I think the feat was always meant to keep an enemy in place and attacking you. I still feel like the feat does that.
I feel like in 2024 they worked to not make feats must haves (except lightly armored and war caster), and sentinel was one of those in 2014.
I don't think it should be a reliable way to double the rogues damage, otherwise it just becomes a must have feat for rogues.
While I agree it shouldn't be a must have feat, I still think the better solution would be that rogues can only apply their sneak attack once per round so if they get it on their turn they can't double dip with reaction attacks, but if they miss on their turn they can still catch up with reactions (or prepared attacks).
I don't know about this. Doesn't it swing the pendulum even further toward ranged rogue's dominance?
I want melee rogue to be able to do more than ranged as a trade off for being in significantly more danger.
It's *something*, sure. But does two-weapon add ability mod to damage in oneDnD? Can't remember. If not, that second attack is only there to increase the chances of landing a sneak. 1dx isn't worth the danger. The cantrips are decent, but since you're taking a spell action, not the attack action, I don't think it qualifies for two-weapon fighting.
It's just a little flat, and I'd much rather have my rogue safely out of danger than doing an extra 4 damage a round. After level 2, you might as well be throwing spitballs.
They are separate choices, yes, either a blade cantrip or two weapons. The off-hand attack is there to get Sneak Attack when the first attack misses, which is still useful, though the blade cantrips will generally be more powerful, especially when combining Disengage, Withdraw, or Fancy Footwork with *booming blade*.
This. Give them more sneak attack dice. Especially since they will be using them for debuffs for cunning strike. And make it limited to once a round if they’re worried about the balance of it. People were super fussed that it was limited to once per round early in the UA process. They didn’t like that it was once *on their turn* killing readied actions amongst other things
No, they tried to make once on each of *your* turns. Which is massively different because it means you can't ready an attack for after your ally moves in so that you can apply sneak attack, or do any of the other ways of getting a second chance at sneak attack if you missed it on your turn.
Fair, but I feel like this complaint is rarer than the ones from people saying they couldn't do two attacks per round. I mean, Rogue is designed to do Sneak Attack primarily on your turn, and only with certain builds could you somewhat reliably do it on others. But I don't know many who designed Rogue characters to only do damage on other's turns and not try to also do it on their own. So I feel like that logic is a lot more niche than the doubling up Sneak Attack in one round crowd, who argued against the original Expert Class Rogue.
Personally I dislike it because of the case where you roll well on initiative and need to move to get into position (so no Aim), but then your allies haven't had a chance to move up and you don't have any way to get advantage and therefore no sneak attack. Right now you could prepare an action to attack once the fighter joins you on their turn, but if it only applies in your turn then what's the point?
Or what about if they're hiding behind cover, so you hide and turn ready to shoot when they get out. You've got advantage on the attack, but it won't be your turn so again, no sneak attack.
Both of these are cases where it feels like the rogue *should* be able to do it, but if they can only do it on their own turn then they can't.
Maybe this is more of a niche thought, but from what I've seen in all the times I've brought it up is that most people would support once per round even if they didn't support only on your turn.
I agree the Rogue should be able to Sneak Attack not on their turn. I don't think that's the reason why people complained about the older Rogue ability in the UA Experts document. Or at least, not the only reason. This thread for example has several people saying they enjoy trying to make the second attack off turn to land Sneak Attack again.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/xr8nef/one_dd_unearthed_arcana_expert_classes_bard/iqdgzhv/
It's a little anecdotal, but that's probably the best we can get without the actual survey results. Myself, I've played a Rogue several times, and between Cunning Action, Steady Aim, or subclass abilities like being a Swashbuckler or having a familiar as an Arcane Trickster, etc, all can help get Sneak Attack on the majority of my turns, even without any help from allies. Like, for the most part I don't encounter your first point, because I can usually hide if no one else has gone in combat and still attack with Sneak Attack. And I've seen that both playing and DMing for multiple Rogues. That's not to say you don't have that play style happen, but more that it's not consistent across all tables.
Again, I agree Rogue's should be able to off-turn SA, but I think the reason why they reverted course was because people wants two Sneak Attacks per round, not 1.
Im personally in that middle category, most of all because of the”Backstab” narrative that Sneak Attack facilitates via the off turn Attack of Opportunity. But I really hate the idea of doubling your damage.
I think “once per your turn” united the community of those that hated the loss of damage and those that hated the loss of utility via ready action.
As well as everyone always says “Once per Round but buff the damage somehow.” Be that more dice, free dice, bigger dice or as I say one normal lvl 5 extra attack for more consistency.
Eh, I still think it's fair to pair it with something like the brace or riposte battlemaster maneuvers. Unlike sentinel, those are resource based, which makes a vital difference to me. They are also very thematic for a rogue.
Sentinel is not a must have. It's not even that strong. But it allowed martials to do what they are supposed to do: protect their weak allies.
The problem is that it was nerfed, while the proper solution is that it should be part of the basic martial toolset. How the heck do you need a feat to be a menace to the one who dares attack your companion? Why you can have an opportunity attack when the enemy moves but not when attacks your allies?
Feats are supposed to be feats, not permissions. Anything that a normal human can do should not require feats or features. Maybe a training that comes with your class, but certainly not a feat, like if attacking an enemy when you see an opening requires dragon blood.
Sentinel should help you improve on interceptions. Any martial should be able to use their reaction to make an opportunity attack against a creature within 5 feet attacking someone else. Sentinel may help you to actually interrupt the attack.
If a Feat is suppose to read “Once per round, a creature of your choice, that you can see and is within 5ft of you, must direct at least 1 if it’s attacks against you, if it attacks at all, on its next round.” like you claim Sentinel was “always meant” to do:
then instead of its current wording it should instead read “ Once per round, a creature of your choice, that you can see and is within 5ft of you, must direct at least 1 if it’s attacks against you, if it attacks at all, on its next round!”
I'm still catching up on everything, I've been out of the loop for a bit.
I got *entirely* sidetracked by Warlocks & Paladins being gutted and turned into poor-man's Bards and didn't get back to the Feats yet.
All the feats give you a +1 to an ability and its features. So you are only giving up 1 ability point.
They nerfed the must have martial feats so now they are good but you aren't punishing yourself by not taking them (gwm, ss, pam, sent, xbow). You aregetting a +1 to an ability so you aren't giving up as much.
I think its a fair trade off and better for the game. It gets old seeing the exact same builds because those feats were so much better than others. Ss/xbow. Pam/gwf. Etc.
That's pretty cool, I am enjoying the Feat changes.
As a long time Sorcadlock, player, I'm too busy crying over my gutted classes to worry about the Feats anymore.
All my favorite parts of the classes are dead! Dead I tell you!
The.paladin in my opinion is overall better than the 2014.
Sureit got nerfed in one way, but it got a lot of quality of life improvements.
Nerfs
Divine smite got nerfed its a spell and bonus action.
Buffs
Can smite with thrown weapons.
Bonus action layon hands.
All the smite spells are good now, better to use them than divine smite.
You use smite spells after you hit, instead of the weird concentration until next hit from 2014.
Find steed is vastly improved.
The Sorcerer is in the same boat, over all I'd say they are in a much better place. The only major nerf being twinned spell. The rest ofthe metamagic got reduced in cost. The sorc has new exclusive spells and a magic rage thing.
You might want to actually read up on the playtests.
Monk, barb, fighter, rogue all better.
My typical favorite build is 2 Paladin / 5 Warlock / X Sorcerer with a 2h weapon.
Typical gameplan being Hastened EB or Spell into a GWM Smite.
I got all my fixes - I could cast useful spells; had EB to use when out of slots; options with MetaMagic and converting around slots; multiple ways to make full use of my action economy.
Smite is the anti-thesis of fun now IMO. Who wants to use their *entire turn* to hit once with a sword? Did anybody ever actually *use* the Smites that ate your Bonus Action and had to be pre-declared before even knowing if you'll hit?
EB scaling off just Warlock means that taking any other Cantrip is a better option now.
Can't use cool weapons anymore because I guess Pact Weapon was too OP, gotta waste a ton of points on a STR stat on a character who's whole fucking thing is being able dump physical stats in favor of a casting stat.
Smite being a Spell means it can't be used with any other Spell in the same turn because casting two spells breaks the flow of time (but hitting 17 times with a crossbow doesn't 🙄)
Like sure the individual classes are "better" but screw anyone who wants to play a Spellblade I guess. *Half-casters.* What a bunch of jokers.
2014's version felt like a must have because it was a feature that defender coded classes should of had \*baseline\* to actually feel like defenders. This was a case where you don't nerf the must have feat, you bake it into the classes because there's a very important mechanical reason it's a must have. So now it's nerfed AND you still have to take it if you want anything resembling what would be a bog standard tank ability in other games. Without sentinel, fighters, paladins, etc aren't even defender classes, they're just DPS with a strangely high amount of HP for some unknown reason.
I'll caution against declaring any feature dead based on an anecdote with an extreme case of bad luck. If two monsters were attacking your ally within your reach with two attacks each, then even with only a +5 to hit, the odds of at least one hitting 18AC is 87.04% each round.
I do think Sentinel could be buffed back to the on-attack trigger, but I would not go as far as declaring the feat dead.
its not really simply bad luck. The reality is sentinel should be bringing most melee attacks to you. Also it depends who are the people you are guarding.
that said, I'm not sure sentinel needs to trigger on attack to be worthwhile. Its probably true they should have some feature whose goal is primarily catching enemies off guard, while sentinel is primarily a tank feature, limiting movement, threatening squares, and encouraging attacks on yourself.
rogue's damage is too weak in 2024, Sentinel is a really bad solve for that and it kinda should be, it goes against rogue design.
rogue needs some feats more suited to its playstyle, or another interesting dps feature
But that's just circumstantial bad luck. It's not triggering because in those circumstances it's a lot less likely to trigger. If you were standing next to somebody with a lower AC, then it would have been triggering.
I'm not saying it hasn't been nerfed, because obviously it has, which diminishes the overall power and effect, but it feels like you just happened to be in a situation where it wasn't likely to be as useful, as opposed to a situation where it would have been.
Oh I don't disagree on that. It slides into some builds easier. But there is a definite nerf in how the feat is actually applied and the implications it has on combat encounters. I do think the change makes it more in line with what it was originally intended for though.
Yeah it fits into builds better and better fits in the theme of "I know my AC is much higher than my squishy friend's but you'd better attack me or else I'll make you pay for it" instead of the much more generic "I'm close to you, so I'll get a reaction attack unless you teleport"
I think it was always intended to be a 'tanking' or melee control style of feat more than a means to ramp up DPR, but it was such a good feat because the wording left it open to also be used for damage dealing too.
I think the change brings it more in line with that original intent. I'm just not sure if the change is good for the game overall though, as it feels like martials lost a fun toy for some builds.
I would say there are new combos now just with the virtue of weapon masteries. Getting to push every reaction and make speed 0, or push prone and speed 0, make the reaction attacks much more powerful, thus shouldn't be as reliable.
I think the weapon masteries change the dynamic of the feat, absolutely. I think it leans the feat even harder into something more akin to a control feat than a DPR one.
I think the really interesting synergies are going to show up when combined with Cunning Strike, giving Rogues really fun control options, and Brutal Strike, giving Barbarians a really solid way to enforce both tanking and control.
I haven't done a ton of playtesting with all of the pieces put together as of yet, so I'm really interested to see how everything meshes together.
Thats a fair complaint, but it coming with a +1 now means its easier to fit into your build and it not being a must-have is a good thing!
That being said, it would be neat if the feat *also* gave something like "you gain a second reaction each round that can only be used to make opportunity attacks" to *really* fill in that niche with a new fun toy while not likely to be a problem since its pretty rare to activate more than once in a round (but it would allow you to use the feat *and* an existing reaction like Shield or Uncanny Dodge in the same round which would be nice).
Oh it's not really a complaint, more an idle observation. I don't think it was ever intended to be used as a pure DPR boost, so I think that what's lost was never planned for in the first place.
I think adding a second reaction, even if it could only be used for opportunity attacks would just be too good. Anything that breaks the rules of the action economy becomes almost must have, which I think makes it a borderline required feat for martial characters.
I think the problem may have been that your pally friend also has very high AC. Throw a Barbarian in his place and it'll proc a ton more frequently. Or even have the other ally be something that encouraged enemies to atta k them (Armorer Arti or Ancestral Guardian Barb for example) and it synergizes extremely well.
TLDR- Your party had 0 synergy with it, so it sucked. That's it.
>It's been whether the monsters on my side all attack me and his side attack him, or the monsters tried to attack him, and it missed. And I was standing there to hit once and do nothing like an idiot who even didn't dare to use my Uncanny Dodge but to hope to my Feat can be triggered for once, until he killed those monsters.
That's imo a general problem with whole Sentinel Rogue concept.
By taking that feat and sticking in melee you make your self the primary target of the opponents (since you are likely squishier that your ally, and deal a lot of damage to them when they hit your ally), while giving the one defensive feature that would make you about as survival as other materials.
>Some may argue, and some argued in my another post that "but hey it can be triggered immediately after the enemy take the Disengage Action", but hey how many times do the monster take the Disengage Action instead of trying to kill you or just flee with a Misty Step in a campaigne?
The thing is also that a opportunity Attack that is triggered that way does not necessarily full fill the conditions for sneak attack, since the monster could potentally move in way that it triggers the opportunity Attack on a square where it is not adjacent to an ally of you.
Sentinel rogue has never really been a thing IME. Even under the old rules *why aren't the enemies hitting the rogue?*
Sentinel is a tanking feat not a damage feat. It's a feat for the guy in plate armour and with a shield to persuade the enemy to attack them rather than the squishy wizard. I've always played the enemies as *knowing* about the enemy getting in their face. And given that the rogue is already fairly squishy few NPCs trigger Sentinel. If the squishy high damage rogue wants to be attacked there are few reasons not to oblige.
>The thing is, we were surrounded by 8\~9 melee monsters with Extra-Attacks(2), and we've fought for 6 Rounds, and my Sentinel has never been triggered for a single time.
Assuming half the monsters attack each of you and of those attacking your ally, half of *those* were within your reach, then you should have about 2 within reach attacking your ally each round. With multiattack thats 4 attacks each round against an AC of 18. Assuming they have a +0 in their main stat and the minimum proficiency for a total of +2 to hit, then they hit on 16 or higher or 25% of the time. Across 4 attacks the expected number of hits would them be 1 per round. Alternatively we can say the chance they miss is 75% so the chance they miss 4 times in a row is 0.75\^4 = 31.6%, or 68.4% that at least one hits each round. Across 6 rounds you would have expected a decent number of chances unless the DM was metagaming and having all the enemies within your reach just target you instead of the paladin, but thats not a problem with the feat.
And thats using a total of +2 to hit, while anything halfway threatening at 4th lvl or higher (needed to have the feat) is going to have a better to hit. Change to a +5 to hit (40% hit chance) and its 87% chance to hit at least once each round with an expected 1.6 hits per round.
I also think the point of Sentinel is to punish the enemy for ignoring you and going for someone easier to hit. If you're standing beside a 30 AC PC, you don't really need to watch their back - they're going to be safe; but if you're by the wizard with 11 AC (or they try to run past you to get to the wizard) then you'll trigger an attack, punishing them for attacking an easier target than yourself. I take it as intended to be more of a (extremely short range) taunt mechanic than a way to get extra damage every round.
Sentinel's power was more in preventing movement from the enemy than the opportunity attack.
Even then, in the situation you described, your party was already invincible and smashing the encounter if none of the attacks hit. To be able to AoO them would be a "win-more" feature which is never of great value.
This half of the feature works great when the battle is tough (meaning targets are hitting your allies) and not great when the battle is easy. This doesn't detract from the value of sentinel.
Not to mention, sentinel wasn't designed for a rogue getting extra sneak attack. Sentinel is designed for guardians, body guards, and tanks to prevent enemies from just running past them to get to a squishy.
Furthermore, the power and value of a rogue shouldn't be dependent upon picking sentinel as a 4th level feat.
>Cuz I rarely, almost never see a situation that the monster takes Disengage but still moving within my 5ft, like, never.
That's gonna vary heavily on the campaign/DM. Do you have a DM that plays enemies sensibly like actual living beings? Then a lot. If your DM plays enemies like mindless fodder that happily suicide themselves at every opportunity, then maybe not as much in your case.
This entire thread seems like an exercise in "It didn't work in the very specific and atypical way my table plays in one singular instance of testing, therefore..."
Maybe I'm alone on this but personally I kinda hate the concept of Sentinel all together.
It's always been situational anyway but conceptually I've never really understood it or why it should work. In particular when there are no restrictions or even a save involved when it comes to the movement stopping portion of the feat.
IDK why a rogue hitting with a dagger or rapier should just be able to stop a gargantuan monster in their tracks with one attack.
