faerie fire question


Rules Questions

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am at a loss for words.

lets let the PRD say them for me...

PRD 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.

So... why would the doubles differentiate themselves from the caster because of other spells interactions? Is weapon damage, when the wizard is hit, not shown on the copies either? How did one come to this conclusion?

Sorry, but I have no other words...


Fly is not "similar effects" to Fire

That petulant example proves what I was saying about how difficult it is to get a rules debate here.

You actually said this is a rules forum yet have quoted none.

Tell us what are "Similar Effects" (PF pg 280) then?

Darkness is an evocation spell, quite different to Illusions therefore - but Mirror Image IS an illusion like Blur...


2 Hit die wrote:

Fly is not "similar effects" to Fire

That petulant example proves what I was saying about how difficult it is to get a rules debate here.

You actually said this is a rules forum yet have quoted none.

Tell us what are "Similar Effects" then?

Now shifting the burden of proof. You are the one who is obligated to prove your claim about the rules. We need only show your claims are logically fallacious. Are you just going down a list of logical fallacies to see how many you can hit or something?


I understand your point 2 Hit Die, and is a good point. I'll try to make it clearer, although I'm not siding with you, I also see the relevance of pointing this out.

Light is not just appearance. With the last update about it, the one that specifies that a Light focus can disclose the position of an invisible target, we have to admit that light is something tangible.

I think that what 2 Hit Die is trying to say is that if the figments could emit light, then they could emit fire(heat), lightning(static charge), acid, or whatever other tangible element, because at that level, there is no difference between them.

We all agree that images from MI can't emit heat or fire, so he concludes that they can not emit light neither.

---

If I recall it correctly, WS asked you how would you rule if a wizard would be carrying a torch, would the torch of the images glow? By your reasoning, it shouldn't.

---

RAW I see the relevance of your question, RAI I have to say that figments can't produce real effects, but they can produce false sensations that confuse their targets. In this case, a visual figment as MI, would produce the false sensation of light.

---

So concluding my reasoning: if what I thought was your reasoning about this problem is right, your mistake lies in thinking that a visual figment can't produce visual false sensations, which include light, and although visual sensations and light waves are not the same thing, they are close enough to include them.


Numarak wrote:

I understand your point 2 Hit Die, and is a good point. I'll try to make it clearer, although I'm not siding with you, I also see the relevance of pointing this out.

Light is not just appearance. With the last update about it, the one that specifies that a Light focus can disclose the position of an invisible target, we have to admit that light is something tangible.

I think that what 2 Hit Die is trying to say is that if the figments could emit light, then they could emit fire(heat), lightning(static charge), acid, or whatever other tangible element, because at that level, there is no difference between them.

We all agree that images from MI can't emit heat or fire, so he concludes that they can not emit light neither.

---

If I recall it correctly, WS asked you how would you rule if a wizard would be carrying a torch, would the torch of the images glow? By your reasoning, it shouldn't.

---

RAW I see the relevance of your question, RAI I have to say that figments can't produce real effects, but they can produce false sensations that confuse their targets. In this case, a visual figment as MI, would produce the false sensation of light.

---

So concluding my reasoning: if what I thought was your reasoning about this problem is right, your mistake lies in thinking that a visual figment can't produce visual false sensations, which include light, and although visual sensations and light waves are not the same thing, they are close enough to include them.

EUREKA

You are closest anyone has been. However, note that the Figments cant produce light. A figment of a torch would not produce light, but a torch is not designed to neutralise Mirror Image. Faerie Fire is. The spell designers ensure no confusion with Ambient light by making FF surround the subject rather than becoming part of it. Hence it is never duplicated.


One thing that should be said is that Some DMS could rule that it is easier to spot illusions (such as Mirror Image figments) with non illuminating torches.

I personally would reward a player with craftiness to make this observation by allowing a slight modifier.

It is a "DM Judgment" thing quite like Invisibility being foiled by footprints in the dust, or Flour dust in the air around it - such judgments are necessary sometimes and still why a wise DM beats a computer game hands down.

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed some back and forth bickering, and locking. Folks, this sort of discourse isn't conducive to the fun and friendly environment we try to foster here, and it doesn't appear to still be a discussion about the original rules question.

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