Stacking Blur and Mirror Image

[irdeggman]

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.

They get a base 10 + size modifer + Dex (caster's) - per FAQ they also get visual benefits (e.g., concealment). They do not get armor, shield or natural armor bonuses.

It does not say they get dodge or deflection bonuses - but if it did say it was a touch attack wouldn't that include those (that the caster received) and help to alleviate the issues that have arisen.

 

[Warbringer]

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.

Best interpretation I've read here considered it adopted

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

"think" is irrelevant.

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

If the attacker does hit the MI then he does receive the benefit of hitting it and thus dispelling the illusion.

"think" appears nowhere in the conditions for dispelling a MI figment.

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

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.

So far, so good!

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.

Uhmmm.....are you suggesting the "disbelief" mechanic is at work here? 'Cause it's not.

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.

Ooopps.
I'm sorry, but you've got an error here. The attacker doesn't dismiss an image because he thinks he's hit an image. What the attacker thinks is completely irrelevant. The question is clear: "Has the attacker struck an image?" That's it.

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.

Ah. So you do think the disbelief mechanic is at work. I see. Any chance that showing you the text of the spell would disabuse you of this notion?




[EDIT] ....and you get that this mistake (using the disbelief mechanic for dismissing images) is completely separate from the main thread discussion (does the Blur spell also affect the figments of the Mirror Image spell), right?

 

[irdeggman]

Backing away from opinion (my post that caused a lot of rebuttal) and to actual rules.

I believe that people are assuming that the reason you miss when a target is blurred is because you are hitting the blurred part of the target. They are referring to striking the blured image and that is part of the MI. It appears that is the crux of the issue - whether or not the attack has struck part of the MI.

No where does it state in the rules that you strike the source of concealment. It simply gives a mechanic for addressing the miss chance from concealment. It says for an "otherwise successful attack". You don't get to undo an attack with concealment - either the attack hits or it does not (in all cases).

Blur

The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

A see invisibility spell does not counteract the blur effect, but a true seeing spell does.

Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell’s effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).

Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. If the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance percentile roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.

PHB pg 306

concealment: Something that prevents an attacker from clearly seeing his or her target. Concealment creates a chance that an otherwise successful attack misses (a miss chance).

 

[Nail]

I believe that people are assuming that the reason you miss when a target is blurred is because you are hitting the blurred part of the target. They are referring to striking the blured image and that is part of the MI. It appears that is the crux of the issue - whether or not the attack has struck part of the MI.

No. The crux of the issue is: "Can Blur affect figments?"

The answer is: "No, Blur may only affect creatures."

 

[pawsplay]

No. The crux of the issue is: "Can Blur affect figments?"

The answer is: "No, Blur may only affect creatures."

The complicating question is, "Does a creature affected by blur look blurry?"

Surely it does.

 

[Nail]

Surely it does.

Sure; but we're not talking about the creature. We're talking about figments.

"Does Blur affect figments?" is a much different question than "Can figments look blurry?" One has a game affect, the other does not.

 

[pawsplay]

Sure; but we're not talking about the creature. We're talking about figments.

"Does Blur affect figments?" is a much different question than "Can figments look blurry?" One has a game affect, the other does not.

Show me the stone tablets on which that's written, and I'll agree you have a point and not just an opinion.

 

[Nail]

Show me the stone tablets on which that's written, and I'll agree you have a point and not just an opinion.

Your PH is written on stone tablets?

That must be a killer to carry around. I understand WotC is looking into "portability issues"......