Mirror Image, lots to say [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

BurgerBeast

2017-12-15, 05:08 PM

Going off RAW, Mirror Image does not save against Magic Missile, Hold Person, or grapples/shoves. Also, the attacker could close their eyes and be unaffected by Mirror Image, though they swing attack rolls at disadvantage that way.

This is false.

To be clear:

It is correct that the rules do not assert that magic missile is affected by mirror image.

It is also correct that the rules do not assert that mirror image does not affect magic missile. This is not an argument however, because, as many rightly point out, the fact that the rules do not say that mirror image does not affect magic missile is not reason to insist that it can affect magic missile.

But the text of mirror image does say that mirror image creates 3 images that are indistinguishable from the caster. This matters. Any attacker or caster must pick a target as part of casting hold person, or attacking with a mace, or grappling, or casting fire bolt, or attacking with a longbow, as the case may be. That is the crux of the problem. [edited in afterward, for consistency]

How I've interpreted it: Magic Missile always hits the target, however, because the caster isn't necessarily sure which image is the real target, the missile would automatically hit something, and I would roll just like a regular attack, but ignore any AC of the image/original.

So the caster of Mirror Image rolls the die to determine where the Magic Missile bolt targets, and if it targets the caster, then roll damage as normal, but if it rolls to target one of the mirror images, then the mirror image is instantly destroyed. I would do this roll for each Magic Missile (cause at higher levels, there can be up to 5 missiles).

This is reasonable. It is the most reasonable solution.

It is also RAW. That's the part that some people fail to understand.

NOTE

People like to conflate the idea of Silent Image and Mirror Image into the same argument.
Since they see it as both spells creating false images, potentially for protection.

However they are VASTLY DIFFERENT spells, and the argument for 1 should not be used for the other.

Mirror Images
Creates a number of images within your own square.
It is impossible to know which one is real.
It can be 100% ignored by taking disadvantaged on your attack. (Ie closing your eyes)

Silent Image
Creates an image in a different square.
It is possible to make a check to know which is real.

So ruling that Hold Person, Magic Missile, and other save based spells ignore Mirror Images. Holds no bearing on the ruling for Silent Image (and other similar illusion spells). (and vice versa)

As well as I would suggest ruling that Hold Person and other save based spells being used on a potential Silent Image would make the spell fizzle, and waste the slot.
Since your character has no idea which is real, and the images are far from each other.

edit - minor fix

This is a misunderstanding of the argument.

No one, that I know of, is (and I am certainly not) conflating silent image with mirror image. That is not happening.

What is happening is that people are saying that there are general rules that apply to all spells, and therefore all spells are subject to them unless there is a specific rule to say otherwise.

For example, if I say that cats are mammals and dogs are mammals because both have fur, produce milk, have four-chambered hearts, etc... then I have not conflated the concept of cat with the concept of dog. I've simply pointed to a more general commonality between them which governs the properties of all mammals.

The images are never affected unless targeted by something that makes an Attack (capital A), therefore Magic Missile cannot affect the images in any way. I'd rule that all the missiles hit the real target and the images are not effected. Since there is no Attack, there's no chance to choose an image.

This is a misreading of the text (or else a logical error). It's addressed in the other thread.

Asmotherion

2017-12-15, 06:43 PM

Overall, you can treat Mirror Image as a "Displacement Effect" of Sorts. It's not like a bunsh of people who look like you that follow you arround in the Naruto kind of Way. More like "you appear to be 4 people at once, in the space/5 foot cube you occupy". Think of it as a Variation of the Blur Spell that multiplies it's effects; However, because of this, it does not conseal your real location (as you blend in with your "clones") and the illusory double is dispelled when it actually takes damage, shattering like a mirror, because you divide the potency of the spell energy by 3 making it less durable than the Blur variant (but requiring no concentration).

As a DM, if someone told me "I divide my scorging ray/magic missile/eldritch blast into 4, and target all 4 of them", I would allow it, but as separate attack rolls (for each scorching ray/eldritch blast), and only one would have the chance to hit the real target.

Talamare

2017-12-15, 08:29 PM

As a DM, if someone told me "I divide my scorging ray/magic missile/eldritch blast into 4, and target all 4 of them", I would allow it, but as separate attack rolls (for each scorching ray/eldritch blast), and only one would have the chance to hit the real target.

Magic Missile ignores it, so let's just skip past that

Asking for Scorching Ray to target the 4 different 'people' in the square is pointless...
You may "succeed" in destroying the images this way, but really what you did was essentially made the mirror images succeed in their goal to absorb shots.

If you just played it straight, then the burden of success is on the defender... Not the attacker.
In other words...
If you just shoot the main target with all 4 rays, then for each Ray the defender needs to roll a d20 and hope he succeeds.
If he succeeds 3x in a row, then you would have essentially dealt the same amount of damage as if you had aimed 1 Ray per 'person'
If he fails 3x in a row, then your did the maximum possible damage, and the Mirror Images did nothing

BurgerBeast

2017-12-15, 08:35 PM

Magic Missile ignores it, so let's just skip past that

Nowhere in the RAW does it say that magic missile ignores mirror image.

It is categorically wrong to say that it does.

Talamare

2017-12-15, 08:56 PM

Nowhere in the RAW does it say that magic missile ignores mirror image.

It is categorically wrong to say that it does.

Mirror Image only works when targeted with an Attack
Magic Missile is a spell, not an Attack
Magic Missile makes no attacks, so it's not an Attack
Magic Missile never states its an attack, so it's not an Attack

By RAW Mirror Image does not work on Magic Missile
By logical understanding after establishing a fact... Magic Missiles ignores Mirror Image

Are we done here?

Coffee_Dragon

2017-12-15, 09:13 PM

Are we done here?

The first rule of 30-page threads is, as long as somebody keeps posting, it's not done.

guachi

2017-12-15, 09:13 PM

As others have correctly stated, Magic Missile ignores Mirror Image.

Magic Missile neither makes attack rolls, which would make it an Attack, nor is it specifically called out as an Attack like grapple. It's not an attack, therefore it's unaffected by Mirror Image.

smcmike

2017-12-15, 09:34 PM

Asking for Scorching Ray to target the 4 different 'people' in the square is pointless...
You may "succeed" in destroying the images this way, but really what you did was essentially made the mirror images succeed in their goal to absorb shots.

I wouldn’t allow this, since that isn’t how mirror image works, but it isn’t necessarily pointless. If you are able to burn all of the images with a single spell, and your partner the sorcadin has a hold person/megasmite lined up, you’ve done something pretty useful.

As others have correctly stated, Magic Missile ignores Mirror Image.

Magic Missile neither makes attack rolls, which would make it an Attack, nor is it specifically called out as an Attack like grapple. It's not an attack, therefore it's unaffected by Mirror Image.

Are we done here?

Before you continue to engage, I STRONGLY recommend you read as much of that 30 page thread as you can stand. This should give the two-fold benefit of helping you understand the position you are arguing against and, if you are lucky, convincing you that it isn’t worth it.

Talamare

2017-12-15, 09:34 PM

How some people think Mirror Image works

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonballupdates/images/a/a0/GokuAfterimageTechnique.png/revision/latest?cb=20120311050343

How it actually works
https://i.imgur.com/9WHCat6.gif

BurgerBeast

2017-12-15, 09:52 PM

Mirror Image only works when targeted with an Attack

This is false. The spell takes effect whether you are attacked or not.

As others have correctly stated, Magic Missile ignores Mirror Image.

You can repeat this all day long. It’s still false.

Talamare

2017-12-15, 09:58 PM

This is false. The spell takes effect whether you are attacked or not.

You can repeat this all day long. It’s still false.

Correct, what you're saying is false.
So stop it

BurgerBeast

2017-12-15, 10:02 PM

You’ve made a claim. The burden of proof is on you, and you’ve failed to meet it.

Potato_Priest

2017-12-15, 10:09 PM

Here’s another question about mirror image: If you are an illusion wizard wearing a hat who casts mirror image, and then you use illusory reality to make one duplicates’ hat real, obviously a hat would fall to the ground. The question is this: would the duplicate still seem to be wearing a hat?

Talamare

2017-12-15, 10:13 PM

You’ve made a claim. The burden of proof is on you, and you’ve failed to meet it.

No, you made a claim... Claiming that what I said was false, yet provided no evidence to why it was false.

Also, I already stated the facts.

Mirror Image only works when targeted with an Attack
Magic Missile is a spell, not an Attack
Magic Missile makes no attacks, so it's not an Attack
Magic Missile never states its an attack, so it's not an Attack

By RAW Mirror Image does not work on Magic Missile
By logical understanding after establishing a fact... Magic Missiles ignores Mirror Image

Are we done here?
So...
Unless you actually present a reason as to why it does work.
We are absolutely done here.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-15, 10:20 PM

No, you made a claim...

“Mirror image only works when targeted with an attack.”

That was your claim. It is false. If you expect anyone to believe it, you need to prove it. Nothing you have said proves it. Nothing in the RAW proves it.

Mirror image works from the moment it is cast, whether the caster is attacked or not. Do you deny this?

Talamare

2017-12-15, 10:28 PM

“Mirror image only works when targeted with an attack.”

That was your claim. It is false. If you expect anyone to believe it, you need to prove it. Nothing you have said proves it. Nothing in the RAW proves it.

Mirror image works from the moment it is cast, whether the caster is attacked or not. Do you deny this?

Your argument is a forced and intentional misunderstanding?
Really?
REALLY?

Should we get into begin arguing the english language in that it may be considered activated when you cast the spell, but it is not considered working until it has an effect on anything?
Huh HUH?!

This is beyond done.

LeonBH

2017-12-15, 10:35 PM

This is false.

To be clear:

It is correct that the rules do not assert that magic missile is affected by mirror image.

It is also correct that the rules do not assert that mirror image does not affect magic missile. This is not an argument however, because, as many rightly point out, the fact that the rules do not say that mirror image does not affect magic missile is not reason to insist that it can affect magic missile.

But the text of mirror image does say that mirror image creates 3 images that are indistinguishable from the caster. This matters. Any attacker or caster must pick a target as part of casting hold person, or attacking with a mace, or grappling, or casting fire bolt, or attacking with a longbow, as the case may be. That is the crux of the problem. [edited in afterward, for consistency]

No, the attacker does not pick a target. They make their attack and the defender rolls a d20 to see which image gets hit.

If the attacker never rolls for an attack, the defender never gets a chance to roll a d20.

guachi

2017-12-16, 12:13 AM

Before you continue to engage, I STRONGLY recommend you read as much of that 30 page thread as you can stand. This should give the two-fold benefit of helping you understand the position you are arguing against and, if you are lucky, convincing you that it isn’t worth it.

I did read the other thread.

I'm not trying to convince the people who claim non-attacks are affected by Mirror Image. I'm trying to convince other readers who might find value in understanding why Magic Missile or Hold Person are unaffected by Mirror Image.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-16, 04:13 AM

Your argument is a forced and intentional misunderstanding?
Really?
REALLY?

No. You selectively read the spell description and place arbitrary limits on its function. The moment the caster casts mirror image, the 3 images appear.

That is the general effect of the spell.

No, the attacker does not pick a target. They make their attack and the defender rolls a d20 to see which image gets hit.

The attacker must pick a target as a part of making an attack.

If the attacker never rolls for an attack, the defender never gets a chance to roll a d20.

No. This is an error of logic.

If attack then roll for target does not imply if no attack then no roll for target.

Note that I am not insisting that the defender must roll for a target when a non-attack is made. I am simply pointing out that the mirror image text is silent on this.

I did read the other thread.

I'm not trying to convince the people who claim non-attacks are affected by Mirror Image. I'm trying to convince other readers who might find value in understanding why Magic Missile or Hold Person are unaffected by Mirror Image.

The text is silent on whether non-attacks are affected. I never claimed that non-attacks must be affected. I claimed that it is not true to say that they are decidedly unaffected.

LeonBH

2017-12-16, 04:21 AM

The attacker must pick a target as a part of making an attack.

You are twisting my intent. The attacker cannot pick the caster as apart from his clones.

How would the attacker pick the target who has cast Mirror Image? Do you mean to say you can discern which is the true image from the clones?

No. This is an error of logic.

If attack then roll for target does not imply if no attack then no roll for target.

Note that I am not insisting that the defender must roll for a target when a non-attack is made. I am simply pointing out that the mirror image text is silent on this.

According to you, does Hex add 1d6 necrotic damage to someone hit by magic missile? It says "Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack."

Additionally, if the caster is hit by a Fireball, do they roll 1d20 to see which image got hit?

BurgerBeast

2017-12-16, 05:20 AM

You are twisting my intent. The attacker cannot pick the caster as apart from his clones.

I’m sorry. I do not intend to twist your words. I agree that mirror image makes it impossible to select the caster as apart from his clones.

However, the attack requires a target. So, when the player declares the intent to target the caster, but the character is logically unable to do so in the fiction, a solution is required. This, in my opinion, is why the d20 mechanic is provided. Without it, there would be no prescribed way to proceed.

How would the attacker pick the target who has cast Mirror Image? Do you mean to say you can discern which is the true image from the clones?

No, I think you’ve hit he nail on the head, here. The attacker cannot pick the target, but RAW the attack requires a target, so the spell text provides a way to determine the target.

According to you, does Hex add 1d6 necrotic damage to someone hit by magic missile? It says "Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack."

No. I do not claim that magic missile is an attack.

However, magic missile does require the caster to select a target. So the caster of magic missile runs up against the same problem as an attacker.

The mirror image text does not specifically tell us how to resolve this, so we do not have a required method for determining the target. Nonetheless, a target must be selected. How this is done is up to the DM.

My claim is that it is an error to assert that mirror image only works against attacks just because the text only specifically describes how it affects attacks.

Additionally, if the caster is hit by a Fireball, do they roll 1d20 to see which image got hit?

No. Fireball does not require the caster to target a creature.

LeonBH

2017-12-16, 06:53 AM

From a RAW standpoint, we cannot add extra effects onto a spell if the spell does not specify those effects. So since mirror image only specifies that it interacts with attacks, it must not interact with other effects that are not attacks. To claim it does or it might, is to claim a spell does more than is specified in its description. And this is fine, spells can and should be used creatively, but technically it is not RAW to do so.

ThePolarBear

2017-12-16, 07:19 AM

However, the attack requires a target. So, when the player declares the intent to target the caster, but the character is logically unable to do so in the fiction, a solution is required. This, in my opinion, is why the d20 mechanic is provided. Without it, there would be no prescribed way to proceed.

But, to top this off, spells do not do something that is not described. Therefore, you cannot apply a targeting mechanics on top of a spell that does not have such a mechanic described and ascribe that mechanic to the spell function.

This, coupled with the impossibility to distinguish the caster from the images, leaves the targeting player with the only valid targeting option being "the caster". Not even "the caster 1, 2, 3,..." because that would mean being able to distinguish between the images.

This means that a spell without an attack does not and should not suffer any consequences from a player targeting a creature under MI.

Also this. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/) It is not a "random creature between those that apply to the choice", it's "of choice". The same can apply to all spells and effects that require a target but not an attack roll.

In short, Mirror Image does not change the targeting rules NOR creates new target to choose from, therefore it only applies to attacks, which have a specific exception in built.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-16, 09:59 AM

From a RAW standpoint, we cannot add extra effects onto a spell if the spell does not specify those effects.

This is actually not true, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say it is:

I’m not adding any extra effects. I’m simply acknowledging that the spell creates duplicates. Others dismiss this as fluff. I do not.

So since mirror image only specifies that it interacts with attacks, it must not interact with other effects that are not attacks.

Let me try this, even though it doesn’t quite capture my point:

Mirror image doesn’t specify that it only interacts with attacks...

Mirror image only specifies how it interacts with attacks.

...

The very fact that mirror image creates duplicates is an effect of the spell. For example, if, for some reason, a wizard casts mirror image and then enters a shop, the shopkeeper will see the images, have his attention drawn to the caster, and will suspect that the caster is a magic-user.

...but the spell doesn’t specify that it draws people's attention nor that it reveals the caster to be a caster... therefore has this DM broken RAW?

To claim it does or it might, is to claim a spell does more than is specified in its description. And this is fine, spells can and should be used creatively, but technically it is not RAW to do so.

It is specified in the description of mirror image that it creates three duplicates which are indistinguishable from the caster.

But, to top this off, spells do not do something that is not described.

Agreed.

Therefore, you cannot apply a targeting mechanics on top of a spell that does not have such a mechanic described and ascribe that mechanic to the spell function.

I agree. My stance is slightly more nuanced.

I do not claim that the RAW ascribe any specific targeting mechanic to, for example, casting hold person at someone under the effect of mirror image.

Hold person is not an attack, and therefore nothing that applies to attacks applies to hold person. However, the rest of the spell’s effects still apply. The caster of hold person still sees the same thing that an archer would see, and the DM still has to determine what happens when hold person is cast.

In following RAW, the DM is left without a prescribed resolution. So, the DM may rule that hold person ignores the duplicates, but he is not required by RAW to do so.

(As a side note, I tried to raise this point in other discussions but it was ignored: There is a difference between what RAW allows and what RAW requires.)

This, coupled with the impossibility to distinguish the caster from the images, leaves the targeting player with the only valid targeting option being "the caster". Not even "the caster 1, 2, 3,..." because that would mean being able to distinguish between the images.

Agreed. And this is the case whether the targeting player is attacking or casting hold person. I am saying that just because the spell resolves the problem for the attacking case does not erase the problem for the caster’s (of hold person) case.

This means that a spell without an attack does not and should not suffer any consequences from a player targeting a creature under MI.

It decidedly does not mean this. [edit: This is a perfect example of adding more to the spell description than what is written.]

Also this. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/)

Yes, this has been mentioned before. I think JC has made a mistake here.

It is not a "random creature between those that apply to the choice", it's "of choice". The same can apply to all spells and effects that require a target but not an attack roll.

I apologize but I’m not recognizing this distinction (around “choice”). Would you mind explaining this?

In short, Mirror Image does not change the targeting rules NOR creates new target to choose from, therefore it only applies to attacks, which have a specific exception in built.

Mirror image creates new targets. It may not create new targets to choose from, but it creates new targets which can be struck.

I think RAW supports the argument you are putting forward.

I think RAW does not forbid my method. That’s my contention.

LeonBH

2017-12-16, 11:48 AM

This is actually not true, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say it is:

I’m not adding any extra effects. I’m simply acknowledging that the spell creates duplicates. Others dismiss this as fluff. I do not.

It's not fluff in the sense that it happens. However, it also does not confuse spells that are not attacks.

Let me try this, even though it doesn’t quite capture my point:

Mirror image doesn’t specify that it only interacts with attacks...

Mirror image only specifies how it interacts with attacks.

Yes, and it also does not specify that it deals damage to attackers. But we agree (I think) that it does not deal damage to attackers, because it isn't specified in the spell.

I understand your point that Mirror Image can produce duplicates that should confuse casters in terms of targeting, but that doesn't interact in any way with the targeting rules. The clones are illusory, they are not real, they do not count as creatures, and do not constitute real targets.

The very fact that mirror image creates duplicates is an effect of the spell. For example, if, for some reason, a wizard casts mirror image and then enters a shop, the shopkeeper will see the images, have his attention drawn to the caster, and will suspect that the caster is a magic-user.

...but the spell doesn’t specify that it draws people's attention nor that it reveals the caster to be a caster... therefore has this DM broken RAW?

How is this argument supporting or declaiming the fact that Hold Person and Magic Missile go through Mirror Image's defenses?

It is specified in the description of mirror image that it creates three duplicates which are indistinguishable from the caster.

And those duplicates ward off attacks, nothing more. Otherwise, we are adding effects to the spell it does not have.

ThePolarBear

2017-12-16, 11:54 AM

I apologize but I’m not recognizing this distinction (around “choice”). Would you mind explaining this

No problem. Targeting works so that, when an action requiring one is taken, a player chooses something. It might choose something that is invalid for an action to be taken, assuming that the character has no way of discerning. What happens when a target is chosen incorrectly is not important for this.

What matters is the choice. "the caster" is a valid choice, whether or not "the caster" is even visible, as long as the other conditions to target such a creature exist. If there are some specific situations, RAW also tells us how to handle them (i.e. "the caster" is hidden, you have to also guess a location").

The choice of targeting "the caster" is still a valid one for Magic Missiles, since no rule specifically prevents that targeting to happen, and for how MI is worded, it is impossible to distinguish a difference or tell the figures apart, thus making it impossible for a player to target something different that "the caster".

There's no possible choice of "image 1" for targeting, regardless, and the "choice" is what is important. A random roll is not a "choice".
Inserting a random element on a spell when it is not described in the spell is adding an effect to the spell, and you agree that this is something that it shouldn't be possible, regardless of how many "the casters" are now there, since no rule has been changed.

It would be different if there was no "they change position to make tracking impossible" involved. But it is there. It would also be different if it was "each time you are targeted", but it is not there.

I think RAW does not forbid my method. That’s my contention.

RAW actually encourages you to use your method, should you find it more fun. Nothing to say there. But that is a power left to a DM on specific campaigns to have. In possibility, a DM could completely ignore all that's written in the books. That also makes any discussion on RAW pointless and it is usually left out as a "base line consideration" - always true, but also unimportant for the specific topic.

In general, just below that rule there's: "in the absence of a specific, the general applies". The general is that a player choses.

I agree. My stance is slightly more nuanced.

I do not claim that the RAW ascribe any specific targeting mechanic to, for example, casting hold person at someone under the effect of mirror image.

Hold person is not an attack, and therefore nothing that applies to attacks applies to hold person. However, the rest of the spell’s effects still apply. The caster of hold person still sees the same thing that an archer would see, and the DM still has to determine what happens when hold person is cast.

In following RAW, the DM is left without a prescribed resolution. So, the DM may rule that hold person ignores the duplicates, but he is not required by RAW to do so.

This is the incorrect followup. In absence of a specific, the general applies, thus targeting should follow the normal route.
It's true that MI doesn't ascribe any specific targeting mechanics to HP or an archer attack. This simply means that both can target the creature under MI liberally: in fact, the specific text of MI works BECAUSE "the caster" is a target of an attack!

If you were to rule that "targeting" is affected, then ALL the targeting would be affected, thus making "attacks" need to double dip on Mirror Image function - same as with making the action "miss" the intended target, before the effect of the spell is even counted.
If you make "all that's not an attack" still be affected, it quite clearly is not what the spell describes, thus you are changing a spell.
If you make so that "all that's not already covered by the spell" roll for a chance of changing the choice of targets, you are either messing with player choices or strictly making a DM decision on something that you do not like/find fun.

