| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are enough downsides to the Fighter closing his eyes for the swing that it lasting till his next turn is a bit much.
Closed Eyes:
Doesn't remove the images(Doesn't help your party)
Vulnerable to readied actions
Benefits:
Lowers the mischance to be less ridiculously substantial. Mirror Image at the very least gives you a 50% miss chance.
Gives a Martial a mundane method of defeating a low level spell.
|
I would probably make the call that the illusions don't all perfectly fit into a pretty 5ft x 5ft square, that they are always jostling about and extending into other squares too, and that the fighter needs to somehow figure out which square to strike into, and give several squares as possible options that the illusions/mage were in at the time he closed his eyes.
Once you house rule Mirror Image into multiple squares to target, you just house ruled the wizard with multiple targets to fire magic missiles at and pop all the images at once, which already has multiple threads with Paizo staff saying isn't how the spell works. So you suggest we weaken the fighter further by making them have to choose a square they can target while the wizard continues to not be able to target effects.
What if the mirror imaged character was standing next to one of its allies? Do the mirror images now bump into their ally presenting a will save to recognize that image as not being real since it just got close to the enemy character without interfereing with it? How about an AoO for any of the caster's enemies that have mirror images entering their own square?
That's why the images all stay in the same space as the caster. And that's why swinging blindly at a square has as much of a chance of hitting that character as swinging blindly at an invisible creature.
I would probably make the call that the illusions don't all perfectly fit into a pretty 5ft x 5ft square, that they are always jostling about and extending into other squares too, and that the fighter needs to somehow figure out which square to strike into, and give several squares as possible options that the illusions/mage were in at the time he closed his eyes.Once you house rule Mirror Image into multiple squares to target, you just house ruled the wizard with multiple targets to fire magic missiles at and pop all the images at once, which already has multiple threads with Paizo staff saying isn't how the spell works. So you suggest we weaken the fighter further by making them have to choose a square they can target while the wizard continues to not be able to target effects.
What if the mirror imaged character was standing next to one of its allies? Do the mirror images now bump into their ally presenting a will save to recognize that image as not being real since it just got close to the enemy character without interfereing with it? How about an AoO for any of the caster's enemies that have mirror images entering their own square?
That's why the images all stay in the same space as the caster. And that's why swinging blindly at a square has as much of a chance of hitting that character as swinging blindly at an invisible creature.
Wow. You just ignored the entire context of my albeit very long post.
For the purpose of striking at the wizard after closing your eyes:
He must figure out which square he is in.
So, in this very specific situation... I would treat it as if there where multiple possible squares.
Normally, 'something' hints to the 'actual' location of a creaure. The fighter has no idea, just the square, and tnks he is in multiple possible spots in the square.
Closing his eyes, he still thinks the wizard could be in multiple spots within the square... that is what he saw, and if he can use the information of which square the wizard is in, then he aslo must use the information of there being multiple spots the wizards was in.
Basically, if the Fighter knows which square to attack, he should also still be affected by the illusions. Why? Because 'he did see them'. The illusions have been seen. And now he doesn't know which one is real.
So when he closes his eyes, he still 'has seen' multiple spots where the wizard is.
Which spot is he attacking? How does closing his eyes help h, when the information he is using to direct his attack at the wizard, is that there are multiple spots to attack at????
Having seen the illusions, at all, screws with his ability to properly locate the target. Even if he closes his eyes, he has still already seen them, and already been fooled by the illusions.
If he 'never' saw them to begin with, the spell wouldn't affect him at all. But he already saw the illusions. So knows of exact spots which the wizard might be. He just doesn't know which one is the right spot. Closing your eyes doesn't change that. The illusions have already done their job, and given him bad information.
The only way around this, is if the fighter essentially braindumps his previous notions about where the wizard is, and hones in with his senses again, now that his eyes are closed. So, he would have to figure out, again, now that his eyes are closed, what square to attack.
|
There is a flaw in your reasoning. You try to imagine a real person trying to hit images as if a person in real life had mirror image on (nothing wrong with this, BTW!), but then talk about how the square grid should limit the fighter!
If you try to imagine a real person, then there is no square grid. The fighter sees images that are constantly swimming around (no 'you already pinpointed where the images are', they constantly move!), and picks an image to aim at as if it were a real person moving around (it might be!). Or, he can close his eyes and swing wildly in the general area.
Not only could we reconstruct this situation often enough to:-
• work out if doing this is better or worse than keeping your eyes open and attacking images
• use this to train in blind-fighting
We could do this IRL if we could cast the spell, with no knowledge of 'game mechanics'.
And our characters could do the same thing in game. With no knowledge of game mechanics.
IRL, we don't know the laws of the universe as if they were game mechanics. We can only have an educated guess, informed by experiment and observation.
The laws of our game universe are the PF game mechanics. Although our characters cannot know them, they can discover how things work in their world by experiment and observation, just like we do in ours.
In their universe, there is a 50% miss chance for being unable to see the target. Our characters cannot know that, but it happens anyway. So if they try it 1000s of times they will hit 50%...ish of the time. Enough to make an informed decision about 'to close or not to close, that is the question!'
As a result of the PF game mechanics, there are differences in the 'laws' of our two universes. But they are subject to their laws not ours, and for them it's 50% whether it would be in ours or not. That is the evidence they will discover by observing their world, and making those decisions is not metagaming.
If a DM changes the laws of the universe just to make a good idea fail....
|
I think there are enough downsides to the Fighter closing his eyes for the swing that it lasting till his next turn is a bit much.
Closed Eyes:
Doesn't remove the images(Doesn't help your party)
Vulnerable to readied actionsBenefits:
Lowers the mischance to be less ridiculously substantial. Mirror Image at the very least gives you a 50% miss chance.
Gives a Martial a mundane method of defeating a low level spell.
25% if the fighter has blind fighting.
If you try to imagine a real person, then there is no square grid. The fighter sees images that are constantly swimming around (no 'you already pinpointed where the images are', they constantly move!), and picks an image to aim at as if it were a real person moving around (it might be!). Or, he can close his eyes and swing wildly in the general area.
This right here! The bolded part.
Swinging wildly doesn't rely on your eyes being closed. You can swing wildly with eyes open. Closing your eyes doesn't aid in your ability to swing wildly.
IRL, if I want to hit this guy, I'd swing my blade at an angle to swipe through the most number of images at one time. (To do that, you'd need to see)
The old version of the spell had the images far enough apart that this wasn't feasible. The Pathfinder version has them all stacked on top of each other, and fails the 'does it make sense' test.
Because it doesn't make sense.
The spell simply shouldn't do what it says it does. The only way around that is to either errata the spell, or decide any sense of feasibility goes out the window.
The laws of our game universe are the PF game mechanics. Although our characters cannot know them, they can discover how things work in their world by experiment and observation, just like we do in ours.In their universe, there is a 50% miss chance for being unable to see the target. Our characters cannot know that, but it happens anyway. So if they try it 1000s of times they will hit 50%...ish of the time. Enough to make an informed decision about 'to close or not to close, that is the question!'
As a result of the PF game mechanics, there are differences in the 'laws' of our two universes. But they are subject to their laws not ours, and for them it's 50% whether it would be in ours or not. That is the evidence they will discover by observing their world, and making those decisions is not metagaming.
Eh, you get into weird hazy territory here. Analytical testing of the game universe's laws (Ie rules) in character is mostly a front for bringing in player knowledge into character knowledge. Even if we where to concede that this is justifiable as metagaming-lite, it still leaves the question;
Why is the fighter leading the frontier of Pathfinder physics and science discoveries?
IRL, it was extraordinary people pushing the envelope over centuries to discover the basic laws of reality. Bob the Fighter with his 7 Int isn't 'that guy'.
That is of course, if we even want to go there and say, with certainty, that the physical laws of a Pathfinder game can be scientifically understood in the way you're describing. I wouldn't wanna go there. I wouldn't wanna delve into the quagmire that creates at all.
It for starters, would imply that characters do know the rules of the game... because if Bob the Fighter knows this rule, The evil Lich Necromancer with a 40 int certainly knows just about all of them.
Could he figure out that there is a system in place for increasing your power? All of his basic (lvl1 warrior) minions get better after defeating exactly a dozen commoners. Maybe he starts to ask why that is, and figures out there is a linear progression based on relative levels of power and on how challenging the opponent was, and once he cracks this code, you basically unleash Pandora’s box, because he can figure out the CR and Levels of pretty much anything,...
This is bad, because he'd then know what CR creatures he would have to defeat to gain xp, and start power leveling into godhood in a couple of weeks.
What's worse, is that it isn't even this one evil lich guy, it'd be anyone in the game who was paying attention... because the rules of the game represent the physics of the game, and are thus discoverable by any/everyone in game.
It is a very bad idea. (And is why this sort of thing is offhanded referred to as Metagaming) Separation of rules and character knowledge is integral to maintaining a metagame free game.
|
|
The old version of the spell had the images far enough apart that this wasn't feasible. The Pathfinder version has them all stacked on top of each other, and fails the 'does it make sense' test.Because it doesn't make sense.
Only if you have decided from the start that it doesn't make sense.
Dispelling an illusion require interacting with it. In this situation if you swing wildly you don't interact with a image, you interact with all of them and the target spellcaster. There are good chances that you would make contact with the spellcaster without doing any meaningful damage. At that point you don't have a way to know with which false images you have interacted.The simple thing that you are the only poster that argue that "it can't be done" while the others are discussing what are the consequences and costs don't give rise to some doubt in your mind?
The simple thing that you are the only poster that argue that "it can't be done" while the others are discussing what are the consequences and costs don't give rise to some doubt in your mind?
I'm arguing what, now?
What can't be done?
The old version of the spell had the images far enough apart that this wasn't feasible. The Pathfinder version has them all stacked on top of each other, and fails the 'does it make sense' test.Because it doesn't make sense.
Only if you have decided from the start that it doesn't make sense.
Dispelling an illusion require interacting with it. In this situation if you swing wildly you don't interact with a image, you interact with all of them and the target spellcaster. There are good chances that you would make contact with the spellcaster without doing any meaningful damage. At that point you don't have a way to know with which false images you have interacted.
Believe it or not, I started from the 'The spell is fine' standpoint...
I just hadn't thought about it thoroughly yet. But then this thread happened, and I thought about all of the different pieces of what is going on, in detail.
And then reached the "The spell doesn't make sense" standpoint.
If you swing through all of the images, you have interacted with all the images. Thus, you should dispell all the images... That is what happens when you interact with illusions...
But the spell doesn't work like, simply because the spell says it doesn't work like that. Has nothing to do with how it should/could/would work if it made any sense at all. Simply, that is how it says it works, so that is how it works.
Interestingly enough, it works very differently from that. You could actually make contact with an illusions, and still not figure out it is an illusion...
You have to hit the target's AC before checking if it is an illusion. If a good chunk of their AC is from armor or natural armor, you would in theory make contact, but not penetrate their defenses... meaning the illusions have some degree of substance. Except when you're not looking? And they make sounds, except when you're not looking?
...
An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)The 3.5 version spells out that closing your eyes:-
• stops the spell from affecting you. This is not only a game mechanic, but is obvious to creatures that closing you eyes means you can't be misled by your sight. Sound won't help you pinpoint accurately anyway.
• closing your eyes makes you effectively blind. Again, this knowledge is not only a game mechanic, but is discoverable in game! So, not metagaming.
The 3.5 version expects creatures to consider closing eyes to defeat the spell! It's not a surprise! But, you exchange the blindness penalty for the spell effects. Choice is your's, brave adventurer!
Wait just a minute.... wait...
They spelled it out in the old spell, and when Pathfinder reworked the spell for their game, they specifically removed the line about closing your eyes to ignore the effect.
They specifically choose to remove the close your eyes part.
They removed it...
Why would they remove it? Because it causes problems with the newer version of the spell. So, it was removed as even an option.
I'm now back to where I started I guess: Closing your eyes doesn't help you against Mirror Image.
|
|
Mirror Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal; see text
Target: You
Duration: 1 min./level (D)Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck.
Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.
Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.
An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)
By the same token, Paizo has removed the part about being unable to use hearing to distinguish between the images and the caster, so hearing work ....
No, you don't decide what work checking the difference between the versions, you decide what work reading the current version in the context of the current rules of the game.
Mirror Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal; see text
Target: You
Duration: 1 min./level (D)Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck.
Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.
Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.
An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)
By the same token, Paizo has removed the part about being unable to use hearing to distinguish between the images and the caster, so hearing work ....
No, you don't decide what work checking the difference between the versions, you decide what work reading the current...
There are no 'working' rules for blinding yourself.
So, 'by the rules' it 'doesn't work' to close your eyes and ignore the spell.
The spell doesn't say that closing your eyes is a viable tactic. And closing your eyes doesn't make you blind.
so...
|
|
Mirror image:
]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).
Conditions
Blinded: The creature cannot see.
Gaze attacks:
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 one eyes exist in game. Even if you arbitrarily decide that it don't give temporarily the blinded condition, the rules clearly say that:
- the effect of shutting your eyes is that you can't see;
- mirror image require you to see the images to be affected by the spell.
|
|
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).
Are you suggesting that you are able to see while your eyes are closed?
The PF version does not suggest that closing your eyes stops having the usual effect! It doesn't need a rule on what the game effect of closing your eyes does. It is wilfully absurd to suggest that PF deliberately changed the ruleset so that you can still see with closed eyes!
Even though we disagree, I've respected your approach until now. This is indefensible.
|
|
Why is the fighter leading the frontier of Pathfinder physics and science discoveries?
IRL, it was extraordinary people pushing the envelope over centuries to discover the basic laws of reality. Bob the Fighter with his 7 Int isn't 'that guy'.
I didn't discover gravity, or electricity. I didn't invent televisions or mobile phones.
Yet I didn't need to discover/invent any of these in order to use that knowledge.
The Int7 fighter didn't need to do this research himself. It has already been done. Thousands of years ago, and continuing ever since. By wizards. And by anyone who makes a living fighting them. They teach other people how to deal with common situations, like lions and common spells, without needing ranks in Knowledge(nature) or (arcana), just like that fighter doesn't need ranks in craft(weapon) to use a sword, just like I don't need to be trained in electronics to use my TV.
The game even has a feat that represents training to fight with eyes closed. Unless the laws of the PF universe state that closing your eyes doesn't interfere with your vision.
|
|
And then reached the "The spell doesn't make sense" standpoint.
I empathise with you here. Common sense says that a fireball should blow the doors out in a small room. It doesn't.
Why? Because spells do exactly what they say they do. Trying to make all of them make complete sense will take years off your life and what you end up playing will not be Pathfinder.
Mirror image does exactly what it says it does. Swinging blindly will not pop any images, even if that would make sense. The miss chance for being unable to see your target is a flat 50% even if a flat % doesn't make sense to you. Being unable to see your target as you attack it grants a 50% miss chance whether we like it or not. Closing your eyes makes you unable to see your target for as long as your eyes are closed, even if for some insane reason you don't think that makes sense.
We agree to play by shared rules, because we can't play if we don't! We aren't 'cheating' or 'metagaming' when we do. The spell itself contains the 'unable to see' solution. Changing the rules of this spell just to make 'closing your eyes' not work is cheating, if your motive for doing so is to nerf a perfectly sensible tactic in response to your player's idea.
