Entering a Zone

[Jack99]

Another "vote" for spell zones not being hindering terrain. I must admit that I am baffled why so many people think this. I understand the issues with zones and when exactly they deal damage (which was the original question I believe) but honestly not the other issue. Hindering terrain is clearly defined as such (terrain) and spell zones have very little to do with that.

Personally, zones deal damage whenever you enter or start in them. Not when the zone is moved on top of you. This is not perfect, but works well enough.

 

[jorwland]

I tend to go back to the fundmental mechanic when faced with dilemma's like these. Specific Beats General is a fundamental. However, in the absence of a specific, you MUST rely on general.

In general, A creature/character performs all actions on its turn. There are specific ways to trump this (immediate interrupt, e.g.).

So, for example, a wizard creates a zone on his turn in an area including a creature. The zone now "exists" on the wizards turn. The text SPECIFIES damage on entering into or starting a turn in the zone. Therefore, the creature that has not moved, and whose turn it is NOT takes no damage since it did not enter the zone (the creature would have had to act or forced into action - in another words, an action must be spent by somebody to cause the creature to act. Passively standing there while a zone moves or is created over you is not an action by the creature or forced onto the creature. The zone "acted", not the creature.). The wizard then spends an Action Point and Thunderwaves another creature into the zone. The specific rule specifies entering a zone, so the creature takes damage.

Next round its the creatures turn. there are 2 in the zone, both take damage, then move out. Another creature charges the wizard, but enters the zone on its way. It also takes damage.

Note how the bulk of the damage dealt is happening on the creatures turn...this is the General rule in action. The one pushed creature got an extra dose of damage on the wizards turn. This is the example of the specific beating the general rule on action management. Forced movement is still movement.

If you need fluff to explain while the guy standing there took "one" hit on his turn, while the forced guy took "two" hits, remember that a full round is the "thing" while the initiative order is a game device we use to organize and manage it. The creature standing there sees the zone start to form and high tails it out of there, catching some damage as it formed around him as he left. The guy who was pushed into it felt the damage as it formed as he was pushed into it, and took damage when he regained control and moved out. All of that happened in a "round" and it all happened in real time, not in discrete initiative order.

As for the zig-zag and the save. I don't agree with the save unless the power specifies it is terrain that triggers a save. However, I also don't agree with multiple damage from a zig-zag. A single action caused the "entering" to occur. Zig-zagging doesn't cause you to enter multiple times on that action. You arte considered "entered" for that action. However, that said, If I pushed a creature in, another character pulled him out and a third character pushed him back in, etc. then I would consider it multiple entries.

my 2cp

 

[Goumindong]

but... a wall of fire spell is different from a wall of fire, just like the sleep spell makes you unconscious, not asleep. a spell of the same name isn't necessarily the same as the non-magic effect it was named after.

A wall of fire spell creates a wall of fire, which is a wall of fire. A sleep spell makes you unconscious, the name is not important, the effect is. Just as "that its a spell or power" is not important, as anything can be defined as a spell or power, what is important is the effect. The "unconscious effect" from a sleep spell is no different mechanically than the "unconscious effect" from any other instance or power except as specifically enumerated within the power.

Do these effects have specific enumerations that exempt them from being hindering terrain while the other effects do not?

A: No, they do not.

Are there any specific rules that exempt zones from being hindering terrain?

A: No, there are not.

Such, is there any reason to treat zones differently?

A: No, there is not.

I know as a player I would retrain or ask to be able to switch a power that the DM suddenly was allowing a Saving Throw to avoid.

even with saving throws, these powers are easily the most strong wizard powers of their level. There is just no underestimating the massive amount of damage and effect they have in the majority of situations, when combined with push powers they are, absolutely insane. You can, theoretically, get two instances of damage per turn per monster, you can use readied action tricks to damage groups of monsters without hindering your players, you can block off ranged attackers, etc etc etc

 

[keterys]

If the powers were actually on the fairly tame side, and by giving them saves you actually made them half as effective as other powers of their level, would that somehow change the RAW interpretation?

At the end of the day, whether something _should_ work differently isn't necessarily the same as whether it does, and intentionally reading in a skewed manner to back up a claim isn't really honest. It's _more_ dishonest to then claim that interpretation is the only possibly correct one, with others. Now, it is totally cool to say 'Look, this is broken powerful, so this is how I'm ruling it for my games, and I suggest others do the same'. Two thumbs up.

