Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Uratoh 06-23-07, 12:51 AM	Be it a wizard's Mirror Image, a plain old illusion, or any other form of non-real target, a PC (or villain) casts Arc of Lightning, choosing it as one of the two points of the spell's origin. What happens here?
Jherid 06-23-07, 02:27 PM	The spell would fail because you must target two creatures.
Horseshoe_Hermit 06-23-07, 05:41 PM	The spell would fail because you must target two creatures. So you can use a targeted spell to determine what's an illusion? So Magic Missile reveals illusory creatures? Sweet!
locustechpriest 06-23-07, 06:27 PM	I take it you lose the spell. Not so sweet. *Loves those little missiles of force.*
Nom 06-23-07, 09:39 PM	There are two points of view on this. The FAQ writers and Skip Williams tend to rule that "if it looks like a creature, it can be targeted as if it were a creature". So, both ends would work. Of course, since an illusion isn't actually real it won't be actually affected by the spell (eg a charm person would just fizzle rather than the caster knowing whether it was successful or not). Or you could rule that spells can somehow analyse illusions before the spell effect actually triggers and thus casting will fail. Generally, "spells targeting creatures affect things that simulate creatures as far as they can" is a better interpretation to help the game run smoothly.
Uratoh 06-23-07, 10:06 PM	The real Q is in Arc of Lightning's particulars...it creates conductivity between two creatures...
Gold Katana 06-24-07, 10:39 AM	Arc of Lightning is a targeted, not an area, spell. Apply damage per normal to the illusion and the real NPC. In the case of Mirror Image, this would take out the image. The spell would not fail for the reasons already listed above. Regarding MM's sidebar, they destroy MI's they strike. They cannot be used to determine illusions other than this method. Legacy editions specifically described how MM's destroyed MI's.
arjomanes 06-25-07, 02:22 AM	Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball). The image will be destroyed by the lightning. The NPC will take damage because it doesn't target just the figment and then arc to the real creature. It targets both the creature and the figment. Normally the NPC won't take damage arced at it from a figment. This runs entirely contrary to all the rules about figments. You cannot use a figment to conduct or bounce energy off of. Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly. However, you are targeting both the caster and the image. Therefore they both take damage. edit: after rereading spell description, edited my answer. I had erroneously thought it was chained from the figment to the real creature.
ArcTan 06-25-07, 08:43 AM	So you can use a targeted spell to determine what's an illusion? So Magic Missile reveals illusory creatures? Sweet! Sure, unless the caster is capable of embellishing the illusion to make it look like the spell worked.
ArcTan 06-25-07, 08:45 AM	The image will be destroyed by the lightning. The NPC will take damage because it doesn't target just the figment and then arc to the real creature. It targets both the creature and the figment. Normally the NPC won't take damage arced at it from a figment. This runs entirely contrary to all the rules about figments. You cannot use a figment to conduct or bounce energy off of. Targeted spells aren't attacks, for most purposes, even spells that do damage. We had this conversation about displacement and magic missile.
Gold Katana 06-25-07, 09:04 AM	I don't understand what you mean by targetted spells not being attacks. If they cause damage, they are attacks and will drop MI's.
arjomanes 06-25-07, 11:03 AM	Targeted spells aren't attacks, for most purposes, even spells that do damage. We had this conversation about displacement and magic missile. As much as I'd like to believe this (I'm playing a beguiler in an upcoming campaign), I don't see what you're using to base this argument on. We know from the rules that a successful attack against a mirror image destroys it, including area attacks. So an attack destroys the image (AC is given to resolve the attack), and an area effect spell destroys the image. Why is it that a targeted spell also doesn't destroy the image? There is nothing that says a targeted spell doesn't destroy a mirror image. I'm guessing for basis you are referencing the description in major image that says "The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately." However, that is not mirror image, that is major image. And though they are both figments, apparently they both function differently. The description of mirror image explicitly says a successful attack against the image destroys it. It does not include the sentence that it will not disappear if you cause the illusion to react appropriately. In fact, the image will react appropriately on its own, in that it will appear to die from the damage.
tarkin 06-25-07, 12:34 PM	arjomanes, you made HUGE error. You said area attacks destroy mirror images. That is wrong. Flat outright wrong. Mirror Images are NOT destroyed by area attack spells. It says they react normally, looking burned or dead. Even looking dead means they are STILL there, not destroyed. They only look dead if YOU died. They don't move cause you are not moving, you are just lying there dead. This makes it more dificult for you friendly cleric to grab your body and Ressurect you. The spell Mirror Image pretty much ignores area attack spells - it works as if nothing wierd had happend to it. That pretty much destroys the rest of your argument.
Pentar 06-25-07, 12:46 PM	Tarkin beat me to it :) But yah, the spell specifically states that Mirror Images react to area spells normally and are not destroyed by them. It has to be a targeted attack on the image that destroys it. As for Magic Missile being used to detect illusions - the caster would be aware that their spell failed, but they wouldn't necessarily know why. It could have been counter-spell, could be some sort of magical defense of the creature, or something else the caster isn't aware of. I wouldn't allow the caster to know it was an illusion unless they explicitly stated, "I'm trying to disbelieve".
Gold Katana 06-25-07, 01:38 PM	IMC, the spell does not "fail", per se. If it were a Major Image, the image would react appropriately to the MM's and I would record the damage (although it would have no true impact on spell's duration). From the player's POV, the spell worked. Under no circumstances would I use the approach "you try to cast your spell but it fails to go off - must not be a real creature you're targetting."
ArcTan 06-25-07, 05:21 PM	As much as I'd like to believe this (I'm playing a beguiler in an upcoming campaign), I don't see what you're using to base this argument on. We know from the rules that a successful attack against a mirror image destroys it, including area attacks. So an attack destroys the image (AC is given to resolve the attack), and an area effect spell destroys the image. Incorrect. Area spells are actually specifically stated *not* to do that. If you hit a dude with mirror image on with fireball, the image looks "burned or dead", meaning it's still there. If the fireball were an attack, the image would pop and vanish. Why is it that a targeted spell also doesn't destroy the image? There is nothing that says a targeted spell doesn't destroy a mirror image. Targeted spells are not "attacks". In any reference that doesn't explicitly say otherwise (like invisibility), an "attack" is an action that takes an attack roll. Casting magic missile isn't an "attack" just because it kills the target, any more than casting suggestion and saying "Why not take a bath in that nice cool pool of water?" while pointing to an acid vat is an "attack". I'm guessing for basis you are referencing the description in major image that says "The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately." However, that is not mirror image, that is major image. And though they are both figments, apparently they both function differently. Sure. With major image you can make it look like it was hit by the magic missile. With mirror image, nothing at all happens -- the spell just fails, just like if you cast charm person or flesh to stone on the image. The description of mirror image explicitly says a successful attack against the image destroys it. It does not include the sentence that it will not disappear if you cause the illusion to react appropriately. In fact, the image will react appropriately on its own, in that it will appear to die from the damage. Incorrect. "Appearing to die" is *not* the same thing as disappearing. Fireball causes it to "appear to die", not to disappear -- the dead body is still lying there, potentially fooling the caster into thinking it was the genuine article. Spells are very clearly not being treated the same as attacks here -- area spells make the target react normally, attacks make them disappear, and targeted spells, which are left out, therefore simply fail.
ArcTan 06-25-07, 05:25 PM	I don't understand what you mean by targetted spells not being attacks. If they cause damage, they are attacks and will drop MI's. No. The definition of "attack" is "takes an attack roll", not "causes damage". See here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_attack&alpha=
ArcTan 06-25-07, 05:27 PM	IMC, the spell does not "fail", per se. If it were a Major Image, the image would react appropriately to the MM's and I would record the damage (although it would have no true impact on spell's duration). From the player's POV, the spell worked. That's major image. Mirror image doesn't give you that fine control. Under no circumstances would I use the approach "you try to cast your spell but it fails to go off - must not be a real creature you're targetting." Of course you wouldn't say that. You'd just say "The spell fails". The number of possible reasons for a spell to fail other than the target being an illusion is huge (spell resistance, counterspelling, spell immunity, antimagic field, etc.)
Kalarus 06-25-07, 05:55 PM	The real Q is in Arc of Lightning's particulars...it creates conductivity between two creatures... This is just the fluff text. The crunch of Arc of Lightning is "deals 1d6 of electricity damage per caster level (max 15d6) to both creatures and anything in the line between them. I am more curious if targeting the mirror image means you target the caster automatically, or rather, how such a targeting is established. I find the MI description to be rather vague, with all mirror images being within 5 feet of you or another image, you could be anywhere within (given that you and the images are clustered) a 15x15 feet square. I suppose that, depending on how many squares the Arc of Lightning hits (probably 5 out of 9), you roll appropriate percentile to see if you happened to be in them. So what will happen precisely? Not all images will be hit, so do just the affected images look electrocuted? Do they all look appropriately electrified, wether you are in the area of effect or not? How much damage is needed for an image to appear dead? Do they even look dead if you are not dead, or damaged for that matter? Do *you* look electrocuted if only your mirror images get hit? It seems exceedingly powerful for a L2 spell to let all mirror images have your hp and that they only look dead if someone does enough damage to an image to kill the caster...
Pentar 06-25-07, 06:02 PM	I am more curious if targeting the mirror image means you target the caster automatically, or rather, how such a targeting is established. I find the MI description to be rather vague, with all mirror images being within 5 feet of you or another image, you could be anywhere within (given that you and the images are clustered) a 15x15 feet square. I was thinking the same thing. My initial reaction is that if you cast a targeted spell on someone with MI up, you select which "image" you're targeting first (i.e. roll randomly to see what you're targeting) and then once the spell is resolved, see if it is a valid target or not and if the spell fizzles or not. If the target was an image then the spell would fizzle. If the target was the real thing, then resolve normally. In the case of things like Magic Missile, since you can select multiple targets, one per missile, you would roll randomly for each missile (assuming you're attempting to hit a different target per missile) and see if any of them were the real thing. The only missile(s) that would fire would be the ones targeting a valid target. Again, this is how I'm imagining it would work. I don't recall us actually facing this situation in game yet... Oddly enough. It seems exceedingly powerful for a L2 spell to let all mirror images have your hp and that they only look dead if someone does enough damage to an image to kill the caster... It is undoubtedly one of the most powerful defensive spells in the game, especially given all the word-mixing regarding "how one assigns a valid target" and what an "attack" constitutes. I remember old debates about how Cleave interacted with Mirror Images :) Is that even an issue anymore??
Nom 06-25-07, 08:21 PM	The key issue isn't the letter of the mechanics, because they are incomplete. Rather, look at what the spell does: * If the image absorbs an attack that would otherwise affect the caster, it is destroyed. * If the attack affects both caster and images, the images are not destroyed but emulate the caster. When the rules are not explicit, the best option is to read between the lines instead rather than trying to generalise from a lack of information.
arjomanes 06-25-07, 08:38 PM	arjomanes, you made HUGE error. Incorrect. Area spells are actually specifically stated *not* to do that. Tarkin beat me to it But yah, the spell specifically states that Mirror Images react to area spells normally and are not destroyed by them. It has to be a targeted attack on the image that destroys it. You're right. I completely misread the sentence about area effects. I inferred that it was a continuation of the "Any successful attack against an image destroys it" statement, saying that the area spell "attack"(see below) destroyed the figment but left a remnant that looked "burned or dead after being hit by a fireball." I had thought that was a peculiar effect when I had read it -- why not just destroy the figment rather than destroy it but leave a burnt or dead-looking figment in place? Probably the root of my error was viewing the term "attack" as that defined as an attack under the Invisibility description. As a result, I had been under the impression that a spell cast against an opponent was considered a subset of an attack. I see now that I was in error about that, and was completely off-base on what defined an attack, and was letting that cloud my reading of the description. I should have known better since I'm familiar with the definition of attack as it relates to sneak attack; I just hadn't taken that to its logical conclusion to apply to all uses of the term. I realize now that that was a pretty huge blunder really.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 10:30 PM	The key issue isn't the letter of the mechanics, because they are incomplete. Rather, look at what the spell does: * If the image absorbs an attack that would otherwise affect the caster, it is destroyed. * If the attack affects both caster and images, the images are not destroyed but emulate the caster. When the rules are not explicit, the best option is to read between the lines instead rather than trying to generalise from a lack of information. You'd say then that an area of effect spell that hits only images but not the caster, destroys images, but if the area of effect spell happens to hit the caster as well, the images merely emulate the damage but remain in place even though they got the same damage as in situation 1? That doesn't seem very consistent.
Nom 06-26-07, 02:32 AM	Yep. If you hit the images and not the caster with an area attack, nothing interesting will happen. The images all move exactly as the caster, the caster hasn't been burned, and so the images will not. Which leads to an interesting question: would such an attack void invisibility, since no enemy creature was actually in the AoE?
Kalarus 06-26-07, 06:29 AM	Yep. If you hit the images and not the caster with an area attack, nothing interesting will happen. The images all move exactly as the caster, the caster hasn't been burned, and so the images will not. Which leads to an interesting question: would such an attack void invisibility, since no enemy creature was actually in the AoE? I'd say so. Trying to hit someone with a weapon and missing also voids Invisibility, it doesn't matter if you hit or miss, just that you attacked at something you percieved as a target.
Gold Katana 06-26-07, 09:05 AM	No. The definition of "attack" is "takes an attack roll", not "causes damage". So, if the caster actually had to roll for the MM's, they'd count toward dropping MI's. But because the spell is so good and homes in on the target, that force damage is ignored? Sorry, that makes no sense. It also goes against 28+ years of legacy where MM's were specifically detailed as being effective against MI's. Former editions literally spelled out this tactic in the spell's description. Regardless, to each his own. RAW zombies rejoice!
Nom 06-26-07, 10:48 PM	I'd say so. Trying to hit someone with a weapon and missing also voids Invisibility, it doesn't matter if you hit or miss, just that you attacked at something you percieved as a target.But haven't we just argued that the images are objects (unattended objects, at that), not creatures? And invisibility explicitly states that attacks at unattended objects don't void the spell. Thus, if we assume that the images are objects, any form of attack against an image - successful or not - will not void invisibility (or sanctuary, or similar effects). Invisibility will only be voided if you actually get the caster.
Pentar 06-27-07, 12:20 AM	But haven't we just argued that the images are objects (unattended objects, at that), not creatures? And invisibility explicitly states that attacks at unattended objects don't void the spell. Thus, if we assume that the images are objects, any form of attack against an image - successful or not - will not void invisibility (or sanctuary, or similar effects). Invisibility will only be voided if you actually get the caster. I think we're really splitting hairs here. Ask yourself this question, how does the Invisibility magic know when to wink itself out? At what point does the magic say, "OK, that is a valid attack that will cause me to go away!" Does it judge the intention of the person who is invisible? Or does it judge the outcome? An invisible attacker striking at someone who has multiple images has no idea what he is attacking. It can be assumed that his "Best" case scenario is that he hits the real caster and does damage. Ergo, he is not purposefully attacking an object - he is purposefully attacking a person, but missing and inadvertently hitting an "object" instead. Even if that's not the case and he declared, "I am aiming for an image", he could still 'accidentally' hit the real caster! I think, for the sake of sanity and to avoid the mind boggling stupidity of it all - if you attack a creature with images while invisible, the invisibility breaks (assuming the 2nd level version of the spell).
Nom 06-27-07, 04:23 AM	Even if that's not the case and he declared, "I am aiming for an image", he could still 'accidentally' hit the real caster! I think, for the sake of sanity and to avoid the mind boggling stupidity of it all - if you attack a creature with images while invisible, the invisibility breaks (assuming the 2nd level version of the spell).This is strictly possible anyway - if you fireball an area and there's an invisible opponent there that you did not know about, you'll void invisibility. Due to the way the rules work, the same is true of detect spells, even though they should probably be treated the same as friendly buffs. I think we're really splitting hairs here. Ask yourself this question, how does the Invisibility magic know when to wink itself out? At what point does the magic say, "OK, that is a valid attack that will cause me to go away!" Does it judge the intention of the person who is invisible? Or does it judge the outcome?Or we could just treat images as creatures and avoid the whole mess, no?
