Seeking bow vs. Mirror Image

[Barstro]

I found discussions, but no real answers, from a while ago and was wondering if there is anything close to a ruling.

At Issue
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.

When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created. These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.

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).

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.

Can I use magic missile to destroy one or more images from a mirror image spell?
No. Magic missile targets a creature and does not require an attack roll, so it bypasses all the images and always hits the caster.

Ignoring the RAW cheese that a bowman can just close his eyes and fire into the correct square; what is the effect of a full attack from a Seeking bow into Mirror Image?

I see the steps as;
1) Fire an arrow
2a) Miss by 5 or less, destroy an image (goto 1)
2b) Hit
3) ???

The RAW seems to come down to an interpretation of "Miss Chance". If Mirror Image is considered a miss chance, then Seeking ignores it. However, if Mirror Image is considered an additional target that the bowman was aiming for, then the bowman hit what he attempted to hit, so the additional roll should be made to determine if he was targeting the correct person to begin with.

At least one earlier thread talked about "not making Seeking even more powerful than it already is". While I do not disagree with the sentiment, I do disagree that ignoring Mirror Image is more powerful (at least for my play style). Frankly, I'd rather spend a full round action to basically undo a second level spell so the rest of my team doesn't have to deal with the spell.

Followup question; What happens when the bowman does hit the enemy? Has he then figured out which one is real so that he can then fire correctly for the rest of the full action? I say "no", since there is nothing in RAW to suggest that it works that way, but was curious what others thought.

[Segev]

Mirror image specifies that you're rolling randomly to see whether the image you selected is the real person or not. Given that it specifies that the attacker selected an image to target, the roll is not a miss chance, but a roll to decide if it is, in fact, the "right" one. The attack hit what it was aiming at.

This, in fact, makes the errata about magic missile a special-case ignoring of the RAW and paradoxical in its own right. Magic missile, it says, hits the real target because it targets a creature. But the caster still selects a target when he casts the spell, so if the caster selects an invalid target (e.g. an image), it should hit that target or misfire the spell entirely.

But for Seeking, it wouldn't trigger off of mirror image, given the wording. Mirror image is not a miss chance; it's a chance that you aimed at the right target in the first place.

And yes, a blind(folded) archer (or one who closes his eyes) with a Seeking bow will ignore mirror image and the 50% miss chance. Interestingly, the 50% miss chance for total concealment is a higher probability of hitting the target than the odds of selecting the right one out of images, so it behooves anybody who is attacking a mirror image-protected mage to do so blindly. Unless they prefer to take out images to effectively decrease the duration of the spell.

[Aracor]

Segev has the right of it - however, it would not be an unreasonable ruling by the DM to rule that the archer trying to obviate the mirror image spell be treated as blind for the entire round since they're closing their eyes to make a full-round attack action.

[Psyren]

Ignoring the RAW cheese that a bowman can just close his eyes and fire into the correct square

Wait, why is that cheese? Knowing what square they're in without seeing them isn't easy after all. And if you do know what square they're in, Seeking hitting them is working as intended; the onus is on them to move to a different square at that point.



Followup question; What happens when the bowman does hit the enemy? Has he then figured out which one is real so that he can then fire correctly for the rest of the full action? I say "no", since there is nothing in RAW to suggest that it works that way, but was curious what others thought.

If he is firing seeking arrows with the rest of his attacks then they will bypass the images. If he is firing regular arrows, he will contend with the images as normal even if the first arrow was seeking. The images constantly shift for the duration of the spell, so even knowing which one hit first will not help you with later shots. In addition, the archer DOESN'T know which one is real - only the arrow did.

[Barstro]

Wait, why is that cheese? Knowing what square they're in without seeing them isn't easy after all. And if you do know what square they're in, Seeking hitting them is working as intended; the onus is on them to move to a different square at that point.
I consider it cheese because the bowman can easily;
1) Open eyes
2) Note the square
3) Close eyes
4) Full attack with seeking weapon
5) Open eyes again.

Your phrase "the onus is on them to move..." becomes moot, since moving is negated by free actions. Great use of "onus", though.



If he is firing seeking arrows with the rest of his attacks then they will bypass the images. If he is firing regular arrows, he will contend with the images as normal even if the first arrow was seeking. The images constantly shift for the duration of the spell, so even knowing which one hit first will not help you with later shots. In addition, the archer DOESN'T know which one is real - only the arrow did.
Ok. Then if the bowman WANTED to knock out images, is he able to turn off the Seeking ability of the bow?

[Barstro]

it would not be an unreasonable ruling by the DM to rule that the archer trying to obviate the mirror image spell be treated as blind for the entire round since they're closing their eyes to make a full-round attack action.

Hmm. I do like that as a trade off.

[Segev]

I think the actual result, because the images shuffle fast enough that a melee attacker has to roll each time, they shuffle fast enough that the archer has to choose his target each time. He can't say "the last one I hit" because he doesn't know which of the n images is actually the one he hit.

i.e. you have to choose a target for each attack. Thus, each time you attack, there is a chance the target you choose is not the same one you chose last time, because you cannot tell the difference.


As to "closing your eyes is a free action," the DM is within his rights to insist that making a full attack action with your eyes closed means your eyes are closed until your next action. Recall that "free actions" can only be taken "within reason," and that the DM rules what that latter clause means. Given that a full attack action takes your entire round, it's not unreasonable to argue that the abstraction of compressing it onto one initiative tick doesn't really mean that you only have your eyes closed for 1/20 of 6 seconds, but rather have them closed for the majority of 6 seconds. And, thus, you're blind for the whole round.

[Psyren]

I consider it cheese because the bowman can easily;
1) Open eyes
2) Note the square
3) Close eyes
4) Full attack with seeking weapon
5) Open eyes again.

Your phrase "the onus is on them to move..." becomes moot, since moving is negated by free actions. Great use of "onus", though.

As I pointed out in my interpretation, Seeking beats Mirror Image anyway, no closing eyes needed. So that renders this moot regardless.

Recall that Seeking is not one of the abilities bestowed on ammunition - you have to actually find/buy and keep track of Seeking Arrows. Them being a little strong for +1 is fine by me.


Ok. Then if the bowman WANTED to knock out images, is he able to turn off the Seeking ability of the bow?

There is no "seeking ability of the bow." You're either shooting with seeking arrows or not. So if you want to knock images out, just draw from your normal quiver instead.

[Barstro]

There is no "seeking ability of the bow." You're either shooting with seeking arrows or not. So if you want to knock images out, just draw from your normal quiver instead.

The SRD states that the enhancement is placed only on Ranged Weapons. It does not state that it is only on ammunition.

If you know a rule that says Seeking is intended to be only on the arrow and not the bow itself, please show me the rule so I can retcon my character into compliance.

EDIT: or are you stating that Bows are not a valid target because they only launch weapons and that only things like Javelins would be valid for Seeking?

[Kurald Galain]

I consider it cheese because the bowman can easily;

Consider that combat actions of all characters take place more-or-less simultaneously, and we only execute them one after the other to facilitate gameplay. As such, I would rule that closing your eyes counts as being blind for the round, with all penalties thereof.

Likewise, if you're fighting a monster with a gaze attack, you can't have your eyes closed during its turn but open during your own turn.

[Psyren]

The SRD states that the enhancement is placed only on Ranged Weapons. It does not state that it is only on ammunition.

If you know a rule that says Seeking is intended to be only on the arrow and not the bow itself, please show me the rule so I can retcon my character into compliance.

CRB 469 / UE 139:

"3: Projectile weapons with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."

Not every property on the ranged weapons table has this superscript. Bane, Flaming, Frost, Merciful etc. do; Seeking does not. The arrows must be enchanted with it, or you must use a non-projectile weapon.

Furthermore, Seeking says:

"Seeking: Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square."

If you put Seeking on a bow, the bow itself would fly at your foe, using your reading.


EDIT: or are you stating that Bows are not a valid target because they only launch weapons and that only things like Javelins would be valid for Seeking?

You can put it on Javelins, Arrows, Shuriken - anything that is itself used to attack. Not a projectile weapon.

[Barstro]

It's so hard to distinguish between RAW/RAI and poor writing. By that reading, arrows (ammunition) are not a valid target for the enhancement at all. (It is an ammunition ability too) It's interesting that none of the other discussions that I read on the subject ever brought that up.

I've taken another look at other enhancements and, while I understand your view of it, I disagree with your final assessment.

I base this on the fact that Seeking is one of the few enhancements that; can be on a ranged weapon, effects a target (as opposed to the weapon itself (unlike Lucky)), that cannot also be on a melee weapon. From my limited reading, all enhancements with your quoted superscript are enhancements that are also allowed for melee.

Further, it seems odd that damage enhancements can be on either Ranged Weapons or Ammunition, but Seeking is somehow singled out. The chart also says that Seeking can be on ammunition, yet the enhancement description says it cannot. Why would all other +1 enhancements be on both weapons and ammunition, but not Seeking?

Finally, I saw Designating. This can "only be placed on ranged weapons or ammunition". Why would that language be used for Designating, but not Seeking if they would be discussing the same correct placement?

Again, I understand your point of view and our disagreement comes down to poor writing (either just with Seeking, or among other descriptions). I think the lack of a superscript is due to the fact that Seeking is not also a melee enhancement and was thus not cut-and-pasted when the other descriptions were copied over.

That is all based on the information I have seen. If you have something else for me to consider, please let me know. I'm more than willing to consider evidence to change my view.

EDIT:
After typing the above, I did a cross reference between Ranged Weapon enhancements and identical Ammunition enhancements. Several of them seem to be similar to this situation. Planar, for instanced, talks about what the weapon itself does. If that is to be read the same as your interpretation of Seeking, then there cannot be a Planar bow, because the arrow is what does the damage. That seems a silly interpretation, but certainly follows RAW.

I also note that Designating is the only enhancement with Superscript 3 that is not valid for melee.

Based on statutory interpretation, I am leaning more towards the view that Seeking cannot be used on a bow, despite how illogical I consider that interpretation.

EDIT2:
I also note Ghost Touch.

The charts say that Ghost Touch can be only on Melee or Ammunition. However, the description does not state that.
If we go by charts, then Bolas and Boomerangs are not valid for Ghost Touch.
If we use the rule that melee enhancements can only be used if a weapon is used for melee (not a rule I've actually seen, but one I fully endorse), then using a javelin for a ranged attack would not allow Ghost Touch to function (unless there is a rule that it becomes ammunition when thrown).

Not sure what conclusion to make of that, it's just something I noticed and find odd.

[Psyren]

*snip*

Honestly I agree it's unclear, and I can see it going either way for Seeking Bows. I do however still think that Seeking beats mirror image, which would solve your "closed eyes cheese" problem - since either way the seeking archer can beat the images, you might as well just let them beat the images with their eyes open and avoid the sillier scenario. And sure, it's not called a "miss chance," but mirror image does still refer to missing:

"If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss."


Consider that combat actions of all characters take place more-or-less simultaneously, and we only execute them one after the other to facilitate gameplay. As such, I would rule that closing your eyes counts as being blind for the round, with all penalties thereof.

Likewise, if you're fighting a monster with a gaze attack, you can't have your eyes closed during its turn but open during your own turn.

I don't think this is a clear comparison though; for a gaze attack, you have to keep your eyes averted/shut for the whole round because "reverting" them at the end of your turn would simply mean that you have to save against the attack right away. In other words, the gaze is continuous. There's thus a reason why you can't consider your eyes open and shut on the same round. Shutting your eyes to attack meanwhile is something you could do on your turn, and open them at EoT, using two free actions - sort of a long blink.

[TomeGnome]

Stepping into the middle of a long conversation, so forgive me if I miss a key point, but I think I have a solution to the issue of interpretation regarding Seeking and its application to ranged "weapons."

Seeking could easily apply to both projectile weapons and ammunition-dependent weapons (but not the ammunition itself). The nature of a bow is that the way it faces determines where its projectiles will fly. The arrow itself need not veer towards a target because the bow does so as the archer prepares to fire. By that token, the bow does not need to bestow Seeking onto the arrow because the bow's direction is the determining factor.

This interpretation is such that the language can apply to both thrown projectiles (which are weapons that will themselves veer as thrown) and launchers (which are also weapons that will veer to direct the ammunition). The specific example of an arrow fired into the wrong square is misleading and seems to indicate that the arrow is what's enchanted, but it doesn't outright say that is the case. The language itself is not exclusive between the two types of ranged weapons.

[TomeGnome]

As I pointed out in my interpretation, Seeking beats Mirror Image anyway, no closing eyes needed. So that renders this moot regardless.

Can you spell out exactly how your interpretation works then? I'm not seeing how anything stated above dictates that Seeking gets around the random roll necessary to determine if they chosen target was the correct target.

[Psyren]

Can you spell out exactly how your interpretation works then? I'm not seeing how anything stated above dictates that Seeking gets around the random roll necessary to determine if they chosen target was the correct target.

I interpret it as a miss chance, since it's a random chance you'll miss that isn't dependent on the target's AC. The specific term "miss chance" is not used in Mirror Image, but it does refer to "missing" in order to hit a figment instead of the creature.

[Segev]

I interpret it as a miss chance, since it's a random chance you'll miss that isn't dependent on the target's AC. The specific term "miss chance" is not used in Mirror Image, but it does refer to "missing" in order to hit a figment instead of the creature.

A valid house rule, but not technically what is written in the rules. The rules as written state clearly that it is a roll to determine which image was targeted. A miss chance comes from inability to identify the location of what you're aiming at. Mirror image doesn't provide a miss chance; it provides extra targets at which to aim, and does not interfere with your ability to hit whichever one you happen to aim at.

So it's not a miss chance. It's a chance that what you aimed at was really what you wanted to aim at.

[TomeGnome]

I interpret it as a miss chance, since it's a random chance you'll miss that isn't dependent on the target's AC. The specific term "miss chance" is not used in Mirror Image, but it does refer to "missing" in order to hit a figment instead of the creature.

I'm 100% with Segev. I don't think that can be considered a perfectly app comparison. For one, it's not a static miss chance like with invisibility, blur, etc. It depends on the number of images. Second of all, and more to the point, AC absolutely factors into it. If you get close enough to a figment's AC, then it has an impact on future attacks by getting rid of the image. You can actually hit an image, which is not a miss by any means.

At face value, yes, it is a chance that you'll miss your intended target, but it isn't in the same category as the "you have a static X% chance of missing" like with other similar effects. It's a matter of whether the thing that you hit is the right thing, not a matter of whether you swing and hit nothing.

[Psyren]

I'm 100% with Segev. I don't think that can be considered a perfectly app comparison. For one, it's not a static miss chance like with invisibility, blur, etc. It depends on the number of images. Second of all, and more to the point, AC absolutely factors into it. If you get close enough to a figment's AC, then it has an impact on future attacks by getting rid of the image. You can actually hit an image, which is not a miss by any means.

At face value, yes, it is a chance that you'll miss your intended target, but it isn't in the same category as the "you have a static X% chance of missing" like with other similar effects. It's a matter of whether the thing that you hit is the right thing, not a matter of whether you swing and hit nothing.

Variable miss chance isn't relevant - Blink has a variable miss chance too (50% if you can't see invisible, 20% if you can) for instance. Secondly, Seeking says "such as concealment" which leaves it pretty broad as far as what it could potentially work on.

In any event, if you disallow it, then you're just opening the door for seeking archers to shut their eyes and unerringly hit the target anyway, then open their eyes at the end of their turn since it's a free action. I'd just rather cut out the middle man myself.


A valid house rule, but not technically what is written in the rules. The rules as written state clearly that it is a roll to determine which image was targeted. A miss chance comes from inability to identify the location of what you're aiming at. Mirror image doesn't provide a miss chance; it provides extra targets at which to aim, and does not interfere with your ability to hit whichever one you happen to aim at.

So it's not a miss chance. It's a chance that what you aimed at was really what you wanted to aim at.

As above, rather than houserule I'll just shut my eyes and shoot your square perfectly RAW.

[TomeGnome]

Variable miss chance isn't relevant - Blink has a variable miss chance too (50% if you can't see invisible, 20% if you can) for instance. Secondly, Seeking says "such as concealment" which leaves it pretty broad as far as what it could potentially work on.

In any event, if you disallow it, then you're just opening the door for seeking archers to shut their eyes and unerringly hit the target anyway, then open their eyes at the end of their turn since it's a free action. I'd just rather cut out the middle man myself.

I see where you're coming from, but I just can't buy that interpretation.

Like I said, you're not really missing. You're hitting a figment, which has real effects of making the actual target easier to hit. People have already made valid points made regarding the closing of one's eyes making it more difficult to hit a square in the first place.

As a DM, I would rule that as still getting a 50% miss chance just to hit the intended square since you can't see it. At the point where you no longer see it, it is treated as being invisible (because technically, it is). If you miss the square, it doesn't matter whether you had Seeking, because Seeking specifies that hitting the wrong square means a miss.

It goes like this:

1) Character closes eyes and attacks.
2) 50% (or more) chance to miss the intended square.
3) If you hit the right square, Seeking then takes effect and would cancel any miss chances since your vision is no longer a factor of hitting.

The problem is, there are still 1d4+x targets, and you could potentially "hit" any one of them, so it's not a true miss chance.

[Segev]

In any event, if you disallow it, then you're just opening the door for seeking archers to shut their eyes and unerringly hit the target anyway, then open their eyes at the end of their turn since it's a free action. I'd just rather cut out the middle man myself.



As above, rather than houserule I'll just shut my eyes and shoot your square perfectly RAW.
As stated before, the DM is free and within his rights to rule that you've got your eyes closed for so much of the 6-second round (since you're making a full attack with your eyes closed) that you count as blind until your next turn. People are attacking you and doing other things while your eyes are closed.

"I close my eyes, shoot, then re-open them," then results in you opening your eyes as the next round begins. If you close your eyes as you start shooting again, you're basically firing a few shots with your eyes closed, then opening your eyes to quickly glance about, then firing a few more shots.

Besides, this is more an oddity of concealment vs. mirror image, and has little to do with Seeking. Since if you do this and are not concerned by (or your DM doesn't rule you're harmed by) closing your eyes, you have a higher chance to hit your target if he has more than 1 mirror image active even with the 50% miss chance due to concealment.

[Psyren]

The problem is, there are still 1d4+x targets, and you could potentially "hit" any one of them, so it's not a true miss chance.

The spell specifically states that if you can't see it has no effect. So the 1d4+x targets no longer matter at that point.


As stated before, the DM is free and within his rights to rule that you've got your eyes closed for so much of the 6-second round (since you're making a full attack with your eyes closed) that you count as blind until your next turn. People are attacking you and doing other things while your eyes are closed.

"I close my eyes, shoot, then re-open them," then results in you opening your eyes as the next round begins. If you close your eyes as you start shooting again, you're basically firing a few shots with your eyes closed, then opening your eyes to quickly glance about, then firing a few more shots.

As a wise man once told me, "this is a valid houserule, but not technically what is written in the rules." Free actions happen on your turn, not at the beginning of the following round. Close, volley, open can all be done before the enemy can respond unless they ready actions.

[Segev]

As a wise man once told me, "this is a valid houserule, but not technically what is written in the rules." Free actions happen on your turn, not at the beginning of the following round. Close, volley, open can all be done before the enemy can respond unless they ready actions.
Free actions also have the clause that the DM can rule that you can't have them if he feels they're abusing the spirit of it.

Regardless, this still is an issue independent of Seeking. Any character attacking a mirror image-protected character can do as you suggest, and take a 50% miss chance in place of a 25% or 33% hit chance.

I suppose you ARE opening yourself to readied actions while your eyes are closed, but yeah. This isn't really an argument that Seeking should ignore mirror image, since your suggested countermeasure counter-intuitively is the right thing to do with or without a Seeking weapon.

[TomeGnome]

The spell specifically states that if you can't see it has no effect. So the 1d4+x targets no longer matter at that point.

But at the point where you are taking aim, your eyes are open, so you can see and it does have an effect. The open/close eyes tactic to me is pretty clear cheese and trying to have your cake and eat it too, and abuses the nature of the free action by trying to make it so you get both the benefits of your aim from before and your action taken afterward based on your aim.

These are all visually based effects, and if anything you're doing relies on sight, which Mirror Image clearly does, then you suffer its effects. Seeking clearly ignores the effects of miss chances (which Mirror Image is not, since you still hit a valid target), so at best, you can deal with a simple 50% miss chance for total concealment to see if you hit the right square (at which point, Seeking would trigger), and only if you're firing completely blindly with no aiming whatsoever.

The ONLY way I would say that closing your eyes should allow you to get around this is if you have Tremorsense. At that point, you know someone's square and can properly aim with your eyes and then Seeking does the rest of the work for you.

Edit: "ONLY way" probably isn't fair. I'm sure there are other exceptions, but I do not think Seeking is one of them.

Second edit: If you're blind and using Tremorsense, the other effects wouldn't matter anyways. Ignore all of that.

[Segev]

I suppose this is a good time to raise a question I always have: does mirror image extend into multiple squares, or are all the images standing on top of one another? If the latter, it always puzzles me how they can really make you aim at the "wrong" one when hitting the "wrong" one might also hit the "right" one that's piled on top of it.

[TomeGnome]

I suppose this is a good time to raise a question I always have: does mirror image extend into multiple squares, or are all the images standing on top of one another? If the latter, it always puzzles me how they can really make you aim at the "wrong" one when hitting the "wrong" one might also hit the "right" one that's piled on top of it.

The spell specifies pretty clearly that they occupy the same square as you. The reason it creates that dilemma of hitting the right target is that they do not all overlap. A square is 5 feet, and you can fit a lot of people-sized things into that space. Now for larger targets... that creates issues, and you have to use your imagination as far as which parts of a space the images take up. Maybe one image is laying down. Maybe one is standing up really tall.

Overall, you never take up all of the "space" that your character occupies. That space is just designated as being the space that you could be in at any given point, which is why even if you know what square someone is in, there's always a 50% chance to miss if you can't see them.

[Segev]

...and now I'm picturing a wizard gelatinous cube casting mirror image and having it do nothing.

[Psyren]

I suppose this is a good time to raise a question I always have: does mirror image extend into multiple squares, or are all the images standing on top of one another? If the latter, it always puzzles me how they can really make you aim at the "wrong" one when hitting the "wrong" one might also hit the "right" one that's piled on top of it.

In 3.5 they did, but in PF they don't. As this is a PF thread, mirror image will therefore not keep you from targeting the right square. This was an intended nerf to mirror image that makes it easier to focus-fire the caster.


But at the point where you are taking aim, your eyes are open, so you can see and it does have an effect. The open/close eyes tactic to me is pretty clear cheese and trying to have your cake and eat it too, and abuses the nature of the free action by trying to make it so you get both the benefits of your aim from before and your action taken afterward based on your aim.

It's not cheese though - you literally have magic arrows (or a magic bow) that is designed to make shooting accurately with your eyes closed a thing once you know where you're aiming at. It would be cheese if you could do this without seeking. To me this is like saying Ghost Touch is cheesy because it lets you safely kill incorporeal creatures while material and vice-versa; no, that's not cheese, that's the very rule it's designed to let you break.

[Segev]

It's not cheese though - you literally have magic arrows (or a magic bow) that is designed to make shooting accurately with your eyes closed a thing once you know where you're aiming at. It would be cheese if you could do this without seeking. To me this is like saying Ghost Touch is cheesy because it lets you safely kill incorporeal creatures while material and vice-versa; no, that's not cheese, that's the very rule it's designed to let you break.
Technically, this argument undermines your point that closing your eyes and relying on Seeking would overcome mirror image. If you're saying that you look at the target you wish to shoot, then close your eyes before shooting, you've actually taken the WORST of both worlds: Now you have chosen a target (allowing mirror image to force you to roll to see if you chose the right one) and you've given your target Total Concealment (which, at least, is taken care of by Seeking). (If you didn't have Seeking on your weapon, you'd first roll to see if you aimed at the right target and THEN have a 50% miss chance!)

You'd have to close your eyes and aim in the general direction, naming the square at which you're aiming. Whether you can do this with your eyes closed and claim you have reason to know what square he's in is...well, it's supported by the RAW, so let's not examine it further than that. The question still arises whether you have to choose a target in that square.

[Psyren]

Technically, this argument undermines your point that closing your eyes and relying on Seeking would overcome mirror image. If you're saying that you look at the target you wish to shoot, then close your eyes before shooting, you've actually taken the WORST of both worlds: Now you have chosen a target (allowing mirror image to force you to roll to see if you chose the right one) and you've given your target Total Concealment (which, at least, is taken care of by Seeking). (If you didn't have Seeking on your weapon, you'd first roll to see if you aimed at the right target and THEN have a 50% miss chance!)

Except I haven't chosen a target, I've chosen a square containing an enemy. This is all Seeking requires me to do by RAW. Since we're being houserule-averse, once I close my eyes it does the rest.

[TomeGnome]

Except I haven't chosen a target, I've chosen a square containing an enemy. This is all Seeking requires me to do by RAW. Since we're being houserule-averse, once I close my eyes it does the rest.

You can't aim with your eyes closed. Plain and simple. You can guess, but once you've lost your visual contact with a target, you are no longer aiming. You're guessing. The only way you're NOT guessing is if you knock the arrow, aim, and THEN close your eyes, and at that point, you've already had to pick a target. The only reason Mirror Image has you roll attack/target in the opposite order is to cut down on unnecessary rolling.

Seeking was designed to make you lose the miss chance if and only if you succeeded at hitting the right square, and if you're shooting with your eyes closed, no DM in the would should assume you're going to hit the right square every time.

I'm not house-rule averse. I'm cheese averse, and this is trying to apply a bonus to something it was never intended to address. Yeah, it's kinda a cool thought, and I can see why in roleplay it would spice things up, but that's about as far as I can extend that thought.

Edit: I realize the above doesn't completely address the difference between targeting a square versus targeting a creature. My thought there is that aiming at a square is fine. You just don't then get to claim that you have a chance to hit the creature in it, because seeking only helps you hit your target which you have just admitted is the square itself. Even then, your best odds are 50/50 to hit the actual enemy as per the rules of shooting at an invisible target.

[zergling.exe]

I suppose this is a good time to raise a question I always have: does mirror image extend into multiple squares, or are all the images standing on top of one another? If the latter, it always puzzles me how they can really make you aim at the "wrong" one when hitting the "wrong" one might also hit the "right" one that's piled on top of it.

Tome and Blood has a nice picture of the 3.5 gnome illusionist using mirror image on its cover.

[Psyren]

You can't aim with your eyes closed. Plain and simple. You can guess, but once you've lost your visual contact with a target, you are no longer aiming. You're guessing. The only way you're NOT guessing is if you knock the arrow, aim, and THEN close your eyes, and at that point, you've already had to pick a target. The only reason Mirror Image has you roll attack/target in the opposite order is to cut down on unnecessary rolling.

I agree with all this, but the fact is that once you pick the right square and shut your eyes, Seeking removes the guesswork.



Seeking was designed to make you lose the miss chance if and only if you succeeded at hitting the right square, and if you're shooting with your eyes closed, no DM in the would should assume you're going to hit the right square every time.

I'm not house-rule averse. I'm cheese averse, and this is trying to apply a bonus to something it was never intended to address. Yeah, it's kinda a cool thought, and I can see why in roleplay it would spice things up, but that's about as far as I can extend that thought.

For starters, I'm a DM and I would allow this, because the player has invested in a seeking bow, so your claim isn't quite accurate. If I didn't want them to have one, I would break or ban it. But then, I would also allow seeking to just bypass Mirror Image in the first place and render this whole debate moot. It's not like spellcasters need more help against martials after all.



Edit: I realize the above doesn't completely address the difference between targeting a square versus targeting a creature. My thought there is that aiming at a square is fine. You just don't then get to claim that you have a chance to hit the creature in it, because seeking only helps you hit your target which you have just admitted is the square itself. Even then, your best odds are 50/50 to hit the actual enemy as per the rules of shooting at an invisible target.

No - mirror image says: "Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead." You are always the one being attacked initially, even if the spell subsequently switches their target to an image. Then once you can't see the images, the target-switching becomes moot and get replaced with normal miss chances, which seeking bypasses.

[Platymus Pus]

Mirror image is all in the same square is it not?
I don't see why seeking would hit mirror image in that case.

[Crake]

This, in fact, makes the errata about magic missile

I'm not sure if anyone else pointed it out, but can we please not confuse errata and FAQ? They're not equal precedence as rules sources, in fact, the FAQ is frequently straight up wrong or self contradictory, so many people don't use it for anything other than confirmation bias.

[Segev]

Ah, that was the FAQ? Sorry, I saw it mentioned as errata and didn't check, myself. My bad.


As far as "I choose a square and the seeking takes care of the rest," that's not entirely true.

Let's say that I have four Tiny creatures occupying the same 5-ft. square. If you close your eyes and point a Seeking bow at the square, you still must choose which of those creatures you're targeting. Seeking wouldn't let you, for instance, say, "I want to hit the creature that has the MacGuffin" if you couldn't tell which creature that was by looking, even if you fired at the square it was in. You'd HAVE to choose one of the four creatures as your target, eyes closed or not. And Seeking would ensure you didn't have a miss chance when you aimed at it. But it wouldn't help you hit the "right" one if you didn't have a way of knowing which one of the four was the "right" one. It would only help you hit the one you chose as your target.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure if anyone else pointed it out, but can we please not confuse errata and FAQ? They're not equal precedence as rules sources, in fact, the FAQ is frequently straight up wrong or self contradictory, so many people don't use it for anything other than confirmation bias.

This is a Pathfinder thread, so FAQ is indeed an official rules source, unlike 3.5.



As far as "I choose a square and the seeking takes care of the rest," that's not entirely true.

Let's say that I have four Tiny creatures occupying the same 5-ft. square. If you close your eyes and point a Seeking bow at the square, you still must choose which of those creatures you're targeting. Seeking wouldn't let you, for instance, say, "I want to hit the creature that has the MacGuffin" if you couldn't tell which creature that was by looking, even if you fired at the square it was in. You'd HAVE to choose one of the four creatures as your target, eyes closed or not. And Seeking would ensure you didn't have a miss chance when you aimed at it. But it wouldn't help you hit the "right" one if you didn't have a way of knowing which one of the four was the "right" one. It would only help you hit the one you chose as your target.

In-universe, how do you designate a target? Whisper it's true name in Lojban to your arrow? Tie a lock of their hair to the bow? Smear some DNA on the point?

No, it's simply by willing "I'm trying to hit that creature." The fact that he has a bunch of images up is irrelevant, you're still trying to hit the creature. You don't have to point at one of the things you can see and say "I'm trying to hit that instance of photons absorbed by my retina and hope that's the creature" before firing. And so long as you picked the right square, it works, because magic.

To use your example - if there are multiple critters in the square and you have your eyes shut, your miss chance for targeting one of them stays the same - 50%. Note that it's the same whether there are 4 of them there or 400. (Of course, in the latter case you'd have other modifiers to hit, but as long as they don't count as a swarm you're good.)

[P.F.]

FWIW at my table a seeking arrow hits the caster, not the image. If it can pierce concealment, soft cover, invisibility, and protective magic, it probably isn't fooled by an illusion either. Also, "miss chance" doesn't have an entry in the glossary. I don't know if it's defined in the body text anywhere, but if not, it must be interpreted using English definition, meaning "a chance to miss," typically twenty or fifty percent.

That said, my understanding is that mirror image gives you a "hit chance," as in you have a chance to hit the wrong target. You can also get a "hit" with a "near miss" which is just confusing. So RAW mirror image may or may not have a "miss chance."

[Florian]

Please correct me:
Mirror Image does not generate a "miss chance" that the seeking enhancement could ignore.
Magic Missile ignores Mirror Images because they always strike true independent of the caster.

[Barstro]

Please correct me:
Mirror Image does not generate a "miss chance" that the seeking enhancement could ignore.
Magic Missile ignores Mirror Images because they always strike true independent of the caster.

My understanding of the RAW of it is;
Mirror Image is checked after a valid attack roll. Since Magic Missile does not have an attack roll, Mirror Image is not checked. (Much like AoE).

The difference with Seeking is that there is still an initial attack roll.

[Florian]

My understanding of the RAW of it is;
Mirror Image is checked after a valid attack roll. Since Magic Missile does not have an attack roll, Mirror Image is not checked. (Much like AoE).

The difference with Seeking is that there is still an initial attack roll.

My understanding is that "specific" beats "general" on any account.

Mirror Image creates figment doubles of the caster, thereby providing more than one legitimate targets for spells or attack. This has nothing to do with a "Miss Chance", as this mechanic doesn´t happen with that particular spell effect.

A Seeking Bow only disregards a "Miss Chance", but is not based on hitting a real target. You could fire it against a Mirror Image or an Silent Image standing in shadows, the result is the same, it disregards the "Miss Chance" and hits the target, even if that is an Illusion or Figment.

What it does not is discerning whether a target is real or an Illusion/Figment, as that is not pat of its power.

[Barstro]

Allow me to try to clarify my position I was taking in my post;


Please correct me:
Mirror Image does not generate a "miss chance" that the seeking enhancement could ignore.
That comes down to if you feel "miss chance" is a legal term and the lack of that exact phrase in a description means you ignore anything that references that term.
As others have stated, Mirror Image creates an effect that has the same result as "miss chance". It seems to look like a duck and quack like a duck.
You, however, seem to have taken the view that "miss chance" must be used and/or that Mirror Image does something different than create a "miss chance". A valid view, but not necessarily the only valid view.


Magic Missile ignores Mirror Images because they always strike true independent of the caster.
Magic Missile ignores Mirror Image because Mirror Image requires an attack roll first. Magic Missile has no attack roll. "Strike True" is not a legal term, nor is it even used in Magic Missile's description.

[Kurald Galain]

That comes down to if you feel "miss chance" is a legal term and the lack of that exact phrase in a description means you ignore anything that references that term.
As other have stated, Mirror Image creates an effect that has the same result as "miss chance". It seems to look like a duck and quack like a duck.
You, however, seem to have taken the view that "miss chance" must be used and/or that Mirror Image does something different than create a "miss chance". A valid view, but not necessarily the only valid view.

Yeah, I'm really not a fan of arguments like "yeah, you're moving but it doesn't count as movement because..." or "well, you're rolling for damage but that doesn't mean you're making a damage roll". If I'm the GM then I would whack such bureaucratese technicalities with a veto immediately.

Unless we're playing Paranoia, of course. :smallcool:

[Segev]

In-universe, how do you designate a target? Whisper it's true name in Lojban to your arrow? Tie a lock of their hair to the bow? Smear some DNA on the point?No. You point your bow at where you think your target is and fire. To do that, you have to know what you want to point it at. If you don't, you haven't selected a target. You're firing blindly into a general area.

There are rules holes here, obviously, but we're not running into them if we stay on-topic.


No, it's simply by willing "I'm trying to hit that creature." The fact that he has a bunch of images up is irrelevant, you're still trying to hit the creature.Actually, it does matter. Replace the mirror images with a trio of minor images, each of the creature and each overlapping. We'll assume, for argument's sake, that you fail or are denied your Disbelief save because you haven't got evidence that they're illusions, or that you've failed it already.

You want to hit "that creature," but you can't tell which one is "that creature" and which are illusions. Seeking won't help you, here, even if you close your eyes: you have to designate which of the possible targets is the one at which you're aiming. Seeking will ensure that you don't suffer a 50% miss chance for that target, but if you're choosing essentially at random, then whatever random resolution is used to determine which of the 5 possible targets (4 illusions and the real one) you actually aimed for must be invoked to determine which is hit.


