how does evard's black tentacles work, and/or why is it good?

[evilbob]

I can imagine the existance of some alternate spell which regrapples every turn, but that would be more powerful, and slower in gameplay, and might reasonable be a higher level spell.

I'm not sure if this is entirely the case. I think there are few creatures to whom "multiple grapple checks" would even apply. Almost anything will be able to escape the area of the spell if they succeed in the initial check.

The only two instances where this really matters are: creatures who have used their own actions to succeed in grapple checks to escape the spell and do not have enough action/movement left over on their turn to leave the area, and creatures who have succeeded in making a grapple check but who might stay within the area of the spell for a strategic advantage (in order to make ranged attacks while avoiding melee). The second is really an abuse of the spell against the caster, and makes me feel like the "grapples every round" idea is best. However, the former means that anything lucky enough to finally break free of the grapple is possibly going to be re-grappled on the caster's turn (assuming that's when the re-grapple happens) - thus avoiding only the damage, but still being denied actions. This does seem more powerful (and would make more checks), but would it come up that often? Or maybe: would it come up more often than an intelligent, ranged character taking advantage of the spell?

 

[eamon]

True, it says this in regard to those grappled, but it does make clear that the tentacles are continually aggressive (causing grapple checks each round in this case), and gives an idea of the writer's intent (despite the exact, literal wording). I can think of dozens of D&D rules that would be completely wrong if followed literally.

What do you think the writer's intent was?

I think the writer's intent was that the the tentacles would inexorably crunch anything they hold fast - not that they're actively aggressive once you're grappled, but that the grappling mechanic merely reflects the best way to express slow constriction by tentacles.

I also think that in general rules intent should trump literal reading - but usually, clear rules crunch is the best vehicle for that intent. It's only in odd corner cases where there's a potential conflict - say, the precise meaning of "effect" such as those which can enhance or improve a monk's unarmed strike as if it were a natural weapon, or the interaction of various rules from different locations, such as those many cases where a rule prescribes a particular flow of events, but fails to deal with extra options offered by other rules.

Such confusion isn't present in the black tentacles spell (as far as I can see). There's no external rules conflict to resolve or any hidden interaction the designer forgot to deal with explicitly, nor is there vagueness in the terminology. The only point for confusion is that it's odd that the tentacles take no action unless they're in a grapple: "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." The preceding sentence doesn't specify what the tentacles do if they're not grappling.

Sure, it's a little odd that the tentacles only try grappling once - but retry if you exit and reenter the area, but that's the model behavior for other spells too, like the symbol spells such as Symbol of Death.

So, the intent argument is not based on imprecise terminology nor on rules interaction but on common sense - which, though valuable, is risky, especially when it comes to the "motivation" of tentacles to grapple each round. And of course, there is the FAQ which is a secondary indication of intent.

In any case, I think the overall intent is just to make a nasty tentacle spell which entangles and constricts its victims - a horror staple. That's certainly what they succeeded at, no matter the interpretation on the grapple issue. I think the grapple issue is mostly a question of how to translate constricting tentacles into a D&D mechanic, which, as so often, is only somewhat reasonable.

 

[mvincent]

I think the writer's intent was that the the tentacles would inexorably crunch anything they hold fast - not that they're actively aggressive once you're grappled

In 1st and 2nd edition, the spell was continually hostile to anyone in the area, regardless of them being grappled. I don't see the writer intending to depart from that paradigm.

But ultimately: if I ruled that someone could safely stand around in the tentacles after avoiding the first grapple, all my players (who never even played earlier editions) would look at me with "WTF" expressions. As much as I love the FAQ, burning that much Suspension of Disbelief to follow it here wouldn't be worth it for me. ymmv.

 

[moritheil]

"Once the tentacles grapple an opponent . . . "

What do you understand "grapple an opponent" to mean?

Also, the main use of this spell is in tying up fodder and annoying enemy spellcasters. I wouldn't expect it to work on the hulking BBEG barbarian, but I would expect his robe-wearing, spell-toting cultist advisor to dislike it.

 

[eamon]

I understand grapple an opponent to mean being in a grapple with an opponent (with consequences such as losing your dex bonus to attacks from outside the grapple etc.).

I can see the fluff argument suggesting that the tentacles shouldn't be very aware and behave no different the first round from any later round, but I really do think the text itself is pretty clear-cut.

Am I really the only one thinking that? I'm beginning to doubt here...

 

[moritheil]

I understand grapple an opponent to mean being in a grapple with an opponent (with consequences such as losing your dex bonus to attacks from outside the grapple etc.).

I can see the fluff argument suggesting that the tentacles shouldn't be very aware and behave no different the first round from any later round, but I really do think the text itself is pretty clear-cut.

Am I really the only one thinking that? I'm beginning to doubt here...

I have always seen it continuously attempt to grapple, but I do see your point - nothing explicitly says it should attempt to grapple more than once.

 

[evilbob]

At the very least, after all this discussion I'm happy to know that this spell is at least as confusing as I thought it was.