# Flat-Footed



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

I picked up a new player, and he insists that I'm playing the Flat-Footed rule wrong.

The way I read it, when a combat round starts, everybody rolls initiative.  Characters move and act in inititiave order.  On the first round, a character is considered flat-footed until his chance to act.

So...

If Caelis rolls a 15 Inititiative, and Thrallan rolls an 11, Caelis can walk up to Thrallan, attack him, and Thrallan will be considered flat-footed.

Thrallan is no longer flat-footed once the initiative count reaches him.

It seems pretty black and white to me.  Is this how you see it?


----------



## Vegepygmy (Apr 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> The way I read it, when a combat round starts, everybody rolls initiative.



Not a combat _round._ Just a combat, period.



			
				Water Bob said:
			
		

> Characters move and act in inititiave order. On the first round, a character is considered flat-footed until his chance to act.



Again, don't focus on the _round_. The first round could be a surprise round. A character that doesn't get to act in the surprise round will remain flat-footed until he acts in the first non-surprise round, which would actually be the _second_ round of combat.

So just ask yourself: has the character had an opportunity to act yet in this combat? If the answer is no, he's flat-footed.



			
				Water Bob said:
			
		

> So...
> 
> If Caelis rolls a 15 Inititiative, and Thrallan rolls an 11, Caelis can walk up to Thrallan, attack him, and Thrallan will be considered flat-footed.



Yep.



			
				Water Bob said:
			
		

> Thrallan is no longer flat-footed once the initiative count reaches him.



Yep.



			
				Water Bob said:
			
		

> It seems pretty black and white to me. Is this how you see it?



Yep. Now please tell us, how does your new player think it works?


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

Vegepygmy said:


> Not a combat _round._ Just a combat, period.




Yes.  Flat-footed during the first round of the combat only until your action.



> So just ask yourself: has the character had an opportunity to act yet in this combat? If the answer is no, he's flat-footed.




Exactly.  



> Yep. Now please tell us, how does your new player think it works?




He thinks it's too high powered to remove all defense bonuses.  He says that being flatfooted should only effect a character when he isn't aware of the other combatant (or isn't aware of the danger).  

He says if (using the example characters above) Caelis and Thrallan are in an argument, shouting matching, that turns into a combat, that initiative is thrown but both characters are not considered flat-flooted no matter who wins the nish throw.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 8, 2011)

Show him this.

If he is arguing against this because he thinks its unbalanced, as opposed to RAW, then tell him that's his opinion and he's welcome to it, and if he wants to run a game that way when he's DMing he is free to do so.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

Dandu said:


> If he is arguing against this because he thinks its unbalanced, as opposed to RAW, then tell him that's his opinion and he's welcome to it, and if he wants to run a game that way when he's DMing he is free to do so.




I showed him the rule in the book, but it doesn't matter.  He thinks its an overpowered, bad rule that needs to be changed.  I've got three players in my group, and now he's infected one of the others.  Now, I've got two players who think the rule is overpowered.

I like the rule, myself.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 8, 2011)

Now, I've definitely run combats where everyone involved knew it was about to turn into a fight, and therefore no one started flat-footed, but that is by far the exception, not the rule.

As a silly check, you don't "remove all defense bonuses" - just Dex and Dodge.  Are you taking more than that away?


----------



## Dandu (Apr 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I like the rule, myself.



Well, if they are mature then I suggest you have a nice discussion with them over pizza (that you pay for) and soda (that you pay for, hint hint) in your house at your table as to how it is overpowered, and how they would feel about the enemy receiving the same powerup as them.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> As a silly check, you don't "remove all defense bonuses" - just Dex and Dodge. Are you taking more than that away?




No.  Going exactly by RAW.





Dandu said:


> Well, if they are mature then I suggest you have a nice discussion with them over pizza (that you pay for) and soda (that you pay for, hint hint) in your house at your table as to how it is overpowered, and how they would feel about the enemy receiving the same powerup as them.




Given his argument: If Caelis and Thrallan are shouting at each other, and the situation goes to blows, then we roll iniative and start the fight...BUT, he says, neither Caelis or Thrallan should be flatfooted because both were expecting to enter the fight. 

He asks, "Why would one have such an advantage over the other for only the first punch?" 

I'm at a loss right now to defend the flat-footed rule (other than I'm very used to it, all the way back to Classic Traveller's First Blood rule).


----------



## Dandu (Apr 8, 2011)

Defend it by invoking your right as the DM to run the game as you see fit after a reasonable examination of the rules and the nature of your game.



> He asks, "Why would one have such an advantage over the other for only the first punch?"



If the argument gets tense, punch him and see if he retains Dex to AC.


----------



## Jacob (Apr 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> He thinks it's too high powered to remove all defense bonuses.  He says that being flatfooted should only effect a character when he isn't aware of the other combatant (or isn't aware of the danger).
> 
> He says if (using the example characters above) Caelis and Thrallan are in an argument, shouting matching, that turns into a combat, that initiative is thrown but both characters are not considered flat-flooted no matter who wins the nish throw.





Water Bob said:


> I showed him the rule in the book, but it  doesn't matter.  He thinks its an overpowered, bad rule that needs to be  changed.  I've got three players in my group, and now he's infected one  of the others.  Now, I've got two players who think the rule is  overpowered.
> 
> I like the rule, myself.



I have to wonder who it's overpowered _for_. In the scenario of _Caelis and Thrallan_, I suppose I could see the point of the both of them being already ready to strike each other, but that's up to the DM is such a situation arises. The point of initiative is to get first blood, which has the potential of being a very dangerous blow. Lowered AC means higher chance of getting damage. Especially with Power Attack. Also, if one of them is a Rouge, well...you know what I mean.

Getting the highest Initiative is important to the PC for just this reason, for if the monsters get it first, they could get hurt. But if the PCs get it, happy town. Taking that away takes away the point of needing a high initiative altogether, unless it's to stop someone's action in the very first round.

On speaking from experience, I once played a game that dealt away with the whole flat footed before your 1st turn. Due to us being new, however, I believe the reasoning was so we wouldn't be bogged down by all the rules at once. Mind you, we never changed it back, making the Rouge a much weaker striker. Mind you again, he also only allowed a single Sneak Attack per attack, even if the target was still flat footed or flanked from your previous attack. He may have just hated Rouges. 



Dandu said:


> Well, if they are mature then I suggest you have a nice discussion with them over pizza (that you pay for) and soda (that you pay for, hint hint) in your house at your table as to how it is overpowered, and how they would feel about the enemy receiving the same powerup as them.



I'm all behind this path of logic (though it may hurt your wallet). Present scenarios where it works out for their favor, and how they would lose it if the other mans ruling went through. Have scenarios be given to you as well, and have it be kept in mind the 1st round of combat is meant to be decisive and dangerous, for the PCs *and* the NPCs, which is something they should like.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Defend it by invoking your right as the DM to run the game as you see fit after a reasonable examination of the rules and the nature of your game.




That's the first thing I said.  And, I also said that if we changed this rule, we're inviting the rule of unintended consequences to appear.

Saying, "I'm the DM!" only made things worse, with replies of, "Hey, it's our game, too!"




> If the argument gets tense, punch him and see if he retains Dex to AC.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

Jacob said:


> I have to wonder who it's overpowered _for_.




My other player actually said that, thinking the rule actually helped the players.

The player in question countered by saying that it doesn't matter who the rule favors, bad-guys or PCs.  If it's a bad rule, it's a bad rule, and that they shouldn't accept a bad rule just because it favors the players.





> In the scenario of _Caelis and Thrallan_, I suppose I could see the point of the both of them being already ready to strike each other, but that's up to the DM is such a situation arises.




But, unless you're Surprised or otherwise unaware of your enemy, do not the majority of combats start out with both sides ready to strike each other?





> The point of initiative is to get first blood, which has the potential of being a very dangerous blow.




Exactly the point my player is making:  That the rule is overpowered--too dangerous.


----------



## Jacob (Apr 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Exactly the point my player is making:  That the rule is overpowered--too dangerous.



Exactly what does your player see wrong with something being dangerous? Oh, I and they have a chance of doing massive damage in the first round, and I don't like that because...it could drastically change what I or they may do in the following rounds of combat?

Has he even thought that might be the very point of it?

Again I state...you're making a bigger importance to having a higher initiative rolls because the 1st round could be disastrous. If the only thing you have to fear is stopping the NPC from acting first, then it really doesn't have much a difference from the rest of the battle's rounds. Rouges and Barbarians don't have much to fear via their Uncanny Dodge, but the rest could possibly be a little more defenseless...even the NPCs.

If it's a matter of drastically altering a desired outcome, I say stop playing altogether, because the outcomes are all decided with the d20. Being flat footed until your first turn is a neutral rule, as it favors no one. You're playing a game of probability, and you're laying your bets down for something good to happen in your favor. If a decisive 1st round of combat could change the very landscape of the battle, that's exciting. It is for me and my perspective at least. Don't know what it be for this PC.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

Jacob said:


> Exactly what does your player see wrong with something being dangerous?




He thinks that, upon wining nish, that advantage of attacking first is enough of an advantage without making it easier for him to hit, too.

He thinks the flat-footed rule is a character killer, not only at low level, because one blow with normal damage can kill, but also at higher level when large bonuses are dropped to meet the flat-footed rule requirements.

He thinks it's just bad game design.

I don't agree with him at all, but I'll admit, I'm at a loss for how I'm going to effectively deal with him.  He's the type of player who believes in what he says and lays out a well-though argument that is sometimes hard to topple even if you know he's wrong.  Knowing he's wrong and stating a case that makes him understand how he's wrong are two different things.

And, with a rule like flat-footed, he may not be "wrong" at all, but just have a difference of opinion.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Exactly the point my player is making:  That the rule is overpowered--too dangerous.



Then let's get dangerous!


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I don't agree with him at all, but I'll admit, I'm at a loss for how I'm going to effectively deal with him.  He's the type of player who believes in what he says and lays out a well-though argument that is sometimes hard to topple even if you know he's wrong.  Knowing he's wrong and stating a case that makes him understand how he's wrong are two different things.



Maybe you should remind him who's the DM 

When I get fed up arguing with one of my rules-lawyer players, I tell them:
"You know what? You're right. And I'm hereby house-ruling it to be different in my game."


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 8, 2011)

Who does the flat footed rule actually favor or penalize?

It favors those who wear armor (thus not relying on their Dex bonus for AC).

It penalizes those who rely on movement (i.e., dodging and weaving) to gain their AC.

If you can't act yet - you can't move yet (that is doge and weave).


D&D combat is an abstaraction - it is not an accurate capture of real life.  People who try to insert real ife situations/conditions into the D&D fantasy combat system always end up feeling dissatisfied.

The D&D combat system, while an abstraction, was written to be "balanced".

There are tons of potential unintended consequences that result from changing the rules as written.

