Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 lugubriousapathy Jul 02, 2015 14:47:12	Hello, before I ask my question, I'd like to give a little background.  I am not an experienced player by any means whatsoever.  About 5 years ago, me and some close friends decided to try and learn D&D for the first time using 4E.  We played maybe 20 sessions before life started getting in the way and I hadn't played again until recently using 5E.  However, out of my current group, I am the only person who has ever played a tabletop game before (and probably not very well at that).  We just finished MoP at our last session and we started PotA last night--this time with a new DM that played a character in the last adventure.  The point being, my entire group is still very new at this and we have been trying to all work together to interpret and agree on rules.  To avoid confusion, we left out OAs in the MoP session to ease our learning as much as possible.  However, we began using them last night for the first time and almost everyone had different interpretations--it all came down to the sentinel feat my Tempest Cleric has and it ended up in an almost 30 minute discussion with absolutely no resolution.  I don't want to be an individual that constantly questions the DM because I know that they ultimately have the final ruling, but considering that this is the first time any of us had used OAs, feats, and reaction attacks I think it's fair to ask some people that have more experience regarding their interpretations.  Sorry for the long intro, I'll get to the point now:   The 3 zombies we were fighting were lined up against each other in a row.  Exactly opposite of them were a sorcerer, my cleric, and a barbarian.  On my turn, I attacked the zombie in front of the sorcerer in hopes that he would leave the spell caster alone.  I had the 2nd lowest initiative on character rolls, followed by the sorcerer, and the zombies had the lowest overall.  The sorcerer made an attack against the zombie in front of him and it was now the zombies' turn.  The zombie in front of the sorcerer made an attack against the sorcerer.  Immediately following, I informed the DM that I get to make an attack against the zombie according to the 3rd ability of the Sentinel feat.  Since he wasn't familiar with the feat, he immediately ruled that I could not make an opportunity attack because it is only allowed when a creature moves out of reach (unfortunately, part of this confusion is my fault because I wasn't as familiar with the term "reaction" as I should have been and specifically termed it as an OA).  I tried to explain that the feat was an exception to the general OA rule which he disagreed with entirely.  We continued on in this manner with him saying that the feat was too OP because I get to chain attacks on any enemies with 5 feet of me and there wasn't any possible way for me to slip in the attack in a round that only lasts 6 seconds because we should be viewing everything as though it was almost happening simultaneously.  At this point, I didn't realize that we only got one reaction per turn and I agreed that it seemed implausible that I would get an attack on the zombie that hit the sorcerer, attempt to defend against the zombie directly in front of me, and also get an attack on the zombie that would attack the barbarian.  ( I later clarified the one reaction per round, but it was after we decided to not use the ability period and continue on).  After more discussion he determined that the only possible way that I would be allowed to perform the attack was if the zombie in front of me was also allowed an opportunity attack.  Once again, we went back to clarifying that my ability to attack was a the result of a special circumstance that the zombie did not have.  We went over that for a little bit until finally he agreed that the zombie directly in front of me would not be able to make an OA.  However, he ruled that because I dropped my guard to attack the zombie in front of the sorcerer, the zombie in front of me would be able to attack me with advantage.  The discussion had become, frankly, ridiculous at that point and we finally agreed to not use the feat in play that night and that we would research it, but the general consensus is that what he decided after looking into it was the final decision.   Anyway, I'm sorry for such a long post but I would really appreciate some help with understanding how this mechanic would work from people who have a lot more experience than me and the others in my group.  If there are any other oddities that might arise by using the sentinel feat, I would also be grateful for clarification on those situations in case they come up at a later date.  Thanks in advance for the response!
#2 Danny_Montanny Jul 02, 2015 15:16:43	Your intended use is exactly how the feat works. Feats are strong, they're suppose to be. They're special and you're giving up your charactet's growth (the ability score increase) to train to do something cool.   Just keep in mind that the rules of the feat must be met. The creature must be within 5 feet and must attack a character who doesn't also have Sentinel. The attack is NOT an Opportunity Attack. It's simply a melee weapon attack that uses your reaction (of which you only get one until your next turn).   You should not suffer any penalties for this thing your character has trained his butt off to do. A Sentinel is steadfast in the thick of battle and has trained to fight multiple foes.
#3 Nevvur Jul 02, 2015 15:35:29	1) Bullet point 3 allows you to make a melee weapon attack, not an opportunity attack. It's a slight distinction, but an important one. For instance, this attack does not reduce the creature's speed to 0, because it is not an Opportunity Attack. 2) This melee weapon attack spends your reaction, just like an Opportunity Attack. Regardless, you only get one reaction until the start of your next turn.   Sentinel is an awesome feat, for sure. Since you only get one reaction it's not overpowered, and enemies should not be awarded advantage to attack you because you use it.
#4 lugubriousapathy Jul 02, 2015 16:47:39	Danny_Montanny wrote:
#5 jaelis Jul 02, 2015 16:55:14	If your dm thinks the feat is too good he's within his rights to ban or modify it. But if he does you should have tbe chance to take a different  feat or a stat bump.
#6 lugubriousapathy Jul 02, 2015 21:20:12	jaelis wrote:
#7 Nevvur Jul 03, 2015 0:00:35	I'd stick with Sentinel. It's a sweet feat. Just make sure everyone at the table understands it. The DM probably won't ban it once they all get how it works.   If you want to be tanky, you might also consider Resilient (Constitution) or Shield Master. The former will help you maintain concentration on your spells, the latter will shore up your dex saves. Also, be aware that with Shield Master you can use the bonus action Shove before the Attack action, so you and your allies can gain advantage on melee attacks against prone targets. Note, however, that prone targets will impose disadvantage to ranged attacks made against them by attackers more than 5 feet away.
#8 Rhym Jul 11, 2015 5:41:51	Try to explain (or show them this thread) that there is no taunt for a tanky character in D&D, only abilities that discourage/disadvantage enemies from attacking the people you are trying to protect.   The point of sentinel is not to add damage, it's to punish enemies trying to attack the people you are trying to protect.   Here is a simulated encounter. Keep in mind a character has x feet of movement, one action (can be broken up into several attacks), one possible bonus action, one possible reaction and only one possible opportunity attack per round.   You're tanking 3 enemies. 2 of them decide to move away from you and attack the sorcerer. The third is within range of him and tries to attack him directly (while still being in your range).   - Once one of them moves away, it provokes your only allowable opportunity attack from you (which any melee character would have gotten anyway). If you hit, his movement is now 0. He can now hit anyone within range, but the intent is that he can hit you instead. This is the main advantage of sentinel, making it impossible for a dangerous enemy you're tanking to just ignore your feeble hit and just do whatever he wants anyway. Not allowing him to disengage either is more of a way to prevent someone from fleeing. I will grant that it is possible to rule that he moved one space, and is now possibly not in range of anyone and not able to hit back, but I belive the intent is that you stop him as he tries to move instead. I can be bothered to look up the wording from OAs right now.   - The second one moves away, you have already used your OA and can do nothing to stop him. Here you are no different than any other character that has used his OA.   - The third one hits the sorcerer (he should have moved away from you at this point though, negating sentinel, but he's a zombie and they aren't that great at tactics). You can use your only reaction to hit him, punishing him for attacking someone you were protecting. This allows you to better protect rogues and such fighting near you by (slightly) dissuading enemies from attacking your squishy frontline fighters. I say slightly because taking a normal 1h hit isn't that big of a deal, and it might be better to attack the rogue anyway despite your free reaction hit.   In general sentinel is a good feat for a tanky character, but it's far from overpowered. And feats require you to give up a +2 stat boost so they should be effective. Basically your entire group is wrong and you picked a good feat for what you seem to want to do.
#9 Nevvur Jul 11, 2015 19:02:08	Rhym wrote:
#10 El_Condoro Jul 12, 2015 2:43:24	The OA and the dot point 3 of Sentinel are both reactions - the character can still only use one or the other, not both, on its turn. The feat gives extra options - OA or attack when an ally within 5 ft. is attacked - but it doesn't give an extra attack.