Cleave and Mirror Image

[AuraSeer]

And this is why it is called Sage "advice". I think any DM would be within his rights to say that cleave does not work with Mirror Images simply because they are not creatures or even opponents. They are figments.

A DM is also within his rights to say that the caster of Mirror Image turns purple and sprouts grass from his nostrils. However, that is not necessarily what the designers intended.

 

[TaTu]

Cleav and Mirror image

And what woul you say about a fireball?

Would finish all the images???

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Cleav and Mirror image

And what woul you say about a fireball?

Would finish all the images???

Read the description of the spell again.

 

[TaTu]

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

Oops, sorry,,,,

 

[PinGuim]

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

Oops, sorry,,,,

So if they look burned, they aren´t gone with fireball. ?!?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So if they look burned, they aren´t gone with fireball. ?!?

That's right.

You need an attack, a spell that requires an attack roll, or Message.

-Hyp.

 

[Uller]

A DM is also within his rights to say that the caster of Mirror Image turns purple and sprouts grass from his nostrils. However, that is not necessarily what the designers intended.

And what does that have to do with anything...No need to get hostile.

There are lots of rules that are ambiguous. There are lots of rules that the designers didn't consider the interaction of. No one could realistically expect them to have done so. So there are combinations of rules that sometimes interact in weird ways.

The interaction of Mirror Image and feats like Cleave and Whirlwind Attack is certainly one and we've been round and round this issue before on these boards. But if you want an arguement that goes beyond "what the Sage said is official" and "the Sage is on crack" I'll give it to you:

From the SRD for cleave:

If the character deals a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points, killing it, etc.), the character gets an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature in the immediate vicinity.

And from Mirror Image:

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

And from the description of figments:

Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else...

...Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, illuminate darkness, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly. For example, it is possible to use a silent image spell to create an illusory cottage, but the cottage offers no protection from rain. A clever caster, however, can take pains to make the place look old and decrepit, so that the rain falling on the occupants seems to fall from a leaky roof.

In my opinion, a figment is not a creature. Nothing in in the description of figments indicates that they should be treated as creatures. In fact, I would say "Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can" means exactly that...the images are not real and therefore should not be treated as real. You can't target an image directly with a spell, for instance. Striking a figment with a successful attack roll is not dealing damage to a creature. Making a figment disappear is not making it drop. Therefore, "popping" an image does not provoke a cleave attempt. Nothing I see in the rules indicates to me that the designers intended it to be otherwise. The Sage's "advice" can be ignored AFAIAC.

The other reason I don't allow it is because of record keeping. I don't want to clutter up my table top with a figure for each figment so that we can know which ones are in range of a cleave attack and play some sort of weird shell game. We keep just one figure on the table for the caster and all attacks made against him are randomly determined to be either against him or against an image.

So sprout that from your nostrils!

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can't target an image directly with a spell, for instance.

... although the FAQ would suggest otherwise.

-Hyp.

 

[Uller]

... although the FAQ would suggest otherwise.

-Hyp.

No...you can't purposely target an image. You can only attempt to target the caster...if you fail, (and target an image inadvertantly) you pop an image.

So for instance, a 7th level wizard casts Magic Missle at the caster. Either he targets the enemy caster and hits him with 4 missiles, or he accidently targets an image and pops one.

Here is the text from the FAQ:

Area spells don’t destroy the figments created by the mirror
image spell, but targeted spells do.

It doesn't say you can actually directly target a figment as if it is a creature.

 

[AuraSeer]

Oy. This is what now, the fourth simultaneous thread on the same topic? The fifth maybe?

The underlying question is whether a creature-simulating spell can be treated as a creature. The Sage has said yes, you can. AFAICT, that's as official as we're going to get before July.

A DM is "free to rule" a different way, of course, because he's free to rule any way he wants. That's a house rule, though, and it's irrelevant to a discussion of what the book rules are.

Hopefully, 3.5 will explicitly clear up the issue of when/how a figment acts like a creature. Until then it seems rather pointless to keep sending these same arguments 'round in circles again, since none of us is likely to convince the others.