Evard's black tentacles

[Abraxas]

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.

I definitely agree with this statement

 

[KarinsDad]

Tentacles are listed as a natural weapon.

Good point. EBT is treated as a large creature for purposes of the grapple.

However, the damage done is not that of a natural weapon.

Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks. You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons.

The tentacles do not make an attack roll or an attack with the tentacles. They merely grapple and damage with them.

The "attack your opponent" grapple action is not being done, the "damage an opponent" as part of the grapple is what is being done. There are no rules for natural weapons doing lethal damage without a penalty in that case, only for Unarmed Strikes from a Monk.

Damage Your Opponent: While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on your grapple check.

The tentacles could presumably do lethal damage, but if so, presumably the caster must specify that ahead of time and all grapple checks by the spell would be at -4.

PS. Even though normal damage for a Large Creature is D4 + Strength, normal damage for the EBT spell is D6 + 4.

 

[Abraxas]

There is another odd thing about EBT (and certain damaging spells in general) - even when listed as inflicting a damage type (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning/etc) they bypass DR unless specifically stated otherwise. Damage by spells seems to be outside of the normal damage realm and just does spell damage. :\

If a DM of mine had ruled non-lethal damage instead of lethal, we wouldn't have had a TPK . But everyone in that group is a D&D player from way back so the idea on non-lethal damage from an EBT just didn't cross anyones mind - it is an interesting option.

I think I'm going to create my first poll and see what the general consensus is around here.

 

[Nail]

But everyone in that group is a D&D player from way back so the idea on non-lethal damage from an EBT just didn't cross anyones mind - it is an interesting option.

My group too.

It is interesting....I wonder how radically it would shift the use of the spell. As a player, I'd still use it, even against opponents that ignore nonlethal damage. After all, it's just an awesome battlefield control spell against medium or smaller (non-flying) opponents.

Missile-using rogues love it, for example.

 

[Quasqueton]

Non-lethal damage also make it less hard on friends caught in the AoE.

But I'm still not convinced it's non-lethal damage.

Quasqueton

 

[Abraxas]

Poll Posted HERE in case anyone is interested.

 

[Nail]

Done. Thanks, Abraxas.

 

[Ilium]

So I voted "Lethal" in the poll because I believe spells do lethal damage unless stated otherwise. However, I think I'm going to have the spell do nonlethal in my game. It actually makes it more useful in some ways, since you can use it to take prisoners and discourage pursuit in cases where killing your opponents is a bad idea (like escaping from the city watch for example).

I wish there were more spells that did nonlethal damage, actually.

 

[Abraxas]

It also becomes one of the DM's best friend at capturing PCs - follow it up with a solid fog and no ones getting out soon.

 

[mvincent]

I don't know if it helps anyone, but the FAQ says:
"The Evard’s black tentacles spell creates a field of
numerous tentacles in a 20-foot radius spread. Tentacles sprout
from all the surfaces within the spread. The spell actually
works something like an entangle spell that’s capable of
dealing bludgeoning damage. The spell uses an opposed
grapple check instead of a saving throw to determine if
creatures within its spread are affected. Any creature inside the
spread might become grappled, as noted in the spell
description. The spell does not make an initial touch attack as
with normal grappling attempts, so it cannot miss, even if a
creature is invisible or otherwise concealed."

This seems to indicate that it is not like a normal grapple.

Also, does anyone believe that constriction damage is non-lethal?