Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GaimMastr" data-source="post: 6256745" data-attributes="member: 78167">NIce...It's relieving to know that there are so many different views on this. It doesn't, however, surprise me that some of you didn't even think to RAW.While I dislike the simplified versions of the spell, I appreciate the input.In my games I have multiple version available as I have players who believe that the spell should function in different ways and we agreed on having multiple versions. I have ruled that there are 2 versions of the spell. The one that functions like the PF version is Lv 2 and the version where the images spread out is lv 3.If a fighter say for example is fighting a caster of MI. In order for the caster to even know what happened what the spell was cast would require knowledge of spellcraft. The spell description is designed to purposefully suspend belief of the true caster in the person attempting to attack. The method I use to determine that the caster was hit, for the simpleton version of the spell, is If there are 3 images and a caster I roll a d4; The number I roll is the caster and the player then rolls a d4, if the numbers match the caster was struck. In the advanced version where you can place the images withinn 5 feet of the caster or another image the attacker is forced to pick a random one within range using the same dice method. This does mean that some of them may even be out of the immediate threat range of the attacker, unless they were to move. This could potentially provoke AoO's from the caster OR even a figment which can give away the ruse of that particular figment as the attack would be insubstantial.I find the description of the RAW on the spell very cut-and-dry personally so this helps with me being able to adjudicate on the fly like this.And now to formulate my next inquiry for posthumous postulation. ...Look for it...</blockquote>

Verification