PDA

View Full Version : Blur + Mirror Image



Cowboy_ninja
2008-11-26, 03:10 PM
Does Blur and Mirror Image stack?

i assume the images look like they are under the effects of blur but do not get the 20% miss chance, correct?

mechanically an enemy would roll to see if they hit an image or me, if its me then they roll the 20% chance to miss me right?

Crow
2008-11-26, 03:14 PM
edit: Whoops!

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-26, 03:15 PM
They all stack. But they stack funny.

It's not 40% miss chance and it's not roll for 20% miss chance twice. It's 36% miss chance.

Vexxation
2008-11-26, 03:17 PM
They all stack. But they stack funny.

It's not 40% miss chance and it's not roll for 20% miss chance twice. It's 36% miss chance.

Uh... just out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate?

vegetalss4
2008-11-26, 03:22 PM
i would make them work. so that the images would look blurry but actual not harder to hit, as the blur are part of them

Cowboy_ninja
2008-11-26, 03:23 PM
I go with stacking if they cast blur before mirror image. If they cast it afterwards, only their "real" form is blurred (which basically ruins mirror image).

i dont think so.

wouldn't your images cast blur just as you would then look like they are under the effects of blur?

edit: at the very least look like they are under the effects of blur (not negating the mirror image) if not mechanically under the effects of blur.( this would go for displacement as well)

Cowboy_ninja
2008-11-26, 03:25 PM
Uh... just out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate?

ditto to that.

Crow
2008-11-26, 03:28 PM
i dont think so.

wouldn't your images cast blur just as you would then look like they are under the effects of blur?

I had my terminology mixed up. Of course if the "blur" (the apparent shifting of the target) is what makes it harder to hit, then the mirror images should be just as hard to hit, and the blur effect should apply to them as well.

valadil
2008-11-26, 03:33 PM
mechanically an enemy would roll to see if they hit an image or me, if its me then they roll the 20% chance to miss me right?

This is how I would rule it. Blur + invisibility would not stack though. The blur would just give a miss chance if an enemy had see invisible up.

Tacoma
2008-11-26, 05:18 PM
If you cast Blur and then cast Mirror Image, the duplicate images of you would duplicate the blurry effect. If you cast Mirror Image and then Blur, your images would appear to cast Blur on themselves. Either way they work together.

Mirror Image works because the enemy is trying to hit a target that is not really you. But if that target is blurry, regardless of whether it is really you or not, it makes sense that the blurry target is hard to hit.

So I would suggest that the enemy has a 20% miss chance regardless of who in the mass he is trying to hit. Then if he succeeds in hitting something, we need to determine which something he hit.

If you do it the other way around, you ignore the fact that the Mirror Images are also Blurred.

The undesirable consequence of this might be if you have Mirror Image on and then cast a Silent Image spell. If we agreed that Blur was duplicated among your images, then Silent Image, also an illusion, must be duplicated among them. But Mirror Image was never about getting multiple spell effects.

If I were your DM, I would say that the specific example of Mirror Image and Blur would work together because it's not unbalancing and it makes sense. Blur is meant to make one person hard to hit. It's still making one person hard to hit but the spells just synergize well. But if you cast anything else we'd have to go through this whole process again to see if it's unbalancing for every combination as you try them.

UserClone
2008-11-26, 05:20 PM
20% of 80 (the percentage chance you would hit the normal character if not for the blur)would be 16.
Adding the 16 to the 20, you get 36%.
It's a shorthand way of rolling twice, and it amounts to the same thing, really, but fewer rolls need be made.


That, I believe is his logic. However, there is no 20% miss chance for mirror image.

Epinephrine
2008-11-26, 05:23 PM
I have a question about this too - a similar thing happensed, and I suggested that I would simply close my eyes and use a listen check to pinpoint the enemy, swinging into that square.

Isn't mirror image thus defeated? I mean, sure, there's still a 50% miss rate (or less with blind fight), but it beats the heck out of 1 in X chance of hitting followed by a 20% miss chance.

Epinephrine
2008-11-26, 05:24 PM
20% of 80 (the percentage chance you would hit the normal character if not for the blur)would be 16.
Adding the 16 to the 20, you get 36%.
It's a shorthand way of rolling twice, and it amounts to the same thing, really, but fewer rolls need be made.

No - if you multiply them, the result is the correct one. You don't need to add the 20 to the 16, the answer really is 16%.

UserClone
2008-11-26, 05:28 PM
The flaw in your logic there is that you are calculating how often you would hit BOTH miss chances. You only have to hit one, so you add them together. Honestly, how would two miss chances make it EASIER to hit you than one? :smallwink:

Tacoma
2008-11-26, 05:51 PM
From SRD:

"When you and the mirror image separate, observers canít use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image."

But,

"An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.) "

Which is the precise reason why anytime someone argues for the "Rules As Written" I have much less regard for that person's opinion. The spell as written is self-contradictory at worst, confusing at best. D&D is a complicated game and you cannot claim that the rules are clear enough to alleviate interpretation.

I'd say, the spell kills its earlier rule with the later one by virtue of being far more specific. You can close your eyes and be unaffected by the Mirror Image. And of course unaffected by Blur though you're giving yourself a worse penalty. Of course you'd have to attack in melee unless you had some kind of blind archery feat.

Epinephrine
2008-11-26, 06:30 PM
The flaw in your logic there is that you are calculating how often you would hit BOTH miss chances. You only have to hit one, so you add them together. Honestly, how would two miss chances make it EASIER to hit you than one? :smallwink:

We're looking at 4 images, therefore 20% chance of selecting the correct one, correct? Assuming this, possibilities are:

swing at right one (20%), miss due to concealment (20%) = 4%, no images lost
swing at right one (20%, hit despite concealment(80%) = 16%, no images lost
swing at wrong one(80%), miss due to concealment (20%) = 16%, no images lost
swing at wrong one (80%), hit despite concealment.(80%) = 64%, lose one image

So, 16% chance of hitting (01-16 on percentile), 64% chance of hitting an image (17-80 on percentile), 20% chance of complete miss (81-00)

Hence, a single roll, with 16% chance of hitting.
:smallcool:

Inyssius Tor
2008-11-26, 06:31 PM
@Tacoma: That's not contradictory.

They're identical images. You can't distinguish them just by looking. If you close your eyes, you obviously aren't fooled by the images, since you can't see them.

You can't see the caster, but you can presumably feel him--so you could, say, close your eyes and look for him using your grimlock-tentacle blind"sight". Or close your eyes and pinpoint his location by feeling the tiny gusts of wind he causes as he moves, if you're a swordsage. Or the vibrations his feet make as he moves across the ground, if you're a bulette.

Epinephrine
2008-11-26, 06:43 PM
@Tacoma: That's not contradictory.

Yes, it is. I'll bold the relevant bit.


When you and the mirror image separate, observers canít use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image.

So you can't listen to tell them apart. Why would that be, if closing your eyes works?


An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect.

So on the one hand it suggests that hearing can't distinguish them, but on the next it suggests that it's actually purely visual.

Tacoma
2008-11-26, 07:05 PM
Thanks, Epinephrine. It would help a lot for illusions spells at least if they gave a quick series of abbreviations to say which of the five senses the illusion affects. Something that affected all five would look like:

(Illusion: See, Hear, Smell, Taste, Touch)

But of course taste would almost never be used and touch would be for only the most powerful of illusions. Including that one line might remove a paragraph from the description as well.

UserClone
2008-11-26, 10:00 PM
Ah. I was calculating the chance of MISSING, whereas you were calculating the chance of HITTING. That's our first miscommunication. Our second is that I was trying to explain Tippy's logic, which would only work if MI granted a 20% miss chance, which as we know, isn't how it works at all. if there were, say, three images, you would have a 25% chance of hitting the right one, and then an 80% (of 25%) chance of hitting through the blur, so it would be 20%. So yeah, 16% HIT (not miss) chance if there are exactly four images. Really, that's an 84% miss chance, not a 16. Hope that clears things up.

CasESenSITItiVE
2008-11-26, 10:09 PM
um, perhaps i'm just being ignorant, as i wasn't able to follow all of the probability stuff, however wouldn't one roll carry the problem of not knowing whether or not one of the images is destroyed?

UserClone
2008-11-26, 10:28 PM
Very good point; however, you could assume that if you roll 81-100, you do not destroy an image (fooled by the blur), while if you rolled 17-80 (assuming four images) you destroyed one. (obviously, 01-16 is still a hit.)

Zeful
2008-11-26, 10:33 PM
Does Blur and Mirror Image stack?

i assume the images look like they are under the effects of blur but do not get the 20% miss chance, correct?

mechanically an enemy would roll to see if they hit an image or me, if its me then they roll the 20% chance to miss me right?

That is one way of looking at it. However the will not gain the blur effect if you cast it after Mirror Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mirrorImage.htm) beause of this line:

[...P]retending to cast spells when you cast a spell[.]

Whether it works if you cast Blur then Mirror Image is different.

KillianHawkeye
2008-11-26, 11:02 PM
@Tacoma: That's not contradictory.

Yes, it is. I'll bold the relevant bit.


When you and the mirror image separate, observers canít use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image.

So you can't listen to tell them apart. Why would that be, if closing your eyes works?


An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect.

So on the one hand it suggests that hearing can't distinguish them, but on the next it suggests that it's actually purely visual.

Please allow ME to bold the relevant bit.


When you and the mirror image separate, observers canít use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image.

It clearly states that vision and hearing are not effective ways to determine who the real image is when the images seperate. I.E. when the spell is cast or during any subsequent merging and seperation of images.

This does NOT contradict that you can always hear the location of the caster, even though you do not know which image they are. In other words, when you close your eyes, you no longer care about identifying the correct image.

Jack Zander
2008-11-26, 11:14 PM
Blur and Mirror Image stack. Why? Because they look exactly as you do. If you cast Silent Image, they don't all cast silent images, they just look like they are all casting the same spell with the same target/effect.

If you rule it any other way, then you could cast mirror image and then invisibility and be near invincible to most enemies. But I'd say you would also turn all of your images invisible with the spell because they look exactly as you look.

Epinephrine
2008-11-26, 11:38 PM
Ah. I was calculating the chance of MISSING, whereas you were calculating the chance of HITTING. That's our first miscommunication. Our second is that I was trying to explain Tippy's logic, which would only work if MI granted a 20% miss chance, which as we know, isn't how it works at all. if there were, say, three images, you would have a 25% chance of hitting the right one, and then an 80% (of 25%) chance of hitting through the blur, so it would be 20%. So yeah, 16% HIT (not miss) chance if there are exactly four images. Really, that's an 84% miss chance, not a 16. Hope that clears things up.

Ah, that's what was happening. I saw 20%, assumed you meant 20% to hit (since mirror image is never a 20% miss chance, but could be a 20% hit chance with 4 images). :smallbiggrin:

Jasdoif
2008-11-27, 12:23 AM
Blur is described as a visual effect. Since the mirror images can't be visually distinguished from you, they would have to be under the same effect. So the miss chance from blur would have to apply to them as well.

The order doesn't affect the final outcome, so you could determine if you hit an image before checking for the miss chance; but I would opt for blur first since the miss chance is always the same, and a roll to see if an image would hit gets kind of odd if there are 6 images and thus 7 potential targets (None of the standard dice fit cleanly into that).


You do, however, need to determine/roll each effect separately because each has difference consequences: If you miss the caster or image due to the effect of blur your attack simply misses. If you miss the caster because you hit an image, you need to resolve the attack against the image's AC because the image is destroyed if you deal any damage to it.

CthulhuM
2008-11-27, 12:35 AM
I don't think the mirror images themselves would benefit from the blur effect (mechanically, at least - they look blurry, but the blur never actually obscures their location), for the same reason that the mirror images don't benefit from mage armor or fire shield if you happen to have them up when you cast mirror image. The illusions are not you, or copies of you; they are illusionary figments that look like you. Thus, spell effects active on you are not duplicated on them.

Jasdoif
2008-11-27, 12:43 AM
I don't think the mirror images themselves would benefit from the blur effect (mechanically, at least - they look blurry, but the blur never actually obscures their location), for the same reason that the mirror images don't benefit from mage armor or fire shield if you happen to have them up when you cast mirror image. The illusions are not you, or copies of you; they are illusionary figments that look like you. Thus, spell effects active on you are not duplicated on them.The difference is that blur's effect is purely a result of its visual effects (mechanically, even; it grants concealment, and if you can't see the target you aren't affected by the miss chance).


And hey, just found out, the FAQ agrees:
The mirror image spell description says the images have an Armor Class of 10 + size modifier + Dexterity modifier. Can you improve this with spells the spellcaster casts on herself, such as shield or mage armor? If so, why doesnít the spell description say the images have the casterís Armor Class? What happens if the caster has cover from her surroundings? Will cover improve the imagesí ACs? What about concealment? Will fog or foliage produce a miss chance for a foe that aims an attack at an image? What about magical concealment, such as a blur or displacement spell?

The images from a mirror image spell donít use the casterís Armor Class. Use the formula in the spell description to calculate each imageís Armor Class (10 + casterís size modifier + casterís Dexterity modifier). Use the casterís current Dexterity modifier for each imageís Armor Class, no matter how the caster happened to get that modifier. Any Armor Class improvements the caster might have from equipment she carries or wears, or from magic operating on her person, donít apply to the images. For example, a Medium user with a Dexterity score of 16, a shield spell, and a suit of +2 leather armor has an Armor Class of 21 (10 +4 shield, +4 armor, and +3 Dexterity), but her images have an Armor Class of 13 (10 +3 Dexterity).

Itís easiest to assume the images share the userís location on the battlefield, and gain any cover bonuses that might apply to the spell user in that location. If the character in the previous example were behind cover, she would have an Armor Class of 25 and her images would have an Armor Class of 17.

If the user has concealment from her surroundings, the images have the same concealment. The images also look just like the caster, and they share purely visual effects such as the blur or displacement spell. If the mirror image user is also using either of these effects, an attack aimed at an image has the same miss chance an attack aimed at the caster has.Underline emphasis mine.

Zeful
2008-11-27, 12:47 AM
The difference is that blur's effect is purely a result of its visual effects (mechanically, even; it grants concealment, and if you can't see the target you aren't affected by the miss chance).


And hey, just found out, the FAQ agrees:Underline emphasis mine.

Only if they are cast before the mirror image, as the line "Pretends to cast" directly opposes your underlined FAQ response.

Jasdoif
2008-11-27, 12:50 AM
Only if they are cast before the mirror image, as the line "Pretends to cast" directly opposes your underlined FAQ response.It says the images share the effects with you. So if you have blur running, then they share the effect with you, regardless of when the effect comes into play.

Zeful
2008-11-27, 01:02 AM
Just so we're on the same page, Mirror Image from the SRD
Mirror Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal; see text
Target: You
Duration: 1 min./level (D)

Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck.

Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers canít use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An imageís AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like theyíre burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).

While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.

An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)

And then the important part:
The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

Since the images can't cast spells they can't gain the benefit of any spells you cast. This is part of the primary source rule in the DMG, the FAQ conflicts with the application of Blur. You start with Blur's rules, then apply any rule from later sources as long as they don't conflict with the source. Therefore, casting blur after Mirror Image only blurs you.

Jasdoif
2008-11-27, 01:10 AM
Since the images can't cast spells they can't gain the benefit of any spells you cast. This is part of the primary source rule in the DMG, the FAQ conflicts with the application of Blur. You start with Blur's rules, then apply any rule from later sources as long as they don't conflict with the source. Therefore, casting blur after Mirror Image only blurs you.The images can't cast their own copies of blur, no; but they're benefiting from the caster's. Which coincides with mirror image's text about the images being visually indistinguishable from the caster, and is not addressed one way or the other in blur's text.

Mind telling me what this conflict is?

Zeful
2008-11-27, 01:29 AM
Well nowhere in the spell I quoted does it use the phrase "visually indistinguishable", which I'll admit may be different from the PHb version of the spell, so that's not factoring into my arguments.

Then there's the fact that no caveat exists for the use of blur and displacement to be used in the fashion that FAQ describes. Unlike Haste or Slow, which have such caveats in their relationships with other spells. So it's easy to infer that those spells don't function as the FAQ describe after Mirror Image has been cast (as the line "neither hearing nor vision can distinguish you from your images" indicates that any purely visual affect such as the aforementioned spells active on the caster at the time of casting Mirror Image work as the FAQ describes), otherwise it would be mentioned in the spell's description.

Jasdoif
2008-11-27, 01:38 AM
Well nowhere in the spell I quoted does it use the phrase "visually indistinguishable", which I'll admit may be different from the PHb version of the spell, so that's not factoring into my arguments.I paraphrased.

Like the SRD you quoted says, "observers canít use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image." So you can't use vision to distinguish which one is you and which one is the image. So you can't use visual means to distinguish which one is you and which one is the image. So the images are visually indistinguishable from you.


Then there's the fact that no caveat exists for the use of blur and displacement to be used in the fashion that FAQ describes. Unlike Haste or Slow, which have such caveats in their relationships with other spells. So it's easy to infer that those spells don't function as the FAQ describe after Mirror Image has been cast (as the line "neither hearing nor vision can distinguish you from your images" indicates that any purely visual affect such as the aforementioned spells active on the caster at the time of casting Mirror Image work as the FAQ describes), otherwise it would be mentioned in the spell's description.See, that's not a conflict. In order for there to be a conflict here, some text in the rules would have to actually say something contrary to what the FAQ says. Without an actual contradiction, there is no conflict.

KillianHawkeye
2008-11-27, 02:14 PM
I agree, there is no conflict here within the rules. It is blatantly clear that the intent is for the mirror images to look exactly like the caster at all times, regardless of any change in the caster's appearance.

Would we be having this debate if a wizard cast mirror image and then followed it with shapechange to turn into a dragon? Wouldn't we all agree that there appears to be a half dozen dragons wherever the wizard is standing? I would.

UserClone
2008-11-27, 03:39 PM
How about Blur and Displacement? Would you end up with a 60% miss chance, or just the 50% from Displacement? A former DM of mine said the latter, but I say the former (or if you insist, rolling them seperately but they still both apply).

Jack Zander
2008-11-27, 04:30 PM
How about Blur and Displacement? Would you end up with a 60% miss chance, or just the 50% from Displacement? A former DM of mine said the latter, but I say the former (or if you insist, rolling them seperately but they still both apply).

Just 50%. By RAW you can't stack miss chance due to concealment, and by RAI, having your image be blurry wouldn't help them to miss you any worse, since you aren't actually where the image is anyway.

UserClone
2008-11-27, 04:36 PM
Displacement isn't concealment. It says "as if it had total concealment", but then goes on to say "unlike actual total concealment".

Jack Zander
2008-11-27, 05:04 PM
Displacement isn't concealment. It says "as if it had total concealment", but then goes on to say "unlike actual total concealment".

Then I'll repeat:

by RAI, having your image be blurry wouldn't help them to miss you any worse, since you aren't actually where the image is anyway

Vexxation
2008-11-27, 05:06 PM
Displacement isn't concealment. It says "as if it had total concealment", but then goes on to say "unlike actual total concealment".

Well, yeah, it's a glamer.
You're visible, you just look shifty and are harder to accurately strike in a way that would cause hit point loss.

Total Concealment is through the enemy not having line of sight or effect. They actually can't really tell where you are.

Keld Denar
2008-11-27, 05:09 PM
Miss chances don't stack past 50%. You can only ever have 50%. I don't remember the actual passage, but I remember reading it. Maybe it was in the FAQ. The exact example involved Blinking and another spell like Displacement or Blur. Blinking gives you 50% miss chance because of 2 different factors (concealment and etherealness), and each could be deafeated seperately to reduce the miss chance to 20%, or together to reduce the miss chance to 0%. Someone wanted to stack the 20% miss chance part of Blink with the 50% miss chance of Displacement, to get 70% miss chance, but the passage I read said that regardless, a person can only have up to 50% miss chance.

