Movement vs. Entering - Interesting CustServ Response

[Mistwell]

I saw this Customer Service ruling on the topic of "movement" vs. "entering". See below for why I was interested*.

Here is the ruling:

Originally posted by Harzerkatze
I heard back from Customer Support on the Storm Pillar issue:

"Response (Support Agent) 04/24/2009 11:07 AM
Hi there XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support! Please allow me to clarify how this works.

When a character "moves" into an area, it implies action (like a move action would) and refers to intentional movement.

When a character "enters" an area, this refers to entering an area by any means, including forced movement.

Forced movement does not trigger the Storm Pillar. We intend to provide an FAQ for this in the future.

And another clarification, the Storm Pillar's damage is not limited to once per round. A character moving through multiple adjacent squares will be damaged multiple times. If the terrain and positioning allow it, you can potentially trap an opponent so that in order to move where they want, they'd have to pass through 2 or 3 squares adjacent to the Storm Pillar. He would take damage each time. Heck, if you had two Storm Pillars near each other, a character entering a square that is adjacent to each of them gets damaged by each one.


Take Care and Good Gaming!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Sam
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST

As the OP of this topic pointed out, this ruling does not fit to the Dragon Magazine R&D article on Wall of Fire, which speas of "move into", too, but does specify that forced movement triggers the damage.

So, according to this ruling, Storm Pillar, Wall of Fire and Storm Cage do not instantly damage enemies that are forced into them. Cloud of Daggers, Freezing Cloud, Stinking Cloud, Cloud Kill and Acid Storm still do.

I look forward to the promised FAQ on this topic.

*I was interested because Storm Pillar, a new wizard at-will specified in Arcane Power, seemed like a pretty good new power that would let me push foes into it's damaging area with a thunderwave, or pull them into that deadly lightening-striking area with a hypnotic pattern or Visions of Avarice spell (both also from Arcane Power). Alas, that does not seem to be the case, and while the at-will is still good for certain control/blocking situations, it has significantly less utility if forced movement does not trigger the damage from Storm Pillar.

 

[Mistwell]

And, in a related matter:

Grease
Daily * Arcane, Implement, Zone
Standard Action
Area burst 2 within 10 squares
Effect: The burst creates a zone of slick grease that covers all horizontal surfaces until the end of the encounter. The zone is difficult terrain. You can make the following attack, using a square within the zone as the origin square.
Free Action
Close burst 1
Trigger: A creature enters the zone
Target: The triggering creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: You knock the target prone.
Miss: You slide the target 2 squares.

Given the new Customer Service response, Grease is an automatic prone.

On a miss, the wizard can slide the creature out of the zone and back in the zone for another attack, and keep doing this on a miss as a free action until he or she hits.

That's because the spell text says the trigger is a creature enters the zone, instead of saying moves into the zone.

Seems like WOTC should get this issue nailed down, soon.

 

[Fieari]

But can you slide a target back and forth and count as entering again? As a DM, I wouldn't allow that. I'm not sure what the RAW says on the subject though.

 

[Snotboy]

On another related matter, the language on Polearm Gamble uses the phrase, 'When a non-adjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you...'. That ruling would imply that forced movement works in this instance as well.

Sheesh, WotC is going to have to come up with a whole 4E legal dictionary...

 

[mach1.9pants]

I really like the idea of 4E with keywords, in theory it should make everything really simple. However WotC haven't been anywhere near strict enough with the use of english and keywords. A glossary of all english terms that have a game specific game effect would have been ideal then everyone, including their staff!, would know where they stand. An example is Defence Writing where specific words or phrases have only one meaning, ambiguity is not good in military orders! e.g. 'are to' is an order (and can only be written to subordinate units)....

 

[Mistwell]

On another related matter, the language on Polearm Gamble uses the phrase, 'When a non-adjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you...'. That ruling would imply that forced movement works in this instance as well.

Sheesh, WotC is going to have to come up with a whole 4E legal dictionary...

Well I think polearm gamble triggers an opportunity attack, and opportunity attacks already have an explicit exception to forced movement.

 

[gribble]

Well I think polearm gamble triggers an opportunity attack, and opportunity attacks already have an explicit exception to forced movement.

Not quite. Under OAs in the PHB (p290), it states two (distinct and separate) conditions under which an enemy provokes an OA: "Moving Provokes" (this condition excludes forced movement) and "Ranged and Area Powers Provoke". Polearm Gamble adds another condition which also provokes an attack - entering an adjacent square. By my reading this doesn't fall under the rules of the "Moving Provokes" condition as it's yet another separate and distinct condition.

So yes, I agree that if this clarification does become official, then a lot of feats/powers/items will have to either be changed or will lead to some seriously broken combos (as if Polearm Gamble wasn't bad enough already)!

 

[Mistwell]

Not quite. Under OAs in the PHB (p290), it states two (distinct and separate) conditions under which an enemy provokes an OA: "Moving Provokes" (this condition excludes forced movement) and "Ranged and Area Powers Provoke". Polearm Gamble adds another condition which also provokes an attack - entering an adjacent square. By my reading this doesn't fall under the rules of the "Moving Provokes" condition as it's yet another separate and distinct condition.

So yes, I agree that if this clarification does become official, then a lot of feats/powers/items will have to either be changed or will lead to some seriously broken combos (as if Polearm Gamble wasn't bad enough already)!

I see what you are saying. I guess you could argue that by making "enter" and "move" into distinct ideas, they actually did change the rather obvious definition in Polearm Gamble to be not nearly as clear as it used to be.

 

[Regicide]

Given the new Customer Service response, Grease is an automatic prone.

On a miss, the wizard can slide the creature out of the zone and back in the zone for another attack, and keep doing this on a miss as a free action until he or she hits.

That's because the spell text says the trigger is a creature enters the zone, instead of saying moves into the zone.

Seems like WOTC should get this issue nailed down, soon.

That is... bad. Theres nothing saying a slide has to be in a straight line? Ugh.

Grease seems badly written. You can run around inside the "zone" as much as you want, it's only entering that is the problem.

I'm not going to think about line of sight and the like for the grease and just assume they don't mess it up.

 

[Krensus]

Yeah I looked at Grease when it was released in AP as it was one of my favorite 3.5 spells and said to myself, "So if you put this in, say, a corridor where the enemy has to pass through it and you miss...couldn't you slide them back to where they just started and they have to enter again?" Either they run out of movement or they go prone, but I'm inclined to believe I'd rather miss them a few times and eat all their movement, leaving them in the same position next turn while ranged strikers wail on them.

That seems pretty good, and in the right circumstance it could even be better than using the 2 squares of slide to make them reenter the area, as they have to use 2 squares to even enter the difficult terrain of grease again.