Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

True Strike vs. Mirror image with your eyes closed


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

How would this situation play out? Mirror Immage VS True Strike.

Round 1, Magus character and Wizard are 10’ apart, they can take a 5’ step to get into melee range.

The Mage casts Mirror Image
Then next in Initiatve The Magus casts True Strike.

Round 2 The Wizard casts burning hands, and damages the Magus.

The Magus takes a five step closer and uses his spell combat to cast a spell and make a mele attack.

He casts Shocking grasp (not casting defensively, and the Wizards Attack of Opportunity misses). Using spell strike, the Magus delivers the touch spell by making a melee attack with his weapon. (taking a -2 to the attack)

The magus begins to swing with his Mstwk Bastard Sword at the Wizard, under the cover of a Mirror image spell.

What would happen next. Lets assume the Magus has rolled a high enough attack roll to land a roll, and he begins his swing. As a free action, he closes his eyes, and swings. He lets the True strike guide his sword.

Then he makes a Melee attack (with the -2 penalty) and also has rolled high enough to hit the wizard

Thanks


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*rereads true strike*

Wow, I never realized that true strike lets you ignore miss chance. I always just focused on the +20 to hit. Well, in that case, he hits the wizard. His 'blindness' lets him completely ignore the mirror images, but true strike negates the blindness so he doesn't have to roll the 50% miss chance.

I'm going to have to remember that trick...


Once he closes his eye mirror image is negated but he still has to deal with total concealment. True strike say "Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target."

That means the target would be hit if you roll high enough to bypass their AC.


Considering this is a two round combo as well more power to him.


Hmm, I'm not sure… I've got a few different (somewhat ridiculous) answers

A very, VERY literal RAW answer: Closing your eyes does not = blind. There is no condition called "closing your eyes", and therefore no miss chance. However, you CAN avert your eyes / wear a blindfold as a defence against gaze attacks, and doing so DOES grant the monster with the gaze attack concealment against you. It does not however grant other monsters concealment, even if you're wearing a blindfold. Therefore, this tactic is only of use if you're wearing a blindfold and attacking a monster with a gaze attack. Otherwise, there is no miss chance for simply having your eyes closed.

EDIT: Actually, this tactic isn't even of use in those cases, because the mere act of closing your eyes shouldn't defeat mirror image. Yes it's silly to say, but closing your eyes isn't covered in the RAW and doesn't = blind. Yeah, silly I know. That's why common sense helps when you play D&D

LINK

The half common sense / half RAW answer: Closing your eyes = blind. Accordingly, you circumvent the mirror image miss chance. Congratulations! Furthermore, true strike allows you to circumvent the concealment miss chance for blindness, so you beat that too! You're a superstar!

The (likely) PAIZO RAI answer: Umm… we didn't intend for that to work! Stop with your tricky rules lawyering!

All in all, I think you've found the perfect pathfinder conundrum. A conumdrum wrapped in an enigma etc.

This is like the time Kirk tells the robot "everything I say is true" and then says "I'm lying right now". The robot's head promptly explodes. You can really tie yourself in knots over this one.

At my table I'd probably go with what I perceive as the RAI version. However, it's a very, very good question, and certainly open to a wide range of interpretations!


Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...


Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.


Hmmm a corner case, but if you have the blind fight feat are you better off shutting your eyes attacking a foe with mirror image up? Assuming you don't have/can't use multiple attacks?


sunbeam wrote:
Hmmm a corner case, but if you have the blind fight feat are you better off shutting your eyes attacking a foe with mirror image up? Assuming you don't have/can't use multiple attacks?

Even without blind fight, you're better off shutting your eyes when fighting an opponent with mirror image, if closing your eyes = blind.

Blind = 50% miss chance
Mirror Image = 1/(X+1) chance of being hit where X = the number of images.

So at a minimum, mirror image offers a 50% miss chance. The actual miss chance is likely much higher.


Bardic Dave wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.

Typically I've seen it done as a once per round thing -- either your eyes are closed for the six seconds or they aren't closed at all.

This is due to the fact that combat is simultaneous -- your doing your thing while the wizard is doing his while the rogue is doing his, and so on for all the actors in the combat. Remember the same six seconds you are casting and attacking is the same six seconds the wizard is doing his thing and the rogue is closing and swiping at you.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.

Typically I've seen it done as a once per round thing -- either your eyes are closed for the six seconds or they aren't closed at all.

