I'm confused as to why this is such an issue. Wizard throws up Mirror Image. Fighter attacks. If his roll is enough to hit the wizard, then randomly determine if he hit the wizard or an image. If he hit anything, then he can attack again. The wizard has one fewer image so you roll a different percentage of hitting an image. If the wizard comes up a second time, then just roll again ignoring results of: wizard. Continue to do this until the fighter misses.
It's not rocket science and doesn't really need a full scale statistical analysis. I really think that it's being over-thought way too much.
That is not supported anywhere in the rules, especially with the reroll part so nobody want to take it as RAW or RAI. That method also raises the chances of hitting another image since the wizard no longer counts, and the intention of the spell is to only make that possible through actually destroying an image.
In short you are bypassing the spell to a degree.
|
I'm confused as to why this is such an issue. Wizard throws up Mirror Image. Fighter attacks. If his roll is enough to hit the wizard, then randomly determine if he hit the wizard or an image. If he hit anything, then he can attack again. The wizard has one fewer image so you roll a different percentage of hitting an image. If the wizard comes up a second time, then just roll again ignoring results of: wizard. Continue to do this until the fighter misses.
It's not rocket science and doesn't really need a full scale statistical analysis. I really think that it's being over-thought way too much.
If your interpretation needs a house rule (re-rolling because the wizard was hit twice) to be correct, maybe you should reexamine your interpretation.
I'm totally with everyone who is saying that illusions are "foes", because you might even argue that the way Cleave is written regarding "targets", even RAW considers them "foes". For anyone not willing to call something a "foe" because it is an illusion or something disguised as something else, please show me in the RAW where "foe" is defined as "not an illusion or a disguised creature who is not your foe"...
Where does it say a figment is a foe. I have asked that several times with no answer. If you just said by RAW it is a foe then you should be able to show me where it says it is.
Since there is no definition that separates "intended target", "illusion", "disguised creature", etc. apart from "foe" or "opponent" fundamentally, it can be assumed that anything that is your target is your "foe" as much as it can be assumed its a twinkie as far as RAW is concerned. It is irrelevant and not defined. What is in the RAW is that if you hit your target, you hit again with Cleave... simple, simple, simple. It doesn't even say "if you hit your foe", it just says "if you hit" so if you want to RAW, there you go, you hit again.
Actually cleave says:
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.
It seems pretty clear to me that they intend for you to strike a foe. I understand you are trying to argue semantics, but it's not working. This part has also been cleared up earlier in the thread. The main issue now is whether or not an illusion counts as a foe.
All that aside... RAI would lean on the description of cleave which is "You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing." or for Great Cleave "You can strike many adjacent foes with a single blow." Given that description, you aren't striking at the image, being baffled that it just vanishes, and then determining if you then "strike again" at the next one. You do multiple attack rolls, but its all one big sweeping strike... so why wouldn't you be able to mow through all the images and the caster at the same time? I see no reason whatsoever.
The mechanics disagree with the fluff. The mechanics are rules. The fluff is not.
I'm confused as to why this is such an issue. Wizard throws up Mirror Image. Fighter attacks. If his roll is enough to hit the wizard, then randomly determine if he hit the wizard or an image. If he hit anything, then he can attack again. The wizard has one fewer image so you roll a different percentage of hitting an image. If the wizard comes up a second time, then just roll again ignoring results of: wizard. Continue to do this until the fighter misses.
It's not rocket science and doesn't really need a full scale statistical analysis. I really think that it's being over-thought way too much.
That is not supported anywhere in the rules, especially with the reroll part so nobody want to take it as RAW or RAI. That method also raises the chances of hitting another image since the wizard no longer counts, and the intention of the spell is to only make that possible through actually destroying an image.
In short you are bypassing the spell to a degree.
So instead of just using an incredibly simple solution to a problem, it's better to get into a long winded argument with a full on statistical analysis that actually didn't have anything of real value to add?
The first part of what I said is exactly how those who are saying you can cleave or great cleave the images should be handled. The part about rerolling is just the easiest solution to the problem. Since you can't hit the wizard twice, once you've hit him you just take him out of the rolls. A reroll or an adjustment to the percentages would have the same effect and you aren't bypassing the spell at all. Of course you've got a higher chance of hitting another image. You can't hit the wizard again and if you would have hit, you hit something and the only something left is an image. People are really spending way to much time over thinking this.
If your interpretation needs a house rule (re-rolling because the wizard was hit twice) to be correct, maybe you should reexamine your interpretation.I'm confused as to why this is such an issue. Wizard throws up Mirror Image. Fighter attacks. If his roll is enough to hit the wizard, then randomly determine if he hit the wizard or an image. If he hit anything, then he can attack again. The wizard has one fewer image so you roll a different percentage of hitting an image. If the wizard comes up a second time, then just roll again ignoring results of: wizard. Continue to do this until the fighter misses.
It's not rocket science and doesn't really need a full scale statistical analysis. I really think that it's being over-thought way too much.
There's nothing to reexamine. If the wizard can only be hit once, you have three options.
1) Spend days discussing the finer points of statistics with strangers on a message board, delaying the game indefinitely.
2) Ignore all die rolls that hit the wizard twice
3) Remove the wizard as a possible result after he is hit once, using only the images as possible targets.
Method 1 is pointless and will have no end result that keeps the game moving
Method 2 means that the GM can simply say, that's not a valid result, roll again (I've used similar methods like if there are 7 targets, you roll a d8 and ignore all results of an 8). It's easy and eliminates one of the problems people are having.
Method 3 is even easier. If there are 5 images plus the wizard and the wizard is hit, there are still 5 images. If the fighter hits again, there are now only 5 valid targets so just eliminate one of them, avoiding a die roll altogether.
Method 1 is where people seem to be stuck. As a GM, you are going to have to make a decision and move on. If you are one of the GMs that would allow Cleave and Great Cleave to work against Mirror Images, then you need a solution that allows the game to continue.
|
|
...
Method 1 is where people seem to be stuck. As a GM, you are going to have to make a decision and move on. If you are one of the GMs that would allow Cleave and Great Cleave to work against Mirror Images, then you need a solution that allows the game to continue.
Method 1 is a group that is likely argue with the DM over other stuff, rather then just moving on and discussing it later. Rules arguments should never stop game, and as a player you need to go with the DM's ruling and discuss it later if it bugged you. Stopping game to argue just drops the fun for everyone else.
I am of the opinion that cleave and great cleave do not work against MI ( I may be proven wrong in a FAQ, and I am okay with that too). Personally, I view that you are targeting the wizard and not the images with each hit. But if I was in a game where the GM allowed it to work, I would not spend the time arguing with him about it, but go with it.
Remember, a ruling that the cleave feats work against mirror image is going to do more harm to the PC's in the long run then the NPC's, since the PC's are in every combat and the NPC's are only in 1 or 2 ever (on average). If you allow a PC to great cleave through mirror images, then any NPC can also do this. Is the spell still as useful for players then?
...
Method 1 is where people seem to be stuck. As a GM, you are going to have to make a decision and move on. If you are one of the GMs that would allow Cleave and Great Cleave to work against Mirror Images, then you need a solution that allows the game to continue.
Method 1 is a group that is likely argue with the DM over other stuff, rather then just moving on and discussing it later. Rules arguments should never stop game, and as a player you need to go with the DM's ruling and discuss it later if it bugged you. Stopping game to argue just drops the fun for everyone else.
I am of the opinion that cleave and great cleave do not work against MI ( I may be proven wrong in a FAQ, and I am okay with that too). Personally, I view that you are targeting the wizard and not the images with each hit. But if I was in a game where the GM allowed it to work, I would not spend the time arguing with him about it, but go with it.
Remember, a ruling that the cleave feats work against mirror image is going to do more harm to the PC's in the long run then the NPC's, since the PC's are in every combat and the NPC's are only in 1 or 2 ever (on average). If you allow a PC to great cleave through mirror images, then any NPC can also do this. Is the spell still as useful for players then?
The usefulness doesn't really change. The first thing I see most wizards do is avoid being in a position where Mirror Image is their primary way of avoiding being hit. Generally, they get far enough away that Cleave isn't a problem.
Most encounters in adventures are with monsters, that already have multiple attacks so they are going to be tearing through the images quickly anyway. Even low level creatures can have enough attacks to eliminate the Mirror Image in a single round (a lion can bring up to 5 attacks).
Cleave and Great Cleave don't really see a lot of use and when they do, they generally aren't against wizards using Mirror Image. The wizard that is hanging out in melee is pretty much asking for a beat down anyway.
I don't have any problems with a mundane action being able to deal with a magical problem. It's one of the ways I see balance occurring. If using Cleave, the fighter is dealing with one to two images a round. If using Great Cleave, the fighter is already level 4 and can deal with all the images if he rolls well enough. He opens himself up for attacks though because he has lowered his own Armor Class by 2.
A mundane solution to a magical problem of equal level is perfectly fine in my opinion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yar.
Random thought:
How can you target the wizard and not the images if there are multiple identical images of the wizard beside him and you cannot tell which one is the wizard?
~P
I'm confused as to why this is such an issue. Wizard throws up Mirror Image. Fighter attacks. If his roll is enough to hit the wizard, then randomly determine if he hit the wizard or an image. If he hit anything, then he can attack again. The wizard has one fewer image so you roll a different percentage of hitting an image. If the wizard comes up a second time, then just roll again ignoring results of: wizard. Continue to do this until the fighter misses.
It's not rocket science and doesn't really need a full scale statistical analysis. I really think that it's being over-thought way too much.
That is not supported anywhere in the rules, especially with the reroll part so nobody want to take it as RAW or RAI. That method also raises the chances of hitting another image since the wizard no longer counts, and the intention of the spell is to only make that possible through actually destroying an image.
In short you are bypassing the spell to a degree.So instead of just using an incredibly simple solution to a problem, it's better to get into a long winded argument with a full on statistical analysis that actually didn't have anything of real value to add?
The first part of what I said is exactly how those who are saying you can cleave or great cleave the images should be handled. The part about rerolling is just the easiest solution to the problem. Since you can't hit the wizard twice, once you've hit him you just take him out of the rolls. A reroll or an adjustment to the percentages would have the same effect and you aren't bypassing the spell at all. Of course you've got a higher chance of hitting another image. You can't hit the wizard again and if you would have hit, you hit something and the only something left is an image. People are really spending way to much time over thinking this.
I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.
I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.
But there is no clear rule so what do you do? You figure out what makes the most sense and go with that. It's not like we're discussing something is clear cut. It's ambiguous and the GM is going to have to do some ad hoc GMing. That's his job.
Hope everyone had a good weekend.
I still maintain GC does not work. The spells description clearly defines what happens if the caster is targeted first, but does not define what happens when an image is targeted. An image is targeted as a byproduct of attacking the caster.
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.
Examine these three statements closely... The first states that the target is the caster. In the second bolded statement notice that the attack roll happens before the random roll to determine if the attack hit an image is processed. In the third, notice that even if you miss the caster completely, at (-5) an image is still destroyed, bypassing the whole random image targeting in the first place.
I don't believe it was ever the intent that the images/caster could be targeted directly.. If it were, you would have to allow someone who located the wizard to continue bypassing the images all together on additional attacks.
keeping those bolded statements in mind, RAW has a random roll to determine what gets attacked... Caster or Image... Due to cleaves prohibition of hitting the same target twice, this mechanism should invalidate cleave.
I don't believe there is a balance issue at stake here in my interpretation. I also think that allowing a standard action to destroy a minor low level defensive buff, while simultaneously doing damage to the caster, will create a balance issue given that the spell is already vulnerable to creatures with multiple attacks.
That being said, I clicked the FAQ button to see if we can get something official.
Stepping away from the original problem. Lets ignore the MI spell for a second.
What if a wizard casts silent image and creates a copy of himself in the 5 foot square next to himself?
The Figments can be targeted. There is no way to the fighter to know the figment isn't a foe, so lets say it counts as a foe. Now the DM knows which square is the figment and which one has the wizard. The fighter has to declare which square they are attacking first with the cleave. The fighter picks the square with the figment, and rolls high enough to hit it. They get a will save to disbelieve due to interacting with the illusion. They fail the save, so they are tricked into thinking they hit something. Does the fighter get to cleave into the wizard?
I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.But there is no clear rule so what do you do? You figure out what makes the most sense and go with that. It's not like we're discussing something is clear cut. It's ambiguous and the GM is going to have to do some ad hoc GMing. That's his job.
I also go by mechanics more than fluff, and I don't think the mechanics supports the idea of cleave working since it has no allowance for rerolling, but that is a horse that has already been beat. In short until someone comes up with a new argument or devs step in cleave and GC won't be working. I am sure the devs know about this thread by now, but they are probably trying to decide how they want to rule it so I will be on the sidelines barring a new argument that has not already been covered.
Read everything after the bolds you made and you've discredited your entire argument. You can't base an argument around the bits you want to argue. You have to read the full entry to get the context.
Edit: As I've said before, and others have as well, if you don't know which one the caster is, how do you target the caster?
So your argument to my argument is to ignore my argument and accept your argument? Thats not a very good argument.
You still have yet to address the paradoxes I presented.. A) How do you get around the random roll possibility of hitting the caster twice. B-1) How do target just an image directly when the spell isn't written with this in mind. B-2) if you can target an image directly, you can also target the caster directly. If you can target the caster directly, you can bypass images on subsequent attacks, do you agree with this assessment?
One other thing I realized is that the randomness of the roll could make it possible that you "hit the left most image.. hit the right most image.. then hit the most left image remaining, then back right for the caster". If you are taking "1 mighty blow" then why are you moving back and forth between images?
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.ie. If you miss the caster's AC by 5 or less, you miss the caster but came so close to hitting him that a figment was destroyed.
The first point clearly points out that the figments can be targets.
The second point even tells you that there is a die roll to see if you were targeting a figment or the caster. This doesn't mean you go for the caster and somehow miss him and hit an image. It means you go for a specific target, possibly a figment, and if it's a figment you miss the caster.
The third point shows that if you target a figment, you can destroy the figment if it was a hit to the caster's AC. This is the miss targeting the spell provides.
The fourth point tells you that all of the images exist very close to the caster. So close that if you nearly miss the caster's AC you still hit one of the figments.
So if you attack a figment first and miss by 5 or less do you get a chance to hit the caster from the near miss on the figment? No, it doesnt work that way because the caster is the target.
Read everything after the bolds you made and you've discredited your entire argument. You can't base an argument around the bits you want to argue. You have to read the full entry to get the context.
Edit: As I've said before, and others have as well, if you don't know which one the caster is, how do you target the caster?
So your argument to my argument is to ignore my argument and accept your argument? Thats not a very good argument.
You still have yet to address the paradoxes I presented.. A) How do you get around the random roll possibility of hitting the caster twice. B-1) How do target just an image directly when the spell isn't written with this in mind. B-2) if you can target an image directly, you can also target the caster directly. If you can target the caster directly, you can bypass images on subsequent attacks, do you agree with this assessment?
One other thing I realized is that the randomness of the roll could make it possible that you "hit the left most image.. hit the right most image.. then hit the most left image remaining, then back right for the caster". If you are taking "1 mighty blow" then why are you moving back and forth between images?
A) Either the cleave ends once you successfully hit the caster (and thus you can never roll him twice) or you can target images directly and only roll if you happen to choose the caster (in which case you can't target him once you hit him, but you can cleave to other images).
B-1) Because the images are figments, and figments have an AC and can be targeted.
B-2) No, because you roll randomly to hit an image whenever you score a hit on the caster. Even if you know which one he is. Blame poor wording.
I also go by mechanics more than fluff, and I don't think the mechanics supports the idea of cleave working since it has no allowance for rerolling, but that is a horse that has already been beat. In short until someone comes up with a new argument or devs step in cleave and GC won't be working. I am sure the devs know about this thread by now, but they are probably trying to decide how they want to rule it so I will be on the sidelines barring a new argument that has not already been covered.I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.But there is no clear rule so what do you do? You figure out what makes the most sense and go with that. It's not like we're discussing something is clear cut. It's ambiguous and the GM is going to have to do some ad hoc GMing. That's his job.If you're going to say you are going by mechanics then you should at least discuss the mechanics so we can understand why you feel this way.
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.ie. If someone is trying to hit the caster, there's a chance that the attack targets an image and not the caster.
If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.ie. If you hit the caster's AC, roll a die to see if you were targeting the caster or a figment.
