| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 mounted, 3 without mount. The Chevalier still gets full benefits from Mirror Image, the Mount doesn't.
Technically true, although it bring ups the question of does the enemy know which one is the real one then? Since it's pretty obvious that one of the is pretty distinct from the others?
Even if this doesn't affect miss chance?
It does get a bit messy to think about, but I agree with Blave rules wise. I suppose you can just assume that the mirror images just play a game of, "Get Down Mr. President!" with attacks in this circumstance. They are all swirling around in your mounts space which would still make targeting the chevalier more confusing than normal.
4 mounted chevaliers or 1 mounted chevalier and 3 chevaliers without a mount?
What do you say?
As a GM, I would certainly tell my player to avoid doing that. If his character is obviously in one specific place, Mirror Image won't help. Either the 4 images will be at the same place (the only possible one) or they will be in illogical places, like mounted on air, or one will be on the horse and the others on the ground. Anyway, he won't have the full benefit of the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4 mounted chevaliers or 1 mounted chevalier and 3 chevaliers without a mount?
What do you say?
It would be no different than if the Chevalier has Blur cast on them.
Obviously Mirror Images is much more apparently visual, but mechanically it's the same.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
4 mounted chevaliers or 1 mounted chevalier and 3 chevaliers without a mount?
What do you say?
When I'm focusing on the rider, they all somehow seem to have a mount, when I look at the horse it's very obvious there's only one horse with a rider that has four images. Magic is very weird and any practitioners must be eliminated.
When I'm focusing on the rider, they all somehow seem to have a mount, when I look at the horse it's very obvious there's only one horse with a rider that has four images. Magic is very weird and any practitioners must be eliminated.4 mounted chevaliers or 1 mounted chevalier and 3 chevaliers without a mount?
What do you say?
I actually like this explanation better. The mirror images have enough to work -- in this case, mirror horses, but once you try to look at the horse there's just the one. And when you try to cheat, suddenly the horses are back.
Because magic.
|
"Three illusory images of you swirl about your space, potentially causing those who attack you to hit one of the images instead of you."
So 4 swirling images of the chevalier, all on the same horse, and occupying the same space, that confuse your aim.
When you hit, you cannot know which one you're hitting.
But if you aim for the single horse, you can hit it just fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, you can have an enemy grappled - like literally have your hand on him - and you still need to roll a DC 5 flat check to cast a touch range spell on him if he has concealment.
We really shouldn't think too hard about some issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, you can have an enemy grappled - like literally have your hand on him - and you still need to roll a DC 5 flat check to cast a touch range spell on him if he has concealment.
We really shouldn't think too hard about some issues.
This is not that true. It's an interpretation of the rules, but not the only one.
The question is how you define touch. Touch can be defined as a Precise Sense with a range of touch. And if you define it like that, then you no more have a flat check when casting a spell on a Grappled enemy. And I think it's a very sensible way of applying RAW.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 mounted chevalier and 3 chevaliers naked!
Because the rules don't talk anything about your items, weapons, armors and even cloves! kkkk
By RAW, you can have an enemy grappled - like literally have your hand on him - and you still need to roll a DC 5 flat check to cast a touch range spell on him if he has concealment.
We really shouldn't think too hard about some issues.
This is not that true. It's an interpretation of the rules, but not the only one.
The question is how you define touch. Touch can be defined as a Precise Sense with a range of touch. And if you define it like that, then you no more have a flat check when casting a spell on a Grappled enemy. And I think it's a very sensible way of applying RAW.
I disagree here. What you have there is an odd circumstance, but when looking at Mirror Image, it makes no mention of any senses, so having the enemy already in hand makes no difference for targeting them with a touch spell.
I generally assume that you have to use a free hand to touch a target for the purposes of a spell, so it's perfectly possible that your spell hand happens to make contact with a mirror image rather than the target, even though you already have a hand on your target.
So let's say that you are grappling your opponent and decide to use Shocking Grasp on them. You reach out with your off hand to give them the bad touch, and instead lay your hand on a mirror image. The spell goes off on the mirror image, and your opponent is untouched. Perfectly reasonable.
By RAW, you can have an enemy grappled - like literally have your hand on him - and you still need to roll a DC 5 flat check to cast a touch range spell on him if he has concealment.
We really shouldn't think too hard about some issues.
This is not that true. It's an interpretation of the rules, but not the only one.
The question is how you define touch. Touch can be defined as a Precise Sense with a range of touch. And if you define it like that, then you no more have a flat check when casting a spell on a Grappled enemy. And I think it's a very sensible way of applying RAW.I disagree here. What you have there is an odd circumstance, but when looking at Mirror Image, it makes no mention of any senses, so having the enemy already in hand makes no difference for targeting them with a touch spell.
I generally assume that you have to use a free hand to touch a target for the purposes of a spell, so it's perfectly possible that your spell hand happens to make contact with a mirror image rather than the target, even though you already have a hand on your target.
So let's say that you are grappling your opponent and decide to use Shocking Grasp on them. You reach out with your off hand to give them the bad touch, and instead lay your hand on a mirror image. The spell goes off on the mirror image, and your opponent is untouched. Perfectly reasonable.
Mirror Image specifically protects only against effects with an attack roll. There are plenty of touch range spells out there that don't require an attack roll at all. That's why I was talking about Concealment, which protexts against all targeted effects, which should include touch range effects by RAW.
I disagree here. What you have there is an odd circumstance, but when looking at Mirror Image, it makes no mention of any senses, so having the enemy already in hand makes no difference for targeting them with a touch spell.
Actually, Mirror Image has the Visual trait, meaning it should only apply to creatures who can see it. I would personally allow creatures in range with different precise senses to bypass the spell as they choose, but any creature who closes their eyes becomes unaffected by the spell.
I think having touch be a precise sense with low range is a good idea, and it solves the problem of having to roll miss chance to cast Lay on Hands on yourself while in a fog (which is absurd).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree here. What you have there is an odd circumstance, but when looking at Mirror Image, it makes no mention of any senses, so having the enemy already in hand makes no difference for targeting them with a touch spell.
Mirror Image is a visual illusion: "A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see it. This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as determined by the GM."
So it doesn't apply to other senses and as such you entirely bypass it by using touch.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree here. What you have there is an odd circumstance, but when looking at Mirror Image, it makes no mention of any senses, so having the enemy already in hand makes no difference for targeting them with a touch spell.Mirror Image is a visual illusion: "A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see it. This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as determined by the GM."
So it doesn't apply to other senses and as such you entirely bypass it by using touch.While this might be correct on a trivial encounter, where you might have time to interact and understand where you are putting your hands, it's definitely not on a combat one.
The character is tricked by the images, and can mistake where to touch.
As for any other action ( strike, ranged strike, ranged spell strike, battle medicine, athletics check, and so on).
Rules are quite clear: "This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as determined by the GM."
So it doesn't apply to your ability to use other sences at all.Also, I don't understand what's the point of ruling it otherwise. You have a purely visual illusion, the character is in a situation where it can use another sense, the player wants his character to use another sense and RAW allows you to bypass the effect. Why ruling otherwise?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mirror Image specifically protects only against effects with an attack roll. There are plenty of touch range spells out there that don't require an attack roll at all. That's why I was talking about Concealment, which protexts against all targeted effects, which should include touch range effects by RAW.
That is true, which is why I used Shocking Grasp in my example, rather than say Harm. I'll agree it's a bit odd that one would be effected while the other is not, but without grappling your opponent, that problem still exists between those two spells: You can just casually reach over and touch a creature with Harm without rolling for Mirror Image, but you have to roll a Mirror Image check for Shocking Grasp. That's an issue with I've already had with Touch spells.
Mirror Image is a visual illusion: "A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see it. This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as determined by the GM."
So it doesn't apply to other senses and as such you entirely bypass it by using touch.
No where in the CRB or any other material I have found does the rules call out "Touch" as being a Precise sense. Quite the opposite in fact.
Pathfinder’s rules assume that a given creature has vision as its only precise sense and hearing as its only imprecise sense. Some characters and creatures, however, have precise or imprecise senses that don’t match this assumption. For instance, a character with poor vision might treat that sense as imprecise, an animal with the scent ability can use its sense of smell as an imprecise sense, and a creature with echolocation or a similar ability can use hearing as a precise sense. Such senses are often given special names and appear as “echolocation (precise),” “scent (imprecise) 30 feet,” or the like.
Since the rules assume that the only Precise sense that a creature has is Vision, allowing a character to bypass visual effects by closing their eyes is 100% a GM House Rule, and not an "interpretation of the rules."
There are no rules for voluntarily Blinding yourself. The closest we have is "Avert Gaze", which only gives a bonus against Visual effects, not Blindness and thus immunity to Visual effects.
The game assumes, rightly in my opinion, that only fools close their eyes when locked in deadly combat with a foe.
Edit: Edited for clarity on Avert Gaze.
I think having touch be a precise sense with low range is a good idea, and it solves the problem of having to roll miss chance to cast Lay on Hands on yourself while in a fog (which is absurd).
As a side note, in the case of casting a spell on yourself, you don't use touch but proprioception.
Mirror Image is a visual illusion: "A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see it. This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as determined by the GM."
So it doesn't apply to other senses and as such you entirely bypass it by using touch.
No where in the CRB or any other material I have found does the rules call out "Touch" as being a Precise sense. Quite the opposite in fact.
Pathfinder’s rules assume that a given creature has vision as its only precise sense and hearing as its only imprecise sense. Some characters and creatures, however, have precise or imprecise senses that don’t match this assumption. For instance, a character with poor vision might treat that sense as imprecise, an animal with the scent ability can use its sense of smell as an imprecise sense, and a creature with echolocation or a similar ability can use hearing as a precise sense. Such senses are often given special names and appear as “echolocation (precise),” “scent (imprecise) 30 feet,” or the like.
I haven't said anywhere that touch was a precise sense, just that using touch bypasses Mirror Image. If you consider touch to be an Imprecise or Vague sense then you just apply a miss chance. But you don't apply Mirror Image to touch.
Unless you rule that touch is no sense at all.Or else everything "touch" will annihilate illusion stuff like blur, mirror image, and so on.
To use touch you need to touch a creature. If you make a touch attack on a creature you don't touch you can't use touch to target the creature.
We are speaking of the case where you make a touch attack on a creature you grapple, so you can use touch as a sense to deliver your touch attack.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't said anywhere that touch was a precise sense, just that using touch bypasses Mirror Image. If you consider touch to be an Imprecise or Vague sense then you just apply a miss chance. But you don't apply Mirror Image to touch.
Unless you rule that touch is no sense at all.
Weird.
Touch can be defined as a Precise Sense with a range of touch. And if you define it like that, then you no more have a flat check when casting a spell on a Grappled enemy. And I think it's a very sensible way of applying RAW.
That sounds like you are defining Touch as a Precise Sense. Which it is clearly not defined as in the rules.
Using Touch does Not bypass Mirror Image, or any other Visual effect, because you are still subject to visual effects, unless you are blind. And since there are no voluntary ways of blinding yourself that I'm aware of, You can't be immune to visual effects just because you try to use a secondary precise sense, which the rules explicitly don't say you have.
Or else everything "touch" will annihilate illusion stuff like blur, mirror image, and so on.To use touch you need to touch a creature. If you make a touch attack on a creature you don't touch you can't use touch to target the creature.
We are speaking of the case where you make a touch attack on a creature you grapple, so you can use touch as a sense to deliver your touch attack.
And we are saying that you can't bypass mirror image/blur/etc.. using touch. Touch is not a codified sense, precise or not. The game rules assume that you use Vision as your only precise sense, unless otherwise noted.
So a Blind Character may be able to do what you are suggesting, but they have other penalties to deal with that balance out that situation. Allowing any character to simply bypass visual effects by closing their eyes, or focusing on a different sense, is definitely not allowed by the rules.
Even in the case of a character with a secondary sense, like say Scent or Tremorsense, they are Still subject to visual effects if they have Vision.
So unless you are grappling a creature in Pitch Blackness without dark vision, or some other convoluted situation, you don't bypass Mirror Image through grappling.
wouldn't be the same?
countering any illusion effect given the grabbed condition.
Visual illusions are automatically countered anytime you use something else than vision to target the creature. A creature with Tremorsense, or Blindsight, or Echolocation doesn't care about Invisibility or Mirror Image.
Now, you can also choose to use imprecise senses, like using hearing to target an invisible creature, which is actually the normal way to attack an Invisible creature as this is the next sense you can use to detect it. It gives you 50% miss chance, not because the creature is invisible, but because you only have Imprecise hearing. If you had Precise hearing you would have no miss chance to hit an invisible creature.
wouldn't be the same?
countering any illusion effect given the grabbed condition.Visual illusions are automatically countered anytime you use something else than vision to target the creature. A creature with Tremorsense, or Blindsight, or Echolocation doesn't care about Invisibility or Mirror Image.
Now, you can also choose to use imprecise senses, like using hearing to target an invisible creature, which is actually the normal way to attack an Invisible creature as this is the next sense you can use to detect it. It gives you 50% miss chance, not because the creature is invisible, but because you only have Imprecise hearing. If you had Precise hearing you would have no miss chance to hit an invisible creature.
Here is the disconnect I think. Mirror Image =/= Invisibility. Invisibility can be bypassed by using other senses, as it specifically effects how you have perceived the Target.
Mirror Image does not do that. It kind of does the opposite: It gives you extra targets that you have a chance of striking rather than the intended target. If you have eyes that currently work the game assumes that you can be fooled by those images, whether or not you have a secondary sense. The only time this is not the case is in a situation where the attacker Only has a non-sight based sense, thus being immune to visual effects.
Even if you are grappling your foe, you can still see him, meaning that there is a chance that you will be fooled by the mirror images.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Touch can be defined as a Precise Sense with a range of touch. And if you define it like that, then you no more have a flat check when casting a spell on a Grappled enemy. And I think it's a very sensible way of applying RAW.That sounds like you are defining Touch as a Precise Sense. Which it is clearly not defined as in the rules.
Touch can be defined as a Precise Sense with a range of touch.
Touch is not defined by RAW, which doesn't mean that humans can't touch, just that it's up to the GM. So, I would do that, because it's logical. If you prefer to define it as an Imprecise Sense, it's fine. If you want to say that human don't have a sense of touch, it's fine by RAW as RAW doesn't define touch. I think you would be wrong, but not by RAW.Touch is not a codified sense, precise or not.
And?
The fact that touch is not a codified sense means humans don't have a sense of touch?Allowing any character to simply bypass visual effects by closing their eyes, or focusing on a different sense, is definitely not allowed by the rules.
So a bat is affected by Invisibility just because it's not blind?
Applying visual illusions to every senses seems like the wrong application of the rules.
Here is the disconnect I think. Mirror Image =/= Invisibility. Invisibility can be bypassed by using other senses, as it specifically effects how you have perceived the Target.
Mirror Image does not do that. It kind of does the opposite: It gives you extra targets that you have a chance of striking rather than the intended target. If you have eyes that currently work the game assumes that you can be fooled by those images, whether or not you have a secondary sense. The only time this is not the case is in a situation where the attacker Only has a non-sight based sense, thus being immune to visual effects.
Even if you are grappling your foe, you can still see him, meaning that there is a chance that you will be fooled by the mirror images.
And it's your interpretation of the rules (which is fine). This is not RAW, it's not crystal clear, it's your interpretation of the rules. A visual illusion only affects sight. You want to apply it in other situations, fine (I can't say it's not RAW). But you won't find a RAW line stating that you can't bypass a visual illusion with another sense. It's written in the visual tag: "This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as determined by the GM."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder’s rules assume that a given creature has vision as its only precise sense and hearing as its only imprecise sense.Thankfully, we have human GMs who can adapt the rules when presented with a situation the rules do not cover.
