Mirror Images, AoE damage, Magic Missile, and such

[Erys]

The RAW do not define attack. There is no wiggle room to claim that:

"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."

Constitutes a definition. It is not a definition. Not as written. If you consider this to be a definition, that is your interpretation. That is RAI.

(Then you just repeat the same thing which is a waste of everyone's time, and does't even try to advance the conversation.)

When the rule in question comes from the RULE BOOK, its RAW. Period.

You are starting so sound like that Richard Pryor bit, where he talks about how his wife caught him in bed with another woman and he had the audacity to say, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

He was caught in the act, still denies he is wrong. You are confronted with RAW, and still deny you are house-ruling.

I sure hope you are trolling us (and wish you would stop); because the alternative is very, very bad.

[Cybren]

The people most indignant about BurgerBeasts argument here also seem to have no grasp of what it is, so that's fun.

[Erys]

The people most indignant about BurgerBeasts argument here also seem to have no grasp of what it is, so that's fun.

Burger insists he is within RAW when he is changing the rules of the game (including, but not limited to, what constitutes an Attack and the actual verbiage of the spell Mirror Image). Most of us just want him to admit he is not in RAW (and is in fact house-ruling), by pointing out the RAW verse what he is actually doing. No one has said house-ruling is wrong; however, lying about it is.

Do you think I am incorrect in my summary Cybren?

[Cybren]

You're neither correct nor incorrect. You haven't actually demonstrated you know what Burger is arguing, you just asserted that Burgers argument is incorrect.

Can you explain to me what BurgerBeasts argument is and what their evidence is, and where the disconnect between your reasoning and theirs?

[BurgerBeast]

I don't know. I don't think it's possible to intentional target a duplicate, nor do I think it's possible to unintentionally target one, except within the confines of what the spell tells you to do.

You'd have to direct the question at someone that has that as a standing house rule. (Unless your 'you' is supposed to be a general one.)

Except it is, because that's how D&D works.

You can aim an arrow at the moon. Target = moon. What happens? Up to the DM. Most DMs would probably have the arrow fly true at the moon for a short distance until it falls back to the ground. If you're a certain type of DM, you might say, that's impossible, what do you want to do instead?

Can you try to cast a spell without the material components? Yes. What happens? Up to the DM.

Not really. The spell tells you how it works and clearly says you, the caster, chooses the target.

That's right. You choose the target. Then the DM decides what it is. That's the DM's role.

So again, if I choose Bob as the target of my MM, as a Player, and the DM decides “cool, you hit Phil,” that is deviating from the RAW of MM’s “Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.” No?

It is not deviating from that particular piece of RAW, but it is deviating from RAW.

Would it, in your opinion, be RAW for the Player to determine Bob as the target of his MM and then have the DM change that target to Phil?

That depends. If the player thinks that Phil is Bob, then yes. Generally, no. But there has to be thought involved by the DM.

How is that at all staying with the RAW of the spell?

It doesn't have anything to do with the spell, which is what I keep trying to tell you. But you keep trying to reason back-to-front. You are trying to apply rules that don;t apply, before they even have a chance to apply.

Easy. The player chose Bob. The DM knew that his character thought that Phil was Bob. The DM determines, based on the situation, that the person the player actually meant was Phil. Done.

No! That is not what I claimed! So much for your claim for legitimate arguments.

When did I ever say you can target a non-creature with MM? When did I ever say you can target a space?

Oh wait, that’s what you claimed:

And it is flat out wrong. MM tells you what you can target: a creature you can see.

Not an invisible creature.

Not a space.

A creature. That is the RAW of MM.

Did my example mention MM? Once? Oh, no it didn't. That's because I wasn't talking about MM. Fancy that.

What I was trying to point out is that you think that describing a pointer to a person is equivalent to pointing out the person. This idea was laid to rest famously by Bertrand Russell, but hey, who cares?

When the rule in question comes from the RULE BOOK, its RAW. Period.

Why do you think I disagree with that?

You are starting so sound like that Richard Pryor bit, where he talks about how his wife caught him in bed with another woman and he had the audacity to say, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

He was caught in the act, still denies he is wrong. You are confronted with RAW, and still deny you are house-ruling.

I sure hope you are trolling us (and wish you would stop); because the alternative is very, very bad.

At least you still have hope. Unfortunately there is no room for me to have hope. I am certain that you are not trolling, which means the alternative is absolutely true, in you case. Although I knew this long ago.

[Erys]

You're neither correct nor incorrect. You haven't actually demonstrated you know what Burger is arguing, you just asserted that Burgers argument is incorrect.

Can you explain to me what BurgerBeasts argument is and what their evidence is, and where the disconnect between your reasoning and theirs?

Ummm, bull***t. But ok.

Let's dance.

BurgerBeast believes that, since Mirror Image says 'it creates three duplicates indistinguishable from the caster' that the spell must force anyone who is using any non-area effect Action, be it Attack or Save Spell, to first pick a target from the group of four (the caster and three images). That single line of text is the entirety of his evidence. Though he has tried to extrapolate his stance with non sequitur examples like picking people from crowds, hiding behind other illusions, and something about swords being metal... which I still don't get.

He has even gone so far as to deny the PHB as an official source of RAW when it comes defining an Attack. See the top post of this page.

Have I missed anything about his stance?

If I have, please enlighten me and I will address it. If not I will explain how its fine (but imho way to strong) as a house-rule, but it is not RAW.

[Erys]

The RAW do not define attack. There is no wiggle room to claim that:

"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."

Constitutes a definition. It is not a definition. Not as written. If you consider this to be a definition, that is your interpretation. That is RAI.

(Then you just repeat the same thing which is a waste of everyone's time, and does't even try to advance the conversation.)

When the rule in question comes from the RULE BOOK, its RAW. Period.

You are starting so sound like that Richard Pryor bit, where he talks about how his wife caught him in bed with another woman and he had the audacity to say, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

He was caught in the act, still denies he is wrong. You are confronted with RAW, and still deny you are house-ruling.

I sure hope you are trolling us (and wish you would stop); because the alternative is very, very bad.

Why do you think I disagree with that?

Because you did... See the quote that started it, now in blue.

You straight up quote the PHB then say it isn't defining what an Attack is. When it point blank says, "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." You don't need a glossary format to see a rule being defined in the rule book; especially when it says, "... the rule is ...".

[Cybren]

Ummm, bull***t. But ok.

Let's dance.

BurgerBeast believes that, since Mirror Image says 'it creates three duplicates indistinguishable from the caster' that the spell must force anyone who is using any non-area effect Action, be it Attack or Save Spell, to first pick a target from the group of four (the caster and three images). That single line of text is the entirety of his evidence. Though he has tried to extrapolate his stance with non sequitur examples like picking people from crowds, hiding behind other illusions, and something about swords being metal... which I still don't get.

He has even gone so far as to deny the PHB as an official source of RAW when it comes defining an Attack. See the top post of this page.

Have I missed anything about his stance?

If I have, please enlighten me and I will address it. If not I will explain how its fine (but imho way to strong) as a house-rule, but it is not RAW.

What's BS? You said before "BurgerBeast is wrong and I am not wrong". That was your summation of their argument. Even in this summation you can't avoid editorializing your own position.

What is the diegetic difference between a caster having four mirror images around them or, say, four doppelgangers all wearing identical clothes in the same area? How do you know that there's "only one legal target", in-character in the former case while in the latter case also know that there are more than one? Why are you incapable of trying to use a magic missile on an illusion, within fiction? What happens there? What does an illusion being "immune to damage" from non-attacks mean?

[Erys]

What's BS? You said before "BurgerBeast is wrong and I am not wrong". That was your summation of their argument. Even in this summation you can't avoid editorializing your own position.

What is the diegetic difference between a caster having four mirror images around them or, say, four doppelgangers all wearing identical clothes in the same area? How do you know that there's "only one legal target", in-character in the former case while in the latter case also know that there are more than one? Why are you incapable of trying to use a magic missile on an illusion, within fiction? What happens there? What does an illusion being "immune to damage" from non-attacks mean?

First, it is pretty obvious you are BurgerBeast using an alternate account.

Second, four doppelgangers wearing identical clothes don't have RULES attached to them like Mirror Image or Magic Missile.

Making this comparison is worthless (but par for course) because the game has RULES that tell us Magic Missile auto hits the creature you target and that it needs no Attack roll (ie, does not use an Attack). The game has RULES that state Mirror Image only protects against attacks and that you have to target the caster first then, before the Attack roll, roll a d20 to see if the target changes to a duplicate.

Again, house rule to your hearts content; just don't call it RAW.

[Cybren]

Ah yes, I am definitely BurgerBeast, who used time travel to make this account in 2006, participated in a few play-by-post campaigns, and then returned to the future in order to win a forum argument

[Erys]

Ah yes, I am definitely BurgerBeast, who used time travel to make this account in 2006, participated in a few play-by-post campaigns, and then returned to the future in order to win a forum argument

I am sure it is just happenstance you debate exactly like him.

Cry that your, errr 'his', stance isn't understood; then when spelled out specifically you don't address it, opting to instead conjure some false equivalency as if four real opponents (who technically can not even share the same space) should have the same affect on Magic Missile as Mirror Image- even though, as I said, they are completely different situations and spells have RULES which you are supposed to follow.

[Zalabim]

What's BS? You said before "BurgerBeast is wrong and I am not wrong". That was your summation of their argument. Even in this summation you can't avoid editorializing your own position.

What is the diegetic difference between a caster having four mirror images around them or, say, four doppelgangers all wearing identical clothes in the same area? How do you know that there's "only one legal target", in-character in the former case while in the latter case also know that there are more than one? Why are you incapable of trying to use a magic missile on an illusion, within fiction? What happens there? What does an illusion being "immune to damage" from non-attacks mean?

The diegetics aren't what's at question here, however I will remind you that whatever your answer to "There appear to be four whatevers there, how do we determine which one the thing you're doing is targeting," Mirror Image goes on to state afterwards that if the caster is targeted by an attack, there's a die roll to determine if the target can be changed to a duplicate instead. This means that Mirror Image always provides a greater chance for the caster to not actually be targeted by an attack than it does anything that is not an attack.

If you say that enemies have to pick between the images when they try to pick a target, then however you determine that initial target, there's a second roll if the caster is actually targeted that can change the target to a duplicate anyway. And if you say that the caster can be targeted normally as you wish, then the only chance for the caster to not be the target is the die roll offered by Mirror Image. A 75% chance to not target the caster would seem to fit the situation better than a 93.75% chance to not target the caster. So if you're going to decide that enemies always have to pick among the images presented somehow, then it would be reasonable to house rule that you won't then apply the d20 roll afterwards, or will use only the d20 roll and not an extra randomizer. No double jeopardy, even though Mirror Image explicitly says it has a greater chance to thwart attacks than anything else that can target the caster.

Magic Missile is not positively given the feature "is an attack," so for the purposes of the RAW, it is not an attack. We know RAI is that it is not an attack, but a group could rule that it is an attack anyway(which sounds an awful lot like house ruling). That would also get the desired result on a case by case basis without changing anything written in mirror image. Alternatively, Mirror Image could be changed to include targeting by things other than attacks in its d20 roll. The position that hold person and/or magic missile have to contend with targeting illusions and don't require the d20 roll and attacks simultaneously don't have to contend with targeting illusions and do require the d20 roll is 100% grade A house rule. No interpretation of the actual text can support that.

[Segev]

All that is fine, if you want to house-rule it that you have to pick out the caster. I personally think you and Burger doing this is WAY OP. But, whatever...

It is not in RAW to interpret it that way.

Because as you said:

Which is absolutely is. There is no room for debate here. The PHB states that an Attack is anything that uses an Attack Roll (with a handful of special attacks like grapple and shove being specific fringe cases).

Once you start this wiggle where you are trying to reinterpret the language of the game to fit your head cannon of how a spell works- you are in house-rule territory. Which is fine, just be honest about it.

Except that the RAW are silent on what happens if it is not "an attack." I am willing to either accept that "attack" is exactly the game rules term, or that it is a more general term. If it is a game rules term, then the RAW are silent on what happens to non-attacks that still require you to pick a target. What the RAW are not silent on is that there are now multiple possible targets, and that you cannot tell them apart. So whether the one you chose is the right one must be determined, somehow. You don't get to bypass this requirement.

Or, rather, saying that the RAW allow you to is incorrect. It is a valid ruling that you can, but it is equally valid that you cannot. The RAW are silent on it.

And yes, from a "what is this trying to model?" standpoint, I do think it makes less sense to rule that you can just say, "That wizard with the images," when you wouldn't be able to say, "Steve, even though I have no idea which of those five wizards huddled together is Steve." Which is why I choose the ruling that I think makes more sense, since by the RAW, they're both equally valid.

What I do object to is the assertion that it's a house rule just because it's not how you would rule it.

That is a perfectly viable way to run things. It simply isn't rules as written, the reason being I can make that rule contradict RAW.

MI indicates that the duplicates are all in a single 5x5 space. When targeting an attack I can choose to target the creature, OR RAW I can choose a square on the battlemap to attack. If a creature is in that square my attack is rolled against that creature and if, for example, I roll a 20 I will automatically hit the creature with a critical hit.

Now let's apply this to MI. I cast my spell on the square the caster is standing in. RAW if there is a creature there my spell targets him. Now this could potentially be ruled differently playing in mind theater, but RAW on a battle map this is what the rules say.

There is nothing wrong with applying your own understanding to the game, but to respond to your comment here:


The idea that keeping abilities in check is somehow an MMO-style limitation that shouldn't apply to a TTRPG is asinine. If things aren't kept in check then why follow any of the rules? Why can't I be one punch man?

You're not following the rules, though. You're making them up.

If there are 5 people in a single 5 foot square (which is technically possible, though requires a lot of effort to make happen in a normal battlefield circumstance), and you say, "I target the square with my charm person spell," the DM is going to look at you and ask, "Who in the square? Or are you upcasting to get all 5 of them?"

If you tell him, "Steve," and he says, "you don't know which one of those is Steve," what do you do? Is he cheating? Making a house rule that you can't declare your target based on criteria that you couldn't use to identify the right one?

No, he's making a ruling based on what is written: the spell creates images, and you can't tell them apart. You're required to pick one. You can't be sure which is Steve, so he has to determine, somehow, whether the one you happened to choose was Steve.

Now, if he rules that the MMO-like interpretation is right, and that, yes, you can ignore the images because you're not making an attack roll, that's also a ruling that is not a house rule.

What's BS? You said before "BurgerBeast is wrong and I am not wrong". That was your summation of their argument. Even in this summation you can't avoid editorializing your own position.

What is the diegetic difference between a caster having four mirror images around them or, say, four doppelgangers all wearing identical clothes in the same area? How do you know that there's "only one legal target", in-character in the former case while in the latter case also know that there are more than one? Why are you incapable of trying to use a magic missile on an illusion, within fiction? What happens there? What does an illusion being "immune to damage" from non-attacks mean?

This is the question, yes. This is why I choose the ruling I choose.

I will still acknowledge that the alternative ruling is valid, and is not a house rule. But neither ruling is a house rule. Both are valid with what the RAW say.

[Erys]

Except that the RAW are silent on what happens if it is not "an attack." I am willing to either accept that "attack" is exactly the game rules term, or that it is a more general term. If it is a game rules term, then the RAW are silent on what happens to non-attacks that still require you to pick a target. What the RAW are not silent on is that there are now multiple possible targets, and that you cannot tell them apart. So whether the one you chose is the right one must be determined, somehow. You don't get to bypass this requirement.

Or, rather, saying that the RAW allow you to is incorrect. It is a valid ruling that you can, but it is equally valid that you cannot. The RAW are silent on it.

And yes, from a "what is this trying to model?" standpoint, I do think it makes less sense to rule that you can just say, "That wizard with the images," when you wouldn't be able to say, "Steve, even though I have no idea which of those five wizards huddled together is Steve." Which is why I choose the ruling that I think makes more sense, since by the RAW, they're both equally valid.

What I do object to is the assertion that it's a house rule just because it's not how you would rule it.

Why am I not surprised you would chime in next...

Par for course, indeed, as I literally expected you to post before I went to bed. But, lets see if you are your own person and not just another convenient parrot, aka BurgerBeast alt number 3.

I have my suspicions...

Regardless:

The RAW regarding Mirror Image is 'silent' when it comes to non-Attacks simply because the spell does not work against non-Attacks. You don't have to pick 'which is real', because the spell does not say anything about ever having to identify one over another, anywhere. IN FACT, the spell specifically says 'when you are targeted', and before the Attack roll, you roll a d20 to see if the Attack is redirected to a duplicate. You end up ignoring the entire RAW of the spell when you opt to allow non-Attacks to interact with it, as well as ignore the entire RAW of the spell when you force people to choose their target outside of selecting the caster instead of just allowing the Spells Mechanic to work as Written.

The absence of a rule doesn't mean one secretly exists. It means, the spell does what it says, and doesn't do anything else. You don't think that makes sense, that is fine. You don't have to, just know as soon as you add these new layers to the spell (and subtract that actual verbiage of the spell), you are house-ruling. Which, again, is fine. Just be honest about it.

[Erys]

The diegetics aren't what's at question here, however I will remind you that whatever your answer to "There appear to be four whatevers there, how do we determine which one the thing you're doing is targeting," Mirror Image goes on to state afterwards that if the caster is targeted by an attack, there's a die roll to determine if the target can be changed to a duplicate instead. This means that Mirror Image always provides a greater chance for the caster to not actually be targeted by an attack than it does anything that is not an attack.

If you say that enemies have to pick between the images when they try to pick a target, then however you determine that initial target, there's a second roll if the caster is actually targeted that can change the target to a duplicate anyway. And if you say that the caster can be targeted normally as you wish, then the only chance for the caster to not be the target is the die roll offered by Mirror Image. A 75% chance to not target the caster would seem to fit the situation better than a 93.75% chance to not target the caster. So if you're going to decide that enemies always have to pick among the images presented somehow, then it would be reasonable to house rule that you won't then apply the d20 roll afterwards, or will use only the d20 roll and not an extra randomizer. No double jeopardy, even though Mirror Image explicitly says it has a greater chance to thwart attacks than anything else that can target the caster.

Magic Missile is not positively given the feature "is an attack," so for the purposes of the RAW, it is not an attack. We know RAI is that it is not an attack, but a group could rule that it is an attack anyway(which sounds an awful lot like house ruling). That would also get the desired result on a case by case basis without changing anything written in mirror image. Alternatively, Mirror Image could be changed to include targeting by things other than attacks in its d20 roll. The position that hold person and/or magic missile have to contend with targeting illusions and don't require the d20 roll and attacks simultaneously don't have to contend with targeting illusions and do require the d20 roll is 100% grade A house rule. No interpretation of the actual text can support that.

This is a really good post. I wish BurgerBeast/Cybren/Segev would read it in its entirety.

It is a shame it will most likely be parsed into small little bite sized sections with each sentence being dissected so that the overall point can be twisted and lost.

Or they will just completely ignore it.

[Segev]

Why am I not surprised you would chime in next...

Honestly, not sure. Do you have some sort of analysis of my posting patterns by which you're running? (It's actually a bit unusual for me to post at this time of day on this forum.)

Par for course, indeed, as I literally expected you to post before I went to bed.

"Literally," huh? As...opposed to figuratively? I am genuinely curious, why me, specifically, and why before you went to bed? I don't even know what time zone you're in. (I'm in CDT.)

But, lets see if you are your own person and not just another convenient parrot, aka BurgerBeast alt number 3.

I have my suspicions...

Adorable. Ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations. I assume you haven't actually paid attention to many threads other than ones BurgerBeast posts in, since I rarely remember interacting with him, and, if you'll take a few moments to examine my subtitle, I'm hardly a new account-holder. I am rather prolific.

It's kind-of disturbing that you feel your best rhetorical approach to disagreeing with this position is to insist that only BurgerBeast holds it, and that anybody who voices agreement with him must be a sock puppet account. Perhaps you should have gone to bed and responded in the morning, after sleeping off whatever ire is driving you to be nasty and personally aggressive.

The RAW regarding Mirror Image is 'silent' when it comes to non-Attacks simply because the spell does not work against non-Attacks. You don't have to pick 'which is real', because the spell does not say anything about ever having to identify one over another, anywhere.

So, your argument is that there is nothing that this spell's mechanics are trying to model? IS that correct?

