Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3286623" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification