Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gray_Orourke 07-22-07, 02:22 AM	I was asked today by a player if they could cleave from a destroyed mirror image. It seems reasonable, but the rule can be lawyered pretty well either way. Has anyone seen an official ruling on this? I surely cannot be the first person to ask. Gray
Someone 07-22-07, 02:32 AM	Nope, you can't, cleave requires a creature to drop dead. The mirror images aren't creatures, and they don't drop dead when hit.
Pentar 07-22-07, 03:03 AM	Actually... The official FAQ states that you can Cleave through Mirror Images. This was often a hotly contested subject, but the FAQ has sort of cleared it up, at least in an official capacity. There are still a lot of mixed feelings over the issue. I personally house rule that you cannot Cleave a Mirror Image.
jaelis 07-22-07, 10:10 AM	I would suggest that if you allow an image to be the target of a spell (like magic missile, for instance), then you should also allow cleave to work. I let both effects work, which makes the images very effective protection (since opponents can waste targeted spells on them as well as attacks), but makes them easy to bring down. If you play the other way, the images won't be quite as effective, but will last longer.
ArcTan 07-22-07, 10:21 AM	Actually... The official FAQ states that you can Cleave through Mirror Images. This was often a hotly contested subject, but the FAQ has sort of cleared it up, at least in an official capacity. Many people question the FAQ's right to be an "official" anything, given the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of its rulings.
ArcTan 07-22-07, 10:24 AM	It's simple. Magic missile targets creatures. Cleave targets creatures. Images are not creatures. They look like creatures, but they aren't (that is in fact the point). Cleave especially does not work because, specifically, in order to get a Cleave you have to drop a target to 0 HP or kill it. An image cannot be dropped to 0 HP, because it does not have an HP total at all. Nor can an image be killed, because it is not alive. You can no more get a Cleave for "popping" an image than you can get one for breaking an object, or for swinging your sword through a certain point in the air.
ArcTan 07-22-07, 10:27 AM	I would suggest that if you allow an image to be the target of a spell (like magic missile, for instance), then you should also allow cleave to work. I let both effects work, which makes the images very effective protection (since opponents can waste targeted spells on them as well as attacks), but makes them easy to bring down. If you play the other way, the images won't be quite as effective, but will last longer. Not really. Letting Cleave work on mirror image makes them both less effective and run out faster. Letting magic missile only makes mirror image "more effective" if the enemy casters are stupid enough to waste spells popping images, which is a stupid thing to do. Images generally have such low AC that even a Wizard can pop them just by using a crossbow.
runestar 07-22-07, 10:37 AM	Cleave especially does not work because, specifically, in order to get a Cleave you have to drop a target to 0 HP or kill it. Not exactly. Cleave states that you need to drop a foe for it to activate. It does mention that reducing it to below zero hp or killing it outright are 2 such ways, but implies that other methods may yet exist, although it does not elaborate. The crux of the argument, IMO, is whether the figments are treated as creatures or not for purposes of resolving cleave. As to how to do this, I have no idea...:embarrass
jaelis 07-22-07, 10:40 AM	Not really. Letting Cleave work on mirror image makes them both less effective and run out faster. Only if facing an opponent with cleave, which is not entirely common for monsters. It is for PCs/NPCs, but such characters are also the ones most likely to be using spells and thus be affected by the other half of the ruling.... Letting magic missile only makes mirror image "more effective" if the enemy casters are stupid enough to waste spells popping images, which is a stupid thing to do. Images generally have such low AC that even a Wizard can pop them just by using a crossbow. If you're playing by this rule, magic missile in particular is actually pretty effective, since you can eliminate several targets at once. Any other multiple-target spell is also good. And in my experience, even against an AC 10 target, a wizard can miss pretty easily when shooting a crossbow into melee (often entailing a -8 penalty). Edit- Actually, I might not be making a sensible comparison. I was thinking that if you didn't allow images to be targeted, then a caster would automatically target the actual creature (since it would be the only valid target). But maybe the right ruling would be that if you aim a spell at an invalid target, the spell is wasted. In that case, my version of MI would indeed be weaker.
ravenshrike 07-22-07, 10:44 AM	You can target MI with cleave, but only if you play MI the full way, instead of the current bastardized house rule that's in place. Which means that cleave becomes much less useful.
Nom 07-22-07, 10:47 AM	Cleave especially does not work because, specifically, in order to get a Cleave you have to drop a target to 0 HP or kill it.No, you don't. You have to deal a creature enough damage to drop it. "Typically" you do this by reducing it to below 0 hp or killing it, but the very language suggests that this isn't the be all and end all of the discussion. There's a whole 'nother set of semantics about whether successfully hitting the image counts as "dealing damage" (not that the term is 'damage', not 'lethal hit point damage'), and about whether the image counts as a creature, but if we're going to nit-pick about semantics let's at least nit-pick the right things.
StevenO 07-22-07, 02:56 PM	Mirror image is effectively a possibly "avoid one attack" per image spell. When the caster is targeted it or one of its images is actually targetted. Now if an image is hit it goes pop, drops, or something similiar but it is definitely removed from combat as if it were killed where as the actual caster just sucks the damage which would show up on all remaining images. To me, striking down an image is just like striking down a creature and allows cleave. If you say you can only cleave from dropping an actual creature creature does that mean that a wizard can just automatically shoot all his magic missles at the real wizard protected by mirror image because MM has to target a creature? This makes MI worthless against spellcasters which I don't believe is the intent and remember that intent is really more important than the RAW.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 06:32 PM	....remember that intent is really more important than the RAW. Blasphemer! We all know the purpose of these forums is argue over the semantics of the rules as written. The use of common sense to determine intent is sacrilegeous! Yes, that was sarcasm. ;)
BlackHalfDragon 07-22-07, 07:12 PM	there are 2 scenarios #1 thakk sees a wizard cast a spell and now there are 2 of them. thakk happy. thakk like spattling wizards. thakk splat one and then continues to splat the other. thakk happy that first wizard exploded in a pop but doest care why coz thakk is happy to keep swinging and decapitate the other wizard #thakk sees a wizard cast a spell and now there are 2 of them. thakk happy. thakk like spattling wizards. thakk splat one and he popped, no guts =( thakk sad, wizard guts his favoruite.. thakk so confused and depressed that he not get cleave attack now the question : do you want to make thakk happy or not ?
Horseshoe_Hermit 07-22-07, 07:31 PM	Seems to me, that cleave is a certain skill. It's a skill, of being ready to follow through with an attack that meets no resistance. Normally, when you drop someone, they drop with your swing. Now, for the unprepared, the untrained, you would end your attack action right there. You don't have the reflexes, or the unagi or whatever to take advantage of your extra time. Cleave gives you the ability to follow through. You don't waste energy and use your momentum into something else. By this description, it makes sense that Cleave can cut through a Mirror Image. The image isn't real - it gives less resistance than a body. You swing, it goes poof, you ... cleave through it.
yrogerg 07-22-07, 07:40 PM	Seems to me, that cleave is a certain skill. It's a skill, of being ready to follow through with an attack that meets no resistance. Normally, when you drop someone, they drop with your swing. Now, for the unprepared, the untrained, you would end your attack action right there. You don't have the reflexes, or the unagi or whatever to take advantage of your extra time. Cleave gives you the ability to follow through. You don't waste energy and use your momentum into something else. By this description, it makes sense that Cleave can cut through a Mirror Image. The image isn't real - it gives less resistance than a body. You swing, it goes poof, you ... cleave through it. By that logic, though, it would make just as much sense to gain Cleave attempts on failed attacks, or on attack attempts against other Figments (Silent Image and its big brothers, namely), or whenever I miss due to miss chance, etc, wouldn't it? (I could swear this exact exchange has occurred in other threads before)
Someone 07-23-07, 12:51 AM	By that logic, though, it would make just as much sense to gain Cleave attempts on failed attacks, or on attack attempts against other Figments (Silent Image and its big brothers, namely), or whenever I miss due to miss chance, etc, wouldn't it?That's pretty much my take on it. Confounding FAQ, why must it vex me so?
Kargile 07-23-07, 02:31 AM	Seriously you dont need a rule that specifically tells you what you can or can't do to use common sense. The reason cleave has to drop a creature to 0 is it is presumeadly a killing blow that carries its momentum into the next creature. Its not just flat out an arbitrary rule. Theres no reason why you couldn't carry your momentum through an image. In fact, it would probably be 10x easier to do this. The theory behind cleave is the blow you deliver is so telling you lose very little effect on the first target. So in this example your not really attacking the image as its not effecting your swing into the adjacent target. I would imagine the difference between cleave and great cleave is then how you swing so that your swing is very efficient in its motion so that if 3 or 4 things are dropping in one chain of attack+cleaves because you lose that much less momentum between contacts with opponents. Therefore intangible targets arent going to stop squat.
ibayboy 07-23-07, 03:26 AM	Can you cleave off an incorpreal target?. The only real difference between incorpreal and an image is the incorp has some HP. Since it is not actually necessary to even kill a target to trigger cleave, imo you can cleave off an image.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 04:19 AM	Only if facing an opponent with cleave, which is not entirely common for monsters. It is for PCs/NPCs, but such characters are also the ones most likely to be using spells and thus be affected by the other half of the ruling.... The other half of the ruling *also* makes mirror images less effective and run out faster. He basically said it makes mirror image stronger by "tempting" characters to waste useful spells on images, but that's stupid. A spell's strength should not be judged based on how well it "tempts" a bad player to use bad tactics. A good player using good tactics -- like a Wizard with a high-level MM who knows he has spells to spare -- can effectively end MI in one turn if you let MMs target MIs. Against a powerful foe, this may actually be a *really good* bit of strategy, and one that would be impossible if it didn't work. I don't see how it makes MI stronger because you might have a really stupid Sorcerer who tries to hit each MI with disintegrate or something. Edit- Actually, I might not be making a sensible comparison. I was thinking that if you didn't allow images to be targeted, then a caster would automatically target the actual creature (since it would be the only valid target). But maybe the right ruling would be that if you aim a spell at an invalid target, the spell is wasted. In that case, my version of MI would indeed be weaker. That should *of course* be the ruling. When you target a figment, what you're targeting is an empty patch of air that happens to look like the target. There's no reason at all it should auto-switch the targeting to the real creature. (This is the crucial difference between figments and glamers, and the crucial difference between mirror image and displacement.) Also note that if you're actually using the rules, each MI is standing in a completely different square from the real target.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 04:21 AM	Can you cleave off an incorpreal target?. The only real difference between incorpreal and an image is the incorp has some HP. Er, no. The difference between incorporeal creatures and images is that incorporeal creatures are creatures and images aren't. Seriously, the creature/non-creature distinction is one of the biggest and most important distinctions in the damn game, and you're just throwing it off? Since it is not actually necessary to even kill a target to trigger cleave, imo you can cleave off an image. It is necessary to *either* reduce the target to 0 HP or kill it some other way (like a vorpal weapon or Con damage or something). You cannot do either to something that is neither alive nor has HP. An image, remember, does not actually exist. It is not actually a physical thing. It is an illusion overlaid on what is in reality just a patch of empty air. Whatever Cleave is, Cleave should not reward you for simply swinging your sword through a patch of empty air that *looks* like a living thing. Making it do that would be the equivalent of letting you Cleave off of a mundane weapon passing harmlessly through a Ghost.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 04:24 AM	No, you don't. You have to deal a creature enough damage to drop it. "Typically" you do this by reducing it to below 0 hp or killing it, but the very language suggests that this isn't the be all and end all of the discussion. Okay. Is a figment a creature? No. It's not. So it's irrelevant. There's a whole 'nother set of semantics about whether successfully hitting the image counts as "dealing damage" (not that the term is 'damage', not 'lethal hit point damage'), and about whether the image counts as a creature, but if we're going to nit-pick about semantics let's at least nit-pick the right things. Okay. What possible torturous use of semantics makes the image a creature? Creatures are defined by having a Wisdom and Charisma score. Figments don't. Figments don't have *any* ability scores *at all*. Figments don't have any *statistics* at all -- they're not even objects, because all objects at least have a hardness (even if the hardness is 0) and hit points. Figments don't. It actually makes *more* sense to let Cleave work by "dropping" an object by breaking it and then "cleaving into" the guy standing next to it than letting it work for images.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 04:27 AM	If you say you can only cleave from dropping an actual creature creature does that mean that a wizard can just automatically shoot all his magic missles at the real wizard protected by mirror image because MM has to target a creature? No. Why the hell should that work? If the person makes a mundane dummy that looks just like him out of wax and puts it there and hides in the closet, should the MMs "swerve away" from the dummy and hit the guy in the closet because he's the "legal target"? If you target an illegal target with a spell, the spell fizzles. Very simple. The spell does *not* automatically correct for your mistake by going groping around for the next legal target. I think people are being confused because they think of MI as a glamer spell, when it's clearly a figment spell. Each MI is a *separate entity* that stands in its own square. Casting MI *creates* several *separate entities* that look like you. It does *not* give the caster the condition "mirror imaged". People are confusing it with the displacement spell.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 04:33 AM	Seriously you dont need a rule that specifically tells you what you can or can't do to use common sense. The reason cleave has to drop a creature to 0 is it is presumeadly a killing blow that carries its momentum into the next creature. Its not just flat out an arbitrary rule. Yes it is. It's a totally arbitrary rule. Think about what you just said. Why should a "killing blow" allow you to carry your momentum through to another creature any more easily than a blow that simply hits and dings off the armor, or hits and cuts a scratch across the chest, or misses entirely? Theres no reason why you couldn't carry your momentum through an image. In fact, it would probably be 10x easier to do this. It'd probably be 10X easier to carry your momentum through an area of empty air. Why can't I just "cleave through" the air using my last -10 iterative attack to get a fresh attack on the guy, er, standing next to the air? The theory behind cleave is the blow you deliver is so telling you lose very little effect on the first target. There isn't any theory behind Cleave. Cleave is stupid. There's no reason you would lose less "momentum" after a killing blow than after a blow that misses. Indeed, a blow that misses would almost by definition be the blow that loses the *least momentum of all* (since you didn't hit anything). The only theory behind Cleave that makes sense is a totally psychological, non-physics-based one -- that Cleave is this kind of rage-based thing, where the glee Thakk gets from killing one foe fuels his bloodlust enough to send him into a frenzy and let him immediately attack another foe. While this isn't exactly *bad* flavor, this gives plenty of justification for why popping an image wouldn't work (since, after all, popping an image spills no blood at all and isn't very satisfying, since it feels exactly the same as swinging your sword through empty air, since that's in fact what you did). So in this example your not really attacking the image as its not effecting your swing into the adjacent target. I would imagine the difference between cleave and great cleave is then how you swing so that your swing is very efficient in its motion so that if 3 or 4 things are dropping in one chain of attack+cleaves because you lose that much less momentum between contacts with opponents. Therefore intangible targets arent going to stop squat. The description implies this is how WotC originally imagined Cleave and Great Cleave, but that way of imagining it makes no sense. (For one thing, most successful Great Cleaves go around in a zigzag motion, targetting enemies one-by-one based on who's most damaged and most likely to drop. This very rarely constitutes an attack that goes from left to right in "one, smooth stroke".)
ibayboy 07-23-07, 04:51 AM	Er, no. The difference between incorporeal creatures and images is that incorporeal creatures are creatures and images aren't. Seriously, the creature/non-creature distinction is one of the biggest and most important distinctions in the damn game, and you're just throwing it off? It is necessary to *either* reduce the target to 0 HP or kill it some other way (like a vorpal weapon or Con damage or something). You cannot do either to something that is neither alive nor has HP. An image, remember, does not actually exist. It is not actually a physical thing. It is an illusion overlaid on what is in reality just a patch of empty air. Whatever Cleave is, Cleave should not reward you for simply swinging your sword through a patch of empty air that *looks* like a living thing. Making it do that would be the equivalent of letting you Cleave off of a mundane weapon passing harmlessly through a Ghost. Thank-you, that clears things up alot in my mind.
Nom 07-23-07, 11:01 AM	Figments don't have any *statistics* at all -- they're not even objectsAnd therein lies the rub. "Things" are either creatures or objects, and yet we're suggesting that an image is neither. It can't be simply "not there", since the rules explicitly allow it to be attacked and rule that a "successful attack" destroys it.
tarkin 07-23-07, 11:08 AM	1. The FAQ clearly says it is legal. 2. There are several abusive builds you can work around cleaving on an Mirror Image. Among them is simply Casting Mirror Image, using Spring Attack. You yourself then take AoO on your OWN mirror Images, cleaving into your Spring Attacked victim. 3. This is one of the cases where I believe the FAQ is wrong. When you hit an Image you are infact MISSING your intended target. You have failed to hit anything at all. I personally House Rule against allowing Cleave's on Mirror Images.
Frugal 07-23-07, 12:38 PM	2. There are several abusive builds you can work around cleaving on an Mirror Image. Among them is simply Casting Mirror Image, using Spring Attack. You yourself then take AoO on your OWN mirror Images, cleaving into your Spring Attacked victim. Once again, I strongly disagree with your continued assertions that you can take an AoO on your own mirror images.
ShinAkuma2 07-23-07, 02:03 PM	When you hit an Image you are infact MISSING your intended target. You have failed to hit anything at all. This is how I feel. If you hit a Mirror Image, your weapon has simply passed through an illusionary image. Cleaving through a Mirror Image is no different from cleaving every time you miss, ie, totally against what the feat does.
Kargile 07-23-07, 02:12 PM	Cleave is most definitely not a psychological effect. You do know the definition of cleave right? It has nothing to do with Krusk the Barbarian getting angry enough to frenzy his way through. Its the same principal as whirlwind attack. You stop the attack once you miss not because ... you lose rage or something of that bizzare nature. You lose stop the attack because its assumed your whirlwind became too reckless from not landing a blow. You have to realize combat doesnt happen in a perfectly sequential order. Turns are actually all occuring roughly at once in a round. Part of why a cleave or WW stops has some to do with their combat (at least fluff-wise). The point I'm trying to make is its a pen and paper game. Quit trying to choke it with rules. The game always was and always will be intended to have a DM make calls like that. So the true answer is , it kinda depends on how your DM wants to handle it. Something like this shouldnt bog down a game with an argument. Your opinion is irrelevant and so is mine if we're PCs. However, between we PC's I'd have to say the DM should be able to rationalize that the person swinging his big axe is always TRYING to cleave. If he hits something he expects to connect and carry through, but in this case it passes through without anything blocking it, you might say that suprises him to the point it fouls his cleave (or even more DMish gets a penalty to hit with his cleave). Finally if there is an FAQ out that says you can do it and you still want to argue with that, then dont argue with it. Dont let your pcs cleave, or if your group allows it be a roll model and refuse to do it, roleplay something instead. If your the mage with mirror image well TS if your dm wants it to happen to you. Your probably just here to try and "win" an argument to use against your campaign and protect your character anyways if thats the case.
Pentar 07-23-07, 02:28 PM	See, I toldja this was a contested subject! Regardless of what ArcTan says, the FAQ is a more official ruling from WoTC on this subject than any other source. So if you want the official answer, you know where to find it. I don't care if the FAQ has been wrong before, or if it also says that gravity works in reverse in Shadowdale, but Elminster keeps everything kosher... the FAQ is a hell of a lot more official than any of us. Now, that being said - I do disagree with the FAQ. I side with those who state that Mirror Images are not creatures and not subjected to Cleave. My opinion is that you can only "drop" something that is considered a threatening opponent in order to benefit from a Cleave attack. Because Images do not threaten you, you cannot benefit from a Cleave (the same way the images cannot AoO you even if you take an action that would draw one). You don't have to go into "how a cleave works" or what sort of reverse-handle-grip you are using on a Great Axe to effectively Cleave. It's a mechanic of the game. It either works on figments or it doesn't. I rule that it does not.
jaelis 07-23-07, 04:17 PM	It either works on figments or it doesn't. The difficult thing is that, no matter how you look at it, mirror images are atypical figments. You can attack them, and they disappear if you hit. So I wouldn't say you have to treat them the same as any other figment.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 06:58 PM	See, I toldja this was a contested subject! Regardless of what ArcTan says, the FAQ is a more official ruling from WoTC on this subject than any other source. So if you want the official answer, you know where to find it. I don't care if the FAQ has been wrong before, or if it also says that gravity works in reverse in Shadowdale, but Elminster keeps everything kosher... the FAQ is a hell of a lot more official than any of us. ...It's not more official than the actual *books*, is the point. If I honestly, truly believe the books contradict the FAQ, then that makes the FAQ wrong, not the books wrong. The FAQ is not allowed to *change* the rules, only to interpret them, and if it interprets them in a way directly contradictory to the plain meaning of the text then it's just plain made a mistake.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 07:04 PM	The difficult thing is that, no matter how you look at it, mirror images are atypical figments. You can attack them, and they disappear if you hit. So I wouldn't say you have to treat them the same as any other figment. That's not atypical. You can *always* attack a figment, because a figment always has an AC. A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier. And major image figments *also* vanish if struck: The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately. So if I forget to make the major image of my imaginary minotaur bodyguard fall down and bleed, so he instead "pops" when hit, does that mean my opponent gets a Cleave attempt? What if I *don't* forget, and I instead make the minotaur fall down and "die", with the image still active? Does that also allow a Cleave attempt?
ArcTan 07-23-07, 07:09 PM	Cleave is most definitely not a psychological effect. You do know the definition of cleave right? It has nothing to do with Krusk the Barbarian getting angry enough to frenzy his way through. Its the same principal as whirlwind attack. Which is what? What is the principle? You stop the attack once you miss not because ... you lose rage or something of that bizzare nature. You lose stop the attack because its assumed your whirlwind became too reckless from not landing a blow. Why is missing more "reckless" than hitting? What the hell does that even mean? You have to realize combat doesnt happen in a perfectly sequential order. Turns are actually all occuring roughly at once in a round. Part of why a cleave or WW stops has some to do with their combat (at least fluff-wise). Again, *why*? Why am I more protected from counterattacks because my last blow killed somebody, as opposed to missing somebody or merely wounding them terribly? The only explanation for *this* is psychological, too (that my opponents are cowed because of watching their comrades die, or something). Of course, that explanation is inferior to the "bloodlust" explanation because it now imposes limitations on other people's actions and assumes things about their attitude. Use all the mumbo-jumbo you want, but no purely physical explanation for Cleave makes any sense whatsoever. Of course, flavor is subservient to mechanics, and the *mechanics* of Cleave are that it only works if you drop creatures. The point I'm trying to make is its a pen and paper game. Quit trying to choke it with rules. The game always was and always will be intended to have a DM make calls like that. *shrug* The point of a forum is to talk about what calls we would make so we become better DMs. Or at least I think that's part of it. So the true answer is , it kinda depends on how your DM wants to handle it. Something like this shouldnt bog down a game with an argument. Your opinion is irrelevant and so is mine if we're PCs. And as a DM, MI/Cleave is one of those munchkin combinations I hate to see, and I'm saying so. However, between we PC's I'd have to say the DM should be able to rationalize that the person swinging his big axe is always TRYING to cleave. If he hits something he expects to connect and carry through, but in this case it passes through without anything blocking it, you might say that suprises him to the point it fouls his cleave (or even more DMish gets a penalty to hit with his cleave). *sigh* "Fouls his Cleave". You realize that this implies that if I purposely swing at an MI I know is an MI I get a Cleave, right? Same if I swing at an MI that *isn't* there -- if I just swing at a patch of empty air where nothing is, how is that different, *physically*, from popping an MI? Finally if there is an FAQ out that says you can do it and you still want to argue with that, then dont argue with it. Dont let your pcs cleave, or if your group allows it be a roll model and refuse to do it, roleplay something instead. If your the mage with mirror image well TS if your dm wants it to happen to you. Your probably just here to try and "win" an argument to use against your campaign and protect your character anyways if thats the case. I don't play as a PC these days very much, nor am I DMing a campaign right now, and this would be an absurd amount of time to spend to "protect" a character.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 07:13 PM	And therein lies the rub. "Things" are either creatures or objects, and yet we're suggesting that an image is neither. Because an image isn't a thing. It's only an image. It's only something you *see*. There isn't actually anything there. It can't be simply "not there", since the rules explicitly allow it to be attacked and rule that a "successful attack" destroys it. It's an empty patch of space. All empty patches of space have an AC. Grenadelike weapons, for instance, have to hit an AC of 5 to hit a grid intersection. Does that make a grid intersection a "thing"? No. It's a labelled point in space. If I say, "Shoot an arrow at the spot exactly three feet above the ground ten feet directly in front of you", that's an action you can either succeed at or fail at. That doesn't mean there was actually *something there* three feet above the ground, ten feet in front of you. It was a labelled point in space, nothing more. The whole point of images is that there's *nothing there* except something you can *see*. Pass an attack through the space an image takes up and you can't see it anymore. But that doesn't mean there was ever a physical object filling that space. There *wasn't*. That's what the word "illusion" means.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 07:14 PM	Once again, I strongly disagree with your continued assertions that you can take an AoO on your own mirror images. Give me a reason why you can't. "They're allies" doesn't count, since, after all, one can always turn against one's allies.
Horseshoe_Hermit 07-23-07, 07:29 PM	By that logic, though, it would make just as much sense to gain Cleave attempts on failed attacks, or on attack attempts against other Figments (Silent Image and its big brothers, namely), or whenever I miss due to miss chance, etc, wouldn't it? (I could swear this exact exchange has occurred in other threads before) Noted. Then I represent my argument as one for that Cleave won't work. When you miss, your hand is carried by momentum. When you hit someone, they stay up. But if you hit a living thing (or an animated thing) and drop it, you encounter just enough resistance to steady your hand, but little enough, that you can carry on swinging. Also, the thought experiment of attacking one's own Mirror Image is brilliant. :thumbsup:
Irving 07-23-07, 08:21 PM	For the love of Pete, it's not like it even matters, tactically speaking. You can easily shuffle around your images so that someone who cleaves won't actually hit you. In fact, you can move the images around so that the fighter who does cleave ends up in exactly the place you want them to go, forcing them to take a 5' step in a direction you want in order to maintain the cleave. That's not a bug, it's a feature, people! Of course, great cleave can pop the whole string of them like balloons in a shooting gallery. But great cleave is one of those feats that gets used so rarely, and it makes the barbarian giggle like a giddy schoolgirl when it does work. Throw them a bone and let them have their fun, for pity's sake.
yrogerg 07-23-07, 10:01 PM	MI is the new Bag o' Rats.
Frugal 07-23-07, 10:14 PM	Give me a reason why you can't. "They're allies" doesn't count, since, after all, one can always turn against one's allies. My reasoning has always been based on the fact that they move simultaneously to you, you can't act on any AoO they "provoke" since you're busy conducting the same action that's provoking. It's one of the few situations in D&D where things are actually truly simultaneous, mirror images are always occupying the same square as you, you leave a square at the same time the mirror image leaves the same square, you can't take the AoO because you're not in a position to act on the opportunity. Or the other option is to say that they're figments and thus never perform actions and thus never provoke. This makes a lot of sense because otherwise an opponent with combat reflexes could claim AoO's for each figment and wipe them all out with a single provoked action. If you rule that it's 1 action (the caster's) and the figments didn't provoke that closes that issue off as well, and then also means that you can't AoO against your images either.
Frugal 07-23-07, 10:16 PM	For the love of Pete, it's not like it even matters, tactically speaking. You can easily shuffle around your images so that someone who cleaves won't actually hit you. In fact, you can move the images around so that the fighter who does cleave ends up in exactly the place you want them to go, forcing them to take a 5' step in a direction you want in order to maintain the cleave. That's not a bug, it's a feature, people! Actually, they're considered to occupy the same square as you.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 10:17 PM	The bag o' rats, as well as this stupid debate, are a great illustration of why Cleave is a stupid idea and needs to be rewritten or dropped. (My personal fix is that if you must have Cleave, rule that Cleave makes *the same attack* against another target once you Cleave -- i.e. you don't get your full attack bonus, you don't even get to reroll, just if you hit one of the rats with a total attack rating of 10, then you get to apply that attack rating, 10, against some other monster. Boom, balanced.)
ArcTan 07-23-07, 10:19 PM	Actually, they're considered to occupy the same square as you. Actually, they're not. 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. MIs take up the same amount of space you do, and if you have 8 images, the image on the other side of the cluster can end up being as much as 40 feet away from you (though making the cluster this big is unlikely, and a bad idea).
ArcTan 07-23-07, 10:20 PM	My reasoning has always been based on the fact that they move simultaneously to you, you can't act on any AoO they "provoke" since you're busy conducting the same action that's provoking. They don't exactly mimic your movements. If they did, how could you move "into and through" an MI? It'd move away from you at the same speed that you moved toward it. It's one of the few situations in D&D where things are actually truly simultaneous, mirror images are always occupying the same square as you, you leave a square at the same time the mirror image leaves the same square, you can't take the AoO because you're not in a position to act on the opportunity. Incorrect, incorrect, incorrect and incorrect. I think this is an older-edition holdover or else just a really common houserule/misunderstanding. MIs are imaginary people who look like you and all stand near you. But they're *not* all in your square and they don't act like some kind of shield for you. That's displacement.
yrogerg 07-23-07, 10:22 PM	For the love of Pete, it's not like it even matters, tactically speaking. You can easily shuffle around your images so that someone who cleaves won't actually hit you. In fact, you can move the images around so that the fighter who does cleave ends up in exactly the place you want them to go, forcing them to take a 5' step in a direction you want in order to maintain the cleave. That's not a bug, it's a feature, people! No you can't. You can only shuffle your images while moving on your initiative. By the time someone's attacking, much less Cleaving, you have no say over where he's attacking.
Pentar 07-23-07, 10:58 PM	...It's not more official than the actual *books*, is the point. If I honestly, truly believe the books contradict the FAQ, then that makes the FAQ wrong, not the books wrong. The FAQ is not allowed to *change* the rules, only to interpret them, and if it interprets them in a way directly contradictory to the plain meaning of the text then it's just plain made a mistake. I disagree. The FAQ is written after the books are printed and published, which means they are meant to be an update to the existing rules. That means, usually, they have looked over what is printed, they have reconsidered their design and have published statements indicating what they had actually intended, despite what was actually printed. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant... The FAQ is still more official than us :)
Kargile 07-23-07, 11:00 PM	Cleave needing to finish something off is not an arbitrary rule. It does cover two areas the designers wanted to adress: 1) A game balance issue so it cant trigger constantly/endlessly. 2)An explination for why your getting the extra attack (Think any good ol hack and slash movie like Conan where he swings his sword into multiple people) The reason cleave isnt triggered when "dinging off armor" Or causing a scratch is the missing or causing less than lethal damage is supposed to represent the opponent repelling the attack in some form or another. Remember adding a shield to your AC literally means at some point in an attack your character is quite possibly parrying an attack with it, ergo it not traveling the expected path the swinger is attempting. As for it easier to swing through a figment than a giant guy wearing full plate, that speaks for itself. I'm saying rational players that arent there to cheese the rules would all be able to agree if a man can swing through 8 goblins with one blow he can probably swing through 4 images and nullify them. Why would swinging through an image possibly allow a cleave but with a penalty? Have you ever overcompensated your strength for something like say tug of war where both sides are pulling as hard as they can, and when one side lets go the other falls backwards from pulling too hard? What about when you swing a bat wildly at a ball and miss. If you connected you probably wouldnt have spun as wildly than when you miss entirely. Im simply saying the cleaver would be trying hit something he expects to be hard and passes through unexpectadly throwing him somewhat off balance. Have you read the actual listing of cleave in the book? "You can follow through with powerful blows" Plus cleave uses the same base attack as the attack that dropped whatever you attacked. Saying that someone could theoretically great cleave forever off air and hit something else is silly, and yeah there are a lot of things according to the rules that dont make sense and most DMs can adapt to what their players are trying to get away with. The principal behind WW and cleave is that they both derive their excution by motion. Most of the time when a player gets 4 attacks they take any shape can be described any way but for the most part cleave and ww are a single motion of many attacks as one. When cleave or ww are interrupted (both by different sets of criteria) then they end. You could great cleave 3 times in a round an its all really one motion. As to actually trying to describe how it looks on the battlefield, well sometimes that gets sticky but not every sitiuation can be thought up when an ability is being written. Why is missing more "reckless" than hitting? Maybe reckless isnt quite the right word but obviously missing is not what an attacker expected his swing to do so a warrior would probably have less control over his attack in that situation. This isnt as much a problem with regular attacks but cleave and WW are more like the execution of a very specific attack and the person using it has to expect certain things to be in certain places (or not) for it to go as planned. I never meant that your more protected from counterattacks because the last blow you landed was fatal etc.. My point was not every point of HP is literally how many times you can get stabbed by a knife or that every miss is literally swinging to the side. Most of that can be pure luck to avoiding an attack or heck even some people may see a miss on the attack roll as a hesitation to attack and totally missing the moment of opening. You have to evaluate what is really going on in battle to give it justice. I'm not arguing that you cant play STRICTLY by the rules but thats BORING and will invariably make less sense than what the folks around the table can agree to.
Lord_Zeb 07-23-07, 11:07 PM	Mirror Image creates figments of a creature. The figment is an illusion of a creature, which the Spell specifies that can be targeted in the same manner as the caster, and seems real to any character there who can't see through it being an illusion. Anyone who cannot see that a figment is an illusion can target it as usual as if it were a creature, as they believe it to be a creature. And can hence use Cleave when attacking it. Anyone that knows that specific figment is not a creature, but an illusion, will ignore it. And cannot/won't use any Cleaving abillity on it. Any other way of seeing it would make illusions quite useless in general, and the Mirror Image a complete waste since you can then know which images are real or not by trying to target them spells or something. (The mage casting the spell can only "shuffle" his images when moving in his own turn, giving the party a chance of knowing just which of the images is the real one then.)
Nom 07-23-07, 11:26 PM	There's another way of representing Cleave: you dropped the original opponent so easily that it doesn't count as your attack. Fine, Cleave the air as much as you like. It doesn't actually gain you anything until you try to resolve your attack against a real target. At this point, you either "miss" or "hit (and don't kill)" (and thus expend your attack and have to try again) or "hit and kill" (at which point you don't expend your attack). Any abuses involving Great Cleave and "fake" targets and AoOs are due to the (well known and rather glaring) flaw in Cleave that allows you to Cleave into targets that weren't legal for your attack. Fix that and it's unabuseable. If you allow Cleave and objects, there's a possible "issue" in that you can Great Cleave a potentially limitless number of objects on your turn (subject to having a decent attack bonus and not rolling a natural 1). But the same "issue" occurs with markedly weak creatures. There's already a game mechanic, Whirlwind Attack, that allows you to attack any and every "opponent" within reach, regardless of how tough they are. If your player wants to use GC or WWA to smash 40 flowerpots in a single round, it's really not that much of a problem. burning hands could likely do the same thing much more easily. Ultimately, Cleave and mirror image comes down to: are the images decoy creatures or are they something else. We know that they are strictly figments, but act very differently to traditional figments: they don't allow a disbelief save, and they are destroyed when struck. While it's possible that they are supposed to be some unique category of target with special resilience, both tradition (previous editions) and the FAQ consistently treat them as decoy creatures. Given the lack of precision and thoroughness of the mirror image description, I'm inclined to give the FAQ the benefit of the doubt on this one.
ShinAkuma2 07-23-07, 11:29 PM	[I]Anyone who cannot see that a figment is an illusion can target it as usual as if it were a creature, as they believe it to be a creature. And can hence use Cleave when attacking it. So if a Vampire Slams a mirror image, he gets temporary hit points, since he believes he's draining a creature, right? Or is that it doesn't matter what the attacker believes, because he's still not attacking a creature, he's whiffing through empty air?
ArcTan 07-23-07, 11:34 PM	I disagree. The FAQ is written after the books are printed and published, which means they are meant to be an update to the existing rules. That means, usually, they have looked over what is printed, they have reconsidered their design and have published statements indicating what they had actually intended, despite what was actually printed. There would be some weight to this if the FAQ were *errata*, which is what you're describing. But it isn't. The FAQ, for one thing, is not written by the books' design teams, and for another, comes out way too quickly and often to actually go through a book's editing process. There's a difference between actual errata and Skip Williams' half-awake reply to all the random questions people throw at him.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 11:47 PM	Cleave needing to finish something off is not an arbitrary rule. It does cover two areas the designers wanted to adress: 1) A game balance issue so it cant trigger constantly/endlessly. 2)An explination for why your getting the extra attack (Think any good ol hack and slash movie like Conan where he swings his sword into multiple people) There is no indication that Conan finds killing more than one person in one blow any easier than killing them one by one, separately. It's not an "explanation". It's just a triggering condition, and one that makes no sense. The reason cleave isnt triggered when "dinging off armor" Or causing a scratch is the missing or causing less than lethal damage is supposed to represent the opponent repelling the attack in some form or another. Remember adding a shield to your AC literally means at some point in an attack your character is quite possibly parrying an attack with it, ergo it not traveling the expected path the swinger is attempting. ...Then why don't I get a Cleave attempt off of a *successful* hit that simply doesn't do enough damage to kill? And, of course, there is the fact that sometimes you miss and you miss because the guy had a very high Dex modifier to AC and Dodge rather than a very high Natural or Armor bonus to AC. It doesn't matter, anyway. It's not like having a blow parried reduces your momentum in any way that having your sword slice into someone's chest doesn't. It's *easier* to turn around and hit something else with a blade that's just bounced off something than a blade that's just stuck into something. Anyone who even tries to picture this a little bit can see this. Anyway, the implication that Cleave makes any sense as literally "cleaving through" an opponent is still dumb. The way Cleave actually works a Cleave can zigzag all the way through a group of opponents instead of traveling in "one solid swing". The way a Cleave works you can also Cleave if you *just barely* did enough damage to kill someone, not nearly enough damage to indicate that you somehow cut his whole body in half Conan-style. Cleave would actually make more sense if it was something that happened in response to a critical hit, or doing more than 20 damage in a hit, or something, as opposed to "dropping" a foe. As for it easier to swing through a figment than a giant guy wearing full plate, that speaks for itself. I'm saying rational players that arent there to cheese the rules would all be able to agree if a man can swing through 8 goblins with one blow he can probably swing through 4 images and nullify them. Rational players that aren't there to cheese the rules would agree that a man shouldn't be able to "swing through" one guy, skip all the other guys standing next to him to hit the most heavily wounded guy three guys down, then go back to the next most heavily wounded guy two guys up in the other direction, etc. Actually, rational players who don't care about rules should agree that, whatever tactical spice it adds to the game, the whole idea of being able to "cleave through people" is dumb. A feat that lets you turn a *miss* into an attack attempt against another opponent would actually make more sense. Why would swinging through an image possibly allow a cleave but with a penalty? Have you ever overcompensated your strength for something like say tug of war where both sides are pulling as hard as they can, and when one side lets go the other falls backwards from pulling too hard? What about when you swing a bat wildly at a ball and miss. If you connected you probably wouldnt have spun as wildly than when you miss entirely. Im simply saying the cleaver would be trying hit something he expects to be hard and passes through unexpectadly throwing him somewhat off balance. I'm still not seeing how this doesn't also give you a Cleave attempt for "killing" a major image, or breaking a nearby hat stand, or simply swinging your sword at the air. Have you read the actual listing of cleave in the book? "You can follow through with powerful blows" There is nothing that makes a blow that kills someone an inherently "powerful" blow. Plus cleave uses the same base attack as the attack that dropped whatever you attacked. Saying that someone could theoretically great cleave forever off air and hit something else is silly, and yeah there are a lot of things according to the rules that dont make sense and most DMs can adapt to what their players are trying to get away with. Indeed. For instance, I can think that Cleave is stupid and still allow it, while not allowing you to Cleave through an MI because that's even *more* stupid. The principal behind WW and cleave is that they both derive their excution by motion. Most of the time when a player gets 4 attacks they take any shape can be described any way but for the most part cleave and ww are a single motion of many attacks as one. Except they're *not*. You can attack whoever you want with Cleave. It doesn't specify where the guy has to be standing. When cleave or ww are interrupted (both by different sets of criteria) then they end. You could great cleave 3 times in a round an its all really one motion. As to actually trying to describe how it looks on the battlefield, well sometimes that gets sticky but not every sitiuation can be thought up when an ability is being written. I.e. they're badly written abilities. Why is missing more "reckless" than hitting? Maybe reckless isnt quite the right word but obviously missing is not what an attacker expected his swing to do so a warrior would probably have less control over his attack in that situation. What if I decide to attack the BBEG expecting that he'll probably parry my blow but decide it's worth the risk if I can hit him? This isnt as much a problem with regular attacks but cleave and WW are more like the execution of a very specific attack and the person using it has to expect certain things to be in certain places (or not) for it to go as planned. Uh huh. So I guess if I attack a heavily-armored BBEG I can only hit on a natural 20 and get a natural 20 and roll max damage to kill him, the "unexpectedness" of this result makes me unable to Cleave? I never meant that your more protected from counterattacks because the last blow you landed was fatal etc.. My point was not every point of HP is literally how many times you can get stabbed by a knife or that every miss is literally swinging to the side. Most of that can be pure luck to avoiding an attack or heck even some people may see a miss on the attack roll as a hesitation to attack and totally missing the moment of opening. You have to evaluate what is really going on in battle to give it justice. I'm not arguing that you cant play STRICTLY by the rules but thats BORING and will invariably make less sense than what the folks around the table can agree to. This still doesn't change anything about the fact that nothing that makes Cleave make sense will let MIs count for Cleave, given that the point of attacking an MI is that you don't "expect" the MI to suddenly vanish into thin air upon being attacked, and a vanishing MI has *none* of the properties (physical or psychological) of dropping a creature.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 11:49 PM	Mirror Image creates figments of a creature. The figment is an illusion of a creature, which the Spell specifies that can be targeted in the same manner as the caster, and seems real to any character there who can't see through it being an illusion. Anyone who cannot see that a figment is an illusion can target it as usual as if it were a creature, as they believe it to be a creature. And can hence use Cleave when attacking it. They can *target* it. That doesn't mean the targeting will be *successful*. They can *target* it for Disarm, too. That doesn't mean they get disarmed and they get a real weapon out of the illusory creature. They can *target* it for charm person, but that doesn't mean you can charm a figment. Any other way of seeing it would make illusions quite useless in general, and the Mirror Image a complete waste since you can then know which images are real or not by trying to target them spells or something. (The mage casting the spell can only "shuffle" his images when moving in his own turn, giving the party a chance of knowing just which of the images is the real one then.) It doesn't make it useless. It makes it something where you have to waste spells or attack attempts in order to figure out whether the Images are real. That is, in fact, how it's supposed to work.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 11:50 PM	Ultimately, Cleave and mirror image comes down to: are the images decoy creatures or are they something else. We know that they are strictly figments, but act very differently to traditional figments: they don't allow a disbelief save, and they are destroyed when struck. Again, major image also is destroyed when struck. The only "unique" part is no Will (disbelief), and that's just because people tend to know something is fishy when you suddenly split into six identical people. They're not "decoy creatures", because they're not creatures, because they have *none* of the stats of a creature except AC, because they *aren't really there*. You can't do anything to something that *isn't really there*. How hard is this? Sheesh.
yrogerg 07-23-07, 11:51 PM	There's another way of representing Cleave: you dropped the original opponent so easily that it doesn't count as your attack. Fine, Cleave the air as much as you like. It doesn't actually gain you anything until you try to resolve your attack against a real target. At this point, you either "miss" or "hit (and don't kill)" (and thus expend your attack and have to try again) or "hit and kill" (at which point you don't expend your attack). Any abuses involving Great Cleave and "fake" targets and AoOs are due to the (well known and rather glaring) flaw in Cleave that allows you to Cleave into targets that weren't legal for your attack. Fix that and it's unabuseable. If you allow Cleave and objects, there's a possible "issue" in that you can Great Cleave a potentially limitless number of objects on your turn (subject to having a decent attack bonus and not rolling a natural 1). But the same "issue" occurs with markedly weak creatures. There's already a game mechanic, Whirlwind Attack, that allows you to attack any and every "opponent" within reach, regardless of how tough they are. If your player wants to use GC or WWA to smash 40 flowerpots in a single round, it's really not that much of a problem. burning hands could likely do the same thing much more easily. Ultimately, Cleave and mirror image comes down to: are the images decoy creatures or are they something else. We know that they are strictly figments, but act very differently to traditional figments: they don't allow a disbelief save, and they are destroyed when struck. While it's possible that they are supposed to be some unique category of target with special resilience, both tradition (previous editions) and the FAQ consistently treat them as decoy creatures. Given the lack of precision and thoroughness of the mirror image description, I'm inclined to give the FAQ the benefit of the doubt on this one. You're overlooking the big abuse represented by Bag of Rats references: the combination of Cleave and Whirlwind attack: The typical way the Bag of Rats abuse plays out is this: -You toss a bag of rats into the air, and activate Whirlwind attack. -You use one of your WW attacks to attack one of said rats. -Upon killing the Rat, you gain a cleave attempt, which you can use to attack the genuine threat. -Repeat for each rat. You gain 50 attacks against your enemy at your full BAB. Allowing the ability to Cleave through objects just makes the Bag o' Rats abuse even easier to pull off, and allowing the figments to trigger a Cleave makes using MI a significant enough liability -for the same reasons- that it's not really worth casting in many cases.
Irving 07-24-07, 08:00 AM	No you can't. You can only shuffle your images while moving on your initiative. By the time someone's attacking, much less Cleaving, you have no say over where he's attacking. Yes, this does in fact mean that you have to (gasp) plan ahead and move your images so that only one's close enough for him to reach on his turn. Horrid, I know. As the book actually says, each image has to be within 5 feet of you or another image, so it's honestly just as simple as making a conga line with you in back. Snake the conga line a little bit and you can choose his line of attack. Of course, he could try to bypass the front of the line, drawing "attacks of opportunity" from the images to reach the back. (Whether the images could in fact make "attacks of opportunity" that neither hit nor do damage is another nasty can of worms, but let's ignore it for the moment.) As a rule of thumb, attacks of opportunity rarely worry most fighters. Casting a nasty touch-attack spell anime-style (i.e., screaming the name of the spell at the top of your lungs) might help there. If I could figure out a way to cast an illusion to make a summoned creature look like the caster, that would also make this shell game a bit more interesting. On the whole "Bag o' rats" thing, a few points: 1: Er, how silly. 2: Aren't the rats technically a swarm, and thus you'd have to kill them all to trigger the whirlwind attack? Unless it's a bag of dire rats, I guess. In which case, keeping the dire rats contained is its own problem. 3: Who on earth carries a bag of giant rats with them? 4: And who's throwing it? The whirlwind attack is a full-round action; chucking rats is a standard action. By the time someone else throws it, it's on the ground and the rats are running around all over the floor, looking for a place where they won't be picked up and thrown. I'm marking that one down as a "ham and eggs" argument, i.e., "If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs." Maybe, possibly you've got an exploit of the rules there. But since engineering an situation where such an exploit could actually happen is impossible, I don't consider it a problem.
Frugal 07-24-07, 09:44 AM	Actually, they're not. MIs take up the same amount of space you do, and if you have 8 images, the image on the other side of the cluster can end up being as much as 40 feet away from you (though making the cluster this big is unlikely, and a bad idea). Actually, they are: Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s space can affect an image. Now yes it's the FAQ and FAQ isn't rules and can't change the rules, only interpret them, yada yada yada. However, look at how MI works, when someone attacks you you randomise between all the figments to figure out if you were hit or one of the figments. So, for a melee attack this means that all the figments have to be within the creature's reach and threatened by him. It also means that the figments have to not occupy squares threatened by other creatures that don't threaten your true position or else you'd end up with the strange situation of having 8 figments stretched out 40' from you and having a 1 in 9 chance of being hit by a creature 40' away from your actual position. The only way to accomplish both of these is if all the figments occupy the same square as you're in.
Frugal 07-24-07, 09:48 AM	You're overlooking the big abuse represented by Bag of Rats references: the combination of Cleave and Whirlwind attack: The typical way the Bag of Rats abuse plays out is this: -You toss a bag of rats into the air, and activate Whirlwind attack. -You use one of your WW attacks to attack one of said rats. -Upon killing the Rat, you gain a cleave attempt, which you can use to attack the genuine threat. -Repeat for each rat. You gain 50 attacks against your enemy at your full BAB. Allowing the ability to Cleave through objects just makes the Bag o' Rats abuse even easier to pull off, and allowing the figments to trigger a Cleave makes using MI a significant enough liability -for the same reasons- that it's not really worth casting in many cases. Worked in 3.0 that way but not in 3.5 since you can't use cleave with Whirlwind Attack (WWA negates any extra attacks granted, including those from cleave).
Frugal 07-24-07, 09:49 AM	The bag o' rats, as well as this stupid debate, are a great illustration of why Cleave is a stupid idea and needs to be rewritten or dropped. (My personal fix is that if you must have Cleave, rule that Cleave makes *the same attack* against another target once you Cleave -- i.e. you don't get your full attack bonus, you don't even get to reroll, just if you hit one of the rats with a total attack rating of 10, then you get to apply that attack rating, 10, against some other monster. Boom, balanced.) Um, you do realise that Cleave never gave the full attack bonus, it's made at the same bonus as the last attack (minus any bonuses that only apply to a single attack like true strike)?
Pentar 07-24-07, 12:09 PM	There would be some weight to this if the FAQ were *errata*, which is what you're describing. But it isn't. The FAQ, for one thing, is not written by the books' design teams, and for another, comes out way too quickly and often to actually go through a book's editing process. There's a difference between actual errata and Skip Williams' half-awake reply to all the random questions people throw at him. This is what I don't understand about people on these forums sometimes. Do you honestly feel that we (and I mean the royal we of the community in general) will put more stock in your interpretation of the rules than that of say, Skip Williams, the creator of D&D v3+? Even if Skip's answers in the FAQ are half-awake, drug induced and written in Russian, they are still more official than yours. Notwithstanding, they are clarifications to questions in the Core material... which means they're expected to answer (as the name of the articles suggest) frequently asked questions and confusions about Core rules. Look, I respect the fact that you don't like the FAQ. I accept that you feel many of the rulings are contrary to what you feel is RAW. Please also understand that I personally agree with you that there are rulings in the FAQ that I disagree with and house rule on my own accord. But I would not expect to claim my word to be more official than the FAQs. So until an errata is produced regarding the Cleave/Mirror image debate, the FAQ is official - as are all its other rulings regarding MI (i.e. the 5' displacement of the images around the the caster).
yrogerg 07-24-07, 07:26 PM	This is what I don't understand about people on these forums sometimes. Do you honestly feel that we (and I mean the royal we of the community in general) will put more stock in your interpretation of the rules than that of say, Skip Williams, the creator of D&D v3+? Honestly, the split is far more even than you seem to realize. I would say roughly half the folks who post in these forums would trust another random forumgoer, or more accurately, the consensus of multiple forumgoers who have established a strong credability and understanding of the rules, over the FAQ, Sage advice, RotG, and other quasi-official rules "clarifications", which themselves have established a track record of contradicting themselves, each other, and a plain reading of the rules they cite, and for needlessly complicating rules issues that should really be uncomplicated. Honestly, the only "official source" with less credability than those with regards to rules questions are Custserv, from whom you quite literally will get a different answer based purely on the way you phrase the question. For example: despite the fact that Animated Trees have an Int score, and any creature with an Int score gains feats and skills based on hit dice, the Sage decided in the FAQ that the line that they "in all other ways like Inanimate Objects", somehow meant that they were treated as mindless for feat and skill acquisition. Making them the only creature capable of advancing by character class that does not gain feats or skills. Likewise, with Cleave, which specifies that Cleave only activates if a *creature* is dropped. Even if you think that popping an image counts as "dropping", it doesn't change the fact that any interpretation of the rules by which a figment is a creature -as "creature" has a very specific meaning in D&D, and requires the thing in question to possess a Wis and Cha score- is completely inane. Likewise, with the Teleportation topic of a different thread. FAQ says that you still take falling damage post-teleport. Not only does this contradict a plain reading of the "conjured to a surface that can support you" language that apply to all conjurations, but the justification, "Teleport preserves physics[meaning momentum, in this case]" raises more questions than it answers: What are you preserving momentum relative to? If you're sitting in a buggy that's falling off a cliff, are you teleporting relative to the buggy, or the cliff? If you teleport from the pole of a planet to the equator, do are you traveling at thousands of MPH when you arrive? Again, a plainer reading of this rule would have rendered these questions irrelevant. Errata don't create these problems. Heck, even pseudo-errata like ComPsi and the PHB II don't create these sorts of problems.
Nom 07-24-07, 07:37 PM	You're overlooking the big abuse represented by Bag of Rats references: the combination of Cleave and Whirlwind attack:Bag of rats is (was) only possible because Cleave allows one to attack targets that were not legal for the original attack. WWA was patched to "fix" Bag of rats, but WWA was never the rules flaw that made it possible. Again, major image also is destroyed when struck.... unless you cause it to act appropriately. I suppose one could argue that this is true of MI in the area attack case. The only "unique" part is no Will (disbelief), and that's just because people tend to know something is fishy when you suddenly split into six identical people.Except that for (almost?) every other figment this causes it to go transparent. They're not "decoy creatures", because they're not creatures, because they have *none* of the stats of a creature except AC, because they *aren't really there*. You can't do anything to something that *isn't really there*. How hard is this? Sheesh.Well, the fact is that you can do things to it. You can hit it, for example. However, I think the key text is as follows: Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguisable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it.The gist of this is that the images are legitimate targets for spells and attacks (be pretty useless if they weren't) and that if the image is picked it goes "poof" (assuming the attack hits). One could argue that targeted spells aren't included in this, but then they are conspicuous by the absence of any rules for handling them (attacks - check; area spells - explicit exception, check; touch/ranged touch spells - assume they're attacks, check; other spells - unspecified). A lot of the disagreement is because we're failing to distinguish between different sorts of rules issues: * When RotG or FAQ say something that is explicitly contradictory to the rulebooks then they are "wrong" in the sense of factually incorrect. * People sometimes object to Cleave as being "broken". By this they mean that the rules are clear and clean, but the consequences of applying those rules can have undesirable side effects (namely various redirection of attack abuses). * Mirror image is technically "broken" in a different way, in that it fails to cover all the cases that it should. Most spells with long, complex descriptions are broken in this way, as are a variety of other rules. In fact, figments of creatures are broken in this way too, in that they fall into an uncomfortable rules area of "not strictly creatures, but not strictly objects either". Now, when WotC advises something that is specifically illegal, it's appropriate to call them on it. However, when they provide guidance on a poorly specified rules area, "this is the way the designers play it" has to carry some weight. One can argue that your way is better (for example, I dislike Skip's advice on flanking and invisibility and interpret it quite differently), but if one needs a long, complex and quite technical rules search through a bunch of grey areas then claiming the designers are explicitly "wrong" becomes pointless.
ArcTan 07-24-07, 07:42 PM	This is what I don't understand about people on these forums sometimes. Do you honestly feel that we (and I mean the royal we of the community in general) will put more stock in your interpretation of the rules than that of say, Skip Williams, the creator of D&D v3+? Skip Williams *helped* create D&D 3e. He didn't create it all by himself, it's not his baby, and it's pretty clear, actually, looking at various contradictions between 3.5 sources and his rulings, that he's forgotten a great many of the differences between 3.5 and 3.0, probably because he was a lot more invested in the original 3.0 creation. Even if Skip's answers in the FAQ are half-awake, drug induced and written in Russian, they are still more official than yours. Notwithstanding, they are clarifications to questions in the Core material... which means they're expected to answer (as the name of the articles suggest) frequently asked questions and confusions about Core rules. And they frequently answer them incorrectly. Either that, or they actually *change* the core rules. Which one you pick is up to you. (Since they very rarely change the core rules into things I think are better than the core rules, I choose the former interpretation.) Look, I respect the fact that you don't like the FAQ. I accept that you feel many of the rulings are contrary to what you feel is RAW. Please also understand that I personally agree with you that there are rulings in the FAQ that I disagree with and house rule on my own accord. But I would not expect to claim my word to be more official than the FAQs. So until an errata is produced regarding the Cleave/Mirror image debate, the FAQ is official - as are all its other rulings regarding MI (i.e. the 5' displacement of the images around the the caster). Okay, great. I fold. I throw my chips in. The FAQ is official, I am not. Official official official official. How many more times must I say the word "official" before my penance is complete? Official is not the same thing as correct, or even good. If you concede this, then any crap about whether the FAQ is "official" is irrelevant.
Pentar 07-24-07, 07:49 PM	I do agree that the FAQ can contain info. that seems to fly in the face of what would make sense (the teleporting/falling damage this is silly, for example). But when someone comes on the forums and asks for an official answer, people so often get bent out of shape when someone quotes a passage from the FAQ. I've said it once, I'll say it again, the FAQ is not always correct - at least from the perspective that it's not what we think it should be. Or it flies in the face of what is a more reasonable RAW interpretation. That being said, I think as a board community, we can suggest alternative arguments to the FAQs rulings (as in the case of this thread) while still informing players with questions what WoTC's actual answer is. A lot of people often ask the question, "What is WoTC's answer to..." and when the FAQ gets mentioned, people start getting their codpieces bunched up.
ArcTan 07-24-07, 07:50 PM	Bag of rats is (was) only possible because Cleave allows one to attack targets that were not legal for the original attack. WWA was patched to "fix" Bag of rats, but WWA was never the rules flaw that made it possible. ... unless you cause it to act appropriately. I suppose one could argue that this is true of MI in the area attack case. Well, yes. The point I'm making is that the fact that MI's "pop" doesn't make them different in substance from any other image. It doesn't make them, for instance, any more solid or "real" than any other image. Except that for (almost?) every other figment this causes it to go transparent. Yes. If MI was Will (disbelief) it would make it absurdly easy to tell the difference between the real creature and the MI. There are many illusion spells that are not Will (disbelief). Invisibility, for instance, is not Will (disbelief), despite the fact that disguise self, which is also a glamer, is. Well, the fact is that you can do things to it. You can hit it, for example. No, you can't. When you "hit" an MI your sword is going through a patch of totally empty air. The MI reacts to being "hit" by vanishing, but that doesn't mean anything *physically happened*. You can also "hit" a grid intersection, which has an AC of 5. That doesn't mean a grid intersection is a real, physical object with real, physical properties. It is a labelled point in space. However, I think the key text is as follows: The gist of this is that the images are legitimate targets for spells and attacks (be pretty useless if they weren't) No it wouldn't. Think about it. You don't know that the image is an illegitimate target until *after* you have attempted an attack against it, and the attack has failed. If the spell ruled that no attacks against images worked *at all* it would increase the power of the spell, not decrease it. People would keep on whacking at the images and "missing" and the total number of images would never decrease and you could keep shuffling the images to further confuse the enemy. and that if the image is picked it goes "poof" (assuming the attack hits). One could argue that targeted spells aren't included in this, but then they are conspicuous by the absence of any rules for handling them (attacks - check; area spells - explicit exception, check; touch/ranged touch spells - assume they're attacks, check; other spells - unspecified). It never explicitly mentions touch or ranged touch spells, either. The rule is simple -- touch or ranged touch spells are attacks, targeted spells aren't (this is a *general* rule from the rest of D&D), and targeted spells that target creatures fail when you target something that isn't a creature (also a general rule). A lot of the disagreement is because we're failing to distinguish between different sorts of rules issues: * When RotG or FAQ say something that is explicitly contradictory to the rulebooks then they are "wrong" in the sense of factually incorrect. Yes. * People sometimes object to Cleave as being "broken". By this they mean that the rules are clear and clean, but the consequences of applying those rules can have undesirable side effects (namely various redirection of attack abuses). True, but irrelevant to this discussion. Part of Cleave's rules being "clear and clean" is the fact that it only works on creatures. * Mirror image is technically "broken" in a different way, in that it fails to cover all the cases that it should. Most spells with long, complex descriptions are broken in this way, as are a variety of other rules. Enh. Most of the complications I see are people putting things into the spell from other editions that they shouldn't be. In fact, figments of creatures are broken in this way too, in that they fall into an uncomfortable rules area of "not strictly creatures, but not strictly objects either". They're neither. They're figments. It's like how many spells mention "objects" and "creatures" and "spell effects" as three separate categories (sometimes it says "forces" instead of "spell effects"). Wall of force, after all, also breaks the rule for an object (it has no HP total because it's indestructible). It's a standard thing for spell effects to do. Now, when WotC advises something that is specifically illegal, it's appropriate to call them on it. However, when they provide guidance on a poorly specified rules area, "this is the way the designers play it" has to carry some weight. One can argue that your way is better (for example, I dislike Skip's advice on flanking and invisibility and interpret it quite differently), but if one needs a long, complex and quite technical rules search through a bunch of grey areas then claiming the designers are explicitly "wrong" becomes pointless. I still don't see how saying a figment isn't a creature is "gray". I mean, you do realize that saying "Hey, a figment *is* a creature" opens up a huge ginormous can of worms that saying it isn't doesn't, right? Can I charm monster a figment? Can I baleful polymorph a figment? Can I true mind switch a figment? What's its creature type? What's its Will save?
ArcTan 07-24-07, 07:56 PM	Now yes it's the FAQ and FAQ isn't rules and can't change the rules, only interpret them, yada yada yada. However, look at how MI works, when someone attacks you you randomise between all the figments to figure out if you were hit or one of the figments. Er, no. When someone *decides what to attack* you randomize to see which one they attacked. As in, which separate figment in a separate square they choose to attack. So, for a melee attack this means that all the figments have to be within the creature's reach and threatened by him. It also means that the figments have to not occupy squares threatened by other creatures that don't threaten your true position or else you'd end up with the strange situation of having 8 figments stretched out 40' from you and having a 1 in 9 chance of being hit by a creature 40' away from your actual position. Er, no. The randomization is to see which one he attacks, the one 40' away from you or you. If it's the one 40' away from you, he goes 40' away to attack the one 40' away from you. The randomization is an easy way for the DM streamlining the idea of a monster making a random decision. It's like rolling to see what a confused character does this turn. (Note that it's, like I said, very unlikely and probably against the spirit of the RAW for the figment to actually be all of 40' away, and we're probably instead in a cluster with no more than a 10 or 15 ft radius, so distance is usually not a factor in a monster deciding who to hit.) The only way to accomplish both of these is if all the figments occupy the same square as you're in. Nonsense. I'm standing next to my one remaining MI, who is 5 feet away from me. The Orc in front of me goes, "Hmm, I don't know which one is real. I'll have to make a random choice." DM flips a coin. Orc goes and attacks the guy standing 5 feet away from me instead of me. That's perfectly consistent with the RAW on this matter. It's also consistent with the RAW saying that you have to "merge and split" with a figment "while moving" in order to confuse enemies who've successfully identified you, which would make no sense if you were all in the same square doing some kind of "octuple-vision" effect. Notice, by the way, that the "All MIs in one square" ruling means you can completely defeat an MI simply by closing your eyes and attacking blindly. Now you're not a guy with 8 MIs anymore, you're just a schmuck who has total concealment against me, and instead of a 11.1% chance of hitting you I have a 50% chance of hitting you. This is clearly not how it was supposed to work.
bigbythewise 07-24-07, 09:19 PM	"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." If you would rule out in that *one image = one square* way, then yes, it would be useless, because once you would find the real position, then you would not need to roll anymore.
yrogerg 07-24-07, 09:57 PM	I do agree that the FAQ can contain info. that seems to fly in the face of what would make sense (the teleporting/falling damage this is silly, for example). But when someone comes on the forums and asks for an official answer, people so often get bent out of shape when someone quotes a passage from the FAQ. I've said it once, I'll say it again, the FAQ is not always correct - at least from the perspective that it's not what we think it should be. Or it flies in the face of what is a more reasonable RAW interpretation. That being said, I think as a board community, we can suggest alternative arguments to the FAQs rulings (as in the case of this thread) while still informing players with questions what WoTC's actual answer is. A lot of people often ask the question, "What is WoTC's answer to..." and when the FAQ gets mentioned, people start getting their codpieces bunched up. How do you deal with the fact that the FAQ contradicts other official WotC sources, though? The thing is, one of the big changes with 3.X is that WotC instituted a concrete order in which conflicting rule material should be interpereted, a la M:tG: Primary sources take priority over secondary sources, and only Errata can modify primary sources. What you're suggesting is that the FAQ be given the same priority as Errata, even though they are, and make it a point of billing themselves solely as, a secondary source. In this case, the Primary source -the PHB and Errata- clearly state that Cleave only affects creatures, that MI creates figments, and figments are spell effects, not creatures. The FAQ, a secondary source, cannot *officially* contradict it. The more interesting question is what happens when two secondary sources -such as the FAQ and RotG- contradict each other, as they frequently do. After all, Andy and Skip are both seasoned designers who have contributed a great deal to D&D, and whose opinions WotC has enshrined in various "official rules clarification" columns, so there isn't even a decent appeal to authority you can commit here.
Nom 07-24-07, 10:46 PM	In this case, the Primary source -the PHB and Errata- clearly state that Cleave only affects creaturesNo. It clearly states that Cleave affects creatures. It's reasonable to assume from this that it doesn't affect non-creatures (ie objects, or non-creature non-objects), but "only" is not there. Or they could just not have considered what happens when you kill a non-creature. And especially not a non-creature that is indistinguishable from a creature for the purpose of targeting it. Note that I am not saying that Cleave will (must?) work on images. Just that dismissing it out of hand is perhaps expecting too much from the rules. that MI creates figments, and figments are spell effects, not creatures. The FAQ, a secondary source, cannot *officially* contradict it.MI figments are spell effects that need to be treated as creatures for some set of values. For example, they are indistinguishable from creatures (well, a specific creature) for the purposes of sight and hearing. The rules explicitly specify that they are indistinguishable from the original creature for the purpose of targeting spells and attacks. As to resolving spells and attacks there are lots of grey areas.
yrogerg 07-24-07, 11:20 PM	No. It clearly states that Cleave affects creatures. It's reasonable to assume from this that it doesn't affect non-creatures (ie objects, or non-creature non-objects), but "only" is not there. Or they could just not have considered what happens when you kill a non-creature. And especially not a non-creature that is indistinguishable from a creature for the purpose of targeting it. Note that I am not saying that Cleave will (must?) work on images. Just that dismissing it out of hand is perhaps expecting too much from the rules. The conditions under which Cleave applies are clearly stated, with no ambiguity. When the PHB means creatures, it says creatures, when it means creatures and objects, it says creatures and objects. Generally, we have to assume that the PHB, like everything else in the 3.5 rulesset, is using language precisely, and according to the definitions that they, themselves set forth. Otherwise, there's no such thing as RAW at all, and then, what the heck are we discussing? It's also worth noting that the full triggering conditions for Cleave are technically, "If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it)". Literally, this means that you must do some form of damage, be it lethal damage, non-lethal damage, ability damage... This further means that technically, neither Vorpal nor Unconsciousness Poison would actually trigger the Cleave condition, either. At any rate, figments have neither HP nor ability scores, so it's unclear how one would deal damage to a figment. MI figments are spell effects that need to be treated as creatures for some set of values. For example, they are indistinguishable from creatures (well, a specific creature) for the purposes of sight and hearing. This is a function of the definition of Figment, not a manner in which MI figments are "creature-like". This applies equally to Silent Image and all other Figments. The rules explicitly specify that they are indistinguishable from the original creature for the purpose of targeting spells and attacks. As to resolving spells and attacks there are lots of grey areas. No, just attacks. Magic Missile cannot target them, as they are not valid targets for spells that target either creatures or objects: Target or Targets Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. Emphasis mine. If you target a figment, the spell fails. That said, you can aim ray attacks and the like at figments. But that's because they're Effect: spells, not Targeted spells. This does make MI a very effective defense against non-attack spells like Hold Person and Dominate Monster, but that really seems to be intentional, rather than a bug. And even for attacks, Figments already had an AC. If this justifies Mirror Image and Cleave, then Silent Image gets the same treatment. Again.
Pentar 07-24-07, 11:51 PM	How do you deal with the fact that the FAQ contradicts other official WotC sources, though? The thing is, one of the big changes with 3.X is that WotC instituted a concrete order in which conflicting rule material should be interpereted, a la M:tG: Primary sources take priority over secondary sources, and only Errata can modify primary sources. What you're suggesting is that the FAQ be given the same priority as Errata, even though they are, and make it a point of billing themselves solely as, a secondary source. In this case, the Primary source -the PHB and Errata- clearly state that Cleave only affects creatures, that MI creates figments, and figments are spell effects, not creatures. The FAQ, a secondary source, cannot *officially* contradict it. The more interesting question is what happens when two secondary sources -such as the FAQ and RotG- contradict each other, as they frequently do. After all, Andy and Skip are both seasoned designers who have contributed a great deal to D&D, and whose opinions WotC has enshrined in various "official rules clarification" columns, so there isn't even a decent appeal to authority you can commit here. Except that in this case here, the primary source (PHB, DMG, etc.) does not indicate how Cleave and Mirror Image interacts. All your arguments about what source is valid, etc. etc. is all well and good... until you come to the realization that there is no contradiction in this particular case. Ergo, vis a vis, therefore: The FAQ's ruling is official and non-contradictory.
yrogerg 07-25-07, 12:30 AM	Except that in this case here, the primary source (PHB, DMG, etc.) does not indicate how Cleave and Mirror Image interacts. IT DOESN'T NEED TO. The primary source clearly and unambiguously states how Cleave works. It clearly and unambiguously that doing some sort of DAMAGE that drops a CREATURE is needed for Cleave to trigger. Mirror Image clearly and unambiguously states that it is a Figment spell. Figments are clearly and unambiguously not creatures, and clearly and unambiguously have neither Ability Scores nor Hit Points, and as a result, are clearly and unambiguously not a target for Cleave, per the conditions set forth by the Cleave spell itself, whether or not the figments can be destroyed by attacks. They are not creatures and they are not capable of taking damage. What other rules do you need here? Claiming that there exist a grey area in the rules here, absent any statements by secondary sources, is like saying that it's it's unclear Skeletons can't be Sneak Attacked, because, even though the Type rules make this self-evident, the Skeleton Entry doesn't specifically say so, nor does Sneak Attack specifically state that it doesn't apply to Skeletons. This doesn't mean that it's unclear how Sneak Attack and Skeletons interact, or that if a secondary source said that Skeletons could be Sneak Attacked it wouldn't be contradicting the primary source. Likewise, the interaction between Cleave and Mirror Image is straightfoward. Cleave sets the conditions that it activates upon (Creature Drops from Damage), and Mirror Image Figments do not meet those criteria. The FAQ contradicts both Cleave's text and the Figment text by ruling otherwise.
bigbythewise 07-25-07, 12:36 AM	One question please. What is a difference between *a creature (Wizard)* and *the figments of that creature (Images)*? If you can't distinguish the real one among them, then there shouldn't be any targeting issue at all. You'll just simply pick one of those targets and treat it as the Wizard. It's as simple as the description itself.
ArcTan 07-25-07, 03:34 AM	"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." Well... yes. Either way, if you close your eyes, you can't see the images, so the images have no effect on you. The problem is still that it doesn't make sense that the images could all be visible but all be overlapping each other in one square, and it's somehow harder for me to hit you when I can see them than if I flail blindly at the square. If you would rule out in that *one image = one square* way, then yes, it would be useless, because once you would find the real position, then you would not need to roll anymore. Well, *yes*. Once you found the real position, you could keep on attacking him *until he moves*, and once he *moves*, he moves "into and through" an image so you don't know which is which anymore. (If he's smart, he moves several images through each other so you don't know which is which.) If the position of the images doesn't matter, then the whole idea of moving "into and through" an image is useless. You wouldn't have to do anything -- the images would just be a floating ablative shield.
ArcTan 07-25-07, 03:39 AM	No. It clearly states that Cleave affects creatures. It's reasonable to assume from this that it doesn't affect non-creatures (ie objects, or non-creature non-objects), but "only" is not there. Or they could just not have considered what happens when you kill a non-creature. This is total crap. "Only" should always be assumed in the rules. Assuming the opposite of "only" means the rules become meaningless. (Dominate person says it works on humanoids, but it doesn't say *only* humanoids. Clearly I can use it on Outsiders, Undead and the god Heironeous, as well as spell effects and inanimate objects. The rules for attacking say I add my Str modifier to my BAB, but it doesn't say *only* my Str modifier. Clearly I can also just add the number 100.) And especially not a non-creature that is indistinguishable from a creature for the purpose of targeting it. For the purpose of *targeting* it. Not for the purpose of *hitting* it. I can also dress up a wax dummy that looks completely identical to me in order to act as a decoy. It, too, can be targeted by anything that can target me (as that is the point of having a decoy). That doesn't mean that everything you target at it *works*. Note that I am not saying that Cleave will (must?) work on images. Just that dismissing it out of hand is perhaps expecting too much from the rules. It's a sad, sad day when the word "creature" no longer means the word "creature". MI figments are spell effects that need to be treated as creatures for some set of values. For example, they are indistinguishable from creatures (well, a specific creature) for the purposes of sight and hearing. So is my wax dummy. So is a major image or persistent image. What's your point? That doesn't make it a creature. The rules explicitly specify that they are indistinguishable from the original creature for the purpose of targeting spells and attacks. It does not. Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. That means that if they try to cast charm person at you, they can't tell by looking whether it's you or an MI. That doesn't mean the MI is any more a *legal* target for charm person any more than my hypothetical wax dummy would be. It means that it *looks* just like me when they *try* to target it, but their spell then *fails* because it's not actually me. There's no "gray" here. It's always been the case that it's possible to mistake an illegal target for a legal one, target it, and have a spell or effect fizzle. The whole point of illusions depends on this concept.
ArcTan 07-25-07, 03:40 AM	One question please. What is a difference between *a creature (Wizard)* and *the figments of that creature (Images)*? If you can't distinguish the real one among them, then there shouldn't be any targeting issue at all. You'll just simply pick one of those targets and treat it as the Wizard. It's as simple as the description itself. I don't get what you mean by this. You mean the images are "indistinguishable" in every way? They can cast disintegrate and have it act as a real disintegrate? They can hit people with their dagger and do real damage? A Spellthief can steal spells from them? I can dominate one and make it do what I want? One of them can get a girl pregnant and conceive a child? What? They're figments. They *look* just like the Wizard. They *aren't* the Wizard, because they *aren't real*. For every single interaction *other* than what the spell specifically defines, you treat figments as though they were patches of totally empty air (because that is what, in fact, they are).
bigbythewise 07-25-07, 06:25 AM	I don't get what you mean by this. You mean the images are "indistinguishable" in every way? They can cast disintegrate and have it act as a real disintegrate? They can hit people with their dagger and do real damage? A Spellthief can steal spells from them? I can dominate one and make it do what I want? One of them can get a girl pregnant and conceive a child? What? They're figments. They *look* just like the Wizard. They *aren't* the Wizard, because they *aren't real*. For every single interaction *other* than what the spell specifically defines, you treat figments as though they were patches of totally empty air (because that is what, in fact, they are). No, this is irrelevant. God, we are talking here about targeting, aren't we? In the Mirror Image case, the most and only important thing about *targeting* the images is that they just *look like you* (you said it by yourself) and you *can't* distinguish the real one, dot. You can't just say "Ok, this is the figment and i can't target him, what's the next please?". You *must* select one of them and thus you must *target* one of them. Next. Let's assume that it works in *your* way, which is the "image per square" rule. I'm just some bad guy who's trying to rip off your noble-wizardish-grin. Why should i even bother with attacking all of those images if i can just simply go through them? They are patches of totally empty air. Remember? According to this: "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." I don't think that the spell will have no effect. It will still help you, because i would have absolutely no idea which square you are on. If you would take it from *my* "one square" rule view, then the spell trully won't have any effect. Just the "blind penalty" as it stated in the MI description.
malignor 07-25-07, 10:40 AM	In things like this, I always look at it from a perspective of preserving the balance. Now a few points about Mirror image... - it's not effective against the blind, against traps or against area attacks. but neither are protection from arrows, blur or invisibility. Alter self (trog for +6AC) is also ineffective against area attacks. - it's only effective against visually targetted attacks, such as ray spells and physical attacks. So is Blur and Invisibility. So far, Mirror Image is closest to Blur. Both are for avoiding the same attacks. The only difference is Blur only protects 20% of the time, but can be cast on others by touch. Mirror Image protects far more often (50% or more, as long as there is at least 1 image), but against a limited number of attacks. Blur also prevents attacks of opportunity, where Mirror Image only soaks up a couple. In any combat where the caster will take fewer than (caster level x 6) physical attacks, mirror image statistically is superior to blur. So why ever take blur, except when being mobbed (at which point you're probably dead already anyway), or for giving a very minor buff to party members? = = = = = Mirror Image is DEFINITELY trumped by... - Magic Missile... a level 1 spell. - Whirlwind attack... requires 5 feats, Int13+, Dex13+, BAB+4 Now my issue is that Cleave requires Str13+ and 2 feats. How is it not reasonable for Str13+ and 2 feats to double their chances of working against a level 2 spell that's supposed to be on par with Blur? Blindfighting (which is only 1 feat, with no prerequisites) beats the hell out of Blur. Or great cleave. BAB+4, 3 feats, str13+. Quite an investment, left unused in most fights (more often than not, 1-2 guys in reach, or 1 big enemy). I see it as a much deserved bonus to be able to trump a level 2 buff spell with such an investment. Again, I point out that Blindfighting (which is only 1 feat, with no prerequisites) beats the hell out of Blur, the other level 2 visual defense spell. I see cleave and great cleave as being useful against Mirror Image. I'm not sure why ppl argue for a result that keeps the poor fighter down and the spellcasters on top. Casters already crush fighters as is, without these (essentially) anti-fighter-feat arguments.
Pentar 07-25-07, 12:16 PM	IT DOESN'T NEED TO. The primary source clearly and unambiguously states how Cleave works. It clearly and unambiguously that doing some sort of DAMAGE that drops a CREATURE is needed for Cleave to trigger. Mirror Image clearly and unambiguously states that it is a Figment spell. Figments are clearly and unambiguously not creatures, and clearly and unambiguously have neither Ability Scores nor Hit Points, and as a result, are clearly and unambiguously not a target for Cleave, per the conditions set forth by the Cleave spell itself, whether or not the figments can be destroyed by attacks. They are not creatures and they are not capable of taking damage. What other rules do you need here? Claiming that there exist a grey area in the rules here, absent any statements by secondary sources, is like saying that it's it's unclear Skeletons can't be Sneak Attacked, because, even though the Type rules make this self-evident, the Skeleton Entry doesn't specifically say so, nor does Sneak Attack specifically state that it doesn't apply to Skeletons. This doesn't mean that it's unclear how Sneak Attack and Skeletons interact, or that if a secondary source said that Skeletons could be Sneak Attacked it wouldn't be contradicting the primary source. Likewise, the interaction between Cleave and Mirror Image is straightfoward. Cleave sets the conditions that it activates upon (Creature Drops from Damage), and Mirror Image Figments do not meet those criteria. The FAQ contradicts both Cleave's text and the Figment text by ruling otherwise. If it was this clear and this unambiguous, there would not be (yet again) another 3 page and growing thread debating this very topic. Obviously to you, the rules are quite clear. To many others who are contesting and debating this very topic, it is not clear. It gives rise to the very reason the FAQ made a ruling on it to begin with. And who's to say that the FAQ didn't provide that ruling to clear up what was a hotly contested topic after reviewing the balance and game design ideas of Cleave and MI interactions? Perhaps they simply felt that MI was too powerful a defensive spell at 2nd level and that Cleave should work on it in order to help balance out a lower level caster's ability to render themselves nearly immune to melee damage. Your claim that the rules are "clear and unambiguous" are already refuted in the fact that this very topic has been debated, at length and with great passion, for over 3+ years... at least since I signed onto these boards at any rate. I don't recall a single argument over the ability to sneak attack "Skeletons" because the "Skeleton Entry" does not say that they are not immune. It is a ridiculous example because it has never occurred here that I have seen. Yet this particular topic has occurred. Over and over again. And when this thread dies a slow, agonizing death, another thread will soon pop up, asking the same question. You could time it on an egg timer. Now I will make it clear - I agree with you. You should not be able to Cleave MIs. But asserting that this is an open/close case is rather close-minded in due consideration of the evidence around you.
yrogerg 07-25-07, 08:34 PM	If it was this clear and this unambiguous, there would not be (yet again) another 3 page and growing thread debating this very topic. Obviously to you, the rules are quite clear. To many others who are contesting and debating this very topic, it is not clear. It gives rise to the very reason the FAQ made a ruling on it to begin with. And who's to say that the FAQ didn't provide that ruling to clear up what was a hotly contested topic after reviewing the balance and game design ideas of Cleave and MI interactions? Perhaps they simply felt that MI was too powerful a defensive spell at 2nd level and that Cleave should work on it in order to help balance out a lower level caster's ability to render themselves nearly immune to melee damage. Your claim that the rules are "clear and unambiguous" are already refuted in the fact that this very topic has been debated, at length and with great passion, for over 3+ years... at least since I signed onto these boards at any rate. I don't recall a single argument over the ability to sneak attack "Skeletons" because the "Skeleton Entry" does not say that they are not immune. It is a ridiculous example because it has never occurred here that I have seen. Yet this particular topic has occurred. Over and over again. And when this thread dies a slow, agonizing death, another thread will soon pop up, asking the same question. You could time it on an egg timer. Now I will make it clear - I agree with you. You should not be able to Cleave MIs. But asserting that this is an open/close case is rather close-minded in due consideration of the evidence around you. Right, but the "what if cast Fly and Mount and dropped a horse on someone's head" question keeps on coming up, as well, even though. The fact that many people either don't read or don't understand the rules doesn't mean that the rules are automatically unclear. Again, what part of the rules for Cleave or MI are unclear? The part where Cleave triggers when a Creature is dropped, or where MI creates figments that are neither Creatures, nor physically real? Each of these things are clearly quite clearly stated by the RAW, and the interaction between feat that only works on creatures, and something that doesn't create creatures, should be self-evident. Please, tell me which part of the rules you think makes the issue of Cleave and MI interacting ambiguous.
ArcTan 07-25-07, 08:38 PM	In things like this, I always look at it from a perspective of preserving the balance. Now a few points about Mirror image... - it's not effective against the blind, against traps or against area attacks. but neither are protection from arrows, blur or invisibility. Alter self (trog for +6AC) is also ineffective against area attacks. - it's only effective against visually targetted attacks, such as ray spells and physical attacks. So is Blur and Invisibility. So far, Mirror Image is closest to Blur. Both are for avoiding the same attacks. The only difference is Blur only protects 20% of the time, but can be cast on others by touch. Mirror Image protects far more often (50% or more, as long as there is at least 1 image), but against a limited number of attacks. Blur also prevents attacks of opportunity, where Mirror Image only soaks up a couple. In any combat where the caster will take fewer than (caster level x 6) physical attacks, mirror image statistically is superior to blur. So why ever take blur, except when being mobbed (at which point you're probably dead already anyway), or for giving a very minor buff to party members? Because it's not the same thing. You're treating mirror image as a "buff", when it isn't. If I happen to guess correctly which one of the images is really you and attack you, you are completely vulnerable to attack unless and until you take the opportunity to move and shuffle with the other mirror images. Mirror image provides *false targets*, unlike blur. I can happily waste magic missile and dominate person against mirror image, while a blurred target is completely vulnerable to those spells. Mirror Image is DEFINITELY trumped by... - Magic Missile... a level 1 spell. No, it's not. MI's are indistinguishable for the purposes of targeting, remember? If I target an MI with a MM I waste the MM. That's not "trumping" in any way. - Whirlwind attack... requires 5 feats, Int13+, Dex13+, BAB+4 Now my issue is that Cleave requires Str13+ and 2 feats. How is it not reasonable for Str13+ and 2 feats to double their chances of working against a level 2 spell that's supposed to be on par with Blur? Blindfighting (which is only 1 feat, with no prerequisites) beats the hell out of Blur. Blind Fight doesn't let you know what square the MI caster is actually in. See, this stupid "All the MIs are in the same square" ruling creates many more problems than it solves. MI is perfectly balanced against blur and displacement when you realize they do *completely different things*. (MI makes decoys, but leaves *you* open to attack. Blur lets everyone know where you are but makes it hard to hit you.) Or great cleave. BAB+4, 3 feats, str13+. Quite an investment, left unused in most fights (more often than not, 1-2 guys in reach, or 1 big enemy). I see it as a much deserved bonus to be able to trump a level 2 buff spell with such an investment. Again, I point out that Blindfighting (which is only 1 feat, with no prerequisites) beats the hell out of Blur, the other level 2 visual defense spell. I see cleave and great cleave as being useful against Mirror Image. I'm not sure why ppl argue for a result that keeps the poor fighter down and the spellcasters on top. Casters already crush fighters as is, without these (essentially) anti-fighter-feat arguments. It's not a huge balance issue, but I am on a certain level intrinsically offended by people grossly misreading things (like a definition of "creature" that doesn't mean "creature").
Pentar 07-25-07, 08:45 PM	Right, but the "what if cast Fly and Mount and dropped a horse on someone's head" question keeps on coming up, as well, even though. The fact that many people either don't read or don't understand the rules doesn't mean that the rules are automatically unclear. Again, what part of the rules for Cleave or MI are unclear? The part where Cleave triggers when a Creature is dropped, or where MI creates figments that are neither Creatures, nor physically real? Each of these things are clearly quite clearly stated by the RAW, and the interaction between feat that only works on creatures, and something that doesn't create creatures, should be self-evident. Please, tell me which part of the rules you think makes the issue of Cleave and MI interacting ambiguous. What part of "I agree with you", do you not understand? If you want to see counter-arguments from other people about why MI and Cleave do interact, may I suggest you read their views?
ArcTan 07-25-07, 08:46 PM	If it was this clear and this unambiguous, there would not be (yet again) another 3 page and growing thread debating this very topic. Nonsense. Not all controversies are legitimate controversies. The principle of the Big Lie means that *once a false idea becomes established* it will stick around forever, because someone will always take the past controversy as legitimizing evidence -- as you're doing right now. The reason for this controversy is a mixture of one really bad and stupid ruling Skip Williams made in the FAQ, confusion between this edition's version of mirror image and previous editions', and the fact that a lot of people read the rules superficially (so they never come across fairly unequivocal things like the definition of a "creature" being its Wis and Cha scores). It is a problem that D&D's system goes from the general to the specific, so that you don't *fully* understand how any spell works unless you've read the rest of the core books before reading the spells, but a lot of new players assume they can just read a spell and then instantly know how to use it. None of this changes the fact that the ruling in the core books is clear and unequivocal, and that the reason for the ongoing controversy *now* is merely a self-replicating meme -- in small scale, the same reason there continues to be an ongoing controversy over whether the Apollo moon landings were faked, or whether JFK was really killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. The fact that *these* particular controversies are the ones fortune selected to become untiring, unflagging worms burrowing into the collective unconscious doesn't mean that they're actually any more controversial than, say, John Glenn's flight in the Mercury capsule, or Reagan's attempted assassination (or, for that matter, the assassination of James Garfield). But just because a question keeps on coming up over and over again doesn't mean it doesn't have an answer. If that were true, then -- for instance -- that would mean the line right there in the PHB about how you can't summon things into thin air is just a product of my own demented hallucinations or written in invisible ink, because not a week passes without someone arguing that you ought to be able to do it.
ArcTan 07-25-07, 08:49 PM	What part of "I agree with you", do you not understand? If you want to see counter-arguments from other people about why MI and Cleave do interact, may I suggest you read their views? Sheesh, we have been reading them, and responding to them, through this ENTIRE DAMN THREAD. Have you read our responses? They universally stem from simply not reading something or reading something and bullheadedly not understanding it. Let's not argue meta. What, *precisely*, in these other people's arguments actually has a leg to stand on, from your point of view? (Besides the lame argument that if someone won't back down that means they must be right.) They all seem to ignore the idea that a creature is a creature is a creature or argue based on the idea that a figment is "sort of a creature", which is reflected *nowhere* in *anything* written down *anywhere*. Either that, or they blindly lean on Skip Williams' ruling in the FAQ, which Skip himself did not attempt to justify based on any evidence when he wrote it down. I'll say it again: If you think the FAQ has the power to *change* the rules, then that means at one point the rules were that Cleave didn't work on MIs, and Skip changed it so they did. If you don't think so, the FAQ is wrong. Because a creature is defined by having a Wis and Cha score, and a figment does not have one, and therefore is not a creature. Indeed, a figment is *not real*, and therefore cannot interact with anything the way real objects and creatures do. Both of these stipulations are clearly in the RAW.
Pentar 07-25-07, 08:59 PM	I see I see what is going on here. You are hell-bent on establishing a right and wrong and I'm simply saying there was controversy. Prior to the FAQ's ruling, there was already a lot of debate about how Cleave and MI interacted. Regardless of who you thought was right and wrong then, clearly there were alot of people who had varying opinions on the subject matter. Skip and co. decided to include in their FAQ their official, non-errata answer to the query. Until some other publication comes out, an errata, or whatever, that indicates something differently, that is the official answer from WoTC on how the two interact with each other. If they are against the rules, then fine - claim that WoTC doesn't know their own game and have a parade!! I'm sure there would be a lot of people marching with you bearing wands and wearing scarves. But until such a time, that's the answer from WotC. What part of that is so difficult to accept? Clearly, WoTC considers "images" to be some form of "creature" that Cleave works again. Either they are changing their definition of creature, or allowing an explicit exception to that rule in this case. I don't personally know. I just know I disagree with it. If you'd like, I'm sure Skip Williams would welcome an open dialogue with you to discuss the matter.
Frugal 07-25-07, 09:25 PM	Regarding which space the images occupy (sorry, couldn't be bothered to go back and find the post and quote it). Here's some issues that crop up from not having them all occupy the same square: Having to keep track of their position, up to 8 figments, with the 5' requirement this begs for miniatures use and then you need 8 more minis just to track this, and keep moving them with your character and ensuring that they are kept within 5'. Adjudicating AoO's. If you provoke an AoO then arguably since all the images imitate it they all provoke as well, which means you then have to resolve potential AoO's for all figments. Adjudicating AoO's for each figment also runs against the idea that you have to perform an action to provoke an AoO and since figments don't take actions they can't provoke. If you allow figments to provoke AoO's then that also opens up abuses with the caster taking the AoO that one (or more) of his figments provoked. Now obviously the AoO's are the big issues here. If there's only 1 figment in a square threatened by a creature I'd say he's not going to guess if it's real or not, he'll take the AoO if one's provoked. Even if there are more figments, he could still feasibly attack each of them if he has combat reflexes. That's with a single creature, imagine a crowded situation, we're now talking about the possibility of a single action provoking 9 AoO's (and even more if opponents have combat reflexes and threaten multiple figments), yeah that's fun to resolve. Then there's the additional confusion with when would they provoke. For instance if you move out of a threatened square, you provoke. But once that's done you have to deal with all your figments' movement and see which of them provoke from leaving threatened squares, and that's per square of movement. Massive headache ensues in a crowded situation. And these are just a few of the situations that crop up. How much easier is it to say that they occupy the same square as you which means they're always threatened in the same way as you? Then you can also rule (as I do) that they don't provoke AoO's and you have much more simplicity. Then you basically treat the images as essentially being a miss chance, roll which one was attacked and then see if you hit the AC to figure out if the figment's dispelled.
yrogerg 07-25-07, 10:11 PM	I see I see what is going on here. You are hell-bent on establishing a right and wrong and I'm simply saying there was controversy. Not really. I'm mostly just intent on establishing that whatever controversy exists has nothing to do with the rules as-presented in the PHB, which are exceptionally clear in this particular case. Honestly, I've seen Displacement vs. Magic Missle debates go on for longer than this one, and that's another instance where the rules are *very* clear about what happens. Prior to the FAQ's ruling, there was already a lot of debate about how Cleave and MI interacted. Regardless of who you thought was right and wrong then, clearly there were alot of people who had varying opinions on the subject matter. Skip and co. decided to include in their FAQ their official, non-errata answer to the query. Until some other publication comes out, an errata, or whatever, that indicates something differently, that is the official answer from WoTC on how the two interact with each other. If they are against the rules, then fine - claim that WoTC doesn't know their own game and have a parade!! I don't need to claim that. RotG makes that argument well enough, as does Custserv, and yes, the FAQ, though admittedly less frequently than the latter two. Saying that any of these "official" sources frequently misinterperet or fail to read the rules involved in their "clarifications" should hardly be a controversial statement at this point. "Ask Custserve three times and pick the answer you like" is pretty common advice on these boards, after all. More to the point, if these official secondary sources do contradict the plain reading of the primary source (figments aren't creatures, cleave works on creatures), then it's the secondary source that's wrong. Even if Skip et al *want* the FAQ and articles to re-write RAW, that's still well outside the stated scope of those features. In other words, FAQ, RotG, and other secondary sources may be "official," but they're intended to be less official than the primary sources. But until such a time, that's the answer from WotC. What part of that is so difficult to accept? Clearly, WoTC considers "images" to be some form of "creature" that Cleave works again. Either they are changing their definition of creature, or allowing an explicit exception to that rule in this case. I don't personally know. I just know I disagree with it. And here, you've touched on why, regardless of whether or not the FAQ are "official", they are still frequently extremely poor, and contradict several design fixtures of 3.X Besides the issue of overstepping the scope of a seconary source, there's the fact that they frequently use unexplained or lousy reasoning to justify a ruling that complicates and muddies a lot of formerly-clear terms in the game. That Creature has a specific, well-defined meaning in D&D that allows us to talk meaningfully spells, effects, and feats, is actually a *very big deal*. Redefining "Creature" to include Figments is extremely problematic if you just pause to work out what it implies (hint: if Figments are creatures that are destroyed by mundane weapons, this means they're corporeal. And if they're corporeal and able to move under their own power, they have Dex and Str scores). And yet, there's no explaination of why they chose to redefine the term, or what the scope of this redefinition is. Furthermore, if Mirror Images are considered creatures for the purposes of Cleave, why not spells that target creatures? Just how creature-like are Mirror Images? Can vampires level drain them? Leaving the images as figments cuts down on a lot of needless complication that crops up purely due to the FAQ's ruling. If you'd like, I'm sure Skip Williams would welcome an open dialogue with you to discuss the matter.
yrogerg 07-25-07, 10:19 PM	Now my issue is that Cleave requires Str13+ and 2 feats. How is it not reasonable for Str13+ and 2 feats to double their chances of working against a level 2 spell that's supposed to be on par with Blur? Blindfighting (which is only 1 feat, with no prerequisites) beats the hell out of Blur. As pointed out, MM doesn't trump Mirror Image. By comparison, a Fighter 1 can already qualify for Cleave. It actually doesn't seem that inappropriate for a 1st level Fighter to be challenged by the highest-level spell a Wizard 3 can cast. Fighters make mincemeat out of arcane spellcasters at low levels, as it is, anyway. I don't consider this an issue of balance.
malignor 07-25-07, 11:05 PM	Because it's not the same thing. You're treating mirror image as a "buff", when it isn't. If I happen to guess correctly which one of the images is really you and attack you, you are completely vulnerable to attack unless and until you take the opportunity to move and shuffle with the other mirror images.It's a spell that enhances your survivability and usefulness in combat; how do you define a buff?Mirror image provides *false targets*, unlike blur. I can happily waste magic missile and dominate person against mirror image, while a blurred target is completely vulnerable to those spells. No, it's not. MI's are indistinguishable for the purposes of targeting, remember? If I target an MI with a MM I waste the MM. That's not "trumping" in any way.There's 2 ways to look at MMissile versus MImage: Magic missile's listing for "Target" is "Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart". Therefore when you cast the spell in a spread among potential enemies, you're not targeting creatures but figments. As such, only the MMissile that is targets the mage fires, and the rest don't even launch. Or perhaps the entire spell fizzles Magic missile's text of "The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out. Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell." is applicable. Figments are not inanimate nor objects, so the portion of "strike unerringly" applies, and every figment targetted by a MMissile gets *popped*, leaving the illusionist with fewer or no images. As such, a level 1 spell has damaged the illusionist and/or weakened his spell to severely reduced effectiveness.Blind Fight doesn't let you know what square the MI caster is actually in.My bad. I guess what you need is Tremorsense or Scent. I missed the portion where "you can't use hearing or vision" to distinguish Image from Mage.See, this stupid "All the MIs are in the same square" ruling creates many more problems than it solves.I disagree. There's issues of abuse by using images as a buffer down a hallway, or using them as concealment. There's the issue of what happens when the images are lined up and a middle "linking" image is popped, what happens to the disconnected ones. There's the issue of threatened squares, occupied squares and so on. There's the issue of area affect spells causing visual changes in images that aren't in the area. Space constraints due to pit traps or dangerous terrain...It's not a huge balance issue, but I am on a certain level intrinsically offended by people grossly misreading things (like a definition of "creature" that doesn't mean "creature").Should prolly take message boards a little less personally. I have fun with it and keep learning.
bigbythewise 07-25-07, 11:12 PM	As pointed out, MM doesn't trump Mirror Image. Did i miss something? First, you *can* target one or more images from the Mirror Image spell with MM. "Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets." Next, what happens? 1. MM would simply fail to cast. 2. MM would just remove the image(s). In either case, you will *know* which images are unreal. Or you can just simply go through the images if that crap *multisquare house rule* is used. Note that the MI mechanics is not about killing, dealing damage or about pointless discussion what you can or can't do with nonexisting patch of nothing. It's all about finding out which image is unreal, that is done *by interraction only* which is in this case an attack or a spell attempt - to prove it.
yrogerg 07-26-07, 12:29 AM	Did i miss something? First, you *can* target one or more images from the Mirror Image spell with MM. "Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets." Next, what happens? 1. MM would simply fail to cast. 2. MM would just remove the image(s). In either case, you will *know* which images are unreal. Or you can just simply go through the images if that crap *multisquare house rule* is used. Note that the MI mechanics is not about killing, dealing damage or about pointless discussion what you can or can't do with nonexisting patch of nothing. It's all about finding out which image is unreal, that is done *by interraction only* which is in this case an attack or a spell attempt - to prove it. Okay, a question: What happens if you try to split Magic Missile dice between a person and a rock? A rock is not a valid target for Magic Missile, but a person is. Does the spell fail outright, since its targeting conditions have not been met? Does it only hit valid targets? If it does only hit valid targets, does this somehow "paint" the valid targets, even though this is hardly provided for in the spell itself? Note that striking and destroying figments isn't actually an option, since, as previously mentioned, Images are not a valid target for Magic Missile, being non-creatures. Once again, this is one of those things that's changed between previous editions of the spell. Also, I'm a little confused about how the multisquare thing is a houserule. The spell clearly allows for the Images to appear in different squares, so long as they're no more5 feet of another figment or the caster. The figments can't be *more* than five feet away, but that doesn't prevent them from being in separate squares, any more than it *requires* them to be in separate squares. Further, if the figments don't need to be only within 5 feet of the caster, then this would necessarily imply that a figment could be 10 or 15 feet away from the caster, so long as there were other figments in between. This makes kinda it unreasonable to claim that they must always occupy the same 5' by 5' square. Am I missing something?
ArcTan 07-26-07, 01:25 AM	It's a spell that enhances your survivability and usefulness in combat; how do you define a buff? It's a spell that creates new entities that confuse people who look at you, but doesn't actually change anything about you yourself at all (figments, not glamer). It's like summoning creatures to protect you. (Exactly like, in fact, and people who claim MI gets too "complicated" if you have the MIs actually exist as separate entities apparently never use summons.) There's 2 ways to look at MMissile versus MImage: Magic missile's listing for "Target" is "Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart". Therefore when you cast the spell in a spread among potential enemies, you're not targeting creatures but figments. As such, only the MMissile that is targets the mage fires, and the rest don't even launch. Or perhaps the entire spell fizzles[/quote] It's no different, as yrogerg has pointed out, from asking what happens when you target a creature and a rock (or a wax dummy carefully designed to look like a person). Figments are no more conscious, aware, alive or animate than wax dummies. Really, that should be the rule of thumb here -- if it wouldn't work on a wax dummy, why should it work on a figment? Magic missile's text of "The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out. Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell." is applicable. Figments are not inanimate nor objects, so the portion of "strike unerringly" applies, and every figment targetted by a MMissile gets *popped*, leaving the illusionist with fewer or no images. As such, a level 1 spell has damaged the illusionist and/or weakened his spell to severely reduced effectiveness. Why is an MI not an inanimate object? It's not alive. It's not conscious. It's just an illusion, no more "alive" simply because it mimics your movements than a major image is "alive", or a real-life hologram or video screen is alive. I disagree. There's issues of abuse by using images as a buffer down a hallway, or using them as concealment. No different from having summons. There's the issue of what happens when the images are lined up and a middle "linking" image is popped, what happens to the disconnected ones. The usual ruling I see is to make them vanish, which discourages you from making the cluster too big and also only serves to make the spell less, not more powerful, so again I don't see what the problem is. There's the issue of threatened squares, occupied squares and so on. You handle this the exact same way you handle an imaginary monster created with major image or with a deck of illusions. Again, I don't see the problem -- all this does is make MI yet another example of issues that exist with *all figment spells in the game*. Making MI's somehow float around the caster in the exact same square creates *new* issues that are *not* addressed by all figments spells in the game. I would think "reacts realistically" gives plenty of leeway for that. (It's realistic for an illusion who's in the radius to take damage, but not for an illusion who's outside it.) [quote]Space constraints due to pit traps or dangerous terrain...Should prolly take message boards a little less personally. I have fun with it and keep learning. Enh.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 01:32 AM	Did i miss something? First, you *can* target one or more images from the Mirror Image spell with MM. "Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets." Yes. And if a Dragon has cleverly used Change Shape to look like an Elf, you can *target* the Dragon with charm person. That doesn't mean it will *work*. Next, what happens? 1. MM would simply fail to cast. 2. MM would just remove the image(s). In either case, you will *know* which images are unreal. Yeah. The difference is that if 1) happens, the images are still there, and you can shuffle them around again on your next move action to confuse people again. Or you can just simply go through the images if that crap *multisquare house rule* is used. You would have to target them separately in any case. Even if a Diminutive creature is standing in the same square as me, he's not the same creature as me. We are two separate entities who must be targeted separately. You can't cast magic missile at me and automatically hit him too. It's not the idea of them sharing the same space I object to. (The spell *merely* says they can't be more than 5 feet apart from each other, *nothing more*.) It's the idea that each image is somehow a "part" of the caster, that rather than being separate entities the images are merely a buff that's been cast on the caster. Which is crap -- nothing in the spell indicates that, and it ignores the critical difference between Illusion [Figment] and Illusion [Glamer]. Turning the images from being actual figments into a kind of ablative displacement *is* very much a houserule, and no less of one because Skip Williams proposed it in the FAQ based on how mirror image worked in past editions. Note that the MI mechanics is not about killing, dealing damage or about pointless discussion what you can or can't do with nonexisting patch of nothing. It's all about finding out which image is unreal, that is done *by interraction only* which is in this case an attack or a spell attempt - to prove it. Right. Which is possible using attacks and *not* possible using area spells. Nothing in the spell specifically says either way when it comes to targeted spells, so we have to fall back on what the rules in general say -- which is that figments aren't creatures and you can't target them with things that target creatures. (Again, people aren't thinking this through. Everyone acts like magic missile is a special case, when it's really just one out of many targeted spells that just happens to have a particularly simple effect. Should phantasmal killer kill a mirror image? Flesh to stone? Dominate person? Baleful polymorph? Imprisonment? Surely anyone can see that allowing targeted spells to work makes less sense than not allowing them to work.)
bigbythewise 07-26-07, 01:58 AM	Okay, a question: What happens if you try to split Magic Missile dice between a person and a rock? A rock is not a valid target for Magic Missile, but a person is. You can't do it in this way because you can't target objects with MM, so you can't even *try* it. Does the spell fail outright, since its targeting conditions have not been met? Irrelevant. See above. Does it only hit valid targets? The same. If it does only hit valid targets, does this somehow "paint" the valid targets, even though this is hardly provided for in the spell itself? Hey, i don't want to paint anything. I just want to find out which one image is real and the Mirror Image description *allows* me to do that because it allows me to target all the images *even* if they are not creatures or objects. Note that striking and destroying figments isn't actually an option, since, as previously mentioned, Images are not a valid target for Magic Missile, being non-creatures. Once again, this is one of those things that's changed between previous editions of the spell. What? The spell description says that you *must* select targets either with an attack or a spell. It doesn't say "you can't select anything, you just roll" nor it does say "the images can't be targeted with a spell". Also, I'm a little confused about how the multisquare thing is a houserule. The spell clearly allows for the Images to appear in different squares, so long as they're no more5 feet of another figment or the caster. The figments can't be *more* than five feet away, but that doesn't prevent them from being in separate squares, any more than it *requires* them to be in separate squares. Further, if the figments don't need to be only within 5 feet of the caster, then this would necessarily imply that a figment could be 10 or 15 feet away from the caster, so long as there were other figments in between. This makes kinda it unreasonable to claim that they must always occupy the same 5' by 5' square. Am I missing something? Sorry, my mistake. Just rip that *house* out and it would be fine. One would say that this is just a Mirror Image description flaw because of the general rule about targeting. The other one can still see RAI and rule it in that way then.
bigbythewise 07-26-07, 02:49 AM	Yes. And if a Dragon has cleverly used Change Shape to look like an Elf, you can *target* the Dragon with charm person. No, i can't. Why should i do that? I would simply target an Elf because i *see* an Elf the same way i see the images. What is more important, you never know which image is unreal (when attempting to target it), but in this case, you know it's shapechanged but even if not, you can try to find it out. That's the difference. That doesn't mean it will *work* I don't care if this *nonsense example* would work because it's irrelevat in relation to the Mirror Image spell, which have it's *own description*. You would have to target them separately in any case. Even if a Diminutive creature is standing in the same square as me, he's not the same creature as me. We are two separate entities who must be targeted separately. You can't cast magic missile at me and automatically hit him too. You obviously misunderstood my qoute here. I meant that you can simply *ignore* the images (if multisquare) and move from square to square through the images until you would hit the Wizard which is fairly bad way of MI to work then. Nothing in the spell specifically says either way when it comes to targeted spells, so we have to fall back on what the rules in general say -- which is that figments aren't creatures and you can't target them with things that target creatures. "Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets." This is everything i need to play with the spell. No questions.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 04:04 AM	You can't do it in this way because you can't target objects with MM, so you can't even *try* it. Er, yes you can. You say "I cast magic missile at the dude"[/i] and the DM says "The spell fails". What do you *think* happens when you cast a spell at something you think is a creature but is actually an object? Angels with silver wings pop out of nowhere and stop you just before you waste your spell? Hey, i don't want to paint anything. I just want to find out which one image is real and the Mirror Image description *allows* me to do that because it allows me to target all the images *even* if they are not creatures or objects. You can *always* target *anything* with a spell. Whether the target is legal determines whether the spell fails or succeeds. You mean to say you never run a game where spells fizzle because someone was tricked into using them on an illegal target? (Charm person on someone who was only disguised as a Humanoid? Or, for that matter, on a major image of a Humanoid?) What? The spell description says that you *must* select targets either with an attack or a spell. It doesn't say "you can't select anything, you just roll" nor it does say "the images can't be targeted with a spell". Yeah. I *target* the image, and I cast the spell, and the spell fails. Sorry, my mistake. Just rip that *house* out and it would be fine. One would say that this is just a Mirror Image description flaw because of the general rule about targeting. Dude, there is an enormous difference between being able to target something and being able to target something *successfully*. I can also *target* someone with charm person even if they have mind blank on. However, the fact that they have mind blank on means my spell fizzles. The same if they're actually an Elan and not a Human, or actually a Mind Flayer using disguise self and not a Human, or actually a major image of a Human and not a Human, or actually the corpse of a Human and not a Human, or any other combination of factors that might make me think they were a legal target if they weren't. If the "RAI" is that, for some bizarre reason, Mirror Images now function as though they were the real creature for the sake of targeting spells, tell me -- what happens when I *do* cast imprisonment or dominate person or flesh to stone or phantasmal killer on an image?
ArcTan 07-26-07, 04:10 AM	No, i can't. Why should i do that? I would simply target an Elf because i *see* an Elf the same way i see the images. ...And the spell would not work, because it's not actually an Elf. What is more important, you never know which image is unreal (when attempting to target it), but in this case, you know it's shapechanged but even if not, you can try to find it out. That's the difference. Er, what? There's a Dragon who wants to trick me into thinking she's an Elf. She does (because I fail my Sense Motive and Spot checks against her Bluff and Disguise checks). Nonetheless, I foolishly try to cast charm person on her. I target her with the spell and cast it. She is *not* an Elf. But I *thought* she was an Elf. That *doesn't mean* the spell *actually works*. When you think something is a legal target for a spell, but it isn't, the spell fails. Capisce? I don't care if this *nonsense example* would work because it's irrelevat in relation to the Mirror Image spell, which have it's *own description*. It's not a "nonsense example". It's something that happens all the time in a game where disguise and shapechanging magic is in play. And it very clearly illustrates that "targeting" is not the same thing as having something work. You obviously misunderstood my qoute here. I meant that you can simply *ignore* the images (if multisquare) and move from square to square through the images until you would hit the Wizard which is fairly bad way of MI to work then. Why? The Wizard can reshuffle the images by moving on his own action. It actually makes it *possible* to find the Wizard among the images. People who argue that the images should all be in the same square seem to imply that it shouldn't be possible to "find" the real caster at all, which does run directly contrary to what the spell says (that you have to take an action to reshuffle the images if you're discovered). "Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets." This is everything i need to play with the spell. No questions. See, people are phrasing this like it gives *permission*, when it does no such thing. No line in the spell says "Unlike with ordinary figment spells, your mirror images can be targeted by spells". No such line at all. The line goes *the other way*. It just says that people who cast spells on you *have to* pick from indistinguishable targets -- i.e. that the spell won't automatically work on "you" instead of your images (unlike, say, displacement, where the image is a glamer and not a figment and therefore not a separate entity). It doesn't mean that the images react in any special way to being "targeted". They react the *same* way to being targeted by spells that silent image, persistent image, major image, and so on react to being targeted by spells -- i.e. the spells fail.
bigbythewise 07-26-07, 07:16 AM	There's a Dragon who wants to trick me into thinking she's an Elf. She does (because I fail my Sense Motive and Spot checks against her Bluff and Disguise checks). Nonetheless, I foolishly try to cast charm person on her. I target her with the spell and cast it. She is *not* an Elf. But I *thought* she was an Elf. That *doesn't mean* the spell *actually works*. When you think something is a legal target for a spell, but it isn't, the spell fails. Capisce? It's not a "nonsense example". It's something that happens all the time in a game where disguise and shapechanging magic is in play. And it very clearly illustrates that "targeting" is not the same thing as having something work. I must admit i didn't know that a disguise can cause a spell to fail. That's nice indeed, but hey, a shapechange is much more based on a physical change then on an illusion, isn't it? What a... Don't try to tell me that a polymorph makes you immune to all targeting spells unless a True Seeing comes into play. Next, about that *legendary* MM and the Mirror Image. I'm going to withdraw a bit but i must say that i've never claimed that MM can *destroy* the image. I just said that it can *target* it. I wasn't sure if the spell will fail or just wipe that image out (you know, the FAQs). It can help you to find out unreal images either, however spell fail means no image kill. Let's go back to the multi/one-square MI issue. It just crossed my mind that (if multisquare) if you keep some distance from the foes (assuming that you know where they are), you can remain in safe all the time because you can always keep farther images near an enemy and thus you will never be threatened. So there is no randomness or no random roll at all, but spell says "roll randomly to see...". What do you say?
yrogerg 07-26-07, 07:56 AM	I must admit i didn't know that a disguise can cause a spell to fail. That's nice indeed, but hey, a shapechange is much more based on a physical change then on an illusion, isn't it? What a... Don't try to tell me that a polymorph makes you immune to all targeting spells unless a True Seeing comes into play. I'm confused here. You do realize that the spell fails because Charm Person only targets creatures with the Humanoid type, which an Elf is, but which an "Elf" who's actually a shapechanged Dragon, isn't, right? The disguise isn't causing the spell to fail, the fact that the target is invalid is causing the spell to fail. The only thing the disguise/Polymorph/Illusion/Whatever does is fool the caster into thinking they're targeting a valid target. Let's go back to the multi/one-square MI issue. It just crossed my mind that (if multisquare) if you keep some distance from the foes (assuming that you know where they are), you can remain in safe all the time because you can always keep farther images near an enemy and thus you will never be threatened. So there is no randomness or no random roll at all, but spell says "roll randomly to see...". What do you say? What do you mean? You're still free to tumble past them, walk around them, or used ranged weapons.
bigbythewise 07-26-07, 08:04 AM	I'm confused here. You do realize that the spell fails because Charm Person only targets creatures with the Humanoid type, which an Elf is, but which an "Elf" who's actually a shapechanged Dragon, isn't, right? The disguise isn't causing the spell to fail, the fact that the target is invalid is causing the spell to fail. The only thing the disguise/Polymorph/Illusion/Whatever does is fool the caster into thinking they're targeting a valid target. Moron, and what's your name? :cool: What do you mean? You're still free to tumble past them, walk around them, or used ranged weapons. Nothing, just let ArcTan to response. It seems that you have absolutely no idea what i'm talking about.
yrogerg 07-26-07, 08:32 AM	Moron, and what's your name? :cool: Nothing, just let ArcTan to response. It seems that you have absolutely no idea what i'm talking about. What gave it away? The fact that I said I'm confused by what you were saying? Or the part where I said "What do you mean?" It would help your responses were more coherent, as things like: Don't try to tell me that a polymorph makes you immune to all targeting spells unless a True Seeing comes into play. really just make it seem like you don't understand the rules in question at all. I understand that English might not be your first language, and that might possibly be contributing to the confusion, but even then, it's hardly appropriate to condescend and insult me because I don't understand you.
bigbythewise 07-26-07, 08:51 AM	What gave it away? The fact that I said I'm confused by what you were saying? Or the part where I said "What do you mean?" It would help your responses were more coherent, as things like: really just make it seem like you don't understand the rules in question at all. That "Moron, and what's your name?" first part was a *joke* out of myself and a reaction to my confusion caused by ArcTan spell called *Waves of Positive Arguments*. I'm just only human. Next, I wrote: "Let's go back to the multi/one-square MI issue. It just crossed my mind that (if multisquare) if you keep some distance from the foes (assuming that you know where they are), you can remain in safe all the time because you can always keep farther images near an enemy and thus you will never be threatened. So there is no randomness or no random roll at all, but spell says "roll randomly to see...". What do you say?" I wanted a response, but i just didn't get your answer. And yep, i don't understand the rules at all, but *tsss*, keep it for yourself. Oh, edit. Don't try to tell me that a polymorph makes you immune to all targeting spells unless a True Seeing comes into play. That was a *confusion*. I just thought (wrongly assuming that disguise can *generally* prevent the spells from working) that polymorph *can* also do that because ArcTan previously also metioned a schapechange along with disguise. However, shapechange is not an illusion just like a disguise is. So i thought that polymorph could do that as well and True Seeing is just a way to see a real form of PM creatures.
Gold Katana 07-26-07, 10:04 AM	Regarding MM v MI, I suspect there may be lurkers (or maybe even contributors) to this discussion who, like myself, have been playing D&D since around 1978. In both 1e and 2e, Magic Missiles worked against Mirror Images - it was specifically spelled out in the spell descriptions. This "popping" mechanic has been around and working fine IMC as RAW longer than some of the posters here have been alive. Now, the latest edition does NOT make a point of spelling out this interaction. But it doesn't specifically contradict it, either. The FAQ continues to support this legacy mechanic. And MM's really act as an attack which delivers damage, it just always hits. I don't suspect anyone is going to change how they play in their campaigns, no matter how many pages this particular discussion takes. If your approach works for your game - great, keep it up! I just thought I'd submit an old-timer's perspective (nearly three decades of excellent play) to some of you who seem to have burst on the scene with all the answers.
Frugal 07-26-07, 11:12 AM	I think that the spell fizzling thing for MM (or other effects) against MI or other figments/illusions/whatever raises far more issues. For instance, suppose you try to cast dominate person on an illusion of a creature, if the spell fizzles then instantly you know something is up, if you allow the spell to cast and have no apparent effect (especially if the DM secretly rolls a "will save") then you don't know for sure that something is weird. The same would be true for MM, I'd much rather see the spell go off and have the figment act as if it were hit (for other spells, not MI) and fool people then have the spell fizzle. So I'm far more in favour of the option where MM "pops" the figments rather than seeing it fizzle.
Gold Katana 07-26-07, 11:27 AM	IMC, spells have never "fizzled". Like Frugal suggests, way too much of a hint for the player. Someone above mentioned MM failing to go off if targeting a rock. IMC, you can shoot the rock - it just isn't damaged. Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell. This implies the objects are struck by the missile, not that the spell "fizzles" or acts in any other way that gives clues as to what is an appropriate target.
Frugal 07-26-07, 11:54 AM	IMC, spells have never "fizzled". Like Frugal suggests, way too much of a hint for the player. Someone above mentioned MM failing to go off if targeting a rock. IMC, you can shoot the rock - it just isn't damaged. This implies the objects are struck by the missile, not that the spell "fizzles" or acts in any other way that gives clues as to what is an appropriate target. Exactly, I like the mystery. Think of the situation of the classic setup where a number of suits of armour are lined up along a wall, some are armour and some are some kind of monster. They're caught off guard and fight the monsters. Next room they see more suits of armour along the wall. Which would you prefer? Wizard fires MM, spell fizzles so they know they're safe, or fizzles on all but a few targets so they know which ones are the monsters Spell hits all the suits of armour targeted and they can't tell which ones are monsters (if any are) I know I'd much rather see the 2nd situation as it helps preserve the tension of the situation and they're still not sure if they wasted a spell or if they at least damaged some of the monsters, it helps preserve the tension of the situation while the 1st option allows 1 1st level spell to destroy any tension you'd built up.
Steevo 07-26-07, 12:07 PM	I was asked today by a player if they could cleave from a destroyed mirror image. It seems reasonable, but the rule can be lawyered pretty well either way. Has anyone seen an official ruling on this? I surely cannot be the first person to ask. Gray As I understand it, the way mirror image works is someone attacks the mage who cast it, and then rolls a die with a 1 in X chance of hitting the mage, where X is the number of mirror images currently up +1 (for the mage himself.) Therefore, there is only one target for cleave (or magic missile, or whatever the heck else.) You make the attack and then you roll to see if you actually hit the mage or one of his images. Having said that, I would certainly allow someone to cleave from an image to another creature standing beside the attacker. The way I see it, Cleave basically means the character is making an expert strike that goes right through one target and into the next. If the mage targetted turns out to be an image, that only makes the task of chopping right through him that much easier. But mechanically, you cannot cleave from one image to another, or from an image to the mage himself, since rules-wise there's only one target to pick in that square.
malignor 07-26-07, 01:26 PM	One issue I have with Mirror Image as a 1-per-square ruling is that they're illusions, but cannot be disbelieved. The only way to prove their nature is by attacking them. Or is it? They don't threaten squares, yet they occupy squares, but are non-real figments. So can you walk through their squares or not? They can't perform actions, because they're not creatures, so they can't technically draw attacks of opportunity. As such, doesn't the lack of AoO-drawing prove right away they're not real? = = = = = = = = If... IF... the figments are treated like creatures (occupy squares, draw attacks of opportunity) then treat them like creatures for the purpose of resolving attacks, including spells (like MM) and feats (like Cleave). If... IF... the figments are not treated like creatures (can't target w/ MM, can't cleave) then they draw no AoOs and don't really occupy squares in such a way as to prevent movement. So, any Commoner1 can (with 1 movement action) plot a path through all the MI squares until he takes an AoO from the mage or bumps into em, then attack (preferrably with a grapple). Viola Voila, instant MI-defeat. (EDIT: Can't believe I said "Viola". Isn't that a string instrument?)
Frugal 07-26-07, 01:57 PM	Excellent post malignor. As I see it there's tons of issues with MI if you have them spread out and I don't know of any issues if you say they occupy the same square as the caster (I'm sure some will post some now and I'd like to see them). That alone is argument enough for why they should all occupy the same square.
malignor 07-26-07, 01:57 PM	It's a spell that creates new entities that confuse people who look at you, but doesn't actually change anything about you yourself at all (figments, not glamer). It's like summoning creatures to protect you. (Exactly like, in fact, and people who claim MI gets too "complicated" if you have the MIs actually exist as separate entities apparently never use summons.)Entities... summons... you need new terms. You're suggesting they're creatures with your terminology. Figments are no more conscious, aware, alive or animate than wax dummies. Really, that should be the rule of thumb here -- if it wouldn't work on a wax dummy, why should it work on a figment? Why is an MI not an inanimate object? It's not alive. It's not conscious. It's just an illusion, no more "alive" simply because it mimics your movements than a major image is "alive", or a real-life hologram or video screen is alive.Because figments move (they are animated), and are linked to the caster, representing the caster, moving on the battlefield as they mimic the caster. First you say they are "entities" and behave like "summons", now you say they are equal to a chair or post, that just happens to look like an enemy. So which is it? The concept should not be so alien as to confuse the casual gamer, yet you appear to have contradicting explanations.No different from having summons.Ugh.The usual ruling (when a connecting image is destroyed) I see is to make them vanish, which discourages you from making the cluster too big and also only serves to make the spell less, not more powerful, so again I don't see what the problem is.The problem is now you're introducing concepts and rulings that aren't in the book at all. Houserules. Even if they are (in your mind) a logical progression from what you read, they are still beyond the scope of the written rules, and thus houserules. A DM could just as easily say that the disconnected images shuffle and migrate to fill the space, to preserve the number of images. That's no less sensible than your ruling. So now there are different, sensible, rulings for the same scenario, both of which have a different impact on the outcome of any given combat. See how this is an issue in regard to your claims to being RAW-righteous on this matter? You handle this the exact same way you handle an imaginary monster created with major image or with a deck of illusions.Great! All you have to do is make a Will save if any interaction is made and... oh... wait... *reads*... no save for MI. Well so much for treating em like figments. ;)Again, I don't see the problem -- all this does is make MI yet another example of issues that exist with *all figment spells in the game*. Making MI's somehow float around the caster in the exact same square creates *new* issues that are *not* addressed by all figments spells in the game.Who says they float? What issues does co-occupancy create? The images all exist within the same space as the caster. So when you swing at the caster and "hit", you roll to see if you hit the true one or not. If not, yout "flavor text" says it ends up hitting the one that was 2' in front of him, or stabs an image (whose torso was partially overlapping with the caster's) in the face. The image vanishes. Very simple.I would think "reacts realistically" gives plenty of leeway for that [results of area effects that only affect some images, given the independant occupancy ruling]. (It's realistic for an illusion who's in the radius to take damage, but not for an illusion who's outside it.)Well the text that says... "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded." ... suggests the images can't be unique. Hard to be confounded when one of the images is half-charred and the caster is not. Oh, and by the by...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 rolling a listen check of 20 (+1 per 10' away) will one-up a user of MI. Just close your eyes, pinpoint their square with the listen check (assuming they're not moving silently, so listen would be DC0, plus 20 to pinpoint square) and hack away. This spell ruling you're endorsing is looking weaker and complicated the farther this goes.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 06:44 PM	I must admit i didn't know that a disguise can cause a spell to fail. That's nice indeed, but hey, a shapechange is much more based on a physical change then on an illusion, isn't it? What a... Don't try to tell me that a polymorph makes you immune to all targeting spells unless a True Seeing comes into play. Er, what? A polymorph makes me immune to any spells that no longer affect my new form. (Unlike Change Shape, which keeps my Type and Subtype the same.) The disguise has nothing to do with it. If I'm not disguised -- say, I just happen to be an Elan, or Aasimar -- and the guy who's casting a spell on me is just dumb and doesn't know that Elans and Aasimar aren't Humanoids despite looking humanoid, the spell fails. You seem to be confused. "Targeting" doesn't mean you have to *identify* the guy you're casting the spell on by *describing* him. It just means you see somebody and say "I'm going to cast charm person on him". If the guy you see is a legal target for charm person, the spell works. If he isn't, the spell fails. Next, about that *legendary* MM and the Mirror Image. I'm going to withdraw a bit but i must say that i've never claimed that MM can *destroy* the image. I just said that it can *target* it. I wasn't sure if the spell will fail or just wipe that image out (you know, the FAQs). It can help you to find out unreal images either, however spell fail means no image kill. Well, yes. I'm not disagreeing with that. That has to be the way it works, one way or the other. Let's go back to the multi/one-square MI issue. It just crossed my mind that (if multisquare) if you keep some distance from the foes (assuming that you know where they are), you can remain in safe all the time because you can always keep farther images near an enemy and thus you will never be threatened. So there is no randomness or no random roll at all, but spell says "roll randomly to see...". What do you say? ...What are you talking about? You can be safe all the time just by keeping your distance from someone whether or not they have MIs up. MIs actually make this harder because you don't know which one is real, so you don't know which one to keep your distance from. The random roll is for DMs running monsters to make it fair which image a monster targets by choosing randomly (because the monster has to choose randomly, unless he has some means of detecting illusions). I thought that was clear. Presumably you-the-player don't *have* to pick randomly if you don't want to. You can decide you'll always target the one on the westernmost side or whatever. But in the absence of any other information you do end up having to target randomly one way or the other.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 06:53 PM	Entities... summons... you need new terms. You're suggesting they're creatures with your terminology. They're entities who take up space like summons, but unlike summons aren't real. They're illusory summons. Because figments move (they are animated), and are linked to the caster, representing the caster, moving on the battlefield as they mimic the caster. First you say they are "entities" and behave like "summons", now you say they are equal to a chair or post, that just happens to look like an enemy. So which is it? *sigh* They're "inanimate objects" in the same way that my car can move around but is an inanimate object, because "animate" in this sense means "alive". You can move something around with telekinesis without that object becoming an animated object too, you know. The concept should not be so alien as to confuse the casual gamer, yet you appear to have contradicting explanations.Ugh.The problem is now you're introducing concepts and rulings that aren't in the book at all. Houserules. Even if they are (in your mind) a logical progression from what you read, they are still beyond the scope of the written rules, and thus houserules. No, they're *not*. You are *forcing* the issue to become more complicated by chopping logic finer and finer. This is and always has been my only argument: Magic missile targets creatures. Cleave targets creatures. Creatures are defined by having a Wis and Cha score. Illusions do not have a Wis and Cha score. Illusions are not creatures. All of this is squarely RAW. You're *mucking up* the issue by introducing terms like "inanimate object" and pretending "inanimate object" is intended to have any definition other than "non-creature" (as though you somehow caught the Target: line of magic missile as being in contradiction with the text, which it isn't). You're the one extending this debate to be far longer than it needs to be. A DM could just as easily say that the disconnected images shuffle and migrate to fill the space, to preserve the number of images. That's no less sensible than your ruling. So now there are different, sensible, rulings for the same scenario, both of which have a different impact on the outcome of any given combat. See how this is an issue in regard to your claims to being RAW-righteous on this matter? I'm willing to accept that alternate ruling, though, because the rules are genuinely unclear on that matter. I don't see how you go from "I'm not sure how image reshuffling works" to "This means that 8 images somehow are *required* to all take up the same space and can't do otherwise". Great! All you have to do is make a Will save if any interaction is made and... oh... wait... *reads*... no save for MI. Well so much for treating em like figments. ;) Mirror image is an Illusion [Figment] spell. They *are* figments. Will (disbelief) is not an intrinsic part of being a figment spell. So all that happens is the same thing that happens when you hit any figment with any targeted spell, *minus* the Will (disbelief). I.e. nothing. Who says they float? What issues does co-occupancy create? The images all exist within the same space as the caster. So when you swing at the caster and "hit", you roll to see if you hit the true one or not. If not, yout "flavor text" says it ends up hitting the one that was 2' in front of him, or stabs an image (whose torso was partially overlapping with the caster's) in the face. The image vanishes. Very simple. It stretches my own suspension of disbelief that you could have eight man-sized figures standing in the same space as one man-sized figure, swing at one of them, "only" hit that one and not hit the real one who's standing exactly three inches to the left. Indeed, that's the whole point -- close my eyes and swing my greatsword wildly through that space and I have a 50% chance of hitting him. Why can't I just do that with my eyes open? Well the text that says... "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded." ... suggests the images can't be unique. Hard to be confounded when one of the images is half-charred and the caster is not. *shrug* So sometimes you have to make decisions based on which images have taken more (illusory) damage and which ones haven't. It's still hard to "merge" and "split off" from something that's *already* merged with you (floating around in your same space). Oh, and by the by...So rolling a listen check of 20 (+1 per 10' away) will one-up a user of MI. Just close your eyes, pinpoint their square with the listen check (assuming they're not moving silently, so listen would be DC0, plus 20 to pinpoint square) and hack away. ...And if the images *aren't* in separate squares, all you'd have to do would be to close your eyes and hack away, no Listen check required (because you *know* which square he's in).
malignor 07-26-07, 06:58 PM	ArcTan, Can you address post 109 please? I'm curious what answers you have for it.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 07:05 PM	One issue I have with Mirror Image as a 1-per-square ruling is that they're illusions, but cannot be disbelieved. The only way to prove their nature is by attacking them. Or is it? "Disbelief" is not a literal term. You can not believe that an image is real even if the image is not a Will (disbelief) spell. Mundane Disguise checks certainly don't allow a Will save to disbelieve, but you can certainly see through someone's mundane disguise. The fact that invisibility is a glamer spell without Will (disbelief) does not mean I can never become absolutely certain that there's someone there, invisible -- it just means that once I know the invisible person is there I don't automatically "see through it" and make them visible again. The point of mirror image not being Will (disbelief) means that even if you become sure which images are real and which images aren't, the false images don't suddenly turn into hazy translucent outlines. That's all. They don't threaten squares, yet they occupy squares, but are non-real figments. So can you walk through their squares or not? Sure you can. They just remain visible to you after you do that, unlike Will (disbelief) figments, where walking all the way through one causes you to "disbelieve" and causes them to fade into translucent outlines (but, to be clear, they're still there and you can still see them). They can't perform actions, because they're not creatures, so they can't technically draw attacks of opportunity. As such, doesn't the lack of AoO-drawing prove right away they're not real? ...Sure, if that's how you rule it. What's the problem with that? It just means that you should try to keep mirror images out of threatened squares. (After all, if they get in a threatened squares they're going to get attacked soon enough anyway and that's the end.) I'm partial to ruling that an image that performs an illusory action that *would* draw an AoO if it were real *does* draw an AoO, but that's me. This is more for ruling what happens when I attack someone with a fake monster from a deck of illusions (before you start saying I'm "creating situations that need houserules"). If... IF... the figments are treated like creatures (occupy squares, draw attacks of opportunity) then treat them like creatures for the purpose of resolving attacks, including spells (like MM) and feats (like Cleave). It nowhere actually states that occupying space and drawing AoOs is the sole provenance of a creature. Note that you can "perform actions" without being a creature. Traps are the most obvious example of this. An arrow trap performs the action of attacking you without being a creature. A swinging bar trap (designed to push you into a pit) performs the action of bull rushing you without being a creature. And, obviously, things like boulders and statues and walls of ice occupy space without being creatures. Of the rules you've mentioned, the only ones that actually *specify* "creatures" are Cleave and MM. If... IF... the figments are not treated like creatures (can't target w/ MM, can't cleave) then they draw no AoOs and don't really occupy squares in such a way as to prevent movement. So, any Commoner1 can (with 1 movement action) plot a path through all the MI squares until he takes an AoO from the mage or bumps into em, then attack (preferrably with a grapple). Viola Voila, instant MI-defeat. By RAW you can't do this. Move actions can't be conditional -- having to "stop and look" ends your action. (Remember this is all stuff you're donig in the space of less than 6 seconds -- it's the same reason you can't run, stop and pick something up, and then just keep running.) By RAW you would have to walk up to each image, touch it or otherwise try to "bump into" it, and then stop, wait for your turn again, and move again -- which is no different really from running and attacking all the images. You cannot, as you implied, "ready an action to stop my own move action an AoO". This is not allowed and not possible. If it were, it would add a metagaming element to various situations involving monsters who might or might not have used up all their AoOs for the turn. If "okay, I'll *try* to run past all the monsters but if one of them AoOs me I'll stop" were possible, then a lot of foolhardy characters in a lot of games I know would not be dead. (Once you say "I'm going to run past these three monsters", you don't get to stop after the first one AoOs you down to half your health.) (EDIT: Can't believe I said "Viola". Isn't that a string instrument?) Yes.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 07:09 PM	IMC, spells have never "fizzled". Like Frugal suggests, way too much of a hint for the player. Someone above mentioned MM failing to go off if targeting a rock. IMC, you can shoot the rock - it just isn't damaged. This implies the objects are struck by the missile, not that the spell "fizzles" or acts in any other way that gives clues as to what is an appropriate target. What about the line that says "Target: One creature"? I mean, whatever. The word "fizzle" is just my flavor word for it. The point is that you can target something that's not a legal target with a spell, and then you cast the spell, and after the spell is cast, if the target was not a legal target, nothing happens. You can *flavor* what it means for a spell to be cast all you want ("Great globes of white light shoot forward from your hand and strike the rock"). That doesn't matter. That's just fluff. The *mechanical* issue is that if the thing was not a legal target, *nothing happens*. Images are not creatures, so after the lights and flashbangs and Spell Thematics go off, the magic missile simply has *no effect*. This is the same as the reason charm person has no effect, flesh to stone has no effect[/i], and imprisonment has no effect.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 07:12 PM	Exactly, I like the mystery. Think of the situation of the classic setup where a number of suits of armour are lined up along a wall, some are armour and some are some kind of monster. They're caught off guard and fight the monsters. Next room they see more suits of armour along the wall. Which would you prefer? Wizard fires MM, spell fizzles so they know they're safe, or fizzles on all but a few targets so they know which ones are the monsters Spell hits all the suits of armour targeted and they can't tell which ones are monsters (if any are) I know I'd much rather see the 2nd situation as it helps preserve the tension of the situation and they're still not sure if they wasted a spell or if they at least damaged some of the monsters, it helps preserve the tension of the situation while the 1st option allows 1 1st level spell to destroy any tension you'd built up. Assuming "damage" is a visible quality, this isn't possible either way. The spell can't *damage* inanimate suits of armor, and that means the creature ones are absorbing some kind of blow and showing it while the ordinary ones aren't.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 07:13 PM	I think that the spell fizzling thing for MM (or other effects) against MI or other figments/illusions/whatever raises far more issues. For instance, suppose you try to cast dominate person on an illusion of a creature, if the spell fizzles then instantly you know something is up, if you allow the spell to cast and have no apparent effect (especially if the DM secretly rolls a "will save") then you don't know for sure that something is weird. The same would be true for MM, I'd much rather see the spell go off and have the figment act as if it were hit (for other spells, not MI) and fool people then have the spell fizzle. So I'm far more in favour of the option where MM "pops" the figments rather than seeing it fizzle. I'm not in the school of thought who says that a spell makes a loud *FIZZLE* noise when it fizzles. From the caster's perspective, I've never seen any rule that says you specifically know whether a spell worked or didn't work, except by observing the spell's effect. So in effect I would rule it the same way you would, except that I never had there be a difference between seeing a spell "go off" or seeing a spell "fail to go off" in the first place.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 07:21 PM	Now, the latest edition does NOT make a point of spelling out this interaction. But it doesn't specifically contradict it, either. The FAQ continues to support this legacy mechanic. And MM's really act as an attack which delivers damage, it just always hits. The FAQ doesn't actually say MM's pop MI's. It just says you can specify them as targets for spells with multiple targets, *like* MM. It would still be a major contradiction of the 3e ruleset's basic assumptions to let MM work, and moreover since the FAQ is only using MI as an *example*, not a specific exceptions, it means that other multi-target spells like mass dominate monster would also work on illusions, which, for obvious reasons, is problematic.
malignor 07-26-07, 07:29 PM	(images don't draw AoOs)...Sure, if that's how you rule it. What's the problem with that? It just means that you should try to keep mirror images out of threatened squares. (After all, if they get in a threatened squares they're going to get attacked soon enough anyway and that's the end.) I'm partial to ruling that an image that performs an illusory action that *would* draw an AoO if it were real *does* draw an AoO, but that's me. This is more for ruling what happens when I attack someone with a fake monster from a deck of illusions (before you start saying I'm "creating situations that need houserules").That's a couple times now where you included personal ruling judgements to support your play style. This makes me wonder if you're endorsing a certain ruling for everyone to adopt (and all else is unreasonable) or if you're simply defending and justifying the logic of your own style of play against the arguments of others (sort of a confirmation thing). It nowhere actually states that occupying space and drawing AoOs is the sole provenance of a creature. Note that you can "perform actions" without being a creature. Traps are the most obvious example of this. An arrow trap performs the action of attacking you without being a creature. A swinging bar trap (designed to push you into a pit) performs the action of bull rushing you without being a creature.Traps performing actions (the same way a creature performs actions) is questionable. They are automatons at best (by definition).By RAW you can't do this. Move actions can't be conditional -- having to "stop and look" ends your action. (Remember this is all stuff you're donig in the space of less than 6 seconds -- it's the same reason you can't run, stop and pick something up, and then just keep running.) By RAW you would have to walk up to each image, touch it or otherwise try to "bump into" it, and then stop, wait for your turn again, and move again -- which is no different really from running and attacking all the images. You cannot, as you implied, "ready an action to stop my own move action an AoO". This is not allowed and not possible. If it were, it would add a metagaming element to various situations involving monsters who might or might not have used up all their AoOs for the turn. If "okay, I'll *try* to run past all the monsters but if one of them AoOs me I'll stop" were possible, then a lot of foolhardy characters in a lot of games I know would not be dead. (Once you say "I'm going to run past these three monsters", you don't get to stop after the first one AoOs you down to half your health.)Ironically (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#terraina ndObstacles), you can just plot a course for up to your total movement. If an obstacle (such as a real opponent) blocks your path, you can't continue. So all you have to do is ... PC: "For my movement action, I move along this path." DM: "You hit an obstacle at this square and your movement stops prematurely." PC: "For my standard action, I attack that obstacle, which is obviously the mage." If you can prove me wrong by RAW, that'd be great.
yrogerg 07-26-07, 08:16 PM	Ironically[/url], you can just plot a course for up to your total movement. If an obstacle (such as a real opponent) blocks your path, you can't continue. So all you have to do is ... PC: "For my movement action, I move along this path." DM: "You hit an obstacle at this square and your movement stops prematurely." PC: "For my standard action, I attack that obstacle, which is obviously the mage." If you can prove me wrong by RAW, that'd be great. Well, any DM worth his salt would recognize this maneuver as a series of attempted Overrun attempts (as you are trying to plow through these "occupied" squares, past the possibly-illusory obstacle), and adjudicate it as appropriate. Note that unless the creature attempting this has Improved Overrun, even the real caster has the option of simply "avoiding" the creature in question and letting him run through the square unobstructed. He does, however, still get an AoO, if he should choose to take it. In other words, this tactic fails pretty badly. It's amazing how it seems like the designers of the combat section of the PHB almost predicted that someone might try this.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 08:18 PM	That's a couple times now where you included personal ruling judgements to support your play style. This makes me wonder if you're endorsing a certain ruling for everyone to adopt (and all else is unreasonable) or if you're simply defending and justifying the logic of your own style of play against the arguments of others (sort of a confirmation thing). I'm saying RAW where I see RAW and telling you when something is a personal judgment of mine. RAW is unclear about illusions drawing AoOs in combat, so I'm willing to let that go. Saying you can tell an image isn't real because it never "really" draws AoOs makes little sense to me, but I don't care as much about arguing that. It nerfs mirror image, but it *also* nerfs major image, decks of illusions, and any number of other things and is really an argument about figments in general, not this spell. Traps performing actions (the same way a creature performs actions) is questionable. They are automatons at best (by definition). So is a mirror image -- or any other image -- but we know at least one action a mirror image can perform (moving). Of course a trap is an automaton. That doesn't mean it's not performing an action, when it hits you. In D&D rules terms, rolling an attack roll with a +10 bonus to drop a stone on your head *has* to be an action. There's nothing else it could be. Ironically (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#terraina ndObstacles), you can just plot a course for up to your total movement. If an obstacle (such as a real opponent) blocks your path, you can't continue. So all you have to do is ... PC: "For my movement action, I move along this path." DM: "You hit an obstacle at this square and your movement stops prematurely." PC: "For my standard action, I attack that obstacle, which is obviously the mage." If you can prove me wrong by RAW, that'd be great. I posted too soon on the last one, actually. While an AoO can't stop your movement, "bumping into" an unfriendly character can (unless you Tumble or Overrun). However, since the only difference between a "friendly" and "unfriendly" character for the purposes of this rule is whether someone does things like let you run past or not, a smart Wizard would just let you run past anyway, treating you as an ally for the sake of the rule. You'd have no way to tell the difference unless you actually *tried* to make contact with the Wizard as you passed, which would be an Overrun check. Yes, you can quibble RAW over the definition of "unfriendly", but any definition that says a person can't choose to be "friendly" with you if they want for the sake of this rule starts making very little sense. (Like if I intend to pretend to be your ally but secretly plot to backstab you, the Laws of Magic force you to stop dead in front of me and force me to take an AoO on you.) Remember that things like AoOs are things you *choose* to do and *define* who's an "ally" and who's not. (Typical example: Your party's in negotiations with a neutral party, and all of a sudden the hothead on your team shouts "I don't trust them!" and rushes forward to attack, passing through your square. Do they pass through or not? It depends on whether you decide to try to stop them.) In any case, however, this really proves nothing in the end. This "trick" also works if all the images are somehow in the same square, unless you're claiming you wouldn't be able to tell which guy was the real guy right after you thudded right into him. (That's the puzzling thing -- people claiming that being in the same square "solves" all these problems, when really all it does is put them in the same square. The images are still, by RAW, separate from the caster and can be told apart from the caster. The point of even saying in the first place that you can shuffle around the images is that they can be told apart from the caster.)
ArcTan 07-26-07, 08:20 PM	Well, any DM worth his salt would recognize this maneuver as a series of attempted Overrun attempts (as you are trying to plow through these "occupied" squares, past the possibly-illusory obstacle), and adjudicate it as appropriate. Specifically, if all you're trying to do is run through the square, the creature has every right to simply ignore you and let you run past (treating you as an ally for the moment -- unlike D&D Miniatures, D&D the RPG has no rules for "declaring" who you're allied to before and after the "skirmish", nor should it, as that strains realism rather badly). An attempt to *not let* someone let you run past but instead *try* to barrel into them is an Overrun check.
yrogerg 07-26-07, 08:38 PM	Specifically, if all you're trying to do is run through the square, the creature has every right to simply ignore you and let you run past (treating you as an ally for the moment -- unlike D&D Miniatures, D&D the RPG has no rules for "declaring" who you're allied to before and after the "skirmish", nor should it, as that strains realism rather badly). An attempt to *not let* someone let you run past but instead *try* to barrel into them is an Overrun check. It's more that if the person you're pushing past tries not to let you, or if you're very good at making a point of plowing though people irrespective of their opinions (Improved Overrun). Nothing an Overrunner without the feat can do can *force* an Overrun check on the person he's trying to plow through: without the feat, they always have the option of just letting him by, in which case, the Overrunner doesn't use an Overrun attempt, but the action is still resolved according to the first two steps of the Overrun entry. At any rate, this means that this tactic would fail to distinguish caster and image, unless the caster decides to take an AoO.
Frugal 07-26-07, 09:15 PM	I'm not in the school of thought who says that a spell makes a loud *FIZZLE* noise when it fizzles. From the caster's perspective, I've never seen any rule that says you specifically know whether a spell worked or didn't work, except by observing the spell's effect. So in effect I would rule it the same way you would, except that I never had there be a difference between seeing a spell "go off" or seeing a spell "fail to go off" in the first place. Okay, just a misunderstanding of what you meant by "fizzle", I saw that as meaning the spell fails to go off in some obvious way, which is obviously quite different from apparently going off and not having an effect (which may or may not be visibly noticeable). I'm saying RAW where I see RAW and telling you when something is a personal judgment of mine. RAW is unclear about illusions drawing AoOs in combat, so I'm willing to let that go. Saying you can tell an image isn't real because it never "really" draws AoOs makes little sense to me, but I don't care as much about arguing that. It nerfs mirror image, but it *also* nerfs major image, decks of illusions, and any number of other things and is really an argument about figments in general, not this spell. No, I'm saying they don't provoke and they occupy the same square as the caster (as per the FAQ), which eliminates the issue. You see x number of images (and the creature himself) perform a provoking action, you have time to make 1 swing to take advantage of that, figure out if you guessed right. This also removes any potential abuses around taking AoO's against your own images. As for occupying the same square, that's not the same thing as occupying the same "space" (could be poor word selection on your behalf). Figure that a square is 5' x 5' so that's 25 square feet, it's not that hard to fit a number of figments in that area. I envision it as a set of images that circle around the caster weaving through him and the other images so that you can't tell who the real person is.
bigbythewise 07-26-07, 09:39 PM	The random roll is for DMs running monsters to make it fair which image a monster targets by choosing randomly (because the monster has to choose randomly, unless he has some means of detecting illusions). I thought that was clear. Presumably you-the-player don't *have* to pick randomly if you don't want to. You can decide you'll always target the one on the westernmost side or whatever. But in the absence of any other information you do end up having to target randomly one way or the other. You as the caster can keep your images near an enemy (because you can safely move and split or merge at the same time with them), therefore you can be quite in safe by *serving up* those images to the creatures's adjacent square. Surely, assuming that they would not move, just attack the image which is next to them. A creature would not need to roll randomly then, because she would never have a chance to hit. edit> So you must roll to be fair? :o)
Frugal 07-26-07, 10:43 PM	The random roll is for DMs running monsters to make it fair which image a monster targets by choosing randomly (because the monster has to choose randomly, unless he has some means of detecting illusions). I thought that was clear. Presumably you-the-player don't *have* to pick randomly if you don't want to. You can decide you'll always target the one on the westernmost side or whatever. But in the absence of any other information you do end up having to target randomly one way or the other. So what, apparently PCs get to ignore the mechanics of the spell now? Monsters have to randomly roll but PCs are free to metagame their way around the spell and just pick which they want? Here I thought the randomizing was because they were indistinguishable and that was represented by the random roll.
malignor 07-26-07, 10:50 PM	Well there's one thing I got from all this. The Improved Overrun and (mounted) Trample feats just showed they can outdo Mirror Image, at least for the round (and if there's enough movement to cover all the images).
Grod_The_Giant 07-26-07, 10:55 PM	I would say yes from a logical point of view (insert comment about logic and d&d not co-existing). You attacked something, and it evaporated. when you do that to a poor little goblin, you get an extra attack. But when you do it to an illusion... Maybe say that the first time it ruins your carry-through, but once you know they're illusions you can cleave through them at will?
Irving 07-26-07, 11:11 PM	Dunno, you can argue it either way. When you swing your sword at something and it goes "poof" instead of "aiee!", it might be startling enough to make you scratch your head and try to figure things out instead of carrying through with a cleave. It sure looks that way in the movies. I wouldn't try to hold anyone to it as a rule by any stretch, but I think that the "hall of mirrors" scene from Enter the Dragon is a good cincematic example what this spell wants to be.
yrogerg 07-26-07, 11:45 PM	Well there's one thing I got from all this. The Improved Overrun and (mounted) Trample feats just showed they can outdo Mirror Image, at least for the round (and if there's enough movement to cover all the images). Given the near-uselessness of Improved Overrun on its own, that's hardly an overpowered consequence of the feat. Nor is the fact that you're spending all your actions just to ID the caster's location for one round, and still provoking an AoO in the process.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 12:01 AM	I would say yes from a logical point of view (insert comment about logic and d&d not co-existing). You attacked something, and it evaporated. when you do that to a poor little goblin, you get an extra attack. But when you do it to an illusion... Goblins don't evaporate. When you kill a Goblin, your sword sinks into Goblin flesh and the Goblin falls to the ground before you. It is nothing like popping an MI at all. The action of "killing" an MI is exactly the same, physically, as swinging a sword through empty air -- because that's what you're doing. If popping an MI triggers Cleave, so should simply missing. We've been over this.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 12:02 AM	You as the caster can keep your images near an enemy (because you can safely move and split or merge at the same time with them), therefore you can be quite in safe by *serving up* those images to the creatures's adjacent square. Surely, assuming that they would not move, just attack the image which is next to them. A creature would not need to roll randomly then, because she would never have a chance to hit. ...If the creature was stupid, and didn't suspect you of doing exactly this, sure.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 12:04 AM	Well there's one thing I got from all this. The Improved Overrun and (mounted) Trample feats just showed they can outdo Mirror Image, at least for the round (and if there's enough movement to cover all the images). No, they *can't*. Overrun is a standard action. You can only choose to do one overrun per move, even if you have Improved Overrun or Trample.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 12:05 AM	Given the near-uselessness of Improved Overrun on its own, that's hardly an overpowered consequence of the feat. Nor is the fact that you're spending all your actions just to ID the caster's location for one round, and still provoking an AoO in the process. It doesn't work. If the first one is an image, he's wasted his *single* overrun attempt for that round. He then runs past all the other images (including the real caster) and nothing happens.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 12:08 AM	So what, apparently PCs get to ignore the mechanics of the spell now? Monsters have to randomly roll but PCs are free to metagame their way around the spell and just pick which they want? Here I thought the randomizing was because they were indistinguishable and that was represented by the random roll. There's no "metagaming around it" if they're indistinguishable. Rolling randomly or just saying "Well, I'll always attack the one on the left", there's still no way to actually figure out which one is real without gathering evidence based on other things (like "Hey, this one just hit me!" or "Wait, I have true seeing!"). People just seem to be reading too much around "You must roll", as though it's somehow proof they all have to be standing in the same square. (Even if they were all standing in the same square, the true caster could still reveal himself by, say, foolishly actually hitting you. Indeed, this *must* be possible or all the crap about being able to "merge and split" would be pointless text.)
Steidas 07-27-07, 01:39 AM	Just because the spell creates images it doesn't mean the PCs can't use their heads and THINK. It's a roleplaying game! If they find an interesting (yet different) way to deal with it, that's great!
bigbythewise 07-27-07, 01:52 AM	It doesn't work. If the first one is an image, he's wasted his *single* overrun attempt for that round. He then runs past all the other images (including the real caster) and nothing happens. I would say that you can just close your eyes and go through at least some of the images. You don't need to use Overrun then.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:02 AM	I would say that you can just close your eyes and go through at least some of the images. You don't need to use Overrun then. Then how do you know you went through them, as opposed to merely running past them?
bigbythewise 07-27-07, 03:28 AM	Then how do you know you went through them, as opposed to merely running past them? You need not to know it. You would just bump up against the caster *if lucky*, which would depend on how the images would be arranged. Remember that the spell has no effect if you close your eyes, so it would be just an attempt to pinpoint the caster. However, pinpointing is a standard action so this probably would not work, argh. Maybe that the wizard would be able to dodge the blind dude anyway.
yrogerg 07-27-07, 07:26 AM	You need not to know it. You would just bump up against the caster *if lucky*, which would depend on how the images would be arranged. What the heck? If the caster chooses to avoid you (per Overrun rules), then why the heck would you bump into him at all, ever?
malignor 07-27-07, 09:22 AM	No, they *can't*. Overrun is a standard action. You can only choose to do one overrun per move, even if you have Improved Overrun or Trample.But you're only doing one overrun in the round. You *know* there's only one real opponent in the path, and the rest are just images. It's the same effect as choosing a movement path (as part of an overrun) when you *know* there's an invisible opponent somewhere in there.
Irving 07-27-07, 10:15 AM	But you're only doing one overrun in the round. You *know* there's only one real opponent in the path, and the rest are just images. ...to which I say, "make a Spellcraft check". The *players* may "know" that there's only one person in there. The PC most certainly does not, unless he's familiar with the spell. And sneaky casters will cheerfully use things like invisible summoned monsters to give the lie to your assumption.
malignor 07-27-07, 10:30 AM	...to which I say, "make a Spellcraft check". The *players* may "know" that there's only one person in there. The PC most certainly does not, unless he's familiar with the spell. And sneaky casters will cheerfully use things like invisible summoned monsters to give the lie to your assumption.I agree you have to be confident that the images are not of physical substance... something which can be discovered by any party member making a spellcraft check and hollering it, or by seeing the spell in action (such as from a team-mate), or some other explanation.
Ornum 07-27-07, 10:31 AM	So what, apparently PCs get to ignore the mechanics of the spell now? Monsters have to randomly roll but PCs are free to metagame their way around the spell and just pick which they want? Here I thought the randomizing was because they were indistinguishable and that was represented by the random roll. The random roll should only apply to any DM controlled creatures. As a DM, you know (or should know, at least) which are the figments and which is real. With that knowledge, a DM can't fairly decide which the NPC should attack, hence the random roll. A PC, however, doesn't have that knowledge. Why should a player, who is supposed to be playing the role of the PC by thinking and acting like said PC (um, it is called "role playing"), have to use random rolls to make decisions (unless said PC is under some sort of effect such as confusion, or somesuch)? It has nothing to do with a PC ignoring mechanics.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:20 PM	But you're only doing one overrun in the round. You *know* there's only one real opponent in the path, and the rest are just images. It's the same effect as choosing a movement path (as part of an overrun) when you *know* there's an invisible opponent somewhere in there. You have to declare your Overrun check when you intend to do an Overrun. If the Overrun check is against something that can't be overrun, because it isn't there, you've just wasted it. The *first time* you run through an image's square, you would have to declare Overrun in order to try to bump into him. If you don't, then you never actually make contact with him and you have no idea if he's real or fake. If you're lucky, the first one you run into is the real caster, and when you Overrun him you knock him prone and everyone who saw you do it knows it's the real caster and can attack him. (You yourself cannot, because succeeding on an Overrun check makes you continue your movement as normal.) If you're not, the first one you run into is not the real caster, you make an Overrun check, you blow right through him as though he isn't there, and you just keep running past all the other images, including whichever one is real. (Hell, it's arguable whether the first image even pops if this happens, since it's arguable whether Overrun counts as an "attack" -- it involves no attack roll and it does no damage. So really, there's no advantage to doing this instead of just walking up to one of the images and hitting it -- or, better yet, shooting it with a crossbow.) Similarly, if you move through a space with an invisible opponent, you can't choose to overrun him unless you know he's there. If he chooses not to AoO you and chooses not to block your movement but step aside, you have no way of knowing which square he's in.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:21 PM	I agree you have to be confident that the images are not of physical substance... something which can be discovered by any party member making a spellcraft check and hollering it, or by seeing the spell in action (such as from a team-mate), or some other explanation. You don't know which image is real and which image isn't. That's the point. You have to *try* to overrun an image in order to know which one is real and which one isn't. You seem to be misunderstanding how it works. If you don't actively try to Overrun an opponent, the opponent can always simply choose to do nothing and let you pass. You have no way of proving if he's there or not except *trying to bump into him*, which is an Overrun check, which is a strenuous enough action to be a standard action you can only do once per round. If all you do is run through all the images' squares, all the images (including the real caster) just have to stand there and do nothing, and you've learned nothing.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:23 PM	You need not to know it. You would just bump up against the caster *if lucky*, which would depend on how the images would be arranged. Luck has nothing to do with it. The rules say that anyone who chooses to let you pass can always let you pass (look up the Overrun rules), *unless* you make an Overrun check, which you can only do once per round. There are no rules for bumping into someone "by chance" (in order for that to happen, *he* would have to be unaware of you and have no reason to try to avoid you). Remember that the spell has no effect if you close your eyes, so it would be just an attempt to pinpoint the caster. However, pinpointing is a standard action so this probably would not work, argh. Maybe that the wizard would be able to dodge the blind dude anyway. You can do anything if you're capable of pinpointing an individual while blind, given that mirror images are a visual effect. Then the Overrun thing is irrelevant.
malignor 07-27-07, 04:25 PM	Step 1 Attack of Opportunity. Since you begin the overrun by moving into the defender’s space, you provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.The defender may opt to not take the AoO if he wants to keep up the ruse. Images make no AoOs anyway. Moving on.Step 2 Opponent Avoids? The defender has the option to simply avoid you. If he avoids you, he doesn’t suffer any ill effect and you may keep moving (You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by.) The overrun attempt doesn’t count against your actions this round (except for any movement required to enter the opponent’s square). If your opponent doesn’t avoid you, move to Step 3.Images copy the movements of the caster. So unless the caster is dodging and weaving with every square you pass through, the overrunning fellow is going "image... image... image..." as he passes through them. But here's the problem - if you go through the square without meeting resistance (such as with an image), "The overrun attempt doesn’t count against your actions this round (except for any movement required to enter the opponent’s square)". In other words, no resistance, no overrun, only movement. Moving through image-occupied squares no not count toward your actions beyond the movement itself, because they do not hamper you any more than someone who lets you pass. Step 3 Opponent Blocks? If your opponent blocks you, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus on the check for every size category he is larger than Medium or a -4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid. If you win, you knock the defender prone. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check (including the size modifiers noted above, but no other modifiers) to try to knock you prone. Step 4 Consequences. If you succeed in knocking your opponent prone, you can continue your movement as normal. If you fail and are knocked prone in turn, you have to move 5 feet back the way you came and fall prone, ending your movement there. If you fail but are not knocked prone, you have to move 5 feet back the way you came, ending your movement there. If that square is occupied, you fall prone in that square.and so it ends. But my fave part is...Improved Overrun If you have the Improved Overrun feat, your target may not choose to avoid you. Mounted Overrun (Trample) If you attempt an overrun while mounted, your mount makes the Strength check to determine the success or failure of the overrun attack (and applies its size modifier, rather than yours). If you have the Trample feat and attempt an overrun while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you, and if you knock your opponent prone with the overrun, your mount may make one hoof attack against your opponent.So I say, as I said before... Improved Overrun and Trample feats defeat as many images as you can run over before either - making an overrun attempt against the caster instead of images (which don't hamper the movement) or... - running out of movement for the round. By "defeat an image" I mean simply to realize they are images, and not the caster. No attack roll is made, so they don't "poof". Oddly, though, the overrunner ends up occupying the same squares as one or more images.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 07:29 PM	Images copy the movements of the caster. So unless the caster is dodging and weaving with every square you pass through, the overrunning fellow is going "image... image... image..." as he passes through them. "Letting someone pass" is not an active action. If the person doesn't choose to actively block you, you run past. "Just standing there" counts as "letting someone pass". This is why you can run past helpless creatures, such as paralyzed creatures, held creatures, petrified creatures, dead creatures, statues of creatures, etc. All the caster has to do is just stand still and hope you use up your Overrun attempt on the first image, like I said. Trying to run straight *at* someone and tackle them is Overrun or Bull Rush. By default you're trying to run past them, and if they don't stop you, you do run past them. Of course, this is taking it for granted that images can *only* copy the caster's movements and otherwise are never trying to avoid attacks, which doesn't seem to be true. Images get the caster's Dex bonus to AC, after all, which means that if you fire an arrow at an image and it just misses, it's because the image "dodged" it. But if we put that in this argument then we only complicate the issue more than it needs to be complicated.
yrogerg 07-27-07, 07:55 PM	The defender may opt to not take the AoO if he wants to keep up the ruse. Images make no AoOs anyway. Moving on.Images copy the movements of the caster. So unless the caster is dodging and weaving with every square you pass through, the overrunning fellow is going "image... image... image..." as he passes through them. But here's the problem - if you go through the square without meeting resistance (such as with an image), "The overrun attempt doesn’t count against your actions this round (except for any movement required to enter the opponent’s square)". In other words, no resistance, no overrun, only movement. Moving through image-occupied squares no not count toward your actions beyond the movement itself, because they do not hamper you any more than someone who lets you pass. and so it ends. But my fave part is...So I say, as I said before... Improved Overrun and Trample feats defeat as many images as you can run over before either - making an overrun attempt against the caster instead of images (which don't hamper the movement) or... - running out of movement for the round. By "defeat an image" I mean simply to realize they are images, and not the caster. No attack roll is made, so they don't "poof". Oddly, though, the overrunner ends up occupying the same squares as one or more images. Honestly, using your entire action to determine were the caster is for part of an initiative count, rather, than, say, reducing the possible locations permanently by at least 3, isn't all that powerful. While I agree that this would work more or less in this manner, it's not actually that powerful. Note, however, that this is one *actual* point of ambiguity in the rules regarding illusions: The Overrun rules use the phrase "attempt an Overrun" to mean two different things (the attempt before the Avoid/block decision, and the actual check that's made that costs a standard action), and since the only options presented for a target of an overrun are Avoid/Block, it's also unclear how this interacts with things that can't do either, especially as Improved Overrun takes the Avoid option off the table.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 08:06 PM	Honestly, using your entire action to determine were the caster is for part of an initiative count, rather, than, say, reducing the possible locations permanently by at least 3, isn't all that powerful. While I agree that this would work more or less in this manner, it's not actually that powerful. Note, however, that this is one *actual* point of ambiguity in the rules regarding illusions: The Overrun rules use the phrase "attempt an Overrun" to mean two different things (the attempt before the Avoid/block decision, and the actual check that's made that costs a standard action), and since the only options presented for a target of an overrun are Avoid/Block, it's also unclear how this interacts with things that can't do either, especially as Improved Overrun takes the Avoid option off the table. I don't agree that it would work this way. If you just run into someone's square without saying "I'm making an Overrun check", they have the same set of choices -- they can either let you run past, or make an AoO against you and stop your movement. Making the Overrun check is specifically an attempt to run into them, and can only be done once per round. Ordinary Overrun means that you can only use the Overrun check on someone who "agrees" to let you Overrun them, which means that if you used this tactic with ordinary Overrun it simply wouldn't work (every image would avoid you, including the caster). Improved Overrun lets you *force* an Overrun. Avoiding isn't an option. You're like a football player who's trained to intercept and tackle someone in mid-run. But that means when you force an Overrun on a dude who's attempting to avoid you, *that's your Overrun attempt this round*. If the Overrun still fails, because the thing you tried to Overrun was an illusion, or incorporeal, or whatever -- then you've still used up the Overrun attempt. I admit my thinking on this subject wasn't clear when this part of the discussion started because I'm wasn't super-clear on the Overrun rules, but now I'm pretty confident about them. Improved Overrun is clearly not allowed to let you get *free* overruns against people who can't respond to it, like auto-overrunning as many paralyzed opponents as you want and knocking them all prone or something. The important point here is that when you choose to use an Improved Overrun you're committing to an action that you then must take -- you are *always* running with your arms out and plowing into the guy when using Improved Overrun, whereas regular Overrun is just running into someone's square and plowing into him if he tries to block you. (As yrogerg said, though, we've deviated a lot from the original discussion about Cleave, and also, as he says, letting malignor's strategy work as described still wouldn't make MI "useless". For one thing, it would work *exactly as he describes* even if all the images are in the same square as the caster -- I run through that square, I try to Overrun everything I see, the first one I do Overrun is the caster, now everybody kills the caster.)
