How do the images produced with the Mirror Image spell interact with the feats Cleave, Great Cleave, and Whirlwind Attack?
Are the images considered separate, targetable foes for these feats?
Do the images satisfy the adjacency requirement for Cleave and Great Cleave?
James who?
There are 2 other threads pertaining to this for the non-James's [you know who you are(n't)]! ;)
Oh, I know the answer, but I'm not telling.
Because I'm not James.
Oh, I know the answer, but I'm not telling.
Because I'm not James.
Damn you Evil Lincoln! Damn you!
There are 2 other threads pertaining to this for the non-James's [you know who you are(n't)]! ;)
Third time's a charm?
Third time's a charm?
You're all kinds of help.
Why James and not Jason?
Why James and not Jason?
Everyone else was doin' it.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Does this ruling also work with higher lvl magic missile aswell?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this ruling also work with higher lvl magic missile aswell?
To use magic missile you need to target a foe. You don't target specific images (that's the WHOLE POINT of the spell, to confound targeting), you just target the guy. In the case of magic missile, though, the missiles hit automatically; you don't roll an attack roll with magic missile. So all magic missiles automatically miss mirror images and automatically hit the target.
Imagine: Mage w/ Mirror Image standing next to bodyguard.
You attack Mage, hitting and destroying an image, then Great Cleave into Bodyguard (hitting), why can't you continue Cleaving into the remaining Image(s)? They remain a valid Target (as a whole). You just destroyed the target of your previous attack.
The Bodyguard isn't even necessary. You hit an image, destroy it, and further images (/real dude) remain, which are valid targets for attack rolls, why can't you Cleave into them? It doesn't matter that they're in the "same square(s)", because multiple tiny creatures (say, a Familiar) could be in the same square as another creature, yet should be valid Cleave targets (unless 'worn' by a creature, like a Familiar in a pocket).
Likewise, Whirling Frenzy: what exact difference is there between lashing out at a circle of ninjas surrounding you, and repeatedly hitting every shifting-overlapping image of the Magic Ninja Dude?
Imagine: Mage w/ Mirror Image standing next to bodyguard.
You attack Mage, hitting and destroying an image, then Great Cleave into Bodyguard (hitting), why can't you continue Cleaving into the remaining Image(s)? They remain a valid Target (as a whole). You just destroyed the target of your previous attack.The Bodyguard isn't even necessary. You hit an image, destroy it, and further images (/real dude) remain, which are valid targets for attack rolls, why can't you Cleave into them? It doesn't matter that they're in the "same square(s)", because multiple tiny creatures (say, a Familiar) could be in the same square as another creature, yet should be valid Cleave targets (unless 'worn' by a creature, like a Familiar in a pocket).
Likewise, Whirling Frenzy: what exact difference is there between lashing out at a circle of ninjas surrounding you, and repeatedly hitting every shifting-overlapping image of the Magic Ninja Dude?
I'd presume from the ruling, it's because you missed your foe (the mage).
Why James and not Jason?
Jason doesn't return my calls....
Just kidding (I've never called him). From my experience in the rules forum, I've seen James pop in and out with rulings much more than I've seen Jason. Lately, anyway.
...I've seen James pop in and out with rulings much more than I've seen Jason.
And it is exceedingly kind of him to take time out of his day to answer questions.
And it is exceedingly kind of him to take time out of his day to answer questions.
Undoubtedly. The involvement of the Pathfinder staff in these forums is one of the finer aspects of the Pathfinder web experience. Top-notch, all the way!
I'd presume from the ruling, it's because you missed your foe (the mage).
Well, I understand the Magic Missile thing fine, but his explanation doesn't cut it for me re: actual melee attacks. If he's saying "this is how I rule it in my game" that's fine, but since James isn't GM'ing a game I'm a player in, I'm discussing the RAW here. Perhaps it's a case where the wording could be tightened up by Jason if his intent is for it to unambiguously work this way...?
Game balance-wise, I don't see the problem with a huge-Pre Req Feat like Whirlwind attack being able to counter a 2nd level spell as Full Round Action.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine: Mage w/ Mirror Image standing next to bodyguard.
You attack Mage, hitting and destroying an image, then Great Cleave into Bodyguard (hitting), why can't you continue Cleaving into the remaining Image(s)? They remain a valid Target (as a whole). You just destroyed the target of your previous attack.
That's the thing; they never WERE a valid target, because you can't specifically target mirror images. Since you can't actually aim at a specific mirror image with a normal attack, you can't Cleave one.
