Mirror Image Sage Advice

[LokiDR]

Blindness doesn't negate flanking. ALL attackers get +2 to hit a blind opponent. Not just those on opposite sides.

Please note what flanking does:

1. +2 to hit (opposite attackers)

2. allows sneak attacks to operate (opposite sneak attackers)

Note what blindess does:

1. +2 to hit (all attackers)

2. denies dex bonus which in turn allows sneak attacks (all sneak attackers)

So, in effect, all attackers attack a blind person AS IF THEY WERE FLANKING for the purpose of the +2 to hit and sneak attacks.

Note also that special abilities/feats alter the above somewhat. The above assumes a blinded person with otherwise normal senses.

Your explanation has a few holes. If it was just "AS IF THEY WERE FLANKING" then only situations that modify flanking would apply when you had your eyes closed. Just because two things give the same mechanical advantage doesn't mean they are the same. Otherwise, Tabarnak is an ocelot.

This has everthing to do with an FAQ ruling on flanking and the lack of the ability of invisible opponents to give flanking bonuses. Hyp does a better explanation than me, but I can explain if prompted.

 

[isoChron]

drawing an arrow is a free action ... with only one free action there would be 2 arrows shot per round maximum ... seems silly enough to ignore any such rule/houserule about 1 free action per round.

 

[Someone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mirror Image Sage Advice

No, you can use the buckler and get the AC even after a full attack. Besides the fact that this is the way the rules are written (and FAQ'd) it makes sense in a balance and realism way. Balance wise, you are giving up offense (AoOs) for defense (buckler). People can now grapple or bull rush you without a problem. Realistically, it is makes sense for a person to swing two handed and then present the shield strapped on their arm while holding the weapon in their other hand.

I don´t know where did you get that. My SRD at least says: "In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand you don´t get the buckler´s AC bonus for the rest of the round."

And the part about losing AoOs is new to me. Could you quote that?

 

[TuDogz]

______________
So, in effect, all attackers attack a blind person AS IF THEY WERE FLANKING for the purpose of the +2 to hit and sneak attacks.
______________

The problem I have with this is that if it doesn't stack to a +4 a blind man fighting one person is no worse off than a blind man fighting two flanking attackers. That doesn't make sense. The function of the flanking bonus is to emulate the difficulty of defending in two opposite directions. The blind man still has this problem when flanked. He is just extra screwed by his blindness. Let's face it. It is bad to be blind. Eyes are very useful tools that it is very bad to be without unless you are a creature built to not need them.

Properly built, a blind character could be effective but without exactly the right skills and feats you should be as easy to beat as... well... a blind man.

 

[Someone]

The problem I have with this is that if it doesn't stack to a +4 a blind man fighting one person is no worse off than a blind man fighting two flanking attackers. That doesn't make sense. The function of the flanking bonus is to emulate the difficulty of defending in two opposite directions.

Maybe the designers don´t think that way; for them, it´s the dfficulty of seeing two opponents at once. Notice how Beholders, Tojanidas and amorphous monsters can´t be flanked.

 

[Anubus]

Isn't the +2 flanking bonus due to the defenders attention being divided. The defender can't concentrate on each of their attackers because they can't watch both at the same time. Thus they are more vulnerable to being attacked. You are essentially blind to the attacks coming from where you are not looking.

It's the same situation if you blind or have your eyes closed, you can't concentrate on defending yourself from the attack that you can't see coming, just in this case that happens to be all attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's the same situation if you blind or have your eyes closed, you can't concentrate on defending yourself from the attack that you can't see coming, just in this case that happens to be all attacks.

The difference is that if you have Uncanny Dodge, you don't lose your Dex bonus against an invisible attacker, and therefore can't be sneak attacked by him (for being invisible) - no matter who he is.

If you're flanked, however, your Uncanny Dodge only protects you from sneak attacks unless the attacker is a rogue at least four levels higher than you.

But according to the FAQ, if you're blind, you can't be flanked. So if you're attacked by a flanking rogue four levels higher than you, he can sneak attack you... but if you close your eyes, he can't.

-Hyp.

 

[Snipehunt]

As always, I should just let hypersmurf explain. Combine that w/ blindfight and the free action to blink, and it's not that bad a way to go.

 

[TuDogz]

_____________________
But according to the FAQ, if you're blind, you can't be flanked. So if you're attacked by a flanking rogue four levels higher than you, he can sneak attack you... but if you close your eyes, he can't.
_____________________

If I tried FooFaa like this on my players they would dye me like a rainbow and use my skin as a windsock.

 

[Skinwalker]

You can only make 1 free action in a round, as a free action, any more free actions you take count as standard actions. Or did this change in 3.5?

3.0 Answer:
I made the same mistake myself. You're probably thinking about the rule that states only 1 free action spell can be cast per round (Quicken Spell feat). Other free actions are intended to stack with DM's discretion.

And the DM's discretion is a very important part of the ongoing argument. IMO, performing a Free Action to gain a bonus to an action and then performing another Free Action to negate penalties of said action deserves a smack delivered via Rule 0.