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.
These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. 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. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.
You target the caster and then you check if you hit him or a figment. Read the spell description.
1. Whenever you (the caster) are attacked or are the target of a spell..
2. there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead.
3a 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. (MISS CHANCE depending on the amount of images)
3b If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.
A lvl20 fighter close his eyes and ignores the spell with improved blind fight, a gem of true seeing etc. or he attacks normaly and has a 11% chance to hit the caster.
@Khrysaor
Two different things. In your example you have two targets and cleave would work.
Look at your own 3a it says selected target which means that i didn't miss anything if i roll high enough to hit AC, I just may not have hit the caster. But i still hit there is a difference.
If 5 tiny fey are in the same square as a tiny demon who has dominated them and are all disguised as the demon and I attack thinking i figured out who the demon is I don't miss simply because i hit a fairy.
While yes you target the caster your not missing anything you hit what you aim for it just wasn't what you wanted.
|
I'm still waiting on an FAQ before I'd let it happen.
Yeah, me too. Because I don't think you can use Cleave or Great Cleave to "pop" all the images in one go; first of all, the spell says that "these images remain in your space" and you can cleave only "against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach" (the images share the same space with you, they're not in adjacent squares). Secondly, as Great Cleave notes, "you cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action" -- in this case, I'd say the wizard should be thought of as "an individual foe" instead of each image being counted as one. And note that it is "during this attack action" (referring to the whole GC process, instead of "an attack"), so even if you let it fly in your games, you cannot attack the wizard twice during a cleave, even if you had popped an image in between attacks.
However, the spell is poorly worded and I can understand why people think (Great) Cleave would work against someone using it.
Note that this means that Groups of tiny creatures are now immune to cleaving Asgetrion since they are now all in the same space.
Also this means you can use reach weapons can be used against a creature in your square since they aren't Adjacent to you.
Splash weapons only hit the target in a square full of tiny creatures since they aren't adjacent either.
People should stop saying "miss chance". This isn't displacement.
Also, as for multiple images being in a 5' square, consider this: Many elevators are 5' squares, and they can fit 6-8 people. 5' Squares are an arbitrary choice for an area which a fighting, dodging, arm-waving, spellcasting, kung-fu stance kind of person can be for 6-seconds (a full round) without tripping over other folks in the same space. The effect of Mirror Image is a bunch of figments (no actual physical material), so in all the fighting, dodging and spellcasting, they can overlap a bit with each other.
Note that this means that Groups of tiny creatures are now immune to cleaving Asgetrion since they are now all in the same space.
Also this means you can use reach weapons can be used against a creature in your square since they aren't Adjacent to you.
Splash weapons only hit the target in a square full of tiny creatures since they aren't adjacent either.
Under normal conditions only one creature per square is allowed.
Groups of tiny creature are called a swarm. By your definition you can cleave a swarm of hundreds of tiny creatures to death in round.
Oh wait .. with a flaming weapon you can even kill a swarm of diminutive creature.
With the most reach weapons you can not attack "your" square or the square adjacent to you. Reach weapons are called reach weapons because they need reach.
Regarding 3a
You attack the caster and if you miss you maybe destroy a part of his concealment/defense (miss chance).
Lets stop discussing and wait for an official answer.
adjacent=next to each other.
I doubt it was meant to only mean squares next to each other.
If it has AC it can be attacked.
YourUnder normal conditions only one creature per square is allowed.
Groups of tiny creature are called a swarm.
please.
great cleave requires 3 feats, str 13, BAB +4. That's a bit of an investment to not be able to counter a 2nd level spell.
Agh! I assumed it was +6. Such is the price of my laziness.
It seems I also have to check my references :PThanks for the correction, Khrysaor.
ad·ja·cent /əˈjāsənt/
Adjective:
Next to or adjoining something else: "adjacent rooms".
