Resistance and movement through Hazardous Terrain?

[blz]

When is damage applied when moving through hazardous terrain? and how does it interact with monster resistance?

In short do I count the damage (and therefore resistance) each and every time a monster moves into a 5 foot square of hazardous terrain, OR do I total the damage along the path and then apply the resistance only once to the total damage at the end?

Here are the specifics...

I DMed a character who cast the Coral Eruption spell (https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=887) in an area and then some Cyclops Zombies (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2304) moved through that hazardous terrain.

From the Coral Eruption description in Archives of Nethys
"A creature that moves through the area takes 3 piercing damage for every square of that area it moves into."
(definition in Secrets of Magic pg 96 .. I don't have the book).

Page 92 of the GM Core Remastered.
"Hazardous terrain damages creatures whenever they move through it. For instance, an acid pool, a pit of burning embers, and a spike-filled passageway all constitute hazardous terrain. The amount and type of damage depend on the specific hazardous terrain."

The Monsters have "Resistances All 7 (except positive and critical hits);"

So in this case it's important when exactly the damage is applied. If the damage and resistance is applied for each square then the monsters take no damage in this case and a lot less damage for doing this kind of thing in general.

I ruled that the damage happens every time the monster enters a square. Needless to say the player wanted to argue the case for a bit... he got over it. I'm curious what other people's interpretations might be, because this spell does get used a fair bit and I don't want to penalize him for my poor understanding of the rules.

TY.

[taks]

Each square.

[Xenocrat]

Just be sure you apply it consistently between resistances and weaknesses. This is just a specific example of the undefined “instance of damage.” If each square is an instance then resistance to the hazard type makes it trivial, but weakness is a death zone. If you make it per move action it’s an equally mild outcome for both. I suspect if Paizo ever was forced to rule they’d say per move action.

[shroudb]

another thing to note with the hazardous terrain is that RAW the size of the creature really changes the effectiveness of it.

as it's written, the damage is for each squar you enter, and a huge creature (as an example) could get 3-5x damage per movement (depening if moving straight or diagonically) compared to that to a medium creature.

without resistances, using coral eruption as an example, it could mean that an enemy takes 9-15 damage per 5ft of his movememnt as oppossed to a different enemy taking just 3

3d terrain (like some impulses) can make it even worse, with a huge creature entering 9 squares simultaneously when moving even straight through it...

[TheFinish]

shroudb wrote:

another thing to note with the hazardous terrain is that RAW the size of the creature really changes the effectiveness of it.

as it's written, the damage is for each squar you enter, and a huge creature (as an example) could get 3-5x damage per movement (depening if moving straight or diagonically) compared to that to a medium creature.

without resistances, using coral eruption as an example, it could mean that an enemy takes 9-15 damage per 5ft of his movememnt as oppossed to a different enemy taking just 3

3d terrain (like some impulses) can make it even worse, with a huge creature entering 9 squares simultaneously when moving even straight through it...

I think that isn't the intent, especially since Howl of the Wild states:

When a Large PC moves through hazardous terrain or a similar obstacle that causes damage based on the number of squares the PC moves through, they take damage only once for each 5 feet of movement—a minotaur shouldn’t take four times as much damage for crossing a burning field as a human!

Sure, this is talking about PCs, but it should realistically apply to everything.

[Xenocrat]

Thanks, I knew there was a FAQ or guidance on that somewhere and was about to engage on what I expected to be a fruitless crusade before I read down one post.

[shroudb]

TheFinish wrote:

shroudb wrote:

another thing to note with the hazardous terrain is that RAW the size of the creature really changes the effectiveness of it.

as it's written, the damage is for each squar you enter, and a huge creature (as an example) could get 3-5x damage per movement (depening if moving straight or diagonically) compared to that to a medium creature.

without resistances, using coral eruption as an example, it could mean that an enemy takes 9-15 damage per 5ft of his movememnt as oppossed to a different enemy taking just 3

3d terrain (like some impulses) can make it even worse, with a huge creature entering 9 squares simultaneously when moving even straight through it...

I think that isn't the intent, especially since Howl of the Wild states:

When a Large PC moves through hazardous terrain or a similar obstacle that causes damage based on the number of squares the PC moves through, they take damage only once for each 5 feet of movement—a minotaur shouldn’t take four times as much damage for crossing a burning field as a human!

