Teasing out interactions of PAM+Sentinel vs. Bugbear Rogue w/Mobile

[FrancisBean]

I've got an oddball situation which came within a hair's breadth of actually happening last session, and probably will at some point. I need to make sure I've got the interactions of these rules correct, and there's a lot of "what's the more specific rule?" in it. This is a little complicated for the RAW thread, so I'm starting a separate thread.

My group has a Paladin with a 10' reach polearm, and he has both the Polearm Master and Sentinel feats. A major recurring sub-villain is a Bugbear Rogue (Assassin) with the Mobile feat and a very nasty Venom blade with a default 5' normal reach. Check me on all this?

Suppose the Bugbear starts his turn 15' away, and the Paladin has not yet burned his Reaction for the turn, and nobody is surprised. The Bugbear tries to come running in to attack. If the Bugbear uses his Bonus Action to Disengage(*), here's what I think should happen.

The Bugbear steps within 10'. This would normally (via Polearm Master's second bullet) provoke an attack of opportunity when entering the Paladin's reach. However, the Disengage action says that the Bugbear's movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Sentinel's specific rule overriding Disengage applies only when leaving your reach, not entering it, and PAM doesn't mention overriding Disengage.
The Bugbear, using the extra +5' racial reach from Long-Limbed, can make a melee attack against the Paladin from 10' away. Hit or miss, the Bugbear can now flee without provoking, as Mobile's third bullet says you don't provoke any attacks of opportunity from your target for the rest of that turn. (Sentinel's second bullet exception applies only to Disengage.)
Standing at 10'. the Bugbear can attack other targets without tripping Sentinel's third bullet. (But doesn't get Mobile's third bullet benefit against Sentinel.)
If the Bugbear chose not to attack from 10', any attempt to flee would provoke, as the Disengage action cannot protect him from Sentinel when he's leaving the Paladin's reach. The Opportunity Attack would resolve before the movement took place. However, approaching to 5' range should not provoke, as the Bugbear isn't leaving the Paladin's reach, so Sentinel's second bullet does not apply.


(*)In practice, the Bugbear likely wouldn't use a Bonus Action Disengage the first time, because he has no good way to expect the PAM+Sentinel combo. Once he learns the lesson the hard way, it's a rational decision.

[f5anor]

I've got an oddball situation which came within a hair's breadth of actually happening last session, and probably will at some point. I need to make sure I've got the interactions of these rules correct, and there's a lot of "what's the more specific rule?" in it. This is a little complicated for the RAW thread, so I'm starting a separate thread.

My group has a Paladin with a 10' reach polearm, and he has both the Polearm Master and Sentinel feats. A major recurring sub-villain is a Bugbear Rogue (Assassin) with the Mobile feat and a very nasty Venom blade with a default 5' normal reach. Check me on all this?

Suppose the Bugbear starts his turn 15' away, and the Paladin has not yet burned his Reaction for the turn, and nobody is surprised. The Bugbear tries to come running in to attack. If the Bugbear uses his Bonus Action to Disengage(*), here's what I think should happen.

The Bugbear steps within 10'. This would normally (via Polearm Master's second bullet) provoke an attack of opportunity when entering the Paladin's reach. However, the Disengage action says that the Bugbear's movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Sentinel's specific rule overriding Disengage applies only when leaving your reach, not entering it, and PAM doesn't mention overriding Disengage.
The Bugbear, using the extra +5' racial reach from Long-Limbed, can make a melee attack against the Paladin from 10' away. Hit or miss, the Bugbear can now flee without provoking, as Mobile's third bullet says you don't provoke any attacks of opportunity from your target for the rest of that turn. (Sentinel's second bullet exception applies only to Disengage.)
Standing at 10'. the Bugbear can attack other targets without tripping Sentinel's third bullet. (But doesn't get Mobile's third bullet benefit against Sentinel.)
If the Bugbear chose not to attack from 10', any attempt to flee would provoke, as the Disengage action cannot protect him from Sentinel when he's leaving the Paladin's reach. The Opportunity Attack would resolve before the movement took place. However, approaching to 5' range should not provoke, as the Bugbear isn't leaving the Paladin's reach, so Sentinel's second bullet does not apply.


