Wall of Sand coerces the movement cost to move to 3 feet per foot. Transmute Rock does the same, but to 4 - as does Plant Growth. Wall of Water, like many spells, inflicts rough terrain, which is +1 foot per foot, and climbing or swimming is also +1 foot per foot.
Do we have *actual* rules for these happening at the same time? I've found the following two rulings online, and they seem to be popular, but if they're in the RAW anywhere, I can't find them:
1) You coerce, then modify, so rough terrain and climb/swim effectively stack with coercion instead of being overridden by them.
2) Coercion always uses the largest coercion available, so if your cost must be 3 and must be 4, then it is 4.
Does anyone know of any rules (including from the SAC) or popular consensus on how to resolve these effects?
General ruling for Combining Magical Effects is that they stack, that is RAW, though I could not see a DM reasonably allowing too many of these to stack.
I would not combine the spells or difficult terrain together (they all coerce movement to a higher cost), but would add climbing/swimming/crawling on top (these apply an extra cost to movement).
But that's just my take, I don't know any rules that properly cover this situation.
I would not combine the spells or difficult terrain together (they all coerce movement to a higher cost), but would add climbing/swimming/crawling on top (these apply an extra cost to movement).
But that's just my take, I don't know any rules that properly cover this situation.
Rough terrain is like climbing: an additive modifier, not a coercion.
General ruling for Combining Magical Effects is that they stack, that is RAW, though I could not see a DM reasonably allowing too many of these to stack.
Stack means cumulative, you would add all the sources of the cost of movement together that affect a single square and that would determine the movement cost to traverse that square. But again, I would not expect many, if any DM allowing them to stack to any significant extent.
I would not combine the spells or difficult terrain together (they all coerce movement to a higher cost), but would add climbing/swimming/crawling on top (these apply an extra cost to movement).
But that's just my take, I don't know any rules that properly cover this situation.
Rough terrain is like climbing: an additive modifier, not a coercion.
Ah, sorry. I was using the description of difficult terrain from the adventuring section which is different to the combat section.
You move at half speed in difficult terrain--moving 1 foot in difficult terrain costs 2 feet of speed--so you can cover only half the normal distance in a minute, an hour, or a day.
Compared to:
Every foot of movement in difficult terrain costs 1 extra foot. This rule is true even if multiple things in a space count as difficult terrain.
Stack means cumulative, you would add all the sources of the cost of movement together that affect a single square and that would determine the movement cost to traverse that square. But again, I would not expect many, if any DM allowing them to stack to any significant extent.
But how do you stack multiple coercions? What's the movement cost under both Wall of Sand and Transmute Rock? 12 (*4*3)? 6 (+3+2)? 4? 3? And why?
I think you would add them up, not multiply. So, with Wall of Sand atop Rock transmuted to mud, each foot costs 6 feet. (I'd also use the phrase "impede movement" rather than "coerce".)
Note that these spells don't specifically create "difficult terrain", so that those with some means of not being impeded by difficult terrain (like using Dash action with the Mobile feat) are still subject to the movement effects of the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
There are no specifics on interactions of Difficult Terrain with any non-difficult terrain movement impairments, let alone those non-difficult terrain features interacting with each other. We only have that statement of the difficult terrain rule that Gruntler pointed out above from the combat movement section: "Every foot of movement in Difficult Terrain costs 1 extra foot." This means, we can at least guess that in combat situations, anything that creates Difficult Terrain should stack with anything not called difficult terrain by adding 1 foot of cost to the cost listed (3 feet spent goes to 4 feet spent in wall of sand). But this has to be surmised from that one definition of difficult terrain, and god forbid you look at the other one and try to piece it together.
Can you extend that idea to other movements? Not strictly because they aren't worded in a way telling you how much additional movement they cost. But I would probably rule that they work similarly. I imagine the rules tell you the total because each foot adds additional cost but it is easier to just know how much you have to spend.
Thanks for helping me look, all. Since you guys couldn't find anything either, I'm concluding for now that there's nothing to find. I'll start a poll so we can see what the community consensus is.
Thanks for helping me look, all. Since you guys couldn't find anything either, I'm concluding for now that there's nothing to find. I'll start a poll so we can see what the community consensus is.
There was a previous, long, thread about how different effects affect the cost of movement. It is probably best to look at that before trying to get consensus with a poll.
I would just add that each of the linked abilities has wording similar to "spend 3 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves there" - so they are all telling you how much of your "feet of movement" (e.g. 30 ft for a normal human) it will cost to actually move 1 foot; so just add all the "costs" to work out how much it will cost (in total) to actually move 1 foot.
Since there are no rules that say that you multiply them together, you apply each one individually - subtracting the required amount from your "feet of movement" available, before you finally get to actually move 1 foot.
Thanks for helping me look, all. Since you guys couldn't find anything either, I'm concluding for now that there's nothing to find. I'll start a poll so we can see what the community consensus is.
