So, let's say the fighter in the group has the Sentinel Feat.
When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.
Then the fighter gets swallowed by a purple worm.
Bite.Melee Weapon Attack:+14 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 22 (3d8 + 9) piercing damage. If the target is a Large or smaller creature, it must succeed on a DC 19 Dexterity saving throw or be swallowed by the worm. A swallowed creature is blinded and restrained, it has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the worm, and it takes 21 (6d6) acid damage at the start of each of the worm's turns.
and then the purple worm attacks something else with its tail, does the fighter get to use its reaction to attack the purple worm?
I want to say no, the Fighter does not get to take a Reaction here, but I am not 100% certain.
The Fighter is Blinded & Restrained. Best case scenario for the Fighter would be taking the Reaction attack at disadvantage. That much is certain.
As Matthias mentioned, I also don't see Sentinelexplicitly requiring the Fighter be able to perceive the attack being made. However, I'd bet there's an underlying rule out there (I'm too tired to look too hard, sorry!) stating a character needs to be able to perceive the triggering event. Being able to hear/feel what's happening while inside the worm may also be sufficient.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I want to say no, the Fighter does not get to take a Reaction here, but I am not 100% certain.
The Fighter is Blinded & Restrained. Best case scenario for the Fighter would be taking the Reaction attack at disadvantage. That much is certain.
As Matthias mentioned, I also don't see Sentinelexplicitly requiring the Fighter be able to perceive the attack being made. However, I'd bet there's an underlying rule out there (I'm too tired to look too hard, sorry!) stating a character needs to be able to perceive the triggering event. Being able to hear/feel what's happening while inside the worm may also be sufficient.
I looked in the PHB. No rule requiring you to be aware of what you're reacting to. I, personally, would rule that you have to be aware of something to react to it--unless I was adhering strictly to RAW for the comedic value.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
. . . It looks like Sentinel doesn't require you to be aware of the attack to react to it. Absurd, but RAW.
Here is how I ruled, would you say it is reasonable?
I ruled that I didn't think that was the intention of the Sentinel feat. The intention is to encourage the enemy to attack the person with the sentinel feat by punishing the attacker if they don't. The intention was not to exploit loopholes where the enemy is unable to attack you for various reasons. So, I errata'd the feat to say:
"When a creature within 5 feet of you, that can attack you, makes an attack against a target that does not include you (or does not include a target has this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."
. . . It looks like Sentinel doesn't require you to be aware of the attack to react to it. Absurd, but RAW.
Here is how I ruled, would you say it is reasonable?
I ruled that I didn't think that was the intention of the Sentinel feat. The intention is to encourage the enemy to attack the person with the sentinel feat by punishing the attacker if they don't. The intention was not to exploit loopholes where the enemy is unable to attack you for various reasons. So, I errata'd the feat to say:
"When a creature within 5 feet of you, that can attack you, makes an attack against a target that does not include you (or does not include a target has this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."
I'd say that's reasonable, yeah. I'm rather fond of exploiting edge cases, though, so I'd just rule that you can't react to something you can't perceive and leave Sentinel otherwise unchanged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
. . . It looks like Sentinel doesn't require you to be aware of the attack to react to it. Absurd, but RAW.
Here is how I ruled, would you say it is reasonable?
I ruled that I didn't think that was the intention of the Sentinel feat. The intention is to encourage the enemy to attack the person with the sentinel feat by punishing the attacker if they don't. The intention was not to exploit loopholes where the enemy is unable to attack you for various reasons. So, I errata'd the feat to say:
"When a creature within 5 feet of you, that can attack you, makes an attack against a target that does not include you (or does not include a target has this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."
That's reasonable. Although it does now leave the question of whether a purple worm can attack something it has swallowed. If so, then that would still give the Fighter the attack from Sentinel, albeit still at disadvantage from being blinded/restrained.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
. . . It looks like Sentinel doesn't require you to be aware of the attack to react to it. Absurd, but RAW.
Here is how I ruled, would you say it is reasonable?
I ruled that I didn't think that was the intention of the Sentinel feat. The intention is to encourage the enemy to attack the person with the sentinel feat by punishing the attacker if they don't. The intention was not to exploit loopholes where the enemy is unable to attack you for various reasons. So, I errata'd the feat to say:
"When a creature within 5 feet of you, that can attack you, makes an attack against a target that does not include you (or does not include a target has this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."
That's reasonable. Although it does now leave the question of whether a purple worm can attack something it has swallowed. If so, then that would still give the Fighter the attack from Sentinel, albeit still at disadvantage from being blinded/restrained.
Swallowed creatures have total cover.
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
This maybe should require its own thread, but would the swallowed fighter in the above case count as being within 5ft of the target for sneak attack purposes?
Sneak Attack
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
This maybe should require its own thread, but would the swallowed fighter in the above case can't as being within 5ft of the target for sneak attack purposes?
Again I think technically it would but some DM's require the enemy within 5ft to be threatening the target. I know Matt Mercer does on CR. So a swallowed creature wouldn't be threatening. But RAW yes it would count.
. . . It looks like Sentinel doesn't require you to be aware of the attack to react to it. Absurd, but RAW.
Here is how I ruled, would you say it is reasonable?
I ruled that I didn't think that was the intention of the Sentinel feat. The intention is to encourage the enemy to attack the person with the sentinel feat by punishing the attacker if they don't. The intention was not to exploit loopholes where the enemy is unable to attack you for various reasons. So, I errata'd the feat to say:
"When a creature within 5 feet of you, that can attack you, makes an attack against a target that does not include you (or does not include a target has this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."
That's reasonable. Although it does now leave the question of whether a purple worm can attack something it has swallowed. If so, then that would still give the Fighter the attack from Sentinel, albeit still at disadvantage from being blinded/restrained.
Swallowed creatures have total cover.
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
The Fighter has total cover to everything outside of the purple worm. The worm itself is the target, and it does not have cover.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This maybe should require its own thread, but would the swallowed fighter in the above case can't as being within 5ft of the target for sneak attack purposes?
Again I think technically it would but some DM's require the enemy within 5ft to be threatening the target. I know Matt Mercer does on CR. So a swallowed creature wouldn't be threatening.
"If the worm takes 30 damage or more on a single turn from a creature inside it, the worm must succeed on a DC 21 Constitution saving throw at the end of that turn or regurgitate all swallowed creatures, which fall prone in a space within 10 feet of the worm."
I've let characters make this exact attack in the past and oddly enough with a purple worm (granted it was an undead one controlled by drow). The player argued that it made sense because he could feel the movement of the purple worm as it attacked and that created a vulnerability.
I figured, hey, he's invested in this feat, the rules seem to permit it, and it's a very strange and memorable moment. I say let it happen!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, let's say the fighter in the group has the Sentinel Feat.
Then the fighter gets swallowed by a purple worm.
and then the purple worm attacks something else with its tail, does the fighter get to use its reaction to attack the purple worm?
. . . It looks like Sentinel doesn't require you to be aware of the attack to react to it. Absurd, but RAW.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I want to say no, the Fighter does not get to take a Reaction here, but I am not 100% certain.
The Fighter is Blinded & Restrained. Best case scenario for the Fighter would be taking the Reaction attack at disadvantage. That much is certain.
As Matthias mentioned, I also don't see Sentinel explicitly requiring the Fighter be able to perceive the attack being made. However, I'd bet there's an underlying rule out there (I'm too tired to look too hard, sorry!) stating a character needs to be able to perceive the triggering event. Being able to hear/feel what's happening while inside the worm may also be sufficient.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I looked in the PHB. No rule requiring you to be aware of what you're reacting to. I, personally, would rule that you have to be aware of something to react to it--unless I was adhering strictly to RAW for the comedic value.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Here is how I ruled, would you say it is reasonable?
I ruled that I didn't think that was the intention of the Sentinel feat. The intention is to encourage the enemy to attack the person with the sentinel feat by punishing the attacker if they don't. The intention was not to exploit loopholes where the enemy is unable to attack you for various reasons. So, I errata'd the feat to say:
"When a creature within 5 feet of you, that can attack you, makes an attack against a target that does not include you (or does not include a target has this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."
I'd say that's reasonable, yeah. I'm rather fond of exploiting edge cases, though, so I'd just rule that you can't react to something you can't perceive and leave Sentinel otherwise unchanged.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
That's reasonable. Although it does now leave the question of whether a purple worm can attack something it has swallowed. If so, then that would still give the Fighter the attack from Sentinel, albeit still at disadvantage from being blinded/restrained.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Swallowed creatures have total cover.
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
This maybe should require its own thread, but would the swallowed fighter in the above case count as being within 5ft of the target for sneak attack purposes?
Again I think technically it would but some DM's require the enemy within 5ft to be threatening the target. I know Matt Mercer does on CR. So a swallowed creature wouldn't be threatening.
But RAW yes it would count.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
The Fighter has total cover to everything outside of the purple worm. The worm itself is the target, and it does not have cover.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
"If the worm takes 30 damage or more on a single turn from a creature inside it, the worm must succeed on a DC 21 Constitution saving throw at the end of that turn or regurgitate all swallowed creatures, which fall prone in a space within 10 feet of the worm."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I've let characters make this exact attack in the past and oddly enough with a purple worm (granted it was an undead one controlled by drow). The player argued that it made sense because he could feel the movement of the purple worm as it attacked and that created a vulnerability.
I figured, hey, he's invested in this feat, the rules seem to permit it, and it's a very strange and memorable moment. I say let it happen!