Mirror Image vs. Cleave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who said that figments were objects?

I said they were not creatures.

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

log in or register to remove this ad

KarinsDad said:
Who said that figments were objects?

I said they were not creatures.

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

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

-Hyp.
 

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

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

A magical spell is an object?

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


Air is an object?

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


According to RAW, mind you.


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

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

That's the problem, of course.

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

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

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

-Hyp.
 

Hypersmurf said:
That's the problem, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, that sentence is not all inclusive.

Hence, we get back to my original question:

Who said figments were objects?
 


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

In other words, that sentence is not all inclusive.

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

-Hyp.
 


Well, if you combine
SRD said:
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
(Emphasis added)
with
SRD said:
Wisdom: Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.

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

some interesting questions pop up:

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

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

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

Now some lines to help clear up some things follow:

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

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

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

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


v. intr.

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


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

Remove ads

Top