|
All of you are completely wrong... the houseplant, not being rooted, wraps around the opponents leg, encasing it with vines, and offering +1 natural armor.
You might be onto something there.. the spell description does say there may be special effects based on the plants and the DM's interpretation.
|
FAQ it.
I'm probably shooting myself in the foot, because knowing Paizo they rule it so it won't make any sense, but whatever.
Yes, a Druid can use a potted plant for the spell Entangle.
But, no, not as the base to fill the entire spell area.
As was mentioned, many Druid spells are situational in scope. In this case, the situation requires a large amount of plant material already in the spell area.
A druid in a dungeon, on a ship, in a city, etc, is at a disadvantage for some of their spells.
Now, so saying, if a Druid wanted to keep a few plants handy (potted or otherwise), say in a Bag of Holding (taking them out every dusk and dawn for some sun, fresh oxygen and water) to be used when needed, then cool.
As DM, the limitation I would place is that the plant would only affect the 5 ft square it occupies [as several other posters wrote]. Now, this still has potential. 2 potted plants in a typical dungeon hallway and you have a minor obstacle, buying some time if you're falling back, making ranged attacks and stopping charges, etc.
Cheers
This can't really be a serious topic.
This can't really be a serious topic.
This is tame compared to some of the threads that pop up here.
|
|
This can't really be a serious topic.
No, the question has merit. Not every player knows rules and interpretations like many here on the forums know them.
While the question could also be aimed at finding ways to bend the rules, that's what many threads are about.
There is value in examining the question and explaining why it is not possible under RAW. If not for the original poster, then for a future search query.
Cheers
This can't really be a serious topic.
Were I to see it in a play I would dismiss it as an improbably fiction. Sadly truth is always not only stranger but in some cases sillier than fiction.
Strange, I read an explanation of what Heaven's Agent was trying to say, and didn't see him/her calling you either of those things...
I guess it is entertianing to watch if nothing else.
looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
I'll agree with Lopke up here.
I think the main source of confusion lies in the image of the spell--we've got vines, tall grass, etc. waving in an unseen wind, snaring all within their reach in a net of leaves and roots. There's mobility, maybe even a little actual growth. I mean, you cast this spell in a forest. An ancient oak tree stands at the center of the spell, with gnarly half-covered roots jutting from the ground and a web of grape vines trailing up its sides. Can this tree, with a 40ft. root system, and the 60ft. vines wrapped around it, only entangle things in the squares directly next to it? According to the rules, I guess so. But I can certainly see why some would think otherwise.
I can see why some people could believe as ImperatorK does. I don't agree, but I can see where his idea comes from.
I've known many a player who wanted some anime-esque images in his fantasy. They wanted to be able to run up the side of a tree and fire seven arrows. They wanted to dodge the giant's club and, when the dust settled, to be balanced atop it, their rapier buried in its throat. I like a little more grit in my games, so I denied them those images. But I can see why they like them. I used to, once upon a time.
As for all the insults and stuff...I guess I'd just ask everyone to set it aside? Someone felt that they were insulted, so they struck back, but the person they attacked felt that their original comment was reasonable or that it was misunderstood, so they return fire. That's how it goes, right? When someone actively attempts to insult me nowadays, I usually do my best to accept that, for whatever reason, they feel it's a good idea (...otherwise, they wouldn't do it), and I just leave. It's been working pretty well for me now.
So, anyway, thanks for reading.
All of you are completely wrong... the houseplant, not being rooted, wraps around the opponents leg, encasing it with vines, and offering +1 natural armor.You might be onto something there.. the spell description does say there may be special effects based on the plants and the DM's interpretation.
Guyver. Another anime reference...
|
Not genius, GREENius!Dude! Coup-de-grace with potted plants! GEENYUS!Entangle + Wall of ThornsI can further increase the greenius of this.
Step 1: Cast Wall of Thorns
Step 2: Cast Explosive Entangle
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
Damn, I didn't know Pathfinder changed the spell that much. 3.5's version was explicit in saying that the wall didn't actually contain any plants, and so didn't work with entangle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because there's more of you doesn't make it right.
I will counter that just because there are more of us, it does not make us wrong either.
|
|
So this potted plant causing entanglement in just one 5ft square got me thinking. Actually that's not so bad; if you had some more plants, you could have a very precisely shaped piece of difficult terrain instead of the big blob. Draw lines to interrupt charges/running while allowing melee fighters to close in.
Now I've got this idea for a combat in a formal garden setting...
Design Manager
|
Hehe, a well-known and respected company disagreeing with one person just to spite them... yeah, that might be a little funny.I like to imagine that the Paizo Golem has the sinister voice of Malcolm McDowell. Makes this almost seem possible.
That's crazy, my friend said almost the exact same thing during our last game session. Then everyone was sad when the new guy asked "Who's Malcolm McDowell?"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really, REALLY hate to post on such a thread, but having spent the time to read both involved threads, I figure I'm just stupid enough to get involved.
My take:
#1: If a player at my table attempted such a justification, I would point out that there is a 3rd-level druid spell (Plant Growth) to grow thick plants in a 100' radius. The notion that a 1st-level spell can entangle all enemies within a 40' radius, whether or not there is actual plant life there (beyond a potted plant) is ludicrous. Comparing it to every other 1st-level spell shows that this would be a grossly-overpowered spell.
#2: If the player continued his argument and wouldn't back down, I would show him the door. I do not play PFS, so I have no reason to tolerate such behavior.
#3: If I were a player at a PFS table and the GM allowed another player this interpretation, I would politely stand up, leave the table, and report the GM.
I think #3 is the reason I felt the need to post: If GMs start allowing players to use "any interpretation of the rules that isn't expressly forbidden" as an excuse to get their way, the sky's the limit. I was on another thread where a poster pointed out that a wizard's starting equipment includes "a staff", so he could take a Staff of the Archmagi at 1st level. Within RAW as a lawyer would interpret them? Absolutely! Within RAW as I would care to use them? Absolutely not.
Players are welcome to demand what they want, and to point out that the Rules as Written do not expressly forbid what they want. GMs must interpret the rules and force players to live within the Rules as Intended.
If anyone does not care for my attitude, they are absolutely welcome not to play with me; every gaming group plays by their own rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That the spell is transmutation school should clue most of you in to the fact that you're incorrect. There is nothing in the spell that says things like *no plant in the square = no entangle in the square* or *can only use parts of plants that are visible (ie: subterranean root systems) or *cannot make plants larger.* You know, one of the main principles of transmutation--making things larger?
Nevermind the obvious thought experiment no one's bothered with. If you place a potted plant in a grassy field and cast entangle on the vicinity, does the potted plant respond?
Pirate's choices are therefore incomplete and should be ammended:
Option 3) A single potted plant could very easily be magically transmuted by entangle to entangle at least one creature or square.
That the spell is transmutation school should clue most of you in to the fact that you're incorrect. There is nothing in the spell that says things like *no plant in the square = no entangle in the square* or *can only use parts of plants that are visible (ie: subterranean root systems) or *cannot make plants larger.* You know, one of the main principles of transmutation--making things larger?
Nevermind the obvious thought experiment no one's bothered with. If you place a potted plant in a grassy field and cast entangle on the vicinity, does the potted plant respond?
Pirate's choices are therefore incomplete and should be ammended:
Option 3) A single potted plant could very easily be magically transmuted by entangle to entangle at least one creature or square.
So what you are saying is that Bull's Strength is allowing me to have reach now? It is a transmutation spell and making me stronger which should increase my size? Right? It doesn't have the words of like Enlarge Person of "causes instant growth" and so should work like Entangle right?
I want you to tell me how Entangle which is transmutation gets to allow growth without saying anything about growth and Bull's Strength doesn't? I am following your logic and now I have reach with Bull's Strength because it had to make me bigger to be stronger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nevermind the obvious thought experiment no one's bothered with. If you place a potted plant in a grassy field and cast entangle on the vicinity, does the potted plant respond?
This was, in fact, considered and discussed.
Pirate's choices are therefore incomplete and should be ammended:
Option 3) A single potted plant could very easily be magically transmuted by entangle to entangle at least one creature or square.
I'm not seeing how this is different from Option 1 in Pirate's list.