Evard's Black Tentacles vs. Teleportation

[Bilbron]

Someone left a comment on one of my videos, making the argument that teleportation did not end the Restrained condition imparted by Evard's Black Tentacles. I thought that was a crazy interpretation that, applied consistently, should extend to all means of restrainment, e.g. Web, a net, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, Transmute Rock, etc.

So to my great surprise, my DM has informed me today that he AGREES with that argument, and (despite this being a massive retcon as I've used Misty Step to escape EBT multiple times in the past) going forward I will be unable to use any means of teleportation to escape EBT (though it will work against all the other means of restrainment).

Practically speaking, this just means I'll use Dispel Magic instead of Misty Step against EBT, and replace Misty Step in my preps Dimension Door and Rope Trick (which I'd not been using out of respect for the game as I think it's OP, but I wanted a little boost to make up for the MS nerf, and RT allows for total perfect cover totally immune to pretty much anything other than a Dispel Magic, a 2nd-for-3rd exchange that I'll always take). But I still think this ruling is pretty out there.

Thoughts?

[Corran]

Yep, it's a crazy interpretation. Nothing in the spell description states, or even implies, that the tentacles (which is what actually restrains you) teleports with you or that they can even exist outside of the spell's AoE.

On rope trick vs dispel magic:

a 2nd-for-3rd exchange that I'll always take)
In long adventuring days this might not be worth it, cause the enemy caster doesn't necessarily need slots before their encounter with you, and ideally for you they wont need spells after this encounter either (cause they'll be dead), but you do. A few enemies can dispel at will or x/day too, without impacting their resources in any significant way (though these are rare, and against them it might be enough to deny them their action going to something else).

[Bilbron]

Yep, it's a crazy interpretation. Nothing in the spell description states, or even implies, that the tentacles (which is what actually restrains you) teleports with you or that they can even exist outside of the spell's AoE.

On rope trick vs dispel magic:

In long adventuring days this might not be worth it, cause the enemy caster doesn't necessarily need slots before their encounter with you, and ideally for you they wont need spells after this encounter either (cause they'll be dead), but you do. A few enemies can dispel at will or x/day too, without impacting their resources in any significant way (though these are rare, and against them it might be enough to deny them their action going to something else).
I play an Underdark campaign, and face a lot of Drow, so yeah, Dispel Magic can come up. But I'd say that very few creatures have it in their stat block, so like 95% of the time it's amazeballs. And the other 5% of the time I can just cast Stone Shape to create fortified, perfect total cover that they can't Dispel.

[Reynaert]

Web has the phrase "as long as it remains in the webs".

A net, I would assume, teleports with you.
Transmotr Rock or Earthen Grasp indeed have the same issue.

However, being restrained certainly does not prevent you from teleporting, and Tentacles specifically states you have to be in the area to take the damage. So while Mitsy Step doesn't free you, it does mean you're no longer in danger. You can probably fluff it as when you teleport, the tentacles holding you teleport with you, holding your ankles together so you're still restrained. But they're not alive anymore so they can't hurt you.

[KorvinStarmast]

So to my great surprise, my DM has informed me today that he AGREES with that argument, and (despite this being a massive retcon as I've used Misty Step to escape EBT multiple times in the past) going forward I will be unable to use any means of teleportation to escape EBT (though it will work against all the other means of restrainment).

Restrained does not prevent spell casting. Misty Step is a spell. Your DM is wrong, in how the rules work, but your DM has let you know how it works going forward so roll with it.

[x3n0n]

So to my great surprise, my DM has informed me today that he AGREES with that argument, and (despite this being a massive retcon as I've used Misty Step to escape EBT multiple times in the past) going forward I will be unable to use any means of teleportation to escape EBT (though it will work against all the other means of restrainment).

Since that might mean multiple things, which one is it?
* you can't cast the spell (weird: only V component), or
* if you cast the spell, you don't actually teleport, or
* you successfully teleport, but you remain restrained outside the AoE, or
* something else?

[MaxWilson]

Someone left a comment on one of my videos, making the argument that teleportation did not end the Restrained condition imparted by Evard's Black Tentacles. I thought that was a crazy interpretation that, applied consistently, should extend to all means of restrainment, e.g. Web, a net, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, Transmute Rock, etc.

So to my great surprise, my DM has informed me today that he AGREES with that argument, and (despite this being a massive retcon as I've used Misty Step to escape EBT multiple times in the past) going forward I will be unable to use any means of teleportation to escape EBT (though it will work against all the other means of restrainment).

Practically speaking, this just means I'll use Dispel Magic instead of Misty Step against EBT, and my DM has agreed to allow me to replace MS in my spellbook with Rope Trick (which I'd not been using out of respect for the game, but since he's allowing me to, I guess I'll just enjoy total perfect cover totally immune to anything other than a Dispel Magic, a 2nd-for-3rd exchange that I'll always take). But I still think this ruling is pretty crazy.

Thoughts?

It's not a crazy ruling per se but it has interesting implications and deserves more detail from the DM: it seems that the DM may be imagining many tiny tentacles which break off and attach to you like glue, instead of a few big tentacles which physically grab you and crush you like Hulk Hogan.

This also implies that other means of exiting the area (such as grappling or being shoved, e.g. by a warlock's Repelling Blast) will also not end the restraint. This may be exploitable, e.g. by blasting enemies through the area one at a time to wrap them in tentacle glue.

However, the additional damage per round is explicitly only while you're in the area ("a creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage") so ask your DM how he or she imagines that happening as well.

[saucerhead]

Just wondering, if you are still restrained by tentacles outside of the area of effect because they came with you when you teleported, how does that work if you are grappled by something other than a spell? Does the barbarian holding on to you lose his hand when you teleport too?:smalleek:

[MaxWilson]

Just wondering, if you are still restrained by tentacles outside of the area of effect because they came with you when you teleported, how does that work if you are grappled by something other than a spell? Does the barbarian holding on to you lose his hand when you teleport too?:smalleek:

The Grappled condition says:

"The condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the Thunderwave spell."

[saucerhead]

The Grappled condition says:

"The condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the Thunderwave spell."

Yep. I am aware of the rule. I just thought it might be good for the OP to check with his DM considering the strange ruling.:smallsmile: Besides, it is the restrained condition we're pondering. Yes the grapple rules should apply to it also, but it isn't spelled out so could be a grey area for a DM that wants to decide for himself.

[Mastikator]

Restrained does not prevent spell casting. Misty Step is a spell. Your DM is wrong, in how the rules work, but your DM has let you know how it works going forward so roll with it.

Mild correction: the DM isn't playing according to RAW, but the DM is never wrong.

[Bilbron]

Since that might mean multiple things, which one is it?
* you can't cast the spell (weird: only V component), or
* if you cast the spell, you don't actually teleport, or
* you successfully teleport, but you remain restrained outside the AoE, or
* something else?

I can Teleport, but the EBT Teleport with me and I'm still under the spell effects regardless of my location.


Just wondering, if you are still restrained by tentacles outside of the area of effect because they came with you when you teleported, how does that work if you are grappled by something other than a spell? Does the barbarian holding on to you lose his hand when you teleport too?:smalleek:
Apparently this is EBT only, because he sees something in the text that indicates it should work this way, and "it's a 4th level spell".

[Reynaert]

I can Teleport, but the EBT Teleport with me and I'm still under the spell effects regardless of my location.

Does the 3d6 damage also continue? Even though the spell specifically sais it does not?


Apparently this is EBT only, because he sees something in the text that indicates it should work this way, and "it's a 4th level spell".

As a matter of fact, the wording of the spell "if you are restrained *and* in the area" implies that leaving the area is intended to not break the restrained condition.
If getting out of the area would stop the restrained condition, then this wording would not make sense.

[PhantomSoul]

...
As a matter of fact, the wording of the spell "if you are restrained *and* in the area" implies that leaving the area is intended to not break the restrained condition.
If getting out of the area would stop the restrained condition, then this wording would not make sense.

I read it the opposite way; it's true that you might not be both, but it's that you could be in the area without being restrained (which you can be, as per the spell)

[MaxWilson]

As a matter of fact, the wording of the spell "if you are restrained *and* in the area" implies that leaving the area is intended to not break the restrained condition.
If getting out of the area would stop the restrained condition, then this wording would not make sense.

That's not the wording.

"A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already Restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage."

I don't see a better way to rewrite that even under the assumption that restraining ends of you exit the area, therefore it's ambiguous: that sentence supports either interpretation.

[Bilbron]

Does the 3d6 damage also continue? Even though the spell specifically sais it does not?

As a matter of fact, the wording of the spell "if you are restrained *and* in the area" implies that leaving the area is intended to not break the restrained condition.
If getting out of the area would stop the restrained condition, then this wording would not make sense.
Pretty sure he won't apply damage since the wording says it only applies if you're in the area.

However, I disagree with your interpretation. The relevant wording of the spell is as follows: " the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends. A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage."

This does not imply that you can be outside the AOE and still restrained. The sentence is referring to what happens if you make your save but don't choose to leave the area, so you are in the AOE but not currently restrained. But this does seem to be the argument my DM is making and if he won't budge despite my argument that he's interpreting the sentence incorrectly, I've no further options.

[Thunderous Mojo]

This does not imply that you can be outside the AOE and still restrained.

Alas, it outright states it. The Restrained condition lasts until the end of the spell.
Being outside the 20' zone does not end the spell, it just negates the possibility of taking the additional instances of bludgeoning damage.

A DM can describe this as a single tentacle, encircling you, that grows, infinitely...to keep you in it's grasp until the spell ends or you use your action to take and make the saving throw.

You took a Misty Step too far.

[Bilbron]

Alas, it outright states it. The Restrained condition lasts until the end of the spell.
Being outside the 20' zone does not end the spell, it just negates the possibility of taking the additional instances of bludgeoning damage.

A DM can describe this as a single tentacle, encircling you, that grows, infinitely...to keep you in it's grasp until the spell ends or you use your action to take and make the saving throw.

You took a Misty Step too far.

But it doesn't. You can also end the Restrained condition by winning a Str/Dex check RAW, which means the "until end of the spell" language is not exhaustive. And it should be common sense that not being in the AOE is also an end condition, imo.

I don't really care what my DM rules, as long as it's applied consistently I'll figure out a way to leverage it to my advantage. I just don't think the argument makes grammatical or common sense.

[Corran]

Alas, it outright states it. The Restrained condition lasts until the end of the spell.
So you can't free yourself with an athletics or an acrobatics check, can you? Cause if you can, the restrained condition clearly does not last until the spell ends, right?



I don't really care what my DM rules, as long as it's applied consistently I'll figure out a way to leverage it to my advantage.
I dont know exactly how, but there must be a way to make something useful out of tentacles that have the ability to cross dimensions.

[ff7hero]

So you can't free yourself with an athletics or an acrobatics check, can you? Cause if you can, the restrained condition clearly does not last until the spell ends, right?

Of course you can (well, with a Str or Dex check, no proficiencies) because the spell says you can. If the restrained condition could be removed by leaving the AoE, that would be stated the same way the check to escape is stated.

[Bilbron]

Of course you can (well, with a Str or Dex check, no proficiencies) because the spell says you can. If the restrained condition could be removed by leaving the AoE, that would be stated the same way the check to escape is stated.

This argument also applies to Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, yes? It has essentially the same language in its spell description. So you teleport 500 feet away but the hand teleports with you because the duration hasn't ended and you didn't make an ability check. It doesn't seem common sensical, imo.

Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp

You choose a 5-foot-square unoccupied space on the ground that you can see within range. A Medium hand made from compacted soil rises there and reaches for one creature you can see within 5 feet of it. The target must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage and is restrained for the spell’s duration.

As an action, you can cause the hand to crush the restrained target, who must make a Strength saving throw. It takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

To break out, the restrained target can use its action to make a Strength check against your spell save DC. On a success, the target escapes and is no longer restrained by the hand.

As an action, you can cause the hand to reach for a different creature or to move to a different unoccupied space within range. The hand releases a restrained target if you do either.

[ff7hero]

This argument also applies to Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, yes? It has essentially the same language in its spell description. So you teleport 500 feet away but the hand teleports with you because the duration hasn't ended and you didn't make an ability check. It doesn't seem common sensical, imo.

Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp

You choose a 5-foot-square unoccupied space on the ground that you can see within range. A Medium hand made from compacted soil rises there and reaches for one creature you can see within 5 feet of it. The target must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage and is restrained for the spell’s duration.

As an action, you can cause the hand to crush the restrained target, who must make a Strength saving throw. It takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

To break out, the restrained target can use its action to make a Strength check against your spell save DC. On a success, the target escapes and is no longer restrained by the hand.

As an action, you can cause the hand to reach for a different creature or to move to a different unoccupied space within range. The hand releases a restrained target if you do either.

Looks like it, yeah. It's magic, common sense doesn't apply.

"Common sense" leads to peasant railguns. The rules do what they say they do.

[Thunderous Mojo]

So you can't free yourself with an athletics or an acrobatics check, can you? Cause if you can, the restrained condition clearly does not last until the spell ends, right?


Ok Queensbury rules, but no blows to the face. 🥊😀
It is actually just a Str or Dex check.


But it doesn't. You can also end the Restrained condition by winning a Str/Dex check RAW, which means the "until end of the spell" language is not exhaustive. .

Lol....that is a Sloppy Joe argument. Evards Black Tentacles states:
If you fail the Initial Saving Throw you take damage and are restrained for as long as the spell lasts or until you take your action and succeed on the Str/Dex check.

There is no explicit clausal exception stating that removing one's self from the 20' cube removes the Restrained condition. Indeed, the bludgeoning damage is exempted, and literally the Restrained condition is not mentioned at all, in this exemption.

By my tally that is at least two prime occasions, the spell's author declined to drop in a clausal modification regarding ending the Restrained by moving outside the 20' cube.

In popular parlance, an "activist interpretation "is an adjudication that interprets a piece of text by adding words that are not, actually, in the text itself.
Your Interpretation, appears to be doing this.

Opinions, can vary, of course...so cheers if you still disagree.
Setting aside the rhetorical debate, it is always unpleasant to have rulings retconed.

[Corran]

Ok Queensbury rules, but no blows to the face. 🥊😀
It is actually just a Str or Dex check.
Haha, ok, fair enough.


Of course you can (well, with a Str or Dex check, no proficiencies) because the spell says you can. If the restrained condition could be removed by leaving the AoE, that would be stated the same way the check to escape is stated.
So, would you agree that the part ''and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends'' makes sense only if there is an implied unless, which though is not explicitly stated?

[Thunderous Mojo]

This argument also applies to Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, yes? It has essentially the same language in its spell description. So you teleport 500 feet away but the hand teleports with you because the duration hasn't ended and you didn't make an ability check. It doesn't seem common sensical, imo.


This seems non-sensical because Maximillian's Earthen Grasp is described evocatively enough that it is clear the earthen hand is not intended to extend like the old comic/cartoon character Plastic Man.

I can, however, quite easily imagine the ebon, magical tentacle from an EBT spell extending exactly like the Plastic Man cartoon.

To state it succinctly, your DM tired of you using a bonus action and a 2nd level spell slot to bypass a 4th level spell that as written, is intended to cost you an action to escape.

In AD&D the range of EBT was 30 Square Yards per caster level, the spell was huge....too huge, (intentionally). Given this history, one could argue that thematically, the RAW interpretation being used by your DM is more in the spirit of the original AD&D version. It was very difficult to escape an Evard's Black Tentacle spell cast by a mid to high level caster.

[denthor]

I had dimension door off device no casting required. That gets around the spell. Other than that black tentacles grapples you so in the spell description it say what you can and can not do. Also the grapple rules apply as a condition of casting.

Make those rolls on your d20 mages. This is exactly why skill checks are a thing and grapple rules are written.

Just because you want to be all powerful and not be hampered by anything does not mean it happens.

Now if you had freedom of movement on you then no checks are needed.

[Corran]

I can, however, quite easily imagine the ebon, magical tentacle from an EBT spell extending exactly like the Plastic Man cartoon.
You can imagine it. And since you think that a check is the only way to stop it from grappling you (as long as the spell is active), you should also start imagining a unstoppable tentacle that will go through flesh, wood, stone, etc, of any dimensions. It's the perfect siege weapon and a magic bullet at the same time. Not to mention that it's a teleportation spell too. Just hop onto the magic tentacle and it will take you anywhere, well, at least as long as it is grappling someone who can make the jump (so maybe not a great teleportation spell after all).

Of course, the tentacle cannot do any of those things, nor does it possess any such additional magic properties, because the spell does not say it does. The spell says exactly what it is that the tentacle is capable of. To exist in a predetermined area, and potentially restrain and deal damage to targets. As long as you dont start adding properties to the tentacle, common sense dictates what it can and cannot do (and whenever necessary, the rules provide a resolution mechanic).



To state it succinctly, your DM tired of you using a bonus action and a 2nd level spell slot to bypass a 4th level spell that as written, is intended to cost you an action to escape.
Irrelevant (we are discussing RAW, not balance; and modifying EBT as you suggest is a worse offender to balance anyway). That happens all the time with spells. And the intention of the spell is not to cost you an action to escape, or at the very least that does not mean that this cannot be overridden, otherwise spells like restoration and revivify wouldn't exist in the first place.

[MrStabby]

I am a bit old school with this and think that if it says "be restrained until the spell ends" it means that you need the spell to end to not be restrained. It doesn't stop you making a strength or dexterity check - that doesn't require you to be in the area to be allowed. It doesn't stop you breaking free, it just means you need to break free using one of the ways the spell allows you to (ending the spell or an ability check). If a spell says it does something, I am usually going to rule it does what it says it does.

[ff7hero]

For reference, from web:



Each creature that starts its turn in the webs or that
enters them during its turn must make a Dexterity
saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is restrained
as long as it remains in the webs or until it breaks free.

[Corran]

Looks like it, yeah. It's magic, common sense doesn't apply.

"Common sense" leads to peasant railguns. The rules do what they say they do.
Exactly. So show me where in the rules it states that the tentacle can be ever-expanding and unstoppable.

Your argument is flawed. You are saying that since EBC does not explicitly state that teleporting away ends the condition, that means that the tentacle continues grappling you even if you tp away, which is something that the rules dont support.

You are using something that the rules dont state (tp'ing away ends the condition) to justify something else (that the tentacle can travel faaaaaar....), which is something that not only do the rules also not state, but it is actually something that the rules dont support (because we know what the rules support, and it's not that).

Instead, look at what the rules are actually saying. That tentacles appear in that specific area, and that they can potentially restrain and damage creatures in that area. That, and only that, is what the tentacles can do. Why? Because the rules say so. Thus the tentacles cannot elongate, casualy destroy things in their path towards infinity, or bend time and space. The only possible outcome of tp'ing away is that the condition ends, because we know by reading the rules that the tentacle cannot keep up. Simple.

[ff7hero]

Exactly. So show me where in the rules it states that the tentacle can be ever-expanding and unstoppable.



First show me where it states that leaving the area of the spell ends the Restrained condition.



Your argument is flawed. You are saying that since EBC does not explicitly state that teleporting away ends the condition, that means that the tentacle continues grappling you even if you tp away, which is something that the rules dont support.



Please don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed the tentacles continue grappling anyone because the tentacles never grapple anyone. They impose the restrained condition (incidentally, if the tentacles were grappling, teleporting away would absolutely break the grapple per the grappling rules).



You are using something that the rules dont state (tp'ing away ends the condition) to justify something else (that the tentacle can travel faaaaaar....), which is something that not only do the rules also not state, but it is actually something that the rules dont support (because we know what the rules support, and it's not that).



I also never argued that the tentacles could stretch to infinite length. I never said how I would fluff this, but I see nothing wrong with a tentacle "breaking off" from the mass and remaining wrapped around the teleporter.




Instead, look at what the rules are actually saying.


I have, have you?



That tentacles appear in that specific area, and that they can potentially restrain and damage creatures in that area.


So does any damage inflicted by EBT automatically heal if you teleport out?



That, and only that, is what the tentacles can do. Why? Because the rules say so.


Yes, the rules clearly say that the tentacles impose damage and the restrained condition on those in its area. Then the rules give the conditions which can remove the restrained condition.



Thus the tentacles cannot elongate, casualy destroy things in their path towards infinity, or bend time and space. The only possible outcome of tp'ing away is that the condition ends, because we know by reading the rules that the tentacle cannot keep up. Simple.


This "the tentacles can't grow to infinte length" is (as far as I can tell) a straw man. If someone else in this thread is arguing that, please direct any comments regarding that position toward them.

[Corran]

I give up.

@ff7hero: This may sounded like a veiled insult. It isn't one. I just reached my limits of interest for discussing this subject.

[Tanarii]

What happens if you leave the range of the spell?
What happens if there is no longer a clear path to the target being restrained?

[Bilbron]

What happens if you leave the range of the spell?
What happens if there is no longer a clear path to the target being restrained?

I actually directed a tweet about this towards JC and Sage Advice, so I'm hoping they weigh in and clear things up.

[ff7hero]

What happens if you leave the range of the spell?
What happens if there is no longer a clear path to the target being restrained?

What happens if you are cursed and leave the range of bestow curse?



@ff7hero: This may sounded like a veiled insult. It isn't one. I just reached my limits of interest for discussing this subject.

S'all good. I didn't take it that way but I appreciate you saying so.

[Lord Ruby34]

I also never argued that the tentacles could stretch to infinite length. I never said how I would fluff this, but I see nothing wrong with a tentacle "breaking off" from the mass and remaining wrapped around the teleporter.


This "the tentacles can't grow to infinte length" is (as far as I can tell) a straw man. If someone else in this thread is arguing that, please direct any comments regarding that position toward them.

Why, logically, would a tentacle break off if someone teleported away from the tentacle? What other way would someone still be restrained, despite no longer being in the writhing mass of tentacle?

[ff7hero]

Why, logically, would a tentacle break off if someone teleported away from the tentacle? What other way would someone still be restrained, despite no longer being in the writhing mass of tentacle?

You've got the narrative and mechanics backward. Looking at the text for EBT, we see that it imposes the restrained condition until [the spell end/a check is made]. How your DM fluffs that is up to them. I've told you how I would fluff it.

Compare to web which specifies that the restrained condition ends when the restrained creature leaves the area.

[Dork_Forge]

This seems to be a lot of common sense being applied to rulings, the rules present (at least in the form of Web and presumably other spells) wording that tells us the effects only persist in the area the spell is cast upon. So if additional clarification is required for that, is the rules inference not that unless stated otherwise the spell continues to affect you regardless where you move, unless you meet any escape clause or the spell ends?

Restrained is not Grappled, nor is the fluff required to justify the mechanics in effect. What's to say that it's actually a hardening slime that's restraining you that's secreted by the tentacles, and so would follow wherever you teletport?

It may not make sense logcially if you assume that the tentacles are grappling you, so don't assume that, the DM is applying the rules as they are written and that happens to stop a bonus action 2nd level spell from negating an action cast 4th level spell. Even if it's dissatisfying have some faith in the DM that's constructing and balancing the encounters.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mild correction: the DM isn't playing according to RAW, but the DM is never wrong. Technically untrue, in terms of the never wrong, and I'll give you an example from last night.

Big battle, the bard cast vicious mockery. The troll (one of two) failed the save, so he was supposed to have his next attack be with disadvantage. Troll's turn came around, and he (me) made three attacks. The first one was a hit, the next a miss, the next a hit. I was about to roll damage on the bite when the bard player said "Wait, wasn't that attack supposed to be with disadvantage?"

And I said, "Oh, yeah, it was wasn't it?"
So we had two results now with another die rolled and the lower one was a miss.

The DM, me, was wrong but we corrected it. :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

The DM, me, was wrong but we corrected it. :smallsmile:

The DM is never wrong is like the customer is always right.

It's a great guideline in theory for stopping stupid arguing when it's not really appropriate, but anyone that behaves as if it's always true will make stupid decisions in the long run. Because it's regularly flagrantly not true.

[Segev]

To me, the RAW do seem to read that you remain restrained until you make the appointed check, even if something moves you from the area despite your zero movement speed. This also looks to me like an unintended interaction.

Remember that 5e is not strongly worded as rules alone. Spells and other effects describe what they do in the fiction layer to justify their effects.

Let’s examine this a bit. The spell clearly, to me, is conjuring writhing tentacles that seize anything they can grasp and squeeze them. The mechanics give is “restrained” rather than “grappled,” but otherwise describe ways to model these powerful gripping things keeping you from moving.

Without precise mechanics, one might envision such tentacles being hard to pull somebody out of, as well. But as written, nothing says subjects can’t be moved, so grappling somebody in the area and then pulling them out is perfectly legal. No checks required if the target doesn’t resist being grappled.

Personally, I would rule that trying to pull somebody else out requires the puller make the strength check as if trying to release themselves. I would also either have the teleporting trick work to remove you entirely (unrestrained), or I would have the tentacles not let you teleport. Maybe a middle ground where there’s some sort of roll or the relative spell levels factor in, if I felt spell slots were being unfairly balanced.

[Gtdead]

Not losing the restrained condition makes perfect sense from both a rules and a common sense approach. The tentacles aren't tethered to the ground or something:

"Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain."

They are basically a bunch of snake-like creatures that can constrict your legs ands hands and make you restrained. It's like a straightjacket. You can't teleport out of your gear, so you can't teleport out of the tentacle.
This isn't a bad thing. I'd say that it's more beneficial to the player rather than the DM.

I think most people who disagree probably played NWN2 or something and got confused with the visualization. I can't find any reason why the tentacle has to snap if you teleport.

[Arial Black]

Your DM is deliberately making a nonsense ruling, using the ambiguous wording as an excuse to nerf you.

The result of his 'logic' is that the spell restrains you (on a failed save), NOT the tentacles, because you are still restrained (by his ruling) even if you are no longer in the tentacles (because the tentacles are in that original 20 foot square). BTW, this is in the face of the spell description saying that you are restrained by the tentacles NOT by the spell.

So, you teleport out of the tentacles but are still restrained by 'the spell', not the tentacles. You can still make a Str or Dex check to escape the spell. Why you need to be strong when there are no tentacles around you I've no idea.

Since the DM has left simulation of reality behind in favour of blind following of wording which no longer has to match the concept of what is happening in the game world, take advantage of the restrained condition to teleport into the air....and stay there! After all, your speed is zero when you are restrained, right? Gravity didn't roll initiative, so it can't choose to move you. You're stuck in mid-air.

I realise that this doesn't make narrative sense, but your DM stopped paying attention to that when he made this ruling.

Or maybe he's saying that you take part of the area of the spell with you when you teleport? In which case, get your cleric to cast spirit guardians around himself and the party and get your party to teleport away, taking bits of that damaging aura with each of them. Now you ALL have spirit guardians! After all, either misty step brings the spell's area of effect with you, or it doesn't. Which is it?

[Bilbron]

Your DM is deliberately making a nonsense ruling, using the ambiguous wording as an excuse to nerf you.

The result of his 'logic' is that the spell restrains you (on a failed save), NOT the tentacles, because you are still restrained (by his ruling) even if you are no longer in the tentacles (because the tentacles are in that original 20 foot square). BTW, this is in the face of the spell description saying that you are restrained by the tentacles NOT by the spell.

So, you teleport out of the tentacles but are still restrained by 'the spell', not the tentacles. You can still make a Str or Dex check to escape the spell. Why you need to be strong when there are no tentacles around you I've no idea.

Since the DM has left simulation of reality behind in favour of blind following of wording which no longer has to match the concept of what is happening in the game world, take advantage of the restrained condition to teleport into the air....and stay there! After all, your speed is zero when you are restrained, right? Gravity didn't roll initiative, so it can't choose to move you. You're stuck in mid-air.

I realise that this doesn't make narrative sense, but your DM stopped paying attention to that when he made this ruling.

Or maybe he's saying that you take part of the area of the spell with you when you teleport? In which case, get your cleric to cast spirit guardians around himself and the party and get your party to teleport away, taking bits of that damaging aura with each of them. Now you ALL have spirit guardians! After all, either misty step brings the spell's area of effect with you, or it doesn't. Which is it?

I don't think he has those sorts of intentions, but honestly reads it differently. TBH, after reading some of the justifications here, I can see his perspective. One could imagine that the tentacles aren't tethered to the ground and could conceivably wrap tight enough to follow with a teleport, and only enough follow to accomplish restrainment and not damage. The fact that Web calls out the "out of AOE" end condition while EBT doesn't is a legitimate interpretation when considering EBT is 4th level and Web is 2nd level.

So I don't think the ruling is as egregiously bad as I originally thought, though I do think it makes more sense to assume being out of the AOE is also an unspoken end condition. But that's why I hope Crawford pays attention and answers the question, because I'd love to know the "official" view of it.

[Dork_Forge]

Your DM is deliberately making a nonsense ruling, using the ambiguous wording as an excuse to nerf you.

