Push+Wall=save

[HighTemplar]

I don't mean to act as if I was trying to stop your epic argument about hindering terrain and semantics/sophism issues,but truth is this type of problem is exactly why humans have devised common sense and WotC have devised house rules. There are somme issues that require way too much effort to be addressed as absolutely crystal clear.

Reality check here.

Some people have powers to push others
Some people have powers to make walls of fire

obviously, trying to combine both should be smart, and not unfeasable.

Trying to repeatedly push and pull someone in and out of a firewall, in the same combat turn, with the same action, using the same power makes no sense at all.

Obviously, as stated in erratas on the warlock curse, and the ranger 's quarry damage, firewall and blade barrer damage should simply not be allowed to deal damage to the same target twice in a given round(hindering terrain or not.)

Say you use your quite devellopped hypothetical telekinetic powers to move a target in and out of a firewall 3 times, you would think he got burned three times ?
What if you made him do 5 passes ? *BURN*BURN*BURN*BURN*BURN*

okok i get it, so what if your so good you actually can make him pass 70 times ? he dies ? most likely, he wont even get warm, as you have made him spend less then 0.1 second in the actual wall every time. In this same round, how long does he spend gettin burned ? less than a rounds worth, so woudnt it obviously burn him more if he spent the whole round wasting his time in the fire instead of getting some fresh air? (please try this at home with a candle)

I mean rule what you want, but I mostly try to keep my games as realistic as possible and it wouldnt help any of "MY" players to toss someone in and out of a firewall(and such) repeatedly as he is actually dividing the time getting damaged by the same factor.

 

[keterys]

That's probably also a good change, honestly. Only damaged once by an aura, conjuration, or zone per turn.

Least, it would take some of the sting out of 'Okay, toss him into the effect - hah, he takes damage. And now it's your turn, so at start of it you take damage.'

 

[Goumindong]

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?

So your argument is that you in fact, do not agree with the text of wall of fire where it says "this area creates a zone..."

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?

Because it doesn't have to be stated. There is no other classification for this thing to go into.

What then is terrain that damages that isn't hindering terrain? Without said classification your argument fails.

if your argument fails, since it is an attempted disproof of my argument, and there is no other disproof of my argument, then my argument is most likely to be true[which is to say, if you are not supporting it, you are in the logical wrong].

Specifically, since we are using logic, my argument would then be the currently accepted truth until such a time as something else could supercede it, or disprove it.

Which, short of errata, nothing can, since nothing else can change the rules. Which means that a wall of fire is hindering terrain.

 

[Goumindong]

obviously, trying to combine both should be smart, and not unfeasable.

No one is saying that it is not. They are simply saying that the monster gets to choose for a 55% chance[or greater], that instead, they fall prone[and grant CA in melee for the next round and burn a move action to stand up], a very beneficial instance in and of itself.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So your argument is that you in fact, do not agree with the text of wall of fire where it says "this area creates a zone..."

Not at all. I agree that it creates a zone.

I don't agree that it's stated that it creates hindering terrain.

Because it doesn't have to be stated. There is no other classification for this thing to go into.

Why does it need a classification? What is the terrain classification of the square adjacent to the Wall of Fire? Does someone get a save to avoid being forced into that square?

if your argument fails, since it is an attempted disproof of my argument, and there is no other disproof of my argument, then my argument is most likely to be true[which is to say, if you are not supporting it, you are in the logical wrong].

Hmm? So if I claim that Boots of Balance are "gloves or gauntlets", my claim is 'currently accepted truth' just because I say so?

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

Not at all. I agree that it creates a zone.

I don't agree that it's stated that it creates hindering terrain.

So you don't know what a zone is?

Why does it need a classification? What is the terrain classification of the square adjacent to the Wall of Fire? Does someone get a save to avoid being forced into that square?

The square adjacent to a wall of fire does not deal damage upon entering and does not restrict movement. Damage is dealt by an adjacent effect. The square contains no special properties, only the square next to it.

Hmm? So if I claim that Boots of Balance are "gloves or gauntlets", my claim is 'currently accepted truth' just because I say so?

No, because there are valid arguments against that statement. Do you seriously not understand the logical basis of the scientific method?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So you don't know what a zone is?

Actually, I take it back - Wall of Fire doesn't create a zone. It's a conjuration, and doesn't have the Zone keyword.

So the definition of a Zone is irrelevant to Wall of Fire.

The square contains no special properties, only the square next to it.

And the terrain the Wall of Fire occupies has no special properties; the conjuration occupying the square is what deals the damage.

No, because there are valid arguments against that statement.

Ahh.

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

-Hyp.

Do you know what a conjuration is?

Oh hell, ill explain it to you. Its a zone that can(but does not necessarily) occupy a square and its damage overlaps with other conjurations and zones. No other differences

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you know what a conjuration is?

Oh hell, ill explain it to you. Its a zone...

Ah! A conjuration is a zone!

That will explain why Conjurations and Zones are described in two separate sections on p59, why Dispel Magic refers to "one conjuration or zone", why every power with the Zone keyword says "this power creates a zone" and yet no power with the Conjuration keyword uses the word 'zone' anywhere.

... hang on, can you explain it one more time? Where do I find that a conjuration is a zone?

I'll declare "a conjuration and a zone are two distinct concepts" to be 'currently accepted truth'... so you can supercede or disprove it.

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

Sigh. Would you stop being disingenuous and read their definitions? In the same way a French poodle is not a standard poodle but is a "standard poodle that is 1/4th the size".

This is something called a "comparison".