D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

Arial Black · Sep 28, 2016

Yunru said:
Also I challenge you to find anywhere in the book or eratta that states this ""no attack roll = not an attack" rule" that you reference.

Well, in a book proud of its 'natural language', then the quote:-

PHB p194 said:
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

....combined with tweets from the guy that wrote that very line confirming that MM does not interact with MI for this very reason, it is against reason to believe that the rule is the opposite of what he said it is.

That line in the quote is in the PHB for a reason: to help us distinguish between 'attack' and 'not attack'. Read the way JC intends, it does just that. If you read it so that if there is no attack roll then you don't know if it's an attack or not, then that line is not fit for purpose.

The general principle is that if the words could be read in two ways, and one way makes sense and the other way doesn't, then the way that makes sense is the way the words are intended.

Looking for a mathematics-style proof is an unreasonable expectation in this 'natural language' edition of D&D.

Yunru · Sep 28, 2016

Arial Black said:
Well, in a book proud of its 'natural language', then the quote:-

....combined with tweets from the guy that wrote that very line confirming that MM does not interact with MI for this very reason, it is against reason to believe that the rule is the opposite of what he said it is.

That line in the quote is in the PHB for a reason: to help us distinguish between 'attack' and 'not attack'. Read the way JC intends, it does just that. If you read it so that if there is no attack roll then you don't know if it's an attack or not, then that line is not fit for purpose.

The general principle is that if the words could be read in two ways, and one way makes sense and the other way doesn't, then the way that makes sense is the way the words are intended.

Looking for a mathematics-style proof is an unreasonable expectation in this 'natural language' edition of D&D.

Except even in natural language your premise is flawed. "If your ever in doubt, if the sun's out it's light" doesn't mean "If the sun's not out it can't be light". Likewise "If it has an attack roll it's an attack" does mean "no attack roll = not an attack". That's a translation error on your behalf.

Magic Missile is not an attack because:
1) It doesn't say it's an attack
And
2) It doesn't have an attack roll.
2 by itself is insufficient to declare it not an attack. Case in point, grappling.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Arial Black · Sep 28, 2016

Yunru said:
Except even in natural language your premise is flawed. "If your ever in doubt, if the sun's out it's light" doesn't mean "If the sun's not out it can't be light". Likewise "If it has an attack roll it's an attack" does mean "no attack roll = not an attack". That's a translation error on your behalf.

Magic Missile is not an attack because:
1) It doesn't say it's an attack
And
2) It doesn't have an attack roll.
2 by itself is insufficient to declare it not an attack. Case in point, grappling.

Case in point: grappling (and shoving) are specifically called out as attacks in their respective rules.

And my point was that it is not simply a statement like, "If the Sun's out, it's light." It's a statement like, "If you want to know whether it's light or dark: if the Sun's out, it's light".

The very purpose of the line is so that we can tell if something is, or is not, an attack.

Yunru · Sep 28, 2016

Arial Black said:
Case in point: grappling (and shoving) are specifically called out as attacks in their respective rules.

And my point was that it is not simply a statement like, "If the Sun's out, it's light." It's a statement like, "If you want to know whether it's light or dark: if the Sun's out, it's light".

The very purpose of the line is so that we can tell if something is, or is not, an attack.

But that's not what the line says. It might but what you want it to say, but it's not what it does.

Simple fact is your last two points are flat out incorrect. Hell you even quoted the bit that definitively makes you're wrong "If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

The only way it could mean, at face value, even in plain english, what you want it to mean would be if they said "Your only making an attack if you make an attack roll."

You want it to be restrictive, but it just. Plain. Isn't.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Arial Black · Sep 28, 2016

Yunru said:
But that's not what the line says. It might but what you want it to say, but it's not what it does.

It's what the writer of the line wanted it to say!

The line literally has no purpose unless you understand it that way.

If you analyse the line with the purpose of trying to criticise the precision of his writing, then you can reach the reasonable conclusion that his wording is not watertight.

But if you analyse the line with the purpose of trying to understand what he means, then the only reasonable conclusion is that the presence or absence of an attack roll is what determines whether something is an attack roll or not (written exceptions notwithstanding).

So, if you're reading this thread in the hopes of understanding what the rule is supposed to mean, you have your answer.

If you're reading this thread in the hopes of showing off your skills in logic, as opposed to divining the intended meaning, what use is that to anyone else?

Yunru · Sep 28, 2016

Ah I see! You believe either you're psychic and know the intentions of any one of the number of people who wrote the book whom happened to do that part, or that JC wrote the entire book!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Sage Genesis · Sep 28, 2016

Can anyone provide an example of something that is never called an attack (either explicitly or through involving an attack roll), that nevertheless does count as an attack? Because I'm struggling to think of any.

Note that I am talking in terms of game mechanics here. Lighting oil on the ground to immolate a group of orcs is an "attack" in terms of plain English, but not in terms of game mechanics.

Yunru · Sep 28, 2016

Most non-standard monster attacks, I think.

At least, by multiattack.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Arial Black · Sep 28, 2016

Yunru said:
Ah I see! You believe either you're psychic and know the intentions of any one of the number of people who wrote the book whom happened to do that part, or that JC wrote the entire book!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I don't need to be psychic! (I knew you were going to say that, BTW!)

I don't need special powers because JC himself told us all what his intentions are and what the rule means.

Sent from my laptop using my fingers on the keyboard.

Yunru · Sep 28, 2016

Arial Black said:
I don't need to be psychic! (I knew you were going to say that, BTW!)

I don't need special powers because JC himself told us all what his intentions are and what the rule means.

Sent from my laptop using my fingers on the keyboard.

No, he tweeted how he interpreted it. He's also tweeted a lot of other stuff, which never made it into eratta because it was a snap decision response which he called wrong.

D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

Arial Black

Adventurer

Yunru

Banned

Arial Black

Adventurer

Yunru

Banned

Arial Black

Adventurer

Yunru

Banned

Sage Genesis

First Post

Yunru

Banned

Arial Black

Adventurer

Yunru

Banned

Similar Threads