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"?
Off the top of my head, that opens it up to be blocked by Legendary Resistance, when it wouldn't have with the current language. The rules do sometimes care about the difference between failing a save and being denied a save.
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"?
Off the top of my head, that opens it up to be blocked by Legendary Resistance, when it wouldn't have with the current language. The rules do sometimes care about the difference between failing a save and being denied a save.
Fair, but a creature with Legendary Resistance would likely have used it on the initial save anyway, so it's probably never getting to that point
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)
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.
Ummm... there's no half damage on a successful save. It's all or nothing.
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)
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.
Ummm... there's no half damage on a successful save. It's all or nothing.
Thank you, I made a mistake. It’s hard switching back and forth between screens on my phone.
Every time I find something like this, or read about someone else finding different interpretations of features I always think “what if this is like magic missile? What if we’ve been playing a feature in a way differently than intended because of misinterpretation and poor communication?”
I also wonder how many game mechanics the community plays differently than intended and WOTC just lets it go. I mean if everyone seems to largely be having a good time, what incentive is there to “correct”? The responses to mechanical questions via Twitter or sage advice updates are few and far between. And errata’s cost money.
It reminds me of a machine that I use at work sometimes. The machine was not user friendly at all, and workers would break it because the machine didn’t work the way people assumed. We spent a lot of money repairing it over and over for years. Then the company basically redesigned the machine. after surveys and investigations, they remade the machine in such a way that allowed the common mistakes being made to become the operating procedure for the machine.
The responses to mechanical questions via Twitter or sage advice updates are few and far between. And errata’s cost money.
There's not just a few Sage Advice / Twitter Q&A but many since 2014. Errata cost nothing but time spent on revision and reprint that they schedule.
IMHO If that was a real problem, it would have already been addressed via official FAQ and/or Errata.
Errata cost nothing but time and money huh?
I assuming problems don’t exist within the framework of the game because they should have been solved already doesn’t make sense. The PHB has been unloaded many different times. If everyone just stopped talking about issues and assumed the best then most of those updates would t have happened.
I think the problem is there seems to be more priority on getting the news products out rather than making sure the products are properly edited. And once the product is out they are already working on several new products. The good thing is that usually the problems are relatively small. A more egregious example is the telekinetic feat, whose design flaw of not working the way it was intended was identified the day the arcana came out. No changes made, final printed broken.
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.
I hope you all don't mind another DM thought on this because it's an interesting case I'd never seen before.
My breaking the quote down to two lines is deliberate, to show how I read the interaction, in an attempt to go for RAW.
Normally the Restrained condition would cause a Dexterity save to be at disadvantage. In the case of Black Tentacles there's just no save at all (if you are Restrained). It's pure damage until the Restrained condition is removed.
The two sentences are attempting to show that. "Just got here, or it's the start of your turn and you aren't Restrained? Give that Saving Throw a shot please." Complimented by "Oh, the tentacles are already restraining you? No save, enjoy the damage."
That's how I'd manage it at my table and feel like I'm doing RAW justice. I'm totally fine with other interpretations but that's where I'd go until I heard a convincing argument that went in another direction.
The responses to mechanical questions via Twitter or sage advice updates are few and far between. And errata’s cost money.
There's not just a few Sage Advice / Twitter Q&A but many since 2014. Errata cost nothing but time spent on revision and reprint that they schedule.
IMHO If that was a real problem, it would have already been addressed via official FAQ and/or Errata.
Errata cost nothing but time and money huh?
I assuming problems don’t exist within the framework of the game because they should have been solved already doesn’t make sense. The PHB has been unloaded many different times. If everyone just stopped talking about issues and assumed the best then most of those updates would t have happened.
I think the problem is there seems to be more priority on getting the news products out rather than making sure the products are properly edited. And once the product is out they are already working on several new products. The good thing is that usually the problems are relatively small. A more egregious example is the telekinetic feat, whose design flaw of not working the way it was intended was identified the day the arcana came out. No changes made, final printed broken.
What's the problem with Telekinetic feat?
Errata are free digital documents and changed to printed products are timed with reprint run, that are scheduled as needed for supply chain, not based on edits available. In other word, they don't reprint a book because they made an errata to it, but because supply demands it.
I can only assume Bobby's talking about the absolutely asinine interpretation of mage hand which would have you believe that because the text specifically mentions the hand vanishing if it's more than 30 feet from you (as opposed to saying it vanishes when it's outside the range of the spell, a la witch bolt), increasing its range with telekinetic does effectively nothing since it still poofs out at 30 feet even if the range is 60 feet -- which would be a problem with mage hand and require errata on the spell, not the feat, if you think it needs fixing
But I suspect the only people who would actually try to enforce that interpretation at a table would be those emotionally invested in proving 5e is "broken", or that WoTC are incompetent, or something along those lines
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)
So confused reading this threat. Agile_DM summed up my thoughts. I still don’t understand how that can be read to cause damage twice in one turn.
