Dealing with Sentinel Feat

[Ramshack]

So This is probably my fault to begin with for allowing two players to take the Sentinel Feat. The problem with the feat that I'm having isn't the damage caused by additional opportunity attacks but by the movement being reduced to 0. When they are fighting swams of mooks this is fine too but when the party gets to the BBEG all tactics and interesting mechanics get lost. Even using things like legendary actions to grant bosses cunning action or free disengages don't work anymore as they get hit and have 0 movement. What should have been an interesting fight against mobile or agile boss is reduced to the person getting stuck and just beat on.

Now I don't want to just give every boss a bonus action or legendary action teleport every time, but I want to restore tactics and fight mechanics to my boss fighters. Any ideas on how to deal with this? I would prefer to have a mechanic or rule that allows it instead of just DM fiat that your feat doesn't work right now.

[DivisibleByZero]

Just give bosses a save versus the immobilization effect.
That will keep your players from feeling that you've retroactively made their feat choice redundant or useless, while simultaneously opening a window for the kinds of fights that you want.
Sometimes the feat will function versus bosses, sometimes it won't. Everybody wins.

[JellyPooga]

There's definitely ways around this.

- Making the Bad Guy a proper beat-stick to take down one or both of the Sentinels will free him up somewhat.

- Incapacitating the Sentinels somehow (Hold Person, Grease, Otto's Dance, etc.) will free you up to move.

- Moving the Sentinels in some way; a simple Shove from a minion will get a Sentinel out of the way of the Big Bad to do his thing. Other abilities will achieve similar results; a Warlock Repelling Blast will put a Sentinel out of position to effectively lock-down your ally.

- Don't provoke an OA is the simplest approach, though. NPC's with the Mobile feat don't provoke OA's if they attack the Sentinel first. Moving around within the Sentinels reach doesn't provoke an OA; this combined with a Reach weapon gives you a remarkable area that you, yourself, can threaten/attack.

Don't see it as as "urgh, I don't want to use shenanigans to get around this every time" situation, look at it as a "Let's really explore the limitations of Sentinel". Look at what it does;

1) OA hit drops speed to zero.
- Obvious solution; don't provoke OA or don't get hit.
-- High AC takes care of the latter; any caster with Shield has a good chance of this. Enemies with Full Plate, ludicrous Dex or whatever also have a good chance of avoiding being hit.
-- Preventing an OA is also an option; Shocking Grasp prevents Reactions; OA's are a reaction. I've given a couple of other work-arounds above.

2) Disengage Action does nothing.
- Obvious solution; don't Disengage. Dodge instead, Attack instead, Cast a Spell instead. Shove instead. Grapple instead. Do anything except Disengage.

3) Reaction Attack vs. Non-Sentinel Ally within 5ft.
- Obvious solution; don't attack Non-Sentinel allies. Cast a "Save-or-Something" spell, don't use attack when within 5ft of a Sentinel, cast a Buff Spell, use a non-attack ability (SoH to steal an item, for example), Help an ally, Use an Object, Ready an action.

Hope this has helped. :smallwink:

[DivisibleByZero]

3) Reaction Attack vs. Non-Sentinel Ally within 5ft.
- Obvious solution; don't attack Non-Sentinel allies. Cast a "Save-or-Something" spell, don't use attack when within 5ft of a Sentinel, cast a Buff Spell, use a non-attack ability (SoH to steal an item, for example), Help an ally, Use an Object, Ready an action.

I disagree with this one completely.
Two players with Sentinel. Just use monsters with (or give enemies) multiple attacks. Make sure you use those attacks. The Sentinels will use their reaction, and then when the enemy moves, the Sentinels can't make an OA because they've already used their reaction for the round.

[HoarsHalberd]

Basically tell the players that you will be giving boss characters feats that fit them. Minotaurs get a Charger feat. Mobile bosses get Mobile. Officers in charge of the watch get the alert feat. Experienced members of the thieves guild are skulkers. Stuff like that.

[MaxWilson]

Sentinel reduces movement to zero on the turn when the hit occurs. Therefore it does not prevent movement via Legendary Actions, which occur on a different turn.

Also, you can avoid the Sentinel opportunity attack by either not coming in range in the first place, Pushing the Sentinel guy away (instead of Disengaging), or making him spend his reaction on something else like a Shield spell (if e.g. Eldritch Knight). (And by "making" I mean "punishing him severely if he does not, since you can't actually make PCs do anything.) You can also Push him prone so he has disadvantage on his opportunity attack against you.

And the best way to avoid Sentinel is for the bad guy to have an effective ranged attack of some kind. Sharpshooter rogues with longbows are utterly indifferent to Sentinel, for example.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree with this one completely.
Two players with Sentinel. Just use monsters with (or give enemies) multiple attacks. Make sure you use those attacks. The Sentinels will use their reaction, and then when the enemy moves, the Sentinels can't make an OA because they've already used their reaction for the round.

I don't get why you disagree with my suggestions. You posit another suggestion that I did not, but that doesn't invalidate my own; they're all valid "workarounds" to the Sentinel feat. Is there some reason my suggestions are invalid that I have not considered?

[Vogonjeltz]

So This is probably my fault to begin with for allowing two players to take the Sentinel Feat. The problem with the feat that I'm having isn't the damage caused by additional opportunity attacks but by the movement being reduced to 0. When they are fighting swams of mooks this is fine too but when the party gets to the BBEG all tactics and interesting mechanics get lost. Even using things like legendary actions to grant bosses cunning action or free disengages don't work anymore as they get hit and have 0 movement. What should have been an interesting fight against mobile or agile boss is reduced to the person getting stuck and just beat on.

Now I don't want to just give every boss a bonus action or legendary action teleport every time, but I want to restore tactics and fight mechanics to my boss fighters. Any ideas on how to deal with this? I would prefer to have a mechanic or rule that allows it instead of just DM fiat that your feat doesn't work right now.

They only get an opportunity attack if the BBEG tries to walk away. If the BBEG shoves them away, no opportunity attack.

Try Thunderwave, it's a 1st level spell and it knocks them away if they fail the save. Then the BBEG walks away or whatever.

Granted, there's always the possibility the players just miss their attacks.

[Ramshack]

They only get an opportunity attack if the BBEG tries to walk away. If the BBEG shoves them away, no opportunity attack.

Try Thunderwave, it's a 1st level spell and it knocks them away if they fail the save. Then the BBEG walks away or whatever.

Granted, there's always the possibility the players just miss their attacks.

I had used the Thunderwave mechanic before to get around this.

Using other abilities Like Shove, Shield, Dodge are all good ideas, Some enemies will misty step as well. I'll have to include more weaker enemies to try and draw out reactions as well. A lot of valid ideas guys I really appreciate. I'll have to really look at more spell options.

I just really didn't want to invalidate their feat choice by just saying it doesn't work right now. And I really don't mind the feat at all during regular encounters it's a great feat I like it on some of my characters as well. But I do want to make sure Boss fights stay engaging and memorable

[JellyPooga]

I just really didn't want to invalidate their feat choice by just saying it doesn't work right now. And I really don't mind the feat at all during regular encounters it's a great feat I like it on some of my characters as well. But I do want to make sure Boss fights stay engaging and memorable

The trick is to make sure that any way of invalidating the feat is plausible. You can't metagame this one by using tactics from the get-go that invalidate the Feat; that's just going to hack-off your players. Let them demonstrate that they have it, then start employing any and all of the suggestions made in this thread (assuming the bad-guys are smart enough to twig that two of the dudes they're fighting are defensive types i.e. have Sentinel). If your Players get to use the feat for a bit and then the enemy start working around it, everyone wins!

With the BBEG (and perhaps other encounters), you may have a different dynamic; if the BBEG is a Wizard or other magical type, or has an efficient sentry/spy network, he may well know ahead of time who the PC's are. If so, he might have legitimate reason to employ anti-Sentinel tactics before the battle even starts; hidden Battlemaster Archers with Pushing Attack, getting your minions to clutter up the battlefield to restrict the Sentinels movement and Line of Sight (can't attack what you can't see) and so forth.

[MaxWilson]

With the BBEG (and perhaps other encounters), you may have a different dynamic; if the BBEG is a Wizard or other magical type, or has an efficient sentry/spy network, he may well know ahead of time who the PC's are. If so, he might have legitimate reason to employ anti-Sentinel tactics before the battle even starts; hidden Battlemaster Archers with Pushing Attack, getting your minions to clutter up the battlefield to restrict the Sentinels movement and Line of Sight (can't attack what you can't see) and so forth.

Oh, that's a good point. Remember that you only get opportunity attacks against retreating foes you can see. No opportunity attacks in the dark. So Darkness is a perfect counter for Sentinel unless the other guy had both Sentinel and Devil's Sight/Blindsight/Tremorsense.

There are rather a lot of mid-level baddies (from Drow Warriors to Mezzoloths on up) who can cast Darkness, and a good many of them can also see through magical darkness, giving them advantage to attack/disadvantage to be attacked, in addition to negating Sentinel. Being unseen also makes you immune to a good many spells, from Counterspell to IIRC Finger of Death.

[Angelmaker]

Freedom of movement? Away from books so i cant tell if it helps or not, but seriously. Give the boss to cast misty step at will, provlem solved.

D and d has always been an wrms race. Dont take away player's nice toys when there are better ways to deal with it. Just a little creativity and problem is solved. :)

[SharkForce]

of interest: the attack you get to make on an enemy that targets someone other than a person with sentinel is *not* an opportunity attack. it's an attack you make as a reaction, yes, but as it is not an opportunity attack it does not reduce movement to 0.

[Madeiner]

Here's how i solved it, but its a bit heavy handed.

I didnt like having people at speed 0 and possibly reducing their tactics to "tank and spank", especially bosses that are heavily modified and inspired from MMORPG to make them tactically interesting.

So:
Sentinel: if the enemy uses the disengage action to move away, you still have the AoO, but you can't reduce their speed.

Some special abilities also disengage in addition to their effects. For example, dragon's legendary action to beat wings and move, it also disengages.
If a boss requires being able to move to perform its interesting tactics, then it can move no matter what.

I prefer to have a useless talent than reducing all fight where there's a sentinel and a single boss to a speed-0-nobody-moves tank/spank while the boss was designed with something else in mind.

However, evaluate well which monsters need their movement to be interesting and which dont.
Dragons do. A dragon fight where the dragon stands still and never moves is not iconic. Against something else, you might want to allow sentinel to work fully, however.

[endur]

From a role-playing perspective, the GM and the players might think about how sentinel actually works.

i.e. is Sentinel a taunt, where the character enrages the enemy so much that the enemy stops moving away? "Stand and fight me like a man"

Is Sentinel creating an ice block around the enemy's legs, preventing the enemy from moving?

Is Sentinel a hamstring, reducing the enemy's ability to move?

etc.

Once you have figured out what sentinel is in your game world, other options may appear.

I don't like taking player options away once they have been granted, but I think that role-playing advantages and disadvantages are fair game. i.e. categorizing an ability as an "ice ability" so it benefits from frost vulnerability and is penalized by frost resistance is a role-playing flavor change that is mostly neutral.

[Joe the Rat]

They only get an opportunity attack if the BBEG tries to walk away. If the BBEG shoves them away, no opportunity attack.

Try Thunderwave, it's a 1st level spell and it knocks them away if they fail the save. Then the BBEG walks away or whatever.

Granted, there's always the possibility the players just miss their attacks.
Or anything that denies reactions to the target:
Shocking Grasp (if the to-hit is good)
Arms of Hadar (if the save DC is a better choice)
Hold Person (or any other paralysis)
etc.

[Vogonjeltz]

Or anything that denies reactions to the target:
Shocking Grasp (if the to-hit is good)
Arms of Hadar (if the save DC is a better choice)
Hold Person (or any other paralysis)
etc.

Yes, I went with thunderwave specifically because it would work against both players at the same time. Shocking Grasp is only single target, so it would be insufficient to escape both players in range.

[MaxWilson]

Here's how i solved it, but its a bit heavy handed.

I didnt like having people at speed 0 and possibly reducing their tactics to "tank and spank", especially bosses that are heavily modified and inspired from MMORPG to make them tactically interesting.

So:
Sentinel: if the enemy uses the disengage action to move away, you still have the AoO, but you can't reduce their speed.

Some special abilities also disengage in addition to their effects. For example, dragon's legendary action to beat wings and move, it also disengages.
If a boss requires being able to move to perform its interesting tactics, then it can move no matter what.

I prefer to have a useless talent than reducing all fight where there's a sentinel and a single boss to a speed-0-nobody-moves tank/spank while the boss was designed with something else in mind.

However, evaluate well which monsters need their movement to be interesting and which dont.
Dragons do. A dragon fight where the dragon stands still and never moves is not iconic. Against something else, you might want to allow sentinel to work fully, however.

If I were a player and my DM implemented this rule after I'd taken Sentinel, I'd feel pretty cheated.

Besides, you don't need to change the rules for dragons. Sentinel already works only on a single turn, so one Sentinel can't lock down a dragon because it gets movement on its own turn and at the end of a PC's turn (via Legendary Action).

[Pex]

If I were a player and my DM implemented this rule after I'd taken Sentinel, I'd feel pretty cheated.

Besides, you don't need to change the rules for dragons. Sentinel already works only on a single turn, so one Sentinel can't lock down a dragon because it gets movement on its own turn and at the end of a PC's turn (via Legendary Action).

It's a hard lesson to learn that some DMs don't like their players being effective.

[Madeiner]

If I were a player and my DM implemented this rule after I'd taken Sentinel, I'd feel pretty cheated.


That's why i implement these rules modification before even starting the game, with a nice pdf document that players have to read and accept.

Sometimes, especially when i'm new to the system, i have to change rules mid-game. In the initial document i also stipulate that rules may change if needed, but characters have the options to change their choices if you don't like the new rules. You don't want sentinel anymore, you can remove it and take something else.

I believe telling a fun story or having more cinematic fights is worth more than having all character options available, or at least, that's how i run my tables.
Heck, one of my rules say that legendary resistance works against anything the DM wants to, no question asked, and is not limited on uses, on the premise that i will only use it to improve the gameplay experience.
(so, no, i won't auto-pass a save against your powerful damage spell, but the BBEG will be able to "save" against a forcecage, if that forcecage would stop the fight right now at turn 1, or makes it less fun in any way.
And if there's a mistery adventure with many suspects and a nice investigation to have, discern lies will not work either, if it would solve the adventure right now)

I really, really feel that with the right attitude, this improves the game.

[Coidzor]

It's a hard lesson to learn that some DMs don't like their players being effective.

And being cavalier about alienating players is something we were trying so hard to move away from, too.

[SharkForce]

That's why i implement these rules modification before even starting the game, with a nice pdf document that players have to read and accept.

Sometimes, especially when i'm new to the system, i have to change rules mid-game. In the initial document i also stipulate that rules may change if needed, but characters have the options to change their choices if you don't like the new rules. You don't want sentinel anymore, you can remove it and take something else.

I believe telling a fun story or having more cinematic fights is worth more than having all character options available, or at least, that's how i run my tables.
Heck, one of my rules say that legendary resistance works against anything the DM wants to, no question asked, and is not limited on uses, on the premise that i will only use it to improve the gameplay experience.
(so, no, i won't auto-pass a save against your powerful damage spell, but the BBEG will be able to "save" against a forcecage, if that forcecage would stop the fight right now at turn 1, or makes it less fun in any way.
And if there's a mistery adventure with many suspects and a nice investigation to have, discern lies will not work either, if it would solve the adventure right now)

I really, really feel that with the right attitude, this improves the game.

so in other words, there's no point in bothering to try and do anything effective, and we may as well all just wait for the DM to tell us what we're allowed to do. you know, there are some good games out there that feature railroads, but this doesn't sound like one of them.

[djreynolds]

If you're guys are cleaning out bad guys with sentinel feat, then up the ante. More hit points. Higher AC. Sentinel is not an automatic hit and you can only do it once per turn. "So you hit me for 15 points of damage, and I move out of reach of your 10ft pole-arm reach. Now I'm breathing fire on you and I'm not singeing my claws."

Hey, its your game. But don't cheat players or take it personally when they vanquish the BBG. Just be creative, add minions or change up terrains. But if the player's take advantage of that too, you just have to out think them. Sentinel is a great feat, and players may have to wait a lot of levels just to acquire it, and may not even have the attack stat to hit with it regularly.

[HoarsHalberd]

If you're guys are cleaning out bad guys with sentinel feat, then up the ante. More hit points. Higher AC. Sentinel is not an automatic hit and you can only do it once per turn. "So you hit me for 15 points of damage, and I move out of reach of your 10ft pole-arm reach. Now I'm breathing fire on you and I'm not singeing my claws."


If they're moving back then the OA drops their speed to zero, preventing them from moving out of reach, which is the point of the thread.

[djreynolds]

If they're moving back then the OA drops their speed to zero, preventing them from moving out of reach, which is the point of the thread.

I didn't know that, are attacks of opportunity limitless, or are they on a reaction based and you get one per turn or one per enemy or if you move and get hit, are you then allowed to move. Yeah perhaps that needs clarification.

Can the mobile feat help this, and at least stop one portion of the sentinel feat? And then if the player's also have pole-arm master does the cloud the BBG action's even more.

Perhaps allowing the enemy to move out of the area reach but the attacker gets the OA with advantage, but the player would have to agree to the fix, whatever the fix is. or the enemy just needs to unleash some nasty attacks of his own.

I see the dilemma

[Madeiner]

so in other words, there's no point in bothering to try and do anything effective, and we may as well all just wait for the DM to tell us what we're allowed to do. you know, there are some good games out there that feature railroads, but this doesn't sound like one of them.

If by "anything effective" you intend "incapacitate the BBEG in 1 turn, instead of having a spectacular fight" or "solve the mistery adventure the first day with a low level spell, instead of having a fun and complex adventure full of twists and turns" then yes, you are not allowed to in my games, and my players are perfectly happy with that.

Curiosly, the player who took Sentinel approached me and told me the feat was likely to prevent boss tactics, and he was the one to suggest the modification.

[SharkForce]

If by "anything effective" you intend "incapacitate the BBEG in 1 turn, instead of having a spectacular fight" or "solve the mistery adventure the first day with a low level spell, instead of having a fun and complex adventure full of twists and turns" then yes, you are not allowed to in my games, and my players are perfectly happy with that.

Curiosly, the player who took Sentinel approached me and told me the feat was likely to prevent boss tactics, and he was the one to suggest the modification.

unless the DM is psychic and can read the minds of the players to find out what is fun for them, it is an awful idea.

it's like playing "mother may i" except you get punished if you ask the wrong question by expended resources (and actions if it was in combat) with absolutely nothing to show for it. you are yanking the rug out from under the players by changing the rules on the spot, without warning, to cover up for poorly designed encounters.

the better solution is to design good encounters. if i wanted to play a game where the only way to beat a boss is to guess what the allowed solution is and then do that through trial and error over and over until i figured it out, i'd be playing an MMO doing raids over and over so that i can get the gear that will let me do the next raid over and over.

[Madeiner]

unless the DM is psychic and can read the minds of the players to find out what is fun for them, it is an awful idea.

it's like playing "mother may i" except you get punished if you ask the wrong question by expended resources (and actions if it was in combat) with absolutely nothing to show for it. you are yanking the rug out from under the players by changing the rules on the spot, without warning, to cover up for poorly designed encounters.

the better solution is to design good encounters. if i wanted to play a game where the only way to beat a boss is to guess what the allowed solution is and then do that through trial and error over and over until i figured it out, i'd be playing an MMO doing raids over and over so that i can get the gear that will let me do the next raid over and over.

To each his own, i guess?
I understand you probably wouldn't like playing at my table, as i wouldn't like to DM for a player that wants every spell or effect to always work as written, without consideration for interesting encounters.

The MMO raids are similar in nature to my bosses (except the gear grind).
What if you could, i don't know, silence Ragnaros so he never gets to summon minions? Would that still be a fun encounter? I'd rather say "no, you cannot avoid the minion summoning. That's part of the encounter. If you have a "minion-summoning-block" spell then sorry, it doesnt work.

Usually killing the boss means depleting his HP. Not always: i had bosses that were immune to normal damage, but could be killed only by repeatedly using explosive barrels to cause chain reactions after carefully moving the barrels around and having to take care of minions.

It is impossible to build encounters like i like them, while allowing every spell or effect to work as written.

[Pex]

To each his own, i guess?
I understand you probably wouldn't like playing at my table, as i wouldn't like to DM for a player that wants every spell or effect to always work as written, without consideration for interesting encounters.



I know, right? What are players thinking expecting the rules to do what they say they do? Talk about player entitlement.

[NNescio]

I know, right? What are players thinking expecting the rules to do what they say they do? Talk about player entitlement.

Well, at least you'll get to sic Orcus on them now if they act that way. They've published a preview of his statblock recently.

[Madeiner]

I know, right? What are players thinking expecting the rules to do what they say they do? Talk about player entitlement.

Very funny. You are still ignoring the fact that i publish a rules document for players to accept. That document specifically says, among other things, that RAW is suppressed when the story requires it.

But really guys, you prefer being able to end a campaign-defining event by defeating the BBEG with a single spell, rather than have a complex, dynamic fight where you have to think and use strategy?

Take for example, "Murder at oakbridge". One of the best mistery adventures around there. Yet it could be foiled by ONE discern lies. You'd really prefer being able to destroy the adventure like that instead of playing it out?

[NNescio]

But really guys, you prefer being able to end a campaign-defining event by defeating the BBEG with a single spell, rather than have a complex, dynamic fight where you have to think and use strategy?

Take for example, "Murder at oakbridge". One of the best mistery adventures around there. Yet it could be foiled by ONE discern lies. You'd really prefer being able to destroy the adventure like that instead of playing it out?

Nondetection. Heck, Zone of Truth in 5e doesn't really work even if the target failed his save unless you have some way to force him to speak, and can still be evasive (like telling half-truths) if he does speak.

Also, Discern Lies doesn't exist in 5e, and in 3.5 is a 4th level Cleric spell or a 3rd level Paladin spell. Same goes with the other finicky Paizo classes in PF, IIRC. Murder in Oakbridge was for 5th level characters, right? They shouldn't get that spell yet.

Unless the Inquisitor is at play, but then again it is his forte anyway, and Paizo sucks at balance, so, eh, what do you expect? Even then, Discern Lies doesn't help if your target is being evasive. And if the adventure book explicitly tells you to roleplay the NPC as though as he's lying, well, you don't have to, right? Somebody caught wind of an Inquisitor coming to town after all.

I mean, it's much better then just flat out telling the PC "lolnope your spell/class feature doesn't work because I say so."




But really guys, you prefer being able to end a campaign-defining event by defeating the BBEG with a single spell, rather than have a complex, dynamic fight where you have to think and use strategy?

That's why I design my BBEGs to not be taken down by a single spell. Legendary resistance, Lucky Feat, Portent, dispels, counterspell (spells and Portent can be loaded on caster mooks instead of the BBEG if you don't want him to be a caster), etc., the game provides many ways for you to work within the rules to achieve the same purpose.

And if the players surprise me with something I haven't prepared for, good. I commend them for their effort, and I learn something new. It's a learning process on both sides of the DM screen, really.

[MaxWilson]

Can the mobile feat help this, and at least stop one portion of the sentinel feat?

Yes, Mobile trumps Sentinel, and so does Flyby. (Which by the way is a "free" feature by DMG CR guidelines.) You can kite a Sentinel guy to death all you want with Perytons and Giant Owls.

[Ace Jackson]

Very funny. You are still ignoring the fact that i publish a rules document for players to accept. That document specifically says, among other things, that RAW is suppressed when the story requires it.

But really guys, you prefer being able to end a campaign-defining event by defeating the BBEG with a single spell, rather than have a complex, dynamic fight where you have to think and use strategy?

Take for example, "Murder at oakbridge". One of the best mistery adventures around there. Yet it could be foiled by ONE discern lies. You'd really prefer being able to destroy the adventure like that instead of playing it out?

If there is only one point of failure in a structural plan, the fault is with the architect. Also, you say that you offer a list of house rules in advance, however, this is not in advance of a campaign, this is in the middle of one, and yes, classic rule zero should be implied, but it is exercised with respect to it being an exception, not a rule.

Just to avoid a moving goalpost, the question at hand is not a spell, (though similar arguments can be made with time), it is the sentinel feat, which requires that an enemy move into strike range, or the players bull rush him. If you don't want that to happen, provide reasons it shouldn't.

Does the BBEG have any archers on retainer, ready to flank the party if they charge?

Has the party used the sentinel feat in this capacity before? Would the BBEG have at least tried to scry them in the past, perhaps catching them while they spar in their downtime? Could the BBEG also have nasty melee powers?

Perhaps it's as simple as the BBEG having a flair for drama, and stands on a platform surrounded by oil ready to be lit.

Perhaps it should be as 'simple' as having superman fight Doctor Doom in Latveria. Could superman win? Laying aside Doom's massively undersold repertoire for the sake of argument, yes. Would Superman be able to fight? Questionable, Superman finds grounding in restraining himself to human laws, it helps him keep himself in check, as Doctor Doom is the ruler of the country it could be said to be unlawful. Many wouldn't question it as Doom is a despot, but the principle ideas can be taken to less extreme circumstances.

If you have a well connected BBEG who takes hospitality with a relatively high level lord, you can't bring them down simply by fighting, because even if you win, you'll still have to face the king's authority afterwards, and heaven help you if the BBEG either escaped between his capture and your capture, or the BBEG has a squeaky clean public record with no direct evidence to tie him to anything nefarious.

There are dozens of ways to complicate a fight without removing player powers, and we only just touched on the idea that a martial victory could only be the start of a series of struggles with the politically protected BBEG.

The players don't need to be less powerful, the GM can sometimes stand to outfox them.

[coredump]

I know, right? What are players thinking expecting the rules to do what they say they do? Talk about player entitlement.

Right! Because no one ever modifies any rules in a role playing game... everyone else in the world always uses the rules exactly as written.....

[SharkForce]

Right! Because no one ever modifies any rules in a role playing game... everyone else in the world always uses the rules exactly as written.....

there's a difference between telling you before you choose the ability (or better yet, before the campaign starts and before you create your character), and after you try to use the ability to do what it says just because the DM doesn't like the result.

one of those is fair and open, the other is not.

[Madeiner]

That's why I design my BBEGs to not be taken down by a single spell. Legendary resistance, Lucky Feat, Portent, dispels, counterspell (spells and Portent can be loaded on caster mooks instead of the BBEG if you don't want him to be a caster), etc., the game provides many ways for you to work within the rules to achieve the same purpose.


But then, you have achieved the same result i did.
The spell or method in question doesn't work because you found ways within the rules to do it.
I do the same, but i can't be bothered to look at the rules to achieve the same results.
I already take some 20 hours each week to prepare a single session, sometimes a lot more as i create movies or record audio or speeches for important moments.
I don't have the time nor have any interest in trying to find rules to achieve the same result.



If there is only one point of failure in a structural plan, the fault is with the architect.


I build a very fragile bridge, but beatiful and elegant and impressive.
This bridge can of course be shattered easily.
I can either spend more time to get a more resistant bridge, or build a bridge that is sturdier but less elegant in the same time.
I choose to do neither, instead my players and i acknowledge the bridge is wonderful even if precarious, and we treat with respect; if we see a fault, we choose not to exploit it, instead we walk the bridge, and we do our best not to shatter it.

[Louro]

Polearms!
Get a couple of guys with "polearm master" feat.
Move and ready action (attack anyone who comes in my range). This will get them 2 attacks. In case of missing one of them, the OA will be the other one, of course :smallbiggrin:

Shield master can prove usefull too, shove them away and enjoy life.

[coredump]

there's a difference between telling you before you choose the ability (or better yet, before the campaign starts and before you create your character), and after you try to use the ability to do what it says just because the DM doesn't like the result.

one of those is fair and open, the other is not.How did you *completely miss* the posts where he clearly states the rulings were issued *before* the campaign started... he has said it at least twice. (And *before* Pex made his sarcastic, and absurd, comment...)

[SharkForce]

How did you *completely miss* the posts where he clearly states the rulings were issued *before* the campaign started... he has said it at least twice. (And *before* Pex made his sarcastic, and absurd, comment...)

the "ruling" he issued is that at any time, he may or may not make your abilities do nothing with no advance warning after you use them because he did a bad job of planning and needs to punish you for trying to take advantage of a weakness someone or something had instead of rewarding your cleverness/preparation/interaction with the game world.

not remotely the same thing as saying "hey guys, i feel like wall of force and forcecage are too strong, so i'm adding a dex save to both of them just like wall of stone" before people start making characters and decide they might want to make a wizard, for example.

[djreynolds]

If you guys have the time, can one explain how sentinel denies movement. If I'm your adversary and I attack you and you have sentinel, you get an attack of opportunity , an OoA. And after, if I try to move out of your square, you get an OoA. But once you get your attack, how is my movement zero. Am I not punished enough, by you getting two free attacks on me anyhow by just entering your square that I cannot move?

So if you are protecting a wizard and you have sentinel and you guys are in close proximity, and I attack the wizard. You get a free attack on me. I can still attack the wizard or you. Now I can stay there and fight it out shot for shot, but if your wizard comrade moves, because you have sentinel, I'm stuck battling you either until your dead, or I'm dead, or you move away.

[SharkForce]

If you guys have the time, can one explain how sentinel denies movement. If I'm your adversary and I attack you and you have sentinel, you get an attack of opportunity , an OoA. And after, if I try to move out of your square, you get an OoA. But once you get your attack, how is my movement zero. Am I not punished enough, by you getting two free attacks on me anyhow by just entering your square that I cannot move?

So if you are protecting a wizard and you have sentinel and you guys are in close proximity, and I attack the wizard. You get a free attack on me. I can still attack the wizard or you. Now I can stay there and fight it out shot for shot, but if your wizard comrade moves, because you have sentinel, I'm stuck battling you either until your dead, or I'm dead, or you move away.

1) you have 1 reaction. sentinel does not change that. you get one extra attack from sentinel, no more.

2) the reaction from sentinel is not an opportunity attack. it's just a reaction. as such, it technically does not reduce movement to 0. whether that is intentional or not, i don't know. you'd have to ask the devs (but if you ask reynolds, make a point of very clearly asking what the original intent was rather than how it does work, because he's in a habit of telling you what the rules say without even acknowledging that they ever might have possibly been intended another way lately, and sentinel very clearly does work this way if you read it).

3) even if someone did get multiple reactions, sentinel isn't giving 2 extra attacks in the scenario you described. one of those attacks would have happened with or without sentinel.

having said all that... you don't need to charge next to the guy with sentinel. you don't need to get into melee range at all. you can use abilities that are not considered attacks, in particular abilities that force a saving throw. you don't provoke even a single opportunity attack until you move *past* the sentinel, and only one enemy can be stopped per turn because the sentinel character only has one reaction per turn, so if you have a horde, one gets stopped and the rest just move past and hit the wizard.

sentinel is not a terrible feat or anything, but frankly, there are ways around it (amusingly, an ally can technically grapple the victim you really care about and move them out of your reach, but i'd feel really bad for using that kind of metagame knowledge).

[coredump]

the "ruling" he issued is that at any time, he may or may not make your abilities do nothing with no advance warning after you use them because he did a bad job of planning and needs to punish you for trying to take advantage of a weakness someone or something had instead of rewarding your cleverness/preparation/interaction with the game world.

not remotely the same thing as saying "hey guys, i feel like wall of force and forcecage are too strong, so i'm adding a dex save to both of them just like wall of stone" before people start making characters and decide they might want to make a wizard, for example.You really should read the thread more carefully before posting... because that is not at all what was going on.

[djreynolds]

1) you have 1 reaction. sentinel does not change that. you get one extra attack from sentinel, no more.

2) the reaction from sentinel is not an opportunity attack. it's just a reaction. as such, it technically does not reduce movement to 0. whether that is intentional or not, i don't know. you'd have to ask the devs (but if you ask reynolds, make a point of very clearly asking what the original intent was rather than how it does work, because he's in a habit of telling you what the rules say without even acknowledging that they ever might have possibly been intended another way lately, and sentinel very clearly does work this way if you read it).

3) even if someone did get multiple reactions, sentinel isn't giving 2 extra attacks in the scenario you described. one of those attacks would have happened with or without sentinel.

having said all that... you don't need to charge next to the guy with sentinel. you don't need to get into melee range at all. you can use abilities that are not considered attacks, in particular abilities that force a saving throw. you don't provoke even a single opportunity attack until you move *past* the sentinel, and only one enemy can be stopped per turn because the sentinel character only has one reaction per turn, so if you have a horde, one gets stopped and the rest just move past and hit the wizard.

sentinel is not a terrible feat or anything, but frankly, there are ways around it (amusingly, an ally can technically grapple the victim you really care about and move them out of your reach, but i'd feel really bad for using that kind of metagame knowledge).

Thank you, I'm going to have to see this in play to wrap my mind around it.


So, I humbly asking you for you're guys expertise in this, if you have sentinel you get an AoO if I'm within five feet of you, and if I move away from you get an AoO, but how does this stop my movement? Does you're interruption of my action during the turn stop my movement completely or is my movement resolved after you get your AoO. Example, I move past an enemy with sentinel and he hits me. I'm still able to continue my movement towards wherever I was going or did this AoO stop my movement completely.

Is this how we are defining interrupt, as a complete stop or as a "pause" to conclude the AoO, and then proceed on.

We're sorry for temporarily interrupting this broadcast with this important message. I guess is the interrupt in our problem is temporary

[wasgreg]

Thank you, I'm going to have to see this in play to wrap my mind around it.


So, I humbly asking you for you're guys expertise in this, if you have sentinel you get an AoO if I'm within five feet of you, and if I move away from you get an AoO, but how does this stop my movement? Does you're interruption of my action during the turn stop my movement completely or is my movement resolved after you get your AoO. Example, I move past an enemy with sentinel and he hits me. I'm still able to continue my movement towards wherever I was going or did this AoO stop my movement completely.

Is this how we are defining interrupt, as a complete stop or as a "pause" to conclude the AoO, and then proceed on.

We're sorry for temporarily interrupting this broadcast with this important message. I guess is the interrupt in our problem is temporary


"When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn."~Sentinal Feat
I take that to mean as soon as you hit with your OA, your target can no longer move until the end of the turn. As OA's are a reaction that are resolved before the movement that activated it is completed, the movent action ends there. If the target still has another type of action available, it can use that...as long as there is no more movement allowed. Not sure what that means for misty step or the storm sorc's flight from casting. I'd probably still allow those to happen.

[djreynolds]

"When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn."~Sentinal Feat
I take that to mean as soon as you hit with your OA, your target can no longer move until the end of the turn. As OA's are a reaction that are resolved before the movement that activated it is completed, the movent action ends there. If the target still has another type of action available, it can use that...as long as there is no more movement allowed. Not sure what that means for misty step or the storm sorc's flight from casting. I'd probably still allow those to happen.

So he must connect with AoO, and he if does movement is zero again for next turn. So if the said adversary tries to espcape the sentinel's reach and the sentinel has not used his reaction for that turn and the sentinel hits this adversary with AoO then again he looses a movement for a turn.

And if there are two guys with sentinel, there is double the chance to hit. I'm starting to see the power of this feat.

To resolve this in a boss fight, I mean upping the enemy AC or BBG stats could help but I see the dilemma.

I apologize for my ignorance, I've yet to encounter this situation and see sentinel in its full effect. Well its a cool feat. I hear mobile is affective for one section of it and disengage, or that ilk, can defeat it after the attack, if it missed. But I wouldn't take the sentinel feat away, just strengthen the bad guys and have them roll some "20's" of their own.

With that just jack up the BBG's physical stats and make it a slug-fest, for one-one-party fights and of course any other solutions you can use such as minions

[SharkForce]

You really should read the thread more carefully before posting... because that is not at all what was going on.

indeed? why don't we examine that.


That's why i implement these rules modification before even starting the game, with a nice pdf document that players have to read and accept.

Sometimes, especially when i'm new to the system, i have to change rules mid-game. In the initial document i also stipulate that rules may change if needed, but characters have the options to change their choices if you don't like the new rules. You don't want sentinel anymore, you can remove it and take something else.

I believe telling a fun story or having more cinematic fights is worth more than having all character options available, or at least, that's how i run my tables.
Heck, one of my rules say that legendary resistance works against anything the DM wants to, no question asked, and is not limited on uses, on the premise that i will only use it to improve the gameplay experience.
(so, no, i won't auto-pass a save against your powerful damage spell, but the BBEG will be able to "save" against a forcecage, if that forcecage would stop the fight right now at turn 1, or makes it less fun in any way.
And if there's a mistery adventure with many suspects and a nice investigation to have, discern lies will not work either, if it would solve the adventure right now)

I really, really feel that with the right attitude, this improves the game.

so, basically, any time he feels like taking your abilities away will "improve the game" or protects the game from being made "less fun in any way" (which, as I noted, unless he is psychic is only going to consist of his opinion), he does it. doesn't matter what the ability does, it doesn't work, period, no questions asked, any time he wants it to not work, with no explanations, with the decision being made after you take the action and expend the spell, with no option to get the resource or the action back after you blow major resources.

that isn't warning you at the start of the campaign that forcecage works differently, or that discern lies doesn't discern lies. this is very clearly describing making your abilities not work after chargen, after the campaign has started, and after you've expended the resources and the actions on whatever it was that you did, whether or not anything in his houserules at the start of the campaign included it.

at any given time, your ability may or may not work. the more important it is that the ability work and the more effective it is if the ability works, the more likely it is to be a situation where the ability working apparently spoils his fun because he can't be bothered to plan out how to make a decent scenario that lets the players keep their abilities and have a meaningful impact while not invalidating the challenge.

well great. wonderful. I'm so glad I took the time to learn this ability so that any time it would be useful, it might arbitrarily not work with no warning and no compensation whatsoever. all I have to do is spend all my time guessing whether or not that weakness is something I'm supposed to recognize and exploit or if it's a plot hole that is going to screw me over if I try to use it, and sometimes there isn't even a realistic chance of me being aware that the plot hole is even there when it takes away resources that should by all rights have led to beneficial results.

[Madeiner]

indeed? why don't we examine that.

doesn't matter what the ability does, it doesn't work, period, no questions asked, any time he wants it to not work, with no explanations, with the decision being made after you take the action and expend the spell, with no option to get the resource or the action back after you blow major resources.


You are casting this is a very bad light.
Not once has a played complained that his ability didn't work as expected.
Most of the times, they recognize what an exploit is and (in character) say that it's smarter not to use that ability at all.
"Hey, that monster seems to draw power from the four pylons in the room. I don't assume a simple dispel magic will remove all of his shields; we have to destroy the pylons instead"

Sometimes, i do say, when the player is about to attempt an action, something like "this powerful creature looks like he has mastered the ways of short range teleportation, judging by how it moves across the battlefield. You think you'll need some trick to catch him, but surely he'll be protected by a simple dimensional anchor".
And an arcana check later, "However, it seems the geometric forms on the ground might be the conduit to its teleportation. Delete the lines somehow, and he might be limited in its movement. Unlikely you can remove the inner lines without first taking care of the outer lines though, so you'll have to box him in somehow, or lure him out"

You can then have a nice fight where the only goal is not "deplete its HP" while the boss beatsticks you, but interacting with enviroment, trying to survive damage at first, lure the boss around obstacles so someone can delete lines, probably realizing a better tactic during the fight and decide if it's worth to purse it.
OR
you can cast dimensional anchor, defeating the entire purpose of the encounter, ganging up on the boss (who was carefully balanced around the fact that one player needed to heal while at least another was occupied deleting lines, so it's a pushover now)
Which is more fun?

The golden rule is still one, and easily remembered:
- would this one ability effectively end the fight RIGHT NOW, or negate all the tactics the boss seem to employ with no possible recourse? Then i can be sure he is protected against that.

Forcecage against melee boss? Sentinel against heavily mobile boss? Dimensional anchor against teleporting boss?
Ends the encounter right there and then. Doesnt work. You have a ton other abilities, and you can be sure the boss is designed in such a way that some of them are probably key to hurting it.


he can't be bothered to plan out how to make a decent scenario that lets the players keep their abilities and have a meaningful impact while not invalidating the challenge.


Yeah, i could slap arbitrary protection from spells or immunites. Sure, the monster has "protection from spells: dispel magic"
The other one has "freedom of movement", so you can't Sentinel him down.
Same results, only i don't have to find/justify anything.

[MaxWilson]

"When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn."~Sentinal Feat
I take that to mean as soon as you hit with your OA, your target can no longer move until the end of the turn. As OA's are a reaction that are resolved before the movement that activated it is completed, the movent action ends there. If the target still has another type of action available, it can use that...as long as there is no more movement allowed. Not sure what that means for misty step or the storm sorc's flight from casting. I'd probably still allow those to happen.

Since readied actions don't take place on your turn, that means another way to get past Sentinel is to attempt to move. If the Sentinel misses, fine, do your thing. If he hits, spend your action to Ready movement as soon as someone else does anything. When the next guy's turn arrives, your movement is no longer zero and your Readied action will go off. Bob's your uncle.

[CNagy]

RE: Sentinels and big bads... if it is absolutely necessary that I have the Big Bad understaffed in his own encounter, I even out the action economy by either giving him a version of the 17th level Thief's Reflexes ability (so they can't completely shut him down) or a limited version of it (think Haste but off-turn.) When it comes to NPCs, you're pretty much allowed to do whatever you want within reason--when the players see a villain that can break base mechanics that they are bound by but does not curbstomp them in the process, the fight is instantly memorable and the villain, if played correctly, instantly a BAMF.

[Pex]

You are casting this is a very bad light.
Not once has a played complained that his ability didn't work as expected.
Most of the times, they recognize what an exploit is and (in character) say that it's smarter not to use that ability at all.
"Hey, that monster seems to draw power from the four pylons in the room. I don't assume a simple dispel magic will remove all of his shields; we have to destroy the pylons instead"

Sometimes, i do say, when the player is about to attempt an action, something like "this powerful creature looks like he has mastered the ways of short range teleportation, judging by how it moves across the battlefield. You think you'll need some trick to catch him, but surely he'll be protected by a simple dimensional anchor".
And an arcana check later, "However, it seems the geometric forms on the ground might be the conduit to its teleportation. Delete the lines somehow, and he might be limited in its movement. Unlikely you can remove the inner lines without first taking care of the outer lines though, so you'll have to box him in somehow, or lure him out"

You can then have a nice fight where the only goal is not "deplete its HP" while the boss beatsticks you, but interacting with enviroment, trying to survive damage at first, lure the boss around obstacles so someone can delete lines, probably realizing a better tactic during the fight and decide if it's worth to purse it.
OR
you can cast dimensional anchor, defeating the entire purpose of the encounter, ganging up on the boss (who was carefully balanced around the fact that one player needed to heal while at least another was occupied deleting lines, so it's a pushover now)
Which is more fun?

The golden rule is still one, and easily remembered:
- would this one ability effectively end the fight RIGHT NOW, or negate all the tactics the boss seem to employ with no possible recourse? Then i can be sure he is protected against that.

Forcecage against melee boss? Sentinel against heavily mobile boss? Dimensional anchor against teleporting boss?
Ends the encounter right there and then. Doesnt work. You have a ton other abilities, and you can be sure the boss is designed in such a way that some of them are probably key to hurting it.



Yeah, i could slap arbitrary protection from spells or immunites. Sure, the monster has "protection from spells: dispel magic"
The other one has "freedom of movement", so you can't Sentinel him down.
Same results, only i don't have to find/justify anything.


In other words, the DM stomps on my brilliant play because he feels like it.


RE: Sentinels and big bads... if it is absolutely necessary that I have the Big Bad understaffed in his own encounter, I even out the action economy by either giving him a version of the 17th level Thief's Reflexes ability (so they can't completely shut him down) or a limited version of it (think Haste but off-turn.) When it comes to NPCs, you're pretty much allowed to do whatever you want within reason--when the players see a villain that can break base mechanics that they are bound by but does not curbstomp them in the process, the fight is instantly memorable and the villain, if played correctly, instantly a BAMF.

It tells me the DM is cheating.

Edit: I'll modify to say I don't expect NPCs and monsters to be built exactly like PCs with class levels, but I do expect them to follow the rules.

[saeval]

I'd rather fudge a roll than deny a rule cause I hadn't thought of it. I've had villains die because "well ****, I guess that escape i planned really won't outmaneuver X plan." If it happened to MY BIGGEST baddy, I'd still roll with it, rather than force some cheese down the players throat. heck, it just gives me an excuse to have an even bigger bad later. Why take away from players when there is plenty within the rules for you to do most anything? If anything, you should be playing into the players strengths. When you release the big guns, it matters that much more that they are prepped to wreck the party, but you don't have the group feeling like you cheated to do so, and they still had their moment in the spotlight before having their butt handed to them on a platter.

[Safety Sword]

It tells me the DM is cheating.

Edit: I'll modify to say I don't expect NPCs and monsters to be built exactly like PCs with class levels, but I do expect them to follow the rules.

DMs are allowed to cheat. In fact I cheat more in favour of my players than against...

[MaxWilson]

It tells me the DM is cheating.

Edit: I'll modify to say I don't expect NPCs and monsters to be built exactly like PCs with class levels, but I do expect them to follow the rules.

Legendary Actions and Legendary Resistance must really upset you, then.

[HoarsHalberd]

I don't know why people are cheating in this scenario when there is a perfectly good alternative. Give your mobile bosses the mobile feat and multi-attack. That way you don't tell your players: "Your ability to slow people down that you know and rely on for tactical play doesn't work on this guy." You say: "Due to his alacrity, after he's attacked you he disappears faster than you can mount an opportunity attack."

[NNescio]

I don't know why people are cheating in this scenario when there is a perfectly good alternative. Give your mobile bosses the mobile feat and multi-attack. That way you don't tell your players: "Your ability to slow people down that you know and rely on for tactical play doesn't work on this guy." You say: "Due to his alacrity, after he's attacked you he disappears faster than you can mount an opportunity attack."

That would require me to spend time going through the books and understanding the rules, which I can't be bothered to look at because I have better things to do like writing the story or recording speeches or making movies.

[CNagy]

It tells me the DM is cheating.

Edit: I'll modify to say I don't expect NPCs and monsters to be built exactly like PCs with class levels, but I do expect them to follow the rules.

Cry me a river. Chances are if DMs stopped cheating entirely, there'd be a lot more headstones in your history of characters.

[obryn]

I don't honestly see what the problem is. The bad guy would be even more immobilized if you threw a Hold Person at him.

[Coidzor]

I don't honestly see what the problem is. The bad guy would be even more immobilized if you threw a Hold Person at him.

Saves are easier to buff behind the screen without the players cottoning on, I believe.

[obryn]

Saves are easier to buff behind the screen without the players cottoning on, I believe.
Then that would imply a structural problem with the rules, rather than a specific problem with this feat, wouldn't it?

[Madeiner]

I don't honestly see what the problem is. The bad guy would be even more immobilized if you threw a Hold Person at him.

The idea is that BBEGs have legendary resistance, so that one is an accepted way to "cheat" in order to make the combat go as intended

[obryn]

About the only issue I can see is that the "take an OA if they ignore you" clause of the feat should specify "you or another creature with this feat" instead.

Maybe it's just my long experience working with defenders in 4e, but I really really don't see the problem.

If this lets a Fighter immobilize an enemy, that's it working as intended. That's why your player invested valuable resources into picking it. They took it so they could lock down that pesky wizard.

If you're worried about the boss getting locked too easily, though, here's some quick ways to make it tough.

1. Use interesting terrain. Melee attacks need melee range.
2. Give the boss attacks with a push effect.
3. Teleportation
4. Conditional immunity to OAs
5. Riders that inflict negative conditions - poison, prone, etc.

That way, locking the enemy is an accomplishment rather than expected.

[SharkForce]

pretty sure sentinel doesn't give the attack (which, once again is not an opportunity attack and does not immobilize anything) if they attack a different person with sentinel. I might be remembering something else though.

a better combo would be a level 14 totem barbarian that chose bear, and a separate person who chose sentinel and has good AC.

also, the reason legendary resistance is tolerable is that it is a finite resource. each time it is used, you are one step closer to being able to land the effect you really wanted. it isn't "no, you're not allowed to be effective"... rather, you *have* been effective, you've burned a resource, and if you do that a few more times you'll get the effect you were looking for.

[Pex]

Legendary Actions and Legendary Resistance must really upset you, then.

Actually, yes they do, but I can't fault a DM using them for monsters that have them as it's part of what makes those monsters special BBEGs, and it's official published rules. It reminds me of my 2E days where it really bothered me monsters got multiple attacks of claw/claw/bite while PCs only had one attack except for specialized fighters.

I can fault the DM for suddenly giving Hobgoblin Boss Legendary Resistance on the spot because I was clever in casting a particular spell at the most opportune time.




also, the reason legendary resistance is tolerable is that it is a finite resource. each time it is used, you are one step closer to being able to land the effect you really wanted. it isn't "no, you're not allowed to be effective"... rather, you *have* been effective, you've burned a resource, and if you do that a few more times you'll get the effect you were looking for.

I can be solaced of my angst about them with this point of view.

[MaxWilson]

Actually, yes they do, but I can't fault a DM using them for monsters that have them as it's part of what makes those monsters special BBEGs, and it's official published rules. It reminds me of my 2E days where it really bothered me monsters got multiple attacks of claw/claw/bite while PCs only had one attack except for specialized fighters.

Yeah, I'm kind of in the same boat. I don't love Legendary Resistance but I live with it as just a feature of 5E; but I prefer AD&D-style Magic Resistance on so many levels.

[Hawkstar]

I wouldn't mind the idea of Disengage provoking an attack that doesn't reduce speed to 0, bringing it more in line with the fighter's ability from 4e - Walking away immobilizes you. Shifting away still gets you hit, but you're at least capable of running.

