faerie fire question


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 Hit die wrote:
Grey_Mage wrote:

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!

Regardless of if people here are debating or discussing, there's clearly some confusion around the rules and people want to know the answer. So I feel its completely justified to debate over them til one side can fully justify their answer to the other.

As is I feel the evidence if far more overwhelming as to why faerie fire does not work against mirror image. If 2 hit die feels differently still then this should be clarified to prevent anyone here from telling people the wrong thing on this issue.


2 Hit die wrote:
Grey_Mage wrote:

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!

When the other poster said " And none of your argument is relevant" they were not saying "you" were not relevant. They were saying the specific argument you were making that they replied to did not have merit.

PS: Would you mind responding to my post specifically about the light spell and torches and what the PDT might say in your opinion? Click me


wraithstrike wrote:

PS: Would you mind responding to my post specifically about the light spell and torches and what the PDT might say in your opinion? Click me

2 hit die: while you're at it could you address my questions about the ioun stone?

Cause that's what your current stance boils down to, if something is touching the caster or not.


@ C4M3R0N - "I Feel"?

Don't use "Feel" to debate. Use "logic" "Reason"

Earlier you tried to say you could believe in a figments light and that is enough for it to read by. Too much "Feel"

Try referencing based on what is written in the book not "I feel". Its more rewarding to get to the truth that way.

"I feel" is good for feelings, for romance for socialising. Im not putting it down - it has its place - but not in forum debates as it leads to errant reasoning.


@wraithstrike Light is not generated by Figments. Enough said.

Ioun stones are in a energy field of the owner. They interact with the owner granting abilities. They are personal enough but yes on the limits of their aura

Faerie Fire is an outside field imposed by an outside caster looking for the true subject - specifically to neutralise illusions that obfuscate it. This spell is designed to do this. It illuminates the true person

You are also correct that Grey_Mage did not say something personal by that comment but by saying "none" he/she did infer it.


2 Hit die wrote:

@wraithstrike Light is not generated by Figments. Enough said.

Ioun stones are in a energy field of the owner. They interact with the owner granting abilities. They are personal enough but yes on the limits of their aura

Faerie Fire is an outside field imposed by an outside caster looking for the true subject - specifically to neutralise illusions that obfuscate it. This spell is designed to do this. It illuminates the true person

Not enough said. Yeah I could infer what you answer might be, but I could be wrong, and I don't want you to accuse me of taking your answers out of context later on.

Do you think that the light spell or a torch negates mirror image?

Do you think the PDT will rule that way if this is FAQ'd?


2 Hit die wrote:

@wraithstrike Light is not generated by Figments. Enough said.

Ioun stones are in a energy field of the owner. They interact with the owner granting abilities. They are personal enough but yes on the limits of their aura

Faerie Fire is an outside field imposed by an outside caster looking for the true subject - specifically to neutralise illusions that obfuscate it. This spell is designed to do this. It illuminates the true person

Hmm that's peculiar. I don't remember reading anything you've said in the rules. And you failed to cite any of that. So it's sad to say but you're wrong. They would be the same. You can't say one works cause it benefits the caster and the other doesn't because it doesn't.

If you could give sources then that'd be great.


James Risner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I believe he meant that how many people here have been playing as long as you have.

I'd say the vast majority of the posters on here have. I've been DMing since 1984. I think well more than half of the posters here are similar time frames.

---

Summary:
2 Hit Die isn't unique in his old age.
It doesn't matter how long you have been gaming.

I haven't been DMing that long. My first game as a player was when I was only 8 - my cousin was the DM and it was a family game with his folks and mine, along with us and his friend. That would have been 83ish.

My first time DMing I was in 8th grade. That would have been 89.

Although to be fair the number of regular games I was able to play stayed very small until I was in my 20's. I've been in a weekly game now though for over a decade so there is that.


2 Hit die wrote:

@ C4M3R0N - "I Feel"?

Don't use "Feel" to debate. Use "logic" "Reason"

Earlier you tried to say you could believe in a figments light and that is enough for it to read by. Too much "Feel"

Try referencing based on what is written in the book not "I feel". Its more rewarding to get to the truth that way.

"I feel" is good for feelings, for romance for socialising. Im not putting it down - it has its place - but not in forum debates as it leads to errant reasoning.

Hahaha errant reasoning... Says the person incorrectly quoting the rules.
Figment wrote:
A figment spell creates a false sensation...Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can...

I'd say it's clear that perceiving light is a false sensation.

And you seem to be stuck on the second bolded part. Nowhere here nor after here does it even say that light is one of the effects that they fail to produce like other illusions can. Not even in the part I didn't quote.
The first line of figments make it clear how it works. It creates a false sensation.
To answer your question of if you can read a book by a figment of a bonfire, well what spell was used to cast illusory figment bonfire? Cause that really is the deciding factor here.


No the light spell or torch does not negate mirror image it is part of the owner. Each image should not create light tho, which I addressed much earlier in the thread (page 1) Faerie Fire is uniquely designed to illuminate true subjects rather than be a light source. It just happens to produce light. I have discussed Faerie Fire as a counter to Mirror Image, not Torches, lanterns, light spells etc

If we look at blur and displacement for example, the do diffuse/displace light that may be held (such as a torch) but are overcome by Faerie Fire which generates a field that "surrounds and outlines the subject" (page 280)

Mirror image would do similar to a single light source which is why i have said consistently
i) More net light would not be created
ii) Faerie Fire would illuminate the real subject in a Mirror Image

A summary

1) Mirror Image creates Figments (p314)
2) Figments are not real (p210)
3) Faerie Fire works on Similar spells to those listed (p280)
4) Faerie Fire Area is "creatures and Objects within a 5ft burst" (p280)
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.
7) (thanks to Skeld for the idea) "A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subject" (page 280) which does not change the subject and therefore would not be copied by a Mirror Image (unlike say Enlarge or Polymorph)

(BTW please be patient with repeating text - summaries show were the debate is at presently and people already repeat text when they quote anyways)

(I admit I made a typo earlier Faeire fire is on page 280 not 260)


C4M3R0N wrote:
2 Hit die wrote:

@ C4M3R0N - "I Feel"?

Don't use "Feel" to debate. Use "logic" "Reason"

Earlier you tried to say you could believe in a figments light and that is enough for it to read by. Too much "Feel"

Try referencing based on what is written in the book not "I feel". Its more rewarding to get to the truth that way.

"I feel" is good for feelings, for romance for socialising. Im not putting it down - it has its place - but not in forum debates as it leads to errant reasoning.

Hahaha errant reasoning... Says the person incorrectly quoting the rules.
Figment wrote:
A figment spell creates a false sensation...Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can...

I'd say it's clear that perceiving light is a false sensation.

And you seem to be stuck on the second bolded part. Nowhere here nor after here does it even say that light is one of the effects that they fail to produce like other illusions can. Not even in the part I didn't quote.
The first line of figments make it clear how it works. It creates a false sensation.
To answer your question of if you can read a book by a figment of a bonfire, well what spell was used to cast illusory figment bonfire? Cause that really is the deciding factor here.

How can you use the false sensation of light to read a book? that is nonsense. Your own reasoning - its in the subjects head because they believe it. How can they then read a real book that with that light?

It says on page 210 figments "CANNOT PRODUCE REAL EFFECTS"

Light is real!!!!!
OMG


2 Hit die wrote:


How can you use the false sensation of light to read a book? that is nonsense. Your own reasoning - its in the subjects head because they believe it. How can they then read a real book that with that light?

It says on page 210 figments "CANNOT PRODUCE REAL EFFECTS"

Light is real!!!!!
OMG

I never said you could? I said show me the spell you're using and I'll let you know if you can or cannot.

And you're incorrectly quoting the figments section. You seem to have left out the modifier text that follows the portion you're screaming.
That's the part about "the way other types of illusions can..."
This text really changes the meaning. Which you're clearly missing here.

Edit: eliminate double post

2 Hit die wrote:


Ioun stones are in a energy field of the owner. They interact with the owner granting abilities. They are personal enough but yes on the limits of their aura
Faerie Fire is an outside field imposed by an outside caster looking for the true subject - specifically to neutralise illusions that obfuscate it. This spell is designed to do this. It illuminates the true person

Hold up... So you're saying that it would replicate the ioun stones but not the faerie fire?? Because the casters ioun stones are in an energy field with him... But the faerie fire is an outside field that is not in an energy field with him? I'm not sure where you're even pulling this from at this point.

