PDA

View Full Version : Miss chance



weenie
2008-05-04, 07:29 AM
How do Blinking, Displacement and Mirror Image combine? Is the miss chance to hit someone with these spells active actually 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/(number of immages +1)? Because it seems to me that such a trick would make AC irrelevant.

shadow_archmagi
2008-05-04, 07:38 AM
How do Blinking, Displacement and Mirror Image combine? Is the miss chance to hit someone with these spells active actually 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/(number of immages +1)? Because it seems to me that such a trick would make AC irrelevant.

You mean, is it just 100 percent miss chance, or is it

"Okay, flip a coin to see if you hit. Good. Now flip it again... now roll that D100."

If I were DM, I would rule they didn't stack.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-04, 07:41 AM
We've always played it that you roll against each separately...

First roll against Mirror Image. If its just an image, *pop*
Next roll against Displacement,
Lastly roll against Blur.


Er, I mean. Blur OR displacement. One offers concealment and one offers total concealment, which don't stack.

But all of that should be on top of invisibility. :smallwink:

Paragon Badger
2008-05-04, 07:42 AM
Like shadow said, I woulden't allow them to stack. But, there may be a time when such a trick is neccesary (like a BBEG who is supposed to be incredibly difficult to hit until you find the macguffin.)

In that case, I'd just divide; always approaching 0%, but never getting there. That sort of stuff. >_<

Nebo_
2008-05-04, 07:47 AM
Miss chance is rolled separately.

Curmudgeon
2008-05-04, 08:17 AM
Er, I mean. Blur OR displacement. One offers concealment and one offers total concealment, which don't stack.Sorry, but you misread Displacement. This spell offers a miss chance as if you had total concealment, but obviously the spell provides no actual concealment as you're still in plain sight and may be targeted normally. The reference to concealment is just an analogy.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-04, 08:32 AM
Sorry, but you misread Displacement. This spell offers a miss chance as if you had total concealment, but obviously the spell provides no actual concealment as you're still in plain sight and may be targeted normally. The reference to concealment is just an analogy.

Oh, okay... see, I just wake up and try and read things and then make them not make sense.

So yeah, blur and displacement are rolled separately.

weenie
2008-05-04, 08:34 AM
Well, that Displacement and Invisibility don't stack is quite logical, but I don't see why displacement and Mirror Image shouldn't stack. It's hard to hit someone if you cant clearly see him, but if there's more than one image of him, and you can't see any of them clearly, that should be even kinda harder to hit.

And Blinking actually makes you etheral, so it should stack with both, Displacement and Mirror Image. At least in my opinion.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-04, 08:52 AM
In order to hit a Blinking Displaced Mirror Imaged Wizard you must:

Roll for Images. If you hit the image it is removed, if you hit the Wizard you:
Roll for Displacement. If you hit the Wizard you:
Roll for whether or not he is on the Ethereal Plane.

Yes this would make AC largely irrelevant. Except that it takes three rounds in combat with each successive round providing less benefit and you are significantly better off having just killed something in those three rounds.

weenie
2008-05-04, 09:09 AM
In order to hit a Blinking Displaced Mirror Imaged Wizard you must:

Roll for Images. If you hit the image it is removed, if you hit the Wizard you:
Roll for Displacement. If you hit the Wizard you:
Roll for whether or not he is on the Ethereal Plane.

Yes this would make AC largely irrelevant. Except that it takes three rounds in combat with each successive round providing less benefit and you are significantly better off having just killed something in those three rounds.

That's what persistent cheese is for :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, should't you roll for Displacement and Blinking first? I kinda assumed, that if you went etheral, your images would go etheral too. And don't your mirror images become displaced too?

Curmudgeon
2008-05-04, 11:56 AM
And don't your mirror images become displaced too? :smallamused: This makes no sense, weenie. It doesn't mean anything special for an image to be located in a slightly different part of the square it occupies; it's still just a figment that's not where the actual person is.

weenie
2008-05-04, 05:05 PM
:smallamused: This makes no sense, weenie. It doesn't mean anything special for an image to be located in a slightly different part of the square it occupies; it's still just a figment that's not where the actual person is.

Well, it kinda depends on how D&D magic works, so it's probably best not to dwell too much on it :smallsmile:

Heliomance
2008-05-04, 05:10 PM
:smallamused: This makes no sense, weenie. It doesn't mean anything special for an image to be located in a slightly different part of the square it occupies; it's still just a figment that's not where the actual person is.

It makes perfect sense. If you hit a bit of the square that you thought was the image but actually isn't, the image shouldn't go pop.

Curmudgeon
2008-05-04, 06:25 PM
It makes perfect sense. If you hit a bit of the square that you thought was the image but actually isn't, the image shouldn't go pop. You can only randomly attack into a square if it has 100% concealment, and neither Mirror Image nor Displacement provide this. (You can provide it for yourself by closing your eyes, but that's another thing entirely.) A visible image may be targeted normally, and if a Mirror Image is successfully hit, it goes "pop".

Displacement only has an effect on the actual target because there's a 50% chance of you accidentally hitting the target as you successfully swing at that image, which is only displaced slightly within the target's square. Mirror Images span several squares, and according to the spell description there's no chance of hitting the target if you swing at one of these images; nor is there any miss chance, such as from concealment, when you hit the AC of an image -- since they're in plain sight, concealment isn't an issue.