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!

Closing of the eyes: New ruling, new repercussions?


Rules Questions

Silver Crusade

Now that SKR says it's okay for someone to just "shut their eyes" to avoid things like Mirror Image, do you think there will be repercussions from the ruling with regards to other spells and abilities?


As I mentioned in the other thread "Remove Blindness/Deafness" now can force anyone with their eyes closed to open hem immediately... just to get things rolling. Also, anyone who takes the feat blind fight can now force a max effective concealment % of 25 by closing their eyes.

Am interested if any other spells/feats are affected.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Tales Subscriber

Yes - you can selfinduce the blinded condition for you. I think this was always possible by closing the eyes - just think if you wanted to fight a Medusa.

But be aware of the draw backs as well.

If you only fight a wizard it might be beneficial - but in most circumstance the downsides will outweight the benefit.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just hope the game doesn't become flooded with little tidbit rules here and there. "I stick my fingers in my ears to give myself a sonic resistance, or I hold an action and empty my waterskin over myself to give me a quick fire resistance before the fire attack hits me."

Silver Crusade

Thod wrote:

Yes - you can selfinduce the blinded condition for you. I think this was always possible by closing the eyes - just think if you wanted to fight a Medusa.

But be aware of the draw backs as well.

If you only fight a wizard it might be beneficial - but in most circumstance the downsides will outweight the benefit.

There are actual rules for avoiding your eyes and using a blindfold. There is nothing about just closing your eyes.


It is still a GM call on how long their eyes are closed for. I would make it be for the entire round if they are attacking instead of just avoiding a gaze attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well if they are closing their eyes, logically, I suppose they'd be fighting blind (i.e. with the blinded condition) which would be much worse for a character. As for the interaction between closing your eyes and magic missile... I don't really know right now.

Hmm... I wonder why the penalties for blindfolded blindness are lesser than actually being blind?

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rule that closing ones eyes should be implemented in the same way as Power Attack or similar use-activated abilities: you must choose to do so at the start of your turn, and carry the penalties for an entire round.

I imagine a wizard's rogue companion would be very thankful you closed your eyes to ignore mirror image.


shallowsoul wrote:
I just hope the game doesn't become flooded with little tidbit rules here and there. "I stick my fingers in my ears to give myself a sonic resistance, or I hold an action and empty my waterskin over myself to give me a quick fire resistance before the fire attack hits me."

You'll be glad to know that Pathfinder explicitly permits sonic effects to affect deafened characters freely, thereby preventing narratively unsatisfying metagamey rules exploits such as largely nullifying sirens by merely sticking things in your ears.


There are dozens of things explicitly preventing you from action. Being dead isnt one of them.

It's the same argument and the same reason: some things should be bloody obvious.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Admittedly this doesn't seem like a very urgent ruling.

Silver Crusade

Jal Dorak wrote:

I would rule that closing ones eyes should be implemented in the same way as Power Attack or similar use-activated abilities: you must choose to do so at the start of your turn, and carry the penalties for an entire round.

I imagine a wizard's rogue companion would be very thankful you closed your eyes to ignore mirror image.

That's how I feel about it. If you are going to declare that you are shutting your eyes then it must last until the end of your turn or even the whole round.

Silver Crusade

stringburka wrote:

There are dozens of things explicitly preventing you from action. Being dead isnt one of them.

It's the same argument and the same reason: some things should be bloody obvious.

You aren't comparing obvious to obvious.

Would Stevie Wonder like it if you compared his blindness to just closing your eyes?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:

I would rule that closing ones eyes should be implemented in the same way as Power Attack or similar use-activated abilities: you must choose to do so at the start of your turn, and carry the penalties for an entire round.

I imagine a wizard's rogue companion would be very thankful you closed your eyes to ignore mirror image.

That's how I feel about it. If you are going to declare that you are shutting your eyes then it must last until the end of your turn or even the whole round.

Can't think of a single reason why (other than "because that's not fair!"), but I'll wager they're about to flood the thread.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
stringburka wrote:

There are dozens of things explicitly preventing you from action. Being dead isnt one of them.

It's the same argument and the same reason: some things should be bloody obvious.

You aren't comparing obvious to obvious.

Would Stevie Wonder like it if you compared his blindness to just closing your eyes?

In both cases, you can't see. See, I just did! I'M SORRY STEVIE!!

Silver Crusade

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

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a link to Sean K Reynold's comment?

Thanks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm still a bit confused as to why closing your eyes gives you less of a penalty than being blinded. Both ways you can't see, right?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
I'm still a bit confused as to why closing your eyes gives you less of a penalty than being blinded. Both ways you can't see, right?

I assumed that it would give you the same penalties, at least for the duration of the attack(s).


A round is six seconds. You can do a lot of opening and closing of eyes in six seconds.

However, the game rules are, of necessity, abstractions. If it is necessary for the rules to be comprehensible to say that you have to declare if you are closing your eyes for the entire round, then I can accept that as one of those annoying rules things that you just have to do even if it makes no literal sense.

We have always played that a player can close their eyes for any action, and if they do, they are treated as blind for that action. If they want to close their eyes for more than a single action, they can do that too. They are just blind while their eyes are closed.

Not sure why that would need clarification, it's always worked for us.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

A round is six seconds. You can do a lot of opening and closing of eyes in six seconds.

However, the game rules are, of necessity, abstractions. If it is necessary for the rules to be comprehensible to say that you have to declare if you are closing your eyes for the entire round, then I can accept that as one of those annoying rules things that you just have to do even if it makes no literal sense.

We have always played that a player can close their eyes for any action, and if they do, they are treated as blind for that action. If they want to close their eyes for more than a single action, they can do that too. They are just blind while their eyes are closed.

Not sure why that would need clarification, it's always worked for us.

Same here.

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
I just hope the game doesn't become flooded with little tidbit rules here and there. "I stick my fingers in my ears to give myself a sonic resistance, or I hold an action and empty my waterskin over myself to give me a quick fire resistance before the fire attack hits me."

I say, "Why not?"

If someone is pounding me with sonic attacks, I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears. If I'm good at Spellcraft and someone is casting Flare at me, I'm going to close my eyes. If I know catching fire is an impending possibility, then dousing myself with water sounds like a fantastic idea. As a GM, I would happily grant small bonuses for quick thinking and thank the player for creativity and with-it-ness.

I'm not talking fire/sonic resistance 10 or anything, but maybe 2. Maybe a +2 on the save vs the Flare. Nothing gamebreaking, but I would kill to have players who were that involved in the RP to make moves like that.

Silver Crusade

Wildebob wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I just hope the game doesn't become flooded with little tidbit rules here and there. "I stick my fingers in my ears to give myself a sonic resistance, or I hold an action and empty my waterskin over myself to give me a quick fire resistance before the fire attack hits me."

I say, "Why not?"

If someone is pounding me with sonic attacks, I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears. If I'm good at Spellcraft and someone is casting Flare at me, I'm going to close my eyes. If I know catching fire is an impending possibility, then dousing myself with water sounds like a fantastic idea. As a GM, I would happily grant small bonuses for quick thinking and thank the player for creativity and with-it-ness.

I'm not talking fire/sonic resistance 10 or anything, but maybe 2. Maybe a +2 on the save vs the Flare. Nothing gamebreaking, but I would kill to have players who were that involved in the RP to make moves like that.

I don't have a problem with those as houserules. Flooding the actual rules with that sort of thing isn't necessary really.

Shadow Lodge

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

Yes - you can selfinduce the blinded condition for you. I think this was always possible by closing the eyes - just think if you wanted to fight a Medusa.

But be aware of the draw backs as well.

If you only fight a wizard it might be beneficial - but in most circumstance the downsides will outweight the benefit.

There are actual rules for avoiding your eyes and using a blindfold. There is nothing about just closing your eyes.

This is not only wrong, but you are willfully closing your eyes to them. There ARE rules for closing your eyes. You were shown them previously.

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.

Shutting your eyes is specifically the same as using a blindfold. I don't like something is not the same as it isn't there.


If in the book it says you can avoid gaze attacks by closing your eyes effectively making you blind im fine with it, but it doesn't, which is where this conversation started from in the other thread... which was the idea of making a separate thread... to get away from that discussion. This is a 'ramifications thereof' thread.

