Touch attack for Evard's Black Tentacles?

[KarinsDad]

Except that it uses the singular, "a" with no mention of repeats (unlike, CloudKill or Incindiary Cloud which both specify that it is every round for everyone inside (although the save or Die section of cloudkill doesn't say that - just the Con damage section)) - which may very well mean "once", and not once per round. It could also be a simple oversight, and truly mean once per round.

Precisely.

The spell could easily be read that you only get grappled once (total) unless you re-enter the area. Once you escape (if you failed that one grapple check), you no longer can be re-grappled (unless you exit and re-enter the area).

"every creature within the area must make a (i.e. one) grapple check"

This is plain English, and I'm pretty sure you're arguing against it purely for the sake of arguing against it.

This is plain English Jeff, and I'm pretty sure you're arguing against it purely for the sake of arguing against it.

PS. I will state my position again even though you keep accusing me of arguing a different position because you seem incapable of understanding what I write and keep accusing me of doing something else:

The spell is not clearly written. That is my only point here.

I interpret the spell to mean that you get attacked when it is cast, immediately whenever you enter the area of it, and once per round during the spell caster's turn. The spell does not explicitly state this, but that is a reasonable interpretation based on what is written there and how other continuous area effect spells work.

But, it is not the ONLY valid interpretation based on what is actually written.

 

[Thanee]

Anybody can create any interpretation he likes, but there's a difference between an interpretation that follows what the spell explicitly says, and an interpretation that doesn't. The former is valid; the latter is not.

IMHO the spell effect describes only two moments when the grapple check has to be done.

Immediately (upon casting; because that's what the "every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check" can only mean), and whenever someone "enters the area".

Stepping from one square inside the area to another could be argued as entering the area, tho I wouldn't normally read it that way.

These are (IMHO) the only valid interpretations, that once you are free you no longer get grappled (most likely) and that you will get grappled once you enter another square (a bit of a stretch (from the text), but possible, after all, AoO from moving in a threatened area also work this way).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Except that it uses the singular, "a" with no mention of repeats

If a wizard casts a spell, he opens himself to "an" attack of opportunity. Does that mean just one? What about if he casts a spell the next round? Is he subject to "an" attack of opportunity?

If a wizard casts a spell while threatened, he is subject to an attack of opportunity. Not six attacks of opportunity (unless surround by six opponents). An attack of opportunity. If the wizards casts another spell while threatened, he is again subject to an (note the singular) attack of opportunity.

Characters within the area of black tentacles are subject to a grapple check. Not six grapple checks. A grapple check. If the character stays in the area, he is again subject to a (note the singular) grapple check.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The spell is not clearly written. That is my only point here.

It's only unclear if you actually change the language of the spell, as you keep doing (for some reason).

I interpret the spell to mean that you get attacked when it is cast, immediately whenever you enter the area of it, and once per round during the spell caster's turn. The spell does not explicitly state this, but that is a reasonable interpretation based on what is written there and how other continuous area effect spells work.

I get that. As I said before, "Nice job of reading the spell."

But, it is not the ONLY valid interpretation based on what is actually written.

There are other interpretations, certainly, but they're "valid" only in the same way that someone's opinion that the earth is flat is "valid." The only way to read the spell as you're saying it "can be validly read" is by twisting the language until it screams.

Seriously, I've read some silly arguments before, but the "'a' equals 'one and only one ever'" argument may very well be the silliest.

Of those mentioned, the argument y'all should be pushing (it's not strong, but it's better than the above) is the one that most (if not all) spells with continuing effects have language stating the continuing effects in the text. Its absence doesn't negate the clarity of the existing language, but its definitely would remove the ability to make even a tortured argument for a different interpretation. And it's an argument I'll mostly concede (since I have no interest in combing for a "continuing effects" general rule).

(As an aside, take a look at the web spell. By the text of the spell, someone who blunders into an existing web cannot become immobilized.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Immediately (upon casting; because that's what the "every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check" can only mean), and whenever someone "enters the area".

I just don't get this. Why must "every creature within the area of the spell" only mean "when the spell is cast"? Why can't it simply mean what it says? Web, after all, states that the Reflex save is made only upon casting. Why are you adding those words to black tentacles, when they're not in the text, and not adding them to the text leaves the spell perfectly understandable? Why do people insist on adding or changing the language, and then making the claim that the spell (with their added or changed language) isn't clear?

Stepping from one square inside the area to another could be argued as entering the area, tho I wouldn't normally read it that way.

We agree that's a stretch, at least. (I find it actually funny. One "enters" an area only once ... between entrances, one must "exit." The concept of "entering an area" being synonymous with "moving within an area' is just ... Lewis Carrollish.)

enter another square (a bit of a stretch (from the text), but possible, after all, AoO from moving in a threatened area also work this way).

How is it that nobody quite grasps that there is a difference between "entering another square within the area of the spell" and "entering the area of the spell"? It's bizarre. I just don't know where to go from here.

And people think a "simpler" tax code will actually be simpler.

 

[Thanee]

I just don't get this. Why must "every creature within the area of the spell" only mean "when the spell is cast"?

Because that's what the spell says. Every creature within the area of the spell makes a (= one) grapple check. Period. That's a pretty definite description.

Spell effects happen when the spell is cast, that's how spells generally work.
Unless a spell effect mentions something, it doesn't happen.
If something happens every round, the spell description says so.

The effect of a spell has to be written in the description, that is every creature makes a (= one) grapple check. No mentioning of any additional grapple checks, unless you enter the area (whatever that means precisely (see below)). It doesn't say if, when or how any additional grapple checks would be done (except when entering the area). There's no per round or anything involved. Other comparable spells say so quite clearly, Entangle for example.

The spell description details how the tentacles continue to crush grappled victims, but it doesn't say, that they try to grapple escaped victims again.

That "only" you put there is not making things up, it's just a clarification (a ~ one ~ only one)... the "every round" part, however, clearly is, because there is absolutely nothing in the spell description hinting that way.

It's just how you envision the spell to work, it's not what the spell says it does.

How is it that nobody quite grasps that there is a difference between "entering another square within the area of the spell" and "entering the area of the spell"? It's bizarre. I just don't know where to go from here.

What do you mean there? I just wrote, that there are two options (those are naturally different from each other) to read this: The literal way (entering the area (from outside), which can only happen if you are not inside the area already, because you cannot enter something, if you are already inside; I don't enter a house, if I move from one room to another, for example), or as entering a new square covered by the area.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

I just don't get this. Why must "every creature within the area of the spell" only mean "when the spell is cast"? Why can't it simply mean what it says? Web, after all, states that the Reflex save is made only upon casting. Why are you adding those words to black tentacles, when they're not in the text, and not adding them to the text leaves the spell perfectly understandable? Why do people insist on adding or changing the language, and then making the claim that the spell (with their added or changed language) isn't clear?

Yes, why are you adding the words and every round on the caster's turn, when they're not in the text?

Why are you IGNORING what is actually written? I just don't get this.

Show us EXACTLY which words in the spell indicate that the grapple attempt (not the crush attempt if grappled, but the grapple attempt) occurs "every round on the caster's turn".

Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check, opposed by the grapple check of the tentacles.

This does not explicitly state when this occurs at all. Unlike Wall of Fire which explicitly states:

The wall deals this damage when it appears and on your turn each round to all creatures in the area.

Pot calling the kettle black there Jeff? Everybody else here is wrong about how clear the spell is written except you???

Your interpretation is ONE possible one. No more. No less.

The spell is unclear. To be clear, it would have to explicitly state that it attempts to grapple every round on the caster's turn (or not). To be clear, it would have to explicitly state that once a character escapes, he is immune to the tentacles while in the area until the caster's next turn (or not).

It explicitly states none of these, hence, it is unclear.

Just because you happen to read it one way does not change what is written and make it any more clear, it only means that you are convinced it means something that it does not actually state.

 

[Nellisir]

My warmage has recently not been casting EBT precisely because I wanted to confirm how the spell really works. My own opinion, after reading the spell and the opinions here, is that creatures affected by the spell are in danger of being grappled if they a) are in the area of effect when the spell is cast, or b) enter the area of effect (which is to say, from outside. You can't "enter" something you're already in). Once they break free, they can move at half speed, having deciphered the movements of the tentacles (that last part is flavor text).

It's the least pleasant option for my warmage, but the fairest, IMO - it puts the grapple check in the same category as a saving throw. Most spells require either a single saving throw or single (touch) attack roll per target. This requires a single grapple check per target.

It's worth noting that while you can kill creatures in EBT with ranged spells, it's harder to affect them with ranged attacks and almost impossible to melee with them (though I suppose a rogue with a very high Escape Artist skill could voluntarily enter an EBT).

Cheers
Nell.

 

[VorpalStare]

I think both views about the tentacles attacking or not attacking a creature within the field each turn are completely valid.

Strict reading of the text does not say that they attack creatures standing in their midst, and since spells only do what they specify (Common sense often does not apply to magic, after all.), extra effects should not be inferred. On the other hand, the tentacles clearly actively seek out new targets beyond the round the spell is cast, since they attack anything that enters their area. It's not unreasonable to assume that the tentacles do not differentiate between creatures that just came into reach and those that have been standing in the same spot within reach.

Ambiguity like this requires a DM's judgement call on a case-by-case basis. If this was a creature (and the text says to treat it as such, as least with regards to the opposed grapple check), I would certainly have it attack everyone within reach each round. Since it is a spell that is already very powerful, I would, instead, rule in such a way as to reduce it's power, and not let the tentacles attack a creature that escaped unless it left the area and returned.

 

[Jack Simth]

If a wizard casts a spell, he opens himself to "an" attack of opportunity. Does that mean just one? What about if he casts a spell the next round? Is he subject to "an" attack of opportunity?

If a wizard casts a spell while threatened, he is subject to an attack of opportunity. Not six attacks of opportunity (unless surround by six opponents). An attack of opportunity. If the wizards casts another spell while threatened, he is again subject to an (note the singular) attack of opportunity.

Characters within the area of black tentacles are subject to a grapple check. Not six grapple checks. A grapple check. If the character stays in the area, he is again subject to a (note the singular) grapple check.

Turn it around; if a caster casts a spell with a standard action and a non-concentration duration of 1 round/level, does he continue to provoke an attack of opportunity every round while the spell remains in effect? That would be kinda silly - especially when you extend it to such long-running spells as Mage Armor that nearly every mage runs continuously. That's rediculous, of course, as is your counterexample, yet it's the same situation as your counterexample, using the same basic logic as you appear (note appear) to be using for Black Tentacles.

Of those mentioned, the argument y'all should be pushing (it's not strong, but it's better than the above) is the one that most (if not all) spells with continuing effects have language stating the continuing effects in the text. Its absence doesn't negate the clarity

You appear to be the only one claiming it's clear - which is, in and of itself, a decent argument that it's not.

of the existing language, but its definitely would remove the ability to make even a tortured argument for a different interpretation. And it's an argument I'll mostly concede (since I have no interest in combing for a "continuing effects" general rule).

Actually, I did mention it - in a post you quoted from, in a sentence you cut apart and only partially quoted. It was persued - you just ignored it completely, so there wasn't any followup.

(As an aside, take a look at the web spell. By the text of the spell, someone who blunders into an existing web cannot become immobilized.)

Which isn't unreasonable, as someone who breaks free after having been immobilized likewise doesn't become immobilized at a later date - just slowed (well, stops if fails the str check, but can still act, just hampered). Someone entering a web from outside doesn't become immobilized because that person isn't subject to a bunch of sticky strands suddenly appearing closely aboutthem on every side - they can see what's ahead and be careful about moving; if pushed suddenly, the strands only impact one side of their body, not wrapping

Seriously, I've read some silly arguments before, but the "'a' equals 'one and only one ever'" argument may very well be the silliest.

Out of order, I know. First: I don't believe anyone specified "ever", as most seem to say that anyone leaving and re-entering is subject to another grapple; many just point out that the language doesn't say every round, so it's not too terribly unreasonable to say that the tenticles ignore anyone who avoids the initial assault while they stick around. Second: how so is it silly, bearing First in mind?