BLACK TENTACLES 4th-level conjuration Casting Time: 1 action Range: 90 feet Components: V, S, M (a piece of tentacle from a giant octopus or a giant squid) Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
“Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain. When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends. A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage. A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself.”
the interesting thing I think has been noticed is that initial text forcing a saving throw doesn’t include language preventing the save from happening again at the start of the creatures turn. A creature that is restrained and starts its turn in the spell effect immediately takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage from being restrained. The creature then repeats the saving throw since it is still starting its turn within the spell area, for another 3d6 damage on a failed save it’s making at disadvantage since it’s restrained.
the telekinetic feat or the fathomless warlocks tentacle could be used to try to force the initial save on the players turn when they cast the spell with their action.
This seems like the perfect example of "we know what this means, but since it doesn't say that in a legalistic way, we get to pretend like it says something different." I certainly would rule that a restrained creature does not take double damage. It takes the 3d6 damage that the spell says that a restrained creature already takes.
This seems like the perfect example of "we know what this means, but since it doesn't say that in a legalistic way, we get to pretend like it says something different." I certainly would rule that a restrained creature does not take double damage. It takes the 3d6 damage that the spell says that a restrained creature already takes.
Your response seems like the perfect example of “I’ve made my assumption and am sticking to it.”
what I described falls in line with many 4th level spells.
This seems like the perfect example of "we know what this means, but since it doesn't say that in a legalistic way, we get to pretend like it says something different." I certainly would rule that a restrained creature does not take double damage. It takes the 3d6 damage that the spell says that a restrained creature already takes.
Your response seems like the perfect example of “I’ve made my assumption and am sticking to it.”
what I described falls in line with many 4th level spells.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Restrained and automatic damage on a single failed save with an action to try to end is more consistent with 4th level spells than your interpretation. Heck, there are 7th level spells worse than your interpretation.
In order for it to make sense as a 4th level spell, you basically have to rule as I have.
BLACK TENTACLES 4th-level conjuration Casting Time: 1 action Range: 90 feet Components: V, S, M (a piece of tentacle from a giant octopus or a giant squid) Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
“Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain. When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends. A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage. A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself.”
the interesting thing I think has been noticed is that initial text forcing a saving throw doesn’t include language preventing the save from happening again at the start of the creatures turn. A creature that is restrained and starts its turn in the spell effect immediately takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage from being restrained. The creature then repeats the saving throw since it is still starting its turn within the spell area, for another 3d6 damage on a failed save it’s making at disadvantage since it’s restrained.
the telekinetic feat or the fathomless warlocks tentacle could be used to try to force the initial save on the players turn when they cast the spell with their action.
I believe the spell is intended for the subset of creatures affected by the red text, and the subset of creatures affected by the blue texts, to be wholly separate on any given turn. So a creature would never take the damage from both sentences on a turn. I agree with WolfOfTheBees that any other interpretation would horribly unbalance this spell.
How is this unbalancing the spell? Watery sphere, wall of fire, storm sphere, sickening radiance, polymorph, otilukes resilient sphere, mirdenkainens faithful hound, and more exist at this level. I don’t understand why your all balking at the idea that this spell, as written, is better than you all seem to allow it to be played.
This seems like the perfect example of "we know what this means, but since it doesn't say that in a legalistic way, we get to pretend like it says something different." I certainly would rule that a restrained creature does not take double damage. It takes the 3d6 damage that the spell says that a restrained creature already takes.
Your response seems like the perfect example of “I’ve made my assumption and am sticking to it.”
what I described falls in line with many 4th level spells.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Restrained and automatic damage on a single failed save with an action to try to end is more consistent with 4th level spells than your interpretation. Heck, there are 7th level spells worse than your interpretation.
In order for it to make sense as a 4th level spell, you basically have to rule as I have.
It’s not the pot calling the kettle black. I, like you all, assumed this spell weaker than it is written to be. I saw this interpretation on another forum and talked with my players about it. I made this post to highlight that the spell is written in a way to be stronger than most tables assume it to be.
nothing in the spells description precludes to restrained creature from making the saving throw again and taking a 2nd 3d6 on a fail or half on a pass.
there are instances of spells that work similarly to this at low levels, such as wrathful smite. No, wrathful smite doesn’t cause reoccurring damage, but the initial failure to make the spell harder to shake if it lands. I’m seeing this ad an AOE version of a spell mechanic like that with reoccurring damage.
