Stacking Blur and Mirror Image

[KarinsDad]

So then a figment (e.g., MI) should be a legitimate target for blur since it provides concealment since you state the remaining information on blur is merely "fluff".

Nope. Blur only provides concealment to the target creature as per the Blur spell. The target rules for Blur are the target rules: Creature.

For Blur to give Mirror Image a miss chance, the Mirror Image spell would have to state that spell effects that are visual apply to the images (e.g. Blur, Displacement, Invisibility, etc.). Without Mirror Image stating that it has that power, it does not. None of those spells target an image. All of those spells target a creature.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see it as fluff. Any more than people seem to think "blur" means there is MORE of the image to hit. Both intepretations come from the same portion of the description.

One interpretation comes from the actual target rules of the Blur spell and has nothing to do with any text inside the spell.

Who does the Blur affect? Creature. Period.

I'll ask it again. If I am under the effect of a Cat’s Grace spell, does the Cat’s Grace spell effect benefit the image or not?

Unlike the Blur effect that you are granting to an image, Mirror Image itself explicitly states that the AC of the image is based on the Dex of the caster. It does not explicitly state that other defensive aspects of the caster are gained.

Mirror Image itself dictates what happens with regards to Cat's Grace by stating how AC is affected by dex. It says nothing about visual effects that you are granting it.

 

[werk]

I actually think you continuing to quote me out of context is a bit rude actually werk.

And it was doubly rude to then go back and edit your answer which I had already quoted and responded to at the time of your edit!

I just post the tastey bits. The parts that either don't make any sense or are completely wrong.

I'm sorry you think that I'm rude. I am allowed to edit my post, I believe, especially if I do it quick enough that the editor timer hasn't started. I wanted to bow out of the argument because you were becoming irrational, but decided to stay in, for your sake.

 

[Mistwell]

One interpretation comes from the actual target rules of the Blur spell and has nothing to do with any text inside the spell.

Who does the Blur affect? Creature. Period.



Unlike the Blur effect that you are granting to an image, Mirror Image itself explicitly states that the AC of the image is based on the Dex of the caster. It does not explicitly state that other defensive aspects of the caster are gained.

Mirror Image itself dictates what happens with regards to Cat's Grace by stating how AC is affected by dex. It says nothing about visual effects that you are granting it.

I cast continual flame on a stick, and hold the stick. I then cast mirror image on myself. Does the image include a stick with the continual flame on it, or not? If it does, then how come that type of spell is not listed in mirror image as being carried over?

Not all spells are specified by the mirror image spell. The general theme of the spell seems to indicate that things that make the PC harder to hit based on concealment or movement carry over to the image. The FAQ agrees with this general theme. I think it is reasonable to intepret the spell that way, and any time the FAQ is supporting an intepretation which I think is one of several reasonable interpretations, I go with the FAQ as a tie breaker.

 

[pawsplay]

Right, but here's your disconnect... The figment appears blurred but it's ALL figment. If you hit a blurred section, it is therefore part of the figment, so it is a successful attack. When a caster is blurred you have real target, the caster, and illusion, the blur effect. you roll a % to see which one you hit, meat or illusion. With MI, all you have is the illusion, it's just the figment as produced by MI.

I'm afraid you are wrong. It's the duplicate that is destroyed when it, not just any portion of the figment. Do you wish to endorse Hyp's "stab the shadow" interpretation?

 

[Piratecat]

I'm sorry you think that I'm rude.

EDIT: Werk, I dropped you an email. Please let me know if you didn't get it.

Folks, please make sure you remain polite even when you don't agree. For instance, post 93 would have been fine without the two "blah blah" sections. Things like that pull down an otherwise fine discussion, and we'd rather avoid that.

 

[irdeggman]

Nope. Blur only provides concealment to the target creature as per the Blur spell. The target rules for Blur are the target rules: Creature.

Why?

The rules state the the spell only affects a target creature but what of the effect of being blurred?

The MI duplicates visual effects to the point of duplicating drinking potions, and replicating damage. So why wouldn't it duplicate the visual effect of being blurred? The spell casued the effect, the effect provides concealment. This fits into the FAQ logic and also the broad logic of concealment (that you had referred to earlier).

 

[KarinsDad]

Why?

The rules state the the spell only affects a target creature but what of the effect of being blurred?

The MI duplicates visual effects to the point of duplicating drinking potions, and replicating damage. So why wouldn't it duplicate the visual effect of being blurred? The spell casued the effect, the effect provides concealment. This fits into the FAQ logic and also the broad logic of concealment (that you had referred to earlier).

The counter position is that Blur is a visual effect.

Anything that can get tha visual effect has a miss chance.

