Evard's Black Tentacles

[Abraxas]

Cover makes sense, these tentacles are pretty large.

Depends on how you envision it. The tentacles are 10 feet long, they could be only 1 inch thick and they don't have to be standing upright like a forest of kelp, they could be writhing on the ground.

 

[satori01]

Totally the DM's call. Cover is not unreasonable,the tentacles are large, Total Cover is probably a little too much.
Besides -4 to hit at higher levels is often insignifigant when compared to the power of the BAB.

 

[airwalkrr]

Whenever a question like this comes up, I look at the RAW. In this case, the spell describes nothing relating to cover, therefore the tentacles grant no cover whatsoever. Perhaps the "DM's best friend" of a -1 or -2 penalty to the attack roll, but anything more than that is probably too restrictive. EBT is already one of the most powerful 4th level spells. It doesn't need loose interpretations of rules to help it out.

 

[Nail]

EBT is already one of the most powerful 4th level spells. It doesn't need loose interpretations of rules to help it out.

You might want to re-think this stance.

The power of EBT is not just that it grapples opponents -- it also allows you to stand outside the AoE and pelt the grappled opponent with missile fire. (Grappled means no Dex mod. to AC!) In most of the cases where I've seen it used, it's the missile fire (and the Fireballs ) that kills the opponents, not the EBT grapple damage.

In one memorable case, our group easily destroyed an Alchemical Golem using EBT. An important fact: attacking the Alchemical Golem at close range means getting splattered with acid each time you hit it. Missile weapons are a good thing(tm)!

Giving a cover bonus to AC for those in the EBT AoE might actually make the spell less powerful, not more.

 

[airwalkrr]

Giving a cover bonus to AC for those in the EBT AoE might actually make the spell less powerful, not more.

Anytime you add something to the rules, you open the door for someone to exploit it. There are enough exploitable rules and it is no incredible challenge to think of a way to exploit EBT granting cover. The spell is fine. It doesn't need "fixing."

 

[Nail]

There's nothing to "fix".

The question is "Does EBT provide cover?" You asserted that answering "yes" made the spell more powerful. I've just pointed out that your assertion is not necessarily true.

"Fixing" EBT doesn't enter into it.

 

[Quasqueton]

EBT is already one of the most powerful 4th level spells. It doesn't need loose interpretations of rules to help it out.

Anytime you add something to the rules, you open the door for someone to exploit it. There are enough exploitable rules and it is no incredible challenge to think of a way to exploit EBT granting cover. The spell is fine. It doesn't need "fixing."

Don’t assume I was making a “loose interpretation”, and don’t assume I was trying to “fix” it. Do I need to explain what happens when you ass-u-me?

For instance, in the situation I mentioned in the OP, I was actually hindering the PCs’ use of the spell. (I was not trying to nerf or hinder the PCs, I was just interpreting the spell description). The PCs were fighting a Huge (but low, quadruped) creature and the sorcerer used EBT twice to “catch” the beast. The beast broke free, easily, and continued the fight. The PC archer wanted to fire at the beast through the EBT in an attempt to get it to come after her, through the field. (Nevermind that even an animal would know better than to move through a field of tentacles that just tried to grab him, but that’s a different issue.)

I imagined/interpreted, “a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long” like a field of 10’ tall kelp, or corn, or wheat, etc. Now, my spur of the moment interpretation may have been wrong (hence why I came here and asked), but it wasn’t a “loose” interpretation or intended to “fix” the spell. I wasn’t adding a feature to the spell. I wasn’t trying to alter anything. Without an illustration of exactly/actually what the spell effect looks like, DMs are left to their imaginations. And such can vary greatly between DMs, and between Players and DMs.

I hate this spell. nothing slows an encounter better than EBT being cast.

I haven’t found this to be true. If you catch a bunch of creatures in the AoE, then you have to roll grapple checks for each one, each round, but that’s really not complicated or long. If you catch just one or two, the checks are no more than doing normal attacks against them, anyway. For each creature in the AoE, the DM rolls one die at the same time as the Player rolls one die. If the Player wins, he rolls another die. A 10 hit-die fireball has more dice rolling – 10 dice for the damage, then one for each victim caught in the AoE.

[Now obscuring mist – that spell slows an encounter down.]

Quasqueton

 

[Nail]

For instance, in the situation I mentioned in the OP, I was actually hindering the PCs’ use of the spell.

Exactly.

Try this: If we "fixed" EBT by making its AoE bigger, would that make the spell more or less powerful? Let's say we made it an 80 ft radius.

[Now obscuring mist – that spell slows an encounter down.]

One of my favorite spells -- from a PCs perceptive -- for exactly this reason. The last thing you want a DM to do is have all of his bad guys act quickly.

 

[frankthedm]

The PCs were fighting a Huge (but low, quadruped) creature and the sorcerer used EBT twice to “catch” the beast. The beast broke free, easily, and continued the fight.

Huge critters are not the foes that EBT is a little too good against. EBT is one of the spells that turn classed PHB NPCs into free XP. If the PCs will see a fair mix of critters and characters the spell is just strong. If the campaign is heavy on classed foes and light on monsters, EBT should be removed at the campaign start.

 

[Quasqueton]

Exactly.

Try this: If we "fixed" EBT by making its AoE bigger, would that make the spell more or less powerful? Let's say we made it an 80 ft radius.

Again, I wasn’t trying to “fix” anything about the spell – I wasn’t trying to change the spell at all. I was merely making an [immediate, off the cuff, without extensive thought] interpretation of its visual effect based on very limited text in the spell. If the spell description said the AoE of EBT was “big”, then your attempt at a comparison would have relevance. What is “big”?

My ruling was based on the question, “What is a field of rubbery tentacles?”

I dislike being told my motives.

Quasqueton