Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Thanee]

Well, the rules want to tell you that, yes.

"Please, call me Jeff 'the rules' Wilder."

The rules don't tell me that, no. The rules tell me, that when 'balancing' a character is flat-footed. They do not tell me, what 'balancing' is.

You (not the rules) tell me, that 'balancing' is taking an action to move (= moving from one space to another) on a precarious surface.

I say, that 'balancing' is a situation where you can’t move to avoid a blow (in the context of being flat-footed). Just like the rules say, the closest thing to a definition of 'balancing' given within them:

You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow

And you are right, move is not equal to move. The above move is quite obviously not the move as in moving from one space to another, since you never do so when you avoid a blow.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

I understand that it offends your idea of "what makes sense," but surely there are many aspects of D&D that do the same, to which you don't object and for which you don't create new rules?

I create new rules wherever it is necessary.
And I know when I create new rules, too.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felix]

Yep. It's fallacious. Circular. That too. Begs the question? Sure, why not.

Makes for good reading too. And writing... so I'll continue.

Besides which, you're referencing the consequences for balancing, when the whole question is about when the character is balancing.

• The character is balancing when he moves.

• The character can choose to move through Grease, or not.

• If the character moves, he must balance, and is therefore flat-footed.

• If the character does not move, he is not moving.

• If he is not moving, he is in the same situation as someone who cannot move. Unless he chooses to move, in which case he is moving, and therefore also balancing. Which means he is flat-footed.

A character caught in a web cannot move, but he can "move."

Quite right. The spell does not restrict movement within the 5-ft square. And so the character is not flat-footed. This has nothing to do with the Grease discussion because the key condition is balancing.

"Moving to avoid a blow" and "moving at up to half-speed" are different.

Is moving an inch "moving at up to half-speed"? It is not beyond half speed, and it is moving, so surely it's moving at up to half-speed.

Do you move an inch to avoid a blow? A half-inch? A hair's breadth?

Are there two definitions for the word "move"?


@Thanee: DAMN! Well, I guess what I should have said is "no one important has mentioned yet".

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Are there two definitions for the word "move"?

In D&D, yes, there are. "To move" under the D&D rules means to shift at least one square. (The definition is actually even more restrictive than that, since it's possible to shift position at least one square without engaging in D&D "movement.")

In D&D, the incidental shifts of the body involved in defending oneself, or even in attacking others, is not what is meant by "movement." The grease spell is clearly using this definition of "movement," since it references the character attribute of "speed."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I say, that 'balancing' is a situation where you can’t move to avoid a blow (in the context of being flat-footed). Just like the rules say, the closest thing to a definition of 'balancing' given within them:

Again, under your house rule, a character is considered balancing when he is not even required to make a Balance check. If that alone doesn't give you cause to reconsider, I give up. That is just quite a remarkable interpretation.

 

[Thanee]

Again, under your house rule, a character is considered balancing when he is not even required to make a Balance check. If that alone doesn't give you cause to reconsider, I give up. That is just quite a remarkable interpretation.

That's ok. I find it an extremely logical and sensible interpretation, because it causes both cases (the A and B I posted above) to be virtually the same, which they really should be, because I like believable and consistent rules not only within the abstract, but also within the pseudorealism, which the abstract models.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Zandel]

Originally Posted by JW
In post #63, Zandel creates a whole system for increasing save DCs to simulate fighting in grease.

Ok first and foremost i never created a system for increasing save DCs. I never said anything about save DCs.

What i was doing was making a logical DMs call on the DC for a skill check as is required under the rules.

Has anyone here actually fought melee combat in two five foot squares as the D&D rules say it's done? I can tell you now from experiance that if you don't move your feet your dead and also that you will not stay in just your square.

I can also tell you that trying to fight on ice (slipery surface) is much harder than just trying to stay on your feet. A rogues sneak attack is made when your opponent cannot react to defend from the attack and i can tell you that while fighting on a slippery surface you cannot defend from more than one attacker without being far more skilled then both attackers.

Therefore requiring some form of balance check to fight effectively is not only justified but required. And penalties for failing this check are also justified and required. I know that D&D heroes are meant to be the best of the best but they will most likely make the skill check while there average opponents will not.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Ok first and foremost i never created a system for increasing save DCs. I never said anything about save DCs.

I apologize. You're right; I misspoke. It was
increased Balance check DCs.

D&D does not simulate combat perfectly. Very few people want it to do so. I'm not one of them. Talking about "real-life melee fighting" really means nothing to me, as I'm not interested in simulating it.

 

[Zandel]

Originally posted by JW
I apologize. You're right; I misspoke. It was
increased Balance check DCs.

Wrong again not increased balance DCs. Appropriate balance DCs for the situation as is required under the rules.

D&D does not simulate combat perfectly. Very few people want it to do so. I'm not one of them. Talking about "real-life melee fighting" really means nothing to me, as I'm not interested in simulating it.

Not what I was trying to do either. If i was then melee combat would take place on both fighters 5' squares and both would take full penalties for terrain.

I was just pointing out that in real and in D&D combat both fighters are continually moving to dodge blows and thus a balance check is required to fight on slippery surfaces.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Wrong again not increased balance DCs.

Personally i'd rule that in all combat situations that if you move on such a surface and make the balance roll then you get a second check at a DC = to first DC + 5 or 10

Um ... okay.