NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 2230266" data-attributes="member: 5122">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." 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.And actually, I did mention it was mentioned, which for some reason you chose to delete.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.</blockquote>

Verification