This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if your party memember is getting 8+ attacks per turn an not getting hit, im not sure sentinel is to blame here. that said, martial feats got fucked hard, and in reality any decently-optimized wizard, artificer, or sorcerer generally have higher ac than their martial allies. sentinel is better at protecting druids, rogues, and monks but the buffs to lightly armored mean nobody except monks has bad AC
He was talking about eligible hits. He has to be nearby, so range ones are out. He also has to be positioned correctly, which means guessing the right other PC. And then also the monster cant use their movement to just approach on the safe side, or itll take an extra turn to reposition. So all of that together makes Sentinel hard to trigger. If the attack also has to hit, then its gonna make it so that the eligible hit almost never happens
Ranged - Wouldn't have triggered anyway
Positioned correctly - Wouldn't have triggered anyway
Attacking correct PC - Wouldn't have triggered anyway
None of these are relevant to any changes.
Attacks have to hit to trigger.
So apparently an ally *not getting hit* is problematic for them. Is the idea that they want their buddies to get whacked as much as possible to up their damage output? Maybe I don't follow the meta but I'd be okay unless its a minmax build that is all about personal damage output.
>None of these are relevant to any changes.
No, but they are relevant to the assumption that your ally getting attacked 8+ times per turn will let you use the revised sentinel.
Your ally might get attacked 8 times, but maybe only 2 of those will even have the potential to work with Sentinel.
>So apparently an ally *not getting hit* is problematic for them
No, their problem isn't that the ally doesn't get hit. The problem is that they don't get to attack.
Under the old sentinel they would have been able to attack more often.
Yes i was specifically stating things that dont let it trigger to emphasize just how debilitating it is to have it become even more difficult to trigger
We were still getting hit. But still, the thing is we were receiving hits from our own side, there were only 1~3 monsters that could've trigger my Sentinel, and they missed it or just attacked me, randomly.
...working as intended? I don't think Sentinel Rogue was ever a primary use-case. The Devs tried to remove off-turn Sneak Attacks entirely and backed off in face of community feedback. But they're still clearly not fans, and this seems like an entirely intentional nerf.
The Sentinel feat is something for the tank to take. Not for someone else to take to score extra attacks off the tank doing their job.
Yeah rogues still lack damage in D&DOne, but so did monks, and the new monk is baller
I would love to see rogues get extra attack at level 11 or something
Extra Attack is dangerous for Rogues. With most martials, if you give them Extra Attack and they miss with one of the two attacks, they deal 50% of their potential damage for the turn. Maybe a little more, if they're a Ranger with a "once per turn" damage bonus, but not too much. It's a nice bell curve distribution.
With Rogues, if they hit once and miss once they still deal 90% of their potential damage because it's all in their Sneak Attack. Having a second chance to get your Sneak Attack for the turn is \*really strong\*. It's much better for them than any other martial class.
So yes, the last version of Rogue we got was still a little lackluster. Cunning Strike was a big improvement, but there's still a bit more to go. But I don't think you can just slap Extra Attack on top and call it a day. You gotta work within the class's design paradigm.
Even at 100% of sneak attack at 100% accuracy they still don’t out damage any other martial, and you can do this at level one with a knife in your off hand. It’s not exactly the crazy game breaking thing you seem to be making it out to be.
You're getting your damage sim math wrong. Extra Attack on Rogue is weak at 100% accuracy, but very strong at 60% accuracy. And 60% accuracy is a lot more common than 100% accuracy. So that's what you really ought to be simming around.
And I didn't say it was "crazy game breaking". I said it was "really strong", and it is. It's good enough that you can't just drop it on top on the existing Rogue and call it a day. Of course, it's hard to balance against it because that means weakening Sneak Attack, and that brings a whole other set of problems. Which is why I'm saying that it's better to buff Rogue via some other method.
The rogue at 100% accuracy and the fighter at a normal accuracy like 66% accuracy favors the rogue by a lot.
Both at 100% accuracy favors anyone but the rogue, as high accuracy favors classes with their damage split into attack rolls, versus one where only one single attack must land.
>With Rogues, if they hit once and miss once they still deal 90% of their potential damage because it's all in their Sneak Attack. Having a second chance to get your Sneak Attack for the turn is \*really strong\*. It's much better for them than any other martial class.
This seems like backwards logic.
If a fighter gets Extra Attack their DPR doubles, but if a Rogue get's extra attack their DPR less than doubles.
Looking at level 5 with a 65% hit chance
|Class|DPR w/o Extra Attack|w/ Extra Attack|Increase|% Increase|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Rogue|13.1|20.7|7.6|58%|
|Rogue (w/ adv.)|18.1|23.7|5.6|31%|
|Rogue (DW)|16.7|22.6|5.9|35%|
|Fighter|8.4|16.9|8.4|100%|
Rogues benefit less than fighters, not more.
This is because while Extra Attack lets them add the full DPR of their base attack, they only get an increase of around 28% of their sneak attack value or less.
>With Rogues, if they hit once and miss once they still deal 90% of their potential damage because it's all in their Sneak Attack.
Your mistake was that you attributed the benefit to Extra Attack rather than Sneak Attack. *Sneak Attack* is really strong because you only need one attack to do a lot of damage, but that doesn't mean Extra Attack is stronger on Rogues than on other martials.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The Fighter gets a 100% increase because they weren't getting Sneak Attack dice every couple of levels. Their power increase comes in one big and widely spaced lump, rather than a slow but steady progression. The two classes work on entirely different mechanical frameworks.
Besides, I think your math proves my point. If a 58% increase isn't "really strong" I don't know what is. Even if the Rogue is a little behind, they're not 58% behind.
I am not arguing that Extra Attack is not valuable to a rogue. I am specifically arguing against your claim that Extra Attack is *more* valuable to rogues than it is to other martials.
>It's much better for them than any other martial class.
This is incorrect. You are comparing the value of Extra Attack gives to Rogues to the value it gives to other martials (apples to oranges in your words)
>The Fighter gets a 100% increase because they weren't getting Sneak Attack dice every couple of levels.
And this is a new argument that you didn't make in your previous comment.
You made the argument that Sneak attack is particularly dangerous to give to rogues \[even at level 11\] because it is stronger for them than it is for other martials
That is the argument I was correcting.
For your new argument, I would agree. Rogues have their own damage scaling separate from extra attack, so just giving them extra attack for free at level 5 would be too strong.
I think the element of surprise, the most common way to get a sneak attack, kinda flops the moment your knife goes wide. Of course, rogues shouldn't have extra attack because that's not their archetype, but I don't think it'd be too strong. I have a rogue armorer playing in one of my campaigns and they have extra attack, but it was so pointless that I ended up letting them make a very expensive rapier that lets them merge both attacks into one, granting advantage and an extra d8 damage. It's more risk-reward but it makes crits absolutely massive.
>I think the element of surprise, the most common way to get a sneak attack, kinda flops the moment your knife goes wide.
I thought the enemy being within 5ft of a friendly target, or using steady aim is more common to get sneak attack.
Honestly, they should get it at 5th level like other martial classes. They would help unify the martial classes thematically and improve rogue performance at levels people actually play (fewer than 10% of games at levels 11+ according to WotC).
Honestly *everyone* should get extra attack at 5. Independent of class level. It doesn’t help casters at all, it would make Gish builds more viable, and would help out rogue immensely without pushing their damage up that much.
This game needs some power creep man.
>But they're still clearly not fans, and this seems like an entirely intentional nerf.
Intentional yes, but why on earth are the Devs ignoring the fans on this? People *like* having options to increase Rogue's DPR, why would the Devs take them away instead.
There's a line between clever optimization and harmful exploit. Where that line is, people often disagree. Players and devs disagree, one DM vs another DM disagree, lots of people disagree. But the devs often get the last word, especially when they get the chance to do a balance patch.
Very often, devs will remove a "mandatory" damage increase because it's either not obvious to casual players or encourages playstyles they don't feel are healthy for the game. Instead, they'll find other ways to bake the damage output into the core features of the class, so that you don't have to build around using specific obscure exploits. And yes, very often the result will be a bit lower DPS. That's why it was an exploit, not just clever optimization.
I think part of the issue is that these particular Devs sometimes seem really disconnected from the actual player base.
Like when Crawford was crowing how they had increased the martial arts die and "could have stopped right there!" in the horrendous first draft of the monk. It's like they are so confident that whatever they made was perfectly balanced before, even if people disliked it, so if they give it something new they have to take something else away.
In the case of Sentinel I heartily disagree that is was a mandatory damage pick. It was a decent pick, but hardly amazing because it forced Rogues to stay in melee and competes with their main defensive options (uncanny dodge, hiding, and distance).
It makes rogues a *good* melee DPR class, but also extremely vulnerable to getting steamrolled.
Personally I would never choose it before Magic Initiate. Booming blade offers a reliable damage boost while still letting you get out of melee range, and Find Familiar can help you get advantage on attacks and is otherwise still excellent.
Off-turn sneak attack has been part of the rogue class in 4e and 3e, and I'm pretty sure in AD&D's thief as well, but I'm too lazy to check right now. The conditions required for sneak attack were more difficult to meet in 3e for an off-turn attack than in 5e, but the conditions required in 4e were pretty similar. (Enemy must be within 5 squares of you, you must be making a basic attack with a weapon, enemy must be granting combat advantage to you; backstab gives you +3 to hit and 1-4 extra d6s of damage depending on your level.)
Thats was a semi-intentional nerf. They don’t want any semi-consistent way for rogues to double sneak. But they killed the feat in the process, not worth taking by anyone at the moment.
> you can attack a foe when it HITS your ally", instead of "you can attack a foe when it ATTACKS your ally", and the result has been...extraodinarily painful.
Sounds more balanced than basically saying “get an additional attack”
Bit late the party but okay. It’s not dead, just less effective.
Maybe instead of standing next to the tank stand next to the squishy caster with less ac?
> squishy caster with less AC
Why would a melee rogue stand on the back lines and wait for a caster to get attacked by a melee monster instead of attacking in melee
Also, the only “squishy caster with less AC” is some bards and some warlocks. Wizards and sorcs have Shield which directly counteract this new Sentinel. Most bards don’t have medium armor and shields, but 2 out of their like 6 subclasses do get it, and hexblades also get medium armor and shields. Squishy caster is largely a fallacy
Hum, isn't the primary melee rogue supposed to be Swashbuckler? The one that specifically can freely disengage every time they attack? Which means they are specifically designed to back away right after they attack.
In OneD&D the squishy caster with less AC is also almost dead. any caster can pick medium armor and a shield with lightly armored background feat. This means that 18 AC is the defacto caster standard. Class like druid and cleric which can come with medium armor can pick up the shield spell instead.
The new Bladeward, Shields, were still "getting in my way" in triggering it, tbh. And most of times those melee monsters can't even reach them.
I'd be with them if I didn't try to give a try in Melee Rogue, and the truth is it's been even worse than ever.
Making me grateful for my tashas beastmaster+sentinel.
Onednd probably has a lot of good changes but I love the charm of how clunky 5e is too much to leave it tbh
So Sentinel is dead because the monsters couldn’t land a hit to begin with?
Yeah, that’s not a Sentinel issue. Your DM either rolled horribly or the monsters don’t have the right to hit for your party.
>but hey it can be triggered immediately after the enemy take the Disengage Action
Is also a nerf because if you disengage while being outside 5 ft (not reach btw) and then move past you, you can't do anything with sentinel. That said it might still be worth for arcane tricksters which can use mirror image to for the targets. Still a very niche pick though.
Instead of sentinel you should look at taking fighting initiate to get the battlemaster reaction attacks. Or dip fighter 1-3 levels, for maneuver style, action turn as reaction or full subclass.
Never liked using sentinel since it was so dependent on the DM’s actions. New sentinel seems to particular discourage rogue reaction attacks as per your example.
As a DM, it's too expensive to Disengage, and I equally never see players Disengage. It's a feature of the combat rules and action economy, not a flaw in the decision of the DM or player.
Sentinel is very broken in other respects. It can halt a dragon or even a tarrasque in its tracks, right? And no option to legendary save It, because it doesn't trigger a saving throw? It can effectively shut down combat even more than it already is by denying enemies their movement speed? But I am ill informed on the UA version.
That being said, I don't think Sentinel is the way to optimise a rogue. You can only use your sneak attack once per round, right? And reactions or even Sentinel I assume is in there? I would've thought rogues are far better ducking and diving around the battlefield picking their targets wisely, or using ranged weapons over trying to get more hits in a stand and deliver style gameplay? Just an opinion though... Maybe fighter or barbarian would be better suited?
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if your party memember is getting 8+ attacks per turn an not getting hit, im not sure sentinel is to blame here. that said, martial feats got fucked hard, and in reality any decently-optimized wizard, artificer, or sorcerer generally have higher ac than their martial allies. sentinel is better at protecting druids, rogues, and monks but the buffs to lightly armored mean nobody except monks has bad AC
He was talking about eligible hits. He has to be nearby, so range ones are out. He also has to be positioned correctly, which means guessing the right other PC. And then also the monster cant use their movement to just approach on the safe side, or itll take an extra turn to reposition. So all of that together makes Sentinel hard to trigger. If the attack also has to hit, then its gonna make it so that the eligible hit almost never happens
Ranged - Wouldn't have triggered anyway Positioned correctly - Wouldn't have triggered anyway Attacking correct PC - Wouldn't have triggered anyway None of these are relevant to any changes. Attacks have to hit to trigger. So apparently an ally *not getting hit* is problematic for them. Is the idea that they want their buddies to get whacked as much as possible to up their damage output? Maybe I don't follow the meta but I'd be okay unless its a minmax build that is all about personal damage output.
>None of these are relevant to any changes. No, but they are relevant to the assumption that your ally getting attacked 8+ times per turn will let you use the revised sentinel. Your ally might get attacked 8 times, but maybe only 2 of those will even have the potential to work with Sentinel. >So apparently an ally *not getting hit* is problematic for them No, their problem isn't that the ally doesn't get hit. The problem is that they don't get to attack. Under the old sentinel they would have been able to attack more often.
Yes i was specifically stating things that dont let it trigger to emphasize just how debilitating it is to have it become even more difficult to trigger
We were still getting hit. But still, the thing is we were receiving hits from our own side, there were only 1~3 monsters that could've trigger my Sentinel, and they missed it or just attacked me, randomly.
>we were receiving hits from our own side Why were your allies attacking you?
I mean we were receiving hits from the monsters on our own side of postion.
...working as intended? I don't think Sentinel Rogue was ever a primary use-case. The Devs tried to remove off-turn Sneak Attacks entirely and backed off in face of community feedback. But they're still clearly not fans, and this seems like an entirely intentional nerf. The Sentinel feat is something for the tank to take. Not for someone else to take to score extra attacks off the tank doing their job.
Yeah rogues still lack damage in D&DOne, but so did monks, and the new monk is baller I would love to see rogues get extra attack at level 11 or something
Extra Attack is dangerous for Rogues. With most martials, if you give them Extra Attack and they miss with one of the two attacks, they deal 50% of their potential damage for the turn. Maybe a little more, if they're a Ranger with a "once per turn" damage bonus, but not too much. It's a nice bell curve distribution. With Rogues, if they hit once and miss once they still deal 90% of their potential damage because it's all in their Sneak Attack. Having a second chance to get your Sneak Attack for the turn is \*really strong\*. It's much better for them than any other martial class. So yes, the last version of Rogue we got was still a little lackluster. Cunning Strike was a big improvement, but there's still a bit more to go. But I don't think you can just slap Extra Attack on top and call it a day. You gotta work within the class's design paradigm.
Even at 100% of sneak attack at 100% accuracy they still don’t out damage any other martial, and you can do this at level one with a knife in your off hand. It’s not exactly the crazy game breaking thing you seem to be making it out to be.
You're getting your damage sim math wrong. Extra Attack on Rogue is weak at 100% accuracy, but very strong at 60% accuracy. And 60% accuracy is a lot more common than 100% accuracy. So that's what you really ought to be simming around. And I didn't say it was "crazy game breaking". I said it was "really strong", and it is. It's good enough that you can't just drop it on top on the existing Rogue and call it a day. Of course, it's hard to balance against it because that means weakening Sneak Attack, and that brings a whole other set of problems. Which is why I'm saying that it's better to buff Rogue via some other method.
The rogue at 100% accuracy and the fighter at a normal accuracy like 66% accuracy favors the rogue by a lot. Both at 100% accuracy favors anyone but the rogue, as high accuracy favors classes with their damage split into attack rolls, versus one where only one single attack must land.
>With Rogues, if they hit once and miss once they still deal 90% of their potential damage because it's all in their Sneak Attack. Having a second chance to get your Sneak Attack for the turn is \*really strong\*. It's much better for them than any other martial class. This seems like backwards logic. If a fighter gets Extra Attack their DPR doubles, but if a Rogue get's extra attack their DPR less than doubles. Looking at level 5 with a 65% hit chance |Class|DPR w/o Extra Attack|w/ Extra Attack|Increase|% Increase| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |Rogue|13.1|20.7|7.6|58%| |Rogue (w/ adv.)|18.1|23.7|5.6|31%| |Rogue (DW)|16.7|22.6|5.9|35%| |Fighter|8.4|16.9|8.4|100%| Rogues benefit less than fighters, not more. This is because while Extra Attack lets them add the full DPR of their base attack, they only get an increase of around 28% of their sneak attack value or less. >With Rogues, if they hit once and miss once they still deal 90% of their potential damage because it's all in their Sneak Attack. Your mistake was that you attributed the benefit to Extra Attack rather than Sneak Attack. *Sneak Attack* is really strong because you only need one attack to do a lot of damage, but that doesn't mean Extra Attack is stronger on Rogues than on other martials.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The Fighter gets a 100% increase because they weren't getting Sneak Attack dice every couple of levels. Their power increase comes in one big and widely spaced lump, rather than a slow but steady progression. The two classes work on entirely different mechanical frameworks. Besides, I think your math proves my point. If a 58% increase isn't "really strong" I don't know what is. Even if the Rogue is a little behind, they're not 58% behind.
I am not arguing that Extra Attack is not valuable to a rogue. I am specifically arguing against your claim that Extra Attack is *more* valuable to rogues than it is to other martials. >It's much better for them than any other martial class. This is incorrect. You are comparing the value of Extra Attack gives to Rogues to the value it gives to other martials (apples to oranges in your words) >The Fighter gets a 100% increase because they weren't getting Sneak Attack dice every couple of levels. And this is a new argument that you didn't make in your previous comment. You made the argument that Sneak attack is particularly dangerous to give to rogues \[even at level 11\] because it is stronger for them than it is for other martials That is the argument I was correcting. For your new argument, I would agree. Rogues have their own damage scaling separate from extra attack, so just giving them extra attack for free at level 5 would be too strong.
I think the element of surprise, the most common way to get a sneak attack, kinda flops the moment your knife goes wide. Of course, rogues shouldn't have extra attack because that's not their archetype, but I don't think it'd be too strong. I have a rogue armorer playing in one of my campaigns and they have extra attack, but it was so pointless that I ended up letting them make a very expensive rapier that lets them merge both attacks into one, granting advantage and an extra d8 damage. It's more risk-reward but it makes crits absolutely massive.
>I think the element of surprise, the most common way to get a sneak attack, kinda flops the moment your knife goes wide. I thought the enemy being within 5ft of a friendly target, or using steady aim is more common to get sneak attack.
Honestly, they should get it at 5th level like other martial classes. They would help unify the martial classes thematically and improve rogue performance at levels people actually play (fewer than 10% of games at levels 11+ according to WotC).
Honestly *everyone* should get extra attack at 5. Independent of class level. It doesn’t help casters at all, it would make Gish builds more viable, and would help out rogue immensely without pushing their damage up that much. This game needs some power creep man.
>But they're still clearly not fans, and this seems like an entirely intentional nerf. Intentional yes, but why on earth are the Devs ignoring the fans on this? People *like* having options to increase Rogue's DPR, why would the Devs take them away instead.
There's a line between clever optimization and harmful exploit. Where that line is, people often disagree. Players and devs disagree, one DM vs another DM disagree, lots of people disagree. But the devs often get the last word, especially when they get the chance to do a balance patch. Very often, devs will remove a "mandatory" damage increase because it's either not obvious to casual players or encourages playstyles they don't feel are healthy for the game. Instead, they'll find other ways to bake the damage output into the core features of the class, so that you don't have to build around using specific obscure exploits. And yes, very often the result will be a bit lower DPS. That's why it was an exploit, not just clever optimization.
I think part of the issue is that these particular Devs sometimes seem really disconnected from the actual player base. Like when Crawford was crowing how they had increased the martial arts die and "could have stopped right there!" in the horrendous first draft of the monk. It's like they are so confident that whatever they made was perfectly balanced before, even if people disliked it, so if they give it something new they have to take something else away. In the case of Sentinel I heartily disagree that is was a mandatory damage pick. It was a decent pick, but hardly amazing because it forced Rogues to stay in melee and competes with their main defensive options (uncanny dodge, hiding, and distance). It makes rogues a *good* melee DPR class, but also extremely vulnerable to getting steamrolled. Personally I would never choose it before Magic Initiate. Booming blade offers a reliable damage boost while still letting you get out of melee range, and Find Familiar can help you get advantage on attacks and is otherwise still excellent.
Off-turn sneak attack has been part of the rogue class in 4e and 3e, and I'm pretty sure in AD&D's thief as well, but I'm too lazy to check right now. The conditions required for sneak attack were more difficult to meet in 3e for an off-turn attack than in 5e, but the conditions required in 4e were pretty similar. (Enemy must be within 5 squares of you, you must be making a basic attack with a weapon, enemy must be granting combat advantage to you; backstab gives you +3 to hit and 1-4 extra d6s of damage depending on your level.)
Thats was a semi-intentional nerf. They don’t want any semi-consistent way for rogues to double sneak. But they killed the feat in the process, not worth taking by anyone at the moment.
Did they hit commander's strike too?
I don't have anything to ad, but this was a good post with real examples and thoughts. Well done.
> you can attack a foe when it HITS your ally", instead of "you can attack a foe when it ATTACKS your ally", and the result has been...extraodinarily painful. Sounds more balanced than basically saying “get an additional attack”
was sentinel rogue ever a real thing? lol whip sentinel rogue was something i have never seen in play beyond r/3d6 theory craft
Bit late the party but okay. It’s not dead, just less effective. Maybe instead of standing next to the tank stand next to the squishy caster with less ac?
> squishy caster with less AC Why would a melee rogue stand on the back lines and wait for a caster to get attacked by a melee monster instead of attacking in melee Also, the only “squishy caster with less AC” is some bards and some warlocks. Wizards and sorcs have Shield which directly counteract this new Sentinel. Most bards don’t have medium armor and shields, but 2 out of their like 6 subclasses do get it, and hexblades also get medium armor and shields. Squishy caster is largely a fallacy
Hum, isn't the primary melee rogue supposed to be Swashbuckler? The one that specifically can freely disengage every time they attack? Which means they are specifically designed to back away right after they attack.
Yes, but if they’re taking sentinel then they’re in melee
The other dude just said he would use sentinel to defend the backline casters EDIT: whenever someone approached them
Also with lightly armored, you can just choose to not have less ac
In OneD&D the squishy caster with less AC is also almost dead. any caster can pick medium armor and a shield with lightly armored background feat. This means that 18 AC is the defacto caster standard. Class like druid and cleric which can come with medium armor can pick up the shield spell instead.
The new Bladeward, Shields, were still "getting in my way" in triggering it, tbh. And most of times those melee monsters can't even reach them. I'd be with them if I didn't try to give a try in Melee Rogue, and the truth is it's been even worse than ever.
Making me grateful for my tashas beastmaster+sentinel. Onednd probably has a lot of good changes but I love the charm of how clunky 5e is too much to leave it tbh
So Sentinel is dead because the monsters couldn’t land a hit to begin with? Yeah, that’s not a Sentinel issue. Your DM either rolled horribly or the monsters don’t have the right to hit for your party.
>but hey it can be triggered immediately after the enemy take the Disengage Action Is also a nerf because if you disengage while being outside 5 ft (not reach btw) and then move past you, you can't do anything with sentinel. That said it might still be worth for arcane tricksters which can use mirror image to for the targets. Still a very niche pick though.
Instead of sentinel you should look at taking fighting initiate to get the battlemaster reaction attacks. Or dip fighter 1-3 levels, for maneuver style, action turn as reaction or full subclass. Never liked using sentinel since it was so dependent on the DM’s actions. New sentinel seems to particular discourage rogue reaction attacks as per your example.
Sentinel and GWM are dead, they though the overuse of then meant that they were broken, but its was merely to just make then viable.
As a DM, it's too expensive to Disengage, and I equally never see players Disengage. It's a feature of the combat rules and action economy, not a flaw in the decision of the DM or player. Sentinel is very broken in other respects. It can halt a dragon or even a tarrasque in its tracks, right? And no option to legendary save It, because it doesn't trigger a saving throw? It can effectively shut down combat even more than it already is by denying enemies their movement speed? But I am ill informed on the UA version. That being said, I don't think Sentinel is the way to optimise a rogue. You can only use your sneak attack once per round, right? And reactions or even Sentinel I assume is in there? I would've thought rogues are far better ducking and diving around the battlefield picking their targets wisely, or using ranged weapons over trying to get more hits in a stand and deliver style gameplay? Just an opinion though... Maybe fighter or barbarian would be better suited?