Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lastknightleft 03-20-07, 05:50 PM	Okay, so my players recently fought a megaladon, and the sorcerous could have cast her mirror image (she didn't but I want to know for future reference). seeing as how the megaladon in such a big creature that it's mouth alone could encompass all the little sorceresses running around in that five foot square, by RAW do i still roll miss chance, and if so, not using RAW what would you rule? My thought is that it shouldn't work in said instances but I want more opinions
Lord Nedd 03-20-07, 06:06 PM	Okay, so my players recently fought a megaladon, and the sorcerous could have cast her mirror image (she didn't but I want to know for future reference). seeing as how the megaladon in such a big creature that it's mouth alone could encompass all the little sorceresses running around in that five foot square, by RAW do i still roll miss chance, and if so, not using RAW what would you rule? My thought is that it shouldn't work in said instances but I want more opinions Does one of these megaladon's have an area affect mouth bite attack? If not, than you must roll like any other attack even if it was a melee touch attack. Let us not forget that mirror image doesn't confine all the images in that 5 foot square, they must be within 5 feet of another image or caster. So your cloud of 5 or so folks can be a bit larger than 5 feet. Remember- Rule 0: It needs to be fun. Caveat 0: Unless it is Horror. Than it needs to be scary and ... fun. It is likely not to be fun to have your creature just come up and kill the Sorc in one bite past all her defenses. She should be smart and stay out of melee though. It would be fun and realistic that it comes and shreds her defenses for a round (eating most of her images for example). You can eat her on round 2, if she doesn't wise up and get the heck out of melee range for the creature.
Marcus Majarra 03-21-07, 01:10 AM	lastknightleft, there's some information about the spell you're missing: mirror images do not occupy the same square as the caster. Each image occupies its own space. The only requirement that the spell has with respect to the images is that each image must be within 5 feet from the caster or another image. Furthermore, the caster can use a move action to shuffle herself with her images (even if she doesn't leave her square). Finally, keep in mind that mirror images react normally to area effects, as opposed to targeted effects. Indeed, when an image is targeted by an effect, it disappears, but if it's subjected to an area effect, it reacts just like the caster does without disappearing.
lastknightleft 03-21-07, 08:09 AM	See I misread the all images must be within 5ft to mean that they all occupied the same 5' square. As to the shuffling part, yeah, I knew they could do that, in fact I thought they did it automatically so that even if someone hit the right character once, the images just shuffled around. And no, the megaladon doesn't have an area of effect bite, just a mouth that is, at the very least, large size... If the creature is in fact a giant shark. This is just based off of an idea like eating grapes (to a leviathan or megaladon, I imagine that's what a human would be like), I could pop five in my mouth at once if they're in a cluster. It was just an idea though. like i said, it didn't actually come up.
ryryguy 03-21-07, 01:19 PM	lastknightleft, there's some information about the spell you're missing: mirror images do not occupy the same square as the caster. Each image occupies its own space. Hmm, so how do you play it if an opponent tries to move through the same space as an image? They just can't?
Tarus 03-21-07, 01:55 PM	Hmm, so how do you play it if an opponent tries to move through the same space as an image? They just can't? I would assume its a bull rush against the target...if successful it winks out?
mvincent 03-21-07, 04:24 PM	mirror images do not occupy the same square as the caster. Each image occupies its own space. From the 3.5 FAQ: "Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s space can affect an image." Mind you, this should not make a difference as far as the megaladon's attack. It still gets to attack only one mirror image at a time.
primemover003 03-21-07, 04:26 PM	What you're describing is more of an Overrun attack. To Swallow Whole you need to make a successful bite attack and thus have to roll randomly to see which image is hit. lastknightleft, there's some information about the spell you're missing: mirror images do not occupy the same square as the caster. Each image occupies its own space. The only requirement that the spell has with respect to the images is that each image must be within 5 feet from the caster or another image. Furthermore, the caster can use a move action to shuffle herself with her images (even if she doesn't leave her square). Finally, keep in mind that mirror images react normally to area effects, as opposed to targeted effects. Indeed, when an image is targeted by an effect, it disappears, but if it's subjected to an area effect, it reacts just like the caster does without disappearing. The FAQ recommends otherwise... and I do too. Having 7 mini's out on the board is too complicated and bogs down combat. Having all the images shuffle within the 5' square and rolling randomly to see what you hit is faster. Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s space can affect an image.
lastknightleft 03-22-07, 12:57 PM	an overrun attack that puts all who fail in it's mouth?
ryryguy 03-22-07, 01:39 PM	Maybe moving into the square of an image is a bad example - that would indeed be an overrun attack. How about this then: does one of the images (in a separate square than the caster) provide cover? It sure seems like having them in separate squares is just going to cause trouble. I agree with the FAQ - keep them all in the same square, less headaches that way.
Marcus Majarra 03-22-07, 04:10 PM	Unless the megalodon can trample, it can only overrun one creature per overrun attempt, including mirror images.
lastknightleft 03-23-07, 10:22 AM	right, but as the FAQ says its all in one five foot space and a megaladon's mouth is probably about 10-15ft wide alone, I'm not looking at this from a rules aspect anymore, I understand by RAW rules the images take the bite individually, I'm just saying as a mental exercise, doesn't it make more sense for such a large creature to bite all at once rather than the one. Mechanically an attack against the space itself, not the creature occupying the space, maybe the character in that situation would get a reflex save to get out of the way or something.
Lord Nedd 03-23-07, 11:29 AM	right, but as the FAQ says its all in one five foot space and a megaladon's mouth is probably about 10-15ft wide alone, I'm not looking at this from a rules aspect anymore, I understand by RAW rules the images take the bite individually, I'm just saying as a mental exercise, doesn't it make more sense for such a large creature to bite all at once rather than the one. Mechanically an attack against the space itself, not the creature occupying the space, maybe the character in that situation would get a reflex save to get out of the way or something. Rule 0. Do what you want, as you are the DM. Re: Bite the area vs bite the person. Well, this is sort of a slippery slope scenario as it dramatically changes the method of attack of the creature and likely raises the CR for it. Why would the megaladon *ever* attack a person, when all he has to do is attack the square (which is like a DC10 or easier to hit as the square isn't moving). What you propose is that the megadalon can get a bite attack every round on a given target guaranteed. The DC save to get away might mitigate this somewhat, but not everyone has great reflex saves (I hope all your players are rogues and monks or have great save bonus items like vests and cloaks). This creature does alot of damage with its bite. One or two bites could easily kill most arcanists. I don't recollect if the bite starts a grapple or not for them. YMMV, -LN
primemover003 03-23-07, 06:48 PM	Rule 0. Do what you want, as you are the DM. Re: Bite the area vs bite the person. Well, this is sort of a slippery slope scenario as it dramatically changes the method of attack of the creature and likely raises the CR for it. Why would the megaladon *ever* attack a person, when all he has to do is attack the square (which is like a DC10 or easier to hit as the square isn't moving). What you propose is that the megadalon can get a bite attack every round on a given target guaranteed. The DC save to get away might mitigate this somewhat, but not everyone has great reflex saves (I hope all your players are rogues and monks or have great save bonus items like vests and cloaks). This creature does alot of damage with its bite. One or two bites could easily kill most arcanists. I don't recollect if the bite starts a grapple or not for them. YMMV, -LN I think if you're goint to give a monster like this a Area effect attack the damage should be low but continual, like swallow whole... xd6 bludgeoning and xd6 acid a round.
Lord Nedd 03-23-07, 08:36 PM	I think if you're goint to give a monster like this a Area effect attack the damage should be low but continual, like swallow whole... xd6 bludgeoning and xd6 acid a round. Hehe. Only problem is that unless the wizard/sorc/rogue have a dragonmark (Orien) or some other supernatural power that lets them get away, they are not going be able to get away. For example: Bit round 1. Wizard tries to leave the maw of the creature. Ooops. He is leaving a threatening square (even withdraw only lets you flee the first square without provoking an attack of opportunity. Second + squares still do. This creature is very big, hence -> Bit Round 2. Ad Absurdim. -LN
lastknightleft 03-24-07, 04:00 PM	good point, so should I just rule that things like mirror image and blur wont work against something that larges bite attack. I know its a rule zero situation. I just wish there was a more logical way to approach it, other than just saying, well its just a game, i'll make it work to maintain balance. besides, i throw my players such awesome uniqe sh** that they should complain if I nerf one or two minor things for game balance
Lord Nedd 03-24-07, 05:06 PM	good point, so should I just rule that things like mirror image and blur wont work against something that larges bite attack. I know its a rule zero situation. I just wish there was a more logical way to approach it, other than just saying, well its just a game, i'll make it work to maintain balance. besides, i throw my players such awesome uniqe sh** that they should complain if I nerf one or two minor things for game balance I think you might be missing the point. My point is that unless every folk has a dynamite way to get the *hell out of Dodge City* (like some 50 feet instanteously without having to make a concentration check), than you risk to put your players in a situation that is not fun but frustrating and embittering. You can play the creature so that it doesn't take free attacks of Opportunity for some reason, but it will take some really fancy footwork on your part to make it seem reasonable that the creature is letting folks run away instead of staying a tasty treat. -LN
tos_shai_hulud 04-02-07, 12:24 AM	good point, so should I just rule that things like mirror image and blur wont work against something that larges bite attack. I know its a rule zero situation. I just wish there was a more logical way to approach it, other than just saying, well its just a game, i'll make it work to maintain balance. besides, i throw my players such awesome uniqe sh** that they should complain if I nerf one or two minor things for game balance The FAQ says that for simplicity, you should rule that they are all in one square. For accuracy, they can be spread out. If you are going with accuracy on the bite attack, you should go for accuracy on the spell effect. The mirror images can spread out and the bite can take out one or more mirror images at a time.
Toki_Wartooth 04-02-07, 12:29 PM	The FAQ says that for simplicity, you should rule that they are all in one square. For accuracy, they can be spread out. If you are going with accuracy on the bite attack, you should go for accuracy on the spell effect.Well put.
Edymnion 04-02-07, 12:36 PM	From the 3.5 FAQ:I wouldn't trust the FAQ farther than I could throw it (and seeing as how it is a non-physical, virtual object, I couldn't touch it, much less throw it). Repeatedly it says "This is not what the books say, but its easier to play the game this way, so lets do this". The FAQ is *NOT FREAKING ALLOWED* to decide what rules should and should not be followed. It's only purpose is to answer frequently asked questions, and clarify the way the rules work. It is not allowed to change any rule, in any way, nor is it allowed to simply say "don't use this rule". The Sage, the FAQ, and Customer Service are all on equal footing as far as I'm concerned. If they say one thing, you're probably safest doing the exact opposite.
mvincent 04-02-07, 12:53 PM	I wouldn't trust the FAQ farther than I could throw itI recommend readers trusting the FAQ more than the conjecture of an individual poster. The FAQ is *NOT FREAKING ALLOWED* to decide what rules should and should not be followed.Along with clarifying the rules, the FAQ provides excellent tips for issues in dire need of such things. This is one of them. The Sage, the FAQ, and Customer Service are all on equal footing as far as I'm concerned. If they say one thing, you're probably safest doing the exact opposite.Deprecating the FAQ here is silly (and incorrect). The FAQ serves as an extension of the rules for those that view an issue as subject to interpretation. It resolves issues that there may be two sides to. If someone does not view something as open to interpretation, then the FAQ is not for them anyway (since they have no question on the subject). However, they may encounter groups in the future that were more undecided on the subject... in which case the FAQ can at least allow them to know what to expect (especially with RPGA groups)... which is the whole purpose of having rules in the first place. If they insist on arguing against the FAQ with such groups, they may well be in for disappointment and/or needless conflict.
Edymnion 04-03-07, 01:46 PM	I recommend readers trusting the FAQ more than the conjecture of an individual poster.And I can name off several posters on the boards who's opinion I hold in higher reguard than Andy Collins and Skip Williams put together, as I think they have a *BETTER* understanding of the game than the designers do. Bottom line though is that things like the FAQ and Sage Advice are being run, to the best of my knowledge, by *ONE SINGLE PERSON*. There is no group decision making going on, there is no one double checking facts, there is one person who is basically posting up his opinion just like anybody on these boards, and they get it wrong on just about the same ratio as any given member of the boards gets it wrong. Along with clarifying the rules, the FAQ provides excellent tips for issues in dire need of such things. This is one of them.Again, you are not clarifying the rules when you say "This has nothing to do with what the rules actually say". All they are doing is muddying the waters even more by interjecting another argument, which by their own admission is not based on the rules at all. Deprecating the FAQ here is silly (and incorrect).There is no place on the boards to officially call out the FAQ. We have no power to influence the FAQ or the Sage Advice rulings. Hence, the only viable alternative is to point out that these sources are not infallible, and that they should not be taken as the end all be all settlement to the matter. Because in the end, its one guy sitting at his computer typing his opinion on the matter. No more, no less. Doesn't matter if he wrote the rules originally, there will be and are people on these boards that have more experience with those rules under their belts than the original designers do. In my book, that puts them on pretty equal footing, one person wrote it, but the other knows how its actually used.in which case the FAQ can at least allow them to know what to expect (especially with RPGA groups)... which is the whole purpose of having rules in the first place. If they insist on arguing against the FAQ with such groups, they may well be in for disappointment and/or needless conflict.ESPECIALLY in the RPGA the FAQ cannot be considered as a reliable source. By definition, the RPGA has to use the RAW. When the FAQ bold faced says "This is not what Rulebook X says, but I think its better to do it this way", then they clearly are not following the RAW. It doesn't matter if the FAQ says "The sky is purple", if you can point to the PHB/DMG to where it says "the sky is blue", then the FAQ is undeniably wrong. Although, the RPGA is a huge mess reguardless of whether or not you use the FAQ, so that one isn't a big deal.
mvincent 04-03-07, 03:55 PM	the FAQ and Sage Advice are being run, to the best of my knowledge, by *ONE SINGLE PERSON*. There is no group decision making going on, there is no one double checking factsThat appears to be incorrect. By its nature, the FAQ is being double-checked basically every time it is read by a player. I'm just a normal Joe gamer (i.e. no affiliation which any game manufacturer) but I've frequently written in to inform WotC of errors, and they are normally corrected. Thanks to a file comparison utility, I can also see every time an editor or proof-reader makes subtle text changes to the FAQ (which happens fairly often). My own career involves finding defects, and I believe that I've studied the FAQ more than you. I can testify that it is very useable. We are definitely better of with it than without. Of course, when ruling on any issue that is subject to interpretation and debate, you can't possibly make everyone happy. If the FAQ had ruled the other way on some of these issue, we would still have people complaining and claiming it was wrong. ESPECIALLY in the RPGA the FAQ cannot be considered as a reliable source.That appears to be incorrect. The RPGA follows FAQ rulings. Again, by deprecating the FAQ in a forum devoted to answering questions, you are perpetuating the same old debates that we are better off having a resolution to. In this case, the FAQ's advice was sound. You are doing a disservice to other readers by insisting otherwise. This seems both selfish and biased to me.
