# Entangle - A Little Too Strong For A 1st Level Spell?



## Olaf the Stout (Mar 20, 2007)

After having clarified what exactly the Entangle spell does in another thread, I think that it is very, very powerful for a 1st level spell.

It has a long range, a 1 minute/level duration and a 40ft spread.  Combine this with the fact that if you fail your save you can't move until you make a DC 20 Strength or Escape Artist check and it is a spell that many characters will struggle against, even beyond the low levels.

I think that it is good enough to be second level.  The only thing that seems to restrict it is the fact that grass, trees, shrubs or some other plant life has to be within the radius of the spell.  Everything else about the spell makes it one tough mama.

What does everyone else think?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## hong (Mar 20, 2007)

Yeah, I don't like it.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Mar 20, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yeah, I don't like it.




Then why didn't you vote?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## starwed (Mar 20, 2007)

I think it's hard for the party to use effectively, and that's what a spells should be balanced against.  It's very situational, and entangles any allies in the spread as well.

It might be more powerful than most 1st level spells _in the DM's hands_, since he can design an entire encounter around it, but that's not what determines the real power of a spell.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 20, 2007)

Here's what it takes for players to arrange an encounter around _entangle_:

"Here, take this bow and arrow. I'm going to _entangle_ the crap out of them, and then we're going to fill them full of arrows."

"Sounds good."


----------



## Machiavelli (Mar 20, 2007)

I've found that enemies roll well enough to escape the area FAR too often.


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Mar 20, 2007)

It is too good. Yes the 15 reflex save rapidly becomes easy, but the str and escape artist don't. Or not much. Plus 40 foot spread is way out of line. Most other similar spreads are 10 or 20 feet. 

So make the spread 20 feet and at a round a level and it is good. EVen concentration is not bad, max a minute.

And as another poster said, yes, all you need to take deadly effect of htis spell is find a bow and a few arrows. 

Way better than hold person under the current rules. Affect a whole army, practically, and once you save, most characters are not getiting out.


----------



## Darklone (Mar 20, 2007)

I always ruled that there had to be a certain existing vegetation to begin with. So the spell was still horribly useful and powerful ... my PCs even got used to hack through underbrush if they wanted to flee... Entangle on top of it and you're safe. 

But no using it in a dungeon with stone floor. Nono. 

Another use has not been mentioned yet: Our archer/druid used it cast on himself... with his pretty good Refl save usually she wasn't entangled but the enemies melee dudes had a hard time to get to her.


----------



## QuaziquestGM (Mar 20, 2007)

I like it. It seems perfectly reasonible to have one spell in the druid arsonal that makes everyone think long and hard before going after a druid _in the woods_.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 20, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Another use has not been mentioned yet: Our archer/druid used it cast on himself... with his pretty good Refl save usually she wasn't entangled but the enemies melee dudes had a hard time to get to her.





You do mean in the area where the druid is correct? It can't be cast on a person.  But yeah, that is a good use. Also good for a rogue and sneak attacking since you can flank fairly easily this way.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 20, 2007)

I voted no.

It is no more overpowering than say magic missile (never miss and no save).


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

Is Entangle (the spell) too powerful for a 1st level spell?

Yes.

Huge range, huge AoE, difficult to escape from...all for a 1st level spell?  Please.  Name one other core spell that's like it.


----------



## hong (Mar 20, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> You do mean in the area where the druid is correct? It can't be cast on a person.  But yeah, that is a good use. Also good for a rogue and sneak attacking since you can flank fairly easily this way.



 That's another reason I find it annoying. Sure, it's great for the archers, who can sit and shoot. It's boring for everyone else, though. Either they're in it and can't maneuver, or they're outside, and can't engage the bad guys without getting stuck.


----------



## Slaved (Mar 20, 2007)

Could you hide behind something until the spell ended?

Hiding behind trees blocks arrows pretty well, or maybe in a ditch, or behind a rock, or so many other possibilites both indoors and out that it should not be a problem.

Unless of course you are worried about your own short duration buffs running out, but if I was using the entangle as a way to prevent being in melee and people started hiding waiting for the spell to end I would be worried about them putting short duration buffs _on_ themselves.


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

Slaved:  Are you saying "the people in the Entangle spell should just _hide_"?


----------



## Slaved (Mar 20, 2007)

I suppose that they might be able to hide while in the entangle, depending on the environment.

But I was responding more to hong. If an archer is sitting in the entangle so that it is tough for melee to approach him why not just get behind something and wait for the duration to run out?


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 20, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Is Entangle (the spell) too powerful for a 1st level spell?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Huge range, huge AoE, difficult to escape from...all for a 1st level spell?  Please.  Name one other core spell that's like it.





Entangle gives a Reflex save which on a success allows the character to move at half speed but otherwise not be affected. The save is not made once per round but once only.  If it had no saving throw and/or was useable in pretty much all locations that would be a different mater. But it can't be used if there is no vegitation around (I had run a druid in Dark Sun and tried casting it on the Silt Sea when I discovered that particular limitation).

Magic missile does 1d4 +1 and never misses with a good range 100 ft + 10 ft/level and scales well (up to 5 missiles).

Personnaly I don't find either so far out of whack that they require moving a spell level, but. . . .


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

Ah.

The archer in the _entangle_ is having some difficulties...after all, each round she has to make a successful Ref save or become entangled.

Each.

Round.

of.

a.

1 minute/level.

spell.


That's alot of saves to make.


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> The save is not made once per round but once only .



????



			
				Entangle spell said:
			
		

> Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement.




Only once?  Not so much......


----------



## hong (Mar 20, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I suppose that they might be able to hide while in the entangle, depending on the environment.
> 
> But I was responding more to hong. If an archer is sitting in the entangle so that it is tough for melee to approach him why not just get behind something and wait for the duration to run out?



 Yeah, if I was playing a melee guy, I could do that. But goddammit, I didn't come to a D&D session to hide behind a tree. I came to a D&D session to kick orc butt, not sit around waiting for the minefield to clear!

And I'm talking not only about the bad guy casting entangle, but also the druid in the party casting it and leaving the other PCs to cool their heels.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 20, 2007)

It's one of the strongest 1st level spells around. IMHO nothing should be stronger than _entangle_ or _magic missile_... because they're just plain the best.

But too strong? Perhaps. It is fairly situational, and easy enough to get around (when you can fly).

Tangent: It's the perfect spell for a scroll, given that you generally don't care about more than 10 rounds. 

Cheers, -- N

PS: I voted "I don't know".


----------



## Torment (Mar 20, 2007)

I find that spell so annoying... so... so... so... annoying. 

"Oh hey, so which of these baddies made the save... he made the save? alright... he can move at half speed or whatever, he didn't? oh well let's try again... let's do this process for about 10 dudes, and you have yourself quite a headache... screw entangle as far as my DMing experience goes.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 20, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> ????
> 
> 
> 
> Only once?  Not so much......




Oops, my bad.

Still it is a 40 radius so only moving half speed gives at most 2 required saving throws (for a 30 speed character) most of the time you can get out in a single round (the same round it was cast if you made your saving throw.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 20, 2007)

QuaziquestGM said:
			
		

> I like it. It seems perfectly reasonible to have one spell in the druid arsonal that makes everyone think long and hard before going after a druid _in the woods_.




The fact that it's a druid spell is one of the reasons I don't like it.  Druids spells are supposed to be less powerful than a wizards, not more powerful.  That's why druids get Wildshape, animal companions, better BAB, and all that good stuff.

Also, if it was only usable in the wood (with dense growth), it would fit that image well.  But it works anywhere.


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

When I've seen the spell in play, it's true that bad guys _that make their Ref save_ can often get out that same round.  Often, but not always, of course.  (Most bad guys, after all, are probably near one edge of the radius, meaning that they are within a full-round half-speed move of the edge.)  Even if they escape, they've used up an entire round to do so.

But consider the usual DC of Entangle (Ref DC 14 is not uncommon), and the Ref saves of the typical low level bad guy (+0 to +2).  That means this spell can immobilize 55% to 65% of CR-appropriate opponents.  Given the Str check necessary, that means several rounds stuck.

In play, that means that the druid's party (either the PCs, or - horrible but true - the NPC bad guys) can divide and conquer.  They get to focus their attacks on the few opponents that are outside of the Entangle.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 20, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Also, if it was only usable in the wood (with dense growth), it would fit that image well.  But it works anywhere.




Anywhere with plenty of plants.  So not so helpful in, say, a dungeon.  And it's got this neat little thing built into it:



			
				Entangle Spell said:
			
		

> Note: The DM may alter the effects of the spell somewhat, based on the nature of the entagling plants.




_Edit - I'd honestly like to see the DC for the Escape Artist and Strength checks be based off of the spell save DC rather than a flat number._


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> _Edit - I'd honestly like to see the DC for the Escape Artist and Strength checks be based off of the spell save DC rather than a flat number._



This would go a long way towards balancing the spell.....and making it easier to remember in play!


----------



## Nifft (Mar 20, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> _Edit - I'd honestly like to see the DC for the Escape Artist and Strength checks be based off of the spell save DC rather than a flat number._




Nerf it at low level, make it strong at high level. I like it!

Cheers, -- N


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 20, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Nerf it at low level, make it strong at high level. I like it!
> 
> Cheers, -- N




The druid would need a wisdom of 28 for the DC to hit 20.  So yeah, after that the spell gets better.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 20, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> This would go a long way towards balancing the spell.....and making it easier to remember in play!




I don't like static DC's in the spells.  I'd like to see all of them go this way, personally.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 20, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The druid would need a wisdom of 28 for the DC to hit 20.  So yeah, after that the spell gets better.




Heighten also works. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 20, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> This would go a long way towards balancing the spell.....and making it easier to remember in play!




No arguement here.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 20, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Heighten also works.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Very true.  And with this change, the druid might actually have a reason to pick up that feat, rather than something useful.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 20, 2007)

What the spell needs, and the spell system in general, is to be scalable. Relatively weak if cast by a 1st level druid , but at higher level he can expand the range, the diameter, the strength of the vegetation, etc. The DC's will increase accordingly.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 20, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> What the spell needs, and the spell system in general, is to be scalable. Relatively weak if cast by a 1st level druid , but at higher level he can expand the range, the diameter, the strength of the vegetation, etc. The DC's will increase accordingly.





More like the psionics system, but yes that is major change in the spell system that would fix this issue, but probably would cause an entirely different set of disagreements.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 20, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Anywhere with plenty of plants.  So not so helpful in, say, a dungeon.  And it's got this neat little thing built into it:




Why are plenty of plants needed?  Near as I can tell, a little petunia you pull from your pocket, a little algae in a puddle, or a small spot of moss would be enough for the spell to work.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 20, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Why are plenty of plants needed?  Near as I can tell, a little petunia you pull from your pocket, a little algae in a puddle, or a small spot of moss would be enough for the spell to work.








> *Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees* wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement.
> 
> Note: *The effects of the spell may be altered somewhat, based on the nature of the entangling plants.*




Is algae or moss "grass, weeds, brushes or trees"?

How about a single flower?

At worst the single flower and algae and moss fall under "the effects of the spell may be altered. . . ."

I did previously state how ineffective the spell was in a silt environment - same would be true of a desert.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 20, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> More like the psionics system, but yes that is major change in the spell system that would fix this issue, but probably would cause an entirely different set of disagreements.




Ah, yes, yes it would cause new disagreements. But hopefully solve more problems than it spawns.


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Nerf it at low level, make it strong at high level. I like it!



For a moment I'm gonna pretend Nifft meant this, straight up.

Using a higher level slot (like.....9th?) to pull off a lower level effect, with the only change being a (slightly) higher saving throw?  Sounds fine to me, even underpowered.  Seriously.




I was also serious about simplifying the Str/Esc Artist check to make it easier to remember.  I don't know how many times we had to look up the silly spell, especially after other casters started slinging Web, EBT, etc.  They all have very different mechanics.  Grrr......


----------



## Nifft (Mar 20, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> For a moment I'm gonna pretend Nifft meant this, straight up.




I did! I like it! Like, seriously.

The reasons it'll be higher DC at higher level are:
- Spell Focus (Transmutation). Druids benefit greatly from this.
- Higher Wisdom. I expect Druids to hit at least 30 Wisdom by level 20.
- Heighten Spell. When you absolutely, positively need an NPC to stop frikkin' moving for a while.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I did! I like it! Like, seriously.



Good!  Seriously.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 20, 2007)

It's good, but not too powerful due to it being a very situational spell.  It is not going to be very effective in dungeons, deserts, on the sea, and in urban areas.  As another poster stated, in the hands of DM who can build an encounter based around it, it is more powerful.

It isn't difficult to get out of the Entangle, just annoying.  If I were a PC that was Entangled and and had a hard time getting out, and I had enemies shooting arrows at me, I would drop prone and go on Total Defense until the spell wore out.


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It's good, but not too powerful due to it being a very situational spell.



I know this reason is bandied about alot, but I just don't buy it.  "The wrong situation" can happen to just about any spell.....and should not really be a factor in balancing it:

**********************
*Blue Moon Fireball*
_Evocation __ [Fire]_
*Level*: Sor/Wiz 1
*Components*: V, S, M
*Casting Time*: 1 standard action
*Range*: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
*Area*: 20-ft.-radius spread
*Duration*: Instantaneous
*Saving Throw*: Reflex half
*Spell Resistance*: Yes

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area so long as there is a Blue Moon that night.
**********************
 

Since the above spell is only usable in certain situations, is it balanced?    




			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If I were a PC that was Entangled and and had a hard time getting out, and I had enemies shooting arrows at me, I would drop prone and go on Total Defense until the spell wore out.



Did we mention that the duration is 1 MINUTE per level?  Is your proposal either realistic or desirable?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 20, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> I know this reason is bandied about alot, but I just don't buy it.  "The wrong situation" can happen to just about any spell.....and should not really be a factor in balancing it:
> 
> **********************
> *Blue Moon Fireball*
> ...




No, but it is not reasonable for other reasons.  For one, it is a spell that deals damage, entangle is not.  The area of effect is too large for a spell that deals damage for a 1st level spell IMHO.  I think damage is a big factor in determining if a spell is too strong.  That, and a spell that makes someone "helpless".  So I don't want you to come back with a Blue Moon Hold Person.

If the area of effect was maybe a 10 radius, I would say it is not bad.
Actually, the range is a little out of wack too for a 1st level spell.

If Entangle had closer parameters to the spell you propose, I could maybe see your point.

If you had a Blue Moon Entangle, which did not require plants at all, just that a Blue Moon would be out, and it still had the other parameters (it still entangled people, if they failed the save they were immobile, they could make a check to break out, they had to keep making Ref saves every round they are in the area, the range/duration/area etc. was all the same) I would say that it is not broken or unbalanced or too powerful.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Did we mention that the duration is 1 MINUTE per level?  Is your proposal either realistic or desirable?




Why wouldn't it be?  If I am trapped inside an Entangled area, and people are pelting me with arrows, and I can't escape (or have reason to believe I won't be able to escape), then I'll drop prone and go on Total D until the spell effect ends or the situation changes in some way that would make it in my best interest to do something different.  What is unrealistic or undesireable about buffing up my AC vs ranged attacks if I can not escape them???


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 20, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't it be?  If I am trapped inside an Entangled area, and people are pelting me with arrows, and I can't escape (or have reason to believe I won't be able to escape), then I'll drop prone and go on Total D until the spell effect ends or the situation changes in some way that would make it in my best interest to do something different.  What is unrealistic or undesireable about buffing up my AC vs ranged attacks if I can not escape them???




Silly, everyone knows that the best way to defend yourself from an Entangle spell is to stand in the middle of it and scream "THIS SPELL IS BROKEN!" until the GM either stops targeting your PC with arrows, or changes the spell.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Mar 20, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> The fact that it's a druid spell is one of the reasons I don't like it.  Druids spells are supposed to be less powerful than a wizards, not more powerful.  That's why druids get Wildshape, animal companions, better BAB, and all that good stuff.
> 
> Also, if it was only usable in the wood (with dense growth), it would fit that image well.  But it works anywhere.




So it should should be a wizard spell? i dont follow? by NATURE its a druid spell. lol. 

anway wizards get web. and even considering the that web is a second level spell, web is far stronger. Even on a save you must make strength check to escape.


----------



## Lackhand (Mar 20, 2007)

or set the web on fire, eating the damage and becoming instantly free -- and the damage doesn't scale with level.


----------



## werk (Mar 20, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> _Edit - I'd honestly like to see the DC for the Escape Artist and Strength checks be based off of the spell save DC rather than a flat number._




QFT.

Scalable difficulty should be the rule.  Arbitrarily fixed difficulties are broken...too hard at easy levels, too easy at hard levels...they're just stupid, really.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Mar 20, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It isn't difficult to get out of the Entangle, just annoying.  If I were a PC that was Entangled and and had a hard time getting out, and I had enemies shooting arrows at me, I would drop prone and go on Total Defense until the spell wore out.




How exactly would you drop prone when the spell immobilizes you on a failed save?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> ....I would say that it is not broken or unbalanced or too powerful.



!!!

<laughs> You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on this, I see.      It's all good.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> How exactly would you drop prone when the spell immobilizes you on a failed save?



Entangled |= Immobilized.

So: dropping prone (given you can't make a DC 20 Str check or a DC 20 Esc Artist check....) is possible.

(Is a DC 20 Str or Esc Artist check ever impossible for a PC?  Any PC you know?    )


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> Scalable difficulty should be the rule.  Arbitrarily fixed difficulties are broken...too hard at easy levels, too easy at hard levels...they're just stupid, really.



Agreed.

I was just looking over the skill section the other day, and re-examined a table there:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Table: Difficulty Class Examples
> 
> Difficulty (DC) Example (Skill Used)
> Very easy (0) Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
> ...




In most games I've played in, skill checks in the 40's start happening in the mid-high levels.  They are certainly NOT "nearly impossible".


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Entangled |= Immobilized.
> 
> So: dropping prone (given you can't make a DC 20 Str check or a DC 20 Esc Artist check....) is possible.
> 
> (Is a DC 20 Str or Esc Artist check ever impossible for a PC?  Any PC you know?    )




The spell specifically states that the person is immobilized (i.e. unable to move even 5ft.) on a failed save, in addition to being entangled.  If they can't move even 5ft. I don't see how they would be able to drop to the ground.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Machiavelli (Mar 21, 2007)

Gravity.

These plants grab you and hold you, but they still obey gravity like you do.


Also, I really like the line that explicitly reminds you of something that's true all the time, anyway: DM discretion.  If you cast Entangle on, say, a single petunia, your enemies may be perhaps slightly prettier, but ultimately unhindered.  Cast it on the nastiest cacti you can imagine, and maybe you'll even get a bit of extra piercing damage per round!  Cast it on a Joshua tree, and that Strength check may get a +2 modifier to the DC.  Earthen tunnel lined only with rootlets and such?  The Reflex save may be eliminated (no place to dodge!) but then the Strength check DC may drop to a flat 5.

Of course, the flat saves are a bad design decision, IMO.  They still bow to Rule Zero.


----------



## Darklone (Mar 21, 2007)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> The spell specifically states that the person is immobilized (i.e. unable to move even 5ft.) on a failed save, in addition to being entangled.  If they can't move even 5ft. I don't see how they would be able to drop to the ground.
> 
> Olaf the Stout



Immobilized isn't a condition from the condition summary... and dropping prone is not defined as movement either.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 21, 2007)

[IMaGel]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7273/entangleqd2.th.gif[/IMaGel] Balance issues aside, here is an entangle template...

Nail's opinion on this one matches mine.

Plus the spell kills charging in 80' whether you make the save or not due to your movement being reduced. That alone makes it a touch too good IMHO.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> The spell specifically states that the person is immobilized (i.e. unable to move even 5ft.) on a failed save, in addition to being entangled.



Well, actually:



			
				SRD-Entangle description said:
			
		

> Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement.




No "immobilized" there!

The PH 3.5e doesn't use the word "immobilized".....

....where are you finding that word?


----------



## Nifft (Mar 21, 2007)

*Immobilized* as a formal condition was introduced in Tome of Magic.

However, I'd read "holding them fast" to be an informal synonym to "holding them immobile". Not paralyzed, but not able to move from their current square(s), either.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Typical adventures often involve a dungeon or indoors area.   This spell requires plants to be of any use, and most of those settings have no plants.  Hence, it is often a useless spell.  

Sure, it is powerful when your opponent is surrounded by plants...but that is relatively rare.  I'd say it is not overpowered.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> ...but that is relatively rare.  I'd say it is not overpowered.



The rarity of spell use means the spell can be more powerful?

Excellent.

I shall invent a 1st level spell that only works on tuesdays, but does 100 hp of damage, no save.


...and then, I shall only prepare it on Tuesdays.


----------



## Technik4 (Mar 21, 2007)

> Sure, it is powerful when your opponent is surrounded by plants...but that is relatively rare.






> The rarity of spell use means the spell can be more powerful?
> 
> I shall invent a 1st level spell that only works on tuesdays, but does 100 hp of damage, no save.




Your counterargument (if it could be called one) is getting stale.

Entangle is a flavorful spell for the druid that has been in d&d for a long time. It doesn't actually *do* damage itself, it is a disabling effect. Yet Nail seems to continually counter with conditional high-damaging 1st levels spells that should be made, with no flavor association, because of Entangle.

Nail, just nerf the radius or scale the DCs if its that big of a deal. But if people want to play RAW, it doesn't mean they would also like to play with Blue Moon Fireballs or Tuesday Touch of Deaths. Can you see the difference? At least suggest a 1st level Wednesday Web spell or something


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> The rarity of spell use means the spell can be more powerful?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> ...




Your sarcasm aside, yes rarity of utility is a big factor in determining power of a spell.  Knock is extremely powerful when facing a door you cannot open with your rogue.  Feather fall is extremely powerful when you find yourself suddenly falling.  Endure Elements is very powerful when you suddenly find yourself in an snow storm.  But none of those spells is considered powerful in general, because of the rarity of it's utility.  Turning undead is extremely powerful if playing in a game with only undead as opponents, but most folks do not consider turning to be overpowered on it's own.  And the PHB is filled with spells and abilities with a very narrow application but very powerful effect when that narrow application happens to come up.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 21, 2007)

The narrow application might reasonably buy the spell one of these;

The high DC's for escape artist and Str Checks
Colossal_+_ area
Still affects those who make thier save
Long range
Duration long enough a minimum level scroll will last the whole combat

_Not_ all of them.

In a "Get to the dungeon ASAP" style game, entangle might be strong though not overwhelming, but if the game has important battles in the field, I recommend nerfing the hell out of entangle.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> The narrow application might reasoanbly buy the spell one of these;
> 
> The high DC's for escape artist and Str Checks
> Colossal_+_ area
> ...




In the "Get to the dungeon ASAP" how would it be "strong"?


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> In the "Get to the dungeon ASAP" how would it be "strong"?



It still devastates random encounters of non flying variety in the field. In a 'teleport to the dungeon" game, it then only devastates foes in "Fungal caverns"

Long range and a duration that lets a scroll of it last the typical combat is darn good too.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> It still devastates random encounters of non flying variety in the field.




But that would be pretty rare.  How is it strong to have a spell that devastates extremely few encounters in your kind of game?  I mean, is golemstrike overpowered in your opinion? Undead turning? That spell that makes you immune to level drain?  Endure elements?  Feather Fall (a spell that literally can prevent dozens of dice of damage)?

Being able to imagine a situation where the spell entangle will be strong is not the same as a spell being in general strong.  If it rarely comes up, it's not strong, even if it is very effective in the narrow situations where it really shines.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 21, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Plus the spell kills charging in 80' whether you make the save or not due to your movement being reduced. That alone makes it a touch too good IMHO.




So does grease (cancel charging - place it in the space right in front of the character being "protected"), so that shouldn't be a factor. Halting a charge is a defensive condition.

Grease forces a balance check (which is a skill affected by Dex penalties like from encumbrance and armor). In fact grease cast on a weapon not yet drawn is really nasty. A reflex save to avoid the effect (of dropping the weapon) each round the spell is in effect.

Are we saying that a "defensive" spell being more powerful is out of balance?

If so then mage armor falls into that one too - +4 to AC for 1 hr/level - much longer duration and at lower levels has a much greater impact.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> And the PHB is filled with spells and abilities with a very narrow application but very powerful effect when that narrow application happens to come up.



Two questions:
What is the level and the combat utility of the Knock spell?

Should the number of encounters you have outside determine the level of a spell?


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> So does grease ....



What is the AoE of Grease?  What is the AoE of Entangle?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Two questions:
> What is the level and the combat utility of the Knock spell?
> 
> Should the number of encounters you have outside determine the level of a spell?




Combat utility is meaningless.  That is not the measure of power in a role playing game, just a war game.

As for level, I can find (and did) a bunch of spells of the same level if that is the game you want to play.  I was offerring examples of spells which are high power in a narrow group of situations, which you knew.

You think entangle is overpowered, despite it being effective almost exclusively in a wilderness environment.  So explain to me why you don't think endure elements is overpowered, give how super powerful it is in a snow storm environment.  I mean if the commonality of the environment is not a factor, then why not apply that criteria to all spells with great utility in a limited number of environments?


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> Your counterargument (if it could be called one) is getting stale.



Let's freshen it up then.  Is the following spell a 1st level spell?  Would you allow it in your game?   

*Rock Entangle*
_Transmutation_
*Level*: Drd 1, Earth 1, Rgr 1
*Components*: V, S, DF
*Casting Time*: 1 standard action
*Range*: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
*Area*: Rock in a 40-ft.-radius spread
*Duration*: 1 min./level (D)
*Saving Throw*: Reflex partial; see text
*Spell Resistance*: No

Rock or earth floors (that are not outdoors) wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the rock or earth floor once again attempts to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement.

Note: The effects of the spell may be altered somewhat, based on the nature of the entangling rock or earth floor.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> What is the AoE of Grease?  What is the AoE of Entangle?




Large enough to protect a character from essentially all charges for the entire duration of the spell, while entangle can only cost characters actions to get around it.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Combat utility is meaningless.



Wow.




Well, you and I will just have to stop there then.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Large enough to protect a character from essentially all charges for the entire duration of the spell, while entangle can only cost characters actions to get around it.



Entangle has a huge AoE, grease has a tiny one.  Grease lasts 1 round per level, entangle lasts 1 minute per level.  Grease has a Close range, entangle has a Long range. After the save, Grease requires a DC 10 skill check, Entangle requires a DC 20 skill check.

Etc.

Entangle is a first level spell?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Really?

Why would combat utility be meaningful if you cannot get to the combat because you cannot get through the door to get to the combat?

You understood the analogy with Knock, you are just avoiding it by pretending you do not, and using the strawman of combat.  If you are not happy with that analogy, pick any of the others I mentioned.  Lets try endure elements for starters.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Really?



You say "combat utility is meaningless" and not something that is used to measure the level of a spell.

Given your premise, I don't see us coming to agreement on the more complicated issue of the spell level of Entangle.  Your view is pretty far away from how I see the game played, both on these boards and face-to-face.  

...and that's fine, BTW.  No biggie.  Game on, man.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> You say "combat utility is meaningless" and not something that is used to measure the level of a spell.
> 
> Given your premise, I don't see us coming to agreement on the more complicated issue of the spell level of Entangle.  Your view is pretty far away from how I see the game played, both on these boards and face-to-face.
> 
> ...and that's fine, BTW.  No biggie.  Game on, man.




Why are you avoiding the endure elements example by focusing on a different example and then cutting my post out of context to make it seem like I didn't mention the endure elements example again?

Endure elements in a snow storm environment can prevent a huge amount of damage.  Feather fall in a tree-house and wood-bridge environment can prevent a huge amount of damage.  Why are those spells not overpowered in your opinion, if the commonality of the environment is not relevant?


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I mean, is golemstrike overpowered in your opinion?



Depends what it does. IIRC, letting something that can not be crit all of a sudden be snuck attack is a no-no in my book, but at least constructs have bonus HP unlike undead and to use it it has to be cast from the character with sneak.







> Undead turning?



 Part of the system. More or less fine as long as the rogue can't sneak undead. The rogue gives up his character power for the cleric to gain character power against the undead. 







> That spell that makes you immune to level drain?



If you speak of death ward, complete and utter protection from a fourth level spell is not terrible, but it adds to the issue of _Party has a cleric / Party does not have a cleric._  It also adds to the problem of a necromancer always needing to open with a dispel magic. Plus it _protects,_ it does not attack foes who use enegy drain.







> Endure elements?



Protecting from mundane hot and cold has nothing to do with hampering a foe's speed.







> Feather Fall (a spell that literally can prevent dozens of dice of damage)?



 Got to have it prepped rather than on a scroll, caster has to have Line of Effect once the victims starts to fall, short range can matter a lot with this one and the spell does not reduce most foes ways of attacking you. Other than the Gavbeast.

Other than Golemstrike, none of the spells you used for examples hamper or attack foes. Limited application spells get a deal on levels nearly every time because they don't affect opponents. Most don't even effect combat.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why are you avoiding the endure elements example by focusing on a different example and then cutting my post out of context to make it seem like I didn't mention the endure elements example again?



As I said above, given where you and I are starting ("combat utility is meaningless"), there's little point in you and I yanking each other's chain.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Depends what it does. IIRC, letting something that can not be crit all of a sudden be snuck attack is a no-no in my book, but at least constructs have bonus HP unlike undead and to use it it has to be cast from the character with sneak. Part of the system. More or less fine as long as the rogue can't sneak undead. The rogue gives up his character power for the cleric to gain character power against the undead. If you speak of death ward, complete and utter protection from a fourth level spell is not terrible, but it adds to the issue of _Party has a cleric / Party does not have a cleric._  It also adds to the problem of a necromancer always needing to open with a dispel magic. Plus it _protects,_ it does not attack foes who use enegy drain.Protecting from mundane hot and cold has nothing to do with hampering a foe's speed. Got to have it prepped rather than on a scroll, caster has to have Line of Effect once the victims starts to fall, short range can matter a lot with this one and the spell does not reduce most foes ways of attacking you. Other than the Gavbeast.
> 
> Other than Golemstrike, none of the spells you used for examples hamper or attack foes. Limited application spells get a deal on levels nearly every time because they don't affect opponents. Most don't even effect combat.




Not being dead of very damaged is relevant to combat.

Pretending that a spell that saves your hit points from being reduced is not a combat-related spell and therefore not a valid analogy is illogical.  Of course it is relevant to this debate.  Your own hit points and life are as much a part of the system as stopping the movement of an opponant.

Endure elements and feather fall, in the right environment, save you a lot of hit points or even your life.  Entangle, in the right envirnoment, slows or stops your opponants movement.  Both are powerful in the appropriate environment, and both are mostly useless outside of that environment.  Therefore commonality of that environment is relevant to the power of the spell.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> As I said above, given where you and I are starting ("combat utility is meaningless"), there's little point in you and I yanking each other's chain.




You are avoiding.  

This has nothing to do with that issue.  I gave you other examples that do have relevance to combat even if you do not accept where I am coming from.  So stop avoiding.  If feather fall and endure elements are overpowered or not is not really an issue connected to my motives or approach to the game.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why are those spells not overpowered in your opinion, if the commonality of the environment is not relevant?



Oh, wait a minute.  You and I might have somewhere to go on this point.  Let's work on this part:

Endure elements (IMO) is a 1st level spell not because it can only be used in Hot or Cold environments.  In fact, I really doubt that was a concern on any designer's mind at the time.  The environment of application is not the dominant factor.

The dominant factor is what the spell affects _when it's used_.  That's a key bit, and bears repeating: What the spell does determines (most) of the spell's level, not where the spell can be used.

What does Endure Elements do?  For example, does Endure Elements prevent you from taking damage from Fire?  Can you walk on hot coals without damage?  Can you breathe in the smoke and not get sick?  Can you exist comfortably on the Elemental Plane of Fire?

Etc.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You are avoiding.



Not at all.

If you say "I love flowers", and I say "I hate flowers", there's really no sense in discussing which florist is best, is there?    

...but anyway, I think we've got another angle to approach now.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Oh, wait a minute.  You and I might have somewhere to go on this point.  Let's work on this part:
> 
> Endure elements (IMO) is not 1st level spell because it can only be used in Hot or Cold environments.  In fact, I really doubt that was a concern on any designer's mind at the time.  The environment of application is not the dominant factor.
> 
> ...




"Endure Elements (Duration 24 hours).  A creature protected by endure elements suffers no harm from being in a hot or cold environment. It can exist comfortably in conditions between -50 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit without having to make Fortitude saves). The creature’s equipment is likewise protected."

"In severe heat (above 110° F), a character must make a Fortitude save once every 10 minutes (DC 15, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage. Characters wearing heavy clothing or armor of any sort take a -4 penalty on their saves. A character with the Survival skill may receive a bonus on this saving throw and may be able to apply this bonus to other characters as well. Characters reduced to unconsciousness begin taking lethal damage (1d4 points per each 10-minute period).  A character who takes any nonlethal damage from heat exposure now suffers from heatstroke and is fatigued."

So in a severe heat environment this spell will prevent up to 144d4 of nonlethal damage (average 360 hp nonlethal damage), some of which would be lethal damage if you fall unconscious from the non-lethal, and it would prevent fatigue.  All for a first level spell.  That's extremely powerful for a first level spell, IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> " All for a first level spell.  That's extremely powerful for a first level spell, IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.



So, we both agree it can prevent environmental heat damage.

How powerful is that, in the scope of the game?  For arguments sake, lets' say that the environment always is too hot.

Now, compare that to Entangle.  For arguements sake, let's say that the environment is always outside, in plant-covered terrain......


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

BTW, I'm going to be doing a cold-based adventure soon.  Do you feel that the environmental effects are reasonable?  Are they balanced and fun?  (The question is entirely outside of the thread's current topic.  I'm not trying to pull some kind of "gotcha".)


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> So, we both agree it can prevent environmental heat damage.
> 
> How powerful is that, in the scope of the game?  For arguments sake, lets' say that the environment always is too hot.
> 
> Now, compare that to Entangle.  For arguements sake, let's say that the environment is always outside, in plant-covered terrain......




Pretty easy answer for me.  A spell that lasts all day, preventing on average 360 damage to yourself and constant fatigue, is way more powerful than a spell that impacts essentially one combat, and doesn't even stop most foes from attacking, just stops their movement and some of their combat abilities.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 21, 2007)

The AOE of Entangle is a problem as often times it is nigh impossible to avoid Entangling some of your party mates.... a smaller area of effect...say Grease size would make the spell much more useful.

As it stands I see this spell being used as a means to delay enemies from reaching a certain point, as a retreat tactic, and only very rarely have I seen groups coordinate to use this to pin cushion enemies.  The spell falls under the Evard's Black Tentacle list of spells, fun for the caster to use but the spell caster's use of the spell is mitigated by the social and group nature of the game.

Perhaps some other people's games are not as socially conscious as others...hmm 

Nail, you played a Mid Level Druid awhile back if memory serves correctly...did you feel at that time the spell was overwhelming?

On the surface I would say Entangle is less dangerous than Sleep or Greater Slumber...but the utility for Entangle lasts for more levels.  On a personal level I have a fondness for the spell Entangle because it can be used creatively.  The Druid in my long running Urban campaign has used the spell once... one time in 17 levels and 3+ years of real time play.  The Druid used Entangle on 
the water slicked vines and moss on a subterranean cliff, to catch her falling party mates after their rope was cut scaling the cliff.
Spells that can be used in that fashion get wide latitude from me.

As an aside did Entangle change from 3.0.  I seem to remember a notation in the spell similar to the Web Spell that sustained fire negated the effect.  We have always played it as thus, allowing say a Burning Sphere to carve a path through the area of effect.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 21, 2007)

satori01 said:
			
		

> As an aside did Entangle change from 3.0.



 IIRC 2e had it at a higher level.

3.0 Entangle
Transmutation
Level: Drd 1, Plant 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: Plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Reflex (see text)
Spell Resistance: No

Plants entwine about creatures in the area or those who enter the area, holding them fast. An entangled creature suffers a –2 penalty to attack rolls, suffers a –4 penalty to effective Dexterity, and can’t move. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15) or lose the spell. An entangled creature can break free and move half normal speed by using a full-round action to make a Strength check or an Escape Artist check (DC 20). A creature who succeeds at a Reflex saving throw is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures who have avoided or escaped entanglement.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> BTW, I'm going to be doing a cold-based adventure soon.  Do you feel that the environmental effects are reasonable?  Are they balanced and fun?  (The question is entirely outside of the thread's current topic.  I'm not trying to pull some kind of "gotcha".)




