If I cast Grease on the shoes of my opponent, is he considered flat-footed when he moves?
I would rule that successfully casting Grease on an opponent's footwear would give that opponent, alone, the same effects as standing in an area with a Greased floor.
Shoes are attended items therefore not a target for the grease spell.
With a houserule that you can cast grease on equipment then you would have standard grease effects.
|
Shoes are attended items therefore not a target for the grease spell.
With a houserule that you can cast grease on equipment then you would have standard grease effects.
Not entirely accurate.
... The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature requires its bearer to make a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect.
Bold emphasis mine.
There's nothing hardwired into the spell about what happens if you grease someone's shoes. I'd just use the spell as a base though.
I would just treat a character wearing 'greased shoes' as if they were ALWAYS moving through a greased area as long as the spell was active. (Move at half normal speed with DC 10 Acrobatics check, failure = Reflex or fall, failure by >5 = fall) If they do not move, they are not considered flat-footed.
Just to clarify, by RAW, the result of targeting footwear with Grease is that the shoes would slip off.
I still think putting the target under the effects of a Greased floor, unless he makes his initial save or takes the necessary action (move action?) to take his shoes off, is the better ruling.
|
Just to clarify, by RAW, the result of targeting footwear with Grease is that the shoes would slip off.
I still think putting the target under the effects of a Greased floor, unless he makes his initial save or takes the necessary action (move action?) to take his shoes off, is the better ruling.
I'm not so sure that the shoes coming off is RAW. If you can continue to wear greased armor, then it would seem likely you could continue to wear greased shoes. It would be a GM's call.
Greased slippers? Yeah those can come off. Greased knee high lace up boots? Not likely. :)
Just a thought.
Cheers
Per the spell description: (and DM_AKA_Dudemeister was correct I was thinking of something else)
"The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature requires its bearer to make a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw fails, the creature immediately drops the item. A saving throw must be made in each round that the creature attempts to pick up or use the greased item. A creature wearing greased armor or clothing gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Escape Artist checks and combat maneuver checks made to escape a grapple, and to their CMD to avoid being grappled."
Which is kind of loopy in this case.
I dont think that applies because you're actually wearing the shoes with your feet. Your not wielding/employing/picking it up. You certainly cant drop it, unless its a pair of slippers as stated above.
I tend to agree with the "treat as constantly walking through greased area" rule. If they walk they have to make acrobatics checks, otherwise there is no effect.
Realism wise, there should be no difference between a Floor/Grease/Boots sandwitch. I dont think it matters if its cast on the boots or the floor first, it should have the same effect IMO.
I dont think that applies because you're actually wearing the shoes with your feet. Your not /picking it up. You certainly cant drop it, unless its a pair of slippers as stated above.
While I can understand using shoes as weapons (as the one of inventors of the deadly Flying Turtle Shoe Throw), I'm pretty sure wearing shoes is employing them or wielding them, and my wife who kicks men with steel toes would probably agree with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my wife who kicks men with steel toes would probably agree with me.
Just pointing out another example of how female-on-male violence is seen as acceptable, even humorous, in our society. This increases rates of domestic abuse and reduces reports of crimes with males as victims.
My own .02.
Not by way of RAW or RAI but by way of analogy and logic:
If you cast grease on my wand you are coating the outside of it with the grease, thus making it alot harder to hold- thus creating the need for me to make a saving throw to keep it.
You are not "filling" my wand with grease. You are coating the outside.
Similarly- if I am holding a mug of ale and you cast grease on it you are making the mug harder to hold. When it falls, it will probably spill the ale. The spell itself however does not fill the mug with grease or cause any harm to my drink. It just makes the mug harder to hold onto.
I would apply that similar logic to shoes. If you cast grease on a shoe you would coat the outside of the shoe with the grease. This would make it difficult to remove the shoe (since its slick) and would also make it difficult to walk on the shoe- also because it is slick.
An empty shoe would be almost impossible to put on- but this is because once removed from your foot the entire thing becomes an unattended object, nearly impossible to grab and stick one's foot into.
Just my thoughts though.
-S
my wife who kicks men with steel toes would probably agree with me.Just pointing out another example of how female-on-male violence is seen as acceptable, even humorous, in our society. This increases rates of domestic abuse and reduces reports of crimes with males as victims.
You know in general I agree with you. However in my particular case I earn every stripe I get, and don't mind them. I'm rude, crude and rather blunt with the truth in ways that society frowns upon. Now I married an Irish/Italian heritage woman on purpose and knowing what I was getting. I don't mind it (especially since I earn them) and also don't mind if I earn such from other people (indeed if I provoke you then I don't get upset when I get what I deserve).
To be fair every time my wife has inflicted injury on a man he has gone beyond even my limits of taste, usually manhandling her, or directly calling her out... she just doesn't mind delivering when people ask for it.
To be fair every time my wife has inflicted injury on a man he has gone beyond even my limits of taste, usually manhandling her, or directly calling her out... she just doesn't mind delivering when people ask for it.
That makes sense. I guess it's not a sexism issue as long as you don't mind a man inflicting injury on your wife for something he finds socially unacceptable.
|
|
Similarly- if I am holding a mug of ale and you cast grease on it you are making the mug harder to hold. When it falls, it will probably spill the ale. The spell itself however does not fill the mug with grease or cause any harm to my drink. It just makes the mug harder to hold onto.
I wouldn't drink that ale. :)
In all seriousness, I don't think that the spell can, or should, differentiate between "inside" and "outside" surfaces. That is rather arbitrary and opens up all sorts of other potential problems. The spell states that, "the spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item." It doesn't say the exposed surfaces. It doesn't say the "outside" surfaces. It says coating an item. The entire mug should be affected and the ale would be spoiled.
If the ale can keep the spell from performing it's intended function (straight out, regardless of the saving throw result) on certain parts of the targeted mug, then why couldn't someone similarly argue that a person's hand does the same for the hilt of the sword they are holding?
The intention of the spell, as I read it, is to allow for disarming, minor (area wise) battlefield control and a bonus to avoid or escape a grapple.
Targeting the shoes of an opponent is an attempt to end run the battlefield portion of the spell and make it a personally targeted effect. One has to be careful here as this is a slippery slope to tread. (Sorry, I tried, couldn't help myself :)
I myself would allow it, as the target could discard the shoes (move action) to end the problem. In the case of the slippers? I would allow them to "fall" off if the spell succeeded as not much is usually holding on slippers (much less than the grip your average fighter holds his beloved sword by comparison). Which could be very interesting if they are slippers of spider climbing and the wearer is currently hanging from a high ceiling! I myself have similarly used the spell to dismount riders by targeting their saddle.
Just keep in mind that this is a first level spell and adjudicate accordingly. Do what feels right for your game!
Cheers
Maybe mildly off-topic, but I'm not sure Grease makes anyone Flat-Footed at all, no matter where you cast it.
It does say that not moving means you are not Flat-Footed (which is weird to say since that is pretty much true all the time, all day every day, except during the first round of combat when you haven't yet acted).
But it does not say anywhere in the spell description that Grease makes you Flat-Footed. The spell says you might fall down (falling is not Flat-Footed and prone is not Flat-Footed) and it says might be unable to move (I am not aware of any rule that says you are Flat-Footed if you are unable to move - unable to move is quite a bit different than Helpless).
Now, the Acrobatics skill says you can move on narrow surfaces or rough terrain at half speed and you are Flat-Footed whild doing so. But Grease doesn't explicitly say that using the Grease spell turns the terrain into a narrow surface or into rough terrain.
Sure, it can be inferred that greasy terrain is rough terrain. In which case, the spell should have said that, but it doesn't. Also, the mechanics of walking through Grease are similar to the mechanics defined in Acrobatics for the rough terrain, another selling point for making this inference.
Still, it's not explicitly stated in the RAW.
If the authors wanted it to be rough terrain, they could have just said that in the first place, and used less words. Win/win. We know what to do and Paizo saves ink. But they didn't.
So is this an oversight? Should we infer that the RAI means that Grease = rough terrain and therefore you're Flat-Footed in it?
Me, I think so. But I can see the argument that this is not the case.
The spell description says to see Acrobatics for details.
Acrobatics includes a section for crossing ground. These modifiers account for crossing ground of any kind (see the "narrow surfaces" table which actually accounts for all widths with the first entry), and explain that you need to use the Acrobatics rules when the DC gets to 10 or higher (see footnote 1 to that table).
Grease sets the Acrobatics DC to 10, and under Acrobatics, that means half-speed flat-footed movement.
The RAW seems pretty unambiguous to me.
The spell description says to see Acrobatics for details.
Acrobatics includes a section for crossing ground. These modifiers account for crossing ground of any kind (see the "narrow surfaces" table which actually accounts for all widths with the first entry), and explain that you need to use the Acrobatics rules when the DC gets to 10 or higher (see footnote 1 to that table).
Grease sets the Acrobatics DC to 10, and under Acrobatics, that means half-speed flat-footed movement.
The RAW seems pretty unambiguous to me.
All valid points, but just reading the footnote of a table while we ignore the title of the table seems a bit unfair to the RAW.
The table you mention is titled "Crossing Narrow Surfaces" which you actually point out in your post. Therefore, it seems odd to apply rules for narrow surfaces to adjudicating very wide but slippery surfaces. Apples and oranges.
I am not saying the interpretation is wrong. In fact, I already posted that I think these Acrobatics rules should be applied to Greased terrain. I'm just not sure that this table, given the title of the table, is quie as unambiguous as you state it to be.
Things I totally agree with.Yeah the description/mechanics for this spell are lacking/confusing to say the least. A complete rewrite would be of use here.
Cheers
PS Nice to see you back after being away from the boards for a while there!
LoL, thanks for the warm welcome; I seem to have been sucked back in. You know us Tarrasques and our long sleep cycles...
Now it's time for some serious
To be fair every time my wife has inflicted injury on a man he has gone beyond even my limits of taste, usually manhandling her, or directly calling her out... she just doesn't mind delivering when people ask for it.That makes sense. I guess it's not a sexism issue as long as you don't mind a man inflicting injury on your wife for something he finds socially unacceptable.
That will be a very fun day. :D
Had a guy insult her once. Turned to me and said, "What sort of wuss are you? You aren't going to stick up for your girl?"
I simply looked at him sadly and stated the truth, "I'm going to drive your sad butt to the hospital when she's done with you."
Then she tapped him on the shoulder, turned him around and punched his lights out. Now I can defend my wife... but I don't have a need to do so or visa versa. She gets what she earns as do I.
|
|
The spell description says to see Acrobatics for details.
Acrobatics includes a section for crossing ground. These modifiers account for crossing ground of any kind (see the "narrow surfaces" table which actually accounts for all widths with the first entry), and explain that you need to use the Acrobatics rules when the DC gets to 10 or higher (see footnote 1 to that table).
Grease sets the Acrobatics DC to 10, and under Acrobatics, that means half-speed flat-footed movement.
The RAW seems pretty unambiguous to me.
You don't see how the spell description text could be improved at all? o_O
|
|
To be fair every time my wife has inflicted injury on a man he has gone beyond even my limits of taste, usually manhandling her, or directly calling her out... she just doesn't mind delivering when people ask for it.That makes sense. I guess it's not a sexism issue as long as you don't mind a man inflicting injury on your wife for something he finds socially unacceptable.That will be a very fun day. :D
** spoiler omitted **
:P
Well, it's difficult to argue that the spell description leaves something to be desired. It would be very nice to see a clarification here just to be sure.
Having said that, it seems like the most likely intended outcome is that all critters moving through grease are flat footed based on both the spell description and the information under the acrobatics skill.
I'm just kind of angry with myself that I didn't notice this through my first 5 levels as a sorcerer with grease on my list since the beginning!
|
Pg 459 talks about magic items on the body, which to some extent can be used for just regular items on the body.
The list there specifies item slots for worn items. Noe that the only commonly used missing element there would be for weapons.
To me, this implies a few different things. First, each item type is strapped to the body in some manner. Second, weapons *and subsequently, items held in the hands* aren't worn items.
Since the raw of the spell isn't clear, I would say any item that requires effort from the target to remain connected to that target *such as through being gripped by a hand* would be subject to a save vs being dropped. An item strapped to the target *such as a shield, armor, boots, and so on* would instead gain the benefits described in the spell under the *greased armor*.
I wouldn't however apply the penalties continuously for the duration of the spell to one target. It would be either the area of ground, slippering up an object in the hands or otherwise not strapped to the target, or providing the greased armor bonus.