This is due to the fact that combat is simultaneous -- your doing your thing while the wizard is doing his while the rogue is doing his, and so on for all the actors in the combat. Remember the same six seconds you are casting and attacking is the same six seconds the wizard is doing his thing and the rogue is closing and swiping at you.

That's a good solution, and a fair rule, and I think I might just use it! Thanks!

If you play with this solution, it seems pretty fair to let the OP's tricky bidness work.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Bardic Dave wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.

Nah, I don't see it ruining the spell. Even if they close their eyes, you still get the 50% miss chance. Furthermore, they never destroy your images, so the rest of the party has to do the same thing. So that's 50% miss chance for the duration of the fight (blindfight and True Strike notwithstanding).

It'll work better on a character who doesn't know about how Mirror Image works because they won't realize the best tactic is to "rely on instinct". Up until now, that appears to have included most PCs. : D


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.

Typically I've seen it done as a once per round thing -- either your eyes are closed for the six seconds or they aren't closed at all.

This is due to the fact that combat is simultaneous -- your doing your thing while the wizard is doing his while the rogue is doing his, and so on for all the actors in the combat. Remember the same six seconds you are casting and attacking is the same six seconds the wizard is doing his thing and the rogue is closing and swiping at you.

I would be okay with this if it was for the attack. If you trigger an attack of opportunity with that attack, you're blind during that attack (no Dex). After each attack, you can open/shut your eyes.


blahpers wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.

Typically I've seen it done as a once per round thing -- either your eyes are closed for the six seconds or they aren't closed at all.

This is due to the fact that combat is simultaneous -- your doing your thing while the wizard is doing his while the rogue is doing his, and so on for all the actors in the combat. Remember the same six seconds you are casting and attacking is the same six seconds the wizard is doing his thing and the rogue is closing and swiping at you.

I would be okay with this if it was for the attack. If you trigger an attack of opportunity with that attack, you're blind during that attack (no Dex). After each attack, you can open/shut your eyes.

It's for the round just like gaze attacks at my table. You have to be accustomed to having your eyes closed in order for it to be useful (honestly try doing the 'shutterbug' with your eyes just sitting there and hitting something -- the idea of the blind fighting approach is that you are using your other senses to figure things out, that takes a few seconds of adjustment, it's not something you can do several times in six seconds).

However your table your rules of course.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

Thanks for all of your posts.

I suppose thematically what i had in mind, was the warrior focusing his mind, clearing it of distractions, then striking. There are lots of instances in fantasy literature and movies etc, of heroes closing thier eyes, and focusing on their intuition.....

There of course is the classic moment on film, in Starwars, where Luke is complaining to Ben about being unable to see with the blast shield of a helmet down, to which Ben replied that Luke should feel the force, and that his senses could fool him.

Of course i was thinking of a way of breaching the defense offered by a mirror image spell.

Thanks again....Im sorry I don't have the time to read the entire thread, but i will get to it soon. Please keep the ideas coming.


Very legitimate tactic against mirror image.


I don't let this sort of thing happen... if you.close your eyes you have a 50% miss chance on top of the miss chance already given (2 rolls). Closing your eyes and swinging a weapon should never be a better chance to hit than not doing so, personally I think playing it any other way is stupid (the thought really urks me is all).


I disagree. To me you should be blind until your next turn to reflect the simultaneous nature of combat, but are not affected by mirror image.

Closing your eyes should not come without penalties.


Stubs, they are burning two rounds to achieve 1 attack. I see np with this. Even if they use quicken to do it they are burning a 5th level spell slot to do what a 3rd level spell (dispel magic) could do.

I applaud this out of the box thinking. I think its practicality is limited though.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Stubs, they are burning two rounds to achieve 1 attack. I see np with this. Even if they use quicken to do it they are burning a 5th level spell slot to do what a 3rd level spell (dispel magic) could do.

I applaud this out of the box thinking. I think its practicality is limited though.

- Gauss

I think stubs objection wasn't to the one-two combo of true strike + close eyes to defeat mirror image per se. I think it was more aimed at general attempts to defeat mirror image by closing your eyes, with or without true strike. If so, then I think he's got a good point. IMO, Abraham Spalding has the best overall way of running these rules. He strikes a nice balance between not letting it get cheesy, and rewarding creative thinking.


Gauss wrote:
Stubs, they are burning two rounds to achieve 1 attack. I see np with this. Even if they use quicken to do it they are burning a 5th level spell slot to do what a 3rd level spell (dispel magic) could do.

A magus can do it in one round with a normally-cast true strike, thanks to Spell Combat.


totally works for me for two reasons.

1) opening and closing our eyes is (or should be a) free action not a swift. thus I one can close and open their eyes as much as they chose on their own turn. I have true strike up > I close the distance to the target > I cast my spell dodging the enemy AoO > I close my eyes as a free action > I swing my sword discharging the when I hit > I open my eyes after the swing.

works for me.

2) Using intelligence and guile to get past something should be encouraged but balanced. If the player wants to use some trick that would bypass something entirely with no penalty then I would say no. But if the player is doing something that has a sufficient penalty such as, burning a spell, giving up a turn, or in this case both, in order to over come a single level ONE spell for a single attack. I think its fair to reward the player with the hit.


AvalonXQ good point. Still, I dont think it is that much of a problem for a specific class to be able to bypass the mirror image a number of times per day. - Gauss


blue_the_wolf wrote:

totally works for me for two reasons.

1) opening and closing our eyes is (or should be a) free action not a swift. thus I one can close and open their eyes as much as they chose on their own turn. I have true strike up > I close the distance to the target > I cast my spell dodging the enemy AoO > I close my eyes as a free action > I swing my sword discharging the when I hit > I open my eyes after the swing.

I agree with Abraham. The one rule we have in PF for intentionally giving yourself the blindness condition requires you to do it for a whole round. I don't see any reason not to require that. It's like Power Attack -- either you're blind this round or you're not.


Yopu are either blind for the entire round or you are not.... AMEN

Thank you, please drive through.

The other thought is probably to far into realism....

You run up to the mage, who has cast mirror image, and cloe your eyes to attack. This assumes you remember where teh mage was generally located. Ok, the question is which mage? Didn't you see 3 - 8 mages standing there? Even with a photographic memory which one are you swinging at?

By this logic, if someone casts an illusion of a ogre and it using it to attack you if you cloe you eyes then your are immune to the effects?

Quit trying to cheese ways around game mechanics.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

Thank you all for your posts.

My intention was to bypass the defenses offered by a mirror image spell.

My character is setting this up by first casting true strike, and then attacking in the next round. I was planning to use Arcane strike, to channel a shocking grasp spell, So yes My character gets one hit....in the following rounds the mirror image is still up, assuming the mage survives the damage from a bastard sword+shocking grasp spell guided by a true strike spell.

I suppose I could load up on true strike spells and shocking grasp spells. then my character would be attacking every other round.

In turn, the wizard, has four rounds to cast spells and deal with my annoying magus.

I'm sure a monk could shut down a wizard in one round with improved grapple....then all he needs to do is squeeze.

And from what i understand, about a true strike spell you get a sense of where the wizard will be.....where he actually will be, and by following that intuition, you don't need a photographic memory.....

I still think the illusionary oger could smack you on the head....because you believe he is there.

Avalonxq how could a magus do this in one round? thanks


A Magus can cast True Strike and also attack in the same round with Spell Combat.

If you also want to cast Shocking Grasp, you'll need multiple rounds.

Honestly, you're probably better off just casting Shocking Grasp with Spell Combat in Round 1, taking your two attacks to try to hit the mage and probably at least clearing out one or more of his images.


Scrogz wrote:
Yopu are either blind for the entire round or you are not.... AMEN

actually, if you want to be all rules lawyery closing your eyes does not make you BLIND, it just means you cant see or are not using your eyes to do so. which satisfies the "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled." rule.

Scrogz wrote:

You run up to the mage, who has cast mirror image, and cloe your eyes to attack. This assumes you remember where teh mage was generally located. Ok, the question is which mage? Didn't you see 3 - 8 mages standing there? Even with a photographic memory which one are you swinging at?

doesn't matter.

they are all in the same square and the person is essentially closing their eyes and swinging wildly through the 5 foot area and allowing the true strike to guide the weapon.
Scrogz wrote:
By this logic, if someone casts an illusion of a ogre and it using it to attack you if you cloe you eyes then your are immune to the effects?

actually thats exactly correct.

illusions cast by the illusion spell are figments. figments cannot cause any damage in any way.

if its a phantasm or shadow then it either exists in your mind (phantasm) or is partially real created from extra dimensional energy (shadow) in either case its ability to harm you is in no way related to your ability to see it.

so yes by logic it still works.

