Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Eberron
Discussion: Storm Pillar and Hindering Terrain
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ryryguy" data-source="post: 4999636" data-attributes="member: 64945"><p>This is a pretty icky, nit-picky, annoying sort of debate... but it does keep coming up.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>KarinsDad, I think the counterargument to all this is simply that <em>a zone is not terrain.</em> A damaging zone certainly shares many characteristics of Hindering Terrain. They both can be said to have "unsafe squares". However, unsafe squares do not by themselves alone categorize something as Hindering Terrain. This is like saying an elephant has tusks, and a walrus has tusks, therefore a walrus is an elephant.</p><p></p><p>Terrain is not something that is created or changed by a power (unless the power specifically says so). Terrain has an independent existence as part of the environment. Terrain is part of the setting of an encounter.</p><p></p><p>Now, this is a very pedantic distinction to make, as I believe THB has acknowledged. It's also not a distinction that appears with 100% explicit clarity in the rules. You could read them differently. But I think it's certainly a fair reading of the rules.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, taking a step back from the domain of definitions and parsed wording, if you consider the spirit and intent of the Hindering Terrain forced movement saving throw rule, it's certainly reasonable to decide to apply it to damaging zones as well. They definitely are similar cases. The fluff more or less matches - a last ditch, desperate attempt to prevent oneself from being thrown into a hazard. </p><p></p><p>(You could take a step further and ask why can't you make that same attempt to negate <em>any</em> forced movement, but we could also just decide not to take that step because it would obviously neuter forced movement to a silly degree. So let's decide that. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />)</p><p></p><p>So I would approach this by asking how it would affect play at the table. How would it affect the balance of other game elements? Would it significantly slow down or complicate play? Would it make the game more fun?</p><p></p><p>For balance, obviously it would have a negative impact on the power of damaging zones combined with forced movement, across the board. But since this requires a combo of two effects, the impact is limited. Zones can still be used at "full power" by dropping them directly on foes. They still present obstacles and project control just fine. And even if a character does avoid the hazard, they don't get off scot free, they end up prone, so the forced movement did still have some useful effect. All in all I would not rule out applying the saving throw rule on this basis.</p><p></p><p>For ease of play, the rule itself is simple enough, adding just a single die roll. The only concern I would have is with these notions about whether the character is aware of the hazard. That could get sticky and confusing. But assuming there is a simple rule of thumb that can determine whether or not the saving throw is allowed, i.e. the character will immediately be subject to an attack, damage, or a condition, then it seems fine.</p><p></p><p>Finally, would it make the game more fun? This is a matter of taste. I think my answer would be yes, it would. It would add a little bit more drama in certain situations. But, it doesn't seem like a huge deal either way. I think I'd be equally happy playing in games where the saving throw was granted and in games where it was not. (Sorry if that doesn't help resolve the issue. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ryryguy, post: 4999636, member: 64945"] This is a pretty icky, nit-picky, annoying sort of debate... but it does keep coming up. KarinsDad, I think the counterargument to all this is simply that [I]a zone is not terrain.[/I] A damaging zone certainly shares many characteristics of Hindering Terrain. They both can be said to have "unsafe squares". However, unsafe squares do not by themselves alone categorize something as Hindering Terrain. This is like saying an elephant has tusks, and a walrus has tusks, therefore a walrus is an elephant. Terrain is not something that is created or changed by a power (unless the power specifically says so). Terrain has an independent existence as part of the environment. Terrain is part of the setting of an encounter. Now, this is a very pedantic distinction to make, as I believe THB has acknowledged. It's also not a distinction that appears with 100% explicit clarity in the rules. You could read them differently. But I think it's certainly a fair reading of the rules. On the other hand, taking a step back from the domain of definitions and parsed wording, if you consider the spirit and intent of the Hindering Terrain forced movement saving throw rule, it's certainly reasonable to decide to apply it to damaging zones as well. They definitely are similar cases. The fluff more or less matches - a last ditch, desperate attempt to prevent oneself from being thrown into a hazard. (You could take a step further and ask why can't you make that same attempt to negate [I]any[/I] forced movement, but we could also just decide not to take that step because it would obviously neuter forced movement to a silly degree. So let's decide that. :)) So I would approach this by asking how it would affect play at the table. How would it affect the balance of other game elements? Would it significantly slow down or complicate play? Would it make the game more fun? For balance, obviously it would have a negative impact on the power of damaging zones combined with forced movement, across the board. But since this requires a combo of two effects, the impact is limited. Zones can still be used at "full power" by dropping them directly on foes. They still present obstacles and project control just fine. And even if a character does avoid the hazard, they don't get off scot free, they end up prone, so the forced movement did still have some useful effect. All in all I would not rule out applying the saving throw rule on this basis. For ease of play, the rule itself is simple enough, adding just a single die roll. The only concern I would have is with these notions about whether the character is aware of the hazard. That could get sticky and confusing. But assuming there is a simple rule of thumb that can determine whether or not the saving throw is allowed, i.e. the character will immediately be subject to an attack, damage, or a condition, then it seems fine. Finally, would it make the game more fun? This is a matter of taste. I think my answer would be yes, it would. It would add a little bit more drama in certain situations. But, it doesn't seem like a huge deal either way. I think I'd be equally happy playing in games where the saving throw was granted and in games where it was not. (Sorry if that doesn't help resolve the issue. ;)) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Eberron
Discussion: Storm Pillar and Hindering Terrain
Top