# Stacking Blur and Mirror Image



## Koewn (May 3, 2007)

Seems a newbie question, but here we go:

If Blur and Mirror Image stack, then how?

Is each Mirror Image Blurred; giving it a 20% miss chance?

Does each Mirror Image merely *look* Blurred (because the target of the spell is) and the 20% miss chance only come into play when the atual target is hit rather than an image?

Or does this not work at all?

Thanks!

Koewn


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 3, 2007)

My call : Images "disappear when struck." The Blur visual effect is part of the overall image, and striking it counts as striking the image. Since there is no "real" thing in there (the blur part of the image is no less an illusion than the rest of it) it gives no protection against the image being struck.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 3, 2007)

WotC in the FAQ decided that the blur effect does stack.

But rules-wise, it would not be allowed since Blur is Target creature, not Target creature plus images.

Also, it does not make logical sense either (as KB pointed out).

If you have a mirror image distorted as per blur, if you hit the blurred portion of it, you are still hitting the mirror image. With normal Blur, if you hit into the illusion portion, you are missing the target. But the entire illusion portion of a Blurred Mirror Image is created by the Mirror Image spell itself emulating the visual aspect of the caster.


----------



## blargney the second (May 3, 2007)

Ooo, I like Kahuna Burger's interpretation.


----------



## Koewn (May 3, 2007)

OK, good, so it's the "Mirror Images *look* Blurred, but aren't technically" second choice in my first post.

That's what I figured; I just hadn't made the connection in Rules-Speak yet. 

Next adventure is nothing but hard-hitting giants. Been running a series agaist an alienist cult of all spellcasters and all spell-keeping-track-of has fried my brain. Blarg.


----------



## phindar (May 3, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The Blur visual effect is part of the overall image



But if _Blur_ is a visual effect, and MI parrots how the character looks, why wouldn't it function essentially the same?

I get where you are coming from KB (and KD), but I don't mind letting spells like _Blur_ and _Displacement_ affect images.  I don't think its unbalancing, and its one way to keep the images from being auto-blips.


----------



## Caliban (May 3, 2007)

I agree with Kahuna Burger.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 3, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> But if _Blur_ is a visual effect, and MI parrots how the character looks, why wouldn't it function essentially the same?




If the Wizard is 12 feet tall due to Enlarge Person, his images will also be 12 feet tall.

If the Wizard is purple, his images will also be purple.

The visual aspect of the Wizard will be duplicated by Mirror Image.

In order to do that, the Mirror Image itself will have to shrink or grow or blur or change color or whatever.

The reason one misses with Blur is because one hits the illusion instead of the caster. In the case of Mirror Image, one hits the Blurred Mirror Image, but it is still the image. The image is what changes in order to look Blurred.

But, the image is not protected by a Blur spell. The caster is.

If one could cast Blur on an image, then there would be a second illusion and one could hit either the Blur illusion or the Mirror Image illusion. However, each Mirror Image image is a single illusion emulating a Blurred caster, not multiple castings of Blur, one for the caster and each of his images.

For the Blurred Mirror Imaged caster, if you hit his Blur, you miss.

For the images, if you hit their "Blur", you hit them.



			
				phindar said:
			
		

> I get where you are coming from KB (and KD), but I don't mind letting spells like _Blur_ and _Displacement_ affect images.  I don't think its unbalancing, and its one way to keep the images from being auto-blips.




Images should be near auto-blips. It is the most powerful low level defensive spell in the game and there should be ways to overcome it.


----------



## phindar (May 3, 2007)

It is a pretty cool low level defensive spell, but to get the effect of the _Blurred_ or _Displaced_ images, you're having to put another 2nd or 3rd level spell on top of it, so its not without cost.

As I say, I get where you're coming from, I just think you're being unnecessarily limiting in your interpretation.  I like it when spells combine in interesting ways.  

On the balance side of things, if a caster puts up a _Mirror Image_ and a _Blur_, that's two 2nd level spell slots and on average it'll save one Image from getting blipped.  As opposed to casting _Mirror Image_ and when the Images get blipped, casting _Mirror Image_ again.  (Displacement is a better deal, but then its a higher level slot.)  

But there comes a point when discussing the way magical effects work-- and the way magical effects affect other magical effects-- where you just have to pick what you like and go with it.


----------



## frankthedm (May 3, 2007)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I agree with Kahuna Burger.



I too side with the Big Kahuna.


----------



## Nail (May 3, 2007)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I agree with Kahuna Burger.



Me too.



Besides, Mirror Image is good enough already.  It hardly needs Yet Another Ability thrown in there.

Example:  If you have Mirror Image up, and then cast Project Image, does your projected image have mirror images?  If you then cast Blur, would your projected image have blurred mirror images?  blurred images?    

Etc.

An illusion of an illusion does not gain the powers of the illusion it's mimicing.


----------



## lukelightning (May 3, 2007)

What if the images are in darkness...wouldn't they get concealment?


----------



## Mistwell (May 3, 2007)

I'd probably go with the FAQ answer.


----------



## Caliban (May 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I'd probably go with the FAQ answer.




What's the FAQ answer?


----------



## lukelightning (May 3, 2007)

Caliban said:
			
		

> What's the FAQ answer?




I believe it says that they do stack...something about the images sharing your visual protections.  But then again, the FAQ also thinks that the images share your space (which is actually how most people I've seen play it).


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2007)

Mirror image duplicates the appearance of the caster. If the blur were not working on them, they would not appear to mimic the caster and hence would not fulfill the description of mirror image. The "blur" of the images is not an illusion; rather, the illusions have the appearance of being blurred. Mirror images are figments, and hence, merely moving through space affected by them does not destroy them becaues it does not harm the figment of the caster. This is just as the case where a mirror image fires an arrow; if the arrow strikes an object, the archer does not vanish.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 3, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Mirror images are figments, and hence, merely moving through space affected by them does not destroy them becaues it does not harm the figment of the caster.




But the figment that visually represents the caster takes up more volume than the caster does physically, and all that's required to pop a MI figment is to successfully attack it.

If I swing at the caster, I need to beat his plate armor to actually hurt him.  But for a figment, the plate armor is not protection; it's a part of its 'substance', and a successful attack on the armor is the same as a successful attack on its face.  It gets no armor bonus, because striking the armor _is_ striking the figment.

If the MI figment becomes blurry because it is visually representing the appearance of the blurred caster, then those blurred outlines are a part of the figment, just as the armor is a part of the figment, and a successful attack against the blurred outlines will pop the figment.

If, on the other hand, one uses the FAQ ruling, then the figment effectively becomes a secondary target of the Blur spell.  The figment still looks like the unblurred caster, but its location is obscured by the magic of the Blur spell.  Thus, striking the blurred outlines is not a successful attack, because the outlines are not a part of the MI figment.

However, I see no support for the FAQ answer in either spell.  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.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 3, 2007)

Another analogy, if you will...

If the caster put a blanket over his body, the images would appear to have a blanket covering them as well.  If you attacked the "blanketted" images, would they not pop?  Or would you argue, you are striking the image of the blanket, not the image under the blanket (as if there were such a thing)?


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If the MI figment becomes blurry because it is visually representing the appearance of the blurred caster, then those blurred outlines are a part of the figment, just as the armor is a part of the figment, and a successful attack against the blurred outlines will pop the figment.




Oh? Mirror image doesn't actually say that a successful attack to some part of the illusion destroys it, only an attack to the duplicate.

Can you stab a mirror image in its shadow and destroy it?


----------



## phindar (May 3, 2007)

Wouldn't blurry images be easier to hit by that rationale, because on the caster some of its real and some of its blur, if you hit the blur you miss.  On the images, if the whole image is the blur, and hitting any part of it would cause it to blip out of existence.  (A 20% Hit Chance perhaps, so that even if you miss, there is a 20% chance you actually hit?)

Granted, a line in the MI spell description would go a long way towards clearing up any confusion, but absent clarification we've got to come to our own conclusions.  I can buy _Blur_ or _Displacement_ affecting _Mirror Image_.  Of the various leaps of faith that D&D magic system-- and rules in general-- require of me, this one is pretty far down on the list.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 4, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Oh? Mirror image doesn't actually say that a successful attack to some part of the illusion destroys it, only an attack to the duplicate.




"The figments stay near you and disappear when struck."

"Any successful attack against an image destroys it."



> Can you stab a mirror image in its shadow and destroy it?




Is the shadow part of the illusion, or is the shadow created naturally because the illusion is opaque?

If the shadow is part of the illusion, I'd say yes - and you'd require an attack roll against AC 10 + size + Dex to do it.

-Hyp.


----------



## irdeggman (May 4, 2007)

From the FAQ


> *The mirror image spell description says the images have an Armor Class of 10 + size modifier + Dexterity modifier. Can you improve this with spells the spellcaster casts on herself, such as shield or mage armor? If so, why doesn’t the spell description say the images have the caster’s Armor Class? What happens if the caster has cover from her surroundings? Will cover improve the images’ ACs? What about concealment? Will fog or foliage produce a miss chance for a foe that aims an attack at an image? What about magical concealment, such as a blur or displacement spell?*
> 
> The images from a mirror image spell don’t use the caster’s Armor Class. Use the formula in the spell description to calculate each image’s Armor Class (10 + caster’s size modifier + caster’s Dexterity modifier). Use the caster’s current Dexterity modifier for each image’s Armor Class, no matter how the caster happened to get that modifier. Any Armor Class improvements the caster might have from equipment she carries or wears, or from magic operating on her person, don’t apply to the images. For example, a Medium user with a Dexterity score of 16, a shield spell, and a suit of +2 leather armor has an Armor Class of 21 (10 +4 shield, +4 armor, and +3 Dexterity), but her images have an Armor Class of 13 (10 +3 Dexterity).
> 
> ...





From the SRD



> Mirror Image
> Illusion (Figment)
> Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
> Components: V, S
> ...





I don't see anything wrong with the FAQ answer since you have to successfully hit the MI to make it disappear - not merely attack it. That is why they list an AC for the MI in the first place.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 4, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> I don't see anything wrong with the FAQ answer since you have to successfully hit the MI to make it disappear - not merely attack it. That is why they list an AC for the MI in the first place.




But the thing is that with a Blurred creature, within the visual phenomenon you observe, there are Creature and Non-Creature elements.  If you swing at the visual phenomenon, you might successfully hit it... but only strike Non-Creature elements, and miss the Creature entirely.

But with a figment of a Blurred creature, the visual phenomenon includes no Non-Figment elements.  The Blur effect is not a separate illusion; rather, it is the figment mimicking [a creature affected by a separate illusion].  If you successfully strike any part of that visual phenomenon, it is guaranteed to be Figment, not Non-Figment, because it's _all_ Figment.

Unless you apply the FAQ answer, which implies that the figment looks like the non-Blurred caster, and then both figment and caster benefit from the separate illusion of the Blur spell.  Which neither the Mirror Image text nor the Blur text in the PHB supports.

It goes back to Riga Mortus's blanket.  We have a [creature] who is wearing a [blanket].  The Mirror Image does not produce a figment of a [creature] wearing a figment of a [blanket]; it produces a figment of a [creature wearing a blanket], and a successful attack against the figment - in its creature or its blanket elements - will cause the [creature wearing a blanket] image to disappear.

We have a [creature] who is surrounded by a [Blur].  The Mirror Image does not produce a figment of a [creature] surrounded by a figment of a [Blur]; it produces a figment of a [creature surrounded by a Blur], and a successful attack against the figment - in its creature or its Blur elements - will cause the [creature surrounded by a Blur] image to disappear.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Hyp, your analysis, while reasonable, once again sounds like you are way overthinking it.


----------



## wildstarsreach (May 4, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> WotC in the FAQ decided that the blur effect does stack.
> 
> But rules-wise, it would not be allowed since Blur is Target creature, not Target creature plus images.
> 
> ...




Here's the problem with this position, it is an argument that the blurred character is different from the images.  Either they get the benefit or they don't and the character can be attacked directly.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 4, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with this position, it is an argument that the blurred character is different from the images.  Either they get the benefit or they don't and the character can be attacked directly.




How do you feel about the blanket?

If the character puts a blanket on his head, does it distinguish him from the figments, or do they appear to have blankets on their heads too?

If they all have blankets, will successfully attacking an illusory blanket dispel the figment?

-Hyp.


----------



## phindar (May 4, 2007)

I'm not sure I buy the blanket argument for a variety of reasons.  (The first of which is I'm not convinced putting a blanket over your head would give you concealment.  Also, its a non-magical effect, which is less useful comparing it to magical effects.  And I'm not sure the best way to figure out a rule is by applying it in a totally artificial scenario that is itself outside the RAW; but I'll accept in the spirit of the hypothetical that a character might end up in battle with a blanket over its head and _Mirror Image_ up.)

If the images benefit from environmental concealment (like fog, poor lighting and so on, but not darkness which would invalidate the images altogether, except against darkvision... you see where I'm going with this...) then I can buy them benefiting from spells that grant purely visual effects.  That's not a huge leap for me.  I prefer that interpretation because I like the idea of spells combining in interesting ways, and if casters want to sink a bunch of spells into primarily defensive abilities, I'm all for that.  (And from a game balance perspective, there are ways around MI and there are ways around concealment, so its not a huge deal.)


----------



## irdeggman (May 4, 2007)

Well blur provides "concealment" and the MI benefits from all concealment that the subject has in the first place.

Does the MI benefit from being in darkness?

If so then the logic does apply here also, at least IMO.

I believe that the reason the MI disappears when hit is because the observer is faced with "proof" that the illusion isn't real by actually hitting it. So if the observer hasn't hit it (that miss chance thing) then he has no proof.  Now the text doesn't specifically state this but you can arrive at that conclusion by putting things together.



> Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief ): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
> 
> A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
> 
> A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss.* A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.* If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 4, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I buy the blanket argument for a variety of reasons.  (The first of which is I'm not convinced putting a blanket over your head would give you concealment.  Also, its a non-magical effect, which is less useful comparing it to magical effects.




I'm not talking about the blanket providing concealment.

I'm talking about attacking the blanket.  Call it a Sunder a Worn Item attempt, if you like.

If you successfully hit the real blanket, it doesn't affect the creature.

If you successfully hit an illusory blanket, isn't what you successfully hit part of the figment created by the Mirror Image spell?  By successfully hitting the figment, didn't you destroy the figment?

Even though what you hit isn't part of the creature (in the real version), it's part of the effect of the Mirror Image spell.

The blurry outline isn't part of the creature (in the real version), so striking the blurry outline doesn't hurt the creature.  But the duplicate of the blurry outline _is_ part of the figment created by Mirror Image.  The MI doesn't just duplicate the biological bits; it represents what an observer sees when looking at the creature, so that includes clothes, armor, weapons, blankets, and blurry outlines.  All of those things are part of the figment, so successfully striking any of them is successfully striking the figment.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 4, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Now the text doesn't specifically state this but you can arrive at that conclusion by putting things together.




Mirror Image doesn't allow a saving throw in the first place...?

-Hyp.


----------



## irdeggman (May 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Mirror Image doesn't allow a saving throw in the first place...?
> 
> -Hyp.




Actually there is no entry at all for MI.

I would personally use the will (disbelief when interacting - see text) type of entry, but there is no entry.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 4, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Actually there is no entry at all for MI.




Because it's a Personal spell.  They never have Saving Throw entries.

Some illusions can be disbelieved; others - like Invisibility, Silence, and Mirror Image - can't.

-Hyp.


----------



## TheGogmagog (May 4, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> And I'm not sure the best way to figure out a rule is by applying it in a totally artificial scenario that is itself outside the RAW;



I agree with this, the blanket over the head is a bad example.  Using the tower shield for total cover might be, but I think everyone would consider the normal 10+dex AC to hit the tower shield.

I also agree with the FAQ, however as someone pointed out the difference between one 2nd level spell and two level spells that are allowed to 'stack' is one image.  It's not worth fighting over, no matter what the opinions of the DM vs Player are.

I'm a bit suprised of the number of people who support the idea of no miss chance for images school of thought.  I'll certainly give it more consideration in the future.


----------



## irdeggman (May 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because it's a Personal spell.  They never have Saving Throw entries.
> 
> Some illusions can be disbelieved; others - like Invisibility, Silence, and Mirror Image - can't.
> 
> -Hyp.





And yet blur does have a saving throw.



> Blur
> Illusion (Glamer)
> Level: Brd 2,Sor/Wiz 2
> Components: V
> ...


----------



## irdeggman (May 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because it's a Personal spell.  They never have Saving Throw entries.
> 
> Some illusions can be disbelieved; others - like Invisibility, Silence, and Mirror Image - can't.
> 
> -Hyp.





Disguise Self has no entry for saving throw eithe - but the text talks about one when interacting with it.

I see this as real similar to the MI text, which is consistent with the "overview" way of how Illusion spells are interacted with (and their saving throws).


----------



## phindar (May 4, 2007)

Blur's Save is because you can put it on someone else, who might resist.  Cure spells are the same way (I say, realizing I'm going to have to look that up).  Yeah, the SRD agrees with me.  I mean, it doesn't say, _"phindar, you're a genius!"_ but I think the intent is there.  Mirror Image omits that because the game designers didn't forsee an eventuality in which a player would cast a spell on himself and resist it, which I think is probably a glaring oversight on the part of the developers.  If I have learned anything as a GM, its that players will do _anything_.


----------



## werk (May 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How do you feel about the blanket?
> 
> If the character puts a blanket on his head, does it distinguish him from the figments, or do they appear to have blankets on their heads too?
> 
> ...




I think this is brilliant.

