|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would black tentacles be able to grapple a character within the area of effect who is invisible? A RAW reading of the spell would indicate yes ("apply the result to all creatures in the area of effect."), but reasoning is lacking. As the GM, my call was yes, it would affect that PC even though he was invisible. My reasoning was that the tentacles posess some form of tremorsense although it is not explicitly mentioned. Thoughts? Comments? Flames?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the tentacles are an area effect, they will try to grapple anything inside the area, no matter what.
The last time a npc used that spell, they grabbed chairs, tables, bookshelves, books on the floor, pretty much anything that was in the room (a library), including the PCs.
If an invisible creature is in the area of an area effect spell he is affected. So, yes, the tentacles attack him.
However, since he is invisible and the spell does not state any form of negation of invisibility the 50% miss chance still applies (Combat Maneuvers are still attack rolls and subject to concealment).
since he is invisible and the spell does not state any form of negation of invisibility the 50% miss chance still applies (Combat Maneuvers are still attack rolls and subject to concealment).
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect.
"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"
"Roll only once for the entire spell effect each round and apply the result to all creatures in the area of effect."
Initiating a combat maneuver is a attack action, but not every combat maneuver check is an attack. Black tentacles is not a creature, it doesn't have any senses, it is a spell effect that does what it does.
Dave Justus, would you apply the same logic to any other spell making an attack roll?
In any case, you are incorrect, ALL combat maneuvers use attack rolls. You may be confusing whether Combat Maneuvers use attack rolls with whether they are discrete actions (such as Grapple) or can be part of any attack action (such as Trip).
BTW, which Combat Maneuvers are not attacks? Last time I checked every single Combat Maneuver uses an attack roll and is therefore an attack.
Anytime you make an attack roll against a creature with concealment you must roll the concealment check unless you have some way to negate it.
An argument might be made that if the controller of the spell can negate concealment (such as having See Invisibility) then that may apply to a spell such as Spiritual Weapon but the same argument cannot be made for Black Tentacles since it is not directly controlled by the caster.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell creates the effect. The effect makes the grapple attempt. There is no statblock for the effect, so we don't know which of the implied statblocks are in play. Is the implied statblock one that assumes that the invisibility is negated, so only states the summary result. (Miss chance)+(ability to ignore miss chance)=(just do it)? Or is it one in which all stats are described, and now apply all other rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Black tentacles has no vision ability at all. Invisibility cannot effect it. It is possible I suppose that everything should have concealment against black tentacles, but there is no way that invisibility can be a factor.
Black tentacles, not being a creature, is neither making an attack nor is it performing a combat maneuver in the sense that a character would. It is using the combat maneuver mechanic as part of the spell effect, which is why it is a single roll against all opponents and a combat maneuver check is what is called for.
As far as for applying the same logic to other spells making an attack roll, I'd appreciate some example. Most spells with attack rolls of course are attacks by the spell caster. Some are summoned creatures where the spell isn't really doing the attacking anyway. I suppose spiritual weapon is like that, but in that case it is clearly the spell caster directing the weapon and it seems to imply that the caster's vision would apply.
Black tentacles is an area spell. Once cast, the caster has no control at all over any sort of 'targeting' and it will effect anyone, ally or enemy, in the area.
One quick example of not all combat maneuver checks being attacks is the grab special ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My reasoning was that the tentacles posess some form of tremorsense although it is not explicitly mentioned.
Note that standard tremorsense doesn't negate the 50% chance of hitting an invisible creature either - it just allows you to identify what square a creature is in. A GM could rule that the tentacles have blindsight, regular sight (which is the normal default), or that they are blind and flailing around randomly but there's so many of them it doesn't matter that they can't see.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My reasoning was that the tentacles posess some form of tremorsense although it is not explicitly mentioned.Note that standard tremorsense doesn't negate the 50% chance of hitting an invisible creature either - it just allows you to identify what square a creature is in. A GM could rule that the tentacles have blindsight, regular sight (which is the normal default), or that they are blind and flailing around randomly but there's so many of them it doesn't matter that they can't see.
To me, Black Tentacles is definitely a matter of blind flailing with so many tentacles that it just doesn't matter :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with Dave's reading. I can't picture invisibility mattering in the slightest against a black tentacles; it goes after anything and everything in reach, and will attack the caster if the caster gets too close.
Black tentacles doesn't need to see anymore than a blade barrier or wall of fire does.
I'd say invisibility would matter if the caster had to designate the tentacle's targets, but there's no targeting here. It's just a grappling ball.
|
|
Note that standard tremorsense doesn't negate the 50% chance of hitting an invisible creature either - it just allows you to identify what square a creature is in.
That is an excellent point, Matthew. I didn't consider that.
Further considering the points that have been presented, I tend to agree with Dave on this call:
Black tentacles has no vision ability at all. Invisibility cannot effect it. It is possible I suppose that everything should have concealment against black tentacles, but there is no way that invisibility can be a factor.
It troubled me that I see no facility for sight, therefore how could a vision-based concealment factor into the situation? I realize that this is a spell and there doesn't necessarily need to be a logical reason for a mechanic, but I like for there to be one in the games I GM. Clearly my concept of tremorsense didn't make sense the way I was picturing it, so in the future (if it happens again), I'll go with the "attacks anything and everything within the AOE" reading. Thanks to you all for the opinions and considerations presented.
Note: I would house rule that Black Tentacles ignore invisibility for the same reason that Dave stated but that is not RAW and this is the rules forum.
By the rules, any melee or ranged attack that uses attack rolls (which all CMB checks do) must roll concealment. Since there is no provision in the Black Tentacles spell for any form of alternate senses (or lack thereof) then you must (by the rules) roll for concealment.
Regarding "Grab", the concealment check is already made when the attack roll to hit was made. This is not an example of a CMB attack not requiring a concealment check since the attack roll the CMB attack is part of already made the concealment check.
Regarding "Grab", the concealment check is already made when the attack roll to hit was made. This is not an example of a CMB attack not requiring a concealment check since the attack roll the CMB attack is part of already made the concealment check.
While the initial attack would indeed be effected by concealment, that is not my point at all. My point is, that the Combat Maneuver Check made via the grab special ability is one example of a combat maneuver check that is not an attack. Clearly then, not all combat maneuver checks are attacks.
Your only reason for applying concealment to black tentacles is that attacks benefit from concealment and your assertion that all combat maneuver checks are attacks.
The CMB check from black tentacles is the result of a spell effect, it is not an attack.
Also take a look at the ice spears spell, which damaged creatures (based on if they are in the area and don't negate the damage with an evasion reflex save) are then subject to a trip combat maneuver check and the discordant blast spell where creatures in the area take damage (no save) and are subject to a bull rush combat maneuver check.
Dave Justus,
I concede that there are spells that have rider Combat Maneuver effects as part of the attack.
I will also concede that some of those spells (such as Ice Spears) use a different mechanic prior to the rider effect and as such will probably bypass the concealment on a case by case basis. Ice Spears would be an excellent example of this.
However, Black Tentacles is not using a rider effect. It is using a straight up Combat Maneuver as the primary effect. Because of this the concealment still applies *unless* black tentacles has some wording that allows it to ignore Invisibility/concealment.
To put it a different way:
1) Is the Combat Maneuver a rider effect? (Example: Ice Spears)
If yes, then whether you check concealment or not is determined when you apply the initial effect.
If no, proceed to #2.
2) Is the Combat Maneuver under the caster's control? (Example: Spiritual Weapon).
If yes, then the check whether the caster can bypass concealment.
If no, proceed to #3.
3) Does the spell have any kind of wording that would allow it to bypass concealment or invisibility when making an attack roll?
If yes, then ignore concealment.
If no, then roll concealment.
In short, because Black Tentacles is a primary effect and there is no wording to indicate the method of environmental awareness we are back to square 1: Does Black Tentacles see through concealment/invisibility? That will be a GM call with two possible answers being:
1) No, because there is no wording in the rules to allow them to see past concealment/invisibility.
2) Yes, because it makes more sense that anything they touch gets attacked (thus following the touch portion of the invisibility rules).
However, the touch element is not within the rules of the spell as written.
As I said, I would personally houserule that it does bypass invisibility, but this is the rules forum and houserules have no place here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I can tell you for certain is that if a player at my table thought up on the fly to use the spell as a means of finding an invisible creature he suspected was in the room, I would not only allow it, I might even throw him a few extra XP.
It seems pretty clear to me that, rules-wise, yes, the tentacles can grapple invisible creatures. Firstly, the text of the spell says EVERY creature, not just visible creatures. Secondly, it's an area effect, and thirdly, I think anybody who would think otherwise is missing the abstract.
The tentacles do not see, and they are not true creatures. So whether or not, as true creatures, they would be thwarted by concealment is irrelevant. If it helps, you should think of them as constantly writhing and their "attack" as not an attack but simply an effect of their writhing, magical nature. Or, more simply, they succeed at grappling as an ACCIDENT of their existence.
I think with magic, it is always tempting to think that there is a mind behind every effect. So a magical thing that attacks seems like it must be driven by either the spellcaster's perception or maybe some grand Designer or, even that the effect itself is somehow sentient. But magic is weirder than that. It just IS.
|
I think Invisibility's concealment does apply.
