Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[KarinsDad]

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

You missed the word "typically".

And, isn't reducing a golem to 0 points killing it? Is it still functional?

Not much of an argument.

Btw, nobody is really arguing that destroying an image is not "dropping it". We are stating that an image is not a creature, hence, not applicable in the first place to the feat.

 

[Borlon]

Regarding incorporeal undead,

"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).

Nitpick: it implies that SOME kinds of magical matter and energy can affect them; otherwise the sentence wouldn't have mentioned "nonmagical". But there might also be kinds of magical matter or energy which doesn't touch incorporeal creatures.

Another nitpick: if someone says "everything is either a creature or an object" the universe of discourse is unclear, but can't really be everything. After all, some things lack both a wisdom score and a hardness rating. This point was raised before, but I just want to underline what I think the conclusion is: that whatever an image is, it is not a creature, and so doesn't count for cleave. But it is possible (AFAIK) that it is not an object either, and so arguments about whether or not they are objects don't amount to much.

 

[KarinsDad]

Another nitpick: if someone says "everything is either a creature or an object" the universe of discourse is unclear, but can't really be everything. After all, some things lack both a wisdom score and a hardness rating. This point was raised before, but I just want to underline what I think the conclusion is: that whatever an image is, it is not a creature, and so doesn't count for cleave. But it is possible (AFAIK) that it is not an object either, and so arguments about whether or not they are objects don't amount to much.

I view the game as having three types of "physical things":

1) Objects
2) Creatures
3) Effects

There is sometimes an overlap between these. For example, Ice is an Object, but it can also have an Effect.

Magic can create Creatures or Objects, but usually creates Effects.

Gravity is an Effect.


In the real world, I consider Air to be an object (i.e. matter). In the game world, I consider it to be an Effect. You cannot melee attack air.

In the real world, I consider Water to be an object (i.e. matter). In the game world, I mostly consider it to also be an Effect. You cannot (effectively) melee attack water. It has no AC, hardness, or hit points. Yes, it also has some properties of an Object (i.e. you can put it in a bucket), but it also has the properties of an Effect (it can drown you).

Ditto for Fire.

These just happen to be nonmagical Effects as opposed to magical ones. And, some of them also have some of the properties of an Object, but not all properties of an Object. Just like magical Effects can have the properties of Creatures or Objects, but not actually be Creatures or Objects.


I think any argument about everything having to be either a Creature or an Object is totally inaccurate and ignores the very large set of Effects that are part of the game. And, some Magical Effects emulate the properties of Creatures or Objects, but are not really Creatures or Objects.

 

[baudbard]

ok... now some consideration for the other side. Mind you, I am only trying to point out facets of this that may have been missed, but this is fairly compelling (to me anyway).

A caster enchants themselves with a spell that creates concealment for him, anywhere from 20-50%. A warrior with Cleave attacks said caster, and misses. His miss causes the caster no damage, the caster does not drop, and cleave sits unused.

A caster uses Mirror Image. Mirror image creates 2-8 figments. A side affect of these figments is, the chance of hittiing the caster is 1/3-1/9. One essence of this, aside from other game mechanics involved, is that these figments create a 66.6 - 88.8% miss chance. Anytime you swing, and miss, you do no damage, nothing drops, no cleave.

now, these miss chances do seem a little high to me, and it's true that those numbers will come down quite quickly as figments drop. But take into account that being Invisible only grants a 50% mc (provided you guess the correct square etc). According to the RAW you still have to choose a square to attack into with MI. You choose said square when you choose which possible image/caster to attack. So not only are you attempting to pick out your opponent from 3-9 images that are all within 5 feet of another image, you may have to move to attack the next image. Now, there is nothing against a character with a high enough b.a.b. from using their full attack option and destroying multipe images that they threaten. Cleave would be a flavor issue at that point anyhow.

Now... a question on the nature of illusion. An illusion with no saving throw forces the victim (in this case anyone who can see the figments from MI) to act as if they were dealing with the caster. Now, if you are forced to believe you are attacking the caster... nvm... cleave still fails if your attack hits a figment.

Even though I have tried to be fair and see both sides of the argument here, I find it much more compelling to believe that a warrior with the cleave feat could destroy an additional figment, provided he still threatens one after his attack options have been utilized. Cleave does not negate this spell, even Blind-Fight does more to affect this spell than the word creature in the description of cleave. Someone with blind-fight, who closes their eyes, and guesses the correct square, actually has a vastly better chance than someone who does not have blind-fight. Cleave can only be used once per round. So IF a DM made the judgement that these particular figments could trigger the feat, only one addition figment would be destroyed, IF the attacker hit their AC.

The nature of Mirror Image is to create figments that assailants have to destroy to get to the caster. I cannot stand by and say I would NOT allow cleave to trigger in these circumstances. I have played a Caster and a Warrior. As a caster I expect any Mirror Images I produce to be destroyed. As a warrior I intend to swing at what's in front of me until nothings left standing. The lesser evil (IMO) is to allow a warrior with cleave to get his additional attack in. The warrior gets the satisfaction of having useful skills in the situation, and the caster is not inordinately disadvantaged by haveing an addition imaged destroyed.

A 20th level character with 1/1 b.a.b. progression maxes out with four attacks. A cleave attack makes five. Give him an additional attack from haste, six, various and sundry prc abilities, seven, and a exotic weapon master who has selected the flurry of blows ability, eight. Compared to this onslaught cleave has very little affect. In essence removing 11.1% miss chance in a encounter with 8 figments present.

I know I have fallen to the crutch of using my opinion. Having been a DM and a player, a caster and a warrior, and a few other things besides, I remember one thing that has always been important, having fun. Enjoying you characters abilities is not always easily accomplished. Having a opportunity to use an ability in a "cloudy" situation is best resolved by using the lesser evil. I believe cleave attack, is not, as I have attemted to demonstrate, a imbalancing factor in the effectiveness of Mirror Image.

Game On

 

[KarinsDad]

Now... a question on the nature of illusion. An illusion with no saving throw forces the victim (in this case anyone who can see the figments from MI) to act as if they were dealing with the caster. Now, if you are forced to believe you are attacking the caster... nvm... cleave still fails if your attack hits a figment.

It forces the victim to see what he sees.

It does not force him to either believe what he sees, or not be able to think.

You are not "forced to believe you are attacking the caster". This is in error.

The most reasonable belief for Mirror Image is that one of them is the caster and the rest are not real, you just do not know which one is real. You are not forced to believe that the figments are real.

 

[Storm Raven]

For example, a 10th level Fighter with a 2 handed sword can use Power Attack to demolish a masonry wall in four or fewer blows (doing 30+ points of damage against hardness 8, 60+ with a critical).

Inanimate objects are not subject to critical hits

 

[Bryan898]

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.

I haven't taken part in the discussion as of yet, though I've followed it and enjoyed it immensely, but I'd like a chance to field this question as it intrigued me.

1.) The spell mirror image would be a counter to the fighter hitting the wizard, the feat cleave would be a counter to that tactic, the wizard is then left with mutliple other counters to still prevent the fighter from hitting him. The wizard still has an ability to protect from that tactic, invisibility for example.

2.) It's more fun because the wizard already has numerous ways to protect from the fighter, and giving the fighter the ability to deal with one of them seems to balance it out a bit better. One less viable defense against a fighter isn't going to hurt the wizard, especially at the cost of three feats.

3.) Spellcasting classes basically have the upper hand in the game as far as power goes. Allowing a fighter to deal with a second level spell with a three feat combination doesn't seem too overpowered. Not every fighter will have Great Cleave, and mirror image is still a viable tactic for the wizard, along with his huge list of others.

Now I ask the opposite: Why is it so important that this one second level spell of the wizard's has no good counter for the fighter? Why is it more fun to allow the wizard near complete protection from the fighter's attacks than a chance for the fighter to hit the wizard? How does one second level spell having a counter to it that you'd rarely run across ruin the fun for the wizard, when he has hordes of other options at his fingertips? You seem to have a pro-wizard bias .

By the way, I do have a pro-fighter bias. I enjoy playing fighter classes more than spellcasting classes, though I've played both. However, I do like that the spellcasting classes are the more powerful than the fighters at higher levels, I want my Gandalf's and Sauron's to be all powerful. Adds to the fantasy feeling of the game for me.

 

[Dryfus]

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.

Hehe... Umm, I was starting a vehement response to this, and I was looking stuff up, and after careful concideration, I now agree, cleave can't be used against figments. BC, at 4th level a fighter can get great cleave, and I did some figuring, and a fighter 4th level would get about a +8 to +10 to hit(+4lvl, +2-4 STR, and +1-2 for magic weapon) Figuring the highest, +10, againsat a 20th level wizard(12 max figments), he could concievably take out all the figments in a round(with some luck, of one not hitting the wizard, and two hitting every time he swung a sword), which got me thinking that maybe I had misinterprested the cleave feat. and I reread some of the post in this thread. Um, i was wrong. I admit it. I'm gonna go into a corner now and keep quiet.

 

[KarinsDad]

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...

Sorry. That was not directed at you.

Just an overall explanation of why it is best to play by RAW unless it interfers with your suspension of disbelief. Consistency.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hehe... Umm, I was starting a vehement response to this, and I was looking stuff up, and after careful concideration, I now agree, cleave can't be used against figments. BC, at 4th level a fighter can get great cleave, and I did some figuring, and a fighter 4th level would get about a +8 to +10 to hit(+4lvl, +2-4 STR, and +1-2 for magic weapon) Figuring the highest, +10, againsat a 20th level wizard(12 max figments), he could concievably take out all the figments in a round(with some luck, of one not hitting the wizard, and two hitting every time he swung a sword), which got me thinking that maybe I had misinterprested the cleave feat. and I reread some of the post in this thread. Um, i was wrong. I admit it. I'm gonna go into a corner now and keep quiet.

Heh, it happens.

Besides, you are the one who brought up that if you drop a different foe, you can still Cleave a single image. Something that I had not thought of correctly. Thanks.