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.
It doesn't necessarily have to be closing your eyes, but that's easiest. Just as long as you can't see the images to be distracted by them. The gaze attack text quoted earlier would suggest that turning your back or wearing a blindfold are also valid options if you deliberately want to lose sight of your enemy, although I'm not sure one can fire a bow with your back turned.
Both of these are fantastic interpretations, but the entry only states that the creature with the gaze attack gains concealment. The section about wearing a blindfold is very clear on that. Hell according to RAW I can continually wear a blindfold and only creatures with gaze attacks will get any benefit.
No. The text doesn't say what happens, or doesn't happen, to other creatures when you wear a blindfold. The text specifies what happens when the creature has a gaze attack.
What happens to other creatures will be determined by other rules -- for instance, the Blindness and Unseen Attackers rules. Which make it very clear that if you are unable to see for any reason, enemies gain a benefit.Just because all the consequences of a rule aren't spelled out in one location doesn't mean they aren't spelled out. The Gaze Attack rules give us a combat option. Rules in other places give us some of the consequences of exercising that option.
Interestingly, Color Spray and its ilk instead only say sightless creatures are not affected by the spell. ...and I didn't see anything else that said blind creatures.
So what's up w/ dat?
According to that interpretation of the rules, the person saw it, is fooled, and will continue to be fooled for the duration of the spell. If you can't see it at the time of casting, you wouldn't be fooled (which is actually somewhat contradicted by the fact that the images mimic noise as well, but that's a different argument.)
Not a valid interpretation, I think. At very least, it says, "an attacker must be able to see" to be affected. Not that the attacker must have seen, at the point of time of the casting. Anyone who loses their sight after the spell is cast (whether by being blinded, or closing their eyes, etc) ceases to be effected, just as someone who shows up after the spell is cast is still affected despite not having seen the actual casting.
So the text feels the need to specifically state that the creature with a gaze attack gains concealment when the other rules state that it would anyway?
Pretty much. The text is reinforcing that, if you want to avoid making the save, then you are, at a minimum, giving the gaze-attacker full concealment against yourself. It suggests a few methods to do that, some of which (according to the other rules already mentioned here) would give concealment against the gaze attacker and everything else by dint of you making yourself blind (as per the rules), some of which would not. But either way the other creatures and whether they also have concealment aren't relevant to the gazing.
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.
this is how i feel too my friend, thats why im just reading this now.
also, if you cast a spell (mirror image) and the opponents can just close their eyes, by their ruling, the spell is negated due to the opponent being "blinded." therefore the spell has no effect (by their ruling) therefore you cast a spell thats doing nothing.
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.
this is how i feel too my friend, thats why im just reading this now.
also, if you cast a spell (mirror image) and the opponents can just close their eyes, by their ruling, the spell is negated due to the opponent being "blinded." therefore the spell has no effect (by their ruling) therefore you cast a spell thats doing nothing.
It's giving you full concealment, which is often better than what Mirror Image can offer.
You can't be sneak attacked by an opponent with closed eyes either, it occurs to me, while you can by an opponent trying to distinguish between the MIs.
All I know is that when this comes up in my group, I'm going to need some liquor.
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)
I think this is our issue here.You are assuming the archer points(picks a target) with his eyes closed. I would assume the archer takes a random shot, and that is also supported by the 50/50 miss chance of shooting blindly into a square.
All I know is that when this comes up in my group, I'm going to need some liquor.
i can use some now. dont move, ill pour you a glass.
According to that interpretation of the rules, the person saw it, is fooled, and will continue to be fooled for the duration of the spell
The person must SEE the images. Present tense. Not "have seen" them.
Pretty much. The text is reinforcing that, if you want to avoid making the save, then you are, at a minimum, giving the gaze-attacker full concealment against yourself. It suggests a few methods to do that, some of which would also give concealment against other creatures, some of which might not. But either way the other creatures aren't relevant to the rule in question.So let's use this and throw another example in the mix.
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.
So if your back is to a creature they gain total concealment versus you.
This rule implies that a rogue can sneak attack you whether you are flanked or not as long as they move behind you to attack. When he's behind you, he gains total concealment as per the above rule. Rogues just got a lot more powerful.
Or do only monsters with gaze attacks gain total concealment if you turn your back on them? If so, why? Turning your back on one creature is mechanically the same as turning your back on another. You can't see them.
i agree with your point of view and i dont really wanna post my opinion because im tired of arguing this. all im doing is reading now. I believe RAI trumps RAW for this sort or thing. MY OPINION AND IM STICKING WITH IT!
but i want everyone to know that you cant turn your back on things. you are treated as facing in all directions at all times. there are only two was around a gaze attack. i only know this because i ran basilisks a few weeks ago.
1) Acerting Eyes - 50% chance to avoid the gaze
2) Wearing a Blindfold - 100% chance to avoid the gaze (which you can also close your eyes to get the effect.)
im NOT agreeing with the shutting eyes negates the spell side. im just stating what the bestiary says on gaze for all of the examples people are throwing out. the question we are talking about is does shutting your eyes get you out of the spells effects. so this isnt for one side or the other. this is just for those who may not have known this.
also, if you cast a spell (mirror image) and the opponents can just close their eyes, by their ruling, the spell is negated due to the opponent being "blinded." therefore the spell has no effect (by their ruling) therefore you cast a spell thats doing nothing.
... which isn't any different to me responding to your casting of Fire Shield by dropping my weapon and refusing to attack you. "He can just not attack me and this spell does NOTHING!"
This rule implies that a rogue can sneak attack you whether you are flanked or not as long as they move behind you to attack. When he's behind you, he gains total concealment as per the above rule. Rogues just got a lot more powerful.
I agree with you -- if you choose to turn your back on a specific direction, then the rogue can sneak attack you from that direction without flanking you.
But as you correctly point out, by default a character isn't turning his back on any direction. It's a combat option that the character can choose to use but doesn't have to.
It's giving you full concealment, which is often better than what Mirror Image can offer.
How? The spell description says to roll randomly to see if it hits you or one of your images. Every time I have played a caster with mirror image, I have determined this with percentile dice. It breaks down like this:
No. of images / Chance that an image is hit
8 / 89%
7 / 87%
6 / 86%
5 / 83%
4 / 80%
3 / 75%
2 / 67%
1 / 50%
You can't have less than 2 images with the lowest caster level for the spell. Total concealment is never better than a single casting of the spell. The person with his eyes shut doesn't even take a penalty on the attack roll, for crying out loud.
I don't think we've covered any new ground in about a page and a half. Agree to disagree?
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.
Deal. :p
How?
It's giving you full concealment, which is often better than what Mirror Image can offer.
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.
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).
The wording is pretty clear to me. Close your eyes, and you are blind. Spell has no effect. What is there to question? Sure, you get 50% instead of 1 out of X chances, but then again, if you DO hit, and miss due to the 50%, you are not even taking out an image.
Sucks if you are facing a guy with the blind-fight tree of feats and such, reducing the miss chance so far as 20%, rolled twice, but guess what: This is a lv2 spell that defends against everything requiring an attack roll. His investment to defeat this and invisibility is 1-3 freaking FEATS.
If you are making Mirror Image blind-proof, raise it to a lv3 or 4 spell.
And rest assured that I will run it as written. NOT a fan of caster edition, and I will not house-rule in the favor of the most powerful classes in the game to beat the weakest.
If you want to deal with a mirror imaged wizard by shutting your eyes, that's fine but then you are effectively blind for the entire round.
This seems to me the most balanced solution, really. Free actions be damned - if you close your eyes and take a shot, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to other attackers. Better hope that caster doesn't have a rogue buddy waiting to stab you in the eyehole.
Developer
|
This seems to me the most balanced solution, really. Free actions be damned - if you close your eyes and take a shot, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to other attackers. Better hope that caster doesn't have a rogue buddy waiting to stab you in the eyehole.
Agree 100%. The wording is clear, you close your eyes, the spell doesn't affect you. Besides, when you fire blind you target a square, not an image, so even for those harping on the sound aspect it all comes from the same place as far as Mr. Ranger knows.
He's blind for the round, though. Fair's Fair. You negate one penalty with a different one. Also better hope this guy's not an arcane trickster.
I play with the sure you can ignore mirror image by closing your eyes but since action from round to round is more or less simultaneous your eyes are shut for entire round in order to negate mirror image.
Closing your eyes for a round makes you functionally "blind" which means everyone gets total concealment against you, you lose dexterity adjustments to AC plus other AC penalties, and you have penalties to many skill checks.
Blind-fighting and it's higher order upgrades can negate some of those penalties but not all of them. Closing eyes and relying on tremorsense and or blindsight/blindsense is definitely doable. Scent alone would probably not be enough but I think some edge cases could be allowed.
In many cases it's actually better to level the entire playing field by dropping a deeper darkness so that both the fighter and the caster are impacted.
Anybody make a "Use the Force, Luke!" reference yet? "Your eyes can decieve you, don't trust them"!
Where do you aim your weapon?
Ahhhh... sucks to be you! You have roughly an 80% chance to pick the WRONG square, and only a 20% chance to pick the right square, and then once you do, you have only a 50% chance to hit the target. Ready... go!
Perhaps if you were blinded for longer than half-a-round you'd have an easier time aiming, without the 80% chance to pick the wrong square...? Oh... right... then you have to wonder where within a 30' radius the guy has gone.
Your ranged attacks are going to suck if you have your eyes closed, in the same way that closing your eyes -ruins- spellcasting.
Use the scatter table, but with a D10. 9-10 = a correct guess on the square before applying blindness penalties. Remember that the spellcaster and the images are all moving simultaneously, and you shouldn't be terribly sure *where* your target is standing amongst all those overlapping images.
Not an official ruling, but that should kick Mr. SmartArcher in the nuts.
|
Developer
|
Where do you aim your weapon?
Ahhhh... sucks to be you! You have roughly an 80% chance to pick the WRONG square, and only a 20% chance to pick the right square, and then once you do, you have only a 50% chance to hit the target. Ready... go!
Perhaps if you were blinded for longer than half-a-round you'd have an easier time aiming, without the 80% chance to pick the wrong square...? Oh... right... then you have to wonder where within a 30' radius the guy has gone.
Your ranged attacks are going to suck if you have your eyes closed, in the same way that closing your eyes -ruins- spellcasting.
Use the scatter table, but with a D10. 9-10 = a correct guess on the square before applying blindness penalties. Remember that the spellcaster and the images are all moving simultaneously, and you shouldn't be terribly sure *where* your target is standing amongst all those overlapping images.
Not an official ruling, but that should kick Mr. SmartArcher in the nuts.
The images are in the same square, as I understand it.
[EDIT]
It would seem they are (at least for a medium or smaller caster). You all share the same space, the spell has spoken.
The images are in the same square, as I understand it.
yea, it's like a double vision effect now, like how movies represent someone drugged or concussed seeing an enemy blur into multiple images in and out, rather than copies scattered around.
Why would the square chosen be random? All the images occupy the same square and you can use other senses such as hearing to try to locate invisible creatures. There is no mechanic for a blind creature to target a random square (although your ability to perceive location via hearing is incredibly limited)so I don't see why you would incorporate some scatter dice mechanic for this specific instance.
I do think that for the most part ranged attacks are dependent on visual perception so that the ability of an "blind" archer to target a square should be curtailed but opponents in melee should only be facing the standard blindness penalties.
|
Developer
|
I do think that for the most part ranged attacks are dependent on visual perception so that the ability of an "blind" archer to target a square should be curtailed but opponents in melee should only be facing the standard blindness penalties.
I see your point about archers in the dark. The rules don't speak on it beyond total concealment, but I could understand someone house ruling this.
As for closing your eyes, though, you can probably target the last place you saw him. Of course if I want to be Annoyo the Infuriating GM, I'd ready an action to move when eyes are closed, at least once, just to do it.
...
Am I the only one who now wants to change his/her avatar's name to Annoyo the Infuriating GM?
I do think that for the most part ranged attacks are dependent on visual perception so that the ability of an "blind" archer to target a square should be curtailed but opponents in melee should only be facing the standard blindness penalties.I see your point about archers in the dark. The rules don't speak on it beyond total concealment, but I could understand someone house ruling this.
As for closing your eyes, though, you can probably target the last place you saw him. Of course if I want to be Annoyo the Infuriating GM, I'd ready an action to move when eyes are closed, at least once, just to do it.
...
Am I the only one who now wants to change his/her avatar's name to Annoyo the Infuriating GM?
Valid tactic. Though it eats your standard action, so one would hope you have swift action spells or you'd be on the defensive. More fun would be ready a silent Minor Image, and when the fighter opens his eyes, there are a dozen wizards with mirror images all around him :P
|
So he closes his eyes and.. then what? shoots in the middle of the square hoping for the best? Like others have said above, he gets a 50% miss chance from total concealment,
Yes
then he calculates if he hit the right target.
No
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. 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).
The spellcaster and his images all occupy the same square(s) as the caster body.
The attacker fire into a square.
Even if he roll high enough to hit he still get a flat 50% chance to miss. Mirror image don't add anything to that.
Sound in the illusion has nothing to do with it. You can't use sound to pinpoint the right image but the sound originate from the square(s) where the caster body is, so it can be used to pinpoint the square, if loud enough.
These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly
There is no weird stacking of total concealment plus decoy images drawing fire.
If the attack missed by 5 or less there is a possibility (subject to the 50% miss chance) that a image is dispelled. The images are cancelled when struck hard enough, not when someone interact with them, so the attacker perceiving the result of the attack is not relevant (to make it worse, ruling in a different way mean that if there is some other witness to the event they would see the interaction and "disbelieve" that image, creating a situation where different people will see different thing).
If the key to remove them was interacting throwing a handful of sand or pebbles in the square would remove all the images as you would be interacting with the whole square, instead removal of the images require an attack hit.
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)
Mirror Image:
If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.
As the above part of the spell explicitly say you can't select one of the images as your target. If you are firing at the caster and not at the square you have no way to select one of the images as your target, You randomly select what image has been hit.
So if you are capable to fire multiple attacks simultaneously instead of sequentially (like with scorching ray) you don't get to select 3 different images and you incur the risk of hitting 2 or even 3 times the same figment.
When you fire blindly you are firing at the general area of the target, not at a specific image.