All of this is fine, all of this is possible via RAW, but all of this is not the default RAW way to read the situation.

(As a side note, I tried to raise this point in other discussions but it was ignored: There is a difference between what RAW allows and what RAW requires.)

Yes and no. It is usually ignored because, generally, it devolves the discussion in a clash of opinion and no longer containing what, at least for me, should be a "RAW" discussion. "Dragons do not fly, i'm the DM".

Agreed. And this is the case whether the targeting player is attacking or casting hold person. I am saying that just because the spell resolves the problem for the attacking case does not erase the problem for the caster’s (of hold person) case.

It does not interact with the rules for targeting - or better, it interacts with it after a choice is made for attacks. This strictly means that it does NOT interact with rules for targeting as a result of RAW expecting to use general rules in place of a non existing specific one. And a general rule for targeting exists.

It decidedly does not mean this. [edit: This is a perfect example of adding more to the spell description than what is written.]

Let me retry: A spell that does not interact with MI does not interact with MI. A spell whose rules are not changed by MI should, RAW, use the rules that would have used regardless. (If there is no DM intervention is standard omitted text here, as is "unless another specific applies".).

Mirror image creates new targets. It may not create new targets to choose from, but it creates new targets which can be struck.

It doesn't matter if it creates new targets you can choose from or targets you can't choose from. It doesn't change the choice itself unless it's an attack.

If the spell were only to create 2 images, one 10 feet north of you, one on the south, absolutely identical to you but with the possibility of keep track of which is which would you have a character roll to see if he can attack "the middle one", even without possible previous knowledge?
Possible targets is not "forced targeting", and spells that are not attacks and effects that are not attacks, even if single targets, apparently "target" on intent, somehow :D.

Talamare

2017-12-16, 12:05 PM

The "Target" of the Attack or Spell is the Caster who casted Mirror Image

The burden of Defense is on the Caster of Mirror Image to be able to successful roll to redirect attacks onto his clones

The burden of Attack is NOT on the Attacker of the Caster to be able to select the Caster of the Mirror Image

You're playing it wrong, and you're not arguing in good faith considering you're willfully misunderstanding people.

In following RAW, the DM is left without a prescribed resolution. So, the DM may rule that hold person ignores the duplicates, but he is not required by RAW to do so.

If he wants to play by RAW, then the DM MUST rule that Hold Person IGNORES Mirror Image. He is REQUIRED BY RAW to do so.

Erose

2017-12-17, 03:38 AM

Unleash the kraken.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-12-17, 02:28 PM

Unleash the kraken.

I'm not sure how one would fit a leash to a kraken anyhow, and it's probably quite irritable about being tied up. You might want to stand quite a ways away.

Hyde

2017-12-17, 02:56 PM

I'm not sure how one would fit a leash to a kraken anyhow, and it's probably quite irritable about being tied up. You might want to stand quite a ways away.

I would further propose that, as a corollary, anyone who has a kraken on a leash has a leash of sufficient length, elsewise the kraken is likely merely wearing a leash as an accessory.

smcmike

2017-12-17, 03:01 PM

The leash is just a metaphor, guys. By RAW, Krakens don’t have leashes.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-12-17, 03:02 PM

I would further propose that, as a corollary, anyone who has a kraken on a leash has a leash of sufficient length, elsewise the kraken is likely merely wearing a leash as an accessory.

Probably after eating the one who dared leash it. Although some kraken might be into such things. You never know what creatures like that have as kinks.

Dmdork

2017-12-17, 04:06 PM

I have created a monster with this thread. That being said, I feel like I'm closer to understanding how this spell should be interpreted. I thank you for that.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-12-17, 04:19 PM

I have created a monster with this thread. That being said, I feel like I'm closer to understanding how this spell should be interpreted. I thank you for that.

More precisely resurrected or awakened a monster. There was a very, very long and acrimonious thread a while ago on this very topic, with many of the same proponents taking many of the same positions. Change is unlikely at this point.

Jerrykhor

2017-12-18, 01:01 AM

I just came here to support everyone who thinks BurgerBeast is wrong, because that is the truth, and the truth deserves to be known.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-20, 03:30 AM

I've written some replies to individuals, below, however I think it's worth pointing out that there seem to be some general disagreements underlying this disagreement.

(1) The general targeting rules. People seem to be attributing more specificity to them than actually exists.

(2) The basic function of mirror image. My opponents seem to ascribe some defensive ability to the spell in addition to the duplicates. I assert that the presence of the duplicates is the defensive function of the spell.

(3) What it means when one says that a spell does "exactly what it says. Nothing more and nothing less." This does not mean that spells cannot do anything that is not specifically described. In fact, there are many spells that can only function if this is not so. It is true that mirror image does exactly what it says - nothing more and nothing less. But my opponents are adding more restrictions to the spell than it actually has, and then concluding that I am adding functionality. In fact, the restrictions are not there, so the functionality is not actually more than the spell describes.

(4) What it means to be RAW. Sometimes the RAW tell you the way to resolve something. In this case you must resolve it in that way or you are using a houserule which goes against RAW. Other times, the RAW present limitations on what can be done. In these cases if you go outside of the limitations, you are violating RAW, but if you operate within the limitations, there are multiple resolutions which are all within the RAW.

It's not fluff in the sense that it happens. However, it also does not confuse spells that are not attacks.

I never said that it confuses spells with attacks.

If it's not fluff in the sense that it happens, then in what sense is it fluff?

Yes, and it also does not specify that it deals damage to attackers. But we agree (I think) that it does not deal damage to attackers, because it isn't specified in the spell.

We agree that it does not deal damage to attackers. But we do not agree about why this is the case. The spell description makes no comment about whether mirror image does damage to attackers. If the question is ever raised, then we have to consider whether there is any reason to think that the spell would cause damage to attackers. There is not.

To take a similar example, can fireball melt ice? The spell description does not say that it can, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to allow it, and would fall within RAW to allow it.

I understand your point that Mirror Image can produce duplicates that should confuse casters in terms of targeting, but that doesn't interact in any way with the targeting rules.

This seems to be where we disagree. The targeting rules leave plenty of ambiguity. There is nothing in the targeting rules, for example, that says what happens when a caster tries to cast a spell on an invalid target. This has been the topic of much discussion.

If a DM rules that casters can cast spells at invalid targets, and that those spells always fail, and that the spell slot is lost, then he is operating within RAW. This is not the only option within the RAW, but it is one.

The clones are illusory, they are not real, they do not count as creatures, and do not constitute real targets.

You can rule this way, but you are not required to rule this way. I rule that if a player insists on casting hold person on a rock, his character can do it. It will have no effect, but the character can burn the slot to no effect.

How is this argument supporting or declaiming the fact that Hold Person and Magic Missile go through Mirror Image's defenses?

There is a semantic trick in the way this is worded. You have worded it as though mirror image has defences to speak of beyond simply creating the duplicates. I say this is not true. I say the defense provided by mirror image is precisely the presence of the duplicates. It doesn't do anything else.

And those duplicates ward off attacks, nothing more. Otherwise, we are adding effects to the spell it does not have.

Again, in my view, there is no warding effect to speak of. It looks to me like you're adding more to the spell than there is. The spell creates the duplicates. The presence of the duplicates is the defense. There's nothing more that the spell does.

No problem. Targeting works so that, when an action requiring one is taken, a player chooses something. It might choose something that is invalid for an action to be taken, assuming that the character has no way of discerning. What happens when a target is chosen incorrectly is not important for this.

What matters is the choice. "the caster" is a valid choice, whether or not "the caster" is even visible, as long as the other conditions to target such a creature exist. If there are some specific situations, RAW also tells us how to handle them (i.e. "the caster" is hidden, you have to also guess a location").

You don't need RAW to tell you that if there are four identical targets, and you say "I want to hit the real one," there is still the problem of picking the real one. This is true regardless of whether you're selecting a target for magic missile or for an arrow.

The choice of targeting "the caster" is still a valid one for Magic Missiles, since no rule specifically prevents that targeting to happen, and for how MI is worded, it is impossible to distinguish a difference or tell the figures apart, thus making it impossible for a player to target something different that "the caster".

(1) "The caster" is only a valid target choice if the character can identify (i.e. "that guy," not necessarily know who he is) the caster.

Take the case of two wizards who have their backs turned and the attacker can't determine which is Bob. "I attack Bob" is not enough to auto-determine which is Bob. The DM would have to make the determination. "You don't know which is Bob. Do you want to attack the person on the right or the left?"

(2) It is not impossible to target something other than the caster. The caster could try to hit a duplicate on purpose, for example.

There's no possible choice of "image 1" for targeting, regardless, and the "choice" is what is important. A random roll is not a "choice".

This is sort of the entire point. The spell makes it impossible to make a meaningful choice, because the attacker cannot distinguish between the target he wishes to strike and the three other targets. Each choice is equally likely, so the only way to make the determination by using a random roll.

Inserting a random element on a spell when it is not described in the spell is adding an effect to the spell, and you agree that this is something that it shouldn't be possible, regardless of how many "the casters" are now there, since no rule has been changed.

It's not adding anything to the spell. My contention is that the general case is a random roll. This barely even takes the spell into account.

It would be different if there was no "they change position to make tracking impossible" involved. But it is there.

This part of the spell is there to prevent gamers from claiming that, since they have hit the target once already, they will be able to stay focussed on him and will should no longer have a chance of hitting a duplicate. The magical effect prevents this.

It would also be different if it was "each time you are targeted", but it is not there.

That's because the spell makes no prescription about what happens when you're targeted in other ways. It specifically forces a mechanic when attacked. It does not specifically force a mechanic in any other case.

RAW actually encourages you to use your method, should you find it more fun. Nothing to say there. But that is a power left to a DM on specific campaigns to have. In possibility, a DM could completely ignore all that's written in the books. That also makes any discussion on RAW pointless and it is usually left out as a "base line consideration" - always true, but also unimportant for the specific topic.

But this is not what I mean.

In general, just below that rule there's: "in the absence of a specific, the general applies". The general is that a player choses.

The general rules for targeting are not clear on this.

This is the incorrect followup. In absence of a specific, the general applies, thus targeting should follow the normal route.

Agreed. Where we seem to disagree is on the general targeting rules. The general targeting rules are that a target must be chosen.

It's true that MI doesn't ascribe any specific targeting mechanics to HP or an archer attack. This simply means that both can target the creature under MI liberally: in fact, the specific text of MI works BECAUSE "the caster" is a target of an attack!

Archer attacks are attacks. Mirror image forces the d20 roll.

If you were to rule that "targeting" is affected, then ALL the targeting would be affected, thus making "attacks" need to double dip on Mirror Image function - same as with making the action "miss" the intended target, before the effect of the spell is even counted.

No. This was previously discussed. This is again based on the notion that MI provides some additional defense beyond simply the presence of the duplicates. It does not. In the case of an attack, the rules say you must use the d20 mechanic. In any other case, the rules say nothing. Thus you revert to the general method for resolving the target when multiple indistinguishable targets are present.

If you make "all that's not an attack" still be affected, it quite clearly is not what the spell describes, thus you are changing a spell.

The spell tells you the mechanic that you must use in the case of an attack. It does not tell you what mechanic to use in any other case, but the need for a mechanic still exists.

If you make so that "all that's not already covered by the spell" roll for a chance of changing the choice of targets, you are either messing with player choices or strictly making a DM decision on something that you do not like/find fun.

I don'f follow this line of reasoning.

Yes and no. It is usually ignored because, generally, it devolves the discussion in a clash of opinion and no longer containing what, at least for me, should be a "RAW" discussion. "Dragons do not fly, i'm the DM".

Dragons do fly. That is the RAW. If the DM overrules this, it is a houserule. Do fireballs melt ice? The RAW is silent on this matter. If the DM rules either way, he is not breaking the RAW.

It does not interact with the rules for targeting - or better, it interacts with it after a choice is made for attacks. This strictly means that it does NOT interact with rules for targeting as a result of RAW expecting to use general rules in place of a non existing specific one. And a general rule for targeting exists.

I disagree with you. The main effect of mirror image is to present duplicate targets. That's what it does. Anyone wishing to target the caster in any way faces this problem.

If, and only if, someone tries to attack the caster, the spell forces a resolution method on the DM.

In any other case, no resolution method is forced. This does not mean that a resolution is no longer needed. It simply means that none is forced.

Let me retry: A spell that does not interact with MI does not interact with MI. A spell whose rules are not changed by MI should, RAW, use the rules that would have used regardless. (If there is no DM intervention is standard omitted text here, as is "unless another specific applies".).

The error, as I see it, is that you're adding a layer of complexity to the problem by asserting that MI interacts with anything. MI does nothing other than create the duplicates. It does not interact with anything beyond that.

The duplicates create a targeting problem. In the specific case of attacks, the way to determine the target is forced.

It doesn't matter if it creates new targets you can choose from or targets you can't choose from. It doesn't change the choice itself unless it's an attack.

Spells require the caster to choose a target. The caster is faced with the same choice as an attacker. Pick one to strike.

If the spell were only to create 2 images, one 10 feet north of you, one on the south, absolutely identical to you but with the possibility of keep track of which is which would you have a character roll to see if he can attack "the middle one", even without possible previous knowledge?

This is precisely the point. The character can pick "the middle one" - I agree. But the character cannot pick "the caster," because he can't know which of the three is the caster.

Possible targets is not "forced targeting", and spells that are not attacks and effects that are not attacks, even if single targets, apparently "target" on intent, somehow :D.

And herein lies the crux of your problem. When you say that they "apparently "target" on intent, somehow," you reach the absurdum in your reductio ad absurdum. Spells that are not attacks cannot target on intent. This is how we know that somewhere in your explanation there must be a mistake.

[edit: Sorry. This is not necessarily a mistake. You are free, within the RAW, to rule that save-spells can target "on intent." But it is my opinion that this produces absurd results, which is why I prefer my method. So the reductio ad absurdum is there, but does not imply that you're violating RAW

The "Target" of the Attack or Spell is the Caster who casted Mirror Image

No. You cannot target by naming a "pointer" to an intended target. You have to be able to pick out the target (i.e. that guy right there).

The burden of Defense is on the Caster of Mirror Image to be able to successful roll to redirect attacks onto his clones

What are you talking about? The attacker sees four "casters." He has to pick one to hit. That's how the spell works.

The burden of Attack is NOT on the Attacker of the Caster to be able to select the Caster of the Mirror Image

Actually, yes it is. That's how it works. If you want to hit something, it's up to you to pick what you hit.

If he wants to play by RAW, then the DM MUST rule that Hold Person IGNORES Mirror Image. He is REQUIRED BY RAW to do so.

This is a failure to understand the RAW.

gloryblaze

2017-12-20, 04:35 AM

Kane0

2017-12-20, 05:31 AM

How I rule it:
Mirror image makes illusions in your space that misdirect attacks away from the real you.

A magic missile always hits its target, which you choose upon casting

Unless you know which image is the real target (which is never?) you have to pick a target, for each missile if you like since they can be targeted individually. Then you roll to see if you hit an image.
Same thing for other spells and effects that target one or more creature (that arent AoEs)

ThePolarBear

2017-12-20, 06:03 AM

[...] My opponents [...]

There are no opponents. The fact that you think that people are out for you specifically makes me completely disinterested in replying to you any further. You have no intention to conduct a discussion and you have already decided that there's an antagonization going on. I'm not interested in conducting a discussion where there is an argument and it appears you have decided there's antagonization going on. (Putting what i mean in a better form, since the original was really not what i meant.)

Solunaris

2017-12-20, 06:24 AM

So, I'm just gonna weigh in here on the Magic Missile vs Mirror Image argument.

Mirror Image's RAW effect is that when the caster is targeted by an attack they roll a D20 to have the attack target an illusion instead of them. This requires that the origin of the attack selects the target of the attack first, and then Mirror Image steps in and has it's effect. All other descriptions (like creating the illusions) are fluff in it's purest form.

A spell that Targets the caster, but doesn't make an Attack is completely unaffected by Mirror Image since the trigger is to be the target of an Attack for Mirror Image to active it's effect. Sure, it's dumb since it seems fairly straight forward that you need to select a target when casting Magic Missile and Mirror Image specifically creates more targets but, by RAW, it doesn't work that way.

I houserule it to work that way in my campaigns (in that any time the caster is targeted by an effect they roll for Mirror Image) because that makes sense to me. Burgerbeast is strictly wrong by RAW here because he is attributing more mechanical effects to the spell than are allowed by it's description.

LeonBH

2017-12-20, 07:03 AM

I never said that it confuses spells with attacks.

If it's not fluff in the sense that it happens, then in what sense is it fluff?

It's not fluff. You're attributing this to me. I've never said it's fluff.

We agree that it does not deal damage to attackers. But we do not agree about why this is the case. The spell description makes no comment about whether mirror image does damage to attackers. If the question is ever raised, then we have to consider whether there is any reason to think that the spell would cause damage to attackers. There is not.

You think mirror image does not deal damage to attackers because it doesn't make sense for it to deal damage, whereas I am saying it does not deal damage because the spell doesn't say it does.

In other words, you are following a path that is not RAW. There is nothing wrong with that, but you must concede that your interpretation cannot be taken universally, unlike a RAW reading.

To take a similar example, can fireball melt ice? The spell description does not say that it can, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to allow it, and would fall within RAW to allow it.

No, Fireball cannot melt ice. It can ignite unattended flammable objects. But when that flammable object is worn or held, it is immune to ignition by Fireball.

Does that make sense? No, because it's magic. It doesn't have to.

This seems to be where we disagree. The targeting rules leave plenty of ambiguity. There is nothing in the targeting rules, for example, that says what happens when a caster tries to cast a spell on an invalid target. This has been the topic of much discussion.

If the target is invalid, it cannot be targeted by the spell. That is why it is an invalid target.

If a DM rules that casters can cast spells at invalid targets, and that those spells always fail, and that the spell slot is lost, then he is operating within RAW. This is not the only option within the RAW, but it is one.

If the DM rules that a spell can hit an invalid target, then we are no longer on the same page. A spell can never hit an invalid target. A spell can start as a valid target and become invalid over the course of its duration (such as if the target becomes an unwilling one while under the Haste spell), but an unwilling creature can never be a target of Haste to begin with.

You can rule this way, but you are not required to rule this way. I rule that if a player insists on casting hold person on a rock, his character can do it. It will have no effect, but the character can burn the slot to no effect.

You are required to rule that way by RAW, but you are not required to rule it that way if you don't want to.

There is a semantic trick in the way this is worded. You have worded it as though mirror image has defences to speak of beyond simply creating the duplicates. I say this is not true. I say the defense provided by mirror image is precisely the presence of the duplicates. It doesn't do anything else.

It doesn't do anything else? Then why does it specify the defender to roll a d20 when an attack hits? You seem to be willfully ignoring components of the spell.

Again, in my view, there is no warding effect to speak of. It looks to me like you're adding more to the spell than there is. The spell creates the duplicates. The presence of the duplicates is the defense. There's nothing more that the spell does.

Does the spell not allow you to roll a d20 when an attack hits?

Talamare

2017-12-20, 11:56 AM

At this point it's just arguing with a brick wall

You keep trying to push that there is some issue with targeting

but the spell never tells you that happens

The spell literally tells you that if the caster of mirror image wants any attacks to go to his images then he must redirect it himself

Adding anything else to the spell is HOMEBREW
So if you want to keep arguing it works your way...

Go here please
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?15-Homebrew-Design

BurgerBeast

2017-12-20, 04:29 PM

Hold Person asks you to choose a humanoid you can see within range. If you target the caster of mirror image (should I say Hero targets Joe? :smallbiggrin:) with Hold Person, you won't have to pick one of the 4 images. You can specify your target in any number of ways ("I target Joe", "I target the human 10 feet left and 5 feet up from me on the battle map", "I target that jerk casting mirror image") and you will have successfully chosen a humanoid you can see within range. There is no ambiguity because you can see exactly one humanoid in range that matches that descriptor, not 4.

1. There are no rules that tell the DM what happens when a character casts a spell at an invalid target. Some questions that arise are: can it be cast? Can a player insist on trying it (and having the character fail) despite it not being possible? If a character can try it, does the failure result in the loss of the spell slot? If the character can try it, does the attempt result in the loss of the character's action for the round?

2. The problem with saying "I target that jerk casting mirror image" is that you don't know which of the four jerks that you see (if any) is the caster.

3. This is the problem that Segev addressed in detail in the other thread. If you allow a player to target "that jerk who cast mirror image" even thought he cannot correctly pick out the jerk, then you open a can of worms. It is no different than saying that you can target "the jerk who cast X" while looking at a group of four people and having the spell select and target the jerk for you. Spells cannot select targets for the caster. The caster must select the target.

How I rule it:
Mirror image makes illusions in your space that misdirect attacks away from the real you.

(Perhaps this is semantic - because we to agree on the function of the spell - but I would not say that MI can "misdirect attacks away from the real you." This can be misconstrued to create the impression that there is some magical force moving the attack. Rather, MI simply offers alternative, believable targets.)

This makes sense if you reverse rationalize, trying to reconcile JC's tweets with the text. You add the ability of the spell to redirect attacks in order to make it work. But (1) the spell does not describe this ability unless you read more into it than is there, and (2) it doesn't square with the particular choice of mechanic with is based on the probability of independently striking 1 of 4 images independent of any magical "warding."

A magic missile always hits its target, which you choose upon casting

Unless you know which image is the real target (which is never?) you have to pick a target, for each missile if you like since they can be targeted individually. Then you roll to see if you hit an image.

Yes, this is the crux of the problem, nicely summarized.

Same thing for other spells and effects that target one or more creature (that arent AoEs)

Agreed.

There are no opponents. The fact that you think that people are out for you specifically makes me completely disinterested in replying to you any further. You have no intention to conduct a discussion and you have already decided that there's an antagonization going on. I'm not interested in conducting a discussion where there is an argument and it appears you have decided there's antagonization going on. (Putting what i mean in a better form, since the original was really not what i meant.)

I don't think people are "out for me." I meant opponents as in "people who oppose my view."

This requires that the origin of the attack selects the target of the attack first, and then Mirror Image steps in and has it's effect.

This is not necessarily true. It is just as reasonable (more reasonable, actually) to say that the mirror image effect is already in place. (I say "more reasonable" because the mirror image effect is already in place.

In this light, the d20 mechanic is not magical effect of the spell per se. It's simply a general mechanic to resolve the target, but in this case it is forced by the rules.

A spell that Targets the caster, but doesn't make an Attack is completely unaffected by Mirror Image since the trigger is to be the target of an Attack for Mirror Image to active it's effect.

