You are really trying hard Burger...

Its funny, and really sad.

Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
First, thank you for finally trying to steel-man my argument. But...

No, I don't. This is why I keep referring to scalpels and chainsaws. You think that this is equivalent to what I am saying because you insist on ignoring the subtleties of what makes them different. If you pay attention to those subtleties, you'll see that they are, in fact, different. You'll need your scalpel, not your chainsaw.

So, you have said nothing so far, except the usual 'you don't get me' silliness.


Not sure which line of text you're referring to, but you're wrong about my argument anyway.
of course you don't, because it defines what an Attack is and you don't want to admit you are wrong and using house rules.


No, I haven't. Again, subtlety. Look for the differences. Try the principle of goodwill. Steel-man instead of straw-manning.
Ummm, post 367 says otherwise. But I am sure you will remain in denial.


That's correct. I acknowledge that the PHB is the official source of RAW. I deny that it defines attack. (I think you mean attack here, and not Attack - which is an action one can take in combat.)
It literally says "... the rules is..."
If you cannot admit this simple black and white RAW, you of course will always think you are in RAW- because you don't know what it means.


Yes. I acknowledge that it says this. If you're making an attack roll, you are making an attack.

I do not acknowledge that it says "If you are not making an attack roll, you are not making an attack." There are two reasons: (1) it doesn't say it. You would think this would be enough. (2) It's a logical fallacy to infer it. The name of the logical fallacy is: denying the consequent. It is invalid to make this move. P->Q implies ~P->~Q is invalid. It's an error. Always. This is not an opinion. It has been laid to rest. It is the topic of Logic 101 in universities worldwide. I'm not making it up.
Your logic is wrong. Period. Everything in 5th ed is Actions. Attacks are Actions, Spells are Actions, some Spells are Attacks, some are not- but they are all still Actions. Attacks have been defined as anything using an Attack Roll. That is RAW, and no amount of convoluted half-assed logic changes this.


That's right. You just need a definition. This isn't a definition. Insisting that it is a definition is not an argument. We could discuss what a definition is and determine if this is one, but screaming that it is will not get us anywhere.
The Section of the PHB is called "Making an Attack" literally proceeds to say, "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack." This is the General rule, 100%; and there are only a few Specific rules that violate it, such as Grapple and Shove.


Priceless.
If the shoe fits.


This is relevant, why? It's only relevant if you can show that there are attached rules that are relevant (i.e. that make these situations different).
Because we are discussing the RAW of spells. Primarily the RAW of Mirror Image.


It has no such rule. You keep quoting the same text back at me, but it's not as if I haven't seen the text. We disagree about what it says. I have offered my reasons for why I think it means what I think it means. You have simply shouted.

If you could explain your understanding, or disprove mine, we'd actually get somewhere.
Read the spells without applying your so called 'logic'. That is exactly what they say. Verbatim.
I and many others have pointed this out, repeatedly.


There's no "first." The player can target the caster. That doesn't make the target the caster (because players can't assert outcomes; only intentions). The DM determines the target, as always.
You realize you contradict yourself when you say stuff like this right? You can target the caster, but that doesn't mean you target the caster. No man, you either do or you don't.


So the RAW prescribe a method of target resolution, which means the DM must follow it in the case of attacks.
Close, the RAW prescribes the rules of the spell, which the DM should follow. When you don't, you are house-ruling.


You're reasoning back to front, and applying rules before they even have a chance to apply. If someone casts magic missile, as you yourself have claimed: mirror image doesn't do anything. That is to say, every mechanical description from paragraph 2 onward does not apply.What? The entire spell doesn't apply, images an all, because nothing in the RAW of Mirror Image protects against spells like Magic Missile.

But the part of the spell that is not conditional - the part that starts when the spell starts and ends when the spell ends: the presence of three illusory duplicates - does apply. It applies to the attacker's/caster of MM's/observer's field of view.Actually, it is. Absolutely. If it did more against other spells like Magic Missile and Hold Person -> It would say so.

And what is in your field of view is open to targeting. Irrelevant. You must target the caster with an Attack if the caster hopes to gain protection from Mirror Image.

The attacker/caster/observer sees identical targets, and he specifically wants to strike one even though he doesn't know which one it is. Regardless of whether they are valid or invalid targets, he sees them and can choose one of them. So the DM has to determine which one is targeted. Irrelevant. You must target the caster with an Attack if the caster hopes to gain protection from Mirror Image.

In any case - attacking/casting/(insert any other activity that requires a target) - a target must be selected. But the rules only inform us in one case: attacker. They are silent in all other cases. Irrelevant. You must target the caster with an Attack if the caster hopes to gain protection from Mirror Image.

To summarize: you are putting the cart before the horse. Targeting is something that happens in many situations, and the process is the same in all of them. The player declares an intended target and the DM determines the target. This is always how it works, regardless of the situation. here you go again, adding new layers to the game. There is no intended target, there is Your Target. Period.

Mirror image is not special in this regard - nothing about MI changes the fact that a target must be selected - except when the caster is attacked. In that case, the spell specifically requires a particular mechanic. In all other cases, it's business as usual - which means follow the general rules.Except, you know, the RAW of the spell.

It does not mean: targeting is now handed totally differently because the spell doesn't give a specific rule. In the absence of a specific rule, you use the general rule.There is no general rule here, there is only the RAW of the spell. The RAW states clearly that when you are targeted by an Attack, roll d20 - x or higher changes the Target from Caster to Duplicate.

Another way to think about this is that having to select a single target from multiple identical targets is not a situation that is unique to MI. There is nothing about the circumstances created by MI that are unique to the spell, except in the case of attacks.Stop trying to 'think about it differently, just follow the RAW or admit you are house-ruling.

So whatever general method the DM uses to determine a random target will suffice, unless it is specifically an attack.So much weaseling, so much lawyer-upping, so much house-ruling.

@Cybren: I am a man, so you can use "he" when referring to me. Thanks.talking to yourself could be a sign of mental issues. Just sayin'
Why can't you just follow RAW, or just admit you are house-ruling?

Hell, why can't you just admit that the General Rule in the PHB for what an Attack is --> anything that uses an Attack Roll.

(Wait, I know, because if you do admit that it means every other thing you just wrote goes away. And you are much afraid to admit you are house-ruling... which is weird. Its not like anyone is going to judge you over it).