(D&D 3.5) Caltrops: Difficult terrain?

[GeminiVeil]

I asked a question in the 3.5 simple Q&A about this. The definition for 'difficult terrain' in the back of the PHB says "An area containing 1 or more features (such as rubble or undergrowth) that costs 2 squares instead of 1 to move through."

Caltrops say, "Any creature moving at half speed or slower can pick its way through a bed of caltrops with no trouble."

So, the question was, when using the option to halve your speed, doesn't this make the caltrops count as difficult terrain?

There were 2 arguments used against.

One argument against that was brought up was that it only halves your movement, but doesn't make each square cost 2 instead of 1. To that I replied that they are mostly used interchangeably, though I didn't add especially in the flying rules.

The other was that it doesn't force you to move at half speed, merely makes it an option to do so. My argument against that is it doesn't say that you have to be forced to move at half, just that you ARE moving at half because of something in the square.

So, any feedback would be appreciated. Also, if you can find some RAW one way or the other, would like that as well. Thank you! :)

[Cog]

The other was that it doesn't force you to move at half speed, merely makes it an option to do so. My argument against that is it doesn't say that you have to be forced to move at half, just that you ARE moving at half because of something in the square.

It's not difficult terrain, for this reason. If you can choose not to pay it, it's not a cost.

[GeminiVeil]

It's not difficult terrain, for this reason. If you can choose not to pay it, it's not a cost.

Once again, the description for difficult terrain does not say when you HAVE to move 2 squares for every one, simply when you DO. There is an important distinction there. What you say, in my opnion, is kinda like saying that if no one takes an AoO against you in combat, (for example, casting a spell) then what you do doesn't provoke one. Which isn't really the case.

From what I understand, difficult terrain checks for 2 things. Are you moving 2 squares for every 1? and is it because of something in the squares you are moving through? If yes on BOTH, then it is difficult terrain.

[Greenish]

So by your rules any threatened squares are also difficult terrain, because you can choose to tumble through it at half the speed.

[GeminiVeil]

So by your rules any threatened squares are also difficult terrain, because you can choose to tumble through it at half the speed.

I honestly don't see how you came to that conclusion. Someone threatening you is not a result of the square, it is the result of someone else, not even counting in the square you would be tumbling through. Not to mention that you are also making a roll to do so, not just choosing to. The two conditions I set in my last post were not met.

[Greenish]

From what I understand, difficult terrain checks for 2 things. Are you moving 2 squares for every 1? and is it because of something in the squares you are moving through? If yes on BOTH, then it is difficult terrain.

So it's difficult terrain only when you're moving through it slowly?

[GeminiVeil]

So it's difficult terrain only when you're moving through it slowly?

That's why I was asking for the RAW. It doesn't always make sense, and I would never actually PLAY by some RAW (see drowning) but that wasn't the issue. I am trying to see if the RAW does indeed say that caltrops, when moving half speed, counts as difficult terrain. So far I have not seen any RAW that says, by RAW, that I am wrong.
And to recap, the 2 items I was referring to are:
1- Are you moving 2 squares for every 1?
2- Is it a result of something that the square you are moving into/through contains?

Unless someone can give me more info on what is and is not difficult terrain. That is ALL I found in the PHB on difficult terrain. So far, the closest thing pointed out is that it's voluntary in this case, which difficult terrain does not say it is mandatory to move at half speed, merely IF you are.

[Curmudgeon]

That's why I was asking for the RAW. It doesn't always make sense, and I would never actually PLAY by some RAW (see drowning) but that wasn't the issue. I am trying to see if the RAW does indeed say that caltrops, when moving half speed, counts as difficult terrain. So far I have not seen any RAW that says, by RAW, that I am wrong.

Here's the RAW that says you're wrong:

A charging or running creature must immediately stop if it steps on a caltrop. Any creature moving at half speed or slower can pick its way through a bed of caltrops with no trouble.

Run

You can run as a full-round action. (If you do, you do not also get a 5-foot step.) When you run, you can move up to four times your speed in a straight line (or three times your speed if you’re in heavy armor).
...
You can’t run across difficult terrain or if you can’t see where you’re going.

You cannot run across difficult terrain, but you can run through an area with caltrops. Therefore caltrops cannot make spaces count as difficult terrain.

[GeminiVeil]

Here's the RAW that says you're wrong: You cannot run across difficult terrain, but you can run through an area with caltrops. Therefore caltrops cannot make spaces count as difficult terrain.

But you are specifically referancing run or charge, which I'm pretty sure assumes that you are not moving half speed.
However, if you take the option to move at half speed, you may no longer run or charge then either, can you? Plus, moving is a move action, whereas run is a full round action, so it's really kind of two different action types, even if they do share similiarities. I'm asking, when taking the half speed option, does it count? Which you don't do while 'running', or at least the rules assume you don't.

[Defiant]

But you are specifically referancing run or charge, which I'm pretty sure assumes that you are not moving half speed.
However, if you take the option to move at half speed, you may no longer run or charge then either, can you? Plus, moving is a move action, whereas run is a full round action, so it's really kind of two different action types, even if they do share similiarities. I'm asking, when taking the half speed option, does it count? Which you don't do while 'running', or at least the rules assume you don't.

I'm pretty sure terrain type cannot change depending on your actions.

Curmudgeon's quote seals the deal. You can run or charge through an area with caltrops in it. But the definition of difficult terrain includes the fact that you can't run or charge through it.

Therefore, an area with caltrops (only) is not difficult terrain.

[KillianHawkeye]

The point is that if the square is difficult terrain, then the terrain is making the choice for you. You're being forced to move more slowly. If you have a choice, then the terrain is not difficult.

Caltrops may be hazardous, but they are not difficult to get by. You can get by them just fine if you don't mind taking a chance that you will step on one. In other words, they are dangerous, but they are too small to physically hinder your movement.



Also, if you're just going to ignore what everyone says, then why bother asking the question in the first place? It seems you have already decided.

[GeminiVeil]

The point is that if the square is difficult terrain, then the terrain is making the choice for you. You're being forced to move more slowly. If you have a choice, then the terrain is not difficult.

Caltrops may be hazardous, but they are not difficult to get by. You can get by them just fine if you don't mind taking a chance that you will step on one. In other words, they are dangerous, but they are too small to physically hinder your movement.


Also, if you're just going to ignore what everyone says, then why bother asking the question in the first place? It seems you have already decided.

I didn't realize disagreeing with what someone says was 'ignoring' them. I have not ignored anyone, I have merely replied to each thing with my side of the discussion. I think you have 'ignoring' confused with 'disagreement'. If, for example, I was ignoring you, I wouldn't have bothered replying to what you have posted. If, on the other hand, I disagree with you, then I say so and give my opinion. These two are mutually exclusive, and I would thank you not to try and suggest that I am ignoring anyone when I am clearly not.

As for the other part of your comment, that is applying common sense that is not voiced in the rules. I can agree that this makes a lot of sense, and would run it this way in any of my games. All I am trying to assertain is whether or not it's RAW. So far, like usual, Curmudgeon has been the closest to refuting this.

[GeminiVeil]

Also, since it was brought up, the rest of the description of caltrops does say that if you step on one, then you are reduced to half speed until healing. Since then, you ARE being forced to move at half speed by something in your square, that would seem to supply the involuntary part of the discussion from earlier, but I think that would not be RAW because it's from damage that you have, not from the caltrop anymore. *shrug*

[Greenish]

Also, since it was brought up, the rest of the description of caltrops does say that if you step on one, then you are reduced to half speed until healing. Since then, you ARE being forced to move at half speed by something in your square, that would seem to supply the involuntary part of the discussion from earlier, but I think that would not be RAW because it's from damage that you have, not from the caltrop anymore. *shrug*

The wound is in the same square as you are.

Ergo, anyone wounded by caltrops will treat all squares as difficult terrain.


A related question about caltrops: what's their total attack bonus? They have 0 BAB, assumedly 0 str, and are diminutive or fine. So, do they attack at -1 or +3?

[Temotei]

A related question about caltrops: what's their total attack bonus? They have 0 BAB, assumedly 0 str, and are diminutive or fine. So, do they attack at -1 or +3?

Assuming a caltrop is six inches or less long or tall, each one is fine.

Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures
Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2½ feet across, so four can fit into a single square. Twenty-five Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can’t flank an enemy.

However, the caltrops are arguably a single medium-sized object--the bed of caltrops.

...One 2-pound bag of caltrops covers an area 5 feet square.

Each time a creature moves into an area covered by caltrops (or spends a round fighting while standing in such an area), it might step on one. The caltrops make an attack roll (base attack bonus +0) against the creature. For this attack, the creature’s shield, armor, and deflection bonuses do not count. If the creature is wearing shoes or other footwear, it gets a +2 armor bonus to AC. If the caltrops succeed on the attack, the creature has stepped on one. The caltrop deals 1 point of damage, and the creature’s speed is reduced by one-half because its foot is wounded. This movement penalty lasts for 24 hours, or until the creature is successfully treated with a DC 15 Heal check, or until it receives at least 1 point of magical curing. A charging or running creature must immediately stop if it steps on a caltrop. Any creature moving at half speed or slower can pick its way through a bed of caltrops with no trouble.

The caltrops make a single attack. Arguably, should the caltrops be considered fine or diminutive, they would each get an attack. It's possible that they are all one medium object, which would make their attack bonus -5.

Just some thoughts. I'm not sure this is right, so don't go quoting me unless you're refuting my point.

[Greenish]

However, the caltrops are arguably a single medium-sized object--the bed of caltrops.

The caltrops make a single attack. Arguably, should the caltrops be considered fine or diminutive, they would each get an attack. It's possible that they are all one medium object, which would make their attack bonus -5.

If it were a medium object, it would block charging and running through, which caltrops do not do.

Hmm, it could be a swarm, but those hit automatically.

Most puzzling indeed…

[KillianHawkeye]

As for the other part of your comment, that is applying common sense that is not voiced in the rules. I can agree that this makes a lot of sense, and would run it this way in any of my games. All I am trying to assertain is whether or not it's RAW.

Why? You've heard what everyone else said and you've agreed that that's how you'd run the game. What's the difference if it's RAW or not? What is the freakin' point of this thread???

[GeminiVeil]

Why? You've heard what everyone else said and you've agreed that that's how you'd run the game. What's the difference if it's RAW or not? What is the freakin' point of this thread???

I think a better question would be, if you are annoyed with this thread or me in particular, why are you making yourself a part of it? What is the point of you coming into a thread where someone is asking a question, and then bashing them for it? Is there anything constructive in that?
And, as has been mentioned several times through-out this site, RAW is important because otherwise everyone is talking their own houserules, and then no one who plays D&D has a common base for all their houserules VS. someone elses houserules. Commonality is the point for rational and reasonable discussion. I was trying to get an answer that I did not know, and I think for the most part, everyone agrees that it isn't RAW. So I believe I have gotten my answer. Since I am not in the homebrew section of this site, but the RAW section, I figured that people with probably much more expertise could be mature enough to have a reasonable debate about it. However, it seems that some people would rather get personal rather than attempt to answer the question, so this thread would probably be done now.

[PersonMan]

I think a better question would be, if you are annoyed with this thread or me in particular, why are you making yourself a part of it? What is the point of you coming into a thread where someone is asking a question, and then bashing them for it? Is there anything constructive in that?

Curiosity. If someone is doing something that seems completely absurd, people(or at least people like me) tend to get curious about why.

Also, it doesn't seem like he's bashing you about he question, he just sees what you're doing as odd and...well, it's difficult to describe, maybe someone else will come along and I won't have to.

Also, when he said "ignoring" he didn't mean "not awcknowledging" but rather "not really considering", it seemed more like you were simply replying to the comments without really considering their content-if that makes sense.

EDIT: Also, he seems less annoyed and more...exhasperated to me.

[GeminiVeil]

Curiosity. If someone is doing something that seems completely absurd, people(or at least people like me) tend to get curious about why.

