Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7111611" data-attributes="member: 6799649">FIFY  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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification