Grease spell seems a bit backward

[Agincourt]

If you succeed on a saving throw against Grease, you must make balance checks, which makes a character susceptible to sneak attack.

If you have fewer than 5 ranks in balance, it seems better to fail your saving throw so that you aren't subjected to sneak attacks from a rogue. (Assuming, of course, that you are fighting a rogue.) Does anyone else find that a bit backward that it can be better to fail a saving throw?

[ericgrau]

Then drop prone and fight that way, it's a free action. I don't think it's unreasonable that you might not want to fight standing up on an unstable surface. But in game terms, it's usually better to fight standing up. Most things don't have sneak attack. Even if one foe does, against mixed foes you're probably still better off standing up.

But it does confuse me when people try to stand up over and over again in situations when it is devastating to them. Just fight on the ground for a bit; it's not ideal, but you'll manage. Or crawl to the side before standing up if you're not in melee. In general the spell seems way overrated as a small area save-or-be-temporarily-inconvenienced, or else a way to utterly dominate a stooge who actively seeks his own misery.

[Khedrac]

It is totally situational. If you are surrounded by non-rogue melee opponents you may be better standing (no dex bonus) than falling (gives them +4 to hit). I had a party throw grease at a demon which was unholy blighting them from the other side of a web they had cast. I promptly rolled a 3 on the save (which made) but then thought "only the archer is really damaging me" so the demon promptly fell over to make it harder for the archer to hit.
One of those times when the tier 1 caster made an easy fight much harder for the party...

[Agincourt]

Then drop prone and fight that way, it's a free action. I don't think it's unreasonable that you might not want to fight standing up on an unstable surface. But in game terms, it's usually better to fight standing up. Most things don't have sneak attack. Even if one foe does, against mixed foes you're probably still better off standing up.

In terms of game mechanics that works, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Why would it be easier to move around (i.e. keep your dex bonus) while prone on a super slick surface? I can see how being on all fours would make it easier to keep from slipping around, but, on the other hand, your mobility it pretty severally hampered.

[ericgrau]

I'd have to say the thought comes from personal experience on shaky surfaces. I feel more comfortable on all fours. If you need a conceptual explanation, well, it isn't ideal but it's way easier. Think table with 4 or 3 legs vs. table with 2 or 1 legs if that helps. Even on a slick surface it's way more stable than the alternative.

[RndmNumGen]

In terms of game mechanics that works, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Why would it be easier to move around (i.e. keep your dex bonus) while prone on a super slick surface? I can see how being on all fours would make it easier to keep from slipping around, but, on the other hand, your mobility it pretty severally hampered.

Which is why you take a -4 penalty to AC versus melee attacks(ranged is harder to hit because of a low profile).

[Spuddles]

In terms of game mechanics that works, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Why would it be easier to move around (i.e. keep your dex bonus) while prone on a super slick surface? I can see how being on all fours would make it easier to keep from slipping around, but, on the other hand, your mobility it pretty severally hampered.

Because you aren't trying to balance. You can roll and keep the knife out of vulnerable bits. The loss of mobility/bigger target is represented by the +4 your attacker gets.

[Boci]

In general the spell seems way overrated as a small area save-or-be-temporarily-inconvenienced, or else a way to utterly dominate a stooge who actively seeks his own misery.

Maybe. I personally feel this is because a lot of people don't realize its a semi decent spell that can shine in certain situations. Such as:

Melee monster without reach vs. fighter with reach
Readied action against a charging opponent depending on the terrain can be devastating (yes it requires the DM to play along, but the affect is even mentioned in the spell's description)

[BRC]

Grease is one of my favorite spells, ever since we used it in an epic campaign to drop a Stone Colossus (The bigger they are, the more city blocks they destroy when they get knocked prone by a 1st level spell).

[Agincourt]

So what are the movement rules for crawling/walking on all fours? Are they affected by the Grease? If you don't want to be a "stooge," crawling out of the Grease seems to be a viable option.

Thanks for the input so far. I'd like to be able to explain this to my DM since this came up last session.

[ericgrau]

It's in the combat section of the rules. As a move action you may crawl 5 feet, which provokes an attack of opportunity if anyone threatens either square (not only the one you're leaving). So generally if threatened in melee I'd stay and fight at a -4 instead until no longer threatened in melee, unless my chances of hitting are abysmal. Maybe if I was a medium BAB class, rather than say a full BAB raging barbarian with weapon focus (or another cheesy way to easily hit if that's too low optimization for you). Hey, that's +3, bring it on.

[Spuddles]

My buddy played a ultimate magus in a level 10 to 13 game, and he got the most mileage out of the grease spell. Every round, more grease. Against giant enemies (inflated HD meant good saves and lots of HP), which were the bulk of opponents, it was so good.

[Zilzmaer]

Stone Colossus

Colossi have 3.0 Magic Immunity. That makes them immune to Grease.

[TuggyNE]

One of those times when the tier 1 caster made an easy fight much harder for the party...

From your example, the grease spell actually had little to no effect. What actually made the fight harder was the tactical choice to drop prone as a free action, which did not rely on grease in any way.

[Tvtyrant]

If you are a full attacker with reach, you could do just fine in melee while prone. For instance, using Anklet of Translocation (Magic Item Compendium) to move 10 ft. as a swift action, then simply full attack from the floor. Ranged people similarly have no real problem with prone combat.

However being prone ruins chargers/pouncers, so for certain classes Grease is actually awful.

[Agincourt]

If you are a full attacker with reach, you could do just fine in melee while prone. For instance, using Anklet of Translocation (Magic Item Compendium) to move 10 ft. as a swift action, then simply full attack from the floor.
All melee attacks still suffer the -4 to attack rolls, regardless of reach. I'm not sure what using a reach weapon does for you. SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone)


Ranged people similarly have no real problem with prone combat. Crossbows have no problem, but you can't use shortbows or longbows, and by RAW, you couldn't use thrown weapons either.

[Gimur]

Colossi have 3.0 Magic Immunity. That makes them immune to Grease.

As far as I can tell by reading the description of Magic Immunity and the Colossi Antimagic Field, then that's only partially true. They can't be directly targeted by Grease, and it can't be cast into an area within 100' of the Colossus, but can't it already be in place before the Colossus is within 100' of that area? And, because of that, couldn't it still tread upon the Grease'd area and be 'affected' by the "Balance or Prone" effect?
Or am I missing something entirely?

[Gimur]

Doublepost. Sorry.

[TuggyNE]

As far as I can tell by reading the description of Magic Immunity and the Colossi Antimagic Field, then that's only partially true. They can't be directly targeted by Grease, and it can't be cast into an area within 100' of the Colossus, but can't it already be in place before the Colossus is within 100' of that area? And, because of that, couldn't it still tread upon the Grease'd area and be 'affected' by the "Balance or Prone" effect?
Or am I missing something entirely?

It's a non-instantaneous Conjuration (Creation), so it would be suppressed by the AMF.
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace.

[Akisa]

It's a non-instantaneous Conjuration (Creation), so it would be suppressed by the AMF.

There are ways to cast spells in AMF, especially in epic level play.

[Roderick_BR]

The idea is that trying to stay up and keeping sliping, throws your balance off, letting your defenses wide open. Letting yourself fall lets you prone, but gives you some stability, so you can actually defend yourself.

So, no, not that weird.