RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
@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.
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.
The whole section in the spell description is, "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)."
It seems pretty clear to me that the important part of that statement is the first sentence. "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled." Closing your eyes does make you unable to see the figments. (Granted, you are not *permanently* unable to see them. But that's not the point.)
The line about invisibility or blindness is giving a clarifying example. I don't think it's intended to represent the only way to bypass the spell.
Hehe, this thread is making me very glad I decided to take Blind Fight... I should probably talk to my DM about it though.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
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,...
Hmm, I have no problems with your last two examples. I actually didn't knwo the first one - almost nobody in my group ever uses TWF, and nearly every voluntary penalty you can take (power attack, charging, etc.) lasts until the beginning of your next turn. I had assumed TWFing worked the same way. My bad there, but I can fix this with a small houserule. This is not "the entire combat system."
Your objection is just the difference between stabbing a caster before he starts casting, or waiting until he starts speaking and then stabbing him in the middle of it. I see no metegaming there. The caster is presumably timing his spell to happen between swings. I play a caster in a boffer LARP that has spell disruption, and combat is an all-at-once crazy fest, and it's totally possible to get off a multi-second verbal component without getting hit by a guy in melee with you. It's metagaming to say you're waiting until their "turn", but not to wait until "they start casting" (assuming you can recognize spellcasting, which I ususally give a pass on).
Your tree example: you've just described the difference between going as soon as you can(move action now, suck up the full attack, finish move action next turn) and waiting for an opportune moment (no move this turn, spend double move next turn darting between the trees when the time is right).
So I guess by your "categories" I'm a 3 because I choose to fluff combat in a way that makes sense to me? I just don't see "the entire combat system falls apart" in your examples.
This probably qualifies as way off topic at this point. I'd be happy to keep discussing combat fluff in another thread.
My OT conclusion: Closing your eyes works to defeat mirror image, but you have to be blind for your entire attack, and you can't just have your eyes open "between turns."
|
|
Having personally come up against this in PFS, I am fine with being "blind" until your next turn. Granted this is something that is very situational, but ruling against smart play because your bad guy had something negated is just sad. Besides, who says the bad guys can't do this to the players?
It was mentioned earlier how would a martial even know what a mirror image spell is? Well, my characters at least would have the presence of mind to discuss spells with the casters so they would have an idea of how to deal with various situations. Plus, the spell isn't exactly uncommon.
And saying closing your eyes is metagaming and therefore evil just makes me sad. I mean, the casters have plenty of toys in the box, just because a martial figures out how to deal with one isn't the end of the world.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, who says the bad guys can't do this to the players?
Had this thread not been made, and instead the topic came up in Advice or General Discussion with the GM asking if this was a valid way to deal with PCs who were feeling pretty safe behind their mirror image effects, I guarantee the general response would be VERY different.
I would allow a character to close his eyes as a free action, but he could only "toggle" them open or closed on his turn once per round.
The reason being is that, though we use round by round combat, the fight is continually in motion. While the fighter has his eyes shut trying to gank the wizard, the rogue is moving in to gank the blind fighter.
It may not seem that way due to turn-based combat, but that's what's actually happening.
...
(This is from a different thread containing developer commentary that had started as a "scent ability defeating mirror image" discussion.)
I think this a good way to rule it and explain it, especially since it ends with the player still being able to execute the idea. Although combat is broken into steps, there is no "surgical timing" of status effects unless the game dictates it. It's the same reason that the penalties associated with say, charging, last until your next turn even though you necessarily can no longer be charging when that enemy's attack comes around due to turned based combat.
But, moreover, the rules are like that to sustain a trade-off mentality, and I think that needs to be kept for precedent sake. I always appreciate clever mundane ways to get around spell effects, but this is borderline mmmm--maybe not metagaming, but I'll call it a willful suspension of the RPG element - and I think there should be some balance for that (not prevention, but balance). Instead of saying "No, that's a little metagame-ish since you're character doesn't really know the spell, and half your turn is taken based on what you do see.", because that's kind of no fun and discourages players, I would say "Yeah, you can shut your eyes, but you'll be blind until your next turn - is that what you're doing?" And be done with it. (And yes, blindness for an entire turn may be too much, but that's up to the GM for how complicated he wants it to be)
Just remember, if the player absolutely insists that he closes and opens his eyes exactly during his attack and nothing else, the GM can throw an equally crappy wheel of RAW-based cheese and have the following happen:
Player: "...when I get to him, I close my eyes then attack the square."
DM: "Ok, you attack a random square, let's see--"
Player: "No, I attack the wizard's square."
DM: "How do you know he's there? You're blind. You have to attack a random square if you don't pinpoint him first."
Player: "But I know that he's there."
DM: "Not according to the CRB rules under Darkness, you don't. When the lights go out, all creatures have total concealment and cannot be attacked unless first pinpointed."
Player: "I pinpointed him before I shut my eyes."
DM: "And after you shut your eyes, you became blinded and now start following the blind/darkness rules, and you need to pinpoint him. I can lessen the perception penalty to do it a bit, but you still need to do it. So do you attack a random square, try to pinpoint him, grope in a 2-square area, or take back your smart-ass move?"
(reading Darkness rules under the Environment section of PRD, if this has been addressed in some FAQ, then I guess that's that)
I would never advocate DMing like that, just pointing it out.
Sure you do.There is no saving throw to disbelieve mirror Image.
You don't get a saving throw for every illusion spell.
I don't know how long you've been playing Pathfinder/D&D, but collectively we've been playing for a very long time.
If you want to do some research on how illusions work please read Skip Williams' Rules of the Game.
All About Illusions (Part One)
All About Illusions (Part Two)
All About Illusions (Part Three)
All About Illusions (Part Four)
I think its better if you just trust us. We are not lying to you and we don't have an agenda.
If a spell doesn't list a saving throw you don't get a saving throw.
You will notice that some illusion spells have a saving throw and others don't.
Don't argue about it. Trust us.
If you want to do some research on how illusions work please read Skip Williams' Rules of the Game.
I don't think this has anything to do with the spell, martial versus arcane or any of those other concerns.
The problem is purely that pathfinder has no rules for closing your eyes. Given the existence of gaze attacks and similar visual dangers, I think that it needs them. I would suggest the following house rule.
"Characters may occasionally blink either voluntarily or involuntarily for short periods. This is considered normal and has no effect upon their vision or any roll mechanics, it does not grant any defense against visual-based or gaze effects beyond what is already supplied by any saving throws already existing.
A character may choose to close their eyes for a longer duration as a free action on their turn. This causes the blindness condition until the beginning of the character's next turn but also grants immunity to visual-based or gaze effects for the same period.
These rules apply to creatures with normal human ocular anatomy and at the GM's discretion may not apply to other creatures."
Personal Opinion Here:
In my games I go with the "free action to choose to be blind for the round" with that being the choice -- either you are blind or not for the round.
For my reasoning:
1. A round is 6 seconds.
2. Everyone is acting in the same 6 seconds.
3. While we are taking our actions in turn all the actions are still going off in the same 6 seconds.
4. Since all the actions are happening in the same 6 seconds you can't full attack with your eyes closed and not have them closed at the same time.
5. With your eyes closed you are effectively blind, which is why you get the benefit on your attacks.
There are bugs with this -- but they are the same bugs that happen whenever you have turn-based same time actions going on. So I don't feel too bad about it.
Besides, who says the bad guys can't do this to the players?Had this thread not been made, and instead the topic came up in Advice or General Discussion with the GM asking if this was a valid way to deal with PCs who were feeling pretty safe behind their mirror image effects, I guarantee the general response would be VERY different.
Who is this "The GM"?
Anyway, no.
This entire topic boils down to how do you blind yourself.
Maybe also, how much is too much metagaming.
|
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.
Blind-Fight (Combat)
You are skilled at attacking opponents that you cannot clearly perceive.
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
...
It work only if you miss because of concealment, not for other causes. Mirror image don't give concealment.
It will work against Blur and Displacement.|
|
@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.
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.
Step by step, why "the spell make sound" make no difference:
1) when attacking without seeing your opponent (because you are blind, darkness, or you eyes are closed) you attack the square and have a 50% chance of connecting with the guy if you roll high enough to hit him;2) the images created by mirror image stay in the character square, partially overlapping on him and generating a lot of confusion on his actual position in the square, but no confusion on which square he is occupying;
3) the sound do the same, it is generated in the character square, not in another square. So the blind fighting character has no trouble selecting what square he want to attack.
The spell effect on you is that you miscalculate the target location by inches, not by yards. That is why if you miss by 5 you still remove an image.
|
|
Besides, who says the bad guys can't do this to the players?Had this thread not been made, and instead the topic came up in Advice or General Discussion with the GM asking if this was a valid way to deal with PCs who were feeling pretty safe behind their mirror image effects, I guarantee the general response would be VERY different.
There is a reason why my magus don't like fighting people with blind sight.
I am in the field of "if you want to close your eyes, fine, but from that point onward your eyes are closed until the start of your next turn". No rapid blinking to get the right target.
@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.
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.Step by step, why "the spell make sound" make no difference:
1) when attacking without seeing your opponent (because you are blind, darkness, or you eyes are closed) you attack the square and have a 50% chance of connecting with the guy if you roll high enough to hit him;
2) the images created by mirror image stay in the character square, partially overlapping on him and generating a lot of confusion on his actual position in the square, but no confusion on which square he is occupying;
3) the sound do the same, it is generated in the character square, not in another square. So the blind fighting character has no trouble selecting what square he want to attack.The spell effect on you is that you miscalculate the target location by inches, not by yards. That is why if you miss by 5 you still remove an image.
Step by step why the spell making noise makes a BIG difference if you don't metagame:
1) The spell makes noise2) You never decide to close your eyes because closing your eyes in combat will get you killed
3) /topic
There is no way to 'figure out' that closing your eyes will defeat it, no practical way. The fact it makes noise cements that.
How does a fighter figure out he can close his eyes to gain a statistically higher chance of striking?
If: "It is just a visual figment" is in your reasoning, you're wrong.
There is no logical path for someone to 'deduce' that they have a higher chance of hitting the target while blind...
That is a side of effect of an oddly constructed rule caveat. A player can know this, but how does that 'character' know this?
A) He doesn't
B) He doesn't
or
C) He doesn't
I'm leaning towards C, personally.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@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.
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.Step by step, why "the spell make sound" make no difference:
1) when attacking without seeing your opponent (because you are blind, darkness, or you eyes are closed) you attack the square and have a 50% chance of connecting with the guy if you roll high enough to hit him;
2) the images created by mirror image stay in the character square, partially overlapping on him and generating a lot of confusion on his actual position in the square, but no confusion on which square he is occupying;
3) the sound do the same, it is generated in the character square, not in another square. So the blind fighting character has no trouble selecting what square he want to attack.The spell effect on you is that you miscalculate the target location by inches, not by yards. That is why if you miss by 5 you still remove an image.
Step by step why the spell making noise makes a BIG difference if you don't metagame:
1) The spell makes noise
2) You never decide to close your eyes because closing your eyes in combat will get you killed
3) /topic
1) Not if you are trained to fight while blind (i.e. you have blind fight);
2) not when you are fighting a guy that is composed of 6-9 images overlapped in a 5'x5' area that shift every few moments.You guys tend to forget the fist half of the phrase you cite:
"These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly."
If the sound is generated in the same square of the target, when I am fighting using blind fighting it will not hinder my attacks. I am targeting the square already.
1) Not if you are trained to fight while blind (i.e. you have blind fight);
2) not when you are fighting a guy that is composed of 6-9 images overlapped in a 5'x5' area that shift every few moments.
You guys tend to forget the fist half of the phrase you cite:
"These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly."
If the sound is generated in the same square of the target, when I am fighting using blind fighting it will not hinder my attacks. I am targeting the square already.
But what is the logic?
Oh look, an illusion with sight and sounds... I will defeat this illusion by closing my eyes so it won't affect me?
Uh... sounds.
How are you expecting to pinpoint your target if you have multiple points which are emitting sounds?
This is just, "What is the character thinking" talk right now.
What is the fighter thinking when he first comes to this miraculous eureka moment and tries to close his eyes to hit the target of a mirror image?
I'm aware that 'he is good without vision" Got that. But why would he even think that his chances go up without vision??
What piece of information does this fighter have, that is only found printed in a book? The CRB, to be specific...
If a fighter character knows some backdoor to defeating mirror image, there should be a really, really, really good reason for it.
It is counterintuitive to close your eyes to hit better. So, where is this idea coming from?
(Hint: It is coming from metagaming)
|
|
You don't pinpoint a target, you pinpoint the square in which the target is located.
There is no definition of pinpoint, so let's look what Invisibility say:
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
You see? It speak of pinpointing the square, not the creature.
That is why you have a 50% miss chance.
I'm aware that 'he is good without vision" Got that. But why would he even think that his chances go up without vision??
Picture this situation: you are in a room with little light, just enough to navigate and fight without penalties.
Someone is in front of you and behind him there is a very strong stroboscopic light pointed right to your face.The light will not only give you practically all the drawbacks of being blind, but it will be painful and distracting, to the point that you will close your eyes or avert them to avoid the light effect.
Mirror image is very similar. It generates overlapping images that (if it was something that could be achieved in realty) would make almost impossible to know where the spellcaster is.
So a that point, especially if you are trained at fighting without using sight, closing the eyes is a reasonable solution. You are "removing" the source of false informations and relying on other parts of your training and abilities.
That choice should have its costs, so the "if you close your eyes, they will stay closed till your next turn" opinion a good number of us share.