In the case of the flat footed rule -

    The barbarisn and rogue class ability "uncanny dodge" loses a lot of its benefits.

   Touch attacks are less effective.

    The Ambush feats from Complete Scoundrel - lose a lot of their desireability since a rogue won't be able to sneak attack if he acts prior to his opponent in a combat.

    Characters who don't wear armor now have an advantage over those who spent their funds on armor.

    Dex becomes an even more valuable ability than before (especially for those who would normally wear heavier armors).


There are more those are just the ones I grabbed quickly.

Essentially what your new player is saying is that a character should retain his Dex bonus to AC even if he can't move - which opens up another can of worms (like if he is "held" for instance), what about the effects of the slow spell and so on. .. 


Now if he wants to increase the AC of characters then I would suggest using the Defense Bonus option from Unearthed Arcana pg 109.  Basically a character gets a bonus to AC based on his level and his class type(s) - this does not stack with bonuses due to armor but it should work for flat footed characters.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Apr 8, 2011)

I would tell him that yes, it is powerful, and that if he can find ways to make the most of that, then he will have an advantage in combat.

Something that you could maybe do to mitigate the advantage of the first person to act in such a combat is to have the first round play out as a surprise round (only one move or standard action for each participant, but not both) with the exception that everyone is aware, so everyone gets to act.

Something that you could do to enhance the advantage of the first person to act in combat is to allow the use of the swift strike ability from the Oriental Adventures campaign setting.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 8, 2011)

Michael Silverbane said:


> I would tell him that yes, it is powerful, and that if he can find ways to make the most of that, then he will have an advantage in combat.




That's not what's bugging the player. Yeah, it might be nice, and yeah, he might use the advantage if it's kept in-game, but he thinks the rule is bad for PCs and NPCs.

I agree with him. If everyone is aware, I just discount the rule. Who wouldn't attempt to dodge, parry, block, twist, etc. when everyone is aware that combat is about to happen? It's a purely balance rule, not a realism rule, and on that divide, I feel you and your player are not going to agree. However, point out to him that it's in for balance, and that there are other rules for balance as well.

If one side isn't aware of combat, it goes to a surprise round as normal, and people are flat-footed. Then, when the first normal round of initiative happens, people are flat-footed until they act if they were flat-footed in the surprise round. I doubt he'll object to this rule if he's trying to think of things realistically. You were caught off guard (flat-footed), and as soon as you gain your bearing (your initiative), you are able to effectively defend yourself (you're no longer flat-footed).

Now, as the GM, it's your call. I'd at least discuss that the divide in the conversation seems to be realism / game balance, because often times players will grudgingly accept rulings if they agree game balance is the issue. 

He seems logical to me (but maybe that's because I agree with him), so I think you can talk this through. If he knows you're trying to preserve game balance for both PCs and NPCs, and you're trying to do this impartially (like he's trying to do with the rule), I think he'll be more willing to accept your view, and your decision.

But, hey, you know your players best. Play what you like


----------



## NaturalFn20 (Apr 8, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Defend it by invoking your right as the DM to run the game as you see fit after a reasonable examination of the rules and the nature of your game.
> 
> 
> If the argument gets tense, punch him and see if he retains Dex to AC.



This pretty much. Just make sure to gun for his nose to get the point across. If he blocks you, you lose. Obviously his dex owns you.


----------



## Aluvial (Apr 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> and now he's infected one of the others....



You need to quarantine.


----------



## Empirate (Apr 8, 2011)

As far as I can tell, being flat-footed is a world apart from being surprised. The two are not the same thing: when you're surprised, you are flat-footed in the surprise round AND you don't even get to act.

So awareness that  is going to go down has nothing to do with the flat-footed rule.
Combat is a highly dynamic, hectic situation, in which everybody is constantly moving around as much as they can, trying to get hits in while dodging others, trying to dissuade others from attacking by feinting, riposting etc. The abstract D&D combat system translates this into a Dex bonus to armor class.

Prior to you starting to move around a lot, i.e. prior to your first turn, you're NOT moving around in combat-fashion. You're an easier target. Your opponent doesn't have to worry about your already incoming attack just yet. "He who strikes first often strikes last" - that's what the flat-footed rule is about.

The situation in which everybody is aware that this is going to be combat _at some point _is much different from a situation that _has actually_ turned into a combat. People may be on their toes before, but only the first strike lets loose the dogs of war, so to speak.

Inititative is not a Wis or Int check, so it's not about awareness. It's a Dex check, so it's about pure quickness. When your player argues that hitting first is ample reward for getting a high Initiative, he discounts the fact that first hits wouldn't differ from second or third hits then. I believe they should differ in that they'd be easier to get in - which is exactly what the flat-footed rule provides.

You can play it the way your player argues it should be, sure. But I believe it detracts from tactics (and many character schticks, like Sneak Attack), is not in any way more logical (in fact IMO it's less logical, within and without the system), and upsets game balance through several far-reaching consequences. All in all, it's just not worth it.


----------



## Hexer (Apr 8, 2011)

Well it COULD very well be meant as a realism rule I think.

I practice a martial art for a few years now and I've noticed this several times in sparring rounds:
I face my sparring partner and both of us are totally aware that the round (the fight in case of an encounter in game) is about to start. Even though I'm totally aware of that, I dont know what the other person has in mind, what they will try to do first. If I havent done sparring with them before I might even have no idea about how they go about fighting. 
It has happend several times that as soon as our teacher started the round, I imediately recieved a (for me totally surprising) strike at my weapon hand.
In sparring this is "ok" as it just shows me what I did wrong, causes me some pain depending on how hard the strike was and enables me to not make the same mistake again.
In a real fight this might actually be fatal because I wouldnt be wearing protectors or he might be wielding something that goes right through any protection I might be wearing which certainly WOULD change what happens during the rest of the fight.


----------



## Empirate (Apr 8, 2011)

While I must admit I do feel bad about endorsing a real life argument in a D&D debate... my point exactly, Hexer!


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Apr 8, 2011)

I've had this debate with my players. We resolved it, together, by deciding to leave it as it is in the book.

In D&D, there's a strong mechanical advantage to acting first - it's plausible (and with high-level rocket-tag, likely) that those who act first can act decisively, and prevent your reaction. Acting first is gold, and catching the other guy flat-footed is part of that.

...but acting <second> - if you're sure you can survive the first action - is actually the larger <tactical> advantage. This is most noticeable (or was for my group) in low-mid-level play, say, 6th to 8th. If there are two groups, both 40 ft away from each other, they get really hesitant to close or charge, because neither wants to expose themselves to counterattack; they have to "pay" (in actions) to move up, and their opponents don't. The "flat-footed until you act" is actually another small reward for 'having' to go first - while you pay in the action-economy to close the distance, and lose the tactical advantage of making your opponent commit first, you gain the (slight) advantage of your foes being flat-footed.

Regarding "what if we all know there's a fight coming", I don't buy it, for similar reasons as mentioned above. If everyone knows a fight's coming, nobody's <surprised> - but those who haven't acted are still flat-footed (which isn't the same thing - which might be part of your player's problem). A flat-footed character, effectively, has "lost" initiative; this is the penalty for losing that mini-game. Everyone knew the bunch was coming, but only the punch-er knew <exactly> when.

(And if the punch-ee wins initiative, well, the punch-er telegraphed his moves a little early, or something similar.)


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> That's not what's bugging the player. Yeah, it might be nice, and yeah, he might use the advantage if it's kept in-game, but he thinks the rule is bad for PCs and NPCs.




Yes.  He thinks it's just a plain bad rule that makes no sense to him.  If his character is aware of a possible threat, he doesn't find it logical or realistic that his character has even a chance of being easier to hit than normal.






> I agree with him. If everyone is aware, I just discount the rule.




I've considered that.  But, I'm afraid I'd invoke the rule of unintended consequences if I did.

The d20 game is a complex system.  Tweaking or removing one part could casue problems down the road.

Flat-footed is ingrained all over the game.  Rogues thrive on flatfooted targets.  There's Feats and special abilities and conditions that all deal with being flatfooted.

If I remove the nish flat-footed part, it will only bring up the same argument with another circumstance in the game where Flatfooted is addressed.

And, those that have Feats or special abilities that allow them to use dodge or parry while flatfooted have their advantage removed if the rule is removed from initiative.

Not going with Flat-Footed as written can cause all sorts of unforseen problems.









> He seems logical to me (but maybe that's because I agree with him), so I think you can talk this through. If he knows you're trying to preserve game balance for both PCs and NPCs, and you're trying to do this impartially (like he's trying to do with the rule), I think he'll be more willing to accept your view, and your decision.




He's logical but probably too-much single-minded.  Once he decides on something, it's THE LAW, and everybody else is wrong unless a nuclear blast wakes him up and shows him the other side of the issue.









Empirate said:


> As far as I can tell, being flat-footed is a world apart from being surprised.




He would agree with you, then ask why, then, are combatants who are totally aware of each other, penalized on the first round of the fight?







> Prior to you starting to move around a lot, i.e. prior to your first turn, you're NOT moving around in combat-fashion. You're an easier target. Your opponent doesn't have to worry about your already incoming attack just yet. "He who strikes first often strikes last" - that's what the flat-footed rule is about.




This is actually a good explaination.  I may use that with him.  Thanks for illuminating it for me.




Hexer said:


> I practice a martial art for a few years now and I've noticed this several times in sparring rounds:




Thanks.  Your real life experience supports what Empirate said above.  I'm going to throw this at my player an try to see what sticks.


----------



## Hexer (Apr 8, 2011)

Empirate and I posted pretty much at the same time there and we basically said the same thing 

but yea, real fighting often seems to be a case of "show me your best strike" kinda as the first action can VERY well be decisive for the outcome of a fight, especially if you dont know your opponent yet (meaning you didnt have time to adjust to the other persons "style" so to say)


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> If everyone is aware, I just discount the rule. Who wouldn't attempt to dodge, parry, block, twist, etc. when everyone is aware that combat is about to happen?



This really should be the issue at question. 3E determines surprise as a matter of who is aware of the presence of others. Flat-footed however, is a matter of having PREPARED for combat. Just because two people are arguing or highly suspicious of each others motivations doesn't mean EITHER of them is actually in a combat stance of some sort and ready for any potential attack.

Let me use this example of an argument between an NPC and a PC. The only person at the game table who knows what the NPC is actually expecting is the DM. The only person at the table who knows what the PC is expecting is the player. If neither has a weapon drawn then even if they are expecting that this will end in combat neither of them is actually PREPARED for actual combat. The first one to say the character draws a weapon is the one who actually has the initiative - and therefore the advantage over the other who, though he may have "expected" combat, clearly is not in a position to parry with his weapon, right? It can be safely assumed further that if he's not ready to parry with anything then he's not ready to dodge any incoming blows either.

Now suppose one of them declares that he draws a weapon and DOESN'T attack? Well, if the opponent draws a weapon in turn THEN it can be argued that neither of them is flat-footed.

