Mirror Images, AoE damage, Magic Missile, and such

[BurgerBeast]

I have edited my original post to add links to each offense.

Post 110

You position has only been represented by you. No words have been placed in your mouth, so to speak.

The content of your swords is meaningless, your rules on Mirror Image are House.

I just wish you would admit it.

There is something that occurs in good-faith debates. It’s pretty straightforward. You ask the other person if you are correctly representing their positon. You don’t tell them what their position is.

There is nothing wrong with how you play, just stop calling it RAW when it comes to how you run Mirror Image.

The swords in my games are made of metal. And that’s not a house-rule.

Seems like you had an opinion on the difference between targeting Minsc and intending to target Minsc back on page 2:

To paraphrase: how would the DM determine if your character was looking at the caster or the illusionary duplicate? You say the MI mechanic determines this, but the MI mechanic only takes place after the target is selected, per the text of MI.

This will be my last post on the subject, despite knowing this will not convince you. Not because I find my argument unconvincing, but because I do not think you are open to being convinced. I say this because of the following:

My case is clean and simple. It looks like this:

1. Player declares that he wishes to cast magic missile at Bob.
2. DM, seeing that Bob is under the effect of mirror image, consults the spell description for mirror image.

Spoiler: Here’s what that looks like

Show

Notably, the DM ignores the text in paragraph 2, because the condition of this paragraph is not met.

Spoiler: What the DM considers

Show

Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.
Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack’s target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.
A duplicate’s AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier. If an attack hits a duplicate, the duplicate is destroyed. A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects. The spell ends when all three duplicates are destroyed.
A creature is unaffected by this spell if it can’t see, if it relies on senses other than sight, such as blindsight, or if it can perceive illusions as false, as with truesight. (This also does not apply in this case)

So, the only thing the DM has to work with, in this specific case, is this:
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.
And now the DM has to decide on whether that will have any effect on the caster’s ability to select a target.

3. DM determines the target of each magic missile, using whatever means he thinks is most appropriate.
4. DM determines damage for every missile that hits Bob in the usual way.
5. If the DM determines that any missiles strike duplicates, he must rule on what happens. And then he must consider this: "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."

I say that as long as a DM follows this, he is not employing house rules. He is making rulings.

You see the issue as a complex cascade of other people's errors and you try to correct these perceived errors by modifying your interpretation of several other rules (targeting rules and the jargon-y definition of an attack, specifically) to make it all fit.

No, the only reason I do that is to try to deal with their arguments. My stance doesn’t depend on any of that.

This is further evidenced by the following:



Yes, when MI is cast, the duplicates appear. The spell has worked, even if the caster is never targeted by an attack. Once the caster is targeted, a specific, mechanical effect is triggered. Despite the spell saying when the mechanic is triggered, you have decided the spell is wrong, thus you see an error that needs to be corrected.

I have never made a secret of the fact that I think the writers wrote it that way preciesly because it would be read exactly as everyone is reading it. They thought it would be the easiest way to handle the mechanics. They thought, correctly, that most readers would not distinguish between targetting and intending to target.

[Erys]

I can repeat myself too... but it seems kind of childish, so I wont.

I invite you to show me specifically where I have acted outside of good faith. I linked your stances and my (as well as others) rebuttals. See post Post 110

Or continue to post misrepresentations on how I have treated you and non sequiturs' about swords while feeling you have to get the last word in.

I got nothing better to do right now. Holding your feet to the fire seems like a good waste of time.

[BurgerBeast]

I can repeat myself too... but it seems kind of childish, so I wont.

I invite you to show me specifically where I have acted outside of good faith. I linked your stances and my (as well as others) rebuttals. See post Post 110

Or continue to post misrepresentations on how I have treated you and non sequiturs' about swords while feeling you have to get the last word in.

I got nothing better to do right now. Holding your feet to the fire seems like a good waste of time.

No, thanks. It's there for you to read.

Feel free to tell me why my post above is incorrect, though.

[Erys]

No, thanks. It's there for you to read.

Feel free to tell me why my post above is incorrect, though.

See post 110.

Though what you explain in 121 at the top of this page, where you ignore about 85% of the spell pretty much sums it up too.

...And you think that's RAW, eh. Tragic.

[BurgerBeast]

See post 110.

