"Create Pit" spell is creating problems

[Friend of the Dork]

Another thing I haven't seen anyone posting is the fact that it's no SR. It can thus defeat a high CR Iron Golem(who has poor Ref save)

My solution was to make the spell 3rd level.. my player took the spiky version instead and used it well against Golems etc.

[Pizza Lord]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

You failed the reflex save, you don't have time or initiative to react, you fall.

So you're claiming (with the create pit spell) that when a character fails their save, that means they lose all ability to react that a character would normally have when they fail a save or otherwise fall into a normal pit?

So, no catching their fall? No casting feather fall? No using Slow Fall abilities? No using abilities that lessen damage by reducing height fallen?

Sorry, that would be a hugely overpowered interpretation of a pit just because it's a spell. The spell creates a pit. It is otherwise mechanically functional to any other pit opening under a character, with the exceptions pointed out in the spell (it's extradimensional, its sloped sides require a Reflex save instead of Acrobatics checks to keep from falling in.)

[Drejk]

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

As I wrote earlier it's a DC 10 climb check to catch yourself from sliding down a slope and falling into a bit.

It's a DC 35 check. Create pit has Climb check DC of 25, catching oneself while falling adds 10 more.

[Blakmane]

Pizza Lord wrote:

As for whether someone can halt their fall with a sloped surface, if they can use it to stop their fall, they can use it.

So, are you saying can use a sloped surface in an adjacent square to halt your fall, but not a flat ledge? You didn't answer my original question.

[Pizza Lord]

Drejk wrote:

It's a DC 35 check. Create pit has Climb check DC of 25, catching oneself while falling adds 10 more.

It's DC 45. The modifier is +20, not +10 for catching oneself on a wall.

Quote:

Catch Yourself When Falling: It's practically impossible to catch yourself on a wall while falling, yet if you wish to attempt such a difficult task, you can make a Climb check (DC = wall's DC + 20) to do so.

The reference to a DC 10 Climb check that you quoted is in regards to a slope's Climb DC.

Quote:

Catch Yourself When Falling: ... It's much easier to catch yourself on a slope (DC = slope's DC + 10).

Of course, in the case of a 10 x 10 ft. square pit, like the one conjured by create pit most characters will be in a corner and get the 'in a corner, able to brace against perpendicular walls' bonus of +5 (or more accurately a -5 to the Climb DC.) I personally would allow it for the sloped part of the pit, but that's a personal interpretation and view, yours might differ.

[Drejk]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Drejk wrote:

It's a DC 35 check. Create pit has Climb check DC of 25, catching oneself while falling adds 10 more.

It's DC 45. The modifier is +20, not +10 for catching oneself on a wall.

I was specifically referring to Mathwei ap Niall's statements about catching oneself when sliding from a sloped part. The difficulty of catching oneself while falling in the middle of the pit would be 45 like you said.

Quote:

Of course, in the case of a 10 x 10 ft. square pit, like the one conjured by create pit most characters will be in a corner and get the 'in a corner, able to brace against perpendicular walls' bonus of +5 (or more accurately a -5 to the Climb DC.) I personally would allow it for the sloped part of the pit, but that's a personal interpretation and view, yours might differ.

I don't think that you can get bracing against perpendicular wall bonus when trying to catch oneself during falling because the chances of you falling in right position are slim... Maybe except when falling in a narrow chimney-like hole where you can try to grasp walls on both sides at the same time.

[Rogar Stonebow]

Samasboy1 wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

None of the let's catch the wall logic makes any sense. You failed the reflex save, you don't have time or initiative to react, you fall.

You have no more or less time than if someone pushed you off a cliff, which is another situation in which you could try to catch yourself.

except unless your blind, you know the cliff is there. So you can prepare yourself for that tacticto be used against you.

[Rogar Stonebow]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Blakmane wrote:

... so if i'm interpretating you correctly here, you are saying reaching out and catching a sloped (steeper than 90 degree) surface is EASIER than reaching out and catching a flat 90 degree surface?

No, what I am saying is that there is a rule, it's under Climb. It states:

Quote:

Catch Yourself When Falling: It's practically impossible to catch yourself on a wall while falling, yet if you wish to attempt such a difficult task, you can make a Climb check (DC = wall's DC + 20) to do so. It's much easier to catch yourself on a slope (DC = slope's DC + 10).

Whether I agree with it or not is not the point but trying to claim that I am misrepresenting or misinterpreting it is clearly false.

Are we interpreting you correctly that you're stating the rule does not allow someone to catch themselves on a wall when falling, and that it isn't easier to catch oneself on a slope?

If someone falls down a hole, they can attempt to catch the wall to stop their fall. It is very clearly stated. Now if that fall is 10 feet or 1000 feet isn't the point. Assuming the character can succeed (and it's very hard in almost every case) then they catch their fall. Even if they've fallen 90 feet and catch themselves, according to the rules, they take no damage. No that might be hard to believe. Someone, including me, might say, there's going to be a jerk, shoulder pain, rope burn, etc. and that's painful, maybe even damaging. But the rules don't say so.

Similar to your trying to imply the rules aren't clear when they are clear (just not to the degree of accuracy or the outcome you picture in your head), people clearly see that the create pit has factors to it that aren't mentioned in the spell (maybe for space reasons) but should still be factored in based on the rules.

As for whether someone can halt their fall with a sloped surface, if they can use it to stop their fall, they can use it. If they can''t (ie. can't reach it) then they can't. If there's a...

is not the dc of the slope the same as the spell.

[dmchucky69]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

None of the let's catch the wall logic makes any sense. You failed the reflex save, you don't have time or initiative to react, you fall. Moreover I don't think you really understand the nature of the slope, which in a square you're not on, the reflex save for someone already standing on the slope is the same as the DC of the spell with a plus 2 bonus. This is not an easy slope to simply grab, nor is it physically possible after a failed reflex save. But this is impossible, some people prefer to break the game with totally untenable interpretations of languages based on nothing but their own base assertions. Spells have saves and effects. Unless the spell indicates otherwise, you fail the save you take the effect.

I don't really have a pony in this race, but this answer makes the most sense to me. It's magic. You get a save. If you fail the save, you can try to climb out. All the other stuff about catching the edge and all that? It doesn't apply, because it's magic. It happens too fast. You aren't walking off the edge of a cliff; it magically appears under you.

It's a short fall. No reason to worry about "second chances," because the fall itself will not kill most characters. It's a crowd control spell, not a save or die spell.

This whole thread, while an amusing and interesting read; seems to be much ado about nothing to this gamer. No offense intended of course.

[Pizza Lord]

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

is not the dc of the slope the same as the spell.

Perceptive, Rogar. It's been mentioned this is one of the areas where this spell is poorly-thought out and implemented (the sloped area and making it a Reflex save and fall in if you end your turn there.) The Reflex DC to avoid falling in (because the edges are sloped) is the spell's save DC -2 (or rather the character gets a +2 to the save.) There's no accurate way to determine the severity or angle of the slope based on a +2 to Reflex save. One save is 'Blank open air from the earth dropping beneath you' and the other is... '+2 'something' easier than blank, open air and flat out nothingness?'

With the create pit spell, you get a pit with a sloped area at the top. We don't get an actual distance or length or width of the sloped area, nor do we get an angle. All we get is:
'In addition, the edges of the pit are sloped, and any creature ending its turn on a square adjacent to the pit must make a Reflex saving throw with a +2 bonus to avoid falling into it.'

Obviously we can always find a weird visual and make outrageous images, like a Gargantuan dragon or gelatinous cube whose 80 square foot space just touches the edge of the pit on a diagonal and falling in despite having over 75 square feet(!) of leverage and balance.

But there's also other, more reasonable considerations. It's not hard to believe that a character might have an item, like boots or snowshoes or slippers that might grant them a +5 or a +10 to 'Acrobatics checks made to traverse or navigate slopes and slippery terrain.' They get no bonus to Reflexes, because dealing with slopes is supposed to use Acrobatics rules (or Climb if the slope is too steep to walk up, which create pit's is not, since there's no check to move away from the edge and up the slope. Grease is a good example, it gives a reflex save to those caught suddenly in the effect, but after that, defaults to the normal game rules for dealing with an area of grease, just as the game rules for negotiating a pit should be used in this one.

Also, not every method will work or work easily. For instance, actually assigning a slope to adjacent squares increases the spell's actual effective area, and then would have to determine if it's considered difficult terrain, and then having an Acrobatics/Climb DC/value to the slope might mean that anyone standing on the edge is considered 'balancing' and that means they lose their Dex, and that's clearly not intended by the designer. Unfortunately, just because those methods bring their own problems does not mean that the original method is better or even properly written and worded. The spell is written and ruled using the words 'sloped edges' and those are specific words, terms, and descriptions used in the rules with defined terms and modifiers. Intention or not, they must be considered.

Take, for example, if the spell had been written in this way. 'The edges of the pit are unstable and any creature moving past or ending their turn adjacent to it must make a Reflex save (with a +2 modifier or fall in....' With that wording there at least wouldn't be a part about catching oneself while falling along a slope (which is soooo much easier than catching a wall that it effectively negates the spell with too much ease,) which is really what I believe the trouble most people have with the catching oneself while falling into a pit part.

[Blakmane]

Pizza Lord wrote:

With that wording there at least wouldn't be a part about catching oneself while falling along a slope (which is soooo much easier than catching a wall that it effectively negates the spell with too much ease,) which is really what I believe the trouble most people have with the catching oneself while falling into a pit part.

I have a feeling you are arguing past everyone, Pizza. The primary argument at play here isn't whether or not you can catch yourself falling 'along' a slope (ie in the same square as a steep slope) - that's a given. The argument is whether you can catch yourself falling using a slope in an adjacent square. If you think that is the case, please argue directly for this instead of arguing obtusely. If you don't think this is the case... there's no argument.

You say there is rules ambiguity when before you said there wasn't. That also doesn't help.

[DrDeth]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

You failed the reflex save, you don't have time or initiative to react, you fall.

So you're claiming (with the create pit spell) that when a character fails their save, that means they lose all ability to react that a character would normally have when they fail a save or otherwise fall into a normal pit?

So, no catching their fall? No casting feather fall? No using Slow Fall abilities? No using abilities that lessen damage by reducing height fallen?

Sorry, that would be a hugely overpowered interpretation of a pit just because it's a spell. The spell creates a pit. It is otherwise mechanically functional to any other pit opening under a character, with the exceptions pointed out in the spell (it's extradimensional, its sloped sides require a Reflex save instead of Acrobatics checks to keep from falling in.)

Right and when you're climbing and you fail your climb check by 5 or more, you fall. Thereby under Mr. Pitts logic, since you have had a chance to make a roll and failed that roll, - it's over and you fall.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

One correction to the incorrect assertions related to my statement. You may absolutely cast feather fall. It is an immediate action. I believe the crux of the issue here is misunderstanding initiative and interactions. You fail the reflex save, you cannot react and jump. You don't get to make a special additional attempt to grab the wall. It is not your turn in the initiative and you failed your save. When you fail your save you feel the impact of the spell. By your logic someone with max jump skill could fail their reflex save when hit with a fireball, but jump out of the way anyway. That's simply not how spell interact in combat. No reflex save, no jump out of the pit and no making up new ways to try to evade the impact of the spell which just hit you.

[Pizza Lord]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

By your logic someone with max jump skill could fail their reflex save when hit with a fireball, but jump out of the way anyway.

It is not, 'by my logic.' It is by the rules for falling as listed under the climb skill. Just because this is not the rules section does not mean you get to make them up. There is no rule under Acrobatics that says 'if you fail a Reflex save you can make an immediate Acrobatics check (at X modifier) to avoid the effects of a failure.'

However, if there were such a thing, such as a feat, perhaps from a feat that said, 'If you fail a Reflex save for half damage against an effect, you can make an Acrobatics check to avoid it,' then you could do it. It's not my logic, it's just what the ability says it can do.

There is, however, such a rule for when you fall. It's under the climb skill. Read it.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

That's simply not how spell interact in combat. No reflex save, no jump out of the pit and no making up new ways to try to evade the impact of the spell which just hit you.

Incorrect. That may not be how a fireball or other direct damage spell works in combat. This isn't a fireball and this spell doesn't 'hit you'. That's why it doesn't allow SR. Read it. It creates a pit underneath it. It's not Reflex save, fail and take 3d6 damage. It's Reflex save or else begin falling. Just like if it was a concealed pit trap that opened under you. Anything you can do to prevent your fall in a normal instance can be done in the instance of falling into a create pit.

So yes, you can catch yourself during a fall (there's no indicator in the rules at how high or low or far along your descent you end up down, be it a 20 foot fall or a 1,000 foot fall. You DM can be a jerk and say you halt yourself 1 foot from the bottom and basically put you down at the bottom anyway despite the heroic check you just made, but that's a DM's call.

The Climb check to halt your fall applies whether it's down a cliff, down a slope, down a tree, and down a pit, even a magical pit. And you can do it even if you're affected by a reverse gravity spell. That spell doesn't 'hit' the creatures in its area either. It allows a Reflex save, not to avoid the spell, but to react in a way to negate it (grab hold of the ground or something to not begin falling upwards.) If they fail that save, they begin falling (up) and can use the rules under Climb to catch themselves along a wall or a ladder or a ledge if it comes into arm's reach, just as if they were going down not up. Similarly, any characters next to them or that they pass (such as a flying or levitating ally can try and catch them and halt their progress, just like if they were falling down.

[Talcrion]

Create a thread with the question and FAQ it, trying to convince someone who has already decided they are right otherwise is a waste of time for both parties.

[Samasboy1]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

One correction to the incorrect assertions related to my statement. You may absolutely cast feather fall. It is an immediate action. I believe the crux of the issue here is misunderstanding initiative and interactions.

So you are totally okay with someone doing an immediate action, which is an action, but you wouldn't allow someone to take a non-action, which is not action?

I mean, since you are having problems with not having time to act and initiative, it just seems strange that its okay to take an action but not a non-action.

[Pizza Lord]

Blakmane wrote:

The argument is whether you can catch yourself falling using a slope in an adjacent square.

If you can reach it.

I hear what you are saying (so to speak). You saying, if the edges of a pit are rounded, as opposed to square it is harder to climb out. Or in another way, it's harder to 'hook on' such as with a grappel. I get it, but it's not how the rules work. Unfortunately, the spell doesn't say the pit has 'rounded edges' it says it is 'sloped'. Now one term may have been intended, but a different term was used.

Similarly, I could use an example where if you are falling and you try to catch yourself on a metal bar stretching across the gap beneath you. Do you think it's easier to grab and hold onto a round metal bar, a square one, or a triangular one. Ever watch the parallel bars in the Olympics? Regardless of whether they could spin and flip around the bars, when they fly up, it's a hell of a lot easier to grab and hold onto a rounded one.

There aren't rules for that, other than to arbitrarily say, 'It's an extra +2 DC to pull yourself up' or somesuch. If you want the DC higher, than make it higher based on that circumstance.

As for your diagrams and such and detailing a 5-foot sloped perimeter, the spell doesn't support it. You could legally cast it while in a 10 ft. wide corridor. There wouldn't be a slope under the corridor's walls and they wouldn't be jutting out. Similarly, if cast between two trees, the upper edges wouldn't undercut the trees.

While the spell does detail that the edges are sloped, there's no area (so even a Gargantuan Gelatinous cube can fall in if one little corner is touching one corner of the pit. That clear assumption is that the writer just wanted the pit's edge to be unstable, slippery, or sloped. Unfortunately, the words 'slippery' and 'sloped' have terms that are used elsewhere. That means he (male pronoun) worded the spell poorly, unless you think he really did want a slope, then you should be using the rules for a slope (which I don't think should be done, but is not how the spell reads.)

[Pizza Lord]

Had to end the last post to go to work, so it might have seemed a bit confusing at the end. On phone now, so not sure how this will come out.

The point isn't whether everything makes logical sense, but how it's iinterpreted. If the fireball spell said that it deals 1d6cold damage, then someone saying cold resistance protects the target is not them being illogical. Even if you keep asking 'Do you logically think a fire is cold?'. That's not the point, the point is that the spell says it is or does something. My advice might be to just change the damage to fire, but until someone with official power changes/fixes/or clarifies it, it deals cold damage whether you can wrap you head around it or not.

As for more about being in the square of something to grab, as long as you can reach it, you can try to grab it. If you are in a 10 ft. Wide corridor and a pit opens under you, you can try and catch yourself if you fall. You can do this whether you get a save or not (such as bull rushed over edge). No save to begin falling, but still a (very difficult) chance to halt fall. And yes, you can try and grab the edge of the pit, you can even try and grab something outside the pit.

If the walls of the corridor you were walking along had only climb DC of 15, for being rough and having lots of holes, then grabbing for that rather than the pit wall (DC25 we'll say) would be easier and allowed (still at +20 DC though.) Similarly, if there was a rope or chain running along the length of the corridor, you could try and grab that by reaching overhead and trying to catch hold. A giant might be able to grab the branches of a tree arching over the pit as it drops.

[Third Mind]

Which post in this thread would be best to FAQ to get a clear and official answer?

I ask because I and my group have always read it that if you fail the reflex save, you fall in, because that's what the reflex save was for. To us it wasn't that the save was to see if you were about to be on your way to falling in, it was that you just straight up fell in. Perhaps the reflex save was the spells way to see if you were in fact able to catch the ledge when off balance. The reflex save overwriting everything else. Leaving a simple, if you succeed you don't fall in, if you don't succeed, you do. End of transaction.

However, featherfall makes sense to allow and there are some decent points being made. Thus, which post does everyone think would be the one to FAQ, if at all, to hopefully eventually get a final answer? Or would it be best for someone to go to the rules section and make the question there?

[Blakmane]

Pizza Lord wrote:

I hear what you are saying (so to speak). You saying, if the edges of a pit are rounded, as opposed to square it is harder to climb out. Or in another way, it's harder to 'hook on' such as with a grappel. I get it, but it's not how the rules work. Unfortunately, the spell doesn't say the pit has 'rounded edges' it says it is 'sloped'. Now one term may have been intended, but a different term was used.

