[Move]
Requirements You are in a square that contains a narrow surface, uneven ground, or another similar feature.
You move across a narrow surface or uneven ground, attempting an Acrobatics check against its Balance DC. You are flat-footed while on a narrow surface or uneven ground.
Critical Success You move up to your Speed.
Success You move up to your Speed, treating it as difficult terrain (every 5 feet costs 10 feet of movement).
Failure You must remain stationary to keep your balance (wasting the action) or you fall. If you fall, your turn ends.
Critical Failure You fall and your turn ends.
Sample Balance Tasks Untrained tangled roots, uneven cobblestones
Trained wooden beam
Expert deep, loose gravel
Master tightrope, smooth sheet of ice
Legendary razor’s edge, chunks of floor falling in midair
The rules are clear as to what happens when you Balance after starting your action on compromised terrain. What is less clear to me is what you're supposed to do if you start outside of compromised terrain, and move into it; and where the rules say that you MUST balance in such a situation (instead of just striding normally and ignoring all the potential drawbacks of the Balance action in the first place).
So, what happens if you move into compromising terrain? Where is the rule that says you MUST balance in such terrain?
The different types of actions representing movement are split up for convenience of understanding how the rules work with a creature’s actions. However, you can end up in odd situations, such as when a creature wants to jump vertically to get something and needs to move just a bit to get in range, then Leap, then continue moving. This can end up feeling like they’re losing a lot of their movement to make this happen. At your discretion, you can allow the PCs to essentially combine these into one fluid movement as a 2-action activity: moving into range for a Leap, then Leaping, then using the rest of their Speed.
This typically works only for chaining types of movement together. Doing something like Interacting to open a door or making a Strike usually arrests movement long enough that doing so in the middle of movement isn’t practical.
So things like tumble through or balance should, imo, be fine to combine with other movement. I would love a more solid rule but it's something
The rules are clear as to what happens when you Balance after starting your action on compromised terrain. What is less clear to me is what you're supposed to do if you start outside of compromised terrain, and move into it; and where the rules say that you MUST balance in such a situation (instead of just striding normally and ignoring all the potential drawbacks of the Balance action in the first place).
So, what happens if you move into compromising terrain? Where is the rule that says you MUST balance in such terrain?
I read Balance the same way than Swim or Climb: You first move into the square where you need to Balance, stopping your Stride as you can't Stride there, and then make checks if you want to move further.
The rules are clear as to what happens when you Balance after starting your action on compromised terrain. What is less clear to me is what you're supposed to do if you start outside of compromised terrain, and move into it; and where the rules say that you MUST balance in such a situation (instead of just striding normally and ignoring all the potential drawbacks of the Balance action in the first place).
So, what happens if you move into compromising terrain? Where is the rule that says you MUST balance in such terrain?
I read Balance the same way than Swim or Climb: You first move into the square where you need to Balance, stopping your Stride as you can't Stride there, and then make checks if you want to move further.
Reasonable ruling, but still fails to say what happens when/while you are on Uneven ground.
For reference:
Quote:
Uneven ground is an area unsteady enough that you need to Balance (see Acrobatics) or risk falling prone and possibly injuring yourself, depending on the specifics of the uneven ground. You are flat-footed on uneven ground. Each time you are hit by an attack or fail a save on uneven ground, you must succeed at a Reflex save (with the same DC as the Acrobatics check to Balance) or fall prone.
It doesn't say that you need to Balance when you try to move.
It just says that you NEED to balance "or you risk falling".
Can you jump away while you are on frozen/uneven ground?
"But you didn't balance, so you fall" is not that of a far fetched reading of the rules.
What about just standing there and doing 3 Strikes?
Again, you didn't "balance".
Is the ONLY action you can do, without falling, Balance?
That seems extremely improbable but is still a valid reading.
Do you have to spend 1 action Balancing (which comes with movement added if you succeed) and then you can do the rest of your Actions as you please since you already Balanced for the turn?
Which is yet another reading of that makes a bit more sense than the above.
If we want to be hilarious, once you drop prone, are you forever stuck there since Stand is a Move action that's not Balance?
---
Furthermore, per Uneven Ground, if you DON'T Balance, you only "risk falling".
What's that risk? What's that roll to not fall if you are NOT balancing?
---
Hence why I said in the other thread that Balance rules are kinda a mess and need a rewrite.