There was a previous, long, thread about how different effects affect the cost of movement. It is probably best to look at that before trying to get consensus with a poll.
I would just add that each of the linked abilities has wording similar to "spend 3 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves there" - so they are all telling you how much of your "feet of movement" (e.g. 30 ft for a normal human) it will cost to actually move 1 foot; so just add all the "costs" to work out how much it will cost (in total) to actually move 1 foot.
Since there are no rules that say that you multiply them together, you apply each one individually - subtracting the required amount from your "feet of movement" available, before you finally get to actually move 1 foot.
So if you combine effects that say that one foot costs 3' and one foot costs 4', are you saying that the total is 7' (the totals added) or 6' (the 2' penalty and 3' penalties added to the 1' you are moving)?
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.
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).
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 you're trying to figure out your order of operations. This process is straightforward.
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.
Thanks for helping me look, all. Since you guys couldn't find anything either, I'm concluding for now that there's nothing to find. I'll start a poll so we can see what the community consensus is.
There was a previous, long, thread about how different effects affect the cost of movement. It is probably best to look at that before trying to get consensus with a poll.
I would just add that each of the linked abilities has wording similar to "spend 3 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves there" - so they are all telling you how much of your "feet of movement" (e.g. 30 ft for a normal human) it will cost to actually move 1 foot; so just add all the "costs" to work out how much it will cost (in total) to actually move 1 foot.
Since there are no rules that say that you multiply them together, you apply each one individually - subtracting the required amount from your "feet of movement" available, before you finally get to actually move 1 foot.
So if you combine effects that say that one foot costs 3' and one foot costs 4', are you saying that the total is 7' (the totals added) or 6' (the 2' penalty and 3' penalties added to the 1' you are moving)?
Personally, I would add the penalties.
In one case, the spell increases the movement cost to 3' from 1' - an increase of 2'. In the other case, the spell increases the movement cost to 4' from 1' - an increase of 3'. Since the base 1' cost should not be doubled, I would just add the increases caused by each spell effect. In this case, 1' base + 2' from the first spell and 3' from the second for a total of 6' cost for each 1' of movement. Doubling the 1' base cost when combining spell effects wouldn't make any sense to me since the spells increase the movement costs by 2' and 3' respectively. However, because they are different effects they DO stack (unlike multiple sources of difficult terrain which do not stack).
On the other hand, someone reading these spells could probably just as well interpret them as movement multipliers as opposed to increments. Most use wording similar to plant growth
"A creature moving through the area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves."
This does NOT say why the movement is now 4'. Is this because it is 4x more challenging? or is it because the spell increases the movement cost by +3'? Either interpretation is likely valid given the way the spell is written. On the other hand, difficult terrain uses the wording that creatures use twice the movement but then later clarifies this to difficult terrain increasing the movement cost by 1' for each 1' rather than making the cost twice whatever the cost would have been. I would tend to interpret this to mean that the intention is for the increases to be additive not multiplicative but it isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
So - I would just add the increments from multiple effects rather than multiplying but the game rules don't explicitly cover the situation.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for helping me look, all. Since you guys couldn't find anything either, I'm concluding for now that there's nothing to find. I'll start a poll so we can see what the community consensus is.
There was a previous, long, thread about how different effects affect the cost of movement. It is probably best to look at that before trying to get consensus with a poll.
I would just add that each of the linked abilities has wording similar to "spend 3 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves there" - so they are all telling you how much of your "feet of movement" (e.g. 30 ft for a normal human) it will cost to actually move 1 foot; so just add all the "costs" to work out how much it will cost (in total) to actually move 1 foot.
Since there are no rules that say that you multiply them together, you apply each one individually - subtracting the required amount from your "feet of movement" available, before you finally get to actually move 1 foot.
So if you combine effects that say that one foot costs 3' and one foot costs 4', are you saying that the total is 7' (the totals added) or 6' (the 2' penalty and 3' penalties added to the 1' you are moving)?
One says that it costs 3 ft of movement to move 1 actual foot (2 more than normal); the other says it costs 4 ft of movement to move 1 actual foot (3 more than normal); so I would say 6 ft of movement (1+2+3) - although in the heat of the moment it is easier simply to add the two costs together, to get 7 ft.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wall of Sand coerces the movement cost to move to 3 feet per foot. Transmute Rock does the same, but to 4 - as does Plant Growth. Wall of Water, like many spells, inflicts rough terrain, which is +1 foot per foot, and climbing or swimming is also +1 foot per foot.
Do we have *actual* rules for these happening at the same time? I've found the following two rulings online, and they seem to be popular, but if they're in the RAW anywhere, I can't find them:
1) You coerce, then modify, so rough terrain and climb/swim effectively stack with coercion instead of being overridden by them.
2) Coercion always uses the largest coercion available, so if your cost must be 3 and must be 4, then it is 4.
Does anyone know of any rules (including from the SAC) or popular consensus on how to resolve these effects?
General ruling for Combining Magical Effects is that they stack, that is RAW, though I could not see a DM reasonably allowing too many of these to stack.
I would not combine the spells or difficult terrain together (they all coerce movement to a higher cost), but would add climbing/swimming/crawling on top (these apply an extra cost to movement).
But that's just my take, I don't know any rules that properly cover this situation.
Rough terrain is like climbing: an additive modifier, not a coercion.
But how do you stack them?
Stack means cumulative, you would add all the sources of the cost of movement together that affect a single square and that would determine the movement cost to traverse that square. But again, I would not expect many, if any DM allowing them to stack to any significant extent.
Ah, sorry. I was using the description of difficult terrain from the adventuring section which is different to the combat section.
Compared to:
So I guess it does all stack?
But how do you stack multiple coercions? What's the movement cost under both Wall of Sand and Transmute Rock? 12 (*4*3)? 6 (+3+2)? 4? 3? And why?
I think you would add them up, not multiply. So, with Wall of Sand atop Rock transmuted to mud, each foot costs 6 feet. (I'd also use the phrase "impede movement" rather than "coerce".)
Note that these spells don't specifically create "difficult terrain", so that those with some means of not being impeded by difficult terrain (like using Dash action with the Mobile feat) are still subject to the movement effects of the spell.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
There are no specifics on interactions of Difficult Terrain with any non-difficult terrain movement impairments, let alone those non-difficult terrain features interacting with each other. We only have that statement of the difficult terrain rule that Gruntler pointed out above from the combat movement section: "Every foot of movement in Difficult Terrain costs 1 extra foot." This means, we can at least guess that in combat situations, anything that creates Difficult Terrain should stack with anything not called difficult terrain by adding 1 foot of cost to the cost listed (3 feet spent goes to 4 feet spent in wall of sand). But this has to be surmised from that one definition of difficult terrain, and god forbid you look at the other one and try to piece it together.
Can you extend that idea to other movements? Not strictly because they aren't worded in a way telling you how much additional movement they cost. But I would probably rule that they work similarly. I imagine the rules tell you the total because each foot adds additional cost but it is easier to just know how much you have to spend.
Thanks for helping me look, all. Since you guys couldn't find anything either, I'm concluding for now that there's nothing to find. I'll start a poll so we can see what the community consensus is.
There was a previous, long, thread about how different effects affect the cost of movement. It is probably best to look at that before trying to get consensus with a poll.
I would just add that each of the linked abilities has wording similar to "spend 3 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves there" - so they are all telling you how much of your "feet of movement" (e.g. 30 ft for a normal human) it will cost to actually move 1 foot; so just add all the "costs" to work out how much it will cost (in total) to actually move 1 foot.
Since there are no rules that say that you multiply them together, you apply each one individually - subtracting the required amount from your "feet of movement" available, before you finally get to actually move 1 foot.
So if you combine effects that say that one foot costs 3' and one foot costs 4', are you saying that the total is 7' (the totals added) or 6' (the 2' penalty and 3' penalties added to the 1' you are moving)?
PEMDAS
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.
Lets try to stick to helpful comments.
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 you're trying to figure out your order of operations. This process is straightforward.
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.
Personally, I would add the penalties.
In one case, the spell increases the movement cost to 3' from 1' - an increase of 2'. In the other case, the spell increases the movement cost to 4' from 1' - an increase of 3'. Since the base 1' cost should not be doubled, I would just add the increases caused by each spell effect. In this case, 1' base + 2' from the first spell and 3' from the second for a total of 6' cost for each 1' of movement. Doubling the 1' base cost when combining spell effects wouldn't make any sense to me since the spells increase the movement costs by 2' and 3' respectively. However, because they are different effects they DO stack (unlike multiple sources of difficult terrain which do not stack).
On the other hand, someone reading these spells could probably just as well interpret them as movement multipliers as opposed to increments. Most use wording similar to plant growth
"A creature moving through the area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves."
This does NOT say why the movement is now 4'. Is this because it is 4x more challenging? or is it because the spell increases the movement cost by +3'? Either interpretation is likely valid given the way the spell is written. On the other hand, difficult terrain uses the wording that creatures use twice the movement but then later clarifies this to difficult terrain increasing the movement cost by 1' for each 1' rather than making the cost twice whatever the cost would have been. I would tend to interpret this to mean that the intention is for the increases to be additive not multiplicative but it isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
So - I would just add the increments from multiple effects rather than multiplying but the game rules don't explicitly cover the situation.
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.
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.
An example of how to add movement costs is printed in the books if the method is what is at question:
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this.
Another example:
Use (1+(x-1)+(y-1)+(z-1)) where x/y/z are your various costs for each separate movement cost effects that all apply.
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.
One says that it costs 3 ft of movement to move 1 actual foot (2 more than normal); the other says it costs 4 ft of movement to move 1 actual foot (3 more than normal); so I would say 6 ft of movement (1+2+3) - although in the heat of the moment it is easier simply to add the two costs together, to get 7 ft.