[Xetheral]

You are casting this is a very bad light.
Not once has a played complained that his ability didn't work as expected.
Most of the times, they recognize what an exploit is and (in character) say that it's smarter not to use that ability at all.
"Hey, that monster seems to draw power from the four pylons in the room. I don't assume a simple dispel magic will remove all of his shields; we have to destroy the pylons instead"

Sometimes, i do say, when the player is about to attempt an action, something like "this powerful creature looks like he has mastered the ways of short range teleportation, judging by how it moves across the battlefield. You think you'll need some trick to catch him, but surely he'll be protected by a simple dimensional anchor".
And an arcana check later, "However, it seems the geometric forms on the ground might be the conduit to its teleportation. Delete the lines somehow, and he might be limited in its movement. Unlikely you can remove the inner lines without first taking care of the outer lines though, so you'll have to box him in somehow, or lure him out"

You can then have a nice fight where the only goal is not "deplete its HP" while the boss beatsticks you, but interacting with enviroment, trying to survive damage at first, lure the boss around obstacles so someone can delete lines, probably realizing a better tactic during the fight and decide if it's worth to purse it.
OR
you can cast dimensional anchor, defeating the entire purpose of the encounter, ganging up on the boss (who was carefully balanced around the fact that one player needed to heal while at least another was occupied deleting lines, so it's a pushover now)
Which is more fun?

The golden rule is still one, and easily remembered:
- would this one ability effectively end the fight RIGHT NOW, or negate all the tactics the boss seem to employ with no possible recourse? Then i can be sure he is protected against that.

Forcecage against melee boss? Sentinel against heavily mobile boss? Dimensional anchor against teleporting boss?
Ends the encounter right there and then. Doesnt work. You have a ton other abilities, and you can be sure the boss is designed in such a way that some of them are probably key to hurting it.



Yeah, i could slap arbitrary protection from spells or immunites. Sure, the monster has "protection from spells: dispel magic"
The other one has "freedom of movement", so you can't Sentinel him down.
Same results, only i don't have to find/justify anything.

The problem with your approach to boss fights is that they'll play out virtually identically regardless of what abilities the characters have. In my experience, players have more fun when they use their own abilities to win, rather than having to rely on DM-provided environmental effects to dispose of the boss. (Environmental effects the DM didn't plan are a different story.)


RE: Sentinels and big bads... if it is absolutely necessary that I have the Big Bad understaffed in his own encounter, I even out the action economy by either giving him a version of the 17th level Thief's Reflexes ability (so they can't completely shut him down) or a limited version of it (think Haste but off-turn.) When it comes to NPCs, you're pretty much allowed to do whatever you want within reason--when the players see a villain that can break base mechanics that they are bound by but does not curbstomp them in the process, the fight is instantly memorable and the villain, if played correctly, instantly a BAMF.

As a player, I find it much more impressive when the DM manages to make a challenging (humanoid) opponent while sticking to the same rules that govern the players. If the DM just slaps on some BAMF homebrew abilities that the players can never have, it just comes across to me as the DM showing off his shiny toys that he's not going to share. Far from being impressed with the villain, I'm instead knocked out of the narrative with this none-too-subtle reminder that everything is arbitrary.

[Safety Sword]

We could go back to 3.5 where I spend several hours crafting a BBEG and the PCs destroy them in 2 rounds and the bad guy is crowd controlled the entire time.

DMs are supposed to have fun too...

Legendary and Lair actions are just an acknowledgement that action economy is real and PCs shouldn't always have the edge with that.

[Coidzor]

I wouldn't mind the idea of Disengage provoking an attack that doesn't reduce speed to 0, bringing it more in line with the fighter's ability from 4e - Walking away immobilizes you. Shifting away still gets you hit, but you're at least capable of running.

That does seem a potential compromise, where one has the choice between definitely losing one's action(unless one has bonus action Disengage) but being able to reposition or potentially losing one's move but keeping one's action.

Two Sentinels in tandem is still like they have Advantage, though, assuming there's not some discrepancy in their attack roll capabilities.

[AgentPaper]

That would require me to spend time going through the books and understanding the rules, which I can't be bothered to look at because I have better things to do like writing the story or recording speeches or making movies.

I know you meant this sarcastically, but you're exactly right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with running a game that focuses on story and set-piece battles at the expense of game mechanics. His style of running the game is different, not wrong.

Sure, a perfect game would have everything, but DMs are not perfect beings. We can only do so much, so it comes down to priorities. You can't be a master storyteller AND a master of the rules AND a master of world building AND a master at improvisation AND a masterful actor all at once. So, you figure out what parts you enjoy the most and focus on those, and try to find players who enjoy that too.

Personally, I try to do a good job at everything, but that comes at the cost of not really being fantastic at anything. I like the way I run games, but I have no illusions as to whether it's the "best" way to do it, or even that there is a "best" way. Just many different ways, some of which are better than others, but most of which are mostly just different.

[HidesHisEyes]

There's definitely ways around this.

- Making the Bad Guy a proper beat-stick to take down one or both of the Sentinels will free him up somewhat.

- Incapacitating the Sentinels somehow (Hold Person, Grease, Otto's Dance, etc.) will free you up to move.

- Moving the Sentinels in some way; a simple Shove from a minion will get a Sentinel out of the way of the Big Bad to do his thing. Other abilities will achieve similar results; a Warlock Repelling Blast will put a Sentinel out of position to effectively lock-down your ally.

- Don't provoke an OA is the simplest approach, though. NPC's with the Mobile feat don't provoke OA's if they attack the Sentinel first. Moving around within the Sentinels reach doesn't provoke an OA; this combined with a Reach weapon gives you a remarkable area that you, yourself, can threaten/attack.

Don't see it as as "urgh, I don't want to use shenanigans to get around this every time" situation, look at it as a "Let's really explore the limitations of Sentinel". Look at what it does;

1) OA hit drops speed to zero.
- Obvious solution; don't provoke OA or don't get hit.
-- High AC takes care of the latter; any caster with Shield has a good chance of this. Enemies with Full Plate, ludicrous Dex or whatever also have a good chance of avoiding being hit.
-- Preventing an OA is also an option; Shocking Grasp prevents Reactions; OA's are a reaction. I've given a couple of other work-arounds above.

2) Disengage Action does nothing.
- Obvious solution; don't Disengage. Dodge instead, Attack instead, Cast a Spell instead. Shove instead. Grapple instead. Do anything except Disengage.

3) Reaction Attack vs. Non-Sentinel Ally within 5ft.
- Obvious solution; don't attack Non-Sentinel allies. Cast a "Save-or-Something" spell, don't use attack when within 5ft of a Sentinel, cast a Buff Spell, use a non-attack ability (SoH to steal an item, for example), Help an ally, Use an Object, Ready an action.

Hope this has helped. :smallwink:

Yeah! These are the sorts of solutions you should be looking at. Remember that 5E was playtested very extensively. It's unlikely that WotC never came across this situation. The fact is, your fast and mobile monsters have been effectively countered by a character-building choice made by the players, and your monsters simply don't have the option of relying on mobility now. In the campaign I play in, one of the other PCs has a passive perception of about 26 (at level 5!) Monsters can't sneak up on us, basically. That tactic is off the DM's list of tactics. But that player sacrificed power in other ways to gain that advantage.

Don't be too quick to assume a certain combination of character build choices is a game-breaker, is my point. Sometimes you just have to be that much more imaginative.

[Pex]

Yeah! These are the sorts of solutions you should be looking at. Remember that 5E was playtested very extensively. It's unlikely that WotC never came across this situation. The fact is, your fast and mobile monsters have been effectively countered by a character-building choice made by the players, and your monsters simply don't have the option of relying on mobility now. In the campaign I play in, one of the other PCs has a passive perception of about 26 (at level 5!) Monsters can't sneak up on us, basically. That tactic is off the DM's list of tactics. But that player sacrificed power in other ways to gain that advantage.

Don't be too quick to assume a certain combination of character build choices is a game-breaker, is my point. Sometimes you just have to be that much more imaginative.

Good point.

Funny how when PCs are faced with monsters where their go to tactics won't work are told to think and do something else because it's a challenge, but when the PCs come up with something that prevents the DM from using a particular tactic for monsters or NPCs it's suddenly "Bad Player" or "The rules are broken!".

[Madeiner]

Good point.

Funny how when PCs are faced with monsters where their go to tactics won't work are told to think and do something else because it's a challenge, but when the PCs come up with something that prevents the DM from using a particular tactic for monsters or NPCs it's suddenly "Bad Player" or "The rules are broken!".

This mostly has to do with how one envisions the game.
The players are... playing, and have to be challenged for the game to be fun.
The DM, at least how i envision it, is like a movie director. He does not have to be challenged: instead, he must be put in a position to let him make his job free from any distraction. The easier his job is, the more he can concentrate on providing a good story.
As a DM, i see myself as a provider of a service. I don't even expect to have fun. In fact, most of the times it's a chore to prepare sessions. My gratification mostly comes from seeing players awed by how deep the story and the world is, by how many emotions a campaign can provide.
My job is to provide contents for the player to experience. It's figuring out what the players want, by discreetely trying to listen to interparty banter in order to capture some clue of what they would like to happen next, and try to work that into the story in a fun way. It's trying to understand what moves they character and what moves them, and give them what they want without being obvious.