Avalon wrote:
Honestly, you're probably better off just casting Shocking Grasp with Spell Combat in Round 1, taking your two attacks to try to hit the mage and probably at least clearing out one or more of his images.

that would not work. the touch attack (shocking grasp) would be discharged when it hits an image.

he is doing it exactly right. just because its not expressly spelled out by RAW does not mean its impossible or should not be allowed. he has taken more than sufficient penalties to work around the benefits of the level 2 spell.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Scrogz wrote:
By this logic, if someone casts an illusion of a ogre and it using it to attack you if you cloe you eyes then your are immune to the effects?

What effects? This isn't AD&D; illusionary ogres can't affect you, shadow subschool aside.


blue_the_wolf wrote:

that would not work. the touch attack (shocking grasp) would be discharged when it hits an image.

he is doing it exactly right. just because its not expressly spelled out by RAW does not mean its impossible or should not be allowed. he has taken more than sufficient penalties to work around the benefits of the level 2 spell.

Why would it discharge?

"Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it)."

The figment is not real, it is a false vision. You are not actually touching anything when you swing through it. So no discharge.


kind of sux but its a special property of mirror image.

Quote:
Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.


Bardic Dave wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.

I have to say I agree with bardic dave. Simply closing your eyes shouldn't allow you to offset mirror image. Not only because of the mechanical impact.

You can argue, that if a character closes their eyes prior to attacking, they will still have a preconceived notion of which of the mirror images might be the actual target. The sight of the multiple images is fresh in their mind and they might still go for the same false target.

However i would possibly homebrew that if a character would close their eyes a whole round prior to attacking and would not open them until the attack has been resolved, they would be allowed to ignore the mirror images.
I'nm not very savvy on the mirror image spell. I would only rule it like that, if vision is the only sense that the spell actually fools. If the images also make sounds or even fake tactile or olfactory sensations I would say closing your eyes only further diminishes your chance of hitting.

Edit: just checked the spell description, thei mages mimic the caster's sound too, so being blinded one way or another should only serve to make both the original and the images even harder to hit.


SRD wrote:
You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
SRD wrote:

Concealment Miss Chance

Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.

SRD wrote:

Total Concealment

If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

So the question is, is total concealment a separate condition not affected by true strike? I think it is. Mostly because of the rules under improved precise shot

Spoiler:
Improved Precise Shot (Combat)

Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment and cover.

Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.

Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment in Combat.

But then again going over the wording of Blind fight I'm a bit muddled, and would like to hear the boards interpretation .


blue_the_wolf wrote:
Scrogz wrote:
Yopu are either blind for the entire round or you are not.... AMEN
actually, if you want to be all rules lawyery closing your eyes does not make you BLIND, it just means you cant see or are not using your eyes to do so. which satisfies the "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled." rule.

Actually, if you want to get all rules lawyery, closing your eyes is not an action in the rules anywhere other than in the Gaze ability description, where it done for the whole round. This idea that you can make yourself see or not see as a free action simply isn't in the rules anywhere.

Personally, if you wanted to try to close your eyes and then open them again, I would treat that as the "averting your gaze" option and give you the appropriate benefits and penalties. There simply isn't anything in the rules that lets you benefit from closing your eyes for just one attack.

Quote:


Avalon wrote:
Honestly, you're probably better off just casting Shocking Grasp with Spell Combat in Round 1, taking your two attacks to try to hit the mage and probably at least clearing out one or more of his images.
that would not work. the touch attack (shocking grasp) would be discharged when it hits an image.

I don't think I agree. The image isn't there; it has no physical presence, remember? So I would argue that dispelling an image doesn't involve touching anything and so doesn't discharge the spell.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Threeshades wrote:
Edit: just checked the spell description, thei mages mimic the caster's sound too, so being blinded one way or another should only serve to make both the original and the images even harder to hit.

I was on the "use the Force, Luke" side of the fence until this post. Now I'm just confused.

The mirror image spell says that the spell mimicks the sounds of the caster. However, it also says that a blind attacker is not affected. How can one reconcile these two statements?

Erratum? FAQ?


@Avalon

so what your saying is that you want to be strict on one rule to say that it wont work that way... then be lax on another rule to say that it works your way?

