| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hey there, everyone. My group just an into this situation, where a Cloaker under effect of Mirror Image managed to grapple my character (He rolled just 1 above my CMB, the freaking bastard!).
I decided to full attack and kill the thing. Luckily for me, my Barbarian uses unarmed strikes. However, it created an weird situation...
Does Mirror Image works against a character you are grappling?
RAW says it does, but it doesn't seem to make sense. Since the grappled character can obviously feel the enemy her, wouldn't she automatically know which image is the real one?
The GM was nice enough to rule it in our favor (Yes, your character does know which one is real), but I'm still in doubt.
The rules say:
Grappled creatures who become invisible gain +2 to CMD to avoid being grappled, but receive no other benefit.
It would make sense that other similar illusion and concealment effects would have the same weakness, although other effects that actually make the creature untouchable (such as Blink) should work just fine. Much like the"If you don't sleep, you're Fatigued the next day" rule, this seems to be a logical and reasonable extension from the invisibility vs grapple line, but I can't be sure.
I'd like to know what are the RAI here.
I would have ruled the same way. Mirror image is a visual illusion and if the cloaker had a grip on you it would definitely have given away it's location.
I suppose if someone wanted to be hard core about it you could just close your eyes. The 50% miss chance for blind fighting would still give you better odds than mirror image, depending on the number of images.
Yeah, that does seem like the most reasonable ruling, IMHO. But I don't know if that's the actual RAI.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this...
I think the cloaker was "in control" of the grapple, so I don't think you would get any special ability to bypass the mirror image.
I'm also guessing that the cloaker was using it's engulf ability:
Engulf (Ex) A cloaker can try to wrap a Medium or smaller creature in its body as a standard action. The cloaker attempts a grapple that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and bites the engulfed victim with a +4 bonus on its attack roll. It can still use its whip-like tail to strike at other targets. Attacks that hit an engulfing cloaker deal half their damage to the monster and half to the trapped victim.
This ability strongly implies that the cloaker and victim share the same square, and seems to create a situation that almost resembles "swallow whole", but the rules don't specifically say any of those things.
I think your GM made the correct call, although technically CMB checks are attack rolls, thus mirror image would function normally.
I would have ruled that if you attack it, you'd have to deal with the mirror images. If you grapple it, you would not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no RAW that lets Grappling ignore Mirror Image, but I agree with Majuba.
Here's why:
When you're punching a person, you generally don't TRY to punch him in the shoulder or in the thigh or in the butt cheek - you prefer to punch him in the face or the solar plexus or the kidney or the floating rib, etc.
Why?
Because even on a fragile human there are good spots to punch him and there are spots where your punches are basically worthless - there is no benefit to punching a worthless spot, you might as well save your energy and not punch at all.
As for punching a cloaker, the same logic might apply. Punch it in the mouth, or wherever its eys are, or if you see a spot that looks like a belly where it might have internal organs, etc. Don't just punch it in the "cloak" where it's nothing but flesh and muscle with no way to really hurt it.
Can Mirror Image help with this? Sure! Of course you can "feel" the cloaker engulfing you, but your eyes see several faces swirling around the central spot and even the real face is, because of the illusion, swirling around making it impossible for you to know which face you need to punch. Swinging meaninglessly would have no real effect, so you swing for the face and hope you're picking the right face.
Now, you could "feel around", get one hand on its face and use your other hand to punch that spot, guiding your attacks by feeling rather than looking. In this case, I would rule that this is exactly what the Grapple rules do - you make your grapple check to maintain the grapple and if you succeed, you can do your base damage automatically with no attack roll - this can easily be described as feeling around and finding the cloaker's face (maintaining the grapple) and punching his face (automatic damage for a successful grapple maintenance). All of which can be done by feel, even with closed eyes (or not), so the Mirror Images don't apply.
So, if you want to attack it, the Mirror Images apply normally, and if you want to grapple it, you can ignore the images and make normal grapple rolls "by feel".
There's no RAW that lets Grappling ignore Mirror Image, but I agree with Majuba.
Here's why:
When you're punching a person, you generally don't TRY to punch him in the shoulder or in the thigh or in the butt cheek - you prefer to punch him in the face or the solar plexus or the kidney or the floating rib, etc.
That makes sense, but wouldn't the same logic work for invisible opponents? It would make even more sense for it. However, RAW does say Grappled creatures who become invisible gain +2 to CMD to avoid being grappled, but receive no other benefit. If an invisible creature gets no benefit, why would a creature with Mirror Image, as it would be much easier to "find".
The illusory copies from Mirror Image do not occupy the same place as the real creature, just the same square (a whole 5x5ft area). If they are too close, it would be pointless (since any sweeping strike would easily strike all copies and the real creature at the same time if they were so close to each other). And if they are distant enough to prevent that from happening, then a grappled chracter could easily follow the creature's grappling limbs to its body.
Now, I know what RAW says. What I don't know is if RAW accurately reflects RAI.
I'm honestly curious about how the devs would rule if such situation came up in one of their games.
That makes sense, but wouldn't the same logic work for invisible opponents? It would make even more sense for it. However, RAW does say Grappled creatures who become invisible gain +2 to CMD to avoid being grappled, but receive no other benefit. If an invisible creature gets no benefit, why would a creature with Mirror Image, as it would be much easier to "find".
The same conclusion applies. Grappled creatures who turn invisible would still have a 50% miss chance from attacks, as would a grappling creature who is/turns invisible. They only receive a conditional +2 CMD benefit for grappling purposes.
The illusory copies from Mirror Image do not occupy the same place as the real creature, just the same square (a whole 5x5ft area). If they are too close, it would be pointless (since any sweeping strike would easily strike all copies and the real creature at the same time if they were so close to each other). And if they are distant enough to prevent that from happening, then a grappled chracter could easily follow the creature's grappling limbs to its body.
The way mirror image works is deliberately not clear - trying to make it clear (like 3.0 did with separate squares for each image) results in lots of ridiculous and confusing effects. The best way to think of it is lots of constantly shifting, sometimes overlapping images (you can't attack "the same one" any more).
That makes sense, but wouldn't the same logic work for invisible opponents? It would make even more sense for it. However, RAW does say Grappled creatures who become invisible gain +2 to CMD to avoid being grappled, but receive no other benefit.
"avoid being grappled" is quite different from "avoid maintaining grapples" or "avoid all grapple rolls".
The only time invisibility helps you against grapple attempts is that your opponent is penalized when starting the grapple, which is basically like attacking so he takes the same penalty, -2, that he would take attacking an invisible foe.
Once the grapple is established, there is no further penalty for grappling the invisible enemy.
Likewise with my interpretation of Mirror Image.
The same conclusion applies. Grappled creatures who turn invisible would still have a 50% miss chance from attacks, as would a grappling creature who is/turns invisible. They only receive a conditional +2 CMD benefit for grappling purposes.
Grappling creature also get the Grappled condition. This is what is causing the confusion for me:
Grappled creatures who become invisible gain +2 to CMD to avoid being grappled, but receive no other benefit.
I read this as the invisible creature not benefiting from the usual advantages of being invisible (concealment, bonus to stealth, enemies are flat-footed, etc), they just get the +2 bonus to CMD.
If that's the case, then the same would happen to Mirror Image and similar illusion effects.
It would be even worse for Mirror Image, actually, since its illusory copies do not "shift and overlap". They explicitely mimic your movement.
These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly.
This leads me to think that a character grappled by some with mirror image could simply look and see which one is actually grappling him by following the original creatures limb back to its torso. The illusory doubles would be in a identical position to the original, but slightly displaced. This little difference in positioning is usually not enough for opponents to discern which one is the real one, but it makes sense that a creature maintaing constant physicial contact (such as during a grapple) with the original creature, would be able to tell which one is the real one.
That makes sense, but wouldn't the same logic work for invisible opponents? It would make even more sense for it. However, RAW does say Grappled creatures who become invisible gain +2 to CMD to avoid being grappled, but receive no other benefit."avoid being grappled" is quite different from "avoid maintaining grapples" or "avoid all grapple rolls".
What is the point of provide a bonus against being grappled if the creature is already grappled? IMHO, logic says the bonus also applies against attempts to maintain the grapple against the invisible creature.
The end result being that until Mirror Image is brought down, or the attacker deals with the visual figments, the spell will continue to interfere with the results of attack rolls.
So sayeth the player of many, many wizards.
Lemmy: Do you really think that small bit of text, isolated to the "grappled" condition, means that invisibility does absolutely nothing (other than +2 CMD) when you're grappled? That it completely annuls all concealment? That it's not simply talking about for grapple checks?
BTW... DM_Blake... there's no -2 to attack invisible creatures. Invisible has a +2 to make attacks.
Lemmy: Do you really think that small bit of text, isolated to the "grappled" condition, means that invisibility does absolutely nothing (other than +2 CMD) when you're grappled? That it completely annuls all concealment? That it's not simply talking about for grapple checks?
It might be. I don't know. That's why I created this thread. It seems to me the invisible character does not apply any of the benefits of invisibility against the creature grappling her.
It would make sense... Well, as much sense as we can expect from RAW. If I'm grappling you, I know where you are. Depending on how constricting is the grapple, the invisible creature wouldn't really benefit much from being invisible.
I know how I'd rule in my games, but I'd like to know RAI, so it doesn't generate unnecessary discussion if situations comes up again. (Grapple, Invisibility and figment illusions are not exactly rare).
My take on a grappled invisible creature:
The creature cannot be seen, but you have a touch location of where they are. Like blindsight, you know where the creature is without actually seeing them.
For the mirror image, I think the same would apply. You ignore your visual senses of the creature in favor of your touch sense to find the creature. Just like CdG where you cannot see you can use touch to find the right spot.
Your knowledge by touch is not enough to do more than identify the correct square to anyone else.
/cevah
So, now that you have grappled a creature with "Mirror Image" what happens?
Attacker rolls CMD+5 vs Defender's CMD and (since this is an attack roll the effect from Mirror Image enters) may pin a figment (and not the real defender) thus destroying another figment, or try a tie up at CMD-10 (attack roll again with Mirror Image consequences). Certainly the odds of bringing down the images has increased due to the +5 CMD bonus.
The end result being that until Mirror Image is brought down, or the attacker deals with the visual figments, the spell will continue to interfere with the results of attack rolls.
If you attempt to pin the wrong target, would you not let go of the original caster of mirror image?
Although this thread is over three years old, there has been no addition to the FAQ for this issue, so I'd like to mention a situation that came up involving mirror image and maintaining a grapple and how I, as GM, would rule and my reasons, to see if anyone can poke any holes in it.
A PC had grappled a witchcrow that was hexing characters from a tree. The witchcrow, on its next turn, made a concentration check to cast a spell and cast mirror image. So the question came up when the PCs turn came around whether his roll to maintain the grapple, if successful, would need to check against affecting an image.
Some of the same arguments from above were mentioned by players. My line was the same as Azothath above: per RAW, any attack roll or spell that requires an attack roll to affect the target, will have a chance of affecting an image and not the actual creature. Since maintaining the grapple requires an attack roll (that is, a d20 result plus CMB vs. CMD) this means the attempt to maintain the grapple would fail if it targets an image instead of the witchcrow itself.
Players made the same argument that Azothath addresses, the "but I already got hold of 'em!" line.
Here I invoke a general principle that with magic, the GM should give precedence to RAW in the spell description over arguments that try to invoke an exception based on RAI grounds. Spells are by definition breaking ordinary rules of how things work, so making an argument that the person holding the target can bypass the magic implies a logical link to what you could do without a spell to what happens when the spell is in place. When these odd situations crop up, as GM, I am inclined to stick with RAW since the point of the rules is to make a quick and easy way to resolve the situation with a single die roll and not to be so detailed that all possible variations can be covered.
As an example, when trying to maintain a grapple, one might in fact simply hold on to the target in the same place and not have to let go and grab again. But as anyone who's watched a wrestling match can attest, maintaining a grapple sometimes requires changing one's grip because the target is wriggling free. The rules aren't meant to define that level of detail, so we make a d20 roll and let the details be left of the description of what happens after the roll.
If the player wanted, I'd allow him to say, "My character is closing his eyes so he won't be affected by the mirror image," I'd allow that but then invoke penalties similar to grappling an invisible target. But if the character's eyes are open, the images are creating confusion and this could lead to attempting to grip the limb of one of the figments instead of the real creature in the process of maintaining the grapple.
Clebsch RoW, mirror image does not affect things that do not require sight. Maintain Grapple does not require sight. While you will find no hard and fast RAW on that, there is plenty of RAI to back it up.
This makes sense, although it really just pushes the question over to whether or not maintaining a grapple on an invisible opponent would incur the usual 50% miss chance.
There is probably a thread that addresses this elsewhere, but it comes down to the question whether a person trying to grapple someone in a completely dark room would have any more difficulty doing so than someone in a well-lit room. If you've ever watched a wrestler struggling to keep his hold on an opponent, you know the wrestler must frequently change his grip. Being unable to see the body of the person you are trying to hold certainly would present problems.
My point here is there are reasons to suggest there should be some manner of penalty for maintaining a grapple when either the target is unseen or the situation is confused by a number of figments to distract one in knowing where to grip to best maintain the grapple.
So while a GM might be justified in making house rule exceptions, I think a good case can be made for treating the maintaining of a grapple to be an attack (in the game mechanical sense of the term) and therefore subject to all the normal requirements for dealing with a mirror imaged opponent or an invisible one. The point of these forms of magic is to make it harder to fight the opponent and it deprives the user of that magic of some of its utility if the GM is too aggressive in ruling that various situations are exempt from the effects of the magic.
My last argument in defense of this interpretation is that the rolling of an attack is not meant to allow for nuance in how the attack is made. One cannot, for example, say he wants to target the opponent's head. The possibility of a critical hit takes care of all that to make every hit have the possibility of doing extra damage.
In the same spirit, I would argue that a person maintaining a grapple can't just say "I'm not releasing my grip, just holding on, so I shouldn't have to roll to see which figment I affect." That possibility, for better or worse, is taken into account by the various rules affecting how maintaining a grapple works. Knowing how the nuances of grappling interacts with spells like mirror image or invisibility is an additional level of subtlety that the rules are not designed to provide.
Finally, whatever the ruling, it applies to both sides in a fight, so while players may complain when an enemy is able to use mirror image to wriggle free of a grapple, they will be happy about it if they use the same tactic to escape a grapple themselves.