Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Mirror Image vs. Cleave
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="baudbard" data-source="post: 2688045" data-attributes="member: 38096"><p>ok... now some consideration for the other side. Mind you, I am only trying to point out facets of this that may have been missed, but this is fairly compelling (to me anyway).</p><p></p><p>A caster enchants themselves with a spell that creates concealment for him, anywhere from 20-50%. A warrior with Cleave attacks said caster, and misses. His miss causes the caster no damage, the caster does not drop, and cleave sits unused.</p><p></p><p>A caster uses Mirror Image. Mirror image creates 2-8 figments. A side affect of these figments is, the chance of hittiing the caster is 1/3-1/9. One essence of this, aside from other game mechanics involved, is that these figments create a 66.6 - 88.8% miss chance. Anytime you swing, and miss, you do no damage, nothing drops, no cleave.</p><p></p><p>now, these miss chances do seem a little high to me, and it's true that those numbers will come down quite quickly as figments drop. But take into account that being Invisible only grants a 50% mc (provided you guess the correct square etc). According to the RAW you still have to choose a square to attack into with MI. You choose said square when you choose which possible image/caster to attack. So not only are you attempting to pick out your opponent from 3-9 images that are all within 5 feet of another image, you may have to move to attack the next image. Now, there is nothing against a character with a high enough b.a.b. from using their full attack option and destroying multipe images that they threaten. Cleave would be a flavor issue at that point anyhow.</p><p></p><p>Now... a question on the nature of illusion. An illusion with no saving throw forces the victim (in this case anyone who can see the figments from MI) to act as if they were dealing with the caster. Now, if you are forced to believe you are attacking the caster... nvm... cleave still fails if your attack hits a figment.</p><p></p><p>Even though I have tried to be fair and see both sides of the argument here, I find it much more compelling to believe that a warrior with the cleave feat could destroy an additional figment, provided he still threatens one after his attack options have been utilized. Cleave does not negate this spell, even Blind-Fight does more to affect this spell than the word creature in the description of cleave. Someone with blind-fight, who closes their eyes, and guesses the correct square, actually has a vastly better chance than someone who does not have blind-fight. Cleave can only be used once per round. So IF a DM made the judgement that these particular figments could trigger the feat, only one addition figment would be destroyed, IF the attacker hit their AC.</p><p></p><p>The nature of Mirror Image is to create figments that assailants have to destroy to get to the caster. I cannot stand by and say I would NOT allow cleave to trigger in these circumstances. I have played a Caster and a Warrior. As a caster I expect any Mirror Images I produce to be destroyed. As a warrior I intend to swing at what's in front of me until nothings left standing. The lesser evil (IMO) is to allow a warrior with cleave to get his additional attack in. The warrior gets the satisfaction of having useful skills in the situation, and the caster is not inordinately disadvantaged by haveing an addition imaged destroyed.</p><p></p><p>A 20th level character with 1/1 b.a.b. progression maxes out with four attacks. A cleave attack makes five. Give him an additional attack from haste, six, various and sundry prc abilities, seven, and a exotic weapon master who has selected the flurry of blows ability, eight. Compared to this onslaught cleave has very little affect. In essence removing 11.1% miss chance in a encounter with 8 figments present.</p><p></p><p>I know I have fallen to the crutch of using my opinion. Having been a DM and a player, a caster and a warrior, and a few other things besides, I remember one thing that has always been important, having fun. Enjoying you characters abilities is not always easily accomplished. Having a opportunity to use an ability in a "cloudy" situation is best resolved by using the lesser evil. I believe cleave attack, is not, as I have attemted to demonstrate, a imbalancing factor in the effectiveness of Mirror Image.</p><p></p><p>Game On</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="baudbard, post: 2688045, member: 38096"] ok... now some consideration for the other side. Mind you, I am only trying to point out facets of this that may have been missed, but this is fairly compelling (to me anyway). A caster enchants themselves with a spell that creates concealment for him, anywhere from 20-50%. A warrior with Cleave attacks said caster, and misses. His miss causes the caster no damage, the caster does not drop, and cleave sits unused. A caster uses Mirror Image. Mirror image creates 2-8 figments. A side affect of these figments is, the chance of hittiing the caster is 1/3-1/9. One essence of this, aside from other game mechanics involved, is that these figments create a 66.6 - 88.8% miss chance. Anytime you swing, and miss, you do no damage, nothing drops, no cleave. now, these miss chances do seem a little high to me, and it's true that those numbers will come down quite quickly as figments drop. But take into account that being Invisible only grants a 50% mc (provided you guess the correct square etc). According to the RAW you still have to choose a square to attack into with MI. You choose said square when you choose which possible image/caster to attack. So not only are you attempting to pick out your opponent from 3-9 images that are all within 5 feet of another image, you may have to move to attack the next image. Now, there is nothing against a character with a high enough b.a.b. from using their full attack option and destroying multipe images that they threaten. Cleave would be a flavor issue at that point anyhow. Now... a question on the nature of illusion. An illusion with no saving throw forces the victim (in this case anyone who can see the figments from MI) to act as if they were dealing with the caster. Now, if you are forced to believe you are attacking the caster... nvm... cleave still fails if your attack hits a figment. Even though I have tried to be fair and see both sides of the argument here, I find it much more compelling to believe that a warrior with the cleave feat could destroy an additional figment, provided he still threatens one after his attack options have been utilized. Cleave does not negate this spell, even Blind-Fight does more to affect this spell than the word creature in the description of cleave. Someone with blind-fight, who closes their eyes, and guesses the correct square, actually has a vastly better chance than someone who does not have blind-fight. Cleave can only be used once per round. So IF a DM made the judgement that these particular figments could trigger the feat, only one addition figment would be destroyed, IF the attacker hit their AC. The nature of Mirror Image is to create figments that assailants have to destroy to get to the caster. I cannot stand by and say I would NOT allow cleave to trigger in these circumstances. I have played a Caster and a Warrior. As a caster I expect any Mirror Images I produce to be destroyed. As a warrior I intend to swing at what's in front of me until nothings left standing. The lesser evil (IMO) is to allow a warrior with cleave to get his additional attack in. The warrior gets the satisfaction of having useful skills in the situation, and the caster is not inordinately disadvantaged by haveing an addition imaged destroyed. A 20th level character with 1/1 b.a.b. progression maxes out with four attacks. A cleave attack makes five. Give him an additional attack from haste, six, various and sundry prc abilities, seven, and a exotic weapon master who has selected the flurry of blows ability, eight. Compared to this onslaught cleave has very little affect. In essence removing 11.1% miss chance in a encounter with 8 figments present. I know I have fallen to the crutch of using my opinion. Having been a DM and a player, a caster and a warrior, and a few other things besides, I remember one thing that has always been important, having fun. Enjoying you characters abilities is not always easily accomplished. Having a opportunity to use an ability in a "cloudy" situation is best resolved by using the lesser evil. I believe cleave attack, is not, as I have attemted to demonstrate, a imbalancing factor in the effectiveness of Mirror Image. Game On [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Mirror Image vs. Cleave
Top