Do mirror images dodge with you?

[Dalebert]

Trying to encourage discussion here that was getting elaborate in the simple RAW thread.

If you dodge, do people have disadvantage to hit your mirror images as well? The description is ambiguous enough for disagreement, obviously, which is why I think it deserves its own thread.

[stoutstien]

Trying to encourage discussion here that was getting elaborate in the simple RAW thread.

If you dodge, do people have disadvantage to hit your mirror images as well? The description is ambiguous enough for disagreement, obviously, which is why I think it deserves its own thread.
Dodge is an action and mirror image specifically says they mimic your actions but later on the spell specifically says it ignores all effects....

Personally I would rule yes they Dodge also.

[Great Dragon]

IiRC, if the foe hits your AC, so Dodge makes it harder, you can choose to have it try to affect an Image instead.

Three Images = DC 6 on 1d20
Two Images = DC 8.
One Image = DC 11.

When hit, that image vanishes.

[strangebloke]

Well, there will be folks that argue that since the thing is not a creature and does not have an initiative, it cannot take actions of any kind, and that mimicry of those actions is irrelevant to how hard the target is to hit.

The counterpoint would be, "Well that's silly, the illusion is normally doing things like mimicing attacks, etc. If it doesn't mimic an attack, and instead mimics becoming more evasive, then of course it is harder to hit."

To which we shall hear the saucy reply: "Yes, but the AC is 16, that's the illusions fixed ability to dodge things."

blerg

Personally I would allow it. I mean, you still have to cast the spell and dodge, and its totally flavorful.

[Pharaon]

IiRC, if the foe hits your AC, so Dodge makes it harder, you can choose to have it try to affect an Image instead.

Three Images = DC 6 on 1d20
Two Images = DC 8.
One Image = DC 11.

When hit, that image vanishes.

The d20 mechanic takes place after the attacker targets the caster but before the attack roll. The images have their own AC as well, so it is a valid question if the images benefit from the caster's Dodge action

I would lean towards allowing it but purely as a ruling, with no textual support.

[Man_Over_Game]

The d20 mechanic takes place after the attacker targets the caster but before the attack roll. The images have their own AC as well, so it is a valid question if the images benefit from the caster's Dodge action

I would lean towards allowing it but purely as a ruling, with no textual support.

This is exactly how I view it.

RAW: No.

RAF: Hell yeah.

Balance-wise, the attacker can just close his eyes (blinding him) to attack you, which nullifies the Mirror Images but still suffers Disadvantage to attack you, same as if he attacked you while you were Dodging.

[Galithar]

The description says that they mimic your actions. That means whatever you do, they also do. If you attack they attack, they don't deal more damage because they are illusion that is incapable of dealing damage. If you Dodge, they Dodge because they are mimicking whatever you do.

It says their AC is equal to 10+your dexterity mod. This means they are capable of moving to avoid attacks, but other then their attempts to avoid the attack (represented by then using 10, the default AC of unarmored creatures or inanimate objects plus your ability to move IE your dexterity modifier) they gain no benefits from armor or spells that would increase AC.
The Dodge action doesn't increase their AC directly though. It imposes disadvantage by using all of their time/energy to avoid attacks. So long as this is what you are doing I see no reason why they couldn't.

That being said there is no explicit statement in the spell that allows or disallows this. Which means in my opinion it falls outside of RAW and firmly in 'ask your DM'. I gave my reasoning above so that when having this discussion with your DM/player you could understand why I would rule to allow it.

[stoutstien]

This is exactly how I view it.

RAW: No.

RAF: Hell yeah.

Balance-wise, the attacker can just close his eyes (blinding him) to attack you, which nullifies the Mirror Images but still suffers Disadvantage to attack you, same as if he attacked you while you were Dodging.

I had some elite guard npc do this vs a bladesinger. Or cast fog cloud/darkner for the same effect.

[No brains]

Consider this:

Enemy NPC casts Mirror Image and uses Dodge to stall for time.