If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed.ie. If you were targeting a figment and you were never targeting the caster, and since this is a continuation of the previous point, if this was a hit to the caster's AC, the figment is destroyed.
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss....
I have explained my counters against all of these already. You given me these same reasons as to why you disagreed.
I will give the short answer as to my fluff over mechanics issue for cleave. The flavor supports one attack. The mechanics says make an additional attack.
Flavor does not trump mechanics.
Another example of flavor being bad:
Horse Lord
Rangers of the plains use horses or other riding beasts to hunt their lands, forging a near-mystical relationship with their mounts. Horse lords are unparalleled mounted combatants, the envy of even the most dedicated cavalier. Though called “horse lords” as a generic term, these rangers are not restricted to horses for their animal companions—any creature the ranger can ride is included in these abilities. A horse lord has the following class features.
This would lead me to believe a medium sized creature can ride any large animal as my mount/companion.
Mounted Bond (Ex): At 4th level, the horse lord forms a bond with an animal he can use as a mount, which becomes his animal companion. A Medium ranger can select a camel or a horse. A small ranger can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or dog if he is at least 7th level. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on Handle Animal and Ride checks with his animal companion mount. This ability replaces hunter's bond.
I am restricted to a horse or camel by the mechanics. Yeah a GM could change it, but that GM's can change anything.
Upthread I used the mobility feat as an example of mechanics and fluff not agreeing.
|
I read the first few pages and the last one. Basically there are the two schools of thought, it either works or it doesn't...
As I'm aware the only thing close to an official ruling (unless one appeared in the middle pages) is from 3.5, which stated it did work. Cleave was a different feat then, but the principle was the same.
There will always be an argument for both sides. The feat would seem to make sense as working if you apply some reason, that is if you hit an image, why would it offer less resistance than a solid target.
On the other argument, the wording suggests you have to hit your first target, and the figment is not a "viable" target...
It seems to me to come down to where your preference lies. Those in favour of a higher magic setting, or regular magic users will always argue that a fighter feat should not make their spell less effective. The melee favouring character will argue the opposite. Its a feat invested, its often not easily used so why not allow it to reduce the effect of a level 2 spell?
As both the feat and the spell are worded differently i would place little value by the 3.5 srd. This means it will be up to your GM.
Personally, having read the spell and the feat again, I would come down in favour of the figment not being a "viable" target. You can't target the same creature with Cleave, even Greater Cleave. You have a chance to hit the caster, and even if you miss you still destroy an image if it was a close miss. The figments don't occupy a different space. The power was compaired to blur, and if you missed with a blur spell, you couldn't continue to cleave, even if you thought the person was where you attacked. With the ruling that you can Cleave, would you still allow it on a near miss that destroyed an image?
This is a complete turn around in my perception of the workings of the spell and feat. I can see both sides, and would accept either ruling from a GM.
To throw in some "RAI", here's my interpretation.
Against an enemy with MI, you roll to hit before rolling what you're hitting. WHY? Because if you don't hit in the first place, there's no point in adding extra die rolls (image-or-caster roll). This choice was to streamline gameplay for the general case. This is especially helpful for creatures with lots of attacks.
Here's an example why this was done:
when a 10-headed hydra shows up, do you wanna randomly roll the target before rolling against AC? You've added 10 (image-or-caster) rolls before even bothering to see if they mean anything; If all 10 attacks miss, you wasted alot of game time on pointless (image-or-caster) rolls.
How does this apply to Cleave/GreatCleave? It doesn't. Great cleave doesn't try to pick out a target the same way the hydra does. Great Cleave (potentially) goes through each and every target, once. That's what it's designed to do - it's a special kind of attack. 10 attacks from a hydra are normal attacks so, for some reason, they are unable to spread the attacks out like Great Cleave does. Now this doesn't say bad things about the Hydra. A Hydra, if its attacks are as accurate as the Great Cleave user, then the MI user is in bigger trouble, because the Hydra has a much better chance of hitting the caster multiple times, whereas this is impossible with Great Cleave (where he only can get hit at most once).
Can we look at other methods of attack that can affect groups of enemies when striking an individual with mirror image? This might give us some clarity of intent.
Can a Fireball remove all the images?
Can an alchemist bomb strike the area and hit all the images?
If I can cast 4 Magic Missiles can I use that to strike each image and the wizard?
Can I use Scorching Ray to target an image to purposely destroy it? What is the AC of the Image? How do I know something is an image and something is the Wizard?
Fireball: No
If that bomb is an AoE then no.
Magic missiles don't work on them in PF. They would hit the wizard every time.
Scorching Ray would work. You never know which one is the wizard. The AC is 10 + dex mod of the wizard IIRC, but don't quote me on that.
I also go by mechanics more than fluff, and I don't think the mechanics supports the idea of cleave working since it has no allowance for rerolling, but that is a horse that has already been beat. In short until someone comes up with a new argument or devs step in cleave and GC won't be working. I am sure the devs know about this thread by now, but they are probably trying to decide how they want to rule it so I will be on the sidelines barring a new argument that has not already been covered.I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.But there is no clear rule so what do you do? You figure out what makes the most sense and go with that. It's not like we're discussing something is clear cut. It's ambiguous and the GM is going to have to do some ad hoc GMing. That's his job.
The mechanics don't explicitly state how you should roll. In fact, at some point with the spell you will have a point where you must reroll something. If there are 8 images plus the wizard, what is the percentage chance, and how do I represent that with dice, to hit the wizard? The easiest is to roll a d10 and reroll all results of 10 until you get something between 1 and 9. This can continue on and on. Nothing in the spell tells you how to determine the chance, only that each image plus the wizard has an equal chance of being struck.
Many people don't own a d3, d5, or d7 either. I do so I can easily handle nearly all possible combinations. However, once there are 9 possible results, I don't have any simple means of randomly determining what is hit. Most game masters and players don't have a reliable way to handle 6 images plus the wizard.
Now that we have established that there are no mechanics actually listed, the GM can step in and apply his Paizo-given powers and make a viable ruling that works for his game.
The simple questions that need to be asked are:
1) What is the purpose of Mirror Image? To have more targets for the enemy to hit so that the caster lives longer.
2) What is the purpose of Cleave and Great Cleave? To hit as many targets as possible.
So the simplest and most likely interpretation is that Cleave and Great Cleave can hit multiple images. No individual can be hit more than once, but the images vanish once struck so the only thing the GM needs to worry about is the possibility that the wizard is struck twice. Since he can't be, then once he is struck, we simply remove him from all possible results that round and continue normally.
That was my understanding as well. It seems odd that one feat can counter the spell, but a lower level, higher level and equal level spell cannot.
Another case:
I know that if my scorching ray hits the target that has Mirror Image up, the first one strikes the wizard in that 6 second window, why could I not target the other ones at that wizard disregarding the image? The spell description disallows it and seems to call for me to always roll a random image when I make an attack roll against the wizard.
The same issue exists for someone who has multiple attacks around, such as using feats to get two weapon fighting. Each of a monk's punch in a flurry are subject to the random image check, even if he hits the real wizard right off.
I guess it feels weird that cleave would get a special benefit over all these other options.
I also go by mechanics more than fluff, and I don't think the mechanics supports the idea of cleave working since it has no allowance for rerolling, but that is a horse that has already been beat. In short until someone comes up with a new argument or devs step in cleave and GC won't be working. I am sure the devs know about this thread by now, but they are probably trying to decide how they want to rule it so I will be on the sidelines barring a new argument that has not already been covered.I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.But there is no clear rule so what do you do? You figure out what makes the most sense and go with that. It's not like we're discussing something is clear cut. It's ambiguous and the GM is going to have to do some ad hoc GMing. That's his job.The mechanics don't explicitly state how you should roll. In fact, at some point with the spell you will have a point where you must reroll something. If there are 8 images plus the wizard, what is the percentage chance, and how do I represent that with dice, to hit the wizard? The easiest is to roll a d10 and reroll all results of 10 until you get something between 1 and 9. This can continue on and on. Nothing in the spell tells you how to determine the chance, only that each image plus the wizard has an equal chance of being struck.
Many people don't own a d3, d5, or d7 either. I do so I can easily handle nearly all possible combinations. However, once there are 9 possible results, I don't have any simple means of randomly determining what is hit. Most game masters and players don't have a reliable way to handle 6 images plus the wizard.
Now that we have established that there are no mechanics actually listed, the GM can step in and apply his Paizo-given powers and make a viable ruling that works for his...
What is the purpose of fireball? To hit as many targets as possible
What is the purpose of multiple attacks? To hit as many targets as possibleWhat is the purpose of Magic Missle? To hit as many targets as possible
Multiple attacks is the only method that can eliminate all the images, but that is submitted to a randomly roll which means you end up hitting the wizard multiple times. It really comes down to the fluff of a sweep verses the fluff of a person doing multiple attacks in a couple of seconds. I don't see how one fluff invalidates the other.
The mechanics don't explicitly state how you should roll. In fact, at some point with the spell you will have a point where you must reroll something.
For the reroll comment I mean a reroll if the wizard is selected twice.
For the first sentence I am referring to the issue of people using the flavor of cleave to say it is one attack, and that is why it works.
However the mechanics call for an extra attack, and the spell assumes the wizard is attacked for every swing.
Your way gets around that, but I don't think that was the intent.
That was my understanding as well. It seems odd that one feat can counter the spell, but a lower level, higher level and equal level spell cannot.
Another case:
I know that if my scorching ray hits the target that has Mirror Image up, the first one strikes the wizard in that 6 second window, why could I not target the other ones at that wizard disregarding the image? The spell description disallows it and seems to call for me to always roll a random image when I make an attack roll against the wizard.
The same issue exists for someone who has multiple attacks around, such as using feats to get two weapon fighting. Each of a monk's punch in a flurry are subject to the random image check, even if he hits the real wizard right off.
I guess it feels weird that cleave would get a special benefit over all these other options.
First, Mirror Image specifically states: "Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment."
So that deals with the fireball and bombs issues.
Cleave and Great Cleave are actually feat chains. We're not talking about one feat. We're talking about 2 or 3 feats. We're also talking about a level 4 fighter (or higher) when we're talking about Great Cleave. So we're talking about a roughly equal level character.
The flurry is a different issue as it would work the same way as any other character taking multiple attacks due to two-weapon fighting or because of Base Attack bonus being high enough. Each of those attacks can individually hit the wizard or an image. A fighter with two weapons can actually hit the wizard twice, once with each weapon.
Your scorching ray fires multiple rays at the same time. You may be firing them at the same target, but your aim isn't perfect so you may end up hitting an image with some of the rays.
The mechanics don't explicitly state how you should roll. In fact, at some point with the spell you will have a point where you must reroll something. If there are 8 images plus the wizard, what is the percentage chance, and how do I represent that with dice, to hit the wizard? The easiest is to roll a d10 and reroll all results of 10 until you get something between 1 and 9. This can continue on and on. Nothing in the spell tells you how to determine the chance, only that each image plus the wizard has an equal chance of being struck.
