the images are constantly moving. Once he closes his eyes he has no idea where they are so he is shooting blindly(figuratively, and literally) into the square. That means only a 50% miss chance. Knowing the spell is up has no bearing on the results.No they aren't. Again, "These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly." This does not mean they move and shuffle around. They move with the caster or it would be pretty obvious who is who.
the opponent blinded himself for some retributive attacks by readied actionMaybe after the first couple times the ranger tries this trick will the enemy really get the idea to ready an action to hit the ranger when he closes his eyes, but honestly I don't think this is a tactic worthy of mention when it comes to the drawbacks of closing your eyes.
The real problem here is that Mirror Image as written is stupidly overpowered for a second level spell and stays that way up until opponents routinely have True Sight, Blindsight, Tremorsense or Lifesense. As such, people try to get around its stupid overpoweredness by tricks like these, which turns the spells power into an equivalent of a third level spell... which again shows how stupidly overpowered Mirror Image really is.The weakness is in it's duration. Mirror image can be gone in one round. Displacement is 1 round per level.
The problem with this is you're letting lack of common sense cloud your interpretations of the rules as written. When I read "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" I read an implied "at the time of casting this spell".
Ranger sees wizard.
Wizard casts mirror image.
Ranger sees 8 Wizards.
Ranger closes his eyes.
Ranger's mind sees 8 wizards.
Ranger shoots into Wizard's square.
Ranger still doesn't know which wizard is real.The confusing effect...
The 50% miss chance determines whether you hit the caster or not. All you are doing is shooting into the squares, and not aiming for an image. You cant' really aim for an image if you can't see it since you can't target anything you can't see. This is my rules argument.
Logically an arrow could pop an image whether the archer hit on the good or bad side of the 50% miss chance, but in that case an image would be rolled for, and then the miss chance would come into play.
The 50% miss chance determines whether you hit the caster or not. All you are doing is shooting into the squares, and not aiming for an image. You cant' really aim for an image if you can't see it since you can't target anything you can't see. This is my rules argument.Logically an arrow could pop an image whether the archer hit on the good or bad side of the 50% miss chance, but in that case an image would be rolled for, and then the miss chance would come into play.
Right. Because the ranger closes his eyes he has a 50% chance to hit something in the square. If he succeeds, he gets to roll randomly to see if he hit an image or not.
The 50% miss chance from attacking someone you can't see is because you don't know exactly where in the square they are. Now you're shooting at one of 8 copies of someone while blind. Now you do not know where any of the copies are specifically.
Closing your eyes doesn't change the fact that the last time you could see, there were 8 copies.
So if 3 fine creatures are in a square how would that work? <--Just answered my own question below.
I think I am convinced. This would also make it agree with the displacement ruling where you roll 50% and then roll randomly for an image.edit:I change my mind again. I think logically James Harms is right, but from a rules point of view I am right. Images are not creatures and should not take away from the caster being hit.
edit 2: For the fine sized creatures you would pick one and roll a 50% miss chance. <-rule opinion.
Real life logic says you roll randomly for one of them, but I don't use real life logic in rules debates.
The 50% miss chance determines whether you hit the caster or not. All you are doing is shooting into the squares, and not aiming for an image. You cant' really aim for an image if you can't see it since you can't target anything you can't see. This is my rules argument.Logically an arrow could pop an image whether the archer hit on the good or bad side of the 50% miss chance, but in that case an image would be rolled for, and then the miss chance would come into play.
Right. Because the ranger closes his eyes he has a 50% chance to hit something in the square. If he succeeds, he gets to roll randomly to see if he hit an image or not.
The 50% miss chance from attacking someone you can't see is because you don't know exactly where in the square they are. Now you're shooting at one of 8 copies of someone while blind. Now you do not know where any of the copies are specifically.
Closing your eyes doesn't change the fact that the last time you could see, there were 8 copies.
But you can only make an attack based on what you can see. You can't see anything with your eyes closed so the number of images is a moot point. Shooting blindly into the square means you are hoping to hit the caster. Now if the images count as creatures for attacks like cleave then I would say they count, and you are correct. There was a ruling on this in another thread, but I can't remember what the call was.
