D&D 3E/3.5 Is Briar Web a 2nd level spell in 3.5e?

[DrSpunj]

Just in case you're curious, I've changed Briar Web like so:

Ooo! Resurrecting your own thread. Is that acceptable according to "Internet Etiquette"?

Didn't you also reduce the radius? I seem to remember the 40' rad being dropped down to 20' with your version, Nail. Or did that not make it into the final revision?

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

I was also under the impression that the area of effect has been halved in both regular Entangle and the new version of Briar Web/Entangling Thorns.....

I have it written down, and you know how I am about such things!

Great minds...

 

[Steverooo]

What I would have done...

1D4, +1/Caster Level, capped at 1D4+4 (since 1D8 damage is supposed to be the cap). Average damage is better, at lower levels, but it doesn't scale.

I would not have decreased the area of effect, at all. Yes, the spell is good, when it can be used, AT LOW LEVELS. When used at higher levels, it will be useless, as Reflex saves improve, HPs improve, and the spell's damage goes up by one point. (Personally, I don't think it needs changing, at all!)

Remember: While you're toning down the powerful Druid, you're also castrating the Ranger, who has very few combat spells worth much of anything, and has his caster level halved, as well.

A seventh level Ranger with a 12 WIS gives a Reflex save of 14...

 

[Nifft]

1D4, +1/Caster Level, capped at 1D4+4 (since 1D8 damage is supposed to be the cap). Average damage is better, at lower levels, but it doesn't scale.

That's nice. But remember, it's a 2nd level spell, so you'll be 3rd level before you cast it.

Perhaps 1d4 +1/3 levels, max 1d4+4 (at 12th level).

-- N

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

After reading it just now it *is* very comparable...to the description I reiterated above. If you're bulling your way through a Wall of Thorns you don't get Dexterity & Dodge bonuses to your AC, and there's no Saving Throw.

They are comparable, except one is a FIFTH level spell. When both can be cast, you'd cast the SECOND level one because it deals more damage.

That's stupid.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Briar Web that took into account the 'hard' AC and did damage like that. 20 is probably a good base for that, at least for the 2nd level version.

Similarly, if you've been totally covered with thorny vines (as Briar Web describes), you really shouldn't escape unscathed (unless you've got DR able to absorb all the damage) if you decide to swing your weapon, jump up & down, or move around. You can do it carefully, while trying to avoid those sharp, pointy spines, and take less damage (with a Reflex half save).

Reread Wall of Thorns. A tank of sufficient level has a good chance of netting low single digits if anything at all in damage. It's easy to get around with preperation. That's the fifth level spell there.

Under the spell's original effects a successful Reflex Save keeps targets from being entangled. With your proposed radius reduction by half to 20' a target affected dead center only has to move 20' to get out of the effect. Since the spell reduces movement by half, and that as a full round action, most targets who succeed at their Reflex save will be out in 2 rounds (and enjoy a cover bonus from the spell during the 1st round).

So the 2nd level spell didn't radically alter the combat? It merely ate up a couple turns of multiple enemies actions, clearly worthless. For a single standard and a 2nd level spell.

Allowing a successful Reflex save to also avoid ALL damage means on the first turn those that save will not take any damage and can use their turn to move to the edge of the spell effect (or out of it if they weren't dead center to begin with and/or have a 40' base speed). On their second turn pretty much all targets will be free if they make their Reflex save.

I must say, I find your opinion of what a single 2nd level spell should do is outrageous.

So, let me ask you, if someone makes their Reflex save both times and takes no damage whatsoever, what's better about Briar Web over Entangle? Why would Rowan spend a 2nd level slot again?

For the chance, the signifigant chance, that they won't. Toss one at a group of Gobbo's and about half would fail. That's if you've a horrible wisdom.

At least with Reflex half on the 1d4 damage (incurred for all actions, like the original spell describes), anyone who made their Reflex save would incur 2-4 points of damage. Not a lot to most but still significant to Nail's basic Goblins (and a reason for Rowan to consider taking Briar Web over Entangle).

I'd strongly advise basing it on something like Wall of Thorns mechanic. I have a feeling you wouldn't like anything that I'd propose as a 2nd level spell. Not with Wall of Thorns as the basis.

I say all of this as a player of a high level druid in a challenging campaign. I don't use Briar Web, I won't use it. It's too good. It can totally remove a large group of people from a combat.

A counterpoints to previous issues:

Restricted Terrain: No longer any concern in 3.5, each Briar Web is a Croc with it's 1d12+6 attack. This isn't a practical downside.

Granting Cover: Not a downside when it's paired with a class that has area effect spells. Even without them it's what alchemist's fire is for. (Summon Swarm was incedibly bad with Briar Web, at least it was in 3.0, I haven't checked 3.5's SS yet.)

 

[Saeviomagy]

Excellent posts! Thanks.

I was out-of-computer-range this weekend, gaming with another friend. I took a 6th level elven ranger, who memorized Entangle twice.

To put it bluntly, I rocked. As an archer, I entangled them, then picked them off one by one as they slogged towards me. Even the Hill Giant (CR 7) had no chance, once the surprise round was over. Fear my 3 caster level prowess!

Is your DM a total moron? Hill giants have this neat little ability called "huck stuff at people who think that ranged combat is a good tactic". Entangling them doesn't stop that from working. They still slam you with 2d6+7 damage, a range of 120ft and an attack bonus of +8. (+6 with entangle).

Ranged combat is still good against a hill giant, but not THAT good.

Oh, and just for laughs try out ANY ranged combat character against a hill giant who doesn't throw rocks.

His speed is only 30ft. Sit at 70ft, and back off if he charges at you. He'll die horribly.

The problems I see with Briar Web are area of effect and no save for the damage taken.

Of course you can just sit still, be totally immune to attacks, and not take damage until the caster gets bored.

It's true that for the situation which I describe, not even a Ref save would have saved those (poor, sterotyped, mis-judged, defenceless!) goblins. They were dead meat once the area of effect was centered on them.

Or they could have just stayed still.

I've seen above the argument: "But they take no damage if they do nothing". Hey, that's great, but not only does that instantly take multiple combatants out of a fight, but it also effectively dooms them to a quick death once their un-Briar Webed compatriots are killed or driven off.

How so? You need to dismiss it to go get them, at which point they're unharmed. You just broke the fight up a bit. Oh, and you've lost the utility of the AoE.

In otherwords, it's a 2nd level save or die spell for multiple (2 to 20!) low level combatants. Not good.

No, it's save or wait for a while. It means that instead of fighting a CR 3 encounter, your players (thanks to judicious use of a second level spell) are up against two CR 1 encounters, each of which still use up resources. Against something like a hill giant, he just soaks the damage and hurls boulders into you.

Alternately your players could have cast any number of other similar spells with the same effect. Burning hands for instance would probably kill half the goblins it hit. Hypnotism would take out (most likely) 2d4 of them. Sleep would take out 4. Hypnotic pattern would be taking out 2d4+(at least) 3 of them. Hell - fog cloud or obscuring mist will seperate them into individual cr 1/3 encounters.

Granting Cover: Not a downside when it's paired with a class that has area effect spells. Even without them it's what alchemist's fire is for.

What part of total cover do you not understand?

Fireball pellets will hit the total cover, and stop, then explode, stopping when they hit the total cover. IOW if you're in total cover, fireball doesn't hurt you.

Alchemists fire will, likewise, strike the total cover and not your target.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

Look, see your name down there? That's 'proper' quoting. I stongly dislike misquoting. You didn't attribute any of the quoted text. Further you mixed quoted text from multiple sources, which makes it look like people are saying things they didn't. I'd really appriciate if you didn't do that.

What part of total cover do you not understand?

Where you think it comes from. Reread that first entry, it's only possibly total cover. A druid up in the air can easily not have five full feet of plant matter between him and a B webbed foe, which is no cover at all. Burn baby burn.

Fireball pellets will hit the total cover, and stop, then explode, stopping when they hit the total cover. IOW if you're in total cover, fireball doesn't hurt you.

You're not in total cover if you've got three or less squares between you and the edge. Burn baby burn.

Alchemists fire will, likewise, strike the total cover and not your target.

Of course, standard D&D doesn't assume 'arc of throw' with splash weapons. It's mildly silly and even the best of rules need a touch of common sense now and then.

Without that, it just totally removes multiple foes from combat. Allowing you to kill all the rest then deal with the left overs. Regardless of saving throws.

 

[Nail]

Look, see your name down there? That's 'proper' quoting. I stongly dislike misquoting.

Me too.

.... it just totally removes multiple foes from combat. Allowing you to kill all the rest then deal with the left overs.

As a DM:
The problems with the spell, as written in the DotW (3.0e), is it's AoE and damage. Taken together with range and duration, as a package, the spell isn't 2nd level. In my game, after discussion with players, we've reduced the AoE to a 20' radius, and the damage to 1d6 if entangled and taking an action.

My understanding is that our group can "playtest" this change, and see if it's too much, too little, or "just wrong".

As a player of a 6th lvl elven ranger:
It was a "one-shot", one meeting adventure. The DM didn't have alot of experience with playing HIll Giants. But he's gamed for decades, and knows tactical combat. Asking if he is a "moron" is nothing but flame-bait.

As for the hill giant tactics: they were excellent. They were illusionarily disguised as elves, and walked right up to us before we caught on. When revealed, they had greatclubs and armor, but they did not have sacks of throwing stones with them. Given the circumstance, this was quite reasonable.

Fortunately, us players had good tactics too, won init, and cast multiple entangles. The rest was just mop-up. Entangle, too, is not a 1st level spell, IMHO.

In the future, Saeviomagy, you may want to concider the possibility that the people you are posting about are not morons.....heaven forbid, they might even be experienced gamers. I understand that some of us are even capable of writing complete sentences.

 

[youspoonybard]

Entanglf?

-- N

Entangle + Elf? : P

 

[Nail]

Hey, Nail,

I was also under the impression that the area of effect has been halved in both regular Entangle and the new version of Briar Web/Entangling Thorns.....

I have it written down, and you know how I am about such things!

Rowan

I've now got that very correction to Entangle posted to our House Rules Doc. ...And as usual, if this turns out to be a bad change, we'll fix it!

Ooo! Resurrecting your own thread. Is that acceptable according to "Internet Etiquette"?

Errr....