D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

[Greenstone.Walker]

Magic Missile is pretty unique amongst the 5e spells.

True. It doesn't do a lot of damage, but it is a guaranteed hit on something you can see (except for shield, which, as far as I recall, is the only spell that specifically mentions I]magic missile[/I]). I like the idea of magic missile being special, so I rule that mirror image doesn't protect against it.

So, how do you protect yourself against it? Be unseen.

 

[Brandegoris]

At least you got one thing right.

You think you found a problem with my explanation, but you just showed that you don't understand it.

I restate it in even simpler terms:

No attack roll = not an attack.

Not an attack? Mirror Image doesn't help you.

It has less to do with YOUR explanation than with what constitutes an "ATTACK" in the game. I get it is covered in the way the game explains the rules. I get games need rules. I think It is a POOR rule. The reason for this?
The fact that threads like this exist.
If the Rule on this was well done then I don't think we would be having this conversation at all.
I think the core problem is the way they define attack rolls Vs. Non Attack spells and the leave an Ambiguous spell that doesn't fall into that. I get that MM is timeless and must be included and that it has always basically functioned the same way ( which is part of the nostalgia and what makes the spell great). But once you start tightening up a system and trying to clearly define this in Black and white it would behoove the designers to not allow this spell to function in the traditional way.
I am not saying it isn't following the rules as they are currently written.
That has been pointed out ad I accept it.

 

[Caliban]

It has less to do with YOUR explanation than with what constitutes an "ATTACK" in the game. I get it is covered in the way the game explains the rules. I get games need rules. I think It is a POOR rule. The reason for this?

Yeah, really don't care about your opinion.

 

[Brandegoris]

Yeah, really don't care about your opinion.

Your reply to me says otherwise. If you didn't care you wouldn't keep on being a d8ck ( the 2nd thing I was right about by the way).

 

[Caliban]

So, how do you protect yourself against it? Be unseen.

Absolutely. That's kind of a blanket defense in 5e though - many, many spells and abilities require you to see your target. I've found it worthwhile to drop a Darkness spell just to shut that kind of thing down, even if it makes my character blind as well. (After all - if they can't see you, and you can't see them, then your attack rolls are made normally.)

 

[dco]

Why is it NOT an Attack but plenty of other similar spells ARE an attack? Oh..Because he said so?
WHERE is the explanation or his thought process?
MM seems an awful lot like an attack to me! LOL

The rules are not clear or intuitive. "If you are making an attack roll you are making an attack", it doesn't say you can not do an attack without an attack roll but at the beginning of the making an attack section it says making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack with a melee weapon, etc. At that point it could be clear, but then some maneuvers are attacks and don't have an attack roll. You have the camp that says they are the only exception and another one that doesn't consider them exceptions because it doesn't say explicitly you can not have an attack without an attack roll. Then you have the spell description, targets you with an attack, the book uses the word in different ways, attack can be a verb, a generic noun, an action, a noun which references a particular rule, etc.

However it works well if you consider a magic missile an attack or not, the second option makes the spell a bit stronger, choose what suits your game better. I was using it as an attack but the other way makes also sense and from now on I'm going to use it. I was also using the area damage wrongly with the mirror images, we've practically not used the spell but next time I'll use it correctly if the situation arises. You can always learn something.

 

[Brandegoris]

The rules are not clear or intuitive. "If you are making an attack roll you are making an attack", it doesn't say you can not do an attack without an attack roll but at the beginning of the making an attack section it says making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack with a melee weapon, etc. At that point it could be clear, but then some maneuvers are attacks and don't have an attack roll. You have the camp that says they are the only exception and another one that doesn't consider them exceptions because it doesn't say explicitly you can not have an attack without an attack roll. Then you have the spell description, targets you with an attack, the book uses the word in different ways, attack can be a verb, a generic noun, an action, a noun which references a particular rule, etc.

However it works well if you consider a magic missile an attack or not, the second option makes the spell a bit stronger, choose what suits your game better. I was using it as an attack but the other way makes also sense and from now on I'm going to use it. I was also using the area damage wrongly with the mirror images, we've practically not used the spell but next time I'll use it correctly if the situation arises. You can always learn something.

Well said.

 

[KarinsDad]

No attack roll = not an attack.

Not an attack? Mirror Image doesn't help you.

By "RAW" (a dirty word in some circles), you are technically correct with regard to what an attack is and how the game designers would (and should) adjudicate this.

But since the terminology "hit" is used more or less exclusively in the attack section and is used in Magic Missile (but not typically used in spells that have saves), I just view Magic Missile as a special attack that does not have an attack roll because a roll is not necessary. It also doesn't crit because of no attack roll. It has a specialized set of mechanics, but is still an attack. IMO. I realize that my interpretation is not "RAW", rather it is what the game should do (again, IMO). Magic Missile does damage because it "hits" a creature, just like any other attack.


I do find it interesting that Shield negates Magic Missile, even though Magic Missile "is not an attack" (and the main purpose of Shield is to raise AC so that the caster might not get hit by one or more attacks).

If one were to look historically at Magic Missile, there was a time (OD&D and of course that stint in 4E) where it used an attack roll (and was even considered a ranged basic attack in 4E after the mechanics change to autohit).

Technically not "an attack", but has just often felt like one over the years, probably due to the "no save" aspect.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Yep, Someone posted that. Not sure I care who he is. The rules are sh*t and some dev roles out to clarify that "you should do it this way". No Thanks. Rewrite that sh*t and have it reflect that is the actual rule, and put it in the new edition. Until then I have a Rule book at my table and I am not going to Twitter to seek out the latest answer by a random developer while I am at my table. Its ridiculous, and slows the game down.

To clarify the reason people reference his Twitter comments: he is literally the guy who wrote the rules in the PHB. Not a guy. Not one of the guys. The head rules guy who was/is in charge of the mechanics of the game. I think he is qualified to express what the intent of the rule he wrote was. (5e had very few people working on its rules compared to other editions.)

That being said, I don't always use his intent in my own games, but he really is the authority on the subject.

 

[Arial Black]

Spells can be attacks. Im sorry you don't acknowledge that but someone in this thread already showed the RAW post that Indicates that some spells are considered attacks even if there isn't a roll "to HIT". They are still classified as Attacks.

Prove it!

Provide one example spell from the PHB where a spell which does not have an attack roll OR specific wording that says it counts as an attack, that is considered an attack.

Just one.

One is all it would take to prove us (and the writer of the rules!) wrong.