Once again someone disguised as a foe is not a foe. It is a copy of your foe.
You intend to hit the wizard(foe) but he spell basically makes you hit something else. Just because the spell makes you hit an impostor that does make the impostor a foe.
There is no RAW that makes the impostor a foe. It is nothing more than a disguise that looks like what you want to hit.There. See how they both follow the exact same logic, yet you claim they should be adjudicated differently?
That is terrible logic. The imposter can be a foe. A magical effect such as an illusion or figment is not equal to an actual thing that exist. So yes I am saying illusions are not to be treated like things that really exist. The rules don't allow for illusions to help give flanking bonuses because they are not real. Now I think that realistically speaking if I beleive an illusion to be real, and it is on the other side I should be flanked, due to the way silent image, and the similar spells work, but RAW it does not. By you example one could replace an imposter(actual being) with an illusion or figment, and get the same results, but the rules don't work like that.
Now, before you go talking about how images provide no resistance whatsoever, I'd like to remind you that there are plenty of incorporeal monsters, as well as spells which can make said wizard ethereal. None of these sorts of targets should offer any more resistance than a figment, yet cleave nor incorporeal text makes any case why cleave might fail when met with said "null resistance" targets.
I would not bring up a silly notion like resistance because it has no bearing on this conversation. My notion is that a foe has to be real thing, not a fake one, and unless otherwise stated they don't count as foes for purposes of the cleave spell.
To hit a spellcaster with mirror image you need to cast a attack roll even if you hit a mirror you still need to hit it with an attack roll.
Because of this i consider each mirror a valid foe.
Would you not allow an archer to fire his arrows at different targets?
Also consider the 3rd lvl spell Displacement and how poor it becomes considering how you use Mirror image.
The issue is that you can't deliberately swing at an image. The spell says when the caster is swung at. I have quoted it more than once.
An figment is not a valid target per the spell description so your archer question has no merit until the wording is changed to if a figment or you is attacked, but that is not what it says. The spell keys off of "you " aka the wizard being attacked. If you thing the wording is bad tell the devs to reword it so the images are viable targets. As written they are not.Displacement is not a poor spell. Mirror image might arguably be better even though it is a lower level, but that does not support your case.
An example that came up on the boards recently are the dismissal and banishment spells.
The banishment spell is quoted as "a more powerful version of the dismissal spell. ", yet it is more limited because it can only banish creatures from your home plane while dismissal "forces an extraplanar creature back to its proper plane" with the restriction of you having to be on your home plane.
Now you can claim developer oversight, but the rules are what they are.
The figment is not even a foe. It does not even exist.
Figment: a figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).
Because [b]figments and glamers are unreal,[b/] they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
You can't really cleave what is not there. All you are doing is attacking an empty space because you believe something is there. It no more valid than attacking the air so you can continue cleaving. At least the air has real molecules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Answer me this: Can a character attack a figment? Are the words "opponent" and "foe" synonymous?
If so, then those images in mirror image can be cleaved, because you cannot attack something that is not an opponent (see the Attack action in the combat chapter), and thus you are attacking an opponent by attacking the image (whether they were your original target or not, the spell treats that image as your target in all ways).
Also, if the thing you're attacking must have molecules, then how do you explain cleaving ghosts? The first words of the description of "incorporeal" is that it doesn't have a physical body (read: no molecules).
But then, as you say, what's to stop someone from cleaving air to continue their cleave?
There's a weakness in the rules in one of these locations. Take your pick. In the mean time, I will continue to rule that mirror image can be cleaved for the following reasons: it is cool, it makes sense (from an in-world standpoint), and it's fair.
I don't think you can target any of the specific figments on purpose. Confusing proper targeting is sort of the purpose of the spell. They're swirling around like a weird kaleidoscope, and you can't target any one of them on purpose.
You just have to swing at the square they're in and take your chances.
If you swing at a specific figment you still need to roll to see if you hit a different one, or maybe even the caster, accidentally.
If you hit a figment that wasn't your intended target you can't cleave to a new target anymore than you could if you fumbled and hit an ally.
I don't believe that you should be able to cleave images.
If a wizard and cleric were adajcent to each other then if you hit the wizard you would be able to cleave the cleric. If you hit the cleric you would be able to cleave the wizard.
Now a wizard with images, if you manage to hit the wizard with a cleave, could you then cleave to the images? Probablly no, because you would be rolling an attack against essentially the same target.
I will now use my powers as a Thread Inflamer!
If you can't cleave the mirror images, then, by the same logic (they are in the same space, and therefore not adjacent), then when two Ratfolk occupy the same space (Bestiary 3, Swarm ability), then you cannot cleave the second guy in the same space.
Also applies to tiny and smaller opponents in the same space. :)
Flame away!
PS : I would personally rule you can't cleave the images because the spell specifically messes up your vision, thus causing you not to be able to tell exactly which one you're attacking, so you're hitting the one that's clearest, thus there would be no 'next one' in line, but it's mostly just sophistry for game balance.
Is it really a problem if the fighter can cleave into the images? The wizard is using a 1st level spell and the fighter is using two to three feats to deal with it. It seems ok to me.
I see both arguments but I don't see it as a problem to allow one to cleave the images. The fighter's intention is to attack the wizard. The spell just makes it harder.
What if the wizard used a different illusion spell (silent image, project image, etc)? Would the fighter not be able to interact with that illusion simply because it's not really a foe? If not, then he would automatically know it's an illusion by virtue of having the feats. If so, then what's the difference?
My post just got eaten. I am about to rewrite though. Stay tuned.
There would actually be nothing wrong with attacking the air so that you could continue cleaving......
You get 50% of the GM's on this board to let that one pass, and I will rescind my comment.
Shorter version of long post. I hope it suffices.
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round.
I think we can agree that who you attack is who you intend to do damage to. We can also agree that who you target is generally(most of the time) who you intend to damage.
Now when we have the mirror image spell in affect we can see that who is attacked and who is targeted are not always the same thing.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.
As you can see the thing/person attacked and the thing/person targeted are not always synonymous.
Now we will look at cleave which by my reading only cares about who you attack, not who you target.
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
As we can see the feat says that you can attack, not target, a foe that is adacent to the first one that was hit. By the wording of the mirror image spell you can only attack the wizard. The wizard can not be beside himself, not only that the images are not foes, just because they can be hit.
In conclusion who you hit must be the thing/person attacked in order for cleave to work so even if images were foes, which they are not, they could not activate cleave.
I think another issue is that to most of us the "if you hit" assumes that you hit the intended target, and to you it just has to hit something. As an example if I aim for 1 gnoll, and I somehow hit another gnoll the cleave should not work.
What I am failing to understand is how a spell or a figment created by a spell is anymore of a foe than a shield. The image is nothing more than a defensive mechanism designed to make sure the wizard does not get hit just like shield make sure fighters don't get hit.
@Stabbity Doom:Nobody said molecules was the issue so that argument does not really work. My argument was that the foe had to be a real thing, and incorporeal enemies are real even if they are insubstantial. That is why I posted the quote saying the figments were not real.
I think we can agree that who you attack is who you intend to do damage to. We can also agree that who you target is generally(most of the time) who you intend to damage.Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round.
Can objects be "opponents"? Do spell effects count as objects? Can I swing at a wall of force? Or a flaming sphere? Or a Shdow-conjured Wall of Stone (illusion)? Or a Major Image that (to me) appears to be a monster (figment)?
So are figments (which you say "aren't real") valid targets for someone to make attacks on?
Do they have an AC score? What does that imply?
What if my fighter's intended target is one of the figments, and I hope to hit a figment, but not the caster (for example, putting on a fake fight with a spellcasting ally to delay a badguy)? Doesn't your little rules-as-physics magically stop my fighter actually swinging my weapon to begin with?
Are figments spell effects?
Aren't spell effects "things"?
If I use Silent Image to make a figment of something, does a figment exist, or does a figment not exist because figments "aren't real"?
I think the figments are not real comments which is in the rules means they don't count as things that can interacted with in a meaningful manner. It is kind of hard to see something is not real when it exist, but I think the point is clear.
I don't think objects can be opponents unless they are animated objects, but then they are creatures anyway.
You can swing at anything, but that does not make it an enemy.
I will comment on this after work.
I will answer that in detail later. my response does not trump mirror image.
Well first off it's a second level spell. And I wouldn't allow a fighter to cleave through a silent image anymore than I'd allow him to cleave through a mirror image. It's not real so you don't get to hit it.
Why does a mirror image have a listed AC?
Why does a figment have a listed AC? (follow link)
If I were a Fighter with Great Cleave and I were against a person affected by Mirror Image, here's what I would say:
"I use Great Cleave to hit them all, images, people, objects masked by illusions, whatever. IF the mage is in there, fine. If not, I still rock em all. Everyone gets a taste of my arse-kickery!"
I mean, Great Cleave isn't an ability you use to "hit one guy" ... it's an ability to potentially hit everyone you want within reach. Since the images have to-hit ACs, they qualify as targets for attack. Heck, Mirror Image overtly presents the images as valid targets for attacks.
Don't forget what Great Cleave is all about.
|
|
Can objects be "opponents"? Do spell effects count as objects? Can I swing at a wall of force? Or a flaming sphere? Or a Shdow-conjured Wall of Stone (illusion)? Or a Major Image that (to me) appears to be a monster (figment)?
Yes. Figments, as you pointed out, have a listed AC. Wall of force has a listed HP and hardness. A shadow-conjured wall of stone is at least partially real and thus its real portion should be destructible, while you attempt to disbelieve its unreal portion by (wait for it) hitting it (or just touching it, I suppose, but that's less fun). A Major Image is a figment, and thus has a specified AC (10 + size).
(I know you were just making hyperbole, but I wanted to note the manner in which the rules explicitly state you can, in fact, attack spells.)
Mirror image is itself a figment, but it overrides the normal AC for a figment with a new one. Since it has an AC, it can be attacked (being that there is no other purpose for an AC). Since it can be attacked, you can cleave it as long as you hit that AC.
@Mergy: In short, spells are often things. In fact, most spells can be attacked in some form unless completely without form (illusory or otherwise) or instantaneous. With certain class abilities, they can still be attacked even then. Note the Spell Sunder ability as one example, with Ray Shield as a feat example of mundanely interacting with an instantaneous spell. Note how these abilities all seem to be 3rd in a chain of abilities, making them difficult to access.
Furthermore, what you say here:
But Mirror Image isn't like a set of mirrors in a row, it's a bunch of constantly whirling illusory targets that make the real target difficult to pick out.
... is patently untrue. The spell explicitly describes the images as matching your every motion exactly. This isn't exactly "constantly whirling illusory targets". If they were, they wouldn't be matching your every motion and you could pick the correct target by hitting the one that's not whirling.
Also, here's an important piece of evidence for mirror images as targets: Your touch attack abilities *discharge* on them. Yes, you read that right. The spell describes your touch attacks as discharging harmlessly on the illusion in order to destroy a figment. How's that for "not a target"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Mirror Image isn't like a set of mirrors in a row, it's a bunch of constantly whirling illusory targets that make the real target difficult to pick out.
What's more, it just doesn't fulfill the prerequisites of Cleave or Great Cleave, 'cause, you know... you didn't hit the guy.
When I use Cleave it's not to hit the guy... it's to hit everything and everyone that looks like the guy, and hopefully the guy among them.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.
You can not directly attack a mirror image figment by the definition of the spell. You try to hit the caster and if you hit him you roll a miss chance.
Mirror image only creates a miss chance that can be reduced by "misses".
Everyone who wants to use cleave against mirror image is a fighter player and dont want to realize that he was wrong the whole time.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.You can not directly attack a mirror image figment by the definition of the spell.
Just because the spell doesn't explicitly say something (that images can be attacked) it doesn't mean that you negate the general rule which addresses it (that figments have an AC and can be hit).
Check your references.
Can objects be "opponents"? Do spell effects count as objects? Can I swing at a wall of force? Or a flaming sphere? Or a Shdow-conjured Wall of Stone (illusion)? Or a Major Image that (to me) appears to be a monster (figment)?
So are figments (which you say "aren't real") valid targets for someone to make attacks on?
Do they have an AC score? What does that imply?What if my fighter's intended target is one of the figments, and I hope to hit a figment, but not the caster (for example, putting on a fake fight with a spellcasting ally to delay a badguy)? Doesn't your little rules-as-physics magically stop my fighter actually swinging my weapon to begin with?
Are figments spell effects?
Aren't spell effects "things"?
If I use Silent Image to make a figment of something, does a figment exist, or does a figment not exist because figments "aren't real"?
Sorry it took me so long to return. I have no internet access for this week.
A wall of force is actually there so you can swing at it. Something does not have to be a for or an opponent for you to swing at it. You can swing at nothing if you like, but hitting the wall of force, an illusion or nothing does not count towards cleave.Figments may be a valid target in most cases but not for mirror image because with the way the spell is written you have to swing for the wizard in order to have any affect.
When I used the word "things" in previous post I meant things that were actually there, not things that appear to be there such as illusion and figments.
Figments and illusion are not considered to be any more real than the things people see when they are on certain drugs. That is how real they are.
That is a good argument against letting fighters cleave through the images. In fact, it is the one argument that I thought of and didn't want to mention, it is so good. It could be further developed to point out the great cleave allows only one attack per opponent, and you already attacked the wizard, so you don't get to attack them again. This last was the argument that I was most worried about.
However, one could interpret things so that the fighter attacks the image, not the wizard, though they intended to attack the wizard.
I like this interpretation because it is the one that looks at what is actually happening in the imaginary world. The fighter is picking out one of the duplicates to attack. They think its the wizard, but they very well might accidentally be attacking an image.
After all, if one really wants to go down the road of ignoring what is happening in the game world in favor of the syntax of the rules, one might as well play 4e with its Pythagorean theorem defying diagonals that should only exist in Wonderland or R'lyeh.
The spell says you attack the wizard though, even if you target an image so that argument is something I don;t see as working.
In any event they still did not hit what they intended to hit, and they know it when that image pops.
If I were a Fighter with Great Cleave and I were against a person affected by Mirror Image, here's what I would say:
"I use Great Cleave to hit them all, images, people, objects masked by illusions, whatever. IF the mage is in there, fine. If not, I still rock em all. Everyone gets a taste of my arse-kickery!"
I mean, Great Cleave isn't an ability you use to "hit one guy" ... it's an ability to potentially hit everyone you want within reach. Since the images have to-hit ACs, they qualify as targets for attack. Heck, Mirror Image overtly presents the images as valid targets for attacks.
Don't forget what Great Cleave is all about.
Great Cleave is just an improved Cleave. A figment is not a person. It is an image. Images are not valid targets if you can only hit them accidentally since the spell effective redirects your attacks toward them, or at least away from the casters.
Also, here's an important piece of evidence for mirror images as targets: Your touch attack abilities *discharge* on them. Yes, you read that right. The spell describes your touch attacks as discharging harmlessly on the illusion in order to destroy a figment. How's that for "not a target"?
First of all where is the rule quote that says figments discharge touches.
Second I said in an earlier post that image are targets. The spell even says that. I also differentiated between what you can attack, and how a target is different. Being a target alone does not allow cleave. Something has to be a subject of an attack, which is generally the target, but not always.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.You can not directly attack a mirror image figment by the definition of the spell.Just because the spell doesn't explicitly say something (that images can be attacked) it doesn't mean that you negate the general rule which addresses it (that figments have an AC and can be hit).