It completely supports my interpretation in such a beautifully simple way.  Yes, the visual created by the spell is replicated to the images, but the spell effect is not...for that reason.

Put another star on your monitor.   star


----------



## pawsplay (May 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "The figments stay near you and disappear when struck."
> 
> "Any successful attack against an image destroys it."
> 
> ...




That's interesting, because figments are unreal and hence the illusion cannot be opaque. Can you also target the empty space between the image and the shadow?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 4, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> I believe that the reason the MI disappears when hit is because the observer is faced with "proof" that the illusion isn't real by actually hitting it. So if the observer hasn't hit it (that miss chance thing) then he has no proof.  Now the text doesn't specifically state this but you can arrive at that conclusion by putting things together.



I think this adds a aspect to the spell which is not in the rules and could lead to problems...

If it was "you know you hit it but went though" as the reason the images disapear, Blur would make the images unable to be dispelled. You would hit a blurred target, but see your weapon not have any effect. There is nothing unbelievable about that, so the figment stays around. Forever, because that veiwer perception has nothing to do with whether you made your miss chance or not. 

It also implies a "shared save" of all people fighting the caster, which is not the case of any illusion spells with a will (disbelief) save. (you can walk back and forth through a illusionary wall in front of the -1 will save meatshield and if he doesn't make his save on his own he'll be like "when did you learn to walk through walls?"   ) By the spell, the effect is a purely physical one - If I summon a Spiritual weapon, set it attacking the mirror imaged caster and then turn my attention to healing my allies, the image the SW hits is "popped" without any need for someone to be observing the outcome. 

I don't have a big investment in the issue one way or the other. My veiw is that the spell sets an AC for the images, and failing changes in the wording of the spell to allow sharing defensive spells or manuvers (as opposed to errata by FAQ) hitting that AC pops the images.  Obviously other DMs are free to rule differently, but I would expect a caster who knew both spells to know how they did or didn't interact.


----------



## Nail (May 4, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's interesting, because figments are unreal and hence the illusion cannot be opaque.



What?!

Illusions can't be opaque?  What  ever gave you that idea?


----------



## pawsplay (May 4, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> What?!
> 
> Illusions can't be opaque?  What  ever gave you that idea?




It's a figment. Figments aren't real. Therefore, it can't cast a real shadow.


----------



## Nail (May 4, 2007)

Huh?

So wait.....you are saying that light passes right through a figment?  Then why can't you see through a figment?


----------



## werk (May 4, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's interesting, because figments are unreal and hence the illusion cannot be opaque. Can you also target the empty space between the image and the shadow?






			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Huh?




^^

If Chewbacca lived on Endor then my client is not guilty!


----------



## pawsplay (May 4, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> So wait.....you are saying that light passes right through a figment?  Then why can't you see through a figment?




Because of its illusory qualities.


----------



## moritheil (May 4, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> So wait.....you are saying that light passes right through a figment?  Then why can't you see through a figment?




Now _I'm_ confused.  Are you asking "why _can_ you see a figment?"


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 4, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> ^^
> 
> If Chewbacca lived on Endor then my client is not guilty!



 This thread has indeed gotten surreal.


----------



## moritheil (May 4, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> This thread has indeed gotten surreal.




It's only a matter of time before people start posting about "cowbell!"


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 4, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> It's only a matter of time before people start posting about "cowbell!"



I'm gonna go against convention wisdom and say that the thread *doesn't* need any more cowbell.


----------



## ehren37 (May 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> However, I see no support for the FAQ answer in either spell.  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.




However, Blur is not a physical effect. Its a visual one. The visual effect IS the effect. So if the image copies it, its blurred (and has concealment). The argument against seems along the lines that if someone uses a disguise self spell and casts mirror image, that the MI's would still look the same but not be convincing. 

It seems clear they should stack.


----------



## SlagMortar (May 4, 2007)

Actually, disguise self is a good example.  Suppose the Shorty the Wizard casts mirror image and then disguise self to appear 1' taller and then stands perfectly still.  The images all grow 1' taller.  Harold the Headsman walks up with his axe and swings at one of the mirror images, striking a horizontal blow at eye level - the part of Shorty that is actually just part of the disguise self illusion.  Is the image destroyed?

Yes.  The mirror image is a figment that is 1' taller than Shorty.  Even though Harold's attack would not have struck Shorty if Harold had attacked the real Shorty, it did strike the part of the image.

Now, Shorty gets worried so he casts Blur and takes off running.  Shorty and his images are now blurry, and also 1' taller than normal.  Harold runs after him and attacks one of the images.  He rolls a 15 on his 20% miss chance, which means he struck the blurry outline of one of the images.  If his attack had been directed against Shorty, it would have missed because it hit the blurry outline instead.  However, the blurry outline of the image is still part of the image, just as the extra 1' in height is part of the image.  The image is destroyed.


----------



## Nail (May 4, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Now _I'm_ confused.  Are you asking "why _can_ you see a figment?"



Pawsplay is claiming that illusions can't cast shadows.  This baffles me completely; where does it say that in the rules text?

Does no one else see major problems with pawsplay's statement?


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

I see this as yet another case where, if there are two possible reasonable interpretations of the rules, then you go with the FAQ interpretation because that's the one that WOTC put their official seal of approval on.  Only if the FAQ intepretation cannot be right because it is not one of the reasonable choices for how to interpret the rules should the FAQ answer be discarded.  

But that is not the case with this example.  An illusion might gain the benefit of concealment from being blurry, and it might be that the blurry part is also part of the illusion and therefore it should gain no benefit.  Both positions are reasonable, and both can make sense depending on which analogy you depend on, which reasoning, etc..  So given there are two reasonable intepretations, and the FAQ chooses one of those, I am going with the FAQ one.

And I really think that is one of the greatest strengths of playing in a game that regularly offers an official FAQ opinion on rules issues.  It breaks ties that are created when two reasonable rules intepretations are possible.


----------



## Nail (May 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> And I really think that is one of the greatest strengths of playing in a game that regularly offers an official FAQ opinion on rules issues.  It breaks ties that are created when two reasonable rules intepretations are possible.



Surely it's okay, though, to look at the core rules, figure out what they say (Blur can't target figments),  and go with that...right?


----------



## PaulKemp (May 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But the thing is that with a Blurred creature, within the visual phenomenon you observe, there are Creature and Non-Creature elements.  If you swing at the visual phenomenon, you might successfully hit it... but only strike Non-Creature elements, and miss the Creature entirely.
> 
> But with a figment of a Blurred creature, the visual phenomenon includes no Non-Figment elements.  The Blur effect is not a separate illusion; rather, it is the figment mimicking [a creature affected by a separate illusion].  If you successfully strike any part of that visual phenomenon, it is guaranteed to be Figment, not Non-Figment, because it's _all_ Figment.




This has always been my interpretation as well (and I apply the same to displacement, though I think the argument is weaker there).   The only counterargument I've read that I found mildly persuasive in the other direction is one based on the spell description of blur:

"The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering"

If you're willing to think of a "shifting and wavering outline" as occupying point A for a moment, then shifting back to point B, the shooting back out to point C, and so forth, you could reasonably conclude that the miss chance represents not hitting a blurred portion of the image's outline (because if it did, per Hyp's analysis above, it should disappear) but instead as hitting empty space, as the image shifts/wavers away from the blow at the last moment.

Notwithstanding all that, I still run it as non-stacking.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 4, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Surely it's okay, though, to look at the core rules, figure out what they say (Blur can't target figments),  and go with that...right?



Especially if one does not take the FAQ seriously as a rules source for their group.


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Surely it's okay, though, to look at the core rules, figure out what they say (Blur can't target figments),  and go with that...right?




It's not targeting a figment.  A figment is replicating the image of a blurry person (who was the legal target of the blur spell) that is jumping around and flickering at the edges, making the person difficult to hit and hence the replicated image of that person difficult to hit.

Yes, you can discard the FAQ.  Nobody is saying you can't.  I am just saying that, for those looking to use the official rules as written, and who take the "official" tag on the FAQ to mean just that, the FAQ can be helpful in this sort of situation.


----------



## Nail (May 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's not targeting a figment.



Are you sure? Is the spell _Blur_ in effect on a _Mirror Image_ figment?

If your answer is "yes", then the spell has most definately targeted a figment.  And....Blur can only target creatures.  It can't target figments.

If your answer is "no", then we get the same result: no _Blur_ on the figments. 



Let's try something else:
    Suppose there is a rat in your pocket.  You cast _Blur_ on yourself.  Is the rat _Blurred_?

    But suppose the rat is your familiar, and you are a high level wizard.  Is the rat _Blurred_?

    Now answer this: What special power allows the rat to be _Blurred_?  Does a _Mirror Image_ figment have that power?


----------



## pawsplay (May 4, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Are you sure? Is the spell _Blur_ in effect on a _Mirror Image_ figment?
> 
> If your answer is "yes", then the spell has most definately targeted a figment.  And....Blur can only target creatures.  It can't target figments.
> 
> ...