Every minute i spend on trying to "work by the rules" is a minute i CANNOT spend to do my job as DM, and time is both finite and precious.

[HidesHisEyes]

This mostly has to do with how one envisions the game.
The players are... playing, and have to be challenged for the game to be fun.
The DM, at least how i envision it, is like a movie director. He does not have to be challenged: instead, he must be put in a position to let him make his job free from any distraction. The easier his job is, the more he can concentrate on providing a good story.
As a DM, i see myself as a provider of a service. I don't even expect to have fun. In fact, most of the times it's a chore to prepare sessions. My gratification mostly comes from seeing players awed by how deep the story and the world is, by how many emotions a campaign can provide.
My job is to provide contents for the player to experience. It's figuring out what the players want, by discreetely trying to listen to interparty banter in order to capture some clue of what they would like to happen next, and try to work that into the story in a fun way. It's trying to understand what moves they character and what moves them, and give them what they want without being obvious.

Every minute i spend on trying to "work by the rules" is a minute i CANNOT spend to do my job as DM, and time is both finite and precious.

I need to have fun and be challenged when DMing. I am as much a players as the players.

Different schools of thought, that's fine, that makes it a good game.

[mephnick]

In the campaign I play in, one of the other PCs has a passive perception of about 26 (at level 5!) Monsters can't sneak up on us, basically. That tactic is off the DM's list of tactics.

As a side point, you should still have monsters attempt to sneak up on the players even if it's physically impossible. You have to reward that guy for sacrificing other abilities for a good perception. Not saying you don't, but I see lots of posts from DM's being like "I just don't even have monsters attempt to sneak up on the party, or run by a sentinel any more, it's pointless." No, it's not pointless, that's the whole reason the player did that. Let him use it.

[Safety Sword]

As a side point, you should still have monsters attempt to sneak up on the players even if it's physically impossible. You have to reward that guy for sacrificing other abilities for a good perception. Not saying you don't, but I see lots of posts from DM's being like "I just don't even have monsters attempt to sneak up on the party, or run by a sentinel any more, it's pointless." No, it's not pointless, that's the whole reason the player did that. Let him use it.

DMs aren't immune to metagaming it seems.

My preferred way to handle theses things is to proceed as normal and allow the PCs to have their moments. I have many other devious ways to surprise them.

If the character has high perception and can't be surprised, good on them. It doesn't do you any good if the enemy aren't trying to hide.

A Beholder you can see is still a Beholder.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Fiat is a crutch. Sometimes you have to use it, but it's better if you don't. And you really don't here; any melee character relying on reactions starts getting hosed once you have multiple enemies, or one enemy with high AC, or one enemy with illusions, or one enemy with Mobile (if he doesn't have PM).

But I really came here to post this:
When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn’t have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.Emphasis mine. The discussion was all over the board here, so I just wanted to clarify that no, double Sentinel doesn't work. No modification needed.

[TheOOB]

First of all, it's no one's fault for letting two players take a good feat. By taking those feats, your players are telling you that they want to control battlefield movement, that's what's fun for them, and you shouldn't constantly try to circumvent it. Sure sometimes a teleporting baddie is good,but there is nothing wrong with players abilities being effective.

Also, a big fight that involves one creature against the party is almost always a let down. Legendary monsters are interesting and powerful, but without some mooks or terrain in their favor it's hard to over come the extra actions and powers the party has in their favor. My party faced a lot of dragons in the last campaign, and only one of the solo fights was any interesting, and that's because they were about 4 levels too low for it.

[AgentPaper]

Fiat is a crutch. Sometimes you have to use it, but it's better if you don't. And you really don't here; any melee character relying on reactions starts getting hosed once you have multiple enemies, or one enemy with high AC, or one enemy with illusions, or one enemy with Mobile (if he doesn't have PM).

But I really came here to post this: Emphasis mine. The discussion was all over the board here, so I just wanted to clarify that no, double Sentinel doesn't work. No modification needed.

It's still very useful in that you both get an opportunity attack when they leave your reach, making it even more likely that one of you will hit and reduce their HP to 0.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's still very useful in that you both get an opportunity attack when they leave your reach, making it even more likely that one of you will hit and reduce their HP to 0.I was just pointing out the issue with that particular combo; we're on the same page.

[Psikerlord]

Just give bosses a save versus the immobilization effect.
That will keep your players from feeling that you've retroactively made their feat choice redundant or useless, while simultaneously opening a window for the kinds of fights that you want.
Sometimes the feat will function versus bosses, sometimes it won't. Everybody wins.

Yep, this. I think you could extend Legendary Resistance to ignore the sentinel clause, or yeah just give the BBEG a save every time - coz he's a legendary/solo. Makes it more interesting. On the other hand, if it's a BBEG, there are probably other resources he can draw on to avoid getting reduced to zero speed. Go with whatever you feel will make the combat most fun.

[Hawkstar]

Yep, this. I think you could extend Legendary Resistance to ignore the sentinel clause, or yeah just give the BBEG a save every time - coz he's a legendary/solo. Makes it more interesting.

More like more frustrating

[Coidzor]

I was just pointing out the issue with that particular combo; we're on the same page.

I may have missed it, but I think it was all about getting solo bbegs away from the two sentinels.

[djreynolds]

I may have missed it, but I think it was all about getting solo bbegs away from the two sentinels.

Yes sir, and while I was ignoring sick patients at work, I discovered that if you don't hit with AoO, it doesn't matter. Am I seeing this correctly? Mr Jelly said, higher AC. That would at least up the BBG's chance at escaping, and if not lesson learned. But inorder for sentinel to work, he must hit. So perhaps something to add disadvantage to player's attacks. Or up the BBG's hit points and attack stats so perhaps the players have to withdraw.

[HoarsHalberd]

Yes sir, and while I was ignoring sick patients at work, I discovered that if you don't hit with AoO, it doesn't matter. Am I seeing this correctly? Mr Jelly said, higher AC. That would at least up the BBG's chance at escaping, and if not lesson learned. But inorder for sentinel to work, he must hit. So perhaps something to add disadvantage to player's attacks. Or up the BBG's hit points and attack stats so perhaps the players have to withdraw.

The way to add disadvantage is for him to dodge instead of disengage before leaving. Maybe even give him the ability to dodge as a bonus action that recharges on a 5-6

[HidesHisEyes]

As a side point, you should still have monsters attempt to sneak up on the players even if it's physically impossible. You have to reward that guy for sacrificing other abilities for a good perception. Not saying you don't, but I see lots of posts from DM's being like "I just don't even have monsters attempt to sneak up on the party, or run by a sentinel any more, it's pointless." No, it's not pointless, that's the whole reason the player did that. Let him use it.

Yep, I totally agree. I'm not the DM in the group I'm referring to (I'm a polearm sentinel fighter, as it happens) but the DM does exactly what you've said, for that reason.

Also, you should never really be tailoring encounters and challenges to the specific party you're designing for, in my opinion. It may become obvious and break the illusion, or even if it doesn't it's a good way to cause an accidental TPK.

[ubermonkey]

Any ideas on how to deal with this?

Ask your Barbarian if they would like to drop the movement reduction to zero for an extra attack. Problem solved.

[MaxWilson]

Yes sir, and while I was ignoring sick patients at work, I discovered that if you don't hit with AoO, it doesn't matter. Am I seeing this correctly? Mr Jelly said, higher AC. That would at least up the BBG's chance at escaping, and if not lesson learned. But inorder for sentinel to work, he must hit. So perhaps something to add disadvantage to player's attacks. Or up the BBG's hit points and attack stats so perhaps the players have to withdraw.

Or Push the PCs away with his regular two (or more) attacks. Then they're out of range so they get no opportunity attacks.


Also, you should never really be tailoring encounters and challenges to the specific party you're designing for, in my opinion. It may become obvious and break the illusion, or even if it doesn't it's a good way to cause an accidental TPK.

+1. I make it a point not to even know precisely what my players' PCs' stats are or what level they are, just as an extra layer of defense against this. DM metagaming deprives players from experiencing the full impact of their choices.

I do page through the books and occasionally add an encounter feature for which a given ability would be useful. E.g. I'll add some vertical terrain where Jump or the Champion's increased jump distance would be helpful, or I'll see an interesting but niche ability like the barbarian's Commune With Nature feature or Land Druid's Wildshape and add some more wilderness exploration areas. The goal is to either reward the PC who specialized for that situation, or to make the PCs think, "Boy, wouldn't it be nice if I was a [whatever] right now?"

It's a way of stimulating myself to produce more variety in the sandbox.