This an error. The spell does not say, not imply, this.

Sure, it's dumb since it seems fairly straight forward that you need to select a target when casting Magic Missile and Mirror Image specifically creates more targets but, by RAW, it doesn't work that way.

By RAW it does work that way. So, it's not dumb. If you read the spell description incorrectly, it seems dumb. Luckily, the spell is not written that way.

I houserule it to work that way in my campaigns (in that any time the caster is targeted by an effect they roll for Mirror Image) because that makes sense to me. Burgerbeast is strictly wrong by RAW here because he is attributing more mechanical effects to the spell than are allowed by it's description.

Sorry, but you're making a mistake, here. You're reading more than is there.

It's not fluff. You're attributing this to me. I've never said it's fluff.

Fair play. Then what is it? It is a real effect of the spell or not?

You think mirror image does not deal damage to attackers because it doesn't make sense for it to deal damage, whereas I am saying it does not deal damage because the spell doesn't say it does.

In other words, you are following a path that is not RAW. There is nothing wrong with that, but you must concede that your interpretation cannot be taken universally, unlike a RAW reading.

No. RAW allows people to operate within the boundaries of RAW. I think we disagree on what it means to play by the RAW.

No, Fireball cannot melt ice. It can ignite unattended flammable objects. But when that flammable object is worn or held, it is immune to ignition by Fireball.

You are wrong on two counts, here. If you say that RAW forbids the melting of ice by fireball, you're wrong. If you say that RAW forbids ignition of worn or held objects, then you're wrong.

RAW mandates that flammable objects that are not held are ignited. This is not the same as forbidding that held objects are ignited.

Does that make sense? No, because it's magic. It doesn't have to.

But it does make sense. Not necessarily in-the-narrative sense. But game sense. Fireball ignites things, but if it is going to have a negative effect on players, then it will not be forced by the rules which otherwise give players a chance. However, 5e, by design, is supposed to appeal to all players, so by making no comment on what happens to held or worn objects, this gives the DM leeway to go with whatever degree of "hardcore mode" he wants to use. The DM can give worn or held items immunity, or he can use saving throws, or he can rule they are auto-destroyed. The RAW make no prescription.

If the target is invalid, it cannot be targeted by the spell. That is why it is an invalid target.

Where does it say that?

If the DM rules that a spell can hit an invalid target, then we are no longer on the same page. A spell can never hit an invalid target. A spell can start as a valid target and become invalid over the course of its duration (such as if the target becomes an unwilling one while under the Haste spell), but an unwilling creature can never be a target of Haste to begin with.

This is not necessarily true. It may be the case that spells can "hit" invalid targets but have no effect. It may be the case that spells can't even be cast unless a valid target is pre-selected. The RAW say nothing on this.

You are required to rule that way by RAW, but you are not required to rule it that way if you don't want to.

This is the fundamental mistake I'm trying to point out.

How far do you take this generalization? Does the idea that "spells can only do what it specifically says they can do" apply only to some spells, or to all spells, or to all aspects of the game?

It doesn't do anything else? Then why does it specify the defender to roll a d20 when an attack hits?

It doesn't.

You seem to be willfully ignoring components of the spell.

Actually, you are adding words to the spell which are not there. This is a case in point.

Does the spell not allow you to roll a d20 when an attack hits?

No, it does not.

The spell forces the caster to roll a d20 if he is targeted, when he is targeted. The result of the roll determines the target of the attack.

The spell literally tells you that if the caster of mirror image wants any attacks to go to his images then he must redirect it himself

No, it doesn't. There is no choice from the caster. The d20 roll is forced.

gloryblaze

2017-12-20, 05:30 PM

1. There are no rules that tell the DM what happens when a character casts a spell at an invalid target. Some questions that arise are: can it be cast? Can a player insist on trying it (and having the character fail) despite it not being possible? If a character can try it, does the failure result in the loss of the spell slot? If the character can try it, does the attempt result in the loss of the character's action for the round?

2. The problem with saying "I target that jerk casting mirror image" is that you don't know which of the four jerks that you see (if any) is the caster.

3. This is the problem that Segev addressed in detail in the other thread. If you allow a player to target "that jerk who cast mirror image" even thought he cannot correctly pick out the jerk, then you open a can of worms. It is no different than saying that you can target "the jerk who cast X" while looking at a group of four people and having the spell select and target the jerk for you. Spells cannot select targets for the caster. The caster must select the target.

1. This is patently false. There are rules on spellcasting at invalid targets, they're in Xanathar's. (I guess it's technically optional RAW, but it's RAW.) They say that if you miscast a spell (such as trying to nail a vampire with Hold Person), then the action and spell slot are consumed. If the spell (such as HP) might fail if the target succeeds on a saving throw, then it appears to the caster as if they have done so. If it normally would not fail, then it is apparent to the caster that something has gone wrong. Still, this doesn't particularly support your position.

2. You don't see 4 separate jerks. You see 1 jerk with 3 illusory duplicates that move about so it is impossible to track which is real. If I were looking at a group of 4 people, they wouldn't all be in the same space moving amongst themselves so as to be impossible to track. You can target this morass, but you cannot pick one individually to target (after all, you can't tell them apart and they're moving so as to prevent purposefully targeting any given one [such as if you managed to identify the real one by hitting it earlier]). This is re-enforced by the phrasing of MI: "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. ". It's evident from the spell that in order for the d20 mechanic to kick in, the caster must first be targeted. Unless you're saying that an attacker must first choose 1 of four images, and then the d20 kicks in.

Now, I know you're going to say that in this case, "target" actually means "intends to target" and that the d20 mechanic isn't a redirect, it's the initial target selection, and that they just left out any mechanisms to allow non-attacks to be targeted at all. The issue with this is that "target" is a game term, and it does not mean "intends to target". I know that you have your whole little argument lined up about how the writers must have meant it that way because if they didn't, the spell doesn't work (read: your personal interpretation of the spell doesn't stack up), but even if you're right that the writers meant "intend to target", that's not what they wrote. This is a RAW discussion, not a RAI discussion.

After all, we all know where RAI lies. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/)

3. If I have more than one potential target, I agree, I can't autotarget. If I have 4 people in a locked room murder mystery, I can't say "I target the killer" and expect the spell to work. This is because "the killer" is not an unambiguous identification (to my character - if she knows who the killer is, it would work. In fact, as DM, if I had a player who believed Joe was the killer, and they cast HP on "the killer", I'd have them target Joe, regardless of whether or not Joe was the killer.) However, Mirror Image does not provide alternate targets. It simply confuddles and bemuses viewers and attackers with visual shenanigans and chicanery. It does nothing to prevent spells (barring attack spells, which must be aimed) from functioning. This is because I can unambiguously identify a single humanoid when I see a caster using mirror image. If I say "I target the human spellcaster two squares up from me on the battlemat", well, only one creature matches that description. If that creature is a vampire, the spell will fail. If that creature is in fact a human, but he has mirror image up? He'd better have a solid Wisdom save.

pdegan2814

2017-12-20, 06:41 PM

I can't actually believe this much debate can be had when the wording seems quite clear, and the WotC guys have been pretty clear about spells/effects being triggered by an Attack NOT being triggered by something that isn't and Attack.

The relevant text of the Mirror Image 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."
Also: "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."

It's two lines of text that matter to this discussion. The first sets the conditions for when the redirection effect triggers, and the second defines the exceptions to those conditions. Mearls and Crawford have been quite clear in their rulings that if the spell you're casting does not involve making an Attack(as in requiring an attack roll), then it is not affected by things that require an Attack to be happening. All this talk about spells like Hold Person or Magic Missile being subject to Mirror Image....just ask a simple question. Does the wording of the spell I'm casting say to make an Attack? If it doesn't, then you aren't. Nowhere in the wording of Magic Missile or Hold Person is the word "attack" used. It's just like the Princess Bride: "If you didn't say it, you didn't do it." :)

I will say that I'm not 100% sure about Grapples and Shoves, although they're each officially described as a "special melee attack", so I'd say that they are affected by Mirror Image. You could redirect the Grapple attempt, and it would fail since the attacker isn't grappling a solid object. Plus, since a Grapple doesn't "hit" I could see ruling that a Grapple doesn't destroy the duplicate. I could also see a house rule that the contested roll is made against either the caster's Athletics/Acrobatics check, or against the caster's spell DC. On a success, the caster isn't shoved or grappled, but that duplicate is gone.

LeonBH

2017-12-20, 09:04 PM

BurgerBeast, you've not added anything substantive on your last reply besides saying "no", so I'll wrap this up.

The images are not fluff. Their presence enables the defender to roll a d20 when they are targeted by an attack. As their numbers decrease, the range on the d20 the defender must roll gets higher, so they visually represent the mechanics of the spell as it is written, and their presence has a mechanical effect which we observe as their numbers decrease.

RAW = Rules As Written. If it's not written, it's not RAW. Fireball cannot melt ice, mirror image cannot protect against non-attacks. This is because the spells do not say they can. You cannot tell me I am wrong here when I am simply reading out the spell to you. If a victim of Fireball is holding a candle, the candle is not lit or molten even after enduring a fiery blast.

It is you who is insisting that spells may do more than what is written. This is obvious when we study your view of what it means to play by the RAW. According to you, things that do not contradict RAW are still RAW. You're wrong: RAW contradicts itself in many places, so you cannot say a lack of contradiction is evidence of alignment with RAW, when RAW itself does not have that property.

Is it written in the spell description that mirror image can redirect non-attacks? If no, it cannot by RAW.

Is it written that Fireball can melt ice? If no, then it cannot by RAW.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 01:29 AM

1. This is patently false. There are rules on spellcasting at invalid targets, they're in Xanathar's. (I guess it's technically optional RAW, but it's RAW.) They say that if you miscast a spell (such as trying to nail a vampire with Hold Person), then the action and spell slot are consumed. If the spell (such as HP) might fail if the target succeeds on a saving throw, then it appears to the caster as if they have done so. If it normally would not fail, then it is apparent to the caster that something has gone wrong. Still, this doesn't particularly support your position.

Okay, well then the RAW are as I interpreted them in the case of targeting. But this means that the RAW to not align with what LeonBH has said.

How is trying to nail a vampire with hold person different than trying to nail an illusion with hold person? I'm sincerely asking. I am not trying to trap you into conceding that this is a similar case to MI, because that's a separate discussion.

It appears to me that, RAW, a caster can cast hold person at an illusion, and when it fails, the caster will not know whether the target is a person who succeeded on a saving throw, a creature that is not a person, or an illusion.

2. You don't see 4 separate jerks. You see 1 jerk with 3 illusory duplicates that move about so it is impossible to track which is real.

But you don't know that. You don't know how many are people and how many are duplicates. It could be 1 and 3 or 0 and 4, and conceivably even 2 and 2. You don't know and the spell doesn't know.

If I were looking at a group of 4 people, they wouldn't all be in the same space moving amongst themselves so as to be impossible to track.

The only relevance of the ability to track is whether you can pick the same target from round to round. It doesn't prevent you from picking one of the four targets in the given round.

You can target this morass, but you cannot pick one individually to target (after all, you can't tell them apart and they're moving so as to prevent purposefully targeting any given one [such as if you managed to identify the real one by hitting it earlier]).

Nothing in the spell description suggests a morass. Nothing in the spell description says you cannot target them. What the spell description says is that you cannot track which image is real. This means that if you strike, and hit the real caster, then you cannot keep track of him and bypass the randomized mechanic on subsequent rounds.

This is re-enforced by the phrasing of MI: "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 a duplicate is targeted instead, then a duplicate is targeted instead. That's all that means. You can't read any more into it. Nothing about that suggests that the targeting mechanism was magically interfered with, nor that the spell magically adjusted the target.

If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack’s target to a duplicate. ". It's evident from the spell that in order for the d20 mechanic to kick in, the caster must first be targeted.

No, it isn't. You roll to determine what is targeted. It's an override. It's there because the character cannot pick a target.

Unless you're saying that an attacker must first choose 1 of four images, and then the d20 kicks in.

It doesn't matter. The attacker can pick any of the four targets. Regardless of which one he picks, he'll never know if it's the caster or a duplicate, and neither will the player and neither will the DM. So, randomization is the only way to figure it out. The d20 overrides the usual method of target selection because no other method makes any sense.

Now, I know you're going to say that in this case, "target" actually means "intends to target" and that the d20 mechanic isn't a redirect, it's the initial target selection, and that they just left out any mechanisms to allow non-attacks to be targeted at all. The issue with this is that "target" is a game term, and it does not mean "intends to target".

Of course that's what it means. If you could hit whatever you target, then there'd be no attack rolls, ever.

I know that you have your whole little argument lined up about how the writers must have meant it that way because if they didn't, the spell doesn't work (read: your personal interpretation of the spell doesn't stack up), but even if you're right that the writers meant "intend to target", that's not what they wrote. This is a RAW discussion, not a RAI discussion.

My "little" argument is the only one that makes sense. Players never get to choose the results of their actions. They only get to choose their intentions. Players tell the DM what they intend to target, and the DM determines the target.

3. If I have more than one potential target, I agree, I can't autotarget. If I have 4 people in a locked room murder mystery, I can't say "I target the killer" and expect the spell to work. This is because "the killer" is not an unambiguous identification (to my character - if she knows who the killer is, it would work. In fact, as DM, if I had a player who believed Joe was the killer, and they cast HP on "the killer", I'd have them target Joe, regardless of whether or not Joe was the killer.) However, Mirror Image does not provide alternate targets.

You have no reason to refute that the duplicates are targets. The only reason you offer is your invented "morass" which is entirely unsupported by the RAW. You are free to rule this way, but the RAW does not force it.

It simply confuddles and bemuses viewers and attackers with visual shenanigans and chicanery. It does nothing to prevent spells (barring attack spells, which must be aimed) from functioning. This is because I can unambiguously identify a single humanoid when I see a caster using mirror image.

This is pure invention. You can write your own fluff to make it work this way if you want, but there is no reason that you must fluff it this way.

If I say "I target the human spellcaster two squares up from me on the battlemat", well, only one creature matches that description.

Of course only one creature matches that description. But there are three illusions which also match the description, and the target can't tell which are creatures and which are illusions.

If that creature is a vampire, the spell will fail. If that creature is in fact a human, but he has mirror image up? He'd better have a solid Wisdom save.

You can play this way if you like. But it isn't forced by RAW.

I can't actually believe this much debate can be had when the wording seems quite clear, and the WotC guys have been pretty clear about spells/effects being triggered by an Attack NOT being triggered by something that isn't and Attack.

It's strange, I'll grant you that. I'm trying very hard to avoid biases. I'm not convinced that I'm wrong. Essentially all I'm saying is that my view is justifiable under RAW. I am not refuting that the other view is justifiable. I'm just saying that mine is, too.

The relevant text of the Mirror Image 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 part of the text has no relevance to the question of what happens when a caster cast hold person.

If someone casts hold person, it's not "a time a creature targets you with an attack," so none of that text applies.

Also: "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."

The creature casting the spell is (for the sake of the argument) able to see, doe snot rely on other senses, and can't perceive illusions as false. So none of this applies either.

It's two lines of text that matter to this discussion.

Actually, neither applies.

The first sets the conditions for when the redirection effect triggers, and the second defines the exceptions to those conditions.

This is false.

(1) Nothing in the spell description suggests redirection, at all. That's invented.

(2) It does not "set the conditions." It introduces one potential condition and what to do if the condition is met. If the condition is not met, it is ignored.

Mearls and Crawford have been quite clear in their rulings that if the spell you're casting does not involve making an Attack(as in requiring an attack roll), then it is not affected by things that require an Attack to be happening.

This may be true, but its not what the RAW say.

All this talk about spells like Hold Person or Magic Missile being subject to Mirror Image....just ask a simple question. Does the wording of the spell I'm casting say to make an Attack? If it doesn't, then you aren't. Nowhere in the wording of Magic Missile or Hold Person is the word "attack" used. It's just like the Princess Bride: "If you didn't say it, you didn't do it." :)

I fully understand the position. I just think it's wrong.

I will say that I'm not 100% sure about Grapples and Shoves, although they're each officially described as a "special melee attack", so I'd say that they are affected by Mirror Image. You could redirect the Grapple attempt, and it would fail since the attacker isn't grappling a solid object. Plus, since a Grapple doesn't "hit" I could see ruling that a Grapple doesn't destroy the duplicate. I could also see a house rule that the contested roll is made against either the caster's Athletics/Acrobatics check, or against the caster's spell DC. On a success, the caster isn't shoved or grappled, but that duplicate is gone.

Ironically, I think there'd be consensus on this. A grapple is an attack, so the caster would roll a d20. If the resulting target is the caster, then he is grappled. If a duplicate is targeted, it is not hit, so it is not destroyed. The grappler discovers this target to be a duplicate at this instant, but he cannot track the image long enough to avoid accidentally targeting it again on future rounds - not even on his very next attack, in the case of having multiple attacks.

BurgerBeast, you've not added anything substantive on your last reply besides saying "no", so I'll wrap this up.

The images are not fluff. Their presence enables the defender to roll a d20 when they are targeted by an attack. As their numbers decrease, the range on the d20 the defender must roll gets higher, so they visually represent the mechanics of the spell as it is written, and their presence has a mechanical effect which we observe as their numbers decrease.

RAW = Rules As Written. If it's not written, it's not RAW.

Yeah there just seems to be a strange misreading of what it means when one says "if it's not written, it's not RAW."

Fireball cannot melt ice, mirror image cannot protect against non-attacks. This is because the spells do not say they can. You cannot tell me I am wrong here when I am simply reading out the spell to you.

This is a serious question: do you think fireballs are warm? And if so, what is your justification?

If a victim of Fireball is holding a candle, the candle is not lit or molten even after enduring a fiery blast.

I understand your point. I just see no justification for it.

It is you who is insisting that spells may do more than what is written.

It's really not. We know that fireball creates an explosion of fire. But the spell doesn't say that it is hot. Therefore it cannot be hot, right?

I mean, even though it is fire, it doesn't have the properties of fire unless the spell says it does, right?

What colour is a fireball? the spell doesn't say it has a colour therefore it cannot have a colour, right?

My point is that you are over-applying the phrase: "A spell does only what it says it does" by changing it into the phrase: "spells cannot do anything unless it explicitly says they can." How would you respond to this point?

This is obvious when we study your view of what it means to play by the RAW. According to you, things that do not contradict RAW are still RAW.

No, that is not my view.

My view is that the RAW are the rules as written. If a spell says it creates a fire, I do not think it is a violation of the RAW to consider the fire to be orange, flicker, and give off heat, nor to cause burns if someone was to hold their bare skin over the flame. This is not because I can do whatever I want. It's because those are the properties of fire.

You're wrong: RAW contradicts itself in many places, so you cannot say a lack of contradiction is evidence of alignment with RAW, when RAW itself does not have that property.

Well, I never said it.

Is it written in the spell description that mirror image can redirect non-attacks? If no, it cannot by RAW.

It's not written that mirror image can re-direct attacks, either. that's because mirror image does not redirect attacks. Mirror image creates three illusory duplicates.

Is it written that Fireball can melt ice? If no, then it cannot by RAW.

Just to be clear, in your view:

The fireball cannot be yellow, orange, red, or blue, because the RAW do not say what colour it is.

Fireball cannot give off heat because the spell does not say that it can.

Fireball cannot burn its victims, because the spell does not say that it can.

If a character is killed by a fireball, and the DM describes the dead character as being seared or charred or otherwise affected by flames, he is violating the RAW.

Does this all fit your view?

I do not mean to be rude with any of these questions. If you'd prefer to ask me questions, I'll happily answer them.

I honestly think that we must have entirely different views of the implications of RAW and their applications, and I find it fascinating.

Talamare

2017-12-21, 01:40 AM

I'm not even going to argue that you're wrong, since that has just become an established fact... but this

What colour is a fireball? the spell doesn't say it has a colour therefore it cannot have a colour, right?

My point is that you are over-applying the phrase: "A spell does only what it says it does" by changing it into the phrase: "spells cannot do anything unless it explicitly says they can." How would you respond to this point?

Just to be clear, in your view:

The fireball cannot be yellow, orange, red, or blue, because the RAW do not say what colour it is.
That is just terrible levels of strawman that cannot go without being pointed out.
Don't do stuff like in an argument

Kane0

2017-12-21, 01:59 AM

My players like the fact that mirror image protects against things like hold person and ray of enfeeblement. It makes it worth the action to cast in a fight.
They also like that magic missile, scorching ray and the like is very effective at stripping mirror images, makes for fun counterplay at the table.
And if they get annoyed theres always fireball.

But then, thats just my table. I know not everyone plays it that way.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 02:08 AM

Maybe it would help if I laid my cards on the table, and you can just tell me where I’m wrong.

Joe casts 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. 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.

1. Three illusory duplicates of Joe appear in his space.

A space is 5 x 5. There is no reason that this sentence must mean that Joe appears as a “morass”. As long as the duplicates are in his space, they can be fluffed in a variety of ways. If you have doubts about this, then I have two things to say about some potential doubts:

(1) If you think there must be some physcial overlap between the duplicates and themselves or the duplicates and Joe, then I would say that this seems fine to me. But that does not in any way give up Joe’s position. To an observer, overlapping images are a tip-off that illusions are in play, but there is no visual difference between two overlapping illusions and an illusion overlapping a person.

(2) If you think that being in the same space means you are bounded by an invisible prism that is 5 ft long and 5 ft wide, you’re mistaken. In combat, creatures occupying a 5’ x 5’ square move about and often break the invisible barriers between spaces… this must be true or there could never be a melee attack.

Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions,…

This tells us that the images are essentially perfectly synched with the caster.

…shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real.

This “shifting” positions prevents tracking of images. It does not say it prevents targeting. The point of this is to prevent a character who has hit the caster from auto-detecting him (i.e. by-passing the d20 mechanic) on future atacks.

-- at this point there is no relevant reason to get into the rest of the spell, until…

Hero casts hold person. (I don’t know if I mixed up Joe and Hero, but anyway…)

Choose a humanoid that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a W isdom 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.

Choose a humanoid that you can see within range.

Hero must choose his target. There are four potential Joes moving about, and we know that it is possible to choose an invalid target (based on what gloryblaze said about Xanathar’s), so there are four potential choices.

There is no meaningful way to choose here, so the target must be randomized.

At this point, the DM has all of the relevant information that is availibale to work with, and must do his best to make a ruling. He can randomize this in a number of ways, but there is no logical and relevant way to resolve this without randomization. (I would roll 1d4, assigning a number to Joe before rolling.)