In the rules, adjacent means in an square next to the one you're in. Yes, this means you can't cleave two tiny creatures sharing a space. No, this doesn't mean you can attack your own space with a reach weapon ("Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.") I can provide a list of many things which will break if you define "adjacent" as being in the same space, if necessary.
Therefore, it's irrelevant whether hitting an image lets you cleave to the caster or not, because you have to move on to an adjacent space.
Likewise, inanimate rocks or trees are not "foes" or "opponents" for purposes of anything. Specifically, you can't attack inanimate objects. You can only attempt to sunder it.
When attempting to break an object, you have two choices: smash it with a weapon or break it with sheer strength.
...
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
So you can't do the "I cleave the ______ to keep up the sequence" either. To argue otherwise would require every rock, tree, and blade of grass to have an initiative score, to threaten, to factor into surprise rounds, etc. (Again, I'll show how much this would break if you wish to argue otherwise.)
------
So the most permissive you can be, by RAW is to cleave the wizard/image, cleave an adjacent foe, cleave the wizard/image, cleave a different adjacent foe, cleave the wizard/image, repeat until you run out of adjacent foes you haven't already targeted, or you miss.
I would call that wrong, but it's close enough to the wording that I will admit that it might be RAW. Anything more than that, whether it be attacking the same space multiple times or attacking inanimate objects (or the air) and then back to the wizard, is entirely outside the RAW.
In the rules, adjacent means in an square next to the one you're in.ad·ja·cent /əˈjāsənt/
Adjective:
Next to or adjoining something else: "adjacent rooms".
You are mistaken in assuming that "adjacent" always and only refers to squares. That's an "agree to disagree" sort of thing, but suffice it to say that in this you are justifiably in the minority.
...oh. Looks like "foe", "opponent" and "target" are synonymous nouns.
I don't see the words "opponent" or "target" in the great cleave reading. Remember cleave and great cleave work the same way so if one works the other ones does. Unfortunately neither one works.
A wall(as an example) can be an target but not an opponent so either way your point fails, unless you can prove that random things that can be attacked are always foes.
Since you based your argument on all those being the same the rest of your post also fails.
edit:for clarification
Skipping past a lot of post
The spell does not say you can't attack an image which is a point made in an earlier post, but what it does say is more important.
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.
RAW if you attack the caster there is a possibility that the attack targets one of the images instead., and that image is destoyed The spell does not say if you target an image that you might hit the caster or another image other than the one you aim for. Nor does it say that if you attack an image that an image is destroyed.
You are assuming that you can replace the caster with an image for the purpose of an intentional attack, and get the same results, but you have no quote from mirror image to support that. Mirror image only states what happens if you attack the caster, so by RAW you have no basis to assume you might hit wizard or another image if you aim for a specific image.
Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck.
Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.
Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.
An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)
In 3.5 you picked an image and hoped it was the caster. In pathfinder the wording that says "when you(meaning the caster) are attacked" pretty much changed how the spell works.
Now let's go on to cleave which works just like great cleave for the purpose of whether or not it activates.
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.First of all you must prove an image is a foe. An image, in the case of mirror image, is a magical spell effect and it is no more a foe than a shield is. Actually like a shield it is a form of protection, a tool more or less. Would you also rule that an illusion of a wall is foe or a shield is a foe?
The other issue is the word adjacent. I have always taken it to mean an adjacent square, but the term "adjacent square" is not in the book to my knowledge. I do know the word adjacent means next to or beside. There however is nothing in the wording of mirror image that says the images are adjacent to each other. They could be inside of each other, sharing the exact same space as the caster, above the caster, below the caster, and so on. Now you may want to argue that they have to be adjacent, but you won't find a rules quote for it. Since you don't want to use the term adjacent as meaning an adjacent square you must now determine how close something must be before it is no longer adjacent. I can promise that is not in the book either because adjacent was meant to refer to adjacent squares.
RAW if you attack the caster there is a possibility that the attack targets one of the images instead.,The best argument I can find against allowing great cleave to take out multiple images and possibly hit the caster is as follows:
You have to first attack the caster, before you have a chance of instead targeting an image and destroying it. Great cleave only allows you to attack each eligible opponent once. So, if your attack ends up targeting an image, you can't attack the caster again.
That is not exactly what you are arguing, but I think its the best RAW argument against using great cleave vs. mirror image. In fact, I think that this argument is at least equally valid as the best RAW argument for allow great cleave to work with mirror image.
It all depends on whether the thing you actually targeted is what you attacked, or whether you actually did have to first attack the real wizard in order to end up targeting an image.
I am in favor of the interpretation that what you targeted is what you attacked for the purposes of having 'already attacked' something with a great cleave. I think that there are good reasons for this interpretation, such as thinking about what is actually happening in the game world, balancing the power of a 2nd level spell, and letting fighters have their fun.
Remember Conan the Destroyer? He kind of does cleave through mirror images in the end there, doesn't he?
I don't see how you are saying those figments are opponents or foes without saying other illusions or objects can also be classified as foes.
Why is a figment a foe? Spiritual weapon also has an AC, but can you call it a foe? It can't be harmed, by physical attacks, but it can be attacked and hit. Does the fact that you can destroy an image with a physical attack make it a foe?I don't bring video game and movie arguments into debates because those things happen for entirely different reasons than what happens in a tabletop game. In a movie it just has to look cool.
PS:I thought he broke actual mirrors. It has been a while since I have seen that one.
PS2:Maybe he was not built on a class system, but a skill based system, and had no feats. :).
PS3:Serious answer-->Decisions to be made in the rules forum are really to find out designer intent. I try to ignore the balance monster whenever I can, well for this forum anyway. I will also point out that as the fighter types get more attacks that spell becomes weaker since it is easier to get rid of those images, and displacement becomes stronger. Yeah I have been a GM trying to bash a PC wizard, and if I had great cleave the spell would have nigh useless if I used your interpretation. It is not like I am going to miss the wizard unless I roll really low, and then I will still have other NPC's to get rid of the rest of them.
As a PC it has helped me also. I say make the ruling in a vacumn without thinking about which class it helps, and let a GM adjust his game individually.
|
|
Note that this means that Groups of tiny creatures are now immune to cleaving Asgetrion since they are now all in the same space.
Also this means you can use reach weapons can be used against a creature in your square since they aren't Adjacent to you.
** spoiler omitted **
Splash weapons only hit the target in a square full of tiny creatures since they aren't adjacent either.
Bobson and Eridan already touched on these points, and I should have clarified that in this case I referred to small and medium creatures. As far as defining what "adjacent" means, I used it in the same sense it is often used in the rules, i.e. "in an adjacent square" (although I'd probably allow a fighter to cleave two tiny creatures sharing the same space; a swarm is another matter altogether).
If we start using dictionaries to define mechanical terms, let's not forget that "to cleave" means (more or less) "to cut/split something with a sharp object"; wouldn't it thus be reasonable to deny the use of Cleave and Great Cleave from anyone using bludgeoning weapons, hey? ;)
You're right; I was too lazy to look up adjacent.
Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.
Also, look in the glossary and throughout the combat section, you'll find alot more where that came from. Notice the use of "adjacent squares" in reference to squares, but "adjacent opponents" are within 5'... not exactly 5'.
If we start using dictionaries to define mechanical terms, let's not forget that "to cleave" means (more or less) "to cut/split something with a sharp object"; wouldn't it thus be reasonable to deny the use of Cleave and Great Cleave from anyone using bludgeoning weapons, hey? ;)
You're right - dictionaries aren't the best source for rule text, and I somehow managed to completely overlook the very obvious line Malignor quoted: "Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you." All I can say was that I had had a rather frustrating day and my whole post was written much more aggressively, and with less examples, than they usually are.
Upon going back and reading the relevant rules again, I withdraw my stance that an adjacent foe has to be in an adjacent space. You specifically can attack creatures in your own space (with the implication that they're adjacent to you even if they're in your space), and my examples of things it would break all specifically refer to adjacent spaces.
