9
\$\begingroup\$

I started playing a Lurker in the Deep warlock (from UA: Sorcerer and Warlock), and have now updated it to a Fathomless warlock (TCoE, p. 72) due to the recent update.

In a session, we encountered a situation where my Fathomless warlock's tentacle (from the Tentacle of the Deeps feature) was the only thing in attack range of someone, and our DM decided to have them attack the tentacle, at which point the DM asked me how that works.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing describing what happens when it's attacked/if it can be attacked. I assume a lot of this is up to the DM, but a lot of how the tentacle works is very vague in terms of it occupying physical space.

Can the Fathomless warlock's Tentacle of the Deeps be attacked?

\$\endgroup\$
1
10
\$\begingroup\$

The tentacle operates a lot like spiritual weapon, especially in regards to it not being able to be attacked or damaged.

Both the UA version (the Lurker in the Deep's Grasp of the Deep feature, from UA: Sorcerer and Warlock) and the version released in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (the Fathomless's Tentacle of the Deeps feature, on p. 72) say the same thing about the tentacle:

The tentacle lasts for 1 minute or until you use this feature to create another tentacle.

It has no AC and no Hit Points, and there are no other conditions that could banish the tentacle, so, at least to me, it's clear that it can't be attacked - not effectively, at any rate. An enemy might decide to take a swing at it but it isn't going to have any effect.

You can further compare its description to something that can be destroyed, such as the Echo Knight fighter's Manifest Echo feature (EGtW, p. 183), which says:

This echo is a magical, translucent, gray image of you that lasts until it is destroyed, until you dismiss it as a bonus action, until you manifest another echo, or until you're incapacitated. Your echo has AC 14 + your proficiency bonus, 1 hit point, [...]

This description contains everything you need to know about how the Echo can be destroyed and serves as a good counterexample.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast, can I ask why DDB seems to favoured for the linkable resource when so much of its information is behind a paywall? I, for example, don't have a subscription and so most of the links you've added aren't useful. \$\endgroup\$ – Steve Dec 9 '20 at 20:14
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ is there a linkable source that is: 1. Not behind paywall 2. Providing the material in a legal way 3. Considered official? \$\endgroup\$ – Lause Dec 10 '20 at 11:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Additionally there is at least one meta discussion behind that: Stance on using D&D Beyond for references? \$\endgroup\$ – Lause Dec 10 '20 at 11:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Steve: It's just as much "behind a paywall" as physical books are. I try to include both DDB links and page numbers wherever possible, so that people can verify the source regardless of how they own it. See the meta Q&A linked by Lause above. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Dec 10 '20 at 19:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast, that is a very good point about the books, I'd never considered them that way. \$\endgroup\$ – Steve Dec 10 '20 at 20:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.