However, there are no "visual effect" text or rules listed anywhere in the game outside of specific spells and items. There is no "Blurred" condition or "Displaced" condition. There is an Invisible condition, but that condition is explicitly discussed by Mirror Image.

Mirror Image also explicitly discusses strictly visual aspects (such as appearing wounded).

So, we have no condition rules on Blur. We have no specific Mirror Image rules on Blur. All we have is that Blur affects a creature and gives it a miss chance. That's the only explicit rule we have. We have explicit Mirror Image rules concerning Invisibility and AC, but not miss chances.

From a strictly RAW interpretation, in order for a spell effect to effect someone or something, it has to call out that it does so. Blur explicitly calls out that it affects a creature and Mirror Image does not explicitly call out that it gives the defensive capabilities of other spells that create visual effects.

So, basically, that's why. We have no such "blurred image" rules that you are supporting. They are brand new and not mentioned anywhere in the game as explicit game mechanics.


Look at it a different way.

I create a Major Image of a Blurred Displaced creature. In addition to having an AC, he has two different miss chances as well. Does this really make sense? Or how about a Major Image of a Blinking Blurred Displaced creature? Or how about a Major Image of a Blinking Blurred Displaced Incorporeal creature? Or how about a Major Image of a Blinking Blurred Displaced Incorporeal Cat's Graced Protected From Good creature? How many other effects can be thrown into the illusion? Why wouldn't every Illusionist make every creature illusion super-protected?

Where does one draw the line? One draws the line at what the targeting rules state because we have no other explicit rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I cast continual flame on a stick, and hold the stick. I then cast mirror image on myself. Does the image include a stick with the continual flame on it, or not?

Interestingly, in the first printing of the 3E PHB, the Figment subschool noted that figments cannot illuminate darkness. Which was a problem, since spells like Continual Flame and Dancing Lights were figments.

So in the second printing, they changed those spells to Evocation [Light]. ... and also removed the line that says figments cannot illuminate darkness!

Before this change, a spell like Faerie Fire could be useful for determining which was the real caster. You'd cast Faerie Fire, the real caster would be limned in green flames that cast light as a candle, and the duplicates would visually mimic the effect, becoming limned in green flames that could not illuminate darkness. If the fight was taking place under poor lighting conditions, you could then attack the one that was glowing, and ignore the ones with the flames that cast no light.

But with the removal of that line, the trick ceased to work - there is no longer a prohibition on figments illuminating darkness.

Do you wish to endorse Hyp's "stab the shadow" interpretation?

Note that Hyp's "stab the shadow" interpretation says that stabbing a shadow will only dispel a figment if that shadow is illusory.

As far as I'm concerned, it isn't; the illusion of a person casts a real shadow because it is opaque to whatever light sources are present. But if, for some reason, the DM ruled that the shadow is magically created by the Mirror Image spell as part of the dupication process, then successfully attacking that shadow is successfully attacking a figment, and that figment is dispelled.

Regardless, the AC of the figment (whether you're attacking his head, his blanket, his cotton candy, or his magically-created shadow) is 10 + Dex mod + size mod. It's no easier to attack his shadow than to attack his head.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I cast continual flame on a stick, and hold the stick. I then cast mirror image on myself. Does the image include a stick with the continual flame on it, or not? If it does, then how come that type of spell is not listed in mirror image as being carried over?

It does, but if one uses the "all images in the same square" interpretation, it does not really matter. The radius of the light does not change.

I consider lighting conditions to be an effect that a figment can reproduce. For all intents and purposes, a figment is light (and/or sound).

I do not consider blurring conditions (which do not exist in the game as such) an effect that a figment can reproduce.

Not all spells are specified by the mirror image spell. The general theme of the spell seems to indicate that things that make the PC harder to hit based on concealment or movement carry over to the image. The FAQ agrees with this general theme. I think it is reasonable to intepret the spell that way, and any time the FAQ is supporting an intepretation which I think is one of several reasonable interpretations, I go with the FAQ as a tie breaker.

It would not be unreasonable if Mirror Image stated that it did this. It is unreasonable as an interpretation (IMO) since Mirror Image does not state that it has this level of power (and Mirror Image is already a powerful 2nd level defensive spell). Balance-wise, this is a pretty high jump in power. For example, adding Displacement to Mirror Image is huge with your interpretation. With my interpretation, the caster gets two protections, but his images do not.

I do not go with FAQ bacause it is FAQ. I go with FAQ when FAQ agrees with the general rules or when FAQ clarifies a rule that is vague. This rule is not really vague. I disagree with FAQ when it pulls a brand new rule out of thin air, regardless of how reasonable that rule may be. YMMOV.