PDA

View Full Version : Seeking weapon vs Mirror Image



ffone
2011-01-14, 09:12 PM
A Seeking weapon bypasses miss chances (quoted below.) The Mirror Image spell isn't a miss chance per se. So it might not help vs Mirror Images by RAW.

But as a roundabout tactic, could a character with a seeking bow simply close their eyes and then fire at the square they identified the target as in when their eyes were open? (Mirror Image states "An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)")


"Seeking
Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)"

AslanCross
2011-01-14, 09:23 PM
Mirror Image is one of the spells that I often found hardest to adjudicate, because I find the "roll randomly to determine if the image hit was a figment or the real target" clause superfluous if the attacker is attacking at the wrong square to begin with (because you can spread the images out). I would only use the "roll to see which one you hit" only works if you had say, three mirror images of yourself in one square with a few others spread out.

In this case, I'd rule that since the images can be separated from the actual target's square, the method you mentioned would only work if the archer was aiming at the correct square in the first place. I think it's a pretty cool tactic that has its roots in some lore (trusting one's heart or instinct more than trusting one's eyes), so it's not stupid or crazy.

woodenbandman
2011-01-14, 09:37 PM
well if you quoted everything correctly then yes, it does work that way. if you know what square he's in, you will probably be able to hit him.

ericgrau
2011-01-14, 10:25 PM
To add more confusion to the fire:
"(The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)"

I think by RAW it might work. But by common sense I'd say no. Especially since you can't use hearing to distinguish the images from the person either. The easier way to handle mirror image with a bow is to rapid shot full attack away all his images.

ffone
2011-01-15, 05:11 AM
Mirror Image is one of the spells that I often found hardest to adjudicate, because I find the "roll randomly to determine if the image hit was a figment or the real target" clause superfluous if the attacker is attacking at the wrong square to begin with (because you can spread the images out). I would only use the "roll to see which one you hit" only works if you had say, three mirror images of yourself in one square with a few others spread out.

In this case, I'd rule that since the images can be separated from the actual target's square, the method you mentioned would only work if the archer was aiming at the correct square in the first place. I think it's a pretty cool tactic that has its roots in some lore (trusting one's heart or instinct more than trusting one's eyes), so it's not stupid or crazy.

I do like the thematics of it, in a way - in some ways it's absurd that closing your eyes helps (which seems to be the result of RAW here), but it's kinda cute.

I don't know if a character can spread out their mirror images across multiple squares. It's a weird spell b/c it's hard to imagine 8 mirror images all sharing the same square as the guy and yet not overlapping in a way that lets you take out several with an attack, but RAW they are probably all in the square Otherwise the spell description would need a lot of information about reach and which squares and such.

ffone
2011-01-15, 05:16 AM
To add more confusion to the fire:
"(The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)"

Right. But unless the Mirror Images can occupy different squares...



I think by RAW it might work. But by common sense I'd say no. Especially since you can't use hearing to distinguish the images from the person either. The easier way to handle mirror image with a bow is to rapid shot full attack away all his images.

Actually I don't see why it working breaks common sense - the whole point of the Seeking enhancement is to overcome invisibility/blindness (as long as you're 'close enough').

The thing that causes the breach of common sense is that Mirror Image operates sort of like a miss chance (one that improves as you knock out images), both mathematically and, for most people, conceptually (Displacement etc.), and yet it

1. isn't a DnD 'miss chance' so different things apply, like Seeking
2. it's better than the 'usual' worse miss chance of 50% that results from being totally blind; having MIs is better than being totally invisible (until they all get popped). Basically, the flavor of mechanics of MI give the sense that the images sometimes are in 'different spaces', but aren't extended to make this work (you need reach to the caster's square to pop images and hit him; reach to adjacent squares will never cut it).

To reconcile all this, I can think of four approaches:

1. Follow probable RAW (Seeking overcomes MI if you shut your eyes), with the in-character explanation that the Seeking enhancement tries to hit the target you are aiming at, if you are indeed 'targeting' one in the DnD sense (it doesn't have total concealment - you could've cast a targeted spell at it etc.) but otherwise it senses a creature in the space and goes for that.

2. Declare/houserule that Seeking trumps MI anyway, since everyone can just affect the same thing by shutting their eyes (so why make them declare it and highlight the absurdity)

3. Declare that mirror images can 'fool' Seeking even if you shut your eyes (like those decoys they have for RL heat seeking missiles), whereas invisibility doesn't

4. Declare that if you shut your eyes, most characters don't have the "spatial memory" to still have a 'bead' on their target and know the square to fire out (unless they make listen checks etc.). This approach is problematic b/c the player still declares a square and it's impossible not to metagame really.

thubby
2011-01-15, 10:24 AM
what spell is used to make that enchantment?
if that spell could tell the difference, i'd say it works. if not, id say no.

without that information, i'd be inclined to say it doesn't work. the issue isn't hitting what you're aiming at, which seems to be what the enchantment is for, it's deciding what to actually aim at.

ericgrau
2011-01-15, 02:36 PM
<snip>
Yeah I could see house ruling it either way and still having it make sense. Otherwise I might lean towards having it hit an image purely for the simplicity of treating the images like additional creatures. Maybe this is my video game self talking. If you/ your DM rules it either way it won't hurt.

ffone
2011-01-15, 06:39 PM
what spell is used to make that enchantment?
if that spell could tell the difference, i'd say it works. if not, id say no.

without that information, i'd be inclined to say it doesn't work. the issue isn't hitting what you're aiming at, which seems to be what the enchantment is for, it's deciding what to actually aim at.

Crafting Seeking requires True Seeing (which I believe trumps MI).




Yeah I could see house ruling it either way and still having it make sense. Otherwise I might lean towards having it hit an image purely for the simplicity of treating the images like additional creatures. Maybe this is my video game self talking. If you/ your DM rules it either way it won't hurt.


Although I don't think MIs can absorb targeted spells?

Hazzardevil
2011-01-15, 06:57 PM
The best thing to do is to ask on the wotc boards really.
It's a weird spell to begin with and there aren't any rulings on it.
I'd just rule you have to make a wisdom check of about 15 to be able to hit it if it's a 50 ft cone otherwise it flies straight forward hitting nothing.

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-01-15, 07:02 PM
Best way to negate Mirror Image is to simply use an area-effect to nuke ALL the images, plus the user. Any damage blows them up.

ffone
2011-01-15, 07:26 PM
Best way to negate Mirror Image is to simply use an area-effect to nuke ALL the images, plus the user. Any damage blows them up.

Oh cool, where's the reference for that?

I thought area spells were useless to get rid of images (but they're great b/c they hit the real one regardless).

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

kme
2011-01-15, 10:38 PM
In description it specifically states that they mimic being hit by an area spells such as fireball but it says that they are destroyed by a successful attack. This is somewhat ambiguous, they probably meant targeted attacks. Spells are also subject to images, but it is unclear if they destroy them too (barring those that require an attack roll).

As for the issue itself, seeking wouldn't work against MI, but closing eyes should work as mentioned as long as you guess the right square. Images themselves can all be in separate squares but every image has to be adjacent to at least one other image.

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-01-15, 11:47 PM
Magic Missiles are also great Mirror Image removers. Five images gone. Or four, plus the real one gets hit.

ffone
2011-01-17, 04:42 AM
In description it specifically states that they mimic being hit by an area spells such as fireball but it says that they are destroyed by a successful attack. This is somewhat ambiguous, they probably meant targeted attacks. Spells are also subject to images, but it is unclear if they destroy them too (barring those that require an attack roll).

As for the issue itself, seeking wouldn't work against MI, but closing eyes should work as mentioned as long as you guess the right square. Images themselves can all be in separate squares but every image has to be adjacent to at least one other image.

Rereading MI, it does kinda sound like they can be in separate-but-adjacent squares.

Which seems to bely the text about rolling randomly. If they're in separate squares ,it shouldn't be a random roll, but rather a shell game: DM or player (whomever is the caster) secretly chooses which one is real, other side declares a square to attack, which either is or isn't the right one; a Princess Bride style 'battle of wits'.

And which square has the real caster should be obvious if they already used up their movement for the round (already took a 5' step or move action to use), or since then made a melee attach against a target only one 'image' has reach to, etc. (or ranged attack only one has line of sight to, etc.)

Maybe the spell is trying to say it's caster choice: images could share squares and you do random rolls, and-or have separate squares.

Personally I'm inclined to stay with the same-squares interpretation simply b/c doing the battle grid updates for MIs appearing, moving, and popping seems like so much extra work.

supermonkeyjoe
2011-01-17, 06:04 AM
As people have already stated Mirror image isn't a miss chance so seeking weapons wouldn't work, If you shot a seeking arrow at a silent image of someone it wouldn't seek out the original so I see no reason why a seeking arrow shot at a mirror image would hit the caster.

I see the 'random roll to hit' mechanic as a protection from metagaming, without it if the player or DM drops down a bunch of images what would be stopping the enemies just making a beeline for the original?

kme
2011-01-17, 10:38 AM
Rereading MI, it does kinda sound like they can be in separate-but-adjacent squares.
This a part of the spell, nowhere does it state that images must be in your square. This is the reason they all have their own separate AC.

Which seems to bely the text about rolling randomly. If they're in separate squares ,it shouldn't be a random roll, but rather a shell game: DM or player (whomever is the caster) secretly chooses which one is real, other side declares a square to attack, which either is or isn't the right one; a Princess Bride style 'battle of wits'.

And which square has the real caster should be obvious if they already used up their movement for the round (already took a 5' step or move action to use), or since then made a melee attach against a target only one 'image' has reach to, etc. (or ranged attack only one has line of sight to, etc.)First, the spell says generally not always. If the PCs have no extra knowledge about which image is real, then it would be most fair for them to roll randomly. Otherwise as supermonkeyjoe has said (and proven by your example) this can lead to metagaming. Even if that is ok for you, the caster can still move on his next turn and in the process fuse and separate with his images to reset the knowledge of his position.
Maybe the spell is trying to say it's caster choice: images could share squares and you do random rolls, and-or have separate squares.
It is a caster choice, some of the images could be closer (within his square) and some could be farther, as long as long as they are not further then 5ft away from an other image or caster. This does not prevent you from using a random roll as you can still use it to decide what image to attack.
Personally I'm inclined to stay with the same-squares interpretation simply b/c doing the battle grid updates for MIs appearing, moving, and popping seems like so much extra work.
This is completely valid, but then it wouldn't be ok for you to allow seeking to work against the spell.

thubby
2011-01-17, 11:19 AM
This a part of the spell, nowhere does it state that images must be in your square. This is the reason they all have their own.

the errata cleared this up, they're all in your square.

elonin
2011-01-17, 11:34 AM
If an adjecent square ruling was in effect then the spell would be easily countered by hitting them with splash damage.

ffone
2011-01-17, 01:23 PM
the errata cleared this up, they're all in your square.

Awesome, thanks.

That's also a relief b/c MI did say within 5', so MI would get really weird for Large casters (not that there are many - ogre mage, true dragons...)

So closed eyes + Seeking would work by RAW.

A DM might declare/houserule that with closed eyes you can't even deterministically shoot into a desired square...but that would require some new mechanic for rolling the error and actual arrival square.

ericgrau
2011-01-17, 04:11 PM
Although I don't think MIs can absorb targeted spells?
They certainly can, and FAQ confirms. In fact multi-target (but not area) damage spells are one of the best ways to get rid of them.

jumpet
2011-01-17, 05:02 PM
Magic Missiles are also great Mirror Image removers. Five images gone. Or four, plus the real one gets hit.

MM is creature only, so the spell will fail against a figment. It may well reveal the real person, but it won't destroy any images. Thus if the mage moves on his initiative he can reshuffle the images.

Keld Denar
2011-01-17, 05:08 PM
Great Cleave is actually the best MI remover. Images destroyed count as dropped, so you keep swinging until you roll a 1, or hit the real mage. About the ONLY thing Great Cleave is good for, unless your campaign is based around mopping up hoards of goblins and kobolds.

Aquillion
2011-01-17, 05:12 PM
A Seeking weapon bypasses miss chances (quoted below.) The Mirror Image spell isn't a miss chance per se. So it might not help vs Mirror Images by RAW.

But as a roundabout tactic, could a character with a seeking bow simply close their eyes and then fire at the square they identified the target as in when their eyes were open? (Mirror Image states "An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)")I'd say it works. To me, it's cool, and even makes sense -- think Luke Skywalker in A New Hope. "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them."