Of cource, Mirror Image isn't a miss chance, so it would combine as other people have already mathed out.

Vinotaur
2008-11-27, 05:52 PM
1) No. Total Concealment is not having line of sight, but still having line of effect. Someone invisible is someone with total concealment against you.

2) No single miss chance can stack to higher then 50%, but there can and is cause to roll multiple miss chances. To hit someone under the effect of Blink and Displacement you would first roll to see if you hit that person instead of his displaced image, that's a 50% miss chance. Then you would roll to see if he was actually present when you swung through, that's 20% miss chance.

So even though no single miss chance stacks to more then 50%, you do have a less then 50% chance of hitting him.

3) Blur + Mirror Image and Blur + Displacement are ruled the same for me:

Your Images look blurred. But, because the blur effect is part of the image, any hit anywhere on the image, including a "Blurred" part would still destroy the image.

Conversely, the images do not have a displacement effect on them, they instead happen to appear a couple feat to the left of where ever they otherwise might have. But it is still the image, so if it is hit, it is destroyed.

As such, the first roll is to determine if you are aiming at the person or an image, after that, if you were aiming at an image (and hit it's AC) then it is destroyed and Blur/Displacement does not come into play.

If you aimed at the person, then Blur or Displacement is rolled.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how Mirror Image would work if they cast something like Baleful Polymorph at the person?

Would they destroy an image if they miss targeted? Or do spells with targets that are not attacks just auto know which is the real one?

Townopolis
2008-11-27, 06:31 PM
I'm pretty sure it auto-hits. If you don't have to make an attack roll you're pretty much saying "ok magic, now turn that gnome into a toad." and the weave (or whatever exists in the world) does the rest.

UserClone
2008-11-27, 06:48 PM
Okay, you are saying that a miss chance can get not higher than 50%, which does sound vaguely familiar...
Anyway, a 60% miss roll is the same thing as rolling a 20% and then a 50% miss chance, or the other way around.

I attack. I roll to see whether or not the displacement screwed me up (50%). Half of those times(50%), it can be assumed I will miss. 20% of the remaining 50% (10% of the total swings), I will also miss, this time due to the blur. Add them together, and you get 60%. It is EXACTLY the same chance of missing as if I'd rolled 50% and then 20%, but with one fewer percentile roll (If I'd rolled for the Blur first, I'd add to the 20% miss chance 50% of the remaining 80%, which would be 40%, still giving a total of 60%). Of course, then I have to hit the bastard's AC.:smallamused:

Edit: Baleful Polymorph and the like still require line of sight to the target, so if you declare the wrong target, you still hit an image, so it would fizzle. Of course, I'd be nice and say it still destroys the image.

Jack Zander
2008-11-27, 07:07 PM
I attack. I roll to see whether or not the displacement screwed me up (50%).

Correct.


Half of those times(50%), it can be assumed I will miss. 20% of the remaining 50% (10% of the total swings), I will also miss, this time due to the blur.

Here's where your argument breaks down. You're invisible due to displacement. How can you also be blurred? The blurry effect would make your displacement image appear blurred and that image would be harder to hit, but they aren't trying to see if they hit your image, they are trying to see if they hit you.

Now, you can do it the other way around and roll the 20% miss chance to see if they miss your image, but even if they miss your image they could hit you, so that 20% doesn't do anything at all.

UserClone
2008-11-27, 07:16 PM
I suppose it can be looked at that way, and probably is intended to work that way, but regardless it, among many other far more ludicrous things, works per RAW.

Jack Zander
2008-11-27, 07:48 PM
I suppose it can be looked at that way, and probably is intended to work that way, but regardless it, among many other far more ludicrous things, works per RAW.

No, it doesn't work per RAW. You can't have more than 50% miss chance due to concealment. You can't have more than total concealment, that doesn't even make sense.

