I didnt realize how op sentinel was untell tonight.

[Throne12]

So we where fighting a lich tonight and we have a Samurai fighter with sentinel and a cavalier fighter with a trisartops mount. So the lich had a wand that emits anti magic field that he was using to block are casters from casting spell at then and a wall of force to keep the fighters away from them. Well I manage to get a Silence spell inside the wall of force dime. This forced them to come out.

So now the fighters used the wand of anti-magic, sentinel and a Cavaliers ability. To lock the lich down wrap him into a sleeping bag and gag him.

The DM and me where both kind of dumb founded. I thought sentinel was "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack. The creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.

We didnt know you still provoke AoO even if you take the disengage action.

[sithlordnergal]

Yeah, that's a big part of Sentinel. It prevents most creatures from escaping you, and is one of the few ways to keep aggro on you. Its a pretty good feat for tanks to have

[Lunali]

Move, get hit, speed 0, ready action to move on someone else's turn, move without AoO since reaction was already used.

[Slipperychicken]

Sentinel is good at what it does. Since 5e combat is very open and mobile, the feat's interaction with disengage makes it a game-changer in an interesting way. It's one of few ways to really lock a nonmagical enemy down and keep him from fleeing.

And it's worth mentioning that if it wasn't for the anti-magic/silence effect, the lich would simply Misty Step out of there as a bonus action. There's basically nothing that can stop that movement aside from counterspelling or anti-magic/silence. I've often been disappointed with sentinel because the enemies which are vulnerable to it (nonmagical ones) tend to be quite content to stand right next to the sentinel character and rarely provoke it, while the ones which want to run away (casters) can just teleport right out. Consider that before branding sentinel as "OP".

[Jerrykhor]

Sentinel is good at what it does. Since 5e combat is very open and mobile, the feat's interaction with disengage makes it a game-changer in an interesting way. It's one of few ways to really lock a nonmagical enemy down and keep him from fleeing.

And it's worth mentioning that if it wasn't for the anti-magic/silence effect, the lich would simply Misty Step out of there as a bonus action. There's basically nothing that can stop that movement aside from counterspelling or anti-magic/silence. I've often been disappointed with sentinel because the enemies which are vulnerable to it (nonmagical ones) tend to be quite content to stand right next to the sentinel character and rarely provoke it, while the ones which want to run away (casters) can just teleport right out. Consider that before branding sentinel as "OP".

This is not so bad. I've seen people claim Fighter's Action Surge+Extra attack combo is OP.

[Urukubarr]

This is not so bad. I've seen people claim Fighter's Action Surge+Extra attack combo is OP.

mmm depends on the amount of combats per day and the way you have encounters play.

if you have one encounter a day with a single "boss" that is obvious and targetable from the outset of a fight, yeah, fighter might seem OP.

however if you have multiple fights a day with staggered enemy introduction (enemies enter the encounter throughout the duration) all of a sudden much less OP.


I find most things being OP is the result of the DM and how they games are played, and a lot of the DM skill comes from knowing everything in the game and how to play to and around your parties strengths, they should often feel strong, but you should know what you need to do within the mechanics to give them a difficult encounter that does not feel out to get them. I think its always sad when DM's consider a class or combo a "problem" and specifically target it so that its never useful, that's not cool.

[stoutstien]

Move, get hit, speed 0, ready action to move on someone else's turn, move without AoO since reaction was already used.

Between the samurai and the cavalier I don't think the lich had much of a chance once spell casting was nullified. I'm surprised they didn't just prone and pound honestly.

[MaxWilson]

So we where fighting a lich tonight and we have a Samurai fighter with sentinel and a cavalier fighter with a trisartops mount. So the lich had a wand that emits anti magic field that he was using to block are casters from casting spell at then and a wall of force to keep the fighters away from them. Well I manage to get a Silence spell inside the wall of force dime. This forced them to come out.

So now the fighters used the wand of anti-magic, sentinel and a Cavaliers ability. To lock the lich down wrap him into a sleeping bag and gag him.

The DM and me where both kind of dumb founded. I thought sentinel was "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack. The creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.

We didnt know you still provoke AoO even if you take the disengage action.

Doesn't matter--enemy can just ready a move then provoke an AoO. His speed is only zero for the turn he gets hit, so when the readied move goes off it's no longer zero and the fighter no longer has a reaction left.

[CheddarChampion]

Doesn't matter--enemy can just ready a move then provoke an AoO. His speed is only zero for the turn he gets hit, so when the readied move goes off it's no longer zero and the fighter no longer has a reaction left.

IDK dude, if you've already moved can you still ready a move action?
Dash, maybe. You could also try dodging and crossing your fingers.

Or did you have another method in mind to provoke their reaction?

Edit:
I'm away from my book, but D&D Beyond seems to suggest you can move again with your reaction:


Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it.

No mention of remaining speed that I see.
Does this mean you can give up your reaction for extra movement, as the dash action?
I hope I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

[Slipperychicken]

This is not so bad. I've seen people claim Fighter's Action Surge+Extra attack combo is OP.

I agree. People who call action surge OP either don't understand the meaning of the word, or don't really get 5e's game balance.

[Willie the Duck]

I agree. People who call action surge OP either don't understand the meaning of the word, or don't really get 5e's game balance.

This definitely falls under the category of 'don't really get,' but I think is a special enough sub-situation to warrant further examination --
Each edition has their own thing that pops out as high-powered/over-powered, but each edition has what you might call 'waves' of things that hit you as powerful at different points in learning the system. There are things that pop out as really powerful once you have really engaged a system and really thought through all the repercussions --a great example being 3e wizards being able to do everything as expendable astral projections from safely defensible demi-planes. Others tend to be something you get at a moderate clip as play progresses (something like, 'oh, hey, area effect abilities which compromise opponent action economy or make melee enemies take 2-3 rounds to get to the party tend to be really powerful' or, 'making the enemy bruiser get paralyzed right next to your side's bruiser(s) might well spell the end for them'). Others happen right out of the gate (first session or first boss battle) and those seem to disproportionately happen with martial exploits.

