Push+Wall=save

[keterys]

Yeah, I definitely find it odd that a "Curtain of Blades" as part of the combat gives a save but a "Blade Barrier" cast during combat does not. Presumably neither would it if Curtain of Blades were defined as a hazard or trap instead of hindering terrain, which is also odd.

Since it means you would get a save before an open pit, but not before a concealed pit that is now open? That doesn't seem right.

 

[Saeviomagy]

So the higher level you get, the more damage lava deals?

Yup. Lava gets hotter, pits get deeper, monsters get stronger.

 

[Dausuul]

So the higher level you get, the more damage lava deals?

Yup. Lava deals damage equal to 1.5 times your maximum hit points. As you go up in level, you gain hit points, so it deals more damage.

Also, it ignores the first X points of damage resistance, where X is your resistance to lava damage.

 

[Mahali]

I think p61 makes it perfectly clear that an area which is Hindering Terrain blocks movement or damages those who enter it.

I don't think it makes it clear that any area that blocks movement or damages those who enter it is Hindering Terrain.

All dogs have four legs. This cat has four legs. Therefore this cat is a dog?

-Hyp.

Of course not. Taken from The New England Skeptical Society - Articles

Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow.” This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. This is the most basic type of logical fallacy, and in fact many of the fallacies listed below are also non-sequiturs but are an identifiable and common type.

The spell/power in question creats an area that causes damage. DMG p44,61 make it clear it's Hindering Terrain and they get a saving throw if forceably moved into it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The spell/power in question creats an area that causes damage. DMG p44,61 make it clear it's Hindering Terrain...

No, p61 makes it clear that Hindering Terrain can cause damage; it doesn't make it clear that any square that causes damage is Hindering Terrain.

All dogs have four legs. This cat has four legs. Therefore this cat is a dog?

Some Hindering Terrain causes damage. This square causes damage. Therefore this square is Hindering Terrain?

The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

-Hyp.

 

[Skyscraper]

That comes from a joke that was popular on the ENWorld and WotC forums in 2007-early 2008:

Fire and Brimstone! Lava Rules For Your Game

This is quite excellent, thank you for sharing this

Sky

 

[Goumindong]

I think p61 makes it perfectly clear that an area which is Hindering Terrain blocks movement or damages those who enter it.

I don't think it makes it clear that any area that blocks movement or damages those who enter it is Hindering Terrain.

All dogs have four legs. This cat has four legs. Therefore this cat is a dog?

-Hyp.

This would be true if hindering terrain were not a label to be applied to different terrain effects but instead a specific instance.

You do not put down "hindering terrain" in your dungeons. When your players ask what the green thing is, you do not say "oh, its hindering terrain" when its "a pool of acid".

By your reckoning there is nothing that can ever be classified as "hindering terrain" because there is never any statement that says "x is hindering terrain" only "hindering terrain is x" and there is nothing that is hindering terrain by its own merits.

The problem is seen further by your explanation of the logical fallacy. However, that is not the form that is being used. The first statement(and premise) is not "all dogs have 4 legs", the first statement(and premise) is, "all things that have 4 legs are dogs".

Such, the new logical construct reads

Premise: "All things that have 4 legs are dogs"
Premise: "all cats have 4 legs"
Inference: "Therefore all cats are dogs"

Which, while not being cogent is still valid.

A better way to put it would be this

Premise: something is a mammal if it contains the "following properties"
Premise: dogs contain the "following properties"
Inference: Therefore all dogs are mammals

This is the situation which we are dealing with. Not the statement "dogs are" but the statement "mammals are". You are defining the top set of possibilities and not the bottom.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The first statement(and premise) is not "all dogs have 4 legs", the first statement(and premise) is, "all things that have 4 legs are dogs".

The statement is "Hindering terrain prevents movement (or severely
punishes it) or damages creatures that enter it". You're claiming here that it is "Squares that prevent movement (or severely punish it) or damage creatures that enter them are hindering terrain".

You're reversing what p61 says.

You do not put down "hindering terrain" in your dungeons.

Sure you do.

Let's assume you put some deep water in an encounter location.

Examples of Challenging Terrain: Ice, deep water, deep mud, thin beam
across a chasm.
Examples of Hindering Terrain: Pits, deep water, lava, fire.

The fact that it's deep water isn't sufficient to note when you're writing up the location, since deep water is given as an example in both cases. You also need to note that this deep water is considered Challenging Terrain. And note that the acid is Hindering Terrain.

So when the PCs say "What's that green bit?" you can say "It's a pool of acid". And when they say "So is that Hindering Terrain?", you can say "Yes".

By your reckoning there is nothing that can ever be classified as "hindering terrain" because there is never any statement that says "x is hindering terrain" only "hindering terrain is x" and there is nothing that is hindering terrain by its own merits.

It's not hindering terrain by its own merits; it's hindering terrain because the DM has decided "And these squares count as hindering terrain".

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

Let's assume you put some deep water in an encounter location.

i see deep water as an example of challenging terrain but i never see any rule that says deep water is challenging terrain[examples are not rules text, though they are RAI indicators]. Therefore deep water is not challenging terrain.

The fact that it's deep water isn't sufficient to note when you're writing up the location, since deep water is given as an example in both cases.

Incorrect. You have failed to apply your venn diagram. Terrain can be both challenging[requiring a skill check], and hindering [dealing damage/massively hindering movement]. What is important to the label is how its handled and only how its handled.

You're reversing what p61 says.

No, you're deliberately misreading it. Just as it is perfectly reasonable to say "A mammal is an animal with these qualities" it is perfectly reasonable to say "hindering terrain is a square with these qualities". The "is a square" is implied and unnecessary, then you only have left "hindering terrain has these qualities"

It's not hindering terrain by its own merits; it's hindering terrain because the DM has decided "And these squares count as hindering terrain".

So why even have the rulebook?

Note: there is no point in the book where it says "something is hindering terrain because the DM has decided it is hindering terrain"

Look, you're totally screwing around with some basic assumptions that are needed to make the game play. One of these assumptions is the basic verisimilitude of the world, fire is hot, ice is cold, the world operates in a consistent manner. This breaks the game more than any unbalanced rule could ever do. Since it literally spoils the point for your players, whether they are war gamers or immersionists.

 

[Hypersmurf]

i see deep water as an example of challenging terrain but i never see any rule that says deep water is challenging terrain[examples are not rules text, though they are RAI indicators]. Therefore deep water is not challenging terrain.

Challenging Terrain: Examples: Deep water.

"... therefore deep water is not challenging terrain."

I'm sensing a fundamental disconnect here.

No, you're deliberately misreading it. Just as it is perfectly reasonable to say "A mammal is an animal with these qualities" it is perfectly reasonable to say "hindering terrain is a square with these qualities". The "is a square" is implied and unnecessary, then you only have left "hindering terrain has these qualities"

I agree that hindering terrain has those qualities.

But similarly, "A mammal is an animal with these qualities" and "An animal with these qualities is a mammal" are not logically identical statements.

A dog is an animal that is warm-blooded and gives birth to live young. Does that mean any animal that is warm-blooded and gives birth to live young is a dog?

If the answer to that question is "No", then how are we supposed to take any different result from the statement "A mammal is an animal that is warm-blooded and gives birth to live young"?

It may be the case that, perhaps with a couple of odd exceptions, it's true that an animal that is warm-blooded and gives birth to live young is a mammal. But we can't determine that from the statement above.

Similarly, "Hindering terrain has quality X" does not logically imply "Quality X means hindering terrain".

-Hyp.