| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bobson, you'll have to forgive me, but that interpretation seems far too convoluted, and difficult to envision, to be RAI.
I totally agree. I've said many times that everything I'm saying as RAW is almost certainly an unintended consequence of the change they made to mirror image from 3.5 to pathfinder. I'd almost certainly not use this interpretation in my own games, unless I wanted to really annoy my players.
That being said, the reason I continue following this rabbit hole down is to try and definitely define what the text actually says should happen, so that we can agree that everyone is going to have to house rule it to some extent. As long as people claim they're following the RAW, I'm going to keep trying to show how absurd the RAW is. If everyone can agree that the RAW is broken as-is, and that every GM is going to house rule it, then it becomes a discussion of people's various house rules, in which there is no wrong or right.
Alternatively, if pointing out what the RAW is leads to errata to fix it into something saner, then I'll be even happier.
I don't think the RAW is broken. And I would allow GC to work vs Mirror Image under the 3.5 description.
Perhaps thats the reason for the confusion and the different interpretations...
Myself, having only briefly played 3.5 before switching to pathfinder never encountered or read the Mirror Image description from 3.5. So I have a fresh perspective on the spell as written in pathfinder. There is some ambiguity that certainly needs to be cleared up and it will be nice to see some official ruling.
However, I believe that the mechanics of the spells random determination of whom is attacked prevents cleave due to the possibility of multiple hits on the caster.
Since cleave as written mentions "additional attacks" I do not envision cleave as a 1 swipe at all adjacent targets as seems to be everyone else interpretation here. Since it is multiple attacks I see it as multiple chained swings (why else would you be allowed a 5 foot step in between cleaves?) The 1 swipe idea seems to fit the discription of whirlwind attack instead of cleave.
Ultimately its up to the GM's interpretation. But personally I would not allow it. To not allow it is not going to unbalance the game. The images will pop within a round anyway as TWF/Flurry/Rapid Shot tear through the images. The only thing MI is good for is against 2Handed heavy hitters.
*edit - Yes, cleave does say single blow in the initial description. Even if the description says additional attacks, so ignore my rant about cleave, but I stand by my iterpretaion on how the mechanics of the spells random targeting works.
I've never played 3.5 at all. The only reason I looked at the description was because someone referenced it in this thread.
It still doesn't change how the spell works. It creates a number of illusory images that mimic the caster. This creates a number of targets for the player to swing at which is why there's a die roll to determine which image, or the caster, you were swinging at. You guys seem to think that you're swinging at the caster every time and the spell is shifting your attack onto an image instead when this isn't what the spell is doing.
I'm getting tired of reiterating the same points over and over but if you guys don't grasp the simple concept that is the spell then there's no hope of me swaying your opinion.
EDIT: I'm not trying to offend I'm just saying that you need to look at what the spell does and understand how it is interacting with other characters and feats.
Yes we are looking at the spell as written we are just reaching different conclusions. It's all in the eye of the reader. You make good points that in one interpretation could be used to allow cleave. Others make good points that invalidate cleave.
If everyone agreed with every interpretation I made, the world would have a lot less republicans ;)
But you target the caster each time. Not allowed with cleave.
Actually you attack the caster every time which is not the same as targeting someone. I had a post on it upthread somewhere. That is why I am against cleave working, well one reason anyway.
I don't think the RAW is broken. And I would allow GC to work vs Mirror Image under the 3.5 description.
I think it works in 3.5 also, but I also think magic missile could end mirror image in 3.5. It(mirror image) seems to have gotten better in PF.
This is for those trying to say cleave works because of the fluff/flavor saying it is one attack instead of several attack despite the mechanics saying otherwise.
The fluff says it is one attack, but the mechanics cleary calls out "an additional attack", when it could have said "make an additional attack roll". Now maybe the arguement will come that the feat was written badly, but as written the feat is not working to shutdown mirror image.
What we have is a situation where the flavor text aka fluff says one thing, and the mechanics says another. The flavor text however is not a part of the rules. It is just a colorful way to envision things. Fluff is mutable. Mechanics is not.
If you need an example, or shall I say another example of flavor and mechanics disagreeing look at Manyshot. The flavor says it allows you to attack multiple opponents, but the feat's mechanics really allow you to get 2 arrows in the air with one attack. Now if I were to use the flavor text as the rule, over the mechanics manyshot would be useless since by the time I get a BAB of +6 I can attack multiple opponents anyway.
Another example is Mobility which says "You can easily move through a dangerous melee." There is no guarantee that not getting hit will be easy. Rhetorical question-->Does that mean the feat does not apply to ranged attacks used on AoO's since that is possible now since the feat fluff specifically calls out melee attacks? Better fluff would have been "You are always ready to dodge any attack even when your defenses seem to be down." If the fluff/flavor had to be kept the feat could allow you to automatically dodge one attack of opportunity since that fits the flavor better.
PS:If you need an example of using two attack rolls with one attack look at the deflection spell.
You surround yourself in a whirling barrier of force that sends any attack that misses you hurling back toward its source. This applies to any melee or ranged attack directed against you so long as it uses an attack roll to determine whether or not it strikes you. If an attack misses you, the attacker must make a second attack roll against its own Armor Class, using all of the applicable modifiers of the original attack and if it hits, the attacker takes the attack’s damage and suffers all the other consequences of getting struck with that attack. You cannot deflect attacks that miss you for any reason besides a failed attack roll (such as concealment). Similarly, you cannot deflect attacks that actually do strike you but simply fail to do any harm.
As you can see there is a difference between making a second attack roll, and making a second attack. I had to point this out just in case someone thought I was trying to be to literal with the difference between an additional attack, and an extra attack roll.
But if you hit an image you were never attacking the caster and were attacking one of his images that you thought was the caster.
Not applying the entire text of the spell breaks your logic.
EDIT: attacking something MEANS you ARE TARGETING what you are attacking. How do you attack something you are not targeting with an attack?
The problem I have with allowing cleave is that you cant individually target just the images or just the caster. If you can then you would have to allow a TWF who hits the caster with his first attack to ignore the images completely on his iterative attacks. Thats not how it works, however.
The problem I have with allowing cleave is that you cant individually target just the images or just the caster. If you can then you would have to allow a TWF who hits the caster with his first attack to ignore the images completely on his iterative attacks. Thats not how it works, however.But if you hit an image you were never attacking the caster and were attacking one of his images that you thought was the caster.
Not applying the entire text of the spell breaks your logic.
EDIT: attacking something MEANS you ARE TARGETING what you are attacking. How do you attack something you are not targeting with an attack?
Why can't you target just the images? They have their own AC for being figments, and nothing in the spell overrides that. Likewise, there's nothing in the spell to say that you roll the "wrong target" chance if you attack an image. The only catch is that if you accidentally attack the wizard thinking that you're attacking one of the images, the spell still works as normal. On the other hand, the images don't pop if you deliberately target them, so that's a wash.
Entirely separate from whether or not you can individually target just the images, you still wouldn't have to allow someone with multiple attacks to focus on the caster after they hit once. That's how 3.5 handled it, but Pathfinder's rule is "If the attack is a hit, roll randomly". As I've said before, because of the way this is phrased you still have to roll randomly, even if you know exactly which one's the wizard. And no, I won't attempt to describe how that works, because it makes no sense. PF Mirror Image is a spell where the mechanics are not sufficiently tied to the in-game effects. It falls into the same category as a unconscious rogue tied up in a 5x5x5 room being able to avoid all damage from a fireball. It makes no sense, but that's what the rules say happens.
So would you allow the iterative attacks to ignore the images and continue attacking just the caster if he hits the caster with his first strike?
So would you allow the iterative attacks to ignore the images and continue attacking just the caster if he hits the caster with his first strike?
Yes, but "If the attack is a hit, roll randomly" would apply each time he did. Every time he swings at the caster, he might hit one of the images instead. Even if he knows which one is the caster. Even if he can see through the illusions (but not if he can't see the illusion at all).
Edit: Just to be clear, even though I said yes the end result is the same as if I had said no. It just makes the point that it doesn't matter clearer to say "yes, but".
So would you allow the iterative attacks to ignore the images and continue attacking just the caster if he hits the caster with his first strike?Yes, but "If the attack is a hit, roll randomly" would apply each time he did. Every time he swings at the caster, he might hit one of the images instead. Even if he knows which one is the caster. Even if he can see through the illusions (but not if he can't see the illusion at all).
The question was directed towards Khrysaor, but as you just stated the roll randomly line applies. Therein lies the crux with allowing cleave. Since each cleave is an "additional attack/s" The random roll is factored in which leads to the possibility of the caster being hit multiple times which is illegal with cleave.
*edited.. meant to say roll randomly line.. not roll randomly lie.. Fixed
So would you allow the iterative attacks to ignore the images and continue attacking just the caster if he hits the caster with his first strike?Yes, but "If the attack is a hit, roll randomly" would apply each time he did. Every time he swings at the caster, he might hit one of the images instead. Even if he knows which one is the caster. Even if he can see through the illusions (but not if he can't see the illusion at all).The question was directed towards Khrysaor, but as you just stated the roll randomly line applies. Therein lies the crux with allowing cleave. Since each cleave is an "additional attack/s" The random roll is factored in which leads to the possibility of the caster being hit multiple times which is illegal with cleave.
*edited.. meant to say roll randomly line.. not roll randomly lie.. Fixed
Which is where my stance on being able to attack the images as per figment rules comes in. Once you've hit the caster and know which one the caster is, you can cleave to any of the images without rolling "wrong target" chance (but the image won't pop even if you hit). Thus there's no longer a contradiction with cleave.
All I see are strawmen. Keep grasping at them.
The fluff text gives context to what the spell/feat/ability is doing. Arguing that Cleave works like Whirlwind attack isn't going to get you a win.
Gaining a 20% chance to evade attacks is a huge bonus that allows you to easily move through combat.
The fluff from Manyshot says you can fire many arrows at a single target not multiple targets. This means you get 2 arrows at full BAB instead of using iteratives at a lower BAB.
Ranged weapons like bows do not get AoO as you have to threaten someone before you qualify.
An attack roll and an attack are the same thing. When you make an attack you make an attack roll to see if it hits.
I am not grasping at strawmen. My point was that fluff is not text, and is not to be used in place of the actual mechanics. I then provided examples to support that.
I then went on to show how cleave calls for an extra attack instead of extra attack rolls which is what would be required to give the possibility of it working against mirror image more credibility. Attack rolls, and attacks while related are not the same thing.
You can be attacked without an attack roll ever being involved, and as shown by the deflection spell you can make an attack roll to determine a course of action without being attacked since that spell is basically sending the weapon back at the person weilding, unlike the backstabber spell(3.5) which forces you to make a will save or actually attack yourself. I think there is a pathfinder spell that forces you to attack yourself also.
As for manyshot you can already fire multiple arrows at a single target, and I know how the feat works mechanically. The fluff does not directly support the mechanics if the fluff was meant to be used as rules is all I was saying.
Ranged weapons do not normally threaten people, but there are feats in ultimate combat which make it possible.
Snap Shot (Combat)
With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any opening in your opponent's defenses.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.
Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.
Improved Snap Shot (Combat)
You can take advantage of your opponent's vulnerabilities from a greater distance, and without exposing yourself.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Snap Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +9.
Benefit: You threaten an additional 10 feet with Snap Shot.
Normal: Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity.
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
I can attack you with a fireball, but I require no attack roll. Attack rolls are used to give you the results of certain attacks, but are not attacks in and of themselves.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.
Special Spell EffectsMany special spell effects are handled according to the school of the spells in question. Certain other special spell features are found across spell schools.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
Once you've hit the caster and know which one the caster is, you can cleave to any of the images without rolling "wrong target" chance (but the image won't pop even if you hit). Thus there's no longer a contradiction with cleave.
..but you never know which one is the right one. If you did there would be no miss chance, and no reason to target the images since you could just point out the correct one to your allies assuming they could not see which one you hit.
Does it make sense for you to not know which one is the correct one since the PF version does not have the images swirling around? No, but like someone pointed out above it does not make sense to get a reflex save if you are paralyzed, but the rules say you do.
Each additional cleave is an additional attack vs a target adjacent to the first. No where does it say you can attack the same target twice.
Exactly. In fact it's strictly forbidden in cleave to attack the same target twice. The wording of the MI spell contains the possibility of hitting the same target twice. Therefore, it is ilegal.
If you could allow a TWF to continue to target the caster of MI after the first hit on the caster, then I would say cleave is possible, however, as it is written, that is not possible, and neither is cleave.
To all those arguing that you are trying to hit the caster and not the image by the reading of the spell though you roll to see if your target is real or not after selecting a target. If the roll indicates you hit an image that was your intended target all along. "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" the spell clearly specifies the attacker targets the image. If the attacker targets the image with cleave or greater cleave he gets to attack again so long as he hits. The spell includes in its description the fact images can be targeted and neither the spell nor cleave/greater cleave have any text indicating the images interrupt the attackers ability to continue to cleave.