If you cannot cite this then I'd say your "logical argument" dies here... Cause this is definitely a load of crap...
If this were true though, you're telling me that not only can light beat mirror image but now detect magic can too? Cause the replicated stones don't give off an aura like the real one??
This is definitely not in the rulebook...
With that logic why not just detect (specific alignment) on the caster? He'll glow with the alignment but obviously none of the other images will show up by that logic...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Faerie Fire wrote:
A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Creatures outlined by faerie fire take a –20 penalty on all Stealth checks. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.

Note the subordinate position of the final expression "or similar effects" which depends on the clause "concealment normally provided by...". The only "similar effects" which are relevant to the spell description are those which provide concealment.

Mirror image does not provide concealment (which is clearly defined in PF) and so it does not fall under the purview of "similar effects" from the Faerie Fire spell.

Mirror Image wrote:

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. (...) 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.

Mirror image is a figment that creates "doubles of you" that "make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you".

Faerie Fire is not called out to function differently or negate Mirror Image in any way. Spells do what they say they do, no more, no less.

2 Hit die wrote:

A summary

1) Mirror Image creates Figments (p314)
2) Figments are not real (p210)
3) Faerie Fire works on Similar spells to those listed (p280)
4) Faerie Fire Area is "creatures and Objects within a 5ft burst" (p280)
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.
7) (thanks to Skeld for the idea) "A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subject" (page 280) which does not change the subject and therefore would not be copied by a Mirror Image (unlike say Enlarge or Polymorph)

Point (3) above is faulty, since it is not a "similar effect" which "provides concealment". Points (5, 6 and 7) no longer logically derive from faulty argument (3). Mirror image creates "illusory doubles" regardless of what effect the original is under.

Now I'm willing to admit that it would be kind of cool if faerie fire could defeat mirror image. But by the RAW, it doesn't. Everybody has been telling the OP that he's wrong, and he continues to claim (baselessly) that he is right.

This whole thread really looks like the Republican presidential debate. Who is playing which role remains to be determined. <g>


Wheldrake wrote:
...

Aside from the political plugging, I agree completely. He has expressed this far better than I seem to have been able to. So thank you!!

And I only disagree there cause this is game and in the rule forums who cares about politics in the US. Though it does function as a nice analogy still.

Overall, he wins this debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
2 Hit die wrote:

@wraithstrike Light is not generated by Figments. Enough said.

Ioun stones are in a energy field of the owner. They interact with the owner granting abilities. They are personal enough but yes on the limits of their aura

Faerie Fire is an outside field imposed by an outside caster looking for the true subject - specifically to neutralise illusions that obfuscate it. This spell is designed to do this. It illuminates the true person

Not enough said. Yeah I could infer what you answer might be, but I could be wrong, and I don't want you to accuse me of taking your answers out of context later on.

Do you think that the light spell or a torch negates mirror image?

Do you think the PDT will rule that way if this is FAQ'd?

I am still waiting for simple "yes/no" answers to these questions. You may go into detail if needed, but at the end I would like for you to say give a clear yes or no.

Bumping because you may have accidently overlooked my question or misunderstood my query for yes or not answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also could you cite a reference for this "energy field" you speak of?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
2 Hit die wrote:

@ C4M3R0N - "I Feel"?

Don't use "Feel" to debate. Use "logic" "Reason"

Earlier you tried to say you could believe in a figments light and that is enough for it to read by. Too much "Feel"

Try referencing based on what is written in the book not "I feel". Its more rewarding to get to the truth that way.

"I feel" is good for feelings, for romance for socialising. Im not putting it down - it has its place - but not in forum debates as it leads to errant reasoning.

Uh, "I feel more evidence supports this conclusion" is a perfectly valid logical statement. It is a statement implying the balancing of available evidence, not one implying determination based on one's emotions.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
2 Hit die wrote:
C4M3R0N wrote:
2 Hit die wrote:

@ C4M3R0N - "I Feel"?

Don't use "Feel" to debate. Use "logic" "Reason"

Earlier you tried to say you could believe in a figments light and that is enough for it to read by. Too much "Feel"

Try referencing based on what is written in the book not "I feel". Its more rewarding to get to the truth that way.

"I feel" is good for feelings, for romance for socialising. Im not putting it down - it has its place - but not in forum debates as it leads to errant reasoning.

Hahaha errant reasoning... Says the person incorrectly quoting the rules.
Figment wrote:
A figment spell creates a false sensation...Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can...

I'd say it's clear that perceiving light is a false sensation.

And you seem to be stuck on the second bolded part. Nowhere here nor after here does it even say that light is one of the effects that they fail to produce like other illusions can. Not even in the part I didn't quote.
The first line of figments make it clear how it works. It creates a false sensation.
To answer your question of if you can read a book by a figment of a bonfire, well what spell was used to cast illusory figment bonfire? Cause that really is the deciding factor here.

How can you use the false sensation of light to read a book? that is nonsense. Your own reasoning - its in the subjects head because they believe it. How can they then read a real book that with that light?

It says on page 210 figments "CANNOT PRODUCE REAL EFFECTS"

Light is real!!!!!
OMG

they can't read in darkness but there is already an in game mechanic for this. Disbelief. In a world of magic when things are out of sort magic would be suspect but not automatic proof of illusions.

In reference to my earlier comment I was dismissing the merits of your arguments as casually as you treated others earlier in this thread.

We are on these threads as equals. Our opinions may help others rectify corner cases. Our arguments must carry their own weight without being dismissed as "incorrect" or juvenile or ignorant.

In retrospect I should have clarified my satire better. Although I believe your 2HD interpretation is incorrect I appreciate the disagreement as it furthered my understanding of my own viewpoint. I will attempt a lengthy post now I am able to access my desktop.


Now that I realize that mirror image creates all the images in your square, a 5 by 5 area, the spell makes no bloody sense. I fills the square with a blurred, bloody mess. an arrow into that mess may hit 1-4 targets. The real person and or several images. I can't deal with that spell as written. It's either the earlier version of the spell, where the images had to to appear in nearby empty areas, or forget it.

I withdraw all posts I made to this thread. I'm hiding it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Light and figments:

Can I cast a figment on a lit light bulb to make it appear off? Yes. But the room is still illuminated so...

Can I use a figment to make a corner lamp in the same room to appear on? Yes. But the room isn't illuminated anymore or less than previously.

But won't the shadows change direction? Yes, but it is included in the magic to make it appear as it should.

Does this change the locations a rogue could hide in if shadows are different? No. That would be an effect.

What about looking under the couch/behind the TV, doesn't the change in shadow allow me to look for my remote control? You would think so, but no. This is an effect.

How do we deal with this obvious paradox? Fortunately the game has a solution, a will save to detect and understand these errors.

This is the basis for me saying it can replicate candlelight well enough to continue to confound the melee attacker as light isn't generated by the figment but it doesn't have to the the moving images don't stay still long enough to study to that degree (no will save)

As far as mirror images inhabiting the same space it makes sense because they are all super imposed on each other and moving through one another reacting to stimuli.

We know that spell casting is loud and obvious with smoke and energy moving, forget faerie fire, if mirror image can't handle replicating light without altering local conditions it would be easy to determine who the caster is as soon as a spell is cast.

Or we can allow spells to work as outlined.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having reread this thread again it seems to me the core of this comes down to this..
Copy of Farie Fire description from PRD to follow

"A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Creatures outlined by faerie fire take a –20 penalty on all Stealth checks. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. The light is too dim to have any special effect on undead or dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light. The faerie fire can be blue, green, or violet, according to your choice at the time of casting. The faerie fire does not cause any harm to the objects or creatures thus outlined."

Bold section is the confusion..
1. If "similar effects" refers to any and all effects that interfere or interrupt with the normal vision of observing the target.

2. If "similar effects" refers to any and all effects that grant concealment to the target.

My reading and would be my ruling at the table is 2. It effects concealment because.. "Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment" effects "normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects."

Now as I have not gone back and checked every spell but I am fairly sure that more than just the four listed in the description provided concealment. Greater Invisibility off the top of my head.

Nor am I in any shape an English major but my understanding of grammar leads me to conclude the "similar effects" description is to prevent the publisher from having to list every single spell that provides concealment and therefore any new spells published are exempt because they are not called out in the previous printing..


With all of these comments, and all of these people clearly saying the same thing and quoting the rules, I don't see how someone could claim that it functions differently. Much less argue with all of these people without seeing what they're saying and reevaluating the initial position.