There is a LOT of room for DM adjudication here. If the player STATES, "I prepare to defend myself against his sudden attack, but don't actually draw my weapon," then the DM could decide that he's not actually flat-footed for the next round, say. But this is NOT a state of readiness one can keep up indefinitely. You can't walk through life ready to defend yourself instantly from any unpredicted attack. Circumventing the penalties of being flat-footed without some sort of feat or class ability should be something that can at best be accomplished for a round - preparation against _imminent_ attack (and if that attack doesn't take place as expected then you're back to square one), but AS A RULE it is far more sensible to simply assume that you are flat-footed until you ACTUALLY act in a round.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 8, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Flat-footed however, is a matter of having PREPARED for combat. Just because two people are arguing or highly suspicious of each others motivations doesn't mean EITHER of them is actually in a combat stance of some sort and ready for any potential attack.




This, and your example, are a good way of putting it, I think, saying, in a different way, what some of the posters above has said.



> Now suppose one of them declares that he draws a weapon and DOESN'T attack? Well, if the opponent draws a weapon in turn THEN it can be argued that neither of them is flat-footed.




This is an interesting example.

Let's say your in a game. The PCs are in the local tavern. For color, you've been describing some loud mouths sitting at a table not far away.

One of them gets up to go to the head and he bumps into the PCs' table. "Hey, you maggots, " he says to the player characters, "stay out of my way, or I'll piss on you."

The players take up the challenge. The fighter in the party stands, looks the NPC straight in the eye, and says, "Well, whip it out then, and try pissing on me."

The other PCs stand up and give their comrad room with the jerk.

Now, the DM has an impromptu role playing momen on his hands that can easily degrade into a fight.

The NPC smiles a toothy grin at the fighter, takes a step closer to him, and jabs his finger into the fighter's chest, "You look like a toilet to m...."

"That it!" The player interjects. "My fighter hits him, right in mid-speech. I'm rolling my attack!"

Now, some DM would roll initiative here, and some would automatically give nish to the fighter. Either way, one of them is going to be flat-footed.

Where one DM would give the fighter automatic nish, based on the encounter, and aother DM would think that the NPC was expecting the fight and should have a chance to act first, therefore rolling nish normally between the two, I'd go ahead and roll nish but give the PC Fighter a +2 circumstance bonus on the throw.

But, how you handle it doesn't really matter--unless you automatically rule that neither is flat-footed. 

I don't really think that should be the case, and I'd stick to RAW.







> If the player STATES, "I prepare to defend myself against his sudden attack, but don't actually draw my weapon," then the DM could decide that he's not actually flat-footed for the next round, say.




Here, too, I'd give the player a circumstance bonus (probably +2) on his nish throw but not automatically make him not flat-footed.


----------



## Empirate (Apr 8, 2011)

The example given by the Man in the Funny Hat sounds to me like trouble has already started, but both sides give the other a chance to back off. Mechanically speaking, initiative has been rolled, but both parties have decided to delay on their first turn (or do anything but attack, anyway). That way, when one side decides to take an action other than delaying, nobody's flat-footed.

I have actually used initiative rolls for things other than combat in the past -  and sometimes these situations devolved into actual combat after a moment. In these instances, flat-footedness didn't come up, because everybody had already acted.

E.g. an unsavory guy wants to hastily leave the tavern after overhearing the PCs' plot-relevant talk; one of the PCs had already spotted him and wants to step between him and the exit before he can get away. I call for initiative rolls to see whether he can block the NPC's path quickly enough, or whether he must run after him.

Initiative: PC wins, steps smartly into the NPC's way, and says "where you goin', eh?". Uses his turn to talk as a free action, and delays to see how the other will respond.

NPC quickly scans the room and replies "None of your business. Step aside, or I'll make you!" Draws a knife as a move action and makes an intimidate check to demoralize as a standard action.

Both have acted now, and even though combat has not actually been joined, neither of them is flat-footed.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 9, 2011)

Empirate said:


> The example given by the Man in the Funny Hat sounds to me like trouble has already started, but both sides give the other a chance to back off. Mechanically speaking, initiative has been rolled, but both parties have decided to delay on their first turn (or do anything but attack, anyway). That way, when one side decides to take an action other than delaying, nobody's flat-footed.




I wonder how many other DMs have that type of situation play out like that in their games?  I would call that being pre-mature on the nish roll, but I understand your mechanics.

Do many other DMs usually have nish thrown followed by a Delay?  Just curious.  Pipe in if you do that.

I usually roll the nish right as the swings start flying.  As soon as someone says, "That's it!  I'm swinging my sword at him!", I'll say, "OK, roll nish!"


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 9, 2011)

Just curious, is there a good "defense" or discussion about being flat-footed anywhere?  On a blog, forum, as a Dungeon article?

Anybody read a good commentary about that rule anywhere?


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 9, 2011)

This discussion reminds me of a little ditty I wrote a while back to the tune of Foreigner's "Hot Blooded"...

Well, I'm Flatfooted, check it and see 
I rolled an initiative of only a three 
Come on. Maybe! Ah, can't I roll better than that? 
I'm flatfooted, I'm FLATFOOTED! 

You don't have to read my mind, to know what I want my eyes to find 
A twenty-sider, and I let it go 
Now it was moving so fine, until it stopped on a dime 
I don't wanna know what what I'd get if I made another throw 

Now it's up to you, a d20 with its number high 
Just me and you, with that d20 I'll show you shakin' like you never knew 

But, I'm flatfooted, check it and see 
I rolled an initiative of only a three 
Come on. Maybe! Ah, can't I roll better than that? 
I'm flatfooted, I'm FLATFOOTED! 

If it lands just right, my PC may live through the night 
Shall I throw the dice and see? 
The GM's got to give me a sign, will I die or be fine? 
Please let me roll *hot*, mama, but it sure ain't turing out that way for me. 

Is my guy tough enough? Do I need a bigger mod to call a bluff? 
Is my thinking right? Did I save a Fate Point for the game tonight? 

Yeah I'm flatfooted, check it and see 
I rolled an initiative of only a three 
Come on. Maybe! Ah, can't I roll better than that? 
I'm flatfooted, I'm FLATFOOTED! 

I'm flatfooted, FLATFOOTED!


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 9, 2011)

Here's my response to my troubled player: 

Remember that being Flat-Footed at the beginning of a combat round is about how quick a character moves and reacts to a situation. It's based on DEX. It doesn't have anything to do with awareness of enemies (which would base it on WIS or INT). That would be Surprise. One rule I read said that Surprised characters are flat-footed because they haven't acted yet in a round, not because they are surprised. 

What I want to bring to your attention is the *Feint *Combat maneuver. 

Now, this is something that can be done on a character's action, during a fight. 

So, let's say Caelis and Thrallan are going at it, and on the third combat round, Thrallan decides to attempt a Feint. What he does is give up an attack (because he's acting like he'll attack in one direction, but pulls that attack in order to fake out his enemy). You don't get an extra attack to pull off this maneuver, so it takes two attacks to do it--the first is your feint and the second is your real attack. 

Mechanically, Thrallan rolls his Bluff skill instead of his usual attack when he feints. Caelis gets a free action to fall for it or not by rolling his Sense Motive skill. If Caels wins, Thrallan's feint fails, and combat goes on as normal. The net result is that Thrallan gave up an attack to try. 

But, if Thrallan wins the Bluff vs. Sense Motive toss, Thrallan successfully confuses Caelis with his thrust, then comes in from another direction. If Thrallan's feint succeeds, Caelis is considered flat-footed (can't dodge or parry Thrallan's next attack) until just before his next turn on the next round. Thus, Thrallan feints in round 3 and then attacks flat-footed Caelis on round 4. 

*Now, logically, if a character can be considered flat-footed that quickly, right in the middle of a combat, is it a stretch to consider that a character can be considered flat-footed, the victim of the first blow from his enemy?* 



*What happened with the feint? Thrallan faked a jab to the right, then pulled his swing. Caelis fell for the ruse, adjusted his stance to defend the blow coming in from the right, when Thrallan quickly shifted and struck into Caelis' exposed left--all in a matter of seconds. 

If getting the first attack in is an advantage (and I know it is because, in the few fights I've been in during my life, I've been punched in the nose before I could strike, my eyes watered, and my opponent remained at an advanted during the entire fight), as I think all three of us will agree, I don't see it as too far a stretch to say that being flat-footed because your enemy struck first is akin to being victim of a feint.* 

Your opponent struck fast, and even though you were quite aware and ready to defend yourself, your opponent got in the first blow and took the advantage. 

If you survive that first blow, your opponent's advantage is not as strong (you are no longer flat-footed), and the fight ensues. 

But, as it says in the game, "striking first can mean the difference between life and death," the game designers chose to implement that first strike advantage with the flat-footed rule. 

No game is perfect, but I think if you really consider what is being described here, you might find the flat-footed rule a bit easier to swallow.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 9, 2011)

Empirate said:


> The example given by the Man in the Funny Hat sounds to me like trouble has already started, but both sides give the other a chance to back off. Mechanically speaking, initiative has been rolled, but both parties have decided to delay on their first turn (or do anything but attack, anyway). That way, when one side decides to take an action other than delaying, nobody's flat-footed.
> 
> I have actually used initiative rolls for things other than combat in the past - and sometimes these situations devolved into actual combat after a moment. In these instances, flat-footedness didn't come up, because everybody had already acted.



It's been my experience that using initiative for anything other than combat, or even using it before someone ACTUALLY attacks only leads to the realization that the initiative rules break down when they "exceed their authority." Again, if two characters are arguing and you expect it to break out into an actual combat at any moment and you want to be sure you know who's going to go first so you have everyone roll intiative. But then combat _doesn't_ happen and there you are conducting combat rounds when there is no combat. Then you find that combat doesn't actually start until it's somebody's turn - but how do you determine then who gets to start? That is SUPPOSED to be what initiative is for.

I don't think the rules actually say it but combat doesn't ever start until there is an attack. Spell, sword, special ability - just something that assaults another character or creature with an intent to harm or control. It also doesn't start with an effort to defend yourself. You can take actions to bolster your defense but that doesn't start combat and thus does not require initiative. Initiative is rolled when somebody says, "I _attack_". Initiative is only used and only needed when combat is actually underway. Prior to that you can use whatever means to sort out actions that you think best. Now initiative is a Dex check - but making dex checks is not always rolling for initiative.

Now here's something else that I don't think is actually in the rules, but the ONLY thing that initiative does is randomly determine the order of action resolution when you don't already know who goes first. Now there's nothing quite as silly as having a player state, "I attack," and then after initiative is rolled end up going LAST. IMO, in any encounter when surprise is not a factor and the DM determines that there isn't an immediate, general consensus to fight, then the first person to say, "I attack," _wins_ initiative. There is no Ready action outside of combat. If you want to draw your weapon you say so and your weapon is drawn. If you want your character to be the first to fire or attack when combat has not yet begun then all you have to do is be the first to SAY, "I attack." Then everyone else rolls initiative.

