Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[KarinsDad]

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.

Levitate is a second level spell as well.

So, you are ok with a two or three feat combination that allows melee fighters to attack the levitating opponent with their melee weapons from 300 feet up?


Whether the feats should have the power to negate a given spell is not relevant to whether they actually do.

In this case, they do not. The fact that it does not unbalance anything to allow them to do so does not actually allow them to. Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem.

But allowing it does not in any way indicate that figments are creatures.

 

[Sigg]

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.

Indeed I can...personal interpretations are the only kind there are as we all see the world from a different pov.

pg. 92 of the PHB, under Cleave states: "You can follow through with powerful blows." I'm not sure it can get much more clear than that.

Wind blowing across the plains and logs floating down rivers are not the same as "Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being" (pg. 254 of PHB under Mirror Image).

 

[Sigg]

Levitate is a second level spell as well.

So, you are ok with a two or three feat combination that allows melee fighters to attack the levitating opponent with their melee weapons from 300 feet up?


Whether the feats should have the power to negate a given spell is not relevant to whether they actually do.

In this case, they do not. The fact that it does not unbalance anything to allow them to do so does not actually allow them to. Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem.

But allowing it does not in any way indicate that figments are creatures.

Apples and Oranges. You're attempting to generalize, when we are being very specific. There may be a 2 or 3 feat combination that allows melee fighters to attack levitating opponents, or maybe not, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether cleave works against mirror images or whether images can be included within the definition of creatures as it's written in the PHB. Since images are not explicitly excluded from the definition as are objects, and as WoC seems to be taking the official stance that cleave does in fact work against mirror image, I feel confident in siding with WoC and allowing the cleaves in a game I might run. You can house rule it any way you like.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

"Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can."


"Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck."


Your contention is that a figment is an "active being", hence, it is a creature.

First, it is not a being. It is an illusion of a being. Just like a figment of a cup is not a cup. It just magic that LOOKS like a cup.

Second, figments are unreal. They do not exist except as magic.

Third, you will not find figments in the Monster Manual. They are not creatures.


The onus in on your side to illustrate that a figment is a being. It is not on our side to illustrate that it is not. I have already illustrated that figments are not real and are merely illusory copies.


For example, you cannot target an illusion with a creature only target spell.

You cannot Magic Missile a Major Image. The spell fails immediately. It is not that the missiles strike and do no damage, it is that the spell fails completely.

 

[Storm Raven]

Levitate is a second level spell as well.

So, you are ok with a two or three feat combination that allows melee fighters to attack the levitating opponent with their melee weapons from 300 feet up?

Possibly, it depends on the feats. I seem to recall a couple of feat chains that give (for example) aasimar or tieflings wings that would do that.

Whether the feats should have the power to negate a given spell is not relevant to whether they actually do.

Actually, it is. Low level spells should be reasonably counterable, in general.

In this case, they do not. The fact that it does not unbalance anything to allow them to do so does not actually allow them to. Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem.

But allowing it does not in any way indicate that figments are creatures.

I didn't say that it does. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I said that allowing Cleave (and Great Cleave) to work on figments is something I would allow because (1) Cleave is fun, and (2) allowing a two (or three) feat combination to affect a single second level spell is an appropriate counter for the power of the spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

I didn't say that it does. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I said that allowing Cleave (and Great Cleave) to work on figments is something I would allow because (1) Cleave is fun, and (2) allowing a two (or three) feat combination to affect a single second level spell is an appropriate counter for the power of the spell.

And I said. "Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem."

Again, I have no problem with allowing it.

I have a problem with stating that the rules allow it when they do not.

You and I appear to be disagreeing, just to disagree.

 

[Nail]

pg. 92 of the PHB, under Cleave states: "You can follow through with powerful blows." I'm not sure it can get much more clear than that.

Of course it can....and, amazingly, it does. Read past the first sentence.

Wind blowing across the plains and logs floating down rivers are not the same as "Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being" (pg. 254 of PHB under Mirror Image).

But all would be "active beings" under your overly broad interpretation of the phrase.

Just because I could say the word "egglebottoms" means "food you eat with your feet" doesn't mean I should say such a thing, or that saying such a thing would be widely interpreted as true. POV has nothing to do with it.

 

[Storm Raven]

And I said. "Sure, the DM can allow it. No problem."

Again, I have no problem with allowing it.

I have a problem with stating that the rules allow it when they do not.

I didn't. My original post started with the statement that, by a strict reading of the RAW, no, it doesn't work.

I then stated that I would allow it anyway, and gave reasons why.

Perhaps you didn't read my post before you started in with your commentary?

 

[KarinsDad]

I didn't. My original post started with the statement that, by a strict reading of the RAW, no, it doesn't work.

I then stated that I would allow it anyway, and gave reasons why.

Perhaps you didn't read my post before you started in with your commentary?

I didn't once state in this thread that you said that it was allowed by RAW. You make inferences out of thin air.

Perhaps you didn't read my posts before you started in with your commentary?

 

[IcyCool]

I've allowed cleave off a sunder, and last time I checked a weapon isn't a creature(except maybe inteligent weapons).

Just to clarify a little, cleaving off of a sunder requires the Combat Brute [Tactical] feat from Complete Warrior. One of its abilities is to allow you to cleave off of a successful sunder that destroys a weapon or shield.