Tricking Mirror Image by closing your eyes?

[Rikkan]

Drachasor wrote:

This doesn't work. Illusions this does work for explicitly have a save for disbelief listed.

Check out Silent Image:
Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with); Spell Resistance no

Illusions without that do not allow a saving throw for disbelief.

That is not true. See Disguise Self for example: has no disbelief saving throw line but still has this redundant text: "A creature that interacts with the glamer gets a Will save to recognize it as an illusion."

[Drachasor]

Rikkan wrote:

Drachasor wrote:

This doesn't work. Illusions this does work for explicitly have a save for disbelief listed.

Check out Silent Image:
Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with); Spell Resistance no

Illusions without that do not allow a saving throw for disbelief.

That is not true. See Disguise Self for example: has no disbelief saving throw line but still has this redundant text: "A creature that interacts with the glamer gets a Will save to recognize it as an illusion."

Which means it is not a Disbelief save, so it doesn't reveal the illusion as a Translucent Outline. Instead you just know it isn't real, but you don't get to see who is hiding under it. This point might be argued due to a like of clarity in the rules, however.

In any case, you do not get saves against illusions if they don't explicitly allow a save. That's how these things work. The text for Disbelief does not say it applies to all illusions, so it doesn't. The Disblief text does NOT say all illusions grant saves. It merely says what happens for some illusions that grant saves for disbelief.

Note that there ARE illusions that grant saves that are not disbelief saves. Quite a few, in fact.

[Derek Vande Brake]

Scavion wrote:

Taow wrote:

A better example would be navigating a dark basement. Leave the lights off and go walk down the stairs and across the floor. Assuming it's furnished (or has lots of boxes to go around), it's possible because you are familiar with the layout, but you still bump into things.

Do it again, but this time flash the lights on for a split second, then do it. You JUST saw where everything is and can navigate better. This is why your mind needs to adjust to NOT seeing the enemy.

If you shut your eyes and swing horizontally, that wizard can duck. Since you're applying measurements and real life logic to a game of magic and a rules sytem, how much of that 4ft sword is in YOUR 5x5 square? Now how much extends into the wizard's? Better go get a reach weapon, nothing medium or smaller can even attack the enemy.

Not a whole lot when you consider arm length. For a 6ft tall person, thats about five feet.

I'm sorry, but a 6ft tall person does not have an arm length of 5 feet. I just had to point that out.

[Rikkan]

Drachasor wrote:

The text for Disbelief does not say it applies to all illusions, so it doesn't. The Disblief text does NOT say all illusions grant saves. It merely says what happens for some illusions that grant saves for disbelief.

No it does account for all illusions. Here: "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."

The text states whenever you encounter an illusion (any illusion) you might not get an initial saving throw, but you'll get one after you study or interact with it.

[Chemlak]

Still waiting to see the rule quote what type of saving throw you get to make to disbelieve Mirror Image, Invisibility, and all the other illusion spells that don't have a saving throw line.

Hint: Nowhere does it say they're Will saves.

[Drachasor]

Rikkan wrote:

Drachasor wrote:

The text for Disbelief does not say it applies to all illusions, so it doesn't. The Disblief text does NOT say all illusions grant saves. It merely says what happens for some illusions that grant saves for disbelief.

No it does account for all illusions. Here: "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."

The text states whenever you encounter an illusion (any illusion) you might not get an initial saving throw, but you'll get one after you study or interact with it.

No, that only applies to WHEN you get the saving throw for illusions that allow a save. It does NOT say that all illusions allow a save. There's a huge difference, especially since illusions explicitly indicate Saving Throw for Disbelief.

Something that doesn't allow a saving throw, does not allow a saving throw. This does not state that it changes that. The section is about how disbelief saving throws work. What illusions get such saves is explicitly indicated.

Evidence for this...
1. The text does not explicitly state all illusions grant Disbelief saves. It merely says what is required before a disbelief save kicks in. There's a difference.

2. Illusions that have disbelief saves have them explicitly indicated in their spell block.

3. Disguise Self is further evidence of this. It does not have a disbelief save, and as you indicate the text is completely unnecessary if all illusions have saves. It also wouldn't make sense for only Disguise Self to have this text if they were going to indicate what was necessary for each illusion.

4. Check out the Saving Throw rules. It explicitly has "Disbelief" as a saving throw type, and states that spells explicitly indicate if a saving throw is allowed. Without spellblock text supporting a save or modifying how a save works, there is no save. It would be different if the Disbelief section said that "all illusions allow disbelief saves, regardless of what the spellblock indicates" but there is no such line.

