Sentinel and Combat Information: Do you know Disengage will fail?

[Segev]

Should a creature who is about to attempt a Disengage action know that one of the others out of whose reach he is attempting to move has Sentinel (or a similar ability that negates Disengage)?

On the one hand: How would they know unless they see somebody else try and fail to escape the clutches of this individual? And even then, would they really know that a Disengage was attempted, let alone failed?

On the other: Even if a creature knows that Disengage is impossible, all that does is keep them from wasting an action trying it. The Sentinel feat still prevents anybody from Disengaging you, and keeps anybody you hit from fleeing.

[prabe]

I'd be inclined to allow a PC to make a check that seemed relevant (Insight seems logical) to spot the readiness, but that's because doing otherwise would seem unfair (especially if I were playing a character built around mobility). Maybe make it automatic if the character has the feat, too, or give a bonus if a party member does (because they've seen that trick). It might not be possible to read something particularly alien to the character's experience. I would probably not roll for an NPC/villain/monster, unless it was something that was supposed to be intelligent (and then, even if it failed, it might be cautious about presuming Disengage would work).

All of that to say it's a judgment call, and as the DM you get to exercise your judgment. Heh.

[Aimeryan]

Passive Insight vs Passive Deception?

[LudicSavant]

On the one hand: How would they know unless they see somebody else try and fail to escape the clutches of this individual? And even then, would they really know that a Disengage was attempted, let alone failed?

If you wanted to play it this way, in real life it's really obvious when someone is trying to check your movement if you're, say, playing basketball or something and they're on defense.

[PhantomSoul]

If you wanted to play it this way, in real life it's really obvious when someone is trying to check your movement if you're, say, playing basketball or something and they're on defense.

True -- and you might have an inkling of whether they're any good at it, I suppose!

[MaxWilson]

Should a creature who is about to attempt a Disengage action know that one of the others out of whose reach he is attempting to move has Sentinel (or a similar ability that negates Disengage)?

On the one hand: How would they know unless they see somebody else try and fail to escape the clutches of this individual? And even then, would they really know that a Disengage was attempted, let alone failed?

On the other: Even if a creature knows that Disengage is impossible, all that does is keep them from wasting an action trying it. The Sentinel feat still prevents anybody from Disengaging you, and keeps anybody you hit from fleeing.

Technically, by strict RAW, it doesn't keep people from fleeing. They just have to flee differently.

If you know the other guy's got Sentinel, the way you get away is instead of Disengaging, you try to move away. If the Sentinel misses you, hooray! you're home free and you go and mess up a squishie's face somewhere. If the Sentinel hit you, your move is now 0 for the rest of this turn, so you Ready an action: as soon as anybody else makes an attack or moves or does anything, you will move towards a squishie. Then you end your turn, and your move goes back to its regular value. Then somebody does something, and you immediately move.

Against a non-Sentinel enemy this is pointlessly complex, but against Sentinel it prevents you from being pinned in place.

Is this stupid and cheesy? Yes. I would never run Sentinel this way at my table, because it makes zero sense and is purely gamist. (But then, I don't use PHB initiative where everybody has separate turns anyway, so for me this trick just illustrates one more way that vanilla PHB cyclic initiative is a bad design.)

[NaughtyTiger]

i think that the first sentinel reaction should be a surprise to any enemy creature... after that, knowledge that disengage doesn't work is fair game.

[Demonslayer666]

Sentinel should not be obvious until it has been observed.

You are not readying an action when you use Sentinel, it's your reaction. Everyone has a reaction, and observers do not know how you are going to use that reaction until it happens. You can even choose not to use your reaction...

Even with ready action, all you can see is that they are ready to do something, you do not know the trigger, or the readied action.

[Guy Lombard-O]

If you wanted to play it this way, in real life it's really obvious when someone is trying to check your movement if you're, say, playing basketball or something and they're on defense.

I think this is actually not a great example. If a melee combatant is engaged with you, they're probably going to be paying attention to you regardless of whether they're a sentinel or not. They'll be watching your movements, trying to anticipate your attack if they're strictly defending themselves. Even if they aren't, they might be readying a battlemaster Riposte or Protection fighting style intervention or a Warcaster spell. Or a Shield or Counterspell or whatever.

I see no particular reason why a sentinel attack should telegraph itself more than any other type of possible reaction.

[MaxWilson]

Also keep in mind that real-world intuition cannot guide you here, because opportunity attacks already make no real-world sense (retreating should make it easier to defend, not harder).

If I'm fighting a Black Knight, and I want to take one step 5' backwards so I can switch targets and stab the ogre who's beating my buddy the wizard 10' away from me, in 5E, that somehow motivates the Black Knight to lunge forward and stab me with his sword in a way which he couldn't have done if I'd remained still. (But if the Black Knight is holding a whip in his other hand, he cannot lunge forward and hit me with the sword, because then I'm still within reach of the whip.) Don't ask me how this can possibly work, and don't ask me why the Black Knight somehow also cannot just the opportunity to stab me under any other circumstances, even if I am literally paralyzed--only if I take a step backward.

But if I Disengage, then somehow I'm doing something which makes it infeasible for the orc to lunge forward and swing his axe at me. Don't ask me what I can possibly be doing to make that infeasible.

But if the orc has Sentinel, he does something else that nullifies my nullification of his implausible action, somehow.

Would I know in advance that the orc is capable of nullifying my nullification of his impluasible action? Beats me. None of this makes any sense in the first place.

[stoutstien]

Very much a case by case.
The vast majority of NPCs would take a while to adapt to the shift of tactics needed due to sentinel but may stumble upon a work around by chance.

The ogre may not understand it but shoving the guy blocking it in frustration or goblins ba disengage may push them to stay at range and use hide instead.

[Guy Lombard-O]

But if the orc has Sentinel, he does something else that nullifies my nullification of his implausible action, somehow.

Unless you have Mobile feat, and can nullify his nullification of your nullification....

[EggKookoo]

None of this makes any sense in the first place.

Combat in D&D is like quantum mechanics. You have no idea what's actually going on until it all collapses into something at the end.

[LudicSavant]

If a melee combatant is engaged with you, they're probably going to be paying attention to you regardless of whether they're a sentinel or not. They'll be watching your movements, trying to anticipate your attack if they're strictly defending themselves. Yes, and?


I see no particular reason why a sentinel attack should telegraph itself more than any other type of possible reaction.
He wasn't asking whether the reaction telegraphed, he was asking whether you know that you no longer have an opening to Disengage safely, which happens regardless of whether or not you actually take any reaction.

[MaxWilson]

He wasn't asking whether the reaction telegraphed, he was asking whether you no longer have an opening to Disengage safely, which happens regardless of whether or not you actually take any reaction.

And yet somehow it's safe to be paralyzed! Failing a save vs. Hold Person will not result in an opportunity attack.

[Keravath]

I would say that the abilities of a creature are not known until they are used by that creature, you have encountered that creature previously and know their abilities, or you succeed at some sort of check to remember something relevant about the creature.

In the context of a PC/NPC with the Sentinel feat, in my opinion, you would not know they have it until you see it used or the PC/NPC is sufficiently famous/infamous that knowledge of their martial prowess is spread far enough that you have heard of their ability (which probably wouldn't happen that often).

You would take the disengage action and find that even though you are madly dodging as you move away, this person is still actually able to execute a possibly effective attack.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Yes, and?


He wasn't asking whether the reaction telegraphed, he was asking whether you know that you no longer have an opening to Disengage safely, which happens regardless of whether or not you actually take any reaction.

Well...okay. I read Segev's post as asking whether observers are intrinsically aware of whether an opponent is a sentinel, and can negate your disengage:

"Should a creature who is about to attempt a Disengage action know that one of the others out of whose reach he is attempting to move has Sentinel (or a similar ability that negates Disengage)?"

I thought that was the overall question he was asking. He then went on to suggest arguments both for and against:

"On the one hand: How would they know unless they see somebody else try and fail to escape the clutches of this individual? And even then, would they really know that a Disengage was attempted, let alone failed?"

I read this to mean that he was suggesting that maybe people shouldn't know it automatically, and possibly not even after they've seen it once.

He then argues (as I read it) that allowing (automatic?) knowledge of an opposing sentinel wouldn't be the most powerful or disruptive effect on the game:

"On the other: Even if a creature knows that Disengage is impossible, all that does is keep them from wasting an action trying it. The Sentinel feat still prevents anybody from Disengaging you, and keeps anybody you hit from fleeing."

Or at least, that's how I read the question.

If I misunderstood the intent of his question, and thus the meaning of your response to it, then I apologize. But that's what I thought he meant, and thus what I thought you meant in your response (that a sentinel should be obvious due to telegraphing their intent to block/attack you, either automatically or after witnessing it at least once against someone else).

[Segev]

Interestingly, I'm asking this as a DM, because if it were players? I'd probably feel very badly about pulling what I expect to allow them to pull on my poor monsters. My monsters often attempt to use Disengage to move away from one PC and get to a squishier one, to the half-orc barbarian's frustration. She picked up Sentinel recently for that very reason, and it has already proven useful.

In fact, it cost a cannibal his whole action because he tried to disengage, since he didn't know he couldn't.

While I don't mind this in general, it is something that will get a little tiresome to have to do a song-and-dance with every battle of at least one enemy trying and failing to disengage before the others just don't try anymore.

That said, I am pleased with how pleased my player is with her shiny new feat. She finds the enemies' tendency to flee her presence frustrating. It's so rude of them not to stand there and let her kill them!

As an aside, a monk with mobility, a barbarian with sentinel, and a diviner wizard with hideous laughter make for a terrifying group. The gloomstalker ranger meaning they never get lost in the jungle only makes it better.

[Demonslayer666]

Sentinel is great, until your DM just attacks you because he doesn't want to provoke an attack.

[Segev]

Sentinel is great, until your DM just attacks you because he doesn't want to provoke an attack.

I assure you, this would not bother my barbarian's player in the least.

[MaxWilson]

Sentinel is great, until your DM just attacks you because he doesn't want to provoke an attack.

That makes it a great tank feat, because you can Dodge all day while still remaining combat-relevant.

[redwizard007]

Interestingly, I'm asking this as a DM, because if it were players? I'd probably feel very badly about pulling what I expect to allow them to pull on my poor monsters. My monsters often attempt to use Disengage to move away from one PC and get to a squishier one, to the half-orc barbarian's frustration. She picked up Sentinel recently for that very reason, and it has already proven useful.

In fact, it cost a cannibal his whole action because he tried to disengage, since he didn't know he couldn't.

While I don't mind this in general, it is something that will get a little tiresome to have to do a song-and-dance with every battle of at least one enemy trying and failing to disengage before the others just don't try anymore.

That said, I am pleased with how pleased my player is with her shiny new feat. She finds the enemies' tendency to flee her presence frustrating. It's so rude of them not to stand there and let her kill them!

As an aside, a monk with mobility, a barbarian with sentinel, and a diviner wizard with hideous laughter make for a terrifying group. The gloomstalker ranger meaning they never get lost in the jungle only makes it better.

May I suggest using more enemy combatants? Possibly pull something like the "minion" rule from the edition-that-shall-not-be-named. Your player only gets one reaction per round. She cant wack everyone. It also gives the visual of foes literally swarming over her to get the squishy targets behind. She still gets to make an impact with her new feat, but you don't get bored every encounter.

[bid]

But if I Disengage, then somehow I'm doing something which makes it infeasible for the orc to lunge forward and swing his axe at me. Don't ask me what I can possibly be doing to make that infeasible.
I'm timing it when he's busy elsewhere. Or maybe a feint to get him extended.


But if the orc has Sentinel, he does something else that nullifies my nullification of his implausible action, somehow.
He's still balanced enough to react.


To answer the question:
- do you have to be in a certain stance to "hit the legs and stop him in place"?
- can you read that stance and know this creature is sentinel-trained?
BM 7 know your enemy does not mention those, either it's too easy and anyone can, or it's too hard and no one can.

[Greywander]

Also keep in mind that real-world intuition cannot guide you here, because opportunity attacks already make no real-world sense (retreating should make it easier to defend, not harder).

If I'm fighting a Black Knight, and I want to take one step 5' backwards so I can switch targets and stab the ogre who's beating my buddy the wizard 10' away from me, in 5E, that somehow motivates the Black Knight to lunge forward and stab me with his sword in a way which he couldn't have done if I'd remained still. (But if the Black Knight is holding a whip in his other hand, he cannot lunge forward and hit me with the sword, because then I'm still within reach of the whip.) Don't ask me how this can possibly work, and don't ask me why the Black Knight somehow also cannot just the opportunity to stab me under any other circumstances, even if I am literally paralyzed--only if I take a step backward.

But if I Disengage, then somehow I'm doing something which makes it infeasible for the orc to lunge forward and swing his axe at me. Don't ask me what I can possibly be doing to make that infeasible.

But if the orc has Sentinel, he does something else that nullifies my nullification of his implausible action, somehow.

Would I know in advance that the orc is capable of nullifying my nullification of his impluasible action? Beats me. None of this makes any sense in the first place.
The way I interpret it, Disengaging means you keep your guard up as you cautiously withdraw from melee combat with an enemy. Not Disengaging means you more or less turn your back to them and start sprinting away, giving them a clear shot at your back. Under this interpretation, opportunity attacks make perfect sense. Yes, a trained fighter would never do this, but that's because they would know to take the Disengage action instead. Or they're just confident enough that they can dodge the OA anyway.

In the scenario you proposed, let's say you were in melee with the black knight, and then you suddenly turn and see the ogre about to dust your wizard, so you focus all of your attention on the ogre and go for a stab. But as you do so, you're no longer paying attention to the black knight, so he decides to make a quick swing at you while you're distracted.

[Sigreid]

I'd say only if they heard of you.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Big man trying to help small man.

Big man try to safely walk away from metal box.

Metal box attacks big man.

Big man says "metal box is a trained sentinel"

Everyone knows that metal box is a trained sentinel.

And that is how I see it.

[Aimeryan]

The way I interpret it, Disengaging means you keep your guard up as you cautiously withdraw from melee combat with an enemy. Not Disengaging means you more or less turn your back to them and start sprinting away, giving them a clear shot at your back. Under this interpretation, opportunity attacks make perfect sense. Yes, a trained fighter would never do this, but that's because they would know to take the Disengage action instead. Or they're just confident enough that they can dodge the OA anyway.

In the scenario you proposed, let's say you were in melee with the black knight, and then you suddenly turn and see the ogre about to dust your wizard, so you focus all of your attention on the ogre and go for a stab. But as you do so, you're no longer paying attention to the black knight, so he decides to make a quick swing at you while you're distracted.

This is how I also see it, however, MaxWilson makes a good point about paralyzed creatures not proving an attack of opportunity - seems to have been missed by the writers.

[redwizard007]

This is how I also see it, however, MaxWilson makes a good point about paralyzed creatures not proving an attack of opportunity - seems to have been missed by the writers.

Re: paralyzed enemies

My assumption is that AoOs are just a lazy carry over from previous editions and no real thought was given to why moving grants a free attack. Thus, why would they consider paralyzed targets granting a free attack? I still prefer 5e to 3.5, but the rules are so darn poorly thought out.

[Segev]

Re: paralyzed enemies

My assumption is that AoOs are just a lazy carry over from previous editions and no real thought was given to why moving grants a free attack. Thus, why would they consider paralyzed targets granting a free attack? I still prefer 5e to 3.5, but the rules are so darn poorly thought out.

3.5 didn't have being paralyzed provoke AoOs, either, despite having an even more restrictive rule for what kind of movement DID provoke them.

The reason being paralyzed doesn't provoke AoOs is because it's already a save-or-lose type effect, and it wasn't considered worth adding yet more immediate death to it. In both editions. AoOs and OAs are there to help meleeists engage in some battlefield control. The fluff behind them is nice to make it make sense to the fiction, but the real purpose is gamist. There's no need for an OA or AoO to properly control the battlefield when a foe is paralyzed. You just attack them in the normal scope of things if you want to; they are pretty easy to hit.

[Aimeryan]

3.5 didn't have being paralyzed provoke AoOs, either, despite having an even more restrictive rule for what kind of movement DID provoke them.

The reason being paralyzed doesn't provoke AoOs is because it's already a save-or-lose type effect, and it wasn't considered worth adding yet more immediate death to it. In both editions. AoOs and OAs are there to help meleeists engage in some battlefield control. The fluff behind them is nice to make it make sense to the fiction, but the real purpose is gamist. There's no need for an OA or AoO to properly control the battlefield when a foe is paralyzed. You just attack them in the normal scope of things if you want to; they are pretty easy to hit.

Agreed - the reasons are gamist rather than a logical progression. The reason this has been brought up is because if you can't make sense of AoOs from a logical progression then you can't decide the OP's question from a logical progression and there is, of course, nothing written about it to decide from a gamist view.

