Do caltrop penalties stack?

[Segev]

Caltrops require a DC 15 Dex Save to avoid being stopped, taking a point of piercing, and suffering a 10 foot reduction to speed until they get at least one point of healing.

If somebody already suffering this reduction walks through another set of cantrips, would failing another save result in a total of 20 ft. reduction in speed?

[nickl_2000]

Caltrops :) I was super confused at which cantrip did that.

I don't have a RAW answer or RAI with any support whatsoever. However, it is a overriding rule that a creature doesn't get two of the same effect from the same source. So, in theory in my mind these would both be from the caltrops and therefore wouldn't stack.

[denthor]

I would say no. It then becomes to easy and more importantly what a party does to others can be done to them.

[Amnestic]

You mix up caltrops and cantrips in the post but I'm assuming this is solely regarding caltrops.

Since it's not a spell or an (explicit) Condition then yes, I believe it stacks, potentially eventually dropping someone's speed to 0.

I wouldn't let it stack personally if the question came up in my games. While it's not an explicit Condition I would call it a condition (name it, I dunno, "Hobbled"?).

Edit: The DMG errata (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf) has this entry:


Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section:
Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.


Notably, Caltrops are not spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities or magic items.

[Willie the Duck]

The general rule for conditions is thus:
"Conditions
Conditions alter a creature’s capabilities in a variety of ways and can arise as a result of a spell, a class feature, a monster’s Attack, or other Effect. Most Conditions, such as blinded, are impairments, but a few, such as invisible, can be advantageous.
A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a Duration specified by the Effect that imposed the condition.
If multiple Effects impose the same condition on a creature, each instance of the condition has its own Duration, but the condition’s Effects don’t get worse. A creature either has a condition or doesn’t."

However, that specifically applies to a chapter of specific conditions such as blinded, charmed, and deafened. IMO, the spirit of the rules suggests that caltrops should hew to a similar logic, but it doesn't look like there is a general ruling for equipment based effects that do not impose one of those specific conditions. All of which is to say I'm unsure that there is an official rule.

[Segev]

Yes, I meant "caltrops." I am on my phone, and it "helpfully" keeps autocorrupting the word.

[elyktsorb]

This is something I pondered too at one point. But I figured that Caltrops do not stack their effect for two reasons.

One, being that it would make Caltrops better and we can't have that on a regular item now can we.

Two (more seriously), if you hit someone with say, Alchemist's Fire twice, that person doesn't have to make 2 Dexterity checks to extinguish their body.

[Segev]

This is something I pondered too at one point. But I figured that Caltrops do not stack their effect for two reasons.

One, being that it would make Caltrops better and we can't have that on a regular item now can we.

Two (more seriously), if you hit someone with say, Alchemist's Fire twice, that person doesn't have to make 2 Dexterity checks to extinguish their body.
But do they take multiple instances of fire damage until it is extinguished?

[Nifft]

Caltrops should have a floor, not a ceiling.

*nods wisely*

[Catullus64]

Yes, I meant "caltrops." I am on my phone, and it "helpfully" keeps autocorrupting the word.

What does it say about your life/D&d balance that your phone auto-corrects to "cantrips?" :smallbiggrin:

Both from a RAW and practical game running perspective, I'd say the penalties can stack. I don't honestly see how this is such a game-breaker. If a creature sees that there are caltrops, they can move at half speed to avoid the damage and the reduction. If a creature gets stuck with a caltrop, how likely is it to take that damage again when it moves on its next turn, unless it's really, really dumb?

It only becomes absurdly powerful if you can somehow compel it not to limit its movement through the caltrops...

Hey Segev, add that to the considerations of the Fear thread!

[elyktsorb]

But do they take multiple instances of fire damage until it is extinguished?

Due to Alchemist's Fire stating 'the creature takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of its turn' adding a second Alchemist's Fire would just cause them to take 1d4 fire damage at the start of its turn, which is already happening.

In this instance they are already on fire, adding more of the same fire won't make that fire any more damaging.

In a similar vein, if you're feet were already poked by caltrops, it's not as if being poked again would deal significantly more damage to the feet.

Though realistically, you could make the case that the caltrops are sticking into the foot, and more caltrops would impose further penalties.

