Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[KarinsDad]

This is kind of the reverse I was thinking of.....basically that cleave would make mirror image either useless or at least much less effective.

I don't ignore the word "creature", I just don't see where the use of the word "creature" implies exclusivity. It does not, in the feat description, state that the cleave feat can never be used against things other than "creatures". It also doesn't say in the glossary definition of "creature" that the feat Cleave can never be used against anything other than "creatures". It only states in the glossary definition that the word "creature" does not mean "object". It doesn't even say in the glossary that "creature" can't mean "figment"...in fact IMO the definition actually says it does mean figment when it says "or other active being" since a mirror image figment is an animate phenomina meant to exactly "mirror" a "creature" ("creature" being a "character" in this case).

What rule book are you using?

"Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round."

 

[Sigg]

What rule book are you using?

"Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round."

Where does it say "this feat can not be used against anything except a creature"? How about "in the case of the Cleave feat "creature" does not mean "otherwise active being" "? Or even "in the case of the Cleave feat, "creature" does not mean "character" "? If I choose to infer that the lack of a specific stated prohibition against using cleave versus anything except a live and fully corporeal, present, and non-illusory entity means that these are thereby valid targets for a cleave, then I'm no less in the right than those of you who choose to infer that by stating "creature" in the description the rules are implying that only a live and fully corporeal, present, and non-illusory entity can be targeted. Given that the FAQs apparently support my interpretation, I'm feeling fairly confident in using my own common sense on how and when I would apply the Cleave feat.

Just to give an alternate example of how I would allow the cleave feat to be used against targets other than "creatures":

Two members of the party have been taken prisoner by a band of goblins. The remaining barbarian, fighter, and wizard have found the band's camp and discovered the rogue and cleric being held in a cage made of fallen tree-limbs. The 3 decide that the fighter and the wizard will hold off the gobs long enough for the barb to free the two prisoners, then the whole group can attempt to defeat the gobs. Being a rather straight-forward kinda guy, the barb decides to get a good grip on his great axe and try to just hew clean through the wooden "bars" of the cage. I would have no problem allowing the barb to use his great cleave feat against the bars...providing he can overcome the hardness and hps of the wooden bars in one swing.

I guess what it boils down to is interpretation. If you choose to restrict the feat to a more narrow interpretation, that's your choice, but I'm not seeing where the rule specifically prohibits my broader interpretation. Oh, and given the multiple quotes straight from the PHB I've provided, I thought it would have been obvious which rule book I'm looking at, but apparently I was wrong so the book I'm looking at is the V3.5 of the Players Handbook by Wizards of the Coast ( a.k.a. Core Rulebook I).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Where does it say "this feat can not be used against anything except a creature"?

Where it says "creature," and not "target" or "object" or anything else.

Seriously. There isn't any room for debate here.

 

[Caliban]

Where it says "creature," and not "target" or "object" or anything else.

Seriously. There isn't any room for debate here.

Oh, if only that were true.

 

[Storm Raven]

An easy question, almost everything is in the title. If a fighter with Cleave strikes a mirror image with a melee attack, making it disappear, is he allowed to make an additional attack ?

By a strict reading of the RAW? No.

Would I allow it? Sure. Why? Two reasons: (1) Cleave is fun; and (2) being able to Cleave is a two-feat combination, being able to Great Cleave is a three feat combination, and it seems to me that allowing a two to three feat combination to hamper a second level spell is about right in terms of relative power.

 

[Sigg]

Where it says "creature," and not "target" or "object" or anything else.

Seriously. There isn't any room for debate here.

I disagree. IMO there's plenty of room for debate. Also, on the table of feats on pg. 91 the short description of the cleave feat does indeed say "target". Once again, if you choose to focus on the "not an object" part of the definition of creature to limit the use of the cleave feat in your game so narrowly, that is your choice, but even the "not an object" stipulation of creature does not in itself prohibit the use of cleave against a mirror image since "duplicates", "images", or "figments" are not objects either, and the definition of "creature" does not preclude the term being used in reference to them. Seriously.

 

[Sigg]

Would I allow it? Sure. Why? Two reasons: (1) Cleave is fun; and (2) being able to Cleave is a two-feat combination, being able to Great Cleave is a three feat combination, and it seems to me that allowing a two to three feat combination to hamper a second level spell is about right in terms of relative power.

IMO these two reasons are the most important reasons to allow the use of cleave...trumping all arguements of semantics and strict interpretations of wording and definitions. Let the Cleaving begin

Edited to remove an errant "?"

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree. IMO there's plenty of room for debate. Also, on the table of feats on pg. 91 the short description of the cleave feat does indeed say "target". Once again, if you choose to focus on the "not an object" part of the definition of creature to limit the use of the cleave feat in your game so narrowly, that is your choice, but even the "not an object" stipulation of creature does not in itself prohibit the use of cleave against a mirror image since "duplicates", "images", or "figments" are not objects either, and the definition of "creature" does not preclude the term being used in reference to them. Seriously.

So, you use the short description of the feat to make rules decisions as opposed to the actual description of the feat?

Explain how your "wide definition" of the word creature includes figments. According to the rules.

So far, you are not posting anything other than "well in my game...".

Post some rules to support that figments are creatures or that the Cleave feat includes all possible targets.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I've allowed cleave off a sunder, and last time I checked a weapon isn't a creature(except maybe inteligent weapons). I really think your reading to much into the single use of the word creature. Every time they use a word that is also a term, it is not necesarrily a use of the word that is intended to imply the term. Wow that was poorly worded.

 

[Orius]

I'd allow it as a DM. It makes sense given the way mirror image has typically been used throughout the game's history, and it makes sense given the way cleave works. I'm not worried about picky interpretations of the word "creature". Like others have said, it's only a 2nd level spell, so it's not very powerful.