Sorry. That must have been someone else. It was not because of an absence. The poster told me to be more mature due to bad wording on my part, but I have debated quiet a few people.
Casting cure light wounds on an unwilling target means you have to make an attack roll to cure them. Attacks come in all forms, not just the damage dealing ones.
I understand this for the purpose of simplicity I thought that was a good example. If you did not get my intent I will try to rephrase it though.
The spell doesn't state that you attack the caster but you are attacking an image.
The spell tells what happens when you swing your weapon(yeah I know a ranged attack is possible in other cases) with the intention of hurting the caster. That is what they mean when they say attack. The spell then says goes on to say what happens as a result of your attack. Did you get to target you intended target or did your attack target an image. In short the spell keys off of attacking the wizard, not targeting the wizards.
copy and paste from earlier:
if you attack the caster there is a possibility that the attack targets one of the images instead.,[/b] and that image is destoyed The spell does not say if you target an image that you might hit the caster or another image other than the one you aim for.
That is the only provision we have. What happens when I attack the caster.
Maybe if people are still arguing the same points to you it's because you haven't discredited those points.
The post you linked to is you saying its the intended target that determines this. If you hit an image it's what you were intending to hit. You can hope all you want that its the caster, but your intent is to hit the thing you're targeting. You successfully hit it, the figment goes poof, you attack the next thing adjacent to the last, as per cleave.
My intent is whatever I desire it to be in any situation. If I desire to go into the men's bathroom, but I accidentally end up in the ladies bathroom, my intent does not suddenly become to end up in the women's bathroom.
Random chance does not change intent. It only changes the results of my intentions.
EDIT: Again. How do you attack the caster if you do not know who the caster is?
I explained this already. I am attacking whatever I intend to hit. That is how he is being attacked.
If the spell was displacement, and I rolled on the wrong side of the 50% chance and hit the air instead that does not mean the caster was not attacked. It just means I missed him.
The issue you is that you are trying to argue is that intent is determined by chance, and I am saying it is determined by willful actions.
The first sentence is your intent. The last sentence is the end result of your intent.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.
My opponent is the wizard. The spell says the wizard must be attacked so we agree so far.
The spell also says I may end up targeting an image instead of what I intended to attack. The 2nd sentence says if I beat the target's(in this case the image's) AC I hit it.So in conclusion I attacked the wizard. The spell forces me to target an image instead. I beat the image's AC, and hit it.
We agree.
That does not change your statement that not targeting determines intent. Now if I am not understanding the concept could you give another example?
I am sure when mirror image says when the caster is attacked they were speaking of an intent to harm the caster. If not what did they mean by it?
edit:By the first paragraph what I mean is--> that from what I understand targeting shows intent no matter who you really want to hit, is what I understand your stance to be.
I know attacks are not about damage all the time. I am just using that in the context of the mirror image debate.
I don't think anyone is convincing anyone on this one. I did enjoy the debate though.
No my argument is that you need to formulate an argument based off the entire concept and context as opposed to arguing by picking and choosing certain lines that have secondary clauses in them.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?
Khrysoar,
I would politely ask that you consider my arguments regarding the paradoxes presented in the mechanics of how the spell operates instead of repeatedly arguing that I'm not arguing correctly with you. It would certainly make for a more constructive debate.
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.
Remove the wizard as a possible random target. Once you hit the wizard, you cannot strike at him again. That simply means that you only have to make successful attack rolls to destroy images.
B-1) How do target just an image directly when the spell isn't written with this in mind.
There is no way to target a specific image. You instead target one of the images/caster, hoping it's the caster.
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?
You can target the caster directly but it requires you to close your eyes or use a spell that allows it. Under normal circumstances, you cannot target the caster directly. You instead target one of the images/caster, hoping it's the caster.
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?
It's not necessarily a sweeping blow like a helicopter rotor. Besides, since the images are not stationary, you shouldn't view it as "hit the left most image.. hit the right most image.. then hit the most left image remaining, then back right for the caster." You should view it as "target 1, target 5, target 2, target 4, target 3, etc." If you destroy 2 images, then next round it's "target 3, target 1, target 2, etc." Notice that they aren't in the same order as the previous round.
