Pathfinder 1E Would you allow a plant in a pot to be used for Entangle?

[Squire James]

It's magic. It doesn't have to be logical or make sense. For me it works exactly like it says in the spell description - if there's plants, the spell entangles everything in a 40 ft. radius. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

All I need is to throw it at least 40 ft. from the enemy. not much accuracy required for that.

Well, being nit-picky about this matter encourages others to be nit-picky as well. For instance, "plants" implies more than one plant, so you'll need TWO plants in that pot. I know a DM who absolutely WOULD limit the Entangle effect to a single person if there was only one potted plant (the same guy keeps saying Invisibility and Mirror Image are useless against undead and creatures with Scent).

Personally, I would reduce the radius to something like 10 ft for the spell if a significant mass of plants is not present. A potted plant would not be enough, but you still get something out of the spell even with no plants. You can still throw the potted plant at them if you want...

 

[underfoot007ct]

It's magic. It doesn't have to be logical or make sense. For me it works exactly like it says in the spell description - if there's plants, the spell entangles everything in a 40 ft. radius. Nothing more, but also nothing less.


All I need is to throw it at least 40 ft. from the enemy. not much accuracy required for that.

Magic is NOT just magic, the spell assumes 40 ' of plants, which you don't. Once you leave the square the "potted plant" was in, you would be clear of the effects.

You posted this as a "How would you rule this" question, but It seems you are arguing people responses which are against this. So I would rules this as NO way, it would not work, just too silly, as my answer.

 

[ImperatorK]

Then why bother with the plant at all? You could just activate the invisible bits of pollen and the like in the air or on your enemies' clothes.

Because the spell says you need plants, so I'm providing plants?

Your stated stance, that a potted daisy has the same entangling power as an entire forest floor, is advocacy for munchkin-ism.

I don't remember saying anything about a daisy. And I don't know what's munchkin-y about this.

Also, the entangle aspect is the plants are rooted in the ground, which then grab your feet & ankles. Why would movement be lessened by having a formerly potted plant holding your foot as you walk?

Because it's magic. If the plants are entangling people then they can as well anchor themselves to the ground.

For instance, "plants" implies more than one plant, so you'll need TWO plants in that pot.

Then have more plants. Note that in the OP I said "plant(s)".

Personally, I would reduce the radius to something like 10 ft for the spell if a significant mass of plants is not present. A potted plant would not be enough, but you still get something out of the spell even with no plants. You can still throw the potted plant at them if you want...

Good for you. I, OTOH, wouldn't.

Magic is NOT just magic, the spell assumes 40 ' of plants, which you don't. Once you leave the square the "potted plant" was in, you would be clear of the effects.

You saying that magic couldn't do something so simple? Lol. A 0-level spell can create water out of nothing, but you wouldn't allow a 1st-level spell to work properly just because there's not enough plants. Lol again.

You posted this as a "How would you rule this" question, but It seems you are arguing people responses which are against this. So I would rules this as NO way, it would not work, just too silly, as my answer.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm saying how I'm ruling it. If I would argue I would say you are all wrong.

 

[1Mac]

Munchkin-y means that the rules don't technically forbid it, but any self-confident GM would ban or limit it for being too silly or against the spirit of the rules as written. That's exactly what most people in this thread are saying they would do.

You asked for opinions, and these are the opinions you're getting. Do with them what you will!

 

[ImperatorK]

So I'm not self-confident? And almost every DM I know? And what does that even mean?

You asked for opinions, and these are the opinions you're getting. Do with them what you will!

And I'm giving my opinion.

 

[Squire James]

Create Water may simply be a bit of quick fusion of nearby hydrogen and oxygen molecules, which could explain certain desert settings where such spells don't work so well.

There's lots of spells that "create something out of nothing", though that is only an interpretation of how magic works. I mean, for all we know, there's some Realm of Magic Missiles where everyone's Magic Missiles come from! They cannot return home until they hit something (or get snuffed out by their mortal enemies Shield Spell and Brooch of Shielding), so they never miss...

Entangle works over such a big area as a level 1 spell because it has a condition attached. While not explicitly stated, it is obviously a valid interpretation that LOTS of plants are required to do this sort of thing.

I don't consider you silly for proposing this... the imagery brought to mind is interesting enough that I feel tempted to allow it out of sheer whimsy. I usually get over those temptations quickly unless the campaign I'm running is intended to be comedic.

 

[ImperatorK]

If a DM is not a fan of creativity then his players can't help it I guess. I OTOH am open-minded and promote creative use of abilities.

 

[N'raac]

You saying that magic couldn't do something so simple? Lol. A 0-level spell can create water out of nothing, but you wouldn't allow a 1st-level spell to work properly just because there's not enough plants. Lol again.

Why can't I Teleport Without Error as a 0 level spell? A mere 1st level spell can shift an outer planar creature to my location, establish complete mental dominance so it will attack my enemies and send it back after a round per level. Surely it doesn't require that same level of magical power to just move ME once, on the same plane of existence!

It's Magic - what it can and can't do is not determined by conventional logic or physics. What Entangle can do is set by the spell - it causes anchored plants in the area to grapple creatures in that area.

It's rules-stretching like this which requires rulings like "Create Water cannot create water inside a creature" and "Magic Missile can't target a creature's eyes or other specific body parts".

 

[BuzzardB]

I would definitely allow it.

Based on the size of plant he threw I would probably only let it entangle a single square or 5' radius though.

I would not allow it to cover the entire 40' radius because the spell makes no mention of making plants grow or get larger. No reason a level 1 spell should encroach on the power of a level 3 spell (Plant Growth). So a potted plant would probably wrap around one persons feat applying the tangled condition.

If the player was smart he would probably use a poisonous cactus or something

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 against the entangle or fail a check made to break free. Other effects, depending on the local plants, might be possible at GM discretion.

 

[prosfilaes]

One square, and if there's a person in it you have to hit them as a ranged attack; it's not like it's hard for someone to get out of the way of a thrown plant, or to deflect it. As others have pointed out, there are a bunch of spells similar to Entangle, and they're all higher level or weaker, indicating that the plants should be a significant limitation.

I wonder about the mechanics of this, too. Potted plants aren't light, and they're pretty fragile; you can't just throw them in your bag and go. And if you're worried about such things, throwing a potted plant is not taking care of it. It's no different then throwing a puppy.

There's a lot of creative things to do, but most of them don't work, and many of them that do, don't work well. When "creative" means "getting around limitations built in for balance", then it starts to sound more like abusively bending the rules then creativity.