Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Unseen_Illusion 07-27-07, 06:27 PM	Well, I'm now approaching my 7th level of my Wizards adventuring career, and I was wondering which spell do you think is more defensive. Our party has 2 duskblades, a paladin, and a Kensai. We don't have a rogue, so we wont be using GI for SA's. I just would like experiences as to which is better. Thank you
CantripN 07-27-07, 06:59 PM	G. Invisibility, no question.
Kouk 07-28-07, 12:57 AM	Yeah, Invis hands down. Why bother having a random chance for them to miss you when you can have a guaranteed 50% that does not get whittled down as attacks are made against you? Having 8 images is nice and all, but the enemies can still see you (pinpoint your location visibly, if you use the "all images within 5 feet" rule) and will have no trouble throwing a fireball straight at you. With Invis, it is a crapshoot or they have to be able to See Invisible things. Invis also has many other uses, like scouting and escaping notice of something that is beating you. Plus, you can cast Greater Invisibility on other characters too, which will make your party Rogue much more deadly. Edit: Your party does not currently have a Rogue, but it is one of the merits of the spell. Getting a bonus to hit and a 50% concealment chance is something that is useful to any character though.
zorgling25 07-28-07, 01:48 AM	Plus, you can cast Greater Invisibility on other characters too, which will make your party Rogue much more deadly. Unless they're already a pixie. :D
redraven 07-28-07, 02:21 AM	Greater Mirror Image Pros: Immediate action cast on other people's turns. Minutes/level duration. Protection continuously recharges. Miss chance against even Targeted spells. Not vulnerable to low-level counters (but see below) Cons: Personal only, so cannot cast on other party members. Vulnerable to Cleave/Great Cleave. Vulnerable to Magic Missile. Enemies still know what square you are in (if images occupy same square). Greater Invisibility Pros: Cast on yourself or other party members. Sneak Attack machine. Cast attack magic with relative ease. Cons: Lasts rounds/level. Vulnerable to See Invisibility (which lasts 10 minutes/level) and Invisibility Purge, both really common buffs. Everyone typically has a plan against Invisibility, since it is an extremely common effect. All that said, it depends on the party's composition and your role within it. Are you looking for defensive spells just for yourself, or for everyone? How long are battles normally, and how often (and close together sequentially) to you get into them? Greater Mirror Image is a lot better for Bards/Sorcerers rather than Wizards since the former do not have many opportunities to cast multiple spells per round - and if an opportunity to cast it didn't happen, the spell slot could be used to cast something else. On the other hand, it does not seem like any of your other party members would benefit too terribly from an invisibility effect. More information is needed to make a suggestion.
Yokomohoyo 07-28-07, 02:55 AM	Mirror Image is great for full combat if you intend to get into melee range. Invisibility (regular version) is great for sneaking around and what not, wile Greater Invisibility is the better of the three for incombat. Since you can attack and remain unseen and if you combine it with fly your set for a great time since you wont make noise wile moving around as long as you put everything you don't need into your pack before you start your day of adventuring.
jaelis 07-28-07, 03:04 AM	GMI is a better defensive spell for you. GI is a good general buff for the party.
ArcTan 07-28-07, 03:20 AM	Greater Mirror Image Pros: Immediate action cast on other people's turns. Minutes/level duration. Protection continuously recharges. Miss chance against even Targeted spells. Not vulnerable to low-level counters (but see below) Cons: Personal only, so cannot cast on other party members. Vulnerable to Cleave/Great Cleave. Vulnerable to Magic Missile. Enemies still know what square you are in (if images occupy same square). I don't mean to drag a debate from another thread here, but all the points in Cons (except that it's a Personal spell) are pretty strongly debated. There's nothing in the RAW to suggest that mirror image is vulnerable to Great Cleave or magic missile, or that the images are all in the same square. The MM thing, especially, is an unnecessary nerf of the spell based on nothing but a rule from an older and obsolete edition. With the *correct* rules -- that the images can spread out from you and draw fire, that the images can't be insta-destroyed with one casting of magic missile or one Great Cleave attempt, etc. -- mirror image is worth it for its level, as is GMI. Without, it kind of sucks.
jaelis 07-28-07, 03:45 AM	Without, it kind of sucks. That too, of course, is debated :)
SunTzuWarmaster 07-28-07, 08:02 AM	Depends on alot of things, actually. If you are just starting up the battle, a Mirror Image is better (because you can fire off another spell)... unless you are already in melee. Also, it is important to note that creatures that cannot see invisible creatures cannot make Attacks of Opportunity against them. I have often used a Blinding Color Surge to cover a retreat.
Thane26425 07-28-07, 09:49 AM	Good points so far. How you play does have an influence. If I recall, when I looked through Cityscape, there was a feat that made a spell cast by the mage seem to come from somewhere else. That could certain tip things in favor of GI. GI is also good if you can fly and are attacking outdoors. Regular invisibility on approach, GI for the attacks and Invisility again to escape. Combine movement with enough altitude to avoid See invisibility and other, non-vision senses, and they will be reduced to filling the sky with arrows.
lint trap 07-28-07, 02:08 PM	I'd go for Greater Mirror Image. With all the images, the miss chance is higher for targeted spells and attacks. The 1 minute/level duration is also a big plus; if the party is moving fast, you can go against multiple encounters with the spell still active, instead of burning a single spell defensively for a single encounter.
redraven 07-28-07, 05:34 PM	I don't mean to drag a debate from another thread here, but all the points in Cons (except that it's a Personal spell) are pretty strongly debated. There's nothing in the RAW to suggest that mirror image is vulnerable to Great Cleave or magic missile, or that the images are all in the same square. The MM thing, especially, is an unnecessary nerf of the spell based on nothing but a rule from an older and obsolete edition. With the *correct* rules -- that the images can spread out from you and draw fire, that the images can't be insta-destroyed with one casting of magic missile or one Great Cleave attempt, etc. -- mirror image is worth it for its level, as is GMI. Without, it kind of sucks. I'm sure you've seen it a thousand times already, but here is the FAQ on the matter for those playing along at home: Are the multiple figments from a mirror image spell legal targets for cleaving? That is, if you have the Cleave feat and you hit an image and destroy it, can you then attack another target within reach (such as another figment from the spell or perhaps the spell user)? What about Whirlwind Attack? Can you use this feat to attack all the images around the spell user? What about spells that allow multiple targets, such as magic missile? Can you aim magic missiles at different images? For all intents and purposes, the figments from a foe’s mirror image spell are your foes. You aim your spells and your attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures. Any spell you can aim at a creature you can aim at an image. When you use a spell that allows you to select multiple creatures as targets, such as magic missile, you can choose multiple images as targets. If you have the Cleave or Great Cleave feat, destroying an image with a melee attack triggers the feat (and your cleaving attack might well strike the spell user instead of another image). Likewise, you can use Whirlwind Attack to strike at any image you can reach. A Whirlwind Attack almost certainly will allow you to strike once at the spell user. As far as the "correct" rules go for spacing, I have argued extensively in other threads that allowing the images to run about is ridiculously complicated for the spell level of Mirror Image. Can you send an image around a corner? Can you close a door with an image on the other side? Does a Fireball bead come from your square or all their squares? Can an enemy not infer by virtue of not being threatened by the images (in the AoO and flanking sense) which one is the real caster? Do the images have an independent memory so that only those images caught in a Fireball blast react accordingly when you yourself are not affected? How about if one of the images is attacked with an effect that you do not or have never seen before? Does it react "appropriately" even though you have no idea what is an appropriate reaction that that effect? What happens when one of the images in a chain is destroyed? Do all of the other images move closer to you to fill the gap? During other people's turns? Do images provoke attack of opportunities for moving, and thus can you potentially soak up an enemy's AoO for the round using the images? How is it that an attacker cannot use Listen checks to determine the real mage, but are allowed when the attacker closes his/her eyes? All of this for a 2nd level spell? No thanks. I'll keep the "fake" rules of having them all occupy the same square, thank you.
ArcTan 07-28-07, 11:30 PM	As far as the "correct" rules go for spacing, I have argued extensively in other threads that allowing the images to run about is ridiculously complicated for the spell level of Mirror Image. ...It is, however, what the RAW actually says about how the spell works, including the part where you can "merge and split" with an image (and how you have to do this to keep people from figuring out that you're the real you). Even the FAQ, when it contradicts this, does so by *proposing a houserule*, not interpreting the rule. (The FAQ admits that it says images can be 5 feet away from you or another image but says "It's generally better" to go with the all-in-one-space houserule, which is a statement of opinion.) Can you send an image around a corner? Why not? Can you close a door with an image on the other side? Why not? Does a Fireball bead come from your square or all their squares? Your square, obviously. In fact, from *you*, since the images can't make illusions of things that you throw or fire, just of you. This doesn't change if the images are all in your square, anyway. Only one fireball bead emerges from *your* finger. Firing a crossbow or casting a spell like fireball or hitting someone with a staff still reveals who the real you is. Can an enemy not infer by virtue of not being threatened by the images (in the AoO and flanking sense) which one is the real caster? ...Only if you think the real caster is stupid enough to automatically take the AoO offered to him and give away his real position. Unlike in video games, AoOs do not automatically happen when provoked, and therefore you do not have a constant radar-like awareness of being "threatened". Otherwise sneaking around to assassinate people would be rather problematic. ("Now all I have to do is hide here and lay low until -- whoa, that guard ran right by me! Attack of Opportunity!") Do the images have an independent memory so that only those images caught in a Fireball blast react accordingly when you yourself are not affected? ...Why not? How about if one of the images is attacked with an effect that you do not or have never seen before? Does it react "appropriately" even though you have no idea what is an appropriate reaction that that effect? You're not controlling it. It's not a Concentration effect. Images will also react appropriately to being burned by a fireball even if you've, say, been blinded and don't know that it was a fireball that hit you. What happens when one of the images in a chain is destroyed? Do all of the other images move closer to you to fill the gap? During other people's turns? *shrug* Or the images that are too far away pop. It's an ambiguity, no one's saying it isn't. Do images provoke attack of opportunities for moving, and thus can you potentially soak up an enemy's AoO for the round using the images? Sure, if they want to take it. They'd be kind of foolish to, in my mind. How is it that an attacker cannot use Listen checks to determine the real mage, but are allowed when the attacker closes his/her eyes? I think this is the only really valid point in the bunch. It's an ambiguity that stays if you have them all be in the same square, though -- Blindsight in the form of sonar is still a form of hearing, and presumably most people would say, nonetheless, that Blindsight would let you pick the real image out of the fakes. I don't think the implication is really that the images are aurally identical to the caster, but just that they can't be *trivially* told apart from the caster because they aren't silent and do mimic things like the caster's speech -- but they don't cast the same aural shadows the caster does, and Blindsight and high Listen checks can still ferret out the real one. All of this for a 2nd level spell? No thanks. I'll keep the "fake" rules of having them all occupy the same square, thank you. None of what you cited actually increases the *power* of the spell, just the complexity (a lot of the "power" stuff you're talking about seems to assume that an enemy can be involuntarily forced to make an AoO, which is nonsense).
Khadmus 07-29-07, 10:26 AM	I choose greater invisibility. No reasoning behind my opinion, just feel like it. Compared guardian naga to some other CR 9 monsters (i was bored) and greater invisibility+magic missile or divine power owned the opposition.
monkeybone 07-31-07, 12:06 PM	Unless you're planning to be fighting a bunch of casters, then go with invisibility. Monsters will spend all their time trying to eat the fighters.
Wrong 07-31-07, 01:29 PM	Invisibility can be negated with a 2nd level spells (see invisibility, glitterdust) and there are also feats and spells to reduce or negate concealment. Another problem is that invisibility works better against your allies most of the time, and they can not target you with beneficial effects. Your cleric can forget invisibility purge against invisible foes, and that can be another problem for party characters without the ability to see invisibility. Mirror image at its top grants a miss chance far better than invis, and you can cast more than one mirror image on you (more a sorcerer option). For me, it's invisibility for tactical moves and mirror image for combat. And add Improved Blink later. Now, maybe that the point of view depends on the class we play and the spellcasting type of these classes.
redraven 08-02-07, 02:25 PM	...It is, however, what the RAW actually says about how the spell works, including the part where you can "merge and split" with an image (and how you have to do this to keep people from figuring out that you're the real you). Even the FAQ, when it contradicts this, does so by *proposing a houserule*, not interpreting the rule. (The FAQ admits that it says images can be 5 feet away from you or another image but says "It's generally better" to go with the all-in-one-space houserule, which is a statement of opinion.) The RAW for Mirror Image, quite frankly, is stupid. Just like by RAW you can get infinite Wishes from Gating in an Efreeti, or double your material wealth (including major artifacts) by using Astral Projection, or creating shadowy illumination with Darkness, or having omniscient powers with Contingency, the actual RAW makes no mechanical or logical sense, especially given the level of spell that it is. Q. Can you send an image around a corner? A. Why not? Because you no longer have Line of Effect to the illusion, which is supposed to be mimicking your every action? Q. Can you close a door with an image on the other side? A. Why not? In addition to the Line of Effect problem above, you now have a scenario in which a mage could actually use Mirror Image to interact with people in other rooms or through walls with no chance for those people to disbelieve the illusion. The wizard can be up to 40 feet away. Q. Does a Fireball bead come from your square or all their squares? A. Your square, obviously. In fact, from *you*, since the images can't make illusions of things that you throw or fire, just of you. This doesn't change if the images are all in your square, anyway. Only one fireball bead emerges from *your* finger. Firing a crossbow or casting a spell like fireball or hitting someone with a staff still reveals who the real you is. Sure it does. If all the images are in the same square constantly shuffling about, there is really no good chance for anyone to potentially spot from which finger the Fireball bead emerged, especially if you were standing behind some of the images. Q. Can an enemy not infer by virtue of not being threatened by the images (in the AoO and flanking sense) which one is the real caster? A. ...Only if you think the real caster is stupid enough to automatically take the AoO offered to him and give away his real position. Unlike in video games, AoOs do not automatically happen when provoked, and therefore you do not have a constant radar-like awareness of being "threatened". Otherwise sneaking around to assassinate people would be rather problematic. ("Now all I have to do is hide here and lay low until -- whoa, that guard ran right by me! Attack of Opportunity!") No one said anything about this being like a videogame. But you are absolutely wrong that you do not have "radar-like awareness." The individual does know things that they couldn't possibly know otherwise, such as when they are being threatened (otherwise whether a character is flanked or not is a matter of their perception, when it solely relies on actually being threatened) or that a character has the Mage Slayer feats from Complete Arcane. Q. Do the images have an independent memory so that only those images caught in a Fireball blast react accordingly when you yourself are not affected? A. Why not? Because the spell absolutely does not mention any hint of this at all? Because they are only supposed to mimic your actions per RAW? Because, perhaps, having an unbeatable illusion with up to eight omniscient minds is a bit of a stretch for a 2nd-level spell? Q. How about if one of the images is attacked with an effect that you do not or have never seen before? Does it react "appropriately" even though you have no idea what is an appropriate reaction that that effect? A. You're not controlling it. It's not a Concentration effect. Images will also react appropriately to being burned by a fireball even if you've, say, been blinded and don't know that it was a fireball that hit you. I'm not talking about just a Fireball. I am talking about completely customized or totally new magic the world has never seen before, and somehow this 2nd-level spell can figure out what the effects are. Hell, don't know what a magical portal does? Send a Mirror Image through. Keep in mind that nothing in the spell description even remotely hints at the possibility of this. Q. What happens when one of the images in a chain is destroyed? Do all of the other images move closer to you to fill the gap? During other people's turns? A. *shrug* Or the images that are too far away pop. It's an ambiguity, no one's saying it isn't. It is not an ambiguity, it is a sign of a broken mechanic. Conversely, if you have all the images occupy your own square, every single one of these issues go away. Q. Do images provoke attack of opportunities for moving, and thus can you potentially soak up an enemy's AoO for the round using the images? A. Sure, if they want to take it. They'd be kind of foolish to, in my mind. A wizard running up to you with a glowing hand and you're going to let him potentially have a free shot? And what about things like Hydras or other monsters who do not have the intelligence to understand what Mirror Image is? Do they roll some kind of check? Q. How is it that an attacker cannot use Listen checks to determine the real mage, but are allowed when the attacker closes his/her eyes? A. I think this is the only really valid point in the bunch. It's an ambiguity that stays if you have them all be in the same square, though -- Blindsight in the form of sonar is still a form of hearing, and presumably most people would say, nonetheless, that Blindsight would let you pick the real image out of the fakes. I don't think the implication is really that the images are aurally identical to the caster, but just that they can't be *trivially* told apart from the caster because they aren't silent and do mimic things like the caster's speech -- but they don't cast the same aural shadows the caster does, and Blindsight and high Listen checks can still ferret out the real one. No, none of it is an issue with the images all being in the same square, because it makes absolute sense that you would still know what square the mage is in until he/she moved next. Listen checks and the like can only pinpoint the square, which is where all the images are under the "houserule." None of what you cited actually increases the *power* of the spell, just the complexity (a lot of the "power" stuff you're talking about seems to assume that an enemy can be involuntarily forced to make an AoO, which is nonsense). I made no such assumption about the AoO issue. I am assuming that a 2nd-level illusion spell should not be omniscient and unbeatable when none of the other illusion spells are even remotely close to such perfect protection or subterfuge. As I said above, absolutely none of the above issues is a problem at all if it is assumed that all the images stay in the same square.