Remove the wizard as a possible random target. Once you hit the wizard, you cannot strike at him again. That simply means that you only have to make successful attack rolls to destroy images.
Yes, that could be a solution to the issue.. However, its not in the rules, my argument is based on RAW.
B-1) There is no way to target a specific image. You instead target one of the images/caster, hoping it's the caster.And
B-2) You can target the caster directly but it requires you to close your eyes or use a spell that allows it. Under normal circumstances, you cannot target the caster directly. You instead target one of the images/caster, hoping it's the caster.
And there is the crux of allowing cleave. With no direct targeting of either images or the caster, random roll includes possibility of the caster twice as well as the potential to hit an image that is potentially not the "next" adjacent image as required by RAW.
It's not necessarily a sweeping blow like a helicopter rotor. Besides, since the images are not stationary, you shouldn't view it as "hit the left most image.. hit the right most image.. then hit the most left image remaining, then back right for the caster." You should view it as "target 1, target 5, target 2, target 4, target 3, etc." If you destroy 2 images, then next round it's "target 3, target 1, target 2, etc." Notice that they aren't in the same order as the previous round.
The fluff mentions 1 single blow, the mechanics show it as several attacks... Nowhere does it say the images are or aren't in the same order from round to round, i'm suggesting that that if images are in a set order and able to be targeted directly as some are implying, then the random roll would turn cleave into a swingfest not intended by RAW.
I'll also add what I mentioned before. The spell says roll to hit. if you miss by 5 you destroy an image.. However, if it were possible to attack an image first, if you miss by 5 an image you do not hit the caster. This text would seem to indicate that targeting an image directly isn't intended per the spells description.
*edited for clarity of an ambiguous statement
A) only that the spell as written doesn't take the caster out of the equation. He's always a valid target as he is the catalyst to the whole image targeting process.
B1 & 2) The images are only valid targets after the dice say they are attacked. If they are individual targets as you are suggesting here, then this still leaves the slippery slope open that once the casters location is known, then subsequent attacks should be able to ignore the images completely.
I believe the RAI of MI would be the images are supposed to exist in the same space as the caster. They are overlapping the caster and make it hard for you to figure out exactly where the caster is. This is why a miss of 5 is a near miss that destroys a figment. They're like trailing shadows of yourself that betray your exact location. This is also why you cannot figure out the exact position of the caster and only hit him.
However the reverse isn't true.. If you miss a figment by 5 then you do not hit the caster. This implies that images are not the direct targets of this spell.
The problem for those that think you have to attack the caster and can't target the image, while the spell specifically says you can in the same sentence that you're drawing from, is that if you could only target the caster the spell would not work. How do you hit the images if you're targeting the caster? How do you target the caster if you don't know which one the caster is? This is the fundamental flaw to that argument. You need to understand why there's a die being rolled. It's not some magic turning your weapon aside. It's you making the conscious choice to swing for that image over another.
Sorry i didn't address this in my previous post. I'm not arguing that magic is changing your swing. I fully agree that your intent is to swing at one of the targets in front of you. However, that being said, there is a very strict rules requirement on how this gets processed. The process as written would seem to make cleaving impossible due to the mechanics of the random roll targeting mechanism.
I'm going to focus on your main argument, which implies that all the images and caster are a directly attackable set of targets. This as I see it has been the premise you're working from.
Under your rules, they are all valid targets, just start swinging from left to right and ignore the dice roll of determining targets.
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.
The whole intent is to make it difficult to locate the caster. Now if you bypass the whole targeting mechanism as you are suggesting then you can pick and choose your target at will. If you do that, then you have to allow multiple attacks to bypass the targeting mechanism just like you are allowing with cleave and proceed with hitting the caster each time.
Thats what I'm saying.. thats what I've always said. The mechanics does not allow you to pick and choose your target for this one spell. For this one spell, cleaving is invalidated by the mechanics of RAW.
If you're still not convinced I'll come back later to clarify further, but I'm off to bed. Have a good night.
He is saying you can not target the image on purpose.
I will rephrase that. You can not swing with the idea in mind of hitting an image as a priority. When you hit an image it is only because you failed to hit the caster is what he is saying.
Remove the wizard as a possible random target. Once you hit the wizard, you cannot strike at him again. That simply means that you only have to make successful attack rolls to destroy images.Yes, that could be a solution to the issue.. However, its not in the rules, my argument is based on RAW.
You argument is not based on RAW at all. Tell me, where in the RAW does it state how you are to determine the random target of the attack. Do you use dice, chits, rock-paper-scissors? What method is described in the RAW to make this determination? Also, since Cleave and Great Cleave both explicitly state that you cannot attack the same target twice, then you must remove the wizard from the list of possible targets if he is hit, just like you do for the images (they are just destroyed so they are removed for you). It's pretty RAW. It's not really open to interpretation.
B-1) There is no way to target a specific image. You instead target one of the images/caster, hoping it's the caster.AndB-2) You can target the caster directly but it requires you to close your eyes or use a spell that allows it. Under normal circumstances, you cannot target the caster directly. You instead target one of the images/caster, hoping it's the caster.And there is the crux of allowing cleave. With no direct targeting of either images or the caster, random roll includes possibility of the caster twice as well as the potential to hit an image that is potentially not the "next" adjacent image as required by RAW.
You are trying to target the caster. It's not a miss chance that would prevent something like a sneak attack. You can clearly see all the images and the caster. The problem is that you cannot pick out the real one. Nothing states that you must go in a continuous line with your attacks. You can swing to the left, then the right, then back in the center, then back to the right...It's all perfectly fine within the rules.
It's not necessarily a sweeping blow like a helicopter rotor. Besides, since the images are not stationary, you shouldn't view it as "hit the left most image.. hit the right most image.. then hit the most left image remaining, then back right for the caster." You should view it as "target 1, target 5, target 2, target 4, target 3, etc." If you destroy 2 images, then next round it's "target 3, target 1, target 2, etc." Notice that they aren't in the same order as the previous round.The fluff mentions 1 single blow, the mechanics show it as several attacks... Nowhere does it say the images are or aren't in the same order from round to round, i'm suggesting that that if images are in a set order and able to be targeted directly as some are implying, then the random roll would turn cleave into a swingfest not intended by RAW.
The images are not set in any order. They are random and continue to move. I'm not implying anything. If they weren't random, then you could target a specific one. Obviously they are random. What other interpretation would there be?
I'll also add what I mentioned before. The spell says roll to hit. if you miss by 5 you destroy an image.. However, if it were possible to attack an image first, if you miss by 5 an image you do not hit the caster. This text would seem to indicate that targeting an image directly isn't intended per the spells description.
You are not targeting an image directly. You are targeting the caster. You just can't tell which one is the caster and which ones are the images. You roll to hit the caster. Let's say AC 20. If you hit AC 20 or higher, then you randomly determine if you hit an image or the caster. If you hit AC 14-19, then you miss the caster but you do destroy an image. You cannot cleave off of this because you actually missed your target. You just got close enough to destroy an image.
He is saying you can not target the image on purpose.
I will rephrase that. You can not swing with the idea in mind of hitting an image as a priority. When you hit an image it is only because you failed to hit the caster is what he is saying.
I think the difference here is that you are assuming that the fighter is intentionally targeting a specific image and we are saying that the fighter is intentionally targeting what he sees as multiples of the caster (decoys, if you will).
So make sure we are not talking past each other, Khrysaor and I are not saying that you selectively choose the precise image/caster.
I am saying: your actual target is randomly determined for you. It is because of this that you can cleave. You have more than one target.
When you hit an image it's because the image was the target of your attack. Not because you failed to hit the caster. You failed to hit the caster because you were never attacking the caster.
That is what I was saying. You hit the image because the spell did not allow you to target the caster. <--better wording I think.
I disagree with the "never attacking the caster" verbage. The spell says what happens when the caster is attacked. The random chance does not even come up until the caster is attacked. Now maybe you are arguing that the spell is worded badly, and that they don't mean attack in the normal sense of the word, but that is something we won't agree on.
I will agree that the image can become the target even though the attacker wanted to go after the caster when he started the attack.
The spell isn't allowing you to do anything.
Are you really not understanding my point are you just arguing semantics?
The spell creates duplicate you's that occupy the same space as you. This means you went from being 1 target to several targets. Now your enemy needs to decide which image/caster he's going to attack in hopes that he finds the caster. This is why you get a die roll to determine if its you or an image that is being attacked. You can't say that attacking the caster is what triggers the die roll if the die roll says you were never attacking the caster. The result says that the reasoning for the die roll should never have existed under your assumptions.
My interpretation is that it creates a number of identical targets that you have to attack to find the real caster. This means every time you attack the caster(all of the figments ARE the caster until proven to be figments) there is a die roll to see if you were in fact targeting the caster or his images.
The die roll does not determine who you attack the spell says you attack the caster. The die determines who/what is targeted.
The figments are not the caster. They look like the caster. You are attempting to harm the actual caster, but the die roll determines if you selected(targeted) an image or the real caster.
What is the difference between the spell is not allowing, and the spell is preventing you from attacking(targeting without error due to random chance) the caster due to creating multiple images?
I am saying: your actual target is randomly determined for you. It is because of this that you can cleave. You have more than one target.
I agree that the target is chosen for you. I also think that cleave, if you leave the fluff aside, does not work due to this reason. My issue is that the fluff is trying to be used to enforce a rule, but fluff is never a rule.
As I said before the fluff of cleave/GC represents one swing.
The mechanics however does not, and if one were to read cleave without the fluff it would lead to a situation where the by RAW the caster is always a potential target just as much as the caster would be if he were the intended victim of multiple attacks due to a high BAB.
My point is that you still have to roll the chance to see who your target is with your second attack, and there are no rules to cover what happens if the caster's number is called twice.
You can say reroll the dice, but there is no mention of rerolling if the same target is selected twice.
Keep in mind that cleave also says "next" adjacent target. Meaning in order. This implies you have all your ducks in a row and can individually target each one in a single arcing swing. You just told me not to put words in your mouth, but the way you are arguing MI is that you can individually target them in this manner. The random roll mechanics that you agree is necessary does two things:
1)The caster is potentially a target every time. Removing him from the list of targets is not a rule that is written anywhere, you are making this assumption.
2)Figments are also chosen to be destroyed at random. Your argument would seem to indicate that each figment is targeted from "left to right" regardless of the outcome of the random die roll. Again, not what RAW says.
Now given that you have no control over what is or is not targeted by this spell, the randomness of the targeting mechanism does not fit the definition of the way cleave actually works.
I'll give you one thing. There is a "possibility" that the dice roll comes up 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. In the correct order from left to right, making each image the "next" adjacent target. However, it is much more likely that it comes up 2,1,6,1,8,2,3. Hitting the caster multiple times is illegal. not hiting the "next" adjacent target is illegal. If your argument is not that each image is "directly" targetable, then cleave is illegal.
I am saying: your actual target is randomly determined for you. It is because of this that you can cleave. You have more than one target.I agree that the target is chosen for you. I also think that cleave, if you leave the fluff aside, does not work due to this reason. My issue is that the fluff is trying to be used to enforce a rule, but fluff is never a rule.
As I said before the fluff of cleave/GC represents one swing.
The mechanics however does not, and if one were to read cleave without the fluff it would lead to a situation where the by RAW the caster is always a potential target just as much as the caster would be if he were the intended victim of multiple attacks due to a high BAB.
I haven't discussed the fluff though. Only the mechanics. I don't see cleave as one swing simply because it's more than one swing. It's one standard action, but it clearly is more than one swing. The caster cannot ever be a potential target more than once because cleave explicitly states that he can only be a target once.
Keep in mind that cleave also says "next" adjacent target. Meaning in order. This implies you have all your ducks in a row and can individually target each one in a single arcing swing. You just told me not to put words in your mouth, but the way you are arguing MI is that you can individually target them in this manner. The random roll mechanics that you agree is necessary does two things:
1)The caster is potentially a target every time. Removing him from the list of targets is not a rule that is written anywhere, you are making this assumption.
2)Figments are also chosen to be destroyed at random. Your argument would seem to indicate that each figment is targeted from "left to right" regardless of the outcome of the random die roll. Again, not what RAW says.
Now given that you have no control over what is or is not targeted by this spell, the randomness of the targeting mechanism does not fit the definition of the way cleave actually works.
I'll give you one thing. There is a "possibility" that the dice roll comes up 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. In the correct order from left to right, making each image the "next" adjacent target. However, it is much more likely that it comes up 2,1,6,1,8,2,3. Hitting the caster multiple times is illegal. not hiting the "next" adjacent target is illegal. If your argument is not that each image is "directly" targetable, then cleave is illegal.
"Next" doesn't have to mean from left to right. As the cleaver, you can choose the next target. If you have reach, maybe it's the guy behind the wizard. Maybe it's the raven familiar flying over the wizard's head. Maybe it's the guy to his left. You are not required to swing in a circle. It never says that. Neither cleave nor great cleave use the word "next" in their descriptions except to say that you suffer a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn. You can strike at your foes in any order you choose so long as they are all within reach and adjacent to the first target.
As for which image is hit, you can never get a result of "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8" or "2,1,6,1,8,2,3" or any other combination of duplicates because once you hit an image (cleave or not), that image is removed from the equation and you need to start over with a new equation. You could simply hit 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 every time. You could not hit 8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8 because once you hit the 8th image, it is no longer there. You could hit 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1.
I think that this may be part of the issue, you are forgetting to remove an image after every successful attack. Not after every turn.
Time for an entirely new flaw in the wording of mirror image.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.
Nowhere does it say that the chance is based on how many images you have. In fact, there's no indication of how to roll randomly at all. Logically, you'd pick a number from 1-X, where X = Number of images +1, but it would be entirely valid by RAW to flip a coin. Heads you hit the caster, tails you hit an image. Repeat every time the caster is attacked until all images are gone. Alternatively, it's also entirely valid by RAW to say you need to roll an extra d20 (or an extra d20 per image), and you only targeted the caster if you get a natural 20 (on either any or all of the extra dice).
The only RAW requirement is that both images and the caster can come up in the results. It's perfectly valid, although stupid, to have more images increase the chances the caster is hit, or to have the probabilities such that the caster is almost impossible to hit.
Notably, this was a flaw in the 3.5 wording as well.
My point is that you still have to roll the chance to see who your target is with your second attack, and there are no rules to cover what happens if the caster's number is called twice.
You can say reroll the dice, but there is no mention of rerolling if the same target is selected twice.
You are not reading what I wrote and this makes it obvious. Once the wizard is hit, you no longer even need to include him in the random chance to be hit. He is no longer a viable target for that round. You simply need to see if you could hit his AC and destroy one image for every attack that is high enough.
Instead of rolling dice, you could use simply use glass beads in a dice bag. Put in 5 green ones for an image and 1 red one for the wizard. Every time you would have hit the wizard, draw a random bead. Once you remove a bead, it is no longer a viable target for that round. You do not need to replace the beads unless you draw the red one and you only replace that bead at the end of the cleave/great cleave attempt.
I've already explained why rolling dice will result in a need to reroll at some point.
Time for an entirely new flaw in the wording of mirror image.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.Nowhere does it say that the chance is based on how many images you have. In fact, there's no indication of how to roll randomly at all. Logically, you'd pick a number from 1-X, where X = Number of images +1, but it would be entirely valid by RAW to flip a coin. Heads you hit the caster, tails you hit an image. Repeat every time the caster is attacked until all images are gone. Alternatively, it's also entirely valid by RAW to say you need to roll an extra d20 (or an extra d20 per image), and you only targeted the caster if you get a natural 20 (on either any or all of the extra dice).
The only RAW requirement is that both images and the caster can come up in the results. It's perfectly valid, although stupid, to have more images increase the chances the caster is hit, or to have the probabilities such that the caster is almost impossible to hit.
Notably, this was a flaw in the 3.5 wording as well.
For even better RAWbsurdity, try percentile.
As an aside this is a fun little post which also does a splendid job of hurting the credibility of the spell mechanics as written. All the hair-splitting and semantic arguing is over a spell whose description is blatantly ambiguous. Good on ya Bobson.
Time for an entirely new flaw in the wording of mirror image.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.Nowhere does it say that the chance is based on how many images you have. In fact, there's no indication of how to roll randomly at all. Logically, you'd pick a number from 1-X, where X = Number of images +1, but it would be entirely valid by RAW to flip a coin. Heads you hit the caster, tails you hit an image. Repeat every time the caster is attacked until all images are gone. Alternatively, it's also entirely valid by RAW to say you need to roll an extra d20 (or an extra d20 per image), and you only targeted the caster if you get a natural 20 (on either any or all of the extra dice).
The only RAW requirement is that both images and the caster can come up in the results. It's perfectly valid, although stupid, to have more images increase the chances the caster is hit, or to have the probabilities such that the caster is almost impossible to hit.
Notably, this was a flaw in the 3.5 wording as well.
That is a wonderful point. We've been operating under the assumption that every image included in the die roll. RAW says roll to see if its real or figment. This would imply a 50/50. This would put MI as a second level spell that is clearly inferior to displacement, as it should be. I might bring this up the next time MI is used in our games.
That is a wonderful point. We've been operating under the assumption that every image included in the die roll. RAW says roll to see if its real or figment. This would imply a 50/50. This would put MI as a second level spell that is clearly inferior to displacement, as it should be. I might bring this up the next time MI is used in our games.Time for an entirely new flaw in the wording of mirror image.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.Nowhere does it say that the chance is based on how many images you have. In fact, there's no indication of how to roll randomly at all. Logically, you'd pick a number from 1-X, where X = Number of images +1, but it would be entirely valid by RAW to flip a coin. Heads you hit the caster, tails you hit an image. Repeat every time the caster is attacked until all images are gone. Alternatively, it's also entirely valid by RAW to say you need to roll an extra d20 (or an extra d20 per image), and you only targeted the caster if you get a natural 20 (on either any or all of the extra dice).
The only RAW requirement is that both images and the caster can come up in the results. It's perfectly valid, although stupid, to have more images increase the chances the caster is hit, or to have the probabilities such that the caster is almost impossible to hit.
Notably, this was a flaw in the 3.5 wording as well.
Making it 50/50 would also make the blind/invisible section make more sense too. Normally, there'd be no benefit to doing so - you're just as likely to miss, and you don't pop an image if you do (plus all blindness penalties). But if you have some way to see invisible creatures or have a better-than-even chance of hitting things you can't see, you may be willing to deliberately blind yourself to bring that into play.
i guess by raw we just dont know how to deal with mirror image and cleave/great cleave at all :)
Then I guess it's a good thing we're not robots :)
oh my god , is this thread still going. Are you guys missing the fact that the caster and the images occupy the same square. Some thing in the same space IS NOT adjacent to itself. The target and intent and all that other stuff dont matter. In pathfinder ( and D&D ) adjacent to meens in the square next to. This entire thread is pointless.
Edit - As for the foe arguement , the spell stats that all attacks are directed at the mage and have a chance of hitting an image. The caster can not be adjacent to itself and you cant cleave the samge guy.
I haven't discussed the fluff though. Only the mechanics. I don't see cleave as one swing simply because it's more than one swing. It's one standard action, but it clearly is more than one swing. The caster cannot ever be a potential target more than once because cleave explicitly states that he can only be a target once.I am saying: your actual target is randomly determined for you. It is because of this that you can cleave. You have more than one target.I agree that the target is chosen for you. I also think that cleave, if you leave the fluff aside, does not work due to this reason. My issue is that the fluff is trying to be used to enforce a rule, but fluff is never a rule.
As I said before the fluff of cleave/GC represents one swing.
The mechanics however does not, and if one were to read cleave without the fluff it would lead to a situation where the by RAW the caster is always a potential target just as much as the caster would be if he were the intended victim of multiple attacks due to a high BAB.
I see that as a prohibitor, not an enabler. I think that is one reason we are at a crossroads.