Yes it does, it clearly states the area of effect is "plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread" and if this is the only plant, it's all that is effected.No, the spell only cares if there's some vegetation it can use. no mention on how much.
Of course not. No vegetation, no spell effect.
If the Area creates plants within the area of effect as you purport, why then do you need to throw a pot-plant into the area of effect for it to work?Because the spell clearly states that there must be SOME vegetation it can use.
You clearly stated that:
The Area part id what the spell creates, not what it needs to work.
So either the spell creates the vegetation or it does not. If it creates vegetation there needs to be NO existing vegetation. If it does not, there is no indication that it expands any existing vegetation. The area of effect merely states that it works on existing vegetation, that's what it means, that's what it does.
Let's look at another example, circle of death. It says: "Area several living creatures within a 40-ft.-radius burst" does this mean that (by your interpretation of entangle that the Area is what the spell creates) the entire area fills with living creatures that are then effected? Or does this mean that only living creatures within the area of effect stated are effected?It creates an effect on this area- it kills the living creatures.
Just so, and entangle creates an effect on the plants in the area such that they entangle creatures. It does nothing else but what is stated to the plants in the area - it does not grow them, multiply them, or do anything else with them, just as circle of death does not grow, multiply or do anything else but what it states with the living creatures in it's area of effect.
Yes, it's the latter.IMO it can be either.
I am afraid that is just wishful thinking. The meaning of the area of effect is clear - this is not what the spell makes, it is what the spell effects. Spells that create effects in an area such as fireball merely give a an area of effect in which the effect is created. Entangle does not.
Hence the Entangle spell only works on plants that are within the area. It does not grow them, it does not spread them over the area, it merely allows the plants that exist within the area to entangle those persons unlucky enough to be stood in their square.I see nothing in the rules that indicate that.
I can. The spell states: "This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around creatures in the area of effect or those that enter the area." Why does it specify tall grass? Because short grass won't entangle anything sufficiently, clearly. Therefore short grass in the area of effect must remain short grass, and the implication is that this spell does not grow plants in it's area of effect, it merely causes existing plants to entangle creatures. Even did it not, there is nothing to state that it does create, exp[and or grow any vegetation in the area of effect. It merely states that existing vegetation entangles creatures within that area.
In fact that there are many other spells that DO create and expand vegetation at higher levels indicates that this does not happen at lower level. Comparing this spell with other battlefield control spells of the same level show it has a much better effect than most, implying it has other limitations that balance it - such as the inability to work without existing vegetation. This is perfectly in tune with the way druids work - masters of the wilderness, not so hot out of it.
|
Unless the GM agrees that entangle (a 1st lvl spell) includes Plant growth (a 3rd lvl spell) it won't work.
Yeah the potted plant silliness and the diplomacy based suicide are simply examples of the player interpreting things for the GM in a way that benefits him and has no relation to RAW and certainly not RAI. If you had a greenhouse with potted plants in it or had a bunch of them in a manor house and wanted to use them, thats a different story. These ideas are frankly silly cheese that the player is trying to force feed his GM. This is like a bit part actor in a movie telling the director how he has to shoot his film!
Even if it were correct by RAW, if you aren't a PFS GM, there is no reason you have to go by RAW. If someone is trying to break your game, cheating, hogging the spotlight, or ruining the fun at the table for 1 or more other people, don't let RAW be the stick he beats you up with.
Part of a GM's duty is the role of policeman... Protect and serve the good of the group. This does not mean protect the good of the 1 player, who lost his right to complain when he tried to take the game over.
This is all assuming that kicking him out is too difficult because you share a social group as well as a gaming group, and ostracizing yourself or someone else is never a fun thing to do.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, people. If you don't like creativity why don't you play a video game instead of an RPG? But avoid Minecraft, it will blow your mind.
There is a difference between being creative and bending/breaking the rules
Tricking an enemy into reading a trapped piece of paper with Explosive Rune is creative. Using stone shape to create a back door into the enemy castle is creative. Using Magic Jar on the BBEG's most trusted Lieutenant and them using him to coup de' grace BBEG in his sleep is creative. Casting Trap the Soul on a sealed envelope, and then delivering it to the enemy king saying that it is an important missive from the battlefield while you have a readied action to teleport away as soon as the king's soul is trapped is creative.
Throwing potted plants and then trying to get a spell to do something it doesn't do is bending/breaking the rules.
