Mirror Image question

[Erose]

Let's say the spell is active and all images are up, if hold person was cast upon you do the images have a chance of being held or does it automatically target you? Also, how far away are the images from you?

[Xethik]

Mirror Image only works on attacks. Hold Person would be unaffected.

[Falcon X]

A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects.
This is really what clenches it. There is still a way to interpret it as damage and effects implying terrain or area of effect things, but it lends itself to being immune to spells.

[Segev]

Falcon X is correct. As the spell is written, when the enemy targets you, you roll according to the spell to see whether they targeted you or an image. If they hit an image with any effect that doesn't cause damage, the image no-sells it. That is, the effect does nothing.



Tangentially related, does it strike anybody else as weird that they use an awkward breakdown of a d20 roll to determine if an image is hit or it's really you, rather than just rolling a die with the right number of sides (or with slightly more than the right number and re-rolling if an invalid number comes up)? Is there a balance reason, or just a desire to keep it from needing that potential re-roll?

[Xethik]

Yeah the d20 rolling thing is weird and more complicated than it needs to be.

Anyways, the Images should never be targeted by Hold Person. As per the text of the spell

Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
This is the trigger to determine if you attack an image or the real target. Emphasis is mine. Since Hold Person isn't an attack, there isn't a chance for a Mirror Image to redirect the spell.

[RickAllison]

Falcon X is correct. As the spell is written, when the enemy targets you, you roll according to the spell to see whether they targeted you or an image. If they hit an image with any effect that doesn't cause damage, the image no-sells it. That is, the effect does nothing.



Tangentially related, does it strike anybody else as weird that they use an awkward breakdown of a d20 roll to determine if an image is hit or it's really you, rather than just rolling a die with the right number of sides (or with slightly more than the right number and re-rolling if an invalid number comes up)? Is there a balance reason, or just a desire to keep it from needing that potential re-roll?


Each time a creature targets you with an attack during
the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the
attack instead targets one o f your duplicates.

RAI maybe, but the RAW is that it only affects attacks. I explain this as the person appearing as some Picasso art, creating a monstrosity that is enough to prevent attacks from landing, but doing nothing to inhibit save spells that would have an invalid target.

[Dalebert]

RAI maybe, but the RAW is that it only affects attacks.

I seriously doubt it's RAI as it would just be too powerful for a 2nd level spell that isn't concentration and allows you to attack without ending the effect. The RAW is clear so I see no reason to change it. If it helps, think of it like this. Hold Person doesn't require an attack roll so just assume it homes in on whatever you're targeting like a heat-seeking missile, or rather a person-seeking missile. The image is not a person so the spell ignores it and lands on the intended target. The same will apply to pretty much every spell which will usually say it targets a creature or maybe a creature or object, and a visual illusion isn't either. It's not affected by and does not protect you from such effects.

[CursedRhubarb]

I would think that Mirror Image could still save you from it. The spell makes 3 copies of yourself that visually appear real so without something to see through the illusion someone attacking you or casting a spell on you can't tell which is the real you. They still have to try and target you and the roll with MI is to see if they target you or an illusion. If they target an Illusion it would just look like you made the save. Where it gets complicated is when Hold Person is cast at higher levels and can target multiple targets. Possibly treat it as if you had 1 less image per target the spell has?

[Segev]

Does casting a spell count as an attack? If not, aren't we left with an invisible wizard being free to cast hold person without breaking invisibility? (Let's assume he has a friend concentrating on the invisibility, for argument's sake. Since a fighter being made invisible by his wizard buddy would break it if he attacked.)

[RickAllison]

I would think that Mirror Image could still save you from it. The spell makes 3 copies of yourself that visually appear real so without something to see through the illusion someone attacking you or casting a spell on you can't tell which is the real you. They still have to try and target you and the roll with MI is to see if they target you or an illusion. If they target an Illusion it would just look like you made the save. Where it gets complicated is when Hold Person is cast at higher levels and can target multiple targets. Possibly treat it as if you had 1 less image per target the spell has?

The problem is that all of the copies are in one space. This isn't a discrete projectile that can miss, it is like an effect wave. Regardless whether you are thinking of the right image, the cross-over between them is enough that such a wave will hit the actual target.

Edit: Segev, casting a spell also breaks invisibility. The kicker is that spell-like effects don't by RAW. So technically, abilities like the Shadow-port and the dragonborn's breath that are neither don't break it.

[CursedRhubarb]

The problem is that all of the copies are in one space. This isn't a discrete projectile that can miss, it is like an effect wave. Regardless whether you are thinking of the right image, the cross-over between them is enough that such a wave will hit the actual target.

That makes it sound more like a line, cone, or other AoE spell. The images also aren't passing through each other or the caster. They stay apart and move about logically as if real and solid so one could be hit next to the caster but not hit the caster or other images. Would be like riding a mount and getting hit. They can target you or your mount but both aren't hit unless the spell is higher level so if you get hit the horse can still move about but you're now a fancy ornament, or the horse freezes but you can hop off.

[Xethik]

Does casting a spell count as an attack? If not, aren't we left with an invisible wizard being free to cast hold person without breaking invisibility? (Let's assume he has a friend concentrating on the invisibility, for argument's sake. Since a fighter being made invisible by his wizard buddy would break it if he attacked.)

While 3.0/3.5 had some... issues with the term attack, it is pretty explicit in 5e to be a type of roll that you make. Things like melee weapon attack, ranged attack, spell attack, etc.

Thankfully, as RickAllison brought up, Invisibility has been modified to break whenever you cast a spell or attack.

Spells like Eldritch Blast, Guiding Bolt, or Scorching Ray need to worry about Mirror Image. But spells that just require saving throws with no attack roll are fine. Hold Person, Magic Missile, and Chain Lightning all ignore Mirror Image.

[CursedRhubarb]

So could you just magic missile, sacred flame, or ray of frost the mirror image guy then be able to just completely ignore the images since you'd know which was the real one?

Does that mean save or effect spells don't count as attacks and can be used to bombard a CC'd mob without giving them a save to break the CC or just breaking it like an attack would?

[Xethik]

So could you just magic missile, sacred flame, or ray of frost the mirror image guy then be able to just completely ignore the images since you'd know which was the real one?

No. These spells do not dismiss the illusions from Mirror Image. They would all react just as the actual recipient of the attack, making it impossible to tell what is real or fake. Since they all occupy the same space and shift positions, it is impossible to tell who was struck and who was only reacting as if they were. In fact, that is stated in the spell.

shifting positions so it's impossible to track which image is real.
Oh, and Ray of Frost would be affected by Mirror Image, since it requires an attack roll. But yes, Magic Missile and Sacred Flame are not.



Does that mean save or effect spells don't count as attacks and can be used to bombard a CC'd mob without giving them a save to break the CC or just breaking it like an attack would?
Hm, I'm not familiar with the sort of CC that uses that sort of text off the top of my head. Do you have a particular example? I could hopefully help explain, but it is certainly possible that is how at least one CC ability works. I know Dominate Person and similar give an extra save on taking damage, not on being attacked, and would treat Fireball and Ray of Frost the same.

EDIT: As a note, I'm approaching this from a strictly RAW perspective. I'm much more familiar with 3.X forums and their culture where that is more the expectation. I know 5e is played with less strict interpretations so of course I wouldn't tell you that you are wrong if you treat Mirror Image differently. In fact, it is probably more logical that way. But my major concern there would be making this 2nd level spell that doesn't require concentration significantly more powerful than the designers intended, as mentioned above.

[Erose]

Thank you for the feedback. Now let's say you fail the save vs hold person. How would the images react? Are they all held? Does an attacker still have a chance to miss the real held target?

[CursedRhubarb]

Yeah ray of frost was wrong. I keep mixing it and frostbite up. For cc, I thought charmed condition effects would break if someone attacked them.

Mirror Image works when "targeted by an attack" which seems to be where all the confusion is coming from. AoE damage spells are still attacks but don't target a specific person so it doesn't affect MI. You still have to target someone for save or effect spells or magic missile though. So I guess the question become "what is considered an attack". Is it only something that includes an "attack roll" or does it include inflicting harmful effects.

Magic missile seems like the best solution to MI though. Lvl 1 slot and target 3 of the 4. Either they all get hit and poof as it was a target attack that always hits, dealing damage to all 3 images (since they all hit at the same time you could target 3 and not have the risk of 2 going after the same), or one stays and you get a hit on the caster as well.

[RickAllison]

Thank you for the feedback. Now let's say you fail the save vs hold person. How would the images react? Are they all held? Does an attacker still have a chance to miss the real held target?

They would act as if paralyzed. The attacker then may or may not hit the real target. Really a great spell to defend while paralyzed...

After all, the attacker is now seeing up to four images of the person that all are paralyzed. This should make them really easy to hit and thus remove the images, but you are just as likely to hit the images as the real person.

[CursedRhubarb]

Thank you for the feedback. Now let's say you fail the save vs hold person. How would the images react? Are they all held? Does an attacker still have a chance to miss the real held target?

If you get the caster and they fail the save it makes sense the images would mimic the paralyzed condition and still be possible targets. Their job is to stay near the caster and look like they are the real one, so if they didn't they would be kinda slacking at their job. Could take the time to do an investigation check to see if you can spot the real one with less worry of wasting a turn and taking a hit for doing so though.

[pwykersotz]

They would act as if paralyzed. The attacker then may or may not hit the real target. Really a great spell to defend while paralyzed...

After all, the attacker is now seeing up to four images of the person that all are paralyzed. This should make them really easy to hit and thus remove the images, but you are just as likely to hit the images as the real person.

This is one of those minorly annoying disconnects between game rules and how we perceive reality. If an greataxe was swung horizontally toward the images in the same space, the real one would almost definitely be hit.

Oh well, que sera sera and all that.

[RickAllison]

This is one of those minorly annoying disconnects between game rules and how we perceive reality. If an greataxe was swung horizontally toward the images in the same space, the real one would almost definitely be hit.

Oh well, que sera sera and all that.

And this is why I have already decided that any Hunter Rangers who pull out their Multiattack will get to try and hit all of them at once :smallbiggrin:

[Xethik]

AoE damage spells are still attacks
I'm being a pedantic, but the closest definition we have for attack in 5e comes from page 193 of the Player's Handbook.


Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

and then


When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses.

To me, this implies that attacks will always have an attack roll. Going backwards, anything that requires an attack roll is an attack (I know that's know how logic works, but this is how I interpret it).

With this definition, a fireball is not an attack. I know that seems backwards, but eh.

Anyone know if there is another definition for an attack elsewhere?

[pwykersotz]

Anyone know if there is another definition for an attack elsewhere?

Quoth the PHB:

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

[RickAllison]

I'm being a pedantic, but the closest definition we have for attack in 5e comes from page 193 of the Player's Handbook.



and then



To me, this implies that attacks will always have an attack roll. Going backwards, anything that requires an attack roll is an attack (I know that's know how logic works, but this is how I interpret it).

With this definition, a fireball is not an attack. I know that seems backwards, but eh.

Anyone know if there is another definition for an attack elsewhere?

One definition to consider from the Whirlwind discussion was "If you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack." However we have evidence that the reverse (converse? Inverse? All those -verses make me google them) is not necessarily true.

An example of this is how both grappling and shoving are considered "special melee attacks", so at least those ability checks are considered attacks despite not having a roll. Quite perplexing...

[Xethik]

Quoth the PHB:
Hah wow. Skimmed right over that.

Thanks!

[BiPolar]

An example of this is how both grappling and shoving are considered "special melee attacks", so at least those ability checks are considered attacks despite not having a roll. Quite perplexing...

Although you can say that those are Specific overriding General and qualify as exceptions that prove the rule.

[RickAllison]

Although you can say that those are Specific overriding General and qualify as exceptions that prove the rule.

Indeed, that's why I tried not to pass judgement either way. It opens up the question of what other exceptions exist, how to identify them, and what abilities from the Monster Manual should count... Okay, that was three questions, but you get my point. It establishes that it is possible to have attacks that don't include making an attack roll. Until I find any more outliers, I am inclined to agree that they are specifically-stated exceptions.

[BurgerBeast]

Here's my interpretation of RAW:

From the spell text:


Choose a humanoid that you can see within range.

The caster has to choose the target (whether modelled or rolled randomly doesn't seem to be relevant). If the caster chooses the correct (real humanoid) target, the spell acts as it should, and all images mimic the target. If the caster chooses the one of the incorrect targets (one of the images) then we have to consider the rules for what happens when a spell is cast on an invalid target (invalid because an illusion is not a humanoid). I don't know what those rules are, and I can't find them.

It therefore seems to me that you need to house rule what happens when someone tries to cast a spell on an invalid target. Then, depending on that house rule, you might need to make a more specific house rule for the spell Mirror Image.

[BurgerBeast]

This is one of those minorly annoying disconnects between game rules and how we perceive reality. If an greataxe was swung horizontally toward the images in the same space, the real one would almost definitely be hit.

Oh well, que sera sera and all that.

I don't see it this way. I agree that the real one would be almost definitely be hit. I just think it wouldn't necessarily be hit is a way that would cause damage. Granted, the likelihood would increase when using a sword because of the longer blade, but again, I don't have a problem with it. Not sure why.

[Dalebert]

I would think that Mirror Image could still save you from it. The spell makes 3 copies of yourself that visually appear real so without something to see through the illusion someone attacking you or casting a spell on you can't tell which is the real you. They still have to try and target you and the roll with MI is to see if they target you or an illusion. If they target an Illusion it would just look like you made the save. Where it gets complicated is when Hold Person is cast at higher levels and can target multiple targets. Possibly treat it as if you had 1 less image per target the spell has?

The spell doesn't protect you from non-attacks, i.e. spells that don't require an attack roll. It doesn't protect you from AoEs which aren't technically "attacks" in 5e. These effects also don't destroy any images.
1) That's the RAW
2) It would be too powerful of an effect otherwise
Therefore I would suggest you fluff it how you want so it makes sense but the spell doesn't protect you from these, e.g. Hold Person. My fluff is that such spells home in on the desired target as long as they're within range of the spell, and if the spell requires you to be able to see them, then they should be visible of course. The spells don't work on illusions and so they ignore illusions and hit the only valid target that you're envisioning when you cast it.


Does that mean save or effect spells don't count as attacks and can be used to bombard a CC'd mob without giving them a save to break the CC or just breaking it like an attack would?

That depends completely on the wording of the CC spell in question. I suspect many of them say "if you take damage" and not "if you're attacked". The language of 5e tends to be very precise for this reason, e.g. an "attack" means something with an actual attack roll. If you're not rolling a d20 to-hit (one odd exception above), it's not an "attack" in 5e.


Thank you for the feedback. Now let's say you fail the save vs hold person. How would the images react? Are they all held? Does an attacker still have a chance to miss the real held target?

I'd say fluff that however makes sense. Maybe they appear frozen and yet continue to shift around each other to remain confusing to onlookers.


Magic missile seems like the best solution to MI though. Lvl 1 slot and target 3 of the 4. Either they all get hit and poof as it was a target attack that always hits, dealing damage to all 3 images (since they all hit at the same time you could target 3 and not have the risk of 2 going after the same), or one stays and you get a hit on the caster as well.

Yes and no. It's good because they always hits the intended target and MI doesn't protect you from them. No, because they do nothing to destroy images since they're not an attack.


Here's my interpretation of RAW:

But what you described isn't the RAW which are quite clear. MI only protects you from, and are only affected by, attacks.

[Christian]

Tangentially related, does it strike anybody else as weird that they use an awkward breakdown of a d20 roll to determine if an image is hit or it's really you, rather than just rolling a die with the right number of sides (or with slightly more than the right number and re-rolling if an invalid number comes up)? Is there a balance reason, or just a desire to keep it from needing that potential re-roll?

It would make sense to do it that way if it let you use your Portent dice or Lucky feat re-rolls for it, but the way those abilities are worded, you can't. Which is even weirder, because if ever Lucky actually seemed appropriate ... :smallconfused:

[CursedRhubarb]

So the spell is a complete waste of space and spell slots and about as effective for defense as a magicarp's splash attack is for offense. If you use it range, you'll just get auto hit with save effects and in melee a grapple, shove, or similar completely ignores it and if you're a caster good luck on those melee saves.

[RickAllison]

So the spell is a complete waste of space and spell slots and about as effective for defense as a magicarp's splash attack is for offense. If you use it range, you'll just get auto hit with save effects and in melee a grapple, shove, or similar completely ignores it and if you're a caster good luck on those melee saves.

1) Yes, both saving throw spells and ability checks like grapple and shove ignore it.

2) Grappling, shoving, and similar are melee checks, not saves. This does not matter in this particular case, but it is an important distinction.

3) Still works for when they actually try to attack. If you prone the caster using Mirror Image, you have advantage to actually hit with the attack, but you have the exact same odds of hitting the caster rather than the clones as before, at the cost of an attack (or for MM creatures, their entire sequence of attacks). Now they can close their eyes (giving the same penalties as usual) and attack while having the target prone to attack like normal. So they give up their action/an attack if they are using Extra Attack instead of Multiattack, putting themselves at risk when others attack because they are blinding themselves to attack the MI-user, all to bring attacking the caster back to normal. All without concentration. That is not useless, that is awesome!

[CursedRhubarb]

If the front man grapples the MI caster, why would anyone else try and hit any of the images other than the one the front man is holding by the neck? Just go after the one they are holding while the others sit there and wiggle their weird dance and grab at air and the real one is held and trying not to choke since the images only replicate the caster and not others. The images don't intersect with the caster or themselves so once the caster is grabbed, the images no longer hide them while they are held.

[BiPolar]

If the front man grapples the MI caster, why would anyone else try and hit any of the images other than the one the front man is holding by the neck? Just go after the one they are holding while the others sit there and wiggle their weird dance and grab at air and the real one is held and trying not to choke since the images only replicate the caster and not others. The images don't intersect with the caster or themselves so once the caster is grabbed, the images no longer hide them while they are held.

It's not a matter of "trying to hit" one of the others. It's just the mechanics of the spell. It is an illusion spell, so you could fluff it with the illusion still not making it clear as to which is the real one.

And it's a non-concentration minute long spell. It isn't supposed to be great in all cases, just to help prevent direct attacks (melee or spell.)

But for a 2nd level, it's still pretty good. Yes, it'll use a slot, but you can cast other concentration spells along with it. Ride the bonus, let illusion deal with the rest.

[BurgerBeast]

The spell doesn't protect you from non-attacks, i.e. spells that don't require an attack roll.

This is true in the context of AOEs, because they have an effect on the target himself or herself, and the rules for the AOE in question describe how to resolve such a situation. But the MI text also says that an image "ignores all other effects." So the reason that an AOE affects the caster of MI is that the images ignore the AOE but the target is in the same space, and is affected according to the AOE spell description.

What's important here is that you never suffer effects from spells that don't interact with you in the first place. So the first question you have to ask is whether the spell being cast interacts with you.


It doesn't protect you from AoEs which aren't technically "attacks" in 5e. These effects also don't destroy any images.

Correct (But see above). This is probably also why they specifically state that the images are in the caster's space. Otherwise the AOE might catch an illusion but not the real person, or vice-versa.


1) That's the RAW

No. The RAW are precisely what is written.


2) It would be too powerful of an effect otherwise That's an interpretation. I disagree.


Therefore I would suggest you fluff it how you want... The spells don't work on illusions and so they ignore illusions and hit the only valid target that you're envisioning when you cast it.

I'd say this makes MI too weak and the spell being cast too strong. But that's just an opinion/interpretation.


But what you described isn't the RAW which are quite clear. MI only protects you from, and are only affected by, attacks.

No. First of all, the only time you should even invoke the language of the spell is if it comes into play, and it doesn't come into play unless the caster of MI is targeted by something. Once that happens, you should consult the spell description to see if it has any effect.

So: for an AOE: A fireball is cast. We consult the Fireball text. The caster chooses the area, and the AOE of the fireball includes the space of the MI caster. The fireball spell therefore interacts with the MI caster and the images. Now we must consult the MI text (not before). Nothing in the MI text is relevant, since Fireball is not an attack. Therefore Fireball affects the MI caster normally. Then we might ask what happens to the images? We consult the MI text: "It ignores all other damage and effects." So nothing happens to the images.

And: for a different spell such as hold person: Hold Person is cast. We consult the Hold Person text. The HP caster must choose a target. This is the place within the sequence of events where we encounter the problem. We don't even get to the MI text. Until the caster of HP chooses the target, we cannot proceed. So the act of targeting needs to be resolved before we can even decide if MI is relevant. We need to know if Hold Person interacts with the MI caster or the images in the first place. Until then we have no reason to consult the MI text. So the problem of choosing the target is primary.

[Zalabim]

So the spell is a complete waste of space and spell slots and about as effective for defense as a magicarp's splash attack is for offense. If you use it range, you'll just get auto hit with save effects and in melee a grapple, shove, or similar completely ignores it and if you're a caster good luck on those melee saves.

It is actually very effective on normal grapple and shove attempts. They are special melee attacks, so they can be diverted, but they do not hit, so the image will not be destroyed by them. You try to grab trip or push the caster, but he slips out of your grasp. You fail. The trick is to close your eyes (which has its own penalties) and trust your other senses. Then your attack cannot be diverted and Blindness doesn't penalize ability checks. Seems very gamey.


And: for a different spell such as hold person: Hold Person is cast. We consult the Hold Person text. The HP caster must choose a target. This is the place within the sequence of events where we encounter the problem. We don't even get to the MI text. Until the caster of HP chooses the target, we cannot proceed. So the act of targeting needs to be resolved before we can even decide if MI is relevant. We need to know if Hold Person interacts with the MI caster or the images in the first place. Until then we have no reason to consult the MI text. So the problem of choosing the target is primary.

The illusion is not a humanoid, so it's not a problem. The illusion is not a creature. It is a magical effect. Whether a spell can target an illusion has to be determined on a case by case basis. You could target it with dispel magic, but not hold monster. Spells have a very high degree of doing what they say they do. Having spells do what you think they are implied to do is allowable, but usually stronger and definitely outside RAW. You'd have to say that casting a spell that requires a target is also attacking the target. You could rule that way, but many effects list them as distinct things.

[NNescio]

So the spell is a complete waste of space and spell slots and about as effective for defense as a magicarp's splash attack is for offense. If you use it range, you'll just get auto hit with save effects and in melee a grapple, shove, or similar completely ignores it and if you're a caster good luck on those melee saves.

Eh, it's quite good on low AC casters, since it's a non-concentration spell that effectively raises their AC (for three hits). Cast after you land a concentration BFC spell or something. It's significantly less useful for high AC people like Bladesingers or Dragon Sorcs (or Favored Souls), but it can still be useful if the DM throw something with a ridiculously high attack bonus down your way.

Plus, it's one of the few things that allows you to ignore Crits. Imposing disadvantage is much more reliable (and doesn't get popped so easily), but those effects usually require concentration spells.


1) Yes, both saving throw spells and ability checks like grapple and shove ignore it.

2) Grappling, shoving, and similar are melee checks, not saves. This does not matter in this particular case, but it is an important distinction.

3) Still works for when they actually try to attack. If you prone the caster using Mirror Image, you have advantage to actually hit with the attack, but you have the exact same odds of hitting the caster rather than the clones as before, at the cost of an attack (or for MM creatures, their entire sequence of attacks). Now they can close their eyes (giving the same penalties as usual) and attack while having the target prone to attack like normal. So they give up their action/an attack if they are using Extra Attack instead of Multiattack, putting themselves at risk when others attack because they are blinding themselves to attack the MI-user, all to bring attacking the caster back to normal. All without concentration. That is not useless, that is awesome!

Not sure about grappling and shoving. Those two are technically still attacks, despite relying on ability checks instead of attack rolls:


GRAPPLING
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.


SHOVING A CREATURE
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or
push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

Strictly, by RAW, mirror image would work against grapples and shoves, but it wouldn't pop the mirror images, since an ability check success isn't quite the same as a hit.

You could rule otherwise, but then grappling and shoving wouldn't pop Sanctuary and Invisibility either. Ruling it one way for Mirror Image but another way for Sanctuary and Invisibility would be highly inconsistent.

(Then again, so is Sage Advice, bah. 'least it's better than back in the 3.x era, I guess.)

Edit: Ninja'ed. Or is it Shadow Monk'ed?


It is actually very effective on normal grapple and shove attempts. They are special melee attacks, so they can be diverted, but they do not hit, so the image will not be destroyed by them. You try to grab trip or push the caster, but he slips out of your grasp. You fail. The trick is to close your eyes (which has its own penalties) and trust your other senses. Then your attack cannot be diverted and Blindness doesn't penalize ability checks. Seems very gamey


"Use the Force, Luke!"

[BurgerBeast]

The illusion is not a humanoid, so it's not a problem. The illusion is not a creature. It is a magical effect. Whether a spell can target an illusion has to be determined on a case by case basis. You could target it with dispel magic, but not hold monster.

Agreed. You'll notice I said as much in a previous post. Except it is a problem.

When the player declares that they want to cast Hold Person on a target that is under the effect of Mirror Image, what happens?

It would seem to me that the player chooses the target of the spell, so the player must choose one of the four possible images (or roll for it to simulate the character aiming at one of the images). If the target is the real humanoid, then the Hold Person spell takes effect. If the target is one of the images, then the target is invalid. What happens then?

I suppose alternatively you could say that the caster targets the space and the spell affects the humanoid, which means that Mirror Image is effectively useless against Hold Person.

It seems to me that there is no RAW on which to make this decision (must the caster pick a target or does the spell "lock onto" the humanoid).

[BiPolar]

Agreed. You'll notice I said as much in a previous post. Except it is a problem.

When the player declares that they want to cast Hold Person on a target that is under the effect of Mirror Image, what happens?

It would seem to me that the player chooses the target of the spell, so the player must choose one of the four possible images (or roll for it to simulate the character aiming at one of the images). If the target is the real humanoid, then the Hold Person spell takes effect. If the target is one of the images, then the target is invalid. What happens then?

I suppose alternatively you could say that the caster targets the space and the spell affects the humanoid, which means that Mirror Image is effectively useless against Hold Person.

It seems to me that there is no RAW on which to make this decision (must the caster pick a target or does the spell "lock onto" the humanoid).

There very much IS raw on this. The issue in this thread is that people don't like the RAW or believe it should do more than the RAW.

The spell very clearly state what affects it mitigates. An attack is clearly defined in the PHB.

Yes, it seems odd that something like Hold Person isn't affected by Mirror Image. However, there are many things that are odd in the D&D world.

You can absolutely house-rule a change to the spell if you don't like it, but it does fundamentally change the mechanics of the very clearly defined spell. If your table is cool with it, then go for it. But don't confuse not liking how a spell works with saying it's not clear.

[BurgerBeast]

There very much IS raw on this. The issue in this thread is that people don't like the RAW or believe it should do more than the RAW.

So please answer the question, then. I'm not being argumentative or facetious, here. How do you determine the target of Hold Person? It seems to me that the player whose character casts the spell has to choose the target. They have four choices.

I see nothing in the RAW that says they can automatically choose the correct target, and until they choose a target, there's no reason to even look at the Mirror Image text.

Nothing in the rules about casting spells says that you can just throw spells at invalid targets and then they will "home in on and jump to" valid targets in the same square.

So the RAW pertaining to MI can't come in to effect until something targets either the MI-affected creature or one the images. And the RAW about casting do not tell us how a player casting Hold Person chooses the target or what generally happens if an invalid target is selected.

[RickAllison]

So please answer the question, then. I'm not being argumentative or facetious, here. How do you determine the target of Hold Person? It seems to me that the player whose character casts the spell has to choose the target. They have four choices.

I see nothing in the RAW that says they can automatically choose the correct target, and until they choose a target, there's no reason to even look at the Mirror Image text.

Nothing in the rules about casting spells says that you can just throw spells at invalid targets and then they will "home in on and jump to" valid targets in the same square.

So the RAW pertaining to MI can't come in to effect until something targets either the MI-affected creature or one the images. And the RAW about casting do not tell us how a player casting Hold Person chooses the target or what generally happens if an invalid target is selected.

Actually, the RAW does cover this!


Three illusory duplicates o f yourself appear in your
space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with
you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s
impossible to track which image is real. You can use
your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.

Each time a creature targets you with an attack during
the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the
attack instead targets one o f your duplicates.

So the ability of MI comes into play when the user is targeted with an attack, and then MI can deflect that target onto one of the duplicates. You don't target one of the duplicates with the attack, the targeting is re-directed. Since non-attacks don't activate the ability's trigger clause, they aren't re-directed.

So the order of operations from the book for MI:

1) The creature with MI is targeted
2) Is the trigger an attack?
3a) If yes, roll a d20 that decides whether the attack is re-directed.
3b) If not, the targeting remains the same.

[BurgerBeast]

If you are not targeted with an attack, the Mirror Image text does not come into play.

When someone casts Hold Person, they must choose a target. How do they choose a target for the spell, Hold Person, if the intended target is under the effect if Mirror Image?

[RickAllison]

If you are not targeted with an attack, the Mirror Image text does not come into play.

When someone casts Hold Person, they must choose a target. How do they choose a target for the spell, Hold Person, if the intended target is under the effect if Mirror Image?

And here is where you err. Mirror Image does not give alternate targets. You cannot activate the target re-direction unless the user is targeted. The duplicates have no mechanical effect until the person is targeted by an attack.

Here is how it plays out. Attacks can be misdirected because the image will fake out the attacker. In the case of Hold Person, faking them out does nothing because the effect is already occurring by the time the images could deflect it.

By the book, Mirror Image only protects you from attacks. You can house-rule otherwise at your table, but you will imbalance the game by doing so. Not might, will.

[BiPolar]

If you are not targeted with an attack, the Mirror Image text does not come into play.

When someone casts Hold Person, they must choose a target. How do they choose a target for the spell, Hold Person, if the intended target is under the effect if Mirror Image?

That's where we're seeing this differently. What RickAllison and I are saying is that the intended targets of Mirror Image are detailed in the Mirror Image spell. It is only for attack rolls. If you're not rolling for an attack, then the Mirror Image has no impact the gameplay. I understand your logic, but the spell is specific about what effect it has on which type of actions.

[BurgerBeast]

And here is where you err. Mirror Image does not give alternate targets.

Mirror image creates the illusion of three identical copies. They are no different than any other illusion.

If someone casts some other illusion spell to create the image of a humanoid in a corner of a room, there is an illusion in the corner of the room. People can target it if they choose. Likewise, people can target the MIs if they choose.


You cannot activate the target re-direction unless the user is targeted.

Well, targeted by an attack, but yes.

So the question becomes: is the user targeted? And the only way to answer this question is to ask the caster of HP who he is targeting.

In the case of the illusion in the corner, a player can mistakenly target the illusion. So what happens?


The duplicates have no mechanical effect until the person is targeted by an attack.

Correct, and for the spell caster to select the target of the spell while viewing 4 figures in one square, he has to pick one.


Here is how it plays out. Attacks can be misdirected because the image will fake out the attacker.

This is not RAW. This is your interpretation. It's just as acceptable to say that they work because the attacker strikes them thinking they're the real person, and then they vanish.


In the case of Hold Person, faking them out does nothing because the effect is already occurring by the time the images could deflect it.

This isn't RAW either.


By the book, Mirror Image only protects you from attacks. You can house-rule otherwise at your table, but you will imbalance the game by doing so. Not might, will.

But the book, there is nothing written about how MI affects a caster's ability to target the caster.

I'm not sure how to explain my question any better, so maybe an example would help.

What if Wally the Wizard had created an illusion of himself that occupied a different space, and then someone cast hold person "on Wally the Wizard."

As a DM, you can't just automatically say the spell targets Wally, because the player has to target one of the Wallys. If he picks the illusionary Wally, the DM shouldn't just say, well you targeted an illusion, and since the spell can't target illusions, the spell moves to the real Wally and now he's held.

I don't see how having illusions in the same square as you makes them any less viable as targets. They are still visible to the caster.

[BurgerBeast]

That's where we're seeing this differently. What RickAllison and I are saying is that the intended targets of Mirror Image are detailed in the Mirror Image spell. It is only for attack rolls. If you're not rolling for an attack, then the Mirror Image has no impact the gameplay. I understand your logic, but the spell is specific about what effect it has on which type of actions.

If a spell tells you what happens when the recipient is attacked, then it tells you what happens when they are attacked.

It says nothing about what happens when they are targeted by a spell.

You don't get to use the fact that nothing is said about spells to create a way for it to interact with spells. You have nothing. You have to look to the general rules.

If you'll humour me:

What happens if someone creates an illusory image of a fighter, and a wizard casts Hold Person, selecting the illusory fighter as the target?

[BiPolar]

If a spell tells you what happens when the recipient is attacked, then it tells you what happens when they are attacked.

It says nothing about what happens when they are targeted by a spell.

You don't get to use the fact that nothing is said about spells to create a way for it to interact with spells. You have nothing. You have to look to the general rules.

If you'll humour me:

What happens if someone creates an illusory image of a fighter, and a wizard casts Hold Person, selecting the illusory fighter as the target?

In your example, you refer to the language of major Image, or whatever illusion spell cast the fighter and follow the directions (intelligence save, etc.)

For mirror image, the spell only states it is active against attacks. And attacks are rolls against AC. Spells are just not attacks and the absence of that language IS the proof. Spells modify the rules. If they don't say something is modified, then it isn't.

[pwykersotz]

If a spell tells you what happens when the recipient is attacked, then it tells you what happens when they are attacked.

It says nothing about what happens when they are targeted by a spell.

You don't get to use the fact that nothing is said about spells to create a way for it to interact with spells. You have nothing. You have to look to the general rules.

If you'll humour me:

What happens if someone creates an illusory image of a fighter, and a wizard casts Hold Person, selecting the illusory fighter as the target?

It seems as if there are two possibilities. One, that the spell goes off but nothing happens because the target is invalid. The other is that the spell requires a valid target to resolve or else the casting fails and the slot isn't expended. I lean towards the first interpretation as much as reasonable to favor the players, but in your example I might use the second option.

[BurgerBeast]

In your example, you refer to the language of major Image, or whatever illusion spell cast the fighter and follow the directions (intelligence save, etc.)

No, you don't. Not until there's a reason. We haven't gotten that far yet. That spell (Mirror Image Major Image) was cast already.

Now, someone casts Hold Person at an illusion. Right now, there is no reason to look at the Major Image text. First, we need to look at the Hold Person text. It says in the spell description that it targets humanoids. So the caster cast the spell on an invalid target. There is still no reason to consult the Major Image text. We need to resolve the fact that Hold Person was cast on an invalid target. There is not, and may never be (in this case), a reason to look to the Major Image text.


For mirror image, the spell only states it is active against attacks.

This is not what it says. It tells you what to do if the recipient of the spell is targeted by an attack. These are different, however the subtle the difference may be.


And attacks are rolls against AC. Spells are just not attacks and the absence of that language IS the proof.

You don't need to convince me. I never said spells are (edit: the same thing as) attacks.


Spells modify the rules. If they don't say something is modified, then it isn't.

Exactly. This is not the issue. The issue is why would you consult a spell without reason? If someone has immunity to fireballs, you don't consult the fireball immunity rules until they come up - that is to say when they are actually within the AOE of a fireball.

Just because someone has Mirror Image cast on them, that's no reason to go consulting the rules before they are ever targeted. So you need to resolve the attack spell first, so you know whether you even need to consult the Mirror Image text.


It seems as if there are two possibilities. One, that the spell goes off but nothing happens because the target is invalid. The other is that the spell requires a valid target to resolve or else the casting fails and the slot isn't expended. I lean towards the first interpretation as much as reasonable to favor the players, but in your example I might use the second option.

This is the exact same conclusion I came to earlier in this very thread.

So why should this particular process be any different if there are three illusions in the same square as the PC? Why should the targeting process for Hold Person be any different, just because of the location of the illusions?

[RickAllison]

No, you don't. Not until there's a reason. We haven't gotten that far yet. That spell (Mirror Image Major Image) was cast already.

Now, someone casts Hold Person at an illusion. Right now, there is no reason to look at the Major Image text. First, we need to look at the Hold Person text. It says in the spell description that it targets humanoids. So the caster cast the spell on an invalid target. There is still no reason to consult the Major Image text. We need to resolve the fact that Hold Person was cast on an invalid target. There is not, and may never be (in this case), a reason to look to the Major Image text.



This is not what it says. It tells you what to do if the recipient of the spell is targeted by an attack. These are different, however the subtle the difference may be.



You don't need to convince me. I never said spells are attacks.



Exactly. This is not the issue. The issue is why would you consult a spell without reason? If someone has immunity to fireballs, you don't consult the fireball immunity rules until they come up - that is to say when they are actually within the AOE of a fireball.

Just because someone has Mirror Image cast on them, that's no reason to go consulting the rules before they are ever targeted. So you need to resolve the attack spell first, so you know whether you even need to consult the Mirror Image text.



This is the exact same conclusion I came to earlier in this very thread.

So why should this particular process be any different if there are three illusions in the same square as the PC? Why should the targeting process for Hold Person be any different, just because of the location of the illusions?

So let's play through your interpretation of how the spell works, just to highlight why it doesn't function that way.

1) According to your interpretation, the Hold Person has to select the target among the images, correct? To target the actual person, you have to select the right person? So you roll the d20 and see if your are targeting the right person?

2) This would then apply to everything that requires targeting the person. Including targeting them with an attack. Hold Person then resolves based on whether it was an actual target or not. If it was an attack and a duplicate, it is destroyed, else we then consult the Mirror Image text: "Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one o f your duplicates." According to your interpretation, this is the point where the the user has actually been targeted (if it had been targeting them in step 1, the ability wouldn't activate and the point would be moot), so we follow the text.

3) The attacker has to roll the d20 to select which image is targeted a second time.

This is the only way it can work with your interpretation. Alternatively:

1) The user is targeted by either Hold Person or an attack.

2) The user either is affected by Hold Person with no further steps or triggers the MI text on re-targeting attacks.

3) The attacker rolls a d20 to see if he gets the right image.

The key difference between the two is whether step 1 is actually targeting the user of MI or selecting which image to use. If your interpretation is used, the d20 has to actually be rolled twice for attackers to still comply with the text while having to introduce new text of how to deal with resolving targeting the first time. This is against the RAW because it doesn't exist, so we are forced to declare that you are incorrect.

[BurgerBeast]

So let's play through your interpretation of how the spell works, just to highlight why it doesn't function that way.

1) According to your interpretation, the Hold Person has to select the target among the images, correct? To target the actual person, you have to select the right person? So you roll the d20 and see if your are targeting the right person?

You are with me up until "So..."

It seems to me that is up to the caster to select the target of Hold Person, and this particular case is no exception.

As for rolling the d20? I don't know why would you suggest that. The description for Mirror Image should't be consulted yet, and if it was it wouldn't advise this. It would give no guidance on the matter.


2) This would then apply to everything that requires targeting the person.

There's no reason for you to come to the conclusion you came to in 1, and even so, there's no reason to assume that it should then apply to everything.


Including targeting them with an attack.

The spell description for Mirror Imagedescribes what to do when the subject is targeted by an attack, not when the subject is attacked. If the subject of Mirror Image is targeted by an attack, it is immediately time to invoke the Mirror Image description and roll the d20 as prescribed.


Hold Person then resolves based on whether it was an actual target or not.

Hold Person is a spell. The act of targeting the spell does not trigger anything in the Mirror Image description, so the Mirror Image spell does not prescribe anything. At the stage the DM needs to determine the target of the Hold Person spell, and that is up to the player to announce and the DM to adjudicate.


If it was an attack and a duplicate, it is destroyed, else we then consult the Mirror Image text: "Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one o f your duplicates." According to your interpretation, this is the point where the the user has actually been targeted (if it had been targeting them in step 1, the ability wouldn't activate and the point would be moot), so we follow the text.

Hopefully it's clear that this problem would never arise. So the "double of effect" would never come into play.


3) The attacker has to roll the d20 to select which image is targeted a second time.

Likewise never comes into play.


This is the only way it can work with your interpretation. Alternatively:

1) The user is targeted by either Hold Person or an attack.

The act of targetting the MI-subject with an attack triggers the Mirror Image text. This effectively selects the target. That the effect of Mirror Image. The act of targeting the MI-subject with a spell does not. So Mirror Image does not select the target. RAW no target is selected at this point.


2) The user either is affected by Hold Person with no further steps or triggers the MI text on re-targeting attacks.

Again, I don't think it's okay to say the user is "affected by Hold Person" because the target is still not resolved. If it is an attack, then yes, targeting occurs via the d20 method because RAW this is what Mirror Image prescribes.


3) The attacker rolls a d20 to see if he gets the right image.

There is nothing in RAW to suggest this.


The key difference between the two is whether step 1 is actually targeting the user of MI or selecting which image to use. If your interpretation is used, the d20 has to actually be rolled twice for attackers to still comply with the text while having to introduce new text of how to deal with resolving targeting the first time. This is against the RAW because it doesn't exist, so we are forced to declare that you are incorrect.

I don't think the double roll ever comes into it.

I'll try this, where "Joe" has MI cast upon himself:

Case 1: The player declares he wants to attack Joe.

The DM decides that this is a declaration that he is trying to target the real Joe as opposed to the images of Joe. This is a specifically called out trigger in the Mirror Image spell description, so the Mirror Image takes over now. The target is determined via d20 roll, and the guidelines are followed.

Case 2: The player declares that he wants to cast Hold Person on Joe.

The DM decides that this is a declaration that he is trying to target the real Joe as opposed to the images of Joe. This particular action is not called out in the Mirror Image spell description, so the Mirror Image test is not consulted. The target is undetermined. You might say that the DM is left stranded because there is no RAW for this. There is certainly no reason to consult the Mirror Image description, because up until nothing has happened to indicate that you should.

So I say that there is either no RAW for this situation, or there must be RAW to be found in the general rules about how to select a target for a spell.

[MrFahrenheit]

It's funny this question was posted to the boards...in my most recent session last weekend, this almost exact same scenario came up: party sorceror tried to use his already-cast MI to argue against being so obviously targeted by a dominate spell from an enemy caster.

I had to adjudicate in favor of the bad guy. MI seems way too powerful for a second level spell if it activates on save spells too.

[xanderh]

Burgerbeast, it feels like you're missing one of the core design principles of 5e spell design.
In 5e, spells do what they say they do. Nothing more, nothing less. So, to figure out how Hold Person interacts with a target under the effect of Mirror Image, we have to look at the descriptions of those spells. Let's start with Hold Person:


Choose a humanoid that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be paralyzed for the duration. At the end of each of its turns, the target can make another Wisdom saving throw. On a success, the spell ends on the target.
So, you choose a humanoid, and they must succeed on a save or be affected by the spell.
On to Mirror Image. I'll go over each paragraph, and see how it interacts with the spell.


Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it's impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.
Now, how does this interact with HP? The answer is, it doesn't. This paragraph exists to tell us how Mirror Image looks, visually. It tells us that illusory duplicates appear, and that they move with you. It doesn't tell us how they interact with the world, so we can ignore this section for information on how they interact.

Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
Does this section interact with HP? Well, since HP is not an attack, it does not. We can ignore this section as well, for the purposes of the interaction between Mirror Image and Hold Person.

If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack's target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.
This section describes how to determine if attacks are redirected, so nothing about the interaction we're talking about.

A duplicate's AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier. If an attack hits a duplicate, the duplicate is destroyed. A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effect. The spell ends when all three duplicates are destroyed.
This section describes how hard a duplicate is to hit with an attack, what happens if it is hit with an attack, and what happens when it is targeted by another effect. How does this interact with HP? Well, if you target a duplicate with HP, the duplicate will be unaffected, both because of this clause, but also because it's not a valid target. But does it describe what happens when we want to target the caster or MI? No, it does not. There's nothing in this section that describes a way that MI will change the target of HP.

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.
This describes some conditions where an attacker is unaffected by the spell, but it doesn't describe any interaction between MI and HP.

So, in conclusion, the text of the two spells describe exactly one interaction: If the caster of HP tries to target a duplicate, said duplicate is unaffected. Since the spell fails anyway, the spells effectively describe zero interaction between the two.
There is nothing in either spell to indicate that there will be targeting issues, so by RAW, there isn't. If we just go by the RAW and don't interpret the spell in terms of how it looks in the world, the spells have no interaction with each other. Since the spells have no interaction with each other, Hold Person works just as you'd expect. The target makes a Wisdom save, and is paralyzed if it fails.

This is how it works by the RAW, with nothing else considered. If we start to consider how it looks in-world, we open this up to interpretation. At this point, we have two options: we can ignore the RAW when figuring out how the world looks, which results in your issue where there's no guidance on how to figure out if HP has the right target. Or, we could shape how the world looks by using the RAW. This means that the spells work just as described, and they make sense in the world as well. For example, for MI and HP, since HP takes an action to cast (so, isn't instant), one could argue that he just points at one of the duplicates and starts casting. When the real humanoid switches place with the duplicate, HP "locks on" to that target, since it's the first valid target in the position that was specified. Or, it could target the humanoid and all of the duplicates at once as one "creature", and only affect the creature since it's the only valid target.
In any case, the RAW itself is very clear on this. It only becomes unclear when you start to interpret how the interactions look and work in the world you've created.

And as the others have pointed out, you can always houserule it so it works differently in your games. If you don't like that non-attack spells aren't affected at all by MI, you should make a houserule and present it to your players. Nobody is going to tell you that you're playing the game wrong, as long as you've made it clear that this isn't how the spell normally works, but you've houseruled it to work differently to the RAW.

[MrFahrenheit]

In any case, the RAW itself is very clear on this. It only becomes unclear when you start to interpret how the interactions look and work in the world you've created.

And as the others have pointed out, you can always houserule it so it works differently in your games. If you don't like that non-attack spells aren't affected at all by MI, you should make a houserule and present it to your players. Nobody is going to tell you that you're playing the game wrong, as long as you've made it clear that this isn't how the spell normally works, but you've houseruled it to work differently to the RAW.

You'll see from my previous post on this thread I'm in agreement with your RAW analysis...that being said, this post did give me an idea: since MI doesn't have any scaling options, I may add in that if it's cast using higher level slots, one of the three duplicates per slot higher than second can be powered up with the ability to take a non-attack spell for the caster (i.e., a third level slot MI would have one super dupe, fourth level slot would have two, would max out at three super dupes for a fifth level slot).

Would adjust the dice rolls appropriately too (in the case of a third level MI, even if all three dupes are up, player would roll as if there were only one when targeted by a save-or-suck). If a super dupe gets hit by one of these control spells, it's destroyed just as would be normally.

[NNescio]

You'll see from my previous post on this thread I'm in agreement with your RAW analysis...that being said, this post did give me an idea: since MI doesn't have any scaling options, I may add in that if it's cast using higher level slots, one of the three duplicates per slot higher than second can be powered up with the ability to take a non-attack spell for the caster (i.e., a third level slot MI would have one super dupe, fourth level slot would have two, would max out at three super dupes for a fifth level slot).

Would adjust the dice rolls appropriately too (in the case of a third level MI, even if all three dupes are up, player would roll as if there were only one when targeted by a save-or-suck). If a super dupe gets hit by one of these control spells, it's destroyed just as would be normally.

That makes it too strong. It's basically like giving a limited version of Legendary Resistance as a spell, and it doesn't take up concentration to boot.

[BiPolar]

The area in which our interpretation splits is
Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration. We have a different understanding of what "targets an attack" means.

My interpretation is based on the specific rules. Yours seems to be more on the general idea of 'an attack.' Your assumption is that whenever one creature is doing something harmful to another, it is an attack. It's not necessarily an incorrect use of the term, but it is not using the defined D&D 5e language of "attack."

In Combat, creatures have Actions that they may use. Those actions are comprised of 10 options: Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, or Use an Object. Magic Mirror is referencing it only activates when a creature has targeted an Attack. "Making an Attack" is also clearly defined with needing to "Choose a target", "Determine Modifiers" and "Resolve the attack". Resolving the attack is under Attack Rolls.

Next is where Specific beats General. Casting a Spell is a separate type of action that is NOT an attack. However, some spells (like Eldritch Blast) use language like "Make a ranged spell attack". This turns the "Cast a Spell" into an Attack action because of the resolution required of "making an attack." Upon which the standard Attack system comes into play.

As I said before, you are expanding the definition of "targets an attack" to include any hostile action that isn't an area effect. However, I don't see how this fits in with the definitions of terms I cited above.

In addition, an example supporting my argument (even though it's from Sage Advice (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/)...even Jeremy Crawford), is under the ruling regarding Magic Missile and Mirror Image.


The mirror image spell has no effect on magic missile, which doesn't involve an attack.

He is clearly differentiating the Attack action from a standard spellcasting action. Crawford is stating unequivocally here that the defining term here is Attack and not Target in the phrase describing how MI works.

I still very much understand where you are coming from. Logically it seems that the illusion would 'trick' any intended affect, but the spell language overrides what we think makes sense. Letting Mirror Image prevent anything possibly happening to you is massively more powerful then a 2nd level spell. You can always rule what you like at your table, but I really can't see a supporting argument for your interpretation within the description of Attacks, Mirror Image, or the designers ruling on this question.

[MrFahrenheit]

That makes it too strong. It's basically like giving a limited version of Legendary Resistance as a spell, and it doesn't take up concentration to boot.

How so? Takes a higher level slot (or two or three), and there's still the potential for getting through all dupes and striking the caster.

[NNescio]

The area in which our interpretation splits is . We have a different understanding of what "targets an attack" means.

My interpretation is based on the specific rules. Yours seems to be more on the general idea of 'an attack.' Your assumption is that whenever one creature is doing something harmful to another, it is an attack. It's not necessarily an incorrect use of the term, but it is not using the defined D&D 5e language of "attack."

In Combat, creatures have Actions that they may use. Those actions are comprised of 10 options: Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, or Use an Object. Magic Mirror is referencing it only activates when a creature has targeted an Attack. "Making an Attack" is also clearly defined with needing to "Choose a target", "Determine Modifiers" and "Resolve the attack". Resolving the attack is under Attack Rolls.

Next is where Specific beats General. Casting a Spell is a separate type of action that is NOT an attack. However, some spells (like Eldritch Blast) use language like "Make a ranged spell attack". This turns the "Cast a Spell" into an Attack action because of the resolution required of "making an attack." Upon which the standard Attack system comes into play.

As I said before, you are expanding the definition of "targets an attack" to include any hostile action that isn't an area effect. However, I don't see how this fits in with the definitions of terms I cited above.

In addition, an example supporting my argument (even though it's from Sage Advice (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/)...even Jeremy Crawford), is under the ruling regarding Magic Missile and Mirror Image.



He is clearly differentiating the Attack action from a standard spellcasting action. Crawford is stating unequivocally here that the defining term here is Attack and not Target in the phrase describing how MI works.

I still very much understand where you are coming from. Logically it seems that the illusion would 'trick' any intended affect, but the spell language overrides what we think makes sense. Letting Mirror Image prevent anything possibly happening to you is massively more powerful then a 2nd level spell. You can always rule what you like at your table, but I really can't see a supporting argument for your interpretation within the description of Attacks, Mirror Image, or the designers ruling on this question.

I think part of the confusion is because of 3.5e's Mirror Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mirrorImage.htm), which did work against targeted spells. 3.5e did have a lot more "LOL nope" spell effects though, which can only be countered by more spells (including straight-up buff dispelling).


How so? Takes a higher level slot (or two or three), and there's still the potential for getting through all dupes and striking the caster.

Attacks usually come in droves can wear down MIs easily. Targeted spells are less common but are supposed to be devastating when the target fails its save. Even worse, your powered-up version of MI would also itself acts as a defense against Dispel Magic, the standard way to strip casters of buffs.

Wizards already have too much good stuff, really. This makes them dominate caster duels even more, and gives the Wizard another excellent line of his defense on top of his many buff options (true, Sorcs, 'Locks and Trickery Clerics would also get the same spell, but the Wizard gets Contingency/Shield on top of that, plus a potential Bladesong or Portent die (Portent can't let you reroll the d20 to trigger MI, yes, but it gives you another defense on the save if the incoming spell bypasses MI).

'though I imagine if you tweak the numbers a bit (lowering the blocking chance to say, 20% or so, instead of 50%), this could be okay (it basically acts as a Magic Resistance buff that doesn't work against enemies that have Blindsight/Tremorsense/Truesight), but you still need to jack up the spell levels a bit (I'd say 5th, 6th, and 7th for the spell blocking effect) because it's a non concentration effect. Oh and let Dispel Magic bypass it entirely.

[BiPolar]

How so? Takes a higher level slot (or two or three), and there's still the potential for getting through all dupes and striking the caster.

It's overpowered because it is doing something far greater than the intent or language of the spell. Mirror Image's language is solely to help make getting by attacks (melee, ranged, or spell) more difficult. There is nothing in the language that is does the same against spells cast at the target. Adding that increases the reach of the spell well beyond original design intent and makes this non-concentration 2nd level spell very powerful. It basically gives the caster potential immunity to everything and that's just crazy for the type of spell it is.

[MrFahrenheit]

It's overpowered because it is doing something far greater than the intent or language of the spell. Mirror Image's language is solely to help make getting by attacks (melee, ranged, or spell) more difficult. There is nothing in the language that is does the same against spells cast at the target. Adding that increases the reach of the spell well beyond original design intent and makes this non-concentration 2nd level spell very powerful. It basically gives the caster potential immunity to everything and that's just crazy for the type of spell it is.

Yeah I guess without concentration it would be pretty OP. Ah well, back to the drawing board...

[Dalebert]

From Hold Person:

Choose a humanoid that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be paralyzed for the duration.

Doing as you say, and following the wording of Hold Person-- 1) You must be able to see the target. 2) The target must be in range.

When I cast Hold Person on the caster of a Mirror Image, my intended target is the CASTER; not the images, and since I can see him and he is in range, he has to make a Wisdom save or be paralyzed. There is not attack roll or chance of missing which means my spell homes in on the intended target if they meet the criteria. Mirror Image fails to change this fact about Hold Person.

To answer the other question, if you make an illusion of a fighter and the actual fighter is not visible to you AND in range of the spell, then the spell fails since those two criteria are necessary in order to make the fighter save or be paralyzed.

What's key here is there is not chance of missing with a Hold Person once you've met the criteria. You're not shooting a beam at a certain point in space. You're merely choosing a target and the spell finds that target on its own. It makes perfect sense that MI doesn't help against it.

[BurgerBeast]

I apologize for not addressing some of the comments that were made in response to me, but I feel like my point of view has still not been understood.

Anyone who is willing to humour me, as a way of me getting my point across, please answer this question:

If a player casts Hold Person on the illusion of a humanoid, and there is no one else in the room, RAW, what happens?

I will take your answer and continue the dialog to hopefully introduce, to you, what I see as the problem. I will do so separately for each person who responds so that there is no confusion. Hopefully someone will get what I am trying to say.

[BiPolar]

I apologize for not addressing some of the comments that were made in response to me, but I feel like my point of view has still not been understood.

Anyone who is willing to humour me, as a way of me getting my point across, please answer this question:

If a player casts Hold Person on the illusion of a humanoid, and there is no one else in the room, RAW, what happens?

I will take your answer and continue the dialog to hopefully introduce, to you, what I see as the problem. I will do so separately for each person who responds so that there is no confusion. Hopefully someone will get what I am trying to say.

An illusion of a humanoid is not the same thing as the Mirror Image spell. However, HOW the illusion was created is what defines the interaction with it. Illusions under Mirror Image follow the rules of Mirror Image. Illusions under Silent Image/Major Image/Deck of Illusions follow the rules for those.

And I do believe I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that it doesn't apply to Mirror Image.

[Dalebert]

Anyone who is willing to humour me, as a way of me getting my point across, please answer this question:

But I did just answer this question. Here's my (mostly) unedited answer from just before you said no one will answer you.


To answer the other question*, if you make an illusion of a fighter and the actual fighter is not visible to you AND in range of the spell, then the spell fails since those two criteria are necessary in order to make the fighter save or be paralyzed.
*emphasis added

What's key here is there is no chance of missing with a Hold Person once you've met the criteria. You're not shooting a beam at a certain point in space. You're merely choosing a target and the spell finds that target on its own. It makes perfect sense that MI doesn't help against it.

In those cases, the desired target is unambiguous. I would say if you want to make a caster waste a Hold Person, you could Silent Image a bunch of targets that look nothing like the desired target. For instance, don't make duplicates of yourself or of a real fighter who's in range. Make illusions of humanoid, maybe very threatening in appearance, such that the caster is attempting to Hold Person on a different target than you. Make illusions of a more powerful looking caster, for instance. Now they're actually picking a different target than you and the spell may fail.

My suggestion, if you want to not be targeted by save-type spells, is cast Invisibility. Most "auto-hit" but require they be able to see you. The trade off is you will be concentrating and you won't be able to cast other spells or attack. Invisibility is incredible powerful for that reason and that's why they add those limitations for balance, e.g. can't attack or cast spells and requires concentration.

[BurgerBeast]

An illusion of a humanoid is not the same thing as the Mirror Image spell.

Okay. RAW, what do you do if a player targets a Major Image of a moving humanoid with Hold Person.



But I did just answer this question.

Is your answer:

The spell is wasted?

[BiPolar]

Okay. RAW, what do you do if a player targets a Major Image of a moving humanoid with Hold Person.




Is your answer:

The spell is wasted?
No, first I take my intelligence save. If I pass it, I know it's an illusion and I don't cast it. (you'll notice there is no save for the Mirror Image illusion). If I fail and choose to cast hold person, then the spell is sent and nothing happens. I now know the major image is an illusion.

The above is a very different interaction than that of Mirror Image.

[Xethik]

The other difference between Major Image and Mirror Image when it comes to Hold Person is that Mirror Image has a range of Self (what we would call a buff) and Major Image is a ranged spell.

The difference in play between the two is subtle, but Dispel Magic highlights it in my games. If someone targets the caster of Mirror Image with Dispel Magic, there is no chance they dispel only one illusion. They dispel the entire effect and any other spell on the Mirror Image caster has a chance of being dispelled. On a Major Image, the illusion would simply be dispelled. The caster loses no other spells.

[BurgerBeast]

If I... choose to cast hold person, then the spell is sent and nothing happens.

Is this RAW?

[BiPolar]

Is this RAW?

I believe so? If you cast a spell, the spell is cast.

[BurgerBeast]

I believe so? If you cast a spell, the spell is cast.

Okay. Please excuse that this question might sound dense, but I ask for the sake of clarity:

Do you agree that, RAW, it is permissible to cast a spell on an invalid target, and that In such a case, the spell is cast to no effect?

[Erose]

Once again, thank you for the feedback everyone. Everyone's manners have been tip top on the debate as well. I'm off for camping in Mauston WI. Have a great week folks.

[BiPolar]

Okay. Please excuse that this question might sound dense, but I ask for the sake of clarity:

Do you agree that, RAW, it is permissible to cast a spell on an invalid target, and that In such a case, the spell is cast to no effect?

Haha, I see where you're going with this :) I don't think it's permissible to cast a spell on an invalid target. But it IS permissible to cast a spell on a target the caster BELIEVES to be valid. This very much works for Major Image vs Rock for casting Hold Person, but not for Mirror Image because of the language in Mirror Image.

[BurgerBeast]

I don't think it's permissible to cast a spell on an invalid target.

Is this RAW?


But it IS permissible to cast a spell on a target the caster BELIEVES to be valid.

If the target is invalid, it remains invalid whether the caster believes it is or not. So it would seem that you are saying that it is possible to cast a spell on an invalid target. What do you say to this? (I don't claim to be right - I'm genuinely interested)

[BiPolar]

Is this RAW?
I'm reading the PHB now, and it does say that you have to pick a target that fits with the spell description, but it doesn't say anything about what happens if you cast on an invalid target. For instance, casting Hold Person on a Celestial. I don't think there is RAW on this! But as a DM, I'd say that if you cast it, it's cast. Next time be more careful to make sure your target is valid :)



If the target is invalid, it remains invalid whether the caster believes it is or not. So it would seem that you are saying that it is possible to cast a spell on an invalid target. What do you say to this? (I don't claim to be right - I'm genuinely interested)

WIth an illusion, the caster (if they failed the save/ability check) believes that it's real and casts expecting an effect. I think that would go hand in hand with my ruling above (apparently not RAW, but maybe there's something deep in the PHB). This would work the same as if you one was doing an Attack roll against something. The attacking creature (either caster or martial) decides to attack a target. It doesn't really matter if the target is valid or not. They swing/cast. If valid, resolve. If not valid, then action wasted.

[RickAllison]

Is this RAW?



If the target is invalid, it remains invalid whether the caster believes it is or not. So it would seem that you are saying that it is possible to cast a spell on an invalid target. What do you say to this? (I don't claim to be right - I'm genuinely interested)

The way I would actually rule it is that the spell doesn't catch. The action is still taken, but the spell didn't go through. Let them figure out where the "Anti-Magic Zone" is coming from :smallbiggrin: You know, until someone casts a valid spell...

[BiPolar]

The way I would actually rule it is that the spell doesn't catch. The action is still taken, but the spell didn't go through. Let them figure out where the "Anti-Magic Zone" is coming from :smallbiggrin: You know, until someone casts a valid spell...

You are clearly a more lenient DM than I am :D It limits the power of an illusion spell if the caster gets to keep a slot when reacting to it. I like the action loss, but it's really the spell slot loss that hits home.

On the flipside, if a PC casts an illusion and an NPC casts a spell at it, would you also let the NPC keep their spell slot? Would your PCs be okay with that?

[RickAllison]

You are clearly a more lenient DM than I am :D It limits the power of an illusion spell if the caster gets to keep a slot when reacting to it. I like the action loss, but it's really the spell slot loss that hits home.

On the flipside, if a PC casts an illusion and an NPC casts a spell at it, would you also let the NPC keep their spell slot? Would your PCs be okay with that?

Naturally. And that only occurs if it actually is an invalid spell like Hold Monster. Things like Ice Knife that expend the power without directly affecting the person would be wasted.

Edit: And yes I am quite lenient. I implement brutal battles with a high degree of tactics so the deck is stacked against the players. In exchange, their harebrained schemes that go outside the normal rules are usually permitted.

[BiPolar]

Naturally. And that only occurs if it actually is an invalid spell like Hold Monster. Things like Ice Knife that expend the power without directly affecting the person would be wasted.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'm good with separating type of spell from whether or not you let your PC/NPC keep their slot. It worked better when it was a blanket statement, because now you have to rule on a case by case basis.

We're also a pretty strict crew and when folks make a mistake we don't let them walk it back. Our belief is "you had time prepare, you chose to do this, it didn't work, live with it and be more careful next time."

[RickAllison]

Hmm. I'm not sure I'm good with separating type of spell from whether or not you let your PC/NPC keep their slot. It worked better when it was a blanket statement, because now you have to rule on a case by case basis.

We're also a pretty strict crew and when folks make a mistake we don't let them walk it back. Our belief is "you had time prepare, you chose to do this, it didn't work, live with it and be more careful next time."

I figure it is made up for by the person casting Hold Person having no idea what is going on, while the guy who flings an Ice Knife through him has learned something more.

[BiPolar]

I figure it is made up for by the person casting Hold Person having no idea what is going on, while the guy who flings an Ice Knife through him has learned something more.

So what would you do at the table for the Hold Person instance? Let's say this is the Major Image of a Knight as already stated. The caster believes it's a Knight because he failed the Int. Save. Casts Hold Person...do you roll it's "save"?

[BurgerBeast]

I'm reading the PHB now, and it does say that you have to pick a target that fits with the spell description, but it doesn't say anything about what happens if you cast on an invalid target. For instance, casting Hold Person on a Celestial. I don't think there is RAW on this! But as a DM, I'd say that if you cast it, it's cast. Next time be more careful to make sure your target is valid :)

Okay. I agree that there is no RAW for this.

Now what if a humanoid named Joe is in the room along with an Major Image of Joe, and they are 60 feet apart. A caster casts Hold Person, and declares that the target is Joe. How do you proceed as the DM, following RAW?

[BiPolar]

Okay. I agree that there is no RAW for this.

Now what if a humanoid named Joe is in the room along with an Major Image of Joe, and they are 60 feet apart. A caster casts Hold Person, and declares that the target is Joe. How do you proceed as the DM, following RAW?

First would be the obligatory int save. If failed, Caster would have to pick which Joe to cast at.

[RickAllison]

So what would you do at the table for the Hold Person instance? Let's say this is the Major Image of a Knight as already stated. The caster believes it's a Knight because he failed the Int. Save. Casts Hold Person...do you roll it's "save"?

The spell doesn't activate, the magical circuit isn't complete. Here is how I would narrate it:

"You wave your hands perfectly, your words are flawless, but you don't feel the magic connect. For some reason, the magic isn't flowing."

Is it a curse, an Anti-Magic Field, or something else entirely? (Well in this case, we know that it is because the image does not allow for the spell to be complete, it has no target to dump its wattage into.

[BiPolar]

The spell doesn't activate, the magical circuit isn't complete. Here is how I would narrate it:

"You wave your hands perfectly, your words are flawless, but you don't feel the magic connect. For some reason, the magic isn't flowing."

Is it a curse, an Anti-Magic Field, or something else entirely? (Well in this case, we know that it is because the image does not allow for the spell to be complete, it has no target to dump its wattage into.

I've been thinking about this and I really like it. My big concern was feeling like major image just lost when it shouldn't have. When a martial interacts they find out it's an illusion and they haven't lost anything significant besides their action. Same thing should happen to the Caster.

[RickAllison]

I've been thinking about this and I really like it. My big concern was feeling like major image just lost when it shouldn't have. When a martial interacts they find out it's an illusion and they haven't lost anything significant besides their action. Same thing should happen to the Caster.

Technically the martials find out it is an illusion, the caster is left wondering exactly why it is failing (though "Illusion" will probably be the default assumption after the first or second time, perfect for when you want to switch it up!). I am A-OK with that since martials are awesome.

[Dalebert]

When you create an illusion, you also create some ambiguity about potential targets. There is more than one "person" you could potentially target. You have to pick one, e.g. "There are two people in the room, a guy in robes in one corner and an armored knight in another. Which one are you casting on?" As was pointed out, Mirror Image is a buff on the caster that makes them harder to hit with attacks, specifically. It fails to trick anyone into thinking there are actually multiple targets. It's clearly an illusion that merely distorts the precise location of the caster so you could fire a couple feet to the left or right or behind, etc. Meanwhile there is definitely one and only one specific person in that square who precisely fits the description of the person you're targeting because you can see him. Thus he meets all the criteria for Hold Person to impose a save on him.

[BurgerBeast]

...Caster would have to pick which Joe to cast at.

Sure, I would say that this is not necessarily RAW. The point is that a target has to be chosen, and it only makes sense for the player to do it. Now what if we describe the exact same situation, but vary the distance between Joe and the Major Image of Joe.

What if a humanoid named Joe is in the room along with a Major Image of Joe, and they are (30 feet/10 feet/5 feet/6 inches/1 inch) apart. A caster casts Hold Person, and declares that the target is Joe. How do you proceed as the DM, following RAW?

[BurgerBeast]

First would be the obligatory int save.

I've been intentionally avoiding this because I don't want to detract from the main line of reasoning, but: there is no obligatory int save. PHB 258 Under Major Image: A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC (emphasis added). This is beside the point though. We can ignore it and only consider the cases where the save is made.


When you create an illusion, you also create some ambiguity about potential targets.

PHB 260 under Mirror Image: Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real (emphasis added).


As was pointed out, Mirror Image is a buff on the caster that makes them harder to hit with attacks, specifically.

This is (your version of) RAI, not RAW. There is nothing in RAW that describes Mirror Image as a buff. It is described as a "2nd-level illusion." It says it creates "illusory duplicates." It has specific rules to override the general rules if and only if the subject is targeted by an attack.

Major Image can create an "image of... a creature" that "seems completely real."


It fails to trick anyone into thinking there are actually multiple targets.

If Joe is in a room and there are three Major Images of Joe in the room, which are mimicking his movements, this also fails to trick anyone into thinking there are actually multiple Joes, too. But the caster still has a problem in choosing the real Joe.


It's clearly an illusion that merely distorts the precise location of the caster...

Not according to the description. Three illusory duplicates is not the same as "merely distorting the precise location of the caster."


Meanwhile there is definitely one and only one specific person in that square who precisely fits the description of the person you're targeting because you can see him.

Well, it’s impossible to track which image is real and the images are illusory duplicates.


Thus he meets all the criteria for Hold Person to impose a save on him.

None of your criteria are supported by the spell description. If anything, they are contradicted by the spell description. Nonetheless, I applaud your effort and I think this is the best rationale to justify the spell as operating as you and others maintain that it does behave.

[Dalebert]

I've been intentionally avoiding this because I don't want to detract from the main line of reasoning, but: there is no obligatory int save.

This is true. You either have to spend an action investigating or physically interact with the image in some way to realize it's an illusion.


If Joe is in a room and there are three Major Images of Joe in the room, which are mimicking his movements, this also fails to trick anyone into thinking there are actually multiple Joes, too. But the caster still has a problem in choosing the real Joe.

The RAW is that you designate an eligible target in range so if you decide the target is Joe then the target is Joe and not an illusion of Joe. If you can see Joe and he is within the range of the spell, then he is affected. According to the general targeting rules of spells, you also need a clear path to the target so Joe can't be behind total cover. If all these criteria aren't met, the spell would fail. Strictly speaking, you can't pick an illusion as the target of a spell that requires a humanoid target. You could designate your target as "My ex, Joe, whom I'm really annoyed with for dating that other lady and now I want to paralyze him so I can do something really embarrassing to him." If you didn't know Joe personally like that, you could say "the closest person to me who isn't my ally" or "The person who looks like that" while pointing at an illusion of Joe. In fact, I would say that's understood when you designate a caster with Mirror Images. Your chosen target is the caster and not his duplicates. The rules don't even say you have to know what space a target is in and the Hold Person spell doesn't say that either.

This is why I say your best bet is to make illusions that are not of you as a diversion for spells like this. You could trick someone into picking a target that doesn't actually exist within the range and line of effect of the spell, e.g. a scary-looking dude in splint mail. The spell would then fail because your chosen target is not in range or doesn't otherwise meet the criteria (visible, not behind total cover, is a person).

And before you say "That's not fair! You can just figure out which one is real by using an affect that doesn't work on illusions!" Yes, just like you would with a fireball or by shooting a volley of arrows into the room. All of these would also show you whether an illusion was real or not.


None of your criteria are supported by the spell description. If anything, they are contradicted by the spell description. Nonetheless, I applaud your effort and I think this is the best rationale to justify the spell as operating as you and others maintain that it does behave.

I'll concede that. The spell is described more as a very specific type of illusion that happens to follow you around.

[BiPolar]

I've been intentionally avoiding this because I don't want to detract from the main line of reasoning, but: there is no obligatory int save. PHB 258 Under Major Image: A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC (emphasis added). This is beside the point though. We can ignore it and only consider the cases where the save is made.

I was intentionally adding to it because it is directly involved in this discussion. Overall, I understand your train of thought, but I think you are trying to make decisions on mechanics based on the "fluff" of the spell. The reasons I was highlighting the save are as follows:
1. Major Image is a third level, concentration spell
2. Mirror Image is a 2nd level, non concentration spell
3. In order for Major Image to even begin to work, those viewing it must FIRST fail an INT save. There is no initial save for Mirror Image, it just is. And it's a lower level spell, so I would expect it to do less, not more, than Major Image.
4. If the viewer fails, they still have an option to investigate (INT ability check). There is no option for that in Mirror Image. And for good reason - it is not Major Image and does not work like it.

Based on all of those, I believe your interpretation based on Illusion Fluff does not override the spell as described.



PHB 260 under Mirror Image: Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real (emphasis added).



This is (your version of) RAI, not RAW. There is nothing in RAW that describes Mirror Image as a buff. It is described as a "2nd-level illusion." It says it creates "illusory duplicates." It has specific rules to override the general rules if and only if the subject is targeted by an attack.

Major Image can create an "image of... a creature" that "seems completely real."

The type of spell and fluff description should not change the mechanical description of how the spell works. It says it creates illusory duplicates that fool attacks (as you've stated). It specifically does not say all spells,saves, attacks and ability checks. The decision to add those is based on your interpration and not the language itself.



If Joe is in a room and there are three Major Images of Joe in the room, which are mimicking his movements, this also fails to trick anyone into thinking there are actually multiple Joes, too. But the caster still has a problem in choosing the real Joe.



Not according to the description. Three illusory duplicates is not the same as "merely distorting the precise location of the caster."



Well, it’s impossible to track which image is real and the images are illusory duplicates.



None of your criteria are supported by the spell description. If anything, they are contradicted by the spell description. Nonetheless, I applaud your effort and I think this is the best rationale to justify the spell as operating as you and others maintain that it does behave.

My criteria regards attacks and attacks only IS the spell description. It says nothing at all about doing anything besides changing how attacks are decided against it.

As I said earlier, I understand your logic, but I do think it is flawed by being based on fluff descriptions of illusions rather than the mechanical description of the spell's effects. COmbine that with asking a 2nd level non-concentration spell to effectively work better (no save, no checks) than 3rd level spell suggests that your interpretation was not intended.

I also very much appreciate how we've discussed this :)

[Dalebert]

3. In order for Major Image to even begin to work, those viewing it must FIRST fail an INT save.

Once again, that's just not true. Please reread the spell. There is no initial save for Major Image or most illusions. Maybe you're getting it mixed up with Phantasmal Force or Phantasmal Killer. These spells don't just create an image and possibly other harmless sensory effects but actually introduce a hallucination into the target's mind that can actually harm it. They have saves. Silent Image and Major Image do not. They're just sensory illusions. There is nothing to save against.

That said, if the illusion isn't conceived of well, it might not be very convincing, like if you decide to make an illusion of a water creature in the dessert. That might trigger skepticism, but they don't know with 100% certainty that it's an illusion until they do something to figure it out like a successful investigation which takes an action or physical interaction which may or may not take an action depending. You could just try to walk through it which would just take movement, or if it's adjacent, you could just reach out to touch it, a free object interaction.

[BurgerBeast]

...Caster would have to pick which Joe to cast at.

I originally asked you to humour me, and you have been up until now. Please continue and answer the original question. I will come back to address anything else. I promise.

We were here:


Sure, I would say that this is not necessarily RAW. The point is that a target has to be chosen, and it only makes sense for the player to do it. Now what if we describe the exact same situation, but vary the distance between Joe and the Major Image of Joe.

What if a humanoid named Joe is in the room along with a Major Image of Joe, and they are (30 feet/10 feet/5 feet/6 inches/1 inch) apart. A caster casts Hold Person, and declares that the target is Joe. How do you proceed as the DM, following RAW?

[BiPolar]

Once again, that's just not true. Please reread the spell. There is no initial save for Major Image or most illusions. Maybe you're getting it mixed up with Phantasmal Force or Phantasmal Killer. These spells don't just create an image and possibly other harmless sensory effects but actually introduce a hallucination into the target's mind that can actually harm it. They have saves. Silent Image and Major Image do not. They're just sensory illusions. There is nothing to save against.

That said, if the illusion isn't conceived of well, it might not be very convincing, like if you decide to make an illusion of a water creature in the dessert. That might trigger skepticism, but they don't know with 100% certainty that it's an illusion until they do something to figure it out like a successful investigation which takes an action or physical interaction which may or may not take an action depending. You could just try to walk through it which would just take movement, or if it's adjacent, you could just reach out to touch it, a free object interaction.

Goldarnit, you are right. I was thinking of Phantasmal Force. However, it DOES give a mechanical option to expend an action for an Investigation ability check. Mirror Image does not. While there is still no initial save, there is a mechanic for negating it that Mirror Image does not have.

If the spell had included investigation checks as an action for it, then it would lend some more credence to Burger's interpretation, but there isn't. The spell clearly states what it does. And it clearly states it is for Attacks only and attacks are clearly defined.

[BiPolar]

I originally asked you to humour me, and you have been up until now. Please continue and answer the original question. I will come back to address anything else. I promise.

We were here:

I have been answering your questions and acknowledging your viewpoint and your logic, but I don't think you have been doing the same with me.

The problem here is you are asking for Mirror Image to work like Major Image just because they are in the same spell type. That's like asking Fire Bolt (a ranged spell attack) to work like Fireball (an AoE dex save) because they're both Evocation. The language in the spell dictates how it is supposed, not the type or the fluff.

You have asked me to follow your logic and I have. I am now asking you to respond to my concerns of your logic. Is that fair?

[BurgerBeast]

I have been answering your questions and acknowledging your viewpoint and your logic, but I don't think you have been doing the same with me.

Yes, up until now. If you'll continue I can fully make my point. It is my opinion that you have been an excellent sport, and I really wish to continue. The problem is that if we discuss all of the tangents we will never get back to my point, which is thus far incomplete. I am a very thorough person. I promise to return to each and every point you have made and discuss it until you are satisfied.


The problem here is you are asking for Mirror Image to work like Major Image just because they are in the same spell type. That's like asking Fire Bolt (a ranged spell attack) to work like Fireball (an AoE dex save) because they're both Evocation. The language in the spell dictates how it is supposed, not the type or the fluff.

Give me a sec to answer this...


You have asked me to follow your logic and I have. I am now asking you to respond to my concerns of your logic. Is that fair?

I would prefer if you could continue to follow my line of questions, because that is what I meant by "humouring me." However, that was not necessarily made clear to you, so...

Yes. I can stop here and purse your questions, one at a time, if you so wish (and I'll stay with the question above, and work backward, or with whichever question you wish). Is that how you wish to proceed from here?

[BiPolar]

Yes, up until now. If you'll continue I can fully make my point. It is my opinion that you have been an excellent sport, and I really wish to continue. The problem is that if we discuss all of the tangents we will never get back to my point, which is thus far incomplete. I am a very thorough person. I promise to return to each and every point you have made and discuss it until you are satisfied.



Give me a sec to answer this...



I would prefer if you could continue to follow my line of questions, because that is what I meant by "humouring me." However, that was not necessarily made clear to you, so...

Yes. I can stop here and purse your questions, one at a time, if you so wish (and I'll stay with the question above, and work backward, or with whichever question you wish). Is that how you wish to proceed from here?

I'm happy to continue humoring your train of thought, but the point I raised above is really the only issue I have with it (unless something new pops up, but I don't think that'll happen.)

To answer your final question, it is the same as before. With two Joes in the room (one real, one major image.) I would ask the caster what they want to do. I won't make suggestions, because I think that isn't fair to the Major Image. The caster would have the choice of investigating one of the images or just flipping a coin and picking one. Or maybe the caster has another idea, but that's how I'd play it out. To the caster, unless something else happens, there are two Joes in the room.

[Dalebert]

But there's another misconception here that is founded in the idea that all spells are cast in a certain direction or into a certain space. If it's requiring a to-hit roll, that makes sense. However, many spells say you pick a target. Nothing about that suggests that it requires any targeting whatsoever of the intended target; only that all criteria are met for the spell to succeed.

Hold Person, for instance, has the following criteria.
1) Target in range (like all spells)
2) You can see your target
3) Target is a humanoid
4) Target fails a wisdom save

If you want to get nitpicky, there are other rarer complications like
5) Target is not immune for some reason

How you specify your desired target is wide open and I would posit several things off top of my head that should work:
1) Joe, where "Joe" refers to someone you're familiar with, even from just a brief meeting.
2) Someone who fits a certain physical description, e.g. the person who looks like a particular illusion.
3) The closest person to you who's not an ally
4) The person within a certain space.

Hold Person seeks out your target as long as all the necessary criteria are met. It's not a ray that you point in a certain direction and zap someone with. Now I would however posit that you can't use information you don't have. For instance in case #2, if the person is magically disguised, they no longer look like the person you're targeting based on appearance. Thus, your desired target as specified is not in range of the spell and it fails. But a disguise wouldn't matter for #3 because that's not relevant to your choice of target, your choice being much broader. If you want to hit a very specific person, your target criteria needs to be specific enough to designate that person separate from any other possible targets.

The key point here is you cannot choose an illusion as the target. If you point at an absolutely exact illusory duplicate of someone, you are essentially indicating a person who looks like that as the target and the spell targets that person if they meet all the criteria. If, on the other hand, you point at an illusion of someone who doesn't actually exist or who just isn't in range, the chosen target (the person who looks like that) doesn't meet the criteria and the spell fails.

Consider a displacer beast for a moment. If you interpret Mirror Image this way, a displacer beast would also be immune to any spells that require you to see the target. If you dig down into the fluff of its ability and interpret beyond what the ability says it does, what it's doing is being invisible and making an illusion of itself slightly to one side. If it's truly invisible, it can't be targeted by many spells at all. But they don't say the ability works like that. All it says it does is impose disadvantage on attacks, and "attacks" has a very specific meaning in 5e.

[BurgerBeast]

@BiPolar: I am intentionally responding to Dalebert and you separately. If you wouldn't mind avoiding bringing my dialogue with Dalebert into our discussion it will provide for better clarity in our discussion. If you wish to bring the same ideas into our discussion, by all means, please do. I hope this doesn't come off as rude as that isn't my intention. I just want to keep the conversation as clear as possible for both of our sakes. I'm not interested in winning the argument. I'm interested in learning something.


The RAW is that you designate an eligible target in range so if you decide the target is Joe then the target is Joe and not an illusion of Joe. If you can see Joe and he is within the range of the spell, then he is affected. According to the general targeting rules of spells, you also need a clear path to the target so Joe can't be behind total cover.

So, in your view, as long as a target is within range of the spell, "targeting" can be as simple as stating who the target is intended to be (and being able to see it)? And in your view, this means you have to be able to "see" the target, but not necessarily able to identify it?


Strictly speaking, you can't pick an illusion as the target of a spell that requires a humanoid target.

I am totally okay with this. I don't think it is RAW. I don't think there is any RAW on this. If you contend that it is RAW I am ready to be proven wrong. I think this is your RAI and I can accept it and move on.


You could designate your target as "My ex, Joe, whom I'm really annoyed with for dating that other lady and now I want to paralyze him so I can do something really embarrassing to him." If you didn't know Joe personally like that, you could say "the closest person to me who isn't my ally" or "The person who looks like that" while pointing at an illusion of Joe. In fact, I would say that's understood when you designate a caster with Mirror Images. Your chosen target is the caster and not his duplicates. The rules don't even say you have to know what space a target is in and the Hold Person spell doesn't say that either.

This all certainly follows from your explanation. I will come back to this later, if necessary. But for now, we both agree.


This is why I say your best bet is to make illusions that are not of you as a diversion for spells like this. You could trick someone into picking a target that doesn't actually exist within the range and line of effect of the spell, e.g. a scary-looking dude in splint mail. The spell would then fail because your chosen target is not in range or doesn't otherwise meet the criteria (visible, not behind total cover, is a person).

Yep. I see where this is coming from.


And before you say "That's not fair! You can just figure out which one is real by using an affect that doesn't work on illusions!" Yes, just like you would with a fireball or by shooting a volley of arrows into the room. All of these would also show you whether an illusion was real or not.

This will be my argument. But we can put it aside for now until we're clear about my question above. I have a few reasons for putting it forward but many of them may be irrelevant based on your answer to the question above.

[BiPolar]

The key point here is you cannot choose an illusion as the target. If you point at an absolutely exact illusory duplicate of someone, you are essentially indicating a person who looks like that as the target and the spell targets that person if they meet all the criteria. If, on the other hand, you point at an illusion of someone who doesn't actually exist or who just isn't in range, the chosen target (the person who looks like that) doesn't meet the criteria and the spell fails.

Consider a displacer beast for a moment. If you interpret Mirror Image this way, a displacer beast would also be immune to any spells that require you to see the target. If you dig down into the fluff of its ability and interpret beyond what the ability says it does, what it's doing is being invisible and making an illusion of itself slightly to one side. If it's truly invisible, it can't be targeted by many spells at all. But they don't say the ability works like that. All it says it does is impose disadvantage on attacks, and "attacks" has a very specific meaning in 5e.

Exactly - and in this situation if the caster chose not to Investigate one of the Joes and picked randomly (and let's say he picked the illusion), then I would move to the situation that RickAllison and I were discussing. Spell fizzles, action spent, spell slot unspent. Caster knows something is funny with that guy and/or area.

The Displacer beast is a great example of the mechanics.

[NNescio]

This is starting to become like the Axiom of Choice in ZFC set theory.

[BurgerBeast]

I'm happy to continue humoring your train of thought, but the point I raised above is really the only issue I have with it (unless something new pops up, but I don't think that'll happen.)

Okay. I will see if the situation I present makes any difference.


To answer your final question, it is the same as before. With two Joes in the room (one real, one major image.)

So is it fair to say that, presented with the question:


What if a humanoid named Joe is in the room along with a Major Image of Joe, and they are (30 feet/10 feet/5 feet/6 inches/1 inch) apart. A caster casts Hold Person, and declares that the target is Joe. How do you proceed as the DM, following RAW?

Your answer is that you would ask the player to specify exactly which target he is choosing (to determine if the character is targeting the real Joe or the illusory Joe)?

[BiPolar]

Your answer is that you would ask the player to specify exactly which target he is choosing (to determine if the character is targeting the real Joe or the illusory Joe)?

Yes, that's how I would rule at my table (not sure if that's RAW).

[Dalebert]

Yes, that's how I would rule at my table (not sure if that's RAW).

It's not. Once again, here's the RAW from the Hold Person description.


Choose a humanoid that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be paralyzed for the duration.

Let me break that down.


Choose a humanoid

Is the illusion of Joe a humanoid? When you see two Joes and are aware that one is not the real Joe, what is your desired target? Note that the spell does not say you have to know where Joe is. If you think that's the RAW, show me the RAW that state this.


that you can see

Can you see Joe, the humanoid? Has he become invisible?


within range

Is Joe, the humanoid, in range of the spell?

BurgerBeast, you say you're willing to be convinced of the RAW and I've shown it to you a couple of times now. I don't think that's the case so I'm done arguing it for now. You seem very set in that interpretation. That's fine in your games or if you're able to convince your DM.

[smcmike]

RAW + illusion spells always leads to trouble, huh?

For what it's worth, this is how I see it:

If a caster attempts to cast Hold Person on a Major Image, the spell fizzles and he loses it. Bad luck for him, I guess he should have chosen a valid target.

Mirror Image is not Major Image. Although it creates multiple copies, there is a specific mechanic for resolving attempts to target the caster, and this mechanic kicks in only for attacks. It has no effect on non-attacks.

I see the argument that casting Hold Person requires picking a target, and Mirror Image creates multiple targets, but the text of the spell really runs against this. If you target the caster with an arrow, you do not need to pick a target. The text of the spell simply kicks in. If you don't have to pick a target with an arrow, why would you have to pick one with a spell?

[BiPolar]

Is the illusion of Joe a humanoid? When you see two Joes and are aware that one is not the real Joe, what is your desired target? Note that the spell does not say you have to know where Joe is. If you think that's the RAW, show me the RAW that state this.

I was basing my ruling on NOT knowing that one of them is not the real Joe. What if it was a clone? The second Joe's specific existence is not understood and until it is I would treat it as another creature. If it's another creature, then the PC must pick which creature he is casting Hold Person on.

Another way of looking at it is, let's say Joe has an identical twin that the Caster didn't know existed. Both are now in the room, and the caster does not know which is Joe and which is Joe's brother. Caster must pick one. THat's kind of how I was treating this.

But your interpretation of the RAW of "Pick a humanoid you can see" is an interesting one. I'd agree that a strict reading would say you don't have to be able to specifically identify and target and just that if the target is in range and visible it'll work is valid. I'm not sure I'd play it like that because I like the idea of actually selecting the target, but I'd be hard pressed to say no to someone reading it like that.

[BurgerBeast]

(snip)

I will just say that you and I disagree on how targeting is resolved. I think the caster must not only "see" the target, but "identify" the target (something to the effect of "I want to hit that guy. Right there." I do not think that RAW has anything to say about this. So both of our interpretations strike me as reasonable, up to this point in our discussion.


How you specify your desired target is wide open and I would posit several things off top of my head that should work: (snip)

All of this is perfectly reasonable using your ruling on how targeting (with spells) works. I think it is equally clear that if targeting occurs my way, these will be different in the ways which follow logically from there. For me, this is not RAW territory.


Hold Person seeks out your target as long as all the necessary criteria are met. It's not a ray that you point in a certain direction and zap someone with. Now I would however posit that you can't use information you don't have. For instance in case #2, if the person is magically disguised, they no longer look like the person you're targeting based on appearance. Thus, your desired target as specified is not in range of the spell and it fails. But a disguise wouldn't matter for #3 because that's not relevant to your choice of target, your choice being much broader. If you want to hit a very specific person, your target criteria needs to be specific enough to designate that person separate from any other possible targets.

This is very interesting and I appreciate the depth of thought. I apologize if I forget this later, but feel free to refer me back to it.


The key point here is you cannot choose an illusion as the target. If you point at an absolutely exact illusory duplicate of someone, you are essentially indicating a person who looks like that as the target and the spell targets that person if they meet all the criteria. If, on the other hand, you point at an illusion of someone who doesn't actually exist or who just isn't in range, the chosen target (the person who looks like that) doesn't meet the criteria and the spell fails.

And what happens when the spell fails? Do you use up your action and lose the spell? Does the DM simply say, "that's an invalid action" and let you declare a valid one in it's place? I there is RAW territory. Please correct me if you think there is RAW, and explain how you would rule on this.


Consider a displacer beast for a moment. If you interpret Mirror Image this way, a displacer beast would also be immune to any spells that require you to see the target. If you dig down into the fluff of its ability and interpret beyond what the ability says it does, what it's doing is being invisible and making an illusion of itself slightly to one side. If it's truly invisible, it can't be targeted by many spells at all. But they don't say the ability works like that. All it says it does is impose disadvantage on attacks, and "attacks" has a very specific meaning in 5e.

Thanks for bringing this up. I wrote up a huge answer that was so heavy with analysis that I decided to just cut it. Instead I'll say this: You're right for all practical purposes. I would not say it is impossible to target the beast, but an initial declaration of "I cast Hold Monster on the displacer beast" would result in a miss due to targeting the illusion.

[BiPolar]

If a caster attempts to cast Hold Person on a Major Image, the spell fizzles and he loses it. Bad luck for him, I guess he should have chosen a valid target.


THis was my original ruling style as well, but after my discussion with RickAllison I like his way of handling the situation. The ambiguity of whether or not the spell was saved should remain, otherwise you've just tipped the hand of Major Image. Not that your ruling (and my original) isn't RAW, but that I like the caster being confused as to what the hell happened more than losing the spell slot.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, that's how I would rule at my table (not sure if that's RAW).

Okay.

What if a humanoid named Joe is in the room along with a three Major Images of Joe, and they are each within 1 inch of Joe, so that they collectively occupy the same square. A caster casts Hold Person, and declares that the target is Joe. How do you proceed as the DM, following RAW?

[smcmike]

THis was my original ruling style as well, but after my discussion with RickAllison I like his way of handling the situation. The ambiguity of whether or not the spell was saved should remain, otherwise you've just tipped the hand of Major Image. Not that your ruling (and my original) isn't RAW, but that I like the caster being confused as to what the hell happened more than losing the spell slot.

Yeah, I skimmed that bit, so I might have missed some nuance. When I say "the spell fizzled," I simply mean that the caster loses the slot and nothing much happens. I wouldn't provide other information.

[smcmike]

Okay.

What if a humanoid named Joe is in the room along with a three Major Images of Joe, and they are each within 1 inch of Joe, so that they collectively occupy the same square. A caster casts Hold Person, and declares that the target is Joe. How do you proceed as the DM, following RAW?

I would require the caster to pick one.

Of course, if Joe happened to accidentally bump into any of the Major Images, that would spoil the effect entirely.

[BiPolar]

Yeah, I skimmed that bit, so I might have missed some nuance. When I say "the spell fizzled," I simply mean that the caster loses the slot and nothing much happens. I wouldn't provide other information.

hehe. Check out the discussion, you may change your mind :) Although I may go back to my original (yours as well) plan of the expended spell slot.

[NNescio]

I will just say that you and I disagree on how targeting is resolved. I think the caster must not only "see" the target, but "identify" the target (something to the effect of "I want to hit that guy. Right there." I do not think that RAW has anything to say about this. So both of our interpretations strike me as reasonable, up to this point in our discussion.


All of this is perfectly reasonable using your ruling on how targeting (with spells) works. I think it is equally clear that if targeting occurs my way, these will be different in the ways which follow logically from there. For me, this is not RAW territory.


Is the illusion of Joe a humanoid? When you see two Joes and are aware that one is not the real Joe, what is your desired target? Note that the spell does not say you have to know where Joe is. If you think that's the RAW, show me the RAW that state this.

Heh, so it all boils down to whether we can take the Axiom of Choice when picking targets for spells. Which is doubly (https://xkcd.com/804/) funny because duplicates are involved.

[RickAllison]

Yeah, I skimmed that bit, so I might have missed some nuance. When I say "the spell fizzled," I simply mean that the caster loses the slot and nothing much happens. I wouldn't provide other information.

I think that is more how the spell resolution works by RAW. My solution was more of a house-rule I implement because I think it is more flavorful, but I don't think it has much, if any, validity per the rules. It is a case of RAF and RAL (Rules as Logic, extrapolating from the physics of the universe we are definitively given with those of our own to apply to a less definitive conclusion). Much like how I would say a user of Snilloc's Snowball Swarm could slow it down so a bunch of kids could have a snowball fight even if that isn't how the spell works.

[BiPolar]

Okay.

What if a humanoid named Joe is in the room along with a three Major Images of Joe, and they are each within 1 inch of Joe, so that they collectively occupy the same square. A caster casts Hold Person, and declares that the target is Joe. How do you proceed as the DM, following RAW?

In this case, your logic train falls off the rails :) Major Image can be commanded to move via an action. Three major images would require 3 actions in order to "mirror" him. By RAW, he couldn't have the 3 Major Images moving in concert with him to confuse me. I'd be able to tell which ones aren't moving or are moving differently.

[smcmike]

In this case, your logic train falls off the rails :) Major Image can be commanded to move via an action. Three major images would require 3 actions in order to "mirror" him. By RAW, he couldn't have the 3 Major Images moving in concert with him to confuse me. I'd be able to tell which ones aren't moving or are moving differently.

Presumably they wouldn't be moving in concert, but would all be doing something slightly different. Getting them to move in concert would simply be too difficult. At one inch apart, though, simply not bumping them into one another is a major concern.

[BiPolar]

Presumably they wouldn't be moving in concert, but would all be doing something slightly different. Getting them to move in concert would simply be too difficult. At one inch apart, though, simply not bumping them into one another is a major concern.

Especially if he's not controlling 2 of them :) Most likely, that many stacked images in a 5' space would cancel themselves out by touching each other.

[BurgerBeast]

BurgerBeast, you say you're willing to be convinced of the RAW and I've shown it to you a couple of times now. I don't think that's the case so I'm done arguing it for now. You seem very set in that interpretation. That's fine in your games or if you're able to convince your DM.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that you were claiming it is RAW. I thought you were simply offering a reasonable way to interpret the rules. As a gesture of goodwill, I will explain why I think it isn't RAW. If you still wish to cease, that's fine.

For me it comes down to PHB 204, under Targets: A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic.

I think "pick" is ambiguous. I think your interpretation is just as valid as mine, but that neither is RAW.

Also, regarding what happens when you choose an invalid target, I think your reasons are just as valid as mine, but neither is RAW.

I also think there are issues that arise from your interpretation that are undesirable, perhaps even to you. But I didn't want to start bringing them up until you'd had a chance to explain your view. Up until now I think everything you have described falls within the rules and is reasonable.

When I said it's not RAW, I didn't mean to say that you are violating RAW. I meant to say that there are no RAW in this case, so your interpretation is not the only one.


RAW + illusion spells always leads to trouble, huh?

For what it's worth, this is how I see it:

If a caster attempts to cast Hold Person on a Major Image, the spell fizzles and he loses it. Bad luck for him, I guess he should have chosen a valid target.

This is how I see it, too. But I think that Dalebert's interpretation is also reasonable. I don't think RAW specifies that either is view correct.


Mirror Image is not Major Image. Although it creates multiple copies, there is a specific mechanic for resolving attempts to target the caster, and this mechanic kicks in only for attacks. It has no effect on non-attacks.

Agreed. I'm in the middle of a lengthy discussion about this, though, to prove (or fail to prove) what is potentially a rather subtle point.


I see the argument that casting Hold Person requires picking a target, and Mirror Image creates multiple targets, but the text of the spell really runs against this. If you target the caster with an arrow, you do not need to pick a target. The text of the spell simply kicks in. If you don't have to pick a target with an arrow, why would you have to pick one with a spell?

Again, I'm in the middle of a lengthy discussion about this. In short:

(1) I think that you do have to pick a target with an arrow. You would use the usual method except that the spell specifically overrides this method.
(2) I think that whenever you cast Hold Person, you have to pick a target. You use the usual method.
(3) I think the text of Mirror Image provides specific instructions when someone picks a target with an arrow that override the usual targeting methods, and effectively select the target for you. This doesn't apply to Hold Person.

[BiPolar]

For me it comes down to PHB 204, under Targets: A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic.


This may fall under the specific beats general rule. PHB 204 is the general rule, but each spell will provide specifics on the requirements for the casting. Hold XXX does that and there isn't another existing mechanic that changes how you resolve it (like Mirror Image does for attacks.)

Also, I think I broke the rule about involving myself in your discussion with Dalebert. If so, ignore and I can put it into our next round.

[smcmike]

(1) I think that you do have to pick a target with an arrow. You would use the usual method except that the spell specifically overrides this method.
(2) I think that whenever you cast Hold Person, you have to pick a target. You use the usual method.
(3) I think the text of Mirror Image provides specific instructions when someone picks a target with an arrow that override the usual targeting methods, and effectively select the target for you. This doesn't apply to Hold Person.

I think I missed (1) in scanning your (yes, lengthy) argument. It is a fascinating assertion.

I may have missed your proposed resolution: do you want the Hold Person caster to roll a d20 to see if he picks the right target? I don't see how the "usual method" could possibly apply, since the illusions are identical and are constantly shifting and switching position.

[BurgerBeast]

@BiPolar:
In this case, your logic train falls off the rails :) Major Image can be commanded to move via an action. Three major images would require 3 actions in order to "mirror" him. By RAW, he couldn't have the 3 Major Images moving in concert with him to confuse me. I'd be able to tell which ones aren't moving or are moving differently.

Okay, we need to slow this down and address your contentions. Let's revise the situation:

Suppose there are three Major Images. Suppose each one is controlled by a different wizard (and none is controlled by Joe himself). Suppose we forget about trying to "mirror" Joe but instead the images just look like him and move independently, as directed by the relevant wizard. I posit that this would still present the same problem of not knowing which is the real Joe, and that even if you pick out that each visible Joe (the real and the three illusions) is different, that still does not tell you which is real.

Do you agree?

@ everyone:


I would require the caster to pick one.

Cool. Me, too.


Of course, if Joe happened to accidentally bump into any of the Major Images, that would spoil the effect entirely.

I don't think it would. I think that if you saw a two "people" overlapping each other in space, you wouldn't know if it was two illusions or a real person and an illusion. Also, you still wouldn't know which image was overlapping which, i.e. you wouldn't know which of the two was the real one.


Presumably they wouldn't be moving in concert, but would all be doing something slightly different. Getting them to move in concert would simply be too difficult. At one inch apart, though, simply not bumping them into one another is a major concern.

Agreed. But I'm not sure they'd need to move in concert, or even be close to one another. Likewise, as I explained above, I don't think bumping into each other would reduce the efficacy of the effect.


Especially if he's not controlling 2 of them :) Most likely, that many stacked images in a 5' space would cancel themselves out by touching each other.

Do illusions cancel each other when they interact?

[BiPolar]

@BiPolar:

Okay, we need to slow this down and address your contentions. Let's revise the situation:

Suppose there are three Major Images. Suppose each one is controlled by a different wizard (and none is controlled by Joe himself). Suppose we forget about trying to "mirror" Joe but instead the images just look like him and move independently, as directed by the relevant wizard. I posit that this would still present the same problem of not knowing which is the real Joe, and that even if you pick out that each visible Joe (the real and the three illusions) is different, that still does not tell you which is real.

Do you agree?

I don't believe I do. Physical interaction with images shows them to be false. These images are interaction with other and with Joe(who is real). In my mind, that would make it clear which one is real because the others become faint. If they were surrounding him outside his 5' space, I think your assertion is more plausible, but then it also breaks your argument.

[BurgerBeast]

I may have missed your proposed resolution: do you want the Hold Person caster to roll a d20 to see if he picks the right target?

I don't remember if I offered one.

I see no reason to use the d20 mechanic, personally. I would either:

(1) roll 1d# where #=number of illusory duplicates +1, and assign the value 1 to the real person
(2) put 4 of the same minis on the table and identify one somehow (maybe under the base) and ask the player to pick (but this would require reshuffling etc)
(3) simply assign a number from 1-4 in my head, to represent the correct target, and ask the player to pick one

etc...

The bottom line is, the specific method is not important beyond that it should be fair.

[smcmike]

Let's not get bogged down about the rules on physical interaction with illusions unless it is directly necessary to get to your point. It's an interesting question (if you see someone fire an arrow through a wall, can you say for sure the wall is an illusion of if you can't say for sure the arrow isn't?), but I don't think it's necessary.

[RickAllison]

Just putting in my 2 copper pieces, I think the greater part of why Mirror Image is treated the way it is is because of establishing entities. When you create an illusion, you are creating a duration effect that is treated as a separate entity from the caster. You track its position, movement (in certain cases, like not for Minor Image), and its interactions with other creatures. For Mirror Image, this is not the case. Mirror Image is treated as part of the entity of the caster. It moves with him, it shares its position with him, and the only mechanical effect given for it is when the caster is interacted with. You don't treat those images as anything separate from the caster. Flavor it however you like, but all the information present in the text indicates that Mirror Image is considered part of the caster.

[smcmike]

Just putting in my 2 copper pieces, I think the greater part of why Mirror Image is treated the way it is is because of establishing entities. When you create an illusion, you are creating a duration effect that is treated as a separate entity from the caster. You track its position, movement (in certain cases, like not for Minor Image), and its interactions with other creatures. For Mirror Image, this is not the case. Mirror Image is treated as part of the entity of the caster. It moves with him, it shares its position with him, and the only mechanical effect given for it is when the caster is interacted with. You don't treat those images as anything separate from the caster. Flavor it however you like, but all the information present in the text indicates that Mirror Image is considered part of the caster.

This is my interpretation as well.

I like the image of grappling the caster. The illusions would be confusing enough that an observer still wouldn't be able to say precisely which copy was being grappled with.

[BurgerBeast]

I don't believe I do. Physical interaction with images shows them to be false. These images are interaction with other and with Joe(who is real). In my mind, that would make it clear which one is real because the others become faint. If they were surrounding him outside his 5' space, I think your assertion is more plausible, but then it also breaks your argument.

This is a good answer, and it seems to have precedent in some of the rulebooks. Certainly, the text for Major Image says: Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.

I would rule that the physical interaction between Joe and a single image reveals that there is an illusion. If the observer had thought that perhaps there were two real people, it's now apparent that there is at least one illusion (possibly two). But I don't think the illusion automatically fades, or is in any other way identifiable, because, again: you need to spend a round discerning whether something is an illusion not.

However, if the character himself physically interacted with the illusion, I think it would be determined that it was an illusion and that would amount to an auto-success on the save. Also if some other physical object (edit: that the subject knows to be real) passed through the illusion (including a different person), I would rule that the observer automatically determines that it's an illusion.

Does this seem reasonable or unreasonable?

Edited for clarity

[BiPolar]

This is a good answer, and it seems to have precedent in some of the rulebooks. Certainly, the text for Major Image says: Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.

I would rule that the physical interaction between Joe and a single image reveals that there is an illusion. If the observer had thought that perhaps there were two real people, it's now apparent that there is at least one illusion (possibly two). But I don't think the illusion automatically fades, or is in any other way identifiable, because, again: you need to spend a round discerning whether something is an illusion not.

However, if the character himself physically interacted with the illusion, I think it would be determined that it was an illusion and that would amount to an auto-success on the save. Also if some other physical object passed through the illusion (including a different person), I would rule that the observer automatically determines that it's an illusion.

Does this seem reasonable or unreasonable?

I think that's reasonable, although 3 images and 1 Joe in a 5' space pretty much means they're on top of each at some point if not acting in concert. And observing Joe interact with the illusions would, in my opinion, make them "become faint" per what happens when the illusion is discerned to be an illusion (i'm reading discerned as either succeeded on Investigation or saw an interaction that showed them to be illusions). Even if it's not the physical, having two illusions pass through each other without physically interacting would be enough to mark them as not real to an observer (in my opinion...purely my opinion.)

But let's continue with your logic and see where it leads and then we can circle back to my concerns.

[BurgerBeast]

I think that's reasonable, although 3 images and 1 Joe in a 5' space pretty much means they're on top of each at some point if not acting in concert.

Yes. I contend that this has no tangible effect on the fact that a person trying to pick a target will still have four targets to choose from. You contend (I think) that it does have a tangible effect.


And observing Joe interact with the illusions would, in my opinion, make them "become faint" per what happens when the illusion is discerned to be an illusion.

So, do you contend that the very moment any illusion interacts with a real object, the illusion instantly becomes faint to everyone who sees the interaction?

[BiPolar]

Yes. I contend that this has no tangible effect on the fact that a person trying to pick a target will still have four targets to choose from. You contend (I think) that it does have a tangible effect.



So, do you contend that the very moment any illusion interacts with a real object, the illusion instantly becomes faint to everyone who sees the interaction?

Yes, I contend that the moment any illusion has a physical interaction with a real object, then whomever witnessed it sees it is fake. No, I'm not absolutely certain this is correct :)

However, I think we are vastly straying from the issue at hand or I'm not seeing your next step.

[Contrast]

The rules seem relatively clear on what happens. I think the main confusion arises because of how people imagine looking at someone under the effects of the spell.

If you imagine looking at someone under the effects of Mirror Image and you imagine seeing 4 individuals we immediately start to bump into problems.

What if I say I want to target the one of the far left? Thats not how it works and the spell specifically doesn't give me that option.

What if the person is sitting at a table eating a meal? Are the illusions sitting? Using knives and forks, eating illusionary meals? They can't interact with the physical surroundings so it would immediately become obvious which the illusions are but the spell says its impossible to keep track.

What about if the person is standing still? The spells says the illusions are constantly shifting - does this mean we have one person with 3 copies running in circles around him? Seems it would be pretty easy to tell which the illusion was.

What if the person was hiding behind something only big enough to hide one person? Do we give them a penalty to their stealth check because their illusionary copies keep popping in and out of cover? The spell doesn't mention a penalty to stealth as one of the features of the spell.

Therefore I'm going to assume that imagining this is how the spells works is incorrect. When I imagine looking at someone under the effects of Mirror Image I imagine that when I look at them I suddenly gain extreme double vision. Its not that I'm choosing to target the one on the far left. If that when I look at them theres suddenly a swirling jumble, I swing at one and...oh darn my swing just went wide to the left.

Basically I see Mirror Image as being more similar to Hypnotic Pattern rather than Major Image.

Suddenly the fluff and the crunch line up and work together rather than against each other. At least to me anyway :)

Edit - This also explains why physically grappling them while you stab them doesn't avoid the spell but closing your eyes does.

[BurgerBeast]

Just putting in my 2 copper pieces, I think the greater part of why Mirror Image is treated the way it is is because of establishing entities. When you create an illusion, you are creating a duration effect that is treated as a separate entity from the caster.

It seems to me that "entities" in this context is something that exists completely outside the "game world" and solely as a means of tracking or making sense of things "out-of-game." I say this because to a character in the game, there's no distinction. Do you agree?

Still, this gets interesting in other contexts, too. If one uses Major Image to create the images of multiple rocks on the ground, does touching one illusory rock reveal all of the illusory rocks to be illusions (since they are all one Major Image), or just the individual rock that is touched?


You track its position, movement (in certain cases, like not for Minor Image), and its interactions with other creatures. For Mirror Image, this is not the case. Mirror Image is treated as part of the entity of the caster.

I understand the logic here, and I have no problem with it being your interpretation/explanation, but I don't personally see any reason to consider Mirror Image part of the entity of the caster. This is pretty much the same as just saying it is a buff and not an illusion. I get it but I'm not convinced.


It moves with him, it shares its position with him, and the only mechanical effect given for it is when the caster is interacted with. You don't treat those images as anything separate from the caster. Flavor it however you like, but all the information present in the text indicates that Mirror Image is considered part of the caster.

Two contentions here:

(1) shared square is not the same as shared position (admittedly weak but potentially important in particular circumstances)
(2) You do treat the images as something different from the caster. Mechanically they are different. For example, attacks on the caster inflict damage whereas attacks on the images cause the images to disappear.

Number 2 may not be entirely clear, so I offer this example only to highlight that you could have a hypothetical version of the spell that was (at least to my understanding, more like what you describe). Replace the mechanical parts of the spell with this: Whenever the subject is hit with an attack, one illusory duplicate disappears. If all of the illusory duplicates have disappeared, the spell ends. I say this is more akin to your description because now you cannot, according to the mechanics, hit the target without hitting a duplicate. As long as its possible to hit one but not the other, they strike me as separate entities, even mechanically.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, I contend that the moment any illusion has a physical interaction with a real object, then whomever witnessed it sees it is fake. No, I'm not absolutely certain this is correct :)

However, I think we are vastly straying from the issue at hand or I'm not seeing your next step.

That's the end of it. I think we've gotten to the root of it. I think that applying your rationale for illusions might have unintended effects, but I have no problem with it. Thanks for playing along. I'm all yours if you want to ask me questions.

[BiPolar]

It seems to me that "entities" in this context is something that exists completely outside the "game world" and solely as a means of tracking or making sense of things "out-of-game." I say this because to a character in the game, there's no distinction. Do you agree?

Still, this gets interesting in other contexts, too. If one uses Major Image to create the images of multiple rocks on the ground, does touching one illusory rock reveal all of the illusory rocks to be illusions (since they are all one Major Image), or just the individual rock that is touched?


I would say all. The Major Image is all the rocks. Once part of it has been discerned, the spell has been shown. Think of Discern as a Dispel Magic.

[BiPolar]

That's the end of it. I think we've gotten to the root of it. I think that applying your rationale for illusions might have unintended effects, but I have no problem with it. Thanks for playing along. I'm all yours if you want to ask me questions.

Whee!So, going back to my previous issues, can you provide your thoughts on:

I was intentionally adding to it because it is directly involved in this discussion. Overall, I understand your train of thought, but I think you are trying to make decisions on mechanics based on the "fluff" of the spell. The reasons I was highlighting the save are as follows:
1. Major Image is a third level, concentration spell
2. Mirror Image is a 2nd level, non concentration spell
3. With Major Image, viewers still have an option to investigate (INT ability check). There is no option for that in Mirror Image. And for good reason - it is not Major Image and does not work like it.

These combine in such a way that you've basically allowed a 2nd level non-concentration spell to effectively work better (no checks) than a 3rd level spell which suggests that your interpretation was not intended.

The problem here is you are asking for Mirror Image to work like Major Image just because they are in the same spell type. That's like asking Fire Bolt (a ranged spell attack) to work like Fireball (an AoE dex save) because they're both Evocation. The language in the spell dictates how it is supposed, not the type or the fluff.

[BurgerBeast]

The rules seem relatively clear on what happens. I think the main confusion arises because of how people imagine looking at someone under the effects of the spell.

Based on the discussion in this thread, I think it's fair to say the rules are not clear about how to pick a target using Hold Person. This is true whether or not the target is subject to Mirror Image.


If you imagine looking at someone under the effects of Mirror Image and you imagine seeing 4 individuals we immediately start to bump into problems.

PHB 260, under Mirror Image: Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space.

We have problems.


What if I say I want to target the one of the far left? Thats not how it works and the spell specifically doesn't give me that option.

It depends on the ability you are using. If you are using an attack, then you are correct. The spell overrides the usual method for selecting a target using an attack. If you are using Hold Person, "I want to target the one of the far left" seems totally reasonable to me, and nothing in the text for Mirror Image says otherwise.


What if the person is sitting at a table eating a meal? Are the illusions sitting? Using knives and forks, eating illusionary meals? They can't interact with the physical surroundings so it would immediately become obvious which the illusions are but the spell says its impossible to keep track.

This is a good point. This has come up in my games. RAW, it is impossible to track which image is real. In my games, for the sake of preserving RAW I have employed this interpretation: in such cases, the illusion will extend the environment as necessary to fulfill this respect of the effect. For example, if the subject sits on bench and the bench isn't long enough to seat four people, the images will either extend the bench far enough to make the illusion seem real, or the images will overlap. Whatever enters or exits the subject's hands will likewise enter or exit the images' hands. If the subject catches fire, the illusions catch illusory fire. Etc.


What about if the person is standing still? The spells says the illusions are constantly shifting - does this mean we have one person with 3 copies running in circles around him? Seems it would be pretty easy to tell which the illusion was.

No. You see four wizards standing still. How would you know which is real? Lets say that an arrow strikes the real caster. You'd see all four get hit by the arrow. I suppose you'd have to fudge a bit to make RAW hold up, but it seems to me that if someone hits you with a sword or an axe, you're going to at least flinch and recoil a little, and during that time the images could shift and overlap while mimicking this motion. I can envision that as "resetting the illusion" so that the next attacker will have problems.


What if the person was hiding behind something only big enough to hide one person? Do we give them a penalty to their stealth check because their illusionary copies keep popping in and out of cover? The spell doesn't mention a penalty to stealth as one of the features of the spell.

Nothing in the RAW for this. Do as you wish.


Therefore I'm going to assume that imagining this is how the spells works is incorrect. When I imagine looking at someone under the effects of Mirror Image I imagine that when I look at them I suddenly gain extreme double vision. Its not that I'm choosing to target the one on the far left. If that when I look at them theres suddenly a swirling jumble, I swing at one and...oh darn my swing just went wide to the left.

Cool with me. But this is a house rule because it contradicts RAW. repeated here for your convenience: PHB 260, under Mirror Image: Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space.


Basically I see Mirror Image as being more similar to Hypnotic Pattern rather than Major Image. Suddenly the fluff and the crunch line up and work together rather than against each other. At least to me anyway :)

I'm cool with you doing this. I just think that you don't have a case for it except as a house rule. Three illusory duplicates of yourself (Mirror Image, PHB 260) and a twisting pattern of colors that weaves through the air inside a 30-foot cube (Hypnotic Pattern, PHB 252) don't seem very similar to me.

[Dalebert]

As I said, I'm done trying to convince BurgerBeast. I feel you are entrenched in your conclusion and it's no use trying to sway you and ultimately it doesn't matter what you do in your games. I feel you will make Mirror Image far more powerful than what is intended but let you and your frustrated DM deal with that (or frustrated players). :)

BiPolar, in your example of twins, I've already addressed that but I'll try to clarify. In that case, there are two VALID targets that are essentially indistinguishable by any knowledge the caster of Hold Person has. There is ambiguity regarding his choice of targets that the spell requires him to resolve with more specific criteria, e.g. the Joe on the left or the "Joe" on the right (who's actually named "Jim" but he doesn't know that so it's irrelevant). One way to resolve it would be to select a target like "The person closest to me other than my allies." That may not get the target you want but at least it will resolve any ambiguity.

Mirror Image is unambiguous already. The caster's choice of target is generally going to be the PERSON in that space and there is only one person in that space unless somehow his twin brother is crowded into that space with all his non-person duplicates which aren't valid targets, then the spell homes in on the one valid target in that space per the spells description. If you choose the person in that space and there are no valid targets in the space, then the spell fails and the slot and action was wasted. If you choose "the person closest to me other than my allies" and your allies are the only valid targets in range, then the spell fails and the action and slot are wasted.


Certainly, the text for Major Image says: Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.

I would rule that the physical interaction between Joe and a single image reveals that there is an illusion. If the observer had thought that perhaps there were two real people, it's now apparent that there is at least one illusion (possibly two). But I don't think the illusion automatically fades, or is in any other way identifiable, because, again: you need to spend a round discerning whether something is an illusion not.

Per very strict RAW, this wouldn't be correct. Physical interaction took place so the illusion is immediately revealed. That said, I don't think your ruling is unreasonable considering the particular circumstances despite not being strict RAW.


Still, this gets interesting in other contexts, too. If one uses Major Image to create the images of multiple rocks on the ground, does touching one illusory rock reveal all of the illusory rocks to be illusions (since they are all one Major Image), or just the individual rock that is touched?

"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion"

So regardless of whether you made an illusion of multiple things, there is only one image to interact with.

[BiPolar]

BiPolar, in your example of twins, I've already addressed that but I'll try to clarify. In that case, there are two VALID targets that are essentially indistinguishable by any knowledge the caster of Hold Person has. There is ambiguity regarding his choice of targets that the spell requires him to resolve with more specific criteria, e.g. the Joe on the left or the "Joe" on the right (who's actually named "Jim" but he doesn't know that so it's irrelevant). One way to resolve it would be to select a target like "The person closest to me other than my allies." That may not get the target you want but at least it will resolve any ambiguity.

That definitely works with your interpretation of RAW. I'm not sure it is RAW because I don't like the ambiguity of not actually selecting a focus for the spell, but it works within the language. For me, though, I still want the caster to identify whom they are trying to Hold. It gives strength to Major Image that I believe it deserves (but I also really really like illusions.)

[BurgerBeast]

Whee!So, going back to my previous issues, can you provide your thoughts on:

I was intentionally adding to it because it is directly involved in this discussion. Overall, I understand your train of thought, but I think you are trying to make decisions on mechanics based on the "fluff" of the spell.

I hope not. I strive to avoid the fluff and stick to RAW. I am ready to admit to being wrong, though.


The reasons I was highlighting the save are as follows:
1. Major Image is a third level, concentration spell
2. Mirror Image is a 2nd level, non concentration spell
3. With Major Image, viewers still have an option to investigate (INT ability check). There is no option for that in Mirror Image. And for good reason - it is not Major Image and does not work like it.

To me, (1) and (2) are not relevant. If we are talking RAW, then to me that means considering exactly what is written. Accounting for spell level and intended power seems to me to fall in the category of trying to discern the designers' intent. For example, it may be the case that the PHB has spells for which there is a corresponding spell of lower level that is more powerful. In my view, this can happen if we are simply reading the RAW. It only poses an issue if you try to discern RAI.


These combine in such a way that you've basically allowed a 2nd level non-concentration spell to effectively work better (no checks) than a 3rd level spell which suggests that your interpretation was not intended.

I don't have a problem if a second level spell is better than a 3rd level at a specific task. Just because Mirror Image is better at protecting the subject from attacks (or defensive buffing, or however you want to describe it), that doesn't make Mirror Image a superior spell. Major Image can do things (indeed almost an infinite number of things) that Mirror Image cannot do. In my mind, Major Image is far superior as a spell.


The problem here is you are asking for Mirror Image to work like Major Image just because they are in the same spell type.

I think you misunderstood. All I was trying to say is that Hold Person requires a target, and that the method for selecting a target for hold person remains the same regardless of whether Mirror Image or Major Image is in play.


That's like asking Fire Bolt (a ranged spell attack) to work like Fireball (an AoE dex save) because they're both Evocation.

I hope my precious answer addressed this.


The language in the spell dictates how it is supposed, not the type or the fluff.

You are absolutely right. That's why I use the language of the spells to defend my case.

My argument looks like this:

1. Hold Person requires a target that is chosen by the caster
2. If there are illusions visible, it is possible that an illusion might be accidentally chosen as a target
3. In the case of both Mirror Image and Major Image, illusions are visible
4. Therefore, it is possible for a caster to accidentally target an illusion if Mirror Image or Major Image is in play

To defend (3): Mirror Image creates "[t]hree illusory duplicates of yourself" in such a way that "it’s impossible to track which image is real." For me this is functionally the same as three illusions for the purpose of choosing a target. I assume you agree in the case of Major Image and evidence is not necessary.

I just remembered that I do have at least one more question to ask. Perhaps when you finish with asking me questions I can return to it, if you like.

[RickAllison]

BurgerBeast, RAW is not your friend here, RAI has to be. RAW, Mirror Image only has an effect when the user is targeted by an attack, not a save. Your entire argument is based on your RAI of the fluff and comparisons to other illusion spells.

[BiPolar]

I hope not. I strive to avoid the fluff and stick to RAW. I am ready to admit to being wrong, though.




You are absolutely right. That's why I use the language of the spells to defend my case.

My argument looks like this:

1. Hold Person requires a target that is chosen by the caster
2. If there are illusions visible, it is possible that an illusion might be accidentally chosen as a target
3. In the case of both Mirror Image and Major Image, illusions are visible
4. Therefore, it is possible for a caster to accidentally target an illusion if Mirror Image or Major Image is in play

To defend (3): Mirror Image creates "[t]hree illusory duplicates of yourself" in such a way that "it’s impossible to track which image is real." For me this is functionally the same as three illusions for the purpose of choosing a target. I assume you agree in the case of Major Image and evidence is not necessary.

You are using "three illusory duplicates....impossible to track which image is real" as your structure for dictating mechanics. However, there is no mechanic information in there, just the fluff description of what it looks like. THe spell mechanic is "Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates." In addition, it then even has AC values for the duplicates.

To me, the mechanical description of how to account for Mirror Image is explicit. It's about Attacks. And Attacks are clearly defined in the PHB. When you see the language regarding AC of the duplicates, then it further supports the case this is for Attacks involves rolls against AC.

What would suggest otherwise is if they also gave the duplicates save modifiers or told you to use your save modifier.

Without any additional language in the spell dictating how to respond to Actions, then you have to stop with the action described and not extend it to others that fit the "fluff" of the spell.



I just remembered that I do have at least one more question to ask. Perhaps when you finish with asking me questions I can return to it, if you like.
ask away!

[smcmike]

That's the end of it. I think we've gotten to the root of it. I think that applying your rationale for illusions might have unintended effects, but I have no problem with it.

I'm lost. Why does interpretation of how physical objects interact with Major Image have any bearing on Mirror Image?

[BurgerBeast]

As I said, I'm done trying to convince BurgerBeast. I feel you are entrenched in your conclusion and it's no use trying to sway you and ultimately it doesn't matter what you do in your games. I feel you will make Mirror Image far more powerful than what is intended but let you and your frustrated DM deal with that (or frustrated players). :)

I'm not entrenched in my opinion, but you're entitled to think so. I'm actively trying to change my mind.


Per very strict RAW, this wouldn't be correct. Physical interaction took place so the illusion is immediately revealed. That said, I don't think your ruling is unreasonable considering the particular circumstances despite not being strict RAW.

I would contend that this is stretching it too far. If I enter the room and there is no one else is there, but one hour ago one of the party members physically interacted with the illusion, then "per strict RAW," the image "is revealed."

I contend that while my example given above is even more unreasonable than yours, they are both "per strict RAW," and both sufficiently unreasonable enough to be ignored. And I acknowledge that you already said as much, so I am not trying to claim that you were arguing with me.

I am now pondering what it is that gives me the "right" to make such a determination. I suppose that when strict RAW clearly and unambiguously justifies unintended consequences, it is reasonable to assume that RAI are superior. I don't know. that sounds pretty lame when I re-read it.

[BurgerBeast]

I'm lost. Why does interpretation of how physical objects interact with Major Image have any bearing on Mirror Image?

Lol. Sorry. We agreed that I would ask questions until I was satisfied that I had reached the end of what I was seeking. I was basically just saying "I'm done asking questions. Your turn."

[BurgerBeast]

BurgerBeast, RAW is not your friend here, RAI has to be. RAW, Mirror Image only has an effect when the user is targeted by an attack, not a save. Your entire argument is based on your RAI of the fluff and comparisons to other illusion spells.

Not so!

Mirror Image only has an effect when the user is targeted by an attack - yes.

In other words, Mirror Image has no effect whatever on Hold Person.

So, in answer to the question: "What happens when someone casts Hold Person on a target who is subject to Mirror Image?" The answer has nothing to do with Mirror Image whatsoever.

So, to find our answer, we simply look at Hold Person.

Where do we run into trouble? Right here: Choose a humanoid that you can see within range. (Hold Person, PHB 251, emphasis added)

The whole source of disagreement comes from:

(1) what it means to "choose" a target (for example, is it enough verbally state the target and then the spell does the work, or does the caster have to more-or-less point out the target)

(2) this is secondary, and only come up if you believe that the caster must point-out the target: what happens if the caster points out an illusion instead of a humanoid (is an action spent? Does the spell slot get burned or kept? etc.)

@BiPolar: sorry I have to run out but I promise to return to this discussion when I have time. Thanks for an enjoyable discussion!

[Dalebert]

I do feel the need to concede something. I do think Major Images could cause Hold Person to misfire in many cases. I mean, typically if you pick an illusion of someone standing in a separate space from them, what you are essentially choosing as the target is "the person in that (5x5) space" and if there are no valid targets in that space, the spell fizzles and is wasted. You do have the option to be more vague at the risk of not getting exactly whom you want. For instance "the nearest person to me other than my allies" and that will be much safer for actually landing the spell on someone. Even with that concession, it's very easy to target the person with Mirror Image up because you know what space he's in. You can distinguish him from any other valid targets by designating the space, so saying "the person in that space" will designate the person and not the images as the target. There are a number of ways to make it hard to be targeted by spells but Mirror Image isn't one of them. Frankly, the best way to use Major Image like this is to stand against the wall and make the wall appear to come out 5 more feet. Now you can't be seen and are an invalid target, period. No need to hope they pick the wrong "you".

[Contrast]

PHB 260, under Mirror Image: Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space.

We have problems.

I'm not sure we have a problem. Double (or in this case triple I suppose) vision is perfectly in line with the descriptive text of the spell. Double vision is literally seeing multiple of something appearing when there is an fact only one just in a blurrier and fuzzier way than you are choosing.

In fact the spell describes how the illusions mimic your actions - again imagine someone opening a door, either all the mirror images converge to open the one door (in which case the spell offers no benefit as you and the illusions are all in the same place) or the mirror images all stand next to a blank bit of wall making a door opening motion making it obvious which is the real which is explicitly disallowed by the spell. The spell obviously can't work like that and function as described. Whereas if we have imposed triple vision the illusions will perfectly track and mimic your characters movements with no problems.


In my games, for the sake of preserving RAW I have employed this interpretation: in such cases, the illusion will extend the environment as necessary to fulfill this respect of the effect. For example, if the subject sits on bench and the bench isn't long enough to seat four people, the images will either extend the bench far enough to make the illusion seem real, or the images will overlap. Whatever enters or exits the subject's hands will likewise enter or exit the images' hands. If the subject catches fire, the illusions catch illusory fire. Etc.

...for the sake of preserving RAW you've inserted an awful lot of things which the RAW in no way implies and in fact introduced some new problems for yourself. Now anyone watching the guy sit down will see the bench suddenly stretch and know the one of the end is an illusion. Or anyone familiar with the room will know the dimensions of the bench are wrong and now there is an illusion there not the real one. You've added an awful lot more to the RAW than I have with my interpretation. If the illusions are overlapping, what exact benefit is the spell giving you as your enemy will just hit the one place where they all are...and somehow still miss you because the spell description forces them to?

My point in comparing Mirror Image to Hypnotic Pattern wasn't to say that the effects are the same but rather to highlight that illusions are capable of doing things other than creating a copy or an image of something else. Hypnotic Pattern is an illusion which creates a magically mesmerising light which confounds your senses. Simply creating a twisting pattern of colours in the air wouldn't distract and incapacitate a trained fighter in the middle of combat, clearly the illusion is hypnotically compelling them into a state of momentary mindlessness. In a similar way I think its wrong to think of Mirror Image as 'oh its just a Major Image which specifically creates 3 copies of yourself' - thats not how the spell is written or described. Illusions are capable of much more.

Anyways, I'm not really interested in getting into a debate about if my approach is RAW - if you want to consider it a houserule then its a houserule I recommend you adopt. As far as I can see my explanation complies with the text of the spell and requires no mental gymnastics to make the spell function as written while neatly resolving the problem with your interpretation explaining how someone can be physically holding their target and stab an illusion off to one side by accident (edit - or to be on topic, without requiring an explanation for why spells can't be mis-targeted against illusionary versions). That's good enough for me.

Edit - it just occured to me that its somewhat amusing to have a houserule that doesn't, in fact, change any rules but rather allows you to use the rules as written without additions :P

Edit edit - To put a similar argument in a different context, Fireball does not clarify if the 'bright streak' flashing from your finger goes in a straight line to the target or follows an arc. One would cause problems with using the spell in certain situations (say if there was a low ceiling) and stop the spell acting as described. Now some people will prefer to imagine they're summoning a ball of fire into their hands and lobbing it at their opponent rather than sending firey exploding finger bullets out and that's fine but in terms of figuring out what they can actually mechanically target we shouldn't be using that fluff to argue they can't throw a fireball in a room with a low ceiling, we should be using the mechanical wording of the spell to figure out the mechanical impacts. You're taking the fluff of the spell and arguing this should change the mechanical functioning of the spell - I'm pointing out theres another fluff intrepretation which keeps the mechanical function the same.

To be honest the main objection I could see someone having to my intrepretation is that it means there isn't as much visual distinction between Blur and Mirror Image. I see that as being less problematic than the logical inconsistencies with the spells if it does act as you've described.

[smcmike]

Mirror Image only has an effect when the user is targeted by an attack - yes.

In other words, Mirror Image has no effect whatever on Hold Person.

So, in answer to the question: "What happens when someone casts Hold Person on a target who is subject to Mirror Image?" The answer has nothing to do with Mirror Image whatsoever.

This is a truly astonishing train of logic.

A has no effect on B.
Therefore, B is foiled by A.

[RickAllison]

I do feel the need to concede something. I do think Major Images could cause Hold Person to misfire in many cases. I mean, typically if you pick an illusion of someone standing in a separate space from them, what you are essentially choosing as the target is "the person in that (5x5) space" and if there are no valid targets in that space, the spell fizzles and is wasted. You do have the option to be more vague at the risk of not getting exactly whom you want. For instance "the nearest person to me other than my allies" and that will be much safer for actually landing the spell on someone. Even with that concession, it's very easy to target the person with Mirror Image up because you know what space he's in. You can distinguish him from any other valid targets by designating the space, so saying "the person in that space" will designate the person and not the images as the target. There are a number of ways to make it hard to be targeted by spells but Mirror Image isn't one of them. Frankly, the best way to use Major Image like this is to stand against the wall and make the wall appear to come out 5 more feet. Now you can't be seen and are an invalid target, period. No need to hope they pick the wrong "you".

Oh absolutely. If you see two orcs and cast Hold Person and indicate which one you are targeting, it will attempt to target that one. If it can't, the DM resolves it according to his desire (the RAW and my preferred ruling have been addressed earlier in the thread). However, what if the expressed targeting is "whichever orc is nearest me". That is where it becomes more debatable.

[smcmike]

Oh absolutely. If you see two orcs and cast Hold Person and indicate which one you are targeting, it will attempt to target that one. If it can't, the DM resolves it according to his desire (the RAW and my preferred ruling have been addressed earlier in the thread). However, what if the expressed targeting is "whichever orc is nearest me". That is where it becomes more debatable.

Yeah, Dalebert's position is very interesting. It would appear to turn spell targeting into a potentially elaborate verbal minigame, similar to wording a wish spell. That sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but also maybe cumbersome. I also don't see any support for it in the rules.

"I cast hold person on the closest person who wants to harm me."

[RickAllison]

Yeah, Dalebert's position is very interesting. It would appear to turn spell targeting into a potentially elaborate verbal minigame, similar to wording a wish spell. That sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but also maybe cumbersome. I also don't see any support for it in the rules.

"I cast hold person on the closest person who wants to harm me."

"Zakarov, your roguish friend that feels you cheated out of 20 silver pieces last night, suddenly feels himself freezing up. He is paralyzed."

[Dalebert]

Yeah, Dalebert's position is very interesting. It would appear to turn spell targeting into a potentially elaborate verbal minigame, similar to wording a wish spell. That sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but also maybe cumbersome. I also don't see any support for it in the rules.

"I cast hold person on the closest person who wants to harm me."

That last part is a straw-man. I've pointed out that your decision has to be based on information you know. For the case of "The closest person who's not an ally", there may be a double-agent in your party who's waiting for the right moment to kill you, but if you don't know that, then you regard him as an ally. You're consciously excluding him from being targeted by the spell because you perceive him as an ally and the spell homes in on your desired target, within reason, of course. The fact that you don't have to roll a to-hit makes it sort of like a heat-seeking person-seeking missile. If you send it out toward a rushing crowd of orcs and say you want to hit the closest one, that seems reasonable to me. The more precise you try to be, the more likely that you will pick an invalid target. If you say I want to target that orc specifically, e.g. the one to the bottom-left with the red-spiky armor, and that orc happens to be an illusion or a werewolf or some other invalid target, then obviously it fails.

That said, when you put it that way, it does give me pause. As I've already conceded, I can see illusions tricking you into picking an invalid target in some cases. I may be trying to read too much into the spell description. I guess it would get a little silly to have the wording say "Choose a target you believe to be humanoid".

[RickAllison]

That last part is a straw-man. I've pointed out that your decision has to be based on information you know. For the case of "The closest person who's not an ally", there may be a double-agent in your party who's waiting for the right moment to kill you, but if you don't know that, then you regard him as an ally. You're consciously excluding him from being targeted by the spell because you perceive him as an ally and the spell homes in on your desired target, within reason, of course. The fact that you don't have to roll a to-hit makes it sort of like a heat-seeking person-seeking missile. If you send it out toward a rushing crowd of orcs and say you want to hit the closest one, that seems reasonable to me. The more precise you try to be, the more likely that you will pick an invalid target. If you say I want to target that orc specifically, e.g. the one to the bottom-left with the red-spiky armor, and that orc happens to be an illusion or a werewolf or some other invalid target, then obviously it fails.

That said, when you put it that way, it does give me pause. As I've already conceded, I can see illusions tricking you into picking an invalid target in some cases. I may be trying to read too much into the spell description. I guess it would get a little silly to have the wording say "Choose a target you believe to be humanoid".

My RAF would be as soon as you get too elaborate, the spell absolutely wigs out. Too many criteria, too many targets, and the spell bursts and goes haywire. Roll twice on the Wild Magic table, DM's pick >:). Does it have any backing? Heck no, but it seems fun!

Edit: Or am I starting to think of Fun in the dorf-y sense...

[Dalebert]

This seems relevant to our interests. Hope he replies. The wording is similar. The only thing is SAYS it's displacement effect does is impose disadvantage on attacks. It doesn't say anything about making it impossible to target with spells that require you to see the beast and not the projected illusion. Should all that be inferred? I'm saying "no". The effect does what it says.


@JeremyECrawford You can only see an illusion of a displacer beast. Can or can't target it with hold monster because it's invisible?

[BiPolar]

This seems relevant to our interests. Hope he replies. The wording is similar. The only thing is SAYS it's displacement effect does is impose disadvantage on attacks. It doesn't say anything about making it impossible to target with spells that require you to see the beast and not the projected illusion. Should all that be inferred? I'm saying "no". The effect does what it says.

I'm gonna be very surprised if he rules that CR 3 displacer beasts can't be targeted with spells that aren't attacks. That's better than legendary resistance!

[BurgerBeast]

@BiPolar: Although I tend to disagree with you in the case of how two or more Major Images interact, I can accept your notion that any time two Major Images interact, they become faint and therefore “revealed.”

It’s worth noting though, that the property of “being revealed when physcially interacted with” is not, as far as I can tell, a RAW property of all illusions. It is a property of Major Image because the text of the spell specifically says so.

Mirror Image, on the other hand, does not say this. Furthermore, Mirror Image says something quite different: it’s impossible to track which image is real (PHB 260). So RAW, Mirror image is not “revealed” by physcial interation, and RAW it is impossible to track which image is real.

So it seems to me that there are three illusory duplicates which are targetable and cannot be in any way distinguished from the real person. Do you agree?

@everyone


I do feel the need to concede something. I do think Major Images could cause Hold Person to misfire in many cases. I mean, typically if you pick an illusion of someone standing in a separate space from them, what you are essentially choosing as the target is "the person in that (5x5) space" and if there are no valid targets in that space, the spell fizzles and is wasted.

Some questions to consider:

(1) Is it worth noting that the use of grids and miniatures is totally optional? (i.e. does this or should this have any effect on thinking in terms of 5' x 5' squares?)

(2) Although there are currently no tiny humanoids in the MM, what if there were four tiny humanoids in one square? Should the caster be able to target one of them specifically? And what, specifically in terms of targeting with Hold Person, makes this different from the four targets presented by a wizard and his three Mirror Images?


You do have the option to be more vague at the risk of not getting exactly whom you want. For instance "the nearest person to me other than my allies" and that will be much safer for actually landing the spell on someone.

I think the consequences of allowing this are that you drastically increase the power of spells and increase unintended consequences that are hard to anticipate. Is someone hiding in the warehouse, whom you know is a humanoid but you can't find? Just cast a spell that targets humanoids. Since he's the only one, the spell will automatically home in on the target.


There are a number of ways to make it hard to be targeted by spells but Mirror Image isn't one of them. Frankly, the best way to use Major Image like this is to stand against the wall and make the wall appear to come out 5 more feet. Now you can't be seen and are an invalid target, period. No need to hope they pick the wrong "you".

RAW, you don't need to see the target. You just need a clear path to the target. PHB 204 says: To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover. (emphasis added). So if we use your targeting rules, you can cast anything that target humanoids but doesn't have an attack roll, and it will home in on the hiding wizard.


I'm not sure we have a problem. Double (or in this case triple I suppose) vision is perfectly in line with the descriptive text of the spell. Double vision is literally seeing multiple of something appearing when there is an fact only one just in a blurrier and fuzzier way than you are choosing.

Double vision is seeing multiple of everything. It's either an illusion that is there in a location, or it's a vision issue, with your eyes or brain.


In fact the spell describes how the illusions mimic your actions - again imagine someone opening a door, either all the mirror images converge to open the one door (in which case the spell offers no benefit as you and the illusions are all in the same place) or the mirror images all stand next to a blank bit of wall making a door opening motion making it obvious which is the real which is explicitly disallowed by the spell. The spell obviously can't work like that and function as described. Whereas if we have imposed triple vision the illusions will perfectly track and mimic your characters movements with no problems.

Oh yeah, sure. I can get behind this. This is what I meant in my previous description. In a sort of small dynamic zone around the subject of MI, you see in double or triple. Sure. But this seems to me to be what I described. At least it's what I intended to describe.


...for the sake of preserving RAW you've inserted an awful lot of things which the RAW in no way implies and in fact introduced some new problems for yourself. Now anyone watching the guy sit down will see the bench suddenly stretch and know the one of the end is an illusion. Or anyone familiar with the room will know the dimensions of the bench are wrong and now there is an illusion there not the real one.

How is this different that someone who knows where the door is seeing three doors?


You've added an awful lot more to the RAW than I have with my interpretation. If the illusions are overlapping, what exact benefit is the spell giving you as your enemy will just hit the one place where they all are...and somehow still miss you because the spell description forces them to?

I don't personally advocate the overlapping. It was meant to be an alternative explanation. I'm with you, I think. Except I don;t distinguish between what we each said.


My point in comparing Mirror Image to Hypnotic Pattern wasn't to say that the effects are the same but rather to highlight that illusions are capable of doing things other than creating a copy or an image of something else.

Cool. I agree.


Hypnotic Pattern is an illusion which creates a magically mesmerising light which confounds your senses. Simply creating a twisting pattern of colours in the air wouldn't distract and incapacitate a trained fighter in the middle of combat, clearly the illusion is hypnotically compelling them into a state of momentary mindlessness.

Agreed.


In a similar way I think its wrong to think of Mirror Image as 'oh its just a Major Image which specifically creates 3 copies of yourself' - thats not how the spell is written or described. Illusions are capable of much more.

I don't advocate the position described. Have been trying to discuss Hold Person and how it targets people, but people have responding by invoking the Mirror Image text. The reason I brought up Major Image was to demonstrate an (apparent to me, at least) inconsistency in adjudicating how one selects a target for Hold Person.


Anyways, I'm not really interested in getting into a debate about if my approach is RAW - if you want to consider it a houserule then its a houserule I recommend you adopt.

Fair enough. That just happens to be what we were debating, though.


As far as I can see my explanation complies with the text of the spell and requires no mental gymnastics to make the spell function as written while neatly resolving the problem with your interpretation explaining how someone can be physically holding their target and stab an illusion off to one side by accident (edit - or to be on topic, without requiring an explanation for why spells can't be mis-targeted against illusionary versions). That's good enough for me.

I'm with you except for the bit in parentheses.


Edit - it just occured to me that its somewhat amusing to have a houserule that doesn't, in fact, change any rules but rather allows you to use the rules as written without additions :P

It's the edit that, in my view, goes beyond RAW to describe how Mirror Image interacts with Hold Person (or any spell that targets humanoids without an attack roll).



(the fireball bit)

No, I am trying to preserve the RAW. But we disagree on the RAW.


To be honest the main objection I could see someone having to my intrepretation is that it means there isn't as much visual distinction between Blur and Mirror Image. I see that as being less problematic than the logical inconsistencies with the spells if it does act as you've described.

Agreed.


This is a truly astonishing train of logic.

A has no effect on B.
Therefore, B is foiled by A.

That truly is astonishing! Do you know anyone who employed that logic?


Oh absolutely. If you see two orcs and cast Hold Person and indicate which one you are targeting, it will attempt to target that one. If it can't, the DM resolves it according to his desire (the RAW and my preferred ruling have been addressed earlier in the thread). However, what if the expressed targeting is "whichever orc is nearest me". That is where it becomes more debatable.

I would ask the Player to determine which orc is closest or I would determine it for him, from the perspective of his character.

[BurgerBeast]

This seems relevant to our interests. Hope he replies. The wording is similar. The only thing is SAYS it's displacement effect does is impose disadvantage on attacks. It doesn't say anything about making it impossible to target with spells that require you to see the beast and not the projected illusion. Should all that be inferred? I'm saying "no". The effect does what it says.

It doesn't quite get there, though. I wish I saved the elaborate answer I originally wrote to this.

Nothing actually prevents you from targeting a displacer beast. Not even invisibility so far as I can tell, because according to the rules you don't need to be able to see a target in order to target it (excuse the awkward language). However, the DM would have to determine if you were targeting the illusion (this might happen the very first time you ever see a displacer beast and early in the fight, because it would soon become apparent that attacks made against the illusion have no effect, and everyone would be guessing the location of the beast - this is modelled by disadvantage in the case of attack rolls but there is nothing specified for spells without attack rolls) or the actual, invisible, beast. The DM would then need to determine if you targeted it successfully.

[BiPolar]

@BiPolar: Although I tend to disagree with you in the case of how two or more Major Images interact, I can accept your notion that any time two Major Images interact, they become faint and therefore “revealed.”

It’s worth noting though, that the property of “being revealed when physcially interacted with” is not, as far as I can tell, a RAW property of all illusions. It is a property of Major Image because the text of the spell specifically says so.

Mirror Image, on the other hand, does not say this. Furthermore, Mirror Image says something quite different: it’s impossible to track which image is real (PHB 260). So RAW, Mirror image is not “revealed” by physcial interation, and RAW it is impossible to track which image is real.

So it seems to me that there are three illusory duplicates which are targetable and cannot be in any way distinguished from the real person. Do you agree?



You didn't really respond to my points, but that's okay. I think at this point, you are firmly in your camp and nothing I or anyone else in the thread is going to change your mind.

However, I do not agree with your last question regarding targetable duplicates. I will only agree in conjunction with attacks. Attacks being defined by the PHB as rolls against AC (either melee, ranged or Spell.) Anything else is fair game per the spell. Please see my concerns with using what im calling descriptive language (3 illusory duplicates...) over the spell mechanics language.

[James warden]

Oh what a cool post

[smcmike]

The effect does what it says.

I think this is a nice summary.



So it seems to me that there are three illusory duplicates which are targetable and cannot be in any way distinguished from the real person. Do you agree?

I think you know that no one else currently in the conversation agrees that they are independently targetable.



RAW, you don't need to see the target. You just need a clear path to the target.


This is not true in the case of Hold Person.



Nothing actually prevents you from targeting a displacer beast. Not even invisibility so far as I can tell, because according to the rules you don't need to be able to see a target in order to target it (excuse the awkward language).

Nor Hold Monster.



I don't advocate the position described. Have been trying to discuss Hold Person and how it targets people, but people have responding by invoking the Mirror Image text. The reason I brought up Major Image was to demonstrate an (apparent to me, at least) inconsistency in adjudicating how one selects a target for Hold Person.


I think we all see your point by now. The question is ultimately about the text of Mirror Image, though, which is why we keep returning to it. Your discussion of targeting was well argued, but ultimately does not resolve the question at hand, which is whether Mirror Image has any mechanical effect apart from the if-attacked clause.

[Mellack]

The mirror image duplicates are not targetable. All attacks target the caster, but then by a roll described in the spell, they are then transferred to one of the images. As far as I can see, there is no RAW way to target an image on purpose.
I think that is part of the confusion. Burger suggests that when casting Hold Person the caster might pick one of the duplicates instead. But the spell says they are constantly shifting. You cannot pick one as a target, that is the purpose of the spell and why it works against attacks.
Hold spells, like many others, specify that you must be able to see the target. An invisible creature or person cannot be a target of the spell (unless you can see them by some means).

[Navigator]

BurgerBeast, I think I see where you're coming from on this and am sympathetic to your point. If I had to make a ruling on this as a DM it would come mostly from a balance perspective of mirror image because I think both readings are defensible as written.


It therefore seems to me that you need to house rule what happens when someone tries to cast a spell on an invalid target. Then, depending on that house rule, you might need to make a more specific house rule for the spell Mirror Image.

I am curious. If you had to houserule mirror image to allowing any targeted spell to strike the owner of the images unerringly, how would you alter (or add to) the text of mirror image? Maybe this can shed more light on your thinking.

Edit: a word

[BurgerBeast]

You didn't really respond to my points, but that's okay. I think at this point, you are firmly in your camp and nothing I or anyone else in the thread is going to change your mind

I'm sorry. I'll do so here:


You are using "three illusory duplicates....impossible to track which image is real" as your structure for dictating mechanics. However, there is no mechanic information in there, just the fluff description of what it looks like.

I think "three illusory duplicates....impossible to track which image is real" combined with "in your space" is a mechanical description of the illusory effect of Mirror Image, at least to the same extent that "the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube" is a mechanical description of Major Image.

If you wish to disagree that it is mechanical, I would say that it at least has mechanical consequences. For example, while you might content that the illusory duplicates are not targetable because there are no mechanics to say that it is, I would reply that there are no mechanics to specify that Major Image is targetable, either, yet it seems reasonable that it is based on the description.


THe spell mechanic is "Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates." In addition, it then even has AC values for the duplicates.

Yes. It includes AC values because AC is relevant to attacks. Since this part of the text is specifically describing what happens "[e]ach time a creature targets you with an attack", you should not expect it to give details about mechanics related to spell attacks here.


To me, the mechanical description of how to account for Mirror Image is explicit. It's about Attacks. And Attacks are clearly defined in the PHB. When you see the language regarding AC of the duplicates, then it further supports the case this is for Attacks involves rolls against AC.

100% agree.


What would suggest otherwise is if they also gave the duplicates save modifiers or told you to use your save modifier.

Yes but there are no mechanics specific to using a (non-attack) spell against Mirror Image. This does not mean that there are no mechanics. It means that the general mechanics apply.


Without any additional language in the spell dictating how to respond to Actions, then you have to stop with the action described and not extend it to others that fit the "fluff" of the spell.

You can't extend the rules that specify how to deal with attacks to non-attack spells. That's true. So if someone uses a non-attack spell, you need to follow the general rules for non-attack spells.

...


However, I do not agree with your last question regarding targetable duplicates. I will only agree in conjunction with attacks. Attacks being defined by the PHB as rolls against AC (either melee, ranged or Spell.) Anything else is fair game per the spell. Please see my concerns with using what im calling descriptive language (3 illusory duplicates...) over the spell mechanics language.

I hope these answers make sense.


This is not true in the case of Hold Person.

I never said it was.


Nor Hold Monster.

I never said it was.


I think we all see your point by now. The question is ultimately about the text of Mirror Image, though, which is why we keep returning to it.

If you think the question is ultimately about the text of Mirror Image, then respectfully no, you don't see my point at all. Frankly, you repeatedly make errors of logic.


Your discussion of targeting was well argued, but ultimately does not resolve the question at hand, which is whether Mirror Image has any mechanical effect apart from the if-attacked clause.

I haven't got to that yet. We're almost there.


The mirror image duplicates are not targetable. All attacks target the caster, but then by a roll described in the spell, they are then transferred to one of the images.

Well this is a reasonable interpretation, it is not necessarily true.


As far as I can see, there is no RAW way to target an image on purpose. I think that is part of the confusion.

It is and it has been discussed. If images can't be targeted, then a big part of the function of illusions is potentially lost. (If you can't use an illusion to trick someone into targeting the illusion with a spell, then this imposes a potentially unintended limit on the function of illusions. Additionally it may grant a new function to spells.)


Burger suggests that when casting Hold Person the caster might pick one of the duplicates instead. But the spell says they are constantly shifting. You cannot pick one as a target, that is the purpose of the spell and why it works against attacks.

"You cannot pick one as a target" does not follow from "they are constantly shifting."


Hold spells, like many others, specify that you must be able to see the target. An invisible creature or person cannot be a target of the spell (unless you can see them by some means).

I'm not sure anyone tried to claim otherwise.


BurgerBeast, I think I see where you're coming from on this and am sympathetic to your point. If I had to make a ruling on this as a DM it would come mostly from a balance perspective of mirror image because I think both readings are defensible as written.

I am curious. If you had to houserule mirror image to allowing any targeted spell to strike the owner of the images unerringly, how would you alter (or add to) the text of mirror image? Maybe this can shed more light on your thinking.

Edit: a word

Well I can't know the answer until I know the general RAI for targeting with non-attack spells. Primarily, is it possible to target an image of a humanoid with Hold Person? Secondarily (contingent upon it being possible), what happens if you do it? Does the caster lose the spell slot? Does the caster spend an action?

The answers to these questions will inform whether Mirror Images needs changes, and if so what those changes are.

But this has got me thinking. I think this example might drive my point home. What if the text for Mirror Image said this (italics in the main text are changes form original):


Mirror Image
2nd-level illusion
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 minute

Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.
Each time a creature targets you with a non-attack spell during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the spell’s target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.
If the spell targets a duplicate, the duplicate is destroyed. If the spell targets the real caster, the spell takes its normal effect. The spell ends when all three duplicates are destroyed.
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 true sight.

And someone tried to hit the caster with an attack. How would you rule?

[smcmike]

I never said it was.

These point by point quibbles are tiresome. For example, disputing whether or not you said that invisibility prevents targeting with hold monster isn't relevant or useful. A hypothetical was proposed involving invisibility and hold monster, and you said invisibility doesn't prevent targeting - true in general, but not in the context being discussed. It appeared you were responding to the hypothetical you were quoting. Maybe you weren't. Ultimately it doesn't matter.



If you think the question is ultimately about the text of Mirror Image, then respectfully no, you don't see my point at all. Frankly, you repeatedly make errors of logic.

I haven't got to that yet. We're almost there.


You disagree with everyone else on the thread on the interpretation of the text of the spell being discussed, and your interpretation of the text is essential to your argument, so, yeah, it's ultimately about the text, regardless of whether I've made (unspecified) errors in logic. Also, if you've got some ultimate end point to your argument that you haven't gotten to yet, I encourage you to lay your cards on the table.



I think "three illusory duplicates....impossible to track which image is real" combined with "in your space" is a mechanical description of the illusory effect of Mirror Image, at least to the same extent that "the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube" is a mechanical description of Major Image.

If you wish to disagree that it is mechanical, I would say that it at least has mechanical consequences. For example, while you might content that the illusory duplicates are not targetable because there are no mechanics to say that it is, I would reply that there are no mechanics to specify that Major Image is targetable, either, yet it seems reasonable that it is based on the description.

I only quote this to highlight the textual disagreement which I consider fundamental to your argument.



It is and it has been discussed. If images can't be targeted, then a big part of the function of illusions is potentially lost. (If you can't use an illusion to trick someone into targeting the illusion with a spell, then this imposes a potentially unintended limit on the function of illusions. Additionally it may grant a new function to spells.)

This appears to fall back on the idea that we are creating some general rule regarding illusions, which we aren't.



But this has got me thinking. I think this example might drive my point home. What if the text for Mirror Image said this (italics in the main text are changes form original):

And someone tried to hit the caster with an attack. How would you rule?

This is a good hypothetical, but my answer is that this spell has no effect on attacks.

[Mellack]

Quote: It is and it has been discussed. If images can't be targeted, then a big part of the function of illusions is potentially lost. (If you can't use an illusion to trick someone into targeting the illusion with a spell, then this imposes a potentially unintended limit on the function of illusions. Additionally it may grant a new function to spells.)


You are attempting to generalize all illusion spells from Mirror Image. That is not reasonable. As has been pointed out to you previously, Firebolt and Fireball do not behave the same, even though both are fire-based evocation spells. Mirror Image and Major Image need be no more similar.

[Dalebert]

I was made to consider the wording of Hold Person carefully and I feel like I went down a weird path with it. I'm rescinding any claims that you can't (generally) target an illusion and have a spell fizzle. I would have to consider it on a case-by-case basis.

The GENERAL targeting rules don't say you must see something to target it but most non-attack spells, e.g. Hold Person, do. It's right in the description of most spells. This is probably the most powerful affect from invisibility and why, if displacer beasts were treated as invisible, they would be quite powerful beyond their CR rating. Invisibility (the 2nd level version) breaks if you attack or cast a spell which is a balancing factor for how powerful this affect is. If you grant a similar such power to Mirror Image, i.e. 75% chance for all such targeted spells to fail well beyond what the spell specifically says it does, it becomes extremely broken.

What BurgerBeast is doing is a common mistake. He is taking the fluff description of something and ascribing mechanical application to that fluff in ways that take an otherwise balanced thing and make it broken. This is why many people misunderstand Divine Sense as being able to read alignments of characters rather than simply identify undead, fiends, and celestials. This is why many people think they can cast Dimension Door and then toss objects through a "door" when there is no actual door. That's actually confusion over a misnomer. There are a number of other confusing misnomers or fluff descriptions in the rules where people assume something because they fail to align to what the spell SAYS it actually does in mechanical terms.

Like many other things, Mirror Image kicks off with a fluff description of the effect and then immediately follows with what the mechanical benefit of said fluff is, i.e. a chance to cause attacks to miss the caster and that this is a diminishing benefit--the chance of misdirecting the attacks goes down as images get dispelled. BurgerBeast, when you say you might work the spell different, e.g. put extra minis on the table and make people pick one, that is a house rule that is not in line with how the spell works. You're doing that in order to extrapolate extra mechanics from the purely fluff description of the spell. You can certainly handle it that way and you can have it apply to non-attack spells but both of those are house rules. The spell tells you EXACTLY how to handle it and you want to do it differently. In fact, using a d4 or a d3 to decide which image is hit is also a house rule, though a much more minor deviation.

[BurgerBeast]

These point by point quibbles are tiresome.

If you think they're tiresome when you're wrong, then imagine how much more tiresome it is to have someone keep rising them, and then re-explain something that was right to begin with.


For example, disputing whether or not you said that invisibility prevents targeting with hold monster isn't relevant or useful.

Then don't dispute it. Am I missing something?


A hypothetical was proposed involving invisibility and hold monster, and you said invisibility doesn't prevent targeting - true in general, but not in the context being discussed.

No. It involved invisibility but not hold monster. If you trace it back, you'll arrive at Dalebert saying: There are a number of ways to make it hard to be targeted by spells but Mirror Image isn't one of them. Frankly, the best way to use Major Image like this is to stand against the wall and make the wall appear to come out 5 more feet. Now you can't be seen and are an invalid target, period. No need to hope they pick the wrong "you". (emphasis added.)


It appeared you were responding to the hypothetical you were quoting. Maybe you weren't. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

I was. I hope it's clear, now.


You disagree with everyone else on the thread on the interpretation of the text of the spell being discussed, and your interpretation of the text is essential to your argument, so, yeah, it's ultimately about the text, regardless of whether I've made (unspecified) errors in logic.

Well, this is one of those errors in logic. I have never opposed the claim that it is ultimately about the text. I have suggested that it is about the text of hold person, not mirror image.

But I will say that the difficulties that arise come from the fact that I am trying to maintain a linear progression of conversation with multiple people, and sometimes, along those lines, we reach disagreement, so we try to pursue the tangent and reach resolution so that we can return to the main line of argument. At the same time, I'm trying to allow the same to others by answering their questions and responding to their comments. Much of the confusion (for everyone, not just me) comes in tracking all of this, because it's easy to take something I say as a response to someone else and interpret it (incorrectly) as being part of my main argument. I tend to try to maintain all lines of reasoning until they reach an end, and this often misinterpreted as "trying to cloud the argument." It's never my intention and although I think it's unfounded, I am used to seeing it happen. I very much enjoy the rigour, and to my mind it's worth losing a few detectors detractors for the amount I learn in the process.


Also, if you've got some ultimate end point to your argument that you haven't gotten to yet, I encourage you to lay your cards on the table.

I'm sorry if it appears I haven't done so. I think I might've done it earlier in the thread. I'll try to do it here:

(1) If someone casts Hold Person, one of the things they have to do before considerations about the specific target come into play is choose a target.
(2) Once the target is chosen, the DM has to determine if the target is valid (and there are consequences around this)
(3) If the target is valid, the DM must check for relevant effects that may interfere with Hold Person
(4) The fact that a creature is subject to Mirror Image has no relevant effect on Hold Person

This is the basis of my argument, but the contentions are mostly arising around (1). It gets tricky because there arises a primary question of: how do you choose a target? Is it possible to choose an invalid target? What happens if you do? And there doesn't appear to be clear RAW on these questions.

We've also arrived at some trickiness around whether certain text is "fluff" or "mechanical," and I have discovered that is some text that I think may be interpreted as fluff but in fact has mechanical implications for the game.


I only quote this to highlight the textual disagreement which I consider fundamental to your argument.

I appreciate that. Thank you.


This appears to fall back on the idea that we are creating some general rule regarding illusions, which we aren't.

I understand that nobody intends to. Yet, I think that if you take the view that the duplicates of Mirror Image are not targetable, then the basis for that is not taken from the spell itself (which is currently contended, so I'm discussing it). If it is not taken from the spell, then it is taken from the more general rules, and therefore will have general implications for all spells with similar text.


This is a good hypothetical, but my answer is that this spell has no effect on attacks.

Good. I agree. So if a PC says "I attack Joe," how do you resolve it? Does it automatically hit target Joe, or do you take the duplicates into consideration?


Quote: It is and it has been discussed. If images can't be targeted, then a big part of the function of illusions is potentially lost. (If you can't use an illusion to trick someone into targeting the illusion with a spell, then this imposes a potentially unintended limit on the function of illusions. Additionally it may grant a new function to spells.)

You are attempting to generalize all illusion spells from Mirror Image. That is not reasonable. As has been pointed out to you previously, Firebolt and Fireball do not behave the same, even though both are fire-based evocation spells. Mirror Image and Major Image need be no more similar.


I was made to consider the wording of Hold Person carefully and I feel like I went down a weird path with it. I'm rescinding any claims that you can't (generally) target an illusion and have a spell fizzle. I would have to consider it on a case-by-case basis.

Cool. I am not attempting to directly generalize form the specific, as I explain above. I'm trying to figure out why people are saying that the duplicates are not targetable. If the answer is taken from the Mirror Image text, then the specific text in question is the justification. This would mean that spells with similar text (not all spells generally) potentially carry the same implications.


The GENERAL targeting rules don't say you must see something to target it but most non-attack spells, e.g. Hold Person, do. It's right in the description of most spells. This is probably the most powerful affect from invisibility...

I agree completely.


...and why, if displacer beasts were treated as invisible, they would be quite powerful beyond their CR rating. Invisibility (the 2nd level version) breaks if you attack or cast a spell which is a balancing factor for how powerful this affect is.

Okay, so I agree here but with what I think is a relevant point. If displacer beasts are treated as invisible, then yes, they are essentially under the effect of greater invisibility (because they attack without breaking it), and there is an illusion of a displacer beast near them. This poses some weird dynamics, and as a result the RAW for attacks has been simplified to simply disadvantage. While targeting with non-attack spells appears essentially impossible, I don't think this has needs to have as big an effect on CR as you think. They are still targetable by attacks and AOEs. I would expect that for any given party, one round might be blown making this discovery, and they would adjust and never make it again.


If you grant a similar such power to Mirror Image, i.e. 75% chance for all such targeted spells to fail well beyond what the spell specifically says it does, it becomes extremely broken.

I disagree but I respect your opinion.


What BurgerBeast is doing is a common mistake. He is taking the fluff description of something and ascribing mechanical application to that fluff in ways that take an otherwise balanced thing and make it broken.

If I was doing that you'd be right. My contention is that when Mirror Image designates that three illusory duplicated appear in your space, this has a mechanical implication. The duplicates occupy space in the game-world. Questions now arise about whether they a visible, apply cover/concealment, or are targetable.


This is why many people misunderstand Divine Sense as being able to read alignments of characters rather than simply identify undead, fiends, and celestials. This is why many people think they can cast Dimension Door and then toss objects through a "door" when there is no actual door. That's actually confusion over a misnomer. There are a number of other confusing misnomers or fluff descriptions in the rules where people assume something because they fail to align to what the spell SAYS it actually does in mechanical terms.

I hope it's clear that this is not what I am doing in this particular case.


BurgerBeast, when you say you might work the spell different, e.g. put extra minis on the table and make people pick one, that is a house rule that is not in line with how the spell works. You're doing that in order to extrapolate extra mechanics from the purely fluff description of the spell. You can certainly handle it that way and you can have it apply to non-attack spells but both of those are house rules. The spell tells you EXACTLY how to handle it and you want to do it differently. In fact, using a d4 or a d3 to decide which image is hit is also a house rule, though a much more minor deviation.

Absolutely. All of this was a suggested house rule, in response to being asked how I would handle the situation in which someone tries to target the subject of Mirror Image using a spell that does't use an attack roll. Because (in my view) there is no RAW to determine this, I was giving a suggested houserule. I think this was all clear at the time.

But, I don;t think it's true that I was extrapolat[ing] extra mechanics from the purely fluff description of the spell. This is because I think Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. (PHB 260) is not "purely fluff," as I explained above.

[BiPolar]

BurgerBeast - as I said before, I don't think that we're going to convince, but I don't see how you can attribute mechanical properties without direction as to what mechanical properties they are. The three illusory duplicates part of the spell IS fluff. There is no description as to what that means in terms of how to handle those duplicates mechanically OUTSIDE OF ATTACKS. Everything about the spell is about AC and attacks. Had they intended to include saves, they would have given information as to how to treat that. But they didn't. The text only discusses what to do in the case of an attack and what the AC of the targets is.

This isn't to say you can't houserule a change, but the text is abundantly clear as to what the mechanics of MIrror Image are. WIthout any mechanic given to how to handle save spells, then there is no mechanical change. It really is that simple.

To support the intent on this, Crawford (alendar.google.com/calendar/render?mode=day&date=20150520T145445#main_7%7Cweek)did rule that Magic Missile would hit someone with Mirror Image, citing that it hits because Magic Missile is not an attack. Just like how Hold Person is not an attack. And yes, I understand that Sage Advice is not the be all, end all.

[smcmike]

If you think they're tiresome when you're wrong, then imagine how much more tiresome it is to have someone keep rising them, and then re-explain something that was right to begin with.


No need to imagine!

For the record, you responded to this:


@JeremyECrawford You can only see an illusion of a displacer beast. Can or can't target it with hold monster because it's invisible?

With this:


Nothing actually prevents you from targeting a displacer beast. Not even invisibility so far as I can tell, because according to the rules you don't need to be able to see a target in order to target it (excuse the awkward language).

I hope it's clear, now. Can we stop quibbling?



Well, this is one of those errors in logic. I have never opposed the claim that it is ultimately about the text. I have suggested that it is about the text of hold person, not mirror image.

This is not an error in logic. This is a miscommunication about the meaning of "the text." I assumed that context would convey that I was referring to the text of Mirror Image. Perhaps I was unclear, but I don't think so.



I'm sorry if it appears I haven't done so. I think I might've done it earlier in the thread. I'll try to do it here:

(1) If someone casts Hold Person, one of the things they have to do before considerations about the specific target come into play is choose a target.
(2) Once the target is chosen, the DM has to determine if the target is valid (and there are consequences around this)
(3) If the target is valid, the DM must check for relevant effects that may interfere with Hold Person
(4) The fact that a creature is subject to Mirror Image has no relevant effect on Hold Person

This is the basis of my argument, but the contentions are mostly arising around (1). It gets tricky because there arises a primary question of: how do you choose a target? Is it possible to choose an invalid target? What happens if you do? And there doesn't appear to be clear RAW on these questions.

We've also arrived at some trickiness around whether certain text is "fluff" or "mechanical," and I have discovered that is some text that I think may be interpreted as fluff but in fact has mechanical implications for the game.


Thanks. That's what I thought your argument was, but it seemed like you suggested that you had more ("I haven't got there yet.")

As I've tried to explain, the "trickiness" that you refer to is the entire ballgame. I don't think anyone disputes points 1-4, so they ultimately are not important, unless they have some bearing upon the "trickiness."



Good. I agree. So if a PC says "I attack Joe," how do you resolve it? Does it automatically hit Joe, or do you take the duplicates into consideration?


When I said "it would have no effect on attacks," I meant it. An attack would resolve normally.

[Mellack]

The spell Mirror Image specifies how the duplicates are targeted. If it is an attack then you roll a d20 and determine from the spell based on how many duplicates are left. It says that they do nothing for other effects. Adding in another way for mirror images to be targeted is definitely a houserule and I believe against the intent of the spell. Generally spells only do what they say.

[BurgerBeast]

...I don't see how you can attribute mechanical properties without direction as to what mechanical properties they are.

We do this all the time. Major Image gives some mechanical properties to the image, but it gives no details such as AC etc. If you shoot a bow at a Major Image of a goblin, then how do you determine if the arrow hits the image? Answer: you try to use more general rules to come up with something that makes sense.

My point is not about the final decision. My point is that just because a spell description says nothing on about X, that does not mean that X cannot apply to the spell. It just means that the spell does not have specific rules for X, so you need to apply the general rules for X, as normal.


The three illusory duplicates part of the spell IS fluff. There is no description as to what that means in terms of how to handle those duplicates mechanically OUTSIDE OF ATTACKS.

But they occupy space, which I contend makes them a part of the game that can be interacted with mechanically. Do you refute this?


Everything about the spell is about AC and attacks.

There's also the bit about 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 true sight (PHB 260). So it would seem that the illusory duplicates are visible, and function as illusions.


Had they intended to include saves, they would have given information as to how to treat that. But they didn't. The text only discusses what to do in the case of an attack and what the AC of the targets is.

What if they intended for spells that don't use attack rolls to function exactly as they normally do? They wouldn't write anything in the spell description, but it wouldn't be necessary. I contend that's what they did.


WIthout any mechanic given to how to handle save spells, then there is no mechanical change. It really is that simple.

Precisely. There is no mechanical change to how spells function, so apply the general rules. Not: there is no mechanical change to how spells function, so you don't need to specify a target any more. So, if you think that spells never require you to specify a target, then it functions as you say. But if you think that you have to specify a target for your spell, then you have to do this as usual. You don't just get a free homing spell because "the spell doesn't say you don't."


To support the intent on this, Crawford (alendar.google.com/calendar/render?mode=day&date=20150520T145445#main_7%7Cweek)did rule that Magic Missile would hit someone with Mirror Image, citing that it hits because Magic Missile is not an attack. Just like how Hold Person is not an attack. And yes, I understand that Sage Advice is not the be all, end all.

I agree that this supports your argument.


No need to imagine!

For the record, you responded to this:... I hope it's clear, now. Can we stop quibbling?

It's still not clear. What's wrong with my answer?


This is not an error in logic. This is a miscommunication about the meaning of "the text." I assumed that context would convey that I was referring to the text of Mirror Image. Perhaps I was unclear, but I don't think so.

You made a logical error, and you made the same logical error here. If you say to me that I am wrong because it is "ultimately about the meaning of the text," that implies that my stance must be that it is not ultimately about the meaning of the text. However I do think it is ultimately about the meaning of the text and have never said otherwise.

I have been saying that this whole argument boils down, specifically, to the Hold Person text and it's implications. I have said repeatedly that Mirror Image has almost nothing to do with this argument. For you to now say "but I was talking about Mirror Image" once again illustrates that you do not understand my position.


Thanks. That's what I thought your argument was, but it seemed like you suggested that you had more ("I haven't got there yet.") As I've tried to explain, the "trickiness" that you refer to is the entire ballgame. I don't think anyone disputes points 1-4, so they ultimately are not important, unless they have some bearing upon the "trickiness."

Exactly. Will you humour me and let me try to lead you, via questioning, to my point, in the same way that BiPolar did?


When I said "it would have no effect on attacks," I meant it. An attack would resolve normally.

So how does an attack resolve normally? I mean, if there is one humanoid and three illusions of the humanoid in the same space, and the spell effect has no effect on attack resolution, how do you decide if the attacker's declaration "I attack Joe" hits Joe or an illusory duplicate of Joe?


The spell Mirror Image specifies how the duplicates are targeted. If it is an attack then you roll a d20 and determine from the spell based on how many duplicates are left. It says that they do nothing for other effects.

"They do nothing for other effects" is a great thing to know if an other effect hits them. But this doesn't tell us how to determine if the other effect hits them in the first place. Hence, the problem.


Adding in another way for mirror images to be targeted is definitely a houserule and I believe against the intent of the spell.

I'm not adding it in. If you cast a spell that doesn't use an attack roll, you need to determine the target before you apply the effect. The problem comes in determining the target in the normal way.


Generally spells only do what they say.

Exactly. Will you humour me and play along with my questions, as BiPolar did and I'm asking smcmike to?

[BurgerBeast]

@everyone

Question 1: Suppose that four frogs are in the same square. A player casts a spell Hold Monster at one frog in the square. How do you determine which frog is hit?

Question 2: Suppose that there are four "frogs" in the same square. Three are illusions. A player casts a spell Hold Monster at one "frog" in the square. How do you determine which "frog" is hit?

[RickAllison]

@everyone

Question 1: Suppose that four frogs are in the same square. A player casts a spell Hold Monster at one frog in the square. How do you determine which frog is hit?

Question 2: Suppose that there are four "frogs" in the same square. Three are illusions. A player casts a spell Hold Monster at one "frog" in the square. How do you determine which "frog" is hit?

1) The player indicates a frog.

2) The player indicates a frog, unless there is a mechanical reason otherwise.

Mechanics determine the fluff, not the reverse. If the imagined fluff is inconsistent with the mechanics, that is evidence that the fluff is incorrect and not the mechanics. Since the mechanics of such a simulation of four distinct targets is inconsistent with the mechanical applications of Mirror Image, the only logical conclusion is that they cannot be the same scenario.

Three Major Images that replicate a creature would have the effect you presume by my reading. You claim that since Mirror Image creates three duplicates as well, that it must function the same. So:

Mechanics (Major Image) => Fluff (Major Image) = Fluff (Mirror Image) => Mechanics (Mirror Image) = Mechanics (Major Image)

This fails because it has the assumption that the fluff of the two spells must coincide, which has no basis in how the spells function. The chain of logic is dependent on the fluff of the two spells having to coincide, but this has the alternate interpretation that is actually backed up by the RAW: the fluff of the two spells does not coincide.

Because the mechanics of the two spells differ so greatly (Mirror Images don't fade from being physically interacted with and constantly shift with the caster, whereas Major Images become transparent when physically interacted with and must be moved. Thus we have the alternative chain of logic:

Mechanics (Major Image) =/= Mechanics (Mirror Image) => Fluff (Mirror Image) =/= Fluff (Major Image)

The RAW supports this interpretation of the fluff and mechanics, whereas a fluff of Mirror Image that causes the two to behave the same is opposed by the difference in mechanics. The only logical explanation that follows the RAW is that the imagined fluff of Mirror Image is wrong. We don't necessarily know how it is supposed to work, but we know based on how it differs from Major Image in mechanics that the accompanying fluff must be different.

Long post, short: The RAW may not tell us how Mirror Image does function, but it certainly describes how it does not function. It has no text that indicates that the mechanics of the illusion behave like Major Image, which means that it can't behave as that spell does. Whatever fluff you create for Mirror Image has to be consistent with the mechanics, not the other way around. If Mirror Image is providing any protection against spells like Hold Person, it is indicative of an interpretation that works agains the PHB.

[smcmike]

Exactly. Will you humour me and let me try to lead you, via questioning, to my point, in the same way that BiPolar did?

I feel that I have been humoring you.

This may be petty of me, but I need to resolve some quibbles before I can continue to answer your questions. If we can't communicate regarding a silly little point like this, I don't see much point in dealing with harder questions.

(1) Dale posed a hypothetical regarding displacer beasts, and whether they are targetable with Hold Monster, considering that they are "invisible."
(2) You responded that nothing prevents you from targeting a displacer beast, not even invisibility, because you don't need to see something to target it.
(3) Mellack and I pointed out that Hold Monster does require you to see your target.
(4) You responded that you never said otherwise.
(5) I said I thought you were responding to the hypothetical you were quoting, the one with Hold Monster in it (1), but that perhaps I was incorrect.
(6) You responded that you were, in fact, responding to the hypothetical that you were quoting (1), but that it did not have hold monster in it.

I recognize that you never said "Invisible displacer beasts can be targeted by Hold Monster." You did, however, respond to a question regarding invisible DBs being targeted by HM with the statement "nothing prevents them from being targeted." The obvious contextual inference was that you were referring to Hold Monster. Perhaps not - is this the initial miscommunication?

If so, I'm still perplexed by your further response, denying that you were responding to a hypothetical with Hold Monster in it, despite the fact that the only place displacer beasts were mentioned was in conjunction with HM. Perhaps you got confused about which hypotheticals you had responded to? It's a big thread.

Don't take this as an attack - I'm trying to establish a beachhead of common ground here. I think there is simply some miscommunication going on here - if we can resolve this, it will give me some evidence that you are listening to what I'm saying. If I've made an error above, please point it out so I can figure out exactly how I got confused.

Also:


You made a logical error, and you made the same logical error here. If you say to me that I am wrong because it is "ultimately about the meaning of the text," that implies that my stance must be that it is not ultimately about the meaning of the text. However I do think it is ultimately about the meaning of the text and have never said otherwise.

I'm just repeating myself here, but by "the text," I meant "the text of Mirror Image," something that was clear in context.

It mystifies me that you would continue to imply that I was talking about the text in general, or that you would claim that I was implying that your stance wasn't ultimately about the text in general, considering that I explicitly clarified that I was referring to the text of Mirror Image.



I have been saying that this whole argument boils down, specifically, to the Hold Person text and it's implications. I have said repeatedly that Mirror Image has almost nothing to do with this argument. For you to now say "but I was talking about Mirror Image" once again illustrates that you do not understand my position

You have, indeed, made the claim that Mirror Image had nothing to do with this argument, a claim that I wholeheartedly reject, considering that we are discussing the effects of Mirror Image. I would also point out that you've spent a fair bit of time discussing this text (THE TEXT OF MIRROR IMAGE) in your last few posts. Perhaps it is important after all?


Ok, Socrates....



So how does an attack resolve normally?


I wasn't trying to be evasive - there really isn't anything to drill down on here. By "normally," I mean "as if BB's hypothetical Mirror Image wasn't cast."



Question 1: Suppose that four frogs are in the same square. A player casts a spell Hold Monster at one frog in the square. How do you determine which frog is hit?


"Which frog are you aiming at?"



Question 2: Suppose that there are four "frogs" in the same square. Three are illusions. A player casts a spell Hold Monster at one "frog" in the square. How do you determine which "frog" is hit?

What is the source of the illusions?

[Mellack]

As has probably been said better by the two posts above me, you cannot simply say that the square has illusions of frogs. Not all illusion spells are the same. Each one behaves differently. Some move independantly, some make sounds, some cannot be interacted with. Trying to use one spell to determine the effects of another does not work.

[BurgerBeast]

1) The player indicates a frog.

2) The player indicates a frog, unless there is a mechanical reason otherwise.

That's correct. Mirror Image says absolutely nothing about what to do if the illusory duplicates are targeted by a spell. So I contend that there is no mechanical reason to do otherwise.


Mirror Image
2nd-level illusion
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 minute

Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.
Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack’s target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.
A duplicate’s AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier. If an attack hits a duplicate, the duplicate is destroyed. A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects. The spell ends when all three duplicates are destroyed.
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.

Look at that. If a spell is cast, none of the crossed out text applies. You tell me where, in what remains, the text tells you that Mirror Images behave in any way whatsoever.

Answer: it doesn't. So all you have to go on is that they are "illusory duplicates" and they are "impossible to distinguish from the caster" and they appear in the same square as the caster.

What is the basis for claiming that they should behave in any way differently from how they are described? The duplicates are there. They are in the square. It's possible to aim your spell at any of them. Why would you ignore that?


You claim that since Mirror Image creates three duplicates as well, that it must function the same.

No. I claim that neither spell says anything about what happens if they are targeted by a spell. So in both cases you have to resort to the general rules. Where in Major Image does it specify how to handle attacks or spells cast at the image? It doesn't. If it doesn't, you go to the general rules because you have nowhere else to go.

People are acting like saying nothing is the same as saying something. The Mirror Image says nothing about targeting with spells, so you can't assert anything from the nothing.


This fails because it has the assumption that the fluff of the two spells must coincide, which has no basis in how the spells function.

I never said it should coincide. I guess I just put more weight in "three illusory duplicates appear... in your space." Silly me, I thought they were actually there. Like, mechanically and interactively there. Like, if my wizard buddy was in camp sitting on a log, I could put out my hand and "touch" them, and stuff.


Mechanics (Major Image) =/= Mechanics (Mirror Image) => Fluff (Mirror Image) =/= Fluff (Major Image)

I never claimed the fluff was the same. I claim that if all the spell description said was: "creates three illusory duplicates in your space" that would be enough to work with. If nothing else was said, the spell would be workable because of the general rules for illusions. But anything that is said beyond this overrides the general rules. In the case of a spell without an attack roll, nothing else is said, so it behaves as if all you had to work with was that it "creates three illusory duplicates in your space." So you go to the general rules.


Long post, short: The RAW may not tell us how Mirror Image does function, but it certainly describes how it does not function.

No. This is an egregious leap of logic. The spell description does not tell us how it functions nor how it doesn't function in the case of Hold Person. It tells us nothing. So we have nothing to work with except the parts that I didn't cross out above. And those parts tell us something more than just fluff. Enough, in fact, to work with.


(1) Dale posed a hypothetical regarding displacer beasts...

In a nutshell, this is what I meant: Even if Crawford says "no," that might be just because you can't see the displacer beast. That will tell us nothing about the general case of whether you can target an invisible beast with a save spell. So, I contest the Crawford's answer will inform this discussion, which I think at least partly involves the general rules about how players choose targets for their save spells. There's a longer answer in the spoiler, but it doesn't say much more. And my attempts to elaborate might have served only to add more confusion. Read at your own risk.


(1) Dale posed a hypothetical regarding displacer beasts, and whether they are targetable with Hold Monster, considering that they are "invisible."
(2) You responded that nothing prevents you from targeting a displacer beast, not even invisibility, because you don't need to see something to target it.

Okay, I think I see the problem. I understood that Dalebert brought this question about Hold Monster up because he thought it would inform the larger question about targeting with non-attack spells and "homing." I was answering with why I thought this wouldn't help the overall conversation. I do concede that this isn't clear. What follows is what I had written before I realized this. It's all written in the hypothetical situation of targeting with a spell that forces a save but doesn't require you to see the target (and I'm not sure if any such spells exist, currently).

Yes. Because I think that targeting means you have to explain which thing to are aiming at. With miniatures, you'd say: that guy. With descriptions, you might say, the guy farthest to the left, or whatever. In the case of a spell that forces a save, you still have to pick a target, so I would say it's okay to explain to the DM "look, I'm trying to hit the displacer beast, and I have figured out that the image I see is not the real beast, so I want to aim my spell 2 feet to the left of the beast that I see and try to hit it."


(3) Mellack and I pointed out that Hold Monster does require you to see your target.
(4) You responded that you never said otherwise.

That's right. I never said a displacer beast could be targeted by Hold Monster, I only said that it is, at least in theory, targetable.


(5) I said I thought you were responding to the hypothetical you were quoting, the one with Hold Monster in it (1), but that perhaps I was incorrect.
(6) You responded that you were, in fact, responding to the hypothetical that you were quoting (1), but that it did not have hold monster in it.

Yes, I've gone back and read it. Perhaps I read it differently because I know what I meant, but I tried to eliminate that bias and I still see it that way.


I recognize that you never said "Invisible displacer beasts can be targeted by Hold Monster." You did, however, respond to a question regarding invisible DBs being targeted by HM with the statement "nothing prevents them from being targeted." The obvious contextual inference was that you were referring to Hold Monster. Perhaps not - is this the initial miscommunication?

Yeah, this is it. I was addressing the usefulness of this ruling to the broader context. I admit to at least some of the blame for the confusion, here. Sorry.

Here's exactly what I said, in context, with emphasis added: Nothing actually prevents you from targeting a displacer beast. Not even invisibility so far as I can tell, because according to the rules you don't need to be able to see a target in order to target it (excuse the awkward language). However, the DM would have to determine if you were targeting the illusion (this might happen the very first time you ever see a displacer beast and early in the fight, because it would soon become apparent that attacks made against the illusion have no effect, and everyone would be guessing the location of the beast - this is modelled by disadvantage in the case of attack rolls but there is nothing specified for spells without attack rolls) or the actual, invisible, beast. The DM would then need to determine if you targeted it successfully.


If so, I'm still perplexed by your further response, denying that you were responding to a hypothetical with Hold Monster in it, despite the fact that the only place displacer beasts were mentioned was in conjunction with HM. Perhaps you got confused about which hypotheticals you had responded to? It's a big thread.

No. I just kept re-reading it in the light in which I intended it. That is: as having relevance to the greater context. Dalebert claimed that the ruling on Hold Monster might tell us if its possible to target invisible creatures. I was trying to say that you might still be able to target invisible creatures with other spells that don't require sight, even if Crawford says no to this specific question.


Also: I'm just repeating myself here, but by "the text," I meant "the text of Mirror Image," something that was clear in context.

It was clear. Clearly incorrect, because we weren't disputing the meaning of the mirror image text. We were disputing whether or not it applies. I'm not sure why that's unclear. We can both agree that slashing penalties always result in a two minute penalty, but disagree over whether a slash was committed. Likewise, we can agree on exactly what the text says but disagree on whether it is relevant to the situation. I claim that this is what was happening.


You have, indeed, made the claim that Mirror Image had nothing to do with this argument, a claim that I wholeheartedly reject,

Which is why I claim you're being illogical. I'm not joking when I say the Mirror Image text has nothing to do with this.


considering that we are discussing the effects of Mirror Image. I would also point out that you've spent a fair bit of time discussing this text (THE TEXT OF MIRROR IMAGE) in your last few posts. Perhaps it is important after all?

I am discussing it in response to other claims and to try to point out why it is irrelevant.

[edit: Okay, I concede that the Mirror Image text is relevant. But here's the thing (and I'm serious - I'm not just trying to win the argument): the parts that are relevant are not the parts that my opponents are claiming are relevant. And further, the parts that are relevant are the parts that my opponents have specifically claimed are not relevant. I am referring to the parts that say "three illusory duplicates... appear in your space."]


I wasn't trying to be evasive - there really isn't anything to drill down on here. By "normally," I mean "as if BB's hypothetical Mirror Image wasn't cast."

So as if "three illusory duplicates" were not there. But according to the spell, they're there.


"Which frog are you aiming at?"

This seems logical. It's what I'd do. Note that you didn't ask me the source of the frogs. Maybe one's a polymorphed dragon, and each of the other three has special circumstances. But that's not really relevant until you have determined which you will hit.


What is the source of the illusions?

Case (2a) they are Major Images.

Case (2b) they are Mirror Images.


As has probably been said better by the two posts above me, you cannot simply say that the square has illusions of frogs.

Of course you can. Modules make up magical effects that have no basis in the game all the time. Plus, from the player's perspective, that's exactly what they see.


Not all illusion spells are the same.

Well this is the source of the entire disagreement. I contend that illusions are all the same unless the spell text specifically says otherwise. As you'll see higher up in this thread, I've shown what Mirror Image would be if it said nothing about the mechanics of attacks. I see no reason why what is left does not have mechanical implications on the game world.


Each one behaves differently. Some move independantly, some make sounds, some cannot be interacted with.

If these are more than fluff, then why isn't being visible or taking up space more than fluff?


Trying to use one spell to determine the effects of another does not work.

I agree. I never did it. But trying to use a spell to override general rules, when the spell says nothing that overrides the general rules, does not work either.

But, how about the same two questions I gave above then:

Case (2a) they are Major Images.

Case (2b) they are Mirror Images.

[smcmike]

In a nutshell, this is what I meant.

Thanks. Much clearer.



It was clear. Clearly incorrect, because we weren't disputing the meaning of the mirror image text. We were disputing whether or not it applies. I'm not sure why that's unclear. We can both agree that slashing penalties always result in a two minute penalty, but disagree over whether a slash was committed. Likewise, we can agree on exactly what the text says but disagree on whether it is relevant to the situation. I claim that this is what was happening.

Which is why I claim you're being illogical. I'm not joking when I say the Mirror Image text has nothing to do with this.

[edit: Okay, I concede that the Mirror Image text is relevant. But here's the thing (and I'm serious - I'm not just trying to win the argument): the parts that are relevant are not the parts that my opponents are claiming are relevant.

Concession accepted. This is why "illogical" is a silly and inflammatory word to throw around. While I see your point about "whether the text applies" versus "the interpretation of the text," what we have here is still a context error. I was, of course, referring to the entire text of mirror image, and particularly to the part about which we disagree:



And further, the parts that are relevant are the parts that my opponents have specifically claimed are not relevant. I am referring to the parts that say "three illusory duplicates... appear in your space."

Yes, this is the part of the text that we disagree about. Our interpretation of this text differs. Your opponents are saying that it has no mechanical meaning beyond the rest of the text. You are interpreting it differently.



Case (2a) they are Major Images.


"Which one?"



Case (2b) they are Mirror Images.


"You see a frog which somehow placed itself under the effect of a mirror image spell. It appears as if there are four frogs in the space, rather than one, and you are unable to track which one is which, as they keep shifting positions."

"Oh man, a frog that can cast spells? That's terrifying. I cast Hold Monster on it"

"Great. It's held. You still can't tell which one is which, though. Amazing how they keep shifting even while held (this bit is weird)"

Here's a bit of the text (OF MIRROR IMAGE) that I think is interesting - the title.

Let's imagine a big room with a magic mirror along one wall. The mirror shows everything in the room, even invisible things. A caster is in the room with an invisible man. The caster can see the man in the mirror, but not directly. Can he cast hold person on the man?

Yes, right? He can see the target, who is within in range and line of effect. He can't see the target directly, but that's ok.

A mirror image - literally an image in a mirror - is a direct representation of the person.

Imagine further a hall of mirrors in which the image of the man is perfectly clear, but his position is unknown. I think a caster can still attempt to Hold him, and so long as he is within range and not behind cover, it works.

This is basically how I think Mirror Image works. The illusory duplicates are not independent in any way - they are images of the target. You would not look ever at someone with mirror image active and say, "oh, it's four people." You'd say "oh, he's using mirror image."

[Zalabim]

To answer the broad question of the thread: What happens when a PC does something the PC can't do? The rules don't specifically answer that. The rules do say you can't cast a spell if you don't have the components. They don't say you can't cast a spell if you don't meet the conditions for the spell's effect, like having no target. It seems that's left up to the DM.

More specifically, Hold Person says choose a humanoid etc. It does not say choose a target, if it's humanoid, then etc. If I had to resolve it mechanistically, I'd treat it like resolving spells in M:tG. You cannot target an invalid target. You cannot perform an invalid action. There are no consequences. You just can't.


What if they intended for spells that don't use attack rolls to function exactly as they normally do? They wouldn't write anything in the spell description, but it wouldn't be necessary. I contend that's what they did.

Your contention has been proven, incontrovertibly, to be incorrect. Thanks to Crawford, we know the intended function. Additionally, look at Simulacrum for a spell that gives a contrast to your explanation with a straight-from-the-book counter-example.


(1) If someone casts Hold Person, one of the things they have to do before considerations about the specific target come into play is choose a target.
(2) Once the target is chosen, the DM has to determine if the target is valid (and there are consequences around this)
(3) If the target is valid, the DM must check for relevant effects that may interfere with Hold Person
(4) The fact that a creature is subject to Mirror Image has no relevant effect on Hold Person

Let's start with one fact: You are wrong. We know the intention is that the caster of Hold Person will never fail to target the humanoid among the mirror images. So when you're ready to reflect on why you are wrong, consider why you are unwilling to apply this same logic chain to targeting an attack on a creature under the effects of Mirror Image.

[Dalebert]

http://i.imgur.com/O35wQ4M.png

Because MM does not involve any attacks. Clearly Mirror Image is not intended (RAI) to affect non-attacks. You can quibble endlessly about the RAW and you can interpret the RAW how you want for your games.

Most spells mention fluff and then go on to describe the mechanical effects. Most illusion spells are fairly wide open because their intended mechanical benefit is to trick people. Mirror Image has a specific mechanical effect which is to misdirect attacks against the caster. It's not even implied that the images have any chance of tricking anyone with common sense into thinking there are actually multiple targets to choose from. It's just hard to aim attacks due to the visual diversion. An illusion like Silent Image or Major Image is specifically intended to trick you into thinking something's there that's not. That's ALL those spells do but they can do it very effectively if you're creative and thoughtful about the illusion you create.

[Dalebert]

http://i.imgur.com/O35wQ4M.png

Because MM does not involve any attacks. Clearly Mirror Image is not intended (RAI) to affect non-attacks. You can quibble endlessly about the RAW and you can interpret the RAW how you want for your games.

Most spells mention fluff and then go on to describe the mechanical effects. Most illusion spells are fairly wide open because their intended mechanical benefit is to trick people. Mirror Image has a specific mechanical effect which is to misdirect attacks against the caster. It's not even implied that the images have any chance of tricking anyone with common sense into thinking there are actually multiple targets to choose from. It's just hard to aim attacks due to the visual diversion. An illusion like Silent Image or Major Image is specifically intended to trick you into thinking something's there that's not. That's ALL those spells do but they can do it very effectively if you're creative and thoughtful about the illusion you create.

So please explain to me how the person casting Magic Missile doesn't have to choose from all the invalid targets (in fact CAN'T choose them) but a person casting Hold Person does.

[smcmike]

Yes, assuming one follows Crawford, this is a closed question. I also agree with Dale's explanation in full - well put.

[BurgerBeast]

Concession accepted. This is why "illogical" is a silly and inflammatory word to throw around.

Not really. Brilliant people can be illogical sometimes. It's not about the person, it's about the behaviour. I am okay with everyone in this thread calling me illogical, because it's apparent that they think I'm being illogical. I'm not inflamed.


While I see your point about "whether the text applies" versus "the interpretation of the text," what we have here is still a context error. I was, of course, referring to the entire text of mirror image, and particularly to the part about which we disagree

And yet you claim the disagreement arose from a conversation with someone other than you. And with that person, this specific part of the text had not yet come up. Hence, you had the context wrong, but recent discussion with you has changed the context and made it relevant. So that the statement is generally incorrect, but still correct in the original context.


Yes, this is the part of the text that we disagree about. Our interpretation of this text differs. Your opponents are saying that it has no mechanical meaning beyond the rest of the text. You are interpreting it differently.

And I contend that if this part of the text of Mirror Image has no mechanical implications, then there are many other spells that have no mechanical implications, either. This is not a claim that these spells are the same, nor that you can use one spell to rule on another. This is a claim that you disregard this text for a reason, and that reason applies to other spells, then you have to apply the same logic to those spells.


"Which one?"

All of them.


"You see a frog which somehow placed itself under the effect of a mirror image spell. It appears as if there are four frogs in the space, rather than one, and you are unable to track which one is which, as they keep shifting positions."

Okay. This actually reveals something important. Based in this description, I can see the point of disagreement, I think. You read impossible to track which one is which to mean that it is impossible to target one. I see what you are saying.

For me, impossible to track which one is which does not necessarily mean impossible to target. I tend to think you can just "shoot from the hip," so to speak. Thanks for this.

But shouldn't "impossible to track which one is which" mean that the true frog is impossible to target, for the same reason? So if you take the view that selecting a target requires the character to think "that one!", the true frog should be impossible to target? And if you take the view that Hold Monster can be cast at a volume of space and "hones in on" relevant targets (a view that seems less reasonable to me has been advocated), then the frog is possible to target? Does this also mean that if you take the view that Hold Monster cannot, RAW, target an invalid target (a perfectly reasonable interpretation, advocated by Zalabim) that you would have to stand there and cast repeatedly until you happened to point at a "monster" (valid) instead of a "duplicate" (invalid)?


"Oh man, a frog that can cast spells? That's terrifying. I cast Hold Monster on it"

"Great. It's held. You still can't tell which one is which, though. Amazing how they keep shifting even while held (this bit is weird)"

It's cool, I get it. It presents the same problem as a frog (or a human wizard) who is standing still. RAW something weird has to happen. And neither of us advocates violating RAW.


Here's a bit of the text (OF MIRROR IMAGE) that I think is interesting - the title.


Let's imagine a big room with a magic mirror along one wall. The mirror shows everything in the room, even invisible things. A caster is in the room with an invisible man. The caster can see the man in the mirror, but not directly. Can he cast hold person on the man?

Yes, right? He can see the target, who is within in range and line of effect. He can't see the target directly, but that's ok.

No, I disagree here. This might also drive at the root of our disagreement, so I' hope it changes my mind, and I'll be happy to admit if it does. In my view, the caster cannot see the target. He can see the reflection of the target.

If we added the stipulation that spell effects emanate in straight lines and can bounce off of sheer surfaces, then targeting the image would cause the spell to reflect and strike the actual invisible man, then targeting the illusion would work by virtue of this interaction.

Also, I concede that if you take the view that you can "target" someone simply by knowing they are in the room and "intending" to target them and letting the spell do the seeking, then clearly this should work. But I don't take this view, personally.


A mirror image - literally an image in a mirror - is a direct representation of the person.

I think I agree. I'm hesitant only because I'm not sure if "direct representation" carries more implications than a "reflection." To me a reflection is logically and clearly different than the person.


This is basically how I think Mirror Image works. The illusory duplicates are not independent in any way - they are images of the target. You would not look ever at someone with mirror image active and say, "oh, it's four people." You'd say "oh, he's using mirror image."

I'm cool with this.

From my point of view, the real mirrors produce real mirror images. The spell Mirror Image, however, does not use real mirrors. Rather, it creates illusions of mirror images. I think I am closer to RAW, here.

However, regardless of this, we still fundamentally disagree on how "targeting" works, or what it means. It seems that if we could agree on this (most likely because I discover a way to change my mind), we could agree on every example.


To answer the broad question of the thread: What happens when a PC does something the PC can't do? The rules don't specifically answer that. The rules do say you can't cast a spell if you don't have the components. They don't say you can't cast a spell if you don't meet the conditions for the spell's effect, like having no target. It seems that's left up to the DM.

Precisely.


More specifically, Hold Person says choose a humanoid etc. It does not say choose a target, if it's humanoid, then etc. If I had to resolve it mechanistically, I'd treat it like resolving spells in M:tG. You cannot target an invalid target. You cannot perform an invalid action. There are no consequences. You just can't.

I'm with you. I've posted this out before.


Your contention has been proven, incontrovertibly, to be incorrect. Thanks to Crawford, we know the intended function.

Can you cite this, please.


Additionally, look at Simulacrum for a spell that gives a contrast to your explanation with a straight-from-the-book counter-example.

I've looked. It looks like there are lot of things to discuss in that spell, but I don't see it "giv a contrast to [my] explanation." I'm still trying to figure out why it is an illusion and not a conjuration, though.

[QUOTE]Let's start with one fact: You are wrong.

Seriously? Can we just do this, now? Let's end with two facts, then: (1) I am right. (2) You are wrong. Is that it, then? Argument over?


We know the intention is that the caster of Hold Person will never fail to target the humanoid among the mirror images.

No, we don't. At least I don't. That's what is being discussed here. Up until now I thought that this is more a question about how to select a target with [I]Hold Person, but smcmike has convinced me that the problem might actually be that we disagree on what "impossible to track" means.


So when you're ready to reflect on why you are wrong, consider why you are unwilling to apply this same logic chain to targeting an attack on a creature under the effects of Mirror Image.

I've been reflecting on this all along. The reason is that Mirror Image tells you how to determine the target of an attack: by using a unique mechanic described in the spell. So when a player tells you he wants to target the image "farthest on the left," the DM gets to say "You try to target the image you specified, but you can't." At this point the Mirror Image text interrupts the normal chain of action resolution. The DM then resolves the target using the specific rules in the spell, asks the player to roll an attack roll and applies the result, and describes the result.

In the case of a save spell, the interruption never happens. When a player says "I target the image on the far left." The DM says okay, and is left to determine for himself what happens. I now see that smcmike would probably say: anytime you pick out the image on the far left, it immediately moves so that there is really no image on the left, just a blur of images that you can't track. This makes sense. It still seems to me, however, that if you see four images moving about, you have to fix onto something for an instant to "target" it, whether you can track it or not. It seems to me you could "target" an area of space with your sword. (I wonder if closing your eyes and "attacking the space" actually improves your odds of hitting, by RAW. My guess is that it does. An attack with disadvantage against a wizard seems more likely to succeed than roughly 25%.)

[BurgerBeast]

I concede that according to Crawford, I am wrong, and you guys are right.

I still have big problems with the implications for targeting with save spells, in general. For example:

If I can see twenty cultists standing in front of me, I can see them all but have no way of distinguishing between them because they all look the same to me, it seems absurd to me that I can just say "I want to attack Bob with magic missile," and then, because I can technically see Bob (I can see all twenty of the cultists), the magic missiles fly directly into Bob. I had no idea which cultist is Bob, but now I do. He's the one that just got peppered with magic missiles.

Yet if Crawford is right, this seems to be possible. Can someone please tell me why this isn't possible according to Crawford's logic, or why I should just be okay with this?

[smcmike]

And I contend that if this part of the text of Mirror Image has no mechanical implications, then there are many other spells that have no mechanical implications, either.
This is not a claim that these spells are the same, nor that you can use one spell to rule on another. This is a claim that you disregard this text for a reason, and that reason applies to other spells, then you have to apply the same logic to those spells.


Comparing across spells is a great method of interpretation when text is unclear. Some specific examples would help this argument.



Okay. This actually reveals something important. Based in this description, I can see the point of disagreement, I think. You read impossible to track which one is which to mean that it is impossible to target one. I see what you are saying.

Yes.



For me, impossible to track which one is which does not necessarily mean impossible to target. I tend to think you can just "shoot from the hip," so to speak. Thanks for this.

By RAI, this is where you went wrong.



But shouldn't "impossible to track which one is which" mean that the true frog is impossible to target, for the same reason? So if you take the view that selecting a target requires the character to think "that one!", the true frog should be impossible to target? And if you take the view that Hold Monster can be cast at a volume of space and "hones in on" relevant targets (a view that seems less reasonable to me has been advocated), then the frog is possible to target?

I don't take the view that Hold Monster can be cast at a volume of space. In fact, I take the view that it does not require that you have precise knowledge of the position of the target at all, as with my mirror example, and basically doesn't operate on the basis of spacial coordinates apart from the line of effect clause. This position probably goes beyond RAW, though, and isn't firm.



No, I disagree here. This might also drive at the root of our disagreement, so I' hope it changes my mind, and I'll be happy to admit if it does. In my view, the caster cannot see the target. He can see the reflection of the target.

This is reasonable, I would just rule the other way. Take, for example, the classic fight with a gorgon, using a mirror. I think you can use your hand mirror to look at the thing, and thereby cast spells at it without looking directly at it.



If we added the stipulation that spell effects emanate in straight lines and can bounce off of sheer surfaces, then targeting the image would cause the spell to reflect and strike the actual invisible man, then targeting the illusion would work by virtue of this interaction.

This wasn't my thought, though I suppose it would work. It has even less RAW support than my model, though - I think mine fits with a possible reading of RAW, whereas this doesn't, because it implies line of effect bounces.



Also, I concede that if you take the view that you can "target" someone simply by knowing they are in the room and "intending" to target them and letting the spell do the seeking, then clearly this should work. But I don't take this view, personally.

"Seeking" applies a spacial framework, which I am rejecting. But, again, this is just my theory.


I still have big problems with the implications for targeting with save spells, in general. For example:

If I can see twenty cultists standing in front of me, I can see them all but have no way of distinguishing between them because they all look the same to me, it seems absurd to me that I can just say "I want to attack Bob with magic missile," and then, because I can technically see Bob (I can see all twenty of the cultists), the magic missiles fly directly into Bob. I had no idea which cultist is Bob, but now I do. He's the one that just got peppered with magic missiles.

Yet if Crawford is right, this seems to be possible. Can someone please tell me why this isn't possible according to Crawford's logic, or why I should just be okay with this?

I agree that this is absurd, and it's an absurdity that we played around with earlier in the thread. The way to resolve this is to distinguish Mirror Image from the group of cultists - it doesn to fool you into thinking there are a group of people, it simply makes it harder to hit the caster with attacks, similar to the displacer beast effect or using a mirror to target someone.

[Dalebert]

I still occasionally skim this thread but I'm ignoring the walls of text. You can tell someone is getting lawyery with the rules when they're pitnicking line by line.

[BurgerBeast]

I still occasionally skim this thread but I'm ignoring the walls of text.

So, by "walls of text" you mean pretty much every post? :smallbiggrin:


You can tell someone is getting lawyery with the rules when they're pitnicking line by line.

You can tell someone is seeking attention when they post in a thread just to tell you they're not participating in it. Do you miss us? :smallwink:

[georgie_leech]

Flip it around a moment. The text of the spell points to the duplicates constantly shifting around to disguise which caster is real. But an observant character would be able to note that one of the 'images' is different from the rest as it's not constantly shifting around. Thus, such a character could completely ignore the effect of the spell.

Or, the spell does exactly what it says, no less and no more. These duplicates are not distinct enough to be able to target them separately, intentionally or otherwise. It's not 'select which figure to target,' it's 'I target that bunch of unusually close humanoid figures over there.'

[Dalebert]

Flip it around a moment. The text of the spell points to the duplicates constantly shifting around to disguise which caster is real. But an observant character would be able to note that one of the 'images' is different from the rest as it's not constantly shifting around. Thus, such a character could completely ignore the effect of the spell.

"There are four exactly identical figures in that space. Three are moving around confusingly while one remains stationary. Which one do you target?"

"Wait, barring held actions, can't you only move on your turn?"

*shrug*

"I target the still one."

[BurgerBeast]

Flip it around a moment. The text of the spell points to the duplicates constantly shifting around to disguise which caster is real. But an observant character would be able to note that one of the 'images' is different from the rest as it's not constantly shifting around. Thus, such a character could completely ignore the effect of the spell.

I don't necessarily agree, but I'll accept it for the sake of this argument. This is exactly the type of engagement I have been hoping for.


Or, the spell does exactly what it says, no less and no more.

Yes! Thank you!


These duplicates are not distinct enough to be able to target them separately, intentionally or otherwise.

This is more than the spell says. So, based on what you said (no less, no more), you cannot make this claim. (edit: in fact, this is contrary to what the text says. If you make an attack against Joe, the attack ultimately resolves to one of the targets. So it is possible to target the separately. In fact, the spell describes how you to target them separately in the case of attacks.)


It's not 'select which figure to target,' it's 'I target that bunch of unusually close humanoid figures over there.'

This is secondary to the above question. If you refute my answer above this becomes irrelevant, but if you accept it, you run into this:

The spell never says that you target "that bunch of unusually close humanoid figures over there." In fact, an attack in most cases only target one creature. The problem, is which becomes the target?

The fact that the spell contains a mechanic for determining a target implies that the attack can only strike one, and not the group.

It's possible that there is a problem of semantics around "target" as well. I might choose to strike one goblin and miss and my attack might strike a different goblin. It seems that depending on what you mean by "target," you could mean either goblin.

[georgie_leech]

I don't necessarily agree, but I'll accept it for the sake of this argument. This is exactly the type of engagement I have been hoping for.



Yes! Thank you!



This is more than the spell says. So, based on what you said (no less, no more), you cannot make this claim. (edit: in fact, this is contrary to what the text says. If you make an attack against Joe, the attack ultimately resolves to one of the targets. So it is possible to target the separately. In fact, the spell describes how you to target them separately in the case of attacks.)



This is secondary to the above question. If you refute my answer above this becomes irrelevant, but if you accept it, you run into this:

The spell never says that you target "that bunch of unusually close humanoid figures over there." In fact, an attack in most cases only target one creature. The problem, is which becomes the target?

The fact that the spell contains a mechanic for determining a target implies that the attack can only strike one, and not the group.

It's possible that there is a problem of semantics around "target" as well. I might choose to strike one goblin and miss and my attack might strike a different goblin. It seems that depending on what you mean by "target," you could mean either goblin.

There is a key distinction to be made though between targeting someone with an Attack and targeting someone with a (not attack) Spell. For a sword swing or Firebolt, it matters a lot whether you aim directly at someone or two inches to the left. That's the difference between actually hitting someone, and missing completely. So being able to shift slightly out of the way can make an attack miss. Spells like Hold Person though have an entirely distinct method of avoiding their effects. Namely, resisting them. There is no 'move slightly to the right to completely dodge' in the case of Hold Person or Command. It's my contention that the duplicates aid against Attacks by aiding in those dodging defenses. This is supported by the caster rolling the d20 to shift the attack, rather than the attacker in other editions. In that view, of course these duplicates don't help against Hold Person. The die roll isn't to model the chance the target happens to attack the wrong image, it's the caster using the image to distract and evade.

To reiterate, if the text of the spell points to distinct images that you can attack separately, why is there no Perception check or similar to bypass the shifting images at all? Situations where there is some doubt as to whether a PC gets accurate sensory information is what Perception Checks are for. Likewise, INT or Insight checks to sort through confusing information.

[BurgerBeast]

Comparing across spells is a great method of interpretation when text is unclear. Some specific examples would help this argument.

Well, I don't want to go down this route until it's necessary, especially when as of yet there are disagreements that are seemingly more essential to the argument, but the most obvious example is to take some of the previously offered rationales for determining how Major Images are targeted by attacks and by save spells, and then trying to justify them using the spell's text.


By RAI, this is where you went wrong.

It might be. In any case, I think RAW doesn't match RAI. (Also, up until now I'd been using RAI to mean Rules as Interpreted, instead of Rules as Intended, which have been the source of some confusion.)


I don't take the view that Hold Monster can be cast at a volume of space. In fact, I take the view that it does not require that you have precise knowledge of the position of the target at all, as with my mirror example, and basically doesn't operate on the basis of spacial coordinates apart from the line of effect clause. This position probably goes beyond RAW, though, and isn't firm.

We differ here. I agree think that you can target anything, but you must "target it" by identifying it or choosing or whatever you want to call it. Basically you have to be able to say: that one, right there.


This is reasonable, I would just rule the other way. Take, for example, the classic fight with a gorgon, using a mirror. I think you can use your hand mirror to look at the thing, and thereby cast spells at it without looking directly at it.

For me, with the new 5e jargon, the gorgon is only targetable wit attacks that don't require you to "see" the target. I would allow save spells but only if they don't require you to see the target.

As an aside: if you think that looking through the mirror allows you to "see" a medusa (and not just the medusa's image) then can't you see the medusa's eyes and can't the medusa see you? Then the classic medusa fight can;t, in fact, happen, because the medusa can turn you to stone by looking at you in the mirror. That's a problem.


"Seeking" applies a spacial framework, which I am rejecting. But, again, this is just my theory.

Well there should some way to describe how Hold Person can be used to hit one person but not the person next to him. If you can just intend to hit a specific person, then how does the spell where the caster intends it to go? This is a big part of the problem.


I agree that this is absurd, and it's an absurdity that we played around with earlier in the thread. The way to resolve this is to distinguish Mirror Image from the group of cultists - it doesn to fool you into thinking there are a group of people, it simply makes it harder to hit the caster with attacks, similar to the displacer beast effect or using a mirror to target someone. (emphasis added)

It's explanations like this that go beyond what is written in the text. Where in the text is this supported? Or even in logic? If I see four men and three illusory men who are all different, I have to choose one to hit. If I see a man and three illusory men who all look identical, I still have to cohesion to hit. If I see four men who look identical, I still have to choose one. If I see four men who are different, I have to choose one. In the context of selecting a target, what makes a man different form an illusion? Knowing that three are illusions doesn't help you determine which are illusions.


There is a key distinction to be made though between targeting someone with an Attack and targeting someone with a (not attack) Spell. For a sword swing or Firebolt, it matters a lot whether you aim directly at someone or two inches to the left. That's the difference between actually hitting someone, and missing completely. So being able to shift slightly out of the way can make an attack miss. Spells like Hold Person though have an entirely distinct method of avoiding their effects. Namely, resisting them. There is no 'move slightly to the right to completely dodge' in the case of Hold Person or Command.

What's important here is not how you avoid the spell. It's how the caster targets you. How you avoid the effect is not relevant until you are targeted.


It's my contention that the duplicates aid against Attacks by aiding in those dodging defenses. This is supported by the caster rolling the d20 to shift the attack, rather than the attacker in other editions.

This is a stretch. The duplicates aid by causing the attacker to miss. It's no coincidence that the odds of hitting the true target are as close to random chance (25/33/50) as you can get with a 20-sided die (25/35/50). But the real counterargument is this. If the d20 results in the caster being targeted, the attack still has to be compared to the AC in order to hit, and AC is the mechanical representation of dodging an attack.


In that view, of course these duplicates don't help against Hold Person. The die roll isn't to model the chance the target happens to attack the wrong image, it's the caster using the image to distract and evade.

You can use the terms "using the image to distract and evade" if you like, but at the end of the day, if this ploy succeeds it's because the attack targeted a duplicate instead of the true target. The attack strikes the duplicate instead. This is represented in the rest of the spell's description, which describes how the duplicate itself can be hit or missed.


To reiterate, if the text of the spell points to distinct images that you can attack separately, why is there no Perception check or similar to bypass the shifting images at all?

Why would there be? You can't tell the difference between them. It's "impossible" according to the spell description.


Situations where there is some doubt as to whether a PC gets accurate sensory information is what Perception Checks are for. Likewise, INT or Insight checks to sort through confusing information.

Where is the doubt about sensory information? The attacker sees four identical enemies. One is real and three are illusions. There is no confusing information here.

[georgie_leech]

BurgerBeast, if I cast Animate Objects, can I animate more than 10 objects if any of the original 10 die? After all, the first sentence of the spell says that objects come to life at [my] command. Surely that means I'm not limited to just the initial creation?

[BurgerBeast]

BurgerBeast, if I cast Animate Objects, can I animate more than 10 objects if any of the original 10 die? After all, the first sentence of the spell says that objects come to life at [my] command. Surely that means I'm not limited to just the initial creation?

No. "Choose up to 10 nonmagical objects" (PHB 213).

[georgie_leech]

No. "Choose up to 10 nonmagical objects" (PHB 213).

But then objects don't come to life at my command. The spell just animates a few objects without me commanding anything. Clearly I'm supposed to be able to animate more than 10 objects but not all at once.

[RickAllison]

No. "Choose up to 10 nonmagical objects" (PHB 213).

But "Objects come to life at your command." Not 10 objects, but just objects in general and at your command. That is just as valid a reading as your claim that the three duplicates act beyond the actual mechanics of the spell. Or how about Banishment, "You attempt to send one creature that you can see to another plane of existence." Sure, they then go on to clarify exactly what that sentence means in terms of the mechanics of the game, but the same logic you apply to Mirror Image means that Banishment should be able to send a person to the Elemental Plane of Fire.

Why should we consider the text of Mirror Image to have such overreaching benefits beyond those explicitly laid out due to what some may call flavor text and not Banishment?

[BurgerBeast]

But then objects don't come to life at my command. The spell just animates a few objects without me commanding anything. Clearly I'm supposed to be able to animate more than 10 objects but not all at once.

There's nothing clear about "objects come to life at my command." Taken on it's own there is no reason to assume anything. If this were the only text, it would come down to the DM to decide what this meant. If a DM decided you could bring 1,000 mountains to life, he would be correct according to the spell description. If another DM decided that mountains are not objects because they are composited of objects, he could so rule and be within RAW.

But there are other things written in the text that place limits on the DM's whim. "Choose up to 10 nonmagical objects" is one of those limits. "Range: 120 feet" is another.

[RickAllison]

There's nothing clear about "objects come to life at my command." Taken on it's own there is no reason to assume anything. If this were the only text, it would come down to the DM to decide what this meant. If a DM decided you could bring 1,000 mountains to life, he would be correct according to the spell description. If another DM decided that mountains are not objects because they are composited of objects, he could so rule and be within RAW.

But there are other things written in the text that place limits on the DM's whim. "Choose up to 10 nonmagical objects" is one of those limits. "Range: 120 feet" is another.

Like how Mirror Image puts a limit on the benefits from the duplicates as making it harder to hit the caster with attacks?

[BurgerBeast]

Like how Mirror Image puts a limit on the benefits from the duplicates as making it harder to hit the caster with attacks?

It does no such thing.

[RickAllison]

It does no such thing.

It's the same thing. You get a vague description of what the spell does, then it explains the mechanics. Why should Mirror Image work differently than Banishment? Why should Mirror Image get to have an effect drawn from its first paragraph that lacks mechanics but Banishment does not? Both then clarify what exactly that means for the mechanics of the game, but if Mirror Image meets the criteria to interact with non-attacks as you claim then Banishment should allow for one to banish the target to whatever other plane of existence the user desires.

[BurgerBeast]

It's the same thing.

It's not the same thing at all.

Animate Objects gives a general description and places absolute limits on the spell. These limits apply in all cases, as you might expect.

Mirror Image gives a general description and then places conditional limits on attacks only. These limits do not apply to Hold Person because they apply to attacks only.


You get a vague description of what the spell does, then it explains the mechanics.

That's right. The mechanics of Animate Objects do not specify conditions, so they apply in all cases. The mechanics (the particular ones you are referring to) for Mirror Image specify a condition: against attacks. They do not apply under any other conditions.


Why should Mirror Image work differently than Banishment?

There are a number reasons why these spells are different and should function differently. One reason is that they have different targets (self/one creature). Another reason is that one involves a saving throw. The list goes on and on.


Why should Mirror Image get to have an effect drawn from its first paragraph that lacks mechanics but Banishment does not?

Banishment gets exactly what is described in the first paragraph. You attempt to send one creature that you can see within range to another plane of existence. The target must succeed on a Charisma saving throw or be banished (PHB 217). My understanding is that a spell gets exactly what the text says it gets. This applies to both spells.


Both then clarify what exactly that means for the mechanics of the game

You seem to think that the description of the mechanics takes precedence over the rest of the description. I don't. It's very rare for what you call the mechanics to come into conflict with the initial description. In the case of Mirror Image, there is no conflict.


...but if Mirror Image meets the criteria to interact with non-attacks as you claim then Banishment should allow for one to banish the target to whatever other plane of existence the user desires.

Not so. Banishment introduces conditions. What's important is that the conditions only where the text says they apply. [Y]ou banish the target to a harmless demiplane only applies if the target is native to the plane of existence you’re on. It doesn't apply in any other case. You banish the target to its home plane applies only if the target is native to a different plane of existence.

But here is the kicker: if there was a hypothetical monster that did not have a native plane, and you cast Banishment on that creature, what would happen? Well, [t]he target must succeed on a Charisma saving throw or be banished but none of the other conditions apply. You don't just get to day say that nothing happens because the spell says that [t]he target must succeed on a Charisma saving throw or be banished. None of the conditions apply, so the DM has to find a general rule or make a ruling. In this particular case, I would personally rule that the creature is banished to a harmless demi-plane.

[georgie_leech]

Can a character grab one of the daggers created by the Cloud of Daggers spell? Can they then wield it like a normal dagger? Does Crusader's Mantle do anything to improve Saves against Fear effects since it awakens boldness? How about Evard's Black Tentacles, do they provide cover? Does Eyebite not actually work, because your eyes are inky voids instead of the eyes that creatures need to see with? Feign Death puts a creature into a state indistinguishable from death; does that mean you can raise it as a zombie, since if the spell failed that would mean you could distinguish their state from death? Does the Find Traps spell detect those dressing up as the opposite sex, since that doesn't contradict any of the other rules in the spell? If you cast Flame Blade, do you take damage as if you were on fire or the subject of Heat Metal? Can you not Fly (as in the spell) into an area warded by Forbidance because Fly is a form of magical travel?

6 letters in. Want me to keep going? There are plenty of spells that you could read further effects into that are entirely consistent with other spells and themselves.

[NNescio]

Can a character grab one of the daggers created by the Cloud of Daggers spell? Can they then wield it like a normal dagger? Does Crusader's Mantle do anything to improve Saves against Fear effects since it awakens boldness? How about Evard's Black Tentacles, do they provide cover? Does Eyebite not actually work, because your eyes are inky voids instead of the eyes that creatures need to see with? Feign Death puts a creature into a state indistinguishable from death; does that mean you can raise it as a zombie, since if the spell failed that would mean you could distinguish their state from death? Does the Find Traps spell detect those dressing up as the opposite sex, since that doesn't contradict any of the other rules in the spell? If you cast Flame Blade, do you take damage as if you were on fire or the subject of Heat Metal? Can you not Fly (as in the spell) into an area warded by Forbidance because Fly is a form of magical travel?

6 letters in. Want me to keep going? There are plenty of spells that you could read further effects into that are entirely consistent with other spells and themselves.

And Nystul's Magic Aura providing blanket immunity to spells that work only on certain creature types, because they just had to mention Symbol.

[BurgerBeast]

Can a character grab one of the daggers created by the Cloud of Daggers spell? Can they then wield it like a normal dagger?

It seems to me that this is up to the DM. It's clear to me that they are actual daggers that are flying about. I wouldn't have a problem with a DM assigning a high DC acrobatics check or the like. Why not?


Does Crusader's Mantle do anything to improve Saves against Fear effects since it awakens boldness?

I see no reason why "awakens boldness" should extend to mean that it provides an improvement to saves against fear. Generally being "emboldened" is not, to my mind, sufficient to imply a mechanical bonus.


How about Evard's Black Tentacles, do they provide cover?

I don't say they must, but I would certainly not oppose a DM who ruled that they do, and I myself might rule as much. To my mind they occupy space, they are real, and they probably come up to at-least waist height. Why not? I don't say they must provide cover, but any ruling on whether they do or not should consider that they "fill a 20-foot square," "turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain," deliver bludgeoning damage, and restrain creatures. It seems clear to me that they occupy space, and there are consequences that go along with this. Certainly I would agree to a player's appeal, if restrained, that they should receive some benefit from cover. I'd probably rule half-cover.


Does Eyebite not actually work, because your eyes are inky voids instead of the eyes that creatures need to see with?

I don't think "your eyes become an inky void imbued with dread power" means you can't see, but I can understand why some DMs might take "become" literally. Luckily, as I have said before, the info in the spell has to be taken together, and the next sentence, which says "One creature of your choice within 60 feet of you that you can see..." (emphasis added) provides more info. I don't think they would have written this if the spell made you unable to see.


Feign Death puts a creature into a state indistinguishable from death; does that mean you can raise it as a zombie,

No. A state indistinguishable from death is not the same as death. If it was they would have just said "a state of death."


...since if the spell failed that would mean you could distinguish their state from death?

This is completely illogical. I think you know this.


Does the Find Traps spell detect those dressing up as the opposite sex, since that doesn't contradict any of the other rules in the spell?

I never claimed that spells can do anything that "doesn't contradict any of the other rules in the spell." I claimed that spells can do everything that their description says they can do. Nothing more and nothing less. Have you ever studied formal logic?


If you cast Flame Blade, do you take damage as if you were on fire or the subject of Heat Metal?

Nothing in the spell implies that it does either.


Can you not Fly (as in the spell) into an area warded by Forbidance because Fly is a form of magical travel?

I don't personally read it that way, because I think "a ward against magical travel" is not necessarily a ward against all magical travel. But I think it can be read that way. It appears to be up to the DM.


6 letters in. Want me to keep going? There are plenty of spells that you could read further effects into that are entirely consistent with other spells and themselves.

If you think you will find a spell that does what you seem to think it will do (prove that my reasoning is flawed), feel free to keep going. In my view every attempt fits in with my reasoning. I don't compare individual spells to other spells. I just read them and apply the text of the spell. Where the spell says nothing of relevance, I apply the general rules of the game.


And Nystul's Magic Aura providing blanket immunity to spells that work only on certain creature types, because they just had to mention Symbol.

I have no idea how you came up with this.

[smcmike]

Without dragging in even more spell texts (I see why BurgerBeast was reluctant to go down this road) the point is simple: sections of spell text are not severable, and must be read as a whole. There is a frequent pattern where the first sentence is fluff, with the mechanics following.

Reading Mirror Image like this, you get the interpretation that has been confirmed by the designers.

BurgerBeast, you have an interesting and seemingly consistent method of interpretation. Based on the above, though, it does not lead to the results intended by the designers. Personally, I think you put too much emphasis on a close line-by-line reading, and not enough on context - both when reading the rules and when reading forum posts.

P.S. Good point about the Medusa gaze attack.

[Zalabim]

From Simulacrum: "The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature." It specifically gives properties to the illusory duplicate. I certainly don't want to touch any of the other unclear parts of the spell.

Mirror Image makes the real one impossible to track, but not impossible to see. It grants a very specific ability to interfere with attacks. The duplicates are never said to look real. Personally, the constant shifting makes all four look unreal.

[BurgerBeast]

Without dragging in even more spell texts (I see why BurgerBeast was reluctant to go down this road) the point is simple: sections of spell text are not severable, and must be read as a whole. There is a frequent pattern where the first sentence is fluff, with the mechanics following.(emphasis mine)

The unbolded text is my view.

The bolded text is a source of bias, in my view. It may be true that the first sentence (or first few sentences) are 100% fluff, but to assume so seems to me a mistake. If you want to know if any sentence in any spell description is fluff (or mechanics), you have to read the sentence and consider it without bias.


Reading Mirror Image like this, you get the interpretation that has been confirmed by the designers.

All I can say is that RAW does not match RAI edit: Crawford's interpretation in this case. This, it seems to me, is a mistake. I think the text of the spell is pretty clear, that is to say it pretty clearly does not support the tweet from JC. The first question to ask is whether JC is accurately expressing RAI (did he design the spell or ask the person who designed it?). The second question to ask is what part of the written spell needs to change to match the RAI.


BurgerBeast, you have an interesting and seemingly consistent method of interpretation. Based on the above, though, it does not lead to the results intended by the designers.

Personally, I think this shows a mistake in the PHB. I don't see any mistake on my part, in this particular case.


Personally, I think you put too much emphasis on a close line-by-line reading, and not enough on context - both when reading the rules and when reading forum posts.

I have had this debate (or exceedingly similar ones) many times in my life. I would rather give the writer the benefit of the doubt that they wrote exactly what they meant to write than play guessing games about intent. As soon as one person starts trying to guess the other's intent, you (everyone involved) are exponentially more likely to misunderstand one another. No one is a mind reader.


P.S. Good point about the Medusa gaze attack.

Thanks.


From Simulacrum: "The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature." It specifically gives properties to the illusory duplicate. I certainly don't want to touch any of the other unclear parts of the spell.

Yes but there's no reason to think this is all there is to go on. The spell description starts with You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire casting time of the spell, and on this basis alone you would assume that the "creature" is in fact an illusion (or illusory duplicate if you think those are different).

To my mind, the sentence you have quoted is brought in to make clear the exceptions.

The duplicate is a creature - i.e. it is not an illusion
partially real and formed from ice or snow - this answers any confusion about how this particular illusion can be "real" or have substance
it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature - in case you are still confused about whether it is an illusion or a creature, this sentence makes it clear that within the mechanics of the game, the simulacrum is a creature


Mirror Image makes the real one impossible to track, but not impossible to see. It grants a very specific ability to interfere with attacks.

That's correct. But there's no reason to think this is the only effect the spell has. This simply specifies how the spell behaves in the specific case of attacks. Nowhere in the spell description is it expressly said that the spell only affects attacks, so there is no good reason to assume this.

Edit:
Me: Why are you saying that MI only affects attacks?
Others: Because it says so.
Me: No it doesn't. Where?


The duplicates are never said to look real.

Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space... As far as I can tell, duplicate means it is a copy. We can debate whether it looks real all you like, but in the end, ...it’s impossible to track which image is real. Therefore, of the four duplicates, you still don't know which is real. It's impossible to know. So there are still four targets, and you still don't know which is real. You still have to choose one to try to hit, regardless of what you are aiming with.


Personally, the constant shifting makes all four look unreal.

See above. You still see four things. You still have to choose one to hit with your attack or with your save spell. If you choose to attack, the spell specifically overrides your ability to choose a target (an ability which is a normal part of attacking, generally). If you choose to cast a save spell, the spell does not specifically override your ability to choose a target. So you must choose a target, as normal.

[smcmike]

I have had this debate (or exceedingly similar ones) many times in my life. I would rather give the writer the benefit of the doubt that they wrote exactly what they meant to write than play guessing games about intent. As soon as one person starts trying to guess the other's intent, you (everyone involved) are exponentially more likely to misunderstand one another. No one is a mind reader.

Like I said, this is consistent, and probably a very useful tool on a variety of circumstances. It's also a debate that reaches the highest levels of jurisprudence, and you've got plenty of heavyweight thinkers on your side (one fewer, recently). I happen to think they are mostly wrong, though. Intent is sometimes quite easily determined, through context, or through asking the author, or a variety of other ways. Also, ambiguous texts can be downright contradictory, leaving one with the choice of trying to determine intent, tossing the whole thing, or applying some other standard.

If a method of interpretation frequently leads to results that vary from the intent of the author, while other methods lead to the intended interpretation, I think the method is flawed.

[Dalebert]

The images are moving to appear confusing but the caster isn't. Just pick the one that's not moving. Problem solved.

[BurgerBeast]

Like I said, this is consistent, and probably a very useful tool on a variety of circumstances. It's also a debate that reaches the highest levels of jurisprudence, and you've got plenty of heavyweight thinkers on your side (one fewer, recently).

I feel like I'm missing something that is obvious. Who's the one?


I happen to think they are mostly wrong, though. Intent is sometimes quite easily determined, through context,...

I would say that if intent can be determined through context (i.e. through the words), then it can be determined literally (i.e. through the words [spoken or written]). So the speaker is not being unclear at all.


...or through asking the author,...

Likewise, I contend that if you have to ask the author to discover his meaning, then his meaning wasn't clear. This all assumes fair and accurate reading, of course.


...or a variety of other ways.

Again, people should say what they mean. The audience should not have to work to understand.


Also, ambiguous texts can be downright contradictory, leaving one with the choice of trying to determine intent, tossing the whole thing, or applying some other standard.

I suppose it's possible for text to be ambiguous and contradictory, but it would be quite the piece of text to maintain a contradiction within each possible meaning. I'd probably not bother to read such a text as you describe. Basically, I'm trying to drive at what Orwell had to say in Politics and the English Language.


If a method of interpretation frequently leads to results that vary from the intent of the author, while other methods lead to the intended interpretation, I think the method is flawed.

I don't. I think it could just as easily be that the author isn't saying what he intends to say (again, see Orwell).


The images are moving to appear confusing but the caster isn't. Just pick the one that's not moving. Problem solved.

Except: it’s impossible to track which image is real, so picking the one that is not moving can't work, because it would accomplish the impossible.

But many in this post should agree with you, since, according to them, the text of Mirror Image should only apply to attacks. Therefore, it’s only impossible to track which image is real when attacking.

[RickAllison]

Your sarcasm is the most correct you have been about the spell!!!

Although you misrepresent the objections. Rather than other posters thinking it isn't impossible to track the real one when using saving throw spells, their contention is that it doesn't matter. Hold Person doesn't care that the Picasso-vision of Mirror Image is disorienting because the magic will still reach its target. Ice Knife, for comparison, is liable to miss the the target because the aiming of the discrete projectile does allow for misfires, but the explosion afterwards will still hit the actual person. Dissonant Whispers doesn't care that you have distracting clones passing through you, that creepy little tune will still be passing through your head.

[BurgerBeast]

Your sarcasm is the most correct you have been about the spell!!!

I know that you, and some others think so. I also know that you're incorrect, which is why I had to use the sarcasm, so that no one would think I suddenly learned something. My problem is getting some of you to see why it's incorrect.


Although you misrepresent the objections. Rather than other posters thinking it isn't impossible to track the real one when using saving throw spells, their contention is that it doesn't matter.

Yes, I get that. Some people hold this view. Again, I'm trying to explain why it's incorrect but it's difficult.


Hold Person doesn't care that the Picasso-vision of Mirror Image is disorienting because the magic will still reach its target.

By RAI, this is true. But RAW fails to convey this, and conveys something else. I fully understand that RAI is what is being advocated by many one here (but there are so many points of contentions, it's hard to stick to the relevant details).

Hold Person cannot choose a target by itself. The caster has to choose it. And neither Hold Person nor the caster have the ability to distinguish between creatures and illusions (or illusory duplicates). None of the conditions (here I mean the ones that specifically apply to attacks) in the Mirror Image text change these facts because none of them apply to Hold Person.


Ice Knife, for comparison, is liable to miss the the target because the aiming of the discrete projectile does allow for misfires, but the explosion afterwards will still hit the actual person.

Misfires are accounted for by the attack roll. Not by targeting. When you misfire, you choose a target, but the attack roll determines if you hit or miss. Mirror Image has no effect on your ability to hit or miss. It messes with your ability to select a target. This is why, in the case of an attack, after the specific d20 mechanic resolves the target, you still have to roll the attack roll. The attack roll proceeds as normal.


Dissonant Whispers doesn't care that you have distracting clones passing through you, that creepy little tune will still be passing through your head.

I don't know where this notion that the duplicates "pass through you" comes from, but it is not described nor implied in the text of Mirror Image. Again, I'm not claiming that Dissonant whispers can miss or misfire. I am claiming that it is possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target because it is always possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target.

[RickAllison]

I know that you, and some others think so. I also know that you're incorrect, which is why I had to use the sarcasm, so that no one would think I suddenly learned something. My problem is getting some of you to see why it's incorrect.



Yes, I get that. Some people hold this view. Again, I'm trying to explain why it's incorrect but it's difficult.



By RAI, this is true. But RAW fails to convey this, and conveys something else. I fully understand that RAI is what is being advocated by many one here (but there are so many points of contentions, it's hard to stick to the relevant details).

Hold Person cannot choose a target by itself. The caster has to choose it. And neither Hold Person nor the caster have the ability to distinguish between creatures and illusions (or illusory duplicates). None of the conditions (here I mean the ones that specifically apply to attacks) in the Mirror Image text change these facts because none of them apply to Hold Person.



Misfires are accounted for by the attack roll. Not by targeting. When you misfire, you choose a target, but the attack roll determines if you hit or miss. Mirror Image has no effect on your ability to hit or miss. It messes with your ability to select a target. This is why, in the case of an attack, after the specific d20 mechanic resolves the target, you still have to roll the attack roll. The attack roll proceeds as normal.



I don't know where this notion that the duplicates "pass through you" comes from, but it is not described nor implied in the text of Mirror Image. Again, I'm not claiming that Dissonant whispers can miss or misfire. I am claiming that it is possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target because it is always possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target.

Not by RAW. By RAW, Mirror Image only affects targeting on attacks. You are inserting your interpretation of the text above and WAY beyond RAW to create a situation that is blatantly against both the books, the balance of the game, and the intention of the authors. It violates RAW, RAI, and RAF, so I don't really know where your argument comes from by this point.

As I have stated before and you will continue to deny, when your interpretation of the text flies in the face of the actual mechanics, you should consider that your interpretation is incorrect. Mirror Image works the way it does and the fluff drawn from it should reflect that fact rather than taking a fluff you like and try to make it so by isolating part of the text of the spell separate from the rest. Your interpretation only stands if you separate the first paragraph from its context.

Other posters have methodically shown how you are incorrect. You have made two separate threads and your interpretations have been proven false by the text in both. The text refutes your claim, the representative of the developers refutes your claim, and the balancing of the game refutes your claim.

[BurgerBeast]

Not by RAW.

Yes, by RAW.


By RAW, Mirror Image only affects targeting on attacks.

This is incorrect.


You are inserting your interpretation of the text above and WAY beyond RAW to create a situation that is blatantly against both the books, the balance of the game, and the intention of the authors. It violates RAW, RAI, and RAF, so I don't really know where your argument comes from by this point.

It does not go above and beyond RAW. It is RAW.

I've never claimed that it is good for balance (even I though I think think is pretty exaggerated). I have openly admitted that it is not RAI. It doesn't violate RAW, though, and who cares about RAF?


As I have stated before and you will continue to deny, when your interpretation of the text flies in the face of the actual mechanics, you should consider that your interpretation is incorrect. Mirror Image works the way it does and the fluff drawn from it should reflect that fact rather than taking a fluff you like and try to make it so by isolating part of the text of the spell separate from the rest. Your interpretation only stands if you separate the first paragraph from its context.

In fact, the first paragraph only supports your claim if you separate it form it's context. Nothing in the first paragraph even mentions that it only applies to attacks. Paragraph 1 applies universally for exactly this reason. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 apply specifically to attacks, with the exception of one sentence in paragraph 4 which applies universally, and only calls this out because it is contained within a paragraph that otherwise only applies to attacks. Paragraph 5 is also universal.


Other posters have methodically shown how you are incorrect. You have made two separate threads and your interpretations have been proven false by the text in both.

No, they haven't.


The text refutes your claim, the representative of the developers refutes your claim, and the balancing of the game refutes your claim.

Again, I am only arguing RAW. I have acknowledged that my view is not RAI. And the game balance argument is weak, in my opinion.

Now, instead of telling me I'm wrong, put on your big boy pants and explain it to me using reasons.

[edit: explain to me how: "Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space" does not apply to the rules for movement, vision and light, size and space. If one of the players says "I can see that the mage is using mirror image," do you say "No, you can't. Mirror Image only applies when you're attacking."]

[RickAllison]

Yes, by RAW.



This is incorrect.



It does not go above and beyond RAW. It is RAW.

I've never claimed that it is good for balance (even I though I think think is pretty exaggerated). I have openly admitted that it is not RAI. It doesn't violate RAW, though, and who cares about RAF?



In fact, the first paragraph only supports your claim if you separate it form it's context. Nothing in the first paragraph even mentions that it only applies to attacks. Paragraph 1 applies universally for exactly this reason. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 apply specifically to attacks, with the exception of one sentence in paragraph 4 which applies universally, and only calls this out because it is contained within a paragraph that otherwise only applies to attacks. Paragraph 5 is also universal.



No, they haven't.



Again, I am only arguing RAW. I have acknowledged that my view is not RAI. And the game balance argument is weak, in my opinion.

Now, instead of telling me I'm wrong, put on your big boy pants and explain it to me using reasons.

RAW:


Three illusory duplicates o f yourself appear in your
space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with
you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s
impossible to track which image is real. You can use
your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.

Each time a creature targets you with an attack during
the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the
attack instead targets one o f your duplicates.

If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or
higher to change the attack’s target to a duplicate. With
two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one
duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.

A duplicate’s AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier.
If an attack hits a duplicate, the duplicate is destroyed. A
duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it.
It ignores all other damage and effects. The spell ends
when all three duplicates are destroyed.

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.

By actually reading the entire passage in context, we see that it only affects attacks. Anything that doesn't use an attack is not affected by the book.

RAI:


@JeremyECrawford @SageAdviceDnD MagicMissile VS MirrorImage, will the MMcaster has to choose from the 3img and original MIcaster or autohit?

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

@JeremyECrawford to clarify - will magic missile bypass the illusory duplicates created by mirrorimage and strike the creatures of choice

@_Joe_Raso Yes.

So the rules guru has confirmed that yes, the spell is intended to work only on spells with attack rolls. Anything without an attack roll does not interact with Mirror Image.

I don't even need to start on why RAF is thrown out of the water by creating such an OP and broken interpretation. Better than Magic Resistance and concentration-free!

But let's focus again on why your interpretation is broken. Not just broken in terms of being unbalanced, but actually nonfunctional. Your interpretation relies on there being a way to target a given duplicate when there are no methods given to do so. You could use miniatures, but then you violate the text further than you have already twisted it, specifically "shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real". You cannot then have miniatures represent it because they need to be constantly shifting around. Additionally, setting it like that violates being impossible to track which one is real because as soon as the user hits the right target, they should be able to continue doing so as you have set the positioning.

Alternatively, you could roll a d4 to decide which to aim at, but if that was the intention then why wouldn't they just include it?

So there are some of the reasons. You violated the text, the intention, the balance, and created a literally non-functional interpretation. All the evidence points to your interpretation being flat wrong.

EDIT:


[edit: explain to me how: "Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space" does not apply to the rules for movement, vision and light, size and space. If one of the players says "I can see that the mage is using mirror image," do you say "No, you can't. Mirror Image only applies when you're attacking."]

The three illusory duplicates function as the spell dictates, because that is how spells work. They move with the caster, are the size of the caster, and inhabit his space. How it interacts with vision and light is covered in the final paragraph, that they are solely a visual illusion, though we do not get an indication in any way of if they do things like cast shadows.

If one of the players says they can see a mage using Mirror Image, I describe what they see. Depending on how I am feeling about the text, I might describe it as a Picasso-esque monstrosity where different parts of the body seem to be moving in and out, splitting and recombining in a disorienting manner, or I might just say that there are four versions of the caster that are weaving in and out of each other so you can't keep track of any one. Those are just fluff descriptions to remain consistent with the text. After all, it wouldn't make much sense if I said that one could single out a target, since that fluff would be inconsistent with the mechanics and description of the spell. Wouldn't make any sense, really.

[BurgerBeast]

How many times do I have to say that I know that I am wrong by RAI? I know I am wrong by RAI. I know I am wrong by RAI.

I am debating RAW.


RAW:

By actually reading the entire passage in context, we see that it only affects attacks. Anything that doesn't use an attack is not affected by the book.

Here it is in context.

Mirror Image
2nd-level illusion
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 minute

Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.

Up until now, there is nothing that says or implies context. The duplicates do not appear when a creature targets you with an attack. They just appear, to everyone who can see them. The duplicates do not move and mimic your actions only when you are attacked. They just move and mimic you actions. You don't need to wait until you are attacked to dismiss the illusory duplicates. You just can. Nothing is contingent on being attacked.

Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.

Wow! Look at that! They said "Each time a creature attacks..." Guess what? What follows applies whenever a creature attacks. Reason: It f**king says so. Note that nothing in Paragraph 1 says so. Fancy that! So, from here on out, we are talking about attacks.

If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack’s target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.

Well, all of this text, besides following the specific call out that what follows applies to attacks, is talking about the d20 roll, which is a roll made specifically when you are attacked. So this applies to attacks.

A duplicate’s AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier. If an attack hits a duplicate, the duplicate is destroyed. A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects.

Whoops! See what happened there? "All other damage and effects" refers to things that are not attacks. That sentence marks a shift in context. Now we have moved away from the text that applies specifically to attacks and into the text that applies generally.

The spell ends when all three duplicates are destroyed. 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 true sight.

See how you can argue either way here in the last sentences about whether they apply specifically to attacks or they just apply generally but it is of no significance? Who cares about them, they work in either context anyway.

So, that, my angry friend, is how to read the spell description. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong. There's always room to become a better reader. I even color coded it. These comments apply only to attacks whereas these comments apply generally.


RAI: (a bunch of irrelevant blather)...

I never said I was right by RAI, and I don't care about RAF. But I'll still point out where you are wrong, here.


Your interpretation relies on there being a way to target a given duplicate when there are no methods given to do so.

This is semantic, in a way. I think that when the spell says "impossible to track" that is not the same as impossible to "target." For example, if you are able to strike the real target on your first hit, you cannot follow him with your eyes, making it possible to ignore the randomizing mechanic on the next attack. You can still point to a target and "try to hit it," you just can't e sure it's the same one you just hit, because you lost track of which one it is. This satisfies the definition of "not being able to track."


You could use miniatures, but then you violate the text further than you have already twisted it, specifically "shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real." You cannot then have miniatures represent it because they need to be constantly shifting around. Additionally, setting it like that violates being impossible to track which one is real because as soon as the user hits the right target, they should be able to continue doing so as you have set the positioning.

Well, you could just emulate this by putting the minis behind your back and re-shuffling them after each attack. Done. You can pick a target, but it was impossible to track (ignoring real life ways to distinguish between the actual figures, but there are ways around that, too).


Alternatively, you could roll a d4 to decide which to aim at, but if that was the intention then why wouldn't they just include it?

Remember, my position is that they didn't exclude it. I suggest they didn't include it because of the multitude of ways that the designers intentionally left open for DMs to adjudicate targeting with save spells. (See either of my threads that you seem to like so much for the mess that arises by just trying to decide how Hold Person targets.


So there are some of the reasons. You violated the text, the intention, the balance, and created a literally non-functional interpretation. All the evidence points to your interpretation being flat wrong.

And there are my answers. I haven't violated the text. (Violated? Really?) I violated the intention, and I've admitted this all along. My interpretation is not non-functioning (even some of my detractors agree with me on this). The evidence you provided doesn't work against me, for the reasons given above.

[RickAllison]

How many times do I have to say that I know that I am wrong by RAI? I know I am wrong by RAI. I know I am wrong by RAI.

I am debating RAW.

You really aren't debating RAW, since RAW explains exactly the effects. Taking something beyond the text is not RAW, it is RAI at best and otherwise houseruling. Since you have admitted you are wrong by RAI, that leaves houseruling. Which if you want that in your games, more power to you...


Here it is in context.

Mirror Image
2nd-level illusion
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 minute

Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.

Up until now, there is nothing that says or implies context. The duplicates do not appear when a creature targets you with an attack. They just appear, to everyone who can see them. The duplicates do not move and mimic your actions only when you are attacked. They just move and mimic you actions. You don't need to wait until you are attacked to dismiss the illusory duplicates. You just can. Nothing is contingent on being attacked.

Okay. They are there. What we get from this passage is that we know where the duplicates are ("in your space"), we know how they move ("with you and mimic your actions, shifting position"), that it disrupts the ability to tell which creature is real, and that you can dismiss them. Sounds fine.


Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.

Wow! Look at that! They said "Each time a creature attacks..." Guess what? What follows applies whenever a creature attacks. Reason: It f**king says so. Note that nothing in Paragraph 1 says so. Fancy that! So, from here on out, we are talking about attacks.

Great, it discusses what to do with attacks. Dandy.


If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack’s target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.

Well, all of this text, besides following the specific call out that what follows applies to attacks, is talking about the d20 roll, which is a roll made specifically when you are attacked. So this applies to attacks.

A duplicate’s AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier. If an attack hits a duplicate, the duplicate is destroyed. A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects.

Whoops! See what happened there? "All other damage and effects" refers to things that are not attacks. That sentence marks a shift in context. Now we have moved away from the text that applies specifically to attacks and into the text that applies generally.

Great. We have text indicating that it ignores all other effects, swell. Doesn't support your point, but it is good to know. With everything else so far, that means that those who aren't using attacks can't make it easier for the people who are. If someone wants to bypass the effect of the spell by using saves, it does nothing to help their allies cope with the images. Great.


The spell ends when all three duplicates are destroyed. 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 true sight.

See how you can argue either way here in the last sentences about whether they apply specifically to attacks or they just apply generally but it is of no significance? Who cares about them, they work in either context anyway.

All I see here is that any mechanical effects from this spell are negated by not needing to perceive the duplicates. Since the only mechanical effect was the redirection of attacks, that's the only effect of that sentence. So you have shown the light that the spell functions as intended. The text works to only have an effect with attacks and to ensure that offensive methods that bypass the spell don't diminish its future use. Hooray! Nothing about actually having an effect on non-attack methods, so you still don't have any evidence.


So, that, my angry friend, is how to read the spell description. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong. There's always room to become a better reader. I even color coded it. These comments apply only to attacks whereas these comments apply generally.

Very helpful for showing the lack of any mechanical effect on targeting by non-attack methods. You did my work in pointing out where you err for me. Much appreciated.


I never said I was right by RAI, and I don't care about RAF. But I'll still point out where you are wrong, here.

A big part of showing how it violates those tenets is not for you. I don't care about you or how overpowered you want to make basic spells at your table. I just care about ensuring that readers who see your rulings understand exactly why both the book and the creators show that you are wrong, because it creates an abominably powerful low-level spell.


This is semantic, in a way. I think that when the spell says "impossible to track" that is not the same as impossible to "target." For example, if you are able to strike the real target on your first hit, you cannot follow him with your eyes, making it possible to ignore the randomizing mechanic on the next attack. You can still point to a target and "try to hit it," you just can't e sure it's the same one you just hit, because you lost track of which one it is. This satisfies the definition of "not being able to track."

If the target is impossible to track, that means they are impossible to actually get a read on as a target. "I target... Nope, lost it because they are constantly shifting about." If you try, you are more than likely just going to end up hitting one of the other ones. If only they had a mechanic for that when it was appropriate...



Well, you could just emulate this by putting the minis behind your back and re-shuffling them after each attack. Done. You can pick a target, but it was impossible to track (ignoring real life ways to distinguish between the actual figures, but there are ways around that, too).

Great, but it's not RAW. If you don't have a RAW answer for this, you aren't arguing RAW. So show me where you obtained your targeting method, because if the book actually stated what you claim it does then it will have the text for how to resolve it. I won't be waiting closely because I doubt you will procure any.


Remember, my position is that they didn't exclude it. I suggest they didn't include it because of the multitude of ways that the designers intentionally left open for DMs to adjudicate targeting with save spells. (See either of my threads that you seem to like so much for the mess that arises by just trying to decide how Hold Person targets.

This is an awful answer. Really, totally, awful. Not forbidding something does not imply permission. Flying as part of the casting is not excluded, but it definitely isn't permitted either. The spells do what they say. Taking anything beyond that is not RAW. You can debate house-rules at that point, but what you are establishing is that you are not talking RAW.


And there are my answers. I haven't violated the text. (Violated? Really?) I violated the intention, and I've admitted this all along. My interpretation is not non-functioning (even some of my detractors agree with me on this). The evidence you provided doesn't work against me, for the reasons given above.

It is non-functioning without house-rules. You have to insert text that does not exist to create an effect that does not exist. When you are deliberately going against RAW, that is violating it. And your reasons have shown (quite thoroughly) that the RAW does not support your viewpoint.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay. They are there. What we get from this passage is that we know where the duplicates are ("in your space"), we know how they move ("with you and mimic your actions, shifting position"), that it disrupts the ability to tell which creature is real, and that you can dismiss them. Sounds fine.

Good. Because this is all that matters to my argument. Everything else was oblique to my point. As you agree, these parts of the spell apply generally:

Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.

Now, since all of this text applies generally, it therefore applies to the caster of Hold Person.

Just to be clear: The caster of hold person sees four "people" who are in the same space. The caster cannot distinguish between them because it is impossible.

So how, RAW, does the caster declare a target to the DM?

[RickAllison]

Good. Because this is all that matters to my argument. Everything else was oblique to my point. As you agree, these parts of the spell apply generally:

Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.

Now, since all of this text applies generally, it therefore applies to the caster of Hold Person.

Just to be clear: The caster of hold person sees four "people" who are in the same space. The caster cannot distinguish between them because it is impossible.

So how, RAW, does the caster declare a target to the DM?

Who are all mimicking the same motion and shifting positions while staying far closer than actual creatures do. He targets that mass and the Hold Person catches the actual humanoid in the bunch. Doesn't need to know which one is real, it just works.

[BurgerBeast]

Who are all mimicking the same motion and shifting positions while staying far closer than actual creatures do. He targets that mass and the Hold Person catches the actual humanoid in the bunch. Doesn't need to know which one is real, it just works.

Is this RAW? [edit: can you "target a mass" with hold person, by RAW, and then, RAW, hold person catches the actual humanoid in the bunch, even if the caster doesn't know which entity in the mass is a humanoid?]

[Zalabim]

That's correct. But there's no reason to think this is the only effect the spell has. This simply specifies how the spell behaves in the specific case of attacks. Nowhere in the spell description is it expressly said that the spell only affects attacks, so there is no good reason to assume this.

Edit:
Me: Why are you saying that MI only affects attacks?
Others: Because it says so.
Me: No it doesn't. Where?

Spells only do what they say they do. Any time you're arguing that a spell does something it doesn't say it does, that is not arguing RAW.




Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space... As far as I can tell, duplicate means it is a copy. We can debate whether it looks real all you like, but in the end, ...it’s impossible to track which image is real. Therefore, of the four duplicates, you still don't know which is real. It's impossible to know. So there are still four targets, and you still don't know which is real. You still have to choose one to try to hit, regardless of what you are aiming with.

See above. You still see four things. You still have to choose one to hit with your attack or with your save spell. If you choose to attack, the spell specifically overrides your ability to choose a target (an ability which is a normal part of attacking, generally). If you choose to cast a save spell, the spell does not specifically override your ability to choose a target. So you must choose a target, as normal.

Again you contradict your own interpretation. If the spellcaster has to choose a target, so does the attacker. The attacker only faces the possibility of their attack being redirected to an image if they target the caster. If the attacker targeted an image in the first place, the attack would resolve without further input from Mirror Image since it only works on attacks that target the caster. That is, according to your interpretation. According to the official interpretation, and RAW, the attacker and spellcaster both target the mirror image caster in the first place, then the rules written in the spell apply.


Hold Person cannot choose a target by itself. The caster has to choose it. And neither Hold Person nor the caster have the ability to distinguish between creatures and illusions (or illusory duplicates). None of the conditions (here I mean the ones that specifically apply to attacks) in the Mirror Image text change these facts because none of them apply to Hold Person.

Hold Person essentially does have the ability to distinguish between illusions and creatures, since it cannot, by RAW, target illusions (that are not creatures and specifically humanoids in this case). Hold Person doesn't require you to be able to track the target. As long as it is a humanoid you can see in range, you can choose it. If it were a video game UI, you'd select Hold Person and all the humanoids in your LoS would light up. From the perspective of Hold Person, there is only one target. Targeting does, indeed, proceed normally. Then you could try to cast it through a clear glass window or a wall of force and the lack of a direct line of effect could still foil your spell. Tangent, sorry.


I don't know where this notion that the duplicates "pass through you" comes from, but it is not described nor implied in the text of Mirror Image. Again, I'm not claiming that Dissonant whispers can miss or misfire. I am claiming that it is possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target because it is always possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target.

Specifically, it is not possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target. That would be an illegal play.

[RickAllison]

Is this RAW? [edit: can you "target a mass" with hold person, by RAW, and then, RAW, hold person catches the actual humanoid in the bunch, even if the caster doesn't know which entity in the mass is a humanoid?]

Yes, it is RAW. You can target that humanoid and the Mirror Image spell, however it shows up in the fluff, does not interfere with it. If you have a fluffed Mirror Image that is inconsistent with the application, that is evidence that your envisioning of the system is flawed and needs to be brought in line with the mechanics.

Basically, the RAW is you are able to target the humanoid, Mirror Image doesn't interfere. If it does interfere, your Mirror Image is wrong and you must amend your description of the situation so it does function.

[BurgerBeast]

Spells only do what they say they do. Any time you're arguing that a spell does something it doesn't say it does, that is not arguing RAW.

You're missing the context, here. The entire first paragraph of Mirror Image gives effects of the spell that are not conditional. They apply generally. Those are the effects I am talking about. The spell says that they happen.


Again you contradict your own interpretation. If the spellcaster has to choose a target, so does the attacker.

That's right. But the act of targeting with an attack triggers the effects of Mirror Image that specifically depend on being attacked.

Case I: Gary declares intent to attack Ray (who does not have Mirror Image active). DM does not bother to ask Gary to specify the target because the target is obvious -> Ray is targeted. DM asks Gary to resolve the attack. Gary rolls an attack roll.

Case II: Gary declares intent to attack a lizard. DM asks Gary to specify which lizard because there are four lizards in the square that Gary is facing. Gary specifies one of the lizards -> a specific lizard is targeted. DM asks Gary to resolve the attack. Gary rolls an attack roll.

Case III: Gary declares intent to attack Joe (who has Mirror Image up). DM would typically ask player to specify a target, but Mirror Image takes over because Mirror Image is triggered by the act of the player trying to target Joe -> The DM applies the rules of Mirror Image to determine the target of the spell -> the spell resolves the target to be either Joe or a duplicate. DM asks Gary to resolve the attack. Gary rolls an attack roll.

Case IV: Player Gary declares intent to cast Hold Monster on a lizard. DM asks Gary to specify which lizard because there are four lizards in the square that Gary is facing. Gary specifies one of the lizards -> a specific lizard is targeted. DM must resolve the spell by rolling a save for the lizard. The DM rolls the save.

Case V: Player Gary declares intent to cast Hold Person on Joe (who has Mirror Image up). DM asks player to specify a target (Mirror Image would take over because Mirror Image is triggered by the act of the player trying to target Joe with an attack, but Hold Person isn't an attack, so Mirror Image doesn't take over) -> the DM needs to determine a target for hold person... but how? Gary sees four "Joes" in one square and the spell gives no direction. I suggest we use the general spell casting rules.


The attacker only faces the possibility of their attack being redirected to an image if they target the caster. If the attacker targeted an image in the first place, the attack would resolve without further input from Mirror Image since it only works on attacks that target the caster. That is, according to your interpretation.

Nope. I interpret "target" to mean choose a target. My interpretation is that the moment a player declares the intent to target Joe with an attack, Mirror Image takes over and does the targeting for the player.


According to the official interpretation, and RAW, the attacker and spellcaster both target the mirror image caster in the first place, then the rules written in the spell apply.

So, in your view, the very act of saying "I target Joe" presents no problems at all? There are four identical Joes in the same square, impossible to distinguish form one another, and you can just say "I attack Joe" and then it happens? And likewise for the spell? Just "I cast hold person on Joe"?

In the context of your explanation of how targeting with spells works, I think this might all come together. I still suspect we might run into a problem, but I hope not. Thanks for taking the time. I hope you'll stay patient and continue to discuss this.


Specifically, it is not possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target. That would be an illegal play.

Hold Person essentially does have the ability to distinguish between illusions and creatures, since it cannot, by RAW, target illusions (that are not creatures and specifically humanoids in this case). Hold Person doesn't require you to be able to track the target. As long as it is a humanoid you can see in range, you can choose it. If it were a video game UI, you'd select Hold Person and all the humanoids in your LoS would light up. From the perspective of Hold Person, there is only one target. Targeting does, indeed, proceed normally. Then you could try to cast it through a clear glass window or a wall of force and the lack of a direct line of effect could still foil your spell. Tangent, sorry.

I am cool with his interpretation. Do you see this as an interpretation or as RAW?

And so what would happen in this case (i.e. a character declares that he is casting hold person on an object or otherwise invalid target)? I don't think there is RAW for resolving this, is there? For example, do you just say "you can't do that" and let the player retract the action and do something else? Or do they lose their action? Do they lose their spell slot?

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, it is RAW. You can target that humanoid and the Mirror Image spell, however it shows up in the fluff, does not interfere with it.

It's clear to me that you can target a humanoid. It's not clear to me that you can target a "mass," which is what you said. It is much less clear that this is RAW because "mass" doesn;t come up in the RAW.


If you have a fluffed Mirror Image that is inconsistent with the application, that is evidence that your envisioning of the system is flawed and needs to be brought in line with the mechanics.

This is certainly true. But, I don't think I have fluffed Mirror Image at all (maybe I don't clearly understand the difference between fluff and mechanics), so I don't see how my fluff can be inconsistent with the application, which makes the rest irrelevant. To my mind, I am completely ignoring the fluff and only considering the mechanics.

I mean, I am pretty sure that you think "Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space." is fluff. I don't see it as entirely fluff. And I impurity [edit: am pretty] sure that you think "Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real" is entirely fluff. I don't see it as entirely fluff.

If the illusory duplicates appeared in four squares around the caster, would they still be fluff? Would they change the mechanics? I suspect not.

If a spell's mechanics are limited to what it says in the spell description, then what happens if a player declares the intent to attack a Silent Image? The image doesn't state that it can be attacked, and there are no stats to determine if an attack hits. What about the ability Channel Divinity: Invoke Duplicity (PHB 63)? Is the duplicate targetable if nothing in the description says it is?


Basically, the RAW is you are able to target the humanoid, Mirror Image doesn't interfere.

Being able to target a humanoid does not imply auto-targeting. Mirror Image does not prevent you from targeting Joe, but it doesn't grant you any new or improved ability to target him either. You have exactly the same ability to target with hold person as you always have. And you have four potential targets in front of you. Never, given four targets in front of you, do you just get to say "I target Joe" and let the spell do the work, but you seem to be saying that in the specific case of Mirror Image, you somehow receive this specialized targeting ability. I don't see where this is granted in the spell description.

So you say I am adding to RAW, but it appears to me that you are adding to RAW.

[RickAllison]

It's clear to me that you can target a humanoid. It's not clear to me that you can target a "mass," which is what you said. It is much less clear that this is RAW because "mass" doesn;t come up in the RAW.



This is certainly true. But, I don't think I have fluffed Mirror Image at all (maybe I don't clearly understand the difference between fluff and mechanics), so I don't see how my fluff can be inconsistent with the application, which makes the rest irrelevant. To my mind, I am completely ignoring the fluff and only considering the mechanics.

I mean, I am pretty sure that you think "Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space." is fluff. I don't see it as entirely fluff. And I impurity [edit: am pretty] sure that you think "Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real" is entirely fluff. I don't see it as entirely fluff.

If the illusory duplicates appeared in four squares around the caster, would they still be fluff? Would they change the mechanics? I suspect not.

If a spell's mechanics are limited to what it says in the spell description, then what happens if a player declares the intent to attack a Silent Image? The image doesn't state that it can be attacked, and there are no stats to determine if an attack hits. What about the ability Channel Divinity: Invoke Duplicity (PHB 63)? Is the duplicate targetable if nothing in the description says it is?



Being able to target a humanoid does not imply auto-targeting. Mirror Image does not prevent you from targeting Joe, but it doesn't grant you any new or improved ability to target him either. You have exactly the same ability to target with hold person as you always have. And you have four potential targets in front of you. Never, given four targets in front of you, do you just get to say "I target Joe" and let the spell do the work, but you seem to be saying that in the specific case of Mirror Image, you somehow receive this specialized targeting ability. I don't see where this is granted in the spell description.

So you say I am adding to RAW, but it appears to me that you are adding to RAW.

You are right that "mass" is a rather improper term to use, but it is much easier to use than up-to-four-images-constantly-switching-around-so-there-is-little-doubt-it-is-one-creature, even if that term is far more exact.

So what we run into is that as far as the rules are concerned, those duplicates are not confusing anyone as to being more than one creature. However it may appear to the enemy, the Mirror Images are not targetable because they exist only to deflect those attacks. Choose your image as you like, it doesn't matter so long as it is consistent with the facts of the rules (or house-rules, if you insist on implementing this interpretation).

Of course, I think the biggest problem with your theory in play is that it is not consistent. If the images are targetable, why have the randomized effect with the attack? Why do saving throw spells have to decide which image to target while attacks have to roll the dice? If targets for saving throws have to be chosen beforehand, that means the targeting of the image has to happen first and so attack-users should have to decide before possibly having the spell text kick in. If the attack-users don't have to do so, that means the Mirror Image spell assumes that the target of everything is the user, then it gets re-directed.

So I suppose that's the challenge for you. How do you resolve that inconsistency so your model works?

[smcmike]

I feel like I'm missing something that is obvious. Who's the one?


I was comparing your method to Scalia's. I don't mean to be political though - this argument just reminded me of King v. Burrell.



Likewise, I contend that if you have to ask the author to discover his meaning, then his meaning wasn't clear. This all assumes fair and accurate reading, of course.

Again, people should say what they mean. The audience should not have to work to understand.

This is a great aspirational statement, but it doesn't have much to do with what we do with ambiguous texts. We can't just say "WRITE CLEAR TEXTS," can we? And if we did, they'd probably respond "what do you mean?"



I suppose it's possible for text to be ambiguous and contradictory, but it would be quite the piece of text to maintain a contradiction within each possible meaning.

Do you read much law?


I
I'd probably not bother to read such a text as you describe.

Maybe not. Good choice.


Picasso-vision of Mirror Image

I'm calling it. Rick wins the thread.


I'm not claiming that Dissonant whispers can miss or misfire. I am claiming that it is possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target because it is always possible for the caster of Hold Person to choose the wrong target.

Is Dissonant Whispers any different, assuming the caster keeps his eyes open?

[Zalabim]

That's right. But the act of targeting with an attack triggers the effects of Mirror Image that specifically depend on being attacked.

Yes. The act of targeting the caster with an attack triggers the redirect effect on mirror image. If you allow the attacker to go straight to targeting the caster without picking between the images first (which is what going straight to rolling a d20 to determine off-target does), you have to give targeting the spell the same capability to be consistent.


So, in your view, the very act of saying "I target Joe" presents no problems at all? There are four identical Joes in the same square, impossible to distinguish form one another, and you can just say "I attack Joe" and then it happens?

And then you roll the die as Mirror Image instructs. That is also your view, by the way. Even though you disagree about


And likewise for the spell? Just "I cast hold person on Joe"?

for some reason. I see no justification for treating them differently.


I am cool with his interpretation. Do you see this as an interpretation or as RAW?

And so what would happen in this case (i.e. a character declares that he is casting hold person on an object or otherwise invalid target)? I don't think there is RAW for resolving this, is there? For example, do you just say "you can't do that" and let the player retract the action and do something else? Or do they lose their action? Do they lose their spell slot?

Definitely just an interpretation. I haven't found anything pointing to a RAW response to the situation. Which isn't really surprising, considering the situation is really "what do you do when a player breaks the rules?" The answer is going to depend on so many factors there's really no possible RAW answer the book can provide.

[smcmike]

As others have pointed out, this bears closer examination.



Case III: Gary declares intent to attack Joe (who has Mirror Image up). DM would typically ask player to specify a target, but Mirror Image takes over because Mirror Image is triggered by the act of the player trying to target Joe -


1. The trigger is "a creature targets you with an attack." There is no preliminary "try" step.

2. You have argued that the first paragraph requires a player to choose one of the Joes to target (when using a spell). I don't see how you avoid this step with attacks. If the player chooses an illusion, they haven't targeted Joe, and therefore never trigger the conditional step.

[Segev]

Who are all mimicking the same motion and shifting positions while staying far closer than actual creatures do. He targets that mass and the Hold Person catches the actual humanoid in the bunch. Doesn't need to know which one is real, it just works.

Except he can't target "the mass." He must target "a creature." He must select a target for his spell. He must identify it unambiguously. He can't say "spell, figure out which one I want you to hit." He's got the proverbial mouse hovering over the mass; he still has to proverbially click on one of them to designate as his target. He can't group-select without up-casting the spell.

That mirror image technically, by the RAW, can be read such that the d20 roll isn't the defined way of telling whether it was the real Joe or an illusory duplicate doesn't change that you still have to specify a target. It just removes the RAW definition of how that determination "must" be made. (Given that I doubt anybody here would fault a DM for saying, "screw the d20; pick a number 1-4, and I'll roll a d4 to see if you picked the right one," even that's flimsy.) You can use the d20 method or any other method to determine whether your choice is the right one or not. But Bob still has to pick a target.

Or would you allow him to cast hold person randomly in a crowded market place while blinded with Joe having beaten his Perception with a Stealth check, and just say "target Joe?"

If Joe (who is doubtlessly evil, since Bob wants to paralyze him) is grappling with his good (but otherwise identical) twin John, and both are trying to convince Bob that he's the real John, would you allow Bob to just say "I target Joe with hold person" and have the spell automatically determine which is the real Joe?

What if Bob were CONVINCED that the guy currently on top is Joe, but he was wrong, but he still just said, "I target Joe?" Would that hit the real Joe (on the bottom) because the spell knows which one's valid?

What if John isn't actually his twin, but is a non-humanoid that looks like Joe anyway? Does that let the spell auto-target Joe because John's not a valid target, even though Bob didn't know which one of the two to target, himself?


In other words: are you saying that the spell is omniscient as to the true identity of a target, such that it can determine a target on its own if told criteria (like "the real Joe" or "the guy who stole my wallet, even though I didn't see who it was"), even though the caster (Bob) doesn't know which potential target meets those criteria?

[smcmike]

That mirror image technically, by the RAW, can be read such that the d20 roll isn't the defined way of telling whether it was the real Joe or an illusory duplicate doesn't change that you still have to specify a target. It just removes the RAW definition of how that determination "must" be made. (Given that I doubt anybody here would fault a DM for saying, "screw the d20; pick a number 1-4, and I'll roll a d4 to see if you picked the right one," even that's flimsy.) You can use the d20 method or any other method to determine whether your choice is the right one or not. But Bob still has to pick a target.

This is interesting. I agree that I would not fault a DM for some other method of rolling, but it clearly wouldn't be RAW, since the RAW specifies the method. I really don't see how you can say otherwise.



Or would you allow him to cast hold person randomly in a crowded market place while blinded with Joe having beaten his Perception with a Stealth check, and just say "target Joe?"

If Joe (who is doubtlessly evil, since Bob wants to paralyze him) is grappling with his good (but otherwise identical) twin John, and both are trying to convince Bob that he's the real John, would you allow Bob to just say "I target Joe with hold person" and have the spell automatically determine which is the real Joe?

What if Bob were CONVINCED that the guy currently on top is Joe, but he was wrong, but he still just said, "I target Joe?" Would that hit the real Joe (on the bottom) because the spell knows which one's valid?

What if John isn't actually his twin, but is a non-humanoid that looks like Joe anyway? Does that let the spell auto-target Joe because John's not a valid target, even though Bob didn't know which one of the two to target, himself?

In other words: are you saying that the spell is omniscient as to the true identity of a target, such that it can determine a target on its own if told criteria (like "the real Joe" or "the guy who stole my wallet, even though I didn't see who it was"), even though the caster (Bob) doesn't know which potential target meets those criteria?

No, we have not been saying this. We are saying that Mirror Image doesn't work like any of those scenarios.

[Segev]

This is interesting. I agree that I would not fault a DM for some other method of rolling, but it clearly wouldn't be RAW, since the RAW specifies the method. I really don't see how you can say otherwise. Clearly not. However, if you are hanging your hat on the claim that casting hold person is not an attack, then that removes the RAW definition of how to determine whether the target selected is Joe or an image of Joe.

It does not, however, remove the requirement that Bob select a target.


No, we have not been saying this. We are saying that Mirror Image doesn't work like any of those scenarios.
Each of those scenarios presents a situation where Bob does not know which potential target is "the real Joe." Or, in some cases, a situation where he doesn't even know where a potential target is, let alone whether it's really Joe or not.

Mirror image explicitly creates exact duplicates of Joe when he casts it. Those duplicates are specifically impossible to tell apart form the real Joe.

Therefore, they are quite similar.

In all these scenarios, including the one where Joe has simply cast mirror image, Bob is obligated to select a target for his hold person spell. In none of these scenarios is Bob able to say with certainty that "that" target is "the real Joe." He does not know and cannot know.

If he can point to "the mass of images" and say "I target Joe," (thus avoiding the images) then he should be able to point to "the tangle of limbs grappling on the ground there" and say "I target Joe" (thus avoiding John). He should also be able to say "I target Joe" when Joe is hidden somewhere within range. Or "I target the guy who just stole my wallet," even if that guy did so without him seeing the guy nor knowing where he's disappeared to in the crowd.

Because if "I target Joe, even though I don't know which one of those is Joe" is a valid way to make the spell pick the right one, it remains a valid way to do so.

Mirror image cannot work differently than those situations, because the spell doesn't say that it does work differently than those situations. Mirror image specifies that it creates duplicates which are expressly indistinguishable from the real caster. It provides a specific mechanic for resolving whether "an attack" targets the real caster or an image. It provides no specific mechanics for resolving whether effects which are not attacks do so. Therefore, it is left to the DM to come up with a means. All we have, for non-attack effects, is that there are now 4 identical, indistinguishable Joes standing there, doing the same things. Any effect which requires a target must have the target specified. There are 4 potential targets there. You can't say "all of them" unless you can actually target all of them. It won't pick the right one.

Or, if it WILL pick the right one based on criteria Bob does not and cannot know before the spell makes the determination for him, then it can do so in those other scenarios as well. Again because mirror image doesn't say it operates differently than those other scenarios; it just spells out an analogous one of indiscernible targets.

[smcmike]

However, if you are hanging your hat on the claim that casting hold person is not an attack, then that removes the RAW definition of how to determine whether the target selected is Joe or an image of Joe.

It does not, however, remove the requirement that Bob select a target.

Sure, and it's a good strong hat-hook, since Hold Person is not an attack.



Therefore, they are quite similar.


I suppose I should go through your scenarios one at a time.



Or would you allow him to cast hold person randomly in a crowded market place while blinded with Joe having beaten his Perception with a Stealth check, and just say "target Joe?"

This one is a bit confusing. If Bob is blinded, he can't see Joe and therefore can't cast Hold Person. If Joe is successfully hiding from him in a crowd, he can't see Joe, and can't target him. Mirror Image does not prevent Bob from seeing Joe, so these are not similar.



If Joe . . . is grappling with his . . . identical . . . twin John, and both are trying to convince Bob that he's the real John, would you allow Bob to just say "I target Joe with hold person" and have the spell automatically determine which is the real Joe?

No, of course not. He can see two real people, track their movements and distinguish between them. He's just not sure which one is Joe. Similarly, you could target either brother with an attack, without having to roll anything, because they are independent targets. In the case of Mirror Image, he knows that he's only seeing one person, and targets that person.



What if Bob were CONVINCED that the guy currently on top is Joe, but he was wrong, but he still just said, "I target Joe?" Would that hit the real Joe (on the bottom) because the spell knows which one's valid?


Note that this is not something you could do with Mirror Image and an attack. They are different.



What if John isn't actually his twin, but is a non-humanoid that looks like Joe anyway? Does that let the spell auto-target Joe because John's not a valid target, even though Bob didn't know which one of the two to target, himself?

This is an argument for someone other than me. I think you can attempt to cast a spell at a non-valid target. I also think that the Mirror Images are not independently targetable outside of the attack mechanic discussed in the spell.



In all these scenarios, including the one where Joe has simply cast mirror image, Bob is obligated to select a target for his hold person spell. In none of these scenarios is Bob able to say with certainty that "that" target is "the real Joe." He does not know and cannot know.

In the case of Mirror Image, he doesn't need to know. The Images are images of Joe. It's all Joe.


Again because mirror image doesn't say it operates differently than those other scenarios; it just spells out an analogous one of indiscernible targets.

My point is that those scenarios clearly are not analogous, because Mirror Image says what it does - it interferes with attacks. That's my first step.

1. If the designers meant it to also interfere with targeted spells, why did they provide a specific mechanics for attacks, but not spells?

2. If you have to pick a target as a first step, wouldn't you have to do that prior to "each time a creature targets you with an attack?"

3. Does a caster have any problem targetting a Displacer Beast with Hold Monster?

4. Maybe you don't care, but did you notice that Crawford supports my interpretation?

[BurgerBeast]

You are right that "mass" is a rather improper term to use, but it is much easier to use than up-to-four-images-constantly-switching-around-so-there-is-little-doubt-it-is-one-creature, even if that term is far more exact.

Call it what you want. RAW never refers to it.


So what we run into is that as far as the rules are concerned, those duplicates are not confusing anyone as to being more than one creature. However it may appear to the enemy, the Mirror Images are not targetable because they exist only to deflect those attacks. Choose your image as you like, it doesn't matter so long as it is consistent with the facts of the rules (or house-rules, if you insist on implementing this interpretation).

How's this for a more simple explanation? (Humour me for a moment and assume that "three illusory duplicates appear in your square" are not some bizzaro-ball, nor a matrix Neo. It's just 4 "guys" that look the same.) Just like always, when you want to attack, you (1) choose a target, (2) determine modifiers, (3) resolve the attack (PHB 194, top). During step one, you must indeed choose a target, but here's the problem: your character can't tell the difference between them. So saying "I try to hit Joe" or "I try to hit one of the duplicates" is meaningless. All you can do is target one of the four identical things. It's still one thing that you target. The designers recognized and anticipated this, and nipped it in the bud. Rather than let DMs and players deal with this awkwardness, they just gave us the overriding mechanic. Done and done. Next.


Of course, I think the biggest problem with your theory in play is that it is not consistent.

See above. It is consistent. It reconciles with the general rules. It never violates the text of Hold Person. It never violates the text of Mirror Image. That is my standard. If you can give me any alternative explanation that does the same, I will accept it. If you can show that mine fails on any of those counts, I will withdraw it.


If the images are targetable, why have the randomized effect with the attack?

Think about the conversation between player and DM and how it would go. Remember that the character has no possible way to distinguish between a duplicate and the real target. See above if you are still confused.


Why do saving throw spells have to decide which image to target while attacks have to roll the dice?

I know you didn't mean this so I am just saying for any nitpickers out there: Saving throw spells do not target anything, ever. In all cases, the player must identify a target. The problem comes up because the duplicates appear identical. There is literally nothing a player can say that will allow his character to do anything except randomly choose one. If the player says, "I target the real Joe," then the DM thinks to himself, "the character can't tell which is Joe, so that won't work," and no target is chosen. We're still trying to complete step (1) choose a target. If the player says, "I target one of the duplicates," then the DM thinks to himself, "the character can't tell which are duplicates, so that won't work," and no target chosen. We're still trying to complete step (1) choose a target. The end result is the same in either case, and more importantly, there is no possible alternative. There is no way for a player to verbally say anything to the DM that can empower his character to do anything but randomly target one "duplicate."


If targets for saving throws have to be chosen beforehand, that means the targeting of the image has to happen first and so attack-users should have to decide before possibly having the spell text kick in. If the attack-users don't have to do so, that means the Mirror Image spell assumes that the target of everything is the user, then it gets re-directed.

Targeting is a process. It ends when the target is unambiguously identified. It starts when the player declares his intention. In between there is some DM-player interaction to facilitate the process.

When a player declares the intent to attack Joe, targeting has begun, but it's not over. There is no unambiguously identifiable target. Try as he may, the player cannot ultimately distinguish a target, and is prevented from meaningfully choosing one. Yet he has to. So, Mirror Image interrupts to determine a target unambiguously.

Similarly, when a player declares the intent to cast Mirror Image on Joe, targeting has begun, but it's not over. There is no unambiguously identifiable target. Mirror Image does not interrupt to determine a target unambiguously, because it only does so for attacks. Targeting is still not over. There is still no unambiguously identifiable target.


So I suppose that's the challenge for you. How do you resolve that inconsistency so your model works?

I have done my best to illustrate how above.


I was comparing your method to Scalia's. I don't mean to be political though - this argument just reminded me of King v. Burrell.

I'm sorry, both references are lost on me.


This is a great aspirational statement, but it doesn't have much to do with what we do with ambiguous texts. We can't just say "WRITE CLEAR TEXTS," can we? And if we did, they'd probably respond "what do you mean?"

I'd refer them to Orwell's guidelines in Politics in the English Language.


Do you read much law?

Almost none.


Is Dissonant Whispers any different, assuming the caster keeps his eyes open?

I'm sorry. I've completely lost the context on this. I'll try to track it down and answer you.


As others have pointed out, this bears closer examination.

1. The trigger is "a creature targets you with an attack." There is no preliminary "try" step.

2. You have argued that the first paragraph requires a player to choose one of the Joes to target (when using a spell). I don't see how you avoid this step with attacks. If the player chooses an illusion, they haven't targeted Joe, and therefore never trigger the conditional step.

I think I have addressed this above in my answer to RickAllison. There I explained that I think targeting is a process and I gave my reasons for why. Essentially because it is literally impossible for the player to specify one of four identical targets, the spell description introduces a mechanic. This mechanic determines the target, and this marks the end of the targeting process that began when the player declared the intent to attack Joe.

If you can be bothered to read my responses to RickAllison and Zalabim, I discuss it there, too.

The following were directed at Segev, not me, but I weighed in:


No, of course not. He can see two real people, track their movements and distinguish between them. He's just not sure which one is Joe. Similarly, you could target either brother with an attack, without having to roll anything, because they are independent targets. In the case of Mirror Image, he knows that he's only seeing one person, and targets that person. (emphasis added)

I just want to clarify the bold. He knows there is one person there, but he is not seeing one person. He is seeing four people. He cannot target "the one" because he doesn't know which of the four is "the one." There is no way for the player to say or do anything that will change this situation from the character's perspective. So the designers provided a mechanic.

As far as seeing "real people," this has no relevance. Despite Hero's knowledge that there is only one person before him, what he sees is exactly the same as four people in front of him. The character has no means to distinguish between a real person or an illusion (this is clearly and unambiguously stated in the spell text) despite being fully aware that three must be illusions. So there is absolutely no way for the character to knowingly target a specific one of the four "duplicates." Hence the mechanic.


This is an argument for someone other than me. I think you can attempt to cast a spell at a non-valid target. I also think that the Mirror Images are not independently targetable outside of the attack mechanic discussed in the spell.

Then you have work to do. The images are targetable. The text quite literally says so, and provides mechanics for them. It demonstrates that they occupy space, can be struck, and can behave independently of each other and the attacker (be destroyed without affecting the others). Also, while the tex specifically demonstrates that the duplicates are targetable by attacks, and this does not necessarily imply that they are targetable by save-spells, you have some work to do to show that there is a reason why "being targetable" is not a general property. Here I don't mean in the sense that type can make you not targetable. Here I mean targetable in the sense that you occupy space and can be "pointed out" or "selected" (or "clicked," as Segev would say).


In the case of Mirror Image, he doesn't need to know. The Images are images of Joe. It's all Joe.

This is directly contradicted through the behaviour of Joe and his duplicates, as described in the text. If it were all Joe, then hitting Joe would also hit the duplicates. When a duplicate is destroyed, Joe would be destroyed. But they're not the same. They are differentiated by their ability to behave differently in response to particular stimuli.


My point is that those scenarios clearly are not analogous, because Mirror Image says what it does - it interferes with attacks. That's my first step.

Yes, it interferes specifically with attacks. Even more specifically, in the chain of events that comprise an attack (PHB 194), it interferes specifically in step (1) choose a target. It intervenes because this step is more-or-less impossible without a mechanic.


1. If the designers meant it to also interfere with targeted spells, why did they provide a specific mechanics for attacks, but not spells?

I don't know the answer to this. My best guesses are that (1) there are specific interactions that I haven't yet considered, or that (2) some of the technical-jargon decisions (i.e. what is an attack?) were not in place when particular parts of the text were written and then were later missed in editing, after those decisions were made. (3) Maybe the person who wrote the spell meant it the other way (Crawford's SA supports this theory), but if so he didn't write what he meant.


2. If you have to pick a target as a first step, wouldn't you have to do that prior to "each time a creature targets you with an attack?"

The creature does have to (PHB 194).


3. Does a caster have any problem targetting a Displacer Beast with Hold Monster?

I would rule that the caster cannot target the displacer beast with hold monster. The stat block says "The displacer beast projects a magical illusion that makes it appear to be standing near its actual location, causing attack rolls against it to have disadvantage" (MM 81). I interpret this to mean that the displacer beast is in a different location, and not visible. The hold monster text says "Choose a creature that you can see within range." (PHB 251)

But, it's worth noting that if a character encounters a displacer beast for the first time, and hasn't had time to see anyone interact with it, it would be a fair assumption that the character assumes that the illusion he sees is the displacer beast. Thus, when the player declares "I cast hold monster on that thing," he has declared the illusion as the target of hold monster. At this point DMs vary in how they treat this. And rightly so, since there's no RAW.


4. Maybe you don't care, but did you notice that Crawford supports my interpretation?

This may sound d**kish, but it's only meant as clarification. Crawford doesn;t necessarily support your interpretation. He comes to the same conclusion.

(I know that he said "because it's not an attack," and you say this as well. But your interpretation includes more than just this, and we don't know what Crawford thinks of those parts.)


Yes. The act of targeting the caster with an attack triggers the redirect effect on mirror image. If you allow the attacker to go straight to targeting the caster without picking between the images first (which is what going straight to rolling a d20 to determine off-target does), you have to give targeting the spell the same capability to be consistent.

Some people seem to think that the player successfully targets the real Joe, and then the spell Mirror Image redirects the attack. I deny this.

Targeting is a process. When the player declares the intention to target Joe with an attack, it is up to the player to declare the target. Targeting is not complete, however, until an unambiguous target is determined. This task is impossible for the player to complete, because the character cannot distinguish between the real Joe and the duplicates. So no amount of communication can ever resolve a target. Thus, the Mirror Image text intervenes and randomly determines which individual is targeted. At this point, the targeting process is complete, and we move to (determining modifiers and) resolution.


And then you roll the die as Mirror Image instructs. That is also your view, by the way.

Wow. Nice one. No, it isn't. See above for clarification.


Even though you disagree about...(my comment about spell targeting)...for some reason. I see no justification for treating them differently.

Nor do I.


Definitely just an interpretation. I haven't found anything pointing to a RAW response to the situation. Which isn't really surprising, considering the situation is really "what do you do when a player breaks the rules?" The answer is going to depend on so many factors there's really no possible RAW answer the book can provide.

It's not really breaking the rules if there is no rule to break. In my opinion there is nothing in the RAW that says that it is impossible to cast a spell at an invalid target. This is an interpretation that is at best equal to: casting a spell an invalid target results in the loss of the spell (for example).


Clearly not. However, if you are hanging your hat on the claim that casting hold person is not an attack, then that removes the RAW definition of how to determine whether the target selected is Joe or an image of Joe.

It does not, however, remove the requirement that Bob select a target.

This is very well-said. This has been one of the crucial elements of my arguments but I had failed to express it so clearly. Nice one.


Mirror image cannot work differently than those situations, because the spell doesn't say that it does work differently than those situations. Mirror image specifies that it creates duplicates which are expressly indistinguishable from the real caster. It provides a specific mechanic for resolving whether "an attack" targets the real caster or an image. It provides no specific mechanics for resolving whether effects which are not attacks do so. Therefore, it is left to the DM to come up with a means. All we have, for non-attack effects, is that there are now 4 identical, indistinguishable Joes standing there, doing the same things. Any effect which requires a target must have the target specified. There are 4 potential targets there. You can't say "all of them" unless you can actually target all of them. It won't pick the right one.

And this brings it home. Thanks for your clarity. It has inspired me to re-phrase some of my arguments in ways that I hope will make them more clear (but probably not).

[RickAllison]

I'm not going to bother with deleting text walls to get the appropriate points, but I contend with your interpretation that targeting is a process. The only text I can find in the books illustrates that targeting is a discrete step where you simply pick one or more targets.

Further, the text of Mirror Image does not kick in on a trigger of attempting to target the user, or going to target the user, but on actually being targeted. The targeting step has to be resolved before the applicable text comes into play. What this means is that if anything requires enemies to target the correct image of the target, the exact same process will have to occur to resolve the targeting so that the relevant Mirror Image text comes into play.

Basically, the text on retargeting with Mirror Image cannot occur until the caster is actually targeted. According to your interpretation, he can't be targeted until he picks one of the four images just as spells have to pick the correct target. And thus if he picks an incorrect target, the text will not come into play because the user was not targeted in the first place.

[georgie_leech]

I'm not going to bother with deleting text walls to get the appropriate points, but I contend with your interpretation that targeting is a process. The only text I can find in the books illustrates that targeting is a discrete step where you simply pick one or more targets.

Further, the text of Mirror Image does not kick in on a trigger of attempting to target the user, or going to target the user, but on actually being targeted. The targeting step has to be resolved before the applicable text comes into play. What this means is that if anything requires enemies to target the correct image of the target, the exact same process will have to occur to resolve the targeting so that the relevant Mirror Image text comes into play.

Basically, the text on retargeting with Mirror Image cannot occur until the caster is actually targeted. According to your interpretation, he can't be targeted until he picks one of the four images just as spells have to pick the correct target. And thus if he picks an incorrect target, the text will not come into play because the user was not targeted in the first place.

This. The construction of the spell is in the form of 'when targeted, do [rest of the spell description].' It's not 'to target with attacks, [spell description].

[BurgerBeast]

I'm not going to bother with deleting text walls to get the appropriate points, but I contend with your interpretation that targeting is a process. The only text I can find in the books illustrates that targeting is a discrete step where you simply pick one or more targets.

Okay, my argument doesn't hinge on targeting being a process. What matters is that an unambiguous target has to be chosen. Do you agree with this? My reasons follow.

You can't just say to the DM, "I attack," unless it is clear to the DM what you're attacking. You can't say "I attack the wizard" if the DM understands there to be seven wizards. If you say "I attack one of the goblins," then the DM is within his rights to either pick one (if he thinks you don't care which one you attack) or ask you to specify which one. But the DM doesn't skip to step (3) until he has an answer to step (1).

In short: The DM can't proceed past step (1) until a target is unambiguously identified.


Further, the text of Mirror Image does not kick in on a trigger of attempting to target the user, or going to target the user, but on actually being targeted. The targeting step has to be resolved before the applicable text comes into play. (emphasis added)

Then the text will never come into play. It's literally impossible. Game frozen.

If a player says "I want to attack Joe," even though he has not met the requirement for selecting a target (in this, an ambiguous, case), he has made it clear to the DM what he wants to do. The DM still needs a specific target before he can move on. But it's not possible for the player to be more specific than "I want to attack the real Joe."

I suggest that the DM can treat the statement "I want to attack the real Joe" as a statement of intent on the part of the player to target the real Joe, and can then, knowing that neither he nor the player are capable of specifying the exact target, justifiably consult the MI text.

If it is indeed a requirement for the target to be selected before you can proceed, then the game freezes. It is impossible for anyone to specify a target.


What this means is that if anything requires enemies to target the correct image of the target, the exact same process will have to occur to resolve the targeting so that the relevant Mirror Image text comes into play.

Yes. Because the exact same problem will arise. By my (process) thinking, targeting has begun but isn't complete. By your thinking (discrete), targeting hasn't happened.


Basically, the text on retargeting with Mirror Image cannot occur until the caster is actually targeted.

So the game freezes.

By my interpretation, the "targeting" has started, but isn't finished, and the DM is justified in using the text.

It would seem to me that, by your interpretation, targeting is a discrete event and it hasn't occurred yet, therefore... we're stuck. The game freezes. The game will not continue until the player specifies a target, but it is impossible for the player to specify beyond "I attack one of the four identical things" because there is literally no means to do so.


According to your interpretation, he can't be targeted until he picks one of the four images just as spells have to pick the correct target.

No. This is not my interpretation.

This is my interpretation: It is the responsibility of the player to unambiguously identify a target. This happens in any case where an action requires a target, because the action cannot be resolved without a target. One role of a DM is to facilitate the game, so it is reasonable for a DM to interpret the declarations of a player, or to ask for clarification, in order to determine a target, to satisfy the rules requiement.


And thus if he picks an incorrect target, the text will not come into play because the user was not targeted in the first place.

It is literally impossible for him to pick the incorrect target, for the same reasons that it is impossible for him to pick the correct target, for the same reasons that it is impossible for him to pick any one of the four.


This. The construction of the spell is in the form of 'when targeted, do [rest of the spell description].' It's not 'to target with attacks, [spell description].

So the game freezes. It is literally impossible to proceed.

Or, see my description of what "targeted" means.

[georgie_leech]

The text comes into play just fine. 'I attack Joe.' 'Which one?' 'That one, decided at random.' 'Great, that's the real Joe! He roles to see if you actually end up attacking one of the duplicates. Too bad, turns out you do.' This isn't how I run the spell, this is the natural outcome of saying that you need to select a target from among the duplicates. If we're looking at the spell with RAW goggles, and the duplicates are both targetable and ambiguous enough that you can 'miss' with targeted spells, nothing in the spell says to use a different mechanic for targeting with attacks. It provides instead a means for the caster to deflect attacks onto the duplicates. In other words, there isn't in fact a 'half-targeted' point where the next paragraph kicks in.

Or, the way you regard 'intent' in the targeting of attacks applies to spells because it's not a different procedure than selecting the target of an attack. You're casting Hold Person at Joe, the spell doesn't affect non-attack spells in any way, so it gets through just fine. You're holding a double standard between targeting attacks, where intent matters, and targeting spells, where it doesn't, for no RAW reason. Play it that way when you're DMing all you want, that doesn't change whether that's how the spell works by default.

[RickAllison]

Okay, my argument doesn't hinge on targeting being a process. What matters is that an unambiguous target has to be chosen. Do you agree with this? My reasons follow.

You can't just say to the DM, "I attack," unless it is clear to the DM what you're attacking. You can't say "I attack the wizard" if the DM understands there to be seven wizards. If you say "I attack one of the goblins," then the DM is within his rights to either pick one (if he thinks you don't care which one you attack) or ask you to specify which one. But the DM doesn't skip to step (3) until he has an answer to step (1).

In short: The DM can't proceed past step (1) until a target is unambiguously identified.



Then the text will never come into play. It's literally impossible. Game frozen.

If a player says "I want to attack Joe," even though he has not met the requirement for selecting a target (in this, an ambiguous, case), he has made it clear to the DM what he wants to do. The DM still needs a specific target before he can move on. But it's not possible for the player to be more specific than "I want to attack the real Joe."

I suggest that the DM can treat the statement "I want to attack the real Joe" as a statement of intent on the part of the player to target the real Joe, and can then, knowing that neither he nor the player are capable of specifying the exact target, justifiably consult the MI text.

If it is indeed a requirement for the target to be selected before you can proceed, then the game freezes. It is impossible for anyone to specify a target.



Yes. Because the exact same problem will arise. By my (process) thinking, targeting has begun but isn't complete. By your thinking (discrete), targeting hasn't happened.



So the game freezes.

By my interpretation, the "targeting" has started, but isn't finished, and the DM is justified in using the text.

It would seem to me that, by your interpretation, targeting is a discrete event and it hasn't occurred yet, therefore... we're stuck. The game freezes. The game will not continue until the player specifies a target, but it is impossible for the player to specify beyond "I attack one of the four identical things" because there is literally no means to do so.



No. This is not my interpretation.

This is my interpretation: It is the responsibility of the player to unambiguously identify a target. This happens in any case where an action requires a target, because the action cannot be resolved without a target. One role of a DM is to facilitate the game, so it is reasonable for a DM to interpret the declarations of a player, or to ask for clarification, in order to determine a target, to satisfy the rules requiement.



It is literally impossible for him to pick the incorrect target, for the same reasons that it is impossible for him to pick the correct target, for the same reasons that it is impossible for him to pick any one of the four.



So the game freezes. It is literally impossible to proceed.

Or, see my description of what "targeted" means.

If that's the case, the answer is simple: your model is faulty. Since trying to make your model consistent with the rules causes the game to freeze and fail, the only logical conclusion is that the model is flawed and should be discarded. A functional model doesn't break when put into position.

[RickAllison]

So after looking through the various arguments, there appear to be two that can both be seen as valid interpretations consistent with RAW:

1) The RAI, that the three duplicates are not discrete, targetable entities but part and parcel with the caster. The spell does what it says in the rest of the paragraphs with retargeting attacks on the caster. Short and sweet, a nice bonus and consistent with the power level you would expect from a level 2, non-concentration spell with no real counters other than Dispel Magic and avoiding seeing it.

2) That the duplicates are discrete and targetable entities otherwise consistent with the rest of the paragraphs of Mirror Image. To target the correct image, the DM decides some way to select a target (probably a d4). If it is an image, non-attacks do nothing while successful attacks will cause it to disappear. If it isn't the image, attacks trigger the d20 effect of Mirror Image, possibly shifting it back onto a duplicate, and non-attacks will simply affect the caster. This is significantly more powerful than the cost of this spell would insinuate, but it does seem consistent with all rules of targeting in the book.

Both of these are consistent with other rules, only differing on the assumption whether the duplicates are meant to be independently targetable or not. At that point, the decision comes down to how much the DM values RAI, ease of use, and balance. If he doesn't care about those, the second model fits the rule set.

[BurgerBeast]

The text comes into play just fine. 'I attack Joe.' 'Which one?' 'That one, decided at random.'

I think I see what you mean. So, in this example there might be four minis on the table, and he says: "that one."

There is a lot of discussion to be had around this, but for the sake of clarity I will try to give the shortest, sweetest answer I can.

The rules don't require miniatures or drawings or the like. In a game without visual aids, this cannot happen. So it's not impossible to unambiguously identify a target. It's impossible to unambiguously identify a target without a mechanic. See? I can admit when I am wrong.

If a DM chooses to use miniatures, this doesn't mean he has to put three identical minis down on the table when mirror image is cast. He can just say "this guy is under the effects of mirror image." In this case, there is no unambiguous way to identify a target.

If a DM does choose to use miniatures and he puts four miniatures on the table, he is providing a mechanic by which players can unambiguously select a target. The question now is: does this present the double-defense dilemma? At first glance, it appears to, but actually it doesn't. Bear with me.

By my interpretation: "targeting begins when the player declares the intent to attack either the real Joe or a duplicate of Joe" (I am not being disingenuous and making this up right now - you can see my previous posts). Using my interpretation of what it means to target, targeting is happening now. This triggers the DM to stop the action and move to the MI text. So double-defense never happens.

By your interpretation (I am trying to represent your interpretation fairly, so forgive any errors and feel free to correct them): If the player identifies the real Joe, then the player has "targeted the real Joe with an attack and this then triggers the d20 mechanic to see if the target is "redirected." Cool. One-defence. But what if Joe unambiguously identifies a duplicate? Well, according to your reading, the condition "Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration" is not met! Joe was not targeted! Only the image was. By the same logic that says MI only applies to attacks and nothing else... it must be true that MI only applies to attacks against you and nothing else! So, by your understanding of RAW, it is impossible to target a duplicate! So only one-defence.

This is great! Both methods work.


'Great, that's the real Joe! He roles to see if you actually end up attacking one of the duplicates. Too bad, turns out you do.' This isn't how I run the spell, this is the natural outcome of saying that you need to select a target from among the duplicates.

Yes, but this is applying the definition of "target" in a different way. I want to thank you for this comment, because the thinking I have done here has made it much clearer to me how you and others rationalize the rules. I am going to think about this for a while, because you have made it clear that I might be wrong. I have some serious cognitive dissonance to overcome, though, so it might take some time. Sincerely, thanks. (If you're reading this, RickAllison, the thanks is for you, too. It's combining this with your comments which has brought this to light.)


If we're looking at the spell with RAW goggles, and the duplicates are both targetable and ambiguous enough that you can 'miss' with targeted spells...

This is going to be annoyingly nitpick, but: strictly speaking the targets are not ambiguous. They are distinct and identifiable. But there is no way for the payer to unambiguously identify one of them. I know that's weird, but it's true and it's important, and I can't think of a better way to say it.

The reason that targeted spells can miss is twofold: (1) they can be aimed at the wrong target (incorrect selection) and (2) they can be inaccurate (attack roll fails).


...nothing in the spell says to use a different mechanic for targeting with attacks.

I'l be thinking about this one. It makes sense. My explanation still makes sense to me, but if yours is more elegant and requires less "toying" with definitions of terms, then yours is better.


It provides instead a means for the caster to deflect attacks onto the duplicates. In other words, there isn't in fact a 'half-targeted' point where the next paragraph kicks in.

Yep, I get what you're saying. I need some time to digest it.


Or, the way you regard 'intent' in the targeting of attacks applies to spells because it's not a different procedure than selecting the target of an attack. You're casting Hold Person at Joe, the spell doesn't affect non-attack spells in any way, so it gets through just fine.

No, the way I regard it, the DM has to resolve targeting somehow. If you had there minis out, the caster would pick one and it would resolve on the basis of whether it was the real Joe or a duplicate. The attacker would be interrupted upon declaring intent to attack either Joe or the duplicate, because in my view declaring intent has started the process and the DM interrupts it with the the spell mechanics. So, this doesn't prevent my interpretation from working.


You're holding a double standard between targeting attacks, where intent matters, and targeting spells, where it doesn't, for no RAW reason. Play it that way when you're DMing all you want, that doesn't change whether that's how the spell works by default.

No. Intent matters in both cases, but MI only interrupts the intent to attack (either the target a duplicate - because the character has no ability to distinguish), by RAW. As I said, I'll be thinking about this more. I think your way might make more sense, but I'm not sure yet.

[BurgerBeast]

If that's the case, the answer is simple: your model is faulty. Since trying to make your model consistent with the rules causes the game to freeze and fail, the only logical conclusion is that the model is flawed and should be discarded. A functional model doesn't break when put into position.

I was trying to make your model consistent with the rules. Which is why your model appears to be flawed.

Having said that, take this in the context of my other comments. I'll be doing some thinking.


So after looking through the various arguments, there appear to be two that can both be seen as valid interpretations consistent with RAW:

1) The RAI, that the three duplicates are not discrete, targetable entities but part and parcel with the caster. The spell does what it says in the rest of the paragraphs with retargeting attacks on the caster. Short and sweet, a nice bonus and consistent with the power level you would expect from a level 2, non-concentration spell with no real counters other than Dispel Magic and avoiding seeing it.

It is false to assert this without more evidence. You can assert that RAI supports your conclusion, but not your particular, individual interpretations. For example, you can;t say that RAI supports the claim that "the three duplicates are not discrete, targetable entities but part and parcel with the caster."

Further, the idea that the "the three duplicates are not discrete, targetable entities but part and parcel with the caster" is refuted in the text of Mirror Image.


2) That the duplicates are discrete and targetable entities otherwise consistent with the rest of the paragraphs of Mirror Image. To target the correct image, the DM decides some way to select a target (probably a d4). If it is an image, non-attacks do nothing while successful attacks will cause it to disappear. If it isn't the image, attacks trigger the d20 effect of Mirror Image, possibly shifting it back onto a duplicate, and non-attacks will simply affect the caster. This is significantly more powerful than the cost of this spell would insinuate, but it does seem consistent with all rules of targeting in the book.

I assert that "That the duplicates are discrete and targetable entities" is consistent with the text of Mirror Image. So it's not "otherwise consistent with the rest of the paragraphs of Mirror Image." It's just consistent with all of the paragraphs of Mirror Image.

Perhaps you think that "the duplicates are discrete and targetable entities" conflicts with the "Matrix model" or the idea that "the duplicates can overlap and move through each other." It isn't, and I have never claimed that it is. I have never refuted the "Matrix model." I have only refuted using the Matrix model to override the discrete property of the duplicates. (Maybe you thought I meant visually discrete as opposed to simply discrete. In other words two things can be discrete despite appearing to be continuous, as in the case of two overlapping illusions.)


Both of these are consistent with other rules, only differing on the assumption whether the duplicates are meant to be independently targetable or not. At that point, the decision comes down to how much the DM values RAI, ease of use, and balance. If he doesn't care about those, the second model fits the rule set.

No, they are not.

Basically, I have been (1) defending that my view is consistent with the rules and (2) arguing that the view of some others is not.

As it stands, I am reviewing my stance to determine if my view is consistent, in light of the definition of "targeting" and the double-defence-dilemma.

To my view, your (RickAllison's, and some others, but not Zalabim, for example) position is still in violation of RAW. This is most obviously, but not exclusively, because the spell description seems to me to imply that the duplicates are discrete, and you are using the fluff to defend ignoring this aspect of the text. I do not claim to be right - this is just how I understand it.

[Segev]

Sure, and it's a good strong hat-hook, since Hold Person is not an attack. I agree. You'll note that my point doesn't hinge on hold person being an attack. If it did, I'd be saying you were required to use the d20 resolution mechanic to determine if you hit an image or the real Joe.




I suppose I should go through your scenarios one at a time. Okay.



This one is a bit confusing. If Bob is blinded, he can't see Joe and therefore can't cast Hold Person. If Joe is successfully hiding from him in a crowd, he can't see Joe, and can't target him. Mirror Image does not prevent Bob from seeing Joe, so these are not similar. Fair; this one I acknowledge fails because "can't see Joe" negates hold person before we even get to target selection.




No, of course not. He can see two real people, track their movements and distinguish between them. He's just not sure which one is Joe. Similarly, you could target either brother with an attack, without having to roll anything, because they are independent targets. In the case of Mirror Image, he knows that he's only seeing one person, and targets that person. Uh-uh. It doesn't matter that he "knows" there's only one of the 4 images that are real. There are still 4 targets. Just as he could say "I target the one on the left!" if it's John and Joe, he can say "I target the one furthest to my left!" if it's Joe and his 3 illusory duplicates. He may not be able, one bonus action later, to even be sure that the "one furthest to [his] left" is still the same one, but he can, at any point in time, point to 4 distinct "Joe"s and pick one of them. And he has to for anything that calls for a particular target.




Note that this is not something you could do with Mirror Image and an attack. They are different. (For clarity, this came in response to John pinning Joe on the ground, and questioning whether Bob, believing the one on top to be Joe, could say "I target Joe" and have the spell correctly target the pinned one instead, despite Bob's incorrect belief about which one is Joe.)

I'm not sure I follow your "note" here, though. I will give it a go, but apologize if I am misreading you. No, you couldn't have your illusion pin you to the ground. And don't know what the point of introducing an attack here, is, though, since we're explicitly discussing non-"attack" actions which require a target.

If you're nitpicking over John and Joe not mimicking each other perfectly, fine. John and Joe are standing next to each other, and, being twins, instinctively react identically enough that it's spooky. And since both are claiming to be John, and Bob (incorrectly) thinks the one on the left is John, does Bob get to say, "I cast hold person on Joe" and have the spell (correctly) freeze the one on the left, even though Bob was CONVINCED Joe was the one on the right?




This is an argument for someone other than me. I think you can attempt to cast a spell at a non-valid target. I also think that the Mirror Images are not independently targetable outside of the attack mechanic discussed in the spell. You're incorrect, then, unless you think this is a rule about all illusions. In which case any spell which selects a target can infallibly let you identify illusions without costing you a thing, since your very attempt to use it on them results in you knowing you can't without spending an action or losing the spell slot.




In the case of Mirror Image, he doesn't need to know. The Images are images of Joe. It's all Joe.The images are distinctly not Joe. They are images of Joe which are indistinguishable from him. You have to hit them with an attack to dismiss them, one by one.



My point is that those scenarios clearly are not analogous, because Mirror Image says what it does - it interferes with attacks. That's my first step. It also does what it says it does: it creates 3 illusory duplicates of the caster which are explicitly indistinguishable and cannot be tracked moment to moment to be sure the one you pointed at a moment ago is the same one you're pointing at now.

There is no question that these are the RAW.

The consequence of this is that there are 4 distinct possible targets if you want to do something to the caster.

It provides a specific resolution mechanic to determine if you guess right when you attack the caster. It provides no such resolution mechanic if you use something other than an attack, but it doesn't remove the need to specify a target.

Any declaration that you can target the real caster just because you want to means that you can also do this with any other case of mistaken, hidden, or unknown identity.


1. If the designers meant it to also interfere with targeted spells, why did they provide a specific mechanics for attacks, but not spells? If the designers meant for it to be ineffective against spells, why didn't they say it provides no protection against anything that is not an attack?

5e is not the tightest-written system, and I wouldn't be surprised if the writer of that spell thought "casting a spell at him is an attack" despite there being a definition of "attack" elsewhere which says otherwise. Nothing in the writing of the spell implies that it is expressly meant to be ineffective against single-target spells; if you are going to hang your hat on the game-term definition of "attack" to exclude spells from the d20 roll, then you can't turn around and ignore the other effects of the spell which are also spelled out by a pedantic reading of the RAW. Namely, that there are, in fact, 3 indistinguishable images of the caster, and that the RAW do require that you actually specify your spells' targets.


2. If you have to pick a target as a first step, wouldn't you have to do that prior to "each time a creature targets you with an attack?"Specific trumps general. This specific mechanic for resolving attacks is an exception to the general rule already. This would just be part of that exception.


3. Does a caster have any problem targetting a Displacer Beast with Hold Monster?Arguably, the caster can't see the displacer beast; he sees an image of it. This is probably its own long discussion. But assuming he counts as being able to see it, he still can unambiguously target "that displacer beast." He might actually be pointing to its right or left or something, but he has an unambiguous target in mind.

This fails to be analogous to a mirror image cast by Joe, because they're not him. They're images of him. The displacer beast is itself; it just appears to be in a different square than it really is.


4. Maybe you don't care, but did you notice that Crawford supports my interpretation?I really don't care. Crawford has proven to be inconsistent in interpreting the rules to the point where he essentially rewrites them with every answer. IT is impossible to extrapolate from what he says something should be, because he seems to simply pull a ruling out of his hat. Since that makes him even less useful for determining how to expect a given rule to be resolved than a DM for a home game, I will treat his rulings as I would any DM's: useful if I'm playing under him as a DM. And a frustrating one, too, because I literally can't be sure that any rule I read does what it seems to say it does, since he won't rule consistently and will inject new, hidden rules seemingly at random.


If that's the case, the answer is simple: your model is faulty. Since trying to make your model consistent with the rules causes the game to freeze and fail, the only logical conclusion is that the model is flawed and should be discarded. A functional model doesn't break when put into position.Nonsense. The model is quite consistent. It's not hard to come up with a means of determining whether you've targeted the right "Joe" with your hold person. In fact, you are free to use the mechanic provided for attacks. Though I'd suggest instead using a ball-and-cup game if you can set one up easily; it's more fun and feels more like what's going on. (I would, in fact, house rule mirror image to work that way for attacks, too, but that's not the RAW.)

The models where you can ignore the fact that there are 4 targets to choose from and just get "the right one" are what cause the game to break down into weird scenarios, if applied consistently. Not that applying rules consistently is required, but if you aren't going to, it swiftly becomes a frustrating guessing game of how you're going to apply the rules for any particular instance, and makes players have to constantly stop to ask, "wait, CAN I actually do what the rules seem to say I can, based on your ruling in this similar situation, or are you changing your mind entirely for this situation?"



I am disappointed nobody's answered my silliest but most troublesome scenario, which is the reduction ad absurdum of this "you can target Joe by simply targeting Joe, even though you don't know which of 4 options is really Joe" ruling:

Closed-room murder mystery. Bob gathers the suspects together in a room, and has them sit down. He then casts hold person, specifying as his target "the real murderer." Since he knows no more which of the suspects is the real murderer than he knows which of the mirror images is the real Joe, if he can cast hold person on "Joe" without having to choose which "Joe" to target, he can also cast hold person on "the real murderer" without knowing which suspect to target.

Bob then asks all the innocent suspects to stand, and has the one that remains seated arrested.

[georgie_leech]

Under the idea that it's impossible to determine which image is real Segev, say an attack manages to get through to Joe and John manages to grapple Joe. Would an attack from Jane be able to bypass the usual redirection mechanic, since John clearly could only be grappling the real Joe and she can just target that one? This isn't me refuting your position, just trying to get a better understanding of it.

[Vogonjeltz]

So how, RAW, does the caster declare a target to the DM?

Well, if Magic Missile autohits the target because it doesn't get fooled by illusions, then I'd posit Hold Person doesn't even see the duplicates because they aren't really creatures.

If they weren't illusions, then yes.

In any case, I think it would be a good idea to clarify with Crawford (for future errata purposes) whether spells like:

1) Acid Splash (saving throw for damage, targets a specific creature)
2) Fireball (saving throw damage, targets a location)
3) Hold Person (saving throw for status effect, targets a specific creature)
4) or Color Spray (aoe non-targeted for a status effect)

also count as attacks. Yes, they're hostile, and they deal damage in some cases, but do they count as attacks? The text on whether something counts as an attack only provides the fairly open ended statement that, if there's an attack roll it's an attack, but that doesn't close the door on if something is an attack without an attack roll.

Indeed, grapples and shoves are called out as being special melee attacks in their respective entries.


It does not, however, remove the requirement that Bob select a target.

I think this is covered by the Crawford entry on Magic Missile. The character casting Hold Person or Magic Missile or even using a weapon attack just selects Bob, they don't pick between Bob 1, 2, 3, and 4. Magic Missile not requiring an attack roll simply bypasses the images entirely.

It makes me wonder if grapple and shove wouldn't also bypass the images entirely (since neither of those cares about AC) despite being attacks. Would they just automatically hit, destroying an image or would the image be unharmed?


Quote: It is and it has been discussed. If images can't be targeted, then a big part of the function of illusions is potentially lost. (If you can't use an illusion to trick someone into targeting the illusion with a spell, then this imposes a potentially unintended limit on the function of illusions. Additionally it may grant a new function to spells.)

I think the inability to target an illusion is fairly unique to this case; The attacker is targeting the character, not one of several characters only one of which is real.

If there were only one illusion from say, a programmed illusion, I'd certainly expect characters to be able to target it, but the charade would be revealed quite quickly.

[RickAllison]

I was trying to make your model consistent with the rules. Which is why your model appears to be flawed.

Having said that, take this in the context of my other comments. I'll be doing some thinking.

The only possible inconsistency with my model is if one considers that the duplicates have to be independently targetable. Since that is the only question up in the air, any models have to be inconsistent. Instead, I have endeavored to address that independently of the question so we can look at the outcomes of the question and decide form there.

Note that in my two prospective models, I have chosen not to introduce any fluff and instead just focused on whether the game treats the images as target-able entities or not. No explanations of Matrix, blur, bending vision, nothing. Those models only care about whether the images can be targeted on their own.


It is false to assert this without more evidence. You can assert that RAI supports your conclusion, but not your particular, individual interpretations. For example, you can;t say that RAI supports the claim that "the three duplicates are not discrete, targetable entities but part and parcel with the caster."

Further, the idea that the "the three duplicates are not discrete, targetable entities but part and parcel with the caster" is refuted in the text of Mirror Image.

No, I can actually very clearly state that my model is consistent with RAI because the official RAI states that anything that bypasses the attack mechanic bypasses Mirror Image completely. Claiming RAI is not only possible, but very much true.

And please, show where in the Mirror Image text it states that they are independently targetable. From what I see in the text, all it says is that there are three duplicates that remain in the user's space, move with the user, mimic the user's actions, and shift positions so it's impossible to keep track of the real image. Shifting positions is ambiguous, but the actual definition of shifting would seem to indicate it as movement rather than teleportation (especially since the actual user can't teleport, so it would become obvious rather quickly. Shell games can be tracked by a quick eye, so such an interpretation would likely include a check that would allow bypassing it. If the duplicates pass through the user so they all come together, then we have one model that fits both the criteria of the spell and is consistent with the simulationist view of how to ensure the user can't be tracked among them. The best we can tell from this is that the targetable nature of the duplicates is ambiguous, but the text definitely doesn't refute the concept of not being targetable. To claim that it does so without any proof is dishonest.


I assert that "That the duplicates are discrete and targetable entities" is consistent with the text of Mirror Image. So it's not "otherwise consistent with the rest of the paragraphs of Mirror Image." It's just consistent with all of the paragraphs of Mirror Image.

Once again, this is the only part of the text that is called into question. We know you think it is this way. The developers and what seems like all but Segev and maybe one other poster (Tanarii? I don't remember) disagree. Thus I used the hypothetical situations so that doesn't matter because they only differ in that question.


Perhaps you think that "the duplicates are discrete and targetable entities" conflicts with the "Matrix model" or the idea that "the duplicates can overlap and move through each other." It isn't, and I have never claimed that it is. I have never refuted the "Matrix model." I have only refuted using the Matrix model to override the discrete property of the duplicates. (Maybe you thought I meant visually discrete as opposed to simply discrete. In other words two things can be discrete despite appearing to be continuous, as in the case of two overlapping illusions.)

Only a few people have given credence to the idea that the duplicates are necessarily discrete, so that isn't a given. Rather the evidence is against it. I am humoring you by giving your interpretation the benefit of the doubt and seeing where that goes. Also, I never claimed to be using the Matrix for that model. I didn't use any fluff with that model. All I did was evaluate them according to whether mechanically the duplicates could be targeted independently of the user.


No, they are not.

Basically, I have been (1) defending that my view is consistent with the rules and (2) arguing that the view of some others is not.

As it stands, I am reviewing my stance to determine if my view is consistent, in light of the definition of "targeting" and the double-defence-dilemma.

To my view, your (RickAllison's, and some others, but not Zalabim, for example) position is still in violation of RAW. This is most obviously, but not exclusively, because the spell description seems to me to imply that the duplicates are discrete, and you are using the fluff to defend ignoring this aspect of the text. I do not claim to be right - this is just how I understand it.

But you have failed to actually show that the RAI position is in violation of RAW. You have shown that it would be with your interpretation, but an interpretation isn't RAW. In fact, you have not actually addressed anything. All you have done is used circular logic to prove your point. When the validity of an interpretation is cast into doubt, proving it by saying that it is consistent with your interpretation says nothing. No one has disputed that there are duplicates, but the debate is whether they can be targeted. You claim they are, RAI claims they aren't.

[Segev]

Under the idea that it's impossible to determine which image is real Segev, say an attack manages to get through to Joe and John manages to grapple Joe. Would an attack from Jane be able to bypass the usual redirection mechanic, since John clearly could only be grappling the real Joe and she can just target that one? This isn't me refuting your position, just trying to get a better understanding of it.

Again, definitely a DM call, since the spell insists the images are "indistinguishable," but does not provide for John to gain his own mirror images when he (successfully) grapples Joe.

I think the two most consistent results would be the DM ruling that yes, Jane can target Joe by attacking the Joe that John is grappling, or that John now benefits from Joe's mirror image. In any event, both John and Joe, at least, should know which one is the real one, because they're grappling each other.

But again, it really, really is a DM's call. Especially in 5e, where "DM should make a ruling" is meant to far exceed "the RAW says this silly result happens."

[georgie_leech]

Again, definitely a DM call, since the spell insists the images are "indistinguishable," but does not provide for John to gain his own mirror images when he (successfully) grapples Joe.

I think the two most consistent results would be the DM ruling that yes, Jane can target Joe by attacking the Joe that John is grappling, or that John now benefits from Joe's mirror image. In any event, both John and Joe, at least, should know which one is the real one, because they're grappling each other.

But again, it really, really is a DM's call. Especially in 5e, where "DM should make a ruling" is meant to far exceed "the RAW says this silly result happens."

Oh I'd agree this is definitely an interaction that requires a ruling. Personally, I'd probably rule something like Disadvantage on the roll by the caster to see if if they redirect the attack, since being grappled would probably make it harder to take advantage of positions-confusing effects.

On a similar note, what happens of something visually distinguishes the caster? Say a Faerie Fire; do the images also get the coloured fire effect? If not, does it let an attacker bypass the the Mirror Images?

[Segev]

On a similar note, what happens of something visually distinguishes the caster? Say a Faerie Fire; do the images also get the coloured fire effect? If not, does it let an attacker bypass the the Mirror Images?

I don't recall if Faerie Fire lets you bypass illusions in general. If it doesn't have specific text that would pertain to mirror image, though, I'd expect the images to get the Faerie Fire, too.

IIRC, faerie fire just gives advantage on attacks against affected creatures and makes the invisible outlined visibly, though; if that's the case, it would give advantage, but you still have to pick the right target (via the d20 method, since you're almost certainly attacking if you're getting advantage on an attack roll!)

[georgie_leech]

I don't recall if Faerie Fire lets you bypass illusions in general. If it doesn't have specific text that would pertain to mirror image, though, I'd expect the images to get the Faerie Fire, too.

IIRC, faerie fire just gives advantage on attacks against affected creatures and makes the invisible outlined visibly, though; if that's the case, it would give advantage, but you still have to pick the right target (via the d20 method, since you're almost certainly attacking if you're getting advantage on an attack roll!)

If it matters, Faerie Fire is an Ecocation that outlines objects and 'Creatures that fail a Saving Throw' with light. So a Silent Image or similar wouldn't be affected by it, unless the illusion counts as an Object of some description.

I'd agree on the attack redirection. What about targetable spells though? Given the above, I mean.

[Segev]

If it matters, Faerie Fire is an Ecocation that outlines objects and 'Creatures that fail a Saving Throw' with light. So a Silent Image or similar wouldn't be affected by it, unless the illusion counts as an Object of some description.

I'd agree on the attack redirection. What about targetable spells though? Given the above, I mean.

That does help. While faerie fire won't limn illusions, there is nothing preventing illusions from including what appears to be faerie fire. Sure, a minor illusion or silent image can't normally add faerie fire after the fact, but mirror image copies the caster. If he gets cut and his shirt torn, so, too are the images now wearing shirts with bloody slashes in them. If he gets limned in faerie fire, so, too, are the images.

Given this, it's no easier to pick out the caster from the images than before.

[RickAllison]

If it matters, Faerie Fire is an Ecocation that outlines objects and 'Creatures that fail a Saving Throw' with light. So a Silent Image or similar wouldn't be affected by it, unless the illusion counts as an Object of some description.

I'd agree on the attack redirection. What about targetable spells though? Given the above, I mean.

Actually, Faerie Fire would ensure that duplicates such as BurgerBeast espouses would be totally negated. Even if they count as objects (which I don't think they do), they ignore all effects which would include Faerie Fire so the actual person would be highlighted. Spell still works fine with the official interpretation of the rules. So it fails on interaction with other spells, RAI, balance, what else?

That actually brings up a good question: Why would a DM use that BurgerBeast's interpretation of the rule? Presumably there must be a reason why he has felt so strongly about his interpretation to not only hijack one thread, but to create a misleading thread just so he could spin it into a second thread on the exact same discussion (which I think may actually be against forum rules...). So, what is it? How do your interpretation and houserules improve the game? Many DMs disregard the Rules as Intended because they think their own interpretation is better, so how does yours generate more fun at your table?

EDIT: Segev, nothing in Mirror Image indicates that they are able to create an effect. They are just duplicates of the caster and Faerie Fire does not change the target at all. It outlines them, but it doesn't actually change them like Enlarge, Polymorph, or many other spells do. There is no textual evidence that Mirror Image can support an image beyond what the caster is.

[Segev]

If Joe casts mirror image, and then wades through a kiddie pool before coming out again, are the images of Joe soaked from the waste down, too, or dry?

If he takes off his hat, and sets it aside, are the images still wearing hats, or did they also remove them?

If he performs a dramatic Significant Hair Cut to remove his ponytail, do the images also lose their pony tails, or do they still have them?

If he picks up and dons his winter cloak, do the images also have winter cloaks on, or do they obviously differ from him by lacking that bit of attire?



I contend that the answer to each of these is that any change made to Joe's physical appearance is reflected in his mirror images. They are, after all, indistinguishable from him.

This includes being limned in faerie fire. If faerie fire is targeted on a specific creature, then the caster of faerie fire would need to pick the right Joe on which to cast it, or the casting fails (because it wouldn't outline an illusion, which is not an object or a creature). If it is cast on an area (which is what I remember, but I could be mistaken), and Joe is in the area, he's limned in it.

If Joe is limned in faerie fire, whether because it's an AoE or because the caster chose the right "Joe" to cast it on, then the images of Joe are limned in it as well, because they mimic his appearance and are specifically indistinguishable from him.

Only when you introduce other creatures does this get even slightly hazy, because then you have to answer a question of whether the creatures he's holding or which are clinging to him are also duplicated by the images.