Legit question about Sentinel

[Specter]

Does the enemy know he will eat an attack if he attacks someone near the Sentinel, or does he learn it the hard way?

My player was mad because I inferred the enemy felt harassed and therefore he knew, but I could see it going either way.

Thoughts?

[LeonBH]

If by "learn then hard way" you mean they experience the Sentinel attack once and proceed to avoid triggering hits after that, sure.

Sentinel is supposed to make enemies want to attack you, making you a sticky tank, so that your squishier allies don't take the heat.

For that to happen, enemies have to know it's better to attack the Sentinel to avoid those reaction attacks.

[DarkKnightJin]

Unless the attacker about to eat the Sentinel Reaction attack is prescient and/or under the effects of a spell that would allow him to know the future..

They learn at the school of (hopefully) hard knocks that attacking the Sentinel's buddy is a big no-no.

Remember, the player picked a feat, they paid a cost to get this ability. Making their choice not matter because you adapt your strategies to metagame the enemy into inexplicably knowing of this ability the enemy they've never seen before has.. That's just bad DMing, imo.

Tl;dr: Enemy shouldn't be able to know a PC has the feat until they get whacked for trying to attack the Sentinel's buddy.

[Cespenar]

From the other side, though, I'd let a character who also possesses that feat make a Perception or Intuition check to notice that it's the same style of fighting he/she has.

[Specter]

Unless the attacker about to eat the Sentinel Reaction attack is prescient and/or under the effects of a spell that would allow him to know the future..

They learn at the school of (hopefully) hard knocks that attacking the Sentinel's buddy is a big no-no.

Remember, the player picked a feat, they paid a cost to get this ability. Making their choice not matter because you adapt your strategies to metagame the enemy into inexplicably knowing of this ability the enemy they've never seen before has.. That's just bad DMing, imo.

Tl;dr: Enemy shouldn't be able to know a PC has the feat until they get whacked for trying to attack the Sentinel's buddy.

First of all, neither my interpretation nor yours is RAW.

Secondly, if enemies would know they take an opportunity attack (not a reaction attack like Mage Slayer) by leaving someone's reach, there's no reason for them not to realize that a defense-oriented guy would find an opening if they attacked someone else.

Finally, if an enemy were to have the same feat, I would rule it the same way. They still get the benefit of protecting allies one way or the other.

Calling my immediate ruling at the table 'bad DMing' when it could go either way just seems like a cheap shot.

[LeonBH]

First of all, neither my interpretation nor yours is RAW.

Secondly, if enemies would know they take an opportunity attack (not a reaction attack like Mage Slayer) by leaving someone's reach, there's no reason for them not to realize that a defense-oriented guy would find an opening if they attacked someone else.

Finally, if an enemy were to have the same feat, I would rule it the same way. They still get the benefit of protecting allies one way or the other.

Calling my immediate ruling at the table 'bad DMing' when it could go either way just seems like a cheap shot.

Wait, your ruling was that the enemy attacked the player with Sentinel instead of their allies, and the player got pissed?

Why? The entire point of Sentinel is for the person with the feat to get targeted instead of their allies.

[Mikal]

Wait, your ruling was that the enemy attacked the player with Sentinel instead of their allies, and the player got pissed?

Why? The entire point of Sentinel is for the person with the feat to get targeted instead of their allies.

The player seems to have been pissed because the enemy, never having seen the player's character before, seemed to magically know said character had Sentinel and, instead of attacking the obvious target, went for the Sentinel character instead.

For my two cents, unless an NPC would logically know the characters fighting style, either having seen it personally, having heard of it from others, etc., then the NPC should target the logical target, not focus on the Sentinel target just because they have Sentinel. It's not like they have like a magic aura or sign indicating that status.

I might allow a Battlemaster to know if they use their ribbon ability to size up an opponent, or a similar ability.

[LeonBH]

The player seems to have been pissed because the enemy, never having seen the player's character before, seemed to magically know said character had Sentinel and, instead of attacking the obvious target, went for the Sentinel character instead.

For my two cents, unless an NPC would logically know the characters fighting style, either having seen it personally, having heard of it from others, etc., then the NPC should target the logical target, not focus on the Sentinel target just because they have Sentinel. It's not like they have like a magic aura or sign indicating that status.

I might allow a Battlemaster to know if they use their ribbon ability to size up an opponent, or a similar ability.

If it were me with the Sentinel feat, I'd be happy they attacked me instead of the squishy. That is one attack the squishy doesn't have to reel back from.

In this case, whether the DM metagamed or not, the result went in favor of the player.

[Theodoxus]

I love when a player takes Sentinel. It means they're expecting to protect their party, but in reality, it just means I get to trigger an OA and then let my squad of goblins run past them; or my zombies or skeletons or orcs or bandits... and the player just gawks with his mouth hung open.

It literally doesn't matter if they take the feat or not - my tactics remain the same. The feat just means that if they hit, that particular critter is stopped... but that's about it.

Now, if your party is ganging up on a solo dude - well, to quote DarkKnightJin, "that's bad DMing". But Sentinel, with Protection backing it up, is amazing. But even if the solo guy has 600 HPs, the party is going to win (unless it's also dealing out 20+ HP a round with +10 or more to hit... then it's gonna be a TPK, Sentinel or no if the players don't flee).

My advice is to keep it as close to natural as you can. Let the Sentinel guy feel good about his choice where it makes sense. I do however, side with LeonBH; either way, if the squishy isn't attacked, it's a good day.

[strangebloke]

If the enemy is an experienced martial, I play them like a PC, meta gaming included.

And the just know that a PC, upon seeing a guy in plate working s polearm, would immediately try to figure out if he had the sentinel feat.

[Mikal]

If it were me with the Sentinel feat, I'd be happy they attacked me instead of the squishy. That is one attack the squishy doesn't have to reel back from.

In this case, whether the DM metagamed or not, the result went in favor of the player.

The player obviously disagrees. They probably are mad cause they didn't get the reaction attack they felt they should have gotten.


If the enemy is an experienced martial, I play them like a PC, meta gaming included.

And the just know that a PC, upon seeing a guy in plate working s polearm, would immediately try to figure out if he had the sentinel feat.

Actually, most PCs wouldn't assume Sentinel, since most opponents don't actually have feats.

[DarkKnightJin]

First of all, neither my interpretation nor yours is RAW.

Secondly, if enemies would know they take an opportunity attack (not a reaction attack like Mage Slayer) by leaving someone's reach, there's no reason for them not to realize that a defense-oriented guy would find an opening if they attacked someone else.

Finally, if an enemy were to have the same feat, I would rule it the same way. They still get the benefit of protecting allies one way or the other.

Calling my immediate ruling at the table 'bad DMing' when it could go either way just seems like a cheap shot.

Read my post carefully. I'm not calling your immediate ruling bad DMing. I'm saying that metagaming to negate a player's choice of feats or skills is bad DMing.

If there's a reasonable explanation for an enemy figuring out that if he doesn't strike the Sentinel's PC, he's going to eat a strike he's not willing to take, and therefore attacks the Sentinel.. That's kinda why you take the feat, no? Punish foes for daring to ignore you, in favor of one of your allies.

Whether the enemy figured out your PC is capable of dispensing said punishment through eating the attack, or seeing someone else eat that attack, doesn't matter. They know after the first Sentinel Reaction attack has been made. If they could see it happening, that is.

I was just saying that an enemy shouldn't magically know if the PC has that particular skill without ever seeing the PC, or at least hearing about them being able to pull something like that off.

[Easy_Lee]

It's seldom fun to debate a question like this because there is no right answer. The text doesn't say enemies know about Sentinel but it also does not say that they don't.

One means of interpreting the text is that if the mechanic isn't stated, then it does not exist.

[LeonBH]

The player obviously disagrees. They probably are mad cause they didn't get the reaction attack they felt they should have gotten.

Right, and I'm saying they shouldn't get mad for that. They took the hit without even trying, and that's a good thing. That's the point of the Sentinel feat - not to score reaction attacks, but to protect your allies by taking the hits for them.


Read my post carefully. I'm not calling your immediate ruling bad DMing. I'm saying that metagaming to negate a player's choice of feats or skills is bad DMing.

In my view, the choice of the DM in this case upheld and strengthened the player's choice of feat. You don't take Sentinel to score reaction attacks. You do it to encourage people to attack you. And that's what the DM did.

[Dudewithknives]

It's seldom fun to debate a question like this because there is no right answer. The text doesn't say enemies know about Sentinel but it also does not say that they don't.

One means of interpreting the text is that if the mechanic isn't stated, then it does not exist.

That is not an interpretation of the text, it is simple game mechanics and logic. If it does not say you can do it, you can't.

That would be like saying that I looked at the guy in medium armor and had a shield with a holy symbol on it and knew he had Spirit Guardians prepared so the enemies stayed away from you.
It is no different than looking at someone fighting you and magically knowing what feats they have.
It takes a special ability from Battlemaster to gauge what level a PC has, more or less AC or strength than you, but it is somehow ok for a random NPC to look at the way you are fighting and say, "Oh, he must have the sentinel feat, I better not try to move away or hit his allies"

That is not interpreting anything, it is meta-gaming, cheating and bad DMing.

[Mikal]

Right, and I'm saying they shouldn't get mad for that. They took the hit without even trying, and that's a good thing. That's the point of the Sentinel feat - not to score reaction attacks, but to protect your allies by taking the hits for them.

And that's your opinion on it. To the player, they might see it as an opportunity to score an extra attack on someone in melee, especially if say, a rogue who wants to maximize SA chances. And that's viable as well. Sentinel is one of the few feats that is actually multifaceted in that aspect.


In my view, the choice of the DM in this case upheld and strengthened the player's choice of feat. You don't take Sentinel to score reaction attacks. You do it to encourage people to attack you. And that's what the DM did.

Only if the player agrees with your interpretation that Sentinel is just meant to draw attacks towards the person with Sentinel, and not as a chance to provide more attack opportunities for whatever reason.

And regardless of whether or not it strengthens or weakens the player's choice of feat, the DM shouldn't metagame one way or the other, tailoring encounters to strengthen or weaken a player's choices. The DM should remain a neutral arbiter and the NPCs should react organically.

[Easy_Lee]

There are unstated things which must exist. For example, the books say nothing about reproduction or waste management. When asking whether an unstated thing can be done, there is no comprehensive rule. You have to take these things case by case.

[Mikal]

There are unstated things which must exist. For example, the books say nothing about reproduction or waste management. When asking whether an unstated thing can be done, there is no comprehensive rule. You have to take these things case by case.

Plus in this edition DMs are expected to make such rulings as needed, perhaps more so than even previous editions.

[LeonBH]

And that's your opinion on it. To the player, they might see it as an opportunity to score an extra attack on someone in melee, especially if say, a rogue who wants to maximize SA chances. And that's viable as well. Sentinel is one of the few feats that is actually multifaceted in that aspect.

It's a terrible use of a feat in that case though. It only uses 1/3 of the feat's benefits and competes with Uncanny Dodge.

But yes, it's also a possible use of the feat.


Only if the player agrees with your interpretation that Sentinel is just meant to draw attacks towards the person with Sentinel, and not as a chance to provide more attack opportunities for whatever reason.

And regardless of whether or not it strengthens or weakens the player's choice of feat, the DM shouldn't metagame one way or the other, tailoring encounters to strengthen or weaken a player's choices. The DM should remain a neutral arbiter and the NPCs should react organically.

Sure. I'm just saying, it still went in the player's favor, regardless of the DM metagaming or not.

[Theodoxus]

And that's your opinion on it. To the player, they might see it as an opportunity to score an extra attack on someone in melee, especially if say, a rogue who wants to maximize SA chances. And that's viable as well. Sentinel is one of the few feats that is actually multifaceted in that aspect.

Then the best of all worlds is for the rogue to take Sentinel too. Then, if the critter attacks the fighter, the rogue gets an additional sneak chance. If the critter attacks the rogue, the fighter gets to smack it. if the critter attacks the wizard - everyone his happy (except possibly the wizard, unless he's an abjuration/warlock MC - then he's laughing all the way to the bank).

[LeonBH]

Then the best of all worlds is for the rogue to take Sentinel too. Then, if the critter attacks the fighter, the rogue gets an additional sneak chance. If the critter attacks the rogue, the fighter gets to smack it. if the critter attacks the wizard - everyone his happy (except possibly the wizard, unless he's an abjuration/warlock MC - then he's laughing all the way to the bank).

Sounds like a very tight knit party - everyone is a tank. But sounds legit too.

[Ankheg]

DnD 5e states that you and your players should have fun. If your player isn't satisfied with something – talk with him. Make a conclusion how you can improve situation.

[Mikal]

It's a terrible use of a feat in that case though. It only uses 1/3 of the feat's benefits and competes with Uncanny Dodge.

But yes, it's also a possible use of the feat.

Eh, they can also benefit from the attempt to leave weapon range OA, though this is reliant on a rogue willing to stand and potentially take hits vs. bonus action disengage.


Sure. I'm just saying, it still went in the player's favor, regardless of the DM metagaming or not.

Except it didn't, since the player obviously wanted it to go another way, likely due to them using Sentinel as a DPS adder, not a tanking feat.


Then the best of all worlds is for the rogue to take Sentinel too. Then, if the critter attacks the fighter, the rogue gets an additional sneak chance. If the critter attacks the rogue, the fighter gets to smack it. if the critter attacks the wizard - everyone his happy (except possibly the wizard, unless he's an abjuration/warlock MC - then he's laughing all the way to the bank).

Except that Sentinel doesn't fire if the enemy attacks another person with Sentinel, so neither the fighter nor the rogue get an extra attack if both have the feat.

[Easy_Lee]

Let me try another angle.

The OP's interpretation adds something to Sentinel: enemies might detect this feat. Does this addition belong? We might ask: is this addition necessary for the mechanic or the world to function? In this case, I think it isn't.

Counter example: the protection fighting style responds to an attack and imposes disadvantage on that attack. In order for it to work, we have to distinguish between declaring an attack and actually making that attack. If the attack declaration, attack roll, and hit all occurred simultaneously, there would be no place for the protection fighting style to occur. This distinction is necessary for it to function.

[LeonBH]

Eh, they can also benefit from the attempt to leave weapon range OA, though this is reliant on a rogue willing to stand and potentially take hits vs. bonus action disengage.

Except it didn't, since the player obviously wanted it to go another way, likely due to them using Sentinel as a DPS adder, not a tanking feat.

Except that Sentinel doesn't fire if the enemy attacks another person with Sentinel, so neither the fighter nor the rogue get an extra attack if both have the feat.

I just want you to know that you are pushing for an inefficient use of the feat. It doesn't much matter to me, because IMO this player got exactly what the feat promises - protecting their allies.

[Mikal]

I just want you to know that you are pushing for an inefficient use of the feat.

No, I'm not advocating one way or the other, just pointing out the thought process said player may have.
Personally, if I was a rogue I would consider sentinel only if I somehow started with a 20 Dex and had feats to burn, after making sure I had war mage and booming blade somehow for OAs beforehand, and booming blade for SA in general.

The effectiveness of using the feat this way isn't the debate, but the player's perception on the feat and why they chose it is, since that's what directly impacts the player's opinion on the ruling by the DM.

[DivisibleByZero]

It doesn't much matter to me, because IMO this player got exactly what the feat promises - protecting their allies.

This.
The Sentinel feat is designed to keep enemies attacking you instead of your allies. It works exactly as it is designed to, whether you let the enemies learn the hard way or have them just know it naturally. Either way, the feat is working as intended.

[Mikal]

This.
The Sentinel feat is designed to keep enemies attacking you instead of your allies. It works exactly as it is designed to, whether you let the enemies learn the hard way or have them just know it naturally. Either way, the feat is working as intended.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the DM made a good or bad decision by metagaming and having the opponent target the Sentinel player without realistically knowing they had Sentinel, just because they had Sentinel.

I mean a gun works as intended when it kills something, but that doesn't matter when discussing whether or not it's right for one person to shoot another.

[DivisibleByZero]

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the DM made a good or bad decision by metagaming and having the opponent target the Sentinel player without realistically knowing they had Sentinel, just because they had Sentinel.

Tell that to the casters in the party when they automatically target the big brutes with Wis saves, or when they automatically target the casters with Con saves, or when whatever other metagaming occurs at the table.
It wasn't a good decision. It wasn't a bad decision.
It was just a decision, and that decision ensures that the feat is working exactly as it was intended to work.

Who are you to say that there are no indicators when someone takes this feat? That falls to fluff, and fluff changes from table to table.

[the secret fire]

I just want you to know that you are pushing for an inefficient use of the feat. It doesn't much matter to me, because IMO this player got exactly what the feat promises - protecting their allies.

Potentially getting SA damage twice a round is very powerful, and the second Sentinel feature (the zero movement feature) will still proc when you hit with it as a reaction (though this doesn't play well with Booming Blade if you're going there - GFB may actually be better on a Sentinel Rogue). I have seen Sentinel used very efficiently on a Rogue against boss-type monsters, especially when combined with another frontliner with the Protection fighting style. The fact that it competes with Uncanny Dodge doesn't matter much as they proc on different circumstances: one when your buddy is attacked, and one when you are hit. You end up making use of your reaction almost every round, which is good.

The real trouble for the Sentinel Rogue is getting AC high enough to survive standing on the front-lines all the time. In practice, it competes more with Cunning Action because in order to employ this strat, you can't be pinging in and out of melee and hiding in combat the way most Rogues like to do.

[Mikal]

Tell that to the casters in the party when they automatically target the big brutes with Wis saves, or when they automatically target the casters with Con saves, or when whatever other metagaming occurs at the table.

Seeing as how they're making an educated guess when doing that since big brutes can have good Wis saves, and casters can have good Con saves (Sorcerer with a good con stat anyone?), and in some cases, may have good saves across the board (Brute Fighter, Paladin)! That's a caster making a choice which may backfire.

The DM knows exactly what the player has, and makes the choice accordingly, using only outside factors as part of the decision making process. It's literally "I, the DM, know that this PC has Sentinel. As such, my NPC attacks them because I, the DM, know that this PC has Sentinel."

One situation is an apple which may have a worm in it, the other is an orange that has been peeled and sectioned.


It wasn't a good decision. It wasn't a bad decision.
It was just a decision, and that decision ensures that the feat is working exactly as it was intended to work.

I disagree, and obviously the player does as well, as do some posters here.


Who are you to say that there are no indicators when someone takes this feat? That falls to fluff, and fluff changes from table to table.

RAW, there are no indicators. If there are such indicators, then that should be communicated as part of the house rules prior to the game, or, at the latest, at the time the feat is taken.

So who am I to say there isn't? If I'm the player, I get to say it because I expect the rules to work as written, and if there is something that doesn't work as written, I expect to know about it before I spend my resources taking the feat. If I'm the DM, I get to say it because I get to make that ruling, but I also have a responsibility to disseminate that to my audience, aka the players, prior to them using their resources on the feat.


Potentially getting SA damage twice a round is very powerful, and the second Sentinel feature (the zero movement feature) will still proc when you hit with it as a reaction (though this doesn't play well with Booming Blade if you're going there - GFB may actually be better on a Sentinel Rogue). I have seen Sentinel used very efficiently on a Rogue against boss-type monsters, especially when combined with another frontliner with the Protection fighting style. The fact that it competes with Uncanny Dodge doesn't matter much as they proc on different circumstances: one when your buddy is attacked, and one when you are hit. You end up making use of your reaction almost every round, which is good.

The real trouble for the Sentinel Rogue is getting AC high enough to survive standing on the front-lines all the time. In practice, it competes more with Cunning Action because in order to employ this strat, you can't be pinging in and out of melee and hiding in combat the way most Rogues like to do.

GFB doesn't work with OAs since it targets multiple people. But yeah, Sentinel's 0 movement does make it less useless if you're going BB for extra damage, good point...

[DivisibleByZero]

So who am I to say there isn't? If I'm the player, I get to say it because I expect the rules to work as written, and if there is something that doesn't work as written, I expect to know about it before I spend my resources taking the feat. If I'm the DM, I get to say it because I get to make that ruling, but I also have a responsibility to disseminate that to my audience, aka the players, prior to them using their resources on the feat.

As written?
OK, please point me to the passage in the book which describes that there are no indicators?
Hint: There isn't one. In fact, this feat mentions "techniques," so there may very well be a "style" indicative, which may very well present itself to anyone fighting you. Who's to say? There is nothing written on it. Since there isn't anything written, it cannot be working against what is written.
This is DM Fiat territory, not RAW territory.

And I sincerely hope that you don't expect every DM to explain how every single thing that is NOT written in the books is going to be handled, because that is an amazingly unrealistic and unreasonable request.

[clash]

Enemies know they have to disengage or provoke an opportunity attack as it will leave openings. It isnt unreasonable that an enemy could tell from the players stance that if they tried moving to attack another player he would attack their opening. It isnt unreasonable that he wouldn't know but it isnt unreasonable that he would. I would rule it by enemy on a case by case basis. If he is an experienced veteran solider then he probably has seen this style of fighting before. It's not like each character makes up a new way to fight. I would rule he could guess as much. If he is a minion with not much experience fighting trained soldiers then probably not.

[Mikal]

As written?
OK, please point me to the passage in the book which describes that there are no indicators?
Hint: There isn't one. So there isn't anything written, so it cannot be working against what is written.
This is DM Fiat territory, not RAW territory.

And I sincerely hope that you don't expect every DM to explain how every single thing that is NOT written in the books is going to be handled, because that is an amazingly unrealistic and unreasonable request.

Show me where there are indicators, and what those indicators are, within the rules and description of the feat.
Hint: I don't need to prove a negative, which is what you asked me to do. You need to prove that indicators exist RAW if you want to claim that there are indicators. Otherwise it's a House Rule.

And yes, actually, if the DM plans to metagame and make sure that all NPCs know that my PC has Sentinel as a feat despite having no in game reason to know it, I do expect to know about it before hand. Because I don't play with jerks, and that's a jerk move to do.

[DivisibleByZero]

You need to prove that indicators exist RAW if you want to claim that there are indicators. Otherwise it's a House Rule.

No I don't, and no it isn't.
It's a Ruling.
Because there isn't anything written about whether it can be identified or not. Since there is nothing written, there IS NO RAW ON IT so stop saying that your way is the only way that is RAW. There is no RAW.
It's DM Fiat. Deal with it.

[strangebloke]

The player obviously disagrees. They probably are mad cause they didn't get the reaction attack they felt they should have gotten.



Actually, most PCs wouldn't assume Sentinel, since most opponents don't actually have feats.

I give PC abilities to my boss encounters somewhat frequently. Giving an NPC a powerful reaction like PAM+sentinel is a very good way to keep your PCs on their toes. So my players would at least consider it.

It's weird if the PC is the only guy in the world who can pull off that combo. Like is the vuman who pulled it off at fourth level the first guy to invent that technique?

So your local gladiator probably has at least heard of the sentinel trick. Your local mercenary Captain probably has seen it, etc.

[Mikal]

No I don't, and no it isn't.
It's a Ruling.

No it isn't. A ruling is a decision made when there's a question about an existing rule and how it relates to the situation in question. There was no question here, there was simply a decision made by the DM based on fiat.


Because there isn't anything written about whether it can be identified or not. Since there is nothing written, there IS NO RAW ON IT so stop saying that your way is the only way that is RAW. There is no RAW.
It's DM Fiat. Deal with it.

The definition of a House Rule is a modification of existing rules adopted by the players of a game. RAW, there are no indicators that a person has the Sentinel feat. Adding indicators that someone has the Sentinel feat is a House Rule.

If you have House Rules, they should be communicated to the players, either at the start of the game, or prior to spending resources expecting result A when you really have result B in mind.

By your thought process, since there's no RAW written down saying the Force doesn't exist, then it wouldn't be a house rule to allow the use of the Force and to play a Jedi in a campaign. It's just a ruling.


I give PC abilities to my boss encounters somewhat frequently. Giving an NPC a powerful reaction like PAM+sentinel is a very good way to keep your PCs on their toes. So my players would at least consider it.

Oh, I agree, and do something similar. When I say "most" PCs, I'm talking as generically as possible, and generically speaking, NPCs don't have those abilities, so PCs wouldn't be expecting it.

As always, Your Game May Vary.

[DivisibleByZero]

The definition of a House Rule is a modification of existing rules adopted by the players of a game. RAW, there are no indicators that a person has the Sentinel feat. Adding indicators that someone has the Sentinel feat is a House Rule.

RAW, there is nothing printed to say that there aren't any indicators.
That's why it's DM Fiat. That's why it's a Ruling.
It cannot be an House Rule (as a modification of existing rules) when there ARE NO existing rules to begin with.

The absence of a statement does not make the opposing statement true.
There is no RAW on this matter, no matter how hard you try to convince us that there is.

I cannot point you to the passage stating that there are indicators, because that passage does not exist.
Unless you can point me to the passage stating that there are none (which you cannot, because it doesn't exist either), then you must concede the point that there is no RAW on it, and as such then becomes DM Fiat.

[Mikal]

RAW, there is nothing printed to say that there aren't any indicators.
Exactly. Which means there are no indicators.


That's why it's DM Fiat. That's why it's a Ruling.
It cannot be an House Rule (as a modification of existing rules) when there ARE NO existing rules to begin with.

Again, a ruling is a decision made based on a question in a specific situation. A house rule is a modification to an existing rule agreed on upon all the players of a game.

Show me where the question was asked that the DM then made a ruling on. Otherwise, it's a house rule.


The absence of a statement does not make the opposing statement true.
There is no RAW on this matter, no matter how hard you try to convince us that there is.

RAW is that there are no indicators, because if there were indicators, it would be noted in the feat.


I cannot point you to the passage stating that there are indicators, because that passage does not exist.

Then, RAW, there are no indicators, and any such indicators are house rules.


Unless you can point me to the passage stating that there are none (which you cannot, because it doesn't exist either), then you must concede the point that there is no RAW on it.

You're right. I can't prove a negative. Because I don't have to.

[the secret fire]

DM metagaming is definitely a thing, and having new enemies just "know" that they should attack the Sentinel is really questionable. There are scenarios where it might make sense, but if it becomes a regular thing, players have a right to be upset.

I, personally, go to great lengths to avoid metagaming at my table. I even have prepared casters write down their list of spells prepared each day, but not actually show me. I then note each spell cast as they cast it, and take a look at the list at the end of the adventuring day to make sure there are no shenanigans (in which case, rocks fall). It's not easy to find that sweet spot of enemy behavior when you are effectively omniscient. Not saying OP is doing it wrong, but you have to be really careful with this stuff.

[DivisibleByZero]

I really need to stop clicking "View Post" and remember that there is a reason I'm seeing that instead.

[Mikal]

I really need to stop clicking "View Post" and remember that there is a reason I'm seeing that instead.

I know. It's horrible when someone pokes holes in your specious arguments, isn't it?

[Easy_Lee]

I think we all agree this is DM fiat territory. The disagreement is whether a DM ought to interpret Sentinel this way. My position is that the DM shouldn't and my reason is, basically, Occam's razor.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think we all agree this is DM fiat territory. The disagreement is whether a DM ought to interpret Sentinel this way. My position is that the DM shouldn't and my reason is, basically, Occam's razor.

You would think so, wouldn't you? But alas, we don't all agree, as shown above.

[Cynthaer]

IMO, the question of whether it's reasonable (or necessary) for enemies to understand the Sentinel feat misses the point. Similarly, the fact that Sentinel legitimately is working correctly if nobody ever triggers the OA is also missing the point.

The real question is whether the player feels like their choices are impacting the game.

Yes, more mechanics-focused players might appreciate the subtle power of the "threat of activation". These are the same players who understand that the real power of a Rootwalla (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=370693) is not in hitting your opponent for 4, but rather getting in 2 damage unblocked and then casting a 4-drop.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's fun. And you're not trying to defeat them in combat; you're trying to create fun encounters. Let your players see the big, visible impacts of their build choices!

Compare the following scenarios:

Sentie the Sentinel: I stand next to my good friend, Roguemeyer the Squishy, to slay anyone who would touch him.
DM: The goblin runs up and attacks Sentie.
Sentie the Sentinel: Dude, come on, why would he attack me and not the lightly armored rogue?
DM: He felt harassed, so he figured he should focus on you instead.
Sentie the Sentinel: This is ********, why would you even let me take this feat if I never get to use it?
DM: You're using it right now! It's making you a better tank. The whole point is disincentivizing attacks against other characters.
[arguing and bad feelings ensue]

vs:

Sentie the Sentinel: I stand next to my good friend, Roguemeyer the Squishy, to slay anyone who would touch him.
DM: The first goblin spies a weak target and grins in anticipation. Slipping past Sentie, he swings his dagger at Roguemeyer.
Sentie the Sentinel: Aha! I knew it! I get an opportunity attack! [rolls a 16]
DM: Just when he raises his arm to strike, the goblin's eyes widen in surprise as he finds himself taking a sword to the ribs.
Sentie the Sentinel: BOOM! Hands off my friend, *******! Get rekt!
DM: As their compatriot is punished for taking his eyes off of Sentie, all the other goblins seem a lot less willing to try and hit someone near him. They start moving with a lot more respect for Sentie's weapon reach.
Sentie the Sentinel: That's right, ********. Eyes on me.

I wouldn't say the DM's decision in the first scenario is wrong in some objective sense—it's a reasonable interpretation of what enemies might do—but the second scenario is clearly what the player was hoping would happen when they took the feat, so why not give it to them?

You're only giving away one extra OA per combat, and in exchange your player gets to really feel like they're contributing in a highly visible way that makes them look like a badass. If you're really concerned about balance, just add a couple HP to each enemy to compensate, but honestly it probably doesn't even matter.

[Mikal]

You would think so, wouldn't you? But alas, we don't all agree, as shown above.

Really? Did I say anything about it not being DM Fiat? Did House Rules somehow not become DM Fiat?

Wait no. No I didn't. You're just twisting what I'm saying ("House Rules are this, Rulings are that, and this is a House Rule and not a Ruling") into it somehow not being DM Fiat. So... yeah.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd like to distill the responses to the question to what look to me like the best three thoughts on the matter.
Unless the attacker about to eat the Sentinel Reaction attack is prescient and/or under the effects of a spell that would allow him to know the future they learn at the school of (hopefully) hard knocks that attacking the Sentinel's buddy is a big no-no.

Remember, the player picked a feat, they paid a cost to get this ability. Making their choice not matter because you adapt your strategies to metagame the enemy into inexplicably knowing of this ability the enemy they've never seen before has. That's just bad DMing, imo.

Tl;dr: Enemy shouldn't be able to know a PC has the feat until they get whacked for trying to attack the Sentinel's buddy. That's a good first point. (Though some enemies might be experts in matters martial, like an NPC battlemaster ...)

From the other side, though, I'd let a character who also possesses that feat make a Perception or Intuition check to notice that it's the same style of fighting he/she has. Bingo.

It's seldom fun to debate a question like this because there is no right answer. The text doesn't say enemies know about Sentinel but it also does not say that they don't. One means of interpreting the text is that if the mechanic isn't stated, then it does not exist While I like the way this thought is presented, in terms of "what's in the rules?" it also means that the DM needs to make a ruling, and that takes us back to the first two points.

How are you going to know that someone has that feat until you see them use it? Most enemies, the party meets once! (And they get defeated).

In the case of an enemy that has fled and meets the party again, or an enemy that the party has fled from, they might have learned form their first encounter with the party and thus act accordingly. That makes "in world" and "in character" sense, and can't fairly be assessed as metagaming.

[strangebloke]

snip

You're right, of course, but I would argue that having enemies use different tactics makes for a more fun game. If the bear is cleverly setting up and avoiding AoOs then yeah, that's a bit silly, but I try to develop unique tactics for each of my enemies. Kobolds use traps and ambushes, but when they charge, it's en masse and with no plan of retreat. Goblins use hit and run tactics, targeting the squishies and prioritizing their survival above all else. Orcs get all buffed and angry and then rush the enemy, without really a clear idea of 'strategy.' etc. etc.

So yeah, a gladiator who makes his living by fighting numerous opponents from all over the world has probably seen what a skilled combatant can do with a defensive fighting style. Hell, I might even let him have an insight check to determine his enemy's style.

A BBEG who's been targeting the party for some time might simply know about the tactic via scouting reports.

But yeah if it was some scrub who had no reason to know the difference, I don't see why he should know about my somewhat esoteric fighting trick. As a PC I'd be annoyed.

[Provo]

The real question is whether the player feels like their choices are impacting the game.

This is spot on.

At my game, the monsters have a tendency to act on meta-knowledge. Every time it happens it leaves the players a little upset. It is bad enough when the monsters know what buffs you cast in advance, it is even worse when they know the permenant aspects of your character such as feats.

Even when the feat is doing its job, I have seen players disappointed on multiple occasions. Some players even stopped enjoying their characters.

It is fine for some enemies to have this knowledge (the BBEG for instance), but when every goblin knows not to hit the guy with Armor of Agathys, and every caster knows that the Barbarian took Resiliant (Wisdom), then the DM is making his players feel invalidated.

[strangebloke]

DM metagaming is definitely a thing, and having new enemies just "know" that they should attack the Sentinel is really questionable. There are scenarios where it might make sense, but if it becomes a regular thing, players have a right to be upset.

I, personally, go to great lengths to avoid metagaming at my table. I even have prepared casters write down their list of spells prepared each day, but not actually show me. I then note each spell cast as they cast it, and take a look at the list at the end of the adventuring day to make sure there are no shenanigans (in which case, rocks fall). It's not easy to find that sweet spot of enemy behavior when you are effectively omniscient. Not saying OP is doing it wrong, but you have to be really careful with this stuff.

Meta-gaming is bad.

But that doesn't mean that your characters should be idiots.

For instance, skeletons are resistant to non-bludgeoning weapons. That makes sense, intuitively. Even if my former soldier has never fought against undead, he knows pretty well how a spear works, and knows that it isn't going to be easy to stab a skeleton, and it's prefectly fine for me to have him swap out his spear for a club. Now, a player who had never looked at the stat block for a skeleton might never have thought to use a club, but then, he's playing a character who knows more about killing things than he does.

Same goes for BBEGs. Let them scout out the players, scry on them, send actual, competent assassins, and yes, learn their standard methods and tactics and counter them.

[Tanarii]

Does the enemy know he will eat an attack if he attacks someone near the Sentinel, or does he learn it the hard way?

My player was mad because I inferred the enemy felt harassed and therefore he knew, but I could see it going either way.

Thoughts?I think it's a good idea for an enemy to see that they'll take an attack for attacking the Sentinel player's ally. For two reasons:
1) The Sentinel player wants the enemy to attack them instead. The attack is just there to encourage that, providing a devil's choice.
2) The enemy needs to know they'll be punished for them to make the devil's choice.

The player wants their Feat choice to work properly, so it's best to have the enemy aware they'll be attacked and face the devil's choice.

Edit: Also, it's not "metagaming". We can easily assume an enemy can tell they'll be dangerously opening themself up to an attack from Sentinel character. Just as they can, we assume, tell they'll be opening themself up to an OA if they potentially are going to trigger one.

[Dudewithknives]

I think it's a good idea for an enemy to see that they'll take an attack for attacking the Sentinel player's ally. For two reasons:
1) The Sentinel player wants the enemy to attack them instead. The attack is just there to encourage that, providing a devil's choice.
2) The enemy needs to know they'll be punished for them to make the devil's choice.

The player wants their Feat choice to work properly, so it's best to have the enemy aware they'll be attacked and face the devil's choice.

Edit: Also, it's not "metagaming". We can easily assume an enemy can tell they'll be dangerously opening themself up to an attack from Sentinel character. Just as they can, we assume, tell they'll be opening themself up to an OA if they potentially are going to trigger one.

That makes no sense, does a caster know that if they stand next to player X they will be stabbed if they cast a spell because that player took Mage Slayer?

Also, Sentinel could have easily been taken for the offensive side of things, I have seen many a Rogue take Sentinel and stand next to other characters so that when an enemy comes after them they will get an extra reaction Sneak Attack which is a huge bonus. If they are broadcasting that "Hey if you get within melee range of me I will stab you if you move or attack someone." That kind of makes the feat pointless.

[the secret fire]

I think it's a good idea for an enemy to see that they'll take an attack for attacking the Sentinel player's ally. For two reasons:
1) The Sentinel player wants the enemy to attack them instead. The attack is just there to encourage that, providing a devil's choice.
2) The enemy needs to know they'll be punished for them to make the devil's choice.

The player wants their Feat choice to work properly, so it's best to have the enemy aware they'll be attacked and face the devil's choice.

It's strange to see people in this thread just assuming that the Sentinel doesn't want his AoO to proc. Some PCs will want it, but others will not.

The assumption that getting attacked all the time means Sentinel is functioning as intended clearly doesn't work, as evidenced by the player's complaints which caused OP to post this thread.

[Cynthaer]

You're right, of course, but I would argue that having enemies use different tactics makes for a more fun game. If the bear is cleverly setting up and avoiding AoOs then yeah, that's a bit silly, but I try to develop unique tactics for each of my enemies. Kobolds use traps and ambushes, but when they charge, it's en masse and with no plan of retreat. Goblins use hit and run tactics, targeting the squishies and prioritizing their survival above all else. Orcs get all buffed and angry and then rush the enemy, without really a clear idea of 'strategy.' etc. etc.

So yeah, a gladiator who makes his living by fighting numerous opponents from all over the world has probably seen what a skilled combatant can do with a defensive fighting style. Hell, I might even let him have an insight check to determine his enemy's style.

A BBEG who's been targeting the party for some time might simply know about the tactic via scouting reports.

But yeah if it was some scrub who had no reason to know the difference, I don't see why he should know about my somewhat esoteric fighting trick. As a PC I'd be annoyed.

