Do you let Magic Missiles destroy Mirror Images?

[Garboshnik]

2nd level specific spell trumps 1st level general spell. No images pop.

 

[Fieari]

I'm trying hard to understand this.

So we're saying that if there's a real gargoyle standing next to a STATUE of a gargoyle, I can tell them apart by aiming a Magic Missile at them. It will fire normally at the real gargoyle, but the spell will fizzle and not discharge when aimed at the gargoyle statue?

Or if several cloaked figures are spotted in the forest ahead. One is a Rogue, and the others are cloaks thrown over tree stumps. I can't tell which is which, but if I fire Magic Missile at them it can tell them apart?

Yes, but whether you succeed or fail, you lose the spell each time. And remember, by the RAW, if even one declared target isn't a creature, the ENTIRE spell fails.

If you want to waste all your spells testing every statue you pass with MM, go ahead. I'd rather use a deathwatch, as Hypersmurf said. Or perhaps just save my spells until combat starts.

 

[mvincent]

2nd level specific spell trumps 1st level general spell. No images pop.

3.5 FAQ trumps our own opinion. Images pop in any RPGA game.

 

[Nifft]

Yes, but... I cap Magic Missile at 5th level (3 missiles).

-- N

 

[Fieari]

3.5 FAQ trumps our own opinion. Images pop in any RPGA game.

RAW trumps FAQ. Maybe not in RPGA games, but...

 

[llamatron2000]

I don't.

I think that as written, if I target my five missiles at four kobolds and a ham sandwich, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.

I think that in my game, I choose to rule that if I target my five missiles at four kobolds and a ham sandwich, the four kobolds are struck by missiles, and the ham sandwich is not.

-Hyp.

...And I'd rule that you just destroyed a perfectly good ham sandwich.

 

[Hypersmurf]

...And I'd rule that you just destroyed a perfectly good ham sandwich.

As is your right.

Though if you hadn't outlined this rule before the game, the owner of the ham sandwich might be miffed, pointing out that "Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell."

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

As is your right.

Though if you hadn't outlined this rule before the game, the owner of the ham sandwich might be miffed, pointing out that "Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell."

-Hyp.

Well the ham in the ham sandwich was once alive. I guess it would be a corpse then, which is still an object. Unless you cast animate dead on the ham sandwich!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sorry- mistyed, but all that the 1Ed version of the spell says about images being targeted is:


"These images do exactly what the magic user does, and as the spell causes a blurring and slight distortion when it is effected, it is impossible for opponents to be certain which are the phantasms and which is the actual magic user. When an image is struck by a weapon , magical or otherwise, it dissappears, but any other existing images remain intact until struck."

Mirror Image, 1Ed PHB p 71

It does not say that only melee attacks can target the images, only that melee attacks alone can pop an image.

The 2ed version of it adds the language "or missile attack" to the melee attack language, but still says nothing about spells.

IEd had no clear cut rules for adjudicating Illusions- even the guide in the DMG was silent on all but a few particular illusion spells of higher level. All clarification came from articles in Dragon- as TSR's in-house magazine, it was as official as it got as far as eratta got.

2Ed PHB p82 had a 2 page section on adjudication of illusion spells. The keys were " What the caster attempts, what the victim expects, and what is happening at the moment the spell is cast." No particular spell is mentioned besides Phantasmal Force, and it ultimately comes down to pure DM adjudication of believability and a PC's disbelief roll. The 2Ed DMG is silent.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry- mistyed, but all that the 1Ed version of the spell says about images being targeted is:


"These images do exactly what the magic user does, and as the spell causes a blurring and slight distortion when it is effected, it is impossible for opponents to be certain which are the phantasms and which is the actual magic user. When an image is struck by a weapon , magical or otherwise, it dissappears, but any other existing images remain intact until struck."

Mirror Image, 1Ed PHB p 71

It does not say that only melee attacks can target the images, only that melee attacks alone can pop an image.

The 2ed version of it adds the language "or missile attack" to the melee attack language, but still says nothing about spells.

IEd had no clear cut rules for adjudicating Illusions- even the guide in the DMG was silent on all but a few particular illusion spells of higher level. All clarification came from articles in Dragon- as TSR's in-house magazine, it was as official as it got as far as eratta got.

2Ed PHB p82 had a 2 page section on adjudication of illusion spells. The keys were " What the caster attempts, what the victim expects, and what is happening at the moment the spell is cast." No particular spell is mentioned besides Phantasmal Force, and it ultimately comes down to pure DM adjudication of believability and a PC's disbelief roll. The 2Ed DMG is silent.

Precisely.

We cannot use the 3E / 3.5 Illusion rules for 1E or 2E.

So, we have to either interpret the phrase "it is impossible for opponents to be certain which are the phantasms and which is the actual magic user" in a spell that only explicitly states protection versus attacks to only protect versus attacks, or to protect versus attacks and spells in a game system where the Mirror Image spell has no language at all about protecting from spells.

Personally, I think adding major protection from a certain class of spells (i.e. the opponent has a 1 in 5 chance of targeting the actual spell caster with a "targeted" spell if he has 4 images up) to be adding a major change to the intent of the 1E/2E Mirror Image spell. That is a huge amount of functionality that the spell itself did not state it had.

Granted, WotC added that functionality later on to 3E. But, that does not mean that 1E/2E had any real implications of that functionality within their rulesets.