Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Thanee]

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.

Exactly. It's just completely wrong, if you try to 'un-abstract' what happens in combat.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

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.

Yep, it even works on demand, if you need a contradictory ruling to show that.

They need to have a database with all the questions ever asked, which also contains the answers from *competent* people (the game designers, the sage (who should sometimes check back with the game designers, too ), the FAQ/errata team, rules staff, etc).

New questions should be flagged as exactly that... new and needing an answer.

As a reply, the CustServ should give the answer from the database (the trick is to match the question sent with the question stored, tho) or, if there is none yet, should make a NOTE, that they can only give their own opinion so far, but the request will also be saved and answered as soon as the question has been answered by the rules staff, and only then should they offer a solution themselves.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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 suppose it's a good thing you gave yourself wiggle-room by saying "tend," because I can think of several examples that contradict this, and I'm not even trying hard.

The bonuses and penalties that "tend" to last until your next action are generally arithmetical (and are also generally chosen by the character in question); situational bonuses and penalties (like the one described in the WSC response), tend not to last until your next action ... they last until the situation changes for the acting character. Whenever that is, the bonus or penalty goes away immediately.

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

If you're an orc in the area of a daylight spell, and you're dazzled, you don't keep the -1 to attacks until your next action ... you keep the -1 to attacks until the daylight is gone, even if it dispelled a split-second after your previous action. If you're under cover, and the cover is disintegrated, you don't keep the cover bonus to AC until your next action ... the situation has changed, no matter what anybody wants to claim about "simultaneous combat," and as soon as the cover goes away, so does the cover bonus. If you're magically sleeping and a friend wakes you, you're not helpless until the start of your next action ... the situation has changed, and you're no longer sleeping and helpless. If you're a ranger with +6 damage to orcs, and the orc you're fighting is polymorphed into a gibbering mouther, which then provokes an AoO, you don't get the +6 damage on your attack of opportunity ... the situation has changed. And on and on and on.

The reason WCS's "doesn't make sense" to y'all is that you simply don't want it to make sense ... you want a broken grease spell, for whatever reason. (My guess would be that's the way you've always played it, since people tend to keep playing by the rules they've established, even when they're wrong.) And, of course, that's fine. But you simply can't substantiate your claims, under the rules, that WCS's interpretation "doesn't make sense." It makes perfect sense: grease creates a negative situation ... once an affected character is out of the situation, he no longer suffers the negative. This is the way the game works.

 

[Caliban]

The reason WCS's "doesn't make sense" to y'all is that you simply don't want it to make sense ... you want a broken grease spell, for whatever reason. (My guess would be that's the way you've always played it, since people tend to keep playing by the rules they've established, even when they're wrong.) And, of course, that's fine. But you simply can't substantiate your claims, under the rules, that WCS's interpretation "doesn't make sense." It makes perfect sense: grease creates a negative situation ... once an affected character is out of the situation, he no longer suffers the negative. This is the way the game works.

Ah, the "if you disagree with me you are a munchkin" defense. Very effective arguement, really makes me see the light.

Bleh.

 

[Thanee]

The reason WCS's "doesn't make sense" to y'all is that you simply don't want it to make sense ... you want a broken grease spell, for whatever reason.

I've never used the spell...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

Ah, the "if you disagree with me you are a munchkin" defense. Very effective arguement, really makes me see the light.

Bleh.

You're giving him too much credit. It's additionally the "you have no common sense, so listen to me gripe about what I see is a god-like broken spell" defense.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Ah, the "if you disagree with me you are a munchkin" defense. Very effective arguement, really makes me see the light.

You're giving him too much credit. It's additionally the "you have no common sense, so listen to me gripe about what I see is a god-like broken spell" defense.

Ah, and so effectively countered by the "I'm going to ignore the actual argument, since I have no answer for it, and instead burst into fake tears and call him mean" gambit. Brilliant! Nobody will ever see past that!

 

[Caliban]

Ah, and so effectively countered by the "I'm going to ignore the actual argument, since I have no answer for it, and instead burst into fake tears and call him mean" gambit. Brilliant! Nobody will ever see past that!

Dude, at this point I don't care what your "actual arguement" is. You want me to ignore your insults and sniping, and focus on your rules arguement. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't reward that kind of behavior.

Nowdays, I simply won't carry on a debate with someone who chooses to take the attitude you have displayed in the last couple of posts. If I do, I have a nasty habit of escalating it into a flame war, and I'm trying not to do that anymore. It doesn't help anyone.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Dude, at this point I don't care what your "actual arguement" is. You want me to ignore your insults and sniping, and focus on your rules arguement.

"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.

 

[Caliban]

"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.