Why would this NPC in Curse of Strahd ever attack Strahd?

In Curse of Strahd, there is an NPC the PC’s may encounter whose weapon explicitly does more damage when he uses it to attack Strahd.

However, said NPC states explicitly that he will not attack Strahd (emphasis mine):

The module says that the players may want to take his weapon; but its description explicitly states that the damage bonus applies when he is wielding it.

The players might try to persuade him to ally against Strahd, but he will refuse.

They might try magical compulsion, but

None of Strahd’s three goals give him a reason to go to the NPC’s location. Unless the players visit the NPC’s location, he will not leave. I suppose players could get him to venture to Strahd’s castle…

but even if the two are brought together, neither has a reason to attack the other.

The only event that will remove the thing preventing him from attacking Strahd,

will also end his life.

Any way I look at it, I can’t see a way that this NPC would ever attack Strahd, so what is the relevance of his weapon doing extra damage to Strahd when he wields it?

Do multiple instances of the Extra Attack feature stack?

The WotC article Unearthed Arcana: Modifying Classes creates the "Favored Soul" sorcerous origin, which grants the the sorcerer the Extra Attack feature at level 6.

Say I made Favored Soul sorcerer go up to level 6, and then multiclassed into Ranger to get its Extra Attack at level 5. Would the two Extra Attack features stack so that I could get 3 or 4 attacks in a turn?

Does the Eldritch Knight’s Eldritch Strike feature impose disadvantage on a saving throw against a spell cast before the attack?

Consider the following scenario:

A level 10 Fighter with the Eldritch Knight (EK) archetype (PHB, p. 74-75) is facing a single opponent, and has hold person as a spell available.

  1. EK attacks with both attacks available. If both miss, they try again next turn. If either hits, Eldritch Strike (the level 10 archetype feature) triggers against the target, and EK will proceed to the next step.
  2. (a turn passes)
  3. On EK’s next turn, they cast hold person on the person targeted previously. The target has disadvantage on the save due to Eldritch Strike. If they still pass, EK goes back to square one. Otherwise, EK does the following:
  4. EK Action Surges (Fighter level 2 ability). They use the Attack action to get two attacks with advantage against the target. If either hits, it does critical damage (thanks to the paralyzed rider on hold person), and Eldritch Strike triggers.

The wording in Eldritch Strike is as follows:

When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.

Does the target have disadvantage on the save against hold person it makes at the end of its next turn, even though hold person was cast before the triggering of the Eldritch Strike event that would impose disadvantage?

Can a creature with multiple attacks per Attack action make all their attacks if they are incapacitated between two of those attacks?

The Player’s Handbook states (emphasis mine):

An incapacitated creature can’t take actions or reactions.

Suppose I am fighting a creature that has a multiattack, and I have an ability that can incapacitate a creature as a reaction. If the creature has completed the first attack in its multiattack, could I prevent the remainder of its attacks with my ability? Or is it too late, since the remaining attacks aren’t actions?

If your target has an enemy within 5ft, can you sneak attack without using a finesse or ranged weapon?

A rogue and fighter are engaged in melee combat with a goblin. The rogue is unarmed. Can the rogue activate Sneak Attack?

The rules for Sneak Attack state:

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

The question arises from the difficulty in parsing the bolded sentence. I have heard 2 interpretations:

  1. You can sneak attack if (you have advantage and the attack is made using a finesse or ranged weapon) or (an enemy of the target is within 5ft, etc).
  2. You can sneak attack if ((you have advantage) or (an enemy of the target is within 5ft, etc)) and the attack is made using a finesse or ranged weapon.

The first interpretation hinges on the idea that when the second paragraph says "on the attack roll" it is still talking about the same "attack" as in the first paragraph. The second interpretation hinges on the idea that the first interpretation is bizarre and unnatural – if that was the intent, there are many ways that it could have been worded to be clearer.

Thematically, I am leaning towards the first – not having a finesse or ranged weapon shouldn’t stop the rogue from exploiting a distracted foe.

Considering RAW only (no twitter please), how should this feature be interpreted?

Does Ocular spell make every eligible damage spells have a critical chance since it becomes a ranged touch attack (ray)?

Ocular spell states:

(…)When you release an ocular spell, its effect changes to a ray with a range of up to 60 feet. If the spell previously would have affected multiple creatures, it now affects only the creature struck by the ray. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike your target with an ocular spell, and the target is still permitted any saving throw allowed by the spell.(…)

Every spell that has a touch attack (melee/range) Do have a critical hit chance (20X2)

So If I was to release an Ocular Fireball (only affects 1 creature now and it still gets the Reflex Half saving throw though). It could indeed be a critical hit.



I know fireball might not be the best spell for this combination, it was just for the sake of the question.