Mirror image:
]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).Conditions
Blinded: The creature cannot see.Gaze attacks:
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 one eyes exist in game. Even if you arbitrarily decide that it don't give temporarily the blinded condition, the rules clearly say that:
- the effect of shutting your eyes is that you can't see;
- mirror image require you to see the images to be affected by the spell.
Yes, sure. I am aware of that. But that doesn't change the fact that there are no working rules for what you propose.
We have established that you can in fact close your eyes.
But we have not established the mechanics of this, seemingly simple thing, in game terms. Why? Because it is not a defined action. There are no working rules presented for blinding yourself.
You can make stuff up, go for it. But nothing is RAW here.
If you are going to tell me to just read the spell, and blah blah etc.
Fine, but a literal interpretation of rules leaves {Self induced Blinding via closing eyes} as an undefined. There is no rule, thus it is not feasible to perform this undefined action.
Now, we all know that is silly. This tactic forces us to stray from RAW. By necessity, we are in Non-RAW territory to adjudicate the interaction of this tactic and the mirror image spell.
So, telling me, or anyone, to just stick to what is written is counterproductive. Because it leaves us with the fact that you simply cannot perform the tactic you want to perform, because it is not a defined action, and has no in game parameters for how to proceed.
Of course any DM is going to just roll with 'something' to make a call... and that is essentially all we can talk about here. What kind of call can/should be made in this ad hoc scenario.
|
This thread is why I don't come to the rules forum more often.
An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)
Oh, so you're saying that if I'm blind, but my eyes are open (or if I don't have eyes to close) I'm still affected by the spell? *DMG to the head*
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).
If you close your eyes, you are unable to see. If you are unable to see, you have the Blinded condition. If you have the Blinded condition, this spell has no effect. Therefore, if you close your eyes, the spell has no effect.
"But if you close your eyes, you are still able to see, you're just choosing not to." *Much heavier CRB to the head*
And Remy, since this is such a sticking point for you, if you ever play at my table I'll let you swing wildly with your eyes open to try to defeat a mirror image. The penalty? A 50% miss chance. No, Blind Fighting won't help with the miss chance, because it isn't due to concealment.
Why is the fighter leading the frontier of Pathfinder physics and science discoveries?
IRL, it was extraordinary people pushing the envelope over centuries to discover the basic laws of reality. Bob the Fighter with his 7 Int isn't 'that guy'.
I didn't discover gravity, or electricity. I didn't invent televisions or mobile phones.
Yet I didn't need to discover/invent any of these in order to use that knowledge.
The Int7 fighter didn't need to do this research himself. It has already been done. Thousands of years ago, and continuing ever since. By wizards. And by anyone who makes a living fighting them. They teach other people how to deal with common situations, like lions and common spells, without needing ranks in Knowledge(nature) or (arcana), just like that fighter doesn't need ranks in craft(weapon) to use a sword, just like I don't need to be trained in electronics to use my TV.
The game even has a feat that represents training to fight with eyes closed. Unless the laws of the PF universe state that closing your eyes doesn't interfere with your vision.
Maybe I'm a weird role player /shrug
When I play a 7 Int character, they are dumb. They are unoriginal, and uninspired. They don't use any tactics except kill the nearest bad guy, or whatever their friends holler at them to do. They are forgetful, and without their companions would likely forget what the mission/goal was to begin with.
A 10 represents average human intelligence. And that isn't very impressive, really. This is what the farmer has, or the waitress at the local tavern. Or the beggar on the street corner, the chimney sweeps and maids. A 10 int isn't very smart...
A 7? This guy is plain dumb. He is slow. He is forgetful. He suffered one too many blows to the head as a child. Combat tactics are going to be tricky enough for him, expecting him to recognize spell effects and how to properly react, especially when it is such a situational tactic?? Hahahaha... no.
Maybe someone did tell him... he still wouldn't know. He gets his 1 skill rank per level, and he puts what very very little mental energy he has where ever he puts it. If he spends it on improving his climb skill, more power to him, but that was really really hard for the guy!! He certainly doesn't have the mental reserves to remember more stuff the crazy guy in robes keeps mumbling about. Spells n somesuch.
A Lorewarden or one of those modest Int combat expertise fighters has a little bit more mental energy, they're a bit quicker on the uptake, they know tactics, and it isn't that big a stretch for one of these guys to pick up some spell tactics along the way. "I" would take ranks to represent this... but... /shrug.
This thread is why I don't come to the rules forum more often.
An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)Oh, so you're saying that if I'm blind, but my eyes are open (or if I don't have eyes to close) I'm still affected by the spell? *DMG to the head*
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).If you close your eyes, you are unable to see. If you are unable to see, you have the Blinded condition. If you have the Blinded condition, this spell has no effect. Therefore, if you close your eyes, the spell has no effect.
"But if you close your eyes, you are still able to see, you're just choosing not to." *Much heavier CRB to the head*
And Remy, since this is such a sticking point for you, if you ever play at my table I'll let you swing wildly with your eyes open to try to defeat a mirror image. The penalty? A 50% miss chance. No, Blind Fighting won't help with the miss chance, because it isn't due to concealment.
I understand all of that, but blinding yourself is still an undefined action.
There simply isn't an action for it, and as it is a Non-RAW action, it is left wholly up to DM interpretation.
Because of that, we are in Non-RAW territory already.
What is it that I’m saying that is being missed here?
I’m not saying it cannot be done, all I am saying is that it is not a defined action. Thus there isn’t a rule for it, thus it is, by necessity, purely up to a DM.
|
|
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity.
How long does it take you to close your eyes?
Edit to add: I would rule that you are limited to either closing or opening your eyes once per turn. This sacrifices a little common sense for the sake of balance. Limiting free actions in this way is well within the authority of a GM.
You cannot just slash through the spells to eliminate the most images because the spell is a figment. Thus your mind registers it as existing. When you impact or nearly impact an image, you subconsciously pull your blow because you don't want to embed your blade deep in his side and make it impossible to pull it out in case there's more enemies.
So the spell utilizes your own skill in fighting against you by making you "flinch" when you hit an image. Sufficient training can overcome this (ie, Cleave, Great Cleave, and high enough level to have multiple attacks).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the spell utilizes your own skill in fighting against you by making you "flinch" when you hit an image. Sufficient training can overcome this (ie, Cleave, Great Cleave, and high enough level to have multiple attacks).
sadly they've already FAQed Cleave and things that target multiple things as not being effective against Mirror Image. Otherwise the best solution to Mirror Image would be "My friend the wizard shoots each image with 1 magic missile and many of the images pop." Iterive are the only way to eliminate multiple images short of dispel magic.
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity.How long does it take you to close your eyes?
Edit to add: I would rule that you are limited to either closing or opening your eyes once per turn. This sacrifices a little common sense for the sake of balance. Limiting free actions in this way is well within the authority of a GM.
A very short amount of time.
But shutting my eyes doesn't blind me. Keeping my eyes shut, however, would.
Blinking doesn't hamper vision(in any meaningful or noticeable way), because our visual processing can fill in the blank, it is actually fairly good at this, and can batch a rather large missing chunk seamlessly without notice.
So rapidly shutting and opening your eyes does not hamper vision, at all, not even a little.
Shutting and then opening your eyes too quickly wouldn’t actually prevent you from seeing, not really.
Which means if you call both closing your eyes and opening your eyes free actions, and you do them both on your turn, within a fraction of a second from one another....
You blinked. Congratulation, roll to see if you hit an illusion.
You have to blind yourself, which implies keeping your eyes shut for a more significant period of time. (My original suggestion for blinding yourself is to simply require blind to have a minimum duration of 1 round)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We agree on the 1 round blindness, and yes this is undefined by the rules and yes we have had to adjudicate. That's part of a DM's responsibility.
The reason I choose to bother debating with you on this topic is that you insist that anyone closing their eyes to take blindness penalties and avoid the spell effect is metagaming.
Cheating.
I resent that. I've sought to demonstrate that although our characters cannot know the game rules they certainly can gather enough evidence to work out how their world works, and choose to shut their eyes (or not) based on evidence they can know. Thus, not metagaming.
Thus, when I announce that my character is closing his eyes and taking blindness penalties (mitigated somewhat by the Blind-Fighting feat), I don't expect to be branded as a cheat, nor have the rules change just to make me fail.
We aren't talking about an established house rule. We're talking about moving the goalposts after the action has been declared.
If we were playing chess and I used my queen to put me in check, would you say,'Er, I don't think queens should be that powerful, therefore queens can't put kings in check, therefore I'm not in check.' would I be metagaming because I follow the rules of the game we agreed to play?
I would be the one who feels cheated if the DM changed the rules just to mess with my declared action.
I understand the dislike of metagaming, but it is only metagaming if the PC's action doesn't make sense outside of the rules. If I'm reading a Tome which raises me by one level, putting my experience points at just enough to be the next level, then it's brilliant if I'm 10,000 XPs short of levelling up, but not so brilliant if I'm only 10 XPs short. Since it takes several days to complete the reading at 8 reading hours per day, why don't I read everything except the last day, wait until I level up normally and then read the last day and level up again, getting the maximum benefit? It's hard to see how that isn't metagaming. Characters have no concept of levels or XPs. But our characters, without any knowledge of game mechanics, can discover how blind-fighting affects their success in combat. The creatures can make that decision, and it's a false and knee-jerk reaction to accuse us of metagaming and I was offended by the assumption that I'm cheating.
As for the fighter, it's a poor assumption that he has an Int of 7 (one might say it was metagaming with an assumption of point-buy!), but even a creature with that Int can obey the instructions of the guy who taught him blind-fighting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity.How long does it take you to close your eyes?
Edit to add: I would rule that you are limited to either closing or opening your eyes once per turn. This sacrifices a little common sense for the sake of balance. Limiting free actions in this way is well within the authority of a GM.
Indeed it is! A pity I still can't grasp why people think it's such a terrible offense for melee classes (see also: Permanently disadvantaged against any and all spellcasters) to be able to overcome a single spell through mundane means. Kind of a knee jerk reaction, isn't it? Wizards/sorcerers/whatever are already superior to the melee guys in pretty much every conceivable way. About mid-tier they become more survivable, and nine times out of ten, more difficult to hit as well.
Closing one's eyes in this manner will make them vulnerable to Stabby McShanksalot having a prepared action for free sneak attack, not to mention that it isn't removing their miss chance entirely. Why is it such a terrible thing?
The figments are only there, making sounds, when you can see them. When you can't see them, they aren't there (for you). How does that make any sense? Magic! It's MAGIC!
Well, metagaming is absolutely required to play the game. Haha. I don't equivocate metagaming with cheating, I just think it is in poor taste to bring metagaming into player actions. But, taste is subjective... so while I'm opposed to it, it isn't inherently wrong. But there is two kinds, metagaming out of character, which we all do (and are doing currently), and then there is the other kind; metagaming in character, which I don't much care for.
Again, it is simply opinion, mine, and not really worth much. I'm some random guy on the forums. But, I think the idea that closing your eyes to increase your chance to hit is simply incorrect. So, my opinion is that this is one of those areas in the game where the rules are sketchy at best.
To me, a rough patch in the rules should be glossed over, ignored, or avoided if at all possible. But this tactic doesn't do that, instead, this tactic exploits the rough patch in the rules for an unrealistic advantage. Further, it is being justified by claiming character understanding of the statistics involved in this rough patch of the rules. Even worse, by characters who would need to claim knowledge about things they don't have knowledge skills in, simply... because.
Again, that's just opinion.
Personally, when I encounter a weird spot in the numbers of the game, I mostly just allow "random" to explain it. Sure, my character seems to miss 50% of the time, all the time, no matter what, when my target has full concealment, regardless how likely that is.
But, I chalk it up to coincidence, and not something that happens all the time to everyone everywhere, nor something my character should pick up on. To do so would mean my characters could study the probabilities of his universe and break down the rules of Pathfinder from within Pathfinder... and, quite frankly, I abhor that notion.
So is this metagaming? I think so, yes. I mean, at least an attempt to cover it up with something approximating a reason is made... that's nice. You can come up with a number of post tactics reasons for why your guy should know the game rules and base his decisions on them. But, that kind of play isn't for me.
Which is fine, everyone is right, however it is they like to play, so long as their group is good with it.
|
|
The creatures living in the game world are as entitled to observe how their world works as we are to observe how ours works. They are as entitled to use those observations to say 'Hey, closing your eyes might have drawbacks, but it stops me from being distracted by those images!' as we are to say, 'Hey, gravity!'
We aren't cheating, metagaming or meta-living by understanding, or believing we understand, gravity. They aren't metagaming or understanding the game rules by observing how their own world works.
|
|
Here's what gets me. Some of the logic that's been put forward is effectively the equivalent of saying we somehow metagame real life. For example, I know that gravity will make a bowling ball fall. If I'm being attacked and for some odd reason have a bowling ball (and access to a stairwell), I'll probably drop it on somebody's head. Simple logic tells me this. Another good example is multiple vision. Get hit hard enough, you can't trust your eyes anymore. The best you can do is try to aim dead center while ignoring whatever you see most of the time. Would it be metagaming for a character afflicted with this impaired vision to go disregard what their eyes are telling them?
It is meta-gaming to think the images created by Mirror Images might be less distracting when I close my eyes?
Yeah, it is just a fundamental difference of opinion. But there isn't anything wrong with that, per se. We might not be compatible at the table, but that hardly matters, as we're not at the same table.
I don't think it is metagaming to come up with strategies that 'should' work. I do think it is metagaming to use strategies formed from player knowledge and forced to fit into an in game explanation. The difference?
Not all the rules are perfect, but are simply a system to explain how things work out. The system is flawed, as it is in any game, because... it is a game. One of the assumptions that I, previous to this thread, assumed we all shared, was that characters can't or shouldn't be able to deduce the rules.
That gets into grey areas from time to time, but I don't think this is one of them. Not for me anyway.
Your double vision example; That is actually an appropriate time to close your eyes, where doing so might, just might, improve your odds. Seem weird that I'm saying that, after so much contention that closing your eyes against Mirror Image shouldn't help? Well, in the case of double vision, your vision doesn't actually tell you where the target is. It is giving you two images, and both of them are wrong... With Mirror Image, that isn't the case. You do see the mage. You can clearly and accurately see his exact position. You see several other options too, but you most certainly see him as well.
Giving up your clear and precise ability to see exactly where he is and what he is doing, should not, and could not improve your odds of hitting him. That just isn't a possibility. But in this case, in this game, the rules clash in a funky way and the result is that closing your eyes gives you a better shot at hitting. That, right there, shouldn't be knowable by a character. When the rules fail to deliver the goods, so to speak, a character shouldn't be able to figure out the best method by which to exploit the highly illogical results, and even if they stumble upon this sort of thing by accident, it is best to simply gloss over it and move on.
In fiction, role playing, movies, shows, stories in general, there is this thing called 'suspension of disbelief'. We use it all the time, we drop our preconceived notions about what is. But, there are things that break this 'suspension of disbelief'. And when that happens, the story comes crashing to a halt. Things that do this are generally considered flaws in the quality of the story...
'For me', this tactic shatters suspension of disbelief. It isn't internally consistent. Based on the spell effect, based on combat rules, it works, but... based on anything describable, imaginable, it doesn't make any sense. You can see the guy, but closing your eyes helps you hit? That needs a pretty amazing explanation, and there simply isn't one there to be offered.
I could come up with some, honestly I could. But none of them would ever result in the characters breaking out the notepads and calculating that the odds of hitting going up when their eyes are closed. Nor would it include passing this peculiar information along in some long standing Blind-Fighting tradition...
The rules exist simply to give us a method to determine the result of our actions in the game, when a character in game starts to analyze the game's rules... that is by literal definition; metagaming.
That is what the word means. "In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions."
Your character has no way of knowing this tactic, because no character should know the way the rules work. He shouldn't be taught it by someone, because no one should know it to begin with. He couldn't deduce it, because that means he can deduce the rules, and no one else can either, because then they can deduce the rules.
The only option you have left, is that there is 'a reason' that you think this will work, beyond what the numbers tell you. No one has proposed one, and certainly one was never offered by the OP in the initial example.
And honestly, most anything anyone would offer to explain why their character should know this, is simply a loose cover for them to bring in player knowledge to improve their in game actions.
If you like to play that way, more power to you. It isn't for me, but taste is highly subjective, and everyone can freely decide how they enjoy their games.
|
|
Well, in the case of double vision, your vision doesn't actually tell you where the target is. It is giving you two images, and both of them are wrong... With Mirror Image, that isn't the case. You do see the mage. You can clearly and accurately see his exact position. You see several other options too, but you most certainly see him as well.
You can see the real thing, but you don't know which of the images is the real thing, so you cannot clearly and accurately target him. If faced with 8 images, you might guess that only 1 is real, so you have a 1 in 8 chance to target the real guy. This is not esoteric knowledge knowable only by the wise, nor is it metagaming. The creature can see 8 images with his own eyes, without any knowledge of the rules whatsoever, and the effects of mirror image are common knowledge.
I don't have any ranks in electrical engineering, but I know how to use my smartphone.
Giving up your clear and precise ability to see exactly where he is and what he is doing, should not, and could not improve your odds of hitting him. That just isn't a possibility. But in this case, in this game, the rules clash in a funky way and the result is that closing your eyes gives you a better shot at hitting. That, right there, shouldn't be knowable by a character.
The effect of the spell is to make you unlikely to be targeted correctly, even though people can see where you are and what you do as all the images copy you. This isn't only rules knowledge, creatures can witness these effects for themselves.
If you are trained to fight with closed eyes then things that render your vision a liability are ignored. Again, not secret rules knowledge but obvious to all.
Based on the spell effect, based on combat rules, it works, but... based on anything describable, imaginable, it doesn't make any sense. You can see the guy, but closing your eyes helps you hit? That needs a pretty amazing explanation, and there simply isn't one there to be offered.
I've been imagining and describing how it makes sense throughout this thread. It wouldn't make sense that closing your eyes helps you if there were a certain target, but the fact that he's surrounded by images means that you can't target him for certain. Without any rules knowledge whatever, a creature can back himself and his blind-fighting training over a 1 in 8 chance.
So, not metagaming.
I could come up with some, honestly I could. But none of them would ever result in the characters breaking out the notepads and calculating that the odds of hitting going up when their eyes are closed.
'Back my training, or 1 in 8' doesn't require a notepad, advanced maths or the CRB.
Nor would it include passing this peculiar information along in some long standing Blind-Fighting tradition.
Oh yes it would! 'Excuse me, master trainer! What's the point of all this blind-fighting? We'll never actually use it while adventuring, will we?'
'Master trainer! Make sure you don't mention mirror image when teaching those guys how to fight with their eyes closed!'
Your character has no way of knowing this tactic, because no character should know the way the rules work.
We don't need to know the laws of our universe in order to try to understand how our world works, and neither do they. They can try fighting a mage protected by this spell with eyes closed and with eyes open. Which worked best? No metagaming required.
He shouldn't be taught it by someone, because no one should know it to begin with.
See above. There'll be plenty of smart, motivated people who can deduce this, who can teach the less smart.
He couldn't deduce it, because that means he can deduce the rules, and no one else can either, because then they can deduce the rules.
They don't need to deduce the actual game rules, they just need to deduce how their own world affects them.
When I stab someone, they get hurt, maybe even die. I don't need ranks in medicine to know that, or secret knowledge of 'hit points' and 'damage rolls' to deduce that.
Creatures don't need to read the spell description, or be able to cast spells, to know that this spell is producing decoy targets that fool the eye, nor do they need to complain about the lack of a specific 'eye-closing' action on the Actions In Combat table to know that closing your eyes means you don't get fooled by visible images.
The clincher is this: the current PF version and previous versions in earlier editions contained the 'can't see it/can't get fooled by it' in the very text of the spell. It is the intention of the designers that this solution is available. It's not some out-of-thin-air dirty tactic; it's expected by the designers of the game.
Okay got a question for ya.
In the pathfinder version it says that u have to see the figments to be fooled. If u are invisible or blind it doesn't work.
Since they removed the closing of the eyes, could the spell in fact mean that once u see it u are effected by it and that u would have to be blind (aka at the very beginning as in never seeing the spell at all) or invisible to not be effected?
Could the wording mean that if u see the fiments even closing ur eyes woukd still mean u are under the effects since this is an illusion spell is effecting ur sense of sight, hearing, and touch? Because usually blind is a permanent effect and since they took out closing eyes and replaced with blind, it could mean that if u SEE the effects of it, u are effected by it and closing ur eyes don't help any at all. Because u roll a random die to see if u hit the main or the illusions and attacking while closing ur eyes would seem to basically do the same thing as if ur eyes were open except that u have a 50% chance to hit the random die one or by less than 5 an illusion.
I am wondering why being invisible makes u not effected by this spell as well.
I dunno I'm just getting the vibe that since they took out closing the eyes and replacing it with blindness that the closing eyes don't work like they did in 3.5.
I am liking the idea of the closing of the eyes though until their next turn though. I think it has enough benefits while having enough disadvantages as well. I am merely just wondering about the invisible part and just playing devils advocate on the blindness being written where the closing of the eyes was taking out.
Okay got a question for ya.
In the pathfinder version it says that u have to see the figments to be fooled. If u are invisible or blind it doesn't work.Since they removed the closing of the eyes, could the spell in fact mean that once u see it u are effected by it and that u would have to be blind (aka at the very beginning as in never seeing the spell at all) or invisible to not be effected?
Could the wording mean that if u see the fiments even closing ur eyes woukd still mean u are under the effects since this is an illusion spell is effecting ur sense of sight, hearing, and touch? Because usually blind is a permanent effect and since they took out closing eyes and replaced with blind, it could mean that if u SEE the effects of it, u are effected by it and closing ur eyes don't help any at all. Because u roll a random die to see if u hit the main or the illusions and attacking while closing ur eyes would seem to basically do the same thing as if ur eyes were open except that u have a 50% chance to hit the random die one or by less than 5 an illusion.I am wondering why being invisible makes u not effected by this spell as well.
I dunno I'm just getting the vibe that since they took out closing the eyes and replacing it with blindness that the closing eyes don't work like they did in 3.5.
I am liking the idea of the closing of the eyes though until their next turn though. I think it has enough benefits while having enough disadvantages as well. I am merely just wondering about the invisible part and just playing devils advocate on the blindness being written where the closing of the eyes was taking out.
Regarding the invisibility thing;
If the guy who has Mirror Images is Invisible, his figments will copy the effect of Invisibility... and an invisible illusion is a nonexistent illusion.
the figments can't 'actually' become invisible, but they can mimic invisibility be essentially winking out of existence. The illusions always look exactly like the caster, and since the caster has no appearance, neither do they.
////
I wonder if you're not right about the spell effecting someone even if they close their eyes though. Once you have seen the illusions, the spell has already done its job and given you misleading information, and closing your eyes doesn't get rid of that misleading information.
I really think it would take a more significant period of time to 'reset' your impressions about where the Mirrored guy is, to remove the preconceived ideas that the spell has planted in your mind about his location.
But, this sort of thing is purely DM territory, there isn't anything concrete to go off of.
I can't quite see this choice as meta-gaming. It simply makes too much sense based upon what a melee could be thinking at the time. Let's say there's a low level melee who has never encountered Mirror Image before:
*Suddenly the mage becomes a whirl of himself, seven exact duplicates intricately weaving amongst each other. As the mage taps his foot, you can hear seven distinct sounds of leather on the wet concrete ground. Their locations seem erratic, but their motions are exactly identical. You are fairly sure one mage's hand is going through another mage's chest*
(inner monologue)
"What the crap? Umm... huh. That's hard to look at. Okay. I guess I'll put my sword through it"
*One of the mage's arms seems close enough to get a chunk out of, so you take a quick swipe only to seemingly hit nothing but air. The mage that you hit vanishes, and none of the other mage's seem to mind too much*
"Seriously!? I was hoping for some bleedy bits! This crap is annoying. Is he even really in there? This is why I hate mages! Okay, calm down. Think."
To me, there are two paths of thought that both seem perfectly reasonable for a melee with any intelligence.
Option 1:
"Well, that one mage went bye bye when he touched the sharp bit. That seemed like progress right?"
*melee continues attacking like normal*
Option 2:
"Screw this, if he's in there somewhere, I'll just try to hit em all!"
*melee swings blindly*
Now here's the weird part to me. Swinging blindly does not mean you need to close your eyes. It means, to me, that you target the square the mage is occupying. I would assume you take a concealment penalty for targeting a pinpointed square, but the rules get very vague as to if this would help, and doesn't specifically outline targeting a square except for blinded or with splash weapons. I would think that such a thing would work exactly as full concealment, but there aren't rules for it.
However, if a melee is specifically trained to fight blind, training done almost specifically by closing one's eyes, I could see this as a perfectly normal instinct when you want to "swing blindly". In this case, you're more or less falling back on your instincts to clean up your chaos.
Now, if the melee has SEEN this spell before, it clearly changes to:
"Aww, not this crap again"