| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, figments are not real and can't be affected by mirror image. They do not need to be. The caster can be, obviously, and that appearance is reflected by the mirror images. If this was not the case, any persistent effect capable of being noticed on a creature would completely negate Mirror Image.
Such as:
Bleed effects. Alchemist Fire. Burning Gaze. Brand. A bucket of paint. A bag of flour.
The interactions of figments with "real" effects like evocation [light] spells has utterly no bearing on the debate. Either mirror image MIRRORS the IMAGE of it's caster, or it does not. All answers flow logically from that primary decision.
You have chosen that it does not. Others have chosen that it does. If you are comfortable with your choice, thats fine, but it makes Mirror Image weaker. Also fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1974.
Faerie fire only does what its spell description says it does.
Ergo, it has no specific effect or interaction with mirror image. End of story.
This thread has been rolling around for a while, and the consensus seems clear. The RAW are clear. You can houserule it however you like, but as a "rules question" the point is moot.
The mirror images will have the appearances of fairy fire. Only the original will radiate light that will appear on the floor and nearest wall. I would require a spot/perception check of 50! See if that flies with your GM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Round 1 - bad guy casts mirror image and gets attacked by an archer who manages to rid 1 image (4 remaining) but does strike the mage with his second arrow.
Fighter declares he attacks the mage because he can see the arrow.
Sorry mirror images duplicates effects, including faerie fire on the images. There are no concerns with targeting as mirror image is handling that, not the FF.
There are no concerns with light level as all the "candles" are inside the same square and provide the same light area whether there is 1 candle or 8. The visual effect is the same.
Mirror image wins.
Why is so few using any quotes from the rulebooks?
I am not going to buy into any more personal attacks - lets just keep it on to the logic.
Some of you have written completely confused (The Black Bard ) Im not talking about figments affecting Mirror Image. I am saying that - because Mirror Image produces figments, figments are not real and cannot be faerie fired. Therefore the real target is faerie fired and thus can be identified as it is the only one producing light
Wheldrake - You cant be suggesting that all the rules are complete and don't require DM judgement. Ergo, the rules are not complete. Pages 402-403 cover situations where the GM has to make rulings, Gygax said plenty more in the past about DM judging rules. Tsk Tsk
Yuri Sarreth - You are the only person using a quote so so I will go into detail - firstly re-read the spell Faerie Fire - it says "similar effects" to concealment spells.
Mirror image provides a diceroll to hit the target based on an illusion. It is a "similar" defensive spell, while say Stoneskin is not.
Your quote "Noted in the spell description" is correct in that the spell description says "similar effects".
Debate about "Similar" would not exist if Faerie Fire said it 'only neutralises concealment' (or a similar absolute word or phrase like "Only")
Also you are completely wrong about Magic Missile. Back in first/Second edition it used to nerf Mirror Image. Now in the spell description of Mirror Image it says "Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of the figments" therefore Magic Missle no longer works in Paizo's edition.
Grey mage has done no reading about figments.
Goth Guru sees the logic but needs to switch off the electric lights and light 1+ candles in a dark room to see each creates its own light.
In summary
1) old dogs like me and young pups please restrain yourselves from trying to change the thread into a dog fight over age and experience, which will devolve into arguments about tertiary degree/s, career, how , many games you have etc. Pointless. If you read earlier I was merely trying to quash a juvenile comment that my argument had suffered a critical hit, which for those that do not know was not in the D&D rules in its 1st edition and was only an optional rule in 2nd ed (page 61 DMG2e), thus was not official until 3rd edition. I regret it now because swatting that fly has seemed to attract a swarm.
2) Can i ask people to please not post unless they quote from the rules in order to explain how each figment is faerie fired. This thread is about whether Faerie Fire will work on all the Images in a Mirror image so each will generate light and thus be indistinguishable from the real person.
The rules say that figments are not real objects so it seems they would be just pictures of flame, like a photo or TV image of a candle burning rather than actually emanating light.
The rules do not lend support to the notion that there would be 2+ candleflames generated by either
i)copying the original or
ii) each figment being faerie fired.
show me where this is wrong by page numbers and I will concede (with RULE quotes for those page numbers).
But please read before you quote or you risk oversights like Yuri not seeing the quote about Mirror image not being affected by Magic Missle, or Grey mage who seems to not have bothered to read pages 210-211)
Logic over emotion to win the argument please
|
|
Incorrect outcome. Mirror Imaged NERFED
3.5PHB.p173/PF210 "Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly. For example, it is possible to use a silent image spell to create an illusory cottage, but the cottage offers no protection from rain.”
Q.E.D Only the real objects in the area specified by the caster as subjects are affected by Faerie Fire.
Detailed explanation:
Faerie fire works on objects designated as subjects by the caster of Faerie Fire, and the figments aren’t real so they objects and therefore eligible targets of Faerie Fire and definitely are not illuminated - ie they cannot shed the candlelight of Faerie Fire. Even if you believe that the Mirror Image figments created were demonstrating a picture of the real character's Faerie Fire they could not produce faerie fire candle light illumination (ie they would look artificial) - it is like trying to use the photo of a bonfire to illuminate your study or a TV show character using a torch to spotlight your lounge room.Only the real character in a Mirror Image would actually produce the Faerie Fire Candlelight illumination.
... And none of your argument is relevant. The mirror image can mimic the candle light well enough to delay and obfuscate the attacker exactly as the spell states. The effect is similar enough to throw off the attacker if he is using sight.
All relevant text has already been provided.
My pedigree is similar to yours.
I have never used this spell on a character.
I am well versed on the figments rule.
Spells do what they state. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else is homebrew territory.
Grey_Mage says - "I am well versed on the figments rule.
Spells do what they state. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else is homebrew territory."
Please explain how does a figment create light then?
Can players use Figments to create the light of a Bullseye lantern then? what about if a mage does a figment of the sun in the sky on a dark night - shouldnt that illuminate the whole area with sunlight?
As you say you are familiar with Figments - please explain referring to page 210?*
How is it the mirror images "can mimic the candle light well enough" (your quote) - like a photo(illusion) of a torch illuminating a room? or the figment illusion of a chair to sit on?
*( You are of course free to homebrew these anyway you like but I prefer adherance to the rules)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Figments don't create light but they can create the sensation of perceiving something.
Even faerie fire can only cast light equal to a candle. (No distance/5' low light). All images are moving in the same 5' area, therefore you can't triangulate the true outlined target since there isn't enough data to go off of.
A figment can create a fiery torch. It won't create light.
The light radius for a torch is 15/30. The light radius for two torches occupying the same square is still 15/30. If one is a figment, the untrained eye shouldn't be able to tell them apart unless a figment can't replicate shadows or play with the light at hand basically rendering all illusionary magic worthless.
Fortunately. Magic works in Pathfinder without real world physics interactions because it's magic. And it works. As the spell describes.
|
|
This is a fascinating discussion.
Faerie Fire has no affect on mirror image, unless the GM wants to rule that it does. It's an easy call since the faerie Fire spell description says it negates concealment bonuses and similar, while the mirror image's description makes no mention of it granting a concealment bonus. the two don't interact.
Since it's apparently important to mention, I've been GM'ing since 1e. 1e and 2e were different beasts, much less gamey and rulesy than 3.5e/PF.
-Skeld
Why is so few using any quotes from the rulebooks?
I am not going to buy into any more personal attacks - lets just keep it on to the logic.
You didn't quote any rules when responding to me, so *shrug*.
Also, people mentioning that they've been GMing as long as you have and that time as a GM is irrelevant to whether you are correct aren't personal attacks. Besides, you started it by implying that you know better than everybody else here because you've been GMing for a long time. So again, *shrug*.
Also you are completely wrong about Magic Missile. Back in first/Second edition it used to nerf Mirror Image. Now in the spell description of Mirror Image it says "Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of the figments" therefore Magic Missle no longer works in Paizo's edition.
Magic Missile bypasses Mirror Image. It targets the true caster automatically. "Spells that do not require an attack roll affect you normally." So it doesn't destroy images but it does injure the caster. It works just fine.
Extra images of candles are, again, not a problem. No matter how much you want to create a real world analogy to disprove it you can't. Unless you can actually use magic, your point on candles creating more light in the real world is irrelevant.
It seems Skeld agrees with me as I hold the line that Faerie Fire will not work on the images, it will only work on the original.
Therefore it identifies the original.
Skeld quotes "Similar" which is often overlooked by most of you. If Faerie fire only worked on concealment it would say so (eg Only neutralises concealment). As I put above Mirror Image is "Similar" to the other spells as it is an Illusion defence spell which makes hitting the target harder. It is not a concealment spell but it is "similar" because it is a defensive illusion.
Grey mage - im sorry all your arguments about light are proving me correct, as you agree that only the original would provide the candlelight, which is my point. I agree with you in that Adventurers are not 'untrained eye' in a world of magic threats they are most certainly trained and would be keen to detect such flaws.
This argument about 'not enough data' to distinguish light presumes one torch would be the same to identify as one torch that provides light and one that does not. In a world with darkvision/infravision etc it would be extremely easy to distinguish between an illusion that does not give off light and real source that does.
Duplicating held light sources such as lanterns, permanent light torches, glowing swords etc may create the confusion you suggest - but Faerie Fire is a specific targeting affect designed to single out the original and illuminate it. That is why it is so good with spells such as Blur and Displacement
Illusions are not worthless, nor are they faultless - they often have flaws hence the saving throw to detect them. Mirror image has a random chance to detect it too.
The spell description of Faerie Fire says it works on similar spells to Blur Invisibility etc. Mirror Image is "similar" - in that it has an Original which uses an illusion to obfuscate it.
Faerie Fire negates Blur Displacement etc by identifying the original, thus distinguishes the true target in a Mirror Image.
|
|
It seems Skeld agrees with me as I hold the line that Faerie Fire will not work on the images, it will only work on the original.
Woah, slow down there, tiger.
I actually don't agree with you. When I say that faerie fire doesn't interact with mirror image, I mean that it doesn't negate the effect of mirror image (because mirror image isn't a concealment bonus). In fact, I think that the images conferred by mirror image would all appear to be "faerie fired," just as the creature would be because mirror image creates "illusionary doubles," replicating any effects that change the appearance of the original. This is no different than if someone cast enlarge person on the original, I would expect the illusionary doubles to also be enlarged (matching the appearance of the original).
-Skeld
Why is so few using any quotes from the rulebooks?
I am not going to buy into any more personal attacks - lets just keep it on to the logic.
You didn't quote any rules when responding to me, so *shrug*.
Also, people mentioning that they've been GMing as long as you have and that time as a GM is irrelevant to whether you are correct aren't personal attacks. Besides, you started it by implying that you know better than everybody else here because you've been GMing for a long time. So again, *shrug*.
Also you are completely wrong about Magic Missile. Back in first/Second edition it used to nerf Mirror Image. Now in the spell description of Mirror Image it says "Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of the figments" therefore Magic Missle no longer works in Paizo's edition.Magic Missile bypasses Mirror Image. It targets the true caster automatically. "Spells that do not require an attack roll affect you normally." So it doesn't destroy images but it does injure the caster. It works just fine.
Extra images of candles are, again, not a problem. No matter how much you want to create a real world analogy to disprove it you can't. Unless you can actually use magic, your point on candles creating more light in the real world is irrelevant.
Incorrect I used the reference to 1st ed to suggest I dont get criticalled - it was a defensive reference to a attack from someone else - re read it. I dont think old playing experience affects answers. Several veterans here did the old trick of dictating what is without using book references because they say so. I simply raised it to ignore the critical (and being a construct) - a joke that has become distracting to this thread purpose!
Back to the points you raised - Of course magic missle hits the caster - It doesnt neutralise Mirror Image (which Faerie Fire does) which is the point of this thread!
Fireball, icestorm etc works too to hurt the caster - etc. (this is not a high IQ point I am making Come on its not that hard. I am talking about a spell that Takes out Mirror Image as Faerie Fire does to Blur etc)
If Magic Missle could snuff out all the images by targeting each then it would be a good counter - as it used to in 1st 2nd edition - for example 5 missiles doing 5d4+5 is chicken feed damage at high levels but automatically knocking out 5 mages images would really help the fighter types attacking. Unfortunately it is decreed it no longer does.
Quick Rules referenced Summary for those who are confused by all the other junk such as personal attacks and unreferenced opinions.
1) Mirror Image creates Figments (p314)
2) Figments are not real (p210)
3) Faerie Fire works on Similar spells to those listed (p260)
4) Faerie Fire Area is "creatures and Objects within a 5ft burst" (p260)
5) Logical Conclusion - Creatures and objects are Real. Therefore only the real target is Faerie Fired.
6) Illusory distractions around (Blurred image in a Blur Spell, Displaced Images in a Displacement, Multiple Images in a Mirror Images) are not Faerie fired and therefore distinguished from the original that is.
Simple.
...*anything and everything*...
I'm now losing faith in humanity...
...This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you...
Does faerie fire affect you in anyway?
Then its part of the illusory doubles of you.
It seems Skeld agrees with me as I hold the line that Faerie Fire will not work on the images, it will only work on the original.Woah, slow down there, tiger.
