Does the Evard's Black Tentacles spell inflict lethal damage

[hafrogman]

Gotta go with lethal. The spell says it makes a grapple check to inflict damage, not that it grapples in the same manner as a character would. The tentacles can't move an opponent or pin them, or weild their own weapon against them, although those are all abilities listed under grapple.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The spell specifies that it does bludgeoning damage, it doesn't specifiy that it does non-lethal damage.

Bludgeoning can be both lethal and nonlethal. Nothing about bludgeoning defines the damage as lethal. After defining damage as one of three main categories (lethal, nonlethal, and ability), bludgeoning is "in addition."

The spell says it makes a grapple check to inflict damage, not that it grapples in the same manner as a character would.

Actually, it does say they grapple the opponent: "Once the tentacles grapple an opponent...."

 

[Caliban]

Bludgeoning can be both lethal and nonlethal. Nothing about bludgeoning defines the damage as lethal. After defining damage as one of three main categories (lethal, nonlethal, and ability), bludgeoning is "in addition."

Default damage for spells is lethal. If the spell doesn't specify non-lethal, then it's lethal.

But feel free to nit-pick.

 

[kigmatzomat]

IMO the assumption of the rules is that damage is always lethal unless called out otherwise. Matter of fact, regular damage is just "damage" and non-lethal is "subdual." Barring the inclusion of the word "subdual" that no one has noticed, the damage is fatal.

The grappling aspect is a smoke screen. Grapples don't do non-lethal damage, it does the damage of an unarmed attack which, in the case of most characters, is non-lethal damage. Again, there is no indication that the tentacles' unarmed attack is subdual.

Occam's razor says the damage is lethal.

 

[Abraxas]

Occam's razor says the damage is lethal.

Not really. You either assume it does lethal damage or you assume it does non-lethal damage like the grapple mechanics state - 1 assumption in either case.

Of course I believe its supposed to cause lethal damage, but I can see the opposite interpretation from the RAW.

 

[Corsair]

Spells do what they say they do. Nothing more or less.

 

[lukelightning]

I say lethal, if ony for the reason that I am lazy and would rather not have to keep track of non-lethal damage and lethal at the same time if I can avoid it. Plus I hate dealing with the "well now we've got 5 unconscious orcs, I guess we should kill 'em....or is that wrong? Maybe they are lawful good orcs...aaaargh damn you, postmodern gaming!"

 

[Abraxas]

Spells do what they say they do. Nothing more or less.

I found this to be really funny, considering the whole thread and poll came about because of the "does the EBT spell provide cover" question.

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course it does lethal damage. The spell specifies that it does bludgeoning damage, it doesn't specifiy that it does non-lethal damage. The spell description trumps the grapple rules.

Bludgeoning damage is a damage type. A damage type does not trump nonlethal since bludgeoning can be either lethal or nonlethal. By itself, bludgeoning does not specify anything about lethal versus nonlethal.

 

[KarinsDad]

Default damage for spells is lethal. If the spell doesn't specify non-lethal, then it's lethal.

But feel free to nit-pick.

Default damage for grappling is nonlethal. If a grappling spell doesn't specify lethal, then it's nonlethal.

But feel free to nit-pick.


PS. There is no rule that default damage for spells is lethal TMK. It is just how people have always played it. I suspect the subject has never come up and I suspect there is no actual rule that states this.