RAW, a person with the Sentinel Feat can use ANY weapon to perform an Opportunity attack that will stop ANY sized creature. So the Str 8 Rogue with a Dagger can perform an attack of opportunity (with the Sentinel Feat) on a passing T-Rex and reduce their Move to 0.
I think the Sentinel Feat needs to have a cap based on either the relative Size of the target (+1 so a Medium-sized PC can stop a Large creature but not a Huge one) or relative Strength (+6 or so so the Rogue mentioned earlier can use position and leverage to stop a Str 14 target but not a stronger one).
I see what you're saying, but you could also come up with an in-game reason for why it works the way it does. The dinosaur may not consider the rogue worth eating and leave to go after a more attractive morsel. When the rogue makes the opportunity attack and hits with the dagger to wound the dinosaur, it stops, turns around, and attacks the rogue instead.
There’s a lot of D&D that doesn’t make sense if you think about it too much. Maybe this just falls under that heading. And in practical terms, I can’t imagine many rogues wanting to spend a feat slot to take this. They want to hit and bonus action disengage to run away, not force the bad guy to stay next to them. Most characters that want to stop enemy movement, at least force enemies to stay adjacent to them, are tanks anyway, just the sort who would be able to stop someone.
RAW, a person with the Sentinel Feat can use ANY weapon to perform an Opportunity attack that will stop ANY sized creature. So the Str 8 Rogue with a Dagger can perform an attack of opportunity (with the Sentinel Feat) on a passing T-Rex and reduce their Move to 0.
I think the Sentinel Feat needs to have a cap based on either the relative Size of the target (+1 so a Medium-sized PC can stop a Large creature but not a Huge one) or relative Strength (+6 or so so the Rogue mentioned earlier can use position and leverage to stop a Str 14 target but not a stronger one).
like a contested check? your attack mod vs their athletics/acrobatics that they roll at disadvantage?
If it bothers you, a size cap would be good. Or the DM could introduce a trait for particularly burly/chonky critters to represent their power. Something like
"Unstoppable. The creature's movement cannot be reduced by any nonmagical effect originating from creatures of size [X] or smaller. If grappled, the grappling creature moves with the Unstoppable creature rather than reducing its movement to zero."
Just a first pass thing, and there's so many edge cases to worry about, but it'd be a start for DMs who're looking to systematically address the whole grappling/Sentinel issue.
If it bothers you, a size cap would be good. Or the DM could introduce a trait for particularly burly/chonky critters to represent their power. Something like
"Unstoppable. The creature's movement cannot be reduced by any nonmagical effect originating from creatures of size [X] or smaller. If grappled, the grappling creature moves with the Unstoppable creature rather than reducing its movement to zero."
Just a first pass thing, and there's so many edge cases to worry about, but it'd be a start for DMs who're looking to systematically address the whole grappling/Sentinel issue.
I like this idea. It takes care of a lot of cases (your Grappling example being one). It also means that spells aren't affected since it specifies non-magical.
One the first part, could a 8 strength rogue stop a T-rex? Sure. The rogue slashes their blade across the tendons or hamstring equivalents with sudden pain, and then that the beast stops. Its not a feat about strength (there is no requirement for it as a point) pain, distraction, being functionally dazed by a blow to the head are all that matter. I'm not saying its a good idea to stop them...cut and run would be my preference if I were that rogue.
As far as the unstoppable; I like the concept (the name is already used, with a different function on Death's Head of Bhaal as an FYI, but who cares) for something like a construct that feels no pain and the like. But I would be cautious in overusing it. The player took the feat for a reason, and to water it down might come across poorly.
Besides, to mess up the use of Sentinel is easy; Two ways: First use more than one attacker. It only works on a opportunity attack, which costs a reaction, which you can use only once a round. The nice thing is now the player has to choose who to strike. The second way are creatures or weapons with reach, that never are within 5' of the sentinel to start with, and so it never triggers.
One the first part, could a 8 strength rogue stop a T-rex? Sure. The rogue slashes their blade across the tendons or hamstring equivalents with sudden pain, and then that the beast stops. Its not a feat about strength (there is no requirement for it as a point) pain, distraction, being functionally dazed by a blow to the head are all that matter. I'm not saying its a good idea to stop them...cut and run would be my preference if I were that rogue.
As far as the unstoppable; I like the concept (the name is already used, with a different function on Death's Head of Bhaal as an FYI, but who cares) for something like a construct that feels no pain and the like. But I would be cautious in overusing it. The player took the feat for a reason, and to water it down might come across poorly.
Besides, to mess up the use of Sentinel is easy; Two ways: First use more than one attacker. It only works on a opportunity attack, which costs a reaction, which you can use only once a round. The nice thing is now the player has to choose who to strike. The second way are creatures or weapons with reach, that never are within 5' of the sentinel to start with, and so it never triggers.
Many of the character builds that I've seen that use Sentinel also use Polearm Master (for the additional reach). The point is not figuring out how to defeat Sentinel because ranged attacks do that. The issue is that the Feat has no built-in limits with regard to the size or strength of the enemy being stopped. This can make any character with the Sentinel Feat able to stop ANY enemy with ANY weapon.
I will likely house rule this so that characters with the Feat can stop enemies up to their size with any weapon and up to 2 sizes larger with a polearm. This means that nobody can stop the Tarrasque without magic which IMHO is how it should be.
Many of the character builds that I've seen that use Sentinel also use Polearm Master (for the additional reach). The point is not figuring out how to defeat Sentinel because ranged attacks do that. The issue is that the Feat has no built-in limits with regard to the size or strength of the enemy being stopped. This can make any character with the Sentinel Feat able to stop ANY enemy with ANY weapon.
I will likely house rule this so that characters with the Feat can stop enemies up to their size with any weapon and up to 2 sizes larger with a polearm. This means that nobody can stop the Tarrasque without magic which IMHO is how it should be.
And that is a valid opinion; if you think it is being abused, that is a way to solve it.
The reason I disagree that it is an issue however, because the feat is used at my table pretty consistently and I don't have any issues with it. I think the solution for specific monsters with a trait is a better idea for certain opponents; I like it for constructs as I said before. But, the idea that strength is the only way that the feat works I argue is not the way to look at something that is an abstract ability. A monk that has it, would look for a nerve strike. A painful jab with a blade is the same. A sudden poke in the eye. The how is irrelevant, which is why Sentinel in my opinion doesn't have a stat requisite; because it doesn't matter. The polearm rule, actually devalues the feat for non-polearm users. Polearm Master and Sentinel are powerful enough now; why make Sentinel less valuable without it? I believe it limits options for the non-polearm users , for the reasons I mention above.
Because in the end, do I care if a rogue used it to distract a tarrasquej with a painful jab? No. The rogue is likely the next target then, and the problem solves itself in a round. And I personally disagree that the Tarrasque cannot be distracted from moving with pain/annoyance. Pick a Godzilla movie where the annoying humans distract the monster all the time.
This really isn't a "I'm right, you're wrong" post. It is your table, and if the scenario is one that you and players believes to violate 'suspension of disbelief,' then go ahead and use it. If anything, I am just unclear why this is a major problem at your table that you need a rule for it. And that's my issue, not yours.
Many of the character builds that I've seen that use Sentinel also use Polearm Master (for the additional reach). The point is not figuring out how to defeat Sentinel because ranged attacks do that. The issue is that the Feat has no built-in limits with regard to the size or strength of the enemy being stopped. This can make any character with the Sentinel Feat able to stop ANY enemy with ANY weapon.
I will likely house rule this so that characters with the Feat can stop enemies up to their size with any weapon and up to 2 sizes larger with a polearm. This means that nobody can stop the Tarrasque without magic which IMHO is how it should be.
And that is a valid opinion; if you think it is being abused, that is a way to solve it.
The reason I disagree that it is an issue however, because the feat is used at my table pretty consistently and I don't have any issues with it. I think the solution for specific monsters with a trait is a better idea for certain opponents; I like it for constructs as I said before. But, the idea that strength is the only way that the feat works I argue is not the way to look at something that is an abstract ability. A monk that has it, would look for a nerve strike. A painful jab with a blade is the same. A sudden poke in the eye. The how is irrelevant, which is why Sentinel in my opinion doesn't have a stat requisite; because it doesn't matter. The polearm rule, actually devalues the feat for non-polearm users. Polearm Master and Sentinel are powerful enough now; why make Sentinel less valuable without it? I believe it limits options for the non-polearm users , for the reasons I mention above.
Because in the end, do I care if a rogue used it to distract a tarrasquej with a painful jab? No. The rogue is likely the next target then, and the problem solves itself in a round. And I personally disagree that the Tarrasque cannot be distracted from moving with pain/annoyance. Pick a Godzilla movie where the annoying humans distract the monster all the time.
This really isn't a "I'm right, you're wrong" post. It is your table, and if the scenario is one that you and players believes to violate 'suspension of disbelief,' then go ahead and use it. If anything, I am just unclear why this is a major problem at your table that you need a rule for it. And that's my issue, not yours.
GLHF
I only want to comment on your Godzilla movie reference.
thats a movie.
fiction. Not realistic. SCRIPTED.
2 guys are fighting. Guy A pulls a gun on guy B and is trying to load it. Is guy B going to stop and chase after Guy C who throws a strawberry at him? Or his guy B going to deal with guy A? In your Godzilla movie scenario the answer is “deal with the strawberry thrower, he’s a bigger threat!”
as to the OP. I always like to remind players that anything they can do enemies can do too. And allow them to powergame, if that’s how they enjoy playing it, but they wave their right to complain if something powergame-y happens back to them.
Wait...and Dungeons and Dragons IS realistic? I was comparing a fantasy scenario (the Tarrasque) to a fantasy scenario (Godzilla). The whole Sentinel feat is a fiction; a construct for a fantasy game. It isn't realistic either.
So your statement applies to D&D as well; its fiction, not realistic and the DM has as script. The only difference is that the player impacts it.
But back on the game; your last comment is however dead on both counts. What the players can do, the opponents should be able to do. Whether they do, is a DM's call, but the potential is always there.
I had my fighter with polearm mastery and sentinel poke a kraken and its speed became zero as per RAW.
I agree with the statement that the feat needs to have a cap on size of creature it effects, because that's just silly.
Sillier than a high level fighter getting mauled by a dragon for 100 hp and not dying? Sillier than shooting exploding balls of fire out of your hand or raising the dead or shapeshifting into a dinosaur?
Other classes get magical class abilities that completely break physics, it’s not too far to let folks that take a feat have something that bends it a little.
Sentinal Feat says "You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard" it is nothing about overpowering the enemy but catching them off guard. I would say that a rogues sneak attack fits into this possibly better than a fighter,
Given that reducing the enemies speed to 0 is dependent on hitting it if there was a limie it would make more sense to be based on damage caused (possibly against the enemies total HP) If the rogue has sneak attack his dagger is likely to do more damage than the fighter / barb with strength 20
Rogue: "I stop his movement with a slash of my magical dagger!"
DM: "No, you're too small and weak. It ignores you."
Wizard: "I cast hold monster!"
* Monster fails check *
DM: "The beast is completely paralyzed. Nice work. Wizards are the best. Have 10k extra xp and Inspiration!"
Martial classes are experts at what they train to do. Sentinel is no different than a spell and should be given the same respect. If it seems hard to visualize, consider it's due to a failure of your imagination rather than a flaw in the rules of the game.
When DM'ing, with this situation, I typically rule with grapple rules: if the target is if the target is 2 sizes larger than you, it does not work. However. As with all rulings, if the player can think of an in character (and hopefully super cool) way of making this work then I would gladly allow it (which is pretty much how I handle all ruling disputes lol). I'd much rather have the players give their characters an awesome hero-moment than just allowing the rule for RAW's sake.
For me as a DM, the issue isn't so much that a player can stop A creature, it's that they can stop ANY creature, all the time. This means that fights very quickly degenerate into "Surround and Pound".
Now once in a while, that's fine- I mean it's going to happen sentinel or not. But if we are designing a battle to be more interesting and exciting than an exchange of die rolls, this becomes an issue- ESPECIALLY if you have a campaign premise based on large, mobile monsters.
Feats already have a great design feature in that they typically have 3 features. Sure, maybe one of them doesn't come up during a session, but you can bet that one of the others probably will. I don't think it's a problem taking steps to ensure that this isn't a constant issue. In some fights, it's still super relevant, but sometimes it just doesn't apply.
I think more of the question should be around how you address this. Do we give certain large and powerful monsters an ability that lets them get past this? And if you do, I think that your players are going to need to accept this- for example if you give it to the Tarrasque or Ancient dragons- that you as a GM have seen it necessary to add this to a stat block. We don't need "Immunity to Sentinel", but rather a feature that means that movement-reducing effects are less effective against it.
I had a situation the other day where a character jumped off a flying mount and onto a flying dragon, successfully grappling it. Now technically if you grapple a creature it reduces its speed to 0. But is that really applicable here? My players accepted that I said it would half it's movement instead.
I wonder if that isn't a better compromise- it works with reduced effect against creatures of a certain level of strength.
The last ability HALT of should not stop movement for a creature of any size. All explanations ive ever heard sound forced to make it work when you consider the attack is on a giant or winged monster. Even Grappling you may not Pin a creature larger than yourself. Lastly the ability HALT is also very gamey like playing Warcraft rather than trying to emulate a combat feat based on special training, like most do. Im rather pleased with most revisions of feats 1dd has done bit this remains a sore spot for me. Sentinal HALT should really be revised with something else or perhaps interact with grappling in some way to ground how this ability works rather that leave it to the infinite imagination.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
RAW, a person with the Sentinel Feat can use ANY weapon to perform an Opportunity attack that will stop ANY sized creature. So the Str 8 Rogue with a Dagger can perform an attack of opportunity (with the Sentinel Feat) on a passing T-Rex and reduce their Move to 0.
I think the Sentinel Feat needs to have a cap based on either the relative Size of the target (+1 so a Medium-sized PC can stop a Large creature but not a Huge one) or relative Strength (+6 or so so the Rogue mentioned earlier can use position and leverage to stop a Str 14 target but not a stronger one).
I see what you're saying, but you could also come up with an in-game reason for why it works the way it does. The dinosaur may not consider the rogue worth eating and leave to go after a more attractive morsel. When the rogue makes the opportunity attack and hits with the dagger to wound the dinosaur, it stops, turns around, and attacks the rogue instead.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There’s a lot of D&D that doesn’t make sense if you think about it too much. Maybe this just falls under that heading.
And in practical terms, I can’t imagine many rogues wanting to spend a feat slot to take this. They want to hit and bonus action disengage to run away, not force the bad guy to stay next to them. Most characters that want to stop enemy movement, at least force enemies to stay adjacent to them, are tanks anyway, just the sort who would be able to stop someone.
A rogue swashbuckler works well with sentinel. If you have that 1 enemy near you, you want to keep them there and keep that sweet sweet sneak attack.
like a contested check? your attack mod vs their athletics/acrobatics that they roll at disadvantage?
something like that?
Watch me on twitch
If it bothers you, a size cap would be good. Or the DM could introduce a trait for particularly burly/chonky critters to represent their power. Something like
"Unstoppable. The creature's movement cannot be reduced by any nonmagical effect originating from creatures of size [X] or smaller. If grappled, the grappling creature moves with the Unstoppable creature rather than reducing its movement to zero."
Just a first pass thing, and there's so many edge cases to worry about, but it'd be a start for DMs who're looking to systematically address the whole grappling/Sentinel issue.
Please do not contact or message me.
I like this idea. It takes care of a lot of cases (your Grappling example being one). It also means that spells aren't affected since it specifies non-magical.
One the first part, could a 8 strength rogue stop a T-rex? Sure. The rogue slashes their blade across the tendons or hamstring equivalents with sudden pain, and then that the beast stops. Its not a feat about strength (there is no requirement for it as a point) pain, distraction, being functionally dazed by a blow to the head are all that matter. I'm not saying its a good idea to stop them...cut and run would be my preference if I were that rogue.
As far as the unstoppable; I like the concept (the name is already used, with a different function on Death's Head of Bhaal as an FYI, but who cares) for something like a construct that feels no pain and the like. But I would be cautious in overusing it. The player took the feat for a reason, and to water it down might come across poorly.
Besides, to mess up the use of Sentinel is easy; Two ways: First use more than one attacker. It only works on a opportunity attack, which costs a reaction, which you can use only once a round. The nice thing is now the player has to choose who to strike. The second way are creatures or weapons with reach, that never are within 5' of the sentinel to start with, and so it never triggers.
Many of the character builds that I've seen that use Sentinel also use Polearm Master (for the additional reach). The point is not figuring out how to defeat Sentinel because ranged attacks do that. The issue is that the Feat has no built-in limits with regard to the size or strength of the enemy being stopped. This can make any character with the Sentinel Feat able to stop ANY enemy with ANY weapon.
I will likely house rule this so that characters with the Feat can stop enemies up to their size with any weapon and up to 2 sizes larger with a polearm. This means that nobody can stop the Tarrasque without magic which IMHO is how it should be.
And that is a valid opinion; if you think it is being abused, that is a way to solve it.
The reason I disagree that it is an issue however, because the feat is used at my table pretty consistently and I don't have any issues with it. I think the solution for specific monsters with a trait is a better idea for certain opponents; I like it for constructs as I said before. But, the idea that strength is the only way that the feat works I argue is not the way to look at something that is an abstract ability. A monk that has it, would look for a nerve strike. A painful jab with a blade is the same. A sudden poke in the eye. The how is irrelevant, which is why Sentinel in my opinion doesn't have a stat requisite; because it doesn't matter. The polearm rule, actually devalues the feat for non-polearm users. Polearm Master and Sentinel are powerful enough now; why make Sentinel less valuable without it? I believe it limits options for the non-polearm users , for the reasons I mention above.
Because in the end, do I care if a rogue used it to distract a tarrasquej with a painful jab? No. The rogue is likely the next target then, and the problem solves itself in a round. And I personally disagree that the Tarrasque cannot be distracted from moving with pain/annoyance. Pick a Godzilla movie where the annoying humans distract the monster all the time.
This really isn't a "I'm right, you're wrong" post. It is your table, and if the scenario is one that you and players believes to violate 'suspension of disbelief,' then go ahead and use it. If anything, I am just unclear why this is a major problem at your table that you need a rule for it. And that's my issue, not yours.
GLHF
If your players are ok with it, there's no issue. But don't blindside the players with it if they aren't expecting it.
I only want to comment on your Godzilla movie reference.
thats a movie.
fiction. Not realistic. SCRIPTED.
2 guys are fighting. Guy A pulls a gun on guy B and is trying to load it. Is guy B going to stop and chase after Guy C who throws a strawberry at him? Or his guy B going to deal with guy A? In your Godzilla movie scenario the answer is “deal with the strawberry thrower, he’s a bigger threat!”
as to the OP. I always like to remind players that anything they can do enemies can do too. And allow them to powergame, if that’s how they enjoy playing it, but they wave their right to complain if something powergame-y happens back to them.
Watch me on twitch
Wait...and Dungeons and Dragons IS realistic? I was comparing a fantasy scenario (the Tarrasque) to a fantasy scenario (Godzilla). The whole Sentinel feat is a fiction; a construct for a fantasy game. It isn't realistic either.
