I’m not available in the app, but if they wanted to they could put me in there.
I’ve skimmed the topic and discussion and allow myself to ask a provocative question on the topic of downleveling:
What kind of play are the VALUE rules supposed to foster and encourage?
A. Is it a League where people are encouraged to unleash their own creativity (GMs encouraged to allow homebrew at the cost of GM Sanity and other players outshadowed)
B. Is it a lighthearted League where people are encouraged to bring their characters to each and every table at all Tiers (Downleveling, No Permadeath at the cost of reduced stakes)
C. Or is it a League where Characters are shaped by their adventures consistently (As close to RAW as manageable, no Downleveling, Deaths are permanent at the cost of character attachment)
Because I feel like trying to all at the same time based on what table you sit on that day ensures that nobody is really happy when everyone has differing expectations from style of play.
And rather from trying to make VALUE fit all preferences, might it not be a win-win for all if these are separate buckets of play?
4 Likes
I would wish for the possibility of all of it, maybe with a tag in the disclaimer as many DMs do already (“could get bloody/deadly” etc.). But yes, makes me curious too, what everybody else thinks about it!
I think that’s a great question, though I think it’s not an “either or” question, but more of a “all of the above” situation. Taken by themselves, all of those options seem tough for me.
A, because it’s hard (at least for me) to DM around homebrew I don’t know and as a player it sucks when someone is outshadowed. Especially because in my experience it tends to be the same people who will opt for homebrew (and potentially minmaxing) and therefore it will always be the same players outshadowing the same players, but at VALUE those two play styles just mix at tables quite a bit.
C, because one of the rules that is stated explicitly in … is the DMG or the PHB? … is that the rules are more like guidelines, anyway. Which means that any of those things you mentioned really are at the DMs discretion.
B, because lighthearted for me means “not to take things too seriously”, but it doesn’t mean allow anything whenever. Part of the fun of playing an adventure is the risk of dying, and if you take that away - if I were to play and know from the beginning that no matter what happened, my character would still be there - that would take out a lot of fun.
So as I said before, for me it’s more of an “all of the above” situation. What does that mean?
-
We follow RAW as is feasible, in the knowledge that the people who created them are professional rule and balancing creators and tried to make the game as much fun as possible for everyone.
-
We continue to allow plenty of homebrew at the DMs discretion.
-
When allowing homebrew, we stick to the guideline that actions have consequences, which for me is one of the things that makes D&D fun. Actions have consequences includes stuff such as:
-
When someone levels up, they are at a higher level. They can’t really go back to a lower level - that would be ignoring the consequence of leveling up. (I wrote some exceptions to this already)
-
When someone dies, they are dead (there are some exceptions in the rules here obviously, as well as some nice DM tricks I have learned about)
-
There are probably way more examples of this, but I’ll stick to the ones you mentioned …
2 Likes
I don’t think allowing homebrew is a good idea. I am saying that as someone who loves homebrew, has created a lot of homebrew and allows homebrew in his home games. Homebrew simply creates too many issues in a league of open games with plug-and-play characters like VALUE. Homebrew story rewards are a cood compromise in my opinion.
I think, between these two points, this is something that individual DMs and players should decide. A player can decide which adventure/at which table they want to play, how much individual adventures shape their character, how important a coherent story/progression for their character between otherwise disconnected adventures is, if and when they want to retire a character and, when their character dies they can decide whether they want to pay for resurrection or let the character go for good (well, at least when they weren’t killed by disintegration or turned into an undead, True Resurrection pricing is a separate issue).
Of course other things are up to the DM such as whether they allow/disallow certain characters for setting restrictions, if they actually try to kill characters, whether they want their adventure to be lighthearted or more serious, what homebrew story awards or consequences they give out and whether they allow downleveling.
1 Like
Hi, I am not sure if it has been discussed before but I have noticed an influx of features that allow movement without provoking attacks of Opportunity. Now my question is how they should interact with the sentinel feat.
The sentinel feat specifically mentions the disengage action. But to my knowledge, only really the rogue and monk will actually use that action (or Bonus action).
Do you think those features should be treated as “disengage action is active and therefore sentinel applies” or this is entirely different and therefore even sentinels don’t get to use their attack of opportunity?
2 Likes
As someone who isn’t nearly as 5e experienced but has a decade’s worth of competitive REL experience in M:tG and interpreting the explicit wording of WotC rulings, I would say that Disengage is not what triggers Sentinel, it is catch clause specifically for Disengage, which makes sense, as it is a Basic Combat Action all PC and NPCs get.
Therefore if no Opportunity Attack would even take place in the first place due to another ability where Opportunity Attacks are avoided, Sentinel would not come into play.
Diagetically, a Creature with a Sentinel Feat might be really good at catching people that are exceptionally slippery in hand to hand combat, but that doesn’t give them the sixth sense to catch people using a spell or whatever ability
2 Likes
I think this is something DMs should decide individually for their tables.
While your rules interpretation certainly is correct (I am studying law and will soon become a referee/judge for the card game Bridge, so I can say I have some experience too when it comes to interpreting law and rules texts ;-)), one could argue that there are oversights when it comes to abilities that allow movement without opportunity attack without specifying they are a variant of the disengage action; and aside from that, unlike rules for competitive games, D&D rules do not need to be followed to the letter. As DMs we are free to deviate from the written rules and to make up our own rules.
I understand the concern raised by @OliveOil, and as a DM I would probably allow Sentinel to work in at least some of those situations, depending on the creature in question. For example, if a creature has a charge attack that allows it to move without opportunity attacks, I’d allow Sentinel to trigger. On the other hand, Sentinel triggering does not make sense for teleports. In general, as a DM I want players to be able to use their characters’ abilities, and if they can’t, there sould be a sensible reason for why they can’t - and not just because the monster’s ability has “does not provoke opportunity attacks” added to its text.
2 Likes
I was curious so I checked if there is a crawford-ruling on the matter, and I think there kind of is.
At least for the ability “flyby” that some flying monsters possess, sentinel does not counter that ability. → x.com
Give that ruling, I’d say that sentinel only counters disengage snd otherwise only triggers with “normal” opportunity attacks. (At least I think that’s the intended crawford ruling - as always: DM discretion may differ)
1 Like
As a person who writes, implements, audit and enforce ISO Norms … I am fairly confident in my understanding of rules myself :-).
And RAW the sentinel ability, doesn’t apply to other features which mentions “this movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity”.
But since WOtC is not know for the most accurate wording choices, and also known to miss certain rule interactions … It is open to debate/DM decision on how to apply it.
The wording between the disengage action and those other features are ident, so an argument could be made that they are “the same”.
But I agree with Arthilas statement, that the DM should make the judgement. And I think a big factor is the lvl of play/the feature. Also 2024, rules change the weight of investment.
In 2014 a T1/T2 sentinel feat investment I absolutely heavy, without a stat improvement and with other feats which provide other very strong features.
In 2024 T3/4 many martial characters will have the sentinel feat, it now provides a stat boost, such as other feats and there are only limited martial feats, so many might pick sentinel and pure ASIs will be not very often.
So in conclusion, when a high level feature will give you the ability I would let them escape form sentinels. When a low level feature gives the same ability I would let sentinels catch them, since the sentinel specifically invested in not letting people get away.
However I would be consistent, probably a feature that comes before lvl 10 would apply the disengage condition, above would give a different condition.
But in all honesty, I should take the time and make a list with features that actually apply that condition … But for monsters it’s a bid harder since the new monster manual is not out yet
That general idea is something I disagree with.
Why take something away from martials at high levels, where they struggle anyways compared to casters? Casters get more powerful spells (and abilities to debuff saving throws) to compensate for monsters getting stronger. As a basic example, a caster gets Hold Person as a 2nd level spell to deal with humanoid enemies like bandits or goblins that are common at lower levels. Once they get to higher levels and face more non-humanoid enemies against which Hold Person is useless, they get Hold Monster as a 5th level spell to be able to deal with those monsters.
Martials get… nothing in that regard as they level up. All they get is to deal more damage and maybe make use of more weapon masteries. But they cannot take a high level feat like “Sentinel +” that beats “can move without provoking opportunity attacks”.
I’d base the decision on the ability and monster in question instead. For example, a teleport always beats Sentinel, because the monster just disappears on the spot. Now, if the Sentinel also has Mage Slayer, I might rule that they can stop the teleport, maybe based on a roll for the target.
An ability like the loup garou’s mauling pounce on the other hand would be stopped by Sentinel at my table as there is no logical reason Sentinel should fail - it’s just an angry monster flailing around.
Remember that the Sentinel user has to still have their reaction available and they have to hit with their attack - so there is a real change they either can’t attempt to stop the monster in the first place, or that their attempt fails. A dragon’s wing attack is a good example for that, because it can knock the Sentinel prone before they get the chance to make an opportunity attack against the departing dragon - with disadvantage on the attack, it’s much more unlikely that they hit and stop the dragon.
1 Like
I agree with you, and might have worded it wrong… I would give the sentinel the ability to counter features gained at a lower level than 10, but not features granted at higher levels.
And the new mage slayer doesn’t give attack of opportunities anymore.
Also I would not allow the combination of sentinel and PAM, to stop enemies from approaching (the new rules also don’t allow that anymore).
Only stop things from leaving.
The source of the feature matters, as you mentioned. A monster that’s slippery because it’s wet, or also a fly-by I would allow sentinels to hit. A dimension hopping thingy not…
No, I do not agree that the wording is vague or that it is an edge case they have missed for over 10 years.
SRD5.1
PHB24 https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/rules-glossary#OpportunityAttack
Opportunity Attacks
Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
Avoiding Opportunity Attacks. 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 you are moved without using your movement, action, Bonus 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 you fall past an enemy.
Making an Opportunity Attack. You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach.
In both PHB14 and PHB24
there are only three taxatively listed ways and circumstances where a opportunity attack is avoided.
- Taking the Disengage Action
- Teleport
- Moved without using your Movement, Action, Bonus Action or Reaction
and when we look at Sentinel
Sentinel PHB2014 Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
reworked Sentinel PHB 2024 Immediately after a creature within 5 feet of you takes the Disengage action or hits a target other than you with an attack, you can make an Opportunity Attack against that creature.
Both in 2014 and 2024, Disengage is explicitly mentioned as an action, not “any action that causes the Creature to avoid an Opportunity attack”.
Additionally, PHB2024 even made the ruling even more clear by saying that you can make an Opportunity Attack against that creature after taking the Disengage action, discarding the verbiage of “provoking Opportunity Attack” altogether.
SRD5.1 Giant Owl
Free Rules PHB24 Owl
In the case of Creatures avoiding Opportunity Attacks, the text on Monster Blocks state that the owl does not provoke an opportunity in the first place when it flies out of an enemy’s reach. Therefore Sentinel does not even come to play, as the trigger for Opportunity Attacks does not happen in the first place.
In my opinion made in very good faith (and without any stakes in whatever VALUE session might have sparked this debate), I believe strongly that this has been a deliberate design choice in 2014 and 2024. Sentinel is supposed to hit more things, not all things.
At the end of the day the rules can be whatever the DMs and players agree upon but it is very clear how the rules have intended Sentinel to work.
Personally, I do not believe it is good practice to power up feats more than the game intended to because it makes all the other characters on the table weaker in a game about tactical combat and progression.
1 Like
RAW you are absolutely right!
But you also mentioned, that the only way to avoid attacks of opportunity are:
- Taking the Disengage Action
- Teleport 3.Moved without using your Movement, Action, Bonus Action or Reaction
And the fly-by as you mentioned, is neither of those. It’s closed to 1, without the need to spend a resource. And sentinel was made to counter 1 and only 1.
Also this topic was just brought up by me, no actual gameplay trigger.
But I also, agree that your ruling is the most correct ruling by the rules as written.
Ah sorry, I may have muddled it.
There are only three ways to avoid an OA, but Flyby negates the chance of there being a check for an OA in the first place. There is no avoiding if there is no check for OA in the first place.
If the game doesn’t let me throw a ball at you in the first place, there is no need to check if you can avoid it.
Also by cost I mean not just resources but power budget and opportunity cost in general. Like monsters don’t get abilities ‘for free’ when the game is balanced and whenever players pick an ability they give up the option of picking something else.
2 Likes
I’m not sure why there a discussion about the raw. The initial question was if we want to increase the cases where sentinel is useful. As in “allow sentinels to attack creatures with oas even if they say that they don’t provoke them”
1 Like
Similarly shield master could be increased in usefulness. As is it only works for a total of 5 spells. An argument could be made about it working for aoe spells that only hit one target.
In general I think it could use a buff
1 Like
I just want to remind you that we should use this thread to discuss the rules for next VALUE season and not houserules for individual tables.
1 Like
Because
it Olive was of the opinion that it was unintentional and I made an argument that it was intentional design.
The exact wording is “If you’re subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage…” so it includes all spells that ask for a Dex Save, AoE or not…
So it works on 15 spells and 2 cantrips
The exact wording is “If you aren’t incapacitated, you can add your shield’s AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.”
There are only 5 single target spells with dex saves. (Correction there are 6 if you count chain lightning with a single target)
Yes, the other effect has more use.
2 Likes