Official Ruling on Stinking Cloud?

[DracoSuave]

The odd part about that is the normal concealment rules don't mention spell effects that do not mention obscurement.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

(Later Edit -> After reading all those rules together with the DMG errata for that section... this is just another gaffe from WotC with rules clarity and execution. What those powers like Stinking Cloud and Wall of Fog SHOULD be telling you is simply whether the zone they create is Lightly, Heavily or Totally Obscured, NOT whether they "block line of sight" or "grant concealment" or whatever. It looks like one camp of rules writers interpreted the issue one way, and at least one other camp interpreted it another way, and they both got their own interpretation into the books in a different place or within different powers, and the discrepancies were not culled in editing. Until that gets fixed or if it ever does get fixed, you just have to decide for yourself what "type" of obscurement it is and use the rule on page 281 to apply it. I would say Stinking Cloud = either heavy or light, but definitely not total.)

This... (is sensible and the way I've always had powers that "block line of sight" in 4E operate).

There are numerous inconsistencies in the D&D ruleset. Don't get hung up on the words "blocks line of sight". Even ostensibly clean air blocks line of sight eventually. The question is "am I creating a bank of thick fog?" If so, each square in that fog is heavily obscured from each and every other square (both in and outside the fog). If you want to say that beign in a Stinking Cloud is, for line-of-sight purposes, like being encased in stone, all power to you. But I'm not convinced.

[For another glaring inconsistency, powers the create zones or lasting effects vary between "any creature starting their turn in the area is affected" and "any creature starting their turn in the area or entering the area is affected". If the zone or area is shot through with fire, ice and snow, blades of force or whatever, what is the logical difference between starting your turn inside it and moving into it?]

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Tony Vargas]

If the zone or area is shot through with fire, ice and snow, blades of force or whatever, what is the logical difference between starting your turn inside it and moving into it?

If you only take the effect for starting your turn inside the effect you can run right through it, untouched. That is, you can start your turn on one side of the effect, move completely through the effect, end your turn outside it, start your next turn outside it, and have taken no damage at all. You can't do that if damage is also taken for entering the effect.

 

[scarik]

Stining Cloud and otehr 'damage when you enter or start' effects mean to me that the caster uses them and then the party does everything they can to force monsters into it.

The monsters should also force PCs into these squares.

I do say you can only take the damage once per turn, so if a goblin is next to the zone and the Rogue slides him 3 squares it can't be 1 in, 1 out and 1 back in for double damage.

If you don't take damage for being forced through the zone then you can push your allies through walls of fire or blade barriers for no damage.

 

[Lacyon]

I do say you can only take the damage once per turn, so if a goblin is next to the zone and the Rogue slides him 3 squares it can't be 1 in, 1 out and 1 back in for double damage.

I'm fine with letting the creature take damage more than once per round (because I don't want to remember which ones have already been pushed in or out this round), but I like the idea of making it not more than once per turn. Thanks!

 

[SlyFlourish]

So here's what I ended up with. My own personal ruling on Stinking Cloud is as follows:

1. Creatures do not take this damage when forced into the cloud. This eliminates the need to track if they've been in it before or not. If they voluntarily move into the cloud they take damage. If they start in the cloud, they take damage. Essentially they can only take damage on their turn. Forcing them in still helps since they take damage on their turn.

2. Anything in the cloud gains total cover (-5). Any creature targeted by a creature fully in the cloud gains total cover from that creature. Essentially, if you're in the cloud, you can't be seen and you can't see others.

 

[CapnZapp]

1. Creatures do not take this damage when forced into the cloud. This eliminates the need to track if they've been in it before or not. If they voluntarily move into the cloud they take damage. If they start in the cloud, they take damage. Essentially they can only take damage on their turn. Forcing them in still helps since they take damage on their turn.

Yes, the "a creature takes damage outside its turn" interpretation sounds like a houserule / 3E relic to me.

Instead, your take is very simple: it automatically avoids the in-and-out-and-in-again cheese. No matter how many times you've been pushed in and out of the cloud, the damage remains the same. And simple is good. Simple is 4E-ish.

It also allows an ally of the monster to "save" it by pulling it out again before its turn, which makes some sense at least in the poisonous cloud example.

The entire "you take damage outside your own turn, and you can take the same damage several times based on some movement" take is one dodgy interpretation I would like to see some rules references to backup.

 

[Larrin]

2. Anything in the cloud gains total cover (-5). Any creature targeted by a creature fully in the cloud gains total cover from that creature. Essentially, if you're in the cloud, you can't be seen and you can't see others.

If they can't be seen they should get total concelament, not total cover. A fireball is not stopped by stinking cloud, but targeted ranged attacks and melee attacks are. Cover would only be possible if it was 'stinking wall' and blocked line of effect. With line of sight being the one blocked, it only offers total concealment.

concealment=sight. a cloud blocks sight but not effect
cover=effect. a glass wall blocks effect but not sight

A brick wall blocks both.

 

[Syrsuro]

As has been pointed out repeatedly in the past: A rule that an effect imposes damage each time you are forced into it violates 'common sense' (although may still be RAW) when you are forced into it multiple times per round or per turn.

If I can stand in the area and take X damage, why would I take more damage moving in an out of the area (and thus reducing my exposure)? I would simply rule that any such effect can only apply its damage once per turn after the initial effect is created.

And that this is true whether the movement in or out is voluntary or not.

The RAW may suggest that you take damage from being yo-yoed in and out, but that doesn't mean the RAW are good Rs

(That said - I believe there was a CS response in regards to Wall of Fire that specified that you would take damage each and every time you were forced into the wall, even if that was the result of a single slide).

Carl

 

[Harr]

(That said - I believe there was a CS response in regards to Wall of Fire that specified that you would take damage each and every time you were forced into the wall, even if that was the result of a single slide).

There have been several answers from CS about the matter and as far as I know they always support the "damage on every single entrance even on the same turn and on the same slide" thing.

Personally I'm liking more and more the "once per creature's turn instead or once per round" thing, because it opens up tactical possibilities for the players and monsters, giving an immediate reward for sliding/pushing into the zone, there's still no need to track anything at all, while still making it so that a party would have to *really* work at it to abuse it (ie, first guy would have to push the goblin in and then somehow leave him outside for the second guy to push him in again and then somehow leave him outside again... etc) and if a party is really working THAT hard at it, well then you might as well just let them have it, saying Yes and all that.

Also as far as I know CS answers on the line-of-sight thing have alternated between interpreting the cloud as Heavily Obscured terrain (such as in mshea's CS answer above) and literal line-of-sight blocking as if it was a non-physical stone wall (as mshea's final interpretation above).

Personally I think both ways of looking at it are fine with consistency.