Does the Evard's Black Tentacles spell inflict lethal damage

[Nyarlathotep]

I think it EBT does do lethal damage (and so does constrict). My default assumption is that whenever damage is mentioned it's considered to be lethal damage of a specified type unless the text mentions otherwise. In this case:

Black Tentacles
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.

According to the glossary on the WotC site, deal damage is defined as:

<b>Deal Damage</B>
Cause damage to a target with a successful attack...

and damage is defined as:

<B>Damage</B>
A decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by an injury, illness, or magical effect. The three main categories of damage are lethal damage, nonlethal damage, and ability damage. In addition, wherever it is relevant, the type of damage an attack deals is specified, since natural abilities, magic items, or spell effects may grant immunity to certain types of damage. Damage types include weapon damage (subdivided into bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing) and energy damage (positive, negative, acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic). Modifiers to melee damage rolls apply to both subcategories of weapon damage (melee and unarmed). Some modifiers apply to both weapon and spell damage, but only if so stated. Damage points are deducted from whatever character attribute has been harmed -- lethal and nonlethal damage from current hit points, and ability damage from the relevant ability score).

I suppose you can read it a couple of ways, but to me this means that there is: Lethal damage, non-lethal damage, and ability damage. Bludgeoning is specifically mentioned as a type of weapon damage. and non-lethal damage isn't specifically mentioned in the spell description. So the character takes 1d6+4 weapon damage of the bludgeoning type. If the characters was to have taken non-lethal damage it would be specifically mentioned as such in the spell description.

 

[Caliban]

I still do not see such a default damage rule.

PHB, Page 134, DAMAGE: "When your attack succeeds, you deal damage... Damage reduces a target's current hit points."

PHB, Page 146, NONLETHAL DAMAGE: "Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points."

So when the rules use the term "damage" without specifying lethal, nonlethal, or ability damage, it is damage that reduces a targets hit points, or in other words, lethal damage.

Everywhere else in the rules, the term "damage" is most commonly used to refer to lethal damage.

So, when the EBT spell specifically states that it does 1d6+4 bludgeoning damage, and does not specifically state that it does 1d6+4 nonlethal bludgeoning damage, I have to believe that it does lethal damage, in spite of it using the grapple mechanic to deliver the damage.

In any case, I can't take any more of the hostile tone and constant verbal jabs you resort to whenever anyone disagrees with you. It causes me stress, and makes me want to respond in kind, which makes me feel worse. I'm trying to reduce the amount of stress in my life, and I'd rather not give up posting on these forums. So I'm putting you on ignore.

Have fun with your verbal sparring, just leave me out of it.

 

[Abraxas]

To everyone that seems to be getting so upset about this, chill please.

There are 2 positions, they are (more or less)

1) Spells by default do normal damage and this spell requires explicit text to deal non-lethal damage

2) This spell uses the grapple mechanic, the grapple mechanic defaults to non-lethal damage, so this spell requires explicit text to deal lethal damage

I can honestly see both as valid interpretations - telling someone to feel free to nit-pick was throwing the first stone in a glass house and uncalled for - agree to disagree and move on.

Happy Trails

 

[Caliban]

- telling someone to feel free to nit-pick was throwing the first stone in a glass house and uncalled for - agree to disagree and move on.

Happy Trails

I fail to see how taking one of my statements out of context is in anyway relevent to your stated purpose, and it just seems included in order to be deliberately inflammatory.

Singling me out seems like an odd sort of thing to do when you claim to want everyone to "chill please". In other words, try practicing what you preach before you try telling other people what to do, m'kay?

"Happy Trails" indeed.

 

[Umbran]

Moderator:

Folks,
The rising tensions here are not a good sign. If you're getting hot under the collar, or someone's style is cheesing you off, or even if you feel you absolutely *must* win your point, take a breather, please.

 

[Warmage-in-Onley]

Spirited debate is an integral element of a Rules Forum. Such a debate causes me to slow down, re-examine the relevant rules, and, ultimately, come away with a better understanding of those rules (usually based on an examination of an argument I disagreed with!). Courtesy should be a goal of all participants on these forums, but, you should be prepared for its occasional absence. Do not be deterred by those who oppose you! I, for one, value Caliban's thoughts and opinions as a fellow poster. And, I think Evard's is lethal.

 

[Piratecat]

Courtesy should be a goal of all participants on these forums, but, you should be prepared for its occasional absence. Do not be deterred by those who oppose you!

Having people disagree with you is a fact of life in the rule forum. The problem comes when you start taking it personally, or get sarcastic due to past interaction with another member who you usually disagree with. That's what we're seeing here.

If you plan to be rude or insulting, even in a really clever way that you think will slip under the moderators' notice, then you shouldn't click on 'submit reply.' It's pretty much that simple. We expect people to self-moderate and be adults here, and we also expect them to abide by the spirit of the site's rules. This is one case where the RAW is less important; we saw that in last year's nonsense where some members were having fun straddling the line and goading other people, just to watch them get banned. That's not something we have a lot of tolerance for at this point.

As mods, we try to be low impact and give people the benefit of a doubt. If you find you're getting warned, though, please take a long and hard look at your posting style and reduce your pugnaciousness if necessary. That's by far the best solution.

I don't mean to hijack this thread. Email me if this needs clarification.

 

[IcyCool]

We expect people to self-moderate

I'm self-moderating right now, IYKWIMAITYD.

 

[Infiniti2000]

My apologies for the continued hijack...

I don't mean to hijack this thread.

You're a pirate, it's your job to hijack things!

I2K, who doesn't want to get carjacked...

 

[mvincent]

who doesn't want to get carjacked...

Doesn't that cost extra?

My apologies for not self-moderating myself