---
As for my own interpretation:
I take what it says about if not doing Balance being only a risk, and not a certainty, a bit more seriously and so far I run it by jamming Balance "checks" on other actions instead of it being an action by itself.
Pretty sure it's a houserule, but to me it makes sense that you are still "Striding while balancing" or "Jumping while balancing" or "Striking while balancing" rather than those being completely separate actions.
I would say that since Balance has the move trait, it only applies when you are moving. So, if you are standing still, there is no need for a balance check. As far as what is the risk of falling, that is explained right in the balance skill with its four degrees of success.
There's nothing confusing here at all. If you are in terrain that requires a Balance check, you roll it, and depending on how you roll, the Balance action tells you what happens.
I would say that since Balance has the move trait, it only applies when you are moving. So, if you are standing still, there is no need for a balance check. As far as what is the risk of falling, that is explained right in the balance skill with its four degrees of success.
There's nothing confusing here at all. If you are in terrain that requires a Balance check, you roll it, and depending on how you roll, the Balance action tells you what happens.
Balance having the move trait doesn't, rules wise, say that you only have to roll it when you move.
Per strict RAW, if you do not Balance, you risk falling. NOT "if you don't Balance while you move around" but when you do anything except Balance period.
Only applying to Move is your houserule on Balance.*
Also, based on your interpretation you can never stand up once you fall since Stand also has the move trait.
Lastly, nothing about the "risk when you DON'T balance" is explained since what that sentence reads is that when you DON'T balance there's a "risk falling" so what happens when you do balance is irrelevant.
---
*
Everyone is forced to houserule Balance because of how badly written it is.
Either of these two things should be changed to make Balance work:
1. Include a Stride in the Balance action, similar to Tumble Through. This allows you to move as part of the action, and adjust the degrees of success to mention Stride rather than just moving.
2. Make Balance a free action that is (by default) triggered by entering uneven ground or a narrow surface. The degrees of success should be adjusted to treat the ground as difficult terrain, or falling if you fail too hard. This will allow you to Stride into uneven ground without having to stop your movement first. This can then further be triggered by Spells and other effects, like Grease, by specifying in the spell or ability that it triggers a Balance check.
I much prefer the second option, it makes the game much smoother.
Also, I want to mention that anything in this thread won't make it into the initial Player Core printing. Paizo typically sends the finished book to the printers months in advance, since they need a LOT of books. It's a good outlet to let out frustrations but don't take it personally if the printed rules aren't what you wanted.
It doesn't say that you need to Balance when you try to move.
Similarly, it doesn't say that you need to swim in water when you try to move, it's implied by the existence of the Balance action.
shroudb wrote:
Can you jump away while you are on frozen/uneven ground?
"But you didn't balance, so you fall" is not that of a far fetched reading of the rules.
What about just standing there and doing 3 Strikes?
Again, you didn't "balance".
Is the ONLY action you can do, without falling, Balance?
That seems extremely improbable but is still a valid reading.
Paizo doesn't answer this questions because they are up to the specifics of the terrain the PCs are in. Depending on the terrain, you can Stand up or not, Strike or not, Crawl, Leap and whatever or not. It's all up to the GM.
For example, if you are on falling chunks of floor, it doesn't make sense to do anything but Balance as the second you stop moving you crash. But if you are Balancing on a tight rope, you can certainly Strike or even Leap but not Stand up as falling would mean falling from the rope.
It doesn't say that you need to Balance when you try to move.
Similarly, it doesn't say that you need to swim in water when you try to move, it's implied by the existence of the Balance action.
shroudb wrote:
Can you jump away while you are on frozen/uneven ground?
"But you didn't balance, so you fall" is not that of a far fetched reading of the rules.
What about just standing there and doing 3 Strikes?
Again, you didn't "balance".
Is the ONLY action you can do, without falling, Balance?
That seems extremely improbable but is still a valid reading.
Paizo doesn't answer this questions because they are up to the specifics of the terrain the PCs are in. Depending on the terrain, you can Stand up or not, Strike or not, Crawl, Leap and whatever or not. It's all up to the GM.
For example, if you are on falling chunks of floor, it doesn't make sense to do anything but Balance as the second you stop moving you crash. But if you are Balancing on a tight rope, you can certainly Strike or even Leap but not Stand up as falling would mean falling from the rope.
Aquatic terrain doesn't say "if you don't Swim you drown".
Uneven terrain does say "if you don't Balance you fall".
Again, by strict RAW, if you do anything else except Balance, you fall. No other action is allowed.
I will say that any time a variant of the phrase "risk falling prone" is used, that's a biiig difference.
IMO, a rule saying there's a potential outcome directly indicates a check of some kind needs to be made.
It also implies whatever action that invoked the "risk" phrase can be done normally, but requires a check. If the check passes, the potential risk is avoided, and if the check fails, follow that potentiality, in this case flopping prone and preventing the attempted action.
-------------
Winter Sleet first adds, "A creature that moves on this uneven ground immediately falls unless it Balances (DC 15)."
So, no ambiguity, any movement invokes that risk check.
It also invokes the normal rules of Uneven Ground, which includes the nasty bit of
"Each time you are hit by an attack or fail a save on uneven ground, you must succeed at a Reflex save (with the same DC as the Acrobatics check to Balance) or fall prone."
That's where Winter Sleet gets obviously busted, IMO.
----------------
I'm an Alch, and I think this would mean every bit of splash damage would invoke that save or prone suck check.
And L1 bombs can be bought for cheap, giving any Quick Draw party member an absurdly good option when already at MAP. Pick the lowest AC and throw. Even on miss, all splashed targets get the save or suck.
If there's anything anywhere that fully severs splash damage from being an attack, I'd like to see it, but I haven't found any.
My best/most BS minimizing reading of splash is that it's the bombs damage, and not a part of the main Strike (not boosted by 99% of Strike buffs), but Uneven Ground says hit by attack, which the splash is still a part of.
I'm sure there's other AoE "attacks" like splash, but that's the one I'm most familiar with, and the one that can be store-bought.
Probably why I'm in an apparent minority that's on the "way too strong" side of this discussion.
I mean splash isn't a hit. For example if a fighter tries to knowdown with a bomb (for some reason) they still need to succeed the attack roll to get the trip attempt as they did deal damage but they didn't hit. Likewise if 2 people are flat footed to a rogue, the rogue would still only get sneak attack on a success and only on the one they actually attacked, as the other one wasn't hit which is needed for precision damage.
The rules given under Acrobatics seem pretty clear to me. In any round where you take a move action on uneven ground or something has forced you to take the Balance action, you must spend an action on Balance. If you succeed, you get to move as part of that single action check. If you fail, you do not get to move as part of that single action check; your whole single action was spent balancing. If you crit fail, you fall down...and your turn ends.
So for RavingDork's original example:
1. You started outside and moved in. You have yet to do anything to trigger the check, so if your next action is strike or cast a spell or whatever, you just do it.
2. You started outside and moved in. Then you made a strike. Now you want to move again. You must spend your third action on Balance. If you succeed, you get to move as planned. If you fail, your third action is spent and you go nowhere.
Basically, the need to balance turns a 1-action automatic ability to stride into a 1-action skill check required to stride. Being on uneven ground does *not* mean you have to do a Balance check before you are allowed to do *anything*. You can do other things the way you always do them. It just means move actions now require a skill check before they work.
I mean splash isn't a hit. If a fighter tries to knowdown with a bomb (for some reason) they still need to succeed the attack roll to get the trip attempt as they did deal damage but they didn't hit.
I don't know how to read getting hit by splash as not a hit. It may not be a Strike, but being affected by a splash of napalm is to be hit by said napalm splash.
---------
That's what I mean by separating the Strike / character from the bomb that's doing the splash.
If you reg miss a bomb throw, the bomb still hits the AoE splash. If the Strike was thrown w/ a crit miss, the bomb also misses it's splash.
Meanwhile, things like that fighter knockdown require the fighter to make a hit, which is how I can have one blanket rule that allows splash to function at all, but also avoids shenanigans.
The splash is not the fighter's hit, but the bomb's. Also in that case, Knockdown specifies a melee Strike, which further removes the splash from being compatible.
I can't believe I'm drilling all the way down to this, but in pf2e HP = "Hit Points" which is a bit more implication that damage to Hit Points means being hit.
And Uneven Ground doesn't care where the hit comes from.
I mean splash isn't a hit. If a fighter tries to knowdown with a bomb (for some reason) they still need to succeed the attack roll to get the trip attempt as they did deal damage but they didn't hit.
I don't know how to read getting hit by splash as not a hit. It may not be a Strike, but being affected by a splash of napalm is to be hit by said napalm splash.
---------
That's what I mean by separating the Strike / character from the bomb that's doing the splash.
If you reg miss a bomb throw, the bomb still hits the AoE splash. If the Strike was thrown w/ a crit miss, the bomb also misses it's splash.
Meanwhile, things like that fighter knockdown require the fighter to make a hit, which is how I can have one blanket rule that allows splash to function at all, but also avoids shenanigans.
The splash is not the fighter's hit, but the bomb's. Also in that case, Knockdown specifies a melee Strike, which further removes the splash from being compatible.
from the splash rules
Quote:
If you throw a lesser acid flask and hit your target, that creature takes 1 acid damage, 1d6 persistent acid damage, and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures within 5 feet of it take 1 acid splash damage. On a critical hit, the target takes 2 acid damage and 2d6 persistent acid damage, but the splash damage is still 1. If you miss, the target and all creatures within 5 feet take only 1 splash damage. If you critically fail, no one takes any damage."
Hitting means succeeding with an attack roll. If you get a failure and miss you still deal damage but you don't hit (and wouldn't get precision damage for example)
Quote:
I can't believe I'm drilling all the way down to this, but in pf2e HP = "Hit Points" which is a bit more implication that damage to Hit Points means being hit.
Fireball also doesn't hit, it still deals damage to hit points. If someone fails their fireball save they don't have to roll twice for uneven ground because they just failed a save, they were not hit. Likewise someone who has persistent damage also wouldn't have to roll for uneven ground at the end of their turn because they didn't get hit.
Yeah, there's a consistent split between magic stuff, which uses "effect" in blurbs like "You take half the listed damage from the effect" and everything else, which typically says "hit"
Alchemy stuff is explicitly non-magical, and only has tiny blurbs for their odd edge cases.
From Splash trait:
-----------
"If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. On a failure (but not a critical failure), the target of the attack still takes the splash damage. Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s weaknesses or resistances. You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit."
------
Frustratingly ambiguous, and it is very possible to read it as taking dmg without any attack source.
The Strike throw itself is an attack, and being able to take damage from said attack, while bypassing triggers set to an attack or effect despite the PC throw is IMO a problematic loophole.
There's a lot of random things that trigger when "being hit", and this would let PCs deal damage while avoiding targeted monster/ect reactions.
It is certainly possible to say splash damage is damage w/o a hit, but being consistent w/ that rule would likely end up w/ other odds cases that break in the PCs favor in ways clearly not intended.
1. You started outside and moved in. You have yet to do anything to trigger the check, so if your next action is strike or cast a spell or whatever, you just do it.
So, if you can go through uneven ground area in one action, one Stride, you just go through? It just doesn't do anything? Nope. It can't work like that.
Cordell Kintner's point 2 is a very good solution for all cases, I think. Maybe tinker with it a little, but still. In case we wouldn't get any improvement in the remaster.
I'm telling right now that having a hit being "You deal damage with an attack" rather than "You succeed at an attack roll" is going to cause a lot more odd cases, like swashbucklers dealing more damage when failing with confident finisher than if they actually succeeded with it.
While it's not relevant for the Sleet, as that specifies attack and not effect, the rules do use language like:
"For example, if you’re hit by an effect that inflicts drained 3 and you’re a 3rd-level character, you lose 9 Hit Points and reduce your maximum Hit Points by 9."
https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx
So in general, I do think you are "hit by a fireball" in order to take Hit Point damage. Same w/ Splash.
The niggle in this case is if splash is affirmatively a part of an attack, so it's not specifically important.
... "You deal damage with an attack" rather than "You succeed at an attack roll" is going to cause a lot more odd cases...
I specifically said that splash dmg as the *bomb's* attack/dmg, not the PCs. "You deal dmg" doesn't trigger on a whiff, it was the bomb's splash.
Else waaaay to many buffs would increase splash dmg.
I'm in between the two common readings so it still can invoke most enemy reactions as appropriate, without the PCs treating a failed throw as a successful attack.
Basically, "the hit has to come from somewhere, else no-source loopholes --> bomb's hit"
"You make an incredibly graceful attack, piercing your foe's defenses. Make a Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack that would apply your precise strike damage, with the following failure effect.
Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike."
Assuming bombs are fine for "precise strike," I don't understand what's wrong here.
On a reg miss, you deal half that precise strike dmg to the single Strike target, and the splash happens as normal, hitting the whole AoE. The splash has no reason to be boosted.
-----
"So you've hit with a strike with a finesse or agile weapon and therefore get your full finisher damage on top by your reading."
I have no idea how you would get that, or what you're going for.
The Strike has clearly missed, so no.
-----
"Some actions with the finisher trait also grant an effect on a failure."
It looks like Swashbuckler remembered to actually classify that damage as an effect, which avoids the Splash issue of vaguely being an attack by being attached to the bomb Strike.
----
Again, splash says:
"On a failure (but not a critical failure), the target of the attack still takes the splash damage."
This is very specifically avoiding any phrasing of "you/the PC does dmg" and leaves the dmg without an explicit source, hence me filling that in as the bomb.
This isn't about using it with bombs, this is about using it normally. It deals damage on a failure. If that damage makes it count as a hit it means that it also just adds full precise strike damage, which means that it is fully possible to deal more damage by getting a failure than a success on the strike. Unless you are just arbitrarily not counting this damage as as a hit while splash damage does count as one.
This isn't about using it with bombs, this is about using it normally. It deals damage on a failure. If that damage makes it count as a hit it means that it also just adds full precise strike damage, which means that it is fully possible to deal more damage by getting a failure than a success on the strike.
Quote:
Precise Strike
You strike with flair. When you have panache and you Strike with an agile or finesse melee weapon or agile or finesse unarmed attack, you deal 2 additional precision damage. If the strike is part of a finisher, the additional damage is 2d6 precision damage instead.
As your swashbuckler level increases, so does your ....
It looks like that still tied to a successful Strike.
Though... it is omitting the "successful" bit and leaving it to implication, on a class that appears to be built to do dmg on a miss.
There's not mention of "being hit by an *attack*" which would rule out effect damage that's added to Strikes.
It honestly does seem RaW that any Strike whiff in which the PC still does dmg somehow, does get boosted. It never specifies the Strike has to roll a success, leaving any Strike that does dmg as valid for the boost.
Never played w/ a Swashbuckler, so I honestly don't know what the normal ruling on that is, lol.
---------
While bombs escape by being ranged weapons, that is a really silly rule loophole.
However, if bombs were valid for that SwsBklr thing, I'd still rule that the dmg boost is being applied to the Strike of the PC's throw, and would not apply to the bomb's splash.
There 0 text in the trait that says "you deal", ect. It's all some flavor of "the target of the attack takes."
------
Quote:
If that damage makes it count as a hit it means that it also just adds full precise strike damage, which means that it is fully possible to deal more damage by getting a failure than a success on the strike.
No? Dealing dmg does not always mean a successful Strike happened, as with bombs.
RaI Confident Finisher is clearly saying you get half the normal amount of finisher boost as a consolation prize on a failed Strike.
This actually does give evidence to the claim that Precise Strike's
"When you have panache and you Strike with..." is leaving a "[successful] Strike" to the default implication.
1. You started outside and moved in. You have yet to do anything to trigger the check, so if your next action is strike or cast a spell or whatever, you just do it.
So, if you can go through uneven ground area in one action, one Stride, you just go through? It just doesn't do anything? Nope. It can't work like that.
Why not? This is the RAW forum, right? We are discussing the rules as they are written, not the rules as we think they ought to be. The RAW is that the Balance action is required of moves starting in such an area, but are not generally required of moves starting out of such an area and ending up in it (...but see my discussion of the general make-a-check rules, below). You wanna take a running start onto the frozen pond, the game lets you stay upright for your first 2 seconds for free if your GM is fine with that. And if you can slide all the way across the pond in 2 seconds, you may get to do that for free if your GM is fine with it too.
Quote:
Cordell Kintner's point 2 is a very good solution for all cases, I think. Maybe tinker with it a little, but still. In case we wouldn't get any improvement in the remaster.
First, Cordell's #1 suggestion IS the balance action description. There IS a move included in the balance action. Just read the acrobatics rules. So that solution already exists. I think that's important, because there seems to be some stun-lock idea that forcing balance actions prevents movement. It doesn't. A successful balance action includes in it the ability to stride. It is not "1a check, then take 1a stride', it is like a strike; the roll is the action.