meabolex 04-04-07, 04:17 PM	Uhm, I just view the FAQ as a decider when the rules appear ambiguous or unclear. If the RAW directly contradicts what's in the FAQ, then the RAW still wins. For the purposes of the entry involving mirror image, it doesn't make sense for the images to each have their own square. If this is the case, the spell would be weaker than its supposed to be. If the images reshuffle and they're within my square, the next attack can randomly hit the image in my square. If they shuffle and move to a different square, I certainly can't shuffle myself around. I can't take a free 5 ft. step just because the other images can move around. Therefore, if the enemy figured out which me is the real me, they'd blast that one. So, it makes sense for the images to be in your square. The images are also in a "cluster", so it's not like they can break up and each move 5 ft. away in a different direction. Certainly in this description, there's some room for interpretation. For instance, what is the definition of a cluster of mirror images in terms of location from each other? For this ambiguity, the FAQ is fine. As a rules source on its own, it doesn't make any sense. But for a DM that needs to get a quick answer on a foggy subject, it's fine.
tos_shai_hulud 04-04-07, 04:23 PM	If the images are shifting around, they can be shifting further from you and still be in your square when the attack happens. Perhaps you are thinking that the shifting takes place and the monster watches. Once the shifting stops, he attacks. Then, they continue shuffling around again. I don't think that was the intention of the spell. I believe (and I may be wrong), that the shuffling is constantly taking place, with all images running through each others squares throughout the round (making it very confusing). When a square is chosen for an attack, it may be the square that you are in, it may not be. Regardless, multiple images are shuffling through the square and in other squares when the attack occurs. It is possible that these attacks hit you, it is possible that these attacks hit an image. I could be wrong. Maybe you are right and the images just shuffle around a bit at the start of your turn, then are stationary for the rest of the time.
lears_fool 04-04-07, 04:33 PM	I wouldn't trust the FAQ farther than I could throw it (and seeing as how it is a non-physical, virtual object, I couldn't touch it, much less throw it). Repeatedly it says "This is not what the books say, but its easier to play the game this way, so lets do this". The FAQ is *NOT FREAKING ALLOWED* to decide what rules should and should not be followed. It's only purpose is to answer frequently asked questions, and clarify the way the rules work. Yes, much like the rules themselves. The rules have flaws, the FAQ is considered an official source designed specifically to clarify those rulings. Outside the game rules themselves the FAQ is the next best thing to an official source MrVincent replied intelligently and used a reference from the FAQ that in no way contradicts the spell text. I'm uncertain why you went to the effort to rant so enthusiastically while offering up no counter-point nor actually pointing out a hole in the FAQ reference in question save for 'it's icky'
crowclub 04-06-07, 05:01 AM	right, but as the FAQ says its all in one five foot space and a megaladon's mouth is probably about 10-15ft wide alone, I'm not looking at this from a rules aspect anymore, I understand by RAW rules the images take the bite individually, I'm just saying as a mental exercise, doesn't it make more sense for such a large creature to bite all at once rather than the one. Mechanically an attack against the space itself, not the creature occupying the space, maybe the character in that situation would get a reflex save to get out of the way or something. If you picture the situation in your head, the images all in one 5ft. square doesn't make much sense. As you say, a 15ft. wide mouth snaps at a 5ft. wide space...it's going to swallow the Sorcerer! Sometimes you have to not think realistically and remember that this is Fantasy and magic can do wondrous things!
lastknightleft 04-06-07, 09:35 AM	Oh don't worry, I am completely capable of that However I think the next campaign I DM is going to be a drunk campaign where everyone takes the system as the laws of the universe (ah la order of the stick) I've DMed to tenth level and the serious campaign while fun can have serious frustrations when players argue with you that what your saying doesn't make sense even though that's what the rules say and you should change it when a change is in their favor and then when you try to argue that something doesn't make sense but that's what the rules say that works against them they say "you can't change it, that's what the rules say"
Marcus Majarra 04-08-07, 04:12 AM	Actually, there's a logical reason why images could occuppy different squares: they do not reshuffle automatically. It requires that the caster take a move action to shuffle the images. If they're not occuppying his square, he's simply moving around along with the images as a move action.
mvincent 04-08-07, 01:26 PM	It requires that the caster take a move action to shuffle the images.The spell does not say that.
