Entangle needs nerfing...

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I'm just going to use DC 10 for clearings/light vegetation, DC 15 for medium vegetation, and DC 20 for heavy. Simple enough for me. If that still turns out to not be enough, I'll bump the check by +2 per round after the first spent trying to get free.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

And they have to either succeed the saving throw or make a DC 20 Strength check. Otherwise, they arn't moving at all. A 40' radius is huge.

Point of order: that's a DC 20 Strength check or Escape Artist check. And Escape Artist is usable untrained. So, for most targets, that means they can use the better of their Strength and Dexterity (which is, mind you, at -4 due to their being entangled).

We now return you to the debate, already in progress.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The issue with using Escape Artist, other than a strength check, is that it (1) is a full round action instead of a standard action, and (2) it applies the armor check penalty. The benefit is that it uses Dex, obviously, for those who need it. It's just that much more unlikely that you'll have the movement necessary to actually escape.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Arguments about it not being available to cast in certain circumstances are not valid ones for saying that the spell is fine; you have to measure up its usefulness in the situations where it can be cast to see how good it is.

Measuring a spell only in those situations where it is useful is illogical because you are completely ignoring opportunity costs. The implicit "overhead" price of Entangle is all those combats when I have prepared Entangle and it is impossible to employ usefully. That may not be a significant for some particular characters, but is important for typical PCs most of the time.

Although the calculus is different, the principle applies to spontaneous casters as well.

Does your DM let you know which spells are the best ones to prepare for the day? I have to guess most days. This is a big problem for Druids because the majority of their particularly useful spells are overspecialized.

 

[Infiniti2000]

And much of that overhead disappears when you consider that druids can spontaneously convert those overspecialized, useless spells. Not so true for the Plant cleric or ranger, however.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Balance cannot be attained through a large bonus for a large drawback. It just doesn't work like that. You end up with something that is often useless, but when it comes up is very overpowered. Or you end up with something that is often overpowered in another campaign, with a few situations where it can't be used. Balance is not some zero sum formula that you can say it has a normal power score of 0, but it 30% of the time a power score of 100, so its power score is actually 30.

Say I have a 1st level cleric spell that kills a target with no save or SR check, but only when the diety deems it appropriate. The cleric can always tell if it is appropriate before casting the spell. The balancing factor, from the designer's point of view, is that the DM will probably never make the diety think it should work. Is this spell somehow "balanced?" I think not. You think so. This is the main issue here.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Jmho..

The objections against Entangle, please correct me if I am misreading any above post.., are:

A: DC 20 check for a 1st level spell is too high
B: 40' area of effect for a 1st level spell is too high
C: People who misread it to create plant-life and abuse the spell in circumstances where, by RAW, the spell would be of no use. This includes DM's that think that a Light Forest is completely overgrown with Light Underbrush.

and, given that you can recreate most of the spells benefits by ambushing the enemy from behind a low wall while they are tromping through a field of Light Underbrush.... anyway...I digress.

I am highly interested in having a balanced version for my Druids to utilize, and to utilize against them, in my campaign. I even started a thread over in House Rules to discuss possible variations of the spell.

So far the feedback has been, in essence, "Dude, this spell is too powerful.".... Gee. Thats nice.

So, we have two camps here:
Group A: "This spell is too powerful, it needs to be changed"
Group B: This spell is powerful in the right circumstances but works if the DM uses the rules.

Both camps agree, I think, that the spell is poorly worded.

Anyway, its been an interesting discussion. Perhaps some of those Group A folks will wander over to the House Rules and provide some comment on what they think should be changed for the spell to be balanced.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And much of that overhead disappears when you consider that druids can spontaneously convert those overspecialized, useless spells. Not so true for the Plant cleric or ranger, however.

In the case of the Druid, that often means the ability to convert an overspecialized spell into a spell that is not useful for the situation at hand. (That is less of a problem for a Cleric who can at least count on spontaneous healing saving a few charges on the CLW wand at the very least.)

The opportunity cost of prepping an overspecialized spell is non-zero, even if the SNA happens to be useful for the situation at hand. It depends a lot on the level of the spell and Druid, among other things.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Balance cannot be attained through a large bonus for a large drawback. It just doesn't work like that. You end up with something that is often useless, but when it comes up is very overpowered. Or you end up with something that is often overpowered in another campaign, with a few situations where it can't be used. Balance is not some zero sum formula that you can say it has a normal power score of 0, but it 30% of the time a power score of 100, so its power score is actually 30.

A good point to raise, but it depends what you mean by "balanced". Using drawbacks to balance off against bonuses is a dangerous mechanical tool, for the reasons you cite. However it is necesary to some degree to encourage diversity within the game.

Some abilities, spells, classes are very powerful or very weak in certain circumstances. The classic example would be the Rogue's Sneak Attack. We generally accept how Sneak Attack plays out because it is part of the texture of the game and helps keep the game interesting, but it would not seem to be balanced by your definition.

If we can accept "that Rogue got the drop on us and kicked our ass", why all the panic over "we went into the forest and that Druid kicked our ass"?

 

[beaver1024]

In the case of the Druid, that often means the ability to convert an overspecialized spell into a spell that is not useful for the situation at hand. (That is less of a problem for a Cleric who can at least count on spontaneous healing saving a few charges on the CLW wand at the very least.)

The opportunity cost of prepping an overspecialized spell is non-zero, even if the SNA happens to be useful for the situation at hand. It depends a lot on the level of the spell and Druid, among other things.

I don't get what you're saying here. SNA is not useful for the situation where Entangle doesn't work?

All spells are specialised to some degree, I mean Fireball only works on vulnerable to fire, low SR, non-evasioned, low reflex save, low hitpoint, multiple opponents which are clustered together and not near enough to affect allies. Should Fireball's damage be doubled because of this?

The ultimate low-opportunity cost ability is shapeshifting because there's always a shape there's applicable for the situation (be it role playing heavy or combat). The penultimate one would have to be summoning because again, you have a variety of monsters to choose from that will help in whatever task is at hand. It is perhaps only powerful less than shapeshifting due to limited applicability in roleplaying heavy situations.

Guess who has both abilities in abundance, probably more so than any other class? The druid.

As someone said that you have to take the spells/abilities in context. Well in the context of the druid's already overpowered abilities, why is entangle so powerful?