Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sigg" data-source="post: 2685224" data-attributes="member: 30546">Heh, I was wondering the same thing. And the answer anyway is no because, unless I've missed something somewhere, in order to actually attack an invisible anything one must be able to see invisible things....in which case the invisible bit is irrelevent. Otherwise, the attacker is only swinging into a seemingly empty area in the hopes of hitting the invisible something. In other words, it's the square being attacked, not the target. Even I'm not trying to say one can cleave a square on the battlemap.And once again, Nail, Cleave's description and the definition of the word "cleave" both indicate an attack that is so powerful it passes through the first target and strikes a second. That the actual game mechanics might not logically jive with the feat description of the word definition is not the issue here....only whether an illusion would be able to somehow prevent the attack. Now if you are asking whether the actually game mechanics of the Cleave feat seem kind of silly or at least inconsistent with the feat's description and the definition, then I would be wholeheartedly agreeing with you. My opinion is that the mechanics have been designed the way they are simply to give the feat greater utility for a broader group than the feat would appeal to if it were to behave in a more realistic fashion. Restricting the weapons and/or weapon classes that could make use of the feat might be seen by WoC as too limiting. IMO several feats which might result in the same extra attack, but be restricted to certain kinds or classes of weapons (and then of course have different names and descriptions), would be a superior way of handling the issue. I'd make cleave for S weapons....maybe "Run Through", or "Skewer" for P weapons....and maybe "Crush" or something for B weapons. Whatever...the point is there is no rational, non-situational reason a warrior couldn't continue an attack he is highly skilled with and has practiced extensively, simply because he encountered an illusion. All the "he was surprised" or "unprepared to meet to resistence" or even "experienced and aware of the nature of illusions" are situational...not every attacker would qualify for any or all of this situational descriptions. Why would their attacks fail? Simple...they wouldn't. I'm the halforc barbie....I see two skinner fellers in robes standing in front of me talking babytalk...I wind up my great axe and swing for the fences, knowing I can mow down both these weakling humans in jammies no problem....and I'd be more right than I first realize it turns out.</blockquote>

Verification