| 28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What action type do I need to close my eyes, and what action is it to open them?
This matters for the purpose of mirror image and the Blinded Blade Style feat progression. It may also matter in other cases such as gaze attacks.
The bolded question is what is being FAQ'd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always ruled it to be a free action that lasts until your next turn. Meaning it can only be done on your turn, and that you can't avert your eyes during your turn and act with a chance not to make the save and then close your eyes at the end of your turn to completely avoid the save if the monster wants to target you with their attack.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
full round action for each and they provoke ;)
Coming up next: defecation - move, standard or full round?
Good thing there's a feat to reduce it to a Swift Action.
Too bad you can't do so when you're Nauseated...
I think this is one of those moments where game mechanics and real life are at a conflict...considering that you can voluntarily blink or close your eyes several times in the course of one round...immediate makes more sense, but as has been said, it would invalidate gaze attacks and similar actions...
Coming up next: defecation - move, standard or full round?
Can we weaponize it?
Can we have as an action option instead of either of those: thus in a full attack you can defecate for each of your attacks?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is one of those moments where game mechanics and real life are at a conflict...considering that you can voluntarily blink or close your eyes several times in the course of one round...immediate makes more sense, but as has been said, it would invalidate gaze attacks and similar actions...
This came out of a discussion on Blinded Blade Style. Obviously you have the swift to enter the style, but it specifically calls out just having your eyes closed is enough for the benefits to apply.
So...blurred/mirror imaged opponent, you can close your eyes and get all of the style and blindfighting feat benefits. Great. Is opening your eyes a free action? Not an action? If it's not defined, then it opens up a lot of PFS questions - is it not an action, as averting your eyes for a gaze attack is called out as, then the player can say his eyes are shut to attack the blurred/mirror imaged/invisible target, but then eyes are open to avoid penalties for incoming fireballs, thrown boulders, etc. Then closed for an AOO. Then open again. If it's a free action then it's only on the character's turn. Choose once, then wait until your next turn.
Shutting your eyes, as we all know, shouldn't be considered an action in the realms of the real world, but it has some important game mechanic implications.
I don't see how it can be argued for anything other than a free/non-action.
Swift action seems needlessly punitive. Immediate action screws with gazes and there's no way it's going to be a standard or a move action.
Ask your GM.
My ruling is a free action that must be decided for the entire turn. You can't attack and then change at the end of your attack, you are either eyes open or eyes closed for the entire turn.
Well if it's simply a free action, combating mirror image would pretty much always be 50% miss chance from total concealment (less that with the right feats or abilities). One would simple close eyes before each attack and open them again afterwards. The only repercussion for such would be if enemies ready actions to attack while the character has eyes closed.
With blinded blade style, one can end up getting scent and blindsense or blindsight 30 ft when eyes are closed. If closing/opening eyes is a free action, one could simply be blinking repeatedly in a round to benefit from scent + blindsense/blindsight for close range and regular vision for long range. If that was the case, might as well have made those extra senses constant while in the style during your turn. End of turn would have to commit to opened or closed eyes though with a free action; or even out of turn if it ends up being not an action one could do outside your turn.
Back in 2010 there was quite a bit of pushback against simply closing eyes to negate the main advantages of mirror image. Sean K Reynolds left his input that to gain the "benefits" of being blind, if any depending on the situation, should at least be a move action and needing to remain that way for rest of the character's round. Granted that was 6 years ago and he was just stating his opinion the matter with no official ruling.
I'd say a non-action you can only do on your turn. I don't see an issue with opening or closing your eyes multiple times as the action comes with it's own positives/negatives. I can't see the action taking so long that it could only be done once in 6 seconds. IMO it doesn't make sense that opening/closing eyes can be done less often than drawing arrows...
Coming up next: defecation - move, standard or full round?
If you have a colon of holding it's a move that doesn't provoke.
Protoman: With mirror image you go from one second level spell effect [mirror image] to a 3rd level spell effect [Displacement]. Not seeing the issue.
With blinded blade style, I see no reason you wouldn't get the senses on your turn. On others turn, I'd say you have to stay eyes open or closed until your turn comes back around.
Free or non-action are the only logical choices.
Immediate is not a logical choice - unless you want to suggest that by intentionally closing my eyes outside of my turn I can no longer cast feather fall for the next six seconds.
Remember immediate/swift actions are a tightly limited resource of once per round, and are generally used for very specific feats and class abilities.