Also, it doesn't seem like he's bashing you about he question, he just sees what you're doing as odd and...well, it's difficult to describe, maybe someone else will come along and I won't have to.

Also, when he said "ignoring" he didn't mean "not awcknowledging" but rather "not really considering", it seemed more like you were simply replying to the comments without really considering their content-if that makes sense.

EDIT: Also, he seems less annoyed and more...exhasperated to me.

See, if he had phrased it as you did, then I would have understood better. Similar questions can have very different tones. For example, "Why would you do this?" is a more mellow tone to "I don't understand what the point of this is."
Not to mention, I do not view asking this as absurd. From the quotes I posted on 'difficult terrain' and 'caltrops', the RAW seemed to point to a yes. How exactly is it absurd to ask about that? It seemed like bashing to me because of the way he repeatedly phrased his questions, giving them a tone of accusation or 'bashing'. If that was not his intent, then I do apologize for making that accusation, but it very much seemed like that to me, doubly so because of the 'sigh' and 'annoyed' smilies he ended his last post to me with.
And, as I stated in a previous post, I did consider what was said, but part of debating is coming up with a reason an argument doesn't work. I considered what was being said, and posted reasons why I didn't think that the RAW supported what was being said. That is not really 'ignoring' or 'not considering' a post, it is countering something that you do not believe is accurate.
Anyway, I would at least like to thank you for your input, and for possibly helping me understand that he may not of intended that towards me. From my viewpoint it seemed so, but I can admit when wrong.

[Stegyre]

Not to mention, I do not view asking this as absurd. From the quotes I posted on 'difficult terrain' and 'caltrops', the RAW seemed to point to a yes. How exactly is it absurd to ask about that?

I doubt PM means that the question was absurd, and people will look into question threads to see if they can be helpful (or to see if answers to the question may be applicable to situations they have faced).

The perceived absurdity is probably in how you responded to the answers. Your response to Curmudgeon's post is a non sequitur: it does not matter whether a run is a full round action. Simply by virtue of the fact that (a) one cannot (by RAW) "run" through difficult terrain, and (b) one can (by RAW) "run" through caltrops, caltrops cannot be difficult terrain.

As for your question in the OP, you are committing a logic fallacy:
Just because "A" (difficult terrain) implies "B" (double-cost movement) does not mean that "B" implies "A."

[PersonMan]

I doubt PM means that the question was absurd, and people will look into question threads to see if they can be helpful (or to see if answers to the question may be applicable to situations they have faced).

The perceived absurdity is probably in how you responded to the answers. Your response to Curmudgeon's post is a non sequitur: it does not matter whether a run is a full round action. Simply by virtue of the fact that (a) one cannot (by RAW) "run" through difficult terrain, and (b) one can (by RAW) "run" through caltrops, caltrops cannot be difficult terrain.

This.

Put more eloquently than I feel like I would have been able to.

[KillianHawkeye]

Pardon me if my phrasing has offended you. I do not mean to make personal attacks here. (And I fail to see how anything I said constitutes "bashing," but that's not important.) I am merely frustrated by how you appear to be picking the tiniest nits in people's statements. Also, I was honestly asking why you are so interested in what the RAW was when you already said you would play it by common sense.

Stegyre pretty much sums up my frustration:

The perceived absurdity is probably in how you responded to the answers. Your response to Curmudgeon's post is a non sequitur: it does not matter whether a run is a full round action. Simply by virtue of the fact that (a) one cannot (by RAW) "run" through difficult terrain, and (b) one can (by RAW) "run" through caltrops, caltrops cannot be difficult terrain.

As for your question in the OP, you are committing a logic fallacy:
Just because "A" (difficult terrain) implies "B" (double-cost movement) does not mean that "B" implies "A."

We keep telling you that caltrops != terrain, despite being placed on the ground, but you keep ignoring that. You keep trying to connect two concepts in a way that doesn't make sense to me. It feels like you are trying to twist the RAW to suit your interpretation of it and discarding the pieces that don't fit.