Those are all non-sequiturs.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that saying "this is evidence" does not make something evidence. Saying: this is RAW does not make it RAW. Saying: this is your stance does not make it my stance.

You have work to do.

[Erys]

Those are all non-sequiturs.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that saying "this is evidence" does not make something evidence. Saying: this is RAW does not make it RAW. Saying: this is your stance does not make it my stance.

You have work to do.

Omitting 85% of the rules of the spell isn't RAW.

[Erys]

Those are all non-sequiturs.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that saying "this is evidence" does not make something evidence. Saying: this is RAW does not make it RAW. Saying: this is your stance does not make it my stance.

You have work to do.

Also, when I quote your stance: it is your stance.

[Mellack]

Burger: nobody else here seems to agree with you. When most of the others think you are mistaken, including the devs, there is a good chance you are.

Erys: (s)he is never going to accept that they are wrong. Nothing is going to be gained by continuing the conversation.

Just some friendly advice from the sidelines.

[BurgerBeast]

Burger: nobody else here seems to agree with you. When most of the others think you are mistaken, including the devs, there is a good chance you are.

Erys: (s)he is never going to accept that they are wrong. Nothing is going to be gained by continuing the conversation.

Just some friendly advice from the sidelines.

Can you tell me what is wrong with "my case" outlined in post 121?

[Erys]

Can you tell me what is wrong with "my case" outlined in post 121?

Happily.

(What the DM considers)Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it’s impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss the illusory duplicates.
Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates.
If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack’s target to a duplicate. With two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.
A duplicate’s AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier. If an attack hits a duplicate, the duplicate is destroyed. A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects. The spell ends when all three duplicates are destroyed.
A creature is unaffected by this spell if it can’t see, if it relies on senses other than sight, such as blindsight, or if it can perceive illusions as false, as with truesight. (This also does not apply in this case)[/SPOILER]
So, the only thing the DM has to work with, in this specific case, is this:
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.
And now the DM has to decide on whether that will have any effect on the caster’s ability to select a target.

Rewriting and omitting the rules of the game, including a spell, is house-ruling. Period.

[BurgerBeast]

Rewriting and omitting the rules of the game, including a spell, is house-ruling. Period.

Agreed. So what do you think about what I actually did? Or are you just going to intentionally misrepresent me in every post now?

[Erys]

Agreed. So what do you think about what I actually did? Or are you just going to intentionally misrepresent me in every post now?

I quoted it, you omitted 85% of the spells text. Rewriting the spell to fit your head cannon on how the spell should work.

You are house-ruling the spell. Where is the disconnect here?

[RSP]

It’s not “not allowed by the spell description.” It’s never stated that the images cannot be targeted. Also, it is specifically stated that images can be targeted by the mechanic. So they can, in principle.

It is if the spell description says it must target a creature and you’re trying to target an illusion: that would most certainly be “not allowed by the spell description.”

The wording of MM is “You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.“ So, RAW, they cannot interact with the illusions at all, simply based on the wording of MM. in 5e, an illusion is not a creature, therefore MM cannot “hit” them. If one were to try, the darts would be created (per the first sentence of MM) but would not do anything. Saying “the darts can hit (or try to hit) an illusion” is deviating from the RAW, not because of the targeting rules, or the wording of MI, but simple due to the wording of MM: the darts hit a creature of your choice, and an illusion is most definitely not a creature.

It has, in the other thread. It’s a can of worms, but the part of the text that claims to clarify what an attack is fails to do so. It just so happens to be the same sort of error that was made in the way people read mirror image.

An attack is spelled out and I fail to see how it isn’t clear: “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.“

So if there’s no attack roll, then there is no effect on the duplicates.

[for additional clarification, there’s also this from JC:

“Dealing damage doesn't make something an attack. An attack roll—or being called an attack—makes it an attack.”]

I’m not sure why you think this isn’t clear or why you think it’s the same problem that you see with MI.

[BurgerBeast]

It is if the spell description says it must target a creature and you’re trying to target an illusion: that would most certainly be “not allowed by the spell description.”

The wording of MM is “You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.“ So, RAW, they cannot interact with the illusions at all, simply based on the wording of MM. in 5e, an illusion is not a creature, therefore MM cannot “hit” them. If one were to try, the darts would be created (per the first sentence of MM) but would not do anything.

It is possible to cast spells at invalid targets. See Xanathar’s.

Saying “the darts can hit (or try to hit) an illusion” is deviating from the RAW, not because of the targeting rules, or the wording of MI, but simple due to the wording of MM: the darts hit a creature of your choice, and an illusion is most definitely not a creature.

So, see Xanathar’s for why a spell can be cast at invalid targets. And I’m not claiming that the missiles can destroy duplicates. I’m saying that is up to the DM. The MI description is relevant, here, and must be considered.

An attack is spelled out and I fail to see how it isn’t clear... I’m not sure why you think this isn’t clear or why you think it’s the same problem that you see with MI.

It’s not relevant because I’m not claiming that MM is an attack for the purpose of this discussion.

[RSP]

It is possible to cast spells at invalid targets. See Xanathar’s.

Afb so won’t be able to respond to this now.

So, see Xanathar’s for why a spell can be cast at invalid targets. And I’m not claiming that the missiles can destroy duplicates. I’m saying that is up to the DM. The MI description is relevant, here, and must be considered.

It’s not relevant because I’m not claiming that MM is an attack for the purpose of this discussion.

Well, everything is always up to the DM, however, MI is quite clear that non-attacks do nothing to the duplicates. “A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects.”

MM isn’t an attack, therefore it has no effect on MI duplicates.

[kamap]

You don't aim magic missile, you tell magic missile what it has to strike and MAGIC does the rest.
Its like a heat seeking missile with 0% error build in. The Mirror Images don't give of any heat but the real target does. Boom it gets hit by IM and the 3 images are still alive.

[ThePolarBear]

Okay, good. You’re right about this. But it drives even harder at my point.

"I said it is always wrong to assert that a conditional statement refers to a biconditional statement." Is also not true. Otherwise you would not be able to have biconditional statements.

This is what you were trying to prove, and you can't. And you were trying to prove that, somehow, not proving something makes someone incorrect or their point incorrect. You can't. It makes a statement unsupported, but not incorrect. The statement might be true, false, whatever. Your examples where ALL unsupported because nowhere there was a mathematical proof to support any of your statements: if there was you would have caught your error i assume.

What you are asking others is the equivalent of a little child continuously asking "why" to all questions. You are trying to destroy any common ground in communication by refuting every option on the basis of being unproven. Guess what, anyone can do so. And can do so to ridiculous levels "proof that "e" means "e", until that your point is invalid".

You, however, are not using the same parameters you are asking others for yourself in your "demonstrations".

Targets (PHB 204): “A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic.”

The caster must pick a target. Not simply see a target.

You are mixing things up. In that quote, speaking of the "general" targeting rules. They must choose them ("pick" is no different in this respect, it is a synonym and used interchangely in the text). Sight is not a factor at all. Generally, you do not need to see your target at all. and no specific method is given to convey such a choice or is required to be used as a way of identification. You would not be able to target anyone with a creature only spell, otherwise, without proving that what you want to target is not an illusion.

Mirror Image (PHB 257): "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."

I'm pretty sure that there's no such text in Mirror Image :P

"Of your choice" = you choose from what you see.

"A creature". But both my quote here and yours are meaningless. The pool of potential targets shrinks, limiting the choice to "what can be seen". I've not written otherwise for MM (note, we both are forgetting range ... let's leave it out.). The quote you are dissecting to make it look somehow incorrect refers to general targeting rules. It still doesn't address identification requirements, or methods of. You are not discussing my point.

See above. If there are four identical “people,” and you want to hit one of them. You have pick which one. I’m not sure we really need to discuss this, though, because your proposition is absurd.

We need to discuss it, because you still haven't proven that there is a need to distinguish the caster from the image. MM has this limitations:

1) Target must be a creature
2) T. must be in range
3) T. must be seen

Nowhere in the generic rules, nor in MM, nor in spellcasting there is a REQUIREMENT of discrete identification by means that the character is capable of for a task a PLAYER undertakes. You are asking for something that is not there, while also allowing the very same process to occur in regards to 1) - "if you can't identify a creature as a creature, to begin with, you can't target it", so to say. On top of that, you are asking that something when there is no NEED for it for the specific task at hand to begin with, since MI limits the indistinguish-able-ness part of the spell to the IMAGE - the likeliness, the appearance, colour and exterior visible form (...) - of the caster, not at everything else that can be used to distinguish it from the illusory duplicates. Things that CAN be used, since no restriction on HOW a target is chosen is given, and is assumed to be present for a character to distinguish and for a player to know via DM description (but because we can't have a single session lasting a century describing and counting how many dust particles are in a room it's usually left at the imagination of the ones playing).
These particulars are meant to be used by the rules, when targeting takes place. Things like sounds, shadows, interactions with the ambient at large and a plethora of other omnipresent things, big and small, that are pretty much never narrated and that can help a character identify one thing from another are a possible way of distinciton that MI doesn't forbid, neither explicitly or implicitly, that you lead your players away off with your question about sight.

More on it:
1) Target is not a creature - Xanathar handles what happens in this case. But it's an "after", it deals with the effect of having targeted something already, not how to determine if something is valid. That is apparent. And, due to how you choose to handle the situation, it appears that this is in no way a problem for you to ignore.
2) T. is not in range - there's no RAW iirc. I might be wrong, it might be spells can't be cast. Not really relevant.
3) Your argument is that whoever is casting MM can see 4 possible targets, so you have to agree that all can be seen.

HOW you identify a target, by what means, is never handled because is never required by RAW. "the closest leaf on the closest tree" is, RAW, a valid identification, even if the character can't make out which one is it. And, even more on the point, you could in theory just target the space a creature is in, copies and all, and have "the correct answer" be selected automatically, just like for attacks. RAW, whether or not i can see or hear a creature, i can attack a space and have the attack "magically" target the creature that is inside that space.

It is absurd. It IS unrealistic. But it is a simplification for a system that is meant to be inspired by reality, and not always deal with reality, by approaching it with simplicity in mind.

For how absurd it is, Fireball doesn't displace objects, doesn't heat water, does not sear equipment. It's magic, it's irrational and no amount of rationality will ever be able to fix it or give us anything to prove or disprove its abilities. No one can't imply anything by material factuality, because there isn't a material fact about it. A magical explosion possibly =/= a physical explosion, AND EVEN MORESO YOU SHOULD AGREE BECAUSE YOU ARE AWARE OF HOW BICONDITIONALS WORK. And to have an idea of what the actual process is "in reality" we only have 2 reputable sources: the DM of the game, which is in power of world construction (including how magic works, all spell effects included), responsible and final arbiter of each single game they run, and the appointed spokeperson for the creators of the rules, JC, which is the authority on the matter "how to read the rules as meant to be". And that is: spells do nothing more than what is on the tin. RAW, a Fireball doesn't do anything of what you are adding to it, because that's how the rules are written. And we can, at this point, factually imply that fireball explosion =/= a physical one. No amount of arguing "explosions" will allow you to prove otherwise.

Same with MI.

Player: “I cast hold person on the orc,”
DM: “Which orc? There are three.”

This is misleading. There are not three orcs on a meaningful example. There is one orc and two illusory duplicates produced by MI which cannot be distinguished by comparing their form. You are misrepresenting the situation with your description. One cannot distinguish by their aspect, but MM doesn't require that particular to be able to be cast. There's only one creature, one orc worth of sounds and tracks and stench and whatnot that, at the appeareance, has three identical looking copies of "orc" constantly shifting position in place, intersecting and, somehow, reconciling the "mimic all movements" with "move in a way that makes so that you lose track", something that is an impossibility. There's only one shadow, one set of plates on the table (...) and the player saying "the one that emits sounds" is enough to identify which target is univocally, even if this is not required by the rules.

Asking for this is an unnecessary pedantry that goes against the spirit of simplicity that was the base of the edition, in my opinion, and rolling randomly after a choice was made robs the player of one of their very few actual means of interacting with the game (the ability to make choices) when none is required by the rules.

The DM needs to know what to trace the line to, right?

It's their job. But this doesn't make it, or any of their decisions, RAW or an interpretation thereof.

[hopefully there are no great errors, written this at different, limited times, so i hope it's coherent]

[RSP]

You don't aim magic missile, you tell magic missile what it has to strike and MAGIC does the rest.
Its like a heat seeking missile with 0% error build in. The Mirror Images don't give of any heat but the real target does. Boom it gets hit by IM and the 3 images are still alive.

I wouldn’t go with the heat-seeker analogy, but you make a valid point against Burger’s reading when you look at this line of the MI spell:

“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.”

You could, I think, make a similar argument to what Burger is saying, by saying the MI spell tells you creatures are unaffected by the spell if they don’t rely on sight, but the description doesn’t tell us how “non-creatures that don’t rely on sight” interact with the spell; however, based on what the spell does tell us, it’s fair to assume non-creatures that don’t rely on sight (like MMs that have no eyes) are unaffected by the MI spell.

[kamap]

The heat seeker analogy might not be an acurate one, thats true.

The point is that we are working with magic and that logic leaves the building when magic comes into play.
So if the spells says it hits whatever it is told to hit, it will do so.
if you phrase it I "target" the one that has just cast Mirror Image or the one that isn't an illusion, magic missiles will hit it. You don't need to phrase it like that but to be on the safe side you can.

No attack roll is needed so the spell isn't an attack so mirror image doesn't work against it.

[RSP]

The heat seeker analogy might not be an acurate one, thats true.

The point is that we are working with magic and that logic leaves the building when magic comes into play.
So if the spells says it hits whatever it is told to hit, it will do so.
if you phrase it I "target" the one that has just cast Mirror Image or the one that isn't an illusion, magic missiles will hit it. You don't need to phrase it like that but to be on the safe side you can.

No attack roll is needed so the spell isn't an attack so mirror image doesn't work against it.

An interesting example would be if Bill is using Disguise Self to look like Dawn and Dawn is using Disguise Self to look like Bill.

Steve casts MM and chooses Dawn as the creature to hit with the darts.

Who gets hit with the MM darts?

If it’s not Bill, then MM isn’t fooled by visual deceptions and shouldn’t be affected by MI.

[kamap]

If it is stated as wanting to hit Dawn then I believe it would hit Dawn who is looking like Bill.

If it is stated as I want to hit Dawn and she is standing right there. Pointing to Bill who is looking like Dawn.
The spell might be confused and divide itself (some bolts to Dawn, others to Bill) striking them both or striking bill and not be bothered by the first part of the "targetting"?

If it is I want to hit the one looking like Dawn, that would be Bill.


That is my take on it, I might be completely wrong but it seems "logical" to me even if logic has left the building since magic showed up.

[Asmotherion]

Burger: nobody else here seems to agree with you. When most of the others think you are mistaken, including the devs, there is a good chance you are.

Erys: (s)he is never going to accept that they are wrong. Nothing is going to be gained by continuing the conversation.

Just some friendly advice from the sidelines.

I actually half-agree with some of his points, I'm just too bored to engage into an arguement. If anything, a higher level Illusion Spell is supposed to have a chance to Fool a lower level Evocation spell. Even Magic Missile.

Then, Magic Missile, because of being the only spell functioning with such mechanics, would either be treated as an AoE (thus Mirror Image would be imune to it), or as if it had used an attack roll, just skipping the attack roll and hitting automatically a duplicate or the caster.

PS: The guy is raising some valid points, and some invalid ones. Using ars populum on the other hand is a weak move on your part. Less than 100 years ago, most people believed that slavery was ok. Did that make it ok?

[EggKookoo]

I actually half-agree with some of his points, I'm just too bored to engage into an arguement.

I think few people disagree with how Burger interprets the way MM and MI interact. It's perfectly reasonable and sensible.

His critics are saying his perfectly reasonable and sensible interpretation is at odds with RAW. Burger is saying his interpretation is RAW. That's the argument, not whether or not it makes sense for MM to hit the caster or be fooled by the duplicates.

[Unoriginal]

Just to precise, those are the Xanathar's rules on invalid targets:

INVALID SPELL TARGETS A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn’t a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.

So you *can* target an illusion you believe to be a creature with Magic Missile. It just won't do anything to the illusion.

[EggKookoo]

So you *can* target an illusion you believe to be a creature with Magic Missile. It just won't do anything to the illusion.

Devil's advocate: It's not actually perfectly clear from that. You know the caster of a MI is a creature, and you can see him. You just also see illusory versions of him.

I'm not arguing against the conclusion -- that you can target an illusion. I agree it makes sense. I just kind of like the idea that MM is weird enough to bypass it, and I think RAW supports that interpretation.

[Erys]

His critics are saying his perfectly reasonable and sensible interpretation is at odds with RAW. Burger is saying his interpretation is RAW. That's the argument, not whether or not it makes sense for MM to hit the caster or be fooled by the duplicates.

Yeppers, this is the area of discontent.

As a side note, I do also think his house-rule is WAY OP. Especially if you are using the Xanathar's additional rules on Invalid Targets. A non-concentration spell that can shut down every non-Attack Spell/Action 75% of the time seems too strong to me...

But hey, if the DM and players are at an accord- go with it.

[Asmotherion]

Yeppers, this is the area of discontent.

As a side note, I do also think his house-rule is WAY OP. Especially if you are using the Xanathar's additional rules on Invalid Targets. A non-concentration spell that can shut down every non-Attack Spell/Action 75% of the time seems too strong to me...

But hey, if the DM and players are at an accord- go with it.

And thus, you sneakly establish (by your standards) that his oppinion is a house-rule, and thus not RAW, and make a provocative witty comment at the same time to produce a commedic responce. I'm honestly half-impresed by this masterful display of ability to establish a point, well done.

That said, nothing has been established as of yet. Probably won't either, without someone kindly asking for a Sage Advice or something (Since apparently we can't resolve this on our own). It is one of those cases were Raw is ambiguous. Simple as that, and it's not as if this hasn't happened before.

[Erys]

And thus, you sneakly establish (by your standards) that his oppinion is a house-rule, and thus not RAW, and make a provocative witty comment at the same time to produce a commedic responce. I'm honestly half-impresed by this masterful display of ability to establish a point, well done.

That said, nothing has been established as of yet. Probably won't either, without someone kindly asking for a Sage Advice or something (Since apparently we can't resolve this on our own). It is one of those cases were Raw is ambiguous. Simple as that, and it's not as if this hasn't happened before.

If you are omitting 85% of a spell, and adding new layers to the spell to cover aspects the spell does not cover -> it is a house-rule.

Also, there is a Sage Advice ruling on this by JC.

Lastly there is nothing comedic about that house rule. I firmly believe that BurgerBeast way of running it makes it WAY too strong for a second level spell. But its not my table, if his players are content with it- more power to them.

[Kane0]

Hey guys, can you tear this apart for me please?

Spoiler: 'Brewed MI

Show

Mirror Image
2nd Level Illusion
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 minute
Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it's impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss any or all of the illusory duplicates.
Each time a creature targets you with an attack or effect that targets a single creature, the creature must roll to determine if they instead target one of your duplicates. Any attack or effect that is redirected to a duplicate destroys it, and the spell ends when all duplicates are removed.
If you have three duplicates, roll a d4, with a 1 targeting you and all other results targeting duplicates. If you have two duplicates, roll a d6 with a 1 or 2 targeting you. If you have one duplicate, roll any die with any odd result targeting you.
A creature that can see through illlusions or that does not reply on sight to establish a target, such as True Sight or Blindsight, can freely ignore duplicates.

[Erys]

Hey guys, can you tear this apart for me please?

Spoiler: 'Brewed MI

Show

Mirror Image
2nd Level Illusion
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 minute
Three illusory duplicates of yourself appear in your space. Until the spell ends, the duplicates move with you and mimic your actions, shifting position so it's impossible to track which image is real. You can use your action to dismiss any or all of the illusory duplicates.
Each time a creature targets you with an attack or effect that targets a single creature, the creature must roll to determine if they instead target one of your duplicates. Any attack or effect that is redirected to a duplicate destroys it, and the spell ends when all duplicates are removed.
If you have three duplicates, roll a d4, with a 1 targeting you and all other results targeting duplicates. If you have two duplicates, roll a d6 with a 1 or 2 targeting you. If you have one duplicate, roll any die with any odd result targeting you.
A creature that can see through illlusions or that does not reply on sight to establish a target, such as True Sight or Blindsight, can freely ignore duplicates.

When you say 'effects', I assume you mean spells and non-Attack abilities from monsters.

It will probably mess with people's head-cannon if you allow spells like Hold Person to destroy an image; but, I also think such a distinction would be necessary to keep the spell from being too strong while expanding its realm of influence to Actions/Spells/Abilities that are not simply Attacks.

If my assumption is true, it seems decent to me.