D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

[Arial Black]

I DO know how vision works. I also know that unless the "Real target: suffers damage he isn't hurt. So While you can see several DUPLICATE images only ONE is a VALID target.

Yes. You can see a valid target (it's the guy with several illusory images), so you can target the creature with magic missile.

You can dance around this to make the rules seem like they were written well if you want, But the rules are unclear to a Great Many people ( Thus we have yet ANOTHER thread about it).

Some people don't get it. It could be that the wording is ambiguous, or it could be that even though it is written well enough for most people, some people are the proverbial 'stony ground'.

If you want to ask me if I know how vision works I will point out too, that you are being pretty rude.
Insulting ne because your argument isn't Lock tight and doesn't make sense to me isn't really super cool. I mean joking in good fun is one thing dude, but there isn't any need for that

I'm surprised and confused how my pointing out that we see both the original real creature and the illusory doubles as images...is somehow an insult to you. It was not meant as such.

It's true that your posts lead me to have little respect for your intellect, and it's fair enough to be insulted by that.

Your " Homing Missile" interpretation is just that. Your Interpretation. Nowhere in the RAW does it refer to the MM as a HOMING MISSLE. So if you are allowed to visualize this in your own way , please respect that Others do not share your vision and have other ways of trying to apply poorly written rules so that they can visualize this in a way that actually makes some sort of sense.i

Yeah, I used 'homing' as a synonym. It's not a rules word, but I think it adequately conveys that the missiles automatically damage the target creature. This sets it apart from 'attacks' as 5E defines the term, which require an attack roll (or specific wording that says it counts as an attack).

 

[schnee]

As snarky as everyone's getting towards the dissenters, I have a few problems with the official rule and I'm going back and forth as to whether it's a good ruling.

Remember, game designers are human. They make mistakes. (Cause Disease, anyone? ) Not every ruling should be taken as Gospel, and IMO this is a situation that's hauling a lot of previous edition baggage on top of it requiring cross-referencing between several different rules.

IMO the ruling doesn't sit well with me. It presumes an 'intelligence' on the spells' part that is not fitting with it's level. It 'knows' what is a creature, what isn't, unerringly hits, and sees through illusions. That is an awful lot for 1st level. (It's always been a bit overpowered. Maybe 5e is just keeping the tradition alive!)

On the other hand, it does fit with the 'paper, rock, scissors' nature of these low level spells; Shield stops Magic Missile cold, can be cast on a reaction, but only lasts for one round, so it trades duration for immediacy. Mirror Image lasts for a minute, but it isn't 100% effective, so things can 'sneak through'. I see that as a potential rationale for MM auto-hitting.

But, given that, it still means that the spell is literally smarter about what is an illusion vs. what's real than the caster. Fog Cloud stops magic missiles cold because you can't see the target; if this is a visual illusion, and most other attacks cause people with regular sight to miss with other attacks, why not the MM too?

So, I'd be comfortable at a table that follows the RAW, but I'd also be comfortable with saying 'since no other attack can target the illusory images intentionally, neither can you, and since the attack is instantaneous, every missile will hit the same target - image or caster - so take your chances'.

That would lead to a MM caster either literally rolling the dice, like everyone else, and risking the entire spell being wasted popping an image, or dividing up the missiles so one goes after the caster and the other two going after other targets, so less potential wasted hit point damage, and taking out one image at the very least. I think that's an appropriate choice to be made when it comes to a 1st level attack spell facing a 2nd level defense spell.

 

[Caliban]

IMO the ruling doesn't sit well with me. It presumes an 'intelligence' on the spells' part that is not fitting with it's level. It 'knows' what is a creature, what isn't, unerringly hits, and sees through illusions. That is an awful lot for 1st level. (It's always been a bit overpowered. Maybe 5e is just keeping the tradition alive!)

Booming Blade has a similar level of sentience built into the spell, and it's a cantrip. Because Booming Blade only triggers when you willingly move - so the cantrip can now tell the different between you being forced to move, and you choosing to move.

Get pushed with Thunderwave? No damage from Booming Blade, it wasn't willing. Get with "Command" spell and told to flee? That's not willing, so no damage. Get hit with Suggestion and "suggested" to walk home - is that willing? (I'm honestly not sure - but apparently the spell will, once the DM makes up their mind.)

Eldritch Blast (and many other spells) can only target a living creature, despite needing an attack roll. You can't even try to cast it at a, say locked chest - you can't target it. If you suddenly can target the chest and cast it, guess what - it's a mimic or animated object. Now eldritch blast doubles as "detect animated object or disguised creature" as well, because it knows the difference.

Magic Missile is no different.

 

[schnee]

I didn't say those spells were any less problematic either.

 

[Maxperson]

So I was looking at the various incarnations of the spell. 1e specified melee attack, so it is consistent with the 5e version. 2e specified melee or missile attack, magic or otherwise, so if you squinted sideways you could include magic missile. 3e specified melee or missile attacks and spells, so things like hold person and magic missile could absolutely be misdirected by the images. 4e I'm not all that familiar with. I didn't see mirror image as a wizard spell in the PHB, but it could have appeared later or been a sorcerer spell I suppose. I didn't look further.

For myself, I'm inclined to treat the 5e version the same as 3e. The images are designed to confuse people as to the target, so it makes the most sense. The offensive spells are not intelligent or omniscient, so it's the caster picking the target out and he can't tell which the original is. If he could, then so could a melee attacker.

 

[Caliban]

So I was looking at the various incarnations of the spell. 1e specified melee attack, so it is consistent with the 5e version. 2e specified melee or missile attack, magic or otherwise, so if you squinted sideways you could include magic missile. 3e specified melee or missile attacks and spells, so things like hold person and magic missile could absolutely be misdirected by the images. 4e I'm not all that familiar with. I didn't see mirror image as a wizard spell in the PHB, but it could have appeared later or been a sorcerer spell I suppose. I didn't look further.

For myself, I'm inclined to treat the 5e version the same as 3e. The images are designed to confuse people as to the target, so it makes the most sense. The offensive spells are not intelligent or omniscient, so it's the caster picking the target out and he can't tell which the original is. If he could, then so could a melee attacker.

In 4e Magic Missile required an attack roll. So it would have definitely been fooled by Mirror Image. (At least it did at first - they may have errata'd it to remove the attack roll after player complaints, I can't remember for sure.) And if you want to house rule the way the spells interact in 5e, that's your prerogative. Your game, your rules.

 

[Ristamar]

But, given that, it still means that the spell is literally smarter about what is an illusion vs. what's real than the caster.

That's a vague area within the system and it's hardly unique to the Magic Missile spell. Plenty of spells (e.g Hold Person) require a creature as a valid target, so when a player targets an illusion, the DM must decide how to adjudicate the result by considering the following questions:

• Does the spell simply fizzle or is there a visible effect?
• Is the caster now aware his target is an illusion?
• If not, what information can the caster gleen from the result?

Illusions aside, in comparison to spells with iterative attack rolls versus standard AoE spells, Magic Missile's traits lean more toward the latter:

• No attack roll
• Simultaneous damage to multiple targets (if applicable)
• Increased damage dice by spell slot (1:1 scale beyond 1st)
• Universal damage roll for multiple targets (proportioned per missile)

Even if you choose not to adhere to the last bullet point, the other traits still present a strong case. Ultimately, though, the game won't break with most reasonable interpretations of the spell.

 

[schnee]

Ultimately, though, the game won't break with most reasonable interpretations of the spell.

No, but my brain might.

 

[Brandegoris]

Yes. You can see a valid target (it's the guy with several illusory images), so you can target the creature with magic missile.



Some people don't get it. It could be that the wording is ambiguous, or it could be that even though it is written well enough for most people, some people are the proverbial 'stony ground'.



I'm surprised and confused how my pointing out that we see both the original real creature and the illusory doubles as images...is somehow an insult to you. It was not meant as such.

It's true that your posts lead me to have little respect for your intellect, and it's fair enough to be insulted by that.



Yeah, I used 'homing' as a synonym. It's not a rules word, but I think it adequately conveys that the missiles automatically damage the target creature. This sets it apart from 'attacks' as 5E defines the term, which require an attack roll (or specific wording that says it counts as an attack).

LOL My intellect is just fine. Check yourself.
Your "Homing" Theory only works in your own mind because that is YOUR rationalization ( which is fine) but because someone else doesn't accept that you cant home in on a "target" when there are several Targets don't insult their intelligence.
YOU believe that the Target is still clear even though there are duplicates. That's fine.
Many people have an issue with this ( Not stating its false , as the rules might indicate it is valid), because that makes the Mirror image spell a bit hard to envision as well. If I know which target is real then why would I ever strike the duplicates?
As I asked before : Do they dodge in front to take the Blow?
So that is , for me, the bigger issue. In abiding by the rule that MM functions as the rules intend and have been pointed out here it then ( foe me at least) raises questions about HOW mirror image functions.
I get that rules are rules and it isn't even a dispute over the rules necessarily, Its that we play a Role playing game and part of that fun is in describing HOW and WHY a spell functions the way it does. These spells function somewhat strangely now and it isn't clear how a DM should describe the results other than In Rules terms.
Sorry the Missile hits you."
" what do my images do?"
" Stand there"

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. You can see a valid target (it's the guy with several illusory images), so you can target the creature with magic missile.

That applies to swords, too. If the caster can see the target and hit it, so can the sword wielder. Casters aren't special in their ability to not be fooled by the images.