I have the Sentinel feat and I make my reaction attack against something attacking a target that is not me, etc. If I do enough damage to KO or kill the attacking something, does that negate its attack or does that attack still go through?
In other words, is the reaction from the Sentinel feat a preventionary tactic or a punishment?
The part of Sentinel in question:
When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doessn ’t have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.
Uh, good question.
Checking the reaction rules, I don't think their is a definitive answer in the RAW.
Reading the Sentinel bit on page 170
When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against at 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.
Illithidbix wrote:
RCanine wrote:
I think it's tied up in what 'making an attack' is.
Sentinel says, When a creature makes an attack against a creature other than you, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the attacking creature.
As this isn't an attack of opprotunity, we'll ignore the AoO rules and the implication that it might interrupt.
So what is making an attack?
1. Choose a target.
2. Determine modifiers
3. Resolve the attack.
"If there's ever any question, the rule is simple. If you're making an attack roll you're making an attack."
So the feat, at least in my reading, allows a reaction after the attack roll. Not before.
And trust me, I'm biased. I've been leaning heavily towards giving my rogue sentinel. This thread was the first time I questioned rather or not it interrupts. I'm kinda bummed that it probably doesn't 
In that case it would interrupt, since it'd trigger when the attack roll is made, not when the attack roll is resolved.
EDIT: And before it's brought up, there's plenty of cases where something will trigger "when you make an attack roll but before you see the result", setting the precident.
From a rules-analysis standpoint, I would agree with Demosthenes2054. The triggering attack must occur, or be occuring for the feat to trigger, so killing the attacker would not cancel the attack.
However, as a DM, I would almost certainly rule that it does interrupt the triggering attack, because that would be more fun for the players.
Yunru wrote:
No no.. I probably shouldn't have added that quote.
Think of it this way.
Making an Attack is step 1. Choose a target. Step 2. Determine modifiers Step 3. Resolve the attack.
Resolving the attack is part of Making an Attack. You're reacting to the full package.
The if there's ever any question bit really isn't important to this topic. I think it's just there to clarify that spells can be attacks etc. Though it does allow for Sentinel to trigger off spell attacks which is nice 
Right but the trigger here is when someone makes an attack against a target other than you within 5'.
Making an Attack is something clearly defined in the rules and the resolution phase is part of it.
Making an Attack is a thing with structure. Your argument is like saying nailing a board into a piece of wood is making a house. It's part of the steps you go through in order to make a house. But it's all of the steps together that is the action, making a house.
When someone makes a house within five feet of you you can drink some coffee and take a break is different then when someone nails a board within five feet of you you can drink some coffee.
No because you can nail wood without making a house. If you make an attack roll you are, without fail, making an attack.
Making an attack is not every part of the steps, that's resolving an attack. However, every step is part of making an attack, thus any part can trigger Sentinel.
Maybe my anology was bad but Making an Attack is still something clearly spelled out in the rules. Choosing a target is not making an attack, determining the modifiers is not making an attack, resolving the attack is not making an attack. These three things together is 'Making an Attack'.
Sentinel gives you the reaction hit when someone 'makes an attack'. Post-tense. It's not when someone is in the process of making an attack.
To go back to my house anology. You get your reaction when someone makes a house. The house is done. Finished. You get coffee. You don't get your coffee break when the plans are drawn up. That would be 'when someone is making a house'.
Sentinel isn't when someone is making an attack against someone nearby. Post-tense. Natural language.
True me, I want you to be right. But find some better evidence.
Nope, "makes an attack" is quite clearly future tense.
And to quote your quote to use against your definition of "making an attack":
Alright, I'll agree that it's ambiguous. You read it one way yunru and I read it a different way. I sent a tweet to the developers, maybe we'll get a response to clear things up.
So they get to roll an attack roll, then they get interrupted and die, then they get to continue with their turn. If they miss, they miss, if they hit they deal however much a dead version of that kind of a monster deals...usually nothing.
If Sentinel triggers when someone makes an attack and you interupt that attack and kill them then the attack never happened and thus they aren't dead so the universe will implode due to the paradox...
In other words, after the attack IMO
Steeldoom wrote:
Yunru wrote:
By my reading the first. Once a creature rolls an attack roll, they've commited to the attack, successful or otherwise. Thus, even if the rules didn't clearly state it, I would rule the creature is "making an attack", which is all that is neede for Sentinel to give you a free swing, potentially interrupting the rest of the attack by killing (or otherwise disabling) the attacker.
Its a reaction not an interrupt, actions that interrupt specifically state that fact.
Opportunity Attacks are an example of this with the following note.
The attack interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occuring right before the creature leaves your reach.
For what it's worth, I would rule that the sentinel reaction occurs before the 'attacking creature' lands its blow and would not be able to make its attack roll (Step 3 of the Attack 'process') if it is killed by that reaction.
I base that on the word used: making. Not 'has made', 'did make', or simply 'made' but 'making' - it is occuring in the continuous present tense and the sentinel reaction occurs at Step 1 and/or 2 of the attacking creature's attack, whichever seems the most logical point at which the character with the sentinel feat observes that the attacking creature is distracted by preparing to make its attack attempt and decides using its reaction is the desired option.
But now you're playing it the other way, 'is preparing to make an attack' isn't anymore 'makes an attack' then ' has made an attack.'
It's a reaction that doesn't interrupt and it's not an AoO on a feat that does other things to your base AoO. It's either a gross oversight that it's not an AoO or quite intentional that it doesn't interrupt.
Jeremy Crawford responded to my tweet. Said he has it take place after the triggering hit resolves.
So his interpretation is that it does not interrupt.
A strange sentinel if he/she only strikes *after* the enemy has struck. The description of the feat implies a more proactive approach to me.
Yunru wrote:
Mike rules before. Reactions interrupt and then the action continues. When the attack is MADE (but not COMPLETED) is when the reaction happens.
Reaction don't inherently interrupt even though OA do. I'd rule that Sentinel reaction comes after the trigerring attack.
If sentinel interrupts then a battle master fighter gets better. Monster attacks ally. Battle master attacks and uses his battlemaster ability and pushes monster away thus the monsters attack is invalidated...
Sounds like a fair use of a superiority die to me...
El_Condoro wrote:
I was hoping for a more concrete answer to this question -- I hate the idea of players going from AL table to AL table and having their character work differently. How frustrating would that be! So I sought out both Mearls and Crawford on Twitter (and probably annoyed them both) for a clarification. Here's how the conversation went:
The Official-ish Answer to the Sentinel Problem
For anyone who (like me) finds this thread in a Google search in the future, the short answer is: RAW has Sentinel trigger after the attack is resolved.
I would rule that it happens after the attack is made, but before the resolution or damage / effect, what have you is made; thereby possibly preventing that creatures' target from taking damage.
There are several different effects, for instance bardic inspiration, the guidance spell, etc. etc. rinse repeat.
I get the impression that it's essentially letting you take an opportunity action in a special scenario.
In my opinion, the bad guy swings at their intended target, and you react fast enough to pop them in the face; if that caps them or knocks them out or whatever, then they fall down before their attack connects.
Ariamythe wrote:
I agree with you FrogReaver about the inconsistency in AL tables. I would hope AL judges (at least those at cons and in stores) would have the sense to know that they need to play RAW whenever possible. I know I will.
Ariamythe wrote:
Ariamythe wrote:
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.
Can anyone explain the bolded part to me? I read that as saying if two PCs take the Sentineel feat, the feat no longer works.
Any idea why this would be the case?
DrDragonlance wrote:
DrDragonlance wrote:
DrDragonlance wrote:
Yunru wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Ariamythe wrote:
I counter that the Shield spell triggers "when you are hit" due to the fact that otherwise, players would be whining that they wasted a spell slot to cast Shield when they would have been missed regardless. in other words, if a monster rolls a 14 on the d20, a player would immediately cast Shield. Then the DM would say that it missed. However, what the DM didn't say is that the monster's total would have been 18 which would have missed the PC in question, without the use of the Shield spell.
Shield being worded the way it is prevents that scenario from happening. And that's it.
Does it imply precedence? Only that the developers came up with some scenarios of how things might play out, but not scenarios for how *everything* will play out.
I think the attack is supposed to happen after the damage is dealt, I can't find any evidence that supports interupting that attack. Though it was my initial understanding of the feat, I no longer think interupting the attack was ever the intention of the feat.
The sentinel fluff has less to do with guarding your charge but more with using an opening in the opponents defenses.
I haven't read all of this thread but "against the attacking creature" at the end of the Sentinel description implies the attack is happening, rather than has already happened. The attack may still be made if the sentinel's reaction fails to prevent it but the mechanical order would be i) attacker declares attack, ii) sentinel elects to use a reaction against the attacker, iii) sentinel's attack is resolved, iv) attacker completes attack if the creature is still alive.