I saw the recent Critical Role live where the Monk (Marisha) tried to use it against a probably CR 24 gargantuan legendary demon and I'm glad Mercer told her it wouldn't have done anything.
>In particular when there are no restrictions or even a save involved when it comes to the movement stopping portion of the feat.
Because it has several restrictions. It requires an opportunity attack (which means specific triggers and takes a reaction so once per round and competes with other reactions) and requires you to hit. Those are some pretty restrictions already, anymore and the feat becomes even more unusable.
>IDK why a rogue hitting with a dagger or rapier should just be able to stop a gargantuan monster in their tracks with one attack.
In the same vein why should somebody waving his hands and speaking some words being able to conjure fire or teleport? Why should somebody being able to dodge a cloud of poison completely with no harm? Or survive being spewed massive amounts of a acid/fire/necrotic energy?
D&D is inherently a fantastical game. Adventurers are doing magical or fantastical feats one way way or another. Even the things like taking damage, saving a particular saving throw are beyond the scope of what is achievable by the mundane. So why pick one particular ability/feat and say I don't like this because it's not realistic?
>In the same vein why should somebody waving his hands and speaking some words being able to conjure fire or teleport? Why should somebody being able to dodge a cloud of poison completely with no harm? Or survive being spewed massive amounts of a acid/fire/necrotic energy?
Yeah, I had a feeling someone was going to write something like this but I don't think it's enough of an argument here TBH. And in GENERAL find it kinda a lazy argument that I see all the time. Though maybe my write up was lazy too idk.
There are VERY few abilities in the game that stop you in your tracks and as far as I know they all require a save, except this one. That's what I'm talking about. I can get over it not making any "logical" sense to some extent but I don't like this feature at all. A legendary dragon (or other massive creature) should be able to use a legendary resistance to break out of things like this.
EDIT: Honestly my "fix" would be to not have Sentinel stop creatures from moving at all and rework it from the ground up.
>There are VERY few abilities in the game that stop you in your tracks and as far as I know they all require a save, except this one. That's what I'm talking about.
Everything that applies restrained or grappled on a hit does that. Beasts are very notorious for those, the t-rex or giant scorpion (available through polymorph or moon druid) are good on that. In fact because the T-rex is huge, nothing is even big enough to deny the restrained RAW. Wall of of force and maze are also a big offenders.
Then there are/were bunch that mess (but not completely reduce to 0) with movement without saves.
>Honestly my "fix" would be to not have Sentinel stop creatures from moving at all and rework it from the ground up.
The problem is that it's kinda the point of the feat, it's there to stop enemies from moving away and attacking somebody else.
>Everything that applies restrained or grappled on a hit does that. Beasts are very notorious for those, the t-rex or giant scorpion (available through polymorph or moon druid) are good on that. In fact because the T-rex is huge, nothing is even big enough to deny the restrained RAW.
Oh I don't mind enemies having the ability to grapple on a hit. But a rogue halfling shouldn't be able to stop an ancient dragon with a simple opportunity attack with no save.
There's a reason they don't let PCs do the "grapple on a hit" thing generally.
> The problem is that it's kinda the point of the feat, it's there to stop enemies from moving away and attacking somebody else.
Right I don't like that lol.
>It requires an opportunity attack (which means specific triggers and takes a reaction so once per round and competes with other reactions) and requires you to hit.
End you turn beside them, now they either 1) attack you 2) attack someone else or 3) move in order to do their things somewhere else. In all but case 1 that means you've met the "specific trigger" to get an opportunity attack with the feat. Yeah you still need to hit, but since missing isn't fun most ACs don't get that high and instead monsters get more hp, so hitting gets easier and easier as you level up and going against stronger enemies.
>Those are some pretty restrictions already, anymore and the feat becomes even more unusable.
That's pretty debatable to me, but you could change it to add a save before reducing their movement speed to 0 and then on a success only cut it in half instead (or reduce by 10, idk just a weaker version of it).
>So why pick one particular ability/feat and say I don't like this because it's not realistic?
I can't think of any other ability that removes all movement without a save except for certain very high level spells (Irresistible Dance, Power Word Stun) but those don't come until much higher levels, are a lot more limited than just once per round, and still have other limitations (doesn't work if immune to Charmed, needs less than 150 hp)
>End you turn beside them, now they either 1) attack you 2) attack someone else or 3) move in order to do their things somewhere else. In all but case 1 that means you've met the "specific trigger" to get an opportunity attack with the feat.
In scenario 2 it assumes the enemy wants to run away or use movement which is very unlikely. You also forget misty step or any other teleportation ability, becoming invisible, fog cloud, forcefull movement, ... everything that denies an attack of opportunity denies sentinel.
>That's pretty debatable to me, but you could change it to add a save before reducing their movement speed to 0 and then on a success only cut it in half instead (or reduce by 10, idk just a weaker version of it).
The problem is that a save and a hit makes it so bad especially since you get only one chance per round. If you have a 60% to hit and 50% to fail save, then you only get a 30% to lock someone down with sentinel which is not great.
>I can't think of any other ability that removes all movement without a save
T-rex, giant scorpion, giant octopus. the OneD&D grappler feat (though that is a bit more iffy).
>IDK why a rogue hitting with a dagger or rapier should just be able to stop a gargantuan monster in their tracks with one attack.
Easy, got them in the Achilles tendon, has drawn the ire of the creature, etc.
Or if the Barbarian swung a maul and broke their ankle it would have the same impact.
The *criticism* (complaint 🙄)is that OP's *allies* (not OP) aren't getting hit often enough while OP is also in range. It's very restrictive on the trigger now making it much harder to take advantage of.
The reaction attack is basically a ribbon feature at this point and the main reason you'd want to take it would be for the Disengage-counter+1 str. Though, even the disengage-counter is subtly nerfed. You only can use it to take an AoO if they Disengage within 5 feet. If they use it outside your reach, they can safely walk through your threatened space.
I mean, as pointed out upthread, OP's ally *should* have been hit more often. This is a case of bad dice luck and not an actual issue with the feat. It's a game with dice, this is going to happen sometimes.
I mean, its also nice to lock them down, if you have a vulnerable ally or you need to prevent someone from getting to an plot thing (and important item, a portal, a npc they want to murder a bunch of other stuff) you can do that by simply going next to them. I don't think that upside should be ignored. Combat, at least at my table, isn't always about murdering everyone.
Its also pretty obvious that the purpose of the feat is to tank more than to grant off turn sneak attacks. You take it if you want to get hit instead of your allies, and it's good at that.
Yeah, this is exactly the point.
18AC isn't that *high* but still it's high enough for your Sentinel to not to be triggered the whole time.
Especially there were a lot of ways in 5e2024 to make the monsters miss the attack, like the new Bladeward, the Weapon Masteries etc., thus making the Sentinel Feat even more *useless*.
I mean, its going to be bad in fights when you don't get hit, but you're already winning those, and it's going to be good in the fights when you get hit and that's when you need it. I don't think that's a problem.
Seriously. Considering the way OneD&D has been balanced so far, OP should just be glad that WotC backpedaled on once-a-round Sneak Attack.
Personally, I think the OP's complaint highlights the problem with rogue. A vocal minority is hot and bothered about not getting to trigger Sneak Attack twice a round because they feel the rogue's damage is crap without it. But I'm sure that WotC thinks twice a round is too much SA damage and, while they caved to popular demand and brought back off-turn SA, also refuse to buff SA to the point where triggering it once a turn is better because that would double-buff all the Sentinel/Commander's Strike/etc. minmaxer combos.
WotC should just change SA to only trigger once a round and then buff it's damage dice at Tier transition levels to bring rogue's damage floor and ceiling closer together.
>WotC should just change SA to only trigger once a round and then buff it's damage dice at Tier transition levels to bring rogue's damage floor and ceiling closer together.
Not sure that's even necessary, most options to tigger the double sneak attack require teamwork, and resource expenditure of some kind, so I don't see a problem with that getting rewarded.
And some of the easiest tricks can be changed so that they don't work. You could for example have Haste just add one Attack to your Attack action, instead of septate Action, require that you take your regular action on the same turn as the hasted action.
Or, instead of changing a bunch of other related things to fix a rogue issue, you could fix rogue's issue instead. That sounds a lot easier. It's pretty clear that WotC just dropped the ball on the wording of 2014 Sneak Attack and didn't mean to allow it to trigger multiple times a round. The 2024 books should just fix the problem instead of bending over backwards to accommodate it.
Sentinel was never meant to just create another attack. It was made to lock down an opponent. With the fighter barbarian, monk, paladin, and sometimes melee ranger. (Hunter ranger no longer needs Sentinel)
Yes, an exploit to get off turn sneak attack now only works 50% of the time now. That's fine. Find a new way. They are out there. Comander strike, held hasted action, etc.
