# how does evard's black tentacles work, and/or why is it good?



## evilbob (Feb 4, 2008)

People often praise this spell's usefulness, but I just don't see it.  I guess I'm missing something overall in this spell, because it only sounds sorta "eh" to me.

My take is that it is cast, and everything in the area immediately has to make a grapple check or be grappled.  Anything not grappled basically takes one full round (or one move action if they move 40+ feet) to get out.  Done.  Any shifting/casting type takes one standard action to shift/cast on their turn and leaves via air - the tentacles don't make AoOs, so that's not hard.  Any incorporeal things just walk right through it.  And say something avoids the initial grapple check:  ok.  So it just takes a penalty to move for a few rounds.  Nothing in the spell's description says the spell tries to re-grapple them every round - only if they leave and re-enter the spell's area.  In fact, you could really hinder your own party, since a thing that avoided being grappled could just stand there and used ranged attacks against the party without your melee guys being able to reach them easily.

Now the check is significant, since it would be a +15 the level you can get it, and it does do a small amount of damage, which is great for smaller, weaker things with low HP or that can't move quickly.  And anything that gets stuck isn't going anywhere until they beat a grapple check.  But then they can just leave.  Or just stand there, since the spell only attacks them once.

Also, I see the advantage of having grappled opponents at range (since they lose their Dex mod), but wouldn't these grappled enemies get cover or something?  There _are_ giant tentacles in the way, right?  I thought I remembered that firing a ranged weapon at a grappling opponent had a 50% chance to hit either participants in the grapple - although I can't find that in the SRD at the moment.  Would this spell also grant that kind of bonus?

Again, I think I must be missing something, because it just doesn't sound that useful to me.  It basically seems like a nice way to attack something without giving it a save or worrying about SR, although if it resists the initial check all it really loses is a little bit of movement.  Additionally, while a good anti-caster spell, it seems like any caster that got free of the effect just received a great defensive area to cast from.  Anyone have thoughts or suggestions?


ps.  For those who don't hate it, the FAQ offers a few clarifications about the spell:  first, that it does automatically hit anything in the area, including invisible or concealed creatures (which is nice), although incorporeal creatures are unaffected and a blinking creature gets a 50% miss chance.  Next, the FAQ agrees that anything in the spell's area is attacked once and then that's it (unless they re-enter the area).  Although that doesn't seem to "fit" with the idea of the spell, and it also doesn't clarify whether or not the tentacles impede ranged attacks into it.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 4, 2008)

For everyone's reference, here is the spell.



			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> (...) Or just stand there, since the spell only attacks them once.



 ... per round. 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent until the spell ends or the opponent escapes.






			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> Again, I think I must be missing something, because it just doesn't sound that useful to me.  It basically seems like a nice way to attack something without giving it a save or worrying about SR, although if it resists the initial check all it really loses is a little bit of movement.  Additionally, while a good anti-caster spell, it seems like any caster that got free of the effect just received a great defensive area to cast from.



 It's a fantastic spell for stopping critters that are coming out of a confined area. It's great when paired with _acid fog_ to make a terribly hostile environment.




			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> ps.  For those who don't hate it, the FAQ offers a few clarifications about the spell:  first, that it does automatically hit anything in the area, including invisible or concealed creatures (which is nice), although incorporeal creatures are unaffected and a blinking creature gets a 50% miss chance.  Next, the FAQ agrees that anything in the spell's area is attacked once and then that's it (unless they re-enter the area).  Although that doesn't seem to "fit" with the idea of the spell, and it also doesn't clarify whether or not the tentacles impede ranged attacks into it.



 IMHO the FAQ is wrong -- it violates the spirit of the spell. My legalistic train of thought (to bring the effect back in line with the intent) would be:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check, opposed by the grapple check of the tentacles.



 Everyone in the area when the spell is cast must make a grapple check -- that is to say, the tentacles automatically make their touch attack, and the target and tentacle enter into a grapple, which the target may resist.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Any creature that enters the area of the spell is immediately attacked by the tentacles.



 Anyone who enters the area must make a grapple check -- that is to say, the tentacles automatically make their touch attack, and the target and tentacle enter into a grapple, which the target may resist.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent until the spell ends or the opponent escapes.



 The trick here is in reading "once the tentacles grapple an opponent". See, by the above two, every creature who was in the spell's area (or who later entered the spell's area) has already made a grapple attack, whether it entered into "grappling" or not. The spell doesn't specify that the opponent must be grappling with an opponent, only that the spell must have once grappled with that opponent. (Note: this is a terrible abuse of terminology. Such things should only be allowed in the service of making poorly phrased rules work as they should.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## evilbob (Feb 4, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> It's a fantastic spell for stopping critters that are coming out of a confined area. It's great when paired with _acid fog_ to make a terribly hostile environment.



Agreed - but the combo effect requires two spells and the other is location-specific.  Neither really qualify this spell as a "must-have" on its own, in my opinion.



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> IMHO the FAQ is wrong -- it violates the spirit of the spell.



I agree in principle and I think your "word wrangling" is pretty interesting,  but it still doesn't really change the wording of the spell.

And honestly, the "power level" of the spell seems appropriate for a 4th level spell if interpreted like the FAQ:  you cause your enemies in an area to make a grapple check or be delayed (and slightly damaged) for several rounds.  It's not a save and it doesn't care about SR, so that's pretty strong.  On the flip side, anything delayed gets a new check every round to escape.  And anything that avoids the initial effect is safe.  Seems on-par with most other 4th level spells.


And honestly, a lot of this probably wouldn't come up:  most creatures aren't going to stand in a bunch of tentacles and not just leave - especially when they can do so easily, for the low cost of a couple of move actions.  The only real question is whether or not it is tactically advantageous for an opponent to remain within the spell's area if the initial check is successful.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 4, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> IMHO the FAQ is wrong -- it violates the spirit of the spell.



Agreed.


----------



## Victim (Feb 4, 2008)

Tactically, it's often good to place the spell such that enemies are near the edge so that the enemies are within reach of your melee damage.  Characters with reach make this especially attractive.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 4, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> Tactically, it's often good to place the spell such that enemies are near the edge so that the enemies are within reach of your melee damage.



True, but this also voluntarily eliminates the second (unsavable) part of the spell - the movement hindrance.

And still no one has tackled the "shooting ranged attacks into it" portion of the question.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 4, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> True, but this also voluntarily eliminates the second (unsavable) part of the spell - the movement hindrance.



 Indirectly, perhaps -- it slows down your opponent's allies, so you can kill them one or two at a time (instead of being swarmed).



			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> And still no one has tackled the "shooting ranged attacks into it" portion of the question.



 The spell doesn't say that it hinders ranged attacks or provides cover; thus, it does neither. (Compare with _blade barrier_, for example.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## gnfnrf (Feb 4, 2008)

I must say that in play, Evard's Black Tentacles was just used to wonderful effect against an 11th level party of PCs in a game I ran.  

Note that I interpreted it to grapple once but squeeze every round.

Many creatures have a a good way of bypassing it, but once grappled, most of those ways are unavailable.  No spellcasting, for example.

Certainly, it doesn't win a fight on its own.  But it is a great option to employ as part of a coherent strategy to control the battlefield.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 4, 2008)

I use it on my warlock primarily for area control.  Doesn't work on big things, but the puds will be slowed down.

Plus, nothing says "Hey, guys!" like 10' tall inky black tentacles grabbing you while whispering susurrant passages about the Endless Void.  (Which has no mechanical basis, and is more of a flavor thing I put in, but it adds to the creepiness factor in a way that minor cold damage doesn't)

Brad


----------



## evilbob (Feb 4, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> The spell doesn't say that it hinders ranged attacks or provides cover; thus, it does neither. (Compare with _blade barrier_, for example.)



That is a very good point and how I was thinking the spell must be interpreted.  On the other hand it just doesn't make as much -sense- that way - sort of like how the spell doesn't say it attacks each round, but doesn't make -sense- that it wouldn't.  I think RAW this is right, however.



			
				gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Many creatures have a a good way of bypassing it, but once grappled, most of those ways are unavailable. No spellcasting, for example.



Also a very good point.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 4, 2008)

This spell is *very* good at shutting down medium sized foes. Too good if you don't run it as the litteral wording / FAQ.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 4, 2008)

How's this for rules lawyerism:

"*Once* the tentacles grapple an opponent,"

The spell doesn't say "if."  It says "once."  Worth noting also is that this statement comes before the additional paragraph talking about when a creature enters the area.  Therefore, it _could_ be surmised that the "once" implies that this is something that has a chance to happen multiple times:  i.e. the grapple checks are made each round.

A bit weak, but perhaps a possibility?


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 4, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> How's this for rules lawyerism:
> 
> "*Once* the tentacles grapple an opponent,"
> 
> ...



Very weak on the text even though it fits in spirit.  



> This spell conjures a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. They grasp and entwine around creatures that enter the area, holding them fast and crushing them with great strength.
> 
> Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check, opposed by the grapple check of the tentacles. Treat the tentacles attacking a particular target as a Large creature with a base attack bonus equal to your caster level and a Strength score of 19. Thus, its grapple check modifier is equal to your caster level +8. The tentacles are immune to all types of damage.
> 
> ...


----------



## blargney the second (Feb 4, 2008)

Your ranged sneak attackers will love evard's.  Immobile foes with no Dex?  It's party time!


----------



## mvincent (Feb 4, 2008)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Your ranged sneak attackers will love evard's.  Immobile foes with no Dex?  It's party time!



Well... the target is almost certainly considered to be grappling, so (per this table) I believe you would still have to "_Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike_"... even if one of them can't be harmed.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 4, 2008)

THAT'S where that is!  Thank you.

Yes, I also worry that the spell would cause ranged attackers to be very happy - and then cry at their 50% miss chance.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 4, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> THAT'S where that is!  Thank you.
> 
> Yes, I also worry that the spell would cause ranged attackers to be very happy - and then cry at their 50% miss chance.



It at least mollifies (a bit) the complaint that the tentacles offer _no_ cover.


----------



## azhrei_fje (Feb 5, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> THAT'S where that is!  Thank you.
> 
> Yes, I also worry that the spell would cause ranged attackers to be very happy - and then cry at their 50% miss chance.



Technically there's no rule that says it would be a 50% miss chance.

In fact, based on the description, if the tentacles are considered Large and the opponent is Medium, and argument can be made that there should be either 2 chances to hit the Large for every chance there is to hit the Medium (meaning 2:3 for the Large and 1:3 for the Medium), or it could be based on the number of squares occupied, which makes it 4:5 for the Large and 1:5 for the Medium.

I rule it using the first example, because there is text (somewhere) that talks about how many creature can be in a grapple at once and the number is cut in half for each size increase.  YMMV.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 5, 2008)

azhrei_fje said:
			
		

> Technically there's no rule that says it would be a 50% miss chance.
> 
> In fact, based on the description, if the tentacles are considered Large and the opponent is Medium, and argument can be made that there should be either 2 chances to hit the Large for every chance there is to hit the Medium (meaning 2:3 for the Large and 1:3 for the Medium), or it could be based on the number of squares occupied, which makes it 4:5 for the Large and 1:5 for the Medium.
> 
> I rule it using the first example, because there is text (somewhere) that talks about how many creature can be in a grapple at once and the number is cut in half for each size increase.  YMMV.



And the counterargument can be made that the Bigger creature has a better chance of hoisting up the smaller victim to use it as a living shield.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 5, 2008)

azhrei_fje said:
			
		

> Technically there's no rule that says it would be a 50% miss chance.



100% correct.  



			
				azhrei_fje said:
			
		

> In fact, based on the description, if the tentacles are considered Large and the opponent is Medium, and argument can be made that there should be either 2 chances to hit the Large for every chance there is to hit the Medium (meaning 2:3 for the Large and 1:3 for the Medium), or it could be based on the number of squares occupied, which makes it 4:5 for the Large and 1:5 for the Medium.



The tentacles are 'treated as large' for the grappling. Although given they are 10 feet long, I have some sympathy for your assumption.

Assuming that they are large size (for purposes of firing into melee/cover) then I would rule that the tentacles occupy 3:4 and a medium sized opponent 1:4.  A ranged attack can only see the 'face' of the cube occupied by the tentacle and so would 'see' 4x5ft square 'faces', of which the medium-sized creature would occupy 1 'face'. Of course, this ignores that the tentacle would be wrapped around the medium-sized creature...


----------



## evilbob (Feb 5, 2008)

While I cannot argue the logic, and I think those ideas are fine, to me that seems a bit overcomplicated for what could be a simple problem:  two choices, two chances.  50% for either one.  If it's a dragon grappling a cat then the chances should probably be weighted, but otherwise it's just faster and simpler to divide the total number of creatures in the grapple into 100 and call that the % chance.  Still, though, to each his own.  


All the same, let's review:

- The tentacles spell is purported to work great against medium or smaller creatures, especially if it can block up a choke point (but large or bigger creatures probably won't have a very hard time against the spell).
- Trapped creatures are likely to remain trapped (since being grappled is a major impediment), while non-trapped creatures are likely to just move through without much hindrance.
- Some folks believe it should re-attempt to grapple each round, a la the "spirit" of the spell.
- The spell gives no cover bonuses.
- Grappled creatures lose their dex bonus, which is great for ranged sneak attacks, but also sad because the same creatures have a reduced chance to get hit due to the grapple.
- The spell is basically a "save or be delayed (and take tiny amounts of damage)" except that it works against a grapple check instead of a save.

I wonder if anyone has just run the spell as a flat grapple DC of 18+caster level instead of rolling an opposed grapple check each time?


----------



## Will (Feb 5, 2008)

GM in tabletop game ran it as repeatedly trying to grapple each round.

The spell was cast in a 40' diameter stone room at which point the doors in locked.

Yeah. Hard to escape at that point, eh?


----------



## mvincent (Feb 5, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> I wonder if anyone has just run the spell as a flat grapple DC of 18+caster level instead of rolling an opposed grapple check each time?



Yup, but that can make the spell more powerful. By reducing the standard deviation, someone that has a significantly lower grapple bonus than the spell (which should be the majority of opponents the spell is used on), will have a harder time escaping over the course of several rounds (or it might even become impossible for some).


----------



## akbearfoot (Feb 5, 2008)

There is another major discrepency with this spell.


It is more effective for NPCs as opposed to PCs....Especially given that the typical BBEG type spellcaster has at least a few more HD than the PCs.  That makes the grapple checks involved hard to beat even for the Raging half-orc barbarian with a +4 strength girdle, using an action point.  On that note, the spell actually grapples STRONGER than the 7th level strength optimized raging half-orc at the minimum level to cast it....and it just gets stronger after that.  Compare a troll's or hill giant's grapple checks(among the strongest critters for their CRs)...Basically, nobody but a strength optimized beast has a reasonable chance to escape this spell.  Worst case scenario is that everyone makes the initial grapple, and then they all lose a turn while they try and scramble to the nearest edge of the spell.  That scenario is VERY unlikely to happen assuming you can catch 3 people in the area which is entirely likely since otherwise you wouldn't bother using an AE spell.

It's like it was designed with TPKs in mind.


I also disagree with peoples assertions that 1d6+4 damage is 'a small amount' of damage.   That's enough damage to kill an average wizard in a few rounds.  A 1d8 hit dice class only lasts another round or 2.

The way I read the spell is once you break free you get to spend the rest of your turn trying to escape.  After that you get grappled again on the caster's next turn.  Doesen't make sense in a 'how would I design this spell to function' sorta way if it ignored people in the area but somehow still detected creatures that later enter the area.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 6, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Yup, but that can make the spell more powerful.



Would it really, though?  It is my thought that statistically, it should be exactly the same (although for someone with a really low grapple check, it would be a 100% certainty - but then again, someone with a really high grapple check would have a 100% chance to beat it, too).  But I could be wrong.

The main advantage of this would just be less rolling.  If you caught 5 things in this spell and ruled that it worked each round, that's a lot of dice that can slow things down.  At least setting a DC cuts the work in half.



			
				akbearfoot said:
			
		

> Doesen't make sense in a 'how would I design this spell to function' sorta way if it ignored people in the area but somehow still detected creatures that later enter the area.



I agree.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 6, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> It is my thought that statistically, it should be exactly the same (although for someone with a really low grapple check, it would be a 100% certainty - but then again, someone with a really high grapple check would have a 100% chance to beat it, too).



Well, casters are almost certainly going to use this on targets that have a grapple bonus 10 points lower than the tentacles more often than on targets with a grapple bonus 10 points higher, making your method more of a certainty in the favor of caster overall.

But if we also look at say a grapple bonus that is 8 points lower than the tentacles:
They would have 10% chance to break free using you method (i.e. 2 wins out of 20 combos), but they would normally have a 16.5% chance if both parties rolled (i.e. 66 wins out of 400 combos). Over the course of several rounds, that can multiply into a significant difference (indeed: average of 6 rounds in the tentacles as opposed to 10 rounds is probably a breaking point on survivability).



> Would it really, though?



It appears so. Did you have some other numbers to run, or was it a gut feeling?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 6, 2008)

It's good for killing drow.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 6, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> It appears so. Did you have some other numbers to run, or was it a gut feeling?



Gut feeling.    The thing is, I suspect those numbers would basically be in reverse for the higher end (when the creature has a grapple check 8 higher than the spell).  And just because the "bar" is set high is no reason to discount whether or not something is fair.

Just a thought, though.  No real grounding.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 6, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> GM in tabletop game ran it as repeatedly trying to grapple each round.
> 
> The spell was cast in a 40' diameter stone room at which point the doors in locked.
> 
> Yeah. Hard to escape at that point, eh?



I've used it recently against my players' party.
It served it's purpose: prolonging the boss fight and putting at least one of them in danger of dying, because the BBEG kept stacking continous area damage effects on it.

First thing the psion did was to dimension door out of the area and dispel it (with his second attempt).

It's a powerful spell, but at the level at which it's typically encountered, the pcs will have adequate counter-measures.


----------



## eamon (Feb 6, 2008)

I don't see how the spirit of the spell implies that the tentacles should re-attempt to grapple each round.

Creatures within the area of effect at the time of the casting, or those entering at a later moment are grappled by the tentacles - sure.  That's it.  Nowhere does the spell say the tentacles are constantly trying to reacquire freed targets.  Once they are grappled (which only happens if they fail the initial and singular grapple check) the tentacles squeeze and thus deal damage each round.

The only way for a creature to be grappled multiple times is for it to leave and reenter the area of effect.

I can imagine a spell in which the tentacles were constantly seeking to grapple everything in reach, but that's not this spell; this spell just makes tentacles that grasp everything and then contract.  They don't seek new targets except those that are entering.  That's fine, and there's no "spirit" I can find that requires more complex readings.

I think the FAQ is right here.  The alternative doesn't make much more sense, and it's definitely less supported by the rules text, and it's possibly too powerful.

Where do you find the spirit of spell?  I'm a big believer in the importance of rules as intended, but I just don't see it here.


----------



## chitzk0i (Feb 6, 2008)

I would find it easier to believe a simpler behavior for the tentacles.  A very simple behavior could be that they just flail back and forth regardless of what's in the area, bludgeoning anything nearby at any time.  

A step or two up from that would be tentacles that constrict anything in the area when they are created.  These tentacles only know how to constrict: any creature initially in the spell's area is squeezed by tentacles, but if you escape, you just have to climb over the tentacles and get out.

Taking it a bit further would be tentacles that try to constrict anything that touches them.  The tentacles would grab anything in the area regardless of whether it had previously escaped.

However, the text of the spell is more complex, probably for balance reasons.


----------



## Will (Feb 7, 2008)

It makes more sense to you, Eamon, that the spell distinguishes people entering the spell area from 'grab anything in the area'?

Me, the latter makes much more sense; tentacles grasp for anything they can. If you enter the area, there you go. If you leave, no further worries.

The other interpretation, that I can wander around amidst the tentacles and they don't bother me because they've had their one chance, but if I step out and back in they make one swipe, seems a lot more convoluted.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 7, 2008)

I think Will's response sums up the "spirit" of the spell quite well.


----------



## FoxWander (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm of the opinion that the tentacles constantly try to grapple anyone within the area of the spell. The idea that if the first grapple fails they just leave you alone until you walk out and then re-enter the area just seems silly. The description of the spell clearly says "Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check."  So if you manage to avoid the initial grapple and don't leave immediately, you ARE going to get grappled again since you are still "within the area of the spell."



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> This spell conjures a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. They grasp and entwine around creatures that enter the area, holding them fast and crushing them with great strength.
> 
> *Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check*, opposed by the grapple check of the tentacles. Treat the tentacles attacking a particular target as a Large creature with a base attack bonus equal to your caster level and a Strength score of 19. Thus, its grapple check modifier is equal to your caster level +8. The tentacles are immune to all types of damage.
> 
> ...




I think the part in the last paragraph about entering the area is just to clarify that such a creature would be attacked *immediately*. Meaning it could not finish it's movement and would have to resolve the grapple as soon as it crossed into the spell's area.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 9, 2008)

Good Point #45
Saving Throw: None

Good Point #46
Spell Resistance: None

So, even if you have a low DC, poorly designed spellcaster, he can cast this spell with a good chance of suceess.

I pretty much used it to accomplish three things.

1. Eliminate an enemy spellcaster from the battle.
2. Try to keep flying things on the ground.
3. Spread out the stream of enemies attacking you over a couple rounds.

D "We pretty much always replaced the N with an S when referring to this spell" S


----------



## eamon (Feb 12, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> It makes more sense to you, Eamon, that the spell distinguishes people entering the spell area from 'grab anything in the area'?




I think of them as a kind of almost-living tentacles.  They obviously are sufficiently aware to be able to grapple - kind of like a zombie, say.  They grab at anything they can, and if they can't grab it, they grab the next best thing.  On the other hand, they're not intelligent, and can't distinguish a target they've already grappled from one they've not yet encountered - so if you leave the area and reenter, you are grappled again.

In any case, the rules text seems crystal clear to me on rules crunch - they attempt to grapple creatures in the area, and _once_ they've grappled them, they attempt to do damage each round.  They explicitly stop that when the creature escapes (from the grapple).  They explicitly  try grappling all those which enter the area at a later time.

The rules crunch isn't overcomplicated - as a matter of fact, it's simpler than rerolling every turn and involves fewer rolls.  You only roll for those still grappled, and only for damage - and when a creature enters the area, there is one attempt to grapple it.

I can imagine the existance of some alternate spell which regrapples every turn, but that would be more powerful, and slower in gameplay, and might reasonable be a higher level spell.  As is, the rules text is pretty clear cut.  A different spell with a different mechanic might be preferable, but if you're going to redesign it, then all crunch aspects should be considered for balance.  A redesigned spell might allow for saving throws, or have a different grapple bonus, or a different spell level.

The point is, even without the FAQ, the rules are pretty straightforward, and the spell is at worst a little weird (but tentacles which are aware enough to grapple creatures mean that it's not absurd to have them be aware enough to only try once), but if you don't like the flavor, the solution should not be to simple rule it differently without considering balance.  If you like a different fluff and adapt the crunch to match it (a fine practice), you should finish the job and consider other aspects of the spell as well.

My stance: the fluff argument of believability is important, but doesn't mean you should rewrite the crunch without considering balance.


----------



## FoxWander (Feb 12, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> In any case, the rules text seems crystal clear to me on rules crunch - they attempt to grapple creatures in the area, and once they've grappled them, they attempt to do damage each round.  *They explicitly stop that when the creature escapes (from the grapple).*  They explicitly try grappling all those which enter the area at a later time.




Emphasis mine of course. You've made an excellent summary of the spell, except for the sentence I highlighted. Nothing in the text/crunch of the spell supports that the tentacles stop attempting to grapple anyone in the area. Which is the point I made when I jumped into this. The text of the spell specifically states that "Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check." There are no exceptions written in the spell. There's nothing to indicate that creatures who escape the initial grapple attempt will be unmolested unless they leave and then re-enter the area of the spell. Quite the contrary- if you're in the area of the spell, you will get grappled. If you already are grappled, then the tentacles try to crush you for the indicated damage.

The idea that there is only ONE attempt to grapple creatures in the area not only makes no sense, but it isn't supported by the text/crunch of the spell.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 12, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> My stance: the fluff argument of believability is important, but doesn't mean you should rewrite the crunch without considering balance.



While I am normally a proponent of the FAQ, that seems like an overly literal reading. The writer's intent, the description and logic suggest that the tentacles would continue to attack creatures in the area. 

Have we had a poll on this one yet? I'd be curious about the results.


----------



## eamon (Feb 13, 2008)

FoxWander said:
			
		

> The idea that there is only ONE attempt to grapple creatures in the area not only makes no sense, but it isn't supported by the text/crunch of the spell.




The spell speaks of a grapple check.  Not one per round, or one at the start of each creatures turn or any such phrasing; the spell asks for a grapple check.  

Compare to Entangle: _"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."_

Entangle mentions what happens for the duration of the spell and mentions what happens initially.

Consider Web: _"Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save. If this save succeeds, [...]. If the save fails, [...]. Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. *Each round* devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10."_ 

Web mentions what happens for the duration of the spell and mentions what happens initially.

Consider Stinking cloud: _"Living creatures in the cloud become nauseated. This condition lasts as long as the creature is in the cloud and for 1d4+1 rounds after it leaves. (Roll separately for each nauseated character.) Any creature that succeeds on its save but remains in the cloud must continue to save each round on your turn."_

Stinking cloud mentions what happens for the duration of the spell and mentions what happens initially.

And black tentacles? _" Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check, opposed by the grapple check of the tentacles. Treat the tentacles attacking a particular target as a Large creature with a base attack bonus equal to your caster level and a Strength score of 19. Thus, its grapple check modifier is equal to your caster level +8. The tentacles are immune to all types of damage.

Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent until the spell ends or the opponent escapes."_

Black tentacles mentions what happens on each round, and mentions what happens initally.  Just like every other spell.  It does not say anything about repeated grapple attempts - _because there aren't any_.

You may find the concept of black tentacles odd and badly thought out, but the game mechanics are hardly different from many other spells - they say straightforwardly what to do:  Attempt to start a grapple, then, once grappled, attempt to do damage once per round.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 13, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> The spell speaks of a grapple check.  Not one per round, or one at the start of each creatures turn or any such phrasing



Well, the spell does say:
_"they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent..."_

True, it says this in regard to those grappled, but it does make clear that the tentacles are continually aggressive (causing grapple checks each round in this case), and gives an idea of the writer's intent (despite the exact, literal wording). I can think of dozens of D&D rules that would be completely wrong if followed literally. 

What do _you_ think the writer's intent was?


----------



## evilbob (Feb 13, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> I can imagine the existance of some alternate spell which regrapples every turn, but that would be more powerful, and slower in gameplay, and might reasonable be a higher level spell.



I'm not sure if this is entirely the case.  I think there are few creatures to whom "multiple grapple checks" would even apply.  Almost anything will be able to escape the area of the spell if they succeed in the initial check.

The only two instances where this really matters are:  creatures who have used their own actions to succeed in grapple checks to escape the spell and do not have enough action/movement left over on their turn to leave the area, and creatures who have succeeded in making a grapple check but who might stay within the area of the spell for a strategic advantage (in order to make ranged attacks while avoiding melee).  The second is really an abuse of the spell against the caster, and makes me feel like the "grapples every round" idea is best.  However, the former means that anything lucky enough to finally break free of the grapple is possibly going to be re-grappled on the caster's turn (assuming that's when the re-grapple happens) - thus avoiding only the damage, but still being denied actions.  This does seem more powerful (and would make more checks), but would it come up that often?  Or maybe:  would it come up more often than an intelligent, ranged character taking advantage of the spell?


