Its not a good compromise because it still violates the targeting rules.
Mirror Image and Combat Reflexes
- Thread starter MojoGM
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
Regarding Mirror Image, the DM needs to make one of two possible rulings:
(1) The Mirror Image provides a miss chance that, when a potential hit occurs, either results in a hit or a reduction in the miss chance.
(2) The Mirror Image provides potential targets for attacks, and the attacker is choosing which potential target to attack.
If the DM chooses (1) then Magic Missile seems to target all of the images, but really targets only the caster. It cannot reduce the miss chance, but cannot be fooled by a miss chance either. Likewise, only a single target exists, allowing only a single AoO. The question becomes more "where is the target?" than "which target is real?"
If the DM chooses (2) then Combat Reflexes should allow multiple AoOs, and the DM has a further question to resolve: namely, can Magic Missile (and similar spells) target illusory "creatures"?
If the DM answers "Yes" to that question, then the caster chooses the target for various missiles, either hitting images (destroying them) or hitting the caster. I would rule that both (a) requiring the caster of Magic Missile to select each missile's target and (b) having the wrong selections fail to eliminate a potential target would be against the intent of the magic system.
In the event that the DM chooses that Magic Missile cannot target illusory "creatures" (with all of the ramifications for detecting illusions that this implies) I would rule that Magic Missile seems to target all of the images, but really targets only the caster. It cannot reduce the number of images, but cannot be fooled by the images either.
The only problem I see with the initial ruling is that the DM ruled that the images were targets in the case of Magic Missile, but only a miss chance in the case of AoOs. Other than this, any internally consistent ruling should be fine.
Raven Crowking
(1) The Mirror Image provides a miss chance that, when a potential hit occurs, either results in a hit or a reduction in the miss chance.
(2) The Mirror Image provides potential targets for attacks, and the attacker is choosing which potential target to attack.
If the DM chooses (1) then Magic Missile seems to target all of the images, but really targets only the caster. It cannot reduce the miss chance, but cannot be fooled by a miss chance either. Likewise, only a single target exists, allowing only a single AoO. The question becomes more "where is the target?" than "which target is real?"
If the DM chooses (2) then Combat Reflexes should allow multiple AoOs, and the DM has a further question to resolve: namely, can Magic Missile (and similar spells) target illusory "creatures"?
If the DM answers "Yes" to that question, then the caster chooses the target for various missiles, either hitting images (destroying them) or hitting the caster. I would rule that both (a) requiring the caster of Magic Missile to select each missile's target and (b) having the wrong selections fail to eliminate a potential target would be against the intent of the magic system.
In the event that the DM chooses that Magic Missile cannot target illusory "creatures" (with all of the ramifications for detecting illusions that this implies) I would rule that Magic Missile seems to target all of the images, but really targets only the caster. It cannot reduce the number of images, but cannot be fooled by the images either.
The only problem I see with the initial ruling is that the DM ruled that the images were targets in the case of Magic Missile, but only a miss chance in the case of AoOs. Other than this, any internally consistent ruling should be fine.
Raven Crowking
Dannyalcatraz said:
You DO realize that RAW, this either supports the idea of targeting figments (and violates MM), or makes the recipient of MI untergetable (which breaks MI)?
Dude, the rules did not anticipate this situation, and we now have a ludicrous conundrum. You're going to have to put the book down, and think for yourself.
ZuulMog, my mind is completely open on this. In fact, if you would use YOUR brain, you might notice that I support MM destroying MI images.
What I'm trying to do is find a way to adjudicate this in a way that is both fair and internally consistent, and works with whatver combo of illusions and targeted spells we can find.
I would prefer a solution that does not violate GENERAL targeting rules for the purpose of this one problem.
My solution was to alter the PARTICULAR targeting rules of MM- namely to allow the MM caster to target anything he believes to be a creature.
I believe this is a superior path. The attack spell doesn't fizzle, and treats all potential targets identically. Meanwhile, illusions are meaningful- they act and react as if real until the illusion is disrupted.
You could argue that this is like targeting the dog with a charm spell, but there, you're trying to affect the wrong kind of mind...its like giving someone instructions in a language they don't understand.
All that said, there is absolutely no conundrum in having the missiles that target images simply fizzle and the one that targets the mage actually work.
The conundrum only arises because there is probably a long standing and broad history of allowing MM to target MI images, despite targeting rules.
In law, we call this a "conflict of laws" problem. Either it gets resolved heirarchically (one set of rules trumps the other) OR it gets revised by those who drafted the rules in the first place.
These 2 spells have been D&D staples for 27 years. It isn't my fault 1) either some game designer got too cute and hyperspecific and hasn't sussed out that there's a problem or 2) TSR/WoTC haven't published explicit errata*.
*That assumes that this hasn't been addressed in 27 years of Sage Advice columns- which I DO have on hand, but don't have the time to go through right now.
You know, we could aways ask the Colonel...
What I'm trying to do is find a way to adjudicate this in a way that is both fair and internally consistent, and works with whatver combo of illusions and targeted spells we can find.
I would prefer a solution that does not violate GENERAL targeting rules for the purpose of this one problem.
My solution was to alter the PARTICULAR targeting rules of MM- namely to allow the MM caster to target anything he believes to be a creature.
I believe this is a superior path. The attack spell doesn't fizzle, and treats all potential targets identically. Meanwhile, illusions are meaningful- they act and react as if real until the illusion is disrupted.
You could argue that this is like targeting the dog with a charm spell, but there, you're trying to affect the wrong kind of mind...its like giving someone instructions in a language they don't understand.
All that said, there is absolutely no conundrum in having the missiles that target images simply fizzle and the one that targets the mage actually work.
The conundrum only arises because there is probably a long standing and broad history of allowing MM to target MI images, despite targeting rules.
In law, we call this a "conflict of laws" problem. Either it gets resolved heirarchically (one set of rules trumps the other) OR it gets revised by those who drafted the rules in the first place.
These 2 spells have been D&D staples for 27 years. It isn't my fault 1) either some game designer got too cute and hyperspecific and hasn't sussed out that there's a problem or 2) TSR/WoTC haven't published explicit errata*.
*That assumes that this hasn't been addressed in 27 years of Sage Advice columns- which I DO have on hand, but don't have the time to go through right now.
You know, we could aways ask the Colonel...
azhrei_fje
First Post
Sorry, I guess your posting crossed in the bitstream with mine.Dannyalcatraz said:
I have caught up on all messages up to #115.Emphasis mine. Note that a successful attack deals damage. I won't cover ground that's already been covered; review previous posts, if you're interested. Notice that "damage" is very specifically defined, as well.
As I mentioned, these don't count.
The issue here (emphasis is, again, mine) is that the MI spell specifically says successful attacks, which narrows the definition given above. So for a normal spell, I would agree that charm person would be an attack (assuming it was cast on a recipient that it could affect). A successful attack would mean that the recipient failed their saving throw.
Casting charm person would destroy an image (if we somehow allow the spell to affect an image in the first place!) because while it doesn't do damage, if the recipient failed their saving throw, it would have to be considered a successful attack for the purposes of the MI spell.
I apologize that I didn't have the time to look up these quote previously.
Btw, someone mentioned that images appear damaged because the spellcaster appears damaged, if they get caught in a fireball, for example. But that's not what the spell says:
Note that it says, looking like they are burned after being hit. There's a missing pronoun from the end of the phrase, but the clear intention (for me anyway!) is that the "being hit" refers to the image, not to the protected creature.
However, I agree with the posts in the 100-115 range, and I will drop this topic. I know how I'm going to rule IMC and that's all that really matters, isn't it?
The last thing I want to do is p*ss people off so that they won't have these discussions with me in the future! 
RE: my list of non-damaging attacks:
Where did you mention this? I can't find it.
And more to the point- why not? They ARE attacks. They don't do damage. Some of them give you the option of doing damage or not doing damage. They obviously qualify as counterexamples to your proposition that a successful attack must do damage.
Lets assume you mean that you're looking for attacks that do damage normally. Fine.
An attack that hits and has its damage reduced to 0 on the target has still done damage- it was just nullified.
A Mirror Image, as a figment, has no HP. It can't be dispelled when the caster falls 10 feet and takes a couple of points of damage, it can't dispell itself by seeming to stub its toe or twist its ankle. It is dispelled when it is targeted and seemingly successfully "struck" by an attack.
Lets say you had a caster who had DR whatever/ silver and had MI up. Would strikes with a wooden club dispel a Mirror Image? I'm pretty sure it would, even though it couldn't possibly damage the original.
Where did you mention this? I can't find it.
And more to the point- why not? They ARE attacks. They don't do damage. Some of them give you the option of doing damage or not doing damage. They obviously qualify as counterexamples to your proposition that a successful attack must do damage.
Lets assume you mean that you're looking for attacks that do damage normally. Fine.
An attack that hits and has its damage reduced to 0 on the target has still done damage- it was just nullified.
A Mirror Image, as a figment, has no HP. It can't be dispelled when the caster falls 10 feet and takes a couple of points of damage, it can't dispell itself by seeming to stub its toe or twist its ankle. It is dispelled when it is targeted and seemingly successfully "struck" by an attack.
Lets say you had a caster who had DR whatever/ silver and had MI up. Would strikes with a wooden club dispel a Mirror Image? I'm pretty sure it would, even though it couldn't possibly damage the original.
So I did ask him how he adjudicated spells that "target creatures" being used against illusions of creatures.
dcollins
Explorer
Unfortunately, none of the technical issues involved here ("figments", "target" specification, mirror image setting images in separate map spaces, or saying anything about spell attacks) existed in the AD&D that Gygax wrote. He probably won't even know exactly what you're talking about in that regard, never mind have specific insights to the current problems.
If it matters, reading the AD&D spells I would say that magic missile automatically hits the enemy wizard and ignores mirror images (because mirror image only refers to defense against weapons). That is different than how I read the 3rd Ed. spells which designates mirror image as creating separate targets for both attacks and spells.
If it matters, reading the AD&D spells I would say that magic missile automatically hits the enemy wizard and ignores mirror images (because mirror image only refers to defense against weapons). That is different than how I read the 3rd Ed. spells which designates mirror image as creating separate targets for both attacks and spells.
Last edited:
