Would you allow Eldritch Knights/Arcane Tricksters PROC Sentinel off of Mirror Image?

[Deathtongue]

Pretty much what the title says. This is also applicable to Bladesingers and to a lesser extent Warlocks/Valor Bards, but read until the end.

Allowing this combination is RAW due to the specific wording of the Mirror Image and Sentinel feat. However, I'm also curious about how the board feels about RAI.

Personally, I'd allow it by RAI. In fiction, it's pretty common for someone to misdirect an enemy into attacking a false target and then taking advantage of the lapse in their defenses. Also, from a game-balance perspective, I don't find it particularly overpowered. If you're a Hexblade or Bladesinger, there's a good reason for you to keep your reaction open and it's a worthy tradeoff. Give up your reaction for an extra attack? That means no Shield / Absorb Elements / Hellish Rebuke / Song of Defense.

If you're an Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Trickster, you have less competition for your reaction (even though Shield/Absorb Elements, not to mention uncanny dodge, are very real possibilities) but I don't think it's overwhelming. I think this trick would work best for those two, since they have the most resources in terms of ASI/weapon damage/reaction clog but it's debatable.

[Aett_Thorn]

Sentinel language:


When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn’t have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Mirror Image language:


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.

Some critical language here: Mirror Image says that the attack instead targets one of your duplicates. So based on that, I might be inclined to allow it.

[DivisibleByZero]

I would not allow it. They targeted you. The spell changed the target via the wording, but the enemy targeted you.

[Aett_Thorn]

I would not allow it. They targeted you. The spell changed the target via the wording, but the enemy targeted you.

But that's not the distinction that Sentinel makes. I get that it might not be RAI, but RAW, it certainly seems like "make an attack" and "target" are two different things.

[mephnick]

I allow it in my games. I think it's RAW and makes fictional sense.

It's also not something that's going to happen all that much so it's not like it's a big deal.

[JackPhoenix]

They are attacking you. It's just that "you" stand half a feet to the side of the illusion they are hitting instead. It's not a separate entity.

[dejarnjc]

Sounds fun and not OP at all, would definitely allow it!

Little things like this make combat much more interesting narratively IMO.

[MrStabby]

" the attack instead targets one of your duplicates."

You are not one of your duplicates. The image is something that is targeted. The image does not have the sentinel feat.

All conditions are met. Seems legit.

[Deathtongue]

I would not allow it. They targeted you. The spell changed the target via the wording, but the enemy targeted you.

They are attacking you. It's just that "you" stand half a feet to the side of the illusion they are hitting instead. It's not a separate entity.
Let's say you're an Arcane Trickster who has a Potion of Invisibility, the Sentinel feat, and Silent Image. You drink the Potion of Invisibility. You then use Silent Image to create an image of yourself doing something like casting a spell or rummaging through their pack. You stand adjacent to the image, invisible.

Some orc comes up and decides to attack the image of yourself with a weapon, 5' away from you. Would you allow Sentinel to PROC?

If you would allow Sentinel to PROC in that situation, what about if the Arcane Trickster didn't make themselves invisible? They just stood next to their Silent Image and made threatening motions. The orc picks out one of the two targets and targets the image; would you allow Sentinel to PROC then?

[Paeleus]

Would an intelligent enemy NPC be able to make an arcana check or Auto succeed if they know the spell to grant disadvantage to this reaction attack?

I can see it not being a big deal combating hordes and fodder, but power creep is real. If your table has no qualms, go fer it bud.

[Deathtongue]

I can see it not being a big deal combating hordes and fodder, but power creep is real. If your table has no qualms, go fer it bud.What's your opinion on an Arcane Trickster using Stealth/Greater Invisibility while standing next to the party Barbarian to constantly PROC additional attacks using the Sentinel feat?

[Paeleus]

What's your opinion on an Arcane Trickster using Stealth/Greater Invisibility while standing next to the party Barbarian to constantly PROC additional attacks using the Sentinel feat?

As in the Barbarian is making the reaction attacks via Sentinel? Hmmmm...... I love clever ways characters interact together. I don't love repetitive gimics that may exlcude other party members or trivialize their involvement. I guess it depends on how responsible you are with it.

Also, wouldn't using Mirror Image in conjunction with Greater Invis create 3 images of an invisible Rouge?

[Deathtongue]

As in the Barbarian is making the reaction attacks via Sentinel? Hmmmm...... I love clever ways characters interact together. I don't love repetitive gimics that may exlcude other party members or trivialize their involvement. I guess it depends on how responsible you are with it.I meant the rogue is invisible and has the Sentinel feat and is standing next to the barbarian (or whoever).

[DivisibleByZero]

Let's say you're an Arcane Trickster who has a Potion of Invisibility, the Sentinel feat, and Silent Image. You drink the Potion of Invisibility. You then use Silent Image to create an image of yourself doing something like casting a spell or rummaging through their pack. You stand adjacent to the image, invisible.