Given that, I would permit cleaving two tiny creatures in the same square, or even one in your space and one in an adjacent square.
I also agree with concerro that the 3.5 mirror image is fundamentally different from the Pathfinder version. 3.5 was written so that it would theoretically be possible to determine which one is the real wizard, and you only lose that information again when he moves ("While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded."). Therefore, one could argue that once the fighter hit the right one, mirror image was effectively negated for the rest of the round. Pathfinder takes out all the flavor/descriptive language, and just gives you images surrounding you. There's no longer any provision for moving through the images, and in fact, it might be impossible to do so now (since they mirror your moves exactly). However, it's been replaced with the rule text that "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." So it no longer matters whether you've identified the right one or not, you have to roll to pick one each time.
All this has led me to change my stance. Pathfinder's Cleave can target the caster again if the first one hits an image from Pathfinder's mirror image. I'm almost certain this is not RAI, but I think it's what RAW indicates. Step through this with me:
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.
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.
As I said, I'm pretty sure this was an unintended consequence of changing mirror image, and I think it should be errataed back, but my current reading will allow it.
---------------------
By my current reading of the rules, even true seeing won't help you against mirror image! I just can't find a crack in mirror image to let true seeing actually help.
From Mirror Image:
"Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll," - Nothing useful there. You still make attacks against the wizard while under true seeing.
"An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply)." - You still see the figments with true seeing. You know them to be illusions, but you still see them.
From True Seeing:
"The subject ... 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." - You can see exactly where the wizard is, see all the illusionary images around him for what they are, and still have to roll an attack which can turn out to be against an image.
3.5 didn't have this problem because you could pick which one you were going to attack, and if you knew which was the real one, you could just pick that one. Pathfinder changed it so you always might be targeting an image.
This is just more proof that the RAI of mirror image is not the RAW. Unfortunately.
The problem I have is that the spell doesn't say you can directly attack the image. It says if you attack the caster, it might target an image instead. So as RAW it says attack the caster first, make your roll to see if it hits the image. Lets say the caster is number 1 on the mirror image (MI) die for this scenario.
Fighter attacks caster, rolls a 1 on the MI die and hits the caster instead of an image. "OK I cleave to his images"... But he cant directly attack his images per the spell description, he has to attack the caster first. "I roll a 1 on the MI die again.. I hit the caster! Great! I cleave to his images"... *Repeat never ending circle.
I might allow a cleave under the True Seeing circumstances, but as RAW, there are complications that make cleaving images invalid. I would also allow the fighter to cleave to another opponent if he hits an image, but never allow my players to cleave all the images due to the way the spell description is worded.
You are targeting what you think is the wizard
Exactly... Which would mean you missed your intended target and don't get a cleave. If you hit the wizard, you cant retarget the wizard for a cleave anyway, so the cleave chain is broken.
However, if I were to rule that you could cleave images (which I would never allow), I would not allow a cleave if the fighter "missed the AC by 5 but the images is still destroyed" aspect of the spell, as he did not in fact hit his target.
|
|
The big thing is the obstacle on cleaving the same target twice. Barring True Seeing, there is no way of knowing if you are targeting the same target twice, because of the nature of the way Mirror Image describes itself. It's not like the DM shows you the 4 identical wizards and you pick one, it's a rolling of the die. Because of that, if you were to cleave, you may be hitting the wizard up to 4 times, which is breaking one of the specific rules set out in the feat. So no cleave.
The key-word there is "Possibility". The intended target is always the caster first.. The roll determines if it hits an image.. Again, endless invalid cleave loop of always hitting the caster depending on MI roll.
Is this spell really so overpowered? at level 9 you have approx 4-7 images depending on roll.. lets say 5 or 6 on average. Rapid shot, Flurry or TWF will take care of most if not all images anyway. Why diminish the spell further by distorting RAW and allowing cleave?
*side note.. the AC is not 5 less.. the spell says "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss" In other words.. destroying an image is not necesarily a hit.
*response to edit 2: If you can target specifically an image, the spell also becomes invalid as the target for a valid attack on this spell as written is the caster.
I appologize if you were offended, it just seems absolutely clear to me that RAW prevents cleave in this scenario. You can play it however you want, as will I. Then we can wait for some official ruling. Perhaps thier intentions were to allow cleave, but thats not how its written. And as a game balance issue, I dont see the issue anyway. Cleave is still useful, and MI can be easily thwarted anyway, So I don't see an issue with not allowing cleave.
|
|
Tell me how you'd solve the issue of a wizard getting cleaved up to 12 times because of some lucky die rolls?
"Well, I don't know which one it is, but I'm going to keep cleaving because there's 12 targets!"
The percentage chance means no, you cannot target an image. You target all the images, and if you roll lucky, you hit the wizard. If you were to hit the wizard and try to cleave to an image, you'd risk hitting the wizard again, which would invalidate cleave. So if you cleave there's a chance you can't cleave.
In other words, it shouldn't work.
Yar.
It's absolutely clear that this interpretation is/isn't RAW.
If it's absolutely clear that it is interpretation A and not B, yet is also absolutely clear that it is interpretation B and not A, then perhaps it actually ISN'T that clear after all. The fact that there are large groups of people in opposing camps is further indication that it is not as clear cut as everyone is claiming.
Hit the FAQ button on the first post. Lets get an official answer.
___
I do have my opinions on this issue, but I'd simply be repeating what others have already said, and it would be moot to argue them at this point. If after 180 posts you have not been swayed from one side to the other, it's unlikely that you will be at all.
(FYI: I'm in favor of Cleave, Great Cleave, and Whirlwind Attack (that's in increasing order of effectiveness too) being a viable tactic to counter mirror image. None of them guarantee hitting the caster and/or removing all images, but they increase your chances of doing so).
~P
And nowhere in the spells description does it say they are swirling about. It says they mimic your movement, sounds, and actions exactly.
This. Exactly. In 3.5, you were able to move into and out of your images, and thus change relative places with them. You can't do this in Pathfinder. If the image is a foot in front of you and 6 inches to the right, it is always a foot in front of you and 6 inches to the right. If you take a step towards it, it takes a step away from you to maintain that distance.
As written, if it didn't specifically have the line "If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment", then the spell would be useless once you hit the right image because you'd know which is the right one ("The wizard's the one on the left side of the back row - ignore the rest of them and lets get him!"). Therefore, the only thing making this spell work is the fact that this line triggers every time you're attacked. There's no flavor associated with it, just rule text. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly. That's it. That's why true seeing doesn't help (even though it should). That's why you can cleave all the images. With no flavor justification for it you are required to randomly chose which image you are targeting every time.
It's broken. It's not supposed to work that way. It's very wrong that it does. But it's the way it is actually written, and thus Rules As Written.
Lets look at this another way to see if I can explain it better. If in taking a full attack, you hit the caster on the first attack instead of an image. Would you then allow each iterative attack to ignore Mirror Image and always hit the caster?
Bobson... As you just stated each hit is randomly determined, creating invalid use of cleave as you could hit the caster more than once. Cleave states the target must not be the same target.. the spell states, "if the attack targets the caster". not "if the attack targets an image"
Actually, thats not what cleave is, you are describing whirlwind attack.. cleave is s series of attacks against adjacent foes.
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.
Finish the full quotation please. If the target is the caster, there is a possibility(ie die roll) that it actually targeted an image. This means that the caster was never the target and the image was if the dice roll is appropriate.
You are only assuming "possibility" means only an image.. "possibility" implys it could be the caster as well.. which means you could end up in an invalid cleave loop of hitting the caster each time.
