An argument over the workings of balance.

[Blain]

We have a bit of an argument going on another forum over balance as related to difficult terrain. Yes, it's going to link to the much maligned knight class.

My take from reading PHB1 has been that when it comes to balance we are talking narrow or difficult surfaces. So, anything you are walking on. There are obviously a lot of things you can walk on, loose rubble, slippery surfaces, broken or uneven flooring e.t.c.
Putting narrow surfaces aside for the moment (as I have no real debate over how this works at all), we come to difficult surfaces. From my interpretation of the footnotes (PHB1, pg 67, footnote two in the difficult surfaces section of the table,) difficult surfaces only require a balance check if you are running or charging.

Hopefully, I'm correct so far?

Then we hit difficult terrain. Where we seem to be having the most arguments in our little group is over the fact that both difficult terrain and balance list similar or same examples (rubble, steep slopes e.t.c). These is a rather important difference though, at least to my mind - the book explicitly states that you cannot run or charge across difficult terrain. (pg 147). Surely this implies that the act of moving across said difficult terrain does *not* require a balance check, as difficult surface checks only occur when you are running or charging.

I could be totally off the mark here, but I'd love to get feedback off some more experienced players and see what your thoughts on this are.

How does this affect the knight class? Bulwark of Defense treats anyone starting in the knights threat range as being in difficult terrain. The obvious implication is that it doubles the cost of your movement, as per hampered movement. Heck, if it's dark, you're never going to get around the blighter, due to the way hampered movement stacks. This ends up being important due to the knights code and rules against striking flat-footed opponents.

Hope you guys can help us out with this one, as our argument is dragging on and on.


Blain

[Immortius]

The difference, as far as I can tell, is that the surfaces requiring balance checks to run or charge are those you are likely to slip on but otherwise don't slow you down.

For instance, if you are running across a 30º slope, there is nothing slowing you down but you might slip. If you are running across rubble, you need to be careful not to trip, or to step on an unstable rock that will slip under you, and you will need to step over minor obstacles, etc.

It is a really subtle difference though, especially as balance lists uneven flagstones and difficult terrain lists uneven cave floor.

[Username17]

OK, first of all: the Knight is crap. It's written in a complicated fashion to the point where it does not do what it is supposed to do and even if it did what it is supposed to do isn't good.

So here's how it works:

If you are standing on ground that is difficult, you lose your Dex bonus unless you have 5 ranks of Balance (which generally speaking you don't). The Knight makes the terrain around him difficult, so if people are standing on the ground in that area, he's fvcked.

That's not how it's supposed to work, but tht is what it says. And honestly, the knight class isn't salvageable. It doesn't do anything good.

All of its powers are metagaming, and his list of restrictions in no way represents "honorable combat" by any definition that has ever been used by any historical group, nor is it a good approximation of honor as understood by people in a fantasy setting. The entire Knight class is toilet paper and I'm offended that it ever saw print.

-Username17

[shau]

I love how the knight, the rogue, and grease all work together.

If an enemy makes his save against the grease spell, he is flatfooted (unless he has 5 ranks in balance). This means that a knight cannot attack him, but a rogue can sneak attack him.

If an enemy has failed to make his save against grease, he is prone, not flat footed. This means that the knight can attack him. However, the rogue cannot sneak attack him because he has not lost he is dex bonus to AC.

What have we learned...

1. In WotC land, it is more honorable to hit an enemy who is laying down than one who is on a slick floor.

2. It is also easier to defend oneself from the prone position than standing upright on a slick floor.

3. There will be times when the best thing you can do after making your save against the grease spell is to go ahead and fall down anyway.

[NineInchNall]

1167415568[/unixtime]]So here's how it works:

If you are standing on ground that is difficult, you lose your Dex bonus unless you have 5 ranks of Balance (which generally speaking you don't). The Knight makes the terrain around him difficult, so if people are standing on the ground in that area, he's fvcked.

Whuh? Why would he be fucked if his enemies are denied their Dex bonus?

[MrWaeseL]

Whuh? Why would he be fvcked if his enemies are denied their Dex bonus?

His "code of honor" forbids him from attacking such enemies.

In other words, the knight has a class feature that he cannot attack creatures standing in the squares around him.

[dbb]

Because the Knight isn't permitted to attack people who are denied their Dex bonus.

[NineInchNall]

1167427377[/unixtime]]Because the Knight isn't permitted to attack people who are denied their Dex bonus.

Yes, he is.

This is his code:

• A knight does not gain a bonus on attack rolls when flanking. You still confer the benefit of ... {snipped for irrelevance}
  
• A knight never strikes a flat-footed opponent. ...
  
• A knight never deals lethal damage against a helpless foe.

Flat-footed and not being able to apply one's Dex bonus to AC are different conditions.

For example, from the main FAQ entry on Uncanny Dodge:

A feint doesn�ft render a target flatfooted,
it just doesn�ft allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to
AC against your next melee attack made on or before your next
turn.

Now, the question is whether Bulwark of Defense requires the enemy to "Balance ", as that would make them flat-footed. I'd be inclined to say no, and here's why. The entry in Balance states that you are considered flat-footed while balancing. Moving on difficult surfaces (not narrow surfaces) only requires a Balance check when running or charging, and hence those are the only times when the character would be considered to be balancing.

So ... The knight can force the enemy to make a Balance check (and therefore become flat-footed and screwed over by the party Rogue) in order to move quickly, or the enemy can just sit there and be whomped on by everyone. *shrug*

[dbb]

Whoops! That's what I get for responding without checking a reference.

Technically the question is whether "losing your Dex bonus unless you have n ranks of Balance" is the same as "Balancing", but yeah. Have to look through some books to see if I can locate a ruling; it doesn't seem to be in the FAQ.

[Blain]

This is where we really hit the crux of the matter The examples WotC have given are what makes it confusing, and that where interpretation causes arguments. For instance:

It is a really subtle difference though, especially as balance lists uneven flagstones and difficult terrain lists uneven cave floor.

A fair call. But how do you define uneven cave floor? Anyone who has been spelunking can probably tell you that the floor of a cave is nothing like a room with uneven flagstones. (Of course, I'm sure there are exceptions *sigh*) To my mind, an uneven cave floor dips and rises sharply. Maybe there are holes, or chasms, maybe stalagmites prevent you making any decent speed through the area. Basically, it's uneven enough to prevent you running. Therefore, you don't need to make a balance check. But, not everyone would agree, and that's why I'm putting it up for debate.

To my mind, there are surfaces you can walk (read narrow <=12"), run or charge across, which require a balance check, and there are those you can't, so there is no need for a balance check.

That's what I really need resolved in the end. Whether difficult terrain requires a balance check.
Like or dislike for the knight class can be a personal thing, but I think nay-saying it over a 3rd level class feature that no-one seems to able to agree on the mechanics for, is rash.

[NineInchNall]

Has anyone else noticed that WotC seems less and less able to write coherent, easily understood rules text?

[Blain]

Actually, I'd be more inclined to say that people are trying harder & harder to find tenuous loopholes. They rely so much on the exact printed word, they tend to completely miss the intended meaning.

But then, I do think that the more you try to explain and expand upon something, the bigger the loopholes can get.

[Leress]

1167432079[/unixtime]]Has anyone else noticed that WotC seems less and less able to write coherent, easily understood rules text?

Lack of Proofreading and Playtesting will do that to you

[Username17]

Moving on difficult surfaces (not narrow surfaces) only requires a Balance check when running or charging, and hence those are the only times when the character would be considered to be balancing.

Where do you get that?

You can walk on a precarious surface. A successful check lets you move at half your speed along the surface for 1 round. A failure by 4 or less means you can't move for 1 round. A failure by 5 or more means you fall. The difficulty varies with the surface, as follows:

Narrow Surface Balance DC1 Difficult Surface Balance DC1

Seriously, there's also a rule for using accelerated movement in a precarious surface later in the skill description, but just standing in difficult terrain requires a balance check each round for you to figure out whether you can move at all.

I have no idea where the internet meme that balance-based flatfootedness only happens to characters who are running or charging came from - that's manifestly not what the rules say.

-Username17

[Blain]

O.k, I hope you do realise the DC1 you're referring to, refers to the footnote, correct? So, check out footnote 2, referenced next to the DC for difficult surfaces.

Page 67, it's right there in black and white.

If you want to use the SRD: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/balance.htm

Now, as for accelerated movement, that references precarious surfaces, not difficult terrain. Add to which, it does state in accelerated movement that you can use it to charge across the precarious surface, therefore ensuring that we're not talking about difficult terrain.

So, that's pretty much manifestly what the rules say.

[dbb]

Is the text different between the PHB and the SRD?

[PhoneLobster]

Why, its absolutely clear what difficult terrain does, as written in this paragraph...

Difficult Terrain

Any character in forest, moor, hill, or mountain terrain may become lost if he or she moves away from a trail, road, stream, or other obvious path or track. Forests are especially dangerous because they obscure far-off landmarks and make it hard to see the sun or stars.

The knight causes people he threatens to forget where they are.

Thats how you interpret the d20 rules set right? Find the first bit of text you can that refers to the keyword and apply that then just stop, right?

Mod Edit: That was unnecessary, PhoneLobster

Now, I for one know better than to question Frank on this. Especially after having looked at the text myself and clearly seeing the connections he was making.

But assuming he is either of the people I'm pretty certain he is Blain remains seriously in denial about how very perfect WOTC publications are, so you'll need to outline it very explicitly for him.

I'll have to say, "you are standing on ground that is difficult" is far more eloquent, straight forward and correct than I could manage to put it. But its just not going to get through to him.

Mind you he HAS just posted on this thread a subjective "realism" argument differentiating uneven cave floors and uneven flagstones based on his personal opinion to support his OTHER personal opinion (which happens to be that the knight class rocks)...

Then gone on to bemoan the apparent prevalence of people seeking to exploit tiny loopholes in the text and ignore proper understanding one post later.

So I can't guarantee he isn't beyond helping on this one.

they tend to completely miss the intended meaning.

Intended meaning has gotten to be a pretty grey area with WOTC.

What meaning DID they intend for the knight? Its pretty unclear. I for one cannot formulate ANY interpretation of the Bulwark of Defense ability that actually functions in any way that could be considered an intended worthwhile class feature for that or any level.

There are level one spells that do the same job better. (assuming its clear that it is intended to do any job at all)

[Blain]

For balance? Word for word the same.

[PhoneLobster]

I have no idea where the internet meme that balance-based flatfootedness only happens to characters who are running or charging came from - that's manifestly not what the rules say.

He believes that Difficult Terrain, the OTHER Difficult Terrain, Narrow Surface, Difficult Surface, and Precarious Surface, are all completely different and separate things.

[Blain]

Well, going by the rules of this forum, I'm not going to make any personal attacks (unlike our PhoneLobster friend there...).

Unfortunately, some people tend to ignore indexes and glossaries.

Indexed:
Difficult Terrain - Page 148.

Now I know that it might go against the grain to read the book instead of the free source online. But you'd have to be a fool to reference wilderness in response to tactical movement in combat.

Now, as for the effect of the knight class, here's a quote direct from the wizards site from the knight class chapter:

Bulwark of Defense: Starting at 3rd level, a knight gains a limited power to hold foes in place. Any opponent that begins a turn in the area the knight threatens treats all the squares the knight threatens as difficult terrain (movement costs are doubled in those squares).

That's not crystal clear?

Let's throw in some more mechanics. Hampered movement (pg 163) makes a square cost two instead of one. Not the same as halving movement, because hampered movement can stack multiples times - difficult terrain and darkness can cost you four squares of movement per square.

My whole point in posting here though is to get peoples own thoughts on difficult terrain vs balance. It is pretty clear in the book that difficult terrain = hampered movement. Hampered movement doesn't allow running or charging. Therefore there is no balance check as you cannot make one.


Now, just adding an extra note here: The knight makes you treat squares as if in difficult terrain. This means your movement is hampered. It doesn't mean that the ground suddenly becomes broken and hard to move through. You are moving cautiously because he is forcing you to.


I'm repeating myself here. Give me your take on this topic, with references, so we can end this debate.



Extra edit:

Thought I might throw in a quote I found today on the wizards site which supports what I'm saying, from an article by Skip Williams (though from what I've read elsewhere on this forum, he has an enemy or two here):

Balance
<snip>
First, you can make a Balance check to charge or run over a surface that is rough or uneven enough to trip you up, but not one that is so rugged as to make running or charging impossible. For example, you can make a Balance check (DC 10) to run or charge across an uneven flagstone floor or a hewn stone floor.

Link for that: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040622a

[Crissa]

PL and Frank agreeing?

Did the world end and no one called me again?

Difficult terrain is confusing. But if you have balance, and can throw a die, you can get your Dex bonus back and... Let the Knight hit you.

I was thinking the 'Difficult Terrain' for the Knight was a reerence to how a sword master can unbalance foes by threatening or whacking them with the flat of their sword - it's similar to the Trip Feat, basically - and making them less able to fight back.

It's a taunt. Either you fight, and he hits you, or you don't, and he doesn't.

-Crissa