If the text for mirror image SAID you could specifically target an image, then yeah, you could cleave them. But you can't. The only time you can hit an image is if you miss the actual target by 5 or less.
Feel free to houserule that, of course; but in this case the rules seem pretty clear to me. If you DO houserule that you can cleave images, you should allow normal attacks to target them as well. Which sorta defeats the purpose of the spell, I think.
That's the thing; they never WERE a valid target, because you can't specifically target mirror images. Since you can't actually aim at a specific mirror image with a normal attack, you can't Cleave one.Imagine: Mage w/ Mirror Image standing next to bodyguard.
You attack Mage, hitting and destroying an image, then Great Cleave into Bodyguard (hitting), why can't you continue Cleaving into the remaining Image(s)? They remain a valid Target (as a whole). You just destroyed the target of your previous attack.
OK. Saying you FIRST attack the bodyguard, you COULD at minimum make one Cleave attack against the Mirror Image'd Mage, right?
So, going back to hitting the Mage first (destroying an Image), Cleaving the Bodyguard (hitting him), there remains a Mirror Image'd Mage WHO YOU HAVE NOT YET HIT, because the attack was targetted out of your control against an Image, which is now gone because you destroyed it. Why exactly can't you try to hit the Mirror Image'd Mage, none of whose 'components' (Mage himself and remaining Images) have been attacked by you?
Nowhere here am I saying you are trying to specifically target an Image, the Mirror Image spell itself randomly takes care of which Image is targetted, and none of the remaining images/real dude have actually received an attack from you.
The only time you can hit an image is if you miss the actual target by 5 or less.
Don't know if this changes your ruling, but you can hit an image by defeating the mage's AC with an attack roll, but then rolling the random target die that comes up an image. Similar in practice to concealment miss chances.
|
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.
My question is though...the extra images are destroyed if they are struck, so if you attacked the target and hit one if the images (which would be destroyed), there would still be a target to attack using any of the aforementioned feats, correct?
My question is though...the extra images are destroyed if they are struck, so if you attacked the target and hit one if the images (which would be destroyed), there would still be a target to attack using any of the aforementioned feats, correct?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.
Even though an image is destroyed your original target was the spellcaster, since the images cannot be targetted, and would be the spellcaster again if you cleaved, and you cannot attack twice the same target with cleave nor whirlwind attack.
It's easier to envision if you consider MI to be a very effective concealment effect that gets partially depleted with every successful hit.
That's the thing; they never WERE a valid target, because you can't specifically target mirror images. Since you can't actually aim at a specific mirror image with a normal attack, you can't Cleave one.Imagine: Mage w/ Mirror Image standing next to bodyguard.
You attack Mage, hitting and destroying an image, then Great Cleave into Bodyguard (hitting), why can't you continue Cleaving into the remaining Image(s)? They remain a valid Target (as a whole). You just destroyed the target of your previous attack.OK. Saying you FIRST attack the bodyguard, you COULD at minimum make one Cleave attack against the Mirror Image'd Mage, right?
So, going back to hitting the Mage first (destroying an Image), Cleaving the Bodyguard (hitting him), there remains a Mirror Image'd Mage WHO YOU HAVE NOT YET HIT, because the attack was targetted out of your control against an Image, which is now gone because you destroyed it. Why exactly can't you try to hit the Mirror Image'd Mage, none of whose 'components' (Mage himself and remaining Images) have been attacked by you?
Nowhere here am I saying you are trying to specifically target an Image, the Mirror Image spell itself randomly takes care of which Image is targetted, and none of the remaining images/real dude have actually received an attack from you.
You may not attack an individual foe more than once a round with Great Cleave.
Even though you have destroyed one image with your swing, you have targeted the mage, who is still one target for the purposes of selecting a target by Great Cleave, and cannot select the same target again. There is a CHANCE you may hit an image instead of the mage, but that doesn't mean you can select each image separately, even though there are multiple images. There is still only one target. You know there is only one target. The images shift and flicker so as to confuse you and make it impossible to target anything specific in that 5 ft. square that the mage is in.
This may not work for you, but this is how I'm going to run it.
|
Creative Director
|
My question is though...the extra images are destroyed if they are struck, so if you attacked the target and hit one if the images (which would be destroyed), there would still be a target to attack using any of the aforementioned feats, correct?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.
Well, you didn't actually hit the target, or a creature. You missed. Cleave requires you to hit something, so technically, hitting a figment (which isn't real) wouldn't allow you to move on to take another shot.