I do agree it should be a 'lasts till your next turn' though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Normally I don't like talking about house rules in the Rules area but to me it sounds like being a free action makes sense. I'd also say it should qualify as provoking an attack of opportunity because I can't imagine much that says "letting your guard down" quite like closing your eyes.
Obviously free or non-action. The real issue is how many times, and the answer is either one or two.
"Twice" is intuitive and easy to adjudicate. "Once" actually fits the simultaneous-action-resolved-by-turns nature of combat better.
Normally I don't like talking about house rules in the Rules area but to me it sounds like being a free action makes sense. I'd also say it should qualify as provoking an attack of opportunity because I can't imagine much that says "letting your guard down" quite like closing your eyes.
OTOH, acquiring or having the blinded condition in any other fashion does not cause you to provoke.
|
I've always ruled it to be a free action that lasts until your next turn. Meaning it can only be done on your turn, and that you can't avert your eyes during your turn and act with a chance not to make the save and then close your eyes at the end of your turn to completely avoid the save if the monster wants to target you with their attack.
Side note: it's a common misconception that gaze attacks happen on the creature's turn. From the universal monster rules on gaze attacks:
Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order.
The check happens at the beginning of the player's turn, passively.
The monster, as a standard action, can "gaze" at a person to affect them on the monster's turn as well, but that only affects one target.
The confusion is compounded with a number of low CR monsters having a "gaze attack" that is activated that DOES happen on the creature's turn...but for your standard gaze attack, it happens on the player's turn.
but what action? The universal monster rules for gaze attacks say you can do them, but don't specify an action.
Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature’s face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a reflective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment against that opponent.
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
That leads me to believe that they are simply options to declare (not an action).
Another aside: since you can keep your back to the creature, you do NOT have to be blind; your target only needs total concealment.
I think this is one of those moments where game mechanics and real life are at a conflict...considering that you can voluntarily blink or close your eyes several times in the course of one round...immediate makes more sense, but as has been said, it would invalidate gaze attacks and similar actions...
The point of the saving throw for gaze attacks, and the attack rolls associated with some of them IS to see if you avert your gaze or close your eyes in time, or whether the monster is faster at locking it's gaze before you do so.
This is turn based combat, not real time, so there are going to be differences from real life.
I've always ruled it to be a free action that lasts until your next turn. Meaning it can only be done on your turn, and that you can't avert your eyes during your turn and act with a chance not to make the save and then close your eyes at the end of your turn to completely avoid the save if the monster wants to target you with their attack.
Side note: it's a common misconception that gaze attacks happen on the creature's turn. From the universal monster rules on gaze attacks:
Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order.The check happens at the beginning of the player's turn, passively.
The monster, as a standard action, can "gaze" at a person to affect them on the monster's turn as well, but that only affects one target.
The confusion is compounded with a number of low CR monsters having a "gaze attack" that is activated that DOES happen on the creature's turn...but for your standard gaze attack, it happens on the player's turn.
but what action? The universal monster rules for gaze attacks say you can do them, but don't specify an action.
Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature’s face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a reflective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment against that opponent.
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
That leads me to believe that they are simply options to declare (not an action).
Another aside: since you can keep your back to the creature, you do NOT have to be blind; your target only needs total concealment.
It's a common misconception that the gaze attack only happens reactively.
A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range. That opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an opponent to save against a creature's gaze twice during the same round, once before the opponent's action and once during the creature's turn.
If you read my statement carefully you should understand that I'm giving consideration to both the reactive usage of a gaze attack and the standard action version.
So, the point is you should be affected your entire round for whatever your choice is, so that s%!% doesn't get to metagamey with turn order. Theoretically every thing is happening at the same time, not with each character acting in order. But for the convenience of running a game we have to use turn order. To ensure that everything is fair and equitable it is only reasonable that once the selection is made on a turn it should continue until their next turn. This way the gaze attack can be used purposefully against an opponent, assuming they did not blindfold themselves.
If you ruled that it can be done more than once a turn a creature could act only averting his eyes risking a 50% chance to be affected by the gaze, and then at the end of his turn close his eyes to complete negate the chance. This robs the creature of the chance to use the gaze attack actively instead of passively, which is why it should be allowed only once per round to decide whether you are averting/closing your eyes.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To ensure that everything is fair and equitable it is only reasonable that once the selection is made on a turn it should continue until their next turn.
I think I've lost track of the discussion (or at least, part of it). Hypothetically, if opening and closing your eyes is a free action (able to be performed repeatedly, but only on one's own turn), what specifically is the non-fair/non-equitable scenario that you and others are so afraid will happen? Did I miss it somewhere?
To ensure that everything is fair and equitable it is only reasonable that once the selection is made on a turn it should continue until their next turn.I think I've lost track of the discussion (or at least, part of it). Hypothetically, if opening and closing your eyes is a free action (able to be performed repeatedly, but only on one's own turn), what specifically is the non-fair/non-equitable scenario that you and others are so afraid will happen? Did I miss it somewhere?
I believe you read my post before I finished my edit. Please see my last paragraph.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe you read my post before I finished my edit. Please see my last paragraph.To ensure that everything is fair and equitable it is only reasonable that once the selection is made on a turn it should continue until their next turn.I think I've lost track of the discussion (or at least, part of it). Hypothetically, if opening and closing your eyes is a free action (able to be performed repeatedly, but only on one's own turn), what specifically is the non-fair/non-equitable scenario that you and others are so afraid will happen? Did I miss it somewhere?
If you ruled that it can be done more than once a turn a creature could act only averting his eyes risking a 50% chance to be affected by the gaze, and then at the end of his turn close his eyes to complete negate the chance. This robs the creature of the chance to use the gaze attack actively instead of passively, which is why it should be allowed only once per round to decide whether you are averting/closing your eyes.
So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?
It's kinda like this
I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kinda like this
I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.
So the thing that's not fair or equitable is that the effects of the wizard's 2nd-level spell are limited to merely a 50% miss chance, instead of getting either a higher miss chance or additional concealment benefits?
So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?
If the PC wants to completely avoid the monsters gaze attack, then yes.
Or the can choose to avert their eyes the whole round, and have a 50% miss chance during their turn and during the creatures turn (if it chooses to use it gaze attack as a standard).
Or they can choose neither and make the save against the reactive gaze affect and possibly on the monster's turn if it uses its gaze attack then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the thing that's not fair or equitable is that the wizard cast a 2nd-level spell and now doesn't get to add any benefits on top of having a 50% miss chance on all incoming attacks?It's kinda like this
I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.
Note that the wizards 2rd level spell gets 'downgraded' to a 3rd level spell effect [Displacement] by doing that. I'm REALLY searching for the unfairness and not finding it.
So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?If the PC wants to completely avoid the monsters gaze attack, then yes.
Or the can choose to avert their eyes the whole round, and have a 50% miss chance during their turn and during the creatures turn (if it chooses to use it gaze attack as a standard).
Still not seeing it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?If the PC wants to complete avoid the monsters gaze attack, then yes.
I'm trying to imagine the encounter where getting immunity to gaze attacks in return for always being flat-footed (and opponents getting +2 to hit) is somehow abusive or unfair, but I just can't seem to think of such a scenario.
I'm trying to imagine the encounter where getting immunity to gaze attacks in return for always being flat-footed (and opponents getting +2 to hit) is somehow abusive or unfair, but I just can't seem to think of such a scenario.So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?If the PC wants to complete avoid the monsters gaze attack, then yes.
And the creature can ready an action to gaze during the character's turn if it really wants to actively gaze.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?If the PC wants to completely avoid the monsters gaze attack, then yes.
Or the can choose to avert their eyes the whole round, and have a 50% miss chance during their turn and during the creatures turn (if it chooses to use it gaze attack as a standard).
Or they can choose neither and make the save against the reactive gaze affect and possibly on the monster's turn if it uses its gaze attack then.
You know, re-reading your post, I'm wondering if perhaps you misread mine. Because it sort of looks like you're saying "Yes, this is the fair thing that needs to happen" in response to me clarifying what you said would be UNfair.
The thing you described as being UNfair involved the PC spending all the monsters' turns blinded. Was that not what you meant?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Closing your eyes is overpowered"...
*sigh*
This is why this game is so unbalanced...
So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?If the PC wants to completely avoid the monsters gaze attack, then yes.
Or the can choose to avert their eyes the whole round, and have a 50% miss chance during their turn and during the creatures turn (if it chooses to use it gaze attack as a standard).
Or they can choose neither and make the save against the reactive gaze affect and possibly on the monster's turn if it uses its gaze attack then.
You know, re-reading your post, I'm wondering if perhaps you misread mine. Because it sort of looks like you're saying "Yes, this is the fair thing that needs to happen" in response to me clarifying what you said would be UNfair.
The thing you described as being UNfair involved the PC spending all the monsters' turns blinded. Was that not what you meant?
What I am saying is that choosing at the start of your turn to avert your gaze so you only have 50% chance to be affected and then closing your eyes (so you're immune to the gaze attack during the monster's turn) at the end of your turn is not fair.
You should have to choose one state for the whole turn. That is fair way.
Note that the wizards 2rd level spell gets 'downgraded' to a 3rd level spell effect [Displacement] by doing that. I'm REALLY searching for the unfairness and not finding it.So the thing that's not fair or equitable is that the wizard cast a 2nd-level spell and now doesn't get to add any benefits on top of having a 50% miss chance on all incoming attacks?It's kinda like this
I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.
Remember that the effective miss chance for Mirror Image is 50% at a minimum and is usually higher, so closing your eyes would improve your miss chance unless there's only one image.
In other words, the second level spell is outright better than the third level spell.
|
If walking 5 feet isn't an action, neither would be blinking.
From given rules, the game pretty much assumes your eyes are never closed. Except when asleep, as visual stimuli does not wake a sleeping person.
Even the gaze rules do not include a 'close your eyes' option, only to look away or put a blindfold over your eyes.
But, it is not unreasonable to say you can keep your eyes closed for as long as you like. And that it counts as wearing a blindfold.
I'd also say you would need to keep your eyes closed the entire round if you were trying to benefit from blind-fight or from not seeing an illusion.
To recognize that you can't just blink for one action and not be fooled by the illusion.
You would need time to re-accustom yourself to not having vision.
In fact, closing your eyes should be a not action.
But reorganizing your senses without vision should take at least a move action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the wizards 2rd level spell gets 'downgraded' to a 3rd level spell effect [Displacement] by doing that. I'm REALLY searching for the unfairness and not finding it.So the thing that's not fair or equitable is that the wizard cast a 2nd-level spell and now doesn't get to add any benefits on top of having a 50% miss chance on all incoming attacks?It's kinda like this
I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.Remember that the effective miss chance for Mirror Image is 50% at a minimum and is usually higher, so closing your eyes would improve your miss chance unless there's only one image.
In other words, the second level spell is outright better than the third level spell.
OTOH, every time you hit a Mirror Image, that miss chance gets lower. If you just close your eyes you don't get that benefit... And you're flat-footed. And freaking blinded!
Sure, this feat chain (which takes a minimum of 2 feats) reduces the penalties for being blinded... But that's the whole point of that feat! What are we going to complain about next? That Power Attack allows the character to deal more damage?
A single spell slot (or even a spell known) is a far cheaper investment than a feat. Much less 2 feats... Or a whole feat chain! The caster can always cast a different spell... The martial can't change his feat!
If a creature has no offensive option other than its gaze attack, that creature is a pushover and undeserving of its CR.
You know... It's this kind of argument that creates and perpetuates the stereotype of the "control-freak GM with no empathy for his players".
|
|
Note that the wizards 2rd level spell gets 'downgraded' to a 3rd level spell effect [Displacement] by doing that. I'm REALLY searching for the unfairness and not finding it.So the thing that's not fair or equitable is that the wizard cast a 2nd-level spell and now doesn't get to add any benefits on top of having a 50% miss chance on all incoming attacks?It's kinda like this
I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.Remember that the effective miss chance for Mirror Image is 50% at a minimum and is usually higher, so closing your eyes would improve your miss chance unless there's only one image.
In other words, the second level spell is outright better than the third level spell.
But it is also more limited. The enemy doesn't even have to hit to destroy an image, and each image only takes one hit to 'pop'.
But it is also more limited. The enemy doesn't even have to hit to destroy an image, and each image only takes one hit to 'pop'.Note that the wizards 2rd level spell gets 'downgraded' to a 3rd level spell effect [Displacement] by doing that. I'm REALLY searching for the unfairness and not finding it.So the thing that's not fair or equitable is that the wizard cast a 2nd-level spell and now doesn't get to add any benefits on top of having a 50% miss chance on all incoming attacks?It's kinda like this
I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.Remember that the effective miss chance for Mirror Image is 50% at a minimum and is usually higher, so closing your eyes would improve your miss chance unless there's only one image.
In other words, the second level spell is outright better than the third level spell.
Yep, it's not weaker. The mirror image can vanish after one Flurry of Stars while the '3rd level spell effect [Displacement]' lasts it's full duration. You're making things worse on yourself by closing your eyes...