I added the following text to Black Tentacles in my campaign, in order to try to reduce its frequency.
"In order to cast the Black Tentacles spell, the caster must possess (and wield while casting this spell) a dried mind flayer tentacle. Such tentacles can sometimes be found in larger cities in strange shops and typically sell for around 4000gp. Dried mind flayer tentacles are vulnerable to water or fire so if the owner should happen to become immersed in water or within the area of effect of a fire spell the tentacle will automatically be destroyed."
Yup instead of telling us what you added, why don't you just tell us why you find it too strong and see if we can find a solution to your problem ?
Yup instead of telling us what you added, why don't you just tell us why you find it too strong and see if we can find a solution to your problem ?
Sorry i was in a hurry before leaving for work and just wantd to get these posted so i copied and pasted from my house rules. I'll add more detail as soon as i dont have to type on my iphone :( which should be shortly.
Just to clarify; you're talking about it being a re-usable focus?
Not a consumable material component?
Yes, its reusable (unless it gets destroyed of course).
When a character becomes known for being a one trick pony, the enemies he or she makes start to get clever about dealing with that one trick.
Adventures do not always involve recurring intelligent villains. I could see using that argument if the PC's repeatedly faced the same opponents, or were observed doing so, but often the exact specifics of encounters take place in lonely old dark rooms far underground and for a DM to just arbitrarily hand-wave and say the bad guys are aware of your tactics is too heavy handed for me. I'd rather have something built into the spell slightly reducing its effectiveness, like maybe eliminating the no Spell Resistance part?
|
Black Tentacles was insanely awesome for a Small sized caster, such as a Halfling or Gnome Wizard, back in 3.0, when the tentacles ignored Small sized creatures. I gamed with one Halfling Wizard who would cast it on himself all the time and dance around casting spells safely from his 'zone of death.' (Weighing less than 50 lbs, with gear, meant that he also would use Summon Monster to call up Lantern Archons to teleport him around... Something else they 'fixed' in 3.5, by making archon teleportation no longer affect living matter other than the user.) :)
When a character becomes known for being a one trick pony, the enemies he or she makes start to get clever about dealing with that one trick.Adventures do not always involve recurring intelligent villains. I could see using that argument if the PC's repeatedly faced the same opponents, or were observed doing so, but often the exact specifics of encounters take place in lonely old dark rooms far underground and for a DM to just arbitrarily hand-wave and say the bad guys are aware of your tactics is too heavy handed for me. I'd rather have something built into the spell slightly reducing its effectiveness, like maybe eliminating the no Spell Resistance part?
Well sure. but your foes have experience ( or they wouldn't be that CR ). that means that they might have seen or heard about some spells and how to deal with it. Maybe some other party tried it and now they are a bit aware of how to deal with it. This is even more logical if they have a caster among them. And as I always say do not hesistate to use the same techniques on your party. I mean, foes are not that dumb. Starting from a certain point I play them like I would if I were a player.
I always say do not hesistate to use the same techniques on your party. I mean, foes are not that dumb. Starting from a certain point I play them like I would if I were a player.
Nothing personal, but fixing a broken rule by using it against the players doesn't really seem to fix it in my book, it just bashes the players with the same sucky rules until they hate it as much as the DM. Again, I want to be clear that I do not want to eliminate the spells, just fix them a little.
Director of Games
|
Well, first off, we cannot use mind flayer in any way, they are not open content.
Second, have you tried the spell using the new CMB and grapple rules. The spell is not quite a good as it was. Its still good, but a 4th level spell should be pretty good, but I do not think it is as broken as it was.
Anybody have any playtest experience with this particular spell?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
On this past Sunday we started Treasure of Chimera Cove. When the PC’s opened the door to the boathouse there were 4 hobgoblins expecting reinforcements from the Last Baron module. So two were at the door and the other two were further down the dock. When it came around to the Wizards’ turn first he cast Lightning Bolt and hit the two on the dock. Then his next turn he cast Black Tentacles with it centered to grab the two further down the dock. The CMB rolls to escape were not made as the DC for them was around 32. The best they ever rolled was a 27. It was an interesting encounter. The all died but it effectively took out two opponents so the rest were manageable.
Is this what you were looking for Jason?
Just my 2 cp
Well, first off, we cannot use mind flayer in any way, they are not open content.
Sorry, I realize the mind flayer is not open content. I used it just for flavor, but it could as easily have been a tentacle from some other abberation or strange creature. Heck it doesn't even have to be a tentacle, thats just what I used in my game.
Second, have you tried the spell using the new CMB and grapple rules. The spell is not quite a good as it was. Its still good, but a 4th level spell should be pretty good, but I do not think it is as broken as it was.
Anybody have any playtest experience with this particular spell?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'll be honest in that I have not run it under PF yet. Its just that the fact that no save, no spell resistance, and grapple = sad spell casters. Not to mention it covers a large area. I'm open to being convinced its not really broke, but in my experience (non-pf that is) it was exceptionally nasty every time it was used.
Black Tentacles Defensive CMB:
base defensive + CMB = 15 + 17 = 32Black Tentacles Defensive GRAPPLE CMB:
base defensive + CMB + 5 circumstance bonus for winning grapple =
15 + 17 + 5 = 37
The circumstance bonus is to the tentacles' grapple checks, not to their CMB. In the case of an escape attempt, it doesn't come into play (because the tentacle isn't making a grapple check).
Still, DC 32 is pretty rough.
WOTC can threaten to sue only so far as they are willing to be sued themselves. Use "mind flayer" as described above and they can't really do anything since it should satisfy copyright law.
There is also something to be said for generic respect. We all know that WoTC has the license for the creature with tentacles hanging from its face that eats brains called alternatively mind flayer and/or illithid. As much as I dislike what they have done to DnD with 4E, I would still respect their right to that generic creature archetype. Not that I wouldn't use them in my home games, but for some other company to try to market and sell a tentacle-faced brain eater called a billithid or rind-player would just be kinda cruddy.
Alright, lets not get into a discussion about what terms we can and cannot use.
As for this spell, the formula for CMB calculation might be a bit too strong. I am looking into some alternatives to bring this spell more in line.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I've been using 11 instead of 15 in the CMB calculation, and the following size bonuses
Tiny -4
Small -2
Medium +0
Large +2
Huge +4
Gargantuan +8
Colossal +16
As far as the spell goes, it is weaker than 3.5 but it works well with the values I use, as do all the other CMB options.
I liked it up until the enemy caster gave his fighter a grease spell.
Also freedom of movement is also a 4th level spell so it's not like there isn't an equal level counter available.
With cross class skill rank penalties gone, Escape Artist is always a skill I try and grab... it's just too useful to pass up. Especially for non-strength builds.
Grapple check does not imply that bonus does not apply to escape attempts.
If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds.If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC 15 + opponent's CMB, this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (DC 10 + opponent's CMB). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally."Combat maneuver check" in this case is a grapple check since both parties are involved in grapple. Therefore breaking from grapple is a grapple check, too.
Breaking from a grapple is indeed a combat maneuver check, but not a combat maneuver check for the tentacle, and the tentacle is the one with a bonus on combat maneuver checks.
Read the wording:
"You" (i.e. the tentacle) "get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target" (i.e. Joe the fighter).
So when Joe the fighter makes a grapple check to escape, there's no +5 (or -5?) bonus involved. That's not a grapple check that "you" (the tentacle) are making against "the target" (Joe).
I did. The sentence does not imply that "you" must be active side to this check.
It looks like you're still thinking in 3.0/3.5 terms. Grappling no longer involves opposed checks; it's one party making a check against a flat DC.
(Sorry to derail the conversation from Black Tentacles.)
I say get rid of the +5 bonus altogether. Being able to grapple people in an area with a strong bonus is good enough.
But isn’t the +5 bonus a part of the grappling rules, as opposed to a feature of the black tentacles spell?
I agree with Hogarth's interpretation, the +5 bonus should definitely not be applied to the DC of the grappled creature's CMB check to break free.
Removing the prohibition on attacking the tentacles might be a good way of toning down the spell, though. These attacks would need to be simplified somehow, maybe allow auto-hits but with the tentacles having a decent hardness score/hp total?
I think I see where Ruemere got confused.
The problem is the Black Tentacle Spell seems to half-way reproduce the Grapple Rules (which Ruemere caught, assuming there wasn't a SECOND +5 Bonus, it's supposed to be the same one), but misses out on a minor detail:
Black Tentacles:
Grapple Rules:
Notice the first clause in in the Grapple Rules that's not in the Black Tentacles description. That one line means that the +5 bonus does NOT apply to the opponent's first round attempting to escape, since it's necessary for them to have FAILED at breaking the grapple, which they haven't done yet until they try. Perhaps clearer wording could be:
"After a successfull Grapple, if your target doesn't break free BY YOUR NEXT ROUND, you get +5...",
since that gives a bit more context to the sentence.
Grapple's wording could definitely be clarified more, but I think trying to replicate the rules like Black Tentacles does with the +5 bonus, is a bad idea/ confusing (as well as wasteful of space). It should just give enough info for the Tentacles' Combat Stats, and any unique info, like that the Tentacles never try to Move or Pin.
And not to threadjack, but it should be pointed out that this confusion came up because of the curious merging of "Offensive" and "Defensive" into one CMB value - Which DOES make the Defensive look like it qualifies as an "Opposed Roll" (that just "takes 15"). Distinguishing Maneuver Offense as Attack Rolls and Defense as Maneuver AC (both derived from BAB/STR) facilitates clearly referencing them individually if that is the intent, or both together, if that is the intent. The current setup tends to not be as clear if you want to only indicate the Offensive or Defensive usage. (in all the threads, I see "Offensive" and "Defensive" terms used because those are the only ways to discuss it, but aren't even in the actual Rules. Since they're relative terms, they're pretty confusing in and of themselves, anyways.)
I thought the grapple rules were supposed to be EASIER in Pathfinder? I'm just saying...
I thought the grapple rules were supposed to be EASIER in Pathfinder? I'm just saying...
Agreed.
Alright, lets not get into a discussion about what terms we can and cannot use.
As for this spell, the formula for CMB calculation might be a bit too strong. I am looking into some alternatives to bring this spell more in line.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Black Tentacles have always been excessively strong in the grapple department. They are quite capable of holding a level 7 Fighter with 22 STR while Enlarged, that is my experience.
As for CMB, we have found that 10+DEX+STR makes CMB work very, very well without favoring STR based characters/monsters. Just because a character lacks STR, doesn't mean he should be easily grappled, or even kept grappled. And, no, I do not think I should have to take a feat to add DEX to CMB, it should be there already. That way if you have a negative penalty to DEX, it is reflected in your CMB.
I thought the grapple rules were supposed to be EASIER in Pathfinder? I'm just saying...Agreed.
Pathfinder Grappling rules are somewhat easier... however the wording requires certain assumptions to be made.
Personally I'm finding CMB broken(favors STR-based) and way more frustrating than Grapple, Trip, Disarm ever was. I don't see what the problem was and I used all of them quite a bit... "Roll vs. Opposed Roll = Result." As for adding the modifiers to the rolls... thats pretty much how the entire game works. You cant even attack something without adding at least 2 modifiers to the roll. (STR & BAB)