Mirror Images, AoE damage, Magic Missile, and such

[Erys]

MThurston, probably a typo because this thread really is that frustrating but I feel the need to clarify (because someone may get the wrong idea),

When the caster is hit by Magic Missile (or Hold Person) there is no d20 to change that. Because Magic Missile, like Hold Person, isn't an Attack.

But the rest is spot on. Especially:

In none of the rules does it say you can target MI. AOE ignores them. You always target the caster. MM doesn't break this!

Well said.

[MThurston]

MThurston, probably a typo because this thread really is that frustrating but I feel the need to clarify (because someone may get the wrong idea),

When the caster is hit by Magic Missile (or Hold Person) there is no d20 to change that. Because Magic Missile, like Hold Person, isn't an Attack.

But the rest is spot on. Especially:



Well said.

Yes, I understand that. To me MM acts like an AOE attack. All hit the caster automatically. They don't care that the defenders has MI up.

[Arial Black]

BurgerBeast says he plays this spell RAW.

The spell says that "when you target the caster, then..."

BurgerBeast claims that you don't target the caster, you target an image.

At this point, BurgerBeast contradicts RAW.

Q. E. And, indeed, D.

[Segev]

BurgerBeast says he plays this spell RAW.

The spell says that "when you target the caster, then..."

BurgerBeast claims that you don't target the caster, you target an image.

At this point, BurgerBeast contradicts RAW.

Q. E. And, indeed, D.

For the record, since people much earlier accused BurgerBeast of being the only one who holds his opinion on this forum, I will chime in to say that I agree with him.

The spell effect is multiple "casters" all being there, only one of which is real, and no way to tell which one it is except by random happenstance. It provides rules to resolve whether "an attack" hit the real one or an image. You can either read "an attack" as a rules-specific term, leaving a broad swath of other areas where having to distinguish the real one from the fakes still exists but lacks rules spelled out for the resolution, or you can read "an attack" as a more colloquial term meaning "anything that tries to pick out the caster as an individual to do something to," and apply the given resolution mechanic to determine if the character choosing to target the caster picked the caster or one of his images.

While DMs are free to rule otherwise - to find as many ways to limit the spell's effect in as many game-rule-only, MMO-style limitations as possible to keep it from being "too strong" - the RAW do not actually spell out these limits. They are vague, as is 5e's wont, on whether or not the spell applies to things that are not game-rule-defined "attacks" (i.e. requiring an attack roll).

The "pick Minsc out of a crowded stadium" example is a good one. Let's say Minsc is in disguise. Now you have to both spot him and identify that it IS him. Or, are you arguing that you can say, "if Minsc is within range, I cast hold person on him," and have the spell auto-target Minsc despite you having no idea where he is?

My understanding of targeting is that you basically have to be able to point at the guy you're targeting. You can, in fact, say, "That guy with the multiple images," but you still have to pick one of the images, because at any given moment he could be any of them. You can't, for instance, say, "That orc in the dogpile of other orcs," without actually specifying one of the orcs. Sure, you might pick one at random if you don't actually care which one, but the DM now has to determine which of them is your target.

[BurgerBeast]

This is all I am saying an have ever said [edit: re: my argument. I have said more in refuting the arguments of others.]:

This is a legitimate way to read the RAW:

1. Player declares “I cast magic missile at Bob”
2. The DM determines the result

In terms of the target of magic missile:

1. The DM (not the player) determines the target of the magic missile

That’s it.

There are a number of misconceptions that people are bringing into this. I have tried to address them, but the usual suspects have not considered them.

One thing that might be worth noting is this [edited because the TRUE/FALSE of 2 and 3 were mixed up; which also means 4 mentioned the wrong claim]:

1. Mirror image (the text) states that the d20 mechanic affects attacks --> TRUE
2. Mirror image (the text) only states that the d20 mechanic affects attacks --> FALSE
3. Mirror image (the text) states that the d20 mechanic only affects attacks --> TRUE

4. Just because (2) is false, does not mean that mirror image affects things that are not attacks --> TRUE

I agree with all of this. I acknowledge that every claim above is correct. People keep thinking that I disagree with this. I do not.

And still, my reading is permissible under RAW. But people are not listening to me. They keep pointing back to 1, 2, 3, and 4, and claiming that I am not acknowledging them. (Or, in some cases, they are mistakenly assuming that 3 is true.)

Spoiler: Erys

Show

Explain where I am wrong.

I haven't subtracted anything from the spell.

You didn't refute the steel man, so... where is my disconnect?

The purpose of the steelman was not to refute it. It was to show you that I actually understand what you are saying. But I till disagree.

You have not once demonstrated that you actually understand my argument. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand it, and that you do not understand many of the side-points I have made.

[edit: I invited you, and I still invite you, to articulate my argument. At least then I will not be able to keep insisting that you do not understand my argument. I won't be able to "weasel" out anymore, because it will be obvious to everyone that you do understand my argument. Then, whenever I claim that "Erys doesn't understand my point," I will be obviously lying.]

Spoiler: Galithar

Show

]

In regards to Shield Master.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecr...300736?lang=en

This is RAW, not RAI, as he simply explains the logic. If you Y, you may X. Which is the wording of Shield Master.

No, that is not RAW. That is JC’s interpretation, which makes it RAI. The words in the book are the RAW.

Spoiler: Zalabim

Show

Monitors don’t use ink.

Spells are not rules. Spells have rules, as they are exceptions to the general rules. All spells are exhaustive lists of exceptions to the general rules, as part of their definition. You can go beyond what's written if you want, but RAW is just that much.

This is a blanket assumption, and it’s false. Some spells present rules. Some spells present exceptions to rules. If you want to know, you look at that the spell says that it does. You don’t just make a blanket assumption and then pigeon-hole everything into it.

Sideline: If you feel these concepts are completely different and in no way related, feel free to go edit the Wikipedia article as such. See how long that lasts.

What Wikipedia article? In any case, the Wikipedia article is almost certainly correct. Your interpretation of it is not.

(2) is not anyone's position. The disagreement isn't about the rules at large. It's about spells, and other similarly-written exceptional features. Spells work in a clearly-defined "do exactly what they say" way.

Well, then, no one is refuting my claim. I wish they’d start. It would be far more effective than calling me a fool.

Spoiler: Kadesh

Show

Lets put it another way.

Were the rules exactly like Burger Beast suggests, what would be the diction required by the rules to allow it to take place like they believe it to be?

That there are so many people who disbelieve what Burger Beast is saying is actually RAW, including the rules writer of the game, Jeremy Crawford, it clearly must be badly written, and against intention, so how would you word mirror image so that we cannot interpret it to not apply to Magic Missile/Hold Person and other choose target no attack roll spells? And how would it need to be rewritten to ensure that Magic Missile/Hold Person and other choose target no attack roll spells would affect it? And would the former be Lesser Mirror Image, or thenlatter Greater Mirror Image?

There are a number of ways.

1. State somewhere in the spell test that the duplicates only affect attacks.
2. In the part where it says a duplicate can only be destroyed by an attack that hits it, add in “can only be targeted by an attack and…”.
3. Add to the fluff that the duplicates are only capable of working agaisnt attacks
4. Don’t mention in the "fluff" that the spell creates three illusory duplicates in your space; because if the spell is purely mechanically defined, then there is no other information to work with

Spoiler: MThurston

Show

MI doesn't make 4 targets. You target the caster.

Evidence?

Yes, I understand that. To me MM acts like an AOE attack. All hit the caster automatically. They don't care that the defenders has MI up.

But AOEs do “hit” the duplicates. They just can’t destroy them, because they’re not attacks.

[Erys]

For the record, since people much earlier accused BurgerBeast of being the only one who holds his opinion on this forum, I will chime in to say that I agree with him.

The spell effect is multiple "casters" all being there, only one of which is real, and no way to tell which one it is except by random happenstance. It provides rules to resolve whether "an attack" hit the real one or an image. You can either read "an attack" as a rules-specific term, leaving a broad swath of other areas where having to distinguish the real one from the fakes still exists but lacks rules spelled out for the resolution, or you can read "an attack" as a more colloquial term meaning "anything that tries to pick out the caster as an individual to do something to," and apply the given resolution mechanic to determine if the character choosing to target the caster picked the caster or one of his images.

While DMs are free to rule otherwise - to find as many ways to limit the spell's effect in as many game-rule-only, MMO-style limitations as possible to keep it from being "too strong" - the RAW do not actually spell out these limits. They are vague, as is 5e's wont, on whether or not the spell applies to things that are not game-rule-defined "attacks" (i.e. requiring an attack roll).

The "pick Minsc out of a crowded stadium" example is a good one. Let's say Minsc is in disguise. Now you have to both spot him and identify that it IS him. Or, are you arguing that you can say, "if Minsc is within range, I cast hold person on him," and have the spell auto-target Minsc despite you having no idea where he is?

My understanding of targeting is that you basically have to be able to point at the guy you're targeting. You can, in fact, say, "That guy with the multiple images," but you still have to pick one of the images, because at any given moment he could be any of them. You can't, for instance, say, "That orc in the dogpile of other orcs," without actually specifying one of the orcs. Sure, you might pick one at random if you don't actually care which one, but the DM now has to determine which of them is your target.

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:

You can either read "an attack" as a rules-specific term...

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.

[Arzanyos]

Okay, BurgerBeast. Does the RAW say that the duplicates from Mirror Image are targets? Not, does it imply, or does it not not say that, or it needs to be so or else the game breaks, do the words in the book explicitly say they are? And like, also, where?

[BurgerBeast]

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).

First of all, I am not debating the definition of attack for the purposes of this argument.

However, the PHB statement does not restrict attacks to those things that make attack rolls. Despite it obviously intending to.

So, RAI = an action is an attack if and only if it uses an attack roll (with exceptions).

RAW= if you make an attack roll, you are making an attack.

Those are totally different.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, BurgerBeast. Does the RAW say that the duplicates from Mirror Image are targets? Not, does it imply, or does it not not say that, or it needs to be so or else the game breaks, do the words in the book explicitly say they are? And like, also, where?

Everything in the game is targetable. That is RAW. Players declare their intent. They can intend to target anything.

The DM determines what happens.

[Galithar]

My understanding of targeting is that you basically have to be able to point at the guy you're targeting. You can, in fact, say, "That guy with the multiple images," but you still have to pick one of the images, because at any given moment he could be any of them.

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:

While DMs are free to rule otherwise - to find as many ways to limit the spell's effect in as many game-rule-only, MMO-style limitations as possible to keep it from being "too strong" - the RAW do not actually spell out these limits. They are vague, as is 5e's wont, on whether or not the spell applies to things that are not game-rule-defined "attacks" (i.e. requiring an attack roll).

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?

[BurgerBeast]

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.

False. If you target a space, but there are four creatures in it (because they are tiny, let's say), then how does the DM determine which is hit? Because an attack can only target one creature. But four are in the space.

The DM has to determine the target.

[edit:

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?

Well, as a player, you can declare "I one-punch this guy." Then the DM will determine what happens.

Likewise, as a player, you can declare "I cast magic missile at the guy with mirror image up." Then the DM will determine what happens.

That's RAW.

]

[Erys]

Spoiler: Erys

Show

I haven't subtracted anything from the spell.



The purpose of the steelman was not to refute it. It was to show you that I actually understand what you are saying. But I till disagree.

You have not once demonstrated that you actually understand my argument. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand it, and that you do not understand many of the side-points I have made.

But you have admitted that Adding or Subtracting to the Rules of a spell is a deviation from RAW, and even if you want to pretend you are not subtracting from the spell -> you are still adding to it.

Hence, you are house-ruling.

[BurgerBeast]

But you have admitted that Adding or Subtracting to the Rules of a spell is a deviation from RAW, and even if you want to pretend you are not subtracting from the spell -> you are still adding to it.

Hence, you are house-ruling.

This is a false charge. You don't understand my argument. I invite you, again, to explain my argument, as I have done for you.

If you can't understand my argument, then you can't know that it is wrong.

I say you don't understand my argument. I am the one who created it, so I ought to know.

I say that I do understand your argument. You agreed. So that is obviously not the problem.

[Erys]

First of all, I am not debating the definition of attack for the purposes of this argument.

However, the PHB statement does not restrict attacks to those things that make attack rolls. Despite it obviously intending to.

So, RAI = an action is an attack if and only if it uses an attack roll (with exceptions).

RAW= if you make an attack roll, you are making an attack.

Those are totally different.

Ummm, did you read the PHB. Like ever?

RAW for an Attack is that is uses an Attack Roll. RAW also has specific trump general, and gives examples of 'special attacks' like grappling, which are specific cases that trump the general rule on what makes an Attack.

You are just out right ignoring the RAW on this front.

[Erys]

This is a false charge. You don't understand my argument. I invite you, again, to explain my argument, as I have done for you.

If you can't understand my argument, then you can't know that it is wrong.

I say you don't understand my argument. I am the one who created it, so I ought to know.

I say that I do understand your argument. You agreed. So that is obviously not the problem.

You keep saying that, you even asked me to 'steel man' your argument to which you are yet to say I am wrong on any front about it.

Where am I wrong?

[Arzanyos]

Everything in the game is targetable. That is RAW. Players declare their intent. They can intend to target anything.

The DM determines what happens.

Okay. Is targeting something, by RAW, an effect?

[Erys]

Okay. Is targeting something, by RAW, an effect?

It is even more weird to claim 'everything is targetable' when the spell Mirror Image specifically says that you first have to target the caster (with an Attack) then, before the Attack Roll, you roll the d20 mechanic to see if your Attack instead goes to a Duplicate.

So the whole premise goes against RAW.

But somehow non-RAW + non-RAW = RAW in the Burger-verse. /roll

[Arzanyos]

Follow-up question: Why would you ever intentionally target one of the duplicates, and not the caster? Of note: this can't be "I choose randomly." When would you say, I want to target (one of the duplicates), instead of, I want to target the caster.

[Tanarii]

Follow-up question: Why would you ever intentionally target one of the duplicates, and not the caster? Of note: this can't be "I choose randomly." When would you say, I want to target (one of the duplicates), instead of, I want to target the caster.

When you want to destroy images for someone else to follow up with a stronger attack.

For example, if your DM rules like Kane0, you might want to evenly split your Magic Missile spell among all images/caster, one each, to ensure you will destroy them all with a single action. Then your party Barbarian follows up with a GWM axe to the face.

[Arzanyos]

When you want to destroy images for someone else to follow up with a stronger attack.

For example, if your DM rules like Kane0, you might want to evenly split your Magic Missile spell among all images/caster, one each, to ensure you will destroy them all with a single action. Then your party Barbarian follows up with a GWM axe to the face.

I'd table the magic missiling for the time being, seeing as that's a can of worms by itself, but I get what you're saying. One duplicate up, and you handcrossbow it right before greataxe from buddy. Legit. Now, do you think that since when you attack the caster, you have to roll not to attack a duplicate, that you have to roll to see if you don't attack the caster when you try to attack a duplicate?

[BurgerBeast]

Spoiler: Erys

Show

Ummm, did you read the PHB. Like ever?

Yes. That's where: "if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack" comes from, which I said is RAW.

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.

There. That's the evidence.

RAW for an Attack is that is uses an Attack Roll. RAW also has specific trump general, and gives examples of 'special attacks' like grappling, which are specific cases that trump the general rule on what makes an Attack.

You're conflating a whole bunch of things here, most notably attacks and Attacks. But this is what is important:

RAW, if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack --> TRUE

RAW, if you are not making an attack roll, you are not making an attack --> FALSE

The second statement is FALSE, even though the writers apparently and obviously meant for it to be TRUE, because it's not what they wrote. We are discussing what is written (RAW); not what they meant to write (RAI).

You are just out right ignoring the RAW on this front.

Not true.

You keep saying that, you even asked me to 'steel man' your argument to which you are yet to say I am wrong on any front about it.

Where am I wrong?

Where, in that link, is my argument?

I see nothing remotely resembling it. I think I see your argument, though.

It is even more weird to claim 'everything is targetable' when the spell Mirror Image specifically says that you first have to target the caster (with an Attack) then, before the Attack Roll, you roll the d20 mechanic to see if your Attack instead goes to a Duplicate.

So the whole premise goes against RAW.

But somehow non-RAW + non-RAW = RAW in the Burger-verse. /roll

2. The players describe what they want to do.

Players cannot declare the results of what they do, only the intention. The DM decides what is targeted. That is RAW.

Spoiler: Arzanyos

Show

Okay. Is targeting something, by RAW, an effect?

I’m sorry. I don’t know what this even means. I think my answer is no.

I'd table the magic missiling for the time being, seeing as that's a can of worms by itself, but I get what you're saying. One duplicate up, and you handcrossbow it right before greataxe from buddy. Legit. Now, do you think that since when you attack the caster, you have to roll not to attack a duplicate, that you have to roll to see if you don't attack the caster when you try to attack a duplicate?

Well, what do you think? – seriously. Because this is the point I have been making all along.

RAW you do not have to roll a d20 and apply the conditional rules that are gated behind “each time you are attacked” because you are not attacked.

However, the DM still has to rule on what, exactly, you target when you declare the intent to target a duplicate. All I have ever been trying to say is this. I am not dictating a resolution mechanic. I am saying that despite the fact that Bob is not being attacked, the quesiton of what Zeke aims at is still unresolved. The DM must make a ruling. As would have to do in any similar situation.

[edit: and by the way, I know what their answer is, I know how to present the strongest version of their argument, I know how to explain why it is a heuristic that usually works, I know to explain why the heuristic breaks down in certain circumstances, I know why the MI/MM scenario is one of those circumstances...

But when all most of what you ever get in reply is "I KNOW RAW YOU NOT. ME RIGHT YOU WRONG." It's hard to progress.]

[Kadesh]

Guys, guys, we're conflating things.

Let's just understand one thing, Burger Beast is accusing us of conflating things.

Those who live in glass houses, mate...

[Erys]

Spoiler: Erys

Show

Yes. That's where: "if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack" comes from, which I said is RAW.



There. That's the evidence.



You're conflating a whole bunch of things here, most notably attacks and Attacks. But this is what is important:

RAW, if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack --> TRUE

RAW, if you are not making an attack roll, you are not making an attack --> FALSE

The second statement is FALSE, even though the writers apparently and obviously meant for it to be TRUE, because it's not what they wrote. We are discussing what is written (RAW); not what they meant to write (RAI).



Not true.



Where, in that link, is my argument?

I see nothing remotely resembling it. I think I see your argument, though.





Players cannot declare the results of what they do, only the intention. The DM decides what is targeted. That is RAW.

So... Much... Facepalm...

I love this:

RAW, if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack --> TRUE

RAW, if you are not making an attack roll, you are not making an attack --> FALSE

That is some serious double speak. Reality check: If you are not making an Attack Roll, you are not making an Attack. Period.

Tell me two things:
1) Why are you using the rules on page 9 which talks about the general RP/imagination aspects of the game (where you are not even supposed to have 'turns') and not the Rules for Combat.
2) What is your stance, exactly. In 1, 2, 3 format like the Steel man question.

[BurgerBeast]

So... Much... Facepalm...

I love this:


That is some serious double speak. Reality check: If you are not making an Attack Roll, you are not making an Attack. Period.

Not once, in the RAW, does it say “if you are not making an attack roll, you are not making an attack.”

However, it doesn’t matter, because for the purposes of this conversation, I am granting that it does.

Still, my point remains.

Tell me two things:
1) Why are you using the rules on page 9 which talks about the general RP/imagination aspects of the game (where you are not even supposed to have 'turns') and not the Rules for Combat.

They’re not mutually exclusive. The rules on p.9 still apply during combat.

2) What is your stance, exactly. In 1, 2, 3 format like the Steel man question.

I gave it, in post #335. I’ll cut it and paste it and edit it in (switching to phone):

This is a legitimate way to read the RAW:

1. Player declares “I cast magic missile at Bob”
2. The DM determines the result

In terms of the target of magic missile:

1. The DM (not the player) determines the target of the magic missile

[Kadesh]

I thought the rules determine the result with a DM acting as arbiter for when it is not clear cut, or else why both with the rules at all?

Given that there is no attack roll, there is a clear cut answer.

[Tanarii]

I'd table the magic missiling for the time being, seeing as that's a can of worms by itself, but I get what you're saying. One duplicate up, and you handcrossbow it right before greataxe from buddy. Legit. Now, do you think that since when you attack the caster, you have to roll not to attack a duplicate, that you have to roll to see if you don't attack the caster when you try to attack a duplicate?

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.)

[Erys]

Not once, in the RAW, does it say “if you are not making an attack roll, you are not making an attack.”
When RAW defines an Attack, and you perform some Action that does not fit the description, (and which does not have a Specific Rule to counter the General) --> you are not making an Attack. Period.

There is not wiggle room here, and to suggest otherwise means you are either intentionally trolling, or intentionally ignoring the rules of the game.

However, it doesn’t matter, because for the purposes of this conversation, I am granting that it does.

Still, my point remains.



They’re not mutually exclusive. The rules on p.9 still apply during combat.
So the section of the book that talks about 'describing your characters actions', with examples like searching a chest and keeping an eye out for monsters, which explicitly says you "don't need to take turns", and has no relevance what-so-ever on how Combat works in the game... applies how and why exactly?

More importantly, since we are discussing Combat Actions, why doesn't the Combat Section matter to you?


I gave it, in post #335. I’ll cut it and paste it and edit it in (switching to phone)

This is a legitimate way to read the RAW:

1. Player declares “I cast magic missile at Bob”
2. The DM determines the result

In terms of the target of magic missile:

1. The DM (not the player) determines the target of the magic missile

Yeah, I have posted this too; in its entirety, repeatedly (and here it is again, in all its house-rule glory). This is where you actively Subtract (strike out, ignore, whatever) the rules of the spell and proceed to add new layers to account for Actions that are not Attacks, such as spells like Magic Missile and Hold Person. So, it seems I am not misrepresenting you at all, and you are doing the very thing you straight admitted was against RAW: adding and subtracting to the RAW of the Spell.

Let's see, the spell says:

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 duplicates 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.

Second line reads: "Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates." This is followed by "...you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack's target to a duplicate."

The very first thing happening here (after the Spell is cast and the images are out), by RAW, is:
1) the caster using Mirror Image has to be targeted by an Attack, and then
2) spell attempts to redirect the Attack to a Duplicate.

As soon as you force your players to pick out the caster from his images (or, as the DM, remove their ability to target the caster by creating your own system of targeting) you are ignoring the RAW of the Spell. Same as when you apply the protection from Mirror Image against any Ability/Spell that does not use an Attack.

So, by the fourth sentence you have already violated RAW twice.

If you are violating RAW, you are house-ruling. Which, naturally, is fine.

[RSP]

This is all I am saying an have ever said [edit: re: my argument. I have said more in refuting the arguments of others.]:

This is a legitimate way to read the RAW:

1. Player declares “I cast magic missile at Bob”
2. The DM determines the result

In terms of the target of magic missile:

1. The DM (not the player) determines the target of the magic missile

That’s it.

A DM certainly can do this, but it would be houseruling how MM works, because RAW the caster chooses the target.

And out of every argument that has been made, all these posts, you’ve yet to get around this:

“Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.”

The only answer you’ve given is to dismiss it with “yeah, no” but it is 100% RAW. “Your choice” can fully be “the caster”, or “Bob.” To deviate from that is deviating from RAW.

[BurgerBeast]

When RAW defines an Attack, and you perform some Action that does not fit the description, (and which does not have a Specific Rule to counter the General) --> you are not making an Attack. Period.

There is not wiggle room here, and to suggest otherwise means you are either intentionally trolling, or intentionally ignoring the rules of the game.

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.)

A DM certainly can do this, but it would be houseruling how MM works, because RAW the caster chooses the target.

That's interesting, because as far as I can see, it does;t even involve MI. The player chooses a target. The DM determines the target. That's how D&D works.

And out of every argument that has been made, all these posts, you’ve yet to get around this:

“Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.”

It's true. But the DM determines which targets they hit.

I would lay off on trying to present my opinion as stupid, when your method involves allowing "I target the space that the invisible monster is in" to then auto-target the space with the invisible creature in it. Because, after all, it is a space that the attacker can see.

Yeah... no.

[RSP]

That's interesting, because as far as I can see, it does;t even involve MI. The player chooses a target. The DM determines the target. That's how D&D works.

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

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?

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?

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

It's true. But the DM determines which targets they hit.

I would lay off on trying to present my opinion as stupid, when your method involves allowing "I target the space that the invisible monster is in" to then auto-target the space with the invisible creature in it. Because, after all, it is a space that the attacker can see.

Yeah... no.

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:

Everything in the game is targetable. That is RAW.

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.