So I guess the answer is, do what you want - it isn't going to make sense either way.

[redwizard007]

3.5 didn't have being paralyzed provoke AoOs, either, despite having an even more restrictive rule for what kind of movement DID provoke them.

The reason being paralyzed doesn't provoke AoOs is because it's already a save-or-lose type effect, and it wasn't considered worth adding yet more immediate death to it. In both editions. AoOs and OAs are there to help meleeists engage in some battlefield control. The fluff behind them is nice to make it make sense to the fiction, but the real purpose is gamist. There's no need for an OA or AoO to properly control the battlefield when a foe is paralyzed. You just attack them in the normal scope of things if you want to; they are pretty easy to hit.

For the record, they are pretty easy to damage, but not all that easy to hit.

With only advantage to hit there are a number of ways to make it more difficult for enemies to hit your paralyzed friends. Fog Cloud would be my favorite. They still cant act and have garbage str/dex saves, but no longer get attacked with advantage. They still get to use shields, dex bonus, etc while paralyzed. It sucks because you cant do anything, but isn't that bad defensively.

[Cybren]

Re: paralyzed enemies

My assumption is that AoOs are just a lazy carry over from previous editions and no real thought was given to why moving grants a free attack. Thus, why would they consider paralyzed targets granting a free attack? I still prefer 5e to 3.5, but the rules are so darn poorly thought out.

OAs/AoOs are artifacts of the six second turn. Events are supposed to be simultaneous during combat, but because everyone makes decisions in six second increments it creates oddities. The idea is that using the disengage action (or a five foot step in older editions) was to represent cautiously retreating while keeping up your guard to avoid exposing yourself. If turns only lasted one second and were more atomic to your individual actions they’d be unnecessary

[Segev]

Agreed - the reasons are gamist rather than a logical progression. The reason this has been brought up is because if you can't make sense of AoOs from a logical progression then you can't decide the OP's question from a logical progression and there is, of course, nothing written about it to decide from a gamist view.

So I guess the answer is, do what you want - it isn't going to make sense either way.I actually was asking the question from a more gamist perspective of whether it's more balanced to assume monsters know they cannot successfully disengage, or to assume that they don't and thus are likely to waste an action at least once per combat.

It's a rulings vs. rules thing, I suppose; if it said that "the Disengage action cannot be taken," I'd know they 'knew' if only because they weren't able to even make the choice. But it says it "fails," which could mean they don't know and can be lured into wasting an action trying, or it could mean it just isn't an option and they fail to try, leaving their action open for something else.


OAs/AoOs are artifacts of the six second turn. Events are supposed to be simultaneous during combat, but because everyone makes decisions in six second increments it creates oddities. The idea is that using the disengage action (or a five foot step in older editions) was to represent cautiously retreating while keeping up your guard to avoid exposing yourself. If turns only lasted one second and were more atomic to your individual actions they’d be unnecessary
That's an interesting claim, and one with which I disagree.

It wouldn't matter how granular you made "rounds," the desire to model reactions "off turn" would create similar problems. The OA rules for dealing with movement are specifically there to handle the question of how movement works wrt actions. If we ran it second-by-second, there'd still be only one creature acting at a time, unless we change it to a sort of heisenberg uncertainty as to the location of a creature during any given second, enabling attacks on a creature anywhere they were during that second from anywhere any other creature was during that second as long as the attacker was also attacking that second. And if you made it so you could only move or attack, we're right back where we started, but even worse, due to the turn-based nature of things.

[MaxWilson]

The way I interpret it, Disengaging means you keep your guard up as you cautiously withdraw from melee combat with an enemy. Not Disengaging means you more or less turn your back to them and start sprinting away, giving them a clear shot at your back.

But I only moved 5'! Why would I turn my back to sprint 5', and why would turning my back make me more vulnerable than being paralyzed or falling unconscious?

Thus... in my games, there is no Disengage. Opportunity attacks instead occur when you move more than half speed away from an enemy. (AD&D only lets you move 1/3 speed in this scenario.) Monsters like beholders with 360' vision can move at full speed without risking opportunity attacks. The equivalent of Disengage is instead to Dash at half speed so you don't take opportunity attacks.

I don't have a great solution for the paralyzation thing. I should probably just allow anyone to make a reaction melee attack against an incapacitated target at any time, but I'm not quite ready to bite that bullet.

[EggKookoo]

But I only moved 5'! Why would I turn my back to sprint 5', and why would turning my back make me more vulnerable than being paralyzed or falling unconscious?

Player: I move out of the orc's sword range.
DM: Ok, he takes a swing at you while you're focused on moving.
Player: Wait, I just backed away 5 feet, and I'm keeping my eye on him and my weapon up.
DM: Ok, then he hesitates, trying to find an opening to make a swing. You get out of range before he can.

That's the player using Disengage. Your character doesn't "use" Disengage, you do something that can be interpreted as him using Disengage. Just like your character doesn't make an attack roll. He just swings his weapon. You make the roll to find out if he hit.

So the answer to "why would I turn my back?" is "you don't, therefore you Disengaged." If you do turn your back, you didn't Disengage.

Regarding paralysis or any other condition, I suppose it depends on what's causing the condition. If it's a saving throw that could possibly be interpreted as requiring some level of your character's attention or mobility, you could say having your back to the source means you didn't get out of the way or see it coming in time. Combat is a mess of lots of small, chaotic, subtle things that aren't specifically modeled in the mechanics. Sometimes it comes down to the toss of the dice.

[Demonslayer666]

I assure you, this would not bother my barbarian's player in the least.
If only...playing a Blood Hunter. heh.


That makes it a great tank feat, because you can Dodge all day while still remaining combat-relevant.
I did have to resort to that one combat, but it felt pretty cheesy.


...
It's a rulings vs. rules thing, I suppose; if it said that "the Disengage action cannot be taken," I'd know they 'knew' if only because they weren't able to even make the choice. But it says it "fails," which could mean they don't know and can be lured into wasting an action trying, or it could mean it just isn't an option and they fail to try, leaving their action open for something else.
...
...
Sentinel does not prevent the Disengage from happening, it only reduces movement, and only if you are hit. If the OA misses, you can move away without provoking - useful if there are others around.

[MaxWilson]

Player: I move out of the orc's sword range.
DM: Ok, he takes a swing at you while you're focused on moving.
Player: Wait, I just backed away 5 feet, and I'm keeping my eye on him and my weapon up.
DM: Ok, then he hesitates, trying to find an opening to make a swing. You get out of range before he can.

No, that's just called fighting. Backing away makes it harder for him to take a swing because it puts you out of reach--swings that would otherwise hit now miss. This is why retreating is a strong defensive maneuver, outside of 5E.

In other words:

Player: I move out of the orc's sword range.
DM: Ok, he takes a swing at you while you're focused on moving.
Player: What is this "focused on moving" you speak of? There is no such thing. Even if I were focused entirely on defense, stepping backwards out of his swing distance would be part of that defense.
DM: I dunno, it's just what the rule books say to do. I think it dates back to wargaming days, but WotC mangled the rules in translation so they no longer model wargaming well, and now it's just a D&Dism. Just roll with it for now, okay? We can rewrite the rules for opportunity attacks next session.
Player: okay, whatever, so I step back 5' and then hit the ogre, and somehow the orc lunges forward and takes a swing at me. Ideally I would hit him in the throat while he's off balance and overextended by his lunge but whatever.


Sentinel does not prevent the Disengage from happening, it only reduces movement, and only if you are hit. If the OA misses, you can move away without provoking - useful if there are others around.

Let us all not forget that Disengage, as written, also makes you immune to all other opportunity attacks (from non-Sentinels) that you might take within your turn. You can Disengage away from a Sentinel and past six other bad guys (bodyguards) in order to threaten an enemy leader, for example, and as long as the Sentinel misses on his attack, Disengage has not been rendered useless for you.

[Cybren]

That's an interesting claim, and one with which I disagree.

It wouldn't matter how granular you made "rounds," the desire to model reactions "off turn" would create similar problems. The OA rules for dealing with movement are specifically there to handle the question of how movement works wrt actions. If we ran it second-by-second, there'd still be only one creature acting at a time, unless we change it to a sort of heisenberg uncertainty as to the location of a creature during any given second, enabling attacks on a creature anywhere they were during that second from anywhere any other creature was during that second as long as the attacker was also attacking that second. And if you made it so you could only move or attack, we're right back where we started, but even worse, due to the turn-based nature of things.

You’re free to disagree with things that are true all you like, but the fidelity absolutely matters with respect to how the combat is modeling things

[MaxWilson]

You’re free to disagree with things that are true all you like, but the fidelity absolutely matters with respect to how the combat is modeling things

You're right that opportunity attacks are artifacts of the six-second turn. In a real-time combat system you wouldn't need them.

But the implementation of opportunity attacks doesn't have to be as low-fidelity as the 5E designers made it. That's not an artifact, that's just a design failure.

[Pex]

Not meant to be snarky, but don't think so much about it. People get caught up on roleplaying or realism they forget it's a game. Rather than add complexity to make things feel right keep it a simple blanket everyone knows someone has Sentinel so Disengage won't work and deal with that dilemma. If you don't want to be that generous in knowledge no one knows, the Disengage attempt fails, and the consequences are suffered, but I would err on the side of generosity because usually when a PC wants to disengage he's low on hit points and just wants to get out of there. PCs who can do it as a bonus action will use it for tactics, but even then that's their shtick so for DM-Player courtesy the player should know the tactic won't work in this one particular instance.

Have Sentinel only means the opponent can't take the Disengage action. He can still try to move and hope the opportunity attack misses. A player with the feat wants his opponents to face this dilemma. That's the whole point.

[EggKookoo]

No, that's just called fighting. Backing away makes it harder for him to take a swing because it puts you out of reach--swings that would otherwise hit now miss. This is why retreating is a strong defensive maneuver, outside of 5E.

The OA happens as you move out past your opponent's reach, not once you're past it.


In other words:

Player: I move out of the orc's sword range.
DM: Ok, he takes a swing at you while you're focused on moving.
Player: What is this "focused on moving" you speak of? There is no such thing. Even if I were focused entirely on defense, stepping backwards out of his swing distance would be part of that defense.
DM: I dunno, it's just what the rule books say to do. I think it dates back to wargaming days, but WotC mangled the rules in translation so they no longer model wargaming well, and now it's just a D&Dism. Just roll with it for now, okay? We can rewrite the rules for opportunity attacks next session.
Player: okay, whatever, so I step back 5' and then hit the ogre, and somehow the orc lunges forward and takes a swing at me. Ideally I would hit him in the throat while he's off balance and overextended by his lunge but whatever.

Ok, sorry, make it 10 feet. Whatever distance is needed to move you out past the edge of the orc's reach, when the OA triggers.

"Focused on moving" is making sure you're not backing into the tip of someone else's weapon, or you're not stepping on a severed arm and not rolling your ankle.


Not meant to be snarky, but don't think so much about it. People get caught up on roleplaying or realism they forget it's a game. Rather than add complexity to make things feel right keep it a simple blanket everyone knows someone has Sentinel so Disengage won't work and deal with that dilemma. If you don't want to be that generous in knowledge no one knows, the Disengage attempt fails, and the consequences are suffered, but I would err on the side of generosity because usually when a PC wants to disengage he's low on hit points and just wants to get out of there. PCs who can do it as a bonus action will use it for tactics, but even then that's their shtick so for DM-Player courtesy the player should know the tactic won't work in this one particular instance.

