D&D 5E Mirror Image vs. Hold Person (and other non-targeting attacks)

[5ekyu]

Speaking of which... as i said i expected there to already be sage...

NOTE: MM says "Each dart hits a creature of your choice" so like Hold person a choice of targets is required so it would seem to be clear for hold person and other such cases too.

BTW the follow-up did confirm that meant the MM would just go straight to the target and ignore the dupes.

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
The mirror image spell has no effect on magic missile, which doesn't involve an attack. #DnD https://twitter.com/odiemor/status/705939302564253696 …

7:46 PM - Mar 14, 2016

 

[Sebastrd]

Consider the case of the duplicate illusion created by Cleric Trickery Duplicity. if one cast a hold person while seeing the illusion duplicate and the actual subject was unseen what would you rule the result to be then? What if Both the duplicate and the original were seen but 15' apart with no clear idea which was the real one? Would you have the hold person "auto-find" the "real boy" each time or attempt to affect the illusion and fail or make the caster choose which one to go after?

The duplicate is an invalid target because hold person must target a creature, and the cleric is an invalid target because the caster must see him to target him.

Either way, Jeremy's ruling that you posted buttoned up this issue a long time ago.

 

[sim-h]

Hang on a minute - if Magic Missile is not affected by mirror image then the missiles must strike the 'true' target automatically, so anyone watching would then know which image to strike in future! Nah, I wouldn't run with that as a DM - I'd have the player choose which image(s) to strike and randomize which one was real. But then DMs have the luxury of picking and choosing when and where to apply certain logic, so I understand the sage advice ruling.

As for the OP my first thought was that Hold Person would work, but the argument you need to know which duplicate to target, if made to me by a player, might have me rule the other way.

 

[OB1]

And this is what I love about 5e RAR (Rules as Ruled). There is plenty of space to rule in a way that makes sense for my world and the fun at my table!


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Ristamar]

Per the description of the spell, Mirror Image functions more like a variable shifting displacement effect rather than static duplicates. Manual targeting wouldn't make much sense since it's simulating a magical shell game vs attack rolls. Spells that don't require attack rolls essentially say, "screw your dumb game, I'm not playing by your rules."

 

[rczarnec]

Hang on a minute - if Magic Missile is not affected by mirror image then the missiles must strike the 'true' target automatically, so anyone watching would then know which image to strike in future! Nah, I wouldn't run with that as a DM - I'd have the player choose which image(s) to strike and randomize which one was real.

That doesn't follow. That would imply that somebody who hit with an attack could ignore Mirror Image for subsequent attacks. This isn't the way that the spell works. Regardless of successful attacks, subsequent attacks still have a chance to hit an image.

 

[Oofta]

Speaking of which... as i said i expected there to already be sage...

NOTE: MM says "Each dart hits a creature of your choice" so like Hold person a choice of targets is required so it would seem to be clear for hold person and other such cases too.

BTW the follow-up did confirm that meant the MM would just go straight to the target and ignore the dupes.

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
The mirror image spell has no effect on magic missile, which doesn't involve an attack. #DnD https://twitter.com/odiemor/status/705939302564253696 …

7:46 PM - Mar 14, 2016

While I don't necessarily disagree with this, I will say that this is not the way it worked in previous editions. In previous editions, a magic missile was one of the best ways to "pop" mirror images and it was explicitly stated that magic missile would take out an image if it didn't hit the caster. Personally, i STILL thought it worked that way before I double checked the rules before posting a response to this thread.

So on the one hand you have the "Appeal to Tradition" viewpoint. Magic Missile targets a random image version of the caster which may or may not be an illusion.

On the other hand you have the somewhat problematic "you target the caster". Why problematic? Because you have to target someone you can see; are you really seeing the caster when you focus the spell on what you believe is the caster or an illusion?

I think the deeper question is can you target an illusion with a spell that normally targets a creature? What happens if a group comes across a programmed illusion or some other higher level illusion of a person and cast Hold Person on it? It's not a valid target, does the caster just lose the spell? Lose the action but retain the spell slot since it was not a valid target (something alluded to in some podcasts/interviews with the devs).

Ultimately, just make a ruling and be as consistent as possible.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

While I don't necessarily disagree with this, I will say that this is not the way it worked in previous editions. In previous editions, a magic missile was one of the best ways to "pop" mirror images and it was explicitly stated that magic missile would take out an image if it didn't hit the caster. Personally, i STILL thought it worked that way before I double checked the rules before posting a response to this thread.

So on the one hand you have the "Appeal to Tradition" viewpoint. Magic Missile targets a random image version of the caster which may or may not be an illusion.

On the other hand you have the somewhat problematic "you target the caster". Why problematic? Because you have to target someone you can see; are you really seeing the caster when you focus the spell on what you believe is the caster or an illusion?

I think the deeper question is can you target an illusion with a spell that normally targets a creature? What happens if a group comes across a programmed illusion or some other higher level illusion of a person and cast Hold Person on it? It's not a valid target, does the caster just lose the spell? Lose the action but retain the spell slot since it was not a valid target (something alluded to in some podcasts/interviews with the devs).

Ultimately, just make a ruling and be as consistent as possible.

This actually is precisely the discussion we were having with regard to the Hold Person and Mirror Image situation that made me start this thread. Also, the Magic Missile and Mirror Image popped up too, ironically and saw that MM may not be able to eliminate the images. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that to be honest. I'm still somewhat pondering what to do with this to some degree...

 

[OB1]

This actually is precisely the discussion we were having with regard to the Hold Person and Mirror Image situation that made me start this thread. Also, the Magic Missile and Mirror Image popped up too, ironically and saw that MM may not be able to eliminate the images. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that to be honest. I'm still somewhat pondering what to do with this to some degree...

Make the ruling that you like. It doesn’t matter what the is RAW or RAI or what Jeremy ruled in his game. Those things can help illuminate your decision, but it’s still yours. You won’t break the game either way so long as you stay consistent in your game.

In my game, I’d rule it that you still have to roll to affect the right target for MM or non AOE saves (baring truesight or other way yo see past the illusion). In my wife’s game, she would rule that MI only works against attacks. We are both right! And the game works just as well for both of us, it just changes the details of the world a bit. In her’s the magic knows which is real even if the caster does not. In mine it does not.

 

[Oofta]

I also wanted to say that I view tweets from Crawford differently that I do the sage advice column. The sage advice columns has a lot of thought put into it, potential caveats, and explanations.

To me, his tweets are just how he runs his game and how he personally handles it. Carries a little more weight than some random dude on the internet like me, but it's not an official ruling.