Mirror Image Clarified


Rules Questions


I gotta use this on my players today and need clarification.

Here is the rule I need to clarify:
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.

Now my interpretation of this this: If there is a hit on the a figment, the entire spell is dispelled. If a near miss occurs, only one random figment is destroyed.

The reason I ask is because in my reading on the board, it looks like people are only destroying ONE figment and not all of them when a hit is landed. Am I missing something in the rules here? It reads THE FIGMENT is destroyed if hit it is hit. IF it is a near miss, ONE figment is destroyed.

It leaves this open to interpretation. Why would Paizo say ONE is destroyed when there is a near miss.... if when there is a hit one figment is destroyed? Confusing. It obviously works in my favor as a DM to have only one go down if it is hit...but I gotta be fair here and am curious what you guys are doing.

Thanks

Arioch


PRD wrote:
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.

I read the line as 'If it is a figment (what was hit), that figment is destroyed'. For me, the wording 'one of your figments' earlier on indicates that, in fact, every image is considered a separate figment.

So, if the attack would be able to hit you, it will randomly either strike you or one of the copies (destroying that copy). If if near-missed, it still manages to destroy a single copy.


Midnight_Angel wrote:
PRD wrote:
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.

I read the line as 'If it is a figment (what was hit), that figment is destroyed'. For me, the wording 'one of your figments' earlier on indicates that, in fact, every image is considered a separate figment.

So, if the attack would be able to hit you, it will randomly either strike you or one of the copies (destroying that copy). If if near-missed, it still manages to destroy a single copy.

Yeah...I can certainly see this way of doing it too. I guess the bottom line is the near miss is kind of a "second" chance to destroy one figment.


You can only destroy one figment at time whether it is a hit or near miss. That spells was made to annoy people who depend on attacks rolls, and to keep low level casters alive.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
concerro wrote:
You can only destroy one figment at time whether it is a hit or near miss. That spells was made to annoy people who depend on attacks rolls, and to keep low level casters alive.

Believe me, it works exceedingly well for high level casters, too. It is, bar none, the best defense spell. Both because it is available at a very low level, works on the vast majority of opponents, is compatible with other defense spells and has a decent duration. Also, it gets better at higher levels.

And, yeah, the spell doesn't end when you hit the real target. That is a reading of the text which I've never heard before since D&D 3.0 came out.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Believe me, it works exceedingly well for high level casters, too. It is, bar none, the best defense spell.

I thought invisibility/greater invisibility were, bar none, the best defensive spells seeing as you can't even be targeted. They must target your space instead, provided they even know which one that is.


Ravingdork wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Believe me, it works exceedingly well for high level casters, too. It is, bar none, the best defense spell.
I thought invisibility/greater invisibility were, bar none, the best defensive spells seeing as you can't even be targeted. They must target your space instead, provided they even know which one that is.

Invis limits you to non-attack spells. Greater invis is possibly it, assuming the enemy is not prepared for invisible enemies.


also, invis means targeting your square, which is a 50/50 chance to hit you. With enough images, youre looking at a 1/8 chance to hit you.


magnuskn wrote:
concerro wrote:
You can only destroy one figment at time whether it is a hit or near miss. That spells was made to annoy people who depend on attacks rolls, and to keep low level casters alive.

Believe me, it works exceedingly well for high level casters, too. It is, bar none, the best defense spell. Both because it is available at a very low level, works on the vast majority of opponents, is compatible with other defense spells and has a decent duration. Also, it gets better at higher levels.

And, yeah, the spell doesn't end when you hit the real target. That is a reading of the text which I've never heard before since D&D 3.0 came out.

Used the mi spell this am and it worked very well. I will be using this again soon. Thanks for the help guys


The bigger question is: Does a Seeking weapon ignore the Mirror Image spell?


Sylvanite wrote:
The bigger question is: Does a Seeking weapon ignore the Mirror Image spell?

Mirror image does not provide a miss chance(game term).


Hmmm. By RAW, you may be right. That seems completely non-sensical, however, given the way the property is written. Strange.


Sylvanite wrote:
The bigger question is: Does a Seeking weapon ignore the Mirror Image spell?

Seeking CAN help bypass Mirror Image.

Just close your eyes (blinding yourself), target the target's square, and ignore the 50% miss chance your target has for total concealment. You are unaffected by the images since you can't see them.

You can't elminate images this way though.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Sylvanite wrote:
The bigger question is: Does a Seeking weapon ignore the Mirror Image spell?

Seeking CAN ignore Mirror Image.

Just close your eyes (blinding yourself), target the target's square, and ignore the 50% miss chance your target has for total concealment. You are unaffected by the images since you can't see them.

You can't elminate images this way though.

Hmmm. Another good point. I think I would just call it moot, and rather than have two ridiculous uses of RAW cancel each other out, I'd just say Seeking veers to the target and thus ignores the illusory images. Seems better than having archers closing their eyes to shoot enemy mages (although that's kinda cool now that I think about it...)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Invis limits you to non-attack spells. Greater invis is possibly it, assuming the enemy is not prepared for invisible enemies.

A smart spellcaster will be able to harass an enemy to death quite well without making direct attacks. Also, why are you assuming that an enemy is prepared for invisibility? You sure wouldn't give my stance any credit at all if I said "assuming the enemy is not prepared for mirror imaged enemies," so I'm not going to give that statement any more of my attention.

Weables wrote:
also, invis means targeting your square, which is a 50/50 chance to hit you. With enough images, youre looking at a 1/8 chance to hit you.

That's ONLY true if they know what square you're in. Anyone with a brain will be moving around and taking steps to prevent their enemies from knowing their location. If you are in a room consisting of 20 squares on a 2D plane, then the enemy has 1/19 chance of picking the right square (excluding his own), and only a 50% chance beating the miss chance. Even if they pull THAT off, they still need to beat your AC. What do the odds of all that come up to, I wonder.

Why do people insist on saying their spell choice is better when they aren't even using the other spell choices properly?


Invisibility is awesome in a lot of circumstances. Mirror Image is fantastic in many circumstances. Flight is another defensive buff that is so devastatingly effective it should be considered in the same conversation.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Invis limits you to non-attack spells. Greater invis is possibly it, assuming the enemy is not prepared for invisible enemies.
A smart spellcaster will be able to harass an enemy to death quite well without making direct attacks. Also, why are you assuming that an enemy is prepared for invisibility? You sure wouldn't give my stance any credit at all if I said "assuming the enemy is not prepared for mirror imaged enemies," so I'm not going to give that statement any more of my attention.

As a player I make it a point to have ways to stop/negate flying and invis ASAP. It has saved me many times. As for NPC's it depends on the NPC. I don't think it is common for an NPC to be ready for it, but if it is a classed NPC then he deserves to die otherwise especially if the PC's have been harassing his organization.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Invis limits you to non-attack spells. Greater invis is possibly it, assuming the enemy is not prepared for invisible enemies.

A smart spellcaster will be able to harass an enemy to death quite well without making direct attacks. Also, why are you assuming that an enemy is prepared for invisibility? You sure wouldn't give my stance any credit at all if I said "assuming the enemy is not prepared for mirror imaged enemies," so I'm not going to give that statement any more of my attention.

Weables wrote:
also, invis means targeting your square, which is a 50/50 chance to hit you. With enough images, youre looking at a 1/8 chance to hit you.

That's ONLY true if they know what square you're in. Anyone with a brain will be moving around and taking steps to prevent their enemies from knowing their location. If you are in a room consisting of 20 squares on a 2D plane, then the enemy has 1/19 chance of picking the right square (excluding his own), and only a 50% chance beating the miss chance. Even if they pull THAT off, they still need to beat your AC. What do the odds of all that come up to, I wonder.

Why do people insist on saying their spell choice is better when they aren't even using the other spell choices properly?

Probably because most of us are thinking from the position of being the guy that try to hit the invisible opponent, not from the position of being the invisible guy trying to damage the enemy.

Most PC parties will be prepared for an invisible opponent. They will be aware of the existence of mirror image [the arcane spellcaster will know it very well :D ] but "preparing" for it is a bit more difficult than preparing for invisibility.
Low level spells like glitterdust or faerie fire work very well against an invisible opponent, not so well against mirror image.

So for most NPC I see mirror image as a better option if you have to chose. Having both is even better, but not all spellcaster can manage that and still keep up a reasonable offence. It all depend on the level and spell selection.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Believe me, it works exceedingly well for high level casters, too. It is, bar none, the best defense spell.
I thought invisibility/greater invisibility were, bar none, the best defensive spells seeing as you can't even be targeted. They must target your space instead, provided they even know which one that is.

Mirror Image wins on the account of spell level, duration and getting better with higher levels ( not only in duration ). IMO, of course. Greater Invisibility is of course great, too.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

No doubt both spells are very good in differing situations.

I still fail to see how glitterdust and faerie fire are terribly good counters if you don't know what square the enemy is in. They both have very small areas AND people with low Perception STILL won't be able to find the guy in the case of fairy fire. Also, both of those are specialty spells that most people don't bother preparing UNLESS they are looking for a specific type of enemy. Fairy fire is duid only. Glitterdust is only for bards and sorcerer/wizards. How many times can your party cast those spells before you run out for the day? I sincerely hope you get your invisible foe before that happens. Otherwise, you're pretty much dead.

But mirror image? All I need is dispel magic. Dispel magic can't target something you can't see (not unless you can physically touch the target). What's more, every spellcaster under the sun likely has it at their disposal (and prepared more than once where appropriate).


Ravingdork wrote:

No doubt both spells are very good in differing situations.

I still fail to see how glitterdust and faerie fire are terribly good counters if you don't know what square the enemy is in. They both have very small areas AND people with low Perception STILL won't be able to find the guy in the case of fairy fire. Also, both of those are specialty spells that most people don't bother preparing UNLESS they are looking for a specific type of enemy. Fairy fire is duid only. Glitterdust is only for bards and sorcerer/wizards. How many times can your party cast those spells before you run out for the day? I sincerely hope you get your invisible foe before that happens. Otherwise, you're pretty much dead.

But mirror image? All I need is dispel magic. Dispel magic can't target something you can't see (not unless you can physically touch the target). What's more, every spellcaster under the sun likely has it at their disposal (and prepared more than once where appropriate).

Most rooms in my experience are only so big so even if he cast and move he is in a certain area. Most clerics keep invis purge on tap also, at least as a scroll. Why would they run out of those spells unless they are fighting invisible enemies all day? If that were the case I retreat back to town if I have time, and go scroll shopping. Dispel magic relies on the dice, and like the see invis type spells will only be prepped so many times. Of course if you have 2 casters and each one has it twice that is 4 chances.


Arioch2112 wrote:

I gotta use this on my players today and need clarification.

Here is the rule I need to clarify:
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.

Now my interpretation of this this: If there is a hit on the a figment, the entire spell is dispelled. If a near miss occurs, only one random figment is destroyed.

The reason I ask is because in my reading on the board, it looks like people are only destroying ONE figment and not all of them when a hit is landed. Am I missing something in the rules here? It reads THE FIGMENT is destroyed if hit it is hit. IF it is a near miss, ONE figment is destroyed.

It leaves this open to interpretation. Why would Paizo say ONE is destroyed when there is a near miss.... if when there is a hit one figment is destroyed? Confusing. It obviously works in my favor as a DM to have only one go down if it is hit...but I gotta be fair here and am curious what you guys are doing.

Thanks

Arioch

Evidently all 6 or however many images are crammed into the same 5' area, like a crowded elevator. I think your original interpretation is correct, because a successfully hit - swinging a stick through the square, should harmlessly pass through all of them and dispel the group. After all, there is no reason to hit and stop if you are hitting a figment.


cranewings wrote:
Arioch2112 wrote:

I gotta use this on my players today and need clarification.

Here is the rule I need to clarify:
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.

Now my interpretation of this this: If there is a hit on the a figment, the entire spell is dispelled. If a near miss occurs, only one random figment is destroyed.

The reason I ask is because in my reading on the board, it looks like people are only destroying ONE figment and not all of them when a hit is landed. Am I missing something in the rules here? It reads THE FIGMENT is destroyed if hit it is hit. IF it is a near miss, ONE figment is destroyed.

It leaves this open to interpretation. Why would Paizo say ONE is destroyed when there is a near miss.... if when there is a hit one figment is destroyed? Confusing. It obviously works in my favor as a DM to have only one go down if it is hit...but I gotta be fair here and am curious what you guys are doing.

Thanks

Arioch

Evidently all 6 or however many images are crammed into the same 5' area, like a crowded elevator. I think your original interpretation is correct, because a successfully hit - swinging a stick through the square, should harmlessly pass through all of them and dispel the group. After all, there is no reason to hit and stop if you are hitting a figment.

This would nerf the spell into oblivion. I mean really how hard is it to actually get a hit on a CR appropriate Caster? Your leaving the choice of hit the mage or next turn hit the mage since they have no spell left next round. Also that would make the near miss pointless since it further would weaken that already weak spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

No doubt both spells are very good in differing situations.

I still fail to see how glitterdust and faerie fire are terribly good counters if you don't know what square the enemy is in. They both have very small areas AND people with low Perception STILL won't be able to find the guy in the case of fairy fire. Also, both of those are specialty spells that most people don't bother preparing UNLESS they are looking for a specific type of enemy. Fairy fire is duid only. Glitterdust is only for bards and sorcerer/wizards. How many times can your party cast those spells before you run out for the day? I sincerely hope you get your invisible foe before that happens. Otherwise, you're pretty much dead.

But mirror image? All I need is dispel magic. Dispel magic can't target something you can't see (not unless you can physically touch the target). What's more, every spellcaster under the sun likely has it at their disposal (and prepared more than once where appropriate).

PRD wrote:
Creatures outlined by faerie fire take a –20 penalty on all Stealth checks. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.

-20 to stealth and no invisibility concealment? I fail to see where invisibility will help you hiding unless you can use stealth thanks to other forms of concealment.

About the number of uses/day, we are speaking of one first level and one second level spells. A wand is really cheap and the UMD is low.

And: Dispel Magic, Greater: Target or Area one spellcaster, creature, or object; or a 20-ft.-radius burst

Liberty's Edge

Arioch2112 wrote:


Here is the rule I need to clarify:
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.

Now my interpretation of this this: If there is a hit on the a figment, the entire spell is dispelled. If a near miss occurs, only one random figment is destroyed.

They don't teach sentence structure in school these days, I guess. Apologies if you aren't a native American English speaker.

"If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed".

The pronoun "it" in this case refers to the subject of the previous sentence, "the selected target". So you should read it this way - "If the selected target is a figment, the figment is destroyed.". The two sentences should probably be combined, really.

In any case, it never says all the figments are destroyed, nor does it say that the spell ends, nor does it say that the spell is dispelled. The text does not even imply any of those things.

The next sentence: "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss." merely states that if you miss by five or less, one figment is destroyed. It does not change anything about what the first sentence states, in any way.

Your interpretation is incorrect.
-Kle.


Talonhawke wrote:

This would nerf the spell into oblivion. I mean really how hard is it to actually get a hit on a CR appropriate Caster? Your leaving the choice of hit the mage or next turn hit the mage since they have no spell left next round. Also that would make the near miss pointless since it further would weaken that already weak spell.

I agree. I just think that people who play the game RAW have a metagamey stupid spell. No one I ever gamed with from 2e on ever thought all the images were sitting in each others' laps. They were clearly suppose to be spread out. I only ever ran into that line of thought on these boards.

I just think the image of 7 guys in a 5 foot area, 6 of who are intangible, being gingerly poked at with a stick from a fearful fighter who is trying his hardest not to accidentally hit more than one at a time is a funny image, but I guess thats how some people round these parts play; that, or they just don't imagine anything and just read rules to each other.

Sovereign Court

Sylvanite wrote:
The bigger question is: Does a Seeking weapon ignore the Mirror Image spell?

I asked Jason Buhlman this exact question at Gencon.

His ruling was mirror image does not provide miss chance so seeking doesn't apply.

Concerro is right though, you can just close your eyes and have seeking apply.


cranewings wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

This would nerf the spell into oblivion. I mean really how hard is it to actually get a hit on a CR appropriate Caster? Your leaving the choice of hit the mage or next turn hit the mage since they have no spell left next round. Also that would make the near miss pointless since it further would weaken that already weak spell.

I agree. I just think that people who play the game RAW have a metagamey stupid spell. No one I ever gamed with from 2e on ever thought all the images were sitting in each others' laps. They were clearly suppose to be spread out. I only ever ran into that line of thought on these boards.

I just think the image of 7 guys in a 5 foot area, 6 of who are intangible, being gingerly poked at with a stick from a fearful fighter who is trying his hardest not to accidentally hit more than one at a time is a funny image, but I guess thats how some people round these parts play; that, or they just don't imagine anything and just read rules to each other.

Funny the thought you could some how swing a sword and hit 7 people spread across a 5 foot by 5 foot area strikes me the exact same way.


Abraham spalding wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

This would nerf the spell into oblivion. I mean really how hard is it to actually get a hit on a CR appropriate Caster? Your leaving the choice of hit the mage or next turn hit the mage since they have no spell left next round. Also that would make the near miss pointless since it further would weaken that already weak spell.

I agree. I just think that people who play the game RAW have a metagamey stupid spell. No one I ever gamed with from 2e on ever thought all the images were sitting in each others' laps. They were clearly suppose to be spread out. I only ever ran into that line of thought on these boards.

I just think the image of 7 guys in a 5 foot area, 6 of who are intangible, being gingerly poked at with a stick from a fearful fighter who is trying his hardest not to accidentally hit more than one at a time is a funny image, but I guess thats how some people round these parts play; that, or they just don't imagine anything and just read rules to each other.

Funny the thought you could some how swing a sword and hit 7 people spread across a 5 foot by 5 foot area strikes me the exact same way.

Adamantine weapons should cut through goblins like they were figments.


I have a 3 foot long sword right here. I can hold it out two feet. The front of a person crammed aginst a wall 7.5 feet from me, wait, yup is easily touched by an arc with way less than a five foot step or six seconds. I stand by my belief that I can hit the lions share of a 5' box 2' away with one motion.


One can also swing a glaive in such a manner that the haft could beat an oppent as eaisly as a staff however you need an archetype to do that.


Believe that all you want sitting there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:


I just think the image of 7 guys in a 5 foot area, 6 of who are intangible, being gingerly poked at with a stick from a fearful fighter who is trying his hardest not to accidentally hit more than one at a time is a funny image, but I guess thats how some people round these parts play; that, or they just don't imagine anything and just read rules to each other.

Fluff Explanation: You clearly have to do more than just touch a figment to dispel it, otherwise the spell would not work in the rain or would fail to having a handful of gravel flung at the caster. In fact, in a game I were running, I would justify it as 'intent' or 'will' being required to be directed against the figment for it to fail; a random item simply touching it would not dispel an image.


KrispyXIV wrote:
cranewings wrote:


I just think the image of 7 guys in a 5 foot area, 6 of who are intangible, being gingerly poked at with a stick from a fearful fighter who is trying his hardest not to accidentally hit more than one at a time is a funny image, but I guess thats how some people round these parts play; that, or they just don't imagine anything and just read rules to each other.
Fluff Explanation: You clearly have to do more than just touch a figment to dispel it, otherwise the spell would not work in the rain or would fail to having a handful of gravel flung at the caster. In fact, in a game I were running, I would justify it as 'intent' or 'will' being required to be directed against the figment for it to fail; a random item simply touching it would not dispel an image.

Oohhh, good one. That is first class fluff.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Believe that all you want sitting there.

I own a sword. I know how wide this room is because I painted it. I can step and swingand see what im doing. I can cover the five foot box with a half bent arm and without lunging. I guess either you are a visionary sword fighter, like every nerd on the net, or you have a difficult time visualizing how far 5 feet is because you never played a sport or done a job where you measure distance.


cranewings wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Believe that all you want sitting there.
I own a sword. I know how wide this room is because I painted it. I can step and swingand see what im doing. I can cover the five foot box with a half bent arm and without lunging. I guess either you are a visionary sword fighter, like every nerd on the net, or you have a difficult time visualizing how far 5 feet is because you never played a sport or done a job where you measure distance.

Hostile much? I own a sword -- great we both match up here. That's wonderful -- owning a sword proves nothing. Sure you could probably swing a wide arch with a sword and hit everything in front of you within a 5 foot radius.

The question is would you be willing to do that in combat with an armed person standing in front of you, especially if you can't tell which of the five through seven of him is the real one?

I've got about a 3 foot reach extended and a 2 foot reach in readied position. I prefer bludgeoning weapons on a whole (more versatility in how to handle the situation) but my rapier comes in at a 48 inch blade. I'm not going to openly swipe with it across a space of five feet because it over exposes me, and leaves me out of line to actually strike.

With the long sword I'm equally unlikely to do it because again with 5~7 possible people in front of me I don't know at what point in the arch I'm actually going to meet resistance, which in and of itself is going to cause issues.

All this doesn't even take into account what the person you are swinging at is doing at the time of your swing -- which could include trying to kill you -- since life isn't a turn by turn event and he's unlikely to stand there while you try and cut him open.


Abraham spalding, I would agree with you if the person doing the swing is anything close in skill to the person casting. Maybe, maybe you would have an argument if we were talking about a bard. I didn't think of that.

But characters that cast mirror image are rarely anything close to dangerous in melee combat with the people that are trying to stab them. A wizard with a 10 strength and a +3 BAB is nothing in a fight compared to a fighter with a 16 strength and a +6 bab. The game mechanics probably give the wizard more of a chance in that fight than he should, but there isn't anything he can do to stop someone that much faster and stronger from swinging through his illusion.

One way it could be modeled is by giving the wizard an attack of opportunity against someone swinging through his square. I don't think this is any more dangerous than digging through your bag for a potion or casting a spell.

Personally, I'm just going to stick to describing it as a bunch of images spread out over a small area.


Hey I'm not against such an explanation.

It's simply the idea of "swing away at the whole group of them" thing doesn't sit well with my training or combat style, and because it's a bit too close to the fourth wall for me to simply assume that because they cast spells they can't hurt you in melee, or that you know exactly what they are capable of. Most skilled fighters don't get to that point by being very reckless.

I don't mean to say it's impossible -- I'm just trying to say that in combat... it's not a good idea. Especially if he's not the only one close to me.


Think of it like when someone in a cartoon gets hit really hard on the head and when they open their eyes who ever they are looking at has multiple images of themselves roatating around them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
cranewings wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
cranewings wrote:


I just think the image of 7 guys in a 5 foot area, 6 of who are intangible, being gingerly poked at with a stick from a fearful fighter who is trying his hardest not to accidentally hit more than one at a time is a funny image, but I guess thats how some people round these parts play; that, or they just don't imagine anything and just read rules to each other.
Fluff Explanation: You clearly have to do more than just touch a figment to dispel it, otherwise the spell would not work in the rain or would fail to having a handful of gravel flung at the caster. In fact, in a game I were running, I would justify it as 'intent' or 'will' being required to be directed against the figment for it to fail; a random item simply touching it would not dispel an image.
Oohhh, good one. That is first class fluff.

Even more simple: dispelling a figment require to interact with it and to perceive the interaction.

Maybe you touch multiple images with your attack, but the way the interaction between your touch and the magic of the spell work allow you to disbelieve and cancel only of the images.

It would be like having multiple illusory trees in a forest. You can't disbelieve all the illusionary trees, you need to check them one at a time to see if they are real or not.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Ravingdork wrote:

No doubt both spells are very good in differing situations.

I still fail to see how glitterdust and faerie fire are terribly good counters if you don't know what square the enemy is in. They both have very small areas AND people with low Perception STILL won't be able to find the guy in the case of fairy fire. Also, both of those are specialty spells that most people don't bother preparing UNLESS they are looking for a specific type of enemy. Fairy fire is duid only. Glitterdust is only for bards and sorcerer/wizards. How many times can your party cast those spells before you run out for the day? I sincerely hope you get your invisible foe before that happens. Otherwise, you're pretty much dead.

But mirror image? All I need is dispel magic. Dispel magic can't target something you can't see (not unless you can physically touch the target). What's more, every spellcaster under the sun likely has it at their disposal (and prepared more than once where appropriate).

My wizards always prepare multiple instances of glitterdust. The area of affect Will save vs. blindness is just awesome. Also, there are many, many instances when enemies are invisible, in darkness, etc. and the glittery-ness is nice.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Arioch2112 wrote:

I gotta use this on my players today and need clarification.

Here is the rule I need to clarify:
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.

Now my interpretation of this this: If there is a hit on the a figment, the entire spell is dispelled. If a near miss occurs, only one random figment is destroyed.

When the spell description says 'the figment' it refers to the targeted figment (image), not the spell as a whole. If it were referring to the spell as a whole, it would say 'the spell ends' or some such.

With regards to the cleaving though images issue, even though the shifting images occupy a relatively confined space, in the heat of battle you can't cleave through and target more than one thing, even with images, unless you have a feat like cleave, or better yet great cleave. These feats clearly state that if you hit your target (foe), you can make an attack at another target within reach.

Liberty's Edge

Crane, why not just view the spell and the game mechanics as they are meant to be viewed?

Mirror Image puts extra bodies in the square with the caster. Not other squares because then you would also have to choose which square you want to swing in and possibly miss the caster entirely with no chance of hitting him. So there we establish that all the images are in the same 5 ft square.

A fighter next to said caster wants to hit the caster who has multiple images of himself in the same 5 ft square. The fighter doesnt know which one is the real one so he makes a large arc through the square. His thought process is as you say, 'I'll swing through the whole area and Im bound to hit something if not all of them...'

Now lets add mechanics...the fighter swings vs the caster AC. There are a few possible outcomes.

The fighter swings his sword through the square and rolls less than 5 below the caster AC mechanically resulting in a complete miss. Thematically you can assume the caster and his images dodged your sword. Why? Because the images are duplicates of the real person acting as he acts so when he dodges they also dodge. Sorry, your arcing swing didnt work b/c the caster happens to have some dexterity.

Now lets assume the fighter swings and gets a near miss, within 5 of the caster AC. This mechanically assumes the caster did not dodge your arcing swing fast enough and you swiped through the lead or trail image of his spell thus letting you know that its a fake.

On to you swinging your wide arc through the 5 ft square. Now perhaps you have a decent guess of which one if the real one or maybe you are focused a bit more on the lead image. You hit the caster AC easily b/c he is just a slow non martial dimwit. With this swing you were definitely fast enough and on target to score a good hit on something in the square. Mechanically determine if it was the real caster or a figment with a dice roll. If it was the real caster you hear a grunt or grimace of pain and your sword trails a bit of blood as it completes its arc. If it was an image your sword passes through the image with no sounds but the other images in the square were unharmed. This thematically is as I said, you chose an image to focus on and hit it but guessed wrong or you swung well enough to hit the lead or trail image but not fast enough to hit them all.

Sorry that the post is a little long. But really...just saying you can swing a sword in a 5ft arc doesnt prove you can hit anything in that square, specially if the thing or things are actively trying to avoid being hit.


I get what you are saying, and it would make sense if the caster's AC was 10+dex. The armor is a figment. The images don't produce deflection bonuses. They can get out of the way about as good as their maker. So sure, you are right, but I think the AC of the images is basically just touch.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

cranewings wrote:
I get what you are saying, and it would make sense if the caster's AC was 10+dex. The armor is a figment. The images don't produce deflection bonuses. They can get out of the way about as good as their maker. So sure, you are right, but I think the AC of the images is basically just touch.

Yes, that is the dumb (but streamlined) thing about the spell in Pathfinder-= you always have to score a hit against the caster's AC, even if you end up targeting an image. In D&D 3.0 the attacker rolled to see what they were targeting, and if the rolled an image, they would roll vs. the image's AC.

Pathfinder uses an attack vs. the wizard, but if you miss less than 5, you still destroy an image. The pathfinder way is more abstract, but quicker at the table.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mirror Image Clarified All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.