Why no synergy for the Sentinel feat?

[Dausuul]

I'm not disputing your overall point, but there seems to be a hole in your logic here. You're assuming that a monster with two attacks will attack each of its opponents once, instead of the same one twice. In fact, the latter seems far more likely especially since its best chance of survival in that situation would be to drop one of its opponents as quickly as possible, and thus deny the other one their extra attacks.

Ah - you are correct. My mistake. If the monster focuses fire, only one of the fighters can get extra attacks. (Of course, it has to focus fire on one of the two fighters, but it would likely do that anyway.)

 

[Nevvur]

With respect, a monster that does not attack when it can, is doomed.

Sure there can be the odd corner-case where an unusually defensive monster can stall to occupy a fighter's attention, but 5E monsters generally have HP as their only defense (poor saves and AC): their only chance at winning an encounter (causing a TPK) is by being very aggressive making their best attacks count while those hit points last.

With respect, most monsters the party meets are doomed, regardless of their tactics. The axiom "a best offense is a good defense" may not hold true in the metagame - nothing will change the fact most 5e battles are about HP attrition - but it's still evident in the survival instincts of my (intelligent) monsters, especially after they've suffered the preferred tactics of their PC opponents.

If a DMs runs his monsters as exclusively focused on HP attrition without respect to their psychology... well, I guess that's an option, but it feels flat to me. A bit like simple video game AI. My monsters will shift gears based on explicable knowledge, including what happens when they press the attack while wedged between two (house ruled) sentinels. Attacking in that situation makes about as much sense to me as having mooks stay clustered up after the wizard flings his first fireball into their midst.

Regardless of any narrative vs. gamist arguments governing monster tactics, taking the dodge action was only one of several suggestions I put forward. The bottom line, to me, is that house ruled sentinels are basically just a DPR increase for the party, and there are numerous ways to bring the challenge/threat level into balance against any table configuration. A PC power boost is only problematic ("overpowered" in this case) if the DM is incompetent to make adjustments. When faced with a gaming problem (and higher party DPR actually being a problem is arguable, IMO), I take into consideration multiple solutions. Obviously it doesn't make sense that every single monster the sentinels pin down for the remainder of their adventuring careers is going to default to the dodge action. It's just more likely to happen than if the house rule weren't in place.

 

[CapnZapp]

With respect, most monsters the party meets are doomed, regardless of their tactics. The axiom "a best offense is a good defense" may not hold true in the metagame - nothing will change the fact most 5e battles are about HP attrition - but it's still evident in the survival instincts of my (intelligent) monsters, especially after they've suffered the preferred tactics of their PC opponents.

If a DMs runs his monsters as exclusively focused on HP attrition without respect to their psychology... well, I guess that's an option, but it feels flat to me. A bit like simple video game AI. My monsters will shift gears based on explicable knowledge, including what happens when they press the attack while wedged between two (house ruled) sentinels. Attacking in that situation makes about as much sense to me as having mooks stay clustered up after the wizard flings his first fireball into their midst.

Regardless of any narrative vs. gamist arguments governing monster tactics, taking the dodge action was only one of several suggestions I put forward. The bottom line, to me, is that house ruled sentinels are basically just a DPR increase for the party, and there are numerous ways to bring the challenge/threat level into balance against any table configuration. A PC power boost is only problematic ("overpowered" in this case) if the DM is incompetent to make adjustments. When faced with a gaming problem (and higher party DPR actually being a problem is arguable, IMO), I take into consideration multiple solutions. Obviously it doesn't make sense that every single monster the sentinels pin down for the remainder of their adventuring careers is going to default to the dodge action. It's just more likely to happen than if the house rule weren't in place.

I guess it boils down to what bothers you the most: the slight DPR increase, or the lack of an in-game explanation as to why two Sentinels can't work out a common tactic.

No need to bring metagame, narrative vs gamist, or video games into this

Anyhoo - the OP asked if there was any hidden gotchas to this. I think the thread has showed a clear answer: there isn't.

Regards

 

[Wyvern]

[MENTION=2374]Wyvern[/MENTION]: I suspect this is a language issue.

Get a chance to attack <> attack

The fighter that's actually attacked gets no reaction attack. But both fighters still get a chance to attack (before the monster decides which one to actually attack).

That may be true in a semantic sense, but it's pretty clear from the context that it's not what Daasul actually meant.

The axiom "a best offense is a good defense" may not hold true in the metagame

Not that it matters for purposes of this discussion, but it's usually the other way around.

Anyway, there is another strategy I thought of, though it may be a poor one: if a monster's AC is high enough, it could attempt to disengage repeatedly until both fighters miss their opportunity attacks at the same time, allowing it to get away.

Wyvern

 

[Nevvur]

I guess it boils down to what bothers you the most: the slight DPR increase, or the lack of an in-game explanation as to why two Sentinels can't work out a common tactic.

No need to bring metagame, narrative vs gamist, or video games into this

Anyhoo - the OP asked if there was any hidden gotchas to this. I think the thread has showed a clear answer: there isn't.

Regards

Agreed on all points. I'm prone to over-analysis, but as you said, the core issue here is pretty simple, and I appreciate the reminder.

Not that it matters for purposes of this discussion, but it's usually the other way around.

Wyvern

Right you are! I'm sure I heard my reversed version spoken somewhere and it just got lodged there, displacing the traditional adage. Probably some TV football coach or something.