Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Jeff Wilder]

I was just pointing out that in real and in D&D combat both fighters are continually moving to dodge blows and thus a balance check is required to fight on slippery surfaces.

(1) Real life doesn't have Balance checks.

(2) D&D doesn't require Balance checks to fight on slippery surfaces, even if real life did have Balance checks.

 

[kjenks]

I formerly thought, like Thanee, that standing still in the area of effect of a Grease spell would require a Balance check, even though (as Jeff Wilder points out), the spell description only specifically requires Balance check while moving.

But then came the June FAQ with this entry:

Is a Balance check required to stand up while prone in
the area of a grease spell? What about to perform other
move actions?

No and no.

This entry makes it pretty clear that Jeff is right.

 

[Thanee]

Of course you do not need to make a Balance check. That's not the point. The question is, when are you considered 'flat-footed'... when making a Balance check, or when being 'unable to move without making a Balance check'?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But then came the June FAQ with this entry:

Which does not address the point at hand.

All it says is that I do not have to make a Balance check when I wish to draw my sword (a move action).

 

[IcyCool]

But I just have to say that for some reason some of your posts leave some kind of a negative feeling after reading them. I'm not sure why exactly.

Allow me to demonstrate why I think that is.

Insult: "'Poster A' is clearly a munchkin."

"Rhetorical Trick": "This is a munchkin's wet dream."

See? He attacks the idea or position, making sure to attach a derogatory remark to it, so that anyone taking up that idea or position fits the insult. He gets to insult someone without directly attacking them.

"This is a particularly petty trick, and the domain of a weak arguing mind." See? It's easy!

(No actual insult intended, Jeff )

 

[Shadowdweller]

"Rhetorical Trick": "This is a munchkin's wet dream."

See? He attacks the idea or position, making sure to attach a derogatory remark to it, so that anyone taking up that idea or position fits the insult. He gets to insult someone without directly attacking them.

Of course, there's also the derogatory 'straw man' arguments. "You think blah". "You really just want a broken spell."

 

[Infiniti2000]

I2K: "You accuse me of some agenda (really, I still have no idea what that comment means)."

I don't know what that comment means, either.

Well, you wrote it. Are you telling us that you insert random comments without even understanding them yourself? Reread post #32 (yours) and explain the postscript. Tell me how I'm not supposed to take the accusation that I have an agenda as an insult. It seems to be a quote from somewhere, too, otherwise I'd take offense at being called "miss", moreso than you have at being called "dude".

I2K: "You also continually pat yourself on the back, as if that's suppose to endear you to readers. "

What in the hell are you talking about?

One example: "I'm an extreme logical person." Like that statement is even worth making. You may very well be logical, but it's your actions in debates like these that would make people think that, not a statement by you.

Nah. What's hard to do is to address the argument. What's easy to do is shift the focus from the argument to me. Not that I should be surprised, because such diversionary tactics actually work very, very well, and have forever. Even here, rather than address "reasonable arguments," you decide to continue the attack. I honestly don't know why I expect anything different.

I agree. You've successfully diverted attention from the debate at hand to you. We didn't do it. We just took your bait. Now that you've pointed out you're a lawyer, it makes even more sense. Like many working professionals, I've dealt with a lot of lawyers and lawyers always try to get their opponents involved emotionally. It's a great tactic and it's obvious you use it well. The difference here is that we can step out of the debate. You've successfully caused all of the people who disagree with you and refuse to accept your billigerence to depart. Congratulations.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"Jeff is a poopy-head!"

"Jeff is a poopy-head!"

So ... anybody have an actual argument, or is this enough for you?

[crickets] ... [/crickets]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Tell me how I'm not supposed to take the accusation that I have an agenda as an insult.

First, you clearly have an agenda. You outright stated that every attack a rogue takes could get sneak attack damage, and it still wouldn't be unbalanced. Making the rogue that much more powerful is the very definition of an agenda, and it explains why you're perfectly happy with grease granting unlimited sneak attack. I was making that observation, albeit clearly too subtly for you.

Second, only an idiot would consider "having an agenda" to be a negative, per se. Everybody has an agenda. (And yes, I'm flat-out calling you an idiot. And I'm being unfair to idiots everywhere in doing so.)

You've successfully diverted attention from the debate at hand to you. We didn't do it. We just took your bait.

Yes ... never mind that I've presented arguments point-by-point, waiting -- begging -- for someone to engage. (Thanee did, anyway. Somehow miraculously avoiding my obvious desire to "divert the argument.")

But I can understand your "taking the bait." You're quite the mouth-breather.

You've successfully caused all of the people who disagree with you and refuse to accept your billigerence to depart.

No, (almost) all of the people who disagree with me have chosen not to engage in a losing argument. (Thanee, the exception, didn't lose, simply by virtue of saying, "It doesn't matter what the rules are, even if you're right, because I like mine better.") Many of them have, since they have no argument, decided to stick around and play the hypocrite, trying to drive me off with insults and distractions. But I am a lawyer, and I'll keep asking:

Do any of you have an actual rules argument to present?

I know you don't, so you have a nice day, miss.

 

[Zandel]

Originaly Posted by JW
(1) Real life doesn't have Balance checks.

Actually it does but there done like move silently checks, the DM of life makes the roll for you.

(2) D&D doesn't require Balance checks to fight on slippery surfaces, even if real life did have Balance checks.

Not true either i'm afraid. D&D requires the DM to call for an appropriate skill check when any situation arises where such a check makes logical sense.

And as for the increasing balance DCs are you blind or just fail to see where that DC is for the SECOND balance check. The DC for the first one remains unchanged.

Not just to summarise the D&D rules Require that a DM makes calls on when a skill/stat/save roll is needed and what the DC will be.

And now just to quote a great movie "It's more like guidelines anyway!"

 

[Jeff Wilder]

And as for the increasing balance DCs are you blind or just fail to see where that DC is for the SECOND balance check. The DC for the first one remains unchanged.

Are you pulling my leg?

First check DC = 10.

Second check DC = 15.

You do understand that the above is an example of an "increasing check DC," right? And you further understand it's almost exactly what you wrote?

As for your statement that the DM is "required" to call for skill checks, I'm not going to argue that except to say that to the extent that's true, it's only when other rules aren't engaged. By their very nature, spells in general nearly always explicate the necessity for and types of skill rolls involved in adjudicating the spell in question.

Grease certainly does ... a Balance check is required when moving up to half-speed. That statement is meaningless -- and thus would not be included -- if other Balance checks were required to adjudicate the spell.

And now just to quote a great movie "It's more like guidelines anyway!"

Maybe so, but this isn't the "Guidelines" forum. I've got no problem with your suggestion as a house rule in your game, going by the "guidelines" approach. But it's not the rules. Whether the rules are important in general is beside the point; it's self-evident that the rules are important in a rules forum.