There is a flaw in your analogy. Mirror targets you, but creates duplicates of your image. Thus, it duplicates your equipment, even though it doesn't affect objects, and can cast a shadow, even though it doesn't affect walls. It is true a figment is unreal, not quasireal, but it occupies a particular area in space, and if you are blurry, it is just as blurry. 

My rationale is that even if the blurry parts of it do not coincide with the figment's own dimensions, they are still a legal function of the figment.

further, imagine that your duplicates are currently occuping the same space as you within a few inches. How is your image going to be blurred to appear some distance away if all your duplicates visibly occupy the same area, and it is apparent that your blurry image occupies the same area as well, due to the blurriness?

Can a duplicate be invisible, even though invisibility affects creatures? I would assume it could, since that is a change in appearance. If a figment's appearance can be altered by invisibility, surely it can also be altered to mimic the effects of blur. 

Your appearance (including the space you occupy) is blurred, and a figment, being unreal, should be able to appear to be anything you are, even if that appearance is itself misleading. It involves the same processes whereby mirror images seem to cast shadows on objects, throw rays and other spells, and hold light sources with a convincing appearance. 

Finally, consider the description of the spell itself. It says sight cannot be used to distinguish the duplicate from the original. Yet if only the original is displaced in space, sight can be used to distinguish the original. The first time an attack missed against blur, it would be visibly apparent someone had attacked the original.


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Are you sure?




Yes.  I feel sure.  I am open to the possibility of being wrong, but right now I don't feel much doubt on the subject.



> Is the spell _Blur_ in effect on a _Mirror Image_ figment?




No.  The spell is in effect on the character.  A replica image of that character, blur, shadows, darkness, camoflauge, other concealment, and all, are reflected in an image of that character.  It has the realistic effect of gaining many benefits of the blur spell, but the spell itself is not in effect on the figment.



> If your answer is "yes", then the spell has most definately targeted a figment.  And....Blur can only target creatures.  It can't target figments.
> 
> If your answer is "no", then we get the same result: no _Blur_ on the figments.




The blur is not on the figment.  But the concealment result of the blur is on the figment.  The figment is blurry, in a literal sense.  It's edges shake and jump around and blur, because the image it is replacting is doing so.  I don't think this is some sort of tortured logic either.  If I look in the mirror and jump around, my image in the mirror jumps around - not the mirror itself.  The mirror, like the mirror image spell, is just reflecting.  If the thing it is reflecting is hard to hit because it keeps jumping around, then the reflection itself is harder to hit because it is jumping around.  Regardless of what made the character being reflected jump around.  

Much like your dex bonus to AC effects specifically both you and your reflected image.  Both are dealing with issues of your image jumping around because you are jumping around.  It doesn't mean your image has a dexertity score now and a bonus to it's dexterity.  I just means the image gains the benefit of your dexerity, because it is reflecting your ability to jump around.



> Let's try something else:
> Suppose there is a rat in your pocket.  You cast _Blur_ on yourself.  Is the rat _Blurred_?




The rat has concealment.  If you tried to target the rat in the pocket, it would be harder to hit, because it has concealment.



> But suppose the rat is your familiar, and you are a high level wizard.  Is the rat _Blurred_?




The rat has gained the benefit of concealment.  It also has the benefit of the blur spell due to a special ability of familiars.  But, even if it was not a familiar it still gained the benefit of concealment.  



> Now answer this: What special power allows the rat to be _Blurred_?  Does a _Mirror Image_ figment have that power?




No special power at all.  If you are concealed, and something is on you or reflecting you, that thing is also concealed.  And it doesn't matter how you gained the concealment.  Whether by mundane or magical means, it matters not.


----------



## fenixdown (May 5, 2007)

My view on this is that figments are only destroyed when they've outlived their usefulness.  As long as an enemy isn't sure that an image is really an image, it still serves a purpose: namely, to be a distraction.  Normally, if an enemy targets an image with a regular attack, once she's seen her sword/arrow/magic missile pass right through it, she knows it's not real and the image becomes useless (for purposes of keeping the spell from lasting forever).  But it specifically says in the text:



			
				Mirror Image said:
			
		

> Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).



To me, that's the important part.  It's not important if a figment takes damage, since among other things they don't have HP.  What is important is that even though they were 'hit', the caster of the fireball only knows that he hit four things that all look the same (burnt), and still isn't sure which one's real.  To determine that, he'd have to target them individually and see how they react.

So when the fighter tries to attack a blurred image, there's a 20% chance that he fails to land what would have been a solid blow on the real thing, and a 20% uncertainty about whether what he attacked is real, which means the figment isn't entirely useless yet and shouldn't vanish.

Another question I've been trying to decide is this: if a blurred character picks up a blanket and puts it on his head, assume his images do the same.  But then where do the extra blankets come from?  To me, that seems like it'd negate the effect entirely, since either all the blankets for all the images would suddenly poof into existence (figments aren't mind-affecting, so anyone watching would be able to notice this), or else the character would be the only one with a blanket on his head.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 5, 2007)

fenixdown said:
			
		

> Another question I've been trying to decide is this: if a blurred character picks up a blanket and puts it on his head, assume his images do the same.  But then where do the extra blankets come from?  To me, that seems like it'd negate the effect entirely, since either all the blankets for all the images would suddenly poof into existence (figments aren't mind-affecting, so anyone watching would be able to notice this), or else the character would be the only one with a blanket on his head.




I'd apply the "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded" clause there.

One of the four wizards picks up a blanket.  Suddenly, all four have blankets.  You know which one picked up the real blanket - and can target him directly - until the wizard's next action.  At that point, while moving, he can merge with and split off from figments, so that you - the enemy who has learned which image is real - are again confounded.

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 5, 2007)

TheGogmagog said:
			
		

> I agree with this, the blanket over the head is a bad example.  Using the tower shield for total cover might be, but I think everyone would consider the normal 10+dex AC to hit the tower shield.




You are missing the point of the blanket analogy.  It doesn't have anything to do with cover or concealment.  It has to do with changing the property of the illusion.  A figment made to look like the caster wearing a blanket, is still all figment.  A figment made to look like the casters while blurred, is still all figment.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I see this as yet another case where, if there are two possible reasonable interpretations of the rules, then you go with the FAQ interpretation because that's the one that WOTC put their official seal of approval on.  Only if the FAQ intepretation cannot be right because it is not one of the reasonable choices for how to interpret the rules should the FAQ answer be discarded.
> 
> But that is not the case with this example.  An illusion might gain the benefit of concealment from being blurry, and it might be that the blurry part is also part of the illusion and therefore it should gain no benefit.  Both positions are reasonable, and both can make sense depending on which analogy you depend on, which reasoning, etc..  So given there are two reasonable intepretations, and the FAQ chooses one of those, I am going with the FAQ one.
> 
> And I really think that is one of the greatest strengths of playing in a game that regularly offers an official FAQ opinion on rules issues.  It breaks ties that are created when two reasonable rules intepretations are possible.




So going back to the blanket example (and I'll specifically using concealment in this example)...  If the image is blurred, and you attack the image but miss because of the blur (that 's concealment, right?), would it not stand to reason that if the image had a blanket, and you hit the blanket, you would not be able to pop the image, because (like Blur) it has concealment or even total cover?  You'd never ever be able to pop the image, because the image is under the blanket.  You are hitting the figment of the blanket, not the figment of the image under the blanket.

You could also substitute "box" for blanket if it helps...


----------



## Nail (May 5, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> <Mirror Image> duplicates your equipment, even though it doesn't affect objects, and can cast a shadow, even though it doesn't affect walls.



This is just bizarre.

You've said previously that you don't think figments can cast shadows.  (I've got no idea where you get that from, but so be it.)  And now you are saying figments do cast shadows.  Perhaps you could clarify your position a bit?


----------



## Nail (May 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No.  The spell is in effect on the character.  A replica image of that character, blur, shadows, darkness, camoflauge, other concealment, and all, are reflected in an image of that character.  It has the realistic effect of gaining many benefits of the blur spell, but the spell itself is not in effect on the figment.



So:
_Mirror Image_ is able to duplicate the effects of another spell.  That's what you are claiming.  The text of the Mirror Image spell gives it no such power.







			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> The blur is not on the figment.  But the concealment result of the blur is on the figment.



Blur causes the concealment of the figment, but is not affecting the figment?  You lost me.


----------



## irdeggman (May 6, 2007)

Does the MI benefit from concealment?

Does it benefit from darkness (as in the shadowy illumination effect that provides concealment)?

Does it benefit from cover?


These are related issues that should provide some consistency in the way the effects of the spel are handled.


----------



## Nail (May 6, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Does the MI benefit from concealment?
> 
> Does it benefit from darkness (as in the shadowy illumination effect that provides concealment)?
> 
> ...



I agree that consistancy is important.  But you've completely missed the critical issue: What's the source of the concealment/darkness/cover?  That's clearly relevant to this discussion.

For example:
   If the caster using a tower shield for cover, do his Mirror Images have cover?


----------



## phindar (May 6, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> I agree that consistancy is important. But you've completely missed the critical issue: What's the source of the concealment/darkness/cover? That's clearly relevant to this discussion.



Relevant, but its still anybody's guess how the source of the concealment affects the MI.  I mean, we are talking about the effect a magical spell has on another magical spell.  Its not like we can just go out in the yard and do a couple of test runs.  

Saying that something that grants concealment to the caster grants concealment to the images isn't that great a leap for me.  I like how that works, so that's the ruling I would go with in game.  It doesn't seem to be unbalanced mechanically (which might be a separate discussion).  As much as I hate to side with the FAQ, thats where I'm coming down on this one.


----------



## irdeggman (May 6, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> I agree that consistancy is important.  But you've completely missed the critical issue: What's the source of the concealment/darkness/cover?  That's clearly relevant to this discussion.
> 
> For example:
> If the caster using a tower shield for cover, do his Mirror Images have cover?





I don't really think I've missed something here.

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. Now this gets interesting since the gneral consensus (and supported by the FAQ) is to simply rule that the MI takes up the same space as the original for most reasons.

If the MI are behind the same physical cover as is the caster then the answer would be yes.

Concealment is something that is not usually a physical beneift but a benefit against visual accuracy.

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. Same as is true with the Disguise Self spell (as pointed out earlier).

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.

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.  It should be noted that the AC for the MI is pretty much the the same as a touch attack and IMO it would have been far simpler to just say a successful touch attack dispels the MI (and fit into all of the other ramifications too).


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 6, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> It should be noted that the AC for the MI is pretty much the the same as a touch attack and IMO it would have been far simpler to just say a successful touch attack dispels the MI (and fit into all of the other ramifications too).



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.


----------



## irdeggman (May 6, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> 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! 


			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

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 (May 7, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> 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"......


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The complicating question is, "Does a creature affected by blur look blurry?"
> 
> Surely it does.




Looking blurry is not a blur spell effect miss chance, that's the whole thread.

(and the thread is officially hilarious at this point.)


----------



## Koewn (May 7, 2007)

I'm honestly proud of this thread, I'm glad I asked.

For what it's worth; half my players didn't show up Saturday, so the NPC I asked for didn't end up using either spell, since he didn't have to worry about the Warlock's zappy blasts.


----------



## Nail (May 7, 2007)

...and is said NPC now dead?


----------



## Nail (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> (and the thread is officially hilarious at this point.)



Agreed.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I see this as yet another case where, if there are two possible reasonable interpretations of the rules, then you go with the FAQ interpretation because that's the one that WOTC put their official seal of approval on.  Only if the FAQ intepretation cannot be right because it is not one of the reasonable choices for how to interpret the rules should the FAQ answer be discarded.
> 
> But that is not the case with this example.  An illusion might gain the benefit of concealment from being blurry, and it might be that the blurry part is also part of the illusion and therefore it should gain no benefit.  Both positions are reasonable, and both can make sense depending on which analogy you depend on, which reasoning, etc..  So given there are two reasonable intepretations, and the FAQ chooses one of those, I am going with the FAQ one.




Except that this is not true. The FAQ interpretation is not valid because it does not follow the actual rules.

The Blur spell affects a creature. That's the rule.

A Mirror Image is a figment. That's the rule.

According to the rules, a Blur spell does not affect a Mirror Image.

Mirror Image does have a special caveat concerning Invisibility, but that caveat does not apply to other illusions. Mirror Image does not have a caveat that "strictly visual effects of other spells are added to the figments". That is something the FAQ added that the Mirror Image spell does not.


----------



## Nail (May 7, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Mirror Image does have a special caveat concerning Invisibility, ....



What's interesting here is that Mirror Image doesn't  say the figments gain Invisibility.  Rather, it says that Mirror Image "has no effect".

So not only does Mirror Image specify its valid target (_creatures only_), but it also gives precident that other spells don't give their benefits (_the images are NOT invisible; they just aren't there at all!_).


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Mirror Image does have a special caveat concerning Invisibility, but that caveat does not apply to other illusions. Mirror Image does not have a caveat that "strictly visual effects of other spells are added to the figments".




Right, this is key.  It doesn't say that the figments are made invisible, it says, if you are invisible, the spell has no effect.

EDIT: ...or a couple minutes late.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Your PH is written on stone tablets?
> 
> That must be a killer to carry around.     I understand WotC is looking into "portability issues"......




Hey, I'm not the one claiming other people's opinions are invalid and wrong BECAUSE. No stone tablets here. The opposing viewpoint is supportable, but still, in my view, mistaken.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm not the one claiming other people's opinions are invalid and wrong BECAUSE. No stone tablets here. The opposing viewpoint is *completely rules* supportable, but still, in my view, mistaken.




Corrected that for you.  

The problem with your POV is that there are really no rules support for it.

Blur is a spell effect. It affects Creatures.

Mirror Image gives the visual aspects of the caster, but does not state that any visual spell effects from other spells on a creature also occur on the image. That benefit is just not written anywhere within the Mirror Image spell. Without that rules support, your POV is not a rules POV, rather a game preference POV (which is fine, but it still is not supported by rules).

The fact that the FAQ introduced a brand new game concept just muddies the waters of the rules discussion.


The FAQ Displacement interpretation is even harder to justify from a non-rules perspective (and cannot be justified via rules). The caster is displaced. The images look like the caster, but the caster does not "look displaced" he looks like himself. No visual changes whatsoever. Hence, the images merely show the caster as he looks and gain no benefit.


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm not the one claiming other people's opinions are invalid and wrong BECAUSE. No stone tablets here. The opposing viewpoint is supportable, but still, in my view, mistaken.




I guess I don't understand why using stone as a medium would make the rules any more concrete that writing them in the official published rulebooks...where they are written.

I really don't see support for your interpretation at all, even in your posts.  The fact that the FAQ echoes your opinion doesn't give it support.  (two wrongs do not equal a right)

Your point is that illusion effects are visual and therefore would be carried to the figments.
Our point is that is not possible by the RAW and the spell is easily described and ran to support both the rules and the fluff visual effect.

I guess what I really am curious about is WHY you would run it the way you do.  Do you think MI is underpowered?  Do you think figments should be targetable?  Do you have a relationship with the FAQ and if you don't say she's right you'll have to sleep on the couch?  I'm not saying your opinion is without merit, far from it, I'm just trying to understand what that merit would be.


----------



## Nail (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm not the one claiming other people's opinions are invalid and wrong BECAUSE.



Errrr...???

Are you responding to me?  I've given rules text, quotes, etc.  You, OTOH, haven't.  Who's claiming "just because", again?


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> I guess what I really am curious about is WHY you would run it the way you do.  Do you think MI is underpowered?  Do you think figments should be targetable?  Do you have a relationship with the FAQ and if you don't say she's right you'll have to sleep on the couch?  I'm not saying your opinion is without merit, far from it, I'm just trying to understand what that merit would be.




I am working from the spell description, from the RAW. I think neither that the spell is underpowered nor that figments are underpowered, but that the FAQ is correct and anyone who disagrees is arguing a weak position based on the RAW for the spells involved and for figments.

I have stated my reasons for believing so at length in this thread, so if you don't understand my viewpoint, you either haven't read the thread, don't know the rules, or disagree on what the rules say.

The spell states the duplicates appear to be you. You appear as someone with an image distorted enough to have a miss chance. Therefore, your duplicates are equally distorted.

If you disregard the FAQ answer, the figments fail to be displaced when attacked, and hence are distinguishable from your image, and hence disagree with the description of mirror image. As this results in a contradiction, the opposite answer, the FAQ answer, is therefore the remaining alternative.

The FAQ answer does not lead to a contradiction. It allows all the spells to function exactly as written in their description. It does not break any rules.

It's true, figments aren't a valid target for blur, but that is not a problem. Figments also can't wear full plate armor or have a Dex score, but mirror images can _appear_ to do both.

Very simple. The only problem crops up when you insist blur is somehow being cast on the figment. Please refer me to where in the rules casting blur on yourself is casting blur on a figment. I was under the prehaps simplistic viewpoint that when you cast blur on yourself, that you are casting it on you, a living creature.


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

Thanks for your response.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I am working from the spell description, from the RAW. I think neither that the spell is underpowered nor that figments are underpowered, but that the FAQ is correct and anyone who disagrees is arguing a weak position based on the RAW for the spells involved and for figments.



 Blah blah, you aren't saying anything here, just throwing stones.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I have stated my reasons for believing so at length in this thread, so if you don't understand my viewpoint, you either haven't read the thread, don't know the rules, or disagree on what the rules say.



  Blah.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The spell states the duplicates appear to be you. You appear as someone with an image distorted enough to have a miss chance. Therefore, your duplicates are equally distorted.



Here we go!  The visual distortion is a fluff description of the mechanical miss chance spell effect.  While the visual effect would be copied it doesn't provide the miss chance.  If the figment apears to be blurry, and someone attacks the image and scores a high enough AC to hit the image, that's what has occured.  Since the figment doesn't get the blur mechanic, just the appearance, the figment would be destroyed.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> If you disregard the FAQ answer, the figments fail to be displaced when attacked, and hence are distinguishable from your image, and hence disagree with the description of mirror image. As this results in a contradiction, the opposite answer, the FAQ answer, is therefore the remaining alternative.



  Whoa.  You are going way out on a limb here.  Isn't it possible for the images to appear displaced (or blurred, or bleeding, or splashed with paint) but remain indistiguishable from the caster?  Our point is that they look blurred, but simply lack the mechanical advantage of the spell.  



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The FAQ answer does not lead to a contradiction. It allows all the spells to function exactly as written in their description. It does not break any rules.
> 
> It's true, figments aren't a valid target for blur, but that is not a problem. Figments also can't wear full plate armor or have a Dex score, but mirror images can _appear_ to do both.



BUT they do not gain any mechanical benefit from the armor or Dex as they have a fixed AC in the spell description.  This is a perfect analogy for my point!  The figments appear to wear armor but do not gain a bonus to their AC the same way they would appear to be blurred but would not gain a miss chance.

Hope that helps.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I am working from the spell description, from the RAW. I think neither that the spell is underpowered nor that figments are underpowered, but that the FAQ is correct and anyone who disagrees is arguing a weak position based on the RAW for the spells involved and for figments.
> 
> I have stated my reasons for believing so at length in this thread, so if you don't understand my viewpoint, you either haven't read the thread, don't know the rules, or disagree on what the rules say.




If you say so. Personally, I do not think you have quoted a single rule that supports your POV.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The spell states the duplicates appear to be you. You appear as someone with an image distorted enough to have a miss chance. Therefore, your duplicates are equally distorted.




There is no such thing as "appear as someone with an image distorted enough to have a miss chance" from a RAW perspective in the rules. There are game effects (miss chance) and whether that game effect is on a specific object, creature, or effect. Period.

If Mirror Image stated "Any visual spell effects on the caster are also duplicated on the images. For example: Blur ...".

But, Mirror Image has no such RAW text.

There is no "Blurred" Condition in the game which is a visual concealment effect that occurs under some specific conditions.

Blur is a spell. If the spell is on the target, it/he is blurred and gains the effect. If the spell is not on the target, it/he does not. It is not on the Mirror Image images and they are illegal targets for the spell, hence, by definition they do not gain the effects of the Blur spell.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> If you disregard the FAQ answer, the figments fail to be displaced when attacked, and hence are distinguishable from your image, and hence disagree with the description of mirror image. As this results in a contradiction, the opposite answer, the FAQ answer, is therefore the remaining alternative.




There is no such contradiction. This is a total logical fallacy.

Your sentence here is the semantic equivalent of "If I hit the target, I can distinguish him from his images. Since Mirror Images states that I cannot distinguish him from his images, I cannot hit him."

This is semantical game playing with the words. There is no RAW text that states that if the caster is displaced, the images also must be displaced. Without such RAW text, you are not quoting rules. You are making them up such as in your statement quoted here.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2007)

I don't agree with your "hit the target" analogy. We are talking precisely about the appearance of the figment, and blur alters its appearance.

The absence of a "blurred" condition in the glossary does not mean someone cannot be in the condition of being blurred, merely that it is not generalized beyond the description of a particular spell. There is no "dead by lightning bolt" condition either, but lightning bolts do damage, and when your hit points get too low, you die. Blur causes a miss chance.


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't agree with your "hit the target" analogy. We are talking precisely about the appearance of the figment, and blur alters its appearance.




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.

It is Hyp's blanket analogy, which you and others didn't get at all.


----------



## irdeggman (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> What's interesting here is that Mirror Image doesn't  say the figments gain Invisibility.  Rather, it says that Mirror Image "has no effect".
> 
> So not only does Mirror Image specify its valid target (_creatures only_), but it also gives precident that other spells don't give their benefits (_the images are NOT invisible; they just aren't there at all!_).




Stating it has no effect is not the same as saying they are not there at all.

"An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect."

So it is an extension of the first sentence that the attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If they can't see the images (like if they are say invisible) then the MI has no effect.


----------



## blargney the second (May 7, 2007)

You know what beats blurred mirror images?

Rocks fall, everyone dies!
-blarg


----------



## irdeggman (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> It is Hyp's blanket analogy, which you and others didn't get at all.





But this is back to the miss chance being caused by hitting the blurred portion of the target - which is just not accurate at all.

Please show me where in the rules it states that this is how the concealment rules work.  By extension if you swing at an invisible opponent you roll a % chance to see if you hit the target or thin air. Again - the rules do not say this at all.


----------



## irdeggman (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> Here we go!  The visual distortion is a fluff description of the mechanical miss chance spell effect.  While the visual effect would be copied it doesn't provide the miss chance.  If the figment apears to be blurry, and someone attacks the image and scores a high enough AC to hit the image, that's what has occured.  Since the figment doesn't get the blur mechanic, just the appearance, the figment would be destroyed.





Actually the description of blur states:

"The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion  grants the subject concealment."

So if the the MI appears blurred, shifting and wavering it should be that precise condition that grants concealment - which is pretty much what the FAQ is saying.

Would the MI benefit from darkness being cast on the caster?


----------



## KarinsDad (May 7, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Actually the description of blur states:
> 
> "The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion  grants the subject concealment."
> 
> ...




I agree with what it states. But, I do not agree that this text alters the normal targeting rules. Neither the Blur spell nor the Mirror Image spell explicitly changes the targeting of Blur from the target, to the target and his images.

In other words, the quote you gave is fluff text explaining why Blur works the way it does. It does not in any way change the game mechanic rules.


As for Darkness, that is a game mechanic effect (i.e. shadowy illumination) over an area targeted on an object and not an effect only on a specific creature (different targeting and effect rules). Any creature gains the concealment of Darkness.

By literal RAW definition, the images do not gain the benefits of Darkness since they are not creatures. But, that is a generic game mechanics flaw with the definition of Shadowy Illumination and the Darkness spell themselves. Neither of these state that any target within the area gains concealment (they should). So, a rock would not gain concealment in a Darkness spell or Shadowy Illumination from a torch either. 

The normal Concealment rules merely state "target", not "creature". This is what Darkness and the Lighting rules should state as well, but they do not.


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Actually the description of blur states:
> 
> "The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion  grants the subject concealment."
> 
> ...




My point is that it is the MI spell that is giving the distorted appearance to the figment it creates.  It doesn't provide concealment to the figment because if you hit the wavy outline, you hit the figment, and that's all you need.

I'll attempt to use Hyp's blanket analogy...

Make it simple, there's a caster, he casts mirror image, gets one figment.

The caster picks up a blanket by the corners and holds it up  over his head, providing total concealment.  Anyone attacking the caster has to guess where he is behind the blanket (50% miss chance) even though they can clearly see the blanket and know which square the caster is in.  

By nature of MI the figment also appears as a large rectangle.  If you attack the figment (An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier.), you can hit the blanket (because it's all figment) and that is GOOD ENOUGH.  The figment doesn't receive the mechanical miss chance effect of concealment because ANY SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ON THE FIGMENT makes it pop, not the part of the figment that represents a damageable portion of the caster.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 7, 2007)

If a Mirror Image _appears_ blurred, but does not gain the benefit of being blurred, then...

Would it not stand to reason that if the caster poured green paint on himself, the images would _appear_ to have paint on them, but not actually have paint on them?

If there was a ranged touch spell that dealt damage to a target that was green, and you hit an image with it, would that pop an image?

If there was a ranged touch spell that dealt damage to a target that had green paint on them, and you hit an image with it, would that pop an image?


----------



## Nail (May 7, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Would the MI benefit from darkness being cast on the caster?



Note that Darkness applies to the creature attacking, not to the defender. Whatever the attacker swings at has a 20% miss chance.  The spell (Darkness) is not targeting a figment.  It's not targeting anything (except its source.)  Blur, OTOH, would be targeting a figment.


----------



## Nail (May 7, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Would it not stand to reason that if the caster poured green paint on himself, the images would _appear_ to have paint on them, but not actually have paint on them?



Yup.

What's the question, again?


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> What's the question, again?





Wait...is the blanket green?


(j/k RigaMortus2)


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> I agree that consistancy is important.  But you've completely missed the critical issue: What's the source of the concealment/darkness/cover?  That's clearly relevant to this discussion.




Why?  What does it matter what the source is?  If my light comes from a torch, or from a stick with continual light on it, the only thing that matters is that there is light which can cast a shadow and illuminate things.  It doesn't in any way matter if the source is magic, a spell, or mundane means.

Another example: If I am subject to the effects of a spell that increases my dexterity, it still increases the AC of the mirror image, even though the mirror image itself is not under the effects of the dexterity increasing spell.  Because it is a mirror of the character, the spells impact on the character benefits the image.

If I am concealed, my images are concealed.  It doesn't matter if I am concealed because of shadows, or because of a blur spell.  The source of the effect as being magical or not is not relevant.


----------



## phindar (May 7, 2007)

I still don't think blankets provide concealability.  I hate to stick on that, but I don't think the best way to prove an interpretation of the RAW is to go radically outside of the RAW.  (I mean, if at the next game my character held up a blanket in front of him and claimed to have full concealability, I don't think the GM would buy it.  And if he did, I'd predict every character from then on would carry blankets.  "It's the poor man's invisibility!")

I understand the logic behind the naysayers' argument.  If I were playing in their game, I wouldn't have a problem with that interpretation.  (As a rule, I don't have a problem with any interpretation, as long as its balanced and applied fairly.)  But I still don't agree.  I like having purely visual magical effects work on the images.  I like the imagery of it, its not unbalanced mechanically, I have no reason to say no.  

Also, I'm not entirely sure you can't cast _Blur_ on an illusionary creature.  If I was running for an illusionist character who wanted to buff his fake minions, I probably wouldn't say "no".  (I tend to err on the side of the illusionist though, because their creativity is probably 90% of their character's power.)


----------



## irdeggman (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Note that Darkness applies to the creature attacking, not to the defender. Whatever the attacker swings at has a 20% miss chance.  The spell (Darkness) is not targeting a figment.  It's not targeting anything (except its source.)  Blur, OTOH, would be targeting a figment.




Funny but the darkness text specifically states:

"All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance)."

Blur reads:

"This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance)."


So what is the specific difference here?

Attackers don't gain concealment - defenders do.


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why?  What does it matter what the source is?




See: Blanket Analogy, above.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> See: Blanket Analogy, above.




I already responded that I think it's one of two competing and compelling analogies.  Just because someone can come up with an analogy that is counter to this doesn't mean the question is answered.  It just means we have two competing and compelling analogies, and hence a tie.  And I break ties using the official FAQ from the publisher of the rules.

Blur, as an effect, makes the PC, and hence their image, jump and move about on the edges.  People keep talking about how it's just "blurry" because that is the title of the spell.  But that isn't the described effect.  The described effect is movement-oriented.  And movement-oriented effects other than this one all effect the image.  If I have a higher dex, even if it is from a spell, the image gets a better AC and therefore attacks have a greater miss chance against it.  I really think that is the more compelling analogy than anlogies that depend on a fixed object blocking sight.  This isn't the case of a fixed object.  It's an effect that makes the image move (or appear to move).


----------



## SlagMortar (May 7, 2007)

> If I am concealed, my images are concealed. It doesn't matter if I am concealed because of shadows, or because of a blur spell.



What about when a character has total cover from a towershield?  Do the images also have total cover from the towershield?

I honestly think that mirror image should be removed from the game.  Blur and displacement are essentially the same effect - magic makes some attacks miss.  If you like the "starts strong, but gets progressively worse" mechanic, then have the miss chance start at (2d4*10)% and remove 10% for each attack that the miss chance causes to miss.


----------



## irdeggman (May 7, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The normal Concealment rules merely state "target", not "creature". This is what Darkness and the Lighting rules should state as well, but they do not.





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".


----------



## lukelightning (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Pawsplay is claiming that illusions can't cast shadows.  This baffles me completely; where does it say that in the rules text?




All I know is that if figments can't cast shadows then fifth-level vegans _can_ eat them.


----------



## irdeggman (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If I am concealed, my images are concealed.  It doesn't matter if I am concealed because of shadows, or because of a blur spell.  The source of the effect as being magical or not is not relevant.




QFT


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I already responded that I think it's one of two competing and compelling analogies.  Just because someone can come up with an analogy that is counter to this doesn't mean the question is answered.  It just means we have two competing and compelling analogies, and hence a tie.  And I break ties using the official FAQ from the publisher of the rules.




OK, the miss chance is caused by being covered in COTTON CANDY!

The figment isn't actually covered in cotton candy, because we only had enough to cover the caster.  Now, is the cotton candy part of the figment created by MI actual cotton candy, or is it figment?

If it's figment, then the image is removed.
If it is cotton candy...how'd that happen?!?!  Where'd that cotton candy come from?

^^that is exactly the same as blur, in my reading.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> What about when a character has total cover from a towershield?  Do the images also have total cover from the towershield?




That's just another analogy based on a fixed object blocking sight, and not a movement-oriented effect influencing the image.  Movement oriented effects, like bonuses to Dex, benefit the image.  Blur is a movement-oriented effect.  The image is jumping about and moving at the edges very fast, making it harder to hit.  It's not that there is a fixed object added to the image, but that the image is moving, that makes the FAQ answer compelling to me.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> OK, the miss chance is caused by being covered in COTTON CANDY!




I'm not sure how many ways I can talk about the movement effect analogy.  What isn't making sense about that part of my responses that you keep cutting it?

If I am the subject of a Cat’s Grace spell (+4 to dex), does my mirror image gain a +2 to AC, thus making it more difficult to hit, or not?

If you answer is yes, how can that be if spells cast on me have no effect on the image?


----------



## irdeggman (May 7, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> What about when a character has total cover from a towershield?  Do the images also have total cover from the towershield?




Well a figmment can't reproduce a physical effect (again as pointed out by the FAQ).

So unless the cover (a physical barrier - where concealment is a "visual" condition) physically extends to where the MI is it can't benefit from it.

PHB pg 306



> *cover:* Any barrier between an attacker and defender. Such a barrier can be an object, a creature, or a magical force. Cover grants the defender a bonus to Armor Class.
> 
> *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).


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how many ways I can talk about the movement effect analogy.  What isn't making sense about that part of my responses that you keep cutting it?




It's because your last post was made AFTER mine.

"Movement oriented effects, like bonuses to Dex, benefit the image. " Is compelling and makes sense.  But I think you put too much weight on the visual description of the spell rather than the actual mechanics of how magic works in D&D (the game, not the place).


and...

You claim that MI is a movement effect, yet if the caster was hasted, the AC of the figments does not increase.  "The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects. ...A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves."

EDIT:  Also, don't forget that they are figments, so "Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment."

Since it is not a size or dex modifier, the figments do not gain the benefit, but haste clearly says it is a modifier granted due to increased movement.

This is the difference between an ACTUAL movement effect and a fluff movement effect.


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Well a figmment can't reproduce a physical effect (again as pointed out by the FAQ).
> 
> So unless the cover (a physical barrier - where concealment is a "visual" condition) physically extends to where the MI is it can't benefit from it.
> 
> PHB pg 306




But that would require you to target the figment rather than the caster...


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> It's because your last post was made AFTER mine.
> 
> "Movement oriented effects, like bonuses to Dex, benefit the image. " Is compelling and makes sense.  But I think you put too much weight on the visual description of the spell rather than the actual mechanics of how magic works in D&D (the game, not the place).
> 
> ...




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.

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?


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 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?




No, it does not.  Cat's grace affected the caster, and the image has the caster's dex bonus to AC as expressly called out by the spell.  Specific vs general.  The reason that barkskin doesn't carry over to the figment is the same reason blur doesn't.

Edit: care to comment on haste?


----------



## SlagMortar (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> That's just another analogy based on a fixed object blocking sight, and not a movement-oriented effect influencing the image. Movement oriented effects, like bonuses to Dex, benefit the image. Blur is a movement-oriented effect. The image is jumping about and moving at the edges very fast, making it harder to hit. It's not that there is a fixed object added to the image, but that the image is moving, that makes the FAQ answer compelling to me.



Concealment (such as from darkness) is caused by the target being difficult to see.  If the concealment from blur is caused by movement, and not by making the target difficult to see, then, then I see no reason to treat concealment from blur the same as concealment from darkness.  You said they should be treated the same, but now you are saying they are not the same.



> Well a figmment can't reproduce a physical effect (again as pointed out by the FAQ).
> 
> So unless the cover (a physical barrier - where concealment is a "visual" condition) physically extends to where the MI is it can't benefit from it.



So you are saying that mirror images can gain the benefit of some kinds of cover, but not from other kinds of cover.  If that is so, the images should be able to benefit from some kinds of concealment while not benefitting from other kinds of concealment.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> No, it does not.  Cat's grace affected the caster, and the image has the caster's dex bonus to AC as expressly called out by the spell.  Specific vs general.  The reason that barkskin doesn't carry over to the figment is the same reason blur doesn't.





You say no, but then you seem to mean yes.  Cat's grace grants the PC a bonus to their dex.  A bonus to Dex has as one of it's effects a bonus to AC.  The bonus to AC from the bonus to Dex also carries over to the image.  Hence, the EFFECT of the Cat's Grace Spell's bonus to dex applies to the Image. I don't see any other way to read it.  If the effect of the Cat's Grace spell does not benefit the image, then the image should have an AC 2 less that it does under this scenario.

