Ok I get what your saying but for me when I read the sentinel feat I see it as a 2 part statement. Creatures within 5ft of you provoke opportunity attacks. Then it says even if it uses disengage. To me the "even if" is an example not a limitation. If what your saying about mobile and fancy footwork is true then I don't see the point of sentinel at all as all other conditions would trigger AoO under normal circumstances anyway. The whole point of sentinel would be to cause triggers that normally wouldn't cause them to trigger. I get the argument against teleportation as there is a separate ruling under movement for this. There are a few classes such as the ranger horizon walker that attacks and then teleports but I disagree with mobile and fancy footwork.
I didn't closely read through this whole old thread but the idea is that Sentinel enhances the ability to take opportunity attacks. The general rule is that when a creature moves away from your threatening range you can take an opportunity attack. But that creature can use their action to "Disengage" which prevents you from using that Opportunity Attack because he is sort of retreating while backing up and defending himself. When you have the Sentinel feat, even when a creature tries to retreat while backing up and defending himself (by using their action to Disengage) you can STILL hit that creature with an opportunity attack. That is the point of Sentinel -- that's the trigger that normally wouldn't cause them to trigger, as you put it.
The Mobile and Fancy Footwork features both beat this feat because they "don't provoke" or the enemy "can't take" opportunity attacks. So even if that enemy has Sentinel which gives them a "better" or "more effective" form of opportunity attack ability, if they "can't take" an opportunity attack, it doesn't matter how good of an opportunity attack he has available.
I'm still in shock at how this post needed three pages of back-and-forth considering that, at no point in recorded history, was the language used in either Sentinel or Mobile ever unclear.
Ok I get what your saying but for me when I read the sentinel feat I see it as a 2 part statement. Creatures within 5ft of you provoke opportunity attacks. Then it says even if it uses disengage. To me the "even if" is an example not a limitation.
If you view it as an example, you should be able to take it out of the sentence and it should still make sense.
Turning: "Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."
Into: "Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you."
That doesn't make sense. How? When?
You could argue it should say "Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you before leaving your reach."
But that's just describing how Opportunity Attacks function, so why put it on a feat? That leads me to believe it has to be viewed as a single statement with a condition for application. Otherwise you'd just use the standard Opportunity Attack rules in the PHB. Sentinel's middle bulletin is to counter the Disengage action and only that.
If you want what you say, then it should be written something like: "You may always make an Opportunity Attack against a creature who leaves your reach." The thing with Opportunity Attacks is that it is comprised of two parts: The trigger (leaving your threat reach) and the action/reaction. Disengage usually nullifies the trigger, while Sentinel cancels that out. Mobile/Fancy Footwork disallows the action to take an Opportunity Attack (against them).
@deffdefying: Take a short Google search and you will find that this question has puzzled others. Let people ask questions to learn and hopefully avoid confusion.
Ok I get what your saying but for me when I read the sentinel feat I see it as a 2 part statement. Creatures within 5ft of you provoke opportunity attacks. Then it says even if it uses disengage. To me the "even if" is an example not a limitation.
It's important to note that unless you regularly have PvP in your games or the DM regularly homebrews Sentinel/Mobile/Swashbucklers/Drunken Masters on enemies, these interactions will almost never occur. That is to say, they likely weren't designed with each other in mind. I think what causes the most confusion is that Sentinel separates the opportunity attack rule with the conditional it's affecting.
"Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."
Bold is just restating how the rule for attacks of opportunity work. Italics removes the exception to the original rule that a creature can avoid an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. It doesn't say the player can make an opportunity attack even if the target is under an effect that would normally allow it to ignore opportunity attacks - only if they take the Disengage action to do so.
Mobile, Fancy Footwork, Drunken Technique, Zephyr Strike, Ashardalon's Stride, etc. all supercede the second bullet point of Sentinel. None of them involve the creature "taking the Disengage action". Mobile and Fancy Footwork are a passive benefit of taking the Attack action. Drunken Technique is a passive benefit of using your bonus action to Flurry of Blows. Zephyr Strike and Ashardalon's Stride are a passive benefit of casting those spells. One the other hand, a Rogue using their Cunning Action to Disengage does trigger Sentinel; they're still taking the Disengage action, Cunning Action just changes the timing.
How is this discussion still going on? If you want to rule in your game that Sentinel cancels out Mobile, go for it. But that's not the intent, as clarified by Jeremy Crawford nearly 8 years ago. Sentinel was meant to get past Disengage, not things like Mobile or Fancy Footwork.
Sentinel allows you to OP attack when they disengage.