Continuing to make the age old "but dead doesn't say blah blah" is dumb, please stop.

There is a pretty defined set of circumstances revolving around being dead, most of which involve ...ya know... not showing any signs of life. That includes not moving, breathing, or acting.

Quickly closing your eyes, on the other hand, doesn't mean you are blind! 2 different things.

Since this conversation seems impossible to have in an adult manner, I am going to bow out. I would still love to hear from anyone who sees any quirks with spells and feats that are interesting or amusing (like blind fight allowing a max 25% effective miss chance vs things like greater displacement).


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Wildebob wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I just hope the game doesn't become flooded with little tidbit rules here and there. "I stick my fingers in my ears to give myself a sonic resistance, or I hold an action and empty my waterskin over myself to give me a quick fire resistance before the fire attack hits me."

I say, "Why not?"

If someone is pounding me with sonic attacks, I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears. If I'm good at Spellcraft and someone is casting Flare at me, I'm going to close my eyes. If I know catching fire is an impending possibility, then dousing myself with water sounds like a fantastic idea. As a GM, I would happily grant small bonuses for quick thinking and thank the player for creativity and with-it-ness.

I'm not talking fire/sonic resistance 10 or anything, but maybe 2. Maybe a +2 on the save vs the Flare. Nothing gamebreaking, but I would kill to have players who were that involved in the RP to make moves like that.

I don't have a problem with those as houserules. Flooding the actual rules with that sort of thing isn't necessary really.

And there's the problem. You assume that Pathfinder specifies every useful action that a character can take in its rules. It doesn't, and it isn't supposed to. Players are supposed to come up with creative ways to solve problems that aren't covered by the rules. GMs are supposed to evaluate the results of such actions. And these results are supposed to vary from table to table, GM to GM, campaign to campaign, and even situation to situation within a campaign, based on the GM's interpretation of the actions. It's an integral part of the game.

The fact that SKR made a ruling is handy, but it should not be a requirement whenever a player does something that you didn't expect because it isn't spelled out in the rulebook. They're supposed to do that--it's the players' job to surprise the GM and force them to figure out what happens--not just using the rules, but using their brains and imagination.

Otherwise, we might as well play a computer game. Then player and GM creativity don't matter, and we avoid all the messy decisions by virtue of them being impossible.

Andoran

Can someone point me in the direction of this "Ruling"?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Start here and follow Cheapy's links if needed. Though I didn't check whether they were actually rulings when I used the word, so they may just be developer opinions. Read all about it. Or don't, and just do what makes sense.


If you close your eyes, you won't see invisible people either.
Just sayin.
The whole Courtroom's outta order.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After thinking about this for awhile I've decided that in any game I run you can in-fact close your eyes take an action and open your eyes if you wish.

I'm gonna do a quick comparison for you:

1) Mirror Image: 2nd Level Illusion spell lasts 1min/level
2) Blur : 2nd Level Illusion spell lasts 1min/level

Blur makes all enemies take 20% miss chance.
Mirror Images gives all enemies 1 in 1d4+X chance to hit.
or
If you close your eyes a 50/50 if you miss to the 50/50 you don't take down an image and your friends are still dealing with the spell effects.

So a character would be choosing to take the 50/50 which is a worse penalty than a similar spell instead of the chance to take an image.

Seems fair to me.


People still seem to be worrying over the grave danger of a million little-cited tiny rules involving deafness and sonic resistance, but as I said earlier, there's no need for fear! There's already a little-cited tiny rule covering the situation!

"Sonic effects transmit energy to the target through frequent oscillations of pressure through the air, water, or ground. Sounds that are too high or too low for the humanoid ear to detect can still transmit enough energy to cause harm, which means that these effects can even affect deafened creatures." It's from Ultimate Magic discussing descriptors in the "designing spells" section. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/designingSpells.htm l)

The only effects that deafness explicitly protects you against are language-dependent effects. What's that? Why, yes, there is a little-cited tiny rule covering that. "If the target cannot understand or hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell has no effect, even if the target fails its saving throw." That one's in the core rules talking about what descriptors do in the magic section. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html)

Pouring water on yourself requires GM adjudication as to whether or not it's enough to constitute a body of water. "The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell" as per the "fire" subsection of the "underwater" subsection of the "environment" section of the core rules. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html)

But you're right, we wouldn't want Pathfinder to be overwhelmed with tiny little rules. That would just be silly.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Benly wrote:

People still seem to be worrying over the grave danger of a million little-cited tiny rules involving deafness and sonic resistance, but as I said earlier, there's no need for fear! There's already a little-cited tiny rule covering the situation!

"Sonic effects transmit energy to the target through frequent oscillations of pressure through the air, water, or ground. Sounds that are too high or too low for the humanoid ear to detect can still transmit enough energy to cause harm, which means that these effects can even affect deafened creatures." It's from Ultimate Magic discussing descriptors in the "designing spells" section. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/designingSpells.htm l)

The only effects that deafness explicitly protects you against are language-dependent effects. What's that? Why, yes, there is a little-cited tiny rule covering that. "If the target cannot understand or hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell has no effect, even if the target fails its saving throw." That one's in the core rules talking about what descriptors do in the magic section. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html)

Pouring water on yourself requires GM adjudication as to whether or not it's enough to constitute a body of water. "The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell" as per the "fire" subsection of the "underwater" subsection of the "environment" section of the core rules. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html)

But you're right, we wouldn't want Pathfinder to be overwhelmed with tiny little rules. That would just be silly.

I'm pretty sure the "body of water" was meant to be, you know, something you can actually submerge into. Especially considering that it completely nullifies the effect rather than simply softening it.


blahpers wrote:
I'm pretty sure the "body of water" was meant to be, you know, something you can actually submerge into. Especially considering that it completely nullifies the effect rather than simply softening it.

Probably! A waterskin won't do it, but a readied Create Water (2 gallons per level) might be enough to interpose a credible waterfall. Who knows?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Benly wrote:
blahpers wrote:
I'm pretty sure the "body of water" was meant to be, you know, something you can actually submerge into. Especially considering that it completely nullifies the effect rather than simply softening it.
Probably! A waterskin won't do it, but a readied Create Water (2 gallons per level) might be enough to interpose a credible waterfall. Who knows?

Interesting idea.... Maybe? It'd definitely be in the realm of GM fiat, though.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

New condition: "Wet" - +2 on saves vs. fire, -2 on saves vs. cold. :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Mosaic wrote:
New condition: "Wet" - +2 on saves vs. fire, -2 on saves vs. cold. :)

OMG what are the repercussions!?!

Silver Crusade

It's not that it's game breaking but if the game is going to have things like the above and closing your eyes then they should have a chart that lists special things you can do and what they give you.

We shouldn't have to dig deep into the game to find out this type of information.

Just make it clear!


We dont have to dig deep shallowsoul. And its not a major issue with far reaching repurcussions.

And we don't need a chart listing all these little circumstances because by the time it was done it would be its own 300pg hardcover.

Warning the following is a parody and not intended as an attack or insult.

Paizo Blog

Ever wonder if closing your eyes helps versus dazzle?
Can't decide if a readied Create Water helps your save versus Fire spells?
Maybe your group needs to know just how many dead bards you need in a pile to count as cover.

Wait no longer because coming this fall its Ultimate Circumstances. This 300 page hardcover will be filled page after page of tables charts and diagrams to help take the thinking out of Gamemastering. No longer will you be bogged down with boring details of how mundane or creative ideas might effect rules. Now you have a book to check and if it ain't in here it don't work. Pre-order by the end of the month and you will get a free PDF copy of Heroes and Hygiene a short source book to cover rules for when some wants to say Heroes dont have to poop.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

Removed a few posts. Calling people "trolls" and popcorn-like posts are not productive. Please do not do this thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Actually, I'm going to take the devil's advocate position because I believe in it.

I'd like to see more little edge-condition rules like this. The game already explicitly encourages DMs to apply circumstance modifiers to the rolls players have to make. There are some examples given, but I'd be perfectly happy to see more, such as the "wet" condition above.

The reason I play PF over other systems is the rich, varied, detailed rule set. Since some people won't allow or respect a circumstance modifier if it's not literally in print, I support more printed rules.

SKR is spot-on with this ruling.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Closing of the eyes: New ruling, new repercussions? 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.