Have Sentinel only means the opponent can't take the Disengage action. He can still try to move and hope the opportunity attack misses. A player with the feat wants his opponents to face this dilemma. That's the whole point.

I hereby insert a hearty "thisism!"

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I just wanted to say that from the fights I been at(a lot of martial arts and a small amount of larps) moving back gives you disadvantage in the fight as it usually means that you lost your tempo/rhythm.

An enemy back away only when I force my rhythm on him which means I will be able to generate more openings.

If he back away on his own I will force my rhythm on him and the same thing will happen.

Only if he will distract my rhythm as he move away I will not be able to force my rhythm. But I only saw black belts and very highly trained fighters do it.

[MaxWilson]

"Focused on moving" is making sure you're not backing into the tip of someone else's weapon, or you're not stepping on a severed arm and not rolling your ankle.

So focused on a potential other guy's weapon behind you that you ignore the guy right in front of you long enough for him to lunge forward and stab you? Nonsense.

[stoutstien]

This line of questioning is interesting to me because me a few friends are actually working on writing a d20 system that works better for us. couple nights ago we were actually discussing how to make combat more fluid by giving characters more reactions to choose from and how they interact with each other.
To give combat less of a my turn, your turn, their turn feel everybody has a potential to do something for the whole round.

[EggKookoo]

So focused on a potential other guy's weapon behind you that you ignore the guy right in front of you long enough for him to lunge forward and stab you? Nonsense.

Oddly, your first sentence reads like straightforward logic. Focusing on danger A (even if it's just potential) will, indeed, interfere with your ability to focus on danger B (even if it's actual). Just like splitting your attention between any two tasks dilutes your ability to focus on either one of them.

I mean, I get that OAs primarily exist as a mechanic to limit how much you can just run around on the battlefield, and to give some specialization fun to builds that can do that. But "watching out for that thing behind me increases my exposure to that thing in front of me" is not the raving of a lunatic.

[EggKookoo]

This line of questioning is interesting to me because me a few friends are actually working on writing a d20 system that works better for us. couple nights ago we were actually discussing how to make combat more fluid by giving characters more reactions to choose from and how they interact with each other.
To give combat less of a my turn, your turn, their turn feel everybody has a potential to do something for the whole round.

Hey, major off-topic convo but I've been working on something similar of my own. One idea I had was to create reaction-based features or abilities that "key" off action-based features of other classes. So class A takes an action. That opens up a reaction-based feature for class B. Kind of like full-party combos.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there. Seems like there could be some potential in it.

[Chauncymancer]

If the Sentinel hit you, your move is now 0 for the rest of this turn, so you Ready an action: as soon as anybody else makes an attack or moves or does anything, you will move towards a squishie. Then you end your turn, and your move goes back to its regular value. Then somebody does something, and you immediately move.

Note that this actually seems to be intentional, because there are at least three ways to gain extra AoO in a round (Cavalier, Tunnel Fighting, and Marking) and thus close this particular loophole.



If I'm fighting a Black Knight, and I want to take one step 5' backwards ...
But if I Disengage, then somehow I'm doing something which makes it infeasible for the orc to lunge forward and swing his axe at me.
But if the orc has Sentinel, he does something else that nullifies my nullification of his implausible action, somehow.

The unspoken assumption of the 5e combat system is that walking backwards in combat conditions is really really difficult. Physically, psychologically I don't know. So when you move away from someone in combat, what you are doing is turning around so your back faces the enemy and then walking forwards towards your new enemy. Walking backwards, so that your shield is still pointed in the right direction, is what the Disengage Action is.
And as you'll go on to say a few posts later, that is kind of dumb in a game of heroic fantasy combat but it's actually a real problem for people who do martial arts, SCA, or train in the military. 'Keep your eye on the ball' is something that you've got to beat into people's skulls. In SCA you've literally got to beat it in with a wooden mallet up the back of the head until they learn different. Is that a feat? Is that part of being level 1 in a PC class? I dunno, D&D models skill acquisition even worse than combat.

To address the question: in a simulated group combat,a skill you develop pretty early on is "If I just bolt right now, a******* and elbows, this guy is not ready to take advantage of that and I'll get away easily." A more difficult skill you develop is "If I do anything but keep my eyes pointed right at this guy, and my mind on defending his attacks, he's going to get me." So presumably, if SCA and martial arts are anything like the combat of D&D land, you would know before trying to disengage that this guy was just too good, no way are you getting away unscathed.



Only if he will distract my rhythm as he move away I will not be able to force my rhythm. But I only saw black belts and very highly trained fighters do it.
This is how the Mobile feat works presumably.

[EggKookoo]

I wasn't joking about quantum mechanics.

[CapnWildefyr]

Well, the original question was about whether anyone could tell if someone is a sentinel. Im not aware of any game mechanic for that besides realizing someone just stopped you from disengaging. I do not have the rules in front of me but why would you be able to discern sentinel but not linguistics or magic initiate or anything else?

Having said that, I think that roleplaying it can be fun, though, as word spreads and the enemy always seems to avoid the barbarian... or a hill giant, being too slow-witted to figure it out, eventually just gets mad and tosses the barbarian into a tree so he can attack the squishier targets.

As for whether Disengage is "real," it's just a game mechanic to differentiate between running away in a panic or not. You have to have something in a turn-based system to specify that. While its easy to say Disengage is pointless because "Of course I back up cautiously!", in that case, why cant the opponent simply move 5' too? Because he already moved? Thats also just part of the mechanics. We can all always justifiably argue for an extra reaction. My thought is stick with it the way it is, But at the end of the day you just have to draw a line and remember it's a simulation. If it's fun, fine, if not then house rule it away. Otherwise this is one the table can argue for days.