Now if you want to discuss house rules, this is the wrong thread...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If figments can't produce light, then figments do exactly NOTHING.

Everything we see is from light reflected off of real objects.

If figments aren't real, they we simply cannot see them at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, I would've thought that illusions in general are primarily made of light. So the whole question of whether an illusion like Mirror Image can duplicate a light effect seems rather disingenuous.

Anyway, it looks like we've put this thread to bed, since the OP hasn't been back in a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

Yeah, I would've thought that illusions in general are primarily made of light. So the whole question of whether an illusion like Mirror Image can duplicate a light effect seems rather disingenuous.

Anyway, it looks like we've put this thread to bed, since the OP hasn't been back in a while.

Agree, but people searching for answers will still read this... considering that mirror image doesn't make images that occupy multiple squares (they are all in YOUR square)-the source of the actual light is irrelevant.

Faerie Fire doesn't negate Mirror Image. If it did, it would say so.


Mirror Image is not a "superspell" I can see why players want to keep it immune to nerfing because they love it so, but as a sound bulletproof meta argument it should be equal to "Blur" and not better than it because it is immune to Faerie Fire. They are both level 2 illusions that obfuscate the caster for defensive combat.

Wheldrake - rewriting the rules on illusions - Figments don't produce any real affects. Illuminating/emanating light is real. Think of Figments such as "Photographs" They project images into the air but don't generate illumination or all figments would glow in the dark. Just accept 210 if you're still troubled.

alexd1976 - the first line of Faerie Fire says "A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects" This kills the debate because it only outlines real things, doesn’t change them. There is nothing for the Mirror Image to copy (I found the argument about figments fascinating academically because even if a DM insists on Mirror Image copying things surrounding the subject the copied Faerie Fire could not produce light/glow because its a figment)

Yuri Sarreth - Good grammar but be careful of re-defining the word "similar". Would of been easier to say "Concealment spells only" but why did it not? Because the reference to Similar is exactly that - "similar" but not "only" Concealment or "any other concealment" or some other clear demarcation.

alexd1976 - Not all spells state every single spell they interact with in particular ways hence the use of the word "Similar" which evidently refers to
1) Illusions
2) Obfuscating the caster
3) by using distorting images

Any confusion about the Grammar? Read the first line of Faerie Fire it tells you it surrounds the real subject rather than changing it. Still confused? Look at Page 210 it tells you the limitations of Figments - they are not real so cannot be faerie fired.
Still a fan boi of Mirror Image? - you must believe believe Mirror Image is a super copying spell that copies the environment (surrounding FF) - then you must change the rules on figments to justify how it duplicates multiple FF illuminations to reconcile emanating light is not a real effect.Clearly emanating light is a real effect, which would allow figment creation of beacons, bright bonfires and other distortions of the rules.

I suggest people use 'Occum's Razor' reasoning which is essentially KISS. FF "surrounds and outlines the subjects" Mirror Image can't copy that. Keep it simple

Quite water tight really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's far from water tight. You still haven't answered several questions by the way.
Disappearing doesn't get you off the hook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

KISS, mirror image copies your appearance. If your appearance is outlined with a faerie fire effect, mirror image copies that.

Much simpler than your long list of rather odd ad-hoc reasoning.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting you bring up Occum's Razor.

Since you rezzed a 2 year thread simply to chide people as incorrect(years later), then rely on emotional logic while asking others not to do the same, keep saying the same things and labelling those who disagree with you as "fan boi".

Occums Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the most plausible, that you are not here to have an honest discussion.

Mirror image is perfectly capable of copying the faerie fire because it is a burst effect. The subjects within the area are affected (that means the effect is on them and not the area itself, therefore MI has no trouble replicating in order to do its trick).


_Ozy_ wrote:

KISS, mirror image copies your appearance. If your appearance is outlined with a faerie fire effect, mirror image copies that.

Much simpler than your long list of rather odd ad-hoc reasoning.

Faerie Fire doesn't affect your appearance. it surrounds it. The words are "surrounds" and "Outlines"(290)

if you want to disagree, please argue using the rules first


Grey_Mage wrote:

It's interesting you bring up Occum's Razor.

Since you rezzed a 2 year thread simply to chide people as incorrect(years later), then rely on emotional logic while asking others not to do the same, keep saying the same things and labelling those who disagree with you as "fan boi".

Occums Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the most plausible, that you are not here to have an honest discussion.

Mirror image is perfectly capable of copying the faerie fire because it is a burst effect. The subjects within the area are affected (that means the effect is on them and not the area itself, therefore MI has no trouble replicating in order to do its trick).

So you ignore the rules on Figments? I direct the grey_mage to my quote above " - you must believe Mirror Image is a super copying spell that copies the environment (surrounding FF) - then you must change the rules on figments to justify how it duplicates multiple FF illuminations to reconcile emanating light is not a real effect.Clearly emanating light is a real effect, which would allow figment creation of beacons, bright bonfires and other distortions of the rules."

Im interested in this thread recently due to recent event with drow in my game. Why do you attack my timing? Perfectly reasonable to look at it recently?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
2 Hit die wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

KISS, mirror image copies your appearance. If your appearance is outlined with a faerie fire effect, mirror image copies that.

Much simpler than your long list of rather odd ad-hoc reasoning.

Faerie Fire doesn't affect your appearance. it surrounds it. The words are "surrounds" and "Outlines"(290)

if you want to disagree, please argue using the rules first

A cloak surrounds my body as well, and yet mirror image duplicates that no problem.

You know what the rules say? Mirror image provides a miss chance based on multiple images. You know what faerie fire says? It removes miss chance based on concealment.

Using the rules, faerie fire has no effect on mirror image. That's the argument using the rules, end of story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This dude is probably trolling. He knows the PDT would not agree with him. It's better to ignore him just like he ignored people who asked him for a rules citation of his "energy field" explanation.

I'm out.. :)


Some of you seem quite upset to concede the rules don't support Mirror Image is not neutralised by Faerie Fire.

You are perfectly free to do whatever with House Rules you like Im not against that. You can make Figments semi-real(like Illusion-Shadows which are semi real pg 211) or make other changes to the spell you wish but I do suggest before House ruling that you consider if you had a mage with only 1 2nd level spell to cast Blur or Mirror Image which would you cast if you were going into combat?

If you had Drow against you and you decided that Faerie Fire would not be useful with Mirror Image but Blur was, would you not prefer Mirror Image as you knew no likely/proximate spell could counter it?

Game balance is important too. Be careful of sentimental attachments to spells to prefer them over spells at the same level. let the rules show the logic. MI images are only Figments


_Ozy_ wrote:
2 Hit die wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

KISS, mirror image copies your appearance. If your appearance is outlined with a faerie fire effect, mirror image copies that.

Much simpler than your long list of rather odd ad-hoc reasoning.

Faerie Fire doesn't affect your appearance. it surrounds it. The words are "surrounds" and "Outlines"(290)

if you want to disagree, please argue using the rules first

A cloak surrounds my body as well, and yet mirror image duplicates that no problem.

You know what the rules say? Mirror image provides a miss chance based on multiple images. You know what faerie fire says? It removes miss chance based on concealment.

Using the rules, faerie fire has no effect on mirror image. That's the argument using the rules, end of story.

You WEAR a cloak. You are not "surrounded" by it

It does remove a miss chance based on concealment but is not limited to concealment only otherwise it would say 'Concealment only" instead of "Similar"

DARKNESS is Evocation (darkness) 263
BLUR is "illusion (Glammer)" 251
INVISIBILITY is "Illusion (Glammer"

So the apells affected by FF don't all have to be identical magically. They just have to be SIMILAR

Concealment is explained on p196-197. It concludes " Varying Degrees of Concealment: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly." Thats pretty open, I would suggest in future FAQ's Mirror Image be identified as a variety of concealment as it does just that (modify the miss chance accordingly based on varying typical concealment)

If Darkness (evocation) creates concealment, so MI seems to do so within this definition. I hope a Paizo person reads this


wraithstrike wrote:

This dude is probably trolling. He knows the PDT would not agree with him. It's better to ignore him just like he ignored people who asked him for a rules citation of his "energy field" explanation.

I'm out.. :)

Im "trolling"? Good gracious that is ridiculous! Im confining myself to rules-supported arguments about the interactions of these spells! If anything, im trying to dodge the personal attacks from other posters who are desperate to breach/distract the argument somewhere instead of staying on point.