Battlemaster PC with Precision Attack attacks NPC.

DM rolls a d20.

DM uses version the interpretation of the rules that Images cannot dodge.

DM tells player they do not attack at disadvantage.

PC realizes this means they should not even attempt to use precision strike because they would be hitting a dupe.

Would DMs be comfortable with this happening?

My DM let me roll with my images inheriting my dodge on my Trickery Cleric and I had two tons of fun being an untouchable piece of crap in the enemy's way! Would you take fun away from the poor disadvantaged Trickery Cleric? :smalltongue:

[LtPowers]

Hm, I had forgotten that the illusory duplicates have their own AC, and that the duplicates are actually targeted on a successful rule. That does make the Dodge question less easy to adjudicate than I thought.

But it also raises the question of whether an illusory duplicate can be targeted explicitly without first trying to target the caster.


Powers &8^]

[Tanarii]

But it also raises the question of whether an illusory duplicate can be targeted explicitly without first trying to target the caster.
And so it begins.

Also insert Jackie Chan "why would you do that!" Meme here. :smallamused:

[Dalebert]

DM tells player they do not attack at disadvantage.

PC realizes this means they should not even attempt to use precision strike because they would be hitting a dupe.


There's a fix though a little tedious. Tell them they only have disadvantage if they're targeting the caster. Have them roll two dice of different colors and tell you which one is primary. Ignore the secondary die if they're targeting an image.

I'm not saying you should do that. I would just let the illusions dodge also. Just pointing out that it's not a deal-killer.

[MaxWilson]

Balance-wise, the attacker can just close his eyes (blinding him) to attack you, which nullifies the Mirror Images but still suffers Disadvantage to attack you, same as if he attacked you while you were Dodging.

Of course that also gives advantage to anyone attacking THEM, and prevents them from making opportunity attacks.

[Misterwhisper]

Of course that also gives advantage to anyone attacking THEM, and prevents them from making opportunity attacks.

Only if they are dumb enough to keep them closed.

I have seen multiple people take the lucky feat just so they can close their eyes to get disadvantage to use lucky to make it super advantage and then open their eyes after the attack.

[Tanarii]

Closing your eyes to give yourself the blinded condition is a DM house rule.

[strangebloke]

Closing your eyes to give yourself the blinded condition is a DM house rule.

Ruling.

Not a House Rule.

And its like, the most reasonable ruling ever.

And it isn't what causes the problem with Lucky. Lucky causes its own problems. The closing your eyes to get advantage thing is actually pretty flavorful and not really abusive at all, since its not an efficient use of luck.

[Zalabim]

Only if they are dumb enough to keep them closed.

I have seen multiple people take the lucky feat just so they can close their eyes to get disadvantage to use lucky to make it super advantage and then open their eyes after the attack.

If you're closing your eyes enough for it to matter then you're closing your eyes enough for it to matter. Turn order is an abstraction for simultaneous action, after all, and the creatures that allow you to avert your eyes work the same way. You can't just avert your eyes for your turn. It counts for the whole round.

[Aaedimus]

Ruling.

Not a House Rule.

And its like, the most reasonable ruling ever.

And it isn't what causes the problem with Lucky. Lucky causes its own problems. The closing your eyes to get advantage thing is actually pretty flavorful and not really abusive at all, since its not an efficient use of luck.

I'd say that would actually feel more than any other style of play like the character's lucky, and is trusting in his luck. Like a "use the force Luke" moment.

Luck is only overvalued because people tend not to make days as long ad they should be. 3 rolls really isn't much.

That being said. This made me want to create a Mr. Magoo D&D character

[Aaedimus]

If you're closing your eyes enough for it to matter then you're closing your eyes enough for it to matter. Turn order is an abstraction for simultaneous action, after all, and the creatures that allow you to avert your eyes work the same way. You can't just avert your eyes for your turn. It counts for the whole round.

A round is 6 seconds. It takes about a second and a half to swing a blade. It's like blinking/closing your eyes before you catch a baseball or shoot a gun. None of that takes 6 seconds

[Tanarii]

Ruling.

Not a House Rule.

And its like, the most reasonable ruling ever.
No, it's definitely a house rule. And a problematic one at that. Enabling creatures to be once momentary Blinded (or otherwise unable to see) at will, with the ability to revoke the condition instantaneously, to avoid effects advantageously is a powerful ability.

At the very least it should require some kind of check to time it perfectly, and/or successfully resist the impulse to open your eyes for a second at the wrong time.

[Galithar]

No, it's definitely a house rule. And a problematic one at that. Enabling creatures to be once momentary Blinded (or otherwise unable to see) at will, with the ability to revoke the condition instantaneously, to avoid effects advantageously is a powerful ability.

At the very least it should require some kind of check to time it perfectly, and/or successfully resist the impulse to open your eyes for a second at the wrong time.

Remember the 'avert your gaze' abilities do have a caveat that allows you to open your eyes/look at the source at anytime by being subject to the effect/saving throw at that time. This lends itself to the ruling that this action can be made at times other then when specifically averting your eyes from these effects. The logical outcome is that there is no penalty for looking later in the round, since there was nothing harmful presented in the first place.

[Aaedimus]

What if I just, looked away and poked blindly behind me, than peeked to see if I hit something?

Not closing my eyes

[qube]

Me in the RAW thread:

I have no clue what you guys are talking about, there is a simple answer for that.


the duplicates move with you and mimic your Actions
~~ RAW mirror image

When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks.
~~ RAW dodge action

They mimic the dodge action - they do not take the dodge action.

There is no RAW that says mimic action = take action.

The only justification I can think of is that people think that taking the "Dodge Action" is starting to bob and weave and thus making you harder to get hit. It's not. Dodging is - to quote "being entirely focussed on avoiding attacks". Yet it's inherently obvious that focus, without the mental capacity to act on it, won't jield benefits.

... not that that matters, because you can't just insert rules where you don't like it. Unless stating somehere else in RAW, mimic =/= take.

Anthing more is RAI and /or RAF.


A round is 6 seconds. It takes about a second and a half to swing a blade. It's like blinking/closing your eyes before you catch a baseball or shoot a gun. None of that takes 6 secondsand non of that will help you figure out which of the 4 targets you shoot at is actually the real one.

it doesn't work against blinded because when you're blind, you use other information (auditory, ... ) to determine where the target is. When you "blink", you use the last information provided by your eyes

[Mordaedil]

No, it's definitely a house rule. And a problematic one at that. Enabling creatures to be once momentary Blinded (or otherwise unable to see) at will, with the ability to revoke the condition instantaneously, to avoid effects advantageously is a powerful ability.

At the very least it should require some kind of check to time it perfectly, and/or successfully resist the impulse to open your eyes for a second at the wrong time.
It happens all of the time in fiction and what are you honestly going to do, tell people that they can't close their eyes, a normal bodily function that everyone is expected to have?

That seems like a case of ruling to the flaw of the letter.

[JoeJ]

It happens all of the time in fiction and what are you honestly going to do, tell people that they can't close their eyes, a normal bodily function that everyone is expected to have?

That seems like a case of ruling to the flaw of the letter.

PCs can certainly close their eyes whenever they want. It just isn't going to help unless they're keeping them shut.

[Mordaedil]

PCs can certainly close their eyes whenever they want. It just isn't going to help unless they're keeping them shut.
That much I agree with. I'd say that the blindness would last the entire round to work in their benefit.

[Great Dragon]

I'd say that the blindness would last the entire round to work in their benefit.

I tend to agree. Yes, IRL a person can do several fast actions. But, for a Game, once you're Character has committed to doing a specific action (I close my eyes to not be affected by an Illusion) they are stuck with it.
{Otherwise each round would be a second or less}
Anything else is just manipulating the Rules to always be in your favor.

For the Dodge also being applied to the Images, I would say no.
Yes, they mimic your actions - but doing so does not mean that those actions are effective against each attack on an image. It's not like the spell causes each image to become an independent intelligent creature. The images not getting Advantage vs being hit can also be a major clue for foes to know that a spell-effect is in play, here.

The spell states that each attack is rolled against the above DC to affect the image.
The caster does not choose to cause this to happen.

I would say that an attack that first bypassed the Images and targeted the user had to get past the Dodge effect to hit, since the user is actually focused on their defense. But, any remaining images would still have to be bypassed with each attack to get to the caster.

[Aquillion]

JC says that you have to close your eyes for an entire turn (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/600437738454679552) to count as blind.

This makes sense. If you close your eyes for less than six seconds, you realistically still saw all the images just a moment ago, so they're still going to be confusing you.

Doing the "close your eyes and focus" thing makes sense both mechanically and thematically, but you have to actually close your eyes for long enough for it to have mechanical impact (ie. you have to accept giving advantage to anyone attacking you that turn.)

[Aett_Thorn]

Can we all just agree that Mirror Image is the spell that causes the most arguments about how the spell works, and press for an actual rewrite of it so that it causes less confusion?

[Dalebert]

Can we all just agree that Mirror Image is the spell that causes the most arguments about how the spell works, and press for an actual rewrite of it so that it causes less confusion?

Hear yah loud and clear. That said, M.I. just calls for DM adjudication and I think either ruling is fine and would accept either without much fuss as a player. I'd be very happy with a second level non-concentration spell that imposes disadvantage on attacks against me. Blur but without concentration! BAM!

But here's another quandary. If you're blind and shoot with disadvantage and miss, is it possible you hit an image and popped it?

[Keravath]

The d20 mechanic takes place after the attacker targets the caster but before the attack roll. The images have their own AC as well, so it is a valid question if the images benefit from the caster's Dodge action

I would lean towards allowing it but purely as a ruling, with no textual support.

I would also lean towards allowing it since the text says:
"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."
If the images mimic your actions I would say that includes reproducing attacks, movement, casting a spell, disengage, dash and hiding. Otherwise, the images aren't doing the same thing as you are and you would be able to tell them apart.

If the images did not mimic your actions then an attacker could get an op attack against an image when you disengage, you wouldn't be able to hide even if you are under total cover from your opponent since the images couldn't hide.

Later in the spell it says:
"A duplicate can be destroyed only by an attack that hits it. It ignores all other damage and effects."
In context, ignoring all other damage and effects would seem to me to be things like hold person, damage from AoE spells, and other conditions that might reveal the image to be an illusion. One could also argue that dodge is not an effect but an action ... which the images replicate.

I can see how folks could argue either way but I would lean towards the images dodging if the character takes the dodge action.

[stoutstien]

New question: mirror image ignores all effects that are not attacks so does this mean the magic missile each image idea is actually not allowed RAW?

[Coffee_Dragon]

I don't think the spell is all that difficult to apply as written. People just keep insisting that the flavour as they understand it should override the abstracted rules.


But here's another quandary. If you're blind and shoot with disadvantage and miss, is it possible you hit an image and popped it?

I'd say mechanically, no. But once an image is popped, you can describe it however.

[Pharaon]

I would also lean towards allowing it since the text says:


Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply there wasn't textual support (I think there is RAW support for both standpoints), just that I personally don't need it to make a ruling.


New question: mirror image ignores all effects that are not attacks so does this mean the magic missile each image idea is actually not allowed RAW?

Oh boy, now we've stepped in it.

By RAW, no, magic missile and mirror image do not interact, at all. Since magic missile is not an attack, and it auto hits, magic missile magically knows which is the real caster and hits it.

Even if I chose as a DM to allow it (it seems reasonable!), assuming there are 4 "targets" and you are shooting 3 darts from magic missile, I would make the d20 mechanic determine which dart hit which target.

[Man_Over_Game]

A few fun-facts on the topic of Mirror Images:

Jeremy Crawford, Lead Designer, rules that Sentinel's Reaction Attack does activate if an enemy attacks your Mirror Image, due to the fact that Sentinel states: "When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you", and a Mirror Image is a target that's not you (and an attack roll is definitely made against it).
Crawford also rules that Sneak Attack does not work with Mirror Image, because Sneak Attack requires an ally adjacent to the target, and Mirror Images are not allies.
Drunken Master Monks do not get their Redirect Attack feature when an enemy attacks your Mirror Image, because the targeting of the Mirror Image is, itself, a redirection. That is, you are never actually attacked, so the opponent never misses you, which means that Redirect Attack isn't valid.



Back on topic:

Since Mirror Image cannot cast spells, attack, or Use An Object, it doesn't make much sense that "mimic your actions" translates to "mimic your Actions".

Question: Why can it Dodge when it can't do anything else?

Answer: Because it's Cool. And that being the answer reflects that it's a houserule.

RAF, I'd let it slide, but I don't think it's anything more than a valid houserule.

[Keravath]

A few fun-facts on the topic of Mirror Images:

Jeremy Crawford, Lead Designer, rules that Sentinel's Reaction Attack does activate if an enemy attacks your Mirror Image, due to the fact that Sentinel states: "When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you", and a Mirror Image is a target that's not you (and an attack roll is definitely made against it).
Crawford also rules that Sneak Attack does not work with Mirror Image, because Sneak Attack requires an ally adjacent to the target, and Mirror Images are not allies.
Drunken Master Monks do not get their Redirect Attack feature when an enemy attacks your Mirror Image, because the targeting of the Mirror Image is, itself, a redirection. That is, you are never actually attacked, so the opponent never misses you, which means that Redirect Attack isn't valid.



Back on topic:

Since Mirror Image cannot cast spells, attack, or Use An Object, it doesn't make much sense that "mimic your actions" translates to "mimic your Actions".

Question: Why can it Dodge when it can't do anything else?

Answer: Because it's Cool. And that being the answer reflects that it's a houserule.

RAF, I'd let it slide, but I don't think it's anything more than a valid houserule.

Well ... as far as I know ... mirror image does look like its attacking, it does look like it is casting a spell and it does looking like it is interacting with an object if those are the actions that a player is taking. If the images did not take exactly the same actions as the character then it would be easy to tell them apart.

So, if a character is watching for attacks and moving in whatever way might represent dodging then I would expect the images to be doing the same since they do exactly the same actions as the character ... they just don't affect anything they interact with.

So in answer to your question ... I'd say the question should be "Why can't it dodge when it does do everything else that the character does?"

This more or less assumes that whatever movement or other activity that is involved in dodging (moving quickly in unpredictable directions perhaps) would make it as difficult to hit the images as it would be to hit the actual target since they all move together.

On the other hand, if you think of the dodge action as carefully watching an attack come in and then moving out of the way at the last instant to avoid that arrow (which I have trouble picturing most characters being skilled enough to do) then the images might or might not be considered dodging but they would certainly be moving in response to the characters movement which still might make them more difficult to hit than otherwise.

So both RAW and mechanically I don't see any issue with dodge applying to both the character and the images but as I said I can easily see it going either way for a particular DM. However, this makes it more of a rule interpretation rather than a house rule since you can probably justify either viewpoint from a RAW perspective.

[Man_Over_Game]

Well ... as far as I know ... mirror image does look like its attacking, it does look like it is casting a spell and it does looking like it is interacting with an object if those are the actions that a player is taking. If the images did not take exactly the same actions as the character then it would be easy to tell them apart.

So, if a character is watching for attacks and moving in whatever way might represent dodging then I would expect the images to be doing the same since they do exactly the same actions as the character ... they just don't affect anything they interact with.

