From PHB on AoO: The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach." If reach is 5', that means the creature is 5' away after the attack lands. Sentinel would keep you in the same square, not in the next square over, which would be measured as 10' away (center to center).
See my reply immediately before yours. Yes, the attack occurs right before it leaves your reach, but it still has to leave your reach for you to even take the attack. Cause and effect. Sentinel then kicks in and stops them from moving further.
You can't say "cause and effect" when the rules for attacks of opportunity very clearly and unambiguously say that the effect happens prior to the cause.
I can, because that's how cause and effect works. You can't have the effect without the cause. That's like granting an attack because the creature thought about moving.
Misstating OA rules isn't helpful. Following your decision tree above, nobody ever gets an OA, because the trigger would require them to be no longer capable of making a melee attack at all.
Opportunity Attacks
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.
The creature is 5 feet away from you. They move from 5->10 feet away. Right as they're crossing that thresshold, an OA triggers simultaneously for all enemies whose reach they are leaving. They all make their OA as if the target is still 5 feet away. After all the OA's complete, they finish their movement into the 10-foot-away square (or, fail to do so, if one of the OAs had Sentinel on it).
Speaking of misstating rules. My logic tree dictates that when a creature leaves your melee range, you get an OA. I think we can agree on that. We can also agree that the attack happens right before they leave your melee range, correct? However, the attack does not come before the movement that triggers the OA. So the creature has to leave your range moving from one square into the other, and right before it completes that move you take a swipe at it. The creature has moved. That is the trigger. If you want to get pedantic about the wording, then the creature is like 9/10 of the way into the next square when you get the attack, but it's still not wholly in the square next to you.
In either case, I'm out of this conversation because it's off of the OP topic. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. Y'all take it easy.
You just proved my point chicken. Here you state: triggers don’t ‘un-trigger’ merely because the other guy rolled first. Then you go on to say in your next post: the first kills the target, the second has not 'spent' their OA
Therefore by your second statement... It has been UN-triggered. So in fact by your words (and my thoughts) triggers can by UN-triggered
This proves the first comment of if a sentinel attack reduces a creatures speed to 0, does it un-trigger the OA, as that creature has not moved out of range anymore...because the first attack un-triggered the OA.
So thank you for explaining to me how I was right :)
Trigger =/= happens. A "trigger" is the pre-condition that allows you to choose to do something. Feather Fall's "trigger" is falling, but falling doesn't cast Feather Fall without your consent. Counterspell's "trigger" is a spell being cast, but a spell being cast doesn't cast Counterspell without your consent.
An enemy moves from square 1 to square 2. Character A and Character B have had their OA's triggered.
Character A chooses to make their OA. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during that OA. They hit, and the enemy dies. Character B then chooses not to make their OA.
or, Character A chooses to make their OA, and has sentinel. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during the OA. They hit, and the enemy's speed is reduced to 0. But Character B was already triggered, and also chooses to make their OA. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during their OA.
or, Character A and B choose not to make their OA, because the enemy has a Booming Blade effect active, and they think the move will kill it. The enmy completes its move to square 2, takes the damage, but lives. It's now in square 2 and is out of reach, too late for Characters A and B to change their mind and take those OAs. (ya know, I could be wrong about BB, and it isn't necessary for this discussion, so strike that part)
From PHB on AoO: The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach." If reach is 5', that means the creature is 5' away after the attack lands. Sentinel would keep you in the same square, not in the next square over, which would be measured as 10' away (center to center).
See my reply immediately before yours. Yes, the attack occurs right before it leaves your reach, but it still has to leave your reach for you to even take the attack. Cause and effect. Sentinel then kicks in and stops them from moving further.
You can't say "cause and effect" when the rules for attacks of opportunity very clearly and unambiguously say that the effect happens prior to the cause.
I can, because that's how cause and effect works. You can't have the effect without the cause. That's like granting an attack because the creature thought about moving.
Yes, which is exactly how attacks of opportunity work. The PHB says this quite clearly. If you don't want to read the rules, you're welcome to play how you want, but the conversation you're trying to have would be better placed in Homebrew & House Rules.
You just proved my point chicken. Here you state: triggers don’t ‘un-trigger’ merely because the other guy rolled first. Then you go on to say in your next post: the first kills the target, the second has not 'spent' their OA
Therefore by your second statement... It has been UN-triggered. So in fact by your words (and my thoughts) triggers can by UN-triggered
This proves the first comment of if a sentinel attack reduces a creatures speed to 0, does it un-trigger the OA, as that creature has not moved out of range anymore...because the first attack un-triggered the OA.
