Sorry to revisit this topic, but I do not understand the reasoning as to why it is possible that Mobile wins over Sentinel.
Mobile: • When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’tprovoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest o f the turn, whether you hit or not.
Sentinel: • Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
With Sentinel it seems blatant that any creature leaving your reach WILL PROVOKE an opportunity attack, not "IF they provoke an opportunity attack". When you break down the wording here it seems pretty clear that they contradict each other. Does Mobile win simply because there is no way to 'Cancel them out'? Does Mobile win because it's that players turn?
This seems to me like it is a special reaction instead of an actual AoO because a 'normal' AoO would not be possible in all of the scenarios where Sentinel can be used. Meaning, because Sentinel gives the creature the ability to ignore a requirement of an AoO why is it still restricted to being an AoO? Expanding it further, the PHB states that you do not provoke an opportunity attack if you teleport; would teleporting not provoke an OA from a Sentinel? Does the specificity of the text come into play with this one?
If teleporting or creatures with Mobile do not provoke OAs, then the sole purpose of this aspect of Sentinel would be that using disengage does not work. If this were the case, is this just a wording problem that could have been solved by saying: Creatures within 5 feet of you that take the Disengage action before leaving your reach still provoke opportunity attacks from you.
Sorry to revisit this topic, but I do not understand the reasoning as to why it is possible that Mobile wins over Sentinel.
Mobile: • When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’tprovoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest o f the turn, whether you hit or not.
Sentinel: • Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
With Sentinel it seems blatant that any creature leaving your reach WILL PROVOKE an opportunity attack, not "IF they provoke an opportunity attack". When you break down the wording here it seems pretty clear that they contradict each other. Does Mobile win simply because there is no way to 'Cancel them out'? Does Mobile win because it's that players turn?
This seems to me like it is a special reaction instead of an actual AoO because a 'normal' AoO would not be possible in all of the scenarios where Sentinel can be used. Meaning, because Sentinel gives the creature the ability to ignore a requirement of an AoO why is it still restricted to being an AoO? Expanding it further, the PHB states that you do not provoke an opportunity attack if you teleport; would teleporting not provoke an OA from a Sentinel? Does the specificity of the text come into play with this one?
If teleporting or creatures with Mobile do not provoke OAs, then the sole purpose of this aspect of Sentinel would be that using disengage does not work. If this were the case, is this just a wording problem that could have been solved by saying: Creatures within 5 feet of you that take the Disengage action before leaving your reach still provoke opportunity attacks from you.
Thanks in advance.
Welcome to 5e feats where the wording is woefully imprecise.
The general rule is leaving reach provokes OAs. Disengage allows a creature to not provoke OAs. Sentinel specifically overrides that aspect of Disengage. Other features prevent OAs but aren't Disengage, which is what Sentinel calls out. Since it doesn't mention anything about other features, then it doesn't concern itself with other features like Mobile. Note that mentioning the other features by name wouldn't have been required, just the fact that there were other features that existed that could do that. Mobile existed at the same time Sentinel did, allowing for that wording to be present from the beginning.
Mobile: • When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’tprovoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest o f the turn, whether you hit or not.
Sentinel: • Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
Mobile leaves no room for negotiation. You do not provoke OA, full stop. End of story. You do not do it.
Sentinel overrides the ability to disengage to not provoke. It's very specific. It doesn't ALWAYS enable an OA, it simply says "too bad" to someone trying to use disengage to escape. A swashbuckler similarly will not provoke when it moves away from a character with Sentinel...because the swash is not using the disengage action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sorry to revisit this topic, but I do not understand the reasoning as to why it is possible that Mobile wins over Sentinel.
It's very simple when you pay attention to what each feat actually says it does: Mobile leads to not provoking opportunity attacks from the target at all; there is no direct counter to this. Disengage specifically leads to not provoking opportunity attacks from movement, and Sentinel is a direct counter to this (and only this).
Sentinel only interacts with the Disengage action.
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.
Sorry to revisit this topic, but I do not understand the reasoning as to why it is possible that Mobile wins over Sentinel.
It's very simple when you pay attention to what each feat actually says it does: Mobile leads to not provoking opportunity attacks from the target at all; there is no direct counter to this. Disengage specifically leads to not provoking opportunity attacks from movement, and Sentinel is a direct counter to this (and only this).