ArcTan 08-02-07, 03:46 PM	Because you no longer have Line of Effect to the illusion, which is supposed to be mimicking your every action? It's not a Duration: Concentration spell. You're not consciously controlling the image. I don't see why it's a problem. In addition to the Line of Effect problem above, you now have a scenario in which a mage could actually use Mirror Image to interact with people in other rooms or through walls with no chance for those people to disbelieve the illusion. The wizard can be up to 40 feet away. He can't see them or be aware of anything that they do unless he does have line of sight to them, though. At best you're complaining about an incredibly clunky and difficult way to do a very short-range sending. Sure it does. If all the images are in the same square constantly shuffling about, there is really no good chance for anyone to potentially spot from which finger the Fireball bead emerged, especially if you were standing behind some of the images. But they're not "constantly shuffling about". Actually, by saying they're "constantly shuffling about" you're strengthening it -- by RAW the Wizard has to take a move action to mix up the images once you've figured out which one he is. No one said anything about this being like a videogame. But you are absolutely wrong that you do not have "radar-like awareness." The individual does know things that they couldn't possibly know otherwise, such as when they are being threatened (otherwise whether a character is flanked or not is a matter of their perception, when it solely relies on actually being threatened) or that a character has the Mage Slayer feats from Complete Arcane. *shrug* I always ran it that being flanked *was* a matter of perception, since it's a matter of being aware of two targets trying to attack you. Otherwise using major image or a deck of illusions to create an illusory attacker just became that much more useless. Of course, I'm a big fan of the variant rule that lets you ignore a flanker in exchange for taking a -4 to your AC against the flanker only. Because the spell absolutely does not mention any hint of this at all? Because they are only supposed to mimic your actions per RAW? Because, perhaps, having an unbeatable illusion with up to eight omniscient minds is a bit of a stretch for a 2nd-level spell? *shrug* It's magic. You seem to be basing your objections based on the theoretical "power" of the spell -- how "magical" it is -- rather than how powerful it actually is gamewise. Which is silly (in real life telekinesis would be a far less "magical" effect than alter self, for instance). It's a spell that makes duplicates of you that have a few built-in safeguards to make it very easy to detect which are the duplicates. What's the big deal? I'm not talking about just a Fireball. I am talking about completely customized or totally new magic the world has never seen before, and somehow this 2nd-level spell can figure out what the effects are. Hell, don't know what a magical portal does? Send a Mirror Image through. Keep in mind that nothing in the spell description even remotely hints at the possibility of this. It says they react "realistically" to area spells. I'm just taking their word on that. And you can't send an image through a portal or, indeed, send it anywhere outside of its range to you. It is not an ambiguity, it is a sign of a broken mechanic. Conversely, if you have all the images occupy your own square, every single one of these issues go away. It's hardly "broken" to create a weakness in images that isn't there if they're all in the same square (several popping if you break one in the chain). A wizard running up to you with a glowing hand and you're going to let him potentially have a free shot? If there's a good chance it's a mirror image, it's a judgment call, isn't it? And what about things like Hydras or other monsters who do not have the intelligence to understand what Mirror Image is? Do they roll some kind of check? There's a random die roll built right into the spell. No, none of it is an issue with the images all being in the same square, because it makes absolute sense that you would still know what square the mage is in until he/she moved next. Listen checks and the like can only pinpoint the square, which is where all the images are under the "houserule." And if I have blindsight based on sonar? Does that not count as using hearing to distinguish between the images? Or is blindsight now suddenly "nerfed" to the level of blindsense? I made no such assumption about the AoO issue. I am assuming that a 2nd-level illusion spell should not be omniscient and unbeatable when none of the other illusion spells are even remotely close to such perfect protection or subterfuge. As I said above, absolutely none of the above issues is a problem at all if it is assumed that all the images stay in the same square. Saying that a spell can have a built-in ability to react to things like area spells is not "omniscient", and a figment that can be dispelled simply by attacking it isn't "unbeatable". And, frankly, I'm a little skeptical about these game-breaking issues, because frankly I can't figure out how in the world I would be able to talk to someone inside a room with a closed door using a mirror image (since I can't see or hear anything that's going on there) or "test" a magic portal using mirror image (since it can't leave the range of the spell, and since magic portals that trigger for creatures wouldn't trigger for a figment, etc.) or any of the other things you say make it a huge problem. Moreover, stuff like using mirror images to provoke AoOs and stuff is just interesting tactics, not horrifyingly overpowered. Considering that there are a number of methods you could use, following the RAW description, to pinpoint the real caster -- such as, say, the real caster *casting any spell at all* -- which leaves the real caster vulnerable until he takes his next move action to "merge and split" with one or more images, the spell is actually pretty tactically interesting and requires some real thought. Making it into just an ablative displacement, on the other hand, is boring and dumb. It's also annoying that it basically makes this spell a much better version of displacement, despite the fact that displacement is a higher-level spell.
monkeybone 08-02-07, 05:23 PM	My wizard leads off every fight with Greater Invisibility. He's the only original party member still alive.
redraven 08-04-07, 03:15 AM	It's not a Duration: Concentration spell. You're not consciously controlling the image. I don't see why it's a problem. I am well aware of Mirror Image's Duration. My point is it apparently does not need Line of Effect to the caster in order to maintain the illusion effect. Which further proves that these illusions are independent and omniscient. Which is rather a silly effect for a 2nd-level spell. Of course, this also suggests that a caster can have the images walk through walls into other rooms as well, since Line of Effect is irrelevant. He can't see them or be aware of anything that they do unless he does have line of sight to them, though. At best you're complaining about an incredibly clunky and difficult way to do a very short-range sending. I do not think I have to remind you that Sending is a 5th-level wizard spell, right? Again, the point is that no one gets a save to disbelieve the illusion no matter how long they interact with it. It is very easy to construct a scenario in which the actual wizard is on the other side of a door or wall and can interact just fine with whomever is in the room via Mirror Image. Cast a Clairaudience/Clairvoyance and the ruse is perfect. Also, do keep in mind that Minor Image is also 2nd level, has a concentration duration, can be disbelieved, and does not include intelligible speech. You have to get to Major Image (3rd level) to begin to get most of Mirror Image's benefits, but are still stuck with a Concentration duration and ability to be disbelieved. But they're not "constantly shuffling about". Actually, by saying they're "constantly shuffling about" you're strengthening it -- by RAW the Wizard has to take a move action to mix up the images once you've figured out which one he is. The images are mimicking the wizard, and the wizard does not remain motionless in his square. As far as RAW goes, it does not state a move action is necessary to mix up the images - the spell mentions that the images can move through each other. Nevermind the fact that moving into and through the images should be impossible given the fact that they mimic your actions (and thus would move in the same direction and speed as you), but you will never see me saying that the RAW version of Mirror Image was supposed to make sense. *shrug* I always ran it that being flanked *was* a matter of perception, since it's a matter of being aware of two targets trying to attack you. Otherwise using major image or a deck of illusions to create an illusory attacker just became that much more useless. Per RAW, the defender's perception is irrelevant for the purposes of flanking: Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. Any illusion that does not actively threaten a defender's space cannot grant a flanking bonus to anything on the opposite side. To rule it your way is silly, as a character could simply state that they never perceive themselves as flanked and no one gets the bonus. *shrug* It's magic. You seem to be basing your objections based on the theoretical "power" of the spell -- how "magical" it is -- rather than how powerful it actually is gamewise. Which is silly (in real life telekinesis would be a far less "magical" effect than alter self, for instance). It's a spell that makes duplicates of you that have a few built-in safeguards to make it very easy to detect which are the duplicates. What's the big deal? The "big deal" is that the RAW is horribly ambiguous and the mechanic itself poorly thought out. If all the images occupy the same square, there is no abuse, there are no contradictions, and its power is in line with its spell level. I suppose there is no "big deal" inherent in Contingency being omniscient and very easily more powerful than most (if not all) Divination spells? "When Bob the Evil Sorcerer leaves the Fortress of Doom, cast Mage Armor." Bam, instant notification that Bob has left the building. Obviously, Contingency was not meant to be used in this way. I have pointed out that due to the sloppy mechanics employed in Mirror Image, similarly ridiculous uses can be made beyond the RAI. It says they react "realistically" to area spells. I'm just taking their word on that. And you can't send an image through a portal or, indeed, send it anywhere outside of its range to you. You have already admitted that Line of Effect is irrelevant to Mirror Image, as long as the images stay within five feet of each other or you. And they react "normally" to area spells, even if you have no idea what a normal reaction would be for that spell - this means they are effectively omniscient. It's hardly "broken" to create a weakness in images that isn't there if they're all in the same square (several popping if you break one in the chain). Except we have no idea if that is what happens. The images could very easily just move closer to you. Which begs the question of whether this movement happens as an immediate action during other people's turns, whether the movement provokes attacks of opportunity, and so forth. Hell, I don't even think it is clear what happens when they mimic your spellcasting, in regards to whether the mimicked casting provokes an AoO. There's a random die roll built right into the spell. No, there is not a random roll if the monster or whatever only has one of the images in reach. Moreover, it is entirely likely that any unintelligent monster would attack whatever was presented to it in that situation, especially given that the images are unbeatable illusions. This makes the spell fantastic at soaking up AoOs at range. And if I have blindsight based on sonar? Does that not count as using hearing to distinguish between the images? Or is blindsight now suddenly "nerfed" to the level of blindsense? Not if the blindsight ability is being used in conjunction with normal vision. A creature with blindsight that closes its eyes and then attacks the mage does not have to roll a "miss chance," but would if it had its eyes open. That RAW Mirror Image for you. Saying that a spell can have a built-in ability to react to things like area spells is not "omniscient", and a figment that can be dispelled simply by attacking it isn't "unbeatable". And, frankly, I'm a little skeptical about these game-breaking issues, because frankly I can't figure out how in the world I would be able to talk to someone inside a room with a closed door using a mirror image (since I can't see or hear anything that's going on there) or "test" a magic portal using mirror image (since it can't leave the range of the spell, and since magic portals that trigger for creatures wouldn't trigger for a figment, etc.) or any of the other things you say make it a huge problem. It is not that difficult to hear someone through a closed door. And the door is really not necessary either, as you apparently believe that Mirror Image can operate without Line of Effect to the mage anyway. The point about Mirror Image as an unbeatable illusion still stands beyond your skepticism because it is exactly that: impossible to be disbelieved. It matters not how long you interact with it, it only disappears when struck, making it into an entirely separate class of Figments. Moreover, stuff like using mirror images to provoke AoOs and stuff is just interesting tactics, not horrifyingly overpowered. Considering that there are a number of methods you could use, following the RAW description, to pinpoint the real caster -- such as, say, the real caster *casting any spell at all* -- which leaves the real caster vulnerable until he takes his next move action to "merge and split" with one or more images, the spell is actually pretty tactically interesting and requires some real thought. Making it into just an ablative displacement, on the other hand, is boring and dumb. It's also annoying that it basically makes this spell a much better version of displacement, despite the fact that displacement is a higher-level spell. Spellcasting does not make the mage vulnerable unless the spell has an obvious visual effect. And as mentioned above, it is not at all clear that a move action is necessary for the various images to move around. In any case, the bottom line is that this spell is way out of line for a 2nd-level spell. You mention Displacement being weaker, and I absolutely agree - I imagine that the entire point about being able to use Magic Missile and Cleave to eliminate images is supposed to be a balancing factor (although Mirror Image is personal range, vs Displacement being any touched creature). I would rather have a better form of Displacement at lower level than the sort of ridiculous tactical possibilities of Mirror Image as a 2nd-level spell with images running around in separate squares.
ArcTan 08-04-07, 12:38 PM	I am well aware of Mirror Image's Duration. My point is it apparently does not need Line of Effect to the caster in order to maintain the illusion effect. Which further proves that these illusions are independent and omniscient. Which is rather a silly effect for a 2nd-level spell. *shrug* Doesn't matter whether it's silly, just matters whether it's overpowered. Of course, this also suggests that a caster can have the images walk through walls into other rooms as well, since Line of Effect is irrelevant. Yes, but when would this actually be *useful*? Having a copy of yourself duplicating your actions someplace where you can't see it? I do not think I have to remind you that Sending is a 5th-level wizard spell, right? Sending goes anywhere in the world to anyone you name. This "use" of mirror image, which isn't even very useful, goes maybe 10 or 15 feet away to whoever's standing there. So no, they're not actually that much alike after all. In fact, I'm scratching my head wondering why you think this is broken or overpowered, since I'm finding it difficult to imagine this ever being useful. Again, the point is that no one gets a save to disbelieve the illusion no matter how long they interact with it. It is very easy to construct a scenario in which the actual wizard is on the other side of a door or wall and can interact just fine with whomever is in the room via Mirror Image. Cast a Clairaudience/Clairvoyance and the ruse is perfect. I still don't see the big deal. So there's an image of you there. It can't be more than a very short distance away from the real you. Unlike a regular figment spell, you can't actually control its actions at will -- it can only do *what you do*. If you talk, then the real you has a chance of being heard. It can't generate any effects that you're not generating in real life. It lasts for a matter of a few minutes. So you can send a message to someone. Maybe, if you spend all afternoon carefully setting it up, fool someone into attacking it (assuming that the architecture of the environment allows you to have a convenient space to move and talk behind some kind of wall or something). I still don't see the big deal. Also, do keep in mind that Minor Image is also 2nd level, has a concentration duration, can be disbelieved, and does not include intelligible speech. You have to get to Major Image (3rd level) to begin to get most of Mirror Image's benefits, but are still stuck with a Concentration duration and ability to be disbelieved. Yeah, one thing makes a copy of you that does exactly what you do that can't stray too far from you and only lasts 1 min/lvl, and another makes anything you can imagine for as long as you can concentrate, with the caveat that it can't talk and people can see through it. I don't see the imbalance. I don't even think Will (disbelief) is all that big a deal, since mirror image is very easy to disbelieve (in the mundane sense) whether or not you get Will (disbelief). (Who's going to say "Wow, the Wizard must've suddenly cloned himself!" instead of "Hey, he cast mirror image"?) The images are mimicking the wizard, and the wizard does not remain motionless in his square. The Wizard isn't constantly "walking around" himself, though. As far as RAW goes, it does not state a move action is necessary to mix up the images - the spell mentions that the images can move through each other. Yeah, but why should this be different from any other illusion spell? A figment from a deck of illusions doesn't get to move "continuously" and take an unlimited number of free actions during everyone else's turn. Its continuous movement is represented by having a place in the initiative order, just like with everything else. Nevermind the fact that moving into and through the images should be impossible given the fact that they mimic your actions (and thus would move in the same direction and speed as you), but you will never see me saying that the RAW version of Mirror Image was supposed to make sense. Either way the direction of the images' movement has to be independent of the caster, since you also have the images constantly, chaotically shuffling around (without regard for initiative). Per RAW, the defender's perception is irrelevant for the purposes of flanking: Any illusion that does not actively threaten a defender's space cannot grant a flanking bonus to anything on the opposite side. To rule it your way is silly, as a character could simply state that they never perceive themselves as flanked and no one gets the bonus. A player doesn't get to dictate what his character perceives or doesn't perceive. That's the point of Will (disbelief) in the first place. Again, I think this is a genuine hole in the rules -- by strict RAW, if I'm in the battle for my life against a Minotaur and a mosquito comes and hovers around behind my back, the mosquito (which is a creature) has provided the Minotaur with a flanking bonus, even though I know the mosquito can't really harm me and am completely determined to ignore it and let it bite me. By contrast, I somehow *always know* whether I'm really threatened by a snorting, raging Red Dragon from a deck of illusions, even if I have a Will save of -2 because I'm a 1st-level Commoner, and said Red Dragon can never, ever provide me a flanking bonus against my pet housecat which is attacking me. Don't you think that's a problem? The "big deal" is that the RAW is horribly ambiguous and the mechanic itself poorly thought out. If all the images occupy the same square, there is no abuse, there are no contradictions, and its power is in line with its spell level. *shrug* I don't see it. Nothing you've mentioned would be a problem for me in running the spell, if a player tried it (which I've never seen a player try). I suppose there is no "big deal" inherent in Contingency being omniscient and very easily more powerful than most (if not all) Divination spells? "When Bob the Evil Sorcerer leaves the Fortress of Doom, cast Mage Armor." Bam, instant notification that Bob has left the building. Obviously, Contingency was not meant to be used in this way. I have pointed out that due to the sloppy mechanics employed in Mirror Image, similarly ridiculous uses can be made beyond the RAI. Contingency is another kettle of fish. I still don't see what is so ridiculous about mirror image. If you want to go through it in detail, we can, but I think you know that it'd have to be a very weird situation for using mirror image as a messenger or a decoy in another room to be an at all functional tactic. (I'm imagining the scene in Austin Powers where Foxxy Cleopatra is talking to Austin using a "decoy" of a man standing directly behind her.) The thing about area spells is hardly powerful or abusable, unless you're regularly getting attacked by some area spell where knowing its precise effect is of tremendous value in making it totally ineffective on very short notice. You can't use mirror images to scout ahead into a portal, or scout ahead at all. Can't use them to set off traps, can't use them to detect environmental conditions (as opposed to area spells), can't do anything except let them get hit by a fireball and say "Yep, that was a fireball". You have already admitted that Line of Effect is irrelevant to Mirror Image, as long as the images stay within five feet of each other or you. And they react "normally" to area spells, even if you have no idea what a normal reaction would be for that spell - this means they are effectively omniscient. Omniscient regarding the question and *only* the question "What would happen if I got hit by this area spell?" Yeah, that's the great secrets of the cosmos unlocked right there. Except we have no idea if that is what happens. The images could very easily just move closer to you. Which begs the question of whether this movement happens as an immediate action during other people's turns, whether the movement provokes attacks of opportunity, and so forth. Disappearing is the more consistent solution with RAW, because RAW mirror image never explicitly gave them the privilege to move as a free action (immediate actions didn't exist yet), nor do I see why it should have. Hell, I don't even think it is clear what happens when they mimic your spellcasting, in regards to whether the mimicked casting provokes an AoO. In terms of interactions based on perception, which AoOs are, why not? No, there is not a random roll if the monster or whatever only has one of the images in reach. The random roll is effectively a random roll for "Which image do I think is real?" Unless you think intelligent monsters are magically forced to switch it up every turn even if their attacks have been working. Moreover, it is entirely likely that any unintelligent monster would attack whatever was presented to it in that situation, especially given that the images are unbeatable illusions. This makes the spell fantastic at soaking up AoOs at range. Enh. It's an interesting tactical use of the spell against dumb or gullible enemies. Big whoop. Very dumb enemies can be fooled the same way with silent image -- and you do have to be very dumb not to realize something's up when mirror image goes up. It's not even really different from how people use summons or even familiars at low level. Not if the blindsight ability is being used in conjunction with normal vision. A creature with blindsight that closes its eyes and then attacks the mage does not have to roll a "miss chance," but would if it had its eyes open. That RAW Mirror Image for you. Well, yes, but this particular contradiction remains and has to be houseruled out even if you do put all the images in the same square. It's the contradiction between MIs being indistinguishable by "sight or hearing" and MIs having "no effect on blinded creatures". That itself is a contradiction, and has absolutely nothing to do with what square they're in. It is not that difficult to hear someone through a closed door. ...Which means they can hear the real you talking when the illusion talks, which is the main reason MI is not a convincing illusion (in the sense of a "No! There's really just one of me!" illusion). And the door is really not necessary either, as you apparently believe that Mirror Image can operate without Line of Effect to the mage anyway. The point about Mirror Image as an unbeatable illusion still stands beyond your skepticism because it is exactly that: impossible to be disbelieved. It matters not how long you interact with it, it only disappears when struck, making it into an entirely separate class of Figments. Enh, big deal. Will (disbelief) doesn't matter that much. It doesn't mean it's impossible to *not believe the image is real*, just that you can't stare really hard at it and turn it into a translucent outline the instant you come to that conclusion. At most it's a cute bit of cleverness that would work once in a blue moon. Spellcasting does not make the mage vulnerable unless the spell has an obvious visual effect. And as mentioned above, it is not at all clear that a move action is necessary for the various images to move around. In any case, the bottom line is that this spell is way out of line for a 2nd-level spell. You mention Displacement being weaker, and I absolutely agree - I imagine that the entire point about being able to use Magic Missile and Cleave to eliminate images is supposed to be a balancing factor (although Mirror Image is personal range, vs Displacement being any touched creature). But that's just it -- displacement is a spell that simply works and that anyone can use, while mirror image -- RAW mirror image -- is much harder to use effectively than displacement. It has interesting tactical uses against gullible or stupid enemies, but it leaves the caster far more vulnerable than displacement -- if someone finds you and points you out, you're vulnerable till you reshuffle the images around. Doing it the other way is just dumb. It's an ablative displacement that's clearly better than displacement, unless you accept the other dumb rulings in the FAQ, in which case it's a better version of displacement that happens to be totally trumped by one particular spell (magic missile) and one particular feat (Great Cleave). Whoopee. That's interesting. I would rather have a better form of Displacement at lower level than the sort of ridiculous tactical possibilities of Mirror Image as a 2nd-level spell with images running around in separate squares. RAW mirror image is only super-powerful against enemies who have no understanding of what it does nor means of weeding out the real caster. It creates an interesting tactical situation. Houserule mirror image is a dumb, super-effective ablative armor spell that requires zero thought to use. That's mainly why I prefer the former.
lint trap 08-04-07, 02:50 PM	Christ, you people get wordy when you're riled up.
The_Unseen_Illusion 08-04-07, 06:23 PM	Holy crap you guys can bust out arguements longer than the LotR series! But from my understanding, GMI is good for melee and GI is better for team buffs and not getting hit at all. Correct?
Zarreth_Nessad 08-04-07, 07:57 PM	Yes, that would be correct.
o_b_livion 08-04-07, 09:10 PM	..I know, its just a game. Its not like its politics where you have to get all "let's debate this to death and still go no-where" kind of approach. Just start with one spell, then if you want, take the other another time.
redraven 08-05-07, 01:19 AM	Although I think all of the various pros and cons of the two spells were already settled before ArcTan's and I started our discussion, I do apologize for not just seeing this line and ignoring it: I don't mean to drag a debate from another thread here, but [...]. As far as I am concerned, Mirror Image and the greater version thereof are superior to Greater Invisibility in almost every way, especially if one uses the wacky RAW rules for images moving about. The caveat, of course, is that they are better than Greater Invisibility but not necessarily at the expense of normal Invisibility - all the interesting tactical applications (e.g. sneaking about, ambushes, etc) are better suited to normal Invisibility rather than the Greater version which lasts only a matter of rounds. It depends on the situation, especially if there is a party rogue about, but Greater Mirror Image has a better miss chance than even Displacement, is an Immediate Action, foils Targeted Spells (Power Word Kill, Finger of Death, etc), and is not rendered moot by very common buffs (such as See Invisibility and Invisibility Purge). ArcTan, perhaps we shall continue our discussion in the next Mirror Image thread that appears? ;)
Kuroimaken 08-05-07, 02:15 AM	Well, I don't have much experience with GMI, but I personally -like- Greater Invisibility. Specially in conjunction with any version of Globe of Invulnerability. Why? Well, because it's really easy to counter See Invisibility with a Globe. Just move within ten feet of the caster. He can't pinpoint you (because you're more than 5ft. away) and thus cannot target you. Granted, you'll still have to be circling about so he doesn't get the bright idea of casting a spell in the general direction YOUR spells are coming from. But it's an idea anyways. Worked countless times for me.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 01:18 AM	As far as I am concerned, Mirror Image and the greater version thereof are superior to Greater Invisibility in almost every way, especially if one uses the wacky RAW rules for images moving about. The caveat, of course, is that they are better than Greater Invisibility but not necessarily at the expense of normal Invisibility - all the interesting tactical applications (e.g. sneaking about, ambushes, etc) are better suited to normal Invisibility rather than the Greater version which lasts only a matter of rounds. Yeah, I agree with this. Invisibility and invisibility sphere are great party buffs. Greater invisibility is only worth the cost and trouble if you have a melee Rogue with a high Sneak Attack (or another class or PrC with similar mechanics). Otherwise, displacement gives you a better bang for your buck when you're casting it on the party Barbarian.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 01:26 AM	Well, I don't have much experience with GMI, but I personally -like- Greater Invisibility. Specially in conjunction with any version of Globe of Invulnerability. Why? Well, because it's really easy to counter See Invisibility with a Globe. Just move within ten feet of the caster. He can't pinpoint you (because you're more than 5ft. away) and thus cannot target you. Granted, you'll still have to be circling about so he doesn't get the bright idea of casting a spell in the general direction YOUR spells are coming from. But it's an idea anyways. Worked countless times for me. Er, no. See invisibility is a spell cast on the person who wants to see, not on the invisible thing they're trying to see. It still works fine whether or not the person they're trying to see has a globe of invulnerability up. Just like globe of invulnerability doesn't turn off bull's strength if you walk inside it. Look: Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast. The only way GoI "blocks" see invisibility is if I'm standing inside the globe and someone standing outside the globe tries to cast see invisibility on me while the globe is active -- which is, of course, impossible, because see invisibility is Personal-range. In no possible way does it work like an antimagic field for specific spell levels. GoI, if it did things like this, would indeed be ridiculously overpowered for its level, and quite abusable, and it sounds like you've been abusing it.