# Blindsight versus mirror image

### Rules Questions

 51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I don't get why some say you need to close your eyes to ignore a mirror image. To me, striking a foe with mirror image should be just like striking a foe with invisibility that you have pinponted. I can't see the foe clearly, but I automatically know where he is, so all he has is a 50% miss chance from total concealment, protection agains precision damage (I think), and every time you swing, if you don't hit the real one, see if you hit the mirror image's AC to destroy one of the charges.

Kchaka wrote:
I don't get why some say you need to close your eyes to ignore a mirror image. To me, striking a foe with mirror image should be just like striking a foe with invisibility that you have pinponted. I can't see the foe clearly, but I automatically know where he is, so all he has is a 50% miss chance from total concealment, protection agains precision damage (I think), and every time you swing, if you don't hit the real one, see if you hit the mirror image's AC to destroy one of the charges.

This is actually completely incorrect. Mirror image is not concealment, it has a completely different effect. What you're describing goes against the text of mirror image itself.

What mirror image does, exactly, is:

-First, summon 1d4 + (1-4, depending on caster level) images.
-Next, wait for an attack that requires an attack roll to target you, then see if the attack hits.
-If the attack is a hit: "roll randomly to determine if the target is real or a figment". This means you roll 1d(x+1), where X is the remaining number of figments. You decide beforehand what number is You, and if it hits that number, you take the hit. Otherwise, destroy a figment.
-If the attack is normally a miss, check by how much the attack missed. If it missed by greater than 5, the attack misses completely. If the attack is a miss but within 5 of the target AC, destroy a figment instead.

No concealment, no 50% miss chance (unless you only have 1 figment left), no immunity to precision damage.

The user is visible, so you do know where the target is, and they all occupy the same square, so there's no confusion there, either.

I hit FAQ/Errata/StealthRejiggering...

So, in short... if a creature has cast Mirror Image, you are better off if you close your eyes (if there is one duplicate, you have a 50% chance to miss... if there are more, you have up to a 80ish % chance to miss - why take the worse odds?).

If you have blindsight (which is an improved version of blindsense, a non-visual location ability), you can ignore this figment (and honestly, don't need to "blink your eyes closed for a split second while attacking" - because that would be silly).

If you cannot see a figment (an illusion which is not actually there, but visually appears present) you can walk right through it... Verified by several "traps" in dungeons.

Kchaka wrote:
I don't get why some say you need to close your eyes to ignore a mirror image. To me, striking a foe with mirror image should be just like striking a foe with invisibility that you have pinponted. I can't see the foe clearly, but I automatically know where he is, so all he has is a 50% miss chance from total concealment, protection agains precision damage (I think), and every time you swing, if you don't hit the real one, see if you hit the mirror image's AC to destroy one of the charges.

Because if you read the spell... that is not how it works... You THINK you are hitting him, you are trying really hard... avoiding the normal "miss chance" with concealment. But WHOOPS! you saw the wrong "him" and hit "it" instead. You missed. Care to strike another image?

Closing your eyes is the way to go. 50/50 - as if they only had one image to begin with... with a slight negative... opening and closing your eyes is a free action, so it can be done before attacking and after attacking so you get your normal defenses as long as they don't "immediate action" your miss (and then it is still debatable).

Gauss wrote:

Malag, being attacked by an invisible creature does not make you flat-footed.

It is a common misconception that loss of dexterity = flat-footed. However, this is not supported by the rules.

Flat-footed => loss of dexterity bonuses.
Being attacked by an invisibile creature => loss of dexterity bonuses (and other stuff).
Being blind => loss of dexterity bonuses (and other stuff).

Many ways to lose your dexterity bonuses, but losing your dexterity bonuses does not necessarily mean you are flat-footed.

Oh sigh. Sometimes I forget that forum users are just too pedantic. Anyway, you said it right.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

I marked the bit that's important for this discussion.

Closing your eyes doesn't INHERENTLY beat mirror image. Being blind does.

So - the question is - does a creature with 'blindsight' qualify as actually being blind.

I think no. (Especially considering it specifically mentions them then having a miss chance - which a creature with blindsight doesn't have.)

Can you clarify your point? I can't tell if you're saying whether or not closing your eyes gives you the blind condition or if you're trying to make some other point.

I'm saying that that's the question to be answered. Does closing your eyes make you blind if you have blindsight?

I don't think that closing your eyes inherently makes you blind - but that's my opinion and not RAW.

I did come by that conclusion since those with blindsight don't have any of the negatives associated with blindness - but that's implication, not RAW.

Wow, you win the most tortured illogic of RAW, congrats dude.

Of course closing your eyes makes you blind, what other ruling would you apply to a PC who closes their eyes? Would you just apply all the penalties of being blind but state the PC doesn't qualify as blind?

I'm still in shock, are you joking, or are you actually presenting this as a reasonable interpretation?

