Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marius Delphus" data-source="post: 5385905" data-attributes="member: 447">One possibility is to rule that, because each figment is a valid target, the figments are all attacked by grappling tentacles and disappear, making black tentacles another great anti-mirror image spell.Alternately, you could rule that in-place spells like Evard's black tentacles, glyph of warding, and the like don't have visual senses (unless, like magic mouth, the spell description says they do) and thus don't react to figments, making black tentacles a terrible anti-mirror image spell.Note that keeping track of how many tentacles there are, etc., is an artifact of prior editions and didn't survive into 3.5E. (To be fair, there's a lot of weirdness that DID survive into 3.5E that is held over from prior editions.)I don't see why not, but keep in mind the 3.5E version of the spell permits the images to be in squares other than the caster's. Some of those might be out of reach. There's always casting on the defensive, of course, but even so this would make high DEX and Combat Reflexes a great anti-mirror image tactic.Alternately, you could rule that the caster's provoking an attack of opportunity only counts as one opportunity (for which there can be only one attack of opportunity), no matter how many duplicates of him are within reach, which would make high DEX and Combat Reflexes a "neither great nor terrible" anti-mirror image technique.As an aside, for comparison, you might want to use the <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/mirrorImage.html#mirror-image" target="_blank">Pathfinder version</a>, which I think does away with some of this weirdness.</blockquote>

Verification