D&D 5E Can a character tell when they are in danger of drawing an Opportunity Attack, notably in regards to Sentinel & Polearm Master?

[Tony Vargas]

It depends on what you're going for by allowing feats. If you want a more 3.5 feel, then, yes, you should know when you're in a 'threatened area,' but might not know exactly what will draw an AoO. Similarly, 4e generally worked 'above board,' so you knew if you were in an aura, under an effect, etc. In both cases, the purpose served is to exert control more than to output DPR. If the point is to get in more attacks and more DPR and model general badassedness, then no, it should be a surprise the first time, at least. Likewise, if you're going for the 'gotchya' feel common in classic D&D (for instance, with a monster able to take an AoO vs some normally-non-provoking action or with a greater-than-expected reach).

 

[Valador]

I a dumb monster would have no clue but a NPC fighter would know of the tactics he may not know for 100%fact but he would most likely engage assuming this is the case. Any fighter that does not take this approach tend not to live to long and or no longer fighters they are worm food.

A vet warrior or humanoid creature that would be aware of this tactic would approach the fight assuming this tactic.

Not necessarily 100% true... Just look at MMA... You can be super experienced and still get knocked out in 13 seconds because you don't quite know what another person has up their sleeve...

Assumptions can be deadly...

Just because you're a fighter or adventurer or warrior or w/e doesn't make you all knowing.

 

[hejtmane]

Not necessarily 100% true... Just look at MMA... You can be super experienced and still get knocked out in 13 seconds because you don't quite know what another person has up their sleeve...

Assumptions can be deadly...

Just because you're a fighter or adventurer or warrior or w/e doesn't make you all knowing.

You never 100% know but they tend to follow patterns and yes sometimes experience fighters go down in 13 seconds not because of not knowing sometimes matchups make a fight or that is their weakness and the other person does a better job of exposing that weakness. Talent matters and sometimes luck matters

 

[Unwise]

At my table, an experienced martial type can read opponents enough to tell. The litmus test we use for being an experienced martial is A) do you have more than one attack or B) do you have a melee related feat

 

[Caliban]

If someone is waving a big ass spear in your direction then you might want to wait until they're distracted before trying to get past them.

Remember, it takes a feat to be able to take the OA as they approach you. Most spear wielders won't have the feat. So while it may be a good idea to be cautious because some can do it, most probably can't.

Also realize that polearm master works with a quarterstaff. Do you assume everyone with a quarterstaff will get an OA if you close with them?

Anyway, my opinion is that it is not obvious that someone can make an OA due to having the Sentinal Feat or Polearm Master. It does't visibly change their appearance or require a special stance to use those feats. If a player asks I'd allow them to make an Insight check to notice subtle cues in their opponents stance and intent to realized the danger, and may have an NPC warrior do the same thing if it seems appropriate. And they certainly learn after taking a shot or seeing an ally get hit while closing.

 

[hejtmane]

Remember, it takes a feat to be able to take the OA as they approach you. Most spear wielders won't have the feat. So while it may be a good idea to be cautious because some can do it, most probably can't.

Also realize that polearm master works with a quarterstaff. Do you assume everyone with a quarterstaff will get an OA if you close with them?

Anyway, my opinion is that it is not obvious that someone can make an OA due to having the Sentinal Feat or Polearm Master. It does't visibly change their appearance or require a special stance to use those feats. If a player asks I'd allow them to make an Insight check to notice subtle cues in their opponents stance and intent to realized the danger, and may have an NPC warrior do the same thing if it seems appropriate. And they certainly learn after taking a shot or seeing an ally get hit while closing.

In real life training with the staff the answer is yes

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nah. My reason is pretty gamist, though: it's more interesting to use your abilities.

I've got a fighter with both Sentinel and Polearm Master, and I usually play it that the first NPC triggers these, but that other NPC's, if they're smart, see what happens and can make more informed choices (which sometimes includes choosing to provoke). I generally don't give feats to monsters (because uuuuuugh), but I wouldn't reveal the existence of this ability inherently. The first time someone gets whacked, the rest of the party would tell.

And a game where folks get whacked and tactics get thwarted and abilities get used is typically more fun for me than each side having robust knowledge of the others' capabilities.

But I'm typically more on the Combat-As-War side of the scale.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nah. My reason is pretty gamist, though: it's more interesting to use your abilities.

I've got a fighter with both Sentinel and Polearm Master, and I usually play it that the first NPC triggers these, but that other NPC's, if they're smart, see what happens and can make more informed choices (which sometimes includes choosing to provoke). I generally don't give feats to monsters (because uuuuuugh), but I wouldn't reveal the existence of this ability inherently. The first time someone gets whacked, the rest of the party would tell.

And a game where folks get whacked and tactics get thwarted and abilities get used is typically more fun for me than each side having robust knowledge of the others' capabilities.

But I'm typically more on the Combat-As-War side of the scale.

If you make "you can tell" the default, with "you can hide it with Dexterity (Deception)" an option, then not only does the player get to choose which aspect of his ability he gets to use, but he ALSO gets to use more of his abilities (Deception). AND you maintain the potential for monsters to have classic D&D-style "gotcha" abilities, as Tony mentioned.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you make "you can tell" the default, with "you can hide it with Dexterity (Deception)" an option, then not only does the player get to choose which aspect of his ability he gets to use, but he ALSO gets to use more of his abilities (Deception). AND you maintain the potential for monsters to have classic D&D-style "gotcha" abilities, as Tony mentioned.

The sacrifice there is simplicity. More layers of more dice rolling. Sometimes worth it, especially if you value the sim element that brings, but generally not worth the few seconds it takes to resolve IMO (the LAST thing I'm interested in is making Perception MORE valuable! ).

Plus, I think of it in terms of fun failure. If you're playing a reckless, charge-ahead type of character, one of the prices you're willing to pay is to occasionally rush in and get smacked upside the head. That's why you have a high CON and a good AC! You can accommodate some free pot-shots. You expect to! If you're a more strategic, analyze-the-situation kind of character, cover and stealth and ambush and disabling effects (like nets) are more your wheelhouse, and then it might not matter - a party full of folks afraid to get into melee isn't worrying too much about OA's - and if they get into a situation where they HAVE to, they've already felt like they've failed.

I'm not interested in "gotchya," but I am interested in dynamic play - more dice, more movement, more changing plans. "Nobody knows until it happens in play" encourages that, while still giving the feat that protective utility most of the time - ONE lizardfolk that provokes your OA doesn't ruin the effect against the other six lizardfolk in the encounter.