Malag, it wasn't being pedantic to correct your statement. Some people erroneously believe that when you lose your dexterity bonus that means you are flat-footed. Some of those people even believe you cannot make attacks because you are "flat-footed" when you lose your dexterity bonus.

So, whether you meant it that way or not, you made an incorrect statement that warranted correction.

Gauss wrote:

Malag, it wasn't being pedantic to correct your statement. Some people erroneously believe that when you lose your dexterity bonus that means you are flat-footed. Some of those people even believe you cannot make attacks because you are "flat-footed" when you lose your dexterity bonus.

So, whether you meant it that way or not, you made an incorrect statement that warranted correction.

The fact that I am of rare few who already knew the difference, but just didn't pay attention to comment is more ironic. I can only facepalm at myself.

 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

maouse, the advantage to attacking a character with mirror image running, and taking the chance of hitting an image, is that your attacks might destroy the images, both for yourself and your allies.

--

By the way, does mirror image interfere with black tentacles, since the latter spell makes attack rolls?

Chris Mortika wrote:

By the way, does mirror image interfere with black tentacles, since the latter spell makes attack rolls?

Most likely not, because tentacles aren't creature itself but I could see comments going for either side.

Johnny_Devo wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
I don't get why some say you need to close your eyes to ignore a mirror image. To me, striking a foe with mirror image should be just like striking a foe with invisibility that you have pinponted. I can't see the foe clearly, but I automatically know where he is, so all he has is a 50% miss chance from total concealment, protection agains precision damage (I think), and every time you swing, if you don't hit the real one, see if you hit the mirror image's AC to destroy one of the charges.
This is actually completely incorrect. Mirror image is not concealment, it has a completely different effect. What you're describing goes against the text of mirror image itself.

The spell description is almost irrelevant. If you close your eyes, you can ignore the spell. I'm just saying you can ignore the spell with your eyes open too. All the spell does is to create an illusion on that square that makes it hard to determine where the real foe is. It would be just like trying to hit a foe with invilibility that you have pinpointed. No need to close your eyes.

Kchaka wrote:
The spell description is almost irrelevant. If you close your eyes, you can ignore the spell. I'm just saying you can ignore the spell with your eyes open too. All the spell does is to create an illusion on that square that makes it hard to determine where the real foe is. It would be just like trying to hit a foe with invilibility that you have pinpointed. No need to close your eyes.

Where in the text of the spell does it give someone the option to ignore the spell without closing their eyes?

The rules of invisibility provide specific rules on what happens when you attack someone invisible, and the rules of mirror image provide specific rules on what happens when you attack someone with mirror image. You don't just get to ignore it or pick another rules set.

maouse wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
I don't get why some say you need to close your eyes to ignore a mirror image. To me, striking a foe with mirror image should be just like striking a foe with invisibility that you have pinponted. I can't see the foe clearly, but I automatically know where he is, so all he has is a 50% miss chance from total concealment, protection agains precision damage (I think), and every time you swing, if you don't hit the real one, see if you hit the mirror image's AC to destroy one of the charges.

Because if you read the spell... that is not how it works... You THINK you are hitting him, you are trying really hard... avoiding the normal "miss chance" with concealment. But WHOOPS! you saw the wrong "him" and hit "it" instead. You missed. Care to strike another image?

Closing your eyes is the way to go. 50/50 - as if they only had one image to begin with... with a slight negative... opening and closing your eyes is a free action, so it can be done before attacking and after attacking so you get your normal defenses as long as they don't "immediate action" your miss (and then it is still debatable).

Closing your eyes is the way to go, as long as you don't mind getting sneak attack'ed by the rogue with the readied action. And as along as you don't mind not taking out the images which are confounding the rest of your party as well.

Not to mention, the person you're attacking, if you use this technique, can just ready an action to 5' step and attack you when your eyes are closed, thus guaranteeing your miss and attacking you with lots of bonuses for him, and penalties for you.

So, no, it's not a good tactic at all.

You guys realize how insane it is to say you'll have a higher chance to hit the foe by closing your eyes, right?

If what you are saying is true, then the only counter for Mirror Image is True Seeing, a 6th level spell. So, a second level spell provides near blanket immunity from all melee and ranged attacks and can only be defeated by someone who is 8 levels higher (talking Caster Level). Doesn't that seem to be really far-fetched when you look at some of the other blanket immunity spells (Pro. Evil, Shield, Freedom of Movement) and the limited situational protections they provide, versus "The next 4 attacks against are automatic misses"?
If you want to discuss semantics of the spell, the really logical fallacy is that the spell somehow knows whether someone trying to touch you is attempting to harm or help you. It succinctly indicates that only enemies are affected by the glammer, nothing about your allies.This creates a lot of ludicrous situations where the spell knew that your ally just got dominated because its giving you a miss chance against the bad spell he's about to fling at you, despite the fact you may have no indication of it, or a well disguised rogue getting a sneak attack off when you had no idea they were there) It succinctly indicates that only enemies are affected by the glammer, nothing about your allies.
I have always (as have two other DMs I have played with) ran it as follows:
1) Closing your eyes makes you blind. Blind creatures ignore mirror image. Blind-fight is really good for this, and you can even use such tactics at range if your perception skill is good enough.
2) There is absolutely nothing in the game (RAW) that causes Blindsight or even Blindsense to be a detriment (This isn't Call of Cthulu, you want to be able to notice everything), so imposing a penalty on a creature that has such an ability while giving those that don't isn't supported by anything in the game (the same is true of Darkvision and Low Light Vision).