If the fight is one to one and you are adjacent to the caster, the cost is low. If you are surrounded by enemies the cost is high. It seem reasonable.
I understand how it all interacts in the sense of the rules.
But put yourself in this character's shoes.
You would close your eyes to attack?
Because IRL, that is a guaranteed way to miss a whole lot, and look silly, and get shanked.
Why? Because the spell makes noise too.
You’ve trained to rely on not-visual senses to guide you, but there are still all those extra sounds being generated.
Yes, rules say it works. But what makes the character ever even suspect that it would?
The only answer is that he wouldn’t, but his player would. Ie Metagaming.
|
|
Have you read the strobo example above?
That is the situation in which the character would be. Using the eyes is not only useless, it is detrimental.
In the strobo example the pain and alternating light blindness/obscurity would be more disconcerting than being totally blind.
In the mirror image example the constantly shifting images would be as disconcerting as the strobo, and going by other sense would be better.
The noise is locate very near the actual body. You will not miss more than you will miss going by sound alone. It is not projected away like in ventriloquism.
Going by noise in a general area (single square) is depicted by the 50% miss chance.
If you were capable of "perfect" attacks based on noise you would have some form of blindsight. You have a decent argument to say that mirror image work against sound based bindsight, not to say that it work against blind fight.
Have you read the strobo example above?
That is the situation in which the character would be. Using the eyes is not only useless, it is detrimental.
In the strobo example the pain and alternating light blindness/obscurity would be more disconcerting than being totally blind.
In the mirror image example the constantly shifting images would be as disconcerting as the strobo, and going by other sense would be better.The noise is locate very near the actual body. You will not miss more than you will miss going by sound alone. It is not projected away like in ventriloquism.
Going by noise in a general area (single square) is depicted by the 50% miss chance.
If you were capable of "perfect" attacks based on noise you would have some form of blindsight. You have a decent argument to say that mirror image work against sound based bindsight, not to say that it work against blind fight.
Okay, well, you keep talking about the rules, and are completely ignoring what I'm talking about. Which is the metagaming character vs player knowledge/tactics.
I only replied to your post because the conversation you replied to was about the metagaming angle.
The reason it is a 50% chance, is because it is a given that you must somehow pinpoint the target to a specific square, while blind. ‘Something’ gave away its actual position, and you’re going for it.
For the most part, this rule works fine, because pinpointing to a square usually means you somehow spotted it, listened for it, smelled it, etc. Or it did something dumb… but, I digress.
The problem here, is that someone wants to game the rules, by intentionally choosing to inflict a condition on themselves that realistically shouldn't actually help. But it does, because of rules interactions getting wonky.
A blind creature would have to figure out where the mirror imaged target is before he could even get that 50%. The player is trying to completely bypass this standard requirement for being blind, but picking only the most favorable aspects of the blind condition, because of how this condition, or at least the favorable aspects of it, interacts on a rules level, with a spell.
The character though, is a fighter. And would have absolutes no way, at all, to know annnnny of this.
It is blatant metagaming.
The reason it is a 50% chance, is because it is a given that you must somehow pinpoint the target to a specific square, while blind. ‘Something’ gave away its actual position, and you’re going for it.For the most part, this rule works fine, because pinpointing to a square usually means you somehow spotted it, listened for it, smelled it, etc. Or it did something dumb… but, I digress.
The problem here, is that someone wants to game the rules, by intentionally choosing to inflict a condition on themselves that realistically shouldn't actually help. But it does, because of rules interactions getting wonky.
A blind creature would have to figure out where the mirror imaged target is before he could even get that 50%. The player is trying to completely bypass this standard requirement for being blind, but picking only the most favorable aspects of the blind condition, because of how this condition, or at least the favorable aspects of it, interacts on a rules level, with a spell.
The character though, is a fighter. And would have absolutes no way, at all, to know annnnny of this.
The character knows which square the dudes in because he just saw him in it a half second ago. Nothing gave it away but the character already knowing where the enemy's general position was. Does your character never try swinging at the space the Invisible Enemy was in before going invisible?
I don't see the problem. Realistically, in a fantasy world there are going to be warriors who know how to avoid the defenses of magic. Magic does exactly as it says it does. If it says it can't fool you if you can't see it, then it can't fool you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wich is not in the rules but is is a reasonable houserule .Closing your eyes to become blind is also a reasonable houserule.
Or y'know. Part of the golden rule of the game is to use logic and common sense.
If you can still see with your eyes closed, I'll be done with the thread and admit you're right.
Unless you're in support of the grammar technicality of being ABLE to see but choosing not doesn't help you. Which is ridiculous.
|
Wich is not in the rules but is is a reasonable houserule .Closing your eyes to become blind is also a reasonable houserule.Or y'know. Part of the golden rule of the game is to use logic and common sense.
If you can still see with your eyes closed, I'll be done with the thread and admit you're right.
Unless you're in support of the grammar technicality of being ABLE to see but choosing not doesn't help you. Which is ridiculous.
$1 says Serum ends up in the hospital after trying to poke holes in his eyelids so he can prove some guy on the internet is having badwrongfun.
But what is the logic?
Oh look, an illusion with sight and sounds... I will defeat this illusion by closing my eyes so it won't affect me?
Uh... sounds.
How are you expecting to pinpoint your target if you have multiple points which are emitting sounds?
Because you don't care. They ALL come from the exact same square.
This is just, "What is the character thinking" talk right now.
What is the fighter thinking when he first comes to this miraculous eureka moment and tries to close his eyes to hit the target of a mirror image?
I'm aware that 'he is good without vision" Got that. But why would he even think that his chances go up without vision??
Chance to hit invisible: 50% or 1 in 2.
Chance to hit mirror image: 1 in 1d4+1/3L up to a max of 8 or 12.5%-50%Since mirror image starts with a minimum of two extra images, that means it starts at 33.3%, and only when an image is popped does it get to 50%.
What piece of information does this fighter have, that is only found printed in a book? The CRB, to be specific...
If a fighter character knows some backdoor to defeating mirror image, there should be a really, really, really good reason for it.
Step 1) See a single figure. May be a wizard.
Step 2) See multiple figures. Definitely a wizard.Step 3) Attack. Pop an image. Evidence that images are fakes designed to deceive you.
Step 3a) Mirror image is a staple spell. Discussed as a standard wizard tactic for defense, and by fighters who have encountered said wizards. Therefor part of standard fighter lore. Maybe not applicable to the first time a fighter encounters the spell, but definitely the second and later times.
Step 4) Choose: closed eyes for better hit chance or open eyes for better defenses. That is, is it worth blinding yourself long enough to take down the wizard?
It is counterintuitive to close your eyes to hit better. So, where is this idea coming from?
(Hint: It is coming from metagaming)
Nope. It comes from experience of many having to deal with a very common spell. You can argue the first experience might not allow this choice. Not the second. Anyone worth their salt will discuss what they should have done after the fight. It may be in the next tavern, or in an after encounter recap. It will happen soon after the encounter.
Later:
You would close your eyes to attack?
Because IRL, that is a guaranteed way to miss a whole lot, and look silly, and get shanked.
You miss more if you don't close your eyes, so you look even sillier. Getting shanked is still a problem.
Why? Because the spell makes noise too.
You’ve trained to rely on not-visual senses to guide you, but there are still all those extra sounds being generated.
And you don't care, because all those sounds come from the same square. You are not deciding between two squares. Thus, multiple sources of sounds don't matter.
Yes, rules say it works. But what makes the character ever even suspect that it would?
The only answer is that he wouldn’t, but his player would. Ie Metagaming.
Most disagree with you. :-)
Don't you ever discuss, in character, what your character should have done after a fight? Mine do, as do many I play with./cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The character though, is a fighter. And would have absolutes no way, at all, to know annnnny of this
Where does it say that a fighter can't take ranks in spellcraft? Where does it say that a fighter can't take ranks in Knowledge: Arcana? Where does it say that a fighter can't know things from training? Especially about how to fight things?
The metagamer is you. You have decided how others must roleplay their fighters. Fighters can be smart, and well trained. Fighters can figure things out. Fighters can talk to each other, and their parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, neighbors, ect...
There are plenty of ways for a character to know these things. It's called experience. And they get it after every encounter.
The character though, is a fighter. And would have absolutes no way, at all, to know annnnny of thisWhere does it say that a fighter can't take ranks in spellcraft? Where does it say that a fighter can't take ranks in Knowledge: Arcana? Where does it say that a fighter can't know things from training? Especially about how to fight things?
The metagamer is you. You have decided how others must roleplay their fighters. Fighters can be smart, and well trained. Fighters can figure things out. Fighters can talk to each other, and their parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, neighbors, ect...
There are plenty of ways for a character to know these things. It's called experience. And they get it after every encounter.
I wouldn't have objected if the fighter has spellcraft and know:arcana. Roflmao.
The repeatedly asking "how would he know??" somehow you take for me saying it is absolutely impossible for any character to know. But, no...
This fighter, like nearly every fighter, probably didn't have ranks in the appropriate knowledge or spellcraft.
And while Mirror Image might be a reasonably common spell, it doesn't mean that every random person in the world knows the spell description, or intimately how it functions, or how it specifically and strangely interacts with an attacker with the blind fight feat.
That is a highly specific, and uncommon, piece of information.
It is a counter intuitive piece of information. And it is a very strange tactic that would very likely lead to death in many combat situations...
This isn't How To Swing A Sword 101 stuff.
A fighter shouldn't know this. Unless he has a reason for knowing this.
That IS metagaming. The bad kind that people speak poorly about.
And yes. I am metagaming right now. The normal, regular, good kind of metagaming. Why? I don't respond to Rules Messageboard posts in character. It would be absurd to not be metagaming OUTSIDE of a game.
|
|
If your warrior live in a vacuum you can have some basis, but if he is part of a typical adventuring group he has seen this spell in use from level 4 onward. Maybe even level 3 if the arcane spellcaster in the group care more about his well being than helping the group or has other ways to deal damage/inconvenience the adversaries.
After witnessing what it do it can be taken from granted (unless his intelligence is really sub par) that he would have asked how it work and what can be done to fight a enemy using it. that don't require spellcraft, that require a minimal reasoning capacity and asking the guy that use the spell.
I don't think it's all that unreasonable for a fighter to see a confusing blur of motion where the wizard is and decide that it's better to close their eyes and avoid distraction. Even if the person had never encountered magic before and has zero ranks in knowledge arcana.
It's just common sense, particularly with someone who has the blind-fighting feat and so is obviously confident in their ability to fight with their eyes closed.
Uh... sounds.
You are making an assumption here that blind fighting is based on hearing your opponent. It's not. Nothing in the rules says it is. Being deafened has no effect on the blind fighting feat.
If the fighter moved in ready to swing when he knew where the wizard was he knows the location. Once the wizard moves he doesn't know the correct location anymore until the fighter chooses to open his eyes again.
Okay. For those who think the first sentence is the important one in the last little bit of the spell.
"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)."
What happens when sentence 1 is in conflict with sentence 2?
What happens when the guy casts Mirror Image, and then Invisibility... but the opponent can See Invisibility?
The attacker CAN see, but the Mirror Imaged guy is Invisible. By sentence 1 the spell works, by sentence 2 the spell doesn't work.
Which line is more important?
Either
A) The attacker can see, so must roll to hit a figment, regardless of the invisibility.
B) The mirror imaged guy is invisible, mirror image doesn't aid him.
Pick your poison.
|
An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)
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).
PF hasn't changed the rules consequences of closing your eyes, therefore this is unchanged: closing your eyes let's you avoid mirror image by accepting the penalties for being unable to see instead.
In this context, being 'unable' to see doesn't imply permanent blindness, but being unable to see the target while making the attack, because your eyes are closed.
The idea that fighters can't know about mirror image on the grounds that they're only fighters is as absurd as saying that Americans can't know what lions are because lions live in Africa, and it would be 'metagaming' to know that lions will eat you.
If you have the Blind-Fight feat, then you've been trained on all aspects of fighting when you can't see, including how to take advantage of this ability, what kind of situations it will be useful to blind-fight, how to use this training to avoid visual distractions by closing your eyes, etc.
Even without this feat, mirror image is a very common, low level spell. Pretending that adventuring fighters aren't allowed to know the practicalities of what it does is akin to saying that wizards don't know what swords are. A wizard who moves out of melee range is not somehow 'metagaming', and a fighter being faced by mirror image isn't metagaming if he chooses to close his eyes to take advantage of his blind-fighting training.
"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)."
What happens when sentence 1 is in conflict with sentence 2?
As written the two sentences cannot come into conflict. Between them they create three specific circumstances under which the spell does not work.
1) The attacker can't see the figments.
2) The caster is invisible.
3) The attacker is blind.
Only one of these three conditions has to be met in order for the spell to have no effect.
Either
A) The attacker can see, so must roll to hit a figment, regardless of the invisibility.
The first sentence says nothing whatsoever about what happens if you can see. Only what happens if you can't. I know the grammar overall sounds like a positive statement, but the word "must" turns it into a restriction. You can't assume that the inverse is necessarily true if the condition is not met.
B) The mirror imaged guy is invisible, mirror image doesn't aid him.
This is explicitly stated in the spell description. The first sentence doesn't contradict it. Therefore in a completely literal reading of the rules option B is the valid ruling.
Note this is purely RAW and I think RAI might well be different.
The idea that fighters can't know about mirror image on the grounds that they're only fighters is as absurd as saying that Americans can't know what lions are because lions live in Africa, and it would be 'metagaming' to know that lions will eat you.If you have the Blind-Fight feat, then you've been trained on all aspects of fighting when you can't see, including how to take advantage of this ability, what kind of situations it will be useful to blind-fight, how to use this training to avoid visual distractions by closing your eyes, etc.
Even without this feat, mirror image is a very common, low level spell. Pretending that adventuring fighters aren't allowed to know the practicalities of what it does is akin to saying that wizards don't know what swords are. A wizard who moves out of melee range is not somehow 'metagaming', and a fighter being faced by mirror image isn't metagaming if he chooses to close his eyes to take advantage of his blind-fighting training.
This is what skills are for. They represent character knowledge. If you want a magic savvy fighter character, they would have skill ranks to represent this knowledge of magical spell effects, counters, and what not.
A fighter without ranks in Knowledge Arcana should not have knowledge about the arcane. Not intimate specifics on ways to subvert or counter spells or their effects.
Is this really that weird? Or is this type of metagaming just so common that people don't even understand anymore?
Your example, of the Lion... to know a 'specific' quality about the Lion would require a Knowledge Nature check...
"You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR."
Lion has CR 3, which sets the DC at 13. Note: Knowledge skills are "Int; Trained Only". This means that a fighter (or anyone) without ranks in Knowledge Nature wouldn't know any specifics about them. They might know something like "Oh, that is a really scary looking animal, huh... it looks big enough to eat me".
////
Now, all that aside. I'm certainly not saying a fighter 'couldn't know' to do this. Just... that a fighter that knew to do this would have to have ranks in Knowledge Arcana, or else it is blatant metagaming. That's all.
They are using information the player has, that the character doesn't have. And then making up any excuse possible for why their character could know it.
There is a very easy reason the character would 'know' the spell and what it does, and 'know' that there is a tactic that he could use... to 'know' these things, the character should 'know' these things. lol... How do we represent what a character 'knows'? Knowledge skills...
Otherwise... metagaming.
|
|
What knowledge skill check must a wizard roll to 'know' what a sword does? To know it's a good idea not to be in melee range?
Spellcraft denotes specific, technical information about spells, much like a Demolition skill would represent technical knowledge of how to use explosives in a modern game. Do you really think that a person without any ranks in Demolition is metagaming if he runs away from a grenade?
Some things are common knowledge! I don't need ranks in Demolition to work out that standing next to a grenade sans pin is a bad idea! I don't need ranks in Knowledge(nature) to know that a lion wants to eat me!
And I don't need ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge(arcana) to realise that these seven identical wizards swimming about is some kind of illusion (whose technicalities I wot not of), and that closing my eyes means my eyes won't get fooled by things they can't see! I realise that shutting my eyes has consequences, and I make my choice with my (metaphorical) eyes open!
Characters in the game can know nothing about the rules of Pathfinder. But they can deduce things from what they can see. They don't know what 'Armour Class' is, but they do know what armour is. They can't know what 'Saving Throws' are, but they know that diving for cover when a fireball goes off is a good idea.
Mirror Image isn't trying to fool people into believing that there really are sextuplets standing really close together: it doesn't grant a Will disbelief save if interacted with. It is obviously an illusion, but the fact that it's nature is obvious doesn't prevent it from being useful. This also means that even people without any skill ranks realise that it is an illusion, and smart people can certainly realise that closing your eyes prevents your eyes from being fooled. This is not secret, specialised, technical information! This is not metagame knowledge.
It's just the application of logic by the character, based on obvious information the character does have. It's an illusion, so I'll close my eyes!
|
If your warrior live in a vacuum you can have some basis, but if he is part of a typical adventuring group he has seen this spell in use from level 4 onward. Maybe even level 3 if the arcane spellcaster in the group care more about his well being than helping the group or has other ways to deal damage/inconvenience the adversaries.
After witnessing what it do it can be taken from granted (unless his intelligence is really sub par) that he would have asked how it work and what can be done to fight a enemy using it. that don't require spellcraft, that require a minimal reasoning capacity and asking the guy that use the spell.
The thing that kills me in many of the arguments that fighters have zero knowledge of spells is that two things are ignored.
First is that people talk all the time, especially about iconic spells. Are people truly believing that Golarion is a world where magic is so exceedingly rare that it is virtually unknown?
I know quite a bit about a number of common diseases, but do I have ranks in Heal? I know quite a bit about movie plots of major movies and pro football, but I doubt I qualify as having a single rank in each. People talk in taverns and I'm sure the iconic spells like Magic Missile, Mirror Image, Invisibility, and Fireball are common.
