D&D 5E Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image

[Corwin]

So, what about "I close my eyes and attack the spot in front of me!" ?

That is covered in the spell's write up also.

A creature is unaffected by this spell if it can’t see, if it
relies on senses other than sight, such as blindsight, or
if it can perceive illusions as false, as with truesight.

Though someone doing so obviously has other downsides to deal with.

 

[Arial Black]

So, what about "I close my eyes and attack the spot in front of me!" ?

From the spell:- "A creature is unaffected by this spell if it can’t see, if it relies on senses other than sight, such as blindsight, or if it can perceive illusions as false, as with truesight."

If you close your eyes then you cannot see, and if you cannot see then you are unaffected by mirror image, as specified in the spell description.

Edit: Bah! Ninja'd.

 

[Inglorin]

I ... hate you all and will now crawl back into my cubicle to resume working. Will bring my PHB to work someday.

Thanks. ;-)

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

I never said that.

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.

Or that. Hell, I never mentioned those spells at all.

No, you didn't mention them, which is exactly my point. You have completely failed to address the mechanical differences between them and magic missile, as you are continuing to do with this evasion.

I haven't said a single arbitrary thing here.

Get off this high horse. He's thrown a shoe. This:

It will go around a corner or cover, but that's it.

is arbitrary. You have set a limit on the spell's behaviors based neither on its text nor on its mechanical functioning. It is entirely a limit of your conceiving, based on your preferred narrative.

This also:

It also has no ability to tell the difference between one person and another.

is arbitrary, indicated neither by the text nor the mechanics, and, in fact, it is contradicted by the spell's mechanical ability to find its target while avoiding all cover, intervening creatures, and armor--an ability which you acknowledge.

Even this:

The caster has seen his target and aims at it.

is arbitrary, as there is no mention whatsoever of the caster aiming. Given that he or she could potentially be targeting as many as eleven different creatures with magic missile, the idea of the caster aiming at each of them simultaneously disrupts verisimilitude in a way that no interaction with mirror image ever could.

I didn't say that, either.

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.

You still have yet to address the mechanical differences between magic missile and other spells, you continue to insist that magic missile cannot discern things, and your emphasis has been on the caster aiming, leading to the appearance that, within your narrative of the spell, it is some difference in the caster which allows the spell to always strike.

I did say that, and it's true. The spell language does not say that it has the ability to discern things, so it can't. It just homes.

How does it home without discerning things? This is no less arbitrary and no less contradictory than when you first said it.

You managed to get one thing correct, and a second partially correct. That's not a good average.

You can quit playing silly dominance games and start clarifying your murky spell narrative whenever you like.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm totally fine with the concept that attackers just have to mentally decide who to target, no aiming involved. 'Targeting' and 'aiming' are two separate things, both in the game and in real life.

Since 'targeting' is just 'mentally deciding which creature to target' then both spell and sword do the same with 100% certainty.

If 'mentally deciding who to target' is all that is required (hold person, magic missile) then the fact that the target creature is a swirl of images is no impediment. You do not run the risk of aiming at the wrong image since you are not 'aiming' at anything! You are just mentally deciding which creature to target, and you are deciding to target 'the guy with all the images'.

If, in addition to 'mentally deciding who to target', the attack also requires that you precisely aim your attack at the body mass of that target, then conceptually you might aim at the wrong image.

There's nothing that says targeting is mental, but for the sake of the discussion, let's say that it is. Fighter targeting is just as "mental" as spell targeting.

PHB p204:- "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..."

"...To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover."

That's it. You don't have to aim at it, just mentally choose who to target.

Page 194 of the PHB. "Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."

The exact same mental choice via "pick a target" as the spellcaster.

The important part is what happens next. Both a weapon and a spell involve time to actually form the attack against the target. If the spellcaster can still hit the target, so can the fighter. If one has to roll, both need to roll or it's a pile of nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the spell section that says that a target is maintained after the caster looses track of it.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you didn't mention them, which is exactly my point. You have completely failed to address the mechanical differences between them and magic missile, as you are continuing to do with this evasion.

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.

Get off this high horse. He's thrown a shoe. This: is arbitrary. You have set a limit on the spell's behaviors based neither on its text nor on its mechanical functioning. It is entirely a limit of your conceiving, based on your preferred narrative.

This also: is arbitrary, indicated neither by the text nor the mechanics, and, in fact, it is contradicted by the spell's mechanical ability to find its target while avoiding all cover, intervening creatures, and armor--an ability which you acknowledge.

Even this: is arbitrary, as there is no mention whatsoever of the caster aiming. Given that he or she could potentially be targeting as many as eleven different creatures with magic missile, the idea of the caster aiming at each of them simultaneously disrupts verisimilitude in a way that no interaction with mirror image ever could.

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.

I said, to which you responded, You still have yet to address the mechanical differences between magic missile and other spells, you continue to insist that magic missile cannot discern things, and your emphasis has been on the caster aiming, leading to the appearance that, within your narrative of the spell, it is some difference in the caster which allows the spell to always strike.

How does it home without discerning things? This is no less arbitrary and no less contradictory than when you first said it.

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.

 

[Ristamar]

If one has to roll, both need to roll or it's a pile of nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the spell section that says that a target is maintained after the caster looses track of it.

Truthfully, the spell is a pile of nonsense under most interpretations. It requires a certain blind level of acceptance to function without reproach.

The caster and three shifting images are clustered into 5 square feet. Why can't a single attack easily hit multiple targets? If your table is using feats (Great Weapon Master) or the Cleave variant in the DMG, shouldn't a melee attacker be able to continue his attack when an image is destroyed?

Under an observant eye, how easily should the real caster be able to hide among the shifting images, especially as the images are reduced? Wouldn't there be telltale signs of which images are not real by noting impossible movements or lack of environmental interaction (e.g shifting grass or puffs of dust or dirt) that allow you to easily track the real caster? At the very least, shouldn't characters with a high Perception or Investigation score be able to more easily target the real caster?

Personally, I can't be bothered to sweat the details of the spell to the point of dissecting and reconstructing mechanics. If Mirror Image breaks the verisimilitude of the game for me, there's no way I'm getting past a lot of the other streamlined or abstracted systems within the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Truthfully, the spell is a pile of nonsense under most interpretations. It requires a certain blind level of acceptance to function without reproach.

The caster and three shifting images are clustered into 5 square feet. Why can't a single attack easily hit multiple targets? If your table is using feats (Great Weapon Master) or the Cleave variant in the DMG, shouldn't a melee attacker be able to continue his attack when an image is destroyed?

Under an observant eye, how easily should the real caster be able to hide among the shifting images, especially as the images are reduced? Wouldn't there be telltale signs of which images are not real by noting impossible movements or lack of environmental interaction (e.g shifting grass or puffs of dust or dirt) that allow you to easily track the real caster? At the very least, shouldn't characters with a high Perception or Investigation score be able to more easily target the real caster?

Personally, I can't be bothered to sweat the details of the spell to the point of dissecting and reconstructing mechanics. If Mirror Image breaks the verisimilitude of the game for me, there's no way I'm getting past a lot of the other streamlined or abstracted systems within the rules.

That's all true. I guess it all depends on which things bother you the most. I'm not a fan of the 5e Mirror Image spell.

 

[Arial Black]

Fighter targeting is just as "mental" as spell targeting.

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.

Page 194 of the PHB. "Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."

The exact same mental choice via "pick a target" as the spellcaster.

Absolutely! No argument here!

The important part is what happens next. Both a weapon and a spell involve time to actually form the attack against the target. If the spellcaster can still hit the target, so can the fighter. If one has to roll, both need to roll or it's a pile of nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the spell section that says that a target is maintained after the caster looses track of it.

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

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!

Maxperson, the upshot of your contribution to this thread is this: "If I had written the mirror image spell for 5E, I would have written it differently than Crawford did when he wrote the spell for the 5E PHB".

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?

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

It doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't match the way you would have written the spell. But the spells that are actually in the 5E PHB do not have to match the spell you wrote in your house!

In 3E I loved true strike. Plus 20 Insight bonus to attack and ignore all miss chances from concealment? Yes please! But I cannot come to the 5E forums and pretend that the 5E version of the spell works the same way. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

Similarly, I cannot bring the 3E version of mirror image to the 5E forums and claim that the 5E version works the same way. It works differently now. You might like it, you might not, but you cannot pretend that it works the same way in 5E that it worked in 3E.

 

[Caliban]

That's all true. I guess it all depends on which things bother you the most. I'm not a fan of the 5e Mirror Image spell.

Really? I had no idea.