| 44 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The actual FAQ question is bolded.
Do the figments created by mirror image gain the benefit of effects that give a miss chance to the caster if the images and the caster are both visible to the attacker?
Viewpoint 1:
The images do not get destroyed by an attack if you the miss chance/d100 roll would not have allowed you to hit the caster.
Viewpoint 2: You always get to destroy the images if you roll high enough on the d20 attack roll. Only if the caster is randomly chosen does miss chance come into play.
Blur is a good spell to use as an example.
Displacement is a good 2nd example, even though I am about 99% sure that displacement would not work with mirror image.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Effects such as obscured vision (fog, low light) granting concealment should stack with the attack roll to hit a mirror image unless it grants total concealment.
Whether stacking spells would work would likely use the RAW for Magic Stacking Effects.
Different Bonus Types
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.
However, Blur only benefits the creature it's cast upon. You wouldn't apply the spell's effects to your images, in the same way you wouldn't apply the deflection bonus of Shield of Faith to their AC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I marked this as a FAQ candidate and favourite.
I think the miss chance only applies if you successfully target the caster and beat their AC. If you hit an image it disappears, there is no miss chance for images because miss chance only applies to attacks that are otherwise successful.
That was my first thought as well...
The catch is the question what constitutes "a successful attack"... It did succeeded on attack roll (the copy being destroyed by miss by 5 or less aside) after all. Isn't that successful enough?
That was my first thought as well...
The catch is the question what constitutes "a successful attack"... It did succeeded on attack roll (the copy being destroyed by miss by 5 or less aside) after all. Isn't that successful enough?
I think I would call it a success if the rules allowed the targeting of images.
Interesting - FAQ'd although surely it has to be viewpoint 1.
We do know that if you have concealment and miss by 5 or less you will dispel an image as concealment is only rolled if you successfully hit (Just going through this, sorry for stating the obvious).
To dispel an image you have to successfully hit AC, but it is not yet a successful hit until after you get past the miss chance. If you miss due to concealment then how can you trigger an effect that occurs on a successful hit? I don't think you can fully determine if you have successfully hit or not until after you have rolled your miss chance.
Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck.
concealment miss chance doesn't factor in until the "normal attack" is a success.
so it's mirror image if hitting main target then concealment.
That's a tough one. If you cast blur followed by mirror image, the images are blurred. Do they gain the Blur effect?
Both spells suggest they exist in the mind of a viewer because both are ignored by beings that do not see. Since both are illusions, shouldn't they both work? Yes, if you hit an illusion of an image you also have to get by the illusion of the blur - because both work on your senses.
But a shield spell or shield of faith - these are not illusions and should only affect the true caster, not the faux duplicates.
It's a thin ice argument I know, but I am leaning toward the YES, you must defeat both in this case - combining illusions should work.
the mirror image are not the target of blur, so they do not have conceal. they only mimic the appearance of the caster its like hitting a mirror, you hit somewhere it breakThat's a tough one. If you cast blur followed by mirror image, the images are blurred. Do they gain the Blur effect?
Both spells suggest they exist in the mind of a viewer because both are ignored by beings that do not see. Since both are illusions, shouldn't they both work? Yes, if you hit an illusion of an image you also have to get by the illusion of the blur - because both work on your senses.
But a shield spell or shield of faith - these are not illusions and should only affect the true caster, not the faux duplicates.
It's a thin ice argument I know, but I am leaning toward the YES, you must defeat both in this case - combining illusions should work.
If they mimick the caster's appearance, and he's blurry, then the mirror images are blurry...
they are blurry just in appearance, look at a mirror, if someone looks blurry in a mirror and you hit the mirror does the mirror break into piece or no? the answer is obviously yes since you can't miss the mirror since its just an image, just because you ''miss'' where it was on the mirror does not negate the fact you hit the mirror and break itIf they mimick the caster's appearance, and he's blurry, then the mirror images are blurry...the mirror image are not the target of blur, so they do not have conceal. they only mimic the appearance of the caster its like hitting a mirror, you hit somewhere it breakThat's a tough one. If you cast blur followed by mirror image, the images are blurred. Do they gain the Blur effect?
Both spells suggest they exist in the mind of a viewer because both are ignored by beings that do not see. Since both are illusions, shouldn't they both work? Yes, if you hit an illusion of an image you also have to get by the illusion of the blur - because both work on your senses.
But a shield spell or shield of faith - these are not illusions and should only affect the true caster, not the faux duplicates.
It's a thin ice argument I know, but I am leaning toward the YES, you must defeat both in this case - combining illusions should work.
Blurry just in appearance is precisely the reason why Blur (or even a Mirror Image itself) doesn't work on creatures whose senses aren't sight-based (i.e. Blind creatures). So, suggesting that something sight-based doesn't work just because it's an illusion defeats the entire purpose of an illusion spell (more accurately, an illusion spell that is supposed to mimic sight-based effects, which Blur falls under).
**EDIT** By that logic, Blur and Mirror Images don't work together whatsoever, and I can target the creature that has Blur and ignore the Mirror Images since it's clear which one is the real one and which ones are the fake, based on the Blur spell being active.
Also, you equating a mirror, which is an immobile object, to a illusionary moving creature, is a major misnomer, since they do not share the same mechanics whatsoever. If creatures (even fake ones) were objects, then I could use Sunder to target their hit points.
Blurry just in appearance is precisely the reason why Blur (or even a Mirror Image itself) doesn't work on creatures whose senses aren't sight-based (i.e. Blind creatures). So, suggesting that something sight-based doesn't work just because it's an illusion defeats the entire purpose of an illusion spell (more accurately, an illusion spell that is supposed to mimic sight-based effects, which Blur falls under).
**EDIT** By that logic, Blur and Mirror Images don't work together whatsoever, and I can target the creature that has Blur and ignore the Mirror Images since it's clear which one is the real one and which ones are the fake, based on the Blur spell being active.
Also, you equating a mirror, which is an immobile object, to a illusionary moving creature, is a major misnomer, since they do not share the same mechanics whatsoever. If creatures (even fake ones) were objects, then I could use Sunder to target their hit points.
they work together and not in the same time, you still see the image as blurry so you cannot make the distinction between the caster and the image, the spell yes is an illusion but it affect only the caster and the image affect the caster to look like him perfectly, and the image has no effect on blind person
the reason i use a mirror is just to demonstrate that if you hit anywhere on a mirror it break the mirror, same for the mirror image, if you hit someplace that is blurry on the image you still hit the image you didn't miss the image, but you can't target the image the rules are clear, you must either miss by 5 or less or hit the caster and then roll to see if its an image, but conceal also must be roll by the defender to see if the attack miss, that's where the problem come with RAW but by RAI the image should be first since you can't miss the image because of spell that affect the caster, conceal grant by blink and dim light, darkness should apply before the mirror image since one you go to the ethereal plane and so does the image...
You can't have it both ways. It doesn't both work together and not work together, as you're trying to argue. Either the blurriness affects the images (since the images are supposed to look exactly like you and perform actions as you do them), which means they are subject to miss chance just like the caster is, or they don't affect the images, which means Blur differentiates yourself from the rest of the images, and you can be targeted normally because of that difference. There is no in-between, and there can't be an in-between because then it creates even further rules discrepancies if one so existed.
The mirror example is still shoddy and inconsistent, no matter how often you explain it. A blurry mirror means I can still miss hitting the actual mirror due to its amorphous form and therefore not damage it in any way. I might damage the wall that it sits on, but that's not what the example refers to, and even damaging the wall means I'm not damaging the mirror in any way.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point of the mirror comparison is this:
When you hit someone under the effect of blur, the miss chance represents checking to see if the part of them you hit corresponds with a real part of their body. They appear wavery and distorted, so there's only a 80% chance that what you hit was actually them and not just visual distortion.
