I think I've thought of something about why it feels metagamy to just close your eyes. How does your character actually know there's a benefit? For that matter how does anyone in the world know this? I can see how you could get to attempt closing your eyes. But what happens if you still miss? Or miss two attack or more in a row? Now you've not damaged the wizard but also not helped your party.
Remember that last line is strictly rules info, not spell description. So how do people know that in character? That's the real question.
|
That's a fair question, but the 'best' solution isn't readily available to the PC like it is to a player with some maths skills and a calculator. Therefore, a small sample of results from actual fights in game would likely have confirmation bias.
However, there would be a great amount of collective experience in the in game adventuring community, and good advice could easily be given or learned in game as part of a backstory. If a creature has trained in blindfighting then this subject has almost certainly arisen, and one reason to train this way is to help overcome this spell!
The accusation of metagaming is only solid if players have information but creatures in game have no way of getting an in game analogue of similar information. This spell allows creatures to work out possible solutions, of which eye-closing can be effective and this is discoverable entirely by the creatures in game.
|
|
I have no problems with fighters doing that. As long as players mean that they are accepting the penalties and possible consequences of being counted as blinded until their next turn.I think I've thought of something about why it feels metagamy to just close your eyes. How does your character actually know there's a benefit? For that matter how does anyone in the world know this? I can see how you could get to attempt closing your eyes. But what happens if you still miss? Or miss two attack or more in a row? Now you've not damaged the wizard but also not helped your party.
Remember that last line is strictly rules info, not spell description. So how do people know that in character? That's the real question.
Closing your eyes is a way of ignoring the visual distraction of the other images. It makes sense so long as you know they are fake, which should happen pretty fast.
It's only "metagamey" in the sense that the game doesn't provide any other mechanism to try to ignore the images. Closing your eyes is the only option provided.
I agree with that. Conceptually, all combatants are fighting continually and simultaneously. If you close your eyes for enough time to make a series of attacks then your eyes are closed whilst your enemies are making their attacks.
|
I agree with that. Conceptually, all combatants are fighting continually and simultaneously. If you close your eyes for enough time to make a series of attacks then your eyes are closed whilst your enemies are making their attacks.I have no problems with fighters doing that. As long as players mean that they are accepting the penalties and possible consequences of being counted as blinded until their next turn.I think I've thought of something about why it feels metagamy to just close your eyes. How does your character actually know there's a benefit? For that matter how does anyone in the world know this? I can see how you could get to attempt closing your eyes. But what happens if you still miss? Or miss two attack or more in a row? Now you've not damaged the wizard but also not helped your party.
Remember that last line is strictly rules info, not spell description. So how do people know that in character? That's the real question.
Closing your eyes is a way of ignoring the visual distraction of the other images. It makes sense so long as you know they are fake, which should happen pretty fast.
It's only "metagamey" in the sense that the game doesn't provide any other mechanism to try to ignore the images. Closing your eyes is the only option provided.
Closing their eyes for the full round is a good mechanic, since combat is simulate over 6 seconds. Worst case, other posters have the right idea with "enemy rogues just wait for their eyes to be closed and strike with sneak attack. That doesn't mean this character doesn't have uncanny dodge though.
How many stories are out there where a fighter type takes a breath and closes his eyes to get through an illusion and then strike the trickster when they think they're safe? That's pretty much what the blind fight feat represents - a better than normal chance of making this tactic work.
Making closing one's eyes take an action is a pretty bad idea. You'll make a lot of character upset if they run into a medusa/other creature with a gaze attack and have to waste half of the first round of combat closing their eyes.
I think I've thought of something about why it feels metagamy to just close your eyes. How does your character actually know there's a benefit? For that matter how does anyone in the world know this? I can see how you could get to attempt closing your eyes. But what happens if you still miss? Or miss two attack or more in a row? Now you've not damaged the wizard but also not helped your party.
Remember that last line is strictly rules info, not spell description. So how do people know that in character? That's the real question.
There are many many things that humans have figured out without reading the rulebook.
For centuries people in temperate climates have predicted rain by noticing when their cows lay down. That's right, all your cows just laid down? Getting ready to rain. This has been supported by modern science with recent studies at University of Arizona and of Northwest Missouri.
Point being that people figure stuff out. Some dudes grandfather flinched one time and it seemed easier to hit that jerk spell caster with images up. He told his buddies who laughed at him and called him insane but one day when they were fighting another jerk spell caster with images up and having a hell of a time they thought to themselves, "well, why not? its not like miss more?" Boom! it worked.
So those guys talked to their buddies and spread the word. Now part of basic fighter training when you get your weapon and armor proficiencies, they tell you try closing your eyes when you fight a jerk caster with images. Be careful though because it's dangerous. You wont be able to see anyone else so they can hit you easier, but you will have a better chance to take out that jerk caster.
Or you could just take knowledge: arcana, or ask someone who has it after you see mirror image for the first time.
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.
But...
Okay, yes, our sense of sight is primary, but our sense of hearing is a strong second.
Closing your eyes bumps it up into the primary sense.
The only other sense we could 'possibly' use to detect someone's position is scent. But even the full fledged "Scent" ability can't pinpoint a target's exact position. And human's sense of smell is really pretty pitiful, when you get down to it.
So, in anything resembling a real world situation... closing your eyes is going to reduce your effectiveness. Your sense of hearing is still getting messed with. So you haven't actually removed the distraction.
Yes, there is a numerical advantage to doing it, rules wise. But a character’s player making weird counter-intuitive decisions in game based purely on rules derived figures is by definition: Metagaming.
There are a number of reasons why this weird rules vs spell interaction is wonky. First of them being that 50% hit rate is far too high for being blind. Unless you have some nonsight based idea where they are...
Most of the time, when fighting something you cannot see, you need to pinpoint the target's square. This is that missing piece, the thing that cues you to where they are, and makes the whole 50% hit rate make some semblance of sense. Something has given away their location, either a sound, well, most likely a sound, haha. But, something has given you an insight into where they are, specifically.
But in this case, you simply don't have any clue where they are with that square, and closing your eyes just makes it all the worse, because you are still being audibly misled. So now you cannot see, are still simply guessing, and distracted.
If this was to happen in any real life encounter, closing your eyes would just get you killed...
But, the rules say that there is an advantage. Mechanically, numerically, the rules function so as to make being blind a better option than seeing in this weird corner case. But, even though there is a statistical advantage built into the game system, simply doesn't and shouldn't translate into character knowledge.
No character, ever, should know that there is a glitch in the rules and how it functions. At best it should be glossed over and ignored. Otherwise you’re metagaming, and trashing any sense of suspension of disbelief.
I guess that is fine for some people, and to those folks, more power to ya. I rather prefer metagaming free (or at least metagame lite) games, but I know that isn't for everyone.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I like how this entire thread is people effectively saying "Oh no, the fighter finally found one of the handful of ways he can trump a wizard!" God forbid someone use their brain and negate a spell with such an obvious weakness. What exactly is the problem with intelligence trumping this one spell? It's not like ye olde wizard isn't automatically superior in all ways to Thwak Bashington by default anyway.
Wow, I like how this entire thread is people effectively saying "Oh no, the fighter finally found one of the handful of ways he can trump a wizard!" God forbid someone use their brain and negate a spell with such an obvious weakness. What exactly is the problem with intelligence trumping this one spell? It's not like ye olde wizard isn't automatically superior in all ways to Thwak Bashington by default anyway.
It isn’t about class balance. Which is probably where the bias is coming from. Some people have the underdog victory to defend… I don’t care one way or another what opinion people have about class balance. I don’t think that has anything to do with whether you should be using a metagame solution while playing a roleplaying game.
In this case, the rules leave open a loophole that is purely mechanical in nature, but only a ‘player’ could know this, a character shouldn’t be capable of knowing this.
For a character to know this, they’d have to break the 4th wall. That’s fine for Deadpool, but less great for most fantasy adventure characters.
|
|
You honestly think people in the game world wouldn't at least consider the possibility that an illusion spell could be dealt with by taking away the primary sense it's supposed to be working on? It should go without saying that ost spell casting characters are generally aware of the weaknesses inherent to their magic, at least ones which can be feasibly explained in-game. This particular spell is one for which the weakness is blatantly obvious, in or out of character. Anyone knowledgeable on the subject of magic, that is to say most spell casters capable of using the spell, ought to be allowed to know it. And if they know it, why can't they simply inform Thwak Bashington of it? For that matter, what's to stop Thawk Bashington from having a spellcraft score of his own?
There are plenty of ways to be aware of that kind of weakness to a spell. This is one of those spells where the weakness ought to have a fair chance of being guessed at if you've got an int higher than 7.
You honestly think people in the game world wouldn't at least consider the possibility that an illusion spell could be dealt with by taking away the primary sense it's supposed to be working on? It should go without saying that ost spell casting characters are generally aware of the weaknesses inherent to their magic, at least ones which can be feasibly explained in-game. This particular spell is one for which the weakness is blatantly obvious, in or out of character. Anyone knowledgeable on the subject of magic, that is to say most spell casters capable of using the spell, ought to be allowed to know it. And if they know it, why can't they simply inform Thwak Bashington of it? For that matter, what's to stop Thawk Bashington from having a spellcraft score of his own?
There are plenty of ways to be aware of that kind of weakness to a spell. This is one of those spells where the weakness ought to have a fair chance of being guessed at if you've got an int higher than 7.
The. Spell. Makes. Noise.
Removing your primary sense, vision, removes your ability to see the illusions. Sure.
But your now primary sense, hearing, can still hear the illusions.
How are you better off?
You're not...
Except, the rules say you are. So...
There isn't an in game way to figure out the weakness of this spell...
Why would you close your eyes? You still hear it... drat.
Why would you close your eyes? Now your miss chance goes up.... hrm.
Why would you close your eyes? You can get shanked pretty easy now... shucks.
Why would you close your eyes? Because the rules says I can and that I will have a statistically greater chance of successfully striking the mage, so my fighter with no ranks in spellcraft, or knowledge arcana somehow knows all about this spell, don't worry about how, some guy told him somewhere, and is now closing his eyes on the battlefield. Yep. Also, I’m just a poor fighter, wizard are OP man! C’mon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I like how this entire thread is people effectively saying "Oh no, the fighter finally found one of the handful of ways he can trump a wizard!" God forbid someone use their brain and negate a spell with such an obvious weakness. What exactly is the problem with intelligence trumping this one spell? It's not like ye olde wizard isn't automatically superior in all ways to Thwak Bashington by default anyway.
Called it. =P
Remy, the noise the spell makes is irrelevant because the spell only relies on sight.
Fluff it how you will, my fighter listens for the telltale sound of dirt and rock being displaced then makes his strike. Or feels the disturbance in the air. The Force even.
High fantasy and no one talks about magic? No warrior ever jots down a few notes on the really prevalent defensive spells? This is like saying I need to make a Knowledge(Nature) check to know what a cat is. Many illusions rely on visual cues. Just a simple, "If ya can't see it, it can't hurt us!" in our notebook suffices.
|
|
Note my mentioning of having a party spell-caster make them aware of this vulnerability, the fact that it is possible (and easy) to acquire spellcraft on a fighter (if a bit of a waste of skill points most of the time), or the possibility of trial and error deductions, Remy. Besides, not everyone is a "role-player." Perhaps they are a roll-player at a table with other roll-players, as the case could be. Perhaps they see Pathfinder as nothing more than a video game done with dice instead of a controller.
In any case, my point was merely that it is entirely possible to have a legitimate way of knowing about that weakness in here. It had previously been implied that there was no legitimate way to do so when quite clearly there is.
Also Scavion, what'd you call? :P I take it you addressed this earlier in a post I didn't catch while mulling through the mountains of text?
Not only are you still likely to miss... and the illusions aren’t getting popped… but the wizard wouldn't even provoke when he cast another spell in your face. How is that a good idea?
|
|
Not only are you still likely to miss... and the illusions aren’t getting popped… but the wizard wouldn't even provoke when he cast another spell in your face. How is that a good idea?
It is not a question of whether or not it's a good idea. It's a question of "would this screw with the spell." The answer is yes. By the by, closing your eyes is a free action. Opening your eyes is also a free action. By the by, take note that the administrative post linked in regards to this subject earlier was not an official stance being taken. It appeared to be one of the staff sharing their opinion on how to handle it, not a ruling.
It is therefore perfectly acceptable that individuals, myself included, allow them to close their eyes, full attack, then open them again as their second free action.
High fantasy and no one talks about magic? No warrior ever jots down a few notes on the really prevalent defensive spells? This is like saying I need to make a Knowledge(Nature) check to know what a cat is. Many illusions rely on visual cues. Just a simple, "If ya can't see it, it can't hurt us!" in our notebook suffices.
The fighter who jots down notes about spells is the fighter with ranks in knowledge arcana.
The fighter who scoffs at magic, and sees it as mysterious and dumbfounding is the fighter without ranks in knowledge arcana.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
High fantasy and no one talks about magic? No warrior ever jots down a few notes on the really prevalent defensive spells? This is like saying I need to make a Knowledge(Nature) check to know what a cat is. Many illusions rely on visual cues. Just a simple, "If ya can't see it, it can't hurt us!" in our notebook suffices.The fighter who jots down notes about spells is the fighter with ranks in knowledge arcana.
The fighter who scoffs at magic, and sees it as mysterious and dumbfounding is the fighter without ranks in knowledge arcana.
This appears to imply that fighter must have knowledge arcana to take notes even in the event of a friendly wizard instructing him on how to deal with certain frequently cast spells.
Note my mentioning of having a party spell-caster make them aware of this vulnerability, the fact that it is possible (and easy) to acquire spellcraft on a fighter (if a bit of a waste of skill points most of the time), or the possibility of trial and error deductions, Remy. Besides, not everyone is a "role-player." Perhaps they are a roll-player at a table with other roll-players, as the case could be. Perhaps they see Pathfinder as nothing more than a video game done with dice instead of a controller.
In any case, my point was merely that it is entirely possible to have a legitimate way of knowing about that weakness in here. It had previously been implied that there was no legitimate way to do so when quite clearly there is.
Yes, I've said a few times now that it is metagaming, and that if that is how you like to play, more power to you.
I've also said that there are legitimate ways to know about spells. Being a fighter isn't by default one of them, however. Ranks in appropriate skills would represent having this kind of knowledge, though, of course.
So, no… nothing of the sort had been implied.
Not only are you still likely to miss... and the illusions aren’t getting popped… but the wizard wouldn't even provoke when he cast another spell in your face. How is that a good idea?It is not a question of whether or not it's a good idea. It's a question of "would this screw with the spell." The answer is yes. By the by, closing your eyes is a free action. Opening your eyes is also a free action. By the by, take note that the administrative post linked in regards to this subject earlier was not an official stance being taken. It appeared to be one of the staff sharing their opinion on how to handle it, not a ruling.
It is therefore perfectly acceptable that individuals, myself included, allow them to close their eyes, full attack, then open them again as their second free action.
Closing your eyes isn't defined as a type of action anywhere. You can home rule it however you please.
But note that doing what you propose makes no sense at all. The guy doing the free action eyes closed, full attack, free action opened eyes... is using the same 6 seconds doing so as everyone else is during that turn. How he can see while not seeing is a pretty tricky thing to explain.
This appears to imply that fighter must have knowledge arcana to take notes even in the event of a friendly wizard instructing him on how to deal with certain frequently cast spells.High fantasy and no one talks about magic? No warrior ever jots down a few notes on the really prevalent defensive spells? This is like saying I need to make a Knowledge(Nature) check to know what a cat is. Many illusions rely on visual cues. Just a simple, "If ya can't see it, it can't hurt us!" in our notebook suffices.The fighter who jots down notes about spells is the fighter with ranks in knowledge arcana.
The fighter who scoffs at magic, and sees it as mysterious and dumbfounding is the fighter without ranks in knowledge arcana.
To actually remember it? I mean... There is more than just one kind of fighter out there. Some don't dump Int into oblivion... many do. Which kind are you talking about? The fighter with 7 Int has a hard enough time remembering his own name.
“Pointy metal stick goes through silly small man in robes!” and then “Why so many silly robe mans are is there?” Swosh swosh swosh.
Edit: But yes. A friendly wizard teaching the fighter about spells is exactly the kind of thing that leads to ranks in knowledge arcana and/or spellcraft.
|
|
I don't think I'd call taking a 50% miss chance "seeing while not seeing." You have to choose either taking the penalty or probably popping a bunch of images. The images are not physical. If you know what square the caster is in and are no longer capable of seeing the images, what's to stop your 50/50 blind swing from tagging them?
I don't think I'd call taking a 50% miss chance "seeing while not seeing." You have to choose either taking the penalty or probably popping a bunch of images. The images are not physical. If you know what square the caster is in and are no longer capable of seeing the images, what's to stop your 50/50 blind swing from tagging them?
Seeing while not seeing.
He doesn't see for 6 seconds on his turn, but can see for the exact same 6 seconds on everyone else's turns.
That's unpossible.
|
|
Well, I can most certainly spend six seconds punching with my eyes shut and open'em afterward. Not sure why some guy with superhuman combat abilities in a fantasy world can't do the same. Anywho, this ain't something we're going to agree on. Might as well just agree to disagree, no? As for me, I think my insomnia is finally wearing off. Too bad it's at six in the fricking morning. This'll probably be my last post barring a second (more like sixteenth) wind. Happy gaming.
Bit of an aside, buuuuttt... Another good way someone could do it is treat closing your eyes as a swift action if opposed to the idea of a free action. That will still allow them to full attack while disallowing them to open their eyes at the end of the turn. I could see that being a fairly legitimate approach considering that it is a good middle ground. Okay, sleep time is now.
I have a theory on the whole sillyness of the spell making sound.
Your brain fills it in. You see a bunch of dudes moving about in a square so the magic makes you think they're making sound even when they're not. So closing your eyes effectively nullifies the spell entirely since theres no visual connections thus no auditory one. Think of how some illusionary walls work. You go to investigate it, fail your will save, and there really is a wall there! You feel against it and your mind makes it real. So once you've established visuals with the illusion then can it work the rest of it's magic, but when you break that visual component it all falls apart.
Jotting down notes would be the equivalent of asking a caster, using their knowledge for whatever check you need to make.
The whole everyone going at the same time is a ridiculous representation of the combat system and doesn't work at all once you bring casting into the mix. If everyone is going at the same time, why don't casters make concentration checks for the damage they take in that round to cast spells?
Well, I can most certainly spend six seconds punching with my eyes shut and open'em afterward. Not sure why some guy with superhuman combat abilities in a fantasy world can't do the same. Anywho, this ain't something we're going to agree one. Might as well just agree to disagree, no? As for me, I think my insomnia is finally wearing off. Too bad it's at six in the fricking morning. This'll probably be my last post barring a second (more like sixteenth) wind. Happy gaming.
In a single round, 6 seconds pass.
This is the same exact 6 second time frame for every person in combat.
The rules try their best to make this run fluidly, but when people start trying to do things, like inflict themselves with blindness for only their turn, the turn based rules break down into nonsense.
Example.
Fighter vs Wizard and Rogue
Initiative order: Wizard then Fighter then Rogue.
All 3 standing next to each other when the fight breaks out.
Wizard takes a 5ft step away from the fighter and then casts Mirror Image. This takes 6 seconds.
The fighter 5ft steps into melee with the wizard, closes his eyes, and swings at him a couple times in a full attack, and then opens his eyes again. This takes 6 seconds, the same 6 seconds the wizard just used. (His eyes were closed for nearly the entire time)
The rogue 5 fts into melee with the fighter, and goes to stab this eyes should be closed fighter, but, since he opened them at the end of his turn he can now see again, except this is still the same 6 seconds of time... the fighter should be blind right now.
So which is it? Is the fighter blind? Or is he not blind? If he is blind, it must be for everyone's turns that he is blind, because everything is happening all at the same time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a single round, 6 seconds pass.This is the same exact 6 second time frame for every person in combat.
The rules try their best to make this run fluidly, but when people start trying to do things, like inflict themselves with blindness for only their turn, the turn based rules break down into nonsense.
Example.
Fighter vs Wizard and Rogue
Initiative order: Wizard then Fighter then Rogue.
All 3 standing next to each other when the fight breaks out.Wizard takes a 5ft step away from the fighter and then casts Mirror Image. This takes 6 seconds.
The fighter 5ft steps into melee with the wizard, closes his eyes, and swings at him a couple times in a full attack, and then opens his eyes again. This takes 6 seconds, the same 6 seconds the wizard just used. (His eyes were closed for nearly the entire time)
The rogue 5 fts into melee with the fighter, and goes to stab this eyes should be closed fighter, but, since he opened them at the end of his turn he can now see again, except this is still the same 6 seconds of time... the fighter should be blind right now.
So which is it? Is the fighter blind? Or is he not blind? If he is blind, it must be for everyone's turns that he is blind, because everything is happening all at the same time.
So the Wizard doesn't have to worry about getting hit while casting even though technically everyone is going at the same time, but the Fighter does need to worry about getting hit when he closes his eyes for a half second.
Double standards.
So the Wizard doesn't have to worry about getting hit while casting even though technically everyone is going at the same time, but the Fighter does need to worry about getting hit when he closes his eyes for a half second.
Double standards.
Anyone willingly blinding themselves in combat should be vulnerable. Regardless of anything else going on in combat or why they're doing it, regardless of what class they are.
No double standards here. This should apply to any/everybody.
Conditions almost universally have durations, they are a per round/minute/hour/day etc kind of thing. So, if you choose to inflict yourself with a condition, it should simply last a round (or more if you please).
So the Wizard doesn't have to worry about getting hit while casting even though technically everyone is going at the same time, but the Fighter does need to worry about getting hit when he closes his eyes for a half second.
Double standards.
Anyone willingly blinding themselves in combat should be vulnerable. Regardless of anything else going on in combat or why they're doing it, regardless of what class they are.
No double standards here. This should apply to any/everybody.
Conditions almost universally have durations, they are a per round/minute/hour/day etc kind of thing. So, if you choose to inflict yourself with a condition, it should simply last a round (or more if you please).
Its a double standard because technically you are casting during everyone else's turn though you don't need to make any concentration checks unless someone delays *somehow* to your "turn" to interrupt your spell with a readied action despite everything happening at the same time.
Then you turn around and say, "Oh but the Fighter needs to have consequences that go beyond his turn for his actions."
worry about getting hit when he closes his eyes for a half second.
This is hyperbole, yes?
worry about getting hit when he closes his eyes for a half second.This is hyperbole, yes?
Not really. A second, maybe 2 to swing a sword. You close your eyes right before and reopen after the swing.
Its a double standard because technically you are casting during everyone else's turn though you don't need to make any concentration checks unless someone delays *somehow* to your "turn" to interrupt your spell with a readied action despite everything happening at the same time.Then you turn around and say, "Oh but the Fighter needs to have consequences that go beyond his turn for his actions."
Well, "I'm" not doing anything. I'm not here to defend wizards... I'm certainly not a wizard.
lol
"I'm" just trying to sort through the quagmire that is this spell, and how it interacts with a potential loophole that has no RAW method to be adjudicated.
But, yes, a standard action takes less than six seconds, so it could potentially be done during a different part of the 6 second round than an attack was. A full round cast spell, however, can be very easily interrupted by simply attacking the wizard any time during the cast. Because this takes the full six seconds to cast, he is vulnerable to interruption on everyone else's turns as well as his own.
Well, "I'm" not doing anything. I'm not here to defend wizards... I'm certainly not a wizard.
lol
"I'm" just trying to sort through the quagmire that is this spell, and how it interacts with a potential loophole that has no RAW method to be adjudicated.
But, yes, a standard action takes less than six seconds, so it could potentially be done during a different part of the 6 second round than an attack was. A full round cast spell, however, can be very easily interrupted by simply attacking the wizard any time during the cast. Because this takes the full six seconds to cast, he is vulnerable to interruption on everyone else's turns as well as his own.
So you're saying that although the fighter is using less of an action (Closing your eyes is easily a non-action) he needs to keep them closed for his entire 6 seconds(into other people's turns) despite a single attack being a standard action like a basic spell which you specifically said takes less than six seconds and suffers no fear of reprisal into other folks' turns.
This isn't even going into how ridiculous that concept of the combat system is.
Well, "I'm" not doing anything. I'm not here to defend wizards... I'm certainly not a wizard.
lol
"I'm" just trying to sort through the quagmire that is this spell, and how it interacts with a potential loophole that has no RAW method to be adjudicated.
But, yes, a standard action takes less than six seconds, so it could potentially be done during a different part of the 6 second round than an attack was. A full round cast spell, however, can be very easily interrupted by simply attacking the wizard any time during the cast. Because this takes the full six seconds to cast, he is vulnerable to interruption on everyone else's turns as well as his own.
So you're saying that although the fighter is using less of an action (Closing your eyes is easily a non-action) he needs to keep them closed for his entire 6 seconds(into other people's turns) despite a single attack being a standard action like a basic spell which you specifically said takes less than six seconds and suffers no fear of reprisal into other folks' turns.
This isn't even going into how ridiculous that concept of the combat system is.
Well, no... I'm not saying that. Take a look at my example again. I constructed it to avoid muddying the issue further in exactly this way.
There are reasons there isn't an official RAW way to handle this case...
Why? Because however it is handled doesn't make sense.
Why? Because the basic rules of combat are only approximations, and in some cases are very loose approximations. And in this particular case, all of those loose approximations clash and burn.
Also, because the spell was reworked in Pathfinder to occupy the same square, because that solved more issues than it created. It created this issue though.
Here is the list of things that make this case weird, and impossible to properly solve.
50% miss rate from concealment is an awfully silly number. A more accurate number would be related to the volume of the 5ft by 5ft by 5ft cube the target creature actually occupies. Try hitting an invisible ant in a 5ft by ft square with the swing of a sword... your chances of 'somehow' hitting it should not be 50%. Try swinging your sword at an invisible Ogre squeezing through a 5ft wide hallway? Your chances of hitting him should be well above 50%.
So, 50% miss rate, is a 'loose' approximation. It works because it is easy. And for another reason...
You have to pick the right square to begin with. That carries the built in assumption that something has helped you figure out where this thing is. It is still invisible, so you might miss anyway, but you have somehow deduced pretty darn close to where it is. By game terms this means you've identified the square it is in, but realistically, that happens when either you've spotted it interacting with something else, or listened for it. You've got a really good idea where this sucker is.
In that case, the 50% miss rate makes a bit more sense... but even still, having a good guess for where an invisible ant is, and having a good guess for where an invisible Ogre is are two very different things, yet mechanically have the exact same % of missing.
So, that is just plain wrong. But we gloss over it, because there is defined parameters for it, it is easy, and it is 'close enough' most of the time to not need further fretting over.
That takes us to the next weird thing, turn based combat. Unfortunately, there isn't much we can do about this without constructing a wholly different and remarkably complex combat system. It just isn't practical for a pen and paper game. Everyone's actions are both simultaneous and sequenced by turn. We just have to deal with that, and sculpt the descriptive narrative to fit as best as possible.
So that brings us to blinding ourselves. There isn't any proposed way to do that. It is simple enough to say "My character closes his eyes". But, mechanically, there is no well defined method for this. What kind of action is this? All of it is pure unadulterated speculation and opinion. Several people have differing opinions on the topic. Whether it should be a free action, swift, move, who's to say it can't be an immediate action? Or even a free action you can take on anyone's turn? How long must your eyes remain closed before you can't see? Many more questions than we have answers to.
You also have some weirdness in the general underpinnings of the attack roll/AC system as well. If a colossal great wyrm was to try to bite a wizard with even a dozen Mirror Images all occupying the same square... well, he should hit. His teeth are bigger than the square, how can he even miss? One chomp should crunch both the wizard and any adjacent allies too... Same with an Ogre swinging his oversized Greatsword... the sword itself should cleave right through the whole square, cutting through every single illusion and the wizard.
So, we are left with;
A poorly designed/unrealistic spell.
A weird bit of timing with turn based combat.
How do you blind yourself? No defined parameters.
Concealment granting the arbitrary 50% miss.
And attacks and related combat rules not modeling anything remotely viable or imaginable.
And... because there isn't anything written for how to handle all of these things all colliding in one horrific example of what is wrong with each of them... we can only discuss and/or analyze the different pieces of this puzzle to figure out the best and most appropriate way to adjudicate it.
The one thing I'm dead certain of, though, is that using this tactic in game is metagaming. It is exploiting a bunch of rules that don't quite mesh well together for an in game statistical advantage.
|
|
The one thing I'm dead certain of, though, is that using this tactic in game is metagaming. It is exploiting a bunch of rules that don't quite mesh well together for an in game statistical advantage.
I agree with most of your last post, but you then jump to this conclusion!
Yeah, the rules are only an approximation. But that doesn't mean we stop trying to make as much sense of it as we can.
Yeah, there is no defined game mechanic for opening/closing your own eyes. That doesn't stop us adjudicating when we do, and it certainly doesn't stop our characters closing our eyes.
Yeah, it's possible for players to calculate the 'best' solution based on knowledge of game mechanics. But that does not prevent the characters, in game and without any rules knowledge whatsoever, to gather the evidence they can know and make decisions accordingly. If they do that, then it is not metagaming.
Even creatures that have never heard of the spell could use the evidence of their senses and their minds to realise that this is an effect which messes with their sight; the spell is not trying to convince you that there is an unusually affectionate family of septuplets expressing themselves through modern dance! It relies on the fact that even though you know it's not real, that you still can't tell which image is the real thing. Knowing that (or working it out-not difficult) then closing your eyes to avoid being messed with makes total sense to the character! So, not metagaming.
I agree with the 'blind until your next action' ruling, and the 'not-an-action to open or close your eyes' ruling, because even though the rules are not a perfect representation of combat, our rulings should be leaning towards making sense, not abandoning the struggle entirely.
But the in game reality is rarely one of ignorance of the spell! It's common, low level, and surely as much discussed and coached as 'how to best fight goblins'.
Blindness does have rules consequences. I'm not saying that 'blinking' should be a way for players to have their characters get round a spell without suffering the consequences of having your eyes shut! I'm saying that the disadvantages of doing so be part of the legitimate choice a creature would make! That creature does not have access to game mechanics, but does have access to information in its 'real' life, and can make decisions based on that. So, not metagaming.
|
|
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.)
The 3.5 version spells out that closing your eyes:-
• stops the spell from affecting you. This is not only a game mechanic, but is obvious to creatures that closing you eyes means you can't be misled by your sight. Sound won't help you pinpoint accurately anyway.
• closing your eyes makes you effectively blind. Again, this knowledge is not only a game mechanic, but is discoverable in game! So, not metagaming.
The 3.5 version expects creatures to consider closing eyes to defeat the spell! It's not a surprise! But, you exchange the blindness penalty for the spell effects. Choice is your's, brave adventurer!
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).
