Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[RigaMortus2]

If you had a swarm of invisible bats, and they enter a character's square and deal damage to that character, does the invisibility wear off from that bat swarm?

 

[RigaMortus2]

So, if I deal enough damage to make it drop, which, accordig to the spell description is just if an attack strikes. Hence I have done enough damage to make the image drop .

No, all you have to do to make an image disappear is to strike it, regardless if you do damage to it or not. I could cast Cure Light Wounds spell and make a melee touch attack, and if I hit an image it will disappear. I did no damage to it, but I did strike it.

Now in order for cleave to work, you HAVE to do damage. The damage you do to the creature has to be the reason why the creature drops.

 

[FireLance]

The images are an opponent.

Okay, so images are opponents, but they are not creatures. So, you can target images with Whirlwind Attack, but you can't Cleave off them. By the same argument, a spectral hand and a Bigby's clenched fist are opponents, but not creatures, so you can target them with Whirlwind Attack, but you can't Cleave off them, either. On the other hand, a quasi-real fiendish dire rat summoned with shadow conjuration is both an opponent and a creature, so you can target it with Whirlwind Attack and Cleave off it.

Since I fail to see how the lack of Wisdom and Charisma in a Large hand composed of magical force makes it impossible for me to Cleave off it when I can cleave off a quasi-real creature made of shadowstuff which happens to have Wisdom and Charisma (is Cleave somehow powered by the unlucky opponent's awareness that it's going to drop?), I'm going to rule in my games that you can Cleave off any target of a melee attack, including objects.

Classify images as: Creature (Figment)

Yeah, that'll fix the problem, but you'll also need Creature (Spell effect) or you'll have some idiot (me) asking about whether you should be able to Cleave off a spectral hand and a Bigby's clenched fist.

 

[FireLance]

Maybe they shouldn't have put the word creatures into the Cleave feat.

This, I can agree with.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, all you have to do to make an image disappear is to strike it, regardless if you do damage to it or not. I could cast Cure Light Wounds spell and make a melee touch attack, and if I hit an image it will disappear. I did no damage to it, but I did strike it.

What is even better yet is that you will not lose the Cure Light Wounds spell if you select an image because the image was not a creature and will not trigger the spell. The downside is that if you select the caster, you heal him.

Course, a grapple might work just as well (since you do not have to cast a spell), unless of course you actually target the caster, he AoOs you for damage, and the grapple fails.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Yup. Magic does weird things to feats.

And your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have put the word creatures into the Cleave feat.

My point? You just made it perfectly. My whole point was how your being a rules lawyer and in the most horrible sort of way.

It is rather sad. It's a game not a chance to screw a player or the DM to your own personal glee.

 

[RigaMortus2]

My whole point was how your being a rules lawyer and in the most horrible sort of way.

You say that like it's a BAD thing? Correct me if I am wrong, but this IS the RULES forum, right?

 

[RigaMortus2]

What is even better yet is that you will not lose the Cure Light Wounds spell if you select an image because the image was not a creature and will not trigger the spell. The downside is that if you select the caster, you heal him.

Course, a grapple might work just as well (since you do not have to cast a spell), unless of course you actually target the caster, he AoOs you for damage, and the grapple fails.

That gives me another ideas... I think it is either Shocking Grasp or Chill Touch, but there is a spell that gives you multiple touch attack uses for 1 casting (normally once you touch someone w/ a touch attack spell, the spell discharges). With this spell, you could keep removing images until you finally hit the caster, or until you run out of maximum uses.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

You say that like it's a BAD thing? Correct me if I am wrong, but this IS the RULES forum, right?

Correct me if I am wrong but this is a GAME right? Also correct me if this is wrong but its supposed to be a ligt hearted enjoyable experience for all right?

I have never seen a rules lawyer support either of these things.

 

[KarinsDad]

My point? You just made it perfectly. My whole point was how your being a rules lawyer and in the most horrible sort of way.

It is rather sad. It's a game not a chance to screw a player or the DM to your own personal glee.

First off, calling people names here is not allowed here.


Second, one person's rules lawyer is another person's adjudicator.


Third, you are not looking at this from the point of view of the PLAYER of a Wizard or Sorcerer who casts the spell and then gets Great Cleaved by the DM.

The game is meant to be fun. To the player of the caster who got screwed by the DM because the DM did not follow RAW, that player might not be having fun. He might have picked that spell BECAUSE it gave him immunity to Cleave off images and defense against some spells.

Your "we should ignore rules when we want to" ruling could be anti-fun for some players.

Your opinion is noted, but not anywhere near being the "perfect way to play".


What is sad is that you did not look at both points of view. That of the player of the PC Fighter who wants to cleave the images of the NPC Wizard and that of the player of the PC Wizard who does not want his images cleaved by the NPC Fighter.


I have no problem with a DM allowing Cleave against Mirror Image. It's perfectly reasonable and balanced to do so.

I have a problem with posters who cannot understand that I am just discussing RAW here. I am not telling anyone how to run their game. Maybe you should learn discretion before you starting jumping all over other people here.