Kalarus 06-27-07, 09:12 AM	This is strictly possible anyway - if you fireball an area and there's an invisible opponent there that you did not know about, you'll void invisibility. Due to the way the rules work, the same is true of detect spells, even though they should probably be treated the same as friendly buffs. Or we could just treat images as creatures and avoid the whole mess, no? This one is in fact solved very easily, the invisibilty spell description literally states "Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions." Whenever he strikes at someone under the effect of a mirror image spell, his perception is that he's (trying to) strike at the caster. Note that Invisibility is voided when someone attacks a creature, not when someone hits a creature. Hence any attempt to attack a caster of mirror image voids the Invisibility, wether the attacker hits the caster, an image, or misses completely. Mirror image does not further complicate this because you can't choose to target an image, just like you can't choose to target the caster. Any attempt to strike at the collection of images is an attempt to inflict harm upon someone, which is a pretty good definition of attacking.
Pentar 06-27-07, 02:28 PM	This is strictly possible anyway - if you fireball an area and there's an invisible opponent there that you did not know about, you'll void invisibility. Due to the way the rules work, the same is true of detect spells, even though they should probably be treated the same as friendly buffs. Or we could just treat images as creatures and avoid the whole mess, no? I've never treated the images as anything other than figments attached to a creature; which is to say, you always are attempting to target the creature, regardless of if you're actually hitting a figment, so I rarely run into these weird paradoxes...
ArcTan 06-27-07, 11:39 PM	This is just the fluff text. The crunch of Arc of Lightning is "deals 1d6 of electricity damage per caster level (max 15d6) to both creatures and anything in the line between them. If one of the targets is not a creature, the spell fails. Simple as that. I am more curious if targeting the mirror image means you target the caster automatically, or rather, how such a targeting is established. I find the MI description to be rather vague, with all mirror images being within 5 feet of you or another image, you could be anywhere within (given that you and the images are clustered) a 15x15 feet square. No. Mirror image creates *figments*, not glamers. The mirror images are separate entities -- figments -- that are compelled to remain within a certain distance of you, but are *not* part of you the way a glamer (like displacement) is. Really, this is all covered in the basic rules about illusions. I suppose that, depending on how many squares the Arc of Lightning hits (probably 5 out of 9), you roll appropriate percentile to see if you happened to be in them. No. In order for arc of lightning to work, both targets must be creatures. If you target two random identical images and only one of them is the real caster, then the spell simply fails, because the other image was not a creature. So what will happen precisely? Not all images will be hit, so do just the affected images look electrocuted? Do they all look appropriately electrified, wether you are in the area of effect or not? How much damage is needed for an image to appear dead? Do they even look dead if you are not dead, or damaged for that matter? Do *you* look electrocuted if only your mirror images get hit? If I cast arc of lightning between you and *another* creature, and the mirror images are standing in between, then since arc of lightning's lightning effect is an area effect, the images react as though real, like the spell desc says. It seems exceedingly powerful for a L2 spell to let all mirror images have your hp and that they only look dead if someone does enough damage to an image to kill the caster... How is this powerful? It's not like the images can actually *do* anything. That's the point, remember? Mirror image is a decoy spell. If you could neutralize all the decoys with a single casting of an area spell, it'd become useless. That, and *only* that, is the reason for mirror image's special rule about area spells.
ArcTan 06-27-07, 11:40 PM	I remember old debates about how Cleave interacted with Mirror Images :) Is that even an issue anymore?? Shouldn't be. A free attack given to you by Cleave still counts as an attack in every way (just like Whirlwind Attack).
ArcTan 06-27-07, 11:43 PM	The key issue isn't the letter of the mechanics, because they are incomplete. Rather, look at what the spell does: * If the image absorbs an attack that would otherwise affect the caster, it is destroyed. * If the attack affects both caster and images, the images are not destroyed but emulate the caster. When the rules are not explicit, the best option is to read between the lines instead rather than trying to generalise from a lack of information. The rules are totally complete. They completely specify what happens, if you assume that *other* rules aren't magically invalidated by these rules but still hold. The rules say that attacks pop mirror images. Great. The rules say that area spells make images react normally. Also, great. The rules don't say anything specifically about targeted spells, but we *know* from reading the rules that images are figments, so we treat them the way we normally treat figments (targeted spells fail). Reading it your way *introduces* complications where none exist. Right now if a fireball catches the edge of a cluster of mirror images, the images will "look burned or dead" whether or not the real caster was hit. Your way, this would become a difficult edge case.
ArcTan 06-27-07, 11:46 PM	Yep. If you hit the images and not the caster with an area attack, nothing interesting will happen. The images all move exactly as the caster, the caster hasn't been burned, and so the images will not. This actually nerfs the spell, since you can pinpoint the caster's location by surrounding the cluster with fireballs that don't quite reach the center, and looking for where the overlap is that causes the cluster to react. A lucky strike allows the Barbarian to go raging in to take out the caster after your initiative. I think it's a bad idea. I wouldn't use it. Which leads to an interesting question: would such an attack void invisibility, since no enemy creature was actually in the AoE? Invisibility is and always has been solely based on intention. I would say it only voids invisibility if you specifically *knew* which images were mirror images and which one was real. Otherwise your "perceptions" (which the spell says it's based on) can't tell the difference and you're still attacking something you (partially) "perceive" as a foe.
ArcTan 06-27-07, 11:47 PM	This is strictly possible anyway - if you fireball an area and there's an invisible opponent there that you did not know about, you'll void invisibility. Due to the way the rules work, the same is true of detect spells, even though they should probably be treated the same as friendly buffs. No, it doesn't. If the invisible opponent remains invisible after you hit him, then your "perceptions" still contain no foe, and invisibility remains. Or we could just treat images as creatures and avoid the whole mess, no? Treating images as creatures is a pretty awful idea, since they have none of the characteristics of creatures (no saving throws, no HP, no ability scores, no nothing).
Pentar 06-28-07, 12:02 AM	Shouldn't be. A free attack given to you by Cleave still counts as an attack in every way (just like Whirlwind Attack). Well, the question was (dare I even bring this up - I shudder to think of the implications), but if you hit a Mirror Image with an attack and destroy it, does that count as "dropping an opponent", such that you may now make a Cleave attack. A very heated discussion topic back in the day. I don't know if it's valid anymore.
ArcTan 06-28-07, 12:51 AM	Well, the question was (dare I even bring this up - I shudder to think of the implications), but if you hit a Mirror Image with an attack and destroy it, does that count as "dropping an opponent", such that you may now make a Cleave attack. A very heated discussion topic back in the day. I don't know if it's valid anymore. Oh. No, it doesn't. The image was never a real creature, and therefore never a real opponent, and therefore you didn't "drop" anything by hitting it. (Hell, you didn't do it any damage, since figments have no HP total to subtract damage from.) If this weren't the plain sense of the RAW, then one would *have* to houserule otherwise because of the balance nightmare involved. But luckily, it is.
Kalarus 06-28-07, 07:02 AM	How is this powerful? It's not like the images can actually *do* anything. That's the point, remember? Mirror image is a decoy spell. If you could neutralize all the decoys with a single casting of an area spell, it'd become useless. That, and *only* that, is the reason for mirror image's special rule about area spells. Er, you do not see how a spell that creates multiple images that protect you from being targeted by spells and each with hp equivalent to yours before it appears dead would be powerful? The strange part is, if the mirror images' appearance is altered independently of its caster, one could kill off something that is not there, of which you do not have a hp value, in order to determine who the real one is. No, it doesn't. If the invisible opponent remains invisible after you hit him, then your "perceptions" still contain no foe, and invisibility remains. I can't help but wonder what the intention was of fireballing the area in the first place. Perhaps it was to hurt a foe? Fireball, by the way, is a spread, and it will not "fill" the space of the invisible creature, thus for an instantaneous effect you will have a visual perception of a foe. Good chance you'll also have an audible and perhaps olefactory one :P
Gold Katana 06-28-07, 09:29 AM	The image was never a real creature, and therefore never a real opponent, and therefore you didn't "drop" anything by hitting it. The rules don't say anything specifically about targeted spells, but we *know* from reading the rules that images are figments, so we treat them the way we normally treat figments (targeted spells fail). So, you obviously discount the FAQ? 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.
Pentar 06-28-07, 12:19 PM	So, you obviously discount the FAQ? 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. Well, that answers multiple questions. Thank you!
Kalarus 06-28-07, 02:03 PM	Well, that answers multiple questions. Thank you! FAQs are so great, I second that thanks :D
ArcTan 06-28-07, 05:09 PM	So, you obviously discount the FAQ? Yes, I totally discount the FAQ. Is this news to you? The FAQ has had some really horrible rulings in it before -- why should this be any different? FWIW, saying you can "aim" spells at mirror images makes no sense, since it doesn't answer the question of whether the spells *work*, which they shouldn't. (Does flesh to stone work? Does charm person work? Then why should magic missile work?) The FAQ is being stupid here, as it often is. It's very clear in the rules that figments aren't creatures and don't react as creatures unless the rules specifically create an exception. Letting you completely destroy a cluster of mirror images with Great Cleave is a really dumb nerf of the spell, and letting you pop a mirror image using magic missile betrays a total lack of knowledge about how targeted spells work.
ArcTan 06-28-07, 05:16 PM	Er, you do not see how a spell that creates multiple images that protect you from being targeted by spells and each with hp equivalent to yours before it appears dead would be powerful? It doesn't protect you from being targeted by spells. If the image the caster happens to target happens to actually be you, you get targeted by the spell as normal. If someone blasts the area with an area effect spell, you get affected by the spell as normal. The strange part is, if the mirror images' appearance is altered independently of its caster, one could kill off something that is not there, of which you do not have a hp value, in order to determine who the real one is. Well... no. It's a lot easier to determine where the real one is if only hurting the real one causes visible damage. If I blast only part of a mirror image cluster with a fireball, then only that part takes damage, *no matter whether the real one was there or not*. Otherwise, if I blasted around the edges of a cluster and noted when the whole cluster took damage and when it didn't, I could pinpoint the real one's location. In general, making illusions react like they're real makes them more powerful by *preventing* you from using their reaction to determine which illusion is real. I can't help but wonder what the intention was of fireballing the area in the first place. Perhaps it was to hurt a foe? Doesn't matter. Here's the actual text of invisibility: . For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) If you cannot *perceive* the foe, then it doesn't count. "Intention" isn't the important part. Actually hurting the foe or not isn't the important part. *Perceiving* the foe is the important part. If I don't know that a foe is there, then firing off random spells or grenadelike weapons or arrows into space doesn't count as attacking someone within my "perceptions". Hell, attacking a foe I *know for sure* is there but who isn't within my range of "perception" doesn't count -- i.e. I can remotely trigger traps, cut the ropes of a rope bridge, open a portcullis holding back attack dogs, etc. It's explained in great detail in the spell desc. Fireball, by the way, is a spread, and it will not "fill" the space of the invisible creature, thus for an instantaneous effect you will have a visual perception of a foe. Good chance you'll also have an audible and perhaps olefactory one :P *shrug* That's up to the DM. Personally since the spread is Instantaneous I doubt it's enough time to see anything.
Gold Katana 06-29-07, 10:44 AM	Yes, I totally discount the FAQ. Is this news to you? The FAQ has had some really horrible rulings in it before -- why should this be any different? You seem to be under the impression that your discounting a source of official D&D rules is noteworthy. Perhaps the FAQ has not had a perfect track record. That does not exclude it as being an official source of clarification for D&D rules. I certainly put much more weight on the FAQ's judgment than yours. Your insistence on ignoring the FAQ as well as nearly 30 years of established (and frequently spelled out) D&D dogma regarding MI's and MM's fails to lend credence to your argument. Targeted spells can and do effect MI's. There is no specific mention of them in the MI description because they fall under the umbrella of "attacks". Area affect spells are the exception, so they are addressed. Regardless, the way you play seems to work for you and is internally consistent. Great! It seems others have found different answers here that work better for them. Is this news to you?
Pentar 06-29-07, 11:01 AM	Your insistence on ignoring the FAQ as well as nearly 30 years of established (and frequently spelled out) D&D dogma regarding MI' and MM's fails to lend credence to your argument. Targeted spells can and do effect MI's. There is no specific mention of them in the MI description because they fall under the umbrella of "attacks". Area affect spells are the exception, so they are addressed. I can see, and understand, allowing MIs and MMs to interact, but how would it work for other targeted spells whose effects may be less obvious? If I cast Charm Person on someone with Mirror Images, do I still have to select which image to target and then cast? Or does the spell automatically determine that I'm targeting the "caster", regardless of the images, and work appropriately? In the case of the former, does casting an offensive targeted spell that does not deal damage (in which case, does it count as offensive?) pop an image? The way we play, we're using house rules and not even realizing it anyway. Mirror Images always share the space 5' space as the caster. We allow people to target images with Magic Missiles but not Cleave through them. No one in our group ever bothers with Whirlwind attack, so that's never come up. Ray, targeted, ranged touch, etc. spells must target images normally and on a successful hit, pop the image. However, since no damage roll is made, I don't believe we count Touch spells as having been discharged. Ultimately, Mirror Image and its interactions with the rest of the game is probably left best to the individual groups to determine... HARHAR
Gold Katana 06-29-07, 11:29 AM	For other targeted spells; cast spell, then roll appropriate die to determine which target is hit (caster or image). If it is the caster, resolve normally. If it is an image and the spell causes damage - POP! If it is an image and the spell does not cause damage - the spell fails.
tarkin 06-29-07, 03:28 PM	The way we play, we're using house rules and not even realizing it anyway. Mirror Images always share the space 5' space as the caster. We allow people to target images with Magic Missiles but not Cleave through them. No one in our group ever bothers with Whirlwind attack, so that's never come up. I find some of those House Rules to be VERY unfair. Specifically the crap about Mirror Images alwayus being within 5ft of the caster. Yes, I know it was a 'suggestion' from the FAQ, but it is a stupid suggestion, not a helpfull rule. I do agree that Cleave should not, despite the FAQ's ruling, work on Mirror Image. Too many nasty, silly, things you can do if you allow it (My favorite is I cast Mirror Image , I move 10 ft forward. My images follow, I take an AoO on my own image, killing it and cleaving into you. Then I take my normal attack on you. Try it with Spring Attack and Great Cleave for some true silly nastyness). Whirlwind I can see taking out the Images, but again, if the images are not foolishly forced to be within 5ft of you, the chances are whirlwind will NOT kill all your images, let alone be guaranteed of hitting you once.
Kalarus 06-29-07, 07:38 PM	I find some of those House Rules to be VERY unfair. Specifically the crap about Mirror Images alwayus being within 5ft of the caster. Yes, I know it was a 'suggestion' from the FAQ, but it is a stupid suggestion, not a helpfull rule. It is in fact a very helpful rule. The MI spell description states the mirror images are both clustered, and always within 5 feet of you or another image. That means an image can be at best 10 feet away from you. So here's an amusing situation which could then occur: The Caster moves, causing his images to randomly spread and move with him. He takes up a certain position and due to the randomness of the images, happens to be at the edge of the spell effect, with all images trailing 10 feet behind him except for the one right behind him. Someone charges the caster. There is no image within striking range. Default target is the caster. Your protection spell just got randomly useless, with no way to measure the randomness.
Gold Katana 06-30-07, 01:57 PM	Within 5' of at least one other figment OR you. Not AND you. With the max of eight images, the farthest could be located as far as 40' away from the caster.
Kalarus 06-30-07, 03:55 PM	Within 5' of at least one other figment OR you. Not AND you. With the max of eight images, the farthest could be located as far as 40' away from the caster. This would be true if the spell description did not specifically state the images "stay near you" and "remain in a cluster". I wouldn't call a 40 foot line a cluster of images. I'd call it a line of images quite a distance away from you ;) Either way a random spread of images in a 40 foot line makes the problem even worse, nothing is random anymore, unless mirror image provides casters with free random movement.
