Mirror Image vs. Cleave

[KarinsDad]

Does that mean that my Cleave did not happen? So I can try Cleave again until I finally do hit the real target?

No.

Just like you cannot keep trying to Trip an opponent if you fail without using a different melee attack.

Just because something fails does not give you the right to keep trying with the same attempt.

 

[Shadowdweller]

But, I do agree with you that there are vague and ambiguous areas in the rules. Cleave versus Mirror Image is not one of them. That is clear.

Other than that you've failed to establish so far that the images are NOT creatures.

It has been established that anything without a Wisdom score is an object (Hypersmurf's quote). Contrary to popular opinion, it has NOT been established that the figments lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.

If the objection has to do with the nature of it being an ILLUSION, allow me to draw your attention to the Shadow Conjuration spell. Do the effects of a replicated Summon Monster spell count as creatures? The Shadow Conjuration spell description notes the effects specifically as creatures. A shadow is quasi-real. So it seems to follow that (at least full) "reality" is not a requirement for qualification as a creature.

Also, note p. 174 of the PHB under Figment: "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." It's readily apparent from the spell description that the images appear to be a creature (the caster). If they were really objects, they wouldn't be able to accomplish this.

(And for the record, I don't particularly care for this ruling in the FAQ either)

 

[CyberSpyder]

It has been established that anything without a Wisdom score is an object (Hypersmurf's quote). Contrary to popular opinion, it has NOT been established that the figments lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.

If I didn't know you were serious, this would be hilarious.

Actually, strike that. It's still hilarious.

 

[Dimensional]

No.

Just like you cannot keep trying to Trip an opponent if you fail without using a different melee attack.

Just because something fails does not give you the right to keep trying with the same attempt.

That depends on how and why it fails.

A spell fails and fizzles if the target is invalid. as far as I know there is no rule for whether an attack fizzles if it's target is invalid.

The sequence is - Cleave, Choose new target, check if target is valid.

You seem to suggest that if the target is invalid, The attack fizzles.
I'd say it's equaly Valid to say that it doesn't(unless I'm miss reading something again, which is Possible I havn't put much energy into this) and thus the attack is still to resolve, and thus the Target must be chosen again.

In your trip example your trip fails because you miss, or you fail you check. I.e. It fails as a part of the action and thus is not actualy a comparable counteraxample.

(further note - I wouldn't actualy play this way, but thats not a requirement for this discussion)

Jeremy

 

[Shadowdweller]

Choose the rule you like the best, then stick with it for the rest of the campaign. Consistency is a critical aspect of rules adjudication."

Sorry bud. That's still a House Rule. Where do you think the term Rule 0 comes from anyway?

 

[KarinsDad]

Other than that you've failed to establish so far that the images are NOT creatures.

It has been established that anything without a Wisdom score is an object (Hypersmurf's quote). Contrary to popular opinion, it has NOT been established that the figments lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.

If the objection has to do with the nature of it being an ILLUSION, allow me to draw your attention to the Shadow Conjuration spell. Do the effects of a replicated Summon Monster spell count as creatures? The Shadow Conjuration spell description notes the effects specifically as creatures. A shadow is quasi-real. So it seems to follow that (at least full) "reality" is not a requirement for qualification as a creature.

Also, note p. 174 of the PHB under Figment: "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." It's readily apparent from the spell description that the images appear to be a creature (the caster). If they were really objects, they wouldn't be able to accomplish this.

(And for the record, I don't particularly care for this ruling in the FAQ either)

Actually, it has been illustrated.

Shadow Conjuration is of type Shadow Illusion. These can be quasi-real.

Mirror Image is of type Figment Illusion. These are not real (and the quotes for this have been posted earlier). Not real, no Wisdom score UNLESS it states somewhere that either Mirror Image or figments have a Wisdom score somewhere (or is a creature) which it does not.


As for the quote:

"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else."

this means that a Figment cannot make you look like a Troll. Glamers are used for that. So, you cannot use Major Image to look like a Troll. You cannot hide within a Major Image and look like a Table in it. You can create the image of a Troll or a Table with Major Image, but you cannot change your own appearance or anyone else's appearance with Major Image since Major Image is a figment, not a glamer.

Using Major Image to create a Troll does not make that illusory Troll a creature either. It is still merely a figment.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry bud. That's still a House Rule. Where do you think the term Rule 0 comes from anyway?

That is not a house rule.

It is quoted directly from the DMG and no matter which decision you make, you are still following RAW.

Think of picking one of the two contradictory rules as choosing which optional rule to play. The two contradictory rules are core. They are in RAW. You just have to pick one.

Picking a rule which is not in RAW from the FAQ though, is a house rule.

Making up a rule which is not in RAW is also a house rule.

Now, you can view FAQ as core and official, but they make too many mistakes for me to do that. I consider it a lesser source. Good for a quick lookup, but not really official. Ditto for Rules of the Game.


So, bottom line: If it is in RAW, it is not a house rule, even if it is an adjudication. If it is not in RAW, it it a house rule. There is a difference between an adjudication and a house rule. A house rule is a subset of adjudications, but it is not the entire set.

 

[KarinsDad]

That depends on how and why it fails.

The game has retries for different ways of failing? Show me.

A spell fails and fizzles if the target is invalid. as far as I know there is no rule for whether an attack fizzles if it's target is invalid.

The sequence is - Cleave, Choose new target, check if target is valid.

You seem to suggest that if the target is invalid, The attack fizzles.
I'd say it's equaly Valid to say that it doesn't(unless I'm miss reading something again, which is Possible I havn't put much energy into this) and thus the attack is still to resolve, and thus the Target must be chosen again.

In your trip example your trip fails because you miss, or you fail you check. I.e. It fails as a part of the action and thus is not actualy a comparable counteraxample.

(further note - I wouldn't actualy play this way, but thats not a requirement for this discussion)

Let's take a different example:

D
WEM

where D is a dropped body, W is a Wizard, E is the enemy, and M is a Major Image of a Fighter attacking E.

E just dropped D.

E then decides to Cleave M.

M is not a creature, so the Cleave fails.

E does not get to say "Opps, I didn't know that, I'll use my Cleave on W".

In this example, the Cleave accomplished something. It told E that M is not real.

In the Mirror Image example, the Cleave accomplished something. It told E (and his allies) that the image he attacked was not real. Now, this probably will not help him unless he has allies who can take advantage of this before W's next turn. But, it still worked exactly like the example above.

 

[Coredump]

It has been established that anything without a Wisdom score is an object (Hypersmurf's quote). Contrary to popular opinion, it has NOT been established that the figments lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.

Likewise, it has NOT been established that Magic Missles lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in the spell description.
So, by applying *YOUR* logic, it is part of RAW that Magic Missles can be considered 'creatures'. So next time our wizard shoots them past me and at the bad guy, I am going to cleave them.

Likewise, it has NOT been established that sticks lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in any book.
So, by applying *YOUR* logic, it is part of RAW that sticks can be considered 'creatures'. So next time I am fighting a bad guy, I will throw them in the air, creatures provoke AoO, so I will AoO them, and then cleave the bad guy.

Likewise, it has NOT been established that arrows lack a Wisdom score. Neither an affirmative nor a negative occurs in any book.
So, by applying *YOUR* logic, it is part of RAW that arrows can be considered 'creatures'. So next time our archer shoots them part me and at the bad guy, I am going to cleave the arrows and hit the bad guy.


It is incredibly spurious 'logic' to quote rules as to what they 'don't' say.
For instance, cleave says it can be used once per round, it does *not* say you can't average that. So perhaps I can use it twice a round,every other round. It doesn't say I can't. Or is "once a round' the *only* valid interpretation of 'once a round'?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Nothing wrong with it.

It is not the rules, but it is a fine house rule.

And, this is not really semantics.

A figment is not a creature by definition. Cleave only affects creatures. No semantics, just rules.

Actually thanks to the faq it appears that your interpretation is the house rule. So sorry your the one interprting the rules wrong, and making house rules.

The problem with the it doesn't work crowd is they try to use wording to narrow the abilities of things past the point of logic into the realm of rules stupidity. Sometimes you have to step back, and not read this like your a lawyer and inerpret the intent of things. If its actually easier to drop an image than it would be to drop a set of orc bodyguards you should be able to cleave off them just like you could the orcs. Ruling otherwise is an overly narrow intepretaiton using specifc workding in order to disrupt a logical flow so that rules lawyering can reign supreme. And hey guess what even the owners of the game recognize this and have clarified in the faq accordingly.