UserClone
2008-11-27, 07:56 PM
Like many things which work by 3.5 RAW, it does not make any sense. However, the displacement spell's text indicates that it does not provide concealment. It provides a miss chance that works "as if it had" total concealment. In the sentence after that one, it says "unlike actual total concealment". So it is a 50% miss chance, but it is categorically not provided by total concealment. An argument could be made that it was still concealment, even if not total, but this is not explicitly stated the way it is in blur. Check it out (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/displacement.htm). Pretty stupid, I agree.

Jasdoif
2008-11-27, 08:42 PM
Like many things which work by 3.5 RAW, it does not make any sense. However, the displacement spell's text indicates that it does not provide concealment. It provides a miss chance that works "as if it had" total concealment. In the sentence after that one, it says "unlike actual total concealment". So it is a 50% miss chance, but it is categorically not provided by total concealment. An argument could be made that it was still concealment, even if not total, but this is not explicitly stated the way it is in blur. Check it out (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/displacement.htm). Pretty stupid, I agree.Let's take a look.


The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.

While it is not actually total concealment, it behaves as if it were total concealment, with the explicit exception that the creature can be targeted normally (there's no need to determine/guess which square it's in as part of the attack, as total concealment requires). As such, it would behave as total concealment does with the respect to miss chance from concealment, and thus overlaps the lesser degree of concealment granted by blur.

UserClone
2008-11-27, 09:15 PM
I agree 100% (with no miss chance) with your interpretation. However, linguistically speaking, it could be taken either way. Which isn't to say that anyone will ever actually use it that way.

Jack Zander
2008-11-28, 12:24 AM
I agree 100% (with no miss chance) with your interpretation. However, linguistically speaking, it could be taken either way. Which isn't to say that anyone will ever actually use it that way.

Confusing no doubt, but this is the intended meaning of their wording. The two spells do not stack.

I can see how you would get to your conclusion, and I'm sure many others have before as well, but I'm certain that this is not RAW or RAI.

Fizban
2008-11-28, 03:49 AM
What about the fact that you can have the images separate? Everyone seems to calculate it as if the enemy has an equal chance of attacking each image, but I don't see why you would do that. The images can separate, and it's quite possible to set them up so that attacking one means leaving another out of range, so the enemy had to guess where you actually are. If you keep all the images in the same square with you, you're only getting a 50% miss chance, because then they can just make a blind swing at your square, which still uses the greater part of their attack bonus.

I'd be more interested in knowing if you could flank with your own images, or if other people could. It brings up the fact that DnD really needs some sort of rule for completely ignoring an enemy, aside from the fact that a hostile rat (well, a dire rat, since it needs 5' reach) can cause a flank with an epic character.

UserClone
2008-11-28, 08:37 AM
Conventional wisdom holds that it is assumed that all images share the same space. Five feet by five feet is plenty of room to fit several images overlapping in various amounts, splitting off and recombining. That is why there is always a chance that your actual caster can be hit. See the cover of Tome and Blood (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/3e/tome.jpg) for an example. Those guys all easily fit into one square the way they are standing.

Fizban
2008-11-28, 10:04 AM
True, but the spell description, as quoted above, states:

These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image.
The sentence defines their use of cluster as "within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you", there is no restriction on keeping them in the same space. Since they don't actively block attacks, and because you can ignore any visual penalties down to a 50% chance by swinging blindly, there's no reason to keep more than 2 images/ 1 image+you in the same square. It would be much more effective to spread out so your enemies are forced to choose between different squares to attack, so they can't negate the entire spell by swinging blindly.

So, say you have 3 images. You keep one in the square with you, and send the other two into an adjacent square. Now your enemy must guess which square you're in, then either they've chosen wrong and hit an image, or they choose right and have a 50% chance to miss, or a total 25% chance of finding the right target on the first hit, same as if they chose between targets all in the same space. However, if they're all in the same space, he can instead just swing blindly and still have a 50% of hitting the solid target.

