Sentinel Feat? (Need help from Players & DMs alike)

[violintides]

I don't know if this is how it is supposed to work, and because I don't think it is, I want to ask your opinions here.

Also, please do not misunderstand me. Sentinel Feat is a tanking feat. I get that.

HOWEVER, I feel like my DM is Meta gaming me by saying that every time we are in combat, he says "Well X NPC is going to stand up and flee because there are so many of you and only one of him, so you getting the jump on him scared him!" And I say "Oh, if he is fleeing, I get a free attack on him due to Sentinel feat". My DM then says, "Oh I forgot you had that feat, they are then going to attack you instead." And he argues that having the Sentinel feat means you are taunting them to attack you, rather than fleeing. But in this situation, he already said they are fleeing, and that they META META META already know to attack me instead of flee.

My belief is that this is purely meta and, if they NOTICE that they are getting attacked even when they are fleeing/carefully disengaging/attacking someone else, THEN I could understand that they would attack me.... but them AUTOMATICALLY KNOWING IT? That feels purely meta.

So, please offer up opinions as DMs and as players. What do you guys think? This has been a HOT TOPIC OF DEBATE between my DM and I. I would rather take another feat if I am never going to get to use my stupid feat because he metas that EVERY villain we ever fight knows about my feat in advance.

Thank you for your help in advance.

[bokodasu]

Good news: You are right. Taunting them to attack you? That makes no sense. The sentinel feat says that YOU are watching for THEM dropping their guard. It's kind of what sentinel means.

Bad news: you probably won't win the argument with a DM who's so very wrong and yet so very convinced they're right. I'd pick another feat.

[violintides]

Good news: You are right. Taunting them to attack you? That makes no sense. The sentinel feat says that YOU are watching for THEM dropping their guard. It's kind of what sentinel means.

Bad news: you probably won't win the argument with a DM who's so very wrong and yet so very convinced they're right. I'd pick another feat.

That's exactly how I felt, and the sad part is that no one is understanding that's how the feat works.
However, I've built my character to basically be a tank/back-up healer.
She's a Cleric with 18 Strength, 15 Dex, 18 Wisdom, and 18 Con. I've got really good stats on her, and now that I've gotten my second feat and keep running into this again and again, it's really frustrating me. I'm glad someone else understands what I'm saying and sees why this is wrong besides me and my boyfriend.

edit: (forgot to finish my thought) All of that being said... I have War Caster as my first feat, and took a second feat of Sentinel and now I feel like Sentinel is totally useless because he keeps meta gaming it, so I am not sure what I would take instead. Thoughts?

[Shadow]

Yeah, on the one hand the metagame he's playing sucks.
On the other hand, he's literally forcing your feat to be relevant in the purpose for which you took it.
It's a tank feat designed to keep an enemy (or enemies) stuck to you. That's the purpose of the feat and that's the purpose the feat is filling with his metagame play.
So really, either way you win. That's why Sentinel is such a powerful feat. If he doesn't metagame it, you get an extra attack. If he does metagame it, the feat is filling the purpose for which you took it.
It's Win/Win when you think about it like that. :smallwink:

[violintides]

Yeah, on the one hand the metagame he's playing sucks.
On the other hand, he's literally forcing your feat to be relevant in the purpose for which you took it.
It's a tank feat designed to keep an enemy (or enemies) stuck to you. That's the purpose of the feat and that's the purpose the feat is filling with his metagame play.
So really, either way you win. That's why Sentinel is such a powerful feat. If he doesn't metagame it, you get an extra attack. If he does metagame it, the feat is filling the purpose for which you took it.
It's Win/Win when you think about it like that. :smallwink:

You're an "Always Look On The Bright Side of Life" kind of guy, aren't you?
I do enjoy a good Monty Python musical number, but I just dislike meta gaming in general.
It sounds like I might have to just deal with it though, considering I can't seem to convince him otherwise.
If they've seen that when they attack anyone else, I attack them, then I wouldn't be so upset.
However, having the meta game really throws me off, because one of the ways I get my kicks is my Sentinel Feat can trigger my War Caster (not always, because it depends on what part of Sentinel is triggered). In which case, I would get to cast a spell for my Op Attack instead of a melee attack.
A free guiding bolt to their face is always nice.

[Shadow]

The official ruling is that the OA from Polearm Master must be taken with the polearm, and that Warcaster doesn't apply.
I'd imagine the same goes for Sentinel as far as RAI is concerned.
Obviously any DM may rule any way he or she wishes, but the intention is that the OA must be taken with the weapon that threatens and provides the other benefits of the feat. Personally I'd rule that it had to be a weapon attack.

[Easy_Lee]

Call your DM a ****** to his face. That ought to straighten him out. In situations like that, my normal response is to reroll a wizard and use every dirty trick in the book to ruin his game. If he's going to do you like that, he's asking for it.

[violintides]

Call your DM a ****** to his face. That ought to straighten him out. In situations like that, my normal response is to reroll a wizard and use every dirty trick in the book to ruin his game. If he's going to do you like that, he's asking for it.

Well, I enjoy spending time with the people I play with, and I don't want to call someone a #$%& when, as a DM myself, I know how much work and effort goes into these games... that being said, I know that a DM's call is the end of it and sometimes I just have to deal with it.

This one thing just really frustrated me and I wondered opinions of others around these parts.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, I enjoy spending time with the people I play with, and I don't want to call someone a #$%& when, as a DM myself, I know how much work and effort goes into these games... that being said, I know that a DM's call is the end of it and sometimes I just have to deal with it.

This one thing just really frustrated me and I wondered opinions of others around these parts.

Being a DM myself, I would call yours a &#&!%+. DMs aren't supposed to alter the game and NPC actions such that players' abilities are rendered ineffective. As a DM, he's supposed to do just the opposite.

[violintides]

The official ruling is that the OA from Polearm Master must be taken with the polearm, and that Warcaster doesn't apply.
I'd imagine the same goes for Sentinel as far as RAI is concerned.
Obviously any DM may rule any way he or she wishes, but the intention is that the OA must be taken with the weapon that threatens and provides the other benefits of the feat. Personally I'd rule that it had to be a weapon attack.

This depends entirely on how it is worded. I will discuss this in another thread, because I am interested to know how people's opinions are of the War Caster feat working with the Sentinel feat. I've posted the thread below to discuss this topic, as it is unrelated to my original post.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?391649-War-Caster-Feat-Sentinel-Feat

[violintides]

Being a DM myself, I would call yours a &#&!%+. DMs aren't supposed to alter the game and NPC actions such that players' abilities are rendered ineffective. As a DM, he's supposed to do just the opposite.

I think I may skip the name calling for now, but I will certainly bring up the thoughts to him in a strongly worded Facebook message.

That being said, I am glad to hear that I am not wrong in what I've been upset about.

[Easy_Lee]

This depends entirely on how it is worded. I will discuss this in another thread, because I am interested to know how people's opinions are of the War Caster feat working with the Sentinel feat. I've posted the thread below to discuss this topic, as it is unrelated to my original post.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?391649-War-Caster-Feat-Sentinel-Feat

AFB but I want to say sentinel uses phrasing to the effect of the target provoking a weapon attack. It's frustrating that many of the different feats which yield bonus opportunities to make an OA don't actually say "opportunity attack."

[odigity]

HOWEVER, I feel like my DM is Meta gaming me by saying that every time we are in combat, he says "Well X NPC is going to stand up and flee because there are so many of you and only one of him, so you getting the jump on him scared him!" And I say "Oh, if he is fleeing, I get a free attack on him due to Sentinel feat". My DM then says, "Oh I forgot you had that feat, they are then going to attack you instead." And he argues that having the Sentinel feat means you are taunting them to attack you, rather than fleeing. But in this situation, he already said they are fleeing, and that they META META META already know to attack me instead of flee.

1) Your DM is a ****. That's obviously not something any of us can fix here.
2) You seem to be confused about the mechanics at play here (you and possibly everyone else in this thread, since no one has mentioned it yet -- which is really surprising). What you described is called an Attack of Opportunity, and it's something everyone can do. It has nothing to do with the Sentinel feat.

EDIT: Dammit. Forgot about the censorship on this forum. I should have said penis instead.

[Shadow]

1) Your DM is a ****. That's obviously not something any of us can fix here.
2) You seem to be confused about the mechanics at play here (you and possibly everyone else in this thread, since no one has mentioned it yet -- which is really surprising). What you described is called an Attack of Opportunity, and it's something everyone can do. It has nothing to do with the Sentinel feat.

It's fairly clear that he's referring the OA that isn't normally allowed via an enemy disengaging, but is allowed with Sentinel.

[odigity]

It's fairly clear that he's referring the OA that isn't normally allowed via an enemy disengaging, but is allowed with Sentinel.

He never mentioned the enemy disengaging, but I can see how some would read that between the lines. (I personally don't like disengaging because it leaves most chars/creatures with only one movement which isn't enough to "run away" realistically.)

[Louro]

1) Yeah, the disengage action is just like a suicide unless you are a rogue or a very fast monk.

2) Don't you discuss rules at the table? In every group I have played but one this was the usual way to solve this kind of stuff. Sometimes the DM will go for something because he needs it in that way, but usually we read, share opinions, give examples, ideas and come up with the optimal solution we can find.
Can't you bring up the discussion at the table before starting to play?

[Dalebert]

The official ruling is that the OA from Polearm Master must be taken with the polearm, and that Warcaster doesn't apply.
I'd imagine the same goes for Sentinel as far as RAI is concerned.

I wouldn't imagine that. The logic is sound for Polarm Master, a feat that's tied to only specific types of weapons. Sentinel is not tied to a type of weapon. It merely says opponents can't avoid triggering the AoO you normally get via the disengage action. It should synergize well with war caster.

[Once a Fool]

My phone ate my previous attempt to respond. I'll try to be more brief, this time.

Two seperate issues, here:

1: The feat. Designed to account for DM decisions, working as intended. Even so, you can force a foe to (try to) flee with spells like command (1st level cleric, easy to obtain). Or you can go the other route and make a foe REALLY regret its decision to engage by grappling and shoving prone. That will ruin their day.

2: The metagaming DM. Usually a sign of inexperience. Possibly fear of improvisation or possibly overcompensation (by means of exerting control) for less than comprehensive rules-knowledge.

Will probably grow out of it as s/he grows as a DM, but you could help speed things up, if desired. Here's a couple of ways:

Use the "yes, and..." improv rule to help the DM get more used to improvising. Also, instead of arguing rules (should it come up), be a subtle resource: "That's an interesting variant. I'd like to explore its implications after the game." Not only is that not confrontational, it subtly lets the DM know you know the rules and can be used as a reference AND it gets the DM thinking about how the rules work together (especially if you actually do discuss it after the game).

[violintides]

1) Yeah, the disengage action is just like a suicide unless you are a rogue or a very fast monk.

2) Don't you discuss rules at the table? In every group I have played but one this was the usual way to solve this kind of stuff. Sometimes the DM will go for something because he needs it in that way, but usually we read, share opinions, give examples, ideas and come up with the optimal solution we can find.
Can't you bring up the discussion at the table before starting to play?

Unfortunately, I have tried to bring this up as a discussion and it seems like every time he says "We'll talk about it later" then we never talk about it. I wanted to ask opinions beforehand and research to see if anyone else has run into this (as I did read everything about the Polearm Master feat + Sentinel feat discussion as well as the 'does the Sentinel OP attack trigger BEFORE the attack that triggered it hits, or after?').

I wanted to have something concrete to discuss with him before approaching him as every time it has been brought up before, it has been tabled for another discussion and still not discussed.

[violintides]

My phone ate my previous attempt to respond. I'll try to be more brief, this time.

Two seperate issues, here:

1: The feat. Designed to account for DM decisions, working as intended. Even so, you can force a foe to (try to) flee with spells like command (1st level cleric, easy to obtain). Or you can go the other route and make a foe REALLY regret its decision to engage by grappling and shoving prone. That will ruin their day.

2: The metagaming DM. Usually a sign of inexperience. Possibly fear of improvisation or possibly overcompensation (by means of exerting control) for less than comprehensive rules-knowledge.

Will probably grow out of it as s/he grows as a DM, but you could help speed things up, if desired. Here's a couple of ways:

Use the "yes, and..." improv rule to help the DM get more used to improvising. Also, instead of arguing rules (should it come up), be a subtle resource: "That's an interesting variant. I'd like to explore its implications after the game." Not only is that not confrontational, it subtly lets the DM know you know the rules and can be used as a reference AND it gets the DM thinking about how the rules work together (especially if you actually do discuss it after the game).

I'm not really a subtle person, and as a woman, I know that men typically do not pick up on my subtle hints-- with the exception of my V:tM DM Storyteller (but that's another story!).

Anyway, I wanted to know if this sort of thing was frowned upon, as it is in most gaming circles I have asked or been a part of. Meta gaming drives me crazy-- the same way certain DMs will sometimes say "Oh, this villain decided to bring silence because he knows all of you are spellcasters even though he's never heard of you or encountered you before" or something awful like that. This is the problem I am running into, and I find it extremely frustrating to pick something and never get a chance to use it...

[Maxilian]

That's exactly how I felt, and the sad part is that no one is understanding that's how the feat works.
However, I've built my character to basically be a tank/back-up healer.
She's a Cleric with 18 Strength, 15 Dex, 18 Wisdom, and 18 Con. I've got really good stats on her, and now that I've gotten my second feat and keep running into this again and again, it's really frustrating me. I'm glad someone else understands what I'm saying and sees why this is wrong besides me and my boyfriend.

edit: (forgot to finish my thought) All of that being said... I have War Caster as my first feat, and took a second feat of Sentinel and now I feel like Sentinel is totally useless because he keeps meta gaming it, so I am not sure what I would take instead. Thoughts?

My recomendation, talk with your DM before the game start, come with what the feat say and read it together, explain your DM what he have been doing and why does it bother you, if it doesn't work... try getting a different feat

[Shadow]

This is the problem I am running into, and I find it extremely frustrating to pick something and never get a chance to use it...

But as I said before, you are using it. You might not be getting that extra attack, but you are absolutely using it.
You already said that you're the tank/back-up healer.
You're the tank.
You're the one that is supposed to keep targets stuck on you and not killing your party.
That is exactly what is happening. The feat is being used.
If you didn't have the feat, your DM would have enemies running away from you. If enemies run away from you, you are not doing your job as the tank.
Killing things is someone else's job. It's nice when you do, but it isn't your priority. Your priority is keeping enemies from killing your party. Your DM's metagame isn't hindering that purpose, he's helping you do it.
I understand your frustration with it, but I think you're so ticked off about the metagame he's playing that you're ignoring the fact that his metagame is making you perform better in your designated role.

Not getting that extra attack in certain situations and not using the feat are two completely different things.
If you trade that feat for something else, he's gong to have enemies disengaging from you, just like he tries to now before you remind him that you have the feat. When this starts to happen, you will be a worse tank than you are now.

[violintides]

My recomendation, talk with your DM before the game start, come with what the feat say and read it together, explain your DM what he have been doing and why does it bother you, if it doesn't work... try getting a different feat

Yes, my plan is to discuss this with him, but my question is what other feat would be viable for my situation? I am a Cleric-- who is built as a tank moreso than a Caster (I take buff spells like Shield of Faith, Bless, Aid, etc., and touch spells like Inflict Wounds or Cure Wounds, and AOE spells like Spirit Guardians), and she typically finds herself to be the tank as well as the healer. Luckily, we had a new person join this week who rolled a Cleric who seems to be rolling more as a Caster than a Tank, so I plan to put myself fully buffed into the fray now and, even if he meta games the Sentinel Feat as he has, I will still be a bad arse tank.

So I will ask again, what other feats could you possibly see being useful for a Cleric in my situation?

[violintides]

But as I said before, you are using it. You might not be getting that extra attack, but you are absolutely using it.
You already said that you're the tank/back-up healer.
You're the tank.
You're the one that is supposed to keep targets stuck on you and not killing your party.
That is exactly what is happening. The feat is being used.
If you didn't have the feat, your DM would have enemies running away from you. If enemies run away from you, you are not doing your job as the tank.
Killing things is someone else's job. It's nice when you do, but it isn't your priority. Your priority is keeping enemies from killing your party. Your DM's metagame isn't hindering that purpose, he's helping you do it.
I understand your frustration with it, but I think you're so ticked off about the metagame he's playing that you're ignoring the fact that his metagame is making you perform better in your designated role.

Not getting that extra attack in certain situations and not using the feat are two completely different things.

You're right in the fact that the meta game is solely the thing that annoys me. I have been trying to not let it annoy me but it's really hard as a gamer who enjoys to roleplay in D&D and other games like V:tM, meta gaming is strongly frowned upon in the people I play with, and it can sometimes be hard to look at it as helpful rather than a drawback.

*edit: It's strongly frowned upon with EVERY OTHER GROUP except this one, I should mention. :)

[Once a Fool]

I'm not really a subtle person, and as a woman, I know that men typically do not pick up on my subtle hints-- with the exception of my V:tM DM Storyteller (but that's another story!).

Well, you can always be blunt, too. :)

"Look, your constant metagaming is a real problem for me. You're making it impossible for me to immerse myself in your world."

I personally like subtlety best because it doesn't require that hints be picked up (that, and blunt confrontation often makes the other person defensive, instead of receptive). But, then, I'm primarily a DM, so manipulation is just how I roll. :)


Anyway, I wanted to know if this sort of thing was frowned upon, as it is in most gaming circles I have asked or been a part of. Meta gaming drives me crazy-- the same way certain DMs will sometimes say "Oh, this villain decided to bring silence because he knows all of you are spellcasters even though he's never heard of you or encountered you before" or something awful like that.

Well, no villain in his right mind would forgo silence (if it was available) when faced with even the possibility that just one of the PCs is a spellcaster. Rationales aside, though, if, as I'm guessing, the metagaming is a byproduct of the DM's inexperience, the only way it will stop is when the DM learns better. One way or another.


This is the problem I am running into, and I find it extremely frustrating to pick something and never get a chance to use it...

Trust me, if you grab and shove enough foes who should have run into the dirt, this won't be an issue. You will become a trap that they can neither effectively engage, nor flee from and they will not want to be anywhere near you.

[Once a Fool]

I am a Cleric--So I will ask again, what other feats could you possibly see being useful for a Cleric in my situation?

Wait--you're a cleric?!

Command is a first level spell and it can MAKE someone (try to) run away.

[violintides]

Well, you can always be blunt, too. :)

"Look, your constant metagaming is a real problem for me. You're making it impossible for me to immerse myself in your world."

I personally like subtlety best because it doesn't require that hints be picked up (that, and blunt confrontation often makes the other person defensive, instead of receptive). But, then, I'm primarily a DM, so manipulation is just how I roll. :)



Well, no villain in his right mind would forgo silence (if it was available) when faced with even the possibility that just one of the PCs is a spellcaster. Rationales aside, though, if, as I'm guessing, the metagaming is a byproduct of the DM's inexperience, the only way it will stop is when the DM learns better. One way or another.



Trust me, if you grab and shove enough foes who should have run into the dirt, this won't be an issue. You will become a trap that they can neither effectively engage, nor flee from and they will not want to be anywhere near you.

The crazy thing is that everyone keeps stating that it is his inexperience; but this guy has boxes and boxes and boxes of these beautiful hand-made tiles and cave walls and temple bits and everything that is just stunning (whereas I am a more inexperienced DM who usually goes by RAW with a few house rules here and there and one of those big $50 manilla grid mats which can have maps drawn on them with water soluble markers and washed away after each session).

He is very clearly experienced with years of DMing, but I fear it may be an inexperience with 5e rules specifically.

His argument is that the 5e Sentinel Feat is a carry over of the 4e Sentinel Feat. Since I could not find any 4e Sentinel Feat, I assume that he is talking about the Polearm Gamble feat, which states this:

Prerequisites: Str 15, Wis 15, level 11+

Benefit: When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn.[PHB:204]

Which seems entirely incorrect. If there is some feat that is similar to 5e's Sentinel feat that he may be referring to, please let me know-- but I have only played Pathfinder with him in the past, and I've avoided 4e like the plague that it was (personal opinion, clearly)

[violintides]

Wait--you're a cleric?!

Command is a first level spell and it can MAKE someone (try to) run away.

Exactly, and since I had not thought of things like this previously, my plan is to take this spell every single day I rest and from now on piss him off with COMMANDing everything we engage to run away. ;) Maybe then he'll stop metagaming me. Who knows.

[Dalebert]

You're right in the fact that the meta game is solely the thing that annoys me.