Check your references.
Specific rulings trump general rules. The spell says when you(the caster) is attacked certain things happen. IIRC you were using the RAW acronym earlier. RAW is what is being given.
But those are not actual RAW. RAW, you target images, your foe is what you target, and if you hit your foe, you get to target an adjacent foe.
RAW the cleave feats care about what you attack, not what you target, and what you target can be the image or the caster, but the caster according to the spell is what you attack. You can say the spell allows for you to attack the images, but as written it is clear the spell(and the devs) have the attacking of the caster in mind.
PS:Stabbity Doom already said earlier he is arguing "how he would do it". That is fine in the homebrew section, but that is not a rule.
PS2: If this argument is just to keep things fair for the fighter then we should go ahead and end this rules debate, and then debate on how to make it more fair to a fighter if you think it is unfair.
My opinion which has been disagreed with in another thread-->As to the spell being better than displacement I agree mirror image is better at low levels, but not at high levels. Opponents get more attacks, and can easily get rid of those images since the AC to hit them is really low, but displacement would still be up.
|
|
Concerro: All of the above is invalid. A figment has a listed AC and can be attacked directly and while the spell directs you to a figment if you target the caster, it says nothing to restrict you from attacking the figment on purpose (in my mind this are not truly different, but obviously in yours they somehow are). Since you can target a figment on purpose, you target one of those and instead determine randomly whether that was actually the mage. Either way, you hit a valid target with an attack and continue cleaving.
Note that the specific figments of mirror image are DEFINITELY targets, as your touch spells discharge on them (something they wouldn't do if they weren't valid targets). This is the last line of the mirror image spell's second paragraph:
Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.
Note that touch attack spells do NOT discharge if they hit an invalid target, and I don't believe this text to be an attempt to override that. In this case, the text essentially causes the figment to be treated as a creature for the purposes of touch attacks as most touch attacks list "Creature touched" as the target. Also note that this is a real discharging, not a dispelling effect of any form.
SB the spells says specifally calls out the caster. It does not really matter what the general rules are.
If the spell intended for you to attack the images it would have read when the images or the caster is attacked. Presently it reads when the caster is attacked..... At best you say the spell is worded badly, but even so it is written the way it is.
So now I have to ask do you(those who disagree with me) want to argue RAW or RAI?
Nowhere in the spell description does it contradict anything in the text for the Figment subschool. The spell description says nothing about targeting figments, nor does it say they can't be targeted. There is no "trump" of the general rule because there is not even any mention about intentionally targeting the figments. Thus the general rule still stands, unmolested by the text of the spell.
In fact, the only text which says anything is that attempts to attack the caster may result in targeting the image instead. Thus the images can be targeted. This implies that they can also be targeted intentionally.
I see greater and greater literary gymnastics on your part, concerro, in your effort to cling to your view. Are you sure you're maintaining objectivity here?
As an aside...
Figments and illusion are not considered to be any more real than the things people see when they are on certain drugs. That is how real they are.
I believe you are mistaking figments for phantasms. Check your references.
Once again are we arguing RAW or RAI?
RAW says what happens if you attack the caster, and it shows the intent of the spell. RAW has no wording on what happen if you attack an image because that is not how things were envisioned. Any ruling based on attack an image is nothing more than a house rule. If not show me how mirror image tells you to handle targeting images.
RAW the spell calls out attacking a caster. The intent is clear. You can rule as you wish for you own games.
I am pulling no mental or literary gymnatics.
Once again cleave does not care about targeting. It only cares about attacking, and the spell does not say that the images or caster is hit if you try to attack an image.
PS:As I showed in an earlier post attacking and targeting are not always the same. Be sure to use the correct words in your next post.
Oh, spells generally tell you exactly what you can do, not some of what you can do when they start to micromanage actions.
RAW says what happens if you attack the caster, and it shows the intent of the spell. RAW has no wording on what happen if you attack an image because that is not how things were envisioned. Any ruling based on attack an image is nothing more than a house rule. If not show me how mirror image tells you to handle targeting images.
M.I. doesn't tell you how to handle it, so you have to defer to the general rules. This is why text exists for the schools, subschools, magic in general, and combat in general - to further describe the spells and actions associated. Further, where these sections are silent, you fall back one step further to (in our case) the English language, which defines terms, synonyms and language structure.
To summarize:
So, continuing...
Spell Description: Nothing on targeting figments, only on attacking or targeting the caster, where "there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. ... Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments.". The wording is "the attack targets one of your images instead" in reference to attacking the caster ... nothing on attacking images directly... hmmmm
Figment subschool: "A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier." Well that certainly says something, doesn't it?
Illusion School: "Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened." Nothing particularly relevant here... we know the images are merely images, and not the creatures they appear to be. Besides, figments have an AC, implying that they can be targeted and attacked, right?
Armor Class: "Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you." So figments can definitely be struck by blows.
Let's look up "target" and "attack", in relation to physical attacks.
... nothing in the spell description...
... nothing in the Figment subschool...
... nothing in the Illusion school...
... nothing in the Magic section. There's stuff about targeting spells, but we're looking for stuff relevant to Cleave here...
Combat Section: under "Attack Roll" ... "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage." So you strike an opponent and beat a target's AC... how strange! This conflicts with itself... unless "target" and "opponent" are used interchangably.
Huh... here's a part on Touch Attacks...
"Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus." What kind of crazy voodoo are they doing? Could "target" and "foe" be used interchangeably, almost as if it were employing English in a way that's meant to be interpreted intuitively? Shenanigans! Tomfoolery!
Enough of this. Let's look at Cleave and Great Cleave and solve this confusion once and for all... imagine... "foe" and "opponent" and "target" being synonyms... ridiculous!
As per standard, we'll start at the specific and fill in the blanks with the more general.
Great Cleave: "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foes, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foes more than once during this attack action."
FINALLY... consistent wording! "foe" as the noun, and "attack" as the verb. I love consistent- ... oh... oh drat. Attack Action?! Attack Roll?! But that's where foe is synonymous with .... wait, wait... hahahah the wording consistency of Great Cleave trumps all, right? ... RIGHT?!?! It doesn't? But... but I thought wording consistency of the specific feat trumps that of the general ... oh.
...oh. Looks like "foe", "opponent" and "target" are synonymous nouns.
WAIT! Target as a verb! That's how it's used in M.I. AHA!
Found it! Here in the Glossary, under Invisbility...
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack."
Aaaaha! Can't target it with ... oh... with an attack? Hang on...
Found it used as a verb again! And... what the... WAIT! That's all just using mere ENGLISH!
Again!
Free Online Dictionary
MariamWebster
Dictionary.com
Thesaurus
To target is to aim, direct, designate as a target (n)?!?! Which is synonymous with "foe" and "opponent"?!?!?
So... so... so this section in Mirror Image...
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed.Is equivalent to
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack is meant for one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected foe is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed.or
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack aims for one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected opponent is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed.
How is this possible!!!!
Answer: Because the combat section written by Paizo says so.
PS:As I showed in an earlier post attacking and targeting are not always the same. Be sure to use the correct words in your next post.
Where?
Now explain how you target an image vs targeting the caster in a spell desigined to make telling the difference impossible. If you can tell whats an image and whats not then the spell is pointless anyway. If you can't tell then you can't choose to target the image instead of the caster since you don't know which is which.
You can with True Seeing active. Who's to say the person with Cleave isn't a cleric? Or has a friend who buffed em with True Seeing?
Such an attacker can most certainly select 2 images for a cleave action.
Doesn't that very scenario constitute proof that images can be attacked as targets/foes/opponents?