I would argue the second one does too - but only where the first doesn't apply. The p443 general rule of 'if success isn't certain, make a check' does not state that there is an action cost associated with every check, and indeed the PCs make all sorts of reactive checks that don't require actions. So if an AP description of an area says 'make a balance check on entering' or the effect of some spell or other thing says 'targets must make a balance check' or 'success causes the target to make a balance check' you just do the check. This is not the 1a move action, it's just a check. Likewise, if the GM determines that some change in the PC's circumstances now forces or requires a balance check, they can require one and this doesn't have the 1a cost of the "Balance" move action. But I would argue that a rule stating "entering uneven terrain ALWAYS requires a balance check' is not RAW, is not the game's intent, and has just as many problems as 'never requires.' The game's current flexibility of leaving it up to the GM to decide if a balance check is needed is better than either hardline rule. The "balance action" is there to cover move actions taken on the rolling log/ice/whatever. A GM-requested balance check is the mechanic for if the GM thinks your balance has been sufficiently challenged by some sudden change in footing.
It says you move, not that you Stride. I was suggesting it work like Tumble Through, where you Stride, and if at any point during that Stride you go through Uneven Ground or a Narrow surface, you make the check then. suggesting you can simply Stride across a 20ft long tight rope just because you have a 30ft move speed is obviously not the intent of the Balance action.
RAI is just as important, if not more important, than RAW. Especially if it is fundamentally broken as written.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I like the idea of having someone roll against the DC as they enter the area as though they had taken the Balance action; though I acknowledge that rules as written don't seem to support such an interpretation.
Why not? This is the RAW forum, right? We are discussing the rules as they are written, not the rules as we think they ought to be. The RAW is that the Balance action is required of moves starting in such an area, but are not generally required of moves starting out of such an area and ending up in it
Where in the RAW is this exactly?
Because the RAW doesn't even mention that the Balance check is on a move, much less of the timing of said Balance check.
The only thing that RAW says is:
Quote:
Uneven ground is an area unsteady enough that you need to Balance (see Acrobatics) or risk falling prone and possibly injuring yourself, depending on the specifics of the uneven ground
No mention of moving, less alone timing of said move.
RAW says that you can take the Balance action while on Uneven Ground, and that gives you some movement if you make it, or you fall if you crit fail it.
But what happens when you enter, or you use any other action while on Uneven Ground, is pretty much open to anyones imagination (and interpatation).
Because the RAW doesn't even mention that the Balance check is on a move, much less of the timing of said Balance check.
Yes it absolutely mentions it's on a move. Core rule book, p240.
Also on AoN it's the very first thing that pops up if you search for "Balance."
Quote:
But what happens when you enter, or you use any other action while on Uneven Ground, is pretty much open to anyones imagination (and interpatation).
The specific Balance action rules tell you under what circumstances you must take the Balance action instead of a regular move action. Absent those circumstances, you don't need to use the Balance action. If you are not making a move action but some other sort of action, you use that other action's rules, not the Balance action's rules.
The general check rules (p443) also tell the GM that they may call for a check when the outcome is uncertain. And there are powers in the game (such as Winter Sleet) that specifically force a PC or NPC to make a balance check.
So I don't see what's lacking or unclear about this.
1. You don't need to take the Balance *action* to move into uneven ground, but you must make Balance *checks* when the GM determines you need to or if some power affects the PC or NPC which forces a balance check.
2. The RAW does *not* force a balance check to enter uneven ground. GMs are free to do that, but it's not a requirement. Which is IMO nicely flexible, because for a 1' wide slightly wobbly log I probably wouldn't bother but for a 2" wide rope I probably would. For a big frozen lake I probably wouldn't but for a 3' bit of floating ice I probably would. Not all "uneven ground" is equally uneven and so it seems very smart to me that the game doesn't *force* the GM to call for such a check, but the general rules give the GM the *option* of doing so if they think it's the right call.
3. Because Balance is a move action that tells you how far you get to move if you succeed, if you are doing something else like striking or casting, you are not taking the balance action and thus the rules for the balance action don't apply to you.
4. If you, as a GM, decide you will *always* force a balance check for players entering uneven ground and cause them to stop their move if they fail or only proceed another 5' with a regular success, that's your prerogative. But the rules don't say you have to. The rules certainly don't say you must force players to make balance checks before doing things like striking or standing. So if you rule that they do, and if that ruling causes other negative game impacts like making it impossible to stand up, well whose fault is that? Not the core rule books'.
1. You started outside and moved in. You have yet to do anything to trigger the check, so if your next action is strike or cast a spell or whatever, you just do it.
So, if you can go through uneven ground area in one action, one Stride, you just go through? It just doesn't do anything? Nope. It can't work like that.
Why not? This is the RAW forum, right? We are discussing the rules as they are written, not the rules as we think they ought to be.
:-D No, this is not. It's really-really not. You should rethink that. It's a forum of RAW and RAI and of how to find working solutions when RAW is broken and possibly RAI not clear. Sometimes even something close to consensus appears but not very frequently.
And even the designers understood that which shows in the very often mentioned rules' parts in short called TGTBT, TBTBT and THE FIRST RULE.
Easl wrote:
The RAW is that the Balance action is required of moves starting in such an area, but are not generally required of moves starting out of such an area and ending up in it (...but see my discussion of the general make-a-check rules, below). ...
I would argue the second one does too - but only where the first doesn't apply. The p443 general rule of 'if success isn't certain, make a check' does not state that there is an action cost associated with every check, and indeed the PCs make all sorts of reactive checks that don't require actions. So if an AP description of an area says 'make a balance...
It's funny when you first talk about strict RAW and then acknowledge that it's broken and propose your own homerule (which is ok on its own). There's no 'balance check' in RAW. There's only one Balance action with the specific requirements and consequences which doesn't apply in many cases. THAT is the problem. You can make a 'balance check' from it, but that would be a homerule. Which is fine as the game needs some rule for this.
I like Cordell's solution #2 because it's elegant and seems would work nicely in all cases.
Because the RAW doesn't even mention that the Balance check is on a move, much less of the timing of said Balance check.
Yes it absolutely mentions it's on a move. Core rule book, p240.
Also on AoN it's the very first thing that pops up if you search for "Balance."
Quote:
But what happens when you enter, or you use any other action while on Uneven Ground, is pretty much open to anyones imagination (and interpatation).
The specific Balance action rules tell you under what circumstances you must take the Balance action instead of a regular move action. Absent those circumstances, you don't need to use the Balance action. If you are not making a move action but some other sort of action, you use that other action's rules, not the Balance action's rules.
The general check rules (p443) also tell the GM that they may call for a check when the outcome is uncertain. And there are powers in the game (such as Winter Sleet) that specifically force a PC or NPC to make a balance check.
So I don't see what's lacking or unclear about this.
1. You don't need to take the Balance *action* to move into uneven ground, but you must make Balance *checks* when the GM determines you need to or if some power affects the PC or NPC which forces a balance check.
2. The RAW does *not* force a balance check to enter uneven ground. GMs are free to do that, but it's not a requirement. Which is IMO nicely flexible, because for a 1' wide slightly wobbly log I probably wouldn't bother but for a 2" wide rope I probably would. For a big frozen lake I probably wouldn't but for a 3' bit of floating ice I probably would. Not all "uneven ground" is equally uneven and so it seems very smart to me that the game doesn't *force* the GM to call for such a check, but the general rules give the GM the *option* of doing so if they think it's the right call.
3. Because Balance is a move action that tells you how far you get to move if you succeed, if you...
You are wrong, I have quoted what exactly it is said.
"When on Uneven Ground you must Balance or you fall".
Absolutely nothing mentioned about being on a move.
P. 240 JUST says that when you Balance you also move.
That you "only" have to roll balance when you move is just your conjecture and a "houserule" (one of many of whomever tries to use Balance since RAW doesn't make sense).
---
To clarify a bit more.
Other types of terrain, like Hazardous or Difficult, say that their effects are when you "move on the terrain".
Unlike those, Uneven terrain says that its effects are when you are "on the terrain". No mention of movement.
Balance as well, has no requirement that you try to move. Only that you are "on the terrain".
Yes, it comes with movement tacked in, but that doesn't somehow make it a requirement.
As written, the only action you can do while "on" Uneven Terrain, without falling, is Balance.
Do I believe it makes sense? No.
But since this is the rules forums, I have to point out at the absurdity of the written rules for them to get fixed.