So thank you for explaining to me how I was right :)
Does the creature move or not in your scenario? It sounds like you are saying yes, but the second player wouldn't get the OA because of Sentinel. If the creature has to move, would trigger an OA from both players at the same time, both players could choose to make the OA if sentinel wasn't involved... How does sentinel prevent the second player from making the OA again if it has already moved? I can see that logic if the character doesn't move (and I'll admit that I can't recall what side of the discussion you're on with that), but if the creature has to move then both players get their OA regardless of sentinel.
There is no paradox. The rules explicitly tell you that the OA (the effect) requires the trigger (moving from 5-> 10 feet) but happens BEFORE the trigger.
How is that not a paradox?
The attack of opportunity lands before the action that triggered it occurred... that is some pretty nice time travel you've got going on there.
For my money, I agree with Jhfffan, that the wording is poor. It should say that it occurs when the creature attempts to pass out of your reach. The attack then lands before the attempt is completed (but not before it began!), and sentinel would cause the attempt to fail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The creature moves once to trigger both OAs, regardless of which order the OAs are taken in. They don't move a couple feet, trigger OA 1, then move a couple more feet and trigger OA 2... the initial movement triggered both. So it doesn't matter that after OA 1, they're no longer capable of moving any farther... because they've already moved sufficiently to trigger both OAs.
Its not a (rule) paradox, because the rules tell us how to play it, and it works that way. A (rule) paradox would be if the rules told us A, and also B, but A and B were mutually exclusive. Here we have a nice tidy rule that is very easy to arbitrate, no problemo.
An enemy moves from square 1 to square 2<--no, an enemy tries to move from square 1 to square 2... sentinel would cancel this (which would un-trigger character B)
But Character B was already triggered<-- again NO because it UN-triggered... as YOU said, things can un-trigger again as you said "Trigger =/= happens."
Again, if character A hit which caused the creature to turn invisible... Character B also has no OA (you ignored this last time I said it)... and that's fine because I know this point also completely invalidates your argument.
Trigger =/= happens.<--I agree but have no idea why you brought that into the conversation
As I stated before D&D is a turn based game. Things can happen during that "turn" which un-trigger other events (YOU said this... accidentally). As jdahveed said, this has gotten off topic. Back to topic: IMO It's up to DM I would not argue with the DM either way seems fair. But IMO there should be SOME downside to sentinel since it's super OP. I would rule that sentinel would cancel 2nd players attack. You think it's not up to DM and it's RAW that both attacks hit... cool man. You run that way at your table. If I'm at your table... I won't argue.
Its not a (rule) paradox, because the rules tell us how to play it, and it works that way. A (rule) paradox would be if the rules told us A, and also B, but A and B were mutually exclusive. Here we have a nice tidy rule that is very easy to arbitrate, no problemo.
For what it's worth, I agree that there isn't a paradox, but that's because I'm reading that the attack is done before it leaves your reach. To me that means that sentinel would have to stop the creature still in your reach. Assuming that both characters would have an OA if the creature moved that 1 square with them apart, then both should have the OA with them together.
I still think that the words "attempts to leave" would clean up a lot of the confusion that leads to these discussions (Booming Blade is another topic that has this problem, and like you said is best left to another thread).
If the creature had to leave your reach before you could trigger an OA, then the only weapons that could make OAs would be thrown weapons. That is clearly not the case.
Trigger =/= happens. A "trigger" is the pre-condition that allows you to choose to do something. Feather Fall's "trigger" is falling, but falling doesn't cast Feather Fall without your consent. Counterspell's "trigger" is a spell being cast, but a spell being cast doesn't cast Counterspell without your consent.
An enemy moves from square 1 to square 2. Character A and Character B have had their OA's triggered.
Character A chooses to make their OA. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during that OA. They hit, and the enemy dies. Character B then chooses not to make their OA.
or, Character A chooses to make their OA, and has sentinel. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during the OA. They hit, and the enemy's speed is reduced to 0. But Character B was already triggered, and also chooses to make their OA. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during their OA.
or, Character A and B choose not to make their OA, because the enemy has a Booming Blade effect active, and they think the move will kill it. The enmy completes its move to square 2, takes the damage, but lives. It's now in square 2 and is out of reach, too late for Characters A and B to change their mind and take those OAs. (ya know, I could be wrong about BB, and it isn't necessary for this discussion, so strike that part)
Im done, you can lead a horse to the rule, but you can’t make ‘em read the parts you highlighted.
This guy is right about AoO. Sentinel triggering when someone tries to move out of your reach stays within your reach if you hit them.
This was settled like 5 years ago guys.
However, I never consider them “simultaneous effects”. If two triggers happen at the same time, the DM or PCs determine an order of operations. In the example from OP, I’d have chosen the non-Sentinel person to attack first, then the Sentinel person after, allowing both AoOs. Same result but no requirement for simultaneous Mumbo Jumbo.
For clarity: if you start allowing simultaneous instantaneous game effects the “game effects can’t overlap” rules lawyers (of which I’m a junior member) will be in here immediately to force another 34 pages of discussion, hahaha 😝
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.
^^Good find, and seems to point towards the direction I was stating and not chicken... even though Brewsky agreed with Chicken lol
If you are pointing to XGtE's rule on arbitrating the order of effects, then both effects still occur. It is literally RAW. Nothing in the XGtE suggest anything otherwise. I will point the relevant sentence out.
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.
You have no proof of this. This is not a ready action, it's simply an opportunity attack, which simply says: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." No more, no less, and no trigger here.
If a creature simultaneously moves out of the reach of two adversaries, they should both get an opportunity attack, it's not a question of trigger. But because they should not be simultaneous, the Xanathar rule comes into effect. the victim chooses which attack occurs first, and will probably choose to get the one from the sentinel (assuming of course that he knows, otherwise he will choose as best as he can). Assuming that it is the sentinel one and it hits, the target's speed will become 0, and he will stop moving before he can leave that creature's reach and therefore the other creature's reach. Because he is now no longer leaving the other adversary's reach, the other opportunity attack will not occur. It's extremely simple if you don't add extra elements like "triggers" where they do not exist.
Except a "trigger" has to exist since something has to set the entire thing in motion. If the movement to leave the reach didn't take place, neither player would get the OA. If the movement leaves both players reach at the same time, then both players would get the chance to make the OA. Either player or both players could forgo the OA. Otherwise, during a non-sentinel scenario, you are basically saying that time winds back twice.
However, if it happens like it did in the OPs game, so be it.
General rule: A reaction happens in response to a trigger.
Specific rule: An opportunity attack (and counterspell) is a reaction that happens just before the trigger--or at the same time as the trigger if you want it to make sense logically.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can, because that's how cause and effect works. You can't have the effect without the cause. That's like granting an attack because the creature thought about moving.
Speaking of misstating rules. My logic tree dictates that when a creature leaves your melee range, you get an OA. I think we can agree on that. We can also agree that the attack happens right before they leave your melee range, correct? However, the attack does not come before the movement that triggers the OA. So the creature has to leave your range moving from one square into the other, and right before it completes that move you take a swipe at it. The creature has moved. That is the trigger. If you want to get pedantic about the wording, then the creature is like 9/10 of the way into the next square when you get the attack, but it's still not wholly in the square next to you.
In either case, I'm out of this conversation because it's off of the OP topic. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. Y'all take it easy.
You just proved my point chicken. Here you state: triggers don’t ‘un-trigger’ merely because the other guy rolled first.
Then you go on to say in your next post: the first kills the target, the second has not 'spent' their OA
Therefore by your second statement... It has been UN-triggered. So in fact by your words (and my thoughts) triggers can by UN-triggered
This proves the first comment of if a sentinel attack reduces a creatures speed to 0, does it un-trigger the OA, as that creature has not moved out of range anymore...because the first attack un-triggered the OA.
So thank you for explaining to me how I was right :)
Trigger =/= happens. A "trigger" is the pre-condition that allows you to choose to do something. Feather Fall's "trigger" is falling, but falling doesn't cast Feather Fall without your consent. Counterspell's "trigger" is a spell being cast, but a spell being cast doesn't cast Counterspell without your consent.
An enemy moves from square 1 to square 2. Character A and Character B have had their OA's triggered.
Character A chooses to make their OA. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during that OA. They hit, and the enemy dies. Character B then chooses not to make their OA.
or, Character A chooses to make their OA, and has sentinel. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during the OA. They hit, and the enemy's speed is reduced to 0. But Character B was already triggered, and also chooses to make their OA. The enemy is considered to be in square 1 during their OA.
or, Character A and B choose not to make their OA, because the enemy has a Booming Blade effect active, and they think the move will kill it. The enmy completes its move to square 2, takes the damage, but lives. It's now in square 2 and is out of reach, too late for Characters A and B to change their mind and take those OAs. (ya know, I could be wrong about BB, and it isn't necessary for this discussion, so strike that part)It's not that hard.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes, which is exactly how attacks of opportunity work. The PHB says this quite clearly. If you don't want to read the rules, you're welcome to play how you want, but the conversation you're trying to have would be better placed in Homebrew & House Rules.
Does the creature move or not in your scenario? It sounds like you are saying yes, but the second player wouldn't get the OA because of Sentinel. If the creature has to move, would trigger an OA from both players at the same time, both players could choose to make the OA if sentinel wasn't involved... How does sentinel prevent the second player from making the OA again if it has already moved? I can see that logic if the character doesn't move (and I'll admit that I can't recall what side of the discussion you're on with that), but if the creature has to move then both players get their OA regardless of sentinel.
How is that not a paradox?
The attack of opportunity lands before the action that triggered it occurred... that is some pretty nice time travel you've got going on there.
For my money, I agree with Jhfffan, that the wording is poor. It should say that it occurs when the creature attempts to pass out of your reach. The attack then lands before the attempt is completed (but not before it began!), and sentinel would cause the attempt to fail.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The creature moves once to trigger both OAs, regardless of which order the OAs are taken in. They don't move a couple feet, trigger OA 1, then move a couple more feet and trigger OA 2... the initial movement triggered both. So it doesn't matter that after OA 1, they're no longer capable of moving any farther... because they've already moved sufficiently to trigger both OAs.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Its not a (rule) paradox, because the rules tell us how to play it, and it works that way. A (rule) paradox would be if the rules told us A, and also B, but A and B were mutually exclusive. Here we have a nice tidy rule that is very easy to arbitrate, no problemo.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
An enemy moves from square 1 to square 2<--no, an enemy tries to move from square 1 to square 2... sentinel would cancel this (which would un-trigger character B)
But Character B was already triggered<-- again NO because it UN-triggered... as YOU said, things can un-trigger again as you said "Trigger =/= happens."
Again, if character A hit which caused the creature to turn invisible... Character B also has no OA (you ignored this last time I said it)... and that's fine because I know this point also completely invalidates your argument.
Trigger =/= happens.<--I agree
but have no idea why you brought that into the conversationAs I stated before D&D is a turn based game. Things can happen during that "turn" which un-trigger other events (YOU said this... accidentally). As jdahveed said, this has gotten off topic. Back to topic: IMO It's up to DM I would not argue with the DM either way seems fair. But IMO there should be SOME downside to sentinel since it's super OP. I would rule that sentinel would cancel 2nd players attack.
You think it's not up to DM and it's RAW that both attacks hit... cool man. You run that way at your table. If I'm at your table... I won't argue.
For what it's worth, I agree that there isn't a paradox, but that's because I'm reading that the attack is done before it leaves your reach. To me that means that sentinel would have to stop the creature still in your reach. Assuming that both characters would have an OA if the creature moved that 1 square with them apart, then both should have the OA with them together.
I still think that the words "attempts to leave" would clean up a lot of the confusion that leads to these discussions (Booming Blade is another topic that has this problem, and like you said is best left to another thread).
If the creature had to leave your reach before you could trigger an OA, then the only weapons that could make OAs would be thrown weapons. That is clearly not the case.
The. Rule. Answers. This. Question. Explicitly.
Im done, you can lead a horse to the rule, but you can’t make ‘em read the parts you highlighted.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This guy is right about AoO. Sentinel triggering when someone tries to move out of your reach stays within your reach if you hit them.
This was settled like 5 years ago guys.
However, I never consider them “simultaneous effects”. If two triggers happen at the same time, the DM or PCs determine an order of operations. In the example from OP, I’d have chosen the non-Sentinel person to attack first, then the Sentinel person after, allowing both AoOs. Same result but no requirement for simultaneous Mumbo Jumbo.
For clarity: if you start allowing simultaneous instantaneous game effects the “game effects can’t overlap” rules lawyers (of which I’m a junior member) will be in here immediately to force another 34 pages of discussion, hahaha 😝
^^Good find, and seems to point towards the direction I was stating and not chicken... even though Brewsky agreed with Chicken lol
ITS ALREADY TRIGGEREDL;JL;ADSKJFSDKLJFSDLKF
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Gesundheit
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Haha. 🙂 we done broke him!
If you are pointing to XGtE's rule on arbitrating the order of effects, then both effects still occur. It is literally RAW. Nothing in the XGtE suggest anything otherwise. I will point the relevant sentence out.
Someone is already triggered :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Except a "trigger" has to exist since something has to set the entire thing in motion. If the movement to leave the reach didn't take place, neither player would get the OA. If the movement leaves both players reach at the same time, then both players would get the chance to make the OA. Either player or both players could forgo the OA. Otherwise, during a non-sentinel scenario, you are basically saying that time winds back twice.
However, if it happens like it did in the OPs game, so be it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"