D&D General Familiars and Spiritual weapon, Turrets and Tentacles, some have HP some do not, why?

[Ancalagon]

So a magic-user can create all sorts of "things" to help them in battle, we all know this. Familiars, eldritch cannons, spiritual weapons, etc etc etc.

But what I've realized is that it's not clear to me why some things are targetable (eldritch cannon), and some aren't (tentacle of the deep). More importantly, is this distinction clear to the foes?

So "soaking a hit" is not a bad use for a summoned entity that fights besides you. So if the giant is tired of your familiar giving advantage to you and smashes it with a club - well at least YOU weren't smashed with a club, so that's a good benefit to you. But the giant also gains a small benefit (killing the familiar). But a giant would never swat at a spiritual weapon bashing the giant, because the spiritual weapon is not killable. Not only would the spiritual "soak a hit", the giant would gain nothing.

But how does the giant know this? Surely a wizard well versed in arcane matters would know this, or even an experienced adventurer. But a dumb hill giant?

I hope you enjoy this little Christmas gift of a puzzle

I will note that I put this in D&D general but I'm taking the 5e perspective

 

[Omand]

A very good question to which I have no good answer.

Well, short answer is because it was like that before (so history), but it is certainly inconsistent.

Cheers

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

When pushing the Tab key, the spiritual weapon isn't highlighted for the dumb hill giant to select as a target for his attack. The OP is totally right, many of the visual manifestations of spells effect would serve as decoy in a fight.

 

[Stormonu]

I've seen at some tables things are handled differently. I've had PCs attempt to grab (and wield) other caster's spiritual weapons, ask if they could keep "evil" Spirit Guardians at bay with Protection from Evil and other things.

Just because the rules are quiet on some things, doesn't mean someone hasn't tried - and then succeeded.

 

[billd91]

I think it might be reasonable to go by the effect and whether or not it really seems to be connected to a creature - at least for some of the specific examples here. A familiar looks like a li'l critter so it's easy to make the connection that it can be targeted and killed. A spiritual weapon, on the other hand, isn't wielded by anyone - it just floats out there striking at you. While this does have a few things in common with an animated object, you could describe it as somewhat spectral and not very real-looking. Same with the warlock's tentacle of the deep. By contrast, an eldritch cannon is a very real device made with real tools - and thus it has a stronger impression of "realness" that makes it a legit target.

At least that's a quick ad hoc suggestion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m all for all of the weird implications of all those things having actual form and thus being subject to interaction.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

So a magic-user can create all sorts of "things" to help them in battle, we all know this. Familiars, eldritch cannons, spiritual weapons, etc etc etc.

But what I've realized is that it's not clear to me why some things are targetable (eldritch cannon), and some aren't (tentacle of the deep). More importantly, is this distinction clear to the foes?

So "soaking a hit" is not a bad use for a summoned entity that fights besides you. So if the giant is tired of your familiar giving advantage to you and smashes it with a club - well at least YOU weren't smashed with a club, so that's a good benefit to you.

Metagaming. Some groups don't mind, others do. This would be a "non-thing" in my game; the Giant, unless it is particularly smart or aware of what a familiar was, and could recognize one, would never choose to attack it "because it's giving you advantage". It'd attack it because it chose to for some other reason. But that's a "beside the point". To me, that's like saying "It attacks Fighter A, not Fighter, B, because Fighter A only has 12 hp compared to Fighter B, who has 43".

But the giant also gains a small benefit (killing the familiar). But a giant would never swat at a spiritual weapon bashing the giant, because the spiritual weapon is not killable. Not only would the spiritual "soak a hit", the giant would gain nothing.

Again, Metagaming. But hey, whatever works in your group I guess.

But how does the giant know this? Surely a wizard well versed in arcane matters would know this, or even an experienced adventurer. But a dumb hill giant?

Well, in the game you just described, the same way it can distinguish "That is a bat, that is a bat familiar" or "That is a Spiritual Weapon spell, that is a magic-spirit fighting for this puny human".

And yeay... you pretty much answered your own question: If the creature knows what it is, it knows what it is (or at least THINKS it knows what it is).

I hope you enjoy this little Christmas gift of a puzzle

I will note that I put this in D&D general but I'm taking the 5e perspective

As for the deeper question... why did the game choose to give SOME spells and things "HP's and an AC", but doesn't give them to other, similar things? That's a question for the ages! My simple answer: "Game balance and that's just how the writer wrote it down when creating it". Nothing more, no deeper "secret of game design", nothing past "hhehe... that'd be cool.. to have a magic weapon of your god sort of poof into existence to fight by your side...like your god/dess was right there next to you...yeah...very cleric'ey!"

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lyxen]

So "soaking a hit" is not a bad use for a summoned entity that fights besides you. So if the giant is tired of your familiar giving advantage to you and smashes it with a club - well at least YOU weren't smashed with a club, so that's a good benefit to you. But the giant also gains a small benefit (killing the familiar). But a giant would never swat at a spiritual weapon bashing the giant, because the spiritual weapon is not killable. Not only would the spiritual "soak a hit", the giant would gain nothing.
But how does the giant know this? Surely a wizard well versed in arcane matters would know this, or even an experienced adventurer. But a dumb hill giant?

The familiar is a creature, it's obviously smashable, and to give advantage, it has to be a real annoyance to the giant, so swatting it makes sense. The Spiritual weapon is not targetable, I would assume that the giant sorts of swishes around with his club and realises that without wasting an attack. There are almost always ways to rationalise all these things.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you look at the art for the Fathomless warlock in Tasha's the tentacle is transparent and does not look "real". It also connects to the warlock. No one is going to confuse that for a target.

 

[Ancalagon]

So there is a partial answer here - the things that can't be attacked tend to be ... spiritual. Spectral. (I'll concede the line is muddy, what if you summon a spectre?) . And it would make sense that a turret summoned by an artificer is very physical (thus targetable, and recognizable as such).

But these are often "flavor" elements. So if you reflavor a class to fit a concept... like right now we have a new campaign coming up, and 2 characters are "mecanical" - one is a hogoblin artificer battlesmith. And I'm an autognome warlock , a fanthomless. From the depth... of space. I'm an explorer from beyond the stars. So my EB is a "death ray" and my familiar is a "flying probe". (and I'm a warlock because one of the other PCs is an artificer - so there is a "flavor" overlap but very little mechanical/role overlap).

And my spectral tentacle is a lighting spewing combat probe which... can't be attacked for, uh, reasons. :/

 

[Oofta]

Am I missing something? Are eldritch cannons and tentacle of the deep from some UA article? Because they don't appear to be a thing on DndBeyond and I've never heard of them.

As far as familiars and summoned things, they are creatures not the delivery method of a spell. Familiars in particular aren't exactly meant to be combat spells in the first place, even if they can help.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Am I missing something? Are eldritch cannons and tentacle of the deep from some UA article? Because they don't appear to be a thing on DndBeyond and I've never heard of them.

Eldritch cannon is the name of the 3rd level (defining) feature of the Artillerist Artificer. It can be a handgun or an autonomous, self-moving turret.

Tentacles from the Deep is the 1st level boon for warlock of the Hentai Fathomless pact.

Edit: both are Tasha's.

 

[Oofta]

Eldritch cannon is the name of the 3rd level (defining) feature of the Artillerist Artificer. It can be a handgun or an autonomous, self-moving turret.

Tentacles from the Deep is the 1st level boon for warlock of the Hentai Fathomless pact.

Edit: both are Tasha's.

Huh. Search doesn't work well on DndBeyond.

In any case the cannon is an item, not a spell. The tentacles is a bit odd, I guess they treat it as a creature because it's summoned.

 

[ECMO3]

But what I've realized is that it's not clear to me why some things are targetable (eldritch cannon), and some aren't (tentacle of the deep). More importantly, is this distinction clear to the foes?

So "soaking a hit" is not a bad use for a summoned entity that fights besides you. So if the giant is tired of your familiar giving advantage to you and smashes it with a club - well at least YOU weren't smashed with a club, so that's a good benefit to you. But the giant also gains a small benefit (killing the familiar). But a giant would never swat at a spiritual weapon bashing the giant, because the spiritual weapon is not killable. Not only would the spiritual "soak a hit", the giant would gain nothing.

But how does the giant know this? Surely a wizard well versed in arcane matters would know this, or even an experienced adventurer. But a dumb hill giant?

I hope you enjoy this little Christmas gift of a puzzle

I will note that I put this in D&D general but I'm taking the 5e perspective

Nothing in the spiritual weapon or tentacle of the deep spell descriptions state they are not targetable. As such logically spiritual weapon would have hps and AC comparable to the form it takes. I would use a Roper Tendril as a baseline for a tentacle, but probably give it more hps.

 

[TheDelphian]

I just assume the person fighting did swing at those things ( non hpt summons etc) during the round and saw it had no effect. It is not as if the 6 seconds and a roll to hit is the only action. The are swinging and attacking the whole time. One swing goes through the that ng they know to ignore it.

 

[Oofta]

Nothing in the spiritual weapon or tentacle of the deep spell descriptions state they are not targetable. As such logically spiritual weapon would have hps and AC comparable to the form it takes. I would use a Roper Tendril as a baseline for a tentacle, but probably give it more hps.

You can target them, but they are just the physical manifestation of a spell so that the players can keep track of where it's targeted at the moment.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nothing in the spiritual weapon or tentacle of the deep spell descriptions state they are not targetable.

It wouldn't because target information goes in the description of the attack - usually "one creature", "one object" or "one target" which means a creature or an object. A spell effect is neither an object nor a creature, therefore it cannot be targeted. Other examples are Dancing Lights and Flaming Sphere.

 

[TheSword]

And why does a spiritual weapon not count as an ally attacking for the purposes of sneak attack etc. Do does not have to be mindful of attacks from that direction… if so why does it attack vs AC.

 

[Lyxen]

And why does a spiritual weapon not count as an ally attacking for the purposes of sneak attack etc. Do does not have to be mindful of attacks from that direction… if so why does it attack vs AC.

Because it's "automated" and not coordinated with any other attack, but still attack physically.

 

[Ancalagon]

It wouldn't because target information goes in the description of the attack - usually "one creature", "one object" or "one target" which means a creature or an object. A spell effect is neither an object nor a creature, therefore it cannot be targeted. Other examples are Dancing Lights and Flaming Sphere.

flaming sphere is another one that bugs me because it really feels like it's a physical object on fire