Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[Storm Raven]

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.

You mean, other than, say, Rule 0? Or evenything in the magic overview section that varies the difficulty and effectiveness of spells based upon their level? Something like:

The next line of a spell description gives the spell’s level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell’s relative power.

A spell's relative power. Something that should be taken into account when evaluating the potential counters and the strength of the effects of the spell. Which I did. I figure that a 2nd level spell shouldn't be much of a hindrance to a hill giant, or a 5th level fighter.

 

[Sigg]

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.



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.



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

Huh?



No problem with that.

House rule it any way you want for your game.

You have still failed to provide any rule or line from any rulebook which prohibits "figments" from being interpreted as "active beings". You simply seem to be saying that you don't think they are, and that's simply your opinion. Period.

My point is that, given the lack of specific wording indicating cleave can or can't be used a duplicate created by mirror image, you can rationalize why it doesn't work in your campaign all you want, and I will rationalize why it does in mine.

I don't recall mentioning 9th level figments at all. My opnion is that no figments of any level should be immune to cleave.

I would only have to house rule the situation if the rule contradicted my opinion. The cleave rule doesn't and I'm still waiting for you to provide me with some other related rule that supports your position.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Mirror Image, Heightened to 9th-level.

EDIT: Or Wish, used to emulate Mirror Image.

You may continue this discussion, now.

 

[Nail]

You have still failed to provide any rule or line from any rulebook which prohibits "figments" from being interpreted as "active beings"..

Not "active beings", Sigg. => "Creatures".

Is a figment a creature? Nope.

 

[Storm Raven]

Mirror Image, Heightened to 9th-level.

EDIT: Or Wish, used to emulate Mirror Image.

You may continue this discussion, now.

Both are pretty tenuous examples.

Wish used to emulate mirror image duplicates a 2nd level spell. In effect, you have used a 9th level spell to cast a 2nd level one, and it is treated for most purposes like a 2nd level spell. Mirror image has no save DC, and none of it's other effects are changed by being made "9th level".

A Heightened spell has its save DC increased (mirror image doesn't have a save DC), or allows it to be treated as higher level for purposes like overcoming a lesser globe of invulnerability (which it couldn't do either way). Once again, none of the salient effects of the spell are changed by making mirror image higher level.

I'd rule that Cleave is still just as effective, based on the fact that both of these tactics are pretty pointless, and don't affect anything of substance with respect to mirror image as a spell.

 

[Sigg]

Not "active beings", Sigg. => "Creatures".

Is a figment a creature? Nope.

Ah...but here is the root of the dilemma. The term "creature", as defined in the glossary of the PHB, describes a creature as "A living, or otherwise active being, not an object" My contention is that an illusory duplicate of a character (either PC or NPC) would qualify as an "otherwise active being". My esteemed opponent(s) disagree. Therefore it really just boils down to opinion/interpretation, however the FAQs from WoC seem to support my interpretation.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

But you agree that you can't cleave through an object because that's clearly not a creature, right?

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.

I certainly wouldn't use cleave, because that's far more restrictive. You'r basically telling the (e.g.) barbarian with destructive rage that he can't cut through the 1/4 inch door, but the cleric with cleave can. Instead, I might come up with a houserule as follows. I'd let the character attack the cover and if the cover is destroyed by the damage, then the attack 'goes through' and a subsequent attack can be made on the opponent, who still gains a cover bonus to AC (+8 for previously total cover) and is considered to have total concealment (so 50% miss chance).

 

[Sigg]

But you agree that you can't cleave through an object because that's clearly not a creature, right?

I certainly wouldn't use cleave, because that's far more restrictive. You'r basically telling the (e.g.) barbarian with destructive rage that he can't cut through the 1/4 inch door, but the cleric with cleave can. Instead, I might come up with a houserule as follows. I'd let the character attack the cover and if the cover is destroyed by the damage, then the attack 'goes through' and a subsequent attack can be made on the opponent, who still gains a cover bonus to AC (+8 for previously total cover) and is considered to have total concealment (so 50% miss chance).

I see what you're saying...especially in regards to the barb vs cleric situation. OTOH, a cleric buffed with bull strength and true strike wielding a maul maybe should be able to cleave through a door I do see that using cleave against any old objects on a whim would be unacceptable, but I might still use the cleave in very specific situations such as I've mentioned simply as the mechanic to achieve the result. Plus, it seems to me a character trained and well-practiced in "following through" on mighty attacks in regular melee might have an edge in performing these manuevars...but you especially make a good point where the massive halforc barbie wielding the great axe should have a chance to "cleave" through the door even if he doesn't have the cleave feat (although kinda odd, I guess it's possible).

 

[Nail]

My contention is that an illusory duplicate of a character (either PC or NPC) would qualify as an "otherwise active being". My esteemed opponent(s) disagree.

As do I.

Your interpretation of what an active being is would include wind blowing across a dusty plain, or a log floating down a river. That's just silly.

A more reasonable interpretation would not take the phrase "otherwise active being" out of context as you have.

 

[Nail]

Plus, it seems to me a character trained and well-practiced in "following through" on mighty attacks in regular melee ...

There's your problem.

Cleave does not represent "following through". Read through the description again.

I'm sorry, Sigg, but you can't pass off personally prefered description as rules interpretation.