Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[Dryfus]

You could try.

But, Cleave is only good against Creatures.

A normal melee attack is good against any Opponent (Creatures or Objects or Effects).

That's the distinction.

The point I'm making is that the "intended" target is the Wizard(ie a creature) not the image, thats just what you hit. So cleave should work, because the intended target is the creature(ie wizard), not the image.

 

[Daywalker]

A quick (OK, rather longish) situation to explain why I disagree with the FAQ.

A Fighter with Cleave attacks a wizard with mirror image cast upon him.

The fighter is not a total idiot - he has adventured before and knows wizards casts spells.

He sees six seperate images of the exact same person - who is dressed like a wizard and holding a but of bat turd like wizards do right before that spell that almost keeps killing the fighter and his allies every time they fight a wizard is cast. He kinda figures that this wizard looking antagonist is (shock) a wizard, and the multiple images of him are obviously a spell that was cast. That, or his party is being attacked by cloned wizards that all move and act in unison. He decides the first level spell is more likely the case, and doubts the party is being attacked by an entire litter of synchronized identical sibling wizards.

So, knowing that he is fighting a wizard and that some sort of illusion must have been cast if he us currently viewing six of them, he swings at the closest one and connects. Well, he would have connected... but it's an illusion, and not really there. Not feeling his blade strike anything, he, stops the swing because he knows he has not actually connected to anything tangible. he would not continue a full follow through with this attack, there is no actual reason to do so. Unless the Fighter is an idiot, or mirror image somehow makes duplicates of the spel's caster that are NOT identical to him, so that someone seeing mirror image might not be able to figure out what's going on - mirror image being one of the speels I am personally of the opinion that only a moron thinks you need a spellcraft check to figure out what happened. Um, he cast a spell, not there are more of him, but they still move when he does. Duh? Anyway....

So, not following through on a swing that never connected there is no chance to cleave, since the follow through that appears to be required for cleave wouldn't actually be part of the action, unless (again) the fighter is an idiot and continues to put his full wieght and force into blows that have not stuck anything even though he "hit" them dead center. At least in my games, we tend to think that Fighters, um, KNOW HOW TO WIELD A WEAPON, and therefore would not do that, as it would be almost suicidal to overbalance oneself like that in any real melee fight.

I realize that the FAQ says what it says, but in my games there is no FAQ, there is deductive reasoning on the part of the DM and not a FAQ.

 

[Artoomis]

...So, not following through on a swing that never connected there is no chance to cleave, since the follow through that appears to be required for cleave wouldn't actually be part of the action, unless (again) the fighter is an idiot and continues to put his full wieght and force into blows that have not stuck anything even though he "hit" them dead center. At least in my games, we tend to think that Fighters, um, KNOW HOW TO WIELD A WEAPON, and therefore would not do that, as it would be almost suicidal to overbalance oneself like that in any real melee fight.

I realize that the FAQ says what it says, but in my games there is no FAQ, there is deductive reasoning on the part of the DM and not a FAQ.

Why wouldn't a smart fighter attempt to slice through (Cleave) as many images he can reach with the hope that he connects with the wizard? Especially if he knows the images dissipate when he hits them.

 

[Daywalker]

Like I said, it would be suicidal to try and wield a weapon that way, putting your full force into wild swings of the sort should totally remove the dex bonus to AC at the very least since one would have to be attacking by pretty much spinning in a circle to try and attack "as many as possible"... and should probably also incur a penalty to hit because one is not specifically aiming at a target. There's a reason Whirlwind Attack is a feat, and one impossible to get at low levels - because trying to swing like that is unnatrual and rather difficult.

So, in my opinion, a smart fighter probablty would NOT try to overextend themselves that way in combat, especially when it essentially means trying to use a feat they do not have (if your fighter does have whirlwind attack, feel free to try and hit as many as possible). Trying to swing like that would be a great way to make sure that you are so off balance that you cannot react to an attack, and that you are in no position to counter anything. That's not smart in my opinion.

 

[KarinsDad]

The point I'm making is that the "intended" target is the Wizard(ie a creature) not the image, thats just what you hit. So cleave should work, because the intended target is the creature(ie wizard), not the image.

You have convinced me. The wording of Cleave does allow him to drop a foe and then attack the Wizard. The extra melee attack is against the Wizard and melee attacks can hit images.


He drops a foe and then attempts the Cleave.

If the selection is the Wizard, he has a chance to hit and damage him.

If the selection is an Image, he has a chance to hit and destroy it.


What he cannot do is "drop an image" and then Cleave. That is still not allowed because he did not drop a creature.

 

[Nail]

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. .

Why does "common sense" dictate that figments are creatures?

That doesn't make much sense, Sigg, and I suspect you know it.

 

[Nail]

The weapon would pass through the space the image occupied and strike a target on the other side of it. Why would that be a problem?

Uhhh...the fact that cleave doesn't work that way?

You are still not getting this part, are you?

Again: the mechanics of cleave do not support the contention that the "cleave"-er carries through into the creature standing right next to the orignial target. In fact the person who cleaves may attack anyone in his threatened area, whether the opponent is next to the dropped opponent or not. The next target could even be prone "behind" you!

Moreover, the person who cleaves can use any melee weapon to cleave, including bludgeoning and piercing weapons, reach weapons, etc.

....In fact, you can even cleave with a whip....which is, by the way, a slashing weapon.

 

[Nail]

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).

Unfortunately, that description doesn't work.

You can, after all, cleave into a creature who cannot see.

 

[dcollins]

And loud.

 

[IcyCool]

And loud.

Can't see or hear.