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

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Can a blind attacker destroy mirror images?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Is there a chance for someone unaffected by mirror image, such as a blind man or someone simply closing their eyes, to destroy an image?

If not, should there be? After all, a blind swing or shot may well pass through an image before hitting the real target.


"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 the spell has no effect on the attacker, then, for that attacker there are no images. Therefore, there is nothing to be destroyed.


I would say only on a miss by less than 5 (or is it 4).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The spell description literally says if the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
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).

I would say that a blind attacker can't hit images.

Just like there's no chance of accidentally shooting allies without Precise Shot. Pathfinder doesn't do accidentally hitting something else. You hit or you don't.

It isn't totally realistic, but it it's consistent, which is also valuable.


What quibblemuch said.


I don't see why it wouldn't kill an image the only effect the spell has is a miss chance. the kill an image if you miss by 5 or less is just a byproduct of attacking into their square and slicing through images, which you can still do even if you can't see them and is not an actual effect of the spell, no more than reaching out and touching an illusion and getting a save to disbelieve is an effect of the illusion spell. its just something that happens because the illusion exsists.


No.


good argument I see your point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
good argument I see your point.

The point is that it's literally in the spell description that Mirror Image does jack and crap if the attacker is blind. And part of the effect of Mirror Image is the ability to destroy the images.

If you're pulling apart a spell description and say that this part is an effect of the spell, but that part isn't, you are in some deep house rule territory. The rules are pretty clear in this case.


the effect of mirror image is a bunch of images that give you a miss chance. even if your eyes are closed if you swing into his square and cut one in half it still goes poof. they don't cease being there because your eyes are closed, they just don't give you more miss chance to hit them instead of the guy.


Nope. Still wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
the effect of mirror image is a bunch of images that give you a miss chance. even if your eyes are closed if you swing into his square and cut one in half it still goes poof. they don't cease being there because your eyes are closed

Please quote the part of the spell description that states that "if the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect except it still totally does and they can still hit the images". 'cause I'm not seeing it. A blind attacker can no more hit your mirror images than an area effect can.


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).

so by this line a blind person can attack the person who has mirror image without hitting a single image, so being blind make you unable to attack the mirror image

Edit:If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

i have forgot this line so only by a miss of 5 or less that a blind person can destroy a mirror image


So, does this mean the 50% miss chance does not apply to destroying images?

Also, if the attacker rolls high enough to hit his opponent, but misses because of being blind, I assume this triggers the 'miss by 5 or less' and destroys an image instead?


_Ozy_ wrote:

So, does this mean the 50% miss chance does not apply to destroying images?

Also, if the attacker rolls high enough to hit his opponent, but misses because of being blind, I assume this triggers the 'miss by 5 or less' and destroys an image instead?

you can't target the image while blind (and you can't even when not blind) so the 50% miss chance can't apply to those image, and if you miss because of the 50% miss chance its not the same as missing by 5 or less, you didn't make a near miss because of his/her AC but you miss because of concealment


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Murdock wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

So, does this mean the 50% miss chance does not apply to destroying images?

Also, if the attacker rolls high enough to hit his opponent, but misses because of being blind, I assume this triggers the 'miss by 5 or less' and destroys an image instead?

you can't target the image while blind (and you can't even when not blind) so the 50% miss chance can't apply to those image, and if you miss because of the 50% miss chance its not the same as missing by 5 or less, you didn't make a near miss because of his/her AC but you miss because of concealment

Not sure the rules care about that distinction. If you roll to hit the target, and miss by 5 or less, you don't even roll the 50% miss chance, correct? So an image would automatically be destroyed.

In any case, I think the wording of the spell "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect"

kind of answers all of the questions.


John Murdock wrote:
you always roll for concealment first, normally people roll both attack and conceal to make thing go faster, but you roll first the conceal then you roll your attack, but yeah the wording the spell has no effect kind of answer the question

Er, no, you only roll concealment miss chance on a successful attack:

Quote:

Concealment Miss Chance

Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck.
Quote:

Total Concealment

...
A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).


then i stand corrected, i hate having wrong information, thank you

i should always check the info my friends give me in the future from now on


Yeah, I think most of the time it shouldn't make a difference, but there may be some corner case where it matters. Someone with mirror image and blur or some other form of the 20% concealment might be such a case.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

A couple of things:

1) No. No images were harmed in the making of this attack. The spell has literally no effect on a blind (or closed-eyed) individual, and likewise that individual has no effect on the spell.

2) The way the rules are written for blindness/invisibility is rife for metagaming. If you are blind and cut the air, you should not know whether it's because you missed a person or because you swung at an empty square.

THREAD DRIFT ALERT!
Here's what I do for blindness/invisibility:

1) I roll miss chance behind the screen for EVERY SINGLE ATTACK. If there's nobody there, the miss chance doesn't matter. But I roll it anyway.

2) If they swing at the correct square, AND they beat the 50/50, but they miss the creature, I check the other AC's. If their attack was enough to touch, but not enough to get through armor, I tell them they made contact. That gives them very important information, and I feel it's fair.

3) If I attack and stay invisible (say, with a will-o-wisp or greater invis), I tell them what square the attack came from. (Then I 5-ft step!)

These are absolutely houserule interpretations, but honestly, I feel comfortable using them even in PFS, because I feel they're fair and apply it fairly in both directions. I've never been challenged on it, though I did have one player tell me later, "I love the way you ran that, and I totally would, too. But it's not RAW." Which is true. By RAW, the player rolls the miss chance. I just hate that rolling a 20 and a 64 tells you that the enemy isn't there.


3) do you do this even if the attacker has reach?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
3) do you do this even if the attacker has reach?

I tell them the direction. I don't tell them that it was from a reach weapon, no.


tchrman35 wrote:

A couple of things:

1) No. No images were harmed in the making of this attack. The spell has literally no effect on a blind (or closed-eyed) individual, and likewise that individual has no effect on the spell.

Mirror image has no effect on the blind. Why do you assume the blind have no effect on mirror image?

An illusory wall has no effect on the blind , but a blind character walking through the illusory wall still interacts with it causing everyone else to disbelieve it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because the spell specifically says:

"If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect"

without any particular qualification. If a blind attacker destroys an image, that's an effect. Illusory wall does not contain similar 'no effect' language.

Scarab Sages

tchrman35 wrote:
2) The way the rules are written for blindness/invisibility is rife for metagaming. If you are blind and cut the air, you should not know whether it's because you missed a person or because you swung at an empty square.

You might know. Just because you are blind or they are invisible, doesn't automatically mean you can't locate the enemy, it just means you can't locate them with your eyes/sight. Your hand-to-eye coordination is terrible, but you still may know if you are swinging into an empty square or not.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Because the spell specifically says:

"If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect"

without any particular qualification. If a blind attacker destroys an image, that's an effect. Illusory wall does not contain similar 'no effect' language.

I assumed the duplicate images as the effect of the spell and destruction of the image as the effect of the attack. Guess I'm wrong. Anywho.


As Figments they only exist in your mind so it makes sense that a Blind Person can't destroy an image by a near miss because they have no awareness of there blow passing through the image they see.

Of course been Figments they can't discharge a spell charge... except the rule is they do.

Stupid spell. :-|
Also the spell scales up massively in power depending on the AC of the person casting it.
Like I said - Stupid Spell.


Now, if you have blur up, do your mirror images also get a 20% miss chance? ;)

Shadow Lodge

No. You're either playing a game of cups or pin the tail on the donkey. No getting the best of both worlds.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Now, if you have blur up, do your mirror images also get a 20% miss chance? ;)

There are myriad forum discussions about this very interaction. I have no good answer for you. It's also tangential to the current discussion. :)


_Ozy_ wrote:
Now, if you have blur up, do your mirror images also get a 20% miss chance? ;)

If a character has both Mirror Image and Blur or Displacement the effects stack.

First you roll to see if you actually hit the character (concealment), then you check to see if it was the character or an image that was hit. A miss due to concealment does not destroy an image.

Blindness / closure of eyes is it's own thing and negates all of the above.

Shadow Lodge

An illusion cannot be blurred by another illusion. The illusion can look blurry because you are blurry, and you can be displaced, but by definition the illusion IS what it looks like. If you hit the blurry elf shaped illusion to the left of the elf, that is the image, you've hit the image, you pop the image.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
An illusion cannot be blurred by another illusion. The illusion can look blurry because you are blurry, and you can be displaced, but by definition the illusion IS what it looks like. If you hit the blurry elf shaped illusion to the left of the elf, that is the image, you've hit the image, you pop the image.

The character become blury, the images copy the character.

If you roll => target's AC and fail to hit the target due to concealment (the attack roll is never against an image), nothing was hit. Not the target, not an image, nothing.

If you are successful with your attack against the character, including any additional rolls for concealment, you then check to see If an image was hit or the intended target. This is the final roll (baring immediate actions, etc.).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If I remember correctly, the defender only rolls for concealment when he would otherwise be successfully hit in the first place.


Likewise, you roll for concealment if 'the attack is successful'.

So, we can't roll for mirror image until we know that the concealment fails, and we can't roll for concealment until we know that mirror image fails.

Hooray! Invulnerability! ;)


quibblemuch wrote:
The spell description literally says if the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect.

That does not mean you cant effect the spell.

Shadow Lodge

Snowlilly wrote:

]

The character become blury, the images copy the character.

Not in dispute. But the image isn't actually blurry. The image is altering itself so that it looks like you do blurry. The images quasi existance in space is where it actually appears to be.

Quote:
If you roll => target's AC and fail to hit the target due to concealment (the attack roll is never against an image), nothing was hit. Not the target, not an image, nothing.

That doesn't work. The images aren't concealed. Blur and displacement don't work on "you and your illusions" they only work on you. you can't miss them from concealment, so you only roll to see if you miss from concealment if you're swinging at the real mccoy.


John Murdock wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
The spell description literally says if the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect.
That does not mean you cant effect the spell.
the wording is clear the spell has no effect so you can't affect it since it has no effect on you and the only way to destroy an image is if you miss by 5 or more but for that to happen the spell must be able to affect you which is not the case for a blind character

this is just conjecture and has no basis in fact. you can definitely affect things that cannot affect you.


vhok wrote:
John Murdock wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
The spell description literally says if the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect.
That does not mean you cant effect the spell.
the wording is clear the spell has no effect so you can't affect it since it has no effect on you and the only way to destroy an image is if you miss by 5 or more but for that to happen the spell must be able to affect you which is not the case for a blind character
this is just conjecture and has no basis in fact. you can definitely affect things that cannot affect you.

What do you mean by "fact"? The only relevant thing here is the rules text. And the rules quite clearly state that the spell has no effect on a blind attacker. And "effect" very obviously includes everything but the last paragraph.

You can't just pick and choose what the effect of the spell is. That's like saying that, say, Charm Person can still partially affect creatures immune to mind-affecting effects because only part of the spell is actually the effect. It makes no sense and you're just deciding what "effect" means based on absolutely nothing.
If the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect. The ability to destroy the images is part of the effect. So, if the attacker is blind, they can not destroy the images.


_Ozy_ wrote:

You are adding the words to the statement. You are changing 'the spell has no effect' to 'the spell has no effect on the attacker'.

The rules use the first phrase, not the second.

i'm not adding wording, if you were able to affect it the wording would be the spell do not affect an invisble or blind opponent, but instead the wording is "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect" which mean the spell do nothing, you don't affect it nor does it affect you because it has no effect


John Murdock wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

You are adding the words to the statement. You are changing 'the spell has no effect' to 'the spell has no effect on the attacker'.

The rules use the first phrase, not the second.

i'm not adding wording, if you were able to affect it the wording would be the spell do not affect an invisble or blind opponent, but instead the wording is "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect" which mean the spell do nothing, you don't affect it nor does it affect you because it has no effect

Why would you think my post was addressed to you?


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

It's a poorly written phrase that didn't consider this issue careful. The only logical interpretation of the line is that it has no effect on the attack; specifically because the attack cannot see the images.

Also, logically, it seems possible that if the blind enemy manages to target the square could took out an image. (I hate the idea of being able to close your eyes to avoid mirror image.) However, you are swinging into a square that contains the caster and the images. Errantly hitting an image makes some sense. The images are benefitting from the concealment as well.

But the phrasing is vague enough where I can see why they believe that the sentence means no effects whatsoever. I cannot think of a narrative logic for it. As a matter of pure interpretation one possibility definitely makes mose sense than others.

If someone closes their eyes to try to defeat mirror image, they deserve all the pain that will come their way from deliberately choosing the blinded condition. Sneak attacks, loss of Dex to AC, heck not even knowing what square your enemies are even in. If your enemies notice you are closing your eyes, readied actions to move to different squares, and/or take their attacks while you're eyes are closed, will completely defeat you.

I see this proposed strategy (closing your eyes) to try and defeat mirror image, but every single time I've seen mirror image used by bad guys, party members just blow through the images in a round or two and kill the bad guy anyways. I seriously doubt closing your eyes would speed up that process substantially.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

]

The character become blury, the images copy the character.

Not in dispute. But the image isn't actually blurry. The image is altering itself so that it looks like you do blurry. The images quasi existance in space is where it actually appears to be.

Quote:
If you roll => target's AC and fail to hit the target due to concealment (the attack roll is never against an image), nothing was hit. Not the target, not an image, nothing.

That doesn't work. The images aren't concealed. Blur and displacement don't work on "you and your illusions" they only work on you. you can't miss them from concealment, so you only roll to see if you miss from concealment if you're swinging at the real mccoy.

You can't target the images anyways, you target the caster and only potentially destroy images if you succeed with your attack, or miss by 5 or less.

If you miss due to caster concealment, you don't destroy an image, because that's not a 'successful attack or miss by 5 or less'.

However, order of operations is important. Do you check for concealment miss before or after you check for hitting an image. I don't think the rules give the answer.


John Murdock wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

You are adding the words to the statement. You are changing 'the spell has no effect' to 'the spell has no effect on the attacker'.

The rules use the first phrase, not the second.

i'm not adding wording, if you were able to affect it the wording would be the spell do not affect an invisble or blind opponent, but instead the wording is "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect" which mean the spell do nothing, you don't affect it nor does it affect you because it has no effect

So if I have Immunity to Fire and someone casts a Flaming Sphere I can't dispel it because the Flaming Sphere has no effect on me, by your logic right?

And that demonstrates the failure of your logic.

Not affected by the spell =/= can't affect the spell.
These are to different statements.


the effect of the spell is a chance to hit the illusions instead.

the spell also has a TRIGGER built into it that if the attacker only misses by 5 or less an image dies.

that's not an effect of the spell, its you swinging so close to him that you cut through an image and it disappears. or are you saying because I can't see the image being cut in half it doesn't remove an image? what about my party members or other people watching does it die for them? if it doesn't then why does it die normally when you cut through it? just because I can't see it being cut means it can't be cut?


_Ozy_ wrote:

Likewise, you roll for concealment if 'the attack is successful'.

So, we can't roll for mirror image until we know that the concealment fails, and we can't roll for concealment until we know that mirror image fails.

Hooray! Invulnerability! ;)

A successful attack = rolling >= the opponents AC

Hitting your opponent = physically connecting.

The roll for concealment occurs after the attack roll and prior to inflicting damage. Concealment stops a successful attack roll from physically connecting.


The disagreement in this thread seems to boil down to those who believe that the effect of mirror image is an image and those who do not.

1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Can a blind attacker destroy mirror images? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.