Magic Missiles vs Mirror Image

[Dracorat]

For example, what would you say are the effects of targeting a Horrid Wilting (Target: Living creatures) or Implosion (Target: one corporeal creature) on a figment?

Horrid Wilting: The figment has been interacted with. If that destroys the figment (interacting with it) then the figment is lost.

Implosion: Spell resolves, figment is interacted with, spell does nothing (but does not fizzle, just has no effect).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Horrid Wilting: The figment has been interacted with. If that destroys the figment (interacting with it) then the figment is lost.

Implosion: Spell resolves, figment is interacted with, spell does nothing (but does not fizzle, just has no effect).

I don't understand - why would Horrid Wilting destroy the figment, but Implosion would not?

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

Between the five images, A, B, C, D, and E, you cannot tell which is an image and which is real. Rather, you cannot distinguish between them; the spell's call for Indistinguisabilitude remains intact. This does not mean, however, that you do not realize that A is A, and a seperate and distinct target from E.

In an effort to not just leave the discussion hanging, I concede the point.

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.

I disagree about the level of your qualification. I am, however, if you'll remember, functioning as advocate on this point and nothing more. As long as you understand the point, and I think you do, I have nothing more to say on it.

 

[Dracorat]

I don't understand - why would Horrid Wilting destroy the figment, but Implosion would not?

-Hyp.

It would.

The distinction I was making however, is that not always are figments destroyed when they are interacted with. If they are not destroyed by mere interaction, then they might not be otherwise destroyed. Like a figment that duplicates the illusion of a loaf of bread. If you picked it up, it is not necessarily destroyed and a magical effect that picks one up (like a mage hand) does not necessarily destroy it either.

I wanted to be sure my description didn't imply that a magical effect targetting a figment didnt necessarily always mean the figment was destroyed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The distinction I was making however, is that not always are figments destroyed when they are interacted with.

I'm talking specifically about Mirror Image figments.

So what if I target a Mirror Image figment with Hold Person? Hold Animal? Message? Which count as interaction, and which destroy the figment?

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

All of them except hold Animal since the perceived target was not an animal.

Unless the mirror image was cast by an animal in some fashion, in which case the Hold Animal person would count and destroy, but hold person would not.

The distinction is that the animal could not be targetted as a person which is required for hold person since the caster knew better.

Unless they didn't know better, in which case, it would work then too. (Could get somewhat abusive I'm sure, but not any more so than casting a spell and getting some innate knowledge that the target wasn't valid because it didn't match the targets entry)

And if we are talking specifically about mirror image figments only, then it boils down to this: If the caster of the figment himself could be the direct target of a spell then so can his figments. If the resultant spell hits the figment, the figment dies out and the originating spell finds that it is unable to act upon that figment. If however, the spell in question wouldn't specifically target the caster, then the figment acts exactly as the caster does in response to the spell and does not spoil the figment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

All of them except hold Animal since the perceived target was not an animal.

Unless the mirror image was cast by an animal in some fashion, in which case the Hold Animal person would count and destroy, but hold person would not.

The distinction is that the animal could not be targetted as a person which is required for hold person since the caster knew better.

Unless they didn't know better, in which case, it would work then too.

So if the caster decided to assume that perhaps the apparently human wizard under the Mirror Image might in fact be someone Shapechanged into an animal (thus gaining the Animal type) using a Veil spell to appear human, you'd let Hold Animal pop a figment?

And if we are talking specifically about mirror image figments only, then it boils down to this: If the caster of the figment himself could be the direct target of a spell then so can his figments. If the resultant spell hits the figment, the figment dies out and the originating spell finds that it is unable to act upon that figment. If however, the spell in question wouldn't specifically target the caster, then the figment acts exactly as the caster does in response to the spell and does not spoil the figment.

Which makes Message a better anti-MI spell that Magic Missile, since there might be 8 images plus the caster. Magic Missile can only target 5, but Message can target 1/caster level...

-Hyp.

 

[Bad Paper]

y'all are crazy

What do you do when the MM caster is faced with a silent image or one of its brethren? Do you allow MM to be the cheapest figment-detector in the game? The whole point of figments is to get enemies to waste their attacks on them. A major image under control of a clever caster can keep people very busy... (...unless you try the "won't target" version of MM, and the game is up)

IMHO: MM can pop Mirror Images, if only to keep the MM caster busy for a couple of rounds.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What do you do when the MM caster is faced with a silent image or one of its brethren?

If the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails.

Just like if someone casts a spell with a target of 'one animal' at a Wildshaped druid. It sure looks like an animal to the caster, but it's a humanoid. The characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, and the casting fails.

-Hyp.

 

[dren]

I don't care about the intent of any spell or rule, I usually decide on the spot and state something like: "each missile has an equal chance of hitting you or a figment." If they argued, I'd tell them that by the rules you're probably right, but I don't care, this is the way we are doing it right now, let's move on.

Why waste time arguing when you could be PLAYING THE GAME. If they wanted to argue it after the game in an email, using the rule books to prove I was wrong, that's fine, but I'm tired of arguing over spell rules during the game. DMs decide, thern move on...and bring the argument to ENW.