Once the DM has deterined the target, it is either the real Joe or a duplicate.

If it is Joe, we consult the rest of the hold person text:

The target must succeed on a W isdom 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.

Seems straightforward enough.

If the target is a duplicate, then the target is invalid, and hold person has no effect.

-- Seems simple and clean to me.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 02:20 AM

That is just terrible levels of strawman that cannot go without being pointed out.
Don't do stuff like in an argument

Except I announced it myself in the presentation. My point is, and has always been, that if you take the overly rigid stance that spells "only do what they specifically say they do," and, in this case you are rigid to the point that fireball cannot melt ice because the spell does not specifically say so, then I am trying to determine how far this extends.

It's an honest and legitimate question.

The position, as presented, seems to be leading to this particularly level of absurdity, and so there is no way to put the question other than to present the absurdities. Under what circumstances, if any, is it okay to ascribe the properties of fire to fireball, even if those properties are not specifically mentioned in the spell description?

And, secondarily, does this apply beyond spells? Assuming the hard line is the line taken, does this that armour and weapons do only what the rules say they do, or is it within the RAW to add properties to swords such as that they can reflect light and be used as doorjams?

I'm serious.

Talamare

2017-12-21, 02:39 AM

Except I announced it myself in the presentation. My point is, and has always been, that if you take the overly rigid stance that spells "only do what they specifically say they do," and, in this case you are rigid to the point that fireball cannot melt ice because the spell does not specifically say so, then I am trying to determine how far this extends.

It's an honest and legitimate question.

The position, as presented, seems to be leading to this particularly level of absurdity, and so there is no way to put the question other than to present the absurdities. Under what circumstances, if any, is it okay to ascribe the properties of fire to fireball, even if those properties are not specifically mentioned in the spell description?

And, secondarily, does this apply beyond spells? Assuming the hard line is the line taken, does this that armour and weapons do only what the rules say they do, or is it within the RAW to add properties to swords such as that they can reflect light and be used as doorjams?

I'm serious.

Alright, then I'll respond seriously.

Dungeons and Dragons is both a Game and a means to tell a Story. Thus both factors are interleaved among each other. There does arise issue of cognitive dissonance when certain aspects of this game is subjected to the rules of the game.

Spells especially could be considered rocky ground, as they need Story to explain why they are having a mechanical effect on the game. However spells do become exactly and mechanically clear on the effect that they have on the Game portion of Dungeons and Dragons. Regardless of how disjointed it might feel with the Story portion of it.

So yea, by the Cold and Mechanically Concise rulings the spell Fireball is NOT a Fireball. It is a Game Mechanic that deals a certain amount of damage in a certain area and has certain additional effects.

Now when you reach the Story Aspect, you can say it was whatever color you want, whatever size you want (as long as it mechanically only has an effect on the specific sized defined), whatever whatever you want. Because when speaking about Rules the Story Aspect DOES NOT MATTER.

This is literally the most basic understanding of Dungeons and Dragons and similar RPG games. That at their core they are Games. Games have rules. Rules must be concise and easy for multiple people to come to a similar understand.

Which everyone has, but you keep fighting for the fluff to be established as a rule.

Rusvul

2017-12-21, 02:49 AM

Burgerbeast -

I think you have a fairly strong argument in that this is an area that RAW does not cover very well. However, 5e is not a game of comprehensive Rules As Written. There are no rules written on using a sword to reflect light, or melting ice with fireballs. Suggesting that either of these things are RAW is fundamentally wrong--as LeonBH stated, if it is not written it is not RAW. However, nobody I've ever met plays 5e with a strict adherence to RAW at the expense of common sense--just because it is not RAW does not mean it is not allowed. (The exact definition of what is sensible is not set in stone, of course, and varies a great deal from table to table. Some DMs might rule that because of the instantaneous, magical nature of fireball, it does not melt ice to any significant degree. Whatever works for their game.) The text of the DMG (and possibly others?) explicitly encourages DM improvisation to match player creativity, IIRC. In 5e, there is an inherent expectation that where RAW fails to fully describe a situation, as it so often does, the DM makes rulings, and rulings are subjective. Your ruling is not an unreasonable one--though I personally disagree with it--but suggesting that it is RAW is thoroughly incorrect.

Painting this as an argument of RAW will take us nowhere. As in so many other places, RAW does not describe the situation well enough to make conclusive, absolute judgements.

visitor

2017-12-21, 02:59 AM

Except I announced it myself in the presentation. My point is, and has always been, that if you take the overly rigid stance that spells "only do what they specifically say they do," and, in this case you are rigid to the point that fireball cannot melt ice because the spell does not specifically say so, then I am trying to determine how far this extends.

It's an honest and legitimate question.

The position, as presented, seems to be leading to this particularly level of absurdity, and so there is no way to put the question other than to present the absurdities. Under what circumstances, if any, is it okay to ascribe the properties of fire to fireball, even if those properties are not specifically mentioned in the spell description?

And, secondarily, does this apply beyond spells? Assuming the hard line is the line taken, does this that armour and weapons do only what the rules say they do, or is it within the RAW to add properties to swords such as that they can reflect light and be used as doorjams?

I'm serious.

#1: There is a huge difference between saying "a fireball is red" vs. Mirror Image creates images and these images are capable of xyz because they are not specifically excluded from doing it and/or images are normally capable of xyz.

A spell is making an exemption from normal "reality", and the text describes the rules of that particular exemption. To add more mechanical effects than what has been specified is to add to the power and scope of the original spell.

#2: Look at the spell Sanctuary. It wards the target against attacks. And it specifies being targeted by attacks and harmful spells...meaning, attacks with attack rolls, and spells that harm requiring saving throws. (It also excludes AOE attacks).

The books are pretty consistent with attack = attack requiring d20 roll. My #2 highlights the difference in language between Mirror Image and Sanctuary, a spell that has a broader effect. Mirror Image's effect is much more specific. My #1 is to your idea that the creation of images is the source/reason of the mechanical effect of the spell. Together, I don't think your interpretation of Mirror Image really stands up.

Edit: I liked Rusvul's post

LeonBH

2017-12-21, 03:08 AM

Yeah there just seems to be a strange misreading of what it means when one says "if it's not written, it's not RAW."

Once again, if it's not written, it's not RAW.

This is a serious question: do you think fireballs are warm? And if so, what is your justification?

RAW says nothing of the temperature of Fireball. How can anyone justify this from a RAW perspective? How can you justify it?

For that matter, how can anyone stand in the center of an explosion of fire, take the full brunt of the force, and not die or experience serious 3rd degree burns?

Your Fireballs are hot. But not all Fireballs are hot, and RAW does not require them to be.

It's really not. We know that fireball creates an explosion of fire. But the spell doesn't say that it is hot. Therefore it cannot be hot, right?

I mean, even though it is fire, it doesn't have the properties of fire unless the spell says it does, right?

What colour is a fireball? the spell doesn't say it has a colour therefore it cannot have a colour, right?

My point is that you are over-applying the phrase: "A spell does only what it says it does" by changing it into the phrase: "spells cannot do anything unless it explicitly says they can." How would you respond to this point?

You are taking your personal interpretation of the text and are declaring it is RAW. You are wrong to do this because your understanding of RAW is not universal.

The fire may have a color, but which color it is, you cannot say for sure. It may induce gas ionization or it may not. It might conduct electricity or it may not. It may glow or it may not. What is your basis for imposing your perceived "properties of fire" on the Fireball spell?

No, that is not my view.

My view is that the RAW are the rules as written. If a spell says it creates a fire, I do not think it is a violation of the RAW to consider the fire to be orange, flicker, and give off heat, nor to cause burns if someone was to hold their bare skin over the flame. This is not because I can do whatever I want. It's because those are the properties of fire.

Those are not the properties of fire.

In the real world, fire is not orange. It is not necessarily hot. It does not have to burn someone when they put their open hand over it. Don't you see that you are applying your own interpretations over RAW?

Seriously, look up fire's color and temperature. You are describing your perceptions of fire and imposing it over the spell, and then declaring it is RAW.

It's not written that mirror image can re-direct attacks, either. that's because mirror image does not redirect attacks. Mirror image creates three illusory duplicates.

Mirror image allows the defender to roll a 20 to hit a duplicate when the caster is targeted by an attack. Do you deny this?

The fireball cannot be yellow, orange, red, or blue, because the RAW do not say what colour it is.

Fireball cannot take on a specific color according to RAW. You can ascribe to it any color you want.

Fireball cannot give off heat because the spell does not say that it can.

It cannot give off heat according to RAW. You cannot use it to warm your milk or melt your ice according to RAW.

Fireball cannot burn its victims, because the spell does not say that it can.

Correct. RAW does not allow Fireball to burn its victims. RAW does not allow Fireball to burn their clothes, either, even if it's made of flammable material: "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried."

If someone wore toilet paper and they were hit by a Fireball, their clothes will not burn. If the DM rules that the toilet paper burns, they are actually directly violating RAW because the toilet paper is being worn.

And if it doesn't burn the toilet paper, how could it burn their skin?

If a character is killed by a fireball, and the DM describes the dead character as being seared or charred or otherwise affected by flames, he is violating the RAW.

The DM is not applying a RAW ruling in that case. That flavor you ascribed to their fiery death is completely your own and nobody else needs to apply it to theirs.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 03:17 AM

Alright, then I'll respond seriously.

I appreciate the response, and I agree with most of what you've said. I'll just comment on the parts that I disagree with or have questions about.

However spells do become exactly and mechanically clear on the effect that they have on the Game portion of Dungeons and Dragons. Regardless of how disjointed it might feel with the Story portion of it.

Even accepting this, my point would be that it is not strictly a violation of RAW to rule that fireballs give off heat. If a spell creates fire, then it seems to me that it is not a violation of the RAW to consider it to be hot. Likewise, it does not strike me as a violation of the RAW to say that if a spell summons a wolf, then it is fair to assume the wolf has the characteristics of a wolf, even if it is not called out. Likewise for a spell that creates an illusion.

It's not like I'm trying to claim that fire bolt can be used to start forest fires, or that mirror images can do damage with the illusory daggers they hold.

Do you disagree?

So yea, by the Cold and Mechanically Concise rulings the spell Fireball is NOT a Fireball. It is a Game Mechanic that deals a certain amount of damage in a certain area and has certain additional effects.

I think we just flat out disagree, here. I'm not saying it's wrong to play that way. I'm saying it's wrong to insist that this is the only RAW way to play. There is significant tradition behind the fluff/mechanics dichotomy, but I think it is a misunderstanding of the game and a detriment to the game.

Sometimes, it may be the intent of the designers to create a spell that only protects against attacks, perhaps even with a spell level in mind, and then try to come up with a "fluff" explanation for why it should work. This would lend itself to rigid guidelines on the basis of balance and may leave much to be desired in terms of the coherence of the concept.

Sometimes, though, the designers just want wizards to be able to fling fireballs. They then set about trying to give the guidelines for what the spell can do, perhaps imposing some limits or restrictions, but in principle they are trying to fit the mechanics to the narrative concept. In such cases they are left to determine the spell level of the effect based on the power level it provides, as opposed to building a spell to fit a particular power level.

In my view, to ignore this second aspect of the table-top RPG is to ignore everything that differentiates it from other tabletop games. The presence of the GM/DM/referee is the most powerful aspect of the game. The more rigid the rules, the less relevant the DM.

Mirror image is a spell that is conceptually clear, as is fireball, in my opinion. Other spells, particularly the cantrips, were more of a mechanical thought that required fluffing to make it fit the mechanical place for it in the game space.

Phoenix042

2017-12-21, 03:32 AM

Each time someone targets you with an attack.

Targets you. Not "attempts to target you."

Raw, this spell has no affect on your ability to successfully target the caster, with an attack or any spell or feature. After you've targeted the caster, if the thing you're targeting him with is an attack, then mirror image might change your target.

This order of phrasing is very important for this discussion. It means a caster of magic missile is not subject to having his spells target changed to an image created by MI, because the spell is not an attack.

A house rule might or might not be appropriate to change this. But a house rule it surely would be.

Jerrykhor

2017-12-21, 03:43 AM

And, secondarily, does this apply beyond spells? Assuming the hard line is the line taken, does this that armour and weapons do only what the rules say they do, or is it within the RAW to add properties to swords such as that they can reflect light and be used as doorjams?

I'm serious.

Yes, they only do what the rules say they do. Or are you the type to cry about logic and realism just because there is no difference in wearing full plate armour or being naked when getting roasted by a Fireball?

Burgerbeast, you are wrong, and let me put it in real simple terms. Why do you think that we MUST select one of the illusions when targeting the MI user, but NOT when attacking him with a weapon? Easy, because the rules of the spell says so. Even though I am making an assumption by saying the illusions are not meant to be targeted, you can't have a disparity in the function of the spell. Its called consistency. If a weapon attack does not require manually targeting one of the illusion, then other spells and effects follow the same rule. Its a safe assumption to make.

Also, to elaborate on why the illusions are not meant to be targeted: They are all in your space. Yes, we repeated that fact many times to you, but you will not listen. They cannot be targeted like an illusion from Major Image (example), because if they were all in your space, it means you are interacting with your own illusion, and as you know, physical interaction on illusions will reveal them to be false, because they will appear faint and see-through.

And finally, there is the line that says '... A duplicate can only be destroyed by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects.' This line alone is RAW that a Hold Person cannot be wasted on casting on the duplicate.

Its not about what sounds right, its about what is right. And you're wrong.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 03:47 AM

LeonBH, I just want to thank you for taking the time to engage.

RAW says nothing of the temperature of Fireball. How can anyone justify this from a RAW perspective? How can you justify it?

Maybe there's some confusion about what I'm trying to justify. I'm not trying to justify forcing all fireballs to be orange. I'm trying to justify my right, within the RAW, to make my fireballs orange.

Your Fireballs are hot. But not all Fireballs are hot, and RAW does not require them to be.

This is all I have ever tried to say. RAW does not require them to be, but RAW allows them to be. Do you agree with this?

You are taking your personal interpretation of the text and are declaring it is RAW. You are wrong to do this because your understanding of RAW is not universal.

And again, this drives to the difference between forcing and allowing. I am not declaring anything as RAW. I am defending my right to make rulings within the RAW, in those instances in which it is permitted.

The fire may have a color, but which color it is, you cannot say for sure. It may induce gas ionization or it may not. It might conduct electricity or it may not. It may glow or it may not. What is your basis for imposing your perceived "properties of fire" on the Fireball spell?

I'm not imposing my view. I'm defending my right to have a view that falls within the boundaries that are given by the RAW.

In the real world, fire is not orange. It is not necessarily hot. It does not have to burn someone when they put their open hand over it. Don't you see that you are applying your own interpretations over RAW?

Again, I'm not, nor have I ever, tried to impose my views on others. I have been doing the exact opposite throughout both threads: I've been trying to tell others to stop imposing their interpretation of the RAW on me. I've been trying to say that sometimes the RAW makes impositions, but when it does not, it is incorrect to add them.

Seriously, look up fire's color and temperature. You are describing your perceptions of fire and imposing it over the spell, and then declaring it is RAW.

Again, I'm not imposing it over the spell. I'm saying it's an allowable way to treat the spell. I'm not declaring it as RAW. I'm saying it's permissible within the RAW.

Mirror image allows the defender to roll a 20 to hit a duplicate when the caster is targeted by an attack. Do you deny this?

Yes, but it might be semantic. It "allows" it in the sense that it makes it possible. But the defender is not merely "allowed" to roll - he is forced to roll.

Fireball cannot take on a specific color according to RAW. You can ascribe to it any color you want.

Something weird is going on here, semantically. I would say that if you can ascribe any colour you want to fireball, then it can take on a specific colour according to RAW.

Obliquely: Why can you ascribe colour but not temperature? What is the inherent difference between them that makes one, in principle, allowed, and the other not?

It cannot give off heat according to RAW. You cannot use it to warm your milk or melt your ice according to RAW.

It seems to me that you are imposing this restriction where the RAW to not impose it. On what basis can you insist that, if someone allowed it to melt ice, he would be violating the RAW?

Correct. RAW does not allow Fireball to burn its victims. RAW does not allow Fireball to burn their clothes, either: "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried."

You seem to be pointing to evidence that a fireball can ignite X as evidence that it therefore cannot ignite Y. We disagree, here. This seems overly prescriptive. I agree with you that it would absolutely be wrong to rule that an unheld tapestry did not ignite - RAW imposes that it must. But it would not necessarily be wrong to rule that a held tapestry was ignited - RAW do not say that it must not.

The DM is not applying a RAW ruling in that case. That flavor you ascribed to their fiery death is completely your own and nobody else needs to apply it to theirs.

I'm not trying to say they must. I'm trying to say that RAW, they can. Or, perhaps more strongly, I'm saying that to do so is not a violation of the RAW.

Are we making any headway, here?

Potato_Priest

2017-12-21, 03:55 AM

Maybe there's some confusion about what I'm trying to justify. I'm not trying to justify forcing all fireballs to be orange. I'm trying to justify my right, within the RAW, to make my fireballs orange.

That is within your rights. The color of the spell has no mechanical effect and is not stipulated anywhere to be anything in particular.

You seem to be pointing to evidence that a fireball can ignite X as evidence that it therefore cannot ignite Y. We disagree, here. This seems overly prescriptive. I agree with you that it would absolutely be wrong to rule that an unheld tapestry did not ignite - RAW imposes that it must. But it would not necessarily be wrong to rule that a held tapestry was ignited - RAW do not say that it must not.

This is not within your RAW rights as that is adding a mechanical effect to the spell (igniting a carried object) that it doesn't, per RAW, have (and this is even a property that the spell is implied to not have, given that it specifies which objects it ignites and carried ones aren't on the list). You could just as easily stipulate that witch bolt stuns the target for the duration, because the spell doesn't say that it does not.

The difference between choosing a color and adding entirely new mechanical effects is rather clear.

Edit: After thinking this through, I have come to the conclusion that there are two ways to interpret RAW that could be possible in this thread (and that Burgerbeast is manipulating us towards): Uber strict RAW, where you cannot attribute a color or temperature to fireball and swords don't reflect light, or do-whatever-the-hell-you-want RAW, wherein you can add on affects to spells and abilities as long as they're not explicitly provided against. Either one is stupid, so just use houserules for darkness' sake.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 04:11 AM

Each time someone targets you with an attack.

Targets you. Not "attempts to target you."

Perhaps you can explain this difference to me.

Raw, this spell has no affect on your ability to successfully target the caster, with an attack or any spell or feature. After you've targeted the caster, if the thing you're targeting him with is an attack, then mirror image might change your target.

1. At what point, while looking along his arrow, does the archer go from attempting to target the caster to targeting the caster? And how does he accomplish this? What marks the transition?

2. What happens if the attacker "attempts to target" a duplicate?

Yes, they only do what the rules say they do. Or are you the type to cry about logic and realism just because there is no difference in wearing full plate armour or being naked when getting roasted by a Fireball?

So, in your games, do swords shine? And can swords be used to prop open doors? Is any DM that allows this directly violating the RAW by doing so?

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 04:27 AM

Hi Potato_Priest. Thank you for contributing.

This is not within your RAW rights as that is adding a mechanical effect to the spell (igniting a carried object) that it doesn't, per RAW, have (and this is even a property that the spell is implied to not have, given that it specifies which objects it ignites and carried ones aren't on the list).

For starters, I disagree about the implication. Beyond that: I would say that his depends on whether you think that fireball is actually a ball of fire, or is just a mechanical effect. If you think that fire ball is actually a ball of fire, then there are reasons to consider the effects of fire.

For example, there may be an illusion spell that does not specifically say that it can induce fear effects. But a DM might decide that, under appropriate circumstances, creating the illusion of a dragon can induce a fear effect in goblins. This is not, in my view, a violation of the RAW. This is just a ruling given the context.

You could just as easily stipulate that witch bolt stuns the target for the duration, because the spell doesn't say that it does not.

I would argue that this is not as easy.

The difference between choosing a color and adding entirely new mechanical effects is rather clear.

I agree. But there is a spectrum of possibility between the two, which is why I'm asking.

Edit: After thinking this through, I have come to the conclusion that there are two ways to interpret RAW that could be possible in this thread: Uber strict RAW, where you cannot attribute a color or temperature to fireball and swords don't reflect light, or do-whatever-the-hell-you-want RAW, wherein you can add on affects to spells and abilities as long as they're not explicitly provided against. Either one is stupid, so just use houserules for gods' sake.

I agree that both are stupid. But I'm not advocating either one. I'm saying that we can apply our reasoning to the available evidence and discover the probably-already-existing limits on what is allowed under RAW. Nobody is arguing for a DM free-for-all. However, I'm arguing that when there are sufficient reasons, and when the RAW do not forbid it, the DM can make rulings, and that these rulings fall under the umbrella of RAW.

LeonBH

2017-12-21, 04:29 AM

I will summarize your responses which I believe can be grouped together, for the sake of brevity.

I'm not imposing my view. I'm defending my right to have a view that falls within the boundaries that are given by the RAW.

This is the key here, in my opinion. You are acknowledging that your rulings are not RAW. You do not have to be bound by RAW in your games. But RAW is the standard by which everyone baselines themselves. But if you are declaring that your stance is not RAW, then we have no argument.

Yes, but it might be semantic. It "allows" it in the sense that it makes it possible. But the defender is not merely "allowed" to roll - he is forced to roll.

Whether choice is present or not is immaterial on the subject of what the spell does.

Something weird is going on here, semantically. I would say that if you can ascribe any colour you want to fireball, then it can take on a specific colour according to RAW.

Obliquely: Why can you ascribe colour but not temperature? What is the inherent difference between them that makes one, in principle, allowed, and the other not?

To be clear: the ascribing a specific color to the Fireball is not RAW. To say it is colorless is not RAW either.

It seems to me that you are imposing this restriction where the RAW to not impose it. On what basis can you insist that, if someone allowed it to melt ice, he would be violating the RAW?

On the basis that the spell does not specify it.

You seem to be pointing to evidence that a fireball can ignite X as evidence that it therefore cannot ignite Y. We disagree, here. This seems overly prescriptive. I agree with you that it would absolutely be wrong to rule that an unheld tapestry did not ignite - RAW imposes that it must. But it would not necessarily be wrong to rule that a held tapestry was ignited - RAW do not say that it must not.

I am appealing to your sense of logic. You are trying to make sense of the rules by saying Fireball burns its victims and melts ice because fire is hot and it makes sense for it to do that.

Can you make sense of the fact that Fireball burns a perfectly circular area (something real fire does not do), and does not ignite an unattended cotton ball 1 millimeter away from its blast radius, noting that everyone within the blast radius experiences the same damage (intensity?) from the spell?

You are using "RAW doesn't say I can't, so I can" so let me take that to its logical extreme, as you are doing with me. What stops me from saying Fireball doesn't impose vulnerability to all damage, as well as burns all non-flammable objects caught in its radius, including adamantine?

I'm not trying to say they must. I'm trying to say that RAW, they can. Or, perhaps more strongly, I'm saying that to do so is not a violation of the RAW.

Are we making any headway, here?

What I am gathering is that you are saying you are not making any RAW rulings as far as we have discussed, and I think there is nothing wrong with that at all. As far as mirror image is concerned, we must agree it is not RAW for that spell to defend against non-attack spells such as magic missile and hold person. That is your ruling, but it is not a RAW ruling.

gloryblaze

2017-12-21, 05:25 AM

Okay, well then the RAW are as I interpreted them in the case of targeting. But this means that the RAW to not align with what LeonBH has said.

How is trying to nail a vampire with hold person different than trying to nail an illusion with hold person? I'm sincerely asking. I am not trying to trap you into conceding that this is a similar case to MI, because that's a separate discussion.

It appears to me that, RAW, a caster can cast hold person at an illusion, and when it fails, the caster will not know whether the target is a person who succeeded on a saving throw, a creature that is not a person, or an illusion.

In many instances there would be no difference between a vampire and an illusion. If someone was using project image to create a duplicate of themselves in a different space, for instance, i woud have my characters pick between the two.

But you don't know that. You don't know how many are people and how many are duplicates. It could be 1 and 3 or 0 and 4, and conceivably even 2 and 2. You don't know and the spell doesn't know.

This is immaterial. If I target the person in square x with hold person, it will work unless there is more than one person in square x. Further, we know that in combat, there can be at most one person in square x. As a DM, if someone tries to cast hold person on someone else, I'm rolling initiative.

The only relevance of the ability to track is whether you can pick the same target from round to round. It doesn't prevent you from picking one of the four targets in the given round.

I would argue that a) the impossible to track thing is mostly fluff that was written to justify the mechanical effects of the spell (paragraphs 2-5), and that b) I agree that that line is not what prevents you from picking one of the four targets because there is only 1 target.

Nothing in the spell description suggests a morass. Nothing in the spell description says you cannot target them. What the spell description says is that you cannot track which image is real. This means that if you strike, and hit the real caster, then you cannot keep track of him and bypass the randomized mechanic on subsequent rounds.

Sure. If you want to visualize 4 distinct images all doing the same thing in the same 5 foot space, I'm fine with that. It's still 1 space, it's still 1 target.

If a duplicate is targeted instead, then a duplicate is targeted instead. That's all that means. You can't read any more into it. Nothing about that suggests that the targeting mechanism was magically interfered with, nor that the spell magically adjusted the target.

You're ignoring the important bits - the attack is explicitly described as targeting you, and it mentions (again, explicitly) that you change the target. It's less like "I don't feel like having a burger, so I'll have a hot dog instead" and more like "I ordered a burger, but they brought me a hot dog instead!"

I agree that the word "instead" by itself has more than one possible meaning so it could support your interpretation in a vacuum, but we have two lines of context right there to clear it up.

No, it isn't. You roll to determine what is targeted. It's an override. It's there because the character cannot pick a target.

The character can and did pick a target. They targeted "you". Says it right there in the spell description. If you're not a fan of being targeted, it's your lucky day! If it was an attack that targeted you, you can roll a d20 to change the attack's target away from you.

It doesn't matter. The attacker can pick any of the four targets. Regardless of which one he picks, he'll never know if it's the caster or a duplicate, and neither will the player and neither will the DM. So, randomization is the only way to figure it out. The d20 overrides the usual method of target selection because no other method makes any sense.

No, the attacksr cannot pick "any of 4 targets". In order for the d20 mechanic to kick in, the attack must have targeted "you" (the faster of the spell). If the attacker also had to pick a target ahead of time, then mirror image provides a double defense.

Of course that's what it means. If you could hit whatever you target, then there'd be no attack rolls, ever.

False equivalency. Targeting something and hitting something aren't the same. You can target Joe and miss if you don't hit his AC. You can target Joe with Hold Person and he might resist with a save. Mirror Image does nothing to prevent Joe from being targeted. What it does is say that if Joe is targeted by an attack then he can roll a d20 to (potentially) change the target of the attack. He cannot change the target of a non-attack, so it still targets him.

My "little" argument is the only one that makes sense. Players never get to choose the results of their actions. They only get to choose their intentions. Players tell the DM what they intend to target, and the DM determines the target.

I would call this flat-out wrong. Players don't choose the results of their actions, sure. I agree. But players do choose their actions. If my player told me "I intend to target Joe with Hold Person" my next sentence would be: "Alright. Do you target Joe with Hold Person, then?"

You have no reason to refute that the duplicates are targets. The only reason you offer is your invented "morass" which is entirely unsupported by the RAW. You are free to rule this way, but the RAW does not force it.

This is pure invention. You can write your own fluff to make it work this way if you want, but there is no reason that you must fluff it this way.

You can fluff it however you want. The point is that mechanically, either attacks AND spells can target Joe directly and attacks can have their targets changed, or attacks AND spells must first select a target from the 4 and then IF Joe is targeted by an attack he can ALSO roll a d20 to change the target of the attack. I will concede that's if you insist on reading the rules such that the 4 images are discrete targets (which I firmly beliebe violates the space and location rules in combat), then the second view is a possible reading of the RAW of mirror image. But we both agree that a double defense is dumb. The point is that you can't have it both ways - if attacks can target "you", then spells can target "you" to the exact same extent.

Phoenix042

2017-12-21, 06:06 AM

Perhaps you can explain this difference to me.

1. At what point, while looking along his arrow, does the archer go from attempting to target the caster to targeting the caster? And how does he accomplish this? What marks the transition?

That's a really good question, i'm glad you asked!

In general, you choose your target as your first step in making an attack (if you are, indeed, making an attack), as described in the "making an attack" section of the combat chapter.

It is also possible to chose a target as part of casting a spell, such as magic missile or cure wounds, as described in the "range" and "targets" subsections in the "casting a spell" section of the magic chapter.

In that case, you choose your target when the spell would take effect, unless the spell specifies different timing. Some spells, such as firebolt, must follow both sets of rules at once, since they are spells which make attacks.

In either case, there is no time elapsed or further input required between attempting to target something and actually targeting it. The rules do not make a distinction between these events. Thus, when you "attempt" to choose a target, you are automatically successful unless a specific rule overrides these general rules.

Mirror image only affects an attack which targets the caster, and does not interfere with the general rules on choosing a target. After the subject of the MI spell has been targeted with an attack, the spell then interrupts steps 2 and 3 in the "making an attack" section, allowing for a roll to redirect the attack, as the spells text says explicitly.

So you see, my point was merely that MI doesn't override the general rules for selecting a target, but merely adds an additional step to the "making an attack" rules. This special step triggers only after the target has been targeted, as specified in the line I quoted.

2. What happens if the attacker "attempts to target" a duplicate?

The attacker cannot attempt to target a duplicate, only a creature, object, or point in space, the three tyes of targets listed in the "making an attack" rules. An attacker could target the space a duplicate occupies, if he wanted to, but as spelled out in the first line of mirror image:
"Three duplicates appear in your space..."

This would have the effect of targeting the caster, which would then trigger the benefit of MI. At this point, it is possible for the attacks target to become a duplicate only because the MI spell provide a specific rule overriding the general rules on choosing a target as part of making an attack.

A magic missile spell, however, cannot even target a point in space. It targets a creature, and since it isn't an attack, it hits that creature, MI or no.

To help visualize this, imagine the similar case where a caster with MI active tries to cast cure wounds on himself. He must choose a target within range (touch), and does so, selecting himself. Because the spell is not an attack, he does not trigger the benefit of MI against his own cure wounds spell.

smcmike

2017-12-21, 07:32 AM

My players like the fact that mirror image protects against things like hold person and ray of enfeeblement. It makes it worth the action to cast in a fight.

It is strong enough without adding protection from non-attack spells. It is still very good.

They also like that magic missile, scorching ray and the like is very effective at stripping mirror images, makes for fun counterplay at the table.

Magic Missile and Scorching Ray are actually two different cases, since Magic Missile is not an Attack. While that does sound like it could be fun counterplay, using Magic Missile instead of Scorching Ray in order to bypass Mirror Image could also be fun.

That being said, if it works at your table, there is nothing wrong with it.

BobZan

2017-12-21, 07:59 AM

TL;DR - Sage Advice from 2016 for how Magic Missilie interacts with Mirror Image and that Mirror Image only interacts with attacks:https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/

Aett_Thorn

2017-12-21, 08:27 AM

I think that we really need to break this down for Burger.

RAW matters when it comes to mechanics, but doesn't really matter when it comes to fluff. Fireball being green, white, red, or an explosion of glitter doesn't change what it does. As such, no matter what the RAW says on this, it has no in-game effect on what it does in practical terms.

Now, if the player says that their Fireball is white, because it burns white hot, and therefore it should do more damage, then we'd have to go back to RAW as mechanics, and say that no amount of fluff changes what the spell actually does.

There is also the Specific > General Rules thing, and I will say that the corollary to that is that in lieu of a specific rule, the general rule applies. In the case of spells, this means that if the spell doesn't say anything that affects a general rule, then the general rule holds. Mirror Image says specific things about how the spell interacts with attack rolls, but it doesn't say anything about how it interacts with any other general rule for spells or targeting. As such, the general rules still apply in those situations. There is nothing in the spell as written that says that Hold Person, or any other spell that doesn't involve an attack roll, would be affected by MI.

Xetheral

2017-12-21, 08:35 AM

This “shifting” positions prevents tracking of images. It does not say it prevents targeting. The point of this is to prevent a character who has hit the caster from auto-detecting him (i.e. by-passing the d20 mechanic) on future atacks.

(Emphasis added.) I think the quote above may be the crux of most of the disagreement. BurgerBeast, to my knowledge you haven't offered any evidence to support your claim that the "point" of the prohibition against tracking is merely to prevent tracking between attacks, and that it is thus possible to track an image long enough to target it with a particular attack. Accordingly, your argument appears to hinge on an unjustified assumption that the prohibition against tracking is a limited one.

As a general interpretative principle, I would argue that a prohibition should be read as absolute absent language or context creating an exception. Applying that general principle in this case would suggest that the prohibition against tracking images prevents tracking them at all, with the consequence that the images are not individually targetable.

Perhaps you disagree with this general interpretative principle. If so, however, you still need to justify why the specific implicit limitation you're reading into the prohibition against tracking is superior to any other possible implicit limitation. Without such justification I see no reason to accept your overall claim that your interpretation of Mirror Image is as equally well supported by the text as any other.

BobZan

2017-12-21, 08:41 AM

The spell only works against attacks, as it states. I see a lot of overinterpretation. Nowhere on it says that the images become new possible targets. And that one could/should target it.

Despite that, there's always the Sage Advice to put some sense on the loose interpretations: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/

youtellatale

2017-12-21, 10:12 AM

To me, the confusion is ultimately down to what is an attack and what isn't an attack. Simply put - not everything that targets you is an attack in this edition of the game. There are lots of spells that have harmful effects that are not attacks, and thus Mirror Image would not apply.

To those ruling that non-attack spells are actually attacks because they target the person, then how do you rule for Cure Wounds? This does not appear to be an attack, (very clearly), but does it fizzle when your party cleric tries to heal you in combat because you now have to roll to see if it instead targets one of your Mirror Images? No, of course it doesn't. Cure Wounds is not an attack, so it doesn't apply. Just take that line of thinking and remember that just because it does damage or has a harmful effect does not make it an attack. Flesh to Stone, Hold Person/Monster, Magic Missile, and Phantasmal Killer are examples of spells that are not attacks.

Inflict Wounds, Guiding Bolt, Fire Bolt, Melf's Acid Arrow, and Chromatic Orb are some examples of spells that ARE attacks. I do understand that there can be some argument about the word "attack", but the common English language definition is not what we are worried about, but rather the D&D 5th Edition definition of an attack. Everyone is very obviously able to rule it how they'd like at their table but we have the RAW and the RAI (as provided by the designers) so yeah...you do you I guess.

With most intense debates on this forum, there really is very little debate - just both sides stating their case and very rarely do I ever see anyone admit they were wrong about an actual rule and admit that they are houseruling, not that there is anything wrong with that. I've never played at a table that didn't have at least a few houserules. Anyway, there's my stance.

Aett_Thorn

2017-12-21, 10:19 AM

Yup, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with houseruling a spell to have it make more sense to how your table plays. Houseruling MI to have it affect spells like Hold Person or Magic Missile is absolutely fine. But having those spells interact with MI is indeed a houserule, and not RAW. Again, nothing wrong with that, but getting people to admit that seems to be a huge problem, for some reason.

tieren

2017-12-21, 12:56 PM

Question regarding MI redirecting attacks:

Suppose the caster under the effect of MI is actually grappled and held by one of your party members.

The caster has 2 images left, he and both images are leaning back grasping at the arm of your party member wrapped around his neck, of course the two images are grasping at air.

You want to attack the grappled caster, You target "the one with Jon's arm wrapped around his neck", but mechanically the spell allows no exception for this case and you must still use the d20 mechanic to see if you instead target one of the images which are clearly not the caster.

Assuming the d20 mechanic forces you to attack an image instead of the caster held by your party member, didn't MI redirect the attack?

Phoenix042

2017-12-21, 01:29 PM

Question regarding MI redirecting attacks:
Assuming the d20 mechanic forces you to attack an image instead of the caster held by your party member, didn't MI redirect the attack?

Yes, what you described works the way you guessed, mechanically.

Visually, imagine that the images are overlapping with yours but at different angles or in different positions, each actually grasping at the arm of your assailant and each looking just like the original. It might briefly be possible to figure out which is which, but then they might just meld together again and obscure everything; meanwhile, the grapple has the mechanical effect of reducing your speed to 0, and technically you're 5ft away from your opponent, but again visually this might actually be a tangled mess of bodies, one of which is an ally and several of which are illusions, all of which are moving about constantly and shifting relative (but not absolute) positions.

Perfectly reasonable to imagine the benefit of MI working even when the caster is grappled.

As far as mechanical justification, the answer is simple:
"the duplicates move with you... shifting position so it's impossible to track which image is real."

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 01:55 PM

There is just a deeper layer of misunderstanding going on, here.

If, as described in Xanathar's, it is possible to target an invalid target with a spell, then what distinguishes those invalid targets which can be targeted from those invalid targets which cannot?

It seems to me that I am advocating the position that anything in the game is targetable, regardless of whether it is a valid target or not. Others seem to be saying that some invalid targets can be targeted and some cannot, and I am not sure what the basis for this distinction is.

For example, I think you can cast hold person at a rock. Doing so would result in the loss of an action and the loss of a spell slot, and have no effect.

In my view, a character can cast hold person at anything he wants, up to and including a location in space. Whether or not it accomplishes anything is a different question. After all, the spell does not know what it is being aimed at any more than a gun knows what it is being aimed at.

But it appears to me that some people exclude illusory duplicates from this otherwise generally acceptable practice.

BobZan

2017-12-21, 02:03 PM

2nd-level enchantment

Casting Time: 1 action

Range: 60 feet

Components: V, S, M (a small, straight piece of iron)

Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

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.

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, you can target one additional humanoid for each slot level above 2nd. The humanoids must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them.

BobZan

2017-12-21, 02:08 PM

If you want to overinterpret and ignore Devs RAI on Mirror Image, is up to you.

But that's your homebrew, don't treat it as RAW or RAI.

Just say "at my table, players will play this way".

Aett_Thorn

2017-12-21, 02:12 PM

It seems to me that I am advocating the position that anything in the game is targetable, regardless of whether it is a valid target or not.

But it appears to me that some people exclude illusory duplicates from this otherwise generally acceptable practice.

These two lines show that you are NOT following RAW, which is what the rest of us are arguing about. Spells have valid and invalid targets. If you allow your players to target invalid targets, that is not RAW. It MAY be a generally acceptable practice (although I doubt that it is), but it's definitely not RAW.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 02:14 PM

These two lines show that you are NOT following RAW, which is what the rest of us are arguing about. Spells have valid and invalid targets. If you allow your players to target invalid targets, that is not RAW. It MAY be a generally acceptable practice (although I doubt that it is), but it's definitely not RAW.

You tell me what the RAW says happens when a caster casts a spell at an invalid target.

also, see post 60.

visitor

2017-12-21, 02:25 PM

You tell me what the RAW says happens when a caster casts a spell at an invalid target.

also, see post 60.

Are you arguing it’s okay to target an invalid target because there is no explicitly written consequence?

If the target is invalid, it cannot be a target. The implication is that you cannot perform your desired action upon it. To argue the “invalid” designation can be ignored because all possible implications of that is not listed is silly to say the least. It would be unnecessary, tedious and repetitive.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 03:44 PM

Are you arguing it’s okay to target an invalid target because there is no explicitly written consequence?

No. I'm saying that there is no explicit consequence, and there are a number of possible consequences. So, I'm asking what the RAW have to say about it.

If the target is invalid, it cannot be a target. The implication is that you cannot perform your desired action upon it. To argue the “invalid” designation can be ignored because all possible implications of that is not listed is silly to say the least. It would be unnecessary, tedious and repetitive.

I'm not arguing that it can be ignored. I'm arguing that there are number of things that might be the case:

Suppose a player declares that he casts a spell at an invalid target:

1. the DM says: "that is impossible, what do you want to do instead?"

2. the DM says: "You spend your action trying to cast the spell, but it doesn't seem to work. You've wasted your action."

3. the DM says: "You spend your action casting the spell. The spell is cast but takes no effect. You've wasted your action and you lost the spell slot. You don't know why the spell did not work."

4. the DM says: "You spend your action trying to cast the spell. The spell is cast but takes no effect. You've wasted your action and you lost the spell slot. You know that the spell did not work because (the target made his save/the target is not a valid target type)"

Which one does the RAW say is correct? Edit: And where does it say it?

Talamare

2017-12-21, 03:57 PM

No. I'm saying that there is no explicit consequence, and there are a number of possible consequences. So, I'm asking what the RAW have to say about it.

I'm not arguing that it can be ignored. I'm arguing that there are number of things that might be the case:

Suppose a player declares that he casts a spell at an invalid target:

1. the DM says: "that is impossible, what do you want to do instead?"

2. the DM says: "You spend your action trying to cast the spell, but it doesn't seem to work. You've wasted your action."

3. the DM says: "You spend your action casting the spell. The spell is cast but takes no effect. You've wasted your action and you lost the spell slot. You don't know why the spell did not work."

4. the DM says: "You spend your action trying to cast the spell. The spell is cast but takes no effect. You've wasted your action and you lost the spell slot. You know that the spell did not work because (the target made his save/the target is not a valid target type)"

Which one does the RAW say is correct? Edit: And where does it say it?

Depends
Are they casting it on something they believe is correct due to another mechanic

or Are they casting it something that is just clearly wrong.
Player casts Hold Person on an Illusion of the Enemy, (NO NOT MIRROR IMAGE)... The spell fizzles (Xanathar explains this)

Player casts Hold Person on a Dog, DM explains that Hold Person mechanically only works on Humanoids. PANAA (Play As Not An A*cough*)

visitor

2017-12-21, 04:48 PM

No. I'm saying that there is no explicit consequence, and there are a number of possible consequences. So, I'm asking what the RAW have to say about it.

I'm not arguing that it can be ignored. I'm arguing that there are number of things that might be the case:

Suppose a player declares that he casts a spell at an invalid target:

1. the DM says: "that is impossible, what do you want to do instead?"

2. the DM says: "You spend your action trying to cast the spell, but it doesn't seem to work. You've wasted your action."

3. the DM says: "You spend your action casting the spell. The spell is cast but takes no effect. You've wasted your action and you lost the spell slot. You don't know why the spell did not work."

4. the DM says: "You spend your action trying to cast the spell. The spell is cast but takes no effect. You've wasted your action and you lost the spell slot. You know that the spell did not work because (the target made his save/the target is not a valid target type)"

Which one does the RAW say is correct? Edit: And where does it say it?

So you're saying because you are unsure of what exactly happens when you want to target an invalid target, Mirror Image should work the way you have interpreted it? You want to target the mirror image duplicates separately, even as invalid targets, and doing so doesn't conflict with RAW in your view.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-21, 07:01 PM

So you're saying because you are unsure of what exactly happens when you want to target an invalid target, Mirror Image should work the way you have interpreted it? You want to target the mirror image duplicates separately, even as invalid targets, and doing so doesn't conflict with RAW in your view.

No.

Here’s an idea: let me say what I think instead of saying what I think.

I’m more or less saying the opposite. I’m saying that since no one is sure of exactly what happens when you want to target an invalid target (because the RAW never said what to do until, apparently, Xanathar’s), none of the four resolutions is categorically wrong. (This is not saying that “any” resolution is acceptable, either. I’m saying that these particular four resolutions are all reasonable applications of the RAW.) They all take the available rules into account and operate within them. So there is no basis to say that any of the four views, or a combination of the views, is “against RAW.”

visitor

2017-12-21, 07:32 PM

No.

Here’s an idea: let me say what I think instead of saying what I think.

I’m more or less saying the opposite. I’m saying that since no one is sure of exactly what happens when you want to target an invalid target (because the RAW never said what to do until, apparently, Xanathar’s), none of the four resolutions is categorically wrong. (This is not saying that “any” resolution is acceptable, either. I’m saying that these particular four resolutions are all reasonable applications of the RAW.) They all take the available rules into account and operate within them. So there is no basis to say that any of the four views, or a combination of the views, is “against RAW.”

I want to be sure of your position, because you seem to counter points brought up with tangents or say your position is actually opposite what has been perceived.

All 4 of your possible outcomes of targeting an invalid target are fine; but note that all share in that the action attempted is unsuccessful.

This whole thread you have argued that with mirror image, the result would be #5: you can target an invalid target with success.

I guess in keeping with your points, if you attempt to target one of the images created by mirror image, you may describe how it fails in any way you choose.

LeonBH

2017-12-21, 08:44 PM

A spell says what it can work on. Hold Person specifies it needs to target a humanoid. Therefore Hold Person cannot target a rock.

If Hold Person was able to target a rock, the DM has literally gone against RAW by contradicting the first sentence of that spell in particular.

But it doesn't say it can't target a rock. It also doesn't say it can't deal damage. There is no delineated place to say "that non-RAW aspect is OK" vs "that other non-RAW aspect is not OK". So if it can target rocks on the basis that the spell doesn't say it can't, then the spell can deal damage as well on the same grounds.