Sentinel only interacts with the Disengage action.
I would see Sentinel also interacting with the flurry of blows mechanic allowing the equivalent of a disengage action (drunken master ability) - Sentinel negates anything like disengage action, so in that case Sentinel would trump the monk ability. But I think yeah the Mobile would trump Sentinel because it denies AoO and its the initiating action.
Sorry to revisit this topic, but I do not understand the reasoning as to why it is possible that Mobile wins over Sentinel.
Mobile: • When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’tprovoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest o f the turn, whether you hit or not.
Sentinel: • Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
With Sentinel it seems blatant that any creature leaving your reach WILL PROVOKE an opportunity attack, not "IF they provoke an opportunity attack". When you break down the wording here it seems pretty clear that they contradict each other. Does Mobile win simply because there is no way to 'Cancel them out'? Does Mobile win because it's that players turn?
This seems to me like it is a special reaction instead of an actual AoO because a 'normal' AoO would not be possible in all of the scenarios where Sentinel can be used. Meaning, because Sentinel gives the creature the ability to ignore a requirement of an AoO why is it still restricted to being an AoO? Expanding it further, the PHB states that you do not provoke an opportunity attack if you teleport; would teleporting not provoke an OA from a Sentinel? Does the specificity of the text come into play with this one?
If teleporting or creatures with Mobile do not provoke OAs, then the sole purpose of this aspect of Sentinel would be that using disengage does not work. If this were the case, is this just a wording problem that could have been solved by saying: Creatures within 5 feet of you that take the Disengage action before leaving your reach still provoke opportunity attacks from you.
Thanks in advance.
A comma in the [feat]sentinel[/feat] would cause it to mean what you think, but without the comma "Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach" is a singular statement, which means that the provoking of opportunity attacks is tied to the 'even if they take the disengage action...'. The statement as written doesn't address situations other than when disengage is used (which adds onto the normal opportunity attack rule). Because the mobile feat precludes any opportunity attacks (and the need to disengage), the sentinel rule doesn't apply.
For the interpretation you are using, the statement would need to be written "Creatures (always) provoke opportunity attacks from you (when leaving your reach,) even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach". The changes in parentheses would probably then override the mobile feat, but as written? No.
The sentinel feat does not get the attack of opportunity strike against a creature with the mobile feat that has attacked them that turn. If the mobile character hits someone else next to the Sentinel, -even- if the Sentinel were already attacked by Speedster, then Sentinel can use their reaction to hit the mobile character because that part of the sentinel feat is not an attack of opportunity but a reaction attack. Mobile feat only avoids the attacks of opportunity.
Sorry to revisit this topic, but I do not understand the reasoning as to why it is possible that Mobile wins over Sentinel.
Mobile: • When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’tprovoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest o f the turn, whether you hit or not.
Sentinel: • Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
With Sentinel it seems blatant that any creature leaving your reach WILL PROVOKE an opportunity attack, not "IF they provoke an opportunity attack". When you break down the wording here it seems pretty clear that they contradict each other. Does Mobile win simply because there is no way to 'Cancel them out'? Does Mobile win because it's that players turn?
This seems to me like it is a special reaction instead of an actual AoO because a 'normal' AoO would not be possible in all of the scenarios where Sentinel can be used. Meaning, because Sentinel gives the creature the ability to ignore a requirement of an AoO why is it still restricted to being an AoO? Expanding it further, the PHB states that you do not provoke an opportunity attack if you teleport; would teleporting not provoke an OA from a Sentinel? Does the specificity of the text come into play with this one?
If teleporting or creatures with Mobile do not provoke OAs, then the sole purpose of this aspect of Sentinel would be that using disengage does not work. If this were the case, is this just a wording problem that could have been solved by saying: Creatures within 5 feet of you that take the Disengage action before leaving your reach still provoke opportunity attacks from you.
Thanks in advance.
I get what you're saying, But this is just a mistake in your interpretation.
Using your own interpretation, sentinel would say that everyone within 5 feet of you provokes opportunity attacks, regardless of moving at all. After all, It says "creatures within five feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if: [insert additional clause]"
That would mean that any creature within 5 feet of you always provokes AOO even if they don't move away.
Do you see how silly that sounds? Yes it could be worded clearer, but the intent is obvious, it's meant to say that not only do you gain AOO from all normal sources of things that provoke it, but you ALSO gain it from things that use the Disengage action.
By the same token of your logic, Mobile says "you don't provoke opportunity attacks." So by your ruling wouldn't this mean that you never provoke, regardless of what sentinel says? After all, it's right there in black text. "You don't provoke" why would your interpretation of sentinel take precedence, even if it was correct (It's not)?
No matter how you slice it, Sentinel is an added feature, that does very specific things. One of those things, is countering the disengage action. Not disengage like actions. Not Providing opportunity attacks against any creature within 5 feet regardless of their actions. The second bullet point counters disengage, that's it.
As said before, Fancy Footwork, Mobile, Flyby, and elusive all do something similar without using that mechanic. They are NOT disengage. Thus, sentinel does not work. The third part of sentinel could still work because it triggers from something else, but that's it. It's very VERY simple and I'm honestly not sure why it's still debated.
When there are multiple creatures mixing it up in melee, things are not as clear. In this case, sometimes Sentinel will allow Opportunity Attacks against characters with the Mobile feat or Fancy Footwork...
If a character with the Mobile feat or Fancy Footwork attacks a character with Sentinel then I agree that there is no Opportunity Attack possible from the character with Sentinel (Mobile feat (bullet item 3), Fancy Footwork ("that creature can't make Opportunity Attacks against you for the rest of your turn.")). (However, since both characters have feats that compete, I could see a sympathetic DM allowing an Opportunity Attack with Disadvantage, maybe even after a contest of Athletics/Dex, e.g.)
If a character with the Mobile feat or Fancy Footwork attacks a character/creature, then a different character/creature within 5' and with the Sentinel feat may use their Reaction to make an Attack against them as long as that target character/creature does not also have the Sentinel feat (Sentinel feat (bullet 3).
Relevant parts of each feat or class feature is highlighted below:
Sentinel: You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits:
When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
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. (note that this is not an Opportunity Attack, rather a Reaction Attack)
Mobile: You are exceptionally speedy and agile. You gain the following benefits:
Your speed increases by 10 feet.
When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn't cost you extra movement on that turn.
When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don't provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.
Fancy Footwork, XGE p48:
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you learn how to land a strike and then slip away without reprisal. During your turn, if you make a melee attack against a creature, that creature can't make opportunity attacks against you for the rest of your turn.
The second bullet point of sentinel specifically overcomes the disengage action. If creatures don't provoke opportunity attacks for reasons other than disengage, nothing in sentinel's effects apply.
There are two distinct parts of the Sentinel feat, bullet two:
One is that "creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you."
The second part is "even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."
I already conceded that If a character with the Mobile feat or Fancy Footwork attacks a character with Sentinel then I agree that there is no Opportunity Attack possible from the character with Sentinel (Mobile feat (bullet item 3), Fancy Footwork ("that creature can't make Opportunity Attacks against you for the rest of your turn.")).
Sentinel feat, bullet 3 is the one that is the most important in a multi-character/creature melee, and helps determine which character/creature can be targeted by the player with the Sentinel feat.
If two characters with these feats were fighting would the mobile feats attack and flee tactic be ignored by the sentinel feat or because it's not technically a disengage action would the Mobile feat win out, and the character would get to run away after making their attack?
Secondly, if the mobile feat does win out, would this also apply to swashbucklers Fancy Footwork feature?
I don't see what the point you are making has to do with either of those, so I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. It looks like you have added a condition to the conversation where someone with the mobile feat attacks someone other than the person with the sentinel feat, thereby activating the third bullet point of the sentinel feat.
Initially I started to engage sentinel but the monk player pointed out that mobile would prevent this. After reading the descriptions, there are specific questions I had with mobile stating ‘the turn’ rather than ‘your turn’, and how in the basic rules, rounds and turns mean different things. After a review of this thread, it seems that this specific use of terms had not been addressed. Is ‘turn’ used deliberately, or is it intended to be ‘round’?
I can't speak on RAI, but as written it only applies during the turn you made the attack, so if you use a reaction to move, unless the reaction also prevents opportunity attacks or includes an attack you make against the creature with sentinel, mobile won't help.
I don't think your blanket statement "it's impossible for a character with mobile feat to meet the conditional requirements to trigger OA" is accurate.
Mobile only protects a creature from OA against targets which it attacks with melee.
Situation 1, not exactly relevant because it's not about AO, but worth mentioning in the sentinel vs mobile debate:
Creature 1 has mobile and a shortsword equiped, creature 2 has no feat and a shortsword equiped, creature 3 has sentinel and a shortsword equiped. All are within 5 feet of each other.
Creature 1 attacks creature 2. Creature 3 could use (sentinel) reaction to attack creature 1 - response for attacking creature within range. As I read it, the latter part of sentinel is just a reaction not an AO. Would not trigger the 0 move speed portion of sentinel. If creature 1 then did a 2nd attack on creature 3, it could flee with mobile without triggering an AO from both creature 2 and 3.
Situation 2:
Creature 1 has mobile and a shortsword equiped, creature 2 has no feat and a shortsword equiped, creature 3 has sentinel and a shortsword equiped. All are within 5 feet of each other.
Creature 1 attacks creature 3, then attempts to move away from both creature 2 and 3. Creature 3 would not get to do an AO per mobile, but creature 2 would per basic AO rules and mobile only protecting from AO by targets attacked.
Situation 3
Creature 1 has mobile and a shortsword equiped, creature 2 has polearm master, sentinel, and a halberd (10 ft range) equiped. Creature 1 and 2 are 15 ft apart.
Creature 1 moves toward creature 2 intending to attack then run away without an AO. When creature 1 enters 10 ft range, creature 2 gets an AO per PAM, then creature 1 loses all movement speed per sentinel.
As it's been said before, Sentinel never directly overrides Mobile, since mobile doesn't use Disengage.
However, if the person with mobile makes the mistake of attacking someone else within melee range, from what I understand you can capitalize on this and make an opportunity attack for that reason, and reduce their movement speed to 0 if it lands, thus indirectly undermining Mobile by nullifying their movement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." --Pratchett
As it's been said before, Sentinel never directly overrides Mobile, since mobile doesn't use Disengage.
However, if the person with mobile makes the mistake of attacking someone else within melee range, from what I understand you can capitalize on this and make an opportunity attack for that reason, and reduce their movement speed to 0 if it lands, thus indirectly undermining Mobile by nullifying their movement.
Yes and no.
The sentinel can make an attack with their reaction, but it isn't an opportunity attack, so speed does not become 0.
An opportunity attack is an attack with a reaction, but not all attacks with a reaction are opportunity attacks.
Hypothetically, if it was an opportunity attack, the mobile creature would be able to prevent it by attacking the sentinel first. Since it isn't, that means even if the sentinel was attacked, it can still attack if the mobile creature attacks a nearby ally.
Sorry to revisit this topic, but I do not understand the reasoning as to why it is possible that Mobile wins over Sentinel.
Mobile: • When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest o f the turn, whether you hit or not.
Sentinel: • Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
With Sentinel it seems blatant that any creature leaving your reach WILL PROVOKE an opportunity attack, not "IF they provoke an opportunity attack". When you break down the wording here it seems pretty clear that they contradict each other. Does Mobile win simply because there is no way to 'Cancel them out'? Does Mobile win because it's that players turn?
This seems to me like it is a special reaction instead of an actual AoO because a 'normal' AoO would not be possible in all of the scenarios where Sentinel can be used. Meaning, because Sentinel gives the creature the ability to ignore a requirement of an AoO why is it still restricted to being an AoO?
Expanding it further, the PHB states that you do not provoke an opportunity attack if you teleport; would teleporting not provoke an OA from a Sentinel? Does the specificity of the text come into play with this one?
If teleporting or creatures with Mobile do not provoke OAs, then the sole purpose of this aspect of Sentinel would be that using disengage does not work. If this were the case, is this just a wording problem that could have been solved by saying: Creatures within 5 feet of you that take the Disengage action before leaving your reach still provoke opportunity attacks from you.
Thanks in advance.
Welcome to 5e feats where the wording is woefully imprecise.
The general rule is leaving reach provokes OAs. Disengage allows a creature to not provoke OAs. Sentinel specifically overrides that aspect of Disengage. Other features prevent OAs but aren't Disengage, which is what Sentinel calls out. Since it doesn't mention anything about other features, then it doesn't concern itself with other features like Mobile. Note that mentioning the other features by name wouldn't have been required, just the fact that there were other features that existed that could do that. Mobile existed at the same time Sentinel did, allowing for that wording to be present from the beginning.
Mobile leaves no room for negotiation. You do not provoke OA, full stop. End of story. You do not do it.
Sentinel overrides the ability to disengage to not provoke. It's very specific. It doesn't ALWAYS enable an OA, it simply says "too bad" to someone trying to use disengage to escape. A swashbuckler similarly will not provoke when it moves away from a character with Sentinel...because the swash is not using the disengage action.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It's very simple when you pay attention to what each feat actually says it does: Mobile leads to not provoking opportunity attacks from the target at all; there is no direct counter to this. Disengage specifically leads to not provoking opportunity attacks from movement, and Sentinel is a direct counter to this (and only this).
Sentinel only interacts with the Disengage action.
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 would see Sentinel also interacting with the flurry of blows mechanic allowing the equivalent of a disengage action (drunken master ability) - Sentinel negates anything like disengage action, so in that case Sentinel would trump the monk ability. But I think yeah the Mobile would trump Sentinel because it denies AoO and its the initiating action.
A comma in the [feat]sentinel[/feat] would cause it to mean what you think, but without the comma "Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach" is a singular statement, which means that the provoking of opportunity attacks is tied to the 'even if they take the disengage action...'. The statement as written doesn't address situations other than when disengage is used (which adds onto the normal opportunity attack rule). Because the mobile feat precludes any opportunity attacks (and the need to disengage), the sentinel rule doesn't apply.
For the interpretation you are using, the statement would need to be written "Creatures (always) provoke opportunity attacks from you (when leaving your reach,) even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach". The changes in parentheses would probably then override the mobile feat, but as written? No.
I might be biased, but I think this guy said it well:
The sentinel feat does not get the attack of opportunity strike against a creature with the mobile feat that has attacked them that turn.
If the mobile character hits someone else next to the Sentinel, -even- if the Sentinel were already attacked by Speedster, then Sentinel can use their reaction to hit the mobile character because that part of the sentinel feat is not an attack of opportunity but a reaction attack.
Mobile feat only avoids the attacks of opportunity.
I get what you're saying, But this is just a mistake in your interpretation.
Using your own interpretation, sentinel would say that everyone within 5 feet of you provokes opportunity attacks, regardless of moving at all. After all, It says "creatures within five feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if: [insert additional clause]"
That would mean that any creature within 5 feet of you always provokes AOO even if they don't move away.
Do you see how silly that sounds? Yes it could be worded clearer, but the intent is obvious, it's meant to say that not only do you gain AOO from all normal sources of things that provoke it, but you ALSO gain it from things that use the Disengage action.
By the same token of your logic, Mobile says "you don't provoke opportunity attacks." So by your ruling wouldn't this mean that you never provoke, regardless of what sentinel says? After all, it's right there in black text. "You don't provoke" why would your interpretation of sentinel take precedence, even if it was correct (It's not)?
No matter how you slice it, Sentinel is an added feature, that does very specific things. One of those things, is countering the disengage action. Not disengage like actions. Not Providing opportunity attacks against any creature within 5 feet regardless of their actions. The second bullet point counters disengage, that's it.
As said before, Fancy Footwork, Mobile, Flyby, and elusive all do something similar without using that mechanic. They are NOT disengage. Thus, sentinel does not work. The third part of sentinel could still work because it triggers from something else, but that's it. It's very VERY simple and I'm honestly not sure why it's still debated.
But just in case you're not going to take my word for it, Here's it from the official:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/674056205849899008
When there are multiple creatures mixing it up in melee, things are not as clear. In this case, sometimes Sentinel will allow Opportunity Attacks against characters with the Mobile feat or Fancy Footwork...
If a character with the Mobile feat or Fancy Footwork attacks a character with Sentinel then I agree that there is no Opportunity Attack possible from the character with Sentinel (Mobile feat (bullet item 3), Fancy Footwork ("that creature can't make Opportunity Attacks against you for the rest of your turn.")). (However, since both characters have feats that compete, I could see a sympathetic DM allowing an Opportunity Attack with Disadvantage, maybe even after a contest of Athletics/Dex, e.g.)
If a character with the Mobile feat or Fancy Footwork attacks a character/creature, then a different character/creature within 5' and with the Sentinel feat may use their Reaction to make an Attack against them as long as that target character/creature does not also have the Sentinel feat (Sentinel feat (bullet 3).
Relevant parts of each feat or class feature is highlighted below:
Sentinel: You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits:
Mobile: You are exceptionally speedy and agile. You gain the following benefits:
Fancy Footwork, XGE p48:
The second bullet point of sentinel specifically overcomes the disengage action. If creatures don't provoke opportunity attacks for reasons other than disengage, nothing in sentinel's effects apply.
No.
There are two distinct parts of the Sentinel feat, bullet two:
One is that "creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you."
The second part is "even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."
I already conceded that If a character with the Mobile feat or Fancy Footwork attacks a character with Sentinel then I agree that there is no Opportunity Attack possible from the character with Sentinel (Mobile feat (bullet item 3), Fancy Footwork ("that creature can't make Opportunity Attacks against you for the rest of your turn.")).
Sentinel feat, bullet 3 is the one that is the most important in a multi-character/creature melee, and helps determine which character/creature can be targeted by the player with the Sentinel feat.
Keep in mind, the questions in this thread are:
If two characters with these feats were fighting would the mobile feats attack and flee tactic be ignored by the sentinel feat or because it's not technically a disengage action would the Mobile feat win out, and the character would get to run away after making their attack?
Secondly, if the mobile feat does win out, would this also apply to swashbucklers Fancy Footwork feature?
I don't see what the point you are making has to do with either of those, so I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. It looks like you have added a condition to the conversation where someone with the mobile feat attacks someone other than the person with the sentinel feat, thereby activating the third bullet point of the sentinel feat.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I can't speak on RAI, but as written it only applies during the turn you made the attack, so if you use a reaction to move, unless the reaction also prevents opportunity attacks or includes an attack you make against the creature with sentinel, mobile won't help.
I don't think your blanket statement "it's impossible for a character with mobile feat to meet the conditional requirements to trigger OA" is accurate.
Mobile only protects a creature from OA against targets which it attacks with melee.
Situation 1, not exactly relevant because it's not about AO, but worth mentioning in the sentinel vs mobile debate:
Creature 1 has mobile and a shortsword equiped, creature 2 has no feat and a shortsword equiped, creature 3 has sentinel and a shortsword equiped. All are within 5 feet of each other.
Creature 1 attacks creature 2. Creature 3 could use (sentinel) reaction to attack creature 1 - response for attacking creature within range. As I read it, the latter part of sentinel is just a reaction not an AO. Would not trigger the 0 move speed portion of sentinel. If creature 1 then did a 2nd attack on creature 3, it could flee with mobile without triggering an AO from both creature 2 and 3.
Situation 2:
Creature 1 has mobile and a shortsword equiped, creature 2 has no feat and a shortsword equiped, creature 3 has sentinel and a shortsword equiped. All are within 5 feet of each other.
Creature 1 attacks creature 3, then attempts to move away from both creature 2 and 3. Creature 3 would not get to do an AO per mobile, but creature 2 would per basic AO rules and mobile only protecting from AO by targets attacked.
Situation 3
Creature 1 has mobile and a shortsword equiped, creature 2 has polearm master, sentinel, and a halberd (10 ft range) equiped. Creature 1 and 2 are 15 ft apart.
Creature 1 moves toward creature 2 intending to attack then run away without an AO. When creature 1 enters 10 ft range, creature 2 gets an AO per PAM, then creature 1 loses all movement speed per sentinel.
However mobile counters that by being a specific rule (only those with the feat) versus the general of when leaving your reach.
Specific > General
If the above statement isn't true then the rules will fail.
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
As it's been said before, Sentinel never directly overrides Mobile, since mobile doesn't use Disengage.
However, if the person with mobile makes the mistake of attacking someone else within melee range, from what I understand you can capitalize on this and make an opportunity attack for that reason, and reduce their movement speed to 0 if it lands, thus indirectly undermining Mobile by nullifying their movement.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." --Pratchett
Yes and no.
The sentinel can make an attack with their reaction, but it isn't an opportunity attack, so speed does not become 0.
An opportunity attack is an attack with a reaction, but not all attacks with a reaction are opportunity attacks.
Hypothetically, if it was an opportunity attack, the mobile creature would be able to prevent it by attacking the sentinel first. Since it isn't, that means even if the sentinel was attacked, it can still attack if the mobile creature attacks a nearby ally.
Nice catch. I totally missed that part.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." --Pratchett