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.
That was a purely emotional response that’s more of an insult than anything of value to this conversation. You provided no reasoning. Spells “dealing damage twice” aren’t ridiculous , it can happen quite a bit.
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.
Just because the conditionsal statements are written in separate sentences doesn’t mean they don’t effect one another. One condition statement is written in a way that is more restrictive than the other, but both can be true.
a square is not a rectangle, but a rectangle can be a square.
I think what you're missing (intentionally or otherwise) is that the conditional statements describe 2 separate conditions. One is restrained and the other is not. Restrained creatures take damage on their turn. If you are restrained, and roll to break free and fail, you are not RE-restrained, you simply remain restrained. This is an "if-then" ruling. To use your rectangle/square comparison: If all sides are equal length, the rectangle IS a square. If only 2 sides of the rectangle are of equal length, the rectangle is NOT a square. Thus: IF the rectangle is a square, it takes damage. If the rectangle is NOT a square, it must attempt a save to avoid becoming one (and subsequently take damage)
2 entirely different situations to begin the creature's turn on. Both cannot be true at the same time.
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.
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.
That was a purely emotional response that’s more of an insult than anything of value to this conversation. You provided no reasoning. Spells “dealing damage twice” aren’t ridiculous , it can happen quite a bit.
No. It wasn’t. It was stating a fact. You not liking it doesn’t make it less of a fact. Saying “other spells can do damage twice” is irrelevant. This spell doesn’t. It’s very clear.
No. It wasn’t. It was stating a fact. You not liking it doesn’t make it less of a fact. Saying “other spells can do damage twice” is irrelevant. This spell doesn’t. It’s very clear.
I think it is very clear that the intent is that the tentacles won't try to catch someone they already have restrained. Unfortunately I see nothing in the text that actually makes that distinction and without it you end up with double damage (not that I'd ever play it that way but that's a different discussion).
If you are already restrained why would you make a saving throw to see if you become restrained? You wouldn’t. Once you are restrained the only thing you can do is try and break free. It’s not like a spell like hold person that you get saves every turn until you make it. You make one saving throw and if you fail you are restrained until you make the strength or dexterity check against the spell DC to break free. If you are still in the area after breaking free on the start of your turn you have to save again.
if it worked for double damage why doesn’t the second qualifier say so?
1. if you enter or start your turn in the area you do X
2. if you start your turn in the area and you are already restrained you do Y.
The save is to see if you are restrained and take damage. If you fail you don’t have to save again, the spell doesn’t say so, because it specifically says what happens if you are already restrained. Spells that require saves each turn explicitly say so. This spell tells you what to do if you have already failed, and it isn’t make another saving throw.
The save is to see if you are restrained and take damage. If you fail you don’t have to save again, the spell doesn’t say so, because it specifically says what happens if you are already restrained.
Spells that require saves each turn explicitly say so. This spell tells you what to do if you have already failed, and it isn’t make another saving throw.
But the text doesn't make that distinction. The first part is based upon you entering or starting in the area, the second part is based upon you being restrained. Different conditions and not mutually exclusive and neither part says it applies instead of the other.
But as I said, the intent is clear and I don't think anyone here plays it differently at the table. The reason I (and I expect others) mention these things isn't that I expect anything to be changed at this point in the cycle of 5E but more in the hope that in future editions the designers take a bit more care to actually say what they mean instead of just vaguely imply.
If you are already restrained why would you make a saving throw to see if you become restrained? You wouldn’t. Once you are restrained the only thing you can do is try and break free. It’s not like a spell like hold person that you get saves every turn until you make it. You make one saving throw and if you fail you are restrained until you make the strength or dexterity check against the spell DC to break free. If you are still in the area after breaking free on the start of your turn you have to save again.
if it worked for double damage why doesn’t the second qualifier say so?
1. if you enter or start your turn in the area you do X
2. if you start your turn in the area and you are already restrained you do Y.
The save is to see if you are restrained and take damage. If you fail you don’t have to save again, the spell doesn’t say so, because it specifically says what happens if you are already restrained. Spells that require saves each turn explicitly say so. This spell tells you what to do if you have already failed, and it isn’t make another saving throw.
Your statements using x and y still illustrate that the condition for y still falls within the condition of X.
starting your turn already restrained is still starting your turn.
The intent isn’t clear. Only who supports each interpretations seem to be clear, since people have actually affirmed their interpretations within these responses. The RAW seems to support the damage done twice in my opinion. Spells only do exactly what they say they do, until a tweet or sage advice comes out and the creators back track.
im gonna see if I can find some footage of any of the game developers actually using this spell on YouTube.
The intent is clear, and the people who have been trying to misread the spell in this thread haven't even done a through job of that.
If you want to pretend the spell does something different than we're saying, why don't you go all the way with it? A creature that is restrained by failing the save in the first sentence of paragraph 2 is already restrained when they get to sentence 2 of paragraph 2. And at that point, why doesn't the spell simply say that failing the save causes 6d6 damage? Because that isn't what the spell is supposed to do.
The intent is clear, and the people who have been trying to misread the spell in this thread haven't even done a through job of that.
If you want to pretend the spell does something different than we're saying, why don't you go all the way with it? A creature that is restrained by failing the save in the first sentence of paragraph 2 is already restrained when they get to sentence 2 of paragraph 2. And at that point, why doesn't the spell simply say that failing the save causes 6d6 damage? Because that isn't what the spell is supposed to do.
The fact that the sentences are written sequentially means little. Their triggering condition is the same "starts its turn" in both sentences.
The intent is clear but a small change to the language, something along the lines of what quindraco suggested on P2, wouldn't be a bad thing.
This thread has devolved from being about rules and turned to a "People who understand if-then statements" and those who seem to want to homebrew a power boost to the spell. The effect states the creature will take the damage and be restrained. As covered in numerous threads and SA things, a condition, like restrained is not stackable. It is kind of like grappled, unconscious, paralyzed.
If you are stuck by something that damages you by getting or being stuck, that's it. You can only GET stuck once, until you break free, at which point you could get re-stuck. Due to personal interpretations, this will be yet another spell that will likely see various rulings, depending on the table you play at. Further to this, some have stated there are other spells that can do the same. I deny that claim, and challenge someone to share a spell that can do this, dealing double damage or damage twice in a turn with NO change of condition or position of the victim.
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.
The intent isn’t clear. Only who supports each interpretations seem to be clear, since people have actually affirmed their interpretations within these responses. The RAW seems to support the damage done twice in my opinion. Spells only do exactly what they say they do, until a tweet or sage advice comes out and the creators back track.
im gonna see if I can find some footage of any of the game developers actually using this spell on YouTube.
It is really hard to tell what that twitter thread is really talking about, but at least one answer seems to indicate that the thread is about the concept where Evard’s shows up in SAC: that casting a spell around a creature doesn’t count as that creature entering the area. You can’t make anything else out of Jeremy’s one word answers, since no context is given.
I couldn't find an answer, but Evard's BT's are subject to magic resistance yes? I had an argument where bc the tentacles physically exist after the spell is cast that a creature in the area that has magic resistance can't use it to role advantage on the DEX roll.
I couldn't find an answer, but Evard's BT's are subject to magic resistance yes? I had an argument where bc the tentacles physically exist after the spell is cast that a creature in the area that has magic resistance can't use it to role advantage on the DEX roll.
It's a save against a spell. Magic resistance gives advantage on saves vs spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That was a purely emotional response that’s more of an insult than anything of value to this conversation. You provided no reasoning. Spells “dealing damage twice” aren’t ridiculous , it can happen quite a bit.
Sure thing, I went back and added italics, bold, and underlining to the new text, so it's unmistakable what was changed.
Just because the conditionsal statements are written in separate sentences doesn’t mean they don’t effect one another. One condition statement is written in a way that is more restrictive than the other, but both can be true.
a square is not a rectangle, but a rectangle can be a square.
I think what you're missing (intentionally or otherwise) is that the conditional statements describe 2 separate conditions. One is restrained and the other is not. Restrained creatures take damage on their turn. If you are restrained, and roll to break free and fail, you are not RE-restrained, you simply remain restrained. This is an "if-then" ruling. To use your rectangle/square comparison:
If all sides are equal length, the rectangle IS a square.
If only 2 sides of the rectangle are of equal length, the rectangle is NOT a square.
Thus: IF the rectangle is a square, it takes damage. If the rectangle is NOT a square, it must attempt a save to avoid becoming one (and subsequently take damage)
2 entirely different situations to begin the creature's turn on. Both cannot be true at the same time.
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.
No. It wasn’t. It was stating a fact. You not liking it doesn’t make it less of a fact. Saying “other spells can do damage twice” is irrelevant. This spell doesn’t. It’s very clear.
I think it is very clear that the intent is that the tentacles won't try to catch someone they already have restrained. Unfortunately I see nothing in the text that actually makes that distinction and without it you end up with double damage (not that I'd ever play it that way but that's a different discussion).
If you are already restrained why would you make a saving throw to see if you become restrained? You wouldn’t. Once you are restrained the only thing you can do is try and break free. It’s not like a spell like hold person that you get saves every turn until you make it. You make one saving throw and if you fail you are restrained until you make the strength or dexterity check against the spell DC to break free. If you are still in the area after breaking free on the start of your turn you have to save again.
if it worked for double damage why doesn’t the second qualifier say so?
1. if you enter or start your turn in the area you do X
2. if you start your turn in the area and you are already restrained you do Y.
The save is to see if you are restrained and take damage. If you fail you don’t have to save again, the spell doesn’t say so, because it specifically says what happens if you are already restrained.
Spells that require saves each turn explicitly say so. This spell tells you what to do if you have already failed, and it isn’t make another saving throw.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
But the text doesn't make that distinction. The first part is based upon you entering or starting in the area, the second part is based upon you being restrained. Different conditions and not mutually exclusive and neither part says it applies instead of the other.
But as I said, the intent is clear and I don't think anyone here plays it differently at the table. The reason I (and I expect others) mention these things isn't that I expect anything to be changed at this point in the cycle of 5E but more in the hope that in future editions the designers take a bit more care to actually say what they mean instead of just vaguely imply.
Your statements using x and y still illustrate that the condition for y still falls within the condition of X.
starting your turn already restrained is still starting your turn.
The intent isn’t clear. Only who supports each interpretations seem to be clear, since people have actually affirmed their interpretations within these responses. The RAW seems to support the damage done twice in my opinion. Spells only do exactly what they say they do, until a tweet or sage advice comes out and the creators back track.
im gonna see if I can find some footage of any of the game developers actually using this spell on YouTube.
The intent is clear, and the people who have been trying to misread the spell in this thread haven't even done a through job of that.
If you want to pretend the spell does something different than we're saying, why don't you go all the way with it? A creature that is restrained by failing the save in the first sentence of paragraph 2 is already restrained when they get to sentence 2 of paragraph 2. And at that point, why doesn't the spell simply say that failing the save causes 6d6 damage? Because that isn't what the spell is supposed to do.
The fact that the sentences are written sequentially means little. Their triggering condition is the same "starts its turn" in both sentences.
The intent is clear but a small change to the language, something along the lines of what quindraco suggested on P2, wouldn't be a bad thing.
I mean I’m not going to defend my intentionally bad reading, but sequence matters when words like “already” are involved.
Obvious intent and game balance both require exactly one reading.
This thread has devolved from being about rules and turned to a "People who understand if-then statements" and those who seem to want to homebrew a power boost to the spell. The effect states the creature will take the damage and be restrained. As covered in numerous threads and SA things, a condition, like restrained is not stackable. It is kind of like grappled, unconscious, paralyzed.
If you are stuck by something that damages you by getting or being stuck, that's it. You can only GET stuck once, until you break free, at which point you could get re-stuck. Due to personal interpretations, this will be yet another spell that will likely see various rulings, depending on the table you play at. Further to this, some have stated there are other spells that can do the same. I deny that claim, and challenge someone to share a spell that can do this, dealing double damage or damage twice in a turn with NO change of condition or position of the victim.
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.
Here's a completely unofficial link allegedly showing that JC has it deal double damage at his table, but if you click through to Twitter, the user he's replying to deleted their account, so it's impossible to verify. I should point out that JC tweets often contradict JC tweets, so even if - and it's a big if - this link is authentic, it doesn't mean JC still has the sufferer make a save every round in 2021.
It is really hard to tell what that twitter thread is really talking about, but at least one answer seems to indicate that the thread is about the concept where Evard’s shows up in SAC: that casting a spell around a creature doesn’t count as that creature entering the area. You can’t make anything else out of Jeremy’s one word answers, since no context is given.
The entire exchange appear briefly when the web page loads, showing deleted account questions and answers. It goes as follow:
I couldn't find an answer, but Evard's BT's are subject to magic resistance yes? I had an argument where bc the tentacles physically exist after the spell is cast that a creature in the area that has magic resistance can't use it to role advantage on the DEX roll.
It's a save against a spell. Magic resistance gives advantage on saves vs spells.