Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[KarinsDad]

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

It doesn't change the rules and doesn't trump anything.

All it does is state that in Storm Raven's game, he would allow it.

The Fighter player in SR's game cheers. The Wizard player in SR's game boos.

Fun for some. Not fun for others.


Hence, one reason we have rules in the first place. To adjudicate reasonably and not show favoritism.

 

[green slime]

The wheels on the bus go ...

 

[Storm Raven]

It doesn't change the rules and doesn't trump anything.

All it does is state that in Storm Raven's game, he would allow it.

The Fighter player in SR's game cheers. The Wizard player in SR's game boos.

The wizard doesn't care much. Mirror image is only a 2nd level spell after all. It's not like it is that big a deal to allow the occassional Cleave to bump off an extra image or two.

 

[KarinsDad]

The wizard doesn't care much. Mirror image is only a 2nd level spell after all. It's not like it is that big a deal to allow the occassional Cleave to bump off an extra image or two.

Until you get to Great Cleave and all of the images are disrupted because they are so easy to hit.

You put up your defensive spell, too bad. The enemy NPC fighter wipes it out in a single round and whales on you two or three times as well in the process.

The level of the defensive spell is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Sigg]

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.

Sometimes I do, yes. Why not? When specific wording seems to be contradictory, I try to adhere to the spirit of the feat/skill/spell/etc.

I consider figments to fall under the "other active beings" portion of the definition of "creature". Explain how the definition of "creature" strictly excludes figments. According to the rules. Or do you perhaps want them to turn the glossary into a legal document, stating all the things each term includes AND excludes?

As to why I say "in my game" alot, consider the following:

pg. 4 of the DMG, under The Dungeon Master: "The DM defines the game"

pg. 4 of the DMG, under Final Note: "You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and, ultimately, the fun."

pg. 6 of the DMG, under Adjudicating: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in the rulebook."

So far you keep asking me to prove my point that "figment" can be interpreted as "creature" by stating a specific line from the PHB saying so, but I say quote me a line that says "figment", "image", and/or "duplicate" are NOT "creature". Since the only word of the bunch that is defined is "creature", and the definition of "creature" does not specifically say that it excludes "figment", "image", and/or "duplicate" along with it's exclusion of "object", I see no reason why my interpretation of the use of the cleave feat is any less valid than yours in relation to a mirror image. Apparently the WoC FAQs supports my position more than yours, yet you continue to assert that not only do you disagree with me, but that I somehow can't possibly be justified in my interpretation. I have no problem disagreeing, but you have not yet shown me to be completely wrong, nor do I foresee you doing so anytime soon.

 

[Storm Raven]

Until you get to Great Cleave and all of the images are disrupted because they are so easy to hit.

In which case you are generally 4th+ level, and by the time you hits 5th+ level mirror image should be a minor part of your repertoire. Also, how often do you fight enemies with Great Cleave?

You put up your defensive spell, too bad. The enemy NPC fighter wipes it out in a single round and whales on you two or three times as well in the process.

The level of the defensive spell is irrelevant to the conversation.

So, all spells should be equally valuable, regardless of the level of the spell? That's an odd position to take.

 

[Sigg]

Until you get to Great Cleave and all of the images are disrupted because they are so easy to hit.

You put up your defensive spell, too bad. The enemy NPC fighter wipes it out in a single round and whales on you two or three times as well in the process.

The level of the defensive spell is irrelevant to the conversation.

That would be amended to "all images within threat range of the fighter are disrupted", and why not? The fighter paid for the feat...why should a 2nd level spell be able to render it ineffective? You can normally mow through armored goblins, but all of a sudden an illusory target that provides absolutely no resistance to your attack can somehow completely halt your normal deadly rain of blows.

Since there is no wording of the rule which strictly supports or prohibits the cleaving of duplicates, why shouldn't the spell level be relevant when a DM is trying to make a ruling on the situation. The number one rule of the game is to make the game fun. If your campaign has a wizard player who relies heavily ( and maybe foolishly so) on the defensive edge of mirror image, then rule cleave ineffective against it. If, OTOH, you DM a mobility fighter that uses great cleave frequently, then let him/her wail away. Heck, at higher levels mirror images might be the only thing great cleave is effective on

 

[Elephant]

Most people tend to make that leap based on the name of the Feat, but then again, it'd be kind of hard to do the whole 'blow through' routine with say a rapier, a mace, or your fist, so take it how you may, heh. All the Cleave feat essentially denotes is that you're quick on the recovery after a blow.

With a rapier, you can justify Cleave as "I run the guy through with such force that, as he stumbles and falls, I stab the guy behind him, too!"

Well, it doesn't *QUITE* feel right with respect to positioning on the battlemat grid, but that's how I imagine it.

Then again, in a six-second round, a single attack doesn't represent a single swing, so Cleave could simply represent downing a foe really quickly (e.g. with the first blow you aim in that segment of six seconds) and having time and training necessary to attack the next guy in line effectively.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I consider figments to fall under the "other active beings" portion of the definition of "creature". Explain how the definition of "creature" strictly excludes figments.

That's a much more reasonable response. I disagree, but at least I can appreciate your point of view. However, arguing that "creature" really doesn't mean anything and that you can cleave off an object -- explicitly the opposite of a creature -- is totally inane.

 

[Sigg]

Didn't the cleave feat used to (in v3 maybe) be restricted to S and B weapons only? I know that isn't stated in v3.5, but I seem to remember something to that effect, but I could be wrong there. Also, since cleave requires power attack as a prereq, does that mean that the restriction against using light weapons with power attack apply to cleave as well? I have to admit that cleaving with a rapier, spear, or other P weapon seems kinda wrong, but it isn't prohibited in the rules. How the heck would ya cleave with a pick though?