Mirror Image and Magic Missile

Well, I don't agree with some of what Dash has just said, so I'll try to explain my interpretation further where those points are concerned...

I don't consider a mage plus four images to be a single unit for targetting purposes. They're five separate targets, which happen to be indistinguishable.

My personal view is that figments are not creatures, and therefore spells that target creatures fail when they attempt to target a figment. However, the FAQ (or Sage Advice?) declared that creature-simulating effects may be targetted as creatures, so regardless of my personal opinion on the matter, I'll use that point of view for the rest of this post.

Casting a magic missile at five goblins, the caster can choose to target five missiles on one goblin, or one missile at each of the five, or split them two-on-one and three-on-another, for instance. Given that figments, as creature-simulating effects, may be targetted as creatures, a caster throwing five missiles at a mage with four figments can choose to aim all five at one target, or one at each target, or some other split. The DM would then secretly determine which of the five was the real mage, and thereby how many missiles struck the mage, and how many figments were destroyed.

Similarly, the Message spell, with one target per level, could likely target all four figments and the mage separately, and destroy all the figments at once.

It's also worth noting that the mage and his four figments could end up strung out in a line 20 ft. long - as long as each figment is within 5 ft. of the mage or another figment - and thus one would be outside the bounds of a Magic Missile ('all of which must be within 15' of one another').

-Hyp.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hypersmurf, that's EXACTLY what I've been trying to say, thank you for putting it so nicely.

Also, just a bit more about Magic Missle - I guess I subscribe to the interpretation that when casting the spell, if you specify an invalid target, the spell goes off, but it doesn't affect the target.

For example, if a sorcerer is trying to signal to his companions who are lost in the woods as to which direction is the way out, I don't see why the sorcerer couldn't say "I cast a Magic Missle, targeted at the air 100 feet above me".

Of COURSE the Magic Missle doesn't DO anything to the air, since it's not a valid target, but that shouldn't stop a little streak of light, or whatever the sorcerer's magic missle looks like from streaking upwards into the air - possibly to be noticed by another character.
 

Yeah, that's how I interpret things too I guess. Just saying "The spell fizzles" is boring and kind of gives away some information that divination spells are for :)

Yes, I know I have no rules to back up that interpretation :D

IceBear
 

Also, just a bit more about Magic Missle - I guess I subscribe to the interpretation that when casting the spell, if you specify an invalid target, the spell goes off, but it doesn't affect the target.

I just come back to the line about Charm Person on a dog - if you try to target the wrong sort of thing, "the spell has no effect".

I consider "a magical dart of glowing energy" to be an effect, but if you want to think of the effect being the damage dealt, there's room to argue it :)

-Hyp.
 

Just saying "The spell fizzles" is boring and kind of gives away some information that divination spells are for :)

Well, "the magic missile hits the image and it disappears" gives away information that spells-with-attack-rolls are for, in my opinion, but hey... ;)

-Hyp.
 

I know what Hypersmurf is saying is technically true, but I guess I just have it ingrained in me that magic missles destroy mirror images, so I allow targetted spells that cause damage to destroy mirror images.

What about ones that give saves?

After all, with targeted spells, you know if your target saves or not. What happens if you hit an image with, say, Charm Person? What about Hold Person?
 

I just come back to the line about Charm Person on a dog - if you try to target the wrong sort of thing, "the spell has no effect".

I consider "a magical dart of glowing energy" to be an effect, but if you want to think of the effect being the damage dealt, there's room to argue it

The word effect used in that context, "the spell has no effect." is the same as if saying of no effect for definition purposes. What exactly does of no effect mean? Well it means this.

Of no effect, Of none effect, To no effect, or Without effect, destitute of results, validity, force, and the like; vain; fruitless. ``Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition.'' --Mark vii. 13. ``All my study be to no effect.'' --Shak.

Now that we know this, "a magical dart of glowing energy" isn't the effect, the damage dealt would be the effect, which does happen. The image takes no damage.
 

Blade Barrier. Effect: a spinning disk of blades.
Melf's Acid Arrow. Effect: one arrow of acid.
Dancing Lights. Effect: Up to four glowing lights.

The word has more than one meaning.

-Hyp.
 

However, the FAQ (or Sage Advice?) declared that creature-simulating effects may be targetted as creatures, so regardless of my personal opinion on the matter, I'll use that point of view for the rest of this post.

Did I miss this somewhere? Where in the FAQ does it say this? At least in the FAQ stuff quoted so far in this thread it does not put forward this point of view.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top