My memory of those little used rules is that the seem balanced...and a good approximation of reality.   Uttercold rules from WOTC environment book were pretty decent as well.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 21, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> IIRC 2e had it at a higher level.




Entangle was a 1st level spell in 1e, so I doubt it was a 2nd level spell in 2e.

*1e Entangle:
level : 1                Components: V,S,M
Range: 8"             Casting Time: 3 segements
Duration: 1 turn     Saving Throw: 1/2
Area of Effect: 4" Diameter
Explanation/Description:  By means of this spell the druid is able to cause plants in the area of effect to entangle creatures w/ in the area.  The grasses, weeds, bushes, and even the trees warp, twist, and entwine about creatures, thus holding them fast for the duration of the spell.  If any creature in the area of effect makes its saving throw, the effect of the spell is to slow its movement by 50% for the duration of the spell.*

Now under 1E rules a duration of a turn meant 10 minutes.  Now my memory of 1e  area of effect rules is a bit hazy but a 4" diameter translates to a 40' diameter effect... of course this would be greater outdoors as all spell distances were magnified outside.

Overall the spell has not changed significantly, else to say that in 1e if you failed the saving throw there were no retries, and the spell lasted a blanket 10 minutes per level.  Now Druids were not played often in 1e, but Nail, Frank and others, ... have you felt the spell was always overpowered in every edition?


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Nail, you played a Mid Level Druid awhile back if memory serves correctly...did you feel at that time the spell was overwhelming?



Yes I did...as a 1st level spell.  As a 2nd level spell, it's fine.  It's simply NOT a 1st level spell.

When I play, I generally talk through my tactics with the other players, and then try to coordinate my tactics with theirs.  When that works (not always!), the enemy dies quickly.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> When I play, I generally talk through my tactics with the other players, and then try to coordinate my tactics with theirs.  When that works (not always!), the enemy dies quickly.




*chuckle*  That's true for any group, not just one that includes a druid...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Mar 21, 2007)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Entangle was a 1st level spell in 1e, so I doubt it was a 2nd level spell in 2e.
> 
> *1e Entangle:
> level : 1                Components: V,S,M
> ...




Gosh, give me that spell as a level 1 spell... oh... yeah plantwall lol.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Well, actually:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry, I should have been more specific.  Immobilized is not a SRD defined word as far as I know.  However "Entangled" is.

Here is the SRD definition for Entangled:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Entangled
> 
> The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell.




Since the tree branches, bushes, etc., are anchored to the ground (an immobile object) then being entangled impedes movement.  If you entirely prevented from moving (as per the description for Entangle listed above) I would rule that it also means that you can't drop prone either.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## hong (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Pretty easy answer for me.  A spell that lasts all day, preventing on average 360 damage to yourself and constant fatigue, is way more powerful than a spell that impacts essentially one combat, and doesn't even stop most foes from attacking, just stops their movement and some of their combat abilities.




Nonsense.


----------



## hong (Mar 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Combat utility is meaningless.




Nonsense.



> That is not the measure of power in a role playing game, just a war game.




Such shining wit.


----------



## hong (Mar 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Typical adventures often involve a dungeon or indoors area.   This spell requires plants to be of any use, and most of those settings have no plants.  Hence, it is often a useless spell.
> 
> Sure, it is powerful when your opponent is surrounded by plants...but that is relatively rare.  I'd say it is not overpowered.




Nonsense.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Mar 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Typical adventures often involve a dungeon or indoors area.   This spell requires plants to be of any use, and most of those settings have no plants.  Hence, it is often a useless spell.
> 
> Sure, it is powerful when your opponent is surrounded by plants...but that is relatively rare.  I'd say it is not overpowered.




Do you run many wilderness adventures?  Because grass, trees and bushes are all pretty commonly encountered outside.  If all your adventures are in dungeons then Entangle won't see much use.

In my campaign though, encounters outdoors quite frequently include areas where the Entangle spell can be used.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## IanB (Mar 22, 2007)

1E entangle *was* overpowered. Maybe it is my 1E experiences with it coloring my opinion, but I don't think 3.5e entangle is really anything to complain about.

Now if you want broken... check out plant growth.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> BTW, I'm going to be doing a cold-based adventure soon.  Do you feel that the environmental effects are reasonable?  Are they balanced and fun?  (The question is entirely outside of the thread's current topic.  I'm not trying to pull some kind of "gotcha".)





I played in a 2nd ed ice world game (highly dependent on cold temperatures).

It was very fun.  The Frostburn rules are pretty good, IMO.

But (sort of back to the topic) - watch out for those _situational_ spells or things will become overpowering


----------



## Nail (Mar 22, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> But (sort of back to the topic) - watch out for those _situational_ spells or things will become overpowering



(Thanks. )

Dragging this back to topic:
    If the situation were one that came up often in combat, I might be more convinced.  The spell Endure Elements can indeed prevent a bunch of environmental damage...but when is that useful?  It's useful when the adventure is in harsh conditions.  But are harsh conditions "a challenge"?

D&D has a very effective way of determining challenges: XP.  So lets; use that as a test, shall we?

If a PC uses Endure Elements to defeat harsh conditions, do you give him XP?  Each time he defeats harsh conditions?

If a PC uses Entangle to defeat a squad of orcs, do you give him XP?  Each time he defeats the squad of orcs?




Pretty simple, really.

The limited situations in which Entangle is useful does NOT determine what spell level it is.  How powerful it is _relative to other spells_ is a far better measure.  And with that measure, it's clear Entangle is not a 1st level spell.  It's too powerful.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> (Thanks. )
> 
> Dragging this back to topic:
> If the situation were one that came up often in combat, I might be more convinced.  The spell Endure Elements can indeed prevent a bunch of environmental damage...but when is that useful?  It's useful when the adventure is in harsh conditions.  But are harsh conditions "a challenge"?
> ...




I disagree.  If entangle were only useful in only in extreme cold, outdoors, on a full moon, near the ocean, with low humidity, I doubt you would still be saying it is just as powerful as it is right now.  

Or, a better example, if I house-ruled that entangle is usable even without plants, in any environment at all including in mid-air or rock or metal or whatever, would you say that was an increase in the power of the spell?  Or is the spell exactly as powerful as it was before the house rule?

It really is the frequency of the environment that is relevant here.  Denying that the frequency of the enivornment plays a role in the power of the spell doesn't seem productive. Most people recognize that a spell that is almost never useable is less powerful than a spell that is always useable.


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> (Thanks. )
> 
> Dragging this back to topic:
> If the situation were one that came up often in combat, I might be more convinced.  The spell Endure Elements can indeed prevent a bunch of environmental damage...but when is that useful?  It's useful when the adventure is in harsh conditions.  But are harsh conditions "a challenge"?
> ...





Bad example really.


Since entangle can not "defeat" a group of orcs by itself (it does no damage remember) - although it can be instrumental in defeating them by allowing the other characters to shoot away.

Does a bard get xp for inspirational songs that provide his allies with bonuses that allow them to defeat the orcs?


No. No single casting of a spell by itself awards xp. The effects of the spell may however "defeat" opponents or a trap (which will award xp by the way since the trap has a CR and it is overcome by the casting of the spell.)


Detect snares and pits will find a trap, thus allowing the characters to bypass it and thus get full xp for the trap. 1st level spell, only useable in wilderness but will always give xp when cast.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 22, 2007)

for those who want em, here are some nerfed entangle templates.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 22, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> for those who want em, here are some nerfed entangle templates.




Frank, I disagree with your opinion on the rules about 80% of the time, but boy do you make some rocking cool graphics! Thanks for all your hard work (even though you are a freak when it comes to nerfing the rules   ).


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Frank, I disagree with your opinion on the rules about 80% of the time, but boy do you make some rocking cool graphics! Thanks for all your hard work (even though you are a freak when it comes to nerfing the rules   ).



I do have an image to maintain.  I doubt anyone will nerf entangle down to a 5' square, though it is an amusing thought.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 22, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I do have an image to maintain.  I doubt anyone will nerf entangle down to a 5' square, though it is an amusing thought.




Honestly, given the opportunity, I think my character would use the smaller area more often than the current version.  I know that doesn't seem logical, but really the area is TOO big, and I always seem to catch my allies in the spread, or mess up a charging or melee tactic that someone was planning on using, or allow for opponents to escape.


----------



## Nail (Mar 22, 2007)

It's true the AoE is too big....for a 1st level spell.  

If the spell were the range (Short), AoE (10 ft square), duration (1 rd/lvl), and skill checks (DC 10) like Grease, I'd have no problem with it at all.  

Come on.....1st level spell as is?  Really?  Compare any of it's stats to any other 1st level spell.

.....and yeah, frankthedm's graphics rock.  Image maintained.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> It's true the AoE is too big....for a 1st level spell.
> 
> If the spell were the range (Short), AoE (10 ft square), duration (1 rd/lvl), and skill checks (DC 10) like Grease, I'd have no problem with it at all.
> 
> ...




As I was saying, I think the area of this spell being too big is a drawback of the spell, not a benefit, to the caster.  There is a point where it's too much, and I think this spell passed that point in my experience with it.


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 23, 2007)

There are some people who think a Tanglefoot bag is equivalent to a 4th level spell, so by that reasoning, Entangle must be equivalent to an 8th or 9th level spell.

As for me, I think it's probably closer to a 2nd level spell, but definitely more powerful than a 1st.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 23, 2007)

Let me put it this way: My Druid would trade Entangle for Sleep in a heartbeat.

I can see how this might be a problem spell in some specific campaigns, but in more typical campaigns I am having trouble seeing how this spell is actually any better than Sleep overall.

Bread and butter enemies in the wilderness have either good Reflex saves (Animals & Magical Beasts) or some competence with ranged attacks (Humanoids).

Sleep hits the opponents with the most common weakness (Will) and makes them helpless.  Entangle attack a strength (Reflex) or makes them harder to kill (an Entangled enemy archer is an archer that has some protection from my meatshields).

The big difference is at higher level play Entangle can sometimes still be useful.  But at those levels the precise spell slot of a low level spell is less significant than the cost of an Action.  Does anyone really care whether the Arch Lich just cast a 2nd level spell or a 1st level spell?


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Honestly, given the opportunity, I think my character would use the smaller area more often than the current version.  I know that doesn't seem logical, but really the area is TOO big, and I always seem to catch my allies in the spread, or mess up a charging or melee tactic that someone was planning on using, or allow for opponents to escape.





And this is an important thing to remember.

It also affects allies and prevents them from acting and charging too.

I can't help but think that too many people took at the pure numbers (at first glance) to see if something is too powerful without looking at it from more perspectives to actually see if it is "balanced".

Examples of things that fall into this category:

Warlocks (how many people have gone with "they are far too powerful" without really looking at the restrictions they have?)

Soulknife (the opposite end. How many people have gone through the argument that they are too weak without looking at what they can do well and the niche they can fill).

Bards (another one that people are split on whether or not they are too weak or not)

Spells (far too many to mention, including entangle and magic missile)

Prestige classes (just about every week or so someone brings up one they think is out of whack - how long was the argument over whether or not the Mystic Theurge was too powerful going on?)

Psion versus spellcaster (again many, many people have gone with the psion being too powerful when compared to a sorcerer or wizard).

etc., etc., . . . .


----------



## Darklone (Mar 23, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Sleep hits the opponents with the most common weakness (Will) and makes them helpless.  Entangle attack a strength (Reflex) or makes them harder to kill (an Entangled enemy archer is an archer that has some protection from my meatshields).



The best thing about an entangled enemy archer is his penalty to Dex. 

You're right, as posted above my group used this spell extensively: To get away. In this regard, I don't think the spell is too strong.


----------



## Felon (Mar 23, 2007)

Entangle is an encounter-ruining spell that robs many encounters of any tactical challenge. A creature with a speed of 30 feet is reduced to 3 squares of movement to exit the spel's areas. So with a 40-foot spread, you have to be within 2 squares of its border. It can easily trap a whole cadre of humanoids. And the Strength check and Escape Artist DC are flat-out ridiculous for a 1st-level spell. 

Damned if you save, damned if you don't. I don't know why it's so, but for some reason the designers wanted "terrain control" spells to be really effective--entangle, web, spike stones, spike growth).  They are basically "rocks without paper".


----------



## Felon (Mar 23, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It's good, but not too powerful due to it being a very situational spell.  It is not going to be very effective in dungeons, deserts, on the sea, and in urban areas.