Again, I said that it is obvious what the spell wants you to do, so sure you could rule differently but that ruling isn't required. A creature that is already restrained has to make a saving throw against being restrained? What does that even do, mechanically?
Again, I said that it is obvious what the spell wants you to do, so sure you could rule differently but that ruling isn't required. A creature that is already restrained has to make a saving throw against being restrained? What does that even do, mechanically?
I did a quick search and the phrase "double restrained" didn't pop up anywhere
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To me, the idea of 6d6 damage every turn to multiple creatures in an area while also restraining them for 10 rounds fall way outside the realm of a balanced 4th level spell. If we assume average damage rolls, and the creature being in the area for the 5 rounds that end up 90 damage to a single creature. That is close to the max damage that disintegrate (a 6th level spell) can do.
Again, I said that it is obvious what the spell wants you to do, so sure you could rule differently but that ruling isn't required. A creature that is already restrained has to make a saving throw against being restrained? What does that even do, mechanically?
Saying a creature wouldn’t make a saving throw because it’s already suffering from a condition that is part of the failure of a previous saving throw doesn’t make sense.
if a Creature casts blinding smite and hits a PC, the PC would take damage and roll the save to see if it’s blinded. If the PC fails, it’s not suddenly immune to the damage from another blinding smite from another creature, though it’s already blinded.
similarly, a creature knocked prone from a brontosaurus stomp doesn’t get to ignore the damage of a future stomp if it’s already prone.
The second sentence is missing the word "instead" somewhere but good luck convincing a DM to apply both sentences.
You’re right, the language supporting your interpretation is missing.
You're right that a strict reading of the RAW may lead to your interpretation of it. If that was intended i believe it would have been worded differently though.
AFAIK The fact that no Sage Advice or Twitter Q&A ever addressed it since day 1 may be a good indication that most people don't question the starting damage.
I have to agree that as written you suffer damage twice. Also that it's not the intended effect.
This one is confusing to me too. If the rule expresses a meaning to you, then shouldn’t that be the meaning that you use?
We’re not here to figure out what the rule could mean, we’re here to figure out how to play the game. The spell doesn’t make sense at its current level with the 6d6 interpretation and the spell describes two obviously distinct groups.
Sure, a literal reading could be different (I’ve said that in every post that I have made), but that doesn’t make it any more correct than the meaning that the spell obviously expresses.
Heck, I’ve read a recent thread where someone equated “throw a switch” to throwing other objects across a room. A literal reading of “throw a switch” implies nothing different from “throw a baseball.”
Fundamentally, 5e is not written with the intent of being read in this legalistic manner. This isn't something that's often fair to say, but if you ignore the obvious meaning of the text in favor of some hyper-precise "well, technically" reading, you really are playing the game incorrectly. Sometimes there's ambiguity and close reading can be useful, but I really don't think it's ambiguous here.
I mean really though, why didn't they just have the second sentence be, "A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage.automatically fails the saving throw"?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BLACK TENTACLES
4th-level conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 90 feet
Components: V, S, M (a piece of tentacle from a giant octopus or a giant squid)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
“Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain.
When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends. A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage.
A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself.”
the interesting thing I think has been noticed is that initial text forcing a saving throw doesn’t include language preventing the save from happening again at the start of the creatures turn. A creature that is restrained and starts its turn in the spell effect immediately takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage from being restrained. The creature then repeats the saving throw since it is still starting its turn within the spell area, for another 3d6 damage on a failed save it’s making at disadvantage since it’s restrained.
the telekinetic feat or the fathomless warlocks tentacle could be used to try to force the initial save on the players turn when they cast the spell with their action.
This seems like the perfect example of "we know what this means, but since it doesn't say that in a legalistic way, we get to pretend like it says something different." I certainly would rule that a restrained creature does not take double damage. It takes the 3d6 damage that the spell says that a restrained creature already takes.
The second sentence is missing the word "instead" somewhere but good luck convincing a DM to apply both sentences.
Your response seems like the perfect example of “I’ve made my assumption and am sticking to it.”
what I described falls in line with many 4th level spells.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Restrained and automatic damage on a single failed save with an action to try to end is more consistent with 4th level spells than your interpretation. Heck, there are 7th level spells worse than your interpretation.
In order for it to make sense as a 4th level spell, you basically have to rule as I have.
I believe the spell is intended for the subset of creatures affected by the red text, and the subset of creatures affected by the blue texts, to be wholly separate on any given turn. So a creature would never take the damage from both sentences on a turn. I agree with WolfOfTheBees that any other interpretation would horribly unbalance this spell.
How is this unbalancing the spell? Watery sphere, wall of fire, storm sphere, sickening radiance, polymorph, otilukes resilient sphere, mirdenkainens faithful hound, and more exist at this level. I don’t understand why your all balking at the idea that this spell, as written, is better than you all seem to allow it to be played.
It’s not the pot calling the kettle black. I, like you all, assumed this spell weaker than it is written to be. I saw this interpretation on another forum and talked with my players about it. I made this post to highlight that the spell is written in a way to be stronger than most tables assume it to be.
nothing in the spells description precludes to restrained creature from making the saving throw again and taking a 2nd 3d6 on a fail or half on a pass.
there are instances of spells that work similarly to this at low levels, such as wrathful smite. No, wrathful smite doesn’t cause reoccurring damage, but the initial failure to make the spell harder to shake if it lands. I’m seeing this ad an AOE version of a spell mechanic like that with reoccurring damage.
You’re right, the language supporting your interpretation is missing.
But Evard's black tentacles is neither written the same nor behaves like wrathful smite. That is a weird analogy.
Again, I said that it is obvious what the spell wants you to do, so sure you could rule differently but that ruling isn't required. A creature that is already restrained has to make a saving throw against being restrained? What does that even do, mechanically?
I did a quick search and the phrase "double restrained" didn't pop up anywhere
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Before I make any more responses, does DnD beyond spell description match what I wrote? The spell may have been errata’d and I don’t know it.
To me, the idea of 6d6 damage every turn to multiple creatures in an area while also restraining them for 10 rounds fall way outside the realm of a balanced 4th level spell. If we assume average damage rolls, and the creature being in the area for the 5 rounds that end up 90 damage to a single creature. That is close to the max damage that disintegrate (a 6th level spell) can do.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Saying a creature wouldn’t make a saving throw because it’s already suffering from a condition that is part of the failure of a previous saving throw doesn’t make sense.
if a Creature casts blinding smite and hits a PC, the PC would take damage and roll the save to see if it’s blinded. If the PC fails, it’s not suddenly immune to the damage from another blinding smite from another creature, though it’s already blinded.
similarly, a creature knocked prone from a brontosaurus stomp doesn’t get to ignore the damage of a future stomp if it’s already prone.
Evard's Black Tentacles did not get errata and the version contained in the Player's Handbook and SRD are identical to the version you posted.
You're right that a strict reading of the RAW may lead to your interpretation of it. If that was intended i believe it would have been worded differently though.
AFAIK The fact that no Sage Advice or Twitter Q&A ever addressed it since day 1 may be a good indication that most people don't question the starting damage.
I have to agree that as written you suffer damage twice. Also that it's not the intended effect.
This one is confusing to me too. If the rule expresses a meaning to you, then shouldn’t that be the meaning that you use?
We’re not here to figure out what the rule could mean, we’re here to figure out how to play the game. The spell doesn’t make sense at its current level with the 6d6 interpretation and the spell describes two obviously distinct groups.
Sure, a literal reading could be different (I’ve said that in every post that I have made), but that doesn’t make it any more correct than the meaning that the spell obviously expresses.
Heck, I’ve read a recent thread where someone equated “throw a switch” to throwing other objects across a room. A literal reading of “throw a switch” implies nothing different from “throw a baseball.”
Fundamentally, 5e is not written with the intent of being read in this legalistic manner. This isn't something that's often fair to say, but if you ignore the obvious meaning of the text in favor of some hyper-precise "well, technically" reading, you really are playing the game incorrectly. Sometimes there's ambiguity and close reading can be useful, but I really don't think it's ambiguous here.
I mean really though, why didn't they just have the second sentence be, "A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles
takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage.automatically fails the saving throw"?Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)