You don't have to point at one of the things you can see and say "I'm trying to hit that instance of photons absorbed by my retina and hope that's the creature" before firing. And so long as you picked the right square, it works, because magic.Actually, you do. Because you can't choose "that creature" as a target without some way of identifying it that lets YOU differentiate it. You could declare "the one in front" or "the one most to the left" or anything else that makes one of them distinct from the others by the senses you are using, but Seeking doesn't magically realize, "He meant this target and not that one." You have to picture where the arrow is meant to go, picture the target you want it to hit.

If you happen to pick the wrong target, Seeking only helps you not miss that target; it doesn't help you pick the right one in the first place.


To use your example - if there are multiple critters in the square and you have your eyes shut, your miss chance for targeting one of them stays the same - 50%. Note that it's the same whether there are 4 of them there or 400. (Of course, in the latter case you'd have other modifiers to hit, but as long as they don't count as a swarm you're good.)Very true! But if there are 4 creatures or 400 of them, you still have to tell the DM which one you're targeting. And you can't specify anything you cannot discern.

So if there are 4 identical-looking quasits in one square, and you know one of them is named "Bob," one is named "Sally," one is named "Pat," and one is named "Alex," but you don't know which is which, you can't tell the DM, "I am aiming at Alex." The DM will rightfully ask you how you choose your target "Alex" from the other three.

Whichever of the 4 you ultimately designate by some means that you actually have at your disposal to identify a target is the one that will be hit if you succeed on your attack roll. If you close your eyes first, it's the one that's hit if you succeed on the attack roll AND don't fail your miss chance.

If you have a Seeking bow, that doesn't change. Closing your eyes doesn't magically make your Seeking bow able to determine which of the 4 quasits is Alex. The Seeking bow just makes sure that you closing your eyes doesn't actually make the 50% miss chance cause you to miss whichever of the 4 you selected.



So, from a fluff/narrative/logic standpoint, mirror image makes you choose your target from a number of fakes with one real, all identical save for position. You really only have position to go off of (or, if your fluff for mirror image has them doing different things, you might be able to say "the one pointing at my friend" or similar). Any number of mechanics could be used to let you pick which of the potential targets is the one you'll aim at. Mirror image specifies that you'll roll a die to find out. Other means could be to have index cards fanned out - one marked "real" on the hidden side - and have the attacker pick one, or to have them placed in the square and have the desired target's player pick one to be "real" and then the attacker pick which one he attacks (without telling the attacker which was chosen until after he picks).

Regardless, mirror image specifies that you roll randomly to see which one you really targeted. Not whether you missed the real one. It is therefore not a miss chance, and Seeking doesn't trigger on it.

If you close your eyes, you still had to choose a target. That means that, unless you used a means to identify your target other than looking in his direction and determining where he was before you closed your eyes, mirror image still requires you to roll to see which one you really targeted.

I was therefore mistaken before when I said that closing your eyes improved your chances of hitting a mirror image-protected character; only using senses which are not impacted by mirror image would help. Otherwise, you first had to identify which of the 3-9 targets you're aiming at. Since the images actually duplicate sounds as well as sights (at least in PF, which we're discussing), even "listening" for it won't help. You'd need something that rather specifically worked off of a sense other than vision or hearing to justify even a blind man's chance of picking the right one out.


So, yeah. Close your eyes, and Seeking will still help you avoid the 50% miss chance. It will not let you ignore the chance that mirror image creates that you chose the wrong target in the first place.

[Psyren]

No. You point your bow at where you think your target is and fire. To do that, you have to know what you want to point it at.

And I've done that, it's called a square.



You want to hit "that creature," but you can't tell which one is "that creature" and which are illusions. Seeking won't help you, here, even if you close your eyes: you have to designate which of the possible targets is the one at which you're aiming.

I designate the creature. "I shoot the bugbear." Done.



Actually, you do. Because you can't choose "that creature" as a target without some way of identifying it that lets YOU differentiate it.

By that logic, you can't even try to attack an invisible creature, a scenario that Seeking was specifically designed to prevent. You can't see it, so what "way of identifying it" did you use?



Very true! But if there are 4 creatures or 400 of them, you still have to tell the DM which one you're targeting. And you can't specify anything you cannot discern.

"The first one."
"The one with the most/least health."
"The one that attacked me last."
"I'll shoot at one of them."

etc.

[Barstro]

No. You point your bow at where you think your target is and fire. To do that, you have to know what you want to point it at. If you don't, you haven't selected a target. You're firing blindly into a general area.

Etc.


Segev, that's a fine argument. However, it needs to be supported against firing at an invisible creature.

Seeking, very specifically, allows you to;
1) Select a square you think an invisible enemy might be. (Or select a square that your party member tells you to fire at because he can see through the smoke)
2) Aim at that square.
3) Fire at that square.
4) Ignore any miss chance and actually hit the target 100% of the time on a successful attack roll.

How is that different from Mirror Image when the shooter can;
1) Select the square you KNOW the enemy to be
2) Aim at that square
3) Fire at that square

As I understand it; Mirror Image, as an Illusion spell, does not create anything physical. If you know the square, how can Mirror Image prevent Seeking, but Invisible allow it? After all, neither spell changes where, within the 5x5 square, the enemy is standing.

[Kurald Galain]

Here's a weird one, though. Magic Missile cannot hit invisible creatures (since you can't target them), but somehow it can pick out the actual creature from a Mirror Image spell. Huh?

[Aletheides]

...and now I'm picturing a wizard gelatinous cube casting mirror image and having it do nothing.

I'd like to go off-topic for a moment, and interject that if you're dealing with wizard gelatinous cubes...miss chances are probably the least of your worries.

Party Member: "Oh gods, I see bat guano and sulfur floating around inside that thing! Run for your lives!!" :smalleek:
WGC: "Blurble! (verbal component)", Jiggle (somatic), *Fireball!*

:smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Here's a weird one, though. Magic Missile cannot hit invisible creatures (since you can't target them), but somehow it can pick out the actual creature from a Mirror Image spell. Huh?

That's easy to resolve - Magic Missile can't target squares, but seeking arrows explicitly can. In short, magic missile does require you to specifically discern a target, while seeking arrows let you simply fire into where you think the target is. That's exactly how seeking works!

[Segev]

And I've done that, it's called a square.Then congratulations, you've targeted a 5 ft. x 5 ft. patch of ground, and your arrow will unerringly fail to miss it due to you not looking at it.




I designate the creature. "I shoot the bugbear." Done."Which one? There are 5 of them in that square."


By that logic, you can't even try to attack an invisible creature, a scenario that Seeking was specifically designed to prevent. You can't see it, so what "way of identifying it" did you use?You have to have some means of pinpointing it, something that you think it's doing. You're aiming for something, even if it's just a figment of your imagination, in that square. If that something is really there, then Seeking will obviate the miss chance. If you aimed at an empty square, you're out of luck.

Question to which I have only a suspicion of an answer: if you are firing at an invisible target, call him "Bob," that you think is in a square (designate it "A"), but in reality a different invisible target, call him "Kevin," is in that square while Bob is in a different square B, and you're using a Seeking bow...will you hit Kevin when you aim your bow at that square and say "I aim at Bob?" Will Seeking trigger, since you were aiming at Bob, not Kevin?

Personally, I believe the rules don't let you "aim at Bob," but only "at the creature in that square." Seeking, therefore, will obviate your miss chance, and you will hit Kevin if your attack roll is high enough.

Let's say that Kevin and Bob are identical-looking imps, and are both in the same square. Can you aim at Bob if you can't tell which of the two is Bob? Does Seeking let you say, "I want to hit Bob," and thus you don't have any chance that the target you selected was Kevin?

Does them being invisible change any of this?



"The first one."If you've got a means of designating "the first one," this works. (first in a line, first on a list you've made, "number 1" if you've numbered them...)


"The one with the most/least health."If you can ascertain this IC, that's valid. If you cannot, then the DM is well within his rights to ask you, "Which one is that?"

"The one that attacked me last."Assuming they've taken no effort to obfuscate which one that is since the attack (or their efforts are in vain), this also works.

"I'll shoot at one of them."The DM may now either choose which one you shoot at, or randomly determine which one it is by whatever means he chooses.

If you're firing at a creature with mirror image up, that last example is the most akin to it. "I shoot the wizard" translates by default to "I shoot one of the identical wizards standing in that square." You don't get to declare that you shoot at "the real one," because you can't tell which that is.


Segev, that's a fine argument. However, it needs to be supported against firing at an invisible creature.

Seeking, very specifically, allows you to;
1) Select a square you think an invisible enemy might be. (Or select a square that your party member tells you to fire at because he can see through the smoke)
2) Aim at that square.
3) Fire at that square.
4) Ignore any miss chance and actually hit the target 100% of the time on a successful attack roll.This is one of those areas there's a potential hole in the rules, yes, however, let me make this a little better of an analogy to deal with the specific question of this thread.

