blur, you just cast the wrong spell for the situation. I am very wary of magic trumping all common reasoning just because it is magic, magic is so much more interesting if you actually have to play it somewhat intelligently taking into account the world around you provides for better interaction and immersion.
I could quite easily imagine an image standing on a chair and the rest standing around it, a mounted character would stretch the situation too much for me. I can see different GM's rule differently but I consider it a fair call.
|
|
Should an attacker be able to spend some amount of time to target or pay special attention "in combat" to which of the illusions that is "mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly..." could possibly be me, so they can "PRECICELY" locate me?
If it were my game, if an attacker wanted to take a move action to more closely analyze what he's seeing, I would give him a bonus on the random die roll to hit you instead of one of your images. The language of the spell description in the book is not the be-all/end-all of how the spell can be treated. After all, it was written by fallible humans who certainly could not foresee every possible way and every possible situation in which a person might try to use the spell, or every possible way in which a DM might make it more challenging. So DM discretion plays a big part. If you interpret it as the images are tightly hugging you, then it is still logically pretty easy to hit you as long as your attacker aims for the middle of the cluster. If you interpret it as the images being more spread apart, then there are more chances to be able to discern the real from the figment based upon whether or not the images are reacting naturally with the environment. If you're on horseback, and there are four you's lined up on the horse, the you's sitting on the horse's head and tail are probably not really you, nor are the you's hanging off to the side and floating in midair.
I can see the GMs point and would rule the same way, just like heavy rain might give away your position when you are invisible and the like.I concur. While the spell makes copies of you, it does not make copies of your mount. While the images may be packed relatively tightly around you, only ONE will 'naturally' appear to be ON the mount -- the others, shaped like you (hence, sitting), will be on the saddle horn, or have a leg vanishing into the mount, and so on. I would think that the presence of the other images would provide concealment, however, as they alternately flick and group around you.
It is a 6 second round and the images mix and flicker constantly. Identifying the "true" image by this kind of details would be very hard, especially as the target isn't immobile. It will maybe increase the chance of hitting the right image, but the spell effect would not be negated.
A possible houserule could be to add one to the chance of hitting the right "image", i.e., if you have 8 images and the true character, instead of rolling 1d10, with one being the character, 2-9 the images and 10 reroll, it can be 1-2 the character and 3-10 the images. It is a huge reduction in the spell efficiency but the effect remain basically the same.
Concealment, if meant as the game term, is something noticeably different.
I'd be less lenient, leaning towards a base 50% chance to pick off the real character determining the target randomly if that chance fails.
|
|
Excellent new replies/posts...This is getting really helpful!
Logic vs Magic.
The DM didnt like that I was able to be mounted and have a better MOVE (Normally I have a 20 move for being small, but my dog legs me move 40). He said I couldnt benefit from both a higher movement AND the Mirror Image, then started ruling that being MOUNTED would negate the Illusions effectivenesss. 2 different and unrelated issues.
It may not be Logical, but its an Illusion.
I am not a huge damage person, the spell doesnt do anything but protect me if I am targeted in battle, and I dont think using it while being mounted makes it a BROKEN spell.
It's not broken, it's just not as suitable for a mounted character as it is for a grounded character. Also remember that if you're casting the spell while your mount is moving, you have to make a concentration check to be able to cast it.
|
|
I'd be less lenient, leaning towards a base 50% chance to pick off the real character determining the target randomly if that chance fails.
And what you will do when the number of image decrease?
Doubling the chance to hit the character is already a big decrease in the spell effectiveness.
The DM didnt like that I was able to be mounted and have a better MOVE (Normally I have a 20 move for being small, but my dog legs me move 40). He said I couldnt benefit from both a higher movement AND the Mirror Image, then started ruling that being MOUNTED would negate the Illusions effectivenesss. 2 different and unrelated issues.
If that was really his reasoning I question what he will do the day you learn fly.
I'd be less lenient, leaning towards a base 50% chance to pick off the real character determining the target randomly if that chance fails.And what you will do when the number of image decrease?
Doubling the chance to hit the character is already a big decrease in the spell effectiveness.
When the numbers decrease the chance to pick off the right target will still increase, just less. I mean if you see one holding on to the horses tail one sitting on the horse's head one hanging on to each side and one on the saddle, you might cross off some unlikely targets. When you got only two images left one might be hanging down the side and another might be sitting just behind or infront of you, making much more likely real targets.
I consider it fair no matter how many images there are and it is a migitation of outright denying the spell to work, still way better than blur for example with 4 images giving a 37.5% miss chance, with 3 images giving roughly a 33% miss chance, 2 images giving a 25% miss chance. The more images the less the additional images contribute to your defense.
I'd be less lenient, leaning towards a base 50% chance to pick off the real character determining the target randomly if that chance fails.And what you will do when the number of image decrease?
Doubling the chance to hit the character is already a big decrease in the spell effectiveness.If that was really his reasoning I question what he will do the day you learn fly.
The DM didnt like that I was able to be mounted and have a better MOVE (Normally I have a 20 move for being small, but my dog legs me move 40). He said I couldnt benefit from both a higher movement AND the Mirror Image, then started ruling that being MOUNTED would negate the Illusions effectivenesss. 2 different and unrelated issues.
I doubt his complaints were rooted in the mechanics entirely, I'd just think it a bit silly and hard to imagine it working fully. Many people tend to try imagine how something plays out rather than looking at the effect, especially GMs are guilty of this, since they actually have to tell the story and paint a picture for himself and everyone else.
|
|
Indeed, for a dynamic story to really work, willful suspension of disbelief can only take you so far. On the other hand, one could invision that the images all act independently and react seamlessly with the environment - this image is running alongside, while three other images are sitting back to back in the saddle, one wielding the reins, one drawing a bow, and one hefting a sword and screaming like a barbarian. That might make it much harder to figure out which is the real one, but I also think that version of a mirror image spell would probably be a bit higher level.
|
|
Also remember that if you're casting the spell while your mount is moving, you have to make a concentration check to be able to cast it.
Yeah, that is why I don't think it is powerful at all. That looming chance of failure to cast a spell while riding? I wouldn't think it is worth adding 20 feet to your speed (Assuming that if you are riding a dog, you are small, and move at 20 feet). What is that DC? 15 + (2 X Spell's level)? Yikes.
Hrm. After careful rereading of the spell, I'm going to have to change my mind. The description says that the images make it difficult to definitively locate and attack you, not that the images present themselves as separate targets from the real you. Regardless of whether or not they were very off-kilter, the images being clustered around the caster would still fulfill that purpose -- making it difficult to locate and attack him.
Spell functions fine. Looks incredibly wonky from a roleplay descriptive...but achieves the desired effect.
I can see the GMs point and would rule the same way, just like heavy rain might give away your position when you are invisible and the like.
See, I don't much like this point-of-view. I'm supposed to understand that invisibility is somehow able to magically redirect light photons so they resume their path exactly as if they were uninterrupted in the first place? It's so good at what it does as a spell that it doesn't get even the slightest amount of diffraction incorrect from any viewing angle whatsoever. Yet you consider it a stretch to understand that it also recreates the illusion of macroscopic water droplets falling through its space?
I honestly think you're trying too hard to simulate reality here. The spell says you (and your gear) become invisible. So let it happen. If you don't, you've got to accept that airborne dust particles (commonly found in dungeons and outdoors settings and old buildings and pretty much everywhere else adventures adventure) are going to accrete on the poor invisible guy's clothing, making him increasingly visible as early as seconds after casting, depending on the environment.
We're not here to screw our players and search high and low for reasons their abilities and actions don't work.
That said, I admit there's a struggle when the players want to slop a bucket of paint into a room to find an invisible person. Personally I adjudicate that sort of thing based on degree. Commonly encountered situations like rain or dust... invisibility compensates for; it must else the spell borders on useless. Uncommon situations like... an arrow sticking out of you... it can't handle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many people tend to try imagine how something plays out rather than looking at the effect, especially GMs are guilty of this, since they actually have to tell the story and paint a picture for himself and everyone else.
Yup. It's natural but something we need to work for.
For me, mirror image is much like TV/movies portray point-of-view shots for a drunk person or someone who's had a head-injury. You're seeming multiples. Only subtract out the multiples for objects the spell doesn't apply to. Want to shoot the mount? No problem. Want to stab the rider? Well, man... looking at him... my head just hurts... which... one... is real? Ugh. Stab. Miss.
For me, mirror image is much like TV/movies portray point-of-view shots for a drunk person or someone who's had a head-injury. You're seeming multiples. Only subtract out the multiples for objects the spell doesn't apply to. Want to shoot the mount? No problem. Want to stab the rider? Well, man... looking at him... my head just hurts... which... one... is real? Ugh. Stab. Miss.
This is pretty good, I like it. I think I'll use this myself from now on with mirror image. Thanks.
There is nothing in the rules giving an exceptions to when Mirror Image doesn't work (except when the attacker can't see the target.) It doesn't say anywhere that there is any way for an attacker to accurately pinpoint a target due to the target standing/sitting on a specific object, etc.
Just last week, our sorcerer cast mirror image on himself, then proceeded to climb up a ladder. We all had a good laugh thinking about how it must look for himself plus 4 images all climbing up around each other, but it never once occurred to any of us, our DM included, to nullify the spell while he was on the ladder.
Mirror Image is one of those spells that is hard to visualize. You can have all these images of you in the same square, yet if you were invisible in that square, you would have less defense.
Usually with mirror image, we stop trying to visualize it, because the mechanics don't really fit with the picture.
If your DM insists on trying to picture it, you could argue that as a minimum, all these images crowded around the real you should at least give concealment, though that's not how the spell is supposed to work. (Your DM doesn't seem to want to use the spell as it is supposed to work, so play his way)
Yar.
Combat is an abstraction. Called Shots are an optional rule. By default, one cannot "aim for his leg", so why does the mirror image HAVE to include his legs astride his mount? You could describe the multiple images as upper body only, each one leaning slightly off from your body, but still mimicking what it is doing exactly. They are still in your space, but now it's a "flower blossoming" from your mount visual.
If it weren’t for the line "mimicking your movements ... and actions exactly." I would say each image astride your mount could be striking a different pose. Even though it is mechanically exactly the same, that would be a house rule.
Still, each image being at a very slightly different angle from the waist up should be a viable choice. The spell does not say that each image must also be parallel to your current orientation. Nor does it say they must be on all sides of you. Perhaps you have some front-to-back wiggle room in the saddle, and each image is slightly in front and behind you in the saddle.
There is no RAW reason for Mirror Image to not work while the caster is on a mount (except for if you cast it while on the mount AND you fail the concentration check).
Another take: it’s an illusion. It doesn’t create actual copies of you. It creates illusions. Many illusion spells appear differently to different observers. Perhaps even changing how it appears to a single observer depending on various circumstances, such as where he’s focusing his attention. Thus, the mount CAN be included in the multiple images WHEN HE’S FOCUSED ON ATTACKING YOU, but when he focuses on attacking the mount, his vision improves and he sees only the one mount. Should his attention go back to you, he sees multiples of everything again. Guess what? Magic.
Edit: technically the "another take" is a house rule; as "figments" do not by RAW create custom illusions for the observer, which is too bad. I still hold to my initial suggestion though. There is no rule saying that the images can or cannot be parallel or at a slight angle from your own orientation, so as long as it's within reason (very slight angles close to parallel) it should be allowed.
There are no rules to cover absolutely every situation. Paizo's staff (and many other posters) have said that this is intentional a number of times on the forums, as such a book would be larger than anything ever published or printed before in all of history. Impossibly huge. Thus, many of the rules are there to represent an abstraction, and many of them are also intentionally vague so that we, as the humans who play the game, can interpret and deal with the corner cases as they come up. Thus in the end it's the DM/GM's call. Still, and in the same vein, I would not prevent a spell from working as written because of something like this. Instead I would describe the fluff to make it make sense.
(and hopefully the last edit I make to this post)
~P
Remember that scene in The Matrix when Neo dodges those bullets on the rooftop? That's what I see Mirror Image to look like. The way they made Neo look, not how the images act.
|
|
See, I don't much like this point-of-view. I'm supposed to understand that invisibility is somehow able to magically redirect light photons so they resume their path exactly as if they were uninterrupted in the first place? It's so good at what it does as a spell that it doesn't get even the slightest amount of diffraction incorrect from any viewing angle whatsoever. Yet you consider it a stretch to understand that it also recreates the illusion of macroscopic water droplets falling through its space?
Read the invisibility entry on pages 564-565 of the core rulebook. It lists several ways that invisibility can be foiled, including throwing flour on an invisible creature, or looking for how it displaces water. So yes, by the rules as written, falling rain could reveal an invisible creature.
The Concentration check is 10 +Spell level on a mount, or 15 + Spell level if its in full gallop/run mode. I only rarely cast after a mounts move action. But I will be more aware of this.
Everyone's comments, reminders and clarifications have been really helpful.
Its opened my eyes more and I better understand both sides and the spells intent.
I am working it out with the dm before next game so we know how to handle it so it doesn't slow down game time.
Thank you everyone! :-)
Remember that scene in The Matrix when Neo dodges those bullets on the rooftop? That's what I see Mirror Image to look like. The way they made Neo look, not how the images act.
That seems more like blur to me.
its MAGIC! of course you get the bonus. The spell description does not say you lose the effect while mounted.
The spell does not mention alot of things, some interpretation and on the spot ruling is part of the game I play, magic is used to do many things that are not mentioned in spell descriptions by creative players, such things should go two ways though.
Remember that scene in The Matrix when Neo dodges those bullets on the rooftop? That's what I see Mirror Image to look like. The way they made Neo look, not how the images act.That seems more like blur to me
How so? He wasn't blurry. It looked like several Neos standing in the same spot. Unless we're thinking of two different scenes. I haven't watched it in a while that is possible.
Read the invisibility entry on pages 564-565 of the core rulebook. It lists several ways that invisibility can be foiled, including throwing flour on an invisible creature, or looking for how it displaces water. So yes, by the rules as written, falling rain could reveal an invisible creature.
I understand that. And yes, I'd allow flour (like the paint I mention). I disagree about the rain drops though. Displacement isn't quite the same thing. Displacement would typically be the indentation in a body of water a partially or completely submerged object makes. A boat for instance displaces a certain amount of water and were the boat invisible, that indentation would be very visible because the actual boundary of the water's edge was significantly... displaced. Falling raindrops aren't the same scale to me at all. They aren't so much displaced as they'd impact on the invisible object, unable to cohabit the same space.
What I was saying is that quantities so trivial I wouldn't rule invalidating the spell's ability. Torrential downpour? Probably. Blizzard snowstorm? Probably. Duststorm in the desert? Probably. But a typical rainfall? Probably not.
How so? He wasn't blurry. It looked like several Neos standing in the same spot. Unless we're thinking of two different scenes. I haven't watched it in a while that is possible.Remember that scene in The Matrix when Neo dodges those bullets on the rooftop? That's what I see Mirror Image to look like. The way they made Neo look, not how the images act.That seems more like blur to me
You might be thinking of the agent. Neo just fell backwards extremely fast. The agent dodged a dozen ways splitting up into a bunch of positions while Neo emptied his gun at him.
|
|
Read the invisibility entry on pages 564-565 of the core rulebook. It lists several ways that invisibility can be foiled, including throwing flour on an invisible creature, or looking for how it displaces water. So yes, by the rules as written, falling rain could reveal an invisible creature.I understand that. And yes, I'd allow flour (like the paint I mention). I disagree about the rain drops though. Displacement isn't quite the same thing. Displacement would typically be the indentation in a body of water a partially or completely submerged object makes. A boat for instance displaces a certain amount of water and were the boat invisible, that indentation would be very visible because the actual boundary of the water's edge was significantly... displaced. Falling raindrops aren't the same scale to me at all. They aren't so much displaced as they'd impact on the invisible object, unable to cohabit the same space.
What I was saying is that quantities so trivial I wouldn't rule invalidating the spell's ability. Torrential downpour? Probably. Blizzard snowstorm? Probably. Duststorm in the desert? Probably. But a typical rainfall? Probably not.
It will depend on the rain strength. A drizzle? no effect on invisibility.
A heavy rain when someone is very near the invisible character (as that kind of rain limit visibility)? It should give a noticeable bonus to teh perception check.
You could always hang off the side of your mount for the +4 ac bonus, then your mirror images are all over the place.
It is also the DM's job to challenge the players. Sometimes this requires throwing a wrench into the gears, making things not *always* work exactly the way the players want them to, making the players think on their feet. A game where the DM always defers to the players wishes is no more fun than one where the DM never defers to the players wishes. While overburdening the game with logic can really drag things down, by the same token, tossing logic out the door just because the language of the spell doesn't account for every possible permutation is just as bad.
Honestly, the DM should be thinking of this kind of thing on the spot. The DM's job is to make the game fun for everyone, not to be your adversary and Pluto your options and abilities.
Speaking as a GM, our toolbox of random horrors of challenge is so vast that I personally view any GM who has to make up problems for the PCs, or just randomly deny them abilities as being a failure at GMing. It's like having a plumber who ignores all the tools in his toolbox and then decides to use a sledgehammer to fix your pipes. It's sloppy and it solves nothing.
|
|
Re invisibility and rain, here is a pertinent quite from The Invisible Man:
"I could not go abroad in snow -- it would settle on me and expose me. Rain, too, would make me a watery outline, a glistening surface of a man -- a bubble. And fog -- I should be like a fainter bubble in a fog, a surface, a greasy glimmer of humanity. Moreover, as I went abroad -- in the London air -- I gathered dirt about my ankles, floating smuts and dust upon my skin. I did not know how long it would be before I should become visible from that cause also. But I saw clearly it could not be for long."
Speaking as a GM, our toolbox of random horrors of challenge is so vast that I personally view any GM who has to make up problems for the PCs, or just randomly deny them abilities as being a failure at GMing. It's like having a plumber who ignores all the tools in his toolbox and then decides to use a sledgehammer to fix your pipes. It's sloppy and it solves nothing.It is also the DM's job to challenge the players. Sometimes this requires throwing a wrench into the gears, making things not *always* work exactly the way the players want them to, making the players think on their feet. A game where the DM always defers to the players wishes is no more fun than one where the DM never defers to the players wishes. While overburdening the game with logic can really drag things down, by the same token, tossing logic out the door just because the language of the spell doesn't account for every possible permutation is just as bad.
Honestly, the DM should be thinking of this kind of thing on the spot. The DM's job is to make the game fun for everyone, not to be your adversary and Pluto your options and abilities.
Doing things differently than your highness does not mean that all others fail.
|
|
It's really best to think of Mirror Image almost as a area effect spell. And that area is the 5' square you are in. While under the effects of it, the images are close to you and mingling in and out. If you are affected by anything, all the images look and suffer the same results, making everything look the same.
While on a mount, those images would just be closer together, as if all of them are riding the same mount. To target one of them still would not target all of them.
Remember that scene in The Matrix when Neo dodges those bullets on the rooftop? That's what I see Mirror Image to look like. The way they made Neo look, not how the images act.
I was going to say something similar, except it would look something like the Agent dodging the bullets a few moments ago in the scene. Still in the same place, but multiple "Agents" all moving around. Of course, each one would dissapear everytime a bullet cranked it, but that's the basic visual I have.
With that in mind, I can see how it would work on a mount. Yeah, he's there, but is he leaning forward? Backwards? To the side? Crouched? Is it the one that's decided to hang off to the left of the mount? What about to the right? The hell?! Remember, combat is dynamic, people are always in motion (even if you don't even take a 5' step) as long as they're not immobile. Characters not denied their Dex are anticipating moving out of the way, stepping left and right, looking around... the mount would be moving as well, plus the rider, plus his images. Ouch. Brain gonna blow!
You might be thinking of the agent. Neo just fell backwards extremely fast. The agent dodged a dozen ways splitting up into a bunch of positions while Neo emptied his gun at him.How so? He wasn't blurry. It looked like several Neos standing in the same spot. Unless we're thinking of two different scenes. I haven't watched it in a while that is possible.Remember that scene in The Matrix when Neo dodges those bullets on the rooftop? That's what I see Mirror Image to look like. The way they made Neo look, not how the images act.That seems more like blur to me
I think you're right. Time to watch the movie again.