Forced movement abilities

[hong]

In one of my delve runs, for the medium combat there was a 20' pit and a pair of gnome illusionists. Turns out, gnome illusionists can "Startle". Attack vs. Will, on success shift the target one square. Two people got spooked to the bottom of the pit (and took 2d10 damage).

Given that this was a "medium" encounter, I'm pretty sure the system is set up so you can have environmental hazards, and enemies that exploit them, as low as first level.

Yep. And a part of it is ensuring that the lethality of the hazard is commensurate with the level of the game.

 

[CleverNickName]

Note that being shoved off an edge can mean anything from 1d6 damage to instant death. Someone who puts a mile-high cliff into an adventure for 1st level PCs has nobody to blame but themselves.

This was the same argument made about bodaks, etc., in all of those old "save or die" threads.

I've had a few minutes to chill out, drink some beer, eat some pizza, and think about the whole "dangerous terrain" thing as being an important part of every encounter. And I think you are right, hong, it isn't as big of a deal as I was making it out to be. If I don't want dangerous terrain to be a factor in combat, I don't have to use dangerous terrain. I could always use wood-burning stoves to heat the royal throne room, or put an iron grate over that fireplace. It isn't a big deal.

It just feels like that old "options, not restrictions" case again, in reverse: instead of the players complaining about a lack of options for combat, it is the DM complaining about a lack of options for dungeon design. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

 

[physics_ninja]

Not every combat has to have a pit, and it's not like one will suddenly open up because you overlooked some obscure monster ability.

Clearly, you have not seen the stats for the Kobold Grave Digger.

 

[Vysirez]

Which raises two questions:
#1 is it realistic that terrain be so deadly thing in a fight?
#2 is it fun that terrain be so deadly in a fight?

I think 1 is "rarely" and 2 is "sometimes"

My first thoughts when reading this thread were much like the above, but i started to think about movies and stories rather then D&D and I started to view it a bit differently.

What I mean is that in a movie or story, if your fighting near a serious environmental hazard, it often plays a big roll in the fight. Fighting on a narrow bridge over a large chasm is often half about not getting knocked off the bridge. Same thing when fighting near a cliff or lava pit or whatever.

However when you look at 3E D&D battles, unless the DM adds balance checks or something, fighting on a narrow(IE 5'-10' wide) bridge over a wide chasm isn't really that much more risky then fighting on an open plain. And of course, sometimes you do add balance checks, but that more seems to imply that the bridge itself is dangerous, or slippery rather then the fact that combatants are going to take advantage of the environment. In 3E the only way you can move an enemy is by bull rushing, and that is pretty much just straight backwards. So it's kinda hard to represent the actual risk of the environment.

So while 4e looks to be more dangerous in this area, I think it is both more realistic and more cinematic. So while it will take a bit more effort on the DM's part to balance environmental hazards, it's merely an aspect of the fact that they actually make a difference now, when before they were mostly scenery.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I am actually really looking forward to one particular sequence in my 4E campaign.

I plan on having my PCs try to escape by locomotive from one of the raised-train stations that sit far above the city streets.

They are going to be ambushed by soldiers, this means they not only can knock the soldiers off the side of the platform. But also down the stairs, and most awesome of all, knock them onto the train-tracks and hopefully have a train come by (doing a roll each 2 rounds to see if a train comes) to splatter them.

 

[NHBaggesen]

At least one report from the D&D Experience has said that, if forced movement pushes you into hazardous terrain, you can make a save to fall prone in the last "safe" square instead of being pushed into the hazard.

I hadn't heard about that rule. That seems like a reasonable fix and shows that some thought has been given to the problem. There can stil be some save-or-die issues, but at some point the dangerous terrain should be allowed to be dangerous

As for the movies anology I agree that it is cool that the environment is brought into play some more, but even in movies the battel on the bridge i rarely a quick win. Sure the mooks go over the edge like lemmings, but that is handled by the minion rules more than anything else. With the main bad guy, it is a long exciting wrestling match before he finally goes over the edge. However, since there is more or less a 50-50 chance you will hit with your attacks (and since some attack even move the target on a failure) the PCs will just shove the MBG over the side on the first round they are in combat with him, and that is that. Hardly the dramatic struggle at the bridge you where looking for. I guess the MBG might be given some immediate reaction powers to avoid being shoved...

As for not using dangerous terrain, lets not forget that most accidents happen in the home. The players will find danger everywhere. And it would just kill me if castles couldn't be higher than one story, because the safety inspectors were afraid the guards might fall from the walls. But I guess I'll jut have to wait and see how it plays out. Hopefully it will be more cool than meh.

 

[Jack99]

First rule of dungeon-building: if you make a pit, a player will fall into it. Ergo, don't make your pits deeper than you are willing for your players to experience. Same rule can apply to just about anything else seemingly lethal that you as DM control.

 

[med stud]

Which raises two questions:
#1 is it realistic that terrain be so deadly thing in a fight?
#2 is it fun that terrain be so deadly in a fight?

I think 1 is "rarely" and 2 is "sometimes"

#1 Bottomless pits and lava are very lethal in reality. OTOH, as stated by Hong, you can vary this by having shallow pits instead of bottomless pits and fire places instead of lava.

#2 Deadly terrain will mean that combatants will have to be very mindful of their surroundings. A fight in a volcano will be more than a nice backdrop, it will pose a real danger and tactical challenge.

 

[Ipissimus]

It would be interesting if an environment has an exp rating in an encounter in the same way traps do.

Time to invest in Feather Fall...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It would be interesting if an environment has an exp rating in an encounter in the same way traps do.

Time to invest in Feather Fall...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually the case. Traps can be seen as a special type of enviromental hazard, so it might make sense to have general "Challenge Level" guidelines including XP rewards going with that.

While 4E introduces a lot of "exception based powers" (or as we sometimes liked to say in our Iron Heroes game: "Special Move!") related to involuntarily movement, 3E always had a standard mechanic for it - everyone could bullrush. And, let's be honest, the monsters are the best at it, since they get exceptional size and strength for exceptional effectiveness. If you already used lava and bottomless pits in 3E to good effect, try to use the same tactics in 4E.