The result of his 'logic' is that the spell restrains you (on a failed save), NOT the tentacles, because you are still restrained (by his ruling) even if you are no longer in the tentacles (because the tentacles are in that original 20 foot square). BTW, this is in the face of the spell description saying that you are restrained by the tentacles NOT by the spell.

So, you teleport out of the tentacles but are still restrained by 'the spell', not the tentacles. You can still make a Str or Dex check to escape the spell. Why you need to be strong when there are no tentacles around you I've no idea.

This itself is a silly distinction, the tentacles are the spell, they are created by the spell, only exist whilst the spell is active and carry out the mechanisms of the spell (i.e. perform the damage and initiate the restraint).

If it doesn't make logical sense to you then think of it like a hardening slime or paralytic agent that you have to force your body to break free of. This is meant to be a spell that conjures a Lovecraftian abomination to carry out the caster's task, it'd hardly be illogical for the restrained condition to persist in the same way it would be weird if the condition persisted when initiated by a giant octopus restraining you.


Since the DM has left simulation of reality behind in favour of blind following of wording which no longer has to match the concept of what is happening in the game world, take advantage of the restrained condition to teleport into the air....and stay there! After all, your speed is zero when you are restrained, right? Gravity didn't roll initiative, so it can't choose to move you. You're stuck in mid-air.

Your movement being zero in no way meeans that you can't be moved by something else, nor does it make you exempt from falling (which isn't even in the movement section). Moreover applying logic in this way is also going to lead to it's own brand of nonesense, like what if a spell restrained you like Evard's, but instead of fluffing it as tentacles it was fluffed as temporal stasis? It's just thematic window dressing but by your insistence on fluff entwined with mechanics leads to what you're ridiculing Evard's for.


I realise that this doesn't make narrative sense, but your DM stopped paying attention to that when he made this ruling.

A lot of the game doesn't make logical sense if you compare it to our world, if D&D applied the laws of physics etc. properly for example not only would it be a lot crunchier, it would also be a lot more boring since, y'know, we don't have crazy magic in our world.


Or maybe he's saying that you take part of the area of the spell with you when you teleport? In which case, get your cleric to cast spirit guardians around himself and the party and get your party to teleport away, taking bits of that damaging aura with each of them. Now you ALL have spirit guardians! After all, either misty step brings the spell's area of effect with you, or it doesn't. Which is it?


Spirit Guardians' wording, like web, very clearly limits its effects to within the aura it creates.

No where in the rules does it state that an effect of a spell cannot persist outside of the range of the spell, in fact spells usually go out of their way to clarify that the effects only exist within their bounds (Sickening Radiance clarifies that the exhaustion doesn't laste beyond the spell for example). So when you have examples of spells explicitly telling you they only effect you whilst inside them, why should you impose that same limitation on a spell that doesn't do that?

Ignoring your bias towards your mental image of how the spell functions, think about how much worse the spell becomes if defeating it is so easy, I mean Web is the same size, is adding damage on top (whilst reducing the time from an hour to a minute) really worth it jumping two spell levels? The actual end result of this ruling is that a 4th level spell is no longer invalidated by a 2nd level spell or anything that simply pulls or pushes (like multiple cantrips can...).

[MrStabby]

Well there are two effects. The restrained effect and the damage effect (actually 3 if you add in the difficult terrain) I dont see a problem with it being a magic aura that restrains that is also filled with tentacles that damage anyone there that is restrained.

Conceptually just separate out the two different effects. Magic aura does the restraining and the difficult terrain, the conjured tentacles do the damage.

[Arial Black]

Well there are two effects. The restrained effect and the damage effect (actually 3 if you add in the difficult terrain) I dont see a problem with it being a magic aura that restrains that is also filled with tentacles that damage anyone there that is restrained.

Conceptually just separate out the two different effects. Magic aura does the restraining and the difficult terrain, the conjured tentacles do the damage.

It is possible to write such a spell, one that separates the causes of the damage and the restraint.

But Evard's isn't it! This spell says, "...restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends". This means that if you are no longer in the tentacles then the tentacles cannot affect you, even if the spell hasn't ended.

Note that these tentacles, the ones that the spell conjures (it's a conjuration spell, not a paralysing spell like hold person which is an enchantment spell) remain in that original area. The spell says, "Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on the ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain". The area is difficult terrain because of the squirming tentacles, NOT as a spell effect unrelated to the presence of those tentacles.

The tentacles are conjured into that 20 foot square, they stay there for the duration, and those tentacles actively do the restraining. If you aren't in that area any more, you aren't surrounded by those tentacles any more, so they cannot restrain you.

[Dork_Forge]

It is possible to write such a spell, one that separates the causes of the damage and the restraint.

But Evard's isn't it! This spell says, "...restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends". This means that if you are no longer in the tentacles then the tentacles cannot affect you, even if the spell hasn't ended.

Note that these tentacles, the ones that the spell conjures (it's a conjuration spell, not a paralysing spell like hold person which is an enchantment spell) remain in that original area. The spell says, "Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on the ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain". The area is difficult terrain because of the squirming tentacles, NOT as a spell effect unrelated to the presence of those tentacles.

The tentacles are conjured into that 20 foot square, they stay there for the duration, and those tentacles actively do the restraining. If you aren't in that area any more, you aren't surrounded by those tentacles any more, so they cannot restrain you.

Not only is this your assumption, the fact that the tentacles turn the area into difficult terrain has no bearing on whether or not they can continue to restrain a person outside of that area.

[da newt]

OP - I agree, it doesn't make sense to me that teleporting out of the AoE doesn't end the grapple condition - I believe it is illogical, but I can also see that a very literal reading of the spell and 'specific overrides general' could result in your DM's interpretation.

Once restrained by a tentacle the only way to get out of the restraint is to end the spell or make the save - this could be visualized as each tentacle is a separate thing, and once it has latched onto a creature and restrained it, the tentacle remain on them UNLESS the spell ends or the creature makes it's save no matter where or how the creature moves including teleportation. There is some logic there, but I don't think that is the intent of the spell - this is why DM rulings are a thing.

If this came up during play, it would annoy me, but after thinking it through I can follow the logic, so I'd adjust accordingly and remember that the president has been set ...

[Bilbron]

OP - I agree, it doesn't make sense to me that teleporting out of the AoE doesn't end the grapple condition - I believe it is illogical, but I can also see that a very literal reading of the spell and 'specific overrides general' could result in your DM's interpretation.

Once restrained by a tentacle the only way to get out of the restraint is to end the spell or make the save - this could be visualized as each tentacle is a separate thing, and once it has latched onto a creature and restrained it, the tentacle remain on them UNLESS the spell ends or the creature makes it's save no matter where or how the creature moves including teleportation. There is some logic there, but I don't think that is the intent of the spell - this is why DM rulings are a thing.

If this came up during play, it would annoy me, but after thinking it through I can follow the logic, so I'd adjust accordingly and remember that the president has been set ...
I'm not bent out of shape about it, I can always just Dispel Magic on the tentacles, so he's just forcing me to use a 4th lvl spell to counter another, instead of using a 2nd lvl spell. Hardly the end of the world.

And he just allowed me to switch from Enchantment (killing me in the Underdark and against our constant Drow/Demonic foes) to Chronurgy, so I'm a bit too giddy to complain about ultimately irrelevant details, lol.

[KorvinStarmast]

The tentacles aren't tethered to the ground or something:

"Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain."

They are basically a bunch of snake-like creatures
No, they are not creatures. (at least that's how I read the text). They are a magical effect that temporarily acts like the tentacles of a creature, somewhat. If the spell sommoned a creature, it would say so. (Like summoning constricting snakes ... those are creatures).

PS: Nothing to do with tentacles snapping. Once you misty step, you aren't there for them to grasp anymore. (Kind of like how thunderwave breaks a grapple)

[MaxWilson]

No, they are not creatures. (at least that's how I read the text). They are a magical effect that temporarily acts like the tentacles of a creature, somewhat. If the spell sommoned a creature, it would say so. (Like summoning constricting snakes ... those are creatures).

PS: Nothing to do with tentacles snapping. Once you misty step, you aren't there for them to grasp anymore. (Kind of like how thunderwave breaks a grapple)

Playing devil's advocate here for a second:

What makes you say tentacles of a creature (all attached to the same creature), as opposed to simply a huge pile of tentacles? Teleporting away doesn't scrape off any tentacles that have already swarmed onto you.

Counterpoint to devil's advocate: if it were a huge pile of tentacles, not attached to anything, then how does succeeding on a Dex check break you free? The mechanics implies that the fiction is huge, stationary tentacles which grapple you until you wriggle free.

[Gignere]

I guess all the RAW supporters here will say if you cast Anti Magic Field and walk out of the tentacles and drop it you will be restrained again. Because that is the logical conclusion of their RAW reading.

[Dork_Forge]

I guess all the RAW supporters here will say if you cast Anti Magic Field and walk out of the tentacles and drop it you will be restrained again. Because that is the logical conclusion of their RAW reading.

You say that as if it's ridiculous, if the ruling is that the effect is not limited to within the area created, then why wouldn't it work as you describe?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Counterpoint to devil's advocate: if it were a huge pile of tentacles, not attached to anything, then how does succeeding on a Dex check break you free? The mechanics implies that the fiction is huge, stationary tentacles which grapple you until you wriggle free.

I disagree. 5e has Str simulate 'breaking a hold', and Dex simulates 'squirming out of a hold'. 5e EBT continuing this Str/Dex check trend, doesn't crystallize the idea the tentacles must be stationary. In AD&D the tentacles of EBT, moved.

In AD&D, (if I am remembering correctly), you summoned one tentacle per caster level, the tentacles appeared to be "bursting out" of the floor, regardless of whatever the floor was made out of...stone, grass, water...it didn't matter..there be at least 7 Tentacles A-bursting.

The tentacles summoned could move around in the area of effect, which was 30' square feet per caster level, and once the tentacles grasped you, they held on forever.

You could Dimension Door out of it, but there was no Misty Step in AD&D, and the tentacles effectively did damage on a miss.

For the record, I have never ruled EBT in 5e, in the RAW manner I am advocating for. I do find the RAW implications amusing and appropriate. Primarily, I like it for the novelty, it turns a Ho-Hum encounter for a jaded player, into an encounter that will grab your attention.

[MaxWilson]

I disagree. 5e has Str simulate 'breaking a hold', and Dex simulates 'squirming out of a hold'. 5e EBT continuing this Str/Dex check trend, doesn't crystallize the idea the tentacles must be stationary. In AD&D the tentacles of EBT, moved.

In AD&D, (if I am remembering correctly), you summoned one tentacle per caster level, the tentacles appeared to be "bursting out" of the floor, regardless of whatever the floor was made out of...stone, grass, water...it didn't matter..there be at least 7 Tentacles A-bursting.

The tentacles summoned could move around in the area of effect, which was 30' square feet per caster level, and once the tentacles grasped you, they held on forever.

You could Dimension Door out of it, but there was no Misty Step in AD&D, and the tentacles effectively did damage on a miss.

For the record, I have never ruled EBT in 5e, in the RAW manner I am advocating for. I do find the RAW implications amusing and appropriate. Primarily, I like it for the novelty, it turns a Ho-Hum encounter for a jaded player, into an encounter that will grab your attention.

Oh, good point. I was thinking of a whole pile of detached tentacles, but you're right that it could be one detached tentacle, and if so that would explain why Teleportation couldn't break you free but a Dex check could.

You're right and I hereby change my mind on that counterpoint.

[Tesla Dragon]

Unless I miss my mark, the Entangle spell would function similarly to EBT by RAW in regards to teleporting or being dragged out, as it also does not appear to have any statement in it's spell text that suggests leaving the area would end the spell.

[Corran]

Oh, good point. I was thinking of a whole pile of detached tentacles, but you're right that it could be one detached tentacle, and if so that would explain why Teleportation couldn't break you free but a Dex check could.

You're right and I hereby change my mind on that counterpoint.
Rhetorical question (but feel free to give a ruling). How many creatures need to teleport out of the same 5ft square of the initial EBT area in order to clear enough tentacles for that square to become restrain-free? (the spell fillls once with tentacles, but does not refill)

Follow up. Without an upper limit to the number of creatures that can simultaneously (or per round) become restrained by the spell, can I have enough dybbuks (I think they work well for this, but if you dont think they work at all, we dont have to limit it to dybbuks) to effectively recreate (a more localized version of) the spell elsewhere without reducing the initial EBT area? In case any of this is assumed to be possible (from a logistical point of view), would you say that it changes the spell description in a way that contradicts RAW, or in a way that just implicitly expands RAW? (this last one is an actual question, and I am asking it out of curiosity, because I am not sure how I would answer it)

=================================

Going through the thread one more time, I can now see how ruling that the tentacles are not attached to the ground (though how they turn the ground into difficult terrain is beyond me in this scenario, still, there might be a way that I am not thinking of), helps avoid the insane level of absurdity (which can though be plausible in a gaming/fantasy sort of way) caused if you assume that they are, and thus how it allows for an interpretation that the restraining carries on even after you leave the area. Mind you, this leads again to absurdity (this time in a way that is not plausible), but at least it's the kind of absurdity that you wont witness in your average game (and even if you do, it's at least the kind of absurdity that the DM can easily houserule away by making a very intuitive ruling on the spot; eg EBT cannot retrain more than X creatures per round).

I still find the argument that ''because the spell does not explicitly state that teleportation ends the condition'' to be unconvincing on its own. Listing a way of escape is by no means indication enough to conclude that this is the only way of escape, and this is anyway a common occurrence for spells and it's happening for obvious reasons. Spell descriptions dont include every potential countermeasure; only the ones that either pose an exception to some existing rule, or only when they need to provide additional information instead of just leaving it to the DM's judgement -who can still choose to change it. That's why you see EBT telling you that you can escape with a DC X str/dex check. Because it tells you that athletics or acrobatics proficiency is not meant to be applied. Though it's mostly done for convenience. Adding a few extra words when necessary (eg here you need a str/dex check) just to make the content more user friendly.

In conclusion, given enough freedom to visualize the spell accordingly, I think that both interpretations are tolerable (at least with a loose reading of RAW), but it's clear to me that the one letting you keep restraining enemies goes to RAW-uncharted territory (theoretically it even allows to backtrack on the initial spell description, assuming you can get enough teleporting going on to move the necessary -unclear how much that is- number of tentacles away from the initial AoE, which may or may not be enough reason to conclude that it contradicts the initial spell description, and thus RAW, so maybe it's still a no for a strict RAW reading) and needs either additional RAW or a houserule in order to keep things making sense (at least to anyone losing their time trying to justify how actually it is that an imaginary spell works in an imaginary world).