A mirror image, however, has no underlying "body" to hit. It's purely a visual effect. If it looks wavery and distorted, it really is wavery and distorted. If you hit any part of that wavery and distorted image, you've hit the actual image itself.
Not sure about the answer to the overarching question, but I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply mirror image first, then check miss chance for blur.
That relies on inturp more than mechanics (in my opinion). If the reason a blur or displacement works is because the target is "away from its true location" or "outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering" then the same would be true of the figments of a mirror image - not being where they appear is the key idea.
If not, and mirror images are where they appear to be while the blurry or displaced caster is the only thing that is not - then a blur would REVEAL the actual caster (I'll hit the blurry one). But displacement would still make the caster and his images appear to be where they are not. You don't hit the actual figment because where you swung is not where it is.
If you are strictly saying any spell placed upon a caster are not duplicated by the Mirror image because the target of the spell is "you" or "self", then a person under Alter Self using mirror image would have duplicates that look like their true self, because Alter Self has a target of "you".
I think the point of the mirror comparison is this:
When you hit someone under the effect of blur, the miss chance represents checking to see if the part of them you hit corresponds with a real part of their body. They appear wavery and distorted, so there's only a 80% chance that what you hit was actually them and not just visual distortion.
A mirror image, however, has no underlying "body" to hit. It's purely a visual effect. If it looks wavery and distorted, it really is wavery and distorted. If you hit any part of that wavery and distorted image, you've hit the actual image itself.
Not sure about the answer to the overarching question, but I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply mirror image first, then check miss chance for blur.
It does and it doesn't. That's the point of an illusion, to trick creatures into thinking things are something that they aren't. A blur or displacement of where an image actually is means you didn't actually hit where the image was located, it just seemed to be there by your perceptions, but really wasn't. Which means no hitting of the image, which means no image gets popped.
If Mirror Image makes an exact replica of you as you appear when it is cast, and you are distorted and blurry to the point where there is a 20% chance someone will miss the real you by striking where you are not, then the images would be so distorted and blurry there is a 20% chance you would strike where they are not. The visual effect on the figments is the same as on the person the figments derived from.
If your cleaning person's job is to restore all furniture to clean status and you are working late one night, go to the bathroom, and the cleaning person cleans up your desk and hauls away your paperwork, pencils, pens, tablet, cell phone and anything else that is not the norm for the desk, I bet it won't be long before you have some kind of direct effect on the cleaning person. What do cleaning people in offices have to do with Mirror Image spells? nada
The big thing with AC is that it's an abstraction. An Armor bonus to AC doesn't mean it makes you dodge out of the way faster. It means hits against you get blocked by your armor.
A Mirror Image has a flat, static AC. It's not modified by any other factors. A gnome's mirror images don't get a +1 size bonus to AC for being a small creature, for example.
Think of a Mirror Image as having a hit box, similar to a creature in a computer game. The appearance of the illusion is irrelevant, as the shape occurs within its hit box. Any attack that passes through its hit box destroys it.
It does and it doesn't. That's the point of an illusion, to trick creatures into thinking things are something that they aren't. A blur or displacement of where an image actually is means you didn't actually hit where the image was located, it just seemed to be there by your perceptions, but really wasn't. Which means no hitting of the image, which means no image gets popped.I think the point of the mirror comparison is this:
When you hit someone under the effect of blur, the miss chance represents checking to see if the part of them you hit corresponds with a real part of their body. They appear wavery and distorted, so there's only a 80% chance that what you hit was actually them and not just visual distortion.
A mirror image, however, has no underlying "body" to hit. It's purely a visual effect. If it looks wavery and distorted, it really is wavery and distorted. If you hit any part of that wavery and distorted image, you've hit the actual image itself.
Not sure about the answer to the overarching question, but I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply mirror image first, then check miss chance for blur.
no blur has no effect on mirror image but mirror image mimic you perfectly, you look there the image make it so it is there to look like you, it move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly, so if you are blurry the image look blurry but it is not blurry it is really there
another way to say how thing can and can't work together. in a company you have person whose job is to make sure the place is clean and you have person whose job is to work on those clean thing, the person cleaning the place has a direct effect on those person but those person working there has no direct effect on that cleaning person, their job do nothing for them while the other their job do something for them, they work and don't work together
Um, what? You actually provide more proof that it does apply, since as you say, the Mirror Images "mimic you perfectly," which means the Blur is there, functioning exactly as yours is. If yours is granting a 20% miss chance, then theirs should too. Otherwise it's not "mimicing you perfectly," which means your argument is hypocritical. As I've said before, you can't have it both ways, and you can't have it function as an in-between because you're creating these ridiculous inconsistencies that you just made right now.
Your second paragraph makes no sense and has practically zero application to the topic at hand. This is about how Mirror Images and Blur/Displacement interact with each other. I fail to see how mentioning real life cleaning has to do with game mechanics largely abstract of real life.
(At this point, I'm just wishing Paizo would come out with a FAQ that says you can't use Blur/Displacement and Mirror Images in conjunction with each other because it breaks the fabric of reality too much.)
Effects such as obscured vision (fog, low light) granting concealment should stack with the attack roll to hit a mirror image unless it grants total concealment.
Whether stacking spells would work would likely use the RAW for Magic Stacking Effects.
However, Blur only benefits the creature it's cast upon. You wouldn't apply the spell's effects to your images, in the same way you wouldn't apply the deflection bonus of Shield of Faith to their AC.Different Bonus Types
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.
To be clear I was speaking of things that apply directly to the caster, not things such as darkness or low light which would apply to an area.
That was my first thought as well...
The catch is the question what constitutes "a successful attack"... It did succeeded on attack roll (the copy being destroyed by miss by 5 or less aside) after all. Isn't that successful enough?
That counts as successful since the figment's AC is the caster's -5.
I think the blurred image would look just like the caster so if mirror image was a real ability it would gain the benefits since the images would look just like the caster and also get a blurred double. However, we are playing a game we have to consider is that how it is supposed to work in Gameland. That is why I am asking the question.
edit: I did not mean to use the word "double". I mean to say that if the caster looks distorted that the images would look exactly the same. Otherwise you would know which one was the real caster.
I definitely feel like the two should stack, but I am not sure about the order of operations. So I hit FAQ. I had not considered how many different ways it could be interpreted.
FAQ'd, my group always ruled that the images get miss chances.
Reasoning was that the figment does have a semi tangible location, and if that location is struck the figment pops. Blur means this semi tangible location is harder to discern. I don't particularly like this explanation, as mirror image is a bit too good as it is, and understand the other side well enough. But tradition is tradition so unless paizo rules otherwise we will probably keep with this for simplicity's sake. I hope the other view is the official one though, even if they rule that blur doesn't blur the images and negates the whole effect (evem though I don't see any real argument that it would, it wouldn't be the first time FAQs showed unwritten rules).
EDIT:Typo fixed.
Neither spell says that at all. One says you have a 20% miss from distortion and blurs, the other says you create identical replicas of how you are now. Both say Blind creatures (those without sight) are not affected by the images (and do not affect the images either, because for them they do not exist).
The sole argument to say Blur does not affect the mirror images is that the spell says the target is creature touched, but if you go with that, the mirror images would NOT be blurred and the true target easily discernible.
You can play your way as a house rule, just as others can play this way as a house rule, but neither INTERP has unquestionable support of RAW or RAI.
it is mimicking your look perfectly and your gesture, you are blurry and the image look blurry but it is not blurry it just look blurry, hit somewhere on the image and you hit the image, if it was not looking blurry then you would know where the caster was, i am not hypocritical and nothing i said give you any kind of proof, you just want to read what you want to read. the blurry part of the image is part of the image, the image look like you perfectly and mimic you perfectly but its still an image, it seem you can't comprehend how an image work, take a sheet of paper now draw an image as distorted as you want now hit that image, congratulation you hit the image, same thing applies to mirror imageUm, what? You actually provide more proof that it does apply, since as you say, the Mirror Images "mimic you perfectly," which means the Blur is there, functioning exactly as yours is. If yours is granting a 20% miss chance, then theirs should too. Otherwise it's not "mimicing you perfectly," which means your argument is hypocritical. As I've said before, you can't have it both ways, and you can't have it function as an in-between because you're creating these ridiculous inconsistencies that you just made right now.
Your second paragraph makes no sense and has practically zero application to the topic at hand. This is about how Mirror Images and Blur/Displacement interact with each other. I fail to see how mentioning real life cleaning has to do with game mechanics largely abstract of real life.
(At this point, I'm just wishing Paizo would come out with a FAQ that says you can't use Blur/Displacement and Mirror Images in conjunction with each other because it breaks the fabric of reality too much.)
No, I know what you're trying to say. You're saying that, because an image is blurry, and you hit the blurry part of the image, you still hit the image because the blur is part of the image's appearance. Problem is, the distortion isn't what the image itself actually is, as that's simulated with a 20% miss chance of you not actually touching where the original image is, as per the effects of Blur. By that logic, Blur does nothing to the original caster because the blurry part of the caster is still part of the caster, so I should've still hit the caster anyway.
You can't make an argument that Blur doesn't apply to the Mirror Images, or vice-versa, without breaking a key functionality of either spell. Blur's sole purpose is to make you look distorted without actually being distorted, and Mirror Images are meant to be exact copies of you, spell effects included.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I do it:
Did you miss the target's AC? Did you get within 5? Then an image is destroyed. Concealment miss chance is immaterial because mirror image does not specify how you have to miss, just a miss by less than 5 destroys an image.
Did you hit the target's AC? Check to see if you hit an image. If you did, miss change is still immaterial because you either hit the image, destroying it, or you miss due to miss chance, which is a miss by less than 5, destroying an image.
If you hit the target's AC, and did not hit an image, check for concealment miss chance. If you hit, do damage. If you miss, destroy an image, because you have now missed by less than 5.
Basically, if you beat the target's AC yet miss anyway, you have innately missed by less than 5 and pop an image.
Here's how I do it:
Did you miss the target's AC? Did you get within 5? Then an image is destroyed. Concealment miss chance is immaterial because mirror image does not specify how you have to miss, just a miss by less than 5 destroys an image.
Did you hit the target's AC? Check to see if you hit an image. If you did, miss change is still immaterial because you either hit the image, destroying it, or you miss due to miss chance, which is a miss by less than 5, destroying an image.
If you hit the target's AC, and did not hit an image, check for concealment miss chance. If you hit, do damage. If you miss, destroy an image, because you have now missed by less than 5.
Basically, if you beat the target's AC yet miss anyway, you have innately missed by less than 5 and pop an image.
See, this is a better argument for Blur not applying to images, and is one that I can both get behind, and is backed by an official FAQ.
Here's how I do it:
Did you miss the target's AC? Did you get within 5? Then an image is destroyed. Concealment miss chance is immaterial because mirror image does not specify how you have to miss, just a miss by less than 5 destroys an image.
Did you hit the target's AC? Check to see if you hit an image. If you did, miss change is still immaterial because you either hit the image, destroying it, or you miss due to miss chance, which is a miss by less than 5, destroying an image.
If you hit the target's AC, and did not hit an image, check for concealment miss chance. If you hit, do damage. If you miss, destroy an image, because you have now missed by less than 5.
Basically, if you beat the target's AC yet miss anyway, you have innately missed by less than 5 and pop an image.
Miss than less than 5 has a pretty specific meaning, that is, if your roll would have been 4 higher, you would have hit.
When you miss due to a miss chance, you don't 'miss by less than 5', you miss, period. If your roll is 4 higher, 10 higher, or 19 higher, you still would have missed. That, in my book, is not the same as missing by less than 5.
Or, put it another way, lets say the target is 'blinking'. You miss because the target (and his images) aren't even on the prime material plane. You still think you destroy an image if you 'miss by less than 5'?
That same argument applied to rolling Natural 1s and 20s, and the FAQ says you still lose an image despite the fixed result of the dice roll.
Granted, blinking isn't the same thing, an argument can be made for other sorts of miss chance as well, which is what is being argued here.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Miss than less than 5 has a pretty specific meaning, that is, if your roll would have been 4 higher, you would have hit.
When you miss due to a miss chance, you don't 'miss by less than 5', you miss, period. If your roll is 4 higher, 10 higher, or 19 higher, you still would have missed. That, in my book, is not the same as missing by less than 5.
Or, put it another way, lets say the target is 'blinking'. You miss because the target (and his images) aren't even on the prime material plane. You still think you destroy an image if you 'miss by less than 5'?
"Miss by less than 5" means your attack roll was at least the target's AC, minus 5. Say you roll a 27 against an AC of 25. You miss due to some other effect; blink, concealment, natural 1, whatever. You missed by -2, which is less than 5.
In your version, where it's "just a miss," how much did you then miss by? It's undefined! But the calculation is required by mirror image. This makes having an undefined result not workable, so we can disregard the interpretation that leaves us with a nonsense result.
From a balance standpoint, mirror image is already a very nice second level spell. It doesn't need a bunch of questionable rules interpretations to make it even better. It's supposed to be easy to pop images.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I know what you're trying to say. You're saying that, because an image is blurry, and you hit the blurry part of the image, you still hit the image because the blur is part of the image's appearance. Problem is, the distortion isn't what the image itself actually is, as that's simulated with a 20% miss chance of you not actually touching where the original image is, as per the effects of Blur. By that logic, Blur does nothing to the original caster because the blurry part of the caster is still part of the caster, so I should've still hit the caster anyway.
You can't make an argument that Blur doesn't apply to the Mirror Images, or vice-versa, without breaking a key functionality of either spell. Blur's sole purpose is to make you look distorted without actually being distorted, and Mirror Images are meant to be exact copies of you, spell effects included.
I don't think you've a leg to stand on with any of this.
Firstly, the image is objectively not under the mechanical effects of Blur. Nobody cast Blur on those images, and you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that you COULD deliberately target them to cast Blur on them. The image looks blurry because it's trying to mimic it's caster, but there is only one illusion going on there; mirror image. It's just an simulation of blur, not good enough. A mirror image illusion wrapped in a blur illusion would benefit from blur. That isn't the case here.
Secondly, the notion that somehow this logic carries over to blur having no effect is strained at best. The caster has an illusion laid over them to appear somewhere they aren't, something the images don't have. Blur is not disrupted by near misses. An attacker can strike at what appears to be the caster while "hitting" a visual-only illusion. The image is only pretending to have a second illusion layered over it. The only actual illusion present is mirror image, so any part of the total effect that it hit is actually the mirror image. Hit the blurry part of the caster? You actually hit an illusion that doesn't care, and thus miss. Hit the blurry part of a mirror image? You hit a mirror image pretending to be a blurry mirror image, thus destroying it.
Thirdly, there is no reason, at all, to assume that spell effects are carried over to mirror images. That's, frankly, absurd. Are you contending that if you hit the mirror image of a caster with fire shield, you take elemental damage? If yes, what part of the spell description of either of those spells leads you to believe this? If, OTOH, you believe there is a distinction between blur and fire shield, what is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Miss by less than 5" means your attack roll was at least the target's AC, minus 5. Say you roll a 27 against an AC of 25. You miss due to some other effect; blink, concealment, natural 1, whatever. You missed by -2, which is less than 5.In your version, where it's "just a miss," how much did you then miss by? It's undefined! But the calculation is required by mirror image. This makes having an undefined result not workable, so we can disregard the interpretation that leaves us with a nonsense result.
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to concealment, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition.
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 23, I missed by less than 5. Concealment is never checked when the attack roll is less than the targets AC, an image is popped.
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to concealment, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition.
"Miss by less than 5" means your attack roll was at least the target's AC, minus 5. Say you roll a 27 against an AC of 25. You miss due to some other effect; blink, concealment, natural 1, whatever. You missed by -2, which is less than 5.In your version, where it's "just a miss," how much did you then miss by? It's undefined! But the calculation is required by mirror image. This makes having an undefined result not workable, so we can disregard the interpretation that leaves us with a nonsense result.
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to a nat 1, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition. yet the FAQ tells us we still use our roll and pop an image
thus using that as a principle we get that we'd still pop an image for concealment.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to concealment, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition.
"Miss by less than 5" means your attack roll was at least the target's AC, minus 5. Say you roll a 27 against an AC of 25. You miss due to some other effect; blink, concealment, natural 1, whatever. You missed by -2, which is less than 5.In your version, where it's "just a miss," how much did you then miss by? It's undefined! But the calculation is required by mirror image. This makes having an undefined result not workable, so we can disregard the interpretation that leaves us with a nonsense result.
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to a nat 1, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition. yet the FAQ tells us we still use our roll and pop an image
thus using that as a principle we get that we'd still pop an image for concealment.
Please link this FAQ.
The only current FAQ on Mirror Image is in regard to popping images with Magic Missile.
The FAQ on 1's and 20's makes no mention of missing due to conditions, where the value of the attack roll is used only to determine if a separate roll is required to hit/miss.
Dallium wrote: Thirdly, there is no reason, at all, to assume that spell effects are carried over to mirror images. That's, frankly, absurd. Are you contending that if you hit the mirror image of a caster with fire shield, you take elemental damage? If yes, what part of the spell description of either of those spells leads you to believe this? If, OTOH, you believe there is a distinction between blur and fire shield, what is it?
So, if this is applied fairly - "spell effects being carried over to Mirror Images is absurd" - then a caster under the spell effect of an alter self, polymorph, hat of disguise, etc, would have mirror images of what they actually look like, because no spell effects carry over to the mirror images. In fact, any magical alteration of the caster would not carry over to the mirror images at all - a simulacrum casting this spell would have mirror images of an ice sculpture of the caster because they were made by a spell effect.
I can't agree with this.
In the scenario described, a caster with fire shield - which is not illusionary - YES, all the images would appear to have fire shields as well. The difference if Fire Shield does not affect the perception like Blur or Displacement does. A blind person who runs into a fire shield is actually burned. A blind person ignores blur and mirror images because their senses are not being fooled to swing at something that isn't actually there.
NO - the mirror image's fire shield do not have actual elemental energy and do not burn. YES - Blur still affects your senses and you THINK you are hitting the mirror image, but you are not.
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to concealment, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition.
"Miss by less than 5" means your attack roll was at least the target's AC, minus 5. Say you roll a 27 against an AC of 25. You miss due to some other effect; blink, concealment, natural 1, whatever. You missed by -2, which is less than 5.In your version, where it's "just a miss," how much did you then miss by? It's undefined! But the calculation is required by mirror image. This makes having an undefined result not workable, so we can disregard the interpretation that leaves us with a nonsense result.
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to a nat 1, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition. yet the FAQ tells us we still use our roll and pop an image
thus using that as a principle we get that we'd still pop an image for concealment.Please link this FAQ.
The only current FAQ on Mirror Image is in regard to popping images with Magic Missile.
The FAQ on 1's and 20's makes no mention of missing due to conditions, where the value of the attack roll is used only to determine if a separate roll is required to hit/miss.
If I rolled a 27 and their AC is 25 then I didn't miss cause the number wasn't high enough. It's cause the nat 1 has special rules.
If I roll a 27 and their AC is 25 then I didn't miss cause the number wasn't high enough. It's cause the concealment has special rules.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to concealment, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition.