Some orc comes up and decides to attack the image of yourself with a weapon, 5' away from you. Would you allow Sentinel to PROC?

If you would allow Sentinel to PROC in that situation, what about if the Arcane Trickster didn't make themselves invisible? They just stood next to their Silent Image and made threatening motions. The orc picks out one of the two targets and targets the image; would you allow Sentinel to PROC then?

I would allow both of those, yes.
The difference is that mirror image is in your space.
He targeted you, in your space, and the spell caused him to miss slightly because he really sure which "you" was actually YOU.
In the other cases, they aren't even targeting your space, and therefore they are not targeting you.

Mirror image doesn't create separate entities. It's just many of you, all in your space. And they are all you.

[Deathtongue]

I would allow both of those, yes.
The difference is that mirror image is in your space.
He targeted you, in your space, and the spell caused him to miss slightly because he really sure which "you" was actually YOU.What does that change? The Sentinel feat doesn't care about original intent or 'space' (which has two definitions in 5E D&D, so please be careful which one you're using), it only cares what you ended up targeting.


Mirror image doesn't create separate entities. It's just many of you, all in your space. And they are all you.What makes you think that a mirror image is just 'many of you'? I don't see that implication at all in the spell. Given the existence of the many properties of which mirror images are not like you, what leads you to the conclusion that they are, in fact, you?

Or if that's too abstract, consider this: say a Bladesinger made a simulacrum of himself at level 15. They, and thus the simulacrum, does not have the Sentinel feat. The Bladesinger and the simulacrum survives long enough for the Bladesinger to reach level 16. The simulacrum, of course, stays level 15. When the Bladesinger reaches level 16, they select the Sentinel feat.

Does the Simulacrum count as 'you' for the purposes of whether or not you trigger the reaction attack from the Sentinel feat?

[Maelynn]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but my first thought is that Mirror Image is an illusion, not a creature. And the Sentinel feat specifically states it has to be a creature attacking you - not an illusion. So it wouldn't proc.

[MrStabby]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but my first thought is that Mirror Image is an illusion, not a creature. And the Sentinel feat specifically states it has to be a creature attacking you - not an illusion. So it wouldn't proc.

Its not the illusion attacking you, it is the illusion being attacked.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm not going to argue about it.
The question was asked. I gave my answer. If you don't like it, play it however you want to.
I would not allow it because the images share your space, and he targeted you.

Incidentally, I think it should have used the word "hits" instead of the word "targets" in mirror image's description, and I play it as such.

[Sicarius Victis]

Incidentally, I think it should have used the word "hits" instead of the word "targets" in mirror image's description, and I play it as such.

To be fair, it could be that they intended for this and similar things to work, and so deliberately used the wording "targets" rather than "hits" for that actual reason.

Not everything the designers do with 5e is a mistake, and not everything needs to be assumed to be, either.

[TheUser]

RAW it works and that's what you should really care about.

When players design their PC's they are trying to come to an understanding of how things ought to work when they read the rules. From a narrative angle it makes perfect sense; they drop their guard attacking a clone and the player capitalizes on it.

This isn't a freebie either; casting Mirror Image uses up the action of the player and that each time sentinel goes off it consumes the reaction of the player (no uncanny dodge, no absorb elements, no shield). The number of level 2 spell slots an arcane trickster has isn't unlimited.

It's better for you as the DM to deal with the problem using game mechanics than getting upset over a rules legal interaction you dislike.

Just have a creature (or creatures) with 3+ attacks dumpster all the mirror images and/or hitting the rogue (they have to be level 7 for this combo to even be available yes?); if they opt out of their uncanny dodge reactions they will unlikely be able to sustain the strategy for more than a few rounds.

[Ganymede]

A PC's mirror image duplicate is an ersatz PC. The distinction that "you aren't being targetted, the duplicate is" doesn't matter when your duplicate is an ersatz you.

Other DMs might rule the opposite, tho. Ask your DM.

[TheUser]

A PC's mirror image duplicate is an ersatz PC. The distinction that "you aren't being targetted, the duplicate is" doesn't matter when your duplicate is an ersatz you.

Other DMs might rule the opposite, tho. Ask your DM.

Oh man I totally forgot about the paragraph in Sentinel that excludes when creatures target ersatz PC's!

EDIT: do I need to explicitly say this is sarcasm?

[Ganymede]

Oh man I totally forgot about the paragraph in Sentinel that excludes when creatures target ersatz PC's!

EDIT: do I need to explicitly say this is sarcasm?

Why would a DM's ruling be in print, in a feat description or otherwise?

[JoeJ]

I'd allow it. It sounds like the kind of clever thinking I like to encourage. And, of course, there's no reason an NPC can't use the same tactic against the party.

[Da Rev23]

I'm gonna put this one to rest. Its is both RAW and RAI as per Jeremy Crawford on Twitter responding to this question.

[tieren]

Oh man I totally forgot about the paragraph in Sentinel that excludes when creatures target ersatz PC's!

EDIT: do I need to explicitly say this is sarcasm?

I believe the accepted protocol is to post it in blue type.

[Corran]

I'm gonna put this one to rest.
The irony...

[Man_Over_Game]

For those interested, Here is a thorough RPG Stack Exchange answer to this exact question with facts (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/137859/45619) (not mine), and Here is the Sage Advice on the ruling provided by Crawford (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/31/does-an-attacker-who-targets-a-mirror-image-instead-of-you-provoke-an-attack-from-the-sentinel-feat/). Here's what was said:


Question: When using mirror image. Does an attacker who targets a mirror image instead of you provoke an attack from the Sentinel feat?

Jeremy Crawford: Yes.


It's worth noting that because Mirror Illusions are not allies, they do not count for the sake of Sneak Attack.

-----------

For me, personally....I'm not 100% sure. Balance or narrative creativity is what comes first in my games, and my first instinct is that this is a gamist, not a narrative, scenario.

On one hand, Mirror Image's brother, Blur, is usually considered worse because it requires Concentration and it won't gain the benefit of this ruling. On the other hand, Mirror Image is worse on creatures who have heavy armor because the evasion the Images provide don't actually work with Armor AC in any way. But on the other other hand, it DOES provide a direct benefit to Dexterity-based characters because Dexterity improves the AC of the Images.

So...Blur is better with heavy armor characters but can't benefit with Sentinel. Mirror Image is better with Dexterity-based characters with low AC but benefits from Sentinel.

Now I have to think about Dexterity-based characters who'd benefit from Sentinel.

Long Death Monks? Generic Dex Battlemasters/Eldritch Knights? Melee Rogues?

My main gripe is that it does make Mirror Image better, which makes Dexterity users better, when Dexterity is already the most overused stat. But outside of the EK/BM Fighter subclasses (which are also very common), I don't really see many circumstances that it's making something too good.

I still think that Strength-based builds need more affection than Dexterity-based ones (and this is a win for Dexterity). But I don't think that this is quite a big enough jump to hard stop a player from trying out a cool concept.

So....sure, but I'm watching you if it gets out of hand :annoyed:

[Keravath]

I'm not going to argue about it.
The question was asked. I gave my answer. If you don't like it, play it however you want to.
I would not allow it because the images share your space, and he targeted you.

Incidentally, I think it should have used the word "hits" instead of the word "targets" in mirror image's description, and I play it as such.

I just want to point out that 5E was designed around theater of the mind. Grids are optional. As such there is absolutely NO concept of “sharing your space” anywhere in the rules or the spell description. [edit: wrong .. the first line of the spell says the images share your space .. which I don’t really understand :)]

In RAW terms .. there are no issues triggering a sentinel attack when one of the mirror images are targeted. There is no difference between targeting a mirror image, some other illusion, a rock within 5’ Of you or another character .. all that is required to trigger a reaction attack with sentinel is an attack within 5’ against anything but you and the target of the attack can’t have the sentinel feat.

[Ganymede]

Then again, mirror images are copies of you, someone with the sentinel feat, and the rules forbid two beings with the sentinel feat from ping-ponging their reaction attacks.

[Corran]

So...Blur is better with heavy armor characters but can't benefit with Sentinel. Mirror Image is better with Dexterity-based characters with low AC but benefits from Sentinel.
There is also something else to consider. Duration. Mirror image can burn out very quickly (and possibly against attacks you weren't worried about), while blur can last the whole encounter (depending on concentration checks of course). Blur usually is better for tanking, mirror image is better for skirmishers/ranged chars and sometimes as a panic button.



For me, personally....I'm not 100% sure. Balance or narrative creativity is what comes first in my games, and my first instinct is that this is a gamist, not a narrative, scenario.
I don't think it is not balanced, but I 100% agree that to me as well it feels like sth cheaty. Perhaps gamist is a better word to describe it though, as you said.

[Aett_Thorn]

The necro is strong with this one.

[Man_Over_Game]

The necro is strong with this one.
Heh, didn't even notice. Whoops.


I'm gonna put this one to rest. Its is both RAW and RAI as per Jeremy Crawford on Twitter responding to this question.

The irony...

Now I get it. That is pretty funny. Necro'd a thread just to say "Hah, I was right. Now that everything's in order, the thread can go die for realsies this time."

[JackPhoenix]

Now I get it. That is pretty funny. Necro'd a thread just to say "Hah, I was right. Now that everything's in order, the thread can go die for realsies this time."

Not that he is, because Crawford's tweet still doesn't imply it triggers Sentinel attack from you from *your own* Mirror Image.