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).
what if a character purposefully closes his eyes before attacking the mirror imaged npc? he'd only get a 50% miss chance (less with blind-fight feat) instead of a 80% miss chance with 4 images out (which is not even the max).
would that work? I guess it would, but that would make the spell just so much worse... any ideas?
It works just fine; in that case, you're getting the advantage of Displacement, but at a lower level and lasting longer. I've seen some DMs rule that you'll be blind for a full round, though (i.e. you can't just "blink").
The one main disadvantage of attacking blind is that you're not destroying any images over time.
|
I'm not sure whether or not it would work, but even if it did and he was able to open his eyes right after the attack (i.e.e, he's not blinding himself for the round), then at the very least he will fail to hit any of the images. Plus it's possible for, well, anyone to ready an attack to hit him while he's blinding himself, which could be nasty.
It works, visual illusions don't affect you if you are not using your visual senses (as you point out).
Yes, it makes the spell worse because it has to be worse. However, if you don't have Blind-Figth, destroying the images is better in the long run (specially if there are other allies involved).
My archer got around it with her seeker bow by sighting the square and closing her eyes. Because she was shooting into the target's square, seeker did the job for her.
Sounds good.
Note: I wouldn't allow it because you can't shoot at any target (I'm counting objects and squares as targets) if you don't have LoS -you can shoot, but you aren't targetting at a useful point. Now, I can't find the definition of Line of Sight in the book and the blinded condition is vague, so everything is possible.
The issue is that now you lose dex to AC. I would be careful with this.
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).what if a character purposefully closes his eyes before attacking the mirror imaged npc? he'd only get a 50% miss chance (less with blind-fight feat) instead of a 80% miss chance with 4 images out (which is not even the max).
would that work? I guess it would, but that would make the spell just so much worse... any ideas?
Its a good Idea but as the others have said be careful
I my group we dealt with it by having the Monk flurry of Blows the target with shuriken sure not much damage but it will clear out the images fast when followed up by a volley of Magic Missles
Its a good Idea but as the others have said be careful
I my group we dealt with it by having the Monk flurry of Blows the target with shuriken sure not much damage but it will clear out the images fast when followed up by a volley of Magic Missles
Although, since MM doesn't require an attack roll, MM will always strike the caster, and not be affected by any images. In fact, I don't think MM can strike images even if you wanted them to.
I generalize the rule associated with Gaze attacks, and make closing or averting one's eyes a round-by-round decision. Much like Power Attack, you can choose each round to be considered blind, but your decision lasts all round.
So, close your eyes to block the visual illusion if you want, but eat the resulting sneak attacks from your opponents.
Have MM strike each image, not 1 single image. You can still pick multiple targets yes?
I'm not sure Magic Missile can target the figments. The target for MM is "creature", and since a figment isn't a creature, I'd rule that the target is invalid and the missile fizzles against that target.
If you do allow MM to target the figments successfully in general, I'm not sure you can explicitly target the individual figments in Mirror Image. If you can, this:
Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments
is probably still in play. Since MM doesn't require an attack roll, one can make the case that it *cannot* destroy a figment, even if MM and Mirror Image did allow you to target figments.
FarmerBob is correct. You used to be able to use MM to separately target images and blow them off quite efficiently. In PF, the MM just auto-hits the real target and ignores the images entirely.
Good to know In that case MM it is
Summon Swarm or Vomit Swarm will result in physical attacks on everything in the 10 X 10 square the swarm ends it's move in. That will clear most mirror images very quickly... As well as providing multi-round disruption for the spellcaster, all in one spell.
Hmmm, I'd think a swarm would be treated more like a fireball in that case. Swarms don't make attacks, so there are no attack rolls. Instead they simply deal damage to anything in the area, much as if you were standing in a river of lava. The spellcaster would take damage, but the images would be unaffected, IMHO.