----------



## eamon (Feb 13, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> True, it says this in regard to those grappled, but it does make clear that the tentacles are continually aggressive (causing grapple checks each round in this case), and gives an idea of the writer's intent (despite the exact, literal wording). I can think of dozens of D&D rules that would be completely wrong if followed literally.
> 
> What do _you_ think the writer's intent was?




I think the writer's intent was that the the tentacles would inexorably crunch anything they hold fast - not that they're actively aggressive once you're grappled, but that the grappling mechanic merely reflects the best way to express slow constriction by tentacles.

I also think that in general rules intent should trump literal reading - but usually, clear rules crunch is the best vehicle for that intent.  It's only in odd corner cases where there's a potential conflict - say, the precise meaning of "effect" such as those which can enhance or improve a monk's unarmed strike as if it were a natural weapon, or the interaction of various rules from different locations, such as those many cases where a rule prescribes a particular flow of events, but fails to deal with extra options offered by other rules.

Such confusion isn't present in the black tentacles spell (as far as I can see).  There's no external rules conflict to resolve or any hidden interaction the designer forgot to deal with explicitly, nor is there vagueness in the terminology.  The only point for confusion is that it's odd that the tentacles take no action unless they're in a grapple: "Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage."  The preceding sentence doesn't specify what the tentacles do if they're not grappling.

Sure, it's a little odd that the tentacles only try grappling once - but retry if you exit and reenter the area, but that's the model behavior for other spells too, like the symbol spells such as Symbol of Death.  

So, the intent argument is not based on imprecise terminology nor on rules interaction but on common sense - which, though valuable, is risky, especially when it comes to the "motivation" of tentacles to grapple each round.  And of course, there is the FAQ which is a secondary indication of intent.

In any case, I think the overall intent is just to make a nasty tentacle spell which entangles and constricts its victims - a horror staple.  That's certainly what they succeeded at, no matter the interpretation on the grapple issue.  I think the grapple issue is mostly a question of how to translate constricting tentacles into a D&D mechanic, which, as so often, is only somewhat reasonable.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 13, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> I think the writer's intent was that the the tentacles would inexorably crunch anything they hold fast - not that they're actively aggressive once you're grappled



In 1st and 2nd edition, the spell was continually hostile to anyone in the area, regardless of them being grappled. I don't see the writer intending to depart from that paradigm.

But ultimately: if I ruled that someone could safely stand around in the tentacles after avoiding the first grapple, _all_ my players (who never even played earlier editions) would look at me with "WTF" expressions. As much as I love the FAQ, burning that much Suspension of Disbelief to follow it here wouldn't be worth it for me. ymmv.


----------



## moritheil (Feb 13, 2008)

"Once the tentacles grapple an opponent . . . "

What do you understand "grapple an opponent" to mean?

Also, the main use of this spell is in tying up fodder and annoying enemy spellcasters.  I wouldn't expect it to work on the hulking BBEG barbarian, but I would expect his robe-wearing, spell-toting cultist advisor to dislike it.


----------



## eamon (Feb 14, 2008)

I understand grapple an opponent to mean being in a grapple with an opponent (with consequences such as losing your dex bonus to attacks from outside the grapple etc.).

I can see the fluff argument suggesting that the tentacles shouldn't be very aware and behave no different the first round from any later round, but I really do think the text itself is pretty clear-cut.

Am I really the only one thinking that?  I'm beginning to doubt here...


----------



## moritheil (Feb 14, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> I understand grapple an opponent to mean being in a grapple with an opponent (with consequences such as losing your dex bonus to attacks from outside the grapple etc.).
> 
> I can see the fluff argument suggesting that the tentacles shouldn't be very aware and behave no different the first round from any later round, but I really do think the text itself is pretty clear-cut.
> 
> Am I really the only one thinking that?  I'm beginning to doubt here...




I have always seen it continuously attempt to grapple, but I do see your point - nothing explicitly says it should attempt to grapple more than once.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 14, 2008)

At the very least, after all this discussion I'm happy to know that this spell is at least as confusing as I thought it was.


----------