There are two conditional statements about how and when this spell can deal damage to a creature. The conditional statements are written in such a way that both can be true and happen simultaneously at the beginning of a creatures turn. They are also written in a way that taking one particular damage roll doesn’t stop the other one from happening.
If a creature starts its turn, it rolls a save or takes damage.
if a creature starts its turn and is also under a condition it takes damage.
These descriptions also lack the standardized language stating that these damage can’t happen multiple times in a round or turn because they are limited to happening at the beginning of a creatures turn.
a creature starting its turn can be subject to many effects simultaneously, this spell just so happens to provide two within a single spell description.
there seems to be a gut reaction to nerf this interpretation as it seems to be “too strong”, though spells like wall of fire can easily deal 2X-4X the damage.
They are also written in a way that taking one particular damage roll doesn’t stop the other one from happening.
If you ignore the word 'already', sure
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)
So confused reading this threat. Agile_DM summed up my thoughts. I still don’t understand how that can be read to cause damage twice in one turn.
Let me give explaining this a shot by giving different ways to present how the spell works - i.e. multiple differently worded rules, with potentially different consequences.
Current RAW (statement 0, for later numbering):
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.
Not RAW 1:
When a creature that is not already restrained by the tentacles 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.
Not RAW 2:
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 without a saving throw instead.
So here we have 3 different rules blocks - 0, 1, and 2 - with, of course, potentially different implementations on the table, due to the wordings being different. Bobbybaker is essentially arguing that 0 is different from 1 or 2. Does that make sense? Do you see how they could be read to be different, rather than the same? I'm not trying to support Bobbybaker's or Agile_DM's particular readings, here, please note - I'm trying to help you understand how people might come to read the rule differently from each other.
No. Just no. It is patently obvious what the text says. Trying to make out it would apply twice if the character is already restrained is ridiculous. You are grasping at paper straws.
So confused reading this threat. Agile_DM summed up my thoughts. I still don’t understand how that can be read to cause damage twice in one turn.
There are two conditional statements about how and when this spell can deal damage to a creature. The conditional statements are written in such a way that both can be true and happen simultaneously at the beginning of a creatures turn. They are also written in a way that taking one particular damage roll doesn’t stop the other one from happening.
If a creature starts its turn, it rolls a save or takes damage.
if a creature starts its turn and is also under a condition it takes damage.
These descriptions also lack the standardized language stating that these damage can’t happen multiple times in a round or turn because they are limited to happening at the beginning of a creatures turn.
a creature starting its turn can be subject to many effects simultaneously, this spell just so happens to provide two within a single spell description.
there seems to be a gut reaction to nerf this interpretation as it seems to be “too strong”, though spells like wall of fire can easily deal 2X-4X the damage.
Agreed, there are 2 qualifiers for how this would work. 1. Already restrained, takes damage before attempting the save (for the 2nd time or more since spell casting) 2. NOT yet restrained, makes a save to avoid being so and thus taking damage.
The 2 conditional statements are independent and thus can't double down on the spell effect (damage) I think where you're getting a little confused is that a failed save means the creature WILL take damage twice, period. ONCE this round (on the failed save) and ONCE again next round, as it occurs BEFORE the creature starts it's turn. SO to kind of summarize: Each turn a creature spends in the area restrained, they take damage. There is no language in the description to indicate a creature could take damage twice in a single round from this spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Off the top of my head, that opens it up to be blocked by Legendary Resistance, when it wouldn't have with the current language. The rules do sometimes care about the difference between failing a save and being denied a save.
Where do folks see they make a save and take damage on the casting?
That seems to be what I am missing. The creature makes a save on it's turn, but that is the only save it speaks of.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Fair, but a creature with Legendary Resistance would likely have used it on the initial save anyway, so it's probably never getting to that point
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)
Ummm... there's no half damage on a successful save. It's all or nothing.
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)
Thank you, I made a mistake. It’s hard switching back and forth between screens on my phone.
Every time I find something like this, or read about someone else finding different interpretations of features I always think “what if this is like magic missile? What if we’ve been playing a feature in a way differently than intended because of misinterpretation and poor communication?”
I also wonder how many game mechanics the community plays differently than intended and WOTC just lets it go. I mean if everyone seems to largely be having a good time, what incentive is there to “correct”? The responses to mechanical questions via Twitter or sage advice updates are few and far between. And errata’s cost money.
It reminds me of a machine that I use at work sometimes. The machine was not user friendly at all, and workers would break it because the machine didn’t work the way people assumed. We spent a lot of money repairing it over and over for years. Then the company basically redesigned the machine. after surveys and investigations, they remade the machine in such a way that allowed the common mistakes being made to become the operating procedure for the machine.
It's not on the casting since making an AoE appear on a creature doesn't count as it entering in it.
There's not just a few Sage Advice / Twitter Q&A but many since 2014. Errata cost nothing but time spent on revision and reprint that they schedule.
IMHO If that was a real problem, it would have already been addressed via official FAQ and/or Errata.
Errata cost nothing but time and money huh?
I assuming problems don’t exist within the framework of the game because they should have been solved already doesn’t make sense. The PHB has been unloaded many different times. If everyone just stopped talking about issues and assumed the best then most of those updates would t have happened.
I think the problem is there seems to be more priority on getting the news products out rather than making sure the products are properly edited. And once the product is out they are already working on several new products. The good thing is that usually the problems are relatively small. A more egregious example is the telekinetic feat, whose design flaw of not working the way it was intended was identified the day the arcana came out. No changes made, final printed broken.
I hope you all don't mind another DM thought on this because it's an interesting case I'd never seen before.
My breaking the quote down to two lines is deliberate, to show how I read the interaction, in an attempt to go for RAW.
Normally the Restrained condition would cause a Dexterity save to be at disadvantage. In the case of Black Tentacles there's just no save at all (if you are Restrained). It's pure damage until the Restrained condition is removed.
The two sentences are attempting to show that. "Just got here, or it's the start of your turn and you aren't Restrained? Give that Saving Throw a shot please." Complimented by "Oh, the tentacles are already restraining you? No save, enjoy the damage."
That's how I'd manage it at my table and feel like I'm doing RAW justice. I'm totally fine with other interpretations but that's where I'd go until I heard a convincing argument that went in another direction.
What's the problem with Telekinetic feat?
Errata are free digital documents and changed to printed products are timed with reprint run, that are scheduled as needed for supply chain, not based on edits available. In other word, they don't reprint a book because they made an errata to it, but because supply demands it.
I can only assume Bobby's talking about the absolutely asinine interpretation of mage hand which would have you believe that because the text specifically mentions the hand vanishing if it's more than 30 feet from you (as opposed to saying it vanishes when it's outside the range of the spell, a la witch bolt), increasing its range with telekinetic does effectively nothing since it still poofs out at 30 feet even if the range is 60 feet -- which would be a problem with mage hand and require errata on the spell, not the feat, if you think it needs fixing
But I suspect the only people who would actually try to enforce that interpretation at a table would be those emotionally invested in proving 5e is "broken", or that WoTC are incompetent, or something along those lines
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)
I see thank you @AntonSirius for the explanation.
So confused reading this threat. Agile_DM summed up my thoughts. I still don’t understand how that can be read to cause damage twice in one turn.
There are two conditional statements about how and when this spell can deal damage to a creature. The conditional statements are written in such a way that both can be true and happen simultaneously at the beginning of a creatures turn. They are also written in a way that taking one particular damage roll doesn’t stop the other one from happening.
If a creature starts its turn, it rolls a save or takes damage.
if a creature starts its turn and is also under a condition it takes damage.
These descriptions also lack the standardized language stating that these damage can’t happen multiple times in a round or turn because they are limited to happening at the beginning of a creatures turn.
a creature starting its turn can be subject to many effects simultaneously, this spell just so happens to provide two within a single spell description.
there seems to be a gut reaction to nerf this interpretation as it seems to be “too strong”, though spells like wall of fire can easily deal 2X-4X the damage.
If you ignore the word 'already', sure
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)
Let me give explaining this a shot by giving different ways to present how the spell works - i.e. multiple differently worded rules, with potentially different consequences.
Current RAW (statement 0, for later numbering):
Not RAW 1:
Not RAW 2:
So here we have 3 different rules blocks - 0, 1, and 2 - with, of course, potentially different implementations on the table, due to the wordings being different. Bobbybaker is essentially arguing that 0 is different from 1 or 2. Does that make sense? Do you see how they could be read to be different, rather than the same? I'm not trying to support Bobbybaker's or Agile_DM's particular readings, here, please note - I'm trying to help you understand how people might come to read the rule differently from each other.
Can you edit to do the highlight or underline thing for the word changes in the examples?
No. Just no. It is patently obvious what the text says. Trying to make out it would apply twice if the character is already restrained is ridiculous. You are grasping at paper straws.
Agreed, there are 2 qualifiers for how this would work.
1. Already restrained, takes damage before attempting the save (for the 2nd time or more since spell casting)
2. NOT yet restrained, makes a save to avoid being so and thus taking damage.
The 2 conditional statements are independent and thus can't double down on the spell effect (damage) I think where you're getting a little confused is that a failed save means the creature WILL take damage twice, period. ONCE this round (on the failed save) and ONCE again next round, as it occurs BEFORE the creature starts it's turn. SO to kind of summarize:
Each turn a creature spends in the area restrained, they take damage. There is no language in the description to indicate a creature could take damage twice in a single round from this spell.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.