[MaxWilson]

As for whether Disengage is "real," it's just a game mechanic to differentiate between running away in a panic or not. You have to have something in a turn-based system to specify that. While its easy to say Disengage is pointless because "Of course I back up cautiously!", in that case, why cant the opponent simply move 5' too?

In AD&D this is the default--you can withdraw from combat and move up to 1/3 your speed without provoking an attack, but the enemy can choose to follow you too.

Reasons it might not follow you include:

(1) there are multiple PCs withdrawing in different directions, and it can't follow them all; or
(2) you are withdrawing into a situation that is unfavorable for it (bad terrain, too narrow, or lots of allies); or
(3) it is much slower than you are.

[Segev]

You’re free to disagree with things that are true all you like, but the fidelity absolutely matters with respect to how the combat is modeling things

I invite you to offer evidence of your assertion; I gave analysis of why I disagree with it. Which means, to me, the conversation now looks like this:

Cybren: Trees are made of stone. You can tell because they're hard.
Me: No, I disagree. Trees are made of wood, which is not stone. It is a fibrous material that is grown by an organic process. You can tell wood from stone in a number of ways; amongst them, wood burns, while stone usually does not.
Cybren: You're welcome to disagree with things that are true all you want. Trees are absolutely stone due to their hardness.


You need to demonstrate that the fidelity matters in such a way that, say, a 1s "round" would mean we would get the same (or superior) effect that an OA is representing (game-wise and simulation-wise) just by virtue of being 1s.

My assertion, which you did nothing to refute, was that the "x creature's turn" nature of things is what makes the OA needed to achieve the effects desired, far more than the granularity of the simulation.

[MaxWilson]

I invite you to offer evidence of your assertion; I gave analysis of why I disagree with it. Which means, to me, the conversation now looks like this:

Cybren: Trees are made of stone. You can tell because they're hard.
Me: No, I disagree. Trees are made of wood, which is not stone. It is a fibrous material that is grown by an organic process. You can tell wood from stone in a number of ways; amongst them, wood burns, while stone usually does not.
Cybren: You're welcome to disagree with things that are true all you want. Trees are absolutely stone due to their hardness.


You need to demonstrate that the fidelity matters in such a way that, say, a 1s "round" would mean we would get the same (or superior) effect that an OA is representing (game-wise and simulation-wise) just by virtue of being 1s.

My assertion, which you did nothing to refute, was that the "x creature's turn" nature of things is what makes the OA needed to achieve the effects desired, far more than the granularity of the simulation.

I'll have a go at this:

Imagine a hypothetical RPG where combatants take turns moving one limb of their choice up to 6 inches. If your limb movement brings your weapon into contact with your opponent's limbs or body, your opponent dies. If your limb movement brings your weapon into contact with your opponent's weapon, your opponent's limb and weapon gets knocked away half the straight-line distance that your own weapon moved before it made contact, and if this knocks the opponent's weapon into their body they also die.

Now you have turn-taking, but opportunity attacks are not needed because the action they represent has a granularity much greater than your individual turns do.

(Note that this hypothetical game closely resembles a game that children actually do play.)

[Chauncymancer]

Let us all not forget that Disengage, as written, also makes you immune to all other opportunity attacks (from non-Sentinels) that you might take within your turn. You can Disengage away from a Sentinel and past six other bad guys (bodyguards) in order to threaten an enemy leader, for example, and as long as the Sentinel misses on his attack, Disengage has not been rendered useless for you.
Potentially false actually. The exact wording of Sentinel is "Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks even if they took the Disengage action." Not "provoke opportunity attacks from you" just "provoke opportunity attacks". If two or more creatures threaten the same square, and any one of them has Sentinel, all of them get an OA on creatures Disengaging through that square.

[Cybren]

I invite you to offer evidence of your assertion; I gave analysis of why I disagree with it. Which means, to me, the conversation now looks like this:

Cybren: Trees are made of stone. You can tell because they're hard.
Me: No, I disagree. Trees are made of wood, which is not stone. It is a fibrous material that is grown by an organic process. You can tell wood from stone in a number of ways; amongst them, wood burns, while stone usually does not.
Cybren: You're welcome to disagree with things that are true all you want. Trees are absolutely stone due to their hardness.


You need to demonstrate that the fidelity matters in such a way that, say, a 1s "round" would mean we would get the same (or superior) effect that an OA is representing (game-wise and simulation-wise) just by virtue of being 1s.

My assertion, which you did nothing to refute, was that the "x creature's turn" nature of things is what makes the OA needed to achieve the effects desired, far more than the granularity of the simulation.

No thanks buddy

[redwizard007]

Potentially false actually. The exact wording of Sentinel is "Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks even if they took the Disengage action." Not "provoke opportunity attacks from you" just "provoke opportunity attacks". If two or more creatures threaten the same square, and any one of them has Sentinel, all of them get an OA on creatures Disengaging through that square.

I've never read it that way. This is interesting. My issue with Sentinel, and the reason I've never found it overpowered, is that you only have the single reaction. This is... promising. A pike block now has potential (presuming no enemy aoes.)

[Segev]

Potentially false actually. The exact wording of Sentinel is "Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks even if they took the Disengage action." Not "provoke opportunity attacks from you" just "provoke opportunity attacks". If two or more creatures threaten the same square, and any one of them has Sentinel, all of them get an OA on creatures Disengaging through that square.Now that's a novel interpretation, and very, very powerful! I'm not sure I'd go with that, though it'd definitely make my players happy.


I'll have a go at this:

Imagine a hypothetical RPG where combatants take turns moving one limb of their choice up to 6 inches. If your limb movement brings your weapon into contact with your opponent's limbs or body, your opponent dies. If your limb movement brings your weapon into contact with your opponent's weapon, your opponent's limb and weapon gets knocked away half the straight-line distance that your own weapon moved before it made contact, and if this knocks the opponent's weapon into their body they also die.

Now you have turn-taking, but opportunity attacks are not needed because the action they represent has a granularity much greater than your individual turns do.

(Note that this hypothetical game closely resembles a game that children actually do play.)Would this game "children actually do play" be one of live play-acting, or is there another game you're referring to?

Note that, if I play devil's advocate, your rules here still lead to odd cases where the granularity and turn-taking leads to a need for considering off-turn action: if a weapon hit by another weapon moves half the distance the other weapon moved before hitting it, but, as the rules provide no limit to "within the last n turns," with no historical limit, it becomes advantageous to strategically place your weapon and limbs in line of fire of allies to launch them tremendous distances.

Even with this granularity, too, we're left with the issue of people altering their movement paths arbitrarily, without regard to momentum, thanks to the turn-based structure.

Still, I'll grant that it's harder to find the corner cases.

But if that's the trade-off: partial action completion every turn, with nothing happening of any excitement on most turns, I'll take the "reaction" option to get the granularity up to a fun level of combat flow.

Exalted 2E tried a more granular system with their tick-based combat, with actions taking certain numbers of ticks, and it was a mess. You could blame White Wolf's game designers not knowing how to design a good mechanical system, and I wouldn't argue too strongly with you, but they did bite off a huge technical challenge with that paradigm shift.

In my own recent efforts at a combat system for a homebrew system based on L5R's 3e core (and heavily modified from there) that I know I'll never actually test because I never finish these projects, I was exploring making turns even less granular. There's no "my turn/your turn," but instead everyone acts at once. You make your decisions and rolls, record results, and then the DM quickly runs around the table to ask for results. If anybody is interacting with another creature's rolls, those rolls've already been made, so there's just some math to resolve. With one exception (iaijutsu dueling), results are applied at the end of the round while rolls are made at the beginning, so there's no need to know what others did to change your active status during the round.

So there are ways to change it up, of course. But I don't think that reactions are actually a flaw; they just handle a refinement of the coarser granularity of the "my turn lets me do a complete action" paradigm while still having turn order matter.

[MaxWilson]

Would this game "children actually do play" be one of live play-acting, or is there another game you're referring to?

No, it's called Ninja or something like that. You know how kid's games are--the names always change even if the rules stay the same.


Note that, if I play devil's advocate, your rules here still lead to odd cases where the granularity and turn-taking leads to a need for considering off-turn action: if a weapon hit by another weapon moves half the distance the other weapon moved before hitting it, but, as the rules provide no limit to "within the last n turns," with no historical limit, it becomes advantageous to strategically place your weapon and limbs in line of fire of allies to launch them tremendous distances.

I was envisioning a two-player game, since that's how Ninja works. I don't think it would make a difference though--there's no need for off-turn resolution of that. (The fact that there is no limit to "within the last turn" is deliberate, and simulates momentum, but there are diminishing returns anyway for chaining--it's actually disadvantageous to chain via allies' weapons instead of just hitting enemies' weapons directly.)

[Segev]

No, it's called Ninja or something like that. You know how kid's games are--the names always change even if the rules stay the same.



I was envisioning a two-player game, since that's how Ninja works. I don't think it would make a difference though--there's no need for off-turn resolution of that. (The fact that there is no limit to "within the last turn" is deliberate, and simulates momentum, but there are diminishing returns anyway for chaining--it's actually disadvantageous to chain via allies' weapons instead of just hitting enemies' weapons directly.)

Huh. I was 100% unfamiliar with "Ninja" under any name, as described, prior to your posting about it here. I still don't really get it, I don't think, because I haven't seen it in action. I take it it's not strictly codified...if it's a children's game, how do they play it? Pen-and-paper TTRPG style? Cards? Play-acting?

I'm having a hard time picturing it.

[Cybren]

This video might help https://youtu.be/F-B0IjpRsGw

[MaxWilson]

Huh. I was 100% unfamiliar with "Ninja" under any name, as described, prior to your posting about it here. I still don't really get it, I don't think, because I haven't seen it in action. I take it it's not strictly codified...if it's a children's game, how do they play it? Pen-and-paper TTRPG style? Cards? Play-acting?

I'm having a hard time picturing it.

Typically the way I've seen it played is that there is some kind of countdown "1-2-3-MOVE!" and then everybody moves briefly and simultaneously. Some variants allow you to move only one limb, others allow you any single movement like a lunge. If that movement brings your "weapon" limb into contact with someone else's body or limb, they die. Unlike the hypothetical game I conjured up, Ninja does not restrict movement to 6 inches per turn, it's just "however much movement you can persuade the other players counts as just a single move."

Think of it as somewhat like a Rock-Paper-Scissors variant.

@Cybren, thanks for the video. I haven't seen it played quite that way before but it's recognizably the same game (to whatever extent children's games can ever be said to be "the same game", since the rules are always evolving).

[Chauncymancer]

I've never read it that way. This is interesting. My issue with Sentinel, and the reason I've never found it overpowered, is that you only have the single reaction. This is... promising. A pike block now has potential (presuming no enemy aoes.)

Now that's a novel interpretation, and very, very powerful! I'm not sure I'd go with that, though it'd definitely make my players happy.
Editors Retraction: Thanks to a playgrounder in another thread, it's been brought to my attention that, because of a transcription error, the online SRD I use for my source has deleted some of the text of the sentinel feet. Confirming this with a physical book reveals that the deleted text contradicts this interpretation. We apologize for any inconvenience.