Killer Shrike
First Post
In the Rope of Entanglement description in the DMG, the Rope is stated to be Large and to have Strength of 22. Based on the fact that it makes a grapple check to entangle a victim, I recently adjudicated that if it successfully grappled an opponent it inflicts 1d4 + 6 points of unarmed damage based on the letter of the Grappling rules in the PHB. Since the items description does not indicate that it constricts the opponent I also adjudicated that it only causes this damage when first entangling an opponent, not on subsequent rounds once the target is entangled.
This immediately touched off a massive and unexpected argument.
There are several sides of the argument, and I can see pros & cons in all of them.
posit 1: The rope shouldnt inflict damage because the description of the item doesnt specifically say it does. P: Simplifies the whole mess by treating the magic item description as a self contained encapsulated mechanic. C: The item does rely on the Grapple rules, and successful Grapple initiation inflicts unarmed damage. Unarmed damage is based on Strength and Size, both of which traits are defined for a Rope of Entanglement, though indirectly.
posit 2: Ropes are not weapons and are not designed/intended to do damage. The do not inflict unarmed damage because they are not capable of being armed or unarmed. P: Simplifies the problem by establishing the unarmed damage of the rope as 0; thus even if the Grapple rules are invoked by the item, the damage inflicted is set to nil. C: Ropes can cause damage and can be used as a weapon. Both the hangman's noose and the lasso stand testament to the idea that rope can be used offensively. Further, the Rope of Entanglement is animated; it might be an inanimate object normally, but the magic invested in it gives it motive force with prodigious strength. Unarmed damage is based on Strength and Size (see above), and regardless of the items material composition it has values for both traits.
posit 3: The Rope of Entanglement is a hold over concept from the previous edition, contrived to comply with the new rules system. Though on the surface it might appear that the RoE might cause damage when initiating its Entanglement effect thru the convenience of using the existing Grapple rules, such was not in the spirit of the item and therefore should be Rule-0'd as not causing damage. P: Irons out a potential system conversion artifact by 'common sensing' it out of play. C: Do too much of this and you might as well still be playing the old edition. Many aspects of the rules have similar 'same-name, different-mechanic' issues. In the interests of moving forward, it is better to disregard what once was true and take new versions at face value rather than trying to maintain the flavor of the older edition just becuase it is more familiar.
posit 4: The RoE is stated to be Large and to have a Str of 22. It has a +15 to Grapple checks. If the +4 Size bonus and +6 Str bonus are subtracted from this +15, the RoE has an unspecified
base +5 bonus to its Grapple checks. If the Rope is not intended to cause damage, the why not just give it a +15 bonus and not refer to both its Strength and Size? Size is useful to know for purposes of what can and cannot be grappled, but the size range of the target creature could easily be given in the items description. Other than adding to a Grapple check the only other thing either strength is used for is to calculate damage inflicted. Since both pieces of information are provided, it is only logical that they would drop nicely into the existing Grapple rules, which clearly state that unarmed damage is inflicted when initiating a successful Grapple. P: This seems to make logical sense when going step by step thru the rules. C: It is a strung together interpretation of existing rules and is not directly stated in the item description.
Anyway, all that aside, does anyone have any clarification of this, and baring that an opinion?
This immediately touched off a massive and unexpected argument.
There are several sides of the argument, and I can see pros & cons in all of them.
posit 1: The rope shouldnt inflict damage because the description of the item doesnt specifically say it does. P: Simplifies the whole mess by treating the magic item description as a self contained encapsulated mechanic. C: The item does rely on the Grapple rules, and successful Grapple initiation inflicts unarmed damage. Unarmed damage is based on Strength and Size, both of which traits are defined for a Rope of Entanglement, though indirectly.
posit 2: Ropes are not weapons and are not designed/intended to do damage. The do not inflict unarmed damage because they are not capable of being armed or unarmed. P: Simplifies the problem by establishing the unarmed damage of the rope as 0; thus even if the Grapple rules are invoked by the item, the damage inflicted is set to nil. C: Ropes can cause damage and can be used as a weapon. Both the hangman's noose and the lasso stand testament to the idea that rope can be used offensively. Further, the Rope of Entanglement is animated; it might be an inanimate object normally, but the magic invested in it gives it motive force with prodigious strength. Unarmed damage is based on Strength and Size (see above), and regardless of the items material composition it has values for both traits.
posit 3: The Rope of Entanglement is a hold over concept from the previous edition, contrived to comply with the new rules system. Though on the surface it might appear that the RoE might cause damage when initiating its Entanglement effect thru the convenience of using the existing Grapple rules, such was not in the spirit of the item and therefore should be Rule-0'd as not causing damage. P: Irons out a potential system conversion artifact by 'common sensing' it out of play. C: Do too much of this and you might as well still be playing the old edition. Many aspects of the rules have similar 'same-name, different-mechanic' issues. In the interests of moving forward, it is better to disregard what once was true and take new versions at face value rather than trying to maintain the flavor of the older edition just becuase it is more familiar.
posit 4: The RoE is stated to be Large and to have a Str of 22. It has a +15 to Grapple checks. If the +4 Size bonus and +6 Str bonus are subtracted from this +15, the RoE has an unspecified
base +5 bonus to its Grapple checks. If the Rope is not intended to cause damage, the why not just give it a +15 bonus and not refer to both its Strength and Size? Size is useful to know for purposes of what can and cannot be grappled, but the size range of the target creature could easily be given in the items description. Other than adding to a Grapple check the only other thing either strength is used for is to calculate damage inflicted. Since both pieces of information are provided, it is only logical that they would drop nicely into the existing Grapple rules, which clearly state that unarmed damage is inflicted when initiating a successful Grapple. P: This seems to make logical sense when going step by step thru the rules. C: It is a strung together interpretation of existing rules and is not directly stated in the item description.
Anyway, all that aside, does anyone have any clarification of this, and baring that an opinion?
Last edited: