Sentinel vs mobility

[The Shadowdove]

Does sentinel allow you opportunity attacks vs those with the mobility feat?

Say they run by, kick you in the head, then move out of your reach to pounce on someone else..

They didn't use a disengage action, but they still left the threatened square.

Thanks in advance,

Dove

[Easy_Lee]

Does the text for mobile read that targets do not get an opportunity attack against you, or does it read that targets may not use their reaction to attack you?

[The Shadowdove]

They can not attack of opportunity against you, whether your attack lands on them or not.

[Easy_Lee]

They can not attack of opportunity against you, whether your attack lands on them or not.

Then it could go either way, as I do not believe sentinel uses the language "attack of opportunity." In addition to making sentinel not work with war caster reaction spells, it may also prevent sentinel from being affected by mobile. That's the trouble with WotC's inconsistent wording regarding opportunity attacks.

[Bellberith]

Does sentinel allow you opportunity attacks vs those with the mobility feat?

Say they run by, kick you in the head, then move out of your reach to pounce on someone else..

They didn't use a disengage action, but they still left the threatened square.

Thanks in advance,

Dove

Someone with the Sentinel feat cannot get an AoO on someone with the Mobile feat as long as the person with the Mobile feat attacked like he was supposed to. Sentinel stops people from escaping with Disengage, not Mobile.

However the Sentinel can still use his third effect which allows him to make an attack against you as you attack someone else other than him.

[CNagy]

I would say Mobile trumps Sentinel. Sentinel expands the circumstances when your get an Opportunity Attack: normally, it is when someone leaves your reach without using Disengage. Sentinel allows you to get an Opportunity Attack even if they do try to Disengage first. Mobile, by contrast, denies any Opportunity Attack to any creature that the Mobile-character makes a melee attack against. So if the Mobile character makes a melee attack against the Sentinel character, the Sentinel character is denied any Opportunity Attacks against the Mobile character, regardless of whether the Mobile character fulfills the normal criteria for provoking an Opportunity Attack or the expanded criteria provided by the Sentinel feat.

[HoarsHalberd]

Sentinel specifically calls out disengage for it's ability to allow OA's, hence specific over general, mobility allows you to still move away without provoking OA's from moving away.

Sentinel's other ability, attacking someone attacking a friendly, is called out as a reaction not an OA and hence is unaffected by mobility.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

In this case, to preserve a little game balance, as well as to simplify things, I would rule they cancel each other out. Disadvantage and advantage always cancel each other out, why should these feats not do the same when they fill opposite ends of the spectrum?

[Submortimer]

Sentinel specifically calls out disengage for it's ability to allow OA's

This right here. Sentinel SPECIFICALLY ignores Disengage, not Mobile.

[HoarsHalberd]

In this case, to preserve a little game balance, as well as to simplify things, I would rule they cancel each other out. Disadvantage and advantage always cancel each other out, why should these feats not do the same when they fill opposite ends of the spectrum?

Because this involves giving yet another ability to one of the most versatile and powerful feats in the game with no basis to do so in RAW or from the way it was written RAI.

[Gwendol]

In this case, to preserve a little game balance, as well as to simplify things, I would rule they cancel each other out. Disadvantage and advantage always cancel each other out, why should these feats not do the same when they fill opposite ends of the spectrum?

Mobility specifically counters sentinel. I don't understand your reasoning here.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

I'm trying to say, if one combatant has mobility and one has sentinel, when they interact specifically with each other, the rules should consider neither combatant to have either feat. Standard rules apply to both. The sentinel gets none of their related feat bonuses against the mobile and vice versa.

[Submortimer]

That really makes no sense. The feats aren't designed to counter each other, they're just built to perform different functions, and they don't "Specifically" interact with each other. Don't arbitrarily boost or gimp a feat just "because".

[HoarsHalberd]

I'm trying to say, if one combatant has mobility and one has sentinel, when they interact specifically with each other, the rules should consider neither combatant to have either feat. Standard rules apply to both. The sentinel gets none of their related feat bonuses against the mobile and vice versa.

They don't interact specifically with each other. Sentinel specifically stops people from using disengage to prevent OAs. Mobile specifically prevents triggering OAs. There is no interaction at all. Mobile doesn't say: "Automatically disengage from targets you attack." It says (roughly) "cannot trigger opportunity attacks from targets you attack."