The PF version might be worded slightly differently, but still let's you know that not seeing it equals not being fooled by it, at the cost of suffering blindness penalties. All of which is obvious to creatures, without any knowledge of game mechanics whatsoever.
So, not metagaming.
But how long should they be blind I believe is the question. Should it basically be just their turn or for a full round?
|
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.
Unless that warrior is specifically trained to be able to be fairly comepentent in battle without his vision.
You know, like having the Blind-Fight feat chain.
|
|
Wow, I like how this entire thread is people effectively saying "Oh no, the fighter finally found one of the handful of ways he can trump a wizard!" God forbid someone use their brain and negate a spell with such an obvious weakness. What exactly is the problem with intelligence trumping this one spell? It's not like ye olde wizard isn't automatically superior in all ways to Thwak Bashington by default anyway.
A LOT of people on this forum are violently opposed to anything mundane ever being even remotely effective against anything magical.
The really unfortunate bit is that sometimes it seems that some of the developers lean that way.
Wow, I like how this entire thread is people effectively saying "Oh no, the fighter finally found one of the handful of ways he can trump a wizard!" God forbid someone use their brain and negate a spell with such an obvious weakness. What exactly is the problem with intelligence trumping this one spell? It's not like ye olde wizard isn't automatically superior in all ways to Thwak Bashington by default anyway.A LOT of people on this forum are violently opposed to anything mundane ever being even remotely effective against anything magical.
The really unfortunate bit is that sometimes it seems that some of the developers lean that way.
Those people should watch Heroes and pay close attention to Noah Bennett.
"Why are you thinking in Japanese?"
"Why are my feet in a bucket of water?"
"Why am I in a walk-in freezer?"
A poorly designed/unrealistic spell
I hate when magic is unrealistic.
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.)The 3.5 version spells out that closing your eyes:-
• stops the spell from affecting you. This is not only a game mechanic, but is obvious to creatures that closing you eyes means you can't be misled by your sight. Sound won't help you pinpoint accurately anyway.
• closing your eyes makes you effectively blind. Again, this knowledge is not only a game mechanic, but is discoverable in game! So, not metagaming.
The 3.5 version expects creatures to consider closing eyes to defeat the spell! It's not a surprise! But, you exchange the blindness penalty for the spell effects. Choice is your's, brave adventurer!
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).The PF version might be worded slightly differently, but still let's you know that not seeing it equals not being fooled by it, at the cost of suffering blindness penalties. All of which is obvious to creatures, without any knowledge of game mechanics whatsoever.
So, not metagaming.
I agree in a sense. This was perfectly valid in 3.5, but the spell in 3.5 had a different effect.
It created images in multiple squares. This means that to gain the 50% miss chance, you had to pinpoint the target's square still.
So, while closing your eyes defeated the illusions, it left you blind and at square one. You still had to figure out where the target was. You could simply guess, but that wasn't any better than attacking a random image.
There were ways to do it, as there are always ways to figure out which square something is actually in. But it wasn't always easy for just anyone.
Because of the remodeling of the spell for Pathfinder, all of the images now occupy the same square. This solved a lot of weirdness from the 3.5 version. Like what if there wasn't enough nearby squares, or what if the mage was standing on a spire, would the images be floating? Etc.
The spell itself does something that shouldn't actually be possible, in the Pathfinder version. Think about it.
There should be no way that swinging blindly into a square has a higher chance to hit than striking at a collage of images that occupy the square.
You can make the exact same swings of your blade through a square wildly that you could with your eyes closed. The spell itself shouldn't offer more than 50% miss rate, if all the images occupy the same square. Not knowing where, at all, in the square an opponent is should be the upper limit for missing.
Ultimately, the changing of the spell, while it solved some issues, makes the spell 'internally inconsistent'. Most of the 'unrealistic' stuff is hand waved by simply calling to the power of magic or imagination, but this spell is actually 'faulty'. The mechanical effects that it provides fail to even remotely match the described effects of the spell.
If you can attack a square for a 50% chance of hitting something in it, no illusions (that you recognize as such) could ever cause a higher miss chance than this... you would simply use the same wide swipes you make when attacking blind, swooshing through as much of the area as you could with each stroke.
The only way I (personally) could rectify this spell, the concealment rules, and this tactic... would be to fudge the spell effects a bit.
/////
I would probably make the call that the illusions don't all perfectly fit into a pretty 5ft x 5ft square, that they are always jostling about and extending into other squares too, and that the fighter needs to somehow figure out which square to strike into, and give several squares as possible options that the illusions/mage were in at the time he closed his eyes.
But that is pure house ruling right there.