NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magus Coeruleus" data-source="post: 1058880" data-attributes="member: 1704">I, too, find it annoying, but more because it says that each image is within 5' of one other image, rather than within 5' of the caster (no change from 3.0).  This technically allows for images to be spread out and not in the same square as the caster (to take an extreme example, each image could be in its own square, forming a line with the caster at one end.  This leads to questions such as how is it determined where exactly the images are, how does the caster's movement through squares with images affect people's knowledge about where he/she can and can't be.  Andy Collins said for simplicity we should just assume that they're all clustered in the same place, which is how I run it, but I wish the spell 's description forced that interpretation, or better yet just flat out said that the images share the caster's space(s).I'm not sure the vision/hearing thing is actually a problem.  You're right that the figments must have an auditory components to not give away the real caster, but the point of shutting your eyes to foil the spell is that you just treat the caster as invisible, and make your attack into the square, taking a 50% miss chance instead of the random chance to hit an image.  The downside, of course, is that you are effectively blind, suffering a -2 to AC, losing your Dex bonus, moving at half speed, etc.  This makes the fact that you can hear sounds coming from the images moot, because they're all in the same square as the caster anyway and you're just attacking into the square and hoping to get lucky.  The only major confusion left with this tactic is whether, if you miss the caster on that 50% miss chance roll, you might happen to hit an image and destroy it.  For simplicity I guess it's just 50% caster and 50% nothing.  Again, it would be nice to have things like this thought through and spelled out in the spell description.By the way, on the News page it was reported that the new issue of Dragon magazine's Sage Advice tackles Mirror Image questions.Oh, and yes I think that referring to the "attack roll"/"attack" chance as a clarification is spot on <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Thanks for all your work!  I had been thinking that a group of people could agree to split up the spell list and do this job as a distributed effort, but sometimes it just takes one dedicated individual (with some help)!</blockquote>

Verification