This flawed notion of balance is pretty common, but flawed nonetheless.

_Lopsided_ is not the same thing as _balanced_. Just because entangle is of no use in certain situations hardly makes it acceptable for it to be over-the-top in others--especially if it's a situation that can usually be anticipated.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> I can't help but think that too many people took at the pure numbers (at first glance) to see if something is too powerful without looking at it from more perspectives to actually see if it is "balanced". .



That's rather presumptive.

And false, besides.    

I've seen it in play many times.  I've used it in play many times.  I've used it as a DM.  I've used it as a player.  I've seen many different groups of gamers use it......

Etc.

This isn't some twinked-out PrC build that's raved about on an Optimization Board.  This is just one spell...a core spell....a very common Druid spell.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Let me put it this way: My Druid would trade Entangle for Sleep in a heartbeat.



Huh.

Sleep takes 1 round to cast.  Sleep only affects 4 HD of creatures, and they have to be closely spaced to boot.  Sleep is useless against plants, undead, constructs, elementals, dragons.....

The sleep spell is often called the "detect HD" spell.  There's a reason for that.

What level is your druid that a spell that affects only 4 HD would be useful???


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Huh.
> 
> Sleep takes 1 round to cast.  Sleep only affects 4 HD of creatures, and they have to be closely spaced to boot.  Sleep is useless against plants, undead, constructs, elementals, dragons.....
> 
> ...




My Druid found exactly 3 opportunities to cast this spell from levels 2 to 5.  In each instance Sleep would have worked out better.

If I had Sleep instead, I am sure I would have found another 6-8 opportunities to cast it usefully.

So the data says Sleep would have been a better spell.

I am pretty sure this experience is somewhere within the thick part of the bell curve, at least a stone's throw from "average".

I will say that I personally do not like how the DC checks are set up for both Entangle and Web.  I would like to this both of these spells, plus Wall of Thorns tweaked.  Nonetheless I do not find this spell to be overpowered within the overall context of D&D spells as a whole.

Eventually one hits the point where it is not that big a deal whether the spell is 0th or 1st or 2nd level.  So even if the spell is surprisingly effective for a 1st level spell when you are 10+th level, stop whining 'cuz it could have been a Web or a Wall of Thorns or a Flamestrike.  It may be surprisingly useful for a 1st level spell at 19th level play, but I do not care.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If I had Sleep instead, I am sure I would have found another 6-8 opportunities to cast it usefully.



6-8 times where you have time to cast a 1 round spell, the bad guys are tightly grouped, and the sum of opponents HD is less than 4 HD, eh?

Those are some challenging encounters......


----------



## Felon (Mar 23, 2007)

I'm glad irdeggman threw out sleep for comparison. Comparing the two shows how truly sick entangle is, and illuminates some of the thinking of the desing team. Sleep renders targets helpless, so it needs to be reined in, while a spell that "merely" immobilizes and entangles targets can be given all kinds of advantages in terms of area, resistability, secondary effects you have to endure even if you save successfully, etc.

A sorcerer who picks up sleep would be looking to swap it out ASAP. Its scalability is pretty sorry. OTOH, entangle will always be wonderful. Strength checks aren't level-impacted, and the Escape Artist check is high enough to be a challenge to even characters with double-digit levels (few targets have Escape Artist ranks in the first place, so it's not really that level-impacted either). 

Spell resistance doesn't help, immunities against entanglement are uncommon at best (flight is the most obvious "immunity", but most creatures are earthbound even at higher levels). Really, it's a 1st-level spell to hang on to. 

As to comparing entangle to magic missile, I think a spell that inflicts a relatively low amount of damage against a single target (or outright pitiful damage against mulitple targets) is not as useful as a spell that devastates the formation of large groups opponents.


----------



## Pickaxe (Mar 23, 2007)

I voted no. It's great outdoors, but it's usually useless in the dungeon (until you hit the requisite "room of brightly colored giant mushrooms"). It's also most effective (and looks most overpowered) at lowest levels. It doesn't take too many levels before foes have good Reflex saves, high Strength, and/or good Escape Artist modifiers. Or maybe they just fly.

Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to reducing the AoE to 20' radius. That would be comparable to Web, which is the next most similar spell. A reduced AoE would basically guarantee that creatures that save get out in one round.

By the way, if there are no trees to hide behind, affected creatures could also just go prone to make it harder on the archers.

--Axe


----------



## Felon (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> 6-8 times where you have time to cast a 1 round spell, the bad guys are tightly grouped, and the sum of opponents HD is less than 4 HD, eh?
> 
> Those are some challenging encounters......



There's some wisecrack somebody could make about the grass always being greener, but I think I'll pass...


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Honestly, given the opportunity, I think my character would use the smaller area more often than the current version.  I know that doesn't seem logical, but really the area is TOO big, and I always seem to catch my allies in the spread, or mess up a charging or melee tactic that someone was planning on using, or allow for opponents to escape.



Is there any reason you can't air burst the entangle? On a grid the vertical dimensions should be about the same as the horizontal dimensions. Doing that already lets you dial the radius as you desire.


----------



## Felon (Mar 23, 2007)

Pickaxe said:
			
		

> I voted no. It's great outdoors, but it's usually useless in the dungeon (until you hit the requisite "room of brightly colored giant mushrooms"). It's also most effective (and looks most overpowered) at lowest levels. It doesn't take too many levels before foes have good Reflex saves, high Strength, and/or good Escape Artist modifiers. Or maybe they just fly.



Hehe, I've been posting at length about how flawed just about everything said above is. God loves a contrarian, I suppose.

Strength scores don't ratchet up that much. Few creatures are just laughing off a DC 20 STR check. It takes a 30 STR just to get 50/50 odds. 

Escape Artist? Flip through the ol' MM and look for critters with ranks in this skill. Few and far between.

A creatures makes its save, its still gotta half-move to get out of the enormous radius. 



> By the way, if there are no trees to hide behind, affected creatures could also just go prone to make it harder on the archers.



Yes, and they can go on Total Defense too. They can do things like that to prolong their agony, but they're not outlasting the duration of entangle, so it's just dragging out a combat they've effectively lost. As a DM, I'll take fireballing a pack of bugbears into oblivion. Quick, clean, efficient.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Is there any reason you can't air burst the entangle? On a grid the vertical dimensions should be about the same as the horizontal dimensions. Doing that already lets you dial the radius as you desire.



Oh......hello.

That's a great (and legitimate) idea!  Minimum radius then is....hmmm... 5 feet?  You could just hit the big guy in front of your Ftr while he's flanked by your Rog.  Brilliant.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Again, if this wasn't clear:

frankthedm, in one blow, crushes the argument: "Entangle isn't overpowered 'cause it's too big to use".

<crushed>

It's actually adjustable!  

So....what's not overpowered, again?


----------



## irdeggman (Mar 23, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Entangle is an encounter-ruining spell that robs many encounters of any tactical challenge. A creature with a speed of 30 feet is reduced to 3 squares of movement to exit the spel's areas. So with a 40-foot spread, you have to be within 2 squares of its border. It can easily trap a whole cadre of humanoids. And the Strength check and Escape Artist DC are flat-out ridiculous for a 1st-level spell.
> 
> Damned if you save, damned if you don't. I don't know why it's so, but for some reason the designers wanted "terrain control" spells to be really effective--entangle, web, spike stones, spike growth).  They are basically "rocks without paper".





Actually a character with a 30 ft speed can still move 30 ft in a round (you can still hustle, 2 move actions - albeit with half speed (i.e., 15 ft) each). So at worst in order to get out of an entangle a character with a 30 ft speed needs 3 move actions (1 1/2 rounds) and 2 saving throws. That is assuming he is exactly in the middle.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> It's actually adjustable!




It is?  Could you point out where you can do that via the rules?  I'm just curious, because it would be a very handy thing for Fireballs and such. (Yay!  This ruling makes the evocation blasty spells more on par with the orb spells! Wait....)


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

You can target anywhere within range you can see and to which you have line of effect.

Does not a spot 30 ft in the air qualify?  Can you not fireball flying creatures?  

Etc.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Put another way:  "radius" does not necessarily imply "cylinder".  It implies "Sphere".


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> You can target anywhere within range you can see and to which you have line of effect.
> 
> Does not a spot 30 ft in the air qualify?  Can you not fireball flying creatures?
> 
> Etc.




Sweet, no longer do I have to worry about hitting my compatriot's with a fireball, I now have surgical precision!

_Edit - Hmm, that doesn't quite work with Entangle though, does it.  The target is "Plants in the area", right?  So unless you are in a forest, you won't find many plants in the area of a 40 foot radius sphere of air.

But hey, now I can fireball a 5' square, so this conversation ain't all bad! _


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Yep.

I know yer tryin' t' be sarcastic, but in this case it's unwarranted.  D&D has always (in 3.xe) had a spell targeting system in which the caster may chose _*exactly*_ where to place the spell effect.  "Surgical precision" is part-n-parcel of the 3.xe system.

Come on.  Don't tell me you've never seen a Wizard place his fireball _just so_ in order to exclude a party member from its radius?    How about lining up a Wall of Fire in just the right way?  Etc, etc....

That said, many people forget about the 3rd dimension when playing on a battle map.



...if you are looking for a limiting factor, remember this: Dungeons usually have low ceilings.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Edit-wars, eh?   


			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> _Edit - Hmm, that doesn't quite work with Entangle though, does it.  The target is "Plants in the area", right?  So unless you are in a forest, you won't find many plants in the area of a 40 foot radius sphere of air._



_
The target of the area may be any where you like.

...but only "plants in the area" are affected.

Simple._


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 23, 2007)

Oh, and could you point out where I might find the rules for targetting that include what you mention?  Or at least the rules for determining how to calculate the reduced radius?  I mean, surely this isn't a new idea.  Surely the "air burst" isn't new to 3.5, is it?


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Here's the question you should answer:

Can you hit a creature flying 100 feet off the ground with a fireball?


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Here's the question you should answer:
> 
> Can you hit a creature flying 100 feet off the ground with a fireball?




I would guess so, but need to be able to point to a rule if my GM asks how I determined that I could now simply fireball a 5' square.  I mean, now I don't really even need the Shape Spell feat! (unless I want to make the area swiss cheese).


----------



## Slaved (Mar 23, 2007)

You must a grid intersection as the center of a burst. That can limit what it will effect and each dm may choose where vertical grids are, unless there is a rule for that too?


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Oh, and could you point out where I might find the rules for targetting that include what you mention?  Or at least the rules for determining how to calculate the reduced radius?  I mean, surely this isn't a new idea.  Surely the "air burst" isn't new to 3.5, is it?



Problem is how to calculate crossing a cube diagonally. 

A radius should look the same verticle as horizontal,  but those diagonalcorners leave me wondering.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I would guess so, but need to be able to point to a rule if my GM asks how I determined that I could now simply fireball a 5' square.




The rule is simple: You can target any spot (grid intersection) that you have line of sight and line of effect to.  You already use this rule!  All I'm saying is: There is NO requirement that the grid intersection be on the ground....in fact, such a rule would mean that you would be immune to spell targeting so long as you are flying!

Seriously.  Think this through.

Here's the SRD quote:


			
				SRD-Magic Overview-Spell Descriptions-Aiming a spell said:
			
		

> Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.







			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> I mean, now I don't really even need the Shape Spell feat! (unless I want to make the area swiss cheese).



Shape spell feat has lots of uses.  Lots.  This takes nothing away from that.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> A radius should look the same verticle as horizontal,  but those diagonalcorners leave me wondering.



I agree, it's a bit awkward, but for ease-of-use, I'd rule the vertical cross-section looks the same as the horizontal one.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I...that I could now simply fireball a 5' square.



BTW, you can't just hit one 5-ft square.  Mimimum _radius_ on a fireball is 5-ft, for a 10 ft square on the ground.

*frankthedm*, could you post one of your super-cool graphics, showing this for a fireball burst 15 feet in the air?


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail(emphasis mine) said:
			
		

> Shape spell feat has lots of uses.  Lots.  *This takes nothing away from that.*




It certainly makes Shape Spell less attractive to me.  YMMV.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> BTW, you can't just hit one 5-ft square.  Mimimum _radius_ on a fireball is 5-ft, for a 10 ft square on the ground.
> 
> *frankthedm*, could you post one of your super-cool graphics, showing this for a fireball burst 15 feet in the air?



I don't know how to count those diagonal squares for certain. I posted a guess at a 3-d fireball earlier in the area effect topic.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> BTW, you can't just hit one 5-ft square.  Mimimum _radius_ on a fireball is 5-ft, for a 10 ft square on the ground.




Ah, my bad.

At any rate, are you basically saying that for all intents and purposes, we can treat the given radius of a spell as a _maximum_?  And that we can adjust down from there however we see fit?  If so, that adds a significant amount of versatility to spells.

Does this happen often in your games?  Is it about to?


----------



## Nifft (Mar 23, 2007)

Now we know why all dungeon ceilings are 10 ft. high. To prevent exactly this sort of silliness.

Gah! -- N


----------



## satori01 (Mar 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Honestly, given the opportunity, I think my character would use the smaller area more often than the current version.  I know that doesn't seem logical, but really the area is TOO big, and I always seem to catch my allies in the spread, or mess up a charging or melee tactic that someone was planning on using, or allow for opponents to escape.




Ding, Ding, Ding.  I'm starting to think that Mistwell and I are separated D&D twins, as our opinions on rules issues seem to converge more often than not.  Perhaps it is a regional thing, (Mistwell I believe lives in the Los Angeles area as well), and we have similar style games.

The large AOE is a detriment to the spell for actual use... you are likely to also hit your friends.  In 3.0 module the Sunless Citadel the fact the  boss Druid cast Entangle probably saved our Hit Point depleted group.  
The Animal Companion and Summoned Animals/Twig Blights got stuck in the AoE.  As a Rogue I plinked away with my bow, and healed myself up, slowly moving towards the Druid.  The Monk made her saving throw and with Expeditious Retreat spell from the Sorcerer was able to move quickly through the AoE.
Our Half Orc Barbarian/Cleric had Resistance up, made his saving throw and ran.  Next round he missed his saving throw, raged and was able to make his Str Check.  The Rogue/Sorcerer also was able to make the Reflex Saving throw.

Now Sunless Citadel was a widely played module, being the first released for 3.0.  I think it would be very informative to see how many parties were subjected to Entangle and how much of an impact the spell had on them.  This would mitigate the theoretical terrain conundrum of the debate.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Ah, my bad.
> 
> At any rate, are you basically saying that for all intents and purposes, we can treat the given radius of a spell as a _maximum_?  And that we can adjust down from there however we see fit?



Not so much with most spells, but entangle mostly effects things fairly close to the ground. Thus dialing the radius is easy since there is no danger of burning someone's face off.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 23, 2007)

from SRD:
*Spread: Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can’t see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect.*

In terms of AoE it will still stay the about the same (at least 40') as the effect is going to need to touch the ground to effect the plants....unless you want to give a bonus to reflex saves for partial AoE.  The Sprite Magister in my group would often cast Sorcerous Blast to end at medium height, just above his tiny size.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2007)

satori01 said:
			
		

> from SRD:
> *Spread: Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can’t see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect.*
> 
> In terms of AoE it will still stay the about the same (at least 40') as the effect is going to need to touch the ground to effect the plants....unless you want to give a bonus to reflex saves for partial AoE.  The Sprite Magister in my group would often cast Sorcerous Blast to end at medium height, just above his tiny size.



This text does not affect air bursting in any way. you emphisised a part that only has bearing if there are corners the effect needs to get around. That text does not prevent counting diagonally when there are no corners to circumvent.

Speaking of sprites, here is the side view of that air burst fireball Nail requested.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Speaking of sprites, here is the side view of that air burst fireball Nail requested.



Perfect.  Thanks!

You are like unto a God (of Graphic Sprites) to me.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> At any rate, are you basically saying that for all intents and purposes, we can treat the given radius of a spell as a _maximum_?



So long as there is "headroom", the answer is: Yes.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 23, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Is there any reason you can't air burst the entangle? On a grid the vertical dimensions should be about the same as the horizontal dimensions. Doing that already lets you dial the radius as you desire.




While technically true, I doubt either of my two DMs would allow me to airburst a spell that targets plants on the ground.  It would just feel like cheating.  Both my DMs would likely require the entire area of effect every time the spell is cast.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Oh......hello.
> 
> That's a great (and legitimate) idea!  Minimum radius then is....hmmm... 5 feet?  You could just hit the big guy in front of your Ftr while he's flanked by your Rog.  Brilliant.




That is, unless there are any trees or tall bushes nearby.  The spell will still impact those plants which are not low on the ground...which is a fairly common thing.  And then your rogue and fighter are unintentially grabbed by a tree...


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Again, if this wasn't clear:
> 
> frankthedm, in one blow, crushes the argument: "Entangle isn't overpowered 'cause it's too big to use".
> 
> ...




Hey I was not arguing it was not overpowered because of the area of effect.  I was arguing it's because of the lack of opportunity to use the spell.

Which is the more powerful spell (this question is for everyone):



> Spell # 1
> Area: 	Plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread
> Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement. Note: The effects of the spell may be altered somewhat, based on the nature of the entangling plants.




OR



> Spell #2
> Area: 	40-ft.-radius spread
> Rock, Dirt, Plants, Wood, Water, Metal, Inanimate Objects, and even the very Air wrap, entwine, and envelop about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, as if they were living things, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the area once again attempts to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement.




For me, and I think almost everyone, Spell #2 is more powerful than Spell #1 because it has much wider application.  If if Spell #2 is more powerful, then you have to admit that the "plants" requirement of the spell is an actual limitation that should be accounted for in any discussion of the power of this spell.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> That is, unless there are any trees or tall bushes nearby.  The spell will still impact those plants which are not low on the ground...which is a fairly common thing.  And then your rogue and fighter are unintentially grabbed by a tree...



If they aren't in the area of effect, they can't be.

Are you claiming that by casting this spell at the base of a 200 ft tall tree, I can entangle something that's at the top of the tree?

...aren't you the same one that's claiming Entangle is NOT overpowered?


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Hey I was not arguing it was not overpowered because of the area of effect.....



Ummmmm......you sure?  Help me interpret what you are saying here:



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> As I was saying, I think the area of this spell being too big is a drawback of the spell, not a benefit, to the caster. There is a point where it's too much, and I think this spell passed that point in my experience with it.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> I know yer tryin' t' be sarcastic, but in this case it's unwarranted.  D&D has always (in 3.xe) had a spell targeting system in which the caster may chose _*exactly*_ where to place the spell effect.  "Surgical precision" is part-n-parcel of the 3.xe system.
> 
> ...




Wow, we play that way all the time.  We use minis and a grid, and the DM frowns upon us when we get out the measuring stick so we can precisely aim area effect spells.  Otherwise, you never get a spell that sometimes falls short.  That is great storywise, and something we usually remember.  "Remember that time you tried to fireball those enemies and you were off by 5 feet to the left?".  But I guess not everyone plays that way, so, to each his own...

We even do this with charges...  If an opponent is far away, and we can charge a max of 60 feet, if we fall short by a square or two...  oh well.  Again, that's just how we play, and we enjoy those little idiosyncrasies (did I use that word correctly?)

Now, I'm not saying we NEVER measure and pinpoint stuff, but we always try not to.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If if Spell #2 is more powerful, then you have to admit that the "plants" requirement of the spell is an actual limitation that should be accounted for in any discussion of the power of this spell.



Granted.  

Allowing Entangle to use more than plants ("the very air itself...") does make this spell significantly more powerful.

That said, limiting this spell to just plants does not limit the spell so much that all of its other over-powered parameters are warranted. It's not the primary factor (as I've been saying all along.)  Put another way: slapping extra limitations on a spell isn't the same as allowing extra options for a spell.  It's not a linear trend.  Reducing fireball so that it's only effective outside doesn't drop it to a 1st level spell!

If limitations _did_ work as you contend, then there would be nothing wrong with this spell:

*Dungeon Entangle*
_Transmutation_
*Level*: Drd 1, Earth 1, Rgr 1
*Components*: V, S, DF
*Casting Time*: 1 standard action
*Range*: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
*Area*: A stone floor inside in a 40-ft.-radius spread
*Duration*: 1 min./level (D)
*Saving Throw*: Reflex partial; see text
*Spell Resistance*: No

Stone floors (that are not outdoors) wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the stone floor once again attempts to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement.

Note: The effects of the spell may be altered somewhat, based on the nature of the entangling floor.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Now, I'm not saying we NEVER measure and pinpoint stuff, but we always try not to.



I get that...and that sounds cool!

...but in the games I've seen or played in or DMed, the DM doesn't quibble over how a player puts a spell effect down.  

Fun is as fun does, sir.


----------



## Nail (Mar 23, 2007)

@Mistwell: => 



Spoiler



BTW, most of my current players don't think Entangle is overpowered.  So I'm used to not being able to convince people on this subject.


<=


----------



## Pickaxe (Mar 24, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hehe, I've been posting at length about how flawed just about everything said above is. God loves a contrarian, I suppose.
> 
> Strength scores don't ratchet up that much. Few creatures are just laughing off a DC 20 STR check. It takes a 30 STR just to get 50/50 odds.
> 
> Escape Artist? Flip through the ol' MM and look for critters with ranks in this skill. Few and far between.




You know, right after I hit the submit button, I realized that there were 3 more pages of posts, and I figured by the time I edited in "Whoops!", several people would have pointed out that I wasn't adding anything new.

In any case, I don't really agree with your argument. Strength scores don't increase rapidly, but they do increase significantly in the "big uglies" you meet at higher levels. Eight goblins in the forest are toast against a 1st level druid, needing a 20 to break out after a failed save. An ogre has a 30% chance to break out, and a hill giant has a 40% chance. As those chances go up, at some point, entangle is not your best opening move. Yes, Escape Artist is rare among monsters, but it's a little more common among certain NPCs, as is Freedom of Movement and the analogous domain power.

--Axe


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 24, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> 6-8 times where you have time to cast a 1 round spell, the bad guys are tightly grouped, and the sum of opponents HD is less than 4 HD, eh?
> 
> Those are some challenging encounters......




Wow!  If you are jumping to that conclusion, the problem is that your own experience is too skewed to form an opinion useful to anyone else.

Or your tactics just plain suck eggs.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 24, 2007)

Pickaxe said:
			
		

> In any case, I don't really agree with your argument. Strength scores don't increase rapidly, but they do increase significantly in the "big uglies" you meet at higher levels. Eight goblins in the forest are toast against a 1st level druid, needing a 20 to break out after a failed save. An ogre has a 30% chance to break out, and a hill giant has a 40% chance. As those chances go up, at some point, entangle is not your best opening move. Yes, Escape Artist is rare among monsters, but it's a little more common among certain NPCs, as is Freedom of Movement and the analogous domain power.




Right.  At some point you cannot impress people with a 1st level spell that (for the sake of argument) is almost as powerful as a 2nd level spell in some special scenario.  They laugh at you for not casting a 5th or 6th level spell when it could have mattered most.


----------



## green slime (Mar 24, 2007)

Yawn.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 24, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> I get that...and that sounds cool!
> 
> ...but in the games I've seen or played in or DMed, the DM doesn't quibble over how a player puts a spell effect down.
> 
> Fun is as fun does, sir.




I think it more or less comes from the fact that you can spend a good 5 - 10 minutes looking at the grid and measure and plot the "best" point to place a fireball while hitting the maximum amount of foes, and avoiding allies.  Sometimes the DM just says "eyeball it, and we'll see what happens".


----------



## Felon (Mar 24, 2007)

Pickaxe said:
			
		

> In any case, I don't really agree with your argument. Strength scores don't increase rapidly, but they do increase significantly in the "big uglies" you meet at higher levels. Eight goblins in the forest are toast against a 1st level druid, needing a 20 to break out after a failed save. An ogre has a 30% chance to break out, and a hill giant has a 40% chance. As those chances go up, at some point, entangle is not your best opening move. Yes, Escape Artist is rare among monsters, but it's a little more common among certain NPCs, as is Freedom of Movement and the analogous domain power.



Folks, when I read Pickaxe's statement that he doesn't really agree with me while providing evidence that certainly seems to support my position, it seemed pretty darned peculiar. So let's do the math! I'll use the statistics Pickaxe provided to see how much impact the "significant" STR increase of "big uglies" encountered at higher levels will have against this 1st-level spell. 

Pickaxe cited eight goblins, so let's compare how well eight ogres (EL 8) and eight hill giants (EL 13) fare.  We'll go with a nice fair save DC of 14, and round off fractions.

*8 OGRES (EL 8)*
Entangle is cast. With a Ref save of +0, that means three succeed and five fail. Note that this is the same failure rate the eight goblins would experience. The three who made the save have their movement halved and it's likely their entire round is spent entirely on clearing the entangle's radius. 

Out of the five trapped, one makes the 20 STR check to break free. Hurray for him! But not so fast--that was a full-round action, so he's not going anywhere just yet. Next round he has to make another Ref save and has a 65% chance of failing and getting entangled all over again. Looks like he may've started celebrating prematurely. This process will continue to repeat itself for a while: one big ugly gets loose as a full-round action, and most likely winds up trapped again next round.


*8 HILL GIANTS (EL 13)*
Entangle is cast. Ref save +3 means half succeed and half fail. As the lucky four break formation and scramble out of the shrubbery they are hopefully wise enough to know how grateful they should be that all the entangle did was cost them their entire round.

The not-so-lucky four start making STR checks and two break free. Next round, one of those two actually makes his Ref save and can make a run for it. For all following rounds, the norm will be that one makes the STR check, and then has a 50/50 chance of making his Ref save on the following round. Pity not only them, but also the DM who has to make all of these rolls that are largely pointless.


*FINAL ANALYSIS*
You tell me. Did the "big uglies" fare well, even compared to eight goblins? Did the impact of the entangle scale properly to the impact a 1st-level spell should have on an EL 8 and EL 13 encounter? Consider the other 1st-level spells that entangle has been compared to in this thread (_magic missile, sleep_) and what impact they would have had. Personally, even if all creatures made their saves and just spent their round trying to clear the radius, I'd still consider that a pretty potent effect for a 1st-level spell to have (sort of a no-save _daze monster, mass_).


----------



## Felon (Mar 25, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Wow!  If you are jumping to that conclusion, the problem is that your own experience is too skewed to form an opinion useful to anyone else.
> 
> Or your tactics just plain suck eggs.



The shortcomings of the _sleep_ spell were pretty clearly laid-out to prove that a conclusion was not being jumped to. You are making a personal attack to rebutt without providng anything substantial to back up your position.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 25, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Ummmmm......you sure?  Help me interpret what you are saying here:




I was just agreeing with someone else, and discussing that portion that was brought up.  It's not the thesis of my point, just a side comment.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 25, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Granted.
> 
> Allowing Entangle to use more than plants ("the very air itself...") does make this spell significantly more powerful.




Well thank goodness we can finally agree on that point at least.



> That said, limiting this spell to just plants does not limit the spell so much that all of its other over-powered parameters are warranted. It's not the primary factor (as I've been saying all along.)  Put another way: slapping extra limitations on a spell isn't the same as allowing extra options for a spell.  It's not a linear trend.  Reducing fireball so that it's only effective outside doesn't drop it to a 1st level spell!




I think this is the heart of the argument.

A first level spell?  No.  But a second level spell?  Yeah, I think it would be.  And given how many people in this thread who thought the "outdoors" portion was not that big of a limitation also thought entangle should be a second level spell instead of a first level one, that seems consistent with your theoretical outdoor-fireball logic.  Limiting a spell to be outdoors only should in my opinion reduce the spell level by about one level.  Reducing it by two levels (like you suggested with your outdoor-fireball) would be too much given the outdoors limitation.



> If limitations _did_ work as you contend, then there would be nothing wrong with this spell:
> 
> *Dungeon Entangle*
> _Transmutation_
> ...




Yeah, I think that is a fair spell.  It would only be effective on stone floors, which is somewhat common in dungeons but not all pervasive (much like plants are common but not pervasive outdoors).  

And, there is a very similar one to that one already I believe.  It's the city-themed entangle spell that causes detritus to coalesce around foes.

There is also the Impending Stones spell from Cityscape, which is close to the spell you just posted.


----------



## Pickaxe (Mar 25, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> *FINAL ANALYSIS*
> You tell me. Did the "big uglies" fare well, even compared to eight goblins? Did the impact of the entangle scale properly to the impact a 1st-level spell should have on an EL 8 and EL 13 encounter? Consider the other 1st-level spells that entangle has been compared to in this thread (_magic missile, sleep_) and what impact they would have had. Personally, even if all creatures made their saves and just spent their round trying to clear the radius, I'd still consider that a pretty potent effect for a 1st-level spell to have (sort of a no-save _daze monster, mass_).




Well, the higher CR creatures certainly fare better than the goblins. The goblins are effectively done, assuming the party has any ranged attacks. Three ogres and four giants save, so they can move out of the area if they start just about anywhere except the very center. Also, those that make their Strength check can move half their speed as part of the full round action of breaking free, so those that make the Strength check progress towards escape or even get out if they are close enough. On subsequent rounds, they get a Reflex save on the druid's turn, and, failing that, they get the Strength check on their own.

So, for the ogres: 3 get out on round 1, 1-2 make the Strength check and possibly get out in round 1, and 1-2 will probably get out in the next round by saving or the Strength check.

For the hill giants: 4 out clean on round 1, 1-2 out by virtue of the Strength check and half move each round thereafter.

So, ultimately, the effect goes from annihilating the goblins to slowing down the ogres and hill giants by 1-3 rounds. That's still a nice return on a first level spell, but no more, IMO, than what you get from higher level Ray of Enfeeblement, Produce Flame, or even Magic Missile.

Again, I would not have a problem with changing the radius to 20', and that would go a long way to increasing the chance that someone gets out in a single round.

--Axe


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 25, 2007)

Moderator's Notes
Folks, if your point cannot be made without describing how other posters are delusional, rotten players, illogical, or hopelessly biased, then your point is not one that can be made on this board.  If your point can be made without the insults, then please do so.  

There's a sticky at the top of the rules forum.  I don't want to have to be a butthead about enforcing it; if you've forgotten what it says, please go reread it.

Thanks!
Daniel


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 26, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> The shortcomings of the _sleep_ spell were pretty clearly laid-out to prove that a conclusion was not being jumped to. You are making a personal attack to rebutt without providng anything substantial to back up your position.




I must have been confused by "the sum of opponents HD is less than 4 HD".  Does not seem to be written in my copy of the PHB that it is only possible to use Sleep in such encounters.  Silly me, I read this as an important part of a one sentence conclusion.  Perhaps you can help me read this correctly?

But since you were polite I will fill out a couple counterpoints for you:
(1) A player of a *Druid* might have some skill with casting 1 round spells, such that this is not considered a particular burden, even if it is a downside.
(2) It should be obvious that a spell that generates a Helpless state might be more useful _in some encounters_ than another spell that can potentially effect many more opponents but is otherwise weaker, if I happen to be satisfied with dealing with a subset of the opposition with my Action.
(3) The requirement to have plants around is a very big factor in the frequency a spell could be used in most campaigns.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 26, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> *8 HILL GIANTS (EL 13)*
> Entangle is cast. Ref save +3 means half succeed and half fail. As the lucky four break formation and scramble out of the shrubbery they are hopefully wise enough to know how grateful they should be that all the entangle did was cost them their entire round.
> 
> The not-so-lucky four start making STR checks and two break free. Next round, one of those two actually makes his Ref save and can make a run for it. For all following rounds, the norm will be that one makes the STR check, and then has a 50/50 chance of making his Ref save on the following round. Pity not only them, but also the DM who has to make all of these rolls that are largely pointless.




I wish I got to fight giants like that.  The giants I fight always carry boulders and know how to use them.

Putting a creature with a pretty good ranged attack into an Entangle zone where they are an inconvenient target to melee is often doing that creature a favor.

Once you get past low levels, I would expect humanoids and other intelligent creatures to have specific tactics for engaging in (or avoiding) ranged combat.  Giants come ready made for this fight.  Ogres could be carrying a few sized appropriate javelins.


----------



## Nail (Mar 26, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I wish I got to fight giants like that.  The giants I fight always carry boulders and know how to use them.
> 
> Putting a creature with a pretty good ranged attack into an Entangle zone where they are an inconvenient target to melee is often doing that creature a favor.



You are vastly overstating the capabilities of a ranged attack from a Hill Giant.  Vastly.


For a Hill Giant, their ranged attacks (with boulders) are:  rock +8 ranged (2d6+7)

If they are _entangled_, that turns into:  rock +4 ranged (2d6+7)

That, for a CR 7 enemy, is completely *PATHETIC*.  A party (APL 7) could easily take that once/round attack, and give back _way_ more than they take.  An entangled Hill Giant is a neutered Hill Giant, plain and simple.

(BTW: What does the Sleep spell do to a Hill Giant?  Can it affect 8 of them like Entangle can?   )

Again: The _Entangle_ spell is a great 1st level spell, far better than any other.  It has the range (Long), AoE (40' r.), duration (1 min/level), and checks (DC 20) of a much higher level spell.  We could argue about how much higher it should be (compare to _any_ other core spell of _any_ other class), but it certainly qualifies for the title of this thread:

*"A Little Too Strong For A 1st Level Spell"*


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 26, 2007)

I have seen a single low level spell (Grease) neuter a Cloud Giant by causing him to drop his weapon just as he waded into the thick of combat.  So I, for one, would not get my panties in a bunch over the fact that such things can and do happen.

I do not find the likelihood that once or twice in your PC's adventuring career an encounter that "should" have been very difficult happens to be quite easy due to a specific low level spell.  Such events happen.  With a Wizard it might be Grease, Minor Image, Charm Person, and at higher levels a Web or a lucky Glitterdust that does the deed.  For the Druid we have Entangle.

There is a more general philosophical question of whether a spell that has significant limitations on when it can be used should (or should not) be potentially more effective than other spells under those special conditions.

The Druid spell list suffers from numerous spells that are generally too ineffective to prepare -- they are powerful in very limited and rare scenarios.  To make them "average" in power makes them outright pathetic in most campaigns.

As I have already stated in both this thread and previous similar threads, I can easily imagine that Entangle as written would be a problem spell in some specific campaigns.  I am extremely skeptical whether this is a common or even an uncommon issue.  But if you campaign really has lots and lots of wilderness encounters, then by all means do amend the spell.

As for Sleep vs. Entangle...

The last few times I fought giants, Sleep would have had more value than Entangle.  Sleep at least could theorectically be used against the occasionally orc/ogre servant that was unfortunate enough to show up, even if that would have been silly to bother doing so.  Entangle would have had precisely zero value in the stone or ice caves.

The last few times my druid was wishing he had some kind of AoE spell handy, he was fighting 33 goblins on their home turf.  I did not have trouble identifying potential targets for Sleep.  Once again, Entangle would have had precisely zero value.

As for the 8 Hill Giants, it strikes me as a more than a little contrived as written.  If the point of this scenario is that Entangle can potentially be very effective, then I will concede that point.  If the point of the scenario is how amazingly powerful a low level spell is in high-level encounters, then one should play the creatures as if they were a high-level encounter with the modicum of awareness of how vulnerable they are to AoE spells.  Giants have a pretty good movement rate and a pretty good ranged attack, so there is no great incentive to bunch up.  Even with that impressive AoE, I would be pleasantly surprised to be able to catch more 4 of 8 in Entangle.


----------



## Nail (Mar 26, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I have seen a single low level spell (Grease) neuter a Cloud Giant by causing him to drop his weapon just as he waded into the thick of combat.



A 1st level spell affected one opponent.  The range was close, the AoE was just his weapon, the duration was 1 rd/level, and the spell did not prevent the giant from moving or attacking with another weapon.

Where were the giant's boulders, which you brought up a while ago?  Surely those would have been sufficient?    



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If the point of the scenario is how amazingly powerful a low level spell is in high-level encounters, then one should play the creatures as if they were a high-level encounter with the modicum of awareness of how vulnerable they are to AoE spells.



Name one other 1st level spell that has the range, AoE, and power of Entangle.  Then describe how effective it is (vs Entangle) at higher levels.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 26, 2007)

Cutting ground speed by half in a huge area at huge range _without save_ makes it more than scroll-worthy for those who don't feel it is worth preparing.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 26, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> A 1st level spell affected one opponent.  The range was close, the AoE was just his weapon, the duration was 1 rd/level, and the spell did not prevent the giant from moving or attacking with another weapon.




While not helpless, his offensive potential dropped ~50% and he had to spend a MEA to retrieve some other weapon to boot.  This Cloud Giant had but one magic two-handed huge warhammer.  The combination of a 2-handed weapon with the 1 1/2 Str boost plus the pumped up Power Attack on top of Great Cleave made him a real threat -- he had a good chance on dropping 2 PCs per round.



> Name one other 1st level spell that has the range, AoE, and power of Entangle.  Then describe how effective it is (vs Entangle) at higher levels.




I have already named spells that are as powerful at higher levels and tend to be much easier to use.

Your benchmarks when used dogmatically are simply silly.  If I had a 1st level Dominate Monster spell, would you argue "Oh but that only affects 1 creature and it has ranged Close, so it is not as good as Entangle"?  Of course not.

Specialized spells tend to be powerful.  Antiplant Shell is an absolutely kick ass spell of 4th(!) level...against plants.  Oooooohhh....4th level!!!  But this is a niche spell, so there is no point in whining about it being too potent.

Likewise, Entangle is rated a specialized spell in the context of vanilla D&D.  That could easily be a poor design choice for your campaign.  And perhaps it is even a poor choice for D&D campaigns in general.  But that is for you to establish through argumetns based on evidence and/or experience.  My personal experience and the RAW say otherwise.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Mar 26, 2007)

Odd question..how many DMs require there to be at least light undergrowth within 5' for Entangle to be 'effective'? Seems to me people get all wrapped up in how powerful this spell is without considering the exact restrictions it has.  The available vegitation has to be able to 'twist and wrap' around at least part of the targets and the only RAW method of determining if there is enough is to look at terrain features, which leads us to 'light undergrowth'...

Light Forests have a 50% coverage with light undergrowth and as such using this requirement an Entangle would cover the entire area of effect.

Outside of light forests you may have around 25% of coverage with light undergrowth meaning only half the area of effect... or less, and provide characters within the area of effect someplace to move to for safety.

This combined with granting an appropriate size bonus to the Str check makes Entangle a perfectly appropriate spell, negating all the complaints of 'overpowered' found upthread...and since the spell description states "Note: The DM may alter the effects of the spell somewhat, based on the nature of the entangling plants." this restriction is perfectly within the realm of 'RAW' 

Of course, I also think is the 'nature of the entangling plants' are vines with sharp poisenous thorns, there could be a lethal damage and/or poison potential   

And I also think there should be a series of spells built on Entangle that actually create the light underbrush as well...but thats for another thread {and forum}


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> And I also think there should be a series of spells built on Entangle that actually create the light underbrush as well...but thats for another thread {and forum}




Quall's Feather Token: Tree


----------



## Nifft (Mar 26, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Quall's Feather Token: Tree




We need Quall's Feather Token: Shrubbery!

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nail (Mar 27, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I have already named spells that are as powerful at higher levels and tend to be much easier to use.



Like _Sleep_?    



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If I had a 1st level Dominate Monster spell, would you argue "Oh but that only affects 1 creature and it has ranged Close, so it is not as good as Entangle"?  Of course not.



 That's a pretty wild over-simplification of the argument for why Entangle is "over-powered" compared to other spells.

Again:

*Range: Long * 
 Name another 1st level AoE spell with this range that can hamper large numbers of creatures.  Given this spell is to be used outdoors, it's just the sort of spell to be really useful at longer ranges.

*AoE: 40 ft r. * 
 What other 1st level offensive spell has this large of an area?  Name one present in the core rules.  And as we've seen above, outdoors this area is effectively scalable ("aim high!"), so the "too big to be useful" argument falls flat.

*Duration: 1 min/level*
  You can't "outlast" this spell, at least in a normal D&D combat.  It's there for the whole combat, however long that takes.  Duck and cover while stuck just slows your fate as a pin-cushion.   Compare to other 1st level offesive spells.

*Effect: Str or Esc. Artist checks of DC 20*
  Again, compare to other 1st level spells.  Grease has DC 10 checks.  What are some other spells with comparable skill checks?  Name some.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> But that is for you to establish through argumetns based on evidence and/or experience.



Which I've done. Again. 

Look *Ridley's Cohort*, I'm really sorry your druid didn't get to see alot of use from this spell.  That experience surprises me, but I'm not about to suggest that your experience is invalid.  Unlike a previous poster, I won't suggest "your tactics just plain suck eggs."


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 27, 2007)

To be honest, the GM can honestly control when Entangle can or can't be used.  If there's no plants, roots, or trees about, the spell is pretty much useless.  Dungeons, deserts, barren mountain passes, etc., all render the spell worthless.

Don't get me wrong.  When it works, it works well.  But, the DM can completely block it from being used.

And, I'm *still* waiting for someone to tell me what level spell Entangle is comparable to, as it was already stated elsewhere a Tanglefoot bag was comparable to a 4th level spell.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 27, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> That experience surprises me, but I'm not about to suggest that your experience is invalid.




Acknowledging this is how you should behave is at least a start.  But it is a mighty peculiar pretense after trying to put words into my mouth 4 or 5 times in this thread, including this very same post of yours.

Your post here has interesting points that could be worthy of addressing, but given your track record, I am not willing to spend the effort on someone who is likely to purposefully misinterpret me.  Your quality of discourse is simply not worth the effort.

I also note you have avoided some of my other arguments put forth.  You would hardly be under any obligation to address such things, but it would be a sign of a willingness to read and bother understanding that is so far missing.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 27, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> And, I'm *still* waiting for someone to tell me what level spell Entangle is comparable to, as it was already stated elsewhere a Tanglefoot bag was comparable to a 4th level spell.




IMO it is a very weak version of Web.

On the plus side it has a bigger AoE and better range.  On the minus side it is outright unusable in most encounters in typical campaigns (IME).  Seems to me this is a slight minus overall, but YMMV.


----------



## phindar (Mar 27, 2007)

My main beef with Entangle is the same beef I have with Web, even if you make your save you're still hosed, just hosed to a lesser degree.  If Web is a 2nd level spell, it makes sense Entangle is a 1st, because even though it has a larger AoE and longer range, it's situational and a little easier to move through.  That said, if someone came along and made Web a 3rd level spell and Entangle a 2nd, I wouldn't spend my nights wailing into my pillow about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 27, 2007)

In the past 5 years, we've had so few encounters in the wild- almost everything has been urban or subterranean- that the spell has been "dead weight."

We've used Entangle in precisely one encounter- taking out some harpies that were swooping down on the party.  The caster got lucky- all of the harpies were in the AoE, and failed their rolls.

Funny thing was, we rolled so poorly that our attacks on the Entangled harpies were so weak we had to use_* 3*_ to finish them off.  (See?  You *CAN* "outlast" this spell!)  You have never seen so many misses and damage rolls under 3 in your life.  We depleted the party's entire store of arrows, daggers, and a pair of throwing axes.  Some PCs were resorting to _throwing rocks._ (No- I didn't say using a sling, I said *throwing*!)


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 27, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> IMO it is a very weak version of Web.
> 
> On the plus side it has a bigger AoE and better range.  On the minus side it is outright unusable in most encounters in typical campaigns (IME).  Seems to me this is a slight minus overall, but YMMV.




I agree with you, RC.  In another thread, someone said a Tanglefoot bag was comparable to Enervation.  By that line of reasoning, what would Entagle (or web) be equivalent to?  I'm still waiting for people who claimed that (or agreed with that claim) to say what level spell Entagle or Web should be, if the TFB is equivalent to Enervation.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 27, 2007)

I agree with phindar.  To the extent I have observed a problem in actual play, it is Web that is the culprit.  I just nod politely to this Sacred-Cow-with-sloppy-mechanics and do not lose any sleep over it.

In this context, Entangle as a big problem seems extremely theorectical.  In these high-level worst case scenarios, you are unlikely to see Entangle make the encounter a joke IMO.  You are most likely to see Entangle and Web working in tandem to make the encounter a joke.

If Web were revised to something I would find more palatable, then I would agree that Entangle would need to be revamped as well.


----------



## Felon (Mar 27, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> I agree with you, RC.  In another thread, someone said a Tanglefoot bag was comparable to Enervation.  By that line of reasoning, what would Entagle (or web) be equivalent to?  I'm still waiting for people who claimed that (or agreed with that claim) to say what level spell Entagle or Web should be, if the TFB is equivalent to Enervation.





			
				Jhulae said:
			
		

> And, I'm *still* waiting for someone to tell me what level spell Entangle is comparable to, as it was already stated elsewhere a Tanglefoot bag was comparable to a 4th level spell.



Why do you keep trying to drag some analogy made in some other thread about tanglefoot bags into this one? Deciding that entangle is OK because of some other tangentially-related arguement about a tanglefoot bag that you didn't think held water strikes as some critical thinking flaw or other that I don't have time to look up the nomenclature for. 

Lord knows there's always folks who need to assert that everything's OK and lump all complainers together without regard for the merits of their complaints, but after all that work I did to illustrate how effective an entangle is even in an EL 13, I can't believe some folks can be so dismissive.


----------



## Felon (Mar 27, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I agree with phindar.  To the extent I have observed a problem in actual play, it is Web that is the culprit.  I just nod politely to this Sacred-Cow-with-sloppy-mechanics and do not lose any sleep over it.



Web is another problematic spell to be sure and in some ways it's stronger (it's harder to get out of) and in some ways weaker (smaller area). But the flaws of web don't vindicate entangle; they're both problematic as they are effectively "common rocks without equally-common paper" in the current rules.



> In this context, Entangle as a big problem seems extremely theorectical.  In these high-level worst case scenarios, you are unlikely to see Entangle make the encounter a joke IMO.



In the scenario I provided, I don't see where the circumstances were particularly unlikely and thus restricted to the realm of the theoretical. Even with 10-foot bases, eight hill giants can occupy a 40-foot radius area with elbow room to spare.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 27, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Lord knows there's always folks who need to assert that everything's OK and that other folks' concerns are overreactions, but after all that work I did to illustrate how effective an entangle is even in an EL 13, I'd have hoped a few more folks would lose the rose-colored glasses.




Is this a real problem you have observed in actual play?  How often?  I may have missed that information earlier in the thread.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 27, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Web is another problematic spell to be sure and in some ways it's stronger (it's harder to get out of) and in some ways weaker (smaller area). But the flaws of web don't vindicate entangle; they're both problematic as they are effectively "common rocks without equally-common paper" in the current rules.




Obscuring Mist is not a complete solution, but it helps immensely when stuck between one of these "rocks" and a hard place.  As Obscuring Mist appears on many spell lists, this "paper" is more common than the "rock" in question.

I consider Obscuring Mist as a scroll (or a one-shot magical "potion" if the DM allows that kind of thing) to be a must have because this is a special case of a general problem.  



> In the scenario I provided, I don't see where the circumstances were particularly unlikely and thus restricted to the realm of the theoretical. Even with 10-foot bases, eight hill giants can occupy a 40-foot radius area with elbow room to spare.




They _could_ be that grouped.  But why would they choose to be?  Why should they choose a formation that puts at least 3 of them in a Fireball when they have plenty of space?  It does happen sometimes, but it does not seem like a good example of EL 13 scenario design to me.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Mar 27, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> And, I'm *still* waiting for someone to tell me what level spell Entangle is comparable to...




First level... its a lesser Web that has some advantages {range/AoE} and some disadvantages {terrain requirement}

Whether your DM runs it with these limitations is another issue. 

On the other hand, if your DM applies these limitations, similar to what I suggest upthread, there is no argument left concerning the spell being 'overpowered'.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> We've used Entangle in precisely one encounter- taking out some harpies that were swooping down on the party.  The caster got lucky- all of the harpies were in the AoE, and failed their rolls.



I have some major difficulties picturing how that could happen. Those harpies should never been at ground level {flyby attack} and because the rules don't allow for simutaneous actions, a readied entangle could have only gotton one of them IF the plantlife was high enough to reach them.


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 28, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> First level... its a lesser Web that has some advantages {range/AoE} and some disadvantages {terrain requirement}
> 
> Whether your DM runs it with these limitations is another issue.
> 
> On the other hand, if your DM applies these limitations, similar to what I suggest upthread, there is no argument left concerning the spell being 'overpowered'.




I agree, Primitive Screwhead.  It's a 1st level spell.  But, if you read some replies elsewhere comparing an item to Enervation...


----------



## Nail (Mar 28, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Your post here has interesting points that could be worthy of addressing, but given your track record, I am not willing to spend the effort on someone who is likely to purposefully misinterpret me.  Your quality of discourse is simply not worth the effort.



Wow.


----------