Being a DM in 2e and having a player two-weapon fighting darts specialist will be obvious right away (and limitations like how hard it is to get a slew of magic darts being several levels off in discovery), 3rd edition crit fishing suddenly doing massive damage also quickly shines, and all it takes is a fighter getting initiative on their first boss battle (perhaps when the boss is set up to receive their primary attack mode, because you haven't figured out how to make boss encounters yet) and greasing the BBEG with two rounds worth of well-places attacks and it's really easy to get an early impression that action surge is really super powerful. Hopefully in time you realize how few specific situations it is make-or-break ability (although it is still a phenomenally useful ability).

[GlenSmash!]

I think OP gets tossed around a lot more than it should.

Still I think movement, force movement, and locking movement down are often underrated tactics when considering "Optimization". At least in the 5e forums I follow.

[MaxWilson]

IDK dude, if you've already moved can you still ready a move action?
Dash, maybe. You could also try dodging and crossing your fingers.

Or did you have another method in mind to provoke their reaction?

Edit:
I'm away from my book, but D&D Beyond seems to suggest you can move again with your reaction:

"Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it."

No mention of remaining speed that I see.
Does this mean you can give up your reaction for extra movement, as the dash action?
I hope I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

When your Readied Action goes off, your Speed is no longer 0, so you get to move your regular 30' or 40' or whatever.

It's not technically a Dash but it is similar to it: they both let you move up to your speed.

[noob]

I think OP gets tossed around a lot more than it should.

Still I think movement, force movement, and locking movement down are often underrated tactics when considering "Optimization". At least in the 5e forums I follow.

while in 3.5 countless praise solid fog (locks down movement and lower vision and is in a general way countered reliably only by freedom of movement, wind and dispelling)

[N810]

Isn't their move speed still 0 though ? :elan:

(depending on init order ?)

[MaxWilson]

Isn't their move speed still 0 though ? :elan:

(depending on init order ?)

Nope. Sentinel only sets your speed to 0 for the current turn, not for a full round. It would have been better to write "until the start of the target's next turn," which would eliminate the Readied Move cheese, but they didn't.

[Slipperychicken]

Nope. Sentinel only sets your speed to 0 for the current turn, not for a full round. It would have been better to write "until the start of the target's next turn," which would eliminate the Readied Move cheese, but they didn't.

It's part of the game's philosophy of rulings over rules.

The reader is meant to comprehend the spirit of the rule, and play in accordance with it, rather than trying to twist words until their GM allows them to bypass the rule.

[MaxWilson]

It's part of the game's philosophy of rulings over rules.

The reader is meant to comprehend the spirit of the rule, and play in accordance with it, rather than trying to twist words until their GM allows them to bypass the rule.

That's a great philosophy. I wish WotC's Sage Advice and Jeremy Crawford's Twitter account shared it. :-D

But yes, the DM can replace the rule with a better rule. (IMO you might as well make it a rule instead of a one-off ruling.)

[Segev]

To be fair, "I'm using my action and reaction to move away from the guy with Sentinel," is still pretty costly.

[MaxWilson]

To be fair, "I'm using my action and reaction to move away from the guy with Sentinel," is still pretty costly.

And potentially taking some damage.

Disengage is already pretty costly of course, even without Sentinel. Often it's better to just eat the (attempted) opportunity attack, and that's where Sentinel punishes you most.

[GlenSmash!]

And potentially taking some damage.

Disengage is already pretty costly of course, even without Sentinel. Often it's better to just eat the (attempted) opportunity attack, and that's where Sentinel punishes you most.

Against a single hard hitting foe like a Giant I feel it's the duty of my barbarian to eat that Attack of Opportunity so that any of my other party members next to it can move away freely.

[Segev]

Against a single hard hitting foe like a Giant I feel it's the duty of my barbarian to eat that Attack of Opportunity so that any of my other party members next to it can move away freely.

Assuming the giant isn't already targeting somebody else and thus saving their Reaction.

[GlenSmash!]

Assuming the giant isn't already targeting somebody else and thus saving their Reaction.

True. Of course then I don't get hurt which is still nice.

[Chauncymancer]

Move, get hit, speed 0, ready action to move on someone else's turn, move without AoO since reaction was already used.

Doesn't matter--enemy can just ready a move then provoke an AoO. His speed is only zero for the turn he gets hit, so when the readied move goes off it's no longer zero and the fighter no longer has a reaction left.
The OP mentions the fighter in question being a Cavalier. The Cavalier's capstone ability is "you can make an AoO on every creature's turn once, even if you've already used your Reaction". If they're fighting a lich, they may be at capstone.

[CheddarChampion]

To be fair, "I'm using my action and reaction to move away from the guy with Sentinel," is still pretty costly.

If the rule I saw is correct, you don't need to use your action.
I don't like this, of course.

[Misterwhisper]

So we where fighting a lich tonight and we have a Samurai fighter with sentinel and a cavalier fighter with a trisartops mount. So the lich had a wand that emits anti magic field that he was using to block are casters from casting spell at then and a wall of force to keep the fighters away from them. Well I manage to get a Silence spell inside the wall of force dime. This forced them to come out.

So now the fighters used the wand of anti-magic, sentinel and a Cavaliers ability. To lock the lich down wrap him into a sleeping bag and gag him.

The DM and me where both kind of dumb founded. I thought sentinel was "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack. The creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.

We didnt know you still provoke AoO even if you take the disengage action.

It sounds more like your DM has no clue how to run a lich.

[MaxWilson]

The OP mentions the fighter in question being a Cavalier. The Cavalier's capstone ability is "you can make an AoO on every creature's turn once, even if you've already used your Reaction". If they're fighting a lich, they may be at capstone.

The fighter with Sentinel is a Samurai, not a Cavalier, so even if he's 18th level he doesn't have this capstone. The Cavalier with a triceratops doesn't have Sentinel AFAICT.

Of course in reality you don't need Sentinel to lock down a lich that's already inside an antimagic zone. You can just grapple it and then kill it. (But you still have to find and destroy its phylactery!) A lich that lets itself get caught alone inside an antimagic zone when it's facing a bunch of high-level PCs has already lost, Sentinel or no Sentinel.

[Misterwhisper]

The fighter with Sentinel is a Samurai, not a Cavalier, so even if he's 18th level he doesn't have this capstone. The Cavalier with a triceratops doesn't have Sentinel AFAICT.