So in answer to your question ... I'd say the question should be "Why can't it dodge when it does do everything else that the character does?"

This more or less assumes that whatever movement or other activity that is involved in dodging (moving quickly in unpredictable directions perhaps) would make it as difficult to hit the images as it would be to hit the actual target since they all move together.

On the other hand, if you think of the dodge action as carefully watching an attack come in and then moving out of the way at the last instant to avoid that arrow (which I have trouble picturing most characters being skilled enough to do) then the images might or might not be considered dodging but they would certainly be moving in response to the characters movement which still might make them more difficult to hit than otherwise.

So both RAW and mechanically I don't see any issue with dodge applying to both the character and the images but as I said I can easily see it going either way for a particular DM. However, this makes it more of a rule interpretation rather than a house rule since you can probably justify either viewpoint from a RAW perspective.

Would you say that Haste adds AC to the Mirror Image, when the Mirror Image's AC is listed on the Mirror Image spell?

[Dalebert]

Would you say that Haste adds AC to the Mirror Image, when the Mirror Image's AC is listed on the Mirror Image spell?

That's far less ambiguous. The spell doesn't say the images benefit from spells on you but it does say they mimic your actions, e.g. dodge. And dodge, if it works, doesn't affect ac of the images, which is given as you pointed out. So whether they benefit from mimicing dodging depends on how the DM interprets that statement.

[Keravath]

Would you say that Haste adds AC to the Mirror Image, when the Mirror Image's AC is listed on the Mirror Image spell?

RAW no. Haste calls out a bunch of benefits to the target of the spell (the images are not the target) while the mirror image spell gives a specific AC calculation. In addition, the mirror image spell indicates that the images are not subject to "effects".

In terms of RAW, the only reason I'd let the image dodge if the character dodges is because the text says the images mimic the character's "actions". If mirror image had said "mimics the character's movements" then I might interpret it differently RAW. (Note: the term action has a particular meaning in 5e so I am implicitly assuming that when the text says "mimic your actions" that is exactly what it means and intends to say).

Also, the benefits of the haste spell are listed but the spell itself gives no reason why these are the benefits ... most might assume that it is because the character is moving faster but to be honest, RAW, this isn't described .. only the effects of the magic which include an increased movement speed but that is effect not cause.

"Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns."

However, because the mirror images explicitly also move with you then they also implicitly move faster. The images also imitate whatever additional action you take using the additional action granted by haste but they don't get any benefit to AC.

[No brains]

I still think it is ultimately less work and invites less metagaming when dodge applies to mirror images as well. Sacrificing a spell and further actions (or build space to make dodge a bonus action) to build an effective defense against only AC attacks seems like a worthy trade. This is especially true when a less complicated application of offensive force is still more effective in most cases than the mirror dodge.

That said, can anyone give me some stats/ probabilities on the consequences of allowing dodge to extend to mirror images? I'd be willing to change my position if this combo works out to add a ridiculous amount to AC. The quick math the books suggest is that dis/advantage adds/subtracts 5 to a passive score. How much effective AC does mirror image add and does it multiply to something like an effective AC of 50 when allowed to work with dodge? Is that out of line for a 2nd level spell? Will such an easy abuse still make people think Trickery Cleric is bad?

[Man_Over_Game]

I still think it is ultimately less work and invites less metagaming when dodge applies to mirror images as well. Sacrificing a spell and further actions (or build space to make dodge a bonus action) to build an effective defense against only AC attacks seems like a worthy trade. This is especially true when a less complicated application of offensive force is still more effective in most cases than the mirror dodge.

That said, can anyone give me some stats/ probabilities on the consequences of allowing dodge to extend to mirror images? I'd be willing to change my position if this combo works out to add a ridiculous amount to AC. The quick math the books suggest is that dis/advantage adds/subtracts 5 to a passive score. How much effective AC does mirror image add and does it multiply to something like an effective AC of 50 when allowed to work with dodge? Is that out of line for a 2nd level spell? Will such an easy abuse still make people think Trickery Cleric is bad?

Dis/Advantage modifies closer to about 3.33 to your roll when considering the average of the whole range.

Or rather, the difference between Dis/Advantage is greater in the "average" range (which is 5/10/15, depending on what roll you're talking about), results in about a -/+4.5 difference compared to a standard 1d20, but the difference is much less when comparing rolls outside of the average (being less than a 5% difference for some outcomes).

Or, put simply, Advantage has an average roll of 15, which is +4.5 more than the 1d20's average roll of 10.5, but that's a selective scenario and when Advantage is the most potent. When considering all of the other possible ranges, Advantage averages out to be a +3.33 gain.

[No brains]

I was mostly talking about how one of the books suggests expressing advantage on a passive check as +5 to the roll. I forget if it was PHB or DMG. Gotta look it up. Still, thank you for giving me more precise numbers for this exercise.

[Zalabim]

I still think it is ultimately less work and invites less metagaming when dodge applies to mirror images as well. Sacrificing a spell and further actions (or build space to make dodge a bonus action) to build an effective defense against only AC attacks seems like a worthy trade. This is especially true when a less complicated application of offensive force is still more effective in most cases than the mirror dodge.

That said, can anyone give me some stats/ probabilities on the consequences of allowing dodge to extend to mirror images? I'd be willing to change my position if this combo works out to add a ridiculous amount to AC. The quick math the books suggest is that dis/advantage adds/subtracts 5 to a passive score. How much effective AC does mirror image add and does it multiply to something like an effective AC of 50 when allowed to work with dodge? Is that out of line for a 2nd level spell? Will such an easy abuse still make people think Trickery Cleric is bad?

At a glance, Dodge giving disadvantage to attacks on the images as well means no change in the effectiveness of mirror image. Not giving disadvantage means that, like raising your AC, dodging would make mirror image less effective. Effective here means the number of attacks that you avoid thanks to mirror image, normally up to 3. When the image AC and the caster AC is already different, disadvantage has slightly different effects on the chance to be hit as well.

For an example, if you're a wizard with mage armor and you have AC 15, your images have AC 12, so an attack with +6 to hit would hit your wizard 60% of the time, and hit an image 75% of the time. That means 80% of the attacks that hit images would have been a hit on the wizard.

Apply disadvantage to both and the wizard is hit only 36% of the time, an image is hit 56.25% of the time, and so 64% of the attacks that hit an image would have hit the wizard. Mirror Image is a bit less effective.

Apply disadvantage to just the wizard and it's only 48% of the attacks that land on an image that would have hit the wizard. Mirror Image is then even less effective.

If this is a wizard being attacked by a(n) ogre(s), mirror image means taking an average of 20.586 damage from the next 6.5 attacks instead of 53.625, while dodging plus mirror image in the least favorable ruling means taking ~11.75 damage instead of 30.56625. Having the images dodge as well means taking 15.6464 average damage from the next 8.66 attacks instead of 40.72365.

Getting back to vague ideas, allowing dodge to work on the images too means mirror image lasts longer and successfully absorbs closer to the same number of attacks/amount of damage.

[BurgerBeast]

I don’t care either way on how this one is handled, but for me:

The idea of dodging an attack requires the target to move in a way that is particularly designed to avoid the attack. I would assume that the caster is moving in such a way as to avoid the attack, but since the image is in a different location, that same motion is not necessarily a motion that would cause it to dodge the same attack, because it is a different location. It seems equally likely that the image could “Dodge” into the attack by virtue of where it happens to be at the time of the swing.

I say that the “dodge” of the images essentially averages out over time to be a net +0. So, the images do replicate the movement of the caster, but this is not the same as the image dodging the attack.

[BurgerBeast]

A few fun-facts on the topic of Mirror Images:

(Snip)


What’s your source on this?

I’m not surprised that he said this, because it seems obvious to me. Also, it makes no difference to the argument I repeated across 1000 pages, because I was arguing RAW, not JC’s interpretation of RAW.

However, the people who argued against me repeatedly pointed to JC as the authority, so this is a definitive loss by their own standards (not of the entire argument, but of the particular redirect-functionality argument - as you already pointed out). Not that I expect any of them to admit it, or particularly care if they do.

[Dmdork]

Ok, thanks guys. I think that's enough lol. Boy did you guys rip that topic apart and man handle it lol

[Keravath]

I don’t care either way on how this one is handled, but for me:

The idea of dodging an attack requires the target to move in a way that is particularly designed to avoid the attack. I would assume that the caster is moving in such a way as to avoid the attack, but since the image is in a different location, that same motion is not necessarily a motion that would cause it to dodge the same attack, because it is a different location. It seems equally likely that the image could “Dodge” into the attack by virtue of where it happens to be at the time of the swing.

I say that the “dodge” of the images essentially averages out over time to be a net +0. So, the images do replicate the movement of the caster, but this is not the same as the image dodging the attack.

This comes down to how you personally envisage "dodge". The actual action doesn't say.

Have you ever seen a movie where someone on a battlefield is running forward jumping from side to side moving erratically to make themselves a harder target? That is how I personally see dodging in D&D working. Any character from first level of any class can duck, weave, move erratically and make themselves harder to hit. It doesn't require timing or reflexes. However, since the mirror images would be doing the same thing, they would also be harder to hit in general. ... That is how I tend to picture things. The dodge action itself does not say how it works.

However, you are basing your interpretation that the images receive no advantage on the idea that the character sees the specific attack coming and moves so as to avoid the specific attack. Do you know how hard it is to dodge an arrow quickly flying towards you that you catch sight of out of the corner of your eye? Also, how do you dodge the other arrow that is simultaneously coming from the other direction (since all turns happen in one 6 second window even if they are resolved sequentially). Monks can likely do this since they have high dex and have trained to catch arrows. Can the 8 dex paladin in plate armor also dodge specific attacks just as easily?

Anyway, when an interpretation of a rule depends on how you envisage the effect working (in this case dodge) when the rules actually don't tell you how it works then we can run into differences of opionion on implementation :). In this case, the spell says that the images mimic the character's actions so I would include dodge in that since that is what the spell says and because the way I tend to picture dodging there is no contradiction.

[Tanarii]

The "mimics your actions" = Dodge argument doesn't make much sense to me. If anything, that means one would be more likely to step into a sword swing (or whatever) when you moved defensively out of the way. Besides, they all rearrange themselves, quite possibly even moving through each other and the caster in the process.

IMO the attack roll vs the image AC is more just a mechanic, a way to resolve if the image disappears, as opposed to it being automatic.

[Dalebert]

The "mimics your actions" = Dodge argument doesn't make much sense to me. If anything, that means one would be more likely to step into a sword swing (or whatever) when you moved defensively out of the way.

I get the impression you haven't read the post right before yours. It gives what I consider a very good debunking of that notion of the Dodge action. Based on that very good post, I feel even more justified in my personal ruling to allow the images to benefit from dodging.

That said, I still respect a different ruling given how vague the raw is and would not argue with a DM who ruled differently.

[Tanarii]

I get the impression you haven't read the post right before yours. It gives what I consider a very good debunking of that notion of the Dodge action. I read it. It didn't do a very good job of debunking it.

Specifically, it doesn't matter if you're being Dodgy by ducking and weaving in general, or dodgy by ducking and weaving in particular. That point still stands that any movement that makes you safer, makes your images more likely to get hit. Not less.

Again, the attack roll vs AC of the image is just a mechanic to resolve something. Trying to apply "realism" to it isn't going to get you anywhere, because no two people's idea of what's realistic is going to mesh.