# Mirror Image vs. Cleave



## Alpha Polaris (Oct 26, 2005)

An easy question, almost everything is in the title. If a fighter with Cleave strikes a mirror image with a melee attack, making it disappear, is he allowed to make an additional attack ?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 26, 2005)

I think the FAQ said yes to this, but...


It's a touchy subject here, I suppose.


----------



## dcollins (Oct 26, 2005)

FAQ says yes. Don't like the ruling.


----------



## Artoomis (Oct 26, 2005)

dcollins said:
			
		

> FAQ says yes. Don't like the ruling.




It does weaken Mirror Image somewhat, but it fits in with cleaving right through one thing to another.

Note, though:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> ...These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you....




It's entirely possible that only one image is within reach.  The images all take up their own 5' squares.

Of course we, like many groups, don't play it that way and simply do the random number thing every time one swings at a Mirror Imaged mage and effectively have all images in one square (house rule for simplicity).  Played that way the Cleave thing is more powerful.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

dcollins said:
			
		

> FAQ says yes. Don't like the ruling.




Agreed.

Mirror Image figments are not creatures, hence, should not be targeted by spells which target creatures (e.g. Magic Missile). Nor should they be cleavable since they are not creatures.


"Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable *targets*. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any *successful* attack against an image destroys it."

Just because you select the figment with your spell does NOT mean that your spell actually can target the figment.

"If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted."


"If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop ..."

Just because you can destroy a figment with your sword does not make it a creature. It makes it a target.


It's unfortunate that those who write the FAQ sometimes cannot be bothered to actually read what is written in the rules.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 26, 2005)

It does make sense though, and it keeps with the spirit of the spell. If Cleave is about hitting something so hard that you blow through into another target, then hitting a target with no substance just makes it easier. The whole point of the spell is to create alternate targets. If the only problem is semantics (figment vs creature vs target), then it's something I can overlook, especially with it's other uses. 

It's ineffective against fighters with cleave/great cleave, but it's great against ranged attacks, monk grapplers, and rogues (which image do you flank?).


EDIT: or if CLeave represents any number of circumstances involving quick recovery.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> It does make sense though. If Cleave is about hitting something so hard that you blow through into another target, then hitting a target with no substance just makes it easier.




Who said that Cleave is about hitting something so hard that you blow through into another target?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Who said that Cleave is about hitting something so hard that you blow through into another target?




Depends on your interpretation. There are several, but few can be negated by stating that striking an image eliminates extra attacks. Mass combat is about killing a target quickly and moving to the next one (several sword styles have multiple opponent techniques, all of with would be represented by the Cleave/Great Cleave feats). Whether it hits the ground or disappears in a puff of smoke is inconsequential in the long run; the fighter will still pick a new target.


My two bits...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 26, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Depends on your interpretation. There are several, but few can be negated by stating that striking an image eliminates extra attacks. Mass combat is about killing a target quickly and moving to the next one (several sword styles have multiple opponent techniques, all of with would be represented by the Cleave/Great Cleave feats). Whether it hits the ground or disappears in a puff of smoke is inconsequential in the long run; the fighter will still pick a new target.




A. Let's say I have Great Cleave, and am surrounded by eight goblins.  I drop one with an attack, and can Cleave each of the others as long as I don't fail to drop one with each attack roll, right?

B. Does the answer change if I'm blind?

C. Does the answer change if instead of eight goblins, it's eight incorporeal shadows?  D. If it's shadows, and I'm blind?

E. Now, if there's a mirror image in the square beside me, and I'm blind, and I attack that square, and make the miss chance for being blind, and strike the mirror image, do I get to Cleave?

F. What if there _isn't_ a mirror image in the square beside me, and I'm blind, and I attack that square, and make the miss chance for being blind?  Do I get to Cleave?

If the answers to E and F are different, what creates the difference?

-Hyp.


----------



## Sejs (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Who said that Cleave is about hitting something so hard that you blow through into another target?




Most people tend to make that leap based on the name of the Feat, but then again, it'd be kind of hard to do the whole 'blow through' routine with say a rapier, a mace, or your fist, so take it how you may, heh.  All the Cleave feat essentially denotes is that you're quick on the recovery after a blow. 


Anyway, as to the issue of Mirror Image/Cleave - yep, it works just fine as far as I know, and I have absolutly no problem with that.  Mirror Images are just dinky little illusions that poof when you hassle 'em.  Against people _without_ Cleave, it's solid gold.  Sure it's got one weakness that someone who is properly trained can exploit, but ... it's only a second level spell.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A. Let's say I have Great Cleave, and am surrounded by eight goblins.  I drop one with an attack, and can Cleave each of the others as long as I don't fail to drop one with each attack roll, right?
> 
> B. Does the answer change if I'm blind?
> 
> ...





Depends on your DM.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A. Let's say I have Great Cleave, and am surrounded by eight goblins.  I drop one with an attack, and can Cleave each of the others as long as I don't fail to drop one with each attack roll, right?
> 
> B. Does the answer change if I'm blind?
> 
> ...




I'd like to answer...

A) Yes
B) No, the answer does not change.
C) By incorporal shadow, you mean a creature, right?  Not a normal shadow a person casts.  If you mean shadow creature, then NO the answer does not change.
D) No, the answer does not change.
E) I thought that, if you close your eyes against someone w/ Mirror Image, you negate the use of Mirror Image altogether.  When you are blind, you select a square and swing into that square.  If there happens to be a person in that square, and your attack roll was high enough to hit him, you roll the 50% miss chance to see if you really did hit him.  So it counters Mirror Image, because you aren't "selecting a target", you are selecting a square into which you are attacking.
F) Was there a person in that square?  If you hit him, and you kill him, you get a Cleave, even if you are blind.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Anyway, as to the issue of Mirror Image/Cleave - yep, it works just fine as far as I know, and I have absolutly no problem with that.  Mirror Images are just dinky little illusions that poof when you hassle 'em.  Against people _without_ Cleave, it's solid gold.  Sure it's got one weakness that someone who is properly trained can exploit, but ... it's only a second level spell.




Not according to the rules. According to the rules, the images are figments, not creatures. And according to the rules, Cleave only works on creatures.

Now, according to the FAQ, ...


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Where do the rules say Cleave can ONLY be used against creatures? I see the word "creature" in the feat desc but to my mind it's used only as part of an assumption that a creature would be the only thing one would be attacking...which even with the mirror image spell would be true. When I attack a caster using mirror image I'm actually attempting to attack a creature (the caster). Regardless, what I read doesn't actually say that ONLY creatures can be cleaved. Also, one doesn't even really have to kill the target to make an extra cleave attack, but merely drop it. Killing is just the most common way to "drop" a target. What this seems to say to me is that one could even use the Cleave feat with a sap if one were able to drop the target in the first hit.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Where do the rules say Cleave can ONLY be used against creatures? I see the word "creature" in the feat desc but to my mind it's used only as part of an assumption that a creature would be the only thing one would be attacking...



 You answered your question yourself. Creature is a defined word in D&D and if you make an assumption about it meaning something other than intendend, you'd be making a mistake.  For instance, you specifically cannot cleave from an object, as obviously from the definition, an object is the seeming antithesis of a creature.  A mirror image is a magical effect and is also clearly not a "creature".  Therefore, you can't cleave from it.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

The word "creature" is indeed defined in the glossary, but unless there's a rule somewhere I'm missing that states that words in feat descriptions that are defined imply exclusivity in relation to the feat usage, I'm still not seeing where the Cleave feat can be used only against "creatures". There might very well be exclusivity expressed in some other rule that relates to this case, just saying that if so I can't seem to find it. Regardless of semantics, poor wording, or what-have-you my inclination would be to allow cleave to be used against mirror image as per the FAQs, if for no other reason than kind of the reverse of the reasoning of previous posters. If cleave is allowed against images than yes, it makes wading through the images to get to the caster a touch less tedious, however one would have to have great cleave and great positioning to render mirror image completely useless, and on the flip side if cleave is disallowed then mirror image can be used as a cleave defense rendering the feat temporarily useless. If I were DMing I'd prefer the former myself.


----------



## Palskane (Oct 26, 2005)

This may be a tangent, but how do light conditions interact with figments, specifically those created by Mirror Image? 

In other words, could a PC with a high enough Spot check unerringly pick the real caster of the spell, because he/she has a shadow and the images do not? 

On page 173 of the 3.5 PHB it gives an example of a cottage that is a figment not protecting from the rain if you are inside. How does light generally interact with illusions? If you are standing in an illusary cottage, at night with a torch, can those outside of the cottage see the light, whether or not they realize the cottage is an illusion? What if the cottage has windows? 

Just curious as to how everyone would rule these things.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> The word "creature" is indeed defined in the glossary, but unless there's a rule somewhere I'm missing that states that words in feat descriptions that are defined imply exclusivity in relation to the feat usage, I'm still not seeing where the Cleave feat can be used only against "creatures". There might very well be exclusivity expressed in some other rule that relates to this case, just saying that if so I can't seem to find it.



 What? It uses the word "creature" and you just choose to ignore it?  I'm not sure how to respond to your comment.  When a rule uses a term, that term should be taken at face value.  It didn't use object, so you can't cleave from an object.  Simple as that.



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> Regardless of semantics, poor wording, or what-have-you my inclination would be to allow cleave to be used against mirror image as per the FAQs, if for no other reason than kind of the reverse of the reasoning of previous posters.



 That's fine, though I'm unclear what is the reverse reasoning.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2005)

Palskane said:
			
		

> This may be a tangent, but how do light conditions interact with figments, specifically those created by Mirror Image?



 That's totally flavor-based.  Describe it however you wish so long as the game effect is not altered by the description.  In other words, don't allow someone to pick out the non-image with a spot check because they are looking for the 'shadow'.  Maybe they don't have shadows, but the images move around so much that it doesn't matter.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Anyway, as to the issue of Mirror Image/Cleave - yep, it works just fine as far as I know, and I have absolutly no problem with that.  Mirror Images are just dinky little illusions that poof when you hassle 'em.  Against people _without_ Cleave, it's solid gold.  Sure it's got one weakness that someone who is properly trained can exploit, but ... it's only a second level spell.




This is kind of the reverse I was thinking of.....basically that cleave would make mirror image either useless or at least much less effective.

I don't ignore the word "creature", I just don't see where the use of the word "creature" implies exclusivity. It does not, in the feat description, state that the cleave feat can never be used against things other than "creatures". It also doesn't say in the glossary definition of "creature" that the feat Cleave can never be used against anything other than "creatures". It only states in the glossary definition that the word "creature" does not mean "object". It doesn't even say in the glossary that "creature" can't mean "figment"...in fact IMO the definition actually says it does mean figment when it says "or other active being" since a mirror image figment is an animate phenomina meant to exactly "mirror" a "creature" ("creature" being a "character" in this case).


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> This is kind of the reverse I was thinking of.....basically that cleave would make mirror image either useless or at least much less effective.
> 
> I don't ignore the word "creature", I just don't see where the use of the word "creature" implies exclusivity. It does not, in the feat description, state that the cleave feat can never be used against things other than "creatures". It also doesn't say in the glossary definition of "creature" that the feat Cleave can never be used against anything other than "creatures". It only states in the glossary definition that the word "creature" does not mean "object". It doesn't even say in the glossary that "creature" can't mean "figment"...in fact IMO the definition actually says it does mean figment when it says "or other active being" since a mirror image figment is an animate phenomina meant to exactly "mirror" a "creature" ("creature" being a "character" in this case).




What rule book are you using?

"Benefit: If you deal a *creature* enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another *creature* within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous *creature*. You can use this ability once per round."


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What rule book are you using?
> 
> "Benefit: If you deal a *creature* enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another *creature* within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous *creature*. You can use this ability once per round."




Where does it say "this feat can not be used against anything except a creature"? How about "in the case of the Cleave feat "creature" does not mean "otherwise active being" "? Or even "in the case of the Cleave feat, "creature" does not mean "character" "? If I choose to infer that the lack of a specific stated prohibition against using cleave versus anything except a live and fully corporeal, present, and non-illusory entity means that these are thereby valid targets for a cleave, then I'm no less in the right than those of you who choose to infer that by stating "creature" in the description the rules are implying that only a live and fully corporeal, present, and non-illusory entity can be targeted. Given that the FAQs apparently support my interpretation, I'm feeling fairly confident in using my own common sense on how and when I would apply the Cleave feat.

Just to give an alternate example of how I would allow the cleave feat to be used against targets other than "creatures":

Two members of the party have been taken prisoner by a band of goblins. The remaining barbarian, fighter, and wizard have found the band's camp and discovered the rogue and cleric being held in a cage made of fallen tree-limbs. The 3 decide that the fighter and the wizard will hold off the gobs long enough for the barb to free the two prisoners, then the whole group can attempt to defeat the gobs. Being a rather straight-forward kinda guy, the barb decides to get a good grip on his great axe and try to just hew clean through the wooden "bars" of the cage. I would have no problem allowing the barb to use his great cleave feat against the bars...providing he can overcome the hardness and hps of the wooden bars in one swing.

I guess what it boils down to is interpretation. If you choose to restrict the feat to a more narrow interpretation, that's your choice, but I'm not seeing where the rule specifically prohibits my broader interpretation. Oh, and given the multiple quotes straight from the PHB I've provided, I thought it would have been obvious which rule book I'm looking at, but apparently I was wrong so the book I'm looking at is the V3.5 of the Players Handbook by Wizards of the Coast ( a.k.a. Core Rulebook I).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Where does it say "this feat can not be used against anything except a creature"?




Where it says "creature," and not "target" or "object" or anything else.

Seriously.  There isn't any room for debate here.


----------



## Caliban (Oct 26, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Where it says "creature," and not "target" or "object" or anything else.
> 
> Seriously.  There isn't any room for debate here.




Oh, if only that were true.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

Alpha Polaris said:
			
		

> An easy question, almost everything is in the title. If a fighter with Cleave strikes a mirror image with a melee attack, making it disappear, is he allowed to make an additional attack ?




By a strict reading of the RAW? No.

Would I allow it? Sure. Why? Two reasons: (1) Cleave is fun; and (2) being able to Cleave is a two-feat combination, being able to Great Cleave is a three feat combination, and it seems to me that allowing a two to three feat combination to hamper a second level spell is about right in terms of relative power.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Where it says "creature," and not "target" or "object" or anything else.
> 
> Seriously.  There isn't any room for debate here.




I disagree. IMO there's plenty of room for debate. Also, on the table of feats on pg. 91 the short description of the cleave feat does indeed say "target". Once again, if you choose to focus on the "not an object" part of the definition of creature to limit the use of the cleave feat in your game so narrowly, that is your choice, but even the "not an object" stipulation of creature does not in itself prohibit the use of cleave against a mirror image since "duplicates", "images", or "figments" are not objects either, and the definition of "creature" does not preclude the term being used in reference to them. Seriously.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Would I allow it? Sure. Why? Two reasons: (1) Cleave is fun; and (2) being able to Cleave is a two-feat combination, being able to Great Cleave is a three feat combination, and it seems to me that allowing a two to three feat combination to hamper a second level spell is about right in terms of relative power.




IMO these two reasons are the most important reasons to allow the use of cleave...trumping all arguements of semantics and strict interpretations of wording and definitions. Let the Cleaving begin 

Edited to remove an errant "?"


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I disagree. IMO there's plenty of room for debate. Also, on the table of feats on pg. 91 the short description of the cleave feat does indeed say "target". Once again, if you choose to focus on the "not an object" part of the definition of creature to limit the use of the cleave feat in your game so narrowly, that is your choice, but even the "not an object" stipulation of creature does not in itself prohibit the use of cleave against a mirror image since "duplicates", "images", or "figments" are not objects either, and the definition of "creature" does not preclude the term being used in reference to them. Seriously.




So, you use the short description of the feat to make rules decisions as opposed to the actual description of the feat?

Explain how your "wide definition" of the word creature includes figments. According to the rules.

So far, you are not posting anything other than "well in my game...".

Post some rules to support that figments are creatures or that the Cleave feat includes all possible targets.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 26, 2005)

I've allowed cleave off a sunder, and last time I checked a weapon isn't a creature(except maybe inteligent weapons).  I really think your reading to much into the single use of the word creature.  Every time they use a word that is also a term, it is not necesarrily a use of the word that is intended to imply the term.  Wow that was poorly worded.


----------



## Orius (Oct 26, 2005)

I'd allow it as a DM.  It makes sense given the way _mirror image_ has typically been used throughout the game's history, and it makes sense given the way cleave works.  I'm not worried about picky interpretations of the word "creature".  Like others have said, it's only a 2nd level spell, so it's not very powerful.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> IMO these two reasons are the most important reasons to allow the use of cleave...trumping all arguements of semantics and strict interpretations of wording and definitions. Let the Cleaving begin




It doesn't change the rules and doesn't trump anything.

All it does is state that in Storm Raven's game, he would allow it.

The Fighter player in SR's game cheers. The Wizard player in SR's game boos.

Fun for some. Not fun for others.


Hence, one reason we have rules in the first place. To adjudicate reasonably and not show favoritism.


----------



## green slime (Oct 26, 2005)

The wheels on the bus go ...


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It doesn't change the rules and doesn't trump anything.
> 
> All it does is state that in Storm Raven's game, he would allow it.
> 
> The Fighter player in SR's game cheers. The Wizard player in SR's game boos.




The wizard doesn't care much. _Mirror image_ is only a 2nd level spell after all. It's not like it is that big a deal to allow the occassional Cleave to bump off an extra image or two.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The wizard doesn't care much. _Mirror image_ is only a 2nd level spell after all. It's not like it is that big a deal to allow the occassional Cleave to bump off an extra image or two.




Until you get to Great Cleave and all of the images are disrupted because they are so easy to hit.

You put up your defensive spell, too bad. The enemy NPC fighter wipes it out in a single round and whales on you two or three times as well in the process.

The level of the defensive spell is irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, you use the short description of the feat to make rules decisions as opposed to the actual description of the feat?
> 
> Explain how your "wide definition" of the word creature includes figments. According to the rules.
> 
> ...




Sometimes I do, yes. Why not? When specific wording seems to be contradictory, I try to adhere to the spirit of the feat/skill/spell/etc.

I consider figments to fall under the "other active beings" portion of the definition of "creature". Explain how the definition of "creature" strictly excludes figments. According to the rules. Or do you perhaps want them to turn the glossary into a legal document, stating all the things each term includes AND excludes?

As to why I say "in my game" alot, consider the following:

pg. 4 of the DMG, under The Dungeon Master: "The DM defines the game"

pg. 4 of the DMG, under Final Note: "You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and, ultimately, the fun."

pg. 6 of the DMG, under Adjudicating: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in the rulebook."

So far you keep asking me to prove my point that "figment" can be interpreted as "creature" by stating a specific line from the PHB saying so, but I say quote me a line that says "figment", "image", and/or "duplicate" are NOT "creature". Since the only word of the bunch that is defined is "creature", and the definition of "creature" does not specifically say that it excludes "figment", "image", and/or "duplicate" along with it's exclusion of "object", I see no reason why my interpretation of the use of the cleave feat is any less valid than yours in relation to a mirror image. Apparently the WoC FAQs supports my position more than yours, yet you continue to assert that not only do you disagree with me, but that I somehow can't possibly be justified in my interpretation. I have no problem disagreeing, but you have not yet shown me to be completely wrong, nor do I foresee you doing so anytime soon.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Until you get to Great Cleave and all of the images are disrupted because they are so easy to hit.




In which case you are generally 4th+ level, and by the time you hits 5th+ level _mirror image_ should be a minor part of your repertoire. Also, how often do you fight enemies with Great Cleave?



> _You put up your defensive spell, too bad. The enemy NPC fighter wipes it out in a single round and whales on you two or three times as well in the process.
> 
> The level of the defensive spell is irrelevant to the conversation._





So, all spells should be equally valuable, regardless of the level of the spell? That's an odd position to take.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Until you get to Great Cleave and all of the images are disrupted because they are so easy to hit.
> 
> You put up your defensive spell, too bad. The enemy NPC fighter wipes it out in a single round and whales on you two or three times as well in the process.
> 
> The level of the defensive spell is irrelevant to the conversation.




That would be amended to "all images within threat range of the fighter are disrupted", and why not? The fighter paid for the feat...why should a 2nd level spell be able to render it ineffective? You can normally mow through armored goblins, but all of a sudden an illusory target that provides absolutely no resistance to your attack can somehow completely halt your normal deadly rain of blows.

Since there is no wording of the rule which strictly supports or prohibits the cleaving of duplicates, why shouldn't the spell level be relevant when a DM is trying to make a ruling on the situation. The number one rule of the game is to make the game fun. If your campaign has a wizard player who relies heavily ( and maybe foolishly so) on the defensive edge of mirror image, then rule cleave ineffective against it. If, OTOH, you DM a mobility fighter that uses great cleave frequently, then let him/her wail away. Heck, at higher levels mirror images might be the only thing great cleave is effective on


----------



## Elephant (Oct 26, 2005)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Most people tend to make that leap based on the name of the Feat, but then again, it'd be kind of hard to do the whole 'blow through' routine with say a rapier, a mace, or your fist, so take it how you may, heh.  All the Cleave feat essentially denotes is that you're quick on the recovery after a blow.




With a rapier, you can justify Cleave as "I run the guy through with such force that, as he stumbles and falls, I stab the guy behind him, too!"

Well, it doesn't *QUITE* feel right with respect to positioning on the battlemat grid, but that's how I imagine it.

Then again, in a six-second round, a single attack doesn't represent a single swing, so Cleave could simply represent downing a foe really quickly (e.g. with the first blow you aim in that segment of six seconds) and having time and training necessary to attack the next guy in line effectively.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I consider figments to fall under the "other active beings" portion of the definition of "creature". Explain how the definition of "creature" strictly excludes figments.



 That's a much more reasonable response.  I disagree, but at least I can appreciate your point of view.  However, arguing that "creature" really doesn't mean anything and that you can cleave off an object -- explicitly the opposite of a creature -- is totally inane.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Didn't the cleave feat used to (in v3 maybe) be restricted to S and B weapons only? I know that isn't stated in v3.5, but I seem to remember something to that effect, but I could be wrong there. Also, since cleave requires power attack as a prereq, does that mean that the restriction against using light weapons with power attack apply to cleave as well? I have to admit that cleaving with a rapier, spear, or other P weapon seems kinda wrong, but it isn't prohibited in the rules. How the heck would ya cleave with a pick though?


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Didn't the cleave feat used to (in v3 maybe) be restricted to S and B weapons only?




No, you are thinking of the Sunder action, which can only be performed with slashing or bludgeoning weapons.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Didn't the cleave feat used to (in v3 maybe) be restricted to S and B weapons only?




Nope - although the Sunder action is so limited.



> Also, since cleave requires power attack as a prereq, does that mean that the restriction against using light weapons with power attack apply to cleave as well?




Nope - in exactly the same way that the limitations on Point Blank Shot do not really affect Far Shot.



> How the heck would ya cleave with a pick though?




Probably in the same way you'd cleave with a rapier - kill one guy, and then move on to the next.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That's a much more reasonable response.  I disagree, but at least I can appreciate your point of view.  However, arguing that "creature" really doesn't mean anything and that you can cleave off an object -- explicitly the opposite of a creature -- is totally inane.




I don't know...in certain very specific situations...like the one I mentioned with the cage bars, I might allow it. That type of use of cleave would be only on a case by case basis though. Here's a question:

What mechanic would you use if a player wanted to try the old "stab/hew the old wooden door hitting the lurking baddie on the other side in one mighty blow" cliche? Seems to me a cleave attempt might not be a bad way to attempt it...despite the strict "no objects" rule of cleave. Of course there might be (and probably are) other ways to handle it too.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> That would be amended to "all images within threat range of the fighter are disrupted", and why not? The fighter paid for the feat...why should a 2nd level spell be able to render it ineffective?




Possibly because the feat is not applicable to what the spell does?

The feat affects creatures. The spell does not summon or create creatures.

Period.

A figment may be active, but it is not an "active being". It is an illusion and only has the properties of the illusion as specified by the spell.



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> You can normally mow through armored goblins, but all of a sudden an illusory target that provides absolutely no resistance to your attack can somehow completely halt your normal deadly rain of blows.




And your point?

Maybe the feat requires a resistance to "bounce off" the target it downs. But, there is no reason to attempt to rationalize why the feat does not work. It just does not work in this case.



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> Since there is no wording of the rule which strictly supports or prohibits the cleaving of duplicates, why shouldn't the spell level be relevant when a DM is trying to make a ruling on the situation.




So, if it is a 9th level set of figments, they should suddenly be immune to Cleave???

Huh?



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> The number one rule of the game is to make the game fun. If your campaign has a wizard player who relies heavily ( and maybe foolishly so) on the defensive edge of mirror image, then rule cleave ineffective against it. If, OTOH, you DM a mobility fighter that uses great cleave frequently, then let him/her wail away. Heck, at higher levels mirror images might be the only thing great cleave is effective on




No problem with that.

House rule it any way you want for your game.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, you are thinking of the Sunder action, which can only be performed with slashing or bludgeoning weapons.




Ah...that action I never use...my bad


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, if it is a 9th level set of figments, they should suddenly be immune to Cleave???




When you come up with a 9th level spell that produces an effect similar to _mirror image_, then maybe you'll have an argument.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So, all spells should be equally valuable, regardless of the level of the spell? That's an odd position to take.




No.

All spells should do what their spell descriptions and the rest of the rules indicate. There should be no "well, that is a low level spell, ignore its effects because this is a high level game".

The level of the spell should be irrlevant to the discussion unless spell level is applicable to the question at hand. For example, spell DC or spells that have varying strengths in varying circumstances.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When you come up with a 9th level spell that produces an effect similar to _mirror image_, then maybe you'll have an argument.




Maybe when you find a rule in the book that states that spell level is relevant to whether feats affect a given spell or not, then maybe you'll have something to say.

In the meantime, your message here is irrelevant to the rules discussion.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> All spells should do what their spell descriptions and the rest of the rules indicate. There should be no "well, that is a low level spell, ignore its effects because this is a high level game".




I'm not ignoring its effects. I'm saying that having a counter that requires a two or three feat combination is perfectly appropriate for this level of spell.



> _The level of the spell should be irrlevant to the discussion unless spell level is applicable to the question at hand. For example, spell DC or spells that have varying strengths in varying circumstances._





The level of the spell is highly relevant to evaluating the effects it has, and the relative power of those effects compared to other elements of the game. Characters who are high enough in level to have the Great Cleave feat who have actually taken Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave should have no trouble defeating the application of a low-level defensive spell.


----------



## Endur (Oct 26, 2005)

Alpha Polaris said:
			
		

> An easy question, almost everything is in the title. If a fighter with Cleave strikes a mirror image with a melee attack, making it disappear, is he allowed to make an additional attack ?




This is up to the GM.  Could easily be ruled either way.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Maybe when you find a rule in the book that states that spell level is relevant to whether feats affect a given spell or not, then maybe you'll have something to say.




You mean, other than, say, Rule 0? Or evenything in the magic overview section that varies the difficulty and effectiveness of spells based upon their level? Something like:



> The next line of a spell description gives the spell’s level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell’s relative power.




A spell's _relative power_. Something that should be taken into account when evaluating the potential counters and the strength of the effects of the spell. Which I did. I figure that a 2nd level spell shouldn't be much of a hindrance to a hill giant, or a 5th level fighter.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Possibly because the feat is not applicable to what the spell does?
> 
> The feat affects creatures. The spell does not summon or create creatures.
> 
> ...





You have still failed to provide any rule or line from any rulebook which prohibits "figments" from being interpreted as "active beings". You simply seem to be saying that you don't think they are, and that's simply your opinion. Period.

My point is that, given the lack of specific wording indicating cleave can or can't be used a duplicate created by mirror image, you can rationalize why it doesn't work in your campaign all you want, and I will rationalize why it does in mine.

I don't recall mentioning 9th level figments at all. My opnion is that no figments of any level should be immune to cleave.

I would only have to house rule the situation if the rule contradicted my opinion. The cleave rule doesn't and I'm still waiting for you to provide me with some other related rule that supports your position.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When you come up with a 9th level spell that produces an effect similar to _mirror image_, then maybe you'll have an argument.




Mirror Image, Heightened to 9th-level.

EDIT:  Or Wish, used to emulate Mirror Image.

You may continue this discussion, now.


----------



## Nail (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> You have still failed to provide any rule or line from any rulebook which prohibits "figments" from being interpreted as "active beings"..



Not "active beings", Sigg.  => "Creatures".

Is a figment a creature?  Nope.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Mirror Image, Heightened to 9th-level.
> 
> EDIT:  Or Wish, used to emulate Mirror Image.
> 
> You may continue this discussion, now.




Both are pretty tenuous examples.

_Wish_ used to emulate _mirror image_ duplicates a 2nd level spell. In effect, you have used a 9th level spell to cast a 2nd level one, and it is treated for most purposes like a 2nd level spell. _Mirror image_ has no save DC, and none of it's other effects are changed by being made "9th level".

A Heightened spell has its save DC increased (_mirror image_ doesn't have a save DC), or allows it to be treated as higher level for purposes like overcoming a _lesser globe of invulnerability_ (which it couldn't do either way). Once again, none of the salient effects of the spell are changed by making _mirror image_ higher level.

I'd rule that Cleave is still just as effective, based on the fact that both of these tactics are pretty pointless, and don't affect anything of substance with respect to _mirror image_ as a spell.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Not "active beings", Sigg.  => "Creatures".
> 
> Is a figment a creature?  Nope.




Ah...but here is the root of the dilemma. The term "creature", as defined in the glossary of the PHB, describes a creature as "A living, or otherwise active being, not an object" My contention is that an illusory duplicate of a character (either PC or NPC) would qualify as an "otherwise active being". My esteemed opponent(s) disagree. Therefore it really just boils down to opinion/interpretation, however the FAQs from WoC seem to support my interpretation.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I don't know...in certain very specific situations...like the one I mentioned with the cage bars, I might allow it. That type of use of cleave would be only on a case by case basis though.



 But you agree that you can't cleave through an object because that's clearly not a creature, right?



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> What mechanic would you use if a player wanted to try the old "stab/hew the old wooden door hitting the lurking baddie on the other side in one mighty blow" cliche? Seems to me a cleave attempt might not be a bad way to attempt it...despite the strict "no objects" rule of cleave. Of course there might be (and probably are) other ways to handle it too.



 I certainly wouldn't use cleave, because that's far more restrictive.  You'r basically telling the (e.g.) barbarian with destructive rage that he can't cut through the 1/4 inch door, but the cleric with cleave can.  Instead, I might come up with a houserule as follows.  I'd let the character attack the cover and if the cover is destroyed by the damage, then the attack 'goes through' and a subsequent attack can be made on the opponent, who still gains a cover bonus to AC (+8 for previously total cover) and is considered to have total concealment (so 50% miss chance).


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> But you agree that you can't cleave through an object because that's clearly not a creature, right?
> 
> I certainly wouldn't use cleave, because that's far more restrictive.  You'r basically telling the (e.g.) barbarian with destructive rage that he can't cut through the 1/4 inch door, but the cleric with cleave can.  Instead, I might come up with a houserule as follows.  I'd let the character attack the cover and if the cover is destroyed by the damage, then the attack 'goes through' and a subsequent attack can be made on the opponent, who still gains a cover bonus to AC (+8 for previously total cover) and is considered to have total concealment (so 50% miss chance).




I see what you're saying...especially in regards to the barb vs cleric situation. OTOH, a cleric buffed with bull strength and true strike wielding a maul maybe should be able to cleave through a door  I do see that using cleave against any old objects on a whim would be unacceptable, but I might still use the cleave in very specific situations such as I've mentioned simply as the mechanic to achieve the result. Plus, it seems to me a character trained and well-practiced in "following through" on mighty attacks in regular melee might have an edge in performing these manuevars...but you especially make a good point where the massive halforc barbie wielding the great axe should have a chance to "cleave" through the door even if he doesn't have the cleave feat (although kinda odd, I guess it's possible).


----------



## Nail (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> My contention is that an illusory duplicate of a character (either PC or NPC) would qualify as an "otherwise active being". My esteemed opponent(s) disagree.



As do I.  

Your interpretation of what an active being is would include wind blowing across a dusty plain, or a log floating down a river.  That's just silly.  

A more reasonable interpretation would not take the phrase "otherwise active being" out of context as you have.


----------



## Nail (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Plus, it seems to me a character trained and well-practiced in "following through" on mighty attacks in regular melee ...



There's your problem.

Cleave does not represent "following through".  Read through the description again.

I'm sorry, Sigg, but you can't pass off personally prefered description as rules interpretation.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm not ignoring its effects. I'm saying that having a counter that requires a two or three feat combination is perfectly appropriate for this level of spell.




Levitate is a second level spell as well.

So, you are ok with a two or three feat combination that allows melee fighters to attack the levitating opponent with their melee weapons from 300 feet up?


Whether the feats should have the power to negate a given spell is not relevant to whether they actually do.

In this case, they do not. The fact that it does not unbalance anything to allow them to do so does not actually allow them to. Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem.

But allowing it does not in any way indicate that figments are creatures.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> There's your problem.
> 
> Cleave does not represent "following through".  Read through the description again.
> 
> I'm sorry, Sigg, but you can't pass off personally prefered description as rules interpretation.




Indeed I can...personal interpretations are the only kind there are as we all see the world from a different pov.

pg. 92 of the PHB, under Cleave states: "You can follow through with powerful blows." I'm not sure it can get much more clear than that.

Wind blowing across the plains and logs floating down rivers are not the same as "Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being" (pg. 254 of PHB under Mirror Image).


----------



## Sigg (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Levitate is a second level spell as well.
> 
> So, you are ok with a two or three feat combination that allows melee fighters to attack the levitating opponent with their melee weapons from 300 feet up?
> 
> ...




Apples and Oranges. You're attempting to generalize, when we are being very specific. There may be a 2 or 3 feat combination that allows melee fighters to attack levitating opponents, or maybe not, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether cleave works against mirror images or whether images can be included within the definition of creatures as it's written in the PHB. Since images are not explicitly excluded from the definition as are objects, and as WoC seems to be taking the official stance that cleave does in fact work against mirror image, I feel confident in siding with WoC and allowing the cleaves in a game I might run. You can house rule it any way you like.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Ah...but here is the root of the dilemma. The term "creature", as defined in the glossary of the PHB, describes a creature as "A living, or otherwise active being, not an object" My contention is that an illusory duplicate of a character (either PC or NPC) would qualify as an "otherwise active being". My esteemed opponent(s) disagree. Therefore it really just boils down to opinion/interpretation, however the FAQs from WoC seem to support my interpretation.




"Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can."


"Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck."


Your contention is that a figment is an "active being", hence, it is a creature.

First, it is not a being. It is an illusion of a being. Just like a figment of a cup is not a cup. It just magic that LOOKS like a cup.

Second, figments are unreal. They do not exist except as magic.

Third, you will not find figments in the Monster Manual. They are not creatures.


The onus in on your side to illustrate that a figment is a being. It is not on our side to illustrate that it is not. I have already illustrated that figments are not real and are merely illusory copies.


For example, you cannot target an illusion with a creature only target spell.

You cannot Magic Missile a Major Image. The spell fails immediately. It is not that the missiles strike and do no damage, it is that the spell fails completely.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Levitate is a second level spell as well.
> 
> So, you are ok with a two or three feat combination that allows melee fighters to attack the levitating opponent with their melee weapons from 300 feet up?




Possibly, it depends on the feats. I seem to recall a couple of feat chains that give (for example) aasimar or tieflings wings that would do that.



> _Whether the feats should have the power to negate a given spell is not relevant to whether they actually do._





Actually, it is. Low level spells should be reasonably counterable, in general.



> _In this case, they do not. The fact that it does not unbalance anything to allow them to do so does not actually allow them to. Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem.
> 
> But allowing it does not in any way indicate that figments are creatures._





I didn't say that it does. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I said that allowing Cleave (and Great Cleave) to work on figments is something I would allow because (1) Cleave is fun, and (2) allowing a two (or three) feat combination to affect a single second level spell is an appropriate counter for the power of the spell.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I didn't say that it does. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I said that allowing Cleave (and Great Cleave) to work on figments is something I would allow because (1) Cleave is fun, and (2) allowing a two (or three) feat combination to affect a single second level spell is an appropriate counter for the power of the spell.




And I said. "Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem."

Again, I have no problem with allowing it.

I have a problem with stating that the rules allow it when they do not.

You and I appear to be disagreeing, just to disagree.


----------



## Nail (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> pg. 92 of the PHB, under Cleave states: "You can follow through with powerful blows." I'm not sure it can get much more clear than that.



Of course it can....and, amazingly, it does.  Read past the first sentence.  



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> Wind blowing across the plains and logs floating down rivers are not the same as "Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being" (pg. 254 of PHB under Mirror Image).



But all would be "active beings" under your overly broad interpretation of the phrase.

Just because I _could_ say the word "egglebottoms" means "food you eat with your feet" doesn't mean I should say such a thing, or that saying such a thing would be widely interpreted as true.  POV has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And I said. "Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem."
> 
> Again, I have no problem with allowing it.
> 
> I have a problem with stating that the rules allow it when they do not.




I didn't. My original post started with the statement that, by a strict reading of the RAW, no, it doesn't work.

I then stated that I would allow it anyway, and gave reasons why.

Perhaps you didn't read my post before you started in with your commentary?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I didn't. My original post started with the statement that, by a strict reading of the RAW, no, it doesn't work.
> 
> I then stated that I would allow it anyway, and gave reasons why.
> 
> Perhaps you didn't read my post before you started in with your commentary?




I didn't once state in this thread that you said that it was allowed by RAW. You make inferences out of thin air.

Perhaps you didn't read my posts before you started in with your commentary?


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 26, 2005)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I've allowed cleave off a sunder, and last time I checked a weapon isn't a creature(except maybe inteligent weapons).




Just to clarify a little, cleaving off of a sunder requires the Combat Brute [Tactical] feat from Complete Warrior.  One of its abilities is to allow you to cleave off of a successful sunder that destroys a weapon or shield.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 26, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I didn't once state in this thread that you said that it was allowed by RAW. You make inferences out of thin air.




But you did get into the idea that the level of a spell is "irrelevent" to determining what works against it and what doesn't. A position that is pretty much silly, given that a reasonable evaluation the effect and usefulness of a spell is almost necessarily a function of its level. And then switched your argument to "I'm just bothered by saying the core rules allow it", which has no bearing on your discussion concerning my statements. And then got huffy when I pointed out that I didn't say that. You do like to present a moving target don't you?


----------



## Jarrod (Oct 26, 2005)

I'm on the side of letting it work. 

What if a character is fighting illusory (figments, can that even happen?) monsters and drops one? If it was real, they'd get a cleave; since it's not, they don't? But it dropped the same way...

Wooden bars: object, no Cleave. Animate the wooden bars: animated object, therefore a creature (and worth XP), cleave. Animate the wooden bars and have them stand still...

This is getting into "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so..." territory.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 26, 2005)

I'll point out that if you can animate the wooden bars, you should have them move out of the way.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 26, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Ah...but here is the root of the dilemma. The term "creature", as defined in the glossary of the PHB, describes a creature as "A living, or otherwise active being, not an object" My contention is that an illusory duplicate of a character (either PC or NPC) would qualify as an "otherwise active being". My esteemed opponent(s) disagree. Therefore it really just boils down to opinion/interpretation, however the FAQs from WoC seem to support my interpretation.




_*Wisdom:* Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.

*Charisma:* Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score._

Can a figment perceive its environment?  Can it tell the difference between itself and things that are not itself?  What's its Wisdom score?  What's it's Charisma score?

-Hyp.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _*Wisdom:* Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score._



_

By that definition, a figment from Mirror Image is an object.  As an object, it can be sundered, can't it?.  _


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But you did get into the idea that the level of a spell is "irrelevent" to determining what works against it and what doesn't. A position that is pretty much silly, given that a reasonable evaluation the effect and usefulness of a spell is almost necessarily a function of its level.




What is silly is saying that merely because a spell is low level, you should be able to bypass the effects it has in a variety of ways that you would not be able to do if the spell was higher level.


----------



## Sejs (Oct 26, 2005)

So if I understand correctly, the main issue is that the images are Figments rather than Creatures.  

A couple of questions, then:

- Does it matter that the Figments in question are mimicing a Creature?  How about the fact that until you've interacted with them you can't tell the difference between the two?  

- If the Figment of a Creature/Actual Creature lines are immutable, would a ranger with the appropriate Favored Enemy be able to pick out the real caster every time by tagging the one their FE bonus applies to?  If not, then why?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> By that definition, a figment from Mirror Image is an object.  As an object, it can be sundered, can't it?.




No. You cannot sunder unattended objects.

Strange, but true.

If you want to damage an unattended object, you can attack it though.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 26, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I'd like to answer...




Well, all right, but you hadn't made Storyteller's assertions about lack of substance 'making it easier' to cleave, so it's not as much fun 



> E) I thought that, if you close your eyes against someone w/ Mirror Image, you negate the use of Mirror Image altogether.  When you are blind, you select a square and swing into that square.  If there happens to be a person in that square, and your attack roll was high enough to hit him, you roll the 50% miss chance to see if you really did hit him.  So it counters Mirror Image, because you aren't "selecting a target", you are selecting a square into which you are attacking.




True.  Make it a square containing a Mirror Image of an invisible pixie sorcerer when you can't see invisible, then.  

E1a. Is the image popped if you make the miss chance and hit the AC?
E1b. Does this allow a Cleave?

Leading to F1a: If there's a square that _doesn't_ contain a Mirror Image of an invisible pixie sorcerer when you can't see invisible (nor any creatures), can an attack into that square yield a Cleave?

-Hyp.


----------



## Sejs (Oct 26, 2005)

> No. You cannot sunder unattended objects.
> 
> Strange, but true.
> 
> If you want to damage an unattended object, you can attack it though.




Heh, but the images move with you - wouldn't that make them attended objects?


----------



## green slime (Oct 26, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If there's a square that _doesn't_ contain a Mirror Image of an invisible pixie sorcerer when you can't see invisible (nor any creatures), can an attack into that square yield a Cleave?
> 
> -Hyp.




Yes, if you successfully make it (the square) drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it).


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 27, 2005)

Palskane said:
			
		

> In other words, could a PC with a high enough Spot check unerringly pick the real caster of the spell, because he/she has a shadow and the images do not?





SRD description states that you can't tell the difference between the mage and the images via sight or sound. Other tactics are always available though.


EDIT: At least not when they move through each other. I'm guessing this covers all bases (shadows, shuffling, etc). You might check for foot prints though.


From the SRD:
"_You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other._"


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 27, 2005)

Double post


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

It's pretty clear (without tortured logic) that figments are not creatures.  It's also pretty clear (so long as you runderstand how the feat is used) that cleaving is not simply "following through" on a swing.