Of course in reality you don't need Sentinel to lock down a lich that's already inside an antimagic zone. You can just grapple it and then kill it. (But you still have to find and destroy its phylactery!) A lich that lets itself get caught alone inside an antimagic zone when it's facing a bunch of high-level PCs has already lost, Sentinel or no Sentinel.

One it setup itself too it seems...

[NecessaryWeevil]

If the rule I saw is correct, you don't need to use your action.
I don't like this, of course.

Which rule is that? Not sure I follow.

[CheddarChampion]

Which rule is that? Not sure I follow.

Whoops, I misread the rule. Actually glad I was incorrect.

I thought you didn't need to use your action to ready movement:


First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it."

But actually:


To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn. First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it."

So both a readied action and readied movement require you to use both your action and your reaction.

[BarneyBent]

If the rule I saw is correct, you don't need to use your action.
I don't like this, of course.

“Ready action” uses your action. You then also expend your reaction to do whatever it is you readied.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think OP gets tossed around a lot more than it should. Yes. And most people who use the term do not grasp their hyperbole.

It sounds more like your DM has no clue how to run a lich. High level bosses take a certain knack for getting right.

[Chauncymancer]

The fighter with Sentinel is a Samurai, not a Cavalier, so even if he's 18th level he doesn't have this capstone. The Cavalier with a triceratops doesn't have Sentinel AFAICT.

It took me a while to work out what's going on here:
The Samurai has Sentinel, which says that while you are in the Sentinel's reach, you provoke OA even if you Disengage. But notice: It's not "You provoke OA from the Sentinel." It's "You provoke OA's from everyone." Sentinel makes you vulnerable to everyone who threatens the square you're moving out of. The Cavalier class feature Hold the Line also has the quality of reducing your speed to 0 if you're hit with an OA. So what happens is you try to move, the Sentinel hits you. You ready an action to move, and next turn, the Cavalier hits you. You can't ready a Disengage, because you're in reach of the Sentinel.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

It took me a while to work out what's going on here:
The Samurai has Sentinel, which says that while you are in the Sentinel's reach, you provoke OA even if you Disengage. But notice: It's not "You provoke OA from the Sentinel." It's "You provoke OA's from everyone." Sentinel makes you vulnerable to everyone who threatens the square you're moving out of. ...

I have my book in hand and no it's not. It's "Creatures still provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before they leave your reach."
'You' in this case refers to the character with the Sentinel feat. Not everyone else around.

Also the reason the fight turned out the way it did wasn't because Sentinel is broken, it's because the lich stupidly created an anti-magic zone, which is something liches generally don't do in areas they plan on fighting in as all their power comes from magic.

[Zalabim]

The fighter with Sentinel is a Samurai, not a Cavalier, so even if he's 18th level he doesn't have this capstone. The Cavalier with a triceratops doesn't have Sentinel AFAICT.
The cavalier gets that part of sentinel along with hold the line anyway.

It took me a while to work out what's going on here:
The Samurai has Sentinel, which says that while you are in the Sentinel's reach, you provoke OA even if you Disengage. But notice: It's not "You provoke OA from the Sentinel." It's "You provoke OA's from everyone." Sentinel makes you vulnerable to everyone who threatens the square you're moving out of. The Cavalier class feature Hold the Line also has the quality of reducing your speed to 0 if you're hit with an OA. So what happens is you try to move, the Sentinel hits you. You ready an action to move, and next turn, the Cavalier hits you. You can't ready a Disengage, because you're in reach of the Sentinel.
You cant ready a disengage because you're readying movement, not an action. You actually could ready the disengage action but that would do no good because then you wouldn't be moving. This is kinda why most legendary actions include a movement option too.

[NNescio]

The cavalier gets that part of sentinel along with hold the line anyway.

You cant ready a disengage because you're readying movement, not an action. You actually could ready the disengage action but that would do no good because then you wouldn't be moving. This is kinda why most legendary actions include a movement option too.

You can ready movement. You aren't restricted to actions only.


Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn.

First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. (...)

(emphasis mine)

[Benny89]

My fav way of using it was on Sorcadin with Mirror Image. Each time enemy hit my clone - it gave me free reaction attack from Sentinel. Combining that with Quicken BB + Haste I had 5 attacks per turn many times.

For me it's best to be used on Gish with Mirror Image or on PAM melee character using 10ft weapon so you can lock enemy on PAM OA 10 ft from you, attack him, move back to provoke yet another PAM OA when he will try to move again to you.

For 5ft weapon users - it's good, but not extremely good.

It's great on Divine Soul Sorcadin or Cleric as with Spirit Guardians most enemies will try to move out from range of the spell.

[MaxWilson]

The cavalier gets that part of sentinel along with hold the line anyway.

The part of Sentinel which is relevant to what I was talking about is the "ignores Disengage" bit, which the Cavalier doesn't get. Against a Cavalier, you don't need to do the weird ready-a-move trick, you can just Disengage.

[Chauncymancer]

I have my book in hand and no it's not. It's "Creatures still provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before they leave your reach."
'You' in this case refers to the character with the Sentinel feat. Not everyone else around.

On a review, there's a transcription error on the website that I get the SRD from, which deletes part of the text of sentinel. The deleted text includes part of the sentence you quote here.
Objection Sustained

[Flashkannon]

Doesn't matter--enemy can just ready a move then provoke an AoO. His speed is only zero for the turn he gets hit, so when the readied move goes off it's no longer zero and the fighter no longer has a reaction left.


Whoops, I misread the rule. Actually glad I was incorrect.

I thought you didn't need to use your action to ready movement:



But actually:



So both a readied action and readied movement require you to use both your action and your reaction.
It's worth noting that that particular rule specifies that you have to set a perceivable trigger. Turn changeover is a concept that is not perceivable by characters, be they NPCs or PCs, and thus cannot be used for this purpose.

[MaxWilson]

It's worth noting that that particular rule specifies that you have to set a perceivable trigger. Turn changeover is a concept that is not perceivable by characters, be they NPCs or PCs, and thus cannot be used for this purpose.

I don't know if it was on this thread or not (Sentinel has come up on several threads recently) but the trigger needed isn't "after my turn," it's just "whenever anyone else moves or acts." If no one else moves or acts until your next turn, your trigger will never go off, but how likely is that to happen?

[Lunali]

It's worth noting that that particular rule specifies that you have to set a perceivable trigger. Turn changeover is a concept that is not perceivable by characters, be they NPCs or PCs, and thus cannot be used for this purpose.

Trigger it based on being able to move again.

[Flashkannon]

I don't know if it was on this thread or not (Sentinel has come up on several threads recently) but the trigger needed isn't "after my turn," it's just "whenever anyone else moves or acts." If no one else moves or acts until your next turn, your trigger will never go off, but how likely is that to happen?
In-universe, turns do not happen in sequence, but all at once. Turns are a concept for our conception of the game only. As such, a trigger like that might go off, but... it's still very metagamey. Were I the DM, I wouldn't allow a monster to do that kind of thing, any more than I'd have it be actively aware of the notion of exhausting one's reaction action, or the exact ins and outs of a fighter's repertoire. The Lich may be smart, but it certainly has not read the Player's Handbook.

[MaxWilson]

In-universe, turns do not happen in sequence, but all at once. Turns are a concept for our conception of the game only. As such, a trigger like that might go off, but... it's still very metagamey. Were I the DM, I wouldn't allow a monster to do that kind of thing, any more than I'd have it be actively aware of the notion of exhausting one's reaction action, or the exact ins and outs of a fighter's repertoire. The Lich may be smart, but it certainly has not read the Player's Handbook.

Were I DMing, I'd just write Sentinel and the initiative system so that kind of thing wouldn't even help.

[Zalabim]

The part of Sentinel which is relevant to what I was talking about is the "ignores Disengage" bit, which the Cavalier doesn't get. Against a Cavalier, you don't need to do the weird ready-a-move trick, you can just Disengage.
I was talking about the specific example. Just disengage runs into the samurai. Just move needs either one to hit the first OA, then the other fighter keeps their reaction for later movement. Capstone not strictly required. Either way, the lich needs one of the fighters to miss.

[Lunali]

Were I DMing, I'd just write Sentinel and the initiative system so that kind of thing wouldn't even help.

Then how would you write it to make it more difficult to disengage than normal but not impossible?

[MaxWilson]

Then how would you write it to make it more difficult to disengage than normal but not impossible?

My goal as DM is a little bit larger than that--not just to fix Sentinel (which would be as simple as setting speed to 0 until the beginning of your next turn), but to make the whole game more fun and interactive for all the players, without requiring players to spend 75% to 80% of their time in each combat sitting around doing nothing, not even allowed to talk to the DM because it's "not your turn." The system I've been using for years makes all turns concurrent, just like in AD&D: everybody declares, then everybody acts, rolling initiative where necessary. Since all turns are concurrent, there's no longer a distinction between "my turn" and "your turn" and "the round", so feats like Sentinel just become "your speed is 0 for the rest of this round."

More details here: https://www.enworld.org/threads/concurrent-initiative-variant-everybody-declares-everybody-resolves-was-simultaneous-initiative.513971/#ixzz4Uey0HvAn


I was talking about the specific example. Just disengage runs into the samurai. Just move needs either one to hit the first OA, then the other fighter keeps their reaction for later movement. Capstone not strictly required. Either way, the lich needs one of the fighters to miss.

Yeah, and the lich is lucky nobody just grappled them. With only +3 to Acrobatics, the lich isn't getting out of a grapple except via Paralyzing Touch (which works equally well against Sentinel/etc.).

[Solusek]

In-universe, turns do not happen in sequence, but all at once. Turns are a concept for our conception of the game only. As such, a trigger like that might go off, but... it's still very metagamey. Were I the DM, I wouldn't allow a monster to do that kind of thing, any more than I'd have it be actively aware of the notion of exhausting one's reaction action, or the exact ins and outs of a fighter's repertoire. The Lich may be smart, but it certainly has not read the Player's Handbook.

If a monster or a character is well versed in combat I would always assume they know how to finagle the rules to be as effective as possible. It's not that the lich has read the players handbook, but the lich has lived for hundreds of years and fought against countless foes all in this world where the rules of battle work this way. It feels unfair (and in some cases even verisimilitude breaking) if monsters aren't able to use the rules to their advantage as well as the players can during battle.

[NNescio]

On a review, there's a transcription error on the website that I get the SRD from, which deletes part of the text of sentinel. The deleted text includes part of the sentence you quote here.
Objection Sustained

I suspect it isn't a transcription error so much as you stumbling across somebody's else list of houserules. The change is likely deliberate.

You are using Giger's 5e, right? That source is unofficial and slips in lots of houserules including some major changes to the base 5e mechanics like introducing "half actions" or whatever term they use instead of "bonus action". (Oh and they apparently banned Wish.) Most of the time it doesn't even differentiate properly between homebrew and official content.

(I am annoyed every time a player tries to use it as a source when I DM.)

[N810]

To avoid my sentinel my DM gave most of the big bads misty step or something similar with legendary actions. :/

[Theodoxus]

I had a player in a one shot build a very annoying monk. It was an 8th level game, so he rolled a vhuman with pointbuy to get 16s in Dex and Wis, bought a few trinkets to up his survivability (bracers of defense, cloak of protection) and then took PAM, Sentinel and Mage Slayer for his feats. He leaped on my caster and I couldn't get away. Finally used Misty Step to bamf out, and he managed to knock out my poor wizard with the OA.

Never discount Mage Slayer when dealing with Sentinel... those three feats have amazing synergy.

[stoutstien]

I had a player in a one shot build a very annoying monk. It was an 8th level game, so he rolled a vhuman with pointbuy to get 16s in Dex and Wis, bought a few trinkets to up his survivability (bracers of defense, cloak of protection) and then took PAM, Sentinel and Mage Slayer for his feats. He leaped on my caster and I couldn't get away. Finally used Misty Step to bamf out, and he managed to knock out my poor wizard with the OA.

Never discount Mage Slayer when dealing with Sentinel... those three feats have amazing synergy.

Eh. A monk with no feats and instead just pumped dex would have done similar in this encounter. Anytime a monk is allowed to focus on a single target, especially one with a not so great con score, it's gonna be easy.

Lesson here is don't allow magic Mart and have npc target all saves. That monk has crap int and Cha saves even with all the Christmas lights.

[Misterwhisper]

I had a player in a one shot build a very annoying monk. It was an 8th level game, so he rolled a vhuman with pointbuy to get 16s in Dex and Wis, bought a few trinkets to up his survivability (bracers of defense, cloak of protection) and then took PAM, Sentinel and Mage Slayer for his feats. He leaped on my caster and I couldn't get away. Finally used Misty Step to bamf out, and he managed to knock out my poor wizard with the OA.

Never discount Mage Slayer when dealing with Sentinel... those three feats have amazing synergy.

That doesn't even work.

Mage slayer does not get attacks when someone uses misty step.
Or if they are blind
or if you are obscured
or if they can't take reactions
or if you teleport
or many other ways.

If you get hit with a reaction as a caster from someone with Mage Slayer it is because you are not that good at playing a caster.

You could have just used shocking grasp, darkness, or multiple other spells.

Also it is an 8th level monk with only a 16 dex, with a d8 weapon, he should not have been that dangerous.
The only issue there is that he should have used stunning strike.

This sounds like a combination of a DM that does not know the rules, a player who builds poor monks, and a caster who does not know how to defend themselves.

[Flashkannon]

Trigger it based on being able to move again.

My only problem with this is that it would have to try to move to test it out, and you can't split up the movement you get off of a Ready Action, as far as I understand it.


If a monster or a character is well versed in combat I would always assume they know how to finagle the rules to be as effective as possible. It's not that the lich has read the players handbook, but the lich has lived for hundreds of years and fought against countless foes all in this world where the rules of battle work this way. It feels unfair (and in some cases even verisimilitude breaking) if monsters aren't able to use the rules to their advantage as well as the players can during battle.
I'd argue the exact opposite. It's incredibly verisimilitude breaking when a bunch of gnolls line themselves up so each and every one gets Flanking, and every single enemy displays the greatest of tactics. It's fine that things know how to fight, and indeed the Lich would know more than most, and were the party to include a Wizard, the Lich would know basically all of their general playbook and how to shut them down, but the Lich isn't also a battle-hardened warrior. It's the soul of a caster projecting into a corpse. Why would it ever bother to learn about what those piddly mortals with pointed sticks get up to? It's a caster, it can bend reality to its' whim! It had so much it wanted to learn about the arcane arts that it became a lich to extend its time! Such things as martial arts and techniques are far beneath its notice.


My goal as DM is a little bit larger than that--not just to fix Sentinel (which would be as simple as setting speed to 0 until the beginning of your next turn), but to make the whole game more fun and interactive for all the players, without requiring players to spend 75% to 80% of their time in each combat sitting around doing nothing, not even allowed to talk to the DM because it's "not your turn." The system I've been using for years makes all turns concurrent, just like in AD&D: everybody declares, then everybody acts, rolling initiative where necessary. Since all turns are concurrent, there's no longer a distinction between "my turn" and "your turn" and "the round", so feats like Sentinel just become "your speed is 0 for the rest of this round."

More details here: https://www.enworld.org/threads/concurrent-initiative-variant-everybody-declares-everybody-resolves-was-simultaneous-initiative.513971/#ixzz4Uey0HvAn


Yeah, and the lich is lucky nobody just grappled them. With only +3 to Acrobatics, the lich isn't getting out of a grapple except via Paralyzing Touch (which works equally well against Sentinel/etc.).

Intriguing, but I'd expect some difficulty with implementing abilities like those of the Assassin. Good sentinel fix, though. That feels more like RAI than what's being presented as possible in RAW.

[Flashkannon]

That doesn't even work.

Mage slayer does not get attacks when someone uses misty step.
Or if they are blind
or if you are obscured
or if they can't take reactions
or if you teleport
or many other ways.

If you get hit with a reaction as a caster from someone with Mage Slayer it is because you are not that good at playing a caster.

You could have just used shocking grasp, darkness, or multiple other spells.

Also it is an 8th level monk with only a 16 dex, with a d8 weapon, he should not have been that dangerous.
The only issue there is that he should have used stunning strike.

This sounds like a combination of a DM that does not know the rules, a player who builds poor monks, and a caster who does not know how to defend themselves.

To quote from the feat text:

When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.
Misty Step is a spell. If cast within 5 feet of someone with Mage Slayer, they are entitled to expend their Reaction Action to make a Melee Weapon Attack. It even works if the Mage Slayer is blinded, or the mage is Obscured. There's no excision for that in the text, so they'd just have disadvantage on the roll, but be able to make it.

Ugh. You're right, at the least, about Misty Step resolving before the attack can resolve, confirmed by Jeremy Crawford (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/). It really doesn't sit right, though. Most of the point of the Mage Slayer feat is to slay mages, so its main feature not actually preventing them from casting in your face and specifically not being able to hit them before they teleport out of melee seems highly counterintuitive.

Also worth noting, a Wizard of that level, assuming a +2 to Con, which is generous for the average wizard, could have at max 64 hp, likely less, unless they rolled all 6s for HP. On average, a monk with d8 hit dice and at least two ki points to burn could deal on average (4d8+12) 32 damage per turn if they hit (which they likely will, it's a wizard, not known for astronomical ACs) even without the reaction action. That's enough to drop our hypothetical beef wizard in 2 turns, and most wizards in 1-2 turns.

[MaxWilson]

Ugh. You're right, at the least, about Misty Step resolving before the attack can resolve, confirmed by Jeremy Crawford (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/). It really doesn't sit right, though. Most of the point of the Mage Slayer feat is to slay mages, so its main feature not actually preventing them from casting in your face and specifically not being able to hit them before they teleport out of melee seems highly counterintuitive.

So rewrite the feat. Make it, "When a creature within 5' of you attempts to cast a spell, you may make one melee attack against them before the spell takes effect. If that attack hits, the spell fails unless the spellcaster makes a successful concentration save, even if it is not normally a concentration spell."

[Theodoxus]

That doesn't even work.

Mage slayer does not get attacks when someone uses misty step.
Or if they are blind
or if you are obscured
or if they can't take reactions
or if you teleport
or many other ways.

If you get hit with a reaction as a caster from someone with Mage Slayer it is because you are not that good at playing a caster.

You could have just used shocking grasp, darkness, or multiple other spells.

Also it is an 8th level monk with only a 16 dex, with a d8 weapon, he should not have been that dangerous.
The only issue there is that he should have used stunning strike.

This sounds like a combination of a DM that does not know the rules, a player who builds poor monks, and a caster who does not know how to defend themselves.



This was also in 2015, we'd come off playing 4E/Pathfinder, where interrupts played differently. I'm sorry I didn't realize putting in every little point of context would be necessary to keep the holier than thou types from ****ting on my parade. I know better now.

And there is literally nothing in the feat description to have it play out like you stated, and no, I don't follow JC for every thought goblin that he spews out. My game. My rules. YMMV.

[Zalabim]

Mage slayer does not get attacks when someone uses misty step.
[1]Or if they are blind
[2]or if you are obscured
[3]or if they can't take reactions
[4]or if you teleport
or many other ways.
Misty step is teleporting. [4]
Of course you can't take reactions if you can't take reactions. [3]
However, I don't see anything in Mage Slayer that says you have to be able to see in general, or see the target. As long as you can perceive that they are casting a spell, so if the spell has Verbal components, and are within 5 feet it would still work. Now, if you already cannot see the caster, then they could move away without provoking an OA and avoid Mage Slayer that way (if they think they need to). If you can currently see them, so they don't have the option to just move away, then casting a spell so you can no longer see them, invisibility for example, would still trigger Mage Slayer. Mage Slayer isn't an opportunity attack.

Having Mage Slayer makes some answers to an enemy being in melee with a caster less useful, like switching to saving throw spells to avoid disadvantage on ranged attacks, or using crowd control spells like Hypnotic Pattern. If the caster is using one of their "many other ways" to avoid the mage slayer, they aren't using one of their many ways to more effectively hurt the party. If all the casters you face turn coward and run whenever anyone gets in melee range already, then you may not need mage slayer at all.


This was also in 2015, we'd come off playing 4E/Pathfinder, where interrupts played differently. I'm sorry I didn't realize putting in every little point of context would be necessary to keep the holier than thou types from ****ting on my parade. I know better now.

And there is literally nothing in the feat description to have it play out like you stated, and no, I don't follow JC for every thought goblin that he spews out. My game. My rules. YMMV.
Well, it's a pretty common problem where people come in from other systems and don't read the rules because they know how it all works already, which is why "Don't assume you know the rules" is common conversion advice. If you had read the DMG, pg 252, you'd see that this is the timing for mage slayer. Maybe the intention was that you'd get a chance to break their concentration on whatever spell they just cast without having to add in new rules that might trip up players used to spell interruption later.

Of course you're free to run it however you like for your own games, but since it's clear this was a case of you not knowing the rule instead of choosing to run it differently, maybe stuff your own attitude.

[loki_ragnarock]

If you had read the DMG, pg 252, you'd see that this is the timing for mage slayer.
Well, yes, maybe.

But I don't think anyone can claim this particular rules interaction is intuitive, as it does invalidate much of the narrative qualities of the feat.

I mean, yes, having advantage when you make the save vs. Slow is probably great. But if you fail your save - not unlikely if your playing a non-paladin melee character, even with benefits of advantage - and therefore lose your reaction, then the primary attraction of the feat where you, you know, slay mages becomes a no go. If Slow resolves first, you don't get to hit them; you have slain no mages.

This one seems like it needs a real errata. The mechanics simply do not match the narrative. It's understandable that people would be thrown for a loop.

[Misterwhisper]

Well, yes, maybe.

But I don't think anyone can claim this particular rules interaction is intuitive, as it does invalidate much of the narrative qualities of the feat.

I mean, yes, having advantage when you make the save vs. Slow is probably great. But if you fail your save - not unlikely if your playing a non-paladin melee character, even with benefits of advantage - and therefore lose your reaction, then the primary attraction of the feat where you, you know, slay mages becomes a no go. If Slow resolves first, you don't get to hit them; you have slain no mages.

This one seems like it needs a real errata. The mechanics simply do not match the narrative. It's understandable that people would be thrown for a loop.

It was done intentionally, they didn’t want mages to die in melee just wanted them to have to spend resources. They will never put out a silver bullet for casters.

[Crgaston]

It was done intentionally, they didn’t want mages to die in melee just wanted them to have to spend resources. They will never put out a silver bullet for casters.
Shadow Monk is pretty close, at least until Contingency is in play.

[loki_ragnarock]

It was done intentionally, they didn’t want mages to die in melee just wanted them to have to spend resources. They will never put out a silver bullet for casters.

Being able to take one reaction attack isn't a silver bullet for casters. Especially not when getting into a position to make that reaction isn't a given. Especially when that reaction attack doesn't have a spell fizzle rider to prevent the spell provoking the attack from going off.

Even using the feat the way a person taking it would expect it's far from a silver bullet.

[Flashkannon]

So rewrite the feat. Make it, "When a creature within 5' of you attempts to cast a spell, you may make one melee attack against them before the spell takes effect. If that attack hits, the spell fails unless the spellcaster makes a successful concentration save, even if it is not normally a concentration spell."

Yeah, that sounds reasonable.


It was done intentionally, they didn’t want mages to die in melee just wanted them to have to spend resources. They will never put out a silver bullet for casters.

Given that feats are already optional rules, they really should not have called one "Mage Slayer" if what they really meant was "Mage Moderate Inconveniencer".

Also, not to mention, we are talking about a feat combo here. If you have two feats whose purposes are to prevent people from fleeing to hit your squishier teammates and to make the life of any mage next to you a living nightmare, the end result should likely be in the vicinity of locking a caster down hard. And mind you, even if the rules work as MaxWilson describes above, there are still several major loopholes through which to slip: good Concentration saves (which most decent casters will invest in), and any effect which is not a spell that moves people, like a Wind Fan, or the Shove action.

[MaxWilson]

Given that feats are already optional rules, they really should not have called one "Mage Slayer" if what they really meant was "Mage Moderate Inconveniencer".

Also, not to mention, we are talking about a feat combo here. If you have two feats whose purposes are to prevent people from fleeing to hit your squishier teammates and to make the life of any mage next to you a living nightmare, the end result should likely be in the vicinity of locking a caster down hard. And mind you, even if the rules work as MaxWilson describes above, there are still several major loopholes through which to slip: good Concentration saves (which most decent casters will invest in), and any effect which is not a spell that moves people, like a Wind Fan, or the Shove action.

Good concentration saves will do something but maybe not that much, especially if the Mage Slayer is a 9th level Rogue d8+5d6+5 (27) => DC 14 concentration save, with disadvantage due to Mage Slayer) or a level Paladin smiting (2d6 + 5d8ish + 5 (34) => DC 17 with disadvantage). Still, now we're talking two feats AND a class choice to make a pretty-decent mage slayer, and even then that only takes care of the concentration save aspect.

Counterpoint: even just plain good AC will do plenty here. A fairly standard Wizard X/Forge Cleric 1 with AC 21 could e.g. Dodge then run 30' away, and your Sentinel's +9ish to hit becomes only a 20% chance to hit, or 4% if he Shields. Then he can cast a bonus action spell like Expeditious Retreat or Misty Step to get even further away, or Sanctuary to make it harder for the mage slayer to hit him.

Or, if it's a sorlock, he can cast a cantrip like (Agonizing, Repelling) Eldritch Blast at the mage slayer to burn a reaction, and then cast a Quickened actual spell.

To me, all of this sounds pretty interesting, and it's a sign that the rewritten feat is better and more interesting than the PHB original feat: whenever there's a lich or a Glabrezu or a Mind Flayer Arcanist or a spellcasting dragon onscreen, the mage slayer starts engaging in play/counterplay to try to shut the mage down, and the mage is forced to engage in counter-counterplay or risk losing spells. If I were still playing 5E I would probably playtest this rule variant.

Edit: oops, just realized there's a huge loophole. Forget about Dodge, just try walking away from the Sentinel + Mage Slayer normally. If he misses, your speed goes to 0 for the rest of your turn, then you hit him with a spell because he can't use his Mage Slayer reaction now. If he misses, he burned his reaction for nothing, and you hit him with a spell. If he doesn't swing at all, you're out of Mage Slayer range and you hit him with a spell. In order to make this combo really work, you need Sentinel and Mage Slayer to be on different characters so multiple reactions are available, e.g. a Beastmaster Mage Slayer and his pet Giant Frog with its restrain-on-hit bite.

[Flashkannon]

Good concentration saves will do something but maybe not that much, especially if the Mage Slayer is a 9th level Rogue d8+5d6+5 (27) => DC 14 concentration save, with disadvantage due to Mage Slayer) or a level Paladin smiting (2d6 + 5d8ish + 5 (34) => DC 17 with disadvantage). Still, now we're talking two feats AND a class choice to make a pretty-decent mage slayer, and even then that only takes care of the concentration save aspect.

There's enough ways to boost one's concentration save (War Caster, Lucky, Resilient (Constitution), Cloak of Protection, Stone of Good Luck, Bless, etc) that I feel it's still a fairly good option to simply be good at Concentration saves.


Counterpoint: even just plain good AC will do plenty here. A fairly standard Wizard X/Forge Cleric 1 with AC 21 could e.g. Dodge then run 30' away, and your Sentinel's +9ish to hit becomes only a 20% chance to hit, or 4% if he Shields. Then he can cast a bonus action spell like Expeditious Retreat or Misty Step to get even further away, or Sanctuary to make it harder for the mage slayer to hit him.

Or, if it's a sorlock, he can cast a cantrip like (Agonizing, Repelling) Eldritch Blast at the mage slayer to burn a reaction, and then cast a Quickened actual spell.

To me, all of this sounds pretty interesting, and it's a sign that the rewritten feat is better and more interesting than the PHB original feat: whenever there's a lich or a Glabrezu or a Mind Flayer Arcanist or a spellcasting dragon onscreen, the mage slayer starts engaging in play/counterplay to try to shut the mage down, and the mage is forced to engage in counter-counterplay or risk losing spells. If I were still playing 5E I would probably playtest this rule variant.

Edit: oops, just realized there's a huge loophole. Forget about Dodge, just try walking away from the Sentinel + Mage Slayer normally. If he misses, your speed goes to 0 for the rest of your turn, then you hit him with a spell because he can't use his Mage Slayer reaction now. If he misses, he burned his reaction for nothing, and you hit him with a spell. If he doesn't swing at all, you're out of Mage Slayer range and you hit him with a spell. In order to make this combo really work, you need Sentinel and Mage Slayer to be on different characters so multiple reactions are available, e.g. a Beastmaster Mage Slayer and his pet Giant Frog with its restrain-on-hit bite.

Goodness, you're more than right here. I really wish there was some way to get the equivalent of MtG's vigilance ability, as the singular reaction action as the rule seems to lead to a lot of These Situations. Or, at the very least, get a second reaction action. A friend of mine had a houserule where you got another reaction action per +3 modifier you had in Dex. Keeps things relatively simple, and on top of that, gives an incentive for finding your way to 22 dex beyond the extra +1.

[Mitsu]

Being able to take one reaction attack isn't a silver bullet for casters. Especially not when getting into a position to make that reaction isn't a given. Especially when that reaction attack doesn't have a spell fizzle rider to prevent the spell provoking the attack from going off.

Even using the feat the way a person taking it would expect it's far from a silver bullet.

I always ruled that reaction attack is before spell takes effect as reaction > action and it makes more sense for someone specialized at killing magic casters (they are prepared to strike when they start casting to make them fail their concentration as someone who kill caster is well aware of their need of concentrating).

It worked very well especially on Rogues and Paladins who can really put high damage with reaction attack and thus- most likely make caster fail spell.

I can't imagine this feat any other way as then it's useless.

[MaxWilson]

Goodness, you're more than right here. I really wish there was some way to get the equivalent of MtG's vigilance ability, as the singular reaction action as the rule seems to lead to a lot of These Situations. Or, at the very least, get a second reaction action. A friend of mine had a houserule where you got another reaction action per +3 modifier you had in Dex. Keeps things relatively simple, and on top of that, gives an incentive for finding your way to 22 dex beyond the extra +1.

I don't know MtG, but with the revised Mage Slayer rule there's still a couple things you could do...

(1) Grapple the mage, then just use your Mage Slayer reaction to slap him silly if he tries to teleport away.

(2) Be a monk with Mage Slayer, and if he tries to walk away, you Stunning Strike him with your opportunity attack. Sentinel is somewhat redundant in this case.

(3) Be a Shadow Monk with Mage Slayer, and cast a Silence Spell on the mage and then also run up to him and threaten a Stunning Strike Opportunity Attack, with Mage Slayer in reserve just in case he tries a Somatic-only spell.

[loki_ragnarock]

I can't imagine this feat any other way as then it's useless.

Well, I can't say I disagree.

But the very narrow reading of RAW does seem to make it useless. I'd encourage people to let it interrupt, myself; it just fits the theme better.

[MaxWilson]

Well, I can't say I disagree.

But the very narrow reading of RAW does seem to make it useless. I'd encourage people to let it interrupt, myself; it just fits the theme better.

Just to be clear: you guys agree with each other. You both prefer for it to be able to interrupt spellcasting. So do I actually.

[Misterwhisper]

Just to be clear: you guys agree with each other. You both prefer for it to be able to interrupt spellcasting. So do I actually.

Me too.

If an assassin sneaks up behind a caster and is ready to stab him the kidneys, it should not just be an “ok, I guess he just leaves then.”

Really pissed off my group when they were trying to kill one of the bbegs who was a sorcerer.

It took them like 4 tries and 6 sessions to do it because it went like this.

We found him: attack - he teleports and puts a bounty on them
Try 2: they cast silence then attack, - he subtle teleports and gets more guards
Try 3: they charge and grapple him and the barbarian grappling him has mage slayer. - Or well he still teleports
Try 4: Through blind luck the pc fighter and rogue beat him on initiative and 7 hand crossbow bolts and a crit on backstab killed him before he got an initiative.

There are remarkably few way to stop a sorcerer from leaving if they want to.

[MaxWilson]

There are remarkably few way to stop a sorcerer from leaving if they want to.

Tasha's or Hold Person comes to mind, as does Counterspell. (Yes, yes, I know it's popular to disallow Counterspell against Subtle Spell, but strictly speaking, you definitely do see a the Sorcerer casting a spell, even though you don't see him using any Verbal or Somatic components. In some cases you'd see him using Material components, but even a spell without components is still magic, and presumably you can feel that magic happening or Counterspell would be written to require you to see spellcasting components.)

But overall just incapacitating the Sorcerer is probably your best option, and since Sorcerers have weak mental saves I'd go for that, unless of course you happen to know Mordenkainen's Teleport Black^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPrivate Sanctum.

[Mitsu]

Try 4: Through blind luck the pc fighter and rogue beat him on initiative and 7 hand crossbow bolts and a crit on backstab killed him before he got an initiative.

Lol, someone definitely went overboard with that Sorcerer Hit Points I see...

I always keep enemy caster in more less range of max 100 Points if they are very high level casters (8th/9th spell level). Archmage from 5e books has 99 HP.

In my book any caster cought off guard in melee combat should be in huge disadvantage. So 100 HP on Archmage is something that Paladin/Sorcadin or Fighter has decent chance to burst down in one turn. Sorcadins especially as they can counter-spell thier Shield attempt.

Another way is to just cast Anti-magic field on your party Fighter/Barbarian with Sentinel feat and let them go and kill Sorcerer. No teleports, can't disengage, can't cast Shield.

[Misterwhisper]

Lol, someone definitely went overboard with that Sorcerer Hit Points I see...

I always keep enemy caster in more less range of max 100 Points if they are very high level casters (8th/9th spell level). Archmage from 5e books has 99 HP.

In my book any caster cought off guard in melee combat should be in huge disadvantage. So 100 HP on Archmage is something that Paladin/Sorcadin or Fighter has decent chance to burst down in one turn. Sorcadins especially as they can counter-spell thier Shield attempt.

Another way is to just cast Anti-magic field on your party Fighter/Barbarian with Sentinel feat and let them go and kill Sorcerer. No teleports, can't disengage, can't cast Shield.

We always max hp for PCs and npcs.

I think he had 126 or 140, he was level 14.

[Flashkannon]

Tasha's or Hold Person comes to mind, as does Counterspell. (Yes, yes, I know it's popular to disallow Counterspell against Subtle Spell, but strictly speaking, you definitely do see a the Sorcerer casting a spell, even though you don't see him using any Verbal or Somatic components. In some cases you'd see him using Material components, but even a spell without components is still magic, and presumably you can feel that magic happening or Counterspell would be written to require you to see spellcasting components.)

But overall just incapacitating the Sorcerer is probably your best option, and since Sorcerers have weak mental saves I'd go for that, unless of course you happen to know Mordenkainen's Teleport Black^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPrivate Sanctum.

Note the casting time for Counterspell "1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Keyword there being "see". If you don't see them casting, no dice.

That said, it's absolutely infuriating that a caster is a far better counter to a mage than a martial who has built their entire character around mages and the slaying thereof. Almost makes one feel like casters are invariably better than martials, huh?


I don't know MtG, but with the revised Mage Slayer rule there's still a couple things you could do...

(1) Grapple the mage, then just use your Mage Slayer reaction to slap him silly if he tries to teleport away.

(2) Be a monk with Mage Slayer, and if he tries to walk away, you Stunning Strike him with your opportunity attack. Sentinel is somewhat redundant in this case.

(3) Be a Shadow Monk with Mage Slayer, and cast a Silence Spell on the mage and then also run up to him and threaten a Stunning Strike Opportunity Attack, with Mage Slayer in reserve just in case he tries a Somatic-only spell.
Vigilance is the ability to attack with a monster without losing the ability to defend with that monster for the turn

Honestly, all of those options kinda obviate Sentinel, only getting around the problem of both of them requiring reaction actions by... not using one.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

So rewrite the feat. Make it, "When a creature within 5' of you attempts to cast a spell, you may make one melee attack against them before the spell takes effect. If that attack hits, the spell fails unless the spellcaster makes a successful concentration save, even if it is not normally a concentration spell."

That seems a bit excessively good for just a feat. I can see rewriting it so that the attack lands first, but interrupting even spells that aren't normally interruptable is a big increase in power, especially since the way you've phrased it doesn't mention using a reaction. Not every mage has Misty Step constantly at the ready.

[MaxWilson]

That seems a bit excessively good for just a feat. I can see rewriting it so that the attack lands first, but interrupting even spells that aren't normally interruptable is a big increase in power, especially since the way you've phrased it doesn't mention using a reaction. Not every mage has Misty Step constantly at the ready.

Oh, sorry, that was an oversight on my part. It should still cost a reaction.

Remember that it's still pretty niche because spellcasting monsters are fairly rare, and many of them have crummy spells like Time Stop as their best spells.