Sure, this is talking about PCs, but it should realistically apply to everything.

it's nice to have a faq, i too don't think that the original intent of hazardous terrain was to melt larger enemies, but as written, it would make stuff more complicated for large/huge enemies.

that said, i think the intent is even more clear with what you posted.

[Claxon]

Ignoring larger than medium size creature issue (and the FAQ clarification that basically says ignore the fact that large and larger creatures take up more than 1 square, they only take damage once per 5ft of movement) it is still relevant to determine when you should apply weakness and ressitance.

Instinctively I want answer that the damage happens per 5ft of movement/per square. Meaning resistance against that type of damage is likely to negate it entirely.

For example the 3 damage of coral eruption is low, and likely to be negated by any resistances that applies.

Conversely though, if you apply it equally for weakness now the creature will be destroyed by this hazardous terrain. Which I think shouldn't happen. I would likely rule that the damage is applied when the creature stops moving, and that the damage per square accumulates and then you apply weakness/resistance once against that group of damage.

Not as great for resistance, but also not as awful for weakness.

[Ravingdork]

Claxon wrote:

I would likely rule that the damage is applied when the creature stops moving, and that the damage per square accumulates and then you apply weakness/resistance once against that group of damage.

Not as great for resistance, but also not as awful for weakness.

That's likely how I'd run it as well.

[Ascalaphus]

I dunno, I feel like if you have the right kind of resistance, being able to just shrug off a low-per-square effect makes sense. While if they're using exactly the right kind of bad terrain against you, maybe it should really be suicide to keep going.

One of the big balancers here is that usually you should be able to decide to stop carrying out your original movement plan because it's gonna hurt too much. If continuing to plow onward is gonna kill you, don't do that then.

Unless if course you're a mindless zombie being baited by the players. In that case the game is working exactly as intended. Being mindless should be a major weakness that players exploit, not just a convenient immunity to bards.

[Claxon]

Tell the players they've all been magically cursed with weakness to fire 5 and then ask them how this kind of damage should be run.

I jest, but the issue is that this typically dipropionately affects monsters. PC characters tend not to have weaknesses (not never, but it's not common). So if you were to ask players they would likely say "let's run it per square."

But if they all had some sort of weakness, they'd likely prefer it to be based on each move action. For me as a GM, I think it's more balanced around a per move action application of weakness and resistance.

[ScooterScoots]

If you do weaknesses/resistance per move action instead of distance, time spent moving becomes a factor in a really strange way.

For example, if you have a field of spikes, a creature weak to that damage is incentivized to run through at full speed because if it carefully and slowly makes it’s way through it takes more damage. Which is just bizarre. And resistance, the thing that ought to let you bulldoze through without a care in the world, works best if you sit there taking 5ft steps like a grandma on the interstate.

It’s also really really metagamey compared to just doing distance.

[Claxon]

I disagree. The creature with resistance is still likely to bulldoze through, because taking steps through will mean that you're going to waste a lot of turns doing nothing.

I'm not really open to the idea that doing it per square is the "better way" or results in a better overall outcome. It mostly just means creatures with weakness aren't going to kill themselves trying to walk through the area.

[Nelzy]

I agree with taks, Ascalaphus and ScooterScoots on this.

Ofc its Each square. that both make more sense to me and is whats written.

But i do agree that its weird and an oversight that Large PC's have special rules that dont apply to large NPC's in cases like this.

as a side note: Im starting to wonder why are some people on this forum always trying to bend/Balance the rules to minimize the effect of resistance and weakness?

why cant something be effective or ineffective is the right circumstance?

and most creatures would be aware of their weakness, and would not run straight thru something deadly without cause.

Ofc everyone is allowed to run the game as they see fit, but as a rule question it would be Each square

[NorrKnekten]

I wouldn't call it an oversight, Already from playtests we were aware that there was certain parts of the game where a GM is expected to make a call. Often they imagined it run a certain way and saw that through their playtest feedback.

Even when looking at the RAW, the hazardous terrain rules on its own says nothing. and the effects that create it are very split between "a creaturing moving through the area takes damage for each square it entered" or "A creature takes damage each time it moves into one of these squares.

For the sidenote, creatures should not run straight through something deadly without cause, but a level 20+ creature like the Conqueror Worm shouldn't be dying because it moved through three strides worth of some thorny bushes or jagged rocks that pricked it for 1 damage per square. Nor should level 5 skeletons just be able to ignore the terrain from a level 15 fire kineticist or similar.