Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Jeff Wilder]

"A character in an area that requires a balance check to move is considered balancing"

Assuming grease were reworded (or upped to about third-level), I wouldn't have a problem with that. If not, though, it takes us right back to "grease -- a first-level spell -- allows free use of sneak attack on nearly every big and tough monster in its area."

That's simply too powerful for a first-level spell. A 9th-level rogue would automatically gain the capability of doing 10d6 extra damage (or more) per round and at range ... just from a first-level spell. Every other first-level spell in the game, as intended, would be becoming relatively less powerful against the typical threats faced, but grease would bizarrely continue to grow more powerful.

No thanks.

And boy, oh, boy, is your PC gonna hate it when NPC rogues start sneak attacking his flat-footed butt, just because he's standing on a damp cavern floor. (Yeah, it works the other way, too.)

 

[Caliban]

And boy, oh, boy, is your PC gonna hate it when NPC rogues start sneak attacking his flat-footed butt, just because he's standing on a damp cavern floor. (Yeah, it works the other way, too.)

Been there, done that. It wasn't the best situation for us, but our party dealt with it. D&D is all about overcoming challenges. No whining about losing Dex, (although there were complaints about the DC of the balance check). Not that big a deal *shrug*

 

[Zandel]

A slightly better approach. "A character in an area that requires a balance check to move is considered balancing unless they can make a balance check at a DC = to the check required to move +10."

This means that grease still gets less powerful as monsters get more powerful as they will make the check more often than not.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Been there, done that.

You were sneak attacked on a damp cavern floor?

D&D is all about overcoming challenges.

No, D&D is about overcoming fair and balanced challenges. Throwing four 1st-level PCs against a hill giant is certainly a challenge for those characters, but it's certainly not what D&D is about. A first-level spell that allows automatic sneak attack from any number of attackers, for multiple rounds, is likewise not fair and not balanced, and I would argue that a common terrain element that allows the same thing is similarly wacked.

No whining about losing Dex, (although there were complaints about the DC of the balance check). Not that big a deal *shrug*

The DC of the Balance check has nothing to do with whether or not the characters are flat-footed, and going prone is pretty small potatoes when compared to being automatically subject to sneak attack. (Unless, of course, there were no enemy rogues around, in which case your anecdote is meaningless.)

 

[Zandel]

No, D&D is about overcoming fair and balanced challenges.

What game have you been playing? D&D is about overcomming challenged full stop. The average encounter is meant to be balanced but about 5% are meant to be overwhelming while at least 10% are ment to be life or death. IF your trying to tell me that you play with all encounters being CR/EL = to party level +/- 1 or 2 then you might want to re-read your DMG.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A slightly better approach. "A character in an area that requires a balance check to move is considered balancing unless they can make a balance check at a DC = to the check required to move +10."

This means that grease still gets less powerful as monsters get more powerful as they will make the check more often than not.

The Balance modifier for a behir (a CR 8 monster): +1. For a dire tiger (CR 8): +2. For a fire giant (CR 10): -1. For a storm giant (CR 13): +2. For a tarrasque (CR 20): +3.

A tarrasque on top of a grease spell under your version of "balancing," has an 80% chance of (1) losing 3 points of AC, (2) being completely unable to make attacks of opportunity, and (3) being automatically sneak attackable. From a first-level spell. Its SR 32 doesn't even help.

(Oh, forgot to mention: since it's balancing, if it takes any damage it has a 60% chance of going prone and (1) becoming subject to attacks of opportunity when it stands, and (2) losing all but one attack on the round it stands. Again, all from a first-level spell. Yep, that's one hellacious first-level spell or damp cavern floor.)

Gotta pass on that. Slick surfaces should trigger balancing rules during movement, and only during movement. Doing otherwise is a huge mess. The solution isn't to add slick surfaces into balancing, it's to add narrow surfaces into balancing.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If I make the DC 27 check to move halfway across a severely slippery, sloped tightrope stretched across a bottomless chasm, and then stop in the middle, I'm not considered flat-footed later in the round when someone shoots an arrow at me?

BTW, if you're on a severely slippery, sloped tightrope stretched across a bottomless chasm, I sincerely hope you have at least 5 ranks in Balance. If you do, it's not an issue, because you're not flat-footed while balancing anyway. If you don't, what in the hell are you doing out there?

 

[Caliban]

You were sneak attacked on a damp cavern floor?

A cavern floor we had to make balance checks on. No spell involved either. And there were two rogues with bows on the other side of the section we had to make balance checks on. (There was also a demon, and the group of ghouls that were summoned on top of the people in the rear when half the party was in the slippery section. Whee.)

No, D&D is about overcoming fair and balanced challenges. Throwing four 1st-level PCs against a hill giant is certainly a challenge for those characters, but it's certainly not what D&D is about. A first-level spell that allows automatic sneak attack from any number of attackers, for multiple rounds, is likewise not fair and not balanced, and I would argue that a common terrain element that allows the same thing is similarly wacked.

*shrug* It wasn't that bad, and we succeeded. So, it seemed to be fair and balanced for us. The first level spell only covers 10' square feat, so you are always a 5' step (or crawl) away from getting out of it. Usually doesn't take "multiple rounds" unless you are backed into a corner.

The DC of the Balance check has nothing to do with whether or not the characters are flat-footed, and going prone is pretty small potatoes when compared to being automatically subject to sneak attack. (Unless, of course, there were no enemy rogues around, in which case your anecdote is meaningless.)

That's probably why I put that part in parentheses, to indicate that it was side comment and not part of my main statement. (Although the DM did rule that if you failed the check and went prone, then you were no longer balancing and were not denied your Dex bonus anymore. Prone was actually advantageous in that situation.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The first level spell only covers 10' square feat, so you are always a 5' step (or crawl) away from getting out of it. Usually doesn't take "multiple rounds" unless you are backed into a corner.

Or in a doorway. Or simply surrounded. Or when facing a spellcaster with more than one grease available. "Trapping" a creature -- especially a large, tough creature -- within the area of a grease spell is trivial.

Although the DM did rule that if you failed the check and went prone, then you were no longer balancing and were not denied your Dex bonus anymore. Prone was actually advantageous in that situation.)

So you could dodge more easily rolling around on the ground than you could standing? Interesting.

 

[IcyCool]

"Jeff is a poopy-head!"

I never said anything like this. I was pointing out to the poster who couldn't understand why all of your statements sounded hostile what I thought you were doing. If you are going to quote me, do it right, or not at all. The obvious lie you present just makes you look childish.

For the record, I would house rule it the same way that Jeff would. Although I'd state that if you had to make a balance check in the round, I'd probably say you were "balancing" until your next round.

I'm not entirely sure why everyone here is arguing this. The rules on this are vague, and could be ruled either way (which means a house rule). I'm not entirely certain why Jeff thinks he is right according to RAW (aside from feeling that it is broken), and why everyone else feels he is wrong according to RAW (it's a house rule). There's nothing here to debate, just a whole lot of unpleasant and pointless arguing and name-calling.

*shrug* But you folks will do what you want.