D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

[Maxperson]

Caster and martial both 'target' (mentally choose) who they are trying to affect with 100% certainty. In each case the target is 'the guy with all the images'.

That's simply not true. If it was, Mirror Image would be useless. Mirror Image doesn't re-direct an attack, it makes it so that you target an image. If you target the correct person 100% of the time, Mirror Image fails as a spell.

Caster and target are both equally unaffected by the images if they use a method of attack which does not require actual 'aiming' at their chosen target, and both are equally affected by the images if they use a method of attack which requires an attack roll.

Such as AOE, yes. When you have to target an individual, it requires you knowing precisely which target is the subject of the attack or spell. Mirror Image prevents any such identification.

Oh my goodness! You just did exactly the same thing when debating Cognomen's Cassowary! You Posted several dictionary definitions and ignored the ones that disproved your own claim!

Goodness gracious! You're wrong. Nothing there disproved my claim. The verb usage(which D&D uses) means aim at. The others such as pick out, single out, etc., are also synonyms with aim.

Here, I said, "Where you are going wrong (inadvertently or deliberately, it's hard to tell) is that you cannot or will not separate the two. You think that 'target' and 'aim at' are ALWAYS synonyms." Then, you post a list of synonyms, one of which is a synonym of a literal, physical aiming like a sniper looking down a scope, and others which do not mean that!

That's what targeting a creature is. You are aiming at that creature physically or mentally. If you can't tell who the target is, you are not going to be able to mentally aim at it unless you get lucky.

D&D literally always, throughout its existence, has used 'target' to mean 'earmark' with 100% certainty, which may or may not also require physically aiming at.

That's patently false. In every edition there have been ways to fail to target a target.

In D&D, all that is required to 'target' a creature is that you can see the creature, you have a clear path to it, and it is within range of the thing you want to do.

The problem is that you see multiple targets and don't know which one is the creature. You have to know where you are targeting to target something. You see, in 5e there's this little thing called Specific Beats General. You keep trying to quote a general rule and say, "See, it beats the specific one you are referencing."

Whether or not a creature has mirror image on, that creature can be seen. It looks like several copies of one creature. They literally cannot look different from each other! That is a creature you can see and 'target/earmark' for whatever you want to do, and if the thing you want to do does not require physically aiming at (attack roll) you simply do not need to know which is the real image, because you are affecting the 'creature' even if that creature has four images.

If that's true, then the fighter doesn't have to roll to hit the creature. All it requires to perform an accurate attack is to have a target.

 

[Arial Black]

That's simply not true. If it was, Mirror Image would be useless. Mirror Image doesn't re-direct an attack, it makes it so that you target an image. If you target the correct person 100% of the time, Mirror Image fails as a spell.

Mirror Image says, "Each time a creature targets YOU with an attack".

The spell then says, "roll a d20 to determine whether the attack INSTEAD targets one of your duplicates".

The spell literally works by first having the attacker target the creature, and then the spell (possibly) re-directs the attack to target an image instead.

What you wrote is provably false, proved by simply cut&pasting the spell description.

When you have to target an individual, it requires you knowing precisely which target is the subject of the attack or spell. Mirror Image prevents any such identification.

No. The target is still 'they guy with all the images'. Far from preventing you from mentally choosing to target that guy, the spell relies on you targeting that guy so that it can re-direct your attack to an image.

Goodness gracious! You're wrong. Nothing there disproved my claim. The verb usage(which D&D uses) means aim at. The others such as pick out, single out, etc., are also synonyms with aim.

You claimed that ALL synonyms of 'target' meant that you were physically aiming like a sniper through a scope, while quoting a dictionary definition which has synonyms which do not mean that! Your own dictionary quote disproved you!

That's what targeting a creature is. You are aiming at that creature physically or mentally. If you can't tell who the target is, you are not going to be able to mentally aim at it unless you get lucky.

Not at all. As just one example out of hundreds in the PHB, phantasmal force targets a creature you can see within 60 feet that has a mind. Although you mentally choose the 'target' of the spell with 100% certainty, whether or not the creature is actually affected by the spell has absolutely nothing to do with how good your aim is, how good the target is at dodging, or what penalties you have to your aim. What matters is how strong its will is compared to the power of your spellcasting. That spell (and hundreds like it) are not physically 'aimed' in any way.

That's patently false. In every edition there have been ways to fail to target a target.

You mean you might have a specific spell which might mess with the general targeting rules? You might, but the general way of targeting is to simply choose your target. No roll is required to 'target', and the general targeting rules in every edition only require that choice, not a roll to see if you succeed or fail in your choice of target.

The way the rules work is that you may fail to hit your target, you may fail to affect your target, but you cannot fail to target your target!

The problem is that you see multiple targets and don't know which one is the creature. You have to know where you are targeting to target something. You see, in 5e there's this little thing called Specific Beats General. You keep trying to quote a general rule and say, "See, it beats the specific one you are referencing."

ALL of the images ARE 'the creature'! They are simply many images of one creature when we usually only have one image of a creature. When using a spell without an attack roll we do not need to know which image is the real one because we are not targeting an image we are targeting the creature.

If that's true, then the fighter doesn't have to roll to hit the creature. All it requires to perform an accurate attack is to have a target.

'Choosing' a target is not the same thing as 'hitting' or 'affecting' your chosen target.

From PHB p194, 'Making An Attack':-

* step 1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.

* step 2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

* step 3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

Step 1 is 'choose your target'; no random roll, no check, save or attack roll involved. It is a mental choice, made with 100% certainty.

Step 3 is 'resolve the attack', where you may or may not hit.

'Targeting' and 'attacking' are different things. 'Choosing a target' and 'successfully affecting your chosen target' are different things.

A fighter chooses his target (ie 'targets') with 100% certainty, and still has to roll to see if he hits or misses!

 

[Maxperson]

Mirror Image says, "Each time a creature targets YOU with an attack".

The spell then says, "roll a d20 to determine whether the attack INSTEAD targets one of your duplicates".

The spell literally works by first having the attacker target the creature, and then the spell (possibly) re-directs the attack to target an image instead.

I am well aware that the spell is written horribly.

No. The target is still 'they guy with all the images'. Far from preventing you from mentally choosing to target that guy, the spell relies on you targeting that guy so that it can re-direct your attack to an image.

Except that isn't what happens. The sword swing is not forcibly moved from the caster to an image. No redirection has happened. Rather, the sword has targeted the image from the get go.

Not at all. As just one example out of hundreds in the PHB, phantasmal force targets a creature you can see within 60 feet that has a mind. Although you mentally choose the 'target' of the spell with 100% certainty, whether or not the creature is actually affected by the spell has absolutely nothing to do with how good your aim is, how good the target is at dodging, or what penalties you have to your aim. What matters is how strong its will is compared to the power of your spellcasting. That spell (and hundreds like it) are not physically 'aimed' in any way.

target = creature = body(or incorporeal form) in D&D. That is how it has worked in 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e. I don't know 4e well enough to make that claim, but I suspect it was the same in that edition, too.

You mean you might have a specific spell which might mess with the general targeting rules? You might, but the general way of targeting is to simply choose your target. No roll is required to 'target', and the general targeting rules in every edition only require that choice, not a roll to see if you succeed or fail in your choice of target.

The way the rules work is that you may fail to hit your target, you may fail to affect your target, but you cannot fail to target your target!

Not even a spell. In 3e if you could not see a creature for any reason, you could not target it. You could only target a square you guessed the creature was in and hoped you hit it.

ALL of the images ARE 'the creature'! They are simply many images of one creature when we usually only have one image of a creature. When using a spell without an attack roll we do not need to know which image is the real one because we are not targeting an image we are targeting the creature.

You're fabricating that out of whole cloth. Nothing in the game says that the images are the creature. Nothing. The spell does not say it makes other creatures that are you. It says it makes illusory duplicates of you.

 

[Zephyr9]

Let's take the case of Hold Person vs Mirror Image:

- MI interpretation #1 - Hold Person is not an Attack (does not require an attack roll): Hold Person caster chooses his Target (the MI caster). He CANNOT target an image because HP only targets creatures an an image is not a creature. Since HP is NOT an Attack, a d20 is not rolled to see if an image is affected and the MI cater make roll a saving throw or be held.

- MI interpretation #2: Hold Person is affected by MI: HP caster chooses his target (the MI caster or maybe an image?). The DM rolls a d20 and determines that an image is instead targeted. But wait - HP is not capable of targeting an image. So what happens? Is the spell slot expended? Since no damage was done to an image, it wouldn't disappear. The only way this interpretation of MI works is if the DM rules that spells that can only target creatures CAN target MI images. So can other images be targeted?

My main problem with MI interpretation 2 is that it takes a pretty good 2nd level defensive spell that protects against melee and spells that require attack rolls and makes it a FAR more powerful defensive spell that protects against nearly all non-AOE spells that target creatures - and such spells won't even make an image go away since they probably don't do damage.

 

[Arial Black]

I am well aware that the spell is written in a way that doesn't match how I would have written it.

FIFY

Except that isn't what happens. The sword swing is not forcibly moved from the caster to an image. No redirection has happened. Rather, the sword has targeted the image from the get go.

In RAW terms that is exactly what happens, and when judging if the spell 'fails as a spell' then we are talking about the spell having a mechanical effect on the game that does what the writers want it to do. It works fine.

But if you are talking about the conceptualisation, then yeah, the spell isn't re-directing an attack from one target to another. What is happening is that there is a single creature made up of multiple images; one of those images is the real guy and the others are not, and you cannot tell which image is the real guy.

So, if and only if the thing you want to do to the guy requires you to physically aim at the body mass of your intended victim then you may aim at the wrong image.

But if the thing you want to do doesn't need to be aimed at the body mass in order to affect the victim (like magic missile, phantasmal force, sacred flame etc) then the swirl of illusory images is irrelevant. You are not at risk of aiming at the wrong image because you are not aiming at all! Just mentally choosing who you want to affect.

So, as written, the spell is still working as intended; messing with aiming but not messing with things that aren't aimed.

target = creature = body(or incorporeal form) in D&D. That is how it has worked in 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e. I don't know 4e well enough to make that claim, but I suspect it was the same in that edition, too.

Since I quote the part of the PHB which disproves this later in the post to which you are replying, I'll wait until you get there. I realise having to admit you are wrong is very difficult for you. I hope you don't try to pretend it never happened or anything.

You're fabricating that out of whole cloth. Nothing in the game says that the images are the creature. Nothing. The spell does not say it makes other creatures that are you. It says it makes illusory duplicates of you.

I was referring to the fact that even when you are looking at a single un-buffed creature you are looking at an 'image' of that creature that happens to also be the real guy. It's just how sight works.

And now we come to the proof from the PHB that you were wrong the entire time when you said that 'targeting' and 'aiming' are the same thing and that you may fail to 'target' your 'target'.

I wonder if you'll admit it, or try to pull a surreal explanation out of your butt, or claim that you are being insulted and refuse to carry on the conversation and still claim victory on the grounds that you could prove us all wrong but just choose not to, because moral high ground or some other excuse.

So, take it awaaaaaay.....MAXPERSON!!!!!!

...er....Maxperson? Are you there?

Wait, what happened to the last part of my post? The part that quotes the PHB explaining how you were wrong the whole time?

Don't tell me you wimped out! You did, you wimped out! You just didn't reply to the very part which resolves the issue, simply because it proves you wrong. You've tacitly admitted as much.

Or maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe you got called away to an emergency involving a quiche that might burn if not attended to, right before you could respond to the crucial part. It happens, my sympathies.

So I'll give you another chance and you can respond to it between kitchen disasters:-

'Choosing' a target is not the same thing as 'hitting' or 'affecting' your chosen target.

From PHB p194, 'Making An Attack':-

* step 1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.

* step 2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

* step 3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

Step 1 is 'choose your target'; just 'pick' your target; no random roll, no check, save or attack roll involved. It is a mental choice, made with 100% certainty.

Step 3 is 'resolve the attack', where you may or may not hit.

'Targeting' and 'attacking' are different things. 'Choosing a target' and 'successfully affecting your chosen target' are different things.

A fighter chooses his target (ie 'targets') with 100% certainty, and still has to roll to see if he hits or misses!

There you go! I'm confident that you will address this, because failure to do so would be a tacit admission of being wrong. No made up excuse for refusing to address it will change that.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's take the case of Hold Person vs Mirror Image:

- MI interpretation #1 - Hold Person is not an Attack (does not require an attack roll): Hold Person caster chooses his Target (the MI caster). He CANNOT target an image because HP only targets creatures an an image is not a creature. Since HP is NOT an Attack, a d20 is not rolled to see if an image is affected and the MI cater make roll a saving throw or be held.

A sword attack cannot target an image, either.

"1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."

The images are not creatures, objects or locations. Taking the list of what can be affected by an attack or spell as the only possible targets leaves you in a fairly ridiculous situation. It makes much more sense to allow both spells and attacks to target things that won't be affected by them.

- MI interpretation #2: Hold Person is affected by MI: HP caster chooses his target (the MI caster or maybe an image?). The DM rolls a d20 and determines that an image is instead targeted. But wait - HP is not capable of targeting an image. So what happens? Is the spell slot expended? Since no damage was done to an image, it wouldn't disappear. The only way this interpretation of MI works is if the DM rules that spells that can only target creatures CAN target MI images. So can other images be targeted?

It does go off, because...

"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

That tells you what target is affected by the spell, but leaves open the ability to target other things that won't be affected by the spell. Spells don't say, "Target only a creature and nothing else.". A spell that targets creatures can target objects, illusions, etc. just fine. It just will have no effect.

My main problem with MI interpretation 2 is that it takes a pretty good 2nd level defensive spell that protects against melee and spells that require attack rolls and makes it a FAR more powerful defensive spell that protects against nearly all non-AOE spells that target creatures - and such spells won't even make an image go away since they probably don't do damage.

Then alter it so that if it is the target of a spell that does not go off, such as Hold Person, the image is destroyed.

 

[Maxperson]

FIFY

Don't alter what I have written. It's petty and childish.

 

[Arial Black]

Don't alter what I have written. It's petty and childish.

I agree and I apologise.

It would be almost as childish as refusing to engage the very point that disproves your case while still claiming victory.

On a completely different subject: how do you counter the PHB which shows that 'choosing a target' is both 100% certain, and a different thing that 'resolving the attack'?

 

[Maxperson]

I agree and I apologise.

Thank you.

On a completely different subject: how do you counter the PHB which shows that 'choosing a target' is both 100% certain, and a different thing that 'resolving the attack'?

With common sense. I'm not disputing that the rules cause some silliness to happen. I'm saying that I dislike that silliness and want things to make more sense.

It's also not 100% certain. Targeting leaves open the ability to target things other than what are listed, such as illusions, which are not a target type. Should someone encounter an illusion of a creature, that illusion can still be the target of attacks, despite not being a creature, object or location. It just won't be affected by that attack. The attacker may THINK he's targeting a creature with 100% certainty, but he has failed to target properly.

 

[Arial Black]

It's also not 100% certain. Targeting leaves open the ability to target things other than what are listed, such as illusions, which are not a target type. Should someone encounter an illusion of a creature, that illusion can still be the target of attacks, despite not being a creature, object or location. It just won't be affected by that attack. The attacker may THINK he's targeting a creature with 100% certainty, but he has failed to target properly.

No, you still target the thing you can see with 100% certainty, even if that thing was not what you thought it was.

An example: the DM sets out the enemy on the square grid (or table or whatever). There are three creatures: a cleric, a fighter, and a wizard.

The wizard has cast mirror image on himself, the cleric has used an ability which allows him to create an illusion of a lion, and the fighter has activated a Hat of Disguise to make himself look like a damsel in distress.

That's the real situation. What do the PCs see?

They see (assuming no true seeing or other illusion-piercing magic) a guy in a starry pointed hat made up of four images (being familiar with the spell they know that one of these images is the real guy but that they cannot know which), a guy in full plate, warhammer, and shield with a prominent holy symbol, a damsel in distress, and a lion.

PC's turn. The archer chooses at target, and he does so with 100% certainty. He can choose to target the lion, the damsel, the tooled-up holy guy, or the guy with all the images. His choice of target is 100% certain, but that doesn't mean that he knows what his targets really are!

Now it's the PC wizard. He wants to cast either magic missile, fire bolt or hold monster, and he can choose from the same four targets (holy guy, lion, damsel, guy-with-the-images) and his choice is 100% certain even though he has no greater ability than the fighter in regards to knowing the truth about his targets.

Lets go through each spell choice versus each target. First, hold monster. This spell doesn't need to be accurately aimed in any way. He just has to be able to see his freely-chosen target. If he targets the cleric or the damsel/fighter then the spell works as usual subject to a saving throw. If he targets the guy with all the images' then that guy must make a save as normal. His images simply do not interfere with the PC's choice of target. If he targets the lion then the spell will have no effect because the illusory lion is not a legal target because it is not a creature. The spell gets cast, a slot is used, but it has no effect.

Now for magic missile. Let's say our PC has four missiles and he shoots one at the lion, one at the damsel, one at the armoured guy and one at the guy with all the images. Just like the other spell, this spell does not need to be precisely aimed, it automatically affects the chosen creature with no save. The missiles damage the fighter/damsel, the cleric, and the 'real' wizard, but does nothing to the illusory lion because it is not a valid target.

Now fire bolt: this requires actual aiming and an attack roll. Against the damsel/fighter or the cleric, a successful attack roll results in damage. Against the illusory lion, since the spell affects 'a creature or object' it is not a valid target. Against the guy with all the images, the PC wizard chooses to target that guy with 100% certainty, but then the spell kicks in and it may switch the target to an image instead.

Of course, conceptually, what is actually happening in the game world is that the fire bolt does need to be aimed accurately in order to affect the target (unlike the other two spells) so he aims at one of the images and hopes that this image happens to be the real guy. He might be right, he might be wrong, but he cannot know before the attack. The results of the attack do inform him if he was right or wrong, as a hit illusory image will wink out but the real guy will not.

So, choosing your target is 100% certain, without making you certain what your target really is.