Regarding the offense vs. tank I would say that intelligent enemies might focus more on you if you are beating really hard. If you are a heavy tank with low offensive capabilities, enemies will go on targets that pose a bigger threat. For that tactic to work you need some form of control (sentinel feat etc.). Great offense is usually great defence (if we define it as ability to draw aggro), but not neccesarily the ability to deal with that aggro :)
Regarding the offense vs. tank I would say that intelligent enemies might focus more on you if you are beating really hard. If you are a heavy tank with low offensive capabilities, enemies will go on targets that pose a bigger threat. For that tactic to work you need some form of control (sentinel feat etc.). Great offense is usually great defence (if we define it as ability to draw aggro), but not neccesarily the ability to deal with that aggro :)
You make a very good point. My DM is very smart and plays the enemies that way so perhaps in this case the best defense truly is a good offense. In the absence of something like Sentinel I suppose the best way to keep them from ignoring me is to make that decision likely to result in their death. Based on what I'm seeing here I'm thinking my ideal loadout may be Bracers of Defense, Eldritch Claw Tattoo and Cloak of Displacement. At that point I will have 20 AC, my enemies will have disadvantage most of the time (hopefully), and I will be able to hit back hard. I will lose the +1 to saving throws I currently have and the Periapt of Wound Closure (which I've been using more for the doubled hit dice recovery than the automatic stabilize lately). Hopefully the healing I get when I hit level 6 will help mitigate that loss somewhat. Anyone see a way to improve on this?
A few months ago my DM and decided to simulate a few thousand dice rolls in sets of two to see what the numerical value of advantage/disadvantage was. We came out with the difference averaging around 4 points. So in my mind the cloak of displacement gives you an improvement of -4 to the attackers roll versus a +1 to your AC and it’s a net improvement of 3.
Ok, I was wondering if someone had done the math on this (I'm a math teacher) and I'm glad to see that someone has. I was sure the benefit would be better than +1 but I was curious where it would fall. I think causing disadvantage is actually going to be my go-to strategy because it seems more effective than just increasing my AC. I might just start a new thread about methods for causing disadvantage to see which ones I can best take advantage of (if you'll pardon the pun). I noticed that the Frightened condition causes disadvantage and keeps them from moving closer to me, which is perfect since I can swat their projectile attacks out of the air with Deflect Missiles. Maybe my focus should be on finding ways to scare the crap out of my opponents.
As for the Amulet, my Constitution is pretty good (14) so the benefit is only 10 extra hp at this point (if I'm understanding how that works, which I know will increase as I go up in level) so I'm hesitant to use the attunement slot on it. Do you think it would be worth it?
The math varies a little bit. But in general the rule of thumb tends to be roughly a +5 for advantage and a -5 for disadvantage. So the math of a -4 that was mentioned by the other forum member is not too far off the mark. But as another mentioned you do need to weigh that your not only talking about your AC in a way but your also talking about your saves with the Cloak of Protection. So you need to balance out if you need help spread out, or perhaps more on one side or the other of the equation when comparing them. That being said the Cloak of Displacement is a nice item.
As for the extra HP. It can be helpful. that may be one way to shore up your monk and make it a little more survivable for the healers to heal you and keep you going. But it's again something you kind of have to weigh out in balance if you need more to just not get hit or if you need more to have a broader margin for taking damage when you do get hit to keep you functional while the healers get to you to replace the hp you lost.
Things like spears or the like and something like Sentinel or Pole arm master are things to consider as well depending on your overall stats and your need to control the enemies movements. As can certain other Feats potentially depending on your group makeup and tactical style towards combat.
For saves and ability checks agaist a single DC, Advantage is worth a maximum of +5 when you need a natural 11 or more. If you need a natural 4 or more, advantage makes your chance of success 0.96 where a +4 would be a guaranteed success. If your Wis save is +0 and the DC is 21 advantage does not help where even a +1 gives you a chance of success.
For attack rolls Crits and auto fails do make things relatively better for advantage.
The easiest way to compare items is took look at how it will impact dice rolls. Each number has a 5% chance of being rolled on a d20. Every roll will have a DC that effectively sets a minimum required roll to succeed. Adding a Cloak of Protection effectively increases the minimum required roll to succeed by 1, or 5%. For example: if you have an AC of 16 and an enemy has at attack modifier of 5, that means a 11 is the minimum required roll to succeed, or 50% chance to hit. If you attune to a ring of protection increasing your AC to 17, the minimum required roll to succeed increases by 1 meaning to 12 and now that creature has a 45% chance to hit. That ring decreased your chance to be hit by 5% and did the same thing for spell saves.
A Cloak of Displacement gives you an effective AC increase of 3.33 leading to an approximate 16.6% decrease in being hit. It also decreases your chance to be critically hit substantially. After you are hit, it is no longer effective. The fewer attacks against you, the better Cloak of Displacement is at protecting you. The more attacks against you the better Cloak of Protection is at protecting you. I'm fairly certain that 2 attacks or less, Cloak of Displacement is better while Cloak of Protection is better at 3 or more. That makes sense although I'm too tired to do any more math.
For my monk, I am often an off tank that also slips into the back lines of an encounter to get at priority targets. He gets attacked fairly often so I favor the Cloak of Protection. I think the Cloak of Displacement is best on things that are already trying to avoid being attacked, like wizards. Classes that put themselves in harms way to protect the squishy classes will likely prefer the Cloak of Protection.
The Cloak of Protection also adds to your saving throws which is something to consider.
A few months ago my DM and decided to simulate a few thousand dice rolls in sets of two to see what the numerical value of advantage/disadvantage was. We came out with the difference averaging around 4 points. So in my mind the cloak of displacement gives you an improvement of -4 to the attackers roll versus a +1 to your AC and it’s a net improvement of 3.
Ok, I was wondering if someone had done the math on this (I'm a math teacher) and I'm glad to see that someone has. I was sure the benefit would be better than +1 but I was curious where it would fall. I think causing disadvantage is actually going to be my go-to strategy because it seems more effective than just increasing my AC.
Oh the math has been done and confirmed many times. On average it's like adding 4 to a die roll or subtracting 4 from it. By comparison the rarest and most powerful magic weapons in 5e are only +3. So advantage and disadvantage are worth a lot. This doesn't tell the whole story though, because the real impact of advantage and disadvantage depends on what target number (Armor Class or Difficulty Class) you are trying to beat. At the extremely low or high end, advantage or disadvantage makes less difference, about ±1 or ±2. But for midrange target numbers - ones where you need to roll an 8 to 14 on a D20 to beat (before adding modifiers) - its equivalent to about ±5.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
A few months ago my DM and decided to simulate a few thousand dice rolls in sets of two to see what the numerical value of advantage/disadvantage was. We came out with the difference averaging around 4 points. So in my mind the cloak of displacement gives you an improvement of -4 to the attackers roll versus a +1 to your AC and it’s a net improvement of 3.
Ok, I was wondering if someone had done the math on this (I'm a math teacher) and I'm glad to see that someone has. I was sure the benefit would be better than +1 but I was curious where it would fall. I think causing disadvantage is actually going to be my go-to strategy because it seems more effective than just increasing my AC.
Oh the math has been done and confirmed many times. On average it's like adding 4 to a die roll or subtracting 4 from it. By comparison the rarest and most powerful magic weapons in 5e are only +3. So advantage and disadvantage are worth a lot. This doesn't tell the whole story though, because the real impact of advantage and disadvantage depends on what target number (Armor Class or Difficulty Class) you are trying to beat. At the extremely low or high end, advantage or disadvantage makes less difference, about ±1 or ±2. But for midrange target numbers - ones where you need to roll an 8 to 14 on a D20 to beat (before adding modifiers) - its equivalent to about ±5.
I'm confused by this chart a bit. Just what modifier are you using. It clearly isn't proficiency or the minimum to roll on your chart would be 3. It's not based on creatures because there are plenty of rolls on them that are +0 or even negative. If it was jut general rolls of D20's a 1 would still be possible but exceedingly rarer. So what is going on with this chart and just what you were using because something seems rather off with it but I don't know what because I don't know your data points and logic behind the numbers that you did use.
Modifiers are irrelevant. The chart is looking at the minimum required roll on a d20. So for example, if the DC is 16 and you have a mod of 5, then the minimum required roll is 11. It's the same as a DC of 20 and a modifier of 9. That effectively means that rolling at advantage with a minimum required roll of 11 has an equivalent of a +5 from a probability perspective. I don't think this is particularly useful but it was brought up so I figured I'd do the actual math and show the results.
Ki-Strike Weapon (I prefer a spear but to each their own)
Requires Attunement by a Monk. Uncommon (+1) Rare (+2) Very Rare (+3)
This weapon provides a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. The weapon has charges equal to this bonus. When attuned to the weapon you can spend your Ki to "fill" these charges as a free action. While the weapon is in your hand you can spend full charges as you would your own Ki points. Effectively allowing you to store a limited amount of Ki inside your weapon for later use. The charges remain until spent or you are no longer attuned to the weapon. While the weapon has at least one full charge, it gains the UNBREAKABLE minor property.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
You know Eldritch Claw Tattoo in conjunction with the Sentinel Feat would give you an effective control diameter of 30 feet on the board to protect your allies...
You know Eldritch Claw Tattoo in conjunction with the Sentinel Feat would give you an effective control diameter of 30 feet on the board to protect your allies...
I'm a little curious how these two things might work together. Although it definitely creates a wider range in front of you that you can threaten, it also extends the distance that enemies can get away from you before they provoke an opportunity attack. Normally if they get more than 5 feet behind you then you could hit them but now they could get 15 feet behind you before you can make your attack, which could be a liability if that lets them get to one of your allies without leaving your threat range or if it forces your allies even further back to stay out of range. Is the increased range an optional thing you could choose not to use to make attacks of opportunity easier?
You know Eldritch Claw Tattoo in conjunction with the Sentinel Feat would give you an effective control diameter of 30 feet on the board to protect your allies...
I'm a little curious how these two things might work together. Although it definitely creates a wider range in front of you that you can threaten, it also extends the distance that enemies can get away from you before they provoke an opportunity attack. Normally if they get more than 5 feet behind you then you could hit them but now they could get 15 feet behind you before you can make your attack, which could be a liability if that lets them get to one of your allies without leaving your threat range or if it forces your allies even further back to stay out of range. Is the increased range an optional thing you could choose not to use to make attacks of opportunity easier?
the eldritch tattoo has an activated and an unactivated state. unactivated it mostly just helps unarmed stuff. Being simply making unarmed attacks magical and a +1 hit and damge bonus. It's when you activate it that you get the increased range and you also get additional 1d6 force damage but you can only activate it once a day. so it's something that has limits on being able to use it in the way described.
the eldritch tattoo has an activated and an unactivated state. unactivated it mostly just helps unarmed stuff. Being simply making unarmed attacks magical and a +1 hit and damge bonus. It's when you activate it that you get the increased range and you also get additional 1d6 force damage but you can only activate it once a day. so it's something that has limits on being able to use it in the way described.
That part I get, what I'm wondering about is when it is activated you have a much larger area you can attack but for purposes of combining with Sentinel it also creates a much larger bubble within which an enemy can maneuver without leaving your threat range and provoking an attack of opportunity. It seems like that could be a liability in this context. I assume that you couldn't voluntarily choose to reduce your range to the normal 5 feet since you can't usually choose to reduce your threat range.
It's a fair point; the extra range could actually be a bad thing unless all other potential targets are at least 20 feet away (so enemies still have to move out of your range to get to someone else).
That said, there is some wiggle room even in RAW to use only your base reach for Opportunity Attacks; the way Eldritch Claw Tattoos are worded, they only increase the reach of your weapon attacks and unarmed strikes as you make them, they say nothing about increasing your overall reach for the purposes of opportunity, unlike for example the reach weapon property which explicitly does both.
It feels a bit tenuous, but I think a reasonable DM ought to accept that gaining a wider reach shouldn't mean you're going to suddenly go weirdly easier on your enemies and let them wander about doing as they please.
Last thought though, but with Monk speed and manoeuvrability, you could always just move behind the enemy to reduce how far past your position they can get; i.e- if you are between them and an ally that's 15 feet behind you then the enemy can technically attack that ally without triggering an opportunity attack (using 15 foot reach), but if you're behind them (they are between you and your ally by a distance of 20 feet) they'd now be moving out of your reach to go after your ally. Bit of a juggling act to deal with though; I'd just ask my DM if they agree that my character wouldn't just let an enemy move past them just because they have a temporary range increase active.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It's a fair point; the extra range could actually be a bad thing unless all other potential targets are at least 20 feet away (so enemies still have to move out of your range to get to someone else).
That said, there is some wiggle room even in RAW to use only your base reach for Opportunity Attacks; the way Eldritch Claw Tattoos are worded, they only add five foot to the reach of your weapon attacks and unarmed strikes, they say nothing about increasing your overall reach for the purposes of opportunity, unlike for example the reach weapon property which explicitly does both.
It feels a bit tenuous, but I think a reasonable DM ought to accept that gaining a wider reach shouldn't mean you're going to suddenly go weirdly easier on your enemies and let them wander about doing as they please.
Last thought though, but with Monk speed and manoeuvrability, you could always just move behind the enemy to reduce how far past your position they can get; i.e- if you are between them and an ally that's 15 feet behind you then the enemy can technically attack that ally without triggering an opportunity attack (using 15 foot reach), but if you're behind them (they are between you and your ally by a distance of 20 feet) they'd now be moving out of your reach to go after your ally. Bit of a juggling act to deal with though; I'd just ask my DM if they agree that my character wouldn't just let an enemy move past them just because they have a temporary range increase active.
Actually the wording is such that it says each of your attacks. It doesn't actually care where the attacks come from, whether it's attack action, bonus action, reaction, or whatever. It basically says anything within 15 feet is a viable target for your attacks. So it does in fact make your total threat range a giant circle around you even for Reaction based attacks.
This situation is one of the problems and little foibles that the simplification of what you can do to things within your reach has come up in 5e despite the fact that it solved many others. But this is also a situation that doesn't come up often because it requires a feat and certain criteria about your attacks. But the only solution really is that you would have to move farther from your enemy. You'd actually have to be 25 feet in front of any ally. Because if they are merely 20 feet from you. The enemy would be able to attack the ally and you still wouldn't get your AoO because the enemy is still only 15 feet from you. You'd have to force them to move from 15 feet to 20 feet to make the AoO. And that's all assuming they don't have a reach weapon of their own. They are very rare but I've seen reach battles take place and you basically require a map to pull them off. specially if there is more than 2 opposing players that have reach. it's the only way to keep track of the threat radius of the participants on both sides. Increasing the distance on reach to 15 feet would complicate it as well.
Actually the wording is such that it says each of your attacks. It doesn't actually care where the attacks come from, whether it's attack action, bonus action, reaction, or whatever. It basically says anything within 15 feet is a viable target for your attacks. So it does in fact make your total threat range a giant circle around you even for Reaction based attacks.
If you look at the reach weapon property, it explicitly states that it increases your character's reach for the purposes of opportunity attacks, in addition to increasing the reach when you attack. This seems to suggest that these are actually two separate things; i.e- the reach for an attack only matters when you are making the attack, but your character's "reach" for attacks of opportunity is something else that applies the rest of the time, so if you don't increase that as well it would remain at the default of 5 feet. As far as I can find in the rules it never actually says that a character's reach is the same as that of their weapons, which means the reach of a weapon could be separate from the reach of the character itself. You can also see something similar in the playable [race]Bugbear[/race] which has long-limbed that likewise increases the reach of attacks only.
There's also an argument to be made that the word reach (verb) being used by the Eldritch Claw Tattoo is not the same as a creature's reach (noun/attribute) as used for opportunity attacks, see this similar question on rpg.stackexchange.com. The way the word is being used talks about your weapon attacks being able to reach (verb) targets up to 15 feet away, it does not mention increasing your reach (noun) attribute, so while your attacks can hit something up to 15 feet away, your reach would still arguably be 5 feet.
Again, I'm not saying it's the most ironclad interpretation of RAW, but the way reach and similar effects are worded to specifically mention opportunity attacks, while Eldritch Claw Tattoo isn't, and the way it uses reach as a verb rather than noun, gives you room to argue that it only lets you attack things that are further away, but doesn't increase your "reach" for opportunity attacks. Of course if this is what Wizards of the Coast intended they really should have named it something more explicit (like zone of control or something) but again, this is just a basis for making the argument; any reasonable DM should recognise that it makes no sense for temporarily increased range to mean that you're suddenly going to stop taking attacks of opportunity.
It's always been a very weird mechanic in general, as it's supposed to represent you striking at an enemy that's moving away when it should be fighting you, but it doesn't apply if they attack someone right next to (even though that should likewise create an opening for you). It often feels like flanking is supposed to be an integral part of the game because of this, but you don't see a lot of DM's allow it unless they're using a battle map, so it leaves opportunity attacks in this kind of weird conceptual vs mechanical space where things get dumb.
You'd actually have to be 25 feet in front of any ally. Because if they are merely 20 feet from you. The enemy would be able to attack the ally and you still wouldn't get your AoO because the enemy is still only 15 feet from you. You'd have to force them to move from 15 feet to 20 feet to make the AoO. And that's all assuming they don't have a reach weapon of their own. They are very rare but I've seen reach battles take place and you basically require a map to pull them off. specially if there is more than 2 opposing players that have reach. it's the only way to keep track of the threat radius of the participants on both sides. Increasing the distance on reach to 15 feet would complicate it as well.
I think maybe I wasn't very clear in my example; in both cases the enemy is 20 feet from your ally, but in the first case you were between the enemy and the ally, so if the enemy goes for them they're still within 15 feet of you, but in the second case you are "behind" the enemy (enemy is now between you and the ally, but still 20 feet from said ally) so to get to the ally the enemy has to move 20 feet, which must necessarily take them out of your 15 foot range, so would still trigger an attack of opportunity.
Another reason for a DM to sensibly interpret the change in opportunity attack reach is because the logistics here just get silly otherwise, with characters acting really strangely because of mechanical issues, and it seriously harms immersion when a character has to say "I go 15 feet over here so I can still defend my allies after temporarily gaining a range boost". Not exactly smooth roleplay 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I can see an argument for what you're suggesting, the way the Reach property is written could be read as two separate clauses, one for regular attacks and one for opportunity attacks, although I don't know if that is intentional. I think RAW I would have a hard time arguing it but, as you say, it also doesn't make a lot of sense that I'm suddenly ok with people getting farther behind me before I hit them.
Your point does bring up another interesting question about what happens if someone under the effects of Eldritch Claw Tattoo is using a weapon with the Reach property. I initially thought it was pretty straight forward that Eldritch Claw Tattoo is setting your reach to 15 feet so a weapon with Reach would have no additional effect but based on how the Reach property is written I could see someone trying to make an argument that it does. Normally characters can hit people within 5 feet of them regardless of what kind of melee weapon they have; Halfling fists and a Goliath with a greatsword are equally threatening RAW. The Reach property adds 5 feet to the range of your attacks. If Eldritch Claw Tattoo is now setting your range at 15 feet instead of 5 feet I could see someone arguing that their polearm should now allow them to hit people 20 feet away. Again, I don't think that is what is intended as the item describes the additional range coming from "inky tendrils" rather than the weapon itself but I could see someone trying to make that arguement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Regarding the offense vs. tank I would say that intelligent enemies might focus more on you if you are beating really hard. If you are a heavy tank with low offensive capabilities, enemies will go on targets that pose a bigger threat. For that tactic to work you need some form of control (sentinel feat etc.). Great offense is usually great defence (if we define it as ability to draw aggro), but not neccesarily the ability to deal with that aggro :)
You make a very good point. My DM is very smart and plays the enemies that way so perhaps in this case the best defense truly is a good offense. In the absence of something like Sentinel I suppose the best way to keep them from ignoring me is to make that decision likely to result in their death. Based on what I'm seeing here I'm thinking my ideal loadout may be Bracers of Defense, Eldritch Claw Tattoo and Cloak of Displacement. At that point I will have 20 AC, my enemies will have disadvantage most of the time (hopefully), and I will be able to hit back hard. I will lose the +1 to saving throws I currently have and the Periapt of Wound Closure (which I've been using more for the doubled hit dice recovery than the automatic stabilize lately). Hopefully the healing I get when I hit level 6 will help mitigate that loss somewhat. Anyone see a way to improve on this?
The math varies a little bit. But in general the rule of thumb tends to be roughly a +5 for advantage and a -5 for disadvantage. So the math of a -4 that was mentioned by the other forum member is not too far off the mark. But as another mentioned you do need to weigh that your not only talking about your AC in a way but your also talking about your saves with the Cloak of Protection. So you need to balance out if you need help spread out, or perhaps more on one side or the other of the equation when comparing them. That being said the Cloak of Displacement is a nice item.
As for the extra HP. It can be helpful. that may be one way to shore up your monk and make it a little more survivable for the healers to heal you and keep you going. But it's again something you kind of have to weigh out in balance if you need more to just not get hit or if you need more to have a broader margin for taking damage when you do get hit to keep you functional while the healers get to you to replace the hp you lost.
Things like spears or the like and something like Sentinel or Pole arm master are things to consider as well depending on your overall stats and your need to control the enemies movements. As can certain other Feats potentially depending on your group makeup and tactical style towards combat.
For saves and ability checks agaist a single DC, Advantage is worth a maximum of +5 when you need a natural 11 or more. If you need a natural 4 or more, advantage makes your chance of success 0.96 where a +4 would be a guaranteed success. If your Wis save is +0 and the DC is 21 advantage does not help where even a +1 gives you a chance of success.
For attack rolls Crits and auto fails do make things relatively better for advantage.
Here is the actual math. Numbers rounded to 1/100.
The easiest way to compare items is took look at how it will impact dice rolls. Each number has a 5% chance of being rolled on a d20. Every roll will have a DC that effectively sets a minimum required roll to succeed. Adding a Cloak of Protection effectively increases the minimum required roll to succeed by 1, or 5%. For example: if you have an AC of 16 and an enemy has at attack modifier of 5, that means a 11 is the minimum required roll to succeed, or 50% chance to hit. If you attune to a ring of protection increasing your AC to 17, the minimum required roll to succeed increases by 1 meaning to 12 and now that creature has a 45% chance to hit. That ring decreased your chance to be hit by 5% and did the same thing for spell saves.
A Cloak of Displacement gives you an effective AC increase of 3.33 leading to an approximate 16.6% decrease in being hit. It also decreases your chance to be critically hit substantially. After you are hit, it is no longer effective. The fewer attacks against you, the better Cloak of Displacement is at protecting you. The more attacks against you the better Cloak of Protection is at protecting you. I'm fairly certain that 2 attacks or less, Cloak of Displacement is better while Cloak of Protection is better at 3 or more. That makes sense although I'm too tired to do any more math.
For my monk, I am often an off tank that also slips into the back lines of an encounter to get at priority targets. He gets attacked fairly often so I favor the Cloak of Protection. I think the Cloak of Displacement is best on things that are already trying to avoid being attacked, like wizards. Classes that put themselves in harms way to protect the squishy classes will likely prefer the Cloak of Protection.
The Cloak of Protection also adds to your saving throws which is something to consider.
Oh the math has been done and confirmed many times. On average it's like adding 4 to a die roll or subtracting 4 from it. By comparison the rarest and most powerful magic weapons in 5e are only +3. So advantage and disadvantage are worth a lot. This doesn't tell the whole story though, because the real impact of advantage and disadvantage depends on what target number (Armor Class or Difficulty Class) you are trying to beat. At the extremely low or high end, advantage or disadvantage makes less difference, about ±1 or ±2. But for midrange target numbers - ones where you need to roll an 8 to 14 on a D20 to beat (before adding modifiers) - its equivalent to about ±5.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
I'm confused by this chart a bit. Just what modifier are you using. It clearly isn't proficiency or the minimum to roll on your chart would be 3. It's not based on creatures because there are plenty of rolls on them that are +0 or even negative. If it was jut general rolls of D20's a 1 would still be possible but exceedingly rarer. So what is going on with this chart and just what you were using because something seems rather off with it but I don't know what because I don't know your data points and logic behind the numbers that you did use.
Modifiers are irrelevant. The chart is looking at the minimum required roll on a d20. So for example, if the DC is 16 and you have a mod of 5, then the minimum required roll is 11. It's the same as a DC of 20 and a modifier of 9. That effectively means that rolling at advantage with a minimum required roll of 11 has an equivalent of a +5 from a probability perspective. I don't think this is particularly useful but it was brought up so I figured I'd do the actual math and show the results.
Ki-Strike Weapon (I prefer a spear but to each their own)
Requires Attunement by a Monk.
Uncommon (+1)
Rare (+2)
Very Rare (+3)
This weapon provides a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. The weapon has charges equal to this bonus. When attuned to the weapon you can spend your Ki to "fill" these charges as a free action. While the weapon is in your hand you can spend full charges as you would your own Ki points. Effectively allowing you to store a limited amount of Ki inside your weapon for later use. The charges remain until spent or you are no longer attuned to the weapon. While the weapon has at least one full charge, it gains the UNBREAKABLE minor property.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
I assume this is a homebrewed item? I haven't seen this before but it would definitely come in handy.
You know Eldritch Claw Tattoo in conjunction with the Sentinel Feat would give you an effective control diameter of 30 feet on the board to protect your allies...
I'm a little curious how these two things might work together. Although it definitely creates a wider range in front of you that you can threaten, it also extends the distance that enemies can get away from you before they provoke an opportunity attack. Normally if they get more than 5 feet behind you then you could hit them but now they could get 15 feet behind you before you can make your attack, which could be a liability if that lets them get to one of your allies without leaving your threat range or if it forces your allies even further back to stay out of range. Is the increased range an optional thing you could choose not to use to make attacks of opportunity easier?
the eldritch tattoo has an activated and an unactivated state. unactivated it mostly just helps unarmed stuff. Being simply making unarmed attacks magical and a +1 hit and damge bonus. It's when you activate it that you get the increased range and you also get additional 1d6 force damage but you can only activate it once a day. so it's something that has limits on being able to use it in the way described.
That part I get, what I'm wondering about is when it is activated you have a much larger area you can attack but for purposes of combining with Sentinel it also creates a much larger bubble within which an enemy can maneuver without leaving your threat range and provoking an attack of opportunity. It seems like that could be a liability in this context. I assume that you couldn't voluntarily choose to reduce your range to the normal 5 feet since you can't usually choose to reduce your threat range.
It's a fair point; the extra range could actually be a bad thing unless all other potential targets are at least 20 feet away (so enemies still have to move out of your range to get to someone else).
That said, there is some wiggle room even in RAW to use only your base reach for Opportunity Attacks; the way Eldritch Claw Tattoos are worded, they only increase the reach of your weapon attacks and unarmed strikes as you make them, they say nothing about increasing your overall reach for the purposes of opportunity, unlike for example the reach weapon property which explicitly does both.
It feels a bit tenuous, but I think a reasonable DM ought to accept that gaining a wider reach shouldn't mean you're going to suddenly go weirdly easier on your enemies and let them wander about doing as they please.
Last thought though, but with Monk speed and manoeuvrability, you could always just move behind the enemy to reduce how far past your position they can get; i.e- if you are between them and an ally that's 15 feet behind you then the enemy can technically attack that ally without triggering an opportunity attack (using 15 foot reach), but if you're behind them (they are between you and your ally by a distance of 20 feet) they'd now be moving out of your reach to go after your ally. Bit of a juggling act to deal with though; I'd just ask my DM if they agree that my character wouldn't just let an enemy move past them just because they have a temporary range increase active.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Actually the wording is such that it says each of your attacks. It doesn't actually care where the attacks come from, whether it's attack action, bonus action, reaction, or whatever. It basically says anything within 15 feet is a viable target for your attacks. So it does in fact make your total threat range a giant circle around you even for Reaction based attacks.
This situation is one of the problems and little foibles that the simplification of what you can do to things within your reach has come up in 5e despite the fact that it solved many others. But this is also a situation that doesn't come up often because it requires a feat and certain criteria about your attacks. But the only solution really is that you would have to move farther from your enemy. You'd actually have to be 25 feet in front of any ally. Because if they are merely 20 feet from you. The enemy would be able to attack the ally and you still wouldn't get your AoO because the enemy is still only 15 feet from you. You'd have to force them to move from 15 feet to 20 feet to make the AoO. And that's all assuming they don't have a reach weapon of their own. They are very rare but I've seen reach battles take place and you basically require a map to pull them off. specially if there is more than 2 opposing players that have reach. it's the only way to keep track of the threat radius of the participants on both sides. Increasing the distance on reach to 15 feet would complicate it as well.
If you look at the reach weapon property, it explicitly states that it increases your character's reach for the purposes of opportunity attacks, in addition to increasing the reach when you attack. This seems to suggest that these are actually two separate things; i.e- the reach for an attack only matters when you are making the attack, but your character's "reach" for attacks of opportunity is something else that applies the rest of the time, so if you don't increase that as well it would remain at the default of 5 feet. As far as I can find in the rules it never actually says that a character's reach is the same as that of their weapons, which means the reach of a weapon could be separate from the reach of the character itself. You can also see something similar in the playable [race]Bugbear[/race] which has long-limbed that likewise increases the reach of attacks only.
There's also an argument to be made that the word reach (verb) being used by the Eldritch Claw Tattoo is not the same as a creature's reach (noun/attribute) as used for opportunity attacks, see this similar question on rpg.stackexchange.com. The way the word is being used talks about your weapon attacks being able to reach (verb) targets up to 15 feet away, it does not mention increasing your reach (noun) attribute, so while your attacks can hit something up to 15 feet away, your reach would still arguably be 5 feet.
Again, I'm not saying it's the most ironclad interpretation of RAW, but the way reach and similar effects are worded to specifically mention opportunity attacks, while Eldritch Claw Tattoo isn't, and the way it uses reach as a verb rather than noun, gives you room to argue that it only lets you attack things that are further away, but doesn't increase your "reach" for opportunity attacks. Of course if this is what Wizards of the Coast intended they really should have named it something more explicit (like zone of control or something) but again, this is just a basis for making the argument; any reasonable DM should recognise that it makes no sense for temporarily increased range to mean that you're suddenly going to stop taking attacks of opportunity.
It's always been a very weird mechanic in general, as it's supposed to represent you striking at an enemy that's moving away when it should be fighting you, but it doesn't apply if they attack someone right next to (even though that should likewise create an opening for you). It often feels like flanking is supposed to be an integral part of the game because of this, but you don't see a lot of DM's allow it unless they're using a battle map, so it leaves opportunity attacks in this kind of weird conceptual vs mechanical space where things get dumb.
I think maybe I wasn't very clear in my example; in both cases the enemy is 20 feet from your ally, but in the first case you were between the enemy and the ally, so if the enemy goes for them they're still within 15 feet of you, but in the second case you are "behind" the enemy (enemy is now between you and the ally, but still 20 feet from said ally) so to get to the ally the enemy has to move 20 feet, which must necessarily take them out of your 15 foot range, so would still trigger an attack of opportunity.
Another reason for a DM to sensibly interpret the change in opportunity attack reach is because the logistics here just get silly otherwise, with characters acting really strangely because of mechanical issues, and it seriously harms immersion when a character has to say "I go 15 feet over here so I can still defend my allies after temporarily gaining a range boost". Not exactly smooth roleplay 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I can see an argument for what you're suggesting, the way the Reach property is written could be read as two separate clauses, one for regular attacks and one for opportunity attacks, although I don't know if that is intentional. I think RAW I would have a hard time arguing it but, as you say, it also doesn't make a lot of sense that I'm suddenly ok with people getting farther behind me before I hit them.
Your point does bring up another interesting question about what happens if someone under the effects of Eldritch Claw Tattoo is using a weapon with the Reach property. I initially thought it was pretty straight forward that Eldritch Claw Tattoo is setting your reach to 15 feet so a weapon with Reach would have no additional effect but based on how the Reach property is written I could see someone trying to make an argument that it does. Normally characters can hit people within 5 feet of them regardless of what kind of melee weapon they have; Halfling fists and a Goliath with a greatsword are equally threatening RAW. The Reach property adds 5 feet to the range of your attacks. If Eldritch Claw Tattoo is now setting your range at 15 feet instead of 5 feet I could see someone arguing that their polearm should now allow them to hit people 20 feet away. Again, I don't think that is what is intended as the item describes the additional range coming from "inky tendrils" rather than the weapon itself but I could see someone trying to make that arguement.