Blur + Displacement + Mirror Image?

[Bauglir]

The problem with that is, total invisibility only gives a 50% miss chance. So your blurry, displaced wizard is harder to see than one who is completely invisible? Doesn't make sense to me.

Think of it this way - with your eyes closed you're working with no information (forgetting sound etc for the moment). With your eyes open, you're working with a large amount of misinformation. Isn't it plausible that wrong information is worse than no information?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The magic missile spell says the missile unerringly hits so long as the target doesn't have 100% cover or 100% concealment. And, last I knew, the caster could target multiple individuals. So, can't a Wiz9 effectively take out 5 mirror images, even if they're blurry and displaced?

(Unless, of course, that same mirror image wizard has a shield spell up.)

Well, going purely by Core rules:

1. Magic Missile targets one or more creatures.
2. A figment is not a creature.
3. A spell cast on an inappropriate target has no effect.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

Well, closing your eyes invalidates Blur and Displacement, but you still need to decide which square you want to attack into.

The Mirror Image spell as written requires figments to be within 5' of the caster or at least one other figment... so it's possible for every figment to be in a separate square. The FAQ suggests treating them as all occupying the caster's square 'for simplicity', but it's certainly not required by the wording of the spell.

-Hyp.

If you have to choose the square that you attack into, then why does it say you have to "roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment"? Shouldn't it be one or the other? Not both? That makes no sense.

Also, if the Figments are not treated as being within the same 5' square as the caster, that allows for some weird effects, like a minor form of Dimension Door.

Imagine the caster is next to a 20' ravine. He casts mirror image. He places the figments in a single file line, so that 4 of them appear to be suspended in air above the ravine (covering the 20') and the last figment is on the opposite side of the ravine. The caster can suddenly "shift" with the figments and "pop" on the opposite side of the ravine. If we are going by the current wording of the spell.

So anyway, it should be one or the other. Either (a) figments are in same 5' space as the caster and the opponent has to randomly roll to see if they hit the caster or (b) the figments can be within 5' of the caster or one other figment, and the attack gets to choose the square they attack into (thus negating the need for a random roll). It shouldn't be both, otherwise you get weird effects like above...

 

[Lamoni]

If you have to choose the square that you attack into, then why does it say you have to "roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment"? Shouldn't it be one or the other? Not both? That makes no sense.

Nope, but it does make it much simpler. The FAQ suggested treating it like they all shared the same square. In my mind, each figment is in its own square, the caster is always shifting places with each figment and the enemy doesn't know what square to attack. Now, this doesn't work very well for a few reasons.

First, the caster isn't allowed that many 5' steps in a round and therefore the enemy would be able to deduce more than they should.

Second, if each was given its own square and the caster could constantly be switching places, it could change who was targetable with his spells since from one square the enemy might have full cover, while from another, the enemy would only have partial cover.

Third, it would limit the caster to only be able to cast the spell when there was enough room for each figment to have its own square.

Therefore, I think of them as each having their own square (which makes rolling to see if you attacked the caster or a figment make sense), but I treat the caster and the figments as only occupying one square because it just becomes easier. I realize that it doesn't make sense to have them occupy the same square, otherwise it would always be beneficial for the person to close their eyes on the attack and have a 1 in 2 chance of hitting rather than a 1 in X chance. But for the other reasons I mentioned, that is the way I treat it.

Edit: When making an attack against someone with mirror image, instead of declaring that you attack a certain square, the person declares that they try to attack the caster, and we ignore what square they might actually be swinging in. It also makes it easier if you use miniatures. Not many people have several duplicates of the same miniature that they want to put on the board.

Of course, by the wording of the spell in the rules, you can set out several more miniatures and attack certain squares while keeping track of where the real caster is (instead of rolling randomly). I just choose not to do that because it would make the spell so hard to play. It is much easier to just imagine what it looks like in my mind, and forget about representing it accurately on the battlemat or grid.

 

[RigaMortus]

Edit: When making an attack against someone with mirror image, instead of declaring that you attack a certain square, the person declares that they try to attack the caster, and we ignore what square they might actually be swinging in. It also makes it easier if you use miniatures. Not many people have several duplicates of the same miniature that they want to put on the board.

That still does not make any sense to me. If I declare I am attacking the caster, and we ignore the square he might be in, what if he is actually in a square I am not next to, or do not threaten, yet somehow I hit him? It doesn't make sense.

Example:

O = Me
X = Figments
C = Caster

O
XXXXXC

So let's say I attack the image in front of me. From the model we see it is not the caster (not that my character knows this). I randomly roll to see if I hit the caster, and I succeed... well how did I just hit the caster who is 20 feet away from me? See, it doesn't make sense...

 

[dcollins]

I randomly roll to see if I hit the caster, and I succeed... well how did I just hit the caster who is 20 feet away from me? See, it doesn't make sense...

I guess he wasn't really in that square, was he?

As DM I would never let mirror images strung out in a line like that (that's always where the degenerate examples come from). I simply treat the bunch like a larger-face creature (for example, 2x3 in this case) and the exact location of the caster is unknown until a successful attack happens.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He places the figments in a single file line...

You're assuming the caster has control over where the images go.

-Hyp.

 

[Dthamilaye]

IMC, a caster can target as many images as he can cast missiles. Ie, if there is an opponent with 7 mirror images and the caster can cast 5 magic missiles with one go, he can target 5 of the 8 possible targets (and possibly hit the caster of mirror image too with one of the missiles). If an MM hits an image, the image disappears.

Displacement/BLur does not prevent the MM from hitting. I'm not sure about Blink, but I think that would not help either, as MM is force effect.

 

[RigaMortus]

You're assuming the caster has control over where the images go.

-Hyp.

Well, the player IS the one casting the spell, isn't he? Not the DM. Do you usually not allow the player to choose where the images go?

As written, the DM doesn't control where the images are placed. And while it is true it doesn't specifically state the player gets to choose where the images are placed, wouldn't that be the default way to play it, since he is the one casting the spell?

 

[dcollins]

...while it is true it doesn't specifically state the player gets to choose where the images are placed, wouldn't that be the default way to play it, since he is the one casting the spell?

No. The images "stay near you" and "remain in a cluster". Allowing the caster to spread out the images in a long line or other formation seems to violate the language of the spell.