Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Warehouse23]

So a wand of Grease is a stick of butter? I could see that leading to some humorous interactions.

About grease being flammable. You have to be careful with this rule. It's important as a DM not to gimp spellcasters who have chosen to have a particular spell on hand. There's no reason in the RAW that Grease could not be used on, say, a flaming weapon, to have it slip out of an opponent's hands. The Grease is a magical substance, meaning that sometimes it does not behave the way you expect it to.

 

[Thanee]

Well, balancing is not truely defined at all, so you never lose your Dex bonus to AC from that, by the RAW, if you want to go that way.

Balancing can surely be read as the act of balancing, that is, while actually *moving* on a precarious surface. Given the nature of D&D combat, actions are never simultaneous, so again, you can never lose your Dex bonus to AC against anyone that way, since you never move while they take their actions.

Anyways... the reason why you lose your Dex bonus is...

You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow...

And this absolutely applies while standing on a surface, which requires a Balance check to move.

Bye
Thanee

 

[interwyrm]

Grease + Dispel Magic + Shatter = permanently disarmed fighter and less loot for the party.

But it shore is fun!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If “Climbing” is defined as “Being in a square that requires climb checks to enter / exit”.

That's not how climbing is defined. It's entirely possible to be in a space you can't exit without climbing, and yet not be climbing.

than “Balancing” can be defined as “Being in a square that requires balance checks to enter / exit”.

Grease only requires Balance checks if someone within those squares moves. Saying someone is "balancing" when they're not even required to make a Balance check (i.e., if they don't attempt to move) is, as I said, quite a stretch. (And it's certainly not RAW.) Which raises the question: why stretch so hard to make a first-level spell overpowered, when not stretching leaves the same spell perfectly good?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Well, balancing is not truely defined at all, so you never lose your Dex bonus to AC from that, by the RAW, if you want to go that way.

That's right, and it needs to be defined better. Otherwise you have people making up their own definitions, and inevitably some of those are going to make a first-level spell (grease) way more powerful than a first-level spell shouold be.

Does anybody out there really think that saying "everybody without 5 ranks in Balance is subject to sneak attack" is balanced for a first-level spell?

For comparison, distract assailant makes one person sneak attackable, for one attack. Granted, it's a swift spell, but it doesn't affect multiple targets for multiple rounds, and there's a saving throw. That's how a first-level sneak attack granting spell should work.

 

[Thanee]

Does anybody out there really think that saying "everybody without 5 ranks in Balance is subject to sneak attack" is balanced for a first-level spell?

You mean like Summon Monster I? Even *with* 5 ranks in Balance (ok, you got Improved Uncanny Dodge as a compensation, which is also not really a common ability).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

Does anybody out there really think that saying "everybody without 5 ranks in Balance is subject to sneak attack" is balanced for a first-level spell?

Absolutely. If there were a 0th-level spell that granted a creature the ability to sneak attack every opponent (using their own sneak attack ability) on a permanent basis, that would be balanced. Why? Because if a rogue gains their sneak attack on every single attack, then they just barely become balanced.

So, your arguments of "this can't work because it's not balanced" are futile. The fact is that it is balanced even if it were far worse than what you fear. The real question, however, is what is allowed by the rules. Your initial dismissal of my statement on the basis of RAW has zero support as Thanee has demonstrated.

 

[Thanee]

Well, that 0th level spell would be a bit much IMHO.

For comparison, distract assailant makes one person sneak attackable, for one attack. Granted, it's a swift spell, but it doesn't affect multiple targets for multiple rounds, and there's a saving throw. That's how a first-level sneak attack granting spell should work.

I don't know, I find this spell so weak, I would probably never use it. Without a save and working the same way as if someone was providing a flanking opportunity (no +2 tho) would be fine and useable. That way it's just a pathetic waste of a 1st level slot. Well, at least it didn't also cost an action then...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Shadowdweller]

Does anybody out there really think that saying "everybody without 5 ranks in Balance is subject to sneak attack" is balanced for a first-level spell?

You mean as opposed to the numerous first level spells which leave one completely unable to act, if not totally helpless? (Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Color Spray, Sleep)

In a word, yes.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Hmm. Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't the results of a Balance check last just one round? For example, charging an opponent gives you a -2 AC penalty, but only until your turn in the following round.

The Balance check in grease works the same way, IMO. If you try to move, you make a Balance check. If the check fails, you're off-balance and flat-footed. If you succeed, you are able to move around on the grease without falling, which negates the "can't move while balancing" RAW.

Oh, and if you fail your Reflex save and fall down, you're prone but not off-balance (being off-balance requires failing a Balance check, IMO).