Also, it's kind of silly because there is a mundane item (Tanglefoot bag) that does essentially the same thing. Without breaking the rules.
|
Creatures
A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.
Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. Creatures in the spell's area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the creatures affected.
Objects
A spell with this kind of area affects objects within an area you select (as Creatures, but affecting objects instead).
That is from under Aiming a Spell in the Area of Effect section. This explains more clearly why the plant idea and ImperatorK's concept is just wrong all around.
|
|
Step out of your close-minded group, then you'll see who's a minority. This is the first time I see someone not allowing a plant to be used for Entangle. Not realizing it can be done, sure. But specifically not allowing? Never.
That is from under Aiming a Spell in the Area of Effect section. This explains more clearly why the plant idea and ImperatorK's concept is just wrong all around.I don't see which part is even relevant here.
The point he was making is that Entangle targets plants in the area of effect. It's extremely clear. The most you could hope for from the potted plant/ entangle combo is to emulate a tanglefoot bag over the course of two rounds, assuming your potted plant matched the description of "tall grass, weeds, and other plants ". Other plants is a nice open phrasing, so that should cover your bases there. You're only going to entangle characters who are in the same square as that plant though.
|
|
The point he was making is that Entangle targets plants in the are of effect. It's extremely clear. The most you could hope for from the potted plant/ entangle combo is to emulate a tanglefoot bag over the course of two rounds, assuming your potted plant matched the description of "tall grass, weeds, and other plants ". Other plants is a nice open phrasing, so that should cover your bases there. You're only going to entangle characters who are in the same square as that plant though.Step out of your close-minded group, then you'll see who's a minority. This is the first time I see someone not allowing a plant to be used for Entangle. Not realizing it can be done, sure. But specifically not allowing? Never.
That is from under Aiming a Spell in the Area of Effect section. This explains more clearly why the plant idea and ImperatorK's concept is just wrong all around.I don't see which part is even relevant here.
Don't keep posting...at this point he has the info and has refused to admit he is wrong so he is just trolling. Don't feed the troll.
The spell says plants in a 40ft radius.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last line of Entangle says it all:
"Other effects, depending on the local plants, might be possible at GM discretion."
In this case, other effects will be anticlimax, disappointment, or mockery.
The druid just happens to be a highly environment-dependent class.
Step out of your close-minded group, then you'll see who's a minority.
Er, still you I'm afraid. In 34 years I have played with some pretty creative people, and I can't think of one group I have played with in all this time who wouldn't laugh at the stupidity of anyone trying this, or even seriously thinking it was possible.
This is the first time I see someone not allowing a plant to be used for Entangle.
Oh the plant can entangle, it's just the concept that one pot-plant can entangle everyone in 40' radius is just laughable. Entangle works on the plants available in the area of the spell. It doesn't grow them - nowhere in the description does it say this or even imply it.
Not realizing it can be done, sure. But specifically not allowing? Never.
That's because it can't be done, ImperitorK. You aren't being creative or even clever, you're breaking the rules of the game - it's fine if that's how your group want to house-rule it, but that is a house-rule and not what the rules-as-written state occurs.
That said it's a funky concept that you could throw a plant that then grows and entangles, and it would make a great 3rd or 4th level spell, or an interesting magic item, but it isn't what the entangle spell itself actually does.
That is from under Aiming a Spell in the Area of Effect section. This explains more clearly why the plant idea and ImperatorK's concept is just wrong all around.I don't see which part is even relevant here.
Area of effect describes what the spell effects, while you claim it is what the spell creates. The first postulation is supported by the rules, the second isn't. It really is that simple. The spell entangle does not state anywhere that it creates, extends or expands vegetation, it merely states that any vegetation present in the area of effect entangles any creatures present within it's grasp, provided there is sufficient vegetation to do so. It even makes clear that the effects depend specifically on the vegetation present, clearly implying that no new vegetation is created by the spell.
Your stance is completely unsupported by the facts, and completely unsupported by any reasonable interpretation of said facts.
|
some examples of this guys power gaming: Carried around a small potted plant, would start every combat by throwing it towards the enemy, then cast entangle to root everything, then throw alchemist's fire in order to catch the plants on fire and burn everything to the ground.
I'm honestly thinking of just not inviting him because when i had talked about my interest in running Skull and Shackles he immediately went on a long rant about how it is by far the "worst possible adventure path ever" mainly because of the Ship to Ship combat discussed in the player's guide.
