Can you roll a Natural 1 and still pop / destroy a mirror image?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Automatic misses and hits portion of the Combat section in the CRB states that a roll of 1 on an attack roll always misses and a 20 always hits.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html

Mirror Image's spell text reads as follows:
"Whenever you are attacked... if the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your images is destroyed by the near miss."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/mirrorImage.html

Obviously someone who attacks the caster and rolls a natural 1 misses - if its attack modifiers are enough to still get within 5 of the AC (caster AC of 18, attacker modifier of +14 for example's sake), will the natural 1 still pop an image since it misses by 5 or less?


Yes. The spell would have to say "except on a natural 1" to be otherwise.

Grand Lodge

That's my preferred interpretation too, but I've got several people (including some VOs) looking at these same passages and insisting "no, because a natural 1 can never hit, it can't pop an image either," I guess on the basis of the idea that a nat 1 should never benefit someone by furthering what it is they're trying to do.

Dark Archive

IMO, I would agree with your VO's. If you're getting to area where attack bonuses are high enough to miss within 5 with a roll of a 1, then Mirror Image is already a weak stop-gap to prevent being hit. Especially since that also in the range of characters having multiple attacks per round (looking at you archers), so MI will only last a round or 2 under a barrage of full round of attacks.


Power-wise and balance-wise, I agree that the natural 1 shouldn't do anything. But that just means that the spell should have been written to exempt nat 1s. It doesn't mean that that's done implicitly.

Going with RATSHBW (Rules As They Should Have Been Written) is fine for house rules, not so good for supposedly strict-RAW tables.


"A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss"

I think the general rule should apply as a nat 1 effectively negates all attack bonuses and ensures a miss.


Gallant Armor wrote:

"A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss"

I think the general rule should apply as a nat 1 effectively negates all attack bonuses and ensures a miss.

The general rule does apply. The nat 1 is a miss. The issue is that mirror images get "popped" even on a miss if it's within 5 of being a hit.

The general rule does not say "treat a natural one as negative infinity" which is what the it-doesn't-pop advocates are effectively doing.

Grand Lodge

Don't really need to go that far in levels to get to +14 to hit against a scenario-ending caster/BBEG - level 4 paladin managed it by making him his smite target (+4 BAB, +4 Str, masterwork weapon, + 1 weapon focus, +3 Cha mod for smite, +1 inspire courage from the party's bard).


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

"A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss"

I think the general rule should apply as a nat 1 effectively negates all attack bonuses and ensures a miss.

The general rule does apply. The nat 1 is a miss. The issue is that mirror images get "popped" even on a miss if it's within 5 of being a hit.

The general rule does not say "treat a natural one as negative infinity" which is what the it-doesn't-pop advocates are effectively doing.

My reading of "always a miss" is equivalent to "never a hit".


True but it's not "hitting" anything.

It's saying "Oh you've missed? Was it by 5 or less? Ok that sets off this condition."

Which I think is fine.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

In order to pop an image, you have to miss by 5 or less. I'd say that when you roll a 1, you never compare the attack roll to Armor Class, so the condition is never met.


So what about

Deflecting

Source: PCh:FG

The artistry of armor design lies not just in how well it protects its wearer, but in how widely or unexpectedly its angles can deflect an opponent’s blows. When an attacker’s failed strike causes his weapon to ricochet outside of his natural guard position, there is a momentary window of opportunity where the opponent is vulnerable to the wearer’s counterstrike.

Whenever an opponent strikes at the wearer with a bludgeoning or slashing melee weapon and misses by 5 or fewer, the wearer gains a +1 circumstance bonus on his next melee attack roll against that opponent. This attack must be made in the next round or the bonus is lost.

In addition to increasing the armor’s base cost and weight, this upgrade reduces the wearer’s speed by 5 feet; the Slow and Steady dwarven racial ability enables dwarves to ignore the associated speed penalties. The listed costs are for including this modification to nonmagical armor; increase the cost by 50% if adding to a suit of magical armor.

or
Jarring

Source: PCh:FG

Opponents who swing too hard at this armor soon learn to regret it. The jarring shock that runs up the attacker’s arm as their weapon connects makes it feel as though they have just struck a wall.

Whenever an opponent with a melee weapon strikes at the wearer using the Power Attack feat and misses by 5 or fewer, he must make a Fortitude save or be sickened until the end of his next turn. The save DC is 10 plus the bonus that Power Attack would have applied to the damage roll if the attack been successful.

In addition to increasing the armor’s base cost and weight, this upgrade reduces the wearer’s speed by 5 feet; the Slow and Steady dwarven racial ability enables dwarves to ignore the associated speed penalties. The listed costs are for including this modification to nonmagical armor; increase the cost by 50% if adding to a suit of magical armor.

Would a natural 1 but within 5 not trigger these?


steven_mallory wrote:

Automatic misses and hits portion of the Combat section in the CRB states that a roll of 1 on an attack roll always misses and a 20 always hits.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html

Mirror Image's spell text reads as follows:
"Whenever you are attacked... if the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your images is destroyed by the near miss."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/mirrorImage.html

Obviously someone who attacks the caster and rolls a natural 1 misses - if its attack modifiers are enough to still get within 5 of the AC (caster AC of 18, attacker modifier of +14 for example's sake), will the natural 1 still pop an image since it misses by 5 or less?

Yes.

The requirement for an image to be destroyed is by a normal hit (with a lucky random roll), or by an attack that misses by 5 or less; it doesn't matter if I rolled a 19 or a 1. A miss is a miss is a miss. Anyone who rules otherwise would be houseruling.

But, the fact that it's for PFS appears that is exactly the case; PFS rules trump any RAW, so if PFS is saying you can't do it, then my guess is that it's covered in one of their superbly vast PFS resource guides that lists what is and is not allowed for a given source.

In my opinion, a better question would be to ask if effects like Blur/Displacement, or even Crane Wing, would remove an image. This is just cut and dry, and PFS GMs either have their booklets out which overrule the general standard, or they're trying to play Jason Bulmahn and apply a rule that quite clearly demonstrates otherwise. (Which is bulls#!^.)


Cavall wrote:

True but it's not "hitting" anything.

It's saying "Oh you've missed? Was it by 5 or less? Ok that sets off this condition."

Which I think is fine.

My group treats mirrors as having AC-5. I think the wording leaves it open to your interpretation, but the idea of hitting anything on a 1 doesn't sit well with me.


Keep in mind a 1 still might hit the target it's some act of failure so bad that your attacking the complete wrong direction or anything its a miss but a miss still goes through the area around the target.


I believe that a natural 1 should not destroy an image. Here's how I look at it:

The phrase "misses by 5 or less" does not appear to be explicitly defined within the rules. But the best interpretation I can come up with is that an attack is considered to have "missed by 5 or less" if and only if it would have hit had the total numerical result of the attack roll been 5 higher. If that roll of a natural 1 had obtained a total result of 5 higher, the attack still would have missed. Therefore, the original attack did not miss by 5 or less and does not destroy an image.

Nor would an image be destroyed if the attack missed for any other reason that would not be alleviated by an attack roll with a total numerical result of 5 higher, such as from concealment or Crane Wing.


KingOfAnything wrote:
In order to pop an image, you have to miss by 5 or less. I'd say that when you roll a 1, you never compare the attack roll to Armor Class, so the condition is never met.

Nothing in the rules says that specific rolls means you never compare the attack roll total to the AC. The only thing the rules specify is that rolling X means it's an automatic Y in two separate instances, and that's it. Those are the only adjustments you make; you otherwise compare the attack roll to the relevant statistic as normal. The only thing that's adjusted is the end result (which is either miss or hit), due to the specifics of the rule.


Avoron wrote:

I believe that a natural 1 should not destroy an image. Here's how I look at it:

The phrase "misses by 5 or less" does not appear to be explicitly defined within the rules. But the best interpretation I can come up with is that an attack is considered to have "missed by 5 or less" if and only if it would have hit had the total numerical result of the attack roll been 5 higher. If that roll of a natural 1 had obtained a total result of 5 higher, the attack still would have missed. Therefore, the original attack did not miss by 5 or less and does not destroy an image.

