You declare you close your eyes to attack, but are your eyes shut the entire round or just your attacks?
And if you only make one? I.e. a Readied Action when they start casting?
I would let them count as being blind for one round in order to have the 50% miss chance rather then trying to target a specific image. There was a nice thread about this I think called Blink and Mirror Image.
And if you only make one? I.e. a Readied Action when they start casting?
You eyes would be closed from the end of your turn until the next round, IMHO.
If he does not cast windwall or take a 5 ft step he deserves what he gets though.
|
I'm not sure if Pathfinder explained combat the way that 3.x did, but one attack does not necessarily mean one swing. It means you engage your opponent and manage to get one good attempted hit during the round, but probably many attempts to hit.
Regardless the d20 system is not a combat simulation and has its own rules of reality. Even for a readied action I would rule the attacker is effectively blind the entire round.
If you want the benefits of being "blind" you better be willing to accept the drawbacks as well. Unlike real life combat the d20 system tries to balance the benefits with the drawbacks. Otherwise, just remove Mirror Image from the game as it is essentially a worthless spell.
Quite frankly, even if you shut your eyes, I'd still rule you have the whatever chance to hit one of the mirror images.
They don't just magically vanish because you can't see them.
I would just rule that the 50% miss chance replaces the roll to determine if you hit an image, because you're trading one miss chance for another.
+1 That's what the last line in Mirror Image says:"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)".
However, opening your eyes after you attack should be a free action, IMO
@Krome - It wouldn't make it useless, you've still got a 50% miss chance, can't target with spells etc.
There have been a few threads covering this, i'm pretty sure the consensus was that the no. of attacks in a round were the actual no. of attacks.
|
|
However, opening your eyes after you attack should be a free action, IMO
My argument is that you have to wait until your next round to finish all your attacks since everyone's actions are actually occurring simultaneously in the same six seconds. Your attacks aren't actually finished until the start of the next round.
That's certainly a legitimate interpretation.
I just think it can get very messy with movement, casting etc. If you have a definite span of time that determines what you do, it makes things a lot simpler.
Along the same vein as when people start talking about what happens over the six seconds and saying, i 'really' attack twice, but in that six seconds i swung my sword x times.
|
|
I would just rule that the 50% miss chance replaces the roll to determine if you hit an image, because you're trading one miss chance for another.+1 That's what the last line in Mirror Image says:"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)".
However, opening your eyes after you attack should be a free action, IMO
@Krome - It wouldn't make it useless, you've still got a 50% miss chance, can't target with spells etc.
There have been a few threads covering this, i'm pretty sure the consensus was that the no. of attacks in a round were the actual no. of attacks.
That may be a change or an omission from 3.x, but before it clearly said that one attack did not equal one swing per six seconds.
and in a way it does make the spell useless, as other spells can grant that exact same miss chance. Why bother with Mirror Image when other spells can be used instead?
That may be a change or an omission from 3.x, but before it clearly said that one attack did not equal one swing per six seconds.
and in a way it does make the spell useless, as other spells can grant that exact same miss chance. Why bother with Mirror Image when other spells can be used instead?
1) Yeh, i used to run it like that too, but like i said, it just got too messy with PC's wanting to do more than a standard, move, and free actions.
2) Hafta disagree here. Mirror Image is a 2nd lvl spell. Closing your eyes turns it into the spell Displacement (50% miss), a 3rd lvl spell. If anything it makes it more powerful. I'd actually recommend just swinging, you're gonna take those images out quicker anyway. Way more efficient IMHO.
|
|
That may be a change or an omission from 3.x, but before it clearly said that one attack did not equal one swing per six seconds.
and in a way it does make the spell useless, as other spells can grant that exact same miss chance. Why bother with Mirror Image when other spells can be used instead?
1) Yeh, i used to run it like that too, but like i said, it just got too messy with PC's wanting to do more than a standard, move, and free actions.
2) Hafta disagree here. Mirror Image is a 2nd lvl spell. Closing your eyes turns it into the spell Displacement (50% miss), a 3rd lvl spell. If anything it makes it more powerful. I'd actually recommend just swinging, you're gonna take those images out quicker anyway. Way more efficient IMHO.
well, yeah not USELESS but still not thrilled with it.
I just always consider the "other" swings as imagery, fluff for visualizing the combat.
Now it is not IN the books anywhere at all, but I VISUALIZE the combat such that two fighters, for example, are swinging wildly, pushing, kicking, stepping around one another, biting and spitting, and calling one another names, but in mechanics terms they each get one attack each and are just standing there.
If you ever read other topics I post in, I am very visual, I like some things just based upon the imagery it gives me... like another post fighting with spear and dagger... COOL, or another one fighting with two shields...COOL I don't care if it is suboptimal or silly or whatever, it looks COOL! :) I imagine the games as little movies in my head, after the session is over, that night I almost always dream the adventure and see it as a movie. Weird I know, but lots of fun anyway :)
I just always consider the "other" swings as imagery, fluff for visualizing the combat.
Now it is not IN the books anywhere at all, but I VISUALIZE the combat such that two fighters, for example, are swinging wildly, pushing, kicking, stepping around one another, biting and spitting, and calling one another names, but in mechanics terms they each get one attack each and are just standing there.
If you ever read other topics I post in, I am very visual, I like some things just based upon the imagery it gives me... like another post fighting with spear and dagger... COOL, or another one fighting with two shields...COOL I don't care if it is suboptimal or silly or whatever, it looks COOL! :) I imagine the games as little movies in my head, after the session is over, that night I almost always dream the adventure and see it as a movie. Weird I know, but lots of fun anyway :)
I totally agree with visualising combat. I always describe combat that way, say a fighter PC swings twice and hits once. I'll say at the end of his/her round "Your first swing is narrowly deflected by his shield, but you batter it to the side with your first blow, leaving him wide open for your thrust"...Or something like that.
But that's different to the 'actual' actions the PC's take during combat. I learnt the hard way never to mix fluff and business.
|
My rogue readies an action to attack the fighter when he closes his eyes.
2) Hafta disagree here. Mirror Image is a 2nd lvl spell. Closing your eyes turns it into the spell Displacement (50% miss), a 3rd lvl spell. If anything it makes it more powerful. I'd actually recommend just swinging, you're gonna take those images out quicker anyway. Way more efficient IMHO.
Kind of depends on what level you are and how long you are going to be close and personal with the wizard. If you only have 1-2 attacks per round it might take 2-3 rounds to kill all the images. If you can kill the wizard in 2 hits then it might be worth it to close your eyes. If you have 4-5 attacks per round you have a solid chance of doing damage in the first round and will likely ginsu him on the second round after you've cleared up the images.
Random question: Do Blind characters even GET AoOs since they are essentially considered flat footed the whole time?
Random question: Do Blind characters even GET AoOs since they are essentially considered flat footed the whole time?
All enemies are "unseen" to a blind character, which means you're denied your Dex bonus* to them and can't make AoOs.
*Really what happens is that you're flat-footed to them, but many posters here don't accept that the writers used "denied Dex" and "flat-footed" somewhat interchangeably in the Core rules, and will attempt to flay me alive for saying this.
*Really what happens is that you're flat-footed to them, but many posters here don't accept that the writers used "denied Dex" and "flat-footed" somewhat interchangeably in the Core rules, and will attempt to flay me alive for saying this.
Either what you're saying is true, or the book needs significant errata (:
And for the OP, it's more of a metagaming issue than anything else. Yes, it is mathematically better to take the 50% miss chance while blind than swing at images. However, most monsters aren't smart enough to make this distinction. So most GMs should let monsters swing away at the images.
For relatively intelligent monsters/NPCs, I would allow the tactic of close eyes (free action) / attack square / open eyes (free action). I would also allow players to do this, but as the GM I'm going to respond by letting smarter NPCs/monsters ready attacks while PC eyes are closed. This is a significant drawback -- since you lose your Dex bonus to AC and take an additional -2 to AC while blinded.
For very intelligent monsters/NPCs, I would allow the tactic of close eyes (free action) / attack square / open eyes (free action). I would also allow players to do this, but as the GM I'm going to respond by letting smarter NPCs/monsters ready attacks while PC eyes are closed.
This is my position as well.
Regardless of how long your eyes are closed, if you are closing them for any longer than a blink in a fight, you are taking very big risks.
I'm not saying the tactic isn't warranted in specific situations, such as mirror image, gaze attacks, flashbangs, etc. But when you think about it realistically (blasphemy!) it falls almost into the same boat as Alchemist Fire in terms of how sometimes PCs don't act like real people.
If I got hit by alchemist fire, I would stop-drop-and-roll in a hurry. I wouldn't continue to fight for another 6 seconds hoping the chemical burns itself out on my tender flesh. Yet for PCs the extra 1d6 damage, even at low levels, is almost always preferrable to loosing one to one and a half rounds of actions (depending on if they choose to actually drop and roll, thus having to stand back up again the round after). Although, a good example of just dealing with the fire might be the scene in Avatar when the Colonel gets into his power armor while his shoulder is still on fire, only bothering to pat it out after he had started the armor's bootup sequence. Doing so definitely implies badassery and rational thought, something most people don't have in the face of OMGIMONFIRE!