Lets look at this another way to see if I can explain it better. If in taking a full attack, you hit the caster on the first attack instead of an image. Would you then allow each iterative attack to ignore Mirror Image and always hit the caster?
Under 3.5's version of the spell? YES.
Under Pathfinder's? No, because It doesn't matter if you know exactly which one it is. The specific rule of "If the attack hits, roll randomly" overrides every less specific (more general) rule. To take it to it's absurd conclusion, by RAW I could be an immobile Fine creature, have one of the images stand directly in front of me (within my reach, in my square), and even if I attack it and hit the wizard the next time I attack that same image, it might just be an image and have it pop.
|
|
The die roll is only relative to hitting the caster. Cleave let's you make 1 swing at adjacent targets. You would roll to see the order the images and caster are getting hit.
No you wouldn't, because each attack you make against the amalgamation that is Caster-plus-images is a randomly rolled chance of hitting the caster or not.
Each attack roll is made with the caster as a target. You cannot cleave the same target time and time again just because you suspect you may not have hit him the first time, even if your only goal is popping the illusions.
My character sees a wizard with 7 illusionary identical twins in front of me. I don't know which is the real wizard, but I'm going to make an effort to hit him. So I attack, but from the rules of Mirror Image, I, the player, do not get to choose which of the images, as this is decided by a percentage die. Therefore there is only one target that I am attacking. I say "I attack the wizard", not "I attack the wizard second from the left". That's because there is no way, from the text of Mirror Image, to target the wizard second from the left, illusory or real. I attack the wizard and the percentage die tells me what I hit.
Under 3.5's version of the spell? YES.
Under Pathfinder's? No, because It doesn't matter if you know exactly which one it is. The specific rule of "If the attack hits, roll randomly" overrides every less specific (more general) rule. To take it to it's absurd conclusion, by RAW I could be an immobile Fine creature, have one of the images stand directly in front of me (within my reach, in my square), and even if I attack it and hit the wizard the next time I attack that same image, it might just be an image and have it pop.
And this is the point I'm trying to make... The attacker must target the caster per wording of the spell, the random roll includes the possibility of hitting the caster more than once. Since you can't attack the same target more than once with cleave, the spell as written renders cleaving invalid.
No you wouldn't, because each attack you make against the amalgamation that is Caster-plus-images is a randomly rolled chance of hitting the caster or not.
Each attack roll is made with the caster as a target. You cannot cleave the same target time and time again just because you suspect you may not have hit him the first time, even if your only goal is popping the illusions.
My character sees a wizard with 7 illusionary identical twins in front of me. I don't know which is the real wizard, but I'm going to make an effort to hit him. So I attack, but from the rules of Mirror Image, I, the player, do not get to choose which of the images, as this is decided by a percentage die. Therefore there is only one target that I am attacking. I say "I attack the wizard", not "I attack the wizard second from the left". That's because there is no way, from the text of Mirror Image, to target the wizard second from the left, illusory or real. I attack the wizard and the percentage die tells me what I hit.
So very much this^
Wording of the spell prohibits the targeting of images directly. And as I've mentioned, contains the possibility of hitting the same caster twice, which is also invalid.
|
|
You're right; I was too lazy to look up adjacent.Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.Also, look in the glossary and throughout the combat section, you'll find alot more where that came from. Notice the use of "adjacent squares" in reference to squares, but "adjacent opponents" are within 5'... not exactly 5'.
I think I said "in an adjacent square", which means "within 5 ft.", doesn't it? I never claimed that you need to be exactly 5 ft. away. As for those two ("an opponent in an adjancent square" and "an adjacent opponent") expressions being used synonymously in the core rulebook, it may be due to so many designers writing for the book, a remnant from the original 3.5 SRD -- or maybe even to avoid repetition. You can also find such words as "foe", "enemy" and "opponent" being used in the core rules, and I doubt they're actually supposed to refer to three different mechanical categories of adversaries, right?
You've said all that needs to be said with the spell description.