[Gtdead]

No, they are not creatures. (at least that's how I read the text). They are a magical effect that temporarily acts like the tentacles of a creature, somewhat. If the spell sommoned a creature, it would say so. (Like summoning constricting snakes ... those are creatures).

PS: Nothing to do with tentacles snapping. Once you misty step, you aren't there for them to grasp anymore. (Kind of like how thunderwave breaks a grapple)

I meant creature as a visual, not as a "Creature" in the RAW sense.
The spell says that it fills a patch of land with tentacles and for the duration these tentacles do something, nothing more than that. You can argue that these tentacles cause the effect, by wiggling so violently that you get a tentacle to the face, taking 3d8, and by being so many that make the terrain difficult to walk on. The spell just holds them together in place. When the duration ends, these things get scattered and burrow into the ground. This isn't important at this point. The fact that it's a conjuration spell, and not illusion, necromancy or evocation, gives this interpretation some plausibility.

I don't know how it was in previous editions, but backwards compatibility isn't a thing. So it's up to anyone to visualize it as they like. They can teleport with you, snap and stay on you... This is not my argument.

My argument is that common sense has nothing to do with how the restrained condition stays after teleporting out of the area. By RAW, there has to be some trigger to end the condition. For example to end a prone condition, you need to spend movement. To end a blindness spell, you need to dispel it, and so on. Just like you can't teleport out of a blind, you can't teleport out of a restrain, or a prone effect.

A way to visualize (or rationalize, which is what we do for "magic" that doesn't exist in our world) this in a way that makes sense in real life and is consistent with RAW is that these things constrict your hands and feet and you need to either break free or wiggle out of it (STR and DEX saves correspondingly), no matter if you are inside the area of effect or out of it.

It doesn't have to be the right way to visualize it, but it's proof of the concept that common sense doesn't have any bearing in this discussion.

[MaxWilson]

Rhetorical question (but feel free to give a ruling). How many creatures need to teleport out of the same 5ft square of the initial EBT area in order to clear enough tentacles for that square to become restrain-free? (the spell fillls once with tentacles, but does not refill)

Follow up. Without an upper limit to the number of creatures that can simultaneously (or per round) become restrained by the spell, can I have enough dybbuks (I think they work well for this, but if you dont think they work at all, we dont have to limit it to dybbuks) to effectively recreate (a more localized version of) the spell elsewhere without reducing the initial EBT area? In case any of this is assumed to be possible (from a logistical point of view), would you say that it changes the spell description in a way that contradicts RAW, or in a way that just implicitly expands RAW? (this last one is an actual question, and I am asking it out of curiosity, because I am not sure how I would answer it)

My ruling? I'd just as soon avoid all of this by saying that teleportation frees you from the tentacle, leaving the tentacle behind still attached to the original surface.

[Corran]

I meant creature as a visual, not as a "Creature" in the RAW sense.
The spell says that it fills a patch of land with tentacles and for the duration these tentacles do something, nothing more than that. You can argue that these tentacles cause the effect, by wiggling so violently that you get a tentacle to the face, taking 3d8, and by being so many that make the terrain difficult to walk on. The spell just holds them together in place. When the duration ends, these things get scattered and burrow into the ground. This isn't important at this point. The fact that it's a conjuration spell, and not illusion, necromancy or evocation, gives this interpretation some plausibility.

I don't know how it was in previous editions, but backwards compatibility isn't a thing. So it's up to anyone to visualize it as they like. They can teleport with you, snap and stay on you... This is not my argument.

My argument is that common sense has nothing to do with how the restrained condition stays after teleporting out of the area. By RAW, there has to be some trigger to end the condition. For example to end a prone condition, you need to spend movement. To end a blindness spell, you need to dispel it, and so on. Just like you can't teleport out of a blind, you can't teleport out of a restrain, or a prone effect.

A way to visualize (or rationalize, which is what we do for "magic" that doesn't exist in our world) this in a way that makes sense in real life and is consistent with RAW is that these things constrict your hands and feet and you need to either break free or wiggle out of it (STR and DEX saves correspondingly), no matter if you are inside the area of effect or out of it.

It doesn't have to be the right way to visualize it, but it's proof of the concept that common sense doesn't have any bearing in this discussion.
I hope you mean blindness not caused by the spell. Cause if you are referring to the blindness spell, its description makes it clear that the only way to get rid of it, is to either succeed on a save, or for its duration to end.


My ruling? I'd just as soon avoid all of this by saying that teleportation frees you from the tentacle, leaving the tentacle behind still attached to the original surface.
Cool.

[Gtdead]

I hope you mean blindness not caused by the homonymous spell. Cause if you are referring to the blindness spell, its description makes it clear that the only way to get rid of it, is to either succeed on a save, or for its duration to end.

Ehm, I'm actually confused. Is Blindness impossible to be dispelled? It is a magical effect and has a duration.

[ff7hero]

Ehm, I'm actually confused. Is Blindness impossible to be dispelled? It is a magical effect and has a duration.

I believe the blue text indicates sarcasm. In this case I think the quoted poster is trying to make a false equivalence between the Blindness/Deafness spell and EBT. Dispel Magic will indeed remove the effects of Blindness/Deafness, as it would the effects of EBT. Lesser Restoration will also remove the blind or deafened conditions. If Misty Step said it removed the restrained condition, it would work as others want it to.

[Dork_Forge]

I believe the blue text indicates sarcasm. In this case I think the quoted poster is trying to make a false equivalence between the Blindness/Deafness spell and EBT. Dispel Magic will indeed remove the effects of Blindness/Deafness, as it would the effects of EBT. Lesser Restoration will also remove the blind or deafened conditions. If Misty Step said it removed the restrained condition, it would work as others want it to.

I understand why people want Misty Step to work, but the fact that Freedom of Movement (and an equivalent item) exists makes me want to rule against it more depending on what the party is.

[Corran]

Ehm, I'm actually confused. Is Blindness impossible to be dispelled? It is a magical effect and has a duration.
It certainly is. So? It may be logical to assume an interaction between it and dispel magic/lesser restoration/etc, but the rules of the blindness spell dont make any mention about any of this. You might argue it's a case of specific vs general, but the rules dont tell us which is the specific and which the general. And while I think it's reasonable to assume that the interaction between spells is the specific which beats the general (which is the description of the spell) unless otherwise stated in the description of the spell (btw, nothing in the description of EBT tells us that it's not supposed to be countered by teleporting away), we cannot use common sense to determine RAW. Or can we?


I believe the blue text indicates sarcasm.
Typically yes. I often use it when I want to be silly on purpose. In this case it's less sarcasm and more of a way to show I dont really believe that (while trying to be a little cheeky).


In this case I think the quoted poster is trying to make a false equivalence between the Blindness/Deafness spell and EBT. Dispel Magic will indeed remove the effects of Blindness/Deafness, as it would the effects of EBT. Lesser Restoration will also remove the blind or deafened conditions. If Misty Step said it removed the restrained condition, it would work as others want it to.
I am not. I am just objecting to Gtdead's earlier comment about how you have to do away with common sense when interpreting RAW.

[Dork_Forge]

It certainly is. So? It may be logical to assume an interaction between it and dispel magic/lesser restoration/etc, but the rules of the blindness spell dont make any mention about any of this. You might argue it's a case of specific vs general, but the rules dont tell us which is the specific and which the general. And while I think it's reasonable to assume that the interaction between spells is the specific which beats the general (which is the description of the spell) unless otherwise stated in the description of the spell (btw, nothing in the description of EBT tells us that it's not supposed to be countered by teleporting away), we cannot use common sense to determine RAW. Or can we?

You're stretching things here, there is no direct link between teleportation and removing the restrained condition imposed by EBT, however Dispel Magic's sole purpose is to dispel magical effects and Lesser Restoration clearly says that you can remove the Blinded condition. There is direct interaction there that there simply isn't between EBT and teleportation magic.

[Corran]

You're stretching things here, there is no direct link between teleportation and removing the restrained condition imposed by EBT, however Dispel Magic's sole purpose is to dispel magical effects and Lesser Restoration clearly says that you can remove the Blinded condition. There is direct interaction there that there simply isn't between EBT and teleportation magic.
Despite the absence of any rules that can confirm your opinion, I agree.
However, what does this tell us? Does it tell us that an end condition for a spell can apply, even if it's not explicitly stated in the spell's description but it otherwise makes sense?

Edit: My point is, we cannot turn on and off common sense selectively. Either we apply it when interpreting the rules, or we dont. If it's within common sense that break of physical contact is enough to end the restrain by the tentacle, then it must hold true even if the spell description does not get as disgustingly analytical as it could have. Just like it is within common sense that an application of a number of spells can end other spells prematurely, even though there is no mention of that in the respective spell descriptions, but we do that anyway because we can use common sense to see how it plays out. Similarly, if it's within common sense that teleporting away from the initial AoE enough tentacles (courtesy of them staying glued on us when we tp away) so that in subsequent rounds we end with a modified AoE (which is something that certainly departs from the spell description), you cannot say that it doesn't have to make sense, at least when discussing the RAW. Otherwise we are back to stuff like dispel magic not interacting with anything.

[Dork_Forge]

Despite the absence of any rules that can confirm your opinion, I agree.
However, what does this tell us? Does it tell us that an end condition for a spell can apply, even if it's not explicitly stated in the spell's description but it otherwise makes sense?

If a spell imposes a condition and something explicitly removes that condition, how is that not rules telling us that? In the case of EBT it tells us until the spell ends.... Dispel Magic would end the spell.

This is in no way like assuming teleportation would remove restrained, if you cast Freedom of Movement then you'd be free too.

[Corran]

If a spell imposes a condition and something explicitly removes that condition, how is that not rules telling us that? In the case of EBT it tells us until the spell ends.... Dispel Magic would end the spell.
EBT's description mentions nothing about dispel magic though. And dispel magic mentions nothing about EBT. I obviously agree that it ends it, and I agree that the interaction between dispell magic and spell or effects of spells is more spelled out than the interaction between teleportation and restraining effects (because restraining effects dont have to be caused by physical contact), but I dont understand how you use common sense in one case, while you want something so effortlessly deducible to be explicitly stated in the other case. (also, made an edit to the previous comment)



This is in no way like assuming teleportation would remove restrained, if you cast Freedom of Movement then you'd be free too.
If you are restrained by physical contact (in lack of a better phrase), and you terminate that physical contact, how more obvious you want it to be that the restrained condition is gone too? If there is nothing left to restrain me, then what am I restrained by?

[Gtdead]

It certainly is. So? It may be logical to assume an interaction between it and dispel magic/lesser restoration/etc, but the rules of the blindness spell dont make any mention about any of this. You might argue it's a case of specific vs general, but the rules dont tell us which is the specific and which the general. And while I think it's reasonable to assume that the interaction between spells is the specific which beats the general (which is the description of the spell) unless otherwise stated in the description of the spell (btw, nothing in the description of EBT tells us that it's not supposed to be countered by teleporting away), we cannot use common sense to determine RAW. Or can we?

I don't really understand what you are getting at. We don't "assume" the interaction, it's clearly stated. Evard's also doesn't make any mention of the effect ending if the caster loses concentration. We don't have to assume anything out of it because again, the effects of losing concentration are described where it's appropriate to do so. There isn't something for us here to interpret unless we create an implied rule because we used our experience, be it from our real life or previous editions of DnD, to try and visualize/interpret the effect. As demonstrated, there is nothing common in this situation about the sense that people have about the spell.

As humans we use common sense in our daily lives to determine how something is supposed to work, or if something is right or wrong. However as humans, we can also be mistaken.

Again sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

[Reynaert]

I guess all the RAW supporters here will say if you cast Anti Magic Field and walk out of the tentacles and drop it you will be restrained again. Because that is the logical conclusion of their RAW reading.

If you are restrained, then cast magic field inside the tentables area, and then drop it again, are you automatically restrained again in an instant, or do you have to make another saving throw at the beginning of your turn before you're restrained?

Whatever the answer, the same logic applies when you walk out first.


I still find the argument that ''because the spell does not explicitly state that teleportation ends the condition'' to be unconvincing on its own.

But that's not the argument. The argument is "because the spell does not explicitly state that leaving the area ends the condition". And as further evidence, other spells *do* clearly state that leaving the area ends the effect, which supports the interpretation that this is intended.


Evard's also doesn't make any mention of the effect ending if the caster loses concentration.

Except yes it does. "... until the spell ends" is stated clearly in the description.

[Corran]

I don't really understand what you are getting at. We don't "assume" the interaction, it's clearly stated. Evard's also doesn't make any mention of the effect ending if the caster loses concentration. We don't have to assume anything out of it because again, the effects of losing concentration are described where it's appropriate to do so. There isn't something for us here to interpret unless we create an implied rule because we used our experience, be it from our real life or previous editions of DnD, to try and visualize/interpret the effect. As demonstrated, there is nothing common in this situation about the sense that people have about the spell.

As humans we use common sense in our daily lives to determine how something is supposed to work, or if something is right or wrong. However as humans, we can also be mistaken.

Again sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.
You claimed that common sense does not have anything to do when we are discussing the rules. I dont agree with this claim. We are using common sense when we are reading and when interpreting the rules, because the rules are supposed to rely on common sense. The reason they are meant to rely on common sense is because of their purpose, which is to allow people to play together while using the same ruleset. So they have to at least try to convey the same meaning. To do that, the obviously have to be analytical enough to avoid different interpretations to the extent that this is possible (or desirable, if we are talking about 5e specifically). To avoid to be too analytical though, to the point that they wont end up being presented in a way that is too unappealing to the gamer, the rules will ignore most of the time something that does not have to be stated, and count on the common sense of the reader (even if that common sense is filtered by the context of the game world) to understand that the absence of a few words wont be mistaken for an intentional omission. Nowhere in the stat block of the (human) thug does it state that the thug cannot fly, but we dont need that information to come to that conclusion, because we know that a human cannot naturally fly, and we understand that the trait of being a thug is not meant to confer that ability. Yes, sometimes the rules enforce things that defy common sense (from a real world perspective), but when they do it they state it, and they state it in such a way so we can understand it using our common sense (either as an example or as a counterexample). And sometimes the rules tend to state the obvious, or tend to repeat themselves over several different sections (and that's done either to reduce confusion, or more often just to be made easier to use). If an ability says that you are restrained by a tentacle, but it does not detail it further, what would you think that the rules expect us to think? That the tentacle is wrapped around us and restrain us physically, or that it uses some unstated telekinetic power to do that? I mean, it's not unreasonable for a dnd setting to have tentacles with telekinetic powers in it, but when such a telekinetic tentacle is involved it's natural to expect that you be made aware of these properties. While if nothing is stated, it behaves like you would expect a normal tentacle to do (in whatever capacity was left undefined by the rules). Likewise, if physical contact was the cause of you being restrained, escaping from that physical contact unavoidably means, using our common sense on which the rules rely on, that whatever it was that caused us to be restrained is not holding true anymore, thus (unless otherwise stated) there is no longer reason for us to be restrained.

