What does On The Ground mean to you?

[irdeggman]

Are the abilities of these stances so powerful that they warrant such a substantial drawback?

Are you wishing to house-rule the restriction contained in the rules for them because they are not?

The text states where the power for the stances comes from and then places a restriction on using them, including a statement that these are unlike the others, which creates a distinction. This must be there for a reason (other than role-playing).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Ground is anything solid under your feet. It has always been that in 3e and it always will be.

 

[lukelightning]

Are you wishing to house-rule the restriction contained in the rules for them because they are not?

It seems to me that declaring that in this one specific case "the ground" only refers to the natural surface of the Earth while in every other instance it means a solid surface is a house rule.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It seems to me that declaring that in this one specific case "the ground" only refers to the natural surface of the Earth while in every other instance it means a solid surface is a house rule.

It wouldn't be only in this one specific case. Anywhere the word "ground" is used in the Earth Elemental special abilities, for instance, I would also interpret it narrowly and not as a synonym for "standing surface."

"It can travel though solid ground or stone as easily as humans walk on the earth’s surface." Does ground in this case mean a wooden deck of a ship? It seems unlikely.

(now if it hadn't been discussed prior to the PCs introduction and the player seemed to be assuming the "standing surface" interpretation in good faith, I wouldn't change it on them in mid game. I would discuss it with the player and come to some sort of agreement on how strict to be. If they wanted to retroactively switch out some abilities that would be fine.)

 

[irdeggman]

It wouldn't be only in this one specific case. Anywhere the word "ground" is used in the Earth Elemental special abilities, for instance, I would also interpret it narrowly and not as a synonym for "standing surface."

"It can travel though solid ground or stone as easily as humans walk on the earth’s surface." Does ground in this case mean a wooden deck of a ship? It seems unlikely.

Which is pretty much what I have been trying to get to also.

There are times where "ground" is specifically related to earth and/or stone - the maneuvers in question, the racial substitution levels in Races of Stone (and I'm pretty sure there are some more floating around). In these cases the reference to earth and stone is not "flavor" text but descriptive text that leads to what the "restriction" is all about.

(now if it hadn't been discussed prior to the PCs introduction and the player seemed to be assuming the "standing surface" interpretation in good faith, I wouldn't change it on them in mid game. I would discuss it with the player and come to some sort of agreement on how strict to be. If they wanted to retroactively switch out some abilities that would be fine.)

From the OP's posts I gather that he has been nixing things that appear to be attempts to go outside of the original intent of the maneuvers. Things like roof tops and the like have been nixed.

 

[Deset Gled]

There are times where "ground" is specifically related to earth and/or stone - the maneuvers in question, the racial substitution levels in Races of Stone (and I'm pretty sure there are some more floating around). In these cases the reference to earth and stone is not "flavor" text but descriptive text that leads to what the "restriction" is all about.

IMO, if that's what the authors meant, they should have said "you must have a direct channel to earth or stone" not "you must be on the ground". You can't expect to use commonly used general terms to mean something specific in a certain context if you don't explicitly call it out somewhere.

IIRC, there are places in Races of Stone where they make that distinction. I don't have Bo9S, but nobody has given any rules text to imply they did it there.

 

[Hammer_of_Tyr]

Thank you.

Thank you all, (Well most of you) I was the player in the tower, I was looking at the prospect of having to re-tool my character. Now I don't.

"whew"

 

[Cheiromancer]

From the OP's posts I gather that he has been nixing things that appear to be attempts to go outside of the original intent of the maneuvers. Things like roof tops and the like have been nixed.

I read the original intent as "cannot be used while flying" myself. Not "cannot be used while standing on a carpet." I wouldn't let an earth elemental phase through wood, but this feels different to me.

 

[lukelightning]

It wouldn't be only in this one specific case. Anywhere the word "ground" is used in the Earth Elemental special abilities, for instance, I would also interpret it narrowly and not as a synonym for "standing surface."

Earth elementals' movement doesn't talk about "ground"; it specifically talks about "stone, dirt, and other sort of earth."

Earth Glide (Ex)
An earth elemental can glide through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water. Its burrowing leaves behind no tunnel or hole, nor does it create any ripple or other signs of its presence. A move earth spell cast on an area containing a burrowing earth elemental flings the elemental back 30 feet, stunning the creature for 1 round unless it succeeds on a DC 15 Fortitude save.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I read the original intent as "cannot be used while flying" myself. Not "cannot be used while standing on a carpet." I wouldn't let an earth elemental phase through wood, but this feels different to me.

That's kinda the crux, I suppose. It's a matter of feel. To me, any ability that talks about a connection with the power of the earth has the same feel as the earth elemental abilities.

The important issue (imo) is to make sure that player and DM agree on the feel and if you realize you have different feels after a player has committed to an option, be flexible on finding a middle ground and/or allowing options to be changed. No one wants to have a build that doesn't actually do what they thought they did, whether its because of a player mistake, a unannounced houserule or a simple disagreement on interpretation.

In other words, while I have my own take on the rules question, I think the OP does not have a rules problem, they have a mixed expectation problem.