So beyond arguing these points, upon what other reasons do the counter-argument (cleave image = yes) stand?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Heh, but the images move with you - wouldn't that make them attended objects?




No. It means they move with you.

To be precise, Sunder does not allow you to sunder objects that are neither carried nor worn.

Note: If the Sunder conversation is leading towards Sundering an image and then Cleaving the caster with the Combat Brute feat, that does not work either. Cleave only applies to creatures (and Hyp has definitively illustrated that figments do not have Wisdom, hence, they are not creatures), so even if you tried this trick, it will only work if you manage to target the caster. If you target an image with the Cleave, the Cleave automatically fails.

Ditto for merely killing an opponent and then trying to Cleave the Mirror Imaged Wizard next to him. If you target the Wizard, you might hit. If you target an image with the Cleave, the Cleave automatically fails.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _*Wisdom:* Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.
> 
> *Charisma:* Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score._
> 
> ...




Well done.

I was going to check to see if all creatures had to have hit points when I got home, but this works.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> It's pretty clear (without tortured logic) that figments are not creatures.  It's also pretty clear (so long as you runderstand how the feat is used) that cleaving is not simply "following through" on a swing.
> 
> So beyond arguing these points, upon what other reasons do the counter-argument (cleave image = yes) stand?




Fun.

Not the rules, but a reasonable reason to house rule it.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> It's pretty clear (without tortured logic) that figments are not creatures.  It's also pretty clear (so long as you runderstand how the feat is used) that cleaving is not simply "following through" on a swing.
> 
> So beyond arguing these points, upon what other reasons do the counter-argument (cleave image = yes) stand?




No logic need be tortured....no quote or reference from the rules has been given which states that the duplicates created by a mirror image spell can not be cleaved. On the contrary, WoC (that would be the people who wrote the rules and designed the game) seems to be taking the official position that the duplicates can indeed be targetted with a cleave. Hence my assertion that I don't need to prove my point more than I have, as I'm simply agreeing with the seemingly offical interpretation of the rules.

I do understand quite well how the cleave feat is used. No understanding is really needed though because the feat description states quite clearly that the feat is indeed following through on a swing. It's right there in black and white....right in the book. Nothing which follows in the feat description contradicts this. Where do you get the idea that it isn't following through when the feat description itself clearly states that it is? Heck, the name of the feat itself implies this as well.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Note: If the Sunder conversation is leading towards Sundering an image and then Cleaving the caster with the Combat Brute feat, that does not work either.




Doesn't Combat Brute only trigger when you destroy a weapon or shield?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I do understand quite well how the cleave feat is used. No understanding is really needed though because the feat description states quite clearly that the feat is indeed following through on a swing. It's right there in black and white....right in the book. Nothing which follows in the feat description contradicts this. Where do you get the idea that it isn't following through when the feat description itself clearly states that it is? Heck, the name of the feat itself implies this as well.




How do you cinematically describe dropping a goblin ten feet to the north with a longspear, and Cleaving into the goblin ten feet to the south, when your allies stand to the east and west, as 'following through on a swing'?

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Doesn't Combat Brute only trigger when you destroy a weapon or shield?




It does. I didn't look it up, I was just wondering why we were talking about Sundering and suspected that someone would lead up to the:

1) Sunder
2) Cleave Image

arrangement with it. Even sundering a weapon, you still could not then use Combat Brute to Cleave an image, only the caster.


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> ....no quote or reference from the rules has been given which states that the duplicates created by a mirror image spell can not be cleaved.......



Sigg, you've said this before, and it's no more true now than when you first wrote it.  The quote or reference you are seeking is in the feat.   In brief, you must cleave "off" of an attack on a creature.  If you wish, someone could quote the relevant text.  And again, as quoted (etc), a figment is not a creature.  Q.E.D.



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> I do understand quite well how the cleave feat is used.



No, you don't.  I'm not being snarky here; you just haven't thought through how the feat is used in play.  See Hyper's post.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How do you cinematically describe dropping a goblin ten feet to the north with a longspear, and Cleaving into the goblin ten feet to the south, when your allies stand to the east and west, as 'following through on a swing'?




Especially in a 6 foot tall room.

I had a player quit 3E after a few games because he could not cinematically understand how you could be attacking someone 10 feet in front of you with your longspear and then AoO someone 10 feet behind you with it. It broke his suspension of disbelief to the point that he got angry about it (especially when he was the guy "behind the enemy").


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

Sure.

To some extent, I understand your former player's concern and frustration, KD.  Then again, I also like rule-sets that simplify where possible.  Generally, d20 satisfies both "suspension of disbelief" and "simplicity" for me.  

Quite clearly, YMMV.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How do you cinematically describe dropping a goblin ten feet to the north with a longspear, and Cleaving into the goblin ten feet to the south, when your allies stand to the east and west, as 'following through on a swing'?



 To use an oft-encountered argument amongst you damned hyperliteralists: Magic.  It doesn't HAVE to make sense.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> To use an oft-encountered argument amongst you damned hyperliteralists: Magic.  It doesn't HAVE to make sense.




And in an antimagic field?

-Hyp.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How do you cinematically describe dropping a goblin ten feet to the north with a longspear, and Cleaving into the goblin ten feet to the south, when your allies stand to the east and west, as 'following through on a swing'?
> 
> -Hyp.




I can't. I didn't say cleaving with a longspear made sense, I'm simply saying that the description of the cleave feat states quite clearly that it's following through from a powerful attack. I didn't write it.


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I can't.



If your interpretation doesn't work.....why not change your interpretation?


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And in an antimagic field?



 Obviously, Cleave doesn't work.

By the RAW there's nothing to suggest it's not a Supernatural ability.  Other than common sense which we can't use by fiat.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Obviously, Cleave doesn't work.
> 
> By the RAW there's nothing to suggest it's not a Supernatural ability.  Other than common sense which we can't use by fiat.




I'm away from my books... but doesn't it say somewhere that unless stated otherwise (like Exalted feats, for example), feats are Extraordinary abilities?

-Hyp.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Sigg, you've said this before, and it's no more true now than when you first wrote it.  The quote or reference you are seeking is in the feat.   In brief, you must cleave "off" of an attack on a creature.  If you wish, someone could quote the relevant text.  And again, as quoted (etc), a figment is not a creature.  Q.E.D.
> 
> No, you don't.  I'm not being snarky here; you just haven't thought through how the feat is used in play.  See Hyper's post.




It does say it cleaves off a creature. Creature, as defined in the glossary, is "A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangably." I direct your attention to the "living or otherwise active being" portion of the definition. This seems to tell me that the "creature" doesn't have to be living. Unless you're trying to say that a mirror image is actually an object, there is nothing in the definition of "creature" that prohibits my considering the image to be a "creature" for the purposes of the cleave feat. Also, apparently, WoC also doesn't seem to see a conflict as they have apparently stated in their (dubiously) official FAQs that cleave can indeed be used on mirror images.

I really don't need to think about how cleave is used in play...I've used it in play many, many times. I've never asserted that the cleave feat made a whole lot of sense in certain applications, only that the rules don't seem to explicitly prohibit the use of cleave versus the mirror image spell duplicates. Now I think I shall leave this dead horse to rest in peace. This has been a most stimulating discussion however.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> If your interpretation doesn't work.....why not change your interpretation?




Alas...I'm a glutton...

When I DM I do change my interpretation....I don't allow cleaves with P weapons. That is a house rule though, and not relevant to the topic.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I direct your attention to the "living or otherwise active being" portion of the definition. This seems to tell me that the "creature" doesn't have to be living.




Right.  An undead or construct, for example, is a non-living creature.  It has a Wisdom score and a Charisma score.



> Unless you're trying to say that a mirror image is actually an object, there is nothing in the definition of "creature" that prohibits my considering the image to be a "creature" for the purposes of the cleave feat.




Ah, but what's its Wisdom?  What's its Charisma?  A creature requires both...

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

I like and gain from this discussion too, FWIW.



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> It does say it cleaves off a creature. Creature, as defined in the glossary, is "A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangably." I direct your attention to the "living or otherwise active being" portion of the definition. This seems to tell me that the "creature" doesn't have to be living.




Quite so.  See creatures of the Construct or Undead type.  {EDIT: Beaten by Hyp...again. }

Did you see Hyp's post/quote about Wisdom and Charisma?  The rest of your answer is there.  Figments are not creatures.


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Alas...I'm a glutton....



You remind me of myself when I was pounded on about Psions about 6 months ago......


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> It does say it cleaves off a creature. Creature, as defined in the glossary, is "A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangably." I direct your attention to the "living or otherwise active being" portion of the definition. This seems to tell me that the "creature" doesn't have to be living. Unless you're trying to say that a mirror image is actually an object, there is nothing in the definition of "creature" that prohibits my considering the image to be a "creature" for the purposes of the cleave feat. Also, apparently, WoC also doesn't seem to see a conflict as they have apparently stated in their (dubiously) official FAQs that cleave can indeed be used on mirror images.
> 
> I really don't need to think about how cleave is used in play...I've used it in play many, many times. I've never asserted that the cleave feat made a whole lot of sense in certain applications, only that the rules don't seem to explicitly prohibit the use of cleave versus the mirror image spell duplicates. Now I think I shall leave this dead horse to rest in peace. This has been a most stimulating discussion however.




What part of Creatures need a minimum Wisdom of 1 and minimum Charisma of 1 is unclear to you?

What part of "otherwise active being, not an object" is refering to constructs and undead (which do have a Wisdom of 1 or higher and Charisma of 1 or higher) is unclear to you?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> You remind me of myself when I was pounded on about Psions about 6 months ago......




Yes, but at least you had a reasonable and debatable position, even if some people disagreed with it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

And a deep breath, all... let's keep it civil.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Jack Simth (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What part of Creatures need a minimum Wisdom of 1 and minimum Charisma of 1 is unclear to you?



Well... that's not quite accurate; a creature needs a wisdom and a charisma score; it can't have a - for it's ability in those categories; but one does not cease to be a creature when ability damaged or abilty drained down to 0 wisdom or 0 charisma (although one does cease to be able to act under such circumstances....)


----------



## Sejs (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No. It means they move with you.



 The distinction between the two is hazy.  I'm wearing a backpack.  I am not paying any attention to the items in my backpack, but they are considdered attended.  Active possession seems to be the brush 'attended' is inked with.  I'm splitting an irrelevent hair here, but all the same, the argument could be made.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Ditto for merely killing an opponent and then trying to Cleave the Mirror Imaged Wizard next to him. If you target the Wizard, you might hit. If you target an image with the Cleave, the Cleave automatically fails.



  Er, wait, so by that interpretation (e.g., you can only cleave into creatures) then Cleave automatically bypasses Mirror Image altogether if the caster is within reach?  



			
				Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> By the RAW there's nothing to suggest it's not a Supernatural ability.



 Don't base an argument off the "it doesn't _say_ it's not X" card.  It goes to bad places, and isn't a particularly strong point to begin with.


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes, but at least you had a reasonable and debatable position, even if some people disagreed with it.



   Well, I thought so, anyway.   


Spoiler



...and I still do! (laughs)


  

.....but the point is: occasionally you'll find yourself with no ground left to stand on.  When that happens (to continue the motiff), you'd best stand some place else.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

I didn't see, in the definition of "creature" that was so bandied about earlier, that wis or cha are required for a creature to be a "living or otherwise active being". What I have seen follows:

pg. 43 of the D&D FAQs from the WoC website:
"For all intents and purposes, the figments from a foe's mirror image spell are your foes. You aim spells and your attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures."

"If you have the Cleave or Great Cleave feat, destroying an image with a melee attack triggers the feat (and your cleaving attack might well strike the spell user instead of another image)."

Since the FAQs have been described as official rules clarifications, I feel I'm right in interpreting the figments of the spell as "creatures" for the purposes of the cleave feat...despite the seeming lack of wis and cha (although it could be argued as well that the duplicates share the wis and cha of the caster, or limited wis and cha infused in them by the magic of the spell).


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

Uh oh.....this thread is about to be turned into a "Errata vs FAQ" thread.  Shucks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I didn't see, in the definition of "creature" that was so bandied about earlier, that wis or cha are required for a creature to be a "living or otherwise active being". What I have seen follows:




Now you know.

So, why are you still claiming that figments are creatures when the rules state otherwise?



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> pg. 43 of the D&D FAQs from the WoC website:
> "For all intents and purposes, the figments from a foe's mirror image spell are your foes. You aim spells and your attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures."




Precisely.

Note the word "aim".

Aiming at a figment is one thing. Actually being successful with a spell or attack against it is another.

To be successful, you have to meet the benefits of the feat (in the case of Cleave, a creature) or the target of the spell (in the case of Magic Missile, a creature).

No exceptions.

If you attempt to Cleave a caster with Mirror Image up (according to RAW), you only hit if the target you aimed at is the caster.

If you attempt to Magic Missile a caster with Mirror Image up (according to RAW), you only hit if the target you aimed at is the caster. Any missile aimed at a figment does not even cast.



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> "If you have the Cleave or Great Cleave feat, destroying an image with a melee attack triggers the feat (and your cleaving attack might well strike the spell user instead of another image)."
> 
> Since the FAQs have been described as official rules clarifications, I feel I'm right in interpreting the figments of the spell as "creatures" for the purposes of the cleave feat...despite the seeming lack of wis and cha (although it could be argued as well that the duplicates share the wis and cha of the caster, or limited wis and cha infused in them by the magic of the spell).




It could be argued, but not by RAW.

With regard to the FAQ, yes, it states what it states.

It is not RAW and hence a rules addition, but it does state that you can cleave mirror images.

Nobody is disagreeing with you that the FAQ states that.

We are disagreeing with you that RAW states that.

With regard to RAW, you are incorrect.

With regard to the FAQ, you are correct.

Since your "the FAQ trumps RAW" is the final card in your hand to play, don't expect anyone here to change their minds over that.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Uh oh.....this thread is about to be turned into a "Errata vs FAQ" thread.  Shucks.




Sorry  :\  I didn't make the damn things official.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Er, wait, so by that interpretation (e.g., you can only cleave into creatures) then Cleave automatically bypasses Mirror Image altogether if the caster is within reach?




Not according to the Mirror Image spell itself.

"Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment."

When you are cleaving, you are still *attempting* to attack a creature. Unfortunately, if you select incorrectly, you are instead attempting to attack a figment and you prevent your own feat from working by definition of the feat (useable only against creatures).


Your interpretation ignores the text of the Mirror Image spell. The only valid interpretation is one which follows ALL of the rules.


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

or...put more succinctly:  "The FAQ is wrong often enough to be untrustworthy."


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 27, 2005)

Okay, quick question:

Excluding arguements based on semantics, why is it a bad thing to have Cleavable Mirror Images?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I didn't see, in the definition of "creature" that was so bandied about earlier, that wis or cha are required for a creature to be a "living or otherwise active being".




It's not in the definition of creature; it's in the definition of 'Nonabilities' in the Monster Manual.

Quoted again:
_*Wisdom:* Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.

*Charisma:* Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score._

-Hyp.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Now you know.
> 
> So, why are you still claiming that figments are creatures when the rules state otherwise?
> 
> ...





FAQs "trumps" RAW isn't my card or my hand. They are described by WoC themselves as rules clarifications. If you have a problem with that, talk to WoC. Until then, figments created by the mirror image spell are targetable by the cleave feat, whether because they are considered creatures or because the cleave isn't restricted to just "creatures". Officially....according to the rules as written by WoC, and then clarified by them in the FAQs.

BTW, there is nothing that states anywhere that magic missiles can't be cast at a mirror image either.

Just to sum up...

There is no line in the rules that states that a mirror image specifically cannot be considered a "creature".

There is no line in the rules stating specifically that Cleave can ONLY be used against a "creature" and nothing else.

And finally there is no line anywhere in the rules which states that the images created by a mirror image spell specifically are prohibited from being targetted by ANY specific form of attack.


----------



## Nail (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> There is no line in the rules that states that a mirror image specifically cannot be considered a "creature".



See text on Non-abilities, etc.



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> There is no line in the rules stating specifically that Cleave can ONLY be used against a "creature" and nothing else.



See text within the feat itself.



			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> And finally there is no line anywhere in the rules which states that the images created by a mirror image spell specifically are prohibited from being targetted by ANY specific form of attack.



See text within the spell descriptions of interest.  Magic Missile, for example.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> There is no line in the rules stating specifically that Cleave can ONLY be used against a "creature" and nothing else.




He's quite right.

The benefit of the Cleave feat states that "If you deal a creature enough damage...", but it doesn't specifically say "These are the only benefits of the Cleave feat, and thus the feat does not allow a free melee attack when destroying an object."

From which we can only conclude that it's entirely possible that the feat does, in fact, allow a free melee attack when destroying an object.

Of course, the same can be said for the Run feat.  After all, the Run feat doesn't specifically say that it doesn't allow a free melee attack when destroying an object, either, so by the same logic, if I have Run instead of Cleave, I can get my extra attacks from figments too...

-Hyp.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's not in the definition of creature; it's in the definition of 'Nonabilities' in the Monster Manual.
> 
> Quoted again:
> _*Wisdom:* Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.
> ...




I don't see anything in the figment description or mirror image spell description that either says they lack wis and cha, or that they are considered "objects". If they are "objects", and they are in contact with the caster, hence in his possession, can they be sundered? Now who's using tortured logic? The nonabilities bit has no stated connection to illusions in general, or the mirror image spell specifically. I also once again don't see anywhere in the Cleave feat description that explicitly prohibits it being used to target illusions of any kind, or even "objects" for that matter. Simply because "objects" are not mentioned in the feat description specifically, does not automatically imply they are prohibited targets. You are grasping at completely unrelated rules to imply a prohibition that is not specifically stated in the descriptions of the feat and spell. How is that any better than my relying on an official rules clarification by the publisher of the game to form my interpretation?


----------



## Sigg (Oct 27, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> See text on Non-abilities, etc.
> 
> See text within the feat itself.
> 
> See text within the spell descriptions of interest.  Magic Missile, for example.




Non-abilities is unrelated and irrelevant. Non-abilities describes plants, not magic spells.

Text within the feat states no prohibitions.

How about you quote from me a line from the Magic Missile spell description that prohibits it's being used against illusions. Heck the spell desc proves it can be used against illusions even if you consider illusions to be "objects".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> If they are "objects", and they are in contact with the caster, hence in his possession, can they be sundered?




So your question is - can I make an attack roll that deals damage against a figment in order to destroy it?

Sure, works for me...?



> How about you quote from me a line from the Magic Missile spell description that prohibits it's being used against illusions. Heck the spell desc proves it can be used against illusions even if you consider illusions to be "objects".




How so?  It targets "up to five creatures".  If illusions are objects, they are not creatures, in which case a spell that can only target creatures is ineffective.

_*SPELL FAILURE*
If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted._

-Hyp.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm away from my books... but doesn't it say somewhere that unless stated otherwise (like Exalted feats, for example), feats are Extraordinary abilities?
> 
> -Hyp.



It might.  I can't confess to having looked particularly hard to back up my (silly) claims.  The question, of course, is that IF such a statement occurs whether it's in the few acceptable passages that compose the "RAW" or not.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Okay, quick question:
> 
> Excluding arguements based on semantics, why is it a bad thing to have Cleavable Mirror Images?




Nothing wrong with it.

It is not the rules, but it is a fine house rule.

And, this is not really semantics.

A figment is not a creature by definition. Cleave only affects creatures. No semantics, just rules.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A figment is not a creature by definition. Cleave only affects creatures. No semantics, just rules.




As Hype mentioned, the description doesn't say that it does not effect non-creatures either. 

Meh... Doesn't really matter. I'm out. Have fun everyone.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> As Hype mentioned, the description doesn't say that it does not effect non-creatures either.




Er, right.  And it doesn't say it doesn't grant a +6 enhancement bonus to all attacks.

Nor does it say it doesn't turn you into a giant chicken-man.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I don't see anything in the figment description or mirror image spell description that either says they lack wis and cha, or that they are considered "objects". If they are "objects", and they are in contact with the caster, hence in his possession, can they be sundered? Now who's using tortured logic? The nonabilities bit has no stated connection to illusions in general, or the mirror image spell specifically. I also once again don't see anywhere in the Cleave feat description that explicitly prohibits it being used to target illusions of any kind, or even "objects" for that matter. Simply because "objects" are not mentioned in the feat description specifically, does not automatically imply they are prohibited targets. You are grasping at completely unrelated rules to imply a prohibition that is not specifically stated in the descriptions of the feat and spell. How is that any better than my relying on an official rules clarification by the publisher of the game to form my interpretation?




You are totally incorrect here and just blowing smoke.

Simply because "objects" are not mentioned in the feat description specifically, does automatically indicate they are prohibited targets. You are giving the feat more power than what is written in it. Just because a normal melee attack can target an object does NOT give the melee attack from a Cleave feat the ability to target an object because the Cleave feat explicitly calls out what you can attack with it. Creatures. Period. It explicitly says so.

"If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach"

This also explicitly states that you get the extra melee attack against a creature within reach. This means that you cannot take a 5 foot step as part of a Cleave and arrange for a creature to be within reach.

Of course, the feat goes on to state: "You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack."

It did not really need to state this because the previous sentence already precluded it. They just added the sentence for clarity.

You also cannot target the same creature you just damaged.



PROVE that a figment is a creature and it has a minimum Wisdom score of 1 and a minimum Charisma score of 1.

Or PROVE that Cleave can target something other than a creature.

Or PROVE that Magic Missile can target something other than a creature.


Use RAW to do so.


Giving feats and spells and spell effects properties that they do not have written down in the game is merely wasting bandwidth here. It belongs in the House Rules forum.


"COMBAT CASTING [GENERAL]
Benefit: You get a +4 bonus on Concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability while on the defensive or while you are grappling or pinned."

You cannot use the +4 bonus to ANY other Concentration check. Just the ones it states.

Just like with Cleave. You only get a melee attack against a creature. No difference.


I suspect that you are a person who refuses to lose, no matter what. So, you will continue to ramble on without any rules to back up your position.

Pull out some rules that we all missed to prove that figments are creatures or that Cleave can be used on objects. Otherwise, you are just spitting in the wind and wasting everyone's time.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

It IS quite amusing that so many people here have decided that following the FAQ constitutes making up House Rules.


----------



## Dimensional (Oct 27, 2005)

Just going through this thread and seeing some of the arguments..

anyway HAving looked through it.

according to raw if you cleave you can only target a creature - Yes?

so say my character drops Ememy A
the only other enemy is wizard B who happens to have his Mirror Image up, he has 3 figments within my Reach.

Now By dropping A I get to cleave (assuming Ihave the feat) The only Creature I can target is the Caster B because I can't target his figmenst. So I automaticaly opick him out of his figments?

Seems a bit odd (but then so does the rest of the discussion)
Or am I missing something?

Jeremy


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> It IS quite amusing that so many people here have decided that following the FAQ constitutes making up House Rules.




If the FAQ flat out disagrees with RAW, then it is a House Rule. Or minimally a new WotC rule.

The problem with the FAQ is that it does not agree with RAW in several circumstances. In fact, the FAQ does not always agree with the FAQ.

As a general rule, I think the FAQ is usually correct. However, if it disagrees with RAW, I typically take RAW over FAQ because FAQ tends to be "How the Sage Would Rule" whereas RAW tends to be "How All of the Designers Agreed to Rule".

RAW also happens to be what my players see in and out of game. Most of them do not go to the Internet to find out answers which are often in black and white in RAW.

The FAQ is a good place to go find out an answer to most specific questions. It is not always "correct".


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Dimensional said:
			
		

> Just going through this thread and seeing some of the arguments..
> 
> anyway HAving looked through it.
> 
> ...




Yes. You missed the part where Mirror Image states that you MUST select from images as well as the caster when doing targeting the caster. You do not get a choice. Hence, if you (randomly) select incorrectly, the Cleave does not get to happen since your selected target is not a creature.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If the FAQ flat out disagrees with RAW, then it is a House Rule. Or




It's not disagreeing, it's clarifying.  The FAQ is basically saying "We did not think of this when we first wrote the rules.  Now that this question was brought to our attention and we had time to think about it, this is how you should officially play it."  "It" being Cleave vs Mirror Images.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes. You missed the part where Mirror Image states that you MUST select from images as well as the caster when doing targeting the caster. You do not get a choice. Hence, if you (randomly) select incorrectly, the Cleave does not get to happen since your selected target is not a creature.




Does that mean that my Cleave did not happen?  So I can try Cleave again until I finally do hit the real target?


----------



## Coredump (Oct 27, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It's not disagreeing, it's clarifying.  The FAQ is basically saying "We did not think of this when we first wrote the rules.  Now that this question was brought to our attention and we had time to think about it, this is how you should officially play it."  "It" being Cleave vs Mirror Images.



That is the theory... sort of... but that is not what happened. This is in no way a 'clarification', it is a 'change'. And they don't even label it as a change, they seem to treat it as if that is what the rules say, and they are simply clarifying. They give no indication that they are even aware that it is a change.
Does this mean that *just* Mirror images are affected? What about other illusions? Can you now cleave off of objects? Are mirror images now treated like creatures? Can you polymorph them?
They don't get into *why* they ruled, which indicates to me that they don't realize they have made a change....


Sigg, it is interesting to me that you have gone through a whole list of reasons, and they keep get shot down, and then you come up with another reason..... If you are willing to except the rule 'clarifications' from the FAQ, even when they are rules 'changes', that is fine. But you are really grasping at straws for much of your positions at this point.

And I would like to highlight what Hyp has said.

Feats tell you what you can do, you can only do what they say.
Cleave says you can get a benefit from attacking a creature.
It does not say you can get a benefit from attacking an object.
It does not say you can get a benefit from yelling very loud.
It does not say you can get a benefit from using an axe.

So you are saying "Since it doesn't say I *can't* benefit from attacking an object, that means I *can* benefit from attacking an object.
Now the player next to you. ""Since it doesn't say I *can't* benefit from yelling very loud, that means I *can* benefit from yelling very loud.
Then the next player "Since it doesn't say I *can't* benefit from using an axe, that means I *can* benefit from using an axe.

Do you see the logic flaw? Feats say you can do extra things, just because a feat doesn't say you can't fly, doesn't mean you can fly.

And if the rules state that all creatures must have a wisdom and charisma score, how can you argue that they don't need one? And if you agree with this rule, what wisdom and charisma score do the figments have?


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If the FAQ flat out disagrees with RAW, then it is a House Rule. Or minimally a new WotC rule.  The problem with the FAQ is that it does not agree with RAW in several circumstances. In fact, the FAQ does not always agree with the FAQ.



Says you.

The errata is eerily silent on the question of what place the FAQ takes with respect to primary/secondary sources.  It is entirely possible that WotC actually considers the FAQ to BE official errata.

Furthermore, let's not pretend that the RAW itself is without self-contradiction.  Take for instance the case of enhancement bonuses and hardness/hit points.  The DMG magic item section gives us two conflicting versions of how an Enhancement bonus affects hardness/hit points (one of which is a direct copy of the 3.0 language).  The errata does not correct this conflict...though it DOES appear on p.24 of the FAQ (I believe it references a passage in the PHB with repeats the newer of the two versions). 

Why not?  By your reasoning it cannot correct this.  And anyone who chooses one of those two versions is by definition making a House Rule.

The fact is, much of the hyperliteralist arguments I see on these boards for particular, tortured game mechanics go well beyond the precedent of effort and precision the game designers and WotC employees have shown time and again.  It would seem to make much more sense to simply admit that there are vague or ambiguous areas in the rules than to come up with horrendously contorted feats of language to support one's personal opinion.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It's not disagreeing, it's clarifying.  The FAQ is basically saying "We did not think of this when we first wrote the rules.  Now that this question was brought to our attention and we had time to think about it, this is how you should officially play it."  "It" being Cleave vs Mirror Images.




It's one man's opinion on one given day, typically without the benefit of reading long discussions on the topic.

Go read Rules of the Game. They TOO have discrepencies, both with RAW and with the FAQ.

You'll also note that you cannot tell WHICH rules were reviewed by the questions in the FAQ. Did the Sage actually read that Creatures require a Wisdom score and since Figments do not have that, they are not legitimately creatures? Maybe. Maybe not. I suspect that it never entered his mind. He just made a ruling that allowed images to be targeted by virtually everything (except spells that do not target individual creatures).


The problem with exceptions to the rules is that they make the game more complex. For example, if you allow Cleave and Magic Missile to target Mirror Images, do you also allow them to target figment illusions created by the higher level spell Major Image or Persistent Image?

How about Transmute Rock to Mud against Illusory Wall?


Where do you draw the line? When do you stop having special rules for one circumstance and different rules for another when neither spell states that it gives you those benefits?

Quite frankly, DND's entire concept of figments is somewhat flawed. You really cannot fool anyone for long with a figment. All they have to do is touch a figment with a saving throw and they automatically succeed at the save.

"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw."

Figments rarely have a touch component, so your hand can typically go through them and you can easily auto-save.

Ditto for most Glamers that have saves (like Hallucinatory Terrain). If you want to see if someone is glamered, touch them. Auto-save.


How about Ventriloquism? Will save if interacted with. How do you interact with it except by hearing it? Therefore, you always get a Will Save if you hear it. The save text is inane.


How about Phantom Trap? A second level permanent illusion (not in the PHB, only in the SRD) that nobody with a Wisdom of 10 or higher can save against. Anyone with a Wisdom of 9 or lower and without the Search skill always saves against it. A second level permanent illusion that basically cannot be saved against. That's pretty potent for a second level spell. Course, if you consider it a magical trap (it's not, it is an illusion, not a trap), then mostly only Rogues auto-fail it and virtually everyone else auto-saves against it. No Rogue in the group, the spell is basically worthless.

Which way do you rule? Super potent with no defenses and no "safe" ways around (shy of having a Rogue or possibly a Detect Magic with Spellcraft) or potentially super worthless? Do you really think that the Sage thought about this spell a lot while it was being written up for the SRD?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Furthermore, let's not pretend that the RAW itself is without self-contradiction.  Take for instance the case of enhancement bonuses and hardness/hit points.  The DMG magic item section gives us two conflicting versions of how an Enhancement bonus affects hardness/hit points (one of which is a direct copy of the 3.0 language).  The errata does not correct this conflict...though it DOES appear on p.24 of the FAQ (I believe it references a passage in the PHB with repeats the newer of the two versions).
> 
> Why not?  By your reasoning it cannot correct this.  And anyone who chooses one of those two versions is by definition making a House Rule.




Not at all. They are following the rules in the DMG. Your extrapolation of my reasoning on this is not valid since the DMG handles this for us.

DMG page 6

"If you come upon an apparent contradiction in the rules, consider these factors:

Choose the rule you like the best, then stick with it for the rest of the campaign. Consistency is a critical aspect of rules adjudication."



			
				Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> The fact is, much of the hyperliteralist arguments I see on these boards for particular, tortured game mechanics go well beyond the precedent of effort and precision the game designers and WotC employees have shown time and again.  It would seem to make much more sense to simply admit that there are vague or ambiguous areas in the rules than to come up with horrendously contorted feats of language to support one's personal opinion.




You say they are tortured. I say they are what is written. Plus, I have the text on my side.

But, I do agree with you that there are vague and ambiguous areas in the rules. Cleave versus Mirror Image is not one of them. That is clear.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Does that mean that my Cleave did not happen?  So I can try Cleave again until I finally do hit the real target?




No.

Just like you cannot keep trying to Trip an opponent if you fail without using a different melee attack.

Just because something fails does not give you the right to keep trying with the same attempt.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But, I do agree with you that there are vague and ambiguous areas in the rules. Cleave versus Mirror Image is not one of them. That is clear.



 Other than that you've failed to establish so far that the images are NOT creatures.

It has been established that anything without a Wisdom score is an object (Hypersmurf's quote).  Contrary to popular opinion, it has NOT been established that the figments lack a Wisdom score.  Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.

If the objection has to do with the nature of it being an ILLUSION, allow me to draw your attention to the Shadow Conjuration spell.  Do the effects of a replicated Summon Monster spell count as creatures?  The Shadow Conjuration spell description notes the effects specifically as creatures.  A shadow is quasi-real.  So it seems to follow that (at least full) "reality" is not a requirement for qualification as a creature.

Also, note p. 174 of the PHB under Figment:  "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else."  It's readily apparent from the spell description that the images appear to be a creature (the caster).  If they were really objects, they wouldn't be able to accomplish this.

(And for the record, I don't particularly care for this ruling in the FAQ either)


----------



## CyberSpyder (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> It has been established that anything without a Wisdom score is an object (Hypersmurf's quote).  Contrary to popular opinion, it has NOT been established that the figments lack a Wisdom score.  Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.



If I didn't know you were serious, this would be hilarious.

Actually, strike that.  It's still hilarious.


----------



## Dimensional (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Just like you cannot keep trying to Trip an opponent if you fail without using a different melee attack.
> 
> Just because something fails does not give you the right to keep trying with the same attempt.




That depends on how and why it fails.

A spell fails and fizzles if the target is invalid. as far as I know there is no rule for whether an attack fizzles if it's target is invalid.

The sequence is - Cleave, Choose new target, check if target is valid.

You seem to suggest that if the target is invalid, The attack fizzles. 
I'd say it's equaly Valid to say that it doesn't(unless I'm miss reading something again, which is Possible I havn't put much energy into this) and thus the attack is still to resolve, and thus the Target must be chosen again.

In your trip example your trip fails because you miss, or you fail you check. I.e. It fails as a part of the action and thus is not actualy a comparable counteraxample.

(further note - I wouldn't actualy play this way, but thats not a requirement for this discussion)

Jeremy


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Choose the rule you like the best, then stick with it for the rest of the campaign. Consistency is a critical aspect of rules adjudication."



 Sorry bud.  That's still a House Rule.  Where do you think the term Rule 0 comes from anyway?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Other than that you've failed to establish so far that the images are NOT creatures.
> 
> It has been established that anything without a Wisdom score is an object (Hypersmurf's quote).  Contrary to popular opinion, it has NOT been established that the figments lack a Wisdom score.  Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.
> 
> ...




Actually, it has been illustrated.

Shadow Conjuration is of type Shadow Illusion. These can be quasi-real.

Mirror Image is of type Figment Illusion. These are not real (and the quotes for this have been posted earlier). Not real, no Wisdom score UNLESS it states somewhere that either Mirror Image or figments have a Wisdom score somewhere (or is a creature) which it does not.


As for the quote:

"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else."

this means that a Figment cannot make you look like a Troll. Glamers are used for that. So, you cannot use Major Image to look like a Troll. You cannot hide within a Major Image and look like a Table in it. You can create the image of a Troll or a Table with Major Image, but you cannot change your own appearance or anyone else's appearance with Major Image since Major Image is a figment, not a glamer.

Using Major Image to create a Troll does not make that illusory Troll a creature either. It is still merely a figment.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Sorry bud.  That's still a House Rule.  Where do you think the term Rule 0 comes from anyway?




That is not a house rule.

It is quoted directly from the DMG and no matter which decision you make, you are still following RAW.

Think of picking one of the two contradictory rules as choosing which optional rule to play. The two contradictory rules are core. They are in RAW. You just have to pick one.

Picking a rule which is not in RAW from the FAQ though, is a house rule.

Making up a rule which is not in RAW is also a house rule.

Now, you can view FAQ as core and official, but they make too many mistakes for me to do that. I consider it a lesser source. Good for a quick lookup, but not really official. Ditto for Rules of the Game.


So, bottom line: If it is in RAW, it is not a house rule, even if it is an adjudication. If it is not in RAW, it it a house rule. There is a difference between an adjudication and a house rule. A house rule is a subset of adjudications, but it is not the entire set.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Dimensional said:
			
		

> That depends on how and why it fails.




The game has retries for different ways of failing? Show me.



			
				Dimensional said:
			
		

> A spell fails and fizzles if the target is invalid. as far as I know there is no rule for whether an attack fizzles if it's target is invalid.
> 
> The sequence is - Cleave, Choose new target, check if target is valid.
> 
> ...




Let's take a different example:

D
WEM

where D is a dropped body, W is a Wizard, E is the enemy, and M is a Major Image of a Fighter attacking E.

E just dropped D.

E then decides to Cleave M.

M is not a creature, so the Cleave fails.

E does not get to say "Opps, I didn't know that, I'll use my Cleave on W".

In this example, the Cleave accomplished something. It told E that M is not real.

In the Mirror Image example, the Cleave accomplished something. It told E (and his allies) that the image he attacked was not real. Now, this probably will not help him unless he has allies who can take advantage of this before W's next turn. But, it still worked exactly like the example above.


----------



## Coredump (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> It has been established that anything without a Wisdom score is an object (Hypersmurf's quote).  Contrary to popular opinion, it has NOT been established that the figments lack a Wisdom score.  Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.



Likewise, it has NOT been established that Magic Missles lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.
So, by applying *YOUR* logic, it is part of RAW that Magic Missles can be considered 'creatures'. So next time our wizard shoots them past me and at the bad guy, I am going to cleave them.

Likewise, it has NOT been established that sticks lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in any book.
So, by applying *YOUR* logic, it is part of RAW that sticks can be considered 'creatures'. So next time I am fighting a bad guy, I will throw them in the air, creatures provoke AoO, so I will AoO them, and then cleave the bad guy.

Likewise, it has NOT been established that arrows lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in any book.
So, by applying *YOUR* logic, it is part of RAW that arrows can be considered 'creatures'. So next time our archer shoots them part me and at the bad guy, I am going to cleave the arrows and hit the bad guy.


It is incredibly spurious 'logic' to quote rules as to what they 'don't' say.
For instance, cleave says it can be used once per round, it does *not* say you can't average that. So perhaps I can use it twice a round,every other round. It doesn't say I can't. Or is "once a round' the *only* valid interpretation of 'once a round'?


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 27, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with it.
> 
> It is not the rules, but it is a fine house rule.
> 
> ...




Actually thanks to the faq it appears that your interpretation is the house rule.  So sorry your the one interprting the rules wrong, and making house rules.

The problem with the it doesn't work crowd is they try to use wording to narrow the abilities of things past the point of logic into the realm of rules stupidity.  Sometimes you have to step back, and not read this like your a lawyer and inerpret the intent of things.  If its actually easier to drop an image than it would be to drop a set of orc bodyguards you should be able to cleave off them just like you could the orcs.  Ruling otherwise is an overly narrow intepretaiton using specifc workding in order to disrupt a logical flow so that rules lawyering can reign supreme.  And hey guess what even the owners of the game recognize this and have clarified in the faq accordingly.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 27, 2005)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> Actually thanks to the faq it appears that your interpretation is the house rule.  So sorry your the one interprting the rules wrong, and making house rules.




Well no, because the FAQ isn't rules. In this case, the FAQ contradicts the RAW, and is therefore, wrong.


----------



## dcollins (Oct 27, 2005)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> The problem with the it doesn't work crowd is they try to use wording to narrow the abilities of things past the point of logic into the realm of rules stupidity.  Sometimes you have to step back, and not read this like your a lawyer and inerpret the intent of things...




Fair enough. Now, the only way I can personally make descriptive sense out of "Cleave", is if it's a blow so bloody and destructive that it creates a blinding mess, and so shocking that it stuns another enemy in the area into momentarily letting his guard down (and hence a free attack).

With _mirror image_, there's no carnage and destruction (so no visual distraction). Other _mirror images_ don't have any capacity to react with shock or awe (so no apparent guard-down free attack). And therefore to me, the narrow ruling both agrees with the letter of the law _and_ agrees with the descriptive sense I get out of "Cleave".


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 27, 2005)

that's an interesting describptive way of looking at cleave, and hey if that's how you want ot do it go for it.

Me I see cleave as the concpet that sometimes you can finish a foe off so quickly it doesn't really impact your actions for that round much.  Either the foe is so weak in comparison to you or in such a weakened state that you drop them without eating into your other attempts at delivering a beat down to all those within your range.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 27, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well no, because the FAQ isn't rules. In this case, the FAQ contradicts the RAW, and is therefore, wrong.




well yes, because the faq is rules clarificaiton.  In this case the faq correctly goes with the raw and doesn't overly narrow the interpretation of terms to the point of illogic.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 27, 2005)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> well yes, because the faq is rules clarificaiton.  In this case the faq correctly goes with the raw and doesn't overly narrow the interpretation of terms to the point of illogic.




I'm not sure how you get to the idea that saying an illusion isn't a creature is "overly narrow[ing] the interpretation of terms to the point of illogic". Illusions are not creatures, pretty much be definition. Cleave works on creatures. By the RAW, Cleave doesn't work on illusions.

The FAQ is just wrong by the RAW. I like being able to Cleave _mirror images_, but I am up front about the fact that this is a variation from the RAW.


----------



## Sejs (Oct 27, 2005)

> If the objection has to do with the nature of it being an ILLUSION, allow me to draw your attention to the Shadow Conjuration spell. Do the effects of a replicated Summon Monster spell count as creatures? The Shadow Conjuration spell description notes the effects specifically as creatures. A shadow is quasi-real. So it seems to follow that (at least full) "reality" is not a requirement for qualification as a creature.




Flip side of the same coin.  Shadow Conjuration expressly denotes the effects as creatures.  Other illusions do not.  It's not a matter of whether or not full 'reality' is a requirement, it's a matter of one spell noting the exception (Shadow Conjuration), thereby simultaneously establishing the standard to which it is an exception.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 27, 2005)

Perhaps Mirror Image would be better if it gave you a miss %.  Like you roll 1d4+1/level (or whatever the spell is) and multiply the result by 10%.  This is your miss %.  So if you roll a total of 5, you have a 50% miss chance when striking the caster.  If you miss, then you pop an image and reduce the miss % by 10%.  This will make it so you are always just targetting the caster, and it will disallow Cleave.  And you'll be able to cast Magic Missile which will always just target the caster (and thus never pop images).


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 27, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how you get to the idea that saying an illusion isn't a creature is "overly narrow[ing] the interpretation of terms to the point of illogic". Illusions are not creatures, pretty much be definition. Cleave works on creatures. By the RAW, Cleave doesn't work on illusions.
> 
> The FAQ is just wrong by the RAW. I like being able to Cleave _mirror images_, but I am up front about the fact that this is a variation from the RAW.




the reason why its an overly narrow interpretation is because your just using terms.  Sure cleave works on creatures, sure figmants aren't creatures.  But, no one is steping back and saying what does cleave do, what does mirror image do.  Not on a terminology level, but in actual effect.  When you use the terms not to help find out what something is supposed to do but to obsucate what the feat and spell do, you are using an overly narrow interpretation of the terms. 

RPG rules aren't meant to be just a definition of terms, they require things like interpretation of intent.  Sure they do there best to make the rule so clear that no interpretation is needed.  But once you start overly analyzing the terms and assuming every time that word that hapens to be a term is used it is used exactly like the term and not as its general use in the language it is written in, problems will occur.

Cleave allows you to attack once you drop a creature, to say since mirror image isn't technically a creature so it doesn't apply is silly beyond measure.  So if it was a shaadow spell instead of a figment it would work, because its harder to drop the images, yeah that makes a ton of sense.  The raw isn't just terms, the people who write the faq can recognize that, unfortunatley some rules lawyers can't.  The faq correctly interperpreted the rules so they made sense, so it is by the raw.  Since finding the raw sometimes takes more than just defining a term.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 27, 2005)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> the reason why its an overly narrow interpretation is because your just using terms.




Er, yeah.  That's what you're supposed to do.

When the rules say "creature," they mean "creature."

They don't mean "creature or object or wishes or hopes and dreams."


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> Cleave allows you to attack once you drop a creature, to say since mirror image isn't technically a creature so it doesn't apply is silly beyond measure.




Interesting that you are using phrases like "drop a creature" to support your position. You are using the portions of the feat that you want to support a rules decision, just like us.

You focus on the word "drop".

We focus on the word "creature".

The difference is that there are game mechanics definitions for "creature", but not for "drop".

Drop could mean stunning. Drop could mean killing. Drop could mean tripping. There is no explicit definition of "dropping a creature" beyond what is listed in the Cleave feat itself: lowering a creature below 0 hit points or killing it.

So, extending that definition to include dropping figments is merely a pretense to support what you and the FAQ decides is the way it should work. It has no bearing on what is actually written within the text.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 27, 2005)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> the reason why its an overly narrow interpretation is because your just using terms.




Oh, you mean I'm using the RAW? Using very basic ideas like "creatures" are what the rules say they are, and "figments" are what the rules say they are, and "Cleave" does what the rules say it does?

That would be why the rule "no Cleave against _mirror images_" is the RAW. I'm still not seeing how using the basic definitions of basic terms is "overly narrow".


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Er, yeah.  That's what you're supposed to do.
> 
> When the rules say "creature," they mean "creature."
> 
> They don't mean "creature or object or wishes or hopes and dreams."




In this case, they do for Shard.


----------



## Sejs (Oct 27, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Er, yeah.  That's what you're supposed to do.
> 
> When the rules say "creature," they mean "creature."
> 
> They don't mean "creature or object or wishes or hopes and dreams."




Well thank god.  At least my hopes and dreams are safe from marauding cleave-using maniacs.


----------



## Coredump (Oct 27, 2005)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> Cleave allows you to attack once you drop a creature, to say since mirror image isn't technically a creature so it doesn't apply is silly beyond measure.



"Mirror image isn't *technically* a creature......"

Well, *lots* of things are not 'technically' a creature can we cleave all of those now too?
A painting of a creature looks like a creature, but 'technically' it isn't, so  can we cleave off hitting a painting"

An arrow isn't 'technically' a creature, can I cleave after 'dropping' an arrow?

Where does it stop?

How about casting Hallucinitory terrain? If I hit a tree, and it 'drops', can I now cleave?

How about persistant image? I can cast it, and program it so it runs in a circle around the barbarian and drops when hit, and then reapears in 3 seconds. Now the barbarian can take an AoO each round at the 'figment' (which, apparently, may have Cha and Wis, and, apparently, while not 'technically' a creature, may be treated like one.), and then cleave off of that AoO and hit the baddie. Pretty cool.

How about Major image, it dissapears when struck. So can I cleave off of that? What if it was an image of a chair?

And what about the reverse, if the mirror image is a creature, or at least can be targetted by things that target creatures. (as cleave does) What else can target the mirror image. Can I enlarge the image? Can I polymorph the image? How about detect evil?
Perfect, I can cast fear, now ALL of the images must make wil saves or run away.

So, how does this work exactly... are all images to be treated like creatures?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 27, 2005)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Well thank god.  At least my hopes and dreams are safe from marauding cleave-using maniacs.




No, I'm sorry, Sejs.  *Your* hopes and dreams were busy running around when Shard was DMing.  I'm afraid they didn't make it.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Likewise, it has NOT been established that Magic Missles lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.
> So, by applying *YOUR* logic, it is part of RAW that Magic Missles can be considered 'creatures'. So next time our wizard shoots them past me and at the bad guy, I am going to cleave them.
> 
> Likewise, it has NOT been established that sticks lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in any book.
> ...



That is fully correct.  And any attempts to say otherwise must perforce be....

...a House Rule   



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Mirror Image is of type Figment Illusion. These are not real (and the quotes for this have been posted earlier). Not real, no Wisdom score UNLESS it states somewhere that either Mirror Image or figments have a Wisdom score somewhere (or is a creature) which it does not.



 And that is what you are so fond of accusing others of...a non sequitur (at least I THINK it's you.  If I'm confusing you with someone else in this matter...my apologies).  

The assumption that unreal = no wisdom score is wholly without support in the RAW.  The simple fact is that all you who say otherwise have simply decided so because it doesn't fit your sense of metaphysical reality.  The rules, however, don't HAVE to fit your sense of metaphysical reality.  (And the state of being unreal within that metaphysical reality should clue one into to something being different anyway).  

Contend this?  Check out that thread regarding Horrid Wilting and Fire Elementals.  By making the assumption that something unreal cannot have a wisdom score you are doing the EXACT same thing as ruling that Fire Elementals don't have any moisture in them.

(And if you've got no problem with doing that, hey, more power to you.  But stop claiming it's part of the RAW)



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> this means that a Figment cannot make you look like a Troll. Glamers are used for that. So, you cannot use Major Image to look like a Troll. You cannot hide within a Major Image and look like a Table in it. You can create the image of a Troll or a Table with Major Image, but you cannot change your own appearance or anyone else's appearance with Major Image since Major Image is a figment, not a glamer.



 Ah, but if your interpretation IS correct regarding whether figments are objects then we have the case that the images ARE objects.  So far so good.  But the spell specifically makes anyone who attacks the caster confuse these objects with the caster.  Which it cannot do by the RAW because figments cannot used to make something look like something else.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It is quoted directly from the DMG and no matter which decision you make, you are still following RAW.



 In which you've made a judgement call based on what -you- personally consider reasonable.  A decision that may be the exact opposite of what other people play with...all fully following the RAW.  That is, by definition, a House Rule.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Which it cannot do by the RAW because figments cannot used to make something look like something else.




The figment isn't making something look like something else.

The figment looks like something else.

-Hyp.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The figment isn't making something look like something else.
> 
> The figment looks like something else.
> 
> -Hyp.



That's not actually the part I'm talking about.  Let's assume for a moment that figments are not creatures.  The spell goes off, we have five objects and one creature.  Objects and creatures are treated differently by the game mechanics.

How is it that one is unable to tell which are creatures and which are objects?  Yes, they look and act EXACTLY the same.  Yet they have some 'objectness' about them.  If an object is made to be mistaken for a creature than some aspect of it's basic nature has been disguised as something else.  How is it these objects are able to make one think that they're really creatures?

In contrast if an figment replicating a creature is treated as a creature for game mechanic purposes and a figment replicating an object is treated as an object then....

We're not left with a variety of cheesy means to bypass deception via the Image spells.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> In which you've made a judgement call based on what -you- personally consider reasonable.  A decision that may be the exact opposite of what other people play with...all fully following the RAW.  That is, by definition, a House Rule.




A house rule is something not in RAW.

If it is in RAW, then it is not a house rule.

You are confusing different adjudications, both of which are valid within RAW, as house rules.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> That's not actually the part I'm talking about. Let's assume for a moment that figments are not creatures. The spell goes off, we have five objects and one creature. Objects and creatures are treated differently by the game mechanics.
> 
> How is it that one is unable to tell which are creatures and which are objects?  Yes, they look and act EXACTLY the same.  Yet they have some 'objectness' about them.  If an object is made to be mistaken for a creature than some aspect of it's basic nature has been disguised as something else.  How is it these objects are able to make one think that they're really creatures?




The objects do not make one think that they are really creatures. The magic does that.

Although creatures and objects are treated differently for game mechanics purposes, that does not mean that PCs within the game can perceive the game mechanics differences between creatures and objects, or even realize that they exist. The players understand the differences in the game mechanics, but the PCs do not.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> And that is what you are so fond of accusing others of...a non sequitur (at least I THINK it's you.  If I'm confusing you with someone else in this matter...my apologies).
> 
> The assumption that unreal = no wisdom score is wholly without support in the RAW.  The simple fact is that all you who say otherwise have simply decided so because it doesn't fit your sense of metaphysical reality.  The rules, however, don't HAVE to fit your sense of metaphysical reality.  (And the state of being unreal within that metaphysical reality should clue one into to something being different anyway).




You have yet to illustrate where figments have Wisdom in RAW.

You have yet to illustrate where objects have Wisdom in RAW.

You have yet to illustrate where Magic Missiles have Wisdom in RAW.

The burden of proof is on your side to illustrate that a property of the game exists within a given game mechanic when it is not written down that this is the case. The burden of proof is not with the side saying that it is not written down.

As for non sequiturs, that is precisely what equating creatures to figments is without ANY evidence.



			
				Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Ah, but if your interpretation IS correct regarding whether figments are objects then we have the case that the images ARE objects.  So far so good.  But the spell specifically makes anyone who attacks the caster confuse these objects with the caster.  Which it cannot do by the RAW because figments cannot used to make something look like something else.




Who said that figments were objects?

I said they were not creatures.

You are reading more into what I write than what is written. Just like you are doing with RAW.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Who said that figments were objects?
> 
> I said they were not creatures.




Well, to be fair, the line "Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature" implies an either/or state.

And part of the definition of creature is "not an object".

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, the line "Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature" implies an either/or state.
> 
> And part of the definition of creature is "not an object".




A magical spell is an object?

What is the AC of a Detect Magic spell? How do you calculate its size modifier? How many hit points per inch of thickness does a Detect Magic spell have?


Air is an object?

What is the AC of air? How do you calculate its size modifier? How many hit points per inch of thickness does air have?


According to RAW, mind you.


I suspect you will have to define "Anything" in the "Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature" sentence.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I suspect you will have to define "Anything" in the "Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature" sentence.




That's the problem, of course.

If one can exclude non-creatures from being covered by the sentence, one can also exclude creatures.

If I can make an exception for spells, why can't I make an exception for bunnies?

Once the sentence becomes "Anything (except spells or bunnies) with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature", it means that I can have a bunny with no Wisdom score who can still be a creature, or a spell with no Wisdom score that can still be a creature.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's the problem, of course.
> 
> If one can exclude non-creatures from being covered by the sentence, one can also exclude creatures.
> 
> ...




Although the game does have a lot of examples of objects which can be worn, carried, attacked, etc. They have size, hit points, hardness, etc. There are game mechanics for them.

Spells have effects. The effects can be creatures (and have properties of creatures). The effects can be objects (and have properties of objects). The effects of a spell can also be neither creatures, nor objects. For example, Bull Strength.

So, since "Anything" is limited to creatures and objects within that limited sentence about creatures, it does not apply to spells since spell effects are outside of the limited subset of just objects and just creatures.

In other words, that sentence is not all inclusive.

Hence, we get back to my original question:

Who said figments were objects?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 28, 2005)

Who here plays that cleave is negated by Mirror Image, house rule or otherwise.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, since "Anything" is limited to creatures and objects within that limited sentence about creatures, it does not apply to spells since spell effects are outside of the limited subset of just objects and just creatures.
> 
> In other words, that sentence is not all inclusive.




So the sentence means that anything that isn't a creature is an object (as long as it's an object or a creature)?

-Hyp.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 28, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Who here plays that cleave is negated by Mirror Image, house rule or otherwise.



 Me. No cleaving Mirror Images in my game.


----------



## Jack Simth (Oct 28, 2005)

Well, if you combine 


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).



(Emphasis added)
with


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Wisdom: Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.
> 
> Charisma: Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score.



(Emphasis added)

some interesting questions pop up:

What's the Wis/Cha of a fireball?  If it doesn't have one, then what's it's hardness?  After all,  if it doesn't have a wisdom or a charisma score, it's an object.  If it's an object, it has a hardness.  Likewise for Bear's Strength, Owl's Wisdom, and the like.... also for the air ... hmm...

Of course, if you make a third category that spell effects can potentially fill (neither object nor creature), then you can deal with such oddities.... but that would be a house rule, technically.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 28, 2005)

By dragging in the non-abilities bit from the MM ya'all are trying to prove figments can't be "creatures" because they have no wis or cha scores, leaving common sense in the dust. Figments are illusions, without existence or substance outside the minds of their perceivers, making cleaving through the image so much simpler (one would think). The Non-abilities nonsense is meant to apply to monsters, hence it's inclusion in the MM...not the DMG, or the PHB. My focus on insisting on wording from the RAW, or anywhere else for that matter, that would ban cleaves from working on images is valid, the precedent has been set by such things as crits and sneak attacks not working on undead....charms and illusions not working on low int creatures, etc.. I suspect that the word "creature" is used in the cleave desc because 99% of the time that's what's going to be targetted with a cleave. NOT because they intended logicians to have something to be annoying about. So then the "official" FAQs clarify this....because it makes sense anyway....but that's still not good enough. These arguements like magic missiles having wis are silly.....how would you attack a magic missile anyway? Completely irrelevent. There's no logical reason one shouldn't be able to cleave through an illusion and still strike something else on the other side. Neither the desc of the feat nor the spell desc, both RAW, deny this. The, declared by WoC, official rules clarifications (not house rules) in the FAQs confirm this.

Now some lines to help clear up some things follow:

House Rules are new or modified rules used  in a particular campaign and/or by a particular DM in order to personalize or streamline a specific aspect of the game. An example would be changing or eliminating the use of alignments. Another would be creating and using a separate perception stat. Official rules clarifications released by the publisher of the game rules are NOT house rules. Whether you like the vector of their delivery or not is a personal problem.

Cleave: pg. 92, PHB "You follow through with powerful blows."

Cleave: The Dictionary
v. cleft, (klft) or cleaved or clove (klv) cleft, or cleaved or clo·ven (klvn) cleav·ing, cleaves
v. tr.

   1. To split with or as if with a sharp instrument. See Synonyms at tear1.
   2. To make or accomplish by or as if by cutting: cleave a path through the ice.
   3. To pierce or penetrate: The wings cleaved the foggy air.
   4. Chemistry. To split (a complex molecule) into simpler molecules.


v. intr.

   1. Mineralogy. To split or separate, especially along a natural line of division.
   2. To penetrate or pass through something, such as water or air.


Given the lack of prohibition from the RAW, the confirmation from the FAQs, and just plain common sense, there's little reason to ban cleaving mirror images. To be fair, however, from the wording in the RAW alone I have to be honest and say there's room for interpreting it either way...mainly because of the unfortunate wording of the cleave feat combined with the odd definition from the glossary. All I've been argueing is that the RAW doesn't explicitly ban using cleave on mirror images...but it can be interpreted that way indirectly if one chooses to ignore common sense in their interpretation.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> some interesting questions pop up:
> 
> What's the Wis/Cha of a fireball?  If it doesn't have one, then what's it's hardness?  After all,  if it doesn't have a wisdom or a charisma score, it's an object.  If it's an object, it has a hardness.  Likewise for Bear's Strength, Owl's Wisdom, and the like.... also for the air ... hmm...
> 
> Of course, if you make a third category that spell effects can potentially fill (neither object nor creature), then you can deal with such oddities.... but that would be a house rule, technically.




Is it a house rule?

Are spell effects defined in the game? Yes.

Are they listed as objects? Not usually.

Are they listed as creatures? Not usually.

There are a lot of effects in the game that are not creatures and are not objects. They have no Wisdom. They have no hardness or hit points.

That one sentence is in error with respect to everything in the game. It is referring to the subset of creatures/objects (i.e. physical things in the game) and not magical effects.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 28, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> By dragging in the non-abilities bit from the MM ya'all are trying to prove figments can't be "creatures" because they have no wis or cha scores, leaving common sense in the dust. Figments are illusions, without existence or substance outside the minds of their perceivers, making cleaving through the image so much simpler (one would think).




So can I Cleave from a non-Mirror-Image figment - say, a Major Image that I perceive to be an orc - if it drops when I hit it?

-Hyp.


----------



## Jack Simth (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Is it a house rule?
> 
> Are spell effects defined in the game? Yes.
> 
> ...



That's kinda the point; I'm intentionally being silly to show the rediculousness of the position that there must be only two types, and the oddity of setting it to - when it seems rediculous for it to be present... and then the consequence: Well, it must have a hardness... what is it? Even though it's rediculous for a Fireball spell to have a hardness.  But if it did, wouldn't it be grand for the barbarian with Improved Sunder and Power Attack while raging to Sunder the Fireball with a readied action?

To continue being rediculous, however.....

Well, we have a rule as written that says anything without a wisdom and charisma score is an object.  We have another rule that states each object has a hardness.  Does a mirror image figment have a Wisdom/Charisma score?  If it does, then what scores?  If not, by the rule listed, it's an object.  If it's an object, it must have a hardness.  But then what's the hardness value of a figment?  

Mind you, I haven't seen anything that states clearly that something with a wisdom and charisma score must be a creature.... merely that anything without a wisdom and charisma score is an object.....

But then what's the Wisdom of a Magic Missle?  If -, what's it's hardness?


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 28, 2005)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Well, we have a rule as written that says anything without a wisdom and charisma score is an object.  We have another rule that states each object has a hardness.  Does a mirror image figment have a Wisdom/Charisma score?  If it does, then what scores?  If not, by the rule listed, it's an object.  If it's an object, it must have a hardness.  But then what's the hardness value of a figment?




Zero?


----------



## Jack Simth (Oct 28, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Zero?



But if you go that route, why not call a figment an odd sort of creature with a Wisdom and Charisma score of 0, rather than -, and thus eligible for creaturehood?

Edit: Then again, you quoted quite a few question marks with a single answer.... to which does it apply?


----------



## Dryfus (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes. You missed the part where Mirror Image states that you MUST select from images as well as the caster when doing targeting the caster. You do not get a choice. Hence, if you (randomly) select incorrectly, the Cleave does not get to happen since your selected target is not a creature.





But wouldn't you still be swinging at the "intended target) ie: the wizard(or in this case, one of his images).  







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck.




The description of the spell says that they disapear "when struck" thus if you are a fighter and use cleave to attack the wizard that has mirror image up(after a sucsessfull attack against the wizards ally), then you just made an image disappear, because you are trying to attack a "creature"(the wizard), not one of his images.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 28, 2005)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> But if you go that route, why not call a figment an odd sort of creature with a Wisdom and Charisma score of 0, rather than -, and thus eligible for creaturehood?




Because, looking at the core rules, we see several objects with a hardness of zero (paper, rope, and ice, for example), but no creatures with a Wisdom or Charisma of zero.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> But wouldn't you still be swinging at the "intended target) ie: the wizard(or in this case, one of his images).




You could try.

But, Cleave is only good against Creatures.

A normal melee attack is good against any Opponent (Creatures or Objects or Effects).

That's the distinction.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 28, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So can I Cleave from a non-Mirror-Image figment - say, a Major Image that I perceive to be an orc - if it drops when I hit it?
> 
> -Hyp.




There's no listed prohibition against it. There's no rational non-rule reason I can think of to disallow it. The weapon would pass through the space the image occupied and strike a target on the other side of it. Why would that be a problem?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 28, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So the sentence means that anything that isn't a creature is an object (as long as it's an object or a creature)?



 Well, of course!  Everything is an object or a creature, unless it's not.


----------



## Dryfus (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You could try.
> 
> But, Cleave is only good against Creatures.
> 
> ...





The point I'm making is that the "intended" target is the Wizard(ie a creature) not the image, thats just what you hit.  So cleave should work, because the intended target is the creature(ie wizard), not the image.


----------



## Daywalker (Oct 28, 2005)

A quick (OK, rather longish) situation to explain why I disagree with the FAQ.

A Fighter with Cleave attacks a wizard with mirror image cast upon him.

The fighter is not a total idiot - he has adventured before and knows wizards casts spells.

He sees six seperate images of the exact same person - who is dressed like a wizard and holding a but of bat turd like wizards do right before that spell that almost keeps killing the fighter and his allies every time they fight a wizard is cast. He kinda figures that this wizard looking antagonist is (shock) a wizard, and the multiple images of him are obviously a spell that was cast. That, or his party is being attacked by cloned wizards that all move and act in unison. He decides the first level spell is more likely the case, and doubts the party is being attacked by an entire litter of synchronized identical sibling wizards.

So, knowing that he is fighting a wizard and that some sort of illusion must have been cast if he us currently viewing six of them, he swings at the closest one and connects. Well, he would have connected... but it's an illusion, and not really there. Not feeling his blade strike anything, he, stops the swing because he knows he has not actually connected to anything tangible. he would not continue a full follow through with this attack, there is no actual reason to do so. Unless the Fighter is an idiot, or mirror image somehow makes duplicates of the spel's caster that are NOT identical to him, so that someone seeing mirror image might not be able to figure out what's going on - mirror image being one of the speels I am personally of the opinion that only a moron thinks you need a spellcraft check to figure out what happened. Um, he cast a spell, not there are more of him, but they still move when he does. Duh? Anyway....

So, not following through on a swing that never connected there is no chance to cleave, since the follow through that appears to be required for cleave wouldn't actually be part of the action, unless (again) the fighter is an idiot and continues to put his full wieght and force into blows that have not stuck anything even though he "hit" them dead center. At least in my games, we tend to think that Fighters, um, KNOW HOW TO WIELD A WEAPON, and therefore would not do that, as it would be almost suicidal to overbalance oneself like that in any real melee fight.

I realize that the FAQ says what it says, but in my games there is no FAQ, there is deductive reasoning on the part of the DM and not a FAQ.


----------



## Artoomis (Oct 28, 2005)

Daywalker said:
			
		

> ...So, not following through on a swing that never connected there is no chance to cleave, since the follow through that appears to be required for cleave wouldn't actually be part of the action, unless (again) the fighter is an idiot and continues to put his full wieght and force into blows that have not stuck anything even though he "hit" them dead center. At least in my games, we tend to think that Fighters, um, KNOW HOW TO WIELD A WEAPON, and therefore would not do that, as it would be almost suicidal to overbalance oneself like that in any real melee fight.
> 
> I realize that the FAQ says what it says, but in my games there is no FAQ, there is deductive reasoning on the part of the DM and not a FAQ.




Why wouldn't a smart fighter attempt to slice through (Cleave) as many images he can reach with the hope that he connects with the wizard?  Especially if he knows the images dissipate when he hits them.


----------



## Daywalker (Oct 28, 2005)

Like I said, it would be suicidal to try and wield a weapon that way, putting your full force into wild swings of the sort should totally remove the dex bonus to AC at the very least  since one would have to be attacking by pretty much spinning in a circle to try and attack "as many as possible"... and should probably also incur a penalty to hit because one is not specifically aiming at a target. There's a reason Whirlwind Attack is a feat, and one impossible to get at low levels - because trying to swing like that is unnatrual and rather difficult.

So, in my opinion, a smart fighter probablty would NOT try to overextend themselves that way in combat, especially when it essentially means trying to use a feat they do not have (if your fighter does have whirlwind attack, feel free to try and hit as many as possible). Trying to swing like that would be a great way to make sure that you are so off balance that you cannot react to an attack, and that you are in no position to counter anything. That's not smart in my opinion.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> The point I'm making is that the "intended" target is the Wizard(ie a creature) not the image, thats just what you hit.  So cleave should work, because the intended target is the creature(ie wizard), not the image.




You have convinced me. The wording of Cleave does allow him to drop a foe and then attack the Wizard. The extra melee attack is against the Wizard and melee attacks can hit images.


He drops a foe and then attempts the Cleave.

If the selection is the Wizard, he has a chance to hit and damage him.

If the selection is an Image, he has a chance to hit and destroy it.


What he cannot do is "drop an image" and then Cleave. That is still not allowed because he did not drop a creature.


----------



## Nail (Oct 28, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> By dragging in the non-abilities bit from the MM ya'all are trying to prove figments can't be "creatures" because they have no wis or cha scores, leaving common sense in the dust. .



Why does "common sense" dictate that figments are creatures?

That doesn't make much sense, Sigg, and I suspect you know it.


----------



## Nail (Oct 28, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> The weapon would pass through the space the image occupied and strike a target on the other side of it. Why would that be a problem?



Uhhh...the fact that cleave doesn't work that way?   

You are still not getting this part, are you?

Again: the mechanics of cleave do not support the contention that the "cleave"-er carries through into the creature standing right next to the orignial target.  In fact the person who cleaves may attack anyone in his threatened area, whether the opponent is next to the dropped opponent or not.  The next target could even be prone "behind" you!

Moreover, the person who cleaves can use _any_ melee weapon to cleave, including bludgeoning and piercing weapons, reach weapons, etc.  

....In fact, you can even cleave with a whip....which is, by the way, a slashing weapon.


----------



## Nail (Oct 28, 2005)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Now, the only way I can personally make descriptive sense out of "Cleave", is if it's a blow so bloody and destructive that it creates a blinding mess, and so shocking that it stuns another enemy in the area into momentarily letting his guard down (and hence a free attack).



Unfortunately, that description doesn't work.

You can, after all, cleave into a creature who cannot see.


----------



## dcollins (Oct 28, 2005)

And loud.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 28, 2005)

dcollins said:
			
		

> And loud.




Can't see or hear.


----------



## dcollins (Oct 28, 2005)

And all giblet-squishy underfoot.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 28, 2005)

dcollins said:
			
		

> And all giblet-squishy underfoot.




LOL.

I must use this descriptive text in my next game.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 28, 2005)

Alpha Polaris said:
			
		

> An easy question, almost everything is in the title. If a fighter with Cleave strikes a mirror image with a melee attack, making it disappear, is he allowed to make an additional attack ?




SPOILER ALERT from PLAYTEST FANE OF THE DROW

In Fane of the Drow, there is a drow mage who can use the spell mirror image. I had him cast it ahead of time and when one of the players with cleave hit an image, I automatically assumed that it  gave him another attack and let the player take it. I didn't even think that he shouldn't get the extra attack.


----------



## Nail (Oct 28, 2005)

dcollins said:
			
		

> And all giblet-squishy underfoot.



I like it!


----------



## dcollins (Oct 28, 2005)

LOL!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 28, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So can I Cleave from a non-Mirror-Image figment - say, a Major Image that I perceive to be an orc - if it drops when I hit it?





			
				Sigg said:
			
		

> There's no listed prohibition against it. There's no rational non-rule reason I can think of to disallow it. The weapon would pass through the space the image occupied and strike a target on the other side of it. Why would that be a problem?




Okay.

So can I Cleave from a Major Image that I believe to be an invisible orc that drops into another target?

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Okay.
> 
> So can I Cleave from a Major Image that I believe to be an invisible orc that drops into another target?




A Major Image that you believe to be an *invisible* orc?

How does that work?


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A Major Image that you believe to be an *invisible* orc?
> 
> How does that work?




An orc under the effects of Mirror Image just ran into that room.  I chase him, but see no-one.  Then I get stabbed in the side by an invisible foe.  The dastardly orc is now also under the effects of a Greater Invisibility spell!  I lash out where I believe him to be.

Edit - He didn't cry out in pain, so I must have hit another one of those blasted images.  No problem, I can Cleave!  I lash out into another square that I believe him to be in.  Not there again!  Must have been another image!  Good thing I have Great Cleave, I lash out again!


----------



## Philip (Oct 28, 2005)

Aaargh, another Cleave thread, and I missed it   

Anyway, if I am cleaving off mirror images, I might as well get an AoO for each mirror image that draws an AoO when it's caster draws an AoO. Then just watch my mighty cleaving goodness....


----------



## Sigg (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A Major Image that you believe to be an *invisible* orc?
> 
> How does that work?




Heh, I was wondering the same thing. And the answer anyway is no because, unless I've missed something somewhere, in order to actually attack an invisible anything one must be able to see invisible things....in which case the invisible bit is irrelevent. Otherwise, the attacker is only swinging into a seemingly empty area in the hopes of hitting the invisible something. In other words, it's the square being attacked, not the target. Even I'm not trying to say one can cleave a square on the battlemap.

And once again, Nail, Cleave's description and the definition of the word "cleave" both indicate an attack that is so powerful it passes through the first target and strikes a second. That the actual game mechanics might not logically jive with the feat description of the word definition is not the issue here....only whether an illusion would be able to somehow prevent the attack. Now if you are asking whether the actually game mechanics of the Cleave feat seem kind of silly or at least inconsistent with the feat's description and the definition, then I would be wholeheartedly agreeing with you. My opinion is that the mechanics have been designed the way they are simply to give the feat greater utility for a broader group than the feat would appeal to if it were to behave in a more realistic fashion. Restricting the weapons and/or weapon classes that could make use of the feat might be seen by WoC as too limiting. IMO several feats which might result in the same extra attack, but be restricted to certain kinds or classes of weapons (and then of course have different names and descriptions), would be a superior way of handling the issue. I'd make cleave for S weapons....maybe "Run Through", or "Skewer" for P weapons....and maybe "Crush" or something for B weapons. Whatever...the point is there is no rational, non-situational reason a warrior couldn't continue an attack he is highly skilled with and has practiced extensively, simply because he encountered an illusion. All the "he was surprised" or "unprepared to meet to resistence" or even "experienced and aware of the nature of illusions" are situational...not every attacker would qualify for any or all of this situational descriptions. Why would their attacks fail? Simple...they wouldn't. I'm the halforc barbie....I see two skinner fellers in robes standing in front of me talking babytalk...I wind up my great axe and swing for the fences, knowing I can mow down both these weakling humans in jammies no problem....and I'd be more right than I first realize it turns out.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> An orc under the effects of Mirror Image just ran into that room.  I chase him, but see no-one.  Then I get stabbed in the side by an invisible foe.  The dastardly orc is now also under the effects of a Greater Invisibility spell!  I lash out where I believe him to be.
> 
> Edit - He didn't cry out in pain, so I must have hit another one of those blasted images.  No problem, I can Cleave!  I lash out into another square that I believe him to be in.  Not there again!  Must have been another image!  Good thing I have Great Cleave, I lash out again!




Except that none of what you wrote here works.

1) A Major Image cannot emulate invisibility because it is a visual image of something visible (the point I was making to Hyp).

"This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you."

Note: Force here refers to things like a fire.


2) You cannot Cleave off an image, hence, you cannot Great Cleave off an image.


3) Mirror Images of an invisible caster are not applicable until he becomes visible.

"An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect."


Even in your scenario, the character does not get a second swing at the Orc. He either hits the Orc, or he misses. There are no images to hit (i.e. the spell has no effect).


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 28, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Heh, I was wondering the same thing. And the answer anyway is no because, unless I've missed something somewhere, in order to actually attack an invisible anything one must be able to see invisible things....in which case the invisible bit is irrelevent.




Well, you missed something then.  You may attack an invisible creature by making an attack into the square you think they are standing in.  If you chose the correct square, you have a 50% miss chance.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) A Major Image cannot emulate invisibility because it is a visual image of something visible (the point I was making to Hyp).




I missed that he said Major Image and not Mirror Image.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 2) You cannot Cleave off an image, hence, you cannot Great Cleave off an image.




Agreed.  There's nothing there to cleave off of.  Just like an empty square.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 3) Mirror Images of an invisible caster are not applicable until he becomes visible.




I missed that in the spell description the first time through.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) A Major Image cannot emulate invisibility because it is a visual image of something visible (the point I was making to Hyp).
> 
> "This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you."




Is an invisible orc a creature?

I'm making a visual illusion that looks exactly like an invisible orc.

*Invisible Image*
Illusion (Figment) [Language-Dependent]
*Level:* Bbn 1
*Components:* V, S
*Casting Time:* 1 standard action
*Range:* Within earshot
*Effect:* Visual figment of one invisible creature
*Duration:* Concentration
*Saving Throw:* See text
*Spell Resistance:* No

By pointing and describing, the caster creates a visual illusion of an invisible creature.

Any creature who hears the description makes a Sense Motive check (with appropriate circumstance modifiers) opposed by the caster's Bluff check.  A successful sense motive check means that that creature is unable to perceive the illusion.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 28, 2005)

I, personally, love Hyp's Barbarian spells.


----------



## Ranes (Oct 28, 2005)

Re-arrange the following:

Compendium World Hypersmurf's EN Spell


----------



## Tarangil (Oct 28, 2005)

I *don't think I'd really allo*w the cleave with a mirror image myself.  Usually when the fighter takes one down with the cleave, they're expecting and "feeling" the Killing blow, and are able to adjust accordingly.  However when a fighter hits a mirror image and readying for the "feeling" of hitting something solid...and doesn't, I'd say that he'd have to recuperate from the hard swing and losing any cleave benefits.

Maybe for your basic cleave, a reflex save DC 14 will allow the extra attack.  It may also make sense to allow an extra great cleave attack for every point your dex gives you, and maybe more if you have _Combat reflexes_.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 29, 2005)

I understand the arguments and agree that per the RAW, figments are not creatures and thus cannot be Cleaved.  I House Rule my games to allow it, because Cleave (and especially Great Cleave) see little enough action as it is, IMO.

I do have a question, though.  "Any successful attack against an image destroys it."  Would a _fireball_ spell be considered a successful attack?

If not, the spell seems extremely powerful vs. spells.  Most targetted spells specify a "creature or creatures" as a target, so _Mirror Image_ grants the caster an 80%+ immunity against those (without even losing an image each time).  If area spells aren't effective either, that leaves _Dispel Magic_ and individual melee attacks as the only ways to get rid of the images.

Extreme melee defense.  Extreme spell defense.  I guess I didn't realize _Mirror Image_ was quite so strong.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 29, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I do have a question, though.  "Any successful attack against an image destroys it."  Would a _fireball_ spell be considered a successful attack?




No - the spell specifies that figments react to area spells (such as looking like they're burned after a fireball), which they couldn't do if the fireball made them disappear.

But, of course, if you place the fireball so that it encompasses _all_ the images, you know that the caster's one of them!

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Oct 29, 2005)

Tarangil said:
			
		

> I *don't think I'd really allo*w the cleave with a mirror image myself.  Usually when the fighter takes one down with the cleave, they're expecting and "feeling" the Killing blow, and are able to adjust accordingly.  However when a fighter hits a mirror image and readying for the "feeling" of hitting something solid...and doesn't, I'd say that he'd have to recuperate from the hard swing and losing any cleave benefits.
> 
> Maybe for your basic cleave, a reflex save DC 14 will allow the extra attack.  It may also make sense to allow an extra great cleave attack for every point your dex gives you, and maybe more if you have _Combat reflexes_.




Either that or he swipes right through and into the next one before he even knows what's happening.  No explanation really works well, when you get right down to it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I do have a question, though.  "Any successful attack against an image destroys it."  Would a _fireball_ spell be considered a successful attack?




"Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball)."



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> If not, the spell seems extremely powerful vs. spells. Most targetted spells specify a "creature or creatures" as a target, so Mirror Image grants the caster an 80%+ immunity against those (without even losing an image each time). If area spells aren't effective either, that leaves Dispel Magic and individual melee attacks as the only ways to get rid of the images.




You are right. Any creature as target spell can still hit the caster, you just have to get lucky.

However, there are spells that can take out one or more figments:

Acid Splash
Bigby's Clenched Fist
Bigby's Crushing Hand
Bigby's Forceful Hand
Bigby's Grasping Hand
Creeping Doom
Disintegrate
Enervation
Flame Blade
Gate
Insect Plague
Melf's Acid Arrow
Mordenkainen's Sword
Planar Ally
Planar Ally, Lesser
Polar Ray
Prismatic Sphere
Produce Flame
Ray of Enfeeblement
Ray of Exhaustion
Ray of Frost
Resilient Sphere (if you consider all images to be in a 7+ foot radius)
Scorching Ray
Searing Light
Shadow Conjuration
Shadow Evocation
Shadow Evocation, Greater
Shambler
Simulacrum
Spectral Hand (combined with touch spells that affect targets or opponents)
Spiritual Weapon
Storm of Vengeance (if the DM allows the bolts to hit)
Summon Monster
Summon Nature's Ally
Summon Swarm

Let alone other spells from other source books.


And Mirror Image, although potent at lower levels, starts falling apart against those multi-attack full round combatant types (like archers, rogues with two weapons, and other combatant types).

Summon spells are especially nice since you can summon multiple creatures which each can have multiple attacks such as claw/claw/bite. The AC of the figments is fairly low.

Swarm spells are even better because they wipe out all of the images immediately.


One thing that players and DMs alike should realize is that the Mirror Imaged caster is a big target. He has such a good defense that most everyone on the opposition (who knows what Mirror Image does) should target him.

He is shouting: "I am a spell caster. Come get me!"


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Swarm spells are even better because they wipe out all of the images immediately.




Are you sure?

_*Swarm Attack:* Creatures with the swarm subtype don’t make standard melee attacks. Instead, they deal automatic damage *to any creature* whose space they occupy at the end of their move, with no attack roll needed._

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 29, 2005)

I wonder how many people actually play the game in the extremely literal fashion that they argue in the Rules forum. 



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And Mirror Image, although potent at lower levels, starts falling apart against those multi-attack full round combatant types (like archers, rogues with two weapons, and other combatant types).



What about a fighter with Whirlwind Attack?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *WHIRLWIND ATTACK*
> When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.



Is an image an "opponent", or does only the wizard who cast the spell count as an "opponent"? If the only targets that the fighter can attack are the images (the real wizard happens to be out of his reach), does his Whirlwind Attack automatically fail? What about spell effects with AC and hit points such as a _spectral hand_ or a _Bigby's clenched fist_? Are they separate "opponents" from the wizard that created them? Can a fighter target them with Whirlwind Attack?

How would Cleave work with such spell effects? By the argument that Cleave only works when you drop a "creature", you can't Cleave off a _spectral hand_ or a _clenched fist_ (What's the Wisdom and Charisma of a _spectral hand_? A _clenched fist_?) although you can cleave off what you know (because you made the Will save) to be quasi-real fiendish dire rat summoned by a _shadow conjuration_ spell.

Well, this being the Rules forum, them's the rules. Fortunately, I can always interpret them whichever way I want in my games (or house-rule them, as some posters will undoubtedly say - whatever, makes no difference to me).


----------



## Dryfus (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You have convinced me. The wording of Cleave does allow him to drop a foe and then attack the Wizard. The extra melee attack is against the Wizard and melee attacks can hit images.
> 
> 
> He drops a foe and then attempts the Cleave.
> ...





Lets see what the SRD says...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> : If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (*typically* by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.



EMPHASIS MINE.

So, if I deal enough damage to make it drop, which, accordig to the spell description is just if an attack strikes. Hence I have done enough damage to make the image *drop* .  




			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and *disappear when struck*.
> Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.
> Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. *Any successful attack against an image destroys it*. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).
> While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.
> An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)






So, using just RAW, cleave should work against mirror image because you are attacking a creature and just happen to hit an image.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 29, 2005)

This is a very informative thread.  My thanks to KD, Hyp, and everyone who's contributed.  Threads that cause me to think of rules conundrums I'd never have considered are one of the main reasons I come to this forum. 

As such, I think I'm going to House Rule this one, personally.  I'm simply not comfortable with _Mirror Image_ being 80% as effective as _Spell Turning_ (defensively), for the cost of only a 2nd-level spell and no degradation.  Yes, an archer or barbarian can spend two rounds clearing the images, but it's still far too effective IMO.

If the images are treated as creatures, the spell is still quite useful (I've yet to see a PC take Great Cleave, it comes up so rarely,) but does not provide the same protection from even the highest-level targetted spells.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Are you sure?
> 
> _*Swarm Attack:* Creatures with the swarm subtype don’t make standard melee attacks. Instead, they deal automatic damage *to any creature* whose space they occupy at the end of their move, with no attack roll needed._




Yes. I considered your quote here when I posted it, but I thought of a way around it. Plus, I like the concept that there is a low level negation spell to Mirror Image (that 4 of the 5 main spell casting classes can get), just like Shield negates Magic Missile or Haste negates Slow.


Your quote here does not state that they "only attack creatures". It effectively states that they "only damage creatures".


"Any successful attack against an image destroys it."

This does not state a successful attack roll, nor does it state that actual damage has to occur. The attack just has to occur.

Swarms can only damage creatures, but they can still attack everything they swarm. They just do not damage everything they swarm.


"In order to attack, it moves into an *opponent's* space, which provokes an attack of opportunity."

The images are an opponent. Hence, they *attempt* to attack the opponent, they just fail to damage it. It can still be considered a successful attack, just not successful damage. This is similar to when they attempt to attack a creature with DR high enough that their damage does not get through. Successful attack, not successful damage.


The Swarm spells does not "Target: Creature" like many spells.

"You summon a swarm of bats, rats, or spiders (your choice), which attacks all other creatures within its area."

"Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets."

The swarm attempts to attack the caster. They must then select from indistinguishable targets. Now, a given DM might rule that the swarm can only attack "one target" at a time due to literal game mechanics here, but I look at the fact that it is a swarm. It is attacking everything there. It is a cumulative effect of many tiny bites that results in the damage that does occur. But, a literal reading indicates that it is a single attack per round.


I could also see how a literal reading of your quote might prevent a given DM from allowing it (i.e. default thinking = creatures only), but I prefer to use the loophole, just due to the power of Mirror Image.


And even if you do not allow the swarm to auto-destroy all of the images, you should either allow it to auto-hit the caster (like all other creatures in the area of a swarm), or have it either take out an image or damage the caster (depending on the random roll) every round (just like other attacks against the Mirror Image spell). In either case, it is still a fairly effective spell against the defense of a Mirror Image spell.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> So, if I deal enough damage to make it drop, which, accordig to the spell description is just if an attack strikes. Hence I have done enough damage to make the image *drop* .




So? Drop the image all you want, it still does not trigger a Cleave.

"If you deal a *creature* enough damage to make it drop"

You forgot the first part of that sentence in your quote.

You can destroy the image with your first melee attack. No problem.

But, the figment is not a creature you can drop. It is a figment you can destroy. Whether you allow figments to be "dropped" or not is irrelevant. They are still not creatures. Cleave only triggers when you drop a creature, not when you destroy a figment or destroy an object.


It is irrelevant that you were attempting to attack a creature as your intent. The illusion fooled you and you ended up attacking an image. An image is not a creature, hence, it does not trigger the Cleave.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Yes, an archer or barbarian can spend two rounds clearing the images, but it's still far too effective IMO.




I can understand that.

In our game, our PCs swarm all over a Mirror Imaged opponent. Sometimes, allowing something to be "too potent" ends up making it a major liability.

Course, our PCs swarm spell casters in general. They learned a long time ago to prevent an enemy spellcaster from getting off more than a spell or two.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Oct 29, 2005)

Wow I'm sorry to have missed the latest cleave/MI thread!

Hey how about a quick fix to the whole problem? At least, for those in the cleave-and-target-images camp.

Classify images as: Creature (Figment)

Add text to the MI spell that classifies images as creatures with the "figment" sub-type. I beieve this may also help Illusion spells failing to fool when a caster targets a "figment" and the spell fails, revealing that the figment creature is in fact an image and not a targetable creature.

Is it this a horrible idea? Would it result in a serious (i.e. bad) repercusions? We've used it thus far with no problems, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't something bad we have yet to spot about it.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not according to the rules. According to the rules, the images are figments, not creatures. And according to the rules, Cleave only works on creatures.
> 
> Now, according to the FAQ, ...




Which sounds like a complete rules lawyer type of answer. 

By your logic I could cleave a door with animate object cast on it and then attack the goblin behind the door when I smash the door.

But I cannot attack a normal door and when I smash through it then cldave the goblin behind because it was just a normal door and not an animated one.

Yeah, the spirit of the rule has just been driven over spit on and generally smashed into a million pieces by the letter of the rule.  ;-)


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Which sounds like a complete rules lawyer type of answer.
> 
> By your logic I could cleave a door with animate object cast on it and then attack the goblin behind the door when I smash the door.
> 
> ...




Yup. Magic does weird things to feats.

And your point? 

Maybe they shouldn't have put the word creatures into the Cleave feat.


Feats in general can have weird results.

For example, a 10th level Fighter with a 2 handed sword can use Power Attack to demolish a masonry wall in four or fewer blows (doing 30+ points of damage against hardness 8, 60+ with a critical). But, does it make sense that a 2 handed sword should survive such powerful blows? Which should break first, the wall or the blade?

Sometimes, weird things happen when you follow the rules. Do you correct every single "suspending of disbelief" rule that you see in the game?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 29, 2005)

If you had a swarm of invisible bats, and they enter a character's square and deal damage to that character, does the invisibility wear off from that bat swarm?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 29, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> So, if I deal enough damage to make it drop, which, accordig to the spell description is just if an attack strikes. Hence I have done enough damage to make the image *drop* .




No, all you have to do to make an image disappear is to strike it, regardless if you do damage to it or not.  I could cast Cure Light Wounds spell and make a melee touch attack, and if I hit an image it will disappear.  I did no damage to it, but I did strike it.

Now in order for cleave to work, you HAVE to do damage.  The damage you do to the creature has to be the reason why the creature drops.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The images are an opponent.



Okay, so images are opponents, but they are not creatures. So, you can target images with Whirlwind Attack, but you can't Cleave off them. By the same argument, a _spectral hand_ and a _Bigby's clenched fist_ are opponents, but not creatures, so you can target them with Whirlwind Attack, but you can't Cleave off them, either. On the other hand, a quasi-real fiendish dire rat summoned with _shadow conjuration_ is both an opponent and a creature, so you can target it with Whirlwind Attack and Cleave off it.

Since I fail to see how the lack of Wisdom and Charisma in a Large hand composed of magical force makes it impossible for me to Cleave off it when I can cleave off a quasi-real creature made of shadowstuff which happens to have Wisdom and Charisma (is Cleave somehow powered by the unlucky opponent's awareness that it's going to drop?), I'm going to rule in my games that you can Cleave off any target of a melee attack, including objects.



			
				Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> Classify images as: Creature (Figment)



Yeah, that'll fix the problem, but you'll also need Creature (Spell effect) or you'll have some idiot (me) asking about whether you should be able to Cleave off a _spectral hand_ and a _Bigby's clenched fist_.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Maybe they shouldn't have put the word creatures into the Cleave feat.



This, I can agree with.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> No, all you have to do to make an image disappear is to strike it, regardless if you do damage to it or not.  I could cast Cure Light Wounds spell and make a melee touch attack, and if I hit an image it will disappear.  I did no damage to it, but I did strike it.




What is even better yet is that you will not lose the Cure Light Wounds spell if you select an image because the image was not a creature and will not trigger the spell. The downside is that if you select the caster, you heal him.

Course, a grapple might work just as well (since you do not have to cast a spell), unless of course you actually target the caster, he AoOs you for damage, and the grapple fails.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yup. Magic does weird things to feats.
> 
> And your point?
> 
> Maybe they shouldn't have put the word creatures into the Cleave feat.




My point? You just made it perfectly. My whole point was how your being a rules lawyer and in the most horrible sort of way.

It is rather sad. It's a game not a chance to screw a player or the DM to your own personal glee.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 29, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> My whole point was how your being a rules lawyer and in the most horrible sort of way.




You say that like it's a BAD thing?   Correct me if I am wrong, but this IS the RULES forum, right?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What is even better yet is that you will not lose the Cure Light Wounds spell if you select an image because the image was not a creature and will not trigger the spell. The downside is that if you select the caster, you heal him.
> 
> Course, a grapple might work just as well (since you do not have to cast a spell), unless of course you actually target the caster, he AoOs you for damage, and the grapple fails.




That gives me another ideas...  I think it is either Shocking Grasp or Chill Touch, but there is a spell that gives you multiple touch attack uses for 1 casting (normally once you touch someone w/ a touch attack spell, the spell discharges).  With this spell, you could keep removing images until you finally hit the caster, or until you run out of maximum uses.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Oct 29, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> You say that like it's a BAD thing?   Correct me if I am wrong, but this IS the RULES forum, right?





Correct me if I am wrong but this is a GAME right? Also correct me if this is wrong but its supposed to be a ligt hearted enjoyable experience for all right?

I have never seen a rules lawyer support either of these things.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> My point? You just made it perfectly. My whole point was how your being a rules lawyer and in the most horrible sort of way.
> 
> It is rather sad. It's a game not a chance to screw a player or the DM to your own personal glee.




First off, calling people names here is not allowed here.


Second, one person's rules lawyer is another person's adjudicator.


Third, you are not looking at this from the point of view of the *PLAYER* of a Wizard or Sorcerer who casts the spell and then gets Great Cleaved by the DM.

The game is meant to be fun. To the player of the caster who got screwed by the DM because the DM did not follow RAW, that player might not be having fun. He might have picked that spell BECAUSE it gave him immunity to Cleave off images and defense against some spells.

Your "we should ignore rules when we want to" ruling could be anti-fun for some players.

Your opinion is noted, but not anywhere near being the "perfect way to play".


What is *sad* is that you did not look at both points of view. That of the player of the PC Fighter who wants to cleave the images of the NPC Wizard and that of the player of the PC Wizard who does not want his images cleaved by the NPC Fighter.


I have no problem with a DM allowing Cleave against Mirror Image. It's perfectly reasonable and balanced to do so.

I have a problem with posters who cannot understand that I am just discussing RAW here. I am not telling anyone how to run their game. Maybe you should learn discretion before you starting jumping all over other people here.


----------



## Nail (Oct 29, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but this is a GAME right? Also correct me if this is wrong but its supposed to be a ligt hearted enjoyable experience for all right?
> 
> I have never seen a rules lawyer support either of these things.



Come on, Doc.

You've been on these boards awhile.  You should know better than to post this kind of rant.  Heck, it's not as if you've been on one side of this thread for awhile and are frustrated to find yourself painted into a corner.  

If you are not having fun with this thread, don't post.  ....and while your at it, consider this: It might be, just maybe, that the people that are posting here are having _fun_ doing so.  You might even say they're having a *"ligt hearted enjoyable experience"*.


----------



## Nail (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> First off, calling people names here is not allowed here.



   Well.......

Let's just say that this board is better than others in that regard.    

Which is very cool, BTW.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 29, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but this is a GAME right?




And GAMES have RULES, which we discuss here.



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Also correct me if this is wrong but its supposed to be a ligt hearted enjoyable experience for all right?




Yup!



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> I have never seen a rules lawyer support either of these things.




I feel sorry for you then


----------



## baudbard (Oct 29, 2005)

First of all I want to say thank you to all of those involved in this discussion for drawing me in and entertaining my brain

My offerings on Cleave-MI RAW

PHB 173 Illusion:Figment: A figment creates a false sensation.

You believe that the figment of the caster is the caster and begin your attack phase.

If your attack is succesful, the image is destroyed. No damage is rolled.
The strike itself is enough to drop the images hp's to zero or less in that a struck image ceases to exist, and thus has no hp.

Now, the attacking character believes he has destroyed (or dropped) a creature. There is no saving throw for MI, so unless the attaker has some way of ignoring the spell all together, he believes.

Now we get into opinion. It is the nature of D&D that on occasion a character may find themselves attacking opponents that are no more solid than wisps of smoke. In that situation, where there is no question as to whether or not the opponets are creatures, the attacker may without question apply the cleave feat should other opponents be within reach. Also, I understand cleave not to be some thru attack, like cleaving thru a door, or thru one enemy into another, but a redirection of energy. *Example* Attacked enemy has fallen, the energy, thought, and strength I had to apply to defending against that creature is no longer needed..Those energies, by virtue of this feat, can be quickly redirected against another opponent within reach.

As for cleaving with a reach weapon. Attacker drops an opponent 10 feet away and quickly redirects that energy against another opponent in reach by spinning the *insert reach weapon here* by it's middle, at a angle, and shifting grip. These qualities of quickly shifting focus with long weapons are commonly showcased in martial arts films.

Now...we have a figment which the attacker believes to be a creature, that disappears when struck, which is, I am assuming here, analagous to being droppped. It has in all ways acted as a creature *might* within the rules. Does the DM then stop him and say " Your  *character here* senses that what you have destroyed was only a figment?" No he does not, the spell is still active, and there is no saving throw. So even after having interacted with the figment, he still believes it to be a creature, and would act accordingly. And if in that situation, attempting to attack another creature that may or may not be a figment is a rational action, AND that character has the cleve feat, I believe that by virtue of overwhelming evidence he can, and indeed should, proceed. 

I must agree that the word creature in the Cleave description negates all I have said here. But I have attempted to show other evidence from other sources within the RAW that show a contradicting view. In a situation where there is a contradiction, the errata, and I imagine, the FAQ apply. We all know there opinion on the matter.

Now... Magic Missle. The caster believes he is targeting a creature. IF the spell does not immediately fail, due to improper targeting, the missle could indeed strike a target, destroying it. Magic Missle does no damage to objects, but it does strike, and striking does destroy an image. Now... there is adjudication needed to here. Does the magic sense what it can and cannot target? Or is the casters understanding of the situation enough to get the spell cast, and leave it up to the nature of the magic as to whether it's succesful or not.

Golems are immune to charm. But that does not stop a foolish caster from trying it.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing your responses to my thoughts when you have time, and mind you, I am not trying to stick to my guns here, I am trying to add to a argument I believe has merit.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

baudbard said:
			
		

> Now...we have a figment which the attacker believes to be a creature, that disappears when struck, which is, I am assuming here, analagous to being droppped. It has in all ways acted as a creature *might* within the rules. Does the DM then stop him and say " Your  *character here* senses that what you have destroyed was only a figment?" No he does not, the spell is still active, and there is no saving throw.




This is stretching a "rationale" to explain a POV.

Using your rational approach, are you telling me that the characters in your game are accustomed to opponents a) having no resistance when struck and b) disappearing when struck?

I suspect not. Figments do not have many of the properties of creatures. They have no "touch component" to them and creatures tend to not disappear when struck (except possibly summoned creatures).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Your quote here does not state that they "only attack creatures". It effectively states that they "only damage creatures".




Right.  It doesn't state that they attack anything at all.



> And even if you do not allow the swarm to auto-destroy all of the images, you should either allow it to auto-hit the caster (like all other creatures in the area of a swarm)...




Oh, absolutely.  As far as I can see, a swarm attack behaves like a spell with Area: Creatures in a 10'x10' square.

The caster takes damage, and the figments react, but aren't destroyed.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Oh, absolutely.  As far as I can see, a swarm attack behaves like a spell with Area: Creatures in a 10'x10' square.
> 
> The caster takes damage, and the figments react, but aren't destroyed.




"like a spell with Area:"?

But, since a swarm is a creature and not a spell, does Mirror Image actually prevent the images from getting attacked? What is the conclusion?


----------



## Caliban (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> "like a spell with Area:"?
> 
> But, since a swarm is a creature and not a spell, does Mirror Image actually prevent the images from getting attacked? What is the conclusion?




Well, there is no attack roll involved when a swarm damages you, much like there is no attack roll with an area spell. 

Since the Swarm type was introduced after the spell was originally written,  I don't think the spell was updated to take into account that attack form.   So it's a DM call.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> "like a spell with Area:"?




No, like a spell with the Area entry 'Creatures in a 10'x10' square'.

The swarm specifically doesn't make melee attacks; it's more like an area attack form than anything else.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dryfus (Oct 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> a) having no resistance when struck and b) disappearing when struck?





You mean like incorperal(sp?)  undead??  so by your thinking if I kill a shadow with no resistance and it disapears when I kill it I dont get a cleave.  

By using the argument that it's not blowthrough and is a reaction to dropping something:
A fighter works for weeks and months to "react" to when an opponent isn't there any more, so he can cleave.  so what your saying is that if a fighter that trained for weeks or months to get the skill to do this he is suddenly unable to react to something just vanishing??  look at it from the CHARACTERS POV(not the players).  I'm a fighter I trained for months to be able to do this, and I have made it a reaction that comes without thought.  So when an opponent drops(ie vanishes, as in the case of a shadow or a figment), I react and direct my energy and attention to the next closest target.  I dont think of it as I was trying to hit a creature, but what I hit was a figment, and I cant cleave off of a figment, my REACTION would be the same reguardless of what I actually struck.  Because, if your putting that much power behind a swing that you unbalance yourself, then your a pisspoor fighter.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 30, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> You mean like incorperal(sp?)  undead??  so by your thinking if I kill a shadow with no resistance and it disapears when I kill it I dont get a cleave.
> 
> By using the argument that it's not blowthrough and is a reaction to dropping something:
> A fighter works for weeks and months to "react" to when an opponent isn't there any more, so he can cleave.  so what your saying is that if a fighter that trained for weeks or months to get the skill to do this he is suddenly unable to react to something just vanishing??  look at it from the CHARACTERS POV(not the players).  I'm a fighter I trained for months to be able to do this, and I have made it a reaction that comes without thought.  So when an opponent drops(ie vanishes, as in the case of a shadow or a figment), I react and direct my energy and attention to the next closest target.  I dont think of it as I was trying to hit a creature, but what I hit was a figment, and I cant cleave off of a figment, my REACTION would be the same reguardless of what I actually struck.  Because, if your putting that much power behind a swing that you unbalance yourself, then your a pisspoor fighter.




Look at it from the character's pov. Virtually every creature he hits has resistance, possibly even incorporeal undead (at least when a hit scores).

It is an assumption that you are making that incorporeal undead have no resistance when a hit scores.

"Such creatures are insubstantial and can't be touched by nonmagical matter and energy."

This implies that they CAN be touched by magical matter and energy (and the rules for affecting them support that).

Hence, your assumption about how fighters train seems to have no merit. The majority of training would be against corporeal creatures and objects, not incorporeal ones.


Besides, this type of discussion is pointless. I could care less how someone interprets HOW cleave works from a character's POV. Character's do not have a POV since they only exist in the minds of the players and not in reality.

What matters is what RAW states. Attempting to justify ignoring RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" is mostly a waste of time. It doesn't accomplish anything.


----------



## Nail (Oct 30, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What matters is what RAW states. Attempting to justify ignoring RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" is mostly a waste of time. It doesn't accomplish anything.



....besides, it's often _more_ fun to justify following RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" or PoV.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 30, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> ....besides, it's often _more_ fun to justify following RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" or PoV.



This is exactly how I feel.  I find it more entertaining to come up with a new visualisation for Cleave every time I see it used, depending on the position of the individuals, rather than worry about conforming the rules to a single, blanket concept.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 30, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> This is exactly how I feel.  I find it more entertaining to come up with a new visualisation for Cleave every time I see it used, depending on the position of the individuals, rather than worry about conforming the rules to a single, blanket concept.




When explaining blows in the game, absolutely.

But, I do prefer consistency as to how we play, hence, the reason I try to stick with RAW unless it really falls outside the range of "suspension of disbelief".


----------



## Rath the Brown (Oct 30, 2005)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Now, the only way I can personally make descriptive sense out of "Cleave", is if it's a blow so bloody and destructive that it creates a blinding mess, and so shocking that it stuns another enemy in the area into momentarily letting his guard down (and hence a free attack).






			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that description doesn't work.
> 
> You can, after all, cleave into a creature who cannot see.






			
				dcollins said:
			
		

> And loud.






			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> Can't see or hear.






			
				dcollins said:
			
		

> And all giblet-squishy underfoot.




What if you were dealing non-leathal damage?


----------



## Nail (Oct 30, 2005)

Rath the Brown said:
			
		

> What if you were dealing non-leathal damage?



Ooh....

Alright, yer asking fer it, bub.....

"Drop" a *grey ooze* with a _magic weaponed_ unarmed strike, then cleave into a silent, _invisible_, incorporeal opponent, provoking an AoO, before you "drop" that opponent and continue your _great cleave_ into another *grey ooze*.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 30, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But, I do prefer consistency as to how we play, hence, the reason I try to stick with RAW unless it really falls outside the range of "suspension of disbelief".



I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had inferred that I did or believed otherwise.  I play Cleave as written, adding my own flavor text to explain how that extra attack comes about.

Nail's post seemed to be supporting following the RAW, which is what I was (in this case) trying to suggest as well...


----------



## Rassilon (Oct 30, 2005)

SRD said:
			
		

> If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it)




Do we want to play with this some more? I'm seeing an argument that neither undead nor golems are valid targets. After all, it is not possible to either kill or drop undead or golems to _below_ 0 hit points   


Rassilon.


----------



## Dryfus (Oct 30, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Look at it from the character's pov. Virtually every creature he hits has resistance, possibly even incorporeal undead (at least when a hit scores).
> 
> It is an assumption that you are making that incorporeal undead have no resistance when a hit scores.




And it isn't an assumption that they do??





			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ""Such creatures are insubstantial and can't be touched by nonmagical matter and energy."
> 
> This implies that they CAN be touched by magical matter and energy (and the rules for affecting them support that).




they CAN be touched, doesn't nessicarrily mean that they have resistance, and if they do how much.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Hence, your assumption about how fighters train seems to have no merit. The majority of training would be against corporeal creatures and objects, not incorporeal ones.




In a magical society/world??  I would say that they would cover the gammit of what a fighter is likley to run into in the big bad world, not just the "solid" things



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Besides, this type of discussion is pointless. I could care less how someone interprets HOW cleave works from a character's POV. Character's do not have a POV since they only exist in the minds of the players and not in reality.





In most of the games I've played in/DM'd, if a charachters POV was ignored, the players were less likley to suspend their disbelief



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What matters is what RAW states. Attempting to justify ignoring RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" is mostly a waste of time. It doesn't accomplish anything.




Just because we interperit(sp?) RAW differently, doesn't mean that either one of us is wrong.  It just means we have different beliefs in how things should work in a society/world of our imagination.  And it does accomplish something, IMO.    Besides, I believe that the RAW supports my position.  (isn't that what were disscussing here??)  

Let me ask you some questions then.  

1)  Two characters start fighting. One a wizaed, one a fighter.  The PC with the fighter  states "I'll attack the Wizard with my sword(axe/mace/whatever).  His target is a creature??

2) same as 1, but the wizard has cast mirror image.  does the same condition apply, if not, why??

after I have some answers here, I'll ask more, but without some more info I cant right now.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 30, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> Let me ask you some questions then.
> 
> 1)  Two characters start fighting. One a wizaed, one a fighter.  The PC with the fighter  states "I'll attack the Wizard with my sword(axe/mace/whatever).  His target is a creature??
> 
> ...




Yes. The same attacking a creature condition applies. That does not mean that the same results will occur, nor that the same tactics will work.


Let me ask you some different questions.


1) Why is it that people who ignore what RAW actually states (i.e. you can only Cleave after dropping a *creature*) think that RAW supports their position?

2) Why is it important to give the PC Fighter a way to cleave through the NPC Wizard's Mirror Image whereas it is not important to allow the PC Wizard to be protected from Cleave by the NPC Fighter? In other words, why is it more fun in the game to allow Cleaving through images than it is fun to allow protection from that tactic? Why is it more important to make the game fun for the players of Fighters than it is for the players of Wizards? This appears to be a pro-Fighter bias.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 30, 2005)

Rassilon said:
			
		

> Do we want to play with this some more? I'm seeing an argument that neither undead nor golems are valid targets. After all, it is not possible to either kill or drop undead or golems to _below_ 0 hit points




You missed the word "typically".

And, isn't reducing a golem to 0 points killing it? Is it still functional?

Not much of an argument.

Btw, nobody is really arguing that destroying an image is not "dropping it". We are stating that an image is not a creature, hence, not applicable in the first place to the feat.


----------



## Borlon (Oct 30, 2005)

Regarding incorporeal undead,



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> "Such creatures are insubstantial and can't be touched by nonmagical matter and energy."
> 
> This implies that they CAN be touched by magical matter and energy (and the rules for affecting them support that).




Nitpick: it implies that SOME kinds of magical matter and energy can affect them; otherwise the sentence wouldn't have mentioned "nonmagical".  But there might also be kinds of magical matter or energy which doesn't touch incorporeal creatures.

Another nitpick: if someone says "everything is either a creature or an object" the universe of discourse is unclear, but can't really be everything.  After all, some things lack both a wisdom score and a hardness rating.  This point was raised before, but I just want to underline what I think the conclusion is: that whatever an image is, it is not a creature, and so doesn't count for cleave.  But it is possible (AFAIK) that it is not an object either, and so arguments about whether or not they are objects don't amount to much.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 30, 2005)

Borlon said:
			
		

> Another nitpick: if someone says "everything is either a creature or an object" the universe of discourse is unclear, but can't really be everything.  After all, some things lack both a wisdom score and a hardness rating.  This point was raised before, but I just want to underline what I think the conclusion is: that whatever an image is, it is not a creature, and so doesn't count for cleave.  But it is possible (AFAIK) that it is not an object either, and so arguments about whether or not they are objects don't amount to much.




I view the game as having three types of "physical things":

1) Objects
2) Creatures
3) Effects

There is sometimes an overlap between these. For example, Ice is an Object, but it can also have an Effect.

Magic can create Creatures or Objects, but usually creates Effects.

Gravity is an Effect.


In the real world, I consider Air to be an object (i.e. matter). In the game world, I consider it to be an Effect. You cannot melee attack air.

In the real world, I consider Water to be an object (i.e. matter). In the game world, I mostly consider it to also be an Effect. You cannot (effectively) melee attack water. It has no AC, hardness, or hit points. Yes, it also has some properties of an Object (i.e. you can put it in a bucket), but it also has the properties of an Effect (it can drown you).

Ditto for Fire.

These just happen to be nonmagical Effects as opposed to magical ones. And, some of them also have some of the properties of an Object, but not all properties of an Object. Just like magical Effects can have the properties of Creatures or Objects, but not actually be Creatures or Objects.


I think any argument about everything having to be either a Creature or an Object is totally inaccurate and ignores the very large set of Effects that are part of the game. And, some Magical Effects emulate the properties of Creatures or Objects, but are not really Creatures or Objects.


----------



## baudbard (Oct 30, 2005)

ok... now some consideration for the other side. Mind you, I am only trying to point out facets of this that may have been missed, but this is fairly compelling (to me anyway).

A caster enchants themselves with a spell that creates concealment for him, anywhere from 20-50%. A warrior with Cleave attacks said caster, and misses. His miss causes the caster no damage, the caster does not drop, and cleave sits unused.

A caster uses Mirror Image. Mirror image creates 2-8 figments. A side affect of these figments is, the chance of hittiing the caster is 1/3-1/9. One essence of this, aside from other game mechanics involved, is that these figments create a 66.6 - 88.8% miss chance. Anytime you swing, and miss, you do no damage, nothing drops, no cleave.

now, these miss chances do seem a little high to me, and it's true that those numbers will come down quite quickly as figments drop. But take into account that being Invisible only grants a 50% mc (provided you guess the correct square etc). According to the RAW you still have to choose a square to attack into with MI. You choose said square when you choose which possible image/caster to attack. So not only are you attempting to pick out your opponent from 3-9 images that are all within 5 feet of another image, you may have to move to attack the next image. Now, there is nothing against a character with a high enough b.a.b. from using their full attack option and destroying multipe images that they threaten. Cleave would be a flavor issue at that point anyhow.

Now... a question on the nature of illusion. An illusion with no saving throw forces the victim (in this case anyone who can see the figments from MI) to act as if they were dealing with the caster. Now, if you are forced to believe you are attacking the caster... nvm... cleave still fails if your attack hits a figment.

Even though I have tried to be fair and see both sides of the argument here, I find it much more compelling to believe that a warrior with the cleave feat could destroy an additional figment, provided he still threatens one after his attack options have been utilized. Cleave does not negate this spell, even Blind-Fight does more to affect this spell than the word creature in the description of cleave. Someone with blind-fight, who closes their eyes, and guesses the correct square, actually has a vastly better chance than someone who does not have blind-fight. Cleave can only be used once per round. So IF a DM made the judgement that these particular figments could trigger the feat, only one addition figment would be destroyed, IF the attacker hit their AC.

The nature of Mirror Image is to create figments that assailants have to destroy to get to the caster. I cannot stand by and say I would NOT allow cleave to trigger in these circumstances. I have played a Caster and a Warrior. As a caster I expect any Mirror Images I produce to be destroyed. As a warrior I intend to swing at what's in front of me until nothings left standing. The lesser evil (IMO) is to allow a warrior with cleave to get his additional attack in. The warrior gets the satisfaction of having useful skills in the situation, and the caster is not inordinately disadvantaged by haveing an addition imaged destroyed.

A 20th level character with 1/1 b.a.b. progression maxes out with four attacks. A cleave attack makes five. Give him an additional attack from haste, six, various and sundry prc abilities, seven, and a exotic weapon master who has selected the flurry of blows ability, eight. Compared to this onslaught cleave has very little affect. In essence removing 11.1% miss chance in a encounter with 8 figments present.

I know I have fallen to the crutch of using my opinion. Having been a DM and a player, a caster and a warrior, and a few other things besides, I remember one thing that has always been important, having fun. Enjoying you characters abilities is not always easily accomplished. Having a opportunity to use an ability in a "cloudy" situation is best resolved by using the lesser evil. I believe cleave attack, is not, as I have attemted to demonstrate, a imbalancing factor in the effectiveness of Mirror Image.

Game On


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 30, 2005)

baudbard said:
			
		

> Now... a question on the nature of illusion. An illusion with no saving throw forces the victim (in this case anyone who can see the figments from MI) to act as if they were dealing with the caster. Now, if you are forced to believe you are attacking the caster... nvm... cleave still fails if your attack hits a figment.




It forces the victim to see what he sees.

It does not force him to either believe what he sees, or not be able to think.

You are not "forced to believe you are attacking the caster". This is in error.

The most reasonable belief for Mirror Image is that one of them is the caster and the rest are not real, you just do not know which one is real. You are not forced to believe that the figments are real.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 31, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> For example, a 10th level Fighter with a 2 handed sword can use Power Attack to demolish a masonry wall in four or fewer blows (doing 30+ points of damage against hardness 8, 60+ with a critical).




Inanimate objects are not subject to critical hits


----------



## Bryan898 (Oct 31, 2005)

> 2) Why is it important to give the PC Fighter a way to cleave through the NPC Wizard's Mirror Image whereas it is not important to allow the PC Wizard to be protected from Cleave by the NPC Fighter? In other words, why is it more fun in the game to allow Cleaving through images than it is fun to allow protection from that tactic? Why is it more important to make the game fun for the players of Fighters than it is for the players of Wizards? This appears to be a pro-Fighter bias.




I haven't taken part in the discussion as of yet, though I've followed it and enjoyed it immensely, but I'd like a chance to field this question as it intrigued me.

1.) The spell mirror image would be a counter to the fighter hitting the wizard, the feat cleave would be a counter to that tactic, the wizard is then left with mutliple other counters to still prevent the fighter from hitting him.  The wizard still has an ability to protect from that tactic, invisibility for example.

2.) It's more fun because the wizard already has numerous ways to protect from the fighter, and giving the fighter the ability to deal with one of them seems to balance it out a bit better.  One less viable defense against a fighter isn't going to hurt the wizard, especially at the cost of three feats.

3.) Spellcasting classes basically have the upper hand in the game as far as power goes.  Allowing a fighter to deal with a second level spell with a three feat combination doesn't seem too overpowered.  Not every fighter will have Great Cleave, and mirror image is still a viable tactic for the wizard, along with his huge list of others.

Now I ask the opposite:  Why is it so important that this one second level spell of the wizard's has no good counter for the fighter?  Why is it more fun to allow the wizard near complete protection from the fighter's attacks than a chance for the fighter to hit the wizard?  How does one second level spell having a counter to it that you'd rarely run across ruin the fun for the wizard, when he has hordes of other options at his fingertips?  You seem to have a pro-wizard bias  .

By the way, I do have a pro-fighter bias.   I enjoy playing fighter classes more than spellcasting classes, though I've played both.  However, I do like that the spellcasting classes are the more powerful than the fighters at higher levels, I want my Gandalf's and Sauron's to be all powerful.  Adds to the fantasy feeling of the game for me.


----------



## Dryfus (Oct 31, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes. The same attacking a creature condition applies. That does not mean that the same results will occur, nor that the same tactics will work.
> 
> 
> Let me ask you some different questions.
> ...




Hehe...     Umm, I was starting a vehement response to this, and I was looking stuff up, and after careful concideration, I now agree, cleave can't be used against figments.  BC, at 4th level a fighter can get great cleave, and I did some figuring, and a fighter 4th level would get about a +8 to +10 to hit(+4lvl, +2-4 STR, and +1-2 for magic weapon) Figuring the highest, +10, againsat a 20th level wizard(12 max figments), he could concievably take out all the figments in a round(with some luck, of one not hitting the wizard, and two hitting every time he swung a sword), which got me thinking that maybe I had misinterprested the cleave feat.  and I reread some of the post in this thread.      Um, i was wrong.  I admit it.  I'm gonna go into a corner now and keep quiet.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 31, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had inferred that I did or believed otherwise.  I play Cleave as written, adding my own flavor text to explain how that extra attack comes about.
> 
> Nail's post seemed to be supporting following the RAW, which is what I was (in this case) trying to suggest as well...




Sorry. That was not directed at you.

Just an overall explanation of why it is best to play by RAW unless it interfers with your suspension of disbelief. Consistency.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 31, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> Hehe...     Umm, I was starting a vehement response to this, and I was looking stuff up, and after careful concideration, I now agree, cleave can't be used against figments.  BC, at 4th level a fighter can get great cleave, and I did some figuring, and a fighter 4th level would get about a +8 to +10 to hit(+4lvl, +2-4 STR, and +1-2 for magic weapon) Figuring the highest, +10, againsat a 20th level wizard(12 max figments), he could concievably take out all the figments in a round(with some luck, of one not hitting the wizard, and two hitting every time he swung a sword), which got me thinking that maybe I had misinterprested the cleave feat.  and I reread some of the post in this thread.      Um, i was wrong.  I admit it.  I'm gonna go into a corner now and keep quiet.




Heh, it happens.

Besides, you are the one who brought up that if you drop a different foe, you can still Cleave a single image. Something that I had not thought of correctly. Thanks.


----------



## Sigg (Oct 31, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) Why is it that people who ignore what RAW actually states (i.e. you can only Cleave after dropping a *creature*) think that RAW supports their position?
> 
> 2) Why is it important to give the PC Fighter a way to cleave through the NPC Wizard's Mirror Image whereas it is not important to allow the PC Wizard to be protected from Cleave by the NPC Fighter? In other words, why is it more fun in the game to allow Cleaving through images than it is fun to allow protection from that tactic? Why is it more important to make the game fun for the players of Fighters than it is for the players of Wizards? This appears to be a pro-Fighter bias.




I can answer this for myself anyway.

1) I believe that a mirror image qualifies as a creature in relation to the Cleave feat. I do not believe the non-abilities rules from the Monster Manual apply to spell effects. I also do not believe the inclusion of the word "creature" in the cleave feat was meant to be a limiting facter of the feat (of course I have no way of knowing this last bit for sure...it's completely IMO).

2) I feel that the protection of the Mirror Image spell is that an attacker must either get lucky or wade through images to land an attack on the caster, not in completely negating the cleave feat. The cleave feat makes the spell potentially less effective, but not completely useless. Plus, the caster most likely has other defenses at his disposal that would help him deal with the cleaving fighter. In the rare case of the great cleaving attacker taking out all the images in one round....well, that's why they took the feat. Most likely the caster will not be dropped in this one round, and there are many other defenses at a caster's disposal that would make great cleave useless such as invis or fly. Wizard's are my favorite class as a player, but I still have no problem with an attacker cleaving images. I know that my only true defense against meleers is to not allow them to get close to me anyway. I've almost always tried to use mirror image to keep archers from disrupting my spells, and if a meleer gets close I do my best to vacate the AO.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 31, 2005)

Bryan898 said:
			
		

> I haven't taken part in the discussion as of yet, though I've followed it and enjoyed it immensely, but I'd like a chance to field this question as it intrigued me.
> 
> 1.) The spell mirror image would be a counter to the fighter hitting the wizard, the feat cleave would be a counter to that tactic, the wizard is then left with mutliple other counters to still prevent the fighter from hitting him.  The wizard still has an ability to protect from that tactic, invisibility for example.




Most of the Wizard protection from combat spells are relatively weak until higher level.

Mage Armor = 4 AC, most armors before magic is applied to them are higher than that.

Shield = 4 AC, most shields are less than that until mid level, but then it turns around in favor of combatant types.

Blur effectively adds a few points of AC (eg.. if the Fighter has a 50% chance to hit the Wizard, he has a 40% chance against a Blurred Wizard or a +2 AC equivalent for the Wizard).

Invisibility boosts the miss chance to 50%, but you cannot do anything offensive in return.

And all of these except Mage Armor tend to be cast within combat, using up a precious round just to get some minor AC defense. The Fighter has good AC defense often 24/7.

When you combine this with the 3+ hit points per level that a Fighter has over a Wizard and the typically higher AC, the chances of killing a Wizard at lower levels in combat is very very high. In order to get to higher level where he starts to shine, a Wizard has to survive low level.



			
				Bryan898 said:
			
		

> 2.) It's more fun because the wizard already has numerous ways to protect from the fighter, and giving the fighter the ability to deal with one of them seems to balance it out a bit better.  One less viable defense against a fighter isn't going to hurt the wizard, especially at the cost of three feats.




This is basically inaccurate. The Wizard has few effective ways to protect himself from the Fighter until much higher level. And, the Wizard is not only going to be threatened by Fighters, but also by monsters with claw/claw/bite.

Name a second or lower level defensive spell outside of Mirror Image that actually protects a Wizard significantly.



			
				Bryan898 said:
			
		

> 3.) Spellcasting classes basically have the upper hand in the game as far as power goes.  Allowing a fighter to deal with a second level spell with a three feat combination doesn't seem too overpowered.  Not every fighter will have Great Cleave, and mirror image is still a viable tactic for the wizard, along with his huge list of others.




They do not have the upper hand at lower levels. There, they tend to struggle pretty hard, just to survive.



			
				Bryan898 said:
			
		

> Now I ask the opposite:  Why is it so important that this one second level spell of the wizard's has no good counter for the fighter?  Why is it more fun to allow the wizard near complete protection from the fighter's attacks than a chance for the fighter to hit the wizard?  How does one second level spell having a counter to it that you'd rarely run across ruin the fun for the wizard, when he has hordes of other options at his fingertips?  You seem to have a pro-wizard bias  .




No. I have a pro-fun bias.

Mirror Image is the only really effective anti-combat defensive spell at low level. In order to have fun, the player of the Wizard or Sorcerer has to be able to survive.

Having a PC die is not fun for many people.

And, it is not complete protection. This spell is acquired at 3rd or 4th level. By 6th level, most Fighter types can get 2 attacks per round and some Fighter types can get that at 1st level with Two Weapon Fighting or Rapid Shot, or in the case of a Monk, Flurry of Blows (and claw/claw/bite for some monsters). Granted, they will not all hit images, but the AC of images is pretty low.

Mirror Image is at best a delaying tactic defensive spell whose effective defense decreases both as combats extend and also as the characters get higher level.

PS. My fighting Dwarven Illusionist at 4th level once had his Mage Armor, Shield, Expeditious Retreat, and Mirror Image spells all simultaneously dispelled by a 5th level Orc. Magical protections can sometimes be very fragile. Armor and shields tend to be much more reliable and longer lasting.



			
				Bryan898 said:
			
		

> By the way, I do have a pro-fighter bias.   I enjoy playing fighter classes more than spellcasting classes, though I've played both.  However, I do like that the spellcasting classes are the more powerful than the fighters at higher levels, I want my Gandalf's and Sauron's to be all powerful.  Adds to the fantasy feeling of the game for me.




Agreed.


----------



## Nail (Oct 31, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I can answer this for myself anyway.
> 
> 1) I believe ......(snip)
> 
> 2) I feel .......(snip)



Hey => that's great.

Me, I _believe_ that the world is purple.   And I _feel_ icky about that.


----------



## Dryfus (Nov 2, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> I can answer this for myself anyway.
> 
> 1) I believe that a mirror image qualifies as a creature in relation to the Cleave feat. I do not believe the non-abilities rules from the Monster Manual apply to spell effects. I also do not believe the inclusion of the word "creature" in the cleave feat was meant to be a limiting facter of the feat (of course I have no way of knowing this last bit for sure...it's completely IMO).
> 
> 2) I feel that the protection of the Mirror Image spell is that an attacker must either get lucky or wade through images to land an attack on the caster, not in completely negating the cleave feat. The cleave feat makes the spell potentially less effective, but not completely useless. Plus, the caster most likely has other defenses at his disposal that would help him deal with the cleaving fighter. In the rare case of the great cleaving attacker taking out all the images in one round....well, that's why they took the feat. Most likely the caster will not be dropped in this one round, and there are many other defenses at a caster's disposal that would make great cleave useless such as invis or fly. Wizard's are my favorite class as a player, but I still have no problem with an attacker cleaving images. I know that my only true defense against meleers is to not allow them to get close to me anyway. I've almost always tried to use mirror image to keep archers from disrupting my spells, and if a meleer gets close I do my best to vacate the AO.





As someone who used to be in your camp(ie i agreed with you, and I see your POV).  Lokk at it this way.  

of the base races
fighter LVL4   attack bonus = BAB+4, Str+2 to 4, and Magic weapon 0-+2 = +6 to +10
Mage LVL20   AC of Image  = BASE10, Size +1 to 0, dex +0 to +8(with items) = 10 to 19

chance of fighter to hit at lowest pluses versus lowest and highest AC needs to roll a 4 - 13
chance of fighter to hit at highest pluses versus lowest and highest AC needs to roll a 2 - 9

A 4th level fighter has a chance of taking out a 20th level wizards mirror images(7-8) in one round, with great cleave,  if he gets somewhat lucky.  And using the argument that not a lot of fighters take great cleave isn't a good response to this,  the fact that it COULD happen, is the deciding factor, not that it doesn't hapen often.

EDITED TO FIX TYPOS


----------



## Sigg (Nov 2, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> As someone who used to be in your camp(ie i agreed with you, and I see your POV).  Lokk at it this way.
> 
> of the base races
> fighter LVL4   attack bonus = BAB+4, Str+2 to 4, and Magic weapon 0-+2 = +6 to +10
> ...





Nail: They have medicines for that these days 

The fighter COULD take out the images in one round. The fighter COULD also get lucky and hit the caster in one swing. He's not guaranteed to do either, and at lower levels a fighter should be able to handle an arcane caster one-on-one. If the caster is attempting to take on a meleer single-handedly the odds should be stacked against him.

I, personally, don't count on an attacker not having great cleave as a resonse to this. In this thread, my response is that the caster is in trouble if he's out of friends and getting melee attacked. In the game my possible responses, other than mirror images, to being melee attacked follow:

Best defenses:
1) Friends
2) Scream like a little girl and run away 
3) Keep my dignity, cast Expeditious Retreat, then run away

The rest:
4) Summon Monster to melee for me, sometimes just long enough to retreat, sometimes to win the fight...depending of course on who/what I'm fighting
5) Cast Grease, and then maybe run away
6) Cast Color Spray, then either run away or coup de grace
7) Cast Glitterdust, then back off or run away
8) Cast Web, then back off or run away
9) Cast Daze Monster, etc...
10) Cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter, etc...
11) Cast Invisibility, then run away
12) Cast Blindness, etc...
13) Cast Cause Fear or Scare, then watch them run away
14) Cast Levitate or Spider Climb and get out of range of meleers

If these and/or other spells are thrown together the caster has a great many responses to an attacker. As a wizard I might summon a monster to melee, step back then lay down a Sleep spell and then target any left with both monster and magic missiles until dead. Or, I might Levitate, then commence casting attack spells. I also might Grease the area, then Summon a Swarm to attack the enemy while they are trying to get out of/through the Greased area.

Still, the best defense is to hide behind a fighter.


----------



## Nail (Nov 3, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Nail: They have medicines for that these days



....now, would those be the little purple pills they keep hawking in the mass media?


----------



## Dryfus (Nov 4, 2005)

Sigg said:
			
		

> Nail: They have medicines for that these days
> 
> The fighter COULD take out the images in one round. The fighter COULD also get lucky and hit the caster in one swing. He's not guaranteed to do either, and at lower levels a fighter should be able to handle an arcane caster one-on-one. If the caster is attempting to take on a meleer single-handedly the odds should be stacked against him.






Yers, but do you really think a 4th level fighter should have a chance?? against a 20th level wizard??


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Nov 4, 2005)

Dryfus said:
			
		

> Yers, but do you really think a 4th level fighter should have a chance?? against a 20th level wizard??



He doesn't, regardless of how you rule _Mirror Image_ and Cleave.  He may have a chance against a 2nd-level spell, even one cast by a 20th-level wizard, but he certainly doesn't have a chance against the wizard himself.  I don't think anyone is arguing that he does, or should.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 5, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> He doesn't, regardless of how you rule _Mirror Image_ and Cleave.  He may have a chance against a 2nd-level spell, even one cast by a 20th-level wizard, but he certainly doesn't have a chance against the wizard himself.  I don't think anyone is arguing that he does, or should.




He is talking about the 4th level Fighter using Great Cleave having a chance of destroying most or all of the 20th level Wizards Mirror Images. Nothing more.

But, the odds are (given a medium sized Wizard with a Dex of 18 and 8 images, and a Fighter with +9 to hit):

0 images = 28.9%
1 image = 21.3%
2 images = 15.6%
3 images = 11.4%
4 images = 8.2%
5 images = 5.8%
6 images = 4.1%
7 images = 2.8%
8 images = 1.9%

So, his odds of taking out all 8 are not that good. He does have a fair chance of taking out 2 or more though.


A Fighter with +12 or higher to hit against such a Wizard still does not have good odds:

0 images = 15.6%
1 image = 14.3%
2 images = 13.0%
3 images = 11.9%
4 images = 10.9%
5 images = 9.9%
6 images = 9.0%
7 images = 8.1%
8 images = 7.4%

He does have a fair chance of taking out 4 or more.


----------

