Magic Missiles vs Mirror Image

[Storyteller01]

I'm not sure I understand. I don't see how that quote says "A figment counts as a creature". To me, it just says "You can't tell whether the one you select is a creature or a figment while you're choosing"...

-Hyp.

Nowhere in the quote does it state that 'spells targeting only creatures cannot target these images'. The spell actively gives multiple targets the caster has to choose from.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nowhere in the quote does it state that 'spells targeting only creatures cannot target these images'.

It doesn't need to. Spells targeting only creatures, by definition, target only creatures.

The spell actively gives multiple targets the caster has to choose from.

That's right. But those targets are figments, not creatures, with the exception of the real one.

What's the Wisdom score of the figment? Charisma score?

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If I may...

I think that Storyteller is operating under the theory that a spell that "targets only creatures" targets only things that the spellcaster perceives are creatures, whereas H-Smurf is operating under the RAW theory of interpreting the "targets only creatures" language of the spell.

While H-Smurf's interpretation is technically correct for 3.xEd, Storyteller's interpretation is closer to the 1Ed version of the spell, and is in perfect congruence with the 2Ed version of the spell. However, in those earlier rulesets, the Illusion rules were more nebulous than their current incarnation.

What you have to ask yourself is whether the 3.x designers intended to change the way the spell works or whether they intended the spell to work as before, but the RAW changes the way the spell works.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, two things can be indistinguishable, but you can still tell that there are two of them.

Sure, you'll know how many images (including real one) exist. Nothing more. You cannot target them separately because that's contradictory to indistinguishable.

If there are 5 images (including the one real one), and you've got 3 missiles, I've no problem rolling a d5 for the first missile, a d4 for the second, and a d3 for the third. Sure, random, but even if you can't tell the difference twixt them, or which one is real, you can still tell that there are multiple individual targets.

There are multiple targets, but you cannot target them separately when they are indistinguishable.

 

[Infiniti2000]

What you have to ask yourself is whether the 3.x designers intended to change the way the spell works or whether they intended the spell to work as before, but the RAW changes the way the spell works.

There is no doubt at all that the 3.x designers intended to change it because they changed the way the whole magic system functioned, clearly identifying what happens with illusions.

What I think is the important point of Storyteller01's argument is the word "targets" in the mirror image description. If I may, Storyteller01, responding to Hyp's post...?

I'm not sure I understand. I don't see how that quote says "A figment counts as a creature". To me, it just says "You can't tell whether the one you select is a creature or a figment while you're choosing"...

The line in mirror image that references "targets" could be interpreted to mean exactly that, that the figments do count as creatures for purposes of anything trying to target the person with mirror images. I think that's reasonable, don't you?

 

[gnfnrf]

I'm not sure I understand. I don't see how that quote says "A figment counts as a creature". To me, it just says "You can't tell whether the one you select is a creature or a figment while you're choosing"...

Why must it be referring to you? Why can't it be saying that the ATTACK cannot distinguish between a creature and a figment? Fizzling due to invalid targeting certainly seems to be a distinguishing feature, but they are indistinguishable. It seems just as valid to me to say that they are indistinguishable to the targetting spell.

On a related note, if a melee weapon is bane against the caster's type, does the +2 bonus apply against the images? Does someone with arcane sight immediately know which one is the real caster?

--
gnfnrf

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Well, two things can be indistinguishable, but you can still tell that there are two of them.

If there are 5 images (including the one real one), and you've got 3 missiles, I've no problem rolling a d5 for the first missile, a d4 for the second, and a d3 for the third. Sure, random, but even if you can't tell the difference twixt them, or which one is real, you can still tell that there are multiple individual targets.

This is the way I always played it in my old DnD ADnD days.

I can't see any logical or sensible alternative.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure, you'll know how many images (including real one) exist. Nothing more. You cannot target them separately because that's contradictory to indistinguishable.

There are multiple targets, but you cannot target them separately when they are indistinguishable.

I don't buy this at all.

The very nature of the spell is that one targets one of several indistinguishable targets per attack.

Indistinguishable means that you cannot tell one from the other, not that you cannot tell that there are multiple ones and you cannot target multiple ones. That is not the definition of indistinguishable.

Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).

While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.

If someone can learn which image is real from indistinguishable targets, he can also learn if one is fake.

It also states to "generally" roll randomly. If an opponent already knows that an image is real or fake, there is no need to select that target again (depending on whether you want to hit an image or the real target).

It also states that in order to "shuffle the deck" again (i.e. reconfound enemies who have learned the real caster), the caster has to move and merge his images. If the caster has not yet gotten a Move Action, he cannot do this.


Are you claiming that if an enemy learns which image is real, that he must roll randomly even if he has this knowledge?

If not, then why are you claiming that if an enemy learns that an image is fake, he must include that fake image in his random roll?

 

[KarinsDad]

The line in mirror image that references "targets" could be interpreted to mean exactly that, that the figments do count as creatures for purposes of anything trying to target the person with mirror images. I think that's reasonable, don't you?

No.

If a spell only targets a creature, it only targets a creature. Not a figment.

In order for this sentence to explicitly change that rule, it must explicitly do so. It cannot just be an extremely vague inference that some people make and other people do not.

Since it does not explicitly change the rule, I do not find that interpretation reasonable. I find it stretching linguistics in order to get a desired result.

 

[Nadaka]

Well, two things can be indistinguishable, but you can still tell that there are two of them.

If there are 5 images (including the one real one), and you've got 3 missiles, I've no problem rolling a d5 for the first missile, a d4 for the second, and a d3 for the third. Sure, random, but even if you can't tell the difference twixt them, or which one is real, you can still tell that there are multiple individual targets.

would it not be much faster and easier in this case if you rolled 1d5, saying the first 3 are the targeted images, and the result is the real character? Same probability distribution, fewer rolls.