Polearm Master/Sentinel/Tunnel Fighter

[BootStrapTommy]

I'm intrigued by how the combination of these interact and am curious about what builds might be optimal for the combination of these things, for use when I play soon. Thoughts?

I've two vague ideas: tthe quarterstaff wielder and the glaive/halberd/pike wielder

The quarterstaff wielder would take a level or two in Fighter (or another martial class) to get Fighting Style for Tunnel Fighter, before becoming a Bladesinger, using the quarterstaff during Battlesong and eating ALS for the feats. Thoughts? Improvement?

The glaive/halberd/pike wielder build is more open in the air. Variant human of a Fighter/Paladin/Ranger. Which class/archetype would be best for this?

[djreynolds]

I'm intrigued by how the combination of these interact and am curious about what builds might be optimal for the combination of these things, for use when I play soon. Thoughts?

I've two vague ideas: tthe quarterstaff wielder and the glaive/halbred/pike wielder

The quarterstaff wielder would take a level or two in Fighter (or another martial class) to get Fighting Style for Tunnel Fighter, before becoming a Bladesinger, using the quarterstaff during Battlesong and eating ALS for the feats. Thoughts? Improvement?

The glaive/halbred/pike wielder build is more open in the air. Variant human of a Fighter/Paladin/Ranger. Which class/archetype would be best for this?

It could be very cool. But I'm always weary of including a caster into a melee build, or vice versa. With that said, fighter will give you con save proficiencies and ranger will give dex save coupled with blade song advantage on acrobatic checks could be useful if you get the acrobatic skill from somewhere.

Would war caster work with polearm master and sentinel, that's the question. Can you use booming blade with a polearm on an AoO or reaction? If that works and you can cast a cantrip. I'm unsure if war caster can synergize with sentinel or polearm master?

[MeeposFire]

As I recall sentinel does not give you an opportunity attack but a reaction attack which is not the same thing (it also makes opportunity attacks more likely since it counters disengage).

However Polearm master does work with booming blade assuing you have warcaster and the correct weapon. Greenflame is debatable where it depends if you consider its special form of AOE targeting more than the target creature. I probably would but like I said it is debatable.


Also note that sentinel also does not synergyze well with booming blade because it makes the target's move zero and if they do not get extra damage. You might prefer the 0 movement but if you want to sometimes get the bonus damage on the opportunity attack then this does prevent that.

[djreynolds]

But an opportunity attack uses you 1 reaction. Only 1. Where tunnel fighter gives an unknown amount.

But this class would need a lot EK just for feats and ASI. Could be cool as an NPC with high stats already, or save it when you roll crazy abilities.

[Giant2005]

You are better off ditching Sentinel and taking 7 levels of Vengeance Paladin. If something comes close, you can use Polearm Master to get an OA and then can immediately move, you then take a step back and repeat the process when they try to come closer again. If a creature is fast and stupid enough (or compelled to do so by magic), you can get dozens of attacks on them on their turn without them ever getting close enough to hit you back.
Throw in Warcaster and Booming Blade (which would proc the movement damage on each of those OAs) and the game gets stupid.

[BootStrapTommy]

You are better off ditching Sentinel and taking 7 levels of Vengeance Paladin. If something comes close, you can use Polearm Master to get an OA and then can immediately move, you then take a step back and repeat the process when they try to come closer again. If a creature is fast and stupid enough (or compelled to do so by magic), you can get dozens of attacks on them on their turn without them ever getting close enough to hit you back.
Throw in Warcaster and Booming Blade (which would proc the movement damage on each of those OAs) and the game gets stupid.5e has no "step back". Without the Mobile feat or Swashbuckler levels, that wouldn't work because you would have to Disengage. With Mobile, that's three feats, which is rough. So 3 levels of Swashbuckler would be best for Fancy Footwork.

My idea is simple. Polearm Master gives reach OA. Tunnel Fighter give unlimited OA. Sentinel give Disengage immunity and stops movement on OA hit. This means a PC with all three can melee area control like no other.

The other features of the combo are less important. Tunnel Fighter's reaction action against movement within reach is pretty nice, and Sentinel's reaction attack against opponents attacking allies is hardly useless. The Polearm d4 is not that helpful, however.

The question is what build is most beneficial to augment the area control ability? Are Battlemaster maneuvers the most useful? Area control spells from a caster class? Or should this build tank and actively draw agro?

[Giant2005]

5e has no "step back". Without the Mobile feat or Swashbuckler levels, that wouldn't work because you would have to Disengage. With Mobile, that's three feats, which is rough. So 3 levels of Swashbuckler would be best for Fancy Footwork.

You don't need to disengage because you are hitting them at 10' and their range is generally 5'. You won't suffer an OA because they can't reach you. Also the ability itself prevents OAs in return in much the same way that the Swashbuckler and Mobility abilities can do.

[HoarsHalberd]

5e has no "step back". Without the Mobile feat or Swashbuckler levels, that wouldn't work because you would have to Disengage. With Mobile, that's three feats, which is rough. So 3 levels of Swashbuckler would be best for Fancy Footwork.

My idea is simple. Polearm Master gives reach OA. Tunnel Fighter give unlimited OA. Sentinel give Disengage immunity and stops movement on OA hit. This means a PC with all three can melee area control like no other.

The other features of the combo are less important. Tunnel Fighter's reaction action against movement within reach is pretty nice, and Sentinel's reaction attack against opponents attacking allies is hardly useless. The Polearm d4 is not that helpful, however.

The question is what build is most beneficial to augment the area control ability? Are Battlemaster maneuvers the most useful? Area control spells from a caster class? Or should this build tank and actively draw agro?

Maneuvers add most utility. Most damage (and hence most attention) comes from paladin. And also, vengeance paladin can explicitly move half their movement after an opportunity attack (without drawing OAs of their own.) Hence why he specifically said vengeance paladin. It's the relentless avenger subclass feature.

[Giant2005]

The question is what build is most beneficial to augment the area control ability? Are Battlemaster maneuvers the most useful? Area control spells from a caster class? Or should this build tank and actively draw agro?

The perfect build is Lore Bard 8/Vengeance Paladin 8 with the Polearm Master, Spell Sniper and Warcaster feats. Taking Booming Blade as a Magical Secret.
Cast Compulsion to force all of the enemies within 30' to continuously march toward you. As they step forward, you take a step back and hit them with a booming blade, then they step forward again just to be hit again. All of the enemies will be dead in a single round without your companions having to risk their own skins. Almost instantly turning all of the enemies into a pile of corpses is pretty much as good as it gets when it comes to area control.

[djreynolds]

The perfect build is Lore Bard 8/Vengeance Paladin 8 with the Polearm Master, Spell Sniper and Warcaster feats. Taking Booming Blade as a Magical Secret.
Cast Compulsion to force all of the enemies within 30' to continuously march toward you. As they step forward, you take a step back and hit them with a booming blade, then they step forward again just to be hit again. All of the enemies will be dead in a single round without your companions having to risk their own skins. Almost instantly turning all of the enemies into a pile of corpses is pretty much as good as it gets when it comes to area control.

Very sweet build. If you do not mind, I may partake for the upcoming Ravenloft

[Giant2005]

Very sweet build. If you do not mind, I may partake for the upcoming Ravenloft

It only works if you can convince your DM to let you take Tunnel Fighter and that is often a difficult task.

[BootStrapTommy]

It only works if you can convince your DM to let you take Tunnel Fighter and that is often a difficult task.This thread is predicated on Tunnel Fighter, so it's an assumption for this discussion.

[RickAllison]

It only works if you can convince your DM to let you take Tunnel Fighter and that is often a difficult task.

Tunnel Fighter isn't that bad, but one piece of wording on the Vengeance paladin could put a damper on it.
When you hit a creature with an
opportunity attack, you can move up to half your
speed immediately after the attack and as part of
the same reaction.

Because it says it is part of the same reaction, and TF says that OAs don't use a reaction, it could be rather easily said that the ability can't trigger.

[Giant2005]

Tunnel Fighter isn't that bad, but one piece of wording on the Vengeance paladin could put a damper on it.

Because it says it is part of the same reaction, and TF says that OAs don't use a reaction, it could be rather easily said that the ability can't trigger.

That is a fair interpretation and obviously a much more balanced approach but it isn't one I personally agree with. The reaction that the Paladin's ability is referring to is the same one that is used by the Opportunity Attack. The Tunnel Fighter Fighting Style enables you to make an Opportunity Attack without spending your Reaction. Therefore the Paladin ability is being used as part of the same reaction that isn't being expended.

[joaber]

That is a fair interpretation and obviously a much more balanced approach but it isn't one I personally agree with. The reaction that the Paladin's ability is referring to is the same one that is used by the Opportunity Attack. The Tunnel Fighter Fighting Style enables you to make an Opportunity Attack without spending your Reaction. Therefore the Paladin ability is being used as part of the same reaction that isn't being expended.

Is one interpretation in three:

-your
-AoO isn't a reaction, so you can use only 1 per round
-AoO isn't a reaction, so you need to use a reaction to trigger PoV ability.

The only one that will break the game entirely is yours. With the right party, using dissonant whisppers, command, fear, etc, you can get more than 20 attacks in a single round. If your DM allow this, make house rules to make the other PCs stronger and not only you roll dice in a combat.

And make encounters waaaay harder.

[Giant2005]

The only one that will break the game entirely is yours.

To be fair, mine just breaks the game the most. Tunnel Fighter (and most UA material) is powerful enough that it is capable of breaking things all on its own without effort. Generally the minute you start letting homebrew in your game in the first place, everything else will need to be adjusted accordingly anyway.

[RickAllison]

That is a fair interpretation and obviously a much more balanced approach but it isn't one I personally agree with. The reaction that the Paladin's ability is referring to is the same one that is used by the Opportunity Attack. The Tunnel Fighter Fighting Style enables you to make an Opportunity Attack without spending your Reaction. Therefore the Paladin ability is being used as part of the same reaction that isn't being expended.

And while that is a very unbalanced interpretation, I'm not willing to say it isn't valid :smallbiggrin: As a player, I think I would prefer yours...

[joaber]

To be fair, mine just breaks the game the most. Tunnel Fighter (and most UA material) is powerful enough that it is capable of breaking things all on its own without effort. Generally the minute you start letting homebrew in your game in the first place, everything else will need to be adjusted accordingly anyway.

You can homebrew to make somethig less powerfull too. Like allow TF Attavk only once per turn or per enemy, or put a total limit int round attacks. Isn't because something is broken you can desintegrate the entire game.
Vegeance oath was never intented to be used more than once per round.

[RickAllison]

You can homebrew to make somethig less powerfull too. Like allow TF Attavk only once per turn or per enemy, or put a total limit int round attacks. Isn't because something is broken you can desintegrate the entire game.
Vegeance oath was never intented to be used more than once per round.

It's a leap to say it was only intended to be used once per round. If they wished that, they would have noted it specifically. I'm still of the opinion that the paladin doesn't get to use the feature at all without using a reaction. The OAs from TF are from taking a defensive stance, which can't be maintained as effectively in motion. If he wants to move, he has to spend his reaction to make the transition. TF's ability is all about minimizing wasted motion to maximize reaction time and defensive attacks, which doesn't work as well when the paladin is trying to move around.

[joaber]

It's a leap to say it was only intended to be used once per round. If they wished that, they would have noted it specifically. I'm still of the opinion that the paladin doesn't get to use the feature at all without using a reaction. The OAs from TF are from taking a defensive stance, which can't be maintained as effectively in motion. If he wants to move, he has to spend his reaction to make the transition. TF's ability is all about minimizing wasted motion to maximize reaction time and defensive attacks, which doesn't work as well when the paladin is trying to move around.

I completily agree, if the text say "as part of same reaction" you newd yo use the reaction to trigger.

[Giant2005]

I completily agree, if the text say "as part of same reaction" you newd yo use the reaction to trigger.

To me it seems that the incentive behind that clause was to tell the player's that they don't have to pay anything extra to use that ability, other than the price they have already paid.
It is like a movie promotion where you get a some popcorn as part of the package when you get a ticket to see a particular movie. How much that movie ticket costs is irrelevant to the popcorn promotion.

[joaber]

To me it seems that the incentive behind that clause was to tell the player's that they don't have to pay anything extra to use that ability, other than the price they have already paid.
It is like a movie promotion where you get a some popcorn as part of the package when you get a ticket to see a particular movie. How much that movie ticket costs is irrelevant to the popcorn promotion.

"as part of the same reaction", if there isn't a reaction, you can't trigger the feature.

Is like you trying to get your popcorn promotion in another movie theater.

But when, you can interpretate as you want, always. Same as I can interpretate that war caster don't need to be a reaction, or sentinel, that booming blade is an attack action since there is an weapon attack roll...

[Giant2005]

Is like you trying to get your popcorn promotion in another movie theater.

Not really, it is more like trying to get the popcorn promotion when using a coupon for free admission.

[joaber]

that coupom have a requirement that you don't meet.

Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

[Giant2005]

that coupom have a requirement that you don't meet.

Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

I think we informally agreed to disagree a long time ago. This is just conversation really.

[BootStrapTommy]

I'm confused here. Nothing about the statement "as part of the same reaction" necessitates the reaction. Nothing in that statement implies that if the reaction is not present the ability does not trigger. That is actually a bit of a stretch.

[joaber]

I'm confused here. Nothing about the statement "as part of the same reaction" necessitates the reaction. Nothing in that statement implies that if the reaction is not present the ability does not trigger. That is actually a bit of a stretch.

the text say "you can move as part of the same reaction". You used a reaction? If you didn"t make a reaction, how you'll move as part of that reaction?
just remember that when PHB was released, was impossible to make an AoO without using a reaction (still is in official content). So basicaly, would be redundant to say that "you need to use your reaction".

[BootStrapTommy]

the text say "you can move as part of the same reaction". You used a reaction? If you didn"t make a reaction, how you'll move as part of that reaction?
just remember that when PHB was released, was impossible to make an AoO without using a reaction (still is in official content). So basicaly, would be redundant to say that "you need to use your reaction".You don't need to make a reaction. The ability is triggered by the OA, not the reaction.

[Deadandamnation]

You can't cast infinite Booming Blade as an AoO triggered by tunnel fighter, Booming Blade is a spell not an attack.

You can't move more than once with vangeance paladin. And only if you use your reaction to make an opportunity attack, because you still got your reaction action :) isn't disappeared in a vacuum, you can counterspell if you want, or cast shield.

You can get infinite attacks but only against different targets since when a target charges you the first time he will stop there.

Sentinel makes that feature better, and makes a great area controller, but that's nothing a good GM can't handle.

[joaber]

You don't need to make a reaction. The ability is triggered by the OA, not the reaction.

So, why it say you do this as part as reaction and not as part of the AoO? Why have the word "reaction" and what you're doing is just a part of it?

Maybe I'll start to use booming blade with haste, since haste let me make one weapon attack, and booming blade has one melee weapon attack as part of it.

Or if I use levitate, I can move up or down without spend movement, because this movement is just "as part of my move", so I don't need to spend it if I don't want to.

Your DM can interpret different if he want, will be good for the tunnel fighter player. In fact, hope to be a solo adventure because with the right spells, you can make 20, 30, 50 attacks in one round. Particularly, I do not see much fun in exterminate the balance of the game that way.

if you want some more "official" ask to Jeremy Crawford.

[BootStrapTommy]

So, why it say you do this as part as reaction and not as part of the AoO? Why have the word "reaction" and what you're doing is just a part of it?
When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.The OA is the trigger, not the reaction. If the reaction were the trigger it would say "If you use a reaction to OA and hit..." The "as part of the reaction" indicates that it is additional movement granted as part of the OA, which required a reaction pre-Tunnel Fighter, and not use of the paladin's normal movement.

The idea that it indicated that a reaction is required, rather than that the movement is part of the OA, is a logical stretch.


Maybe I'll start to use booming blade with haste, since haste let me make one weapon attack, and booming blade has one melee weapon attack as part of it.

Or if I use levitate, I can move up or down without spend movement, because this movement is just "as part of my move", so I don't need to spend it if I don't want to.These are both false equivalences. They are not comparable.


Your DM can interpret different if he want, will be good for the tunnel fighter player. In fact, hope to be a solo adventure because with the right spells, you can make 20, 30, 50 attacks in one round. Particularly, I do not see much fun in exterminate the balance of the game that way.Because the chance to upstage casters with a martial build is invaluable. Also, the counter to it is range and reach, which aren't exactly a stretch for a DM to employ. Any balance breaker whose counter is giving people bows, magic, or reach weapons isn't exactly that balance breaking.


if you want some more "official" ask to Jeremy Crawford.I've yet to have him respond to a single inquiry I've made.

[joaber]

The "as part of the reaction" indicates that it is additional movement granted as part of the OA,

No, the movement is "as part of the same reaction", that is the text, is preatty clear. How you pretend to make one the part of one action without that action? How you can say my exemple of levitate isn't comparable if is exactly the same text?


Because the chance to upstage casters with a martial build is invaluable. Also, the counter to it is range and reach, which aren't exactly a stretch for a DM to employ. Any balance breaker whose counter is giving people bows, magic, or reach weapons isn't exactly that balance breaking.

this is 5e, martial classes are great, and do more DPR in single target than any caster. just think in casting fear in one target that move 50 feet, we talking about 20 attack. Be a sorcerer, twin dissonant whisppers if you don't hit one target, you'll hit the other, 12 attacks in one turn if they move just 30 feet, and you can get in the rest of round. To a DM balance this he can auto succeed in any ST (will unbalance to other casters) or never put one more criature in melee or even let you came close to one (bad for the other martial classes and the campaing, now is just cliff battle with archers).

your DM need to be a tomato to accept that. He probably will nerf when he see what is comming.

but if he allow, my cents:

compulsion don't work with TF, because you need to use your bonus action to make they move and you need to use your bonus action to activate TF instance.

warlock great old one get dissonant whisppers, hex, eldritch blast, short rest spells, devil's sight and darkness (lvl 3) to have advantage always.

shadow sorcerer don't let you drop to 0 hp, devil's sight, you can cast darkness with just 1 SP, so basicly you can cast many times in a combat. And lvl 6 you can get a hould that will give desadvantage in the enemy ST. Plus metamagic.

As sorcerer you get enlarge, with find steed, you can reach 7x7 area

So is a better option than bard.

[BootStrapTommy]

No, the movement is "as part of the same reaction", that is the text, is preatty clear. How you pretend to make one the part of one action without that action? How you can say my exemple of levitate isn't comparable if is exactly the same text?
One creature or object of your choice that you can see within range rises vertically, up to 20 feet, and remains suspended there for the duration. The spell can levitate a target that weighs up to 500 pounds. An unwilling creature that succeeds on a Constitution saving throw is unaffected. The target can move only by pushing or pulling against a fixed object or surface within reach (such as a wall or a ceiling), which allows it to move as if it were climbing. You can change the target’s altitude by up to 20 feet in either direction on your turn. If you are the target, you can move up or down as part of your move. Otherwise, you can use your action to move the target, which must remain within the spell’s range.When the spell ends, the target floats gently to the ground if it is still aloft.Not seeing how that is similar. It would only be comparable if you possessed a feature that said "If you change location due to a spell cast on your self, you can do so without using a move action." But without a functional equivalent to Tunnel Fighter, it's a false equivalence.

The difference is that Tunnel Fighter specifically states that OAs don't require reactions. Levitate does not say the same of move actions. Relentless Avenger triggers on the OA, not the reaction.


this is 5e, martial classes are great, and do more DPR in single target than any caster. just think in casting fear in one target that move 50 feet, we talking about 20 attack. Be a sorcerer, twin dissonant whisppers if you don't hit one target, you'll hit the other, 12 attacks in one turn if they move just 30 feet, and you can get in the rest of round. To a DM balance this he can auto succeed in any ST (will unbalance to other casters) or never put one more criature in melee or even let you came close to one (bad for the other martial classes and the campaing, now is just cliff battle with archers).

your DM need to be a tomato to accept that. He probably will nerf when he see what is comming.

but if he allow, my cents:

compulsion don't work with TF, because you need to use your bonus action to make they move and you need to use your bonus action to activate TF instance.

warlock great old one get dissonant whisppers, hex, eldritch blast, short rest spells, devil's sight and darkness (lvl 3) to have advantage always.

shadow sorcerer don't let you drop to 0 hp, devil's sight, you can cast darkness with just 1 SP, so basicly you can cast many times in a combat. And lvl 6 you can get a hould that will give desadvantage in the enemy ST. Plus metamagic.

As sorcerer you get enlarge, with find steed, you can reach 7x7 area

So is a better option than bard.Okay, I'm gunna be completely honest here. I cannot make any sense of that.

[joaber]

Not seeing how that is similar. It would only be comparable if you possessed a feature that said "If you change location due to a spell cast on your self, you can do so without using a move action." But without a functional equivalent to Tunnel Fighter, it's a false equivalence.

The difference is that Tunnel Fighter specifically states that OAs don't require reactions. Levitate does not say the same of move actions. Relentless Avenger triggers on the OA, not the reaction.

Okay, I'm gunna be completely honest here. I cannot make any sense of that.

To work with tunnel fighter, the text of relentless avanger should be:
..."hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack." Nothing more. But no, there is a second requiriment that the movement is part of reaction.
This word wouldn't be used if only the AoO matters.

[BootStrapTommy]

To work with tunnel fighter, the text of relentless avanger should be:
..."hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack." Nothing more. But no, there is a second requiriment that the movement is part of reaction.
This word wouldn't be used if only the AoO matters.No, it is the only thing that matters. That wording exists to make it clear that Relentless Avenger is granting extra movement, not eating up movement for the move action from the previous or subsequent rounds. You're ignoring that Tunnel Fighter also didn't exist when the PHB was written, when OAs were assumed to require a reaction.

It does not say "When you use a reaction to make an opportunity attack..." It says "When you hit with an opportunity attack..." The trigger is not the reaction. It is a successful hit with an opportunity attack.

[RickAllison]

No, it is the only thing that matters. That wording exists to make it clear that Relentless Avenger is granting extra movement, not eating up movement for the move action from the previous or subsequent rounds. You're ignoring that Tunnel Fighter also didn't exist when the PHB was written, when OAs were assumed to require a reaction.

It does not say "When you use a reaction to make an opportunity attack..." It says "When you hit with an opportunity attack..." The trigger is not the reaction. It is a successful hit with an opportunity attack.

Until word is received from Sage Advice or Tunnel Fighter reaches an actual book, I would say that it does matter. If it really didn't matter that it was part of a reaction more than necessitating being part of an OA, it certainly wouldn't have needed the redundant clause. If you can provide an example of another PHB ability that grants movement as part of the ability separate from movement and uses that same language, that would greatly strengthen your argument. Otherwise, it becomes a futile debate over whether a redundant clause from RAW is applicable that can have no definite solution (although a strict reading and a balance perspective would both tend toward the opposition's argument).

[joaber]

No, it is the only thing that matters. That wording exists to make it clear that Relentless Avenger is granting extra movement, not eating up movement for the move action from the previous or subsequent rounds. You're ignoring that Tunnel Fighter also didn't exist when the PHB was written, when OAs were assumed to require a reaction.

It does not say "When you use a reaction to make an opportunity attack..." It says "When you hit with an opportunity attack..." The trigger is not the reaction. It is a successful hit with an opportunity attack.

Why didn't say "as part of the AoO"?
There is "as part of reaction", you need to use as part of reaction.