a couple of days ago, while me and some friends were playing d&d, an enemy monster tried to run away from us without using disengage, triggering my oa and one of my friend's oa, but after my friend, who had sentinel, attacked him and hit him, the monster's speed was reduced to 0 and, when I tried to hit him, our master said that as the monster couldn't move anymore, I couldn't attack him. This started a bit of an argument over whether i should be allowed to attack or not.
To be more precise, I play as a barbarian with a greataxe and my friend plays as a paladin with a halberd, the monster's initial position was 5 feet away from me and 10 feet from my friend.
In the end I gave up on my oa and let the monster continue with its turn, altough i was very annoyed since the monster was low on health and had some pretty strong attacks.
First of all, don't argue with the DM during a session. If the DM rules in a way you don't agree with, you can state your disagreement, but the DM doesn't budge, that's it. DM's word is final. If you feel very strongly about it, you should ask if the DM would mind discussing this after the session, perhaps later in the week, so that you can be sure you fully understand how the rules work, etc.
Second of all, I don't think the DM's ruling is unreasonable. After all, the condition that provoked the Attack of Opportunity was the movement out of your space. After being hit, that movement was canceled. It doesn't seem like the condition applies anymore. So the question is, do the two AoOs go off exactly simultaneously? I can't find anything in RAW or Sage Advice that addresses this issue, which means that it's DM's call. Some DMs will rule that the attacks as reactions, happen instantly and simultaneously and you both get to roll to hit and damage. Others will rule that they happen one after the other. In that case it's up to the DM who goes first, or maybe the DM can throw it to the players and say "you two pick who goes first." But again, this is all DM call. So whatever the DM says is how it works.
I mean, that's the rule on everything, even RAW, and I have, as DM, overruled the books on more than one occasion. But if the books don't say (and to my limited search foo, they do not), then it is 100% up to the DM to make the call.
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.
That's entirely up to the dungeon master to adjudicate the situation.
If you feel they were wrong, I strongly suggest discussing it with them in an open, non-confrontational manner, outside of a game session, to ask why they ruled that way.
It may well be that the monster triggered the first OA then, being unable to move further, was unable to move further, thus was still inside your character's reach, not triggering their OA.
I know I shouldn't argue with the dm, I tried to avoid it in fact, I tried to explain my reasoning as to why I should be allowed an oa but after he refused I stepped back.
For your second point, I see it as in his 6 seconds of action, in the 1 second or less he used to move, we both attacked, but my friend connected first. I don't see why I, mid-swing, should stop my attack because the monster has been stopped while moving.
We will also discuss this before our next session, I just wanted to get more opinions on the matter.
I agree with your DM and have ruled that way in my games. IMO sentinel players are "honed for movement" and react slightly quicker than the average player. Opportunity attack states: You can make an opportunity Attack when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.... as your DM stated, because Sentinel made movement 0... they never get out of your reach which would cancel your Opportunity attack. Just like a creature going invisible when moving out of reach would cancel it... you can't see them anymore. no Opportunity attack.
Best case is you're both within 5 ft... you use yours then they use theirs... win win
As my first DM said. sometimes this game is stupid because it is turn based and by the rules nothing happens "all at the same time" ... even though it should be happening all at the same time. (unless of course everyone readies an action for a specific trigger)
ultimately, between you and the DM, but if the monster’s intent was to move out of your reach, you should have gotten a swing. That’s how it would’ve played out in my game, but I’m rooting for my players. I still try to kill them, but I definitely want them to succeed and have fun. The reaction would have been simultaneously triggered, high Dex would roll first, but both would get the OA. This seems to track RAW, as well as situations where this has arisen in play (notably in CR with Beau and Yasha).
Thing is, my opportunity attack was triggered, if we decided that I would roll first, I would have gotten my hit in, but we decided to let my friend attack first, and this caused me to lose my attack.
As always: "It's up to the DM." However, per RAW you should have both gotten the attack. Attacks of Opportunity are a reaction based on the target's turn, not the PC's. Therefore, if the trigger is met for multiple PCs simultaneously, ie. moving out of range, the reaction applies to all applicable triggers. Even if the creature can move no further, it still met both of your reaction triggers.
A lot of people play Sentinel incorrectly, anyway. If your range is 5', a creature moves away from you, and you land a Sentinel AoO, that creature is now 10' (one full square) away from the attacker. The creature has to have moved that far for the Attack of Opportunity trigger to be met. The creature does not remain in the square right next to the you and is no longer in your melee range. No movement = No Attack of Opportunity. But a lot of players and DMs misunderstand this and play it like the PC got the attack off before the target moved away from their range.
Regarding what you said on the correct way to play Sentinel, the description of AoOs says "The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach", wouldn't that make their speed 0 before they moved, thus making them unable to leave your range?
No. The first line of that same paragraph explicitly states "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
Again, the creature has to have moved out of your reach in order for you to get the Opportunity Attack in the first place. Once they have moved out of your reach and met that trigger, Sentinel can prevent them from moving any further. If their speed is 0 before they moved, then they never triggered the Opportunity Attack in the first place and you've created a paradox.
The exception to this is when a Sentinel attack reaction is triggered by the creature attacking an ally within 5'. It's speed drops to zero and it remains where it is, but this is because there is a different trigger, ie the attack, not movement.
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).
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.
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.
In order to get a Sentinel attack based on movement, you have to have an Opportunity Attack. In order to get an Opportunity Attack, RAW states they must leave your reach. If your reach is 5' and the creature is in the square adjacent to you, they have not left your reach. Center to center means nothing on a 5' grid system. Either they're in a square or they're not. If the creature is still in the square next to you they have not left your reach, and you didn't get an Opportunity Attack. If you didn't get an Opportunity Attack, Sentinel doesn't apply.
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).
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.
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.
What if that first attack killed the creature... wouldn't that "untrigger" the 2nd attack? Or would you have the 2nd player waste a reaction on a dead creature? What if the first attack caused the creature to becomes invisible... wouldn't that "untrigger" the 2nd attack?
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.
If the creature has to move out of your reach, then you can't land an attack because it is out of your reach. Paradox. Thus we're in a paradoxical situation either way since you can't attack until it leaves your reach, but the attack somehow lands just before the creature leaves your reach. Therefore, DMs ruling on 5 ft or 10 ft stopping will conflict with one or the other. The wording should be something closer to attempts to leave your reach for the OA to eliminate the paradox, but it isn't and we get to clean up the mess after.
To the original post, the answers regarding DM ruling are correct. The DMs ruling is valid in a vacuum without other information, but some scenarios could affect that outcome. If the creature moved within your reach but out of your buddies reach first, the ruling would be correct. If the creature moved within your buddies reach but out of your reach first, then you should have got the attempt first. If the creature left your reaches at the same time, then a tie breaker would be needed to determine who goes first (dex or initiative bonus seems like a good idea, representing whomever had the best reflexes).
Personally, I would have given both players the OA. However, it's close enough that I wouldn't argue either way unless one of the instances that I gave showed up.
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. I'll quote it again, read it.
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.
There is no dilemma caused by a target dying from one OA before a second triggered OA can take place. The trigger allows you to make an OA, it does not require you to do so. If two characters have their OA triggered, and the first kills the target, the second has not 'spent' their OA if the creature dies before they can take it. Neither is the second prevented from taking it if the first character has hit with sentinel.
The rules are very very straightforward: enemy moves out of reach? OAs triggered, characters can choose to take them. It only starts getting complicated and unworkable once you try to inject unwritten (and unintended) limitations on that ability, or treating simultaneous reactions as if they have a turn order (which they don't).
Hello,
a couple of days ago, while me and some friends were playing d&d, an enemy monster tried to run away from us without using disengage, triggering my oa and one of my friend's oa, but after my friend, who had sentinel, attacked him and hit him, the monster's speed was reduced to 0 and, when I tried to hit him, our master said that as the monster couldn't move anymore, I couldn't attack him. This started a bit of an argument over whether i should be allowed to attack or not.
To be more precise, I play as a barbarian with a greataxe and my friend plays as a paladin with a halberd, the monster's initial position was 5 feet away from me and 10 feet from my friend.
In the end I gave up on my oa and let the monster continue with its turn, altough i was very annoyed since the monster was low on health and had some pretty strong attacks.
First of all, don't argue with the DM during a session. If the DM rules in a way you don't agree with, you can state your disagreement, but the DM doesn't budge, that's it. DM's word is final. If you feel very strongly about it, you should ask if the DM would mind discussing this after the session, perhaps later in the week, so that you can be sure you fully understand how the rules work, etc.
Second of all, I don't think the DM's ruling is unreasonable. After all, the condition that provoked the Attack of Opportunity was the movement out of your space. After being hit, that movement was canceled. It doesn't seem like the condition applies anymore. So the question is, do the two AoOs go off exactly simultaneously? I can't find anything in RAW or Sage Advice that addresses this issue, which means that it's DM's call. Some DMs will rule that the attacks as reactions, happen instantly and simultaneously and you both get to roll to hit and damage. Others will rule that they happen one after the other. In that case it's up to the DM who goes first, or maybe the DM can throw it to the players and say "you two pick who goes first." But again, this is all DM call. So whatever the DM says is how it works.
I mean, that's the rule on everything, even RAW, and I have, as DM, overruled the books on more than one occasion. But if the books don't say (and to my limited search foo, they do not), then it is 100% up to the DM to make the call.
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.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThat's entirely up to the dungeon master to adjudicate the situation.
If you feel they were wrong, I strongly suggest discussing it with them in an open, non-confrontational manner, outside of a game session, to ask why they ruled that way.
It may well be that the monster triggered the first OA then, being unable to move further, was unable to move further, thus was still inside your character's reach, not triggering their OA.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I know I shouldn't argue with the dm, I tried to avoid it in fact, I tried to explain my reasoning as to why I should be allowed an oa but after he refused I stepped back.
For your second point, I see it as in his 6 seconds of action, in the 1 second or less he used to move, we both attacked, but my friend connected first. I don't see why I, mid-swing, should stop my attack because the monster has been stopped while moving.
We will also discuss this before our next session, I just wanted to get more opinions on the matter.
I agree with your DM and have ruled that way in my games. IMO sentinel players are "honed for movement" and react slightly quicker than the average player. Opportunity attack states: You can make an opportunity Attack when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.... as your DM stated, because Sentinel made movement 0... they never get out of your reach which would cancel your Opportunity attack. Just like a creature going invisible when moving out of reach would cancel it... you can't see them anymore. no Opportunity attack.
Best case is you're both within 5 ft... you use yours then they use theirs... win win
As my first DM said. sometimes this game is stupid because it is turn based and by the rules nothing happens "all at the same time" ... even though it should be happening all at the same time. (unless of course everyone readies an action for a specific trigger)
ultimately, between you and the DM, but if the monster’s intent was to move out of your reach, you should have gotten a swing. That’s how it would’ve played out in my game, but I’m rooting for my players. I still try to kill them, but I definitely want them to succeed and have fun. The reaction would have been simultaneously triggered, high Dex would roll first, but both would get the OA. This seems to track RAW, as well as situations where this has arisen in play (notably in CR with Beau and Yasha).
(In response to sjmoodyiii)
Thing is, my opportunity attack was triggered, if we decided that I would roll first, I would have gotten my hit in, but we decided to let my friend attack first, and this caused me to lose my attack.
As always: "It's up to the DM." However, per RAW you should have both gotten the attack. Attacks of Opportunity are a reaction based on the target's turn, not the PC's. Therefore, if the trigger is met for multiple PCs simultaneously, ie. moving out of range, the reaction applies to all applicable triggers. Even if the creature can move no further, it still met both of your reaction triggers.
A lot of people play Sentinel incorrectly, anyway. If your range is 5', a creature moves away from you, and you land a Sentinel AoO, that creature is now 10' (one full square) away from the attacker. The creature has to have moved that far for the Attack of Opportunity trigger to be met. The creature does not remain in the square right next to the you and is no longer in your melee range. No movement = No Attack of Opportunity. But a lot of players and DMs misunderstand this and play it like the PC got the attack off before the target moved away from their range.
Regarding what you said on the correct way to play Sentinel, the description of AoOs says "The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach", wouldn't that make their speed 0 before they moved, thus making them unable to leave your range?
No. The first line of that same paragraph explicitly states "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
Again, the creature has to have moved out of your reach in order for you to get the Opportunity Attack in the first place. Once they have moved out of your reach and met that trigger, Sentinel can prevent them from moving any further. If their speed is 0 before they moved, then they never triggered the Opportunity Attack in the first place and you've created a paradox.
The exception to this is when a Sentinel attack reaction is triggered by the creature attacking an ally within 5'. It's speed drops to zero and it remains where it is, but this is because there is a different trigger, ie the attack, not movement.
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).
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.
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.
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.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My vote is with BioWizard and Chicken_Champ. Whatever that’s worth.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is why I say Sentinel is misunderstood...
In order to get a Sentinel attack based on movement, you have to have an Opportunity Attack.
In order to get an Opportunity Attack, RAW states they must leave your reach.
If your reach is 5' and the creature is in the square adjacent to you, they have not left your reach. Center to center means nothing on a 5' grid system. Either they're in a square or they're not.
If the creature is still in the square next to you they have not left your reach, and you didn't get an Opportunity Attack.
If you didn't get an Opportunity Attack, Sentinel doesn't apply.
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.
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).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
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.
What if that first attack killed the creature... wouldn't that "untrigger" the 2nd attack? Or would you have the 2nd player waste a reaction on a dead creature?
What if the first attack caused the creature to becomes invisible... wouldn't that "untrigger" the 2nd attack?
If the creature has to move out of your reach, then you can't land an attack because it is out of your reach. Paradox. Thus we're in a paradoxical situation either way since you can't attack until it leaves your reach, but the attack somehow lands just before the creature leaves your reach. Therefore, DMs ruling on 5 ft or 10 ft stopping will conflict with one or the other. The wording should be something closer to attempts to leave your reach for the OA to eliminate the paradox, but it isn't and we get to clean up the mess after.
To the original post, the answers regarding DM ruling are correct. The DMs ruling is valid in a vacuum without other information, but some scenarios could affect that outcome. If the creature moved within your reach but out of your buddies reach first, the ruling would be correct. If the creature moved within your buddies reach but out of your reach first, then you should have got the attempt first. If the creature left your reaches at the same time, then a tie breaker would be needed to determine who goes first (dex or initiative bonus seems like a good idea, representing whomever had the best reflexes).
Personally, I would have given both players the OA. However, it's close enough that I wouldn't argue either way unless one of the instances that I gave showed up.
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. I'll quote it again, read it.
There is no dilemma caused by a target dying from one OA before a second triggered OA can take place. The trigger allows you to make an OA, it does not require you to do so. If two characters have their OA triggered, and the first kills the target, the second has not 'spent' their OA if the creature dies before they can take it. Neither is the second prevented from taking it if the first character has hit with sentinel.
The rules are very very straightforward: enemy moves out of reach? OAs triggered, characters can choose to take them. It only starts getting complicated and unworkable once you try to inject unwritten (and unintended) limitations on that ability, or treating simultaneous reactions as if they have a turn order (which they don't).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.