Which would you take?

[R.Shackleford]

On a monk, which would you take between Sentinel and PAM to use with Stunning Strike?

"Stunning Strike

Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn."

My vote goes to Polearm Master but I could see Sentinel being rather good.

[GlenSmash!]

Is your goal to Stunning Strike with a Reaction?

[R.Shackleford]

Is your goal to Stunning Strike with a Reaction?

Yup, was going to make a build or two around one of these feats via V Human and maybe Mountain Dwarf.

[uraniumrooster]

I've seen a Monk get great use from PAM with a Quarterstaff and Stunning Strike.

I could see Sentinel being better in the right party though. If there are other front liners for enemies to attack, that could potentially generate more opportunity attacks than PAM. Also, even if they make their save against Stunning Strike, they'd still lose their movement.

[NNescio]

On a monk, which would you take between Sentinel and PAM to use with Stunning Strike?

"Stunning Strike

Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn."

My vote goes to Polearm Master but I could see Sentinel being rather good.

PAM seems better generally for a skirmishing monk (which I assume to be the default, as they're more mobile but less tanky than other martials). Triggering PAM (assuming quarterstaff) and SS can potentially negate an entire multiattack routine on an enemy who moves next to you, and you get to hit with advantage and autocrit (on hits) on your next turn.

Sentinel triggers when an opponent moves away from you, or when an ally is attacked by an enemy adjacent to you. The former is sort of overkill when the Sentinel move drop to zero and SS are triggered at the same time. Triggering the Sentinel reaction attack (which doesn't drop move to zero) requires you to bunch up near allies, which can hinder your movement if you're trying to take full advantage of it.

That said, depending on party composition and the enemies thrown at you, Sentinel may be superior, especially if you can be a position where you're adjacent to an enemy who's taking swipes at a more attractive allied target. Like, say, with a rogue buddy or something. Or a gish caster.

Sentinel is also better for Mage Killer (in conjunction with Mage Slayer) builds against casters (or other ranged attackers) who would otherwise just take the Disengage action to run away. Moreso against creatures with bonus action disengage/dash options.

(Side note, Mage Slayer + SS doesn't really help against casters who teleport away, as their spell resolves first before you can even hit them.)

[Corran]

I dont quite see how sentinel would be of use. I mean, the reaction attack (from when the enemy attacks an adjacent ally) combined with stunning strike will only be of use if the enemy has multiattack, and even then it will not negate the first attack (or am I reading this wrong?). As for the advantages of stunning an enemy, I think it is just better to save SS for one of your main attacks, as stunning with your reaction probably means (depending on initiative order) that some of your allies will not capitalize from the stunned condition, meaning those whose turn is after yours. So the only profit is when the enemy has multiattack, and he atttacks an ally while you are adjacent to that enemy. This doesn't sit well with me, as monks are rather squishy from the little I've seen (perhaps a death monk can pull this off?) and they generally seem to do better by hitting and running, than staying next to the enemies in order to trigger sentinel (if for some reason the enemy does not focus on the monk). Am I missing something?

On the other hand, I like the PAM + SS idea. Works more or less the same as PM + sentinel, though it doesn't cost you a feat (sentinel), and it instead costs you ki ponts. Plus monks tend to be mobile enough, so that allows for more opportunities to bring this combo online.

[djreynolds]

I like the PAM idea of the monk and quarterstaff.

Is sentinel better, well can't you just get both. If you go wood elf and standard array, you can begin with 16s in dex and wis. And at 4th and 8th just get PAM and sentinel and have a 16AC. Then throw the rest into ASI.

[TheFlyingCleric]

I like the PAM idea of the monk and quarterstaff.

Is sentinel better, well can't you just get both. If you go wood elf and standard array, you can begin with 16s in dex and wis. And at 4th and 8th just get PAM and sentinel and have a 16AC. Then throw the rest into ASI.

This gets my vote. Then you can hit them coming AND going.

As for which one you pick first, this would depend on what behaviour you would expect from your enemies. If you expect them to run towards you, then Polearm master is the one you want. If you expect them to run away from you, or hit your allies next to you, then you want Sentinel.

[Specter]

Sentinel, because PAM's second benefit is null and void for a monk, who can already attack with a bonus action.

As far as reaction attacks go, Riposte is awesome for monks, especially if they use their bonus dodge. But it requires multi, so...

[Christian]

Sentinel, because PAM's second benefit is null and void for a monk, who can already attack with a bonus action.

As far as reaction attacks go, Riposte is awesome for monks, especially if they use their bonus dodge. But it requires multi, so...

1. Given the monk's combat style, I think that the ability to take an opportunity attack as creatures move into range outweighs everything the Sentinel feat gives. Given that, the fact that the bonus attack feature of the Polearm Master feat is useless for a monk is irrelevant--that's still the better feat. You shouldn't disregard that one aspect because it has low utility for the particular class but not look at the class-specific utility of the other features of both feats when balancing the scales.

2. Not technically true that a monk has to multiclass to get the Riposte maneuver. Martial Adept is a feat as well! So, we need to put that on the balance against PAM and Sentinel to decide if ... yeah, OK, never mind. :smallbiggrin: