DM Ruling

[Callin]

Ok so I dont agree with this but for the sake of argument I let it go and I was wondering how yall would rule this.

I have the Sentinel feat and we were fighting a Bearded Devil. I was next to it and it used its action to Multi-Attack. The first attack the DM rolled was vs our party wizard so I used my reaction to attack it and killed it. The DM then said that it gets to finish its attacks and used its beard attack on another party member.

I told him no its dead after its first attack resolves. He said no since its action was to Multi-Attack it gets its second attack and Sentinel did not interrupt it. We looked in the books about reactions and timers and be said Sentinel was unspecified in its trigger time. I called BS but let it go because whats good for the monster is good for us and he said when someone else runs they can do it their way.

How would yall rule this?

[Abithrios]

Let me get this straight, the fatal attack was triggered by its first attack and it made another attack after that?

If so, I would say that "Dead fiends beard no heroes."

[Callin]

You are correct. His first attack triggered mine and killed him. He then got off his second attack.

[Human Paragon 3]

You're right, but I'd cut the DM some slack. It's not a major offense, and the encounter probably needed some help on the monster side to keep it a challenge.

I can certainly see the RAW argument, since multi-attack is one action. I don't agree with it, but I can see it, and am generally one to cut dungeon masters slack.

[CrusaderJoe]

Sounds like DMBS. The DM didn't like being "beaten" and wanted to get the last laugh.

But remember the ruling, if you are ever KO or Killed in the middle of your action you can keep attacking till you are done.

[ProphetSword]

Looking at the rules for reaction, I would say that the creature didn't even finish the first attack, let alone the second one. Reactions "interrupt" what is going on. The trigger was when a monster within 5' of the character with Sentinel "attacks" someone else, not when they "hit" that person. The act of "attacking" triggered the reaction, which interrupted the attack.

The word "Sentinel" means "to guard." You aren't very good at guarding something if you wait for the damage to happen. The whole point of the reaction interrupting the attack is the hope that you will kill the attacker and prevent the damage.

This is how I would have interpreted at the table at my game as DM. Others might disagree, but I think the argument is solid.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Be sure to give the DM a shaker for all that salt of his

[Shadow]

Mearls says (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/16/sentinel-reaction/) it happens before.
Crawford says (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/29/sentinel-react-after/) it happens after.
Mearls' answer is what he would do as a DM. Crawford's answer is following the strict RAW. As DM, it's basically his decision. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/sentinel-triggering-attack-2/)

[Eslin]

Mearls says (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/16/sentinel-reaction/) it happens before.
Crawford says (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/29/sentinel-react-after/) it happens after.
Mearls' answer is what he would do as a DM. Crawford's answer is following the strict RAW. As DM, it's basically his decision. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/sentinel-triggering-attack-2/)

Albeit not one that makes sense. Sentinel interrupts, the bearded devil died and then somehow got two attacks out afterwards.

[Malifice]

Looking at the rules for reaction, I would say that the creature didn't even finish the first attack, let alone the second one. Reactions "interrupt" what is going on. The trigger was when a monster within 5' of the character with Sentinel "attacks" someone else, not when they "hit" that person. The act of "attacking" triggered the reaction, which interrupted the attack.

The word "Sentinel" means "to guard." You aren't very good at guarding something if you wait for the damage to happen. The whole point of the reaction interrupting the attack is the hope that you will kill the attacker and prevent the damage.

This is how I would have interpreted at the table at my game as DM. Others might disagree, but I think the argument is solid.

This. Id allow the attack first and if it killed the devil, game over for the bearded one.

[Shadow]

This. Id allow the attack first and if it killed the devil, game over for the bearded one.

And that would be a perfectly reasonable ruling on how it works, but that isn't how the rules are written.
As written, a reaction is not an interrupt. There are specific exceptions which are, but they all state as much while this one does not.
So while ruling Sentinel's reaction as an interrupt is reasonable, it doesn't work that way unless the DM decides it does.
In this case, he did not decide that.

[Mellack]

Look on it as a benefit to you. If you are a fighter, whenever you take your standard action to attack, you will be guaranteed to get all of them off (up to 4). And since movement is allowed within the attacks, you could run all over while taking them. Say you attack a baddie that has some reaction like Armor of Agathys on and it drops you after your first swing. Have no fear, you can hit him again, without worry of the damage as you are at zero, move next to the healer, again ignoring any damage from an AoO, and finish by throwing a dagger. Then you collapse next to your healer in convenient position to get back up. Sounds good, huh? Or you may want to point out that scenario to your DM and see if he wants to change things.

[Atmosfear]

Looking at the rules for reaction, I would say that the creature didn't even finish the first attack, let alone the second one. Reactions "interrupt" what is going on. The trigger was when a monster within 5' of the character with Sentinel "attacks" someone else, not when they "hit" that person. The act of "attacking" triggered the reaction, which interrupted the attack.

Every other occurrence of interruption specifically says interruption.

Though I don't agree with the interpretation, the OP DM's interpretation is better support by RAW than this.

Also, as someone who has actually played with the Sentinel feat outside of theorycraft, it's already plenty powerful. It doesn't need a melee interrupt thrown in.

[Atmosfear]

Look on it as a benefit to you. If you are a fighter, whenever you take your standard action to attack, you will be guaranteed to get all of them off (up to 4). And since movement is allowed within the attacks, you could run all over while taking them. Say you attack a baddie that has some reaction like Armor of Agathys on and it drops you after your first swing. Have no fear, you can hit him again, without worry of the damage as you are at zero, move next to the healer, again ignoring any damage from an AoO, and finish by throwing a dagger. Then you collapse next to your healer in convenient position to get back up. Sounds good, huh? Or you may want to point out that scenario to your DM and see if he wants to change things.

And the DM will say it applies to the Multiattack action and not the Attack action and you will look like a douche because everyone at the table knows Sentinel is strong enough not to whine about.

[CrusaderJoe]

And the DM will say it applies to the Multiattack action and not the Attack action and you will look like a douche because everyone at the table knows Sentinel is strong enough not to whine about.

Getting screwed over because your DM is being a jerk has nothing to do with the ability you have, but the style he DM is using.

The attack happens before the enemy attack, the DM better not flip flop if things are flipped.

Like if a player is going to cast a doom spell and the enemy has mage slayer or mage slayer ability and attacks and drops the player... That player better be able to cast the doom spell before being KO'ed.

[Shadow]

Getting screwed over because your DM is being a jerk has nothing to do with the ability you have, but the style he DM is using.

The attack happens before the enemy attack, the DM better not flip flop if things are flipped.

Like if a player is going to cast a doom spell and the enemy has mage slayer or mage slayer ability and attacks and drops the player... That player better be able to cast the doom spell before being KO'ed.

The attack does not happen before the enemy attack. A reaction melee weapon attack is not an interrupt. Page 190, PHB. It says "IF the reaction interrupts" an action.... NOT that it DOES interrupt it.
If a player is casting a doom spell and you have the mage slayer feat, the spell does go off. Because a reaction attack with a melee weapon, once again, is not an interrupt.

An opportunity attack interrupts movement. It interrupts movement because if it didn't then the target would be out of range by the time you get the attack off.
But these are not opportunity attacks (because OAs are only provoked by movement). These are reaction attacks.... once again.... NOT opportunity attacks.

[Once a Fool]

It's not really that unclear. Sentinel triggers off of an attack, not an attack action. Two different things.

That said, it does not indicate in any way that it precedes that attack; it is a reaction to it.

[Kryx]

Sentinel triggers off of an attack, not an attack action. Two different things.

That said, it does not indicate in any way that it precedes that attack; it is a reaction to it.

Exactly this. It should trigger after the first attack has been resolved, but before the consecutive attacks.

[hymer]

@ OP: I'd probably rule it by whether I consider the two attacks to be potentially simultaneous. In this case, I can see a definite case for letting the devil make both attacks, as they are made with two different weapons, and could well be done at the same time. Though the attacks are resolved one after the other for practical purposes, there's no reason the attacks aren't narratively simultaneous, at least if they attack the same target.
All that being said, I might go either way in this particular case. I don't see it as being particularly important.

[silveralen]

Mearls says (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/16/sentinel-reaction/) it happens before.
Crawford says (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/29/sentinel-react-after/) it happens after.
Mearls' answer is what he would do as a DM. Crawford's answer is following the strict RAW. As DM, it's basically his decision. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/sentinel-triggering-attack-2/)

Are you talking about the attack or the attack action?

Because the sentinel attack happens after the attack, not after the entire attack action finishes. Even Crawford went with that version. If it is dead, doesn't make much sense for it finish the action.

[ProphetSword]

And that would be a perfectly reasonable ruling on how it works, but that isn't how the rules are written.
As written, a reaction is not an interrupt. There are specific exceptions which are, but they all state as much while this one does not.
So while ruling Sentinel's reaction as an interrupt is reasonable, it doesn't work that way unless the DM decides it does.
In this case, he did not decide that.

Not all instances are listed as interrupting, but can be assumed that they are. The Fighter's protection feat, for example:

When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.


The word "interrupt" is not used anywhere in this statement. By the logic you're using here, the disadvantage would occur after the attack is over. So, I submit is completely reasonable that the Sentinel feat allows the attack to interrupt the attack that triggered it, otherwise it would create a lot of weird issues with the game.

[Kryx]

The word "interrupt" is not used anywhere in this statement. By the logic you're using here, the disadvantage would occur after the attack is over. So, I submit is completely reasonable that the Sentinel feat allows the attack to interrupt the attack that triggered it, otherwise it would create a lot of weird issues with the game.

That example definitely opens the door for questions, but this is a case where you're applying something to an attack, not responding after.

I'd be inclined to follow Crawford's RAW guidance on reactions in general. Though there are exception cases like this where for it to matter it would have to apply to the attack.

[CrusaderJoe]

Not all instances are listed as interrupting, but can be assumed that they are. The Fighter's protection feat, for example:

When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.


The word "interrupt" is not used anywhere in this statement. By the logic you're using here, the disadvantage would occur after the attack is over. So, I submit is completely reasonable that the Sentinel feat allows the attack to interrupt the attack that triggered it, otherwise it would create a lot of weird issues with the game.

The only way most abilities makes any sort of sense, or are any sort of useful outside direct damage, is that they interrupt the action that triggers it.

Like OA's. For moving outside a threatened space you get smacked. However, it would make no sense for you to be able to walk 30' away and then take the damage when you are done walking.

[Demonic Spoon]

The rules for OAs specifically say they take place before the creature moves. The DMG (forget the page) has a section on this, where it basically says that, by default, unless stated otherwise by the ability in question, reactions resolve after the trigger, but that the DM is free to change that based on the action if it makes sense.

[Callin]

Seeing the divide here I can understand where the DM is coming from. I still dont agree but I accept it more now. If that makes sense. Thanks Everyone.

[Once a Fool]

Not all instances are listed as interrupting, but can be assumed that they are. The Fighter's protection feat, for example:

When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.


The word "interrupt" is not used anywhere in this statement. By the logic you're using here, the disadvantage would occur after the attack is over. So, I submit is completely reasonable that the Sentinel feat allows the attack to interrupt the attack that triggered it, otherwise it would create a lot of weird issues with the game.

The word "interrupt" doesn't have to appear in there to know it is an interrupt; the mechanics tell us it is an interrupt because it imposes disadvantage on the roll. That's impossible without interrupting the resolution of the attack (although, technically, it can resolve after the first roll, but before the damage is resolved). More succinctly, an interrupt is an interrupt because of what it does, whether or not the word, "interrupt," is in its description.

Your example explicitly mandates a specific order of events. Sentinel in no way implies an order of events that has the Sentinel strike first (unless movement is the trigger).

[Kryx]

The DMG (forget the page) has a section on this, where it basically says that, by default, unless stated otherwise by the ability in question, reactions resolve after the trigger, but that the DM is free to change that based on the action if it makes sense.

Here is the actual quote


Typical combatants rely on the opportunity attack and the Ready action for most of their reactions in a fight. Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action

[Once a Fool]

The only way most abilities makes any sort of sense, or are any sort of useful outside direct damage, is that they interrupt the action that triggers it.

If that were the case, they would be called "interrupts," instead of "reactions."

Unless the description of an ability indicates otherwise (and not necessarily by saying, "interrupt"), it actually is a reaction to the triggering event.


Like OA's. For moving outside a threatened space you get smacked. However, it would make no sense for you to be able to walk 30' away and then take the damage when you are done walking.

In the case of OAs, obviously, the attack must occur while the opponent is still within reach of the weapon. It is thus clearly described as interrupting the movement, even without using the word.

[Callin]

That was the paragraph we were trying to figure out Kryx. I was saying that yes the Devil gets his first attack off because that is the trigger for my reaction. The damage then killed him so he should not of gotten his second attack off. That was the timing of the events.

Attack my ally
Sentinel attack=damage=death
No more attacks

Instead he did

Attack my ally
Sentinel attack=damage
Second attack
Death

It just does not make sense to me. Does anyone have wording on Multi-Attack. I dont have a MM. Are they simultaneous attacks or is it more like Extra Attack for monsters with another name.

[Kryx]

Does anyone have wording on Multi-Attack. I dont have a MM.


MULTIATTACK
A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability. A creature can't use Multiattack when making an opportunity attack, which must be a single melee attack.

Multiattack = multiple attacks. Sentinel triggers on an attack.

Here is how it should go by RAW, and Crawford's ruling:

1st attack is resolved
Sentinel now responds to the first attack
No more attacks if creature died.

I'd suggest you link him to this thread. His interpretation is close, but a bit off.

[flakjkt]

The DM ruled correctly by RAW. I think he just didn't flower the actual attack up enough. "demon makes first attack and gets fatal wound and in its death throws finishes it's second attack then collapses. " just my 2 cents

[ProphetSword]

Kryx cleared up my confusion on the matter of reactions and how they do or do not interrupt the flow of combat.

With that being the case, I change my answer to support those who suggest that the Sentinel attack should have triggered after the first attack, killing the attacker, and ending the attacks. As pointed out, the "Multiattack" feature just indicates that the monster gets more than one attack during its turn, but each one is a separate action.

[Shining Wrath]

This happened because WotC botched their use of verbs when describing things you do during your turn. An "action" implies a single atomic event, but the "Attack" action can be spread out over several separate attacks, with moves interspersed among them.

An "Attack Action" is NOT atomic. Your reaction killed the devil after its first attack. There was no second attack. If he had wanted the devil to attack, move, attack, move, attack, would he have insisted on its ability to move while dead? What if its move provoked another opportunity attack and it got killed again so it was extra-dead? How dead does it need to be?

This was a silly willy padilly DM being silly willy padilly.

[Abithrios]

The DM ruled correctly by RAW. I think he just didn't flower the actual attack up enough. "demon makes first attack and gets fatal wound and in its death throws finishes it's second attack then collapses. " just my 2 cents

This would require it to either make attacks after it is dead or declare all its targets before it starts rolling. Would you allow it to move its speed between those attacks? Does it have some other way that explicitly allows it to violate causality?

[flakjkt]

This would require it to either make attacks after it is dead or declare all its targets before it starts rolling. Would you allow it to move its speed between those attacks? Does it have some other way that explicitly allows it to violate causality?

After reconsideration of the whole thread I think I spoke out my butt lol. I change my position. The reaction took place after the first attack, demon died as a result so the second attack should not take place. Good debate.

[Shadow]

The DM ruled correctly by RAW. I think he just didn't flower the actual attack up enough. "demon makes first attack and gets fatal wound and in its death throws finishes it's second attack then collapses. " just my 2 cents


After reconsideration of the whole thread I think I spoke out my butt lol. I change my position. The reaction took place after the first attack, demon died as a result so the second attack should not take place. Good debate.

I think you spoke from a perfect place.
People like to throw around the phrase "Rule of Cool" all the time, but then they turn into rules lawyers citing "violation of causality" as soon as the Rule of Cool gets turned back on themselves.
A death throw attack, which was already in progress before it actually became a death throw, is perfectly reasonable and cinematic. If there were movement required between the two then this would pose a problem. If there isn't, I think a battle with a death blow is better than one without.

[Once a Fool]

People like to throw around the phrase "Rule of Cool" all the time, but then they turn into rules lawyers citing "violation of causality" as soon as the Rule of Cool gets turned back on themselves.

"Rule of Cool" is cool and all, but should never negate the actual purpose of a character's ability--especially an ability that was purchased at some cost, like a feat.

Trumping the intended utility of such abilities is not "cool;" it is merely unfair.

[silveralen]

I think you spoke from a perfect place.
People like to throw around the phrase "Rule of Cool" all the time, but then they turn into rules lawyers citing "violation of causality" as soon as the Rule of Cool gets turned back on themselves.
A death throw attack, which was already in progress before it actually became a death throw, is perfectly reasonable and cinematic. If there were movement required between the two then this would pose a problem. If there isn't, I think a battle with a death blow is better than one without.

Rule of cool is allowing sentinel to actually protect your teammates by killing the enemy, at the very least before he launches follow up attacks if not before he gets the first attack off.

The DM was wrong by raw, by all tweets, and it actually made what the player accomplished dramatically less cool. Wish people wouldn't defend stupid descions.

[Shadow]

"Rule of Cool" is cool and all, but should never negate the actual purpose of a character's ability--especially an ability that was purchased at some cost, like a feat.

Trumping the intended utility of such abilities is not "cool;" it is merely unfair.

The purpose of the ability is not to protect your allies by interrupting enemy attacks and not allowing them.
It is to protect your allies by punishing the enemy if it attacks anyone else.
Once again, this is not an interrupt.

Arguing for the Rule of Cool when it benefits you, and against the Rule of Cool when it is a detriment to you is hypocritical.
Either the Rule of Cool is in, or it is out. If it's in, the DM can use it as well.

[silveralen]

The purpose of the ability is not to protect your allies by interrupting enemy attacks and not allowing them.
It is to protect your allies by punishing the enemy if it attacks anyone else.
Once again, this is not an interrupt.