malignor 07-27-07, 08:35 PM	Ordinary Overrun means that you can only use the Overrun check on someone who "agrees" to let you Overrun them, which means that if you used this tactic with ordinary Overrun it simply wouldn't work (every image would avoid you, including the caster).Very different. Someone who willing fails the overrun check, or someone who is helpless and unable to contest the roll, results in a successful overrun, which is why it uses up the attempt. The Overrun action went past step 2. Images, incorporeal creatures and empty squares simply allow passage through the space. The overrun never gets past step 2, so no overrun action is performed. There's a reason why the steps are the way they are. (As yrogerg said, though, we've deviated a lot from the original discussion about Cleave, and also, as he says, letting malignor's strategy work as described still wouldn't make MI "useless". For one thing, it would work *exactly as he describes* even if all the images are in the same square as the caster -- I run through that square, I try to Overrun everything I see, the first one I do Overrun is the caster, now everybody kills the caster.)The difference is that with the co-occupancy ruling, caster and images alike all end up prone in the same square, and nothing is actually resolved (except now we have a prone caster). With the connected-occupancy ruling, the guy charges through a bunch of images (which remain; no "attack" was done) and then overruns the caster, leaving the caster (and possibly the images) all prone, and now everyone who witnessed it knows which square the caster is in by seeing which "copy" was bowled over (or resisted) by the overrun. I'd like to point out that I use the co-occupancy ruling, and am simply using my argument to show that a feat which is on equal standing of cleave (Improved Overrun; prereq same as Cleave) is effective against the connected-occupancy ruling of Multiple Image, as endorsed by others besides myself. = = = = = As for the cleave issue, it's been argued already. Water under the bridge. It's an "agree to disagree" scenario... one where I see the term "creature" in Cleave to be relative to the Cleave-er... "that which is perceived as a creature", including a figment (of an applicable enemy), a well-designed wax sculpture, or an hallucination. And to "make it drop" means to render it KOed, dead, broken, disintegrated, atomized, obliterated or similar. How you and I gather the meaning the author was trying to convey is different. You may claim I'm wrong, but so far everyone I've met with in person agrees with me.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 08:45 PM	Very different. Someone who willing fails the overrun check, or someone who is helpless and unable to contest the roll, results in a successful overrun, which is why it uses up the attempt. The Overrun action went past step 2. Images, incorporeal creatures and empty squares simply allow passage through the space. The overrun never gets past step 2, so no overrun action is performed. Would you like to point to an actual *rule* saying this? By the rules, I declare an Overrun action *before step 1*, when I choose to enter the square. The only thing that makes this not an Overrun action is if the person successfully avoids me, which takes place *within* step 2. Improved Overrun skips this and makes the Overrun happen. That's the mechanics. Flavorwise, Improved Overrun means I swerved and dived to tackle him without him having to step into my way first. I still had to take the action, though -- I still did something. I still swerved towards him for a football tackle, or whatever. (An Improved Overrun is something you have to *choose to use* and commit to before you step into the square -- since you can choose between Improved Overrun and, for instance, Tumble.) There's a reason why the steps are the way they are. The difference is that with the co-occupancy ruling, caster and images alike all end up prone in the same square, and nothing is actually resolved (except now we have a prone caster). Er, I just ran into the guy. Everyone saw me do it. You're saying I can't tell which one he is? With the connected-occupancy ruling, the guy charges through a bunch of images (which remain; no "attack" was done) and then overruns the caster, leaving the caster (and possibly the images) all prone, and now everyone who witnessed it knows which square the caster is in by seeing which "copy" was bowled over (or resisted) by the overrun. And ruling the other way, everyone already knew which square the caster was in, because there's only one square he could possibly be in -- the one they're all in. Either way, he can't get up and reshuffle the images until he stands up and takes another move action, so we've still got him. This is the part I don't like -- co-occupancy turns into "the images don't have any initiative turn and are constantly melding and shifting and morphing *all the time* so that the caster can't be identified *at all*", which totally smashes the intention of the original spell. It makes the line that says you have to *take an action* to merge and split with an image irrelevant. I'd like to point out that I use the co-occupancy ruling, and am simply using my argument to show that a feat which is on equal standing of cleave (Improved Overrun; prereq same as Cleave) is effective against the connected-occupancy ruling of Multiple Image, as endorsed by others besides myself. Not really. It's not getting rid of the images, is it? They're still there, and can still be reshuffled. As for the cleave issue, it's been argued already. Water under the bridge. It's an "agree to disagree" scenario... one where I see the term "creature" in Cleave to be relative to the Cleave-er... "that which is perceived as a creature", including a figment (of an applicable enemy), a well-designed wax sculpture, or an hallucination. And to "make it drop" means to render it KOed, dead, broken, disintegrated, atomized, obliterated or similar. *shrug* Whatever floats your boat. Good luck getting your DM to cast charm person on an illusion or a wax dummy just because it looks like a person to you. How you and I gather the meaning the author was trying to convey is different. You may claim I'm wrong, but so far everyone I've met with in person agrees with me. That tends to be the way it happens when people buttonhole people in person and ask their opinion about an Internet debate. FWIW, everyone I've talked to in person agrees with me (not that that means anything, since everyone I've talked to in person about it is my friend, not a random sampling of D&D experts).
bigbythewise 07-27-07, 09:44 PM	Luck has nothing to do with it. The rules say that anyone who chooses to let you pass can always let you pass (look up the Overrun rules), *unless* you make an Overrun check, which you can only do once per round. There are no rules for bumping into someone "by chance" (in order for that to happen, *he* would have to be unaware of you and have no reason to try to avoid you). Yeah, I've just looked up and learned something. .]
malignor 07-28-07, 12:46 AM	ArcTan, you have the wrong idea of Overrun. Overrun is not a tackle. It's literally running over your target, trampling them underfoot (horses do trample damage on an overrun) and continuing to move. Step 4 Consequences. If you succeed in knocking your opponent prone, you can continue your movement as normal. If you care to look at step 2... Step 2 Opponent Avoids? The defender has the option to simply avoid you. If he avoids you, he doesn’t suffer any ill effect and you may keep moving (You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by.) The overrun attempt doesn’t count against your actions this round (except for any movement required to enter the opponent’s square). If your opponent doesn’t avoid you, move to Step 3.Now here's the rub. You claim that if a ... we'll call him George (after that Seinfeld episode where George ran over a bunch of children and the elderly to escape a fire)... if George had Improved Overrun, the opponent would be forced to move onto step 3. But an image isn't an opponent. An image is literally nothing against an overrun. It can't NOT get out of the way because there's nothing in the way to begin with - physically, it's an empty square. Since it's an empty square, and since Overrun is not a tackle maneuver, George passes through the square unheeded. No step 3 happens - there is no opponent to prevent George from walking right through it, only an impalpable (love that word) image.
ArcTan 07-28-07, 01:28 AM	ArcTan, you have the wrong idea of Overrun. Overrun is not a tackle. It's literally running over your target, trampling them underfoot (horses do trample damage on an overrun) and continuing to move. Flavor isn't really relevant here. (Note that Overrun isn't literally trampling since people who don't have Trample can't, well, trample you.) The point is that Overrun is an action. Tackle or no tackle, there must be something you *do* on Improved Overrun that makes it better than regular Overrun. (The fact that it's a Fighter bonus feat implies it's some kind of combat training.) At the very least, the Overrun attempt consists of being able to swerve to still overrun somebody who's trying to avoid you, since that's what Improved Overrun says it does. If you care to look at step 2... Now here's the rub. You claim that if a ... we'll call him George (after that Seinfeld episode where George ran over a bunch of children and the elderly to escape a fire)... if George had Improved Overrun, the opponent would be forced to move onto step 3. Yes. But an image isn't an opponent. An image is literally nothing against an overrun. It can't NOT get out of the way because there's nothing in the way to begin with - physically, it's an empty square. Since it's an empty square, and since Overrun is not a tackle maneuver, George passes through the square unheeded. No step 3 happens - there is no opponent to prevent George from walking right through it, only an impalpable (love that word) image. Where are you getting all this from? You either get out of the way or you don't. If you don't get out of the way, because you can't, then an Overrun attempt happens. The fact that the Overrun attempt doesn't do anything because images can't be knocked prone doesn't mean there wasn't an Overrun attempt, any more than the fact that when you attack an image you don't hit anything (because the image isn't there) means there wasn't an attack and you can take another standard action that round.
malignor 07-28-07, 02:00 AM	Re-read step 2. "The overrun attempt doesn’t count against your actions this round (except for any movement required to enter the opponent’s square)."
ArcTan 07-28-07, 03:21 AM	Re-read step 2. "The overrun attempt doesn’t count against your actions this round (except for any movement required to enter the opponent’s square)." If he chooses to avoid you, yes. This is impossible with Improved Overrun. With Improved Overrun you simply skip step 2, because it's impossible for step 2 to happen. (Whether or not the image is really there, you did try to overrun it.) Step 2 says that you can't overrun someone who doesn't try to block you, because you can't control your movement well enough to swerve and intentionally collide with him -- he has to try to collide with you. If you have Improved Overrun, you can *always* choose to intentionally collide with someone. The fact that you go stumbling through the image with no resistance doesn't negate the fact that you used up your attempt to try to run into someone this round.
ArcTan 07-28-07, 03:29 AM	Weird. What I meant to say in this post was: The Overrun trick, if it works, still works the same way on single-square mirror image, because you can still tell which guy was actually knocked over by your friend, so the point of this particular argument is moot.
Kargile 07-28-07, 08:57 AM	I hope certain people in this thread realize that double posting and arguing with EVERYONE doesnt immediately give your position more weight. To that end, anybody who can keep an argument alive beyond the circumstance of using common sense, a reasonably reliable FAQ source, and good ol DM magic is either just here for sport or must be the most obnoxious PC in the world and over analyzes EVERYTHING and pretty much left concentrating on good roleplaying long time ago. Listen, if this was a court of law and skip williams was a witness, and the FAQ was his testimony, would it hold up? What about the definition of cleave and the physics behind it? Now, on the other side of the coin, I can 100% accept you saying "Look for game balancing purposes I dont think you should bla bla bla...." but I dont think thats what most people are arguing.
yrogerg 07-28-07, 12:24 PM	I hope certain people in this thread realize that double posting and arguing with EVERYONE doesnt immediately give your position more weight. To that end, anybody who can keep an argument alive beyond the circumstance of using common sense, a reasonably reliable FAQ source, and good ol DM magic is either just here for sport or must be the most obnoxious PC in the world and over analyzes EVERYTHING and pretty much left concentrating on good roleplaying long time ago. Personally, I hope that certain people realize that using the term "certian people" instead of mentioning specific people doesn't mean that they're not baiting with their comments. Listen, if this was a court of law and skip williams was a witness, and the FAQ was his testimony, would it hold up? Well, given the fact that the FAQ ruling holds that the word "creature" means something different for the purposes of the Cleave feat than it does for every other instance of the word "creature" in every bit of rules text ever published for D&D, and that there's no clarification for *why* Cleave should be an exception to the standard definition of creature, and other primary sources have even elaborated, through other feats, on the fact that Cleave, on it's own *does* only work on creatures, no. It's a lousy, lousy ruling that contradicts primary sources which make it clear what creatures are, that Figments are not creatures, and that Cleave, without supplemental feats, only works on creatures. What about the definition of cleave and the physics behind it? What about the defintion of Jump and the physics behind it? 99% of spells and the physics behind them? Justa thought, since it's D&D, maybe we should leave physics out of it.
ArcTan 07-28-07, 02:07 PM	I hope certain people in this thread realize that double posting and arguing with EVERYONE doesnt immediately give your position more weight. To that end, anybody who can keep an argument alive beyond the circumstance of using common sense, a reasonably reliable FAQ source, and good ol DM magic is either just here for sport or must be the most obnoxious PC in the world and over analyzes EVERYTHING and pretty much left concentrating on good roleplaying long time ago. "Common sense" tells me a creature is a creature. The FAQ is not a "reasonably reliable" source -- it is incredibly unreliable and bad, not just for this situation but for many others. The thing about "DM magic" is that I think it's better for the rules to be consistent than for a DM to have to constantly make things up. And since we're not playing in a game ourselves but just posting on the forums, whether or not I'd argue this long in an actual game (I wouldn't) has nothing to do with it. Listen, if this was a court of law and skip williams was a witness, and the FAQ was his testimony, would it hold up? No. It's in blatant contradiction with a primary source. No matter how reliable a witness you think he is, it doesn't matter if you have videotape evidence or forensic evidence that contradicts his testimony. And, of course, he's not a reliable witness. He's a horrible witness. Must I remind you all of the time he recently forgot all about Dwarves and armor? (He *actually said* the main weakness of a Dwarf heavy-armor fighter is his reduced move speed.) How about the time he completely forgot how Ride checks worked and made up a completely new set of rules? The time he thought equipment auto-resized with polymorph (and therefore the sizing enhancement was useless)? He's a very unreliable witness. The equivalent of a guy who believes in UFOs and thinks the CIA has installed a tracking device in his breakfast cereal. What about the definition of cleave and the physics behind it? The definition of Cleave is that it works on creatures. There isn't any physics behind it, at all. Physics-wise it makes no sense. Now, on the other side of the coin, I can 100% accept you saying "Look for game balancing purposes I dont think you should bla bla bla...." but I dont think thats what most people are arguing. No, I'm arguing that people are perversely misreading the rules. Because they are, and it's fun to point it out.
yrogerg 07-28-07, 03:08 PM	If he chooses to avoid you, yes. This is impossible with Improved Overrun. With Improved Overrun you simply skip step 2, because it's impossible for step 2 to happen. (Whether or not the image is really there, you did try to overrun it.) Step 2 says that you can't overrun someone who doesn't try to block you, because you can't control your movement well enough to swerve and intentionally collide with him -- he has to try to collide with you. If you have Improved Overrun, you can *always* choose to intentionally collide with someone. The fact that you go stumbling through the image with no resistance doesn't negate the fact that you used up your attempt to try to run into someone this round. See, while I agree that this is a reading of the rules that's completely consistent with the entry, it's nevertheless problematic: Why not just let one of the Images "block" a non-Improved Overrun? Nevermind the fact that they're not actually there, the Overrunner still burns their standard action running through them with no effect. Personally, I see this as being rather problematic, and consider Figments to always be capable of "avoiding" an Overrunner, with or without the feat, and only consider it an actual attempt if there's something to make a strength check against in the square. Incidentally, I've never looked at Overrun as the tackle mechanic in D&D. Here's my breakdown of special attack actions in a football game: The Offensive line uses Bull Rush attempts to create an opening for the running back. The running back, who's trying to gain as much yardage as possible, is using Overrun attempts to bowl over anyone who tries to stop him. The Defensive line is mainly using Grapples to stop the Offensive line, and the Defensive backs are either Charging and making Trip attacks on a blitz, or are reading Trip attacks against any runner in their zones. Trip attacks, IMO, are the more likely mechanic for tackles.
yrogerg 07-28-07, 03:22 PM	I see the term "creature" in Cleave to be relative to the Cleave-er... "that which is perceived as a creature", including a figment (of an applicable enemy), a well-designed wax sculpture, or an hallucination. And to "make it drop" means to render it KOed, dead, broken, disintegrated, atomized, obliterated or similar.So, if I *really* think that a vampire is an elf, does that mean I can succesfully kill one with Slay Living? How you and I gather the meaning the author was trying to convey is different. You may claim I'm wrong, but so far everyone I've met with in person agrees with me. I'd really like to hear what you think the author intended to mean when he said "from damage" in the Cleve entry, since, as I've pointed out earlier, the Images lack Hit Points, Ability Scores, or anything else that would be subject to any sort of damage. Again, read literally, whether or not Cleave uses the same definition for "creature" as everything else in the honkin' book, you still need to drop it from *damage*, per the feat entry. Images don't have anything that can be damaged. They just get destroyed when struck.
malignor 07-29-07, 02:16 PM	So, if I *really* think that a vampire is an elf, does that mean I can succesfully kill one with Slay Living?Only if you can PAO it first. The Undead type lists its immunities. Since you're attempting to dabble in the absurd, care to reference the Figment's immunities for me?I'd really like to hear what you think the author intended to mean when he said "from damage" in the Cleve entry, since, as I've pointed out earlier, the Images lack Hit Points, Ability Scores, or anything else that would be subject to any sort of damage. Again, read literally, whether or not Cleave uses the same definition for "creature" as everything else in the honkin' book, you still need to drop it from *damage*, per the feat entry. Images don't have anything that can be damaged. They just get destroyed when struck.Images effectively "drop" when they take any successful attack. Therefore the damage is approximately 0.00000000000001 hp
ArcTan 07-29-07, 05:14 PM	Only if you can PAO it first. Just like Cleave would work on a figment if you could somehow turn the figment into a real creature. However, *disguising* the Vampire as an Elf would not work. It matters what it *really is*, not what it looks like. The Undead type lists its immunities. Since you're attempting to dabble in the absurd, care to reference the Figment's immunities for me? It doesn't have any. It's not a real thing and doesn't actually exist, so all of its stats are nonexistent (*not* zero, *nonexistent*, like how Undead don't have a Con score). Therefore it is incapable of taking damage. Images effectively "drop" when they take any successful attack. Says who? (For one thing, this isn't true of silent image or other figment spells.) Therefore the damage is approximately 0.00000000000001 hp It doesn't take damage, period. It's a condition that ends a spell effect, like setting up a programmed image that vanishes when someone says the password.
yrogerg 07-29-07, 11:07 PM	mages effectively "drop" when they take any successful attack. Therefore the damage is approximately 0.00000000000001 hp Note that in D&D, we always round down.
malignor 07-30-07, 11:09 AM	If he chooses to avoid you, yes. This is impossible with Improved Overrun. With Improved Overrun you simply skip step 2, because it's impossible for step 2 to happen. (Whether or not the image is really there, you did try to overrun it.) Step 2 says that you can't overrun someone who doesn't try to block you, because you can't control your movement well enough to swerve and intentionally collide with him -- he has to try to collide with you. If you have Improved Overrun, you can *always* choose to intentionally collide with someone. The fact that you go stumbling through the image with no resistance doesn't negate the fact that you used up your attempt to try to run into someone this round.By what you're saying, a non-improved overrun has a better chance of working than an improved overrun. Doesn't that sound silly? Improved Overrun doesn't "skip step 2". You're assuming it does, but you're wrong. Improved Overrun simply says the choice to side-step doesn't exist, and that is all. You're adding text that isn't there. Step 2 handles what happens when and if the target for the overrun lets the attacker pass by, which an Image always does, despite any feats the attacker has. I'm not adding assumptions from text about text to add text here. I'm looking at step 2, looking at how solid figments are and realizing that figments put up less resistance to an overrun as a "let-em-by" opponent. By the very nature of the figment (insubstantial), there is no way to not evade the overrun.
ArcTan 07-30-07, 04:14 PM	By what you're saying, a non-improved overrun has a better chance of working than an improved overrun. Doesn't that sound silly? ...What are you talking about? In this particular situation, regular Overrun accomplishes nothing, because a caster with two brain cells to rub together will never choose to engage you on the Overrun. You'll simply run past all the images and do nothing. With Improved Overrun, you can force an actual Overrun against any of the images. You can only do one at a time, but if that one is the actual caster, then you can prove he's there. (Although this isn't actually any better than attacking.) Improved Overrun doesn't "skip step 2". You're assuming it does, but you're wrong. Improved Overrun simply says the choice to side-step doesn't exist, and that is all. You're adding text that isn't there. Step 2 is taking the choice to sidestep. If the choice to sidestep is unavailable, then obviously we must skip step 2. Step 2 handles what happens when and if the target for the overrun lets the attacker pass by, which an Image always does, despite any feats the attacker has. Now *you're* adding text that isn't there. Where does it say that successfully Overrunning a creature who, for some reason, is not in a position to have the rest of Overrun apply to it (a creature who can't be knocked prone, for example) doesn't count as an Overrun check? Running "through" an image is not the same thing as the image failing to engage you. For one thing, it proves it's an image. I'm not adding assumptions from text about text to add text here. I'm looking at step 2, looking at how solid figments are and realizing that figments put up less resistance to an overrun as a "let-em-by" opponent. By the very nature of the figment (insubstantial), there is no way to not evade the overrun. ...Except that by your logic the figment didn't avoid me. By your logic, I actually ran through the figment and proved it was a figment (which was the whole point of this exercise, isn't it?) I succeeded at what I wanted to do (run through the figment). I performed an Overrun check. Avoiding means *avoiding*. In order for the figment to avoid me, we have to have not made contact. By default, that's what happens when you run through someone's square -- you run *past* them. In order to *hit* them, and not run past, that means you actually Overran them. The whole crux of the argument that running through a figment's square proves they're a figment -- because you ran through the figment itself -- rests on a false assumption, that entering someone's square means entering their body. It's stupid. It's not true. Entering someone's square means *standing next to them*. The only way to make *contact* with them is to perform some kind of combat action -- Bull Rush, Overrun, an attack. Whatever it is, running into someone or touching someone always involves a standard action. Even just tapping the image on the arm as you run past the image would involve a melee touch attack and take up a standard action. The nub is that you're trying to get touches for free -- you're trying to say that you can "touch" all the images or, worse, *run through* all the images in one action without taking a standard action. No dice. Touching somebody is *always* a standard action, even if it's just barreling right through a figment.
Steevo 07-30-07, 06:25 PM	The bag o' rats, as well as this stupid debate, are a great illustration of why Cleave is a stupid idea and needs to be rewritten or dropped. (My personal fix is that if you must have Cleave, rule that Cleave makes *the same attack* against another target once you Cleave -- i.e. you don't get your full attack bonus, you don't even get to reroll, just if you hit one of the rats with a total attack rating of 10, then you get to apply that attack rating, 10, against some other monster. Boom, balanced.) That sounds good in theory, until the cleaving character rolls a natural 20 and kills everything within arm's reach from a single roll. Personally I think the best way to balance cleave is to slap players upside the head if they get out of line about it. Bag of rats? No. Just no.
malignor 07-30-07, 06:30 PM	The whole crux of the argument that running through a figment's square proves they're a figment -- because you ran through the figment itself -- rests on a false assumption, that entering someone's square means entering their body. It's stupid. It's not true.Incorrect. Entering someone's square means entering close-quarters with someone. Too close to use non-light weapons. However, overrun requires contact. Improved overrun guarantees contact (no avoidance). In the case of impalpable illusions, there can be no contact, so they pass through, behaving as if an empty square. Making an overrun against an empty square is like going through a square you've been let through (an image can't NOT let you through), and is simply movement (as per step 2).The nub is that you're trying to get touches for free -- you're trying to say that you can "touch" all the images or, worse, *run through* all the images in one action without taking a standard action. No dice. Touching somebody is *always* a standard action, even if it's just barreling right through a figment.The attempt to run over someone is most certainly an attempt to make contact ("touch"). No attack roll is made, and if there is no contact, there is no standard action. Of course, since there is no attack roll, the image also remains. You're also trying to apply the normal to the special. Overrun is in the "special attacks" section. So is charge, which allows for double-movement and an attack. Both Overrun and Charge are special attacks, so they don't follow the standard rules for movement actions and standard actions. Hence why they get spelled out in their own section.
ArcTan 07-30-07, 11:06 PM	Incorrect. Entering someone's square means entering close-quarters with someone. Too close to use non-light weapons. However, overrun requires contact. Didn't I say "It's stupid. It's not true"? Yes. I did. Improved overrun guarantees contact (no avoidance). Yes. In the case of impalpable illusions, there can be no contact, so they pass through, behaving as if an empty square. There still is "contact". You moved through the space the illusion was occupying. That counts as doing an Overrun, even if the target is incorporeal or can't be knocked prone or whatever. Making an overrun against an empty square is like going through a square you've been let through (an image can't NOT let you through) Incorrect. Being let through means running past. and is simply movement (as per step 2). You're reading into the rules. There is no rule *anywhere* that says that illusory, incorporeal or other targets count as "always avoiding" you. The rule simply says the creature either avoids you or not -- the *target's* choice, not yours. If the target *chooses* to avoid you, no Overrun check is made. If it's Improved Overrun, *step 2 gets skipped* and the *Overrun always happens*. The attempt to run over someone is most certainly an attempt to make contact ("touch"). No attack roll is made, and if there is no contact, there is no standard action. Of course, since there is no attack roll, the image also remains. But you still *performed the action*. Making an attack against in image is also the same as attacking an empty square, since an image is impalpable and offers no resistance. But you still *did* something. You're also trying to apply the normal to the special. Overrun is in the "special attacks" section. So is charge, which allows for double-movement and an attack. Both Overrun and Charge are special attacks, so they don't follow the standard rules for movement actions and standard actions. Hence why they get spelled out in their own section. An Overrun attempt still uses up your standard action for the round. The only way for it not to is if the Overrun attempt doesn't happen because the guy doesn't block you. In the case of Improved Overrun, it doesn't matter if he doesn't block you -- you swerve and hit him anyway. Whether or not there was actually something there to hit, *attempting* to hit him uses up the action. This is no different from the fact that casting a spell on an invalid target still counts as casting the spell (even though nothing happens) or attacking an image still counts as making an attack (even though nothing happens). The only other consistent way to rule it would be to say that the image "always avoids" you, meaning that you *always run past* the image, and can therefore never prove whether it's real or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't do something to the image -- in this case, something fairly important, running through it and proving it's an illusion -- and say it still "avoided" you. Avoiding means not touching. The general rule is still the same -- Overrun, Bull Rush, Disarm, whatever. All special combat actions have in common the fact that you cannot physically interact with your target without using up a standard action. Any attempt to make it work like this -- like saying that "running through" an image doesn't count as Overrun -- is blatantly twisting the rules. Anything that says you can "do something" to several images at once is blatantly twisting the rules. ...And, of course, we've been arguing on this for so long you ignored my previous point -- even if this works, this proves nothing about whether mirror image should be multisquare. It works the exact same way with all the images in one square.
ArcTan 07-30-07, 11:07 PM	That sounds good in theory, until the cleaving character rolls a natural 20 and kills everything within arm's reach from a single roll. Personally I think the best way to balance cleave is to slap players upside the head if they get out of line about it. Bag of rats? No. Just no. Point. Why do we even have Cleave in the first place? What does it really add to the game?
yrogerg 07-30-07, 11:35 PM	Point. Why do we even have Cleave in the first place? What does it really add to the game? I think people- all people- tend to read way too much into the flavor description: on one hand, you get the "Conan cuts through several people" school of thought, on the other hand, your arguments that Cleave doesn't make an sort of sense as-written. The part most people tend to overlook is the level on which combat, hits, and hit points are abstracted in D&D's combat system. Here's my view: A capable warrior who learns to deal telling, powerful blows can sometimes learn not to lose pace with a killing blow, but to turn around and continue to gain ground on another opponent. Abstracted D&D combat suggests that you're not actually cutting into multiple people, but killing one and gaining ground on another. After all, unless you are killing multiple creatures outright, it's unlikely that, outside the abstraction, the hit points lost represent actual injuries from your weapon. In a way, this imagining of Cleave makes it kin to Karmic Strike: whereas Karmic Strike relies on the moment after striking you when your opponent drops his guard, Cleave ultimately represents *not* slowing down or dropping your guard as much after dealing a killing blow. Given this perspective, it makes sense that Mirror Image would not be a valid Cleave target: the experience of striking an human figure and having it vanish in a burst of light, should still throw even an experienced warrior off-kilter, causing them to lose whatever advantage they would normally have. Frankly, this should still be the case, even after it happens the first time. Part of the warrior's mind would still expect each strike to make contact with something, making him less effective at pressing an offensive. In other words, Cleave doesn't represent swinging your sword through multiple people in one go, but rather continuing your advance and pushing your opponents foward, even after you've dropped one of them.
JolanthusTrel 07-30-07, 11:37 PM	Why do we even have Cleave in the first place? What does it really add to the game? Because it makes fighters suck less for those that don't like ToB yet still like Melee characters. The ability to drop 2 or more people when it's yours or a comrades life in danger is a great boon.
malignor 07-31-07, 12:17 PM	I think the real reason for all this back-n-forthing about Cleave, Overrun and Mirror Image, is really about what to do when you look at the rules and realize they missed out alot of special cases. You can try analyzing the text as if it holds all the answers as-is, or you can make judgement calls based on how the existing cases are handled. For example, the description of Cleave. It uses terms like "creatures" and "damage". Well, is this for the general case (that which is more common) or for all cases? Did the writers consider illusionary foes at the time? Possible, but not likely. Some of us say it's up to the people playing the game (DM) to make a judgement call, and maintain consistency of behaviour - that illusionary opponents are to be treated as real opponents and, since figments don't have hp per se, simply dispelling the illusion (via a successful attack roll) qualifies for the follow-through of a cleave. Others argue as if the authors thought of everything when they wrote Cleave, and that the description is flawless, explicit and covers every possible case in the game where employing Cleave comes into question. From this standpoint, consistency of specific terms is paramount. Since figments can take no damage and are not creatures, they are immune to cleave. Looking at the description of Mirror Image, or of figments in general, doesn't help much at all. In fact, Mirror Image breaks the mold for Figments, in that every other figment can be disbelieved via a saving throw, resulting in translucent outlines of themselves, but Mirror Images cannot. Figments cannot support weight, do damage, or any other physical effect beyond the sensory output they deceive. As such they would also provide no resistance to physical attacks like Cleave or Overrun, yet if the letter of the "perfect RAW" is followed with consistency of terminology instead of consistency of behaviour, these images (which would normally be effortlessly cleft through or run right through like empty squares) instead stop an overrun or cleave in their tracks. By this line of thought, the Mirror Images are better than anything produced by Summon Monster I-IX or even Gate against such attack forms. But the terminology... "creature"... "damage"... Does figment fit under the term "foe"? "opponent"?
ArcTan 07-31-07, 04:01 PM	I think the real reason for all this back-n-forthing about Cleave, Overrun and Mirror Image, is really about what to do when you look at the rules and realize they missed out alot of special cases. You can try analyzing the text as if it holds all the answers as-is, or you can make judgement calls based on how the existing cases are handled. ...Which is what we've been doing. For example, the description of Cleave. It uses terms like "creatures" and "damage". Well, is this for the general case (that which is more common) or for all cases? Did the writers consider illusionary foes at the time? Possible, but not likely. Oh, for cripes' sake. They didn't have to. For the rules to be modular and work, you just have to say whether *illusions* are creatures when you write up the rules for *illusions*. They didn't. Some of us say it's up to the people playing the game (DM) to make a judgement call, and maintain consistency of behaviour - that illusionary opponents are to be treated as real opponents and, since figments don't have hp per se, simply dispelling the illusion (via a successful attack roll) qualifies for the follow-through of a cleave. ...Which brings up a lot of other consistency issues, like whether you can cast targeted spells on illusions, whether illusions can make saving throws, and so on. Others argue as if the authors thought of everything when they wrote Cleave, and that the description is flawless, explicit and covers every possible case in the game where employing Cleave comes into question. From this standpoint, consistency of specific terms is paramount. Since figments can take no damage and are not creatures, they are immune to cleave. It's not about "consistency of specific terms". The word "creature" assumes a lot of things. If Cleave works on figments because they're "creatures", then charm monster works on figments because they're "creatures". You start having to ask a lot of questions with no good answers. Looking at the description of Mirror Image, or of figments in general, doesn't help much at all. In fact, Mirror Image breaks the mold for Figments, in that every other figment can be disbelieved via a saving throw, resulting in translucent outlines of themselves, but Mirror Images cannot. ...But in every other way it's equivalent to a figment. Will (disbelief) is irrelevant to this. The fact that you can't disbelieve an image doesn't in any way imply that the image is any more solid or real than other images. Figments cannot support weight, do damage, or any other physical effect beyond the sensory output they deceive. As such they would also provide no resistance to physical attacks like Cleave or Overrun, yet if the letter of the "perfect RAW" is followed with consistency of terminology instead of consistency of behaviour, these images (which would normally be effortlessly cleft through or run right through like empty squares) instead stop an overrun or cleave in their tracks. By RAW, they don't stop an Overrun. You've been misunderstanding everything I've been saying, haven't you? You still *use up* an Overrun attempt if you Overrun something that can't be Overrun. It takes time and energy to swerve and hit something, even if it's not there, just like it takes time and energy to attack the figment with an axe, even if it's not there. It's like how you can try to cast charm person at an image, and the spell will fail, but that means you still used up a standard action and the spell slot. You don't get a freebie for mis-targeting. As far as "stopping a Cleave in its tracks", that's assuming a Cleave is something that can be "stopped in its tracks" in the first place, as though Cleave made any *sense* that way in the first place. If it's only fair to be able to Cleave off an image, then it's also only fair to be able to Cleave off of empty air, or Cleave off of breaking a wax dummy, or Cleave off of a major image (which also pops when struck), or a dead body, or whatever. You keep acting like this ruling is the "reasonable" ruling that keeps things simple, when actually it's a ruling that opens up the door to all kinds of ridiculous crap. A mirror image is nothing but empty air. You're basically saying Cleave should be able to cleave through empty air. By this line of thought, the Mirror Images are better than anything produced by Summon Monster I-IX or even Gate against such attack forms. This is crap. I never said mirror image stops you "dead in your tracks" for Overrun, simply that if you use an Overrun against something that you can't Overrun *it's still a standard action*. I never said mirror image stops Cleave "dead in its tracks", just that you can't use Great Cleave to immediately counter mirror image and make it useless. The fact that mirror images can't actually fight or hurt you in any way is what balances them against summon monster and gate. To say that you have to be able to Cleave through MIs or else they're "more powerful" than summoning a Solar with gate is just being ludicrous. But the terminology... "creature"... "damage"... Does figment fit under the term "foe"? "opponent"? It doesn't matter, because that's not the terminology used. But for any case where the "foe" or "opponent" needs to be REAL, it doesn't fit. I can't believe you're acting like this is the hairsplitting or complex argument. It isn't. It's incredibly simple. Figments aren't real. Therefore they don't count for anything, because things have to be *real* to interact with the rest of the rules. You can still *try* to do things to them, but when you try, nothing happens, because they're not real. That's SIMPLE. That's EASY. Anything you try to do to a figment fails because it isn't there. (It may not *look* like it fails, but it does.) Any other ruling makes things incredibly complicated.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 04:05 PM	Here's my view: A capable warrior who learns to deal telling, powerful blows can sometimes learn not to lose pace with a killing blow, but to turn around and continue to gain ground on another opponent. Abstracted D&D combat suggests that you're not actually cutting into multiple people, but killing one and gaining ground on another. After all, unless you are killing multiple creatures outright, it's unlikely that, outside the abstraction, the hit points lost represent actual injuries from your weapon. In a way, this imagining of Cleave makes it kin to Karmic Strike: whereas Karmic Strike relies on the moment after striking you when your opponent drops his guard, Cleave ultimately represents *not* slowing down or dropping your guard as much after dealing a killing blow. Given this perspective, it makes sense that Mirror Image would not be a valid Cleave target: the experience of striking an human figure and having it vanish in a burst of light, should still throw even an experienced warrior off-kilter, causing them to lose whatever advantage they would normally have. Frankly, this should still be the case, even after it happens the first time. Part of the warrior's mind would still expect each strike to make contact with something, making him less effective at pressing an offensive. In other words, Cleave doesn't represent swinging your sword through multiple people in one go, but rather continuing your advance and pushing your opponents foward, even after you've dropped one of them. In this case, Cleave would still make more sense as something you got after rolling above a certain threshold on your attack roll, rather than something you got for "dropping" an opponent. In real fighting you get no particular advantage for "dropping" an opponent, in regards to your stance relative to other opponents -- the only possible advantage is psychological ("Oh my God, he's killed Kenny!). There's no way to tactically gain footing on someone else because you've killed his buddy (as opposed to scoring a very strong hit on his buddy or whatever). Cleave *should* either be called "Press the Attack" and say that if, say, you score a critical hit you get a free attack on anyone else in range, or it should be called "Bloodlust" and work the way it does now, or something. Calling it "Cleave" and talking about it as "cleaving through" opponents is one of the stupidest things yet remaining in D&D.
malignor 07-31-07, 07:18 PM	Oh, for cripes' sake. They didn't have to. For the rules to be modular and work, you just have to say whether *illusions* are creatures when you write up the rules for *illusions*. They didn't.... you are saying they can't be treated like creatures at all, correct? SRD - Combat - Ranged Combat "If your target (or the part of your you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character." SRD - Spell Descriptions - Rays Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at. If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists. If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit." By your argument, since a figment isn't a creature, there is no -4 penalty to shoot one in melee with a friendly character (any more than Cleave affects a non-creature). By your argument, ray spells simply don't work against figments (any more so than Cleave). What I'm arguing for is the understanding that the term "creature" is not always used with the precision you suggest. The description of Cleave is even more suspect than the description of Ray spells for doing this, since feats like Cleave are not even in the same section of the rules as Mirror Image (whereas spell descriptions are closer related). Thus the term "creature" in the Cleave description should be taken no more literally than in the description of Rays or Ranged Attacks. I claim that illusionary opponents count as creatures for the purpose of targetting and special details, but not for general effects. The effects are dictated by the details of an empty square by default, and overridden by the details of the illusion (illusionary wounds, or dictated by the illusionist, for example). Mirror Image specifically creates non-disbelievable figments which are destroyed with a successful attack. Cleave takes advantage of situations where a target is defeated by allowing another attack within reach. So, when a Cleaver successfully destroys an applicable target (Mirror Image) with an attack, his feat activates. ...Which brings up a lot of other consistency issues, like whether you can cast targeted spells on illusions, whether illusions can make saving throws, and so on.Those are not issues at all. You can cast spell on them and they don't work, any more than casting Blindness/Deafness on a rock or an illusion. They don't need a save because it's just not an applicable target (can't blind something that has no sight). You still cast the spell at what seems to be a creature. The effect is illusionary at best. It's not about "consistency of specific terms". The word "creature" assumes a lot of things. If Cleave works on figments because they're "creatures", then charm monster works on figments because they're "creatures". You start having to ask a lot of questions with no good answers.Charm Monster is a mind effect. Figments do not have ability scores, and are thus mindless, so Charm Monster (a mind affecting spell) doesn't work. But the spell or illusionist may dictate that it appears to shrug off the effect, or befriends the caster. How about Slay Living? Well Figments aren't alive, and you can't kill what's not alive, so the spell is cast and it doesn't work. But the spell or illusionist may dictate that it appears to shrug off the effect, or falls dead. How about Lightning Bolt? Well figments don't have hitpoints, and you can't take hitpoints away from something that doesn't take damage, so the spell is cast and it doesn't work. But the spell or illusionist may dictate that it appears to laugh off the effect, or get electrocuted. Illusions don't have stats, ability scores, hitpoints, minds, or anything but a set of sensory descriptions (how it looks, the sounds it makes, smell or even thermal), a touch AC, and caster-dependent values (such as disbelief DC or dispel magic DC). Therefore they can only truly interact with things that affect the factors that exist - the caster who controls it, the perceptions of those who observe it, the Will of those who disbelieve it, the power of those who try to dispel it, or the physical coexistence of anything that tries to touch it (by action or by attack). Mirror Images specifically do not have any disbelieving, but they have ACs and attack consequences, both of which are addressed in the Cleave description (successful attack, target of attack is destroyed/dropped/defeated). By RAW, they don't stop an Overrun. You've been misunderstanding everything I've been saying, haven't you? You still *use up* an Overrun attempt if you Overrun something that can't be Overrun. It takes time and energy to swerve and hit something, even if it's not there, just like it takes time and energy to attack the figment with an axe, even if it's not there.There are only 4 results, by the "perfect RAW", of an overrun attempt. The defender sidesteps and allows the attacker through; only movement is calculated (step 2) The defender is allowed an AoO, and is knocked prone after a strength check The defender is allowed an AoO, and resists the strength check, and the attacker resists the counter-check. The attacker goes back to the previous adjacent space. The defender is allowed an AoO, and resists the strength check, and the attacker fails the counter-check. The attacker goes back to the previous adjacent space and falls prone.Let me ask you this: How does an image resist the check when it doesn't even have a strength score, and, supposing it auto-fails, how can you shove a figment prone? It's not a creature, has no "up" or "down" sides. It can appear prone, but can't actually have the prone status. Overrun just fails outright. No matter how big and strong, you can't push an image prone. If you want a great example, a mage who casts Mirror Image, then Polymorphs into a Ooze (which simply cannot become prone). Whether ooze or humanoid in form, a figment is a figment. By the facts as they are, coupled with your conclusion, Overrunning an image is like overrunning a rock - a wasted action that produces no results at all, not even movement; a result which I see as absurd. It's like how you can try to cast charm person at an image, and the spell will fail, but that means you still used up a standard action and the spell slot. You don't get a freebie for mis-targeting.This again reinforces how your stance, carried to its logical conclusion, means that overrun (and Ray spells, as they only target creatures) utterly fails against figments.If it's only fair to be able to Cleave off an image, then it's also only fair to be able to Cleave off of empty air, or Cleave off of breaking a wax dummy, or Cleave off of a major image (which also pops when struck), or a dead body, or whatever.Cleaving off of empty air is called wasting a cleave. Cleaving off a wax dummy is also nothing to exploit, any more so than cleaving off of summoned dire rats. Where is the exploit? The imbalance?This is crap. I never said mirror image stops you "dead in your tracks" for Overrun, simply that if you use an Overrun against something that you can't Overrun *it's still a standard action*. I never said mirror image stops Cleave "dead in its tracks", just that you can't use Great Cleave to immediately counter mirror image and make it useless.You never said dead in its tracks. It's just the result of what you did say, and keep saying.The fact that mirror images can't actually fight or hurt you in any way is what balances them against summon monster and gate. To say that you have to be able to Cleave through MIs or else they're "more powerful" than summoning a Solar with gate is just being ludicrous.Apparently not. When facing, for example, a powerful melee combatant, like a Fiendish Barbarian50, all you need is a hallway and Mirror Image, and you can hold back the barbarian for at least ((Level/3+1d4)/2) rounds with a 2nd level spell. Gating that solar-shield coughed up 5000XP, and the Barbarian would obliterate it in 1 full attack. A full attack which can only take out 2 images at most. The barbarian can't overrun them at all (or more than 1 per round, if we play by your rules).It doesn't matter, because that's not the terminology used. But for any case where the "foe" or "opponent" needs to be REAL, it doesn't fit.Read what you say. Then read the combat section. I can't believe you're acting like this is the hairsplitting or complex argument. It isn't. It's incredibly simple. Figments aren't real. Therefore they don't count for anything, because things have to be *real* to interact with the rest of the rules. You can still *try* to do things to them, but when you try, nothing happens, because they're not real. That's SIMPLE. That's EASY. Anything you try to do to a figment fails because it isn't there. (It may not *look* like it fails, but it does.) Any other ruling makes things incredibly complicated.QFE (Quoted for effect)
yrogerg 07-31-07, 08:43 PM	Actually, all the passages you quoted imply is that non-creatures don't benefit from cover. Which is problematic, but enh. The only other reference to "creatures" in the Ray text was with reference to "creatures you cannot see" and "invisible creatures". Really, I'm having trouble seeing how either of those could possibly apply to figments, anyway. Invisible figments??
ArcTan 07-31-07, 09:04 PM	... you are saying they can't be treated like creatures at all, correct? SRD - Combat - Ranged Combat "If your target (or the part of your you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character." SRD - Spell Descriptions - Rays Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at. If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists. If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit." By your argument, since a figment isn't a creature, there is no -4 penalty to shoot one in melee with a friendly character (any more than Cleave affects a non-creature). By your argument, ray spells simply don't work against figments (any more so than Cleave). These are only *mentions* of the word "creature". There's nothing anywhere that says that a ranged attack is an attack you make against creatures, or that a ranged touch spell is a spell you fire against creatures. It just gives creatures as an example of something you can hit with a ranged attack or ranged touch. What I'm arguing for is the understanding that the term "creature" is not always used with the precision you suggest. The description of Cleave is even more suspect than the description of Ray spells for doing this, since feats like Cleave are not even in the same section of the rules as Mirror Image (whereas spell descriptions are closer related). Thus the term "creature" in the Cleave description should be taken no more literally than in the description of Rays or Ranged Attacks. *sigh* I'm really getting tired of this. Cleave's description specifically says Cleave *must* be used against creatures. The same is not true for ranged attacks or rays. The *definition* of a ranged attack says nothing about whether you can use it on a creature. I claim that illusionary opponents count as creatures for the purpose of targetting and special details, but not for general effects. The effects are dictated by the details of an empty square by default, and overridden by the details of the illusion (illusionary wounds, or dictated by the illusionist, for example). So, for instance, I can heal the wounds of a wounded figment with cure minor wounds? Mirror Image specifically creates non-disbelievable figments which are destroyed with a successful attack. Major images are destroyed with a successful attack too, you know. Unless the illusionist makes it react appropriately for a successful attack -- i.e. making them drop dead. Hey, can I create a bunch of major images and then have them all realistically drop dead when I hit them? That's *even more* realistic than mirror images simply vanishing. Think of all the Cleaves I'd get! Cleave takes advantage of situations where a target is defeated by allowing another attack within reach. So, when a Cleaver successfully destroys an applicable target (Mirror Image) with an attack, his feat activates. So you'd also let me cleave by knocking over a pile of rocks or punching through a paper target, since those also count as "destroying an applicable target"? Those are not issues at all. You can cast spell on them and they don't work, any more than casting Blindness/Deafness on a rock or an illusion. They don't need a save because it's just not an applicable target (can't blind something that has no sight). You still cast the spell at what seems to be a creature. The effect is illusionary at best. Yes. The spell doesn't work because it's not an applicable target. Why does this not count for feats? Charm Monster is a mind effect. Figments do not have ability scores, and are thus mindless, so Charm Monster (a mind affecting spell) doesn't work. But the spell or illusionist may dictate that it appears to shrug off the effect, or befriends the caster. But by default, with no other stipulations, it *doesn't*. By default, if the illusionist doesn't do anything, it just *fails*. It's the same with feats, like Cleave. How about Slay Living? Well Figments aren't alive, and you can't kill what's not alive, so the spell is cast and it doesn't work. But the spell or illusionist may dictate that it appears to shrug off the effect, or falls dead. They can't with mirror image, because mirror image has no such provision. How about Lightning Bolt? Well figments don't have hitpoints, and you can't take hitpoints away from something that doesn't take damage, so the spell is cast and it doesn't work. But the spell or illusionist may dictate that it appears to laugh off the effect, or get electrocuted. Mirror image specifically says that it would appear to take damage from the lightning bolt. Illusions don't have stats, ability scores, hitpoints, minds, or anything but a set of sensory descriptions (how it looks, the sounds it makes, smell or even thermal), a touch AC, and caster-dependent values (such as disbelief DC or dispel magic DC). Which, by the way, makes them not creatures, because a creature is defined by possessing a Wisdom score and a Charisma score. Therefore they can only truly interact with things that affect the factors that exist - the caster who controls it, the perceptions of those who observe it, the Will of those who disbelieve it, the power of those who try to dispel it, or the physical coexistence of anything that tries to touch it (by action or by attack). They don't actually interact with physical objects. That's part of the point of Will (disbelief) -- you get one for touching it because when you try to touch it there's nothing there. Mirror Images specifically do not have any disbelieving, but they have ACs and attack consequences, both of which are addressed in the Cleave description (successful attack, target of attack is destroyed/dropped/defeated). All images have ACs. Major image is also destroyed if attacked. There are only 4 results, by the "perfect RAW", of an overrun attempt. The defender sidesteps and allows the attacker through; only movement is calculated (step 2) The defender is allowed an AoO, and is knocked prone after a strength check The defender is allowed an AoO, and resists the strength check, and the attacker resists the counter-check. The attacker goes back to the previous adjacent space. The defender is allowed an AoO, and resists the strength check, and the attacker fails the counter-check. The attacker goes back to the previous adjacent space and falls prone.Let me ask you this: How does an image resist the check when it doesn't even have a strength score, and, supposing it auto-fails, how can you shove a figment prone? It's not a creature, has no "up" or "down" sides. It can appear prone, but can't actually have the prone status. Overrun just fails outright. No matter how big and strong, you can't push an image prone. If you want a great example, a mage who casts Mirror Image, then Polymorphs into a Ooze (which simply cannot become prone). Whether ooze or humanoid in form, a figment is a figment. By the facts as they are, coupled with your conclusion, Overrunning an image is like overrunning a rock - a wasted action that produces no results at all, not even movement; a result which I see as absurd. ...No, it's a wasted action that produces a success. It's like with the Ooze -- are you saying that trying to Overrun an Ooze means the Ooze "auto-avoids" because Oozes can't be knocked prone? No. You go through all the steps, and then when you reach the point where the Ooze is supposed to be knocked prone (because you beat it on the Str check) it simply isn't. The reason an Ooze can't be knocked prone is when you "knock" it one way or the other it's still just as mobile as it was before. But you still *did* it. It's like how casting charm person on someone with mind blank makes you use up the spell, use up the casting time, use up everything, except that at the end he's still not charmed. That's how being immune to something works in D&D. You don't get to take it back after the immunity blocks it. In this case, it's pretty clear Improved Overrun *is an action*, or it wouldn't be a feat. It's a particular kind of training. You run a guy down. The fact that he's not knocked prone afterwards doesn't mean you *didn't take the action*. This again reinforces how your stance, carried to its logical conclusion, means that overrun (and Ray spells, as they only target creatures) utterly fails against figments. A ray spell would make mirror image vanish because mirror image specifically says it vanishes when attacked and a ray spell is an attack. It would not have any effect whatsoever, though, on a programmed image, nor on a major image that the caster successfully made react "realistically" to the ray (like saying "Ha ha! Little did you know I'm immune to fire!"). Cleaving off of empty air is called wasting a cleave. Cleaving off a wax dummy is also nothing to exploit, any more so than cleaving off of summoned dire rats. Where is the exploit? The imbalance?You never said dead in its tracks. It's just the result of what you did say, and keep saying.Apparently not. When facing, for example, a powerful melee combatant, like a Fiendish Barbarian50, all you need is a hallway and Mirror Image, and you can hold back the barbarian for at least ((Level/3+1d4)/2) rounds with a 2nd level spell. Gating that solar-shield coughed up 5000XP, and the Barbarian would obliterate it in 1 full attack. A full attack which can only take out 2 images at most. The barbarian can't overrun them at all (or more than 1 per round, if we play by your rules). Are we using the Epic-level Barbarian again? This is becoming ridiculous. The Epic-level Barbarian almost certainly has true seeing up all the time. A non-Epic-level Barbarian, on the other hand, would have a very good chance of being killed by the Solar. For any character that was *not* specifically designed by you to put up this strawman -- i.e. someone who can't see through illusions but is invulnerable against every single other kind of threat -- it's pretty obvious mirror image is the inferior spell. (For instance, if the Wizard here was the *same level* as the Barbarian he could easily gate in something that actually was powerful enough to kill the Barbarian, since you can control anything that's twice your caster-level, which for a 50th-level Wizard would be 100 -- i.e. nearly anything in the ELH.) Read what you say. Then read the combat section. QFE (Quoted for effect) Pff. Add the one rule that these particular unreal figments vanish whenever you make a successful attack roll against one, and it's still easy. You really should be complaining about major image more than mirror image, if this is your beef. (Can I Disarm a major image? Can I Sunder its equipment? Can I do this? Can I do that? Etc.)
yrogerg 07-31-07, 10:56 PM	In this case, Cleave would still make more sense as something you got after rolling above a certain threshold on your attack roll, rather than something you got for "dropping" an opponent. In real fighting you get no particular advantage for "dropping" an opponent, in regards to your stance relative to other opponents -- the only possible advantage is psychological ("Oh my God, he's killed Kenny!). There's no way to tactically gain footing on someone else because you've killed his buddy (as opposed to scoring a very strong hit on his buddy or whatever). Cleave *should* either be called "Press the Attack" and say that if, say, you score a critical hit you get a free attack on anyone else in range, or it should be called "Bloodlust" and work the way it does now, or something. Calling it "Cleave" and talking about it as "cleaving through" opponents is one of the stupidest things yet remaining in D&D. Sure, but honestly, this is only pushing believability as much as Karmic Strike does. ("Wait, I stabbed *him*, and somehow, I'm more distracted by it than he is?") And in fairness, Karmic Strike starts making *less* sense once you start considering the layers of abstraction. I'm more or less willing to accept that Cleave represents a fighter who's learned to how take down an opponent quickly and continue pressing his advantage.
yrogerg 07-31-07, 11:02 PM	Mirror Images specifically do not have any disbelieving, but they have ACs and attack consequences, both of which are addressed in the Cleave description (successful attack, target of attack is destroyed/dropped/defeated). You missed the part where you had to "deal damage to drop it". This is actually key, because it means you can't cleave off Drow Poison, or death effects, or any other spell or effect your sword might be able to confer that would "drop" a creature, irrespective of damage dealt. If Images don't have hit points or stats, what's getting damaged? Other than the verisimilitude of game terminology, that is.
malignor 08-01-07, 12:25 AM	If Images don't have hit points or stats, what's getting damaged? Other than the verisimilitude of game terminology, that is.:clap: Very nice. I liked your little comment on the previous page too.
Bopple 08-01-07, 12:44 AM	Whoa, a long MI vs Cleave thread again? It's amazing to watch the same old people always going into the same old debate. What is better, they seem to know they wouldn't be able to persuade each other. :P
rauvian_theloadswallower 10-07-07, 05:20 PM	This thread totally sums up how I have been feelings. I have played 80+ hours of dnd a week for the last 11 years and AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK we get in a huge argument over cleaveage and mirrors. It ranges from like can you cleave with a hammer to is the faq or the bok right , once it was about the syntax and the wording, one time the debate got so heated my friend threw his bowl of cheesedip and cake at the wall WHAT A MESS! my mom was so mad when she had to clean that up that she was really really mean at dming after that we finally just decided that everytime the oppurtunity arose we would just roll 1d2 (it's easier if you flip a coin) to see what would happen
Aryxbez 10-14-07, 12:58 PM	Karmic strike represents you lowering your guard, so when your opponent hits you, he leaves an opening you take advantage of. A perfect example of this is in the Samurai Champloo anime, where in the end Jean/Jin? stabs the samurai after he got struck near his spine. Also I'm unsure on this, I guess I just go by the idea that you perceive them as being real, also would be kinda cool to cleave all the images. Give something for the warriors to counter a spell. However I can see why cleave is no, that cleave requires one to down a creature, the images got no HP, so they can't be cleaved. However one could use a warblade maneuver, Steel wind to rid of 2 images.