Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[Storm Raven]

Didn't the cleave feat used to (in v3 maybe) be restricted to S and B weapons only?

No, you are thinking of the Sunder action, which can only be performed with slashing or bludgeoning weapons.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Didn't the cleave feat used to (in v3 maybe) be restricted to S and B weapons only?

Nope - although the Sunder action is so limited.

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?

Nope - in exactly the same way that the limitations on Point Blank Shot do not really affect Far Shot.

How the heck would ya cleave with a pick though?

Probably in the same way you'd cleave with a rapier - kill one guy, and then move on to the next.

 

[Sigg]

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.

I don't know...in certain very specific situations...like the one I mentioned with the cage bars, I might allow it. That type of use of cleave would be only on a case by case basis though. Here's a question:

What mechanic would you use if a player wanted to try the old "stab/hew the old wooden door hitting the lurking baddie on the other side in one mighty blow" cliche? Seems to me a cleave attempt might not be a bad way to attempt it...despite the strict "no objects" rule of cleave. Of course there might be (and probably are) other ways to handle it too.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

Possibly because the feat is not applicable to what the spell does?

The feat affects creatures. The spell does not summon or create creatures.

Period.

A figment may be active, but it is not an "active being". It is an illusion and only has the properties of the illusion as specified by the spell.

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.

And your point?

Maybe the feat requires a resistance to "bounce off" the target it downs. But, there is no reason to attempt to rationalize why the feat does not work. It just does not work in this case.

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.

So, if it is a 9th level set of figments, they should suddenly be immune to Cleave???

Huh?

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

No problem with that.

House rule it any way you want for your game.

 

[Sigg]

No, you are thinking of the Sunder action, which can only be performed with slashing or bludgeoning weapons.

Ah...that action I never use...my bad

 

[Storm Raven]

So, if it is a 9th level set of figments, they should suddenly be immune to Cleave???

When you come up with a 9th level spell that produces an effect similar to mirror image, then maybe you'll have an argument.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

No.

All spells should do what their spell descriptions and the rest of the rules indicate. There should be no "well, that is a low level spell, ignore its effects because this is a high level game".

The level of the spell should be irrlevant to the discussion unless spell level is applicable to the question at hand. For example, spell DC or spells that have varying strengths in varying circumstances.

 

[KarinsDad]

When you come up with a 9th level spell that produces an effect similar to mirror image, then maybe you'll have an argument.

Maybe when you find a rule in the book that states that spell level is relevant to whether feats affect a given spell or not, then maybe you'll have something to say.

In the meantime, your message here is irrelevant to the rules discussion.

 

[Storm Raven]

All spells should do what their spell descriptions and the rest of the rules indicate. There should be no "well, that is a low level spell, ignore its effects because this is a high level game".

I'm not ignoring its effects. I'm saying that having a counter that requires a two or three feat combination is perfectly appropriate for this level of spell.

The level of the spell should be irrlevant to the discussion unless spell level is applicable to the question at hand. For example, spell DC or spells that have varying strengths in varying circumstances.

The level of the spell is highly relevant to evaluating the effects it has, and the relative power of those effects compared to other elements of the game. Characters who are high enough in level to have the Great Cleave feat who have actually taken Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave should have no trouble defeating the application of a low-level defensive spell.

 

[Endur]

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 ?

This is up to the GM. Could easily be ruled either way.