^_^

not trying to be argumentative. but read teh rule on mirror image then tell me if you change your mind or want to just say to the OP YOUR idea doesnt work but if you did it MY way I would allow it.

@Blaphers

see why some time its easier and more fun to just let the player get away with doing something intelligent and interesting rather than parsing the rules down the the last period 3 interactions away?

Ultimately it comes down to the GM.

but I say if you as a GM have EVERY hand waved an event, modified a monster, home brewed a rule or just winged it in any way...

you would be a hypocrite to say that THIS players clever idea is so game destroying that you would not allow it.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
so what your saying is that you want to be strict on one rule to say that it wont work that way... then be lax on another rule to say that it works your way?

The Gaze ability gives us two options for dealing with gaze attacks -- closing your eyes completely, or averting your gaze. Those are the only two options the rules ever give us.

It's not a matter of me having it work "my way"; it's a matter of me choosing one of the existing ways and interpreting what the person narrates they want to do as being mechanically the closest to that.

Because flavor is flexible -- if you want to narrate your "averting your gaze" as being selectively closing your eyes, that's fine.

Does that make sense?


fair enough.

I still say its a free action though ^_^


blue_the_wolf wrote:

fair enough.

I still say its a free action though ^_^

Nothing wrong with house rules - but my way is much more balanced. ;-)


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
blue_the_wolf wrote:

@Blaphers

see why some time its easier and more fun to just let the player get away with doing something intelligent and interesting rather than parsing the rules down the the last period 3 interactions away?

Ultimately it comes down to the GM.

but I say if you as a GM have EVERY hand waved an event, modified a monster, home brewed a rule or just winged it in any way...

you would be a hypocrite to say that THIS players clever idea is so game destroying that you would not allow it.

Hey, you won't get any argument from me about a GM's right to house rule--especially on the fly. Since we're in the rules thread, though, it'd be nice to know what the "official" rules are, if any.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

AvalonXQ thanks-
I see use spell combat to cast a spell, ie true strike, then use a regular melee attack.

Well I guess the combo (True strike spell + Shocking grasp ) isn't too efficeint....

but i"ll bet it would look cool, a magus with electricity dancing on his blade, pausing for a second, eyes closed and thrusts his sword just there in the middle of the shifting images, and with a surprised squeak the wizard stutters....you stabbed me.

again thanks for your thoughts.


All this was way to cheesy for me. So we just altered mirror image to have audible affects that made blindfighting not possible with respect to mirror images. All those images make sounds and footsteps. Worked for our group.


I really don't understand what some folks are saying when they suggest 'letting players do something creative and intelligent' by letting them close their eyes and swing a dangerous weapon about to potentially lessen a miss chance....

It really honestly blows my mind, that anyone would logically say "Hey, you know what will make this easier to hit while it moves and acts simultaneous to my own actions all while other things are happening around me? CLOSING MY EYES!"

Yes, it is a turn based system, but per round, everything is supposed to be happening at least somewhat simultaneously. That wizard you are trying to hit with your eyes closed? He is AT LEAST moving around in his 5x5 ft square, if not moving from point A to point B within the same 6 seconds you plan on closing your eyes and swinging for the fences.

It isn't intelligent thinking, sorry. It is ridiculous.

the Blind condition takes care to point out that temporary blindness and long-term blindness in an individual have different effects.

PRD wrote:
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
Mirror Image wrote:
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).

Even if you decide to run it the way some are suggesting (closing eyes = blind), those PCs that do must then suffer from the consequences of being Blind, as per the condition... but nowhere that i know of in the core rules does closing your eyes = Blind. In fact, the only rules that would have backed up that suggestion would be found under "averting eyes", and they tend to suggest the exact opposite

Averting Eyes wrote:

Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature's face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a reflective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment against that opponent.

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

When wearing a blindfold, which results in the exact same conditions as closing your eyes, you are NOT considered Blind as per the condition! The creature gains total concealment, that is it.

So, close your eyes and you suffer 50% miss chance, then any other miss chance you would have already.


of course it does not make sense. its a turn based game. all kinds of crap does not makes sense.

but this does.

if you accept that a man can cast a spell that makes a bunch of illusory images.

and you can accept that another man can cast a spell that basically assures a hit even when he cant see the target (concealed)

then you should be able to accept that a person can close their eyes and attack a person guided by the spell.

think of True Strike as "heat seeking"

An archer wants to shoot a guy who just ran into thick smoke. He knows the target is in a given area (5 foot square) but cant actually see the target (concealment) luckily an ally just cast true strike on him. He draws and arrow and lets fly the magical properties of magic makes the arrow swerve to the target, BAM hit!

same thing happens with the OP.

but instead he closes his eyes and swings blindly at an area he knows the target to be in (or passing through) The sword, guided by the magic, curves into the target in this case the magic is not tricked by the illusions.

you may ask, then why does the guy close his eyes if the magic guides the sword. and my answer is that with his eyes open the guy would subconsciously guide the sword to a target his eyes chose and not always to the REAL target.

You know what though.... It does not really matter.

to me the point is this. the player came up with a good idea. he is burning resources to do it and his idea is less efficient than the spell he is trying to work around, further more the caster has all kinds of ways to counter the work around after the first time.

so in the interest of fun, reward the character with the attack that in this case the OP spent 2 rounds and 2 spells to set up. its not likely to kill the caster and once again will be more fun over all.

Its a game guys. if you cant have fun playing it, why bother.

Oh, and, by RAW. I think this is well within the realm of GM fiat.


blue_the_wolf wrote:


An archer wants to shoot a guy who just ran into thick smoke. He knows the target is in a given area (5 foot square) but cant actually see the target (concealment) luckily an ally just cast true strike on him. He draws and arrow and lets fly the magical properties of magic makes the arrow swerve to the target, BAM hit!

Just because I love to pick knits, this can't be done because true strike has a range of personal so you can't target an ally.


I just want to drop in and note the following:
-The condition is called blinded, not just blind. You can be blinded in more ways than just being blind. Like a blindfold.
-The word 'blind' can also mean that you are unwilling to see, it does not necessarily carry the connotation of physical impairment of vision.
-The condition says "Blinded. The target cannot see. [modifiers]" It seems reasonable that by RAW this implies that any situation in which a creature cannot see (whether that is because of blindfold, closed eyes or physical impairment) applies.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

with the blinfold/close your eyes method in the gaze section , your eyes are closed for the whole round in case it uses the gaze attack on you , so you can avoid the active gaze attack, and the passive gaze attack on your turn.

when approaching a mirror image and choosing to "swing away" by closing your eyes, and taking the 50% miss is a perfectly valid option. its usually a better option than swinging at mirror images. It does not destroy images, so the spell remains in effect.

Since its a figment, closing your eyes works. Even granting it auditory components would allow someone to swing at the square and have a 50/50 chance. just because you can hear that the wizard is in that square doesn't grant him anything better than total concealment.

given that true strike specifies "miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.", the better question is whether this applies to concealment and total concealment, or just the lesser version of the condition.

other fun things that bypass mirror image: seeking arrows, which negate any miss chance, such as from concealment.

But yeah, closing your eyes while attacking is a totally valid option.
1. you're not destroying images, so other people that don't close their eyes still have chance of hitting an image.
2. you're still giving yourself a 50/50 miss chance, turning Mirror Image ( a 2nd level spell ) , into the equivalent of a 3rd level spell ( displacement ),
3. it makes sense!


For someone to improve his chance of hitting the right wizard copy, there needs to be some kind of information given to him. As soon as you have seen the mirror images, closing your eyes won't do anything but harm you, i.e. You still get to roll against the mirroe images as well as the closed eyes concealment. If you were blinded the whole time, i.e. Haven't seen the spell effect at all, then yes, I would let you roll only against concealment. So, you would need to either ready action for it, manage a spellcraft check at the casting, close your eyes preemptively, or be blind from before the spell took effect.

Opening and closing your eyes is about the fastest thing the human body is capable of. Whatever it is, it needs to be a free action to preserve my suspension of disbelief. Saying you have to be blind for an entire round is stupid, most likely a reflection of a desire to call this cheesery "imaginative" or "inspired". Feh.

I would adjudicate it exactly as above.


Bardic Dave wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.

You can only take a free-action on your turn. Only immediate actions can be taken on someone elses turn.


Mirror image is not a miss chance, it is actual figmental copies of the wizard surrounding him. http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5mvj?Mirror-image-errata-and-contradictions#22

You still select a target inside that square to hit be it an illusion or the real thing. True strike will only allow you to guaranteed hit that specific target, but it could still be an illusion.

1 to 50 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / True Strike vs. Mirror image with your eyes closed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.