By spreading out fully and positioning properly, you can force them to chose different ends of a chain of images, preventing iterative attacks from targeting you as the images fall, as they might if you were all in the same space. With 7 images, you can have a pair in 4 different squares: in either a line or a square your enemy must choose one square he won't be able to threaten with 5' reach, allowing you an extra virtual 50% miss chance on top of the 50% from having two copies of yourself in the same square. It isn't much better standing still against full attacks, since it changes from 50% on each attack to more of 50% overall, because if you only use 2 targets in each square, they only have to eliminate 1 to remove the miss chance. However, if they can only make one attack, like when you get out of melee cause you're a spellcaster, then they can only eliminate one image per round, and they can't remove the chance of choosing the wrong square until they've destroyed a few, compared to just ignoring the spell down to effectively 1 image if you stand still.

And then if you put 3 copies in each square, they are forced to take the 33% chance of choosing the wrong image, or waste their actions swinging blindly into the wrong square, not hitting you, and not hitting an image. (Admittedly this is a bit fuzzy, since there is something with AC in the square, it's just not what they're trying to hit. Of course, the fact that you get the full benefit of your training (BAB) without being able to sense your target it ridiculous to begin with, but anyway).

This is all just assuming they pick at random, without taking into account the mind games you can play with stupid monsters, double and triple guessing each other on which square has the real guy. Presumably a high int character, or one with sense motive, or bluff come to think of it, would have an extra edge to work with. Usually it'll be random, cause it'd be crazy for a DM to unmetagame that much knowledge, but you could try it: put out four figures for your character on the battle map, write your real location on a slip of paper, and reveal it after the dice have been rolled.

And yes, this all assumes you have more control over the images than just moving through them. Since it's an illusion that creates independent images instead of a static miss chance, I think it does. If not, then they wouldn't (well, it's WoTC, they would), or shouldn't have written it the way they did, and instead just used a varying flat miss chance, or suggested rolling a die or something.

JBento
2008-11-28, 10:22 AM
Alternatively (and this is what my groups do with mirror image), put extra minis on the grid equal to the number or images created. At the start of each of your rounds, roll a d(number of images remaining+1). This is where you ACTUALLY are.

Your attacker can then decide which mini to attack. Maybe he'll get lucky, maybe he won't.

UserClone
2008-11-28, 11:22 AM
That's an interesting take on it, Jbento. But why not just let the caster decide which image is him? It's not like he's randomly benign transpositioning with his images, he's just moving. So why shouldn't he just be whichever one he chooses?

Keld Denar
2008-11-28, 11:30 AM
Alternatively (and this is what my groups do with mirror image), put extra minis on the grid equal to the number or images created. At the start of each of your rounds, roll a d(number of images remaining+1). This is where you ACTUALLY are.

Your attacker can then decide which mini to attack. Maybe he'll get lucky, maybe he won't.

The thing about Mirror Image is that all of the images actually occupy the same square(s) on the grid as you. I dunno about you, but most of my minis just barely fit onto my 1" vinyl grid, I couldn't imaging stacking 4-5 more minis in a single square, nor how that would help for clarity's sake. If you put the images in other squares, and randomly determine which is the caster, then you've effectively given the caster a short range teleport, albeit random, akin to the old 2nd ed Blinking. This isn't the intent of the spell.

JBento
2008-11-28, 11:52 AM
The thing about Mirror Image is that all of the images actually occupy the same square(s) on the grid as you. I dunno about you, but most of my minis just barely fit onto my 1" vinyl grid, I couldn't imaging stacking 4-5 more minis in a single square, nor how that would help for clarity's sake. If you put the images in other squares, and randomly determine which is the caster, then you've effectively given the caster a short range teleport, albeit random, akin to the old 2nd ed Blinking. This isn't the intent of the spell.

No. No they don't. The FAQ tells you to assume so for convenience's sake, but that's not what the spell actually DOES. That's why the figments have to be within 5 feet of you or another figment.
If you create 4 images, there can actually be a line of yous that's 25ft long.

Agreed on the teleporter thingie. Just use different types of minis and each time the caster crosses squares with 1+ figments, he writes down what mini he is