Nor would an image be destroyed if the attack missed for any other reason that would not be alleviated by an attack roll with a total numerical result of 5 higher, such as from concealment or Crane Wing.

So for several defensive options rolling a one is a better outcome than just missing?


Talonhawke wrote:
Avoron wrote:

I believe that a natural 1 should not destroy an image. Here's how I look at it:

The phrase "misses by 5 or less" does not appear to be explicitly defined within the rules. But the best interpretation I can come up with is that an attack is considered to have "missed by 5 or less" if and only if it would have hit had the total numerical result of the attack roll been 5 higher. If that roll of a natural 1 had obtained a total result of 5 higher, the attack still would have missed. Therefore, the original attack did not miss by 5 or less and does not destroy an image.

Nor would an image be destroyed if the attack missed for any other reason that would not be alleviated by an attack roll with a total numerical result of 5 higher, such as from concealment or Crane Wing.

So for several defensive options rolling a one is a better outcome than just missing?

Are you referring to those armor properties you listed above? Because those are specifically designed to harm people who come close to hitting. If you need a 10 to hit, for instance, rolling a 2 or a 3 or a 4 is also a better outcome than just missing. Seems like those would be working exactly as intended.


I assume then that the reverse isn't true the Nat 1 also doesn't miss by more than five either?


Gallant Armor wrote:
Cavall wrote:

True but it's not "hitting" anything.

It's saying "Oh you've missed? Was it by 5 or less? Ok that sets off this condition."

Which I think is fine.

My group treats mirrors as having AC-5. I think the wording leaves it open to your interpretation, but the idea of hitting anything on a 1 doesn't sit well with me.

Why would you assign an AC to something that can't be attacked under any circumstance?


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

I can see how it could be interpreted either way, but my interpretation is largely in line with Avoron's.

I'd find it odd if I rolled a 1 and my result added up exceeded the target's AC and therefore I missed by...what? By rolling a 1 would be my answer.


I'm curious, what will happen if we use the optional rule for defending rolls and both sides roll a natural 1?

Gallant Armor wrote:
Cavall wrote:

True but it's not "hitting" anything.

It's saying "Oh you've missed? Was it by 5 or less? Ok that sets off this condition."

Which I think is fine.

My group treats mirrors as having AC-5. I think the wording leaves it open to your interpretation, but the idea of hitting anything on a 1 doesn't sit well with me.

A simple yet excelent idea, I'm borrowing it.


Gullyble Dwarf - Lvl 7 DM wrote:

I can see how it could be interpreted either way, but my interpretation is largely in line with Avoron's.

I'd find it odd if I rolled a 1 and my result added up exceeded the target's AC and therefore I missed by...what? By rolling a 1 would be my answer.

Rolling a 1 or a 20 rigs the result; that's all it does. You otherwise missed by a negative number. Mathematically speaking, that number is still less than 5, which means you're still popping an image.

After all, if you're going to say -2 > 5, then why are we playing AD&D with the horrid THAC0 rules?


Forseti wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Cavall wrote:

True but it's not "hitting" anything.

It's saying "Oh you've missed? Was it by 5 or less? Ok that sets off this condition."

Which I think is fine.

My group treats mirrors as having AC-5. I think the wording leaves it open to your interpretation, but the idea of hitting anything on a 1 doesn't sit well with me.
Why would you assign an AC to something that can't be attacked under any circumstance?

Essentially because it is attacked unless the miss chance rolls in the attackers favor. If you have 3 images and your group decides a roll of 4 is the actual target and 1-3 are images, then a roll of 1-3 would have the attacker target a mirror.

My argument is similar to what KingOfAnything said; "I'd say that when you roll a 1, you never compare the attack roll to Armor Class, so the condition is never met".

When you roll a natural 1, your attack bonus is effectively negated. My interpretation of designer intent is for an attack roll of natural 1 to never benefit the attacker.


I want a rules citation that says Natural 1's can't ever benefit an attacker.

The only thing the rules say is that a Natural 1 is an automatic miss.

That's it.

To prescribe anything else besides that is speculation and/or houseruling.


The natural 1 rule does not apply to the rules on whether you 'pop' an image of mirror image. All you need to do to 'pop' an image is miss by 5 or less - that is all the rules require. It does not interact in any way with any other rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I want a rules citation that says Natural 1's can't ever benefit an attacker.

The only thing the rules say is that a Natural 1 is an automatic miss.

That's it.

To prescribe anything else besides that is speculation and/or houseruling.

As I said it is my interpretation, not an assertion of facts. I would consider the general rule of a natural 1 missing (even missing an image) to always apply unless specifically indicated otherwise. You consider misses to hit mirrors on a natural 1 unless specifically indicated otherwise.

Either is a reasonable interpretation, so it would be GM rule until there is an official ruling on the matter.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
In order to pop an image, you have to miss by 5 or less. I'd say that when you roll a 1, you never compare the attack roll to Armor Class, so the condition is never met.
Nothing in the rules says that specific rolls means you never compare the attack roll total to the AC. The only thing the rules specify is that rolling X means it's an automatic Y in two separate instances, and that's it. Those are the only adjustments you make; you otherwise compare the attack roll to the relevant statistic as normal. The only thing that's adjusted is the end result (which is either miss or hit), due to the specifics of the rule.

Nothing in the rules say to compare a roll of 1 or 20 to the target's AC. That is not how you determine a hit for those specific rolls.

Automatic Misses and Hits wrote:
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss.


Automatic Misses and Hits wrote:
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss.
mirror image wrote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

Also consider that if you miss the AC of your target you have already missed - now the spell tells you what happens with that miss - it does't ask you to see if you hit one of the figments.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
In order to pop an image, you have to miss by 5 or less. I'd say that when you roll a 1, you never compare the attack roll to Armor Class, so the condition is never met.
Nothing in the rules says that specific rolls means you never compare the attack roll total to the AC. The only thing the rules specify is that rolling X means it's an automatic Y in two separate instances, and that's it. Those are the only adjustments you make; you otherwise compare the attack roll to the relevant statistic as normal. The only thing that's adjusted is the end result (which is either miss or hit), due to the specifics of the rule.

Nothing in the rules say to compare a roll of 1 or 20 to the target's AC. That is not how you determine a hit for those specific rolls.

Automatic Misses and Hits wrote:
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss.

So i ask once again if we don't compare then abilities that trigger on misses or on hits by certain degrees don't trigger at all?


Take Upsetting Strike for example:

Benefit(s): While you are using Upsetting Shield Style, if a foe is taking a penalty on attack rolls against you as a result of Upsetting Shield Style, and that foe makes a melee attack roll against you that misses your AC by 5 or more, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

If I roll a 2 and miss you by say 12, you get to attack me. If I roll a 1, you don't get to attack me?


Forseti wrote:

Take Upsetting Strike for example:

Benefit(s): While you are using Upsetting Shield Style, if a foe is taking a penalty on attack rolls against you as a result of Upsetting Shield Style, and that foe makes a melee attack roll against you that misses your AC by 5 or more, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

If I roll a 2 and miss you by say 12, you get to attack me. If I roll a 1, you don't get to attack me?

I'd say that they should get an attack.

Of course, logically speaking, the other side would have to say "He doesn't get an attack," for the same logic they give for "He doesn't destroy an illusion."

Otherwise, they're moving goal posts.

(Yes, I close-captioned his rhetorical point, deal with it.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Forseti wrote:

Take Upsetting Strike for example:

Benefit(s): While you are using Upsetting Shield Style, if a foe is taking a penalty on attack rolls against you as a result of Upsetting Shield Style, and that foe makes a melee attack roll against you that misses your AC by 5 or more, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

If I roll a 2 and miss you by say 12, you get to attack me. If I roll a 1, you don't get to attack me?

I'd say that they should get an attack.

Of course, logically speaking, the other side would have to say "He doesn't get an attack," for the same logic they give for "He doesn't destroy an illusion."

Otherwise, they're moving goal posts.

(Yes, I close-captioned his rhetorical point, deal with it.)

This applies to attacks that succeed by more than X as well.

For example,

Bull Rush wrote:


For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent’s CMD you can push the target back an additional 5 feet.[Ed.: Dirty Trick, Disarm, Drag, Overrun, and Resposition have similar overkill riders.]

So if I bull rush the wizard, I can push him back fifteen or twenty feet if I roll a 19, but only five feet if I roll a 20?

And, of course, if I miss my trip by more than 10, I "am knocked prone instead." So I may be knocked prone rolling a 2, but not a 1?

This line of reasoning is, in my opinion, clearly spurious.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Forseti wrote:

Take Upsetting Strike for example:

Benefit(s): While you are using Upsetting Shield Style, if a foe is taking a penalty on attack rolls against you as a result of Upsetting Shield Style, and that foe makes a melee attack roll against you that misses your AC by 5 or more, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

If I roll a 2 and miss you by say 12, you get to attack me. If I roll a 1, you don't get to attack me?

I'd say that they should get an attack.

Of course, logically speaking, the other side would have to say "He doesn't get an attack," for the same logic they give for "He doesn't destroy an illusion."

Otherwise, they're moving goal posts.

(Yes, I close-captioned his rhetorical point, deal with it.)

The core problem I have with destroying an image is an attacker benefiting on an attack roll of natural 1, I would be fine with an attacker taking an additional penalty from an attack roll of natural 1.

For the Upsetting Strike example, the attacker would provoke an AOO on a natural 1.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

So if I bull rush the wizard, I can push him back fifteen or twenty feet if I roll a 19, but only five feet if I roll a 20?

And, of course, if I miss my trip by more than 10, I "am knocked prone instead." So I may be knocked prone rolling a 2, but not a 1?

This line of reasoning is, in my opinion, clearly spurious.

Obviously "don't check the actual numbers if you roll a 1 or a 20" doesn't work in many situations.

Why would you not check the numbers for a roll of 1 vs. mirror image then? Because it "doesn't feel right" to award an advantage to a natural 1?

Let me turn the tables on that... losing an image on a near-hit is a limiting factor of the spell. Why would the general "limiting factor" of the "always miss" natural 1 on an attack roll weigh heavier than the specific "limiting factor" of a spell that uses the same language as systems for which we obviously would do calculations on a roll of 1 or 20?


but what if you roll a 1 and have more than their AC? Do you not pop one?


In that case you missed by a minus number, which is less than 5.


Gallant Armor wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Forseti wrote:

Take Upsetting Strike for example:

Benefit(s): While you are using Upsetting Shield Style, if a foe is taking a penalty on attack rolls against you as a result of Upsetting Shield Style, and that foe makes a melee attack roll against you that misses your AC by 5 or more, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

If I roll a 2 and miss you by say 12, you get to attack me. If I roll a 1, you don't get to attack me?

I'd say that they should get an attack.

Of course, logically speaking, the other side would have to say "He doesn't get an attack," for the same logic they give for "He doesn't destroy an illusion."

Otherwise, they're moving goal posts.

(Yes, I close-captioned his rhetorical point, deal with it.)

The core problem I have with destroying an image is an attacker benefiting on an attack roll of natural 1, I would be fine with an attacker taking an additional penalty from an attack roll of natural 1.

For the Upsetting Strike example, the attacker would provoke an AOO on a natural 1.

You contradict your personal stance with the Upsetting Strike example, since you're not allowing 1 instance of "miss by 5 or less," and disallowing another, and you have hypocritical reasons as to why you give the respective answers.

A Natural 1 never being a benefit isn't a rule, nor is it even a well-known concept or unwritten ideal. If anything, Critical Fumbles are more well-known and conceptual than this, and is actually Paizo-endorsed (as an optional rule via Fumble Cards, anyway).

The only actual rule is that Natural 1's are automatic misses.

As I've said before, please give me a citation, a developer comment, SOMETHING OFFICIAL that supports your stance. Until that happens, it's just wishful thinking, speculation, and also not helpful to the discussion.


Chess Pwn wrote:
but what if you roll a 1 and have more than their AC? Do you not pop one?

I already covered this.

Unless you're enforcing THAC0 rules, or can't read number lines, hitting an enemy or not even if you roll a 1 is irrelevant to the factor that you missed by less than 5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forseti wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

So if I bull rush the wizard, I can push him back fifteen or twenty feet if I roll a 19, but only five feet if I roll a 20?

And, of course, if I miss my trip by more than 10, I "am knocked prone instead." So I may be knocked prone rolling a 2, but not a 1?

This line of reasoning is, in my opinion, clearly spurious.

Obviously "don't check the actual numbers if you roll a 1 or a 20" doesn't work in many situations.

I'd argue that "don't gain an advantage if you roll a natural one" is also a rule that doesn't work. For example, if I throw a splash weapon and roll a natural 1, I may still be able to damage the target (which is an advantage) despite the miss (depending on where the grenade-like weapon lands).

Quote:


Why would you not check the numbers for a roll of 1 vs. mirror image then? Because it "doesn't feel right" to award an advantage to a natural 1?

That appears to be the argument, yes. I don't find it to be compelling, though, for roughly the reasons I outlined earlier. As you indicate, I think that the miss-by-five-or-less is designed as a weakness of the spell, and as such, rolling a one should still trigger that weakness.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Forseti wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

So if I bull rush the wizard, I can push him back fifteen or twenty feet if I roll a 19, but only five feet if I roll a 20?

And, of course, if I miss my trip by more than 10, I "am knocked prone instead." So I may be knocked prone rolling a 2, but not a 1?

This line of reasoning is, in my opinion, clearly spurious.

Obviously "don't check the actual numbers if you roll a 1 or a 20" doesn't work in many situations.

Combat Maneuvers have specific rules language to address this.

Quote:
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target’s CMD.


No. you rolled a 1. The image has an armor class . You still missed that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Images have no armor class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Forseti wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

So if I bull rush the wizard, I can push him back fifteen or twenty feet if I roll a 19, but only five feet if I roll a 20?

And, of course, if I miss my trip by more than 10, I "am knocked prone instead." So I may be knocked prone rolling a 2, but not a 1?

This line of reasoning is, in my opinion, clearly spurious.

Obviously "don't check the actual numbers if you roll a 1 or a 20" doesn't work in many situations.

Combat Maneuvers have specific rules language to address this.

Indeed. And so has the Mirror Image spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
No. you rolled a 1. The image has an armor class . You still missed that.

Show me where in the spell description it says that Mirror Images have an AC.

Last I checked, you can't voluntarily target Mirror Images per the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The image has an armor class .

[Citation needed.]


The logically consistent positions would seem to me to either be:

You rolled a 1 vs. an opponent with a mirror image. If you had rolled a number that is 5 higher (a 6, in other words), would you have hit? If yes, pop image.

This line of reasoning comes to the conclusion that you do pop on a 1, and also that there isn't anything special or weird about rolling a 1 vs. a 2 for things like Upsetting Strike.

OR

You rolled a 1 vs. an opponent with a mirror image, for a total of 23 to hit. If you had instead had a total of 28, would you have hit? If yes, pop image.

On this line of reasoning, you don't pop on a 1. There also isn't any weirdness for Upsetting strike with this.

Both of these positions seem logically defensible to me, so I feel like you could go either way on this one. I would rule in the first case, personally, that you pop an image.


They had AC in 3.5.


GM 7thGate, I think you've summed up my view on the two possibilities perfectly.

I, however, favor the second interpretation. How much you've succeeded or failed by isn't determined by the number shown on the die, it's determined by the total result of the roll - so whether a higher total roll would hit should determine whether you missed by 5 or less.

Furthermore, the first interpretation fails when you consider dice rolls resulting higher numbers shown on the dice. Should a die roll showing 15 always be considered to have "missed by 5 or less" against any AC since a die showing 20 would automatically hit? What about a die roll of 18, whose status hinges on the success or failure of rolling a natural 23 on a d20?

Considering the total result of the roll is much simpler and gives more sensible results.

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you roll a Natural 1 and still pop / destroy a mirror image? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.