Evard's Black Tentacles

[Festivus]

The FAQ added the addendum that once something escapes the grapple it's not re-grappled until it leaves and re-enters the area.

It nerfs the spell quite a bit, making it almost useless.

I haven't read the FAQ on this, but I assume this applies to other things too, like Grease and Stinking Cloud?

 

[Bad Paper]

yeah, I'm not happy with the FAQ-nerf. I like the spell to be insanely deadly to wizards.

FWIW, I run the spell "pre-FAQ," that is: if you aren't grappled, then you have to keep rolling checks in the area of effect.

 

[KarinsDad]

Just wondering how something like Spring Attack would work if you made your grapple check previously. I am assuming you could spring out of the area effect and make your attack, but then must you remake your check when returning?

With the FAQ ruling, one should just stay in the area while using Spring Attack. He would then only have to make the check once.

Without the FAQ ruling, yes, one would have to re-roll the check, regardless of whether he leaves or not.

 

[Nail]

Just for giggles, here's the FAQ entry:

Is a character who remains within the area of effect of
an Evard’s black tentacles spell subject to being grappled
again after avoiding the tentacles initially, or only upon
entering the area?

It appears that Evard’s black tentacles attack anyone a) in
the spell’s area when the spell is cast, or b) anyone entering the
area, but not c) anyone within the area of the spell on later
rounds but free of the tentacles. Thus, if you avoid the initial
attack or free yourself from the grapple, the tentacles won’t
attack you again.

"It appears..."???????

Please. What a dodge.

 

[Oryan77]

Hmm, I'm not so sure I mind the FAQ revision. As the DM, it's pretty frustrating dealing with a sorcerer that can cast this spell multiple times in an encounter. It has such a high grapple check that it pretty much puts any "minions" out of commision no matter how close to level they are with the PC's. Using the revision helps to keep the encounters somewhat challenging.

It's not so bad when the DM uses the original version of the spell, because the spell doesn't come into play that often with NPC's.

The spell is still really devestating as a 4th lvl spell even with the revision. That grapple check is hard to overcome.

 

[IanB]

Just for giggles, here's the FAQ entry:



"It appears..."???????

Please. What a dodge.

I forget which part of the FAQ-good/FAQ-bad camps you are in, but in this case it appears (heh) that the FAQ is just interpreting the text as written, which is what many here seem to want from the FAQ.

I think the FAQ interpretation matches the wording. I *assume* it doesn't match the intent, but who knows.

 

[AbeTheGnome]

You could take a hint from the entry for the giant squid.

An opponent can attack a giant squid’s tentacles with a sunder attempt as if they were weapons. A giant squid’s tentacles have 10 hit points each. If a giant squid is currently grappling a target with the tentacle that is being attacked, it usually uses another limb to make its attack of opportunity against the opponent making the sunder attempt.

Assuming that each tentacle takes up a 5 x 5 square, you could make nine sunder attempts and clear your area. Alternately, you could allow them each to be individual creatures, leaving the way open for great cleave. A talented fighter could clear the area in one round.

 

[mvincent]

it appears (heh) that the FAQ is just interpreting the text as written, which is what many here seem to want from the FAQ.

I was thinking the same thing.

I think the FAQ interpretation matches the wording. I *assume* it doesn't match the intent

Agreed

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the FAQ interpretation matches the wording.

And which wording would that be?

Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check

The problem with this sentence is that area affect spells with a duration typically affect all creatures within the area as long as the creature is within the area. This spell does not call out an explicit exception to that general rule.

That is an inference that people are making from this sentence, but that is not how area affect duration spells work.

Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly the result travels with the subjects for the spell’s duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area then the spell stays with that area for its duration. Creatures become subject to the spell when they enter the area and are no longer subject to it when they leave.

According to this general rule, the FAQ is wrong on this because the spell does not state that the check is only at casting time.

 

[Nail]

I forget which part of the FAQ-good/FAQ-bad camps you are in, but in this case it appears (heh) that the FAQ is just interpreting the text as written, which is what many here seem to want from the FAQ.

I just love that word "appears" - especially when it occurs in the quasi-errata official FAQ. It appears as if the FAQ is guessing the apparent rules that appear in the 3.5e PH. But who knows, appearances can be deceiving.



Look: the FAQ is meant to clear up confusion. If its authors think something is so, then they should write that. Putting the word "appears" in there strongly implies they've got no-freakin'-idea what the RAW actually says.

I think the FAQ interpretation matches the wording.

I disagree, based on the general rule of spell effects......but I readily admit the RAW is shaky here.