Edit: The thug analogy is probably a poor one. Feel free to ignore it.




But that's not the argument. The argument is "because the spell does not explicitly state that leaving the area ends the condition". And as further evidence, other spells *do* clearly state that leaving the area ends the effect, which supports the interpretation that this is intended.
The restrained condition ends the moment the tentacle has stopped restraining you, and that is because the spell states that it is the tentacle that is restraining you. The spell provides some of the ways this (ie ending the restrained condition) can happen, but nowhere does it say that these are the only possible ways (and clearly they are not), nor does it say that moving away from the area does not end the condition, so there is no real argument there to begin with (and this kind of reasoning falls into inconsistencies when applying it to other spells; eg lesser restoration vs blindness). The somewhat more convincing argument is that the tentacle teleports with you, because the spell states nothing that prevents that. IMO this is a tortured reading of the rules, and although at first glance it does not go against them, I think there is a case to be made that it can eventually lead to actually going against RAW, ie teleport enough tentacles away and the initial AoE is modified, so the spell description can fail (and I am leaning to agree with that, in that I think this contradicts the RAW more than it expands on them, though I am not 100% sure).

ps: Yes, EBT and web are written in an inconsistent way, and that (strongly) implies that the difference is intentional (and translatable in the way you imply, though that's just one of the ways to think of it). But then again, it may not be intentional. I am acknowledging it exists and that's it's easier to explain (assuming no sloppiness) using your interpretation, but I wouldn't agree that on its own it's proof of anything (and in fact I dont believe it is, because the argument you stated is clearly false to me for the reasons I gave; which instead makes me think that it's more a case of sloppy editing).

[ff7hero]

Dispel Magic says (among other things) it can end a spell.

Lesser Restoration says (among other things) that it removes the Blind or Deafened conditions.

Misty Step does not say it removes the Restrained condition.

One of these things is not like the other. This whole argument reads to me like "You're not adding words that don't exist to this spell, so you have to ignore the text of all these other spells."

Also, I know you said to ignore it, but the lack of a Fly speed in the Thug's stat block does indicate that the thug cannot fly. If I made a homebrew monster that was exactly like the Thug but with a Fly speed, it would fly, common sense be darned.

[Corran]

Dispel Magic says (among other things) it can end a spell.

Lesser Restoration says (among other things) that it removes the Blind or Deafened conditions.

Misty Step does not say it removes the Restrained condition.
And for good reason. You dont want teleporting to be able to end the restrained condition under any circumstances. But when mystic step is enough to break contact with the thing that's restraining you (not necessarily true for EBT, though it might be for someone who concludes that a modification to the initial AoE of the spell contradicts the RAW for the spell), and when the thing that's restraining you relies on remaining close enough to you (ie close enough for a misty step to be able to take you further than that), then you dont need the rules to explicitly tell you that the restrained condition ends (unless the rules allow -I would prefer state, hence why I am saying that it's a tortured interpretation- for the thing restraining you to move with you), and that's because the rules already included this obvious conclusion as a possibility when they detailed that you are being restrained physically in the way that you are. In short, you dont need the rules to state the obvious (in that case, that if the tentacle is in no position to restrain you any longer, then you are no longer restrained, because it was the tentacle that was restraining you in the first place), because that's not what rules are primarily for, even if they sometimes do state the obvious.

Edit:


One of these things is not like the other. This whole argument reads to me like "You're not adding words that don't exist to this spell, so you have to ignore the text of all these other spells.".
I am not the one adding words. The ones that add words are the ones saying that the spell details all possible ways for the restrained condition to end, which is simply not true (I dont remember if you are one of them, but I definitely remember reading it from at least someone; and Reynaert repeated it above).

I am going the extra mile to see if both interpretations manage to keep within the RAW (I would agree that at a first glance they do, but one of them creates effects of which I am not so sure about -regarding if they are still within RAW or not).

[Gtdead]

You claimed that common sense does not have anything to do when we are discussing the rules. I dont agree with this claim. We are using common sense when we are reading and when interpreting the rules, because the rules are supposed to rely on common sense.

I don't agree with this. Applying logic and common sense are two different things. They can work in tandem, but they can also conflict with each other. Also a lot of things in life, from nature to state laws, are counterintuitive to humans and applying common sense leads to mistakes while rationalizations can turn out to be correct. It's a messy situation.



The reason they are meant to rely on common sense is because of their purpose, which is to allow people to play together while using the same ruleset. So they have to at least try to convey the same meaning. To do that, the obviously have to be analytical enough to avoid different interpretations to the extent that this is possible (or desirable, if we are talking about 5e specifically). To avoid to be too analytical though, to the point that they wont end up being presented in a way that is too unappealing to the gamer, the rules will ignore most of the time something that does not have to be stated, and count on the common sense of the reader (even if that common sense is filtered by the context of the game world) to understand that the absence of a few words wont be mistaken for an intentional omission.

I agree with the spirit of your statement, however the argument that something is indeed unintentionally omitted needs to be a strong one. My original argument about EBT is that common sense doesn't need to apply in this situation, because through common sense you can create a perfectly acceptable visualization of the spell that is both legal according to RAW, and makes sense from a physics perspective. Since two different but perfectly acceptable visualizations of the spell are at odds, then the tiebreaker is the RAW itself. Also intuitive explanations aren't better than counterintuitive explanations if they still make perfect sense.



Nowhere in the stat block of the (human) thug does it state that the thug cannot fly, but we dont need that information to come to that conclusion, because we know that a human cannot naturally fly, and we understand that the trait of being a thug is not meant to confer that ability. Yes, sometimes the enforce things that are defy common sense, but when they do they state it, and they state it in such a way so we can understand it using our common sense (either as an example or as a counterexample). And sometimes the rules tend to state the obvious, or tend to repeat themselves over several different sections (and that's done either to reduce confusion, or more often just to be made easier to use). If an ability says that you are restrained by a tentacle, but it does not detail it further, what would you think that the rules expect us to think? That the tentacle is wrapped around us and restrain us physically, or that it uses some unstated telekinetic power to do that?

Obviously the first. It's the simplest and least assuming interpretation that takes the description fully in account. This is the same interpretation I used in my visualization of the spell.



I mean, it's not unreasonable for a dnd setting to have tentacles with telekinetic powers in it, but when such a telekinetic tentacle is involved it's natural to expect that you be made aware of these properties. While if nothing is stated, it behaves like you would expect a normal tentacle to do (in whatever capacity was left undefined by the rules). Likewise, if physical contact was the cause of you being restrained, escaping from that physical contact unavoidably means, using our common sense on which the rules rely on, that whatever it was that caused us to be restrained is not holding true anymore, thus (unless otherwise stated) there is no longer reason for us to be restrained.

Which again assumes that teleporting away will somehow end contact with the tentacle, which only happens under very certain assumptions. For example, if I had reason to assume that the spell created an octopus that had tentacles which created the effect, and I teleported away, I'd want to rule that teleportation frees you from the restrained condition.

But all we have to work with here is "tentacles" and we have to understand the properties of these things which is the counterintuitive part. This is where common sense fails. In our world, tentacles are common among invertebrates and they don't move when they are severed. Some people may make the assumption that something like that has to exist to justify the movement of tentacles but this isn't the simplest argument, it's just the intuitive. There is a good counterintuitive argument as well, because we have to take the setting into account which no matter how much we familiarize ourselves with, we don't live in it.

It's a conjuration spell which means that it creates something.
It requires a piece of tentacle from a giant octopus or a giant squid, which looks fairly similar to the things that the spell creates.
From previous editions we know who Evard the Black is and what he is like (although this is the least important).
The spell only mentions black tentacles, nothing more.

By taking all these in account, it somehow makes perfect sense that the spell creates long snake-like creatures that look like a bigger and more sinister version of the material used to cast the spell. When you visualize them like that, then there is no reason to assume that teleporting away will have any effect on a snake-like creature that looks like a tentacle and is wrapped around you, restraining you.

So it could very well may be that instead of the spell description omitting a possible interaction, they instead omitted the mechanism by which the spell restrains you or the creature's statistics. The first changes the spell, the second doesn't have to change anything at all.

[Battlebooze]

Unless I miss my mark, the Entangle spell would function similarly to EBT by RAW in regards to teleporting or being dragged out, as it also does not appear to have any statement in it's spell text that suggests leaving the area would end the spell.


If you rule that EBT works that way, then Entangle should do the same.

Personally I think Misty Stepping out of the Area of Effect should end the Restrained condition.

[Dork_Forge]

If you rule that EBT works that way, then Entangle should do the same.


I mean if you really want to bring it up, sure it works that way. Same wording, so what if it's plants? They're magically created and sustained and don't give a monkeys about the environment they are created into, Versimillitude shatters hard and fast if you try to apply logic/common sense from our world to the D&D world.

That's okay, it's magic after all.

[da newt]

Hypothetical follow on questions:

* Assuming the very literal ruling for EBT (or Entangle) - how would THUNDERWAVE interact? Are the tentacles a creature (no), so then are they an object and therefore auto-pushed away? The tentacles couldn't be secured or they couldn't teleport with the restrained creature...

If something exists (physical) and it isn't a creature it must be an object, right? There is no other defined category for physical things, is there?

"A wave of thunderous force sweeps out from you. Each creature in a 15-foot cube originating from you must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 2d8 thunder damage and is pushed 10 feet away from you. On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage and isn't pushed.

In addition, unsecured Objects that are completely within the area of Effect are automatically pushed 10 feet away from you by the spell's Effect, and the spell emits a thunderous boom audible out to 300 feet."

** How long are the tentacles? If a creature was not touching the floor, but was above the spell's AoE, how far up do the Tentacles reach?

[Trafalgar]

I can Teleport, but the EBT Teleport with me and I'm still under the spell effects regardless of my location.



I am having trouble wrapping my mind around this ruling. This may have been already covered but I read this thread for the first time this morning.

EBT is an AoE spell that covers a 20' cube and can effect multiple creatures.

What if EBT is cast on a barbarian and a wizard and the wizard teleports away. Do ALL the tentacles go with the wizard, setting the barbarian free? Or do some tentacles teleport with the wizard and the others stay? Which would mean the the tentacles no longer follow the spells range and area of effect.

[noob]

I am having trouble wrapping my mind around this ruling. This may have been already covered but I read this thread for the first time this morning.

EBT is an AoE spell that covers a 20' cube and can effect multiple creatures.

What if EBT is cast on a barbarian and a wizard and the wizard teleports away. Do ALL the tentacles go with the wizard, setting the barbarian free? Or do some tentacles teleport with the wizard and the others stay? Which would mean the the tentacles no longer follow the spells range and area of effect.

The truth is that the tentacles from the zone does not follows.
When you go through the astral plane during teleportation the tentacles of that plane sees that you have the marks of tentacles from the spell that looks as if the spell was still active.
They think "there is a tentacle party and I was not invited" then they go to the destination of those people travelling through the astral plane and start grappling.

[Tanarii]

Spells are not ability checks. You're not supposed to extend the written rule based on non-written storytelling.

[noob]

Spells are not ability checks. You're not supposed to extend the written rule based on non-written storytelling.

Well nonambiguously the spell keeps people restrained even when they get out of the area according to the rules.

The rules are clear but it looks silly to know there is 1000 people restrained by the same square of black tentacles that are all in different countries and planes somehow which is how it works right now.

So I wrote fluff to explain why the same square of tentacles can restrain thousands of people who went in in and teleported away but regardless of the fluff it is how the spell works: thousands of people at thousands of places can all be restrained by the tentacles of the same area.

You can also work without fluff and say you are restrained by the tentacles independently of touching them which is RAW because by RAW the tentacles restrains people regardless of touching them.
In any case with or without the fluff I wrote the effect of the spell is perfectly identical.

Or are you saying "fireball making a blazing ball of fire that moves to the target area" is an invalid way of interpreting how it looks because it was described in the spell as a bright streak that flash from your finger to the target area and that you should feel shame about describing a fireball in a non RAW way and that you should describe how it looks only by always using the exact term used in the spell?
You want wizards to never describe their spells and always tell "I cast spell number 5" or "I cast spell number 7"?

[Dork_Forge]

Hypothetical follow on questions:

* Assuming the very literal ruling for EBT (or Entangle) - how would THUNDERWAVE interact? Are the tentacles a creature (no), so then are they an object and therefore auto-pushed away? The tentacles couldn't be secured or they couldn't teleport with the restrained creature...

The tentacles are a spell effect, they are not pushed, trying to extrapolate out other rules interactions will just lead to confusion and aren't really relevant to the actual application of the spell.



** How long are the tentacles? If a creature was not touching the floor, but was above the spell's AoE, how far up do the Tentacles reach?

How long is a piece of string? The Tentacles are long enough to achieve their described effect within the designated area.

[Battlebooze]

This a strong case of RAI over RAW for me.

I'm quite certain that EBT tentacles and Entangle were not intended to have a continuous effect outside of the area of effect of the casting.

I feel like we need a new term for this kind of situation, RAW by Omission. RAWO :D So sure, if you play by RAWO, you would still be Restrained if you managed to leave the area of effect of these spells.

I'm fairly happy that the group I play with tends to play RAI when there are weird situations like this.

[MrCharlie]

So it appears the issue is that people are being insanely pedantic and saying that, just because the rules say that X spell creates an area and that Y effect is associated with it, you can't assume that leaving X area ends Y effect.

This isn't technically wrong, in the same way that it's not technically wrong to say that being decapitated (with only one head, natch) isn't inherently lethal, unless the rules specifically say it is.

{Scrubbed}

And to clarify-the general argument does have some nuance. Most of these spells at least heavily imply that the effect restraining you is sourced from some area-Maximillian's grasp, for instance, is associated with an unoccupied square, Web with a 20 foot square on the ground, as is Evards Black Tentacles. A net, on the other hand, isn't-and I'm sure there are other spells which aren't as well. Snare is a good example of a spell which a DM needs to interpret-you do specify an area, but the effect specifies that the triggering creature is suspended above the area and only provides certain ways to end it-one interpretation is that you can teleport away, but the spell just drags you back to restrain you again.