So, GM's choice I would say.
Sure, but we do have to have a baseline assumption to work from when adjudicating situations. And it helps to take into account how reasonable such an adjudication is before applying it.
Ruling that characters can voluntarily be immune to Visual Effects is all kinds of problematic. There are creatures who's entire schtick is Visual effects like Medusa and the like. Well statistically they become Much less intimidating if you rule that a character can just make themselves immune to their effects by closing their eyes. The rules give you a vector for handling visual effects mundanely, Avert Gaze. It does NOT provide immunity, only a bonus.
Mirror Image isn't exactly an overpowered spell. I see no reason to make it useless by allowing characters to completely bypass it at will, even if only under specific circumstances.
If you can see, you are effected by Visual effects, regardless of whether you have other senses.
Let me put it this way: If instead of Mirror Image we were talking about a Medusa. Your Character grapples said Medusa on one of their turns. The GM calls for their Save against the Medusa's Aura. The character claims that they are no longer using Sight to perceive the Medusa, because they have it grappled, so they aren't looking at it anymore.
Is it fair to deny the Medusa their schtick under those circumstances? How about if the situation was reversed, and it was a Character with a Visual effect like say Cloak of Colors?
Would it be fair to let a Vampire or some other creature with Grab ignore the Dazzled or other effects of Cloak of Colors because they can just use their sense of Touch to perceive their target?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it this way: If instead of Mirror Image we were talking about a Medusa. Your Character grapples said Medusa on one of their turns. The GM calls for their Save against the Medusa's Aura. The character claims that they are no longer using Sight to perceive the Medusa, because they have it grappled, so they aren't looking at it anymore.
If one of my players grapples a Medusa and then closes his eyes and continues the fight like that, I will definitely remove the Gaze effect from the Medusa. It's a perfect example of an intelligent way of handling a monster ability. Forbidding the player to do that would be a serious downgrade of quality of play in my opinion.
Would it be fair to let a Vampire or some other creature with Grab ignore the Dazzled or other effects of Cloak of Colors because they can just use their sense of Touch to perceive their target?
It depends on how I want my campaign to go. I'm currently GMing Abomination Vaults and it's definitely something I'd do as I want my players to feel the danger. If I play a PFS game, my vampire wouldn't do that as PFS is supposed to be more light hearted. But it has nothing to do with the possibility of doing it but about how mean I want the monsters to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it this way: If instead of Mirror Image we were talking about a Medusa. Your Character grapples said Medusa on one of their turns. The GM calls for their Save against the Medusa's Aura. The character claims that they are no longer using Sight to perceive the Medusa, because they have it grappled, so they aren't looking at it anymore.If one of my players grapples a Medusa and then closes his eyes and continues the fight like that, I will definitely remove the Gaze effect from the Medusa. It's a perfect example of an intelligent way of handling a monster ability. Forbidding the player to do that would be a serious downgrade of quality of play in my opinion.
Would it be fair to let a Vampire or some other creature with Grab ignore the Dazzled or other effects of Cloak of Colors because they can just use their sense of Touch to perceive their target?It depends on how I want my campaign to go. I'm currently GMing Abomination Vaults and it's definitely something I'd do as I want my players to feel the danger. If I play a PFS game, my vampire wouldn't do that as PFS is supposed to be more light hearted. But it has nothing to do with the possibility of doing it but about how mean I want the monsters to be.
Fair dues. Just remember that this is the text book example of a GM rule, and not the rules out of the box. Just following the RAW (I don't usually like the term, but I'll use it in this case) a character is never unaffected by an effect they are subject to without some other ability specifically saying they are. True Seeing comes to mind in the case of Mirror Image.
Mirror Image is such an effect. If you have eyes, you can be fooled by the Mirror Images no matter what other senses you may or may not have. Any other ruling is not strictly speaking RAW, and I don't currently see a good argument that says otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair dues. Just remember that this is the text book example of a GM rule, and not the rules out of the box. Just following the RAW (I don't usually like the term, but I'll use it in this case) a character is never unaffected by an effect they are subject to without some other ability specifically saying they are. True Seeing comes to mind in the case of Mirror Image.