Similarily, closing my eyes while engaged in a fight seems practically suicidal. D&D combat doesn't exactly mimic just how vunerable you are when you are effectively blind. Loosing dex and a +4 to hit come close, but honestly you could add a +1d6 damage effect. You not only hit more accurately, getting past armor, but you can hit accurately against critical targets. Unless I was just dealing with an obnoxious mage, I wouldn't run the risk. If there were any guards or summoned monsters involved in the fight, my eyes would stay open unless I was very very sure of the comprehensive protection of my armor and shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random question: Do Blind characters even GET AoOs since they are essentially considered flat footed the whole time?
Your premise is incorrect. Being blind does not make you flat-footed.
A combatant is only flatfooted at the start of combat before he has had a chance to take an action. Once he gets a chance to act, he is no longer flat-footed. This is from the RAW, and it is true even if he is blind.
Being blind does not prevent you from taking AoOs; there is nothing in the "Blinded" condition that says you cannot take AoOs.
However, when you are blinded all your opponents have Total Concealment against you. Per the rules of Total Concealment, you cannot make an AoO against opponents with Total Concealment.
Therefore, when you are blinded, you cannot make AoOs against your opponents. Not because you are blind, but because they have Total Concealment against you.
This is a crucial distinction, in two ways:
1. It's generally bad to confuse "Flat-footed" with "denied DEX modifier" because the two things are different and have some different game rules applied to them.
2. There are ways to compensate for being blind (such as Blindsight). Using these compensations, you are still blind, but you have ways to remove the Total Concealment. This means that while you are still "blinded", you can actually make AoOs because blind doesn't prevent AoOs and your compensating ability removes the Total Concealment.
How does blindsense work in the mirror image situation?
Do you mean blindsight?
Blindsense says that a target is definitely in the square (as if pinpointed with a very high perception check). Since mirror images are always in your square, it won't help out that much.
Blindsight renders mirror image absolutely worthless. The images are only visual. Since blindsight "sees" things without a visible component, a creature with blindsight ignores mirror image (as well as displacement and blur).
Figments + blindsight are a bit questionable. . . I guess it depends on the figment and the level of the spell. . .
Random question: Do Blind characters even GET AoOs since they are essentially considered flat footed the whole time?Blah blah blah...
Could have just said "Yup" :)
Could have just said "Yup" :)Random question: Do Blind characters even GET AoOs since they are essentially considered flat footed the whole time?Blah blah blah...
You mean nope. . .
You mean nope. . .Could have just said "Yup" :)Random question: Do Blind characters even GET AoOs since they are essentially considered flat footed the whole time?Blah blah blah...
Actually, meant "Yes, but not because of what you are describing" but "Yup" was funnier :)
Has anyone actually tried standing with their eyes shut for six seconds and allow anyone to bash them?
Try it and then imagine its a greatsword with a nice sharp steal blade...And then ask "would my fighter really put himself at such risk just to avoid a miss chance..."
Of course if you've munchkined your fighter and given him a 7 in both INT and WIS I guess the answer would be yes...
Could have just said "Yup" :)Random question: Do Blind characters even GET AoOs since they are essentially considered flat footed the whole time?Blah blah blah...
But then he wouldn't be our lovable, long-winded, DMB :)
Actually, meant "Yes, but not because of what you are describing" but "Yup" was funnier :)You mean nope. . .Could have just said "Yup" :)Random question: Do Blind characters even GET AoOs since they are essentially considered flat footed the whole time?Blah blah blah...
But "yes" isn't what DMB said. DMB said, "No, unless ..."
Wait, I --- ahh----
~Throws up hands. Walks away.~
*Really what happens is that you're flat-footed to them, but many posters here don't accept that the writers used "denied Dex" and "flat-footed" somewhat interchangeably in the Core rules, and will attempt to flay me alive for saying this.Either what you're saying is true, or the book needs significant errata (:
And for the OP, it's more of a metagaming issue than anything else. Yes, it is mathematically better to take the 50% miss chance while blind than swing at images. However, most monsters aren't smart enough to make this distinction. So most GMs should let monsters swing away at the images.
For relatively intelligent monsters/NPCs, I would allow the tactic of close eyes (free action) / attack square / open eyes (free action). I would also allow players to do this, but as the GM I'm going to respond by letting smarter NPCs/monsters ready attacks while PC eyes are closed. This is a significant drawback -- since you lose your Dex bonus to AC and take an additional -2 to AC while blinded.
Using that tactic you would incur the 50% miss chance from blind and the miss chance from mirror image, due to that your looking at your opponent (or one of his images) and taking a swing at it. It may be different if you took the time to listen/smell/feel/taste/ for them beforehand.