Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6036375" data-attributes="member: 22424">Four encounters a day. The Wizard all but ends one with sleep, and contributes somewhat to another with his other 1st level spell. The Fighter does the lion's share of the fighting in the remaining three encounters, getting healed by the Cleric when appropriate. The Cleric, in addition to healing, helps with the fighting, as does the Rogue. The Rogue, in addition, contributes in non-combat situations through the use of his skills.And so all characters contribute, to different extents at different times. That sounds about balanced. (It's also an ideal, of course; reality is unlikely to match up exactly... but there's no telling how reality will adjust the exact balance.)No to both. Grease affects walking - merely standing doesn't require a check (though you need to save again on your next turn). Likewise, the crawl action isn't affected.Most creatures should therefore crawl 5 feet (move action) to get out of the area, then stand up. Done.(Justification for this ruling: because without it the spell would be unbalanced. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )This is incorrect. If the first save is passed, the spell is negated: "Material objects in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature receives a Reflex save to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw is failed..."It's also worth noting that 3e has increasingly made the mistake of encouraging PCs (and building monsters) that make use of only one weapon. This of course neglects the possibility that it might be lost/disarmed/sundered. Frankly, almost all creatures should carry multiple weapons, a simple and sensible measure that would go a long way to fixing this spell.But my issue with a lot of these examples is this: if the Wizard has exactly the right spell available, and makes use of it in an optimal manner, then the Wizard will indeed seem over-powerful. But that's not a problem with the system; in fact, it's not a problem at all - that's just good play.And it's also true that the core does include some elements that are more or less powerful than others. That's inevitable - perfect balance in so complex a system is impossible, even if they'd spent 8 years obsessively errata-ing the system as they tried with 4e.The only real guide to whether options are broken or not is the old design question: "Is this so good that it will always be taken? Is this so poor that it will never be taken." And despite whatever analysis the CharOp boards think they have done, the answer is simply "no".I've played 3e extensively over 8 years, almost exclusively core-rules-only, and I still see no shortage of Fighters, Rogues, and other non-spellcasters. And despite the dread warnings of spellcaster supremacy, somehow those Rogues and Fighters continue to hold their own, throughout the duration of campaigns. The balance isn't perfect, but to me it looks to be pretty damn good.But the later books don't reflect that. PHB2's Knight simply supersedes the Fighter, while Bo9S renders every martial class prior to that obselete (and isn't even balanced internally).</blockquote>

Verification