Is a touch spell discharged if you strike a mirror image?

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: It will clearly not discarge

The character can hold the charge - not does, or must. Clearly, the character has mental control over holding the charge, though if he touches anything it is discharged. Indeed, if the character had no control over this, that would be BAD. Choose the wrong spell, and you wonder around for a bit trying to find an appropriate target - silly, isn't it? You just choose to stop holding the charge instead.

I think if he thinks he touched something (as in an illusion), the spell should be discharged. No save, or any such thing, unless the illusion itself grants one. Mirror Image fools you - no save, end of story. You think you hit something, so you stop holding the charge.

You may voluntarily or involuntarily stop holding a charge. There is no real question about that.

Whether or not you stop holding the charge if you think you hit something is the question. I think so - I think that's the intent.

Well. No. Don't take things out of context. It says you can hold it indefinitely unless you chose to discharge it. That can be done by touching something or by casting another spell.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, but the thing with Mirror Image is that after the first time a character runs into it, he knows that most of the images are illusionary. Thus, if he knows that the odds are that he will hit a fake image he will probably be more careful about letting go of the charge unintentionally. Thus my idea of allowing a WILL save (maybe a Spellcraft check as someone suggested, or an Int check) to see if the character was so fooled as to also discharging the spell.

Again, I do think that the intention of the spell is that it would cause the loss of the charge, but if someone wanted to argue it at the gaming table, I could see this rationale.

IceBear

 

[Henrix]

Re: Re: It will clearly not discarge

You may voluntarily or involuntarily stop holding a charge. There is no real question about that.

Er, no.

If you touch anything, the spell is discharged.
You cannot take up your mace while willing the spell not to discharge.
You cannot discharge it into thin air. The duration is instanteneous, it cannot be dispelled, nor dismissed (no(D) ).

If it were as you say, then the caster could choose to hold the charge until he felt something real with his hand. (Something that doesn't go 'pop' the moment he touches it.)

It is not an act of will to discharge the spell, it is as if you had been dragging your feet on a carpet and charged yourself with static electricity.

 

[Voadam]

From the srd:

If the character touches anything with the character's hand while holding a charge, the spell discharges.

Mirror Image
Illusion (Figment)

Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language the character can speak. If the character tries to duplicate a language the character cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, the character cannot make a visual copy of something unless the character knows what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, illuminate darkness, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for
confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly. For example, it is possible to use a silent image spell to create an illusory cottage, but the cottage offers no protection from rain. A clever caster, however, can take pains to make the place look old and decrepit, so that the rain falling on the occupants seems to fall from a leaky roof.

If the holder of the touch spell touches something, the spell is discharged. so the question is whether touching a figment will discharge the spell.

I would rule that a figment is something that is there and can be "touched" even though it has no substance.

Ruling that something needs to be physical to be touched would seem a reasonable interpretation as well. It would follow then that no touch spells on incorporeal creatures.

I think I'm convincing myself over to the other point of view.

 

[Artoomis]

Ruling that something needs to be physical to be touched would seem a reasonable interpretation as well. It would follow then that no touch spells on incorporeal creatures.

It IS true that you need to be able to phsically touch something for teh spell to have any effect.

But you may choose to stop holding the charge at any time. I infer that when you think you've struck something (like a mirror image), then you also "let go" of the charge. It just has no effect, becuase what you've actually done is just stopped holding the charge.

This is consistent with the rules, but not the only valid interpretation. I think it's goes along with the intent of illusions, etc., though.

 

[IceBear]

The only problem with this rationalization is that if you allow someone to release the charge because the think they struck something (which I don't think they would with a mirror image as it doesn't have any substance - it just tricks you into targetting the wrong place) then you would also have to allow them to choose to keep holding the charge if they hit an undesireable target. As pointed out, most of these touch spells are dismissable, so you can't just choose to release the charge into nothing - you would have to discharge it by casting another spell or by touching something.

I agree that the closest thing to real life is a static charge. You cannot choose to keep holding that charge, it would just discharge when you touch some conducting object.

IceBear

 

[Bonedagger]

If the holder of the touch spell touches something, the spell is discharged. so the question is whether touching a figment will discharge the spell.

I would rule that a figment is something that is there and can be "touched" even though it has no substance.

Ok. But I saw no argument for that in the defenition of figments.

Ruling that something needs to be physical to be touched would seem a reasonable interpretation as well. It would follow then that no touch spells on incorporeal creatures.

I don't have the rules for incorceral creatures right here but are they not something that defies normal physics. They are unlike the images not an illusion (They are not there etheral). Magic also defies normal physics.

 

[IceBear]

That's a good point about the incorpreal creatures. Again, that leads credence to the fact that it was probably the *intent* that the spell would be lost. Any rationalization that we come up with for why it works against incorpreal creatures will be weak against why it wouldn't work against mirror images.

The only thing about incorpreal creatures is that they must become semi-soild at some point because of the 50% miss chance when attacking them.

IceBear

 

[gamecat]

Personally I agree with mister gfunk. If a figment cannot support weight, a hand goes right through it.

 

[Artoomis]

Re: Re: Re: It will clearly not discarge

Well. No. Don't take things out of context. It says you can hold it indefinitely unless you chose to discharge it. That can be done by touching something or by casting another spell.

Right - you can hold the charge. Not must.

This is not out of context. In fact, it would be BAD if you could not simply choose to not hold a charge. What if you picked the wrong spell - then what do you do with the active charge in your hand? The simple, obvious solution is that you simply choose to not excerise the abaility to hold the charge. This BOTH makes a great deal of sense AND follows the letter of the rules - what more do you want?