Closing your eyes to get past Mirror Image


Rules Questions


So, I've seen some previous discussion of this topic, specifically in regards to the Seeking enchantment on ranged weapons. To be fair, that's what brought me to the topic in the first place. But a few potential interactions:

Example A) Attacker closes eyes (free action) and makes an attack against Defender who has 5 mirror images. They then open their eyes (free action).

My assumption is that they ignore the mirror images but obviously have a 50% miss chance as normal. Blindfight works as normal. It's a trade between destroying images and a better chance to hit.

Example B) Attacker closes eyes (free action) and makes an attack with a Seeking enchanted ranged weapon against Defender who has 5 mirror images. They then open their eyes (free action).

My assumption is that by RAW they ignore the mirror images and the miss chance, making the Seeking enchantment just that much stronger. I'm hoping I'm wrong on this.

My assumption is that if you can't see the images, they don't effect you. Hence an invisible creature's mirror images only effect creatures with see invisibility.

Open to any thoughts here.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:

Seeking

Description
This special ability can only be placed on ranged weapons. A seeking 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.

It works against concealment, so if you close your eyes and give the target total concealment it works fine.

AFAIK, it doesn't work at all if you aim to the mirror images with your eyes open, as that spell doesn't give a miss chance. You simpli arget and hit the wrong target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is opening and closing your eyes a free action?

I mean, obviously it doesn't take any real time, but I guess my one consideration would be: if you're closing your eyes, then taking a full-round action, and *only then* opening your eyes...how long were your eyes actually closed?

I think I'd probably rule that you were considered at least partially blind until your next turn. Combat is largely simultaneous, and spending all of your full-round action with your eyes closed has it's risks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Quixote and would extend it to standard actions. The character is either trying to fight with their eyes closed or not.

I generally consider actions that take advantage of the turn based nature of the game and break the feel of simultaneous activity to be cheesy.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I generally consider "closing your eyes" to be of the similar vein as 'averting eyes" in relation to creatures with gaze attacks. IE, its something that happens at the beginning of your turn and lasts until the beginning of your next turn.


I think if you use vision to pinpoint their square, or take any other action that would normally be prevented or impeded while blind without suffering the consequences of blindness, then you're still subject to things that would effect you if you were using your vision.


I like this interpretation, though can you really justify that a character can't open and close their eyes as a free action but can do any number of other actions free actions like talking?


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Artofregicide wrote:


My assumption is that if you can't see the images, they don't effect you. Hence an invisible creature's mirror images only effect creatures with see invisibility.

The first part I believe to be correct.

That said, if you are invisible the mirror image spell has no effect.

Mirror Image wrote:
If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).

It having no effect isn’t dependent on if the attacker can see invisible creatures. The Mirror Image spell creates figments and has no effect if you try to make it create invisible figments.


I think they can, no charge for blinking, but opening and closing their eyes isn't making them effectively blind.


ErichAD wrote:
I think they can, no charge for blinking, but opening and closing their eyes isn't making them effectively blind.

Closing your eyes doesn't make you effectively blind? What does it do then, mechanically speaking?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are closing your eyes as you go in for the attack, you may very well already be targeting an illusion, and just be adding a 50% miss chance on top of the chance to hit an illusion instead... It is my understanding that you would only bypass the illusion if your eyes were closed beforehand. You should have to use the rules for averting your eyes like you were avoiding a gaze attack.

Meaning you avert your gaze (close your eyes) at the start of your turn, take all of your actions as though you were blind, and may elect to open your eyes at the start of your next turn or keep them closed for another round of blindness.


Yeah I agree with chells logic there.

Theres 5 of them and you're aiming at one then closing your eyes. Hows that help? You had sight when you picked your target out.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

Yeah I agree with chells logic there.

Theres 5 of them and you're aiming at one then closing your eyes. Hows that help? You had sight when you picked your target out.

You target the square, not a specific creature in it. The mirror images are all in the same square.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Quote:

Seeking

Description
This special ability can only be placed on ranged weapons. A seeking 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.

It works against concealment, so if you close your eyes and give the target total concealment it works fine.

AFAIK, it doesn't work at all if you aim to the mirror images with your eyes open, as that spell doesn't give a miss chance. You simpli arget and hit the wrong target.

+1.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Cavall wrote:

Yeah I agree with chells logic there.

Theres 5 of them and you're aiming at one then closing your eyes. Hows that help? You had sight when you picked your target out.

You target the square, not a specific creature in it. The mirror images are all in the same square.

No you target a creature in a square, hence you roll against a creatures AC

Squares are 5ft by 5ft

Targeting that you miss most of the time before you even get to AC.

If you’re looking at a guy with 5 mirror images, close you eyes and shoot where you we’re looking you have a 5/6 chance of hitting an image, cause you had a 5/6 chance of looking at an image before you closed me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
I think they can, no charge for blinking, but opening and closing their eyes isn't making them effectively blind.
Closing your eyes doesn't make you effectively blind? What does it do then, mechanically speaking?

Nothing.

You could close your eyes long enough to suffer the effects of blindness if you wanted to, but you can't cherry pick some aspects of blindness by closing and opening your eyes strategically.


Artofregicide wrote:
...can you really justify that a character can't open and close their eyes as a free action...

No, and I don't need to. I only need to justify that a charactercan't close their eyes *for long enough go gain a mechsnical benefit from it * as a free action and then open them up again as an other free action that same turn.

I think it's fair to say you close your eyes and target their square, just as you would if they were invisible.
But if you want to do that and make a full attack--something that takes a whole round--then when exactly are you opening your eyes, and can you explain to me why your target's friend doesn't seize the opportunity to shiv you while you're effectively blind?

It's probably also fair to say "no" to the whole situation, but I want to say "yes" to my players as often as I can in-game, especially when they're coming up with out of the box stuff like this.


Quixote wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
...can you really justify that a character can't open and close their eyes as a free action...

No, and I don't need to. I only need to justify that a charactercan't close their eyes *for long enough go gain a mechsnical benefit from it * as a free action and then open them up again as an other free action that same turn.

I think it's fair to say you close your eyes and target their square, just as you would if they were invisible.
But if you want to do that and make a full attack--something that takes a whole round--then when exactly are you opening your eyes, and can you explain to me why your target's friend doesn't seize the opportunity to shiv you while you're effectively blind?

It's probably also fair to say "no" to the whole situation, but I want to say "yes" to my players as often as I can in-game, especially when they're coming up with out of the box stuff like this.

My question is how do you know you're shooting at the right square while your eyes are closed? I feel like the miss rules for thrown weapons should come into play to see if you even end up shooting at the right square.

I will say I think its a perfectly valid option if you're able pinpoint the target using a non-visual sense such as scent or if you're attacking a square that's within your natural reach. Keeping in mind that seeking only applies to ranged weapons.

Liberty's Edge

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Cavall wrote:

Yeah I agree with chells logic there.

Theres 5 of them and you're aiming at one then closing your eyes. Hows that help? You had sight when you picked your target out.

You target the square, not a specific creature in it. The mirror images are all in the same square.

No you target a creature in a square, hence you roll against a creatures AC

Squares are 5ft by 5ft

Targeting that you miss most of the time before you even get to AC.

If you’re looking at a guy with 5 mirror images, close you eyes and shoot where you we’re looking you have a 5/6 chance of hitting an image, cause you had a 5/6 chance of looking at an image before you closed me.

You select a square and you try to hit a creature in it.

CRB wrote:

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). You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an

opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
CRB wrote:

Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail.

All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
Bestiary - gaze wrote:
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.
CRB - Mirror image wrote:
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).

Don't invent rules.

Liberty's Edge

ErichAD wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
I think they can, no charge for blinking, but opening and closing their eyes isn't making them effectively blind.
Closing your eyes doesn't make you effectively blind? What does it do then, mechanically speaking?

Nothing.

You could close your eyes long enough to suffer the effects of blindness if you wanted to, but you can't cherry pick some aspects of blindness by closing and opening your eyes strategically.

Pathfinder is turn based, but it represents a continual flux of events, so I will say that it works like Power attack. When you close your eyes in a turn to get a specific effect, the stay closed until the start of the next turn, but that is my interpretation as a GM, not a written rule. Other GM can feel that it works differently.

Liberty's Edge

LordKailas wrote:
Quixote wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
...can you really justify that a character can't open and close their eyes as a free action...

No, and I don't need to. I only need to justify that a charactercan't close their eyes *for long enough go gain a mechsnical benefit from it * as a free action and then open them up again as an other free action that same turn.

I think it's fair to say you close your eyes and target their square, just as you would if they were invisible.
But if you want to do that and make a full attack--something that takes a whole round--then when exactly are you opening your eyes, and can you explain to me why your target's friend doesn't seize the opportunity to shiv you while you're effectively blind?

It's probably also fair to say "no" to the whole situation, but I want to say "yes" to my players as often as I can in-game, especially when they're coming up with out of the box stuff like this.

My question is how do you know you're shooting at the right square while your eyes are closed? I feel like the miss rules for thrown weapons should come into play to see if you even end up shooting at the right square.

I will say I think its a perfectly valid option if you're able pinpoint the target using a non-visual sense such as scent or if you're attacking a square that's within your natural reach. Keeping in mind that seeking only applies to ranged weapons.

The rules allow you to select a square far away even in total darkness, the scatter rules (if you are referring to those) have no relevance. The come in effect only if you miss the target.


Diego Rossi wrote:
The rules allow you to select a square far away even in total darkness, the scatter rules (if you are referring to those) have no relevance. The come in effect only if you miss the target.

True, but I would apply the scatter rules to be nice. By the rules I don't think you're allowed to even roll.

Ranged Attacks wrote:
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Line of Sight wrote:
A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).

Liberty's Edge

LordKailas wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
The rules allow you to select a square far away even in total darkness, the scatter rules (if you are referring to those) have no relevance. The come in effect only if you miss the target.

True, but I would apply the scatter rules to be nice. By the rules I don't think you're allowed to even roll.

Ranged Attacks wrote:
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Line of Sight wrote:
A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).

Fair point. I am under the impression that you can target a square you don't see, but I can be mistaken. I will check if there is a rule allowing it.

Well, a technicality but:

CRB wrote:

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). You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an

opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

never say that you target a square, only that you can attack it.

But it is a flimsy argument.


The rules allow for attacking into a square you believe an invisible foe to be in... the rules also allow for MELEE attacks into threatened spaces around you if you are blind. The rules don't explicitly forbid ranged attacks while blind, but they also don't explain the interaction. Ranged attacks are already restricted by line of sight in their rules which by extension should prohibit ranged attacks while blind. I know several DMs who allow for ranged attacks while blind, but all of them apply scatter rules when you miss while firing blind, either by concealment or by AC.


If you can be realistically sure that the target is still in the square you aim at, I'd go with the 50% rule. OTOH, if the target is moving, it could be in another square...so you'd miss. Now PF is turn-based so this isn't straightforward, but the GM can easily rule something based on whether the target moved or double-moved or 5'-stepped on its last turn and whether it's likely to do so on its next. Which might eventually boil down to a 50% chance of targeting the wrong square for an auto-miss, which becomes a 25% chance of hitting.

But Mirror Image is a stupid spell. If the target is a colossal dragon, it completely fills many squares, and its images are all in the same place. Suggesting that it can't work at all, at least not against missiles.


I wouldn't call mirror image stupid so much as the idea you're suddenly a better shot with your eyes closed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly around our table Mirror Image is just a miss chance with a sliding scale, so nobody ever questioned if Seeking would work or not. No mucking about with closing your eyes or not.

Liberty's Edge

Mudfoot wrote:


But Mirror Image is a stupid spell. If the target is a colossal dragon, it completely fills many squares, and its images are all in the same place. Suggesting that it can't work at all, at least not against missiles.

It is not only "if" you hit the target, but "how" you hit it. Your colossal dragon has multiple images overlapping in the same square: true.

It occupies every cubic cm of those squares: no.
If you aim for the center of mass you should hit it: true.
Hitting somewhere in the center of mass guarantee that your hit does more than glancing on a tick scale? Not at all. You need to hit the right spot with the right angle, so being deceived by a spell that makes you think that the dragon is 5 cm forward and 3 to the left to its actual position can have you deliver a weak blow to a tick scale instead of a strong blow to the junction between scales.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Closing your eyes to get past Mirror Image All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.