As I said, initiative is simply for determining the order of resolution for actions. In its finer workings it doesn't even determine who actually goes FIRST - just the ORDER in which actions are resolved. When someone says, "I attack" the question of who is at the top of the order becomes known and shouldn't (can't!) then be re-determined randomly.

All of this simply argues that the rules for initiative are well-written even if they don't go into detail about why they apply to various situations the way they do. Use initiative as written and only when it is specifically called for and it works. I'm a big believer in DM adjudication, and ignoring or altering rules that get in the way, but in the case of Intiative keeping things as BtB as possible works best.

JMO


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 9, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> It's been my experience that using initiative for anything other than combat, or even using it before someone ACTUALLY attacks only leads to the realization that the initiative rules break down when they "exceed their authority."




What is initiative but a Reflex save? You don't use Reflex saves for many other situations outside of combat?

It seems to me that the Reflex Save/Initiative Throw could be applied to any situation where it needs to be determined who acts quickest.

If two unarmed men both spy the dagger within reach on the table, an Initiative Throw/Reflex Save seems appropriate to see who grabs the weapon first.


----------



## airwalkrr (Apr 9, 2011)

I have often had players try to argue with me against being flat-footed in situations where they were aware of their opponent before the combat began (e.g. heated discussion turning hostile), but in the spirit of being consistent, I do not judge these situations differently than situations in which a party breaks down the door behind which a party of orcs are standing. If a character takes another character completely by surprise, it is a surprise round. If a character engages another character when both are aware of each other, initiative is rolled to see who gets to act first and the party who wins catches the other flat-footed momentarily.

It really isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp in my opinion. Based on the "problem player's" interpretation or rather in this case opinion of the rule in question, if you wanted to apply it consistently there should never be an actual surprise round, but only the opportunity to catch someone flat-footed if you beat them in initiative.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Apr 10, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> What is initiative but a Reflex save?



Initiative is not in any way, shape or form a Reflex save. But you are correct that initiative is appropriately called for whenever the DM needs to determine who is able to act first in a situation.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 10, 2011)

Vegepygmy said:


> Initiative is not in any way, shape or form a Reflex save.




Maybe your game is different from mine.  I play the Conan 2E RPG, which is a d20 3.5 clone.  The nish check in this game is:  1d20 + Reflex save bonus + any other bonuses.

Under "Initiative", it says, "An initiative check is effectively a Reflex save...".

Don't know about D&D because I don't play it.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 10, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Maybe your game is different from mine.  I play  the Conan 2E RPG, which is a d20 3.5 clone.  The nish check in this  game is:  1d20 + Reflex save bonus + any other bonuses.
> 
> Under "Initiative", it says, "An initiative check is effectively a Reflex save...".
> 
> Don't know about D&D because I don't play it.



You probably shouldn't be asking about it in a D&D Legacy discussion subforum.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 10, 2011)

Dandu said:


> You probably shouldn't be asking about it in a D&D Legacy discussion subforum.




Isn't this where the 3.5 clone discussion takes place? I did use a "d20 System" tag.

Why, is D&D nish different?


----------



## airwalkrr (Apr 10, 2011)

D&D "nish" is indeed quite different. It is effectively a Dexterity check. The only way to increase it are various feats or (usually prestige) class benefits.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 10, 2011)

Vegepygmy said:


> Initiative is not in any way, shape or form a Reflex save. But you are correct that initiative is appropriately called for whenever the DM needs to determine who is able to act first in a situation.



See, to my thinking that would be just an opposed Dex check rather than an actual Initiative check. Even if there's little/no functional difference calling it an Initiative check means you're in combat, and combat has specific rules about how play then proceeds, what you can do and when. If it's not combat but you still need to determine who acts first - that's just a dexterity check. As I said, all intiative checks are dex checks, but not all dex checks are initiative checks. They do have different purposes and possibly different modifiers (e.g., Improved Initiative feat applies specifically to an intiative check but that would NOT apply to an opposed dexterity check OUTSIDE of combat.)


----------



## Vegepygmy (Apr 10, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> See, to my thinking that would be just an opposed Dex check rather than an actual Initiative check.



Initiative _is_ just an opposed Dex check; the only way to change your Initiative modifier is through an effect like the Improved Initiative feat, which is essentially just giving you a +4 bonus to Dex checks made for initiative purposes.



			
				Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Even if there's little/no functional difference calling it an Initiative check means you're in combat, and combat has specific rules about how play then proceeds, what you can do and when. If it's not combat but you still need to determine who acts first - that's just a dexterity check.



But what is the _advantage_ of using Dexterity checks for non-combat situations where you need to determine who acts first and using Initiative checks for combat situations where you need to determine who acts first? Or looking at it another way, what is the rationale for giving a character with the Improved Initiative feat an advantage in "combat" situations but denying him that advantage in "non-combat" situations, especially when the difference between a "combat" and a "non-combat" situation is often quite blurry?


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 11, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> D&D "nish" is indeed quite different. It is effectively a Dexterity check. The only way to increase it are various feats or (usually prestige) class benefits.




This is the basis of why D&D init is different.

Also different classes get different Reflex sav bonuses.

Fighters get the slowest advancement, rogues the quickest.

So in the system you use, unless class bonuses are different - rogues get an increased benefit in their init checks than they do in D&D.

one because they generally have a higher Dex score (and thus a higher reflex save bonus or init bonus)

and two because they get a higher Reflex save bonus in addition to their Dex bonus.


----------



## Jacob (Apr 12, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> He thinks that, upon wining nish, that advantage of attacking first is enough of an advantage without making it easier for him to hit, too.
> 
> *He thinks the flat-footed rule is a character killer, not only at low level, because one blow with normal damage can kill, but also at higher level when large bonuses are dropped to meet the flat-footed rule requirements.*
> 
> ...



Note the bold text, because I think some focus needs to be put on that. This player is too focused on it being a negative towards him. Heck, it's not even a positive, even when it's a fact it can be used against the NPC. It's neutral, plain and simple. Also, it sounds like you have a combative PC who's only combative for the sake of it. Be wary. 

As stated by many others, the 1st round with rolled initiative is meant to be dangerous for both sides. If it feels like something you can't control, that's the point. You control what actions you take, but the outcome isn't up to you. What is up to you is how you accept and react to it. That's where the fun is.


----------



## Dross (Apr 13, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I picked up a new player, and he insists that I'm playing the Flat-Footed rule wrong.



That statement has been show to be itself incorrect.



Water Bob said:


> He thinks its an overpowered, bad rule that needs to be changed.



This contradicts the first quote. 
So you COULD say that you will default to the first statement, and being shown that he is wrong, can't really argue over its power as that is not a Rules Argument but a Preference discussion. Since he was arguing Rules initially he should not change the goal posts.


I wonder if the new player comes from another system though?
And I wonder if he is mixing up Surprise with "Flat Footed until Acted."

Also, as a new player there should be an understanding that he has agreed to the rules as run by the DM, at least in the short term (yes there can be issues with this, but there should be that understanding).




Water Bob said:


> Given his argument: If Caelis and Thrallan are shouting at each other, and the situation goes to blows, then we roll iniative and start the fight...BUT, he says, neither Caelis or Thrallan should be flatfooted because both were expecting to enter the fight.
> 
> He asks, "Why would one have such an advantage over the other for *only* the first punch?"



Isn't his argumentof having the advantage for only 1 round at odds with having the advantage AT ALL?
And being aware of the other party removes the surprise round, rules wise. 
(I think it was) Hextor that gave a perfect example about what the flat footed rule represents in a "real world" situation.

Playing  advocate: I'd also argue that having an argument does not always mean expecting to enter a fight (it can escalate, sure). Otherwise was your new player expecting you to hit him in the nose as Dandu suggested?




Water Bob said:


> He's the type of player who believes in what he says and lays out a well-though argument that is sometimes hard to topple even if you know he's wrong.  Knowing he's wrong and stating a case that makes him understand how he's wrong are two different things.
> 
> And, with a rule like flat-footed, he may not be "wrong" at all, but just have a difference of opinion.



Rules wise he is wrong.  That was the initial argument we were given.

Power wise:
I would note that Skill focus gives +3 to rolls, Improved Initiative provides the (equal) largest bonus in CORE feats to you, implying the importance/power WANTED in getting initiative first.

I don't see that as overpowered personally.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 13, 2011)

Dross said:


> I wonder if the new player comes from another system though?




Comes from another "edition", as I mentioned above.  He's used to 2E AD&D.



> And I wonder if he is mixing up Surprise with "Flat Footed until Acted."




He thinks that the defense penalty should be applied to Surprise.  He thinks that, when flat-footed, the person is just standing there.  If he's not using his DEX to defend himself, his AC is just like that had he been surprised.

So, he'd say:  If someone is coming at your weilding a two-handed battle-axe, you're not just going to stand there and take the blow.  You're going to attempt to dodge or parry or something to get out of the way.

His argument is this:  If a person decides not to defend himself, his AC is the same as if he was flat-footed.  Why isn't the person defending himself if the character knows a blow is coming?

That's why he's associating it with Surprise.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 13, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> *He thinks* that the defense penalty should be applied to Surprise.  *He thinks* that, when flat-footed, the person is just standing there.



I'd say he's thinking too much...


Water Bob said:


> So, *he'd say*: [...]
> *His argument* is this:  [...]



... and he's arguing too much 

Why don't you invite him to come over to ENWorld and argue his case himself? 
(Or maybe better not...)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 13, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I'd say he's thinking too much...
> ... and he's arguing too much
> 
> Why don't you invite him to come over to ENWorld and argue his case himself?
> (Or maybe better not...)




I don't see that particular conversation being fair. This forum seems pretty against many proposed rules changes (it is the Legacy forum, so it's somewhat understandable), and I see him showing up to state his case against at least one person who thinks he "thinks too much."

I know exactly what this player means. I think it's somewhat disingenuous for either side to completely dismiss the argument of the other, as both have made good points. As I said, if nothing else, present it to your player as a game balance issue. Certain classes, such as rogues, benefit from the game by capitalizing on this advantage. The game was balanced with this in mind. If you're cautious to change the rule because you suspect there are other consequences attached to it, express that feeling to him.

I have very reasonable players, and I know that mine would grudgingly agree to play along if I told them that the game balance had that in mind, even if they disagreed. I'd say try this approach. If he agrees to go along with it, even if he thinks it's wrong, what's the big deal one way or the other if it's more or less realistic?

Again, though, I played 3.x disregarding that rule for years without issue. I'm sure others would be affected by it. Depends on the group, the game, and the party dynamic. At the end of the day, have fun, and play what you like


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 13, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Why don't you invite him to come over to ENWorld and argue his case himself?




Actually, I did that a few days ago.  He's not really interested in what the masses have to say.  He thinks the rule is bad, and until I can convince him otherwise with a logical argument that addresses the reality of the issue, he's going to continue to think the rule is bad--and the rest of us are all crazy for allowing it in the game.


----------



## kitcik (Apr 13, 2011)

Tell him you will change the rule if he plays a straight rogue through L20.


----------



## airwalkrr (Apr 14, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Tell him you will change the rule if he plays a straight rogue through L20.



As opposed to... a gay rogue?

Seriously though, this is a good point. Rogues receive (and were intended to receive) a substantial benefit from this rule. Denying them that benefit is a significant nerf bat to the rogue and any other class or creature with sneak attack.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 14, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> As opposed to... Zorro?




Fix'd that for you.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 14, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Actually, I did that a few days ago.  He's not really interested in what the masses have to say.  He thinks the rule is bad, and until I can convince him otherwise with a logical argument that addresses the reality of the issue, he's going to continue to think the rule is bad--and the rest of us are all crazy for allowing it in the game.



I think I know why he isn't interested in the opinions of others:
It's easier to convince a single person of something stupid than it is to convince plenty of people. He isn't interested in the opinion of others because he 'knows' he's pretty much alone with his opinion.

To be honest, I've used the same tactic quite often: I usually try to argue with the DM while the rest of the game group is not present. It's a lot easier to convince the DM of something when there aren't any dissenting voices present. Of course I'm only doing this because I wouldn't want to interrupt game play... 

It's an exceptionally bad idea to trick a DM into a rule change he's later going to regret, though. From time to time you can even read posts from players who boast about how they managed to sneak broken stuff past their DMs.
They most often manage to do this by pointing out how their interpretation of the rules is 'much more realistic' or 'makes more sense'. So, when I read these signal phrases, all of my alarm bells go off.

Of course I might be completely off since it's difficult to judge when reading about someone on an internet forum but I really wouldn't waste my time trying to convince someone who isn't interested in being convinced.
Rules in a game can exist because of a variety of reason: realism, simplification, balance, etc. But every rule is there for _some_ reason.

RPGs by their very nature have more flexible rulesets than other types of games and tend to invite discussing the rules. But that's why there is a DM to make the final verdict. A player judges the rules from a player's point of view, the DM has to look at the whole picture.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 14, 2011)

If he wants realism, introduce rules for broken bones and demand either weeks long recuperation for that player or that he get the Regenerate spell cast on him, which is the only RAW spell that deals with broken bones.


----------



## kitcik (Apr 14, 2011)

And have him face opponents that are incorporeal or ectoplasmic.


----------



## Jimlock (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm currently playing an 11th Lvl "roguish" character in a 3.5 game. The entire group is old school, having mostly played  during the 2nd Edition years. (including me & the DM).
I started my character at 1st level and only came to realize the Flat-Footed rule at 3rd or 4th Lvl... don't remember exactly...
Point is, it changed everything for my character. Ever since we clarified the rule i often have the opportunity to make two attacks (with S.A.) before the enemy even moves (1-surprise round, 2-winning the initiative).
My DM had a hard time giving in to the RAW for he was used to the 2nd edition AD&D, as was I. But in the end he came to realize how it balanced out my character (yeah..the character was pretty weak considering the fact that there are psionists in the party!).
Anyway.. In the long term we came to realize how it not only helped my character, but the entire group as well. It now is much more important to the party to try and catch the enemy off guard. As in real life you try to take advantage of every given situation to strike first, to gain the advantage...
Otherwise, you just enter the room, you draw swords and wait for the dice to decide. Having the opportunity to act TWICE before the enemy, is a major advantage, and one worth thinking of how to obtain.
A real life surprise attack is much more lethal than one in the game. Having the opportunity to strike twice before the enemy acts, is far more close to reality for it might as well kill the enemy directly. So yes the rule is more realistic.
As mentioned before. Being Flat-footed does not mean you stare at  the ceiling waiting for the battle axe to split you in two. It merely means that you haven't managed to bring your body to the best defensive position possible.
It can easily happen even if you are well aware of the enemy. Pretty realistic too.

I totally agree with all the pro-RAW posts above...
Cheers...


----------



## kitcik (Apr 14, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> The entire group is old school, having mostly played during the 2nd Edition years.




I would categorize that as "middle school." Old school is the basic set or, at least, 1st Edition.


----------



## Greenfield (Apr 14, 2011)

Okay, here are some "abuses" of the Flat Footed rule:

Because flat footed opponents don't get to make Attacks of Opportunity, you can Sunder their weapons' belt before they can draw.  

Hell, you can Sunder the blade on their belt for that matter.  

You can do a Partial Charge on a surprise action to move past guards and cheap-shot the BBG first round.


----------



## Empirate (Apr 14, 2011)

Yeah, you can do those things, and what's the harm? AoOs can be made flat-footed if you have Combat Reflexes. Charge only works in a straight line, and partial charge only allows 1x base speed of movement. Sundering a weapon hanging on a belt is only a good idea if you like destroying the treasure this fight is getting you. Etc.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 14, 2011)

> (yeah..the character was pretty weak considering the fact that there are psionists in the party!).



But... but... spionics are teh brokenz!


----------



## Jimlock (Apr 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> But... but... spionics are teh brokenz!




My point exactly...don't know how it came out.

They 're so broken i can't even spell them right! (psioniSTs)


----------



## Dandu (Apr 15, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> My point exactly...don't know how it came out.



Player inadequacy?


----------



## Jimlock (Apr 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Player inadequacy?




Ohhhh... poor me who thought you were a nice guy!


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 15, 2011)

kitcik said:


> I would categorize that as "middle school." Old school is the basic set or, at least, 1st Edition.




Nah, he had it correct.  He was talking about the Old School. You're tallking about the Ancient School.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 15, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Ohhhh... poor me who thought you were a nice guy!



Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the  most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but  only slightly less well-known is this: "Never assume that Dandu is a nice guy"!


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 16, 2011)

More discussion with my player tonight....

He's got a good question.  I've told him that, in 3rd edition, the term "flat-footed" does not refer to a state of complete unreadiness (as it is defined that way in 2nd edition), and "flat-footed" certainly does not refer to a state of complete readiness.

The term is used for a state somewhere in the middle, describing a state of "half-rediness".  This I've taken from the various sources describing the flat-footed condition as not yet able to defend actively and such.

His reply is, "Fine.  Then why don't the mechanics back up that state?  If my character is surprised and completely unaware, he's flat-footed.  If I am aware of my enemy, in this state of half-rediness by losing initiative--I'm still flat-footed."

He's equating being Surprised with losing nish.

I told him that, with surprise, being flat-footed is only half of it.  You don't get an action at all.

With Surprise, you are flat-footed and don't get an action.

With Nish, you are just flat-footed (and still get to go later in the round if able).

But, he's disregarding that, thinking that the mechanical penalty to both Surprise and lost Initiative is the same:  Flat-footed.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 16, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> More discussion with my player tonight....
> 
> He's got a good question.  I've told him that, in 3rd edition, the term "flat-footed" does not refer to a state of complete unreadiness (as it is defined that way in 2nd edition), and "flat-footed" certainly does not refer to a state of complete readiness.
> 
> ...




I'm not going to go into my opinion or whether or not I agree with him again. However, have you brought up that you think this is a balance issue, and you don't want to hurt the balance of the game? And, if you have, what were his thoughts on it?


----------



## Empirate (Apr 16, 2011)

You can only really show him what's the point here by having a bunch of enemies gain surprise AND win initiative. Then, in the next fight, have them win initiative, but not gain surprise. That way, he's bound to see the difference between a one-two-punch and a lucky first swing. If he still doesn't get it, you seem to have no alternative but telling him straight up: "you're entitled to your opinion about certain rules, but that doesn't mean we'll change them. Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it. It's not as if it makes the game unplayable for you, right?"

I really can't come up with anything more constructive here anymore, sorry. If your player still insists and makes trouble over this minor issue, he just sucks.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> However, have you brought up that you think this is a balance issue, and you don't want to hurt the balance of the game? And, if you have, what were his thoughts on it?




I have.  I looked into not using the rule but found it too integrated into the game.  We're playing the Conan RPG, which is a 3.5 clone, and he's playing a Barbarian character, which, in this game, benefits greatly when, at 4th level, his character gets Uncanny Dodge and becomes immune to being flat-footed.  That, right there, is a reason to keep the rule in the game (as, without it, the Barbarian loses one of his most special class advantages).

He doesn't see it.  He's so focussed on how unrealistic he thinks the rule is and how, in his mind, there's not any difference between being Surprised and losing nish.

I took another tact and told him to think about high level play.  Being flat-footed still makes going first important where as, without it, a character is so strong with hit points and protective gear that he can take a blow first and not worry about it too much.  The flat-footed rule makes nish important at all levels.

He didn't buy that either.







Empirate said:


> I really can't come up with anything more constructive here anymore, sorry.




Well, that's the problem.

He's got a strong, logical point.  Here's one of his examples:

You sneak up on a guard from behind him.  The guard is considered flat-footed.

You are in an argument, face-to-face, with a hated enemy.  You know he's going to take a swing at you.  If you lose nish, you are....flat-footed.  

So, why are they the same?

If I could show him how being surprised was a worse off condition than just losing nish, I think that would satisfy him.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 16, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Well, that's the problem.
> 
> He's got a strong, logical point.  Here's one of his examples:
> 
> ...




Again, just hammer home the point that flat-footed simply means "you can't react immediately" while surprise means "your enemy gets a whole action on you."

A rogue sneaks up on a guard from behind.  The guard is flat-footed _and surprised_.  The rogue sneak attacks him with his surprise round, and then wins initiative _and sneak attacks him again_.

You're in an argument, face-to-face, with a hated enemy.  You know he's going to take a swing at you, _but you don't know when_.  When the enemy finally draws his sword in the middle of a sentence and attacks you, you're flat-footed.  After that you can act normally, however, because you saw it coming and he didn't _surprise_ you (and get an extra action).


Here's an idea: Send him to this site, which tests reaction time by changing the background color and testing how long it takes you to hit a button after it does.  In this scenario, you know the background is going to change.  The site explains the program in great detail and tells you exactly what's going to happen.  There is _no possible way_ that you don't know that the background color is going to change.  Yet when it does, it _still_ takes you a fraction of a second to react, because you don't know exactly when it's coming.  If you try the test a few times in quick succession, though, your reaction time goes down by quite a bit, and after a few tries you can get it down pretty reliably.

_That_ is being flat-footed; _that_ is why your archenemy can walk up to you, start talking, and have you be flat-footed when he inevitably attacks--because the mind can't adjust from one state (white background, conversation) to another state (colored background, combat) instantaneously unless one has hair-trigger reflexes that react before you have to mentally process the change in state...and that's what Uncanny Dodge is.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 16, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I have.  I looked into not using the rule but found it too integrated into the game.  We're playing the Conan RPG, which is a 3.5 clone, and he's playing a Barbarian character, which, in this game, benefits greatly when, at 4th level, his character gets Uncanny Dodge and becomes immune to being flat-footed.  That, right there, is a reason to keep the rule in the game (as, without it, the Barbarian loses one of his most special class advantages).
> 
> He doesn't see it.  He's so focussed on how unrealistic he thinks the rule is and how, in his mind, there's not any difference between being Surprised and losing nish.
> 
> ...




What did he think in terms of it being a rule purely for the sake of balance?



> Well, that's the problem.
> 
> He's got a strong, logical point.  Here's one of his examples:
> 
> ...




Okay, if this is how he sees things, and he's trying to be logical, then showing him that being surprised is worse isn't good enough.

If you tell him flat-footed from initiative means maybe being flat-footed for one round, while being surprised means maybe being flat-footed for two rounds, he's still going to complain, even though being surprised is obviously worse.

And that's because when you're flat-footed, it means you aren't defending yourself adequately at all. And he's correct in making that comparison (surprised to losing initiative). He wants to know why he doesn't defend himself as well after losing initiative, not when he's surprised. And realistically, you should be able to defend yourself better than when you're surprised (and you don't).

So, you won't win the realism argument with him. He's correct. However, if you tell him that's it's a balance issue, and that certain classes were given abilities with that system in mind (barbarians, rogues, etc.), then perhaps you can convince him to stomach it with no objections.

If you keep trying to justify something on his terms (realism), then you're not going to succeed, because he's correct. It's not because he's stubborn (though he might be). It's because he has a valid point. Don't engage it. Tell him you can see his point, and you'd be okay with him houseruling it if he was running a game. But, for balance in your game, you're okay with playing it by RAW. You'd prefer balance within the game system for fun over realism in this one scenario, and that's your ruling.

Just express that to him. Be sincere, be honest, be compassionate. I mean, if you're playing with friends, people should be able to understand and move on. He might get a little frustrated if the rule ends up hurting someone in the party later on, but I think if you talk about it, he'll let it pass without too much commotion.

Remember, you're playing with friends. Friendship should always trump disagreements. Anyways, play what you like


----------



## Ydars (Apr 18, 2011)

There is a reason the state is called 'flat-footed' because in swordplay, if you are not on the balls of your feet and in the correct stance, you cannot move properly to avoid blows or parry and you can't shift your weight to frame a blow of your own safely). Indeed, if you are flat footed, it is very difficult when test cutting (with a sharp sword) to get the sword to 'bite' into the material (it just bounces off even an orange carton full of water despite being razor sharp; I know this sounds surprising but it is totally true and is because straight swords have to be at a perfect angle to cut when moving fast)

When I used to study longsword, my instructor used to call the state of not being ready for combat 'flat-footed' and he had never been within a hundred miles of an RPG in his life. You literally are standing with your feet flat because unconsciously you are on the defensive and similarly, if you get your footwork wrong in the middle of a fight you can also end up flat-footed after combat has started.

It sounds to me like your player objects to the flat-footed rule because 

a) he knows nothing about real sword combat and 

b) he does not actually know the D&D 3.5 rules well enough to understand the difference between surprise and being flat-footed.

I would suggest he be given a copy of the 3.5 PHB and told to read it.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 20, 2011)

From the SRD:


> Surprise:
> If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin.
> [...]
> Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don’t get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
> ...




Really, this is VERY simple stuff and I'm no longer sure how or why there's even any argument about these rules, especially given that D&D is not now and never was intended to be an accurate combat simulation - it is designed and intended to portray HEROICS. Surprise rounds and the flat-footed condition are simply about giving opponents an advantage in combat. Where is the controversy here that this player seems determined to find?


----------



## aboyd (Apr 20, 2011)

Now that I've read the OP's follow-up post, I want to come at this from a slightly different angle.  It appears that you're now engaged in a back-and-forth debate with the guy.  He's lured you in, and we've now bought into his premise that the rule must be justified, and we're all now working through that.  I would like us to consider another angle: don't do it.

This debate won't end well.  He's decided; he's clearly far more stubborn than any of us here on the forum are -- I'm watching all of us scrambling around his answers, trying to debate away his reasons, and he's just standing there like a rock, unmoving.

So, stop meeting him for street fights.  Walk away, metaphorically speaking.  Give him a decision and be done.  Be comfortable with the fact that he will be uncomfortable.

Here's my thought.  A few years ago the guys who run slashdot.org were bought out by a media company.  And something happened that annoyed some other company.  I don't remember what anymore, but slashdot.org is a big tech forum that believes in free speech, and I recall someone there posting something that Big Intimidating Company didn't like.  Suddenly lawyers were involved, and the media company that now owned slashdot.org contacted the guys running the site and said, "Please stop.  We are freaked out by this big bully company getting mad at your posts."

And then the guys who ran slashdot.org did something I didn't expect: they told the person they were talking with, "Sorry, we won't capitulate.  Expect your day to get worse."  And then they just left the parent company & management team to deal with that.

I remember thinking, "You can do that?!?!?"  You can just tell someone that they're not going to get what they want, and that you're fine to leave them in an uncomfortable state?  You can tell someone to manage their own feelings about the problem and just shrug if they can't handle it?  Really?

It was all revelation to me, Mr. People Pleaser.

But I'm better at this now.  I've tried it during a few hopeless arguments before, and sometimes it's what you have to do.  The guy wants to draw you into a debate that only ends -- as far as he is concerned -- when you give in.  But as we can see from this discussion, giving in has potential to undermine at least part of how the game is expected to work.  It could have unforeseeable consequences.  And of the consequences we _can_ predict, it's pretty negative all around.

So it's time, in my opinion, to resolve this.  Make a decision.  When he balks, tell him that you understand it's going to be uncomfortable for him, but that you're OK with leaving him to sort through those feelings and decide if he wants to stay or not.  If not, that's actually OK.  He's stirring up a lot of stuff and making the game be more about the debate than about the fun.  So maybe it's OK for him to bow out.  But if he doesn't, be firm, and when he opts to stay, he's doing it with the full knowledge that you made a decision and he's got to accept that you run it by RAW.

(Of course, if you feel that you'd much prefer to capitulate or try to "design by committee" and keep engaging him hoping to find some compromise, then my entire post is moot.)


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 20, 2011)

aboyd said:


> He's decided; he's clearly far more stubborn than any of us here on the forum are




That may be truer than you know, but that still doesn't make me feel better about giving him a better answer than just, "Well, the game was designed that way."

Let's face it. He's got a decent argument.  I don't agree with him, but I'm having a hard time making as much sense defending the rule as he is in bashing it.

Why should a combatant who is aware of his opponent be flat-footed?  He agrees that it makes sense during a Surprise round, but why does it make sense simply because you act second in a round?

I liked the post up thread a bit that spoke about swordfighting--I think that's the "logic" of the rule.  My player didn't buy it, but I'm not sure anything will sway him.  

Another player I have had a decent comment, too.  He said that there should be a chance...just a chance....that a person could lose initiative and still not be considered flat-footed.

That makes sense to me.

I'm going with the rule as written, but these folks are making a strong case.

I wish I had a stronger case than just to say, "Well, dem's the rules!"

I'd like to be able to talk to my player and show him how the rule makes sense in real life.




> So it's time, in my opinion, to resolve this. Make a decision.




The decision has been made.  I'm sticking with RAW.  I understand that the rule needs to stay the way it is.

But I find my defense of that decision rather weak in the face of his strong, logic based argument.  I'm arguing game rules.  He's arguing common sense.

He's thinking, "Heck, if it doesn't make sense, let's throw the rule out!"  And, I'm saying, "If we do that, we'll open a can of worms and many more problems in our hands."

He's talking reality.  I'm talking game mechanics.

I'd just like to have a strong, logical, reason, rooted in reality, to respond to him with.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> That may be truer than you know, but that still doesn't make me feel better about giving him a better answer than just, "Well, the game was designed that way."
> 
> Let's face it. He's got a decent argument.  I don't agree with him, but I'm having a hard time making as much sense defending the rule as he is in bashing it.




He does indeed have a valid argument. I'll get to that below.



> Why should a combatant who is aware of his opponent be flat-footed?  He agrees that it makes sense during a Surprise round, but why does it make sense simply because you act second in a round?




He shouldn't be. I can see a penalty to AC. That'd account for poor defense until someone gains their bearing. But to have the exact same mechanic that applies to being completely surprised apply to a fight where you knew it was coming? I don't like it, and neither does he.



> I liked the post up thread a bit that spoke about swordfighting--I think that's the "logic" of the rule.  My player didn't buy it, but I'm not sure anything will sway him.




Well, I think his problem is that the two conditions (being caught completely unaware and adjusting to combat you know is coming) share one mechanic. That's understandable.



> Another player I have had a decent comment, too.  He said that there should be a chance...just a chance....that a person could lose initiative and still not be considered flat-footed.
> 
> That makes sense to me.




That makes sense to me, too.



> I'm going with the rule as written, but these folks are making a strong case.




Awesome. I'm glad you've decided, it's important to do as a GM. I don't run my game with this rule, but most other GMs (rare though they may be) that I play with (rare though it is... my players always make me GM) use the RAW. That's fine by me. GM's game, GM's rules 



> I wish I had a stronger case than just to say, "Well, dem's the rules!"
> 
> I'd like to be able to talk to my player and show him how the rule makes sense in real life.




No unified mechanic will make sense to him when addressing the two situations. And how can it, reasonably?



> The decision has been made.  I'm sticking with RAW.  I understand that the rule needs to stay the way it is.
> 
> But I find my defense of that decision rather weak in the face of his strong, logic based argument.  I'm arguing game rules.  He's arguing common sense.




Okay, here's where I get to how his argument is reasonable (and logical). Look at the other threads in this forum. People are constantly making calls based on common sense.

Look at the Hide thread. People talking about facing, out-of-combat facing, cover or concealment, hiding in plain sight through magical or supernatural means versus extraordinary means, somebody having concealment or cover because the guy on watch is facing the other way (and thus his own head provides the ability to make Hide checks), etc.

I'm sure you use common sense when you're GMing. Pretty much every GM does, when the rules are hazy or don't cover something. That's normal. Now, as it's well established that common sense has a place in the game, he is reasonably expecting it to be applied here.

You may not want to change the rule. I totally support your decision to make that call, overriding the player. Sometimes the game rules have to bypass simulation. I understand that.

That's why I suggest talking to him from a balance perspective. He's correct when he thinks that there should not be a unified mechanic for those two situations. Maybe flat-footed for surprised rounds make more sense, and a flat -2 to AC for people who haven't acted yet. Or maybe flat-footed for everyone, and those who haven't acted yet can roll a Reflex save against an attack to see if they're flat-footed.

Or, like you've chosen, it's time to play by RAW. If that's the case, tell him you've made the decision for balance reasons, and that you don't want to micromanage combat anymore than it already is. That's perfectly valid. And it's your game. 