If this spell were an illusionist's free-form effect in a fictional story, what does this look like? What effects does it have?

IN FACT, the spell specifically says 'when you are targeted', and before the Attack roll, you roll a d20 to see if the Attack is redirected to a duplicate.

So, then, your argument is that the duplicates are actually window dressing, and do not fool anybody. Is that correct? The spell actually creates a forcible re-direction that works with a particular probability (that decreses each time it works), and doesn't rely on the illusory images at all to achieve this other than as a visual counter for how many more times it possibly can work.

To be clear of how I'm understanding your position, the illusions are fluff, and could instead be just a force field with gaps that whirls around the character, interposing itself at random with decreasing regularity as bits get hit and broken. Is that correct? Is that what the spell is doing, in terms of what is happening in the story/narrative/game world?

Or is that just a mechanic that is being used to model the difficulty of correctly identifying which of a number of identical-seeming targets is the one you actually mean to hit?

You end up ignoring the entire RAW of the spell when you opt to allow non-Attacks to interact with it, as well as ignore the entire RAW of the spell when you force people to choose their target outside of selecting the caster and then allowing the Spells Mechanic to work as Written.

False. I do not ignore the words written in the spell in either case. In the case of things which require an attack roll, I use the resolution system given by the RAW. (Actually, I would house-rule it to let the attacker pick in a different fashion, possibly involving index cards, but that's not what we're discussing, here.) The d20 resolution mechanic is modeling the confusion the opening text indicates the spell creates as to which of the "wizards" is real, and which are images.

I likewise am not "ignoring the RAW" when I say that the images are indistinguishable, and, if you're not making an attack roll against the wizard, you need to resolve whether you successfully determined which of the "wizards" there was the real one. Claiming that I am is inventing text. To ignore the RAW, there would have to be text there that says, "If it is not an attack, the wizard may be targetted without the images confusing the one doing the targeting." Or something similarly specific about "non-attacks" not being confounded by the images.

The absence of a rule doesn't mean one secretly exists. It means, the spell does what it says, and doesn't do anything else. You don't think that makes sense, that is fine. You don't have to, just know as soon as you add these new layers to the spell (and subtract that actual verbiage of the spell), you are house-ruling. Which, again, is fine. Just be honest about it.

The spell creates images that are impossible to tell apart. The spell text gives a resolution mechanic that, if one is working according to the RAW, must be used under specific circumstances. It does not suggest a resolution mechanic for cases other than that where picking out the real wizard is important. The DM is left to make a ruling as to how to make that determination. There are at least three possible methods:

1) Use the same resolution method that is already spelled out. (The d20 roll.)
2) Assume that the wizard can always be infallibly picked out, because the spell doesn't provide a means to determine if he wasn't. (Erys's position.)
3) Come up with some other resolution method the DM likes better than (1) or (2). (I prefer drawing cards, so much so that I'd house rule even the case of making an attack roll to use it, when possible.)

All three are technically within the RAW, because the RAW do say that the images exist and are indistinguishable, but do not, outside of the case of "attacks," specify how one picks out the true wizard from the fakes. I could argue, in fact, that (2) requires ignoring the RAW that the images are indistinguishable, but I think that that's splitting hairs a bit finely.

This is a really good post. I wish BurgerBeast/Cybren/Segev would read it in its entirety.

It is a shame it will most likely be parsed into small little bite sized sections with each sentence being dissected so that the overall point can be twisted and lost.

Quoting you again because your post is shorter than the one to which you're referring, and your cute rhetorical trick of claiming that responding to it in detail is "twisting its meaning" means I need not bother doing so, and will just say this overall response to the post in general:

If you assert that the d20 resolution "redirection" text applies only when the wizard is "attacked" (as in, attack rolls are made), and at no other time, then any other form of targetting never triggers it. The attempt to say that requiring picking the wizard out of the images for any sort of targetting means that he then, if he's picked, gets the attack redirected with a certain chance, is trying to play three-card-monty with the conditions being explored.

Either the redirection rule applies, or it doesn't. If the wizard is attacked, the redirection rule unequivocally applies to the attack. There is no additional need to determine if the right wizard is chosen; the redirection rule is modeling the selection of the wizard from the images. If the wizard is targetted by a non-attack (i.e., an effect which specifies calling out a target, but does not make an attack roll), and non-attacks explicitly DO NOT use the redirection rule, then some other means of determining whether the real wizard or an image is chosen is necessary. This can be the DM deciding that the one doing the target-selection automatically gets it right. It just doesn't make much sense to those of us who are looking at the diagetics that have been asserted - in the post which Erys has requested I (and two others) read and respond to - not to be in question.

There is no case where you first must determine if the wizard was chosen, or an image, and THEN need to make a redirection roll, because the redirection roll is already modeling the target selection. Only if you interpret the redirection roll as some sort of independent deflection or parry that has a chance of interposing or shoving aside the attack does the redirection roll not serve as a mechanical means to model the confusion engendered by multiple images of the wizard.

[Aeson]

Because you did... See the quote that started it, now in blue.

You straight up quote the PHB then say it isn't defining what an Attack is. When it point blank says, "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." You don't need a glossary format to see a rule being defined in the rule book; especially when it says, "... the rule is ...".

"If B then A" does not logically follow from "if A then B;" we cannot say that all attacks involve attack rolls or that when you do not make an attack roll you are not making an attack from the statement "if you are making an attack roll then you are making an attack." The rule establishes that "requires an attack roll" is a sufficient condition for an action to qualify as an "attack," but it does not establish that "making an attack roll" is a necessary condition for an action to qualify as an attack.

Also, I would note that this rule is specifically for clarifying whether or not something is an attack when there is a question as to whether or not it is an attack. It is not a general definition of what constitutes an "attack." By any reasonable definition of "attack," there should never be any question as to whether or not a targeted directly-damaging action is an "attack;" a character would have to be incredibly stupid to not know that blasting someone with Magic Missile or something like that would inflict physical harm upon them and therefore if they do so then they are deliberately taking injurious action against them, i.e. attacking them.

[Erys]

Line by line parsing and word play... how very BurgerBeast of you. /roll

Honestly, not sure. Do you have some sort of analysis of my posting patterns by which you're running? (It's actually a bit unusual for me to post at this time of day on this forum.)

"Literally," huh? As...opposed to figuratively? I am genuinely curious, why me, specifically, and why before you went to bed? I don't even know what time zone you're in. (I'm in CDT.)

It may just be happenstance that you three all have the exact same talking points. Maybe...

Adorable. Ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations. I assume you haven't actually paid attention to many threads other than ones BurgerBeast posts in, since I rarely remember interacting with him, and, if you'll take a few moments to examine my subtitle, I'm hardly a new account-holder. I am rather prolific.

It's kind-of disturbing that you feel your best rhetorical approach to disagreeing with this position is to insist that only BurgerBeast holds it, and that anybody who voices agreement with him must be a sock puppet account. Perhaps you should have gone to bed and responded in the morning, after sleeping off whatever ire is driving you to be nasty and personally aggressive.

See above statement.

So, your argument is that there is nothing that this spell's mechanics are trying to model? IS that correct?

My stance is RAW, the spell does what it says, nothing more or less.

If this spell were an illusionist's free-form effect in a fictional story, what does this look like? What effects does it have?

Irrelevant. We are discussing the Rules As Written to the game known as D&D, 5th ed.

So, then, your argument is that the duplicates are actually window dressing, and do not fool anybody. Is that correct? The spell actually creates a forcible re-direction that works with a particular probability (that decreses each time it works), and doesn't rely on the illusory images at all to achieve this other than as a visual counter for how many more times it possibly can work.

To be clear of how I'm understanding your position, the illusions are fluff, and could instead be just a force field with gaps that whirls around the character, interposing itself at random with decreasing regularity as bits get hit and broken. Is that correct? Is that what the spell is doing, in terms of what is happening in the story/narrative/game world?

Or is that just a mechanic that is being used to model the difficulty of correctly identifying which of a number of identical-seeming targets is the one you actually mean to hit?

No, my stance is the spell does what it says, nothing more or less. I personally visualize the images stepping through the caster and through one another; I also visualize them shattering like glass when stuck since the spell calls them a Duplicate that is Destroyed. But how I, or you, visualize the spell is moot. ALL that matters is whether we are following the RAW of the spell, or changing the RAW via house-ruling.

False. I do not ignore the words written in the spell in either case. In the case of things which require an attack roll, I use the resolution system given by the RAW. (Actually, I would house-rule it to let the attacker pick in a different fashion, possibly involving index cards, but that's not what we're discussing, here.) The d20 resolution mechanic is modeling the confusion the opening text indicates the spell creates as to which of the "wizards" is real, and which are images.

If you are forcing your players to choose between images when using Spells like Magic Missile and Hold Person, you absolutely are creating new rules that are outside what is RAW.

I likewise am not "ignoring the RAW" when I say that the images are indistinguishable, and, if you're not making an attack roll against the wizard, you need to resolve whether you successfully determined which of the "wizards" there was the real one. Claiming that I am is inventing text. To ignore the RAW, there would have to be text there that says, "If it is not an attack, the wizard may be targetted without the images confusing the one doing the targeting." Or something similarly specific about "non-attacks" not being confounded by the images.

Hardly. Shall we review the RAW again?
1) cast spell and create images
2) if targeted by an Attack, before attack roll d20
3) if above X number, Attack is redirected to a Duplicate, if Duplicate is hit- it is destroyed
4) a list of abilities that defeat the spell

Where in RAW does it say ANYTHING about someone having to first guess who the real wizard is? Nowhere, in fact, the RAW specifically states the spell only works after the wizard has been targeted.

The spell creates images that are impossible to tell apart. The spell text gives a resolution mechanic that, if one is working according to the RAW, must be used under specific circumstances. It does not suggest a resolution mechanic for cases other than that where picking out the real wizard is important. The DM is left to make a ruling as to how to make that determination. There are at least three possible methods:

1) Use the same resolution method that is already spelled out. (The d20 roll.) This is a house-rule if applied to non-Attacks; the spell specifically says 'when you are attacked'.
2) Assume that the wizard can always be infallibly picked out, because the spell doesn't provide a means to determine if he wasn't. (Erys's position.)This is RAW, again the spell specifically states that it doesn't even work until the caster is targeted.
3) Come up with some other resolution method the DM likes better than (1) or (2). (I prefer drawing cards, so much so that I'd house rule even the case of making an attack roll to use it, when possible.) This is another house-rule.

All three are technically within the RAW, because the RAW do say that the images exist and are indistinguishable, but do not, outside of the case of "attacks," specify how one picks out the true wizard from the fakes. I could argue, in fact, that (2) requires ignoring the RAW that the images are indistinguishable, but I think that that's splitting hairs a bit finely.

Why is it so hard to beleive that the spell is designed to not function against non-Attacks? RAI via Sage Advice confirms that is the intent.

Bottom line, the only way to make the spell work the way you want it to is to change the spell from how it is Written.

This whole idea that RAW 'forgot' to add lines about non-Attacks is silly; especially since RAI via Sage Advice confirmed that the RAW was not missing any parts and that it does only work against Attacks.

[BurgerBeast]

BurgerBeast believes that, since Mirror Image says 'it creates three duplicates indistinguishable from the caster' that the spell must force anyone who is using any non-area effect Action, be it Attack or Save Spell, to first pick a target from the group of four (the caster and three images).

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.

That single line of text is the entirety of his evidence.

Not sure which line of text you're referring to, but you're wrong about my argument anyway.

He has even gone so far as to deny the PHB as an official source of RAW when it comes defining an Attack. See the top post of this page.

No, I haven't. Again, subtlety. Look for the differences. Try the principle of goodwill. Steel-man instead of straw-manning.

Because you did... See the quote that started it, now in blue.

You straight up quote the PHB then say it isn't defining what an Attack is.

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.)

When it point blank says, "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."

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 antecedent. 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.

You don't need a glossary format to see a rule being defined in the rule book; especially when it says, "... the rule is ...".

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.

First, it is pretty obvious you are BurgerBeast using an alternate account.

Priceless.

Second, four doppelgangers wearing identical clothes don't have RULES attached to them like Mirror Image or Magic Missile.

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).

Making this comparison is worthless (but par for course) because the game has RULES that tell us Magic Missile auto hits the creature you target and that it needs no Attack roll (ie, does not use an Attack). The game has RULES that state Mirror Image only protects against attacks...

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.

...and that you have to target the caster first then,...

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.

...before the Attack roll, roll a d20 to see if the target changes to a duplicate.

So the RAW prescribe a method of target resolution, which means the DM must follow it in the case of attacks.

I am sure it is just happenstance you debate exactly like him.

Cry that your, errr 'his', stance isn't understood; then when spelled out specifically you don't address it, opting to instead conjure some false equivalency as if four real opponents (who technically can not even share the same space) should have the same affect on Magic Missile as Mirror Image- even though, as I said, they are completely different situations and spells have RULES which you are supposed to follow.

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.

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.

And what is in your field of view is open to targeting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So whatever general method the DM uses to determine a random target will suffice, unless it is specifically an attack.

@Cybren: I am a man, so you can use "he" when referring to me. Thanks.

[Arzanyos]

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.

I'm just gonna copy that from the spell description. Also, of note, physical interaction with the duplicates does not make you perceive them as false. Knowing they are illusions also does not. Neither do they block line of sight, but that's just a sidenote.

Spells that are not also attacks don't effect the duplicates. Also, it's pretty clear that the spell still works even if you know the duplicates are illusions. Thus, since you know that the 5x5 space does not have 4 wizards in it, but instead has 1 wizard using mirror image, it is entirely valid for you as a player to just say, I magic missile the wizard. The one that's real. Because you can see the wizard and his duplicates. You can know(say, if you saw him cast it) that only one is real. You can't track which is the real one, but you know generally where it is(within a 5x5 space you have line of sight to with no other creatures in it), and that's enough for a non-attack spell to hit without DM adjudication. By RAW, the missiles can go right through the duplicates and hit the real dude anyway.

As a sidenote, if ever I try to magic missile or hold person or what have you someone using mirror image, only to be told that it's actually 4 identical blokes shifting positions while mimicking each other in perfect lockstep, I'd flip the table. But that's neither here nor there, since nobody suggested that.

To conclude: Do you really want a 2nd level spell to have a 75% percent chance to eat most single-target spells with no downside or degradation?

[Erys]

"If B then A" does not logically follow from "if A then B;" we cannot say that all attacks involve attack rolls or that when you do not make an attack roll you are not making an attack from the statement "if you are making an attack roll then you are making an attack."

Also, I would note that this rule is specifically for clarifying whether or not something is an attack when there is a question as to whether or not it is an attack. It is not a general definition of what constitutes an "attack." By any reasonable definition of "attack," there should never be any question as to whether or not a targeted directly-damaging action is an "attack;" a character would have to be incredibly stupid to not know that blasting someone with Magic Missile or Burning Hands or something like that would inflict physical harm upon them and therefore if they do so then they are deliberately taking injurious action against them, i.e. attacking them.

You are a new one. But still the same bs stance on what an Attack is. This really isn't up for debate.

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.

D&D 5th Ed breaks everything down into Actions. Casting a spell is an Actions, some spells are Attacks. Attacks are Actions as well. So spare me your revisionism.

[Arzanyos]

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.