I actually don't agree with you. When I say that faerie fire doesn't interact with mirror image, I mean that it doesn't negate the effect of mirror image (because mirror image isn't a concealment bonus). In fact, I think that the images conferred by mirror image would all appear to be "faerie fired," just as the creature would be because mirror image creates "illusionary doubles," replicating any effects that change the appearance of the original. This is no different than if someone cast enlarge person on the original, I would expect the illusionary doubles to also be enlarged (matching the appearance of the original).
-Skeld
Magical (coloured) Light radiates off the original. The others don't. Not the same as Enlarge
...*anything and everything*...I'm now losing faith in humanity...
...This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you...Does faerie fire affect you in anyway?
Then its part of the illusory doubles of you.
But doesn't provide light - any more than a photo of a torch does or a TV screen image of a bonfire creates light or heat
I'm not losing faith. I know there are some other intelligent people here that can understand this point and are content to simply read or waiting to join the debate.
But doesn't provide light - any more than a photo of a torch does or a TV screen image of a bonfire creates light or heat...*anything and everything*...I'm now losing faith in humanity...
...This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you...Does faerie fire affect you in anyway?
Then its part of the illusory doubles of you.
You've quoted the figment rules nearly endlessly here. It produces the appearance of light. An onlooker would perceive light from the doubles despite it not being there. Its part of the section of the rulebooks you have quoted on figments. Check that out right quick. (obviously this is a paraphrasing, you've quoted it enough for the both of us.)
Also, if you would rule that faerie fire effectively invalidates mirror image then I'm assuming that the light cantrip can do the exact same thing assuming you succeed on the touch attack and the miss chance? cause the images cannot produce light, remember?
Edit: Grammar and added a clarification
No Figments do not produce light If you read on page 21o it says "They cannot produce real effects". Light is a real affect unless you think otherwise? perhaps it is is unreal?
The light cantrip would be like a caster carrying a torch or lantern. The original produces light but the images do not and ambient light is confusing.
However Faerie Fire targets the real image - it is designed to do this. Why wouldnt the blurred images all by faerie Fired then, or a displaced image show 'displaced' faerie fires?
It uses Magic (as greymage suggests this steps outside physics) to identify the original target and make it illuminate so it is distinguishable. By surrounding it in Faerie Fire not making the arget faerie fire itself (unlike Englarge or Alter Self/Polymorph)
Hence it works on Blur and Displacement - both spells that copy images and flit them around the caster - only the original is surrounded in Faerie Fire
Faerie Fire appears AROUND the target but not ON the target - hence it is not duplicated - page 260
(Thankyou for that)
"A Pale Glow surrounds and outlines the subjects" page 260
but not ON the target nor does it CHANGE the target like a polymorph or Enlarge! :)
Sorry Skeld
- so really - IT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED by mirror image!
AWESOME thanks :-)
No Figments do not produce light If you read on page 21o it says "They cannot produce real effects". Light is a real affect unless you think otherwise? perhaps it is is unreal?
The light cantrip would be like a caster carrying a torch or lantern. The original produces light but the images do not and ambient light is confusing.
However Faerie Fire targets the real image - it is designed to do this. Why wouldnt the blurred images all by faerie Fired then, or a displaced image show 'displaced' faerie fires?
It uses Magic (as greymage suggests this steps outside physics) to identify the original target and make it illuminate so it is distinguishable. I would suggest the facsimiles are poor (or better) are unable to copy the magical affect.
hence it works on Blur and Displacement - both spells that copy images and flit them around the caster.
Now I think about it the Faerie Fire appears AROUND the target but not ON the target - hence it is not duplicated
(Thankyou for that)
The figments can create the perception to the viewer that they are seeing the light produced. No the lighting is not changed mechanically, not that it would matter, in the game stacking 2 candles and 100 in a square is the same last I checked. But you still think you see the light.
"A Pale Glow surrounds and outlines the subjects" page 260
but not ON the target
- so really - IT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED by mirror image!AWESOME thanks :-)
Im not sure where you read "not on" thats like saying the images dont reproduce the effects of glitterdust or flour being tossed on the subject of mirror image
Faerie Fire Surrounds the original not changes the original,.
Exactly my point - Glitterdust does not stop someone being invisible, it just shows a sparkling layer of dust on them.
Flour would show up where it struck the original. Faerie Fire never touches the original only illuminates it in an aura - like colouring around the outline of a picture without crossing the lines - a tiny gap between the faerie fire and the original exists.
the spell says "Surrounds and outlines the subject" (pg 260)not "Settles on the subject" - perfectly well designed spell to nerf defensive illusions!
I no longer think Faerie Fire would be copied as it is not part of the original like Enlarge (thanks to Skeld).
Why?
I read the book. page 260. You try it C4M3R0N :)
Faerie Fire Surrounds the original not changes the original,.
Exactly my point - Glitterdust does not stop someone being invisible, it just shows a sparkling layer of dust on them.
Flower would show up where it struck the original. Faerie Fire never touches the original only illuminates it in an aura - like colouring around the outline of a picture without crossing the lines - a tiny gap between the faerie fire and the original exists.
the spell says "Surrounds and outlines the subject" (pg 260)not "Settles on the subject" - perfectly well designed spell to nerf defensive illusions!
...visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell...
Your point here is void. Glitterdust uses similar or the same terminology here to explain the dust outlining things like how the faerie fire does. So at this point youve begun arguing with yourself in an attempt to say that one spell would work and the other doesnt, despite these things youve pointed out.
Faerie Fire Surrounds the original not changes the original,.
Exactly my point - Glitterdust does not stop someone being invisible, it just shows a sparkling layer of dust on them.
Flower would show up where it struck the original. Faerie Fire never touches the original only illuminates it in an aura - like colouring around the outline of a picture without crossing the lines - a tiny gap between the faerie fire and the original exists.
the spell says "Surrounds and outlines the subject" (pg 260)not "Settles on the subject" - perfectly well designed spell to nerf defensive illusions!
...visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell...Your point here is void. Glitterdust uses similar or the same terminology here to explain the dust outlining things like how the faerie fire does. So at this point youve begun arguing with yourself in an attempt to say that one spell would work and the other doesnt, despite these things youve pointed out.
No Glitterdust says "covers" (page 290). Please read the book. Save the thread for this topic
Faerie Fire Surrounds the original not changes the original,.
Exactly my point - Glitterdust does not stop someone being invisible, it just shows a sparkling layer of dust on them.
Flower would show up where it struck the original. Faerie Fire never touches the original only illuminates it in an aura - like colouring around the outline of a picture without crossing the lines - a tiny gap between the faerie fire and the original exists.
the spell says "Surrounds and outlines the subject" (pg 260)not "Settles on the subject" - perfectly well designed spell to nerf defensive illusions!
...visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell...Your point here is void. Glitterdust uses similar or the same terminology here to explain the dust outlining things like how the faerie fire does. So at this point youve begun arguing with yourself in an attempt to say that one spell would work and the other doesnt, despite these things youve pointed out.
Edit: to accommodate an edit
I read the book. page 260. You try it C4M3R0N :)
You must be reading a different book, or just picking and choosing parts to pay attention to. Cause youre arguing one thing does work and yet another doesnt based on the same few words
Faerie Fire Surrounds the original not changes the original,.
Exactly my point - Glitterdust does not stop someone being invisible, it just shows a sparkling layer of dust on them.
Flower would show up where it struck the original. Faerie Fire never touches the original only illuminates it in an aura - like colouring around the outline of a picture without crossing the lines - a tiny gap between the faerie fire and the original exists.
the spell says "Surrounds and outlines the subject" (pg 260)not "Settles on the subject" - perfectly well designed spell to nerf defensive illusions!
...visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell...Your point here is void. Glitterdust uses similar or the same terminology here to explain the dust outlining things like how the faerie fire does. So at this point youve begun arguing with yourself in an attempt to say that one spell would work and the other doesnt, despite these things youve pointed out.Edit: to accommodate an edit
I read the book. page 260. You try it C4M3R0N :)You must be reading a different book, or just picking and choosing parts to pay attention to. Cause youre arguing one thing does work and yet another doesnt based on the same few words
I am looking at Pathfinder Core Rulebook pages 280 and 290 amongst other pages mentioned above.
Moral of the story, at your table the level 0 cantrip light can best mirror image because the rules dont explicitly state that it cannot. While i love the attempt to really get down to the important stuff, you cannot say that something works one way because the book does explicitly state that it does not.
When cantrips beat higher levels spells at what theyre designed to do then you have a bit of a problem.
Edit: Youre also ignoring the part of the rules on figments being able to create perceived illusions... like that I am seeing light for example.
Moral of the story, at your table the level 0 cantrip light can best mirror image because the rules dont explicitly state that it cannot. While i love the attempt to really get down to the important stuff, you cannot say that something works one way because the book does explicitly state that it does not.
When cantrips beat higher levels spells at what theyre designed to do then you have a bit of a problem.
Nope I never said cantrip can defeat Mirror Image. This is your attempt to put your words in my mouth and claim they are mine. Quite a standard debating technique. Read what I have written
Light is real or do you say that a figment of a bonfire will illuminate a room?
other posters see this is flawed. Read them they agree.
Nope I never said cantrip can defeat Mirror Image. This is your attempt to put your words in my mouth and claim they are mine. Quite a standard debating technique. Read what I have writtenMoral of the story, at your table the level 0 cantrip light can best mirror image because the rules dont explicitly state that it cannot. While i love the attempt to really get down to the important stuff, you cannot say that something works one way because the book does explicitly state that it does not.
When cantrips beat higher levels spells at what theyre designed to do then you have a bit of a problem.
I have. You said that mirror image cannot reproduce the light present because it is a figment. Either A: it produces the perception of light, then faerie fire and light can no longer beat mirror image. Or B: it cannot produce the light and then light and faerie fire both beat mirror image. Its pretty simple.
Edit: A figment of a bonfire will be perceived as if it is producing light to the viewer, per the rules on figments, while not actually producing any light
Would this illuminate a room, no.
Would an onlooker think the room is illuminated, thats a great question. give me a day to read up on it and ill let you know.
I have. You said that mirror image cannot reproduce the light present because it is a figment. Either A: it produces the perception of light, then faerie fire and light[/] can no longer beat [i]mirror image. Or B: it cannot produce the light and then light and faerie fire both beat mirror image. Its pretty simple.Nope I never said cantrip can defeat Mirror Image. This is your attempt to put your words in my mouth and claim they are mine. Quite a standard debating technique. Read what I have writtenMoral of the story, at your table the level 0 cantrip light can best mirror image because the rules dont explicitly state that it cannot. While i love the attempt to really get down to the important stuff, you cannot say that something works one way because the book does explicitly state that it does not.
When cantrips beat higher levels spells at what theyre designed to do then you have a bit of a problem.
No Figments cannot produce light as this is a real affect. the photo of a fire as i say above. Your point about subject perception is flawed. Or a character could believe the figment chair is real and sit on it. page 210. read it
I have. You said that mirror image cannot reproduce the light present because it is a figment. Either A: it produces the perception of light, then faerie fire and light[/] can no longer beat [i]mirror image. Or B: it cannot produce the light and then light and faerie fire both beat mirror image. Its pretty simple.Nope I never said cantrip can defeat Mirror Image. This is your attempt to put your words in my mouth and claim they are mine. Quite a standard debating technique. Read what I have writtenMoral of the story, at your table the level 0 cantrip light can best mirror image because the rules dont explicitly state that it cannot. While i love the attempt to really get down to the important stuff, you cannot say that something works one way because the book does explicitly state that it does not.
When cantrips beat higher levels spells at what theyre designed to do then you have a bit of a problem.
No Figments cannot produce light as this is a real affect. the photo of a fire as i say above. Your point about subject perception is flawed. Or a character could believe the figment chair is real and sit on it. page 210. read it
They very well could believe its the realest chair theyve ever seen. When they try to sit on it though it still isnt there.
Thank you for getting off track though. So is it scenario A as I presented above, or is it scenario B?
So you say a character could believe light is real and then read a book by it?
A is flawed for subjectivity. B is flawed as the spells are not identical. Light causes the object to emanate light and Faerie Fire surrounds the subject.
Both of your examples are wrong
So you say a character could believe light is real and then read a book by it?
Good work dodging the question!!
Is it A or is it B?Cause thats really what your argument comes down to. Answer that and Ill answer this.
I not dodging I am using logic.
another debating technique is to provide two false premises and invite a choice. Both are flawed
Your're getting boring sorry. I'm going to do other things now and check back later
So you say a character could believe light is real and then read a book by it?
A is flawed for subjectivity. B is flawed as the spells are not identical. Light causes the object to emanate light and Faerie Fire surrounds the subject.
Both of your examples are wrong
At this point in time you have now changed your argument. So with that I am done. My work here is done as youre no longer arguing the same position you previously have.
before you claimed that faerie fire fooled mirror image on the basis that the images cannot produce light. Now youre singing a new song.