Arguing for the Rule of Cool when it benefits you, and against the Rule of Cool when it is a detriment to you is hypocritical.
Either the Rule of Cool is in, or it is out. If it's in, the DM can use it as well.

It did punish him after he made his first attack, by killing him. The follow up attacks couldn't be made because of the damage. He prevented that punishment by allowing the monster to continue attacking after it was dead.

There is no interrupt in the OP. The trigger was an attack, not an attack action.

{Scrubbed}

[Shadow]

{Scrubbed}

[silveralen]

{Scrubbed}

[Kryx]

Arguing for the Rule of Cool when it benefits you, and against the Rule of Cool when it is a detriment to you is hypocritical.

I agree with this. I see it quite a bit on here.

Things should be applied evenly.

[CrusaderJoe]

In the case of OAs, obviously, the attack must occur while the opponent is still within reach of the weapon. It is thus clearly described as interrupting the movement, even without using the word.

Yes but the reaction to perform a OA is you move out of the creature's threatened reach... Which by Crawford's version (and the OP's DM) of the ruling it means that the target is to far away from the attacker to even get hit by the OA since the runner has to be outside the threatened space for the attacker to react.

Crawford is usually spot on with explaining RAW through RAI and this may be the only time I've disagreed with him. However I think Crawford needs to look into this and work it so not only does his ruling make sense but the game actually works. Right now OA's don't exist if you go by his rulings.

Which might be a good thing.

(Note: One of my favorite Sage rulings is the crossbow feat allowing someone to shoot a hand crossbow then shoot it again with a bonus action. Sage tends to separate Fluff and Crunch quite well. Also it seems like some of the rules were written with RoC in mind.)

[hawklost]

Yes but the reaction to perform a OA is you move out of the creature's threatened reach... Which by Crawford's version (and the OP's DM) of the ruling it means that the target is to far away from the attacker to even get hit by the OA since the runner has to be outside the threatened space for the attacker to react.

Crawford is usually spot on with explaining RAW through RAI and this may be the only time I've disagreed with him. However I think Crawford needs to look into this and work it so not only does his ruling make sense but the game actually works. Right now OA's don't exist if you go by his rulings.

Which might be a good thing.

(Note: One of my favorite Sage rulings is the crossbow feat allowing someone to shoot a hand crossbow then shoot it again with a bonus action. Sage tends to separate Fluff and Crunch quite well. Also it seems like some of the rules were written with RoC in mind.)

That argument would work except for the DMG statement of



Typical combatants rely on the opportunity attack and the Ready action for most of their reactions in a fight. Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action

This implied Crawford was pointing out the general correct response to to the question while not trying to get into the DMG exceptions that are there.

[silveralen]

I agree with this. I see it quite a bit on here.

Things should be applied evenly.

Okay, so you'd allow PCs to ignore NPC abilities because it was cool, despite having no mechanical reason to do so?

Because, effectively, he ignored sentinel. Oh sure, the attack still went off... too late to do anything that couldn't be accomplished on his next turn. If you file this under, "rule of cool", I expect you to allow people to ignore breath weapons because they give a really cool speech about how they dodged it... despite being an average dexterity character with no evasion or reflex like abilities. Because, mechanically, you are outright breaking the rules, not bending them, to allow them to continue with the other attacks.

If you apply that evenly it is fine, but he was referring mainly to borderline cases where rules aren't clear and rule of cool is applied. Here, the fact is that bearded devil did not get the rest of his attacks by RAW. Rather he got the first is slightly debatable, with RAW leaning towards yes, but there is no question about the follow up attacks.

[Kryx]

Okay, so you'd allow PCs to ignore NPC abilities because it was cool, despite having no mechanical reason to do so?

Slow down with your hyper aggression. I made a comment agreeing with shadow about his point about the rule of cool.

The rule of cool is great until a PC wouldn't want that same thing done to them.


Because, effectively, he ignored sentinel.

The DM made the wrong ruling by RAW, RAI, and everything else. You can see my posts saying this above.

[Once a Fool]

The purpose of the ability is not to protect your allies by interrupting enemy attacks and not allowing them.
It is to protect your allies by punishing the enemy if it attacks anyone else.
Once again, this is not an interrupt.

The RAW says the trigger is an attack, not a collection of them. Other than that, we agree. The feat does not interrupt the attack and it's intended purpose in this context is to punish that attack.

However, that very same RAW grants another, situational, purpose to the feat: to sometimes protect an ally by killing a foe before it can get further attacks in. Taking away this part of the feat, just because, "Rule of Cool," is uncool; it is unfair. Other reasons for doing so may not be unfair. That one is.


Arguing for the Rule of Cool when it benefits you, and against the Rule of Cool when it is a detriment to you is hypocritical.
Either the Rule of Cool is in, or it is out. If it's in, the DM can use it as well.

I agree with that, but I get the feeling you assume I don't.

By the time you have read this far, you will know exactly two things about how I view the "Rule of Cool." When you made the above-quoted statement, it was only one thing.

Both of those things are meaningless without the context of your reference to it, to which I was (and am) replying.

You have absolutely no further evidence to hang your assumptions on. You don't even know whether or not I adhere to it.

It really is impossible to be hypocritical on a subject you've only presented one argument for.

[Kryx]

However, that very same RAW grants another, situational, purpose to the feat: to sometimes protect an ally by killing a foe before it can get further attacks in.

What RAW supports this view? All relevant rules and tweets have been posted here and none of them support it interrupting.

Please clarify.

[Shadow]

What RAW supports this view? All relevant rules and tweets have been posted here and none of them support it interrupting.

Please clarify.

He's referring to the argument that the reaction happens after the first attack, but before the second.
But this argument presupposes that each attack in a multiattack sequence happens individually, when it could easily be argued that they happen close enough to simultaneously that they are effectively simultaneous.
The monster isn't attacking, waiting for you to react, and then attacking again.
Multiattack from a bearded devil could easily be read as the claw/claw/tail being done as both claws back to back, essentially at the same time. He isn't going to claw.... then wait a moment.... then claw again.
So if the DM was using Rule of Cool, that second attack could absolutely get done at the same time that the reaction was occurring. Claw, sentinel reacts, while at the same time the other claw happens.

[Kryx]

So if the DM was using Rule of Cool

Yes, using a "all attacks hit at the same time" would have the original DM be correct, but that's not RAW which is what he was stating.

RAW is that multiattacks happen as separate attacks (as quoted above) that are resolved separately.

[silveralen]

He's referring to the argument that the reaction happens after the first attack, but before the second.
But this argument presupposes that each attack in a multiattack sequence happens individually, when it could easily be argued that they happen close enough to simultaneously that they are effectively simultaneous.
The monster isn't attacking, waiting for you to react, and then attacking again.
Multiattack from a bearded devil could easily be read as the claw/claw/tail being done as both claws back to back, essentially at the same time. He isn't going to claw.... then wait a moment.... then claw again.
So if the DM was using Rule of Cool, that second attack could absolutely get done at the same time that the reaction was occurring. Claw, sentinel reacts, while at the same time the other claw happens.

Except that isn't how it works by RAW. Things like defensive duelist and protection fighting style clearly show attacks do not happen simultaneously. You can argue they should, but they simply don't by RAW, RAI, or any possible reading, occur at once by the rules.

If you want to house rule it as such you can, but it lacks consistency with the fact people can move and act between their own attacks, and you'd be house ruling to deliberate stifle a character's abilities which is never good.

[Shining Wrath]

I think you spoke from a perfect place.
People like to throw around the phrase "Rule of Cool" all the time, but then they turn into rules lawyers citing "violation of causality" as soon as the Rule of Cool gets turned back on themselves.
A death throw attack, which was already in progress before it actually became a death throw, is perfectly reasonable and cinematic. If there were movement required between the two then this would pose a problem. If there isn't, I think a battle with a death blow is better than one without.

Some monsters, by RAW, do get death throes attacks - currently AFB but there's some that explode or otherwise respond poorly to being killed. I may be remembering 3.5 monsters.

At any rate, if you start giving every monster with a multiple-attack Attack action the ability to strike death blows you are shifting the game's balance in favor of the monsters, as clearly the PCs kill a lot more monsters than the monsters kill PCs. This also makes it better to kill monsters from range, favoring some classes and builds over some others. And as pointed out, this devalues feats and class features that allow a PC to retaliate against a foe attacking within reach of them.

I don't think the game needs a rul(e)(ing) that favors ranged attackers over melee types.

[Mr.Moron]

The GM made a call that's the GMs call to make, over relative a edge case. If there is a problem here it's not that one particular ruling might be closer to RAW or closer to RAI, or slightly cooler than another. It's that folks need to fight tooth and nail over any ruling that work against their favor even in fairly marginal ways.

This is a really small ruling and a fairly light-handed use of GM power.

[Kane0]

Without consulting any books and based on the description of sentinel given my ruling would be that first of the enemy's multiple attacks goes through, which triggers the sentinel's attack. The sentinels attack drops the foe to 0, which immediately stops him from continuing because he is now unconscious.
If multiattack were to be simultaneous attacks rather than multiple sequential ones (like a manticore throwing spikes as opposed to a claw then bite or somesuch) then maybe it would have resolved them all before sentinel took place.

[Shadow]

The GM made a call that's the GMs call to make, over relative a edge case. If there is a problem here it's not that one particular ruling might be closer to RAW or closer to RAI, or slightly cooler than other. It's that folks need to fight tooth and nail over any ruling that work against their favor even in fairly marginal ways.

This is a really small ruling and a fairly light-handed use of GM power.

Exactly.
I wasn't arguing RAW or RAI or anything with rules. I was stating how the DM may be justified in his ruling. You may not like it, but there it is. While at the table, less arguing over tiny rules and more playing.
What the DM says, goes. Talk about it with him after, and if he justifies it, then that's how it is.

[Shining Wrath]

Exactly.
I wasn't arguing RAW or RAI or anything with rules. I was stating how the DM may be justified in his ruling. You may not like it, but there it is. While at the table, less arguing over tiny rules and more playing.
What the DM says, goes. Talk about it with him after, and if he justifies it, then that's how it is.

Except this is a precedent - if any monster with Multiple Attacks gets death throes, then they all should. Which makes being a melee fighter sort of suck-tastic.

[Once a Fool]

What RAW supports this view? All relevant rules and tweets have been posted here and none of them support it interrupting.

Please clarify.


He's referring to the argument that the reaction happens after the first attack, but before the second.

What Shadow said.


But this argument presupposes that each attack in a multiattack sequence happens individually, when it could easily be argued that they happen close enough to simultaneously that they are effectively simultaneous.
The monster isn't attacking, waiting for you to react, and then attacking again.
Multiattack from a bearded devil could easily be read as the claw/claw/tail being done as both claws back to back, essentially at the same time. He isn't going to claw.... then wait a moment.... then claw again.


Yes, using a "all attacks hit at the same time" would have the original DM be correct, but that's not RAW which is what he was stating.

RAW is that multiattacks happen as separate attacks (as quoted above) that are resolved separately.


Except that isn't how it works by RAW. Things like defensive duelist and protection fighting style clearly show attacks do not happen simultaneously. You can argue they should, but they simply don't by RAW, RAI, or any possible reading, occur at once by the rules.

If you want to house rule it as such you can, but it lacks consistency with the fact people can move and act between their own attacks, and you'd be house ruling to deliberate stifle a character's abilities which is never good.

What Kryx and silveralen said.

I'll go even further and say that attacks that are intended to be simultaneous should be rolled at the same time (that's not RAW, though).

[Mr.Moron]

Except this is a precedent - if any monster with Multiple Attacks gets death throes, then they all should. Which makes being a melee fighter sort of suck-tastic.

How, exactly? This ruling effects the one exact edge case of:

-You have a reaction attack.
-You use your reaction attack on a multi-attack sequence.
-Your reaction attack hits.
-Your reaction attack deals enough damage to kill the monster.

This is a rather narrow set of circumstances. It has no effect on regular attacks. It has no effect on reaction attacks made against things other than multi-attack. It has no effect reaction attacks that miss. It has no effect on reaction attacks that hit and deal less damage than the monster has hit points left.

That's an insanely narrow place to put the breaking point that makes something suck-tastic.

Regardless, it's still the GMs call. Dislike it. Leave their game, whatever. It's still their call to make.

[Kryx]

This is a rather narrow set of circumstances.

Only the 4th item presented would be rare if you use sentinel. Many many monsters have multiattack. It would not be that rare - probably at least once every few sessions.

That said I agree with Shadow's sentiment: Run with the DM ruling and then speak about it after, which is exactly what the OP did in making this post. He can now talk to his DM with this post as evidence.

[Mr.Moron]

Only the 4th item presented would be rare if you use sentinel. Many many monsters have multiattack. It would not be that rare - probably at least once every few sessions.

That said I agree with Shadow's sentiment: Run with the DM ruling and then speak about it after, which is exactly what the OP did in making this post. He can now talk to his DM with this post as evidence.


"Which makes being a melee fighter sort of suck-tastic."

The argument was addressing was that it makes all melee fighters suck. I was addressing that argument. You cannot presume that sentinel is involved when addressing that argument.

That it makes sentinel suck-tastic, is a drastically lower bar but one I'm not willing to assume really holds water.


EDIT: (Also if something is only relevant every 5 sessions, it's still not making your character or feat even. Unless you only use that feat every 5 sessions, in which case it's of questionable value in the first place if you must be in the char-oppy mindset)

[Callin]

I used Sentinel approx 5 times last game session. There was only the 1 instance of needing a GM ruling, which is what we are discussing. Yes this ruling in a small way diminishes Sentinel but not enough to make Melee sucktastic.

My Cleric 7/Paladin 1 still rocked his zone of pain with Spirit Guardians and Sentinel. Heck the last time I used it last session it was to kill an archer who tried to disengage away and shocked my DM when I told him nope.

[silveralen]

Exactly.
I wasn't arguing RAW or RAI or anything with rules. I was stating how the DM may be justified in his ruling. You may not like it, but there it is. While at the table, less arguing over tiny rules and more playing.
What the DM says, goes. Talk about it with him after, and if he justifies it, then that's how it is.

With the addendum that DMs who constantly rule in favor of their monsters might prefer to be a player in any case, a result likely to make the experience more enjoyable for all.

[Shining Wrath]

How, exactly? This ruling effects the one exact edge case of:

-You have a reaction attack.
-You use your reaction attack on a multi-attack sequence.
-Your reaction attack hits.
-Your reaction attack deals enough damage to kill the monster.

This is a rather narrow set of circumstances. It has no effect on regular attacks. It has no effect on reaction attacks made against things other than multi-attack. It has no effect reaction attacks that miss. It has no effect on reaction attacks that hit and deal less damage than the monster has hit points left.

That's an insanely narrow place to put the breaking point that makes something suck-tastic.

Regardless, it's still the GMs call. Dislike it. Leave their game, whatever. It's still their call to make.

You honestly think Polearm Master isn't a popular feat? Or that at higher levels multiple attacks aren't the norm?

So

You have a reaction attack, which most melee types will seek to have one way or the other
You attack during a multi-attack sequence, which by high levels will be the norm
Your attack hits
Your attack does enough damage to kill the monster


The only one of those that won't be happening several times per battle is the attack being fatal, and I'll wager it'll happen several times per game session

[Abithrios]

I think you spoke from a perfect place.
People like to throw around the phrase "Rule of Cool" all the time, but then they turn into rules lawyers citing "violation of causality" as soon as the Rule of Cool gets turned back on themselves.
A death throw attack, which was already in progress before it actually became a death throw, is perfectly reasonable and cinematic. If there were movement required between the two then this would pose a problem. If there isn't, I think a battle with a death blow is better than one without.

I don't think it is nearly as rules-lawyerish to deny the dead enemy's remaining attacks as it would be to grant them. I also unabashedly think that the PCs should be cooler than their enemies, who themselves should not be boring.

Also, if you want it to be cool, you can describe the fiend's last feeble attempt to defend itself as it falls in as much gory detail as you want without changing the balance of the game.


He's referring to the argument that the reaction happens after the first attack, but before the second.
But this argument presupposes that each attack in a multiattack sequence happens individually, when it could easily be argued that they happen close enough to simultaneously that they are effectively simultaneous.
The monster isn't attacking, waiting for you to react, and then attacking again.
Multiattack from a bearded devil could easily be read as the claw/claw/tail being done as both claws back to back, essentially at the same time. He isn't going to claw.... then wait a moment.... then claw again.
So if the DM was using Rule of Cool, that second attack could absolutely get done at the same time that the reaction was occurring. Claw, sentinel reacts, while at the same time the other claw happens.

By a similar argument,the sentinel does not simply wait until the blow lands before starting to swing their sword. Even if the counter attack lands after the triggering attack, it could interrupt the second attack, causing the dying fiend to go off balance and the blow to go wide.

Simultaneity is hard to model, so dnd tends to break events into parts and resolve them one at a time, then it models the world as if they happened one at a time in the order they are resolved, and any prerequisites for a particular event are typically checked when you try to do it (e.g. You have to be conscious to make an attack). If you allow things to happen at the same time or you give durations to things that are normally instantaneous, you risk losing a lot of simplicity in the model.

[Mr.Moron]

You honestly think Polearm Master isn't a popular feat? Or that at higher levels multiple attacks aren't the norm?

So

You have a reaction attack, which most melee types will seek to have one way or the other
You attack during a multi-attack sequence, which by high levels will be the norm
Your attack hits
Your attack does enough damage to kill the monster


The only one of those that won't be happening several times per battle is the attack being fatal, and I'll wager it'll happen several times per game session

Feats aren't even a baseline part of the game. Even then a feat not being popular hardly equates it with being melee a character itself. Whatever. I'm not going to play a game of moving goalposts with you. You made an assertion a very broad on, which you're now backing down from so whatever.