Gold Katana 06-30-07, 07:01 PM	This version's inclusion of the "cluster" and "near" references does imply parameters not previously associated with MI. Regardless of any perceived problem with the spell and the ambiguous and downright contradictory "near" and "cluster" statements (how near? how tight a cluster?), the clear measurement guidelines given for dispersal of the images do not limit images being at best 10' from you.
ArcTan 07-01-07, 08:15 PM	You seem to be under the impression that your discounting a source of official D&D rules is noteworthy. Perhaps the FAQ has not had a perfect track record. That does not exclude it as being an official source of clarification for D&D rules. I certainly put much more weight on the FAQ's judgment than yours. The FAQ is not "official". WotC has made it pretty clear that the only source of *canon* rules is the books and the errata. Everything else -- the FAQ, CustServ postings, Rules of the Game articles -- are on the level of suggestions, since they don't go through an editing and revision process before publication. Your insistence on ignoring the FAQ as well as nearly 30 years of established (and frequently spelled out) D&D dogma regarding MI's and MM's fails to lend credence to your argument. Targeted spells can and do effect MI's. There is no specific mention of them in the MI description because they fall under the umbrella of "attacks". Area affect spells are the exception, so they are addressed. Tell me where it's spelled out and I might listen. It seems really wonky to me that targeted spells should be "attacks", since targeted spells include such things as charm person, dispel magic, stone to flesh, or awaken. Regardless, the way you play seems to work for you and is internally consistent. Great! It seems others have found different answers here that work better for them. Is this news to you? I think calling magic missile an "attack" is internally *in*consistent and leads to all kinds of problems. I don't see, for instance, any inherent reason that magic missile should be an attack but phantasmal killer shouldn't be -- but that's a slippery slope that leads right down to asking why, for instance, dominate person isn't an "attack".
ArcTan 07-01-07, 08:20 PM	For other targeted spells; cast spell, then roll appropriate die to determine which target is hit (caster or image). If it is the caster, resolve normally. If it is an image and the spell causes damage - POP! If it is an image and the spell does not cause damage - the spell fails. There is nowhere anywhere in the D&D ruleset that says that "cause damage" is the definition of an "attack". For one thing, this would make many things that are attacks not attacks, like attacking with a merciful weapon or initiating a Grapple check. For another, it creates an even bigger ambiguity with spells that do *bad things* but cause no damage. Slay living causes no damage -- it merely causes death. Flesh to stone causes no damage -- it merely causes petrification. Energy drain can certainly kill, but only through negative levels, not damage. What's worst is that sometimes the distinction between causing damage and not causing damage is determined by some factor like a saving throw, which figments *do not possess*. How can I tell if finger of death merely causes death or causes damage? A Fortitude save, which a figment lacks. (Phantasmal killer is even worse, since a Will *and* a Fortitude save are the difference between instadeath, damage and nothing happening.) It's a stupid headache, and one not worth spinning out, honestly. The reason mirror image references *attacks* and not damage is precisely because the only statistic figments have is Armor Class, which means that the only thing you *can* resolve about a figment is whether an attack roll hits it or not. It doesn't matter whether damage is done -- hitting with an attack roll pops the figment, and not hitting with an attack roll doesn't do anything. Simple, easy, and consistent with the rules.
ArcTan 07-01-07, 08:22 PM	The way we play, we're using house rules and not even realizing it anyway. Mirror Images always share the space 5' space as the caster. We allow people to target images with Magic Missiles but not Cleave through them. No one in our group ever bothers with Whirlwind attack, so that's never come up. Ray, targeted, ranged touch, etc. spells must target images normally and on a successful hit, pop the image. However, since no damage roll is made, I don't believe we count Touch spells as having been discharged. That's inconsistent with the rules, but more importantly I'd never use it because it greatly stretches my suspension of disbelief. If there are five people standing that close, and four of them are just fake holograms just floating in the air, then if I swing my sword through that space I should realistically have a pretty high chance of hitting the real one even if I can't see him. What you're describing is basically the displacement spell with different flavor but the same "I know he's in this space but his location's obscured by this smeared illusory effect" thing. Such an effect should work like displacement (with a mere 50% miss chance for the real caster standing in that square) rather than mirror image.
Kalarus 07-02-07, 07:56 AM	That's inconsistent with the rules, but more importantly I'd never use it because it greatly stretches my suspension of disbelief. If there are five people standing that close, and four of them are just fake holograms just floating in the air, then if I swing my sword through that space I should realistically have a pretty high chance of hitting the real one even if I can't see him. What you're describing is basically the displacement spell with different flavor but the same "I know he's in this space but his location's obscured by this smeared illusory effect" thing. Such an effect should work like displacement (with a mere 50% miss chance for the real caster standing in that square) rather than mirror image. Actually, there are no rules for making a single regular melee attack and hitting everything in a square. You can target one thing at a time, any figment between you and the hitter for example would essentially give you full cover, however since nobody knows which one is real, there's a random chance of hitting the correct image. No swinging swords through every target in a square. Other than that, if the images and caster are further apart, all I need is a longer object to strike with and your example can still be done. Either case, close cluster or stretched line, the character in question is essentially trying to whirlwind attack. As a DM I'd just disallow the attempt or make it automatically miss everything.
Pentar 07-02-07, 03:47 PM	That's inconsistent with the rules, but more importantly I'd never use it because it greatly stretches my suspension of disbelief. If there are five people standing that close, and four of them are just fake holograms just floating in the air, then if I swing my sword through that space I should realistically have a pretty high chance of hitting the real one even if I can't see him. What you're describing is basically the displacement spell with different flavor but the same "I know he's in this space but his location's obscured by this smeared illusory effect" thing. Such an effect should work like displacement (with a mere 50% miss chance for the real caster standing in that square) rather than mirror image. Our method of using Mirror Image is probably inconsistent with a lot of rules, FAQ amendments and rulings... But the fact is it works for our game. No one disputes it. No one ever tries to "cheese" out and claim they're "swinging through the whole square". It is understood that the Mirror Images do their job effectively and can absorb attacks. We have to find a way to cut through them to get to the actual caster. MI has traditionally been one of the most hotly contested spells in D&D, because of its general ambiguity and its interaction with other spells, attacks, effects and abilities. Unless they come out with an essay; "Mirror Image and You", I don't think we'll reasonably get all the answers we require. So play it the way it works :P
ArcTan 07-02-07, 10:06 PM	Actually, there are no rules for making a single regular melee attack and hitting everything in a square. You can target one thing at a time, any figment between you and the hitter for example would essentially give you full cover, however since nobody knows which one is real, there's a random chance of hitting the correct image. No swinging swords through every target in a square. It would give you *concealment* and not cover, because it's not real and can't physically block anything. All you have to do is close your eyes and just swing at the *square* rather than swinging at anything in particular in it. That's attacking a creature with total concealment, and grants a 50% miss chance. Right there in the rules. Other than that, if the images and caster are further apart, all I need is a longer object to strike with and your example can still be done. Either case, close cluster or stretched line, the character in question is essentially trying to whirlwind attack. As a DM I'd just disallow the attempt or make it automatically miss everything. No, because D&D is a game based on squares, and D&D clearly says that if you don't know where someone is you can simply attack their square and get a 50% miss chance against them. It's called total concealment. In this situation, it doesn't matter which image I'm "targeting". I can just put on a blindfold or close my eyes, and do exactly what I'd do if the creature was invisible -- swing at the square I know it's standing in.
ArcTan 07-02-07, 10:08 PM	MI has traditionally been one of the most hotly contested spells in D&D, because of its general ambiguity and its interaction with other spells, attacks, effects and abilities. Unless they come out with an essay; "Mirror Image and You", I don't think we'll reasonably get all the answers we require. So play it the way it works :P It's not ambiguous, though. It's only ambiguous if you read more into the spell than is there. Mirror image makes figments just like silent image does, with a few basic exceptions -- what the figments do (follow you except when pretending to be hit by area spells), what they look like (you), and how they can be countered (making a successful attack against them). It's very clear. There shouldn't be any ambiguity about it. The disagreements I've seen so far come exclusively from people who've forgotten a very basic rule in D&D, the definition of the word "attack" -- and forgetting that creates ambiguities with a *ton* of things other than mirror image. I would recommend you skip any Rules of the Game article about mirror image, by the way, because it's likely to be dead wrong.
Pentar 07-03-07, 02:27 PM	It's not ambiguous, though. It's only ambiguous if you read more into the spell than is there. Mirror image makes figments just like silent image does, with a few basic exceptions -- what the figments do (follow you except when pretending to be hit by area spells), what they look like (you), and how they can be countered (making a successful attack against them). It's very clear. There shouldn't be any ambiguity about it. The disagreements I've seen so far come exclusively from people who've forgotten a very basic rule in D&D, the definition of the word "attack" -- and forgetting that creates ambiguities with a *ton* of things other than mirror image. If there was no ambiguity with it, then all the threads, questions, debate and FAQ releases about the spell wouldn't have happened, right? The fact that there has been a lot of questions about the spell and its interactions with the game environment means there is ambiguity. On the surface, the spell functions pretty normally. It's when you start adding things like Cleave, Whirlwind attack, Arc Lightning etc. that people start wondernig, "Well, what happens if...". If this thread is any indication, it's not that clear to people how it would/should interact. I find it particularly funny that on the one hand, you tell me that it's very easy to adjudicate and simultaneously tell me to ignore the multitude of rulings regarding the spell and its interactions in the Rules of the Game article. That's pretty contradictory and hypocritical. The fact that those FAQs exists is evidence to the complicated nature of this spell.
ArcTan 07-03-07, 03:16 PM	If there was no ambiguity with it, then all the threads, questions, debate and FAQ releases about the spell wouldn't have happened, right? The fact that there has been a lot of questions about the spell and its interactions with the game environment means there is ambiguity. On the surface, the spell functions pretty normally. It's when you start adding things like Cleave, Whirlwind attack, Arc Lightning etc. that people start wondernig, "Well, what happens if...". If this thread is any indication, it's not that clear to people how it would/should interact. I find it particularly funny that on the one hand, you tell me that it's very easy to adjudicate and simultaneously tell me to ignore the multitude of rulings regarding the spell and its interactions in the Rules of the Game article. That's pretty contradictory and hypocritical. The fact that those FAQs exists is evidence to the complicated nature of this spell. There's controversy mainly because of common houserules people use to make the spell "easier" to run (like putting all the images in one square) based on the way the spell worked in earlier editions. If you read the actual text of the spell, unpolluted by previous expectations of how it "should" work, the text is actually very clear.