This is an argument about rules and proofs and theory.
When a valid scenario (having True Seeing) provides proof that something is possible (images are valid targets for attack sequences), it proves that it's possible, QED.
Images are valid targets for attack sequences, including Cleave and Great Cleave.
Therefore I'm right.
Wouldn't true seeing just negate the images all together. Also the fact remains that while i might allow you to target the image if you could tell the difference and then cleave i still don't see how this translates into not hitting your intended target means you get extra chances to hit the right target.
What it means is that Great Cleave can be used to destroy all the images and hit the caster, in a single standard action.
The logic of the True Seeing scenario, plus the fact that Figments have AC (which is a combat statistic), plus the fact that adjacent isn't restricted to "adjacent squares" (consider tiny foes who share a square), plus the combat section's use of synonyms relevant to Cleave, Great Cleave and Mirror Image ... all of it points to the truth: Great Cleave can be used to destroy all the images and hit the caster, in a single standard action.
When a valid scenario (having True Seeing) provides proof that something is possible (images are valid targets for attack sequences), it proves that it's possible, QED
...possible under those very specific circumstances.
The problem is that without true seeing, you cannot target a specific figment anymore than you can target the caster. If you do not hit your specific target, Cleave does not work.
Basically, if you try to target a specific figment you roll the usual miss chance (as per the spell). If you actually hit the one you were aiming for you can cleave, but in that case you'd have been better off just targeting the caster in the first place.
Heck by this logic one could hit a target with no other foes ajadcent target multiple trees/rocks/shrubs/etc to hit an enemy that was flanking him with the first guy.
Also target =/= foe an ally can be a target that doesnt make them legal for great cleave.
When a valid scenario (having True Seeing) provides proof that something is possible (images are valid targets for attack sequences), it proves that it's possible, QED...possible under those very specific circumstances.
The problem is that without true seeing, you cannot target a specific figment anymore than you can target the caster. If you do not hit your specific target, Cleave does not work.
Basically, if you try to target a specific figment you roll the usual miss chance (as per the spell). If you actually hit the one you were aiming for you can cleave, but in that case you'd have been better off just targeting the caster in the first place.
With Great Cleave you're attacking everything, images, caster, who cares? You're hitting every target within reach. Otherwise we're back to the whole silly argument of disguise checks trumping Great Cleave, and using failed Great Cleave attempts to auto-save against all illusions.
|
When a character has True Seeing the whole argument is moot. Therefore your argument had no merit.
This is equivalent to the following:
Claim: "This object is indestructible."
Counter-point: "It would be destroyed if tossed into the sun."
Rebuttal: "But we wouldn't put it there, so your argument is moot. The object is indestructible."
The object isn't actually indestructible, and the counter-point demonstrates it. All the rebuttal says is "it doesn't really matter in that situation." Sure, it doesn't matter much, but it still proves the claim false. I think Malignor has already done a good job showing why this is an important claim to falsify.
@Talonhawke: To my knowledge a character with true seeing does not STOP seeing the false form, they just *also* see the real form (and know which is which). Otherwise fighting a polymorphed character with true seeing going would be quite difficult. This is not stated anywhere in the rules, but I'd really rather not have to rule that true seeing makes fighting polymorphed creatures impossible or somehow makes you flat-footed or some such, or that you can't see the illusion that's scaring everyone else. Also, this would mean that you have a divination effect that's *removing* information as well as adding it.
So what you're saying is that with True Seeing, you can cleave the images. But if you don't have True Seeing, you cannot. But if you have True Seeing, you won't need to cleave the images. So what a waste of time! :)
*facepalm*
The True Seeing scenario exists to prove that the images can be targeted intentionally, with cleave, under some circumstances.
Ergo images are valid targets for cleave actions.
Ergo hitting images does not stop your cleave action; you may continue cleaving if you hit an image, true seeing or not.
Employing Great Cleave (without True Seeing), you are faced with multiple targets: One caster, and a bunch of figments... all of which are targets which function normally when employing cleave. So you just hit em all, one by one, till you miss or run out of things to hit. You can't tell which is which, and you don't care. Hack em all down in one swing, let the truth reveal itself when you draw real blood.
However without True Seeing you can't choose one target over the other you target the whole mess and maybe get lucky maybe not.
Its not about them not being foes sure its a foe its about your not being able to discern a specific target.
|
|
Why, oh why, do you people seem to insist that an *illusion* spell is *changing* your target without being mind-affecting?
The spell does not REDIRECT your targeting. It MISDIRECTS it. Whatever you target, whether you think it's the wizard or think it's the image, it doesn't matter. It has an AC, it's a target, and if you hit it there's another target. Picking apart slightly bad phrasing with complete disregard to how illusion spells work will get no-one anywhere.
When it says "you target the caster", it means "you target what you think is the caster". It never changes your actual target, the random roll just determines whether you guessed correctly. Did you hit the one you aimed for? Yeah? Then cleave away!
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extra-dimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.
Works fine on polymorphed things.
It's because they get mixed up between Figments and Phantasms... and apparently Enchantment spells too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats fine I'll be cleaving my way through bushes to hit guys on both sides of me after i move from now on.
With Great Cleave you're attacking everything, images, caster, who cares? You're hitting every target within reach. Otherwise we're back to the whole silly argument of disguise checks trumping Great Cleave, and using failed Great Cleave attempts to auto-save against all illusions.
This is not true.
You are attacking everything in sequence, each new target requiring that the previous target be hit.
You aren't just winding up and comparing your one attack roll against every AC in range, or even rolling a bunch of attacks simultaneously (either of which I might be able to see functioning to negate Mirror Image). What you are doing, mechanically, is bouncing a successful attack off of one target to try to hit a new one.
Mirror Image confuses your targeting. If you attack the caster, or a figment of them, you roll miss chance. If you hit what you meant to you Cleave. If you don't, no Cleave.
What is so complicated about this?
Mirror Image confuses your targeting. If you attack the caster, or a figment of them, you roll miss chance.
This is completely untrue. Please check your references before spreading further misinformation.
You and i both know that is neither RAW nor RAI.
Those things arent foes and to be cleaved I have to be able to both target it and it must be a foe.
Also if you want to talk figments
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 figments and glamers are unreal, 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.
Think getting a benifit from cleave is a real effect if it can't support weight provide nutrition and whatever else i dont see how it can let you opponent gain a tangible benifit.
you wiffed and your off balance now or whatever flavor suits you but guess what setting up to cleave requires a hit and the fact that you went through the illiusion means that your not set up like you planned.
You and i both know that is neither RAW nor RAI.It's 100% RAW and RAI; Great Cleave treats the figments as valid targets.
Those things arent foes and to be cleaved I have to be able to both target it and it must be a foe.Read the combat section and see how the words "foe", "target" (noun) and "opponent" are used interchangeably, because they are in this context... the same context as cleave, the save context as mirror image vs. attacks.
Also if you want to talk figments...Learn how paragraphs work, and look further down at the AC listing of a figment, and you'll see how this portion of your argument is absurd.
you wiffed and your off balance now or whatever flavor suits you but guess what setting up to cleave requires a hit and the fact that you went through the illiusion means that your not set up like you planned.
You are knowingly attacking illusions (all but one), so you expect "whiff" on all but one of the targets you swing at. If you think their lack of substance means anything, try asking yourself if Shadows or Wraiths are valid for Great Cleave and you get your answer.
|
|
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extra-dimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.
Works fine on polymorphed things.
You missed the entire point of what I was saying earlier: If you see the true form of the polymorphed thing, cool. If you STOP seeing the current form, not cool.
My point was that since the spell never says you *cease* to see the current form, and doesn't note anything about penalties for attacking a creature whose current form you cannot see, you must assume that you can see both current and true forms simultaneously. This logic extends to the rest of the spell: A divination spell does not, as a rule, *remove* any information and thus you must be able to see both the truth and the falsehood, whilst knowing which is which.
Thus, when using true seeing against mirror image, you can still see the figments. You just know they're figments. However, as the figments still maintain possession of an AC, you can still attack them to make them "pop" (most likely because your allies do NOT possess true seeing).
With out true seeing how do you target a figment?
If you can't how are you both braced to hit something and expecting to whiff since you don't know which one it will be?
Also you can say its RAW and RAI but you can't prove it. Besides i was talking about bush cleaving.
Do mirror images have standard AC since much lower rolls can hit them?
|
|
With out true seeing how do you target a figment?
If you can't how are you both braced to hit something and expecting to whiff since you don't know which one it will be?Also you can say its RAW and RAI but you can't prove it. Besides i was talking about bush cleaving.
My original comment was why using "True Seeing" does not make targeting figments pointless (I elaborated with an example in my secondary comment). You don't stop seeing the figments, and can target them to get rid of them for your allies who can't tell which is which.
And the rules don't care whether you will feel a whiff or a solid hit when you attack something. They really really really don't. Otherwise attempting to attack an illusory creature would result in something other than a simple "you miss."
I think Malignor has done a good job of proving RAW, you just seem to prefer to ignore it by using mental and linguistic gymnastics as though your pride as a human being depended on you being the "correct" one in a pointless argument on the internet about a system that is, to some extent, inherently subjective.
Mirror Image confuses your targeting. If you attack the caster, or a figment of them, you roll miss chance.This is completely untrue. Please check your references before spreading further misinformation.
Ehem...
"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."
Fighter swings, targeting wizard.
Fighter rolls miss chance because he is not sure which target is the real wizard.
Fighter's ability to target has been confused by Mirror Image.
|
|
Do mirror images have standard AC since much lower rolls can hit them?
No. They use the AC the spell provides, because that overrides the general rule.
Fighter's ability to target has been confused by Mirror Image.
Quite. But was his target changed? No? Well then, he was targeting and image the whole time and can now select a new target to try out.
Think of it like a row of pinatas. You don't know which one holds candy, but only one does. So you pick one and the DM rolls randomly to see if that was the right one. He rolls that it wasn't, and you have no candy. This doesn't mean that what you targeted was ever, at any point, the correct pinata, it just means you guessed wrong. If two were next to each-other, you could cleave from one to the next and the DM would roll a second time to see if the second pinata had candy.
The point most of us are making is there is a difference in intentionally targeting a figment and a spell which outside of a corner case doesnt let you.
The issues arises from the fact that cleaving requres targeting and once again if you can target (outside of the spell redirecting you) a mirror image then nothing is stopping you from targeting the caster normally.
If however you can't target normally how do you know if you hit the right figment and not the caster and if its the caster how do you keep it from being attack multiple times with great cleave when it randomly comes up the caster?
Stabbity actually i see the point your making however since each time i attack it might be real or a figment how do i prevent targeting the caster multiple times?
Edit: This also means that my BBEG now knows this spell is a waste of his time since he has dealt with the parties 2 great cleave users three times now.
With out true seeing how do you target a figment?One of two ways: (1) Swinging for an image and guessing right, (2) Swinging for the caster and guessing wrong.
If you can't how are you both braced to hit something and expecting to whiff since you don't know which one it will be?
By being a skilled combatant. Anyone with Cleave already has combat feats, so that qualifies nicely. Wait, are you in the "not a caster and therefore a doofus" camp? I hope not.
A cleave is a broad stroke that blasts through multiple opponents in one swing. A "miss" during the cleave is very ambiguous, in that it may have been deflected, blocked, stopped by armor, or various other situations, so to settle any argument the feat simply says the cleave ends. It does not say the cleave ends if the foe is far less substantial than you expected (such as an enemy who used an immediate action to turn incorporeal).
Also you can say its RAW and RAI but you can't prove it. Besides i was talking about bush cleaving.
I've heaped up alot of evidence, and used logic to prove numerous claims which support my argument. Nobody has provided any reasonable counter-arguments. Look back and you'll see plenty of wild and unsupported claims, though. Good reading.
Bush cleaving is fine. There are rules for attacking objects. Bushes are objects. If you can attack a bush (and you can), you can use a bush as a valid target to cleave. It's a bit milky, and bad form, but it's technically valid. I have ZERO issue with a 6+ BAB character, who has a Str13+ and spent 3 combat feats, to perform great acts of battle prowess. They earned it.
EDIT: Truth be told, it can be awesome. Using great cleave to tear through two enemies, a tree, a wooden pillar and another enemy... it's something out of a samurai epoch. #SHWING!!!# {everyone and everything falls apart at once, cut clean in two}
Malignor forgive me i was completly misreading the spell and thus have wasted both your and stabbity's time.
Think of it like a row of pinatas. You don't know which one holds candy, but only one does. So you pick one and the DM rolls randomly to see if that was the right one. He rolls that it wasn't, and you have no candy. This doesn't mean that what you targeted was ever, at any point, the correct pinata, it just means you guessed wrong. If two were next to each-other, you could cleave from one to the next and the DM would roll a second time to see if the second pinata had candy.
Except it isn't like that at all. It's like a bunch of piniatas that are all swirling around (and through) each other and you're trying to hit the one with the candy.
If you could target them individually, under any conditions, it would entirely negate the effect of the spell, and cleave would be irrelevant. (that's what true seeing does)
You cannot target a specific figment anymore than you can target the caster. That's the entire point of the spell.
You and Malignor seem to be arguing that a Cleave is just winding up and hitting everything in an area. That would be an Area Effect ability. That is not what Cleave does. It requires a successful sequence of blows to purposeful targets.
Malignor forgive me i was completly misreading the spell and thus have wasted both your and stabbity's time.
OMG.
Did someone just admit err... on the internet?!?!.Talonhawke, you have more integrity than 99% of the online population (likely more than me). You don't need my forgiveness. Instead you have my respect.
Bush cleaving is fine. There are rules for attacking objects. Bushes are objects. If you can attack a bush (and you can), you can use a bush as a valid target to cleave. It's a bit milky, and bad form, but it's technically valid.
It's the old "bag of puppies" argument from the Whirl-Cleave days.
Yes, it technically works. Yes, you are an absolute moron if you allow it in your game.
It requires a successful sequence of blows to purposeful targets.Correct.
[images] that are all swirling around (and through) each other
Reference, please? And also include any mechanic on how it might affect multiple attacks and ability to target anything.
Doomed reread the spell your hitting your target its just you may not be hitting the caster.
Your not targeting the figement as a figment your targting one image and then you roll to see if your chosen image is the right one if it is deal damage if it isn't it vanishes and you can now roll cleave.
Like i said my only issue is how to keep the caster from being hit more than once.
Your not targeting the figement as a figment your targting one image and then you roll to see if your chosen image is the right one if it is deal damage if it isn't it vanishes and you can now roll cleave.
Like i said my only issue is how to keep the caster from being hit more than once.
Cleave and Great Cleave address that directly.
|
|
Except it isn't like that at all. It's like a bunch of piniatas that are all swirling around (and through) each other and you're trying to hit the one with the candy.
If you [c]could[c] target them individually, under any conditions, it would entirely negate the effect of the spell, and cleave would be irrelevant. (that's what true seeing does)
You cannot target a specific figment anymore than you can target the caster. That's the entire point of the spell.
You and Malignor seem to be arguing that a Cleave is just winding up and hitting everything in an area. That would be an Area Effect ability. That is not what Cleave does. It requires a successful sequence of blows to purposeful targets.
Exactly where do you get that the images are whirling? The spell explicitly states they are matching your movements exactly, and whirling is not matching your movements. If they were whirling, you could pick out the real target by hitting the one that's not whirling, because I assume casters don't naturally whirl.
The cleave does NOT become irrelevant, as you could use it to clear images for your OTHER party members who do not benefit from the spell. Target the caster first, and then cleave into some figments for good measure.
You can totally target a specific figment. However, if you don't know which is a figment and which is reality you roll randomly to see which one that happened to be. If you can tell the difference, you can choose the right one. The "entire point" of the spell is to make it impossible to tell which is which, not to force you to target a particular one. If it forced your hand, it would be mind-affecting in some fashion (and probably an Enchantment spell).
I never argued that cleave is "winding up and hitting an area", that's Malignor's thing. All I argued is that WHAT target you hit is irrelevant, cleave only requires that you hit something. Since it has an AC, you can hit it (and all figments have AC). And in a game where material and immaterial blur all the time (especially in the illusion school), I don't think arguing that an illusion is not a thing has much merit.
@Talonhawke: When the guy cleaves through and happens to hit the caster, ALL of the (still present) images match the wounded response and appear to bleed. This would be confusing enough to likely prevent them from realizing which one is which.
EDIT: And, as Malignor mentioned, the cleave does not let you target the same one more than once. Not because you're explicitly targeting, but because the feat represents you swiping through an area (even if the mechanics don't play out that way).
It requires a successful sequence of blows to purposeful targets.Correct.[images] that are all swirling around (and through) each otherReference, please? And also include any mechanic on how it might affect multiple attacks.
I admit, "through" is arguable, though it's all I can picture when I think of up to 8 exact duplicates of a medium sized creature sharing the same square.
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you... These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly.
Multiple attacks just happen in sequence, each one with a new miss chance. If you don't hit the caster (or the intended figment) you don't get a cleave.
Doomed reread the spell your hitting your target its just you may not be hitting the caster.
Your target is the caster. You could target the figments, but it would still be subject to the same miss chance. If you do not hit your intended target, no cleave. Thus, it's a lot smarter to just target the caster in the first place.
I mean that with great cleave you cant come back to the same guy but since each time you hit you roll randomly you might hit the caster more than once.
Edit: though i guess it works out to simply for that moment let the attacker know that he hit the caster.
IE you have a caster and 4 images you choose 1-5 and roll once you hit the target check if its the mage if not keep it up until a miss or a hit once you hit the mage declare the others images until the cleave ends.
You target one of the images and then check if its real or not. Its not a miss chance at all its a shell game. only you can't follow the coin.
|
|
I mean that with great cleave you cant come back to the same guy but since each time you hit you roll randomly you might hit the caster more than once.
Each time you hit, you'd have to remove the target you hit from the pool of targets to randomly pick from when cleaving (because you can't hit the guy more than once with cleave, so those are moved from the valid targets list). So once you hit the caster, every attack roll after that is just a figment (they might not realize it as a character, but since you do as a DM you can just stop rolling the random chance until the cleave is over).
EDIT: Doesn't matter if it's a shell game, cleave isn't being discriminating. It just knocks over the cups in one motion (unless the hand misses a cup, then you stop knocking them over and go "woops!").
The shell game point is that your choosing a cup but only ones a winner. you still pick one cup and thats the one turned over.
|
|
The shell game point is that your choosing a cup but only ones a winner. you still pick one cup and thats the one turned over.
Remember, cleave isn't really multiple separate attacks, they're linked by a common factor: Not hitting the same thing twice. The reason it can't hit the same thing twice? It's supposed to represent a single heavy swing hitting multiple targets. So instead of picking one cup at a time (and having all of them appear to have a coin when you pick the right one), you knock the whole set over in one swipe. Sure, you don't reveal the coin more than once, but you're a lot more likely to reveal it that way! Now which one of those cups actually HAD the coin? Hard to watch that closely.
Doesn't matter if it's a shell game, cleave isn't being discriminating. It just knocks over the cups in one motion (unless the hand misses a cup, then you stop knocking them over and go "woops!").
Seriously, the Bush point has been made. If you can cleave off a bush, you can cleave off anything. You can cleave off yourself if you fumble badly. You can cleave off a figment, even if you hit it accidentally.
If that's the case, then yes, Malignor is correct.
If you have an ounce of sense you'll houserule against that, even if the rules done explicitly forbid it.
|
|
Doesn't matter if it's a shell game, cleave isn't being discriminating. It just knocks over the cups in one motion (unless the hand misses a cup, then you stop knocking them over and go "woops!").Seriously, the Bush point has been made. If you can cleave off a bush, you can cleave off anything. You can cleave off yourself if you fumble badly. You can cleave off a figment, even if you hit it accidentally.
If that's the case, then yes, Malignor is correct.
If you have an ounce of sense you'll houserule against that, even if the rules done explicitly forbid it.
As far as I'm concerned, the great cleave may as well be a whirlwind attack with a special limitation (stopping the first time you miss). They did the "adjacent only" thing to keep the one-big-swipe flavor of the ability (assuming you'd transition in a directional arc).
So martials can do something kinda cool. Big deal. I think you'll see this enshrined on the top of "big whoop" mountain, right next to most sentences that start with "well technically..."
Note that if you miss by less than 5 and wink out an image your not cleaving then Doomed so there is no cleaving off accidently hitting an image.
... and henceforth let it be known: Grog the mighty became a 6th level fighter and learned three feats, so he could defeat a 2nd level spell. Let the people rejoice, for the gods of balance were appeased.
Only 6 more pages of debating till we get one.
Edit: make that 5 more since im the new page.