Mirror Image vs Touch Spells

[Hurtoc]

If a target has Mirror Image going, and a spellcaster with a touch spell (Inflict Moderate Wounds) makes the touch attack roll, but finds he has touched an illusory duplicate, is the touch spell now lost as the illusory duplicate disappates, or can the touch spell be tried again next round?

 

[RigaMortus2]

I see one of two things happening.

1) You touch the image, realize it is an image, and decide not to discharge the spell. You retain the spell, but do not "pop" the image since it was not a successful attack.
2) You touch the image and discharge the spell. The spell is gone, and so is the image.

 

[Vegepygmy]

My ruling would be that the successful touch attack destroys the image, but does not discharge the touch spell.

 

[wildstarsreach]

My ruling would be that the successful touch attack destroys the image, but does not discharge the touch spell.

You are to cruel. I would rule that when you touch you discharge the spell. We are at odds buddy.

 

[phindar]

I look at it one of two ways: either touch spells are expended on images, in which case its the character's fault for wasting the touch spell on what is likely an illusion. Or touch spells aren't wasted on images, and the character can swat away until he hits something that conducts. I don't really have a problem with either reading, as long as its something that a character with ranks in Spellcraft would be aware of.

My personal take is, since hitting an image is essentially hitting empty air, and empty air doesn't discharge touch spells, I'd rule that the image doesn't discharge the touch spell. YMMV.

 

[moritheil]

My personal take is, since hitting an image is essentially hitting empty air, and empty air doesn't discharge touch spells, I'd rule that the image doesn't discharge the touch spell. YMMV.

This gets into "how real is a figment?"

 

[TheGogmagog]

This gets into "how real is a figment?"

No this gets into valid target. For most spells a figment isn't a valid target.
The touch attack destryoys the mirror image. The now disipated image is not a valid target. The charge is held.

 

[moritheil]

No this gets into valid target. For most spells a figment isn't a valid target.
The touch attack destryoys the mirror image. The now disipated image is not a valid target. The charge is held.

Well, his argument was metaphysical, so I responded in kind. RAW, you're right in stating that a figment is generally not a valid target.

 

[phindar]

How real is a figment?

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, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

(Bold mine.)

So, how real is a figment? Apparently not. For my money, its the "support weight" line. Since they aren't solid, or "real", the hand with the touch spell would pass through the image just as it would empty air. Anyway, like I say, that's the way I'd rule it. YMMV.

 

[TheGogmagog]

In all fairness, you aren’t alone if you rule against RAW:
Old Poll about Magic Missle and Mirror Image and
Slightly more recent discussion