Summon Swarm or Vomit Swarm will result in physical attacks on everything in the 10 X 10 square the swarm ends it's move in. That will clear most mirror images very quickly... As well as providing multi-round disruption for the spellcaster, all in one spell.Hmmm, I'd think a swarm would be treated more like a fireball in that case. Swarms don't make attacks, so there are no attack rolls. Instead they simply deal damage to anything in the area, much as if you were standing in a river of lava. The spellcaster would take damage, but the images would be unaffected, IMHO.
And fireball damage isn't affected by DR...
It's a summoned critter interacting with the mirror image figments... How would you propose interpreting a non-summoned swarm (ie one that just happened to be sitting around as part of an encounter).
Still, your game, your call.
Lets see...
Swarms don't have an attack roll...
what did the spell say about things that don't require an attack roll?
Oh yeah:
Which means that since no attack roll was rolled the mage takes damage, makes a save, and his images are fine.
And fireball damage isn't affected by DR...
It's a summoned critter interacting with the mirror image figments... How would you propose interpreting a non-summoned swarm (ie one that just happened to be sitting around as part of an encounter).
Still, your game, your call.
Keep in mind that 3.5 and PF Mirror Image are very different beasts.
With PF, you can only lose an image if you are the recipient of an attack or a spell that requires an attack roll. In those cases, the attack or effect might have targeted an image instead. Simply dealing damage (regardless of type) to images doesn't dissipate them, at least as per RAW.
So, since a swarm (summoned or natural) doesn't make an attack roll, I don't think it would do anything to the images.
I'd say that by closing your eyes and taking a swing you should be taking both miss chances. 50% miss chance for closing your eyes & then the 80% miss chance for seeing if you hit the real thing or just an image. Just because you close your eyes and can't see the images doesn't mean that you automatically bypass them. You can still miss and hit an image, whether your eyes are closed or not.
I'd say that by closing your eyes and taking a swing you should be taking both miss chances. 50% miss chance for closing your eyes & then the 80% miss chance for seeing if you hit the real thing or just an image. Just because you close your eyes and can't see the images doesn't mean that you automatically bypass them. You can still miss and hit an image, whether your eyes are closed or not.
From the text of the spell Mirror Image:
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).
Thus, according to the spell itself, a blind attacker is not affected by the spell, but does suffer the normal penalties for being blind.
I'd say that by closing your eyes and taking a swing you should be taking both miss chances. 50% miss chance for closing your eyes & then the 80% miss chance for seeing if you hit the real thing or just an image. Just because you close your eyes and can't see the images doesn't mean that you automatically bypass them. You can still miss and hit an image, whether your eyes are closed or not.From the text of the spell Mirror Image:
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).Thus, according to the spell itself, a blind attacker is not affected by the spell, but does suffer the normal penalties for being blind.
I know that the spell says that. I don't agree with it. Just because you are "blind" doesn't make the images disappear. Lets say the attacker hits you with his eyes shut on the 50% chance. Your images still exist regardless. What happens to them? Do they all pop? Attacks that require an attack roll affect the images.
Never mind if you are blind how are you going to know where to swing in the first place? You have to look at the images before you close your eyes to base your judgment off of. So there is a 80% chance that you are basing your blind swing on an image and not the real target.
I know that the spell says that. I don't agree with it.
Yeah, but this is the rules forum. Presumably the OP was asking what the rule is, not whether it should be changed. If you're offering advice for a "better" rule, then you really should make clear that you're proposing a house rule. Otherwise, other posters will, you know, "correct" you.
Just sayin' :)
I do agree with it. After all, the images are silent, they don't smell... they only have a visual component.
Bear in mind that if the enemy blinds himself in order to attack the mage with mirror images more effectively, then the rogue can sneak attack that guy for a boatload of damage.
How so? Lets use a simpler example. I'm holding one pencil in my hand. I cast mirror image on it, to you there looks like there is 5 pencils. You close your eyes and try to grab the pencil from my hand. My question is how do you know which pencil to grab at blindly? You have to choose subconsciously or otherwise which one to go for before you close your eyes. You saw five of them before you closed your eyes, therefore you are not blind, and the 80% miss chance applies along with the 50% miss chance for not being able to see.
All closing your eyes does is get you an additional miss chance because you can't see the one of the five pencils that you are trying to grab.
The rule is fine, it just doesn't apply in this situation. A truly blind creature who never saw the illusion in the first place isn't effected, and that makes sense. But someone who sees the illusion before they close their eyes is not blind.
|
|
If I close my eyes and grab for the pencil, I grab for the sound that it's making (if you're writing with it). Or I grope around blindly to find your wrist and follow it to the pencil (which is pretty much what that 50% miss chance is supposed to represent). Sure, I might have the vision of four other pencils for a second, but if I close my eyes, I don't need to use that. I might have to take a second to re-focus my attack on the sound, but a round is longer than that.
Of course, if somebody sneaks up behind me, I'll be completely blind to that attack.
Now a fighter can't say "Oh, well, I close my eyes, swing my sword, and then open them again as a free action". If you're going to blind yourself, it's not 'closing your eyes right before you attack once'. I think that's what you're against, and I'm against it, too. If you choose to blind yourself, you're blind. No Dex bonus to AC, -2 to AC, -4 to attack, half movement speed, 50% miss chance... it isn't worth it, really.
If I close my eyes and grab for the pencil, I grab for the sound that it's making (if you're writing with it). Or I grope around blindly to find your wrist and follow it to the pencil (which is pretty much what that 50% miss chance is supposed to represent). Sure, I might have the vision of four other pencils for a second, but if I close my eyes, I don't need to use that. I might have to take a second to re-focus my attack on the sound, but a round is longer than that.
Of course, if somebody sneaks up behind me, I'll be completely blind to that attack.
Now a fighter can't say "Oh, well, I close my eyes, swing my sword, and then open them again as a free action". If you're going to blind yourself, it's not 'closing your eyes right before you attack once'. I think that's what you're against, and I'm against it, too. If you choose to blind yourself, you're blind. No Dex bonus to AC, -2 to AC, -4 to attack, half movement speed, 50% miss chance... it isn't worth it, really.
Sound is a different way to target something, were talking about just plain sight here. You cannot get around the miss penalty just using sight as your only sense to determine the target. Now if you had something like blindsense or scent or some other means to determine the location then true, sight isn't needed. But that isn't the case in the OP's scenario. His only tool is sight.
You said that you don't have to use that knowledge of sight to know where the pencil is. So the pencil makes no sound, you don't have that good sense of smell, you have no supernatural ability. So how would you know where to grope around for the pencil? The only evidence of the location of that pencil was what you saw with your eyes. If you don't have the information you have not clue where the pencil could be. The pencil could be right in front of you, behind, to the side, above you, etc... Without sight you have no way of telling where to even start.
Hence if you see the illusion, then close your eyes, you still take the 80% miss chance because you saw the illusion.
|
|
"We" aren't talking about just plain sight. You are talking about just plain sight. I don't know why. Most PC's are not deaf, and almost all of them can feel. So whatever you were trying to prove, consider it proved. You're right. About something.
But I will probably never fight a magic, flying, silent pencil in Pathfinder. And if I do, it won't use Mirror Image. Most of the time, spell casters use that spell. These are people who aren't at all silent, but make lots of noise. Because they cast spells. They do this by chanting and waving their arms and moving their feet, all three of which make noise. Which allow a melee combatant to target somebody. Easily.
Now in the case of missile weapons (like the OP was talking about), I would not let anybody outside of touch range be targeted with an attack. Total concealment and all that good stuff. I don't think that this contradicts my previous statement, but if you think it does, and this upsets you, then oh well. But anybody who can target the mage while blind can attack with a 50% miss chance and have zero chance of attacking any of the images. But they take all the penalties for being blind and they don't destroy any images for their friends. And they will look stupid, because it's a stupid idea. Much better to just attack with as many attacks as you can to get rid of the stupid images.
*mumbles something about stupid mortals before going back to his treasure hoard*
Depending on your level, Magic Missile can be a wonderful way to remove images. 5 Missiles, 5 images go poof.
Depending on your level, Magic Missile can be a wonderful way to remove images. 5 Missiles, 5 images go poof.
no, you need to make an attack roll to dispel an image.
see above.
Ah, illusions. One of the biggest threats to GM sanity since, well, forever.
I am not able to check this right now, but some work has been made in trying to explain them usefully, but dividing them into figments and so on.
However, my take on this is that it's probably a basic error somewhere. If having five images to hit within a 5' square means 80% miss chance, then having NO IDEA where the target is in the same area should not be 50% miss chance. Not unless someone actually is affected mentally by the spell, which could explain the extra 30% but should also require a Will save, no?
This is a problem where players usually try to get "creative". Anyone tried to pull a Mirror image-clad enemy on a gaming group that did not react to it with trying to throw gravel on the square?
So while I agree that a strict RAW interpretation means you can close your eyes and bypass the spell, that's just plain silly. It's a spell, and it's meant to have a real effect. So, a few things to consider:
* You still get the 80% miss chance even if you're closing your eyes, if you have seen the illusion, because that's how the spell works.
* Sure, you can close your eyes and miss only 50%, but this means you do not actually remove images if you miss the real target but would have hit an image. (Not sure about this)
* Spread the images out into five adjacent squares for some real DM headache. =) Problem solved.
I can't see how closing your eyes in a combat should give you an advantage. It makes no sense to me.
It doesn't.
You've still got a 50% chance of missing, the images aren't reduced for your allies or yourself next round, can't sneak attack, and you're blind.
Where's the advantage? It's mildly useful in some circumstances.
|
I agree with Deadman. Closing your eyes to get around Mirror Image might be technically correct but I don't see how that is in the spirit of the rules.
I can't see how closing your eyes in a combat should give you an advantage. It makes no sense to me.
How is having a 50% miss chance, penalty to hit and ac and losing dex an advantage?!? Yeah YOU have a better chance too hit the caster, but while your dragging the fight out, that´s giving the caster more time to do damage. You attack 3 times and take out 3 images...not a good round for you. But your buddy now has a 50/50 shot...and once that last image goes away...well then it´s 100%.
I can't see how closing your eyes in a combat should give you an advantage. It makes no sense to me.
Being unable to distinguish a real target among figments which are superimposed over the target itself is one thing - you can have a low chance to hit the real creature, but that's all; being unable to see anything on the battlefield in order to have a better chance to hit the target is another different thing - you are effectively flat-footed against any enemy, which can hit you better and deal sneak attack damage (among other things). Plus, if you are blinded you cannot see what happens on the battlefield (moving enemies and so on), and you should make a Perception check even to determine if a foe has moved from his previous position or not.
As for 'closing eyes to have a better chance to hit' being realistic or not, I have to say this: being creatures which rely primarily on sight, we humans are easily swayed by visual tricks, and among a trick that sways our sight and another which sways another sense, we are usually more impaired by the visual one (since sight is so much 'dominant' for us); when we have no means to see anything, we have to rely on other, less used senses - like hearing and smell - to figure anything. This is obviously harder for us than for other animals which do not rely so much on visual only; but on the other side, not having the possibility to use our 'dominant' sense does not allow us to be swayed by means that rely on tricking such sense.
It's the same as looking at a movie where our favourite actor is under an heavy make-up; at first sight we find difficult to recognize him if we don't know for sure that it's him, but if we listen carefully to his voice we can be sure - oh, look, the Grinch is really Jim Carrey ! Wow, I couldn't recognize him before ! I didn't read the advertise, I thought he was played by <insert name here> !
Just my 2c.
EDIT: lots of ninjas here when I cannot see the message board while writing :D ...
My point is the same as Sissyl. If a player has not seen it as an advantage they would not have tried it.
As far as I am concerned it is an attempt to try to get round the spirit of the rules by working to the letter of the rules. Personally I would not allow it.
Really? You wouldn't allow a character to close their eyes?