(*)In practice, the Bugbear likely wouldn't use a Bonus Action Disengage the first time, because he has no good way to expect the PAM+Sentinel combo. Once he learns the lesson the hard way, it's a rational decision.

Sounds good to me.

The only thing I would point out, is that in a world where polearms and PAM are very common, I believe any reasonably experienced character would expect the PAM opportunity attack by default. After all, its better to safe than sorry, especially if you are a master Assassin.

[Pildion]

I've got an oddball situation which came within a hair's breadth of actually happening last session, and probably will at some point. I need to make sure I've got the interactions of these rules correct, and there's a lot of "what's the more specific rule?" in it. This is a little complicated for the RAW thread, so I'm starting a separate thread.

My group has a Paladin with a 10' reach polearm, and he has both the Polearm Master and Sentinel feats. A major recurring sub-villain is a Bugbear Rogue (Assassin) with the Mobile feat and a very nasty Venom blade with a default 5' normal reach. Check me on all this?

Suppose the Bugbear starts his turn 15' away, and the Paladin has not yet burned his Reaction for the turn, and nobody is surprised. The Bugbear tries to come running in to attack. If the Bugbear uses his Bonus Action to Disengage(*), here's what I think should happen.

The Bugbear steps within 10'. This would normally (via Polearm Master's second bullet) provoke an attack of opportunity when entering the Paladin's reach. However, the Disengage action says that the Bugbear's movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Sentinel's specific rule overriding Disengage applies only when leaving your reach, not entering it, and PAM doesn't mention overriding Disengage.
The Bugbear, using the extra +5' racial reach from Long-Limbed, can make a melee attack against the Paladin from 10' away. Hit or miss, the Bugbear can now flee without provoking, as Mobile's third bullet says you don't provoke any attacks of opportunity from your target for the rest of that turn. (Sentinel's second bullet exception applies only to Disengage.)
Standing at 10'. the Bugbear can attack other targets without tripping Sentinel's third bullet. (But doesn't get Mobile's third bullet benefit against Sentinel.)
If the Bugbear chose not to attack from 10', any attempt to flee would provoke, as the Disengage action cannot protect him from Sentinel when he's leaving the Paladin's reach. The Opportunity Attack would resolve before the movement took place. However, approaching to 5' range should not provoke, as the Bugbear isn't leaving the Paladin's reach, so Sentinel's second bullet does not apply.


(*)In practice, the Bugbear likely wouldn't use a Bonus Action Disengage the first time, because he has no good way to expect the PAM+Sentinel combo. Once he learns the lesson the hard way, it's a rational decision.

Yes, I believe that Disengage would protect him from PAM, but if\when he moves away then Sentinel would override as it does over Disengage.

[Burley]

I like that you've planned this out so well. Good DMing! Great assumption that the Bugbear would take the first hit and then fight more defensively and disengage.
Next time the Bugbear shows up, after realizing the paladin's reach and reaction abilities, they could bring minions or a scroll of summoning to bait out the paladin's reactions, letting the Bugbear slip in for poison stabs after the paladin wastes a swing on a celestial badger. Is that too metagame-y?

[Melil12]

I follow yes once he uses his reaction on PAM bugbear is safe. However if your player realizes he dosnt have to use his reaction for PAM and saves it for when Mr Bugbear tries to disengage …. Well that will be trouble for Mr Bugbear.

[Burley]

Thinking on this more: I think the trick here is going to be how you get this information to the player without saying "He's got feats that specifically counter yours," and making the paladin player feel cheated?

How do you display the narrative that the Bugbear slides up to attack, not by evading the opportunity attack, but moving in such a way as to deny the opportunity in the first place?

[FrancisBean]

I like that you've planned this out so well. Good DMing! Great assumption that the Bugbear would take the first hit and then fight more defensively and disengage.
Next time the Bugbear shows up, after realizing the paladin's reach and reaction abilities, they could bring minions or a scroll of summoning to bait out the paladin's reactions, letting the Bugbear slip in for poison stabs after the paladin wastes a swing on a celestial badger. Is that too metagame-y?
No metagaming needed: the Bugbear acquired, in the party's presence, a set of Pipes of the Sewers. They know he has them, and that gives nasty flanking options.

