D&D 5E Sentinel feat

[I'm A Banana]

Thanks

I wasn't certain because the Sentinel feat says "Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you EVEN IF they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."
So I took that as OP anyone moves away from you

It's less about Sentinel and more about the reading of Mobile and Fancy Footwork: "Can't Make Opportunity Attacks" = can't make opportunity attacks even if someone provokes them.

 

[Coredump]

The text states, "Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."

That in no way applies to anything beyond the Disengage action. If it applied to other than the Disengage action, it would be written as follows, "Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you when leaving your reach even if they do not normally provoke attacks of opportunity for doing so such as when using the Disengage action or a similar special ability."

Sentinel is very specific. As usual, run it as you wish until an official ruling is made by the designers. As it is written, only the Disengage Action is named and applies.

I concur...

 

[S'mon]

As someone planning to take Sentinel, I'd say it remains powerful even if trumped by other powers. How many monsters have Feats, anyway?

 

[Celtavian]

As someone planning to take Sentinel, I'd say it remains powerful even if trumped by other powers. How many monsters have Feats, anyway?

Especially with the new Tunnel Fighter fighting style.

 

[KahlessNestor]

The Sentinel feat says you get an OA when they leave your 5 foot reach. Even if they take disengage.

The way they wrote it allows you to have an OA against mobile feat and fancy footwork

How could they write it to mean it to work against Fancy Footwork when Fancy Footwork didn't exist when it was written?

 

[Uchawi]

The text states, "Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach."

That in no way applies to anything beyond the Disengage action. If it applied to other than the Disengage action, it would be written as follows, "Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you when leaving your reach even if they do not normally provoke attacks of opportunity for doing so such as when using the Disengage action or a similar special ability."

Sentinel is very specific. As usual, run it as you wish until an official ruling is made by the designers. As it is written, only the Disengage Action is named and applies.

Clarifying the feat by rewriting it with more concrete text always helps. But the feat as written is clear that creatures within 5 feet provoke AOOs, even if they take the disengage action. The later part is just an additional qualifier that states with 100 percent certainty that is also includes disengage. As a DM you are free to rule it anyway you want, but don't be surprised when the player has a look of confusion.

 

[Mirtek]

The later part is just an additional qualifier

No, the later part is the actually function. Sentinel disables the disengage action, none OA avoidance is affected.

 

[Uchawi]

No, the later part is the actually function. Sentinel disables the disengage action, none OA avoidance is affected.

I don't think those with opposing views are making any sense, which I assume applies likewise to those that don't agree with me. Therefore, I will leave it with we agree to disagree.

 

[Celtavian]

Clarifying the feat by rewriting it with more concrete text always helps. But the feat as written is clear that creatures within 5 feet provoke AOOs, even if they take the disengage action. The later part is just an additional qualifier that states with 100 percent certainty that is also includes disengage. As a DM you are free to rule it anyway you want, but don't be surprised when the player has a look of confusion.

Why would the player appear confused? The text is clear that it applies to the disengage action and nothing else. You are inserting a comma where there is none. If that comma existed, your interpretation might be correct. Since it doesn't exist in the actual feat text, it is quite clear that it only applies only to the disengage action. You keep putting that comma in because you want it to mean something other than it does.

 

[Mephista]

How could they write it to mean it to work against Fancy Footwork when Fancy Footwork didn't exist when it was written?

Because Fancy Footwork is effectively giving the Swashbuckler the Mobility feat under a different guise. Which makes sense - the original 3e class granted the mobility feat for free as well. So, we may as well think of them as the same thing.