Grease and balancing

[Benji8070]

So in a recent gaming session, my Wizard cast Grease on an enemy which, among other things, caused the enemy to be flat-footed.

Or so I thought. A fellow player read the description and said that since the balance skill check was only required on the creatures movement it didn't count as balancing when standing still. I argued that it counted as balancing simply because it was on a slippery surface. In the end the DM decided that my fellow player was correct and the monster didn't count as flat-footed. It didn't really amount to much difference as the monster died quickly anyway.

What's the official ruling on this? I can't find anything after a few quick google searches and the skill/spell description doesn't say anything about when a creature is considered balancing which leads me to believe the answer is probably quite obvious, but I can't work out who was correct. Can anyone help?

[Crake]

A balance check is only ever required when moving, you need not roll one while standing still, this is the standard. Ask the dm if you were standing thin ledge, and needed to roll a balance check to move, if you stood still, and thus didn't roll a balance check, would you still lose dex to AC? If the answer is no, then he is at least consistent in his rulings, but if he says yes, then explain to him that it's the exact same situation.

Either way though, you are treated as "balancing" whenever on a precarious surface, and remember, each time you take damage on a precarious surface, you need to roll another balance check to avoid falling anyway, so after at least the first hit, he would have had to roll a balance check, and thus by your DM's ruling, would have become flat footed.

[Darrin]

What's the official ruling on this?


Officially, by RAW, you're not actually balancing until you're forced to make a Balance check.

Unofficially... the designers screwed this one up, because the text of the spell is ambiguous. There are multiple spells that deal with slippery surfaces, and they all treat the check to stay on your feet differently.

With grease, the target makes a Ref save vs falling down when the spell is initially cast. There's a Balance check if a creature attempts to move within or through the area... and this includes moving out of or making an attack from an affected square. So by RAW, it looks like you're not actually balancing until you attempt to move out of the area. Some DMs may rule that the Ref save is the equivalent of a Balance check for the purposes of determining whether a creature is balancing or not.

The ice slick spell in Frostburn has a different mechanic: Balance check when the spell is initially cast as well as whenever you attempt to move through or out of an affected square. So by RAW, you're balancing as soon as the spell is cast.

Impeding stones in Cityscape has yet another mechanical effect... the initial check is a Ref save, but each subsequent check can be either a Ref save or a Balance check.

So as you can see, whenever the designers came up with a new slippery/unstable footing spell effect, they created a different mechanic to handle it. My recommendation would be to treat all slippery/unstable effects the same way, and regardless of whether you make a Ref save or a Balance check, to consider anyone in the spell's area to be balancing as per the Balance skill rules.

[Benji8070]

Thanks both, so it looks like it just boils down to DM ruling... Kinda what I expected, but not really what I was hoping for. I tried using the 'balancing on a ledge' argument but my fellow player shot me down by saying it's completely different. Not sure I agree, but by that point the argument had been going on for long enough that I just wanted to carry on playing without the hostility.

It looks like I'll just have to accept the ruling that they decided between them and live with it. Although if anybody else has any arguments I could possibly use then I won't turn them down :P

[Crake]

Thanks both, so it looks like it just boils down to DM ruling... Kinda what I expected, but not really what I was hoping for. I tried using the 'balancing on a ledge' argument but my fellow player shot me down by saying it's completely different. Not sure I agree, but by that point the argument had been going on for long enough that I just wanted to carry on playing without the hostility.

It looks like I'll just have to accept the ruling that they decided between them and live with it. Although if anybody else has any arguments I could possibly use then I won't turn them down :P

Ask them how it's completely different? In both circumstances you're balancing on a precarious surface, but not actively moving, thus not incurring a balance check. If you are flat footed in one circumstance, you're flat footed for both.

If they make a claim like that, ask them to back it up.

[StreamOfTheSky]

So in a recent gaming session, my Wizard cast Grease on an enemy which, among other things, caused the enemy to be flat-footed.

Or so I thought. A fellow player read the description and said that since the balance skill check was only required on the creatures movement it didn't count as balancing when standing still. I argued that it counted as balancing simply because it was on a slippery surface. In the end the DM decided that my fellow player was correct and the monster didn't count as flat-footed. It didn't really amount to much difference as the monster died quickly anyway.

What's the official ruling on this? I can't find anything after a few quick google searches and the skill/spell description doesn't say anything about when a creature is considered balancing which leads me to believe the answer is probably quite obvious, but I can't work out who was correct. Can anyone help?

I agree with you. Even if not moving, if you attack or are struck while on a slippery or narrow surface, you are balancing. The way Balance is worded supports this interpretation, IMO, and it's much more helpful to the Rogue (I don't think the Wizard who cast Grease really cares if the foe is flat-footed or not) so that's always a plus.

PF specifically changed the Balance wording to say that you're only flat-footed "While you are using Acrobatics in this way..." because the creators of PF enjoyed nerfing rogues.

[Benji8070]

Ask them how it's completely different? In both circumstances you're balancing on a precarious surface, but not actively moving, thus not incurring a balance check. If you are flat footed in one circumstance, you're flat footed for both.

If they make a claim like that, ask them to back it up.

I was going to, but this was the point in the argument where I just gave up. If it comes up again though, I'll ask. Not sure it will get me anywhere though.


I agree with you. Even if not moving, if you attack or are struck while on a slippery or narrow surface, you are balancing. The way Balance is worded supports this interpretation, IMO, and it's much more helpful to the Rogue (I don't think the Wizard who cast Grease really cares if the foe is flat-footed or not) so that's always a plus.

PF specifically changed the Balance wording to say that you're only flat-footed "While you are using Acrobatics in this way..." because the creators of PF enjoyed nerfing rogues.

Interestingly, one of the main reasons my Wizard uses the spell is because the party Rogue seems to be focussed on skills rather than combat (I believe he's taken a bunch of the skill enhancing feats and none of the combat ones), so I wanted to give him a bit more combat viability.

[Thurbane]

I never agreed with the "Oh, you need someone flat-footed? Easy, if he doesn't have 5 ranks in Balance, Grease will do the trick!" as a universal solve-all for getting opponents flat-footed.

As A DM, I would only rule the the target is flat footed while moving (as per the spell description), so unless you've readied an attack for when the opponent moves, or you somehow get an AoO, you're out of luck.

I honestly believe that people read a lot more RAI into Grease than what is actually there.