Mirror image doesn't prevent you from targeting the caster. While you are precluded from targeting an image, you are not prohibited from targeting the caster. When mirror image kicks in, you targeted the caster but hit an image instead. This isn't the same thing as being unable to target the caster.
Magic missile bypasses mirror image, though.
|
Right, you can always target the caster, never an image. Images may only be hit accidentally, and are not a separate thing from the caster for purposes of things like Cleave.
EDIT:
If you can target the caster then the spell is worthless. the fighter should not have problem if he can diferentiate the caster form the other images.
No, see, you're confusing what 'targetting' means in this context. The guy and all his images are one target (for purposes of all attacks that don't auto-hit). You make an attack, and then roll randomly to see whether you got him or an image (since you can't tell them apart). Whether you'd prefer to get the guy or the image is immaterial, it's the same random roll either way.
Now magic works differently...but it's magic, you don't necessarily need to know which is real for your Magic Missile to target him because the missile itself magically knows.
|
|
Read my edit above, guys.
Any figment illusion spell has an AC of 10 for medium creatures as well. So when you roll randomly to see if an illusion is hit or not you should roll randomly first and then judge the hit on whether it was the illusion or the wizard. (Wizards usually at least have 12-13 or more AC)
Besides cleave states that you can attack a target and if you hit you can hit a foe adjacent to the original target. You are still "hitting" the image so technically by RAW you are able to cleave.
The images aren't adjacent. They are all in the same space. Yeah, that's hard to visualize, but it's the way the rules work, assume they are constantly moving and shifting, all striking, dodging, and blocking as one.
And the specific trumps the general, so they have the same AC as the caster, and you roll after you see if you hit.
If you can target the caster then the spell is worthless. the fighter should not have problem if he can diferentiate the caster form the other images.
You misunderstand.
Situation A: The Silly Fighter. TSF has no magical aptitude. He went to fighter college and got his Slashing Certification with a minor in Stabbing. When he sees a sorceress with five magical, illusionary copies of herself floating around in confusing patterns, he has to pick one and swing at it. There's a one in six chance he'll get the real deal. Roll the six sided and see how lucky he is. Five times out of six, he'll slice through a mirror image instead of stabbing through a sorceress, and he'll fail to hurt her.
Situation B: Ezeremyriexerus the Exceptional. Ezeremyriexerus is a skilled wizard and conjurer who skipped Fighter Community College and attended Wizard State University, instead. He has two degrees in Blasting and a third in enchantment. When he sees a sorceress with five magical, illusionary copies of herself floating around in confusing patterns, he casts his trusty magical missile spell, mentally willing the spell to his the sorceress in front of him. Using the power of his awesome magics, the missile unerringly ignores the illusory copies and goes right for the real sorceress, because missiles don't have eyes.
In conclusion, magic is smarter than smashing, because it has brains not eyes.
If you've ever swung a weapon, you should know there's a fair difference between swinging it into a 5-foot space and hitting something in that five-foot space. That you say that indicates you're not really totally hip on the physics of weapon impetus and follow-through.
Possible? Yeah, sure. Probable? Less so. Likely? Eh, maybe a little. But not something you can reliably do to take out four images. All those images are going to be jumping away from your axe as you swing. You'd be moving it without enough force to do anything more than tag them like a fencing duel if you're going to track all of them going in opposite directions.
But more importantly, logic doesn't matter. The rule works fine, and for the purpose of the rule, the spell causes that attack to be wasted, regardless of whatever logic you think should make it hit, anyway. One could logic away anything in this game (or make it less logical). Both serve to destabilize the game in a rather pointless manner. The game is somewhat abstracted. Rules don't always make perfect logical sense. They have to strike a balance between logic and game mechanics to make the game playable, or the game wouldn't be . . . . playable.
That's it.
|
|
Yes exactly and my point is that if you are swinging an axe through air so hard that it would go through metal plates and then also hit a target 5 feet away, you are logically able to swing through a the same air illusion and hit a target less than 5 feet away.
This...isn't really how Cleave works any more thematically (if it ever did) and even if it was, have you ever swung an axe, expecting a piece of wood there, and found only air? The swing does indeed continue, but not in any remottely controlled fashion. Ditto for swinging expecting air and actually hitting something.
Oh and adjacent doesn't have to mean 5 feet away anyway and 2 tiny creatures can occupy the same space and yet are still adjacent to each other.
True, but they aren't doing that, they're all just part of the same target.
"Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.
The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.
I'll bite on this with another question.
With the way that Mirror Image is now conceptualized, what is the real difference between Mirror Image and Blur?
Both would seem to produce a similar effect, conceptually, though arrive at it in a different mechanical way.
I dislike the Cleave clarification. Only because I do not believe that my greatsword, in a great sweeping blow, would auto whiff a cleave attempt when all of these images are occupying the same 5' space. If they were in 5 discrete 5' spaces I could see the argument. ( that's how MI worked once). It makes the physics of Cleave seem completely illogical and strains the targeting on Magic Missle.
I cast Magic Missle at the Darkness.
What happens?
@Trista
If you want to give everybody a quick and dirty way around Mirrior Image:
Blur will be better in every way
The result of having Mirror Image up or not will be similar to casting "daze", a cantrip: one person wastes it's action to get rid of those images.
Casters wont bother to learn this spell...
Your tennis example does not work: the impact of your raquet on the ball cannot be compared to the impact of a heavy weapon on a non-moving target. Think of a car hitting another car and a car hitting a wall... which is worse?
You cannot keep your swing going after hitting a non-moving target, your opponent is unlikely to "roll with your blow" unless you do something like a bull rush or trip which is a combat maneuver. You use momentum AND strength to hurt somebody, because (impact = momentum x strength)... momentum and strength multiply, applying just a wee bit of strength is way better then trying to increase your momentum by another wee bit. Ideally you want both at similar "rating".
When hitting something non-moving with some strength, unlike your tennis ball, if you miscaculate your impact:
either you are likely to rip your shoulder out and it'll put you off-balance
or you will not do much damage because your impact wont have sufficient power/strength
If you were trying to hit somebody with your raquet in anger, would you swing the same way as if you were trying to hit a ball in a match?
To better explain the shoulder hurt: when you hit something with a minimum of strength, your body adapts to brace for the impact. If that impact happens earlier, the vibrations will travel up your arm like a ripple until it reaches something that doesn't move with the ripples: your shoulder.
You usually aim a punch to go "through" your opponent, but the moment your knuckles impact on something (bones/muscles) your body has to compensate, that's what I'm talking about.
daze would have the same result in loss of action as you'd have with mirror image:
daze: 1 target of your choice looses his next action
mirror image: 1 enemy has to waste one action to get rid of all those images
Why yes I have heard of Tennis elbow as I've also broken many raquets and many strings as well. You know what never broke? My shoulder.
Ask a martial artist how often they have shoulder injuries :-)
And I didn't mean broken shoulders, but dislodged shoulders or strained sinew.So you are actually conceding my point: tennis is less violent because the ball you are hitting is less likely to resist your impact. ;-)
Try hitting a sturdy beam instead of a ball and lets see how your elbow and shoulder will like it.
On a right handed forehand the momentum is rotating around the left leg, which gives it MUCH more power.
Hip movement and leg placement is done in pretty much any sport... hence why I didn't talk about it. It just increases momentum.
(momentum+torque)*strenght=impact
Depends on the speeds of the vehicles and other variables on the car example.
moving car vs standing wall
moving car vs standing car
Why exactly did one of the two best defense spells in the game need to get an upgrade? Aren't Wizards/Sorcerers already difficult enough to hit, did we strictly need to make it even less possible?
Whomever thought this was a good change should be ashamed as a game designer.
There was no errata, merely a statement by the developer as a clarification. For some people (myself included) who read the spell have been using it exactly how it has been stated by the developers all along.
A person is not a sturdy beam. They are in fact very unsturdy and even more so when wearing really heavy armor.
But still more sturdy then a tennis ball. :)
That is the spirit of the errata. I just disagree because i do not undertand the logic of it.
Now magic works differently...but it's magic, you don't necessarily need to know which is real for your Magic Missile to target him because the missile itself magically knows.
Do you have the same issue with the spell Blur? E.g., you miss if you swing a sword at the wrong part of the blurred enemy but you hit if you aim a magic missile anywhere near him.
"Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.
The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.
RAW...Magic Missle does not do that.
I have an unconscious cat and Cast Silent Image right next to it. Magic missle in no way allows you to auto-hit the real cat to finish it off. It only allows you to auto-hit your intended target, be it the real cat or the fake cat thats up to the random die-roll.
Also for all purposes, silent image is basically a weak version of mirror image. Both spells are figmental as well.
I was talking about mirror image, not magic missile. Note the bolded area. They could go back and errata mirror image to make the RAW match RAI more exactly, but the point of mirror image is to make it so that attack roll based attacks miss by aiming for the caster. Target based spells still hit the caster. If mirror image could also cause you to accidentally target an image with any target based spell the spell would be too good. The fact that magic missile does hp damage instead of doing other things to you does not changed the fact that it is a targeted spell.
In short I am still correct.
PS:Silent image is not like mirror image. Being a figment is not enough.
I'll bite on this with another question.
With the way that Mirror Image is now conceptualized, what is the real difference between Mirror Image and Blur?
Both would seem to produce a similar effect, conceptually, though arrive at it in a different mechanical way.
I dislike the Cleave clarification. Only because I do not believe that my greatsword, in a great sweeping blow, would auto whiff a cleave attempt when all of these images are occupying the same 5' space. If they were in 5 discrete 5' spaces I could see the argument. ( that's how MI worked once). It makes the physics of Cleave seem completely illogical and strains the targeting on Magic Missle.
I cast Magic Missle at the Darkness.
What happens?
The fluff and mechanics for cleave don't work the same. This was also discussed in the other thread. By the fluff Cleave should work. By the mechanics it does not.
By definition of a figment spell you no longer know which one is the right one. That is what the random roll is for. If you become blind and you enemy moves, you now have to guess randomly which square he's in. Why should this be any different?"Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.
The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.
RAW...Magic Missle does not do that.
I have an unconscious cat and Cast Silent Image right next to it. Magic missle in no way allows you to auto-hit the real cat to finish it off. It only allows you to auto-hit your intended target, be it the real cat or the fake cat thats up to the random die-roll.
Also for all purposes, silent image is basically a weak version of mirror image. Both spells are figmental as well.
I was talking about mirror image, not magic missile. Note the bolded area. They could go back and errata mirror image to make the RAW match RAI more exactly, but the point of mirror image is to make it so that attack roll based attacks miss by aiming for the caster. Target based spells still hit the caster. If mirror image could also cause you to accidentally target an image with any target based spell the spell would be too good. The fact that magic missile does hp damage instead of doing other things to you does not changed the fact that it is a targeted spell.
In short I am still correct.
PS:Silent image is not like mirror image. Being a figment is not enough.
It is different because the spell(mirror image) says the caster is targeted normally which means you get to ignore the images for targeted spells. If that line was not there I would agree with you.
All target based spells work by allowing you to pick who you want to hit without a chance of picking the wrong target or missing. Of course mirror image might have made that into issue if not the clause saying the caster is targeted normally. If the caster is target normally and you can normally always select the caster then there is no chance to hit an image.
Why can't you aim for an image?--->The mirror image spell works under the assumption that you are always aiming for the caster, which I pointed out in a long debate before the devs made their ruling. The spell also says it must target a creature so you can't even intentionally select an image as a target. That means you will always hit the caster with magic missle the same way you will always hit the caster with charm person.
Until they do errata it the RAW does not support your idea, and since this has been argued since 3.5 and possibly even Ad&d, I'm gonna take an educated guess and say they intend for it to work as an illusion spell and not an abjuration spell like you have mentioned."Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.
The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.
RAW...Magic Missle does not do that.
I have an unconscious cat and Cast Silent Image right next to it. Magic missle in no way allows you to auto-hit the real cat to finish it off. It only allows you to auto-hit your intended target, be it the real cat or the fake cat thats up to the random die-roll.
Also for all purposes, silent image is basically a weak version of mirror image. Both spells are figmental as well.
I was talking about mirror image, not magic missile. Note the bolded area. They could go back and errata mirror image to make the RAW match RAI more exactly, but the point of mirror image is to make it so that attack roll based attacks miss by aiming for the caster. Target based spells still hit the caster. If mirror image could also cause you to accidentally target an image with any target based spell the spell would be too good. The fact that magic missile does hp damage instead of doing other things to you does not changed the fact that it is a targeted spell.
In short I am still correct.
PS:Silent image is not like mirror image. Being a figment is not enough.
Your guess is doesn't seem to be correct given the clarifications that have come out by the developers. It's simply the way you want it to be. Do we need another thread with 100+ posts about Mirror Image?
Mirror Images are not targetable figments, you can only target the caster. It's why cleave doesn't work - 'I cleave the wizard opps I hit an image I cleave the wizard again!' - Mechanicly this simply doesn't work. Magic Missle never misses and you can only target the wizard. There is no attack roll so they all hit.
I fail to see how this is not clear, by both RAW and RAI. Many people (going by the mega thread that was created awhile back) also seem to agree with this standpoint. While I can understand that there might have been confusion it should now be more then clear with the recent developer comments. Any further disagreement just comes from being stubborn. If you don't like it then make a house rule, problem solved.
Also a minor annoyance to me - there hasn't been any errata, people need to stop saying there was.
What if I read what is written too and come out to a different conclusion. I did and funny enough in this case in was prefectly in sync with the clarifications given by the developers (of course it's not always though, like with the Monk Flurry/TWF - I don't like that ruling). In fact Mirror Image was always done that way for Pathfinder anywhere near where I play. I suspect it might be a regional thing? Anyway I don't think there is need for an errata however, a FAQ seems reasonable enough.
I will reiterate my statement that if anyone continues to disagree I think they are just being stubborn.
Are people still trying to justify mirror image working differently than it very clearly says it works?
Just read the spell and do what it says, people. It's not hard.
But you do not know which one is the real caster.
It does not matter. The spell specifically says the caster is targeted normally*. In short it bypasses the fact that you can not always choose the caster with an attack roll.
*Exceptions always trump anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats my problem. There is no errata.
Errata changes existing rules which are mistakes.
The official Paizo FAQ clarifies how existing rules work, without changing them. Since the rule is correct, and doesn't need to be changed, something that is clarified in the FAQ will not be changed via errata.
By my ruling I would also say that since the attacker is technically picking a target (one of the illusions or the actual wizard)that he can target with a magic missle since no where in the spell does it say that it auto-hits.
If what you're saying here is that you can send each magic missile after a different image, intending to destroy some images instead of all hitting the caster, then that is incorrect.
Mirror Image (page 315): Can I use magic missile to destroy one or more images from a mirror image spell? No. Magic missile targets a creature and does not require an attack roll, so it bypasses all the images and always hits the caster. —Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12
I just want to clarify that I'm not saying that he cleaves and hits the wizard. He just simply cleaves and has another chance to hit the wizard. In the same sense he also has the chance to hit another illusion.
If what you're saying here is that you can use cleave, miss the wizard but destroy an image, then use cleave to take another attack at the wizard (or a figment), then that is incorrect.
Cleave (page 119): Can I use this feat or Great Cleave (page 124) to cleave to or from an image created by a mirror image spell? No. If your initial attack hit the caster, you can’t cleave to an image as if it were an actual creature. If your initial attack hit an image, you failed to hit your intended target (the caster), and therefore can’t cleave. As you can’t specifically target an image (because you can’t tell the images from the actual caster), you likewise can’t aim for an image and try to cleave to another image. —Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12
Again, these are from the official Paizo FAQ, they are not developer opinion postings, they are official clarifications of the rules. You're free to house rule otherwise, and even in many cases encouraged to do so. However, if you go to an event and the DM is running the game by RAW clarified by the official FAQ, your house rules will not apply.
If I'm misunderstood your posts, which is entirely possible, I apologize.
Oh dear.. Not cleave vs MI again... must resist urge.. <rolls low>
It was established in the previous thread (by me at least) that via the mechanics of the spell, the target from someone trying to hit the caster is first and foremost the caster themselves. After that initial targetting mechanism, the random roll then determines if you hit an image or caster. The mechanics of the initial target always being the caster makes cleaving invalid due to the possibility of hitting the caster multiple times.
Applying this to Magic Missle, since the target is first and foremost the caster, the spell strikes the target enerringly, meaning that MI would not affect the missles target.
Please point out where it uses the wording "when the caster is targeted normally"
It says this:
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.
Magic missile does not require an attack roll.
It also says this:
Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments
Magic missile does not require an attack roll so why my earlier verbage was incorrect the idea is the same. Targeted spells don't require attack rolls, and therefore will always hit the caster.
How did they change figments? You never hit the intended target so you can cleave, which is another point I made in the other thread.