Suggested Rule: Balancing ...

[Jeff Wilder]

There is no condition in 3.5 called "balancing." That wouldn't be a big deal, except that there are very serious consequences for a character who is "balancing."

One school of thought is that you're balancing whenever you're on a surface that requires a Balance check (unless, of course, you have 5 ranks in Balance). IMO, this has severe ramifications for game, um, balance ... consider the increased power of the first-level spell grease, just for one instance.

Another point of view -- one endorsed by WotC Customer Service, for what little that's worth -- is that you're only balancing during that point in your turn in which you're actually making the Balance check. This has obvious verisimilitude problems, IMO, but I still prefer it to the implications above.

There's got to be a middle ground between these, and maybe there is.

"Balancing -- Standing, but considered flat-footed and unable to move from your space. You are considered to be balancing for the current round if you are forced to roll a Balance check and fail by 4 or less. If you succeed on the check, you are not balancing and may move at half speed for the current round; if you fail the check by 5 or more, you fall.

If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you are not considered flat-footed while balancing."

 

[Vrecknidj]

How often has this come up that it's been an issue?

Dave

 

[Jeff Wilder]

How often has this come up that it's been an issue?

How often do your players cast grease once they've trapped a slow, clumsy monster in a door or passageway?

Fairly often.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Why not jsut add the following line to the skill description:

Check:....You are considered to be 'balancing' until the start of your next turn or until you can move without requiring a balance check.

This addition does the same thing as you more verbose method above, but adds the ability to balance across an area with your first move action, then walk onto solid ground and stand...


IMHO, thats the way it should read anyway.

 

[Nifft]

Excellent idea. I'd keep the Balancing condition unless the PC has a special feat (which shall be granted by the Thief-Acrobat), or unless the PC takes a voluntary -20 penalty on the check.

The flat-footed thing mirrors what happens when a PC is climbing. Effects that give you your Dex to AC while climbing will likewise benefit you while balancing (spider climb and similar).

Thanks, -- N

 

[Crothian]

How often do your players cast grease once they've trapped a slow, clumsy monster in a door or passageway?

Fairly often.

Or never.....

 

[Celebrim]

May I make a suggestion?

You are 'balancing' if you can't take 10 on your balance checks.

The penalty for 'balancing' is, well, you can't take 10 on your balance checks, making you more likely to fall over. When you are 'balancing' on a surface that would provoke a non-trivial balance check (ei there is a chance of failure), you should make a balance check to see if you fall over.

Now, it seems to me that what you want is a ruling on what happens when you can't take 10 on your balance checks because you are 'distracted' (for instance you are in melee combat), but the character really wants to pay more attention to his balance than to the combat. In other words, can you ignore the 'distraction' (pesky guy with a sword trying to kill you) in favor of taking 10 on your balance check?

By the RAW, no, but I can see several schools of thought on this.

One is that you can take 10 on your balance check and ignore the distraction, but, that this is the same as being 'helpless' against the attacker - thus making you an eligible target for a coup de gras. That's probably the way I would rule, but that's harsh I know.

A less harsh ruling might be that you can take 10 on your balance check and ignore the distraction, but that you are then considered flat footed with respect to attackers.

Somewhere in the middle you might rule that you can take 10 on the balance check, but that if you do that you can't 'take 10' on your AC, effectively taking a -10 penalty to AC.

But I think you are seriously over thinking this. The rules handle the situation fairly well in 95% of the cases.

 

[starwed]

This runs into a slight problem: Without the ranks, a poor balance check will occasionally save you from sneak attack damage. Whereas a successful one will still allow it.

I like the taking 10 idea better.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'm not sure I see a need for this as a 'condition' anymore than there needs to be a condition for 'climbing'. Balancing is more of an action than a condition, just like climbing; it takes effort to remain balancing while in a precarious position. But Prone, for example, takes an action to end the condition, but not to maintain it.

What would making this a condition solve that the rules for the Balance skill don't already handle?