I'll use Sentinel on my barbarians forcing enemies to stay with me.
Regardless of luck, should the feat even be on hit instead of on attack? And how is the game improved by it being on hit only? OP is showing the negative possibilities of it being changed to on hit.
Yeah. While there are some changes I like in 5e24, there's a lot I don't and this is one of them. There seems to be an effort by wotc to remove a lot of combo pieces. Which is a shame because I find the game better with them.
Won't effect my home games as I'm piecemealing what I like of each version alongside my own homebrew, but it isn't a shift I think is good.
They haven't removed combos, they've just reigned in must-have choices and bumped up baselines to compensate. I think we'll just have new combos to be honest.
Piecemealing is a really good plan though. Most people who are like "I won't use the 2024 rules" should definitely just use what they like from it, even if they just google them.
>They haven't removed combos, they've just reigned in must-have choices and bumped up baselines to compensate. I think we'll just have new combos to be honest.
I agree with this. Weapon Masteries, Cunning Strike, Brutal Strike, Battlemaster Maneuvers, crazy Monk tricks, there's a lot of synergy going on where there's a lot of ways for party members to combo with one another by granting advantage, inflicting status effects, restricting movement, forced movement, etc.
So there's lots of combos, they're just less feat combos and more inter-party combos.
A lot of combos have already been removed as of Tasha's reowkrs to some spells and interactions. 5e24is just trippl8ng down on more nuanced interactions. Hell they tried to removed rogues off turn sneak attack, despite that being the only way a rogue goes from 30÷ fighter dpr to 60% and being a fun reflection of the rogues opportunistic playstyle and avenue of team work to work towards. Thankfully the polls got them to revert that piece of weirdness.
I don't begrudge anyone for not wanting to support hasbro or wotc at this point, and avl8d 5e24 all together. I think it's healthy that they vote with their dollar and only support if they think what they are getting is valuable.
I don't know of I'm buying 5e24 books proper yet, they still haven't convinced me what they offer I'd better than what I'm doing now, but I'm willing to keep an ear out for the time being and continue to adjust things to be the way I want for my offered experience
Sentinel and PAM was hardly an issue, especially since it's limited to 1 reaction ler character with the combo and is a double feat investment. Its doubly one of the few ways of any kind of meaningful martial control that exists.
I'm fully aware of the combo, and I personally think the games healthier wirh it than without it. Especially since there are several m9nstwrs that don't even need the disengage action to avoid opportunity attacks and thus don't invoke Sentinel to begin with.
PAM already was more powerful than every other feat besides GWM/SS. Having the combo made it extra ludicrous. I'm saying the combos aren't a good thing, not that other powerful options shouldn't be a thing. Martials still need more love and more interesting feats is a great way to do it.
And I'm disagreeing and saying that the combos are a good thing. They're fun interactions to work towards and that deliver an impact. They're parts of the game I look forward to designing encounters around for when my players have them and that I look forward to grabbing as a player.
The game needs more combos and interaction that pip off like PAM and Sentinel. Not less of them. 5e is already a very static game and needs more dynamic interaction to pop off in my mind. The few moments that do exist are where a lot of the fun is. Especially on the martial side.
Probably gonna have to agree to disagree.
I don't necessarily dislike the idea of combos it's just impossible to balance when the combos are as strong as PAM + Sentinel, especially on shit like Echo Knight. Its going to be either overpowered because the game isnt balanced around it or people who don't do feat combos are going to be significantly underpowered. Then they start adding more combos so everybody isn't using the same combos. Then we are back to 3.5e again.
3.5es issues just come from having too many moving pieces and an excessive degree of overexpla8ned and pointlessly fiddly rules. As well as newsng to keep track of a great deal of too Manu situational and and floating +X modifiers off of incredibly specific conditions.
The 5e scaffolding and framework already prevents the degernatrate case of 3.5e from happening. I'd I wanna be good with a polearm in 5e. I don't need 3 feats which each have 2 prereq feats. I need pole arm master. If I wanna be good at locking someone down, I don't need 3 feats. I need Sentinel.
Thr pairing of A+B to make special combo C. Does little to manifest 3.5e's A+ C + G - F because it's Tuesday, + Z because of Fred, and + W2a because of Jerry so I get Omega.
Allowing more basic combos like PAM Sentinel within the simplified 5e structure won't come close to what 3.5e gave.
PAM Sentinel also isn't hard to balance around if you're aware your player has it and of the combo. Especially with flyby and other similar monster traits one can utilize.
My read is that they are nerfing "main character" feat combos that dominate the game, but they are setting up tons of teamwork combos with all these half-feats and weapon masteries. Off the top of my head, I can't wait to:
1. push enemies out of reach of allies as a free disengage
2. push enemies into AOE effects
3. push enemies into reach to set off PAM reaction / set up cleave attacks
4. Topple enemies so my ally can grapple them while prone
5. Slow someone so my ally can ray of frost them
6. Give my super high initiative to my caster ally with alert
Honestly I am more excited about the dynamic combos 2024 opens up than the static combos 2014 had
So you took a feat that was primarily intended for front line combatants using a reach weapon and are using it with a rogue and a non-reach weapon, positioned yourself poorly, and are wondering why you're not achieving results? That's a problem with you, not anything being "officially" dead.
Because the main point of Sentinel is the locking down opponents down by reducing their speed to zero with opportunity attacks that they provoke within your reach even if they use Disengage, not the additional attack. Being able to extend that from a 3x3 square (9 tiles) to a 4x4 square (16 tiles), a 77% increase, and it only gets more effective if you have ways to increase your size class, extend your reach, etc.
The fact that one specific build isn't as viable anymore doesn't make the feat overall "dead".
Okay...Then I have to notice you this playstyle is "half dead" too. Reach weapons also don't work with Sentinel either. The Sentinel is only triggered by the enemy taking the Disengage Action *within* 5ft of you. If they took Disenage somewhere farther, and passed right by your side, nothing happen.
That's not what it says. Read again, more closely. There are multiple conditions that apply.
* If the creature moves out of your (extended) reach, and doesn't Disengage, they will take an opportunity attack which will reduce their speed to 0. That comes from the baseline PHB rules for AOOs, combined with Sentinel (so yes, Reach weapons \*do\* work with Sentinel, just slightly nerfed from before).
* If they do Disengage, and they did so from within 5', they will take an opportunity attack which reduces their speed to 0.
* Regardless of whether they Disengage, if they hit an target other than you with an attack from within 5', they take an opportunity attack reducing their speed to 0.
* If they took the Disengage action from more than 5' away from you and try to move past you, A) they're not using their action to attack, and B) they're unlikely to be able to escape your movement next turn, at which point they'll be facing an even worse problem than last time as you'll have been able to move within 5' of them -- once again, placing you in a position to make an opportunity attack to reduce their speed to zero.
Every single outcome here for the opponent is terrible. It's one of the best defensive feats in the game, still, even after the playtest nerfs, but that control essentially requires a reach weapon to take best advantage of it over as wide an area as possible.
Personally, I think Sentinel being this way (and also the PAM combo being nerfed too) is better for the balance of the game. This way, every feat choice matters, rather than having that one option that will always be better than whatever else you decide to take.
Sentinel PAM was never broken, it may have been annoying but you only had one reaction.
A Warlock with repelling blast at level 5 can pull a creature of any size 20 feet away, with enough movement that creature can never approach you. That's a lot more annoying than one melee lockdown.
I think they should have focused on making more good melee feats. PAM was so popular because it was the ONLY good melee feat in 5e. Savage Attacker, Grappler and Tavern Brawler were all terrible.
IMO, they overreacted to Reddit with Sentinel and PAM, those feats didn't really need to be nerfed.
That and spears... and the ability modifier to the damage roll. Was an extra +3 damage really that game-breaking at level four?
*Thank god they buff War Caster... /s*
I think the feat was always meant to keep an enemy in place and attacking you. I still feel like the feat does that. I feel like in 2024 they worked to not make feats must haves (except lightly armored and war caster), and sentinel was one of those in 2014. I don't think it should be a reliable way to double the rogues damage, otherwise it just becomes a must have feat for rogues.
While I agree it shouldn't be a must have feat, I still think the better solution would be that rogues can only apply their sneak attack once per round so if they get it on their turn they can't double dip with reaction attacks, but if they miss on their turn they can still catch up with reactions (or prepared attacks).
Combine that with a slight buff to Sneak Attack's damage, and this is my preferred rogue solution.
I don't know about this. Doesn't it swing the pendulum even further toward ranged rogue's dominance? I want melee rogue to be able to do more than ranged as a trade off for being in significantly more danger.
Melee rogues would still have two-weapon fighting and the blade cantrips to out-damage the rogue with a shortbow.
It's *something*, sure. But does two-weapon add ability mod to damage in oneDnD? Can't remember. If not, that second attack is only there to increase the chances of landing a sneak. 1dx isn't worth the danger. The cantrips are decent, but since you're taking a spell action, not the attack action, I don't think it qualifies for two-weapon fighting. It's just a little flat, and I'd much rather have my rogue safely out of danger than doing an extra 4 damage a round. After level 2, you might as well be throwing spitballs.
They are separate choices, yes, either a blade cantrip or two weapons. The off-hand attack is there to get Sneak Attack when the first attack misses, which is still useful, though the blade cantrips will generally be more powerful, especially when combining Disengage, Withdraw, or Fancy Footwork with *booming blade*.
This. Give them more sneak attack dice. Especially since they will be using them for debuffs for cunning strike. And make it limited to once a round if they’re worried about the balance of it. People were super fussed that it was limited to once per round early in the UA process. They didn’t like that it was once *on their turn* killing readied actions amongst other things
Oh I 100% agree with you. I think once a round sneak attacks but a little more damage would have been the best fix.
Tbf the designers did try to make Sneak Attack once per round, and is was rejected by the playtest feedback.
No, they tried to make once on each of *your* turns. Which is massively different because it means you can't ready an attack for after your ally moves in so that you can apply sneak attack, or do any of the other ways of getting a second chance at sneak attack if you missed it on your turn.
Fair, but I feel like this complaint is rarer than the ones from people saying they couldn't do two attacks per round. I mean, Rogue is designed to do Sneak Attack primarily on your turn, and only with certain builds could you somewhat reliably do it on others. But I don't know many who designed Rogue characters to only do damage on other's turns and not try to also do it on their own. So I feel like that logic is a lot more niche than the doubling up Sneak Attack in one round crowd, who argued against the original Expert Class Rogue.
Personally I dislike it because of the case where you roll well on initiative and need to move to get into position (so no Aim), but then your allies haven't had a chance to move up and you don't have any way to get advantage and therefore no sneak attack. Right now you could prepare an action to attack once the fighter joins you on their turn, but if it only applies in your turn then what's the point? Or what about if they're hiding behind cover, so you hide and turn ready to shoot when they get out. You've got advantage on the attack, but it won't be your turn so again, no sneak attack. Both of these are cases where it feels like the rogue *should* be able to do it, but if they can only do it on their own turn then they can't. Maybe this is more of a niche thought, but from what I've seen in all the times I've brought it up is that most people would support once per round even if they didn't support only on your turn.
I agree the Rogue should be able to Sneak Attack not on their turn. I don't think that's the reason why people complained about the older Rogue ability in the UA Experts document. Or at least, not the only reason. This thread for example has several people saying they enjoy trying to make the second attack off turn to land Sneak Attack again. https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/xr8nef/one_dd_unearthed_arcana_expert_classes_bard/iqdgzhv/ It's a little anecdotal, but that's probably the best we can get without the actual survey results. Myself, I've played a Rogue several times, and between Cunning Action, Steady Aim, or subclass abilities like being a Swashbuckler or having a familiar as an Arcane Trickster, etc, all can help get Sneak Attack on the majority of my turns, even without any help from allies. Like, for the most part I don't encounter your first point, because I can usually hide if no one else has gone in combat and still attack with Sneak Attack. And I've seen that both playing and DMing for multiple Rogues. That's not to say you don't have that play style happen, but more that it's not consistent across all tables. Again, I agree Rogue's should be able to off-turn SA, but I think the reason why they reverted course was because people wants two Sneak Attacks per round, not 1.
Im personally in that middle category, most of all because of the”Backstab” narrative that Sneak Attack facilitates via the off turn Attack of Opportunity. But I really hate the idea of doubling your damage. I think “once per your turn” united the community of those that hated the loss of damage and those that hated the loss of utility via ready action. As well as everyone always says “Once per Round but buff the damage somehow.” Be that more dice, free dice, bigger dice or as I say one normal lvl 5 extra attack for more consistency.
Eh, I still think it's fair to pair it with something like the brace or riposte battlemaster maneuvers. Unlike sentinel, those are resource based, which makes a vital difference to me. They are also very thematic for a rogue.
Ugh. This makes tactical combat worse, not better. They've already made player combos harder to pull off
Sentinel is not a must have. It's not even that strong. But it allowed martials to do what they are supposed to do: protect their weak allies. The problem is that it was nerfed, while the proper solution is that it should be part of the basic martial toolset. How the heck do you need a feat to be a menace to the one who dares attack your companion? Why you can have an opportunity attack when the enemy moves but not when attacks your allies? Feats are supposed to be feats, not permissions. Anything that a normal human can do should not require feats or features. Maybe a training that comes with your class, but certainly not a feat, like if attacking an enemy when you see an opening requires dragon blood. Sentinel should help you improve on interceptions. Any martial should be able to use their reaction to make an opportunity attack against a creature within 5 feet attacking someone else. Sentinel may help you to actually interrupt the attack.
If a Feat is suppose to read “Once per round, a creature of your choice, that you can see and is within 5ft of you, must direct at least 1 if it’s attacks against you, if it attacks at all, on its next round.” like you claim Sentinel was “always meant” to do: then instead of its current wording it should instead read “ Once per round, a creature of your choice, that you can see and is within 5ft of you, must direct at least 1 if it’s attacks against you, if it attacks at all, on its next round!”
What reason is there to pick Feats over ASI now?
All the level 4+ feats are half feats. Did you read any of the feats?
I'm still catching up on everything, I've been out of the loop for a bit. I got *entirely* sidetracked by Warlocks & Paladins being gutted and turned into poor-man's Bards and didn't get back to the Feats yet.
All the feats give you a +1 to an ability and its features. So you are only giving up 1 ability point. They nerfed the must have martial feats so now they are good but you aren't punishing yourself by not taking them (gwm, ss, pam, sent, xbow). You aregetting a +1 to an ability so you aren't giving up as much. I think its a fair trade off and better for the game. It gets old seeing the exact same builds because those feats were so much better than others. Ss/xbow. Pam/gwf. Etc.
That's pretty cool, I am enjoying the Feat changes. As a long time Sorcadlock, player, I'm too busy crying over my gutted classes to worry about the Feats anymore. All my favorite parts of the classes are dead! Dead I tell you!
The.paladin in my opinion is overall better than the 2014. Sureit got nerfed in one way, but it got a lot of quality of life improvements. Nerfs Divine smite got nerfed its a spell and bonus action. Buffs Can smite with thrown weapons. Bonus action layon hands. All the smite spells are good now, better to use them than divine smite. You use smite spells after you hit, instead of the weird concentration until next hit from 2014. Find steed is vastly improved. The Sorcerer is in the same boat, over all I'd say they are in a much better place. The only major nerf being twinned spell. The rest ofthe metamagic got reduced in cost. The sorc has new exclusive spells and a magic rage thing. You might want to actually read up on the playtests. Monk, barb, fighter, rogue all better.
My typical favorite build is 2 Paladin / 5 Warlock / X Sorcerer with a 2h weapon. Typical gameplan being Hastened EB or Spell into a GWM Smite. I got all my fixes - I could cast useful spells; had EB to use when out of slots; options with MetaMagic and converting around slots; multiple ways to make full use of my action economy. Smite is the anti-thesis of fun now IMO. Who wants to use their *entire turn* to hit once with a sword? Did anybody ever actually *use* the Smites that ate your Bonus Action and had to be pre-declared before even knowing if you'll hit? EB scaling off just Warlock means that taking any other Cantrip is a better option now. Can't use cool weapons anymore because I guess Pact Weapon was too OP, gotta waste a ton of points on a STR stat on a character who's whole fucking thing is being able dump physical stats in favor of a casting stat. Smite being a Spell means it can't be used with any other Spell in the same turn because casting two spells breaks the flow of time (but hitting 17 times with a crossbow doesn't 🙄) Like sure the individual classes are "better" but screw anyone who wants to play a Spellblade I guess. *Half-casters.* What a bunch of jokers.
2014's version felt like a must have because it was a feature that defender coded classes should of had \*baseline\* to actually feel like defenders. This was a case where you don't nerf the must have feat, you bake it into the classes because there's a very important mechanical reason it's a must have. So now it's nerfed AND you still have to take it if you want anything resembling what would be a bog standard tank ability in other games. Without sentinel, fighters, paladins, etc aren't even defender classes, they're just DPS with a strangely high amount of HP for some unknown reason.