Stay on point please if you have found a reference somewhere else in the rules. I would consider a 3.5D&D reference somewhere too.

Im only doing this for my players and for objective people interested in forming rules-based views on how the spells interact. Its a service to RPG DMing not a "trolling' exercise!

(drow are tough enemies and Ive got a lot more encounters with them)


2 Hit die wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
2 Hit die wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

KISS, mirror image copies your appearance. If your appearance is outlined with a faerie fire effect, mirror image copies that.

Much simpler than your long list of rather odd ad-hoc reasoning.

Faerie Fire doesn't affect your appearance. it surrounds it. The words are "surrounds" and "Outlines"(290)

if you want to disagree, please argue using the rules first

A cloak surrounds my body as well, and yet mirror image duplicates that no problem.

You know what the rules say? Mirror image provides a miss chance based on multiple images. You know what faerie fire says? It removes miss chance based on concealment.

Using the rules, faerie fire has no effect on mirror image. That's the argument using the rules, end of story.

You WEAR a cloak. You are not "surrounded" by it

Can you please quote the rules specifying the difference with respect to the mirror image spell?


Sure thing - MI on p314 "This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square"

Does "you" constitute Faerie Fire cast by an opponent?

"Surrounds" and "outlines" a subject is not you - those words are outside "you"

Enemies "surround" an opponent.Are they copied too?

Targets can be "outlined" on a modern targeting system. The outline does not come from the target it is imposed around the target by the HUD display

etc


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Um, all of your statements are not actually found in the rules.

Again, please support your statements with rules, you only supplied a page number for your first statement.

Enemies do not 'outline' you as far as I know, whereas a billowing cloak or even form-fitting outfit can easily be said to 'outline' your body. Furthermore, enemies do not occupy the same square as you do. However, if a tiny enemy, such as a stirge, was attached to your body, indeed that would also be duplicated in the mirror image spell.

Modern targeting systems are only apparent to the targeter, not everyone else who is viewing the image of the targetee, unlike faerie fire, thus suggesting that faerie fire is indeed part of the target 'image' that gets copied.

etc.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Um, all of your statements are not actually found in the rules.

Again, please support your statements with rules, you only supplied a page number for your first statement.

Enemies do not 'outline' you as far as I know, whereas a billowing cloak or even form-fitting outfit can easily be said to 'outline' your body. Furthermore, enemies do not occupy the same square as you do. However, if a tiny enemy, such as a stirge, was attached to your body, indeed that would also be duplicated in the mirror image spell.

Modern targeting systems are only apparent to the targeter, not everyone else who is viewing the image of the targetee, unlike faerie fire, thus suggesting that faerie fire is indeed part of the target 'image' that gets copied.

etc.

You are arguing that a cloak surrounds or outlines the caster rather than is worn. What about underwear? Time for a reality check

FF is like a Flare gun fired to mark a target location for bombardment.

see p314 above and 290 as well as 197 for concealment explained.


Those pages don't do anything to support how you define 'outlined' with respect to how the image is duplicated, and concealment has nothing to do with how mirror image works.

I'm arguing that anything that is attached to a person defines their 'image' with respect to targeting. Whether that's their clothes, a tanglefoot bag, a net, or a faerie fire outline, it gets duplicated by the mirror image spell, which updates the duplicate images in real time.

That's the only way the spell can work, and nothing else makes the remotest amount of sense.

But again, since you like to claim you're 'completely rules based' if you have specific rules that define outlines vs. equipment with respect to the mirror image spell, have at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nobody thinks Mirror Image is a superspell. We simply think it does what it says on the box. We also think FF does what it says on the box.

"MI shouldn't be stronger than Blur!" Is not an argument. Some spells are better than others. Or, more accurately, some spells work better in certain situations than others. All is in order. Play your home games however you wish. But the rules are explicitly clear and there seems to be no confusion about how these spells interact (in that they generally don't), your insistent commentary notwithstanding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber
2 Hit die wrote:

I have been DMing since 1st ed AD&D. Most of you are D&D newbees to me. I am a DMing machine - a Construct, and thus immune to criticals; You're backstab was flatulent.

:-)

A) this isn't about D&D, it's about Pathfinder.

B) oftentimes, having played multiple editions makes GMs (it's GMs in Pathfinder, DMs in D&D) confuse and conflate the rules from the different editions and games
C) for example, Constructs are vulnerable to both critical hits and sneak attack damage in Pathfinder, so your analogy indicates the critical backstab was entirely effective against you. Even though it wasn't being made against you...

Furthermore, your spamming of tons of individual posts rather than use of a single post, often with the SAME TEXT even, and just saying "You're wrong see above" or "you are D&D newbees (sic) to me." isn't constructive, isn't proof of anything, and is likely to be perceived as trolling.

In my opinion, Faerie Fire alters the appearance (in a non-physical but perceivable way, per the rules for figments) of the target, ergo it is copied by Mirror Image and therefore doesn't ruin the defensive spell.

Faerie Fire is already a very powerful spell for its level, overcoming many other spells and effects including various forms of darkness (mostly natural, but there are some light-lowering racial and class-based SLAs that count as first or zero-th level), blur and invisibility (in fact, it and Glitterdust are THE go-to spells for invisible opponents), and mundane concealment. Further, it's useful enough in a narrative sense to find corner cases where creative players can get an unlisted benefit from using Faerie Fire in an unexpected way. I don't think it needs yet another buff to allow it to overcome Mirror Image as well.

Paraphrased: "If a spell is more powerful than every other spell at its level, it should be evaluated to be moved up to the next spell level." Right now, as a first-level spell, Faerie Fire is pretty near the very top of first-level as-is. It generally defeats all mundane and first-level or lower magical darkness or concealment effects, and specifically defeats several higher-level magics ranging in power from second-level (blur) all the way up to eighth-level (fine, call it seventh, Mass Invis is only eighth when cast by a Trickery Domain Cleric).

Conversely, for a spellcaster expecting to be attacked more than once or twice during the combat, there's presently little reason for a caster with a choice to choose Mirror Image over Blur. While it provides superior protection against the first few attacks, it quickly fades to nothing while Blur keeps on keeping-on, additionally disincentivizing attacking the protected caster (while Mirror Image specifically calls out the caster as a good target, since even your misses will have the positive effect of basically dispelling a second-level defensive spell. When else can a martial do that with just their full-attack?). Working against Faerie Fire (especially in a campaign where the players expect to face drow often) brings the two spells a little closer together in power and slightly limits the Faerie Fire's status as a "super-spell", especially when your enemies have it as one of a huge suite of racial SLAs that basically turn their newborn children into semi-competent third-level sorcerers.

Apologies that this grew into a wall of text. I did my best not to make it sound like a personal attack, 2HD, but I'm afraid it may be perceived that way anyway. If so, I'm sorry for that as well, and will endeavor to do better in the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So 2hd - since you are saying that the images can immediately be spotted when Faerie fired because the images don't produce light, you are saying someone can't benefit from mirror image simply because they are carrying a torch?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also 2hd - you try a you know what measuring contest abut how long you've been playing, dropping trou and saying 'mine is the longest at the table' and then flavor the 'no, it's not, even if that were relevant to the argument at hand' response as a 'personal attack'? Well isn't that just ... 'Special'.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
2 Hit die wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

KISS, mirror image copies your appearance. If your appearance is outlined with a faerie fire effect, mirror image copies that.

Much simpler than your long list of rather odd ad-hoc reasoning.

Faerie Fire doesn't affect your appearance. it surrounds it. The words are "surrounds" and "Outlines"(290)

if you want to disagree, please argue using the rules first

Fire shield does the same, but I guess that isn't compatible with MI either. Weird how this isn't mentioned anywhere how these spells are incompatible under 2HD logic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's funny how many people have invested time and effort in making reasoned arguments to show the OP how wrong he is, from a RAW perspective, with absolutely no effect on his insistance that he alone is right.

Well, he *is* alone and he isn't right.

Spells do what they say they do, no more, no less. All this nonsense about light being a "real effect" is irrelevant.

Effects like "surrounds" and "outlines" are not defined in PF as such, and those arguments are also irrelevant.

Sure, we all like to "win" a debate on rules. It's probably the main reason we continue to spend time posting here. It's just unfortunate, though, when some folks aren't able to admit that their pet argument doesn't fly.

Again, I kind of like the idea of allowing Faerie Fire to defeat Mirror Image. But the RAW don't support this idea.

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / faerie fire question All Messageboards