Roper vs Armor of Agathy

[Lord Vukodlak]

So say you have a character protected by Armor of Agathy upcast to 2nd level.

He faces a Roper, if struck by the tendril does

A:The Roper take the damage, which is what the spell says
B:Does the tendril take the damage destroying it leaving the Roper unharmed, as its the tentacle doing the striking and damage to it doesn't effect the Roper.
C:Nothing happens, the tendrils have to be specificity attacked to take damage so the spell is only effective on the bite.

[solidork]

The tendrils should take damage from, say, a Fireball so its not #3.

I can see going either way, so I'd probably ask the guy being attacked which one they thought would be cooler/more fun and go with that.

If they've described how their Armor of Agathys works in more detail, the answer cold also follow from that fiction - for example, if they describe the damage as ice shards shooting out at the attacker it might make sense to hit the Roper, if instead cold energy flows from the point of contact into the attacker then affecting the tendril might make more sense.

[Witty Username]

Or deal damage to both the roper and the tendril, losing limbs isn't a pleasant experience.

[RogueJK]

RAW, I'd say A, based on the language of the Armor of Agathys spell: "If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage".

The tendrils can be attacked and take damage, but aren't automatically damaged when damage is dealt to the Roper.


But were I DMing it, I'd probably ask the PC if they're prefer the damage to be applied to the roper itself (thereby ending the encounter sooner) or to destroying the tendril (thereby avoiding that grapple).



Or deal damage to both the roper and the tendril, losing limbs isn't a pleasant experience.

True, in the real world. But the Roper stat block includes the specific language: "Destroying a tendril deals no damage to the roper"

[kazaryu]

So say you have a character protected by Armor of Agathy upcast to 2nd level.

He faces a Roper, if struck by the tendril does

A:The Roper take the damage, which is what the spell says
B:Does the tendril take the damage destroying it leaving the Roper unharmed, as its the tentacle doing the striking and damage to it doesn't effect the Roper.
C:Nothing happens, the tendrils have to be specificity attacked to take damage so the spell is only effective on the bite.

RaW it pretty clearly would damge the roper. But i do agree with what someone above said. no reason you couldn't leave it up to the player. let an upcast armor of agathys essentially make someone immune to being grappled by a roper..and therefore probably immune the basically any damage the roper might do

[Chronos]

Thematically, given that the Roper's appendages can explicitly be independently damaged, I'd say it makes more sense for the tendrils to take the damage. I'd probably be willing to be argued into the roper taking the damage, instead, if that's what the player with Armor of Agathys wanted, but the tendrils taking the damage is probably superior, from the player's point of view, as it makes them basically immune to the roper. Also note that the roper can replace a tendril on its turn, so if it loses four of its six to frostbite on the first round, even if it stops attacking that character, it'll take a while before it's back up to full strength.

[RogueJK]

[Edited: Conflated two sections of the stat block.]

[solidork]

It doesn't render them immune to the Roper. The OP is talking about a tendril attack that does 22 damage, and a 2nd level AoA that has 10 temp HP/damage.

The original stat block, and the one in the 5e compendium, has the tendrils do 0 damage and just grapple you.

I guess theres an updated version in one of the recent books?

[RogueJK]

Nope, just a brain fart. I conflated the damage from the Bite (22) for the tendril (0 with auto-grapple).

Yes, in that light, none of the tendril attacks would knock down AoA. You'd be effectively immune.

[RSP]

Nope, just a brain fart. I conflated the damage from the Bite (22) for the tendril (0 with auto-grapple).

Yes, in that light, none of the tendril attacks would knock down AoA. You'd be effectively immune.

Interesting case here. AoA, RAW:

“If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage.”

RAW on Roper’s Tendril Attack:

“Tendril: Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 50 ft., one creature. Hit: The target is Grappled (escape DC 15).”


So the tendril Action is explicitly an attack, and explicitly an attack that hits (“Hit: The target is Grappled”).

I’d say the RAW on this is the Roper takes the AoA damage without reducing the tHPs of AoA.

Outside of RAW, I’d imagine it could make more sense to damage the tendril, rather than the Roper.

This also made me think: I’d there ever a situation where a creature can be grappling a character, but due to reach, the character can’t RAW attack the creature?

The Roper example doesn’t qualify as the RAW specifically states you can attack the tendrils, but if that specific rule wasn’t there, you’d be unable to melee attack if the Roper was using that 50’ reach (the character would be too far for a melee attack).

[Segev]

This is one of those situations that "rulings, not rules" is meant to handle if you think the RAW are silly. And if you think the RAW are not silly because they don't say what those advocating a position you find silly, this still applies as a means to encourage those upset by the interpretation they find silly being, they believable RAW.