Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Blur + Displacement + Mirror Image?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lamoni" data-source="post: 1664278" data-attributes="member: 12680"><p>Nope, but it does make it much simpler. The FAQ suggested <strong>treating</strong> 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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lamoni, post: 1664278, member: 12680"] Nope, but it does make it much simpler. The FAQ suggested [B]treating[/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Blur + Displacement + Mirror Image?
Top