Fire ball requires no attack roll unless you aim through a small space like an arrow slit.
Once you've hit the caster and know which one the caster is, you can cleave to any of the images without rolling "wrong target" chance (but the image won't pop even if you hit). Thus there's no longer a contradiction with cleave...but you never know which one is the right one. If you did there would be no miss chance, and no reason to target the images since you could just point out the correct one to your allies assuming they could not see which one you hit.
Does it make sense for you to not know which one is the correct one since the PF version does not have the images swirling around? No, but like someone pointed out above it does not make sense to get a reflex save if you are paralyzed, but the rules say you do.
I was the one who pointed that out about the reflex saves :p
And in response to the main point you made, you've missed my point. My stance is that you can know exactly which one is correct. You can point it out to your allies. You can attack it directly. You may even be so limited in reach that it's impossible for you to reach any of the other images and can only reach the real one. Despite all that you still have to obey "If the attack is a hit, roll randomly".
Fire ball require no attack roll unless you aim through a small space like an arrow slit.
And even that is a house rule.
But the point of mentioning fireball was that an unconscious rogue bound hand and foot to the floor can be in a room that gets filled with fire and still be entirely uninjured by making a (heavily penalized) reflex save with Improved Evasion. Which was used as an example of the rules overriding sense.
"If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely." Thats from the spell description of fireball.
To all those arguing that you are trying to hit the caster and not the image by the reading of the spell though you roll to see if your target is real or not after selecting a target. If the roll indicates you hit an image that was your intended target all along. "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" the spell clearly specifies the attacker targets the image. If the attacker targets the image with cleave or greater cleave he gets to attack again so long as he hits. The spell includes in its description the fact images can be targeted and neither the spell nor cleave/greater cleave have any text indicating the images interrupt the attackers ability to continue to cleave.
The clause is in the feat cleave, in which you cannot attack the same target twice... The spell requires a random roll, with the possibility the target is the caster. With each additional attack you get from cleave, you must make this roll. You could hit the caster more than once which is ilegal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For Bobson's revelation of RAWbsurdities, he should win an internet.
As for the argument itself, I've said all I want to say, and won't be convince otherwise. There's too much ambiguity and conflicting information to warrant a perfect all-RAW conclusion which is at all reasonable, one way or the other. I dug deep enough to be convincing and consistent, but Bobson went a few strata further and found more, which can overcomplicate the workings of this feat-meet-spell conundrum. Excellent work in discovering flaws in what I thought was perfect reasoning. When proven wrong by objective and diligent truth-seeking, I get genuinely impressed.
My offering of advice on how to interpret C\GC vs. MI: C and GC work against MI; assuming all hit-rolls beat the caster's AC, the person employing C or GC can potentially hit 2 (in the case of C) or all (in the case of GC) targets, randomly chosen from among images and the caster. To adjudicate this random determination, roll randomly to determine which of the targets is the caster. # of targets is #images+1. Roll this only once on the first successful "attack roll > AC". Any further successful hits merely work their way sequentially through the remaining targets.
"If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely." Thats from the spell description of fireball.
You're right, I had forgotten that. I take back what I said about it being a house rule.
Again.... each additional attack MUST TARGET a creature ADJACENT to the first for cleave or to the last one hit for great cleave.
That assumes you bypass the spells mechanics of a random roll determining who is attacked. That also leads to the conclusion that you can pick out intentionally which image you are swinging at, also against the mechanics of the spell.
Given that you are operating under the presumption that you can pick and choose which image to attack. If you can do that then you would have to allow TWF to always attack a caster once his position is determined.
Yes they are adjacent to eachother, but you cannot pick and choose. This is against mechanics of the spell.
For Bobson's revelation of RAWbsurdities, he should win an internet.
As for the argument itself, I've said all I want to say, and won't be convince otherwise. There's too much ambiguity and conflicting information to warrant a perfect all-RAW conclusion which is at all reasonable, one way or the other. I dug deep enough to be convincing and consistent, but Bobson went a few strata further and found more, which can overcomplicate the workings of this feat-meet-spell conundrum.
My offering: C and GC work against MI; assuming all hit-rolls beat the caster's AC, the person employing C or GC can potentially hit 2 (in the case of C) or all (in the case of GC) targets, randomly chosen from among images and the caster. To adjudicate this random determination, roll randomly to determine which of the targets is the caster. # of targets is #images+1. Roll this only once on the first successful "attack roll > AC". Any further successful hits merely work their way sequentially through the remaining targets.
I like your phrase. RAWbsurdity is a great description for this situation. I also like your resolution. It's nice and simple to adjudicate, and keeps to the spirit of both the feat and the spell. It has my vote for becoming the errata.
Once you've hit the caster and know which one the caster is, you can cleave to any of the images without rolling "wrong target" chance (but the image won't pop even if you hit). Thus there's no longer a contradiction with cleave...but you never know which one is the right one. If you did there would be no miss chance, and no reason to target the images since you could just point out the correct one to your allies assuming they could not see which one you hit.
Does it make sense for you to not know which one is the correct one since the PF version does not have the images swirling around? No, but like someone pointed out above it does not make sense to get a reflex save if you are paralyzed, but the rules say you do.
I was the one who pointed that out about the reflex saves :p
And in response to the main point you made, you've missed my point. My stance is that you can know exactly which one is correct. You can point it out to your allies. You can attack it directly. You may even be so limited in reach that it's impossible for you to reach any of the other images and can only reach the real one. Despite all that you still have to obey "If the attack is a hit, roll randomly".
The reason the spell makes you miss is because you don't know which one is real. Now if the spell just redirected your attack mid-swing I would agree with you.
But as you say you cannot hit the same target twice and mirror image does not state how you determine which target is randomly removed. If you cannot hit the caster again and you have already hit the caster then all other legal targets must be images so you can randomly determine which image it is but since they all have the same AC and no HP it is really irrelevant.
Cleaves only qualifier on wether you get the extra attacks or not is hitting or not hitting. It says nothing about your intended target it says nothing about insubstantial targets.
The part about rolling to randomly determines things mucks stuff up so if you want to really nitpick how the two interact cleave would become invalid if you kept rolling after hitting the caster and the caster came up again your cleave would end much like interrupting a charge with a wall of stone. However it seems rather silly to imagine cleave working as a bunch of individual swings otherwise why couldn't you just keep hitting the same guy?
To all those arguing that you are trying to hit the caster and not the image by the reading of the spell though you roll to see if your target is real or not after selecting a target. If the roll indicates you hit an image that was your intended target all along. "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" the spell clearly specifies the attacker targets the image. If the attacker targets the image with cleave or greater cleave he gets to attack again so long as he hits. The spell includes in its description the fact images can be targeted and neither the spell nor cleave/greater cleave have any text indicating the images interrupt the attackers ability to continue to cleave.
Who you attack is not who you target all the time.
read this
Again.... each additional attack MUST TARGET a creature ADJACENT to the first for cleave or to the last one hit for great cleave.That assumes you bypass the spells mechanics of a random roll determining who is attacked. That also leads to the conclusion that you can pick out intentionally which image you are swinging at, also against the mechanics of the spell.
Given that you are operating under the presumption that you can pick and choose which image to attack. If you can do that then you would have to allow TWF to always attack a caster once his position is determined.
Yes they are adjacent to eachother, but you cannot pick and choose. This is against mechanics of the spell.
The bolded sentence is a logical fallacy. Think of it this way: I have four shells. They all look the same. I can choose any one of the four. If I pick shell #1, #2, or #3 I can look under it and put it back, and someone else gets to pick one. If I pick shell #4, I roll a d4 and get to keep whatever's under the shell that comes up on the die (if there's nothing under it, I get to keep the shell, reducing the number on the table). I know that there's a coin under #4, and it doesn't matter if I know which one #4 is. Either I pick one which does nothing, or I pick one which makes me roll a die.
The bolded sentence would be equivalent to saying "Once I pick shell #4, I can always pick shell #4 and get what's under it". The rule is that once you pick shell #4, you have to roll the die to see what you get. You can keep picking #4, but you have to keep rolling.
To extend the analogy, there's another rule: Once you've looked under a shell, you can't choose that shell again. This doesn't prevent the d4 roll from letting you take it and keep it, it just means you can't directly choose it. It also doesn't prevent you from continuously choosing #4, so long as you never manage to look under #4.