I think you are being shifty on your answer because you don't want to work out the ramifications of some spells having an effect on an image, and others not having an effect.  And, well, that's just the way it seems to work so let's deal with it.  Reduce would also have an effect on the image if cast on the PC.  Some spells are going to change the AC of the image.



> Edit: care to comment on haste?




I did but less directly apparently than I thought I had.  Haste has a movement effect.  So does expeditious retreat.  So will accelerated movement (or something that gives you, say, a swim speed).  Some movement effects will impact the image, and others will not.  It depends on the movement effect.  If the movement effect would make the image more difficult to hit because of the movement, then it in general will effect the image.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Concealment (such as from darkness) is caused by the target being difficult to see.  If the concealment from blur is caused by movement, and not by making the target difficult to see, then, then I see no reason to treat concealment from blur the same as concealment from darkness.  You said they should be treated the same, but now you are saying they are not the same.




I am saying ANYTHING THAT MAKES THE IMAGE HARDER TO HIT applies.

If you have trouble seeing the image, then it is harder to hit.  If you have trouble landing a blow on the image because it keeps jumping around, then it is harder to hit.  They are the same in that both make the image harder to hit.



> So you are saying that mirror images can gain the benefit of some kinds of cover,




No, I have been referring to concealment, not cover.  Cover can make an image harder to hit, but only if it is actual cover and not an image of cover (since that would just make the image of cover itself part of the image that you need to hit).



> but not from other kinds of cover.  If that is so, the images should be able to benefit from some kinds of concealment while not benefitting from other kinds of concealment.




I am sure there are some kinds of concealment that will not benefit the image, but right now I cannot think of any off hand.


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If the movement effect would make the image more difficult to hit because of the movement, then it in general will effect the image.




So...haste...?


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> And with that, I'm done.




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!


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> So...haste...?




Not going to answer that question a third time.  If you have something you are not satisfied with concerning my first two answers, let's hear it.  But you just asking the same question over isn't going to result in a different answer.


----------



## werk (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Not going to answer that question a third time.  If you have something you are not satisfied with concerning my first two answers, let's hear it.  But you just asking the same question over isn't going to result in a different answer.




I really don't know how I can continue the argument, you haven't said anything salient.

Try using some game terms and maybe some rules text to support your argument and come back for another try.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 7, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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 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 (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## phindar (May 8, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> For example, adding Displacement to Mirror Image is huge.



But its really not.  Assuming 5-6 images are created in the casting of the spell, _Blur_ will save one of them, and _Displacement_ will save 2-3 of them.  In either case, the caster would be better off casting _Mirror Image_ and then casting it again when it starts to run low.  Using a 3rd level slot for Displacement comes close (because of the 2-3 images that will likely be saved, 1-2 might survive again), but thats still a 2nd and a 3rd level spell to get something about as effective as casting the 2nd level spell (MI) twice.   

And, none of it helps the images against the stuff that ignores MI, like AoE attacks and creatures with blindsight (like grimlocks, which are not of an ungodly CR).  Even the Blind-Fighting feat goes along way towards nerfing MI, and that's a pretty common feat.

While we're beefing (nicely) about MI, are there any higher level versions buried in splatbooks or supplements?  What level would you put a version that creates multiple images that work like _Major Illusions_?  Or one where the images didn't disappear when struck?


----------



## KarinsDad (May 8, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> But its really not.  Assuming 5-6 images are created in the casting of the spell, _Blur_ will save one of them, and _Displacement_ will save 2-3 of them.  In either case, the caster would be *better off* casting _Mirror Image_ and then casting it again when it starts to run low.  Using a 3rd level slot for Displacement comes close (because of the 2-3 images that will likely be saved, 1-2 might survive again), but thats still a 2nd and a 3rd level spell to get something *about as effective* as casting the 2nd level spell (MI) twice.




Interesting analysis. Flawed, but interesting.  

The point you dropped on the floor is that with my interpretation, Mirror Image gives 5-6 images and Displacement merely protects the caster.

Cost: 1 2nd level spell + 1 3rd level spell.
Gain: 1 2nd level spell + 1 3rd level spell.


With the opposing interpretation, Displacement changes the Mirror Image into the equivalent of an Empowered Mirror Image.

Cost: 1 2nd level spell + 1 3rd level spell.
Gain: 1 4th level spell + 1 3rd level spell.


With regard to the rest of what you wrote, the caster is not better off with two Mirror Image spells (as you claimed) since they are totally ablative whereas a Mirror Image combined with Displacement is only partially ablative. The gain is not about as effective (or better off, you claimed both) as 2 2nd level spells as you claimed, rather it is a gain of a 3rd level spell (Displacement) and the equivalent of a 4th level spell (Empowered Mirror Image or a Mirror Image with 7 to 9 images) with this interpretation.


Having the Displacement and MI up is a larger protection versus the back to back Mirror Images that you proposed. The chances to get targeted (let alone hit) as images get popped drops by:

MI (6 images followed by casting 6 images again when down to 1 image) = 16.7% / 20% / 25% / 33.3% / 50% / 16.7% / 20% / 25% / 33.3% / 50% / 100% / 100%, etc. (average 40.8% of getting targeted after 12 successful attacks)

versus

Disp followed by casting MI (6 images) = 50% / 8.3% / 10% / 12.5% / 16.7% / 25% / 50% / 50% / 50% / 50% / 50% / 50%, etc. (average 35.2% of getting targeted after 12 successful attacks)

Most of the time (except for a few successful attacks after casting a second MI), it is better to have up a MI and a Displacement (using my interpretation) than it is casting a second MI. At higher level with opponents having more attacks per round, the dual MI spells come down fast whereas the Displacement lasts much longer (shy of a Dispel).


The other interpretation yields (assuming alternating attacks miss the images due to the combined displacement with the images of that interpretation):

Disp followed by casting MI (6 images) = 50% / 8.3% / 10% / 10% / 12.5% / 12.5% / 16.7% / 16.7% / 25% / 25% / 50% / 50%, etc. (average 23.9% of getting targeted after 12 would have been successful if it did not run into displacement attacks)

As can be seen, this is much stronger than my interpretation where Displacement does not affect Mirror Image (as I originally claimed and you claimed it was not much stronger).

If an opponent Fighter type averages 20 points of damage (combining both to hit and damage), your two MI solution would have the caster taking 98 points of damage, my interpretation with Displacement and MI would have the caster taking 84.5 points of damage, and the alternative interpretation with Displacement and MI would have the caster taking 57.4 points of damage.

So yes, that interpretation of Displacement combining with Mirror Image would be 1.7 times as effective at stopping damage than using two Mirror Image spells. You claimed using Mirror Image would be more effective (or about as effective, you claimed both of these). It's actually much worse off in the long run, espeically at higher levels where opponents get more attacks per round.


----------



## phindar (May 8, 2007)

Well, its an interesting point.  I'll note that I responded to your post while you were editing it to clarify.  While I take your point that Displacement + MI is more effective, that's one of the things I like about it.  Not the power issue-- since it still doesn't seem unbalancing to me-- but I like spells (or effects, or feats) that combine in interesting ways.  It rewards the players that try to use their resources as creatively as possible (at least until we all get so jaded that we know all the tricks, and move on to another system with yet more rules to exploit and bend to our will).

I wouldn't say that _MI + Displacement_ is equal to _Emp MI + Displacement_, becuase of the Durations.   While the _MI + Blur_ combo would go for 1/min per level for each, _Blur_ is still probably only going to save one image.  _Displacement_ will save more, but _Displacement_ is only one round per level.  So its not quite the same as the Empowered MI, because you're only getting it for 1/10th the time. 

My perspective on this is influenced by my group tending to concentrate on mid-level play; I suppose if I was running or playing 20th level casters I'd be more worried (but then, at that level, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to use creatures that _Mirror Image_ couldn't really slow down).


----------



## John Cox2 (Dec 3, 2017)

So I've seen a lot of talk on the logic of Blur/Mirror Image stacking, both for and against. I think by reason it could go either way. Wizards prefers the "do stack" rational. And I think there is a very good mechanical reason for that:
Let's say I'm attacking a blurred/mirror imaged creature. If they don't stack I first have to ask for them to make a mirror image roll, then I can attack knowing if it's the image or the character I'm attacking. Roll normal for image and disadvantaged for character. And then I see if I hit.
With stacking, I attack with disadvantage, if my final roll was good enough to hit an illusion then the character makes the mirror image roll. If not no roll is necessary.
The stacking method both expedites gameplay and increases immersion. I as an attacker never know if I was attacking an illusion or not until I hit one.

Edit: Just noticed the post dates on this thread. This conversation was pre-5th edition and my comment was not relevant. I'll leave it though for people like me looking to see if mirror Image and Blur stack in 5th edition.


----------

