Touch attack for Evard's Black Tentacles?

[KarinsDad]

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 is true for instantaneous spells (e.g. Hold Person is an exception).

It is not true for most longer duration damage area effect spells. Those tend to do damage every single round and sometimes do not even have a saving throw (e.g. Wall of Fire).

Cloudkill (which is also Conjuration btw), Wall of Fire, etc. do damage every round. The problem with Evard's is that it holds the character in the Area of Effect and does damage most rounds, similar to Acid Fog, but at two levels lower.

What is interesting to me is that Evard's in 3E was a bit of a joke and in 3.5 is a monster (regardless of ruling). It is one of the few spells in 3.5 that got significantly more powerful. Most of the changed spells in 3.5 got weaker.

 

[Victim]

It was a monster in 3.0 too, but in a different way. If you could catch just one or two guys inside the area, every single tentacle would attack them. Some poor wizard attacked by 10 or so tentacles was pretty much a dead man.

 

[Nellisir]

This is true for instantaneous spells (e.g. Hold Person is an exception).
It is not true for most longer duration damage area effect spells. Those tend to do damage every single round and sometimes do not even have a saving throw (e.g. Wall of Fire).

EBT has 3 definable effects, so far as I can tell: 1) it grapples, which inflicts a variety of non-damaging penalties (on spellcasting, for instance), to which the check applies; 2) it inflicts damage, to which the same check applies; 3) it imposes a 1/2 movement rate on everything in an area, no save, no check.

I don't think EBT can make new attacks every round, but characters can certainly make additional attempts to escape -- similar to making a save every round. The only penalty that remains afterwards is to movement.

I forget if I had a point or not.
Cheers!
Nell.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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

You've missed the point of my demonstration, which actually has nothing to do with the rules for provoking attacks of opportunity, but rather to do with the absolute fact that "an attack" or "a grapple check" simply does not mean "one and only one." You can face "an attack" several times; you can be required to make "a grapple check" several times. The ridiculous argument presented is that by saying "a grapple check," the text of the spell means "one and only one."

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

The difference being that I am not ignoring or changing language in the spell: "Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check." There is not an explicit limit on this statement. Other spells, granted, do have an explicit statement when there are continuing effects requiring continuing adjudications ... however, other spells also have an explicit statement when continuing adjudications do not occur, so while the addition of that text would make the spell clearer, its absence does not make the spell unclear.

There is a fundamental hierarchy of rules and law interpretation called "canon of contruction." Within canon of contruction priciples, the absence of text that -- if present -- would make a rule clearer, does not invalidate the rule. On the other hand, the deletion, addition, or alteration of text that -- if deleted, added, or altered -- would give a rule a different meaning is invalid. Though this hierachy is, I suppose, not exactly common knowledge, its basis in common sense should be pretty obvious.

Black tentacles is an area-of-effect spell with a continuing duration. Accordingly, the area of the spell exists for a period of time. The area is there, for several rounds, and, without limit, "every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check." Not "every creature within the area of the spell when it is cast must make a grapple check," but "every creature within the area of the spell [period] must make a grapple check." My interpretation of the text of the spell, though it would be clearer if it specified continuing grapple checks, works just fine without that specification, and is therefore valid. (So much so that even KarinsDad uses it, despite his, um, invested defense of the other interpretation.) The other interpretation requires either the addition or alteration of language, and is therefore invalid.

This'll be the last defense I make of the valid interpretation ... I know a thread has deteriorated past salvage when people start using multiple punctuation marks. I'm pretty sure "???" is actually defined in Internet lexicons as "spittle flying." Y'all either understand why one interpretation is valid and the other isn't, or y'all just don't want to. And that's groovy with me.

Actually, I did mention it - in a post you quoted from, in a sentence you cut apart and only partially quoted.

And actually, I did mention it was mentioned, which for some reason you chose to delete.

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).

I'm not arguing whether it's reasonable or unreasonable. My only point, implied, was that I'd be willing to bet most DMs would play -- and probably have played -- web as requiring a Reflex save if someone walks into it. The reason most DMs would require this is that it fits the model D&D uses, that continuing spells have continuing effects ... the difference being that, unlike black tentacles, web explicitly states that someone is forced to make a Reflex save only if they are within the area when the spell is cast.

 

[Goolpsy]

as written: "Each round a tentacle isn't already grappling someone or something, STARTING THE ROUND A-F-T-E-R IT APPEARS, it makes.. blabla

So, you have a full round to get your ass out of the Area...

 

[Thanee]

The difference being that I am not ignoring or changing language in the spell: "Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check." There is not an explicit limit on this statement.

No, the point is not, that the sentence explicitly limits grapple checks to one, but rather that it only states the grapple check happening once.

The assumption, that there would be a new grapple check every round is not supported (it's also not explicitly denied, but that doesn't matter, since that's not how spell descriptions work... they don't list what spells do not do, except for clarification, but rather, what spells do; this doesn't say that there is one grapple check per round, therefore there is not).

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

as written: "Each round a tentacle isn't already grappling someone or something, STARTING THE ROUND A-F-T-E-R IT APPEARS, it makes.. blabla

So, you have a full round to get your ass out of the Area...

That was 3E, not 3.5.

 

[KarinsDad]

The difference being that I am not ignoring or changing language in the spell: "Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check."

Total nonsense. That is precisely what you are doing. You are adding the phrase "and every round on the caster's turn".

The other posters are doing the opposite of what you are doing. They are interpreting the word "a" to mean "one" and NOT adding additional words to the sentence at all: ""Every creature within the area of the spell must make one grapple check."". Perfectly valid in the English language.

Either show us where the effect occuring every round on the caster's turn is the rule for area effect long duration spells, or admit that it is your interpretation only.

This is a rules forum Jeff, not a Jeff's interpretation forum.

There is not an explicit limit on this statement. Other spells, granted, do have an explicit statement when there are continuing effects requiring continuing adjudications ... however, other spells also have an explicit statement when continuing adjudications do not occur, so while the addition of that text would make the spell clearer, its absence does not make the spell unclear.

There is a fundamental hierarchy of rules and law interpretation called "canon of contruction." Within canon of contruction priciples, the absence of text that -- if present -- would make a rule clearer, does not invalidate the rule. On the other hand, the deletion, addition, or alteration of text that -- if deleted, added, or altered -- would give a rule a different meaning is invalid. Though this hierachy is, I suppose, not exactly common knowledge, its basis in common sense should be pretty obvious.

Black tentacles is an area-of-effect spell with a continuing duration. Accordingly, the area of the spell exists for a period of time. The area is there, for several rounds, and, without limit, "every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check." Not "every creature within the area of the spell when it is cast must make a grapple check," but "every creature within the area of the spell [period] must make a grapple check." My interpretation of the text of the spell, though it would be clearer if it specified continuing grapple checks, works just fine without that specification, and is therefore valid. (So much so that even KarinsDad uses it, despite his, um, invested defense of the other interpretation.) The other interpretation requires either the addition or alteration of language, and is therefore invalid.

Quote a RULE in the book that states this.

You are making this grandiose claim, but where are the rules to support such a position?

From the text of Evard's, there are multiple valid interpretations. For yours to be the ONLY correct one, you must quote rules that show that unless noted otherwise, all area effect long duration spells do all aspects of their effects every round on the caster's turn.

Just because some other area effect long duration spells do their damage every round on the caster's turn, does NOT mean that Evard's does it's grapple every round on the caster's turn.

From the actual text of the spell, the only thing that Evard's does every turn is damage the opponent if he is grappled.

Here is the relevant rules section of how duration spells work from the SRD:

Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly the result travels with the subjects for the spell’s duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area then the spell stays with that area for its duration. Creatures become subject to the spell when they enter the area and are no longer subject to it when they leave.

It says NOTHING about the effect re-occurring every round on the caster's turn. For that to be the case, the spell itself has to state it. It talks about the effect no longer affecting the subject when they leave, but it does not state the frequency of it affecting them if they stay at all.

That is the RULES Jeff, what are you talking about?

As you said about me earlier in the thread:

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

 

[Hypersmurf]

It says NOTHING about the effect re-occurring every round on the caster's turn. For that to be the case, the spell itself has to state it. It talks about the effect no longer affecting the subject when they leave, but it does not state the frequency of it affecting them if they stay at all.

Right.

Just like Blade Barrier or Flaming Sphere.

I cast Blade Barrier through the middle of an ogre's space. He elects not to move, and takes damage. He stands there for the next five rounds, with the Blade Barrier bisecting his space; he takes no more damage.

I cast Flaming Sphere, and direct it into an orc's square. The orc fails his Reflex save, and takes damage. I get distracted and do something else for the enxt five rounds; the orc chooses to remain in his square. He does not need to make any more saves, and takes no more damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Just like Blade Barrier or Flaming Sphere.

Except not.

I cast Blade Barrier through the middle of an ogre's space. He elects not to move, and takes damage. He stands there for the next five rounds, with the Blade Barrier bisecting his space; he takes no more damage.

Blade barrier specifies the conditions under which someone in the same square as the barrier may take damage: "If you evoke the barrier so that it appears where creatures are." In later rounds, you are not evoking the barrier such that it appears where creatures are; they therefore do not take damage.

I cast Flaming Sphere, and direct it into an orc's square. The orc fails his Reflex save, and takes damage. I get distracted and do something else for the enxt five rounds; the orc chooses to remain in his square. He does not need to make any more saves, and takes no more damage.

Flaming sphere specifies the conditions under which someone in the same square as the sphere may take damage: "If it enters a space with a creature." In later rounds, unless moved, the sphere is not entering a creature's space; therefore it does not take damage.

Black tentacles has no such limiting language. It says, instead, "Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check." It doesn't say "only when the spell is cast." It doesn't say "when the tentacles appear." The only test it offers is: "Is this a creature within the area of the spell?" If the answer is "yes," the creature is subject to being grappled.

If blade barrier instead read that a Reflex save to avoid damage were required if the barrier occupied the same space as a creature, would you be arguing that after one Reflex save the creature never had to make another, even if it continued to occupy the same space as the barrier? If flaming sphere instead read that a Reflex save were required when the sphere occupies the same space as a creature, would you be arguing that after one Reflex save the creature never had to make another, even if it continued to occupy the same space as the sphere?

I highly doubt it.

Yet that is what black tentacles says: "If you're in the area of the spell, you need to make a grapple check."

Blade barrier and flaming sphere (and many other spells) require elements in addition to being within their "area." Black tentacles simply does not.