Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[Storm Raven]

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

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

 

[dcollins]

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

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

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

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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

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

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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

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

 

[Storm Raven]

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

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

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

 

[Sejs]

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

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

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

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

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

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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

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

You focus on the word "drop".

We focus on the word "creature".

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

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

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