"Miss by less than 5" means your attack roll was at least the target's AC, minus 5. Say you roll a 27 against an AC of 25. You miss due to some other effect; blink, concealment, natural 1, whatever. You missed by -2, which is less than 5.In your version, where it's "just a miss," how much did you then miss by? It's undefined! But the calculation is required by mirror image. This makes having an undefined result not workable, so we can disregard the interpretation that leaves us with a nonsense result.
If I attack an AC of 25 and roll a 27, but fail to hit due to a nat 1, I did not miss by 5 or less due to my attack roll. I did not miss at all due to my attack roll. I missed due to a separate condition. yet the FAQ tells us we still use our roll and pop an image
thus using that as a principle we get that we'd still pop an image for concealment.Please link this FAQ.
The only current FAQ on Mirror Image is in regard to popping images with Magic Missile.
The FAQ on 1's and 20's makes no mention of missing due to conditions, where the value of the attack roll is used only to determine if a separate roll is required to hit/miss.
If I rolled a 27 and their AC is 25 then I didn't miss cause the number wasn't high enough. It's cause the nat 1 has special rules.
If I roll a 27 and their AC is 25 then I didn't miss cause the number wasn't high enough. It's cause the concealment has special rules.
In the one case you missed due to the result of the attack roll.
In the second case you missed due to a secondary roll imposed by special condition. You did not miss due to the attack roll, by any value. It is explicit that the result of the attack roll must be sufficient to hit the opponent's AC prior to checking cover/concealment.
|
Please link this FAQ.
Natural 20 and Natural 1: On attack rolls and saving throws, a natural 20 is an automatic success and a natural 1 is an automatic failure. But should I treat them differently than other results when deciding if a roll succeeded or failed by 5 or more, when comparing two opposed attack rolls to see which is a higher result, or other similar situations?
No, unless a specific rule tells you otherwise, treat a natural 20 or natural 1 result on an attack roll or saving throw the same as any other result when comparing the total result to other numbers. For example, if a fighter rolls a natural 1 for a total of 31 against the wizard’s AC of 33, the attack misses by 5 or less and destroys one of the wizard’s mirror images.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if this is applied fairly - "spell effects being carried over to Mirror Images is absurd" - then a caster under the spell effect of an alter self, polymorph, hat of disguise, etc, would have mirror images of what they actually look like, because no spell effects carry over to the mirror images. In fact, any magical alteration of the caster would not carry over to the mirror images at all - a simulacrum casting this spell would have mirror images of an ice sculpture of the caster because they were made by a spell effect.
I don't... this is nonsense. I can't understand how you could honestly think this is either a cogent argument or a logical consequence of the logic at play here. How can you possibly equate "the image only looks blurred, it isn't actually blurred" with "polymorph renders the spell useless."?
I think we're all operating under the assumption that the images created by mirror images are created indistinguishable from the caster, and the spell allows them to change so as to remain so, as that's ostensibly how the in-universe workings of the spell are explained. The spell doesn't actually say that, and within the game system the images could all be ducks without affecting the mechanics of the spell one iota. But I think we're all taking it as read that the images have to look like the caster for the spell to function conceptually.
So the images look like they've been polymorphed, or fire shielded, or blurred, or whatever they need to look or sound like to continue to be indistinguishable from the caster, but they are not any of those things. They just look like they are.
I honestly don't understand what's so hard about this. For an image to appear blurred, something has to blur it. If someone somehow casts a blur spell on it, great, the blur spell handles the blurring, and it gets all the benefits of the blur spell. In absence of another effect, the spell adapts itself to appear to be blurred. It isn't actually blurred. Mechanically because nothing actually grants it that status, and conceptually because the only thing it can use to blur itself is itself.
On the other side of the coin, if the caster uses disguise self to appear a foot shorter, and something (somehow) attacks the apparently empty space 6 inches above the caster's head, they hit the caster in the face, because that's where the caster's face actually is. If something (somehow) attacks the apparently empty space 6 inches above an images head, the attack travels through the actually empty space. It's not a 6 ft image with a disguise self effect making it appear to be 5 ft tall, it's a 5 ft tall image.