Hypersmurf said:
Do I understand the Custserv response correctly?
As things stand, yes, that's correct. But note that this illogic is not the result of WCS's answer ... it is, instead, because of the illogic of the Balance skill:
"You can walk on a precarious surface. A successful check lets you move at half your speed along the surface for 1 round."
Note that the Balance skill
itself only requires a Balance check for movement. If you're simply
standing on that oiled tightrope, there's no Balance check required.
That's why "balancing" needs better definition.
Note that if the Balance skill said "you can walk or stand on a precarious surface," this wouldn't be a problem (although it would introduce others).
Grease would still say "make a Balance check to move" (superseding the general rule) or perhaps just "make Balance checks as normal" (if they want
grease (and ice, and damp floors) to make nearly everyone standing on them sneak attackable).
(Boy, with that change, it sure would suck to be a frost giant living in ice caverns, trying to repel thieves ... )
So what would be a good balancing condition?
"If a character is in the process of movement that requires a Balance check, or is standing on a surface less than 1/2 the size of the character's normal space, the character is considered to be balancing." I'm sure that can be improved ... any suggestions? (I deliberately left out "standing on slippery but otherwise solid footing," because it seems clear that's not what the game designers want, and I happen to agree.)