5. Without the save indicated, you don't know what type of save to make (Will, Reflex, or Fort).

[Majuba]

Rikkan - I get where you're coming from, but you're sort of running the text together. These are separate paragraphs:

Rikkan wrote:

PRD wrote:

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.

This says to the GM: "Hey - don't give a saving throw right away when they hit an illusion - they might not even notice!"

Rikkan wrote:

PRD wrote:

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

This says, when they have made a saving throw what happens. It does not say that you always get a saving throw - there is no connection to the last paragraph in that regard.

Rikkan wrote:

PRD wrote:

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.

And this paragraph, like the last, tells what happens. In this case, on a failed save.

Mirror image (and invisibility) are obvious. Opponents will almost certainly recognize it as illusory - no need to study or interact. As someone pointed out, all the text above is for Disbelief saving throws - which mirror image doesn't give. Disbelief is *assumed* - it doesn't let you see through the images until you hit them, individually.

[LoneKnave]

I find "move action to blind yourself" to be downright stupid. The feat already works against invisibility without all of that nonsense. Presumably, you are using the same senses to use to counter Mirror Image as you do to counter invisibility; the feat makes no mention of "you have to take a moment to prepare yourself and realign your senses" in that case, and I don't see why it should here.

Worst case scenario, a utility combat feat actually does something against more than one spell. Boo freaking hoo. It's bad enough that you can't cleave the images because reasons.

[Nicos]

It woudl be great if you could whirlwind strike all the images.

[Thornborn]

If the Mirror Image spell includes sound, then BlindFight is not a solution, because while BF might avoid the deception of the visual figment, BF also declaredly relies on the aural glamer.

I'd really like for BF to solve Mirror Image, I want to reward such creativity. I might (at a home table) go so far as to hurriedly pencil in that the NPC was casting an inferior Mirror Image, and let it work. But as written, BF does not solve MI.

[ryric]

I think that closing your eyes is a perfectly valid tactic to combat mirror image. But, I would also rule that if you close your eyes during your turn you can't open them for "off your turn," for one reason - conceptually, "off your turn" doesn't exist. From your characters POV combat is one continuous mess of attacks, spells, and so forth, not discrete attacks followed by waiting while you watch what everyone else does. In game each turn just flows into the next one; opening your eyes "at the end of your turn" just to close them "at the beginning of the next turn" means you had your eyes open for much less than a second. You could do that to see where everyone is really quickly but you'd still be blind for most purposes.

[Jiggy]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Personally, I'll gladly allow PCs (and NPCs) to close and open their eyes as free actions (on their turns). Then, as SKR points out, the baddies will react accordingly (bonus points if there's a rogue involved).

The problem here is that "reacting accordingly," as in taking readied actions, often is a worse idea than just proceeding as normal, since that denies full-attacks.

I disagree.

NPCs with mirror image up usually aren't full-attacking. Usually, they're taking a 5ft step back and casting. They can do the exact same thing they were already going to do but as a readied action when the PC attacks with their eyes closed.

As for their martial allies, I find that typically they're either down before anyone's attacking the caster anyway, or they're busy dealing with a PC or two someplace other than right next to the caster (so they can't full-attack the eye-closer).

Losing full-attacks that you weren't taking anyway is not a cost.

Quote:

Also, if the eye-closer has Blind-Fight or Uncanny Dodge, there really is no benefit to "reacting accordingly" in melee (there is with ranged combat in the case of Blind-Fight, though).

For the probably-not-right-there-anyway martial minion, sure. (Oh noes, getting benefits from feats/class features!) But again, for the caster, readying to step back and cast while his eyes are closed is a tactic that doesn't care one whit about Blind-Fight or Uncanny Dodge.

So again you're oversimplifying the situation and therefore seeing a problem that doesn't exist.

[LoneKnave]

In that case, MI should keep working even if the caster is invisible (something the spell explicitly says doesn't work).

[Nicos]

Thornborn wrote:

If the Mirror Image spell includes sound, then BlindFight is not a solution, because while BF might avoid the deception of the visual figment, BF also declaredly relies on the aural glamer.

I'd really like for BF to solve Mirror Image, I want to reward such creativity. I might (at a home table) go so far as to hurriedly pencil in that the NPC was casting an inferior Mirror Image, and let it work. But as written, BF does not solve MI.

It does not matter if the spell create sounds (it does). Because the spell itsefl state that a creature that can not see you and the figments is inmune to it.

[Jiggy]

ryric wrote:

I think that closing your eyes is a perfectly valid tactic to combat mirror image. But, I would also rule that if you close your eyes during your turn you can't open them for "off your turn," for one reason - conceptually, "off your turn" doesn't exist. From your characters POV combat is one continuous mess of attacks, spells, and so forth, not discrete attacks followed by waiting while you watch what everyone else does. In game each turn just flows into the next one; opening your eyes "at the end of your turn" just to close them "at the beginning of the next turn" means you had your eyes open for much less than a second. You could do that to see where everyone is really quickly but you'd still be blind for most purposes.

You just broke most of the combat mechanics in the game in order to support how you want things to play out for mirror image.

[tony gent]

To me this sounds like a totally cheesy way to get round a spell effect
What reason did the player give in character for his actions how would he know that he was more likely to hit with his eyes shut.
No sorry its just s case of a player exploiting a loophole in the rules and i wouldn't allow it he's being a munchkin and he probably knows it

[Remy Balster]

Nicos wrote:

Thornborn wrote:

If the Mirror Image spell includes sound, then BlindFight is not a solution, because while BF might avoid the deception of the visual figment, BF also declaredly relies on the aural glamer.

I'd really like for BF to solve Mirror Image, I want to reward such creativity. I might (at a home table) go so far as to hurriedly pencil in that the NPC was casting an inferior Mirror Image, and let it work. But as written, BF does not solve MI.

It does not matter if the spell create sounds (it does). Because the spell itsefl state that a creature that can not see you and the figments is inmune to it.

It does NOT say that.

It says: "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)."

Must be able to see.

Someone closing their eyes is able to see, they are choosing not to do it.

They are not blind. So Mirror Image continues to function.

Someone would have to inflict the actual blind condition on themselves.

[LoneKnave]

tony gent wrote:

To me this sounds like a totally cheesy way to get round a spell effect

What reason did the player give in character for his actions how would he know that he was more likely to hit with his eyes shut.
No sorry its just s case of a player exploiting a loophole in the rules and i wouldn't allow it he's being a munchkin and he probably knows it

The character knows that:

-this is an illusion based on sight
-he is trained to fight without sight
-he is more likely to hit a person blind (because of his training) than he is to hit 1 out of 6.

His course of action was entirely reasonable.

[Thornborn]

Nicos wrote:

Thornborn wrote:

...as written, BF does not solve MI.

It does not matter if the spell create sounds (it does). Because the spell itsefl state that a creature that can not see you and the figments is inmune to it.

Which is why I should not post on a coffee break.

If the spell says it needs sight, then the spell also saying it makes sound, is... grey ink.

Do they buy grey ink by the tankerful, or what?

So then, with the spell limiting itself, BF becomes sovereign against MI. Well, miss chance, but two rolls.

[Nicos]

Remy Balster wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Thornborn wrote:

If the Mirror Image spell includes sound, then BlindFight is not a solution, because while BF might avoid the deception of the visual figment, BF also declaredly relies on the aural glamer.

I'd really like for BF to solve Mirror Image, I want to reward such creativity. I might (at a home table) go so far as to hurriedly pencil in that the NPC was casting an inferior Mirror Image, and let it work. But as written, BF does not solve MI.

It does not matter if the spell create sounds (it does). Because the spell itsefl state that a creature that can not see you and the figments is inmune to it.

It does NOT say that.

It says: "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)."

Must be able to see.

Someone closing their eyes is able to see, they are choosing not to do it.

They are not blind. So Mirror Image continues to function.

Someone would have to inflict the actual blind condition on themselves.

You know something ist erribly wrong when someone argue that with you eyes closed you are still able to see.

[Fomsie]

LoneKnave wrote:

tony gent wrote:

To me this sounds like a totally cheesy way to get round a spell effect

What reason did the player give in character for his actions how would he know that he was more likely to hit with his eyes shut.
No sorry its just s case of a player exploiting a loophole in the rules and i wouldn't allow it he's being a munchkin and he probably knows it

The character knows that:

-this is an illusion based on sight
-he is trained to fight without sight
-he is more likely to hit a person blind (because of his training) than he is to hit 1 out of 6.

His course of action was entirely reasonable.

The CHARACTER knows that?

Does he have Spellcraft?
Knowledge: Arcana?
Has that character personally fought against Mirror Image before and then had it explained to him?

Or does the player know the rules and Metagame it to the character?

[tony gent]

The character knows it an illusion unless he's encountered it before he can't be sure that it won't effect his other senses
And also closing his eyes leaves him more vulnerable to his enemy's attacks

[Remy Balster]

Nicos wrote:

You know something ist erribly wrong when someone argue that with you eyes closed you are still able to see.

"Be able" in this game is well used and defined. It means to have the capability of.

Closing your eyes does not remove your ability to see. You are still 'able' to, you are simply choosing not to.

You would have to inflict the condition "blind", also a well defined term, in order to bypass the spell.

There is no established method for inflicting the 'blind' condition on yourself. Thus, it would require DM adjudication. Ideally, inflicting a condition should require an action or have a duration.

[Jiggy]

Fomsie wrote:

The CHARACTER knows that?

Does he have Spellcraft?
Knowledge: Arcana?
Has that character personally fought against Mirror Image before and then had it explained to him?

Or does the player know the rules and Metagame it to the character?

The character sees half a dozen identical people all moving as one rather than functioning autonomously.

In particular if at least one image has been popped already, it becomes EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that there's one guy with a bunch of decoys.

Realizing that it could be beneficial to stop trusting your eyes and go by other senses or even pure instinct is a classic fantasy trope.

I thought we wanted classic fantasy tropes in this game.

[Fomsie]

Jiggy wrote:

Fomsie wrote:

The CHARACTER knows that?

Does he have Spellcraft?
Knowledge: Arcana?
Has that character personally fought against Mirror Image before and then had it explained to him?

Or does the player know the rules and Metagame it to the character?

The character sees half a dozen identical people all moving as one rather than functioning autonomously.

In particular if at least one image has been popped already, it becomes EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that there's one guy with a bunch of decoys.

Realizing that it could be beneficial to stop trusting your eyes and go by other senses or even pure instinct is a classic fantasy trope.

I thought we wanted classic fantasy tropes in this game.

It is obvious that SOMETHING is going on, the point is that unless the character has experience with that sort of thing, assuming he just "Knows it is an illusion based on sight and that if I close my eyes I will have a mechanically better chance of hitting the actual caster", leaves the purview of entirely reasonable without justification.

Perhaps it is a Phantasm, in which case closing your eyes doesn't matter.
Maybe they are clones/copies/simulacra that can harm you if you just close your eyes and make yourself blind in the middle of combat.

I am all for player creativity in combat, especially stuff like Blind Fighting "use the force, Luke" tactics, however, I also don't want to trivialize other class abilities through meta gaming. That fighter may be Billy Bad Arsenic with his sword, but if he doesn't actually know about how a spell works, he should not get to react mechanically to thwart it if it is just based on the player's knowledge.

Obviously this has no bearing on more experienced characters who have seen something in effect before, but just taking a leap of logic to go blind in a fight because the player knows it is a visual only illusion is a stretch.

[Remy Balster]

Jiggy wrote:

Fomsie wrote:

The CHARACTER knows that?

Does he have Spellcraft?
Knowledge: Arcana?
Has that character personally fought against Mirror Image before and then had it explained to him?

Or does the player know the rules and Metagame it to the character?

The character sees half a dozen identical people all moving as one rather than functioning autonomously.

In particular if at least one image has been popped already, it becomes EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that there's one guy with a bunch of decoys.

Realizing that it could be beneficial to stop trusting your eyes and go by other senses or even pure instinct is a classic fantasy trope.

I thought we wanted classic fantasy tropes in this game.

The missing step: The images make noise.

What information is the character using to know that striking blindly is better than using sight?

How could they POSSIBLY know that this spell has an odd phrasing that some people IRL 'interpret' that it means closing your eyes can defeat the spell?

There is zero indication that this spell can be avoided by closing your eyes. It. Makes. Sounds.

The character would have to... just know the spell description's wording from the CRB?

Because that is plausible????

[Jiggy]

"Hm, I hit one of these completely identical people who are all moving in unison, and it vanished into thin air; there aren't even any pieces lying around. Must be decoys, designed to keep me from attacking the real one. Maybe if I stop believing what I'm seeing, it won't fool me."

"Hm, that pea-sized bead is exploding in a ball of fire. I should probably try to shield my face and body so it doesn't kill me."