But at some point, we simply have to accept that the entire text of a spell matters, and if it's mentioning an area where the spell has an effect we can make the logical association that not being in this area means you aren't affected by the spell.

Edit: I wonder if there is actually any general rule that lets spells affect things outside of the AOE, thinking on it. While this has some strange interactions, arguably nothing lets black tentacles restrain creatures out of it's 20 foot cube regardless of if the spell has ended or not. The rules specify that a spell isn't limited by its range, but it's AOE isn't its range (they can be the same, but aren't the same thing and can also differ). This may break some fundamental game assumptions, but I can't see anything clearly wrong with this logic either.

What's really going on here is that the rules clearly imply that some spells create a persistent area of effect and that their effects are tied to this area, and some spells create an area of effect and the effects are tied to creatures targeted within this area, but the game never actually makes that distinction implicit and bothers defining what happens if you aren't in the AOE anymore in either case. Hence you can rule that either all spells that specify an AOE are limited to their original AOE, or none are. Hence, spells like fear stop working (but don't necessarily end) once the creature has dashed out of the 30 foot cone, or spells like Evards black tentacles or transmute rock restrain creatures nowhere near the tentacles or rock. Both violate our intuitive assumptions of how the spells work, but both are valid interpretations.

[da newt]

"we can make the logical association that not being in this area means you aren't affected by the spell." I completely agree, but also counter that "can" does not equal "must." You can choose to be 'insanely pedantic' or reasonably logical or whatever ...

[Reynaert]

What's really going on here is that the rules clearly imply that some spells create a persistent area of effect and that their effects are tied to this area, and some spells create an area of effect and the effects are tied to creatures targeted within this area, but the game never actually makes that distinction implicit and bothers defining what happens if you aren't in the AOE anymore in either case. Hence you can rule that either all spells that specify an AOE are limited to their original AOE, or none are. Hence, spells like fear stop working (but don't necessarily end) once the creature has dashed out of the 30 foot cone, or spells like Evards black tentacles or transmute rock restrain creatures nowhere near the tentacles or rock. Both violate our intuitive assumptions of how the spells work, but both are valid interpretations.

There is the point that some (well, at least one) of those AOE spells specifically state that leaving the area ends the effect. So it's somewhat plausible to rule that if the spell states this, the effect is tied to the area and if it does not, it is tied to the creature.

So there is a seemingly plausible case to be made that you remain restrained if you move out of EBT's area.

On the other hand, the spell Watery Sphere also doesn't state it ends the restrained condition when you leave the sphere. But I think everyone agrees(*) that Misty Stepping out of a Watery Sphere would break the restrained condition.

*) Question to anyone arguing that you remain restrained when exiting the area of EBT: Do you agree that exiting a Watery Sphere by any means breaks the restrained condition? If so, what's the difference, if not, why not?

[Hellpyre]

*) Question to anyone arguing that you remain restrained when exiting the area of EBT: Do you agree that exiting a Watery Sphere by any means breaks the restrained condition? If so, what's the difference, if not, why not?

For what it's worth, Watery Sphere is terribly poorly worded. As far as it goes, that particular spell actually offers no condition for releasing the restrained condition. It offers conditions that remove a creature from the sphere, and implies that that should break the condition, but does not actually do so in-and-of-itself. It also allows 4 restrained medium creatures and one creature of any size to share a given space, as long as the that 'any size' creature succeeds on its save each turn.

But, to play devil's advocate: EBT has a specific duration and specific end conditions to the Restained condition it imposes, whereas Watery Sphere imposes neither of those things, and so must be dictated by the DM, who should thus take notice the WS requires the sphere to restrain the creature and has specific requirements (primarily action costs) for the sphere to move, and so the sphere cannot be assumed to teleport with a restrained creature. EBT does not equate with WS in any of those specifics.

[Corran]

For what it's worth, Watery Sphere is terribly poorly worded. As far as it goes, that particular spell actually offers no condition for releasing the restrained condition.
It does. What you later call an implication is more than just an implication. It's the only reasonable outcome that one gets to by staying true to what the spell description states. If you are restrained because water engulfs you, then the only possible outcome of getting out of that sphere of water is that you are no longer restrained. The rules dont need to state that. Not because they just imply it, but because it is the only thing that they could possibly imply in this case, while also staying true to themselves.

I guess one could argue that you are still wet after getting out of the watery sphere, so there is still water on you. Clearly not enough to restrain you in the way that water can do. But then again one could say that this is not simple water, but magical water with additional properties of its own. In which case you look at the spell once again, to see what's up with this water. And the text clearly states in which ways this water behaves differently than you'd expect of normal water. Sticking to an interpretation that eventually makes you contradict (and maybe even expand on) what the spell limits this water to do, is actually going against RAW.

[Bilbron]

It does. What you later call an implication is more than just an implication. It's the only reasonable outcome that one gets to by staying true to what the spell description states. If you are restrained because water engulfs you, then the only possible outcome of getting out of that sphere of water is that you are no longer restrained. The rules dont need to state that. Not because they just imply it, but because it is the only thing that they could possibly imply in this case, while also staying true to themselves.

I guess one could argue that you are still wet after getting out of the watery sphere, so there is still water on you. Clearly not enough to restrain you in the way that water can do. But then again one could say that this is not simple water, but magical water with additional properties of its own. In which case you look at the spell once again, to see what's up with this water. And the text clearly states in which ways this water behaves differently than you'd expect of normal water. Sticking to an interpretation that eventually makes you contradict (and maybe even expand on) what the spell limits this water to do, is actually going against RAW.
I honestly think the description in Web stating that the condition ends when you leave the web was just a matter of stating the obvious, instead of implying that every other spell worked differently... Occam's Razor and all that. People get surprised when using colloquial language that, when parsed by the exceptionally robotic, leads to non-intuitive interpretations. Language is a game, after all (ala Wittgenstein), and there are unspoken rules that, if ignored, leads to incoherence.

D&D is full of players with high-IQ and low-EQ (myself included), so this sort of parsing is to be expected, but can get ridiculous sometimes, imo.

[Hellpyre]

It does. What you later call an implication is more than just an implication. It's the only reasonable outcome that one gets to by staying true to what the spell description states. If you are restrained because water engulfs you, then the only possible outcome of getting out of that sphere of water is that you are no longer restrained. The rules dont need to state that. Not because they just imply it, but because it is the only thing that they could possibly imply in this case, while also staying true to themselves.

Again, in case this was at all unclear, I do not think you continue to be restrained if you leave the area of either WS or EBT. I am merely providing my devil's advocate opinion of why I think the alternate viewpoint could be held.

I agree that it is clearly the outcome implied by the text, and that there is no reasonable way to rule otherwise for WS.

What I was saying is that setting Watery Sphere equivalent to Evard's Black Tentacles for the sake of this argument ignores why the EBT argument exists in the first place - EBT places clear and specific limitations on the application and duration of the Restrained condition it applies. It provides two specific conditions (the spell ending or making the appropriate check) that will cause the Restrained condition to end, and then completes the thought with a full stop. It is not ridiculous for a game master to accept the specific rules a spell provides for its effect, and conclude that there are no avenues to interact with that effect that do not themselves provide a specific rule allowing them to do so (such as Freedom of Movement does).

Watery Sphere, on the other hand, provides no such specific guidance, and so the mechanics of the effect must be adjudicated by the DM or else flail horribly dysfunctional. It is possible to have a reasonable and self-consistent view on spell effects that treat these two spells differently.

[Dork_Forge]

I honestly think the description in Web stating that the condition ends when you leave the web was just a matter of stating the obvious, instead of implying that every other spell worked differently... Occam's Razor and all that. People get surprised when using colloquial language that, when parsed by the exceptionally robotic, leads to non-intuitive interpretations. Language is a game, after all (ala Wittgenstein), and there are unspoken rules that, if ignored, leads to incoherence.

D&D is full of players with high-IQ and low-EQ (myself included), so this sort of parsing is to be expected, but can get ridiculous sometimes, imo.

{Scrubbed}

And a person's IQ has no inherent bearing on how much they adhere to strict logic.

If there are multiple instances of spells specifically calling out things, then you are assuming that the spell is worded poorly becuase you don't like the outcome. If it was natural to assume these things then it wouldn't have been spelled out at all, the level at which you can apply real world logic to an abstract gaming system like D&D is incredibly small and quickly falls apart quickly.

[Bilbron]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

And a person's IQ has no inherent bearing on how much they adhere to strict logic.

If there are multiple instances of spells specifically calling out things, then you are assuming that the spell is worded poorly becuase you don't like the outcome. If it was natural to assume these things then it wouldn't have been spelled out at all, the level at which you can apply real world logic to an abstract gaming system like D&D is incredibly small and quickly falls apart quickly.

Personally I think it has an obvious bearing on the phenomenon occurring here, and am not afraid to say so. {Scrubbed}

[Dork_Forge]

Personally I think it has an obvious bearing on the phenomenon occurring here, and am not afraid to say so. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


You can say so all you like, it neither proves it nor shows why you believe that.

...so you think things are only offensive if the person has ill-will?

Labeling a community at large as people with limited emotional capabilities has no bearing on how they interpret a set of game rules.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[Corran]

What I was saying is that setting Watery Sphere equivalent to Evard's Black Tentacles for the sake of this argument ignores why the EBT argument exists in the first place - EBT places clear and specific limitations on the application and duration of the Restrained condition it applies.
Yes, but these limitations are clearly not an exhaustive list on their own, and nothing in the text even suggests that they are.




It provides two specific conditions (the spell ending or making the appropriate check) that will cause the Restrained condition to end, and then completes the thought with a full stop. It is not ridiculous for a game master to accept the specific rules a spell provides for its effect, and conclude that there are no avenues to interact with that effect that do not themselves provide a specific rule allowing them to do so (such as Freedom of Movement does).
It is not ridiculous (even though the resulting effect could be), but in this case it's false (and I dont think it's reasonable for one to arbitrarily decide so, assuming they intend to stay within RAW ofc). At the very least I'd consider the interaction before falsely assuming there is none, otherwise I'll end up with dispel magic not interacting with anything unless it is explicitly stated in the spell description (eg simulacrum), which clearly is not reasonable (and not ridiculous).


Watery Sphere, on the other hand, provides no such specific guidance, and so the mechanics of the effect must be adjudicated by the DM or else flail horribly dysfunctional. It is possible to have a reasonable and self-consistent view on spell effects that treat these two spells differently.
Because no such further guidance is needed. The text provides no more than what's needed in order to reach one conclusion (I'll know I reached the wrong conclusion about RAW, if I start attributing counterintuitive properties to the water that are not stated in the text).

[MrCharlie]

If there are multiple instances of spells specifically calling out things, then you are assuming that the spell is worded poorly becuase you don't like the outcome. If it was natural to assume these things then it wouldn't have been spelled out at all,the level at which you can apply real world logic to an abstract gaming system like D&D is incredibly small and quickly falls apart quickly.
The argument is, more or less, that the text describing what is actually happening-tentacles grappling someone, water restraining someone-is what is specifically calling out that leaving the area will end the effect. It's no more or less valid than the rest of the text. That some spells clarify this explicitly is irrelevant-and you can always come up with a reason why that spell might say this versus another one might not. Web, for example, clarifies that the restraint ends if you leave the spell, but this could simply be because web being sticky might imply that you get restrained by webs sticking to you even after leaving the area, unless you specifically free yourself. We can play this game with any rules text that is more specific than another instance, and it's not proof of anything.

As for abstract gaming systems not being suitable to real-world logic-there are many sections of the rules text that assume reality is, well, normal until stated otherwise. Feather fall, for instance, assumes that you fall naturally at a speed faster than 60 feet and explicitly says it's slowing the targets, but this isn't absolutely true unless you assume that reality behaves like normal as a priori. At the extreme, if you start saying that no assumptions from reality are valid, you invite insanity like a player saying he jumps and falls sideways until he hits a wall, because the rules never say you fall down.

Given that many of the issues brought up here are similarly axiomatic, with the real-world logic here that you can't be affected by stone that you're no longer embedded in, or grappled by tentacles 500 feet from you, I don't see why real-world logic is, a priori, inapplicable.

[Bilbron]

You can say so all you like, it neither proves it nor shows why you believe that.

...so you think things are only offensive if the person has ill-will?

Labeling a community at large as people with limited emotional capabilities has no bearing on how they interpret a set of game rules.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I can say whatever I like without providing proof or even justification (as a philosophical aside, no proposition can ever be justified, it's just turtles (assumptions) all the way down. One must FALSIFY, not justify. But I digress...). You are free to disagree, and tell me so, also without proof. It's called a conversation. Also, note that I said "many players in D&D", an indisputably true statement that you don't have to take personally, as if I'm painting you with that brush.

{Scrubbed}

[Corran]

I honestly think the description in Web stating that the condition ends when you leave the web was just a matter of stating the obvious, instead of implying that every other spell worked differently... Occam's Razor and all that. People get surprised when using colloquial language that, when parsed by the exceptionally robotic, leads to non-intuitive interpretations. Language is a game, after all (ala Wittgenstein), and there are unspoken rules that, if ignored, leads to incoherence.

D&D is full of players with high-IQ and low-EQ (myself included), so this sort of parsing is to be expected, but can get ridiculous sometimes, imo.
I dont even think it's a case of unspoken rules in this scenario. The rules speak through the description. If the rules say that you are restrained by a tentacle, that's enough to tell us that if the tentacle is no longer wrapped around us then we'll no longer restrained by it. And that's because the tentacle's capabilities are already defined by the spell and there is nothing in them that goes against the previous statement.
More edits!
Read your comment fast and out of context. Yeah, I think I get now (still on my first coffee) what you meant by language is a game and there are unspoken rules

The problem is that some people set the same standard for completely different situations when it comes to RAW (unspoken rules of how language, in this case in the form of rules, is meant to be used?). If I use a spell that lets me summon a magic black tentacle, then I dont expect from this spell to teach me and inform me of all possible interactions between this spell and everything else in the game (including stuff that are not yet published). Because among many other things, that's not even practical for me when using this spell. But I expect from this spell to tell me exactly how this magic black tentacle is working, because that's what I want to know right now, hence why I am looking at this spell. Can my cool tentacle destroy the world? Can it shoot lava? Does it eat puppies? To which the spell will reply to me ''No, here is all that it does''.