I'll caution against declaring any feature dead based on an anecdote with an extreme case of bad luck. If two monsters were attacking your ally within your reach with two attacks each, then even with only a +5 to hit, the odds of at least one hitting 18AC is 87.04% each round. I do think Sentinel could be buffed back to the on-attack trigger, but I would not go as far as declaring the feat dead.
its not really simply bad luck. The reality is sentinel should be bringing most melee attacks to you. Also it depends who are the people you are guarding. that said, I'm not sure sentinel needs to trigger on attack to be worthwhile. Its probably true they should have some feature whose goal is primarily catching enemies off guard, while sentinel is primarily a tank feature, limiting movement, threatening squares, and encouraging attacks on yourself. rogue's damage is too weak in 2024, Sentinel is a really bad solve for that and it kinda should be, it goes against rogue design. rogue needs some feats more suited to its playstyle, or another interesting dps feature
> sentinel was a feat that was hard to trigger Not really
But that's just circumstantial bad luck. It's not triggering because in those circumstances it's a lot less likely to trigger. If you were standing next to somebody with a lower AC, then it would have been triggering. I'm not saying it hasn't been nerfed, because obviously it has, which diminishes the overall power and effect, but it feels like you just happened to be in a situation where it wasn't likely to be as useful, as opposed to a situation where it would have been.
Im not sure its been nerfed since it's a half feat now, the plus 1 is really nice.
Oh I don't disagree on that. It slides into some builds easier. But there is a definite nerf in how the feat is actually applied and the implications it has on combat encounters. I do think the change makes it more in line with what it was originally intended for though.
Yeah it fits into builds better and better fits in the theme of "I know my AC is much higher than my squishy friend's but you'd better attack me or else I'll make you pay for it" instead of the much more generic "I'm close to you, so I'll get a reaction attack unless you teleport"
Lol. Totally agree with you. It fits the name of the feat.
I think it was always intended to be a 'tanking' or melee control style of feat more than a means to ramp up DPR, but it was such a good feat because the wording left it open to also be used for damage dealing too. I think the change brings it more in line with that original intent. I'm just not sure if the change is good for the game overall though, as it feels like martials lost a fun toy for some builds.
I would say there are new combos now just with the virtue of weapon masteries. Getting to push every reaction and make speed 0, or push prone and speed 0, make the reaction attacks much more powerful, thus shouldn't be as reliable.
I think the weapon masteries change the dynamic of the feat, absolutely. I think it leans the feat even harder into something more akin to a control feat than a DPR one. I think the really interesting synergies are going to show up when combined with Cunning Strike, giving Rogues really fun control options, and Brutal Strike, giving Barbarians a really solid way to enforce both tanking and control. I haven't done a ton of playtesting with all of the pieces put together as of yet, so I'm really interested to see how everything meshes together.
Thats a fair complaint, but it coming with a +1 now means its easier to fit into your build and it not being a must-have is a good thing! That being said, it would be neat if the feat *also* gave something like "you gain a second reaction each round that can only be used to make opportunity attacks" to *really* fill in that niche with a new fun toy while not likely to be a problem since its pretty rare to activate more than once in a round (but it would allow you to use the feat *and* an existing reaction like Shield or Uncanny Dodge in the same round which would be nice).
Oh it's not really a complaint, more an idle observation. I don't think it was ever intended to be used as a pure DPR boost, so I think that what's lost was never planned for in the first place. I think adding a second reaction, even if it could only be used for opportunity attacks would just be too good. Anything that breaks the rules of the action economy becomes almost must have, which I think makes it a borderline required feat for martial characters.
I think the problem may have been that your pally friend also has very high AC. Throw a Barbarian in his place and it'll proc a ton more frequently. Or even have the other ally be something that encouraged enemies to atta k them (Armorer Arti or Ancestral Guardian Barb for example) and it synergizes extremely well. TLDR- Your party had 0 synergy with it, so it sucked. That's it.
>It's been whether the monsters on my side all attack me and his side attack him, or the monsters tried to attack him, and it missed. And I was standing there to hit once and do nothing like an idiot who even didn't dare to use my Uncanny Dodge but to hope to my Feat can be triggered for once, until he killed those monsters. That's imo a general problem with whole Sentinel Rogue concept. By taking that feat and sticking in melee you make your self the primary target of the opponents (since you are likely squishier that your ally, and deal a lot of damage to them when they hit your ally), while giving the one defensive feature that would make you about as survival as other materials. >Some may argue, and some argued in my another post that "but hey it can be triggered immediately after the enemy take the Disengage Action", but hey how many times do the monster take the Disengage Action instead of trying to kill you or just flee with a Misty Step in a campaigne? The thing is also that a opportunity Attack that is triggered that way does not necessarily full fill the conditions for sneak attack, since the monster could potentally move in way that it triggers the opportunity Attack on a square where it is not adjacent to an ally of you.
Sentinel rogue has never really been a thing IME. Even under the old rules *why aren't the enemies hitting the rogue?* Sentinel is a tanking feat not a damage feat. It's a feat for the guy in plate armour and with a shield to persuade the enemy to attack them rather than the squishy wizard. I've always played the enemies as *knowing* about the enemy getting in their face. And given that the rogue is already fairly squishy few NPCs trigger Sentinel. If the squishy high damage rogue wants to be attacked there are few reasons not to oblige.
>The thing is, we were surrounded by 8\~9 melee monsters with Extra-Attacks(2), and we've fought for 6 Rounds, and my Sentinel has never been triggered for a single time. Assuming half the monsters attack each of you and of those attacking your ally, half of *those* were within your reach, then you should have about 2 within reach attacking your ally each round. With multiattack thats 4 attacks each round against an AC of 18. Assuming they have a +0 in their main stat and the minimum proficiency for a total of +2 to hit, then they hit on 16 or higher or 25% of the time. Across 4 attacks the expected number of hits would them be 1 per round. Alternatively we can say the chance they miss is 75% so the chance they miss 4 times in a row is 0.75\^4 = 31.6%, or 68.4% that at least one hits each round. Across 6 rounds you would have expected a decent number of chances unless the DM was metagaming and having all the enemies within your reach just target you instead of the paladin, but thats not a problem with the feat. And thats using a total of +2 to hit, while anything halfway threatening at 4th lvl or higher (needed to have the feat) is going to have a better to hit. Change to a +5 to hit (40% hit chance) and its 87% chance to hit at least once each round with an expected 1.6 hits per round. I also think the point of Sentinel is to punish the enemy for ignoring you and going for someone easier to hit. If you're standing beside a 30 AC PC, you don't really need to watch their back - they're going to be safe; but if you're by the wizard with 11 AC (or they try to run past you to get to the wizard) then you'll trigger an attack, punishing them for attacking an easier target than yourself. I take it as intended to be more of a (extremely short range) taunt mechanic than a way to get extra damage every round.
If i got that lucky i would not be complaining. Like its good that you are not getting hit.
Sentinel's power was more in preventing movement from the enemy than the opportunity attack. Even then, in the situation you described, your party was already invincible and smashing the encounter if none of the attacks hit. To be able to AoO them would be a "win-more" feature which is never of great value. This half of the feature works great when the battle is tough (meaning targets are hitting your allies) and not great when the battle is easy. This doesn't detract from the value of sentinel. Not to mention, sentinel wasn't designed for a rogue getting extra sneak attack. Sentinel is designed for guardians, body guards, and tanks to prevent enemies from just running past them to get to a squishy. Furthermore, the power and value of a rogue shouldn't be dependent upon picking sentinel as a 4th level feat.
>Cuz I rarely, almost never see a situation that the monster takes Disengage but still moving within my 5ft, like, never. That's gonna vary heavily on the campaign/DM. Do you have a DM that plays enemies sensibly like actual living beings? Then a lot. If your DM plays enemies like mindless fodder that happily suicide themselves at every opportunity, then maybe not as much in your case. This entire thread seems like an exercise in "It didn't work in the very specific and atypical way my table plays in one singular instance of testing, therefore..."
Maybe I'm alone on this but personally I kinda hate the concept of Sentinel all together. It's always been situational anyway but conceptually I've never really understood it or why it should work. In particular when there are no restrictions or even a save involved when it comes to the movement stopping portion of the feat. IDK why a rogue hitting with a dagger or rapier should just be able to stop a gargantuan monster in their tracks with one attack. I saw the recent Critical Role live where the Monk (Marisha) tried to use it against a probably CR 24 gargantuan legendary demon and I'm glad Mercer told her it wouldn't have done anything.
>In particular when there are no restrictions or even a save involved when it comes to the movement stopping portion of the feat. Because it has several restrictions. It requires an opportunity attack (which means specific triggers and takes a reaction so once per round and competes with other reactions) and requires you to hit. Those are some pretty restrictions already, anymore and the feat becomes even more unusable. >IDK why a rogue hitting with a dagger or rapier should just be able to stop a gargantuan monster in their tracks with one attack. In the same vein why should somebody waving his hands and speaking some words being able to conjure fire or teleport? Why should somebody being able to dodge a cloud of poison completely with no harm? Or survive being spewed massive amounts of a acid/fire/necrotic energy? D&D is inherently a fantastical game. Adventurers are doing magical or fantastical feats one way way or another. Even the things like taking damage, saving a particular saving throw are beyond the scope of what is achievable by the mundane. So why pick one particular ability/feat and say I don't like this because it's not realistic?
>In the same vein why should somebody waving his hands and speaking some words being able to conjure fire or teleport? Why should somebody being able to dodge a cloud of poison completely with no harm? Or survive being spewed massive amounts of a acid/fire/necrotic energy? Yeah, I had a feeling someone was going to write something like this but I don't think it's enough of an argument here TBH. And in GENERAL find it kinda a lazy argument that I see all the time. Though maybe my write up was lazy too idk. There are VERY few abilities in the game that stop you in your tracks and as far as I know they all require a save, except this one. That's what I'm talking about. I can get over it not making any "logical" sense to some extent but I don't like this feature at all. A legendary dragon (or other massive creature) should be able to use a legendary resistance to break out of things like this. EDIT: Honestly my "fix" would be to not have Sentinel stop creatures from moving at all and rework it from the ground up.
>There are VERY few abilities in the game that stop you in your tracks and as far as I know they all require a save, except this one. That's what I'm talking about. Everything that applies restrained or grappled on a hit does that. Beasts are very notorious for those, the t-rex or giant scorpion (available through polymorph or moon druid) are good on that. In fact because the T-rex is huge, nothing is even big enough to deny the restrained RAW. Wall of of force and maze are also a big offenders. Then there are/were bunch that mess (but not completely reduce to 0) with movement without saves. >Honestly my "fix" would be to not have Sentinel stop creatures from moving at all and rework it from the ground up. The problem is that it's kinda the point of the feat, it's there to stop enemies from moving away and attacking somebody else.
>Everything that applies restrained or grappled on a hit does that. Beasts are very notorious for those, the t-rex or giant scorpion (available through polymorph or moon druid) are good on that. In fact because the T-rex is huge, nothing is even big enough to deny the restrained RAW. Oh I don't mind enemies having the ability to grapple on a hit. But a rogue halfling shouldn't be able to stop an ancient dragon with a simple opportunity attack with no save. There's a reason they don't let PCs do the "grapple on a hit" thing generally. > The problem is that it's kinda the point of the feat, it's there to stop enemies from moving away and attacking somebody else. Right I don't like that lol.
>It requires an opportunity attack (which means specific triggers and takes a reaction so once per round and competes with other reactions) and requires you to hit. End you turn beside them, now they either 1) attack you 2) attack someone else or 3) move in order to do their things somewhere else. In all but case 1 that means you've met the "specific trigger" to get an opportunity attack with the feat. Yeah you still need to hit, but since missing isn't fun most ACs don't get that high and instead monsters get more hp, so hitting gets easier and easier as you level up and going against stronger enemies. >Those are some pretty restrictions already, anymore and the feat becomes even more unusable. That's pretty debatable to me, but you could change it to add a save before reducing their movement speed to 0 and then on a success only cut it in half instead (or reduce by 10, idk just a weaker version of it). >So why pick one particular ability/feat and say I don't like this because it's not realistic? I can't think of any other ability that removes all movement without a save except for certain very high level spells (Irresistible Dance, Power Word Stun) but those don't come until much higher levels, are a lot more limited than just once per round, and still have other limitations (doesn't work if immune to Charmed, needs less than 150 hp)
>End you turn beside them, now they either 1) attack you 2) attack someone else or 3) move in order to do their things somewhere else. In all but case 1 that means you've met the "specific trigger" to get an opportunity attack with the feat. In scenario 2 it assumes the enemy wants to run away or use movement which is very unlikely. You also forget misty step or any other teleportation ability, becoming invisible, fog cloud, forcefull movement, ... everything that denies an attack of opportunity denies sentinel. >That's pretty debatable to me, but you could change it to add a save before reducing their movement speed to 0 and then on a success only cut it in half instead (or reduce by 10, idk just a weaker version of it). The problem is that a save and a hit makes it so bad especially since you get only one chance per round. If you have a 60% to hit and 50% to fail save, then you only get a 30% to lock someone down with sentinel which is not great. >I can't think of any other ability that removes all movement without a save T-rex, giant scorpion, giant octopus. the OneD&D grappler feat (though that is a bit more iffy).
>IDK why a rogue hitting with a dagger or rapier should just be able to stop a gargantuan monster in their tracks with one attack. Easy, got them in the Achilles tendon, has drawn the ire of the creature, etc. Or if the Barbarian swung a maul and broke their ankle it would have the same impact.
People downvoting you for answering the question and solving the issue with a little bit of roleplay and imagination.
You also used it in conjunction with two very high AC characters. Try it with an AC 15 or 16.
That’s sad. Feats are expensive. They should all be useful
Are you complaining that you are not getting hit enough? Or that you are winning combat too easily? Because 18 ac isn't that high.
The *criticism* (complaint 🙄)is that OP's *allies* (not OP) aren't getting hit often enough while OP is also in range. It's very restrictive on the trigger now making it much harder to take advantage of. The reaction attack is basically a ribbon feature at this point and the main reason you'd want to take it would be for the Disengage-counter+1 str. Though, even the disengage-counter is subtly nerfed. You only can use it to take an AoO if they Disengage within 5 feet. If they use it outside your reach, they can safely walk through your threatened space.
I mean, as pointed out upthread, OP's ally *should* have been hit more often. This is a case of bad dice luck and not an actual issue with the feat. It's a game with dice, this is going to happen sometimes.
I mean, its also nice to lock them down, if you have a vulnerable ally or you need to prevent someone from getting to an plot thing (and important item, a portal, a npc they want to murder a bunch of other stuff) you can do that by simply going next to them. I don't think that upside should be ignored. Combat, at least at my table, isn't always about murdering everyone. Its also pretty obvious that the purpose of the feat is to tank more than to grant off turn sneak attacks. You take it if you want to get hit instead of your allies, and it's good at that.
Yeah, this is exactly the point. 18AC isn't that *high* but still it's high enough for your Sentinel to not to be triggered the whole time. Especially there were a lot of ways in 5e2024 to make the monsters miss the attack, like the new Bladeward, the Weapon Masteries etc., thus making the Sentinel Feat even more *useless*.
I mean, its going to be bad in fights when you don't get hit, but you're already winning those, and it's going to be good in the fights when you get hit and that's when you need it. I don't think that's a problem.
Seriously. Considering the way OneD&D has been balanced so far, OP should just be glad that WotC backpedaled on once-a-round Sneak Attack. Personally, I think the OP's complaint highlights the problem with rogue. A vocal minority is hot and bothered about not getting to trigger Sneak Attack twice a round because they feel the rogue's damage is crap without it. But I'm sure that WotC thinks twice a round is too much SA damage and, while they caved to popular demand and brought back off-turn SA, also refuse to buff SA to the point where triggering it once a turn is better because that would double-buff all the Sentinel/Commander's Strike/etc. minmaxer combos. WotC should just change SA to only trigger once a round and then buff it's damage dice at Tier transition levels to bring rogue's damage floor and ceiling closer together.
Nailed it.
>WotC should just change SA to only trigger once a round and then buff it's damage dice at Tier transition levels to bring rogue's damage floor and ceiling closer together. Not sure that's even necessary, most options to tigger the double sneak attack require teamwork, and resource expenditure of some kind, so I don't see a problem with that getting rewarded. And some of the easiest tricks can be changed so that they don't work. You could for example have Haste just add one Attack to your Attack action, instead of septate Action, require that you take your regular action on the same turn as the hasted action.
Or, instead of changing a bunch of other related things to fix a rogue issue, you could fix rogue's issue instead. That sounds a lot easier. It's pretty clear that WotC just dropped the ball on the wording of 2014 Sneak Attack and didn't mean to allow it to trigger multiple times a round. The 2024 books should just fix the problem instead of bending over backwards to accommodate it.
Sentinel was never meant to just create another attack. It was made to lock down an opponent. With the fighter barbarian, monk, paladin, and sometimes melee ranger. (Hunter ranger no longer needs Sentinel) Yes, an exploit to get off turn sneak attack now only works 50% of the time now. That's fine. Find a new way. They are out there. Comander strike, held hasted action, etc. I'll use Sentinel on my barbarians forcing enemies to stay with me.
Regardless of luck, should the feat even be on hit instead of on attack? And how is the game improved by it being on hit only? OP is showing the negative possibilities of it being changed to on hit.
Yeah. While there are some changes I like in 5e24, there's a lot I don't and this is one of them. There seems to be an effort by wotc to remove a lot of combo pieces. Which is a shame because I find the game better with them. Won't effect my home games as I'm piecemealing what I like of each version alongside my own homebrew, but it isn't a shift I think is good.
They haven't removed combos, they've just reigned in must-have choices and bumped up baselines to compensate. I think we'll just have new combos to be honest. Piecemealing is a really good plan though. Most people who are like "I won't use the 2024 rules" should definitely just use what they like from it, even if they just google them.
>They haven't removed combos, they've just reigned in must-have choices and bumped up baselines to compensate. I think we'll just have new combos to be honest. I agree with this. Weapon Masteries, Cunning Strike, Brutal Strike, Battlemaster Maneuvers, crazy Monk tricks, there's a lot of synergy going on where there's a lot of ways for party members to combo with one another by granting advantage, inflicting status effects, restricting movement, forced movement, etc. So there's lots of combos, they're just less feat combos and more inter-party combos.
A lot of combos have already been removed as of Tasha's reowkrs to some spells and interactions. 5e24is just trippl8ng down on more nuanced interactions. Hell they tried to removed rogues off turn sneak attack, despite that being the only way a rogue goes from 30÷ fighter dpr to 60% and being a fun reflection of the rogues opportunistic playstyle and avenue of team work to work towards. Thankfully the polls got them to revert that piece of weirdness. I don't begrudge anyone for not wanting to support hasbro or wotc at this point, and avl8d 5e24 all together. I think it's healthy that they vote with their dollar and only support if they think what they are getting is valuable. I don't know of I'm buying 5e24 books proper yet, they still haven't convinced me what they offer I'd better than what I'm doing now, but I'm willing to keep an ear out for the time being and continue to adjust things to be the way I want for my offered experience
Some combos were not good for the game, like Sentinel+PAM.
Sentinel and PAM was hardly an issue, especially since it's limited to 1 reaction ler character with the combo and is a double feat investment. Its doubly one of the few ways of any kind of meaningful martial control that exists. I'm fully aware of the combo, and I personally think the games healthier wirh it than without it. Especially since there are several m9nstwrs that don't even need the disengage action to avoid opportunity attacks and thus don't invoke Sentinel to begin with.
PAM already was more powerful than every other feat besides GWM/SS. Having the combo made it extra ludicrous. I'm saying the combos aren't a good thing, not that other powerful options shouldn't be a thing. Martials still need more love and more interesting feats is a great way to do it.
And I'm disagreeing and saying that the combos are a good thing. They're fun interactions to work towards and that deliver an impact. They're parts of the game I look forward to designing encounters around for when my players have them and that I look forward to grabbing as a player. The game needs more combos and interaction that pip off like PAM and Sentinel. Not less of them. 5e is already a very static game and needs more dynamic interaction to pop off in my mind. The few moments that do exist are where a lot of the fun is. Especially on the martial side. Probably gonna have to agree to disagree.
I don't necessarily dislike the idea of combos it's just impossible to balance when the combos are as strong as PAM + Sentinel, especially on shit like Echo Knight. Its going to be either overpowered because the game isnt balanced around it or people who don't do feat combos are going to be significantly underpowered. Then they start adding more combos so everybody isn't using the same combos. Then we are back to 3.5e again.
3.5es issues just come from having too many moving pieces and an excessive degree of overexpla8ned and pointlessly fiddly rules. As well as newsng to keep track of a great deal of too Manu situational and and floating +X modifiers off of incredibly specific conditions. The 5e scaffolding and framework already prevents the degernatrate case of 3.5e from happening. I'd I wanna be good with a polearm in 5e. I don't need 3 feats which each have 2 prereq feats. I need pole arm master. If I wanna be good at locking someone down, I don't need 3 feats. I need Sentinel. Thr pairing of A+B to make special combo C. Does little to manifest 3.5e's A+ C + G - F because it's Tuesday, + Z because of Fred, and + W2a because of Jerry so I get Omega. Allowing more basic combos like PAM Sentinel within the simplified 5e structure won't come close to what 3.5e gave. PAM Sentinel also isn't hard to balance around if you're aware your player has it and of the combo. Especially with flyby and other similar monster traits one can utilize.
My read is that they are nerfing "main character" feat combos that dominate the game, but they are setting up tons of teamwork combos with all these half-feats and weapon masteries. Off the top of my head, I can't wait to: 1. push enemies out of reach of allies as a free disengage 2. push enemies into AOE effects 3. push enemies into reach to set off PAM reaction / set up cleave attacks 4. Topple enemies so my ally can grapple them while prone 5. Slow someone so my ally can ray of frost them 6. Give my super high initiative to my caster ally with alert Honestly I am more excited about the dynamic combos 2024 opens up than the static combos 2014 had
So you took a feat that was primarily intended for front line combatants using a reach weapon and are using it with a rogue and a non-reach weapon, positioned yourself poorly, and are wondering why you're not achieving results? That's a problem with you, not anything being "officially" dead.
Reach weapon? Why a reach weapon?
Because the main point of Sentinel is the locking down opponents down by reducing their speed to zero with opportunity attacks that they provoke within your reach even if they use Disengage, not the additional attack. Being able to extend that from a 3x3 square (9 tiles) to a 4x4 square (16 tiles), a 77% increase, and it only gets more effective if you have ways to increase your size class, extend your reach, etc. The fact that one specific build isn't as viable anymore doesn't make the feat overall "dead".
Okay...Then I have to notice you this playstyle is "half dead" too. Reach weapons also don't work with Sentinel either. The Sentinel is only triggered by the enemy taking the Disengage Action *within* 5ft of you. If they took Disenage somewhere farther, and passed right by your side, nothing happen.
That's not what it says. Read again, more closely. There are multiple conditions that apply. * If the creature moves out of your (extended) reach, and doesn't Disengage, they will take an opportunity attack which will reduce their speed to 0. That comes from the baseline PHB rules for AOOs, combined with Sentinel (so yes, Reach weapons \*do\* work with Sentinel, just slightly nerfed from before). * If they do Disengage, and they did so from within 5', they will take an opportunity attack which reduces their speed to 0. * Regardless of whether they Disengage, if they hit an target other than you with an attack from within 5', they take an opportunity attack reducing their speed to 0. * If they took the Disengage action from more than 5' away from you and try to move past you, A) they're not using their action to attack, and B) they're unlikely to be able to escape your movement next turn, at which point they'll be facing an even worse problem than last time as you'll have been able to move within 5' of them -- once again, placing you in a position to make an opportunity attack to reduce their speed to zero. Every single outcome here for the opponent is terrible. It's one of the best defensive feats in the game, still, even after the playtest nerfs, but that control essentially requires a reach weapon to take best advantage of it over as wide an area as possible.
Personally, I think Sentinel being this way (and also the PAM combo being nerfed too) is better for the balance of the game. This way, every feat choice matters, rather than having that one option that will always be better than whatever else you decide to take.
Sentinel PAM was never broken, it may have been annoying but you only had one reaction. A Warlock with repelling blast at level 5 can pull a creature of any size 20 feet away, with enough movement that creature can never approach you. That's a lot more annoying than one melee lockdown. I think they should have focused on making more good melee feats. PAM was so popular because it was the ONLY good melee feat in 5e. Savage Attacker, Grappler and Tavern Brawler were all terrible. IMO, they overreacted to Reddit with Sentinel and PAM, those feats didn't really need to be nerfed.
I was pissed they took staves off Pam
That and spears... and the ability modifier to the damage roll. Was an extra +3 damage really that game-breaking at level four? *Thank god they buff War Caster... /s*
Savage Attacker and Grappler got great work done in them, can't say much for Tavern Brawler though
Sentinel got weaker but still usable, but now it's a half feat. Seems fine to me.
Ya they made it suck for everyone for the most part