Stacking Blur and Mirror Image

[Hypersmurf]

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.

I'd apply the "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded" clause there.

One of the four wizards picks up a blanket. Suddenly, all four have blankets. You know which one picked up the real blanket - and can target him directly - until the wizard's next action. At that point, while moving, he can merge with and split off from figments, so that you - the enemy who has learned which image is real - are again confounded.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I agree with this, the blanket over the head is a bad example. Using the tower shield for total cover might be, but I think everyone would consider the normal 10+dex AC to hit the tower shield.

You are missing the point of the blanket analogy. It doesn't have anything to do with cover or concealment. It has to do with changing the property of the illusion. A figment made to look like the caster wearing a blanket, is still all figment. A figment made to look like the casters while blurred, is still all figment.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

So going back to the blanket example (and I'll specifically using concealment in this example)... If the image is blurred, and you attack the image but miss because of the blur (that 's concealment, right?), would it not stand to reason that if the image had a blanket, and you hit the blanket, you would not be able to pop the image, because (like Blur) it has concealment or even total cover? You'd never ever be able to pop the image, because the image is under the blanket. You are hitting the figment of the blanket, not the figment of the image under the blanket.

You could also substitute "box" for blanket if it helps...

 

[Nail]

<Mirror Image> duplicates your equipment, even though it doesn't affect objects, and can cast a shadow, even though it doesn't affect walls.

This is just bizarre.

You've said previously that you don't think figments can cast shadows. (I've got no idea where you get that from, but so be it.) And now you are saying figments do cast shadows. Perhaps you could clarify your position a bit?

 

[Nail]

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.

So:
Mirror Image is able to duplicate the effects of another spell. That's what you are claiming. The text of the Mirror Image spell gives it no such power.

The blur is not on the figment. But the concealment result of the blur is on the figment.

Blur causes the concealment of the figment, but is not affecting the figment? You lost me.

 

[irdeggman]

Does the MI benefit from concealment?

Does it benefit from darkness (as in the shadowy illumination effect that provides concealment)?

Does it benefit from cover?


These are related issues that should provide some consistency in the way the effects of the spel are handled.

 

[Nail]

Does the MI benefit from concealment?

Does it benefit from darkness (as in the shadowy illumination effect that provides concealment)?

Does it benefit from cover?


These are related issues that should provide some consistency in the way the effects of the spel are handled.

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.

For example:
If the caster using a tower shield for cover, do his Mirror Images have cover?

 

[phindar]

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.

Relevant, but its still anybody's guess how the source of the concealment affects the MI. I mean, we are talking about the effect a magical spell has on another magical spell. Its not like we can just go out in the yard and do a couple of test runs.

Saying that something that grants concealment to the caster grants concealment to the images isn't that great a leap for me. I like how that works, so that's the ruling I would go with in game. It doesn't seem to be unbalanced mechanically (which might be a separate discussion). As much as I hate to side with the FAQ, thats where I'm coming down on this one.

 

[irdeggman]

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.

For example:
If the caster using a tower shield for cover, do his Mirror Images have cover?

I don't really think I've missed something here.

If the cover is from a physical protection that does not extend outward so that it could be used by the MI) then the answer would be no - since the MI do not receive any "physical" benefits that the caster would normally have. Now this gets interesting since the gneral consensus (and supported by the FAQ) is to simply rule that the MI takes up the same space as the original for most reasons.

If the MI are behind the same physical cover as is the caster then the answer would be yes.

Concealment is something that is not usually a physical beneift but a benefit against visual accuracy.

I still fall in the line of reasoning that the explanation of how to dispel a MI when you physically hit them is the text expression of how you can overcome an illusion. Same as is true with the Disguise Self spell (as pointed out earlier).

If the attacker doesn't think he hit the MI then he doesn't receive the benefit of hitting it and thus dispeling the illusion.

So if a MI is blurred then the attacker has the same reason to believe he would have hit as if he would the original. It should be noted that the AC for the MI is pretty much the the same as a touch attack and IMO it would have been far simpler to just say a successful touch attack dispels the MI (and fit into all of the other ramifications too).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It should be noted that the AC for the MI is pretty much the the same as a touch attack and IMO it would have been far simpler to just say a successful touch attack dispels the MI (and fit into all of the other ramifications too).

It isn't the same as touch AC really. There is no indication that the figments recieve the benifits or dodge, fighting defensively or full defense, deflection, etc. They have a flat AC, not the casters touch AC.