I follow yes once he uses his reaction on PAM bugbear is safe. However if your player realizes he dosnt have to use his reaction for PAM and saves it for when Mr Bugbear tries to disengage …. Well that will be trouble for Mr Bugbear.
Look again -- the Bugbear has the Mobile feat. As long as he attacks the Paladin first, he can retreat safely. Unless there's a rules interaction I don't know, there's no Opportunity Attack.

Thinking on this more: I think the trick here is going to be how you get this information to the player without saying "He's got feats that specifically counter yours," and making the paladin player feel cheated?

How do you display the narrative that the Bugbear slides up to attack, not by evading the opportunity attack, but moving in such a way as to deny the opportunity in the first place?
That's actually my next big problem here, but I wanted to get the mechanics worked out first.

The irony is, I designed the Bugbear long before the PC was built. It's actually pure coincidence that he happens to be almost tailor-made to beat the Paladin's build. As it is, I wrote my plot with the "uneasy allies" theme, and never intended them to come to blows. Then my PC's decided to get much more "uneasy" than "allies," and I can see the encounter is probably inevitable. And since the players get to write their lines in a collaborative novel, I'm a bit stuck for it.

Once it actually comes up in play, I wasn't going to be cagey about the mechanics -- I was going to identify them as they happened, which should reduce some of the sting. After all, they can see that he's a Bugbear, and they know he's an assassin, so they have fair warning on the Long-Limbed and bonus action Disengage. And fortunately, no matter how rough it gets, the Paladin is a half-orc. Relentless Endurance makes the hard surprises survivable, and the Paladin has Adamantine Armor to shrug off the crits, too.

But any suggestions on making the narrative nice and theatrical would be very much appreciated! It's a tough nut to crack.

[jojo]

I've got an oddball situation which came within a hair's breadth of actually happening last session, and probably will at some point. I need to make sure I've got the interactions of these rules correct, and there's a lot of "what's the more specific rule?" in it. This is a little complicated for the RAW thread, so I'm starting a separate thread.

My group has a Paladin with a 10' reach polearm, and he has both the Polearm Master and Sentinel feats. A major recurring sub-villain is a Bugbear Rogue (Assassin) with the Mobile feat and a very nasty Venom blade with a default 5' normal reach. Check me on all this?

Suppose the Bugbear starts his turn 15' away, and the Paladin has not yet burned his Reaction for the turn, and nobody is surprised. The Bugbear tries to come running in to attack. If the Bugbear uses his Bonus Action to Disengage(*), here's what I think should happen.

The Bugbear steps within 10'. This would normally (via Polearm Master's second bullet) provoke an attack of opportunity when entering the Paladin's reach. However, the Disengage action says that the Bugbear's movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Sentinel's specific rule overriding Disengage applies only when leaving your reach, not entering it, and PAM doesn't mention overriding Disengage.
The Bugbear, using the extra +5' racial reach from Long-Limbed, can make a melee attack against the Paladin from 10' away. Hit or miss, the Bugbear can now flee without provoking, as Mobile's third bullet says you don't provoke any attacks of opportunity from your target for the rest of that turn. (Sentinel's second bullet exception applies only to Disengage.)
Standing at 10'. the Bugbear can attack other targets without tripping Sentinel's third bullet. (But doesn't get Mobile's third bullet benefit against Sentinel
If the Bugbear chose not to attack from 10', any attempt to flee would provoke, as the Disengage action cannot protect him from Sentinel when he's leaving the Paladin's reach. The Opportunity Attack would resolve before the movement took place. However, approaching to 5' range should not provoke, as the Bugbear isn't leaving the Paladin's reach, so Sentinel's second bullet does not apply.


(*)In practice, the Bugbear likely wouldn't use a Bonus Action Disengage the first time, because he has no good way to expect the PAM+Sentinel combo. Once he learns the lesson the hard way, it's a rational decision.

As far as I can tell you are CORRECT, per RAW. However, per RAI and Rule 0 you are incredibly out of line.

Ultimately it is never a good idea to directly overcome/counter a Player's build directly. That will almost always cause the player to feel slighted. What is a much better practice is to counter the player indirectly. In this case, you'd build an Assassin that wields a crossbow. The reason for this is that players can accept being countered by common sense (I.E. I have a reputation for punishing people that try to sneak up on me because I have a very effective build, therefore someone spent time shooting me to death from a distance) vs. being countered by Rule-Mongering (I.E. MY [the player] build isn't actually as awesome as I thought it was and, my DM is better than I am, therefore I am very upset because I actually GOT BEAT".

You have already established this Bugbear Assassin so, you're kind of in a bad spot - you should not have done this, it's a rookie mistake, NEVER DIRECTLY COUNTER a player's build, ever - the best thing to do in your situation is to understand that the use of the term "disengage" indicates that RAI (rules, as intended) the whole thing is meant to allow you to Run Away not to Approach. Therefore, you should understand that "Being Right is the worst thing you can be for your players" and you should adjust accordingly. This means ruling that "disengage doesn't work unless you're fleeing like a pansy."

In the future just use crossbows for assassins though. It's better for all involved.

[FrancisBean]

As far as I can tell you are CORRECT, per RAW. However, per RAI and Rule 0 you are incredibly out of line.

Ultimately it is never a good idea to directly overcome/counter a Player's build directly. That will almost always cause the player to feel slighted. What is a much better practice is to counter the player indirectly. In this case, you'd build an Assassin that wields a crossbow. The reason for this is that players can accept being countered by common sense (I.E. I have a reputation for punishing people that try to sneak up on me because I have a very effective build, therefore someone spent time shooting me to death from a distance) vs. being countered by Rule-Mongering (I.E. MY [the player] build isn't actually as awesome as I thought it was and, my DM is better than I am, therefore I am very upset because I actually GOT BEAT".

You have already established this Bugbear Assassin so, you're kind of in a bad spot - you should not have done this, it's a rookie mistake, NEVER DIRECTLY COUNTER a player's build, ever - the best thing to do in your situation is to understand that the use of the term "disengage" indicates that RAI (rules, as intended) the whole thing is meant to allow you to Run Away not to Approach. Therefore, you should understand that "Being Right is the worst thing you can be for your players" and you should adjust accordingly. This means ruling that "disengage doesn't work unless you're fleeing like a pansy."

In the future just use crossbows for assassins though. It's better for all involved.

I rather strongly suspect that you didn't read through the thread.


The irony is, I designed the Bugbear long before the PC was built. It's actually pure coincidence that he happens to be almost tailor-made to beat the Paladin's build.

[Quietus]

I rather strongly suspect that you didn't read through the thread.

Also, it is okay to occasionally have something that can evade a character's go- to approach. This can be memorable and special, and create a heated rivalry. It only becomes out of line if this is *every* fight, or even a plurality of them. This is one for, it's fine.

[jojo]

I rather strongly suspect that you didn't read through the thread.

I did. I also acknowledge that the bugbear pre-dates the Paladin. As a DM though, I don't see that anything which has been posted following your OP is relevant to your situation.

Your assessment of the rules and, of how those rules interact is literally correct. What other posters have pointed out is also valid. None of that is actually going to help you though. You should never challenge a player's build directly whether you meant to do so or not. As the DM you, ultimately, ALWAYS win, so instead of looking to clarify the rules you need to acknowledge that it's not "you vs. players" and just back off of something that is definitely going to make your player feel slighted.

I know it's not pleasant but it is very much the mature way to handle the situation. For your purposes, all things considered, Disengage needs to mean "run away." In the future, Assassins use crossbows. That's my 2 CP on the matter, it's not meant to criticize you personally it's just something to think about and in general when you don't like where those thoughts lead you ought to eliminate the whole problem.

These forums have DM advice sections but, really the only advice a DM should actually take is "don't do that, it's bad" because if you're looking for rules to counter a player's build you are going to alienate that player. That is my advice based on 25 years of experience as a DM.

[GnollPaladin]

Also, it is okay to occasionally have something that can evade a character's go- to approach. This can be memorable and special, and create a heated rivalry. It only becomes out of line if this is *every* fight, or even a plurality of them. This is one for, it's fine.

I agree with the above. Counters to every strategy exist, a PC can encounter one.

No reason why that cannot be fun, unless the player experiences this as a problem, which indicates a lack of trust in the DM.

Narratively, it could be good to have a NPC polearm master slain by an unknown assailant first, perhaps with a snitch approaching a PC about it.

[Christew]

you should not have done this, it's a rookie mistake

I know it's not pleasant but it is very much the mature way to handle the situation.
Perhaps we should extend OP the courtesy of assuming that they know their table/players and thus what kind of play is appropriate.

To my eyes, OP, you have the interactions correct and it does not seem like you are setting out to hard counter the player. Sounds like an exciting nemesis in the making!

[Chaos Jackal]

Yes, the interactions work as you describe them.

I'm with the last couple posters on this. Counters happen, and you shouldn't go out of your way to never include them. Hell, in this case it's not even a full counter. So there's a Mobile rogue out there who happens to excel against the PAM+Sentinel classic. Good, no big deal, it's not like said rogue is immune to damage. You can't use the standard trick to lock them down, but you can still hit their face. It would be much more of a counter if the bugbear had a crossbow and used its bonus action to Dash, Hide and kite the paladin around. Sure, if every second enemy is a Mobile rogue then you're probably being unfair to the paladin right there, but one enemy executing a counter-strategy? Don't worry, it happens.

Of course, you know your players best. If said paladin's player would be severely bummed out or throw a tantrum or sulk over this, then maybe you should change the rogue or at least have a talk, but my guess is you'd have mentioned it if that was the case. In general, the whole thing is fine.

Regarding the narrative. Given that "Disengage" is indeed not very aptly named for what it does, and assuming you don't just wanna use the mechanical terms in the fight ("the bugbear takes the Disengage action, uses its reach to attack you, its Mobile feat triggers so you can't make an attack of opportunity as it moves away"), you could pretty much give the whole description as a whole bunch of acrobatics, or perhaps combine it with the longer arms to bring forward the "disengaging" part.

"The bugbear appears to move in, but it's a feint; it immediately disengages as you attempt to swing at it, leaving you no opening to execute your attack of opportunity. Its disproportionately long arms lash out and it strikes at you before falling back a few steps. You think of following up on that retreat, but despite the seemingly lumbering build and weird proportions the attack and movement were executed in a single fluid, almost dance-like motion. That swing actually brought your enemy in a better defensive position than they were in, rather than leaving an opening as you'd expect. The bugbear is very swift and mobile, and you see no opportunity for attack. It's probably better to seize the initiative."

Or something of the kind.

Bottom line, a PAM Sentinel facing someone they can't lock down in melee doesn't fully counter that PAM Sentinel, and adding the whole interaction you're mentioning above could make for an interesting nemesis or minor villain. Here's someone who can go toe to toe in melee with you, hero! What will you do?

[jojo]

Perhaps we should extend OP the courtesy of assuming that they know their table/players and thus what kind of play is appropriate.

To my eyes, OP, you have the interactions correct and it does not seem like you are setting out to hard counter the player. Sounds like an exciting nemesis in the making!

Ok, yes that came across more harshly than I intended. Perhaps a better way of phrasing what I'm trying to say would be:

Players are usually pretty good at recognizing when something is "custom built" by the DM. In this case it's hard to see how a player who has taken the time to optimize their build isn't going to feel targeted by the DM. It's such a weird, edge-case scenario that, in my experience, even a reasonable player is actually likely to feel insulted, slighted and targeted by it.

Obviously, I don't know OP's players, I do however think that asking the community for advice means OP is having some doubts of their own about the matter and, if that's the case it's usually best to just avoid the potential conflict altogether.

[Burley]

I rather strongly suspect that you didn't read through the thread.

Don't let the haters get you down.

If this fight hasn't happened yet, I think an assassin wouldn't hang around to fight a party of adventurers if it does come to blows. Maybe when "uneasy" breaks bad, the Bugbear bails. Why would a sneaky assassin engage in open combat? That's paladin junk, not assassin junk.
I'd say, if your players write the script to attack the Bugbear, they'll get a smoke bomb, a poison dart from the shadows and an understanding that they've made an enemy they won't see coming.

[jojo]

Don't let the haters get you down.

If this fight hasn't happened yet, I think an assassin wouldn't hang around to fight a party of adventurers if it does come to blows. Maybe when "uneasy" breaks bad, the Bugbear bails. Why would a sneaky assassin engage in open combat? That's paladin junk, not assassin junk.
I'd say, if your players write the script to attack the Bugbear, they'll get a smoke bomb, a poison dart from the shadows and an understanding that they've made an enemy they won't see coming.

How is this different than what I said? If you're saying the same thing as I am (assassin shouldn't go toe-to-toe with a Paladin) then calling me a hater isn't really accurate is it?

[Xervous]

Looks fine to me on all fronts. Don’t feel pressured to adjust this just because a player coincidentally built something whose jigsaw pieces fit together at unfavorable angles here. Sometimes you’re a fire loving sorcerer who has to deal with elementals. So long as it’s not overly common most players aren’t going to feel targeted by you, they may just dislike the creature and that’s fine. If you do have players that will be upset that their One Trick didn’t work here that’s call for a new discussion of expectations to catch things session 0 missed. This is the flip side of the coin featuring players realizing they have an ability that makes a feared encounter easier once they puzzle out its interaction with the enemy creature.

Given your description of the Bugbear’s expected tactics I have confidence a decent player will not have their sense of verisimilitude shattered by this villain.

[Burley]

How is this different than what I said? If you're saying the same thing as I am (assassin shouldn't go toe-to-toe with a Paladin) then calling me a hater isn't really accurate is it?

Because, inside of saying what I said (kind of), you told him how wrong he was and how he should NEVER do things and how he's a rookie. The haterade is in the tone, not the message.

[jojo]

Because, inside of saying what I said (kind of), you told him how wrong he was and how he should NEVER do things and how he's a rookie. The haterade is in the tone, not the message.

I think you missed the post where I walked that back because I didn't actually mean to convey that the DM was a rookie. I don't think OP is immature as a person.

I do think creating situations where the DM can be perceived as competing against the players IS immature. I would hope OP would take that as my opinion and not as a personal attack and I would hope OP understands that I don't expect them to change their opinion if they don't want to.

Because I think that competing against your players is immature I DO think that it's something that should be avoided at all costs.

When someone tells me that they think I'm targeting a player, I just do something else because it's better. OP isn't obligated to agree like I already said.

Frankly, since you offered the same solution in-game as I did it seems like you actually agree with me as well...

[Burley]

I think you missed the post where I walked that back because I didn't actually mean to convey that the DM was a rookie. I don't think OP is immature as a person.

I do think creating situations where the DM can be perceived as competing against the players IS immature. I would hope OP would take that as my opinion and not as a personal attack and I would hope OP understands that I don't expect them to change their opinion if they don't want to.

Because I think that competing against your players is immature I DO think that it's something that should be avoided at all costs.

When someone tells me that they think I'm targeting a player, I just do something else because it's better. OP isn't obligated to agree like I already said.

Frankly, since you offered the same solution in-game as I did it seems like you actually agree with me as well...

Never said I disagreed with you. I just wanted to give support to the OP. It took two posts to walk your comment back, but, in the post I'm quoting above, you came back implying the OPs actions are immature, which isn't the case and you know it by now. It's the negative and pervasive tone that I disagree with.

And, this is another thread I won't be coming back into because I'm tired of arguing with people who "agree with me."

[Slipjig]

I think a big part of the player's reaction will probably stem from what the bug bear does after the initial strike. If this encounter ends with a dead PC, it would be understandable if the player calls shenanigans. OTOH, if he successfully poisons the paladin (or kills an NPC the paladin is protecting) and then flits into the darkness while laughing maniacally, you've just laid the groundwork for a great recurring nemesis. If the player complains at that point, explain the mechanics and point out that he now knows this opponent's go-to tactic, so what is he going to do to be ready for next time?

On a related note, they fact that a player has put all of their character focus into being the BEST HAMMERER EVER (or that their hammer is significantly better than all their other tools) doesn't mean you are obligated to serve them up nothing but nails. SOME (maybe even most) of their problems should be nails, but the memorable encounters are going to be the ones where the PCs cannot just mindlessly run their standard playbook. (Do keep in mind that if you normally set a challenge level to be interesting for an optimized party, you may need to dial it back a bit when designing encounters where their optimization doesn't apply.)

[NecessaryWeevil]

I agree that you should be explicit with the player about the mechanics involved: if not during play, then at least after the session. You as the DM have the benefit of knowing all the mechanics at play and can run the bugbear accordingly. If the justification is that the bugbear can learn from experience about his opponents, then that should work both ways.