Why no synergy for the Sentinel feat?

[Caliban]

No, I replied to call you out on characterizing the OPs simple question as "divine the reasoning of the game designers" as if that somehow was unreasonable.

Well, don't I feel suitably chastised now.

But nice try getting on your high horse there

Yes...my high horse...

Your contribution to this discussion has been invaluable. Thank you for taking time out of your no doubt busy schedule to "call me out" as I so richly deserved.

 

[Wyvern]

Yes...my high horse...

Your contribution to this discussion has been invaluable. Thank you for taking time out of your no doubt busy schedule to "call me out" as I so richly deserved.

Okay, can you both take a breath and calm down now?

Caliban, whether you intended it or not, your replies to both my original post and CapnZapp's response came across as pretty snarky. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were legitimately unclear as to what I wanted, but it felt a little bit like you were chastising me for even asking the question. And apparently I'm not the only one who read it that way. So while CapnZapp's posts may not have "contributed to the discussion", I can understand why he made them.

CapnZapp, I appreciate you coming to my defense (even if it wasn't really necessary), but you've made your point, so now let it be, please.

 

[Caliban]

Okay, can you both take a breath and calm down now?

Caliban, whether you intended it or not, your replies to both my original post and CapnZapp's response came across as pretty snarky.

Sadly, I cannot prevent jaded individuals from misinterpreting my words.

I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt

How gracious of you.

and assume that you were legitimately unclear as to what I wanted, but it felt a little bit like you were chastising me for even asking the question.

Ah, then I failed in my mission. I wasn't chastising you. I was questioning your motives. Hence the questions regarding your motives.

I was legitimately unclear as to why you were asking the question in the way you did. But, I have chosen to give you the benefit of the doubt, just as you have chosen to do so with me.

Aren't we both being magnanimous fellows? Let's pat ourselves on our respective backs.

And apparently I'm not the only one who read it that way.

Yes, you are in august company indeed. Be proud.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

LOUD NOISES

 

[Eltab]

My guess is that two PCs with Sentinel could coordinate and set up an infinite chain of attacks - an 'I win' button no matter the enemy, if the twosome can just get flanking positions..

 

[Dausuul]

My guess is that two PCs with Sentinel could coordinate and set up an infinite chain of attacks - an 'I win' button no matter the enemy, if the twosome can just get flanking positions..

The triggered attack costs your reaction, so that at least is unfeasible.

I'm with Mouseferatu, though: The feat is already a powerhouse. If it could also give you a guaranteed +33-50% damage output*, it would be insane. I agree that the restriction is hard to justify in a story sense, but it's vital for balance; it's one of those things, like hit points, that you just have to slide past and not look too hard at.

[SIZE=-2]*Assuming two mid-level fighters with 2-3 attacks per round. Mid-level monsters usually get at least two attacks, so the fighters will both get a chance to use their reaction attacks. Unless the monster decides not to attack, in which case the increased damage output turns into action denial, also highly effective.[/SIZE]

 

[Wyvern]

The triggered attack costs your reaction, so that at least is unfeasible.

I'm pretty sure Eltab wasn't suggesting that the feat would allow you to make an infinite number of attacks every round... just that you could continue attacking the opponent over and over until it's dead.

*Assuming two mid-level fighters with 2-3 attacks per round. Mid-level monsters usually get at least two attacks, so the fighters will both get a chance to use their reaction attacks.

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.

But yes, point taken. I'm now fully convinced that this would, in fact, be an overpowered tactic.

Wyvern

 

[Nevvur]

It'll be more powerful, yes, but I wouldn't call it overpowered.

A monster doesn't have to attack and provoke the Sentinels' reactions. It could take the dodge action each round. Watch the Sentinels whiff a bunch of attacks on this foe they're so intent on pinning down while its allies run amok on the party's back line. Or use an action that forces a saving throw. Or any allied monster could grapple the pinned creature and pull it out of one of the Sentinel's reach if you want to get kinda cheesey. Obviously, options 1 and 3 aren't going to work in solo monster fights, but those don't constitute even 10% of my fights, so I'd be okay with those off-times when the double Sentinels get to do their schtick without much interference.

As with any house rule, there will be side effects accompanying the modification, but the consequences you don't like can usually be handled with other adjustments. As I suggested, I'd start with monster tactics, but assuming reasonably intelligent foes, I wouldn't adjust their tactics til after the first exposure (unless they had foreknowledge of the PCs tactics). You can adjust the difficulty in other ways to account for the party's higher than average DPR if necessary, such as increased monster HP, or just higher CR monster groups than a PC party of their level would normally be tackling.

All that said, I wouldn't change the feat at my own table.

 

[CapnZapp]

Mid-level monsters usually get at least two attacks, so the fighters will both get a chance to use their reaction attacks.

[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).

I agree the logic is wonky: what does this have to do with the monster getting more than one attack? I fully agree it would not make sense to attack BOTH fighters. (Not only or even primarily because it would allow both fighters' reactions - it's always critical to focus-fire, taking down one PC at a time. Spreading your attacks over several heroes is something you should only do when your multiattack action forces you to)

 

[CapnZapp]

A monster doesn't have to attack

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.