Sadly, I actually tried to make my initial statement on WotC being consistent and players disagreeing neutral specifically because I knew this topic would set off a specific set of posts, as it has several times in the past.

Personally, I'm all with the people who use house rules to limit the effects of some of these zones. I'm also in favor of making zones work on ending your turn in them, in general, rather than starting them. Just seems more fair. I'm less enthused by the save house rule method, at this point, because it adds a process step to the table and is functionally equivalent to the old concealment miss chance. A neener-neener for players when it triggers, and a literal slip back to the 'save or die' concept at other times. Meh.

 

[fuzzlewump]

A wall of fire spell creates a wall of fire, which is a wall of fire. A sleep spell makes you unconscious, the name is not important, the effect is. Just as "that its a spell or power" is not important, as anything can be defined as a spell or power, what is important is the effect. The "unconscious effect" from a sleep spell is no different mechanically than the "unconscious effect" from any other instance or power except as specifically enumerated within the power.

The spell "Wall of Fire" does not create a simple wall of fire. It is a magical area that emits heat that varies in intensity with the wizard's power. If wall of fire created terrain, then the wizards power and level would have no effect on the damage and accuracy of the fire. PHB, p.163, Wall of Fire spell "You conjure a wall that consists of contiguous squares filled with arcane fire." What your saying is that since it looks like terrain, it should act like terrain. Who's to say that "arcane fire" looks anything like a real wall of fire? It could be purplish greenish cracking energy that emits intense heat, for example.

The more important issue is game balance. You're implying that zones that do not necessarily look vaguely like terrain are exempt from the save-to-be-prone rule, and thus more powerful (such as a Stinking Cloud.) Just like I said before, you're right that no spell specifies "I'm not terrain!" but neither does the party fighter, which prevents and punishes movement as well.

Are there any specific rules that exempt 'The Fighter' from being hindering terrain?

A: No, there are not.

Have I proved anything? No, I have not.

 

[Goumindong]

If the powers were actually on the fairly tame side, and by giving them saves you actually made them half as effective as other powers of their level, would that somehow change the RAW interpretation?

No, but he was not arguing in that manner, i was explaining that the complaint is unfounded because they are still extraordinarily strong.

I'm also in favor of making zones work on ending your turn in them, in general, rather than starting them. Just seems more fair. I'm less enthused by the save house rule method, at this point, because it adds a process step to the table and is functionally equivalent to the old concealment miss chance. A neener-neener for players when it triggers, and a literal slip back to the 'save or die' concept at other times. Meh.

For the most part it would be much too easy to ignore them in that case. Falling prone at the edge of the zone isn't much of a consolation prize really, they grant CA to melee powers, they need to stand up before they can take an action and they can get bowled or pinned in very easily.

What your saying is that since it looks like terrain, it should act like terrain

No, i am saying that "you judge based on effects, not based on what you want anything to say"

"I'm not terrain!" but neither does the party fighter, which prevents and punishes movement as well.

Fighters are not effects that exist in an area. So yea, that would pretty much exempt them from those rules.

If a fighter was the center of a zone that did damage and/or slowed then yea[like the earthen defender lvl 20 daily], you could claim that that was hindering terrain.

 

[fuzzlewump]

No, i am saying that "you judge based on effects, not based on what you want anything to say"

So the look does not matter? The effect of being moved next to a melee combatant, such as a stormwarden, is damage. Just like the effect of being put into a wall of fire. No difference in effect.

Fighters are not effects that exist in an area. So yea, that would pretty much exempt them from those rules.

Effects that exist in an area does not mean terrain. But beyond that, why aren't fighters effects that exist in an area? It makes attacks against adjacent enemies every round, so shouldn't the area around him be considered dangerous? Whether it's a roaring fire you don't want to next to and roll a saving throw, or a raging barbarian, they're both dangerous areas, thus having the same "effect." If it's a matter of automatic damage, then use a stormwarden as the example.

If you think that's ridiculous, then like I said, you're basing your reasoning off the look of the power, not the effect, which as I said could potentially be unbalancing, given that not all spell effect zones look like anything terrain related, example Stinking Cloud.

 

[Goumindong]

So the look does not matter? The effect of being moved next to a melee combatant, such as a stormwarden, is damage. Just like the effect of being put into a wall of fire. No difference in effect.

I am not familiar with what a stormwarden does, you take damage if you enter a square next to it?

Effects that exist in an area does not mean terrain. But beyond that, why aren't fighters effects that exist in an area?

Seriously?