One of my players is a 4th level druid, and he's fond of using the Giant Octopus as a wildshape due to its reach and the auto grappling and restraining part of its attacks. The issue is that it has reach, so if it hits from 10 ft away, my monsters have no movement to get closer, and they technically aren't in melee combat with the octopus...?
Or does the tentacle of the octopus count as "engaged in melee" even if the body is further away from the PC? I know this can be up for interpretation a bit, but I'm wondering if there's any RAW or Crawford rulings that clearly define how to handle this situation?
I was looking at another thread, and I had seen that you had replied with the second Crawford ruling, so that's what I expected, but it's good to have it confirmed!
Bear in mind that such a ruling necessarily means you measure other distances the same way - for example, the grappling tentacle should be capable of imposing disadvantage on ranged attacks from creatures within 5 feet of it.
JC's ruling on reach and distance have a few worrying implications on the rules. Not to mention the fact that the rule is apparently different on a grid which should have the same outcomes.
A house rule allowing the tentacle to be attacked, by the grappled creature, but otherwise treat it as not there makes more sense.
Bear in mind that such a ruling necessarily means you measure other distances the same way - for example, the grappling tentacle should be capable of imposing disadvantage on ranged attacks from creatures within 5 feet of it.
It's even more troubling since octopuses don't have tentacles.
I kid, I kid. I think it's fine if you treat the ruling within the context of the situation it addresses. I would treat it as a specific exception to the general rule.
I like this ruling, because I can't see the tentacle actually "harrying" any other creatures within 5 ft (since I envision it wrapped around the target) to impose ranged disadvantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey!
One of my players is a 4th level druid, and he's fond of using the Giant Octopus as a wildshape due to its reach and the auto grappling and restraining part of its attacks. The issue is that it has reach, so if it hits from 10 ft away, my monsters have no movement to get closer, and they technically aren't in melee combat with the octopus...?
Or does the tentacle of the octopus count as "engaged in melee" even if the body is further away from the PC? I know this can be up for interpretation a bit, but I'm wondering if there's any RAW or Crawford rulings that clearly define how to handle this situation?
Crawford's ruling is that "a creature grappled by a giant octopus can attack the octopus via the grappling tentacle." This is consistent with another tweet where he says: "If you're playing without a grid, distances in the D&D rules are meant to be read in their natural English sense. For example, I'm within 5 feet of you if any part of me is within 5 feet of you. We don't mean for you to mentally project a grid onto the action." While it's unusual for parts of a creature to linger beyond the space it occupies in combat, there's some precedent with the roper.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Awesome, thanks!
I was looking at another thread, and I had seen that you had replied with the second Crawford ruling, so that's what I expected, but it's good to have it confirmed!
Thanks so much!
Bear in mind that such a ruling necessarily means you measure other distances the same way - for example, the grappling tentacle should be capable of imposing disadvantage on ranged attacks from creatures within 5 feet of it.
JC's ruling on reach and distance have a few worrying implications on the rules. Not to mention the fact that the rule is apparently different on a grid which should have the same outcomes.
A house rule allowing the tentacle to be attacked, by the grappled creature, but otherwise treat it as not there makes more sense.
It's even more troubling since octopuses don't have tentacles.
I kid, I kid. I think it's fine if you treat the ruling within the context of the situation it addresses. I would treat it as a specific exception to the general rule.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I like this ruling, because I can't see the tentacle actually "harrying" any other creatures within 5 ft (since I envision it wrapped around the target) to impose ranged disadvantage.