Stacking Blur and Mirror Image

[Nail]

Now I'm confused. Are you asking "why can you see a figment?"

Pawsplay is claiming that illusions can't cast shadows. This baffles me completely; where does it say that in the rules text?

Does no one else see major problems with pawsplay's statement?

 

[Mistwell]

I see this as yet another case where, if there are two possible reasonable interpretations of the rules, then you go with the FAQ interpretation because that's the one that WOTC put their official seal of approval on. Only if the FAQ intepretation cannot be right because it is not one of the reasonable choices for how to interpret the rules should the FAQ answer be discarded.

But that is not the case with this example. An illusion might gain the benefit of concealment from being blurry, and it might be that the blurry part is also part of the illusion and therefore it should gain no benefit. Both positions are reasonable, and both can make sense depending on which analogy you depend on, which reasoning, etc.. So given there are two reasonable intepretations, and the FAQ chooses one of those, I am going with the FAQ one.

And I really think that is one of the greatest strengths of playing in a game that regularly offers an official FAQ opinion on rules issues. It breaks ties that are created when two reasonable rules intepretations are possible.

 

[Nail]

And I really think that is one of the greatest strengths of playing in a game that regularly offers an official FAQ opinion on rules issues. It breaks ties that are created when two reasonable rules intepretations are possible.

Surely it's okay, though, to look at the core rules, figure out what they say (Blur can't target figments), and go with that...right?

 

[PaulKemp]

But the thing is that with a Blurred creature, within the visual phenomenon you observe, there are Creature and Non-Creature elements. If you swing at the visual phenomenon, you might successfully hit it... but only strike Non-Creature elements, and miss the Creature entirely.

But with a figment of a Blurred creature, the visual phenomenon includes no Non-Figment elements. The Blur effect is not a separate illusion; rather, it is the figment mimicking [a creature affected by a separate illusion]. If you successfully strike any part of that visual phenomenon, it is guaranteed to be Figment, not Non-Figment, because it's all Figment.

This has always been my interpretation as well (and I apply the same to displacement, though I think the argument is weaker there). The only counterargument I've read that I found mildly persuasive in the other direction is one based on the spell description of blur:

"The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering"

If you're willing to think of a "shifting and wavering outline" as occupying point A for a moment, then shifting back to point B, the shooting back out to point C, and so forth, you could reasonably conclude that the miss chance represents not hitting a blurred portion of the image's outline (because if it did, per Hyp's analysis above, it should disappear) but instead as hitting empty space, as the image shifts/wavers away from the blow at the last moment.

Notwithstanding all that, I still run it as non-stacking.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Surely it's okay, though, to look at the core rules, figure out what they say (Blur can't target figments), and go with that...right?

Especially if one does not take the FAQ seriously as a rules source for their group.

 

[Mistwell]

Surely it's okay, though, to look at the core rules, figure out what they say (Blur can't target figments), and go with that...right?

It's not targeting a figment. A figment is replicating the image of a blurry person (who was the legal target of the blur spell) that is jumping around and flickering at the edges, making the person difficult to hit and hence the replicated image of that person difficult to hit.

Yes, you can discard the FAQ. Nobody is saying you can't. I am just saying that, for those looking to use the official rules as written, and who take the "official" tag on the FAQ to mean just that, the FAQ can be helpful in this sort of situation.

 

[Nail]

It's not targeting a figment.

Are you sure? Is the spell Blur in effect on a Mirror Image figment?

If your answer is "yes", then the spell has most definately targeted a figment. And....Blur can only target creatures. It can't target figments.

If your answer is "no", then we get the same result: no Blur on the figments.



Let's try something else:
Suppose there is a rat in your pocket. You cast Blur on yourself. Is the rat Blurred?

But suppose the rat is your familiar, and you are a high level wizard. Is the rat Blurred?

Now answer this: What special power allows the rat to be Blurred? Does a Mirror Image figment have that power?

 

[pawsplay]

Are you sure? Is the spell Blur in effect on a Mirror Image figment?

If your answer is "yes", then the spell has most definately targeted a figment. And....Blur can only target creatures. It can't target figments.

If your answer is "no", then we get the same result: no Blur on the figments.



Let's try something else:
Suppose there is a rat in your pocket. You cast Blur on yourself. Is the rat Blurred?

But suppose the rat is your familiar, and you are a high level wizard. Is the rat Blurred?

Now answer this: What special power allows the rat to be Blurred? Does a Mirror Image figment have that power?

There is a flaw in your analogy. Mirror targets you, but creates duplicates of your image. Thus, it duplicates your equipment, even though it doesn't affect objects, and can cast a shadow, even though it doesn't affect walls. It is true a figment is unreal, not quasireal, but it occupies a particular area in space, and if you are blurry, it is just as blurry.

My rationale is that even if the blurry parts of it do not coincide with the figment's own dimensions, they are still a legal function of the figment.

further, imagine that your duplicates are currently occuping the same space as you within a few inches. How is your image going to be blurred to appear some distance away if all your duplicates visibly occupy the same area, and it is apparent that your blurry image occupies the same area as well, due to the blurriness?

Can a duplicate be invisible, even though invisibility affects creatures? I would assume it could, since that is a change in appearance. If a figment's appearance can be altered by invisibility, surely it can also be altered to mimic the effects of blur.

Your appearance (including the space you occupy) is blurred, and a figment, being unreal, should be able to appear to be anything you are, even if that appearance is itself misleading. It involves the same processes whereby mirror images seem to cast shadows on objects, throw rays and other spells, and hold light sources with a convincing appearance.

Finally, consider the description of the spell itself. It says sight cannot be used to distinguish the duplicate from the original. Yet if only the original is displaced in space, sight can be used to distinguish the original. The first time an attack missed against blur, it would be visibly apparent someone had attacked the original.

 

[Mistwell]

Are you sure?

Yes. I feel sure. I am open to the possibility of being wrong, but right now I don't feel much doubt on the subject.

Is the spell Blur in effect on a Mirror Image figment?

No. The spell is in effect on the character. A replica image of that character, blur, shadows, darkness, camoflauge, other concealment, and all, are reflected in an image of that character. It has the realistic effect of gaining many benefits of the blur spell, but the spell itself is not in effect on the figment.

If your answer is "yes", then the spell has most definately targeted a figment. And....Blur can only target creatures. It can't target figments.

If your answer is "no", then we get the same result: no Blur on the figments.

The blur is not on the figment. But the concealment result of the blur is on the figment. The figment is blurry, in a literal sense. It's edges shake and jump around and blur, because the image it is replacting is doing so. I don't think this is some sort of tortured logic either. If I look in the mirror and jump around, my image in the mirror jumps around - not the mirror itself. The mirror, like the mirror image spell, is just reflecting. If the thing it is reflecting is hard to hit because it keeps jumping around, then the reflection itself is harder to hit because it is jumping around. Regardless of what made the character being reflected jump around.

Much like your dex bonus to AC effects specifically both you and your reflected image. Both are dealing with issues of your image jumping around because you are jumping around. It doesn't mean your image has a dexertity score now and a bonus to it's dexterity. I just means the image gains the benefit of your dexerity, because it is reflecting your ability to jump around.

Let's try something else:
Suppose there is a rat in your pocket. You cast Blur on yourself. Is the rat Blurred?

The rat has concealment. If you tried to target the rat in the pocket, it would be harder to hit, because it has concealment.

But suppose the rat is your familiar, and you are a high level wizard. Is the rat Blurred?

The rat has gained the benefit of concealment. It also has the benefit of the blur spell due to a special ability of familiars. But, even if it was not a familiar it still gained the benefit of concealment.

Now answer this: What special power allows the rat to be Blurred? Does a Mirror Image figment have that power?

No special power at all. If you are concealed, and something is on you or reflecting you, that thing is also concealed. And it doesn't matter how you gained the concealment. Whether by mundane or magical means, it matters not.

 

[fenixdown]

My view on this is that figments are only destroyed when they've outlived their usefulness. As long as an enemy isn't sure that an image is really an image, it still serves a purpose: namely, to be a distraction. Normally, if an enemy targets an image with a regular attack, once she's seen her sword/arrow/magic missile pass right through it, she knows it's not real and the image becomes useless (for purposes of keeping the spell from lasting forever). But it specifically says in the text:

Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).

To me, that's the important part. It's not important if a figment takes damage, since among other things they don't have HP. What is important is that even though they were 'hit', the caster of the fireball only knows that he hit four things that all look the same (burnt), and still isn't sure which one's real. To determine that, he'd have to target them individually and see how they react.

So when the fighter tries to attack a blurred image, there's a 20% chance that he fails to land what would have been a solid blow on the real thing, and a 20% uncertainty about whether what he attacked is real, which means the figment isn't entirely useless yet and shouldn't vanish.

Another question I've been trying to decide is this: if a blurred character picks up a blanket and puts it on his head, assume his images do the same. But then where do the extra blankets come from? To me, that seems like it'd negate the effect entirely, since either all the blankets for all the images would suddenly poof into existence (figments aren't mind-affecting, so anyone watching would be able to notice this), or else the character would be the only one with a blanket on his head.