That's the thing; they never WERE a valid target, because you can't specifically target mirror images. Since you can't actually aim at a specific mirror image with a normal attack, you can't Cleave one.
If the text for mirror image SAID you could specifically target an image, then yeah, you could cleave them. But you can't. The only time you can hit an image is if you miss the actual target by 5 or less.
Feel free to houserule that, of course; but in this case the rules seem pretty clear to me. If you DO houserule that you can cleave images, you should allow normal attacks to target them as well. Which sorta defeats the purpose of the spell, I think.
--> James
If they are not a valid target then they can not be a factor with your eyes closed meaning we are back to aiming for square and hitting the creature. Images are not creatures.
That's the thing; they never WERE a valid target, because you can't specifically target mirror images. Since you can't actually aim at a specific mirror image with a normal attack, you can't Cleave one.
If the text for mirror image SAID you could specifically target an image, then yeah, you could cleave them. But you can't. The only time you can hit an image is if you miss the actual target by 5 or less.
Feel free to houserule that, of course; but in this case the rules seem pretty clear to me. If you DO houserule that you can cleave images, you should allow normal attacks to target them as well. Which sorta defeats the purpose of the spell, I think.
--> James
If they are not a valid target then they can not be a factor with your eyes closed meaning we are back to aiming for square and hitting the creature. Images are not creatures.It still doesn't clarify anything for this question. You aren't targeting the images, but they will still give their miss chance because they are there. In fact, another thing James Jacobs wrote would argue in favor of having the mirror images take the hit even if you did roll the 50% miss chance..."Well, you didn't actually hit the target, or a creature. You missed."
Logically it makes sense. Rules as written don't specifically clarify because they defeat themselves constantly, but here is my last bit on this (and I do hope it's answered as a FAQ question.)
Take the old ball under the three cups trick.
There's a mini of a wizard on your table. Have someone place three cups on the table and make sure that the wizard is underneath one of them. Shuffle them a bit to randomize which cup the wizard is under (simulating the effects of the spell).
Point at a cup. Now close your eyes and point at a cup.
Do you have a better chance of picking the correct cup because you...
Well since two of the cups are not really there and I get one swipe at the real cup either I hit it or I don't. I of course know two of the cups are not real so I take a same broad swipe at the table as I would if the images were were not there. No point in actually trying to aim since I don't know the real from the real from the illusion.
My point has been that an archer with closed eyes never chooses a cup, and since the cups are not valid targets for being chosen anyway that even if he wanted to choose a cup he could not do so.
That's the thing; they never WERE a valid target, because you can't specifically target mirror images. Since you can't actually aim at a specific mirror image with a normal attack, you can't Cleave one.
If the text for mirror image SAID you could specifically target an image, then yeah, you could cleave them. But you can't. The only time you can hit an image is if you miss the actual target by 5 or less.
Feel free to houserule that, of course; but in this case the rules seem pretty clear to me. If you DO houserule that you can cleave images, you should allow normal attacks to target them as well. Which sorta defeats the purpose of the spell, I think.
--> James
If they are not a valid target then they can not be a factor with your eyes closed meaning we are back to aiming for square and hitting the creature. Images are not creatures.It still doesn't clarify anything for this question. You aren't targeting the images, but they will still give their miss chance because they are there. In fact, another thing James Jacobs wrote would argue in favor of having the mirror images take the hit even if you did roll the 50% miss chance..."Well, you didn't actually hit the target, or a creature. You missed."
Logically it makes sense. Rules as written don't specifically clarify because they defeat themselves constantly, but here is my last bit on this (and I do hope it's answered as a FAQ question.)
Take the old ball under the three cups trick.
There's a mini of a wizard on your table. Have someone place three cups on the table and make sure that the wizard is underneath one of them. Shuffle them a bit to randomize which cup the wizard is under (simulating the effects of the spell).
Point at a cup. Now close your eyes and point at a cup.
Do you have a better chance of picking the correct cup because you...
It's a good analogy... except for one thing: Does the number of empty cups you have on the table have any effect on how likely you are to pick the correct cup, if you're picking with your eyes closed?
It's a good analogy... except for one thing: Does the number of empty cups you have on the table have any effect on how likely you are to pick the correct cup, if you're picking with your eyes closed?
Yes, it does. Because you're going to try to point at the last known position of ONE OF the cups you saw, which might be the wrong one.
(Edited for clarity)
Although by that logic, it would make sense for a character that recently became blinded to get some sort of circumstantial bonus to try to attack something he's just seen. Like a -25% concealment rate for the first round his eyes are closed.
If someone were to use that, then it would go something like this:
Ranger attacks Wizard, rolls concealment, then to hit, then random target
Let's say 3rd level Ranger and Wizard both, the Ranger's to hit is +6 and the Wizards AC is 16, for simplicity
The ranger would have a (.75*.5*.1667) 6.25% chance to hit the wizard on the first shot, with a (.75*.75*.1667) 9.37% chance to destroy one of the images instead.
The other theory on how this works (ignore mirror image and just use straight concealment) gives the Ranger a 25% chance of hitting without destroying any images.
Right. Because the ranger closes his eyes he has a 50% chance to hit something in the square. If he succeeds, he gets to roll randomly to see if he hit an image or not.
The 50% miss chance from attacking someone you can't see is because you don't know exactly where in the square they are. Now you're shooting at one of 8 copies of someone while blind. Now you do not know where any of the copies are specifically.
Closing your eyes doesn't change the fact that the last time you could see, there were 8 copies.
"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)."
Just saying.
"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)."
Just saying.
Perhaps the problem that I'm having here, magnuskn, is that no one in their right mind would assume that closing their eyes would let them hit this target easier (on a logical basis). So I have to assume that it was not the intent of the design of the spell.
For example, consider my soda can or James Harms' mini in a cup scenario.
No one is going to close their eyes to get a better chance at trying to "hit" the right target. Not unless they have some other problems.
Thinking on it some more from a Game Balance point of view...
Sure, take yer 50/50. Forever. A 'blind' attacker can never remove images. In melee, or in shooting.
I think on that alone the argument becomes moot. You can either take your larger (but not always) short-term (as long as the target has a mirror up) penalties, or take your smaller long-term (as long as you choose to take the penalty).
Things work out, either way.
Now, the Wizard just hopes that he can survive the strikes from that archer ;)
GNOME
"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)."
Just saying.Perhaps the problem that I'm having here, magnuskn, is that no one in their right mind would assume that closing their eyes would let them hit this target easier (on a logical basis). So I have to assume that it was not the intent of the design of the spell.
For example, consider my soda can or James Harms' mini in a cup scenario.
No one is going to close their eyes to get a better chance at trying to "hit" the right target. Not unless they have some other problems.
No one in their right mind would believe that I can split myself into eight images of me that can dance around in a five foot square, either.
|
It's misleading that closing your eyes increases your chances of hitting. You close your eyes, you don't even know what square you need to attack to have a 50% chance to hit.
You can try to make a perception roll for it, at least until the caster follows up with a silence.
Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action, and you get an area to target. That area, being a corner, will likely have 4 possible squares to target. More if you're a mean dm. That's a 25% chance to target the right square. Then total concealment grants 50% cover. You have a 12.5% chance to target the right square.
Which is the same for trying to hit one target out of 8. The big difference? You have to succeed on a perception check first if you close your eyes. Bad news for you.
I have a player who is planning to take blind fight, improved blind fight and greater blind fight in order to ignore most concealment and he is also planning on using the close your eyes tactic against casters with mirror image. I don't think the RAI meant for this tactic to work but RAW I see no reason it wouldn't. I will probably house-rule that it won't until there is an official ruling since mirror image is one of very few reliable ways a wizard can protect himself against physical attacks.
No one in their right mind would believe that I can split myself into eight images of me that can dance around in a five foot square, either.
"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)."
Just saying.Perhaps the problem that I'm having here, magnuskn, is that no one in their right mind would assume that closing their eyes would let them hit this target easier (on a logical basis). So I have to assume that it was not the intent of the design of the spell.
