D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

[Maxperson]

Yes, exactly! The fighter targets whatever he mentally chooses with 100% certainty!

Whether or not he actually hits his chosen target is determined by an attack roll.

When the fighter wants to whack the guy with mirror image with his greatsword, he 'targets' the creature. In this case, the 'creature' is 'the guy with the images'. Then a roll is made to see if his target is shifted toward an image instead.

Exactly the same thing happens to an attacking caster with fire bolt.

But a caster with hold person has no chance of having his target switched to an image.

Why?

Conceptually, while the fighter and the caster of fire bolt can mentally choose with 100% certainty to 'target' 'the guy with all the images', the attacks they are using must be aimed at the body mass of the target. They may aim at an image instead, since the images all look the same and are swirling around.

But the caster of hold person/magic missile, while choosing to 'target' with 100% certainty 'the guy with all the images', those spells are not 'aimed' at all! Therefore, 'aiming at the wrong image' cannot happen.

And that's what doesn't make sense. If you've lost your target due to it being impossible to track, you should not be able to continue to target it with those other spells. The difference between Fire Bolt and Magic Missile is that you don't have to roll for the Magic Missile. If you did have to roll for Magic Missile, it would also be a spell attack roll. Not having to roll just means that conceptually, it's a spell attack that automatically hits what you target. Mirror Image should be able to cause the caster of Magic Missile to target one of the images, with perfect accuracy.

This drivel is just stuff you made up to be 'the important part'. It's not part of 5E.

Seriously? You're now claiming that spells don't take time to cast? I can't wait to tell the DM I play with.

Whether or not a spell needs to be precisely aimed at the body mass of the target depends on whether or not the spell requires an attack roll, not that the spell has a target!

No it doesn't. Whether or not it requires a body mass is dependent on whether or not the target is a creature. If it targets a creature, then the body mass is in fact targeted. You're here claiming that targeting a creatures doesn't require that you target a creature.

Fine. What's that got to do with anyone else? If we are at home or a convention when someone casts magic missile at a guy protected by mirror image, what should we do? Look at what the spell descriptions actually are? Or rule the same way that Maxperson would have ruled if Maxperson had his totally re-designed spell description included in the PHB?

Read the thread. A lot of other people here would rule that Magic Missile is affected and can target images.

We are going to look at what the spell description actually is, not what the spell description isn't!

Or like a lot of people here, we're going to do what makes sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Really? I had no idea.

I wasn't talking to you with that statement. I was talking to the guy that I didn't recognize and may not have read the rest of the thread.

 

[Arial Black]

And that's what doesn't make sense. If you've lost your target due to it being impossible to track, you should not be able to continue to target it with those other spells. The difference between Fire Bolt and Magic Missile is that you don't have to roll for the Magic Missile. If you did have to roll for Magic Missile, it would also be a spell attack roll. Not having to roll just means that conceptually, it's a spell attack that automatically hits what you target. Mirror Image should be able to cause the caster of Magic Missile to target one of the images, with perfect accuracy.

Since your target is 'the guy with all the images' then the fact that the images are swirling around does not impede your ability to target 'the guy with all the images'. That guy is still perfectly apparent; he looks like a swirling mass if images, but I know it's one creature and that's the creature I mentally choose to affect with my spell.

Good job I don't need to precisely aim this spell in order for it to affect my chosen target!

And once again, magic missile does not make you lose track of the target creature. It just makes it impossible to tell which of the images is the real guy. If your spell doesn't need to know which image is which then the images don't bother you.

Seriously? You're now claiming that spells don't take time to cast? I can't wait to tell the DM I play with.

I'm claiming that the fact that both attacks and spells take time is simply not relevant to the issue at hand, which is what you claimed. Don't make me quote you.

No it doesn't. Whether or not it requires a body mass is dependent on whether or not the target is a creature. If it targets a creature, then the body mass is in fact targeted. You're here claiming that targeting a creatures doesn't require that you target a creature.

Deflecting again. Spells and attacks that require attack rolls must be aimed at some part of the target in order to have a chance of hitting. Spells without an attack roll simply do not require aiming at all! Things that interfere with accurate aiming have no detrimental effect for those spells.

Read the thread. A lot of other people here would rule that Magic Missile is affected and can target images.

And they were wrong. It doesn't make them bad people. I myself carry baggage from previous editions and I sometimes make the incorrect assumption that things with the same name work the same in 5E than they did in previous editions, at least until the new wording is pointed out.

Or like a lot of people here, we're going to do what makes sense.

The new way makes perfect sense for its own concept. It carries no burden requiring it to match the concept of previous versions.

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

I didn't mention them because they are irrelevant. The mechanical effects have nothing to do with targeting and the time it takes to cast or attack after targeting.

They are relevant when you have said, "Being a force attack, it can impact armor and still do damage. It has no need to zip around to some sort of opening and hit there like you suggest." They are spells that also deal force damage, and yet they do not automatically strike in the way that magic missile does. You need to account for this if your handling of spells is going to be consistent.

They are also relevant when you separately insist that it is the aim of the caster, not something intrinsic to the spell, that allows magic missile to unerringly strike. Again, for your position to be consistent, you have got to account for the caster being unable to unerringly strike with other spells, for there being rolls to determine how well the caster aims and how well the target evades with them.

Arbitrary requires whim or lack of thought. Seeing as there is a reason for everything I say or do here, I quite literally cannot be arbitrary.

This really is getting comical. First you were offended, then you didn't say it, and now it's not arbitrary because you thought it up. Ipse dixit. One begins to develop the impression that you are incapable of accepting criticism. Your definition of "arbitrary" is pretty arbitrary. If I cared to, I could run up to the reference section and find ten definitions in ten different dictionaries which ran along the lines of "determined by personal preference" or "based on individual will," and some contrasting that with the "intrinsic quality" or "nature" of a thing, and under any of which your rationalizations of magic missile's behavior would qualify.

By simply avoiding all that isn't the target. It can't tell the difference between a tree, an elf or a rock. Telling the difference between those would be discernment.

Your "it just does" (home without discerning) is no more definitive than anyone else's "it just does" (find the target in a swirl of images). The latter is reconciling the narrative to the mechanics, while yours is complicating the narrative to rationalize mechanics which would contraindicate a preconception of the narrative. Yours, that the spell avoids things that it cannot discern to unfailingly strike a target that it cannot discern, is also, to my mind, impracticable.

So, third time around: if you ever want address the logical inconsistencies of your rationalizations, you might begin by explaining, to yourself if not to the rest of us, your "reason for everything [you] say and do." Just remember that if your reason stems from your own narrative of how the spell works or should, and not directly from the spell or rules as written, it is arbitrary. (And, again, I don't have a problem with people using whatever house rules they like, though I don't like this one particularly for reasons of verisimilitude and balance. What irks me here is the continuing assertion that your own visioning of what happens being different from what the rules say happens is evidence of a problem with the rules.)

 

[Maxperson]

They are relevant when you have said, "Being a force attack, it can impact armor and still do damage. It has no need to zip around to some sort of opening and hit there like you suggest." They are spells that also deal force damage, and yet they do not automatically strike in the way that magic missile does. You need to account for this if your handling of spells is going to be consistent.

No they aren't. That's the nature of hit points. Someone can punch a plate mail wearer in the chest and deal damage. There is no requirement to avoid armor to deal damage. The magic missile can literally hit anywhere and deal damage. The other spells and their mechanics are irrelevant.

They are also relevant when you separately insist that it is the aim of the caster, not something intrinsic to the spell, that allows magic missile to unerringly strike. Again, for your position to be consistent, you have got to account for the caster being unable to unerringly strike with other spells, for there being rolls to determine how well the caster aims and how well the target evades with them.

The caster has to target something. He's not sitting there moving it back and forth and I never claimed that he was. Other spell mechanics simply aren't relevant.

This really is getting comical. First you were offended, then you didn't say it, and now it's not arbitrary because you thought it up.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding things? I can't see how you could get it wrong accidentally. It's really simple. If I come to a conclusion based on reason, it cannot be arbitrary. That's a fact.

 

[schnee]

No they aren't. That's the nature of hit points. Someone can punch a plate mail wearer in the chest and deal damage. There is no requirement to avoid armor to deal damage. The magic missile can literally hit anywhere and deal damage. The other spells and their mechanics are irrelevant.

Nope. Nothing says that. You are making that up. HP damage is an abstraction, and there is nothing in any part of the rules that says a punch gets thrown to the breastplate. What makes 'sense' is that hand strikes are applied to less-armored joints, kicks are applied to the knees at odd angles to hurt them and mess with their balance and mobility, even 'joint locks' that you'd see in an MMA take-down get used when the opportunity arises.

For someone who talks a lot about how things 'should make sense' - literally arguing with people for a dozen pages when they provide full justification and rules logic to back up their arguments - you quickly dive into nonsensical stuff at arbitrary, non-sensical times.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding things? I can't see how you could get it wrong accidentally. It's really simple. If I come to a conclusion based on reason, it cannot be arbitrary. That's a fact.

Given that one example above (and many more called out along the way), you have a much less solid relationship to 'sense' and 'logic' as you think.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. Nothing says that. You are making that up. HP damage is an abstraction, and there is nothing in any part of the rules that says a punch gets thrown to the breastplate.

Me: Hit points can represent a punch damaging through breastplate (clearly because hit points are an abstraction).

You: "Nuh uh! Hit points are an abstraction. You're making that up!"

Um...

What makes 'sense' is that hand strikes are applied to less-armored joints, kicks are applied to the knees at odd angles to hurt them and mess with their balance and mobility, even 'joint locks' that you'd see in an MMA take-down get used when the opportunity arises.

Then YOU play them that way. My statement still stands as fact. A punch CAN do damage with an impact to the armor. They represent a lot of things, including luck, skill, fatigue, a bruise from being bounced around in armor, and more.

 

[Caliban]

No they aren't. That's the nature of hit points. Someone can punch a plate mail wearer in the chest and deal damage. There is no requirement to avoid armor to deal damage. The magic missile can literally hit anywhere and deal damage. The other spells and their mechanics are irrelevant.

So you see no problem at all with the idea of a normal person (not a Monk) punching a person in full plate right on the armored part and still doing damage to the person wearing it, but have a serious problem with the idea that Magic Missile has the unique ability to ignore illusionary images and unerringly strike a target warded by the Mirror Image spell?

I love this guy.

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

No they aren't. That's the nature of hit points. Someone can punch a plate mail wearer in the chest and deal damage. There is no requirement to avoid armor to deal damage. The magic missile can literally hit anywhere and deal damage. The other spells and their mechanics are irrelevant.

Haha, and that "makes sense" to you? See, this is why you have to compare the mechanics and understand what kind of narrative each suggests, or you wind up saying things like that. As schnee points out, this is you making another arbitrary rationalization, but let's run with it. Tell me, what is an attack roll, and why is it affected by armor class, if it is not an abstraction of aiming and/or finding a weak spot?

The caster has to target something. He's not sitting there moving it back and forth and I never claimed that he was. Other spell mechanics simply aren't relevant.

You are walking backward, and it's affecting your aim. I said, "AC is a composite of many factors, including physical armor, magical armor, evasiveness, and cover. In order to always impact, magic missile must be able to avoid all of that--arc around cover, track a creature trying to dodge, and strike it where it is vulnerable. What you are suggesting is that, in fiction, the caster aims the spell to do all of that . . . and never misses. (Unless the caster is fooled into aiming at an illusion.)" To which you responded, "Correct. It never misses what the caster aims at." How many times are you going to make me re-post that?

So, once more, if magic missile always hits what the caster aims at--aiming being distinct from targeting--why is the caster's aim so much worse with other spells?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding things? I can't see how you could get it wrong accidentally. It's really simple. If I come to a conclusion based on reason, it cannot be arbitrary. That's a fact.

First, do you really mean to say that if Jeremy Crawford went on Twitter and said, "I made the ruling re: magic missile and mage armor based on reason," you would accept that it's not arbitrary and no longer have a problem with it?

Second, what you have said--"Seeing as there is a reason for everything I say or do here, I quite literally cannot be arbitrary."--amounts to, "What I say has a reason. I said this. Therefore, this has a reason." Which, as a circular argument from (presumed) authority, is painfully unreasonable.

Third, a thing based on reason can easily be based on errors in reason.

Fourth, are you being deliberately asinine?

arbitrary
[ahr-bi-trer-ee]

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision.

Emphasis added.

arbitrary play
adjective ar·bi·trary \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\

Definition of arbitrary

1
a : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will an arbitrary choice
When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary. — Nehemiah Jordan
b : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
an arbitrary standard
take any arbitrary positive number

Emphasis added.

Definitions of arbitrary
1
adj
based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice

Emphasis added.

I cannot believe that you are making me post dictionary definitions because you want to make some pathetic semantic argument about what is arbitrary and what is not, rather than look at the holes in the spell narrative that you have created.

 

[Maxperson]

First, do you really mean to say that if Jeremy Crawford went on Twitter and said, "I made the ruling re: magic missile and mage armor based on reason," you would accept that it's not arbitrary and no longer have a problem with it?

Why should I care about Magic Missile and Mage Armor?

Second, what you have said--"Seeing as there is a reason for everything I say or do here, I quite literally cannot be arbitrary."--amounts to, "What I say has a reason. I said this. Therefore, this has a reason." Which, as a circular argument from (presumed) authority, is painfully unreasonable.

I hope for your sake tht this was a joke.

Third, a thing based on reason can easily be based on errors in reason.

Which does nothing to make something arbitrary. All that is required for something not to be arbitrary, is for there to be a reason why someone is saying/doing something. A mistake can't change that.

Fourth, are you being deliberately asinine?

That's clearly your job.