And to running an adventure path he hasn't read, I would have to homebrew everything from scratch since he reads every single adventure path from any system so he can figure out the optimum character for it. If anyone here has seen Dorkness Rising, the guy who plays the monk personifies this particular gamer. He plays to win, not for the story of the campaign.
At least Entangle is at lower levels. I had a guy once that tried to use Diplomacy and charm monster to have his own private army. At least with Diplomacy there's the catch all "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion." So I ruled that the uncharmed troll was still hungry and going to eat him despite his 43 Diplomacy roll.
I agree with the others. The guy sounds like a dick.
Mike
So TLDR Which is a better choice: Generating characters the first meeting, or pregenerating the characters for the group?
Ignoring all context, generating characters together with the first session (plot hooks included) is vastly preferable.
I hate having my character made for me.
During that first meeting, respectfully raise the issue of the "powergamer's" familiarity with the AP and his gameplay tendencies. Get the other players to express what they want out of the game, and how that style might conflict with (or enhance!) their experience.
If you start the campaign with everyone working toward everyone else's enjoyment, it's hard to go wrong. After that, any problems that emerge are best treated as inter-personal issues, not game issues.
|
|
Your stance is completely unsupported by the facts, and completely unsupported by any reasonable interpretation of said facts.Your interpretation isn't the only right one.
The druid just happens to be a highly environment-dependent class.And for a smart Druid that's not a problem.
There is nothing to interpret though.
The spell specifically says:
Area: plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread
If you cast that on an area of forest, there are going plants in every square of that 40ft radius spread
If you cast that on an area of Concrete with a potted plant in the middle, there is going to be ONE plant in that 40ft radius spread.
In example one, all those plants can entangle
In example two, only one plant can entangle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell says plants in a 40ft radiusYes, it creates plants in 40 ft. radius.
Nope, wrong again. Entangle isn't a Conjuration(Creation) spell or a Conjuration(Summoning) spell. It's a Transmutation that transform ech plant in a 40ft radius spread into entangling versions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your stance is completely unsupported by the facts, and completely unsupported by any reasonable interpretation of said facts.Your interpretation isn't the only right one.
For a definition of 'right' as being 'that which is clearly supported by the rules as written and as interpreted by the vast majority' it is.
The druid just happens to be a highly environment-dependent class.And for a smart Druid that's not a problem.
Indeed. A creative druid will use some of his other spells in situations where his environmentally dependent spells fail. An unimaginative and unscrupulous druid-player will try and cheat and call it clever, because cheats always think they are being clever.
The spell says plants in a 40ft radiusYes, it creates plants in 40 ft. radius.
...and we are back at the: "If it creates plants, why do you need a pot-plant?" argument, which you have yet to satisfactorily answer.
The spell description nowhere states it creates plants. The area of effect describes that it effects plants just as circle of death effects living creatures, it does not say it creates them - if it did, it would say so under the spell description.
It doesn't, therefore no plants are created by this spell. Please point to the text that says it does, because it isn't in the Area of Effect section.
|
|
nowhere in the spell does it say the area is limited to the number of plants.There is nothing to interpret though.
The spell specifically says:
Area: plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread
If you cast that on an area of forest, there are going plants in every square of that 40ft radius spread
If you cast that on an area of Concrete with a potted plant in the middle, there is going to be ONE plant in that 40ft radius spread.
In example one, all those plants can entangle
In example two, only one plant can entangle.
I never said that the area is limited to the number of plants.
Example 1: You have an area of 256 5ft squares. In each one of those 256 5ft squares, there is tall grass and One monster. If you cast Entangle on that area, you can potentially entangle all 256 enemies.
Example 2: You have an area of 256 5ft squares. In each of one of those 256 5ft squares is a concrete floor and one monster. Also, exactly ONE square contains a potted plant. If you cast entangle, you can potentially entangle ONE enemy, the one in the 5ft square with the plant. The remaining 255 enemies will NOT be entangled by the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like to point out that when I play a druid, I am usually FAR too busy EATING THE FACES OF MY ENEMIES AS A T-REX to worry about throwing potted plants at people.That's disgusting. Why on earth do you stop at just their faces?
Bath salts?
Er, still you I'm afraid.Care to show your evidence? Some statistics?