Edit: Ninja'd hahaha
I not dodging I am using logic.
another debating technique is to provide two false premises and invite a choice. Both are flawed
Your're getting boring sorry. I'm going to do other things now and check back later
good call to walk away.
Edit2: another debating technique is to claim youre using logic while changing your argument...
Figment's cant produce light.
But I also think they would not reproduce Faerie Fire as it surrounds the target not is part of the target
Quite consistent.
How is reading a book by believed light going for you?
Figment's cant produce light.
But I also think they would not reproduce Faerie Fire as it surrounds the target not is part of the target
Quite consistent.
How is reading a book by believed light going for you?
Pretty well, thanks for asking.
So quick question since we're now debating the effect of touching the caster vs not touching the caster.What if the caster just happens to have his trusty ioun stones orbitting his head when he casts mirror image? They're not touching him. They're technically floating 1d3 feet above his head. Does that mean that his images are now void because they aren't in physical contact with his body?
Cause if faeire fire gets by with a fraction of an inch, then a caster having ioun stones screws him over too by your logic. Cause youd obviously target the one missing the little floating rocks for your attacks.
Quick Rules referenced Summary for those who are confused by all the other junk such as personal attacks and unreferenced opinions.
1) Mirror Image creates Figments (p314)
2) Figments are not real (p210)
3) Faerie Fire works on Similar spells to those listed (p260)
4) Faerie Fire Area is "creatures and Objects within a 5ft burst" (p260)
5) Logical Conclusion - Creatures and objects are Real. Therefore only the real target is Faerie Fired.
6) Illusory distractions around (Blurred image in a Blur Spell, Displaced Images in a Displacement, Multiple Images in a Mirror Images) are not Faerie fired and therefore distinguished from the original that is.Simple.
Quicker Rules Summary
1) Faerie Fire does not mention it counters or circumvents Mirror Image
2) Mirror Image does not mention it is countered or circumvented by Faerie Fire
3) Therefore, Faerie Fire does not make it any easier to target the real image of a mage protected by Mirror Image
Even simpler.
Also, that whole backstab joke had nothing to do with you. It was about me beating another poster to making the same point. Perhaps that's why people got confused by you bringing up being a GM for 1 ed, because it came out of nowhere. It certainly seemed in context like an attempt to brush aside counterarguments due to your time playing.
Quicker Rules Summary
1) Faerie Fire does not mention it counters or circumvents Mirror Image
2) Mirror Image does not mention it is countered or circumvented by Faerie Fire
3) Therefore, Faerie Fire does not make it any easier to target the real image of a mage protected by Mirror Image
Very much this. Rules do what they say they do. No more, no less.
|
Why is so few using any quotes from the rulebooks?
...
Yuri Sarreth - You are the only person using a quote so so I will go into detail - firstly re-read the spell Faerie Fire - it says "similar effects" to concealment spells.
Mirror image provides a diceroll to hit the target based on an illusion. It is a "similar" defensive spell, while say Stoneskin is not.
Debate about "Similar" would not exist if Faerie Fire said it 'only neutralises concealment' (or a similar absolute word or phrase like "Only")
You call for quotes and then misquote Faerie Fire text?
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.
It don't "says 'similar effects' to concealment spells". It say that you don't benefit from the concealment ... provided by darkness .., blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects."
Mirror image provide concealment? No. so it is unaffected by FF.
Also you are completely wrong about Magic Missile. Back in first/Second edition it used to nerf Mirror Image. Now in the spell description of Mirror Image it says "Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of the figments" therefore Magic Missle no longer works in Paizo's edition.
Actually it work perfectly: it don't care at all about MM and strike the right target, as all targeted spells and effects that don't require an attack roll.
Returning to your argument, "what counter there is at a similar level", you haven't commented on the simple counter I cited (while commenting on on the others): Dispel magic.
And following that logic, what are the direct counters to Shield, Mage armor, Barkskin, Shield of faith, Entropic Shield, Wind wall and a plethora of other spells?
Direct counter aren't a requirement of the game.
1) old dogs like me and young pups please restrain yourselves from trying to change the thread into a dog fight over age and experience,
You are the one that tried to claim game mastery because you have played for a long time. Now that it has backfired you are backpedaling?
Figment's cant produce light.
But I also think they would not reproduce Faerie Fire as it surrounds the target not is part of the target
Quite consistent.
How is reading a book by believed light going for you?
