Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
hong said:
An invisible mirror image is an illusion.
Two of them, even.
-Hyp.
Who plays Invis-Mirror Image this way?
- Thread starter Markn
- Start date
An invisible mirror image is an illusion.
Two of them, even.
-Hyp.
Since the spell says the images mimic casting spells etc - I guess it could go either way.
But the truth is it doesn't matter in the slightest - casting invisibility moots the mirror image either way.
Interpretation 1: Images and caster both turn invisible
- Mirror image means nothing unless they can see the images so either the mirror image or the invisibility is useless - either way waste of a 2nd level spell.
Interpretation 2: Images are visible caster isn't
- This is even worse because all the images do is let everyone know where the caster is.
If the attacker couldn't see the mage they at least know where to hit (in other words better to not have the mirror image up).
If the attacker can see the mage (see invis. etc.) then the mirror image is worthless because the mage is the only invisible one. Again waste of a 2nd level spell.
Really, no matter how you look at it mirror image and invisibility don't mix.
But the truth is it doesn't matter in the slightest - casting invisibility moots the mirror image either way.
Interpretation 1: Images and caster both turn invisible
- Mirror image means nothing unless they can see the images so either the mirror image or the invisibility is useless - either way waste of a 2nd level spell.
Interpretation 2: Images are visible caster isn't
- This is even worse because all the images do is let everyone know where the caster is.
If the attacker couldn't see the mage they at least know where to hit (in other words better to not have the mirror image up).
If the attacker can see the mage (see invis. etc.) then the mirror image is worthless because the mage is the only invisible one. Again waste of a 2nd level spell.
Really, no matter how you look at it mirror image and invisibility don't mix.
Last edited:
Although I agree with the images being invisible for Invisibility (Mirror Image has specific text on it), I do not agree with it for Blur or Displacement.
The images are Blurred (i.e. look like the caster), but that blurring does nothing. It is the overall illusion of the Blur spell that gives a caster a miss chance, not just how light comes off his body.
The Displacement does nothing to the images because it changes the origin point of light for the caster, not for his images.
Both of these spells are target creature, not target creature plus his images. Nor does Mirror Image state that it gives this benefit to other illusion spells (with the exception of invisibility).
The real question is: If someone has his eyes shut, can he hit a visible image? If so, can he also do with his eyes open if the caster and the images are invisible?
The images are Blurred (i.e. look like the caster), but that blurring does nothing. It is the overall illusion of the Blur spell that gives a caster a miss chance, not just how light comes off his body.
The Displacement does nothing to the images because it changes the origin point of light for the caster, not for his images.
Both of these spells are target creature, not target creature plus his images. Nor does Mirror Image state that it gives this benefit to other illusion spells (with the exception of invisibility).
The real question is: If someone has his eyes shut, can he hit a visible image? If so, can he also do with his eyes open if the caster and the images are invisible?
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
KarinsDad said:
For what it's worth, the FAQ (that's the FAQ that says you can Cleave figments and that you should consider them to all be in the caster's square for convenience, but anyway) says the following:
If the user has concealment from her surroundings, the
images have the same concealment. The images also look just
like the caster, and they share purely visual effects such as the
blur or displacement spell. If the mirror image user is also
using either of these effects, an attack aimed at an image has
the same miss chance an attack aimed at the caster has.
I'd say no - while his eyes are shut, the spell has no effect.
-Hyp.
TheGogmagog
First Post
If you cast mirror image, then invisibility: can you pinpoint the caster's location with a listen check?
With mirror image: can you pinpoint the caster with a listen check while your eyes are closed?
I'm betting both are no because of the peculiar note that the spell explicitly has no effect combined with the oft-overlooked effect of the spell that you can't be pinpointed with listen checks.
With mirror image: can you pinpoint the caster with a listen check while your eyes are closed?
I'm betting both are no because of the peculiar note that the spell explicitly has no effect combined with the oft-overlooked effect of the spell that you can't be pinpointed with listen checks.
So if the caster has more than 1 image it's better to shut my eyes an attack (50% miss chance) than to attack with my eyes open (>66% miss chance since i can hit an image)??
Unless I have multiple attacks... Weird effect...
I've always ruled that the images counted as "different" creatures, you just don't know which is real until you hit it and it screams or disappears.
Of course, if the caster becomes invisible the images do as well.
Unless I have multiple attacks... Weird effect...
I've always ruled that the images counted as "different" creatures, you just don't know which is real until you hit it and it screams or disappears.
Of course, if the caster becomes invisible the images do as well.
darthkilmor
First Post
Matafuego said:
Of course the 50% miss chance is assuming you're attacking the square the caster is in, and not one of the many that his illusion is in but he is not. (assuming you dont shove them all in the same square, which is more FAQ crap imho.)
Anyway, so here's another what-if:
Caster casts mirror image. Caster casts invisibilty. Caster attacks someone and ends invisibity. Is mirror image still in effect?
What happens if you're invisible and an enemy has See invisiblity, Is mirror image still in effect for that enemy?
What if you're invisible and someone casts glitterdust, but area of effect only covers where your illusion-selfs are?
One more stupid question, can a Mirror Image provide a flanking bonus ?
darthkilmor said:
Yes. It has a duration, it just had no effect and showed "nothing" when the caster was invisible.
darthkilmor said:
No. The Mirror Image spell states that it has no effect. It is not invisible images, it is non-existent images until the caster reappears.
darthkilmor said:
It does nothing. The images are not invisible, they effectively are non-existent (until the caster reappears).
darthkilmor said:
No. Images are not creatures and cannot threaten or flank.
darthkilmor said:
Why wouldn't it be? The images copy the current appearance of the caster.
Yes. [edit] - Actually, I can see a case for them not being visible in this instance. The images are copying the current appearance of the caster, which is currently "no appearance". They do not copy the actual spells on the caster, so the illusionary images are not invisible, they just don't display until the caster himself re-appears.
They aren't actually there, so they are unaffacted. They only change appearance if the caster himself does.
I personally would say no. The images cannot attack and do not threaten an area. This doesn't really come up in my games, as everyone in my area plays that the images stay in the square of the caster, so it's just a question of whether or not the caster threatens.
Last edited:
