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 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, 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).


quibblemuch wrote:

"An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply)."

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'd say there'd still be something to be destroyed.

Sure, if the attacker is blind normal miss chances apply unless the attacker has other means to pinpoint the target (namely, attacker will probably have to target a square instead of directly targeting the caster and even if he choses the correct square would still have a 50% miss change due to concealement)... but, if attacker picks the correct square, mirror images will be there moving around the real caster.

I'd say that a miss by 5 or less would still destroy an image when targeting the correct square, since those would still be randomly hit by the "near miss".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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


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.


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.


3 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.


I feel like "the blind attacker has a chance of missing you because they do not know where you really are" is already encapsulated in the rules for blindness. You do not create an additional chance of the blind person missing you because you have illusory duplicates.

If the blind attacker has another means of seeing (e.g. blindsight) to pinpoint precisely where you are and what you're doing so that they can attack you, that sense won't be fooled by purely visual illusions.

I mean for goodness sakes, the text of the spell specifies *exactly* what to do if you are invisible or the person attacking you is blind. I know this is the rules forum and people here can argue about anything, but the RAW is extremely clear.


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


3 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.


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


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.


Also, btw, will o' wisps don't stay invisible when attacking. They can attack and then become invisible as a move action 'as per the spell', but they do become visible when they attack because it doesn't say otherwise. Pixies, on the other hand, can stay invisible while they attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Also, btw, will o' wisps don't stay invisible when attacking. They can attack and then become invisible as a move action 'as per the spell', but they do become visible when they attack because it doesn't say otherwise. Pixies, on the other hand, can stay invisible while they attack.

UMR says a creature with natural invisibility does not become visible when attacking. But I can see your position and may change mine. Regardless, that's tangential to the current discussion :) .


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.


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.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, 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.


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

Correct. But you only roll for Mirror Image if the attack actually hits the target.

Mirror Image wrote:
If the attack is a hit

.

This extends beyond just spell effects that grant concealment, e.g. fog, dim light, etc. Mirror Image does not, for example, suddenly negate environmental effects that grant concealment.


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.


Actually, effect can also mean "to bring about." Unless you're implying that you are unable to cast Mirror Image while blinded, DrDeth's statement is correct.

I can't believe I turned on epic music just for this.

Edit: Proper nouns are difficult sometimes.


Does someone who can see the mirror images have a chance to hit them by randomly swinging? Nope, they only hit if they would otherwise hit the caster. Whether the image can appear to dodge or deflect the attack somehow, or whether it simply grazes the image without causing harm, a lower chance to hit the caster will never mean a higher chance to hit the images.

Edit: Just checked the spell description and it does appear that a lower chance to hit the caster can mean a higher chance to hit the images. My bad.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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


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.


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.


_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?


I feel like a *rule* for "a blind person swings wildly into the general area of a subject of mirror image and thereby destroys an image for people who are paying attention closely" is probably too complex to be worth implementing and makes combat seem far more static than it actually is.

People in a fight are probably not paying close attention to what people who are far away are doing, and nobody's just standing there not moving in their square.


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.


_Ozy_ wrote:
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?

sorry sometime when i'm tired i misread and/or don't see other text and english is not my native language so it do not help me on that again sorry


John Murdock wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
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?
sorry sometime when i'm tired i misread and/or don't see other text and english is not my native language so it do not help me on that again sorry

No worries, just didn't want either of us to be misunderstanding the conversation.


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?

1 to 50 of 140 << 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.