Saying that it's metagaming to see one of several copies of a spellcaster going "poof" and react by thinking it's a visual trick, is like saying it's metagaming to see a rapidly-expanding mushroom cloud and attempt a Reflex save against fireball.

"But you don't have Spellcraft! How do you know it's not a phantasm instead of real fire?"

Please.

[ryric]

Jiggy wrote:

You just broke most of the combat mechanics in the game in order to support how you want things to play out for mirror image.

I'm curious as to how? This is also how I come down on "switching how many hands I have on my weapon between turns" debate.

We have to do combat in turns to make it manageable. Conceptually they are all pretty much happening at once. There is not some huge gulf of time where your PC is just standing there looking to take AoOs and immediate actions. If you were looking to make a movie of the combat, that AoO actually happens in the middle of your full attack when your opponent let their guard down; we don't play it that way because that would be a confusing mess. We sacrifice a little accuracy/realism (how did I full attack that guy if his move away happens in the middle of my attack?) in the name of having the game be playable.

This doesn't mean we have to let people metagame the turn system and free actions to somehow be in a differnet state off their turn and on it.

This is a serious question, btw. The above is pretty much how I visualize Pathfinder combat and is somewhat core to my philosophy of how combat works, so if there's a gaping flaw I don't see it at all.

[Majuba]

Remy Balster wrote:

You would have to inflict the condition "blind", also a well defined term, in order to bypass the spell.

PRD-UnivMonsterRules-GazeAttacks wrote:

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.

Voila.

[BigDTBone]

Jiggy wrote:

I thought we wanted classic fantasy tropes in this game.

No, turns out people who don't like rule technicalities just say that. It isn't true. What they really want is for you to play like they did in Jr. High in 1983.

[Majuba]

Fomsie wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

tony gent wrote:

To me this sounds like a totally cheesy way to get round a spell effect

The character knows that...

-he is more likely to hit a person blind (because of his training) than he is to hit 1 out of 6.

The CHARACTER knows that?

Does he have Spellcraft?

These aren't bad points/questions. If a 1st/2nd level character with no previous experience with the spell encounters it and instantly uses the 'close-your-eyes' idea, I'd question it. But it is certainly reasonable.

There has to be a balance between tony's "totally cheesy" and Jiggy's "entirely reasonable". That balance lies in a cost: a move action as SKR suggested some time back, or a full round of being blind - the standard from the Gaze attack rules.

FWIW: most characters using this tactic will not have Blind-Fight.

[LoneKnave]

Remy Balster wrote:

The missing step: The images make noise.

What information is the character using to know that striking blindly is better than using sight?

How could they POSSIBLY know that this spell has an odd phrasing that some people IRL 'interpret' that it means closing your eyes can defeat the spell?

There is zero indication that this spell can be avoided by closing your eyes. It. Makes. Sounds.

The character would have to... just know the spell description's wording from the CRB?

Because that is plausible????

If closing your eyes didn't help, why does it not work if the caster is invisible? Presumably, the sounds it makes would mess with locating it just as much as it does when you close your eyes, yet it is called out right in the description that creatures unable to see it (due to illusion, blindness, or, you know, closing their eyes) are immune to its effects.

[Remy Balster]

Jiggy wrote:

"Hm, I hit one of these completely identical people who are all moving in unison, and it vanished into thin air; there aren't even any pieces lying around. Must be decoys, designed to keep me from attacking the real one. Maybe if I stop believing what I'm seeing, it won't fool me."

"Hm, that pea-sized bead is exploding in a ball of fire. I should probably try to shield my face and body so it doesn't kill me."

Saying that it's metagaming to see one of several copies of a spellcaster going "poof" and react by thinking it's a visual trick, is like saying it's metagaming to see a rapidly-expanding mushroom cloud and attempt a Reflex save against fireball.

"But you don't have Spellcraft! How do you know it's not a phantasm instead of real fire?"

Please.

IT MAKES NOISE

lol... why are you ignoring this simple fact Jiggy?

There is no "Oh it is just a visual trick logic, because it makes noise!

No sane person could come up with the random idea that closing your eyes will bypass the attack penalties against an illusion that is ALSO making noise.

It isn't just a visual trick.

Because it isn't just a visual trick, there is NO WAY to recognize it AS just a visual trick. BEACAUSE it is NOT JUST a visual trick.

So, the question remains. How does a fighter know he has a statistically superior chance of hitting by closing his eyes? He doesn't. His player does, and is METAGAMING like crazy.

