Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Jeff Wilder]

Bard 1. Did you read that part?

Which the bard doesn't get until 2nd or 3rd level.

No. I) Color spray stuns for at least one round regardless of HD (if the save is failed).

Yes, that's right. One saving throw. One round if it's failed. That's balanced.

II) Small cone as opposed to the tiny area of a Grease spell?

You know perfectly well that the issue isn't the area, but rather the fact that the spellcaster casting the color spray has to get practically within melee range to use it. He can't even have friends blocking for him, unless they want to make the save, too. That's balanced.

III) Grease also happens to have a save.

No, grease has an ongoing save, in addition to potential forced skill checks. But you know all of this and choose to ignore it, because you want a broken spell.

Consider, in this case: Is the victim flat-footed from balancing if they 'fail' the save?

No. They will, however, provoke an attack of opportunity when they stand.

And consider that since even while prone one can crawl five feet as a move action, even having failed the save shouldn't prevent the victim from escaping the area (at least if medium size or smaller).

And that's the issue. Grease as some of y'all want to houserule it makes it the mack-daddy spell against tough big creatures (like giants). They have poor Reflex saves, certainly no balance, probably armor-check penalties, they can't escape the area if surrounded, if they fall they provoke AoOs upon rising and can only make one attack ... and you people want to say they're denied a Dex bonus and thus sneak attackable?

That's simply nuts.

Grease as it actually is by RAW is a damned fine spell. As you people want to have it, it becomes god-like.

And helpless is considerably worse than being merely flatfooted. Moreover, by the time the HD limit makes the spell obsolete, there are OTHER similar spells that become available.

Sure, for higher-level slots, which again you conveniently forget to mention.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You are flat-footed in any round that you are in the grease area and have moved or tried to move but not any other time.

That's the reasonable interpretation under the RAW, yes. (But when someone is considered to be "balancing" does need better definition in the rules.)

 

[Zandel]

That's the reasonable interpretation under the RAW, yes. (But when someone is considered to be "balancing" does need better definition in the rules.)

When someone is considered balancing could use some clarification but isn't that bad as is.

Common sense dictates that when you actually use a skill you have attempted that action, EG: Climbing with climb skill, balancing with balance skill, jumping with jump skill and so on...

The issue seems clear enough to me. They have the right idea. Except for the if you stand still and don't move your flat-footed because you can't move. The spell does not say that you have to make a check every round, Only if you move. If it ment that then it would say move or conduct any activity where you move your feet or something like that.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Common sense dictates that when you actually use a skill you have attempted that action, EG: Climbing with climb skill, balancing with balance skill, jumping with jump skill and so on...

I obviously agree. But as you can tell from this thread, "common sense" ain't all that common.

But I still believe it needs better definition in the rules. Consider this: a character who charges downhill has to make a Balance 10 check or fall. Assume he makes the check and completes his charge, ending on level ground. For the counter-attack, is he considered to be "balancing"?

He definitely used the Balance skill, right? But it doesn't make much sense that he can control himself well enough to charge and attack at +2, but not enough to makes attacks of opportunity following his charge. (Remember, balancing make you flat-footed ... flat-footed people can't make AoOs.)

This is why I say that there needs to be a balancing condition (and, for that matter, a climbing condition). There's a difference between someone fighting while on a narrow ledge, and the charge situation I described above. A balancing condition should address that difference.

 

[Zandel]

Touche!

Definately needs a DM call there. I'd say that the balancing state onle persists if you stay in an area the requires a balance check.

 

[Shadowdweller]

And that's the issue. Grease as some of y'all want to houserule it makes it the mack-daddy spell against tough big creatures (like giants). They have poor Reflex saves, certainly no balance, probably armor-check penalties, they can't escape the area if surrounded, if they fall they provoke AoOs upon rising and can only make one attack ... and you people want to say they're denied a Dex bonus and thus sneak attackable?

Ah yes, common sense. A giant, surrounded, and subject to the spell being ALSO subject to sneak attacks makes the spell overpowered? A giant surrounded (read: flanked) is ALREADY subject to sneak attacks.

Edit: Please note. My argument is not with discussion of what the intent of the rules is regarding when one is physically balancing or not, but with the claims put forward regarding game-balance.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Actually, upon re-reading some of the statements here, I'm not completely sure we're even talking about the same effect. Note the following:

****
*X1*
*23*
****

Where X is a victim standing in the grease spell, and 1/2/3 are the other spaces affected. *s represent non-affected squares. The general rule of movement in 3.5 is that the space you move into determines whether movement is hampered or not. So the victim has a total of five spaces that can be freely moved into. Spaces 1, 2, 3 (or X should someone else thereafter try to enter the greased area) require the balance checks.

Sound different from your interpretation? Note the language: "A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Balance check." Thus, it's relatively easy to escape the area. Even by the strictest ruling where to walk at all requires a balance check, there is still the option of crawling.

Bottom line? It's nice if you can trap or convince the enemy to stay put in the area of effect. But overall it's not a very effective trap-the-monster spell.

 

[dagger]

What about a Giant that takes up 10 ft and is standing on all four of those squares?

 

[Shadowdweller]

What about a Giant that takes up 10 ft and is standing on all four of those squares?

Then the DM decides whether or not a Giant in said condition who moves diagonally so that only ONE square of his four is greased is subject to the full effects.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Ah yes, common sense. A giant, surrounded, and subject to the spell being ALSO subject to sneak attacks makes the spell overpowered? A giant surrounded (read: flanked) is ALREADY subject to sneak attacks.

He is? From the guy in the corner with the shortbow? Really?

Sheesh.