Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Jeff Wilder]

And frankly, saying/typing things like that repeatedly, I can't imagine how "you get by in life without becoming involved in constant duels-on-the-green". Right?

Could be, again, two things: (1) Mostly I deal with people who are either trained as I am, or who are otherwise perfectly comfortable having their conclusions challenged, and having to defend them. I tend to forget most people aren't like that. (2) I'm 6'5" and built like a linebacker. I literally have to turn sideways to fit my shoulders through many doors. Tends to discourage gauntlet-tossing.

 

[Thanee]

(Note: edited the above post while you were replying.)

Because there's no creation of a new rule. All there is is recognition of an existing rule: when a negative situation no longer exists for a character, the negative effects of that situation no longer exist for the character.

What negative effects? There are none.

A character is never caught flat-footed when it comes to standing or moving on Grease according to the rules.

Because that is, what the rules say, without creating anything new or adding an interpretation (like a definition for 'balancing'), right?

And as I have pointed out above, even if you consider balancing to be the act of moving on a precarious surface, which is a quite reasonable way of seeing it from a logical point of view, even then being flat-footed while doing so has no meaning at all, because you are only ever flat-footed during your own turn and never during any other character's turn.

So, why again do you think that your interpretation is not adding new rules to the RAW, while any other is? I'm really curious how you come to that conclusion, especially after you pointed out, that you are aware of the lack of definition of the term 'balancing'.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jeff Wilder]

What negative effects? There are none. [...] A character is never caught flat-footed when it comes to standing or moving on Grease according to the rules.

This is not true. Someone moving in grease must make a Balance check; that character -- while moving -- is clearly balancing.

Yes, "balancing" needs better definition, because there are additional situations -- like the one you visualize -- in which considering a character "balancing" might be reasonable. (Aside from this specific circumstance, wherein that addition to balancing makes grease ridiculously overpowered). But at the very least, and without a definition of "balancing," all we have to go on is the "very least," a character is balancing when engaged in an activity requiring a Balance check.

And as I have pointed out above, even if you consider balancing to be the act of moving on a precarious surface, which is a quite reasonable way of seeing it from a logical point of view, even then being flat-footed while doing so has no meaning at all, because you are only ever flat-footed during your own turn and never during any other character's turn.

Again, this is simply not true. Grease requires a Balance check when moving; at the very least, one is "balancing" while engaged in an activity requiring a Balance check; while balancing, one is flat-footed. So, as WCS pointed out, if you ready an action to attack someone while he is moving (i.e., balancing), that person is flat-footed. (Or, as someone else pointed out, an attack of opportunity provoked by the movement would also catch him flat-footed.)

Did you read the WCS response?

 

[Thanee]

Did you read the WCS response?

Yeah, and it's obviously false, because the situation described there cannot happen under the D&D rules.

You cannot act while another character performs an AoO or ready action. Therefore you cannot (under the assumption that balancing is the act of moving on a precarious surface) be balancing while being attacked that way. It simply isn't possible without simultaneous actions.

Besides, I think a character that is dodging an attack while standing on a precarious surface is also clearly balancing (well, or tripping and falling, if not).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felix]

This has all gotten a bit silly, but there is one point of interest that no one has mentioned yet.

Being Attacked while Balancing: You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing.

Bold mine.

So you're flat footed because you can't move to avoid a blow... So you must move to avoid blows to not be flat-footed, yeah?

If you try to move in the area of a Grease spell, you must make a Balance check, which means you're flat footed while moving through there.

If you stand still within Grease, you do not have to make a Balance check... if you don't move.

So you choose to not move, which is remarkably similar to being denied the ability to move, as either one renders you ... not moving. Seems to me like you'd have trouble moving to avoid blows if you chose to not move... and if you did choose to avoid blows by moving, you'd be moving. And if you move within Grease, you need to make a Balance check... which means you're flat-footed. Which, funnily enough, denies you the ability to move to avoid blows.

Screwed either way, eh?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Yeah, and it's obviously false, because the situation described there cannot happen under the D&D rules.

I just don't know how you come to this conclusion.

You cannot act while another character performs an AoO or ready action.

No, but you can be engaged in an action ... which is what the AoO or readied action interrupts.

Therefore you cannot (under the assumption that balancing is the act of moving on a precarious surface) be balancing while being attacked that way. It simply isn't possible without simultaneous actions.

That just makes no sense. The character is engaged in moving, an activity that makes him flat-footed. While so engaged, he is attacked.

By your definition, a character can't ever have a spell disrupted, because he can't possibly be casting (an action in which he's engaged) "while another character performs an AoO or readied action."

Besides, I think a character that is dodging an attack while standing on a precarious surface is also clearly balancing (well, or tripping and falling, if not).

Yes, I know you believe that, but it's not supported in the rules. Anywhere.

 

[Thanee]

@Felix: "since you can’t move to avoid a blow" has been quoted in post #22 already.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

That just makes no sense. The character is engaged in moving, an activity that makes him flat-footed. While so engaged, he is attacked.

Ok. Now, let's assume the following two situations...

A) A character moves (balances) on a precarious surface. At some point he is interrupted (ready action or attack of opportunity) and attacked.

B) A character begins his turn on a precarious surface. The character moves (balances) on the precarious surface. The character ends his move on the precarious surface. The character is on the precarious surface the whole time. Now on a different turn, he gets attacked.

You really want to tell me, that in case A) he is balancing and in case B) he is not?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So you're flat footed because you can't move to avoid a blow... So you must move to avoid blows to not be flat-footed, yeah?

"Moving to avoid a blow" and "moving at up to half-speed" are different. A character caught in a web cannot move, but he can "move."

Besides which, you're referencing the consequences for balancing, when the whole question is about when the character is balancing. In other words, you're making the decision to apply consequences based upon those consequences. This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question" or "circular reasoning."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You really want to tell me, that in case A) he is balancing and in case B) he is not?

Well, the rules want to tell you that, yes. I understand that it offends your idea of "what makes sense," but surely there are many aspects of D&D that do the same, to which you don't object and for which you don't create new rules?

Consider a thief-acrobat who tumbles, moving, say 15 feet, in order to make a tumbling charge on difficult terrain. After his turn, is that character still tumbling? He's still on difficult terrain, right? So why is it that you assume that a character who is no longer moving (the reason for the Balance check) is still, for some reason, balancing? It just doesn't fit the rules. Saying that such a character is still balancing is an invented rule.

Don't get me wrong: if we put aside that your house rule makes grease too powerful, I think it's perfectly reasonable. It makes as much sense to me as saying that a character finds his footing after moving. I'll even go so far as to say that (if they change the mechanics for grease), I think your version of balancing should be added to the rules.

But it's not part of the rules right now. And adding it to the rules right now is a negative. Just look at this thread ... people are saying that a first-level spell was "instrumental" in defeating hordes of giants. How in the world can anybody argue that that is an okay power-level for a first-level spell?