Obviously the wording of Black Tentacles won't mention it; it's not going to mention every corner case/exception.
There are rules you might consider strange in Pathfinder like how you can make a reflex save when you're in the middle of a Fireball's area of effect, or how there's no facing in Pathfinder even when you're facing off against an opponent in the opposite direction. You don't make exceptions for these.
"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.""If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment)."
You cannot attack an opponent with total concealment. Black tentacles automatically attacks its targets. I'm pretty sure this lays foundation that black tentacles ignores total concealment. The 50% miss chance only applies when a someone is attacking into a creature's square, not when the creature itself is being attacked.
I would read it as "attacking the square you think he occupies". Since black tentacles attack all squares in the area, I would call it an automatic successful attack into the square, which incurs the 50% miss chance.
If black tentacles is subject to concealment normally, you don't have to review every possible cause of concealment and rule on each one individually. For example, I don't see how they could possibly ignore displacement.
Black Tentacles is basically an area of affect grapple attempt. It is not a creature. It is a spell effect. It has no vision, and therefore can not be thwarted by invisibility. It certainly does not have blindsense, blindsight, or any other special sense, so if it did rely on vision it would not get an attack on an invisible creature at all.
Specific trumps general. The specific rule (spell description) says everybody.
Could you elaborate?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, even though the tentacles are making grapple checks, they are not a creature, they are a spell effect that isnt even being controlled by the caster (unlike spiritual weapon for example), so it should behave like any other area effect that has it's effect independant from the caster, like a fireball, grease or darkness effect, and not be affected by invisibility at all.
Okay. Don't think of the grapple check as the attack roll - think of it as the damage roll.
Does an invisible foe half a half-shot at not being hit by a fireball? No? Okay. Done. They're both AoE spells that have an effect based on a rolled number. The sight - or lack thereof - of the spellcaster has no role in what's struck, just the location of the spell effect.
To me, even though the tentacles are making grapple checks, they are not a creature, they are a spell effect that isnt even being controlled by the caster (unlike spiritual weapon for example), so it should behave like any other area effect that has it's effect independant from the caster, like a fireball, grease or darkness effect, and not be affected by invisibility at all.
This.
Treat it just like a Fireball. Area of Effect. The effect just happens to be a grapple rather than damage (though it can do damage as well).
To me, even though the tentacles are making grapple checks, they are not a creature, they are a spell effect that isnt even being controlled by the caster (unlike spiritual weapon for example), so it should behave like any other area effect that has it's effect independant from the caster, like a fireball, grease or darkness effect, and not be affected by invisibility at all.This.
Treat it just like a Fireball. Area of Effect. The effect just happens to be a grapple rather than damage (though it can do damage as well).
Exactly that.
|
|
It's not quite the same as fireball, because fireball doesn't need to make attack rolls.
I had a second look at the wording for invisibility, which makes no mention of not granting concealment vs sightless creatures, except that they can be heard/felt/smelled. It's the glossary entry on invisibility that seems important here.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). A particularly large and slow invisible creature might get a smaller miss chance.
Tentacles are not a character or a creature. They are a spell effect. Which applies to all creatures in the area. You make one roll, and compare to CMD of all creatures in the area.
Black tentacles doesn't make attack rolls either. It makes combat maneuver checks. Performing a combat maneuver is an attack, so any combat maneuver checks made as part of performing a combat maneuver is also an attack, however, not all combat maneuver checks are made because you are performing a combat maneuver, and those checks are not necessarily attacks.
Beyond that, as I have pointed out above, Blacks Tentacles does not have any sensory apparatus. It doesn't have normal vision, dark vision, blind sense, tremor sense or scent. If concealment applies to black tentacles it would have to apply to every singe check they make against invisible or non-invisible opponents alike, because the spell does not have any perception abilities whatsoever.
However, perception doesn't matter because it doesn't make any attacks, it just performs a check against every creature in its area.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine that there are 50 tentacles, all flailing and writhing about, in the square occupied by our invisible target. Remember that the tentacles cannot see, nor do they have any senses at all, save arguably touch. The invisible creature is solid, whether we can see it or not. If one of the tentacles happens to hit the target, it will try to wrap itself around him.
Or, think of it this way. If the spell caster is using See Invisibility, would that have any effect on the Black Tentacles spell?
Dave Justus, you keep saying they are not attack rolls. If they are not then a natural 20 is not an automatic hit. Are you saying that Black Tentacles do not automatically hit on a natural 20?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tentacles cannot see. Therefore the target is not invisible with respect to the tentacles. Thus invisibility has no effect in respect to the tentacles. The same way that being invisible doesn't give you a 50% miss chance for being in the area of any other spell.
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues).
Varying Degrees of Concealment: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.
