Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Tatsukun]

As my group of friends used to say, "Just let him ramble on, until he annoys even himself".

There are two sides to this debate, both could be valid.

Decide as you see fit, ignore the other side.

Enjoy life

-Tatsu

 

[Demoquin]

As my group of friends used to say, "Just let him ramble on, until he annoys even himself".

There are two sides to this debate, both could be valid.

Decide as you see fit, ignore the other side.

Enjoy life

-Tatsu

I was about to say the same thing lol. I can see that Jeff has a poin as does Thanee. I could agree with both with no qualms.

I think that if you are in the greased area (not moving) and under attack, then you are flatfooted. As you need your feet to support the stances you make to counter-attack. If you move through the grease spell, then i think that an enemy can take a AoO (if close enough) to catch him flatfooted. The player doesnt have to 'ready' an attack to catch him FF, the grease does that on the AoO from moving into P threatened space (which happens to be in the Greased area.

G= Grease O= Opponent (moving through grease) P= Player (Rogue)

GG
GO <- - 0
P

Jeff, i think you need to look at both sides and play a neutral role on this one. Even your thoughts can be rule House Rule, as there is no guideline for balancing.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Jeff, i think you need to look at both sides and play a neutral role on this one. Even your thoughts can be rule House Rule, as there is no guideline for balancing.

As I keep saying, I was the first person in this thread to point out that there are no official rules for balancing, and that there need to be.

As far as looking at both sides, I always do ... the only half-argument put forward for "anybody in grease is flat-footed until their next action" was Caliban's assertion that "bonuses and penalties stick around until the acting character's next turn," which I have shown to be a false assertion with several simple examples. (At which point he decided to call me a big ol' poopy-head and leave, rather than responding to the destruction of his assertion.)

Everything else has been, "Gee, that just doesn't make sense to me," which is a fine reason for a house rule, but certainly not a logical one. I'm a big believer in logic ... on those (many, many) occasions in which D&D rules don't seem to make much sense, I try to find a way to view them that is logical, rather than simply creating new rules out of nowhere or changing the rules that exist.

(Another example is the "poison is evil/is not" argument. By D&D rules, voluntary poison use is evil. But by any intermediate or advanced understanding of morality, that doesn't make sense. Some people decide to change the rules: "in my games, using poison is no more evil than using a crossbow." Instead of ignoring the rule -- which of course is okay -- I prefer to find something that fits D&D's evil-poison rule: I assume that poison-use being evil is simply religious in origin, much like "not eating meat on Fridays" (although obviously more profound). It's logical (within the framework of the game), and it doesn't involve discarding or changing any rules.)

But all of that aside, and even in light of an "official" answer from WCS, yes, any decision about what "balancing" means is a house rule. It's just that some house-rules make more sense than others.

 

[Caliban]

As far as looking at both sides, I always do ... the only half-argument put forward for "anybody in grease is flat-footed until their next action" was Caliban's assertion that "bonuses and penalties stick around until the acting character's next turn," which I have shown to be a false assertion with several simple examples. (At which point he decided to call me a big ol' poopy-head and leave, rather than responding to the destruction of his assertion.)

You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Xael]

"Dude," I haven't offered you a single insult. If you're so insecure that you go looking for them, then by all means, take your ball and go home. Your brilliant argument by fuzzy-wuzzy logic isn't a loss, and -- trust me -- reading it is certainly no reward.

In post 33, you basically start with the "munchkin" thing, and in post 44, it's already "But as you can tell from this thread, "common sense" ain't all that common.".

And you think you haven't insulted anyone. Seriously? :\

 

[Jeff Wilder]

And you think you haven't insulted anyone. Seriously?

Yes. If you can tell me who I insulted before being attacked myself (as opposed to who feels insulted), please do. The two things are very different.

 

[Xael]

Yes. If you can tell me who I insulted before being attacked myself (as opposed to who feels insulted), please do. The two things are very different.

From my point of view, you insulted everybody who disagreed with you in the post 44 at latest. Before that, the "attacks" against you mostly consisted of people disagreeing with you, with Infiniti2000's post 27 being a bit cold maybe, but still staying in the RAW debate. If I missed something, you can of course point it out.

If you think you can go saying that people you're discussing with have no common sense without it being an insult, then I'd really like to hear your view of what is insulting.

 

[Thanee]

Everything else has been, "Gee, that just doesn't make sense to me," which is a fine reason for a house rule, but certainly not a logical one. I'm a big believer in logic ... on those (many, many) occasions in which D&D rules don't seem to make much sense, I try to find a way to view them that is logical, rather than simply creating new rules out of nowhere or changing the rules that exist.

Logic is a means to project a 'realistic situation' into a mathematic construct (i.e. a set of rules). You still start with a realistic situation, and that's exactly what the game rules try to do, project realistic situations into rules.

By the pure rules, as you have pointed out yourself , there is no logical explanation... you choose to fill that up with something that does not unbalance things, while many others prefer the 'logical' way to fill it up with something that makes sense in the context.

I don't think your view is the logical one here.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scratched_back]

Wow, I'm glad I didn't mention the dirty knife...

(Python; you either get it or you don't.)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yes. If you can tell me who I insulted before being attacked myself (as opposed to who feels insulted), please do. The two things are very different.

Numerous times you have outrighted stated that your opponents in this debate are one or more of the following: illogical, have no common sense, munchkins, nuts, duplicitous, and insecure. Additionally, you have a generally condescending and sarcastic tone. You put things like "dude' in parentheses to condescendingly call out Caliban's written dialect as if yours is superior. You accuse me of some agenda (really, I still have no idea what that comment means). You also continually pat yourself on the back, as if that's suppose to endear you to readers.

The fact is that you actually do make some reasonable arguments, if one is able to wade through the enormous amount of sarcasm and condescension. It's hard to do, though.