No, I'm saying if the edges are sloped, the pit is harder to climb out. I haven't mentioned rounded at all. The whole point of a slope on the edge of a pit is to make it harder to climb out of.

Pizza Lord wrote:

Similarly, I could use an example where if you are falling and you try to catch yourself on a metal bar stretching across the gap beneath you. Do you think it's easier to grab and hold onto a round metal bar, a square one, or a triangular one. Ever watch the parallel bars in the Olympics? Regardless of whether they could spin and flip around the bars, when they fly up, it's a hell of a lot easier to grab and hold onto a rounded one.

Now you're using the rounded example you just derided. The pit says 'sloped', not 'rounded'. The rounded bar isn't applicable at all.

Pizza Lord wrote:

As for your diagrams and such and detailing a 5-foot sloped perimeter, the spell doesn't support it. You could legally cast it while in a 10 ft. wide corridor. There wouldn't be a slope under the corridor's walls and they wouldn't be jutting out. Similarly, if cast between two trees, the upper edges wouldn't undercut the trees.

The diagram is explicitly what the spell looks like in an open area. How the pit interacts with objects that infringe on this area has nothing to do with my argument.

Pizza Lord wrote:

While the spell does detail that the edges are sloped, there's no area (so even a Gargantuan Gelatinous cube can fall in if one little corner is touching one corner of the pit. That clear assumption is that the writer just wanted the pit's edge to be unstable, slippery, or sloped. Unfortunately, the words 'slippery' and 'sloped' have terms that are used elsewhere. That means he (male pronoun) worded the spell poorly, unless you think he really did want a slope, then you should be using the rules for a slope...

And you do use the rules for a slope... when you are on said slope. You are incorrectly applying the rules here. The intent of the slope rules is for catching yourself when falling down said slope, not when one is within reach.

I have asked this multiple times, and you still haven't given me an answer:

Do you believe a player can attempt to catch himself easily on an adjacent sloped ledge as he falls (DC 10+), but not on a flat ledge (DC 30+)? That the bottom of this / is intended to be easier to catch than the side of this _?

[DrDeth]

So, guys, let's stop the mini-hijack. I admit the rules arent as clear as they could be.

BUT we have covered that Create Pit isn't horrifically overpowered, and mostly agree that it's no worse than Web.

We also agree that the "catch yourself" option would make the Pit spells less dangerous. Right? Certainly "catch yourself doesn't make the spell more OP, right? So, even if that's not entirely how the RAW is worded, it's seems to be a useful (and at least not too much of a stretch, rules wise, if not completely legal) way to slightly nerf this spell, right?

(And we have three sides in that debate alone.)

So, until we get that covered by a FAQ (and that's not gonna happen for a while), we have now let DM's know that that option is out there. RAW or not, it still sounds "rule of cool" right?

Also that climbing out (once all the way in) is only a net DC 20, that the Pit can be easily jumped (DC 10 or 11), that it's rather hard to fire in, and so forth. Great!

So, someone start a Rules Question Just on catching yourself when falling into a Pit spell. Then we can FAQ it ....or not.

[Gauss]

The "Catch yourself" option is not an action. It does not require that you already be climbing. Nowhere does it state that in the skill.

What it does state is that if you are falling and wish to catch yourself you may make a check to do so. It specifically states catching yourself is not an action.

So, the only element left is, are you on the slope or not.
If you are above the pit, you are not on the slope.
If you are adjacent to the pit, you are on the slope.

Sequence 1:
Creature above pit, fails save, starts falling, attempts to perform "Catch yourself" with a DC of wall DC +20.

Sequence 2:
Creature adjacent to pit, fails save, starts falling, attempts to perform "Catch yourself" with a DC of 0(slope)+10.

Note: Sequence 2 is making a significant assumption that the slope DC is 0, however this is not stated anywhere in the spell. The slope DC is GM fiat.

In short, no, the "catch yourself" element is not mentioned anywhere in the spell but the spell is using falling and climbing rules and therefore ALL of the falling and climbing rules must be used and catching yourself while falling is one of them.

[dariusu]

Gauss wrote:

The "Catch yourself" option is not an action. It does not require that you already be climbing. Nowhere does it state that in the skill.

What it does state is that if you are falling and wish to catch yourself you may make a check to do so. It specifically states catching yourself is not an action.

So, the only element left is, are you on the slope or not.
If you are above the pit, you are not on the slope.
If you are adjacent to the pit, you are on the slope.

Sequence 1:
Creature above pit, fails save, starts falling, attempts to perform "Catch yourself" with a DC of wall DC +20.

Sequence 2:
Creature adjacent to pit, fails save, starts falling, attempts to perform "Catch yourself" with a DC of 0(slope)+10.

Note: Sequence 2 is making a significant assumption that the slope DC is 0, however this is not stated anywhere in the spell. The slope DC is GM fiat.

In short, no, the "catch yourself" element is not mentioned anywhere in the spell but the spell is using falling and climbing rules and therefore ALL of the falling and climbing rules must be used and catching yourself while falling is one of them.

The sloped edges of the pit are part of the spell's effect. The walls of the pit have a climb DC of 25, and I think the edges of the pit are actually part of it, so the edge also has a DC of 25. The edge of the pit wall is the "slope" and the edge of a wall is part of the wall right?

EDIT: Just trying to show that the slope DC doesn't have to be GM fiat necessarily.

[Diego Rossi]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Blakmane wrote:

The argument is whether you can catch yourself falling using a slope in an adjacent square.

If you can reach it.

I think that you are the only one arguing that the terrain in the adjacent square dictate what you can do in your current square.

[Diego Rossi]

Third Mind wrote:

Which post in this thread would be best to FAQ to get a clear and official answer?

I ask because I and my group have always read it that if you fail the reflex save, you fall in, because that's what the reflex save was for. To us it wasn't that the save was to see if you were about to be on your way to falling in, it was that you just straight up fell in. Perhaps the reflex save was the spells way to see if you were in fact able to catch the ledge when off balance. The reflex save overwriting everything else. Leaving a simple, if you succeed you don't fall in, if you don't succeed, you do. End of transaction.

