Need some spell effect clarifications

[DreamChaser]

No it doesn't. It does not affect the senses at all.

It affects the light (and sound) that is there which ALL viewers will then perceive. But the viewer is not directly affected in any way from a glamer.

You're right. My initial phrasing was innaccurate. My later references are clearer and more specific to the definition of a glamer (that is to say it changes the sensory qualities of a target).

It is not clear at all. That is one possible interpretation, but not the only one.

Another interpretation of this is that the Mirror Image cannot create an image of an invisible target. Period. The spell cannot accomplish that.

Of course, it would stand to reason that if they meant that Mirror Image failed to create images in the case of an invisiblity spell, they would have said so. They didn't.

I'm tempted to agree with KarinsDad, albeit for different reasons. I can see both ends of the arguement, but to me the non-blurred images seem more balanced. YMMV.

I fail to see how gaining a slight overlap from casting 2 different spells is unbalanced.

So, if I am a wizard and I cast blur, one of my sensory qualities (appearance) now becomes a fuzzy outline that makes me hard to look at. If I then cast Mirror Image, creating "duplicates" of myself (which is what the first line of the spell directly states) then each of those copies must have the sensory quality (appearance) of a fuzzy outline that makes them hard to look at as well (seeing as how they are DUPLICATES). Because the game effect of the fuzzy outline that is hard to look at is that attackers suffer a 20% miss chance, it is nonsensical to think that an attacker would not be bothered by the fuzzy outline on images that are duplicates of me but would be by the real thing because being a glamer, the effect is entirely visual.

Looking at it another way:

Is a figment (Mirror Image) completely a sensory (ie not mind-affecting) spell? Yes
Is a glamer (Blur or Invisibility) a completely sensory, (ie not mind-affecting) spell? Yes
(For example both of these categories of spell work on undead which are immune to mind-affecting spells).

Thus, the miss chance from blur must be a sensory effect created by the fuzzy outline not something that is actively distorting the senses of the target (it is an objective not subjective effect--anything that sees will be affected by it). Mirror image duplicates sensory properties (visual properies specifically). Because the effect of blur is an aspect of its visual property, the 20% miss chance applies to the duplicates.

In addition, mirror image must work on an invisible target:

1...they specify that the spell causes no miss chance when a target is invisible
2...a person could cast invisibility, cast mirror image, wait 2 rounds then attack
3...upon attacking, the person becomes visible as do the images.

we have 2 ways of looking at this:
either: the mirror image spell didn't begin until the invisibility ended
or: there were "invisible images" present that became visible when the invisibility expired.

as absurd as the concept of invisible images is (it is a paradox in fact) it does not change the fact that an invisible caster is a valid target for the spell and that the spell's duration begins at the time it is cast which means (by the basics of D&D magic) it is doing something.

If it was not able to take glamers and other changes in sensory properties into consideration, mirror image would simply make images of the caster while visible. it doesn't (and the spell specficially says it doesn't).

It creates images that no one, except a creature that can "see invisibility," could see. A creature with this ability would penetrated the glamer but not the figment.

I suppose everyone will play it as they see it, but it seems clear to me that the rules indicate the ability of glamers and (in this one case at least) figments to stack. I suppose any other figment that specifically created a "duplicate" of the creature would do the same thing. YMMV

DC

ps. I can already see the argument over the lack of an in game definition of "duplicate" Since it is such a simple word with such a long standing definition, that I am frankly shocked at its omission from the Glossary (much vaunted when people wish to prove a point with it and much decried when it doesn't prove what is desired).

 

[KarinsDad]

Because the game effect of the fuzzy outline that is hard to look at is that attackers suffer a 20% miss chance, it is nonsensical to think that an attacker would not be bothered by the fuzzy outline on images that are duplicates of me but would be by the real thing because being a glamer, the effect is entirely visual.

There are a lot of rules that are nonsensical.

As per my earlier example, the Rogue is in plain view. The Wizard casts Blur on the Rogue. The Rogue then hides right where he is standing.

That is possible by the rules. It is still nonsensical.

The rules ALLOW for nonsensical effects when it comes to magic.

I suppose everyone will play it as they see it, but it seems clear to me that the rules indicate the ability of glamers and (in this one case at least) figments to stack.

They already do stack.

They stack on the caster (with the exception of Mirror Image and Invisibility where the Mirror Image spell explicitly states that there is no effect, i.e. no stacking), just like ALL other magic stacks or does not stack on the target.

They do not stack on each other, at least according to the definition of who the target of the spell is.

The target of the Blur spell is NOT the Mirror Image spell

The target of the Mirror Image spell is NOT the Blur spell.


It's all nice and well that the Sage intended these types of spells to play nice together with each other, but it is not quite there according to the targeting rules.

 

[DreamChaser]

There are a lot of rules that are nonsensical.

I love this statement: just because there are other contradictions in the rules does not mean that every contradiction was intentional or that any of them ae valid bases for rules justifications.

I cannot help but notice that your response did not actually address any of the arguments that I'd made. Skipping to my conclusion and restating your own case is not a rebuttal.

They do not stack on each other, at least according to the definition of who the target of the spell is.

The target of the Blur spell is NOT the Mirror Image spell

The target of the Mirror Image spell is NOT the Blur spell.

It's all nice and well that the Sage intended these types of spells to play nice together with each other, but it is not quite there according to the targeting rules.

You are confusing targeting and effect.

Could I cast Blur on a duplicate? No. It is a figment and thus I cannot touch it. Plus it is a spell effect and not a creature. On this you are 100% correct. But, the overlap of Blur and Mirror Image does not require Blur to be cast upon the images.

The target of the Blur spell is the creature touched. The effect of Blur is to make the target blurry looking. The target of Mirror Image is the caster. Its effect is to create duplicates of the caster.

By your line of reasoning, light, darkness, and daylight should not provide light (or shadow) to anything but the object upon which they are cast because the target of each of those spells is "Object touched." Of course they do provide their benefits because the effect of the spell is different from the target.

Light produces an area of illumination
Bless Water produces holy water (how can it hurt undead...the spell only affects water?)
Blur produces a change in appearance (which has a defined affect according to the spell description).
Mirror image produces illusory duplicates
All of these have effects that extend beyond their targets.


I don't object to the idea of other rulings. I object to spurious logic to justify them. As I have shown above, target and effect are entirely different. No one so far has show that the Mirror Images would not look blurred, nor have they shown that the concealment effect is anything other than a direct result of a sensory change on the target caused by the blurred appearance. Thus, concealment on the images.

And please address the see invisibility/invisibility/mirror image issue as well.

DC

 

[Marimmar@Home]

Good reasoning DreamChaser.
I would have ruled that mirror images won't get the concealment from a blur spell, but your line of arguments made me reconsider.

~Marimmar