Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerednaw 04-16-07, 02:26 PM	Do creatures who fail the initial grapple check take damage, or does that require a second grapple check? Also, if it does take 2 checks, does the second check happen on the same round or the following round, on your turn as the text seems to imply? Round 1: Spell is cast. Target fails first grapple check and is grappled (no damage). Round 2: Target fails second grapple check and takes 1d6+4 damage. Round 3: Target fails grapple check and takes 1d6+4 damage. Round 4: etc... or is it: Round 1: Spell is cast. Target fails grapple check and is grappled. Still Round 1: Target fails second grapple check and takes 1d6+4. Round 2: Target fails third grapple check and takes 1d6+4. Round 3: etc... or is it: Round 1: Spell is cast. Target fails first grapple check and takes 1d6+4 damage. Round 2: Target fails second grapple check and takes 1d6+4 damage. Round 3: Target fails grapple check and takes 1d6+4 damage. Round 4: etc... ? Thanks.
taylorj 04-16-07, 02:32 PM	Do creatures who fail the initial grapple check take damage, or does that require a second grapple check? Also, if it does take 2 checks, does the second check happen on the same round or the following round, on your turn as the text seems to imply? Round 1: Spell is cast. Target fails first grapple check and is grappled (no damage). Round 2: Target fails second grapple check and takes 1d6+4 damage. Round 3: Target fails grapple check and takes 1d6+4 damage. Round 4: etc... This is the way I usually do it. I haven't had anyone argue differently. "Every round on your turn" seems to argue that it only starts doing damage after the first round (where you cast the spell and it grapples). Though it could be interpreted differently...
copper_wyrmling 04-16-07, 05:34 PM	This is the way I usually do it. I haven't had anyone argue differently. "Every round on your turn" seems to argue that it only starts doing damage after the first round (where you cast the spell and it grapples). Though it could be interpreted differently... That's how I've usually interpreted it, too (I have a sorc with the spell), although at a game yesterday the GM ruled it the third way. I've never seen it ruled the second way.
solbergb 04-16-07, 05:53 PM	I have always ruled the third way. I've never seen the second way, athough I've seen a small but insistint minority that thinks the tentacles do nonlethal damage. The first way is becoming more and more common in my region. I don't actually care as a player so I just go with what the Judge says, or offer my interpretation if asked but go along with whatever anyone else says if they don't like it. The tentacles never kill anything but people who aren't worth xp anyway. They are there to interfere with actions and movement. I'd be happy if they never did damage. As a judge, I stick to the interpretation I believe in, because that's how I rule on everything. The extra round of damage has never killed any PC at my tables, which means the ruling has probably played out more favorable to PC's than to NPC's (who are more often victims of the spell)
taylorj 04-16-07, 06:16 PM	The extra round of damage has never killed any PC at my tables, which means the ruling has probably played out more favorable to PC's than to NPC's (who are more often victims of the spell) Heh heh... We had an "Evard's Duel" in a mod recently, where a PC casting of Evard's was immediately replied to by an enemy casting of it. Combat goes really quick when it consists mostly of people going "I try to break free... (roll) I fail." :evillaugh
Japangirl 04-16-07, 06:26 PM	Heh heh... We had an "Evard's Duel" in a mod recently, where a PC casting of Evard's was immediately replied to by an enemy casting of it. Combat goes really quick when it consists mostly of people going "I try to break free... (roll) I fail." :evillaugh This is why I love my Freedom of Movement ring. The ability (as a halfling) to tell a wizard to "go ahead and Evards, I'll be fine!" is just so wonderful, and then they're grappled right next to me :D.
Britt 04-16-07, 07:21 PM	The tentacles never kill anything but people who aren't worth xp anyway. Since they do nonlethal damage, they shouldn't be killing anything anyway.
Al 04-16-07, 07:36 PM	According to the SRD: ... Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent until the spell ends or the opponent escapes. ... Doesn't sound like non-lethal damage to me...:)
Britt 04-16-07, 07:49 PM	According to the SRD: ... Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent until the spell ends or the opponent escapes. ... Doesn't sound like non-lethal damage to me...:) And what type of damage is a sap?
Japangirl 04-16-07, 07:58 PM	Saps are specific that they do nonlethal damage. The spell is not, it just says bludgeoning. All damage is assumed to be lethal damage unless said otherwise. The argument for nonlethal that I think makes sense is that the tentacles do not take -4 on grapple checks to do lethal damage. While I personally find it to be a weak argument, I know others who do not think so and have no problems if a judge rules it either way.
Britt 04-16-07, 08:09 PM	All grapple checks to do damage are nonlethal unless specific conditions are met. Evard's does damage with a grapple check, therefore, it is nonlethal unless the specific conditions are met. The specific conditions are not met, therefore, the damage is nonlethal. PH 156: "If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike...If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a -4 penalty on your grapple check. Exception: monks deal more damage on an unarmed strike than other characters, and the damage is lethal." The only exceptions, therefore, are: 1) Improved Unarmed Strike (do lethal with unarmed attacks) 2) Take a -4 penalty on the grapple check 3) Improved Grab (ability states that it does the damage listed for the attack that initiated the Improved Grab). Evard's does not have Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grab, nor does it have the option to take a -4 penalty; therefore, the damage must be nonlethal.
Samwise 04-16-07, 10:40 PM	Wow. I've got to agree with Britt. I never made that connection, and this will change how I view the spell, but those are the rules for grapple. Wow.
Azerin 04-16-07, 11:14 PM	Yes, but it makes it no less effective, casters don't leave their targets in evards to kill their target; they leave their targets in Evards so they can restrain them and kill them in another method (/cough blade barrier). This does, however, make evards a much safer spell, as many modules are punishing people for attacking with lethal force. Evards could be a great way to stop a combat when you don't know if you want to attack someone or not. -Jeremy
copper_wyrmling 04-16-07, 11:17 PM	Wow. I've got to agree with Britt. I never made that connection, and this will change how I view the spell, but those are the rules for grapple. Wow. *sigh* I would LOVE it to be nonlethal damage - my sorc doesn't actually have any spell that does nonlethal damage (ability penalties, negative levels and status conditions yes, nonlethal damage no), and that has caused problems in the past where we REALLY wanted to subdue a group of people rather than kill them (and they had widely varying HP totals so dismissing the Evards when the first ones went unconscious meant the others got free). Much as I would like them to do nonlethal, though, I do disagree with Britt's reading. Just as improved grab states that it deals the damage listed for the attack, Evard's states what damage it deals (which is NOT the same as unarmed strike damage for a large creature), and it doesn't say it's nonlethal, so it's not (as a default, "damage" means "lethal damage"). The tentacles don't use normal grapple rules in a lot of other respects (no attack roll required, no option to do anything other than deal damage with grapple checks, only one grapple check / round despite using CL to replace BAB in the formula for calculating grapple check), so I don't see why they should deal nonlethal damage. Of course, if Sam or Britt let my sorcerer's EBT do nonlethal damage at their tables, I will be a very very happy player :) At my tables, though, I rule it like I read it :(
Timlagor 04-16-07, 11:19 PM	It's a SPELL. It's not a monster. It's not using actions or attacks. There's certainly an argument but it's nothing like as clear as Britt implies -you also didn't mention Constrict. I rule it the first way (no damage first round) with lethal damage (not that it matters).
Mommy was an Orc 04-16-07, 11:21 PM	The damage is 1d6+4 Bludgeoning. When a spell acts according to a given attack routine, in particular Grapple(Bigby's Crushing Hand), it just uses the word damage, not bludgeoning damage. When a spell specifically inflicts nonlethal damage, it spells that out too(Gust of Wind) By saying that the damage is 1d6+4 Bludgeoning, they are specifically saying that regardless of the normal damage done by a large creature with a 19 str in a grapple(1d4+4 nonlethal), this is 1d6+4 Bludgeoning damage. And it should therefore be lethal.
Samwise 04-16-07, 11:40 PM	Of course, if Sam or Britt let my sorcerer's EBT do nonlethal damage at their tables, I will be a very very happy player :) At my tables, though, I rule it like I read it :( Heh. As it happens, that just reinforces why I would agree with Britt. I said well over two years ago that by what I read in the description of Evard's, it does not continue to grapple people that resist the initial attempt. Everyone insisted I was making stuff up was confused, and then it shows up in the FAQ. In this case, spell or not, which would just mean that it doing bludgeoning damage is irrelevant according to FAQ, as Britt noted, it uses a grapple check, and the damage from grapple is non-lethal. (It is pseudo-relevant because grapple checks can actually do piercing damage, like if you are wearing armor spikes.) Various spells that entangle do damage based on other things. Evard's specifically uses grapple checks, which leads to Britt's chain of reasoning. So yes, I am reading the spell. Just because it took me 4 years to make the connection between grapple checks and the text doesn't change that text. And really, think about it: What could be better for the truly evil wizard than a spell that beats everyone senseless, leaving them to be taken away for magical experimentation, and sacrifices to unspeakable entities from beyond.
Mommy was an Orc 04-16-07, 11:49 PM	(It is pseudo-relevant because grapple checks can actually do piercing damage, like if you are wearing armor spikes.) So you're saying that Bigby's Crushing Hand could do Piercing damage?
Britt 04-16-07, 11:55 PM	The Bludgeoning statement is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as my comment about saps is supposed to point out. If I were to say "A sap deals 1d6 Bludgeoning damage", that does not mean it is lethal; it just means that it is of the Bludgeoning type for the purposes of overcoming DR. Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing are completely unrelated to Lethal v. Nonlethal. The mention of grapple check to deal damage makes the damage nonlethal by reference. If I were to say that a spell creates an animated sword that functions just like a scimitar, we wouldn't be arguing about whether it was slashing damage, because that is incorporated by reference.
Samwise 04-16-07, 11:56 PM	So you're saying that Bigby's Crushing Hand could do Piercing damage... No, I'm saying what I said: (It is pseudo-relevant because grapple checks can actually do piercing damage, like if you are wearing armor spikes.) It is theoretically possible for a grapple check to do damage of a type other than bludgeoning. Whether it actually does depends on the specific circumstances. Since Bigby's Crushing Hand doesn't say it does piercing damage, it uses the default type of damage for a hand - bludgeoning. I would also note that serves as yet another piece of evidence that Evard's Black Tentacles does non-lethal damage. The text for Bigby's Crushing Hand specifically says it does lethal damage with it's grapple attack.
copper_wyrmling 04-17-07, 12:02 AM	Heh. As it happens, that just reinforces why I would agree with Britt. I said well over two years ago that by what I read in the description of Evard's, it does not continue to grapple people that resist the initial attempt. Everyone insisted I was making stuff up was confused, and then it shows up in the FAQ. Eh, I'd seen that interpretation and agreed that it was defensible (and didn't argue with the rare GMs who ruled that way prior to the FAQ). I just felt that "every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check" , "any creature that enters the area is attacked by the tentacles", and the fact that the tentacles squeezed every round, together implied that any creature in the area had to make a grapple check every round. It was a matter of interpretation, and I didn't object when the FAQ clarified it in the opposite direction to the way that I'd interpreted it, but I still don't think the FAQ's reading was the only "right" way to interpret it based on the PHB text. In this case, spell or not, which would just mean that it doing bludgeoning damage is irrelevant according to FAQ, as Britt noted, it uses a grapple check, and the damage from grapple is non-lethal. (It is pseudo-relevant because grapple checks can actually do piercing damage, like if you are wearing armor spikes.) Various spells that entangle do damage based on other things. Evard's specifically uses grapple checks, which leads to Britt's chain of reasoning. I can understand the reasoning, and at your tables I wouldn't tell you you're wrong (and would be very happy about the ruling). At my tables, though, the damage is lethal, for the reasons I laid out above - the mechanics of Evard's are radically different from the normal grapple rules in almost every way, and one of those ways is that the spell specifies it does 1d6+4 bludgeoning damage on a successful check, which is entirely different to the 1d4+4 nonlethal usually dealt by a Large creature's grapple check. So yes, I am reading the spell. Just because it took me 4 years to make the connection between grapple checks and the text doesn't change that text. I didn't mean to suggest you weren't reading it - just that I read it differently, and evidently so do several others. I play a sorcerer with this spell: I HAVE read it carefully. And really, think about it: What could be better for the truly evil wizard than a spell that beats everyone senseless, leaving them to be taken away for magical experimentation, and sacrifices to unspeakable entities from beyond. Have you spent time in Bissel recently? ;) EBT is not an evil spell, even by implication. It doesn't even use negative energy! And my sorcerer still thinks that Bissel should be using it against the Kettite cavalry: it really does work very well on mounted combatants. (First, it stops the charge due to hampering movement; second, the horses can almost never get out of the grapple...) (Copper is still slightly annoyed about the unplayability of her sorcerer - whose known spells include Spiritwall, Evard's Black Tentacles, Enervation and Ray of Enfeeblement - in her new region. Not very annoyed, though, since that PC is hopelessly short on TUs anyway ;) )
Samwise 04-17-07, 12:02 AM	just means that it is of the Bludgeoning type for the purposes of overcoming DR. Actually, as I noted, the FAQ has made that irrelevant: How do spells like Evard’s black tentacles and ice storm affect a creature with damage reduction overcome by magic and bludgeoning? Do the tentacles and hailstones deal magical bludgeoning damage? Any damage dealt by a spell or other magical effect is unaffected by damage reduction. Why the sage said that I have no idea, but it effectively makes all references to damage type irrelevant unless the spell explicitly says it is affected by DR of the applicable type. So all we are left with is the grapple check. And so, compare with Bigby's Crushing Hand.
Mommy was an Orc 04-17-07, 12:06 AM	The Bludgeoning statement is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as my comment about saps is supposed to point out. If I were to say "A sap deals 1d6 Bludgeoning damage", that does not mean it is lethal; it just means that it is of the Bludgeoning type for the purposes of overcoming DR. Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing are completely unrelated to Lethal v. Nonlethal. It isn't irrelevant. Assuming that what you say is correct, there is no reason for them to say that the damage is bludgeoning. It is the default state of grappling just as all the other things that are the basis of your argument are. If your argument is that this is how grappling works, then you have to treat the bludgeoning damage as being a specific exception that they're bringing up for some reason - why I pointed out Sam's 'maybe they're excluding piercing' means that Bigby's Crushing Hand could do piercing.
Samwise 04-17-07, 12:11 AM	I just felt that "every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check" , "any creature that enters the area is attacked by the tentacles", and the fact that the tentacles squeezed every round, together implied that any creature in the area had to make a grapple check every round. The issue is in comparing it to entangle, which explicitly notes that it affects anyone in the area, as opposed to Evard's which cites only when cast or when entering. I can understand the reasoning, and at your tables I wouldn't tell you you're wrong (and would be very happy about the ruling). At my tables, though, the damage is lethal, for the reasons I laid out above - the mechanics of Evard's are radically different from the normal grapple rules in almost every way, and one of those ways is that the spell specifies it does 1d6+4 bludgeoning damage on a successful check, which is entirely different to the 1d4+4 nonlethal usually dealt by a Large creature's grapple check. The only difference is that it requires no attack roll. Bludgeoning is the default, and is irrelevant as I noted. And checking my Table 5-1 in the Monster Manual, a large tentacle does 1d6 damage as a default, so that damage is correct on that account. I didn't mean to suggest you weren't reading it - just that I read it differently, and evidently so do several others. I play a sorcerer with this spell: I HAVE read it carefully. Right, and I don't mean to suggest you aren't reading it. I'm just noting that it is possible I've been reading it wrong for 4 years. Have you spent time in Bissel recently? ;) EBT is not an evil spell, even by implication. I'm in Keoland. Even knowing EBT carries the death penalty is a death penalty offense there. Not that I have grounds to complain since I set the law up that way. :D
Mommy was an Orc 04-17-07, 12:17 AM	And checking my Table 5-1 in the Monster Manual, a large tentacle does 1d6 damage as a default, so that damage is correct on that account. A large tentacle also does lethal damage as a default...
Samwise 04-17-07, 12:21 AM	If your argument is that this is how grappling works, then you have to treat the bludgeoning damage as being a specific exception that they're bringing up for some reason - why I pointed out Sam's 'maybe they're excluding piercing' means that Bigby's Crushing Hand could do piercing. I pointed that out as a reason to label the type of damage. It is possible for a grapple check to do other than bludgeoning damage. As an example, since a grapple check does damage as per the natural weapon used, a creature with improved grab on its bite will do bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage with a grapple check, just as it does with a bite. I also noted that the type of damage it does has been made irrelevant by the FAQ. So yes, EBT does bludgeoning damage. It still does full damage damage to creatures with DR x/slashing or DR x/piercing.
Samwise 04-17-07, 12:44 AM	A large tentacle also does lethal damage as a default... When attacking normally. When grappling, it does non-lethal damage as a default. And EBT does damage by grappling.
copper_wyrmling 04-17-07, 12:45 AM	The issue is in comparing it to entangle, which explicitly notes that it affects anyone in the area, as opposed to Evard's which cites only when cast or when entering. Agreed - that's why I feel the FAQ's position is reasonable. The only difference is that it requires no attack roll. Well, there's also the fact that it says treat BAB = CL, but it only gets one grapple / round, at least as I read the spell. (A L12 Large fighter with Str 18 would get three grapple checks for damage, at +20/+15/+10; the tentacles cast by a L12 caster are treated has having BAB +12, but get only one grapple check at +20.) Also, if you read the first bit of the "damage your opponent" section under grapple, it says, "you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike", and then "you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike". I interpret that to mean that anyone who can generally do lethal damage with their unarmed strike without penalty can also make their grapple damage lethal without taking the -4 - the fact that the damage is nonlethal follows only from the fact that most creatures do nonlethal damage with their unarmed strike. As you noted, Evard's is doing damage equivalent to a tentacle, not an unarmed strike. Tentacles do not generally do nonlethal damage (the way to get tentacle damage while grappling involves improved grab, and does lethal damage). The spell doesn't specify nonlethal damage, and the default is lethal. Right, and I don't mean to suggest you aren't reading it. I'm just noting that it is possible I've been reading it wrong for 4 years. *nods* I've certainly misread spells before, although I caught the mistakes I'm aware of within a few days of making them - but of course there may be some I haven't caught ;) (The ones I remember were somehow thinking that Ethereal Jaunt was Touch rather than Personal - I went through a whole convention casting it on scout types, because while stealth skills don't matter much when you're ethereal, it felt unfair to take over their role with my cleric - and missing the 10-minute casting time on Phantom Steed.) I'm in Keoland. Even knowing EBT carries the death penalty is a death penalty offense there. Not that I have grounds to complain since I set the law up that way. :D Boo Keoland. (Adds another region to the list of Places To Avoid With Azrien.) Hmmm. How on earth do they enforce that for sorcerers?
Samwise 04-17-07, 01:08 AM	Well, there's also the fact that it says treat BAB = CL, but it only gets one grapple / round, at least as I read the spell. (A L12 Large fighter with Str 18 would get three grapple checks for damage, at +20/+15/+10; the tentacles cast by a L12 caster are treated has having BAB +12, but get only one grapple check at +20.) Looking at the Bigby's spells, that seems to be normal for spells that grapple. As you noted, Evard's is doing damage equivalent to a tentacle, not an unarmed strike. Tentacles do not generally do nonlethal damage (the way to get tentacle damage while grappling involves improved grab, and does lethal damage). The spell doesn't specify nonlethal damage, and the default is lethal. Which would be unusual for tentacles, not necessarily for grapple. *nods* I've certainly misread spells before, although I caught the mistakes I'm aware of within a few days of making them - but of course there may be some I haven't caught ;) Aye, there's the rub. :P Boo Keoland. (Adds another region to the list of Places To Avoid With Azrien.) Hmmm. How on earth do they enforce that for sorcerers? You don't. It's wasn't supposed to be enforceable, although if you dig through the rules it is possible. (Thought ripping magics are quite effective for such.) It was intended as a flavor element. To show that the laws on magic are so paranoid, and at one time were so restrictive, that even knowing what they were was illegal unless you were specifically permitted by law to know what they were, and sometimes not even then! No, unless you do some blitheringly stupid they won't ever catch you. It was just meant to add talking about what a hot shot spellchucker you are to the list of things that qualifies as blitheringly stupid. ;) It's related to why there are so many turning based clerics in Keoland, even though all the residents will assure you that there are absolutely no undead in Keoland.
King Kashue 04-17-07, 01:08 AM	Boo Keoland. (Adds another region to the list of Places To Avoid With Azrien.) Hmmm. How on earth do they enforce that for sorcerers? The same way the police stop people from speeding and make sure they make a full stop at every stop sign :D
Britt 04-17-07, 02:03 AM	Well, there's also the fact that it says treat BAB = CL, but it only gets one grapple / round, at least as I read the spell. (A L12 Large fighter with Str 18 would get three grapple checks for damage, at +20/+15/+10; the tentacles cast by a L12 caster are treated has having BAB +12, but get only one grapple check at +20.) Also, if you read the first bit of the "damage your opponent" section under grapple, it says, "you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike", and then "you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike". I interpret that to mean that anyone who can generally do lethal damage with their unarmed strike without penalty can also make their grapple damage lethal without taking the -4 - the fact that the damage is nonlethal follows only from the fact that most creatures do nonlethal damage with their unarmed strike. I give them multiple grapples at -5 to each subsequent attempt. And natural weapons are different from unarmed attacks. A tentacle attack is a natural weapon attack, not an unarmed strike.
copper_wyrmling 04-17-07, 02:20 AM	I give them multiple grapples at -5 to each subsequent attempt. You do? Wow. I always read "they may make a grapple check each round on your turn" (emphasis mine) to mean they only got a single check. And natural weapons are different from unarmed attacks. A tentacle attack is a natural weapon attack, not an unarmed strike. Agreed. That was kinda my point - the tentacles aren't using the standard grapple rules for a Large Str-18 creature grappling with its unarmed strike, because such a creature would do 1d4+4 nonlethal damage, and that's not the case here. As Sam pointed out, the damage they're doing is consistent with the natural weapon tentacle damage for a Large creature (a creature with improved grab with its tentacles would use this damage when grappling with its tentacles, iirc) - which would be 1d6+4 lethal.
Britt 04-17-07, 03:14 AM	Honestly, I think the authors screwed up and had their rules mixed up. If they had intended it to be a size large tentacle with improved grab, the numbers would work out that way, but that's not what the spell says. Since it only says it makes a grapple check to deal damage, there is nothing to specifically override the default rules that make the damage nonlethal. Combined with the opinion that the spell is somewhat overpowered, the nonlethal interpretation is not only literally correct, it is more balanced. The "a" before the grapple check is somewhat troublesome. It indicates only one, but that doesn't square with giving the tentacle a BAB. The whole spell could use a rewrite to make it more clear, consistent, and balanced.
mregecko 04-17-07, 09:21 AM	I can understand the reading implying non-lethal damage, but I would tend to disagree with it... 1.) The spell digresses from normal grapple rules insofar as it only gets one grapple attempt per round, regardless of effective BAB. 2.) It never specifically states non-lethal damage, whereas every other spell [that I can think of] that deals NLD specifies it explicitly. The only exceptions, therefore, are: 1) Improved Unarmed Strike (do lethal with unarmed attacks) 2) Take a -4 penalty on the grapple check 3) Improved Grab (ability states that it does the damage listed for the attack that initiated the Improved Grab). You forgot #4... Natural Weapons can do lethal damage in a grapple. A tentacle (i.e. a natural weapon) in a grapple would still be able to deal lethal damage (1d6 bludgeoning for a large tentacle as chance would have it). So a big black tentacle comes out of the ground, wraps you up, and starts crushing and pummeling you to death. That sounds more lethal to me than a cleric slapping at me with his 1d3 palm. -- M
Rerednaw 04-17-07, 09:45 AM	Boy oh boy. After all this I EBT does not sound like a good spell (to learn) for my battlefield controller. We'll spend far more time arguing about how it works then playing. :) Definitely sounds like this spells needs more FAQ or a re-write. (4.0?) On a side note, if the damage is non-lethal, does this mean that Bigby's Clenched Fist, which is an unarmed fist, also does non-lethal damage by default?
Mithrus 04-17-07, 10:50 AM	Wow, interesting debate, but I am convinced Britt has the right of it. For the record, I always assumed it did lethal damage also (until now). Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning are damage TYPES, tightly coupled with DR rules. Lethal/Non-Lethal are also damage TYPES, but have nothing to do with DR. S/P/B can be combined with L/NL in every possible way, and all make sense and obey the RAW. If you have DR vs bludgeoning, EBT does less damage to you, but to determine the L/NL type of damage, you have to keep following the rules. Its a grapple check, which does non-lethal damage unless otherwise noted. The example given regarding Bigby's Hand spell is the clincher. It specifically has the damage type of lethal, which would not be needed unless it wasn't the "default".
trollbill 04-17-07, 10:52 AM	All grapple checks to do damage are nonlethal unless specific conditions are met. Evard's does damage with a grapple check, therefore, it is nonlethal unless the specific conditions are met. The specific conditions are not met, therefore, the damage is nonlethal. PH 156: "If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike...If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a -4 penalty on your grapple check. Exception: monks deal more damage on an unarmed strike than other characters, and the damage is lethal." The only exceptions, therefore, are: 1) Improved Unarmed Strike (do lethal with unarmed attacks) 2) Take a -4 penalty on the grapple check 3) Improved Grab (ability states that it does the damage listed for the attack that initiated the Improved Grab). Evard's does not have Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grab, nor does it have the option to take a -4 penalty; therefore, the damage must be nonlethal. Evard's doesn't have Improved Grapple either, yet it does not provoke an AoO when it attempts to grapple someone (and doesn't have to make a touch attack to even try). Nor do you have a 50% chance of hitting the tenticle instead of the grappled target with a ranged attack. Nor are you allowed move the tenticles with a successful grapple check, damage them with a successful grapple check, pin them with a successful grapple check or really do anything except break free. The problem with your argument is that Evard's clearly already breaks most of the rules regarding how grapples work so you can't use the 'no exceptions' argument in its regard. Evard's isn't a creature initiating a grapple, it is a spell that uses some of the grapple rules to determine its effect. Since it is clear that it only uses some, rather than all, the default assumption is that it should only use the ones the spell specifically states. That said, your argument is still a fairly sound one and I wouldn't have a problem with a DM interpreting it that way even if I disagree with it. Especially since I would actually prefer if it were non-lethal as it makes the spell more useful for capture and less deadly against me. It only loses out against creatures immune to non-lethal damage but immobilization is really its strong suit anyway. Boy oh boy. After all this I EBT does not sound like a good spell (to learn) for my battlefield controller. We'll spend far more time arguing about how it works then playing. :) Definitely sounds like this spells needs more FAQ or a re-write. (4.0?) On a side note, if the damage is non-lethal, does this mean that Bigby's Clenched Fist, which is an unarmed fist, also does non-lethal damage by default? Since I think it does lethal but don't mind it doing non-lethal, especially against me, you won't get much argument from me on either interpretation. I am running an 8th level sorcerer in RHoD right now. His one and only 4th-level spell is Evard's and I have absolutely no regrets. We've developed a combo we call Evard's Holy Stones. I immobilize the enemy with Evard's, the cleric drops a Holy Smite on them and then the Warmage drops a Hail of Stones. After that it's just mop-up. The damage from Evard's is mostly moot.
Samwise 04-17-07, 11:18 AM	Evard's doesn't have Improved Grapple either, yet it does not provoke an AoO when it attempts to grapple someone (and doesn't have to make a touch attack to even try). Nor do you have a 50% chance of hitting the tenticle instead of the grappled target with a ranged attack. Nor are you allowed move the tenticles with a successful grapple check, damage them with a successful grapple check, pin them with a successful grapple check or really do anything except break free. OK, now compare that to the Bigby's Hand spells. One attack per round. Doesn't provoke AoOs. Grasping Hand grapples but does no damage. Crushing Fist says it does lethal damage. Compared to that, it seems any spells that grapple don't follow any normal rules, so that argument fails. The "default" for spells that grapple should be whatever changes they include from the grapple rules and no more.
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 11:26 AM	Heh. As it happens, that just reinforces why I would agree with Britt. I said well over two years ago that by what I read in the description of Evard's, it does not continue to grapple people that resist the initial attempt. Everyone insisted I was making stuff up was confused, and then it shows up in the FAQ. In this case, spell or not, which would just mean that it doing bludgeoning damage is irrelevant according to FAQ, as Britt noted, it uses a grapple check, and the damage from grapple is non-lethal. (It is pseudo-relevant because grapple checks can actually do piercing damage, like if you are wearing armor spikes.) Various spells that entangle do damage based on other things. Evard's specifically uses grapple checks, which leads to Britt's chain of reasoning. So yes, I am reading the spell. Just because it took me 4 years to make the connection between grapple checks and the text doesn't change that text. And really, think about it: What could be better for the truly evil wizard than a spell that beats everyone senseless, leaving them to be taken away for magical experimentation, and sacrifices to unspeakable entities from beyond. Think about it. Grapple checks that do piercing damage do lethal piercing damage. Evard's does bludgeoning damage, as per the spell description, not non-lethoal damage, lethal bludgeoning damage. The grapple check is merely the method of determining whether or not the damage affects a target.
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 11:32 AM	The Bludgeoning statement is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as my comment about saps is supposed to point out. If I were to say "A sap deals 1d6 Bludgeoning damage", that does not mean it is lethal; it just means that it is of the Bludgeoning type for the purposes of overcoming DR. Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing are completely unrelated to Lethal v. Nonlethal. The mention of grapple check to deal damage makes the damage nonlethal by reference. If I were to say that a spell creates an animated sword that functions just like a scimitar, we wouldn't be arguing about whether it was slashing damage, because that is incorporated by reference. This spell conjures a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. They grasp and entwine around creatures that enter the area, holding them fast and crushing them with great strength. It isn't non-lethal damage. It's crushing damage. (i.e. lethal)
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 11:35 AM	Actually, as I noted, the FAQ has made that irrelevant: How do spells like Evard’s black tentacles and ice storm affect a creature with damage reduction overcome by magic and bludgeoning? Do the tentacles and hailstones deal magical bludgeoning damage? Any damage dealt by a spell or other magical effect is unaffected by damage reduction. Why the sage said that I have no idea, but it effectively makes all references to damage type irrelevant unless the spell explicitly says it is affected by DR of the applicable type. So all we are left with is the grapple check. And so, compare with Bigby's Crushing Hand. No...you're left with a grapple check and lethal damage. The damage type is mentioned and relevant *because* and ONLY *because* it's lethal damage.
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 11:36 AM	The issue is in comparing it to entangle, which explicitly notes that it affects anyone in the area, as opposed to Evard's which cites only when cast or when entering. The only difference is that it requires no attack roll. Bludgeoning is the default, and is irrelevant as I noted. And checking my Table 5-1 in the Monster Manual, a large tentacle does 1d6 damage as a default, so that damage is correct on that account. And you can stop right there. That large tentacle does lethal damage, not non-lethal damage.
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 11:38 AM	Looking at the Bigby's spells, that seems to be normal for spells that grapple. Which would be unusual for tentacles, not necessarily for grapple. The spell uses tentacles. However, there aren't any spells that cause non-lethal damage that do not specifically list the damage as non-lethal. Both cut against you. The grapple check is only a convenient method for determining if damage happens.
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 11:43 AM	OK, now compare that to the Bigby's Hand spells. One attack per round. Doesn't provoke AoOs. Grasping Hand grapples but does no damage. Crushing Fist says it does lethal damage. Compared to that, it seems any spells that grapple don't follow any normal rules, so that argument fails. The "default" for spells that grapple should be whatever changes they include from the grapple rules and no more. The "default" for damage spells is that they do lethal damage. Spells that grapple cause lethal damage if they do any damage at all. You're trying to make Black Tentacles the sole exception, and this might make it more survivable for PCs under attack by your favorite evil casters as a DM...but that's just you and Britt...and a bunch of people who want you to be right because it is advantageous to PCs on a number of levels. The spell never worked that way in the past, and it has a history, the spell has never worked that way in any description. You're creating a brand new interpretation.
Rerednaw 04-17-07, 12:12 PM	Okay posting this in Infinite Monkeys... :)
solbergb 04-17-07, 12:25 PM	All grapple checks to do damage are nonlethal unless specific conditions are met. Evard's does damage with a grapple check, therefore, it is nonlethal unless the specific conditions are met. The specific conditions are not met, therefore, the damage is nonlethal. Unless they're Tentacles (natural weapons), which do bludgeoning, lethal damage (Monster manual, natural weapon description). Size large tentacles do d6+strength damage. Tentacles, as natural weapons, only get one grapple check per round regardless of BAB. This is also consistent with the spell behavior. It isn't "evards Unarmed Strike" or "evards black grapplers" it is "evards dark tentacles". Perhaps the name is not just "flavor text". Perhaps it actually is tied to how tentacles really behave if attached to a monster. IIRC, if it behaved like the PHB grapple rules, the tentacles would do 1d4+strength nonlethal and get iterative attacks for BAB higher than 5 (ie, caster level 8 would get two grapple checks, one at -5, caster level 11 three, etc) Yes, it is the bandit kingdoms where I found the "evards is nonlethal" interpretation in the main. I've never seen it in the other regions where I've played (5 at last count, plus online games with GM's from australia, east coast and europe) It had no effect on my play, but I feel obligated to point out the rules reference that backs the more usual interpretation (it isn't ONLY that spells generally do nonlethal damage unless otherwise stated). At my tables I don't give undead and constructs a free ride against the evards damage, especially as the latest FAQ rules that DR doesn't apply. This sort of thing is why we let judges rule on "the grey" rather than let triad or circle make rulings. Just because they're fantastic contributors to the campaign doesn't mean their opinion is any better than anybody else on the rules, unless the rules are tied specificially into the campaign's metarules (such as crafting or Closed spells/feats)
katrick 04-17-07, 01:26 PM	Along this line of reasoning, rake which is done in a grapple is non-lethal, as is the bite from a 15ft lizard(behir), as is the swallowing from a purple worm? What do gelatinous cubes do? Do you lose your armor when grappled by a Remorhaz?(non-lethal fire damage) Under Improved Grab it says:If the creature hits with a melee weapon(usually a claw or bite attack) it deals normal damage and attempts to start a GRAPPLE as a free action without provoking an AoO. No initial touch attack is required and Small or Tiny creatures do not suffer the Size penalty. Ergo non-lethal damage.(based on your reasoning of Evards spell desc.) This is focused linear reasoning, as opposed to circular reasoning. I want my favours and Xp back please? katrick
Britt 04-17-07, 02:02 PM	Several people are confusing several rules of both D&D and argumentation: 1. Attacks with natural weapons inside a grapple are not grapple checks to do damage; they do not fall under the same heading. 2. A tentacle used in a grapple as a natural weapon does lethal bludgeoning damage. A tentacle used in a grapple to make a grapple check to deal damage does nonlethal bludgeoning damage. 3. Bludgeoning does not preclude nonlethal in any way. You cannot point to the word bludgeoning and claim that means lethal. Look at saps. 4. Claiming that most people disagree is not proof, or even evidence, in support of an argument. Most people used to think the world was flat; that never made it true. 5. Claiming that it used to be different is only support of an argument when you have no firm evidence how something works. If Evard's left off the damage type, you could look at 3.0 to see that it was likely intended to do bludgeoning damage. 6. Pointing at explicit exceptions to the grapple rules does not help prove that the spell does not use grapple rules; it actually helps proves that it does. Explicit exceptions are listed when they are needed to change the default rules. Without explicit exceptions, you use the default rules. Listing the exceptions indicates that they don't want you to use the default rules there. That doesn't mean they don't want you to use the default rules anywhere. 7. Stating that every spell that does nonlethal damage specifically says so is begging the question. 8. There's no such damage type as "crushing". 9. Making grapple checks to deal damage is not attacking with a natural weapon; creatures are not restricted to one grapple check per round. If a creature with tentacles has a BAB of 16, it gets 4 grapple checks. 10. Fire damage is always lethal (DMG (leather) 303) 11. Improved Grab specifically says it deals damage as normal for the attack that initiated the grapple (MM (leather) 310) 12. Rake, Bite, and Swallow Whole are not grapple checks to deal damage. 13. Constrict damage is an odd ball. I've gone back and forth on whether it is lethal or nonlethal. 14. I haven't trusted the opinion of Infinite Monkeys for about 4 or 5 years :D, or as I call it, Infinite Personal Opinions ;) Most of the comments I'm seeing boil down to "It's lethal damage because it's lethal damage." I know that sounds harsh, but the only supporting premises I've seen are that it's bludgeoning (so is a sap), it's a spell (it specifically references grappling and then lists the explicit exceptions), and it doesn't say nonlethal (Grapple does, which it references). All that is left is that it has to be lethal because it has to be. The reason you see this in the BK is probably that we figured this out long ago in Tulsa and I've been championing the interpretation for many years. I've never seen the opinion elsewhere, but that's never stopped me before :D Hey Zanzibax, can you combine our posts into one big one instead of several in a row?
clik_ml 04-17-07, 02:35 PM	7. Stating that every spell that does nonlethal damage specifically says so is begging the question. Is it really begging the question to presume that normal damage is the norm?
Britt 04-17-07, 02:36 PM	Is it really begging the question to presume that normal damage is the norm? No, that's not. I agree that the norm is lethal damage. However, stating "every spell does lethal damage, therefore, Evard's does lethal damage" is begging the question. I agree that the norm is lethal damage, but I think that a reference to the grapple rules overrides that norm for Evard's.
copper_wyrmling 04-17-07, 02:46 PM	Several people are confusing several rules of both D&D and argumentation: 1. Attacks with natural weapons inside a grapple are not grapple checks to do damage; they do not fall under the same heading. Agreed. 2. A tentacle used in a grapple as a natural weapon does lethal bludgeoning damage. A tentacle used in a grapple to make a grapple check to deal damage does nonlethal bludgeoning damage. Can you point me to the rule where it states that a monster with natural weapons (and without improved grab) can deal damage with a grapple check equal to its natural weapon damage, but nonlethal? Or have I misunderstood what you're saying? As you said earlier, nat weapons are not the same as unarmed strike... the PHB description of grapple says it does unarmed strike damage. 3. Bludgeoning does not preclude nonlethal in any way. You cannot point to the word bludgeoning and claim that means lethal. Look at saps. No, but the word "damage" means "lethal damage" unless stated otherwise. 6. Pointing at explicit exceptions to the grapple rules does not help prove that the spell does not use grapple rules; it actually helps proves that it does. Explicit exceptions are listed when they are needed to change the default rules. Without explicit exceptions, you use the default rules. Listing the exceptions indicates that they don't want you to use the default rules there. That doesn't mean they don't want you to use the default rules anywhere. Agreed. However, if the spell does not explicitly reference the PHB grapple rules (it doesn't say "see page X") and does not coincide with them in ANY important particular (attack roll required, grapple checks / round, amount of grapple damage), then it seems like something of a stretch to say that they must follow the PHB rules for "grappling with unarmed strike" closely enough that the damage must be nonlethal. Due to the lack of explicit links, the lack of other similarities, and because damage is lethal as a default, many people seem to read the "1d6+4 damage" as a sufficient override to the "1d4+4 nonlethal damage" of a standard Large grappler. 9. Making grapple checks to deal damage is not attacking with a natural weapon; creatures are not restricted to one grapple check per round. If a creature with tentacles has a BAB of 16, it gets 4 grapple checks. However, it doesn't do tentacle damage on those attacks. Instead, they deal unarmed strike damage (1d4+Str nonlethal for a Large creature): see the FAQ p79. I believe it's debated how Improved Grab interacts with this: some people feel that a creature using the Improved Grab option to do natural weapon damage (1d6+Str lethal for a large tentacle) gets only one grapple check / round. Others feel you use the normal grapple sequence and simply replace the 1d4+Str nonlethal with the natural attack damage. In either case, unarmed strike damage (1d4+4 for a Str-18 Large) correlates to nonlethal damage; natural attack damage (1d6+4 for a Str-18 Large tentacle) correlates to lethal damage and is only possible with Improved Grab. 14. I haven't trusted the opinion of Infinite Monkeys for about 4 or 5 years :D, or as I call it, Infinite Personal Opinions ;) It's not a bad forum for seeing all the different opinions on a topic - i.e. all the different reasonably-supported ways a judge can rule, on grey areas. The reason you see this in the BK is probably that we figured this out long ago in Tulsa and I've been championing the interpretation for many years. I've never seen the opinion elsewhere, but that's never stopped me before :D Believe me, the reason I'm continuing to post on this thread is that I want you to convince me that this interpretation is correct, so I can argue it as a player ;) My sorceress doesn't care even slightly if undead and constructs don't take her Evard's damage: that's what sculpted empowered fireballs are for (or her ray spells if the GM rules she can fire into the Evards without a miss chance). If it did nonlethal damage, it would give her a much-needed crowd-control spell.
Britt 04-17-07, 02:57 PM	Can you point me to the rule where it states that a monster with natural weapons (and without improved grab) can deal damage with a grapple check equal to its natural weapon damage, but nonlethal? Or have I misunderstood what you're saying? I wasn't discussing the amount of damage, just the type. No, but the word "damage" means "lethal damage" unless stated otherwise. PH 307 Agreed. However, if the spell does not explicitly reference the PHB grapple rules (it doesn't say "see page X") and does not coincide with them in ANY important particular (attack roll required, grapple checks / round, amount of grapple damage), then it seems like something of a stretch to say that they must follow the PHB rules for "grappling with unarmed strike" closely enough that the damage must be nonlethal. Due to the lack of explicit links, the lack of other similarities, and because damage is lethal as a default, many people seem to read the "1d6+4 damage" as a sufficient override to the "1d4+4 nonlethal damage" of a standard Large grappler. It says you make a grapple check to deal damage. The PH lists the rules for making a grapple check to deal damage. Everything else listed in the spell is an explicit exception to those rules. The damage disparity is a problem, but as it is explicitly listed, it could be intentional that it do more damage than a normal grapple check. Without some sort of evidence of intent, the normal rules should take precedence. I believe it's debated how Improved Grab interacts with this: some people feel that a creature using the Improved Grab option to do natural weapon damage (1d6+Str lethal for a large tentacle) gets only one grapple check / round. Others feel you use the normal grapple sequence and simply replace the 1d4+Str nonlethal with the natural attack damage. I'm not sure where any interpretation that it is limited to one grapple check is founded in the rules. In either case, unarmed strike damage (1d4+4 for a Str-18 Large) correlates to nonlethal damage; natural attack damage (1d6+4 for a Str-18 Large tentacle) correlates to lethal damage and is only possible with Improved Grab. Yes, but that would require it to have Improved Grab, which it does not state that it has. If it did, this conversation would be finished. However, without that text, assuming that it has Improved Grab and deals lethal damage is adding not only to the text, but to the power of the spell. Saying it does nonlethal damage is just using the grapple rules that the spell references. It's not a bad forum for seeing all the different opinions on a topic - i.e. all the different reasonably-supported ways a judge can rule, on grey areas. I just think it has a very bad signal:noise ratio for actual rules interpretation. It's great for seeing different opinions on how judges would rule. I don't think it's very good for seeing valid rules interpretations.
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 03:10 PM	Yes, but that would require it to have Improved Grab, which it does not state that it has. If it did, this conversation would be finished. However, without that text, assuming that it has Improved Grab and deals lethal damage is adding not only to the text, but to the power of the spell. Saying it does nonlethal damage is just using the grapple rules that the spell references. I just think it has a very bad signal:noise ratio for actual rules interpretation. It's great for seeing different opinions on how judges would rule. I don't think it's very good for seeing valid rules interpretations. It can't have Improved Grab, it's a spell, not a creature. It acts as if it had Improved Grab, that's the spell description. I think you have a poor rules interpretation for this spell. HOWEVER, should you rule at my table on this spell in that way...I will take advantage of your ruling.
katrick 04-17-07, 03:28 PM	3. Bludgeoning does not preclude nonlethal in any way. You cannot point to the word bludgeoning and claim that means lethal. Look at saps. 12. Rake, Bite, and Swallow Whole are not grapple checks to deal damage. I wholeheartedly agree on your other principles. Sorry the fire thing was sarcasm. But, and their is always one, all these abilities mention GRAPPLE, and therefore operate under the grapple rules ie NON_LETHAL Rake: A creature with this special attack gains extra Natural Attacks when it GRAPPLES a foe. Normally,a monster can attack with only one of it's natural weapons while GRAPPLING, but a monster with the Rake ability usually gains two additinal claw attacks that it can use only against a GRAPPLED foe. Rake attacks are not subject to the usual -4 for attacking with a natural weapon in a grapple. A monster must begin it's turn GRAPPLING to use it's Rake- it can't GRAPPLE and rake in the same turn. Swallow Whole: If a creature with this special attack begins it's turn with an opponent in it's mouth(see Improved Grab pg 310) it can attempt a new Grapple check(as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds the opponent is swallowed and takes bite damage. Under Improved Grab it says:A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature has the CONSTRICT ability. If it does not constrict, each successful Grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. They all run under the Grapple rules and need a Grapple attempt; so if you take a -4 to that attempt you can do lethal damage, according to the rules as written. PHB pg 156 Damage your Opponent: While GRAPPLING, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an Unarmed Strike. Make an opposed Grapple check in place of an attack. If you win you deal non-lethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike. If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a -4 on your GRAPPLE check. So if you want Evards to do lethal damage you simply take -4 on your GRAPPLE checks Just two other small points, the Rake etc, are they in essence continuing damage?(for casting purposes), and hammers are bludgeoning damage, but under their description it doesn't mention lethal\non-lethal. (so can you do non-lethal damage with a hammer) Katrick
Britt 04-17-07, 03:35 PM	It acts as if it had Improved Grab, that's the spell description. Except that's not in the spell, anywhere.
Britt 04-17-07, 03:41 PM	But, and their is always one, all these abilities mention GRAPPLE, and therefore operate under the grapple rules ie NON_LETHAL Mentioning grapple and doing damage as a grapple check are two different things. The latter is a specific entry in the grapple rules; it is a specific action. The former is a different type of specific action that can be attempted while in a grapple. The former does not pull in the rules on the latter. They all run under the Grapple rules and need a Grapple attempt; so if you take a -4 to that attempt you can do lethal damage, according to the rules as written. PHB pg 156 Damage your Opponent: While GRAPPLING, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an Unarmed Strike. Make an opposed Grapple check in place of an attack. If you win you deal non-lethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike. If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a -4 on your GRAPPLE check. They all work with grapple, but are not the same as grapple checks to deal damage. A grapple check to deal damage is a specific action that has rules specified. All the actions you cite are special attack actions, not grapple checks to deal damage. So if you want Evards to do lethal damage you simply take -4 on your GRAPPLE checks That would be a perfect solution, if you had that option; however, the tentacles act on their own; you cannot control them. and hammers are bludgeoning damage, but under their description it doesn't mention lethal\non-lethal. (so can you do non-lethal damage with a hammer) The default is lethal. If you don't see any indication of damage type, assume lethal. In the case of a hammer, there is nothing to indicate type, so you assume lethal. In the case of grappling, the rules state that when you make a grapple check to deal damage, it is nonlethal.
katrick 04-17-07, 03:45 PM	I get it now katrick and they wouldn' be continuous damage either , unless constricted
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 04:55 PM	The default is lethal. If you don't see any indication of damage type, assume lethal. In the case of a hammer, there is nothing to indicate type, so you assume lethal. In the case of grappling, the rules state that when you make a grapple check to deal damage, it is nonlethal. Yes, we did make that assumption with the default. You haven't convinced us to change from that conclusion...except those of us who really really really *want* to *believe*. It's a spell, it can't grapple. The spell effect lists the damage and allots the damage according to a grapple check. It does not otherwise follow any grappling rules. You've made up the rest of it.
Britt 04-17-07, 05:02 PM	Yes, we did make that assumption with the default. You haven't convinced us to change from that conclusion...except those of us who really really really *want* to *believe*. Odd, I see it as exactly the opposite. There are a few people in this thread that have admitted they always saw it as lethal, but the argument has convinced them. You seem to be hanging onto the argument that it is lethal because it is. It's a spell, it can't grapple. The spell effect lists the damage and allots the damage according to a grapple check. It does not otherwise follow any grappling rules. It says "treat the tentacles attacking a particular target as a Large creature". I have a hard time squaring that with "it can't grapple". The spell is a conjuration that creates tentacles. The tentacles are treated as large creatures. It doesn't conjure a spell to sit in an area and use its little spell arms to wrap around people and do spell damage. You've made up the rest of it. Actually, I've provided logical arguments supported by the rules. You, on the other hand, have provided ad hominem attacks.
Rerednaw 04-17-07, 05:30 PM	Actually this bring up another interesting point. If we are treating this like a grapple, since the EBT have a BAB, then wouldn't it gain iterative attacks at caster level 11+?
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 06:03 PM	Actually this bring up another interesting point. If we are treating this like a grapple, since the EBT have a BAB, then wouldn't it gain iterative attacks at caster level 11+? Thank you for pointing out yet more flaws in Britt (& Sam's) thinking. Yes, it would get iterative attacks. As it stands it attacks everything in the area automatically...and it would gain iterative attacks at level 6 (before it could be cast)...so continuing down this line of thought, it would get iterative attacks per tentacle. Now...this is really great for PCs if they're casting it and really sucks for PCs if NPCs are casting it.
Mommy was an Orc 04-17-07, 06:05 PM	Most of the comments I'm seeing boil down to "It's lethal damage because it's lethal damage." I know that sounds harsh, but the only supporting premises I've seen are that it's bludgeoning (so is a sap), it's a spell (it specifically references grappling and then lists the explicit exceptions), and it doesn't say nonlethal (Grapple does, which it references). All that is left is that it has to be lethal because it has to be. You're also ruling that it gets multiple attacks when the spell clearly says that it gets to make 'a grapple check' on your turn. You can argue that it is the effect of BAB all you want - they clearly made an exception, and you're ignoring it. The example of a sap is irrelevant. A sap specifically says it does non-lethal damage. This spell explicitly states it does damage. It doesn't state it uses the grapple rules for damage, it says it does a grapple check to do a specific kind of damage. I see that as an exception, you're choosing to not see it as an exception. But I have strong evidence in my eyes that you don't necessarily always make good judgments about what constitutes an exception. Combined with the opinion that the spell is somewhat overpowered, the nonlethal interpretation is not only literally correct, it is more balanced. I think this is the cart leading the horse here - you've made an interpretation that greatly increases the power of the spell. You're now making another ruling to stop low strength casters and rogues from being arbitrarily slaughtered by the use of Evard's. If the writers had intended multiple grapple checks, then yes, it makes a lot more sense that they would have also intended it to be nonlethal. But I don't think they intended either of those.
Zanzibax 04-17-07, 06:10 PM	Odd, I see it as exactly the opposite. There are a few people in this thread that have admitted they always saw it as lethal, but the argument has convinced them. You seem to be hanging onto the argument that it is lethal because it is. It says "treat the tentacles attacking a particular target as a Large creature". I have a hard time squaring that with "it can't grapple". The spell is a conjuration that creates tentacles. The tentacles are treated as large creatures. It doesn't conjure a spell to sit in an area and use its little spell arms to wrap around people and do spell damage. Actually, I've provided logical arguments supported by the rules. You, on the other hand, have provided ad hominem attacks. I haven't attacked any of your arguments from the basis that this information is coming from you and therefore invalid. I am not providing ad hominem attacks and would not do that because it is an illogical form of debate...and because I *do* respect you more than that. I too feel the spell becomes more powerful/useful with subdual damage. It just doesn't seem that way to me and I can't go along with something just because it sounds good. (Ask Samwise) You have made a huge assumption that all grapple checks are non-lethal damage unless specifically noted otherwise...including the exceptions. This has been pointed out as false a couple of times. You haven't, yet, managed to span that leap with rules or FAQ quotes that satisfy my understanding of the rules concerning Grapple, Spells, and specifically Evard's Black Tentacles. Meanwhile, spells don't cause non-lethal damage unless specifically noted otherwise, or maybe if some obscure feat is used...not sure there is one. The only instance where the issue of non-lethal vs. lethal damage for spells is addressed with respect to using grapple rules as a means of determining whether or not damage is caused is Bigby's Crushing Hand, which specifically notes that it is lethal damage. It is a logical fallacy to say that since it is specified there, but not elsewhere, it must be that the opposite is true elsewhere.
katrick 04-17-07, 06:12 PM	Actually this bring up another interesting point. If we are treating this like a grapple, since the EBT have a BAB, then wouldn't it gain iterative attacks at caster level 11+? I think the phrase your lokking for is "By Default" katrick
copper_wyrmling 04-17-07, 06:12 PM	Odd, I see it as exactly the opposite. There are a few people in this thread that have admitted they always saw it as lethal, but the argument has convinced them. You seem to be hanging onto the argument that it is lethal because it is. To be fair, Britt, there are also people in this thread who have always seen it as lethal and are not convinced by your argument: zanzibax isn't alone there. It says "treat the tentacles attacking a particular target as a Large creature". I have a hard time squaring that with "it can't grapple". The spell is a conjuration that creates tentacles. The tentacles are treated as large creatures. It doesn't conjure a spell to sit in an area and use its little spell arms to wrap around people and do spell damage. Well, the FAQ does say that it does spell damage, I think. "How do spells like Evard’s black tentacles and ice storm affect a creature with damage reduction overcome by magic and bludgeoning? Do the tentacles and hailstones deal magical bludgeoning damage? Any damage dealt by a spell or other magical effect is unaffected by damage reduction." This seems to be linked to the more general statement: "Spells (and powers), spell-like abilities, and energy attacks ignore damage reduction (Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 292). Thus, even if a spell or power describes its damage as bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, it is still a spell (or power) effect, and thus damage reduction does not apply (unless the spell or power’s description specifically states otherwise)." The FAQ also has this to say about the spell: "The Evard’s black tentacles spell creates a field of numerous tentacles in a 20-foot radius spread. Tentacles sprout from all the surfaces within the spread. The spell actually works something like an entangle spell that’s capable of dealing bludgeoning damage. The spell uses an opposed grapple check instead of a saving throw to determine if creatures within its spread are affected. Any creature inside the spread might become grappled, as noted in the spell description. The spell does not make an initial touch attack as with normal grappling attempts, so it cannot miss, even if a creature is invisible or otherwise concealed." The section I've bolded sounds very much like what Zanzibax was saying with "the spell effect lists the damage and allots the damage according to a grapple check". EDIT: And look at the top of page 2 - I brought up the issue of iterative attacks, Britt said that he'd run it that way before but indicated (if I understood correctly) that he hadn't noticed the wording restricting it to one grapple check / round. I could be wrong, but I believe he thinks that the spell description explicitly overrides the usual iterative attacks.
Britt 04-17-07, 06:20 PM	You're also ruling that it gets multiple attacks when the spell clearly says that it gets to make 'a grapple check' on your turn. You can argue that it is the effect of BAB all you want - they clearly made an exception, and you're ignoring it. Those are two different issues. It is nonlethal by the reference to the grapple rules. There is no contradiction in the text about that. The BAB/iterative attack issue does have contradiction in that it says "a grapple". That I already admitted was a problem. It doesn't follow that the damage is lethal if there are not iterative attacks. The example of a sap is irrelevant. A sap specifically says it does non-lethal damage. This spell explicitly states it does damage. It doesn't state it uses the grapple rules for damage, it says it does a grapple check to do a specific kind of damage. I see that as an exception, you're choosing to not see it as an exception. No, I don't see that as an exception. I see it as a reference to the rules on doing damage with a grapple check. Since that's exactly what it is doing, that seems pretty logical to me. But I have strong evidence in my eyes that you don't necessarily always make good judgments about what constitutes an exception. Care to expound on that thinly-veiled insult? I think this is the cart leading the horse here - you've made an interpretation that greatly increases the power of the spell. You're now making another ruling to stop low strength casters and rogues from being arbitrarily slaughtered by the use of Evard's. If the writers had intended multiple grapple checks, then yes, it makes a lot more sense that they would have also intended it to be nonlethal. But I don't think they intended either of those. No, I actually came to the conclusion that it was nonlethal first. The iterative attacks issue came up later and it seemed to me that they should get iterative attacks, since they are treated as creatures with a BAB.
Britt 04-17-07, 06:29 PM	I haven't attacked any of your arguments from the basis that this information is coming from you and therefore invalid. I am not providing ad hominem attacks and would not do that because it is an illogical form of debate...and because I *do* respect you more than that. Sorry, you're right; I meant ad personam. I always get those mixed up. I view comments like "you made stuff up" as attacks on the person rather than the argument, as there's really no argument there. We probably just view it differently. I too feel the spell becomes more powerful/useful with subdual damage. It just doesn't seem that way to me and I can't go along with something just because it sounds good. (Ask Samwise) I think it's less powerful as nonlethal. It may be more useful for PCs, but it's less deadly, which is the usual metric for power. You have made a huge assumption that all grapple checks are non-lethal damage unless specifically noted otherwise...including the exceptions. This has been pointed out as false a couple of times. You haven't, yet, managed to span that leap with rules or FAQ quotes that satisfy my understanding of the rules concerning Grapple, Spells, and specifically Evard's Black Tentacles. No, I say that grapple checks to do damage, the specific action, is nonlethal unless one of a few criteria are met. There are other types of actions that involve grappling that do not fall under that category, but those are different actions. And I have definitely not said that an exception is not an exception. I am saying that Evard's is not an exception, at least not the way it is worded. Meanwhile, spells don't cause non-lethal damage unless specifically noted otherwise, or maybe if some obscure feat is used...not sure there is one. If a spell said that you conjure mystical sap-wielding arms that flog your enemies and deal 1d8+4 bludgeoning damage, would you say that the damage was lethal? I sure wouldn't, and I see this as a nigh identical situation. The only instance where the issue of non-lethal vs. lethal damage for spells is addressed with respect to using grapple rules as a means of determining whether or not damage is caused is Bigby's Crushing Hand, which specifically notes that it is lethal damage. It is a logical fallacy to say that since it is specified there, but not elsewhere, it must be that the opposite is true elsewhere. I never brought up Bigby's Crushing Hand, so I don't see how that matters. If you want to use it as inductive evidence, though, it does imply that it would be nonlethal without that statement.
Mommy was an Orc 04-17-07, 07:50 PM	Those are two different issues. It is nonlethal by the reference to the grapple rules. There is no contradiction in the text about that. The BAB/iterative attack issue does have contradiction in that it says "a grapple". That I already admitted was a problem. It doesn't follow that the damage is lethal if there are not iterative attacks. Even if you intellectually realize that there are not iterative attacks, your prism on Evard's is set to 15-22 hp of damage a round, not 7.5, and nonlethal damage is part of how you see it being balanced. That may not be a problem for you, but it makes me doubt the validity of your argument. No, I don't see that as an exception. I see it as a reference to the rules on doing damage with a grapple check. Since that's exactly what it is doing, that seems pretty logical to me. Care to expound on that thinly-veiled insult? It isn't an insult. You just made a pretty obvious mistake in reading the rules about an exception(Evard's not getting multiple attacks, despite BAB) - you don't think that should influence what I think of the rest of your argument?
katrick 04-17-07, 08:10 PM	15-22 per round?(d6+4) if you roll max, Empower it,Transdimensional and cop Wraiths or Ghosts using Magic of the Land you can get 29 for a 7th(but undead aren't getting out of it katrick
Britt 04-17-07, 08:25 PM	It isn't an insult. You just made a pretty obvious mistake in reading the rules about an exception(Evard's not getting multiple attacks, despite BAB) - you don't think that should influence what I think of the rest of your argument? I wouldn't call it a mistake. I call it an inconsistency in the text that I resolve one way and you resolve another. It could be that they meant it to be only one attack, but that would be inconsistent with it having a BAB. The problem with the word "a" is that it has ambiguous content. It sometimes means "one and only one" and sometimes is included without reference to quantity. "I have an RPGA Campaign Card" doesn't necessarily mean I have only one, but it could. And no, it most definitely should not influence what you think of a completely different argument.
_metz_ 04-17-07, 08:27 PM	What the hell is with some of these regions like Keoland? Banning EBT.. I think a special mod of High level sorcerors should go and EBT the Keoland army and teach em a lesson. Is there a reason its banned in keoland? or is this a regional triad attempt to not have discussions like this thread... ;) I would have to say that we need a FAQ on what type of damage Evards is quite frankly, and until then, such issues won't go away. I would persoanlly go with the nonlethal damge. Just cos I hate grappling and the grappling rules and want to discourage it ;)
Mommy was an Orc 04-17-07, 08:27 PM	15-22 per round?(d6+4) if you roll max, Empower it,Transdimensional and cop Wraiths or Ghosts using Magic of the Land you can get 29 for a 7th(but undead aren't getting out of it katrick The average of d6+4 = 7.5. If you get iterative attacks, as Britt was reading it, then the potential damage of the grapple attempts goes way up - especially against low strength/BAB characters.
King Kashue 04-17-07, 08:37 PM	What the hell is with some of these regions like Keoland? Banning EBT.. I think a special mod of High level sorcerors should go and EBT the Keoland army and teach em a lesson. Is there a reason its banned in keoland? or is this a regional triad attempt to not have discussions like this thread... ;) It's already been explained that it's a canonical in-game law, and not a meta-gaming triad rule... I.e., it's illegal for characters to cast it while in Keoland, not banned for players...
_metz_ 04-17-07, 09:14 PM	No, I get that king, thats what I was commenting on, that a regional triad has jumped the gun on LGCS ruling and banned PCs from casting a spell allowed elsewhere, that DOESN'T have an evil descriptor or anything like that, purely to make things easier for mod wirters lol. Frankly it would make things easier, but regional differences in core spells like that, which have no moral issues, is kinda unusual.
KarmaInferno 04-17-07, 09:41 PM	Some casters don't have a choice about whether they know EBT. <peers nervously at the Warmage known spells list> -karma
King Kashue 04-18-07, 12:48 AM	No, I get that king, thats what I was commenting on, that a regional triad has jumped the gun on LGCS ruling and banned PCs from casting a spell allowed elsewhere, that DOESN'T have an evil descriptor or anything like that, purely to make things easier for mod wirters lol. Frankly it would make things easier, but regional differences in core spells like that, which have no moral issues, is kinda unusual. No, you don't seem to get it... The Triad hasn't banned players from doing anything at all, and they haven't "jumped the gun on lGCS ruling". The spell is not banned to players in any way at a campaign rules level. The government of Keoland is paranoid about magic. EBT is one of the several spells that are illegal for characters in-game. It's an in-game law of the government, and has nothing to do with the Triad. In Onnwal, carrying a polearm without a noble title, working for a noble, or being a member of the military is illegal, this does not mean the triad has banned polearms for those characters who don't mean the criteria. In Nyrond, carrying a weapon in a city without a proper license is illegal, but this does not mean the triad has banned carrying weapons. In the Pale, openly displaying non-Pholtan holy symbols of human deities is illegal, and spell casters must be licensed to cast spells. That does not mean the Triad has banned non-Pholtan deities or banned spell casting for non-licensed people. Each region has in-game laws that have to do with their regional flavor. For Keoland, those laws come from a paranoia regarding magic. There is no consequence at the campaign level, and it's not a "ban" as you keep calling it. You could use the spell (or several others) in full view of all the triad and nothing would happen. But if you use the spell in front of in-game authorities, your character will be arrested for committing an illegal act...
Gallaway 04-18-07, 01:08 AM	I see no difference between Keoland making a spell illegal if you are caught casting it in that region and the fact that an archer can be fined the full cost of their bow if caught carrying one in Greyhawk city (and that ruling is Circle not triad). It makes for good roleplaying and regional flavour. Aside from anything else the total failure of all scrying in Perrenland is much more of an imposition on casters and no-one seems overly bothered with that regional variation.
JamesMaissen 04-18-07, 01:59 AM	Okay, I have a few questions for the BK nonlethal side of this debate, most likely specifically Britt. Which grapple checks result in lethal damage and which result in nonlethal damage? Could you perhaps make a list for comparison? Secondly, on the arguement that it should do the default damage of unarmed strike. Doesn't the spell description make a direct exception to this? The nonlethal part of the grapple damage is tied to the unarmed strike damage, is it not? As I recall it is that you deal 'nonlethal damage as is normal for your unarmed strike' but that's clearly not the case in Evards, now is it? So why should it be nonlethal when it's not specified? Shouldn't the arguement be that the 1d6 should be 1d4 and it's a missprint if that's what you wish it to be? -James
Samwise 04-18-07, 04:00 AM	Looking at the Monster Manual: Nowhere under the glossary entry for "Natural Weapons" do I see the word lethal. Can anyone point it out to me? Under the glossary entry for "Improved Grab" I see: "If a creature with this special attacks hits with a melee weapon (usually a claw or bite attack)" That would suggest that a natural weapon is a melee weapon. I see a separate glossary for "Manufactured Weapons." That would suggest support that there are two categories of melee weapons, manufactured and natural. Looking in the Player's Handbook: I see an entry for "unarmed strike." It is: "A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage." I also see a separate entry for "natural weapons." Since natural weapons are weapons, this would suggest that unarmed strikes must be something different, even for creatures with natural weapons. Such strikes do nonlethal damage, as per the above definition. So it would not matter if EBT uses tentacles. When using an appendage, whatever it might be, as an unarmed strike instead of a natural attack, it does nonlethal damage. Monks are an exceptional case. Their otherwise unarmed attack is transformed into a natural weapon that does lethal damage. They can however still use it as an unarmed strike, which does nonlethal damage, and so they get to avoid the normal penalty for using a weapon to do nonlethal damage. Yes, this does appear to create a problem with the spell doing more damage than normal. That isn't a problem though. The text of the spell clearly indicates this deviation from the normal rules. This in no way requires any other independent aspect to also deviate from those rules unless specifically indicated. However, there is more to support this: For the fact that a natural weapon is not an unarmed strike, and that an appendage with a natural weapon doing an unarmed strike does different and non-lethal damage: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a For the spell noting the differences: I've already cited the Bigby's Hand spells. Among other things, they include the no provoking AoOs, different damage, and doing lethal damage. I will now add the description of EBT from the 3E rulebook. There, the description states directly (in the text, no inferring) that the spell: 1. Caused a specific number of tentacles to appear. 2. Each tentacle had an AC and hit points. 3. Each tentacle made a separate grappling attack. 4. These attacks did not provoke AoOs. 5. The attacks do a specific amount of base damage. 6. The spell does normal and not subdual damage. That last is of course the key point. Given everything else that was removed (1-3), and everything that was not removed (4-5), it would suggest that removing that last specification of causing normal damage was deliberate. (As well as, yet again, reinforcing that grapple checks deal nonlethal damage as the default.) This leaves only one dual aspected peculiarity to the spell: The bludgeoning tentacles. As I've noted, the "bludgeoning" part is irrelevant, that FAQ notes that the spell does "magical energy" damage. The grapple rules and distinction between natural weapons and unarmed attacks also makes the "tentacles" part irrelevant. It is most likely that this is a combination of flavor text (EBT creates tentacles, not floppy arms), and missed deletion (the bludgeoning has no effect). Side Issue: King Kashue has answered you _metz_. All I will add is that law for Keoland was created years ago. It has absolutely no relation to this thread.
trollbill 04-18-07, 09:48 AM	Despite what the rules on Evards may or may not technically say, there is also an issue of intent. Given that a huge number of people reading this thread had previously interpretted the spell to deal lethal, and a huge number of people on this thread that are interpreting it to be non-lethal had originally interpreted to be lethal until they studied the issue closely, it would appear painfully obvious that non-lethal is not the most obvious choice when reading the text. While I know rules writers aren't perfect, given how obvious it is to interpret the damage as lethal, I have a hard time believing they wouldn't have listed the damage as non-lethal in the spell entry if that was their intent.
Zanzibax 04-18-07, 09:54 AM	Sorry, you're right; I meant ad personam. I always get those mixed up. I view comments like "you made stuff up" as attacks on the person rather than the argument, as there's really no argument there. We probably just view it differently. Then take my wording as, the rules you've quoted do not state that Evard's causes non-lethal damage. The rules you've quoted do not support the argument that Evard's causes non-lethal damage. The rules you've quoted do support the notion that non-lethal damage is specifically listed. So I can only conclude that your opinion is only your opinion. i.e. "You made that up." I think it's less powerful as nonlethal. It may be more useful for PCs, but it's less deadly, which is the usual metric for power. If so then your metric is also broken. Effectiveness, not deadliness should be the metric. Thus, the re-interpretation of "stun" that causes those affected to drop their weapons dramatically multipied the power of spells and actions that give the "stunned" effect to targets. No, I say that grapple checks to do damage, the specific action, is nonlethal unless one of a few criteria are met. There are other types of actions that involve grappling that do not fall under that category, but those are different actions. And I have definitely not said that an exception is not an exception. I am saying that Evard's is not an exception, at least not the way it is worded. Ah...I think I see where you may have made a mistake. "Grapple Checks" are not an action. "Grappling" is an action. This is a spell effect that uses a grapple check as a conveinent method of determining damage distribution. It is not a grapple per se, it is a spell. As a spell, it inflicts spell damage. You also seem to be missing an exception. Spell effects, that are not summoned creatures themselves, do not cause non-lethal damage. I understand that it would be nice to make an exception, but I don't think it's consistent with the rules. If a spell said that you conjure mystical sap-wielding arms that flog your enemies and deal 1d8+4 bludgeoning damage, would you say that the damage was lethal? I sure wouldn't, and I see this as a nigh identical situation. Saps are specifically noted as causing non-lethal damage by default. Tentacles are specifically noted as causing lethal damage by default. You've supported my contention...by accident I think. I never brought up Bigby's Crushing Hand, so I don't see how that matters. If you want to use it as inductive evidence, though, it does imply that it would be nonlethal without that statement. Someone did bring it up, and you already chastized me about multiple posts. I disagree that it implies that it would be non-lethal without that statement. It falls under the argumentative style of a (hopefully banned) poster who consistently declared that if any given thing was not explicitly allowed, it was prohibited from the game. You can't conclude that the wording of that spell implies grapple checks by another spell cause non-lethal damage because it specifies lethal damage. You should, in my opinion, conclude that it must specify lethal damage by virtue of the fact that it is a hand, which causes non-lethal damage by default vis-a-vis your argument regarding mystically wielded saps above.
Zanzibax 04-18-07, 10:05 AM	Looking at the Monster Manual: Nowhere under the glossary entry for "Natural Weapons" do I see the word lethal. Can anyone point it out to me? <<snip>> This leaves only one dual aspected peculiarity to the spell: The bludgeoning tentacles. As I've noted, the "bludgeoning" part is irrelevant, that FAQ notes that the spell does "magical energy" damage. The grapple rules and distinction between natural weapons and unarmed attacks also makes the "tentacles" part irrelevant. It is most likely that this is a combination of flavor text (EBT creates tentacles, not floppy arms), and missed deletion (the bludgeoning has no effect). "Magical energy" can cause non-lethal damage without a specific exception now? Where's that brand new interpretation coming from? That thing about natural weapons and no reference to lethal damage made me laugh though...thanks. Page 6 of the Monster Manual describes Damage caused by natural weapons. Clearly it's lethal damage unless specifically noted OTHERWISE. Your attempt to flip that on it's head was...funny/odd.
Zanzibax 04-18-07, 10:22 AM	Since we're at it...let's also look at "Improved Grab", "Constrict", and "Natural Weapons" Page 307, 310, and 312 of the Monster Manual, respectively. These descriptions are very close to the descriptions given for Evard's Black Tentacles. All of them suggest lethal damage unless specifically noted otherwise. Add to this Samwise's admission that the damage type (bludgeoning) is more a function of the tentacle appearance of the spell and not a description of the Damage Resistance type that might be effective against it.
KShaver 04-18-07, 10:50 AM	Despite what the rules on Evards may or may not technically say, there is also an issue of intent. Given that a huge number of people reading this thread had previously interpretted the spell to deal lethal, and a huge number of people on this thread that are interpreting it to be non-lethal had originally interpreted to be lethal until they studied the issue closely, it would appear painfully obvious that non-lethal is not the most obvious choice when reading the text. While I know rules writers aren't perfect, given how obvious it is to interpret the damage as lethal, I have a hard time believing they wouldn't have listed the damage as non-lethal in the spell entry if that was their intent. Exactly what I was about to comment on. While the non-lethal version of the tentacles may follow the exact letter of some rules it doesn't feel like the intended version of the spell. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the spell to be non-lethal only, as it would help counter an otherwise potent spell (though adding multiple grapple checks totally throws that out the window).
solbergb 04-18-07, 11:37 AM	Guys, we aren't going to convince Britt, nor the small circle of DM's that rule this way. I've only encountered them in the BK, but it was about half of them, so the meme is pretty strong there. I have not encountered the nonlethal ruling anywhere else, (anywhere else covers Nyrond, Duchy of Urnst, Pale, Ket, Tusmit and I would expect Perrinland and wherever Netherlands is, from online judges). Given that the campaign is larger than those regions I won't rule out other pockets of judges ruling in a similar way somewhere. I believe the arguments made by Tracy and Samwise and Andy and myself sufficiently dispose of the issue to feel comfortable ruling that they do lethal damage, strong enough to stand up to any sr DM appeal - as a judge. I believe the arugments made by Britt are in good faith and understand the underlying premise from which they come - I just don't agree. He's using the PHB grapple rules and a "poor editing" assumptipn to override both the specific spell description and the equally valid and closer match of the tentacles being a simulation of a size large, 18 strength tentacle with improved grab as a model for the spell. You won't win this argument with a judge either way. You've seen where Britt gets his point of view, and you've seen that he'll support it to the point of giving iterative attacks to the tentacles even when the spell description says there is only one. The important thing is to be aware both points of view exist, and not freak out when the judge picks one different from your own belief. It is at this point a religious debate, instructive only in seeing how strongly held the opposing viewpoints are. If you aren't already convinced by one aregument or the other, you won't likely be convinced.
Zanzibax 04-18-07, 12:27 PM	You're probably right, Sol. One last mention bears repeating. In the most previous edition, it specifically listed the damage as lethal damage. If there was a deliberate attempt to change the spell, necessarily it would now be specifically listed as non-lethal damage. I have to respectfully reject Britt's interpretation. You mentioned Samwise's arguments as part of the reasoning that also rejects Britt's interpretation...and I have to agree with you on that issue as well...but I feel compelled to point out that he was arguing for Britt's interpretation, not against it.
Samwise 04-18-07, 12:37 PM	I believe the arugments made by Britt are in good faith and understand the underlying premise from which they come - I just don't agree. He's using the PHB grapple rules and a "poor editing" assumptipn to override both the specific spell description and the equally valid and closer match of the tentacles being a simulation of a size large, 18 strength tentacle with improved grab as a model for the spell. Actually you are using a deliberate ignoring of editing. The spell clearly stated it did lethal damage with a grapple in 3E. It does not include that note anywhere in 3.5. Bigby's Crushing Hand includes the note about lethal damage in both editions. You have the clear text, and clear text in a similar spell for comparison. No one has yet addressed that, or indeed the difference between a natural attack and an unarmed strike that I pointed out, and the connection between those and a grapple check. All the opposing position has is the damage being for a different size to support adding several very specific special abilities to the spell, not the least of which is the automatic attack which you disdain in the interpretation Britt is using. Preponderance of evidence is not on your side.
katrick 04-18-07, 12:49 PM	Solbergb the Netherlands is commonly known as Holland where the Dutch live in Euorope above France. katrick
Mommy was an Orc 04-18-07, 12:59 PM	Actually you are using a deliberate ignoring of editing. The spell clearly stated it did lethal damage with a grapple in 3E. It does not include that note anywhere in 3.5. 3.0 more closely resembled a mass of creatures. They had hit points, you could kill them, they had an actual attack bonus(as opposed to being treated as having a BAB for purposes of resolving the grapple check), and they used all the grapple rules - therefore, you had to state it did normal damage. Same thing goes for Bigby's Crushing Hand. Evard's 3.5 most clearly are not creatures and do not use all the grapple rules. Bigby's Crushing Hand includes the note about lethal damage in both editions. You have the clear text, and clear text in a similar spell for comparison. No one has yet addressed that, or indeed the difference between a natural attack and an unarmed strike that I pointed out, and the connection between those and a grapple check.. Actually, I brought up Bigby's Crushing Hand first in this thread as supporting the concept that Evard's does lethal damage. Bigby's Crushing Hand more closely resembles a creature attempting to make an actual grapple attempt(i.e. given attack routine in the 1st post). Evard's is now a spell that happens to use the Grapple rules to determine if the creature was grabbed and whether or not damage occurred. It does not actually use the Grapple rules to do damage - on the 1st round, it does no damage. If they had intended us to use the Grapple rules, it would do that damage on the 1st grab. I'd also look to intent with the word crushing - if they thought it was going to knock someone out, wouldn't they have used a more descriptive phrase such as rendering its victims unconcious? And the word crushing is new to 3.5, too...
King Kashue 04-18-07, 01:04 PM	Solbergb the Netherlands is commonly known as Holland where the Dutch live in Euorope above France. katrick It's commonly known as Holland to those ignorant of the fact that Holland is only 2 of 12 provinces in the Netherlands...:P And Sol, the Netherlands is Sunndi...
Zanzibax 04-18-07, 01:13 PM	*cough*
Britt 04-18-07, 01:52 PM	Then take my wording as, the rules you've quoted do not state that Evard's causes non-lethal damage. The rules you've quoted do not support the argument that Evard's causes non-lethal damage. The rules you've quoted do support the notion that non-lethal damage is specifically listed. So I can only conclude that your opinion is only your opinion. i.e. "You made that up." See, this sentiment I just can't understand. There are rules for grapple checks to do damage and those rules state that it is nonlethal damage. I can understand intent arguments; I disagree with them, but I understand them. Saying I'm making up the rules just doesn't make any sense, unless you are just refusing to acknowledge the existence of the grappling rules. Ah...I think I see where you may have made a mistake. "Grapple Checks" are not an action. "Grappling" is an action. Yes they are? PH 156: "When you are grappling...you can perform any of the following actions..." "Damage Your Opponent:...you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack..." Now I have to just assume that you are sticking to your opinion and not actually reading the rules I am citing, since that's two completely false statements you have made about the rules I am citing. Saps are specifically noted as causing non-lethal damage by default. As are grapple checks to deal damage... Tentacles are specifically noted as causing lethal damage by default. You've supported my contention...by accident I think. Only when you hit someone with them. If you grapple with them, they deal nonlethal damage. Someone did bring it up, and you already chastized me about multiple posts. Sorry, I didn't mean to chastise you. I was just meaning it as a friendly request from another poster. It felt odd to see several posts from the same poster back to back. It felt like spamming, though I know that's not what you meant. It definitely wasn't meant to chastise. I disagree that it implies that it would be non-lethal without that statement. It falls under the argumentative style of a (hopefully banned) poster who consistently declared that if any given thing was not explicitly allowed, it was prohibited from the game. No, these are two different styles. His was trying to use inductive evidence in a deductive manner. As long as you realize the evidence is merely circumstantial, you can still use it in a probative manner. You just have to be careful with how much you use it; that doesn't mean it proves the exact opposite. You should, in my opinion, conclude that it must specify lethal damage by virtue of the fact that it is a hand, which causes non-lethal damage by default vis-a-vis your argument regarding mystically wielded saps above. Non-lethal by default...just like grapple checks to deal damage.
Zanzibax 04-18-07, 02:00 PM	Non-lethal by default...just like grapple checks to deal damage. Except for natural weapons...like tentacles...or any spell...unless specifically noted otherwise. Anyway...I'm taking Sol's advice. Please do not take a lack of continued argument for submission to this belief.
Britt 04-18-07, 02:04 PM	Except for natural weapons...like tentacles...or any spell...unless specifically noted otherwise. Tentacles that make an opposed grapple check to deal damage do nonlethal damage. I don't know why you are thinking that natural weapons deal lethal damage when used in that way; they don't. Anyway...I'm taking Sol's advice. Please do not take a lack of continued argument for submission to this belief. Don't worry, I wouldn't :)
solbergb 04-18-07, 02:50 PM	Solbergb the Netherlands is commonly known as Holland where the Dutch live in Euorope above France. katrick Yes....but what LG region is it? Until the prior post all I knew is it was somewhere in the Splintered Suns region. That is what I didn't know. My basic geography of that region is pretty good in real world (as I've been there twice, plus a lot of wars, rolled through there in my history studies and a lot of art was generated there in my art history studies, and dutch traders/settlements were a big part of both the american colonies and later carribean piracy/trade mix heh...it's a small place on the map but a lot of recorded western history happened there)
Mithrus 04-18-07, 02:55 PM	The iterative attacks issue came up later and it seemed to me that they should get iterative attacks, since they are treated as creatures with a BAB.I think iteratives are not implied since the tentacles are natural weapons...which do not get iteratives.
Britt 04-18-07, 02:59 PM	I think iteratives are not implied since the tentacles are natural weapons...which do not get iteratives. Grapple checks are not natural weapon attacks, though. A dragon that is in a grapple gets a ton of grapple checks.
Mithrus 04-18-07, 03:04 PM	Yeah, i was about to erase my post as I just realized that, sorry ;) Ok, different question: EBT "conjures" tentacles that are treated as Large creatures, but because its a spell, DR is supposedly ignored. How is this much different than any "summon" spell? The implication is that summoned critters should ignore DR, since it's a spell. This line of thinking is silly, I admit, but either EBT "summons" tentacles that are unique large monsters and the rules for monster attacks are followed (grapple rules, iteratives, et al), or this is a pure spell that has a damage component, and thus ignores DR. Since the spell itself states to treat the tentacles as large monsters, and a DR-related damage type is mentioned, it makes sense that DR applies (otherwise why even mention it?)
copper_wyrmling 04-18-07, 05:23 PM	Yeah, i was about to erase my post as I just realized that, sorry ;) Ok, different question: EBT "conjures" tentacles that are treated as Large creatures, but because its a spell, DR is supposedly ignored. How is this much different than any "summon" spell? The implication is that summoned critters should ignore DR, since it's a spell. This line of thinking is silly, I admit, but either EBT "summons" tentacles that are unique large monsters and the rules for monster attacks are followed (grapple rules, iteratives, et al), or this is a pure spell that has a damage component, and thus ignores DR. Since the spell itself states to treat the tentacles as large monsters, and a DR-related damage type is mentioned, it makes sense that DR applies (otherwise why even mention it?) EBT is Conjuration (Creation), not Conjuration (Summoning). And DR doesn't apply because the FAQ explicitly says DR doesn't apply. I posted some FAQ quotes earlier indicating that Evards is treated as an area spell (it's described as "like a version of entangle that can do bludgeoning damage") which uses grapple checks rather than saving throws to determine damage. Britt, you can't grapple with tentacles unless you're using improved grab, as I understand it (in terms of game mechanics). A creature with tentacles can make a grab attack which does unarmed strike damage with a successful grapple check, but that has nothing to do with the tentacles (again, in terms of game mechanics) - something like Weapon Focus (Tentacle) or Improved Natural Attack (Tentacle) would have no effect. Grapple check with tentacle = requires improved grab, grapple check does lethal tentacle damage Grapple check with unarmed strike = anyone can do it, grapple check does unarmed strike damage (default nonlethal) Basically, to me, it looks like the arguments come down to: Damage is Nonlethal: - The spell says to "treat the tentacles attacking a target as a Large creature with a base attack bonus equal to your caster level and a Strength score of 19". This means to use the PHB grapple rules in all respects unless the spell explicitly indicates otherwise. - This means that you would give the tentacles iterative attacks based on BAB AND that the damage would be 1d4+4 nonlethal with a successful grapple check, EXCEPT that the spell explicitly states that the damage is 1d6+4 bludgeoning, which overrides the "1d4+4" but not the "nonlethal" bit. - Bigby's Crushing Hand explicitly states that it does lethal damage whereas Evard's does not, and both use the grapple mechanics. - The change from 3.0 to 3.5 removed the mention of the spell explicitly doing lethal damage. Damage is Lethal: - The "treat the tentacles as a Large creature" quote is designed only to explain how the spell arrives at its grapple check modifier: it does not otherwise influence the behaviour of the spell, as the spell explicitly states that the mechanics for initiating a grapple, number of attacks in a grapple and grapple damage are all different to the usual PHB rules. - Lethal damage is always the default: the spell says it deals "1d6+4 bludgeoning damage" and this overrides the usual "1d4+4 nonlethal damage" of a large Str-18 grapper. This is the same as the grapple damage of a Large creature with Improved Grab using tentacles to inflict damage with grapple checks, so seems sensible from a flavor perspective. - The FAQ describes the spell as "like an entangle spell that does bludgeoning damage" and says that it "uses an opposed grapple check instead of a saving throw". In this case they're talking in the context of spell damage - I would've expected them to note that it was nonlethal, if it was. Unless I've missed something major, I think at this point it's a matter of GM interpretation. I have found Britt's arguments sufficiently convincing that I might ask my GM what they think next time I play my sorcerer (and explain the arguments both ways if they don't have an opinion already), rather than just assuming it does lethal damage, but on my tables... I still find the second argument more compelling :weep:
bitznarf 04-18-07, 06:03 PM	Yay for logical summations!:w00t:
Samwise 04-18-07, 11:01 PM	3.0 more closely resembled a mass of creatures. They had hit points, you could kill them, they had an actual attack bonus(as opposed to being treated as having a BAB for purposes of resolving the grapple check), and they used all the grapple rules - therefore, you had to state it did normal damage. Same thing goes for Bigby's Crushing Hand. Evard's 3.5 most clearly are not creatures and do not use all the grapple rules. That's correct. And it states the ones it doesn't use, such as no initial attack. Actually, I brought up Bigby's Crushing Hand first in this thread as supporting the concept that Evard's does lethal damage. Bigby's Crushing Hand more closely resembles a creature attempting to make an actual grapple attempt(i.e. given attack routine in the 1st post). Evard's is now a spell that happens to use the Grapple rules to determine if the creature was grabbed and whether or not damage occurred. It does not actually use the Grapple rules to do damage - on the 1st round, it does no damage. If they had intended us to use the Grapple rules, it would do that damage on the 1st grab. I'd also look to intent with the word crushing - if they thought it was going to knock someone out, wouldn't they have used a more descriptive phrase such as rendering its victims unconcious? And the word crushing is new to 3.5, too... Except it doesn't get a 1st grab, it just skips right to the first grapple check. But let's extend this. Consider Spirit Jaws in the Spell Compendium. That clearly uses grapple checks to do follow up damage, and can not be attacked because it is a spell effect. Do those grapple checks do lethal or nonlethal damage? Or look at Earthen Grasp. It grapples, and specifically says it does lethal damage. Entangling Staff gives you an improved grab plus constrict ability, and specifically notes you may choose to do nonlethal instead of lethal damage. (Thus separating constrict from normal grapple damage.) Fearsome Grapple gives you tentacles that can only grapple. It doesn't say it changes the damage you do, but do you assert that they automatically do lethal damage because they are tentacles? As for "crushing" we are talking flavor text. I think we've got more than enough evidence of the issues with that.
Mommy was an Orc 04-18-07, 11:17 PM	Except it doesn't get a 1st grab, it just skips right to the first grapple check. No, it doesn't. The 1st grapple check that Evard's does, it makes a grapple check and doesn't do any damage. That's impossible via the grapple rules for damaging an opponent - you do damage on the 1st check. But let's extend this. Consider Spirit Jaws in the Spell Compendium. That clearly uses grapple checks to do follow up damage, and can not be attacked because it is a spell effect. Do those grapple checks do lethal or nonlethal damage? Clearly lethal. Entangling Staff offers the option, despite grappling, to do nonlethal damage instead of normal damage. As for "crushing" we are talking flavor text. I think we've got more than enough evidence of the issues with that. It goes to intent. 'I crushed him into unconciousness' is not a natural sentence. And they specifically added this flavor text.
Samwise 04-18-07, 11:23 PM	No, it doesn't. The 1st grapple check that Evard's does, it makes a grapple check and doesn't do any damage. That's impossible via the grapple rules for damaging an opponent - you do damage on the 1st check. Which is why the difference is noted. Clearly lethal. Entangling Staff offers the option, despite grappling, to do nonlethal damage instead of normal damage. No, Entangling Staff offer the option despite constricting to do nonlethal damage. It goes to intent. 'I crushed him into unconciousness' is not a natural sentence. And they specifically added this flavor text. From the Complete Warrior: Earth's Embrace [General] You can crush opponents when you grapple them. Apparently, crushing someone is a natural sentence for flavor text.
JamesMaissen 04-18-07, 11:34 PM	Tentacles that make an opposed grapple check to deal damage do nonlethal damage. I don't know why you are thinking that natural weapons deal lethal damage when used in that way; they don't. Natural weapons are not used, rather it's the unarmed strike damage that is used in a normal grapple. But towards this and the other support that you've laid out, could you go through what happens when a brown bear grabs a victim? Let's assume it uses subsequent rounds to grapple for damage and did not take -20 on the initial grapple check. Is the damage lethal or nonlethal? -James
Mommy was an Orc 04-18-07, 11:55 PM	No, Entangling Staff offer the option despite constricting to do nonlethal damage. So you're now saying Evard's must do lethal, right? To quote 'constrict': "can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, after making a successful grapple check." Hmm...where have I heard that text paraphrased recently... From the Complete Warrior: Earth's Embrace [General] You can crush opponents when you grapple them. Apparently, crushing someone is a natural sentence for flavor text. The default assumed state when someone with Improved Unarmed Strike(in particular Monks) is that they do lethal damage when they strike and they have to state that they are doing nonlethal damage. At best, the DM asks me when playing my monk before I swing. Most do not. As you do damage based on your unarmed strike, and IUS is required for Earth's Embrace, the default state is that they do lethal damage unless they say otherwise. So in that case, it is crushing someone to death.
Samwise 04-19-07, 12:06 AM	Natural weapons are not used, rather it's the unarmed strike damage that is used in a normal grapple. But towards this and the other support that you've laid out, could you go through what happens when a brown bear grabs a victim? Let's assume it uses subsequent rounds to grapple for damage and did not take -20 on the initial grapple check. Is the damage lethal or nonlethal? -James I don't see improved grab anywhere in the description of Evard's Black Tentacles.
Samwise 04-19-07, 12:17 AM	So you're now saying Evard's must do lethal, right? To quote 'constrict': "can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, after making a successful grapple check." Hmm...where have I heard that text paraphrased recently... As with improved grab, I don't see the constrict special ability mentioned anywhere in the text of Evard's Black Tentacles. So if you don't add that to the text, what does it mean? So in that case, it is crushing someone to death. But it doesn't have to be. Since it could be changed to nonlethal without a penalty, it could just be crushing them unconscious. But hey, let's try Crushing Strike from PH2 instead. Same word, does no damage.
katrick 04-19-07, 12:22 AM	Yes....but what LG region is it? Until the prior post all I knew is it was somewhere in the Splintered Suns region. That is what I didn't know. My basic geography of that region is pretty good in real world (as I've been there twice, plus a lot of wars, rolled through there in my history studies and a lot of art was generated there in my art history studies, and dutch traders/settlements were a big part of both the american colonies and later carribean piracy/trade mix heh...it's a small place on the map but a lot of recorded western history happened there) sorry, i thought you meant geographically. It is in Sunndi katrick
Mommy was an Orc 04-19-07, 12:24 AM	As with improved grab, I don't see the constrict special ability mentioned anywhere in the text of Evard's Black Tentacles. So if you don't add that to the text, what does it mean? Except they're using all the text paraphrased from Constrict. If that doesn't tell you what their intent was, I don't know what will. Honestly, if you think that Evard's does non-lethal, then you ought to think Constrict does non-lethal too. After all, it just says that it does Bludgeoning damage after doing a grapple check. Exactly what Evard's says. But hey, let's try Crushing Strike from PH2 instead. Same word, does no damage. And you're doing damage via your very action - you've hit them with a bludgeoning weapon and therefore get a bonus to hit them again with it.
JamesMaissen 04-19-07, 01:03 AM	I don't see improved grab anywhere in the description of Evard's Black Tentacles. I didn't say that it was in the description. What's your point? Take a look at the language used in Improved Grab in the MM. Compare it to Evard's. Do subsequent grapple checks for damage from a brown bear who's grabbed someone do nonlethal damage? -James
Zanzibax 04-19-07, 08:29 AM	I don't see improved grab anywhere in the description of Evard's Black Tentacles. Spells don't have feats.
Maesto 04-19-07, 11:16 AM	Bah, I've followed this long enough, methinks. Enough. Dead. Horse. Flogging. Anybody who didn't have an opinion before reading this thread will have one by now, and nobody is going to convince anybody else of anything by continuing this thread. For the record, I was of the opinion that the spell deals lethal damage, and have remained with this opinion throughout the entire thread, no offense intended to anybody. Furthermore, I'm moving to Keoland late this year. I've got an archmage with Evards, can you chop me back to level 14 now thanks? ;-)
KarmaInferno 04-19-07, 01:56 PM	They don't kill you. That would be just unseemly. No, you just wake up one day with a headache, and don't know why. You get puzzled at a friend's request for you to cast "Evard's Black Tentacles", because as far as you can remember you never knew that spell. In fact, you really don't WANT to know that spell, for some reason. :D -karma