D&D 5E What is the proper attack bonus for summoned fey from Tasha's?

[TwoSix]

No

I can see the argument for why it wouldn't work by RAW, but I think RAI it should work. The whole point of using the character's spell attack modifier is to simplify bookkeeping.

 

[Dausuul]

No

Maybe. RAW on the subject isn't clear. If something gives you "a bonus on your spell attack rolls," does that count as an increase to your "spell attack bonus?"

You could argue either way. That being the case, I think the correct thing to do is ask which ruling will produce better results at the table: Less bookkeeping, better balance, less confusion, etc. On those criteria, I come down solidly in favor of "yes."

 

[Charlaquin]

I can see the argument for why it wouldn't work by RAW, but I think RAI it should work. The whole point of using the character's spell attack modifier is to simplify bookkeeping.

Maybe. RAW on the subject isn't clear. If something gives you "a bonus on your spell attack rolls," does that count as an increase to your "spell attack bonus?"

You could argue either way. That being the case, I think the correct thing to do is ask which ruling will produce better results at the table: Less bookkeeping, better balance, less confusion, etc. On those criteria, I come down solidly in favor of "yes."

Fair enough. In my undersstanding, spell attack modifier is a specific derived attribute, just like spell save DC. It’s calculated as spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus, and while magic items may add an additional bonus to spell attacks, that bonus is not part of your spell attack bonus. But I suppose RAW is ambiguous enough you could interpret it the other way...

 

[Dausuul]

Fair enough. In my undersstanding, spell attack modifier is a specific derived attribute, just like spell save DC. It’s calculated as spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus, and while magic items may add an additional bonus to spell attacks, that bonus is not part of your spell attack bonus. But I suppose RAW is ambiguous enough you could interpret it the other way...

I see where you're coming from, and from a purely technical standpoint I might even agree. However, the result is a situation much like "attack with a melee weapon" vs. "melee weapon attack"--a deeply confusing and unintuitive distinction, just waiting to trap the less rules-savvy player.

Sadly, the "melee weapon" issue impacts too many things to easily rule it away. The same is not true of the moon sickle, however, and there is enough ambiguity in the text that I'd call it a ruling rather than a house rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

I see where you're coming from, and from a purely technical standpoint I might even agree. However, the result is a situation much like "attack with a melee weapon" vs. "melee weapon attack"--a deeply confusing and unintuitive distinction, just waiting to trap the less rules-savvy player.

Sadly, the "melee weapon" issue impacts too many things to easily rule it away. The same is not true of the moon sickle, however, and there is enough ambiguity in the text that I'd call it a ruling rather than a house rule.

Yeah, this is a consistent problem with the language in 5e. They use natural-sounding language in a technical way, and it makes for lots of unintuitive outcomes like these.

 

[tommybahama]

Well, assuming a 2d8 cantrip with 60% hit rate, that would be 5.4 additional DPR, so 15.5 DPR.

I don’t know how Treantmonk is deriving their 16.5 DPR baseline, so I’m not sure if it’s an apples to apples comparison. I’d need to know the assumed hit rate.

He bases his damage off of the avearage damage a warlock could do with Hex + Eldrich Blast.He's assuming +7 to hit by level 5 (which is higher than his optimized Shepherd druid). Pasted from his video: