There are no parentheses, exponentials, multiplications, divisions, additions, or subtractions in the written text on the movement penalties for the features I asked about. There is only an equality (a cost is equal to a distance moved).
Pemdas is always helpful when solving this type of problem.
If something costs 3 feet per foot and another costs 4 feet per foot...
(1+(3-1)+(4-1))=6
It costs 6 feet of movement.
It's a shame that PEMDAS isn't universal. In the UK we use BODMAS or BIDMAS or some other sort of BxDMAS (I always knew it as BODMAS).
If peanut butter costs $4/foot and jelly costs $3/foot, and I buy a foot of PB&J, I pay $7, right?
So how the heck do you decide, because the words in the rules don't tell you which. I can only tell you what I'd choose, not what the order of operations would have us do (since the words of the rules still don't use operations to describe the rule).
If peanut butter costs $4/foot and jelly costs $3/foot, and I buy a foot of PB&J, I pay $7, right?
So how the heck do you decide, because the words in the rules don't tell you which. I can only tell you what I'd choose, not what the order of operations would have us do (since the words of the rules still don't use operations to describe the rule).
Not exactly an equivalent analogy to the movement question. Try this -
Your sandwich costs $1/foot with nothing on it.
A jelly sandwich costs $3/foot
A PB sandwich costs $4/foot
How much would you expect to pay for a PB&J sandwich? Answer in this case would usually be $6/foot.
If peanut butter costs $4/foot and jelly costs $3/foot, and I buy a foot of PB&J, I pay $7, right?
So how the heck do you decide, because the words in the rules don't tell you which. I can only tell you what I'd choose, not what the order of operations would have us do (since the words of the rules still don't use operations to describe the rule).
Not exactly an equivalent analogy to the movement question. Try this -
Your sandwich costs $1/foot with nothing on it.
A jelly sandwich costs $3/foot
A PB sandwich costs $4/foot
How much would you expect to pay for a PB&J sandwich? Answer in this case would usually be $6/foot.
Maybe, and as I said above, that’s how I’d rule, but maybe they give you a foot of PB sandwich and a foot of Jelly sandwich and stack them, charging you $7. Again, nothing from the rules tells us which.
If peanut butter costs $4/foot and jelly costs $3/foot, and I buy a foot of PB&J, I pay $7, right?
So how the heck do you decide, because the words in the rules don't tell you which. I can only tell you what I'd choose, not what the order of operations would have us do (since the words of the rules still don't use operations to describe the rule).
Not exactly an equivalent analogy to the movement question. Try this -
Your sandwich costs $1/foot with nothing on it.
A jelly sandwich costs $3/foot
A PB sandwich costs $4/foot
How much would you expect to pay for a PB&J sandwich? Answer in this case would usually be $6/foot.
Maybe, and as I said above, that’s how I’d rule, but maybe they give you a foot of PB sandwich and a foot of Jelly sandwich and stack them, charging you $7. Again, nothing from the rules tells us which.
You say that while ignoring the examples from the rules showing how to do it.
You add together the additional costs. The cost for the extra ingredient, the filling, so to speak.
A more apt analogy for the basic cost is that its $1 for sandwich bread. $4 for a PB sandwich, $3 for a jelly sandwich. Guess what a PB&J would cost: Surprise $6.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Those particular examples only work for those particular rules. You can’t tell me that a particular rule is a general rule. Wall of sand gives no such indication that you should add its additional cost that way.
Prelim results from the poll thread are in, and the largest minority vote (without anyone able to actually quote a rule supporting their pick, as I expected) is that:
Wall of Sand, which is "spend 3 feet of movement for every 1 foot", is really +2.
In general, "spend X feet of movement for every 1 foot" is really "+X-1".
Add everything together, so it's +8 for all three (total 9), which stacks with actual additive modifiers as expected, so difficult terrain and crawl/swim/climb would both add +1 as well, for total +10 (11), and so on.
From what I can see, everyone in this thread voted for that result (except for me, I didn't vote). The only other options anyone supported were:
1/3 of people think coercions stack by taking the largest, not by converting to additive.
2/9 of people think coercions stack without the -1 penalty per coercion.
You guys can keep talking if you want, but the evidence is in and it looks like you all agree with each other except where you don't, and where you don't has no RAW, so we're firmly into "here's why I use this interpretation" territory, which is ordinarily a question for the Homebrew forum.
Prelim results from the poll thread are in, and the largest minority vote (without anyone able to actually quote a rule supporting their pick, as I expected) is that:
Wall of Sand, which is "spend 3 feet of movement for every 1 foot", is really +2.
In general, "spend X feet of movement for every 1 foot" is really "+X-1".
Add everything together, so it's +8 for all three (total 9), which stacks with actual additive modifiers as expected, so difficult terrain and crawl/swim/climb would both add +1 as well, for total +10 (11), and so on.
From what I can see, everyone in this thread voted for that result (except for me, I didn't vote). The only other options anyone supported were:
1/3 of people think coercions stack by taking the largest, not by converting to additive.
2/9 of people think coercions stack without the -1 penalty per coercion.
You guys can keep talking if you want, but the evidence is in and it looks like you all agree with each other except where you don't, and where you don't has no RAW, so we're firmly into "here's why I use this interpretation" territory, which is ordinarily a question for the Homebrew forum.
Very well done!
We can at least all agree that any combination of these should be called cleric/paladin stoppers.
Really depends on how all these effects are put into the same 5ft square of movement? What is the practical application of this? Why are you crawling through transmuted mud into a wall of sand?
Really depends on how all these effects are put into the same 5ft square of movement? What is the practical application of this? Why are you crawling through transmuted mud into a wall of sand?
Examples are numerous. For example, someone could pre-enchant a forest with Plant Growth, and then when it comes time to fight in the forest, cast Wall of Thorns. And this could be done to a kelp forest - swimming has the same movement penalty as crawling. I don't think it makes much sense to scoff at the notion of wanting to understand how these rules interact.
I'm not scoffing, I'm asking questions. There aren't going to be rules for every combination of spells so mostly it comes down to the DM ruling on how the spells interact.
In that example I'd rule that the Wall of Thorns takes the place of the Plant Growth so its (1:4)*2=1:8 swimming movement, rather than (1:8)*2=1:16 movement if you added them together. The DM could rule its Difficult Terrain but Plant Growth already has a negative effect on movement.
Basically I'd rule that whichever spell's movement penalty would apply but then it comes down to which spells are interacting. In the case of a Wall of Thorns it would be taking the place of the Plant Growth, and then any normal movement effects (such as Swimming) would come into play.
Those particular examples only work for those particular rules. You can’t tell me that a particular rule is a general rule. Wall of sand gives no such indication that you should add its additional cost that way.
Wall of Sand has the same wording as the other spells "must spend X feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves"
Those particular examples only work for those particular rules. You can’t tell me that a particular rule is a general rule. Wall of sand gives no such indication that you should add its additional cost that way.
Wall of Sand has the same wording as the other spells "must spend X feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves"
Spells either use the term Difficult terrain or that wording. Difficult terrain tells us that it adds one foot of cost to movement, and so does climbing without a speed. My point was that these particular spells do not say that they add cost, they say only the total cost.
I'm not scoffing, I'm asking questions. There aren't going to be rules for every combination of spells so mostly it comes down to the DM ruling on how the spells interact.
In that example I'd rule that the Wall of Thorns takes the place of the Plant Growth so its (1:4)*2=1:8 swimming movement, rather than (1:8)*2=1:16 movement if you added them together. The DM could rule its Difficult Terrain but Plant Growth already has a negative effect on movement.
Basically I'd rule that whichever spell's movement penalty would apply but then it comes down to which spells are interacting. In the case of a Wall of Thorns it would be taking the place of the Plant Growth, and then any normal movement effects (such as Swimming) would come into play.
Where are you getting the *2 from? Swimming, crawling, or climbing in plant growth is 5. Not 8. This is one of the only uncontroversial pieces of this topic. Difficult terrain and swim/climb/crawl are always +1 ft per foot. Not *2.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I took swimming as an extra foot per foot would be *2 i.e. if you want to swim 5ft it costs 10ft assuming you don't have a swim speed, so 1:2 and then applied the spell, but you're right it would be 1:2 for swimming then the Spell with just +4ft for Plant Growth, giving 1:5.
It's a shame that PEMDAS isn't universal. In the UK we use BODMAS or BIDMAS or some other sort of BxDMAS (I always knew it as BODMAS).
If peanut butter costs $4/foot and jelly costs $3/foot, and I buy a foot of PB&J, I pay $7, right?
So how the heck do you decide, because the words in the rules don't tell you which. I can only tell you what I'd choose, not what the order of operations would have us do (since the words of the rules still don't use operations to describe the rule).
Not exactly an equivalent analogy to the movement question. Try this -
Your sandwich costs $1/foot with nothing on it.
A jelly sandwich costs $3/foot
A PB sandwich costs $4/foot
How much would you expect to pay for a PB&J sandwich? Answer in this case would usually be $6/foot.
Maybe, and as I said above, that’s how I’d rule, but maybe they give you a foot of PB sandwich and a foot of Jelly sandwich and stack them, charging you $7. Again, nothing from the rules tells us which.
You say that while ignoring the examples from the rules showing how to do it.
You add together the additional costs. The cost for the extra ingredient, the filling, so to speak.
A more apt analogy for the basic cost is that its $1 for sandwich bread. $4 for a PB sandwich, $3 for a jelly sandwich. Guess what a PB&J would cost: Surprise $6.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Those particular examples only work for those particular rules. You can’t tell me that a particular rule is a general rule. Wall of sand gives no such indication that you should add its additional cost that way.
Prelim results from the poll thread are in, and the largest minority vote (without anyone able to actually quote a rule supporting their pick, as I expected) is that:
From what I can see, everyone in this thread voted for that result (except for me, I didn't vote). The only other options anyone supported were:
You guys can keep talking if you want, but the evidence is in and it looks like you all agree with each other except where you don't, and where you don't has no RAW, so we're firmly into "here's why I use this interpretation" territory, which is ordinarily a question for the Homebrew forum.
Very well done!
We can at least all agree that any combination of these should be called cleric/paladin stoppers.
Really depends on how all these effects are put into the same 5ft square of movement? What is the practical application of this? Why are you crawling through transmuted mud into a wall of sand?
Examples are numerous. For example, someone could pre-enchant a forest with Plant Growth, and then when it comes time to fight in the forest, cast Wall of Thorns. And this could be done to a kelp forest - swimming has the same movement penalty as crawling. I don't think it makes much sense to scoff at the notion of wanting to understand how these rules interact.
I'm not scoffing, I'm asking questions. There aren't going to be rules for every combination of spells so mostly it comes down to the DM ruling on how the spells interact.
In that example I'd rule that the Wall of Thorns takes the place of the Plant Growth so its (1:4)*2=1:8 swimming movement, rather than (1:8)*2=1:16 movement if you added them together. The DM could rule its Difficult Terrain but Plant Growth already has a negative effect on movement.
Basically I'd rule that whichever spell's movement penalty would apply but then it comes down to which spells are interacting. In the case of a Wall of Thorns it would be taking the place of the Plant Growth, and then any normal movement effects (such as Swimming) would come into play.
Wall of Sand has the same wording as the other spells "must spend X feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves"
Spells either use the term Difficult terrain or that wording. Difficult terrain tells us that it adds one foot of cost to movement, and so does climbing without a speed. My point was that these particular spells do not say that they add cost, they say only the total cost.
Where are you getting the *2 from? Swimming, crawling, or climbing in plant growth is 5. Not 8. This is one of the only uncontroversial pieces of this topic. Difficult terrain and swim/climb/crawl are always +1 ft per foot. Not *2.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I took swimming as an extra foot per foot would be *2 i.e. if you want to swim 5ft it costs 10ft assuming you don't have a swim speed, so 1:2 and then applied the spell, but you're right it would be 1:2 for swimming then the Spell with just +4ft for Plant Growth, giving 1:5.
Threads like these make it seem worth creating an alternate ruleset for "Movement Impediments":
Difficult Terrain/Climbing/Crawling/Swimming: Each foot moved costs two feet of movement.
Moderately Impaired: Each foot moved costs four feet of movement.
Heavily Impaired: Each foot moved costs four feet of movement and the player can not take the Dash action.
If a character is subject to two or more effects of the same tier, then they are upgraded to the next tier.
This would mean that the average player with a 30 movement speed would follow this movement progression: 60ft* --> 30ft* --> 15ft* --> 5ft (*Dash)
The player would never be so impaired that they couldn't move at all, unless their base speed was also reduced below 20.