So your statement applies to D&D as well; its fiction, not realistic and the DM has as script. The only difference is that the player impacts it.
But back on the game; your last comment is however dead on both counts. What the players can do, the opponents should be able to do. Whether they do, is a DM's call, but the potential is always there.
GLHF
I had my fighter with polearm mastery and sentinel poke a kraken and its speed became zero as per RAW.
I agree with the statement that the feat needs to have a cap on size of creature it effects, because that's just silly.
Sillier than a high level fighter getting mauled by a dragon for 100 hp and not dying? Sillier than shooting exploding balls of fire out of your hand or raising the dead or shapeshifting into a dinosaur?
Other classes get magical class abilities that completely break physics, it’s not too far to let folks that take a feat have something that bends it a little.
Sentinal Feat says "You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard" it is nothing about overpowering the enemy but catching them off guard. I would say that a rogues sneak attack fits into this possibly better than a fighter,
Given that reducing the enemies speed to 0 is dependent on hitting it if there was a limie it would make more sense to be based on damage caused (possibly against the enemies total HP) If the rogue has sneak attack his dagger is likely to do more damage than the fighter / barb with strength 20
Rogue: "I stop his movement with a slash of my magical dagger!"
DM: "No, you're too small and weak. It ignores you."
Wizard: "I cast hold monster!"
* Monster fails check *
DM: "The beast is completely paralyzed. Nice work. Wizards are the best. Have 10k extra xp and Inspiration!"
Martial classes are experts at what they train to do. Sentinel is no different than a spell and should be given the same respect. If it seems hard to visualize, consider it's due to a failure of your imagination rather than a flaw in the rules of the game.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
When DM'ing, with this situation, I typically rule with grapple rules: if the target is if the target is 2 sizes larger than you, it does not work. However. As with all rulings, if the player can think of an in character (and hopefully super cool) way of making this work then I would gladly allow it (which is pretty much how I handle all ruling disputes lol). I'd much rather have the players give their characters an awesome hero-moment than just allowing the rule for RAW's sake.
For me as a DM, the issue isn't so much that a player can stop A creature, it's that they can stop ANY creature, all the time. This means that fights very quickly degenerate into "Surround and Pound".
Now once in a while, that's fine- I mean it's going to happen sentinel or not. But if we are designing a battle to be more interesting and exciting than an exchange of die rolls, this becomes an issue- ESPECIALLY if you have a campaign premise based on large, mobile monsters.
Feats already have a great design feature in that they typically have 3 features. Sure, maybe one of them doesn't come up during a session, but you can bet that one of the others probably will. I don't think it's a problem taking steps to ensure that this isn't a constant issue. In some fights, it's still super relevant, but sometimes it just doesn't apply.
I think more of the question should be around how you address this. Do we give certain large and powerful monsters an ability that lets them get past this? And if you do, I think that your players are going to need to accept this- for example if you give it to the Tarrasque or Ancient dragons- that you as a GM have seen it necessary to add this to a stat block. We don't need "Immunity to Sentinel", but rather a feature that means that movement-reducing effects are less effective against it.
I had a situation the other day where a character jumped off a flying mount and onto a flying dragon, successfully grappling it. Now technically if you grapple a creature it reduces its speed to 0. But is that really applicable here? My players accepted that I said it would half it's movement instead.
I wonder if that isn't a better compromise- it works with reduced effect against creatures of a certain level of strength.
The last ability HALT of should not stop movement for a creature of any size. All explanations ive ever heard sound forced to make it work when you consider the attack is on a giant or winged monster. Even Grappling you may not Pin a creature larger than yourself. Lastly the ability HALT is also very gamey like playing Warcraft rather than trying to emulate a combat feat based on special training, like most do. Im rather pleased with most revisions of feats 1dd has done bit this remains a sore spot for me. Sentinal HALT should really be revised with something else or perhaps interact with grappling in some way to ground how this ability works rather that leave it to the infinite imagination.