Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[Shadowdweller]

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

 

[Dimensional]

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

anyway HAving looked through it.

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

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

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

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

Jeremy

 

[KarinsDad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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

anyway HAving looked through it.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

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

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

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

 

[Coredump]

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

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


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

And I would like to highlight what Hyp has said.

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

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

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

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

 

[Shadowdweller]

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

Says you.

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

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

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

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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

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

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

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


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

How about Transmute Rock to Mud against Illusory Wall?


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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

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

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

DMG page 6

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

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

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

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

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