Edit: In other words, if the spell does not tell me that the tentacle has laser beams, that's proof of the fact that the tentacle does not have laser beams. But if the spell does not tell me that the tentacle disappears when someone uses dispel magic to successfully dispel it, that's not proof that dispel magic wont work against it (even though other spells like simulacrum make it explicitly clear that they can be dispelled in their duration entry).

About web and Evards. I dont really know. But if I had to guess, I'd probably bet that it was either written not by the same people, or that there was a late minute change to one of these spells and some of the wording was not brought up to speed. It is certainly a discrepancy that shouldn't exist, and it's most likely an editing mistake, but even if it isn't, this discrepancy alone is proof of nothing in particular. But it would certainly be cause for curiosity if we knew it's not an editing mistake.

[ff7hero]

I can say whatever I like without providing proof or even justification (as a philosophical aside, no proposition can ever be justified, it's just turtles (assumptions) all the way down. One must FALSIFY, not justify. But I digress...). You are free to disagree, and tell me so, also without proof. It's called a conversation. Also, note that I said "many players in D&D", an indisputably true statement that you don't have to take personally, as if I'm painting you with that brush.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I gotta say, I'm feeling bummed. {Scrubbed}

I wish you, and anyone putting out any creations (especially in late 2020), the best of luck and boundless success, {Scrubbed}

[Bilbron]

I wish you, and anyone putting out any creations (especially in late 2020), the best of luck and boundless success, {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}.I appreciate that you gave me a chance! Good luck and Godspeed.

[Trafalgar]

So I was thinking about this thread last night and reread the spell description. Two things leapt out at me:

"When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends." The restrained condition is caused by the tentacles. To put it another way, the spell causes the tentacles and the tentacles cause the condition. If you remove the tentacles, you remove the condition even though spell hasn't ended.

"Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain." The spell does not say whether the tentacles can be moved outside the 20' by 20' AoE. So whether you are ruling that tentacles can or cannot be moved outside the AoE, you are making an interpretation. There is no RAW solution to this problem.

To make a fair ruling, you need to consider both options:

The tentacles CANNOT leave the AoE: The spell basically functions the same. The main issue is that someone can cast a spell like Misty Step to escape the spell.

The tentacles CAN leave the AoE: When the spell is first cast, it will function the same. Misty Step will not work. But if you allow tentacles outside the AoE, all sorts of strange possibilities come up. Could someone inside the AoE who passes their Dex save throw a tentacle at someone outside? If I cast EVB on a trapdoor and then open it, do the tentacles fall? If I cast the spell on a patch of ground with a Carpet of Flying, can I use the Carpet to move the tentacles and dump them on an enemy? To prevent this from getting out of hand, you would have to make a ruling that the tentacles can move outside in cases like Misty Step but cannot move outside in other cases.

My Ruling as a DM For me, things like Range, AoE, Duration are sacrosanct and should not be altered unless the rules explicitly say so (Example: Metamagic). I don't have a problem with someone burning a a 2nd level spell to escape a 4th level spell. I do not like making rulings that are true in some instances and not true in others. It is too wishy washy. So my ruling is that the tentacles are restricted to the AoE and Misty Step causes an escape.

[da newt]

"My Ruling as a DM For me, things like Range, AoE, Duration are sacrosanct and should be altered unless the rules explicitly say so (Example: Metamagic)."

Should the above say 'should NOT be altered' ?

[Trafalgar]

"My Ruling as a DM For me, things like Range, AoE, Duration are sacrosanct and should be altered unless the rules explicitly say so (Example: Metamagic)."

Should the above say 'should NOT be altered' ?

Thanks for the proof read!

[Corran]

I don't agree with this. Applying logic and common sense are two different things. They can work in tandem, but they can also conflict with each other. Also a lot of things in life, from nature to state laws, are counterintuitive to humans and applying common sense leads to mistakes while rationalizations can turn out to be correct. It's a messy situation.

I agree with the spirit of your statement, however the argument that something is indeed unintentionally omitted needs to be a strong one
I agree with most of what you are saying here, but I am not sold that common sense and interpreting the rules (through the help of whatever additional context we were provided with) are working against each other. If they are, then the rules will need to go in such excruciating detail about every little thing (essentially define everything up to the last detail, while taking nothing for granted), that you'll probably need 1-2 whole pages just for one spell.

The alternative is that we dont take anything that relies on common sense for granted. Eg restrained by the tentacle does not necessarily mean that the tentacle is wrapped around us, as one would logically expect. It could mean anything, from using psychic powers to shooting webs, in order to restrain us. In which case we dont treat the absence of the additional, implied by common sense, description (ie how exactly it is that the tentacle restrain us) as something that does not have to be stated, but we treat it as something that is intentionally not stated in order to allow for creative freedom. Which is keeping to the same standard with which 5e approaches several things, but I dont really buy it for this one. Maybe that's a mistake. Maybe the RAW need to be that explicit with everything, and failure to meet that means that there is room for interpretation. And maybe common sense is used only for RAI (in which case it would be that the tentacles restrain you physically, just like you would expect since no telekinetic powers, web-shooting or anything of that sort is stated).


I agree with the spirit of your statement, however the argument that something is indeed unintentionally omitted needs to be a strong one
Something more about that specifically. I have to admit that I am using a double standard here. By which I mean, that in one case I treat the omission as proof of non existence (ie if the text does not attribute X magical property to the tentacle, then the tentacle does not have it). While in the other case I treat the omission as proof of nothing (ie the spell does not have to state every possible interaction it has with all other spells). I think the latter can easily be justified. The former ties with what I was saying previously, about using common sense when reading/interpreting RAW (and as I said previously, maybe this last one is a mistake).




My original argument about EBT is that common sense doesn't need to apply in this situation, because through common sense you can create a perfectly acceptable visualization of the spell that is both legal according to RAW, and makes sense from a physics perspective. Since two different but perfectly acceptable visualizations of the spell are at odds, then the tiebreaker is the RAW itself. Also intuitive explanations aren't better than counterintuitive explanations if they still make perfect sense.
I agree. I'd say that it's not even necessary to be a tiebreaker. I can be possible for two or more different interpretations to work within RAW.




Obviously the first. It's the simplest and least assuming interpretation that takes the description fully in account. This is the same interpretation I used in my visualization of the spell.
I think so too. Here is the catch though. Without relying on common sense here (ie how you'd expect the tentacle to restrain you), one could say that the description is lacking specifics (eg does not say ''you are restrained by the tentacles because they wrap around you''). In which case there is room for an argument that the description is intentionally vague, and it's vague enough to allow for different DM rulings regarding how the tentacles go about the restraining (which in turn changes the subsequent RAW, regarding how you can and cannot get out of that effect). This sounds a bit silly to me, because it it impossible for the rules to always be this level of explicit without turning the phb into a series of encyclopedia volumes that no one will read, but 5e seems to want to make something useful out of these kind of impossibilities.




Which again assumes that teleporting away will somehow end contact with the tentacle, which only happens under very certain assumptions. For example, if I had reason to assume that the spell created an octopus that had tentacles which created the effect, and I teleported away, I'd want to rule that teleportation frees you from the restrained condition.

But all we have to work with here is "tentacles" and we have to understand the properties of these things which is the counterintuitive part. This is where common sense fails. In our world, tentacles are common among invertebrates and they don't move when they are severed. Some people may make the assumption that something like that has to exist to justify the movement of tentacles but this isn't the simplest argument, it's just the intuitive. There is a good counterintuitive argument as well, because we have to take the setting into account which no matter how much we familiarize ourselves with, we don't live in it.
I can buy it if the tentacles teleport with us (assuming they are not attached to the ground), the same way I can buy that handcuffs remain attached on us when teleporting (but they wouldn't if they were attached to a solid stone wall or something). I am not sure what the RAW are for such situations, but that's not an issue for me.

My issue is that I dont see anything in the spell's description that suggests that the tentacles have to teleport with us. Meaning, I dont buy the argument that you have to be restrained if you dont satisfy B (end of spell's duration) and C (succeed at an ability check), because that argument is missing other RAW also in the spell's description (always under the assumption that the tantacle restrains you by being wrapped around you). And that RAW is the (assumed, by common sense) way that the tentacle restrains you (ie by being physically close enough to you). The RAW for the spell tells you what's going on, thus you know how to escape restrain. How do you escape restrain? By nullifying the condition that created it in the first place, that is by not having the tentacle wrapped around you anymore. From there on, you need to find out how you can do that, and it's not reasonable to expect from the spell description to list every available way to you (because that's not its purpose), which it doesn't anyway. It will only provide whatever is necessary (duration, as happens with every spell), and any specifics required (ie str/dex check) because you wont find that anywhere else (or for convenience, if you prefer). This is my main source of disagreement btw. I dont get how from the RAW of the spell one gets to ''breaking contact is not enough'', since the (assumed) spell description clearly contradicts this. Visualization, at least some some extent, is defined by the RAW. There is no fluff text there. The whole part is RAW.

Now, the tentacles might be teleporting with you because of other RAW (eg how teleportation interacts with objects that are restraining you). But I dont buy it as a logical or implied in any way consequence of the RAW for the spell. Or as you say, maybe it's something about the setting that sets the default to be teleporting tentacles or whatever, in which case we treat the absence of any mention of such properties as an inconsequential ommision.


It's a conjuration spell which means that it creates something.
It requires a piece of tentacle from a giant octopus or a giant squid, which looks fairly similar to the things that the spell creates.
From previous editions we know who Evard the Black is and what he is like (although this is the least important).
The spell only mentions black tentacles, nothing more.

By taking all these in account, it somehow makes perfect sense that the spell creates long snake-like creatures that look like a bigger and more sinister version of the material used to cast the spell. When you visualize them like that, then there is no reason to assume that teleporting away will have any effect on a snake-like creature that looks like a tentacle and is wrapped around you, restraining you.
Yeah, I can buy most of that. I am not sure about the last part. I guess it matters what you set your default to be. I used boring normal tentacles as my default, so essentially that means that wherever the RAW is silent, I just dont add any additional properties. Where if the default was something else, then absence of RAW could mean something else entirely (eg black tentacles that shoot webs). I am thinking that the rules of the phb are not part of any setting, since they address real people (us), hence why I am eager to think of black tentacles as boring normal tentacles in whatever capacity is left unmodified by the rules already.


So it could very well may be that instead of the spell description omitting a possible interaction, they instead omitted the mechanism by which the spell restrains you or the creature's statistics. The first changes the spell, the second doesn't have to change anything at all.
The spell omits every interaction for which it does not need to provide a resolution mechanic (eg dispel magic, teleport, counterspell, antimagic field, potentially stuff like wish and divine intervention, etc, and all the way up to spells that haven't even seen print yet), and states only those for which it does (ie how long is the duration -and for clarity what happens when it stops, and what kind of check am I using). That's true for every spell. I have begun thinking that the only reason teleportation is treated differently than say, dispel magic, is because people dont think that ''restrained by the tentacle'' is RAW enough. Then again, it might be because they dont assume this means that the tentacle is wrapped around the target, so yeah. Like you say, they omitted the mechanism by which the spell restrains you. Which essentially means that ''restrained by the tentacles'' is vague enough to mean any number of things. Could be that. I dont buy it, but it could be true.

[Hellpyre]

Then again, it might be because they dont assume this means that the tentacle is wrapped around the target, so yeah. Like you say, they omitted the mechanism by which the spell restrains you. Which essentially means that ''restrained by the tentacles'' is vague enough to mean any number of things. Could be that. I dont buy it, but it could be true.

As I understand it, yes, the thought is that the mechanism of the restraint isn't constrained by the text. And issue which could have been solved, in this case at least, by including those nice little fluff descriptions that 3rd edition had before the crunch.


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.

The problem of ambiguity would hopefully be lessened in some cases by clearer depictions of the spell actually doing its thing.

[MrCharlie]

As I understand it, yes, the thought is that the mechanism of the restraint isn't constrained by the text. And issue which could have been solved, in this case at least, by including those nice little fluff descriptions that 3rd edition had before the crunch.

The problem of ambiguity would hopefully be lessened in some cases by clearer depictions of the spell actually doing its thing.
I don't see how restrained by the tentacles is any different from explaining that the tentacles are crushing and grasping you.

The real issue is that the tentacles exist in a defined area, and the question of if they can leave that area or have an effect outside of it because a creature was targeted by them.

If you try to make a general ruling (that spells which define an AOE follow or don't follow creatures targets you run into oddities with other AOE spells that then either do or don't follow creatures, like fear. Nothing technically breaks rules wise, it just becomes unintuitive.

The best approach seems to be to rely on if the spell text implies that the effect is geographically limited to the original area or not, which Evard's text does and fear's text doesn't, but only vaguely and by interaction with our intuition.

[Hellpyre]

I don't see how restrained by the tentacles is any different from explaining that the tentacles are crushing and grasping you.

I was more concerned with the part that reads "These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot" which more explicitly attaches them to the ground. And the fixed and defined length of the tentacles is also nice for DM adjudication of how far above the area you can be and still avoid the effect.

[MaxWilson]

I was more concerned with the part that reads "These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot" which more explicitly attaches them to the ground.

Unless it means that they are continuously leaping into the air like circus acrobats during a finale.

[Hellpyre]

Unless it means that they are continuously leaping into the air like circus acrobats during a finale.
Thank you for that eminently entertaining image. You have made my day.

[MrCharlie]

I was more concerned with the part that reads "These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot" which more explicitly attaches them to the ground. And the fixed and defined length of the tentacles is also nice for DM adjudication of how far above the area you can be and still avoid the effect.
I mean, in 5e the tentacles explicitly appear on the ground, and appear to exist within an area defined by the spell by similar wording. There is also still some ambiguity there-to put it another way, springing forth from the ground doesn't mean it's still attached after it's appeared, just that it appears to come from there-a skeleton can spring forth from the ground too. The 3.5 version could technically have the same issues if that was all that defined its behavior.

[Gtdead]

-snip-

I see your point of view.

The reason I commented in the first place is because I got the sense that people thought the DM's ruling is preposterous to which I strongly disagree. However after all are said and done, my general opinion on the matter is that a ruling is as good as it's consistency is throughout the game.

As long as the rulings are consistent and don't break suspension of disbelief, interpreting differently or changing some aspects of an ability is perfectly fine with me. This spell is fairly clear cut because all the DM has to do to clear up any confusion is explain how the tentacles work, no matter what the ruling is, just like he does for every other aspect of the game. However in this case, the DM made a retroactive change, to which I also strongly disagree due to the principle of consistency, but from Bilbron's comments I gathered that it was an honest mistake and since he adhered to an interpretation that makes perfect sense within RAW, it's not a big deal.