Why bother to look up what you will only deny and ignore? On the other hand if you take a sampling of the players posting here as representative...you're still in a minority.
In 34 years I have played with some pretty creative people, and I can't think of one group I have played with in all this time who wouldn't laugh at the stupidity of anyone trying this, or even seriously thinking it was possible.Well, in 120 years I have played with many different people and not even one was against that trick, so...
...you're no longer taking this seriously?
nowhere in the spell does it say the area is limited to the number of plants.There is nothing to interpret though.
The spell specifically says:
Area: plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread
If you cast that on an area of forest, there are going plants in every square of that 40ft radius spread
If you cast that on an area of Concrete with a potted plant in the middle, there is going to be ONE plant in that 40ft radius spread.
In example one, all those plants can entangle
In example two, only one plant can entangle.
Nowhere does is say that a thirty-ton potted treant doesn't drop on your head if you try and pull this stunt in my game, your point was?
The spell descriptions do not say a lot of things, they rely on common sense, and if they do not say a spell does something as either a general or specific rule, then it doesn't do that. This spell effects plants, if it does not say it creates them, then it doesn't. If it doesn't create plants, and their ability to entangle depends on their existing size (as made clear by the first line of the spell description) then it clearly cannot make existing plants grow. If no plants are created or grown, then the spell must be limited by the number and cover of the plants available.
This reasoning is called logic.
Oh, and cheating is cheating, no matter what you call it.Except when it's not.
Except it is when you are doing things with a spell that the spell does not allow.
I'd have to quote the entire spell to do that, and I wouldn't be the first in this thread to do that either. What the spell can and can't do is clearly stated in the spell itself, as several people(most of which are quite intelligent and credible) have already pointed out.
For a definition of 'right' as being 'that which is clearly supported by the rules as written and as interpreted by the vast majority' it is.I present to you Flurry of Blows and the recent "clarification".
The one they retracted?
Indeed. A creative druid will use some of his other spells in situations where his environmentally dependent spells fail. An unimaginative and unscrupulous druid-player will try and cheat and call it clever, because cheats always think they are being clever.Except in no way is that cheating.
It's not in accordance with the rules, so it's either a house-rule or cheating.
The word you're searching for is "outsmarting a stupid and unimaginative DM".
No, it was "glib player uses BS and lies to bamboozle inexperienced DM" actually. But thank you for letting us know what you think of your DM...
...and we are back at the: "If it creates plants, why do you need a pot-plant?" argument, which you have yet to satisfactorily answer.Because it says so in the spell description. Duh.
This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around creatures in the area of effect or those that enter the area.There is a plant. The Druid casts Entangle and it entangles a 40 ft. radius.
...wherever there are plants in that radius, yes.
No plants, no spell effect because it only effects plants.
The spell states that it effects any and all plants within the area of effect, it says that the plants present in the radius then entangle any creatures present that are in their reach, but it does NOT say that the existing plants grow out to fill the 40' radius, and it does NOT say that any plants are created in this area. If the spell doesn't say it happens, then it doesn't happen.
If you are saying that the RAW suggests a small potted plant will cover the entire AoE, um no.Um, yes. The spell requires there to be plants. There are plants. The spell works as per RAW, 40 ft. radius of entangling plants.
No, the RAW does not say that the plants expand or are created. It just says that any plants present entangle any creatures in the presence of the plants. It's not rocket science.
I concur.
|
|
I would talk to the rest of the group, find out if this player annoys them. If there's a problem with group cohesion, then try to have a talk with the player in question and ask them to tone it down. There are ways to indulge a desire to power game without being a jerk to the other players or ruining the game. I like to optimize buffers who don't do anything themselves - that way you're allowing the party to be awesome, while you're giving the other players a chance to enjoy the limelight. Or maybe I'll optimize something silly (gnomes provide great roleplaying opportunity here. I'm the king of torch jugglers! Rawr!). If he isn't willing to consider some changes in his playstyle to accomodate his fellow players, then you will probably have to kick him out, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just let it go. If he wants to think he's a clever gamer with a hard ass Gm then fine.
Who does it hurt?
He can play this and be happy!
I concur.
Indubitably.
*adjusts monocle and equips a velvet smoking jacket*
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just let it go. If he wants to think he's a clever gamer with a hard ass Gm then fine.
Who does it hurt?
He can play this and be happy!
But someone is wrong! ON THE INTERNET. This is a matter of utmost importance!