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

PaizoCon 2014!

True Strike vs. Mirror image with your eyes closed


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

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

Miss chances don't stack or repeat.


Trista1986 wrote:

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.

That's why we're talking about closing your eyes, which negates the effects of Mirror Image and grants the wizard total concealment instead -- which is negated by True Strike.

Silver Crusade

Gaze (Su) A gaze special attack takes effect when foes
look at the attacking creature’s eyes. The attack can
have any sort of effect: petrification, death, and charm
are common. The typical range is 30 feet, but check the
creature’s entry for details. The type of saving throw for a
gaze attack varies, but it is usually a Will or Fortitude save
(DC 10 + 1/2 gazing creature’s racial HD + gazing creature’s
Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s text). A
successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster’s gaze
attack is described in abbreviated form in its description.
Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt
a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her
turn in the initiative order. Only looking directly at a
creature with a gaze attack leaves an opponent vulnerable.
Opponents can avoid the need to make the saving throw by
not looking at the creature, in one of two ways.
Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the
creature’s face, instead looking at its body, watching
its shadow, tracking it in a ref lective 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.
A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an
attack action by choosing a target within range. That
opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to
avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an
opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during
the same round, once before the opponent’s action and
once during the creature’s turn.
Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents. A creature
is immune to gaze attacks of others of its kind unless
otherwise noted. Allies of a creature with a gaze attack
might be affected. All the creature’s allies are considered
to be averting their eyes from the creature with the
gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make
a saving throw against the gaze attack each round.
The creature can also veil its eyes, thus negating its
gaze ability.
Format: gaze; Location: Special Attacks.

Says here that there are only two ways to avert your eyes and closing then is not on that list.

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).
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot
produce real effects the way that other types of illusions
can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects
or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide
protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells
are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking
them directly.
A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.

I don't see anything in the description that closing your eyes or even averting them grants you any bonus.

Mirror Image
School illusion (figment); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 min./level
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit
your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to
precisely locate and attack you.
When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per
three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created.
These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking
your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are
attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there
is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If
the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target
is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the
attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the
near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of
your figments. Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll
affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells
that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to
destroy a figment.
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).

Spells out here the two ways in which you can ignore the spell. Being invisible and being blind. Since closing your eyes do not make you blind, according to the game, then the spell still works.


ElyasRavenwood wrote:

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

Well a few things:

One, as already mentioned in this thread.. the typical way to rule 'closing/averting eyes' comes up when fighting medusae, etc.. is to let the player choose at the start of each of their rounds what condition they have (closed, averted, wide open) and thus what degree of concealment the creature has to the player's character (total, concealment, none).

Two. You want to decide if True strike bypasses ALL degrees of concealment. Meaning does it ignore blindness, total darkness and the like? Or does it just ignore normal 'concealment'?

Three. You recognize that when their eyes are closed then the mirror image does nothing, so the way you are handling the first two are all that matters here.

So how it would happen for me in your situation. The magus would need to decide to close his eyes at the start of his/her turn. This would deny him the 5' step (baring feats/abilities), it would also deny him DEX for a possible AOO, but it would let him (if he's still able) swing at the wizard without factoring in the mirror image spell. My ruling would be that there is still the 50-50 miss chance as that is due to total concealment rather than just normal concealment.

Btw the magus is better casting the shocking grasp and THEN 5' stepping as he avoids the AOO.

-James


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

*sigh* Mirror image is not a gaze attack. The rules there are useless for this.

The rules within mirror image itself are already self-contradictory. Until there is errata for this, use your judgment.


JrK wrote:

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.

Your third point ruins your first 2. "The target cannot see." This is different from closing your eyes, or having a blindfold. Have you ever closed your eyes, but looked toward a bright light/the sun? Notice how it gets all red? That's because your eyes are still functioning, and processing whatever little light that reaches them. You can still see, just a very limited amount.

Compare this to someone who does not have eyes, or whose optic nerves have been cut. Their eyes do nothing, regardless of effects around them. This is someone who can not see.

So, having a blindfold, does not make you blinded. You still can see, if someone takes the blindfold off, your eyes are still capable of functioning.

Even if you are unwilling to see, as you make in your second point, if you are fighting a basilisk, you will be subject to its gaze attack, as you are not unable to see, you are merely not wanting to.

Lastly, back to the third point. Blindfolds and closed eyes do not make you unable to see, they merely limit how much you see. Physical impairments make you unable to see.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Says here that there are only two ways to avert your eyes and closing then is not on that list.

(also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the
creature or -------->shutting one’s eyes<---------)


Abraham spalding wrote:
Stubs McKenzie wrote:
So, close your eyes and you suffer 50% miss chance, then any other miss chance you would have already.
Miss chances don't stack or repeat.

As far as your response purely to the previous post goes you're correct, but in case of mirror images, the spell does not impose a miss chance.

It just randomly determines wether the attack goes against the caster or one of the images, not using any sort of miss chance percentile die. So i don't see why you wouldn't first roll for the miss chance for being blinded and then determine which of the images or the caster you attacked. Or the other way around.


Threeshades wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Stubs McKenzie wrote:
So, close your eyes and you suffer 50% miss chance, then any other miss chance you would have already.
Miss chances don't stack or repeat.

As far as your response purely to the previous post goes you're correct, but in case of mirror images, the spell does not impose a miss chance.

It just randomly determines wether the attack goes against the caster or one of the images, not using any sort of miss chance percentile die. So i don't see why you wouldn't first roll for the miss chance for being blinded and then determine which of the images or the caster you attacked. Or the other way around.

This is exactly how it works. but it seems magic missle bypasses almost all illusion spells anyway so why ever bother with illusion. It's worthless.


Trista1986 wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Stubs McKenzie wrote:
So, close your eyes and you suffer 50% miss chance, then any other miss chance you would have already.
Miss chances don't stack or repeat.

As far as your response purely to the previous post goes you're correct, but in case of mirror images, the spell does not impose a miss chance.

It just randomly determines wether the attack goes against the caster or one of the images, not using any sort of miss chance percentile die. So i don't see why you wouldn't first roll for the miss chance for being blinded and then determine which of the images or the caster you attacked. Or the other way around.

This is exactly how it works. but it seems magic missle bypasses almost all illusion spells anyway so why ever bother with illusion. It's worthless.

Because not every mage has magic missile prepared or enough to of them to stop you and the shield spell exists. Not to mention not all your opponents are magic users.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Trista1986 wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Stubs McKenzie wrote:
So, close your eyes and you suffer 50% miss chance, then any other miss chance you would have already.
Miss chances don't stack or repeat.

As far as your response purely to the previous post goes you're correct, but in case of mirror images, the spell does not impose a miss chance.

It just randomly determines wether the attack goes against the caster or one of the images, not using any sort of miss chance percentile die. So i don't see why you wouldn't first roll for the miss chance for being blinded and then determine which of the images or the caster you attacked. Or the other way around.

This is exactly how it works. but it seems magic missle bypasses almost all illusion spells anyway so why ever bother with illusion. It's worthless.
Because not every mage has magic missile prepared or enough to of them to stop you and the shield spell exists. Not to mention not all your opponents are magic users.

My problem is that it's written as a figmental Iluusion spell and always has been. If the developers want it a different way then they need to reprint it to say it's a phantasm effect. That would end the debate as by definition would work that way.


Tarantula wrote:
Your third point ruins your first 2. "The target cannot see." This is different from closing your eyes, or having a blindfold. Have you ever closed your eyes, but looked toward a bright light/the sun? Notice how it gets all red? That's because your eyes are still functioning, and processing whatever little light that reaches them. You can still see, just a very limited amount.

In any reasonable and actual interpretation of "I can see", when you close your eyes you cannot see. For example, the famous game of "I've got my eyes closed, I can't see you, so you cannot see me."


JrK wrote:
In any reasonable and actual interpretation of "I can see", when you close your eyes you cannot see. For example, the famous game of "I've got my eyes closed, I can't see you, so you cannot see me."

You can see your eyelids.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The issue isn't if you can or cannot see, but if you are effectively Blind as per the prd condition... shutting your eyes does not make you blind per the condition, so does not negate mirror image.

Sorry, I used the words miss chance twice, but mirror image isn't a miss chance, it is a random roll to see what, if anything, you hit. Closing your eyes would "negate" displacement but give you a worse % chance in the mean time. There is never a time (that I can think of) in the rules where closing your eyes increases you chances to hit.

Edit: If someone can link a line from the core rulebook that states closing your eyes gives you the "Blind" condition I will immediately, yet begrudgingly, change my tune. Closing your eyes gives everyone full concealment from you, but that doesn't = Blind.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaze wrote:
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).
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).

The spell has no effect in any case where the attacker can't see the wizard.

Closing your eyes causes you to not be able to see the wizard.

Therefore, closing your eyes causes the spell to have no effect on you.


Stubs McKenzie wrote:

The issue isn't if you can or cannot see, but if you are effectively Blind as per the prd condition... shutting your eyes does not make you blind per the condition, so does not negate mirror image.

Edit: If someone can link a line from the core rulebook that states closing your eyes gives you the "Blind" condition I will immediately, yet begrudgingly, change my tune. Closing your eyes gives everyone full concealment from you, but that doesn't = Blind.

It isn't the "blind" condition. It is the "Blinded" condition with the description "you cannot see".


I'd say this combination works. As stated before, Mirror Image specifies that the attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you cast Deeper Darkness (or regular darkness in an area of dim light)then you can't see the figments, unless you have darkvision of course.

Closing your eyes is the same thing as being in darkness. You can't see and are, effectively, blind without suffering from the Blinded condition.

If you can't see the figments, so they don't affect you. You still have a 50% miss chance, same as when you're blind or when you're in darkness. True Strike just makes the miss chance an non-issue for the one attack.

Osirion

As little as I like the way it's written, I have to agree with Avalon. Mirror Image reads clearly that if the attacker cannot see the images, the attacker cannot be fooled by them. For all reasonable purposes, anyone who closes his eyes has inflicted the Blinded condition upon himself. I am quite sure, given the totality of the rules quoted throughout the thread, that in this instance the word "blind" means the Blinded condition, and neither is intended to be limited to those who have permanent loss of sight. Anything that causes a character to lose sight - it could be a darkness spell, too - would qualify.

My only hesitation in accepting that this tactic would work is in the wording of True Strike: "Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target." The target with images actually has no concealment, instead there is a condition upon the attacker that created the miss chance. However, it seems clear from reading through all the rules that such a condition was exactly what the True Strike spell was designed for.

Finally, keep in mind that whatever the PCs can do, their enemies can also do. This trick may anger the GM who has become too attached to his favorite BBEG, but the players may not be so keen on it when the party mage gets spanked despite the magical defenses.

Silver Crusade

AvalonXQ wrote:
Gaze wrote:
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).
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).

The spell has no effect in any case where the attacker can't see the wizard.

Closing your eyes causes you to not be able to see the wizard.

Therefore, closing your eyes causes the spell to have no effect on you.

Wrong!

Being invisible or being blind are the only two ways. Closing your eyes does not qualify as being blind.

Silver Crusade

I will give you the exact reason why it doesn't work that way, well two actually. Not seeing the Wizard is where the blind part comes in, since this isn't a gaze attack you do not get to avert your eyes.

You cannot inflict blindness on yourself just by closing your eyes. There is no RAW that backs up those who says this.

Also, if the idea of closing your eyes was viable then these spells would be useless because anyone could just close their eyes as a free action, attack with a minus and then open them again as a free action and still be able to do what they need to do.

What we have as RAW are two things, invisibility and being blind. Find me somewhere in the book that says if I close my eyes I am blind then I will agree.


JrK wrote:
Stubs McKenzie wrote:

The issue isn't if you can or cannot see, but if you are effectively Blind as per the prd condition... shutting your eyes does not make you blind per the condition, so does not negate mirror image.

Edit: If someone can link a line from the core rulebook that states closing your eyes gives you the "Blind" condition I will immediately, yet begrudgingly, change my tune. Closing your eyes gives everyone full concealment from you, but that doesn't = Blind.

It isn't the "blind" condition. It is the "Blinded" condition with the description "you cannot see".

The blinded condition is the blind condition.... same word, different tense. Unless you are suggesting things like grapple, grappled, and grappling are different effects (change those words to any other condition).

Again, any line from the PRD that states closing your eyes = blind(ed), as opposed to just granting concealment. In that same fashion, closing your eyes does not give you all the other penalties associated with being blind(ed). In that same vein, if someone can pull text that says closing your eyes gives all the other associated penalties of the blind(ed) condition I would change my tune as far as rules go.

As far as being in darkness being equal to closing your eyes, I believe there are environmental rules that say you gain the blind(ed) condition when in darkness... can't pull it up atm, on my phone.

EDIT: there can be a number if reasons you cannot see temporarily... that doesn't mean on all of those occasions you gain the blind(ed) condition.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

The game uses the 'blinded' condition to represent a wide spectrum of vision loss, from "don't have any eyes and never did" to "someone threw dirt in my eyes and now everything is really blurry".

When your eyes are closed, you can't see anything beyond your eyelids. Most activities which rely on vision (like reading) are rendered impossible. You also can't see your environment well enough to navigate efficiently. If you get into a fight, it will be hard to dodge out of the way of attacks you can't see, and equally as difficult to hit your unseen opponent in return.

That sounds like the blinded condition to me. Part of being a GM is applying some common sense to the RAW (because the rules will never cover every situation or eventuality).

Silver Crusade

People will fight tooth and nail for their cheese.

Silver Crusade

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

The game uses the 'blinded' condition to represent a wide spectrum of vision loss, from "don't have any eyes and never did" to "someone threw dirt in my eyes and now everything is really blurry".

When you're eyes are closed, you can't see anything beyond your eyelids. Most activities which rely on vision (like reading) are rendered impossible. You also can't see your environment well enough to navigate efficiently. If you get into a fight, it will be hard to dodge out of the way of attacks you can't see, and equally as difficult to hit your unseen opponent in return.

That sounds like the blinded condition to me. Part of being a GM is applying some common sense to the RAW (because the rules will never cover every situation or eventuality).

Problem.

Being Blind, having dirt in your eyes, or having no eyes is a lot different then just closing your eyes. You can open your eyes at any time, the other conditions you can't. Navigating while your eyes are closed is not the same as being blind. I know someone who's blind and it's not even close.

If just closing your eyes was viable then it would be mentioned.


To be fair, you can Dirty Trick someone into being blinded.

"You can attempt to hinder a foe in melee as a standard action. This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short period of time. Examples include kicking sand into an opponent's face to blind him for 1 round, pulling down an enemy's pants to halve his speed, or hitting a foe in a sensitive spot to make him sickened for a round.
...
If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened. This condition lasts for 1 round. "


I have no problem with a character accepting the blinded condition.

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.

That a hefty draw back for the round.

After that the use of True Strike seems to be an excellent use of the spell.

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.

GO GO "It's a Kinda Magic!"

RAW don't seem to contradict it. I also can't find anything saying you can not Blind yourself for a round. I wouldn't let be a free action that you can turn off mid round tho. So, Good for you, you can hit your target. At the exspence of your dex and ac for a round.... "hope you kill it."


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

The game uses the 'blinded' condition to represent a wide spectrum of vision loss, from "don't have any eyes and never did" to "someone threw dirt in my eyes and now everything is really blurry".

When your eyes are closed, you can't see anything beyond your eyelids. Most activities which rely on vision (like reading) are rendered impossible. You also can't see your environment well enough to navigate efficiently. If you get into a fight, it will be hard to dodge out of the way of attacks you can't see, and equally as difficult to hit your unseen opponent in return.

That sounds like the blinded condition to me. Part of being a GM is applying some common sense to the RAW (because the rules will never cover every situation or eventuality).

