I'll echo most people here and say that I believe those spells work in most any area, regardless of the availability of soil/dirt/earth/water/etc. Unless there is some antimagic field or a place removed from the weave (or whatever magic system you're using), then it would work.
As was said - it works because it's magic. :)
I also agree that if you want to restrict it (with what I would consider homebrew), I would suggest making sure your players know well before they would be put into those situations. I don't know what your setting is, but I would be nice and just let them know "OOC", as their characters should probably already know the limitations of these, or have some strong inkling towards that fact.
Totally agree with all of this statement. Although it seems to me that I am being far more restrictive in my interpretation than the others who have replied, I think this is because the Druid spells, unlike those cast by most of the other classes, are based on the manipulation of natural forces and natures energy.
Druids draw their *knowledge* of how to cast spells from worshipping the forces of nature, but they're tapping into the same Weave a wizard does when they cast their spells and a Beholder does when it shoots eye rays. There's many ways to tap into the Weave but at the end of the day it's all magic and a spell is a spell no matter who cast it or how.
Yep. Also note that entangle is a conjuration spell, implying that the plants need not previously exist in the target location. The druid may just be creating vines out of nowhere or pulling them from some other location.
Not just urban environments, but also deep dungeons
Again, some spells specify in the text like Commune With Nature "The spell doesn't function where nature has been replaced by construction, such as in dungeons and towns."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Not just urban environments, but also deep dungeons
Again, some spells specify in the text like Commune With Nature "The spell doesn't function where nature has been replaced by construction, such as in dungeons and towns."
100% agree. My comment was more around the problems with limiting spells based on environments (unless stated in the spell, as was previously mentioned). If you say a spell doesn't work because something can't grow somewhere, you run into issues in many different places, not just the situation given by the OP.
I consider the "sprouts from the ground" more as a descriptor of how to visualise it rather than as a means of restriction.
Conjuration can have something appear within something and "phase" out of it in a way similar to "sprouting".
Personally I dislike the idea of creating restrictions to the use of spells beyond what it is very clearly stated. Where there is doubt in meaning of a word choice, err in favour of the caster. Not a big deal and makes the game more fun. I also don't treat spells as super-static either: happy for players to take elements of the spell to see if they can make an ad-hoc version to cast in a slightly different way or with slightly different effect - perhaps an spellcasting ability check, added proficiency if proficient with arcana to see if they can achieve it (a fail wouldn't make the spell fail, just the spell happens as normal instead).
Like if a caster wanted to burn through rope using Acid Splash - If's completely against raw (creature you can see) but fluff it, why not? You're conjuring acid either way. So, I applaud when people try to be creative with spell use as long as it is reasonable.
Like if a caster wanted to burn through rope using Acid Splash - If's completely against raw (creature you can see) but fluff it, why not? You're conjuring acid either way. So, I applaud when people try to be creative with spell use as long as it is reasonable.
I agree with the principle of being generous to the players in general, but I'd exercise caution with cantrips and to a lesser extent rituals. Part of the reason they tend to be picky about targets is that they can be spammed. You gotta be careful not to put yourself into a situation where the cantrip becomes disproportionately useful or players try to apply it to everything. You know, that whole "if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail" thing.
The more costly the resource, the more room there is to be generous without inadvertently causing problems.
I'll echo most people here and say that I believe those spells work in most any area, regardless of the availability of soil/dirt/earth/water/etc. Unless there is some antimagic field or a place removed from the weave (or whatever magic system you're using), then it would work.
As was said - it works because it's magic. :)
I also agree that if you want to restrict it (with what I would consider homebrew), I would suggest making sure your players know well before they would be put into those situations. I don't know what your setting is, but I would be nice and just let them know "OOC", as their characters should probably already know the limitations of these, or have some strong inkling towards that fact.
The ground is what you are standing on, even when it is something else :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yep. Also note that entangle is a conjuration spell, implying that the plants need not previously exist in the target location. The druid may just be creating vines out of nowhere or pulling them from some other location.
Again, some spells specify in the text like Commune With Nature "The spell doesn't function where nature has been replaced by construction, such as in dungeons and towns."
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
100% agree. My comment was more around the problems with limiting spells based on environments (unless stated in the spell, as was previously mentioned). If you say a spell doesn't work because something can't grow somewhere, you run into issues in many different places, not just the situation given by the OP.
I consider the "sprouts from the ground" more as a descriptor of how to visualise it rather than as a means of restriction.
Conjuration can have something appear within something and "phase" out of it in a way similar to "sprouting".
Personally I dislike the idea of creating restrictions to the use of spells beyond what it is very clearly stated. Where there is doubt in meaning of a word choice, err in favour of the caster. Not a big deal and makes the game more fun. I also don't treat spells as super-static either: happy for players to take elements of the spell to see if they can make an ad-hoc version to cast in a slightly different way or with slightly different effect - perhaps an spellcasting ability check, added proficiency if proficient with arcana to see if they can achieve it (a fail wouldn't make the spell fail, just the spell happens as normal instead).
Like if a caster wanted to burn through rope using Acid Splash - If's completely against raw (creature you can see) but fluff it, why not? You're conjuring acid either way. So, I applaud when people try to be creative with spell use as long as it is reasonable.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
I agree with the principle of being generous to the players in general, but I'd exercise caution with cantrips and to a lesser extent rituals. Part of the reason they tend to be picky about targets is that they can be spammed. You gotta be careful not to put yourself into a situation where the cantrip becomes disproportionately useful or players try to apply it to everything. You know, that whole "if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail" thing.
The more costly the resource, the more room there is to be generous without inadvertently causing problems.
In this case, the entangling plants are “summoned”, so I would say it could work on any non-liquid surface (walls, ceiling, cliff face, etc.).
Earlier versions of D&D had more specific use cases, such as the target had to be plants that already existed. But in 5e the plants are conjured.
Respectfully,
Bob45eDnD
Warning: objects in this game may be more dangerous than they appear.