I can see both sides, and of course the general vs specific argument may help with a ruling but will not remove the ambiguity. and thus questions will pop up again.
I ruled that the AoO was allowed but at -3 to attack (I was favouring the Player). After some thought I think I should have made it disadvantage rather than a -3 to the attack.
I am also considering a change to sentinel, instead allowing it to attack a disengaging creature but with disadvantage. The argument being if a player is allowed to choose to disengage but disengage is not allowed to be effective then the player's agency is compromised.
any thoughts or answers from the community?
Flyby. The peryton doesn’t provoke an opportunity attack when it flies out of an enemy’s reach.
Sentinel. You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy’s guard, gaining the following benefits:
It's pretty straightforward. The flyby does not trigger an AoO when it flies out of reach, therefore sentinel does not kick in. If the player had polearm master, they would get an AoO when it entered their reach, because flyby specifically states "out of an enemy's reach".
Also, nerfing a feat is entirely up to you, but before you do I would recommend allowing the player to change the feat choice to an ASI or a different feat. They chose the feat based on what it does, and you changing it might impact their decision to want to keep it.
That's a tough one. The way I read Sentinel, it counteracts Disengage specifically, not other features that provide similar effect. So with polearm master, cavalier 10, and sentinel you can attack creatures when they enter, leave, or move within your speed, regardless of if they've taken a Disengage action, but not regardless of any other more specific class/racial abilities like Flyby, Skirmisher (Scout 3), Mobile, etc that don't purport to replicate a Disengage action.
I think that Sentinel's mention of Disengage is sufficient to draw that distinction. Alternatively/additionally, I think that general->specific rule of thumb also gets you there. If sentinel says "creatures provoke attacks of opportunity", that's a general effect applying to allcreatures moving around them on all creature's turns. An individual creature's racial/class/feat ability that says that that specific creature individually doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity (often within a specific triggering condition, like having made an attack (Mobile), or while flying (Flyby) ) applies only to themselves, and only sometimes, meaning it is more specific and thus controls.
A cavalier 10 w/polearm and sentinel would get the AoO when a creature with flyby entered or moved within their reach, just not as they move out of (as per the flyby feature). Sentinel would make the speed zero, and since perytons have fly and not hover they would drop to the ground. Whether or not they provoke an AoO when they try to fly away in the following round could be a judgement call, as RAW states no AoO when they fly out, but you could argue RAI is when they are airborne and "flying by", not taking off from the ground in front of an enemy.
After reviewing the rule and hearing from the community I am ready for the next flyby. I do still see a problem with Sentinel, which can be addressed by stating the disengage action cannot be taken in a turn that provokes an Attack of opportunity from any number of Sentinels and no other creatures. This protects player agency and stays true to the Feat.
Giga, I'm not really following your reasoning on the Sentinel/Disengage rework... I think you're saying that Sentinel just flat out makes Disengage an empty choice for a threatened target, and because empty choices rob agency, Sentinel or Disengage should therefor be nerfed/reworded. However, even if that were true, Sentinel is a player feat not a monster ability, so (barring inter-party PVP) a player will never lose agency in that interaction? If you did give a monster or NPC an ability inspired by Sentinel, you could easily make whatever modifications to the function of that ability you felt necessary, without needing to houserule how Disengage works in such a wide-reaching way.
Also, I don't see how telling a player "you're not allowed to take Disengage" gives them more agency than letting them make that decision themselves, even if suboptimal or "wasted"? It also feels like it would be cumbersome to administer, because it requires plotting out an entire movement path before deciding whether Disengage is a legal action, which isn't really how movement works mechanically.
It's your prerogative to address it in any way you see fit. But since this is the rules forum, InquisitiveCoder linked you to a place where your specific question was answered specifically by a rules authority.
You have not convinced me there is not a problem. I do think it is minor/edge case but a problem all the same.
There is nothing wrong with either Sentinel or Flyby. Sentinel is meant to counter the ability to use Disengage to get away from you. Flyby is meant to avoid drawing Opportunity Attacks completely. If the player takes Sentinel in a campaign featuring a war against a tribe of evil Giant Owls, yes I imagine that player would get frustrated. But by and large, it just means that there will be the rare occurrence where Sentinel doesn't help. And that's ok. Sentinel isn't meant to be useful 100% of the time. If a single character could handle every conceivable situation, adventurers wouldn't travel in parties.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I encountered this conflict in a game last night.
How is sentinel and flyby resolved?
I can see both sides, and of course the general vs specific argument may help with a ruling but will not remove the ambiguity. and thus questions will pop up again.
I ruled that the AoO was allowed but at -3 to attack (I was favouring the Player). After some thought I think I should have made it disadvantage rather than a -3 to the attack.
I am also considering a change to sentinel, instead allowing it to attack a disengaging creature but with disadvantage. The argument being if a player is allowed to choose to disengage but disengage is not allowed to be effective then the player's agency is compromised.
any thoughts or answers from the community?
Flyby. The peryton doesn’t provoke an opportunity attack when it flies out of an enemy’s reach.
Sentinel. You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy’s guard, gaining the following benefits:
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
The Flyby isn't a Disengage action.
Professional computer geek
It's pretty straightforward. The flyby does not trigger an AoO when it flies out of reach, therefore sentinel does not kick in. If the player had polearm master, they would get an AoO when it entered their reach, because flyby specifically states "out of an enemy's reach".
Also, nerfing a feat is entirely up to you, but before you do I would recommend allowing the player to change the feat choice to an ASI or a different feat. They chose the feat based on what it does, and you changing it might impact their decision to want to keep it.
That's a tough one. The way I read Sentinel, it counteracts Disengage specifically, not other features that provide similar effect. So with polearm master, cavalier 10, and sentinel you can attack creatures when they enter, leave, or move within your speed, regardless of if they've taken a Disengage action, but not regardless of any other more specific class/racial abilities like Flyby, Skirmisher (Scout 3), Mobile, etc that don't purport to replicate a Disengage action.
I think that Sentinel's mention of Disengage is sufficient to draw that distinction. Alternatively/additionally, I think that general->specific rule of thumb also gets you there. If sentinel says "creatures provoke attacks of opportunity", that's a general effect applying to all creatures moving around them on all creature's turns. An individual creature's racial/class/feat ability that says that that specific creature individually doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity (often within a specific triggering condition, like having made an attack (Mobile), or while flying (Flyby) ) applies only to themselves, and only sometimes, meaning it is more specific and thus controls.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A cavalier 10 w/polearm and sentinel would get the AoO when a creature with flyby entered or moved within their reach, just not as they move out of (as per the flyby feature). Sentinel would make the speed zero, and since perytons have fly and not hover they would drop to the ground. Whether or not they provoke an AoO when they try to fly away in the following round could be a judgement call, as RAW states no AoO when they fly out, but you could argue RAI is when they are airborne and "flying by", not taking off from the ground in front of an enemy.
"A Flyby creature doesn't provoke an opportunity attack when it flies out of a foe's reach. Nothing in the Sentinel feat counters that."
Thanks all
After reviewing the rule and hearing from the community I am ready for the next flyby. I do still see a problem with Sentinel, which can be addressed by stating the disengage action cannot be taken in a turn that provokes an Attack of opportunity from any number of Sentinels and no other creatures. This protects player agency and stays true to the Feat.
Cheers
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Giga, I'm not really following your reasoning on the Sentinel/Disengage rework... I think you're saying that Sentinel just flat out makes Disengage an empty choice for a threatened target, and because empty choices rob agency, Sentinel or Disengage should therefor be nerfed/reworded. However, even if that were true, Sentinel is a player feat not a monster ability, so (barring inter-party PVP) a player will never lose agency in that interaction? If you did give a monster or NPC an ability inspired by Sentinel, you could easily make whatever modifications to the function of that ability you felt necessary, without needing to houserule how Disengage works in such a wide-reaching way.
Also, I don't see how telling a player "you're not allowed to take Disengage" gives them more agency than letting them make that decision themselves, even if suboptimal or "wasted"? It also feels like it would be cumbersome to administer, because it requires plotting out an entire movement path before deciding whether Disengage is a legal action, which isn't really how movement works mechanically.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You have not convinced me there is not a problem. I do think it is minor/edge case but a problem all the same.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
It's your prerogative to address it in any way you see fit. But since this is the rules forum, InquisitiveCoder linked you to a place where your specific question was answered specifically by a rules authority.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is nothing wrong with either Sentinel or Flyby. Sentinel is meant to counter the ability to use Disengage to get away from you. Flyby is meant to avoid drawing Opportunity Attacks completely. If the player takes Sentinel in a campaign featuring a war against a tribe of evil Giant Owls, yes I imagine that player would get frustrated. But by and large, it just means that there will be the rare occurrence where Sentinel doesn't help. And that's ok. Sentinel isn't meant to be useful 100% of the time. If a single character could handle every conceivable situation, adventurers wouldn't travel in parties.