Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[KarinsDad]

You mean like incorperal(sp?) undead?? so by your thinking if I kill a shadow with no resistance and it disapears when I kill it I dont get a cleave.

By using the argument that it's not blowthrough and is a reaction to dropping something:
A fighter works for weeks and months to "react" to when an opponent isn't there any more, so he can cleave. so what your saying is that if a fighter that trained for weeks or months to get the skill to do this he is suddenly unable to react to something just vanishing?? look at it from the CHARACTERS POV(not the players). I'm a fighter I trained for months to be able to do this, and I have made it a reaction that comes without thought. So when an opponent drops(ie vanishes, as in the case of a shadow or a figment), I react and direct my energy and attention to the next closest target. I dont think of it as I was trying to hit a creature, but what I hit was a figment, and I cant cleave off of a figment, my REACTION would be the same reguardless of what I actually struck. Because, if your putting that much power behind a swing that you unbalance yourself, then your a pisspoor fighter.

Look at it from the character's pov. Virtually every creature he hits has resistance, possibly even incorporeal undead (at least when a hit scores).

It is an assumption that you are making that incorporeal undead have no resistance when a hit scores.

"Such creatures are insubstantial and can't be touched by nonmagical matter and energy."

This implies that they CAN be touched by magical matter and energy (and the rules for affecting them support that).

Hence, your assumption about how fighters train seems to have no merit. The majority of training would be against corporeal creatures and objects, not incorporeal ones.


Besides, this type of discussion is pointless. I could care less how someone interprets HOW cleave works from a character's POV. Character's do not have a POV since they only exist in the minds of the players and not in reality.

What matters is what RAW states. Attempting to justify ignoring RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" is mostly a waste of time. It doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[Nail]

What matters is what RAW states. Attempting to justify ignoring RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" is mostly a waste of time. It doesn't accomplish anything.

....besides, it's often more fun to justify following RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" or PoV.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

....besides, it's often more fun to justify following RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" or PoV.

This is exactly how I feel. I find it more entertaining to come up with a new visualisation for Cleave every time I see it used, depending on the position of the individuals, rather than worry about conforming the rules to a single, blanket concept.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is exactly how I feel. I find it more entertaining to come up with a new visualisation for Cleave every time I see it used, depending on the position of the individuals, rather than worry about conforming the rules to a single, blanket concept.

When explaining blows in the game, absolutely.

But, I do prefer consistency as to how we play, hence, the reason I try to stick with RAW unless it really falls outside the range of "suspension of disbelief".

 

[Rath the Brown]

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.

And loud.

Can't see or hear.

And all giblet-squishy underfoot.

What if you were dealing non-leathal damage?

 

[Nail]

What if you were dealing non-leathal damage?

Ooh....

Alright, yer asking fer it, bub.....

"Drop" a grey ooze with a magic weaponed unarmed strike, then cleave into a silent, invisible, incorporeal opponent, provoking an AoO, before you "drop" that opponent and continue your great cleave into another grey ooze.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But, I do prefer consistency as to how we play, hence, the reason I try to stick with RAW unless it really falls outside the range of "suspension of disbelief".

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had inferred that I did or believed otherwise. I play Cleave as written, adding my own flavor text to explain how that extra attack comes about.

Nail's post seemed to be supporting following the RAW, which is what I was (in this case) trying to suggest as well...

 

[Rassilon]

If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it)

Do we want to play with this some more? I'm seeing an argument that neither undead nor golems are valid targets. After all, it is not possible to either kill or drop undead or golems to below 0 hit points


Rassilon.

 

[Dryfus]

Look at it from the character's pov. Virtually every creature he hits has resistance, possibly even incorporeal undead (at least when a hit scores).

It is an assumption that you are making that incorporeal undead have no resistance when a hit scores.

And it isn't an assumption that they do??

""Such creatures are insubstantial and can't be touched by nonmagical matter and energy."

This implies that they CAN be touched by magical matter and energy (and the rules for affecting them support that).

they CAN be touched, doesn't nessicarrily mean that they have resistance, and if they do how much.

Hence, your assumption about how fighters train seems to have no merit. The majority of training would be against corporeal creatures and objects, not incorporeal ones.

In a magical society/world?? I would say that they would cover the gammit of what a fighter is likley to run into in the big bad world, not just the "solid" things

Besides, this type of discussion is pointless. I could care less how someone interprets HOW cleave works from a character's POV. Character's do not have a POV since they only exist in the minds of the players and not in reality.

In most of the games I've played in/DM'd, if a charachters POV was ignored, the players were less likley to suspend their disbelief

What matters is what RAW states. Attempting to justify ignoring RAW by coming up with some "in character rational" is mostly a waste of time. It doesn't accomplish anything.

Just because we interperit(sp?) RAW differently, doesn't mean that either one of us is wrong. It just means we have different beliefs in how things should work in a society/world of our imagination. And it does accomplish something, IMO. Besides, I believe that the RAW supports my position. (isn't that what were disscussing here??)

Let me ask you some questions then.

1) Two characters start fighting. One a wizaed, one a fighter. The PC with the fighter states "I'll attack the Wizard with my sword(axe/mace/whatever). His target is a creature??

2) same as 1, but the wizard has cast mirror image. does the same condition apply, if not, why??

after I have some answers here, I'll ask more, but without some more info I cant right now.

 

[KarinsDad]

Let me ask you some questions then.

1) Two characters start fighting. One a wizaed, one a fighter. The PC with the fighter states "I'll attack the Wizard with my sword(axe/mace/whatever). His target is a creature??

2) same as 1, but the wizard has cast mirror image. does the same condition apply, if not, why??

after I have some answers here, I'll ask more, but without some more info I cant right now.

Yes. The same attacking a creature condition applies. That does not mean that the same results will occur, nor that the same tactics will work.


Let me ask you some different questions.


1) Why is it that people who ignore what RAW actually states (i.e. you can only Cleave after dropping a creature) think that RAW supports their position?

2) Why is it important to give the PC Fighter a way to cleave through the NPC Wizard's Mirror Image whereas it is not important to allow the PC Wizard to be protected from Cleave by the NPC Fighter? In other words, why is it more fun in the game to allow Cleaving through images than it is fun to allow protection from that tactic? Why is it more important to make the game fun for the players of Fighters than it is for the players of Wizards? This appears to be a pro-Fighter bias.