Marcus Majarra 04-08-07, 05:56 PM	Ok, maybe not explicitly, but the spell does state the following: "While moving, you can merge and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded." (4th paragraph) This implies that the caster has to move in order to shuffle himself with the images. Otherwise, the images merely duplicate the caster's actions: "The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on." (2nd paragraph)
lears_fool 04-08-07, 06:03 PM	If you picture the situation in your head, the images all in one 5ft. square doesn't make much sense. As you say, a 15ft. wide mouth snaps at a 5ft. wide space...it's going to swallow the Sorcerer! Sometimes you have to not think realistically and remember that this is Fantasy and magic can do wondrous things! Except the images are NOT all in one 5' square, the FAQ just says (quite intelligently) that in most cases you can treat it as such because it'd get annoying to keep track of a bunch of images.
mvincent 04-08-07, 09:46 PM	This implies that the caster has to move in order to shuffle himself with the images.Correct, but in D&D you can move without taking a move action, or indeed without even leaving your square (i.e. you can move around in your square freely). Of course, for groups that still place mirror images in different squares, it makes sense that the caster would want to move at least 5' (otherwise opponents could figure which square the 'real Slim Shady' occupied). To be clear: I actually agree that the original writer's intent was to have the images in different squares. However, this tended to cause issue with things like cover, line of sight, area effects etc. I believe the Sages original intent was to skip these issues by treating them all as having identical cover, line of effect etc (i.e. as if they were in the same square)... but then it was realized that it was just simply easier to represent the images as being in the same square for all purposes. I can testify (after much playtesting using the old method), that it is now much easier to represent say, 4 vrocks with mirror images in a 20'x30' room.
Saytr 04-08-07, 10:40 PM	As a practical matter, I'd treat the bite attack as a trample. Or give it that option. I'm not familiar with this monster, but something that big usually has a trample attack it can use. It sweeps the area with its enormous mouth/ head instead of with its enormous feet (resolve as a trample). Or it uses its bite attack with the normal rules. Seems sensible. ~
Nom 04-09-07, 07:15 AM	The spell does not say that.Actually, it implicitly does: "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded" (PH pg 254, emphasis mine). As written: (1) Once an enemy successfully attacks a real image, he can deliberately target it again until you reshuffle them. (2) Reshuffling requires some sort of movement, although a 5 ft. step would probably qualify.
mvincent 04-09-07, 12:06 PM	Actually, it implicitly doesNope: the spell does not implicitly state that "It requires that the caster take a move action to shuffle the images". I (and Marcus) clarified this above.
tos_shai_hulud 04-09-07, 12:30 PM	Nope: the spell does not implicitly state that "It requires that the caster take a move action to shuffle the images". I (and Marcus) clarified this above. Implicit indicates implication. Explicit indicates fully or clearly expressed. It is easy to see that it has not been explicitly stated, and it takes interpretation to argue whether it has been or has not been implicitly stated. I can see both sides on this one. From a purely literal point of view, it has not been explicitly stated that it requires a move action, but as Nom pointed out, it does offer some implications (implicitly stated) that a move action would be required. It also makes some sense that this would be the case. However, if you convert your move action to a swift action (so that you can take more than one swift action in a round), does that count as enough movement to warrant shuffling? Perhaps. So, if you take a turn at all, would that offer enough movement to justify shuffling? Also perhaps. Something in the spell description is misworded, as how can an opponent determine the actual image if they are constantly shuffling (which is what Nom pointed out).
mvincent 04-09-07, 12:50 PM	I can see both sides on this one. From a purely literal point of view, it has not been explicitly stated that it requires a move action, but as Nom pointed out, it does offer some implications (implicitly stated) that a move action would be required. Nope. Even Nom acknowledged that an actual move action was likely not required (i.e. a 5' step should suffice). If the spell text "implied" that a move action was required (rather than just movement), this would not be a justified conclusion (and it is certainly justified).
Marcus Majarra 04-09-07, 01:54 PM	Actually, if you take the PHB into consideration, it's implied that a move action would be required (or that you make more than 5 feet of movement): According to the PHB, images occupy different squares (I'm not going to account for the recommendation for spatial simplicity the FAQ suggests). Unless there are 3 images or less (not counting the caster), there's always a possibility that the caster will not be adjacent to every image. In order for a complete shuffling to occur, it's mandatory that the caster be able to occupy the square of any image he created. A 5-foot-step is not sufficient to guarantee a complete shuffling. This problem also arises with any number of images within difficult terrain (as 5-foot-steps are impossible in these conditions). This is why it seems far more likely that a move action be required in order to shuffle the images. Furthermore, I don't know of many other forms of autonomous movement that can guarantee that the caster can occupy the square of any image he created (except maybe for swimming). Running, jumping, and charging have to be done in a straight line, for example.
mvincent 04-09-07, 02:58 PM	Unless there are 3 images or less (not counting the caster), there's always a possibility that the caster will not be adjacent to every image. In order for a complete shuffling to occur, it's mandatory that the caster be able to occupy the square of any image he created. A 5-foot-step is not sufficient to guarantee a complete shuffling.See, now it seems like you're just making up silly stuff (which still doesn't indicate that a move action has to occur whenever you are shifting). It seems that you believe either: 1) The writer's were thinking about this condition (and no other) when they wrote the rules, or 2) Anytime D&D writers refer to 'movement' they are referring to a move 'action'. Of course, this issue seems like an inconsequential, semantic debate. I was being fairly pedantic in pointing out the difference between moving and taking a move action... I just thought it should be noted (for clarity) was all. I did not expect other posters here to genuinely feel there was no difference. Sooo... here is sample line from the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm): "The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action." This appears to distinguish a 5' step as movement (even though there was no move action involved)
Marcus Majarra 04-09-07, 06:12 PM	You do realize that this can result in illegal movement? If all the character has to do is any kind of movement in order to trigger the shuffling, this could result in the character moving more than 5 feet through a 5-foot-step by virtue of switching places with the most distant image (assuming it is more than 5 feet away). In any case, here's the rule argument I see disallowing 5-foot-steps as a way to trigger the shuffling, from the description of the spell: "You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can't use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image." (2nd paragraph) You need to separate from the image in order to become indistinguishable from one. You can't exactly separate from the image if all your movement implies moving into one. It's even coherent with the quote I provided earlier: "While moving, you can merge and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded." (4th paragraph)
mvincent 04-09-07, 07:12 PM	You do realize that this can result in illegal movement? If all the character has to do is any kind of movement in order to trigger the shuffling, this could result in the character moving more than 5 feet through a 5-foot-step by virtue of switching places with the most distant image (assuming it is more than 5 feet away).That appears to be a strawman argument (i.e. still silly). The spell does not say (or imply) that shuffling allows one to disregard movement limitations. Your proposition could technically allow for illegal moves while making a move action as well. Don't make me mock you.
Toki_Wartooth 04-09-07, 07:16 PM	all the character has to do is any kind of movement in order to trigger the shuffling, this could result in the character moving more than 5 feet through a 5-foot-step by virtue of switching places with the most distant image (assuming it is more than 5 feet away).Geez Marcus... where are you getting this stuff? You're getting pwn'd for no good cause.
Marcus Majarra 04-10-07, 05:40 PM	Ok, ok, ok. Let's forget the entire breaking movement rules idea. I agree that it is silly. Still, how can a 5-foot-step allow the caster to both enter and separate from an image when images occupy their own spaces?