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 there is a possibility that the attack TARGETS one of your images instead, then there is proof that the images can be targetted.
The idea of the spell is that there are X number of images in the same square as you mimicking you movements and actions. It makes it hard for an opponent to figure out which one is actually you. The opponent has to decide which one to attack and goes for one of them. You then roll to see if the one he was after was actually you he was targetting or one of your images. Using Great Cleave you do not have to discriminate between images. You just say I'm cleaving them all and one of them is bound to be the wizard.
In the case of Great Cleave, you roll to hit, if it's a hit the wizard rolls a die to figure out which one got hit, maybe even the wizard. Since you've hit something, you've fulfilled the requirements of Great Cleave to keep your swing going. You would do this until you miss something and that ends the cleave. Missing the wizards AC isn't necessarily a miss since the images can be hit if you miss by less than 5 or something. This just means that the wizard rolls a die and picks an image to disappear and he is excluded from the hit personally. You would still continue onto the next roll to hit.
EDIT: Wizards are already capable of bending reality to their wills. Telling Martial classes they aren't allowed to do something like this just increases the Caster-Martial disparity some more. It's a 2nd level spell. It's not supposed to make you a god.
Nobody ever said the images could not be targeted. I already admitted to that and used that as a reason to why cleave and great cleave do not work.
As for as the caster-martial disparity it works better in theorycraft than in real games.
|
|
And this is the point I'm trying to make... The attacker must target the caster per wording of the spell, the random roll includes the possibility of hitting the caster more than once. Since you can't attack the same target more than once with cleave, the spell as written renders cleaving invalid.Under 3.5's version of the spell? YES.
Under Pathfinder's? No, because It doesn't matter if you know exactly which one it is. The specific rule of "If the attack hits, roll randomly" overrides every less specific (more general) rule. To take it to it's absurd conclusion, by RAW I could be an immobile Fine creature, have one of the images stand directly in front of me (within my reach, in my square), and even if I attack it and hit the wizard the next time I attack that same image, it might just be an image and have it pop.
This is what I was trying to say in a lot more words than necessary.
You are targeting what you think is the wizardExactly... Which would mean you missed your intended target and don't get a cleave. If you hit the wizard, you cant retarget the wizard for a cleave anyway, so the cleave chain is broken.
However, if I were to rule that you could cleave images (which I would never allow), I would not allow a cleave if the fighter "missed the AC by 5 but the images is still destroyed" aspect of the spell, as he did not in fact hit his target.
No, cleave is treating all images and the wizard as targets.
The spell description states that you CAN target an 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.This does not mean that a player can distinguish between images and the real wizard, but it clearly says you can target an image which is why you did not target the wizard. Having true seeing DOES mean that you can distinguish and you would only attack the real thing. Using Cleave means you are swinging at a target and if you hit it, you qualify to swing at the next adjacent target. You can never target the actual wizard more than once as per the rules of Cleave.
Edit: the AC of the images is 5 less than the casters AC as per the spell.
Edit2: likewise, if images CANNOT be targets, Mirror Image loses all function. By targeting the wizard, you roll a dice for the possibility of targeting something that cannot be a target.
You must remember that what you attack and what you target are not the same thing as I mentioned in an earlier post. With mirror image you attack the wizard, but may end up targeting an image instead.
Cleave does not care about targeting, but you who attack. Since you did not hit who you attacked the cleave is shut down.
Tell me how you'd solve the issue of a wizard getting cleaved up to 12 times because of some lucky die rolls?
"Well, I don't know which one it is, but I'm going to keep cleaving because there's 12 targets!"
The percentage chance means no, you cannot target an image. You target all the images, and if you roll lucky, you hit the wizard. If you were to hit the wizard and try to cleave to an image, you'd risk hitting the wizard again, which would invalidate cleave. So if you cleave there's a chance you can't cleave.
In other words, it shouldn't work.
This is a good point so I ask those who disagree if cleave is supposed to work what happens if the wizard's number comes up twice?