The fact that the tentacles affect all creatures in the area, not by sight, makes it pretty clear they aren't seeing a creature, so in respect to the tentacles, there is no concealment.
I found another example of area effect combat maneuver check attack rolls.
Hydraulic Torrent
You call forth a powerful stream of water that batters all creatures and obstacles in its path until it strikes something it cannot push past. Against creatures and moveable objects this stream acts as a bull rush. You can bull rush creatures of any size, not just those one size larger than your own. Make a combat maneuver check and apply its results to each creature within the area. Your CMB for this bull rush is equal to your caster level plus your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier, whichever is highest. This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Bull rush check of any size to each creature in the area. Its even more blatant than tentacles that concealment should not matter at all to it. If in the area, take effect of CMB roll.
1. Combat maneuvers are attacks that use attack rolls.
If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver.
Now of course I expect the counter to be "that only applies to combat maneuvers that are use rolls"
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus
Note that it does not say "if the combat maneuver is an attack roll".
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Now with that said black tentacles does not care about concealment. Concealment is the game is used to foil vision.
Examples:
True seeing, and see invisibility allow for your vision to no longer be fooled by invisibility.
Darkness grants concealment but if you have darkvision then you do not have to worry about concealment.
Fog spells grant concealment, but if you have fog cutting lenses they don't affect you.
Blindsight also does not care about concealment because it is not based on vision.
You are not invisible because you have concealment. You have concealment because you can not be detected by visual means.
More proof of vision being needed.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight...
An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision.
Once again if your vision is not foiled then you are not going to have to worry about concealment.
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
The spell produces a spell affect not a creature with sight, so you don't benefit from being invisible, any more than a bear trap or the typical poison dart trap might miss you because you were invisible.
Glitterdust is not going to make black tentacles or traps better at hitting you.
They ignore displacement because they aren't 'visually targeting' any of the creatures in their area of effect.
Would you allow a casting of darkness to give everyone in the area a 50% miss chance from the tentacles? Fog cloud? Do the tentacles get to make perception checks against stealthed characters? Do the tentacles have darkvision? Low-light vision? Normal vision? Can they be blinded with spells other than darkness?
Treating the tentacles as a creature using vision to make attacks seems pretty silly, IMO.
Gah, wrong spell. I meant Blink.
Gah, wrong spell. I meant Blink.They ignore displacement because they aren't 'visually targeting' any of the creatures in their area of effect.
Would you allow a casting of darkness to give everyone in the area a 50% miss chance from the tentacles? Fog cloud? Do the tentacles get to make perception checks against stealthed characters? Do the tentacles have darkvision? Low-light vision? Normal vision? Can they be blinded with spells other than darkness?
Treating the tentacles as a creature using vision to make attacks seems pretty silly, IMO.
Blink is miss chance, not concealment, and the miss chance is because you might be on a different plane when the attack takes place. The tentacles can't reach across planes so there is not much they can do about blink except get lucky.
|
|
Black tentacles doesn't make attack rolls either. It makes combat maneuver checks.
Sorry, you know what I meant - essentially melee attacks.
I was going to say attack actions, but that would confuse it further, because the grapple CM is a standard action.
The point is that fireball is just area-effect with a save, which is a very different kettle of fish.
I'd say giving them a quality of tremorsense is taking things to an unnecessary level of specificity. Tentacles flop around and grab things they touch (presumably not itself, otherwise it would quickly knot itself up), if you're in the area of effect, you're at risk of things turning into a hentai video. Being invisible doesn't matter.
|
Pathfinder System Reference Document
Black tentacles" This spell causes a field of rubbery black tentacles to appear, burrowing up from the floor and reaching for any creature in the area."
D20 SRD
"This spell conjures a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. They grasp and entwine around creatures that enter the area, holding them fast and crushing them with great strength."
I don't think invisibility will be any protection against an Evard's black tentacles. I think we can safely infer that as the Evard's black tentacles writhe and wave about, they bump into the creatures in the spells area of effect and then wrap around the creatures they have bumped into. The tentacles after all don't have eyes for an invisibility spell to fool.
So I don't think invisibility would be any protection against evard's black tentacles tentacles.
Say How does the Burst Bonds spell interact with Evard's Black Tentacles?
Say How does the Burst Bonds spell interact with Evard's Black Tentacles?
I'd say it'd be a wasted spell. Pathfinder tentacles are immune to physical dmg, but can be dispelled. So casting a spell that 'breaks bonds' by damaging them wouldn't be helpful.
There's a similar case, mechanically, with arrow traps and the like. These absolutely do make attack rolls, and definitely don't have eyes (unlike the tentacles which might be covered with eyeballs for all we know) and would, I think, only be affected by concealment with a very literal reading of RAW.