I've had my groups of tiny creatures. Let's use the quasits Anna, Bob, Pat, and Alex again. They're identical-looking. They're invisible. You can't see invisible things, but somehow you've pinpointed the square they're in (perhaps due to a party member who can see invisible things).

Can you say, "I shoot Bob?" Or can you only say, "I shoot (one of) the creature(s) in that square!"

If you can say, "I shoot Bob," does that mean that, if they were visible, you could say the same thing, even though you don't know which one is Bob?

(Okay, pedantically, you can say, "I shoot Bob," just fine. But meaningfully, you can't use that as a designator unless you do, in fact, know which one Bob is.)

In PF, you select a creature as your target by, essentially, pointing to it on the map. In theory, creatures should be represented on that map individually even if invisible and sharing spaces. Thus, "I target that invisible imp," is a valid thing to say if you are not metagaming to know which square it's in. You're pointing at it. However, if you don't know for a fact that that one is Bob, whatever means the DM is using to determine whether it is or not is valid to determine whether you chose the right imp to fire at. Invisible or not.

Seeking obviates miss chances; it does not help you choose the correct target when you lack the information necessary to pick which one is "correct."


How is that different from Mirror Image when the shooter can;
1) Select the square you KNOW the enemy to be
2) Aim at that square
3) Fire at that squareAs discussed above, the difference is that there are multiple possible targets in that square, so the shooter must designate which one he's firing at in a means that does not require senses or knowledge he does not have. Mirror image merely specifies that you roll to randomly determine which of the possible targets you actually hit, because each is so identical that the ONLY possible distinguishing trait (barring senses which perceive through the illusion) is position, and while I just discussed how, in theory, things can be placed on a map, in practice, we don't bother with granularity below 5 ft. squares.


As I understand it; Mirror Image, as an Illusion spell, does not create anything physical. If you know the square, how can Mirror Image prevent Seeking, but Invisible allow it? After all, neither spell changes where, within the 5x5 square, the enemy is standing.Because Seeking only helps you hit the target you've selected. You do not have the means of selecting "Bob" from our group of quasits, nor "the real one" from the group of wizards. You must designate which one you're targeting. If your designation doesn't specifically differentiate one particular one from another, then the ambiguity is resolved randomly. So "one of them" is resolved by some random means. Which is what mirror image specifies with "roll randomly."

But you're determining your target with that roll, not whether you missed your target.

If you've got an invisible wizard with mirror image up, then (barring specific rules otherwise, which might exist) the default handling would be: Declare you're firing at the square you believe the wizard to be in. Roll to hit. If you hit, roll a miss chance (which Seeking obviates if you have it). If you don't miss, then roll to determine which of them you actually hit. If that one's a mirror image, it vanishes. If it's the real one, he takes damage.

But if you miss due to miss chance, it doesn't matter whether it was the real target or an illusory one, because you missed.

Conceptually, what it's modeling is that you had to pick a target out of the several invisible ones in that square. Essentially, you imagined one's position and fired at it. The miss chance is to see if you happened to imagine the right location within that square. The random roll if you don't suffer the miss chance is to determine which of them your imagination was actually targeting (which is likely going to be whichever one was closest to the location within the square you imagined).


I'd like to go off-topic for a moment, and interject that if you're dealing with wizard gelatinous cubes...miss chances are probably the least of your worries.

Party Member: "Oh gods, I see bat guano and sulfur floating around inside that thing! Run for your lives!!" :smalleek:
WGC: "Blurble! (verbal component)", Jiggle (somatic), *Fireball!*

:smallbiggrin:I'd be more worried about solid fog keeping you from running away.

[Barstro]

I have clients coming in, so I cannot read your entire response.

I will, however, state that bringing Tiny creatures into it of course creates a problem. But I think the problem is with how multiple creatures exist in single squares is used in general.

I think it's easier to consider creatures always taking up a single square, but the size the of the square changing.
Large is a 10x10 square
Medium is a 5x5 square
Tiny is 2.5x2.5 (assuming I have the correct size).
That way, you are STILL attacking a particular square.

But, that is not how the rules work and I am not here to argue that particular part of the rules I dislike (feel free to start a new thread on it and I'd be happy to chime in). I just leave it in there to show a way it would alleviate this particular issue.

[Psyren]

Then congratulations, you've targeted a 5 ft. x 5 ft. patch of ground, and your arrow will unerringly fail to miss it due to you not looking at it.

Nope, you can target an unseen creature via its square. CRB:


If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy's not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there and tell him that the character has missed, regardless of the result. That way the player doesn't know whether the attack missed because the enemy's not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance.

This general rule is then overridden by Seeking:


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.

Attack unseen = know which square and aim at it with huge miss chance = remove miss chance with seeking.


Question to which I have only a suspicion of an answer: if you are firing at an invisible target, call him "Bob," that you think is in a square (designate it "A"), but in reality a different invisible target, call him "Kevin," is in that square while Bob is in a different square B, and you're using a Seeking bow...will you hit Kevin when you aim your bow at that square and say "I aim at Bob?" Will Seeking trigger, since you were aiming at Bob, not Kevin?

Personally, I believe the rules don't let you "aim at Bob," but only "at the creature in that square." Seeking, therefore, will obviate your miss chance, and you will hit Kevin if your attack roll is high enough.

You were aiming at Bob, Bob is not in that square, therefore you aimed at the wrong square and Seeking will not trigger. How does it know you wanted Bob? Magic.


If you're firing at a creature with mirror image up, that last example is the most akin to it. "I shoot the wizard" translates by default to "I shoot one of the identical wizards standing in that square." You don't get to declare that you shoot at "the real one," because you can't tell which that is.

Right - which is why you shut your eyes, negating the spell.

[Segev]

Nope, you can target an unseen creature via its square.The quote you provide says you aim at the space he's in, not at "the square." Since granularity is only to 5x5 squares, you get to specify a square and the miss chance kicks in beyond that.


Attack unseen = know which square and aim at it with huge miss chance = remove miss chance with seeking.



You were aiming at Bob, Bob is not in that square, therefore you aimed at the wrong square and Seeking will not trigger. How does it know you wanted Bob? Magic.
Actually, no.

The rules don't say you get to declare you're aiming at "Bob." They say you can aim at "a target." If you cannot differentiate Bob from another target, you have to specify your target by some means that you CAN differentiate it.



Right - which is why you shut your eyes, negating the spell.Here, you're correct. Since you cannot see the figments, you cannot be fooled, per the text of the spell. Which is funny, since the spell specifies it replicates sounds, too. But that's the RAW for you.

I'm still not convinced that, if you can't specify your target without looking at him, that you can claim not to have seen the images when selecting your target. Which would be what you'd have to do to avoid the effects of the spell.

How do you identify the square he's in without looking at him first?

[Psyren]

The quote you provide says you aim at the space he's in, not at "the square." Since granularity is only to 5x5 squares, you get to specify a square and the miss chance kicks in beyond that.

Space is measured in squares :smallconfused: CRB 194-196 says this repeatedly.



Actually, no.

The rules don't say you get to declare you're aiming at "Bob." They say you can aim at "a target." If you cannot differentiate Bob from another target, you have to specify your target by some means that you CAN differentiate it.

Bob is my target. That's all Seeking needs to "know." I'm not sure how to explain it any more clearly than that.



How do you identify the square he's in without looking at him first?

Remember - in PF, all the images share your square. Whether you're looking at an image or the actual creature is irrelevant, you've successfully identified his square at that point and may aim into it once you can't see.

[DarkSoul]

I found discussions, but no real answers, from a while ago and was wondering if there is anything close to a ruling.

At Issue
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.

When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created. These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.

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).

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.

Can I use magic missile to destroy one or more images from a mirror image spell?
No. Magic missile targets a creature and does not require an attack roll, so it bypasses all the images and always hits the caster.

Ignoring the RAW cheese that a bowman can just close his eyes and fire into the correct square; what is the effect of a full attack from a Seeking bow into Mirror Image?

I see the steps as;
1) Fire an arrow
2a) Miss by 5 or less, destroy an image (goto 1)
2b) Hit
3) ???

The RAW seems to come down to an interpretation of "Miss Chance". If Mirror Image is considered a miss chance, then Seeking ignores it. However, if Mirror Image is considered an additional target that the bowman was aiming for, then the bowman hit what he attempted to hit, so the additional roll should be made to determine if he was targeting the correct person to begin with.

At least one earlier thread talked about "not making Seeking even more powerful than it already is". While I do not disagree with the sentiment, I do disagree that ignoring Mirror Image is more powerful (at least for my play style). Frankly, I'd rather spend a full round action to basically undo a second level spell so the rest of my team doesn't have to deal with the spell.

Followup question; What happens when the bowman does hit the enemy? Has he then figured out which one is real so that he can then fire correctly for the rest of the full action? I say "no", since there is nothing in RAW to suggest that it works that way, but was curious what others thought.

Since the thread immediately devolved into a debate about the "RAW cheese" that you specifically said to ignore...

You hit the crux of the issue in mentioning miss chances. Mirror Image doesn't grant a miss chance for the purposes of Seeking. Concealment does. Displacement does. Blur and Fog Cloud do, by virtue of granting concealment. They force a percentage chance roll of completely missing your target, which Seeking then eliminates. If you look at a square containing a wizard with 5 mirror images, you see six wizards there. If you then close your eyes to try to make seeking work, you give yourself a 50% miss chance to hit the wizard in that square which, again, Seeking eliminates. You will definitely hit the wizard in that square if your attack roll is high enough. Which one you hit, however, is determined by a d6, with the wizard being #X on that d6 roll.

I do think that both sides of the argument have merit, especially considering the last sentence of Mirror Image. Personally I would rule the spell overrides Seeking except under a very specific circumstance: the archer loses sight of the wizard before they cast mirror image, and doesn't see them again until the spell is gone. To accomplish this proactively would require the archer to identify the spell as it's being cast and close their eyes before it goes off.

If the archer sees six wizards standing there then seeking doesn't help them pick out the right one to shoot at. They're all viable targets and aren't concealed in any way; they're just indistinguishable from one another.

[Segev]

Bob is my target. That's all Seeking needs to "know." I'm not sure how to explain it any more clearly than that.So Seeking also lets you close your eyes and fire into a grapple and hit Bob unerringly?

No, it doesn't, because there's a penalty OTHER THAN the miss chance which can make you hit the wrong target. Which is what mirror image does.




Remember - in PF, all the images share your square. Whether you're looking at an image or the actual creature is irrelevant, you've successfully identified his square at that point and may aim into it once you can't see.If you looked at the images and the creature to select the square, you had to specify which of those things in the square is your target while seeing those images as well as the real one. Without ability to tell which is the real one, you can't specify "the real one." You might not be fooled by the images if you can't see them when you pick your target, but you can't pick your target without seeing the images!


Seeking doesn't let you be more accurate than you would be if you could see clearly. It doesn't let you discern information that, if there was no concealment, you still wouldn't have.

If you are looking for Bob the Murderer, but you don't know what he looks like, and you're presented with 5 people who are all in their own individual squares, you cannot close your eyes and shoot at each of them, saying "I want to hit Bob," and have Seeking only go off if one of them actually is Bob. Seeking will go off for each of them, because you aimed at them. You targeted them by targeting the space you knew/believed they were in.

The only way for Seeking to accurately let you pick the right target out of several is if you only KNOW of one target and are aiming for it, knowing what you're aiming for without having anything else to "distract" you as a false target.

If you've seen the mirror image, or if you don't know which option is the "right" one, you can't rely on Seeking to figure it out for you. You have to know your target. "He's right there!" can work if the person is pointing out a specific target to you...but now your designated target is "the creature indicated by that person." You're trusting that person that it's Bob. Seeking is trusting your trust.




Seeking triggers on whatever YOU are targeting. You must be targeting something, not a nebulous idea. You need something to aim at. Even if that something is a figment of your imagination that you HOPE is in the right place. But if you SEE something, if something TELLS you what square to target, you have to trust that it's pointing out the RIGHT something once you close your eyes. Closing your eyes doesn't create information. Seeking only prevents closing your eyes from making your aim worse.

If you use your vision to spot the mirror image-protected wizard, you are fooled by the spell. Even once you close your eyes. Because you only know "one of those 5 figures" is your target.

A strange interaction, though, arises if a friend with, say, true seeing points out the real one to you: you can aim for THAT ONE. ...actually, that's not a strange interaction. He takes the time to point out the real one to you, so you now can say, "the one he's pointing at." Who is distinct from the others, by their locations not being where he's pointing.

[Psyren]

So Seeking also lets you close your eyes and fire into a grapple and hit Bob unerringly?

No, it doesn't, because there's a penalty OTHER THAN the miss chance which can make you hit the wrong target. Which is what mirror image does.

Grapple is irrelevant to this discussion - mirror image contains a specific clause that states if you can't see it, it ceases to apply, while grapple does not. That's why the "closed eye" trick works RAW. (And yes, you do still have to beat Bob's AC and whatever else.)



If you looked at the images and the creature to select the square, you had to specify which of those things in the square is your target while seeing those images as well as the real one. Without ability to tell which is the real one, you can't specify "the real one." You might not be fooled by the images if you can't see them when you pick your target, but you can't pick your target without seeing the images!

The problem isn't that the images aren't confusing you, the problem is that the images are all in the correct square. You therefore have all the information you need for Seeking to work.



Seeking doesn't let you be more accurate than you would be if you could see clearly. It doesn't let you discern information that, if there was no concealment, you still wouldn't have.

You're absolutely right - rather, it's the specific clause in Mirror Image that does that, by saying if you can't see the images they cease to function. It is the combination of those two factors that cause you to be more accurate than you would otherwise be, not merely Seeking itself. Does that help?

[Segev]

The main reason I continue to disagree with you is that you're still using sight - which requires seeing the mirror images - to identify the square. You don't get to claim you're targeting a square you haven't seen the spell in just because you close your eyes as you release the arrow.

To get around it, you'd need to use something other than sight to identify the square and not look at it before you closed your eyes. Otherwise, you've seen the spell during your targeting process, so it can fool you.

(In a house rule aside, I personally think that that clause needs to be edited to say "cannot see nor hear" or something similar, because the spell specifically creates illusory sounds, too.)

Ultimately, I stand by it for two reasons: 1) you're using sight to help you target, so you've seen the spell; and 2) if you don't, it's STILL better to close your eyes, even without Seeking, thus making mirror image a spell that is essentially a 50% miss chance at best. Which it clearly isn't intended to be, and which the RAW can be read such as to avoid.

When the RAW can be read in a way that does not cause the intent to be clearly violated, I tend to choose that reading over a reading which DOES cause the intent to be clearly violated.

[Platymus Pus]

Is closing your eyes something besides a free action?

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).
Honestly seems arbitrary to have seeking hit mirror image with your eyes open at all. May as well do it with your eyes open.

[Psyren]

The main reason I continue to disagree with you is that you're still using sight - which requires seeing the mirror images - to identify the square. You don't get to claim you're targeting a square you haven't seen the spell in just because you close your eyes as you release the arrow.

So why can't I see the images, and then not see the images? Are you saying that a mirror image would continue to affect me if I was blinded after it was cast? Because the spell itself says that is impossible.



To get around it, you'd need to use something other than sight to identify the square and not look at it before you closed your eyes. Otherwise, you've seen the spell during your targeting process, so it can fool you.

The only "targeting process" that matters is when you fire. Anything you do before that is irrelevant. Furthermore, if an enemy turns invisible but does not move, you know which square they are in - the same principle applies here.



Ultimately, I stand by it for two reasons: 1) you're using sight to help you target, so you've seen the spell; and 2) if you don't, it's STILL better to close your eyes, even without Seeking, thus making mirror image a spell that is essentially a 50% miss chance at best. Which it clearly isn't intended to be, and which the RAW can be read such as to avoid.

Consider that at the top end, it can result in 89% miss chance, i.e. much better than Displacement, a higher-level spell. It also lasts much longer than Displacement does. So a martial class being able to reduce it to Displacement is not overpowered, or they can choose to accept the higher miss chance to attempt to end the spell much faster.



When the RAW can be read in a way that does not cause the intent to be clearly violated, I tend to choose that reading over a reading which DOES cause the intent to be clearly violated.

Putting aside that intent is not possible for us to know without a FAQ ruling, when the RAW can be read in such a way that it increases caster power, I tend to choose the reading that makes spellcasters less powerful. They have enough advantages as it is.

[Barstro]

The main reason I continue to disagree with you is that you're still using sight - which requires seeing the mirror images - to identify the square. You don't get to claim you're targeting a square you haven't seen the spell in just because you close your eyes as you release the arrow.

I do not understand your point on this. The argument is that you DO see the square, remember that it is 20 feet in front of you and 5 feet to the left, close your eyes, and fire at that square. That is certainly at least as exact as a blind person can do it.


To get around it, you'd need to use something other than sight to identify the square and not look at it before you closed your eyes.
"I close my eyes and "ready an action" to make a full attack as soon as my companion tells me what square to target."
I believe that works by RAW. If so, how is looking for yourself and then closing your eyes any worse?

[Segev]

...actually, I have a better reason why this doesn't work.

"Closing your eyes" isn't a defined game action. Its consequences are thus up to the DM. There are rules under gaze attacks for "averting your eyes" and for "not being able to see," but none for "closing your eyes only when you would otherwise be looking at the target." Note that the saves vs. passive gaze effects are on the save-makers' turns; only active uses of gaze-as-attack save on the gaze-bearer's turn.

As silly as it is, "You close your eyes" doesn't necessarily mean you suffer the penalty for not seeing, nor that you cannot see.



Stepping back from the silliness, my point is that you saw it as part of your process of choosing where to fire your arrow to hit your target. Because of this, it fooled you. To "not see it" in a way that avoids having it fool you, your entire targeting process must involve not seeing it.

