Same thing for Truestrike, I believe.
I`m not really sure, but I would say that since they bother to separately allow Concealment AND `Miss Chance`, that Seeking/Truestrike would bypass the Miss Chance of Mirror Image... Miss Chance is only defined in the rules as it pertains to Concealment AFAIK, but Mirror Image is the same thing a chance you will miss completely independent of the attack roll.
I hit FAQ though.
Seeking has no effect on mirror image, as it only allows you to bypass miss chance, and mirror image has no miss chance.
Mirror Image confers a chance that a successful hit will target an image instead of the original target, which sounds an awful lot like a chance to miss (which it is!), but isn't a "miss chance," which is formatted "miss chance x%."
Seeking doesn't call out concealment AND miss chance, but rather "any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment."
Concealment grants 20% or 50% miss chance, depending on the level of concealment. There are other sources of miss chance, but concealment is the most common, so it is called out as an example, not an additional bypassed thing.
True Strike is even more restrictive, as it only bypasses the miss chance from concealment (and things which grant it, like dim light and blur, but not the miss chance from other sources (such as blink).
but miss chance is nowhere defined as a special rules mechanic.
the rules just mention it in passing, and assume you know exactly what it means, i.e. a functional application of it`s meaning.
if you have 1 mirror image, there is zero difference with 50% miss chance in that case.
PLENTY of players DO in fact play mirror image by rolling a d100 based on the miss chance,
and rolling a d100 isn`t in fact `necessary`, or even suggested, for ANY miss chance, which is NEVER EXPLAINED.
I have no idea what the RAI is, but if miss chance is SOLELY dependent on direct functional applications of normal English, then I don`t see why miss chance from something like Mirror Image shouldn`t count, even if the rules don`t spell out `if there is 1 image, 50% miss chance, 2 images, 33%, 3 images, 25%, etc, etc...`.
blindfight does specifically only work vs. miss-chance from concealment, in any case.
but miss chance is nowhere defined as a special rules mechanic.
the rules just mention it in passing, and assume you know exactly what it means, i.e. a functional application of it`s meaning.
if you have 1 mirror image, there is zero difference with 50% miss chance in that case.
PLENTY of players DO in fact play mirror image by rolling a d100 based on the miss chance,
and rolling a d100 isn`t in fact `necessary`, or even suggested, for ANY miss chance, which is NEVER EXPLAINED.I have no idea what the RAI is, but if miss chance is SOLELY dependent on direct functional applications of normal English, then I don`t see why miss chance from something like Mirror Image shouldn`t count, even if the rules don`t spell out `if there is 1 image, 50% miss chance, 2 images, 33%, 3 images, 25%, etc, etc...`.
blindfight does specifically only work vs. miss-chance from concealment, in any case.
But mirror image does not confer a chance that the attack will miss, but rather a chance that the attack will strike another target. It is mechanically similar to a downward grading miss chance, but it isn't a miss chance.
Seeking allows you to ignore "any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment." So concealment becomes our standard for what constitutes a miss chance. Concealment says it grants a 20% miss chance, or 50% miss chance for total concealment.
If it does not have the words "miss chance" in it, and provide a mechanic for determining what the chances to miss are, it isn't a miss chance. Mirror image has the mechanic, but it isn't a miss chance.
Enough things are specifically called out as a x& miss chance, and nothing is called out as a miss chance using any other mechanic, I think we can safely assume RAI was that miss chance is a standardized x% format. Still FAQing, though, as it is ambiguously written.
FYI, Paizo`s (or at least James Jacobs) stand on mirror image is that it you can`t whirlwind or cleave a bunch of images, i.e. they DON`T count as hitting independent targets, but rather, are misses... Since you destroy images both on hit`s that miss via `miss chance` and hits than miss normally, I don`t think there`s a solid case there for considering `hitting an image` to definitely NOT be a miss...
If you want to depend on specific words, those seem like they should be defined somewhere, since otherwise the rules depend on normal English, by which mirror image functionally IS a miss chance. Again, I have no idea what RAI is here, but am just saying that the intent isn`t exactly clear from RAW, which it looks like there is... 100% agreement on (however you want to roll that :-))
This came up in a Pathfinder society mod.
Ranger with a +1 Seeking crossbow versus bard with Mirror Image up.
Does seeking autmoatically bypass Mirror Image?
Mirror Image is not concealment obviously but is it still miss chance?
I don't allow seeking to work against mirror image. It is not a miss chance, but a chance to hit an illusionary target.
Seeking is good, but it isn't some kind of foolproof ability versus all means that might cause a person to miss. Certainly not proof against targeting the wrong target like with a mirror image.
