Stacking Blur and Mirror Image

[KarinsDad]

Actually the description of blur states:

"The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment."

So if the the MI appears blurred, shifting and wavering it should be that precise condition that grants concealment - which is pretty much what the FAQ is saying.

Would the MI benefit from darkness being cast on the caster?

I agree with what it states. But, I do not agree that this text alters the normal targeting rules. Neither the Blur spell nor the Mirror Image spell explicitly changes the targeting of Blur from the target, to the target and his images.

In other words, the quote you gave is fluff text explaining why Blur works the way it does. It does not in any way change the game mechanic rules.


As for Darkness, that is a game mechanic effect (i.e. shadowy illumination) over an area targeted on an object and not an effect only on a specific creature (different targeting and effect rules). Any creature gains the concealment of Darkness.

By literal RAW definition, the images do not gain the benefits of Darkness since they are not creatures. But, that is a generic game mechanics flaw with the definition of Shadowy Illumination and the Darkness spell themselves. Neither of these state that any target within the area gains concealment (they should). So, a rock would not gain concealment in a Darkness spell or Shadowy Illumination from a torch either.

The normal Concealment rules merely state "target", not "creature". This is what Darkness and the Lighting rules should state as well, but they do not.

 

[werk]

Actually the description of blur states:

"The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment."

So if the the MI appears blurred, shifting and wavering it should be that precise condition that grants concealment - which is pretty much what the FAQ is saying.

Would the MI benefit from darkness being cast on the caster?

My point is that it is the MI spell that is giving the distorted appearance to the figment it creates. It doesn't provide concealment to the figment because if you hit the wavy outline, you hit the figment, and that's all you need.

I'll attempt to use Hyp's blanket analogy...

Make it simple, there's a caster, he casts mirror image, gets one figment.

The caster picks up a blanket by the corners and holds it up over his head, providing total concealment. Anyone attacking the caster has to guess where he is behind the blanket (50% miss chance) even though they can clearly see the blanket and know which square the caster is in.

By nature of MI the figment also appears as a large rectangle. If you attack the figment (An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier.), you can hit the blanket (because it's all figment) and that is GOOD ENOUGH. The figment doesn't receive the mechanical miss chance effect of concealment because ANY SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ON THE FIGMENT makes it pop, not the part of the figment that represents a damageable portion of the caster.

 

[RigaMortus2]

If a Mirror Image appears blurred, but does not gain the benefit of being blurred, then...

Would it not stand to reason that if the caster poured green paint on himself, the images would appear to have paint on them, but not actually have paint on them?

If there was a ranged touch spell that dealt damage to a target that was green, and you hit an image with it, would that pop an image?

If there was a ranged touch spell that dealt damage to a target that had green paint on them, and you hit an image with it, would that pop an image?

 

[Nail]

Would the MI benefit from darkness being cast on the caster?

Note that Darkness applies to the creature attacking, not to the defender. Whatever the attacker swings at has a 20% miss chance. The spell (Darkness) is not targeting a figment. It's not targeting anything (except its source.) Blur, OTOH, would be targeting a figment.

 

[Nail]

Would it not stand to reason that if the caster poured green paint on himself, the images would appear to have paint on them, but not actually have paint on them?

Yup.

What's the question, again?

 

[werk]

Yup.

What's the question, again?

Wait...is the blanket green?


(j/k RigaMortus2)

 

[Mistwell]

I agree that consistancy is important. But you've completely missed the critical issue: What's the source of the concealment/darkness/cover? That's clearly relevant to this discussion.

Why? What does it matter what the source is? If my light comes from a torch, or from a stick with continual light on it, the only thing that matters is that there is light which can cast a shadow and illuminate things. It doesn't in any way matter if the source is magic, a spell, or mundane means.

Another example: If I am subject to the effects of a spell that increases my dexterity, it still increases the AC of the mirror image, even though the mirror image itself is not under the effects of the dexterity increasing spell. Because it is a mirror of the character, the spells impact on the character benefits the image.

If I am concealed, my images are concealed. It doesn't matter if I am concealed because of shadows, or because of a blur spell. The source of the effect as being magical or not is not relevant.

 

[phindar]

I still don't think blankets provide concealability. I hate to stick on that, but I don't think the best way to prove an interpretation of the RAW is to go radically outside of the RAW. (I mean, if at the next game my character held up a blanket in front of him and claimed to have full concealability, I don't think the GM would buy it. And if he did, I'd predict every character from then on would carry blankets. "It's the poor man's invisibility!")

I understand the logic behind the naysayers' argument. If I were playing in their game, I wouldn't have a problem with that interpretation. (As a rule, I don't have a problem with any interpretation, as long as its balanced and applied fairly.) But I still don't agree. I like having purely visual magical effects work on the images. I like the imagery of it, its not unbalanced mechanically, I have no reason to say no.

Also, I'm not entirely sure you can't cast Blur on an illusionary creature. If I was running for an illusionist character who wanted to buff his fake minions, I probably wouldn't say "no". (I tend to err on the side of the illusionist though, because their creativity is probably 90% of their character's power.)

 

[irdeggman]

Note that Darkness applies to the creature attacking, not to the defender. Whatever the attacker swings at has a 20% miss chance. The spell (Darkness) is not targeting a figment. It's not targeting anything (except its source.) Blur, OTOH, would be targeting a figment.

Funny but the darkness text specifically states:

"All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance)."

Blur reads:

"This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance)."


So what is the specific difference here?

Attackers don't gain concealment - defenders do.

 

[werk]

Why? What does it matter what the source is?

See: Blanket Analogy, above.