There are a decent number of conditions, effects, and actions that need ruling due to poor wording or a lack of overall definition... the blinded condition isn't one of them. There are a number of places, rules, feats, etc that specify it causes the blinded condition. Closing your eyes doesn't say anything of the sort. I have to believe that is purposeful seeing how often they DO actually specify something causes the blinded condition.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

shallowsoul wrote:

Problem.

Being Blind, having dirt in your eyes, or having no eyes is a lot different then just closing your eyes. You can open your eyes at any time, the other conditions you can't. Navigating while your eyes are closed is not the same as being blind. I know someone who's blind and it's not even close.

If just closing your eyes was viable then it would be mentioned.

And navigating with dirt in your eyes is a lot different from being blind, but the game still treats both as being blinded :)

You're arguing "I don't want this specific tactic to work against this specific spell, so I'm going to make a broad ruling about how vision works in the game"

I'm saying "I don't give a toot about this one specific spell or how easy it is to counter--the vision rules should make sense, and it makes sense for closing your eyes to apply the blinded condition."


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

Link.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

...

If you close your eyes and attack blindly, yes, you can ignore the images and just use the 50% miss chance rule... but then you're also blind, which has a lot of penalties for you.
...

Other relevant link.

SKR wrote:

{The spell description specifically states that if you're blinded there is no effect from the images.}

Ah, that's true.

{Well I do wonder if closing and opening your eyes is a free action. If so, you could just close your eyes, swing, and then open them again before your turn is over.}

If I were GM, I'd rule that a character has to spend at LEAST a move action closing his eyes for this purpose to get the benefit of being "blind" (and I'm sure some GMs would say he'd need to stay blind for the whole round). Otherwise his brain's reflexes are still remembering that there are multiple images there and mentally he's dealing with that rather than the realization that there's just one target somewhere in that square to swing at. Otherwise, on the other end of the cheese spectrum, a player could say "I'm blinking, that should count as being blind!"

Here's the breakdown of the blindness thing:
One one hand, you can swing with your eyes open, and have a reasonable chance to destroy an image (whether by missing by 5 or less, or "hitting" an actual image), which means eventually you entirely negate the spell. Note that at higher levels, a character's multiple attacks can obliterate multiple images per round. And note that destroying images helps you and your friends; even if one character has a crappy attack roll, they can pop an image with a near miss, so even the wizard who's out of spells can stay in the back and shoot at mirrorman with a crossbow to help the fighter defeat him.
On the other hand, you can swing with your eyes closed, and the miss chance stays at 50% forever, and you have to worry about enemies taking readied actions to attack you when you close your eyes (or the caster could take a readied action to MOVE AWAY when you close your eyes).

Short term vs. long term strategy, really.


shallowsoul wrote:
Being invisible or being blind are the only two ways. Closing your eyes does not qualify as being blind.

Read again.

"The foe cannot see the creature at all "

"An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled."

I don't know how much more clear this could be.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

@Stubs McKenzie
So you're saying that a creature should still be able to read with its eyes closed? And not take a penalty on opposed Perception checks? :)

Because those are other penalties associated with the Blinded condition. If all a creature suffers while shutting its eyes "other creatures get total concealment", then I'm definitely going to keep my eyes shut while exploring dungeons from now on (no real penalties, and it'll keep me safe if a medusa jumps out at me).


shallowsoul wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Gaze wrote:
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).
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).

The spell has no effect in any case where the attacker can't see the wizard.

Closing your eyes causes you to not be able to see the wizard.

Therefore, closing your eyes causes the spell to have no effect on you.

Wrong!

Being invisible or being blind are the only two ways. Closing your eyes does not qualify as being blind.

Blinded: The creature cannot see.

Sounds like what happens when I close my eyes.


I guess as long as you can use True Strike against a target that has 'total concealment' then its fine

If TS just negates C, and not TC, it isnt


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

True Strike does not qualify which types of concealment it negates as abilities that only work against one type do.