And yes, mirror image doesn't negate a foe from being a target for things like Cleave; you could certainly hit the bodyguard and then move on to cleave the wizard with mirror image running; you just might end up hitting an image.
|
Creative Director
|
I guess my biggest thing is the description...if they stay in the same place, but overlap and blur, then anybody with a greatsword could take a swing across the entire 5 ft square and connect with the actual being...just sayin.
By that argument, you wouldn't need to roll to hit at all. If you just swing across an entire 5-foot square,you'll hit someone inside it automatically, mirror image or not. AKA: This argument has no real ground to stand on as far as the rules of the game are concerned.
|
|
My question is though...the extra images are destroyed if they are struck, so if you attacked the target and hit one if the images (which would be destroyed), there would still be a target to attack using any of the aforementioned feats, correct?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.
Well, you didn't actually hit the target, or a creature. You missed. Cleave requires you to hit something, so technically, hitting a figment (which isn't real) wouldn't allow you to move on to take another shot.
And yes, mirror image doesn't negate a foe from being a target for things like Cleave; you could certainly hit the bodyguard and then move on to cleave the wizard with mirror image running; you just might end up hitting an image.
If an image is destroyed, it seems to me that you hit it...and as for the swinging across the 5ft square...you would still have to roll to hit against the targets AC. Not every miss is a clean miss as i recall...
...his explanation doesn't cut it for me re: actual melee attacks. If he's saying "this is how I rule it in my game" that's fine, but since James isn't GM'ing a game I'm a player in, I'm discussing the RAW here....
It never ceases to amuse me that people BEG for an official answer then immediately dismiss it when it isn't the one they want.
I see this all the time on on the 3.5 boards. "CustServ isn't reliable! The Rules of the Game articles aren't official! The Sage contradicted himself...once, a year ago, so nothing he says counts, ever again! The FAQ isn't RAW!"
If you want to play a Paizo game, you now have the Paizo rules. If you play in a home game, then play by any rules you want. It's really not that complicated.
...his explanation doesn't cut it for me re: actual melee attacks. If he's saying "this is how I rule it in my game" that's fine, but since James isn't GM'ing a game I'm a player in, I'm discussing the RAW here....It never ceases to amuse me that people BEG for an official answer then immediately dismiss it when it isn't the one they want.
I see this all the time on on the 3.5 boards. "CustServ isn't reliable! The Rules of the Game articles aren't official! The Sage contradicted himself...once, a year ago, so nothing he says counts, ever again! The FAQ isn't RAW!"
If you want to play a Paizo game, you now have the Paizo rules. If you play in a home game, then play by any rules you want. It's really not that complicated.
In Quandary's defense, a little back and forth with the creators for some under the hood explanation isn't necessarily a bad thing. And even official answers can change sometimes. Quandary may not have taken an opportunity to participate in the Mirror Image discussion prior to posting here.
Having said that, tactful language can go a long way to keeping even a disagreement civil and about the facts and interpretations at issue.
In Quandary's defense, a little back and forth with the creators for some under the hood explanation isn't necessarily a bad thing. And even official answers can change sometimes. Quandary may not have taken an opportunity to participate in the Mirror Image discussion prior to posting here.
Having said that, tactful language can go a long way to keeping even a disagreement civil and about the facts and interpretations at issue.
Agreed. And in the interests of full disclosure, James' ruling is actually the opposite of mine. I think the images should be legitimate targets for cleave and whirlwind. Maybe I'll adopt the official ruling, maybe I won't. It's a home game. My players and I will decide how we want to play.
That having been said, one of the consistent themes on the boards is gratitude to Paizo for actually paying attention to these discussions. I absolutely love that. Not only did Paizo save the d20 system (which earns them my gratitude), but they are also professional game designers, something that is far more rare than most people seem to realize (which earns them my respect). They are not just some random posters. They are the authority on the game. You don't get to appeal to them for rulings, then dismiss them for not agreeing with you. And you especially don't get to say that they don't understand the rules that they, themselves, wrote. You only have to check out the Battletech boards to know that gets really old, really fast.
Having said that, tactful language can go a long way to keeping even a disagreement civil and about the facts and interpretations at issue.
I don't think that can be repeated enough, Robert.
That having been said, one of the consistent themes on the boards is gratitude to Paizo for actually paying attention to these discussions. I absolutely love that. Not only did Paizo save the d20 system (which earns them my gratitude), but they are also professional game designers, something that is far more rare than most people seem to realize (which earns them my respect). They are not just some random posters. They are the authority on the game. You don't get to appeal to them for rulings, then dismiss them for not agreeing with you. And you especially don't get to say that they don't understand the rules that they, themselves, wrote.
I think I can definitely agree with everything you say here, Jake.
I don't get the impression that James was at all taken aback by debating this issue (which is as much about "why" it works one way or the other as much as the ultimate outcome), but if he thinks my participation here is counter-productive or offensive, I would certainly take him seriously about that.If you DO houserule that you can cleave images, you should allow normal attacks to target them as well. Which sorta defeats the purpose of the spell, I think.
I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here. 2 attacks via Cleave would destroy the same # of images/ have the same chances of hitting the real Caster as 2 attacks via Full Attack, which is unambiguously allowed, wouldn't it? I've never suggested allowing individual targetting of images, I've just suggested that after hitting/destroying an image, the remaining images/caster as a whole present "a" (combined) target that has not been hit, and is adjacent to the original destroyed image (otherwise M.I. wouldn't have much effect if the images exactly overlayed the Caster).
Reversing my example, say I HIT the real Caster on the first hit. Images should still remain, but I cannot Cleave the Images-Caster again, because I *HAVE* already hit the M.I.'d Caster-Images amalgamation. In other words, there is an assymetric relationship between the Caster and Images: If the Caster is DESTROYED (or injured) the Images are also, but if an Image is destroyed the Caster is not. That would seem to satisfy the requirements of discrete objects, or targets of actions, because you can effect (or attack) one image but not the others. To me, Mirror Image is "imposing itself" into the target selection stage: you see the overlapping images but can only decide to attack them "as a whole", leaving it to chance which image is individually targetted/effected.
If this is too much to think about, I completely understand :-)
Having said that, tactful language can go a long way to keeping even a disagreement civil and about the facts and interpretations at issue.I don't think that can be repeated enough, Robert.
That having been said, one of the consistent themes on the boards is gratitude to Paizo for actually paying attention to these discussions. I absolutely love that. Not only did Paizo save the d20 system (which earns them my gratitude), but they are also professional game designers, something that is far more rare than most people seem to realize (which earns them my respect). They are not just some random posters. They are the authority on the game. You don't get to appeal to them for rulings, then dismiss them for not agreeing with you. And you especially don't get to say that they don't understand the rules that they, themselves, wrote.I think I can definitely agree with everything you say here, Jake.
I don't get the impression that James was at all taken aback by debating this issue (which is as much about "why" it works one way or the other as much as the ultimate outcome), but if he thinks my participation here is counter-productive or offensive, I would certainly take him seriously about that.If you DO houserule that you can cleave images, you should allow normal attacks to target them as well. Which sorta defeats the purpose of the spell, I think.I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here. 2 attacks via Cleave would destroy the same # of images/ have the same chances of hitting the real Caster as 2 attacks via Full Attack, which is unambiguously allowed, wouldn't it? I've never suggested allowing individual targetting of images, I've just suggested that after hitting/destroying an image, the remaining images/caster as a whole present "a" (combined) target that has not been hit, and is adjacent to the original destroyed image (otherwise M.I. wouldn't have much effect if the images exactly overlayed the Caster).
Reversing my example, say I HIT the real Caster on the first hit. Images should still remain, but I cannot Cleave the Images-Caster again, because I *HAVE* already hit the M.I.'d Caster-Images amalgamation. In other words, there is an assymetric relationship between the Caster and Images: If the Caster is DESTROYED (or injured) the Images are also, but if an Image is destroyed the Caster is not. That would seem to satisfy the requirements of discrete objects, or targets of actions, because you can effect (or attack) one image but not the others. To me, Mirror Image is "imposing itself" into the target selection stage: you see the overlapping images but can only decide to attack them "as a whole", leaving it to chance which image is individually targetted/effected.
If this is too much to think about, I completely understand :-)
Even though there are multiple amalgamations of the same target, it is still ONE target. You cannot target the SAME target more than once for cleave, great cleave, or whirlwind attack.
If you want to use your full attack, knock yourself out! Those other abilities will not work base on the "each target may only be selected once."
|
|
Even though there are multiple amalgamations of the same target, it is still ONE target. You cannot target the SAME target more than once for cleave, great cleave, or whirlwind attack.
If you want to use your full attack, knock yourself out! Those other abilities will not work base on the "each target may only be selected once."
What i think though is that if i remember the wording correctly, when you hit one of the images in lieu of the caster it is destroyed, therefore you have hit a different target than your intended target and would be able to cleave/great cleave/whirlwind. That's my story and I'm stickin to it!