But.. Not only are caltrops easy to avoid, you only take the damage and effect entering into the square. So in order to be effected by them again, you'd have to move into a new square of caltrops, and the creature in question would have to be stupid enough to not move at half speed as well as move into the next square of caltrops after having stepped in a square of caltrops (which they would also need to be incredibly stupid to not just go around them, or it would have to be a single tile hall) and even then if it were only a second square of caltrops they could try to jump over them.

"When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement." So any creature with a Strength Score of 12 could make a standing jump over a single square, and any creature with a Strength Score of 6 could make a running jump over a single square.

Not to mention if it did stack it would be something to screw over Str-based Melee fighters for the most part and I don't think we need to throw something else at them.

[Segev]

What does it say about your life/D&d balance that your phone auto-corrects to "cantrips?" :smallbiggrin:

Both from a RAW and practical game running perspective, I'd say the penalties can stack. I don't honestly see how this is such a game-breaker. If a creature sees that there are caltrops, they can move at half speed to avoid the damage and the reduction. If a creature gets stuck with a caltrop, how likely is it to take that damage again when it moves on its next turn, unless it's really, really dumb?

It only becomes absurdly powerful if you can somehow compel it not to limit its movement through the caltrops...

Hey Segev, add that to the considerations of the Fear thread!

All true. Consider, too, that a mere strength of 5 means you can jump over a square of caltrops. Ten covers two squares. You could game this a bit by spacing one five foot square, then an empty one, and then two squares of caltrops. Maybe that counts as not having ten feet of running start. Then you'd need a twenty strength to jump the second one without an ill-defined roll.

[quindraco]

But do they take multiple instances of fire damage until it is extinguished?

Either each set of flames is independent or it isn't. I don't think there's any credible argument you can be in a state where you're taking 1d4 fire damage twice, but one Dexterity check is sufficient to extinguish both flames. Either you can take it twice and must extinguish twice, or both are limited to once.

Thing is, we know it's impossible to divine RAI just from whether or not things of the same name stack, because we know from the SAC that Strength Drain (which Shadows have) stacks with itself, despite the actual RAW being that it does not. Caltrops have the same relevant wording as Strength Drain: a reduction in a stat from your statblock. On the other hand, effects of the same name normally never stack - Strength Drain really only stacks because the SAC says so, not because it has any RAW support for doing so.

I would say caltrops and alchemist's fire are subject to the standard rules of nothing in the game of the same name stacking with itself if its duration is not instantaneous, and neither of them are - both of them inflict an ongoing status. Strength Drain only stacks with itself because of an explicit rule saying so, and in general we should assume the general RAW applies to everything.

[Amnestic]

Encounter where the entire room is covered in caltrops and the enemies make liberal use of knockbacks/shoves, Dissonant Whispers and other movement causing abilities.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

They get the penalty once for a calrop in their foot. If they go through caltrops again, I'd say there's a 50% chance that they get them in their other foot and suffer the penalty twice, but never more than twice.

[Protolisk]

They get the penalty once for a calrop in their foot. If they go through caltrops again, I'd say there's a 50% chance that they get them in their other foot and suffer the penalty twice, but never more than twice.

While that feels like a nice middle ground at first if you really wanted to do it, but what it opens the door for are additionally legged creatures, like a centaur., taking much more penalties and math work. Or creatures with one, or no "feet", like an ochre jelly or flail snail, being affected oddly.

I'm in the "no duplicate effects of the same name" camp here.

[MaxWilson]

Since it's not a spell or an (explicit) Condition then yes, I believe it stacks, potentially eventually dropping someone's speed to 0.

I wouldn't let it stack personally if the question came up in my games. While it's not an explicit Condition I would call it a condition (name it, I dunno, "Hobbled"?).

Edit: The DMG errata (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf) has this entry:

Notably, Caltrops are not spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities or magic items.

My position is the same: by the letter of the rules as written, it stacks, but in practice I wouldn't stack them. It just doesn't make sense to stack multiple foot injuries this way. Pain is pain.

I'd also rule that certain creatures without feet or that do not feel pain can take damage from caltrops but are not slowed by them. Creatures that are resistant or immune to normal weapon attacks, I would also just rule are entirely immune to caltrops (as if caltrops were an attack instead of a save-based effect). Technically this is a minor change to the creatures' stat blocks but who cares.

[MrStabby]

I was in the no camp but kind of unsure... now wavering towards yes to stacking.

It just gives something more that both martial characters and spellcasters can do. Better caltrops mean that blocking movement is no longer the preserve of wizards with force cages and walls of force or druids with spike growth, Entangle and plant growth. Now laying down tactical defenses more effectively is something everyone can do. That seems to be good for the game.

Likewise it makes blocked lines of advance/retreat much more interactive for the party. Only a caster can disintegrate a wall of force but any PC can try and clear the caltrops meaning one fewer challenge the martials sit out.

[MaxWilson]

I was in the no camp but kind of unsure... now wavering towards yes to stacking.

It just gives something more that both martial characters and spellcasters can do. Better caltrops mean that blocking movement is no longer the preserve of wizards with force cages and walls of force or druids with spike growth, Entangle and plant growth. Now laying down tactical defenses more effectively is something everyone can do. That seems to be good for the game.

Likewise it makes blocked lines of advance/retreat much more interactive for the party. Only a caster can disintegrate a wall of force but any PC can try and clear the caltrops meaning one fewer challenge the martials sit out.

I think saying no to caltrop stacking is not saying no to better physical defenses, just that they won't simply be rows and rows of caltrops.

[Segev]

I think saying no to caltrop stacking is not saying no to better physical defenses, just that they won't simply be rows and rows of caltrops.

They still need probably 2-3 rows to prevent jumping over them.

[Tvtyrant]

I had an E6 group abuse the heck out of the net rules because of something like this. We ruled that nets stacked, and they just loaded any monster they fought with so many nets it was useless and then office spaced it into dust. For that reason, I am in favor of stacking caltrops.

[Segev]

Exploit potential (that a DM likely will laugh at and then say "no" to): if being moved against your will, limit the movement by scattering cantrips in the space you'll be moved to next (if you can predict it). Fail the save and be forced to stop moving!

[JonBeowulf]

Exploit potential (that a DM likely will laugh at and then say "no" to): if being moved against your will, limit the movement by scattering cantrips in the space you'll be moved to next (if you can predict it). Fail the save and be forced to stop moving!
Autocorrupted again!

I'm leaning towards splitting the difference: The (tiny) damage stacks but the movement penalty does not.

It's similar to how I ruled on AF: The 1d4 stacks but only one save to extinguish it. Adding more fuel to the flame makes it burn brighter/hotter/longer/whatever but it still goes out when it goes out.

[Xetheral]

There are some other silly caltrop issues that can arise with super-strict readings:

In the rules for difficult terrain, "moving at half speed" is explicitly defined as spending 2' for each 1' moved. But does anything actually let a character voluntarily choose to spend more movement than the distance moved? If not, that would imply that the only way to move at half your speed is to be required to do so, which effectively makes it impossible to avoid making a save for caltrops in non-difficult terrain.

Even if one does allow voluntarily moving at half speed, scattering caltrops in the area of a Plant Growth spell (where movement is limit to 1/4 speed) would prevent anyone from moving at the 1/2 speed necessary to avoid a save....

[MaxWilson]

They still need probably 2-3 rows to prevent jumping over them.

I don't know about you but I don't treat obstacles on the ground as something you can simply long-jump over as easily as open ground--they have height as well as length. Someone who can barely jump a 5' chasm can't necessarily jump over 5' of caltrops without risk. IIRC the canonical PHB answer is that a DC 10 Athletics check lets you clear a low obstacle, no more than a quarter of the jump's length, so a DC 10 Athletics check to jump over your "maximum" number of caltrop squares seems in order here. If you could theoretically jump over N squares of caltrops I would let you automatically jump over N-1, so yes, for many creatures, 2 squares of caltrops would be needed to be a serious obstacle in open terrain--but there are also plenty of creatures like goblins and kobolds with Str under 10, and even 1 square of caltrops would be sufficient to force one of these to make an Athletics check to get over.

Furthermore, if you try to jump over caltrops and fail, I'd apply the same penalties as if you had attempted to run through all those squares. Ditto for Spike Growth--if you can jump 13', and you try to run and jump over 10' over Spike Growth but fail your Athletics check, you'll be taking 4d4 in my games as you land at full speed on the thorns, not just 2d4. And it will cost you the full 20' of movement as well (for 10' of difficult terrain). If you make your Athletics check, or have sufficient jumping distance (call it 15'+), I'll let the difficult terrain thing slide.

[Segev]

While I appreciate the rules quoted, I feel the need to point out that we're talking about this not much taller than d4s. If you're not clearing that height, I question how you're "jumping" at all.

[MaxWilson]

While I appreciate the rules quoted, I feel the need to point out that we're talking about this not much taller than d4s. If you're not clearing that height, I question how you're "jumping" at all.

Are we? My impression of caltrops is that they are bigger than that, more like 2-3 inches high.

[Segev]

Are we? My impression of caltrops is that they are bigger than that, more like 2-3 inches high.
Even then, a long jump that can't clear that likely isn't clearing anything.

[MaxWilson]

Even then, a long jump that can't clear that likely isn't clearing anything.

My view on this is that if your maximum jump distance is 6', with a maximum height of 18' and a fairly flat trajectory, it's not ludicrous to think you might injure your feet on 3 inch spiky caltrops between where you jump and where you land. Maybe if I thought hard about the physics of it I'd change my mind, but for now I like the rule simplicity, and the physics aren't so ludicrously wrong as to break my suspension of disbelief. If you've thought harder than I have about the shape of a jumping trajectory please try to avoid spoiling things for me. :) Now I'm going to go sit in a corner for ten minutes and not think about a giant blue badger, the entire time.

[elyktsorb]

It just gives something more that both martial characters and spellcasters can do. Better caltrops mean that blocking movement is no longer the preserve of wizards with force cages and walls of force or druids with spike growth, Entangle and plant growth. Now laying down tactical defenses more effectively is something everyone can do. That seems to be good for the game.


Name me a martial that isn't a Thief Rogue, who is going to spend an entire action laying 1 square of caltrops.

Caltrops are neat, but even if they stacked their effects, I can't see most martials caring too much about that. The ranged ones aren't going to be near the enemy, and the melee ones need to be next to said enemy.

[DevilMcam]

I would.
As amatter of fact i'm going to go and buy some for my lvl 13 paladin next town i get in.

I'mma buy them made of silver though, better for monster hunting.
Its gonna be great and my dm will hate it as much as my good ol' net

[Willie the Duck]

On the other hand, effects of the same name normally never stack
That's true of spells and conditions, is it generalizable to other effects?

[Catullus64]

Name me a martial that isn't a Thief Rogue, who is going to spend an entire action laying 1 square of caltrops.

Caltrops are neat, but even if they stacked their effects, I can't see most martials caring too much about that. The ranged ones aren't going to be near the enemy, and the melee ones need to be next to said enemy.

I mean, giving an extra trick for Thief rogues is definitely a worthwhile decision in and of itself.

And I think caltrops are more designed around being set up in advance of the fight rather than during it.

[stoutstien]

I mean, giving an extra trick for Thief rogues is definitely a worthwhile decision in and of itself.

And I think caltrops are more designed around being set up in advance of the fight rather than during it.

My artificer uses them quite often. It's cheap soft CC and being an artillerist means my action is pretty much free most of the time.

As a DM, I generally try to rule on the side of RTMS so it depends on the nature on how the NPC in question moves. For NPCs with two feet I let the effects stack up to 15 ft speed reduction but allow an action to remove either 1 or both instances of the caltrops stuck in their persons. On the same line of though of someone spreads the caltrops into a space that is already occupied they must make a save immediately to avoid the damage. Same for ball bearings.

[Amnestic]

That's true of spells and conditions, is it generalizable to other effects?

It is for 'spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items', per the DMG errata.

Which Caltrops aren't. Oversight? Probably.

[Willie the Duck]

It is for 'spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items', per the DMG errata.

Which Caltrops aren't. Oversight? Probably.

Gotcha, thanks!

Oversight, assumption that people could extrapolate and not caring about those who scream 'RAW', general aversion to unified game mechanics -- without playing armchair psychologist it is hard to say. Either way, there's a general plotline we could follow to say mundane equipment should also fall into that category of categories.

[Segev]

Just looking at this from another angle: is this really an effect with a name at all? Or is it more like hit point damage? We don't say hit point damage from multiple great word swings doesn't stack. Maybe this is speed damage more than a named effect?

[KorvinStarmast]

Caltrops should have a floor, not a ceiling.

*nods wisely*
Great post. :smallsmile:

In my games:

Caltrops stack.
Alchemists fire stacks. (If you throw three molotov coctails on someone/something, rather than one, that's more trouble not the same trouble. A bit of verisimilitude there).
Also, I hate how they nerfed flaming flasks of oil in this edition. Pet peeve. {wanders off grumbling towards Lake Geneva ... }

Why? As discussed above, they aren't magical effects.

See also:
If you drink one beer, feel good; if you drink six beers, you feel drunk.
Not magical either - they stack! :smallbiggrin:

[Willie the Duck]

Also, I hate how they nerfed flaming flasks of oil in this edition. Pet peeve. {wanders off grumbling towards Lake Geneva ... }


This actually made me look it up. In 0e, it looks like the only reference is that "Burning oil will deter many monsters from continuing pursuit." In AD&D, it was 1-3 h.p. as a splash, or 2-12 h.p. + 1-6 h.p. more the next round (and then auto-burns out). It was good (especially with the lower hp totals making this more relative damage), but I think the main draw was that magic users (and perhaps rear-line Thieves, given the crossbow's rate of fire) didn't have many other good ranged options.

[N810]

Why not trap the floor with caltrops, ball bearings and grease beforehand in a chokepoint. (those are all separate effects right ?)

[KorvinStarmast]

This actually made me look it up. In 0e, it looks like the only reference is that "Burning oil will deter many monsters from continuing pursuit." In AD&D, it was 1-3 h.p. as a splash, or 2-12 h.p. + 1-6 h.p. more the next round (and then auto-burns out). It was good (especially with the lower hp totals making this more relative damage), but I think the main draw was that magic users (and perhaps rear-line Thieves, given the crossbow's rate of fire) didn't have many other good ranged options. Yep, in re thieves and magic users.

In 0e, we used 1d6 for damage from burning oil. (As with everything unless using Greyhawk variation).
Where did we get that from?
I think that might have been due to either an SR article or someone came back from a Con and said that is what was used by the DM at the con. But if you didn't score "a hit" the flask didn't break and thus no fire; I've dropped wine bottles before that didn't break, so that made sense to tus. So there's a flask of oil lying on the floor, which someone could try to break by, for example, trying to hit it with a warhammer...

[Glorthindel]

...Or creatures with one, or no "feet", like an ochre jelly or flail snail, being affected oddly.


Hmm, now I am wondering what special effects getting engulfed by a Gelatinous Cube filled with caltrops would inflict

[Willie the Duck]

In 0e, we used 1d6 for damage from burning oil. (As with everything unless using Greyhawk variation).
Where did we get that from?
I think that might have been due to either an SR article or someone came back from a Con and said that is what was used by the DM at the con. But if you didn't score "a hit" the flask didn't break and thus no fire; I've dropped wine bottles before that didn't break, so that made sense to tus. So there's a flask of oil lying on the floor, which someone could try to break by, for example, trying to hit it with a warhammer...

I can't look any of it up at work, but I do recall an article (or Playing at the World, maybe) bringing up how quickly 'throw burning oil' became ubiquitous in the people playing D&D (I guess quickly enough that Gary included it in AD&D PHB/DMG, so 4 years). In retrospect, it was going to happen -- the rules indicated a use for lantern oil other than lighting lanterns, and magic users had no rules-established ranged options (daggers at that time not having a listed set of ranges).

We also construed oil to come in clay flasks with the same basic quality as wine bottles (or pop bottles, probably, as I was a kid) and oil with the flammability of modern kerosene. I recall either Mornard or maybe Empire of the Petal Thrones archivist Chirine Ba Kal talking about running around with either Gary or Dave in a cave or warehouse or something with wax-paper encased candles (what a lot of actual medieval lanterns would have actually been, at least if Youtube historian Lindybeige is right) to try to figure out what dungeon visibility actually ought to be under various circumstances. There too, apparently wonton pyromania was a go-to option as the wax paper was lighted for short burst really impressive flames all too often.:smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

There too, apparently wonton pyromania was a go-to option as the wax paper was lighted for short burst really impressive flames all too often.:smalltongue: I believe that wonton pyromania is setting fire to food in a Chinese restaurant's kitchen, while wanton pyromania was me with a back pack full of oil flasks, hobbit thief, with 3 HP. :smallbiggrin:

[Willie the Duck]

I believe that wonton pyromania is setting fire to food in a Chinese restaurant's kitchen
Hah! I can't even blame that one on autocorrupt!