[REDACTED]. Again, it is RAW that all you can choose is the order in which they happen. Lets not forget two important parts to reactions:
"A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's."
"If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."
Along with a point about sentinel: "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn." (That is the entire bullet point.)
Between these, there is a trigger, it causes the reaction. The reaction bit is not the creature's turn, and the creature's speed is 0 "for the rest of the turn" which does not resume until after the reactions are arbitrated.
Reactions
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this section, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
Edit: added entire relevant rule to show that I haven't taken anything out of context.
Notes: Please keep personal conversation to Private Messages.
"A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's."
"If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."
The reaction starts when the trigger occurs and does not end until the AoO is resolved. It interrupts the turn. Any other reading may use the words of the rules but doesn't account for how they are written.
The reactions that happen at the same time are ordered by the player whose turn it is.
In order to follow your line of reasoning you need to prove:
The same movement does not trigger both reactions. (I will point out that if you are making this argument, then it is the reactions that you get to order, not the trigger, since it is a single event, and that if the same movement didn't trigger both AoOs, then they wouldn't be simultaneous anyway.)
The effect that sentinel provides that applies to the target's turn somehow preemptively prevents the target from taking opportunity attacks before that effect applies.
Either reaction somehow breaks the timing on opportunity attacks (the attack occurs while the target is still within reach).
The reactions that happen at the same time are ordered by the player whose turn it is.
In order to follow your line of reasoning you need to prove:
The same movement does not trigger both reactions. (I will point out that if you are making this argument, then it is the reactions that you get to order, not the trigger, since it is a single event)
The effect that sentinel provides that applies to the target's turn somehow preemptively prevents the target from taking opportunity attacks before that effect applies.
Either reaction somehow breaks the timing on opportunity attacks (the attack occurs while the target is still within reach).
In other words, how can the creature choose between two potential OAs if the trigger for both OAs didn't occur?
It's weird to say, something happened to make a creature choose between two things but now the thing that made them choose didn't occur. The example with the dimension door is not the same same as sentinel, it's closer to the creature dying from the first attack in that the creature just isn't there. Someone brought up invisibility earlier. Turning invisible wouldn't negate the second attack, but it would make that attack have disadvantage. Why? Because that's what happens with attacks against creatures you can't see. The benefit of the Xanathar rule for the creature is that it can use to be attacked by the less imposing creature first, which would trigger the invisibility response if it relied upon either an attack against it or being hit (thus a reaction, not as an action or bonus action). This means that the burlier creature would be more likely to miss.
He should have let both attacks happen. In the future if the same situation occurs just have an agreement with the other player that you will take the first op attack and then after you take your reaction he can take his. Since the attacks are supposed to happen simultaneously he should have let them happen, but if he is saying the sentinel hit was before yours just make sure that doesn't happen in the future as a player.
He should have let both attacks happen. In the future if the same situation occurs just have an agreement with the other player that you will take the first op attack and then after you take your reaction he can take his. Since the attacks are supposed to happen simultaneously he should have let them happen, but if he is saying the sentinel hit was before yours just make sure that doesn't happen in the future as a player.
It may not be possible since the target of the multiple triggers/effects gets to choose the order. This means that the DM would be able to choose and may continually choose the metagame option. Personally, that's why I would have chosen the initiative bonus as the tie breaker for this scenario since I could always be consistent and have a rational reason for it- the character's reflexes. Mind you, this would not be their initiative order necessarily since the initiative bonus is more static than the initiative order. If that was the same, then dex bonus. Since that would more than likely be the same, proximity would be another tie breaker.
Players or whomever is controlling the creature decides, not up to the DM. If a creature is moving out of melee and triggers op attacks, it triggers op attacks, period. It's not a paradox as the movement was initiated and everything is triggered. If the DM is being stubborn, then take it into your own hands and decide between the players who attacks first. It's splitting hairs really, as technically the DM could be make the argument that the sentinel hit first but should have allowed it as they could have just decided to go in the opposite order and get both attacks. The DM is being nit picky, just take it out of his hands.
The OA clearly triggers simultaneously for all combatants, and your DM was wrong. Obviously arguing at the table is wrong, but we’re on a rules forum, and the correct answer is that it triggered an opportunity attack from both of you, and triggers don’t ‘un-trigger’ merely because the other guy rolled first.
I do not get to say this entire phrase very often: CC is completely right, and I agree with them 100%.
Both reactions are triggered. OAs occur before a creature leaves their square. The thematic description of an OA is an opening in the creature's defense as they prepare to flee, not from the movement itself. The creature turns their back, and the PCs get their shots in. It doesn't matter if they don't actually move on a grid as the OAs are resolved; both happen.
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 you're saying that scenario A which we've all been discussing (enemy leaves two PCs reach at the same moment, triggering an OA from each simultaneously) must be arbitrated in a way that is the same as scenario B (enemy leaves two PCs reach at different moments, not triggering an OA from each simulatenously), then... congratulations, you've moved the goalposts, because no one has been talking about that scenario this entire time.
You're trying very hard to work backwards from a conclusion (when a creature gets hit by Sentinel and has their speed set to 0, they haven't moved, and haven't triggered an OA!) which has no textual support, and it's requiring you to come up with all sorts of torturous twists of reasoning. When a creature's opportunity attack is triggered, it is triggered without respect to whether any other creature in the universe might have also had their OA triggered. Creature A and Creature B are within 5 feet of each other. Creature B moves to 10 feet away, triggering an Opportunity Attack from Creature A. I do not see how in good faith you can argue that that is not true on its face.
Interjecting that - surprised! - there's also a Creature C whose Opportunity Attack was triggered, and Creature B has chosen to let C take a swing at them first! changes nothing about the truth of the earlier statement that Creature A was triggered. Creature A doesn't have forgiveness in his heart, once he's entitled to an OA, he's going to take it, regardless of whether B apologizes, is punished by C, gets it legs chopped off and stops moving any further, whatever... it's too late, A has all the permission it needs to make its OA and there's no takebacks.
XGtE says you can re-order things other than effects too? Because I certainly wouldn't call leaving a threatened area an effect.
Presumably, the "effect" in this discussion is "the provocation (or reception, I guess?) of an attack of opportunity."
I don't think that is what the poster meant, since the post says something about "...would happen simultaneously would not be the AoO (which are already a consequence), it would be leaving the reach of both creatures."
The post certainly seems to indicate that the effect here is the course of action that the character does to provoke (cause) the opportunity attacks.
Alright, let me see if I have tracked all of this correctly:
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲 🔲🔲🔲🟥🔲 🔲🧝♀️🦹🔲🔲 🔲🧟♂️🧟♀️🔲🔲 🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲
If the Warlock player declares that their character will move to the space represented by the red square to get out of melee with the Elf and the two Zombies, then it fulfills the requirement for all three enemies to use their Reactions to take opportunity attacks against the Warlock.
If the Elf has the Sentinel Feat, they can stop the Warlock’s movement.
Because of the rules in Xanathar’s (which are entirely optional I might add), then the Warlock player can choose the order in which the three enemies attack.
So the debate is, if the Warlock player elects for the Elf to attack first, then by being forced not to move, the Zombies would no longer get to attack the Warlock because the Sentinel ability somehow undoes the trigger.
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity attack.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.
That means that the zombies attack right before the Warlock leaves reach, and then it is still an active trigger for the Elf’s Opportunity Attack.
In that case, if I were controlling the Elf in that situation, I could simply let whoever was controlling the two Zombies declare their Opportunity Attacks first, let them get resolved, and then declare the Elf’s opportunity attack. Nothing in the rules says that all three Opportunity Attacks have to be declared at the same time.
"Multiple opportunity attacks" is literally the title of this thread, I hardly invented the scenario, nor is it far-fetched for an enemy to be within 5-foot melee range of two characters at once and choose to leave both of their reaches.
"Multiple opportunity attacks" is literally the title of this thread, I hardly invented the scenario, nor is it far-fetched for an enemy to be within 5-foot melee range of two characters at once and choose to leave both of their reaches.
But you had to invent a third. :p
In CC's example creature B is the target, A and C get AoOs. There have to be at least three creature in order for two to have AoOs against another.
And if you are clever leaving their reach, you can guarantee that you can select the order and don't have to suffer both if you think that one of them might have sentinel.
The problem with the initial DM is acknowledging that there would be two AoO then refusing one. But you do not have to acknowledge both, you can select the order, in general.
If you are clever and use more movement, sure. It seems the DM in the OP was not and then used his power as DM to change the poor outcome. That and arguing at the table are actually bigger problems than anything to do with AoOs.
Let's break this down to one(ish) fundamental point:
IF you believe two reaction can happen simultaneously... Then Chicken is 100% correct, BOTH hit and nothing else matters
IF you believe two reaction can NOT happen simultaneously (as provided by Lyxen in the RAW rule below)... Then it is up to the DM which attack happens first. ^^IF you believe this, then the argument of does one cancel the other comes into play
I believe two reactions cannot occur simultaneously. (this leads to the conundrum offered in this post) I believe based on sentinel making a players move speed 0... this would cancel the OA of any other PCs... as that bad guy has not moved. I can 100% see the other side of the argument and would have no problem with that ruling either. One of the reasons I would rule this way as sentinel is super OP and needs some downside.
Rule from Xanathar: Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.
-someone mentioned earlier OA attack on an invisible creature is at disadvantage, but OA clearly states "a creature you can see"... so you don't get OA on invisible creatures.
-someone mentioned earlier OA attack on an invisible creature is at disadvantage, but OA clearly states "a creature you can see"... so you don't get OA on invisible creatures.
Which is fine if the movement only triggers an OA from one character before further movement would trigger the second character's OA. As far as my understanding of the scenario goes, Lyxen seems to be the only person arguing that is the type of movement that was described. If the movement triggers an OA from both players at the same time (meaning that the exact attempt would trigger an OA from each creature if it was just the two creatures) then both creatures would get an OA. If the target of the OAs uses a reaction to turn invisible, that doesn't change the fact that the creatures would have been swinging, swiping, biting, farting or whatever they do to attack. The creature making the OA would still be surprised that their target seemingly disappeared, but their follow through would have still been made. The fact that the target could have disengaged to avoid the OAs (until surprise! I've got sentinel) could have prevented the entire mess.
Likewise, if the target turned to move but couldn't leave the square/reach/zip code of death because one creature had sentinel doesn't change the fact that they turned to move from the other creature opening up their defenses.
The OA clearly triggers simultaneously for all combatants, and your DM was wrong. Obviously arguing at the table is wrong, but we’re on a rules forum, and the correct answer is that it triggered an opportunity attack from both of you, and triggers don’t ‘un-trigger’ merely because the other guy rolled first.
I do not get to say this entire phrase very often: CC is completely right, and I agree with them 100%.
Both reactions are triggered. OAs occur before a creature leaves their square. The thematic description of an OA is an opening in the creature's defense as they prepare to flee, not from the movement itself. The creature turns their back, and the PCs get their shots in. It doesn't matter if they don't actually move on a grid as the OAs are resolved; both happen.
First, I will disagree on general principles, because this is a conclusion that is based on a grid, which is not the basic set-up of the game. If you are not playing on a grid, which is the default, it is obvious that, [A whole bunch of nonsense].
Here's where you're entirely wrong. The conclusion is not based on a grid. A grid is simply the easiest method for people to understand, but it changes nothing about how the rules function.
RAW is 100% clear that opportunity attacks are made before the target leaves your reach, whether that's measured in squares on a grid or discrete distance in ToTM. You can't just invent a premise which circumvents this.
Can you run your game differently? Sure, but don't try to pass it off as RAW when it clearly isn't.
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.
@Jhfffan Again, if you agree with statement one... that makes sense. again... 100% agree not fighting anyone on this.
I was just saying as a rule for any OA... If the creature is invisible... you don't get an OA... which OP stated you would, but at disadvantage. (seeing as this is a rules forum, I thought this should be pointed out)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
[REDACTED]. Again, it is RAW that all you can choose is the order in which they happen. Lets not forget two important parts to reactions:
Along with a point about sentinel: "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn." (That is the entire bullet point.)
Between these, there is a trigger, it causes the reaction. The reaction bit is not the creature's turn, and the creature's speed is 0 "for the rest of the turn" which does not resume until after the reactions are arbitrated.
Edit: added entire relevant rule to show that I haven't taken anything out of context.
The reaction starts when the trigger occurs and does not end until the AoO is resolved. It interrupts the turn. Any other reading may use the words of the rules but doesn't account for how they are written.
The reactions that happen at the same time are ordered by the player whose turn it is.
In order to follow your line of reasoning you need to prove:
In other words, how can the creature choose between two potential OAs if the trigger for both OAs didn't occur?
It's weird to say, something happened to make a creature choose between two things but now the thing that made them choose didn't occur. The example with the dimension door is not the same same as sentinel, it's closer to the creature dying from the first attack in that the creature just isn't there. Someone brought up invisibility earlier. Turning invisible wouldn't negate the second attack, but it would make that attack have disadvantage. Why? Because that's what happens with attacks against creatures you can't see. The benefit of the Xanathar rule for the creature is that it can use to be attacked by the less imposing creature first, which would trigger the invisibility response if it relied upon either an attack against it or being hit (thus a reaction, not as an action or bonus action). This means that the burlier creature would be more likely to miss.
It's a sort of catch-22.
He should have let both attacks happen. In the future if the same situation occurs just have an agreement with the other player that you will take the first op attack and then after you take your reaction he can take his. Since the attacks are supposed to happen simultaneously he should have let them happen, but if he is saying the sentinel hit was before yours just make sure that doesn't happen in the future as a player.
It may not be possible since the target of the multiple triggers/effects gets to choose the order. This means that the DM would be able to choose and may continually choose the metagame option. Personally, that's why I would have chosen the initiative bonus as the tie breaker for this scenario since I could always be consistent and have a rational reason for it- the character's reflexes. Mind you, this would not be their initiative order necessarily since the initiative bonus is more static than the initiative order. If that was the same, then dex bonus. Since that would more than likely be the same, proximity would be another tie breaker.
Players or whomever is controlling the creature decides, not up to the DM. If a creature is moving out of melee and triggers op attacks, it triggers op attacks, period. It's not a paradox as the movement was initiated and everything is triggered. If the DM is being stubborn, then take it into your own hands and decide between the players who attacks first. It's splitting hairs really, as technically the DM could be make the argument that the sentinel hit first but should have allowed it as they could have just decided to go in the opposite order and get both attacks. The DM is being nit picky, just take it out of his hands.
I do not get to say this entire phrase very often: CC is completely right, and I agree with them 100%.
Both reactions are triggered. OAs occur before a creature leaves their square. The thematic description of an OA is an opening in the creature's defense as they prepare to flee, not from the movement itself. The creature turns their back, and the PCs get their shots in. It doesn't matter if they don't actually move on a grid as the OAs are resolved; both happen.
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 you're saying that scenario A which we've all been discussing (enemy leaves two PCs reach at the same moment, triggering an OA from each simultaneously) must be arbitrated in a way that is the same as scenario B (enemy leaves two PCs reach at different moments, not triggering an OA from each simulatenously), then... congratulations, you've moved the goalposts, because no one has been talking about that scenario this entire time.
You're trying very hard to work backwards from a conclusion (when a creature gets hit by Sentinel and has their speed set to 0, they haven't moved, and haven't triggered an OA!) which has no textual support, and it's requiring you to come up with all sorts of torturous twists of reasoning. When a creature's opportunity attack is triggered, it is triggered without respect to whether any other creature in the universe might have also had their OA triggered. Creature A and Creature B are within 5 feet of each other. Creature B moves to 10 feet away, triggering an Opportunity Attack from Creature A. I do not see how in good faith you can argue that that is not true on its face.
Interjecting that - surprised! - there's also a Creature C whose Opportunity Attack was triggered, and Creature B has chosen to let C take a swing at them first! changes nothing about the truth of the earlier statement that Creature A was triggered. Creature A doesn't have forgiveness in his heart, once he's entitled to an OA, he's going to take it, regardless of whether B apologizes, is punished by C, gets it legs chopped off and stops moving any further, whatever... it's too late, A has all the permission it needs to make its OA and there's no takebacks.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
XGtE says you can re-order things other than effects too? Because I certainly wouldn't call leaving a threatened area an effect.
Presumably, the "effect" in this discussion is "the provocation (or reception, I guess?) of an attack of opportunity."
I don't think that is what the poster meant, since the post says something about "...would happen simultaneously would not be the AoO (which are already a consequence), it would be leaving the reach of both creatures."
The post certainly seems to indicate that the effect here is the course of action that the character does to provoke (cause) the opportunity attacks.
Alright, let me see if I have tracked all of this correctly:
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲
🔲🔲🔲🟥🔲
🔲🧝♀️🦹🔲🔲
🔲🧟♂️🧟♀️🔲🔲
🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲
If the Warlock player declares that their character will move to the space represented by the red square to get out of melee with the Elf and the two Zombies, then it fulfills the requirement for all three enemies to use their Reactions to take opportunity attacks against the Warlock.
If the Elf has the Sentinel Feat, they can stop the Warlock’s movement.
Because of the rules in Xanathar’s (which are entirely optional I might add), then the Warlock player can choose the order in which the three enemies attack.
So the debate is, if the Warlock player elects for the Elf to attack first, then by being forced not to move, the Zombies would no longer get to attack the Warlock because the Sentinel ability somehow undoes the trigger.
Do I have the right of it?
Since Opportunity Attacks states:
That means that the zombies attack right before the Warlock leaves reach, and then it is still an active trigger for the Elf’s Opportunity Attack.
In that case, if I were controlling the Elf in that situation, I could simply let whoever was controlling the two Zombies declare their Opportunity Attacks first, let them get resolved, and then declare the Elf’s opportunity attack. Nothing in the rules says that all three Opportunity Attacks have to be declared at the same time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"Multiple opportunity attacks" is literally the title of this thread, I hardly invented the scenario, nor is it far-fetched for an enemy to be within 5-foot melee range of two characters at once and choose to leave both of their reaches.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
In CC's example creature B is the target, A and C get AoOs. There have to be at least three creature in order for two to have AoOs against another.
If you are clever and use more movement, sure. It seems the DM in the OP was not and then used his power as DM to change the poor outcome. That and arguing at the table are actually bigger problems than anything to do with AoOs.
Let's break this down to one(ish) fundamental point:
IF you believe two reaction can happen simultaneously... Then Chicken is 100% correct, BOTH hit and nothing else matters
IF you believe two reaction can NOT happen simultaneously (as provided by Lyxen in the RAW rule below)... Then it is up to the DM which attack happens first.
^^IF you believe this, then the argument of does one cancel the other comes into play
I believe two reactions cannot occur simultaneously. (this leads to the conundrum offered in this post) I believe based on sentinel making a players move speed 0... this would cancel the OA of any other PCs... as that bad guy has not moved. I can 100% see the other side of the argument and would have no problem with that ruling either. One of the reasons I would rule this way as sentinel is super OP and needs some downside.
Rule from Xanathar:
Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.
-someone mentioned earlier OA attack on an invisible creature is at disadvantage, but OA clearly states "a creature you can see"... so you don't get OA on invisible creatures.
Which is fine if the movement only triggers an OA from one character before further movement would trigger the second character's OA. As far as my understanding of the scenario goes, Lyxen seems to be the only person arguing that is the type of movement that was described. If the movement triggers an OA from both players at the same time (meaning that the exact attempt would trigger an OA from each creature if it was just the two creatures) then both creatures would get an OA. If the target of the OAs uses a reaction to turn invisible, that doesn't change the fact that the creatures would have been swinging, swiping, biting, farting or whatever they do to attack. The creature making the OA would still be surprised that their target seemingly disappeared, but their follow through would have still been made. The fact that the target could have disengaged to avoid the OAs (until surprise! I've got sentinel) could have prevented the entire mess.
Likewise, if the target turned to move but couldn't leave the square/reach/zip code of death because one creature had sentinel doesn't change the fact that they turned to move from the other creature opening up their defenses.
Here's where you're entirely wrong. The conclusion is not based on a grid. A grid is simply the easiest method for people to understand, but it changes nothing about how the rules function.
RAW is 100% clear that opportunity attacks are made before the target leaves your reach, whether that's measured in squares on a grid or discrete distance in ToTM. You can't just invent a premise which circumvents this.
Can you run your game differently? Sure, but don't try to pass it off as RAW when it clearly isn't.
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.
@Jhfffan
Again, if you agree with statement one... that makes sense. again... 100% agree not fighting anyone on this.
I was just saying as a rule for any OA... If the creature is invisible... you don't get an OA... which OP stated you would, but at disadvantage. (seeing as this is a rules forum, I thought this should be pointed out)