What about fighting a medusa?
As has been shown, it's a terrible move. The only time it's viable is if you've got 1 round to hit him/her or s/he'll teleport away/gate a Balor in etc.
And even then it's a marginal improvement and you better hope there's no enemy rogues.
The idea of not allowing someone to try an off the wall tactic tho, kinda grates me as a player. But...YMMV.
|
|
My point is the same as Sissyl. If a player has not seen it as an advantage they would not have tried it.
As far as I am concerned it is an attempt to try to get round the spirit of the rules by working to the letter of the rules. Personally I would not allow it.
The spell's description explicitely states what happens when confronted with a blind opponent (even if he is blind only for one round because he is closing his eyes).
I do not see how using a rule described in the spell itself is "trying to get round the spirit of the rules".
In fact, I feel that forbidding the player to do this is in fact "trying to get round the spirit of the rules" (not to mention the letter of it) on the GM part.
|
I've been watching this thread with interest. I have a question concerning this spell, which, if I recall, is an illusion (a figment no less): why hasn't disbelieving the illusion been brought up? I would allow it if my players asked me if they could do it (and have in fact done so).
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
Attacking the images would work as "interacting with it in some fashion."
Disbelief rewards players because the images would remain in "view" but be revealed for what they are while likewise revealing the "true" location of the person using the illusion. And once one player does it, the others benefit as well (+4 bonus to save - I'll take that as a player over closing my eyes any day of the week).
|
I've been watching this thread with interest. I have a question concerning this spell, which, if I recall, is an illusion (a figment no less): why hasn't disbelieving the illusion been brought up?
That would make the spell rather worthless.
Unless your GM is in the habit of bushwhacking you with wizardly quintuplets*
*Hmmm, they used to say that to be born a wizard, you had to be the seventh son of a seventh son. Maybe it's not a spell at all, he just calls his brothers out to do you over...?
And you just shut your eyes...
I've been watching this thread with interest. I have a question concerning this spell, which, if I recall, is an illusion (a figment no less): why hasn't disbelieving the illusion been brought up? I would allow it if my players asked me if they could do it (and have in fact done so).
Interesting angle. This is a gray area, but I'd be inclined to treat each image separately, and interpret "careful study" be a standard or full-round action. They'd need to study each figment independently then to attempt to disbelieve it. The upshot is that while I think I'd allow it, the players would be much better off simply whacking away until the images were gone.
|
|
Really? You wouldn't allow a character to close their eyes?My point is the same as Sissyl. If a player has not seen it as an advantage they would not have tried it.
As far as I am concerned it is an attempt to try to get round the spirit of the rules by working to the letter of the rules. Personally I would not allow it.
Of course not, you can close your eyes all you want. What I was saying was that my ruling would be that closing your eyes wouldn't do anything special.
However having just read the spell again (the curse of running it through my head from memory I suppose) it does clearly say that Mirror Image can be got round by simply closing your eyes, stupid as that is...
Personally I think that getting round a spell like this makes no sense. To me it's kind of like getting round Phantasmal Killer by closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting a lot.
However if the rules state that then you can do it, however much I disagree.
|
|
I've been watching this thread with interest. I have a question concerning this spell, which, if I recall, is an illusion (a figment no less): why hasn't disbelieving the illusion been brought up? I would allow it if my players asked me if they could do it (and have in fact done so).
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
Attacking the images would work as "interacting with it in some fashion."
Disbelief rewards players because the images would remain in "view" but be revealed for what they are while likewise revealing the "true" location of the person using the illusion. And once one player does it, the others benefit as well (+4 bonus to save - I'll take that as a player over closing my eyes any day of the week).
Interacting with an illusion is a prerequisite for making a saving throw which is mentioned by the spell description.
For example, if you did not interact with a Silent Image, then you are no allowed the Will save mentioned in its description (the famous "Will disbelief").
However, some Illusion spells do not give you a saving throw and thus cannot be disbelieved. Mirror Image is one of them.