Secondly, even without a rank, people can make knowledge arcana checks, and easy questions are DC 5 and common ones are DC 10, both of whom anyone can make with a check. Knowing that the images are fake is probably just a DC 5 because it is so iconic.
Also, the case in point is with a fighter with a specialty of blind fighting. I believe that character would close their eyes and use their instincts.
I would rule that intentionally blinding yourself to avoid the mirror image effect is a swift action, and thus they would be blind until their next action.
Your example, of the Lion... to know a 'specific' quality about the Lion would require a Knowledge Nature check...
"You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR."
Lion has CR 3, which sets the DC at 13. Note: Knowledge skills are "Int; Trained Only". This means that a fighter (or anyone) without ranks in Knowledge Nature wouldn't know any specifics about them. They might...
Lets see the full text regarding DC:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR, or more.
I would think a lion would be commonly known, thus the DC would be 8 not 13.
You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.
If the DC is not higher than 10, you can use Knowledge untrained.
DC 8 is doable by anyone.
/cevah
|
|
Your example, of the Lion... to know a 'specific' quality about the Lion would require a Knowledge Nature check...
"You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR."
Lion has CR 3, which sets the DC at 13. Note: Knowledge skills are "Int; Trained Only". This means that a fighter (or anyone) without ranks in Knowledge Nature wouldn't know any specifics about them. They might...
Lets see the full text regarding DC:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR, or more.I would think a lion would be commonly known, thus the DC would be 8 not 13.
You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.If the DC is not higher than 10, you can use Knowledge untrained.
DC 8 is doable by anyone.
/cevah
You're not wrong.
However, claws and teeth are not 'special powers or vulnerabilities'. You don't need a skill check to realise it would be a bad idea to stroke the lion.
The idea that you'd need to have skill ranks in Demolition in order to recognise that grenades explode is ridiculous. How many of us, on this forum, are trained in demolition? And how many of us untrained commoners would pick up the grenade rolling toward us and smell it to see if it's edible?
I agree with you: our characters are invariably effectively professional adventurers. Common low level magic is as much part of their working environment as swords and armour.
It's not metagaming to have your character close their eyes in order to avoid being fooled by a spell which, by design, is an obvious illusion.
It's not metagaming to have your character close their eyes in order to avoid being fooled by a spell which, by design, is an obvious illusion.
That is where we disagree.
I simply don't follow how closing your eyes in any way helps you. Instead of simply seeing a small cluster of illusions, now you see nothing.
Seeing nothing in a battle is worse than seeing a small cluster of illusions.
But, I keep falling back to real life analogies, as do you. And, I think this spell simply doesn't translate into anything realistic, when you break it down.
Given that the spell makes noise, on top of the visual illusions, if we were to picture this as a real life, let’s say 'tech' device's effect... where it put up a bunch of holograms complete with sounds all around a guy. Closing your eyes couldn't ever, ever help you strike the right target.
You could listen for the sound of him, and swing wildly, but... the sounds and the illusions are from the same area, just swinging wildly with your eyes open would get you better results.
That's why I'm arguing that the whole 'close my eyes' thing is absolutely meta-gaming. Because the only reason to do it, is because there is a numerical advantage to doing it per the rules, and not because there would or could be any such advantage if this had a RL analogy.
|
|
We do disagree.
Humans' sense of vision dominates all others, at least while it is available. The sound aspect of the spell isn't what makes you miss, it's the visible part; that's why 'not seeing' the illusion makes you unaffected by the spell but 'not hearing' it has no relevance.
Since even the uneducated can tell that the images are meant to distract, remove that distraction by closing your eyes is worth consideration, and if you are trained in blind-fighting techniques then it is an obvious choice, without any reference to game mechanics or metagaming.
Maybe it would be better if they had left out the bit about the mirror images making sound. I don't see the point of them having audio, needlessly complicates things.
|
|
Remy, if it can make you feel better, you can try envisioning it not as actually closing your eyes, but as trying to disregard what you see and concentrating on other clues about the enemy position (his shadow, his body heat, smell, whatever). As you are diverting most of your attention to different clues and so you are distracted the mechanical effects would be the same (50% miss chance, unable to take AoO, no dexterity to AC, etc) and the benefit of your training in blind fighting would apply as you are trained to make better use of the non visual clues.
Remember, the rules are always a simplification.
Missing a hit thanks to the 50% miss chance don't necessarily mean that you haven't connected. It can mean that you have hit at the wrong angle so that your attack hasn't any perceptible effect.
What matter for the rules is that the mechanical effects are applied. Then, as long as that don't change those mechanical effects, you can flavor them as you prefer.