Mirror Image is such an effect. If you have eyes, you can be fooled by the Mirror Images no matter what other senses you may or may not have. Any other ruling is not strictly speaking RAW, and I don't currently see a good argument that says otherwise.
Applying RAW is a GM rule. Everytime a situation occurs, you have to choose if you apply RAW, apply RAW with a slight modification (circumstance bonus, cover, difficult terrain) or don't apply RAW at all.
RAW's imperfect, mostly because you can't cover each and every cases as it would ask for a million-page book.This situation is such a case: What happens if you try to bypass a visual effect by using another sense? You can choose (and I insist on choose) to consider it's impossible, but it's a choice. You can't say "These are the rules" as the rules are not specifically explaining the interaction of a visual effect with other senses, they only speak about vision.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair dues. Just remember that this is the text book example of a GM rule, and not the rules out of the box. Just following the RAW (I don't usually like the term, but I'll use it in this case) a character is never unaffected by an effect they are subject to without some other ability specifically saying they are. True Seeing comes to mind in the case of Mirror Image.
Mirror Image is such an effect. If you have eyes, you can be fooled by the Mirror Images no matter what other senses you may or may not have. Any other ruling is not strictly speaking RAW, and I don't currently see a good argument that says otherwise.
Applying RAW is a GM rule. Everytime a situation occurs, you have to choose if you apply RAW, apply RAW with a slight modification (circumstance bonus, cover, difficult terrain) or don't apply RAW at all.
RAW's imperfect, mostly because you can't cover each and every cases as it would ask for a million-page book.
This situation is such a case: What happens if you try to bypass a visual effect by using another sense? You can choose (and I insist on choose) to consider it's impossible, but it's a choice. You can't say "These are the rules" as the rules are not specifically explaining the interaction of a visual effect with other senses, they only speak about vision.
See, that's not true in this case. The rules say that Mirror Image is a Visual effect. Assuming your character has vision, they are subject to it no matter what other circumstances happen to be happening. In a white room vacuum without GM fiat, that is how the rules work.
Saying anything else is GM fiat ruling. The fact that you have to go out of your way to define an undefined by the rules sense (touch) to even make the Argument that you could bypass Mirror Image proves this.
You are literally creating rules out of whole cloth to create the situation you describe. Without doing so, there is no sense of Touch presented in the game rules, so your situation is impossible.
You are literally creating rules out of whole cloth to create the situation you describe. Without doing so, there is no sense of Touch presented in the game rules, so your situation is...
And? If there's no rule to handle a situation, is it better to create the sense of touch or to explain your player he can't target an item his character holds in his hands because the light is off?
Assuming your character has vision, they are subject to it no matter what other circumstances happen to be happening.
You are wrong on that. Per RAW, closing your eyes prevent Mirror Image from affecting you. So I'm actually taking a shortcut as with your rules you'll have to define both "closing one's eyes" and "touch". Unless you don't allow a character to close his eyes?
So even by closing the eyes, whether the target might be grabbed or not ( since it's not relevant), the outcome wouldn't change at all.
A character has a creature Grabbed. The player tells the GM: "I strike the Grabbed creature using my sense of touch to target it." as this action is completely possible for a human, I can strike something I hold by using touch to localize it.
This is completely undefined by RAW. There is not a single line of RAW that will define that and not a line that will forbid it.So, as a GM, you can't follow RAW, you have to create a rule on the spot, you can't say "RAW says that."
Forbidding it is a choice. I'll never say that it's wrong. But it's also extremely limiting.
On the other hand, there are rules about senses and ruling that "Touch is a (im)precise sense with a range of touch." is an extremely sensible ruling that follows RAW as much as it is possible.
So, the fact that the target is Grabbed is totally relevant. It's because the target is Grabbed that the player can perform an action that isn't defined by RAW and that you need to houserule. You say it's irrelevant only because in that case you always choose to forbid it. But it's not the one true rule, it's not RAW, it's just your way of handling that case.
You are literally creating rules out of whole cloth to create the situation you describe. Without doing so, there is no sense of Touch presented in the game rules, so your situation is...And? If there's no rule to handle a situation, is it better to create the sense of touch or to explain your player he can't target an item his character holds in his hands because the light is off?
But see, there are rules to handle this situation. You just don't like them. There is a Visual Effect in play. The character has sight. They are effected.
Assuming your character has vision, they are subject to it no matter what other circumstances happen to be happening.You are wrong on that. Per RAW, closing your eyes prevent Mirror Image from affecting you. So I'm actually taking a shortcut as with your rules you'll have to define both "closing one's eyes" and "touch". Unless you don't allow a character to close his eyes?
No, you are incorrect here. Quote me a rule about a Character being able to close their eyes to give them immunity to Visual effects. I think you'll find that is not a thing. The closest thing we do have is Avert Gaze, which gives a bonus on saves against visual effects.
So no, I don't allow characters to simply close their eyes in encounters. It is not an action defined by the game, and even if it were allowed, it has far worse downsides than up. Treating yourself as blinded and treating your opponents as Hidden spring to mind.
You are trying to allow a character to have it's cake and eat it too. Not only are you saying that they should be allowed to completely negate a defensive spell for free, but that there should be no downside to doing so because they are using another "precise sense" instead.
Neither case is allowed by the rules. And if you did allow your PC's to become immune at will to Visual effects, then you shouldn't allow them to ignore all the penalties therein.
Again, only fools close their eyes in combat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Visual trait states : "Visual
Source Core Rulebook pg. 638 2.0
A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see it."
RAW.
I am pretty sure that a GM will not allow my allies to benefit from my Cavalier's Banner feat if they cannot see it, seeing how it has the Visual trait.
Superbidi, I assure you that even if you close your eyes while holding hands with somebody you'd have a high chance not to hit him or even touch him ( even without the issue of really knowing where to hit or touch, because before closing your eyes you would anyway be under the effects of the illusion ).
I'm fine with that. I'm not saying that, as a GM, you need to always give undue bonuses to your players. Just that you can't use RAW to forbid such an action. It's your choice as a GM and there are other very sensible rulings in that case.
I think most of the issues come into play when the approach tends to be far from mechanics and more closer to the roleplay ones.
If you remove the "roleplay" approach, you remove a big part of the game. For example, the action described earlier, where a character grabs a Medusa and then closes his eyes using his sense of touch to locate it, is something I want to live/allow as a GM. This is a really heroic action for me, the perfect example of the infinite freedom of roleplaying games.
This is not how the combat in this 2e is supposed to work
If you have a proper quote to illustrate that point, I'd love to see it. I think you are expressing a point of view, not a fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the issues come into play when the approach tends to be far from mechanics and more closer to the roleplay ones.If you remove the "roleplay" approach, you remove a big part of the game. For example, the action described earlier, where a character grabs a Medusa and then closes his eyes using his sense of touch to locate it, is something I want to live/allow as a GM. This is a really heroic action for me, the perfect example of the infinite freedom of roleplaying games.To me it's exactly the opposite "when it comes to a combat encounter".
This 2e is imo a nice try ( it's still incomplete though ) to offer a dynamic and varied combat system, and it's either about tactics, forecasts and anticipations.
I think there's no room for roleplay interpretations when it comes to some sort of boardgame ( because the approach sees rules and mechanics ).
I obviously can't say you're wrong as it's what you like.
I prefer to give more freedom to my players. Honestly, actions that are outside defined rules are extremely rare, I mostly allow these actions when they fit the situation extremely well. And in that case, it's really funny. But it's not very frequent.Yesterday, I allowed my Swashbuckler to go behind a ghost despite the fact that he failed his attempt at Tumbling Through. I didn't give him Panache, though. But I haven't seen how to justify an Incorporeal creature blocking someone's path.