My point is that you still have to roll the chance to see who your target is with your second attack, and there are no rules to cover what happens if the caster's number is called twice.
You can say reroll the dice, but there is no mention of rerolling if the same target is selected twice.
You are not reading what I wrote and this makes it obvious. Once the wizard is hit, you no longer even need to include him in the random chance to be hit. He is no longer a viable target for that round. You simply need to see if you could hit his AC and destroy one image for every attack that is high enough.
Instead of rolling dice, you could use simply use glass beads in a dice bag. Put in 5 green ones for an image and 1 red one for the wizard. Every time you would have hit the wizard, draw a random bead. Once you remove a bead, it is no longer a viable target for that round. You do not need to replace the beads unless you draw the red one and you only replace that bead at the end of the cleave/great cleave attempt.
I've already explained why rolling dice will result in a need to reroll at some point.
I remember your reroll idea. I just never agreed with it.
oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
Adjacent Squares is not the same thing as Adjacent Targets. Adjacent targets are target that are 5 feet or less. That was resolved earilier in the thread. Do try to keep up.
i guess by raw we just dont know how to deal with mirror image and cleave/great cleave at all :)
I admitted that long ago. :)
Most of me continuing the debate is out of fun and/or boredom.
oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Adjacent Squares is not the same thing as Adjacent Targets. Adjacent targets are target that are 5 feet or less. That was resolved earilier in the thread. Do try to keep up.oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
Do try reading comprehension. The mirror image spell says the attack is directed at the mage and has a change to hit an image. You cant try to cleave the same guy twice
oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other. You guys are using a rule that doesnt apply.
Adjacent Squares is not the same thing as Adjacent Targets. Adjacent targets are target that are 5 feet or less. That was resolved earilier in the thread. Do try to keep up.oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
Do try reading comprehension. The mirror image spell says the attack is directed at the mage and has a change to hit an image. You cant try to cleave the same guy twice
Points to the post above yours...
adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other. You guys are using a rule that doesnt apply.oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
So you wouldn't allow cleaving from one tiny creature to another tiny creature in the same space? (Note that tiny creatures can share spaces with each other with no penalties.)
So you wouldn't allow cleaving from one tiny creature to another tiny creature in the same space? (Note that tiny creatures can share spaces with each other with no penalties.)adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other. You guys are using a rule that doesnt apply.oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Yes they are in the same space , and yes I would aloow you to cleave those TWO creature. Mirror image says the attack targets the mage and has a chance to hit an image. Cleave says you cant target the same guy twice. No clarification needed.
Yes they are in the same space , and yes I would aloow you to cleave those TWO creature. Mirror image says the attack targets the mage and has a chance to hit an image. Cleave says you cant target the same guy twice. No clarification needed.So you wouldn't allow cleaving from one tiny creature to another tiny creature in the same space? (Note that tiny creatures can share spaces with each other with no penalties.)adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other. You guys are using a rule that doesnt apply.oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
That is an entirely separate point. The argument in question is whether or not images count as a separate target for cleave. The argument is not whether the images are considered adjacent. Therefore your "Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself." and "adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other." lines are flat-out irrelevant. The images are adjacent to the caster. That isn't enough for Cleave by itself, but it is a point that was settled 5 pages ago.
That is an entirely separate point. The argument in question is whether or not images count as a separate target for cleave. The argument is not whether the images are considered adjacent. Therefore your "Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT...Yes they are in the same space , and yes I would aloow you to cleave those TWO creature. Mirror image says the attack targets the mage and has a chance to hit an image. Cleave says you cant target the same guy twice. No clarification needed.So you wouldn't allow cleaving from one tiny creature to another tiny creature in the same space? (Note that tiny creatures can share spaces with each other with no penalties.)adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other. You guys are using a rule that doesnt apply.oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Sure , expect that cleave targets the mage ( as per the spell mirror image ) and has a chance to hit an image instead. So the caster has already been the target of cleave.
"Next" doesn't have to mean from left to right. As the cleaver, you can choose the next target. If you have reach, maybe it's the guy behind the wizard. Maybe it's the raven familiar flying over the wizard's head. Maybe it's the guy to his left. You are not required to swing in a circle. It never says that. Neither cleave nor great cleave use the word "next" in their descriptions except to say that you suffer a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn. You can strike at your foes in any order you choose so long as they are all within reach and adjacent to the first target.
As for which image is...
My bad for using the word "next" it was late and I took my interpretation as exact wording when applying it here. This is why I said "next"
If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach.
Now with the way adjacent is described as within 5' of eachother, I can certainly conceed the argument that regardless of which image you hit any image is still adjacent to the next one by RAW meaning one could swing back and forth in a square despite the intent of the 1 single blow descriptor written in cleave.
I don't believe it was the intent to cleave in that manner.. the adjacent to previos foe was designed for when all foes have thier own 5' square. That way if there were 3 people in front of you, you wouldnt be able to hit the middle one first then right, then left. You have to make an arcing swing in this manner either from right to left or left to right.
Although foes within the same square are all adjacent to eachother via technicality, I don't believe the intent is to swing back and forth through the square hitting random images.
Despite all that, the original argument of the possibility of hitting the caster twice still violates cleave rules.
Beside RAW all attack are directed at the caster. The images are even a viable target.....ever....for anything.
That is an entirely separate point. The argument in question is whether or not images count as a separate target for cleave. The argument is not whether the images are considered adjacent. Therefore your "Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself." and "adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other." lines are flat-out irrelevant. The images are adjacent to the caster. That isn't enough for Cleave by itself, but it is a point that was settled 5 pages ago.Sure , expect that cleave targets the mage ( as per the spell mirror image ) and has a chance to hit an image instead. So the caster has already been the target of cleave.
I'll point out that that's an entirely different argument than you came back into the thread making. Not being able to cleave because of targeting the same target is still open for debate. Not being able to cleave because of adjacency isn't.
That being said, I'll now proceed to argue with your reading of it. :)
First of all, if it hits an image, the caster was never the target: "... there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead." It doesn't say "hits one of your images instead." It means that you were never targeting the mage in the first place. Therefore, you can cleave from the image you were actually targeting to another target, which might be the mage (or might be another image, or might be an entirely separate creature).
Secondly, nothing says that the images can't be targeted separately from the mage. Figments in general can, and the spell (which is a figment spell) doesn't say that they can't. Therefore they can. Since there's no special rules in the spell dealing with targeting the images, all the standard rules about figments apply (AC is 10 + size, hitting them reveals them to be figments, but they stay around). It's only when you attack the mage and instead get an image that the special rules for mirror image apply (AC is mage's, image pops if you hit it or miss by 5).
Why James and not Jason?Good question! :-)
I'll give it a shot, though...
The images created by mirror images shift and move about. You can't specifically target a single mirror image any more than you can specifically target the real thing that's protected by mirror image, and thus you wouldn't be able to use Cleave or Great Cleave or Whirlwind Attack to specifically target the images.
Mirror image does not grant you extra attacks if you use one of these feats. If you attack a target protected by mirror image while using Cleave, Great Cleave, or Whirlwind Attack, you interact with the spell in the same way as if you were just attacking a target with a normal attack.
There ya go . I was right . End of thread.
Edit - Also killed off the magic missle vs mirror image thread ( again I was right ). Damn im good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz23ej?Dear-James-regarding-Mirror-Image#0
That way if there were 3 people in front of you, you wouldnt be able to hit the middle one first then right, then left. You have to make an arcing swing in this manner either from right to left or left to right.
Expanding on this and taking it to the absurd. If a caster with MI had two other foes to his left and right. This is assuming Cleave was valid which I still contend is not. Cleave as RAW would let you attack the MI caster. hit an image, move over to the foe in the left square, come back to the MI caster, hit another image, move over to the foe in the right square, and then back over to the MI caster to finish up the remaining images and still hit the caster.
Not at all the intent of cleave.
So no other sarcastic remarks or arguements?...... Try to keep up charender.
Thank you for finding that. Not even RAI let alone RAW. No more arguing in circles about this.
~ and there was much rejoicing.
So no other sarcastic remarks or arguements?...... Try to keep up charender.
Last I checked I am not the one who jumped into a 6 page thread with an arguement that had been shot down 4 pages ago....
So no other sarcastic remarks or arguements?...... Try to keep up charender.Last I checked I am not the one who jumped into a 6 page thread with an arguement that had been shot down 4 pages ago....
Using rules that are wrong..... but what ever. My search-fu owned the thread.
Cool story guys , but James jacobs says it doesnt work and dino greater then our posts.
He also says you can't target figments which pretty much contradicts RAW.
I guess you know RAW and RAI better then the guy who made them..... the link ends all possible arguements. Let it die.
I guess you know RAW and RAI better then the guy who made them..... the link ends all possible arguements. Let it die.
James Jacobs is the Creative Director. While he has some input into the rules, he is not the "guy who made them".
I guess you know RAW and RAI better then the guy who made them..... the link ends all possible arguements. Let it die.
Agreed! If others want to house-rule then go right ahead. I will stick with the interpretation of the Creative Director for the game. This thread can now be put to rest.
I guess you know RAW and RAI better then the guy who made them..... the link ends all possible arguements. Let it die.James Jacobs is the Creative Director. While he has some input into the rules, he is not the "guy who made them".
Strawman argument: Refuting an argument by attacking the source.
Whatever. Anyone who wants to can remain ignorant. I've linked the post and given proof. Im out.
Strawman argument: Refuting an argument by attacking the source.I guess you know RAW and RAI better then the guy who made them..... the link ends all possible arguements. Let it die.James Jacobs is the Creative Director. While he has some input into the rules, he is not the "guy who made them".
No, I was merely pointing someone else's incorrect facts. James Jacobs is not, is fact, "the guy who made the rules" as Tagion asserted. Since I have actually seen the developers contradict each other, it is important to know the position and responsibilities of the devoloper you are referencing.
Strawman would be propping up an easily refuted argument, attributing that to my opponent, then refuting that argument.
Yar.
I usually have great respect for JJ and his rulings, however, if you actually READ his post about this (which is about 2 years old) you will see that he says that the images constantly spin and swirl around you - which by RAW they CLEARLY do NOT do! Hence this continues to go on. Hence his "ruling" in this circumstance is invalidated because he is quoting an aspect of the spell that DOES NOT EXIST in the Pathfinder version of this spell... which is what we are discussing.
Apologies for any typos - sent from an iPhone.
~P
Strawman argument: Refuting an argument by attacking the source.I guess you know RAW and RAI better then the guy who made them..... the link ends all possible arguements. Let it die.James Jacobs is the Creative Director. While he has some input into the rules, he is not the "guy who made them".No, I was merely pointing someone else's incorrect facts. James Jacobs is not, is fact, "the guy who made the rules" as Tagion asserted. Since I have actually seen the developers contradict each other, it is important to know the position and responsibilities of the devoloper you are referencing.
Strawman would be propping up an easily refuted argument, attributing that to my opponent, then refuting that argument.
I'm sorry, I mistook it as you were refuting what James Jacobs was saying due to his position within Paizo, not just simply correcting his the slight mischarecterization of his role.
While it's true that James is not the rules guy, the creative director is good enough for me for the purposes of PFS and etc. If you guys want to allow Cleave versus Mirror Image it's up to you, but the only official input thus far has been a resounding "no".
Agreed. The only thing that bothers me is that there are some very good points brought up in this thread that were NOT brought up in that thread and thus were not addressed.
Yar.
I usually have great respect for JJ and his rulings, however, if you actually READ his post about this (which is about 2 years old) you will see that he says that the images constantly spin and swirl around you - which by RAW they CLEARLY do NOT do! Hence this continues to go on. Hence his "ruling" in this circumstance is invalidated because he is quoting an aspect of the spell that DOES NOT EXIST in the Pathfinder version of this spell... which is what we are discussing.
Apologies for any typos - sent from an iPhone.
~P
I prefer to think of it more that he is clarifying ambigous wording within the spell. Even without that, the RAW doesn't allow you to get around the targeting mechanism and potentially hit the caster twice. I will stick with James' ruling on the matter.
Alright folks. This issue is getting a bit out of hand. Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
Let's all just calm done. No need to get bent out of shape.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Also an old thread but thats leader designer jason bulmahn.
Edit - created a link for the pirate.
Yar.
Tagion: You can link directly to a persons post in the thread. Click on the time/date beside their name for the post you want to link to, and it will give you the url to that exact post.
You can also create a working hyperlink yourself by typing {url=http://www.link.com]LINK{/url} where the {} are replaced by square brackets, and the url is replaced by the actual url you want us to go see.
I also ask that you quote other peoples text by using {quote=person's name your quoting} Quoted text. {/quote} so that we know it's someone elses words and not your own.
Thanks.
~P
adjacent to YOU. Cleave says adjacent to each other. You guys are using a rule that doesnt apply.oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
That is incorrect. One thing we did do at the beginning of the post was agree that the images and the caster were adjacent by RAW.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
I am pretty sure that if they are all in the same 5 foot square that they are all adjacent to each other, and the caster since you only need to be within 5 feet to be adjacent.
While it's true that James is not the rules guy, the creative director is good enough for me for the purposes of PFS and etc. If you guys want to allow Cleave versus Mirror Image it's up to you, but the only official input thus far has been a resounding "no".
James's answers are not official rules answers. Even by Paizo's stance he can't do FAQ's. It has to come from Sean, Jason, or Stephen. He is a good inside man, but his answers are never official, which also means they don't count for PFS.
Strawman argument: Refuting an argument by attacking the source.I guess you know RAW and RAI better then the guy who made them..... the link ends all possible arguements. Let it die.James Jacobs is the Creative Director. While he has some input into the rules, he is not the "guy who made them".No, I was merely pointing someone else's incorrect facts. James Jacobs is not, is fact, "the guy who made the rules" as Tagion asserted. Since I have actually seen the developers contradict each other, it is important to know the position and responsibilities of the devoloper you are referencing.
Strawman would be propping up an easily refuted argument, attributing that to my opponent, then refuting that argument.
As has been said several times when it's come up elsewhere, James Jacobs is not a source of official answers on rules. What he is the official source of is answers on the Pathfinder setting. In everything else, his answers are to be taken as his personal rulings, as he would run them in his game. I think he'd let Vital Strike stack with charging or spring attack, for instance, but that's not the official rule. He'd also rename Breath of Life so that it was a cure spell and could be spont-cast by clerics.
That being said, in the absence of any official FAQ, his answers are usually good enough for most GMs. However, this thread had moved into the "It's up to your GM" territory long ago.
Alright folks. This issue is getting a bit out of hand. Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
Let's all just calm done. No need to get bent out of shape.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingAlso an old thread but thats leader designer jason bulmahn.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz18we&page=4?Sorcerous-Blog-Preview
Page 4 towards the bottom.
I found that one a while back. It is has been at least 2 years, and still no clarification. That was during the beta phase before the "adjacent" issue was finalized. Now adjacent is finalized, but the spell still has not been cleared up with regard to cleave.
Jason would have to rule that for the purpose of the spell that they do not count as adjacent.The issue of the images being foes was also not brought up at that time though so now we have another wrinkle in the system.
I am personally convinced that none of us are going to budge on the issue, but if we create a black hole with this post we might get an answer. :)
Beside RAW all attack are directed at the caster. The images are even a viable target.....ever....for anything.
You're mistaking a conditional statement for a biconditional statement. That's a failure of basic, basic logic.
Read up on conditional and biconditional.
You're making a mistake of disagreeing with both the developer and the creative director?
I disagree with them all the time. Until this becomes part of the FAQ, their opinion is about as valid as anyone else's.
Just because someone works on the game doesn't make their opinion perfect. In this case, it is just opinion. Jason's response was from the playtest, so it has no bearing. James's response is his opinion.
Did you know that Jason doesn't think you should be able to ranks in Fly even if you can cast Overland Flight that lasts 24 hours? It's not reliable enough. I don't always agree with the developers. Until it's part of the FAQ, it isn't RAW.
Sometimes they disagree with each other. :)