For example, consider my soda can or James Harms' mini in a cup scenario.
No one is going to close their eyes to get a better chance at trying to "hit" the right target. Not unless they have some other problems.
...stupid post-eating forums...
Ok I don't buy this argument at all. We play in a game world that is a simulation of a world with magic and dragons. I get it. But that doesn't mean we let logic fly out the window every time magic rears its ugly head. I do not attribute everything to PFM, and I guarantee the designers didn't either.
I would expect the mirror images to be distracting, so closing your eyes reduces it to a simple 50/50 chance because you're not being actively misled any more. In other words 'trying' to hit a target actually gets in the way of hitting the target. The illusion is fooling the archer, not just concealing the caster.
A low level spell that effectively blinds an attacker (with no save) because the attacker closes his eyes is extremely powerful. In a normal combat multiple enemies attacking the target with magic missiles, arrows and iterative attacks will quickly whittle down any images, but if they just close their eyes for the whole fight the utility of the spell increases dramatically.
I say just let the archer take a 50/50 chance, because it's worse than attacking normally. At least if he hits some images with his eyes open he's helping other party members land blows instead.
It's misleading that closing your eyes increases your chances of hitting. You close your eyes, you don't even know what square you need to attack to have a 50% chance to hit.
Actually, since you attack on your action and you close your eyes on your action, yes, you do know in which square your opponent stands. Until your character has instant Alzheimers, that is.
Ok I don't buy this argument at all. We play in a game world that is a simulation of a world with magic and dragons. I get it. But that doesn't mean we let logic fly out the window every time magic rears its ugly head. I do not attribute everything to PFM, and I guarantee the designers didn't either.
The game system is abstract. Hit points are abstract, as is armor class. Hence, if the rules clearly say that you get a 50% miss chance to attack blindly into a square, that is what it is. The same with "this spell doesn't work when you are blind". The rules are crystal clear on the issue, all "but there are eight images, blablabla" is house-ruling.
Ok I don't buy this argument at all. We play in a game world that is a simulation of a world with magic and dragons. I get it. But that doesn't mean we let logic fly out the window every time magic rears its ugly head. I do not attribute everything to PFM, and I guarantee the designers didn't either.The game system is abstract. Hit points are abstract, as is armor class. Hence, if the rules clearly say that you get a 50% miss chance to attack blindly into a square, that is what it is. The same with "this spell doesn't work when you are blind". The rules are crystal clear on the issue, all "but there are eight images, blablabla" is house-ruling.
I don't think we've covered any new ground in about a page and a half. Agree to disagree?
It still doesn't clarify anything for this question. You aren't targeting the images, but they will still give their miss chance because they are there.
I don't think so. They aren't armor, they don't provide any physical protection. If you're blindly firing arrows into the square, and hoping they pass through the part of the square in which there is person to get in their way, there is no logical mechanism for the images to increase the chance of missing. And it's directly contradicted by the rules.
<snip snip snip>The ranger already knows that without certain feats he will provoke an AoO if he shoots next to the rogue anyway, so he 5 foot steps and shoots the wizard with his eyes closed. The rogue can not use his readied action without reach at this point, so his tactic failed. Bottom line: it is VERY unlikely that anyone can take action versus the ranger using this strategy without wasting several rounds of trial and error to do so.
Make sure you know the rules in question before pontificating on them. ;) You can take a 5' step as part of a ready action, which blows that whole long paragraph out of the water.
I agree with the wraithster here, closing your eyes would mean for the round, leaving you flatfooted to other attacks.
I originally promised myself that I would stay out of this thread, but I just can't.
Rules As Written be darned. Closing your eyes to get a better shot at an illusion designed to trick you into missing something makes no sense to me. A player who tries this at my table is going to get overruled, if only on the basis that I would consider aiming and firing a ranged weapon an activity dependent upon vision (see the Blinded condition). And if he doesn't like that ruling, he can leave and go to another table. Being the DM doesn't mean having to be fair, it means having to make sure people have fun - and IMO, using this sort of logic and exploiting holes in the RAW is not fun. It's munchkinism of the worst degree.
I also think a lot of the objection to mirror image expressed in this thread is sour grapes on the part of people (usually the ones who play warrior-types) who think that wizards and sorcerers are overpowered at any level of play and want to whine about why their barbarian can't just kill everything he wants to, when he wants to.
Fact of the matter is, a barbarian can swing a greataxe or greatsword as many times a day as he wants so long as he isn't dead or dying. Wizards and sorcerers, though, have limits on their power expenditure. Casting mirror image represents an expenditure of that power. It SHOULD NOT BE as easy to negate as closing your eyes and shooting blindly. Furthermore, the more images you pop with successful attacks, the lower that miss chance gets.
Stop whining and play the game like it was intended to be played, wherein you have to either dispel the effect, use divination to circumvent it, or destroy the images to negate the miss chance.
JFC.
"but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round."
Yes, all 5' steps work this way whether readied or not, it's as true for the ranger as anyone else.
RAW be darned and people who disagree are whiners, probably who can't deal with DM authority/not being able to slaughter everything/have caster jealousy issues/make the game not fun.
*rolls eyes*
In the game I play, the first one to suggest just closing your eyes was the DM, at some time when we had fights with tons of monsters all using Mirror Image and players were getting frustrated.
First turn: ready an action to move up to the ranger if he starts shooting (you then get an AoO for using ranged weapons in melee). All subsequent turns, ready action to hit him if he shoots, you then get to 5' step and both AoO and normal readied attack.
Readying actions can only be defeated (temporarily) by 5' steps if the readier isn't within 5' to start with, and if you aren't within 5', the better move is to ready a move anyway. Or ready a ranged attack, since he'll be flat-footed against it either way.
Where did you get you special knowledge of how the game is intended to be played?
I have been playing since 1978 and I consider that the use of smart tactics has always be valid and and important part of allowing non-magical characters to compete with magical ones.
Not that this is a particular smart tactic, destroying the images is going to generally be better (since it does NOT negate the spell).
That's exactly my point, though - it isn't a smart tactic. It's a left-field interpretation of a perceived loophole in the rules.
Saying, as another poster in this thread did, "I throw water on the caster and his images to see which one is real," is a smart tactic. Even if it isn't covered by the rules, I might give a player who used this logic a benefit because it's a pretty innovative technique.
But saying, "I close my eyes and shoot blindly into the square to lower the miss chance, because the rules don't say it doesn't do that," isn't smart or innovative. It's an attempt to circumvent the situation with metagame logic. And it's lame.
because the rules don't say it doesn't do that," isn't smart or innovative. It's an attempt to circumvent the situation with metagame logic.
It's not a situation of the rules don't say I can't, so I can. There is no rules gap being taken advantage of. The rules say you can.
Using the rules of the game as they're set up isn't metagaming. No more than closing your eyes because your enemy keeps fooling them with a visual illusion than setitng yourself up to flank for the +2 is metagaming.
If the rogue is within his movement speed from the ranger
If there is nothing between the rogue and the ranger stopping the rogue from advancing to the ranger (terrain features, etc)
If the ranger doesn't have a spell in effect that will prevent the rogue from getting to him (snare, entangle)
If any of the ranger's allies have nothing in place to stop the rogue from getting to the ranger (blur, displacement, or any spell that can prevent this from happening)
All this basically boils down to, "but he can use tactics to minimize the risk of shooting blind."
Well, fine. He can, and he should be allowed to. Using displacement, or terrain to advantage, or any such factors, isn't cheating.
because the rules don't say it doesn't do that," isn't smart or innovative. It's an attempt to circumvent the situation with metagame logic.It's not a situation of the rules don't say I can't, so I can. There is no rules gap being taken advantage of. The rules say you can.
Using the rules of the game as they're set up isn't metagaming. No more than closing your eyes because your enemy keeps fooling them with a visual illusion than setitng yourself up to flank for the +2 is metagaming.
Actually, the rules could very well be interpreted to mean that you can't do this. See, being blinded by closing one's eyes gives all enemies total concealment (50% miss chance).