All of the light(as a candle per the book and only out to 5 feet) would be from the same square so you would have no way to know which figment was creating it, since the images and the caster are all in the same square. All you know is that somewhere in that square light is being emitted. You do not know the source since the game only deals in 5 ft squares.<----Assuming only the caster emits light, and the illusions are only outlined.
Now since the actual caster appears to emit light like a candle and the images look like the caster they would appear to emit light also, even if the light is not real(an illusion that is part of the figment). It would be no different than if the caster cast the light spell on himself or pulled out a torch. You would not know which caster had the light spell cast on him or which caster was really holding a torch.
Are you trying to say that casting the "light" cantrip or pulling out a torch will defeat mirror image if the PDT weighs in on it?
I'm not arguing that faerie fire is actually cast on figments. I am saying they look like the caster in every way.
As for the shadows argument, the nonexistence of those would give the spell away even without faerie fire so either the game assumes the mirror image gives you shadows or it assumes shadows are not a factor in detecting the real person.
As for spell levels determining whether or not they can counter higher level spells, protection from evil says hello to dominate person and dominate monster. Higher level spells trumping lower level spells is good game design, but it is not a rule.
Quicker Rules Summary
1) Faerie Fire does not mention it counters or circumvents Mirror Image
2) Mirror Image does not mention it is countered or circumvented by Faerie Fire
3) Therefore, Faerie Fire does not make it any easier to target the real image of a mage protected by Mirror ImageVery much this. Rules do what they say they do. No more, no less.
Nope DM's have to interpret the rules
Why does the spell description say "similar effects" - instead of "Only concealment spells?" (or some other absolute)
What are "Similar" effects in other spells? You may not think Mirror image is similar to Blur or Displacement, but it is
1) an illusion
2) obfuscates the caster
3) Uses distracting illusory images to do so
Mirror images are figments so they cant do real things like emit light (thus couldn't emit the candlelight glow of Faerie Fire) but faerie Fire surrounds a target not changes it, so Mirror Image would not copy this in any event.
Faerie Fire singes out the real target and surrounds it in an aura. You can choose to ignore this but it is the first sentence in its spell description. " A Pale glow surrounds an outlines the subjects" (spell description on page 280). Clearly surrounding something is not the same as changing it
This is distinguished from a change to the subject that would be copied, such as Enlarge or Polymorph (thanks to a previous poster for that clarification). Therefore the "Mirror Image" does not copy it.
Although figments don't emit light (copied Faerie Fire or other Figments of light sources would not glow), this observation about surrounding the object is a stronger point as it makes copying it impossible - otherwise other things surrounding the caster eg ( soft Cover like a Bush or Vines) would also be copied in a Mirror Image.
otherwise other things surrounding the caster eg ( soft Cover like a Bush or Vines) would also be copied in a Mirror Image.
Those things would be copied. I am not saying the actual vine would be there, but the image would appear to be covered in vines, just like a caster who got set on fire would have images that appeared to be set on fire.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a discussion, not a debate. Say your peace and move on. It is perfectly acceptable to differ in opinion without making inferences about other people's abilities.
However, it is disingenuous to request citations while making emotional arguments yourself (MI needs more counters).
Dispel magic is always popular.
Summon monster 2+. (1d3 eagles can result in alot of attacks that only need to miss by 5 or less, since mage typically don't have high ac this isn't a major concern).
Closing your eyes and blind fighting
AOEs to ignore the images
Lots of attacks bringing actual use to less optimal builds with 2WF and Flurry of Misses...
FF isn't needed to counter MI. It's only designed to buy the caster some breathing room for a couple rounds.
Summon monster 2+. (1d3 eagles can result in alot of attacks that only need to miss by 5 or less, since mage typically don't have high ac this isn't a major concern).
I can't believe I never thought of this(summoning multiple monsters).
This is a discussion, not a debate. Say your peace and move on. It is perfectly acceptable to differ in opinion without making inferences about other people's abilities.
However, it is disingenuous to request citations while making emotional arguments yourself (MI needs more counters).
Dispel magic is always popular.
Summon monster 2+. (1d3 eagles can result in alot of attacks that only need to miss by 5 or less, since mage typically don't have high ac this isn't a major concern).
Closing your eyes and blind fighting
AOEs to ignore the images
Lots of attacks bringing actual use to less optimal builds with 2WF and Flurry of Misses...FF isn't needed to counter MI. It's only designed to buy the caster some breathing room for a couple rounds.
Absolutely I agree. Will you Practice what you are preaching and retract what you said earlier "... And none of your argument is relevant."?
None of my argument? that is quite an inference!