Push+Wall=save

[keterys]

Difficult terrain doesn't affect slides (so he could have gotten the extra hit in for blade barrier). Wall of Fire works less well since it explicitly costs extra movement to move through. Stinking Cloud and Hunger of Hadar work fine, though... that would add 8d10+12 damage using the level 5 daily Hunger, for instance, or 4d10+32 for Stinking Cloud.

Fun times.

 

[catsclaw227]

Difficult terrain doesn't affect slides (so he could have gotten the extra hit in for blade barrier).

Oh yea, that's right. OK, so I call it hindering terrain.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Examples are not rules text. Even then, by your argument, the only things that can ever be challenging terrain are those listed in the examples.

Do you see how foolish that is?

That would be foolish. It's also not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that by the example text, deep water can be challenging terrain, or it can be hindering terrain; we can't tell just from the fact that it is deep water which it is. The DM needs to make a determination that this is hindering terrain.

Similarly, just because a square deals damage doesn't make it hindering terrain; rather, it gives the DM a data point towards deciding whether or not it is hindering terrain.

This is your argument

"Dogs: Dogs are mammals with the following features

Examples: Corgy, Poodle, Terrier, Pit bull

Therefore a Retriever is not a dog"

No, that's not my argument.

You see. Definitions for labels work both ways. Its not an = statement, its an == statement.

Then we're arguing about whether the sentence is describing Hindering Terrain, or labelling Hindering Terrain. Unless I agree that it's a label, I don't read it as ==. And if I don't read it as ==, then "deals damage" is not sufficient by itself to require a square to be hindering terrain.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Man what? You seriously think there is no difference between succeeding 55% of the time when you think you are being pushed into hindering terrain and succeeding 0% of the time when you think you are being pushed into hindering terrain?

I think there's no need for a difference between the narrative descriptions of the failure to fall prone in either case.

Let's picture a fighter with the Warrior's Urging power. He says to his friend "Round up a few sparring partners - I wanna show you something really weird."

He proceeds to demonstrate, via a series of mock combats with a five minute break between each, that he can force all the sparring partners to run up to him, whether they want to or not... but he can only ever do it once! If he tries it a second time in a given bout, they all just smirk at him. But take a break for five minutes and try again... and they just can't help themselves!

"Isn't that just bizarre?" the fighter asks his friend.

If the PCs perform a statistical analysis of the events dictated by the game mechanics, they're going to see the game mechanics, and it's going to be odd. Fortunately, we're the ones in charge, so we can ensure the PCs never perform such an analysis.

If the PCs set up a double-blind study using hindering terrain and an illusion of hindering terrain, they'll find that forced movement is thwarted by a drop-to-prone 55% of the time for the hindering terrain, and 0% of the time for the illusion. "Isn't that just bizarre?"

But if they don't run the analysis, all they'll know is that while you can sometimes throw yourself to the ground to avoid falling in the pit, it doesn't always work. And it happens that the three times in a particular character's 1st-30th career that he was pushed into a pit that turned out to be an illusion, it didn't work.

From the creatures point of view it is attempting to fall prone before a certain location. From the creatures point of view, whether or not its hindering terrain is immaterial.

Exactly. He can't tell if he failed because the player rolled poorly, or because the DM says "No, no save this time". All he knows is that he tried to fall prone and failed.

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

That would be foolish. It's also not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that by the example text, deep water can be challenging terrain, or it can be hindering terrain; we can't tell just from the fact that it is deep water which it is. The DM needs to make a determination that this is hindering terrain.

Similarly, just because a square deals damage doesn't make it hindering terrain; rather, it gives the DM a data point towards deciding whether or not it is hindering terrain.

Do you know what a "Venn Diagram" is?

You know what, why even have terrain rules? Why bother do it if the rules are, explicitly "whatever the DM wants"? Why bother to have common expectations? , why do we even have rules and roll dice?

No, that's not my argument.

Yes it is. You specifically said that nothing can be labeled hindering terrain based on whether or not it fits the model. You then said that the only way we had to determine whether or not something was hindering terrain was the examples.

that was exactly what you said, that a Golden Retriever was only a dog based on DM digression, that is not how classification works. If you do not agree with this point then your entire line about the logic of hindering terrain not following fails since that line is based specifically on the workings of said classification

Then we're arguing about whether the sentence is describing Hindering Terrain, or labelling Hindering Terrain. Unless I agree that it's a label, I don't read it as ==. And if I don't read it as ==, then "deals damage" is not sufficient by itself to require a square to be hindering terrain.

-Hyp.

Is this a joke? "Hindering terrain" is not a terrain feature. You do not get up in the morning and walk across obscuring terrain until you turn the lights on, you walk across an area that happens to be dark

These are abstract concepts that can only be understood as a label on the terrain based on what that terrain is or does.

"Isn't that just bizarre?" the fighter asks his friend.

The friend says "yes" and the fighter says "Well it takes a lot of effort, and i can't get it to work but once in a fight and need a short rest to be able to exert myself to that level, so stop asking about these weird statistical anomalies.

Exactly. He can't tell if he failed because the player rolled poorly, or because the DM says "No, no save this time". All he knows is that he tried to fall prone and failed.

The creature will pick up very quickly when and where the differences are. And it will be wacky.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You know what, why even have terrain rules? Why bother do it if the rules are, explicitly "whatever the DM wants"?

The terrain rules tell the DM how to handle hindering terrrain, once he has determined that this square is, in fact, hindering terrain.

Yes it is. You specifically said that nothing can be labeled hindering terrain based on whether or not it fits the model.

It can't be labelled hindering terrain based solely on whether or not it has some properties hindering terrain has, just as an animal can't be labelled a dog based solely on whether or not it has some properties dogs have.

You can label something not a dog based solely on the absence of certain properties, and you can label something not hindering terrain likewise. If we know that a square does not block (or severely punish) movement, and does not damage creatures entering it, we know it is not hindering terrain. But a square can block movement without being hindering terrain - the presence of one of those qualities is not, by itself, enough to guarantee the keyword.

You then said that the only way we had to determine whether or not something was hindering terrain was the examples.

No, I didn't.

that was exactly what you said, that a Golden Retriever was only a dog based on DM digression, that is not how classification works.

If we have a statement that "Golden Retrievers have golden fur", what tells us whether this is an == label, or just description?

If a monster has a power that conjures an animal with golden fur, is that statement sufficient to tell us the animal is a Golden Retriever? If the DM decides it is a Golden Retriever, it can be - the description we have (animal with golden fur) doesn't prohibit it. But the description isn't sufficient to nail that down.

Is this a joke? "Hindering terrain" is not a terrain feature. You do not get up in the morning and walk across obscuring terrain until you turn the lights on, you walk across an area that happens to be dark

Is it not both?

The friend says "yes" and the fighter says "Well it takes a lot of effort, and i can't get it to work but once in a fight and need a short rest to be able to exert myself to that level, so stop asking about these weird statistical anomalies.

The creature will pick up very quickly when and where the differences are. And it will be wacky.

Tell the creature to stop asking about weird statistical anomalies, and the problem goes away.

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

The terrain rules tell the DM how to handle hindering terrrain, once he has determined that this square is, in fact, hindering terrain.

You should actually go look at the rules in question. They tell you nothing of the sort. The terrain rules give you guidelines about placing different types of terrain. It breaks the terrain down into labels by which you can see what effects different types of terrain are likely to have on your combat.

The rules that discuss how you handle those terrains are not contained anywhere in this section except the labels. This is actually one of the things that confuses people because they somehow think that then hindering terrain only applies to stuff that the DM places. Which is wrong. That is simply where the rules defining it are found because repeating general rules every time anything mentions hindering terrain is foolish.

It can't be labelled hindering terrain based solely on whether or not it has some properties hindering terrain has, just as an animal can't be labelled a dog based solely on whether or not it has some properties dogs have.

Except when the properties are distinctly canine. Which is the case here. What other terrain deals damage or severely limits movement?

Is it challenging terrain? No, challenging terrain is terrain that is modified by a skill check

is it obscuring terrain? No obscuring terrain is terrain that limits line of sight in some way

Is it difficult terrain? No, difficult terrain limits movement by only one square

E.G.
All Mammals live birth their young. No other animals live birth their young. Ergo, if an animal live births its young, its a mammal.

No, I didn't.

Its here in the thread

If we have a statement that "Golden Retrievers have golden fur", what tells us whether this is an == label, or just description?

If a monster has a power that conjures an animal with golden fur, is that statement sufficient to tell us the animal is a Golden Retriever? If the DM decides it is a Golden Retriever, it can be - the description we have (animal with golden fur) doesn't prohibit it. But the description isn't sufficient to nail that down.

Not in this case, but that is because you are working on an incomplete definition. What we do have is a statement "these are the terrains that have effects" and "hindering terrain has these effects". Or, to put it in dog terms. "golden retrievers are dogs that 'list everything that makes golden retrievers unique'" and then a monsters power that summons a "dog that 'list everything that makes a golden retriever unique". Then yes, its a golden retreiver.

Is it not both?

You are going backwards. Define obscuring terrain. Oh hell, ill just come out and say it. darkness is not a fog bank.

Tell the creature to stop asking about weird statistical anomalies, and the problem goes away.

We are talking verisimilitude here, your players do not have a choice to suspend this particular point of disbelief.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What other terrain deals damage or severely limits movement?

A square affected by Wall of Fire?

E.G.
All Mammals live birth their young. No other animals live birth their young. Ergo, if an animal live births its young, its a mammal.

Ah, but the second statement is required for the third to be conclusive.

If you only have the first statement, you can't state the third with certainty.

Its here in the thread

No, it isn't.

Not in this case, but that is because you are working on an incomplete definition. What we do have is a statement "these are the terrains that have effects" and "hindering terrain has these effects".

But what you don't have is a statement that "Wall of Fire creates a terrain feature".

Or, to put it in dog terms. "golden retrievers are dogs that 'list everything that makes golden retrievers unique'" and then a monsters power that summons a "dog that 'list everything that makes a golden retriever unique". Then yes, its a golden retreiver.

Alternatively, your list of everything that makes golden retrievers unique was, in fact, incomplete.

Statement: A triangle has three sides.

Now, this is, perhaps, a list of everything that makes a triangle unique. But unless we know that it is, the fact that it is doesn't mean we can state that a shape with three sides is a triangle.

If we are told "A triangle is any shape with three sides", or "A triangle has three sides; no other shape has three sides" or "A triangle has three sides; this property is unique to triangles" - then we can state that a shape with three sides is a triangle.

We're told that hindering terrain blocks movement or deals damage. But we aren't told that hindering terrain is any square that blocks movement or deals damage; we aren't told that hindering terrain blocks movement or deals damage, and no other square can block movement or deal damage; we aren't told that hindering terrain blocks movement or deals damage, and this property is unique to squares which are hindering terrain.

You are going backwards. Define obscuring terrain. Oh hell, ill just come out and say it. darkness is not a fog bank.

I agree.

We are talking verisimilitude here, your players do not have a choice to suspend this particular point of disbelief.

Why is it any different to the martial encounter power?

Why can they suspend disbelief for one, but not the other?

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

A square affected by Wall of Fire?

wall of fire is a terrain classification?

Why is it any different to the martial encounter power?

Why can they suspend disbelief for one, but not the other?

Because the circumstances are wildly different as i have already explained.

But what you don't have is a statement that "Wall of Fire creates a terrain feature".

Have you read the text of "wall of fire"?

Because seriously, this is becoming a joke at this point.

Ah, but the second statement is required for the third to be conclusive.

If you only have the first statement, you can't state the third with certainty.

You cannot prove a negative. If you believe the second to be false, then you must provide the section which classifies terrain effects that deal damage as something other than hindering terrain.

Where is it? What page of what book?

Absent that text, there is no other conclusion that can be reached except that powers are hindering terrain.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Have you read the text of "wall of fire"?

Certainly. Consider all the powers that say "The area becomes difficult terrain", and consider Wall of Fire which doesn't say "The area becomes hindering terrain."

It's not described as terrain at all, in fact; so why, then, should we reference terrain features for evaluating its behaviour?

You cannot prove a negative. If you believe the second to be false, then you must provide the section which classifies terrain effects that deal damage as something other than hindering terrain.

I'm not saying I believe the second to be false; nor am I saying I believe it to be true. I'm saying it isn't stated; how, then, can you use it as a premise in drawing your conclusion?

-Hyp.