Is Entangle supposed to be limited by the available vegetation?

[Wulf Ratbane]

But for the part about underground roots- which is a judgment call by the DM- I'd say Entangle is pretty well designed.

(I'd allow the roots, BTW.)

In areas where there are no roots, the spell is not prepared.

In areas where there are roots, the spell is a powerhouse.

It would be functionally similar, from a poor design standpoint, to a theoretical Slay Black Dragon Named Bob spell.

Now having said all that, I don't have a problem with entangle, and I'm equally happy to posit underground roots as I am the animals that show up at the unlikeliest of times in response to the druid's call.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It would be functionally similar, from a poor design standpoint, to a theoretical Slay Black Dragon Named Bob spell.

I respectfully disagree.

Entangle fits well within the "fluff" boundary of the class that uses it the most, the game's nature wardens, a.k.a. Druids. It requires a bit of living, growing vegetation- something intimately connected to their faith- and where it is absent, its useless...kind of like how Earthquake wouldn't be much use on the Elemental Plane of Air.

SBDNB, OTOH, may not have ANY viable targets within a given plain, or indeed, the multiverse.*

*Though what you propose COULD be an awkward description of a Slay Living spell that requires the being's "truename" as a spell component.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I respectfully disagree.

Entangle fits well within the "fluff" boundary of the class that uses it the most, the game's nature wardens, a.k.a. Druids. It requires a bit of living, growing vegetation- something intimately connected to their faith- and where it is absent, its useless...kind of like how Earthquake wouldn't be much use on the Elemental Plane of Air.

The argument I was objecting to is the implication that the more rare the applicability of the spell, the more powerful you can allow it to be.

That's bad design. The spell will simply not be prepared when it is not applicable; and so it's all gain, no cost.

You'll take Slay Living 99.99% of the time-- and perhaps put SBDNB on a scroll.

Again-- I'm fine with entangle. I don't think it's so powerful that you can't allow the druid to use it via the "underground roots" defense. The primary balancing limitation of entangle in such an environment is its size, where it is as likely to be a hindrance to the party.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The spell will simply not be prepared when it is not applicable; and so it's all gain, no cost.

That's only somewhat true; you do not always know what is going to be "applicable" when you prepare your spells for the day.

In fact, in some campaigns, you rarely know...and in such campaigns, there is actually a trade-off.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's only somewhat true; you do not always know what is going to be "applicable" when you prepare your spells for the day.

In fact, in some campaigns, you rarely know...and in such campaigns, there is actually a trade-off.

This is actually more true the less rare the applicability.

Plants are more common than black dragons named Bob.

 

[Christian]

That's bad design. The spell will simply not be prepared when it is not applicable; and so it's all gain, no cost.

You'll take Slay Living 99.99% of the time-- and perhaps put SBDNB on a scroll.

No perhaps about it, as under the 'Chekov's gun' principle, there's only one reason such a spell would exist, narratively speaking. You absolutely don't want to find yourself in this situation ...
Wizard: "Meh. It's not worth the 700 GP to scribe that stupid spell on a scroll. I mean really, what are the odds?"
(Later, in the dungeon)
Dragon: "Who dares intrude on the lair of the mighty Bob?"
Wizard: "@#*)$(^)(*&"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The argument I was objecting to is the implication that the more rare the applicability of the spell, the more powerful you can allow it to be.

That's bad design.

OK...THAT I can agree with.

 

[frankthedm]

here is what pathfinder did to the spell. I think it is an improvement.

This spell causes plants to wrap around foes in the area of effect or those that enter the area. Creatures that fail their save gain the entangled condition. Creatures that make their save can move as normal, but those that remain in the area must save again at the end of your turn. Creatures that move into the area must save immediately. Those that fail must end their movement and gain the entangled condition. Entangled creatures can attempt to break free as a move action, making a Strength or Escape Artist check. The DC for this check is equal to the DC of the spell. The entire area of effect is considered difficult terrain while the effect lasts.

If the plants in the area are covered in thorns, those in the area take 1 point of damage each time they fail a save versus the entangle or fail a check made to break free. Other effects, depending on the local plants, might be possible at GM discretion.

 

[irdeggman]

No perhaps about it, as under the 'Chekov's gun' principle, there's only one reason such a spell would exist, narratively speaking. You absolutely don't want to find yourself in this situation ...
Wizard: "Meh. It's not worth the 700 GP to scribe that stupid spell on a scroll. I mean really, what are the odds?"
(Later, in the dungeon)
Dragon: "Who dares intrude on the lair of the mighty Bob?"
Wizard: "@#*)$(^)(*&"

Or from Serenity

Jayne "Sure wish I had some grenades right about now. . ."

 

[Jack Simth]

I didn't understand what you meant till I started talking about it with my friend. It's not that the roots are underfoot, it's that the roots are growing down through the roof of the dungeon. Like you'd see if you tunneled into a riverbank. That's pretty cool! And it makes Entangle sufficiently versatile you might actually memorize it, while not applying to every street and mineshaft.

Catch: You don't have Line of Effect to the roots, unless they're exposed. Even if there are a bunch of roots running through the ceiling, unless they breach the dungeon ceiling, the ceiling itself blocks Line of Effect for the Spread, so they remain unaffected.