|
I can think of twelve, and I've seen them all. Almost all seem to be manufactured from thin air the moment any enemy casts mirror image within 100 ft. of my archer.Close your eyes.
Blinded condition, -2 AC plus you lose your Dex bonus to AC.
I can't think of any reason a GM would argue you can't become blind by closing your eyes.
It all depend on how you go around doing that.
If you locate the enemy square by sight and then close your eyes till the following turn and attack him that way, most GM will have no problems, you take the good together with the bad.If you "blink", trying to avoid the defensive penalties of your choice, most GM will put their feet down and say no.
While you attack during your turn, that represent actions spread during the whole turn, so you aren't blind for only a split second if you want to fire your arrows at a target.
Generally speaking, with the high rate of fire of arrows, it is better to attack the guy protected by the mirror images with your eyes open. that way you will destroy one of the images with every attack (almost). That will be beneficial for the whole group.
If you attack with your eyes closed you don't remove images.
|
Wait, are you saying your archer closes his eyes and then attacks the enemy caster when they cast Mirror Image?
That is...a really bad idea.
Not really.
The perception check to pinpoint the square (assuming you can even do that at range) would be insane.
No need. I already know what square he's in. Then, I close my eyes.
You would then have a 50% miss chance on all attacks and some substantial to-hit penalties I'd wager.
Heartseeker is a beautiful thing.
And the to-hit penalty is just -2 for being blind.
Nevermind, just looked it up again. There's no penalty.
Archers are much better off just firing away to strip the images off. It's kind of a stereotype/iconic thing.
Why, just the other day our party was fighting a particular BBEG of a particular module who had Mirror Image up...for half of round one. My archer destroyed every image on his first salvo.
So you spent an entire round dealing zero damage? The wizard succeeded. Instead, why not just hit him 5 times instead of 5 images? :)
It all depend on how you go around doing that.
Yeah, it all depends on the GM. When I run it for players, I make them stay blinded until the beginning of their next turn. Most GMs tend to agree.
|
|
because by eliminating those 5 images you grant the rest of your team additional hits. And at the lower levels in the game, your 1d8+2 damage 5 times probably wont deal as much damage as your Barbarian pal's 1d10+10 2 times
If you're dealing 1d8+2 damage and you have five attacks per round, you're not much of an archer.
As far as I'm concerned, dutifully swinging or shooting at thin air is following the wizard opponent's instructions. I prefer to circumvent his defenses rather than willingly submit to being thwarted by them. Sure, there's situations where I'd rather eliminate images than completely ignore images, but my point was to demonstrate that yes, closing your eyes can be extremely effective against mirror image with a little magical, heartseeking assistance.
|
|
You would then have a 50% miss chance on all attacks and some substantial to-hit penalties I'd wager.Heartseeker is a beautiful thing.
Not for archers.
Heartseeker can only be put on a melee weapon.
Seeking is a better option.
|
|
You would then have a 50% miss chance on all attacks and some substantial to-hit penalties I'd wager.Heartseeker is a beautiful thing.Not for archers.
Heartseeker can only be put on a melee weapon.
Seeking is a better option.
'Tis what I meant. Got the names mixed up for some reason - but they do the exact same thing.
It's worth noting that the wording of Seeking very strongly implies it negates mirror image by itself, no closed eyes necessary.
The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment.
Though by a strict reading, it wouldn't. Miss chances are specifically called out as miss chances. And miss chances are a percentage.
The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
Mirror Image, on the other hand, doesn't give a miss chance. It just randomizes the target hit (either the wizard, or one of his images). It doesn't turn a hit into a miss like a miss chance does.
|
Though by a strict reading, it wouldn't. Miss chances are specifically called out as miss chances. And miss chances are a percentage.
Mirror Image, on the other hand, doesn't give a miss chance. It just randomizes the target hit (either the wizard, or one of his images). It doesn't turn a hit into a miss like a miss chance does.The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
So after I hit, you roll a die, and if you roll over 1/(# of images) the hit turns into a miss, and it expends one use of the mirror image power.
Sounds like a miss chance to me.
Though by a strict reading, it wouldn't. Miss chances are specifically called out as miss chances. And miss chances are a percentage.
Mirror Image, on the other hand, doesn't give a miss chance. It just randomizes the target hit (either the wizard, or one of his images). It doesn't turn a hit into a miss like a miss chance does.The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
So after I hit, you roll a die, and if you roll over 1/(# of images) the hit turns into a miss, and it expends one use of the mirror image power.
Sounds like a miss chance to me.
It isn't a miss chance. "Miss chance" is a rules term and is always specifically called out as such when it applies, and is expressed as a percentage.
When you hit an image with mirror image, you're not even technically missing. You're hitting the figment created by the spell.
|
|
First of all, there is no definition for "miss chance" within the rules. Just because it is usually accompanied by a percentage doesn't mean it is always a percentage. And by the way, rolling a d6, for example, and having to roll a 1 to hit the target and not an image is also a percentage.
Secondly, it is an illusion. So a seeking arrow can go around walls and through tiny holes but can't avoid an illusion? I equate a seeking arrow to be akin to a heat-seeking missile (at least in theory).
Edit: mirror image also says that if you are blind then the spell has no effect which would mean that all I would have to do is close my eyes and shoot the seeking arrow to hit. That makes no sense that it would only work if I closed my eyes.
|
|
It isn't a miss chance. "Miss chance" is a rules term
Really? Care to link us to where this rules term is defined?
When you hit an image with mirror image, you're not even technically missing. You're hitting the figment created by the spell.
'Round these parts, hitting empty air is called "missing."
First of all, there is no definition for "miss chance" within the rules. Just because it is usually accompanied by a percentage doesn't mean it is always a percentage. And by the way, rolling a d6, for example, and having to roll a 1 to hit the target and not an image is also a percentage.
Secondly, it is an illusion. So a seeking arrow can go around walls and through tiny holes but can't avoid an illusion? I equate a seeking arrow to be akin to a heat-seeking missile (at least in theory).
Edit: mirror image also says that if you are blind then the spell has no effect which would mean that all I would have to do is close my eyes and shoot the seeking arrow to hit. That makes no sense that it would only work if I closed my eyes.
Yep.
The rules for a Seeking weapon are quite a bit more descriptive:
Seeking: Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.
The parts I bolded above suggest several things:
1. There are other forms of "miss chance" than that provided only by concealment.
2. The weapon will do its job to find the target, so long as one aims into the proper square. Since mirror images share the same square, this seems enough to negate that spell's effectiveness against a seeking weapon
3. A seeking weapon is not fooled by illusions, such as invisibility, or ... mirror image.
It's certainly a matter of interpretation -- as to whether a Seeking weapon is attuned to a real target, or whether it's attuned to the wielder's intention. Reading the description as a whole, I'm not buying that it's based on the wielder's intention. The fact that the description feels the need to call out Invisibility is particularly telling to me, as is the mention of the word square, as opposed to target. Even if it is based on intention, surely the wielder intends to strike the real target in most cases.
Interestingly, it sounds like you would allow a seeking weapon to ignore the miss chance from Blink as well, which I find rather absurd. To each their own I guess.