Many people don't own a d3, d5, or d7 either. I do so I can easily handle nearly all possible combinations. However, once there are 9 possible results, I don't have any simple means of randomly determining what is hit. Most game masters and players don't have a reliable way to handle 6 images plus the wizard.
Now that we have established that there are no mechanics actually listed, the GM can step in and apply his Paizo-given powers and make a viable ruling that works for his game.
The simple questions that need to be asked are:
1) What is the purpose of Mirror Image? To have more targets for the enemy to hit so that the caster lives longer.
2) What is the purpose of Cleave and Great Cleave? To hit as many targets as possible.
So the simplest and most likely interpretation is that Cleave and Great Cleave can hit multiple images. No individual can be hit more than once, but the images vanish once struck so the only thing the GM needs to worry about is the possibility that the wizard is struck twice. Since he can't be, then once he is struck, we simply remove him from all possible results that round and continue normally.
I missed this post.
Before we go any farther I will state that you are trying to find a way to make cleave work. I on the other hand do not think it is intended to work by just hitting anything so that is another reason I can't accept your method.2. As for D9's and other odd number they are not needed.
In my game if there are 4 images, and 1 caster you have 5 targets.
I just use a D6, and ignore the 6. I could also just use the percentile dice.
I do have a method that works for my game. It will never include cleave working on any target other than the one that was initially aimed for barring a dev saying cleave does not care who it hits. To rule that cleave just has to hit something opens up a can of worms I don't want to see opened.
edit: Removed a sentence for clarity.
The mechanics don't explicitly state how you should roll. In fact, at some point with the spell you will have a point where you must reroll something.For the reroll comment I mean a reroll if the wizard is selected twice.
I understand 100% what you are saying. The only time you would have to reroll is if the wizard was targeted twice unless the GM uses the other option I mentioned and not even consider that the wizard can be hit again and don't include him in the chances to be hit.
Let me give an example. Wizard has 6 images plus himself. That's 7 possible targets. The fighter great cleaves at the wizard rolling a natural 20! So now the GM decides that the easiest way to do this is to roll a d8 with a 7 being the wizard and rerolling all 8's because 8 isn't a valid result. The GM rolls a 6. Image hit. Now we're down to 6 possible targets. The GM switches to a d6 and determines that a 6 will hit the wizard. He rolls a 6 and the wizard is hit. There are still 6 targets, but only 5 are valid so the GM decides that the only thing that matters now is whether or not the fighter could hit the wizard. The fighter rolls 5 more times and each "hit" simply destroys an image for each time he would have struck the wizard.
It's very simple.
I like to have fun with my players and I have them roll the same die I do (with the same rules) and if we both roll the same number, then they get hit.
That was my understanding as well. It seems odd that one feat can counter the spell, but a lower level, higher level and equal level spell cannot.
Another case:
I know that if my scorching ray hits the target that has Mirror Image up, the first one strikes the wizard in that 6 second window, why could I not target the other ones at that wizard disregarding the image? The spell description disallows it and seems to call for me to always roll a random image when I make an attack roll against the wizard.
The same issue exists for someone who has multiple attacks around, such as using feats to get two weapon fighting. Each of a monk's punch in a flurry are subject to the random image check, even if he hits the real wizard right off.
I guess it feels weird that cleave would get a special benefit over all these other options.
First, Mirror Image specifically states: "Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment."
So that deals with the fireball and bombs issues.
Cleave and Great Cleave are actually feat chains. We're not talking about one feat. We're talking about 2 or 3 feats. We're also talking about a level 4 fighter (or higher) when we're talking about Great Cleave. So we're talking about a roughly equal level character.
The flurry is a different issue as it would work the same way as any other character taking multiple attacks due to two-weapon fighting or because of Base Attack bonus being high enough. Each of those attacks can individually hit the wizard or an image. A fighter with two weapons can actually hit the wizard twice, once with each weapon.
Your scorching ray fires multiple rays at the same time. You may be firing them at the same target, but your aim isn't perfect so you may end up hitting an image with some of the rays.
Making multiple attacks is an important one. You are stating the rules aren't clear on what happens when it comes to attacking a wizard with mirror image, hence your suggestion of removing the wizard from the pool of targets once struck, and what not. If I am making multiple attack rolls, I roll randomly for what target I strike. Cleave is an attack, hence it rolls randomly to determine is target. You can't Great Cleave the wizard and all its images because when you make an attack roll against a target with mirror image, you always have a chance of hitting the same target.
I think there is a simpler solution than what your propose and sticks with the RAW. If we look at all other methods of attack verse a wizard with mirror image they treat the wizard and images as ONE target. Meaning if you have a Wizard with 6 images, you don't have seven targets.
So if I had a evil wizard with mirror image, standing next to Mook A and the wizard was cleaved
1). Attack roll verse AC
2). If successful determine image or wizard was struck, if failed cleave stops
3). If image was hit, remove image, if wizard was hit, roll damage
4). Mook A is able to be attacked, make attack roll verses AC
The wizard could not be re-targeted as any time you make an attack with cleave you cannot attack the same target. Since the only way to hit the wizard, by the description of the spell and how it interacts with every other area effect or methods of multiple attack, he gets included in the pool of images.
You get to continue to cleave even if you hit an image was because the target was struck and damage (removal of the image) was done. (I say this because if you struck the wizard with a non damaging attack it wouldn't remove an image.)
I think that is the simplest method of dealing with it and works in conjunction with all other methods of area or multiple attacks verses the wizard. It follows RAW of both cleave and mirror image.
An aside: Interesting discussion, but unfortunately my wife wants the computer, so I probably will be unable to reply until a later date. I think that the crux of it is how to view a target in this situation and it becomes really simple if you think of the caster and its images as all one target.
Before we go any farther I will state that you are trying to find a way to make cleave work. I on the other hand do not think it is intended to work by just hitting anything so that is another reason I can't accept your method.
I'm not trying to find a way for it to work. I simply believe that cleave works against mirror image.
2. As for D9's and other odd number they are not needed.
In my game if there are 4 images, and 1 caster you have 5 targets.
I just use a D6, and ignore the 6. I could also just use the percentile dice.
You can't always use percentile dice, and that was my point with rerolling. You will be at a point where you must reroll even though there is not one mention of it in the mechanics of the spell. So as GM, you have made a decision that requires you to go beyond the written word.
I do have a method that works for my game. It will never include cleave working on any target other than the one that was initially aimed for barring a dev saying cleave does not care who it hits. It just has to hit something. To rule that cleave just has to hit something opens up a can of worms I don't want to see opened.
I don't see any can of worms that can be opened. If you're thinking of the silliness of someone always attacking the open space around them hoping for cleaves and great cleaves, this is easily stopped by telling the player to stop being cheesy.
We know that cleave can work against illusions. Figments have AC and are viable targets. So two wizards with Silent Images out there can watch the fighter cleave through both images. There is no real difference in how the sword interacts with the illusions.
The mechanics don't explicitly state how you should roll. In fact, at some point with the spell you will have a point where you must reroll something.For the reroll comment I mean a reroll if the wizard is selected twice.I understand 100% what you are saying. The only time you would have to reroll is if the wizard was targeted twice unless the GM uses the other option I mentioned and not even consider that the wizard can be hit again and don't include him in the chances to be hit.
Let me give an example. Wizard has 6 images plus himself. That's 7 possible targets. The fighter great cleaves at the wizard rolling a natural 20! So now the GM decides that the easiest way to do this is to roll a d8 with a 7 being the wizard and rerolling all 8's because 8 isn't a valid result. The GM rolls a 6. Image hit. Now we're down to 6 possible targets. The GM switches to a d6 and determines that a 6 will hit the wizard. He rolls a 6 and the wizard is hit. There are still 6 targets, but only 5 are valid so the GM decides that the only thing that matters now is whether or not the fighter could hit the wizard. The fighter rolls 5 more times and each "hit" simply destroys an image for each time he would have struck the wizard.
It's very simple.
I like to have fun with my players and I have them roll the same die I do (with the same rules) and if we both roll the same number, then they get hit.
That fits the fluff example of one attack that is going after everyone. The mechanics call for an actual extra attack instead of extra attack rolls to see if the attack continues to hit additional targets.
We have a disagreement between the mechanics, and the fluff of cleave/GC.
Making multiple attacks is an important one. You are stating the rules aren't clear on what happens when it comes to attacking a wizard with mirror image, hence your suggestion of removing the wizard from the pool of targets once struck, and what not. If I am making multiple attack rolls, I roll randomly for what target I strike. Cleave is an attack, hence it rolls randomly to determine is target. You can't Great Cleave the wizard and all its images because when you make an attack roll against a target with mirror image, you always have a chance of hitting the same target.
Making multiple attacks and using (Great) Cleave are two very different things. The multiple attacks are different attacks that can target the same target or multiple targets. Cleave and Great Cleave are one attack action that target multiple targets and never the same target twice in the same action.
I think there is a simpler solution than what your propose and sticks with the RAW. If we look at all other methods of attack verse a wizard with mirror image they treat the wizard and images as ONE target. Meaning if you have a Wizard with 6 images, you don't have seven targets.
But you do have 7 targets. You chose one of them, but there are 7 targets and the spell explicitly states that your attack could target one of the images instead. That clearly means that there is more than one target.
The wizard could not be re-targeted as any time you make an attack with cleave you cannot attack the same target. Since the only way to hit the wizard, by the description of the spell and how it interacts with every other area effect or methods of multiple attack, he gets included in the pool of images.
The wizard cannot be retargeted because cleave specifically says so. Area of effects cannot take out any images unless an attack roll is needed because mirror image specifically says so. The two are not related though.
You get to continue to cleave even if you hit an image was because the target was struck and damage (removal of the image) was done. (I say this because if you struck the wizard with a non damaging attack it wouldn't remove an image.)
Mirror image doesn't state this though. You could use only non-damaging attacks and still take out images. You could simply attempt to trip, sunder, reposition, drag, disarm, grapple, etc, and still would take out images. All that matters is that you hit.
I think that is the simplest method of dealing with it and works in conjunction with all other methods of area or multiple attacks verses the wizard. It follows RAW of both cleave and mirror image.
Two different issues that are not related. Cleave and Great Cleave are not area of effect feats so they don't interact with Mirror Image the same way that fireballs will.
An aside: Interesting discussion, but unfortunately my wife wants the computer, so I probably will be unable to reply until a later date. I think that the crux of it is how to view a target in this situation and it becomes really simple if you think of the caster and its images as all one target.
5-second rule. If you can't defend yourself in 5 seconds or less, you default. It's what Hitler would do. (I rarely use smilies so please assume that my more off-the-wall statements are tongue in cheek.)
We know that cleave can work against illusions. Figments have AC and are viable targets. So two wizards with Silent Images out there can watch the fighter cleave through both images. There is no real difference in how the sword interacts with the illusions.
I never use percentile dice either. That was just an example. As to the worm I will use an example I used before.
There are two gnolls with a 5 ft space between them. The party wizard cast an illusion spell putting an additional "gnoll" in between the real gnolls. The party fighter hits the real gnoll, hits the illusion and fails his save to not know that it is not real, and then GC's again into the other real gnoll.
How do we know cleave works against illusions? That has been coming up the entire thread, and at best it might work against figments(a specific illusion) from what I have seen so far.
Guy the issue here is partially due to the fluff of cleave and great cleave, which describes it as one sweeping swing.
The mechanics says make an extra attack. By the fluff it is one attack, but you are making extra attack rolls to see if the original attack is allowing you to continue to go onto the next foe.
The fact that it is one attack by the fluff is why Bob is saying that once the attack roll against an individual image or the wizard has been made they can't really be target again.
Now if you are really making extra attacks, which is what the rules portion of the feats say then that chance to hit the wizard can come up twice, which cleave denies.
Most of us who disagree with you are not looking at the fluff, which is why Guy was confused as to your response. He sees each attack roll as a seperate attack not as a continuation of one attack(swing).
In short the rules and the fluff are in contradiction, just like the horse lord archetype that I mentioned earlier today.
The mechanics says make an extra attack. By the fluff it is one attack, but you are making extra attack rolls to see if the original attack is allowing you to continue to go onto the next foe.
The fact that it is one attack by the fluff is why Bob is saying that once the attack roll against an individual image or the wizard has been made they can't really be target again.
Now if you are really making extra attacks, which is what the rules portion of the feats say then that chance to hit the wizard can come up twice, which cleave denies.
Most of us who disagree with you are not looking at the fluff, which is why Guy was confused as to your response. He sees each attack roll as a seperate attack not as a continuation of one attack(swing).
The mechanics of Mirror Image please, not Cleave. You need to make an argument as to why I'm not targeting the images when the spell description and mechanics say that I am.
----------
If you get to make a second attack then you could direct it at the same target. Cleave states this is not possible and it's made at an adjacent foe. You are not making extra attacks. You're making a single attack that carries through to the next adjacent foe. The fluff exists to give context to the mechanics.Try starting another thread that asks what cleave actually does. Does it give you one swing that carries through to multiple opponents or is it just one swing that allows you to get another one swing and so on? I'm sure it'll be the resounding one arcing swing and not many individual swings. This is the RAI.
Cleave and mirror image both need to work the way you envision them for you idea to work.
That is not the RAI. That is the fluff. Fluff is mutable, RAI is normally not. The fluff is nothing more than artistic interpretation. RAI is how it works mechanically, not the vision you have when using the feat.
I have no problem with GC working, but the wording of cleave should be errata'd so that you are making attack rolls instead of attacks. It may seem nit picky, but due to the way words work in this game such as "level" use does matter.
I agree that the fluff and the mechanics should work together, but they don't always do so. When they don't the mechanics take over. I will also admit I have never taken fluff as RAI. To me it has always just been a nice description, which I suspect is another issue in this debate. The horse lord archetype is an example of that since I should be able to ride a lion or tiger into combat by the fluff of that one.
Off-topic:If the fluff for that one worked I could have my own "Battlecat".
Sorry I forgot to address the mirror image issue. I have handled this before also.
You can only attack that wizard once and every attack is assumed to be against the wizard in order for the spell to work regardless of who gets targeted. If you ain't attacking the wizard then the spell does not say you get to target an image.
In short the spell and cleave are written with all types of contradictions. I am sure we don't have an official answer because they are still trying to decide what to do. This is really the 2nd debate on this issue.
Since magic missile no longer works against it would be reasonable to allow GC to work, but RAW it doesn't IMHO, and RAI has not been decided yet.
But this assumption isn't what the RAW says. The RAW says there is a possibility you can target an image instead of the caster. You just don't know that it was an image until you hit it. This is why you hit the image and it goes poof.Sorry I forgot to address the mirror image issue. I have handled this before also.
You can only attack that wizard once and every attack is assumed to be against the wizard in order for the spell to work regardless of who gets targeted. If you ain't attacking the wizard then the spell does not say you get to target an image.In short the spell and cleave are written with all types of contradictions. I am sure we don't have an official answer because they are still trying to decide what to do. This is really the 2nd debate on this issue.
Since magic missile no longer works against it would be reasonable to allow GC to work, but RAW it doesn't IMHO, and RAI has not been decided yet.
I stated before with qoutes from mirror image the spell only states what happen when you attack the caster so my assumption is not really an assumption. I do apologize for the poor choice of words.
PS:I am not saying the wizard has to targeted in order to be attacked. The spell itself says that when the wizard is attacked an image may still be targeted instead. That means that for an image to be the subject of an attack due to a random roll the wizard has to be attacked. However you can only attack the wizard once. <--That is why cleave does not work.
Basically what the spell does is redirect the targeting when the wizard is attacked.
This has all been said before however. I think you were debating another poster though.
I am not saying the spell mechanically redirects your attack. That was just an example.
The spell clearly states a situation where you attack the caster, but target an image. I posted that quote more than anything else I have posted in this entire thread. You can probably pick a random page, and it will be bolded.
I handled the who you attack is not who you target thing way back on page 3ish. That might have been around the time you dropped out because I failed my diplomacy check earlier and made you upset.
PS:I think it was you anyway.
I will try to find the post and direct you to it. Read it before you reply since I think I went into greater detail.
Standby.
An attack is just an attempt to do damage to someone. The spell makes you target something else in this case by not allowing you to know one is the wizard. I am not saying your attack is actually redirected in a manner that would make your sword change direction and go to another target.