Tentacles, Reach and Reactions

[Cheesegear]

A player readies an action to make an Attack if the hostile comes within 5 ft. Makes sense. It's what anyone would do.
Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the player, the hostile has Reach, and doesn't need to come within 5 ft. Reaction doesn't trigger. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, the hostile attacks with part of its own anatomy - a tentacle, appendage, vine, etc.

Since the hostile is attacking with part of itself, the player is confused as to why their Reaction doesn't trigger, when it probably, maybe should?

[Lord Vukodlak]

I would rule it triggers, otherwise it just feels silly, and becomes out right ridiculous when you have creatures whose bite has reach.

[quindraco]

A player readies an action to make an Attack if the hostile comes within 5 ft. Makes sense. It's what anyone would do.
Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the player, the hostile has Reach, and doesn't need to come within 5 ft. Reaction doesn't trigger. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, the hostile attacks with part of its own anatomy - a tentacle, appendage, vine, etc.

Since the hostile is attacking with part of itself, the player is confused as to why their Reaction doesn't trigger, when it probably, maybe should?

I agree with JC on this one: if a creature has natural reach, all of its body parts count as it. JC has a tweet up confirming that at his table, when a Giant Octopus grapples you from 10 feet away, you can just attack the tentacle grappling you - you don't need to attack the main body. I would not only embrace that ruling, I would apply it here. Just be aware that for some creatures, it can get weedy figuring out what constitutes being part of its anatomy - a giant elk has reach on its antlers, but it's deeply sus having its antlers - a body part whose only job is being a weapon, and which is sheddable - take damage as easily as the rest of it, but it's challenging figuring out a reasonable AC for the antlers, since 5E doesn't normally give you fine-grained rules like that. You might well rule the antlers just don't take damage, in the same way damage to a sword doesn't damage the wielder, to keep everything simple and sane and prevent weird cases where an elk dies because its antlers were cut off. And so on.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I agree with JC on this one: if a creature has natural reach, all of its body parts count as it. JC has a tweet up confirming that at his table, when a Giant Octopus grapples you from 10 feet away, you can just attack the tentacle grappling you - you don't need to attack the main body. I would not only embrace that ruling, I would apply it here. Just be aware that for some creatures, it can get weedy figuring out what constitutes being part of its anatomy - a giant elk has reach on its antlers, but it's deeply sus having its antlers - a body part whose only job is being a weapon, and which is sheddable - take damage as easily as the rest of it, but it's challenging figuring out a reasonable AC for the antlers, since 5E doesn't normally give you fine-grained rules like that. You might well rule the antlers just don't take damage, in the same way damage to a sword doesn't damage the wielder, to keep everything simple and sane and prevent weird cases where an elk dies because its antlers were cut off. And so on.

So wait, is natural reach meaningless at JC's table?

EDIT: In the current context. It still has its uses, I guess. That just completely eliminates one of the few niche things about reach in this edition that's actually good, and cheapens reach weapons for PCs imo.

[msfnc]

So wait, is natural reach meaningless at JC's table?

EDIT: In the current context. It still has its uses, I guess. That just completely eliminates one of the few niche things about reach in this edition that's actually good, and cheapens reach weapons for PCs imo.

I don’t think it cheapens reach weapons at all. The player (or monster) must commit their action and reserve their reaction in order to maybe possibly get a chance to maybe possibly hit their opponent. I think it’s a great abstract simulation of how to handle an opponent with reach. Forcing the defender to act cautiously can cost them valuable action economy resources, which can then be strategically wasted by moving the creature or simply avoiding the reaction’s trigger event.

[Tanarii]

Why is it players always suddenly think they can make called shots to limbs when it's a tentacle?

I blame movies :smallamused:

[Catullus64]

Rules wonk like this is the reason why, for very large inhumanoids (not those ones) with tentacles or similarly large appendages, I just treat each limb as a separate entity with its own initiative count, which occupies multiple spaces as it moves.

[JNAProductions]

Rules wonk like this is the reason why, for very large inhumanoids (not those ones) with tentacles or similarly large appendages, I just treat each limb as a separate entity with its own initiative count, which occupies multiple spaces as it moves.

That seems like it'd cause a lot more wonkiness. Can you give an example of this in play?

[Demonslayer666]

It depends on the reach weapon, but yes, I would allow a readied action to hit a tentacle. As long as part of the creature came within reach when they were hitting you. Things like a giant's two handed axe would not allow for that though.

[Hytheter]

Rules wonk like this is the reason why, for very large inhumanoids (not those ones) with tentacles or similarly large appendages, I just treat each limb as a separate entity with its own initiative count, which occupies multiple spaces as it moves.

I haven't actually run it but this is roughly where my own contemplations have taken me. I probably wouldn't go as far as giving them separate initiative but treating it as a separate entity for HP and damage makes a lot of sense and would help to make fighting larger creatures feel different from fighting smaller ones.

[Joe the Rat]

I'd let the attack work, but I might adjudicate on effects - reduced hp damage, and forcing disadvantage on the triggering attack, for example. Definitely something to discuss at the table.

It really makes you appreciate ropers, since they come with tentacle stats.


Rules wonk like this is the reason why, for very large inhumanoids (not those ones) with tentacles or similarly large appendages, I just treat each limb as a separate entity with its own initiative count, which occupies multiple spaces as it moves.

Well, there was the plant one...

[JNAProductions]

I haven't actually run it but this is roughly where my own contemplations have taken me. I probably wouldn't go as far as giving them separate initiative but treating it as a separate entity for HP and damage makes a lot of sense and would help to make fighting larger creatures feel different from fighting smaller ones.

I guess we might be thinking of different sizes here.

The OP mentioned 10' reach-so a Medium or Large octopus, or something like that.

If you're dealing with a 100' tall Kraken, then yes, I 100% get it. But for smaller creatures, it seems like it's a lot of extra work for minimal gain.

[Cheesegear]

I donÂ’t think it cheapens reach weapons at all...

It does. The real question is by how much? And does that matter to you?

Currently, a creature that doesn't have Reach, against a target 10 ft. away, can't make an attack at all. Full stop.

The proposal is that a creature that doesn't have Reach, can attack a target 10 ft. away. But only if the target has Reach, and attacks first.

- If the attacker hits, yes. There's a trade-off. Damage-for-damage. Sure. You can probably justify it using only this argument that it's 'fair'.
- But, if the attacker misses, the defender just gets a free attack with no downside, despite being 10 ft. away and not having Reach.

If the attacker misses, it doesn't matter whether the defender has Reach or not. There is a non-zero chance that every time a creature with Reach, attacks, the defender is better off just not having Reach. So, why have Reach?

Then of course if the DM uses the environment: The creature having Reach - and you not - is the point of the encounter. That's what makes it hard. If characters without Reach, don't even need Reach, then what's the point of Reach, if not having it, doesn't actually mean anything?

[JNAProductions]

It does. The real question is by how much? And does that matter to you?

Currently, a creature that doesn't have Reach, against a target 10 ft. away, can't make an attack at all. Full stop.

The proposal is that a creature that doesn't have Reach, can attack a target 10 ft. away. But only if the target has Reach, and attacks first.
- If the attacker hits, yes. There's a trade-off. Damage-for-damage.
- If the attacker misses, the defender just gets a free attack with no downside, despite being 10 ft. away and not having Reach.

If the attacker misses, it doesn't matter whether the defender has Reach or not. There is a non-zero chance that every time a creature with Reach, attacks, the defender is better off just not having Reach. So, why have Reach?

Then of course if the DM uses the environment: The creature having Reach - and you not - is the point of the encounter. That's what makes it hard. If characters without Reach, don't even need Reach, then what's the point of Reach, if not having it, doesn't actually mean anything?

If you ready your action, you only get one attack (by RAW-many DMs don't realize or change that, though) even if you have Extra Attack. The monster with reach can also move around the readied action individual to attack a juicier target, or one who hasn't prepared to strike them. Not to mention... If you're dealing with a 10' reach here, the PC can just walk 5' forwards and attack normally, unless the creature has significantly extra move speed that allows it to kite.

[Catullus64]

That seems like it'd cause a lot more wonkiness. Can you give an example of this in play?

I've done this for three encounters in the past where it seemed like trying to figure out reach would be headache-inducing. A kraken (small k, not the MM one) encounter at sea, a particularly large and ancient treant, and a giant the size of a mountain. In these cases, each major limb had its own space that it occupied, but could only move a certain distance in relation to the central figure. Opportunity attacks were provoked by moving more than 5 feet away from an individual limb. Each one had its own HP; they essentially functioned like separate creatures.

I will say that this only worked on a battle mat where I had tokens to represent them. Theater-of-the-mind style, this probably would have caused more problems than it solved.

[JackPhoenix]

I'd say the grapple from Crawford's tweet is a different situation. The tentacles stay there to keep grappling the attacker. If it's just an attack, there's no time to take the reaction: Readied action happenes after the trigger. That means the opponent with reach attacks first, and after the attack is resolved, the tentacles aren't within reach anymore, so they can't be attacked.

There's a precedent in readying an action (or use Mage Slayer) to attack a spellcaster casting Misty Step: your reaction triggers after the enemy cast the spell, but by that time, he's outside the reach.

[Yakk]

I'd impose disadvantage on the triggered attack, but it happens *before* the triggering attack.

If the triggered attack hits, the *triggering* attack gets disadvantage, as there is an axe in its tentacle. And ouch, that hurts.

This also has the advantage of generating maximal narration.

1. Normally you don't get to interrupt an attack. This lets you do it. The price is disadvantage, which seems fair.

2. Hitting a tentacle trying to grab you is very cinematic, and should help you defensively.

The same thing could hold against a manufactured weapon, where you could ready an action to attack the weapon at disadvantage. I'd only let the attack break the weapon on a critical hit (or a case where you are way outclassing the foe, like a T2 PC with a magic maul vs a CR 1/4 guard), but on a hit you'd also impose disadvantage on the triggering attack.

I think this is good enough that it is better than nada, but not so good you'd want to do it every round rather than just kill the beast (if you had the choice) directly.

[Kvess]

Keep in mind that your player is using their action as well as their reaction to make a single attack against a creature. Because it's a significant investment for a single attack (or, if they are holding a spell, the cost of concentration and the risk of losing the spell if the trigger condition is not met), I would be strongly inclined to allow the reaction attack to function.

Think of it this way: If a druid at your table polymorphed into a giant octopus and used their tentacles to open a trapped chest, would you say that the reach on the tentacles would allow the druid to avoid all damage from the trap? It's not a mage hand or a tool; it's part of the creature.

And damage is fairly straight-forward. Figuring other homebrew effects on the fly seems like more trouble than it's worth.

[Man_Over_Game]

An important thing to consider is that the Ready Action is a lot worse than a normal action, as it requires:

The player to lose value through action economy. They've spent an Action and a Reaction to do so.
The player carries more risk than they would normally. The event they're expecting has to happen, otherwise they wasted their Action.


Ready Actions are also a lot more interesting than normal Actions, since they're telegraphed and require the player to adapt to the things that are currently happening.

All-in-all, there is a very good reason to make Ready Actions too​ powerful. Regardless of the rules, I think this is a very important thing to consider.

Put another way, if you want players to do something other than the boring Action they always do every combat, show it.

In fact, I impose a challenge. Until someone finds or makes a reason for Ready Actions to be a better use of investment than an Attack Action (outside of Action Surge + Rogue shenanigans) I think there's not a leg to stand on for the Ready Action to not do more than the player was expecting to. Even if you gave all Ready Actions Advantage on whatever they were doing, would that be enough to convince players to do it consistently?

How powerful do they have to be to be worth ruling against them, and are they doing that now?

A GM isn't just a rules adjudicator, it's a GAME MASTER. That means part of your responsibility is making sure you're making a good game. And just like a game developer, that might mean you have to make decisions that make the game better, damn the rules.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Personally, I'd take the middle ground stance and say that if something is snapping at you with reach, you cannot attack it if you do not have equivalent reach, but if it has grabbed you with a tentacle or other limb (tail, etc) and is actively restraining you, you can attack the limb that is holding you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I'd take the middle ground stance and say that if something is snapping at you with reach, you cannot attack it if you do not have equivalent reach, but if it has grabbed you with a tentacle or other limb (tail, etc) and is actively restraining you, you can attack the limb that is holding you.

I agree with this position. It seems like the sanest compromise. And the limb is just the creature itself (barring super-gigantic monsters with split limbs already), same AC, same HP pool, no "sever the tentacle" mechanics unless the monster already has it (eg Ropers, IIRC).

[Reach Weapon]

If Reach was taken out of this, and these were readied action against, say a Monk, would the proposed rulings be the same? I don't think I'd allow a readied attack to have any impact on a punch, but I can see treating a grapple much differently. That still feels okay to me against a tentacle with Reach.

[Dark.Revenant]

Simple adjudication: Yes, you can attack (whether it's because you're grappled, or taking a reaction, or whatever), but it's at disadvantage.

[Asisreo1]

I don't really see the debate. The creature is holding you, therefore its within your reach.

It'd be different if the creature was using a weapon like a Kuo-toa that could reach and grapple, but since its a tentacle and the tentacle is the creature, its in your space.

Reach isn't only for hit-and-run tactics where they can avoid disengaging to attack or prevent enemies from reaching them, sometimes its literally just for the extra melee range.

Yeah, I'd even allow them to attack the creature from 10ft away on their turn as an action since they actually are within reach.

[Man_Over_Game]

Don't forget that the Disarm Attack is an option for DM's that are aware of it (DMG, p. 271). For those saying that it wouldn't work due to a weapon, or that the reach changes things due to the possibility of a weapon, please do take this into consideration.

[MrCharlie]

Rules wonk like this is the reason why, for very large inhumanoids (not those ones) with tentacles or similarly large appendages, I just treat each limb as a separate entity with its own initiative count, which occupies multiple spaces as it moves.
Unless the main creature takes damage from its tentacles being hit, this is just a way to punish your players for cinematic thinking and clutter the map, if you try to map this out. If the main creature does take damage from its tentacles being hit, there still isn't much point to it.

I'd personally arbitrate this by increasing the AC of the tentacle by the creatures DEX mod and giving it a CON save to resist dropping whatever it is grappling, DC=Damage taken.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Hey just to throw it into this debate.
Take a Roper vs someone with Armor of Agathy upcast to 3rd level on them.

[Asisreo1]

Hey just to throw it into this debate.
Take a Roper vs someone with Armor of Agathy upcast to 3rd level on them.
The roper takes the damage. Its the creature that made the attack, the tendrils are not what made the attack.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I'd only do separate parts rules for truly Titanic boss monsters, never for "regular" giant octopus or whatever.

[Reach Weapon]

Keep in mind that your player is using their action as well as their reaction to make a single attack against a creature. Because it's a significant investment for a single attack (or, if they are holding a spell, the cost of concentration and the risk of losing the spell if the trigger condition is not met), I would be strongly inclined to allow the reaction attack to function.
I'm quite sympathetic to the lost investment, but would it carry any weight if it were a manufactured reach weapon? A ranged attack from two squares away?

[Kvess]

I'm quite sympathetic to the lost investment, but would it carry any weight if it were a manufactured reach weapon? A ranged attack from two squares away?

Was this written by a reach weapon?

I don't think the player would choose to attack a polearm, a whip, or an arrow in the same way they would choose to attack a tentacle. A tentacle is part of a creature in the way that a polearm isn't. (Though as pointed out in this thread, they could choose to hold their action to Disarm the polearm using a contested skill check. A ranged attack is a projectile that is not attached to the creature in question.)

This might be a stylistic decision as the DM, but I don't want to make my players feel like if they don't have an option explicitly written on their character sheet then they can't try something. D&D isn't a computer game, and I am empowered to give my players a bit of leeway when what they want to do is actually sensible for their character to do. Attacking a tentacle seems sensible in the way that attacking an arrow doesn't, and I am inclined to be generous (but not stupid) when a player is investing their action and reaction to make one attack.

[Greywander]

Since you can only make one attack with a readied action, what if you instead readied a Booming Blade? Does the tendril take damage if it is pulled back after attacking? Does the monster need to keep the tendril extended? Or does BB only affect the monster itself, and the monster will take damage if it moves any more? Hmm, what about if a creature with reach is hit with BB; does it count as movement if they extend a tendril to attack at reach?

It would make sense to me to have a set of generic rules for handling "limb" damage, which could include things like wings, tails, or even heads/necks. Looking at hydras, you have to deal just shy of 15% of their max HP to destroy a head, and for ropers you have to deal about 10% of their max HP to destroy a tendril.

What I'm thinking is that we could give each limb, say, 20% (one-fifth) of your max HP. If the limb takes that much damage, that limb is disabled (which could mean severed for monsters, or just heavily injured for PCs; maybe roll on a table or make a CON save if you want to play it hardcore). Called shots are generally at disadvantage (or have a -5 penalty, so that advantage and disadvantage from other sources can still apply), and the damage dealt to a limb does not affect the HP of that creature. So you could make a called shot to an arm, but it won't actually do any damage to the target themselves, only possibly disable that limb (which could make the fight much easier).

With the possibility of disabling limbs (which can include the head, for an instant KO), it only makes sense to impose a penalty (disadvantage or -5) and not have the damage apply to that creature's HP. Otherwise, you would always be making called shots to limbs. Or perhaps a similar injury system could be applied to attacks against a creature's main body as well, so that no matter where you're attacking, you can apply some kind of debuff.

[Man_Over_Game]

Was this written by a reach weapon?

I don't think the player would choose to attack a polearm, a whip, or an arrow in the same way they would choose to attack a tentacle. A tentacle is part of a creature in the way that a polearm isn't. (Though as pointed out in this thread, they could choose to hold their action to Disarm the polearm using a contested skill check. A ranged attack is a projectile that is not attached to the creature in question.)

This might be a stylistic decision as the DM, but I don't want to make my players feel like if they don't have an option explicitly written on their character sheet then they can't try something. D&D isn't a computer game, and I am empowered to give my players a bit of leeway when what they want to do is actually sensible for their character to do. Attacking a tentacle seems sensible in the way that attacking an arrow doesn't, and I am inclined to be generous (but not stupid) when a player is investing their action and reaction to make one attack.

Personally, I'd just make a blanket set of rules that attacking an "object" that's trying to hit you does one of the following:


If the object reasonably takes damage (like a tentacle or something fragile), make an attack before they do with Advantage. If you hit, their attack now has Disadvantage.
If the object is held, treat it as a Disarm Attack with Advantage.
If the object is a projectile, make an attack roll with Advantage, deflecting the projectile if your attack roll is higher.


Someone thinks that's OP? You just spent an Action and a Reaction, and they spent one of their 2-3 attacks. I'm sure they'll get over it.

[Reach Weapon]

This might be a stylistic decision as the DM, but I don't want to make my players feel like if they don't have an option explicitly written on their character sheet then they can't try something.
I'm absolutely onboard here.


D&D isn't a computer game, and I am empowered to give my players a bit of leeway when what they want to do is actually sensible for their character to do. Attacking a tentacle seems sensible in the way that attacking an arrow doesn't, and I am inclined to be generous (but not stupid) when a player is investing their action and reaction to make one attack.
Yeah. As I try to model this out, I start off with a foe that can't be engaged both because it hasn't met the conditions specified for the readied action and because it is out of melee range of the character. To the extent that the foe ever crosses into range, as I don't have it attempting a grapple yet, it is a small percentage of it's body popping in and out of range, executing feints, dodges and other confusing motions in an effort to slip past the character's defenses. If I treat distance out of range as an obstacle that grants cover, I could see allowing the readied attack, but against a +5 AC bonus.

Barring extenuating circumstances, I think the character would have intuited this from their training and lived world experience, and so the player should have been forewarned of the mechanics. I'm pretty sure I'd give room for the player to reconsider in light of this.