So from my point of view, this is literally a non issue. Also as a player, I think it's better that teleportation doesn't break the restrained condition because wasting the actions of highly mobile and strong enemies can be tactically more valuable.

He changed prone to give advantage to ranged attacks, because he argued that a prone target is less mobile, therefore easier to hit at range. I made a counter argument by reminding him how much he used to crouch and prone in FPS games, told him about the military training where they taught us to always make our frames smaller and shoot from a prone position, challenged him to throw things at me while I was both standing up and prone, and also said that it's not a situation where the sniper has all the time in the world to make a perfect shot against a low mobility target but it's a stressful environment and a round is only 6 seconds long. At the very least, he should set a range at where a prone target is easier to hit. But giving ranged advantage to a prone target 200 feet away is beyond silly. He wouldn't change his mind. For me this was both a huge violation of a very straightforward rule and destroyed my immersion.

[Aquillion]

It is pretty clear that the DM's ruling is RAW, if you literally read exactly what the spell does as a computer program:


When a creature enters the affected area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends. A creature that starts its turn in the area and is already restrained by the tentacles takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage.

There's no ambiguity there. You fail your save, you're restrained until the spell ends; the concept of being restrained by something fixed to a specific place, with the restraint ending early if you get free, is common sense but not something in the rules - it's not a grapple, it's the restrained condition. If you really had to provide logic for this absurd result, you could do so pretty easily - tentacles that restrain you detach and wrap around you, weakening so they no longer do damage (but still restrain you until you break free) if you leave the area. The comparison to Web (which does contain wording that the condition ends if you leave the area) lends more weight to this reading.

That said it also seems pretty clear that the DM's ruling is not RAI. Part of the purpose of a DM is to adjudicate situations like this that the rules didn't foresee; they're not supposed to just interpret stuff mechanically like a computer program. Regarding the difference with Web, the real reason is probably just that someone pointed the issue out in playtesting for Web and nobody noticed that the same verbage was used in Black Tentacles.

[Corran]

As I understand it, yes, the thought is that the mechanism of the restraint isn't constrained by the text. And issue which could have been solved, in this case at least, by including those nice little fluff descriptions that 3rd edition had before the crunch.



The problem of ambiguity would hopefully be lessened in some cases by clearer depictions of the spell actually doing its thing.
Nitpick: The mechanism is constrained by the ''restrained by tentacles'' requirement, but I would agree that if we have no underlying assumptions about what this actually tells us, it could mean many different things, so the effect of the constraint would be certainly lesser (and thus the spell effect is open to more than one interpretation).

Another nitpick: The nice fluff descriptions in a case like the one we are discussing, is part of the RAW and need our attention as much as anything else in the description of the spell. It's certainly no less RAW than ''A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself''.The spell can work just fine without the clause I include in the spoiler. Not including this clause does not mean that I dont have the option to escape the tentacle's grasp (assuming they grasp). Only then it is up to the DM to figure out the resolution mechanic (ie say what check applies and make up a difficulty check, ranging from automatic success to impossible), and whatever the DM rules will be not going against any RAW for this spell at least. The RAW in the spoiler just limits the DM's options in this specific scenario (ie physically trying to break free of the grasping tentacle), similarly to how other parts of a spell's description might end up doing in their own way (eg define, even to a varying extent, what it is that's causing you to be restrained and how).



It is pretty clear that the DM's ruling is RAW, if you literally read exactly what the spell does as a computer program:
If you read the spell like a computer program (that has no underlying assumption as to what being restrained by tentacles translates to), I'd say that the interaction between EBT and something like misty step can only produce 'error'. The spell does not read ''end concentration or succeed in check, else remain restrained''.

[Reynaert]

If you read the spell like a computer program (that has no underlying assumption as to what being restrained by tentacles translates to), I'd say that the interaction between EBT and something like misty step can only produce 'error'. The spell does not read ''end concentration or succeed in check, else remain restrained''.

Except yes it does.

These are all the specific phrases quoted literally from the spell that have to do with ending the restrained condition:
1 - "... be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends."
2 - "A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself."

[Corran]

Except yes it does.

These are all the specific phrases quoted literally from the spell that have to do with ending the restrained condition:
1 - "... be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends."
2 - "A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself."
I am far from an expert in computer programs. With what I know, I think this reads like:
''If 1 or 2, then you are not restrained.''

I definitely dont read it like:
''If 1 or 2, then you are not restrained. Else, you remain restrained.''
What in the spell's rules do you think represents the part ''else you remain restrained''?

The ''...be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends'' part, reads so strongly, that you could even think that it even overrides the second clause. I am thinking that a computer program would actually read it like:
''If 1, then you are no longer restrained''.
When plugging the 2nd clause (ie ''A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself."), it would produce 'error', like every interaction other than the termination of concentration of the spell would.

Edit:
Or maybe, it would read:
''If 1, then you are not restrained. Else, you remain restrained.''
So even if 2 is satisfied, you still remain restrained if you are not satisfying 1. An antimagic field wouldn't work either.

[MrCharlie]

Except yes it does.

These are all the specific phrases quoted literally from the spell that have to do with ending the restrained condition:
1 - "... be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends."
2 - "A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself."
Except, the rules also specify that the spell has an Area of Effect, a specific limit on its effects constrained to a defined square.

And the rules never bother saying if the spell is limited to this area after its cast, or if it follows creatures targeted by it. It's perfectly valid to say that, because it doesn't say the restrained condition follows a restrained creature outside the area, the restrained condition is limited to the area it was cast in. In fact, you can interpret that every spell actually works this way, and it's self-consistent. Unless the spell gives some reason to suspect it follows creatures targeted by it, it only exists in the AOE and has no effect if you leave it.

That's the real problem here-are spells limited to their initial AOE after they target a creature, or do they follow the creature? The rules are silent. In computer speak, we're asking for the spell to call on a file in a directory it does not have explicit access to.

[Segev]

Nitpick: The mechanism is constrained by the ''restrained by tentacles'' requirement, but I would agree that if we have no underlying assumptions about what this actually tells us, it could mean many different things, so the effect of the constraint would be certainly lesser (and thus the spell effect is open to more than one interpretation).

Another nitpick: The nice fluff descriptions in a case like the one we are discussing, is part of the RAW and need our attention as much as anything else in the description of the spell. It's certainly no less RAW than ''A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself''.The spell can work just fine without the clause I include in the spoiler. Not including this clause does not mean that I dont have the option to escape the tentacle's grasp (assuming they grasp). Only then it is up to the DM to figure out the resolution mechanic (ie say what check applies and make up a difficulty check, ranging from automatic success to impossible), and whatever the DM rules will be not going against any RAW for this spell at least. The RAW in the spoiler just limits the DM's options in this specific scenario (ie physically trying to break free of the grasping tentacle), similarly to how other parts of a spell's description might end up doing in their own way (eg define, even to a varying extent, what it is that's causing you to be restrained and how).



If you read the spell like a computer program (that has no underlying assumption as to what being restrained by tentacles translates to), I'd say that the interaction between EBT and something like misty step can only produce 'error'. The spell does not read ''end concentration or succeed in check, else remain restrained''.

Since you're still restrained if you leave the area, but the tentacles don't leave the area with you, and you can only make an Ability check to escape being restrained by the tentacles, clearly, if you teleport out, you remain restrained and cannot cease to be restrained because you're no longer restrained by the tentacles, just restrained! :smallcool:

[KorvinStarmast]

I am going to bookmark this thread for a quality example of the phenomenon of 'overthinking' and I say that with a smile on my face. (Sorry to see that things got a little close to the edge and had to be scrubbed).

I think the discussion has spent a little too much emphasis on the tentacles' proposed mechanics, and not enough time on what misty step does. The OP has a back up plan (dispel magic) which is a good thing too.

Having a back up plan is an important survival tip when venturing down into the dungeon ... and while you are at it, next time you are back in town get a lert so that you can shape change into one now and again.

Being alert can prevent being surprised in the dungeon.

[ff7hero]

I am far from an expert in computer programs. With what I know, I think this reads like:
''If 1 or 2, then you are not restrained.''

I definitely dont read it like:
''If 1 or 2, then you are not restrained. Else, you remain restrained.''
What in the spell's rules do you think represents the part ''else you remain restrained''?

The ''...be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends'' part, reads so strongly, that you could even think that it even overrides the second clause. I am thinking that a computer program would actually read it like:
''If 1, then you are no longer restrained''.
When plugging the 2nd clause (ie ''A creature restrained by the tentacles can use its action to make a Strength or Dexterity check (its choice) against your spell save DC. On a success, it frees itself."), it would produce 'error', like every interaction other than the termination of concentration of the spell would.

Edit:
Or maybe, it would read:
''If 1, then you are not restrained. Else, you remain restrained.''
So even if 2 is satisfied, you still remain restrained if you are not satisfying 1. An antimagic field wouldn't work either.


Except, the rules also specify that the spell has an Area of Effect, a specific limit on its effects constrained to a defined square.

And the rules never bother saying if the spell is limited to this area after its cast, or if it follows creatures targeted by it. It's perfectly valid to say that, because it doesn't say the restrained condition follows a restrained creature outside the area, the restrained condition is limited to the area it was cast in. In fact, you can interpret that every spell actually works this way, and it's self-consistent. Unless the spell gives some reason to suspect it follows creatures targeted by it, it only exists in the AOE and has no effect if you leave it.

That's the real problem here-are spells limited to their initial AOE after they target a creature, or do they follow the creature? The rules are silent. In computer speak, we're asking for the spell to call on a file in a directory it does not have explicit access to.

Off the top of my head, Synaptic Static affects creatures in an area and (afaik) continues to affect them if they leave the area.

[Dork_Forge]

Off the top of my head, Synaptic Static affects creatures in an area and (afaik) continues to affect them if they leave the area.

Sickening Radiance creates a sphere that can impart levels of exhaustion that leave the creature when the spell ends, leaving the area doesn't remove the exhaustion.

[MrCharlie]

Off the top of my head, Synaptic Static affects creatures in an area and (afaik) continues to affect them if they leave the area.
Ah, but synaptic static does not create a persistent area. In fact, because its instant but the effect persists, the only way to possibly read that is that the sphere is just for selecting targets, not a constraint on where the effect exists in. Or you could say that the spell self-contradicts and the effect instantly ends, technically.

Sickening Radiance is exactly the problem I'm talking about BTW-it sure seems that you should keep the exhaustion until the spell runs out of duration or concentration is dropped, but you can absolutely interpret that walking out of the area puts you out of the AOE and the exhaustion goes away. The game implicitly assumes that spells have effects only in their areas, but it sure seems that conditions are supposed to effect creatures outside of the area of effect. But no rule keyword clarifies when this is supposed to happen, so you can interpret it all or nothing and you can't be wrong-the game never made this explicit.

[Segev]

THe weird thing is, I would have interpreted sickening radiance as keeping the Exhaustion up in or out of the field until the spell ends, but Evard's black tentacles as ending the Restraint if you somehow got out.

[Hellpyre]

THe weird thing is, I would have interpreted sickening radiance as keeping the Exhaustion up in or out of the field until the spell ends, but Evard's black tentacles as ending the Restraint if you somehow got out.

And humanity's weird ability to assign internal logic on limited information ends with us occasionally at odds with one another and even ourselves. Which I suppose is really the best reason to have a DM make calls.


The nice fluff descriptions in a case like the one we are discussing, is part of the RAW and need our attention as much as anything else in the description of the spell. For what it's worth, the reason I brought those descriptions up were because they were explicitly not meant to be part of the rules text. Different editions had different editing rules. Suffice to say I feel that mixing the two has allowed for nicer overall text blocks in 5e, at the cost of some clarity. Not that 3rd edition was ever a bastion of strong editing.

[MrCharlie]

Not that 3rd edition was ever a bastion of strong editing.
God(s) own truth there. People talk about it like every rule was 100% clear and like there was some magic design decision which made RAW logical, and I'm stuck here wondering what game they were actually playing. Rose tinted goggles are hard to argue against.

[Segev]

God(s) own truth there. People talk about it like every rule was 100% clear and like there was some magic design decision which made RAW logical, and I'm stuck here wondering what game they were actually playing. Rose tinted goggles are hard to argue against.

Speaking as somebody who still participates in rules debates and analysis in this board's own 3.5 forum: That's hilarious.

What 3.5 was was much more PRECISE with its language. It had a writing tone that's very legalistic, with direct intent to give precise mechanics. This doesn't always mean it's clear, but it does mean it tries to be. It tries to remove ambiguity and tries to have one and only one interpretation.

5e, by contrast, is written in natural language with an expectation that DMs will interpret it and clear up ambiguities for their own table through at-table rulings.

[Hellpyre]

Speaking as somebody who still participates in rules debates and analysis in this board's own 3.5 forum: That's hilarious.

What 3.5 was was much more PRECISE with its language. It had a writing tone that's very legalistic, with direct intent to give precise mechanics. This doesn't always mean it's clear, but it does mean it tries to be. It tries to remove ambiguity and tries to have one and only one interpretation.

5e, by contrast, is written in natural language with an expectation that DMs will interpret it and clear up ambiguities for their own table through at-table rulings.

As someone who also does so, I agree. That's why I was jabbing at the editing (which I'm sure we can both agree had a wide variance in quality) in my post. I feel that something of value was lost in the changes from that edition to this, even if it made it more accessible to new players.

[MrCharlie]

Speaking as somebody who still participates in rules debates and analysis in this board's own 3.5 forum: That's hilarious.

What 3.5 was was much more PRECISE with its language. It had a writing tone that's very legalistic, with direct intent to give precise mechanics. This doesn't always mean it's clear, but it does mean it tries to be. It tries to remove ambiguity and tries to have one and only one interpretation.

5e, by contrast, is written in natural language with an expectation that DMs will interpret it and clear up ambiguities for their own table through at-table rulings.
Oh, it was probably clearer, but the idea that there was no ambiguity is absolutely laughable.

[noob]

Oh, it was probably clearer, but the idea that there was no ambiguity is absolutely laughable.

I never said that 3.5 had no ambiguity and I am one of the most present players that talks about 3.5 in 5e.
What I complain about in 5e relatively to 3.5 is 1: they have the same excessive number of ambiguities and 2: it is way more vague so two tables running 5e are not running the same edition of dnd.