Push+Wall=save

[catsclaw227]

I have no idea what the heck you guys are arguing about anymore.

Which of you are stating that my Blade Barrier or Wall of Fire can be considered Hindering Terrain, and which of you are refuting that?

 

[Caliban]

I have no idea what the heck you guys are arguing about anymore.

Which of you are stating that my Blade Barrier or Wall of Fire can be considered Hindering Terrain, and which of you are refuting that?

Goumindong says that damaging spell effects are always Hindering Terrain, and if you don't agree with him then you are blatantly and deliberately ignoring the rules, wizards will be the most powerful class in the game, almost everyone will play wizards, and the game will descend into a hellish nightmare of wizards pushing people into wall spells at will. AT WILL! Srsly.

Hypersmurf is saying that the rules don't state that damaging spell effects are Hindering Terrain. They may or may not be, but you can't point to a specific rule that says that they are. Other than that he doesn't have a position. He just can't stand to see a (theoretically valid) position in an arguement undefended.

I'm the moron who asked Cust Serv and actually accepted their response rather than debate the question for pages and pages.

 

[tintagel]

ROFLsauce!

 

[catsclaw227]

Well, while I might agree with Hypersmurf that it's just not clear enough to decide one way or another -- if that's what Hypey is saying -- but I will state that I don't agree with the CustSrv ruling without more of an explanation from one of the developers or an official word from WOTC errata.

I've heard that CustSrv has been wrong on a few occasions in the past.

I am going to call it Hindering Terrain until I see an official statement with some rationale, maybe an article on WOTC's website about area spells and Hindering Terrain.

I also want to know if you can teleport an unwilling opponent to an empty square in mid air, like over a cliff or up in the air.

 

[pemerton]

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

Actually, in ordinary English they sometimes are. That is to say, one perfectly ordinary and acceptable way of introducing a definition in English is to say that "An S is a G which is P".

When trying to write more formally, one might prefer "The Ss are any of and only those Gs which are Ps", but natural language is not always written in such a formal fashion.

If you want examples of what I have in mind, have a look at any statute book, in which definitions are introduced in the above fashion (eg the sentence "Burglary is theft plus trespass" may be used to define "Burglary").

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

For the reasons given above, the ordinary English sentence "Hindering terrain has quality X" sometimes does mean the same thing as "Quality X is constitutive of being hindering terrain".

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.

When I read that part of the DMG I took it that deep water is both hindering and challenging ie like other hindering terrain it grants a save against forced movement, and like other challenging terrain it requires a skill check to cross it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

For the reasons given above, the ordinary English sentence "Hindering terrain has quality X" sometimes does mean the same thing as "Quality X is constitutive of being hindering terrain".

But if we assume that the 4E books are to be read this way, it creates other problems.

-Hyp.

 

[keterys]

These aren't mathematical proofs - they're allowed to use varying language.

 

[taza]

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.

I thought this was an interesting point - noting that the PCs wouldn't figure out the discrepancy between the two areas of terrain. I'd like to take this one step further by trying to keep the players from realizing it as well.

If I were a DM who didn't want to classify spell effects as hindering terrain (maybe I am, maybe I'm not) I would roll saving throws behind my screen for both situations and ignore the result for the spell effect areas. If my players were savvy and motivated enough to realize that mobs never saved against the spells, they'd probably also notice that every time they mentioned that fact they got a surprise encounter +2 levels higher

 

[Hypersmurf]

These aren't mathematical proofs - they're allowed to use varying language.

That leads to the whole "When they say 'attack' in this section, they mean 'attack power', but in that section, they mean 'ranged, melee, close, or area attack' which includes attack powers and also utility powers, and over here, they mean a power which includes an attack roll (thus excluding some attack powers), while on this page they're referring to an individual attack roll as a component of a power which includes multiple 'attacks'..." problem...

-Hyp.

 

[keterys]

That leads to the whole "When they say 'attack' in this section, they mean 'attack power', but in that section, they mean 'ranged, melee, close, or area attack' which includes attack powers and also utility powers, and over here, they mean a power which includes an attack roll (thus excluding some attack powers), while on this page they're referring to an individual attack roll as a component of a power which includes multiple 'attacks'..." problem...

-Hyp.

Which doesn't change the fact that they still didn't write the rules in that way.

Hence immediately using actions that aren't immediate, for instance.

I'm not saying you're incorrect in this instance, and I'd certainly root for you for better posting style, but I do think this rule probably should be examined by WotC and clarifying errata given.