No argument here. I'm not arguing that you should run all battles in X way because X way is objectively the most fun. Instead, I think everyone will have the most fun on the whole if they can see the direct, active effects of their decisions on the game.

I think it's great DMing to have unique tactics for your enemies, and I think it's completely compatible with having visible consequences to player choices.

For instance, your Kobolds, Goblins, and Orcs would all probably trigger the Sentinel OA at least once, and the Goblins (and maybe Kobolds) would visibly change their strategy after the first one to avoid triggering it again. With the gladiator, I'd make sure to say something that indicates he's consciously choosing to target the Sentinel because he respects his fighting prowess. And for the BBEG, it shouldn't feel bad if he never triggers the party's conditional tricks because they've spent the last X battles fighting mooks who walk right into them—of course the BBEG isn't going to play along, because she's the BBEG!

The key here is that (outside of the BBEG), the player always gets to see (A) an enemy triggering their Sentinel ability, or (B) enemies visibly changing their tactics because they have to work around the Sentinel ability.

Either way is better than the DM silently playing around it behind the screen and only explaining it when challenged by the player. That feels bad.

EDIT:


It's strange to see people in this thread just assuming that the Sentinel doesn't want his AoO to proc. Some PCs will want it, but others will not.

The assumption that getting attacked all the time means Sentinel is functioning as intended clearly doesn't work, as evidenced by the player's complaints which caused OP to post this thread.

In fact, I would argue that to most newer/casual players, if not most players overall, the Sentinel feat primarily looks like a way to enable more Opportunity Attacks, and not a way to get enemies to fight you. The text is basically:

Bonus effect on your OAs
No way for enemy to avoid your OAs
New condition that triggers your OAs

In an optimized combat game, it's true that this all translates to "force enemies to fight you by setting harsh penalties for fighting anybody else that will never be triggered in actual combat", but many players look at this and see "park yourself next to the squishy and get a free OA".

The way it actually plays out is entirely dependent on the DM's tactics, so it's important that those align with the player expectation at least a little bit or else they'll feel like they wasted a feat.

[Tanarii]

That makes no sense, does a caster know that if they stand next to player X they will be stabbed if they cast a spell because that player took Mage Slayer?Of course, if the DM decides they do. And neither is it metagaming if the DM decides they do.

And yes, with Mage Slayer, I'd also recommend the DM decide the caster knows they'll get stabbed, for the same reason. Because the player wants the Feat to do what it's supposed to do, which is discourage the mage from casting at all.

[Mikal]

Of course, if the DM decides they do. And neither is it metagaming if the DM decides they do.

And yes, with Mage Slayer, I'd also recommend the DM decide the caster knows they'll get stabbed, for the same reason. Because the player wants the Feat to do what it's supposed to do, which is discourage the mage from casting at all.

Whether or not a DM decides the players/NPCs know this or not does not change the fact that knowing it for no reason except for the fact that the PC/NPC possesses the feat

A) A House Rule, and thus should be communicated prior to implementation or taking of said feats (which wasn't done here)
and
B) Metagaming, as the only thing that alerts others to you possessing the feat is... the fact you possess the feat.

[Cynthaer]

Of course, if the DM decides they do. And neither is it metagaming if the DM decides they do.

And yes, with Mage Slayer, I'd also recommend the DM decide the caster knows they'll get stabbed, for the same reason. Because the player wants the Feat to do what it's supposed to do, which is discourage the mage from casting at all.

I strongly question this assumption. I mean, if that is what the player wants to happen, then hey, no problem. The player runs up to the mage, the mage doesn't want to risk casting a spell, everybody's happy.

But as with Sentinel, I think most (or at least many) players who take Mage Slayer actually want to see the mechanical effects play out. That is, I think it's more satisfying for most players to run up to the mage, and then when the enemy tries to cast a point-blank Bestow Curse, punish them with an axe to the face before shrugging off the spell with advantage on the Wisdom saving throw.

Even though it's arguably better for the party if every mage just resorts to disengaging or swinging a dagger around instead of trying to cast a powerful spell, these players will be deeply disappointed if they never get to actually use the OA or roll with advantage on a saving throw. They won't feel like a Mage Slayer.

Of course, enemies don't need to stupidly play into every trick the party has. That's why I generally favor triggering it once and then playing around it for the rest of the battle as a default tactical approach. It lets the players see their thing go off, then makes the fact that enemies are playing around the "threat of activation" very visible. Both parts make the player feel cool, and that's good.

[LeonBH]

That's the funny thing with reaction feats. Your goal with Sentinel is to prevent enemies from attacking your allies. Your goal with Mage Slayer is to prevent mages from casting in your presence.

Therefore, you win if you don't have to use that aspect of the feat. Because the feats are reactionary, you get to use them only when a bad thing has already happened. But the bigger win is if the bad thing never happens at all, even if as a result you never get to use that aspect of the feat.

And the enemies should be aware that they will get punished due to these feats, or else they will be unhindered. "Realistically", they should suffer at least one hit first, or at least witness the hit happening, so that they know the PC has Sentinel or Mage Slayer. But that means they got to do one bad thing. Functionally, it's better for them to already know the PCs have Sentinel or Mage Slayer so that their actions can be inhibited from the start.

So instead of attacking the squishy, they attack the Sentinel. And instead of casting Hold Person, they cast Misty Step. Both are wins because they've forced the enemy's hand into exactly what the feat provides.

[Mikal]

That's the funny thing with reaction feats. Your goal with Sentinel is to prevent enemies from attacking your allies. Your goal with Mage Slayer is to prevent mages from casting in your presence.

No. Those are your goals with the feats. As has been stated before, others take the feats to want to trigger the reaction attacks or OAs and deal more damage.

Your goals are not universal.


Therefore, you win if you don't have to use that aspect of the feat. Because the feats are reactionary, you get to use them only when a bad thing has already happened. But the bigger win is if the bad thing never happens at all, even if as a result you never get to use that aspect of the feat.

See above.

[LeonBH]

Even though it's arguably better for the party if every mage just resorts to disengaging or swinging a dagger around instead of trying to cast a powerful spell, these players will be deeply disappointed if they never get to actually use the OA or roll with advantage on a saving throw. They won't feel like a Mage Slayer.

This is your core idea, and I agree. Even though it's an irrational POV, the player who took a feat wants the feat to activate even if that activation condition requires a suboptimal outcome, because action and spectacle are important to players in combat.

But I would like to point out that it isn't the DM's job to necessarily make the player feel like a mage slayer for taking the Mage Slayer feat. The burden is on the player for creating someone who can actually shut mages down, and they shouldn't expect the DM to make them feel like a Mage Slayer if no dialogue between them has happened beforehand.

It is the DM's job to make everybody have fun, of course. And if triggering the feat every now and then is the solution that will calm them down, and that is the solution that requires the least effort to implement, then by all means, the DM should do it. It minimizes time spent on a seemingly trivial problem.

[Tanarii]

I strongly question this assumption. I mean, if that is what the player wants to happen, then hey, no problem. The player runs up to the mage, the mage doesn't want to risk casting a spell, everybody's happy.

But as with Sentinel, I think most (or at least many) players who take Mage Slayer actually want to see the mechanical effects play out. That is, I think it's more satisfying for most players to run up to the mage, and then when the enemy tries to cast a point-blank Bestow Curse, punish them with an axe to the face before shrugging off the spell with advantage on the Wisdom saving throw.

Even though it's arguably better for the party if every mage just resorts to disengaging or swinging a dagger around instead of trying to cast a powerful spell, these players will be deeply disappointed if they never get to actually use the OA or roll with advantage on a saving throw. They won't feel like a Mage Slayer.With Sentinel, it's potentially questionable that a player might prefer the damage. See Dudewithknives Rogue example. Although that is a very specific exception, because Rogues get massive damage bonus from off-turn Sneak Attacks.

But with Mage Slayer, any player (other than again, a Rogue looking to Sneak Attack) that's decided they'd prefer the Mage to get the spell off and do some damage in response needs to have their head checked for a lack of tactical understanding. Especially a early spell, because that's when NPCs will almost always drop their big bombs, just like players do. Stopping the Mage from casting completely, while unlikely, would be a complete and utter win for the player.


Of course, enemies don't need to stupidly play into every trick the party has. That's why I generally favor triggering it once and then playing around it for the rest of the battle as a default tactical approach. It lets the players see their thing go off, then makes the fact that enemies are playing around the "threat of activation" very visible. Both parts make the player feel cool, and that's good.The players are very likely to get an attack off early on, regardless. In the devils choice between "cast high slot spell and take a little extra damage" vs "don't cast a high slot spell" very few NPC casters are going to hesitate to cast the high slot spell.

Edit: All that said, it's totally a table/DM choice on how they want it to work. RAW doesn't require either way, and metagaming isn't an issue here, any more than it is with Opportunity Attacks or Ready Actions.

[LeonBH]

No. Those are your goals with the feats. As has been stated before, others take the feats to want to trigger the reaction attacks or OAs and deal more damage.

Your goals are not universal.

See above.

You don't dictate what is universal and what is not.

[Specter]

Not that anyone cares, but I've decided that only combat veterans will be able to identify what will happen under the Sentinel's range.

[the secret fire]

That's the funny thing with reaction feats. Your goal with Sentinel is to prevent enemies from attacking your allies. Your goal with Mage Slayer is to prevent mages from casting in your presence.

This argument is highly presumptuous, and obviously so.

Why not let other players make up their own minds about what they're trying to get out of these feats?

[the secret fire]

You don't dictate what is universal and what is not.

Neither do you, and your burden of proof is much higher here. If there are any dissenting opinions, then there is no universality. This thread provides evidence that there is quite a bit of disagreement as to what a player's goals might be in choosing these feats. Ergo, there is no universality, and any particular motive should not simply be assumed.

[Dudewithknives]

This argument is highly presumptuous, and obviously so.

Why not let other players make up their own minds about what they're trying to get out of these feats?

Yes, my Swashbuckler who took both Sentinel and Mage Slayer had no intention of taking sentinel to get enemies to focus fire him, he also did not take mage slayer to make sure the mage did not cast a spell, he did it to stab them repeatedly on reactions for great damage, when they did.
If the enemy noticed I had Sentinel after the first sneak attack and turned his attention to me, fine, I am a swashbuckler and can SA when I am alone, and he better home he does not try casting a spell there either.

If my DM had told me that the enemies just happen to be able to tell when the fight starts that I had those 2 feats and went about their turns making sure that I could not use them, despite the fact they never saw me use them before, i would be pissed.


You don't dictate what is universal and what is not.

Yes, saying that something is not a universal goal is correct, because there are no universal goals.

Someone can absolutely dictate that "Goal X" is not universal, because it can't be.

[LeonBH]

Not that anyone cares, but I've decided that only combat veterans will be able to identify what will happen under the Sentinel's range.

More power to you then, sir.

[Mikal]

You don't dictate what is universal and what is not.



u·ni·ver·sal
ˌyo͞onəˈvərsəl/Submit
adjective
1.
of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

So, universal means everyone, essentially, or applies to all cases.
You said the goal of the feat is to X. If that goal was universal, then everyone would take the feat to do X.

Several people including myself have shown why you would take or have taken the feat to do Y.

Since Y is not X, your goal is not universal.


Not that anyone cares, but I've decided that only combat veterans will be able to identify what will happen under the Sentinel's range.

What exactly dictates or defines a "combat veteran"? Is a level 3 fighter a combat veteran? Is a level 3 wizard? What about a level 3 bladesinging wizard?
How do they identify it? With a skill, a check, an action?

What about other feats such as mage slayer? How are those adjudicated?

[LeonBH]

This argument is highly presumptuous, and obviously so.

Why not let other players make up their own minds about what they're trying to get out of these feats?

Sure, you can make any goals you want when generating your character. That is the point of character generation.

My rebuttal question is, what do you think is my core statement? That you must take Sentinel to play the role of a tank?


Neither do you, and your burden of proof is much higher here. If there are any dissenting opinions, then there is no universality. This thread provides evidence that there is quite a bit of disagreement as to what a player's goals might be in choosing these feats. Ergo, there is no universality, and any particular motive should not simply be assumed.

There is no burden of proof on me. What do you think is my core statement?


Yes, saying that something is not a universal goal is correct, because there are no universal goals.

Someone can absolutely dictate that "Goal X" is not universal, because it can't be.

Correct. If you read my previous posts, you will see I have not said anything is universal. It was an imposition made by Mikal on me, and obviously it was an incorrect imposition. As a result, I've replied to him with the same level of pedantry, which I see he is now trying to capitalize on.


So, universal means everyone, essentially, or applies to all cases.
You said the goal of the feat is to X. If that goal was universal, then everyone would take the feat to do X.

Several people including myself have shown why you would take or have taken the feat to do Y.

