Interaction of Mirror Image, Invisibilty and Glitterdust

[shilsen]

The following situation came up in my game today: a dark naga which had mirror image cast on itself, creating three images, then cast invisibility. I ruled that when it turned invisible, so did the images.

A PC spellcaster then nailed it perfectly with a glitterdust spell, covering an area which included the invisible naga and all of its (now invisible) images. I ruled that as the golden particles perfectly outlined the naga's shape, the images mimicked it and appeared in a similar form.

Were the above rulings correct?

 

[Christian]

I can't find anything in the books that makes it absolutely clear either way. But the ruling seems well within the spirit of the Mirror Image spell to me ...

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I believe that ruling to be correct. The glitterdust negates invisibility and potentially blinds but I would not read further into it.

The mirror images are supposed to identical to the caster thereby giving their benefit and that spell had not been countered.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Mirror Image is a figment; figments cannot illuminate darkness.

Wouldn't that lead to a visible distinction between a figure covered in particles that are glittering, and several figures covered in particles that aren't glittering?

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

So carrying a torch makes mirror image useless to you? wearing white clothes in bright light? Carrying anything reflective?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So carrying a torch makes mirror image useless to you? wearing white clothes in bright light? Carrying anything reflective?

I'd say carrying a torch, light spell, or hit by a faerie fire - as long as you're not in a brightly-lit area - absolutely makes mirror image useless to you.

If you're in brilliant sunshine, then someone won't be able to tell the difference between a flame that casts light, and an image of a flame that doesn't cast light.

But if you're underground, it will be glaringly obvious.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

Then they cannot cause shadowy illumination either, ie shadows. Just attack the guy who has a shadow.

Still, I would much rather the spell worked if you were carrying a torch or had glitterdust on you than the alternatives. If it takes a more liberal reading or even a houserule that is fine.

I remember an old picture from one of the early edition books of a mirror imaged caster holding a torch being attacked by some ogre looking thing. While this means almost nothing for the current edition of course, it still seems like something that was intended then.

Plus it wouldnt be the first time that an illusion spell was mislabled with the wrong subtype of illusion.

 

[shilsen]

Mirror Image is a figment; figments cannot illuminate darkness.

Wouldn't that lead to a visible distinction between a figure covered in particles that are glittering, and several figures covered in particles that aren't glittering?

-Hyp.

Good point. Plus arguably the real figure would have actually had the glitterdust particles land on it while the others would not, so there'd be particles covering the ground where the figments were.

It didn't cause a problem since the PCs nailed the enemy very quickly, but next time something like this happens I'll rule the same way and allow PCs a free Spot check to differentiate between the figments and the real creature.

 

[Gez]

While they can't illuminate darkness, they can make illusory light. They will seem to be glittering. Only in total darkness would they be revealed for what they are -- light that don't illuminate the surroundings -- but if it wasn't the case, and in the heat of combat, it's unlikely to be noticed.

I agree with both your rulings.