Mirror Images, AoE damage, Magic Missile, and such

[ThePolarBear]

Each time a creature targets you with an attack or effect that targets a single creature,

So, upcast Hold Person? Magic Missile hitting 2 creatures? What about Magic Missile when targeting only the caster, but since it's 3 different darts,has each to be redirected or is the spell itself that is redirected in toto? And if each has has to be redirected, ending up targeting both a creature and an illusion, what happens? What if i target a creature and something that is not a creature in general, like fireball that targets a point? Fireball and area: what if there is only the caster in the area? Do the duplicates count? Things that do not target creatures, but pieces of worn equipment like Heat Metal? What if targeting is made by something that is not a creature, like a Glyph of Warding? Does falling count as an effect? Does a poisoned blade have different rolls for attack and poison, if the attack still manage to hit the caster?

Hope you appreciate the sillyness of some of these questions.

the creature must roll to determine if they instead target one of your duplicates. 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. Any attack or effect that is redirected to a duplicate destroys it, and the spell ends when all duplicates are removed.

Rearranged. Also, not a fan of the system. I prefer the single d20 solution of the original. Add a "or duration runs its course" or something as a condition for a spell to end. I know, duration, but it's still repeated in RAW, sometimes, for clarity.

Can duplicates be destroyed in any other way? Like, fireball area? What if someone want-on targets a duplicate?

A creature that can see through illlusions, such one having true sight, or that does not rely on sight to establish a target, as with Blindsight, can freely ignore duplicates.

Again, rearranged. I suppose a blind person and someone guessing the position or simply targeting by hearing is fine then?

[RSP]

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



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

That’s not really the question, though. The target is the caster, not the illusions. The questions as I see it are:

- is there a rule that states you have to point out the target to the magic that causes the spell; so not “I target Bill” but rather you point at Bill and the missiles follow (and therefore if you’re not pointing at Bill, the darts will target whomever you’re pointing at)?

- do the illusion duplicates magically interfere with spells by forcing themselves to be targets when the caster is the actual intended target?

[Kane0]

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

Aye. Could just say 'spell' though, that's not unprecedented.

So, upcast Hold Person? Magic Missile hitting 2 creatures?
What about Magic Missile when targeting only the caster, but since it's 3 different darts,has each to be redirected or is the spell itself that is redirected in toto? And if each has has to be redirected, ending up targeting both a creature and an illusion, what happens?
What if i target a creature and something that is not a creature in general, like fireball that targets a point? Fireball and area: what if there is only the caster in the area? Do the duplicates count?
Things that do not target creatures, but pieces of worn equipment like Heat Metal?
What if targeting is made by something that is not a creature, like a Glyph of Warding?
Does falling count as an effect?
Does a poisoned blade have different rolls for attack and poison, if the attack still manage to hit the caster?

Upcast Hold Person, each one redirects (no two holds can be same target), Magic Missile each dart is redirected individually but simultaneously (potentially doubling up on hits), AoE effects don't disrupt images, Heat Metal is 'single target' so subject to redirect, ideally follows the same rules as if a creature did it, falling is not an effect (gravity is an AoE ), the poison of a blade effects the same thing the blade hit (no redirect).

The problem is wording all that in elegantly. Probably why the devs chose the way they did I suppose.

Rearranged. Also, not a fan of the system. I prefer the single d20 solution of the original. Add a "or duration runs its course" or something as a condition for a spell to end. I know, duration, but it's still repeated in RAW, sometimes, for clarity.

To each their own, I just liked the even chances. Actually a d12 could be used in all cases of 4, 3 and 2 potential targets, d12s are underused.

Again, rearranged. I suppose a blind person and someone guessing the position or simply targeting by hearing is fine then?

Aye, though for a lot of spells 'target you can see' is specified.

[BurgerBeast]

The Heat Seeker idea: There seems to be two concepts being expressed under the same name, here.

1. Pick a target and it will strike unerringly.
2. Name a target, and the spell can detect it somehow and then will seek it.

The first seems to be the better use of the term to me, because a heat seeking missile traditionally requires a target lock before it can “seek.” But it also describes the most sensible way of understanding targeted spells (but maybe it is a case-by-case thing, or I am failing to consider some that my intuition thinks of the other way.)

The second just seems outright wrong to me. It adds a detection capability to the spell that is simultaneously a solution in search of a problem and also a problem in itself.

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.

It’s not quite that, though. I am saying that my explanation is perfectly allowable by the RAW. And so is Erys’ explanation. I have never had any problem admitting that Erys’ explanation is within the RAW.

But much of the confusion comes from the fact that I think of RAW differently than Erys does (and perhaps some others do). That’s because I don’t think the RAW always commit the players to one single answer. In this case, I think both are acceptable by RAW.

Erys insists that my way is not RAW.

My counter is not “My way is the single RAW” which would imply that Erys’ method is not RAW.

My counter is “you’re wrong. My way is also permissible under the RAW.”

But to anyone who sees RAW as one-way-or-the-highway, this is not something that they generally think is a plausible view, so they continually risk slipping back into thinking that I insist that Erys’ method is not RAW.

That’s not really the question, though. The target is the caster, not the illusions. The questions as I see it are:

- is there a rule that states you have to point out the target to the magic that causes the spell; so not “I target Bill” but rather you point at Bill and the missiles follow (and therefore if you’re not pointing at Bill, the darts will target whomever you’re pointing at)?

- do the illusion duplicates magically interfere with spells by forcing themselves to be targets when the caster is the actual intended target?

I think I can answer all of these questions. To start with: must the target be the caster? Or is it possible for a player to declare: I cast magic missile at a duplicate.

Because I can see no reason why an illusory duplicate could not be targetted with magic missile.

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

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

Bingo. So, the mere fact that mirror image creates three illusory duplicates means that it creates four identical targets. This cannot be escaped. There is no need to consult parts of the text that are explicitly not applicable.

Erys has, in the past, when confronted with this, outright denied that the spell creates three illusory duplicates. He has said that this is only fluff, and so it actually does not happen at all.

Spoiler: Erys

Show

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

I never omitted the rules. I indicated that pretty clearly in my post. It is still visible in parentheses at the bottom, even after you edited out the part when I said “The DM ignores the text in paragraph 2.”

Ignores. Not omits.

I suppose you accidentally editted that part out when you quoted me. Both times.

---

The rules are there, they just don’t apply. When you cast magic missile, you’re not attacking, so every thing that follows after “when you are targeted by an attack” does not apply.

So, another intentional misrepresentation.

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

Quote my stance all you like. Just don’t try to paraphrase it. Every time you paraphrase what I say, you fail. Literally every time.

For example, I never said to omit anything. You said that.

---

On the one hand, you accuse me of considering magic missile an attack. I do not. (Another misrepresentation.) On the other hand, when I say that the part of the spell that applies to attacks does not apply to magic missile, you accuse me of ignoring a relevant part of the spell. And yet I’m the one moving the goalposts. Yeah… okay.

Spoiler: The PolarBear

Show

"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.

I’m talking about validity. You are speaking about the truth of premises and I am speaking about the validity of arguments.

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

It’s hard to know what you’re referencing here, but I do have a different burden of proof. Despite Erys’ repeated mischaracterizations of my arguments, I am not trying to say that my way of doing things is right and therefore his is wrong. I am simply saying that he is wrong when he says that my way is wrong. That is a much smaller burden of proof than trying to prove something is right.

Erys, on the other hand, is insisting that his way of reading the spell is the single definitive RAW. That is a very high burden of proof.

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.

"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.

We should discuss this further. Basically, I am triyng to say that your character needs to be able to pick or choose the thing he is going to attack, and the question is whether the character can meaningfully do that, and whether the player can communicate this to the DM. It is almost always straightforward, but there are cases where it is not. Mirror image is one such case.

I brought up the orc example to try to illustrate that everyone actually does this, but perhaps doesn’t realize it. Because it is usually inconsequential.

A different example would be a gargoyle that is in the exact same square as a statue of a gargoyle, which looks identical. The player says “I attack the gargoyle.” Well, which one?

Maybe the player and character even know that one is a statue and one is a monster. But that doesn’t mean the character can tell which is which. So, how does the DM determine which one the character picks? – that’s the problem. And in my opinion it’s the same problem that mirror image presents.

Whatever solution there might be, it is a general solution that deals with this type of situation. There would be no good reason to create a new rule every time a situation like this arises.

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.

But it is the character in the fiction who must ultimately perform the attack. Even knowing that the images in the space are just Bob and his three illusory duplicates does not bestow upon Zeke the ability to pick out which one is Bob. And the spell can’t do it, either (this might not seem obvious, but there are a number of examples we could consider that make it pretty clear).

Basically, let’s discuss this, more.

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.

Well, this is worth discussing, because I can’t agree that this is even a possible consideration. I think the character has to be capable of doing anything as a prerequisite for actually doing it.

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.

This is also worth discussing. Because you are hitting on the underlying assumptions that, in my opinion, make Erys’ approach to understanding RAW almost as misaligned as it can get. Because how far can you take this?

I was not being facetious when I asked Erys if “swords are metal” is a houserule, because a similar conversation came up somewhere, and I think it was with him. I was trying to say that, "surely, the DM is allowed to say a fireball is orange." The answer was no – that’s a houserule. It degenerated into complete absurdity, because you couldn’t say the fireball has any particular colour, but you also couldn’t say it was colourless – in their view, that is.

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.

Yes. But you also cannot denie that it is “an explosion of fire” because the rules state very clearly that it is (and calling it fluff is a houserule). But this is not as complicated s it seems. It only seems complicated if you bring along all of the wrong-headed assumptions.

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.

See, “spells do nothing more than what is written on the tin” is the most misunderstood and misapplied concept on this forum, so far as I can tell. When it is combined with a few other heuristics that are also misunderstood and misapplied… you get some pretty absurd stuff going on.

This is what can be frustrating about arguing with someone who thinks that RAW work a certain way. The pursuit of exhaustive RAW is the desire to eradicate rulings. And the desire to eradicate rulings is the desire to eliminate the human mind from the GM game. It is ultimately the elimination of D&D’s greatest feature.

This is misleading. There are not three orcs on a meaningful example.

No, this was exactly the intent of the example. To draw attention to the ridiculousness of the claim that a player does not need to do any more work to describe the intended target. Of course the player must identify one of the orcs. But the way you worded your explanation, he should not have to.

There is one orc and two illusory duplicates produced by MI which cannot be distinguished by comparing their form.

And I say this is analagous. But there are people who would say otherwise.

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.

But this knowledge doesn’t help the character in any way. The character still has to pick one of them. In the same way that the knowledge that one gargoyle is a statue doesn’t help the player distinguish which one it is.

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

Declaring that it is not required by the rules does not magically eliminate the requirement of the communication of the concept to the DM. The DM can’t adjudicate an attack or a targeted spell if he can’t determine the target. This is not something I am imposing. This is just a fact of the matter, so far as I can tell.

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

Seemed pretty good to me.

Spoiler: Homebrewed Mirror Image (It’s technically homebrewed - so it will be fun to hear Erys jump on this and say that “Burger now admits that his version is homebrewed – I quoted him so it must be true”)

Show

Note: I will not be using this home-brew, because I prefer to play by RAW. Also, this spell functions in a way that is permissible under RAW, anyway.

Mirror Image
2nd-level illusion
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, 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 the illusory duplicates.
Each time a creature targets you or a duplicate during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether you or one of your duplicates is targeted.
If you have three duplicates, a roll of 6 or higher indicates that a duplicate is targeted. With two duplicates, the roll must be an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, the roll must be an 11 or higher.
A duplicate’s AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier. If a duplicate is hit*, it is destroyed. A duplicate can be destroyed only by a hit*. 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.

* note that even though magic missile does not require an attack roll, it specifically hits targets

[RSP]

The Heat Seeker idea: There seems to be two concepts being expressed under the same name, here.

1. Pick a target and it will strike unerringly.
2. Name a target, and the spell can detect it somehow and then will seek it.

The first seems to be the better use of the term to me, because a heat seeking missile traditionally requires a target lock before it can “seek.” But it also describes the most sensible way of understanding targeted spells (but maybe it is a case-by-case thing, or I am failing to consider some that my intuition thinks of the other way.)

The second just seems outright wrong to me. It adds a detection capability to the spell that is simultaneously a solution in search of a problem and also a problem in itself.

“The creature standing 20’ in front of me” is just as valid as a ‘picked’ target as ‘Bill’ as is pointing to a creature. All are valid ways to interpret the wording used for MM.

Further, compare it to Scrying:

Scrying: “You can see and hear a particular creature you choose that is on the same plane of existence as you.”

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

“Creature you choose” and “creature of your choice” are interchangeable so if you say MM requires more specific identification (like being able to accurately point at them), Scrying should likewise require it.

Similarly, if you can choose the target of Scrying by saying a name (or even just thinking of a specific creature), the same should hold true of MM, though MM does additionally require that you can see them and they are in range, it shouldn’t otherwise change how you define selecting a target.

Looking at it this way, choosing “Bill” should very much make the MM darts unerringly hit Bill, assuming you can see him and he’s in range.

I think I can answer all of these questions. To start with: must the target be the caster? Or is it possible for a player to declare: I cast magic missile at a duplicate.

Because I can see no reason why an illusory duplicate could not be targetted with magic missile.

With no subsequent effect of the spell, sure. But given the above on selecting a target, why would you?

[Galithar]

I'm not reading all of the posts since my last so I apologise if I'm repeating someone or some other terrible offense because of that. :P

Following RAW these are how MM and MI can interact:

1. I target Caster A with MM and all 3+ darts strike the target.

This happens because MM says it automatically strikes whatever I cast it at, and MI only allows for an attack to be redirected. Since MM is not an attack it cannot be redirected by MI.

2. I cast MM and state that I'm going to attempt to target multiple duplicates and/or Caster A. Since I'm completely unable to track any given image due to the wording of MI:

"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."

And assuming that also means no single image could be tracked in general because if it could you would simply follow all the duplicates and by process of elimination break the rule that you can't track the real image. (Technically this would fall under a DM ruling as it's not explicitly stated, but is very much implied)
Then the DM would have to make a ruling on what you hit. There are no rules to govern this, but there are rules to govern what happens after targets are determined which is that the darts that targeted the real image damage Caster A and all other darts do nothing, simply flying to the position of the illusion, and having accomplished their 'mission' of striking an illusion disappear.


There is no third option to stay within the bounds of RAW and even number two is using a specific instance in XGtE to overrule the general statement that only attacks are effected by MI.

Forcing a player to choose randomly between the images (created by MI) for any spell or effect that is not reliant on an attack roll is explicitly outside of RAW. MI it's VERY clear on how it effects things when the caster is targeted.

"Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration"
If you are targeted by a spell that isn't an attack then MI does nothing. MM is not an attack, something I believe we all agree on and therefore, unless specifically attempted by the caster of MM, is incapable of hitting a duplicate.
Any other interpretation requires adding to the MI spell, and is instantly outside of RAW because of that. It is 100% a houserule to allow MI to affect any non attack.

Edited for clarity

[Kane0]

Hmm. Second Iteration!

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, spell or ability that requires a saving throw, roll a d12 to determine if a duplicate is targeted instead. If you have three duplicates, a roll of 4 or higher indicates that a duplicate is targeted. With two duplicates the roll must be 5 or higher. With one duplicate the roll must be 7 or higher. Any attack or spell effect that is redirected to a duplicate destroys it, and the spell ends early if all duplicates are removed.
A creature is unaffected by this spell if it can’t see, if it relies on senses other than sight (such as blindsight), if it can perceive illusions as false (as with truesight) or if the attack, spell or ability creates an area of effect (such as a Fireball spell).
Sidenote: In the case of Magic Missile and similar each instance of targeting is redirected individually and simultaneously.

[BurgerBeast]

“The creature standing 20’ in front of me” is just as valid as a ‘picked’ target as ‘Bill’ as is pointing to a creature. All are valid ways to interpret the wording used for MM.

But it's not a question of how the rules apply to selecting a target. It's a question of whether it is possible, in the most general independent-of-D&D sense of the term.

Further, compare it to Scrying:

I'm not a fan of the "that's a different spell" card, but there is seemingly no better place to play it than here. Scrying is a spell that is capable of targeting creatures you cannot see. It must have some mechanism for seeking targets that cannot require sight. So, there's no other option.

I suppose another way to put it would be: why must you see the target of MM? What makes it different than scrying?

Looking at it this way, choosing “Bill” should very much make the MM darts unerringly hit Bill, assuming you can see him and he’s in range.

Right, so as Segev put it in the other thread, you could walk around town casting magic missile at "the king" repeatedly. And as soon as he's within sight, even you can see him but don't know it's him, it will strike him?

Yeah... no thanks.

With no subsequent effect of the spell, sure. But given the above on selecting a target, why would you?

I'm just asking. Because there are some people who insist that it is impossible to target a duplicate because the spell does not specifically say you can.

Likewise, you should be able to target a duplicate with an attack.

The question then is: is it possible to, while trying to strike a duplicate, hit Bob instead? Again, I say it is obviously so. But others say it is not, because the spell has a magical redirection effect that only triggers if you try to strike Bob.

They will perform astonishing feats of word acrobatics to avoid or explain away the inconsistencies.

---

On the issue of the (non-existent) "magical protection" afforded by mirror image:

Suppose that there was a spell that produced three illusory duplicates that were targetable and destroyable and indistinguishable from the caster, but it offered no additional magical protection. When someone tried to strike the caster, what would be the odds that they would actually strike a duplicate instead? 75%.

And with 2 duplicates? 67%

And with 1 duplicate? 50%.

Now compare this to mirror image, which (supposedly) not only creates illusory duplicates, but is capable of magically deflecting attacks away from the caster and into the duplicates. What would you expect the chances to be in that case?

75%, and 67%, and 50%? Does that strike you as the expected chances in the presence of additional magical protection?

Because that's what it does (well, not quite, but it's as close as you can get with a d20 - with two duplicates it is actually 65% which is worse than the random chance.)

So, this supposed magical protection afforded by mirror image has no effect that differentiates it from randomly picking one of the targets, except that it is mathematically worse than random chance in the case of 2 duplicates. The only tangible effect of the magical protection is to attract more attacks than would otherwise be expected a very small percentage of the time.

That is pretty convincing. Clearly, mirror image magically deflects attacks. NOT.

[Galithar]

Hmm. Second Iteration!

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, spell or ability that requires a saving throw, roll a d12 to determine if a duplicate is targeted instead. If you have three duplicates, a roll of 4 or higher indicates that a duplicate is targeted. With two duplicates the roll must be 5 or higher. With one duplicate the roll must be 7 or higher. Any attack or spell effect that is redirected to a duplicate destroys it, and the spell ends early if all duplicates are removed.
A creature is unaffected by this spell if it can’t see, if it relies on senses other than sight (such as blindsight), if it can perceive illusions as false (as with truesight) or if the attack, spell or ability creates an area of effect (such as a Fireball spell).
Sidenote: In the case of Magic Missile and similar each instance of targeting is redirected individually and simultaneously.

I would raise the level of the spell significantly higher as it's utility has dramatically increased. As stated in this thread elsewhere negating an ninth level spell with a second level spell is overpowered. Doing it up to 3 times is insane. I think that counterspell which is a level higher, limited by distance, what you can see, and uses a reaction is the only thing that should be capable of such a feat.

[RSP]

But it's not a question of how the rules apply to selecting a target. It's a question of whether it is possible, in the most general independent-of-D&D sense of the term.



I'm not a fan of the "that's a different spell" card, but there is seemingly no better place to play it than here. Scrying is a spell that is capable of targeting creatures you cannot see. It must have some mechanism for seeking targets that cannot require sight. So, there's no other option.

I suppose another way to put it would be: why must you see the target of MM? What makes it different than scrying?



Right, so as Segev put it in the other thread, you could walk around town casting magic missile at "the king" repeatedly. And as soon as he's within sight, even you can see him but don't know it's him, it will strike him?

Yeah... no thanks.
.

Burger, I’m disappointed. Has this entire thread not been you proclaiming “this is valid by RAW” while others responded with the equivalent of “yeah...no thanks?”

What I laid out is 100% RAW regarding targeting. If the king (granted to make it a specific creature, you’ll probably have to include “the king of ______”, such as “the King of the North”) is within 120’ and you can see him, why couldn’t you cast MM on him? That’s 100% allowed RAW.

This just seems like you don’t like the RAW and just want to dismiss it, however, that doesn’t change that it is, in fact, RAW.

I don’t see how you could argue your view of MI while dismissing this without being hypocritical.

[Kane0]

I would raise the level of the spell significantly higher as it's utility has dramatically increased. As stated in this thread elsewhere negating an ninth level spell with a second level spell is overpowered. Doing it up to 3 times is insane. I think that counterspell which is a level higher, limited by distance, what you can see, and uses a reaction is the only thing that should be capable of such a feat.

... so don't use a single target spell against it. Same as if you tried to sneak attack, there is a good chance of wastage. Play to your strengths and counterspell, dispell, magic Missile, AoE blast, sic your fighter or monk on them, etc. There's plenty of ways around it still, even without using a higher level slot.

Could make it a 3rd though, Blur might get some use that way.

[Erys]

Erys has, in the past, when confronted with this, outright denied that the spell creates three illusory duplicates. He has said that this is only fluff, and so it actually does not happen at all.

Spoiler: Erys

Show

I never omitted the rules. I indicated that pretty clearly in my post. It is still visible in parentheses at the bottom, even after you edited out the part when I said “The DM ignores the text in paragraph 2.”

Ignores. Not omits.

I suppose you accidentally editted that part out when you quoted me. Both times.

---

The rules are there, they just don’t apply. When you cast magic missile, you’re not attacking, so every thing that follows after “when you are targeted by an attack” does not apply.

So, another intentional misrepresentation.



Quote my stance all you like. Just don’t try to paraphrase it. Every time you paraphrase what I say, you fail. Literally every time.

For example, I never said to omit anything. You said that.

---

On the one hand, you accuse me of considering magic missile an attack. I do not. (Another misrepresentation.) On the other hand, when I say that the part of the spell that applies to attacks does not apply to magic missile, you accuse me of ignoring a relevant part of the spell. And yet I’m the one moving the goalposts. Yeah… okay.

Talk about disingenuous. You are crossing to outright lying. Not cool. But, feel free to link where I said the spell "didn't make duplicates".

To reinforce my point: I have said and will continue to say that the description of the spell does not preclude new rules that were some how 'forgot' by the Developers of the game. I.e.: The spell, As Written, only protects against Attacks; just because there are duplicates the spell does not force you to choose between them, nor does it extend protection to Actions/Spells that do not use Attacks.

Spoiler

Show

Ignores. Not omits.

And that is different, how exactly? You are "ignoring" 85% of the spell, and adding entirely new elements (i.e adjudications for non-Attacks) to it.

In what world does ignoring the Written Rule of the Spell = following RAW? You are not making a ruling on a rule that is under defined, you are outright changing how a spell works.

Remember, you already agreed with me in post 131 that "Rewriting and omitting the rules of the game, including a spell, is house-ruling."

On the one hand, you accuse me of considering magic missile an attack. I do not. (Another misrepresentation.) On the other hand, when I say that the part of the spell that applies to attacks does not apply to magic missile, you accuse me of ignoring a relevant part of the spell. And yet I’m the one moving the goalposts. Yeah… okay.

Again, prove it. Provide links. I have told you repeatedly Mirror Image does not protect against Magic Missile because there is NO ATTACK. Not the other way around.

[Erys]

... so don't use a single target spell against it. Same as if you tried to sneak attack, there is a good chance of wastage. Play to your strengths and counterspell, dispell, magic Missile, AoE blast, sic your fighter or monk on them, etc. There's plenty of ways around it still, even without using a higher level slot.

Could make it a 3rd though, Blur might get some use that way.

With your house ruled Mirror Image, I think bumping it up to third (or maybe higher) is wise. And maybe make it concentration.

If you make it too good, then anyone without it will be at a disadvantage to anyone with it. In its current form I feel it is 'too good.'

(Love the use of a D12 though, $$)

(In my humble opinion, of course).

[Galithar]

... so don't use a single target spell against it. Same as if you tried to sneak attack, there is a good chance of wastage. Play to your strengths and counterspell, dispell, magic Missile, AoE blast, sic your fighter or monk on them, etc. There's plenty of ways around it still, even without using a higher level slot.

Could make it a 3rd though, Blur might get some use that way.

Comparison to Sneak attack isn't equivalent. When I attack, sneak attack triggers on a hit only. As a rogue I'm going to have multiple attacks to try to land one. Nothing is wasted it could just miss and I use sneak attack on my second attack if it hits. Using power word kill however would completely waste a high level spell slot. So sure I could choose to use something else, but I just don't think that a second level spell should have an impact on my decisions to use high level spells.

You can find this balanced and think that a second level spell should have that kind of power especially if your table is in to it. I'm just disagreeing. A cool compromise might be too make it a level 4 spell and allow it to redirect spell effects of 4th level or lower. Or even give it an extra dice roll (a la counter spell) in those cases if your table likes rolling extra die.
Also adding concentration could be a huge balancer as well.

[BurgerBeast]

Burger, I’m disappointed. Has this entire thread not been you proclaiming “this is valid by RAW” while others responded with the equivalent of “yeah...no thanks?”

What I laid out is 100% RAW regarding targeting. If the king (granted to make it a specific creature, you’ll probably have to include “the king of ______”, such as “the King of the North”) is within 120’ and you can see him, why couldn’t you cast MM on him? That’s 100% allowed RAW.

This just seems like you don’t like the RAW and just want to dismiss it, however, that doesn’t change that it is, in fact, RAW.

I don’t see how you could argue your view of MI while dismissing this without being hypocritical.

I'm not sure why it's hypocritical to think that you have to pick your target. If you say "I target the king" but you can't pick him out, even though you can see him, I see every reason to ask for clarification about who you are targeting. "The king" offers no clarity if you can't actually pick him out.

This would mean you could stand at the top of a castle wall, looking out on a field of a thousand soldiers, and say “I cast magic missile at George Underfoot.” You might not even know if he’s there at all, even tough you can technically see him, because he’s one of the soldiers in your field of view. And then the missiles hit him?

No thanks.

Talk about disingenuous. You are crossing to outright lying. Not cool. But, feel free to link where I said the spell "didn't make duplicates".

Actually, I think you just outright refused to answer the question, but I can’t remember. You've refused to answer questions in this thread, as well. Why don't you answer them now?

Does mirror image create three illusory duplicates?

Is it RAW to say that fireballs are orange, or blue, or yellow, or red, or some combination?

Is it RAW to say that swords are made of metal?

And that is different, how exactly? You are "ignoring" 85% of the spell, and adding entirely new elements (i.e adjudications for non-Attacks) to it.

It is different because when you omit something, you are removing it from the spell. When you ignore it, it is still there.

So, if the caster is attacked, I apply the part that tells me what to do when he is attacked. If the caster is not attacked, I don't apply that part (i.e. I ignore it). And then you scream that I omitted parts of the spell, apparently.

Likewise, if the attacker can't see, then I apply the part that tells me what to do if the attacker can't see. If the attacker can see, I ignore the part about casters who can't see. And then you scream that I omitted parts of the spell, apparently.

---

Also, I never added any adjudications to the spell for non-attacks (false charge, again). I said that adjudications are required beyond the spell. Specifically, the DM has to adjudicate which target is selected whenever the character has to make a random decision between targets. This is totally indpendent of the mirror image spell text.

In what world does ignoring the Written Rule of the Spell = following RAW?

If the circumstances for the rule do not apply, then you don't apply the rule. That’s how it works in this world. What are you playing at? Do you apply the rule about elf immunity to paralysis when a dwarf is paralyzed? Or do you ignore that? Oh my God! Erys omits the rules about elf immunity to paralysis! Yeah… no.

You are not making a ruling on a rule that is under defined, you are outright changing how a spell works.

That's what you're doing.

Remember, you already agreed with me in post 131 that "Rewriting and omitting the rules of the game, including a spell, is house-ruling."

Yes. Now let's see if you can differentiate between "ignore" and "omit."

Again, prove it. Provide links. I have told you repeatedly Mirror Image does not protect against Magic Missile because there is NO ATTACK. Not the other way around.

You want links to the present conversation? You just did it. It’s this conversation.

Not to mention, you’ve been providing “links” to things that do not have anything to do with what you are saying they do. One of them was just a link to the spell text, but was meant to serve as proof of something I said being wrong.

[RSP]

I'm not sure why it's hypocritical to think that you have to pick your target. If you say "I target the king" but you can't pick him out, even though you can see him, I see every reason to ask for clarification about who you are targeting. "The king" offers no clarity if you can't actually pick him out.

This would mean you could stand at the top of a castle wall, looking out on a field of a thousand soldiers, and say “I cast magic missile at George Underfoot.” You might not even know if he’s there at all, even tough you can technically see him, because he’s one of the soldiers in your field of view. And then the missiles hit him?

No thanks.

So, again, where is the RAW that states that?

But that’s besides the point, let’s take that out in this example: instead of “the king,” let’s just say “”Bill” in reference to the caster who just cast MI, who the character casting MM, Steve, knows is named Bill. Steve can see Bill and you don’t have the “who’s the king?” issue here.

RAW, how is that not acceptable as a chosen target? You seem to want there to be more to the targeting rules, though, given your argument on Mirror Image, you seem hesitant to use the word ‘intent.’

Would the above targeting not work for Scrying?

If the target of Scrying has used Major Image to create an illusion of himself, cast with a 6th level slot (so permanent until dispelled), would the Scrying mistakenly target the illusion? If not, why would MM mistakenly target the illusory duplicates created by MI?

[Kane0]

With your house ruled Mirror Image, I think bumping it up to third (or maybe higher) is wise. And maybe make it concentration.

If you make it too good, then anyone without it will be at a disadvantage to anyone with it. In its current form I feel it is 'too good.'

(Love the use of a D12 though, $$)

(In my humble opinion, of course).

3rd it is then!

Comparison to Sneak attack isn't equivalent. When I attack, sneak attack triggers on a hit only. As a rogue I'm going to have multiple attacks to try to land one. Nothing is wasted it could just miss and I use sneak attack on my second attack if it hits. Using power word kill however would completely waste a high level spell slot. So sure I could choose to use something else, but I just don't think that a second level spell should have an impact on my decisions to use high level spells.

You can find this balanced and think that a second level spell should have that kind of power especially if your table is in to it. I'm just disagreeing. A cool compromise might be too make it a level 4 spell and allow it to redirect spell effects of 4th level or lower. Or even give it an extra dice roll (a la counter spell) in those cases if your table likes rolling extra die.
Also adding concentration could be a huge balancer as well.

Rogues only get 1 attack per round, unless they give up their Cunning Action to Dual Wield. Missing on a SA is the vast majority of your damage output. My point being that a single, all-or-nothing strike is exactly the kind of thing Mirror Image is good at protecting against, at the cost of being defeated by any hit no matter how strong. Flurries strip duplicates fast, and something like Magic Missile or Scorching Ray could potentially be one of the most efficient ways aside from the Extra Attack feature.

Well, i'm not going to pull the Healing Spirit card but how about Bless, Command, Fog Cloud, Goodberry, Healing Word, Shield, Aid, Hold Person, Invisibility, Misty Step, Pass Without Trace, Phantasmal Force, Silence and Suggestion? Lots of low level spells that are plenty powerful at higher levels, even without upcasting.

I'll have to see how it plays out at the table, adding in concentration will be my go-to if it gets overused.

[Galithar]

3rd it is then!



Rogues only get 1 attack per round, unless they give up their Cunning Action to Dual Wield. Missing on a SA is the vast majority of your damage output. My point being that a single, all-or-nothing strike is exactly the kind of thing Mirror Image is good at protecting against, at the cost of being defeated by any hit no matter how strong. Flurries strip duplicates fast, and something like Magic Missile or Scorching Ray could potentially be one of the most efficient ways aside from the Extra Attack feature.

Well, i'm not going to pull the Healing Spirit card but how about Bless, Command, Fog Cloud, Goodberry, Shield, Aid, Hold Person, Invisibility, Misty Step, Pass Without Trace, Phantasmal Force, Silence and Suggestion? Lots of low level spells that are plenty powerful at higher levels, even without upcasting.

I'll have to see how it plays out at the table, adding in concentration will be my go-to if it gets overused.

I'm never going to play a rogue that relies on sneak attack without a second or third attack. Either I'm going to dip for extra attack or use TWF, or combine them. I'm not going to be using my cunning action every round and I don't expect my sneak attack to lend every round.
But for arguments sake let's assume I'm playing a straight classed shield master rogue. If I miss with sneak attack I simply attack next turn. If I'm playing a straight wizard and my Power Word Kill is absorbed by a level 2 (or 3) MI I can't try again next turn.

Also all of those powerful low level spells are great. None of them is going to block my Power Word Kill though. They do one thing well, they don't negate any and all non-AoE damage and effects up to three times. Again I'm not saying you're wrong, just giving an opinion. I recommend starting your own thread in 5e forum or Homebrew to get more feedback though. Never hurts to get more opinions before you take it to your table.

[Erys]

I'm not sure why it's hypocritical to think that you have to pick your target. If you say "I target the king" but you can't pick him out, even though you can see him, I see every reason to ask for clarification about who you are targeting. "The king" offers no clarity if you can't actually pick him out.

This would mean you could stand at the top of a castle wall, looking out on a field of a thousand soldiers, and say “I cast magic missile at George Underfoot.” You might not even know if he’s there at all, even tough you can technically see him, because he’s one of the soldiers in your field of view. And then the missiles hit him?

No thanks.

If you can see your target, regardless of whether he is protected by Mirror Image or not, you can target him with Magic Missile. If you cannot see him because he is lost in a sea of people, then you can't see him, he is effectively Hidden- which is supported by the Rules. (Edit to add: but if you can "technically" see him well enough to know he is the guy you want to hit, even in a sea of people, magic Missile will hit him so long as he is in range).

You keep making these bad side examples that don't actually mean anything. This is a very cut and dry issue.

Actually, I think you just outright refused to answer the question, but I can’t remember. You've refused to answer questions in this thread, as well. Why don't you answer them now?

LOL, you make accusations- then backpedal. It is almost like you are lashing out because you know you are wrong about being within RAW, but too ashamed to admit it.

Does mirror image create three illusory duplicates?

Yes. It also, by RAW and RAI, Mirror Image only protects against Attacks.

Is it RAW to say that fireballs are orange, or blue, or yellow, or red, or some combination?

No clue. I would say it is in the minds eye of the one who casts it. It is irrelevant regardless.

Is it RAW to say that swords are made of metal?

Again with this? Still have no idea what this non sequitur is for, other then trying to 'lawyer up' the conversation and confuse the facts.


It is different because when you omit something, you are removing it from the spell. When you ignore it, it is still there.

So, if the caster is attacked, I apply the part that tells me what to do when he is attacked. If the caster is not attacked, I don't apply that part (i.e. I ignore it).But then you create new rules to the spell to account for non-Attacks, i.e. house-ruling And then you scream that I omitted parts of the spell, apparently.

Likewise, if the attacker can't see, then I apply the part that tells me what to do if the attacker can't see. If the attacker can see, I ignore the part about casters who can't see. And then you scream that I omitted parts of the spell, apparently.

To reiterate: Some spells, like Magic Missile, are not Attacks (per the rules of the game). You are changing how Mirror Image works when you ignore the Rules of the spell As Written and are creating House-rules for non-Attack spells like the aforementioned Magic Missile.

Which, again, is your prerogative, just stop claiming it is RAW.

---

Also, I never added any adjudications to the spell for non-attacks (false charge, again). I said that adjudications are required beyond the spell. Specifically, the DM has to adjudicate which target is selected whenever the character has to make a random decision between targets. This is totally indpendent of the mirror image spell text.

Except you are. "Beyond the spell" is you trying to weasel out of using the spell how it was Written. It stats specifically what happens when the caster is Targeted by an Attack. No Attack = No Protection. As soon as you start making adjudications forcing PCs to target their Magic Missiles, you have house-ruled new aspects to the spell that are not part of RAW.

If the circumstances for the rule do not apply, then you don't apply the rule.Correct. So in the case of Mirror Image if the circumstances that it protects against Attacks is not met- then the spell is unable to protect you from the non-Attack. As soon as you add new rules to adjudicate non-Attacks, you have house-ruled. That’s how it works in this world. What are you playing at? Do you apply the rule about elf immunity to paralysis when a dwarf is paralyzed? Or do you ignore that? Oh my God! Erys omits the rules about elf immunity to paralysis! Yeah… no.

That's what you're doing.

Not even remotely. Also a non sequitur. Stay focus man, you can do this.

Yes. Now let's see if you can differentiate between "ignore" and "omit."

There is no functional difference when the end result is you rewriting the spell and "ignoring/omitting" the actual text provided in the rules and supported by Sage Advice.

You want links to the present conversation? You just did it. It’s this conversation.

Not to mention, you’ve been providing “links” to things that do not have anything to do with what you are saying they do. One of them was just a link to the spell text, but was meant to serve as proof of something I said being wrong.

Hey man, I am linking the Rules, your fallacies, goal post moves, and your direct quotes when applicable; and that is it. If you don't like it, stop creating fallacies and moving the goal post.

Kane0 is at least trying to make a productive house rule; us going back and forth is probably more annoying than anything else to the others in the Playground.

Your best bet is to man up that you are house-ruling, and understand that there is nothing wrong with that.

[Kane0]

Also all of those powerful low level spells are great. None of them is going to block my Power Word Kill though.

Power Word: "You utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly"
Fog Cloud: "The fog is centered on a point you choose, spreading around corners and heavily obscuring the area it fills"

Foiled with a 1st level slot, Darkness would do the same with a 2nd but that's too edgy for me
Not that I'm blowing off your argument or anything, any feedback is good feedback!

[Erys]

Power Word: "You utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly"
Fog Cloud: "The fog is centered on a point you choose, spreading around corners and heavily obscuring the area it fills"

Foiled with a 1st level slot, Darkness would do the same with a 2nd but that's too edgy for me
Not that I'm blowing off your argument or anything, any feedback is good feedback!

To be fair, the general rule of Darkness and Fog Cloud make them affect all parties equally. Everyone is hampered by them, whereas Mirror Image only hampers others efforts against you.

*There are a couple of class features that let you see through magic darkness. Specific over general and all that.

[Galithar]

Power Word: "You utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly"
Fog Cloud: "The fog is centered on a point you choose, spreading around corners and heavily obscuring the area it fills"

Foiled with a 1st level slot, Darkness would do the same with a 2nd but that's too edgy for me
Not that I'm blowing off your argument or anything, any feedback is good feedback!

In addition to what Erys noted about it affecting both sides, Darkness and Fog Cloud prevent the spell from being cast outright. Whereas your Homebrew on MI would allow it to "eat the spell slot". Again both are low level foils of a high level spell, but one had an additional cost to the defender (effectively blind for them too) where the other has a potential additional cost to the attacker of burning the spell slot.

You can still say, both make it so your best action is something other than a high level spell, but I still feel Mirror Image at level 2 or 3 being able to potentially block any spell is a vastly Superior defense to hiding in darkness. :P

Either way my feedback has been given and I hope your table enjoys the freedom of the rework. It will definitely see more use!

[BurgerBeast]

@Erys: I suppose it makes sense that the reason you have trouble understanding me is the same reason you have trouble understanding the RAW.

You are incorrectly paraphrasing, and then treating your paraphrased version as if it is the same thing as what is actually said.

For example, you go on and on about the RAW stating that mirror image only “protects against attacks.” But that phrase never occurs in the text. And then when asked to cite it, you cite something else, but seem to think that you’re actually citing it.

Mirror image “creates illusory duplicates.” That is what it does.

Kane0 is at least trying to make a productive house rule; us going back and forth is probably more annoying than anything else to the others in the Playground.

Feel free to stop any time.

Your best bet is to man up that you are house-ruling, and understand that there is nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with houseruling at all. I do it all the time. Just not in the case of mirror image. I follow the RAW.

I don’t add things to the spell, such as “it protects against attacks.” That is a houserule.

It’s too bad you replied inside my quote. There were some things I would’ve replied to, but it’s too much bother.

So, why do you add “protects against attacks” to the spell description?

Also, speaking of “manning up,” I think you should stop avoiding the conversation about selecting a target. You keep making excuses to avoid discussing examples. It gives the impression that you’re afraid to have those conversations because of where they might lead.

I think most of the accusations you’re flinging my way are really just your subconscious realization that they actually apply to you, and the fear to admit it.

The RAW are very simple. But you keep overcomplicating them by bringing in irrelevant and/or invented rules.

[kamap]

Three copies of you appear, moving in sync with you from the same space. Each time a creature attacks you, roll a d20 to see if it hits one of your copies instead. Rolling 6 or higher if you have all three, 8 or higher if only two, or 11 or higher if only one is left will result in the copy getting hit instead of you. A copy's armor class is 10 + your Dexterity modifier and any successful hit will destroy it.

You may dismiss the copies as an action. The spell ends early if all three copies are destroyed.

An opponent is immune to the effects of this spell if it can't see, relies on other senses to perceive the world, or if it can see through illusions.


It is said in the text it needs to be an attack (see bold), magic missile doesn't require an attack roll, therefor is not an attack. Ergo MI doesn't protect against it.

As long as you can see the target even if you don't know which is the real one, you can call out the target and MM will hit it.
So yes you can walk in the town casting MM to hit the king, MM will only be cast the moment you see the king, you could say you need to realize its the king, so disguises might work against MM but Illusions that look like the real deal will not. Those edge cases with disguises are left up to the DM.


Also don't try to bring logic into the argument it has left the building ages ago since magic made its appearance.
JC has been asked the question and ruled in favor of MM hitting the real target even when MI is up.

[Erys]

@Erys: I suppose it makes sense that the reason you have trouble understanding me is the same reason you have trouble understanding the RAW. lol, you are projecting again.

You are incorrectly paraphrasing, and then treating your paraphrased version as if it is the same thing as what is actually said. I am directly quoting you, or responding directly to your words side by side. There is no paraphrasing here, save one aspect when I summarize the spell Mirror Image... see below*.

For example, you go on and on about the RAW stating that mirror image only “protects against attacks.” But that phrase never occurs in the text. And then when asked to cite it, you cite something else, but seem to think that you’re actually citing it. /facepalm Dude, the spell literally says, "Whenever a creature is targeting you with an attack during the duration of the spell..." and then explains exactly how to adjudicate said Attack. *So, sure, I am paraphrasing that when I say it 'only protects against Attacks', because that is exactly what it does- nothing more and nothing less.

Mirror image “creates illusory duplicates.” That is what it does. Yes, it creates duplicates that protects the caster from Attacks. You are the one who is creating new aspects of the spell when you add rules and force players to target between the illusions and the caster. That is house-ruling, plan and simple.



Feel free to stop any time.lol. Only after you admit you are house-ruling Mirror Image.



There is nothing wrong with houseruling at all. I do it all the time. Just not in the case of mirror image. I follow the RAW. Creating a system for people to pick out their target among the images outside what the spell says -> it is house-ruling.

I don’t add things to the spell, such as “it protects against attacks.” That is a houserule. Again, the spell says, "Whenever a creature is targeting you with an attack during the duration of the spell..." That literally means it protects the caster from Attacks.

It’s too bad you replied inside my quote. There were some things I would’ve replied to, but it’s too much bother. Glad to help cut down on the clutter.

So, why do you add “protects against attacks” to the spell description? Again, the spell says, "Whenever a creature is targeting you with an attack during the duration of the spell..."

Also, speaking of “manning up,” I think you should stop avoiding the conversation about selecting a target. You keep making excuses to avoid discussing examples. It gives the impression that you’re afraid to have those conversations because of where they might lead. Your examples are a methodology of 'lawyer upping' the discussion, used to distort the plain black and white text in the PHB by giving examples that are false equivalencies. I used to do stuff like that all the time as a kid, trying to be 'technically right' about things that I was actually wrong about.

I think most of the accusations you’re flinging my way are really just your subconscious realization that they actually apply to you, and the fear to admit it. You can think what you want, at the end of the day I just want you to admit you are not in RAW with your Mirror Image ruling.

The RAW are very simple. But you keep overcomplicating them by bringing in irrelevant and/or invented rules. I agree!! The RAW is simple. Mirror Image only affects Attacks; spells like Magic Missile bypass said protections. I am not adding new layers of complexity, I play it like RAW and RAI says to. You however, well... to reiterate: As soon as you force players to target a spell that should hit with no Attack Roll, you are house-ruling.

Here is a link the spell, again. Just in case you think I am misquoting it.

[Erys]

Kamap, I think you have a couple MI's where you want to say MM.

Past that:

Also don't try to bring logic into the argument it has left the building ages ago since magic made its appearance.

Well said!

If I ever get around to it, mind if I sig this?

[kamap]

Erys, I did have MI's that should have been MM's. Thanks for noticing, they should have been corrected now.

Sig ahead.

[Unoriginal]

That’s not really the question, though. The target is the caster, not the illusions. The questions as I see it are:

- is there a rule that states you have to point out the target to the magic that causes the spell; so not “I target Bill” but rather you point at Bill and the missiles follow (and therefore if you’re not pointing at Bill, the darts will target whomever you’re pointing at)?

- do the illusion duplicates magically interfere with spells by forcing themselves to be targets when the caster is the actual intended target?

If there is an illusion of an enemy spellcaster standing in an hallway as if guarding it, with the real spellcaster far away, and the PCs see it, but don't realize it's an illusion, and the Sorcerer says "I cast Magic Missile at the spellcaster", is the target the far away spellcaster?

Nope, it's the *illusion* of the spellcaster, which the Sorcerer believes to be real

[RSP]

If there is an illusion of an enemy spellcaster standing in an hallway as if guarding it, with the real spellcaster far away, and the PCs see it, but don't realize it's an illusion, and the Sorcerer says "I cast Magic Missile at the spellcaster", is the target the far away spellcaster?

Nope, it's the *illusion* of the spellcaster, which the Sorcerer believes to be real

If you’re comparing this to the targeting of Scrying, then you’re saying Scrying will target illusions rather than the actual target. At least if you’re going by Burger’s nothing-but-RAW interpretation.

[kamap]

Unoriginal while that is true, the case you provided is a completely different case to the Mirror image illusions though, they are at the square you are in. You can see the real one, just not discern which is the real one.
Again you are not making an attack you are casting Magic Missiles which has no attack roll and is not an attack so the Magic Missiles will magically find the real target and hit it.

In your case the rules about invalid targets from xanathar's guide to everything comes into play. Spell is used but doesn't do anything more then that.
Before Xanathar's came along, the spell would just not be cast, which was ridiculous but raw, cause you where targetting an invalid thing and there were no rules about that.
So some spells where used to target anything and everything to find out if it was a mimic.
Fire bolt can be thrown at objects but eldritch blast can only be thrown at creatures.
So anything and everything got an eldritch blast cast at it (or some other spell with the same distinction about targetting a creature), if the eldritch blast was targetting a mimic that looked like a chest it would be cast and hit that chest, if it wasn't a mimic the eldritch blast would not be cast.
It was not logical but raw at the time before Xanathar's came out.