If I have to point out again the part of the spell that says there is a chance the attack targets an image I think I will scream. Look cleave works if you hit. Mirror Image states the image is targeted. If you beat the images AC you have therefore hit your target. You cannot have targeted the wizard if you hit an image since the spell made you target the image initially.
But as you say you cannot hit the same target twice and mirror image does not state how you determine which target is randomly removed. If you cannot hit the caster again and you have already hit the caster then all other legal targets must be images so you can randomly determine which image it is but since they all have the same AC and no HP it is really irrelevant.
Cleaves only qualifier on wether you get the extra attacks or not is hitting or not hitting. It says nothing about your intended target it says nothing about insubstantial targets.
The part about rolling to randomly determines things mucks stuff up so if you want to really nitpick how the two interact cleave would become invalid if you kept rolling after hitting the caster and the caster came up again your cleave would end much like interrupting a charge with a wall of stone. However it seems rather silly to imagine cleave working as a bunch of individual swings otherwise why couldn't you just keep hitting the same guy?
Great Cleave is indeed a goofy feat. If it's meant to be one big swing at adjacent targets, why does it stop if you miss just one person? Why do you get to take a 5 foot step in the middle of this swing?
If you miss the first person it could be because your attack is deflected harmlessly off their armor. You can not take a 5 foot step while cleaving it is a standard action not a full attack action so you must wait until you are finished cleaving before making a 5 foot step and then only if you haven't moved yet.
The reason the spell makes you miss is because you don't know which one is real. Now if the spell just redirected your attack mid-swing I would agree with you.
I wish I could agree with you. That's how the spell is supposed to work. However, the text says "Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll" and later "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled." Not "Whenever you are attacked by someone who is fooled by the spell" and not the 3.5 form (which was basically "if you're fooled by the spell, roll wrong target chance, then attack that target").
The fluff of the mobility feat does not call out melee attacks. It says moving through a dangerous melee. Look up the word on the interwebs to get the definition of the word. Melee in this instance is used to mean a combat as a whole not specifically related to melee attacks. Archers need precise shot to fire into MELEE without suffering a penalty. This is all part of combat. If you take the feat and can threaten with a bow then you are free to make an AoO against the guy who's moved through your threatened range and he benefits from the +4 AC from moving through combat.
That archer is shooting you from 10 or more feet away. He is using a ranged attacked. How is that melee? Just because you fire into melee that does not mean you are in melee. Melee in Pathfinder refers to hand to hand combat. That is why you have attack rolls, and ranged attack rolls. The game also differeniates between melee and ranged weapons. I never said the feat did not work against the bow. The fact that it does work against the bow, while the fluff calls out melee is my point.
You're right, spells do count as an attack and some require an attack roll. This doesn't change the fact that we're talking about Cleave which is a melee attack and when making a melee attack you ALWAYS make an attack roll. This is why the terms are synonymous in regards to melee attacks.
I never said cleave does not require an attack roll. I said that some people were arguing that cleave works because it is one attack, but the fluff which is described as one attack, is counter by the mechanics which calls for additional attacks. I was also pointing out by showing the inconsistency in mobility, and manyshot that the fluff does not determine the rules. The mechanics are the rules. The flavor is nothing more than artistic interpretation.
Since cleave requires more than one attack I can't see how it works with mirror image. There are no rules in place to see what happens if the dice call the wizard up twice. You(general statement) can say reroll or don't count the wizard, but that is increasing the chances for the other images to get hit assuming they are valid targets, and neither cleave nor great cleave has the power to reduce the effectiveness of mirror image in that manner.
In short: The mechanics of cleave which are the rules don't support it working against mirror image which was my main point.
Again.... each additional attack MUST TARGET a creature ADJACENT to the first for cleave or to the last one hit for great cleave.That assumes you bypass the spells mechanics of a random roll determining who is attacked. That also leads to the conclusion that you can pick out intentionally which image you are swinging at, also against the mechanics of the spell.
Given that you are operating under the presumption that you can pick and choose which image to attack. If you can do that then you would have to allow TWF to always attack a caster once his position is determined.
Yes they are adjacent to eachother, but you cannot pick and choose. This is against mechanics of the spell.
The bolded sentence is a logical fallacy. Think of it this way: I have four shells. They all look the same. I can choose any one of the four. If I pick shell #1, #2, or #3 I can look under it and put it back, and someone else gets to pick one. If I pick shell #4, I roll a d4 and get to keep whatever's under the shell that comes up on the die (if there's nothing under it, I get to keep the shell, reducing the number on the table). I know that there's a coin under #4, and it doesn't matter if I know which one #4 is. Either I pick one which does nothing, or I pick one which makes me roll a die.
The bolded sentence would be equivalent to saying "Once I pick shell #4, I can always pick shell #4 and get what's under it". The rule is that once you pick shell #4, you have to roll the die to see what you get. You can keep picking #4, but you have to keep rolling.
To extend the analogy, there's another rule: Once you've looked under a shell, you can't choose that shell again. This doesn't prevent the d4 roll from letting you take it and keep it, it just means you can't directly choose it. It also doesn't prevent you from continuously choosing #4, so long as you never manage to look under #4.
A propositional logical fallacy it may be, but still a reasonable one.
The problem I see with your shell game is that if I choose shell 4 and the prize is indeed in shell 4, and I then replace shell 4. Without aybody moving the shells, the prize will always be in shell 4. Anybody could lift shell 4 and see the prize.
Now if I am forced via a d4 to pick any shell and my first shell chosen is shell 1 which contains the prize.. I put the shell back and have to roll again.. this time it is shell 2 which is removed.. Now I roll a d3 and comes up with the shell 1. I have found the prize again.
Option 2 is more like how the MI spell operates.. you dont pick and choose your target.. the dice do it for you. If you have the possibility of picking the same shell twice.. Cleave is invalid.
If you miss the first person it could be because your attack is deflected harmlessly off their armor. You can not take a 5 foot step while cleaving it is a standard action not a full attack action so you must wait until you are finished cleaving before making a 5 foot step and then only if you haven't moved yet.
You're right.. I'm getting my full round 5foot between attacks mixed with cleave as a standard. My bad.
Still why would missing one person prevent the blow from continuing on to the next? mechanically it doesn't make sense.
The bolded sentence is a logical fallacy. Think of it this way: I have four shells. They all look the same. I can choose any one of the four. If I pick shell #1, #2, or #3 I can look under it and put it back, and someone else gets to pick one. If I pick shell #4, I roll a d4 and get to keep whatever's under the shell that comes up on the die (if there's nothing under it, I get to keep the shell, reducing the number on the table). I know that there's a coin under #4, and it doesn't matter if I know which one #4 is. Either I pick one which does nothing, or I pick one which makes me roll a die.The bolded sentence would be equivalent to saying "Once I pick shell #4, I can always pick shell #4 and get what's under it". The rule is that once you pick shell #4, you have to roll the die to see what you get. You can keep picking #4, but you have to keep rolling.
To extend the analogy, there's another rule: Once you've looked under a shell, you can't choose that shell again. This doesn't prevent the d4 roll from letting you take it and keep it, it just means you can't directly choose it. It also doesn't prevent you from continuously choosing #4, so long as you never manage to look under #4.
A propositional logical fallacy it may be, but still a reasonable one.
The problem I see with your shell game is that if I choose shell 4 and the prize is indeed in shell 4, and I then replace shell 4. Without aybody moving the shells, the prize will always be in shell 4. Anybody could lift shell 4 and see the prize.
Now if I am forced via a d4 to pick any shell and my first shell chosen is shell 1 which contains the prize.. I put the shell back and have to roll again.. this time it is shell 2 which is removed.. Now I roll a d3 and comes up with the shell 1. I have found the prize again.
Option 2 is more like how the MI spell operates.. you dont pick and choose your target.. the dice do it for you. If you have the possibility of picking the same shell twice.. Cleave is invalid.
It's only the shell which contains the prize that makes you have to roll the die. And once you manage to look under that shell and take the prize, you can't pick that shell again (and thus can't roll a die). Until then, you can keep picking it.
The reason the spell makes you miss is because you don't know which one is real. Now if the spell just redirected your attack mid-swing I would agree with you.I wish I could agree with you. That's how the spell is supposed to work. However, the text says "Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll" and later "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled." Not "Whenever you are attacked by someone who is fooled by the spell" and not the 3.5 form (which was basically "if you're fooled by the spell, roll wrong target chance, then attack that target").
The intent is clear, and it seems that you understand the intent. When the intent is clear it will be taken as the rule in 99% of most home games, and PFS. I mean would you really allow the dead condition as written or do you use it as intended?