D&D (2024) Just realized Sentinel is heavily nerfed! No longer works with PAM, no longer works on most enemies who Disengage.

[DEFCON 1]

Whether this is an appropriate response depends on the goal. For example, i am running a 2024 5E campaign now with the intention of testing the system. it does not make any sense, then, to change rules to make it "better."

That is true. But I suspect people might question-- were you in this same situation as @ECMO3-- whether "testing the system" was a more important thing than letting your player have fun and be happy? Now granted, in your current situation I would imagine your players are all in with you on your intention for this particular game to put the system through its paces and thus would be fine playtesting this sticking point in the Sentinel rules (even if they didn't like it)... but as that did not seem to be ECMO3's reason for playing their current campaign, I don't know how useful the comparison of your two tables might be in this particular situation?

 

[Azzy]

One of the PCs in a game I DM is running a PAM/Sentinel Fighter. The traditional pole arm guy with a 10 foot reach.

Bad guy approached and the Fighter made his AOO, dropping move to 0 or so I thought, as did the player. One of the other players at the table pointed out that the PAM attack when he enters reach is not an "Opportunity Attack" and therefore does not trigger the "Halt" portion of Sentinel.

After reading further we realized the new Sentinel also does not work against enemies who disengage, it only works against them if they actually take the Disengage action while standing next to you and then it works even if they don't move. As long as they take the disengage action when they are more than 5 feet away from you they don't provoke from you even if they move in and out of your reach.

The player in question is kind of bummed about this turn of events. I might let him retcon it and choose a different feat.

Will it harm the enjoyment of the game for everyone at the table to just run it like you initially thought it worked? If not, just go with it. Or use the 2014 version.

 

[SableWyvern]

Or if there’s an asteroid heading towards earth, and the only way to deflect it is by playing the feat as written!

But what if using the feat as written will deflect the asteroid onto a collision course with a bubble in space-time containing an entire pocket universe, filled with millions of peaceful civilisations? And only you have the power to decide whether to use feats to save the Earth, or allow the Earth to be destroyed to save these civilisations? What is the right course of action then?

 

[Morrus]

But what if using the feat as written will deflect the asteroid onto a collision course with a bubble in space-time containing an entire pocket universe, filled with millions of peaceful civilisations? And only you have the power to decide whether to use feats to save the Earth, or allow the Earth to be destroyed to save these civilisations? What is the right course of action then?

Then you switch to A5E, which causes the asteroid to transmute into a shower of jelly babies.

 

[Azzy]

Then you switch to A5E, which causes the asteroid to transmute into a shower of jelly babies.

Tom Baker would approve.

 

[AlViking]

One of the PCs in a game I DM is running a PAM/Sentinel Fighter. The traditional pole arm guy with a 10 foot reach.

Bad guy approached and the Fighter made his AOO, dropping move to 0 or so I thought, as did the player. One of the other players at the table pointed out that the PAM attack when he enters reach is not an "Opportunity Attack" and therefore does not trigger the "Halt" portion of Sentinel.

After reading further we realized the new Sentinel also does not work against enemies who disengage, it only works against them if they actually take the Disengage action while standing next to you and then it works even if they don't move. As long as they take the disengage action when they are more than 5 feet away from you they don't provoke from you even if they move in and out of your reach.

The player in question is kind of bummed about this turn of events. I might let him retcon it and choose a different feat.

You're not the only one. However, after further consideration I like the change because I think it needed to be nerfed. So much so that I've had players tell me that they didn't take it because it felt like cheating and exploiting a loophole. I also have a tendency to use the same techniques for my higher level monsters that my players use. If you were fighting a higher CR warrior type and they could just prevent your tank from ever getting close, would you enjoy the fight?

For your specific situation, I'm pretty lenient when it comes to things like this and would allow the player to choose a different option.

 

[AlViking]

Then you switch to A5E, which causes the asteroid to transmute into a shower of jelly babies.

I'm from the US, I assume this is an accurate picture of a jelly baby?

Because I'm imagining thousands of them hitting the atmosphere simultaneously. Giant jelly babies hit the atmosphere and instantly turn into flaming chunks of superheated carbon which turns that creates a layer of smoke and ash so thick we're plunged into a second ice age. I think I'd rather have the asteroid.

 

[Morrus]

I'm from the US, I assume this is an accurate picture of a jelly baby?

View attachment 407931

Because I'm imagining thousands of them hitting the atmosphere simultaneously. Giant jelly babies hit the atmosphere and instantly turn into flaming chunks of superheated carbon which turns that creates a layer of smoke and ash so thick we're plunged into a second ice age. I think I'd rather have the asteroid.

I mean, the sizing is a little off.

 

[AlViking]

I mean, the sizing is a little off.

So they're actually bigger?

P.S. yes, I know the size is just a tad exaggerated but if we're talking about consequences in an RPG things are always larger than life aren't they?

 

[SkidAce]

gummy bears?