Since Y is not X, your goal is not universal.

Correct, you can take Sentinel to do Y instead of X. What is your point? More importantly, do you know what my point is?

[Tanarii]

Not that anyone cares, but I've decided that only combat veterans will be able to identify what will happen under the Sentinel's range.
I care. Good for you for making a solid decision for your game. :smallbiggrin:

Now I'm curious to your answers to a bunch of questions:
What's a combat veteran?
Does this apply for non-combat veterans even after they've gotten hit by it once by a particular Sentinel? Does it change if they get hit by any Sentinel?
If it changes, what changes in-universe that allows them to identify what's going to happen? Why couldn't they do that before? Why can combat veterans identify a Sentinel and non-combat veterans not?

Edit: Not trying to make you change your decision, or question it. I'm wondering what your answer is because it might make me reconsider MY views on the way I run it.

[Ovarwa]

Not that anyone cares, but I've decided that only combat veterans will be able to identify what will happen under the Sentinel's range.

Sounds like a good choice... especially if you tell your PC who has sentinel whenever he might be subject to an NPC's sentinel feat or similar ability.

[Dudewithknives]

I care. Good for you for making a solid decision for your game. :smallbiggrin:

Now I'm curious to your answers to a bunch of questions:
What's a combat veteran?
Does this apply for non-combat veterans even after they've gotten hit by it once by a particular Sentinel? Does it change if they get hit by any Sentinel?
If it changes, what changes in-universe that allows them to identify what's going to happen? Why couldn't they do that before? Why can combat veterans identify a Sentinel and non-combat veterans not?

Also, what if my veteran mage looks at someone with detect magic, can they tell what spells the person has prepared, how about how many spell slots they have left, or even what level caster they are in the first place.

If we are just letting people randomly know what build, feats, or abilities people have just by looking at them despite the fact they have not used that ability yet, it is all the same thing.

[Mikal]

My rebuttal question is, what do you think is my core statement? That you must take Sentinel to play the role of a tank?

No, that the goal of taking Sentinel is to force others to attack you. That's not the goal of Sentinel. That's a goal of Sentinel. Another goal is to maximize opportunities to use your reaction to make an additional attack on an enemy.


There is no burden of proof on me. What do you think is my core statement?
See above.


Correct. If you read my previous posts, you will see I have not said anything is universal.



That's the funny thing with reaction feats. Your goal with Sentinel is to prevent enemies from attacking your allies. Your goal with Mage Slayer is to prevent mages from casting in your presence.

Therefore, you win if you don't have to use that aspect of the feat. Because the feats are reactionary, you get to use them only when a bad thing has already happened. But the bigger win is if the bad thing never happens at all, even if as a result you never get to use that aspect of the feat.



Correct, you can take Sentinel to do Y instead of X. What is your point? More importantly, do you know what my point is?

Your point is that you think that the only goal with Sentinel is to prevent enemies from attacking your allies, and that the only goal with Mage Slayer is to prevent mages from casting in your presence. You know, as you literally said in the quote above.

Other people don't share those goals. Other people don't consider them "wins".

[Tanarii]

If we are just letting people randomly know what build, feats, or abilities people have just by looking at them despite the fact they have not used that ability yet, it is all the same thing.
Do you not let enemies know that they'll trigger an OA if they move away from an enemy? As far as I'm concerned, any potential Opportunity Attack, or melee attack reaction to a trigger, is telegraphed long before it's made. It's a visible threat that can be perceived in-universe.

That said, I can see a reasonable interpretation that it may not be easily interpreted by someone that's never seen it before. It's entirely possible a newbie to combat might move directly away from an enemy leaving their back open to an OA.

[the secret fire]

There is no burden of proof on me. What do you think is my core statement?

I'd suggest you read your own posts. From page 1 of this thread:


The entire point of Sentinel is for the person with the feat to get targeted instead of their allies.

From page 2:


That's the funny thing with reaction feats. Your goal with Sentinel is to prevent enemies from attacking your allies. Your goal with Mage Slayer is to prevent mages from casting in your presence.

Therefore, you win if you don't have to use that aspect of the feat.

You state that "the entire point of the feat is X" and "your goal is X" in taking the feat. The language used here is peremptory in the extreme. I don't think you're dumb, Leon, so don't play dumb with me. You know what you said, and how little room you left for other possibilities and play styles.

[Mikal]

Do you not let enemies know that they'll trigger an OA if they move away from an enemy? As far as I'm concerned, any potential Opportunity Attack, or melee attack reaction to a trigger, is telegraphed long before it's made. It's a visible threat that can be perceived in-universe.

That said, I can see a reasonable interpretation that it may not be easily interpreted by someone that's never seen it before. It's entirely possible a newbie to combat might move directly away from an enemy leaving their back open to an OA.

The difference between the OA being triggered if they move away and what is being described is one is RAW and stated as such as part of basic universal combat (with workarounds via disengage/teleport), and the other is not RAW and thus should be noted prior to game start.

[LeonBH]

No, that the goal of taking Sentinel is to force others to attack you. That's not the goal of Sentinel. That's a goal of Sentinel. Another goal is to maximize opportunities to use your reaction to make an additional attack on an enemy.

Incorrect.


See above.

See above.


Your point is that you think that the only goal with Sentinel is to prevent enemies from attacking your allies, and that the only goal with Mage Slayer is to prevent mages from casting in your presence. You know, as you literally said in the quote above.

Other people don't share those goals. Other people don't consider them "wins".

Incorrect.

I remember you were a proponent of the Aspect of the Moon rule being taken in context of the full body of text, and no text should be read in isolation. Where is that philosophy now?

I can generate more goals for taking Sentinel:

1. To take Sentinel for the hell of it
2. To create a character who dies with the Sentinel feat
3. To have Sentinel but never use it

These are all seemingly ridiculous reasons to take Sentinel, but they are all valid. If you want to take Sentinel for any given reason, you have the right to do so. Whether that goal is because you rolled randomly and it happened to land on the Sentinel feat, or you are a munchkin who wants to overspecialize, or because it's a cool fluffy addition to your character that you don't intend to use. To each their own.

[Mikal]

Incorrect.
Really? Incorrect? So did someone else write the quotes the secret fire and myself posted in this thread?


I remember you were a proponent of the Aspect of the Moon rule being taken in context of the full body of text, and no text should be read in isolation. Where is that philosophy now?

It's still there? Aspect of the Moons issue is that people were focusing on a single part of the rule and making a judgment on it, once which JC backed up for some insane reason. Ergo, I was proposing that you need to read the entire rule, while others (including JC) jumped onto a narrow passage of it, cherry picking it to defeat the intent the entire rule shows.

This issue is that saying the only goal of Sentinel is what you said in the posts multiple people have quoted you saying, and we're saying people can take it for other reasons. Ergo, you are proposing a universal view, we are showing that view is incorrect.


I can generate more goals for taking Sentinel:

1. To take Sentinel for the hell of it
2. To create a character who dies with the Sentinel feat
3. To have Sentinel but never use it

These are all seemingly ridiculous reasons to take Sentinel, but they are all valid. If you want to take Sentinel for any given reason, you have the right to do so. Whether that goal is because you rolled randomly and it happened to land on the Sentinel feat, or you are a munchkin who wants to overspecialize, or because it's a cool fluffy addition to your character that you don't intend to use. To each their own.

Then perhaps you shouldn't say that the goal of Sentinel is only the few things you specifically and explicitly stated the goals were for, and that some things you consider to be "wins" are in fact "loses" for those people whose goals differ from yours.

In short, stop saying something is universal when something is clearly not.

[LeonBH]

You state that "the entire point of the feat is X" and "your goal is X" in taking the feat. The language used here is peremptory in the extreme. I don't think you're dumb, Leon, so don't play dumb with me. You know what you said, and how little room you left for other possibilities and play styles.

Sigh. Before I continue here, I would like to point out how I approached this thread with no intention of debate, and thus any statements I made before this debate you presume I meant to impose on your free will were my own opinions.

If in the future, I should post in this forums at all, I suppose I should do so with strict correctness and awareness that at any point, someone will dissect my words as if this was a RAW argument. In which case, I prefer to discontinue this conversation entirely.

It is readily observable that Sentinel is taken to discourage people from attacking your allies, and thus I pointed that out. Is that not an observable fact?

Now, if you are going to continue to undermine my statements by insisting this nonsense, I don't think we can get anywhere. What was my point? That the player took/should have taken Sentinel because he wanted to be a tank? Answer me that.

[LeonBH]

Really? Incorrect? So did someone else write the quotes the secret fire and myself posted in this thread?



It's still there? Aspect of the Moons issue is that people were focusing on a single part of the rule and making a judgment on it, once which JC backed up for some insane reason. Ergo, I was proposing that you need to read the entire rule, while others (including JC) jumped onto a narrow passage of it, cherry picking it to defeat the intent the entire rule shows.

This issue is that saying the only goal of Sentinel is what you said in the posts multiple people have quoted you saying, and we're saying people can take it for other reasons. Ergo, you are proposing a universal view, we are showing that view is incorrect.



Then perhaps you shouldn't say that the goal of Sentinel is only the few things you specifically and explicitly stated the goals were for, and that some things you consider to be "wins" are in fact "loses" for those people whose goals differ from yours.

In short, stop saying something is universal when something is clearly not.

Then stop reading my posts.

[Mikal]

Then stop reading my posts.

I guess that would make it easier for you to make posts that claim something which you can later say don't make that claim, since I wouldn't be calling you on it.

[the secret fire]

It is readily observable that Sentinel is taken to discourage people from attacking your allies, and thus I pointed that out. Is that not an observable fact?

Now, if you are going to continue to undermine my statements by insisting this nonsense, I don't think we can get anywhere. What was my point? That the player took/should have taken Sentinel because he wanted to be a tank? Answer me that.

Some PCs will actually want the Sentinel AoO to proc so that they can get reaction attacks more easily. This is particularly true of Rogues. Sentinel can be used for a striker concept, as well as a tank. There are other potentially powerful uses of Sentinel than the one you have determined to be the only viable tactic. That you don't seem to acknowledge this fact is, it seems, the heart of the problem.

[Tanarii]

Some PCs will actually want the Sentinel AoO to proc so that they can get reaction attacks more easily. This is particularly true of Rogues. Sentinel can be used for a striker concept, as well as a tank. There are other potentially powerful uses of Sentinel than the one you have determined to be the only viable tactic. That you don't seem to acknowledge this fact is, it seems, the heart of the problem.
The problem is these players will get what they want some of the time, if the enemy is aware and faces a devil's choice.

Meanwhile players that took it to discourage enemies from attacking allies will never get what they wanted if enemies are never aware.

One extreme means both players sometimes get what they want
The other extreme means it's useless for tanking.

[Mikal]

The problem is these players will get what they want some of the time, if the enemy is aware and faces a devil's choice.

Then I guess it's a good thing RAW there's nothing indicating that the enemy would be aware, and that any such awareness would be a house rule. This also includes after someone uses it in their presence.


Meanwhile players that took it to discourage enemies from attacking allies will never get what they wanted if enemies are never aware.

One extreme means both players sometimes get what they want
The other extreme means it's useless for tanking.

So in other words, neither extreme works, and the best situation is likely the compromise most people use of Sentinel/MS not being 'known' unless the character would know logically, either via surveillance, information gathering, or prior experience with the character, with either extreme being metagamey and unbalancing?

[the secret fire]

The problem is these players will get what they want some of the time, if the enemy is aware and faces a devil's choice.

Meanwhile players that took it to discourage enemies from attacking allies will never get what they wanted if enemies are never aware.

Enemies will become aware of the Sentinel feat as soon as it procs, which may well be on the first round of combat. Sorry, but this is not a good argument.

[Tanarii]

Enemies will become aware of the Sentinel feat as soon as it procs, which may well be on the first round of combat. Sorry, but this is not a good argument.
Why? What changed in-universe ?

[LeonBH]

Some PCs will actually want the Sentinel AoO to proc so that they can get reaction attacks more easily. This is particularly true of Rogues. Sentinel can be used for a striker concept, as well as a tank. There are other potentially powerful uses of Sentinel than the one you have determined to be the only viable tactic. That you don't seem to acknowledge this fact is, it seems, the heart of the problem.

I acknowledge the "fact" - though it's hard for me to agree to a vague statement. In the first place, there is no specificity to "than the one you have determined to be the only viable tactic."

So let me settle for agreeing that some builds can use Sentinel to increase their DPR. Sure, people can do it. That is within their rights and it is valid.

Is it a good strategy to create a striker build? No, I don't think so. Enemies can just hit you instead and avoid the reaction attack. The entire concept goes down the drain. But that's not the point I'm making.

I'm saying it is much better for the enemy to attack the Sentinel than to attack their squishier allies. The trigger for Sentinel is an undesirable thing - that someone else takes the hit - and it would be better for the party for that trigger to not happen. But if the player gets upset over it, and the easiest solution is to trigger that Sentinel attack every now and then, then by all means, the DM should do it. It saves them a ton of time from this seemingly trivial problem.

[strangebloke]

Then I guess it's a good thing RAW there's nothing indicating that the enemy would be aware, and that any such awareness would be a house rule. This also includes after someone uses it in their presence.

Minor Quibble: By RAW there's nothing indicating that the enemy should or should not be aware. It's an undefined space. A "House Rule" would imply that every enemy was always aware that the PC has the Sentinel feat. This isn't even a ruling, since a 'ruling' is an interpretation of a rule. There's no rule here at all.

It's like... the DM gets to determine if the goblinoids have good metallurgy skills or no. Completely undefined space.

As to the "Is this reasonable?" Well... yeah. I mean, provided that this is an intelligent, experienced opponent. IMO all intelligent characters should understand the mechanics of moving around a grid, how to provoke or avoid AoOs, etc etc. It's very reasonable for a smart baddie to make an insight roll into the PCs fighting style. From the PCs perspective, the roll may or may not actually happen. The experience is the same.

And should the player be angry? If it happens every session then yes. If it happens once in a while? Eh... It isn't like "Attack the Caster" is some kind of divine mandate from One-Eye himself. Sometimes they'll just want to beat on the big strong guy. Dumb enemies might misinterpret who the biggest threat is.

[DivisibleByZero]

Minor Quibble: By RAW there's nothing indicating that the enemy should or should not be aware. It's an undefined space. A "House Rule" would imply that every enemy was always aware that the PC has the Sentinel feat. This isn't even a ruling, since a 'ruling' is an interpretation of a rule. There's no rule here at all.

Give it up. We already went through that for a couple of hours or something today.
He will not acknowledge that this is a fact, and insists that the absence of one statement means that the opposing and also absent statement miraculously becomes RAW.

[Cynthaer]

For all this arguing, I feel it's worth pointing out that we seem to have a broad general consensus on the practical application here.


This is your core idea, and I agree. Even though it's an irrational POV, the player who took a feat wants the feat to activate even if that activation condition requires a suboptimal outcome, because action and spectacle are important to players in combat.

[...]

It is the DM's job to make everybody have fun, of course. And if triggering the feat every now and then is the solution that will calm them down, and that is the solution that requires the least effort to implement, then by all means, the DM should do it. It minimizes time spent on a seemingly trivial problem.


All that said, it's totally a table/DM choice on how they want it to work. RAW doesn't require either way, and metagaming isn't an issue here, any more than it is with Opportunity Attacks or Ready Actions.


Not that anyone cares, but I've decided that only combat veterans will be able to identify what will happen under the Sentinel's range.

We may disagree on minor points like what the design goals of these feats are, what the player's goals are when taking these feats, and the degree to which the effects of these feats are "metagame knowledge", but it looks like we basically agree that:

(A) it's generally interesting for them to get triggered some of the time so the player can see the concrete effects, and

(B) there's no real harm to the game balance if that's what makes the player happy.

Also, @Specter, I think that's a fine solution, and I expect your Sentinel player will be quite pleased when he starts punishing random mooks for taking their eyes off of him.

[Dudewithknives]

I acknowledge the "fact" - though it's hard for me to agree to a vague statement. In the first place, there is no specificity to "than the one you have determined to be the only viable tactic."

So let me settle for agreeing that some builds can use Sentinel to increase their DPR. Sure, people can do it. That is within their rights and it is valid.

Is it a good strategy to create a striker build? No, I don't think so. Enemies can just hit you instead and avoid the reaction attack. The entire concept goes down the drain. But that's not the point I'm making.

I'm saying it is much better for the enemy to attack the Sentinel than to attack their squishier allies. The trigger for Sentinel is an undesirable thing - that someone else takes the hit - and it would be better for the party for that trigger to not happen. But if the player gets upset over it, and the easiest solution is to trigger that Sentinel attack every now and then, then by all means, the DM should do it. It saves them a ton of time from this seemingly trivial problem.


The concept only goes down the drain if you play it wrong.

Ex.

I am playing a Swashbuckler Rogue, I take both Sentinel and Mage Slayer.
I do not stand next to the squishes, I stand next to the Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin with massive damage. Now the enemy has the choice, after they notice I stabbed them in the back for a sneak attack when they attacked the person that caused much more damage.

1. They attack the swashbuckler, and thus they leave the person with multiple attacks, probably bonus action attacks, with much more damage to hit them much longer.

2. They attack the massive damage dealing barbarian/paladin/fighter trying to deal with it before it kills them, then they get sneak attacked twice every round.

3. They try to leave, then they get sneak attacked anyway, and still don't get away.

4. They try to cast a spell on us to shut us down, and assuming the rogue makes the save, they get sneak attacked again.

or the Swashbuckler just sneaks up on, disengages to, or dashes to some high value target and makes them pay for it dearly if they try to leave.


It is a very viable feat for a rogue, a paladin who can smite on a reaction attack, and some others.

You just play it differently if you took it for offense than if you take it for defense.

[the secret fire]

Why? What changed in-universe ?

Enemies of even mediocre intelligence should recognize that taking an unexpected opportunity attack on their turns from a PC with Sentinel is odd and dangerous, and adjust their tactics accordingly. This probably won't apply to bears, oozes and such, but it ought to apply to anything smart enough for speech.

Individual DMs can run their monsters any way they want, but having intelligent enemies behave stupidly isn't my idea of good DMing.

[Tanarii]

(A) it's generally interesting for them to get triggered some of the time so the player can see the concrete effects, and
I feel it's best that it get triggered some of the time, and the enemy intentionally avoids triggering it some of the time.

Whether the latter occurs only after the enemy becomes aware of the style of fighting after they've seen it in action isn't really important, so long as it's consistent. (or whatever the in game explanation is for why they don't have knowledge before it's used on them, but do after.)


Enemies of even mediocre intelligence should recognize that taking an unexpected opportunity attack on their turns from a PC with Sentinel is odd and dangerous, and adjust their tactics accordingly.
If an OA is visible in game and associable with the trigger, why didn't they see it coming? You're making all sorts of assumptions about how attacks and triggers and a bunch of other abstractions must work in game.

Fore example, one "logical" extension on your assumption is if an enemy sees any Sentinel character anywhere make the attack, they'll know it for any Sentinel character. Since they recognize the style now.

[LeonBH]

I am playing a Swashbuckler Rogue, I take both Sentinel and Mage Slayer.
I do not stand next to the squishes, I stand next to the Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin with massive damage. Now the enemy has the choice, after they notice I stabbed them in the back for a sneak attack when they attacked the person that caused much more damage.

-snip-

There are two flaws I see here:

First, this singular enemy you've locked down has instead locked down two party members. In action economy, you are at a deficit.

Second, there is nobody to protect the squishies, so now the rest of the enemies can close in on them - two of the tanks/strikers have their hands tied to someone else right now, after all.

The second point can be mitigated by not having a squishy party member, but the first point cannot be mitigated. That strategy ties down two of you so you can lock down one of them.

[Cynthaer]

Why? What changed in-universe ?

Under this model, they turned their focus to attack one foe and immediately got hit by the other one. From this they concluded that the foe who hit them will continue to hit them if they're not paying attention, so they focus on that foe.

(Since context gets lost in big threads: This is not a statement of how Sentinel must always be interpreted in all scenarios for all groups. This is just what's happening in the view where enemies "know you have Sentinel" after it triggers the first time, which I do believe is an intuitive and common approach.)

[Dudewithknives]

There are two flaws I see here:

First, this singular enemy you've locked down has instead locked down two party members. In action economy, you are at a deficit.

Second, there is nobody to protect the squishies, so now the rest of the enemies can close in on them - two of the tanks/strikers have their hands tied to someone else right now, after all.

The second point can be mitigated by not having a squishy party member, but the first point cannot be mitigated. That strategy ties down two of you so you can lock down one of them.

When. That singular enemy is the BBEG and dies twice as fast and is not bothering the other 2 to 3 other teammates, yay.

[the secret fire]

If an OA is visible in game and associable with the trigger, why didn't they see it coming?

Easy answer: because it is unusual.


You're making all sorts of assumptions about how attacks and triggers and a bunch of other abstractions must work in game.

Fore example, one "logical" extension on your assumption is if an enemy sees any Sentinel character anywhere make the attack, they'll know it for any Sentinel character. Since they recognize the style now.

Yes, and my assumptions are reasonable.

As to your second point...maybe so. Of course, for non-humans, the earliest a character with class levels can possibly get Sentinel is 4th level, so it should still be an unusual fighting style. But yeah, sure, intelligent combat veterans should possibly be able to sniff out a character with Sentinel before he actually uses it. I see no problem with this. It makes sense and is balanced. Having all enemies just automatically know that a PC has Sentinel (which I believe is what you first suggested), on the other hand, strikes me as senseless and imbalanced.

[LeonBH]

When. That singular enemy is the BBEG and dies twice as fast and is not bothering the other 2 to 3 other teammates.

If the monster is alone and has no minions, the fight is in the favor of the players anyway. That is how action economy works.

Sure, Sentinel becomes meaningful in that sense as you prevent 100% of all enemies from reaching the squishies, but how meaningful is it really when you will win even if you don't take your reaction attacks, simply due to action economy?

[Dudewithknives]

If the monster is alone and has no minions, the fight is in the favor of the players anyway. That is how action economy works.

Sure, Sentinel becomes meaningful in that sense as you prevent 100% of all enemies from reaching the squishies, but how meaningful is it really when you will win even if you don't take your reaction attacks, simply due to action economy?

A rogue is not going to be on minion duty anyway. If the BBEG is trapped dealing with 2 people the rest of the group can easily be on minion duty.

Casters are much better at dealing with groups anyway.

Action economy is fine when the main villain is dealt with without endangering g other and is beat down just as fast as if he had extra people on him.

[LeonBH]

A rogue is not going to be on minion duty anyway. If the BBEG is trapped dealing with 2 people the rest of the group can easily be on minion duty.

Casters are much better at dealing with groups anyway.

Action economy is fine when the main villain is dealt with without endangering g other and is beat down just as fast as if he had extra people on him.

Then we are back to the initial problems: the one monster has tied down two party members. That is an action economy disadvantage. Meanwhile, the rest of the monsters have easier access to the casters.

[Tanarii]

Under this model, they turned their focus to attack one foe and immediately got hit by the other one. From this they concluded that the foe who hit them will continue to hit them if they're not paying attention, so they focus on that foe.

(Since context gets lost in big threads: This is not a statement of how Sentinel must always be interpreted in all scenarios for all groups. This is just what's happening in the view where enemies "know you have Sentinel" after it triggers the first time, which I do believe is an intuitive and common approach.)


Easy answer: because it is unusual.I like the unusual aspect. It certainly is a good back-justification of what the abstraction simulates, if you've already decided that it should not be possible to know about Sentinel ahead of time.

However, it's not particularly necessary in terms of an in-game event --> abstract rule justification. In other words, there's no particular reason to make this assumption over an assumption that the threat of the OA or reaction attack is perceivable in universe. Just as it is for an OA of turning your back and moving away without taking the Disengage action.

In other words, there's no particular reason this needs to be considered from an in-universe perspective first. The question to ask first is: what do we want to happen mechanically.

And the answer should either be:
1) The enemy always knows about the devil's choice.
2) The enemy becomes aware of the devil's choice.

Either of those works fine, and a DM/table can pick whichever one.
It should never be:
3) The enemy is never aware of the devil's choice.

Because that would make the feat useless for one of it's primary purpose. Arguably the primary one, since 5e needs all the tanking support it can get, and Sentinel is quite clearly the dev team's way of providing it.

(Edit: Although you're defintely nerfing the feat's usefulness for tanking if you pick option #2. So best to make your players aware of it ahead of time when they pick the feat.)

[strangebloke]

snip

Just to add: More diverse enemy tactics=moar fun. Therefore "always aware" is kinda silly.

And the in-universe side does matter. It's why so many people take issue with the one-handed quarterstaff PAM shenanigans.

[Doug Lampert]

Under this model, they turned their focus to attack one foe and immediately got hit by the other one. From this they concluded that the foe who hit them will continue to hit them if they're not paying attention, so they focus on that foe.

(Since context gets lost in big threads: This is not a statement of how Sentinel must always be interpreted in all scenarios for all groups. This is just what's happening in the view where enemies "know you have Sentinel" after it triggers the first time, which I do believe is an intuitive and common approach.)

I agree that that's not an unreasonable position that you know after the attack triggers, but many of the arguments for that position are IMAO simply wrong.

In the game universe you do NOT stand there for six seconds doing nothing, then instantly do a bunch of stuff all at once, and then stand there again doing nothing.

You are CONSTANTLY attacking, the turn based nature of the game is an abstraction put on to make things work for US, it is part of the metagame.

If a combatant is standing next to an enemy with a sword, then he's attacking every second, not every six seconds. You can't tell that your enemy took an off turn attack in universe, for the simple and obvious reason that there are no turns in universe!

You don't swing the weapon faster with this feat, you swing it in a way that is more effective in some circumstances, and you do that all the time when in melee combat.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that it is the STANCE that is visible, because that's something that exists in game. The extra attack is fictional, it's just that one of the many swings you make in six seconds (which is an eternity in melee combat) happens to get a die roll in our universe to see if it hits.

But the die roll, the thing you want to trigger on, THAT is the pure metagame thing. Thus it is not metagaming to claim that Sentinel is always visible, it is metagaming to claim that the feat triggering is visible! Because the feat triggering is something that only happens in the metagame, there's no extra swing of the sword, no sound of dice rolling in the game universe.

The argument for knowing after it triggers is simply that the extra effectiveness is what is noticable in game, not the stance if there's no triggering event.

[Tanarii]

Just to add: More diverse enemy tactics=moar fun. Therefore "always aware" is kinda silly.The entire point of Sentinel is to restrict enemy options, so they don't do something or they get punished for it. If you want more diverse enemy tactics, then you shouldn't be selecting this feat.


And the in-universe side does matter. It's why so many people take issue with the one-handed quarterstaff PAM shenanigans.That's different.

This is something with plenty of equally valid in-universe explanations for all different ways of approaching the feat. Even "3) The enemy is never aware of the devil's choice." It's entirely possible the enemy has no way of associating an "extra" attacks with the "trigger". From their in-universe perspective it might just be another attack against them from a dangerous enemy, no way to tell it was triggered.

In other words, in-universe matters, but only after you've decided how you want the abstract mechanic to work. Any of the in-universe explanations of the abstract mechanic work just fine, once you know how the abstract mechanic works. None of them are required and must be the case in-universe.

[Dudewithknives]

Then we are back to the initial problems: the one monster has tied down two party members. That is an action economy disadvantage. Meanwhile, the rest of the monsters have easier access to the casters.

Yes, it is an action economy disadvantage, to the enemy.

The BBEG if getting hammered by 2 people every round that he can't leave from, he can't cast spells at the people without getting stabbed for it, and he is eating a reaction sneak attack if he does anything other than swinging at the person with Uncanny Dodge.

If mooks want to get past you they will.
You can only stop 1 anyway, also this is not an MMO, casters do not auto die if enemies get on them.
Casters can easily take care of themselves vs mooks for a round or 2.

If things go bad, it is not like the rogue has to stay there. He has a bonus disengage, so he can just step away throw a dagger for SA at some Mook too close to someone, then step back over to the BBEG.

Trust me I played a swashbuckler with Sentinel and Mage slayer from level 1 to 16, it works amazingly. Especially when the group knows how to use it to set the fight in their favor.

[Easy_Lee]

I've read a few times something to the effect of "the point of Sentinel is X." I don't think anyone on this forum can authoritatively state the intent of any feature. Rather, I think it's more useful to talk about what it does and how you think it should be ruled.

[Tanarii]

I've read a few times something to the effect of "the point of Sentinel is X." I don't think anyone on this forum can authoritatively state the intent of any feature. Rather, I think it's more useful to talk about what it does and how you think it should be ruled.
In this case, what I said last is provably true, since it lists both things a player might want out of Sentinel, which is the entirety of what the OA for attacking an ally does. It doesn't make any statement as to preference of which intended result should be the case, unlike my initial post in this thread.

So because it's the truth, I'm going to reiterate it.
The entire point of Sentinel is to restrict enemy options, so they don't do something or they get punished for it.

[darkrose50]

I think that it would depend on the tactical ability of the opponent. A goblin commoner would not know, but a seasoned goblin warrior might.

[1] reading body language
[2] training
[3] experience

There should be a method for deducing the combat ability of an opponent.

[strangebloke]

The entire point of Sentinel is to restrict enemy options, so they don't do something or they get punished for it. If you want more diverse enemy tactics, then you shouldn't be selecting this feat.


Oh, sure, in one sense. My character's goal in every encounter is to ensure that the enemy is weak, blind, bleeding and, soon to die. My goal when I build my character is to give my character the capability to achieve that end. Sentinel helps with that.

However, the character build and my character's tactics only matter if the DM challenges me.

If I build a character who only deals damage to griffins, and the DM only has us fight griffins, then that's... kind of unsatisfying. If I had built to fight sphinxes we'd only be fighting sphinxes. So failing to challenge a player's tactics ultimately makes their tactics and build choices irrelevant. That's bad. Conversely, if I build something that's pretty generally powerful, like a GWM fighter, and the DM only sends ranged flyers at the party, my optimization becomes irrelevant because the DM is intentionally screwing me over. If I had built an archer, there would have been total cover everywhere. This too, is bad.

A wide variety of monsters and tactics make the game more fun for everyone. Yes, Sentinel restricts enemy tactics, but it can only do that if the enemy tactics are varied to begin with. Otherwise it isn't 'forcing them to adapt' it is 'forcing them to behave in a different, but still uniform manner.'

My comment was from the perspective of a DM. He wants to challenge his players with unique enemies with different levels of tactics and different goals and priorities.

One of the first 5e encounters I ran was a bunch of Bullywugs. The party turned the tide in a small skirmish and the bullywugs began to flee. The rogue then made a minigame of hunting down and killing as many as he could before they were all disengaged. His kills meant that they had to face fewer Bullywugs in the following encounter. If they had been fighting, say, orcs, he would have had to focus on minimizing the damage the orcs dealt as they fought the party to the death. Changing up tactics is fun.

[Easy_Lee]

In this case, what I said last is provably true, since it lists both things a player might want out of Sentinel, which is the entirety of what the OA for attacking an ally does. It doesn't make any statement as to preference of which intended result should be the case, unlike my initial post in this thread.

So because it's the truth, I'm going to reiterate it.
The entire point of Sentinel is to restrict enemy options, so they don't do something or they get punished for it.

Well, perhaps another angle then. I've read that the best tactics will work regardless of your opponent's moves. In The Matrix, Trinity can't shoot the agent until she sneaks up behind him and puts the gun to his head - no opportunity to dodge. Maybe it doesn't matter whether the enemies know what the player can do as long as the player has a plan ready for every possible enemy response.

[Tanarii]

A wide variety of monsters and tactics make the game more fun for everyone. Yes, Sentinel restricts enemy tactics, but it can only do that if the enemy tactics are varied to begin with. Otherwise it isn't 'forcing them to adapt' it is 'forcing them to behave in a different, but still uniform manner.'

My comment was from the perspective of a DM. He wants to challenge his players with unique enemies with different levels of tactics and different goals and priorities. Can't disagree with that. In fact, I think NPCs/monsters always choosing a certain way to react to the devil's choice in Sentinel or Mage Slayer, if we assuming for a second they are aware or have become aware of it, is both unrealistic and means the DM probably has a personal preference for how they would react to it as a player, tactically.

Short version: NPCs & monsters shouldn't all react the same way to knowledge of what might happen or awareness of this Feat. Any more than they should always avoid OAs or should always ignore OAs.


Well, perhaps another angle then. I've read that the best tactics will work regardless of your opponent's moves. In The Matrix, Trinity can't shoot the agent until she sneaks up behind him and puts the gun to his head - no opportunity to dodge. Maybe it doesn't matter whether the enemies know what the player can do as long as the player has a plan ready for every possible enemy response.That's the way lots of Sentinel Builds are set up isn't it?
Catch-22: either the enemy attacks me and I benefit from higher HPs and AC, or the enemy attacks my ally and I hit him for 2H GS damage output.

If the enemy is aware of the potential outcome of attacking your ally, and your damage output is known (at least in terms of "not really that dangerous"), then it's going to change their decision towards: who cares about attacking you? If you're a low-AC rogue and you're trying to Sentinel an extra attack out of the enemy attacking your Plate & Shield ally, then that's going to change their decision towards: hit the not plate armored guy I'm inclined to attack anyway.

At this point, I'm starting to get the feeling most players really want it to work ONLY the way that will benefit them most. Including me. I assumed it's a feat that should enable tanking/catch-22s, so I came into this thread with the "reasonable" idea that you definitely don't want the enemy unaware. A player of a squishy rogue trying to up damage definitely wants the enemy to be unaware, they don't want the enemy to be allowed to make the obvious choice of attacking them even more likely.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is readily observable that Sentinel is taken to discourage people from attacking your allies, and thus I pointed that out. Is that not an observable fact?
FWIW, the Sentinel Feat

SENTINEL
You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy’s guard, gaining the following benefits:
1. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
2. Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
3. 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

So let me settle for agreeing that some builds can use Sentinel to increase their DPR. Indeed, by having a chance to do damage on that reaction, if and when it occurs.

I've read a few times something to the effect of "the point of Sentinel is X." I don't think anyone on this forum can authoritatively state the intent of any feature. Rather, I think it's more useful to talk about what it does and how you think it should be ruled. That's how it started, and then the bickering happened ... :smallcool:

The entire point of Sentinel is to restrict enemy options, so they don't do something or they get punished for it. That's a nice summary of the three things that happen when Sentinel is triggered.
1. Enemy loses movement as a consequence of action X
2. Enemy gets OAd even if it tried to disengage (one and two can be a bugger if the enemy is trying to disengage and learns too late that the sentinel is active)
3. Enemy gets hit if it hits an ally and not the Sentinel using character.

Points 1 & 2 seem to be where the problem of meta gaming really enters into it.
How will any enemy know that a given opponent has this fancy tricksy feat until the fight starts? I'd say that unless the foe had met the character in combat before, or had a reliable intelligence report, they won't.

For a DM to metagame "perfect knowledge of the PC's that the DM has" onto all of his monsters even if the monster/NPC has never met the PC before in game is -- to me -- crap DMing. I suspect that this is the kind of thing that inspired the OP.

[Tanarii]

Points 1 & 2 seem to be where the problem of meta gaming really enters into it.
How will any enemy know that a given opponent has this fancy tricksy feat until the fight starts? I'd say that unless the foe had met the character in combat before, or had a reliable intelligence report, they won't.

For a DM to metagame "perfect knowledge of the PC's that the DM has" onto all of his monsters even if the monster/NPC has never met the PC before in game is -- to me -- crap DMing. I suspect that this is the kind of thing that inspired the OP.
There is no metagaming necessary, at least at the point when the reaction or OA could be triggered. This is entirely something it's possible to explain as immediately visible in the in-game universe, the enemy seeing they are in immediate additional danger from the Sentinel character if they try to do X.

Edit: That's not the only in-game way to explain what happens with Sentinel, but that's the point. The in-game explanation for what's going on for the majority of ways it's been suggested it should work at the DM level works just fine in-game, RAW, and without any metagaming involved. What matters is how the table/DM wants it to work at a game-level, and why.

[Cynthaer]

I like the unusual aspect. It certainly is a good back-justification of what the abstraction simulates, if you've already decided that it should not be possible to know about Sentinel ahead of time.

However, it's not particularly necessary in terms of an in-game event --> abstract rule justification. In other words, there's no particular reason to make this assumption over an assumption that the threat of the OA or reaction attack is perceivable in universe. Just as it is for an OA of turning your back and moving away without taking the Disengage action.

In other words, there's no particular reason this needs to be considered from an in-universe perspective first. The question to ask first is: what do we want to happen mechanically.

Agreed on all counts. D&D combat mechanics have always been a fuzzy mix of intuitive simulation and straight-up gaminess*, and OAs are right in the middle of that intersection.

OAs exist as an abstracted representation of a lot of things at once: attention, facing, potentially successful attacks**, battlefield mobility and the danger of moving "past" enemies, etc. But once the OA mechanic exists, the decisions to avoid OAs, trigger them, use them, or set up for more of them are basically pure tactical game decisions.

The actual consequence of an OA attempt thus requires us to "back-justify" what actually happened in-universe, but the details of that justification are not strictly the reason the mechanic was added to the game in the first place. They're just a subset of the things being abstracted.

* It bugs a lot of people, but I regard this as a general strength of the system, not a weakness.

** vs. multiple "thrusts" that may occur in narrative but don't get additional attack rolls.


And the answer should either be:
1) The enemy always knows about the devil's choice.
2) The enemy becomes aware of the devil's choice.

Either of those works fine, and a DM/table can pick whichever one.

Also agreed.

I'm much less concerned about the consequences of option #2 than you are, I think. Mostly because I expect a lot of players to be annoyed that Sentinel "never matters" because the OA never triggers, but very few to be annoyed that they took Sentinel, but enemies are still targeting allies and eating OAs instead of focusing the Sentinel from turn 1.


It should never be:
3) The enemy is never aware of the devil's choice.

Because that would make the feat useless for one of it's primary purpose. Arguably the primary one, since 5e needs all the tanking support it can get, and Sentinel is quite clearly the dev team's way of providing it.

I kind of agree, but I actually think option #3 still works if the DM/group likes it that way. You lose the ability to "draw aggro" by standing next to squishier characters (since they'll just hit the squishy and take the OA), but if enemies can't "figure out" that you have the feat, you can stand farther forward and make more use of the "enemies can't Disengage" and "OAs stop them in their tracks" clauses to get "stickiness" that way.

That said, this isn't how I would run it, and we've only really been talking about the "OA in response to attacks on allies" clause up until now, so I do agree that it makes that clause useless for tanking.


The entire point of Sentinel is to restrict enemy options, so they don't do something or they get punished for it. If you want more diverse enemy tactics, then you shouldn't be selecting this feat.

Minor quibble: Adding restrictions can often increase diversity of tactics, if they put a cap on the effectiveness of a clearly optimal strategy. For instance, Magic: the Gathering often bans certain cards so that more types of decks have a chance to see competitive play instead of being strangled out by a single overpowering deck.

In this case, if we assume that an enemy would always target your Wizard in a normal scenario, taking Sentinel may indeed lead to more diverse enemy tactics because it raises the opportunity cost of attacking the Wizard and lowers the opportunity cost of attacking the Sentinel, bringing the overall values closer to each other.

(Relatedly: We've ignored this for simplicity, but it's conceivable that a foe might knowingly choose to eat the OA because they think it's worth it to hit the squishy. An armored enemy stands to deal more relative damage to the Wizard than they're likely to take anyway.)


Can't disagree with that. In fact, I think NPCs/monsters always choosing a certain way to react to the devil's choice in Sentinel or Mage Slayer, if we assuming for a second they are aware or have become aware of it, is both unrealistic and means the DM probably has a personal preference for how they would react to it as a player, tactically.

Short version: NPCs & monsters shouldn't all react the same way to knowledge of what might happen or awareness of this Feat. Any more than they should always avoid OAs or should always ignore OAs.

My thoughts exactly.

[Tanarii]

Also agreed.

I'm much less concerned about the consequences of option #2 than you are, I think. Mostly because I expect a lot of players to be annoyed that Sentinel "never matters" because the OA never triggers, but very few to be annoyed that they took Sentinel, but enemies are still targeting allies and eating OAs instead of focusing the Sentinel from turn 1.



I kind of agree, but I actually think option #3 still works if the DM/group likes it that way. You lose the ability to "draw aggro" by standing next to squishier characters (since they'll just hit the squishy and take the OA), but if enemies can't "figure out" that you have the feat, you can stand farther forward and make more use of the "enemies can't Disengage" and "OAs stop them in their tracks" clauses to get "stickiness" that way.

That said, this isn't how I would run it, and we've only really been talking about the "OA in response to attacks on allies" clause up until now, so I do agree that it makes that clause useless for tanking.Yeah. I actually can see a perfectly valid reason for "enemy never knows about sentinel":
The always group wants it to be about increased damage, and never wants it to be an assist with tanking.

That's a valid thing for a group to want. Despite it making me go all scrunchy-brained trying to wrap my mind around the concept. :smallamused:

[LeonBH]

Yes, it is an action economy disadvantage, to the enemy.

The BBEG if getting hammered by 2 people every round that he can't leave from, he can't cast spells at the people without getting stabbed for it, and he is eating a reaction sneak attack if he does anything other than swinging at the person with Uncanny Dodge.

If mooks want to get past you they will.
You can only stop 1 anyway, also this is not an MMO, casters do not auto die if enemies get on them.
Casters can easily take care of themselves vs mooks for a round or 2.

If things go bad, it is not like the rogue has to stay there. He has a bonus disengage, so he can just step away throw a dagger for SA at some Mook too close to someone, then step back over to the BBEG.

Trust me I played a swashbuckler with Sentinel and Mage slayer from level 1 to 16, it works amazingly. Especially when the group knows how to use it to set the fight in their favor.

The action economy disadvantage is on the two players locked down, not the one monster locked down. It's a matter of simple math. 2 > 1.

Also, unless you are using a house rule, casters can escape from a Mage Slayer using Misty Step, Thunder Step, Dimension Door, Hold Person, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Blindness/Deafness, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, etc. This is because the reaction resolves after the spell is cast.

I believe you that it worked for you, though strictly speaking, you couldn't have played a Swashbuckler with the two feats from level 1.

But I suspect that you did not consistently gain a DPR boost from Sentinel or Mage Slayer as you claim, but instead were playing with "tank tactics."

[DarkKnightJin]

The action economy disadvantage is on the two players locked down, not the one monster locked down. It's a matter of simple math. 2 > 1.

Also, unless you are using a house rule, casters can escape from a Mage Slayer using Misty Step, Thunder Step, Dimension Door, Hold Person, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Blindness/Deafness, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, etc. This is because the reaction resolves after the spell is cast.

I believe you that it worked for you, though strictly speaking, you couldn't have played a Swashbuckler with the two feats from level 1.

But I suspect that you did not consistently gain a DPR boost from Sentinel or Mage Slayer as you claim, but instead were playing with "tank tactics."

I've personally always considered the Mage Slayer spell-reaction attack to be the Mage Slayer hearing the arcane incantation needed to cast a spell(or see the Somatic component being done), and smacking the 'offending' caster. In a "No, bad Mage!" kinda way.

I feel that feat is a different can of worms, but in need of a house ruling to make it feel a bit more Mage Slayer-y..

[Dudewithknives]

The action economy disadvantage is on the two players locked down, not the one monster locked down. It's a matter of simple math. 2 > 1.

Also, unless you are using a house rule, casters can escape from a Mage Slayer using Misty Step, Thunder Step, Dimension Door, Hold Person, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Blindness/Deafness, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, etc. This is because the reaction resolves after the spell is cast.

I believe you that it worked for you, though strictly speaking, you couldn't have played a Swashbuckler with the two feats from level 1.

But I suspect that you did not consistently gain a DPR boost from Sentinel or Mage Slayer as you claim, but instead were playing with "tank tactics."

I did not mean that I had both feats at level 1, I meant I played a rogue from 1 to 16 that had those feats eventually.

The mage slayer feat issue comes back to the point of why would the enemy know that they will take a reaction attack from casting if it has not come up yet.

Mage slayer was not nearly as useful as sentinel.

I am not sure how you play your games but when the big threat of the battle is getting beaten on by the two melee people and he can't get to anyone else, that is good for the team.

2 players worth of attacks and abilities pulled on one person is no lack of action economy. Also, the rogue is not locked anywhere, cunning action bonus disengage fixes that.

Many times I would disengage from the BBEG, step over 10 feet, draw and throw a dagger at someone else for sneak attack if they were on someone else, then just step back to the BBEG so he still had to deal with sentinel.

For most of that campaign the group was:
A vengeance paladin, my swashbuckler, an evoker wizard, a life cleric and an on and off hand crossbow/cbe fighter.

[LeonBH]

I did not mean that I had both feats at level 1, I meant I played a rogue from 1 to 16 that had those feats eventually.

The mage slayer feat issue comes back to the point of why would the enemy know that they will take a reaction attack from casting if it has not come up yet.

Mage slayer was not nearly as useful as sentinel.

I am not sure how you play your games but when the big threat of the battle is getting beaten on by the two melee people and he can't get to anyone else, that is good for the team.

2 players worth of attacks and abilities pulled on one person is no lack of action economy. Also, the rogue is not locked anywhere, cunning action bonus disengage fixes that.

Many times I would disengage from the BBEG, step over 10 feet, draw and throw a dagger at someone else for sneak attack if they were on someone else, then just step back to the BBEG so he still had to deal with sentinel.

For most of that campaign the group was:
A vengeance paladin, my swashbuckler, an evoker wizard, a life cleric and an on and off hand crossbow/cbe fighter.

That sounds like you're using Sentinel in a control capacity rather than a DPS bump, don't you think?

[Dudewithknives]

That sounds like you're using Sentinel in a control capacity rather than a DPS bump, don't you think?

The control was just a side effect and a nice bonus, I took it completely for the damage aspect.

In a group that tends to have a 5 min work day, like sadly almost every game I have ever been in, a rogue needs all the help they could get, with paladins smiting every round, evoker nuking everything, cleric well honestly not doing much.

Geez I hate the 5mwd.

[LeonBH]

The control was just a side effect and a nice bonus, I took it completely for the damage aspect.

In a group that tends to have a 5 min work day, like sadly almost every game I have ever been in, a rogue needs all the help they could get, with paladins smiting every round, evoker nuking everything, cleric well honestly not doing much.

Geez I hate the 5mwd.

From the way you've been stating things so far though, the control aspects are front and center. They can't cast spells, can't leave your reach, and must contend with being locked down. When I said it was a waste of action economy, you rebutted that locking the BBEG down is a good thing.

I believe this worked for you. But I don't think the way you used Sentinel is any different from how someone with Sentinel would normally use it. You locked down enemies and prevented them from reaching your allies.

[Dudewithknives]

From the way you've been stating things so far though, the control aspects are front and center. They can't cast spells, can't leave your reach, and must contend with being locked down. When I said it was a waste of action economy, you rebutted that locking the BBEG down is a good thing.

I believe this worked for you. But I don't think the way you used Sentinel is any different from how someone with Sentinel would normally use it. You locked down enemies and prevented them from reaching your allies.

I did not aim for the lock down though, I want them to cast spells or try to leave because they did not know what I could do. Lock down was the backup plan, the extra reaction attacks was the goal.

This leads to the issue with the thread topic, if the enemy knows somehow automatically that they are threatened, they will never provoke the OA in the first place and focus fire the rogue, which is ok for a round or 2 but would be counterproductive.

[LeonBH]

I did not aim for the lock down though, I want them to cast spells or try to leave because they did not know what I could do. Lock down was the backup plan, the extra reaction attacks was the goal.

This leads to the issue with the thread topic, if the enemy knows somehow automatically that they are threatened, they will never provoke the OA in the first place and focus fire the rogue, which is ok for a round or 2 but would be counterproductive.

It's entirely in your favor if the BBEG targeted you. As you said yourself, either the BBEG hits you and must not attack the scary Paladin/Barbarian, or hits the Paladin/Barbarian and you proc a reaction attack. Either way is a win, and therefore it is not counterproductive.

EDIT: Rewording this post for clarity and better phrasing. This was how we started this conversation:


Is it a good strategy to create a striker build? No, I don't think so. Enemies can just hit you instead and avoid the reaction attack. The entire concept goes down the drain. But that's not the point I'm making.


The concept only goes down the drain if you play it wrong.

Ex.

I am playing a Swashbuckler Rogue, I take both Sentinel and Mage Slayer.
I do not stand next to the squishes, I stand next to the Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin with massive damage. Now the enemy has the choice, after they notice I stabbed them in the back for a sneak attack when they attacked the person that caused much more damage.

1. They attack the swashbuckler, and thus they leave the person with multiple attacks, probably bonus action attacks, with much more damage to hit them much longer.

2. They attack the massive damage dealing barbarian/paladin/fighter trying to deal with it before it kills them, then they get sneak attacked twice every round.

3. They try to leave, then they get sneak attacked anyway, and still don't get away.

4. They try to cast a spell on us to shut us down, and assuming the rogue makes the save, they get sneak attacked again.

or the Swashbuckler just sneaks up on, disengages to, or dashes to some high value target and makes them pay for it dearly if they try to leave.

If you are saying that it's counterproductive for the locked down enemy to focus fire on the Rogue, then point (1) you presented above is counterproductive. And thus your argument that "The concept only goes down the drain if you play it wrong." becomes flawed.

But if you retract that statement and say it is not counterproductive, (1) is kept in tact, but you must yield that getting focus fired by the BBEG is fine (even if it does not allow you to trigger Sentinel's reaction attacks).

[DivisibleByZero]

Faerie Fire offers multiple benefits. Among those: it grants advantage on attacks and it prevents creatures from benefiting from being invisible.
Maybe I take the spell because I don't want to deal with invisible enemies, but I find that benefit occurs less often than the granting of advantage. I took it for one reason, but I use it more for the other reason.

Sentinel offers multiple benefits. Among those: it prevents an enemy from moving away from you and it grants a reaction if the enemy attacks an adjacent ally.
Maybe I take the spell because I want an additional reaction attack every once in a while, but I find that benefit occurs less often than the lockdown effect. I took it for one reason, but I use it more for the other reason.

Bottom line: No matter my reasoning for taking either of those, they are working as intended when the opposing reason becomes relevant.