Kchaka, and yet, that is what the rules and the math supports. :)

Wait, is this like the closing your eyes + Seeking bow argument?

Gauss wrote:
Kchaka, and yet, that is what the rules and the math supports. :)

I guarantee if you try to use that tactic and I'm GM'ing, the enemies will take advantage of your blind state and rip you apart. Blindness is a pretty bad condition.

But you're free to give it a shot.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Kchaka, and yet, that is what the rules and the math supports. :)

I guarantee if you try to use that tactic and I'm GM'ing, the enemies will take advantage of your blind state and rip you apart. Blindness is a pretty bad condition.

But you're free to give it a shot.

Right - that's why Blind-fight is my go-to feat when I have a spare in a martial build.

_Ozy_, I was not making any statements as to the advisability of this option, I was only stating that it is supported by both the rules and the math.

Please try not to put 'words in my mouth'.

I don't believe I put any words in your mouth.

I never said you were advocating for the tactic, just if you used it, what might happen.

Oook, so, if the mages casts mirror image, I got like 1 in 5 chance of hitting the real one, but if he then casts invisibility, making himself and all the illusionary copies invisible and stands on the same place, now I got 1 in 2 chances of hitting him.

So, what you are saying is that, hacking at nothing is easier than hacking at fake illusions, which I know that are fake, but somehow I'm obligated to hack at the illusions, I just can't hack at the square as it it had nothing, as if the foe were invisible, but what I can do is close my eyes and effectivelly make him invisible (along with everything else) and THEN I can hack at the square as if there's nothing in it, is that right?

Ok then, you guys are totally right. Let's continue to hack at those illusions, and pray they don't cast the spell again.

_Ozy_, I made a comment regarding the rules, you then took my comment regarding the rules and made a judgement that had nothing to do with my comment regarding the rules.

Ergo, you were commenting on something which I had not been discussing as if I had been discussing it. The phrase putting "words in my mouth" was the closest I could come up with to that.

Had you addressed my statement and THEN said 'and, if someone were to try this and I'm GMing...' then there would have been no problem. But you didn't even try to address my statement.

When you comment on someone's statement as if they had made some other statement you are in fact treating them as if they were advocating for that other statement.

Kchaka wrote:
So, what you are saying is that, hacking at nothing is easier than hacking at fake illusions, which I know that are fake, but somehow I'm obligated to hack at the illusions

You know the illusions are fake but you don't know which one is the real one

Kchaka wrote:

Oook, so, if the mages casts mirror image, I got like 1 in 5 chance of hitting the real one, but if he then casts invisibility, making himself and all the illusionary copies invisible and stands on the same place, now I got 1 in 2 chances of hitting him.

So, what you are saying is that, hacking at nothing is easier than hacking at fake illusions, which I know that are fake, but somehow I'm obligated to hack at the illusions, I just can't hack at the square as it it had nothing, as if the foe were invisible, but what I can do is close my eyes and effectivelly make him invisible (along with everything else) and THEN I can hack at the square as if there's nothing in it, is that right?

Ok then, you guys are totally right. Let's continue to hack at those illusions, and pray they don't cast the spell again.

1. Assuming he doesn't 5ft step so that you're hacking at nothing and have a 0% to hit.

2. Just because he's invis doesn't mean that you're hacking the square at random - you likely know pretty close where he is even within the square.

3. The illusions are specifically designed to mess with your aim. They may even be jumping in front of you or some such to mess with you.

Gauss wrote:

_Ozy_, I made a comment regarding the rules, you then took my comment regarding the rules and made a judgement that had nothing to do with my comment regarding the rules.

Ergo, you were commenting on something which I had not been discussing as if I had been discussing it. The phrase putting "words in my mouth" was the closest I could come up with to that.

Had you addressed my statement and THEN said 'and, if someone were to try this and I'm GMing...' then there would have been no problem. But you didn't even try to address my statement.

When you comment on someone's statement as if they had made some other statement you are in fact treating them as if they were advocating for that other statement.

Shrug, I disagree with your conversational 'rules', but to clear up any confusion I hereby state firmly that you were not advocating for the aforementioned tactic, and furthermore I agree with your statement regarding the rules, and my subsequent statements were intended as a follow-up to your comments instead of a criticism or disagreement.

Satisfied?

You said it, m8. You guys are completly right, I'm bow backing you guys 100%.

I was on lots of drugs when I wrote my first post.

 51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>