Mobile cancels OP attacks and doesn't use disengage.
Mobile wins.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok I get what your saying but for me when I read the sentinel feat I see it as a 2 part statement. Creatures within 5ft of you provoke opportunity attacks. Then it says even if it uses disengage. To me the "even if" is an example not a limitation. If what your saying about mobile and fancy footwork is true then I don't see the point of sentinel at all as all other conditions would trigger AoO under normal circumstances anyway. The whole point of sentinel would be to cause triggers that normally wouldn't cause them to trigger. I get the argument against teleportation as there is a separate ruling under movement for this. There are a few classes such as the ranger horizon walker that attacks and then teleports but I disagree with mobile and fancy footwork.
I didn't closely read through this whole old thread but the idea is that Sentinel enhances the ability to take opportunity attacks. The general rule is that when a creature moves away from your threatening range you can take an opportunity attack. But that creature can use their action to "Disengage" which prevents you from using that Opportunity Attack because he is sort of retreating while backing up and defending himself. When you have the Sentinel feat, even when a creature tries to retreat while backing up and defending himself (by using their action to Disengage) you can STILL hit that creature with an opportunity attack. That is the point of Sentinel -- that's the trigger that normally wouldn't cause them to trigger, as you put it.
The Mobile and Fancy Footwork features both beat this feat because they "don't provoke" or the enemy "can't take" opportunity attacks. So even if that enemy has Sentinel which gives them a "better" or "more effective" form of opportunity attack ability, if they "can't take" an opportunity attack, it doesn't matter how good of an opportunity attack he has available.
I'm still in shock at how this post needed three pages of back-and-forth considering that, at no point in recorded history, was the language used in either Sentinel or Mobile ever unclear.
If you view it as an example, you should be able to take it out of the sentence and it should still make sense.
Turning: "Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."
Into: "Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you."
That doesn't make sense. How? When?
You could argue it should say "Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you before leaving your reach."
But that's just describing how Opportunity Attacks function, so why put it on a feat? That leads me to believe it has to be viewed as a single statement with a condition for application. Otherwise you'd just use the standard Opportunity Attack rules in the PHB. Sentinel's middle bulletin is to counter the Disengage action and only that.
If you want what you say, then it should be written something like: "You may always make an Opportunity Attack against a creature who leaves your reach." The thing with Opportunity Attacks is that it is comprised of two parts: The trigger (leaving your threat reach) and the action/reaction. Disengage usually nullifies the trigger, while Sentinel cancels that out. Mobile/Fancy Footwork disallows the action to take an Opportunity Attack (against them).
@deffdefying: Take a short Google search and you will find that this question has puzzled others. Let people ask questions to learn and hopefully avoid confusion.
It's important to note that unless you regularly have PvP in your games or the DM regularly homebrews Sentinel/Mobile/Swashbucklers/Drunken Masters on enemies, these interactions will almost never occur. That is to say, they likely weren't designed with each other in mind. I think what causes the most confusion is that Sentinel separates the opportunity attack rule with the conditional it's affecting.
"Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."
Bold is just restating how the rule for attacks of opportunity work.
Italics removes the exception to the original rule that a creature can avoid an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. It doesn't say the player can make an opportunity attack even if the target is under an effect that would normally allow it to ignore opportunity attacks - only if they take the Disengage action to do so.
Mobile, Fancy Footwork, Drunken Technique, Zephyr Strike, Ashardalon's Stride, etc. all supercede the second bullet point of Sentinel. None of them involve the creature "taking the Disengage action". Mobile and Fancy Footwork are a passive benefit of taking the Attack action. Drunken Technique is a passive benefit of using your bonus action to Flurry of Blows. Zephyr Strike and Ashardalon's Stride are a passive benefit of casting those spells. One the other hand, a Rogue using their Cunning Action to Disengage does trigger Sentinel; they're still taking the Disengage action, Cunning Action just changes the timing.
How is this discussion still going on? If you want to rule in your game that Sentinel cancels out Mobile, go for it. But that's not the intent, as clarified by Jeremy Crawford nearly 8 years ago. Sentinel was meant to get past Disengage, not things like Mobile or Fancy Footwork.
because NOTHING Jeremy Crawford says is actually the real rules, just his opinions. If its not stated in the Erratas his rulings dont mean crap.
I would argue that the lack of an Errata/Sage Advice ruling suggests that they don't consider this something that even needs clarification.
What's the dilemma?
Sentinel allows you to OP attack when they disengage.
Mobile cancels OP attacks and doesn't use disengage.
Mobile wins.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.