Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4048314" data-attributes="member: 51942">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 <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfDeath.htm" target="_blank">Symbol of Death</a>.  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.</blockquote>

Verification