However, featherfall makes sense to allow and there are some decent points being made. Thus, which post does everyone think would be the one to FAQ, if at all, to hopefully eventually get a final answer? Or would it be best for someone to go to the rules section and make the question there?

I think it would be best to start a thread about that in the Rule forum. People don't come to the advice forum for interpretation of the rules, so not many will flag the post, and I don't recall a post with a clear answer about that.

[Diego Rossi]

DrDeth wrote:

Also that climbing out (once all the way in) is only a net DC 20, that the Pit can be easily jumped (DC 10 or 11), that it's rather hard to fire in, and so forth. Great!

Plus the modifier for the sloped border (+2 or +5).

[Serum]

The red flag I see with this whole DC 10 to catch yourself on the slope while adjacent to it, is still the fact that, a normal pit without the slope has an adjacent flat surface, which should be even easier to catch oneself.

I haven't seen anyone state that they should be allowed a DC 10- Climb check when they fail the reflex save to avoid a pit trap.

[Third Mind]

Create Pit Spell and Climb Checks

I created a thread for the debated question. Link just above. ^^

[Blakmane]

Serum wrote:

The red flag I see with this whole DC 10 to catch yourself on the slope while adjacent to it, is still the fact that, a normal pit without the slope has an adjacent flat surface, which should be even easier to catch oneself.

I haven't seen anyone state that they should be allowed a DC 10- Climb check when they fail the reflex save to avoid a pit trap.

Yes, I have been trying to argue this point the entire time. It's like talking to a brick wall (pun intended!) I even tried a little diagram :-(

Gauss:

Yes, I agree with your logic completely (the DC of the slope itself is another argument that I have no strong feelings about). My beef is only with people who are arguing whilst OVER the pit (not the slope) you can still use the slope's DC to catch yourself 'because it is within your 5ft reach'.

[Gauss]

Blakmane, those people are glossing over the fact that the RAW clearly states that you must be on the slope.

[Cap. Darling]

Friend of the Dork wrote:

Another thing I haven't seen anyone posting is the fact that it's no SR. It can thus defeat a high CR Iron Golem(who has poor Ref save)

My solution was to make the spell 3rd level.. my player took the spiky version instead and used it well against Golems etc.

how is the iron glem defeatet by sitting for a bit in a hole?

The spiky thing yes. But then again, say goodbye to most loot, if you kill someone in the pit.

[thorin001]

Cap. Darling wrote:

Friend of the Dork wrote:

Another thing I haven't seen anyone posting is the fact that it's no SR. It can thus defeat a high CR Iron Golem(who has poor Ref save)

My solution was to make the spell 3rd level.. my player took the spiky version instead and used it well against Golems etc.

how is the iron glem defeatet by sitting for a bit in a hole?

The spiky thing yes. But then again, say goodbye to most loot, if you kill someone in the pit.

How are you saying goodbye to loot?

[Meager Rolmug]

Pizza lord, many of us do not think the catch yourself rules EVER apply after a reflex save, but ONLY if you fall while attempting to climb. You say the rule says you always get a chance to make this check when falling...but it doesn't, it is stated in a very opened ended way, with absolutely no reference to when it can or cannot be used. So people are gonna come to their own conclusions along a wide variance of when it can or cannot be used.
You also interpret the spell as saying if you fail the save you start to fall at that point....when many of us interpret what it says, as if you fail the save you end up past the sloped part, or at the bottom of the pit. It really can be interpreted all three ways.
My rule of thumb for when a rule or spell is ambigious(in this case both are) is to start looking at the implications of applying the different interpretations. Interpreting that you can "always" catch yourself in any falling situation near grabbable things that can support you, after failing a save.....seems redundant and time consuming. And saying the spell says failure to make the reflex save ONLY results in you starting to fall AND applying your interpretation of the catch yourself rules could mean a whole bunch of arguing(as proven by this thread) over what DC where, and could weaken the spell a lot.
I don't know about you, but my PCs don't cast weak spells that cause constant arguments. On the other hand if you just go with reflex save or fall, it is like pretty much any other 2nd level battle area control spell, with a nice reduction of time wasted to boot. I don't see any downside to this, which all but makes me sure it was the writer's intent.

[Rogar Stonebow]

thorin001 wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

Friend of the Dork wrote:

Another thing I haven't seen anyone posting is the fact that it's no SR. It can thus defeat a high CR Iron Golem(who has poor Ref save)

My solution was to make the spell 3rd level.. my player took the spiky version instead and used it well against Golems etc.

how is the iron glem defeatet by sitting for a bit in a hole?

The spiky thing yes. But then again, say goodbye to most loot, if you kill someone in the pit.

How are you saying goodbye to loot?

Create acid pit... as the body sits in pit he dissolves.. then so do anything it carries..

[Draco18s]

Spike put wouldn't kill loot, nor would hungry pit or the regular one.

[Blakmane]

Cap. Darling wrote:

Friend of the Dork wrote:

Another thing I haven't seen anyone posting is the fact that it's no SR. It can thus defeat a high CR Iron Golem(who has poor Ref save)

My solution was to make the spell 3rd level.. my player took the spiky version instead and used it well against Golems etc.

how is the iron glem defeatet by sitting for a bit in a hole?

The spiky thing yes. But then again, say goodbye to most loot, if you kill someone in the pit.

Why would a spiked pit destroy the loot? Not that iron golems have much loot....

Regardless, levitate and acid splash/acid arrow is enough to finish off said iron golem once it is in the pit. You can actually kill an iron golem as a solo level 3 wizard, although it takes a big chunk of your your WBL and isn't a sure success. If the iron golem can't reach the roof of the room it is in it becomes trivially easy.

[Pizza Lord]

Quote:

My beef is only with people who are arguing whilst OVER the pit (not the slope) you can still use the slope's DC to catch yourself 'because it is within your 5ft reach'.

Don't put quotes around something I didn't say. I have continually used 'arm's reach' and 'if you can reach/grab it'. That is a difference from the game term '5-ft reach'. While this spell may be used during combat, and tactical movement uses 5-foot squares. It's an abstraction, just like a dagger swing can only hit the same area as a greatsword swing. Just like because of the tactical mapping rules, when you create pit under a medium or smaller character they will always be next to the edge and not only that, in a corner to brace against perpendicular walls. It's the rules that put the pit on an intersection.

That's just done because it's how the game is made. Someone could say they center it directly under a target and a DM could allow it, just like a DM can tell a halfling that, despite the wall being within 4 feet, it's out of arm's reach.

Take this example:

Quote:

Slow Fall...a monk within arm's reach of a wall can use it to slow his descent.

It doesn't say that the wall must be in threat range, or within reach, it specifically uses arm's reach (which, granted is usually what determines a creature's reach but not necessarily, a dragon's bite reach, for example). While one DM might apply the reach due to a kraken's tentacles for such a purpose (despite not being arms) another might not allow a displacer beasts tentacles to be used (despite their reach). If you don't know what a displacer beast is, I can't help you much. No prejudice, I just don't think it's Open License.

It doesn't matter if 'on the map' the spacing puts a hole in a square that is 'five feet of movement' from your square, if the object you can grab is within your ability to grab, you can grab it. If you think you can't grab it, or reach it, or use it to halt your fall... then as a DM you can say they can't use it to halt their fall. There's no argument. If you say they can't reach the slope, or the rope, or the ledge, then they can't, regardless of what arbitrary spot in the 25-square foot area they're occupying. As long as you (the DM) are being a fair interpreter and judge,then hallelujah.

If you can't comprehend the difference with how things work, then you probably are one of the people hugely baffled with how reach weapons work(ed) in regards to diagonals and the concept that a person '15 feet away' could 'move 5 feet' and be five feet away. It's just how the system is made and how the 5-foot square grid tactical movement and placement works. A DM is perfectly within their rights, and should, use common sense when required because unfortunately a world doesn't always confirm to nice 5-foot square corners.

[Draco18s]

Wall != Slope

[Pizza Lord]

Meager Rolmug wrote:

You say the rule says you always get a chance to make this check when falling...but it doesn't, it is stated in a very opened ended way, with absolutely no reference to when it can or cannot be used

Open-ended is not unclear. Read this (once more I have to quote this, bold part for emphasis):

Quote:

Catch Yourself When Falling: It's practically impossible to catch yourself on a wall while falling, yet if you wish to attempt such a difficult task, you can make a Climb check (DC = wall's DC + 20) to do so. It's much easier to catch yourself on a slope (DC = slope's DC + 10).

That isn't unclear. You can catch yourself while falling. The open-ended part is that it doesn't matter how you started falling. It could be a climb failure, a pit opening under you, your levitate ending, or someone cutting the rope bridge you were on.

Now take this quote here:

Quote:

Catch a Falling Character While Climbing: If someone climbing above you or adjacent to you falls, you can attempt...

See, that specifies whether you can catch someone falling or not. They have to fall from climbing. That's not open-ended, it's very specific, but I think we can all agree that's probably stupid to not allow a player to catch someone falling past them because they tried to jump the pit you were climbing out of and they failed the jump check and fell, or they were bullrushed into the hole. Unfortunately, that's how it technically reads and how it was written. My advice (this section) would be to use this rule in any occasion similar if needed and just adjusted based on common sense unless you can find a more specific 'catching' rule for the situation.

Quote:

saying the spell says failure to make the reflex save ONLY results in you starting to fall AND applying your interpretation of the catch yourself rules could mean a whole bunch of arguing(as proven by this thread) over what DC where, and could weaken the spell a lot.

Only if you allow it, or are unfair, or aren't consistent, or aren't capable of clearly explaining why and how the mechanics work as they do.

Look, you don't need to take this advice, but just because you don't doesn't mean that someone else who does use the rules doesn't sometimes need a good way to explain it, in case one of their players has the same idea you do.

Let me tell you how I would work someone encountering a pit. There's a pit, it's 10 feet across, 10 feet wide. They try and jump across it. I apply modifiers to Acrobatics. If they fail by 5 or more, they fall. If they fail by 4 or less, they can make a Reflex save to catch the other side (this is all by Acrobatics). If they fall, they can try a spell that is usuable in such a situation, (let's say feather fall). They can also try and catch themselves while falling (as per Climb). They can even try those last two in any order. The spell first, if that fails, catching their fall, or vice versa. If those fail, they can still use an ability like Slow Fall was long as they meet the requirements (arm's length). Then regardless of whether any of that stuff works at all, they can make another Acrobatics check(!) to reduce the damage from the fall (as per the Acrobatics rules for falling deliberately (even on a failed jump attempt).

Quote:

When you deliberately fall any distance, even as a result of a missed jump, a DC 15 Acrobatics skill check allows you to ignore the first 10 feet fallen, although you still end up prone if you take damage from a fall.

Does that weaken the spell a lot? I don't know, depends on who's falling into a pit at what time and who's around them? Unfortunately, nothing here is new, it's always been there. You just have to say, 'maybe it wasn't actually being adjudicated properly in the first place.'

If everyone was using a spell and doing 1d6 damage per caster level (regardless of whether they're saying "What a great spell, I use it all the time" or "What a harsh spell, it gets used on me all the time,")but then someone points out that it actually says '1d6 damage per 2 caster levels' that doesn't mean you can argue they're interpreting what it says wrong because that would weaken the spell as you've been using it, even if it's 'sooo much easier and quicker to just use 1d6/caster level rather than having to do math and divide and figure out rounding, even though the rules for rounding are stated.'

In the case of a pit opening under the character, create pit or otherwise, the only difference caused by them failing the Reflex save is that there isn't a Reflex save to grab the otherside as for failing an Acrobatics jump and there is no Acrobatics check to reduce falling damage if they hit the bottom (since it wasn't a deliberate jump). Everything else, Slow Fall, catching the wall, etc. applies fairly

Sure, you can interpret what 'fairly applies.' For instance, say the pit happened to open during a surprise round or before your action in combat and you are considered flat-footed and thus can't cast immediate action spells, but then... I always consider feather fall a special case. The spell having preceded such things as immediate and swift actions, but then... couldn't you always say that someone is surprised and flat-footed if a pit opens under them (thus never allowing a feather fall to ever work unless you purposefully fall into a hole? No need to answer that one, that could be a whole other thread.)

This is an advice section. If someone here is having trouble, they can come and look things up and see what works or find a solution they hadn't thought of. You don't have to be convinced to use all or even any of the rules and options available if you don't want to, but saying that my interpretation is not supported by the rules is incorrect.

[Draco18s]

Quote:

Then regardless of whether any of that stuff works at all, they can make another Acrobatics check(!) to reduce the damage from the fall (as per the Acrobatics rules for falling deliberately (even on a failed jump attempt).

Uh.

No you can't. If you're falling per a failed save, you're not "falling deliberately."

Emphasis on deliberately. Being forced into a pit trap is not a deliberately fall.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

I agree with the OP that this is in general a "pain in the ass" category spell, and I agree with the above post replies that yes it can be avoided in many ways especially at higher levels.

However, even at higher levels, against clerics and paladins and tank types that have low Ref and low Climb, it is still a major pain that will cause at least one or more rounds delay for the trapped character (especially in partys with low teamwork efforts)

If the OP is running a homebrew, I recommend that he allows his players their "create pit" cake and eat it too against random encounters, but that for major boss fights that have advanced knowledge of the party's skill, to make sure that the boss fight happens in an area warded by Forbiddance.

[Pizza Lord]

Draco 18s wrote:

Wall != Slope

I'm sure that advice is great help to those needing it. Let me add to it.

Wall != Slope != Ladder != Rigging != Tree != Mast != Fireman's pole

Well... except when they are used equally.... such as for purposes of a Climb check. They may have different difficulties to be climbed, but you still use your climb skill to ascend or descend them. Yes, a slope is easier to climb and slow your fall on than a wall. I'm sorry you have issues with how the rules interpret your using them.

I'm sure that realistically, it's much easier to descend a ladder than ship's rigging. We've all seen the ladder scene with the feet and hands on the outside rails and slide down. You'd still call for a Climb check to see if they maybe fall at some point (easy though a ladder DC is), and you could say they're 'accelerated climbing (down)', but that's no different than 'accelerated climbing (down)' a ship's rigging mechanically (Climb DCs being different possibly).

Don't blame me because not every rule neatly fits your preconceived notion of how things work, it's not even that I don't see what you're saying, but getting mad at me over it isn't going to change the way things work. You already have that power in your game.

Draco 18s wrote:

Wall != Slope

Right, and if someone falls down a chimney, we don't say they fell down a pit. If someone tries to scale the ship's mast to the crow's nest, we don't say they're climbing a tree. But you still go to the climb section, and you still use all the rules applicable. If you fail by more than 4, you fall, whether you were climbing a slope or a tree or a vine trellis to Juliet's balcony.

If you want to declare the player takes additional thorn damage for catching their fall on a rose trellis or rule that while the trellis is climbable, the sudden force of a person catching their fall is enough to break it... go ahead. Stop complaining about it to me because the Climb rules don't mention a vine trellis or whether they have thorn bushes on them (someone else might say it's harder to fall or easier to catch oneself because of the vines or thorns grabbing hold, taking thorn damage not withstanding)

If you fall down the inside of a large hollow tree, that's not the same as falling into a pit, but it uses the exact same falling rules whether you like it or not.

[DrDeth]

OK, guys, we now have a thread for just this question about catching yourself. I think we need to take this debate there.

Thanks!

[Pizza Lord]

Quote:

Draco 18s]

Quote:

Then regardless of whether any of that stuff works at all, they can make another Acrobatics check(!) to reduce the damage from the fall (as per the Acrobatics rules for falling deliberately (even on a failed jump attempt).

Uh.

No you can't. If you're falling per a failed save, you're not "falling deliberately."

Emphasis on deliberately. Being forced into a pit trap is not a deliberately fall.

Please do everyone the favor of actually reading their posts, especially if you're going to quote and reply to them. I assure you, I do you the courtesy of reading yours and thinking before posting. It's possible you just posted without actually reading the full post, but I assure you that looking at the post you quoted it says:

Pizza Lord wrote:

In the case of a pit opening under the character, create pit or otherwise, the only difference caused by them failing the Reflex save is that there isn't a Reflex save to grab the otherside as for failing an Acrobatics jump and there is no Acrobatics check to reduce falling damage if they hit the bottom (since it wasn't a deliberate jump).

When you make these posts, and imply that I am not seeing or taking into account how the rules work and are written or am somehow concealing them, not only is it personally annoying to realize that you aren't giving people common courtesy of actually thinking about what's being said in the discussion, but that it only clutters the discussion by adding nothing to it.

I'm going to go look at the actual rules thread we have for this post for now.

[Diego Rossi]

Draco18s wrote:

Spike put wouldn't kill loot, nor would hungry pit or the regular one.

Effect of the pits on loot, i.e. items.

PRD wrote:

Hungry Pit

In addition, anyone within the pit, not just those on the bottom, takes 4d6 points of bludgeoning damage each round as the pit contracts and then returns to its normal size

4d6 bludgeoning reduced only by hardness.

PRD wrote:

Acid Pit

Creatures who fall into the pit take falling damage as normal (the acid counts as a yielding surface), plus 2d6 points of acid damage per round spent in contact with the acid.

2d6 halved because it is energy damage, then you apply hardness.

PRD wrote:

Spiked Pit

Creatures who fall into the pit take falling damage as normal, plus 2d6 points of piercing damage from the spikes.

2d6 piercing reduced only by hardness.

Of the 3 pits doing extra damage every round Acid is the one that do less damage to object.
Acid isn't any more the destroying force that it was in the 1st and 2nd edition. if I recall correctly in the 3-3.5 versions of the game you didn't treated it as energy damage and often hardness wasn't applicable against it, so it was still very potent, now it is relatively weak.

Non magical gold, silver, jewels and so on after a few rounds in one of those pits become a UMM (Undistinguished Metal Mass), as my group call it.
Even magical items can be destroyed. A magical ring hasn't more hardness or hit points than a normal ring.

[Draco18s]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Draco 18s wrote:

Wall != Slope

Right, and if someone falls down a chimney, we don't say they fell down a pit. If someone tries to scale the ship's mast to the crow's nest, we don't say they're climbing a tree. But you still go to the climb section, and you still use all the rules applicable. If you fail by more than 4, you fall, whether you were climbing a slope or a tree or a vine trellis to Juliet's balcony.

We also use all of the relevant rules.

Like how the DC for catching yourself on a wall is not the same as catching yourself on a slope.

You cannot, may not, will not, use the DCs for catching yourself on a slope when you are adjacent to a wall.

As for deliberate falls:

Quote:

Falling: When you deliberately fall any distance, even as a result of a missed jump, a DC 15 Acrobatics skill check allows you to ignore the first 10 feet fallen, although you still end up prone if you take damage from a fall. See Falling Damage for more details.)

Gosh, this references another section and appears to be incomplete.

Quote:

If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.

Aww, so sorry. Failing a reflex save against a pit trap is not a deliberate jump down into the pit.

Diego Rossi wrote:

PRD wrote:

Acid Pit

Creatures who fall into the pit take falling damage as normal (the acid counts as a yielding surface), plus 2d6 points of acid damage per round spent in contact with the acid.

2d6 halved because it is energy damage, then you apply hardness.

PRD wrote:

Spiked Pit

Creatures who fall into the pit take falling damage as normal, plus 2d6 points of piercing damage from the spikes.

2d6 piercing reduced only by hardness.

Dude. Two of those specifically say creatures.

I can be OK with an acid pit effecting items (pool of acid) but spikes? No. The spikes also only effect the initial fall, and do not do damage each round.

[Blakmane]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Quote:

My beef is only with people who are arguing whilst OVER the pit (not the slope) you can still use the slope's DC to catch yourself 'because it is within your 5ft reach'.

Don't put quotes around something I didn't say. I have continually used 'arm's reach' and 'if you can reach/grab it'. That is a difference from the game term '5-ft reach'. While this spell may be used during combat, and tactical movement uses 5-foot squares. It's an abstraction, just like a dagger swing can only hit the same area as a greatsword swing. Just like because of the tactical mapping rules, when you create pit under a medium or smaller character they will always be next to the edge and not only that, in a corner to brace against perpendicular walls. It's the rules that put the pit on an intersection.

You just chided me for misquoting you... and then proceeded to detail exactly what I just misquoted you for but in more words.

More importantly, you still haven't answered that one question I have asked you in nearly every post. Why haven't you answered the question? It's pretty simple:

Do you believe catching yourself on a steep slope @/ in an adjacent square is easier (DC 10+) than catching yourself on a flat floor in an adjacent square @_ (DC 25+)? Just a yes or no would suffice.

[Pizza Lord]

Blakmane wrote:

More importantly, you still haven't answered that one question I have asked you in nearly every post. Why haven't you answered the question? It's pretty simple:

Do you believe catching yourself on a steep slope @/ in an adjacent square is easier (DC 10+) than catching yourself on a flat floor in an adjacent square @_ (DC 25+)? Just a yes or no would suffice.

Oh you're serious. I didn't realize how important my answer to this question was in helping you. I thought you were joking about which would be harder since you kept putting the DC, which means Difficulty Check, right there after each example. It's like asking me which statement is a question and which is an exclamation and then having a question mark at the end of the question and an exclamation point at the end of the exclamation.

Ok, your question to me is do I think it's easier to catch myself on a DC 10+ surface or a DC 25+ surface. Using Climb skill. I am going to go out on a limb, and say that the DC 10+ surface will be easier to catch than the DC 25+ surface.

Again, to answer your question: Yes, something with a lower DC to grab will be easier to grab than something with a higher DC to grab.

If it was harder, then it would have a higher DC. If you think it should be different, then adjust the DC in your game and just be sure to explain your reasoning to the players. Depending on which side of the spell they're on, it may take more or less convincing and you can just kill any PC who argues with you.

If that answer doesn't satisfy you, then you have a problem with the Climb rules, and you need to go over to Rules section and make a post and campaign to have it changed. I might even join you assuming you make a good point, but as for offering advice on dealing with a create pit, either you've made up your mind or you haven't and asking me to make some Developer ruling to satisfy you so you can just keep questioning it will get you nowhere.

[Blakmane]

You're being flippant. I put the DCs there as per your interpretation. Obviously I don't think the slope is a DC 10 because, like most others in the thread, I think the DC 10 is only for when you are falling down said slope.

In my mind, when there are two conflicting interpretations, and one creates a clearly nonsensical outcome (such as a steep sloped surface being significantly easier to grab than a flat surface), logically the other interpretation is the most likely. You clearly do not think this.

I wanted you to state your position on the above question (which you still didn't actually answer, by the way) because it is a direct parallel to a more easily dismissed interpretation like 'dead creatures can still take actions if they bypass the unconcious condition'. Although that one is a more severe breach of basic logic, the fundamental argument is very similar (IE we should support a clearly ridiculous rules assertion because the text does not explicitly preclude it).

And please don't pretend your interpretation of the rules is somehow RAW correct or a 'developer ruling'. If this thread is anything to go from, most people are running the rule as it actually makes sense in-game, instead of trying to twist RAW to create a ridiculous caveat.

[Cap. Darling]

thorin001 wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

Friend of the Dork wrote:

Another thing I haven't seen anyone posting is the fact that it's no SR. It can thus defeat a high CR Iron Golem(who has poor Ref save)

My solution was to make the spell 3rd level.. my player took the spiky version instead and used it well against Golems etc.

how is the iron glem defeatet by sitting for a bit in a hole?

The spiky thing yes. But then again, say goodbye to most loot, if you kill someone in the pit.

How are you saying goodbye to loot?

You are rigth of cause the spiky thing only damages things that tryed to climb up or that fall. I was thinking about the higher level versions where there is damage from just staying in the pit. When some one dies all equipment becomes unnatended objects. And Lots of things that you want to loot is gone in a few rounds. At least that is how i undestand it.