But mirror image doesn't actually impose a miss chance as per concealment. What it does do is bestow upon the caster a chance that any attack that is meant to target said caster actually targets an image instead.
So, you can close your eyes and take that 50% miss chance... but the images continue to move about as you line up your shot with your eyes closed, potentially imposing themselves between the projectile and the caster.
In that sense, the images are actual objects (somewhat like a shadow conjuration), and your ability or inability to see them is irrelevant. So shutting one's eyes imposes a 50% miss chance, and then there's an ADDITIONAL chance that one of the images takes the hit.
(Why do I feel like I'm trying to disprove troll physics here?)
I originally promised myself that I would stay out of this thread, but I just can't.
Rules As Written be darned. Closing your eyes to get a better shot at an illusion designed to trick you into missing something makes no sense to me. A player who tries this at my table is going to get overruled, if only on the basis that I would consider aiming and firing a ranged weapon an activity dependent upon vision (see the Blinded condition). And if he doesn't like that ruling, he can leave and go to another table. Being the DM doesn't mean having to be fair, it means having to make sure people have fun - and IMO, using this sort of logic and exploiting holes in the RAW is not fun. It's munchkinism of the worst degree.
I also think a lot of the objection to mirror image expressed in this thread is sour grapes on the part of people (usually the ones who play warrior-types) who think that wizards and sorcerers are overpowered at any level of play and want to whine about why their barbarian can't just kill everything he wants to, when he wants to.
Fact of the matter is, a barbarian can swing a greataxe or greatsword as many times a day as he wants so long as he isn't dead or dying. Wizards and sorcerers, though, have limits on their power expenditure. Casting mirror image represents an expenditure of that power. It SHOULD NOT BE as easy to negate as closing your eyes and shooting blindly. Furthermore, the more images you pop with successful attacks, the lower that miss chance gets.
Stop whining and play the game like it was intended to be played, wherein you have to either dispel the effect, use divination to circumvent it, or destroy the images to negate the miss chance.
JFC.
WOOT! preach it. +1,000,000
In that sense, the images are actual objects (somewhat like a shadow conjuration), and your ability or inability to see them is irrelevant. So shutting one's eyes imposes a 50% miss chance, and then there's an ADDITIONAL chance that one of the images takes the hit.
(Why do I feel like I'm trying to disprove troll physics here?)
I don't know? Why do you keep calling those who disagree with you trolls, whiners, etc?
And while we're doing questions, why are you claiming that the spell still works if you can't see it, when the spell's own text clearly states that it doesn't? Or why are you claiming that the spell's images have a solid form even though figments (which Mirror Image is) are specifically defined as lacking in such?
(Magic section of PRD: "Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can")
It is so very simple to prevent negative consequences of shooting blindly that is almost can't be considered a drawback, which is the only drawback mentioned.
To recap because you seem a bit lost, this thread is split between two parties. One party believes closing one's eyes to negate mirror image is ok. The other believes that this is trying to exploit a loophole in the rules to get an advantage.
Yes, if it isn't clear, I agree with the first party. Nor are the images you mentioned the only drawback. Not exploding the images is another, for example. Normally, you shoot and miss due to the d(however many) images roll, you knock off an image, until there are none left. You shoot and miss due to concealment, you don't.
Essentially you're trading a lower short-term miss chance for a higher long-term miss chance. And given that with 50% miss chances and a distance penalty to shooting, the ranger will probably take quite a while to shoot down the wizard if indeed he manages to at all, it's not entirely clear whether it is an ultimate advantage or not. I suspect that in some situations it is beneficial, or other situations, it isn't. Seems normal to me.
I think it's pretty clearly RAW. If it's RAW and not unbalanced, I don't see why to forbid it.
Blinded for a round may be acceptable as a penalty, but that wouldn't be by RAW, which is the whole point of trying to argue for this side at all. (Free actions include dropping weapons, dropping prone, and speaking up to "a few sentences") I can close my eyelids much faster than I can do any of those things. Closing (and opening) one's eyes is a free action according to RAW.
... except that the one RAW example we have for voluntary blindness is under Gaze Attacks, and very clearly states that if you 'wear a blindfold' you suffer the full effects of giving that person total concealment against you. Which I read as meaning 'wearing a blindfold' (which, incidentally, includes 'closing your eyes' in the description) is a decision made on a round-to-round basis, like Power Attack.
You may be able to blink as a free action, but it doesn't have the effect of blinding you to your target and avoiding the Mirror Image effect. The only action we have in the rules that allows you to do that is a choice whose consequences last the whole round.
And while we're doing questions, why are you claiming that the spell still works if you can't see it, when the spell's own text clearly states that it doesn't? Or why are you claiming that the spell's images have a solid form even though figments (which Mirror Image is) are specifically defined as lacking in such?(Magic section of PRD: "Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can")
Okay, fair enough. That portion of my argument may be too weak to hold water.
Let's assume for a moment, then, that the "close-your-eyes" technique is a valid one.
Why EVER cast this spell? Why ever even bother learning it at all when any rube with half a wit can negate the majority of its effect by closing his eyes?
I dunno about you, but I think I'd ask for my money back from the University of Phoenix Magecraft Correspondence School if my 2nd-level illusions can be all but completely thwarted by a 1st-level commoner with a blindfold and a lucky shot.
So the wizard gets total concealment according to the RAW, and the rogue could NEVER gain an advantage over the ranger in combat for this.
I disagree with your interpretation. The three methods listed for "wearing a blindfold" would also provide total concealment against other opponents, except perhaps "turning one's back" which might only provide total concealment against other opponents in one area.
This is at least as much common sense as your "moving your eyelids is a free action" argument, and is more supported by RAW.
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
The way I read that is that the creature using the gaze has total concealment. Whether other creatures do too, would depend on what specific method is taken to avoid seeing it. Closing eyes or blindfolded gives full concealment to everyone (by common sense), however, the other suggested method, turning your back, doesn't necessarily give total concealment to other creatures, and so it would be inappropriate for the rules to say that everyone gains concealment against the gaze avoidee.
In other words, the creature with the gaze gaining total concealment is automatic (if it doesn't, you don't get to avoid the gaze), but whether other creatures do is up to the method used, and can't be specified universally in the same way, which is why that rule is worded the way it is.
Why EVER cast this spell? Why ever even bother learning it at all when any rube with half a wit can negate the majority of its effect by closing his eyes?
Because then all your opponents are attacking you blindly and they didn't even get to make a save. Closing their eyes only makes sense if they're going 1:1 against the Wizard, and even then I'm not sure it's a good option. Working as part of a team it's a stupid tactic. Let them close their eyes as a free action, the Wizard should be very happy with that.
Displacement is a higher level spell that imposes a 50% miss chance, just like blindness does. Why should Mirror Image be better than a higher level spell? The reason it's not is because you can remove the images when you hit them, which depletes the spell. If attackers close their eyes then the wizard just got a 3rd level spell for the cost of a 2nd level slot.
Why close your eyes at all to make yourself be blind?
Keep your eyes open. Don't aim at the images. Just aim for the square with all the images. That should give you the 50/50 chance to hit that your arrow hits the something solid.
*head explodes*
I give up.
Let's assume for a moment, then, that the "close-your-eyes" technique is a valid one.
Why EVER cast this spell? Why ever even bother learning it at all when any rube with half a wit can negate the majority of its effect by closing his eyes?
Because it doesn't negate the majority of its effect. We're talking constant 50% miss chance vs. a miss chance that starts at 66-87% depending on level and dice, and can be gone completely after as little as two misses, or a maximum of eight (only a couple rounds for a comparable level archer, alone, or likely less than a round for a full party).
Honestly I think not closing your eyes will be best in almost all circumstances. The few exceptions being when time is absolutely of the essence; perhaps your evil wizard has got one last line to utter in his demon-summoning spell, or his finger hovering over the fire button on the Death Star equipment, and it's time to close your eyes and trust the Force.
In any case, I see no reason to disallow it on balance grounds.