It makes sense to me that a player could close their eyes and rely solely on their weapon's magic to find their opponent as a way of defeating illusions.

ericgrau
2011-01-17, 05:21 PM
MM is creature only, so the spell will fail against a figment. It may well reveal the real person, but it won't destroy any images. Thus if the mage moves on his initiative he can reshuffle the images.

FWIW that is in fact the specific example used by the FAQ on a multi-target spell used to take down a mirror image.

elonin
2011-01-17, 09:13 PM
Isn't MI a bit strong for its level? If there were a save vs the effect or some way to defeat the thing beyond spells of much higher level.

kme
2011-01-17, 09:31 PM
the errata cleared this up, they're all in your square.

Ah, that's lame. But I suppose it does make things easier.

jumpet
2011-01-17, 09:55 PM
FWIW that is in fact the specific example used by the FAQ on a multi-target spell used to take down a mirror image.

That really surprises me, because I believe by RAW it shouldn't.

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-01-17, 10:11 PM
That really surprises me, because I believe by RAW it shouldn't.

Why not? If you believe the illusion is real, it's a perfectly valid target. If it's an invalid target, you know it's a fake, and so can target the real one. Either way, it's a cheap bypass.

jumpet
2011-01-17, 10:34 PM
Why not? If you believe the illusion is real, it's a perfectly valid target. If it's an invalid target, you know it's a fake, and so can target the real one. Either way, it's a cheap bypass.

So if you believe a piece of paper is a creature, magic missile can damage it?

(I choose paper to eliminate DR)

My argument was not that magic missile can't help find the real caster, but that it won't destroy an image.

ffone
2011-01-18, 03:31 AM
Hmm, I'm wondering if the following line:

"
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded."

Means that, once a foe has hit the 'real' one, he can keep hitting it with iterative attacks (as can any allies going after) rather than having to roll for images, until the caster's turn comes up so he can move (5' step at least) to 'reshuffle' the images.

2xMachina
2011-01-18, 07:41 AM
the errata cleared this up, they're all in your square.

IIRC, SRD updates with Errata

And it says...

Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

That means that you can line them in a straight line if you want.

As for FAQ, they are known to be NOT RAW.

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-01-18, 08:34 AM
So if you believe a piece of paper is a creature, magic missile can damage it?

(I choose paper to eliminate DR)

My argument was not that magic missile can't help find the real caster, but that it won't destroy an image.


Any successful attack against an image destroys it.Sounds like it does indeed...

ericgrau
2011-01-18, 09:33 AM
Hmm, I'm wondering if the following line:

"
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded."

Means that, once a foe has hit the 'real' one, he can keep hitting it with iterative attacks (as can any allies going after) rather than having to roll for images, until the caster's turn comes up so he can move (5' step at least) to 'reshuffle' the images.

Ya except I would intentionally avoid the real one, if I hit it once, and take out all the images. Or better yet primaries to the real one and secondaries to the images. Their AC is, what, 12-13 usually?

Roderick_BR
2011-01-18, 10:13 AM
No, I thing it doesn't work that way. As you said, Mirror Image is not exactly a real "miss chance". It's more like if you attack randomly, you have a chance of missing the real caster. You still need to guess which square the real mage is, so closing or not your eyes won't help if you shot the seeking arrow in the wrong panel, as it clearly says you need to hit the right square.

jumpet
2011-01-18, 05:06 PM
Sounds like it does indeed...

But is an image a creature? Magic missile only affects creatures.

Togo
2011-01-18, 05:29 PM
But is an image a creature? Magic missile only affects creatures.

Normally yes. Maybe the text of mirror image trumps that, since it doesn't need to be effectual to count as an attack?

ffone
2011-01-19, 04:09 AM
No, I thing it doesn't work that way. As you said, Mirror Image is not exactly a real "miss chance". It's more like if you attack randomly, you have a chance of missing the real caster. You still need to guess which square the real mage is, so closing or not your eyes won't help if you shot the seeking arrow in the wrong panel, as it clearly says you need to hit the right square.

Okay but, can you convince us that mirror images can be in different squares?

2xMachina
2011-01-19, 04:48 AM
How about my post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10185145&postcount=32)?



the errata cleared this up, they're all in your square.

IIRC, SRD updates with Errata

And it says...

Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.

That means that you can line them in a straight line if you want.

As for FAQ, they are known to be NOT RAW.