Anyway, we're obviously never going to come to a complete, definitive answer on this, because you are asking something that was not anticipated by the designers. They never thought to clarify whether or not caltrops actually counted as difficult terrain or not, probably because they thought the answer was obvious. I guess it wasn't. The point is, there simply is no statement saying "Caltrops are/aren't equivalent to difficult terrain." I just doesn't exist.



I hope that clarifies my position somewhat. Please try not to get offended by what somebody says on the Internet.

[GeminiVeil]

Pardon me if my phrasing has offended you. I do not mean to make personal attacks here. (And I fail to see how anything I said constitutes "bashing," but that's not important.) I am merely frustrated by how you appear to be picking the tiniest nits in people's statements. Also, I was honestly asking why you are so interested in what the RAW was when you already said you would play it by common sense.

Stegyre pretty much sums up my frustration:


We keep telling you that caltrops != terrain, despite being placed on the ground, but you keep ignoring that. You keep trying to connect two concepts in a way that doesn't make sense to me. It feels like you are trying to twist the RAW to suit your interpretation of it and discarding the pieces that don't fit.

Anyway, we're obviously never going to come to a complete, definitive answer on this, because you are asking something that was not anticipated by the designers. They never thought to clarify whether or not caltrops actually counted as difficult terrain or not, probably because they thought the answer was obvious. I guess it wasn't. The point is, there simply is no statement saying "Caltrops are/aren't equivalent to difficult terrain." I just doesn't exist.



I hope that clarifies my position somewhat. Please try not to get offended by what somebody says on the Internet.

Then to answer your question, 1 or 2 of the players I usually game with tend to be rules lawyers. If there is even a possibility of it being the actual rule, I need to know about it, otherwise they will argue and bog down the game. Other than this behaviour, they are usually pretty fun to play with, which is why I still game with them. That, and I know of no one else in the area that games.
I needed to be able to identify what their arguments were going to be. Yes, the way I was talking here is more than likely the way some of them would have argued with me about the rules. If I don't specifially let them know about houserules before they come up, they feel cheated. So when I am trying to find the RAW for my exact circumstances, it is because I can already anticipate what they are going to say if they ever put those two things together.
And in that case, then I apologize for what I said. I felt more you were bashing the question, not me.
For the record, I was very much hoping that it was NOT RAW, but as I said, I needed to be prepared for any argument that these 2 players throw at me. So if I have annoyed or ticked anyone off with the asking of this question, or this subsequent thread, then I again apologize.

[Stegyre]

Then to answer your question, 1 or 2 of the players I usually game with tend to be rules lawyers. If there is even a possibility of it being the actual rule, I need to know about it, otherwise they will argue and bog down the game.

This is the raison d'etre for Rule 0.

If you are GMing (and I suspect you are, or your question would really be part of the problem rather than part of the solution), you need to explain to your friends that, during play, your rulings need to be final and unappealable, even if you might be wrong.

If someone believes you've made a grievous rules error (let's say that you allowed a mindless zombie to be charmed), they may -- politely -- point it out later, with their support, for your consideration, so you can get it right (assuming their interpretation is right) in the future. But the past is the past.

Doing otherwise, just as you say, bogs down the game.

These aspiring young attorneys can practice their skills on these forums, at BG, or both. We have a lot of fun (and some not-so-fun) rules debates about much closer questions than this.

Really, your problem is these two players' rules-lawyering. That's what needs to be answered, not any question about caltrops. Getting hung up on such questions in playing their game instead of THE game, and I'm inferring that's not nearly as much fun for you.

[GeminiVeil]

This is the raison d'etre for Rule 0.

If you are GMing (and I suspect you are, or your question would really be part of the problem rather than part of the solution), you need to explain to your friends that, during play, your rulings need to be final and unappealable, even if you might be wrong.

If someone believes you've made a grievous rules error (let's say that you allowed a mindless zombie to be charmed), they may -- politely -- point it out later, with their support, for your consideration, so you can get it right (assuming their interpretation is right) in the future. But the past is the past.

Doing otherwise, just as you say, bogs down the game.

These aspiring young attorneys can practice their skills on these forums, at BG, or both. We have a lot of fun (and some not-so-fun) rules debates about much closer questions than this.

Really, your problem is these two players' rules-lawyering. That's what needs to be answered, not any question about caltrops. Getting hung up on such questions in playing their game instead of THE game, and I'm inferring that's not nearly as much fun for you.

I honestly don't mind the debates themselves. I kind of view them as mental excercise. I only have a problem when the game gets slowed because of it. Yes, I am usually stuck with DMing. I'm most of the time fine with that, but I would like to play every once in a while. :) Anyway, I know that is what Rule 0 is for, but if you've ever seen a movie called Gamers 2; Dorkenss rising, most of them act like the Rules Lawyer in that film, and I just haven't found the way to make the game more appealing to not do that. Not saying I won't, just hasn't happened yet. I am working on it, though.
Usually that is how it goes. I tell them that even if I'm wrong, this is what I'm going with. So far this has not created any problems, but I can tell that they are often dissatisfied with this approach. I can kind of understand, trying to stop Rules Lawyering so much myself. But just to give a hint of what I'm kind of dealing with, some are the type to have the books out and open when an encounter happens. Like MM open to the monster type stuff. Usually it's also their book, but I do tell them to close the books. I usually don't say it before they've already kind of read all relevent information. Plus one of them actually has a great memory for this sort of thing, so will look at the page for like 5 seconds and be able to remember enough of it.
Anyway, I'm kind of rambling now. To referance the other parts of what you said, one of them refuses to use sites to find out anything about the game because of Internet trust issues. (can hardly blame him) Although I did tell him about the rule-holes that always going by the rules sometimes does. (i.e., drowning, monks not profecient with UA strikes, etc.) The other has some weird ideas about the game in general.

[Stegyre]

I honestly don't mind the debates themselves.

That's what the non-gaming time is for.

Like MM open to the monster type stuff.

In my book, that'd be a no-no. You want info about a monster? That's what Knowledge checks are for. Having an MM open is a form of cheating -- using player knowledge to supplant character knowledge. YMMV.

[O]one of them refuses to use sites to find out anything about the game because of Internet trust issues. . . . The other has some weird ideas about the game in general.

Not to be snarky, but I'm about to be (to them, not to you):

"Oh, are you going to GM? Then we'll follow your interpretation."

Really, that's the bottom line: your table, your rules. Be open to better ideas and improvements (and don't feel bound by RAW, which as you've seen can be crap), but these "rules lawyers" need to know that you're the Supreme Court.

I'd suggest you start wearing a black robe to gaming sessions, and make them stand every time you enter or leave the room. Maybe that will help.

[GeminiVeil]

That's what the non-gaming time is for.

In my book, that'd be a no-no. You want info about a monster? That's what Knowledge checks are for. Having an MM open is a form of cheating -- using player knowledge to supplant character knowledge. YMMV.
Not to be snarky, but I'm about to be (to them, not to you):

"Oh, are you going to GM? Then we'll follow your interpretation."

Really, that's the bottom line: your table, your rules. Be open to better ideas and improvements (and don't feel bound by RAW, which as you've seen can be crap), but these "rules lawyers" need to know that you're the Supreme Court.

I'd suggest you start wearing a black robe to gaming sessions, and make them stand every time you enter or leave the room. Maybe that will help.

Yeah, I don't appreciate it either, which is why as soon as I notice, I ask for the book to go away. It is immediately followed by a knowledge check, but the one with the books usually plays characters that don't have the relevent knowledge.
There are just two main problems with it. 1, as I said, these are the only people that I know in my area that game, and I've been friends with them for years. 10 or more, actually. 2, they are about as hard-core rules lawyers as I've even heard of on here. I'm sad to say some of it they got from me before I realized how crap some RAW is. Usually I can get them to see why the change, but it does take some time.
I so want to do that now. I think I might have an old Ghost Face robe thing from a few Halloweens ago. Definately tempting.
Anyway, thanks for the advice and listening to my rant.