I have never see anyone confuse miss chance or concealment with mirror image in the manner Quandary is doing. I find his interpretation to be a very wide reading of miss chance.
I go exactly off the rules language, not the normal English language in game books. If something doesn't give a miss chance per the exact reading of the effect, then seeking doesn't work against it.
|
Bear in mind that even if your GM doesn't allow seeking to apply against mirror image, you can always close your eyes and then attack the mirror-imaged target. Mirror image is sight-based, so you ignore it, and seeking ignores the 50% miss chance for total concealment. Hopefully you have uncanny dodge so you don't lose your Dex to AC by doing this, though..
Bear in mind that even if your GM doesn't allow seeking to apply against mirror image, you can always close your eyes and then attack the mirror-imaged target. Mirror image is sight-based, so you ignore it, and seeking ignores the 50% miss chance for total concealment. Hopefully you have uncanny dodge so you don't lose your Dex to AC by doing this, though..
Free action: Close eyes
Full action: Attack enemy with 50% miss chance (0% with true strike or seeking)Free action: Open eyes
End
|
|
Bear in mind that even if your GM doesn't allow seeking to apply against mirror image, you can always close your eyes and then attack the mirror-imaged target. Mirror image is sight-based, so you ignore it, and seeking ignores the 50% miss chance for total concealment. Hopefully you have uncanny dodge so you don't lose your Dex to AC by doing this, though..Free action: Close eyes
Full action: Attack enemy with 50% miss chance (0% with true strike or seeking)
Free action: Open eyes
End
Your GM may allow you to do that, and if so, that's fine too. I was just assuming the worst-case scenario as referenced in gaze attacks, where you choose to close your eyes at the start of your turn and can't re-open them until the start of your next turn.
Your GM may allow you to do that, and if so, that's fine too. I was just assuming the worst-case scenario as referenced in gaze attacks, where you choose to close your eyes at the start of your turn and can't re-open them until the start of your next turn.
I am the GM and i dont allow the use of true strike or seeking in this way. It is miles away from reality if you have to close your eyes to hit your enemy better. I think this was not the intent ..
|
|
I am the GM and i dont allow the use of true strike or seeking in this way. It is miles away from reality if you have to close your eyes to hit your enemy better. I think this was not the intent ..
Your GM may allow you to do that, and if so, that's fine too. I was just assuming the worst-case scenario as referenced in gaze attacks, where you choose to close your eyes at the start of your turn and can't re-open them until the start of your next turn.
OK? I mean, it's your game, after all. By RAW, closing your eyes works with 100% reliability. The only quibble is whether you have to go a full round with your eyes shut or not. If you think closing your eyes shouldn't work, you can house rule to your heart's content, but I don't really see what relevance that has in a rules question forum.
I allow a person to close their eyes. I see no problem with the seeking bow working in that fashion.
Invisibility is not being able to see the target. What's the difference if the PC closes his eyes or the target is invisible? As long as the PC opens his eyes long enough to locate the square the enemy is in, this tactic works fine with a seeking bow.
Now it says in seeking that if the PC fires into an empty square, the seeking effect does not work. So a target could effectively ready an action to move as soon as the PC closes his eyes and move out of the square after the PC closes his eyes, but before the PC shoots. Thus the PC misses the target completely because he is no longer in the square wasting his entire round.
I would not allow a PC to open his eyes and close them after each attack. Once he does it, he is committed to the action unless he is taking actions to locate his target thus reducing himself to a single shot a round. He might be able to counter with a Bluff action, but that again would reduce him to single attacks.
Then the enemy could close the distance using ready actions in this instance and screwing up the PC's attacks.
So I see no reason why the PC can't close his eyes. Just as I see no reason to deny the enemy the use of tactical ready actions to counter the PC closing his eyes. The PC closing his eyes also sets him up for attacks from enemies with ready actions waiting for him to close his eyes like a rogue, archer, or other melee granting sneak attack or the like. It's dangerous to close your eyes against intelligent enemies.
Free action: Close eyes
Full action: Attack enemy with 50% miss chance (0% with true strike or seeking)
Free action: Open eyes
End
I don't think that would work. You only get 1 free action per round.
So you could close your eyes, use your full attack, but would be hit with the negatives for not being able to see until the next round.
I would LOVE my target to do that to avoid my mirror images...sets them up for some nice Ranged Touch Attacks. :)
I don't think that would work. You only get 1 free action per round.
Actually, its swift actions that are limited to one per round.
Free actions are limited by what the GM allows, and then only to a 'reasonable' number. One per round is horrifically limiting.