Evard's black tentacles

[shilsen]

EBT grapples. Damage in a grapple is that of an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage.

Hence, EBTs deal nonlethal damage. Granted, it is bludgeoning damage (as if that matters for a spell), but it is still nonlethal (note: unarmed strike damage is bludgeoning as well).

There doesn't seem to be a rules question here at all.


Btw, the fact that EBT does nonlethal damage is what balances the spell. This spell can knock a creature unconscious, but it cannot kill a creature.

I'd say there is a rules question there, since the majority of DMs do seem to treat it as lethal damage. Just because the EBT uses part of the grappling mechanic (and doesn't use all of it, as Abraxas pointed out) doesn't mean that it causes nonlethal damage. IMNSHO

 

[KarinsDad]

I believe the question comes up because EBT doesn't follow the procedures for grappling - there is no touch attack to initiate the grapple.

That is one difference.

The spell uses an opposed grapple check instead of a saving throw to determine if creatures within its spread are affected.

This is a difference between EBT and other spells, not between EBT and grappling.

Also, damage for an unarmed strike from a large creature is usually 1d4 not 1d6. (note: Like unarmed strikes, tentacle damage is bludgeoning damage)

A second difference.

Separate from that, do spells have to explicitly state they do non-lethal damage for the damage not to be normal?

In this case, the spell explicitly states that the creatures are grappling. Hence, the grapple rules are used unless otherwise specified.

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.

And a question, assuming the spell works the way you state, do you give the tentacles iterative grapple attempts based on the high BAB?

Again, using the quote above, it indicates only one check (the word check is singular). This is a third change from the normal grapple check rules.

Just because there are differences does not mean that you throw out all of the grappling rules. You just throw out ones which the spell indicates are different.


Now, an argument could be made that Bludgeoning damage is not Nonlethal Bludgeoning damage. However, unlike the other three differences that you have indicated, bludgeoning damage is not a change from the normal grappling rules since the normal grappling rules do bludgeoning damage. So, this is not an explicit difference, unlike the other three you quoted.

Basically, it comes down to "spells are lethal damage unless indicated otherwise" versus "grapples are nonlethal damage unless indicated otherwise". The reason the grapple rules trumps is because the spell is indicated otherwise, it is indicated as a grapple.


The spell is extremely potent and deadly for a fourth level spell with the damage being lethal damage. Given this, it seems logical to interpret based on the normal grapple rules as opposed to some new rule (EBT does lethal damage, even though grappling does not and even though the spell does not actually state that) that is not explicitly indicated.


If grapples did stun damage as well, so would the spell. For the spell to change something in the normal grapple rules, it does have to explicitly state it.

 

[Abraxas]

The spell is extremely potent and deadly for a fourth level spell with the damage being lethal damage. Given this, it seems logical to interpret based on the normal grapple rules as opposed to some new rule (EBT does lethal damage, even though grappling does not and even though the spell does not actually state that) that is not explicitly indicated.

Its not really a new rule. The write up of EBT is similar to an attack by a summoned creature with the improved grab feat. The tentacles automatically hit any creature in the AoE (a difference for normal grappling and initiating a grapple with the improved grab feat), once it hits the tentacles automatically initiate a grapple, and (if the grapple check is won by the EBT) do normal damage for the attack that established the hold. In addition, if this model is used - the lack of iterative attacks is the norm not the exception.

YMMV

 

[Warmage-in-Onley]

It seems to me that allowing the tentacles to deal lethal damage is reasonable. A creature with natural physical weapons is considered "armed" even when it's unarmed. Is it a stretch to consider the tentacles (a spell effect) to be natural physical weapons (simulating a creature)?

 

[Quasqueton]

In a recent adventure, the sorcerer in my group used EBT against a group of ghouls. We assumed, without even discussing it, that the spell does lethal damage. The EBT killed the ghouls. But if the damage is non-lethal, the EBT would merely have delayed the ghouls, not killed them. Interesting idea.

I'd really like to hear what the designers had in mind and play tested with EBT. Has the Sage ever addressed this?

Quasqueton

 

[KarinsDad]

Its not really a new rule. The write up of EBT is similar to an attack by a summoned creature with the improved grab feat. The tentacles automatically hit any creature in the AoE (a difference for normal grappling and initiating a grapple with the improved grab feat), once it hits the tentacles automatically initiate a grapple, and (if the grapple check is won by the EBT) do normal damage for the attack that established the hold. In addition, if this model is used - the lack of iterative attacks is the norm not the exception.

Except this is not a creature, nor does it use the Improved Grab or Constrict rules. There are no lethal damage rules for Grapple with the exception of weapons and this is not listed as a weapon.

It is a Grapple, hence, it uses the Grapple rules.

Grapple is also not Improved Unarmed Strike, hence it uses the unarmed strike rules, not the improved unarmed strike (lethal or nonlethal) rules.


Granted, Improved Grab is similar to EBT. But unless the spell states that it does Improved Grab, it does not.

 

[Nail]

Nonlethal damage, eh? Huh.

 

[Quasqueton]

Constrict (Ex): A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, after making a successful grapple check. The amount of damage is given in the creature’s entry. If the creature also has the improved grab ability it deals constriction damage in addition to damage dealt by the weapon used to grab.

Does a python do normal or non-lethal damage?

Quasqueton

 

[Abraxas]

Except this is not a creature, nor does it use the Improved Grab or Constrict rules. There are no lethal damage rules for Grapple with the exception of weapons and this is not listed as a weapon.

Tentacles are listed as a natural weapon.

An aside - Evard's Black Tentacles has been around since first edition, and in all previous editions did lethal damage. It seems pretty strange to me that if they meant it to cause non-lethal damage they wouldn't have stated that more clearly.

 

[KarinsDad]

Does a python do normal or non-lethal damage?

According to the python's entry and the grapple rules, it appears that it does lethal damage with the bite and possibly nonlethal damage with the constrict:

Constrict (Ex): On a successful grapple check, a constrictor snake deals 1d3+4 points of damage.

Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a constrictor snake must hit with its bite attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict.

It appears that the constrict can only be done either on a normal grapple, or as a grapple after a bite / Improved Grab attempt.

In either case, it is a Grapple. Grapple does damage as per an unarmed strike (unless the creature has Improved Unarmed Strike).

There should be no difference between an extremely strong man squeezing an opponent and a snake doing it. Constrict does not actually state that there is a difference, but Improved Grab does state that constrict is part of a grapple.


The only portion of the Constrict rules that might contradict this is that Constrict can "crush an opponent" and deals "bludgeoning damage". This could be read as lethal damage, but it does not actually call it out. I suspect many DMs will read this as lethal damage.

As is, the constrict rules (and EBT) rules should be the same as other "pinned / crushed / suffocation rules". Nonlethal damage until the creature falls unconscious at which point new damage is lethal damage (see the Earthquake spell). A constricting snake suffocates its prey, it really does not crush it per se.

Note: this is different than drowning where the character is not actually being "slowly crushed".


Getting back to EBT, I do think that the designers meant both Constrict and EBT to do lethal damage (although why these would be lethal and the high level Earthquake spell is not is kind of strange). But, I do not think they worded EBT in a manner which indicates that it is definitely lethal.