Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Plane Sailing]

The rules on this are vague, and could be ruled either way (which means a house rule).

Although it isn't significant to the discussion in hand, I would like to improve your statement here - if the rules are vague then the DM has to make an adjudication - and that is the kind of thing which we would discuss here in the rules forum. How an existing rule might be interpreted by different people to come up with a version that works for us.

House Rules are more properly considered to be brand new rules, or genuine changes to existing rules - and those would be discussed in (and moved if necessary to) the House Rules forum.

I only mention that because I often see other people throw around 'house rule' as an almost perjorative term against anyone who disagrees with their own adjudication of vague rules You are not doing it in this case of course, it just seemed an apposite opportunity to mention the distinction that moderators will normally use when deciding where a discussion properly lives

Cheers

 

[IcyCool]

House Rules are more properly considered to be brand new rules, or genuine changes to existing rules - and those would be discussed in (and moved if necessary to) the House Rules forum.

I only mention that because I often see other people throw around 'house rule' as an almost perjorative term against anyone who disagrees with their own adjudication of vague rules You are not doing it in this case of course, it just seemed an apposite opportunity to mention the distinction that moderators will normally use when deciding where a discussion properly lives

Ah, my mistake. I had thought that house rules were any rules that were not spelled out in the RAW (which would mean any vague rule (one that could be ruled multiple different ways) pretty much called for a house rule). I shall amend my definition.

 

[Zandel]

Originally Posted by Zandel
"A character in an area that requires a balance check to move is considered balancing unless they can make a balance check at a DC = to the check required to move +10."

Dam! I forgot a word when I posted that. My bad. JW this is the full revision.

"A character fully in an area that requires a balance check to move is considered balancing unless they can make a balance check at a DC = to the check required to move +10."

That solves the large creature problem and was meant to be in there. Grease only effects up to large creatures and they can still move out of the area in one turn in most cases.

 

[Caliban]

Or in a doorway. Or simply surrounded. Or when facing a spellcaster with more than one grease available. "Trapping" a creature -- especially a large, tough creature -- within the area of a grease spell is trivial.'

You keep making these absolute statements that aren't actually true. Since I actually have real, in-game experience using the grease spell, with a 10th level sorcerer who has used it since level 1, forgive me if I trust my own experiences rather than your overblown hyberbole.

The fact of the matter is that grease isn't quite as potent as you make it out to be, and there are usually better spells to use, especially at higher levels. In the right situation it can be pretty effective, but those situations are not as common as you seem to think, or as easy to engineer.

So you could dodge more easily rolling around on the ground than you could standing? Interesting.

When standing and trying to dodge involves make a balance check to keep on your feet and rolling around on the floor doesn't? Sure.

When you go prone in grease (or any other surface requireing a balance check) you are no longer balancing. At that point you've failed to balance.

The DM made the call, and it seems reasonable to me. I have a character who uses Grease a lot, and I have no problem with the ruling. (As to whether it's RAW or not, the rules don't have a lot to say on the whole balancing thing... as you may have noticed.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You keep making these absolute statements that aren't actually true. Since I actually have real, in-game experience using the grease spell, with a 10th level sorcerer who has used it since level 1, forgive me if I trust my own experiences rather than your overblown hyberbole.

Right. And the "overblown hyperbole" of the several people on here who agree that grease is hugely effective against giants ... one of them calling it -- a first-level spell -- "instrumental" in defeating them.

How about I trust their "overblown hyperbole" (in concert with my own similar experience) rather than your "presumed incompetence"?

I have a character who uses Grease a lot

Ah! Of course you do.

 

[Caliban]

Right. And the "overblown hyperbole" of the several people on here who agree that grease is hugely effective against giants ... one of them calling it -- a first-level spell -- "instrumental" in defeating them.

*shrug* What's your point? Some spells are more effective against some creatures than others. Personally, I've found Ray of Enfeeblement and/or Web to be much more effective against giants than Grease. Unless you are greasing their weapon, hitting them with grease just makes them prone, and a -4 on their attack rolls isn't all that significant.

How about I trust their "overblown hyperbole" (in concert with my own similar experience) rather than your "presumed incompetence"?

Ah, more personal attacks. Of course anyone who disagrees with you must be incompetant. How mature.

Ah! Of course you do.

Hmm... It seems that you really are a big poopy-head.

It looks like attempting to have a mature discussion with you was a mistake. Sorry to waste your time, and I'm really sorry you wasted mine.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Last warning, gentlemen.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Yeah, it's like saying that I shouldn't take the penalty to AC for charging for a full round, because I'm not charging anymore by the time my opponents get to hit me.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Yeah, it's like saying that I shouldn't take the penalty to AC for charging for a full round, because I'm not charging anymore by the time my opponents get to hit me.

No, it's not like that, because the rules for charging specifically say otherwise. And the reason they do so is because if they didn't, the AC penalty would only last until you completed the charge.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's what CustServ says, Hyp.

Where can I get some of what CustServ has been smoking?

Ironically, I came back here because I just spent the day browsing the WotC boards, and wanted to get away from the childish personal attacks and petty bickering that run rampant on those boards...

Anyway, allow me to wrench the thread kicking and screaming back on topic with another cool Grease trick: cast Evard's Black Tentacles on a group of foes. Grease up your melee butchers and send them in to hack up the grappled foes, since they'll be much more easily able to slip wetly out of the tentacles' grasp than your foes will.