The mechanics work fine until the wizard comes up twice thats the only sticky bit. Adjacent targets can share the same space, images can be targeted, you are capable of hitting the images. So nothing about the spell makes cleave invalid until the roll comes up wizard twice. The easiest solution is to say the caster was removed from the possible pool of targets once he was hit however if you decided to keep the wizard in the pool then cleave/greater cleave works until you roll wizard again which is an invalid target for cleave and so by somehow targeting something you couldn't target you interrupt your own action.
Once again "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." The person cleaving cannot target the caster twice only once but the spell says there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If you end up targeting an image and hit you never targeted the caster and thus can target him. Now if you hit the caster I can see you ending cleave/greater cleave right there since the attacker would now need to target an image instead of the caster and if you rolled to randomly determine what you target and you target the caster it's invalid. Or you could allow the cleaving character to continue to cleave images until it did become invalid by targeting the caster a second time.
Yar.
Just for something different, how about we look at Mirror Image from a spell balance point of view by comparing it to other spells that do similar things. Perhaps this will give some insight into the RAI regarding Mirror Image and Cleave/CG/etc.
First, lets quote a few passages from Ultimate Magic's chapter on designing spells:
Compare your spell to similar spells, and to other spells of its intended level.
Unlike when pricing magic items, there are no formulae for how to correctly “price” a spell. The entire process is a matter of comparing the new spell you're creating to other spells and evaluating whether your spell is weaker, stronger, or about the same as that spell or group of spells. Designing a spell requires a firm understanding of all the game's rules, not just those related to spells. Furthermore, it requires an understanding of some unwritten game assumptions, most of which are discussed throughout this section.
Displacement: This short-duration combat spell makes attackers miss 50% of the time, setting the standard for one-target defensive spells.
Now lets look at some spells similar to Mirror Image, including Displacement (which is a higher level spell then Mirror Image, and thus should be more effective than it).
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
A see invisibility spell does not counteract the blur effect, but a true seeing spell does.
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 min./level
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).
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, M (a small loop of leather)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
Note that both Blur and Mirror Image are the same spell level.
Blur (2nd level spell) imparts a flat 20% miss chance for minutes per level.
Displacement (3rd level spell) imparts a flat 50% miss chance for rounds per level.
Mirror Image (2nd level spell) imparts a variable miss chance ranging from 50% to 89% miss chance for minutes per level until depleted.
Mirror Image, if it is not possible to hit multiple images or images and the actual caster hidden among them with a feat invested action such as Greater Cleave, is (IMO) FAR SUPERIOR to Displacement, let alone Blur... it may not be your interpretation of the RAW, but I don't believe that the RAI was to have a 2nd level spell be a far superior short term defensive spell than the published 3rd level "standard" for short term defensive spells.
Just my thoughts, and something else to consider that we really haven't yet.
~P
If you miss the first person it could be because your attack is deflected harmlessly off their armor. You can not take a 5 foot step while cleaving it is a standard action not a full attack action so you must wait until you are finished cleaving before making a 5 foot step and then only if you haven't moved yet.You're right.. I'm getting my full round 5foot between attacks mixed with cleave as a standard. My bad.
Still why would missing one person prevent the blow from continuing on to the next? mechanically it doesn't make sense.
It is a balance thing. If you got to continue swinging whether you hit or miss then it would be Whirlwind.
As for cleave itself the flavor should have read(IMHO) that "you hit the enemy, and retract the weapon so quickly that it allows you to attack another adjacent opponent". That way it would support the mechanics since it calls for a 2nd attack.
If it called for an attack roll instead of an attack you could still say it is just a continuation of the first attack which would represent your ability to continue the momentum into the next target, but would still keep cleave as one attack in fluff and mechanics. Something like "make a second attack roll to see if you can hit an adjacent opponent by continuing the swing of the weapon."
Armor class is an abstract idea but two reasonings come to mind. Firstly your attack bounces off the armor your target is wearing. Or my other opinion you miss judge the arc necessary to hit the next guy in line and you falter after swinging through air. I know when I expect to make contact with something and I encounter empty space it trips me up but as I said AC is an abstraction the reasoning is not hugely important not every mechanic makes perfect sense. Kind of like using dimension door if you move before hand you are actually disoriented for a shorter period of time than if you do nothing else on your turn but cast this spell.
It's only the shell which contains the prize that makes you have to roll the die. And once you manage to look under that shell and take the prize, you can't pick that shell again (and thus can't roll a die). Until then, you can keep picking it.
I don't follow you here.. so you're saying you dont roll a die until you pick the proper shell? and once you do pick the proper shell you cant pick it again and cant roll a die?
That doesn't make much sense to me.
once you made the determination to pick a shell (aka attack roll hits) then a roll is made to look under a shell. if the shell has the prize (aka wizard), the shell is placed back down and you determine if you are picking another shell (attack roll). If the shell doesnt have the prize, it is removed and you determine if you are picking another shell (attack roll).
Since the shell for the wizard is still in play.. the roll could always end up wizard.. this invalidates how cleave works.
Armor class is an abstract idea but two reasonings come to mind. Firstly your attack bounces off the armor your target is wearing. Or my other opinion you miss judge the arc necessary to hit the next guy in line and you falter after swinging through air. I know when I expect to make contact with something and I encounter empty space it trips me up but as I said AC is an abstraction the reasoning is not hugely important not every mechanic makes perfect sense. Kind of like using dimension door if you move before hand you are actually disoriented for a shorter period of time than if you do nothing else on your turn but cast this spell.
Kind of like if you swing at what you think is a caster but instead swing through the air of a figment? ;)
The intent is clear, and it seems that you understand the intent. When the intent is clear it will be taken as the rule in 99% of most home games, and PFS. I mean would you really allow the dead condition as written or do you use it as intended?The reason the spell makes you miss is because you don't know which one is real. Now if the spell just redirected your attack mid-swing I would agree with you.I wish I could agree with you. That's how the spell is supposed to work. However, the text says "Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll" and later "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled." Not "Whenever you are attacked by someone who is fooled by the spell" and not the 3.5 form (which was basically "if you're fooled by the spell, roll wrong target chance, then attack that target").
My game is in that 99%. A lot of the RAW I argue about here on the forums I bring up during my games as a point of interest, but don't follow through on because it bogs the game down, and that's not fun for anyone. That doesn't change the relevance of knowing what the actual "pure" rule is so that you know how your house rule is changing it.
If this was a discussion of whether cleave and great cleave should be allowed to counter mirror image, I'd probably stay out of it. But as long as people are talking about whether they do counter it, based on their reading of the RAW, I'm going to keep throwing the literal reading back.
Kind of heh but I meant like trying to grab something thats moving you aim for where you think it will be but if you miss judge you hit empty space. In both cases yes empty space but one thing hasn't outmaneuvered you its just not substantial. I guess mirror image is like imagining an extra step, and missing with cleave is like trying to catch a running cat or dog.
Yar.
Just for something different, how about we look at Mirror Image from a spell balance point of view by comparing it to other spells that do similar things. Perhaps this will give some insight into the RAI regarding Mirror Image and Cleave/CG/etc.
...(snip)...
Mirror Image, if it is not possible to hit multiple images or images and the actual caster hidden among them with a feat invested action such as Greater Cleave, is (IMO) FAR SUPERIOR to Displacement, let alone Blur... it may not be your interpretation of the RAW, but I don't believe that the RAI was to have a 2nd level spell be a far superior short term defensive spell than the published 3rd level "standard" for short term defensive spells.
Ahoy there.
I'm approvin' of this heer assessment, but take note that some folks will tote the "Self only" targeting as justification for a spell's power being far beyond its level.
Those who are sayin' balance is not a valid standpoint for analysis are foolin' themselves. This is also a matter of game design, and consistency, and fairness. Not just wording... especially since the debate has hit the "RAI" subject since the start.
If it works the way you are describing it is overpowered for a level 2 spell..
That is a common arguement I see, and I can't say I disagree with it, but unlike displacement the spell loses power as fighters, and other attackers get more attacks.
You probably mentioned this already, and it probably got lost in the sea of post, but how do handle the issue of the caster being selected twice if cleave is allowed since cleave and GC say it is not allowed to attack the same creature twice.
Again.... each additional attack MUST TARGET a creature ADJACENT to the first for cleave or to the last one hit for great cleave.That assumes you bypass the spells mechanics of a random roll determining who is attacked. That also leads to the conclusion that you can pick out intentionally which image you are swinging at, also against the mechanics of the spell.
Given that you are operating under the presumption that you can pick and choose which image to attack. If you can do that then you would have to allow TWF to always attack a caster once his position is determined.
Yes they are adjacent to eachother, but you cannot pick and choose. This is against mechanics of the spell.
Isn't it great when specifics trump general rules.
The spell doesn't say that you ARE targeting the caster. It says when someone tries to attack the caster you roll to see if it's the caster or an image being attacked. This means you are individually targeting something. Either an image or the caster. Cleave and Great Cleave are not making distinctions of 'I want to attack the caster and an image' or 'I want to attack two images.' You're saying I want to hit everything and anything that is within reach and adjacent. The spell states these things all remain in the casters space. This puts them within 5' of each other and qualifies for them all to be adjacent. If you can target something and they are all adjacent then they meet the qualifications for Cleave and Great Cleave.
With this spell I've always envisioned it as a number of images that ARE overlapping the caster. They are just out by minor details, an inch or two this way, an inch or two that way. This is why a near miss, missing by 5 or less, destroys an image but misses the caster. If you are making a swing in an arc (Cleave or Great Cleave) then you are not swinging for a single point. You are swinging through a point that is moving along an arc. Anything that is positioned in...
There is a reason the spell specifically points out that the spell has no effect on a creature who is blind, yet normal miss rates apply. Invisibility and Mirror image are the same level spell but have the same miss chance when a fighter closes his eyes.
I've already mentioned how a TWF/Rapid Shot/Flurry/(any claw/claw/bite.. ect. mobs) tears through the images in a heartbeat anyway.. I do not consider the spell overpowered for it's level.
And spell descriptions do just that: "overide general rules". Why else would gravity suddenly reverse unless the spell description changes the general rule.
It's only the shell which contains the prize that makes you have to roll the die. And once you manage to look under that shell and take the prize, you can't pick that shell again (and thus can't roll a die). Until then, you can keep picking it.I don't follow you here.. so you're saying you dont roll a die until you pick the proper shell? and once you do pick the proper shell you cant pick it again and cant roll a die?
That doesn't make much sense to me.
Yep, that's what I'm saying. And it doesn't have to make sense, those are the rules of the game.
once you made the determination to pick a shell (aka attack roll hits) then a roll is made to look under a shell. if the shell has the prize (aka wizard), the shell is placed back down and you determine if you are picking another shell (attack roll). If the shell doesnt have the prize, it is removed and you determine if you are picking another shell (attack roll).
Since the shell for the wizard is still in play.. the roll could always end up wizard.. this invalidates how cleave works.
You left out the "wrong target" chance. If the shell has the prize, you don't make another attack roll, you make a "wrong target" roll and then pick up the shell the roll tells you to.
To make it even more straightforward, imagine that shells #1-3 are red, and shell #4 is blue. The rules read:
1) You may choose any shell you have not already looked under.
2) If you choose a red shell, you can look under it.
3) If you choose a blue shell, pick up the d4 and roll it.
4) Pick up the shell the die tells you and look under it.
5) Whenever you look under a shell, if it has the prize, you get to keep the prize, but the shell remains on the table.
6) Whenever you look under a shell, if it didn't have the prize, you may keep the shell if you rolled a die this turn.
Secret rule (it's a real rule, and you may know it or not, but it's not listed on the sign):
7) The prize is under the blue shell.
Rule #4 is the key rule. If you pick the blue shell, but look under a red one, you can still pick blue. If you pick the blue shell and look under it, you can no longer pick it. Eventually, only the blue shell will be left, and you can't pick it because you've already looked under it.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the "You choose one target and actually hit another so you missed your initial target" argument. That's just something that gets lost in the analogy. Step #3 could be rephrased as "If you don't choose a red shell, you may instead roll a die." to make that clearer.
Bob I don't think that is RAW or RAI. You see by RAW the spell only dictates what happen when you attack the wizard, not the images. The spell just assumes attacks are going for the wizards, but by RAW of the cleave family you can't attack the wizard more than once.
edit:removed the additional "are"
The rules read:
1) You may choose any shell you have not already looked under. (choose target you are going to attack, that you haven't already hit)
2) If you choose a red shell, you can look under it. (Choosing to attack a known image, vs figment AC)
3) If you choose a blue shell, pick up the d4 and roll it. ("Wrong Target" chance)
4) Pick up the shell the die tells you and look under it. (Still "Wrong target" chance)
5) Whenever you look under a shell, if it has the prize, you get to keep the prize, but the shell remains on the table. (hitting the wizard)
6) Whenever you look under a shell, if it didn't have the prize, you may keep the shell if you rolled a die this turn. (Popping images)Secret rule (it's a real rule, and you may know it or not, but it's not listed on the sign):
7) The prize is under the blue shell. (Knowing which is the real wizard)
Except the spell reads that if the caster is targeted there is a chance it hits a figment and not if a figment is targeted there is a chance it hit the caster.
That would mean rule 2 of your game does not apply. instead. the rules are.. "Step right up! Pick the only blue shell.. Ok you picked the blue shell, now I can roll the dice! *rolls dice*.. Sorry you hit a red shell, let me remove that for you. Would you like to cleave and try again?"
The problem being that the dice could hit the blue shell twice, which is against cleave rules.
Bob I don't think that is RAW or RAI. You see by RAW the spell only dictates what happen when you attack the wizard, not the images. The spell just assumes are attacks are going for the wizards, but by RAW of the cleave family you can't attack the wizard more than once.
RAI? Certainly not. RAW?
1) There's nothing in the spell which states that the images can't be targeted separately. The general rule for figments is that they can be targeted.2) There's also nothing in the spell which says that you roll "wrong target" chance when a figment is attacked. In general, you don't do that.
3) The only text which makes them pop when hit is in the description of what happens when you get attacked. Normally, figments are just revealed as illusions when hit.
The rules read:
1) You may choose any shell you have not already looked under. (choose target you are going to attack, that you haven't already hit)
2) If you choose a red shell, you can look under it. (Choosing to attack a known image, vs figment AC)
3) If you choose a blue shell, pick up the d4 and roll it. ("Wrong Target" chance)
4) Pick up the shell the die tells you and look under it. (Still "Wrong target" chance)
5) Whenever you look under a shell, if it has the prize, you get to keep the prize, but the shell remains on the table. (hitting the wizard)
6) Whenever you look under a shell, if it didn't have the prize, you may keep the shell if you rolled a die this turn. (Popping images)Secret rule (it's a real rule, and you may know it or not, but it's not listed on the sign):
7) The prize is under the blue shell. (Knowing which is the real wizard)Except the spell reads that if the caster is targeted there is a chance it hits a figment and not if a figment is targeted there is a chance it hit the caster.
That would mean rule 2 of your game does not apply. instead. the rules are.. "Step right up! Pick the only blue shell.. Ok you picked the blue shell, now I can roll the dice! *rolls dice*.. Sorry you hit a red shell, let me remove that for you. Would you like to cleave and try again?"
The problem being that the dice could hit the blue shell twice, which is against cleave rules.
See my #1 in answer to concerro for why rule #2 is justified. Even without it, however, the rest of the rules would let you keep picking the blue shell until you actually managed to look under the blue shell, at which point you'd have to stop picking.
Bob I don't think that is RAW or RAI. You see by RAW the spell only dictates what happen when you attack the wizard, not the images. The spell just assumes are attacks are going for the wizards, but by RAW of the cleave family you can't attack the wizard more than once.RAI? Certainly not. RAW?
1) There's nothing in the spell which states that the images can't be targeted separately. The general rule for figments is that they can be targeted.
2) There's also nothing in the spell which says that you roll "wrong target" chance when a figment is attacked. In general, you don't do that.
3) The only text which makes them pop when hit is in the description of what happens when you get attacked. Normally, figments are just revealed as illusions when hit.
1. Even if an image is attacked the spells says they are popped if targeted after trying to attacking the wizard. Therefore you can't really assume they will pop just because you target them.
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.
You attack the caster. If the dice target an image instead and it is hit then it pops. In short the spell gives the terms under which an image is popped.
2. You are correct the spell does not give the wrong target option, but neither does it say a direct attack against an image pops it either.3. See number 1.
RAI? Certainly not. RAW?
1) There's nothing in the spell which states that the images can't be targeted separately. The general rule for figments is that they can be targeted.
2) There's also nothing in the spell which says that you roll "wrong target" chance when a figment is attacked. In general, you don't do that.
3) The only text which makes them pop when hit is in the description of what happens when you get attacked. Normally, figments are just revealed as illusions when hit.
and
See my #1 in answer to concerro for why rule #2 is justified. Even without it, however, the rest of the rules would let you keep picking the blue shell until you actually managed to look under the blue shell, at which point you'd have to stop picking.
Now it's getting even more complicated.. So you would allow cleave until the caster is hit? but with the effect of no figments poped?
After all, the spell mentions: Whenever the caster is targeted...<follow instructions here>. So the overarching mechanism is the attack on the caster first then the roll and figment poping commences. If the fighter is allowed to deliberately choose a figment first, then normal illusion rules apply as the rules of the spell description didnt trigger.
Either way, you may be over thinking this.
I think BoB is just arguing RAW since he said before he knows it is not RAI. I am just too bored to leave the keyboard. :)
I wish I could agree with you. That's how the spell is supposed to work. However, the text says "Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll" and later "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled." Not "Whenever you are attacked by someone who is fooled by the spell" and not the 3.5 form (which was basically "if you're fooled by the spell, roll wrong target chance, then attack that target").
My game is in that 99%. A lot of the RAW I argue about here on the forums I bring up during my games as a point of interest, but don't follow through on because it bogs the game down, and that's not fun for anyone. That doesn't change the relevance of knowing what the actual "pure" rule is so that you know how your house rule is changing it.
If this was a discussion of whether cleave and great cleave should be allowed to counter mirror image, I'd probably stay out of it. But as long as people are talking about whether they do counter it, based on their reading of the RAW, I'm going to keep throwing the literal reading back.
I don't agree with his RAW either, and really cleaving that does not pop images is really pointless, since if you roll crappy before you decide to attack the caster you may never get to hit him, and those images are still there to confuse you. If you attack the caster first, and miss then cleave is shutoff.
If you hit the caster first there is still the argument of what constitutes a foe. In 3.5 mirror image could be done away with by using magic missile IIRC. I don't think they(Paizo) would power the spell up, just to bring it back down.
1. Even if an image is attacked the spells says they are popped if targeted after trying to attacking the wizard. Therefore you can't really assume they will pop just because you target them.
We're totally in agreement on this - they only pop when you hit them instead of the caster. All that targeting them directly does is reveal them to be illusions, which isn't really useful.
Now it's getting even more complicated.. So you would allow cleave until the caster is hit? but with the effect of no figments poped?
After all, the spell mentions: Whenever the caster is targeted...<follow instructions here>. So the overarching mechanism is the attack on the caster first then the roll and figment poping commences. If the fighter is allowed to deliberately choose a figment first, then normal illusion rules apply as the rules of the spell description didnt trigger.
Either way, you may be over thinking this.
No, every image you hit instead of the caster would be popped. But every image you hit directly (and thus didn't have "wrong target" rolls for) wouldn't.
And yes, I am totally overthinking it. That doesn't make my reading wrong, though. Just very pedantic. As I've said, I don't expect anyone to actually follow my interpretation in play.
|
Displacement (3rd level spell) imparts a flat 50% miss chance for rounds per level.
Mirror Image (2nd level spell) imparts a variable miss chance ranging from 50% to 89% miss chance for minutes per level until depleted.
Mirror Image, if it is not possible to hit multiple images or images and the actual caster hidden among them with a feat invested action such as Greater Cleave, is (IMO) FAR SUPERIOR to Displacement, let alone Blur... it may not be your interpretation of the RAW, but I don't believe that the RAI was to have a 2nd level spell be a far superior short term defensive spell than the published 3rd level "standard" for short term defensive spells.
Lets continue your assessment. And yes, I am going to bring in the "personal" range, since it does mean something.
You have the start for the 3rd level spells. "displacement"
Lets also look at Blink (3rd level like Displacement).
School transmutation; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 round/level (D)
You “blink” quickly back and forth between the Material Plane and the Ethereal Plane and look as though you're winking in and out of reality at random. Blink has several effects, as follows.
Physical attacks against you have a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-Fight feat doesn't help opponents, since you're ethereal and not merely invisible. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment).
If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. (For an attacker who can both see and strike ethereal creatures, there is no miss chance.) Likewise, your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike.
Any individually targeted spell has a 50% chance to fail against you while you're blinking unless your attacker can target invisible, ethereal creatures. Your own spells have a 20% chance to activate just as you go ethereal, in which case they typically do not affect the Material Plane (but they might affect targets on the Ethereal Plane).
While blinking, you take only half damage from area attacks (but full damage from those that extend onto the Ethereal Plane). Although you are only partially visible, you are not considered invisible and targets retain their Dexterity bonus to AC against your attacks. You do receive a +2 bonus on attack rolls made against enemies that cannot see invisible creatures.
You take only half damage from falling, since you fall only while you are material.
While blinking, you can step through (but not see through) solid objects. For each 5 feet of solid material you walk through, there is a 50% chance that you become material. If this occurs, you are shunted off to the nearest open space and take 1d6 points of damage per 5 feet so traveled.
Since you spend about half your time on the Ethereal Plane, you can see and even attack ethereal creatures. You interact with ethereal creatures roughly the same way you interact with material ones.
An ethereal creature is invisible, incorporeal, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down. As an incorporeal creature, you can move through solid objects, including living creatures.
An ethereal creature can see and hear the Material Plane, but everything looks gray and insubstantial. Sight and hearing on the Material Plane are limited to 60 feet.
Force effects and abjurations affect you normally. Their effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not vice versa. An ethereal creature can't attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things. Certain material creatures or objects have attacks or effects that work on the Ethereal Plane. Treat other ethereal creatures and objects as material.
So displacement = 3rd level spell that grants a 50% miss chance that an attack will miss the subject. It can be cast on other people and defeated with true seeing.
Then we have blink. A 3rd level spell that grants a 50% miss chance, 20% even if they can see invisible, and can only be defeated by being able to both see and strike ethereal creatures. Also grants a +2 on attack rolls if they cannot see invisible, makes it so you only take 1/2 damage from falls, walk through walls, attack ethereal creatures yourself, and protects you from ethereal creatures in the same way.
This is another example where the "range personal" means that the spell is more powerful.
Also, why would you not be able to make potions from "range personal" spells. I believe that this is in place as a balance. After all, what melee would not want potions of shield, blink, and mirror image (which would be cheap and easy to make)?
Displacement (3rd level spell) imparts a flat 50% miss chance for rounds per level.
Mirror Image (2nd level spell) imparts a variable miss chance ranging from 50% to 89% miss chance for minutes per level until depleted.
Mirror Image, if it is not possible to hit multiple images or images and the actual caster hidden among them with a feat invested action such as Greater Cleave, is (IMO) FAR SUPERIOR to Displacement, let alone Blur... it may not be your interpretation of the RAW, but I don't believe that the RAI was to have a 2nd level spell be a far superior short term defensive spell than the published 3rd level "standard" for short term defensive spells.
I keep hearing the argument that MI is superior to Displacement and I just dont buy it. Sure at 5th level when a wizard first gets Displacement, its possibly superior because the fighter hasnt gotten his second attack yet. But by 6th level (Which is the sorcs first 3rd level spell) it outshines MI.
For example: 6th level = 3-7 images.. lets assume best case for both Fighter and Wizard.. Meaning Fighter rolls to hit each time and Wizard rolls max MI. (Lets face it, if a fighter doesnt make his to hit roll he's not hitting either spell effect [*caveat on that later]) We are also going to operate under the assumption that the fighter is directed to an image each time as well as misses the displaced caster (after all closing his eyes is the same miss chance as displacement against MI)
[1st MI: Fighter swings hits image pops it.. Swings again at a -5 (*the caveat) which doesnt matter because a miss by 5 or less still pops an image. Result 2 poped images.
[1st D: 2 misses
[2nd MI: 2 popped images total 4 of 7 gone
[2nd D: 2misses
[3rd MI: 2 popped 6 of 7 gone
[3rd D: 2misses
[4th MI: final popped and wizard is now ginzu meat on second attack.
[4th D: 2misses
[5th MI: no more MI.. wizard gets hit hard
[5th D: 2misses
[6th MI: Wizard still getting gutted
[6th D: 2misses Spell is finally over
Because MI serves as basically a temporary ablative shield against attacks and is destroyed with each hit that hits AC-5, it is the weaker spell. Displacement works regardless of how many attacks or how many attackers... As I've stressed before MI can die at this level from a single TWF who has 4 attacks in only 1.5 rounds.
Displacement is superior to MI with the exception of possibly 5th level. Still, even at 5th level a fighter can just close his eyes and take the same 50% as displacement.
For example: 6th level = 3-7 images.. lets assume best case for both Fighter and Wizard.. Meaning Fighter rolls to hit each time and Wizard rolls max MI. (Lets face it, if a fighter doesnt make his to hit roll he's not hitting either spell effect [*caveat on that later]) We are also going to operate under the assumption that the fighter is directed to an image each time as well as misses the displaced caster (after all closing his eyes is the same miss chance as displacement against MI)
[1st MI: Fighter swings hits image pops it.. Swings again at a -5 (*the caveat) which doesnt matter because a miss by 5 or less still pops an image. Result 2 poped images.
[1st D: 2 misses[2nd MI: 2 popped images total 4 of 7 gone
[2nd D: 2misses[3rd MI: 2 popped 6 of 7 gone
[3rd D: 2misses[4th MI: final popped and wizard is now ginzu meat on second attack.
[4th D: 2misses[5th MI: no more MI.. wizard gets hit hard
[5th D: 2misses[6th MI: Wizard still getting gutted
[6th D: 2misses Spell is finally over
Oh goody. Something to argue that doesn't involve RAWbsurdities (I do love that word).
Your example here would be better served if you actually used percentages rather than assuming best case scenarios for the central aspect of each spell.
So, same setup: Fighter that always hits, wizard with max of 7 images.
MI 1: 14.29% chance of hitting the wizard on the first attack, 16.67% chance on the second attack (if the first hit an image) or 14.29% again if the first one hit (so .1667*(1-.1429)+.1429*(.1429) = .1633 combined).
D 1: 50% chance of hitting on the first attack, 50% on the second.
Results 1: With MI, the wizard has a 69.38% chance of having not been hurt. With D, the wizard has a 25% chance of having not been hurt.
MI 2: 14.29% if the wizard was hit twice before, 16.66% if they were hit once, or 20.00% if they weren't hit at all. Second attack bumps all those up and adds a 25.00% chance. So after both attacks:
D 2: 50% chance of hitting on the first attack, 50% on the second.
Results 2: With MI, the wizard now has a .6938*(1-.4400)=38.85% chance of having not been hit (which leaves him with 3 images left). With D, the wizard has a .25*(.5*.5)= 6.25% chance of having not been hit.
MI 3: If the wizard has a 38.85% chance of having not been hit at all, with 3 images left, the chance of being hit this round is .3333+[.5000*(1-.3333)+.3333*(.3333)] = .7777. That makes the chance of having never been hit after this round .3885*(1-.7777) = 8.63%
D3: Same as before.
Results 3: 8.63% (with one image) vs 1.56% of having never been hit.
MI 4: With just one image left, the equation becomes a touch simpler. .5+[1*(1-.5)+.5*(.5)] = 1.25. That's 125% chance of being hit. In other words, he's hit at least once, and a 25% chance of being hit a second time.
D4: Same as before
Results 4: 0% chance of never being hit, 25% chance of only being hit once vs 0.39% chance of having never been hit (and 3.12% chance of being hit once (8 possible times))
Round 5: MI is hit three times total (25% chance of it being 4). DI has a 0.0975% chance of having no hits, .975% chance of having kept it to one hit, 4.39% chance of having been hit exactly twice, 11.70% chance of having been hit exactly 3 times, and 20.48% chance of having 4 hits.
Round 6: MI is hit 5 or 6 times. DI has a 38.63% chance of having 5 or less hits, and a 61.15% chance of having 6 or less (which includes the 5 or less results)
The conclusion I have is very obvious: While Mirror Image is up, it's better than displacement. Once it goes down, displacement is better. And displacement is better over the total duration. Just as Dr. Grecko said, just with more math.
The one caveat is that most fights only last 2-5 rounds, so displacement doesn't have the time to catch up. On the other hand, it pulls further ahead when there's more than one thing attacking you. Tradeoffs.
And in the 4 rounds it took the fighter to break through all of the images what did the wizard do? He cast displacement the first round to make his MI even better, he color sprayed the fighter and stunned him for a round, he threw out a magic missile for guaranteed damage the round the fighter wasn't doing anything. He shocking grasped the warrior in his fancy metal armor and had no problem hitting his touch AC with a +3 to hit.
The lack of balance is that MI is giving a 50%-89% mistarget chance where the wizard is capable of so many rounds of free spell casting. Displacement is a flat 50% all the time starting from the round it is cast. Yes mirror image slowly goes away but that's a lot of free rounds to do whatever else you want.
It's not hard to 5' step away from that warrior and snap off a spell.
And the Displacement Wizard isnt allowed to cast all those same spells as well? I'm not talking about Caster/Martial disparity.. just MI vs Displacement.
As Bobsons math (gotta love those math guys) pointed out, the odds are better for MI in early rounds Better for Displacement in the later rounds. This is for a straight 1 on 1 fight against a single type of fighter.. the 2Hander. Thats the rub with a 2Hander is the trade is less swings for more damage per hit.
As I pointed out, TWF get 4 attacks, and the MI can be gone in 1.5 rounds.. .75 rounds if the wizard rolls minimum MI targets.
This also doesnt factor in others attacking the wizard and completely wiping out all images. The spell is not more powerful than Displacement.
And arguing that you can just close your eyes to treat this spell like the 50% miss chance that comes with displacement means you take the blinded condition.
Did closing/opening your eyes suddenly become a standard action that I'm not aware of?
1. Even if an image is attacked the spells says they are popped if targeted after trying to attacking the wizard. Therefore you can't really assume they will pop just because you target them.We're totally in agreement on this - they only pop when you hit them instead of the caster. All that targeting them directly does is reveal them to be illusions, which isn't really useful.
Now it's getting even more complicated.. So you would allow cleave until the caster is hit? but with the effect of no figments poped?
After all, the spell mentions: Whenever the caster is targeted...<follow instructions here>. So the overarching mechanism is the attack on the caster first then the roll and figment poping commences. If the fighter is allowed to deliberately choose a figment first, then normal illusion rules apply as the rules of the spell description didnt trigger.
Either way, you may be over thinking this.
No, every image you hit instead of the caster would be popped. But every image you hit directly (and thus didn't have "wrong target" rolls for) wouldn't.
And yes, I am totally overthinking it. That doesn't make my reading wrong, though. Just very pedantic. As I've said, I don't expect anyone to actually follow my interpretation in play.
That still does not stop you from having to play the shell game though. Even if you hit the caster you still have to play the shell game if you attack him again. The next attack assumes of course that cleave is not in play, so what is the point of swinging at the images?
The 2-hander, sword and board, the one handed duelist, every variant except for the TWF. This is also only for classes with full BAB and I'm pretty sure the 3/4 BAB's are more abundant. (13/19 classes are 3/4 BAB or less)
In the one round that you have two foes that are TWF on top of you you can 5' step and color spray them and they're done for the round. They have a less likely chance of hitting you than had you had displacement up. The only time they had an equal chance as displacement of hitting you was on the last image you had standing.
How often is the wizard surrounded by creatures? Never been a common experience in any of my games. Wizards have a knack for staying safe behind the melee.
We were also comparing spells vs spell level. If this is the only way you can bring down mirror image easily, being a TWF, it's power is beyond a 2nd level spell. The comparative spells at 2nd level are blur and invisibility. Yes MI is personal range and should be slightly better. Having a 66%-83% mistarget chance is well beyond the closest bonus. And when you can stack this spell with another spell that gives a real miss chance it's next to impossible to hit the wizard under your standards.
A full BAB character needs to be level 4 to even have Great Cleave to deal with this spell. A 3/4 BAB will be level 6. You're saying that a 2nd level spell, obtainable at level 3 for a full progression caster or level 4 for a medium progression caster, is better than something obtainable by a full BAB character at level 4 or the 3/4 BAB at level 6. And yet at level 6 you'll have displacement which isn't as hard to deal with as mirror image. Where's the logic?
EDIT: The guy with displacement only had a 6% chance of not being hit in a round as well. Doesn't seem that good if you're getting wailed on with your meagre hp pool and trying to cast all those spells. You're far more likely to get them all off with mirror image and take far less damage than you would with displacement.
The swoard and board can shield bash and I suggest they do. There are archer fighter builds for rapid shot, and several other charecters with multiple attacks AKA Flurry Monk... And a monk is a lot less vulnerable to color spray than a fighter. (not that it matters for the comparison argument)
In my experience as well wizards do thier darndest to stay out of melee range. It's just what they do. That doesn't prevent ranged attacks from coming thier way.. and the full BAB archer fighter or Ranger can pop those dups in a heartbeat. And the proximity of a fighter to the caster has no bearing on the argument of comparing the spells.
There are ways to counter the step back and cast method and I suggest the fighters take that feat. Again, this has nothing to do with the comparison of the spells. I'm not arguing caster/martial disparity.
The point is clear. MI is vulnerable to creatures/players with multiple attacks. Displacement is not. A player with fewer attacks who closes thier eyes during the swing or a blind creature has a miss chance equal to that of Displacement.
And I wont even get into the cleave argument as if you havent been swayed yet that it doesnt work, then I'm not going to change your mind.
I will repeat what I said before MI is closer to displacement power wise at lower levels, but at higher levels where more attacks are common displacement is clearly better IMHO. MI is also a personal spell, and a spell being person has a larger effect on its power since it is very limited. If MI was a personal spell I don't know of any fighters(players that play fighters before anyone gets too technical with my wording) that would not pick it up.
I actually found the subject of personal spells by accident on another thread, but then I had browser issues, and I can't see to relocate it. The original authoer said it much better than I did.
Sword and board who shield bashes is a TWF. If they didn't take the TWF feat line because they wanted the shield for defense and not a TWF build they now have a -4(-6 for heavy shield) main hand and a -8(-10) off hand to hit. Not boding well for him to hit. Even less stacking another -5 on top for iteratives.
Fair enough.. Then he should instead attack something other than the wizard. How bout the Big Guy hitting the cleric instead?
Rapid shot is a 2 feat chain that that you're now equating better to a 3 feat chain. Rapid shot is also the equivalent of a TWF with bows.
I didnt say its better or worse than cleave, they both have thier uses
A fighter's proximity has all the bearing. A melee fighter cannot attack something he cannot hit.
Are you seriously arguing that a meleer who is not in melee range has any bearing at all over the comparison of the two spells?
Countering the step back and cast is another 3 feat chain that ends with Step up and strike needing +6 BAB and 13 dex.
Yes.. a great feat chain if you want to prevent casters from doing what you are suggesting.. If you dont care about casters ignore the chain.
I'm not arguing caster/martial disparity. I'm arguing the value of a spell vs other spells and how the RAW reads in the spell that you are choosing to ignore.
it certainly seems like you are arguing caster/martial disparity with all your the wizard wins be cause he steps back and casts spells against said fighter examples.
MI is vulnerable to the multi attack classes and the wizard is not.
D is just as vulnerable to the multi attack classes and the wizard still is.
Incorrect. Wizard is vulnerable in each case. MI ends when popped.. D stays up til duration is over.
The entire thread is about MI vs Cleave. Refusing to argue the reason of the thread means you have no reason to be here.
Very well.. RAW prevents cleave as the spells discription directly states the caster must be targeted first, and then the chance of hitting an images is processed.
Wizards are far more of a threat than the big guy hitting the cleric. This is why the fighter would be attacking the wizard anyway.
You understand the build of a SnB fighter is designed around armor class and taking hits. He's not designed to go after said caster... If he does, then I suggest he close his eyes or let the ranger pop the bubbles first. It's a disadvantage to his build.
You're diminishing the value of everyone beyond a TWF
How so? Everyone has strenghts and weaknesses one build does not work for every scenario.
This entire part of the argument has been based off of the math provided by others. Please don't try to derail the argument because you can't counter it.
I'm just trying to see your logic in comparing two spells against a meleer who is not in melee. It just doesn't make sense to me.
There's many ways to deal with casters. This is one of the poorest choices you can make. It's not a common build.
Cool, if you think so.. still were not arguing caster/martial disparity, so this is a topic for another discussion
The back stepping was showing that a caster could get off spells without provoking an attack that would destroy more images. Please try to keep up with the context.
Stepup and strike would work, but again this is argument for the disparity topic.
You're right. The wizard is vulnerable in each case. The math above also shows that until there is only 1 image, the caster is less vulnerable using MI than D.
Agreed, no argument here :)
Nothing in the spell says you have to target the caster first. It says that if an attack is aimed at the caster roll a die and see if it was actually aimed at the caster or at an image. If it was an image, and a hit, the image is destroyed. This means the caster was never the target. You cannot target something if you do not know what the target is. This argument is true from both sides. All this means is that when cleaving you're aiming at all of the images and the caster. Please read the text and understand what you're reading.
Except that pesky statement that reads: When the caster is targetted there is a chance it targets the image instead. Nowhere does it say: When an image is targeted there is a chance the caster is targeted. The spell does not allow you to target the images intentionally. The mechanics this spell of random rolls determining if an image or caster is hit invalidate cleaves rule of the possibility of attacking the caster twice..
I will repeat what I said before MI is closer to displacement power wise at lower levels, but at higher levels where more attacks are common displacement is clearly better IMHO. MI is also a personal spell, and a spell being person has a larger effect on its power since it is very limited. If MI was a personal spell I don't know of any fighters(players that play fighters before anyone gets too technical with my wording) that would not pick it up.
I actually found the subject of personal spells by accident on another thread, but then I had browser issues, and I can't see to relocate it. The original authoer said it much better than I did.
Magus' get this at level 4. Magus is god.
Personal spells are supposed to grant a slightly better condition than spells that can be cast on others. Giving a level 3 wizard a spell that is comparable to a level 5 wizard's spells isnt' the same thing as a slightly better condition.
It was argued above how blink is better than displacement. My counter is that blink also makes the caster suffer a 20% miss chance on all actions since you can be on the ethereal plane. That's a 1 in 5 chance that your next spell does nothing because you weren't on the material plane to cast it. MI doesn't come with any downside to it if we go by the assumptions that you have to attack ONLY the caster and then see if you hit him. It also stacks with spells that provide a real miss chance.
The down side is that its gone after the images are gone and they're not as hard to get rid of as people seem to think.
The spell levels are only 1 apart though. 1 level with is not much difference if the lower level spell is so limited in who you can apply it to, and it does not have the staying power of the higher level spell. I am not saying mirror image is not worth a 3rd level slot. I would still pick it up, but I wouldn't take either one with a 4th level slot, but a lot of that may just come down to style of play.
I think it is mincing words just as much to assume you can hit anything other than the intended target and still get cleave to work. The intent to cleave is pretty clear.
If you don't mince words then cleave does not work. If you want to support the mincing of words then the cleave and mirror image thing failed a long time ago by RAW.
PS:You can't just say something is flawed without saying why, well you can but you wont get any credit. In this case you must state why the image is foe, with rules support.
PS2:The adjacent thing was cleared up a while ago, and you are correct on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yar.
What I'm enjoying the most about all of this, is that both sides of the argument (for the most part) are quoting THE EXACT SAME LINE OF TEXT as the irrefutable proof that they are right.
Take a step back and think about that.
That's a good indication that it is not worded well and needs to be cleaned up.
"...but Pirate, if you actually read that line of text, it clearly means A not B."
countered with, yet again: "...but Pirate, if you actually read that line of text, it clearly means B not A."
...ad nauseam.
Lets stop being this guy and actually do something productive: click the FAQ button on the OP.
~P
I already clicked the button. Now I am just fighting the good fight. :)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I could get that many people to FAQ things that... You know, actually matter and don't happen once every 10 campaigns :-\
I'm confused as to why this is such an issue. Wizard throws up Mirror Image. Fighter attacks. If his roll is enough to hit the wizard, then randomly determine if he hit the wizard or an image. If he hit anything, then he can attack again. The wizard has one fewer image so you roll a different percentage of hitting an image. If the wizard comes up a second time, then just roll again ignoring results of: wizard. Continue to do this until the fighter misses.
It's not rocket science and doesn't really need a full scale statistical analysis. I really think that it's being over-thought way too much.
To be totally honest, there is no way I was going to read much past the first page of this, so I didn't see adjacent get cleared up, but good to know and amazing to think there is consensus on anything on the internet.
I was not chastising you. I was just saying we agree, and I understand not reading 100's of post.
I may not have been clear, that is certain, but what I meant by the argument about the mirror image not being a foe is flawed was that it doesn't matter if it is or isn't a foe. If you want to mince words and say its not a foe, its not fair to only mince those words, but then feel free to add in bits about the fact that it was a successful it against the "intended" target...
I had to point that out for those that do believe it is a valid target for cleave as a foe. Basically I was saying that even if it was a foe.....