Precisely.
Any square that does damage, be it from mundane fire or a magical fire, should be considered hindering terrain by definition.
Moving grabbed target into fire ...
- Thread starter karooba
- Start date
Precisely.
Any square that does damage, be it from mundane fire or a magical fire, should be considered hindering terrain by definition.
keterys
First Post
This discussion comes up every few weeks. As far as WotC is concerned, hindering terrain is terrain chosen by the DM to be hindering. Powers are not hindering terrain, especially powers that don't hinder terrain, auras around creatures, or conjurations like flaming spheres.
Just areas of the map that the DM decides are hindering terrain when making an encounter.
Of course, many DMs play the game differently from that. They're entitled to do so. In such a game, one might want to not use as many zone or forced movement powers, depending on how much they care about knocking enemies prone instead of into effects.
Just areas of the map that the DM decides are hindering terrain when making an encounter.
Of course, many DMs play the game differently from that. They're entitled to do so. In such a game, one might want to not use as many zone or forced movement powers, depending on how much they care about knocking enemies prone instead of into effects.
keterys
First Post
You'll have to look at some of the older threads, but R&D stated as such at a convention, they put up a bit about moving people into wall of fire on an article, and customer service has been eerily consistent when people have asked.
Remember, the rules for powers are self contained. If a power were hindering terrain - or terrain _at all_ - it would say it. The burden of proof that you get a save for being forced into many of these zones lies in those who make the claim.
Applying the definition of hindering terrain from the DMG indiscriminately to powers leads to it being applicable to kruthik auras, the squares around a flaming sphere or Rain of Steel fighter, etc.
Remember, the rules for powers are self contained. If a power were hindering terrain - or terrain _at all_ - it would say it. The burden of proof that you get a save for being forced into many of these zones lies in those who make the claim.
Applying the definition of hindering terrain from the DMG indiscriminately to powers leads to it being applicable to kruthik auras, the squares around a flaming sphere or Rain of Steel fighter, etc.
keterys
First Post
Before this gets misunderstood... the same applies for any attempt to change the details of a power. For example, someone could say that a particular zone sounds pretty hard to see through, so it should count as obscuring or provide concealment, but that's only true if the power says it does. Same with someone claiming a power sounds horrendously loud, and it should deafen people hit by it. Rules don't say it does? Then it doesn't.
eamon
Explorer
This discussion can't be resolved perfectly. There are two conflicting aims here, and it's a matter of balancing these. On the one hand, there's RAI and playability, and on the other, there's consistency.
Sure, the game is probably best if spell effects don't generally cause "hindering terrain". But I think that a rules-based argument to that extent is pretty weak.
It's a good interpretation for gameplay, and apparently it's been informally mentioned to be the intent several times, but it's not clearcut given the rules text.
The examples you give - such as deafened etc. - are not really comparable. Deafened is a specific condition with a defined effect. Hindering terrain isn't; it's a catch-all description of a type of terrain.
Playing devil's advocate here: from a consistency perspective, why does it make sense that creatures get a saving throw from a magical fire the DM happens to have put there (perhaps an effect of some BBEG's ritual), when creatures don't get such a save if an otherwise identical fire happens to be the result of a PC's power?
Clearly, that is not very consistent.
The problem with going down that road is that it's unclear what the solution might be. If you let ephemeral effects be hindering terrain, inevitably, you'll need to ask yourself what sorts of effects are hindering. Clearly, dropping prone to avoid movement is essentially a voluntary action, so if a creature does that to avoid fire, why not the cold of a chilling cloud (a non-damaging effect)? Why not to remain out of reach of a fighter's rain of steel? Why, in fact, not to remain out of a particularly dangerous tactical situation? If a creature is immune to fire this turn, is a sea of flames still hindering terrain?
If you let creatures drop prone to avoid spell effects, you'll need to decide what effects are dangerous enough to qualify, and the only reasonable measuring stick here would be the opinion of the creature - the creature decides whether the situation appears harmful or hindering enough to warrant attempting to fall prone.
Of course, that approach has it's own set of problems; for one, it's clearly not the intent - so that's going to mess up the balance of the game, which is predicated on the assumption of powers working in a particular fashion. Secondly, it's less fun; as-is forced movement is pretty neat, but if you can just drop prone whenever you're making it a lot less attractive.
Any real fix of this issue would need to introduce a house-rule to somehow maintain the tactical gameplay element of forced movement and marry that with the ability of a creature to do an emergency break if needed. That'd be tricky (possibly impossible) to do, probably, especially if you don't want to otherwise affect balance much.
Personally, I like a consistent approach - but perfection is the enemy of good, and I'm definitely not willing to sacrifice the excellent 4e forced movement tactics to resolve a minor inconsistency with respect to hindering terrain.
Sure, the game is probably best if spell effects don't generally cause "hindering terrain". But I think that a rules-based argument to that extent is pretty weak.
It's a good interpretation for gameplay, and apparently it's been informally mentioned to be the intent several times, but it's not clearcut given the rules text.
The examples you give - such as deafened etc. - are not really comparable. Deafened is a specific condition with a defined effect. Hindering terrain isn't; it's a catch-all description of a type of terrain.
Playing devil's advocate here: from a consistency perspective, why does it make sense that creatures get a saving throw from a magical fire the DM happens to have put there (perhaps an effect of some BBEG's ritual), when creatures don't get such a save if an otherwise identical fire happens to be the result of a PC's power?
Clearly, that is not very consistent.
The problem with going down that road is that it's unclear what the solution might be. If you let ephemeral effects be hindering terrain, inevitably, you'll need to ask yourself what sorts of effects are hindering. Clearly, dropping prone to avoid movement is essentially a voluntary action, so if a creature does that to avoid fire, why not the cold of a chilling cloud (a non-damaging effect)? Why not to remain out of reach of a fighter's rain of steel? Why, in fact, not to remain out of a particularly dangerous tactical situation? If a creature is immune to fire this turn, is a sea of flames still hindering terrain?
If you let creatures drop prone to avoid spell effects, you'll need to decide what effects are dangerous enough to qualify, and the only reasonable measuring stick here would be the opinion of the creature - the creature decides whether the situation appears harmful or hindering enough to warrant attempting to fall prone.
Of course, that approach has it's own set of problems; for one, it's clearly not the intent - so that's going to mess up the balance of the game, which is predicated on the assumption of powers working in a particular fashion. Secondly, it's less fun; as-is forced movement is pretty neat, but if you can just drop prone whenever you're making it a lot less attractive.
Any real fix of this issue would need to introduce a house-rule to somehow maintain the tactical gameplay element of forced movement and marry that with the ability of a creature to do an emergency break if needed. That'd be tricky (possibly impossible) to do, probably, especially if you don't want to otherwise affect balance much.
Personally, I like a consistent approach - but perfection is the enemy of good, and I'm definitely not willing to sacrifice the excellent 4e forced movement tactics to resolve a minor inconsistency with respect to hindering terrain.
keterys
First Post
Yep. Exactly 
I will say that I suspect this particular interpretation is so popular solely because there are broken shennanigans you can do with repeatedly forced moving people into zones and such. There are probably better ways to fix that, though - for example, making zones trigger only once per turn on a target, or once per forced movement effect, or more zones that trigger on starting or ending in them instead of entering, etc.
I will say that I suspect this particular interpretation is so popular solely because there are broken shennanigans you can do with repeatedly forced moving people into zones and such. There are probably better ways to fix that, though - for example, making zones trigger only once per turn on a target, or once per forced movement effect, or more zones that trigger on starting or ending in them instead of entering, etc.
DracoSuave
First Post
Not unless the power says so. It can still block LoE or LoS, but that's the effect of the power, and has nothing to do with the rules for terrain features.
Nope, not unless the power says so. And 'precipitous terrain' isn't a defined terrain type in the same way that 'hindering' and 'blocking' are. It's just a header for advice on using large drops in combat and the rules for falling damage.
I never said that there was such a rule. Players obviously do have powers that result in terrain--difficult terrain being by far the most common. However, those powers -explicitly- state that they are doing so. Otherwise, you are not dealing with terrain. The persistant elements of powers are not terrain effects. A Flaming Sphere is not blocking terrain, it's a conjuration that occupies a space. The area around it is not hindering terrain, it's the effect of that conjuration.
Also, why get caught up with 'spells'. The arcane power source has nothing to do with this discussion--
Here's a question. Do exploits cause hindering terrain? No. Of course not. Well, if exploits don't cause hindering terrain, then what part of the Arcane power source makes it different enough that it can do so but Martial powers cannot?
See the point here? Arcane powers use the exact same rules as every other power source. Stop thinking they do special stuff when they don't.
This is why you do not talk of spells, but talk of powers, because the same rules apply to fighters as to wizards, remember?
eamon
Explorer
Hindering terrain is not a defined terrain type. Difficult terrain is explicitly mentioned on a map or in a description. A blazing fire is typically not explicitly labeled as hindering, nor is a precipice. These things are hindering terrain not because they are labeled as such but because of what they are. What is and is not hindering terrain in a given combat is up to interpretation.
There can hardly be any doubt that there is in-game meaning to the concept of hindering terrain. The name already says it, essentially; it's terrain that's somehow hindering (or hurting) the creatures that enter it. Any terrain that sufficiently matches that description (as adjudicated by the DM) is hindering terrain. Nowhere is there a requirement that that terrain be permanent or on some out-of-game map. It's not relevent what the underlying cause of the "hindering" is, what's relevant is that there is "hindering". The property of being being considered hindering terrain in a game mechanical sense emerges based on the effects that the square has.
The argument that because a power doesn't explicitly state it creates hindering terrain therefore does not hold water. Hindering terrain is generally not explicitly created in the first place; there's no reason that powers would be any different in that respect. There's no way you'll convince everyone that the DMG description of hindering terrain could not possibly apply to power effects.
Thus, a perfectly viable adjudication would be to include some power effects when considering hindering terrain. Now, before someone shouts out that this is terribly stupid - the point is not that there is a more common interpretation that may be better for balance. The point is that this isn't a rules issue, it's a gameplay+balance issue. There are good reasons to consider power effects as hindering terrain, even though there are many people that think there are better reasons not to do so.
So, if we want to continue this discussion usefully, it should be about what a DM should do - what's best for his game, and why that's so - not about some absolute rules interpretation.
Last edited:
Jack99
Adventurer
IMC, I only allow a save if there is something a character can latch on to. It's not perfect, but it worked fine so far.
So, for example, a character getting pushed over a ledge gets a save, a character pushed into an open fireplace doesn't get a save. Also, as I houserule, people who are knocked into a wall must save or fall prone.
Similar Threads