Does a particular ruling violate RAW? If no, that doesn't mean the ruling was RAW to begin with. If it's not written, it's not RAW.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-12-21, 08:47 PM

Talamare

2017-12-21, 11:36 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 01:53 PM

Exactly. If your argument depends on "but it doesn't say it can't", it's a bad argument. I'm going to argue that charm person does infinite damage. Why? Because it doesn't say it can't, so it must be RAW that it does.

"It doesn't say it can't" is not only a bad argument, it's no argument at all. It's a fact, though.

It is an absolute fact that the rules as written do not say that mirror image does not apply to anything other than attacks. Nowhere is it written, therefore it is not a part of the rules as written.

That's my point. anyone who asserts that it is part of the RAW is flat-out wrong.

If I (or anyone) said: It doesn't say you can't... therefore you can. - I (or they) would be wrong. I am not saying that.

But if I say: "The rules don't say you can't." - I'm right about that.

Anyone who says that "the rules say it can't" is decidedly wrong. The rules do not say that because the rules do not say anything about it.

The question is: what happens when the rules don't it can and they don't say it can't?

And here's what I say: There is no absolute answer. If you propose an absolute answer, you're wrong.

So, if your answer is: "Since the rules don't say you can, you can't." Then you are wrong.

That's not how the rules of D&D work.

The rules do not say that swords can be thrown. They do not say that swords can be used to cut cheese. They do to say that swords can be used to reflect light. They do not say that swords can be used as light sources. They do not say that swords can be used to prop open doors.

Does this mean, absolutely, that swords cannot do any of these things?

No, it does not.

If you want to answer these questions, you use whatever information there is in the RAW, however incomplete, to make your best ruling. It would not be reasonable to rule that a sword is a light source. It would be perfectly reasonable to rule that a sword can cut cheese, or prop open doors. Can the sword be thrown? Yes, that's reasonable. But it would be unreasonable to rule that it does standard damage when thrown at an enemy.

You might say that there is absolutely no evidence that a sword can cut cheese. I would say that there is some evidence, weak as it may be, to be found in the RAW. There is no hard evidence, but there are indications.

The absence of rules is the very strength of table top gaming. If every rule was spelled out absolutely, then it would simply be a simulation of a computer game, played out at 1/1000th the speed (if I'm being generous) with no real benefit except that you get to be in the same room with your friends. Each and every absent rule in a table top game is an opportunity for a human brain to step in and make a reasonable decision and add purpose to the game, taking it beyond the limits of a video game.

In the case of mirror image, the rules do say some things. Those things need to be considered when making a ruling. We may not agree on how they are interpreted, and that's fine.

But people are telling me that the rules as written forbid any interaction between mirror image and hold person. That is categorically false. If you wish to say it is true, you need to show me where it is written. You don't get to point to the absence of evidence and use it as evidence. Not for anything.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 02:05 PM

Neat... but this argument DOES NOT MATTER

Mirror Image creates ZERO ISSUES WITH TARGETTING

It matters, because if you take interpretation (1) then the conclusions of my opponents are the logical conclusions. However, they present another problem.

If you take view (2), (3), or (4), then my conclusions are logical conclusions unless you can point to some reason for why the duplicates cannot be targeted.

It has been asserted, repeatedly, that the duplicates cannot be targeted. Some people are saying it with some conviction. But in the context of interpretations (2), (3), and (4), it strikes me as absurd.

The best argument to differentiate the duplicates from everything else in the game, including points in space, in the sense that everything else in the game can be targeted but the duplicates cannot, is the argument that the line about "tracking" implies that they can't be "targeted." (Note: I'm not conflating the attack targeting rules with the spell targeting rules when I say "even points in space." I'm saying that if invalid targets can be targeted, then a point in space can be targeted.)

I don't accept that argument. The text says the duplicates can't be tracked. It does not say they can't be targeted.

Also, the text says the d20 mechanic can cause the attack to target a duplicate. So the duplicate can be targeted. That's how they can be hit. It gets targeted before it gets hit. There's no escaping that.

Presumably, the response will be "the spell can target a duplicate, but a character cannot." That argument is going to require some real work.

BobZan

2017-12-22, 02:08 PM

If you take view (2), (3), or (4), then my conclusions are logical conclusions unless you can point to some reason for why the duplicates cannot be targeted.

A dev telling how it works is good enough for you?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/

smcmike

2017-12-22, 02:09 PM

A dev telling how it works is good enough for you?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/magic-missile-vs-mirror-image/

Bob, I agree with you, but the answer to your question is clearly no. This ruling has been mentioned dozens of times at this point.

Aett_Thorn

2017-12-22, 02:15 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2017-12-22, 02:16 PM

"It doesn't say it can't" is not only a bad argument, it's no argument at all. It's a fact, though.

It is an absolute fact that the rules as written do not say that mirror image does not apply to anything other than attacks. Nowhere is it written, therefore it is not a part of the rules as written.

That's my point. anyone who asserts that it is part of the RAW is flat-out wrong.

If I (or anyone) said: It doesn't say you can't... therefore you can. - I (or they) would be wrong. I am not saying that.

But if I say: "The rules don't say you can't." - I'm right about that.

Anyone who says that "the rules say it can't" is decidedly wrong. The rules do not say that because the rules do not say anything about it.

The question is: what happens when the rules don't it can and they don't say it can't?

And here's what I say: There is no absolute answer. If you propose an absolute answer, you're wrong.

So, if your answer is: "Since the rules don't say you can, you can't." Then you are wrong.

That's not how the rules of D&D work.

The rules do not say that swords can be thrown. They do not say that swords can be used to cut cheese. They do to say that swords can be used to reflect light. They do not say that swords can be used as light sources. They do not say that swords can be used to prop open doors.

Does this mean, absolutely, that swords cannot do any of these things?

No, it does not.

If you want to answer these questions, you use whatever information there is in the RAW, however incomplete, to make your best ruling. It would not be reasonable to rule that a sword is a light source. It would be perfectly reasonable to rule that a sword can cut cheese, or prop open doors. Can the sword be thrown? Yes, that's reasonable. But it would be unreasonable to rule that it does standard damage when thrown at an enemy.

You might say that there is absolutely no evidence that a sword can cut cheese. I would say that there is some evidence, weak as it may be, to be found in the RAW. There is no hard evidence, but there are indications.

The absence of rules is the very strength of table top gaming. If every rule was spelled out absolutely, then it would simply be a simulation of a computer game, played out at 1/1000th the speed (if I'm being generous) with no real benefit except that you get to be in the same room with your friends. Each and every absent rule in a table top game is an opportunity for a human brain to step in and make a reasonable decision and add purpose to the game, taking it beyond the limits of a video game.

In the case of mirror image, the rules do say some things. Those things need to be considered when making a ruling. We may not agree on how they are interpreted, and that's fine.

But people are telling me that the rules as written forbid any interaction between mirror image and hold person. That is categorically false. If you wish to say it is true, you need to show me where it is written. You don't get to point to the absence of evidence and use it as evidence. Not for anything.

Spells are, by their nature, exceptions to the natural order. They do only what they say. This is in opposition to things like swords. The only general rule here is that spells tell you exactly what exceptions they make (their effects are entirely limited to things explicitly mentioned). You're completely ignoring that fact. That's the nature of exception-based rules. So yes, you do need an explicit grant for there to be an interaction between mirror image and hold person.

Q: does the spell say it is affected by saving-throw effects?
A: No.
Result: It is not affected by saving-throw spells.

Nothing else matters.

pdegan2814

2017-12-22, 02:28 PM

This part of the text has no relevance to the question of what happens when a caster cast hold person.

It's completely relevant. That text says "when X happens, Y". Hold Person is not X, therefore Y does not happen. You are attempting to manufacture an extra triggering condition for Y out of thin air.

Talamare

2017-12-22, 03:03 PM

It matters, because if you take interpretation (1) then the conclusions of my opponents are the logical conclusions. However, they present another problem.

If you take view (2), (3), or (4), then my conclusions are logical conclusions unless you can point to some reason for why the duplicates cannot be targeted.

It has been asserted, repeatedly, that the duplicates cannot be targeted. Some people are saying it with some conviction. But in the context of interpretations (2), (3), and (4), it strikes me as absurd.

The best argument to differentiate the duplicates from everything else in the game, including points in space, in the sense that everything else in the game can be targeted but the duplicates cannot, is the argument that the line about "tracking" implies that they can't be "targeted." (Note: I'm not conflating the attack targeting rules with the spell targeting rules when I say "even points in space." I'm saying that if invalid targets can be targeted, then a point in space can be targeted.)

I don't accept that argument. The text says the duplicates can't be tracked. It does not say they can't be targeted.

Also, the text says the d20 mechanic can cause the attack to target a duplicate. So the duplicate can be targeted. That's how they can be hit. It gets targeted before it gets hit. There's no escaping that.

Presumably, the response will be "the spell can target a duplicate, but a character cannot." That argument is going to require some real work.

If you want to argue that someone is capable of targetting the duplicates? I don't really care because it still doesn't matter

Regardless of if you're able to specifically target the duplicates

Regardless of having 100,000,000 duplicates from Mirror Image

They still cause ZERO ISSUES WITH TARGETTING

because you are still able to directly target the original caster

Regardless of the fluff claiming they are impossible to track

Because it's fluff, it means nothing

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 03:33 PM

You are coming at D&D as a subtractive system, I see. Where basically anything is allowed, and the rules exist to limit what can be done. RAW, therefore, for you, is all about telling you what you CAN'T do. And then the DM can say what else can't be done.

No. I'm not coming at is as a subtractive system.

The system is neither additive nor subtractive. There are written rules and they tell you how to play, but they are incomplete, and intentionally (or necessarily) so. If you read the rules, you will find that some are additive and some are subtractive. You have to read them to find out. If you read them as though they are all additive or all subtractive, you're making a mistake. You have to read them for what they are.

I think that most people, including the designers, intended it as an additive system, where the rules tell you what you CAN do. This is why the General < Specific rule is important in an additive system. It provides another layer on top of the general additive rules that can either add to or subtract from the general rules. The DM then can also say what else can be done.

General < Specific is true whether additive or subtractive. Some specific rules are subtractive. They still over-ride the general rule.

How this matters:

You say that unless there is a specific rule stating that something can't happen, then it can.

No. This would be wrong. We all agree about this.

However, the rulebook seems to be set up so that only the things that are written actually can happen, unless the DM allows.

"Unless the DM allows" can be added onto anything so we should ignore that for the moment.

I say the rulebook is not set up so that only the things that are written can actually happen. In fact, I think this is obviously untrue. The book explicitly tells us that it encourages players to do things that aren't defined in the rules and provides guidelines for the DM to make rulings when they do.

Can a sword be thrown: In your system, nothing in the rulebook says that it can't (although I'd argue that it lacks the thrown tag), therefore it can unless the DM says so. In most people's games, I'd say that people would say that it can't, because there are no rules for it, unless the DM says that it can.

You're misunderstanding what I meant. I said a sword can be thrown. I mentioned that it can't function as a thrown weapon, precisely because it lacks the "thrown" tag. The rules do give us reason to disallow a sword to be thrown as a weapon. I was talking about throwing it, in general (i.e. not as a weapon).

When it comes to Mirror Image, it doesn't state that it interferes with targeting in the slightest.

That's because mirror image doesn't interfere with targeting. I've never said it does. It does not interfere with targeting in the case of attacks, either. It simply presents alternative targets.

In your system, this means that it does interfere with targeting, because MI doesn't say anything about it.

Nope. That would be stupid.

In most people's readings of the rulebook, as evidenced in this thread, it means that it doesn't interfere with targeting, because it doesn't say anything about that.

I agree with this statement completely. But some people take this farther than what it actually means.

Only when targeted by an attack does anything happen, because that's all the rules say.

This is false. This is not all that the rules say. The rules say that the spell creates three duplicates that are identical in appearance to the caster.

That, on its own is enough to force anyone wishing to affect the caster to pick him out of a group of four. The spell does not interfere with his ability to do it, in any way. He can pick any one of the four. The DM still has to determine which one he picks.

If you're coming at the system backwards, your logic makes sense, but given the design goals of the developers, I'd say that your view of how to interpret rules seems to be wrong.

This is all true, but I'm not coming form the system backwards.

Spells are, by their nature, exceptions to the natural order. They do only what they say.

1. Do you have a source for this? I hear it a lot, and I believe it, but I have never seen official wording to this effect.

This is in opposition to things like swords.

It's all well and good to say this, but without rules to back it, it's invention.

I think the rules for swords and spells are the same: use the information that you do have. In the case of a sword, we have information about what swords are, so we can make more nuanced decisions. In the case of spells, we don't know anything about them because there is no magic in the real world to compare it to. So we can't fall back on real-world knowledge. But we can still apply reason and whatever evidence the rules provide.

This is not a case of treating swords and spells different. It's a case of different amounts of information.

The only general rule here is that spells tell you exactly what exceptions they make (their effects are entirely limited to things explicitly mentioned). You're completely ignoring that fact.

I'm not ignoring that fact at all. I'm insisting upon it.

But I am also acknowledging that the spell says it makes three duplicates. I'm saying that there is RAW justification for considering these images targetable (see cases 2, 3, and 4 above regarding invalid targets). My opponents are overriding this fact, and claiming that they are justified in doing so. They are not.

That's the nature of exception-based rules. So yes, you do need an explicit grant for there to be an interaction between mirror image and hold person.

Agreed. But there is no interaction between the spells beyond the presence of the duplicates. That's the extent of the interaction. And that is explicitly stated in the spell description.

It is always the case that if a character wants to target something, he has to pick it out. If there is more than one target available, the character must pick one. If invalid targets can be targeted, then there is more than one target available.

Q: does the spell say it is affected by saving-throw effects?
A: No.
Result: It is not affected by saving-throw spells.

This is a bizarre way to state what you're trying to say. Spells are not "affected by saving throws." Some spells grant saving throws. Some to not.

It's completely relevant. That text says "when X happens, Y". Hold Person is not X, therefore Y does not happen. You are attempting to manufacture an extra triggering condition for Y out of thin air.

This is a fundamental error of logic.

X -> Y (if X then Y) does not imply that ~X -> ~Y (if not X then not Y).

You are inventing a rule:

~X -> ~Y

out of thin air.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 03:45 PM

If you want to argue that someone is capable of targetting the duplicates? I don't really care because it still doesn't matter

Regardless of if you're able to specifically target the duplicates

Regardless of having 100,000,000 duplicates from Mirror Image

They still cause ZERO ISSUES WITH TARGETING

because you are still able to directly target the original caster

No, you're not. If you can't select him reliably, you can't reliably target him.

If three wizards have their backs turned, and all are wearing green robes, and the player says: "I attack Joe." Should the DM rule that Joe is attacked? Or should he consider that the player doesn't know which of the three people is Joe?

That's the point: In general, if you want to attack a target but can't reliably select the target, then you have to make a guess. The DM must come up with a way to simulate the guess.

Regardless of the fluff claiming they are impossible to track

Impossible to track is not fluff. It has mechanical implications.

Because it's fluff, it means nothing

It means that if you strike the caster, then on subsequent turns you are still subject to the d20 mechanic. That is a mechanical.

It also means that if you try to use any means to mark or track the duplicates, it will always fail. That specifically overrides any mechanic that would otherwise provide this possibility. (Ironically, this would override the ability of hold person to reliably ignore invalid targets, because this imbues the ability to track the caster... which has been my problem with view (1) in regard to invalid targets all along)

Kane0

2017-12-22, 03:47 PM

I think i agree with burgerbeast. Sometimes you have to extrapolate beyond the spell’s description in play and make a ruling, especially when it comes to what the PCs know compared to the people around the table.

Like say for example a PC tries to cast wall of stone within an area of hallucinatory terrain, or charm person on a disguised lich. Whatever invalid target of a spell you can think of.

What happens next? Do you as DM believe the PCs can attempt this but it doesnt work, wasting the spell, or does the caster know something isnt right before they complete the casting? Theres pros and cons to each but theres no wrong answer, just how people run.

I tend towards the response of ‘You can try’ when this sort of thing comes up. I find it makes the game more entertaining and engaging when the players know they are working with a PCs limited knowledge and there are no guaruntees, you just have to try and see if it works.

The whole point of mirror image is that the PCs dont know which ones are illusions and which ones arent, so they have to guess. Whether they guess with an arrow, a spell that shoots rays of fire or that paralyses one or more targets is up to them.

smcmike

2017-12-22, 03:59 PM

The whole point of mirror image is that the PCs dont know which ones are illusions and which ones arent, so they have to guess. Whether they guess with an arrow, a spell that shoots rays of fire or that paralyses one or more targets is up to them.

Why do you think the text of the spell provides mechanics for guessing with arrows or rays of fire, but no mechanics for guessing with hold person and similar effects? This does not strike me as some sort of unexpected or rare interaction that they simply forgot about.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 04:15 PM

Why do you think the text of the spell provides mechanics for guessing with arrows or rays of fire, but no mechanics for guessing with hold person and similar effects? This does not strike me as some sort of unexpected or rare interaction that they simply forgot about.

That is one hell of a question. But here's the thing: No one knows.

The rule is written as it is written.

I could venture a guess, but it is only a guess and it has no merit:

(1) The spell was written before deeper mechanical decisions about the intended definition of attack was delineated (but, by the way, the attack is not defined), and then it was missed in later editing.

(2) The person who wrote the spell mistakenly thought he had covered all the bases.

The ultimate point is that we can't invent new rules. In the absence of rules to tell us what to do, we have to operate within the framework of what we do have.

We could play the same game about "Why did the designers decide to use a d20 to resolve the target instead of a d12?" The d12 would give the intended percentages accurately.

But we don't know why. The rules tell us to use a d20, and if we don't, we're violating the RAW.

Kane0

2017-12-22, 04:15 PM

Aett_Thorn

2017-12-22, 04:15 PM

This is a fundamental error of logic.

X -> Y (if X then Y) does not imply that ~X -> ~Y (if not X then not Y).

You are inventing a rule:

~X -> ~Y

out of thin air.

But you're creating a similar rule out of thin air. You're saying that:

X -> Y

and

~X -> Y

At least we're going back to the, if the spell doesn't say it does something, it doesn't, general line of thinking. You're saying, if the spell doesn't say something, it can. Which just opens up a whole can of worms.

Aett_Thorn

2017-12-22, 04:17 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 04:19 PM

But you're creating a similar rule out of thin air. You're saying that:

X -> Y

and

~X -> Y

This is a mischaracterization of my stance. I am denying ~X -> ~Y and I am denying ~X -> Y.

At least we're going back to the, if the spell doesn't say it does something, it doesn't, general line of thinking. You're saying, if the spell doesn't say something, it can. Which just opens up a whole can of worms.

No. I'm saying that if the spell doesn't say it can do something, then we don't know whether it can do it or not. Further, to force either is decidedly wrong.

We need to consider other evidence, if there is any. In this case, there is.

Aett_Thorn

2017-12-22, 04:24 PM

This is a mischaracterization of my stance. I am denying ~X -> ~Y and I am denying ~X -> Y.

No. I'm saying that if the spell doesn't say it can do something, then we don't know whether it can do it or not. Further, to force either is decidedly wrong.

We need to consider other evidence, if there is any. In this case, there is.

So, since MI doesn't say that the images can't attack and do damage, we can't say that by RAW, the images don't do damage?

Spells do only what they say they do in terms of mechanics. In absence of any specific rule stating otherwise, the general rules apply. The general rules say that Hold Person works on any humanoid, and there is no specific language in MI saying that it would interfere with the targeting of Hold Person. Therefore, if ~X -> General rule (~Y) is a perfectly valid response to this. The rules creators have even made a statement of exactly how MI works. How are you still on the other side of this?

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 04:30 PM

But you wouldn't need a whole mess of words here. You'd just say, whenever someone targets you with a spell or attack, you do X to see if the spell is redirected. But it doesn't. It just says an attack.

In fact, the spell works just fine without the second or third paragraphs.

I personally think (again, this is pure speculation) that they added these paragraphs in an attempt to be helpful in suggesting a method of resolution, and it ended up creating a bigger problem.

The given mechanic might still work just fine, but that doesn't make it RAW.

This drives again at the use of RAW / not RAW.

In the case of an attack, you must use the d20 mechanic, or you violate RAW. It is the compelled mechanic, so to speak.

In the case of a spell, the d20 method is not compelled by RAW. But a resolution is still required. You can use the d20 method or some other method. This does not violate RAW because RAW does not compel it.

Kane0

2017-12-22, 04:34 PM

But you wouldn't need a whole mess of words here. You'd just say, whenever someone targets you with a spell or attack, you do X to see if the spell is redirected. But it doesn't. It just says an attack.

The given mechanic might still work just fine, but that doesn't make it RAW.

True. The same sort of issues can be seen in Magic Stone and other spells, these things happen. The Devs and writers are only human after all.

And IDGAF about RAW really, sometimes i think the concept just gets in the way of good gaming. Like sometimes i’ll see someone make a brilliant thread or post about an idea but they’ll get shouted down or turned away by the RAW crowd without any sort of explanation or discussion on how/why it might or might not work. Makes me sad.

smcmike

2017-12-22, 04:34 PM

Two reasons i suppose. First is that the mechanic given works just fine, second is listing every special interaction with certains spells would be overly lengthy and largely a waste waste of space, especially when you can just let the players and DM use their imagination.
The spell works perfectly fine either way.

It would hardly take a ton of words to include non-attack targeted spells and effects. It looks like an intentional omission to me.

That is one hell of a question. But here's the thing: No one knows.

The rule is written as it is written.

I could venture a guess, but it is only a guess and it has no merit:

(1) The spell was written before deeper mechanical decisions about the intended definition of attack was delineated (but, by the way, the attack is not defined), and then it was missed in later editing.

(2) The person who wrote the spell mistakenly thought he had covered all the bases.

Right, your explanation for the text makes sense if you think the authors made a mistake in leaving out non-attack spells. I don’t think they made a mistake.

ZZTRaider

2017-12-22, 04:37 PM

We can safely rule that the intent is not to follow the normal targeting rules including the duplicates as potential targets.

If we follow that line of reasoning, to make an attack, the player must first choose from the three duplicates and caster.

This immediately begs the question, "How?" as there is nothing prescribed in the spell text on how to choose one of the targets. The listed rules to roll a d20 do not apply unless you target the caster. ("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." The caster is not one of his duplicates, so if someone targets his duplicate instead of him, this line does not apply.) The attacking player has no meaningful way to tell the caster apart from the duplicates, so presumably the DM will settle on a 1 in 4 random chance to choose the initial target.

Assuming the player does choose the caster correctly, the spell forces a d20 roll which gives them another 1 in 4 chance. Overall, we're looking at a 1 in 16 chance of actually hitting the caster.

This seems very clearly to be above the power of a 2nd level spell, double dips on the benefits, and doesn't make any logical sense (why does have 4 identical targets give a 1 in 16 chance of the real one being hit?).

Given all of that, it is clearly not the intent of the spell. Yet, this is the line of logic that must be followed if we argue that the duplicates are potential targets and must be treated as such when targeting a non-attack spell like Hold Person. None of Mirror Image's provisions for changing the target of an attack apply until we finish the initial targeting.

Having eliminated what is clearly wrong, what does make sense?

If we target the caster and his duplicates as a single entity, suddenly the provision for attacks works the way you'd expect it to on a casual reading -- we're now targeting the caster and must roll a d20 to determine if a duplicate is hit instead. For Hold Person, we're still targeting the caster, and find there are no provisions in Mirror Image to redirect non-attack spells, and therefore Hold Person resolves no differently than it would have if Mirror Image was not in play.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 04:55 PM

So, since MI doesn't say that the images can't attack and do damage, we can't say that by RAW, the images don't do damage?

Not on the basis of the spell. But we can point to the general properties of illusions, and notice that illusions are generally incapable of damage, so it would be reasonable to assert that illusions generally are incapable of causing damage. Indeed, I think that the definition of illusion in everyday English is sufficient to rule out the ability to interact physically at all. Speaking about the game again, some illusions do cause damage, but they are specific cases, and their spell text makes the required specifications precisely because it would be unreasonable to assume that an illusion can cause damage by default.

Spells do only what they say they do in terms of mechanics. In absence of any specific rule stating otherwise, the general rules apply.

Agreed.

The general rules say that Hold Person works on any humanoid, and there is no specific language in MI saying that it would interfere with the targeting of Hold Person.

There is no language in MI saying that it interferes with targeting at all. It never does. Since MI generally does not interfere with targeting, there is no need to specify that it does not interfere with targeting in specific cases.

Therefore, if ~X -> General rule (~Y) is a perfectly valid response to this.

No, it isn't.

Beyond this: You're ascribing a flow chart to the decision making process that is illogical, in my opinion. If a person tries to cast hold person, you do not consider the defences of the potential targets before you decide how to interpret hold person. You don't consider the validity of the targets first, either. That's not the way it's done. That's putting the cart before the horse.

You start with the hold person spell:

The caster of hold person selects a target. This happens first. After this is done, then you consider the target. So, consider the caster of hold person. How is he supposed to select a target. Answer: the way he always does. If he wishes to target Joe, then he will be looking at four Joes that are all in the same space. How will he pick one? Well, they are indistinguishable, so the process is totally random. The DM needs to randomly determine the target (in the case of hold person the RAW do not prescribe the method, but if it were an attack, then the DM must use the prescribed d20 mechanic).

The target is resolved to be either a duplicate or Joe. If it's a duplicate, it is an invalid target, and there is no effect. If it is Joe, he is paralyzed. And then things get weird in the case of hold person, because now we have apparently contradictory rules in play, but that's a separate discussion.

The rules creators have even made a statement of exactly how MI works. How are you still on the other side of this?

I acknowledge the statement that JC made. But we're discussing the RAW. In this case, I think the RAW are better than JC's interpretation of them.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 05:21 PM

Right, your explanation for the text makes sense if you think the authors made a mistake in leaving out non-attack spells. I don’t think they made a mistake.

But I explicitly said that I do not give any weight to this speculation. What I think, and what you think, is irrelevant because we don't know what s going on in the minds of the writers. We only know what they wrote.

You, on the other hand, give weight to your speculations. You choose to not read the RAW literally. Why don't you read it literally? Because you think the authors meant something different than what the RAW actually say (which means that you think they made a mistake). You think JC confirmed this (and so you give weight to the speculation even though it contradicts the literal text) whereas I think JC made the same error you are making (because he contradicts the literal text). If you thought the writers meant what they wrote, then you'd play the game based on what they wrote. But you don't. You play the game based on what you think they meant to write.

There is a better question than: "Why didn't the authors write something about single target save-spells?"

It's: "Why didn't they specify that it only applies to attacks?"

Also, why did they write "A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it" if, as you say, everything except for attacks is ignored. If everything other than attacks is ignored, then it is impossible for anything else to hit a duplicate, so this is unnecessary. This appears to be redundant under your view.

Why did they write "It ignores all other damage and effects" if this was already implied by the absence of paragraphs to describe what happens in the cases of other effects? If the absence of those paragraphs implies that those effects are ignored, then why did they explicitly state that those effects are ignored? This appears to be redundant under your view.

We can safely rule that the intent is not to follow the normal targeting rules including the duplicates as potential targets.

No, you can't. The normal targeting rules apply.

ZZTRaider

2017-12-22, 05:36 PM

Also, why did they write "A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it" if, as you say, everything except for attacks is ignored. If everything other than attacks is ignored, then it is impossible for anything else to hit a duplicate, so this is unnecessary. This appears to be redundant under your view.

Why did they write "It ignores all other damage and effects" if this was already implied by the absence of paragraphs to describe what happens in the cases of other effects? If the absence of those paragraphs implies that those effects are ignored, then why did they explicitly state that those effects are ignored? This appears to be redundant under your view.

It's not redundant at all. There are all sorts of potential effects beyond damage that can be attached to attacks, through spells, magical items, and abilities.

No, you can't. The normal targeting rules apply.

Did you read the rest of the post? As explained there, following the normal targeting rules including the duplicates as potential targets leads to absurdity in the case of attacks. That is how we can safely rule that as being the incorrect interpretation.

visitor

2017-12-22, 05:38 PM

True. The same sort of issues can be seen in Magic Stone and other spells, these things happen. The Devs and writers are only human after all.

And IDGAF about RAW really, sometimes i think the concept just gets in the way of good gaming. Like sometimes i’ll see someone make a brilliant thread or post about an idea but they’ll get shouted down or turned away by the RAW crowd without any sort of explanation or discussion on how/why it might or might not work. Makes me sad.

The books are pretty consistent in attack = attack requiring a d20 roll, and specifying this versus things requiring saving throws.

Look at the spell Sanctuary: "Until the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw."

Also Calm Emotions: "Alternately, you can make a target indifferent about creatures of your choice that it is hostile toward. This indifference ends if the target is attacked or harmed by a spell or if it witnesses any of its friends being harmed."

In Xanathar's, Unbreakable Majesty (pp 14-15): "For the duration, whenever any creature tries to attack you for the first time on a turn, the attacker must make a Charisma saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failed save, it can't attack you on the turn, and it must choose a new target for its attack or the attack is wasted. On a successful save, it can attack you on this turn, but it has disadvantage on any saving throw it makes against your spells on your next turn."

My point being, there is a distinction made between attacks requiring d20 to hit rolls and harmful spells/effects requiring saving throws and the way the two handle targeting. It may lead to "counter-fluff/counterintuitive" situations, like the wizard protected by mirror image being subject to magic missle, or the bard who's presence is so "magically majestic" that he cannot be targeted by a sword stroke, but can be disintegrated. However, it is what it is. And really, you can easily rationalize any in-game situation with some imagination.

Of course there are many rules that people prefer tweaking...frenzy, short/long rests, spells known, GWM/SS feats, etc. The only difference between these epic threads is the insistence of what or what is not RAW, which like you said, is really not the most important aspect of the game.

smcmike

2017-12-22, 05:38 PM

You, on the other hand, give weight to your speculations. You choose to not read the RAW literally. Why don't you read it literally? Because you think the authors meant something different than what the RAW actually say (which means that you think they made a mistake). You think JC confirmed this (and so you give weight to the speculation even though it contradicts the literal text) whereas I think JC made the same error you are making (because he contradicts the literal text). If you thought the writers meant what they wrote, then you'd play the game based on what they wrote. But you don't. You play the game based on what you think they meant to write.

We disagree about the meaning of what is written. You think that the authors made a mistake in writing, and that Jeremy Crawford, most of the members of this forum, and I have made the same mistake in reading.

There is a better question than: "Why didn't the authors write something about single target save-spells?"

It's: "Why didn't they specify that it only applies to attacks?"

The interpretation of Jeremy Crawford, most of the members of this forum, and me is that by only listing attacks, they excluded other interactions by implication.

Also, why did they write "A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it" if, as you say, everything except for attacks is ignored. If everything other than attacks is ignored, then it is impossible for anything else to hit a duplicate, so this is unnecessary. This appears to be redundant under your view.

Why did they write "It ignores all other damage and effects" if this was already implied by the absence of paragraphs to describe what happens in the cases of other effects? If the absence of those paragraphs implies that those effects are ignored, then why did they explicitly state that those effects are ignored? This appears to be redundant under your view.

This section clarifies that effects such as fireball do not affect the images, unlike in previous editions. Being untargettable by non-attack spells does not exclude being destroyable by fireballs. It isn’t redundant.

visitor

2017-12-22, 05:47 PM

This section clarifies that effects such as fireball do not affect the images, unlike in previous editions. Being untargettable by non-attack spells does not exclude being destroyable by fireballs. It isn’t redundant.

Yes: Sanctuary specifies it wards against attacks and harmful spells, but does not protect from AOE effects, of fireballs for example.

Also, the spell ends if the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature. (Specifies things with attack rolls and without)

BurgerBeast

2017-12-22, 06:40 PM

It's not redundant at all. There are all sorts of potential effects beyond damage that can be attached to attacks, through spells, magical items, and abilities.

"...can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it" clearly excludes all of those effects. That's what only means. It's redundant.

Did you read the rest of the post? As explained there, following the normal targeting rules including the duplicates as potential targets leads to absurdity in the case of attacks. That is how we can safely rule that as being the incorrect interpretation.

Yes, I read the rest of the post. You're not the first person to use the "double-defence" argument. It's a nice rebuttal to an argument that is not the argument I'm making. In other words, to a straw man.

The books are pretty consistent in attack = attack requiring a d20 roll, and specifying this versus things requiring saving throws.

For the sake of this argument, nobody is denying this.

My point being, there is a distinction made between attacks requiring d20 to hit rolls and harmful spells/effects requiring saving throws and the way the two handle targeting.

There is a stricter prescription on the targeting of attacks (a creature, an object, or a point in space, I think). There is no evidence that the DM must handle their targeting differently, but he can. (And with Xanathar's offering that spells can be cast at invalid targets, there is no good reason to prevent any spell from being aimed at a creature, an object, or a point in space, regardless of what the valid target-type is.)

I've already conceded that DMs that choose method 1 for invalid targets (see above) are free to play this way. But DMs who use methods 2, 3, and 4 are free to play my way, too. All of these methods are within the RAW, and none violate the RAW.

JC's comments would seem to support method 1, but the Xanathar's rules lead to serious contradictions in this regard. Before Xanathar's rules for invalid targets, JC's ruling was at least consistent with method 1, but Xanathar's prohibits method 1.

It may lead to "counter-fluff/counterintuitive" situations, like the wizard protected by mirror image being subject to magic missle, or the bard who's presence is so "magically majestic" that he cannot be targeted by a sword stroke, but can be disintegrated. However, it is what it is.

I am willing to accept that the RAW may give unreasonable results, live with those results, and house-rule my own game if necessary. I'm not willing to accept people stating that something is a violation of RAW when it is not. Facts are facts.

I openly admit that I houserule the effects that follow after hold person is successfully cast on someone under the effect of mirror image because I don't think it is reconcilable that the duplicates can be un-trackable once the caster is paralyzed, even though RAW specifies that they are.

I violate the RAW and am happy to admit it. But in the case being discussed in this thread, I do not think I'm violating the RAW.

We disagree about the meaning of what is written. You think that the authors made a mistake in writing, and that Jeremy Crawford, most of the members of this forum, and I have made the same mistake in reading.

I wouldn't be so quick to say "most" members of the forum. There are some vocal people who disagree with me, but there is a surprising number of commenters in both threads who agreed with me but didn't hang around to continue posting.

The interpretation of Jeremy Crawford, most of the members of this forum, and me is that by only listing attacks, they excluded other interactions by implication.

And you're wrong. Implication doesn't work that way.

This exact logical fallacy shows up all over the place. I think the majority of people have been shown to make this mistake in any context. The truth is not determined by consensus.

This section clarifies that effects such as fireball do not affect the images, unlike in previous editions. Being untargettable by non-attack spells does not exclude being destroyable by fireballs. It isn’t redundant.

It is redundant. Fireballs are not "attacks that hit." Fireballs are AOE effects which are decidedly (for the sake of this argument) not attacks. Already covered.

Yes: Sanctuary specifies it wards against attacks and harmful spells, but does not protect from AOE effects, of fireballs for example.

This is a point in my favour. If, in the case of mirror image, the absence of a statement about targeted spells is supposed to imply that the spell ignores them, then it would follow that in the case of sanctuary, "This spell doesn’t protect the warded creature from area effects, such as the explosion of a fireball" is implied and therefore unnecessary.

That's the line my opponents are trying to draw. They are saying that since mirror image doesn't mention save spells, mirror image has no effect on them.

Well, then: if sanctuary didn't mention AOEs, they would be automatically excluded from the effects (it works when the caster is targeted, and AOEs can't target creatures). So why did the writers add a sentence to explicitly exclude them if they were already excluded? Lucky for you, I don't subscribe to this brand of illogic, so this argument holds no water for me. But you do subscribe, so this must matter to you.

Also, the spell ends if the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature. (Specifies things with attack rolls and without)

Feel free to cite this as evidence that the mirror image description is less clear. I'm with you. But don't use this as evidence for invented speculations about what the writers meant, and then submit those speculations as evidence that I have violated the RAW.

smcmike

2017-12-22, 07:04 PM

And you're wrong. Implication doesn't work that way.

Sure it does. The game designer seems to think so, anyways.

It is redundant. Fireballs are not "attacks that hit." Fireballs are AOE effects which are decidedly (for the sake of this argument) not attacks.

What is redundant with what, exactly? I don’t see any significant redundancies, but perhaps you could elaborate.

m
Well, then: if sanctuary didn't mention AOEs, they would be automatically excluded from the effects (it works when the caster is targeted, and AOEs can't target creatures). So why did the writers add a sentence to explicitly exclude them if they were already excluded? Lucky for you, I don't subscribe to this brand of illogic, so this argument holds no water for me. But you do subscribe, so this must matter to you.

This doesn’t get you real far. I agree that the line in Sanctuary is redundant. A bit of redundancy for clarification is fine.

ZZTRaider

2017-12-22, 07:26 PM

Yes, I read the rest of the post. You're not the first person to use the "double-defence" argument. It's a nice rebuttal to an argument that is not the argument I'm making. In other words, to a straw man.

If it's a straw man, then I've clearly misunderstood your argument.

My understanding of your argument is one effect of Mirror Image is to create 3 duplicates, which fall under the general targeting rules just as well as 3 summoned creatures would, thus leading to the potential of targeting one of the duplicates instead of the caster. Is that correct?

The problem with that argument is that either
A) You must apply that ruling on targeting equally to both attacks and non-attack spells, or
B) You must arbitrarily rule that the general targeting rules do not apply in the case of attacks.

Option A leads to the double defense, while Option B has no textual support (because, again, Mirror Image's effects regarding attacks do not apply until you've successfully targeted the caster, rather than a duplicate).

Erys

2017-12-22, 09:39 PM

I don't understand why this topic keeps coming up.

The RAW is clear, Mirror Image only protects the caster against hostile actions that involve Attack rolls; and not things like Magic Missile. If you don't like it, house-rule to your hearts content...

But please stop trying to insist the RAW is somehow wrong and your personal interpretation is somehow correct. It's not, as ZZTRaider points out in the post above.

LeonBH

2017-12-23, 12:38 AM

And here's what I say: There is no absolute answer. If you propose an absolute answer, you're wrong.

Are you saying that when I tell you Mirror Image can't deal damage, I'm wrong?

You don't get to point to the absence of evidence and use it as evidence. Not for anything.

You, yourself, are using the absence of evidence as evidence.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-23, 12:39 AM

A thought occurred to me as I was writing this post.

I was never quite sure why my opponents kept insisting that mirror image somehow did more than simply create three duplicates. Why were (are) they insisting that mirror image provides a defense in addition to the duplicates?

After all, when you read another spell, such as fireball, it seems odd to me that you someone might posit that fireball "creates an explosion of flame" and additionally it causes 8d6 damage to targets in the explosion. To me, the explosion is the cause of the 8d6 damage. The spell does not create the explosion, and then have another effect which is to cause 8d6 damage, and then another effect which is to ignite inanimate objects. These three things, albeit different, are all tied to the same phenomenon: the explosion, which is what the spell does.

So, on looking again at mirror image, I came across this phrase for the millionth time: "you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack’s target to a duplicate."

It occurs to me that people are interpreting this to mean that the wizard is actively changing the target using magic within the narrative. I disagree with this interpretation. The roll is the mechanic that selects the target. It is not an active move by the wizard within the narrative.

It occurs to me that the use of the word change is also why my opponents think the target must be selected first. I don't think so. This broke down into the semantics around choosing a target, which was probably a convoluted and unnecessary digression.

[edit: It didn't just now occur to me that my opponents think this - I've understood the position all along. What occurred to me just now that the word "change" is the cause of the different opinion. -- and this was probably raised in the previous monster thread, but I'd forgotten at this point.]

My stance on it is this. The player can never determine his target. He can only declare the intended target. The DM determines the target based on player intention, and this is usually straightforward: it's exactly what you intended to target. But despite how much it may seem that the player is actually selecting the target, he never actually is, because he is not privy to any special knowledge that the DM has.

"You killed your friend, Brian."
"What? I said I attacked the assassin."
"Yeah. Brian was disguised as the assassin because he was trying to infiltrate the assassin's guild. The assassin that you attacked was actually Brian."
"But I said I attacked the assassin..."
"And you did... but it wasn't actually an assassin. It was Brian in disguise."
"But Brian is not an assassin. I said I attacked the assassin. I didn't attack Brian. I wouldn't have attacked Brian."
...

Sure it does. The game designer seems to think so, anyways.

The game designers, brilliant as they are, are wrong if they think so. We can talk about a multitude of examples, but you and I have been down that rabbit hole before, and we came up in the same respective places. It's probably fair to say that you and I will never agree on this.

You can keep accusing me of breaking the RAW. I can keep denying it.

What is redundant with what, exactly? I don’t see any significant redundancies, but perhaps you could elaborate.

The text of mirror image says:

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.

According to my opponents, this is the only effect of the spell because it doesn't specifically say that it can do anything else. According to them, mirror image ignores everything else. Therefore (according to them), we already know that mirror image ignores all other effects including AOEs.

But the text of goes on to say: "A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it." -- Well, of course. That was already determined, right? This is apparently redundant, in their view. Not so, in my view.

It then says: "It ignores all other damage and effects." Well, according to them, this was already established because the spell never specifically said that anything except for attacks could be "warded" by the spell. Apparently, this is also redundant. Not so, in my view.

This doesn’t get you real far. I agree that the line in Sanctuary is redundant. A bit of redundancy for clarification is fine.

Agreed. I am saying that paragraphs two and three of mirror image are just a "bit of clarification" that explains how one can target the caster with an attack under the circumstances. A bit of clarification is fine. In this case, its not even redundant, its more of a service to the people who don't understand probability and are faced with a probabilistic (is that word?) problem.

Seems fine to me that they clarifies this. I'm not bothered that they didn't go on to clarify other cases such as single-target save-spells.

If it's a straw man, then I've clearly misunderstood your argument.

Yes.

My understanding of your argument is one effect of Mirror Image is to create 3 duplicates, which fall under the general targeting rules just as well as 3 summoned creatures would, thus leading to the potential of targeting one of the duplicates instead of the caster. Is that correct?

Yes, but it's a weird way of saying it, though I may have used the phrasing myself, so... fair enough. I think you presented a straw man, but the fault is mine for lack of clarity. Apologies.

They started by referring to "general targeting rules" which was really just a way of insisting that the target is whatever the player says it is.

They then created a false equivalence between the caster without mirror image on (only one target choice) and the caster with mirror image on (four target choices), and said that since mirror image doesn't affect the general targeting rules, therefore hold person behaves exaclty as it would if mirror image was not on.

I replied that if they wanted to make the comparison, they would need to consider the "general targeting rules" that govern how to determine which of four identical targets are selected when the selector cannot distinguish between them. There are no specific rules for that. But there are many viable solutions. Simply letting the attacker accurately pick with 100% accuracy when the actual probability is 25% is not reasonable.

The d20 mechanic described in the mirror image spell text is one viable option. But it is only compelled in the case of attacks. In any other case, the DM is free to choose a solution. But again, the situation for the target selector is the same. The spell text of mirror image does not instruct the DM to use the d20 mechanic, but the situation requires the DM to make a reasonable ruling. Simply letting the selector accurately pick with 100% accuracy when the actual probability is 25% is not reasonable.

The problem with that argument is that either
A) You must apply that ruling on targeting equally to both attacks and non-attack spells, or

Bingo. What's the problem? This is my entire point. The DM must rule reasonably in both cases, which would probably involve something like rolling a d4 and requiring a 4, or asking the defender to roll a d4 and requiring a 2-4 in both cases. In general, this is what the DM would do. But specific beats general, and mirror image has a specific rule that applies if it is an attack. So in the case of an attack, the DM must use the d20 mechanic given in the spell.

Only in the case of attacks is he required to use the d20 mechanic. This does not absolve him of the responsibility to rule responsibly in the case of a single-target save-spell. He should use whatever general rule he would use in this situation, which is a randomized mechanic with 25% probability such as the one mentioned above. He could also just use the same d20 mechanic. RAW does not compel it, but it solves the problem.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

B) You must arbitrarily rule that the general targeting rules do not apply in the case of attacks.

But it's not arbitrary. The spell text of mirror image provides specific guidelines for how to determine the target if the caster is attacked. This is a specific rule that overrides the general targeting rules. It tells the players and DM how to determine the target of the spell, instead of whatever means the DM would usually use. No double dip. The DM just follows the rule instead of making a ruling. Specific beats general.

Option A leads to the double defense,...

No, because I say that when the player says "I attack the wizard with mirror image," that does not mean the wizard is the target of the attack. The DM determines the target of the attack based on this, but the situation is one in which the target is probabilistically determined. The DM determines the target of the attack. In this case, mirror image tells him how to do it via the d20 mechanic. He does it this way. The target is only determined once.

If you say that the mirror image mechanics are only triggered after the caster is targeted (which I reject, for the reasons given above), then you run into this problem:

What happens when the attacker declares a duplicate as his target. According to you, the d20 mechanic is not triggered. So, if he attacks the duplicate, there is a 0% chance that he will hit the caster. Nonsense.

I understand that this is why people are saying that the duplicates can't be targeted... but that's reasoning back to front. You shouldn't have to create a new rule preventing the targeting of duplicates to rationalize away the contradiction in your ruling. Worse, some people have even invented new fluff on top of this to rationalize the new rule. It's thanks to this that we have the "morass image" spell masquerading as mirror image at homebrewed "RAW" tables - the one that looks like blur because that's the only way to rationalize the rationalization that explains their original misreading of the text.

...while Option B has no textual support (because, again, Mirror Image's effects regarding attacks do not apply until you've successfully targeted the caster, rather than a duplicate).

No, I reject this. Paragraphs 2 and 3 provide a specific rule for determining the target in the case of attacks. When a player declares the intent to attack the caster, the DM interrupts the process and determines the target according to the spell text. Simple.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-23, 12:47 AM

Are you saying that when I tell you Mirror Image can't deal damage, I'm wrong?

No. you're right. I explained that, earlier. We agree on this, but we don't agree on the reasons for why its true.

I need to apologize for using the wrong word, here, too. I should have said "universal" instead of "absolute." There is no universal answer to the question: "What happens if the rules don't say you can and don't say you can't?"

Sometimes the answer is "you can." Sometimes the answer is "you can't."

You have to consider the specific question.

You, yourself, are using the absence of evidence as evidence.

Tell me where, and I'll correct it or retract it.

LeonBH

2017-12-23, 12:53 AM

After all, when you read another spell, such as fireball, it seems odd to me that you someone might posit that fireball "creates an explosion of flame" and additionally it causes 8d6 damage to targets in the explosion. To me, the explosion is the cause of the 8d6 damage. The spell does not create the explosion, and then have another effect which is to cause 8d6 damage, and then another effect which is to ignite inanimate objects. These three things, albeit different, are all tied to the same phenomenon: the explosion, which is what the spell does.

Your stance is consistent with "all explosions of fire must deal 8d6 damage." Because you are saying the explosion is the 8d6 damage.

Are you saying the following spell is functionally the same as the RAW version of Fireball?

Fireball
3rd level evocation
Range: 120ft
Casting Time: 1 action
Duration: Instantaneous

An explosion of flame happens within range.

LeonBH

2017-12-23, 01:19 AM

Tell me where, and I'll correct it or retract it.

When you said the following:

No. I'm saying that if the spell doesn't say it can do something, then we don't know whether it can do it or not. Further, to force either is decidedly wrong.

You claimed that the absence of evidence is evidence that we do not/cannot know anything. This is a self-contradiction. If you do not know anything, then there is at least one thing that you know: which is that you don't know (how can you be totally sure you know nothing, if you truly know nothing?). And if this seems philosophical, it is nonetheless true. This is the paradox that is often attributed to Socrates when he allegedly said, "all I know is I know nothing."

In fact, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence -- ie, that we know it is absent.

Beware of claims that a rule does something mentioned nowhere in that rule or elsewhere in the core books. There aren't secret rules. (source (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/857269923134939136))

Look at these rules in particular:

The Dual Wielder feat doesn't include the benefit of the Two-Weapon Fighting feature. It would say so if it did. (source (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/894721930376298496))

If the grease spell created a flammable substance, the spell would say so. It doesn't say so. (source (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/739200837809934340))

Spells were not meant to do things they do not say they do. They are specific, limited expressions of magic.

No. you're right. I explained that, earlier. We agree on this, but we don't agree on the reasons for why its true.

If you agree that Mirror Image does not deal damage, then you are claiming to know that Mirror Image does not do any damage. This contradicts your statement that we do not know what spells do if they do not say they don't do something.

Furthermore, it allows a player to declare that their Fireball deal 8d6 damage and 1d4 damage due to mental trauma/burn effects, since the spell only says it adds a 1d6 for each spell level it is upcast by. Thus, a 3rd leve Fireball may deal 8d6+1d4 total damage.

BurgerBeast

2017-12-23, 03:45 AM

The thing that seems to be being overlooked, from my point of view, is the mechanical significance of the mere presence duplicates. Let's try an analogy.

Bobby's Birch Blocks

Four birch blocks appear in a 5' by 5' space within 30' of the caster's choice, within 30'. the blocks last for 1 minute. You can use your action to dismiss the blocks.

Each time a creature attacks and hits a block, it changes colour. After the first hit, it turns red. After the second hit, it turns green. After the third hit, it turns blue.

A block’s AC is 10. If an attack hits a blue block, the block is destroyed. A block's colour can be changed (or a blue block can be destroyed) only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects. The spell ends when all three blocks are destroyed.

My questions:

(1) What happens if Joe casts Bobby's Birch Blocks and then Hero tries to pick one up?

(2) What happens if Hero tries to sit on one?

Your stance is consistent with "all explosions of fire must deal 8d6 damage." Because you are saying the explosion is the 8d6 damage.

No, it isn't. You're on a straw-manning frenzy. If my reasons aren't clear, I can try to explain them. But don't make up straw men and knock them down.

The spell tells us that an explosion of fire is created. That's the effect of the spell. But there is nowhere else to look to determine what explosions of fire do. So the spell specifies what this particular explosion of fire does. It does 8d6 damage along with the other specified effects.

If there were general rules for explosions, there would be no need for the spell to specify the rules for this explosion unless it were different.

Are you saying the following spell is functionally the same as the RAW version of Fireball?

No. Another straw man.

When you said the following:

...

You claimed that the absence of evidence is evidence that we do not/cannot know anything.

No. This is a gross over-generalization of what I said. I said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because you have no proof for an assertion does not mean you do have proof that it is false. Sorry, but I thought this phrase was commonly understood.

This is a self-contradiction. If you do not know anything, then there is at least one thing that you know: which is that you don't know (how can you be totally sure you know nothing, if you truly know nothing?).

It's not a self contradiction. It doesn't mean what you're saying it means.

In fact, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence -- ie, that we know it is absent.

Yeah. That's not what it means.

Look at these rules in particular:

Thanks for posting these. There's a lot to say, here.

(1) I 100% agree that we need to beware of secret rules. There are no secret rules.

(2) Of course the dual wielder feat doesn't include the two-weapon fighting feature. It explicitly lists the benefits.

(3) The grease one is interesting. It seems to me that whether the grease created by the spell is flammable depends on whether grease is flammable. The spell specifically says it creates grease. If the spell was called dry kindling and it covered the same area, and the description said it created dry kindling, I would say the kindling is flammable. But I wouldn't know what the effects of igniting it were, and I'd expect the spell to tell me. If it didn't, I would not say, "well this kindling is not flammable." I would probably reason that since the spell did not describe the effect of igniting the kindling, then they are probably negligible. But I'd still say it is ignitable because kindling is ignitable.

Spells were not meant to do things they do not say they do. They are specific, limited expressions of magic.

Is this a quote?

If you agree that Mirror Image does not deal damage, then you are claiming to know that Mirror Image does not do any damage.

No. I'm not claiming to know. I'm making my best guess or my most reasoned judgment based on my understanding of illusions and what the rest of the book has to say about illusions.

This contradicts your statement that we do not know what spells do if they do not say they don't do something.

You've straw-manned me again. I never said this. Probably my fault for being unclear.

Let me clarify: The mere fact that a spell does not specify how it behaves under a particular condition is not enough of a reason to assert that it definitely does nothing* in that condition.

* This is only more the case if the spell also states that it does something else that would provide reason to think it does something under that condition.

Furthermore, it allows a player to declare that their Fireball deal 8d6 damage and 1d4 damage due to mental trauma/burn effects, since the spell only says it adds a 1d6 for each spell level it is upcast by. Thus, a 3rd leve Fireball may deal 8d6+1d4 total damage.

Another straw man. I've made it clear that, in the absence of evidence, you still need to look for other evidence to make the call. For example, if mental trauma/burn effects were a part of the game, and if there was a base guideline for these effects that coincided with the conditions of the spell, you would take it into consideration. But you would not be in the general practice of inventing rules out of thin air.

So, it's not because the spell doesn't say so. It's because, on the balance of evidence, there's not sufficient reason.

I wonder what Jeremy Crawford would say about whether fireball makes a noise, and what the DC to hear it is. I am saying that the spell clearly says "it blossoms with a low roar into an explosion." But then no mechanics are given for the noise... so does that mean that there is no noise? If a DM rules that a monster in a different room hears the noise and runs to assist his comrades, then the DM has violated RAW because nowhere in the spell does it give mechanical rules governing the sound, therefore there is actually no sound? The text about sound is purely fluff? -- of course not.

See, the problem is that the sound described, despite being a magical effect, which according to you only does what it specifically describes mechanically, is that the description can give very strong reason to consider other rules and how they might apply.

I think it is ridiculous to assert that fireball is silent. This is not because I think explosions should make noise - it's because the text of the spell describes the noise that it makes. It doesn't give the mechanics of the noise, but it clearly indicates a noise, and there are rules that govern noise.

If we take your view seriously, we have no reason to think that a fireball is visible, either. Nowhere does it give the mechanics for seeing a fireball. Therefore it can't be seen, right? -- of course not.

JC says "beware of claims that a rule does something mentioned nowhere in that rule or elsewhere in the core books. There aren't secret rules." This good advice. But it doesn't apply to our argument in any way.

We're talking about a case in which the spell does say it. The spell does say that it creates three illusory duplicates. There is no secret here.

The spell description for mirror image unambiguously states that it creates three duplicates. (I did not make that up. I did not add that to the spell. It's there.) It doesn't give the mechanics of the duplicates, but it clearly indicates that they are there and describes them. It doesn't give the mechanics of those duplicates (except when they are attacked), but it clearly indicates that they are there (even when the caster is not attacked), and there are rules that govern seeing and interacting with illusions. The DM is certainly expected to rule on this, and not simply ignore their presence.

This is not a case of me trying to introduce a secret rule. This is a case of you (and others) trying to ignore a rule. The spell says it creates three illusory duplicates. It describes them and how they behave. But you want me to pretend that they are not there and do not behave in the way that the spell describes unless the caster is attacked.

But that bit: "unless they are attacked" is added by you. It is a secret rule that is not written in the spell.

The spell clearly describes the duplicates as being there for the entire duration of the spell (or until they are destroyed) regardless of whether the caster is attacked or not. You can't hand-wave them out of existence whenever a single-target save-spell is cast, and then hand-wave them back into existence afterward.

And neither can JC.

LeonBH

2017-12-23, 07:47 AM

No, it isn't. You're on a straw-manning frenzy. If my reasons aren't clear, I can try to explain them. But don't make up straw men and knock them down.

It is not a straw man, your view simply appears to be this fragile to me. I will explain below.

The spell tells us that an explosion of fire is created. That's the effect of the spell. But there is nowhere else to look to determine what explosions of fire do. So the spell specifies what this particular explosion of fire does. It does 8d6 damage along with the other specified effects.

If there were general rules for explosions, there would be no need for the spell to specify the rules for this explosion unless it were different.

You previously said that the explosion is the 8d6 damage. That is, you cannot have the 8d6 damage without the explosion, and you cannot have the explosion without the 8d6 damage, because they are one and the same.

The above statement must be true in your view, because you've stated that the explosion is the only effect of the Fireball spell. The 8d6 damage is not its effect, only its resolution. If you deny the statement "the explosion is the 8d6 damage" then you are also retracting the statement "the explosion is the only effect of the Fireball spell."

Therefore, since they are one and the same, you do not need the specification of what kind of damage Fireball does, and you do not need the spell to specify that it ignites unattended objects that are flammable. You simply need to know there is the explosion of fire. To claim otherwise -- that you need mechanics to explain what happens when a ball of fire explodes -- is to retract your statement that "the explosion is the 8d6 damage" because to do that, you must admit that the mechanics of the spell adds to the spell on top of the knowledge that an explosion happens. That is, the mechanics introduces a non-zero effect to Fireball, thereby also admitting that the mechanics (8d6 damage) is not the explosion.

If you support the idea that "the explosion is the 8d6 damage" then you must admit that the 8d6 damage adds nothing to the spell and can be ommitted. If you retract support from "the explosion is the 8d6 damage" then you must admit that the 8d6 damage is separate from the explosion -- and therefore, by extension, the duplicate images of mirror image is not its d20 mechanic.

No. This is a gross over-generalization of what I said. I said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because you have no proof for an assertion does not mean you do have proof that it is false. Sorry, but I thought this phrase was commonly understood.

It's not a self contradiction. It doesn't mean what you're saying it means.

Yeah. That's not what it means.

You are believing in something that is paradoxical by nature. You are asserting you aren't without proof or justification. But the fact is, your view that "absence of evidence means we don't know" holds no water. I've shown why, I've used a widely known logical paradox to show why, and I'm curious to see if you can show it isn't that.

In D&D 5e, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Absence of evidence is not simply absence of evidence.

Thanks for posting these. There's a lot to say, here.

(1) I 100% agree that we need to beware of secret rules. There are no secret rules.

(2) Of course the dual wielder feat doesn't include the two-weapon fighting feature. It explicitly lists the benefits.

You are introducing secret rules with Fireball by allowing it to burn flammable things that are held and worn, and you are introducing secret rules with Mirror Image by allowing it to interact with the targeting rules/redirect non-attacks.

Your view is incompatible with the Dual Wielder feat not including the two-weapon fighting feature because it doesn't say it doesn't include the two-weapon fighting feature, therefore your view cannot state with certainty that it does not, because there is no evidence it does not.

Note the Dual Wielder feat doesn't say the character who takes this feat gets only the listed benefits. If you say "the dual wielder feat doesn't include the two-weapon fighting feature" and agree that it doesn't provide the two-weapon fighting feature, then you are claiming to know this fact in the absence of evidence.

(3) The grease one is interesting. It seems to me that whether the grease created by the spell is flammable depends on whether grease is flammable. The spell specifically says it creates grease. If the spell was called dry kindling and it covered the same area, and the description said it created dry kindling, I would say the kindling is flammable. But I wouldn't know what the effects of igniting it were, and I'd expect the spell to tell me. If it didn't, I would not say, "well this kindling is not flammable." I would probably reason that since the spell did not describe the effect of igniting the kindling, then they are probably negligible. But I'd still say it is ignitable because kindling is ignitable.

Then you are once again adding secret rules to Grease, because the caster of Grease would not have known you would have ignited their magical grease when someone cast Fireball over it.

Is this a quote?

Yes, it is a quote. And I shall restate this for your reference: spells are not meant to do things they do not say they do. Spells are specific, limited expressions of magic.

No. I'm not claiming to know. I'm making my best guess or my most reasoned judgment based on my understanding of illusions and what the rest of the book has to say about illusions.

You've straw-manned me again. I never said this. Probably my fault for being unclear.

Let me clarify: The mere fact that a spell does not specify how it behaves under a particular condition is not enough of a reason to assert that it definitely does nothing* in that condition.

* This is only more the case if the spell also states that it does something else that would provide reason to think it does something under that condition.

You are retracting your previous answer, then, because now you're saying you do not know. You've already agreed that Mirror Image does not deal damage. Then you must also be claiming that you know it does not deal damage. Otherwise, you could not have agreed with me before.

So let me ask you again, and please be more clear in your answer: can Mirror Image deal damage when cast, when it does not explicitly say it does not deal damage?

Another straw man. I've made it clear that, in the absence of evidence, you still need to look for other evidence to make the call. For example, if mental trauma/burn effects were a part of the game, and if there was a base guideline for these effects that coincided with the conditions of the spell, you would take it into consideration. But you would not be in the general practice of inventing rules out of thin air.

So, it's not because the spell doesn't say so. It's because, on the balance of evidence, there's not sufficient reason.

You are not holding fast to one stance. You seem to be always shifting the goal posts. You've said before that Fireball melts ice because that is what fire does to ice. You've also said before that Fireball can induce burns in its victims. You've claimed that these things are in accordance with RAW.

Therefore, why can't Fireball deal an extra 1d4 damage to an ice monster due to their icy nature, or an extra 1d4 damage from a fleshy monster due to getting burned in the flames? Getting burned by a fire is a lasting, persistent effect -- your skin does not go back to normal just because you removed your hand from the flame, and it continues to hurt after the fact. Then if you can get burned by Fireball, and it is sensible for a person to get hurt when they are burned, then it must also be sensible for them to continue hurting after the Fireball spell was cast on them for as long as they continue to have the burns.

You must therefore retract either "Fireball cannot deal an extra 1d4 damage due to inducing burning, where burning is a reasonable and RAW-according effect of Fireball" or "Fireball can melt ice/burn their targets because it is reasonable for fire to behave that way" because both views cannot mutually exist.

Or are you claiming that getting burned is not something that damages people, as that is a view that enables both of those conflicting views to co-exist?

I wonder what Jeremy Crawford would say about whether fireball makes a noise, and what the DC to hear it is. I am saying that the spell clearly says "it blossoms with a low roar into an explosion." But then no mechanics are given for the noise... so does that mean that there is no noise? If a DM rules that a monster in a different room hears the noise and runs to assist his comrades, then the DM has violated RAW because nowhere in the spell does it give mechanical rules governing the sound, therefore there is actually no sound? The text about sound is purely fluff? -- of course not.

There are in fact rules for noise. It is in the official D&D 5e DM screen.

If we take your view seriously, we have no reason to think that a fireball is visible, either. Nowhere does it give the mechanics for seeing a fireball. Therefore it can't be seen, right? -- of course not.

On the contrary, Fireball says "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger" which indicates that the spell is visible. One cannot be both "bright" and "invisible" at the same time.

Besides which, I never said Fireball is invisible as that is not a RAW assertion. You cannot deduce that Fireball is invisible from the RAW, and therefore, you cannot deduce that my view states that Fireball is invisible. The only way you can assert that my view is consistent with "Fireball is invisible" is if you also say "the RAW says Fireball is invisible."

JC says "beware of claims that a rule does something mentioned nowhere in that rule or elsewhere in the core books. There aren't secret rules." This good advice. But it doesn't apply to our argument in any way.

Once again, you are applying secret rules to Fireball by saying it melts ice and burns flammable objects that are held. You are applying secret rules to Grease by saying it can burn. And you are applying secret rules to Mirror Image by saying it can affect non-attacks.

Therefore, it is 100% applicable to our argument, because I believe you are introducing these secret rules, and you are trying to persuade me that you are not.

I will also note that, further down in your post, you claim I'm implementing a secret rule (adding the "except on attacks" condition to Mirror Image), and you could not have claimed that unless you believed this thing about secret rules is applicable to our argument. In other words, you've contradicted yourself. You've claimed that secret rules are not applicable to our argument, and then you applied it to your argument in the same post. You're holding another inconsistent view, another contradiction.

We're talking about a case in which the spell does say it. The spell does say that it creates three illusory duplicates. There is no secret here.

The spell description for mirror image unambiguously states that it creates three duplicates. (I did not make that up. I did not add that to the spell. It's there.) It doesn't give the mechanics of the duplicates, but it clearly indicates that they are there and describes them. It doesn't give the mechanics of those duplicates (except when they are attacked), but it clearly indicates that they are there (even when the caster is not attacked), and there are rules that govern seeing and interacting with illusions. The DM is certainly expected to rule on this, and not simply ignore their presence.

It gives the mechanics of the duplicates in the form of the defender rolling a d20 whenever they are hit by an attack. You cannot say "it doesnt give the mechanics (except when they are attacked)" because there is a mechanic given, and the mechanic given is applied only when they are attacked.

You cannot assert that there are no mechanics because the mechanics are given in the spell itself. You are just ignoring it, but your rejection of them doesn't erase their existence as the mechanic that governs Mirror Image.

Let me restate this a third time. When you claim that the spell does not give the mechanics for how the duplicate images behave, you are ignoring the mechanics that were given in the spell itself. When you say "it doesn't give the mechanics (except when they are attacked)", then you are contradicting yourself. It does give the mechanics (when they are attacked), and therefore you cannot say that it doesn't give the mechanics.

This is not a case of me trying to introduce a secret rule. This is a case of you (and others) trying to ignore a rule. The spell says it creates three illusory duplicates. It describes them and how they behave. But you want me to pretend that they are not there and do not behave in the way that the spell describes unless the caster is attacked.

You are ignoring the rules, not me. As I said above, you are ignoring the d20 mechanic which is the rule that governs the images produced by Mirror Image.

From your own words, the spell does not describe how the images behave unless they are attacked. Then how can you say "you want me to pretend that they are not there and do not behave in the way that the spell describes"? Once again, you are showing me that you believe in a contradiction.

You must either say "the spell does not specify how the images behave" or "the spell specifies how the images behave". If you say "the spell specifies how the images behave" then you cannot believe that "it doesn't give the mechanics (except when they are attacked)" as those are mutually exclusive views.

And if you say "the spell does not specify how it behaves" then you cannot say that I want you to "pretend that they do not behave in the way that the spell describes" because they are contradictions, once again.

I want you to accept that the images are the effect of Mirror Image insofar as they can protect the caster against attacks, and that's it. That is the totality of the behavior of the duplicate images.

But that bit: "unless they are attacked" is added by you. It is a secret rule that is not written in the spell.

Actually, as I've explained, the whole bit on "unless they are attacked" was invented by you. The Mirror Image spell specifies what it does on an attack. To use your words, I did not invent this. It is written in the spell. You can even read it for yourself.

But you are adding the secret rule "it affects non-attacks" by taking on the stance that "Mirror Image does not specify the mechanics of the images" and you are only able to do this by ignoring the majority of the text of the spell, asserting that the spell does not provide the mechanics (which it does). And once again, your rejection of them does not remove their existence as the mechanic that governs Mirror Image.

The spell clearly describes the duplicates as being there for the entire duration of the spell (or until they are destroyed) regardless of whether the caster is attacked or not. You can't hand-wave them out of existence whenever a single-target save-spell is cast, and then hand-wave them back into existence afterward.

The spell clearly describes the mechanical benefits of the duplicates, which last until the images are destroyed or the spell ends. You can't hand-wave the mechanics out of existence, even when a single-target save-spell is cast.

I am not hand-waving away the existence of the illusory duplicates of the spell. I am explaining to you that they do only what the spell says they do. Nothing more, nothing less. To say otherwise is to usher in a secret rule, a benefit of the spell which it does not describe (ie, the images provide a defense against a non-attack).