[Jiggy]

ryric wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

You just broke most of the combat mechanics in the game in order to support how you want things to play out for mirror image.

I'm curious as to how? This is also how I come down on "switching how many hands I have on my weapon between turns" debate.

We have to do combat in turns to make it manageable. Conceptually they are all pretty much happening at once. There is not some huge gulf of time where your PC is just standing there looking to take AoOs and immediate actions. If you were looking to make a movie of the combat, that AoO actually happens in the middle of your full attack when your opponent let their guard down; we don't play it that way because that would be a confusing mess. We sacrifice a little accuracy/realism (how did I full attack that guy if his move away happens in the middle of my attack?) in the name of having the game be playable.

This doesn't mean we have to let people metagame the turn system and free actions to somehow be in a differnet state off their turn and on it.

This is a serious question, btw. The above is pretty much how I visualize Pathfinder combat and is somewhat core to my philosophy of how combat works, so if there's a gaping flaw I don't see it at all.

If you use TWF on your turn, the TWF penalties don't apply to AoOs you make later. This makes at least one of your above statements into nonsense.

If you stab a caster on your turn, and then their turn is next and they cast a spell, there's no concentration check from that damage. But if you ready an action (or use an AoO) to hit them on their turn, you can disrupt the spell. Your idea of everything happening at once makes this metagaming, yet the Core Rulebook explicitly lays out this tactic for characters to use.

If you're hiding behind a tree with only a move action remaining and want to move 40ft to another tree, you could do it two different ways. You could move 20ft as a move action, then next turn move the rest of the way. Or, you could wait until next turn and double-move. Either way, you spent two move actions to move that distance, presumably the same amount of time. But if you split it between two turns, then in between I can full-attack Rapid Shot Manyshot you into oblivion with my bow. If instead you wait and do it all in one turn, I can't shoot you at all (unless I use a readied action, which means just one arrow instead of 4-6 arrows).

Want me to keep going?

Anyway, all those mechanics (and more) stop working as intended if you start running things based on "Well everything's actually simultaneous, therefore..." So you have three options:
1) Accept the turn-based system and work within it.
2) Go with the all-at-once ideal, and have to re-work the entire combat system and fix all the mechanics you broke.
3) Work within the turn-based system for the things you're okay with, then reach for "all at once" when you can't find another rationale for nerfing something you don't like.

Choosing #1 will makes everyone's lives easier.

[tony gent]

Part of the problem is in the spells description it states that if you can't see the images you are unaffected by the spell.
But at the start of the same description it states that the images copy your movements and sounds.
So that as most of the skill in blind fighting is using your hearing to compensate for your lack of sight you would still be affected by the spell
Think we need a ruling from paizo as to weather the spell makes images only or images and sounds

[Jiggy]

Majuba wrote:

or a full round of being blind - the standard from the Gaze attack rules.

I don't see that anywhere in the Gaze attack rules.

[Remy Balster]

tony gent wrote:

Part of the problem is in the spells description it states that if you can't see the images you are unaffected by the spell.

But at the start of the same description it states that the images copy your movements and sounds.
So that as most of the skill in blind fighting is using your hearing to compensate for your lack of sight you would still be affected by the spell
Think we need a ruling from paizo as to weather the spell makes images only or images and sounds

It says it makes sounds.

[Nicos]

Remy Balster wrote:

tony gent wrote:

Part of the problem is in the spells description it states that if you can't see the images you are unaffected by the spell.

But at the start of the same description it states that the images copy your movements and sounds.
So that as most of the skill in blind fighting is using your hearing to compensate for your lack of sight you would still be affected by the spell
Think we need a ruling from paizo as to weather the spell makes images only or images and sounds

It says it makes sounds.

It also say that if you do not see the figment you are inmune to it, sound or not.

[Remy Balster]

Majuba wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

You would have to inflict the condition "blind", also a well defined term, in order to bypass the spell.

PRD-UnivMonsterRules-GazeAttacks wrote:

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.

Voila.

Please highlight for me the word 'blind' in that link? Thanks.

[Nicos]

Remy Balster wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

You would have to inflict the condition "blind", also a well defined term, in order to bypass the spell.

PRD-UnivMonsterRules-GazeAttacks wrote:

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.

Voila.

Please highlight for me the word 'blind' in that link? Thanks.

There is not need to be blind cause the spell do not restrict to that condition. In fact blind is just one example of someone that can not see the figment.

[Remy Balster]

Nicos wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

tony gent wrote:

Part of the problem is in the spells description it states that if you can't see the images you are unaffected by the spell.

But at the start of the same description it states that the images copy your movements and sounds.
So that as most of the skill in blind fighting is using your hearing to compensate for your lack of sight you would still be affected by the spell
Think we need a ruling from paizo as to weather the spell makes images only or images and sounds

It says it makes sounds.

It also say that if you do not see the figment you are inmune to it, sound or not.

But the spell effect gives NO indication that this is true.

How does a fighter figure this out?

a)Metagaming
b)Metagaming
or
c)Metagaming

Which is it?

[Jiggy]

@Remy Balster:
I am not ignoring that the spell makes sounds. What I am doing is refraining from assuming that this fact causes creatures to still be affected when they can't see.
The spell says it makes noise. It does NOT say that this noise contributes to fooling attackers - you're making that part up yourself.

Mirror image wrote:

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled.

It's right there in the spell. To be fooled, you MUST be able to SEE the figments.

[Remy Balster]

Nicos wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

You would have to inflict the condition "blind", also a well defined term, in order to bypass the spell.

PRD-UnivMonsterRules-GazeAttacks wrote:

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.

Voila.

Please highlight for me the word 'blind' in that link? Thanks.

There is not need to be blind cause the spell do not restrict to that condition. In fact blind is just one example of someone that can not see the figment.

The spell does, in fact.From Mirror Image "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect".

[Tamago]

Remy Balster wrote:

IT MAKES NOISE

lol... why are you ignoring this simple fact Jiggy?

He's ignoring it because the spell description states:

Mirror Image wrote:

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).

Now, I will definitely agree that something doesn't make sense here. You have an illusion that creates noise, but if you can't see it then it has no effect. That's just weird. But it *is* how the spell is described.

[Nicos]

Remy Balster wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

You would have to inflict the condition "blind", also a well defined term, in order to bypass the spell.

PRD-UnivMonsterRules-GazeAttacks wrote:

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.

Voila.

Please highlight for me the word 'blind' in that link? Thanks.

There is not need to be blind cause the spell do not restrict to that condition. In fact blind is just one example of someone that can not see the figment.

The spell does, in fact.From Mirror Image "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect".

eh

Mirror image wrote:

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled.

[Remy Balster]

Jiggy wrote:

@Remy Balster:

I am not ignoring that the spell makes sounds. What I am doing is refraining from assuming that this fact causes creatures to still be affected when they can't see.
The spell says it makes noise. It does NOT say that this noise contributes to fooling attackers - you're making that part up yourself.

Mirror image wrote:

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled.

It's right there in the spell. To be fooled, you MUST be able to SEE the figments.

Emphasis mine.

Also, immediately following this descriptive requirement, it gives a game term clarification "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect"

You need to be 'blind'.

Period.

Closing your eyes doesn't make you blind. If it does, I'm going to get me a nice check from the government and a handicap placard.

[Kthulhu]

Jiggy wrote:

I thought we wanted classic fantasy tropes in this game.

What some people want is for everything magical to be absolutely, without question, ALWAYS better than anything non-magical.

And unfortunately, that "some people" seems to often include some of the developers.

[Remy Balster]

Nicos wrote:

Mirror image wrote:

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled.

Is the fighter able to see? Yes.

[Nicos]

Remy Balster wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

@Remy Balster:

I am not ignoring that the spell makes sounds. What I am doing is refraining from assuming that this fact causes creatures to still be affected when they can't see.
The spell says it makes noise. It does NOT say that this noise contributes to fooling attackers - you're making that part up yourself.

Mirror image wrote:

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled.

It's right there in the spell. To be fooled, you MUST be able to SEE the figments.

Emphasis mine.

Also, immediately following this descriptive requirement, it gives a game term clarification "If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect"

You need to be 'blind'.

Period.

Closing your eyes doesn't make you blind. If it does, I'm going to get me a nice check from the government and a handicap placard.

No it is not as you say. you are using terrible logic and just stragiht ignoringthe rest of the text.

You do not need to be blind you just need to not see the imaages.

[Nicos]

Remy Balster wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Mirror image wrote:

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled.

Is the fighter able to see? Yes.

Like a devil using mirror image in a area of darkness. The fighet can see of course it is just that is dark, mirror image totally aplplies because that makes totally sense.