Moving grabbed target into fire ...

[keterys]

The most important thing is that the players need to know how the DM is going to apply hindering terrain and the DM needs to be consistent. Once that's out of the way, you're probably fine.

Whether you allow a save or not, I would suggest a house rule to prevent someone from sliding someone in and out of any zone or aura for repeating damage with a single power (apply it once, then be done).

For ref, a quick google turned up a couple wotc responses:
CS: "Damaging spell effects do not count as hindering terrain, and so monsters do not get a saving throw to avoid forced movement into them."
Sage Advice: "The zone that Stinking Cloud creates does not count as hindering terrain. If a power creates a zone that counts as difficult or hindering terrain, it will say so in the powers description. For Example, the power Ice Storm has an effect that states "The burst creates a zone of ice. The zone is difficult terrain until the end of the encounter or for 5 minutes."

Because the Stinking Cloud zone is not hindering terrain, a creature getting moved into it against its will would not get a savings throw. I hope this information is useful."

And Mike Mearls & Chris Sims never mention a save for Wall of Fire: "http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20090220"

The wotc boards rules FAQ has:
"How do you handle forced movement into damaging zones? The most recent answers from Custserv indicate that moving into the zone causes damage even if it is forced movement. This is also an indication of PHB FAQ answer #29. The FAQ answer also states that entering the zone multiple times in the same turn can cause multiple damage, but that moving around within the zone (rather than 'entering') will not."

All that said, it's an _extremely_ common house rule, so expect significant table variation. Sadly, those of us who DM or play LFR do have to be concerned about RAW, so it's worth mentioning so that wotc will address such things at some point.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have a bit of an issue with a Cloud of Darkness not being considered Obscured Terrain from a logical and consistency POV. If a different power states "You can see through Obscured Terrain", it should apply to Cloud of Darkness as well as plants, fog (magical or normal), and any other source of obscurement.

I prefer consistency in rules and I think segregating these into two set of rules, ones for terrain created by the DM and ones for powers, seems inconsistent and unnecessary. It also forces powers to have additional description within them to specify whether they are or are not terrain effects.

 

[ValhallaGH]

If an attacker is currently grabbing a target and wants to use a standard action to move it into a fire which does 2d10 damage, does the target get a saving throw?

That depends on how much the DM wants to encourage this sort of tactic. There is some wiggle room regarding which rules to apply, with both options being valid.
If you discourage such things: treat as Hindering Terrain, target gets save.
If you encourage such things: look to the "DC and Damage by Level" table (pg 42), as well as the associated rules (the example includes a Rogue swinging by a chandelier to kick an ogre into a burning brazier).

Also, is the attacker required to move into the fire also, or can it just hold the target in there while staying clear of the flames?

Again, this answer lies in the matter of gameplay style, since there is a bit of leeway about how the rules apply.
Discourage: Take the pain to inflict the pain.
Encourage: You can "throw" the target in, but that ends the Grab. However, he's in the flames and starts his turn there (ongoing fire) unless someone forces him out.
Highly Encourage: You can hold the target in the flames by maintaining the Grab without burning yourself.


Good luck.

 

[keterys]

I have a bit of an issue with a Cloud of Darkness not being considered Obscured Terrain

'squares within it are totally obscured'. So you're covered there already

 

[KarinsDad]

'squares within it are totally obscured'. So you're covered there already

Only if the DM reads "totally obscured" as "obscured terrain".

Look at Hunger of Hadar:

"Effect: The burst creates a zone of darkness until the end of your next turn, blocking line of sight. Creatures that enter the zone or start their turns there take 2d10 necrotic damage."

Is this Obscured Terrain?

How about a Wall of Fire that blocks line of sight. Is the terrain not obscuring?


My basic contention is that if a square blocks line of sight, it is obscuring.

If it causes damage, it's hindering.

If it increases movement through it, it is difficult.

If it has no floor, it is precipitous.

The source of the situation should be irrelevant. Otherwise, we have different rules for the same effect depending on source.

 

[keterys]

If it increases movement through it, it is difficult.

There are several effects that are _not_ difficult terrain but increase the difficulty of moving them through. There's a very different game effect and it's often intentional. I don't think that would be a very good ruling at all.

As far as all damaging effects being hindering, does that include the squares around a Flaming Sphere or a fighter with Rain of Steel? How about around a blazing skeleton? What's the difference between a demon that is surrounded in a cloud of stench that deals poison damage and a stinking cloud that can be moved around?

As far as whether a wall of fire that blocks line of sight as being obscured terrain... no, it's not. Any more than a wall of any kind (paper, wood, cemenet, etc) is obscured terrain.

 

[KarinsDad]

There are several effects that are _not_ difficult terrain but increase the difficulty of moving them through. There's a very different game effect and it's often intentional. I don't think that would be a very good ruling at all.

Whereas I think the general rule should always be the same and exceptions should be clearcut.

Take Wall of Fire for example. Many DMs understand that Forced Movement does not take difficult terrain into account.

When they make a forced movement ruling on Wall of Fire, it is extremely likely that many of them will make the mistake that the additional movement of Wall of Fire does not apply to forced movement. This is an easy mistake to make and mostly rules geeks like those found on this board will notice the difference.

Not even considering the fact that Wall of Fire increases movement for no good logical reason other than that's how it is written, it would be better if Wall of Fire mentioned that it is an exception to the normal difficult terrain rules instead of DMs having to know rules to the level that they think that some effects follow certain rules and other effects do not.

Exception based rules should be explicit and clear, not implied and less clear.

As far as all damaging effects being hindering, does that include the squares around a Flaming Sphere or a fighter with Rain of Steel? How about around a blazing skeleton? What's the difference between a demon that is surrounded in a cloud of stench that deals poison damage and a stinking cloud that can be moved around?

"Hindering terrain prevents movement (or severely punishes it) or damages creatures that enter it, but allows line of sight."

Rain of Steel does not punish creatures that enter a square. Flaming Sphere does not punish creatures that enter a square.

Wall of Fire does punish creatures that enter a square (depending on interpretation of "move" vs. "enter").

As far as whether a wall of fire that blocks line of sight as being obscured terrain... no, it's not. Any more than a wall of any kind (paper, wood, cemenet, etc) is obscured terrain.

They are not unobscured.

 

[keterys]

Whereas I think the general rule should always be the same and exceptions should be clearcut.

Take Wall of Fire for example. Many DMs understand that Forced Movement does not take difficult terrain into account.

When they make a forced movement ruling on Wall of Fire, it is extremely likely that many of them will make the mistake that the additional movement of Wall of Fire does not apply to forced movement. This is an easy mistake to make and mostly rules geeks like those found on this board will notice the difference.

Not even considering the fact that Wall of Fire increases movement for no good logical reason other than that's how it is written, it would be better if Wall of Fire mentioned that it is an exception to the normal difficult terrain rules instead of DMs having to know rules to the level that they think that some effects follow certain rules and other effects do not.

Exception based rules should be explicit and clear, not implied and less clear.

Wall of Fire is a good example. They wanted a barrier that was not casually moved through. Much more effort than rubble on the ground like difficult terrain. So instead of making it difficult terrain, they make it a wall that requires a certain amount of movement to move through. In what way would you reword it to make it more explicit? Something where an elf with a shift 2 or a bard with a slide 2 doesn't just send people through, for example.

"Hindering terrain prevents movement (or severely punishes it) or damages creatures that enter it, but allows line of sight."

Rain of Steel does not punish creatures that enter a square. Flaming Sphere does not punish creatures that enter a square.

Wall of Fire does punish creatures that enter a square (depending on interpretation of "move" vs. "enter").

Wall of Fire does not allow line of sight. It's already failed your definition.

Hell hounds deal fire damage to anyone that enters their aura. Are they hindering terrain?

If a zone that deals damage to an enemy that 'enters' the square is hindering terrain, does that mean that all zones which deal damage on 'start' and/or 'end' of turn are not? Does it matter if said zones are difficult terrain or not?

They are not unobscured.

Yes, they are. You can quite clearly see the wall. Much like the squares behind a tarrasque are not Obscured Terrain, nor is 'the entire world' to a character who is blinded or closing their eyes. Obscured Terrain is not "any terrain you can't see" but areas of the encounter that the DM has chosen to fill with fog, foliage, darkness, etc with the intent of obscuring things. Rules for obscured squares can be found in the PHB and plenty of powers use those rules. At the end of the day, a power that lets you see through Obscured Terrain instead of obscured squares is limiting itself in a way that it probably shouldn't... but one that is still important in the rules. Much like an ability that 'lets you move normally through difficult terrain' should not let you move through a wall of fire, wall of thorns, storm cage, or wall of winter. Or even a wall of ice, for that matter.