Mirror Image and Blind-Fighting
Joseph Oberlander
> useful against magic (especially certain types of illusions--
> the purely visual ones like PF, Invisibility, Improved Invisibility,
> etc.--as well as blinding/obscurement effects like Light (cast
> to blind), Darkness, Fog Cloud, Obscurement, etc.). Mirror Image,
> however, is a poor example of the utility of Blind-Fighting
> in combating magical effects.
Nowhere does it say that the images are sight and sound duplicates,
and using BF skill, he could attempt to target the source of the sound.
Now, if a mage was really nasty, he'd cast PF with the exact same effect
as mirror image and the fighter woulnd't be able to tell which was which.
(there are very easy ways to make BF worthless)
Sheitan
> >OTOH, what if a mage casts "mirror image" followed
> >by "invisibility" or even "improved invisibility"?
>
> The images would turn invisible.
>
> >Would the (then
> >invisibile?!) mirror images still deceive opponents?
>
> Depends on whether the enemies can detect invisible.
Heh, making the ability to see invisible things a penalty. I LIKE it.
- Sheitan
Jason Eric Nelson
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> All of this is a long way of saying that BF is still *very*
>> useful against magic (especially certain types of illusions--
>> the purely visual ones like PF, Invisibility, Improved Invisibility,
>> etc.--as well as blinding/obscurement effects like Light (cast
>> to blind), Darkness, Fog Cloud, Obscurement, etc.). Mirror Image,
>> however, is a poor example of the utility of Blind-Fighting
>> in combating magical effects.
>
>Nowhere does it say that the images are sight and sound duplicates,
Wrong.
"When a mirror image spell is invoked, the spellcaster causes from two
to eight EXACT DUPLICATES of himself to come into being around him.
THESE IMAGES DO *EXACTLY* WHAT THE WIZARD DOES." - PH2, pg. 144 (1st
printing) - [caps and emphasis marks mine]
An EXACT duplicate that does EXACTLY what you do means that it mimics
you in *ALL* regards and it does *EVERYTHING* that you do, *INCLUDING*
making sounds, smells, radiating body heat, and the whole nine yards.
It does *NOT* say that it creates "two to eight visual illusions of
the caster" which "look like the wizard and mimic his/her appearance
and movements", no matter how much you seem to think it does.
RTFM, Joe. It's right there in black and white. You would have a lot
fewer problems with the game if you did.
>and using BF skill, he could attempt to target the source of the sound.
Sure he could. And he would be able to target the sound of 3-9 potential
targets (the wizard plus his/her 2-8 exact duplicates), all making
exactly identical sounds.
>Now, if a mage was really nasty, he'd cast PF with the exact same effect
>as mirror image and the fighter woulnd't be able to tell which was which.
>(there are very easy ways to make BF worthless)
This is completely backwards. Phantasmal Force *SPECIFICALLY* states
that it is a visual-only illusion, with no audial component. Blind-
fighting is a perfect mechanism for dealing with a PF duplicate.
Mirror Image *SPECIFICALLY* states that it is an *ALL-INCLUSIVE* illusion,
that *EXACTLY* duplicates the caster and creates images that mimic him or
her in every regard; ergo, BF is *not* useful against Mirror Image.
And again you seem stuck on this false dichotomy setup of either BF is
good for everything or else it's good for nothing. BF is plenty good
for a lot of things; Mirror Image just does not happen to be one of
them.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" - Job 38:2
Steve Buza
<wev...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>I am DMing a campaign of mid-level characters. When gaming last Sunday,
>we came across (what we considered) a design flaw considering the spell
>"mirror image". One of the characters was fighting a mage who cast this
>spell midway through the fight. Since this mage was pretty low in HPs at
>that time, he then decided to cast "wall of fog" followed by "spider
>climb" and run (or rather climb) for it. The pc had not yet done
>anything during that round and attacked the mage with his sword. The
>question then came up, are the mirror images still working, since the pc
>can't see them anyway? The PC made his attack roll despite the -2
>penalty (-4 for non-proficient pcs), and we had quite a discussion on
>whether he hit the mage or maybe just one of the duplicates. The spell
>description doesn't say anything about any sounds the duplicates make,
>but IMO it would be way too easy to merely close your eyes and take the
>-2/-4 penalty and attack a caster blindly, thus ignoring the spell
>effects completely. OTOH, what if a mage casts "mirror image" followed
>by "invisibility" or even "improved invisibility"? Would the (then
>invisibile?!) mirror images still deceive opponents? Or would that make
>the spell too powerful, since the mage were to be hit at -2/-4 and he
>still could hope that one of his duplicates is hit? After all, it's only
>a 2nd level spell!
I would say closing your eyes and relying on your blind-fighting skill
would be a perfectly good use of the proficiency. It would then be
exactly like fighting an invisible creature.
I wouldn't take the wording of mirror image so literally. The images
are merely illusions. They tend to duplicate the motions and actions
of the caster, but they can't do what he does. Having them turn
invisible when he does would be akin to allowing them to cast magic
missile when he does. That would be silly.
I think this is a great combination of spells. Sort of like Hold
Person and Heat Metal together, which are two low-level priest spells
that can be absolutely devastating.
Steve
Jason Eric Nelson
RTM. Mirror Image is not limited to visual imitation--it creates
*exact* duplicates that "do" (illusionarily, of course) *everything*
that you do.
>I wouldn't take the wording of mirror image so literally. The images
>are merely illusions. They tend to duplicate the motions and actions
>of the caster, but they can't do what he does. Having them turn
>invisible when he does would be akin to allowing them to cast magic
>missile when he does. That would be silly.
The mirror images *seem* to be casting Magic Missile. They wave their
arms, point their fingers, chant the magic words, and it looks like
magic missiles come from all of them, *BUT* the AoE of Mirror Image
is only a 6' radius, so at this distance there is a "blurring"
effect and XX number of *real* magic missiles are fired from the
[caster+images]. Because of the blurring effect, it is impossible
to tell from which image the real missiles came, but all observational
data would indicate that *all* of the images were casting the spell.
In the case of Invisibility, the *effect* of the spell is to cause
the caster to become invisible. Since the Mirror Images *exactly*
duplicate what the caster does, they become invisible when he/she does,
and if he/she attacks they all become visible at that point. If a
creature can see invisible, they will see the [caster+images].
By the same token, if a mage using MI casts Fire Shield, flames will
*seem* to shroud *all* of the images, but only the *real* wizard
will actually gain the benefit of the F.S. All of the images will
wink out on any hit; ergo, they cannot convey any form of harm to
an attacker since their illusory nature is immediately revealed
on contact.
The list goes on and on: If a mage uses Polymorph Self, the images
will appear to change along with him/her. If a mage uses Fly, the
images will also appear to Fly. If a mage uses Enlarge, all images
will appear to get bigger.
The only exception to this rule that I can think of would be
another Mirror Image spell; simply to avoid gross 'stacking' effects,
I would simply rule that casting MI more than once simply adds to
the basic number of images, rather than cross-multiplying; thus, if
you get 5 images with your first MI and you cast it again and get
another 5, you end up with 5+5 = 10 images, not 5x5 = 25 images.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Pan Am - He makes the going great"
Joseph Oberlander
Stop. They are *images*, not phantasms.
> An EXACT duplicate that does EXACTLY what you do means that it mimics
> you in *ALL* regards and it does *EVERYTHING* that you do, *INCLUDING*
> making sounds, smells, radiating body heat, and the whole nine yards.
Yes, a *visual* duplicate. This spell is *not* Spectral Force - in fact,
the Spell from the 1st edition plainly states that the images blur and
have slight distrotion - it obviously IS an optical effect.
If you want the spell to do what you suggest, use Spectral Forces.(or equiv)
> >Now, if a mage was really nasty, he'd cast PF with the exact same effect
> >as mirror image and the fighter woulnd't be able to tell which was which.
> >(there are very easy ways to make BF worthless)
>
> This is completely backwards. Phantasmal Force *SPECIFICALLY* states
> that it is a visual-only illusion, with no audial component. Blind-
> fighting is a perfect mechanism for dealing with a PF duplicate.
My mistake. Late at night. I meant *Spectral* force(or its 2nd ed equiv)
It was obvious that I was saying that Mirror Image was too low level
to do what you suggested, and that you needed a more powerful version
to pull that much off. How many higher level illusions are there
in the 3-4th level spells in the PHB? Fairly obvious which spell I meant.
> Mirror Image *SPECIFICALLY* states that it is an *ALL-INCLUSIVE* illusion,
> that *EXACTLY* duplicates the caster and creates images that mimic him or
> her in every regard; ergo, BF is *not* useful against Mirror Image.
In every *visual* reguard. They *appear* to be the caster. Images. Appear.
Nowhere in the description does it say physical forms or phantasms or
taking real damage or even affecting anything externally, which they
theoretically could do if they had heat and smell and such.
Not the same power level or type of spell as spectral force. Spectral
force used in this way would be very nasty and would do what you suggest.
Jason Eric Nelson
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> THESE IMAGES
>
>Stop. They are *images*, not phantasms.
So is Project Image. Read the book, Joe. It's right in there.
>> An EXACT duplicate that does EXACTLY what you do means that it mimics
>> you in *ALL* regards and it does *EVERYTHING* that you do, *INCLUDING*
>> making sounds, smells, radiating body heat, and the whole nine yards.
>
>Yes, a *visual* duplicate.
You say this. The spell description does not.
>This spell is *not* Spectral Force - in fact,
>the Spell from the 1st edition plainly states that the images blur and
>have slight distrotion - it obviously IS an optical effect.
It obviously *INCLUDES* an optical effect. Duh!
And you took that phrase out of context. What it *actually* says is:
"These images do *EXACTLY* what the magic-user does, and as the spell
causes a blurring and slight distortion *WHEN IT IS EFFECTED*, it is
impossible for opponents to be certain which are *PHANTASMS* and which
is the actual magic-user." (PH (1st Ed.) pg. 71, 6th printing, 1980)
Ergo, you are wrong an a wide variety of accounts:
1. MI images *ARE* "phantasms" (though given the way the terms
for illusions are used so interchangeably and inconsistently,
you are attributing far too much importance to the particular
phraseology used to describe an effect).
2. The blurring and distortion occur WHEN THE SPELL IS CAST,
to prevent enemies from saying "Well, I was watching the
caster and now there are a bunch of duplicates, but I can
still see the same guy standing in the same place, so that's
the real guy."
The images DO NOT "blur and have slight distortion", as you
suggest. That *EFFECT* takes place when the spell is cast to
confuse onlookers as to which is the real wizard.
3. No matter how many times you say it, the *spell description*
says that the images do exactly what the caster does. It does
*NOT* single out "visual effects" as the sum total of what is
replicated.
>If you want the spell to do what you suggest, use Spectral Forces.(or equiv)
I assume you are talking about a 1st Ed. *ILLUSIONIST*, since in 1st
Ed. M-U's could not cast Spectral Force, and for them Phantasmal Force
was a 3rd level spell (which is probably a better level for it than 1st,
but that was a relic of OD&D/BD&D when illusions could inflict *real*
damage). Of course, they got Spectral Force added as a 4th level
spell in UA, but that's another matter...
Maybe you've noticed that in D&D there is a general principle of spell
level valuation which is based on how *much* a spell can do and how
*many* things a spell can do. In terms of "how much", this is amply
illustrated by spells like Burning Hands vs. Flaming Sphere vs. Fireball
and on and on. What I am concerned with is the question of "how many"
things a spell can do. I'm going to use the 2nd Ed. spell list
to demonstrate this for you:
Audible Glamer creates sound-based illusions. It is 1st level.
Phantasmal Force creates sight-based illusions. It is 1st level.
Improved Phantasmal Force creates sight *AND* sound-based illusions.
It is 2nd level.
With me so far? IPF can do *MORE* things than AG or PF, so it's higher level.
IPF *COULD* be used to replicate either AG or PF if you wanted, but it can
also be used for *other* things.
Vacancy creates a very detailed full-spectrum illusion, but it is very
limited in what it creates an illusion of. It is 4th level.
Advanced Illusion creates a very detailed full-spectrum illusion, but it is
*NOT* limited in what it creates an illusion of. It is 5th level.
Still with me? Advanced Illusion *COULD* be used to replicate Vacancy
with the same effect if you wanted to, but it can also do *MORE* things.
Ergo it is a level higher (or, if you want to reverse the concept,
Vacancy is a level lower).
Mirror Image creates an illusory exact duplicates of the caster, which go
'poof' when someone touches them (strictly speaking, it requires an attack,
but hey). It is 2nd level.
Spectral Force creates an illusion of whatever the caster wants, including
sight, sound, smell, and heat. It is 3rd level.
Do you get it yet? Spectral Force *COULD* be used to duplicate Mirror
Image (though with the added bonus of not having the images go poof if
you didn't want them to), but it can *ALSO* be used to create the
illusion of *ANYTHING*.
Mirror Image is a specialized subset of Spectral Force. It cannot do all
the things that SF can do. It can only do one thing that SF can do. Ergo,
it is a level lower than SF.
By your interpretation, Mirror Image should be considered a subset of
Phantasmal Force, which by the spell valuation algorithm used in rating
D&D spells would make it a 0-level cantrip (or more likely simply another
1st level spell).
Using your rationale, I would rate it as a 1st level spell, because its
effect is so trivially defeated.
>> >Now, if a mage was really nasty, he'd cast PF with the exact same effect
>> >as mirror image and the fighter woulnd't be able to tell which was which.
>> >(there are very easy ways to make BF worthless)
>>
>> This is completely backwards. Phantasmal Force *SPECIFICALLY* states
>> that it is a visual-only illusion, with no audial component. Blind-
>> fighting is a perfect mechanism for dealing with a PF duplicate.
>
>My mistake. Late at night. I meant *Spectral* force(or its 2nd ed equiv)
>It was obvious that I was saying that Mirror Image was too low level
>to do what you suggested, and that you needed a more powerful version
>to pull that much off.
That is because you don't like to actually read the spell descriptions and
what they say (rather than what you *think* they say) and compare them to
the other comparable spell descriptions and the "obvious" (to use your
word) scaling principles inherent in the spell level system.
>How many higher level illusions are there
>in the 3-4th level spells in the PHB? Fairly obvious which spell I meant.
You have very strange ideas about what is "obvious".
>> Mirror Image *SPECIFICALLY* states that it is an *ALL-INCLUSIVE* illusion,
>> that *EXACTLY* duplicates the caster and creates images that mimic him or
>> her in every regard; ergo, BF is *not* useful against Mirror Image.
>
>In every *visual* reguard. They *appear* to be the caster. Images. Appear.
You have just invented a limitation for the spell that does not exist.
>Nowhere in the description does it say physical forms or phantasms or
See above. I even quoted it for you.
As for physical forms? No. It is an *ILLUSION*. You seem to have
trouble bridging the gap between extremes. You may not realize it, but
there is actually a middle ground between an entirely visual illusion
(1st level PF) and an actual physical body (7th level Simulacrum), and
it runs the whole range from more robust illusions (including additional
components) to quasi-real effects (Shadow xxx).
>taking real damage or even affecting anything externally,
Who ever said anything about having any *PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE*. It is
an *ILLUSION*. Criminey! Do illusions IYC have hit points? MI
images get hit, they go *pop*. It's right there in the spell description,
not that I should expect you to actually read it.
>which they
>theoretically could do if they had heat and smell and such.
So IYC Spectral Force causes real damage, in direct contravention of
the rules that govern it? No wonder you're confused.
>Not the same power level or type of spell as spectral force. Spectral
>force used in this way would be very nasty and would do what you suggest.
It would also be only *ONE* of an infinite number of potential
applications for Spectral Force. To suggest that a spell that
represents one *possible* use of another spell should be the
same level or higher than the other spell is ludicrous even for you.
flint wizard
Mirror image is an illusion of sight only. If something obscures the
vision, then the illusion is also obscure. Mirror image does not use
olfactory senses, it does not use auditory senses, or touch, or taste.
It is simply vision. A fighter closing his eyes is not effected by
mirror image because he cannot see it. Unfortunately that's the breaks.
But closing his eyes also prohibits him from seeing other potential
dangers. It is not considered being immune to a 2nd spell. The penalties
of closing his eyes still apply. But a character closing his eyes cannot
see the mirror image. End of report.
Jan Wevers wrote:
>
> Hi out there,
>
> I've been lurking around for quite a while now, but now I have a tricky
> question...
> I am DMing a campaign of mid-level characters. When gaming last Sunday,
> we came across (what we considered) a design flaw considering the spell
> "mirror image". One of the characters was fighting a mage who cast this
> spell midway through the fight. Since this mage was pretty low in HPs at
> that time, he then decided to cast "wall of fog" followed by "spider
> climb" and run (or rather climb) for it. The pc had not yet done
> anything during that round and attacked the mage with his sword. The
> question then came up, are the mirror images still working, since the pc
> can't see them anyway? The PC made his attack roll despite the -2
> penalty (-4 for non-proficient pcs), and we had quite a discussion on
> whether he hit the mage or maybe just one of the duplicates. The spell
> description doesn't say anything about any sounds the duplicates make,
> but IMO it would be way too easy to merely close your eyes and take the
> -2/-4 penalty and attack a caster blindly, thus ignoring the spell
> effects completely. OTOH, what if a mage casts "mirror image" followed
> by "invisibility" or even "improved invisibility"? Would the (then
> invisibile?!) mirror images still deceive opponents? Or would that make
> the spell too powerful, since the mage were to be hit at -2/-4 and he
> still could hope that one of his duplicates is hit? After all, it's only
> a 2nd level spell!
>
> I would appreciate any comments on this.
>
> :服
>
> Jan
Jason Eric Nelson
flint wizard <flint...@home.com> wrote:
>Simply put:
>Mirror image is an illusion of sight only. If something obscures the
>vision, then the illusion is also obscure. Mirror image does not use
>olfactory senses, it does not use auditory senses, or touch, or taste.
>It is simply vision. A fighter closing his eyes is not effected by
>mirror image because he cannot see it. Unfortunately that's the breaks.
>But closing his eyes also prohibits him from seeing other potential
>dangers. It is not considered being immune to a 2nd spell. The penalties
>of closing his eyes still apply. But a character closing his eyes cannot
>see the mirror image. End of report.
Simply put:
You are wrong.
Read the spell description--1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. both agree. It is *not*
purely visual. It creates exact illusory duplicates that do everything
that you do, including walk, talk, stink, and give off body heat.
If you cast a spell, all images "cast the spell" (illusionarily)--they wave
their arms, they chant the magic words, the spell effect appears to
emanate from them--and beyond a 6' radius from the caster (the spell's
AoE) a *SINGLE* manifestation of the spell appears. They see a bunch of
magic comin' from you, but only a single spell actually travels to the
target; the target (and others), however, cannot tell which one of the
"wizards" was the actual caster of the spell.
Your misinterpretation of the spell would make it *less* powerful
than Phantasmal Force, even though (in 2nd Ed.) PF is 1st level and MI
is 2nd level.
Just read the %&*((& book. It makes life much easier.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Tide - He gets out stains others leave behind"
Joseph Oberlander
> for illusions are used so interchangeably and inconsistently,
> you are attributing far too much importance to the particular
> phraseology used to describe an effect).
So, in essence this point is flawed and rendered moot. The First Edition
book uses the two words interchangeably.
> 2. The blurring and distortion occur WHEN THE SPELL IS CAST,
> to prevent enemies from saying "Well, I was watching the
> caster and now there are a bunch of duplicates, but I can
> still see the same guy standing in the same place, so that's
> the real guy."
I read it that the spell does this when one of the images is HIT
so that you cannot tell how they re-shuffle. Blurring and distortion,
though, are visual effects, so no proof on your part so far.
> The images DO NOT "blur and have slight distortion", as you
> suggest. That *EFFECT* takes place when the spell is cast to
> confuse onlookers as to which is the real wizard.
They blur at some time. Visual effect.
> 3. No matter how many times you say it, the *spell description*
> says that the images do exactly what the caster does. It does
> *NOT* single out "visual effects" as the sum total of what is
> replicated.
I never said this. It *mirrors* the caster's actions perfectly.
(hence the name) Visual perfection. Sitll nothing to directly
state that it does more than this, and in the abscence of concrete
text, the default response is to look at the intent - that is,
the NAME of the spell is fairly suggestive as an *optical* effect.
> Audible Glamer creates sound-based illusions. It is 1st level.
> Phantasmal Force creates sight-based illusions. It is 1st level.
True.
> Improved Phantasmal Force creates sight *AND* sound-based illusions.
> It is 2nd level.
Not true. It does not say so directly, and the spell is *defensive*
magic, which is almost always higher level than the offensive magic
for the same type of spell. The defensive aspect is worth a level
right there, as the mage does not have to concentrate on it once it is
cast, unlike even IPF.
> Mirror Image is a specialized subset of Spectral Force. It cannot do all
> the things that SF can do. It can only do one thing that SF can do. Ergo,
> it is a level lower than SF.
Again, the COMMON interpretation of the spell is that it is visual only.
SF can do mroe than it can, and it is NOT a subset of SF, as again, it
is fire-and-forget defensive magic(even SF requires concentrating)
What you say Mirror Image is would actually be a subset of programmed
illusion, which is obviously not true. Cast and forget - it does the rest
and you can do *anything* you wish afterwards.
> Using your rationale, I would rate it as a 1st level spell, because its
> effect is so trivially defeated.
Blindfighting is *two* proficiencies, and more if you aren't a fighter.
That counts for something, and second-level magic is not as powerful
as you are making it out to be.
> That is because you don't like to actually read the spell descriptions and
> what they say (rather than what you *think* they say) and compare them to
> the other comparable spell descriptions and the "obvious" (to use your
> word) scaling principles inherent in the spell level system.
No, I didn't have the book in front of me, and there are many spells
that are illusions between the versions of AD&D that have simmilar names.
> Who ever said anything about having any *PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE*. It is
> an *ILLUSION*. Criminey! Do illusions IYC have hit points? MI
> images get hit, they go *pop*. It's right there in the spell description,
> not that I should expect you to actually read it.
Well, you mentioned body-heat. DUH. You seem content to tack on whatever
you want it to have to fit your description, and it is just not that powerful.
Ask the people here or even better, WoTC, how they interprrt it. You will
be in the minority, and a very small one at that.
> So IYC Spectral Force causes real damage, in direct contravention of
> the rules that govern it? No wonder you're confused.
No, but it appears as if it could. That's why it is great for fireball
spells and such - it is almost impossible not to believe it as real.
(shoot it even looks hot in infravision if you play infravision as dark
vision)
Joseph Oberlander
> purely visual. It creates exact illusory duplicates that do everything
> that you do, including walk, talk, stink, and give off body heat.
And this is where it appears to be a physical copy of you, which is
far MORE than anything short of SF or Advanced Illusion can do.
Stink(Smell)? Heat(Touch - hot/cold)? Talk(Sound/Hear)? Vision(Vision)?
Gheez. that's four of five senses so far from a puny second level spell -
get real.
Steve Buza
Nelson) wrote:
>In article <38DAA3FE...@home.com>,
>flint wizard <flint...@home.com> wrote:
>>Simply put:
>>Mirror image is an illusion of sight only. If something obscures the
<snip>
>Simply put:
>You are wrong.
No. You are.
>Read the spell description--1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. both agree. It is *not*
>purely visual.
Of course it is. That's why its called an "image."
>purely visual. It creates exact illusory duplicates that do everything
>that you do, including walk, talk, stink, and give off body heat.
This is completely false. Try reading Chapter 7: Magic (Illusions) in
the PHB to get a better understanding of how illusions work.
By assigning powers such as talk, stink, give off body heat, become
invisible, etc. you've assigned far more power to this spell than was
intended and you've increased its power beyond its second-level
calling.
At second level, Improved Phantasmal Force can manage some "minor
sounds... but not understandable speech," and yet you're perfectly
happy to assign such powers to a spell that does not provide for any
sounds in the description. (Which is sort of like saying that audible
glamer also allows for a visual illusion precisely because a visual
component is not specifically disallowed by the spell description.)
Not until Spectral Force (third-level spell) do sound, smell, and
thermal components become part of the illusion. If these were
intended to be part of Mirror Image it would have been stated in the
spell description, and Mirror Image would not have been a second-level
spell. (I can see a fourth of fifth-level improvement to mirror image
that does what you ask for, but not a second-level spell.)
Why on earth would other illusion spells specifically state the
presence of sound, smell, and thermal components if illusion spells
_of your choice_ gain these powers anyway at lower levels?
When Mirror Image states "these images do exactly what the wizard
does," you've somehow adopted this to be more literal than the spirit
of the spell and its level allows for. What is meant by this is that
the images act as your image in a mirror would (albeit
three-dimensionally). That is _all_ that is meant by this phrase.
Your flawed interpretation of this spell affords it visual illusionary
powers like phantasmal force, auditory powers like audible glamer,
olfactory and thermal powers like spectral force. And in the original
discussion you were perfectly willing to allow these illusions to be
affected by a spell (invisibility) that affects only "real" creatures.
I can certainly see having the illusions "appear" to become invisible
by simply disappearing. But to say that the mirror images can
actually become invisible illusions is not only oxymoronic its also
plain moronic.
Steve
Steve Buza
On 23 Mar 2000 20:02:02 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
Nelson) wrote:
>That is because you don't like to actually read the spell descriptions and
>what they say
The pot calling the kettle black. To wit:
>Do you get it yet? Spectral Force *COULD* be used to duplicate Mirror
>Image (though with the added bonus of not having the images go poof if
>you didn't want them to), but it can *ALSO* be used to create the
>illusion of *ANYTHING*.
If you bothered to read the spell description for Spectral Force you
would find that it is derived from Phantasmal Force which states
thusly:
"This spell creates the illusion of any object, creature, or force..."
This description doesn't say that the spell creates the illusion of
anything. In fact, it is quite clear that the spellcaster can
actually create only one of object, creature, or force.
Mirror Image creates 2-8 duplicates. Spectral Force can create only
one. Spectral Force does not have the power to allow the illusionary
image to appear to do exactly as the caster does. Spectral Force does
not have the power of the blurring effect. In short Spectral Force
cannot be used to duplicate Mirror Image.
Because Spectral Force cannot be used to duplicate Mirror Image, your
previous rant is meritless and thus irrelevant.
Please restate your case with these things in mind.
Steve
Steve Buza
<oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> Improved Phantasmal Force creates sight *AND* sound-based illusions.
>> It is 2nd level.
>
>Not true. It does not say so directly, and the spell is *defensive*
>magic, which is almost always higher level than the offensive magic
>for the same type of spell. The defensive aspect is worth a level
>right there, as the mage does not have to concentrate on it once it is
>cast, unlike even IPF.
Improved Phantasmal Force (second edition books at least) can create
minor sounds, but not understandable speech.
>> Mirror Image is a specialized subset of Spectral Force. It cannot do all
>> the things that SF can do. It can only do one thing that SF can do. Ergo,
>> it is a level lower than SF.
>
>Again, the COMMON interpretation of the spell is that it is visual only.
His argument is self-defeating here. Spectral Force is derived from
Phantasmal Force which is a visual-only illusion. Not until third
level do any of these spells have audible, olfactory, and thermal
components. Assigning them at second level is ludicrous
>SF can do mroe than it can, and it is NOT a subset of SF, as again, it
>is fire-and-forget defensive magic(even SF requires concentrating)
>
>What you say Mirror Image is would actually be a subset of programmed
>illusion, which is obviously not true. Cast and forget - it does the rest
>and you can do *anything* you wish afterwards.
This is a very, very good point that I failed to note in my previous
discussions.
>> So IYC Spectral Force causes real damage, in direct contravention of
>> the rules that govern it? No wonder you're confused.
>
>No, but it appears as if it could. That's why it is great for fireball
>spells and such - it is almost impossible not to believe it as real.
>(shoot it even looks hot in infravision if you play infravision as dark
>vision)
Yes, but unless the victim fails his system shock roll, the most a
spectral force fireball can do is knock him unconscious for 1d3 turns,
after which we wakes up without any further effects from the illusion.
(IMC illusions can't do real or imagined damage until they are fourth
level when they become quasi-real.)
Jason Eric Nelson
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> Read the spell description--1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. both agree. It is *not*
>> that you do, including walk, talk, stink, and give off body heat.
>
>far MORE than anything short of SF or Advanced Illusion can do.
It is precisely what SF can do, but it can only do *one* thing, with
the added disadvantage that touching it makes it disappear, which is
not the case with SF.
Ergo, it is a limited subset of SF and is a level lower.
Jason Eric Nelson
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>On 23 Mar 2000 20:02:02 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
>>what they say
>
As if...
>>Do you get it yet? Spectral Force *COULD* be used to duplicate Mirror
>>Image (though with the added bonus of not having the images go poof if
>>you didn't want them to), but it can *ALSO* be used to create the
>>illusion of *ANYTHING*.
>
>If you bothered to read the spell description for Spectral Force you
>would find that it is derived from Phantasmal Force which states
>thusly:
Which I did.
>"This spell creates the illusion of any object, creature, or force..."
>
>This description doesn't say that the spell creates the illusion of
>anything. In fact, it is quite clear that the spellcaster can
>actually create only one of object, creature, or force.
Uh-huh. And precisely what else is there that cannot be described
as an "object, creature, or force", pray tell?
Emotion? Thought? These are intangible concepts that fall under the
Enchantment/Charm school (for the most part) and are not renderable
directly by the power of illusion, though an illusion can *induce*
thoughts or emotions (e.g., Spook, which induces fear, or Phantasmal
Killer, which does the same).
>Mirror Image creates 2-8 duplicates. Spectral Force can create only
>one.
Wrong.
Even if you don't bother looking at additional supplements like the
Comp. Wiz. HB and the like, right in ye olde PH2 (pgs. 82-84 in my
1st printing) in the section on "Illusions" it describes numerous
examples of creating illusions of multiple creatures ("a squad of
low-level fighters", "a huge dragon rising up behind a rank of
attacking kobolds", "a few ogres forming a line").
RTFM.
>Spectral Force does not have the power to allow the illusionary
>image to appear to do exactly as the caster does. Spectral Force does
>not have the power of the blurring effect. In short Spectral Force
>cannot be used to duplicate Mirror Image.
Why on earth not? It has the power to duplicate any creature, right?
Is the caster not a creature? Is the 'blurring effect' not a visual
effect that could be duplicated by an illusion that is capable of
producing visual effects?
For that matter, SF could be used to create Mirror Images of someone
*ELSE*, yet another way in which it is superior to the basic MI spell,
which is caster-only. It would be difficult to do, but that's why
the spell requires full concentration to maintain. The caster has
seen his or her compatriots in combat and has a high INT (and could
actually spend time talking with party members to learn about their
fighting styles). Why on earth *couldn't* a wizard use SF to
create a couple of illusory duplicates of the party's buff fighter
the next time they get in combat?
Heck, unlike MI images the SF "images" would be capable of inflicting
illusory damage, which MI cannot do. They would not necessarily
disappear when struck, which MI cannot do. They can act identically
or independently of the REAL fighter, which MI cannot do. The images
also can *change* during the course of the illusion--you are not
'locked in' to creating a single thing and sticking with that for
the duration (e.g., the example at the top of column 3 on pg. 89 of
the Complete Wizard's Handbook), yet another thing that MI cannot
do.
Which part of "Spectral Force can do everything Mirror Image can do
and more" don't you understand?
All it requires is concentration on the part of the caster--not
a negligible thing.
>Because Spectral Force cannot be used to duplicate Mirror Image, your
>previous rant is meritless and thus irrelevant.
Wrong and wrong.
>Please restate your case with these things in mind.
See above.
Jason Eric Nelson
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> 1. MI images *ARE* "phantasms" (though given the way the terms
>> for illusions are used so interchangeably and inconsistently,
>> you are attributing far too much importance to the particular
>> phraseology used to describe an effect).
>
>book uses the two words interchangeably.
>
>> to prevent enemies from saying "Well, I was watching the
>> caster and now there are a bunch of duplicates, but I can
>> still see the same guy standing in the same place, so that's
>> the real guy."
>
>so that you cannot tell how they re-shuffle.
Both are true, for the same reason, which is irrelevant to whether
the MI's are visual-only (as you believe) or "exact duplicates"
(as the spell description states).
>Blurring and distortion,
>though, are visual effects, so no proof on your part so far.
It's *A* component of the spell, not the entire function of the spell.
>> The images DO NOT "blur and have slight distortion", as you
>> suggest. That *EFFECT* takes place when the spell is cast to
>> confuse onlookers as to which is the real wizard.
>
>They blur at some time. Visual effect.
Irrelevant. That's only part of the spell, not the whole thing.
>> 3. No matter how many times you say it, the *spell description*
>> says that the images do exactly what the caster does. It does
>> *NOT* single out "visual effects" as the sum total of what is
>> replicated.
>
>I never said this. It *mirrors* the caster's actions perfectly.
>(hence the name)
You keep inventing semantic distinctions that are not there.
By your logic, all of the duplicates should look reversed, since they are
"mirror" images, rather than duplicates.
>Visual perfection. Sitll nothing to directly
>state that it does more than this,
Yes there is, in both 1st and 2nd Ed., which I have quoted for you verbatim
*TWICE*. Can you READ?
>and in the abscence of concrete text,
There is no absence of concrete text.
>the default response is to look at the intent - that is,
>the NAME of the spell is fairly suggestive as an *optical* effect.
Then I guess in your game spells work differently:
Burning Hands sets your hands on fire.
Chill Touch inflicts cold damage.
Phantasmal Force (and IPF) exist only within the mind of a target.
Illusionary Script doesn't create an embedded suggestion; it is just text
that's not really there.
Melf's Minute Meteors spits out small bits of rock and iron rather than fire.
Vampiric Touch drains levels.
Fire Shield creates a kite-shaped (or round) fiery shield on the caster's arm.
Leomund's Tiny Hut creates a little thatch-roofed bungalow.
Stoneskin turns your skin to stone.
Cure Light Wounds only cures small injuries; if you've suffered any wound
that is not "light", the spell does nothing.
Etc. etc.
Do you see how absurd your concretist interpretation of spell names is?
This is precisely the suggestion that you are making vis-a-vis interpreting
the Mirror Image spell.
In the AD&D game, there is room for figurative speech, especially in
titling spells
>> Audible Glamer creates sound-based illusions. It is 1st level.
>> Phantasmal Force creates sight-based illusions. It is 1st level.
>
>True.
>
>> Improved Phantasmal Force creates sight *AND* sound-based illusions.
>> It is 2nd level.
>
>Not true.
What? Have you *read* the book at all?
>It does not say so directly, and the spell is *defensive* magic,
IPF is defensive magic? I *can* be, but it can also be used for
anything else.
>which is almost always higher level than the offensive magic
>for the same type of spell. The defensive aspect is worth a level
>right there, as the mage does not have to concentrate on it once it is
>cast, unlike even IPF.
I assume you're talking about Mirror Image then.
Let's see (speaking only of wizard spells and their closest analogs
in terms of attack vs. defense):
Protection from Paralysis is 2nd level.
Hold Person is 3rd. Hold Monster is 5th.
Resist Energy Drain is 4th level.
Enervation is 4th (temporary drain). Energy Drain is 9th.
Fire Shield is 4th level (and does far more than protect vs. spells,
and can be selected for hot or cold).
Fireball is 3rd. Cone of Cold is 5th.
Prot-Normal Missiles is 3rd level. Invul. to Normal Weapons is 5th.
Enchanted Weapon is 4th.
Protection from Evil is 1st level (and does more than protect vs. spells).
- Charm Person is 1st. Domination is 5th. Magic Jar is 5th.
Charm Monster is 4th.
- Summon Swarm is 2nd. Monster Summoning I is 3rd.
Shield is 1st level (and does more than protect vs. spells).
Magic Missile is 1st level.
Wind Wall is 3rd (and blocks missiles as well as spells).
- Gust of Wind is 3rd. Stinking Cloud is 2nd (probably the lowest-level
spell that Wind Wall would do anything against--there are lots of higher
level spells).
Looks like your "defensive spells are a level higher" is a bunch of hooey.
>> Mirror Image is a specialized subset of Spectral Force. It cannot do all
>> the things that SF can do. It can only do one thing that SF can do. Ergo,
>> it is a level lower than SF.
>
>Again, the COMMON interpretation of the spell is that it is visual only.
I should remind the reading public that your experience of what is COMMON
in D&D also includes "DMs always give monsters max hit points" as well as
a litany of other inanities that clearly call into question your ability
to judge what is common and what is not.
Besides which, even if your suggestion were true that would not mean that
the "common interpretation" was the correct one.
>SF can do mroe than it can, and it is NOT a subset of SF, as again,
This part is wrong.
>it is fire-and-forget defensive magic(even SF requires concentrating)
Bingo! You've just hit on the *ONLY* advantage that MI has over SF.
>What you say Mirror Image is would actually be a subset of programmed
>illusion, which is obviously not true. Cast and forget - it does the rest
>and you can do *anything* you wish afterwards.
>
>> Using your rationale, I would rate it as a 1st level spell, because its
>> effect is so trivially defeated.
>
>Blindfighting is *two* proficiencies, and more if you aren't a fighter.
Which is completely irrelevant to its effects on spells. Blindfighting
is useful against spells all over the map level-wise; e.g., Light (cast
to blind) (1st), Darkness 15' r. (2nd), Continual Light (cast to blind)
(2nd Wiz/3rd Pr), Continual Darkness (3rd), Blindness (2nd), Invisibility
(2nd), Improved Invisibility (4th), Power Word Blind (8th), Sequester
(7th), Mislead (6th), Shadow Door (5th), Phantasmal Force (1st),
Glitterdust (2nd).
The cost of BF has nothing to do with its utility against specific spells.
>That counts for something, and second-level magic is not as powerful
>as you are making it out to be.
You seem to have a pretty low opinion of the power of low-level spells in
general. Witness the gratuitously detailed list of supremely effective
1st-3rd level spells for defensive purposes over in the other thread
that you seemed to have casually dismissed as useless in your gaming
experience. Most of a wizard's hay IME is made with the lower-level
spells. The mid- and high-level spells are the icing on the cake
and the coup de grace when the wizard needs to 'trump' the enemy's
powers. The low-level spells are the bread-and-butter.
>> That is because you don't like to actually read the spell descriptions and
>> what they say (rather than what you *think* they say) and compare them to
>> the other comparable spell descriptions and the "obvious" (to use your
>> word) scaling principles inherent in the spell level system.
>
>No, I didn't have the book in front of me, and there are many spells
>that are illusions between the versions of AD&D that have simmilar names.
>
>> Who ever said anything about having any *PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE*. It is
>> an *ILLUSION*. Criminey! Do illusions IYC have hit points? MI
>> images get hit, they go *pop*. It's right there in the spell description,
>> not that I should expect you to actually read it.
>
>Well, you mentioned body-heat. DUH.
And that has *what* to do with the presence or absence of physical substance?
>You seem content to tack on whatever
>you want it to have to fit your description, and it is just not that powerful.
Ex-squeeze me? *YOU* are the one who tacks things on to spell descriptions
to make it fit your interpretation of it. *I* am the one who is actually
looking at what the spell description says and using *THAT* as the basis for
the power of the spell, rather than "tacking things on", as you have done.
>Ask the people here or even better, WoTC, how they interprrt it.
Knock yourself out. Seems kind of pointless though, since the words are
starting you right there in the face on the page.
>You will be in the minority, and a very small one at that.
It is not beyond the bound of possibility that everyone else has misread
the spell for all these years, as you have.
Heck, I only a few weeks ago learned that in 1st Ed. when you use the
negative hit point rule, it *ONLY* applies when you are dropped to
*ZERO* hit points (or, it suggests, possibly as low as -3 if you run
a high lethality campaign). In that case, you begin to lose hit
points, one per round, until you die at -10.
If you get dropped from positive hit points to -4 hit points, you are
*DEAD* in 1st Ed. Check it out, it's right there in the DMG1 (around
page 82 or so, I think). And all these years I thought it was just
this 10 point "buffer" of negative hit points, but it turns out that
I was *WRONG* about that rule, and misinterpreted it for the entire
time I played 1st Ed. D&D (which was until the last year or so, since
two of the DMs in my group still run 1st Ed. games).
The fact that lots of people misuse, misinterpret, or invent rules
and that they are common has no bearing on whether they are correct
within the written/published rules. Lots of people apply the DEX
reaction adjustment to initiative, or so I hear. That doesn't mean
it is correct in the rules.
Some people even use explosive greek fire/hand grenades... }:>
>> So IYC Spectral Force causes real damage, in direct contravention of
>> the rules that govern it? No wonder you're confused.
>
>No, but it appears as if it could.
Yet another limitation of MI vis-a-vis SF. It is a defensive-only SF
application, with no ability to cause even the remotest intimation of
causing damage. In fact, it is weaker even than the 1st level PF in
this regard.
>That's why it is great for fireball
>spells and such - it is almost impossible not to believe it as real.
>(shoot it even looks hot in infravision if you play infravision as dark
>vision)
And that is why MI is great for deceiving people as to which duplicate
is the real you--the duplicates look real, they sound real, they look
hot to infravision, they have the same BO you do. They are exact
duplicates who do everything you do, but they are not REAL. They
are purely illusions and they go *pop* when you hit 'em (which
triggers a momentary scrambling blur so you're no longer sure which
one you just hit--a visual subcomponent of the illusion).
Jason Eric Nelson
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:47:49 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
><oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>
>>> It is 2nd level.
>>
>>magic, which is almost always higher level than the offensive magic
>>for the same type of spell. The defensive aspect is worth a level
>>right there, as the mage does not have to concentrate on it once it is
>>cast, unlike even IPF.
>
>minor sounds, but not understandable speech.
You are correct. IPF also has significant range, can last as long as
the caster wishes (and wants to concentrate on it, plus 2 rounds extra),
has a very large AoE, and can create the illusion of virtually anything.
Mirror Image can create a specific type of illusion of one particular thing,
affects only a small area around the caster (only), and disappears on physical
contact, though it has the advantage of not requiring concentration.
Are you suggesting that a spell that is this limited compared to IPF should
generate only an equivalent or *lesser* effect? That makes no sense.
Whether Spectral Force (3rd level spell) can create intelligible speech is
not specifically stated: "The SF spell creates an illusion in which sound,
smell, and thermal illusions are included." It does not claim any limit on
the type of sound, smell, or thermal effect created, save that as an illusion
it is not capable of causing real harm; ergo, you could make it feel very
hot or very cold, but not so much so to cause actual physical damage.
>>> Mirror Image is a specialized subset of Spectral Force. It cannot do all
>>> the things that SF can do. It can only do one thing that SF can do. Ergo,
>>> it is a level lower than SF.
>>
>>Again, the COMMON interpretation of the spell is that it is visual only.
>
>His argument is self-defeating here. Spectral Force is derived from
>Phantasmal Force which is a visual-only illusion. Not until third
>level do any of these spells have audible, olfactory, and thermal
>components. Assigning them at second level is ludicrous
Wrong. See below.
>>SF can do mroe than it can, and it is NOT a subset of SF, as again, it
>>is fire-and-forget defensive magic(even SF requires concentrating)
>>
>>What you say Mirror Image is would actually be a subset of programmed
>>illusion, which is obviously not true. Cast and forget - it does the rest
>>and you can do *anything* you wish afterwards.
>
>This is a very, very good point that I failed to note in my previous
>discussions.
OK, if you want to "reverse engineer" the spell differently, why not use
Advanced Illusion, which is 'programmed' but must be cast at the time of
use (vs. Programmed Illusion, which is the same but can be activated at
any time by a triggering function or condition):
We start with Advanced Illusion as a 5th level spell, and we assume that
it is Ghod III's gift to perfectly balanced magic, OK? And we want to
replicate a similar spell that will duplicate the Mirror Image spell
using the version actually described in the rulebooks (as opposed to
the version you choose to imagine is there), so we do the following
and compare how we would have to make the spell weaker and/or stronger
to generate the end result:
DECREMENTS:
1. Reduce the spell's range: 60 yds + 10 yds/lvl to ZERO
- This would knock the spell down at least a level (compare, f'rex,
Polymorph Self (4th-caster only) to Drawmij's Beneficent Polymorph
(5th-same as PS, but range = Touch), which is a level higher; but we're
taking it down even further than that)
2. Reduce the spell's AoE: 40' cube + one 10' cube/lvl to 6' r.
- A pretty massive reduction, greater than the drop from Fireball
to Flaming Sphere, so another level drop of the spell here.
3. Reduce the spell's scope of action from virtually anything imaginable
(within the "constraint" of it being one or more creature(s),
object(s), or force(s)) to the following progressive set of
limitations (each of which is a subset of the previous one):
1. Can only replicate a creature.
2. Can only replicate a single creature.
3. Can only replicate a *particular* single creature.
4. Can only replicate a particular single creature in a
particular way (i.e., creating illusory duplicates).
5. Can only replicate a particular single creature in a
particular way performing a particular set of actions
(i.e., mimicking the caster's exact movements).
[Note: I would personally argue that this decrement could count
for 2 levels worth, since it excises 99+% of all possible uses of
the original spell, but I'm going for simplicity here so we're
only going to count it as one level.]
4. Cause the illusion to disappear if touched (rather than requiring
active disbelief, which in the rules requires a full round of concentration
*and* a successful save vs. magic).
5. Remove the capability of inflicting illusory damage.
Each of these on their own is worth at least a level decrement in terms of
comparing spell levels and spell effects (using TSR's own principles in
how they have structured spells).
So how would the spell need to be 'beefed up' to equal the PH-version
Mirror Image?
IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Improve duration: 1 rd/lvl to 3 rds/lvl
This is not a huge difference (in that it will usually last for "one
battle" but it *is* significant, especially at low levels, where it
can be the difference between running out in the middle or end portion
of a battle or holding up all the way through. Whether it's worth a full
spell level or not might be arguable, but I say it probably should.
2. Make it impossible to disbelieve.
In a way this counterbalances Decrement #4 above--you cannot disbelieve
Mirror Image (or can you? Hmmmm.... If you could, the spell would be
nearly useless except as a momentary distraction) but it does go away
if you touch it. You could argue around on these, but I think it is fair
to call the two of them a wash.
Note that in both cases the effect is programmed and requires no maintenance
on the part of the caster. The spell still retains its Spectral Force-level
of components (i.e., sight, sound, smell, heat). We have reshuffled the
rest of the parameters.
So you start with a 5th level spell.
You take 5 'level decrements', then you add two 'level improvements'.
What level do you come out at? 2nd level.
Fancy that.
Jason Eric Nelson
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 23 Mar 2000 23:56:57 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
>>Simply put:
>>You are wrong.
>
>No. You are.
No. You are... }:> (at some point, we need to start saying
"I know you are, but what am I?")
>>Read the spell description--1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. both agree. It is *not*
>>purely visual.
>
>Of course it is. That's why its called an "image."
Project Image is also called an "image", and it does all sorts of things.
Besides, you and Joe are getting stuck on spell names.
Chill Touch is not cold, it's necromantic.
Burning Hands is a fan/jet of flame, not a spell that sets your
*hands* on fire.
Phantasmal Force creates an illusion, not a phantasm (using TSR definitions).
Finger of Death creates a bolt of necromantic energy that kills somebody.
It doesn't have anything more to do with a finger than Magic Missile
or Fireball.
Melf's Minute Meteors spits out little balls of fire, not actual stone/iron
meteors.
Vampiric Touch drains hit points, not levels (like a vampire).
Leomund's Tiny Hut creates a magical globe of protection from the elements,
not a little shack.
Cure Light Wounds heals 1d8 hit points regardless of whether you took a
dagger thrust in the arm for 3 hit points (a "light" wound) or a
gout of dragon-flame that did 100 points of damage (a "serious"
wound).
The list goes on and on.
>>purely visual. It creates exact illusory duplicates that do everything
>>that you do, including walk, talk, stink, and give off body heat.
>
>This is completely false. Try reading Chapter 7: Magic (Illusions) in
>the PHB to get a better understanding of how illusions work.
I did, but apparently you didn't, since you directly contradicted what
it says in your other post.
>By assigning powers such as talk, stink, give off body heat, become
>invisible, etc. you've assigned far more power to this spell than was
>intended and you've increased its power beyond its second-level
>calling.
Wrong. RTFM.
>At second level, Improved Phantasmal Force can manage some "minor
>sounds... but not understandable speech," and yet you're perfectly
>happy to assign such powers to a spell that does not provide for any
>sounds in the description. (Which is sort of like saying that audible
>glamer also allows for a visual illusion precisely because a visual
>component is not specifically disallowed by the spell description.)
>
>Not until Spectral Force (third-level spell) do sound, smell, and
>thermal components become part of the illusion. If these were
>intended to be part of Mirror Image it would have been stated in the
>spell description, and Mirror Image would not have been a second-level
>spell.
It is stated, in both editions.
The duplicates do exactly what the caster does.
If I stick out my tongue and the duplicate doesn't, it's not doing exactly
what I do.
If I talk and the duplicate doesn't, it's not doing exactly what I do.
If I fart and the duplicate doesn't, it's not doing exactly what I do.
Are you following this?
Each of the illusory duplicates *seems* to all observation to be doing
exactly what I do.
If I attack and stick my sword in the guy's gullet, it looks like
maybe we all did (though he suffers no illusory damage as a function
of the spell--a disempowerment of MI; if I had 3 PF/IPF/SF duplicates
all stick their swords in his gullet, he'd take illusory damage from
*ALL* of them). He takes damage from only one sword blow, but he
can't tell which one of them was the real McCoy. He *knows* that
most of "me" are fakes, but we are indistinguishable.
If I talk, it seems like we all did.
If I fart, it seems like we all did.
If I cast Fireball, it seems like we all did, though only one
Fireball is actually produced. No one can tell which was the
real caster.
To make this very simple, consider the following analogy:
If I stand up in front of a crowd and there are two people
beside me, and one looks, acts, smells, talks, etc. just
like me. The other one also looks just like me but under-
neath his clothes is wearing an environmental
suit that traps all heat and smell AND THAT PERSON IS A *MIME*,
which of the two is my "exact duplicate" and which one just
"looks and acts like me"?
>(I can see a fourth of fifth-level improvement to mirror image
>that does what you ask for, but not a second-level spell.)
See my other post 'reverse engineering' the 5th level
Advanced Illusion spell to do what Mirror Image does.
>Why on earth would other illusion spells specifically state the
>presence of sound, smell, and thermal components if illusion spells
>_of your choice_ gain these powers anyway at lower levels?
They are very different spells. You seem to want Mirror Image
to be a specifically limited and (in most but not all respects)
less-powerful version of Phantasmal Force, which is a lower-level
spell. This makes no sense.
If it is a very limited and specialized subset of another spell
that does *LESS* than its 'other', it should stand to reason that the
*UN*limited and *MORE* powerful version should be *HIGHER* in level
than it is, not lower.
>When Mirror Image states "these images do exactly what the wizard
>does," you've somehow adopted this to be more literal than the spirit
>of the spell and its level allows for. What is meant by this is that
>the images act as your image in a mirror would (albeit
>three-dimensionally). That is _all_ that is meant by this phrase.
That this is your interpretation is clear. That it is not correct
is also clear. Mime vs. apparent clone. One is an exact duplicate,
one is not.
>Your flawed interpretation of this spell affords it visual illusionary
>powers like phantasmal force, auditory powers like audible glamer,
>olfactory and thermal powers like spectral force.
Actually, the auditory powers are more comparable to Ventriloquism,
since they can do only a single, definable thing (rather than the
wide-ranging possibilities of Audible Glamer).
In fact, comparing Ventriloquism vs. Audible Glamer in the
context of 1st Ed. is an apropos comparison, since AG was 2nd
level and Ventriloquism (which is a less versatile and less powerful
subset of AG) was 1st level.
With the conflation of the Wizard and Illusionist spell lists in 2nd
Ed., Ventriloquism should've been downgraded to a cantrip effect
(i.e., one of many things one could do with the Cantrip spell), since
a wizard could do everything and more with an AG spell that he
could do with Ventriloquism.
Besides, separately listing the visual effects of PF and the
olfactory/thermal effects of SF is silly, since the latter
includes the former.
>And in the original
>discussion you were perfectly willing to allow these illusions to be
>affected by a spell (invisibility) that affects only "real" creatures.
>I can certainly see having the illusions "appear" to become invisible
>by simply disappearing. But to say that the mirror images can
>actually become invisible illusions is not only oxymoronic its also
>plain moronic.
In a game world where 'invisibility' is a definable state of being
and a realm of perception within which certain rules apply,
having 'invisible illusions' is no more oxymoronic than 'ethereal
illusions'.
As for moronic, well I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion...
Steve Buza
Nelson) wrote:
>>>Read the spell description--1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. both agree. It is *not*
>>>purely visual.
>>
>>Of course it is. That's why its called an "image."
>
>Project Image is also called an "image", and it does all sorts of things.
Precisely. All sorts of things, including audible, olfactory, and
thermal components that mirror image does _not_ have.
>>By assigning powers such as talk, stink, give off body heat, become
>>invisible, etc. you've assigned far more power to this spell than was
>>intended and you've increased its power beyond its second-level
>>calling.
>
>Wrong. RTFM.
I've read the manual. And still I don't agree with an interpretation
of a second level spell that causes it to be as powerful as a
programmed illusion.
>>At second level, Improved Phantasmal Force can manage some "minor
>>sounds... but not understandable speech," and yet you're perfectly
>>happy to assign such powers to a spell that does not provide for any
>>sounds in the description. (Which is sort of like saying that audible
>>glamer also allows for a visual illusion precisely because a visual
>>component is not specifically disallowed by the spell description.)
>>
>>Not until Spectral Force (third-level spell) do sound, smell, and
>>thermal components become part of the illusion. If these were
>>intended to be part of Mirror Image it would have been stated in the
>>spell description, and Mirror Image would not have been a second-level
>>spell.
>
>It is stated, in both editions.
No its not. Where in any edition does the word thermal exist in the
spell description? Where in any edition does the word audible exist
in the spell description? Where in any edition does the word thermal
exist in the spell description?
You still haven't answered why such components are specifically
included in higher level illusions but are strangely missing from
Mirror Image.
>The duplicates do exactly what the caster does.
>
>If I stick out my tongue and the duplicate doesn't, it's not doing exactly
>what I do.
>
>If I talk and the duplicate doesn't, it's not doing exactly what I do.
>
>If I fart and the duplicate doesn't, it's not doing exactly what I do.
>
>Are you following this?
>
>Each of the illusory duplicates *seems* to all observation to be doing
>exactly what I do.
Wrong. The words "all observation" do not exist in the spell
description. You are assigning it powers that simply don't exist at
second level.
>If I attack and stick my sword in the guy's gullet, it looks like
>maybe we all did (though he suffers no illusory damage as a function
>of the spell--a disempowerment of MI; if I had 3 PF/IPF/SF duplicates
>all stick their swords in his gullet, he'd take illusory damage from
>*ALL* of them). He takes damage from only one sword blow, but he
>can't tell which one of them was the real McCoy. He *knows* that
>most of "me" are fakes, but we are indistinguishable.
Agreed to the extent that it seems like you are indistinguishable
until the victim disbelieves in the spell. It is still an illusion
and can be disbelieved which is exactly why Blind Fighting works.
>If I talk, it seems like we all did.
Wrong.
>If I fart, it seems like we all did.
Wrong on both the audio and olfactory counts.
>If I cast Fireball, it seems like we all did, though only one
>Fireball is actually produced. No one can tell which was the
>real caster.
Ah, but by your earlier logic, if you cast a real fireball and your
duplicates don't cast a real fireball then they are not doing EXACTLY
what you are doing are they? Either exactly means exactly or it
doesn't.
>To make this very simple, consider the following analogy:
>
>If I stand up in front of a crowd and there are two people
>beside me, and one looks, acts, smells, talks, etc. just
>like me. The other one also looks just like me but under-
>neath his clothes is wearing an environmental
>suit that traps all heat and smell AND THAT PERSON IS A *MIME*,
>which of the two is my "exact duplicate" and which one just
>"looks and acts like me"?
The two phrases are completely interchangeable as far as MI goes. The
point is moot.
>>Why on earth would other illusion spells specifically state the
>>presence of sound, smell, and thermal components if illusion spells
>>_of your choice_ gain these powers anyway at lower levels?
>
>They are very different spells. You seem to want Mirror Image
>to be a specifically limited and (in most but not all respects)
>less-powerful version of Phantasmal Force, which is a lower-level
>spell. This makes no sense.
If you are going to reply to my posts, please read them first. I have
stated nothing like this. It is more appropriately considered a
limited version of a spell more like Programmed Illusion. Neither
spectral force nor phantasmal force can be used to duplicate the
effects of Mirror Image for lots of reasons, not the least of which is
the fact that spectral force cannot be programmed to perform a visual
duplication of the actions of the caster.
>If it is a very limited and specialized subset of another spell
>that does *LESS* than its 'other', it should stand to reason that the
>*UN*limited and *MORE* powerful version should be *HIGHER* in level
>than it is, not lower.
Which is the case with programmed illusion.
>>When Mirror Image states "these images do exactly what the wizard
>>does," you've somehow adopted this to be more literal than the spirit
>>of the spell and its level allows for. What is meant by this is that
>>the images act as your image in a mirror would (albeit
>>three-dimensionally). That is _all_ that is meant by this phrase.
>
>That this is your interpretation is clear. That it is not correct
>is also clear. Mime vs. apparent clone. One is an exact duplicate,
>one is not.
An apparent clone is not an exact duplicate. A clone is an exact
duplicate. Your interpretation of "does exactly" is idiotic.
>>Your flawed interpretation of this spell affords it visual illusionary
>>powers like phantasmal force, auditory powers like audible glamer,
>>olfactory and thermal powers like spectral force.
>
>Actually, the auditory powers are more comparable to Ventriloquism,
>since they can do only a single, definable thing (rather than the
>wide-ranging possibilities of Audible Glamer).
Do you even read the spells? Ventriloquism handles the sound of one
creature. Audible Glamer can handle the sound of several creatures,
which is what you are asking for with your 2-8 mirror images that
somehow speak simultaneously the same thing you say, in addition to
all the other noises your character makes.
If it were Ventriloquism only then it wouldn't be exact would it? To
be exact, it would have to be ALL of your sounds, not just what you
say.
But now that I think about it, what you are really asking for is a
combination of Ventriloquism AND Audible Glamer to each be included as
one of the "minor" parts of Mirror Image.
>In fact, comparing Ventriloquism vs. Audible Glamer in the
>context of 1st Ed. is an apropos comparison, since AG was 2nd
>level and Ventriloquism (which is a less versatile and less powerful
>subset of AG) was 1st level.
I don't play 1st edition and am not familir with it.
>Besides, separately listing the visual effects of PF and the
>olfactory/thermal effects of SF is silly, since the latter
>includes the former.
Yet SF does list those. Why doesn't Mirror Image?
>>And in the original
>>discussion you were perfectly willing to allow these illusions to be
>>affected by a spell (invisibility) that affects only "real" creatures.
>>I can certainly see having the illusions "appear" to become invisible
>>by simply disappearing. But to say that the mirror images can
>>actually become invisible illusions is not only oxymoronic its also
>>plain moronic.
>
>In a game world where 'invisibility' is a definable state of being
>and a realm of perception within which certain rules apply,
>having 'invisible illusions' is no more oxymoronic than 'ethereal
>illusions'.
IYC maybe. In my campaign, invisibility is an illusion not a state of
being. Of course, in my campaign Mirror Image is a second level spell
with second level powers where in yours its not.
Steve
Steve Buza
Nelson) wrote:
>Emotion? Thought? These are intangible concepts that fall under the
>Enchantment/Charm school (for the most part) and are not renderable
>directly by the power of illusion, though an illusion can *induce*
>thoughts or emotions (e.g., Spook, which induces fear, or Phantasmal
>Killer, which does the same).
These are phantasms, not illusions. There is a big difference.
Phantasms gain an automatic saving throw and exist ONLY in the mind.
Illusions do not afford saving throws unless the victim disbelieves
what his senses tell him because of contradictary sensory input (or if
stated in the spell description). Some higher level illusions (4th
level and up) are both illusions and phantasms.
>>Mirror Image creates 2-8 duplicates. Spectral Force can create only
>>one.
>
>Wrong.
>
>Even if you don't bother looking at additional supplements like the
>Comp. Wiz. HB and the like, right in ye olde PH2 (pgs. 82-84 in my
>1st printing) in the section on "Illusions" it describes numerous
>examples of creating illusions of multiple creatures ("a squad of
>low-level fighters", "a huge dragon rising up behind a rank of
>attacking kobolds", "a few ogres forming a line").
>
>RTFM.
Phantasmal Force (and its derivates) state "creature" not "creatures"
and "object" not "objects." You're the one asking for interpretation
by exact wording. While these statements exist in Chapter 7 as you
say, they are used in reference to Illusions in general and are only
casually linked to Phantasmal Force-type spells.
It does seem somewhat ambiguous and you have reference materials that
apparently speak otherwise so I'll forego this reasoning.
>>Spectral Force does not have the power to allow the illusionary
>>image to appear to do exactly as the caster does. Spectral Force does
>>not have the power of the blurring effect. In short Spectral Force
>>cannot be used to duplicate Mirror Image.
>
>Why on earth not? It has the power to duplicate any creature, right?
>Is the caster not a creature? Is the 'blurring effect' not a visual
>effect that could be duplicated by an illusion that is capable of
>producing visual effects?
For one thing, Spectral Force requires concentration. In addition, a
spellcaster simply cannot react fast enough to cause such illusions to
appear to move identically to the caster. They can appear to
generally be doing what the caster is doing but they are not going to
appear to be a mirror image.
What I meant was that Spectral Force is not capable of causing the
_automated_ shifting of person and images under the cover of this
blurring effect.
Mirror Image allows you to attack while the spell continues to run on
its own. You can't do that with Spectral Force.
>For that matter, SF could be used to create Mirror Images of someone
>*ELSE*, yet another way in which it is superior to the basic MI spell,
>which is caster-only. It would be difficult to do, but that's why
>the spell requires full concentration to maintain. The caster has
>seen his or her compatriots in combat and has a high INT (and could
>actually spend time talking with party members to learn about their
>fighting styles). Why on earth *couldn't* a wizard use SF to
>create a couple of illusory duplicates of the party's buff fighter
>the next time they get in combat?
RTFM Jason. A spellcaster's illusions can only appear to attack at
the spellcaster's Thac0. Unless the spellcaster is a million levels
higher he is just incapable of creating the visual effect of the
party's buff fighter. In addition, with Phantasmal Force-like spells
a spellcaster is only capable of creating a believable illusion of a
creature whose HD do not exceed his levels. It would be impossible
for a spellcaster to create a believable illusion of 2-8 of the
party's buff fighter (assuming similar character levels) doing
anything, let alone appearing to do the same things at the same time.
Further, it would be impossible for a spellcaster to create more than
one believable version of himself with spectral force.
>Which part of "Spectral Force can do everything Mirror Image can do
>and more" don't you understand?
All of it. Because that statement is flatly incorrect.
It is not possible to use Spectral Force to create Mirror Image
because the spellcaster is incapable of knowing every movement of the
"real" creature _before_ it actually happens. He can only react and
try to make his illusion to appear to do _similar_ things. In
addition, these _similar_ things would have to occur after he observed
them. There is a timing issue that cannot be resolved.
Mirror Image is already one of the most powerful second level spells
without trying to add high-level illusion components to it.
It is a visual illusion. It can be disbelieved. Creatures that are
unable to see it aren't affected by it beause it is completely visual.
And blind fighting is a very useful tool against it.
Finally, this issue is specifically addressed in the Monster Manual
under the Grimlock description as follows:
"Grimlocks are totally blind, but have highly developed senses of
smell and hearing. Their sensitive ears and noses combine to allow
them to distinguish objects and creatures within 20', just as well as
if they were able to see."
"Grimlocks are immune to the effects of spells which affect the
vision. These include phantasmal force, darkness, invisibility, mirror
image, and many others."
If Mirror Image were intended to have audible and olfactory
components, Grimlocks would not be immune to the spell.
Now, you can continue to beat this dead horse, and you can continue to
run mirror image as you want to in your campaign.
Just know that you are wrong. Accept it. And Move On.
Steve
Jason Eric Nelson
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2000 18:13:03 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
>>Project Image is also called an "image", and it does all sorts of things.
>
>Precisely. All sorts of things, including audible, olfactory, and
>thermal components that mirror image does _not_ have.
In your version of the game, you are correct.
More to the point it can:
1. Channel spell energy remotely.
2. Act independently of the caster (as a programmed illusion).
3. Be made to mimic the actions of the caster.
4. Switch between 2 and 3 at will.
You also overstate the importance of spell name in providing an exacting
description of spell effects, as pointed out in separate posts to both
you and Joe O.
>>>By assigning powers such as talk, stink, give off body heat, become
>>>invisible, etc. you've assigned far more power to this spell than was
>>>intended and you've increased its power beyond its second-level
>>>calling.
>>
>>Wrong. RTFM.
>
>I've read the manual. And still I don't agree with an interpretation
>of a second level spell that causes it to be as powerful as a
>programmed illusion.
It's not remotely as powerful as a Programmed Illusion, which you would
know if you knew what a Programmed Illusion was, which apparently you
don't.
It is a type of "programmed illusion" (as in a category of illusory
magic that behaves in a certain way).
It is not equivalent to a "Programmed Illusion", the 6th level spell,
which among other things includes an infinite latent duration and an
infinitely variable triggering mechanism.
>>>At second level, Improved Phantasmal Force can manage some "minor
>>>sounds... but not understandable speech," and yet you're perfectly
>>>happy to assign such powers to a spell that does not provide for any
>>>sounds in the description. (Which is sort of like saying that audible
>>>glamer also allows for a visual illusion precisely because a visual
>>>component is not specifically disallowed by the spell description.)
>>>
>>>Not until Spectral Force (third-level spell) do sound, smell, and
>>>thermal components become part of the illusion. If these were
>>>intended to be part of Mirror Image it would have been stated in the
>>>spell description, and Mirror Image would not have been a second-level
>>>spell.
>>
>>It is stated, in both editions.
>
>No its not.
It is stated that the MIs are exact duplicates that do exactly what
you do. How much clearer does it need to be?
Exact duplicate =/= 'looks like'. Exact means exact.
>Where in any edition does the word thermal exist in the
>spell description? Where in any edition does the word audible exist
>in the spell description? Where in any edition does the word thermal
>exist in the spell description?
It doesn't need to. It already includes this within the set
parameters of an "exact duplicate". Duh.
>You still haven't answered why such components are specifically
>included in higher level illusions but are strangely missing from
>Mirror Image.
They are specifically listed to distinguish three spells from each
other: PF, IPF, and SF.
These three spells are identical except for level, duration after
concentration (1, 2, and 3 rounds) and which components are included.
Compare the spell to Change Self, for example, which "enables the
caster to alter the appearance of his form". The spell specifically
excludes gaining abilities or mannerisms of the duplicated creature
and it specifically excludes any tactile feature of the illusion. It
is an ILLUSION, and provides no REAL physical change. Acting in a
manner inconsistent with the duplicated creature provides the chance
to disbelieve.
By your interpretation, Change Self would be purely visual, because
that seems to be how you run low-level illusions. This also makes
the spell useless vs. creatures with infravision (which could automatically
distinguish the character's 'real' heat signature) or scent-based
detection.
>>Each of the illusory duplicates *seems* to all observation to be doing
>>exactly what I do.
>
>Wrong. The words "all observation" do not exist in the spell
>description.
You are correct about the words. Neither do the words "visual-only" or
anything remotely resembling them.
It just says "exact duplicates" that "do exactly what the wizard does."
>You are assigning it powers that simply don't exist at
>second level.
You are removing from it powers that do exist at 2nd level.
>>If I attack and stick my sword in the guy's gullet, it looks like
>>maybe we all did (though he suffers no illusory damage as a function
>>of the spell--a disempowerment of MI; if I had 3 PF/IPF/SF duplicates
>>all stick their swords in his gullet, he'd take illusory damage from
>>*ALL* of them). He takes damage from only one sword blow, but he
>>can't tell which one of them was the real McCoy. He *knows* that
>>most of "me" are fakes, but we are indistinguishable.
>
>Agreed to the extent that it seems like you are indistinguishable
>until the victim disbelieves in the spell. It is still an illusion
>and can be disbelieved which is exactly why Blind Fighting works.
*goggle*
Disbelief has nothing whatsoever to do with Blind-fighting.
If you are fighting a Shadow Monster griffon with Blind-fighting,
it does not mean you automatically disbelieve the illusionary part
of the creature.
>>If I cast Fireball, it seems like we all did, though only one
>>Fireball is actually produced. No one can tell which was the
>>real caster.
>
>Ah, but by your earlier logic, if you cast a real fireball and your
>duplicates don't cast a real fireball then they are not doing EXACTLY
>what you are doing are they?
What kind of a maroon are you?
They are exact *ILLUSORY* duplicates (maybe you noticed that this is
an *illusion* spell) that all appear to cast Fireball. The AoE is
only a 6' radius, however, so the apparent casting of fireball
only exists *within* the AoE of the illusion. At the 'verge' of
the AoE, the real caster's and the illusory casters' fireballs
all appear as the single real fireball outside the AoE, and it
is impossible to distinguish which "caster" was the true origin
of the spell.
You seem to forget the miniscule AoE of Mirror Image, which is one
of its great limitations.
If you were duplicating Mirror Image with Spectral Force, on the
other hand, which has an AoE of a 40' cube plus a 10' cube/lvl
(which, seems to indicate one large 40' cube and a bunch of
smaller ones, though you *could* perhaps interpret it as a cube
that was 40' + 10'/lvl on a side), you could have your illusory
images jumping around and "casting" illusory fireballs (though
the complexity of a bunch of images *and* a bunch of fireballs
might be tough to maintain, depending on the DM), within that
area of effect, each inflicting its own illusory damage.
Mirror Image cannot do this. It has a very small AoE. The
exact illusory duplicates and their exact illusory
duplicated actions exist only within the 6' r. AoE.
>Either exactly means exactly or it doesn't.
Exactly means exactly.
>>To make this very simple, consider the following analogy:
>>
>>If I stand up in front of a crowd and there are two people
>>beside me, and one looks, acts, smells, talks, etc. just
>>like me. The other one also looks just like me but under-
>>neath his clothes is wearing an environmental
>>suit that traps all heat and smell AND THAT PERSON IS A *MIME*,
>>which of the two is my "exact duplicate" and which one just
>>"looks and acts like me"?
>
>The two phrases are completely interchangeable as far as MI goes. The
>point is moot.
Wrong and wrong.
>>>Why on earth would other illusion spells specifically state the
>>>presence of sound, smell, and thermal components if illusion spells
>>>_of your choice_ gain these powers anyway at lower levels?
>>
>>They are very different spells. You seem to want Mirror Image
>>to be a specifically limited and (in most but not all respects)
>>less-powerful version of Phantasmal Force, which is a lower-level
>>spell. This makes no sense.
>
>If you are going to reply to my posts, please read them first.
I have.
>I have stated nothing like this.
You have stated that you believe it is visual only; ipso facto it can
be considered a subset of Phantasmal Force. That is at least *something*
like this.
>It is more appropriately considered a
>limited version of a spell more like Programmed Illusion. Neither
>spectral force nor phantasmal force can be used to duplicate the
>effects of Mirror Image for lots of reasons, not the least of which is
>the fact that spectral force cannot be programmed to perform a visual
>duplication of the actions of the caster.
It could do so if the caster preplanned his or her actions for the
next 3 rounds and then ceased concentration on spell, mimicking his
or her actions to those of the Spec Force illusions.
You could, however, use Spectral Force quite easily to create a set
of Mirror Images of someone *ELSE*, which is not possible with the MI spell.
As far as the standard cast-on-self version of Mirror Image, a better
comparison is with Advanced Illusion (which is simply a programmable
Spectral Force), which I did in another post.
>>If it is a very limited and specialized subset of another spell
>>that does *LESS* than its 'other', it should stand to reason that the
>>*UN*limited and *MORE* powerful version should be *HIGHER* in level
>>than it is, not lower.
>
>Which is the case with programmed illusion.
Yes, and Advanced Illusion is more powerful than MI in at least 5
levels worth of ways and inferior to it in only two. If you allow
Mirror Image to be disbelieved, then MI is superior in only one way
(duration, 3 rds/lvl vs. 1 rd/lvl).
So actually, compared to Advanced Illusion, based on your position
of allowing disbelief of MI, your version of Mirror Image should
only be 1st level, while still allowing for Spectral Force-level
detail components.
Programmed
Illusion has still three more advantages over Advanced Illusion
(infinite latency, remote triggering, and variable trigger conditions)
and is rightfully higher level than AI.
>>>When Mirror Image states "these images do exactly what the wizard
>>>does," you've somehow adopted this to be more literal than the spirit
>>>of the spell and its level allows for. What is meant by this is that
>>>the images act as your image in a mirror would (albeit
>>>three-dimensionally). That is _all_ that is meant by this phrase.
>>
>>That this is your interpretation is clear. That it is not correct
>>is also clear. Mime vs. apparent clone. One is an exact duplicate,
>>one is not.
>
>An apparent clone is not an exact duplicate. A clone is an exact
>duplicate.
It's an illusion spell, numb-dice. Illusion spells create
"apparent reality". It creates an *illusion* that is an exact
duplicate.
>Your interpretation of "does exactly" is idiotic.
Your interpretation of "illusion = not exact" is idiotic.
>>>Your flawed interpretation of this spell affords it visual illusionary
>>>powers like phantasmal force, auditory powers like audible glamer,
>>>olfactory and thermal powers like spectral force.
>>
>>Actually, the auditory powers are more comparable to Ventriloquism,
>>since they can do only a single, definable thing (rather than the
>>wide-ranging possibilities of Audible Glamer).
>
>Do you even read the spells? Ventriloquism handles the sound of one
>creature.
Yup. One creature. The caster.
AG can create the sound of *ANYTHING* (within the limits of total
volume allowed by the spell).
Mirror Image only duplicates sounds made by the caster. It duplicates
it several *times* (equal to the number of images). So it rather blurs
the line between VQ and AG but far less powerful than either--only the
caster's noises and only generated within a 6' radius of the caster.
Both VQ and AG have considerable range, duration, and versatility
in type and volume of noise (even VQ in 2nd Ed. can be used to create
some *else's* voice remotely, rather than the caster's).
>Audible Glamer can handle the sound of several creatures,
>which is what you are asking for with your 2-8 mirror images that
>somehow speak simultaneously the same thing you say, in addition to
>all the other noises your character makes.
I'm not asking for anything. I'm simply reporting what the spell
already provides.
>If it were Ventriloquism only then it wouldn't be exact would it? To
>be exact, it would have to be ALL of your sounds, not just what you
>say.
That's why I included farting. Both sound *and* olfactory comps... }:>
>But now that I think about it, what you are really asking for is a
>combination of Ventriloquism AND Audible Glamer to each be included as
>one of the "minor" parts of Mirror Image.
A grossly underpowered, specialized variant mixture of the two, yes.
But again, I'm not asking for anything; I am simply enlightening you
as to what the spell does as it is written. You choose to underpower
it for some reason. YMMV, I suppose.
>>In fact, comparing Ventriloquism vs. Audible Glamer in the
>>context of 1st Ed. is an apropos comparison, since AG was 2nd
>>level and Ventriloquism (which is a less versatile and less powerful
>>subset of AG) was 1st level.
>
>I don't play 1st edition and am not familir with it.
This may be the source of your lack of understanding of the spell
system.
>>Besides, separately listing the visual effects of PF and the
>>olfactory/thermal effects of SF is silly, since the latter
>>includes the former.
>
>Yet SF does list those. Why doesn't Mirror Image?
I already addressed this above.
>>>And in the original
>>>discussion you were perfectly willing to allow these illusions to be
>>>affected by a spell (invisibility) that affects only "real" creatures.
>>>I can certainly see having the illusions "appear" to become invisible
>>>by simply disappearing. But to say that the mirror images can
>>>actually become invisible illusions is not only oxymoronic its also
>>>plain moronic.
>>
>>In a game world where 'invisibility' is a definable state of being
>>and a realm of perception within which certain rules apply,
>>having 'invisible illusions' is no more oxymoronic than 'ethereal
>>illusions'.
>
>IYC maybe. In my campaign, invisibility is an illusion not a state of
>being.
Your interpretation of illusion + invisibility is explictly contradicted
in the 2nd Ed. PH. Under the spell description for Project Image
(another one of those darn illusionary "image" spells), it says:
"Note that if the wizard is invisible at the time the spell is cast,
the image is also invisible until the caster's invisibility ends,
though the wizard must still be able to see the image (by means of
a Detect Invisibility spell or other method) to maintain the spell."
(pg. 181, PH2, 1st printing)
QED. Invisible illusions are explicitly supported within the written
game rules, and are apparent to those who can see invisible.
IOW, yer fulla beans. Again.
>Of course, in my campaign Mirror Image is a second level spell
>with second level powers where in yours its not.
Umm, you have the roles reversed there, bubba. You are the one who
is artificially creating constraints on the spell that do not exist
in the published version.
Joe Jefferson
>
> To answer your question with an example of a monster with natural
> Blindfighting:
> Monstrous Manual, 2ed, Grimlock, combat section, first line:"Grimlocks are
> immune to the effects of spells which affect the vision. These include
> phantasmal force, darkness, invisibility, mirror image, and many others. "
>
> information:"Grimlocks are totally blind, but have highly developed senses
> of smell and hearing. Their sensitive ears and noses combine to allow them
> to distinguish objects and creatures within 20', just as well as if they
> were able to see"
>
> other things, when using their Blindfighting skills.
>
> Hari the Monk
But for normal humans and demi-humans sight is such an overwhelmingly
important sense that I'd require characters to succeed in a WIS check to
keep their eyes closed during a fight.
Or... I guess they could take a round to blindfold themselves if they
really wanted to.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Jason Eric Nelson
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2000 16:25:00 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
>>Emotion? Thought? These are intangible concepts that fall under the
>>Enchantment/Charm school (for the most part) and are not renderable
>>directly by the power of illusion, though an illusion can *induce*
>>thoughts or emotions (e.g., Spook, which induces fear, or Phantasmal
>>Killer, which does the same).
>
>These are phantasms, not illusions. There is a big difference.
>Phantasms gain an automatic saving throw and exist ONLY in the mind.
You mean like Phantasmal Killer, which does not allow a save? You
can *try* to disbelieve it, but if you don't and it hits you then
you die.
>Illusions do not afford saving throws unless the victim disbelieves
>what his senses tell him because of contradictary sensory input (or if
>stated in the spell description). Some higher level illusions (4th
>level and up) are both illusions and phantasms.
Such as?
>>>Spectral Force does not have the power to allow the illusionary
>>>image to appear to do exactly as the caster does. Spectral Force does
>>>not have the power of the blurring effect. In short Spectral Force
>>>cannot be used to duplicate Mirror Image.
>>
>>Why on earth not? It has the power to duplicate any creature, right?
>>Is the caster not a creature? Is the 'blurring effect' not a visual
>>effect that could be duplicated by an illusion that is capable of
>>producing visual effects?
>
>For one thing, Spectral Force requires concentration. In addition, a
>spellcaster simply cannot react fast enough to cause such illusions to
>appear to move identically to the caster. They can appear to
>generally be doing what the caster is doing but they are not going to
>appear to be a mirror image.
Yup. You could make a MI effect of someone else.
>What I meant was that Spectral Force is not capable of causing the
>_automated_ shifting of person and images under the cover of this
>blurring effect.
You're right; it would require concentration, as all SF's do.
This automation and a possibly longer duration are the only ways
in which MI surpasses SF. It is grossly inferior in all other
respects.
>Mirror Image allows you to attack while the spell continues to run on
>its own. You can't do that with Spectral Force.
Yup, you could, however, research an extremely down-powered version of
Advanced Illusion to mimic the effect of Mirror Image. Based on the
stripping-down you would have to do of the elements of the spell
(with the only advantage of MI vs. AI being duration), the net level
would still end up around 1st or 2nd.
You could easily do this and *still* retain the sensory elements of
SF, which is the primary issue under debate.
>>For that matter, SF could be used to create Mirror Images of someone
>>*ELSE*, yet another way in which it is superior to the basic MI spell,
>>which is caster-only. It would be difficult to do, but that's why
>>the spell requires full concentration to maintain. The caster has
>>seen his or her compatriots in combat and has a high INT (and could
>>actually spend time talking with party members to learn about their
>>fighting styles). Why on earth *couldn't* a wizard use SF to
>>create a couple of illusory duplicates of the party's buff fighter
>>the next time they get in combat?
>
>RTFM Jason. A spellcaster's illusions can only appear to attack at
>the spellcaster's Thac0.
Technically speaking, they can hit every time if you want them to,
but it has the potential to strain believability and induce an
automatic saving throw for disbelief.
Besides which, you don't need to have the illusory duplicates *EVER*
"hit" in the sense of D&D game mechanics. Their blows can 'strike
the target with no effect' (i.e., a "miss", which in D&D does not
necessarily mean a total whiff), which is precisely what happens when
a bunch of Mirror Image weapons strike a target--there is no effect
from any blow other than the 'real' blade.
A mage interested in duplicating MI wouldn't care if the illusions
"hit" (and inflicted illusory damage), since the MI equivalent
wouldn't do that anyway. We're just trying to mimic the spell,
not create a more powerful version of it.
>Unless the spellcaster is a million levels
>higher he is just incapable of creating the visual effect of the
>party's buff fighter. In addition, with Phantasmal Force-like spells
>a spellcaster is only capable of creating a believable illusion of a
>creature whose HD do not exceed his levels.
Hmmm. Here's the heart of the question, then. Does a wizard have to
create a duplicate of a level character at his or her current level?
If a wizard created an illusion of 5 versions of Joe the Fighter when
he was 1st level (but wearing/using all of his 5th level equipment).
Your illusion in this case is 5 1HD human warriors who are exact
duplicates of Joe and (to the extent that your intelligence, skill
with illusions, and knowledge of Joe and his fighting style) do
exactly what Joe does. If Joe hits with an attack, you direct
your illusions to *appear* to make contact with the enemy. If Joe
misses with an attack, you direct your illusions to appear to
do the same.
The DM question in this is whether simply force-directing the
illusions to make 'contact hits' (not hits that have the potential
to cause illusionary damage through what appears to be a serious
"hit") without rolling to hit is sufficient grounds for automatic
disbelief, and whether those 'contact hits' are necessarily
distinguishable in the press of combat from the blow of the
actual warrior.
>It would be impossible
>for a spellcaster to create a believable illusion of 2-8 of the
>party's buff fighter (assuming similar character levels) doing
>anything, let alone appearing to do the same things at the same time.
See above. 2-8 exact duplicates (in appearance) of the party's buff
fighter, though lacking the illusory combat skill of the current
higher-level PC.
For that matter, you need to consider whether it is more desirable
to create exact duplicates that mimic your actions exactly or to
create an array of 'units' that are each capable of 'fighting on
their own'. You have the flexibility to choose which to do with
PF/IPF/SF (and the higher-level spells). MI offers no flexibility
in this regard.
>Further, it would be impossible for a spellcaster to create more than
>one believable version of himself with spectral force.
One believable duplicate only if the duplicate in any way manifests
level-based abilities. Since we have already established that using
SF to create MI of *yourself*, you would need to be concentrating
on maintaining the SF; ergo, your duplicates would never need to
mimic level-based abilities. You could create XX number of images
as yourself at 1st level (but with a different outfit and haircut
that just happens to match your present appearance) and dance around
and dodge to your heart's content.
But at 1st level you only had 3 hit points, so any hit on one of
the illusionary "yous" *should* "kill" you? That's just fine,
since any *hit* on a Mirror Image will dispel it. You don't
CARE how "tough" your images ought to be in illusionary terms;
on any hit, you make them go away, which is perfectly in keeping
with what would be expected from a Mirror Image.
If you want the images to mimic your spellcasting, you would need
to be a little more creative, and would require use of Advanced
Illusion and preplanning of what spells you were going to cast
in which order from round to round, but it could be done using the
model above, except that the Advanced Illusion MI's would not go
poof when hit.
>>Which part of "Spectral Force can do everything Mirror Image can do
>>and more" don't you understand?
>
>All of it. Because that statement is flatly incorrect.
>
>It is not possible to use Spectral Force to create Mirror Image
>because the spellcaster is incapable of knowing every movement of the
>"real" creature _before_ it actually happens. He can only react and
>try to make his illusion to appear to do _similar_ things. In
>addition, these _similar_ things would have to occur after he observed
>them. There is a timing issue that cannot be resolved.
The timing issue could not be resolved with the exactitude of MI if
you were doing it with someone else, but you could get pretty darn
close.
If you were doing SF/MI on yourself, I see no reason
>Mirror Image is already one of the most powerful second level spells
>without trying to add high-level illusion components to it.
It is certainly no more powerful than Continual Light, Darkness 15' r.,
Blindness (permanent duration? WTF?), Invisibility, IPF, Wizard Lock,
ESP (depending on the DM), Levitate, or Stinking Cloud.
But yes, it is powerful.
But I haven't added anything to it.
>It is a visual illusion. It can be disbelieved.
Interestingly, I have never seen a campaign where disbelief was used
vs. Mirror Image. The images are *obviously* illusions--no one
with any knowledge or experience of magic (i.e., adventurers are
assumed to have heard of the effect) would think that there
are *really* 3-9 identical people jumping around. Nonetheless, the
targeting attempts are confused because the individual MIs are
indistinguishable form one another (and the real caster) and because
they are shifting around all the time.
Of course, the point may be somewhat moot because of the round-to-round
reshuffling effect: Disbelief counts as an action and (IIRC) requires
a full round. The MI rescrambles itself each round; which target is
the real caster and which are the illusions change from round to round,
so the information of which was real and which were illusions on a
successful save would no longer be valid the next round.
There is also the question of whether you could disbelieve a bunch of
illusions at once. Would you have to disbelieve them one at a time?
Perhaps your DM was exceptionally generous and allowed disbelief vs.
the MI as a unitary whole.
Just for my information, do you allow disbelief of Invisibility?
It is a purely visual illusion. If you have good reason to believe
an invisible creature is nearby (footprints, sounds, or any other
info), by your rationale it is an illusion and should be subject
to disbelief (doubting the input from their eyes that says
something is not there when their insticts and other senses
say that something is).
>Creatures that are
>unable to see it aren't affected by it beause it is completely visual.
>And blind fighting is a very useful tool against it.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>Finally, this issue is specifically addressed in the Monster Manual
>under the Grimlock description as follows:
That is impossible, since Grimlocks are in the Fiend Folio, not the
Monster Manual, but that's beside the point... }:>
>"Grimlocks are totally blind, but have highly developed senses of
>smell and hearing. Their sensitive ears and noses combine to allow
>them to distinguish objects and creatures within 20', just as well as
>if they were able to see."
>
>"Grimlocks are immune to the effects of spells which affect the
>vision. These include phantasmal force, darkness, invisibility, mirror
>image, and many others."
>
>If Mirror Image were intended to have audible and olfactory
>components, Grimlocks would not be immune to the spell.
Whahoo! An actual valid published reference that contradicts me!
At last!
>Now, you can continue to beat this dead horse, and you can continue to
>run mirror image as you want to in your campaign.
Thanks, I will... }:>
>Just know that you are wrong. Accept it. And Move On.
See, just one shred of actual fact to back you up is all that is
required. The grimlock reference is explicit and states that MI
is visual-only. I stand corrected. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
maxima culpa.
None of the rest of the rhetoric or supposed logic presented indicated
anything of the sort. Compare, for example, my dissection of how to
'reverse engineer' MI from Advanced Illusion.
Allowing SF components to Mirror Image is neither unreasonable nor
impossible, and it solves (IMO) an inaesthetic situation in which
the spell is so trivially rendered useless (doubly so if you allow
rolls to disbelieve it) or nearly so. Blind-fighting is plenty
useful enough IMO, and I will probably continue to rule IMC that
MI provides full-spectrum components, but I bow to you for pulling
out the Grimlock Trump Card (TM) that places a definitive cap on
the "official ruling".
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Coke - He's the real thing"
Robert Baldwin
<oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> Read the spell description--1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. both agree. It is *not*
>> purely visual. It creates exact illusory duplicates that do everything
>> that you do, including walk, talk, stink, and give off body heat.
>
>And this is where it appears to be a physical copy of you, which is
>far MORE than anything short of SF or Advanced Illusion can do.
>
>Stink(Smell)? Heat(Touch - hot/cold)? Talk(Sound/Hear)? Vision(Vision)?
>
>Gheez. that's four of five senses so far from a puny second level spell -
>get real.
They disappear if hit, the "touch" you describe is a thermal component
only wrt sight. That's four sensory functions, in an illusion
confined to mimicing the tha eactions of the mage who cast the spell,
and in close proximity thereto. You may not like it, but trying to
avoid the spell with a simple nwp (Blindfighting) is just munchkinism.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>On 23 Mar 2000 23:56:57 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
<snip>
>This is completely false. Try reading Chapter 7: Magic (Illusions) in
>the PHB to get a better understanding of how illusions work.
>
>By assigning powers such as talk, stink, give off body heat, become
>invisible, etc. you've assigned far more power to this spell than was
>intended and you've increased its power beyond its second-level
>calling.
<snip>
Acording to EGG? MI is an original spell after all. What is your
source for *intent*, hmm?
Joseph Oberlander
> >> It is 2nd level.
> >
> >magic, which is almost always higher level than the offensive magic
> >for the same type of spell. The defensive aspect is worth a level
> >right there, as the mage does not have to concentrate on it once it is
> >cast, unlike even IPF.
>
> Improved Phantasmal Force (second edition books at least) can create
> minor sounds, but not understandable speech.
I was relating to the woole topic, as he was listing other spells
and their effects in order to make his point. I know IPF does that, but
my counter was that mirror image should not be on the same level as even
IPF, as it is fair-and-forget and defensive. :)
Joseph Oberlander
> DECREMENTS:
>
> 1. Reduce the spell's range: 60 yds + 10 yds/lvl to ZERO
>
> - This would knock the spell down at least a level (compare, f'rex,
> Polymorph Self (4th-caster only) to Drawmij's Beneficent Polymorph
> (5th-same as PS, but range = Touch), which is a level higher; but we're
> taking it down even further than that)
>
> 2. Reduce the spell's AoE: 40' cube + one 10' cube/lvl to 6' r.
Both together are worth a level.
> - A pretty massive reduction, greater than the drop from Fireball
> to Flaming Sphere, so another level drop of the spell here.
>
> 3. Reduce the spell's scope of action from virtually anything imaginable
> (within the "constraint" of it being one or more creature(s),
> object(s), or force(s)) to the following progressive set of
> limitations (each of which is a subset of the previous one):
Sub-points 1-4 are moot, as 5 says them all.
> 5. Can only replicate a particular single creature in a
> particular way performing a particular set of actions
> (i.e., mimicking the caster's exact movements).
> 4. Cause the illusion to disappear if touched (rather than requiring
> active disbelief, which in the rules requires a full round of concentration
> *and* a successful save vs. magic).
Nothing here - you touch most illusions you get to make a save.
> 5. Remove the capability of inflicting illusory damage.
Worth a level, true
> Each of these on their own is worth at least a level decrement in terms of
> comparing spell levels and spell effects (using TSR's own principles in
> how they have structured spells).
No, you give it too much credit for being down-leveled to begin with.
Spectral force, cut down in power and the added ability to fire-and-forget
is more like it - about a wash, IMO.
> 1. Improve duration: 1 rd/lvl to 3 rds/lvl
>
> This is not a huge difference (in that it will usually last for "one
> battle" but it *is* significant, especially at low levels, where it
> can be the difference between running out in the middle or end portion
> of a battle or holding up all the way through. Whether it's worth a full
> spell level or not might be arguable, but I say it probably should.
Duration is meaningless - it is the NO CONCENTRATION part that is the
bonus.
> 2. Make it impossible to disbelieve.
Countered by the fact that *touching* one dispells it(instant save
versus it!) No points here.
> So you start with a 5th level spell.
>
> You take 5 'level decrements', then you add two 'level improvements'.
Actually 3 decrements, and one plus.
3rd level.
Steve Buza
Nelson) wrote:
Only one item to respond to, since we simply disagree.
>Your interpretation of illusion + invisibility is explictly contradicted
>in the 2nd Ed. PH. Under the spell description for Project Image
>(another one of those darn illusionary "image" spells), it says:
>
>"Note that if the wizard is invisible at the time the spell is cast,
>the image is also invisible until the caster's invisibility ends,
>though the wizard must still be able to see the image (by means of
>a Detect Invisibility spell or other method) to maintain the spell."
>(pg. 181, PH2, 1st printing)
*Sigh* I knew you were going to say this. Maybe I should have
pre-empted it in my last post? Oh well.
If you go back and look at my posts, as well as others in this NG
recently, you will note on several occasions where I speak about
illusions and how they become "quasi-real" at higher levels. This is
not simply my interpretation, but specifically spelled out in both
Chapter 7: Magic (Illusions) and in the text of the description of
Mirage Arcana.
Because Project Image _is_ one of these spells, the illusion created
by it _is_ quasi-real. Because it is quasi-real it can be at-least
partly affected and affect its environment. Hence, the explanation
you cite.
But quasi-reality, as the manual spells out for even the silliest
reader, is not a component of low-level spells like Mirror Image and
Spectral Force.
Invisibility works for Project Image because of the inherent
quasi-reality of the illusion. Detect Invisibility detects the
invisible quasi-reality, not the invisible "image."
Because Mirror Image is not quasi-real, invisibility cannot affect it.
You are trying to apply this citation to a second level spell and it
clearly does not belong there.
One other thing (so I lied). I am quite well aware the Blind Fighting
has nothing to do with disbelief. You misinterpreted my statement, or
I mis-typed and I would guess that the latter is more likely.
My point was that Blind Fighting and disbelief of Mirror Image work
for the _same reason_. (That it is a visual-only illusion that other
senses are capable of contradicting). I wasn't trying to state that
Blind Fighting is dependent of disbelief.
I actually do have fhe first-edition books, but its been so long since
I've played first edition that someone had to remind me the other day
that initiative used to be on a d6. Sheesh.
Its been an interesting discussion but I'm getting a little bored with
the topic.
Steve
Joseph Oberlander
> >so that you cannot tell how they re-shuffle.
>
> Both are true, for the same reason, which is irrelevant to whether
> the MI's are visual-only (as you believe) or "exact duplicates"
> (as the spell description states).
But this is the WHOLE CRUX OF YOUR ARGUMENT. There appears to be
some ambiguity in the wording, and you are seeing it one way
and everyone else that I have played with in over *20* gaming
groups in 23 years of playing sees it the other way, including myself.
You can't just gloss over this point. You don't have proof that you
are any more right than I am, but my position is far more logical,
as it is a puny second level illusion, and you have it capable of
affecting *4* senses. Get real.
Joseph Oberlander
> >maybe we all did (though he suffers no illusory damage as a function
> >of the spell--a disempowerment of MI; if I had 3 PF/IPF/SF duplicates
> >all stick their swords in his gullet, he'd take illusory damage from
> >*ALL* of them). He takes damage from only one sword blow, but he
> >can't tell which one of them was the real McCoy. He *knows* that
> >most of "me" are fakes, but we are indistinguishable.
This, btw, would be the reason to make a version of the spell that
does what he suggests, say, at 5th or 6th level. Improved Mirror Image.
It actually CASTS fireballs(albeit illusionary ones) at the target.
They have to make saves versus all of them!(ouch)
Hari the Monk
just happen to be on my Core rules CD Rom. It stats, in the first line
under 'Combat': "Grimlocks are immune to the effects of spells which affect
the vision. These include phantasmal force, darkness, invisibility, mirror
image, and many others. "
Plain and simple. End of discussion. Second edition solution.
Hari the monk
Jason Eric Nelson wrote in message <8bgvmo$glk2$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
Hari the Monk
Jason Eric Nelson wrote in message <8bdgv8$8spo$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
>In article <38d9af39....@news.ispchannel.com>,
>Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:57:34 +0100, Jan Wevers
>><wev...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>
>>>I am DMing a campaign of mid-level characters. When gaming last Sunday,
>>>we came across (what we considered) a design flaw considering the spell
>>>"mirror image". One of the characters was fighting a mage who cast this
>>>spell midway through the fight. Since this mage was pretty low in HPs at
>>>that time, he then decided to cast "wall of fog" followed by "spider
>>>climb" and run (or rather climb) for it. The pc had not yet done
>>>anything during that round and attacked the mage with his sword. The
>>>question then came up, are the mirror images still working, since the pc
>>>can't see them anyway? The PC made his attack roll despite the -2
>>>penalty (-4 for non-proficient pcs), and we had quite a discussion on
>>>whether he hit the mage or maybe just one of the duplicates. The spell
>>>description doesn't say anything about any sounds the duplicates make,
>>>but IMO it would be way too easy to merely close your eyes and take the
>>>-2/-4 penalty and attack a caster blindly, thus ignoring the spell
>>>effects completely. OTOH, what if a mage casts "mirror image" followed
>>>by "invisibility" or even "improved invisibility"? Would the (then
>>>invisibile?!) mirror images still deceive opponents? Or would that make
>>>the spell too powerful, since the mage were to be hit at -2/-4 and he
>>>still could hope that one of his duplicates is hit? After all, it's only
>>>a 2nd level spell!
>>
>>would be a perfectly good use of the proficiency. It would then be
>>exactly like fighting an invisible creature.
>
>RTM. Mirror Image is not limited to visual imitation--it creates
>*exact* duplicates that "do" (illusionarily, of course) *everything*
>that you do.
>
<snip>
Wrong: From the Monstrous Manual(which happens to be on the Core Rules CD),
under the Combat section of the Grimlock entry: "Grimlocks are immune to the
effects of spells which affect the vision. These include phantasmal force,
darkness, invisibility, mirror image, and many others. "
Second edition solution.
End of Disussion
Hari the Monk
Hari the Monk
the effects of spells which affect the vision. These include phantasmal
force, darkness, invisibility, mirror image, and many others. "
End of discussion.
Hari the Monk
Jason Eric Nelson wrote in message <8bg44j$ad3k$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
>In article <38DB02AD...@loop.com>,
>Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>>> Read the spell description--1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. both agree. It is *not*
>>> purely visual. It creates exact illusory duplicates that do everything
>>> that you do, including walk, talk, stink, and give off body heat.
>>
>>And this is where it appears to be a physical copy of you, which is
>>far MORE than anything short of SF or Advanced Illusion can do.
>
>It is precisely what SF can do, but it can only do *one* thing, with
>the added disadvantage that touching it makes it disappear, which is
>not the case with SF.
>
>Ergo, it is a limited subset of SF and is a level lower.
>
Hari the Monk
Blindfighting:
immune to the effects of spells which affect the vision. These include
phantasmal force, darkness, invisibility, mirror image, and many others. "
Backed up by the previous line, in the general section of the Grimlock
information:"Grimlocks are totally blind, but have highly developed senses
of smell and hearing. Their sensitive ears and noses combine to allow them
to distinguish objects and creatures within 20', just as well as if they
were able to see"
Thus, blindfighters, like grimlocks, would be immune to Mirror image, among
other things, when using their Blindfighting skills.
Hari the Monk
Jan Wevers wrote in message <38D763AE...@zedat.fu-berlin.de>...
>Hi out there,
>
>I've been lurking around for quite a while now, but now I have a tricky
>question...
>I am DMing a campaign of mid-level characters. When gaming last Sunday,
>we came across (what we considered) a design flaw considering the spell
>"mirror image". One of the characters was fighting a mage who cast this
>spell midway through the fight. Since this mage was pretty low in HPs at
>that time, he then decided to cast "wall of fog" followed by "spider
>climb" and run (or rather climb) for it. The pc had not yet done
>anything during that round and attacked the mage with his sword. The
>question then came up, are the mirror images still working, since the pc
>can't see them anyway? The PC made his attack roll despite the -2
>penalty (-4 for non-proficient pcs), and we had quite a discussion on
>whether he hit the mage or maybe just one of the duplicates. The spell
>description doesn't say anything about any sounds the duplicates make,
>but IMO it would be way too easy to merely close your eyes and take the
>-2/-4 penalty and attack a caster blindly, thus ignoring the spell
>effects completely. OTOH, what if a mage casts "mirror image" followed
>by "invisibility" or even "improved invisibility"? Would the (then
>invisibile?!) mirror images still deceive opponents? Or would that make
>the spell too powerful, since the mage were to be hit at -2/-4 and he
>still could hope that one of his duplicates is hit? After all, it's only
>a 2nd level spell!
>
>I would appreciate any comments on this.
>
>:服
>
>Jan
>
Jason Eric Nelson
>>
>> 1. Reduce the spell's range: 60 yds + 10 yds/lvl to ZERO
>>
>> - This would knock the spell down at least a level (compare, f'rex,
>> Polymorph Self (4th-caster only) to Drawmij's Beneficent Polymorph
>> (5th-same as PS, but range = Touch), which is a level higher; but we're
>> taking it down even further than that)
>>
>> 2. Reduce the spell's AoE: 40' cube + one 10' cube/lvl to 6' r.
>
I disagree (especially the "at range" to "caster only" change, which is
big not least for the fact that it reduces the possible spell recipients
from "anybody" to "just you"), but I'll give it to ya.
>> - A pretty massive reduction, greater than the drop from Fireball
>> to Flaming Sphere, so another level drop of the spell here.
>>
>> 3. Reduce the spell's scope of action from virtually anything imaginable
>> (within the "constraint" of it being one or more creature(s),
>> object(s), or force(s)) to the following progressive set of
>> limitations (each of which is a subset of the previous one):
>
> Sub-points 1-4 are moot, as 5 says them all.
Yeah; as I said, I listed them simply in order of progressive subsets--
five 'stages' of restriction.
>> 5. Can only replicate a particular single creature in a
>> particular way performing a particular set of actions
>> (i.e., mimicking the caster's exact movements).
>
>> 4. Cause the illusion to disappear if touched (rather than requiring
>> active disbelief, which in the rules requires a full round of concentration
>> *and* a successful save vs. magic).
>
>Nothing here - you touch most illusions you get to make a save.
Another one of your house rules, Joe?
This has never been the case, though certain *specific* illusions (e.g.,
Change Self) do have this provision.
Otherwise any illusion "attacking" you would automatically grant you
a save, since in order to "hit" you they would have to *touch* you,
granting you a save to disbelieve them.
This effect would make offensive illusions very weak.
>> 5. Remove the capability of inflicting illusory damage.
>
>Worth a level, true
>
>> Each of these on their own is worth at least a level decrement in terms of
>> comparing spell levels and spell effects (using TSR's own principles in
>> how they have structured spells).
>
>No, you give it too much credit for being down-leveled to begin with.
>Spectral force, cut down in power and the added ability to fire-and-forget
>is more like it - about a wash, IMO.
See below. Also, note that Advanced Illusion *IS* "fire and forget".
>> 1. Improve duration: 1 rd/lvl to 3 rds/lvl
>>
>> This is not a huge difference (in that it will usually last for "one
>> battle" but it *is* significant, especially at low levels, where it
>> can be the difference between running out in the middle or end portion
>> of a battle or holding up all the way through. Whether it's worth a full
>> spell level or not might be arguable, but I say it probably should.
>
>Duration is meaningless
What? Not IME. If your spell goes bye-bye in the middle of combat,
it suddenly becomes very meaningful... }:>
>- it is the NO CONCENTRATION part that is the bonus.
You forget, Advanced Illusion does not require concentration. It is
*also* programmed/automated and requires no maintenance.
>> 2. Make it impossible to disbelieve.
>
>Countered by the fact that *touching* one dispells it(instant save
>versus it!) No points here.
Fair enough.
>> So you start with a 5th level spell.
>>
>> You take 5 'level decrements', then you add two 'level improvements'.
>
>Actually 3 decrements, and one plus.
Since you believe that duration is meaningless, that leaves you with
IYO one plus - the 'no concentration' effect.
That effect is *INCLUDED* within an Advanced Illusion, and therefore
would not need to be 'added' to it in the process of 'reverse engineering'
the spell into Mirror Image.
Ergo, this is not a 'plus'--it's already part of the spell.
>3rd level.
Try the math again. 3 decrements by your judgment. No pluses
(since you already get the 'no concentration' effect).
Starting with AI at 5th level, you take of 3 levels worth of effects.
Works out to 2nd level, even by your very own comparative valuation.
From Joe's mouth to my ear. After all the heated rhetoric, I find it
interesting that you end up agreeing with my analysis when you look at
the 'numbers'.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Sears - He has everything"
Jason Eric Nelson
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> >I read it that the spell does this when one of the images is HIT
>> >so that you cannot tell how they re-shuffle.
>>
>> Both are true, for the same reason, which is irrelevant to whether
>> the MI's are visual-only (as you believe) or "exact duplicates"
>> (as the spell description states).
>
No, the whole crux of my argument is that when you compare it to
other illusion spells it *does* make sense to allow "exact dupe" to
mean SF-level sensory comps, which you even agreed with when you
read the analysis comparing MI to AI. You start with a 5th level
programmable illusion (with SF comps) and you strip out 3 levels
worth of spell effects and it leaves you with a single-purpose,
limited-scope, caster-only, small-AoE programmable illusion (with
SF comps).
Whether the scope of the illusion *ALSO* includes a visual blurring/
scrambling effect is irrelevant to whether the images THEMSELVES
are visual-only or full-spectrum.
If I cast a Spectral Force of an angel, and as PART of that spectral
force I cause a halo of golden light to radiate out from a creature
within the SF AoE when the angel points its hand at it and speaks
some mumbo-jumbo, the golden light is a visual-only effect, and it
is *PART* of the whole illusion; it does not mean that the whole
illusion is visual-only. It's just one piece of the whole.
>There appears to be
>some ambiguity in the wording, and you are seeing it one way
>and everyone else that I have played with in over *20* gaming
>groups in 23 years of playing sees it the other way, including myself.
Maybe I'm just being argumentative on principle... }:>
Note also that Steve pointed out the "grimlock reference", which
trumps my argument, since it is a more or less canonical reference
that stipulates a visual-only effect for MI, and I readily acceded
at that point
>You can't just gloss over this point. You don't have proof that you
>are any more right than I am, but my position is far more logical,
But when I made my logical argument for why, you agreed with it, so
I would think that our positions are equally logical.
>as it is a puny second level illusion, and you have it capable of
>affecting *4* senses. Get real.
I am real. See. Here I am... }:>
And I even showed how and why it *should* allow SF-spectrum sensory
comps. And you even agreed with my analysis.
Maybe we should both get real... }:>
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
Jason Eric Nelson
Hari the Monk <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have to back up what Steve Buza sais on this issue about Grimlocks, which
>just happen to be on my Core rules CD Rom. It stats, in the first line
>under 'Combat': "Grimlocks are immune to the effects of spells which affect
>the vision. These include phantasmal force, darkness, invisibility, mirror
>image, and many others. "
>
>Plain and simple. End of discussion. Second edition solution.
Yup, and when I pulled out the "grimlock solution" card, I happily acceded.
See, it's even right there at the bottom of my post, which you quoted
en bloc in your post. I'm not so big a man that I cannot admit my
error.
I still like my version better, though, and it's even logical and
balanced WRT the other illusion spells, as Joe and I have demonstrated
elsewhere in this thread. To each their own, eh? }:>
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Pan Am - He makes the going great"
Jason Eric Nelson
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:52:12 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
><oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>
>>> Read the spell description--1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. both agree. It is *not*
>>> purely visual. It creates exact illusory duplicates that do everything
>>> that you do, including walk, talk, stink, and give off body heat.
>>
>>And this is where it appears to be a physical copy of you, which is
>>far MORE than anything short of SF or Advanced Illusion can do.
>>
>>
>>Gheez. that's four of five senses so far from a puny second level spell -
>>get real.
>
>They disappear if hit, the "touch" you describe is a thermal component
>only wrt sight. That's four sensory functions, in an illusion
>confined to mimicing the tha eactions of the mage who cast the spell,
>and in close proximity thereto. You may not like it, but trying to
>avoid the spell with a simple nwp (Blindfighting) is just munchkinism.
This is part of my problem: If you allow BF or even disbelief to so
easily defeat MI, it makes the spell close to worthless. Even at low
levels when saves are crummy and disbelief is therefore unlikely,
BF/closing your eyes and eating the -4 penalty still beats the crap
out of fighting 'through' the MI's (at least IME).
Having had the grimlock reference pointed out (which I had forgotten
about from my old Fiend Folio--and apparently they are also somewhere
in 2nd Ed.), I concded that the published rules indicate MI as a
visual-only effect.
But I don't like that, so I think I'll stick with my version... }:>
Jason Eric Nelson
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2000 21:42:08 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
>Only one item to respond to, since we simply disagree.
>
>>in the 2nd Ed. PH. Under the spell description for Project Image
>>(another one of those darn illusionary "image" spells), it says:
>>
>>"Note that if the wizard is invisible at the time the spell is cast,
>>the image is also invisible until the caster's invisibility ends,
>>though the wizard must still be able to see the image (by means of
>>a Detect Invisibility spell or other method) to maintain the spell."
>>(pg. 181, PH2, 1st printing)
>
>pre-empted it in my last post? Oh well.
It's like you've got ESP or something!
>If you go back and look at my posts, as well as others in this NG
>recently, you will note on several occasions where I speak about
>illusions and how they become "quasi-real" at higher levels. This is
>not simply my interpretation, but specifically spelled out in both
>Chapter 7: Magic (Illusions) and in the text of the description of
>Mirage Arcana.
All good so far.
>Because Project Image _is_ one of these spells, the illusion created
>by it _is_ quasi-real. Because it is quasi-real it can be at-least
>partly affected and affect its environment. Hence, the explanation
>you cite.
You can choose to make this inference. IMO it is not directly
supported by the rules (PI is not specifically described as a 'quasi-
real' spell, whereas a lot of other spells *are*), but it is a reasonable
interpretation.
>But quasi-reality, as the manual spells out for even the silliest
>reader, is not a component of low-level spells like Mirror Image and
>Spectral Force.
>
>Invisibility works for Project Image because of the inherent
>quasi-reality of the illusion. Detect Invisibility detects the
>invisible quasi-reality, not the invisible "image."
>
>Because Mirror Image is not quasi-real, invisibility cannot affect it.
>You are trying to apply this citation to a second level spell and it
>clearly does not belong there.
It's not at all clear that it should be excluded, though that
inference can be made. In fact, if you are going by the actual
spell descriptions themselves, the only conclusion is that it
is clear that it should be *included* (exactly what you do, blah blah).
The phraseology on Mirror Image and Project Image are really the only
explicit statement on the subject. All the rest is inference--some
of it perfectly reasonable inference, but inference just the same.
>One other thing (so I lied). I am quite well aware the Blind Fighting
>has nothing to do with disbelief. You misinterpreted my statement, or
>I mis-typed and I would guess that the latter is more likely.
>
>My point was that Blind Fighting and disbelief of Mirror Image work
>for the _same reason_. (That it is a visual-only illusion that other
>senses are capable of contradicting). I wasn't trying to state that
>Blind Fighting is dependent of disbelief.
>
>I actually do have fhe first-edition books, but its been so long since
>I've played first edition that someone had to remind me the other day
>that initiative used to be on a d6. Sheesh.
Heretic! All should be weaned on the great and powerful d6 init
rules!
>Its been an interesting discussion but I'm getting a little bored with
>the topic.
Agreed on both counts...
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like V05 hair spray - He holds through all sorts of weather"
Jason Eric Nelson
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> >If I attack and stick my sword in the guy's gullet, it looks like
>> >maybe we all did (though he suffers no illusory damage as a function
>> >of the spell--a disempowerment of MI; if I had 3 PF/IPF/SF duplicates
>> >all stick their swords in his gullet, he'd take illusory damage from
>> >*ALL* of them). He takes damage from only one sword blow, but he
>> >can't tell which one of them was the real McCoy. He *knows* that
>> >most of "me" are fakes, but we are indistinguishable.
>
>does what he suggests, say, at 5th or 6th level. Improved Mirror Image.
>
>It actually CASTS fireballs(albeit illusionary ones) at the target.
>They have to make saves versus all of them!(ouch)
This would be completely brutal. 5th or 6th is probably too low.
Maybe 8th, or 9th if your DM is already generous in allowances
made to what illusions can do.
But it would be pretty darn cool!
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Bayer aspirin - He works wonders"
Tuatha dé Danaan
<38DC3274...@loop.com>:
>You can't just gloss over this point. You don't have proof that you
>are any more right than I am, but my position is far more logical,
>as it is a puny second level illusion, and you have it capable of
>affecting *4* senses. Get real.
*ahem* what's the name of the spell??
Mirror Audibles?
Mirror Scents?
Nope..images. and last i checked, an image is a visual thing.
and i seem to recall a tactic against it is throwing sand or something,
since the images will cough, but only one make the sound..
and i think there is also an example in the novels where darkness and
blind fighting was used..
i'm pretty sure one of those methods was used by Drizzt when fighting
Agatha (to use a novel)
Jason Eric Nelson
Tuatha dé Danaan <Daoine...@SoftHome.net> wrote:
>oberl...@loop.com (Joseph Oberlander) wrote in
><38DC3274...@loop.com>:
>
>>You can't just gloss over this point. You don't have proof that you
>>are any more right than I am, but my position is far more logical,
>>as it is a puny second level illusion, and you have it capable of
>>affecting *4* senses. Get real.
>
>*ahem* what's the name of the spell??
>Mirror Audibles?
>Mirror Scents?
>
>Nope..images. and last i checked, an image is a visual thing.
*ahem* This excuse for a point has already been addressed in other posts,
but you seem to have missed it so I'll give you a refresher:
Does Burning Hands set your hands on fire? No. It creates a jet of flame.
Does Stoneskin turn your skin to stone? No. It blocks N number of physical
attacks.
Does Chill Touch make your hands cold? No. It creates a strength-
draining necromantic force.
Does Phantasmal Force create a phantasm? No. It makes an illusion.
Is Cure Light Wounds restricted to curing *light* wounds? No. It heals
1d8 hit points of damage regardless of the hit points of the target or
the severity of wounds he or she has received.
Does Fire Shield create a kite/round shield made of fire on the
caster's arm? No. It creates a shroud of sympathetically reactive
magical energy around the caster (which is why the official damage
of FS to creatures striking in melee is proportional to the damage
that THEY inflict, rather than being dealt out as fire/cold
damage *directly* by the FS).
Does Melf's Minute Meteors actually make little meteors? No. It
makes little balls of non-solid *fire*.
For that matter, does Project *IMAGE* just make "a visual thing"? No.
The list goes on and on.
This concretism in interpreting spell descriptions is silly.
>and i seem to recall a tactic against it is throwing sand or something,
>since the images will cough, but only one make the sound..
It is entirely possible that some DM or player at some point suggested
that this should work, though this has no bearing whatsoever on what
the spell description states.
>and i think there is also an example in the novels where darkness and
>blind fighting was used..
>
>i'm pretty sure one of those methods was used by Drizzt when fighting
>Agatha (to use a novel)
Certainly possible, though I don't recall it. I've only read about a few
dozen of the D&D novels; there are probably ten times that number that
I haven't read.
Again, novel depictions have little bearing on game rules, as has been
endlessly hashed about on this newsgroup in point of people doing things
in the novels that are "impossible" in the game rules.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
The Wraith
Nelson) wrote:
>
>This is part of my problem: If you allow BF or even disbelief to so
>easily defeat MI, it makes the spell close to worthless.
I wouldn't allow disbelief to affect this spell (regardless of
technical arguments regarding whether disbelief checks defeat
illusions or phantasms or whatever). The basic effect of this spell is
to screw with people's senses. Whether the victims believe their
senses is beside the point. I don't believe that the world disappears
when I get blinded by a camera flash, but I still can't see it.
>Even at low
>levels when saves are crummy and disbelief is therefore unlikely,
>BF/closing your eyes and eating the -4 penalty still beats the crap
>out of fighting 'through' the MI's (at least IME).
I do prefer this as a visual-only spell, but I concede that the
effective -4 penalty is a pretty weak effect, especially when it can
be reduced to -2 by blind-fighting proficiency. However, I don't think
the problem lies in the spell itself. Rather, it seems to me that a -4
penalty is too small a penalty for fighting when completely blind, or
completely unable to see your enemy.
Let's put it this way: You are being hunted by a guy with a sword who
knows how to use it, in relatively close quarters (without fighting in
a closet). Would you rather be wearing chain mail, or have the other
guy completely unable to see you? I'll go for the latter any day.
So, one might deal with the real problem simply by increasing the
penalty for fighting without sight. This would also apply to fighting
in darkness, attacking invisible enemies, and so on.
I generally double the penalties for fighting while blind. Closing
your eyes and attacking a wizard with a Mirror Image spell already
cast would incur a -8 penalty, which seems to me to be plenty to make
the attacker consider just taking out images one at a time.
As for blind-fighting, if a character has an ability specifically for
dealing with situations in which vision is impaired, I don't have a
problem with that character dealing with a vision-impairing spell more
effectively. That's what it's for, that's what it does, and the
resultant -4 penalty is nothing to sneeze at, even if the spellcaster
might hope for more from his spell.
>Having had the grimlock reference pointed out (which I had forgotten
>about from my old Fiend Folio--and apparently they are also somewhere
>in 2nd Ed.),
They appeared in the Fiend Folio Appendix to the original Monstrous
Compendium, and later in the Monstrous Manual.
>I concded that the published rules indicate MI as a
>visual-only effect.
Is your not liking the visual-only aspect of the spell really just due
to it not having a great enough effect when people just close their
eyes, or is there another reason for it?
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Jason Eric Nelson
The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>On 25 Mar 2000 15:50:28 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>>
>>Even at low
>>levels when saves are crummy and disbelief is therefore unlikely,
>>BF/closing your eyes and eating the -4 penalty still beats the crap
>>out of fighting 'through' the MI's (at least IME).
As I think I said in another post, IMO the whole point of MI is
that it is OBVIOUSLY an illusion, but the effect is just so
confusing and disorienting that it prevents effective targeting.
[snip -4 penalty is too small for blindness]
IIRC in the Comp. Fighter's Handbook or someplace in 2nd Ed. there
is a table for sight conditions and attack penalties, and it also
makes the note that there is a converse *BONUS* for any creature
who *CAN* see in that situation.
Ergo, in a situation where person A is totally blinded and person
B can see just fine, person A gets the usual -4 penalty to hit,
but person B *ALSO* gets a +4 *BONUS* to hit vs. person A.
It would be logical to also apply a -4 save penalty for any saves
that were not purely 100% physical fortitude-based (e.g., a death
magic effect, or a poison save).
If the suite of penalties was more well-rounded and applied in this
fashion, I wouldn't have as much of a problem.
There were also scaled penalties for dim light/twilight (which was
like -1) and very dark (but not absolute) conditions (which was
IIRC -3), and I think there was a similar description of the
obscuration penalties for mist/fog.
>As for blind-fighting, if a character has an ability specifically for
>dealing with situations in which vision is impaired, I don't have a
>problem with that character dealing with a vision-impairing spell more
>effectively. That's what it's for, that's what it does, and the
>resultant -4 penalty is nothing to sneeze at, even if the spellcaster
>might hope for more from his spell.
Maybe BF should be a 'shift to next better condition' effect for
vision-obscuring effects... Hmm...
>>Having had the grimlock reference pointed out (which I had forgotten
>>about from my old Fiend Folio--and apparently they are also somewhere
>>in 2nd Ed.),
>
>They appeared in the Fiend Folio Appendix to the original Monstrous
>Compendium, and later in the Monstrous Manual.
I have the looseleaf FF supp; I just haven't looked at it in a long
time.
>>I concded that the published rules indicate MI as a
>>visual-only effect.
>
>Is your not liking the visual-only aspect of the spell really just due
>to it not having a great enough effect when people just close their
>eyes, or is there another reason for it?
That's a big part of it.
I think the other part is that logically within the scheme of illusion
spells available, it makes sense for MI to have more than visual comps.
To each their own, though.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Tide - He gets out stains others leave behind"
Jan Wevers
The Wraith wrote:
> I generally double the penalties for fighting while blind. Closing
> your eyes and attacking a wizard with a Mirror Image spell already
> cast would incur a -8 penalty, which seems to me to be plenty to make
> the attacker consider just taking out images one at a time.
Now this sounds like a pretty good solution; I agree that the main
problem
is not so much MI being a useless spell, but BF being way too powerful
(i.e. penalties for fighting without sight not sufficient). A -8 might
really make the attacker think twice whether to BF or take the images
for granted.
> Is your not liking the visual-only aspect of the spell really just due
> to it not having a great enough effect when people just close their
> eyes, or is there another reason for it?
I can understand that Jason considered MI not being visual-only ('coz
that's what I did and why I started this thread). If gaming on basic
rules without customising them (such as your -8 penalty or Joseph's
Move Silently check for the caster - cf. another post in this thread),
MI becomes useless. With these slight alterations of the rules, though,
it seems to make sense.
To put it in a nutshell: BF is too powerful.
Jan
Jan Wevers
I just wanted to thank you all for your contributions to the solution
to my problem. I really enjoyed the discussion, and many of your
posts have clarified the situation, esp. the bit about the Grimlocks,
since there's what we've been looking for: an official statement.
I must say, though, that I don't quite like things the way they are,
since it is way too easy to circumvent MI, IMO. I will, therefore,
consider the suggestions some of you made (Move Silently check,
-8 pen. etc.). None better than house rules...
Cheerio, Jan :服
Yellow Dreamer
Nelson) wrote:
>It is precisely what SF can do, but it can only do *one* thing, with
>the added disadvantage that touching it makes it disappear, which is
>not the case with SF.
>
>Ergo, it is a limited subset of SF and is a level lower.
OTOH you need not concentrate on it. SF is pretty useless when you
expect being attacked.
--
Yellow Dreamer
Yellow Dreamer
Nelson) wrote:
>This is part of my problem: If you allow BF or even disbelief to so
>easily defeat MI, it makes the spell close to worthless. Even at low
>levels when saves are crummy and disbelief is therefore unlikely,
>BF/closing your eyes and eating the -4 penalty still beats the crap
>out of fighting 'through' the MI's (at least IME).
I think it only tells us how ridiculously broken the -4 penalty is and
that disbelief shouldn't be able to apply as everyone knows it to be
an illusion. So what - it's still there annoying you and clogging up
your sight.
--
Yellow Dreamer
Jason Eric Nelson
Yellow Dreamer <Yellow....@gmx.de> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2000 16:12:03 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
>>It is precisely what SF can do, but it can only do *one* thing, with
>>the added disadvantage that touching it makes it disappear, which is
>>not the case with SF.
>>
>>Ergo, it is a limited subset of SF and is a level lower.
>
>OTOH you need not concentrate on it.
Which is why I posted a "reverse engineered" comparison of Mirror
Image with Advanced Illusion, neither of which require concentration.
Keep reading the thread and you should find it sooner or later.
>SF is pretty useless when you expect being attacked.
I don't understand this comment at all. Perhaps you can expand on
what you were trying to say here or connect it contextually to
something.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
Jason Eric Nelson
Yellow Dreamer <Yellow....@gmx.de> wrote:
>On 25 Mar 2000 15:50:28 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
>>This is part of my problem: If you allow BF or even disbelief to so
>>easily defeat MI, it makes the spell close to worthless. Even at low
>>levels when saves are crummy and disbelief is therefore unlikely,
>>BF/closing your eyes and eating the -4 penalty still beats the crap
>>out of fighting 'through' the MI's (at least IME).
>
>I think it only tells us how ridiculously broken the -4 penalty is and
>that disbelief shouldn't be able to apply as everyone knows it to be
>an illusion. So what - it's still there annoying you and clogging up
>your sight.
Yeah, as I said I consider MI to be "obviously" an illusion. It does
not fool anyone with experience fighting magical foes (though ignorant
foes may well believe the caster has duplicated him/herself). Its
effect is achieved through confusing and disorienting attackers with
a multitude of potential targets, each of which appears equally "real".
That said, if you analyze relative spell levels it is not at all
illogical to impute SF-level components into MI (although the
grimlock note mitigates against this being an "official" interpretation
of the spell).
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
Steve Buza
Baldwin) wrote:
>Acording to EGG? MI is an original spell after all. What is your
>source for *intent*, hmm?
According to Gary Gygax. That is my source for intent.
Steve
Steve Buza
Jan,
I dropped Gary Gygax an e-mail last week on this topic. He
wrote back over the weekend and said the following:
------------ excerpt ------------
Although I have been out of the 'official loop' in regards the A/D&D
game system since 1986, I have done my best to offer such 'unofficial'
commentary as my legal agreements with TSR permit. Certainly your
query can be answered.
>Did you intend for Mirror Image to have olfactory, thermal, and
>auditory components? The spell description is silent on the matter.
You seem to have a handle on this, as your wording above indicates.
The spell creates a "mirror image", and as such that image has only
such properties as an actual reflected image would have, full
dimensionality aside. So no, the images do not have olfactory,
thermal, or like qualities as far as I am concerned. Each simply
moves as does the caster. It's up to him to keep his mouth shut."
---------- end excerpt ----------
That certainly settles the intent question. I think the Grimlock
reference certainly settles the other questions.
Steve
Jason Eric Nelson
Actually, the "proof" for your point is given by Albie Fiore, the
creator of the Grimlock (and a host of other monsters for the Fiend
Folio).
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
Jason Eric Nelson
From Gary's mouth to our humble ears... QED, eh?
Well, I still like *my* interpretation better, so there! }:>
Michael Scott Brown
Jason Eric Nelson <tja...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
[snip garyanswer]
Notice that completely intangible images could *not* offer the
damage redirection that the spell description demands! What a sod.
His own combat model: 1 minute of exchanges of blows ... +images
dissappear when struck .. if the images create no perception of
force, then someone "fighting" one would cleave through it with
one wave of his sword. 59 seconds to go. Next image!
Mirror Image should be raised in level to Shadow Magic power if
it is to have the effects described - otherwise it is not going
to be anymore effective than Blur.
-Michael
Steve Buza
Brown) wrote:
> Notice that completely intangible images could *not* offer the
> damage redirection that the spell description demands! What a sod.
> His own combat model: 1 minute of exchanges of blows ... +images
> dissappear when struck .. if the images create no perception of
> force, then someone "fighting" one would cleave through it with
> one wave of his sword. 59 seconds to go. Next image!
This is an issue with the length of rounds which is being fixed in 3E.
It's not an issue with Mirror Image.
Steve
Steve Buza
Nelson) wrote:
>
>Well, I still like *my* interpretation better, so there! }:>
>
*smile* That's not surprising Jason. hehehe
Steve
Michael Scott Brown
>> Notice that completely intangible images could *not* offer the
>> damage redirection that the spell description demands! What a sod.
>> His own combat model: 1 minute of exchanges of blows ... +images
>> dissappear when struck .. if the images create no perception of
>> force, then someone "fighting" one would cleave through it with
>> one wave of his sword. 59 seconds to go. Next image!
>
>This is an issue with the length of rounds which is being fixed in 3E.
>It's not an issue with Mirror Image.
It's *been* an issue for the last 20 years. And six seconds
is probably plenty of time to wade through a flurry of fakes as
well.
A more workable version of the spell for 3E might simply
restrict all attackers to only 1 attack per round against the
wizard, resolved at the 'end' of his turn, in order to mimic
the delay imposed by wading through the mess.
-Michael
Joe Jefferson
>
> > Notice that completely intangible images could *not* offer the
> > damage redirection that the spell description demands! What a sod.
> > His own combat model: 1 minute of exchanges of blows ... +images
> > dissappear when struck .. if the images create no perception of
> > force, then someone "fighting" one would cleave through it with
> > one wave of his sword. 59 seconds to go. Next image!
>
> This is an issue with the length of rounds which is being fixed in 3E.
> It's not an issue with Mirror Image.
>
Doesn't 3e change the round to 6 seconds? That doesn't fix the problem,
it just changes it. The real fix is to redefine a round as "a short
period of time during which the following actions may be taken..." and
not make it any more specific than that.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Steve Buza
Brown) wrote:
>>This is an issue with the length of rounds which is being fixed in 3E.
>>It's not an issue with Mirror Image.
>
> It's *been* an issue for the last 20 years. And six seconds
> is probably plenty of time to wade through a flurry of fakes as
> well.
No doubt about it.
>
> A more workable version of the spell for 3E might simply
> restrict all attackers to only 1 attack per round against the
> wizard, resolved at the 'end' of his turn, in order to mimic
> the delay imposed by wading through the mess.
Not a bad option.
Steve
Jason Eric Nelson
Another might be to allow MI to obviate Attack of Opportunity when a
wizard is in melee range and attempts spellcasting; since presumably an
AoO is an almost-reflexive 'pounce' when the wizard drops his or her
guard to cast a spell, it is more like a truly *single* attack rather
than a conflated/abstracted mass of "attack routines" that are subsumed
within a typical round of D&D melee attacks.
Could also really scramble up Ready-triggered attacks contingent upon
spellcasting by the MI wizard (which likewise seem to be described more
or less as "I do *this* (one specific action) when X-and-such event
occurs"). In that crucial instant of letting loose your arrow or what
have you at the enemy mage, target selection is a pretty crucial element
(unless your Readied action is with a Wand of Fireballs or something...),
and MI could make a critical difference.
One more interesting rules quirk to check out 8/10/00... }:>
Jan Wevers
Jason Eric Nelson wrote:
> > I dropped Gary Gygax an e-mail last week on this topic. He
Now this was a cool idea! Why not ask the *mage* who invented the
spell... :-) 'Excuse me, Mr. Leomund - how was that tiny hut of yours
supposed to work?' Hm, I like the idea...
Thanks for your help, Jason!
> >That certainly settles the intent question. I think the Grimlock
> >reference certainly settles the other questions.
>
> From Gary's mouth to our humble ears... QED, eh?
>
> Well, I still like *my* interpretation better, so there! }:>
I definitely understand what you meen. MI seems a bit weak now,
doesn't it. In the situation given, it grants you (when adding a -4 or
-2 penalty for BF) AC 6 or 8, depending on whether your opponent
is proficient in BF or not. Same (well, *kind of*) does Armor (AC 6),
which is 1st level. Or take Spirit Armor from 3rd level, which even
grants you AC 3, and it's *only* one level higher!
Granted, most opponents will take the images as they come, but some may
not. Hm, thinking about it, OTOH, the bard IMC just lost his most
powerful
2nd lev. spell... ;-)
Thanks again. Jan
Jason Eric Nelson
Jan Wevers <wev...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>
>Jason Eric Nelson wrote:
>
>> > I dropped Gary Gygax an e-mail last week on this topic. He
>
>Now this was a cool idea! Why not ask the *mage* who invented the
>spell... :-) 'Excuse me, Mr. Leomund - how was that tiny hut of yours
>supposed to work?' Hm, I like the idea...
It was a good idea, but...
>Thanks for your help, Jason!
I'm not the one with the 'hotline connection' to EGG. That was Steve
Buza.
>> >That certainly settles the intent question. I think the Grimlock
>> >reference certainly settles the other questions.
>>
>> From Gary's mouth to our humble ears... QED, eh?
>>
>> Well, I still like *my* interpretation better, so there! }:>
>
>I definitely understand what you meen. MI seems a bit weak now,
>doesn't it. In the situation given, it grants you (when adding a -4 or
>-2 penalty for BF) AC 6 or 8, depending on whether your opponent
>is proficient in BF or not. Same (well, *kind of*) does Armor (AC 6),
>which is 1st level.
It's not *quite* as bad as that, since blocking line-of-sight by closing
your eyes also precludes the ability to make certain kinds of attacks
(e.g., Magic Missile), though strictly speaking you could still target
other kinds of missile/magic attacks that require a roll to hit but
do not specifically state that direct LOS is required.
That said, if you *also* allow disbelief of the MI's, then you're
starting to scrape pretty low in the power level...
>Or take Spirit Armor from 3rd level, which even
>grants you AC 3, and it's *only* one level higher!
>Granted, most opponents will take the images as they come, but some may
>not. Hm, thinking about it, OTOH, the bard IMC just lost his most
>powerful
>2nd lev. spell... ;-)
>
>Thanks again. Jan
Like I said, Gary's declaration notwithstanding IMO this underpowers
the spell relative to what it should be, and I plan to stick with my
version for my campaign...
Steve Buza
<jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is an issue with the length of rounds which is being fixed in 3E.
>> It's not an issue with Mirror Image.
>>
>> Steve
>
>Doesn't 3e change the round to 6 seconds? That doesn't fix the problem,
>it just changes it. The real fix is to redefine a round as "a short
>period of time during which the following actions may be taken..." and
>not make it any more specific than that.
That's a valid point.
But 6 seconds is admittedly the lesser of two evils here (at least
IMC).
Steve
Steve Buza
<wev...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>I definitely understand what you meen. MI seems a bit weak now,
>doesn't it. In the situation given, it grants you (when adding a -4 or
>-2 penalty for BF) AC 6 or 8, depending on whether your opponent
>is proficient in BF or not. Same (well, *kind of*) does Armor (AC 6),
>which is 1st level. Or take Spirit Armor from 3rd level, which even
>grants you AC 3, and it's *only* one level higher!
>Granted, most opponents will take the images as they come, but some may
>not. Hm, thinking about it, OTOH, the bard IMC just lost his most
>powerful
>2nd lev. spell... ;-)
I think that's a weak argument for making a spell more powerful than
it should be.
Nearly all spells seem weak once you've figured out a way to
counteract their effects.
Steve
Jason Eric Nelson
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:19:26 +0200, Jan Wevers
><wev...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>>I definitely understand what you meen. MI seems a bit weak now,
>>doesn't it. In the situation given, it grants you (when adding a -4 or
>>-2 penalty for BF) AC 6 or 8, depending on whether your opponent
>>is proficient in BF or not. Same (well, *kind of*) does Armor (AC 6),
>>which is 1st level. Or take Spirit Armor from 3rd level, which even
>>grants you AC 3, and it's *only* one level higher!
>>Granted, most opponents will take the images as they come, but some may
>>not. Hm, thinking about it, OTOH, the bard IMC just lost his most
>>powerful
>>2nd lev. spell... ;-)
>
>I think that's a weak argument for making a spell more powerful than
>it should be.
Well, if we're talking about how powerful a spell *SHOULD* be, I think
my arguments for including sensory comps make far more sense than making
it visual-only as a 2nd level spell. Heck, even Joe O. thought so! }:>
>Nearly all spells seem weak once you've figured out a way to
>counteract their effects.
No, they may seem *weakened*, but not *weak*. Allowing countermeasures
does not equal evisceration... (Shall we reopen the can of worms? }:>)
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Scotch tape - You can't see Him, but you know He's there"
Steve Buza
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:19:26 +0200, Jan Wevers
><wev...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>>I definitely understand what you meen. MI seems a bit weak now,
>>doesn't it. In the situation given, it grants you (when adding a -4 or
>>-2 penalty for BF) AC 6 or 8, depending on whether your opponent
>>is proficient in BF or not. Same (well, *kind of*) does Armor (AC 6),
>>which is 1st level. Or take Spirit Armor from 3rd level, which even
>>grants you AC 3, and it's *only* one level higher!
>>Granted, most opponents will take the images as they come, but some may
>>not. Hm, thinking about it, OTOH, the bard IMC just lost his most
>>powerful
>>2nd lev. spell... ;-)
Again, MI seems weak when someone figures out a way to counteract it,
just as Invisibility seems weak when someone figures out he can
counteract it with Detect Invisibility. And Blindness seams weak when
someone can cast Cure Blindness or Dispel Magic.
This is the same effect that is afforded to the spells Blur and
Invisibility, both of which are also second level spells. And Blind
Fighting has exactly the same effect on each of these other spells as
it does on Mirrror Image.
You say he has lost his most powerful 2nd level spell. I say his most
powerful second level spell, in reality, should have been just as
powerful as all the _other_ second level spells.
Now if you want to make a case for Blindfighting being too powerful I
might jump on that bandwagon because it makes Blur, Mirror Image, and
Invisibility weaker than they should be.
As I think about it, nearly everyone in my campaigns takes Blind
Fighting. Hmmmm. I like the idea of doubling the fighting in
darkness penalty.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with Blind Fighting's premise that under
starlit conditions the penalty decreases. After all, when blind
fighting aren't you relying entirely on four senses, and when there is
just enough light to see vague shadows, doesn't the fifth sense betray
you and make your other four senses less helpful?
Steve
Michael Scott Brown
>>> restrict all attackers to only 1 attack per round against the
>>> wizard, resolved at the 'end' of his turn, in order to mimic
>>> the delay imposed by wading through the mess.
>Another might be to allow MI to obviate Attack of Opportunity when a
>wizard is in melee range and attempts spellcasting;
Hey, that's good!
>Could also really scramble up Ready-triggered attacks contingent upon
>spellcasting by the MI wizard (which likewise seem to be described more
>or less as "I do *this* (one specific action) when X-and-such event
>occurs"). In that crucial instant of letting loose your arrow or what
>have you at the enemy mage, target selection is a pretty crucial element
Agreed. I think we've found a much better arena for the spell;
All Out Attack: no penalty, attacker can find wizard in short order
But for 'single' attacks:
Attack of Opportunity, Readied Attack, Missile Fire,
Move-and-attack: random determination of whether wizard is
the selected target.
-Michael
Jan Wevers
Steve Buza wrote:
> Again, MI seems weak when someone figures out a way to counteract it,
> just as Invisibility seems weak when someone figures out he can
> counteract it with Detect Invisibility. And Blindness seams weak when
> someone can cast Cure Blindness or Dispel Magic.
Sure a spell can lose its power. In the examples you give, though, the
opponent has to cast a spell, meaning he loses 1 action, has to have the
spell ready and so on. BF allows you to circumvent MI as a *skill* that
does not even require a check.
> You say he has lost his most powerful 2nd level spell. I say his most
> powerful second level spell, in reality, should have been just as
> powerful as all the _other_ second level spells.
What I meant with *poweful* was rather *useful*. Sorry. :-) It's just
that spells like Fools Gold do not seem so powerful (since they aren't
useful in a combat situation...). Besides, the bard having lost a
powerful spell is one thing I like about all this... ;-)
> Now if you want to make a case for Blindfighting being too powerful I
> might jump on that bandwagon because it makes Blur, Mirror Image, and
> Invisibility weaker than they should be.
Welcome on board...
> As I think about it, nearly everyone in my campaigns takes Blind
> Fighting. Hmmmm. I like the idea of doubling the fighting in
> darkness penalty.
That's why I stumbled about this - I cannot remember a PC without
BF in the last couple of years (save for some mages). BF may be
relatively costly, but still it's too powerful...
Doubling the penalty definitely would make a good start.
> Also, I'm not sure I agree with Blind Fighting's premise that under
> starlit conditions the penalty decreases. After all, when blind
> fighting aren't you relying entirely on four senses, and when there is
> just enough light to see vague shadows, doesn't the fifth sense betray
> you and make your other four senses less helpful?
Seems to make *sense* (boy, what a pun...). Never thought about that,
though.
Jan
P.S.: Thanks for contacting G. Gygax, Steve. My server seems to have
swallowed your post, and I therefore thought it had been Jason.
:服
Jan Wevers
> >Thanks for your help, Jason!
>
> I'm not the one with the 'hotline connection' to EGG. That was Steve
> Buza.
Hmm, seems to be a server problem - I did not receive the said post by
Steve. I only read the quote in your post. Now I come to understand
why it *was* a quote... Silly me...
:服 Jan
Yellow Dreamer
Nelson) wrote:
>>OTOH you need not concentrate on it.
>
>Which is why I posted a "reverse engineered" comparison of Mirror
>Image with Advanced Illusion, neither of which require concentration.
>Keep reading the thread and you should find it sooner or later.
OK.
>>SF is pretty useless when you expect being attacked.
>
>I don't understand this comment at all. Perhaps you can expand on
>what you were trying to say here or connect it contextually to
>something.
Wasn't much behind this comment, actually. Spectral Force is simply no
defensive spell.
--
Yellow Dreamer
Yellow Dreamer
Nelson) wrote:
>That said, if you analyze relative spell levels it is not at all
>illogical to impute SF-level components into MI (although the
>grimlock note mitigates against this being an "official" interpretation
>of the spell).
Agreed. But I would exactly note what MI can copy and what it cannot.
--
Yellow Dreamer
Robert Baldwin
Brown) wrote:
>In article <8bo742$glgs$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
>Jason Eric Nelson <tja...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>[snip garyanswer]
>
> Notice that completely intangible images could *not* offer the
> damage redirection that the spell description demands! What a sod.
> His own combat model: 1 minute of exchanges of blows ... +images
> dissappear when struck .. if the images create no perception of
> force, then someone "fighting" one would cleave through it with
> one wave of his sword. 59 seconds to go. Next image!
> Mirror Image should be raised in level to Shadow Magic power if
> it is to have the effects described - otherwise it is not going
> to be anymore effective than Blur.
Except that Shadow Monsters is far more versatile wrt range, AoE and
type of creature created. Downgrading all those options is worth a 2
level reduction IMO. We just need to ignore what EGG *meant* in favor
of what he *wrote*. ;-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Michael Scott Brown
>> Mirror Image should be raised in level to Shadow Magic power if
>> it is to have the effects described - otherwise it is not going
>> to be anymore effective than Blur.
>
>Except that Shadow Monsters is far more versatile wrt range, AoE and
>type of creature created. Downgrading all those options is worth a 2
>level reduction IMO. We just need to ignore what EGG *meant* in favor
>of what he *wrote*. ;-)
<laughter>
To make sure that our heads are properly joined at the temple-
you are presuming that what he wrote demands tactile
constructs, which could be created of flimsy (1hp) Shadowstuff.
I agree, that's a fine way to have the spell work _as written_. :)
Going by what Gary meant requires a completely different
set of game mechanics... which, come to think of it, is usually
the case (healing, acid and falling damage ... ugh!).
-Michael
Jason Eric Nelson
Yellow Dreamer <Yellow....@gmx.de> wrote:
>On 27 Mar 2000 03:28:39 GMT, tja...@u.washington.edu (Jason Eric
>Nelson) wrote:
>
>>>SF is pretty useless when you expect being attacked.
>>
>>I don't understand this comment at all. Perhaps you can expand on
>>what you were trying to say here or connect it contextually to
>>something.
>
>Wasn't much behind this comment, actually. Spectral Force is simply no
>defensive spell.
SF is a great general-purpose spell, which includes defensive applications,
but like all illusions its utility is very much situational. I would
certainly agree that its greatest strength is not in the area of
defense (although creating an illusory bank of darkness or blinding
mist, possibly even simulating the effects of a stinking cloud or
incendiary cloud, could be quite effective at incapacitating enemies
or forestalling attacks on the caster by blocking line of sight; given
that the SF lasts for 3 rounds after you stop concentrating, you could
whip up your "cloud" around you at the beginning of a battle and
spend several rounds blasting people while they had trouble returning
fire. Not a bad idea, that... Hmm.... }:>).
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Bayer aspirin - He works wonders"
Jason Eric Nelson
Michael Scott Brown <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Jason Eric Nelson <tja...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>> restrict all attackers to only 1 attack per round against the
>>>> wizard, resolved at the 'end' of his turn, in order to mimic
>>>> the delay imposed by wading through the mess.
>
>>Another might be to allow MI to obviate Attack of Opportunity when a
>>wizard is in melee range and attempts spellcasting;
>
> Hey, that's good!
Glad you approve... }:>
>>Could also really scramble up Ready-triggered attacks contingent upon
>>spellcasting by the MI wizard (which likewise seem to be described more
>>or less as "I do *this* (one specific action) when X-and-such event
>>occurs"). In that crucial instant of letting loose your arrow or what
>>have you at the enemy mage, target selection is a pretty crucial element
>
> Agreed. I think we've found a much better arena for the spell;
> All Out Attack: no penalty, attacker can find wizard in short order
I might go so far as to require an INT check or save vs. spell (to reflect
the superior skill of high-level characters at figuring out the spell's
tricks) or some such each round to automatically obviate the MI effect
and find the 'real wizard'. I don't know that I would want to go all
the way to tossing out MI utility against 'regular melee', but I can
certainly see toning it down significantly in a situation where multiple
'swings' are going to take place surrounding the actual set of true
"attacks".
You would also have to decide whether such "all out melee" obviation of
MI defenses would also include *DESTROYING* the images. Using this
rationale (that an all-out melee-dude could sweep through all the
images in a round), you could certainly argue that an attacker
getting to melee range can not only automatically attack the caster
but *also* wipe out the whole crop of images in a single round. This
would go too far, though, so you'd have to come up with some other
rationale for why an all-out-melee dude could always attack the
wizard.
On the other hand, using MI would make it *VERY* hard for your spells to
get disrupted, even when someone was within melee range, and that would
be a pretty hefty benny all by itself. Hmm... decisions, decisions...
> But for 'single' attacks:
>
> Attack of Opportunity, Readied Attack, Missile Fire,
> Move-and-attack: random determination of whether wizard is
> the selected target.
This does seem to be the real heart of the matter--when the &(*%$ hits
the fan and single-shots are critical is when the MI is going to be
most useful.
I'll probably revisit the issue once I get ye olde PH3 in front of me
and have a chance to read the whole combat rules (just to make sure
we're not missing any crucial elements), but I can certainly see using
something like the above (with or without auto-attack-the-wizard in
all-out melee; haven't decided on that one).
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
Jason Eric Nelson
>>> Mirror Image should be raised in level to Shadow Magic power if
>>> it is to have the effects described - otherwise it is not going
>>> to be anymore effective than Blur.
>>
>>Except that Shadow Monsters is far more versatile wrt range, AoE and
>>type of creature created. Downgrading all those options is worth a 2
>>level reduction IMO.
Hey, HEY! Yer stealin' all my good material there, Mr. spell-level-
comparer... }:>
>>We just need to ignore what EGG *meant* in favor
>>of what he *wrote*. ;-)
>
> <laughter>
> To make sure that our heads are properly joined at the temple-
> you are presuming that what he wrote demands tactile
> constructs, which could be created of flimsy (1hp) Shadowstuff.
> I agree, that's a fine way to have the spell work _as written_. :)
It also silences the lunkheads with their "handful of pebbles" rationale
for why they should be able to poof-away all images with their "attacks".
And it has the side benefit of pissing off all those Grimlocks... }:>
"Hey, we're supposed to be immune to that spell!"
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like H.G. Wells - He thinks grimlocks *SUCK*!!!" }:>
Robert Baldwin
Brown) wrote:
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>>> Mirror Image should be raised in level to Shadow Magic power if
>>> it is to have the effects described - otherwise it is not going
>>> to be anymore effective than Blur.
>>
>>Except that Shadow Monsters is far more versatile wrt range, AoE and
>>type of creature created. Downgrading all those options is worth a 2
>>level reduction IMO. We just need to ignore what EGG *meant* in favor
>>of what he *wrote*. ;-)
>
> <laughter>
> To make sure that our heads are properly joined at the temple-
> you are presuming that what he wrote demands tactile
> constructs, which could be created of flimsy (1hp) Shadowstuff.
> I agree, that's a fine way to have the spell work _as written_. :)
Yup. And (fortunately) it seems that the level can be justified. No
change is needed in the spell, just the concept behind it.
(Which is what I've done since 1st ed. I've had animals, etc., fooled
by that spell.)
> Going by what Gary meant requires a completely different
> set of game mechanics... which, come to think of it, is usually
> the case (healing, acid and falling damage ... ugh!).
15 years of tax planning and governmnet budgeting has given me the
ability to completely seperate the issues of what is *written* and
what the author *meant*. ;-)
Michael Scott Brown
>> Agreed. I think we've found a much better arena for the spell;
>> All Out Attack: no penalty, attacker can find wizard in short order
>
>I might go so far as to require an INT check or save vs. spell (to reflect
>the superior skill of high-level characters at figuring out the spell's
>tricks) or some such each round to automatically obviate the MI effect
>and find the 'real wizard'. I don't know that I would want to go all
>the way to tossing out MI utility against 'regular melee', but I can
>certainly see toning it down significantly in a situation where multiple
>'swings' are going to take place surrounding the actual set of true
>"attacks".
We could amend to -1 attack (minimum still 1) from an All Out
attack sequence. The idea being, to attack the wizard more-or-
less normally, you have to sit there and poke around a bit ..
>You would also have to decide whether such "all out melee" obviation of
>MI defenses would also include *DESTROYING* the images.
No, they're just silly holograms with this version of the spell
and there's no need to have them disappear when hit - if they
did, the spell would be unraveled at the first all-out-attack.
A simple tweak to the spell creates (level) images, with one
fading out every round, thus providing weakening of the spell
over time (as we currently enjoy) in an intuitive way that
isn't keyed to some idiot sticking a sword through one.
>On the other hand, using MI would make it *VERY* hard for your spells to
>get disrupted, even when someone was within melee range, and that would
>be a pretty hefty benny all by itself. Hmm... decisions, decisions...
With perpetually ablating MI, it shouldn't be unbalancing -
the spell provides a short term 'strong' benefit (but defeated
easily enough by multiple attackers or area of effect attacks),
and dwindles quickly to a mere annoyance.
-Michael
Joseph Oberlander
> >does what he suggests, say, at 5th or 6th level. Improved Mirror Image.
> >
> >It actually CASTS fireballs(albeit illusionary ones) at the target.
> >They have to make saves versus all of them!(ouch)
>
> This would be completely brutal. 5th or 6th is probably too low.
> Maybe 8th, or 9th if your DM is already generous in allowances
> made to what illusions can do.
>
> But it would be pretty darn cool!
Note, it does not do SF-type partial damage, so it is a *little* lower.
The victims know only one is real, and the fakr "damage" would only knock
them out. :) 6th seems fair.
Now, a 8th or 9th level version would do pseudo-damage as well - ugly.
Imagine "chain-fireball" if you will.
Hell, how about THAT spell - imagine the carnage on that 9th level puppy!
Joseph Oberlander
> and there's no need to have them disappear when hit - if they
> did, the spell would be unraveled at the first all-out-attack.
> A simple tweak to the spell creates (level) images, with one
> fading out every round, thus providing weakening of the spell
> over time (as we currently enjoy) in an intuitive way that
> isn't keyed to some idiot sticking a sword through one.
>
Make it work like this, but also make the spell act like AC - that is,
assume that the mage *will* get hit in that round of attacks, but there
is an AC penalty for every image.
eg: 5 images up - one drops each round. Each image gives the mage
+1 to AC for as long as it lasts. Therefore, AC would be 5,6,7,8,9,10
on the next six rounds. This seems logical and quite balanced, to me.
Michael Scott Brown
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> A simple tweak to the spell creates (level) images, with one
>> fading out every round, thus providing weakening of the spell
>> over time (as we currently enjoy) in an intuitive way that
>> isn't keyed to some idiot sticking a sword through one.
>>
>I thought of something to further balamce this.
>
>Make it work like this, but also make the spell act like AC - that is,
>assume that the mage *will* get hit in that round of attacks, but there
>is an AC penalty for every image.
>
>eg: 5 images up - one drops each round. Each image gives the mage
>+1 to AC for as long as it lasts. Therefore, AC would be 5,6,7,8,9,10
>on the next six rounds. This seems logical and quite balanced, to me.
And therefore, as is always the case when you speak, it isn't.
The modified spell already provides enormous tactical benefit by
redirecting 'single' attacks completely - throwing in a general AC
bonus as *well* is waaaay too much icing on that cake.
-Michael
Jason Eric Nelson
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>> >This, btw, would be the reason to make a version of the spell that
>> >does what he suggests, say, at 5th or 6th level. Improved Mirror Image.
>> >
>> >It actually CASTS fireballs(albeit illusionary ones) at the target.
>> >They have to make saves versus all of them!(ouch)
>>
>> This would be completely brutal. 5th or 6th is probably too low.
>> Maybe 8th, or 9th if your DM is already generous in allowances
>> made to what illusions can do.
>>
>> But it would be pretty darn cool!
>
>Note, it does not do SF-type partial damage, so it is a *little* lower.
I assume you mean only Shadow magic-type partial damage, since SF is
purely illusionary and cannot inflict real damage.
>The victims know only one is real, and the fakr "damage" would only knock
>them out. :) 6th seems fair.
But consider the spread of effects possible--2-8 duplicates of *every*
attack (or even defense) spell with a sensory signature. You could
be casting a half-dozen Walls of Fire, Ice, Stone, Ice, etc.
>Now, a 8th or 9th level version would do pseudo-damage as well - ugly.
>Imagine "chain-fireball" if you will.
Don't be a piker! Why not chain-chain lightning? Or chain-meteor swarm?
>Hell, how about THAT spell - imagine the carnage on that 9th level puppy!
Even if the damage isn't *REAL*, you could incapacitate an entire army
with impunity with this sort of illusory multi-casting (which would
require a monstrously large AoE to realize its full potential).
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Tide - He gets out stains others leave behind"
Jason Eric Nelson
>>> Agreed. I think we've found a much better arena for the spell;
>>> All Out Attack: no penalty, attacker can find wizard in short order
>>
>>I might go so far as to require an INT check or save vs. spell (to reflect
>>the superior skill of high-level characters at figuring out the spell's
>>tricks) or some such each round to automatically obviate the MI effect
>>and find the 'real wizard'. I don't know that I would want to go all
>>the way to tossing out MI utility against 'regular melee', but I can
>>certainly see toning it down significantly in a situation where multiple
>>'swings' are going to take place surrounding the actual set of true
>>"attacks".
>
> We could amend to -1 attack (minimum still 1) from an All Out
> attack sequence. The idea being, to attack the wizard more-or-
> less normally, you have to sit there and poke around a bit ..
Which could be rolled into the standard 'poof' of an image per round,
if you use the "one image goes away each round".
This concept provides an interesting mix of low-level vs. high-level
effectiveness; given your concept, MI is in some ways better against
high-level foes than low-levels (given the 'minimum of 1' caveat),
who have no multiple melee attacks to lose. Also, what about those
C/C/B monsters? All attacks on one? How about unintelligent/semi-
intelligent predators (or just dangerous critters)--do they also
automatically see through the MI (arguments on both sides: acute
senses can penetrate single-function illusion vs. low INT allows
easier confusion/distraction by strange sensory effect)?
I think I would like to see some vestige of confusing low-level
creatures' melee attacks retained within the spell, whether by
allowing a progressive chance to see through the illusion (most
likely by an INT/WIS-modified save or check of some sort) or by
allowing a chance for melee attack wastage (though a much lower
chance than would be the case with single attacks (missile/spell/
Att of Opp)). I might even give a bonus to the save/check if a
PC has the Blind-Fighting skill or has the rogue Detect Noise
skill (or the Observation NWP or a similar skill that allows
a PC to pick up subtle clues).
>>You would also have to decide whether such "all out melee" obviation of
>>MI defenses would also include *DESTROYING* the images.
>
> No, they're just silly holograms with this version of the spell
> and there's no need to have them disappear when hit - if they
> did, the spell would be unraveled at the first all-out-attack.
This is more the direction I'm thinking about with this--they are purely
illusory and do not react in and of themselves to being hit any more
than any other illusion would (without someone directly *controlling* it
and causing it to react that way). This puts it more rationally into
the realm of standard illusion magic rather than having it be a unique
exclusion that poofs when touched, which seems to qualitatively classify
it more as a shadow magic-type effect, which could be replicated by
1 hit point full-spectrum quasi-real dupes that go poof when you
hit them--but do area-effect attacks hurt them? If you give them
"hit points" then you are saying they can be "killed", so Fireball/
Ice Storm/whatever would be good ways to wipe out "Shadow Duplicates",
unless you work in some sort of specific exclusion vs. area-effect
magical attacks. The plot thickens...
A simple-illusion MI fits logically much better with Gary's "just visual"
concept for the spell--they are simply holograms and if you end up aiming
at one of them by mistake your arrow/spell just zips through them without
effect (Drat! Missed the bugger again!). If you wade into melee,
you may be physically walking/fencing/etc. *through* the images,
which are completely nonsolid and don't 'care' whether they intersect
with other creatures and the space they occupy. How much would it
distract you from your true target, though, and how readily could
you *find* your true target through the mess of images? That seems
to be the nut of the argument--how easily it should be *at close
range* to sift out the wheat from the chaff. I would think that
the ranged attack/AoO being a single-shot with a good chance to
get diverted would be a pretty obvious point, but the close-in
combat resolution vs. MI is a much fuzzier issue.
> A simple tweak to the spell creates (level) images, with one
> fading out every round, thus providing weakening of the spell
> over time (as we currently enjoy) in an intuitive way that
> isn't keyed to some idiot sticking a sword through one.
I had a mage research a higher-level version of MI that created 1 image
per level and allowed an unmodified save vs. Breath Weapon to avoid image
disruption; I don't think I ever actually got to *use* the spell, though...
>>On the other hand, using MI would make it *VERY* hard for your spells to
>>get disrupted, even when someone was within melee range, and that would
>>be a pretty hefty benny all by itself. Hmm... decisions, decisions...
>
> With perpetually ablating MI, it shouldn't be unbalancing -
> the spell provides a short term 'strong' benefit (but defeated
> easily enough by multiple attackers or area of effect attacks),
> and dwindles quickly to a mere annoyance.
Still thinking, still tweaking... I may even introduce two parallel
versions of MI IMC--one a visual-only illusion with images that can
be disbelieved (or ignored by blind-fighting) but which do *not*
get poofed by hits, and the other a full-spectrum 1 hp quasi-real
shadow-duplicate spell that *does* get poofed by hits. We'll see
how it goes...
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
Michael Scott Brown
>This concept provides an interesting mix of low-level vs. high-level
>effectiveness; given your concept, MI is in some ways better against
>high-level foes than low-levels (given the 'minimum of 1' caveat),
>who have no multiple melee attacks to lose. Also, what about those
>C/C/B monsters? All attacks on one?
Such critters are all-out-attacking in order to get this
attack sequence, so they'll unearth the wizard and maul him,
mostly.
> How about unintelligent/semi-
>intelligent predators (or just dangerous critters)--do they also
>automatically see through the MI (arguments on both sides: acute
>senses can penetrate single-function illusion vs. low INT allows
>easier confusion/distraction by strange sensory effect)?
If something is relying strongly on a sense to which MI
doesn't register, it probably won't go for them. Rule of
thumb- can the critter distinguish between a critter and
it's reflection in a mirror? (trivia- a cuttlefish cannot,
and will attack it's own reflection).
>Att of Opp)). I might even give a bonus to the save/check if a
>PC has the Blind-Fighting skill or has the rogue Detect Noise
>skill (or the Observation NWP or a similar skill that allows
>a PC to pick up subtle clues).
Fair enough. Notice that blindfighting skill simply
changes the spell's benefit to a flat AC bonus, there's
no balance problem there. Detect noise might be iffy;
it's a sit-and-listen type of skill and I don't know if
combat is the right arena for its use.
>effect (Drat! Missed the bugger again!). If you wade into melee,
>you may be physically walking/fencing/etc. *through* the images,
>which are completely nonsolid and don't 'care' whether they intersect
>with other creatures and the space they occupy. How much would it
>distract you from your true target, though, and how readily could
>you *find* your true target through the mess of images? That seems
>to be the nut of the argument--how easily it should be *at close
>range* to sift out the wheat from the chaff.
Easy. Just sweep your weapon through them! You can cover the
entire area of effect in one or two big swings.
>Still thinking, still tweaking... I may even introduce two parallel
>versions of MI IMC--one a visual-only illusion with images that can
>be disbelieved (or ignored by blind-fighting) but which do *not*
>get poofed by hits, and the other a full-spectrum 1 hp quasi-real
>shadow-duplicate spell that *does* get poofed by hits. We'll see
>how it goes...
>
Good luck.
-Michael
Joseph Oberlander
>
> >Hell, how about THAT spell - imagine the carnage on that 9th level puppy!
>
> Even if the damage isn't *REAL*, you could incapacitate an entire army
> with impunity with this sort of illusory multi-casting (which would
> require a monstrously large AoE to realize its full potential).
I was talking about the "chain fireball" spell.
<Darth Vader voice>
"Impressive."
</Voice>
:)
Joseph Oberlander
> The modified spell already provides enormous tactical benefit by
> redirecting 'single' attacks completely - throwing in a general AC
> bonus as *well* is waaaay too much icing on that cake.
Notice I said assume that the mage *will* get hit - the images would
NOT be albative to attacks at all. NO redirecting at all. Just
make it harder/more confusing to hit, instead.
Only logical considering that the images can be brought down in the
current version by a single strike, yet a combat round is a minute
of dozens of smaller such strikes(as pointed out previously)
Jason Eric Nelson
Michael Scott Brown <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Jason Eric Nelson <tja...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>This concept provides an interesting mix of low-level vs. high-level
>>effectiveness; given your concept, MI is in some ways better against
>>high-level foes than low-levels (given the 'minimum of 1' caveat),
>>who have no multiple melee attacks to lose. Also, what about those
>>C/C/B monsters? All attacks on one?
>
That's pretty much my assumption as well, but...
> attack sequence, so they'll unearth the wizard and maul him,
> mostly.
... would they lose an "attack" in the process of mauling their way
through the visual clutter to get to the soft juicy bits?
>> How about unintelligent/semi-
>>intelligent predators (or just dangerous critters)--do they also
>>automatically see through the MI (arguments on both sides: acute
>>senses can penetrate single-function illusion vs. low INT allows
>>easier confusion/distraction by strange sensory effect)?
>
> If something is relying strongly on a sense to which MI
> doesn't register, it probably won't go for them.
If going with the visual-only mode for MI, a fairly large number
of predators are pretty vision-oriented, though not as much as
humans in most cases--though I don't claim to be Marlin Perkins
or anything... }:>
> Rule of
> thumb- can the critter distinguish between a critter and
> it's reflection in a mirror? (trivia- a cuttlefish cannot,
> and will attack it's own reflection).
Cute. When my dog was a puppy he would bark at his own reflection,
so it's not such a farfetched concept.
>>Att of Opp)). I might even give a bonus to the save/check if a
>>PC has the Blind-Fighting skill or has the rogue Detect Noise
>>skill (or the Observation NWP or a similar skill that allows
>>a PC to pick up subtle clues).
>
> Fair enough. Notice that blindfighting skill simply
> changes the spell's benefit to a flat AC bonus, there's
> no balance problem there. Detect noise might be iffy;
> it's a sit-and-listen type of skill and I don't know if
> combat is the right arena for its use.
I tend to be pretty lenient in adjudicating use of thief abilities;
thieves get aced out in so many other arenas, you may as well "throw
'em a frickin' bone", as Dr. Evil would say! I do enforce time
requirements for FRT and OL and the rest, though I allow attempts
to HinS and MS even while moving (at progressive penalties based
on how fast you're moving)--something to spend those discretionary
points on over 95...
>>effect (Drat! Missed the bugger again!). If you wade into melee,
>>you may be physically walking/fencing/etc. *through* the images,
>>which are completely nonsolid and don't 'care' whether they intersect
>>with other creatures and the space they occupy. How much would it
>>distract you from your true target, though, and how readily could
>>you *find* your true target through the mess of images? That seems
>>to be the nut of the argument--how easily it should be *at close
>>range* to sift out the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Easy. Just sweep your weapon through them! You can cover the
> entire area of effect in one or two big swings.
I dunno... The AoE is a circle 12' across, with 3-9 dupes of the caster
(only one of which is real). That seems like a lot of territory to cover
in a round (setting aside the minute round issue), unless that is your
sole focus, which would seem to result in more of a flurry of wild
reaches and swings rather than a set of directed attacks, which might
well injure the caster by *accident* in the process.
>>Still thinking, still tweaking... I may even introduce two parallel
>>versions of MI IMC--one a visual-only illusion with images that can
>>be disbelieved (or ignored by blind-fighting) but which do *not*
>>get poofed by hits, and the other a full-spectrum 1 hp quasi-real
>>shadow-duplicate spell that *does* get poofed by hits. We'll see
>>how it goes...
>>
> Good luck.
I may need it; perhaps I will simply bring up the issue in a player
meta-discussion. Then again, the party is in the process of trying
to thwart the resurrection of the long-dead empire of Netheril, so
perhaps this division of MI effects was a well-known bit of magical
hair-splitting back in the age of magical mastery that characterized
Netheril, and the "current version" of MR is sort of a debased bastard
child of the two spells that is all that survived down to the current
generations. The PCs have already encountered several NPCs with
significant knowledge of Netherese magic; this could be just one
more "revelation of ancient secrets." What is old is new again...
Michael Scott Brown
>... would they lose an "attack" in the process of mauling their way
>through the visual clutter to get to the soft juicy bits?
The rules can support either answer; since each attack by
the animal *is* "a mauling" then their minimum-one-attack
is an attack routine, by one set of logic; alternatively,
we model their reduced effectiveness by perhaps stripping
the bite, since it's been reduced to 'finding' the wizard
with its limbs ... I say keep it simple and leave animals be.
>> Fair enough. Notice that blindfighting skill simply
>> changes the spell's benefit to a flat AC bonus, there's
>> no balance problem there. Detect noise might be iffy;
>> it's a sit-and-listen type of skill and I don't know if
>> combat is the right arena for its use.
>
>I tend to be pretty lenient in adjudicating use of thief abilities;
>thieves get aced out in so many other arenas, you may as well "throw
>'em a frickin' bone", as Dr. Evil would say!
Fair enough. :)
>> Easy. Just sweep your weapon through them! You can cover the
>> entire area of effect in one or two big swings.
>
>I dunno... The AoE is a circle 12' across, with 3-9 dupes of the caster
>(only one of which is real). That seems like a lot of territory to cover
It's easier than you might think. Think about how much ground
a waltzer covers in even one iteration of the dance step.
Contemplate the reach of a man with a sword (6 feet or so!)-
he just whirls through the AOE with a big step-and-turning
sweep; he either gets the wizard on the first cut (define as
hits, or _forces to dodge_ - the hologram won't) or he _knows_
he's going to find the guy on the second stroke.
Of course, if you didn't have a sword, this could become a bear.
Hmm. Hell, just run through the things- how long would it take
to traverse a 12' circle? Circumference is about the same as
normal human move in 3E; that's
a whole round. Those without swords or other long implements
might only get one attack in even when all-out-attacking.
Perhaps # of attacks should depend on weapon/creature size?
1/size class. If you have a polearm, it's trivial to search
the AOE with a single sweep and then hack at the thwack;
if you have a dagger, you've got some work to do.
This would get around the "subtract one attack minimum one"
issue; instead, we simply clip the practical ceiling.
-Michael
Joe Jefferson
>
> >I dunno... The AoE is a circle 12' across, with 3-9 dupes of the caster
> >(only one of which is real). That seems like a lot of territory to cover
>
> It's easier than you might think. Think about how much ground
> a waltzer covers in even one iteration of the dance step.
> Contemplate the reach of a man with a sword (6 feet or so!)-
> he just whirls through the AOE with a big step-and-turning
> sweep; he either gets the wizard on the first cut (define as
> hits, or _forces to dodge_ - the hologram won't) or he _knows_
> he's going to find the guy on the second stroke.
All the while of course he has to make sure that _none_ of the images
get close enough to touch him, because he doesn't know which one has the
ability to deliver spells that way.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Jason Eric Nelson
>>[on animal attackers]
>>... would they lose an "attack" in the process of mauling their way
>>through the visual clutter to get to the soft juicy bits?
>
> The rules can support either answer; since each attack by
> the animal *is* "a mauling" then their minimum-one-attack
> is an attack routine, by one set of logic; alternatively,
> we model their reduced effectiveness by perhaps stripping
> the bite, since it's been reduced to 'finding' the wizard
> with its limbs ... I say keep it simple and leave animals be.
If you switch modes and instead go with a (enter 3rd Ed. mode)
Listen/Spot check of some sort to pick out which one is the *real*
caster, animals could get an auto-check against such skills to
model their ability to ignore the clutter and pick out the real
target.
Alternatively, you could say the spell scares the cr*p out
of them and forces an immediate morale check to prevent them
from heading for the hills! That solves the 'pest control' issue...
>>> Easy. Just sweep your weapon through them! You can cover the
>>> entire area of effect in one or two big swings.
>>
>>I dunno... The AoE is a circle 12' across, with 3-9 dupes of the caster
>>(only one of which is real). That seems like a lot of territory to cover
>
> It's easier than you might think. Think about how much ground
> a waltzer covers in even one iteration of the dance step.
Oy! I haven't waltzed since high school in German Club...
> Contemplate the reach of a man with a sword (6 feet or so!)-
> he just whirls through the AOE with a big step-and-turning
> sweep; he either gets the wizard on the first cut (define as
> hits, or _forces to dodge_ - the hologram won't) or he _knows_
> he's going to find the guy on the second stroke.
The obligatory question here would be whether a warrior doing this
kind of fully-extended cha-cha in the midst of melee might open him-
or herself up for somebody else's Att of Opp (paying too much
attention to sweeping and not enough to [abstracted defensive
maneuvers]).
> Of course, if you didn't have a sword, this could become a bear.
> Hmm. Hell, just run through the things- how long would it take
> to traverse a 12' circle? Circumference is about the same as
> normal human move in 3E; that's
> a whole round. Those without swords or other long implements
> might only get one attack in even when all-out-attacking.
I don't doubt that you could get around the AoE in a single round. The
question comes about whether you could get anything done very
effectively within that round, and how much (if any) your attack
efficacy would be decremented by you 'wasting' part of the round
poking around at nothing before finally drawing blood.
> Perhaps # of attacks should depend on weapon/creature size?
> 1/size class. If you have a polearm, it's trivial to search
> the AOE with a single sweep and then hack at the thwack;
> if you have a dagger, you've got some work to do.
There is a definite elegance to this, in that it gets rid of the
'conceptual burp' (to use a Mikey-ism) of a 100' long dragon with a
claw the size of a Cadillac swiping through a 12' diameter AoE and
only hitting *ONE* image. If it's big enough to 'sweep' the AoE,
it doesn't matter how many images of you there are; *YOU* are gonna
get bonked.
On the other hand, a kobold swarm attack is going to have trouble
assigning targets for their overbearing attacks or massed dart barrages.
They can 'stampede' the AoE and find you, but they'll need a couple of
dozen to do the job right (i.e., making sure they *will* get at least
a couple of them on *you* to bring you down).
IOW, you could assign the 'allowed attacks' based on attacker size,
whether that was a weapon (size S dagger, M mace, L halberd) or a
creature (T rat, S kobold, etc.). Each "attack" that you get is
multiplied by your [attack size constant]; if that equals or
exceeds the number of images, you *WILL* hit the mage. If it is
less, you have an N in [number of images] chance to hit the mage.
You could even extend this to mean that all integer results equal
attacks on the mage, with 'partial' results indicating a chance of
hitting the mage.
F'rex:
Mike the Mage casts MI and gets 5 images. There are now 6 targets.
Fred the Fighter is attacking with a longsword (size M = 2) and
gets 2 attacks per round. The product of attacks X size = 4, so
he has a 4 in 6 chance of attacking Mike each time he makes a round
of all-out attacks on the image field.
If Mailman Mark the Mage casts Enlarge on Fred and makes him size L,
his new larger 'sweep area' created by his larger size (and concurrent
larger weapon size) bumps him up to size factor of 3 (x 2 att/rd) = 6,
meaning he *WILL* be able to get one effective attack on Mike the Mage
every round by sweeping the image field.
Hmmmm....
Requires more thought. To make this work, the size bumps might
be better if they were a bigger (e.g., S = 1, M = 3, L = 5). The net
effect of this kind of model, though, would be kind of an 'averaging'
vis-a-vis the spell as it currently stands; rather than an "all or
nothing" (attacks go to you or they don't), this model posits that
X-and-such proportion of attacks *WILL* get to you (as creatures
muck around in the not-too-large AoE and find you, just by crashing
into you or walking through your images if need be), but they'll
get a lot fewer effectual swings.
Even if we assume the larger size numbers (1/3/5 instead of 1/2/3),
Mike's MI spell is *still* going to cut Fred's overall killpower
in half, plus negating (or at least having a good chance of negating)
attacks of opportunity and screwing with ranged attacks. Even if
Fred cheats and gets enlarged, he's still at a slight attack
degredation (1 good attack, 1 attack with a 4 in 6 chance to find
the true mark).
By the same token, individual wolves may well find themselves
leaping at images, while a kodiak bear is going to be much more likely
to crash right through the images and pound the duped mage. A purple
worm will just ignore the whole thing...
This sort of idea has potential, but I hear the siren song of minimalism
calling to me, and I don't know if it would be worth the effort. It is
interesting to think about, though.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
Michael Scott Brown
>> It's easier than you might think. Think about how much ground
>> a waltzer covers in even one iteration of the dance step.
>> he just whirls through the AOE with a big step-and-turning
>> sweep; he either gets the wizard on the first cut (define as
>> hits, or _forces to dodge_ - the hologram won't) or he _knows_
>> he's going to find the guy on the second stroke.
>
>get close enough to touch him, because he doesn't know which one has the
>ability to deliver spells that way.
In this dance, the sword leads. Not a problem.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>> It's easier than you might think. Think about how much ground
>> a waltzer covers in even one iteration of the dance step.
>
>Oy! I haven't waltzed since high school in German Club...
I didn't say *do* it! But if you feel the urge, go crazy.
Remember to move the furniture out of the way.
>> Contemplate the reach of a man with a sword (6 feet or so!)-
>> he just whirls through the AOE with a big step-and-turning
>> sweep; he either gets the wizard on the first cut (define as
>> hits, or _forces to dodge_ - the hologram won't) or he _knows_
>> he's going to find the guy on the second stroke.
>
>The obligatory question here would be whether a warrior doing this
>kind of fully-extended cha-cha in the midst of melee might open him-
>or herself up for somebody else's Att of Opp (paying too much
>attention to sweeping and not enough to [abstracted defensive
>maneuvers]).
I think it's safe to assume that they'll go about as if
fighting several attackers at once; he won't expose himself.
>> 1/size class. If you have a polearm, it's trivial to search
>> the AOE with a single sweep and then hack at the thwack;
>> if you have a dagger, you've got some work to do.
>
>There is a definite elegance to this, in that it gets rid of the
>'conceptual burp' (to use a Mikey-ism) of a 100' long dragon with a
>claw the size of a Cadillac swiping through a 12' diameter AoE and
>only hitting *ONE* image. If it's big enough to 'sweep' the AoE,
>it doesn't matter how many images of you there are; *YOU* are gonna
>get bonked.
Yup. Elegance is good. I'm leaning towards this approach;
for an *all out* attacker, your ability to pound the wizard
depends on the quality of your 'antenna'- if you've got reach,
you can easily target your whole attack routine, if you
don't, then you're going to piss away your six seconds
hunting him down and lose potential extra attacks.
>On the other hand, a kobold swarm attack is going to have trouble
>assigning targets for their overbearing attacks or massed dart barrages.
The dart barrage would suffer the usual misdirection
(1/images) darts is on target.
A swarming overbear ... *one* of the kobolds is going to get
onto the wizard if they charge en masse; the rest can redirect
easily enough once the "yip" of triumph is barked.
Given that we already (for simplicity) postulate that each actor
can search the AOE swiftly enough to make one attack (minimum),
group attacks really don't change anyway.
>IOW, you could assign the 'allowed attacks' based on attacker size,
>whether that was a weapon (size S dagger, M mace, L halberd) or a
>creature (T rat, S kobold, etc.). Each "attack" that you get is
>multiplied by your [attack size constant]; if that equals or
>exceeds the number of images, you *WILL* hit the mage.
Commendable model! -but crippling complexity -> veto.
tussock
OK. As it stands closing eyes gives -4 to hit. 4 worse AC. No dex bonus.
Blindfighting IIRC makes it -2 to hit.
But the fighter is still 4 worse AC, no dex. Hmm... that may be a house
rule? Anyhoo, I also drop any shield bonus to AC (and I use shield prof. so
that's a big loss). And the fighter loses any AoO (real important when facing
a mage in 3e it would seem).
So facing a "blind" fighter, mages can run away, thieves can try another
backstab, fighters can hit alot easier and maybee start calling shots...
Care should be taking making blindness harder to function with (even
though it is realistic). I had major problems with invisible fighters in
GURPS, where blind is -10 to hit, after a hearing roll at -4. Worsening
attack penalties vastly empowers "invisable" PCs.
--
tussock
It's bleedin' seabird flavoured, isn't it?
Jason Eric Nelson
Michael Scott Brown <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Jason Eric Nelson <tja...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> for an *all out* attacker, your ability to pound the wizard
> depends on the quality of your 'antenna'- if you've got reach,
> you can easily target your whole attack routine, if you
> don't, then you're going to piss away your six seconds
> hunting him down and lose potential extra attacks.
>
>>assigning targets for their overbearing attacks or massed dart barrages.
>
> (1/images) darts is on target.
>
> A swarming overbear ... *one* of the kobolds is going to get
> onto the wizard if they charge en masse; the rest can redirect
> easily enough once the "yip" of triumph is barked.
It would be simple enough to rule some attrition of total swarm
effectiveness for some people who charge themselves out of the
fight, at least on the first round (which allowing reamification
on the second and subsequent rounds as everyone kobold-piles on the
one guy who's managed to sink his teeth into something warm and
fuzzy).
> Given that we already (for simplicity) postulate that each actor
> can search the AOE swiftly enough to make one attack (minimum),
> group attacks really don't change anyway.
I can see some initial attack degredation, but sustained attacks
will do in the target.
One thing about my enhanced MI version that I researched was that it
specifically stipulated that not merely did the images *shift* each
round, but the wizard actually did a micro-range Blink/Teleport
exchange of positions with one of the images every round. This
could be a handy improvement in cases where people get close in,
because even though they find you one round, you literally are not
there anymore (and an image is instead) each round, requiring a
new 'introductory close-to-attack phase' for every round of
combat. The AoE was also a lot bigger (15' r.) and you got
1 image/level.
>>IOW, you could assign the 'allowed attacks' based on attacker size,
>>whether that was a weapon (size S dagger, M mace, L halberd) or a
>>creature (T rat, S kobold, etc.). Each "attack" that you get is
>>multiplied by your [attack size constant]; if that equals or
>>exceeds the number of images, you *WILL* hit the mage.
>
> Commendable model! -but crippling complexity -> veto.
Pretty much my feeling. I just don't want to have to think that
much in the midst of running combat. This is one of the reasons
why I still like tables rather than formulas for some things--
simple cross-reference rather than having to work the numbers
for each effect. My liking for tables is directly proportional,
though to the complexity of the formula involved; something as
simple as THAC0 I don't worry too much about. My alternate
undead-turning system, OTOH, well let's just say I like to
have the tables there... }:>
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
The Wraith
wrote:
>
>OK. As it stands closing eyes gives -4 to hit. 4 worse AC. No dex bonus.
>Blindfighting IIRC makes it -2 to hit.
> But the fighter is still 4 worse AC, no dex. Hmm... that may be a house
>rule?
No, it's not a house rule, but that AC penalty is negated by
blind-fighting proficiency.
This is another problem with the standard (lack of) visibility
penalties. While a vision-impaired character takes penalties to hit,
his equally vision-impaired enemy gets the same penalties to AC, so
the penalties cancel out. This means characters fight just as
efficiently in complete darkness, which we know isn't really the case.
Characters in complete darkness fight badly, and will generally take
longer to kill each other off.
My solution in general is to double the standard penalties to hit,
while keeping the AC penalties the same. This means that, in complete
darkness, the attacker gets -8 to hit, the defender gets -4 penalty to
AC, and the net result is a -4 to hit. However, a blind attacker
fighting someone with no vision impairment will have -8 to hit and -4
to AC, putting such a person at a severe disadvantage.
The morale of the story: Carry a light source.
I tend to allow blind-fighting to halve all those penalties, so a
blind-fighter fighting in complete darkness against a
non-blind-fighting opponent would have -4 to hit and -2 to AC, while
his opponent would have -8 to hit and -4 to AC, so the blind-fighter
is at no penalty to hit and has effectively +6 to AC (but remember,
that AC bonus is only two points better than the effective +4 to AC he
would have without blind-fighting).
> Care should be taking making blindness harder to function with (even
>though it is realistic). I had major problems with invisible fighters in
>GURPS, where blind is -10 to hit, after a hearing roll at -4. Worsening
>attack penalties vastly empowers "invisable" PCs.
Not really. Standard AD&D invisibility goes away as soon as an
offensive action is taken, and prior to taking that offensive action,
the character just avoids getting into dangerous situations, something
that is not at all difficult when invisible because nobody even knows
you are there to be attacked. Really, increasing penalties has fairly
little effect on standard AD&D invisibility.
Now, it would have greater effects on Improved Invisibility and
equivalents - but then, it should. Fighting someone who cannot be seen
at all should be damn hard.
Worsening attack penalties really has its greatest effect, in AD&D, on
combat in darkness.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
al...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>>The rules can support either answer; since each attack by
>>the animal *is* "a mauling" then their minimum-one-attack
>>is an attack routine, by one set of logic; alternatively,
>>we model their reduced effectiveness by perhaps stripping
>>the bite, since it's been reduced to 'finding' the wizard
>>with its limbs ... I say keep it simple and leave animals be.
Having once read that dogs are little interested in their reflections in
mirrors - due to their lack of scent - I carry this interesting (if
questionable) assertion into the game, and give scent-based animals
resistance to illusions lacking that component.
It'll certainly surprise the player who casts Mirror Image to avoid being
mobbed by wolves, anyway.
Any, if you don't scorn 1st edition resources, this thinking can also be
seen in the DMG1 description of the "Ring of Chameleon Power". Animals
(and I forget exactly how this was limited) are less subject to its
effects.
I like it this way, myself: the weakest creatures (animals) get a slight
edge against some magic.
Michael Scott Brown
>It would be simple enough to rule some attrition of total swarm
>effectiveness for some people who charge themselves out of the
>fight, at least on the first round (which allowing reamification
>on the second and subsequent rounds as everyone kobold-piles on the
>one guy who's managed to sink his teeth into something warm and
>fuzzy).
Perhaps a flat 1/3 of any massed overbear will be too out
of position to sack the real target that round.
>One thing about my enhanced MI version that I researched was that it
>specifically stipulated that not merely did the images *shift* each
>round, but the wizard actually did a micro-range Blink/Teleport
>exchange of positions with one of the images every round.
Ooh, that's just mean..but fair enough; people can still
search and attack each round, it just slows down the
rate of pain. Good spell. 5th? level?
>simple as THAC0 I don't worry too much about. My alternate
>undead-turning system, OTOH, well let's just say I like to
>have the tables there... }:>
<laugh> Saving throws, man. Just make the damnned make
saving throws. :)
(btw- thanks for stimulating discussion!)
-Michael
Jason Eric Nelson
>[kobold swarms]
>>It would be simple enough to rule some attrition of total swarm
>>effectiveness for some people who charge themselves out of the
>>fight, at least on the first round (which allowing reamification
>>on the second and subsequent rounds as everyone kobold-piles on the
>>one guy who's managed to sink his teeth into something warm and
>>fuzzy).
>
> Perhaps a flat 1/3 of any massed overbear will be too out
> of position to sack the real target that round.
>
>>One thing about my enhanced MI version that I researched was that it
>>specifically stipulated that not merely did the images *shift* each
>>round, but the wizard actually did a micro-range Blink/Teleport
>>exchange of positions with one of the images every round.
>
> Ooh, that's just mean..but fair enough; people can still
> search and attack each round, it just slows down the
> rate of pain. Good spell. 5th? level?
It was 6th, which is maybe a little too high, but at the time I made
it I had not realized that MI allowed the "blurring" effect each round
preventing round-to-round tracking of the wizard. Back in the olden
days, the gamers I ran with pretty much let you find the wizard whenever
you found him and then you could ignore the rest of the images once
you did. Hits would still pop the images, but once you had managed
to score a 'hit' on the real wizard, you were in the clear.
So this feature was intended as a countermeasure to being "found" as the
*real* wizard, because your position would be swapped with an image at
the end of each round. Once I re-read the spell (or had that feature
pointed out by a different gamer), I realized that this was really
an unnecessary work-around, which perhaps puts the spell a level
too high.
Also to be taken into consideration was that this spell was developed
in a 1st Ed. context, in which the best you could get was 5 images
with a spell (roll percentile dice, add level, divide by 25 to get
number of images), so getting 1 image per level was a HUGE improvement
in number of images gained (on average, a 12th level caster would get
*FOUR TIMES* as many images with Alpha's Images of Ikonn (12) as he would
with a 1st Ed. Mirror Image (3), and the spread just kept going up).
Compared to the 2nd Ed. Mirror Image (2d4 IIRC, so an average of 5), it
is still better, but the margin is less.
It *does* have the awesome feature of allowing a save vs. BW to avoid
image disruption on a hit, and it makes it explicit that the spell
affects a 15' r. but that the area is not necessarily centered on the
wizard at all times (i.e., the caster could be anywhere within the circle,
so could be almost 30' away from the most distant image on any given
round). I think at some point during spell development I had wanted
to include a feature that allowed the caster to concentrate and cause
*one* of the images to move independently of the others, but that
eventually was dropped.
I never really developed the potential of the spell as a short-range
teleport/blink/transport spell (to bounce across a chasm or through a
wall or door); it is implicit that the switch-with-image teleport is
*random*, but never specifically spelled out. It would be much more
powerful if you could choose which image you switch with.
So, if I was making it today I would probably make it be 5th, but 6th
is not too outlandish.
>>simple as THAC0 I don't worry too much about. My alternate
>>undead-turning system, OTOH, well let's just say I like to
>>have the tables there... }:>
>
> <laugh> Saving throws, man. Just make the damnned make
> saving throws. :)
That's the idea... }:>
> (btw- thanks for stimulating discussion!)
No problemo. I will probably not be around the newsgroup for a
few weeks--haven't done my taxes yet (and lots of homework this
quarter, plus keeping up with my regular weekly game, etc. etc.).
Real life beckons... }:>