This feels like a stupid question so please forgive but have you tried keeping it very simple and asking "How does he know I have this ability? Is this [goblin, gnoll, whatever] a mind-reader? Why is he treating me differently than any other opponent? Seriously, this should be an open and shut case. You're right to be upset about it. I would be over a DM that kept giving special powers to opponents that specifically overrode my own abilities. You should at least get the extra OA once before the enemy realizes disengage doesn't work on you.

[Louro]

Also, there is always the alternative storytelling option.
Instead of enemies not fleeing from you cause you have the sentinel feat he could drive it with a bit of flavour like:
- The kobold runs away from you.
- I get my AoO

- You realize the elven fighter is willing to run away from you but he seems aware (perception roll) of your perfect stance so he is not giving you a free opening on his guard.
- Nice, I say him: "Torm blesses those who decide to die with honor"

As many have already said, you are doing the tanking thing way beyond the expectations.

[violintides]

This feels like a stupid question so please forgive but have you tried keeping it very simple and asking "How does he know I have this ability? Is this [goblin, gnoll, whatever] a mind-reader? Why is he treating me differently than any other opponent?
Yes, I did ask, and that was why my opening post specifically said that the DM's reasoning for them attacking me rather than doing whatever action they wanted to do originally is because he claims that my Sentinel Feat means I am "taunting them", and that I am "threatening them with an OP attack if they do anything else".

Seriously, this should be an open and shut case. You're right to be upset about it. I would be over a DM that kept giving special powers to opponents that specifically overrode my own abilities. You should at least get the extra OA once before the enemy realizes disengage doesn't work on you.
Yes, my specific reasoning I gave to the DM about me being upset is that I can see how they might be more cautious and maybe watch me more by attacking me instead of my allies, but only after they've had that interaction with me to know I watch them like a hawk (as the word "sentinel" implies) for an opening/op attack.

[Once a Fool]

The crazy thing is that everyone keeps stating that it is his inexperienc

I'm not stating--merely making an educated guess.


but this guy has boxes and boxes and boxes of these beautiful hand-made tiles and cave walls and temple bits and everything that is just stunning (whereas I am a more inexperienced DM who usually goes by RAW with a few house rules here and there and one of those big $50 manilla grid mats which can have maps drawn on them with water soluble markers and washed away after each session).

Toys do not grant experience. Not since 1e, anyway.


He is very clearly experienced with years of DMing

This is not so clear to me, but I don't know him.


but I fear it may be an inexperience with 5e rules specifically.

His argument is that the 5e Sentinel Feat is a carry over of the 4e Sentinel Feat. Since I could not find any 4e Sentinel Feat, I assume that he is talking about the Polearm Gamble feat, which states this:

Prerequisites: Str 15, Wis 15, level 11+

Benefit: When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn.[PHB:204]

Which seems entirely incorrect. If there is some feat that is similar to 5e's Sentinel feat that he may be referring to, please let me know-- but I have only played Pathfinder with him in the past, and I've avoided 4e like the plague that it was (personal opinion, clearly)

I think he may be thinking of the fighter class feature, which let a fighter stop creatures' movement with opportunity attacks. Granted, I have no idea what that's got to do with having everyone engage your character (especially since the feature did not trigger off of marks; they had a different way to punish those), or, for that matter, anything else in a 5e game.


Exactly, and since I had not thought of things like this previously, my plan is to take this spell every single day I rest and from now on piss him off with COMMANDing everything we engage to run away. ;) Maybe then he'll stop metagaming me. Who knows.

Oh, I'm sure he'll love it! For the cost of a level 1 slot, you'll effectively deny a creature it's entire turn AND probably get a good hit in, as well.

[violintides]

I'm not stating--merely making an educated guess.



Toys do not grant experience. Not since 1e, anyway.



This is not so clear to me, but I don't know him.



I think he may be thinking of the fighter class feature, which let a fighter stop creatures' movement with opportunity attacks. Granted, I have no idea what that's got to do with having everyone engage your character (especially since the feature did not trigger off of marks; they had a different way to punish those), or, for that matter, anything else in a 5e game.



Oh, I'm sure he'll love it! For the cost of a level 1 slot, you'll effectively deny a creature it's entire turn AND probably get a good hit in, as well.

