RAW seems to suggest that you could use these feats to pop multiple images w/ 1 standard atack. Is this RAI?
What do you GMs out there think? Would you allow this?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was discussed previously (though, of course, you'd have no way of knowing this!) here, if you'd like.
Short version, as I recall: no, you can't. There's only one foe, and none of the images are adjacent to each other (they all share the same space), and you're targeting the foe, not the images - and the images aren't opponents anyway, so you wouldn't ever be targeting them.
Hope that helps!
EDIT: the last post in that forum is just contentious of the idea, but most people came to the conclusion discussed above.
I also changed/added a few words.
This really should be faq'd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mirror Image
School illusion (figment); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 min./level
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.
When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created. These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. 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.
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).
Cleave (Combat)
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: 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
The images are not adjacted to the one you hit , they are in the same square.
This was discussed previously (though, of course, you'd have no way of knowing this!) here, if you'd like.
Short version, as I recall: no, you can't. There's only one foe, and none of the images are adjacent to each other (they all share the same space), and you're targeting the foe, not the images - and the images aren't opponents anyway, so you wouldn't ever be targeting them.
Hope that helps!
EDIT: the last post in that forum is just contentious of the idea, but most people came to the conclusion discussed above.
I also changed/added a few words.
This really should be faq'd
That's a good point about them saring the same square rather than being adjacent. Lol, I can hear my players whining already.
Mirror Image
School illusion (figment); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 min./levelThis 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.
When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created. These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. 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.
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).
Cleave (Combat)
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.Benefit: 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
The images are not adjacted to the one...
I'm guessing this would also apply to something else one of my player wanted to do which is use Cleave in conjunction w/ the Impaling Charge that the Dragoon template gets to be able to get a second attack on the horse after hitting both horse and rider for X3. I really wish my players would talk to me before purchasing feats to build their characters around some hairbrained scheme so I could save them from wasting a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a rules standpoint I agree, but I usually let it happen anyway. Adjacent means next to after all (per language not per rules) and you cant get more next to than in the same square. Plus its just cool to imagine and cleave vs mirror image is a pretty specific circumstance for it to be an issue.(your player happens to choose cleave and your enemy happens to choose, and employ, mirror image. And your player happens to figure out that in real life swinging wildly through all the images would disable them) He used his head logically good for him.
side note: if same square isn't adjacent does that mean you cant cleave 2 ratfolk who are sharing the same square?
Just have them close their eyes and take their 50% miss chance, and the flat footed condition.
The problem is the "A foe in reach" and "a foe that is adjacent to him but also in reach" -- the wizard is a single foe no matter how many times you see him. Two ratlings are two foes, one wizard is one wizard and is one foe.
Yeah, can't argue. But I'd still let him do it anyway.
Well that's the great thing about table top games, as the GM you can do that.
|
This is one of the things that I'd be happy to allow in a home game. If you're asking for the purpose of PFS or something similar, then no.
Ditto.
The idea that "same square" is not adjacent is dumb to me, as that prohibits someone from attacking more than one creature with Cleave if they squeeze to share the same square (such as small or tiny creatures might, even if it is unwillingly). In this game adjacent is defined as anything less than or equal to 5' in distance.
However, by RAW an illusion is not really a "foe," even if you character thinks it is (a feat from Gnomes of Golarion implies that an illusory threat doesn't threaten, even if it appears that it should, for example).
In my home games I allow illusions to be treated as foes (if they appear to be creatures of some kind), and thus would allow cleave/great-cleave to work against mirror image. Anything that targets a foe that fails to work because it is an illusion simply fails, though the character most likely receives another save versus the illusion due to interaction. The first time you find yourself threatened by a creature-like illusion I'd probably give a save as well.
I'd probably allow it, depending entirely on the game and circumstances, personally, but since most people ask what's the "real" answer, I usually try and give that. But yeah, personal opinion is: it's great for your game!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording of Cleave simply doesn't include all the corner cases, of which Mirror Image is one.
I think that the writers should review the wording in light of the Mirror Image spell, and add a note regarding it.
IMO, great cleave should work. My knee-jerk reaction is to imagine a mage casting it and looking all proud of himself, and then the warrior smirking as he uses his hard-won move to just tear through them all and hit the right guy.
An image is not a foe. It is a product of a spell.
Foe is a relative word, in the eyes of the beholder.
Otherwise selecting targets with Mass spells would bypass the need for Sense Motive checks.
Cleave/GreatCleave does not differentiate targets such as "living creature", as spell entries do.
Just to join the choir:
No it doesn't work.
Foe is a relative word, in the eyes of the beholder.
Otherwise selecting targets with Mass spells would bypass the need for Sense Motive checks.Cleave/GreatCleave does not differentiate targets such as "living creature", as spell entries do.
Nice try. I am sure the game developers had certain intentions when they used the word foe. I said nothing about being alive. Constructs are not alive, but they count as foes.
I don't know what the sense motive thing is about. When you cast a "mass" spell you can target any creature you want. I am not advocating helping the bad guys are harming you party, but the rules do allow it with mass spells.
Altho they are somewhat different systems by now, I do want to point out that in 3.5 this was FAQed, and the answer was that you could cleave a Mirror Image. This drives one of my current DM’s crazy.
|
|
and this from the mirror image entry
and this
I like how all of those are links to posts made by you.
Note: The reason it says you "swing at the caster" then "hit the image", is not because you're truly swinging at the caster at all, but because you *think* you're swinging at them but are in actuality swinging at the image. In other words: You're guessing, and guessed wrong. The spell is a misdirection, not a redirection.
In one of your links someone responds with a very good point: If you assume that an illusion is not a foe, then a person could determine if it was an illusion by using abilities that only work against a "foe" and see if they work and use that as an assessment for whether it is really an illusion. This is extremely fishy to me.
Whether RAW or not, I assume that illusions that look like foes are treated like foes, because trying to wrap my head around it not being so is just weird.
maybe cleave/great cleave dont work by raw, but it seems silly to not let it.
Why would it be "harder" to cut through 4 mirrors then cutting 4 orcs to death.
Mirror Image is already an very good spell for a 2nd lvl spell, letting cleave and great cleave defeat it hardly hurts the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right so one feat not only defeats the spell but also hits the opponent too (since you'll hit the wizard after cleaving all the images) what's more it does so on a standard action.
Except the fact that you targeted the wizard and missed. You aimed for the wizard, you hit an image instead, you did not hit your original target, and therefore can't swing again since you don't fulfill the basic criteria of cleave. Now why did you miss? Because you targeted the wrong image of the wizard that's a shame pal but you still didn't hit.
You might as well say you can cleave invisibility even if I don't hit the actual wizard because you hit the not-image of him.
i guess i consider every mirror a valid target, it might be wrong but it does make sense to me
The mage is one foe, each image is another foe.
Hit foe (image #1), then foe (#2), then foe (caster).
Be the very description of the spell, the images are adjacent (right next to each other).
That each image has an AC and can be targeted is proof that an image is a valid target for an attack; a foe.
|
I just love this topic, because I am so certain that I am right! (wild fanatical grin)
Both using the exact wording for the feat and the spell, and thinking about what makes the most sense with regards to what is happening in the imaginary world of the game, it makes most sense of you can cleave through images to (perhaps) hit other images or the actual caster.
The spell mirror image says this:
"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."
The great cleave feat says this:
"As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach."
So what constitutes a foe? What else but the thing that you are targeting? It doesn't matter if it is sentient or not (otherwise you couldn't practice against dummies, couldn't target automata, etc.). If, due to the mirror image spell, you roll so that you end up targeting an image, that image is your foe, and if you hit it, you can target an adjacent foe. Since the caster is adjacent to their images (by the normal meaning of the word), the spell mirror image might cause the target of your 1st great cleave attack to be an image. Because you have the feat great cleave, if you hit that image, you can try to target the caster (who is adjacent to that image). But the mirror image spell might cause you to target an image instead. Etc.
So, a rogue with the advanced talent "dispelling strike" who hits a mirror image for a mirror imaged mage, gets to roll to see if he dispels the spell?
Also, how would you rule this weapon:
Ricochet Hammer
This +1 returning light hammer can strike multiple foes with a single throw. If the wielder has multiple attacks from a high base attack bonus, he may throw the hammer so it rebounds off the first target to strike at a second target, and so on for each of the wielder's additional attacks. The distance to each target adds to the total range of the weapon, and range penalties apply. For example, a 6th-level dwarf fighter can throw the hammer using his +6 BAB at a target 20 feet away (within one range increment, no range penalty); if it hits, he ricochets it to a attack using his +1 BAB at a second target 40 feet away from the first target (within three range increments for a –4 range penalty). The hammer can only ricochet if it successfully hits a target; if it misses, it stops ricocheting and has no further attacks that round, and returns as normal for a weapon with the returning property. Because ricocheting attacks are treated as separate attacks, modifiers that only apply to one attack roll (such as true strike) only apply to the first attack and not the others. The ricochet attacks count as the wielder's additional attacks for that round.
So, a rogue with the advanced talent "dispelling strike" who hits a mirror image for a mirror imaged mage, gets to roll to see if he dispels the spell?I don't see why not. If you cast Dispel Magic on a spell effect, it's a valid use of Dispel Magic.
Also, how would you rule this weapon:...
Images can be treated much the same way as Shadows, Specters, and other incorporeal (non-physical) foes... so the answer is "normally, bouncing off each image; good thing the hammer is magically guided to explain it all away"
|
|
Right so one feat not only defeats the spell but also hits the opponent too (since you'll hit the wizard after cleaving all the images) what's more it does so on a standard action.
Except the fact that you targeted the wizard and missed. You aimed for the wizard, you hit an image instead, you did not hit your original target, and therefore can't swing again since you don't fulfill the basic criteria of cleave. Now why did you miss? Because you targeted the wrong image of the wizard that's a shame pal but you still didn't hit.
You might as well say you can cleave invisibility even if I don't hit the actual wizard because you hit the not-image of him.
I disagree with the bolded assertion.
You attacked and hit what you *thought* was the mage, who turned out not to be. But the very fact you were allowed to attack them indicates that they are a foe (the Attack action uses the wording "opponent" instead of foe, but they are synonymous.) If you targeted it, and it was a foe, but not the mage, then what else could it mean except that you hit a foe and now have another foe in range? The entire reason you roll randomly is to determine whether what you *targeted* was an image, or whether it was the mage. As I said earlier, the spell is a misdirection, not a redirection. It doesn't change your target, it just gives you a chance to pick an illusory target.
The only definition for adjacent I see in the book is effectively "anything <= 5' away":
(Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)
If it was == 5', then you couldn't attack things that are in your square, which I don't believe is an assertion anyone has made. This means that in-the-same-square is adjacent, and you could cleave the mirror images away.
and this from the mirror image entry
and thisI like how all of those are links to posts made by you.
Note: The reason it says you "swing at the caster" then "hit the image", is not because you're truly swinging at the caster at all, but because you *think* you're swinging at them but are in actuality swinging at the image. In other words: You're guessing, and guessed wrong. The spell is a misdirection, not a redirection.
In one of your links someone responds with a very good point: If you assume that an illusion is not a foe, then a person could determine if it was an illusion by using abilities that only work against a "foe" and see if they work and use that as an assessment for whether it is really an illusion. This is extremely fishy to me.
Whether RAW or not, I assume that illusions that look like foes are treated like foes, because trying to wrap my head around it not being so is just weird.
I saw no reason to retype them, and the counters were not valid. The attacker is always swinging at the caster. Whether or not he hits him is another question.
Your statement that I bolded is incorrect. I will quote the rules again.
"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."
Notice it says you which is the caster in question. It does not say when the images are attacked. It says you. There is not really much to argue about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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."Notice it says you which is the caster in question. It does not say when the images are attacked. It says you. There is not really much to argue about.
Allow me to fix it.
"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."
Notice it says targets which means that the image is now the foe being targeted. It says the attack targets an image. There is not really much to argue about.
|
|
and this from the mirror image entry
and thisI like how all of those are links to posts made by you.
Note: The reason it says you "swing at the caster" then "hit the image", is not because you're truly swinging at the caster at all, but because you *think* you're swinging at them but are in actuality swinging at the image. In other words: You're guessing, and guessed wrong. The spell is a misdirection, not a redirection.
In one of your links someone responds with a very good point: If you assume that an illusion is not a foe, then a person could determine if it was an illusion by using abilities that only work against a "foe" and see if they work and use that as an assessment for whether it is really an illusion. This is extremely fishy to me.
Whether RAW or not, I assume that illusions that look like foes are treated like foes, because trying to wrap my head around it not being so is just weird.
I saw no reason to retype them, and the counters were not valid. The attacker is always swinging at the caster. Whether or not he hits him is another question.
Your statement that I bolded is incorrect. I will quote the rules again.
"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."Notice it says you which is the caster in question. It does not say when the images are attacked. It says you. There is not really much to argue about.
Changed the bold for ya. They *hit a different target*. It even says "targets one of your images instead." It doesn't make sense for an illusion to change who you're targeting (because that's not what they do), so obviously it just made you *think* you were hitting the wizard when you were hitting a double.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you were the target fortunately the incoming attack targets an image instead, that doesn't mean the attack was intended for the image.
Look at it this way -- when you swing to hit something you think is solid you do it a certain way, and expect resistance. The fact you hit the image and meet none of that completely throws off the way you swung and the rest of the movement -- just like it does when you miss something (this is because you did in fact miss the wizard). It's not like you can 'swing but not mean it' either. If you swing you swing to hit, and if you don't get the wizard you hit nothing -- you hit nothing you don't get to take extra swings with cleave because you missed.
You targeted what you thought was the wizard. You were aiming for the wizard. Did you hit the wizard? No. Were you aiming at what you thought was the wizard? Yes. What was your target? The wizard, which you didn't hit. Did you hit your target? No -- the wizard was not hit, cleave ends.
My point was that the wizard is the one who is always attacked(aimed for), and the images are hit accidentally. That is how the spell works. The wording never allows for you to go after an image, and hit a different image.
The wording of the cleave feats also would require you to aim for different targets. Since you can only aim for aka attack the wizard per the spell, and the feats limit you from attacking the same creature twice that combo does not work. The wizard can't really be adjacent to himself.
Ah alright we are on the same page then.
It doesn't matter what you end up targeting -- that is the effect of the spell -- your original target and what you meant to hit was the wizard.
The wizard you missed, and which if you did hit, you can't target again with cleave.
But you didn't hit the foe you targeted. You must target the wizard. Once you target the wizard you might have your attack target something else (actually a 'nothing else' would be more correct). But that doesnt' change the fact that you targeted the wizard with your cleave.
You can't target the image purposefully, you must target the wizard. If you don't hit the wizard you missed him -- no matter what else you might have hit. If you do hit the wizard you still can't cleave his image since you can't target the image individually -- you must target the wizard which you already hit and is therefore not a valid target.
I will be glad when SKR comes in here and says I am right. I am baffled as to how this other interpretation is even being argued for.
This is the rules forum, not the balance forum.
If you intend to hit aka attack the wizard, but hit the image then you did not hit your foe. You hit something other than your foe.
You still have not proven an image is foe. At best it is a defense using a figment that looks like your foe. The figment is not your foe because they look the same. <--I am sure I have said that before.
An illusion of something(a foe(wizard) in this case) is not that thing.
By your logic I can put an image(silent image works) in between 2 of my enemies if they are not adjacent, and hope my fighter fails his will save*. He then gets to hit an a real enemy, and illusion, and then a real enemy.
*Actually since you can always choose to fail a will save the fighter can fail on purpose if he somehow figures out it is not a new bad guy teleporting into the fight.
If you intend to hit aka attack the wizard, but hit the image then you did not hit your foe. You hit something other than your foe.
You still have not proven an image is foe. At best it is a defense using a figment that looks like your foe. The figment is not your foe because they look the same. <--I am sure I have said that before.
An illusion of something(a foe(wizard) in this case) is not that thing.By your logic I can put an image(silent image works) in between 2 of my enemies if they are not adjacent, and hope my fighter fails his will save*. He then gets to hit an a real enemy, and illusion, and then a real enemy.
By your argument, you can't use Cleave on 2 foes who are disguised as someone else, since you mean to hit enemy X, but instead are hitting their impostors.
Moonglum is 100% correct, which means he agrees with me, which must obviously mean that he is a brilliant human being with a good taste in alias names... may his sacrifice to Stormbringer free us all from Chaos.
Once again an image is not a foe. It is a copy of your foe.
You intend to hit the wizard(foe) but he spell basically makes you hit something else. Just because the spell makes you hit an image that does make the image a foe.
There is no RAW that makes the image a foe. It is nothing more than a magical affect that looks like what you want to hit.
If you intend to hit aka attack the wizard, but hit the image then you did not hit your foe. You hit something other than your foe.
You still have not proven an image is foe. At best it is a defense using a figment that looks like your foe. The figment is not your foe because they look the same. <--I am sure I have said that before.
An illusion of something(a foe(wizard) in this case) is not that thing.By your logic I can put an image(silent image works) in between 2 of my enemies if they are not adjacent, and hope my fighter fails his will save*. He then gets to hit an a real enemy, and illusion, and then a real enemy.
By your argument, you can't use Cleave on 2 foes who are disguised as someone else, since you mean to hit enemy X, but instead are hitting their impostors.
Moonglum is 100% correct, which means he agrees with me, which must obviously mean that he is a brilliant human being with a good taste in alias names... may his sacrifice to Stormbringer free us all from Chaos.
That is not my logic at all. My logic forces you to hit actual foes instead of figments or illusions that look like foes.
Moonglum and you are both incorrect unless you can prove that figments and illusions are actual foes instead of copies/images of foes.You can bask in my awesomeness later.
Where is the FAQ on this? <taps fingers impatiently>
On a side note I think we need to push this to 600 posts. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me take my impostor claim into your quote here...
Once again an image is not a foe. It is a copy of your foe.
You intend to hit the wizard(foe) but he spell basically makes you hit something else. Just because the spell makes you hit an image that does make the image a foe.
There is no RAW that makes the image a foe. It is nothing more than a magical affect that looks like what you want to hit.
Once again someone disguised as a foe is not a foe. It is a copy of your foe.
You intend to hit the wizard(foe) but he spell basically makes you hit something else. Just because the spell makes you hit an impostor that does make the impostor a foe.There is no RAW that makes the impostor a foe. It is nothing more than a disguise that looks like what you want to hit.
There. See how they both follow the exact same logic, yet you claim they should be adjudicated differently?
Now if you want an example which fits this nicely, imagine a wizard who casts invisibility, and then uses Major Image to coat a pair of bystanders in very thin illusory disguises, making the bystanders both look like the wizard you're after.
Commence cleaving.
Now, before you go talking about how images provide no resistance whatsoever, I'd like to remind you that there are plenty of incorporeal monsters, as well as spells which can make said wizard ethereal. None of these sorts of targets should offer any more resistance than a figment, yet cleave nor incorporeal text makes any case why cleave might fail when met with said "null resistance" targets.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
To hit a spellcaster with mirror image you need to cast a attack roll even if you hit a mirror you still need to hit it with an attack roll.
Because of this i consider each mirror a valid foe.
Would you not allow an archer to fire his arrows at different targets?
Also consider the 3rd lvl spell Displacement and how poor it becomes considering how you use Mirror image.