[HockeyPokeyBard]

I'm sorry but I am just giving a response that works at my table and simplifies things. If it offends you so much then I apologise but I am not changing something that works well for me, and I am not going to stop trying to be helpful. As for feats not being "designed to counter each other", that has little to do with it. WotC has been pretty vague in their wordings and so even if the feats weren't designed that way, it doesn't mean they won't function that way. They both come into play in the situation and so they interact, just because one doesn't bounce off each other doesn't mean they don't interact. From my readings, it just seems to me that the best way to resolve the situation fairly is to have them cancel each other out. I don't see how anything is gimped as both characters are now in the situation they would be in without the feat. Fighter has to decide if his resources are best spent hitting rogue, and rogue has to decide if his resources are best spent disengaging from the fighter.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

Sentinel specifically stops people from using disengage to prevent OAs. Mobile specifically prevents triggering OAs.

In layman's terms, what you're saying is one triggers OAs and the other prevents OAs. They're going to clash. That is an interaction. Around my table, I simply ruled that the two cancel each other out. Now I am sharing what I think. I have not attacked anyone elses ideas. Why do you think it would be in any way reasonable to attack mine?

[HoarsHalberd]

In layman's terms, what you're saying is one triggers OAs and the other prevents OAs. They're going to clash. That is an interaction. Around my table, I simply ruled that the two cancel each other out. Now I am sharing what I think. I have not attacked anyone elses ideas. Why do you think it would be in any way reasonable to attack mine?

Because you presented your argument as a general ruling rather than a house rule. If you want to house rule it to something that it's not, that's fine. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But there is no reason to present it as a legitimate ruling from the book. And no, one doesn't trigger OAs, Sentinel prevents one very specific action from preventing OAs. It also triggers a reaction attack upon an opponent attacking an ally, which it would get even against a mobile user that had hit it due to mobile specifically preventing OAs from triggering.


They both come into play in the situation and so they interact, just because one doesn't bounce off each other doesn't mean they don't interact.

They don't both come into play unless the mobile user also is a rogue/monk and uses a bonus action to disengage. In which case the mobile user can retreat from anyone threatening him, except a sentinel user that he hasn't hit. However if he has hit him, then the sentinel user cannot proc OAs from him to begin with.

[Gwendol]

I'm trying to say, if one combatant has mobility and one has sentinel, when they interact specifically with each other, the rules should consider neither combatant to have either feat. Standard rules apply to both. The sentinel gets none of their related feat bonuses against the mobile and vice versa.

It's a ruling, but not the rules. I think that's a difference worth pointing out.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

As there are no specific rules, and the RAI is kinda loose on this one, wouldn't every answer supplied be interpreted as a ruling and not a rule? I would also like to point out that in my very first response, I said,
...as well as to simplify things, I would rule... which practically says it's a ruling. I never pretended I was going off actual rules written anywhere. I answered the OP's question in a way that satisfied me. Whether he likes it or not is up to him, and that's what the answer's validity comes down to. The DMG actively encourages the DM to fiddle with the rules and work out what works best for them anyway, so any rule is effectively a ruling and can be ignored at any time at a person's own table. Why are you getting so worked up about this?

[Gwendol]

Eh? There are clear, specific rules for how to handle this situation, which have been layed out repeatedly in this thread!

Any ambiguity you are referring to does not exist.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

Eh? There are clear, specific rules for how to handle this situation, which have been layed out repeatedly in this thread!

Any ambiguity you are referring to does not exist.

Well then by all means, post book and page number so I can see these clear and specific rules for myself.

[HoarsHalberd]

Well then by all means, post book and page number so I can see these clear and specific rules for myself.

Creatures within 5 ft provoke opportunity attacks from you even when they use the Disengage action. pg 170 PHB (Paraphrased to avoid copyright, disengage action is specifically stated.)

When you make a melee attack against a creature, they cannot make opportunity attacks against you for the rest of your turn. Pg 168 PHB (Paraphrased to avoid copyright)

Specific beats general. Pg 7 PHB.

Specific: Sentinel specifies disengage.

To put it into a simple step by step. Mobile user attacks sentinel user. (Optional step, multiple foes threatening, rogue or monk mobile user uses disengage to retreat from multiple enemies threatening them.) Mobile user moves away from sentinel, provoking an OA regardless of disengage. Sentinel user cannot make an OA as he is prevented from doing so by the effect of mobile. Net result: No OA made.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

Firstly, don't paraphrase. It's an interpretation of what's written, hence why paraphrasing is used in legal systems in any official capacity.

Secondly, you have reached the same conclusion that I have. Sentinel cancels Mobile, Mobile cancels Sentinel. Default to base rules, no OA. That result will happen that way in 99.99% of times the situation comes up. Therefore my solution is valid.

[The_Ditto]

Sentinel cancels Mobile, Mobile cancels Sentinel. Default to base rules, no OA. .

? Huh ?

Ok, I'm confused.

For the record - I disagree with your houserule, but .. whatever ;) lol

The "base rules" involve two scenarios:

A) User A moves away from User B - Result: OA.
B) User A disengages from User B - Result: No OA.

Add both Sentinel and Mobility in the mix:

Your method (correct me if I got this wrong):

A) User A attacks User B, then moves away from User B - Result: OA - since both feats "cancel".
B) User A attacks User B, then disengages from User B - Result: no OA.

What others (and myself) believe is the "proper" rules (and from what I've seen there isn't any interpretation, seems pretty clear to me - but oh well :))

A) User A attacks User B, then moves away from User B - Result No OA - since Sentinel doesn't "trigger", and Mobility SPECIFICALLY calls this case out and prevents the OA.
B) User A attacks User B, then disengages from User B - Result No OA - although this one might get funky - since Sentinel detects the Disengage, but Mobility prevents any OA, regardless.

[SharkForce]

Firstly, don't paraphrase. It's an interpretation of what's written, hence why paraphrasing is used in legal systems in any official capacity.

Secondly, you have reached the same conclusion that I have. Sentinel cancels Mobile, Mobile cancels Sentinel. Default to base rules, no OA. That result will happen that way in 99.99% of times the situation comes up. Therefore my solution is valid.

firstly, go read the rules yourself. it's not hidden. read the description of the sentinel feat. normally disengaging does not provoke opportunity attacks. sentinel changes that. mobile does not interact with disengage at all. it just prevents opportunity attacks from anyone you attack. no disengage action is required. since sentinel only interacts with opportunity attacks on a disengage action, there is no interaction. a mobile character does not provoke.

secondly, he has not come up with the same thing you did. the thing that every other person in this thread has come up with is that sentinel doesn't grant you an opportunity attack.

[HoarsHalberd]

Firstly, don't paraphrase. It's an interpretation of what's written, hence why paraphrasing is used in legal systems in any official capacity.

Secondly, you have reached the same conclusion that I have. Sentinel cancels Mobile, Mobile cancels Sentinel. Default to base rules, no OA. That result will happen that way in 99.99% of times the situation comes up. Therefore my solution is valid.

Firstly: I literally have to. 5e is copyright protected. Read the book yourself.

Secondly: No I haven't. Mobile works the same regardless of sentinel being present. Did you read anything I wrote?

[Gwendol]

Well then by all means, post book and page number so I can see these clear and specific rules for myself.

PHB, Chapter 6. I think the feats listing starts on page 165.

[Easy_Lee]

Reread. Mobile prevents opportunity attacks from occurring. That included sentinel OAs. An OA is still an OA regardless of the source, so if an ability specifically says that you don't get OAs, then you don't get them. Just as using shocking grasp takes away the target's ability to react, using mobile and attacking takes away the ability to OA.

Saying they cancel each other out is not a fair ruling because it rules in favor of sentinel. The user of mobile just attacked and most likely won't be able to disengage that round, meaning the sentinel user would get the OA that mobile is supposed to specifically prevent.

[CNagy]

Firstly, don't paraphrase. It's an interpretation of what's written, hence why paraphrasing is used in legal systems in any official capacity.

Secondly, you have reached the same conclusion that I have. Sentinel cancels Mobile, Mobile cancels Sentinel. Default to base rules, no OA. That result will happen that way in 99.99% of times the situation comes up. Therefore my solution is valid.

No. Mobile trumps Sentinel when it comes to Opportunity Attacks, and Mobile has nothing to do with reaction attacks so it doesn't prevent those (Sentinel's other, non-Opportunity Attack ability.) Sentinel gives you an extra route to get an Opportunity Attack; Mobile then denies all of them. "You don't provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn" overrides any condition where you do provoke opportunity attacks. The only way it wouldn't is for something that says "this also affects creatures who do not normally provoke opportunity attacks."

[Easy_Lee]

The only way it wouldn't is for something that says "this also affects creatures who do not normally provoke opportunity attacks."

Or if it was just a generic reaction attack, rather than specifically an opportunity attack, which was my prior concern.

[Person_Man]

If we're getting all rules lawyerly over the issue, I would say that the issue does not have standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29).

NPCs don't follow the same creation rules that players do. They function however the DM says they function.

Even then, when the DM decides he is going to make NPCs using PC rules for whatever reason (presumably for world-building purposes, or they just learned to do it that way DMing for 3.5/PF games and can't break themselves of the time consuming and mostly thankless method of running a campaign), players have no idea what abilities/Feats/etc any particular NPC has. So the DM can rule whatever they think is fair, and players have no idea that the ruling was made. They only know the results you describe.

In addition, D&D is not designed for PvP combat. All of the Feats, spells, etc, are written with the assumption that players will be working together as a team. Sentinel and Mobility don't have to be consistent with each other, because the designers never envisioned a game where they could be used against one another. So again if you've decided for some reason that players are going to fight, you've essentially entered the world of hoembrew once again, and it falls to the DM to make a ruling they feel is fair in the situation.

[Easy_Lee]

If we're getting all rules lawyerly over the issue, I would say that the issue does not have standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29).

No one is harmed by either ruling since sentinel v. mobile should never come up, and if it does it's strictly up to the DM to homebrew. That's an interesting way to look at it; I didn't even think of that. Nicely done.

[Xetheral]

Sentinel and Mobility don't have to be consistent with each other, because the designers never envisioned a game where they could be used against one another.

Sure they did... building NPCs using PC rules is supported in 5e, and just as valid a method to do so. DMs have two supported choices, and one of those choices will lead to Mobility coming into conflict with Sentinel.

[SliceandDiceKid]

If we're getting all rules lawyerly over the issue, I would say that the issue does not have standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29).

NPCs don't follow the same creation rules that players do. They function however the DM says they function.

Even then, when the DM decides he is going to make NPCs using PC rules for whatever reason (presumably for world-building purposes, or they just learned to do it that way DMing for 3.5/PF games and can't break themselves of the time consuming and mostly thankless method of running a campaign), players have no idea what abilities/Feats/etc any particular NPC has. So the DM can rule whatever they think is fair, and players have no idea that the ruling was made. They only know the results you describe.

In addition, D&D is not designed for PvP combat. All of the Feats, spells, etc, are written with the assumption that players will be working together as a team. Sentinel and Mobility don't have to be consistent with each other, because the designers never envisioned a game where they could be used against one another. So again if you've decided for some reason that players are going to fight, you've essentially entered the world of hoembrew once again, and it falls to the DM to make a ruling they feel is fair in the situation.

Person Man, why you so awesome?!

Diffusing situations like a boss.
I'm always excited when I see you've posted somewhere. Your input and opinions are always appreciated.

[Talderas]

There is a very narrow range of circumstances under which this could ever create some sort of conflict and even then it shouldn't.

All of the following must be true.
1. The character must have Mobile feat.
2. The character must be ending a square "threatened" by two hostile creatures.
3. The character must have a bonus action to use the disengage action since disengage is an action itself and would prevent the character from attacking and thus activating mobility. This limits the number of classes that can do it to Rogue(2) plus maybe one or two others.
4. One, not both, of the hostile creatures must have the Sentinel feat.
5. The character with Mobile must attack the creature with Sentinel.

Mobile flat out states that a creature you attack cannot get opportunity attacks on you. So there's no need to disengage from a Sentinel by himself. It is only when you have to disengage to avoid generating an opportunity attack from the Sentinel's ally that you even plausible would trigger Sentinel, however Mobile states flat out that you don't generate an opportunity attack. The rules are pretty clear that Mobile trumps Sentinel however I wouldn't begrudge a DM allowing Sentinel to get an OA against Mobile if Mobile used disengage first.

[CNagy]

Or if it was just a generic reaction attack, rather than specifically an opportunity attack, which was my prior concern.

Generic reaction attacks not being Opportunity Attacks, that's apples and oranges.

[Easy_Lee]

Generic reaction attacks not being Opportunity Attacks, that's apples and oranges.

There's a very old debate about war caster, sentinel, mage slayer, and polearm mastery. It matters sometimes.