I am so very excited to have the opportunity for this, thanks for the brilliant pain-in-the-arse suggestion that I am sure my DM will love every one of you for. *maniacal laughing*

[Once a Fool]

It occurs to me that your DM might be mixing in a 4e-style mark while trying to wrap his mind around the Sentinel feat. Marks were frequently fluffed as taunts. And all defender classes had some means of punishing those who ignored the mark.

However, The Sentinel feat far more closely resembles the fighter's Combat Superiority class feature, which was specifically designed to stop un-marked enemies from moving past (or away) and punish them for trying. Any taunting was extra.

[Dalebert]

I don't suppose you also have a way to get access to Dissonant Whispers? :smallbiggrin: I guess that would take either a dip or another feat.

[violintides]

I don't suppose you also have a way to get access to Dissonant Whispers? :smallbiggrin: I guess that would take either a dip or another feat.

The issue with Dissonant Whispers is that they would immediately use their reaction to run away; and I am not allowed to use my reaction when it is my turn, even if I would normally get an AoO per the rules of 5e.

So I think that would be a waste, likely, as even if I used it when it was not my turn as a reaction, and they ran away, I wouldn't get the AoO from Sentinel of them running away, because I would've already used my reaction for DW.

[MarkTriumphant]

The issue with Dissonant Whispers is that they would immediately use their reaction to run away; and I am not allowed to use my reaction when it is my turn, even if I would normally get an AoO per the rules of 5e.

That was the case in 4e, and maybe before that, but I have not been able to find anything in the PHB that says that reactions can only be out of your own turn.

[violintides]

That was the case in 4e, and maybe before that, but I have not been able to find anything in the PHB that says that reactions can only be out of your own turn.

You are correct, my apologies, I just read that reactions can be on your turn OR another's.

edit: fixed spelled error

[metaridley18]

In the vein of this same topic, when should PCs (or NPCs) be aware of the general combat capabilities of non standard foes? (EG "If you leave that foe's reach, they'll attack you" for Sentinel, "If you enter that foe's reach, they'll attack you" for Polearm Master, or "these creatures are extra quick and may be able to take extra actions" for Goblins.)

I generally run that as a relevant knowledge or Insight check, or the Battle Master's observational ability for PCs. I think that being able to surprise foes is an important part of the game. Granted, this loses efficacy as the party gains real life experience with the game, but hopefully they won't meta-game too terribly much.

However, if your party has Polearm Master or Sentinel, not EVERY foe in the universe is going to be surprised by it. So when you're a DM, how do you see if the NPCs are surprised? Some things, like Polearm Master on a glaive wielder, might become so universal that it's not a surprising tactic, it's just basic logic from a trained combatant. At what point does that become true for every feat?

[violintides]

In the vein of this same topic, when should PCs (or NPCs) be aware of the general combat capabilities of non standard foes? (EG "If you leave that foe's reach, they'll attack you" for Sentinel, "If you enter that foe's reach, they'll attack you" for Polearm Master, or "these creatures are extra quick and may be able to take extra actions" for Goblins.)

I generally run that as a relevant knowledge or Insight check, or the Battle Master's observational ability for PCs. I think that being able to surprise foes is an important part of the game. Granted, this loses efficacy as the party gains real life experience with the game, but hopefully they won't meta-game too terribly much.

However, if your party has Polearm Master or Sentinel, not EVERY foe in the universe is going to be surprised by it. So when you're a DM, how do you see if the NPCs are surprised? Some things, like Polearm Master on a glaive wielder, might become so universal that it's not a surprising tactic, it's just basic logic from a trained combatant. At what point does that become true for every feat?

This is indeed a fair question. I would be interested to hear other's responses.

[metaridley18]

This is indeed a fair question. I would be interested to hear other's responses.

Reading your OP, that was the first question that came to my mind. I think your DM handled this specific instant poorly, but as a DM, it's fair that sometimes experienced PCs or NPCs are familiar with mechanics (or rather their effect on the game world) and can tailor their response to the situation.

Some of the time, your enemies will know that you have the Sentinel feat and react accordingly (and that's okay and good game play).

Plus, as a DM, once players gain experience in tactics, that's when it's really fun to take a typical enemy and reskin it as another typical enemy ("Why on earth did that goblin just breathe fire?!??").

[Easy_Lee]

This is indeed a fair question. I would be interested to hear other's responses.

I would handle it like so: insight check with advantage of the creature or player has encountered the tactic before.