log in or register to remove this ad

 

Stacking Blur and Mirror Image

Koewn

First Post
Seems a newbie question, but here we go:

If Blur and Mirror Image stack, then how?

Is each Mirror Image Blurred; giving it a 20% miss chance?

Does each Mirror Image merely *look* Blurred (because the target of the spell is) and the 20% miss chance only come into play when the atual target is hit rather than an image?

Or does this not work at all?

Thanks!

Koewn
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kahuna Burger

First Post
My call : Images "disappear when struck." The Blur visual effect is part of the overall image, and striking it counts as striking the image. Since there is no "real" thing in there (the blur part of the image is no less an illusion than the rest of it) it gives no protection against the image being struck.
 

KarinsDad

First Post
WotC in the FAQ decided that the blur effect does stack.

But rules-wise, it would not be allowed since Blur is Target creature, not Target creature plus images.

Also, it does not make logical sense either (as KB pointed out).

If you have a mirror image distorted as per blur, if you hit the blurred portion of it, you are still hitting the mirror image. With normal Blur, if you hit into the illusion portion, you are missing the target. But the entire illusion portion of a Blurred Mirror Image is created by the Mirror Image spell itself emulating the visual aspect of the caster.
 


Koewn

First Post
OK, good, so it's the "Mirror Images *look* Blurred, but aren't technically" second choice in my first post.

That's what I figured; I just hadn't made the connection in Rules-Speak yet.

Next adventure is nothing but hard-hitting giants. Been running a series agaist an alienist cult of all spellcasters and all spell-keeping-track-of has fried my brain. Blarg.
 

phindar

First Post
Kahuna Burger said:
The Blur visual effect is part of the overall image
But if Blur is a visual effect, and MI parrots how the character looks, why wouldn't it function essentially the same?

I get where you are coming from KB (and KD), but I don't mind letting spells like Blur and Displacement affect images. I don't think its unbalancing, and its one way to keep the images from being auto-blips.
 


KarinsDad

First Post
phindar said:
But if Blur is a visual effect, and MI parrots how the character looks, why wouldn't it function essentially the same?

If the Wizard is 12 feet tall due to Enlarge Person, his images will also be 12 feet tall.

If the Wizard is purple, his images will also be purple.

The visual aspect of the Wizard will be duplicated by Mirror Image.

In order to do that, the Mirror Image itself will have to shrink or grow or blur or change color or whatever.

The reason one misses with Blur is because one hits the illusion instead of the caster. In the case of Mirror Image, one hits the Blurred Mirror Image, but it is still the image. The image is what changes in order to look Blurred.

But, the image is not protected by a Blur spell. The caster is.

If one could cast Blur on an image, then there would be a second illusion and one could hit either the Blur illusion or the Mirror Image illusion. However, each Mirror Image image is a single illusion emulating a Blurred caster, not multiple castings of Blur, one for the caster and each of his images.

For the Blurred Mirror Imaged caster, if you hit his Blur, you miss.

For the images, if you hit their "Blur", you hit them.

phindar said:
I get where you are coming from KB (and KD), but I don't mind letting spells like Blur and Displacement affect images. I don't think its unbalancing, and its one way to keep the images from being auto-blips.

Images should be near auto-blips. It is the most powerful low level defensive spell in the game and there should be ways to overcome it.
 

phindar

First Post
It is a pretty cool low level defensive spell, but to get the effect of the Blurred or Displaced images, you're having to put another 2nd or 3rd level spell on top of it, so its not without cost.

As I say, I get where you're coming from, I just think you're being unnecessarily limiting in your interpretation. I like it when spells combine in interesting ways.

On the balance side of things, if a caster puts up a Mirror Image and a Blur, that's two 2nd level spell slots and on average it'll save one Image from getting blipped. As opposed to casting Mirror Image and when the Images get blipped, casting Mirror Image again. (Displacement is a better deal, but then its a higher level slot.)

But there comes a point when discussing the way magical effects work-- and the way magical effects affect other magical effects-- where you just have to pick what you like and go with it.
 


Nail

First Post
Caliban said:
I agree with Kahuna Burger.
Me too.



Besides, Mirror Image is good enough already. It hardly needs Yet Another Ability thrown in there.

Example: If you have Mirror Image up, and then cast Project Image, does your projected image have mirror images? If you then cast Blur, would your projected image have blurred mirror images? blurred images? :D

Etc.

An illusion of an illusion does not gain the powers of the illusion it's mimicing.
 




lukelightning

First Post
Caliban said:
What's the FAQ answer?

I believe it says that they do stack...something about the images sharing your visual protections. But then again, the FAQ also thinks that the images share your space (which is actually how most people I've seen play it).
 

pawsplay

First Post
Mirror image duplicates the appearance of the caster. If the blur were not working on them, they would not appear to mimic the caster and hence would not fulfill the description of mirror image. The "blur" of the images is not an illusion; rather, the illusions have the appearance of being blurred. Mirror images are figments, and hence, merely moving through space affected by them does not destroy them becaues it does not harm the figment of the caster. This is just as the case where a mirror image fires an arrow; if the arrow strikes an object, the archer does not vanish.
 

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...
pawsplay said:
Mirror images are figments, and hence, merely moving through space affected by them does not destroy them becaues it does not harm the figment of the caster.

But the figment that visually represents the caster takes up more volume than the caster does physically, and all that's required to pop a MI figment is to successfully attack it.

If I swing at the caster, I need to beat his plate armor to actually hurt him. But for a figment, the plate armor is not protection; it's a part of its 'substance', and a successful attack on the armor is the same as a successful attack on its face. It gets no armor bonus, because striking the armor is striking the figment.

If the MI figment becomes blurry because it is visually representing the appearance of the blurred caster, then those blurred outlines are a part of the figment, just as the armor is a part of the figment, and a successful attack against the blurred outlines will pop the figment.

If, on the other hand, one uses the FAQ ruling, then the figment effectively becomes a secondary target of the Blur spell. The figment still looks like the unblurred caster, but its location is obscured by the magic of the Blur spell. Thus, striking the blurred outlines is not a successful attack, because the outlines are not a part of the MI figment.

However, I see no support for the FAQ answer in either spell. I agree that the MI figment would look blurry, but it's the same as the figment turning green when the caster pours paint on his head. The figment is not painted; it's just representing paint. The figment is not subject to Blur; it's just representing a person subject to Blur.

-Hyp.
 

RigaMortus2

First Post
Another analogy, if you will...

If the caster put a blanket over his body, the images would appear to have a blanket covering them as well. If you attacked the "blanketted" images, would they not pop? Or would you argue, you are striking the image of the blanket, not the image under the blanket (as if there were such a thing)?
 

pawsplay

First Post
Hypersmurf said:
If the MI figment becomes blurry because it is visually representing the appearance of the blurred caster, then those blurred outlines are a part of the figment, just as the armor is a part of the figment, and a successful attack against the blurred outlines will pop the figment.

Oh? Mirror image doesn't actually say that a successful attack to some part of the illusion destroys it, only an attack to the duplicate.

Can you stab a mirror image in its shadow and destroy it?
 

phindar

First Post
Wouldn't blurry images be easier to hit by that rationale, because on the caster some of its real and some of its blur, if you hit the blur you miss. On the images, if the whole image is the blur, and hitting any part of it would cause it to blip out of existence. (A 20% Hit Chance perhaps, so that even if you miss, there is a 20% chance you actually hit?)

Granted, a line in the MI spell description would go a long way towards clearing up any confusion, but absent clarification we've got to come to our own conclusions. I can buy Blur or Displacement affecting Mirror Image. Of the various leaps of faith that D&D magic system-- and rules in general-- require of me, this one is pretty far down on the list.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top