The third part of the Sentinel feat has the caveat that if the target of the enemy’s attack also has the Sentinel feat, you do not get to use your reaction to attack the enemy. This makes sense from a play balance perspective otherwise two characters with the feat would create a no win situation for the opponent. I assume that the creators of the feat felt this would be overpowered.
How can you rationalize this in roleplaying. Why would the opponent leave an opening that a character with Sentinel could exploit when the target doesn’t have the Sentinel feat but not leave an opening when attacking a target with the feat? The only thing I can think of is that two characters with Sentinel would be thinking that the other doesn’t need his help because he has Sentinel as well. That’s not a very satisfying answer. Does anyone have a better answer?
The third part of the Sentinel feat has the caveat that if the target of the enemy’s attack also has the Sentinel feat, you do not get to use your reaction to attack the enemy. This makes sense from a play balance perspective otherwise two characters with the feat would create a no win situation for the opponent. I assume that the creators of the feat felt this would be overpowered.
How can you rationalize this in roleplaying. Why would the opponent leave an opening that a character with Sentinel could exploit when the target doesn’t have the Sentinel feat but not leave an opening when attacking a target with the feat? The only thing I can think of is that two characters with Sentinel would be thinking that the other doesn’t need his help because he has Sentinel as well. That’s not a very satisfying answer. Does anyone have a better answer?
You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits:
When you have sentinel feat. You do not create those same drops in guard you are exploiting.
Blank