|
So, in Logicninja's famous and awesome Guide to Being Batman, it's mentioned that Grease is a great spell because even if people don't fall over, anyone making a balance check to move through the area who less than 5 ranks in Balance is flat-footed and is thus sneak-attackable, which is confirmed by the SRD. That's a cool synergy between mage and rogue, in my opinion.
In the PFRPG Beta, balance is replaced with acrobatics, which says that anyone making a balance check is flat-footed. So, this increases the power of Grease, in effect, so long as you have a rogue handy. Is this supposed to be the case? I don't have a problem with the power-up of Grease -- that's just how I noticed it -- but am not convinced that a really expert acrobat should be made flat-footed regardless of their expertise.
Good observation. You evidently made your Spot, er, uh, Perception (sight-based) check regarding this rule change for flatfooted balance checks.
Balancing on precarious footing usually applies to narrow ledges, tightropes, etc.
Not being flatfooted usually applies to having the ability to duck, jump, sidestep, bob, and weave to avoid being easily clobbered in combat.
The question is, how many ranks in acrobatics do you have to have before you can do all that on a tightrope?
I've seen professional circus stars who can't do all that on a tightrope. The best circus performers I've seen on tightropes would be easy targets to a rogue, or anyone else, standing within 30' with a crossbow, or within 5' with a sword.
Hence, arguably, those professional circus acrobats would be still flatfooted against attacks.
But, it's a valid point that any 2nd level character in 3.5 could gain the ability to be not flatfooted while balancing, if he wanted to spend the skill points in Balance.
Which is right?
Should a 2nd level D&D character have access to abilities that professional real-world acrobats seem not to have?
I dunno the answer to that.
D&D is a game. It's not real life.
I would say this one is up to the DM.
As for me, I would go with the Pathfinder rule because I like to try to make my perception of D&D mechanics match my perception of real-world mechanics as much as possible, given the obvious differences.
Although, it would seem to me that a better rule would be that anyone tring to balance should be allowed a balance check, probably against 15 + the attacker's BAB, to try to be un-flatfooted for this one attack (assuming they can see the attack coming). Success means they are not flatfooted for that one attack. Failure means they are flatfooted, failure by 5 or more means they also lose their balance (and are flatfooted). This way, the defender can choose between being slow and steady and soak up the damage, or being quick and dodgy and risk falling for the sake of trying to avoid the attack.
In fact, I think that just became a new houserule for me.
Thanks for bringing it up and giving me the opportunity to talk myself into a new houserule.