Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Your take on Mirror Image, 3.0 or 3.5
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jackinthegreen" data-source="post: 6256593" data-attributes="member: 6678119"><p>The catch is you must actually attack one to tell if it's an illusion, which means an attack roll. The rules don't allow you to just slice down the middle of a square and hope to go through all the illusions. I suppose making an AoE attack against the square might work though such as with a War Hulk I think.</p><p></p><p>The miss chance is equal to 1/(N+1) because when there are N illusions and one caster, that's how the probabilities go. If it's 3 illusions and 1 caster then the chance to get the caster is 1/(3+1), or 1/4 since the caster is indeed the proper 1 target of 4 total targets.</p><p></p><p>The catch with the 3E spell is it specifically says "When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image." Based on that and it saying that the images mimic your actions which presumably includes speaking, plus it saying the attacker must choose between the real caster and indistinguishable targets, I'd say that one can't use sight or hearing to tell which one is which, period.</p><p></p><p>Although upon looking at it, it seems like it's trying to set up a quantum superposition or something. What I mean by that is the caster and illusions effectively occupy all the squares simultaneously, and only by interacting with one (attacking it) is one able to reduce that superposition into just one thing being in that square. That idea seems a bit counter to the idea of always knowing which square your character is in (assuming the use of a typical map for 3E) since it sets up a situation where the "observer" can influence the outcome of whether it's an illusion or the caster in the square, which means the caster isn't in control of where he is upon using the spell if it behaves as a quantum superposition.</p><p></p><p>But if it's not a superposition and the caster's location is static and known to at least someone (such as the DM), then that means the rules for rolling whether a target is or isn't an illusion don't work at all if the caster's location is supposed to stay static.</p><p></p><p>I suppose one could do a mix of them where the caster's location is known during his turn, but unknown during another's. That would alleviate the issue of using certain spells which need to have a line of effect from a given square's corner while still having the defense rolls and rules be meaningful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Considering the rules specifically say "These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within <strong>5 feet of at least one other figment or you.</strong>" I'd be inclined to say that it's not possible to send them out unless you're making a line of them. I think you're reading it as they can be in a cluster on their own away from the caster, but in my opinion the more likely reading, given the rest of the spell description, is at least one must always be within 5 feet of the caster, and the rest can chain from there or just clump up. Yes, if they meant it that way then they should have added the words "At least one illusion must always be within 5 feet of you," but that's WOTC's knack for not writing rules good enough to pass a lawyer test. *shrug*</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jackinthegreen, post: 6256593, member: 6678119"] The catch is you must actually attack one to tell if it's an illusion, which means an attack roll. The rules don't allow you to just slice down the middle of a square and hope to go through all the illusions. I suppose making an AoE attack against the square might work though such as with a War Hulk I think. The miss chance is equal to 1/(N+1) because when there are N illusions and one caster, that's how the probabilities go. If it's 3 illusions and 1 caster then the chance to get the caster is 1/(3+1), or 1/4 since the caster is indeed the proper 1 target of 4 total targets. The catch with the 3E spell is it specifically says "When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image." Based on that and it saying that the images mimic your actions which presumably includes speaking, plus it saying the attacker must choose between the real caster and indistinguishable targets, I'd say that one can't use sight or hearing to tell which one is which, period. Although upon looking at it, it seems like it's trying to set up a quantum superposition or something. What I mean by that is the caster and illusions effectively occupy all the squares simultaneously, and only by interacting with one (attacking it) is one able to reduce that superposition into just one thing being in that square. That idea seems a bit counter to the idea of always knowing which square your character is in (assuming the use of a typical map for 3E) since it sets up a situation where the "observer" can influence the outcome of whether it's an illusion or the caster in the square, which means the caster isn't in control of where he is upon using the spell if it behaves as a quantum superposition. But if it's not a superposition and the caster's location is static and known to at least someone (such as the DM), then that means the rules for rolling whether a target is or isn't an illusion don't work at all if the caster's location is supposed to stay static. I suppose one could do a mix of them where the caster's location is known during his turn, but unknown during another's. That would alleviate the issue of using certain spells which need to have a line of effect from a given square's corner while still having the defense rolls and rules be meaningful. Considering the rules specifically say "These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within [B]5 feet of at least one other figment or you.[/B]" I'd be inclined to say that it's not possible to send them out unless you're making a line of them. I think you're reading it as they can be in a cluster on their own away from the caster, but in my opinion the more likely reading, given the rest of the spell description, is at least one must always be within 5 feet of the caster, and the rest can chain from there or just clump up. Yes, if they meant it that way then they should have added the words "At least one illusion must always be within 5 feet of you," but that's WOTC's knack for not writing rules good enough to pass a lawyer test. *shrug* [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Your take on Mirror Image, 3.0 or 3.5
Top