Blindsight vs. Mirror Image (figment)

[Nifft]

Wow. I never even thought about how a single alchemist fire or flask of oil would foil all the images in a mirror image (provided you at least hit close to the target square with a touch attack - which I guess would be an AC 10). That's interesting.

Would it? You only make one attack roll. If the effect deals area damage, it doesn't get rid of the images. You'd have to make an attack on an image to get rid of it.

Whirlwind Attack or Great Cleave are the only ways I know of to get rid of an unlimited number of mirror images, and Great Cleave is suspect.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Matthias_Gloom]

Would it? You only make one attack roll. If the effect deals area damage, it doesn't get rid of the images. You'd have to make an attack on an image to get rid of it.

Whirlwind Attack or Great Cleave are the only ways I know of to get rid of an unlimited number of mirror images, and Great Cleave is suspect.

Cheers, -- N

The description specifically says 'area spells'.

Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).

This leaves it very open to interpretation, but as the grenades aren't specifically a spell effect, even a splash should count as a 'hit'.

 

[prospero63]

Would it? You only make one attack roll. If the effect deals area damage, it doesn't get rid of the images. You'd have to make an attack on an image to get rid of it.

Whirlwind Attack or Great Cleave are the only ways I know of to get rid of an unlimited number of mirror images, and Great Cleave is suspect.

Cheers, -- N

I think getting rid of "all of them" is wishful thinking. Yes, a flask of alchemists fire will deal a point of damage to all creatures withing 5 ft of the point of impact, but mirror image doesn't require all images to be within 5 ft of the caster, rather "these figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you". As a result, the way I would adjudicate that is the flask is certainly a good option, and stands the potential to remove all images, but it also stands the potential to remove only 1 (which I would handle via a random dice roll, i.e. 6 images, one flask, d6, you got rid of... 3 images).

 

[Nifft]

The description specifically says 'area spells'.

True.

This leaves it very open to interpretation, but as the grenades aren't specifically a spell effect, even a splash should count as a 'hit'.

The only thing I see able to destroy an image is a successful attack. Attacks require an attack roll; splash damage does not.

A dragon's breath weapon isn't a spell (or an attack) either -- should they be allowed to destroy all mirror images? I'm gonna go with "no".

Cheers, -- N

 

[prospero63]

True.

The only thing I see able to destroy an image is a successful attack. Attacks require an attack roll; splash damage does not.

A dragon's breath weapon isn't a spell (or an attack) either -- should they be allowed to destroy all mirror images? I'm gonna go with "no".

Cheers, -- N

Splash damage doesn't occur, to my knowledge, without an attack roll. In the context of alchemists fire, you have to make a ranged touch attack, which if it fails renders the attack (and the splash damage) ineffective. IMO you are confusing the attack action with the damage result.

 

[Mistwell]

True.

The only thing I see able to destroy an image is a successful attack. Attacks require an attack roll; splash damage does not.

A dragon's breath weapon isn't a spell (or an attack) either -- should they be allowed to destroy all mirror images? I'm gonna go with "no".

Cheers, -- N

So if I am invisible, and I toss a flask of alchemist fire between two creatures, I do not become visible because I have not made an attack against them because I never rolled an attack roll against them?

Silly. Attacks don't require an attack roll, they just usually have one associated with the attack.

 

[SlagMortar]

So if I am invisible, and I toss a flask of alchemist fire between two creatures, I do not become visible because I have not made an attack against them because I never rolled an attack roll against them?

Actually, one could argue that you would not become visible. Your action was directed at an unattended object - the area between two creatures - and the harm was caused indirectly. That's not much different than using an attack to cut rope holding up a bridge.

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.

Once again, the rules make a distinction between spells with an area and other things with an area.

In both cases, though, I would guess that the designers meant for spell area attacks to cover other kinds of area attacks as well.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, one could argue that you would not become visible. Your action was directed at an unattended object - the area between two creatures - and the harm was caused indirectly. That's not much different than using an attack to cut rope holding up a bridge.

Once again, the rules make a distinction between spells with an area and other things with an area.

In both cases, though, I would guess that the designers meant for spell area attacks to cover other kinds of area attacks as well.

My focus is more on the idea that all attacks require an attack role in order for them to be defined as an attack.

Last I checked, a fireball requires no attack roll. Would any of us deny it is an attack (regardless of text in something specifying area spells being included)? Not all attacks require an attack roll.

 

[Nifft]

So if I am invisible, and I toss a flask of alchemist fire between two creatures, I do not become visible because I have not made an attack against them because I never rolled an attack roll against them?

This area of the rules actually makes sense.

You can target an intersection (AC 5) and damage all nearby critters. Requires an attack roll. You have made an attack. You are now visible.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

My focus is more on the idea that all attacks require an attack role in order for them to be defined as an attack.

Last I checked, a fireball requires no attack roll. Would any of us deny it is an attack (regardless of text in something specifying area spells being included)? Not all attacks require an attack roll.

You're going to have some trouble defending this position.

From the standpoint of invisibility, fireball makes you visible only if it includes foes in its area (because that's in the definition of hostile action as interpreted by invisibility), not because it's an attack.

From the stand point of Sneak Attack, you deal extra damage with every qualifying attack -- so a wand of fireball as an attack would be a bit overpowered in the hands of a high-level Rogue.

Cheers, -- N