No. Players assert ACTIONS not intentions. The DM decides what the outcome is yes, but he can never decide what the player does. The player chooses who he attacks. Not the DM. The DM might have to model who the attack ends up hitting, but he cannot choose who the player attacks.

[Aeson]

Again, "if there is any question as to whether or not an action is an attack, then the action is an attack if it requires an attack roll" does not imply that "an action is an attack if and only if it requires an attack roll." "Requires an attack roll" is a sufficient condition for an action to qualify as an "attack," but not a necessary condition, and it is a completely idiotic definition of "attack" which excludes one entity specifically and deliberately inflicting harm upon another entity merely because the first entity did not need to make an attack roll in order to do so.

The rule covers actions for which there is reasonable doubt over whether or not the action is an attack. There should not be any reasonable doubt as to whether or not "I blast Minsk with Magic Missile" constitutes an attack; I am deliberately, specifically targeting Minsk with something that I know will inflict harm and am therefore making an attack against Minsk.

As to whether or not I can specifically target individual images created by Mirror Image with Magic Missile, I'd be less inclined to allow that, in large part because the spell description, to me, makes it sound like the images are insufficiently distinct as to allow any one of them to be specifically targeted.

[BurgerBeast]

No. Players assert ACTIONS not intentions. The DM decides what the outcome is yes, but he can never decide what the player does. The player chooses who he attacks. Not the DM. The DM might have to model who the attack ends up hitting, but he cannot choose who the player attacks.

False.

Player: "I stab the orc in the face."
DM: "Okay, roll a d20."
Player: "I rolled a 2."
DM: "Okay, so you didn't stab the orc in the face. You swing an miss."

Or:

Player: I run across the room and attack the wizard.
DM: As you run across the room, you step on a pressure plate and hear a click. Roll a reflex save."
Player: (rolls a 3)
DM: You fall into a spiked pit trap.
Hmmm... so he didn't run across the room or attack the wizard... but, you say that as long as he asserts it, he does?

Or:

{Inset a billion other examples}

Or there's also the RAW:

PHB Page 9: "2. The players describe what they want to do. ...If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."

[Erys]

You are really trying hard Burger...

Its funny, and really sad.

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).

[Kadesh]

If the rules are silent on something then it works as normal. That's the basis of exception based/permissive rules.

[BurgerBeast]

Bottom line, the only way to make the spell work the way you want it to is to change the spell from how it is Written.

False.

This whole idea that RAW 'forgot' to add lines about non-Attacks is silly;...

The lines are not there. No interpretation is offered not required. There is no RAW saying what you claim the RAW says. It may seem silly, to you. In that case it is silly and true. Silly does not mean false. Silly is interpretation.

...especially since RAI via Sage Advice confirmed that the RAW was not missing any parts and that it does only work against Attacks.

RAI has no bearing on RAW. Here you are, trying to use RAI to suggest that it somehow changes the RAW. It does not.

[BurgerBeast]

If the rules are silent on something then it works as normal.

Agreed.

So maybe we disagree about what is normal.

I say that, whenever a player wishes to target one of multiple indistinguishable targets, the DM must determine which one is targeted. That is normal.

[Kadesh]

Everyone is missing the obvious. Because Mirror Image creates Illusory duplicates, and there is no RAW to say otherwise, the other Illusory Duplicate spell is Simulacrum. Casting Mirror Image therefore MUST create 3 Simulacrum.

Why? Because the rules dont say they don't, dur.

[Arzanyos]

False.

Player: "I stab the orc in the face."
DM: "Okay, roll a d20."
Player: "I rolled a 2."
DM: "Okay, so you didn't stab the orc in the face. You swing an miss."

Or:

Player: I run across the room and attack the wizard.
DM: As you run across the room, you step on a pressure plate and hear a click. Roll a reflex save."
Player: (rolls a 3)
DM: You fall into a spiked pit trap.
Hmmm... so he didn't run across the room or attack the wizard... but, you say that as long as he asserts it, he does?

Or:

{Inset a billion other examples}

Or there's also the RAW:

PHB Page 9: "2. The players describe what they want to do. ...If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."

The DM actually doesn't choose what happens in the first example. The player chose his target, made his attack, and stabbed an orc in the face. He missed, and the DM can say how it turned out to be ineffective, but in that situation, the DM actually chooses nothing, except how it looked. Which by the way, is telling that the DM said the player swings and misses, when the player clearly said he stabbed the orc.

As for the second example, there are two ways that can have gone down. If the spiked pit was always there, then the player just didn't choose the best action. He still gets to move across the room like he says, but since his dice roll says he falls into the pit, he can't finish the move and make his attack, as it's not a legal action. Unless he had enough movement left to climb out and get to the wizard. In that case, the DM should have let him do that.

The other way is if the DM decided there was a spike pit after the player said what he was going to do. In which case, same as the first way, except the DM's also a jerk.

Either way, the DM actually chooses nothing in either of those scenarios. The player makes all the choices, which are then resolved by the dice roll, and the DM says how.


EDIT:
"I say that, whenever a player wishes to target one of multiple indistinguishable targets, the DM must determine which one is targeted. That is normal."(BurgerBeast quote, from a couple posts up, bad at formatting)

Is it too much to just let the player choose the only one which can actually be effected by the spell?