| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The spell entangle (Druid Level 1) states:"This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around foes in the area of effect or those that enter the area."
Does that mean friendly creatures are not effected (such as members of your party)? And does the "those that enter the area." refer to foes or any creatures that enter the area?
I'm of the opinion that it DOESN'T apply to the Druid and his friends, but at a session the other night this was called into question and I would appreciate some feedback from you, the gamerati on the subject.
entangle is an area of effect spell and it will effect any creatures in its area of effect, and any creature that enters its area of effect while its duration is still active, including the caster and his or her friends. In order for it to not affect the caster and or his or her allies, the spell would have to specifically say that.
|
The spell entangle (Druid Level 1) states:"This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around foes in the area of effect or those that enter the area."
Does that mean friendly creatures are not effected (such as members of your party)? And does the "those that enter the area." refer to foes or any creatures that enter the area?
I'm of the opinion that it DOESN'T apply to the Druid and his friends, but at a session the other night this was called into question and I would appreciate some feedback from you, the gamerati on the subject.
i agree only foes, the druid has control as it is his spell and this is not a natural action for these plans. I would limit it to effecting those the druid deems hostile or foe.
i agree only foes, the druid has control as it is his spell and this is not a natural action for these plans. I would limit it to effecting those the druid deems hostile or foe.
No control is mentioned in the spell description at all.... the druid is not controlling the plants, he or she is simply animating them.
|
|
entangle is an area of effect spell and it will effect any creatures in its area of effect, and any creature that enters its area of effect while its duration is still active, including the caster and his or her friends. In order for it to not affect the caster and or his or her allies, the spell would have to specifically say that.
then why does the spell say 'foes' that defines not caster
see the reponse above mine
|
I just checked and notice that the PF version uses the term "foes" whereas the original version in the SRD said "creatures". For me, "creatures" is a far better choice of words and purposely changing this to "foes" implies an intentional change on the part of Paizo to have it affect opponents only. If not, I can't see any reason why they would change the generic "creatures" into the more limited "foes". If it is meant to be any creature it makes no sense purposely changing it.
I was sure it was clear before, now I'm not so sure. I know what it was was meant to do originally, since it clearly said "creatures" and there could be no argument there. Now however, knowing that it was changed from "Creatures" to "foes" confuses me.
I just put this on the core rule book errata thread:
Then entangle spell uses the word "foes" in the first sentence and then the generic "creatures" through out the rest of the spell. This could read to a valid interpretation of the spell as not affecting the druid and his or her allies. If this was intended it should probably be made clearer in the remaining text of the spell, and if it was not intended the first sentence should probably be changed to 'creatures' to match the rest of the spell text.
|
|
Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement.
This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around foes in the area of effect or those that enter the area. Creatures that fail their save gain the entangled condition. Creatures that make their save can move as normal, but those that remain in the area must save again at the end of your turn. Creatures that move into the area must save immediately. Those that fail must end their movement and gain the entangled condition. Entangled creatures can attempt to break free as a move action, making a Strength or Escape Artist check. The DC for this check is equal to the DC of the spell. The entire area of effect is considered difficult terrain while the effect lasts.
Why the change?
|
|
You cant just say "O that word shouldnt be ther" and end it at that. It Says foes.
exact text:"This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around foes in the area"
the people entering i agree per text written are acceptable but only foes in the area are effected.
I am agreeing with you that it is not as clear as I thought it was. I just thought it was a legacy use of an unclear wording but that it always applied to anything entering the area. Upon comparing the PFRPG wording vs. the 3.5 wording, it is clearly different and could certainly be read to be that if affects only "foes". Previously I thought it was just a fluff term in the wrong place at the wrong time but since it was intentionally changed from the more broad "creatures" I can see where it might be construed to have been intentionally changed by Jason to affect only foes. If that is the case then this already strong spell becomes FREAKING BRUTAL.
If it does only affect foes, that makes it a very powerful spell for 1st level. Just sayin'.
|
|
If it does only affect foes, that makes it a very powerful spell for 1st level. Just sayin'.
Oh I agree. In its 3.x version it explicitly did not only affect foes. However, the change of the word creatures to foes seems odd if it wasn't meant to be changed to just affecting foes. If it DOES only affect foes, I'm house-ruling the hell out of this spell back to affecting any and all creatures, not just foes.
note that unless your casting stat is 28+ your DC for escaping the spell is going to me lower then the 3.5 version.
|
Do you think Black Tentacles works the same way? It uses "creatures" and "foes" in the description too. It seems to be interchangeable though.
This spell causes a field of rubbery black tentacles to appear, burrowing up from the floor and reaching for any creature in the area.
Every creature within the area of the spell is the target of a combat maneuver check made to grapple each round at the beginning of your turn, including the round that black tentacles is cast. Creatures that enter the area of effect are also automatically attacked. The tentacles do not provoke attacks of opportunity. When determining the tentacles' CMB, the tentacles use your caster level as their base attack bonus and receive a +4 bonus due to their Strength and a +1 size bonus. Roll only once for the entire spell effect each round and apply the result to all creatures in the area of effect.
If the tentacles succeed in grappling a foe, that foe takes 1d6+4 points of damage and gains the grappled condition. Grappled opponents cannot move without first breaking the grapple. All other movement is prohibited unless the creature breaks the grapple first. The black tentacles spell receives a +5 bonus on grapple checks made against opponents it is already grappling, but cannot move foes or pin foes. Each round that black tentacles succeeds on a grapple check, it deals an additional 1d6+4 points of damage. The CMD of black tentacles, for the purposes of escaping the grapple, is equal to 10 + its CMB.
The tentacles created by this spell cannot be damaged, but they can be dispelled as normal. The entire area of effect is considered difficult terrain while the tentacles last.
While the idea behind the change was to make the spell more useful, nothing regarding the text of the spell implies the animated plants have intelligece of their own or that the Druid can control the animated plants.
That being said, logically, anything in the area would be effected like it was in 3.X, and while the wording seems to have been changed intentionally, it makes a 1st Level spell too powerful for its own level.
The spell was supposed to be one of those 'slow the bad guys down' kind of spells, while characters hung back and used ranged attacks on the stuck foes.
But as Mofiddy pointed out, Black Tentacles works in a very similar way, but there is disparity between the uses of the terms creature and foe in the spells description.
If you were to consider Entangle in this quandry and like it, Black Tentacles since they function in similar ways, it would seem foes get affected in ways (unclearly differentiated) that the casters allies do not. Neither spell grants the caster control over the force the spell exerts on the area, so logically, no, the spell does not differentiate friend from foe, and affects all creatures equally (thus bringing it in line powerwise to other 1st level spells...of which this is still perhaps one of the most useful there is).
|
|
I just don't get why change the word "creatures" to "foes" unless it is intended to affect only enemies.
This is another one of those cases where I'm actually very displeased with PFRPG. Originally I thought the goals for PFRPG were to just fix a few bugs here and there.. make high level play work a bit better... and ultimately to keep the 3.x generation of rules in print such that Paizo could continue making products for the 3.x generation of rules. However, instead we continue to discover little changes like this that, to me, are completely unnecessary and actually make the game worse and more confused rather than less.
Why in holy heck was this change made?
|
|
It is unfortunate wording. The power of that spell is not that it lets the entire party walk around in that area of effect, but the druid can pass thorugh w/o trouble due to woodland stride....
no they cant
Woodland Stride (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. Thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion, however, still affect her.
Developer
|
.
.
.
.
.
Here is my take: It doesn't seem like they would change the wording of the spell without intending for it to act differently. It says "foes," not creatures. One can assume that the word "foes" is also implied later in the text, like so: "This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around foes in the area of effect or those foes that enter the area." The word "those" is a vague pronoun, so it should refer to the previous word (antecedent) used in the text- "foes." It doesn't mean "those people" or "those creatures" or "those foes and anyone else." So, okay, the spell only effects foes. Yikes!
So how do we justify the spell suddenly seeming more powerful? Well, the DC to break free of the spell is now much lower until your casting ability score is ridiculously high, at which point your enemies won't be that bothered by a one-sided entangle spell. Also, breaking free is only a move action, not a full-round action as it was before, which gives you time to break free and move again, or cast a spell, or attack... and you can still even attempt that action if you fail to break free, or attempt to break free twice in one round.
Seems balanced to me.
|
|
To continue with Mike Kimmel's comment. the other thing that is different with Entangle and Black tentacles is the effect on victims.
Entangle, well, "entangles" foes which is much easier to deal with then black tentacles which grapples.
Entangle:
Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell.
Grapple:
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
It is much easier to cast in entangle then grapple, and nothing in entangle stops you from making attacks of opportunity. It also states that an entangle creature can move at 1/2 speed, but can not run or charge. Unless you state that the plants grabbing them are trees or something else that they can not uproot to try to move.
I would point out also that there are other spells (Curse, Bless) that single either your friends or foes out. A third interpretation would be that any foes in the area of effect at the time of casting are effected but friends in the area of effect at time of casting are not. But anyone that moves into the area after the spell is in place is subject.
It wasn't a big deal at the table, the DM ruled the Druid could move into the area of his own spell but others could not. But we all noticed the wording and there was some later debate...even to the point of saying perhaps if the Druid was concentrating then his WIS modifier in "friendlies" could move freely but we all agreed it seemed alot of excess mechanic for a first level spell
If you think the confusion over Entangle is bad, check out this...
Alright, I am officially confused now, the Core Rulebook contradicts itself. I just found a second entry in the Core Rulebook for Spellike Abilities and its confusing as hell...this would change the whole dynamic of Spelllike Abilities forever, and would allow people to use Spellcraft on a creature using one, and could mean Spellike abilities could be used to counterspell and be counterspelled in turn.
Entry mentioned on Page 221 of the Core Pathfinder Rulebook.
Spellike Abilities (Sp)Usually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component.
A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell or can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.
NOW EVEN MORE CONFUSING... (And is found on the SRD as well)
Entry found for Spellike Abilities (Sp) on Page 554 of the Core Pathfinder Rulebook.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
Now I am officially confused, two entries contradict one another in Pathfinders main rulebook...theres a problem right there.
When this came up originally, it was posted in the Errata thread for the designers to see, just another mix up like this wording of Entangle