D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

[Plaguescarred]

Yes, the very first incarnations of Magic Missile (OD&D and Holmes) essentially treated it as a magic arrow launched from a longbow. Even did 1d6+1 damage.

It became the more familiar unerringly auto-hitting 1d4+1 spell in 1981.

(And of course, pre-errata 4e also used attack rolls. It's amusing to me that in this instance, 4e is more closer to D&D's roots than anything else. )

Thanks i didn't know for OD&D and forgot about 4E pre-errata

 

[Arial Black]

Was magic missile ever been an attack is D&D history?

Previous editions did not have 5E's definition of 'attack'.

In 1E and 2E, you lost your invisibility if you 'attacked'. In 3E 'attack' (for the purpose of adjudicating whether or not what you do makes you visible) included any spell whose area included an enemy.

It sounded good until you realised that if you were using detect magic and an enemy came into that detecting cone, then this detecting counted as an 'attack' and you lost your invisibility.

Since 5E has its own definition of 'attack' (which BTW includes an attack roll; p194 PHB) then 5E needed to re-write the conditions where you lose your invisibility. Otherwise you'd be casting power word: kill while staying invisible.

So they did:-

The spell ends for a target that *attacks* OR *casts a spell*

If merely casting a spell that the enemy wouldn't like counted as an 'attack', then the "or casts a spell" part wouldn't be required. Since 'attack' in 5E is defined by the attack roll, the "or casts a spell" is required.

 

[Sage Genesis]

In case you couldn't tell I'm using tapatalk, it's not very good for distinguishing between users.

I could tell, but I have no idea what tapatalk is like or how things look on your end. It appears I've mistaken a technical limitation for rudeness, and for that I apologize.

 

[Arial Black]

In case you couldn't tell I'm using tapatalk

Well why didn't you say so?

 

[Yunru]

Well why didn't you say so?

I'd like that bit from the Simpsons where they say "That is the joke", but I'm on tapatalk

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Except now you're coalescing hit with attack. Magic Missile is (probably) an attack. It lacks an attack roll though so it doesn't 'hit'.

Also I challenge you to find anywhere in the book or eratta that states this ""no attack roll = not an attack" rule" that you reference.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I was simply paraphrasing the same thing the rest of you were talking about with the rule "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll,you're making an attack."

So since we, as a group are discussing this, then there is a question at hand. Is Magic Missile an attack? The rule says if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. That's all the rule says.

So now we check to see if Magic Missile makes an attack roll. It does not. So......no attack roll means it was not an attack.

Grappling, as you brought up earlier, says you make a special melee attack. This is one of 5th editions uses of specific beats general. There is no specific rule that I know of that calls out magic Missile as an attack. Therefore specific vs general does not apply and counter or change us looking to see if Magic Missile needs an attack roll.

The reason I pointed out Shield as supporting this reading of the rules is because Magic Missile says "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range." If Magic Missile was an attack, then the dart hitting could trigger the use of the Shield spell because it would be an attack hitting. Instead, it's written in addition , as if an attack hitting would not cover it. There would be no reason to make this special caveat if a dart from Magic Missile hitting was an attack hitting.

 

[Ganymede81]

If magic missile was an attack, then hit by an attack would be a perfectly fine trigger for the reaction to use the Shield spell.

You might want to reread the spell description as Shield specifies a unique benefit against magic missiles that differs from all other attacks: you are made immune to damage from them. When something does two completely different things, we would expect them to use different language.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

You might want to reread the spell description as Shield specifies a unique benefit against magic missiles that differs from all other attacks: you are made immune to damage from them. When something does two completely different things, we would expect them to use different language.

If Magic Missile was an attack, the trigger to use it would still work, regardless of it applying a +5ac bonus ( which wouldn't matter ) or reducing the damage from Magic Missile to nothing. They aren't listed as two different effects, they both happen when you use the spell. Why would the language need to be different I guess is what I am wondering. Magic Missile hits. Shield used. AC increases by 5 and Magic Missiles do not do damage to you. You don't get only one of the benefits.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You pick which image to attack, which is what the d20 roll represents, and if you hit an image then it vanishes. You're not just swinging blindly into a blurry mass of bodies.

The d20 roll could represent the latter. It's just not clear (pi) one way or another.

 

[Inglorin]

This image from The Matrix shows how I imagine Mirror Image to look like.



The attacker does not target one of the images. It is perfectly clear, that there is only one person. This is your target. The d20 mechanics give the caster a chance to not be where the attack hits.

Magic Missile isn't fooled by these shenanigans. It hits. Every time.

Neither is Hold Person (for example). It targets the only person there. There is no doubt, that there is only ONE person there. It just looks funny.