Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 1928243" data-attributes="member: 1190">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).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 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?  YesIs 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 invisible2...a person could cast invisibility, cast mirror image, wait 2 rounds then attack3...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 endedor: 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.  YMMVDCps.  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).</blockquote>

Verification