Non harmful touch attacks vs. Mirror image

[Lanathar]

For a non damaging touch spell like stricken heart or touch of fatigue is the spell discharged against a mirror image if the image is hit

The rule refers to the spell being discharged if used to destroy and image.

So RAW it wouldn’t be discharged ? Or is that a bizarre loophole
I would have thought the intention is for it to be discharged

[Volkard Abendroth]

Any attack that requires an attack roll may destroy an image. Touch spells that destroy an image are discharged.

Nothing in the rules requires the attack to be damaging.

[That Crazy Alchemist]

Mirror Image Snippet wrote:

...Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll...

A touch spell requires a melee touch attack roll.

[MrCharisma]

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Mirror Image Snippet wrote:

...Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll...

A touch spell requires a melee touch attack roll.

Only when attacking someone who doesn't want to hit. You can cast Cure Light Wounds on someone without rolling to hit, unless they're undead.

This is a case where there could be a rule about "if X then you have to roll Y", bit it'd just make the game more complicated. More complicated is rarely good.

As far as the rules are concerned Volkard is right.
In a home game if the GM asks me to roll to hit a mirror I'd just go with it (seems to make sense).

I wouldn't ask this of my players unless I was messing with them.

[That Crazy Alchemist]

MrCharisma wrote:

Only when attacking someone who doesn't want to hit. You can cast Cure Light Wounds on someone without rolling to hit, unless they're undead.

Yes, but we aren't talking about willing targets here...

[MrCharisma]

Oh right, I didn't read the OP properly =P

Sorry Lanathar there's no loophole. Touch of fatigue will destroy an image and will be discharged if touches one (and must roll to see whether they hit an image).

I unfortunately saw my mistake 1 hour and 2 minutes after I posted it, so I can't take it back =P

[Lanathar]

MrCharisma wrote:

Oh right, I didn't read the OP properly =P

Sorry Lanathar there's no loophole. Touch of fatigue will destroy an image and will be discharged if touches one (and must roll to see whether they hit an image).

I unfortunately saw my mistake 1 hour and 2 minutes after I posted it, so I can't take it back =P

TDIL that the edit window was 1 hour

And I wasn’t looking for the loophole. I wanted to confirm there wasn’t one just in case my player tries to hold the charge on a non damaging spell in an upcoming game. Because I can see someone taking a very RAW approach to “attack that destroys and image “ with the emphasis being on the destroyed

So my interpretation has been confirmed :-)

I have also started to realise (obvious as it may seem) that these boards are dominated by players looking for loopholes rather than GMs seeking clarifications. One look at the 2E boards reveals a bunch of people griping over not being able to make their old broken characters...

[Meirril]

It is more like most of the questions are about finding ways to exploit the rules, or how rules interactions work rather than discussing the finer points of running a game.

If you ask the right kind of question, people will talk about things from that side of the screen. Mostly its about how you phrase things and context of the question.