Evard's Menacing Tentacles: "strength score" and "strength modifier"

[Hiro Quester]

The Evard's Menacing Tentacles spell is kinda cool for a melee druid. (A tiger with two huge 10 ft. reach tentacles? Yes please.)

But re-reading the spell text I think may have been using it wrong. Perhaps it's better than I thought?

I usually cast it while my druid is in Tiger Wildshape if I have an extra round to prepare for combat. It adds two tentacles to my attack routine, with 10 ft. reach, each of which can make one attack of opportunity per round. The spell says this about their attacks:


The tentacles use your base attack bonus and Strength score, and each deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1d8 points + your Str modifier.

Why does the description differentiate between strength score and strength modifier? I have only been adding the strength modifier to BAB for the attack bonus. Should I really be adding the strength score?

One explanation is that the tentacles do indeed add your strength score to BAB for attack bonus. It's a sor/wiz spell as well as a druid spell. Str and Wiz don't usually have a high strength modifier. It uses the strength score (not just the modifier) to make the wizard's hits have a chance of hitting. Still, the damage isn't high, but it's something.

But for a Melee druid in wildshape, with a strength buffer like Bite of the Werebear active, this makes the to-hit bonus kinda astronomical.

The other explanation is bad or sloppy writing. That would not be totally surprising. But there is nothing in the errata, as far as I can see.

[Segev]

You've been doing it correctly. It says they use your BAB and Strength score. THat means you calculate their to-hit bonuses as if they had your BAB and Strength score. Which would be "BAB+Str Mod."

[AvatarVecna]

The Evard's Menacing Tentacles spell is kinda cool for a melee druid. (A tiger with two huge 10 ft. reach tentacles? Yes please.)

But re-reading the spell text I think may have been using it wrong. Perhaps it's better than I thought?

I usually cast it while my druid is in Tiger Wildshape if I have an extra round to prepare for combat. It adds two tentacles to my attack routine, with 10 ft. reach, each of which can make one attack of opportunity per round. The spell says this about their attacks:



Why does the description differentiate between strength score and strength modifier? I have only been adding the strength modifier to BAB for the attack bonus. Should I really be adding the strength score?

One explanation is that the tentacles do indeed add your strength score to BAB for attack bonus. It's a sor/wiz spell as well as a druid spell. Str and Wiz don't usually have a high strength modifier. It uses the strength score (not just the modifier) to make the wizard's hits have a chance of hitting. Still, the damage isn't high, but it's something.

But for a Melee druid in wildshape, with a strength buffer like Bite of the Werebear active, this makes the to-hit bonus kinda astronomical.

The other explanation is bad or sloppy writing. That would not be totally surprising. But there is nothing in the errata, as far as I can see.

It doesn't say "your attack bonus with the tentacles is your base attack bonus plus your strength score", it says "the tentacles uses your base attack bonus and strength score"; since it doesn't change how attacks bonuses are calculated, they are calculated as they normally are (BAB+Str mod+other bonuses, based on whatever the Str of the attacking creature is).

[Hiro Quester]

It doesn't say "your attack bonus with the tentacles is your base attack bonus plus your strength score", it says "the tentacles uses your base attack bonus and strength score"; since it doesn't change how attacks bonuses are calculated, they are calculated as they normally are (BAB+Str mod+other bonuses, based on whatever the Str of the attacking creature is).

Oh, right. Uses. So effects like an amulet of mighty fists, greater magic fang, bardic inspiration bonuses and so on also should apply, right?

[AvatarVecna]

Oh, right. Uses. So effects like an amulet of mighty fists, greater magic fang, bardic inspiration bonuses and so on also should apply, right?

As long as the tentacles count as your natural attack, and those effects affect your natural attacks, they should still work on it. If it's treated as a separate creature that happens to be attached to you, I don't think they would, no. I'm pretty sure it's the former, though.

[Necroticplague]

As long as the tentacles count as your natural attack, and those effects affect your natural attacks, they should still work on it. If it's treated as a separate creature that happens to be attached to you, I don't think they would, no. I'm pretty sure it's the former, though.

Actually, the rules seem to indicate the latter. You can't use them as natural weapons on their own or at part as a full-attack. Instead, you, as a free action, direct them to attack someone within 10 feet of you. It never calls them natural attacks, and refers to 'the tentacles' without any reference to you.

[Hiro Quester]

That might be right. They could count as spell effects rather than your natural weapons. This seems like a DM's call.

But they do attack on your turn, as well as being able to make one AoO per round. So they effectively can attack as part of your full attack. Or as extra attacks on a std action single attack.

[Troacctid]

Obviously they're Evard's tentacles, not yours. It's in the name. :smalltongue:

[ryu]

Obviously they're Evard's tentacles, not yours. It's in the name. :smalltongue:

If naming semantics is the issue that's immediately solveable.