Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Zandel]

Personally I like and will be sticking with my ruling on the two rolls. That answer just doesn't sit well with common sense or lodgic. Thanee's sense of lodgic that staying on a surface where one wrond step could make you fall requires some form of check/penalty works so much better.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Personally I like and will be sticking with my ruling on the two rolls. That answer just doesn't sit well with common sense or lodgic.

Yet it's the answer that at least three people in this thread came up with, including me, and I'm an extremely logical person.

Your ruling would be just fine with me, don't get me wrong, but it is a house rule, and it does give grease a power-boost it just doesn't need.

Thanee's sense of lodgic that staying on a surface where one wrond step could make you fall requires some form of check/penalty works so much better.

There is a penalty. You can't safely move. In a tactical combat, that's a huge drawback.

 

[Zandel]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder
Yet it's the answer that at least three people in this thread came up with, including me, and I'm an extremely logical person.

Keep in mind that those answers were thought of using just raw with no real thoughts on what makes sense.

 

[Thanee]

Yet it's the answer that at least three people in this thread came up with, including me, and I'm an extremely logical person.

Your ruling would be just fine with me, don't get me wrong, but it is a house rule, and it does give grease a power-boost it just doesn't need.

Everything, that explains 'balancing' is a house rule, as explained above, since 'balancing' is an undefined term in the RAW.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Everything, that explains 'balancing' is a house rule, as explained above

I assume you mean by me, since I was the first person in this thread to point that out.

So yes, until there's an in-print official explanation of "balancing" (as opposed to the official answer given by Wizards Customer Service) people are free to define it as they want. Including people that choose to define it so as to give their rogue characters a huge combat boost. Personally, I'll go with the version that doesn't break things, which just happens to be the version also given by Wizards Customer Service. (And I'm not being facetious with that "just happens to be.")

 

[Thanee]

I assume you mean by me, since I was the first person in this thread to point that out.

Heh. I didn't check back, so I guess you are aware of that then. Since your post above did sound like you thought the CustServ interpretation would not be a house rule as well. Guess I misread it only then.

So yes, until there's an in-print official explanation of "balancing" (as opposed to the official answer given by Wizards Customer Service) people are free to define it as they want. Including people that choose to define it so as to give their rogue characters a huge combat boost. Personally, I'll go with the version that doesn't break things, which just happens to be the version also given by Wizards Customer Service. (And I'm not being facetious with that "just happens to be.")

Sure, if the spell would otherwise be too powerful in your games, that's a reasonable choice.

As long as this is not the case, which in our games it is not, I vastly prefer, if a rule makes sense within the game world pseudo-realism or the so called 'spirit' of the rules, tho.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Prism]

I actually really like the custsrv answer - you only get a sneak attack opportunity if you ready an action to catch the creature as it moves. So far we have played that all creatures are flatfooted until they leave the area but this has proved to be a little overpowered for what already is a good spell. Limiting the sneak to just one attack rather than a full attack seems right to me and is still a valid interpretation of the rules

 

[Caliban]

Historically, CustServ has been useless in settling a rules debate. They really don't know the D&D rules that well, and if you send the same question in again, you will likely get a different answer if a different person answers it.

I know, I've done it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Historically, CustServ has been useless in settling a rules debate. They really don't know the D&D rules that well, and if you send the same question in again, you will likely get a different answer if a different person answers it.

I completely agree. My contempt for WCS (and even for the Sage) is pretty well developed at this point.

But if you really look at the response the WotC representative (Sam) gave in this thread, you can tell that (a) he took the time to understand the question (well, on second try), and (b) he answered it clearly, concisely, and with a definite knowledge of the rules and their implications (e.g., the reference to readying an action to catch someone flat-footed).

This one they got right.

 

[Caliban]

I completely agree. My contempt for WCS (and even for the Sage) is pretty well developed at this point.

But if you really look at the response the WotC representative (Sam) gave in this thread, you can tell that (a) he took the time to understand the question (well, on second try), and (b) he answered it clearly, concisely, and with a definite knowledge of the rules and their implications (e.g., the reference to readying an action to catch someone flat-footed).

This one they got right.

Except for the fact that the D&D combat round is supposed to simulate simultaneous actions, not stop and go movement. That's why any bonuses and penalties for your actions tend to last until your next action, not just your initiative.

I don't buy that I only lose my Dex bonus during my turn if I'm balancing. Makes no sense.