The only way one could read that spell and think that true strike just applies to concealment but not total concealment is if that's the way they want it to read.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

@Stubs McKenzie

So you're saying that a creature should still be able to read with its eyes closed? And not take a penalty on opposed Perception checks? :)

Because those are other penalties associated with the Blinded condition. If all a creature suffers while shutting its eyes "other creatures get total concealment", then I'm definitely going to keep my eyes shut while exploring dungeons from now on (no real penalties, and it'll keep me safe if a medusa jumps out at me).

If there were only 2 options, completely blind or not blind at all, I would say yes, you are blind, but there is that other little tidbit that says when you close your eyes you can't see at all... if you think by not being able to see it means you can still read and can navigate properly, then sure?

If not however, closing you eyes to avoid a gaze attack grants other creatures total concealment without all of the other penalties associated with being blind per the condition.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

If a target is invisible, you can attack their square, resulting in a 50% miss chance. That mirror image makes the odds of hitting much worse is pretty powerful. It's better than invisibility from a defensive standpoint. Taking true strike out of the picture, allowing an attacker to close their eyes to become "blind" merely reduces the miss-chance to 50% and has some penalties. Not unreasonable.

Adding true strike is where things start to go awry. Still, if you burn a spell to counter a spell for ONE attack, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

RAW it looks like it works. RAI it probably should as well, with the caveat that you should close your eyes for the round, like with gaze attacks.


Without trying to flood the forum with 'real world experience' here is the example that comes to mind for me... something I used to do all the time as a kid...

All but one light in the house is off... I have to make it from the first floor to the second to go to bed, but decide to not turn lights on and off along the way to get there (honestly didn't have much choice in he matter). I take a look at my surroundings and gain an immediate mental image, turn off the lights, and close my eyes. Focusing on the mental image I would make my way through the house (never easy, and nearly always changing in my case due to a parent having severe hoarding issues). Having seen the terrain and what I was up against made it MUCH MUCH easier to do such... however, once I made it to a point I had not recently seen / committed to memory it became much harder to continue on without stepping on broken plastic and old toys/clothes/newspapers that had been jostled around the day before.

The first part of that is akin to closing ones eyes... it didnt really matter if the lights had been on or off for what I had already seen once my eyes were closed, while I could not see currently I was certainly not blind. The second half of my journey, however, was very much akin to the blinded condition where I often found myself groping around in the dark for familiar objects to guide me.... I had no idea what lay ahead. That IS the rules difference between closing your eyes and being blind.

Having said all that, If SKR says closing ones eyes = the blinded condition then it is so as far as these forums go. He also says it should be "at least" a move action to do so, and it is very reasonable to have it last the full round... you do gain all of the penalties associated.

The issue I have with that ruling is he didn't make a rule of the second part... only stated the first firmly... so now ppl can run around arguing "but he didn't say I CAN'T just blink!" And "I don't become blind for anything else other than my swing, nothing says I don't!" And that is a bit of poor judgement on his end.


Stubs, the problem with your example, is that, like you said, at first, you still could "see" where things were in your memory. The same would happen with the fighter. He would remember that there were 5 wizards in that space, and not know which one was the real one. So how does he get to ignore the images?

Silver Crusade

Would you say a person is deafened because they stick their fingers in their ears?


you can actually get earplugs in the 3.5 equipment book that did just that.


shallowsoul wrote:
Would you say a person is deafened because they stick their fingers in their ears?

I'd give them at least a +2 against language dependent (and sonic) effects as well as a -4 on perception checks that depend on sound. Of course they aren't using their hands for anything else either while their ears are plugged so I would probably up the bonus to at least +4.

Ear plugs would yield similiar results (with the hands free of course).

Incidentally I wouldn't require the 20% ASF from being deaf as you can still actually hear yourself speak through your sinus cavities (even if you sound a little off).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

At this point, we have the shocking and highly unprecedented dev clarification that the intent of the game is that when you cannot see, you are in fact not affected by effects that specifically require you to see things.

Shocking, I know.

We also have confirmation, equally as unlikely!, that when you close your eyes, you are blind!

What you do with this information is up to you. So if in your games you hate the fact that not being able to see is a valid counter to effects that only work when seen, go ahead and houserule this.

And remember folks, arguing against a known intent is a hallmark of cheese, on both sides of the GM screen.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
At this point, we have the shocking and highly unprecedented dev clarification that the intent of the game is that when you cannot see, you are in fact not affected by effects that specifically require you to see things.

Sorry Cheapy... I'm pretty good at noticing Paizo employee contributions to threads but I didn't notice your quotes when skimming.

You've done all that needs be done here.

Silver Crusade

The thing that "just closing your eyes" presents is the cops and robbers scenario "I shot you", "Nuh uh.....I shot you".

"Oh yeah, I just happen to have my eyes closed".

This would actually open up a lot of arguments with other Illusion based spells such as Phantasmal Killer.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:

The thing that "just closing your eyes" presents is the cops and robbers scenario "I shot you", "Nuh uh.....I shot you".

"Oh yeah, I just happen to have my eyes closed".

This would actually open up a lot of arguments with other Illusion based spells such as Phantasmal Killer.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Silver Crusade

Here is something else that SKR doesn't discuss.

If you cast the spell while the person is looking at you and multiple images are created and the caster himself moves.

Now the fighter walks up to the closest image and decides to close their eyes and swing. What happens if they stop 10ft or more away from the real thing and they don't have reach?

There are other scenarios similar to this that leads to pretty much the same thing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

The thing that "just closing your eyes" presents is the cops and robbers scenario "I shot you", "Nuh uh.....I shot you".

"Oh yeah, I just happen to have my eyes closed".

This would actually open up a lot of arguments with other Illusion based spells such as Phantasmal Killer.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Mechanics are there so that there are no arguments. Right now there is no soild mechanical rule for having one's eyes closed. This can lead to arguments from people claiming that their eyes were closed.

If SKR is going to give this ruling then there needs to be a mechanic written up and added to the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Then he'll miss.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
blahpers wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

The thing that "just closing your eyes" presents is the cops and robbers scenario "I shot you", "Nuh uh.....I shot you".

"Oh yeah, I just happen to have my eyes closed".

This would actually open up a lot of arguments with other Illusion based spells such as Phantasmal Killer.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Mechanics are there so that there are no arguments. Right now there is no soild mechanical rule for having one's eyes closed. This can lead to arguments from people claiming that their eyes were closed.

If SKR is going to give this ruling then there needs to be a mechanic written up and added to the game.

As I understand it, the game doesn't belabor every possible argument that could possibly come up because at some point the group is expected to impose either common sense or their own interpretation of the rules. It is impossible to fill every single gap. Even GURPS doesn't manage that. If they reprinted every time there was a dispute, the rules would be so long that nobody would be able to parse them.

If you're the GM, use your judgment. If you're the player, use the GM's judgment.


Tarantula wrote:
Stubs, the problem with your example, is that, like you said, at first, you still could "see" where things were in your memory. The same would happen with the fighter. He would remember that there were 5 wizards in that space, and not know which one was the real one. So how does he get to ignore the images?

Personally I am with you, I don't believe he should be able to, but SKR says differently... Funny enough, he and I thought along similar lines until someone in that thread suggested closing ones eyes gives the blinded condition, thus bypassing MI, which he agreed with... it is that part of the whole thing I don't find a basis for in the rules, and had been running differently this whole time...

SKR wrote:

Sean K Reynolds (Developer) Jan 4, 2010, 03:42 PM

I welcome anyone deciding to close their eyes in the middle of combat. That means

* all your opponents have total concealment

Which means

* you're flat-footed against them
* rogues can sneak attack you at will

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect that closing your eyes doesn't guarantee that if you roll your 50%, you hit the caster. I think it means that you roll your attack, have a 50% miss chance to hit ANYTHING, and if you "hit" then you roll your random chance to see whether the thing you hit is the caster or just an image. So you're worse off with your eyes closed--as it should be.

One thing this does is cause the spell Remove Blindness/Deafness to become potentially offensive in nature... party member uses a gaze attack, NPC closes their eyes (effectively blinded), you cast Remove Blindness/Deafness and voila... forced save vs gaze attack. Not bad or good, just interesting.

51 to 100 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.