You need to not see it and locate the wizard by some non-visual means. A listen check to pinpoint location would do. As would blindsense or tremorsense, as long as you don't also look. This bit of silliness, about not looking, stems from the "if you can't see it you're not fooled" clause. Blindsense can otherwise be derived in part from hearing, and the spell DOES provide sound. Listening without looking wouldn't work either if it weren't for that clause, for the same reason.



So, to reiterate: if you used sight to choose the square, you saw several possible targets in the square and must choose one. Your targeting is based on seeing it. You only get to apply "don't see it" if you did not use vision to determine where to fire.

[Segev]

I do not understand your point on this. The argument is that you DO see the square, remember that it is 20 feet in front of you and 5 feet to the left, close your eyes, and fire at that square. That is certainly at least as exact as a blind person can do it.


"I close my eyes and "ready an action" to make a full attack as soon as my companion tells me what square to target."
I believe that works by RAW. If so, how is looking for yourself and then closing your eyes any worse?

Actually, you are hard-pressed to target "the space he's in" if you can't tell where to aim. The rules quoted from the SRD do not say "the square." The square is not the target. The creature or object you're aiming at is; you're guessing where it is based on your best information.

Heck, if your buddy is telling you where to shoot after you've closed your eyes, he is picking out your target and thus the choice of target is still randomly rolled between all images and the real one. Because it was visually ascertained. You may not be fooled, but he was.

[Barstro]

"Closing your eyes" isn't a defined game action. Its consequences are thus up to the DM.
Now you're grasping at straws.


Actually, you are hard-pressed to target "the space he's in" if you can't tell where to aim. The rules quoted from the SRD do not say "the square." The square is not the target. The creature or object you're aiming at is; you're guessing where it is based on your best information.
Hmm. I like that argument. Not sure how RAW it is, but I do like it.


Heck, if your buddy is telling you where to shoot after you've closed your eyes, he is picking out your target and thus the choice of target is still randomly rolled between all images and the real one. Because it was visually ascertained. You may not be fooled, but he was.
I had a counter-argument and request for clarification based on my buddy having blind-sense, but I think I talked myself out of it since he'd be pinpointing and telling you the "space" (not defined). Again, I like this argument.

The real argument against that is, AFAIK, there's no real definition of "space", and things are done via "squares". Otherwise, concealment would do the same thing; you know enough to figure out the square, but not the exact space. This is precisely what Seeking gets around. But, as said, I do like the argument.

[Segev]

I really hang it on the fact that you cannot choose a target without choosing a target, which is what the "I close my eyes and aim at a square, which allows me to ignore the fact that I don't know which of the things in that square I'm aiming at" position is trying to do.

Seeking doesn't let you correctly pick "Bob" out of a cluster of people by closing your eyes and saying "I'm aiming for Bob" before firing indiscriminately into the cluster. Seeking obviates a miss chance. It does NOT let you pick your target if you couldn't do so without its help.

[Psyren]

Seeking obviates a miss chance. It does NOT let you pick your target if you couldn't do so without its help.

It obviates the miss chance from closing your eyes, which in turn obviates the effect of the mirror image spell. It's a specific interaction between those two things that's at play here due to the nature of the spell. It's not Seeking = Smart Missile under every circumstance, rather it is Seeking > Mirror Image.

[Segev]

It obviates the miss chance from closing your eyes, which in turn obviates the effect of the mirror image spell. It's a specific interaction between those two things that's at play here due to the nature of the spell. It's not Seeking = Smart Missile under every circumstance, rather it is Seeking > Mirror Image.

Except that if this works, then even without Seeking, "Miss Chance > Mirror Image," because a 50% miss chance from having your eyes closed is better than a 33%-10% chance to hit the real target. And by the logic that allows you to identify the square they're in visually and then, as a free action, declare that you are no longer using what you saw to tell you where to shoot, you can do this.

Since you can also read the RAW to exclude the possibility to look at the 3-9 targets in one square and have to choose one, then close your eyes and declare that you're only aiming at "the real one" because you can't see the images anymore, it's better to read it this way, which leaves mirror image as doing what it was obviously intended to do.

In case my logic is unclear: you look at the mass of images and pick one of them as your target. You close your eyes, but that doesn't change that you must have already chosen your target out of all of the images present. The spell has already had its effect for any targeting you do based on having looked at the caster and his images and decided to fire at one of them.



All the clause we're hanging this on says is that you're not fooled if you can't see the images. You saw the images and were fooled; that you've now closed your eyes doesn't let you change which space - which target - at which you're aiming. It just makes you more likely to miss even that target in that space as you're no longer visually tracking.

To avoid being fooled, you cannot be looking at the images when you choose "the space" in which to shoot.

[Barstro]

Except that if this works, then even without Seeking, "Miss Chance > Mirror Image," because a 50% miss chance from having your eyes closed is better than a 33%-10% chance to hit the real target.

Exactly. It's commonly agreed that it is the case.

I, however, disagree with the word "better" in there. A 50% miss chance means that valid hit has a 50% chance of doing nothing instead of a 100% chance of either hitting the target or destroying an Illusion.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of four illusions than hit twice.


In case my logic is unclear: you look at the mass of images and pick one of them as your target.
You have been quite clear. Others just disagree with your initial presumption that you "pick one of them as your target". They feel that you can, instead, pick the square (which I think we all agree is the correct square (since it says so in the spell description)) and fire "as if blind".

Since you disagree with others on what step 1 is, and RAW does not make it very clear, there will never be a meeting of the minds. $20.00 says that there is never a FAQ/Errata ruling :)

[Psyren]

Exactly. It's commonly agreed that it is the case.

I, however, disagree with the word "better" in there. A 50% miss chance means that valid hit has a 50% chance of doing nothing instead of a 100% chance of either hitting the target or destroying an Illusion.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of four illusions than hit twice.

Precisely this - the mundane has options in how he deals with the caster's defense, giving them a smidgen extra utility in this context.

And it gets even better - for a melee class with Blind-Fight, shutting their eyes can be the better option (because they only have a 25% miss chance at that point.) Especially if they have an archer buddy picking off the images who can yell "there he is!" when they're done.

[Segev]

Exactly. It's commonly agreed that it is the case.

I, however, disagree with the word "better" in there. A 50% miss chance means that valid hit has a 50% chance of doing nothing instead of a 100% chance of either hitting the target or destroying an Illusion.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of four illusions than hit twice.

Actually, we can ascertain this one mathematically.

It amounts to a question of how many hits with 0 images will you get if you take down the images rather than going for a 50% miss chance.

Obviously, if there is only 1 image, you're best off attacking to take it out, because you've 50% chance to hit the real one either way and, if you hit the wrong one, it goes away.

If there are two, however, deliberately taking out the images leaves you with 58.5% damage lost, versus 50%, in the two hits it takes to take both out. Still, a single hit with no chance to hit the wrong one gives you an overall 61% damage after a single hit, so your return on investment is great, here, for sucking the 33% on the first hit.

If you start with 3 images, you have 64% damage lost in the process of clearing out the images. So you'd need at least 2 hits with no images to more than make that up.

So far, it's sounding like you need fewer hits with 0 images than you need to clear the images to "make up" the damage lost, but let's continue.

If you start with 4 images, you have 68% damage lost. You need 8 hits at 0 images to get to 69% cumulative damage, which means at 4+ images, it takes significantly and increasingly more post-images hits to break even.

So if you start with 4 or more images (5 or more targets), you're best off closing your eyes if you can use the method Psyren suggests. I am not convinced it works, however, since you DO see the images when you make your choice of target, and thus ARE fooled regarding which one you're actually trying to hit.

[Psyren]

I am not convinced it works, however, since you DO see the images when you make your choice of target, and thus ARE fooled regarding which one you're actually trying to hit.

Seeing the images lets you know "the guy I'm trying to hit is definitely in that square." That's all Seeking needs by RAW. You don't have to distinguish which ones are real or fake - the real one is in that square! :smalltongue:

[Balbanes]

What about two tiny Wizards in the same square? They also happen to be clones/ice assassins/triplets and the original isn't there at all, the user of the seeking equipment simply believes the original target is there. How does the seeking equipment resolve the proper target?

I suspect the answer to that is effectively the same answer as to how seeking equipment resolves hitting a mirror image or not.

[Kurald Galain]

Except that if this works, then even without Seeking, "Miss Chance > Mirror Image," because a 50% miss chance from having your eyes closed is better than a 33%-10% chance to hit the real target.

And that's precisely why I rule that closing your eyes gives you the defensive penalties for being blind. You don't get to use an easy loophole like this to LOLnope your way through a defensive countermeasure.

[P.F.]

And that's precisely why I rule that closing your eyes gives you the defensive penalties for being blind. You don't get to use an easy loophole like this to LOLnope your way through a defensive countermeasure.

That almost makes sense if we're talking about closing your eyes and listening intently to aim (or blind-fight at melee) although I probably wouldn't adjudicate it that way.

However, vis-à-vis the topic at hand, which being seeking arrows, all one need do is blink at the moment of firing, or even simply look away--no need to close the eyes at all. Just fire randomly into the correct space (read: the player indicated the square in which the caster is standing), make an attack roll, and the magic weapon takes care of the rest.