D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

[Tony Vargas]

But in the grand old days of previous editions, wasn't magic missile the traditional counter to mirror image because you could target all the images simultaneously and guarantee popping them all?

Depended on your DM. Also on the edition - IIRC, Magic Missile wasn't always an auto-hit.

Also, the word 'hit' implies an attack roll in 5E.

Of course, 5e Magic Missile uses the word 'hit.' 5e isn't written in precise jargon, it begs to be interpreted by the DM. While the 'RaW' interpretation might be of token interest, it's hardly the most important thing to consider when making a ruling. What works best for your game being way out in front.

For instance, I see nothing wrong with either the ruling that you can target 1 missile each of a 2nd-level-slot MM per apparent target presented by a Mirror-Imaged caster, thus hitting the caster once and dispelling his images, nor with the ruling that you can just cast MM at the caster of the Mirror Image and have them all strike him (and appearing to injure all the apparent targets involved). Even allowing it to work one way or the other under different circumstances wouldn't be too crazy. But, I'd see issues with ruling that the spell could 'miss' without dispelling images (because they're not creatures) or both hit the caster and dispel his images with the same missile (because they're some blurry overlapping cloud).

 

[Uchawi]

The caster must select the target to be autohit, so with mirror image it is not clear where a target is in any instance in time, so I would just roll to see what image or real target is hit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was simply paraphrasing the same thing the rest of you were talking about with the rule "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."

So since we, as a group are discussing this, then there is a question at hand. Is Magic Missile an attack? The rule says if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. That's all the rule says.

So now we check to see if Magic Missile makes an attack roll. It does not. So......no attack roll means it was not an attack.

Grappling, as you brought up earlier, says you make a special melee attack. This is one of 5th editions uses of specific beats general. There is no specific rule that I know of that calls out magic Missile as an attack. Therefore specific vs general does not apply and counter or change us looking to see if Magic Missile needs an attack roll.

The reason I pointed out Shield as supporting this reading of the rules is because Magic Missile says "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range." If Magic Missile was an attack, then the dart hitting could trigger the use of the Shield spell because it would be an attack hitting. Instead, it's written in addition , as if an attack hitting would not cover it. There would be no reason to make this special caveat if a dart from Magic Missile hitting was an attack hitting.

This is interesting. This means that an invisible dragon doesn't become visible when it uses its breath weapon, as it is neither an attack (by your definition, it neither calls itself one nor makes an attack roll) nor a spell.

 

[Bacon Bits]

As DM you are welcome to say that if you like, it's your table. But that's not what the book says, so if you're looking for the book answer, Crawford is correct.

No, Crawford has made a ruling. By the logic of his rulings, casting fireball while invisible ends the invisibile, but using a wand of fireballs while invisible does not. Seriously. This ruling means that a wand of missiles doesn't, either. But throwing a dart? Oh, yeah, that ends it.

Both Crawford and Mearls seem to answer Twitter questions like they're on their phone while standing in line at the DMV. Sage Advice is marginally better -- in the sense that a D is better than an E -- but most of those answers are equally absurd because he rules on letter over spirit when the same game​ basically tells you not to do that. It makes me understand how things like the stealth rules, polymorph rules, feat imbalance, and short/long rest problems came to be.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

No, Crawford has made a ruling. By the logic of his rulings, casting fireball while invisible ends the invisibile, but using a wand of fireballs while invisible does not. Seriously. This ruling means that a wand of missiles doesn't, either. But throwing a dart? Oh, yeah, that ends it.

Not true. You still cast a spell when using those magic items, so it will break invisibility. Invisibility doesn't refer to the type of action taken, but to casting a spell or making an attack.

 

[Plaguescarred]

This is interesting. This means that an invisible dragon doesn't become visible when it uses its breath weapon, as it is neither an attack (by your definition, it neither calls itself one nor makes an attack roll) nor a spell.

Yes i don't see any reason why an invisible dragon would become visible when using breath weapon since it's not an attack nor a spell.

 

[Leatherhead]

Yes i don't see any reason why an invisible dragon would become visible when using breath weapon since it's not an attack nor a spell.

Good luck getting your dragon invisible in the first place, they don't cast spells as a default rule now.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Good luck getting your dragon invisible in the first place, they don't cast spells as a default rule now.

No luck needed, just creativity since a DM can always give a dragon spellcasting ability or magic items!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good luck getting your dragon invisible in the first place, they don't cast spells as a default rule now.

Really? That's the brake?

 

[Leatherhead]

No luck needed, just creativity since a DM can always give a dragon spellcasting ability or magic items!

Well, if you are creative enough to use optional or variant rules, you should be creative enough to deal with the consequences they cause.

Although, having a cloud of acidic death lingering over the countryside, with no apparent cause, would be an interesting plot hook.