I'm also under the impression they're fairly new players, so tell them you might be willing to house rule more when everyone is used to playing the game... maybe right around the time they make new characters and can branch away from all being one class. The more you learn, the more you can make exceptions. That's almost universally true.



> He's thinking, "Heck, if it doesn't make sense, let's throw the rule out!"  And, I'm saying, "If we do that, we'll open a can of worms and many more problems in our hands."
> 
> He's talking reality.  I'm talking game mechanics.
> 
> I'd just like to have a strong, logical, reason, rooted in reality, to respond to him with.




If you want that type of in-game reason, you're going to find your argument wanting. If you want an out-of-game reason... well, I hope I've helped. 

At the end of the day, it's about fun. It's your game, you make the rules. Play what you like


----------



## Ydars (Apr 20, 2011)

I too, am glad you have decided to stick to RAW; because not doing so fundamentally changes the balance of the game.

Look at it another way; how many combats have you ever seen where each person acted whilst everyone else stood around frozen. That is the way D&D combat works; it is an abstraction.

If you want to really convince your friend, take him LARPing; he will soon understand that being flatflooted is like being rooted to the spot. You can know an attack is coming and still be 'on the back foot' when it actually comes.


----------



## Jimlock (Apr 20, 2011)

While there is logic to what he says, logic can also be found in the flat-footed rule as it is. An extra round (surprise round) IS a big deal.

To simulate a surprise round correctly (as in real-life) you 'd have to render characters "helpless" ...as long as they are surprised, cause that's what they really are in most cases. But that wouldn't be much fun would it?

IMO, changing the flat-footed rule in favor of your player, would require that you:

1-Change the Rogue class (and all related PrCs) to compensate for the loss in power (uncanny dodge, less chances to Sneak, less chances to strike twice with benefits)

2-Find a way to compensate for the loss in power regarding all Players/Classes/Special abilities/Feats that rely on/use  the flat-footed rule...a high Initiative... hell even Dex as a stat loses out....

3- Find a way to un-break/re-balance all "immediate actions" which, for all their power cannot be used while flat-footed (thank god for that!)

4-Find a way to rebalance important rules... that i'm sure i'm missing out...

In Fact, if i was in your shoes, i would say to the player that i don't really have the time to rewrite the books because of one rule... that actually works quite well as it is!


----------



## aboyd (Apr 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Let's face it. He's got a decent argument.  I don't agree with him, but I'm having a hard time making as much sense defending the rule as he is in bashing it.
> 
> Why should a combatant who is aware of his opponent be flat-footed?  He agrees that it makes sense during a Surprise round, but why does it make sense simply because you act second in a round?



It's one thing to grapple with a problem and think it through.  It's quite another thing to let it grapple _you._  I feel like this whole issue might be getting away from you.  I hope I'm wrong.



Water Bob said:


> I'd like to be able to talk to my player and show him how the rule makes sense in real life.



Therein lies madness.  The game cannot be perfectly simulationist; verisimilitude is about the best we can hope for.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> But I find my defense of that decision rather weak in the face of his strong, logic based argument.  I'm arguing game rules.  He's arguing common sense.
> 
> He's thinking, "Heck, if it doesn't make sense, let's throw the rule out!"  And, I'm saying, "If we do that, we'll open a can of worms and many more problems in our hands."
> 
> ...




Honestly, I'm not seeing how his "strong, logic based argument" is standing in the face of all the advice we've given here, from swordplay to what flat-footed represents and so forth.  Here's yet another argument for keeping flat-footed.

In real life, he's right, there is in fact a continuum between "caught with your pants completely down" and "perfectly prepared for your opponent's actions."  You can be unaware initially but react fast, prepared but in the wrong stance, etc.:

Surprised--------------------------------------------------------Ready

People who are actually combat-trained would be much closer to the Ready end of the continuum.  However, D&D doesn't do continuums well (a game with rounds and dice rolls is by nature discrete), so it condenses _everything_ in the middle to "flat-footed."

Surprised---------------------Flat-Footed------------------------Ready

Determining which of these three possible states you're in is fairly simple.
Are you completely unaware of your opponent?  If Yes, you're Surprised.
If No, are you already acting in combat?  If Yes, you have no penalties.
If No, you're flat-footed.

Granted, it's unrealistic to have only three states of combat readiness, but that's an abstraction made for speed of play.  It would be perfectly viable to have a different continuum (say, Surprised -> Loses Dex to AC -> Takes minor penalty to Initiative -> etc.) it just wasn't done that way.  So if you wish, as your player seemingly does, to have "realism" in your combat without taking a lot more time in combat and adding a lot more needlessly-precise rules, you _must_ have a flat-footed-like condition, and you _must_ be able to describe something between "not at all ready" and "completely ready" at the start of combat.

If for whatever reason one still thinks combat-trained people shouldn't be flat-footed at the start of combat, the solution is not to get rid of flat-footed (as we've all hashed out what that would do to the game), but rather _give more people Uncanny Dodge_!  It exists in the game already, it has built-in parameters to handle sneak attack, relative combat prowess, etc., and there's really no pressing reason every full-BAB class shouldn't already have it, keyed to BAB (i.e. "you're flat-footed against someone unless their BAB is 4+ less than yours") except for the one instance of sneak attack, which can be solved by leaving in the existing non-BAB-related clause.  If you absolutely must give in to your player, give every combat class uncanny dodge at various levels based on how combat-focused they are (fighters and barbarians at level 2, maybe paladins at 4, etc.) and that should solve it--the complaint is that someone should be able to react to combat, and now anyone who _should_ be able to react unimpeded to combat _can_, _if_ their opponent isn't out of their league.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 20, 2011)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Determining which of these three possible states you're in is fairly simple.
> Are you completely unaware of your opponent? If Yes, you're Surprised.
> If No, are you already acting in combat? If Yes, you have no penalties.
> If No, you're flat-footed.




That's a good way of expressing it.



> If for whatever reason one still thinks combat-trained people shouldn't be flat-footed at the start of combat, the solution is not to get rid of flat-footed (as we've all hashed out what that would do to the game), but rather _give more people Uncanny Dodge_!




We're actually playing the Conan RPG, which is a d20 clone.  His character gets Uncanny Dodge, by the rules, at 4th level.


----------



## airwalkrr (Apr 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Another player I have had a decent comment, too.  He said that there should be a chance...just a chance....that a person could lose initiative and still not be considered flat-footed.



Yes, there is a chance...just a chance...that a person could lose initiative and still not be considered flat-footed...

...if the person has uncanny dodge.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 21, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> We're actually playing the Conan RPG, which is a d20 clone.  His character gets Uncanny Dodge, by the rules, at 4th level.




So his character, at some point, will be good enough at combat to avoid the whole problem.  And because this is presumably a low-magic combat-focused d20 variant, I'm assuming most if not all of the classes get Uncanny Dodge at low levels.  So everyone who is _anyone_ gets to the point that they don't have to worry about being flat-footed, exactly as he wants.

...why exactly is he complaining, again?


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 21, 2011)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> ...why exactly is he complaining, again?




He just flat-out doesn't agree with the rule, regardless of whether his character will avoid it with Uncanny Dodge or not.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 21, 2011)

Guess it's time for him to learn an important life lesson.


----------



## Dross (Apr 21, 2011)

Baseball is probably a good example here (or any similar sport where a ball is thrown and someone else reacts).

You are ready AND expecting the ball, but can be beaten to the punch by a faster than expected throw.* 

That is the flat footed state.

* Tennis, squash, cricket, softball, some versions of football; all  represent the "ready but too slow to react properly" condition.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 15, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I picked up a new player, and he insists that I'm playing the Flat-Footed rule wrong.
> 
> The way I read it, when a combat round starts, everybody rolls initiative. Characters move and act in inititiave order. On the first round, a character is considered flat-footed until his chance to act.
> 
> ...




Coming late to the discussion because it has just recently come up with my group.   Waterbob.  I'm in the same situation as your friend.   I read the RAW and it made little sense from a realism point of view.  Our group has removed the Flat-Footed rule as it applies to acting first in combat.  However, after much consideration, I'm considering its reintroduction.  

First off, for everyone who tries to "justify" the FF rule from any realism perspective, you're just flat deluding yourselves at best and being disengenious at worst.  Consider the following example:

*Two fighters with face each other in an arena, 30 ft apart.  Both are unarmored 1st level Fighters behind open gates and each can see the other.  Fighter A has been magically boostd with a 25 Dex.  Fighter B has a 10 Dex.  Fighter B carries a light shield.  At the sound of the horn the gates open and each fighter gets to attach the other....with a Nerf bat.   *

*Example 1:  Fighter A rolls a 2 on initiative and Fighter B rolls a 20.   So Fighter A loses a +7 dex bonus and is easily hit with a 10.  Fighter B moves 30ft in six seconds and Fighter A with inhuman Dexterity can take no action to avoid being hit. *

*Example 2:  Fighter A rolls a 20 and Fighter B rolls a 2.  Fighter B still gets to move his Heavy Shield to retain its bonus, no matter where the attack from Fighter A comes from.  *​This illustrates the ridiculusness of looking at the Flat-Footed Rule from a realism perspective.  This is true for most games rules in RPG's when it comes to combat.  D&D is an abstraction.  It's not realism.  The idea that someone that is quicker than any other human on the planet can watch a person who s/he is totally aware of...move 30ft and hit him with a bat before he can take any action to avoid being hit is wholly absurd.  Especially when that same person could wield a shield to block an attack in that same situation.  Defending such an outcome, which is totally required based on the RAW...is disengenious.

The real problem with the FF rule is more systemic than the context.  It has to do with the whole system of Dex Bonus.  I've been researching discussion on the FF rule and never once have I seen anyone identify the true source of the problem:

*D&D's use of the 'No Dex Bonus' situations is arbitrary and self-contradicting. *

The core of this problem lies in how the whole Dex modifier table is set up..  Consider this...  In NO DEX BONUS situations...a person who has a 3 Dex is easier to hit than a person who has a 5 Dex..right?  And a person who has a 5 is easier to hit than someone who has a 10, agreed?  (You see where this is going?)  So how does it make sense that a person with a 20 Dex is just as easy to hit as a person with a 10 Dex?  It doesn't.  And people please don't try and contort yourselves every which way to try and explain this in some real world fashion.

D&D made the mistake of treating the Dex modifiers like everything else....above 10 you get a bonus, below, you get a penalty.   So when they went to make situations where someone shouldn't receive a bonus for being able to avoid an attack because they couldn't see it...they couldn't eliminate the "penalty" or people with low Dex would be made better off.  The problem is that they abitrarily decided that anyone with a Dex up to 10...still gets _their_ bonus when compared to people with a worse Dex...but nobody with a Dex higher than 10 gets their bonus?  How does that make a lick of sense?

This hits home with the Flat-Footed rule.  It is completely and wholly abitrary that a person with a 10 should get a benefit over someone with an 8, but someone with a 12 should not get a benefit over someone with a 10.  Again...how does that make any sense?  It doesn't.

Once again, I'm going to tell all you people who are going to try and make up laws of nature about the existence or lack clumsiness as being an explanation.  Don't go there.  There is a *straight line improvement in armor class from a Dex of 3 up until infinity.*  The idea that D&D wanted a score of 10 to be neither help nor hindrance in face to face fighting doesn't change the fact that your always more able to dodge an attack the higher your Dex bonus is.  To suddenly depart from this for unseen attacks above a Dex of 10 is illogical and arbitrary.

Before we move forward, Let's take a step back.  The perspective one needs to take in a situation like this is...is not whether the rule is right or wrong...good or bad...but *does the rule improve the enjoyment of the game or detract from it?*  The point is make the game fun not to simply impose abitrary restrictions on th game.  As others may have pointed, right or wrong, there are several game mechanics (balancing) that pivot on the FF rule.  Removing it will undermine those mechanics.  Maybe that's good for your compaign maybe it's not.

Let's get back to your problem and your situation....(which I assume you've long since solved by now)

As written...the FF rule is poorly conceived...not because of what it suggests...but becauses of HOW it is presented and implemented.  D&D makes a critical mistake in trying to implement this rule based on some real life analogy of being "flat-footed."   It compounds this problem by using this completey broken "no dex bonus" mechanic which abitrary favors people with a 10-11 Dex over all others and the better your Dex...the more you get punished by the rule?!!?

Here is what I suggest.  Tell your buddy, that you're using the rule because you think it improves how certain classes work and that the game was play tested using this mechanic.   

Most importantly, change the No Dex bonus rule to a flat penalty.  This way...EVERYONE is punished equally for being flat footed (ignoring increase in proportional vulnerability).  Even someone with a 10 Dex is actively moving to avoid being hit when not flat-footed.  As such, they suffer as well.   Most high Dex classes don't wear armor and a such, the FF rule is a ridiculous to the extent it makes a 20 dex character equal to a 10 dex character when neither is immobilized. 

I would also use the flat penalty in ALL no dex bonus situations, excluding immobilization.   As an illustration...a person with a Dex of 3...while in combat...is more difficult to hit than someone immobilized.  Nevertheless, even when unaware of an attacker, their movements are slow and predictable.   A person with a 20 dex in the same "blind" situation is going to move much quicker, with greater range, and with less predictability...even when not aware of the attacker.  Ergo...it makes much more sense to apply a flat penalty.

Now the question I'm interested in hearing people answer is why didn't D&D use a flat penalty?  Is it really better for the game to treat continue to penalize people below a 10 dex linearly...put no penalty on someone with a 10 dex...and completely annihilate the bonuses for someone with higher than 10 dex...all the way out to infinity?


 There are certainly "realistic" situations where one can be aware of an attack and still be caught off-guard.  But don't apply the FF rule blindly.  I would certainly allow for some situations, beyond having Uncanny Dodge, where characters are simply not caught flat footed for having failed to act.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 15, 2011)

Good points:



Arrowhawk said:


> D&D is an abstraction.  It's not realism.






Arrowhawk said:


> The perspective one needs to take in a situation like this is...is not whether the rule is right or wrong...good or bad...but *does the rule improve the enjoyment of the game or detract from it?*  The point is make the game fun not to simply impose abitrary restrictions on th game.  As others may have pointed, right or wrong, there are several game mechanics (balancing) that pivot on the FF rule.  Removing it will undermine those mechanics.  Maybe that's good for your compaign maybe it's not.






Arrowhawk said:


> ...abitrary favors people with a 10-11 Dex over all others and the better your Dex...the more you get punished by the rule?!!?




Points at least worth some thought:



Arrowhawk said:


> The idea that someone that is quicker than any other human on the planet can watch a person who s/he is totally aware of...move 30ft and hit him with a bat before he can take any action to avoid being hit is wholly absurd.  Especially when that same person could wield a shield to block an attack in that same situation.






Arrowhawk said:


> The real problem with the FF rule is more systemic than the context.  It has to do with the whole system of Dex Bonus.  I've been researching discussion on the FF rule and never once have I seen anyone identify the true source of the problem:
> 
> *D&D's use of the 'No Dex Bonus' situations is arbitrary and self-contradicting. *
> 
> ...




{I would have put these in the "good points" section, except how many PCs or encounters hav sub-8 Dex? Not many...}



Arrowhawk said:


> Most importantly, change the No Dex bonus rule to a flat penalty.  This way...EVERYONE is punished equally for being flat footed (ignoring increase in proportional vulnerability).




Points that ludicrously say "I am right. Everyone that disagrees is an idiot. Don't even bother disagreeing with me. This discussion is over."



Arrowhawk said:


> First off, for everyone who tries to "justify" the FF rule from any realism perspective, you're just flat deluding yourselves at best and being disengenious at worst.






Arrowhawk said:


> Defending such an outcome, which is totally required based on the RAW...is disengenious.






Arrowhawk said:


> And people please don't try and contort yourselves every which way to try and explain this in some real world fashion.






Arrowhawk said:


> Once again, I'm going to tell all you people who are going to try and make up laws of nature about the existence or lack clumsiness as being an explanation.  Don't go there.





Conclusion:

I agree that the flat-footed condition does not work properly with respect to Dex < 10, although I am not sure I really care.

I agree that, in at least some situations, a flat penalty would be fairer and more logical than denial of the complete bonus. However, this is not all situations and I am not sure there is an easy way, other than DM ruling on the spot, to differentiate the two.

I agree that all of the combat rules are meant as an abstraction and only the
 end result (and the enjoyment of the process of course - it is a game) matters.

I think we should encourage discussion on this board, not discourage it. There is no such thing as "right" in the context of a fantasy game where dice rolls are used to simulate real world events. All you have is an opinion.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 15, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Waterbob. I'm in the same situation as your friend. I read the RAW and it made little sense from a realism point of view. Our group has removed the Flat-Footed rule as it applies to acting first in combat. However, after much consideration, I'm considering its reintroduction.




I kept the rule, but we've yet had anyone caught flatfooted.  Much depends on when initiative is thrown.  It's true, we've had little combat in my new campaign.  We've played just 4 sessions with a tad bit of combat and a lot of role playing.

In the little combat we've had, I had initiative thrown early enough that the FF rule didn't come into play.  For example, we did a gladitorial-style combat with the characters entering into a ring.  The ring was 80'  in diameter, so the first combatant couldn't charge during the first round, and the second, after the first had moved into range, refused to charge thinking that the first had readied an action against a charge.

So, those two slowly, over three rounds, went into combat.

Game session V, coming up soon, starts off with combat.  It will be our first major combat session.  But even here, FF won't matter becuase I've already decided where nish will be thrown....as the PCs run around a bend in the road and come upon the bad guys.  The distance, again, will be too far for FF to matter.





When I wrote this post, I hadn't really played out any combat yet, and it didn't dawn on my how, sometimes, nish is thrown and the PCs are too far away from the foes for FF to be considered.

That's an intersesting tool the GM has in his game-kit.










> To suddenly depart from this for unseen attacks above a Dex of 10 is illogical and arbitrary.




Just to play Devil's Advocate:  You're looking at the DEX penalty and bonus as a linear proposition.  What if there is a point of diminishing returns?  What if DEX 10 is that point of diminishing returns?

More plainly:  DEX scores 9 or less represent a person's slow features.  But as DEX 12+ represents a person's fast features, it also represents a finer line between benefits.

Thus, DEX 9 or less penalties apply, but DEX 12+ don't since, after a certain point (which is DEX 10), the advantage of having a higher DEX score isn't large enough to grant a bonus in certain situations....and acting quickly and ceasing the initiative in combat is one of those situations.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 15, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Just to play Devil's Advocate: You're looking at the DEX penalty and bonus as a linear proposition.




Which is exactly how it is implemented in 3.5. From 2 to 10000, every ability score has a +1 higher modifer than the score two points lower.  In other words...it's a linear proposition (with the sole exception of a 1 being -5)




Water Bob said:


> What if there is a point of diminishing returns? What if DEX 10 is that point of diminishing returns?




Hey, it's great to try and look at the game and see if it makes sense.  But it's equally important not to try and invent logic to make sense of something that is implemented illogically.  There is no concept of diminishing returns concept in 3.5 as it applies to ability scores.  Ability score tables goes on ad infinitim and increases every two points.  See above.




> Thus, DEX 9 or less penalties apply, but DEX 12+ don't since, after a certain point (which is DEX 10), the advantage of having a higher DEX score isn't large enough to grant a bonus in certain situations....and acting quickly and ceasing the initiative in combat is one of those situations.




Ignoring the fact that you may be contradicting yourself, while that theory would explain the rule...it has as much basis in reality as saying, the god Tymor has decided to penalize those with Dex lower than 10 and reward those higher than 11....except that there is nothing the game that would support such a conclusion.  I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's counterproductive to just make stuff up as a _raison d'etre_.

A better approach is to determine _why_ the rule has been written that way.  What goal were the designers trying to achieve and did they achieve it?  I think we can all agree that no game system is 100% perfect as written.  Is this such a case?

Look, I understand what it is you're trying to convey, but one of the problems I think that is tripping you up is the _paradigm _of "penalty" and "bonus."  These terms, as applied to ability modifiers, are wholly arbitrary because the increases are a linear step function.   The magnitude of the difference between having an 8 Dex and having a 12 Dex is neither greater nor smaller than if you made a Dex of 2 give you a +1 bonus and and increased the bonus from there on out.  A Dex of 8 would give you a "bonus" of +4 and a Dex of 12 would give you a bonus of "+6."  Net difference? +2.  The same as it is now. 

In other words, "penalty" and "bonus" are just labels based on a some arbitrary notion of what the average person's Dexerity would be.  It doesn't not change the magnitude of the difference.  If 3.5 decided that a Commoner's Dex is 16, so that anything below 16 is a "penalty" the difference between 8 and 12 would still be +2.

What's interesting for me is, again, why did they implement the game this way?   Surely someone at WotC asked why not apply a flat penalty for everyone in a situation where they don't get to avoid an attack?  Why punish someone with a Dex of 20 more than someone with a Dex of 16 and not punish someone with a Dex of 10 at all?  After all, even an armor class of 10 assumes a person is _not _immobilized.  So shouldn't the average person encounter a penalty if they are unable to avoid an attack or didn't see the attacker?  I'm at a loss.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 15, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> What's interesting for me is, again, why did they implement the game this way? Surely someone at WotC asked why not apply a flat penalty for everyone in a situation where they don't get to avoid an attack? Why punish someone with a Dex of 20 more than someone with a Dex of 16 and not punish someone with a Dex of 10 at all?




My guess is that they wanted to have a first blood rule.  The thought that the first attack can be more powerful than regular melee isn't new.  Remember Classic Traveller has a rule like that--where the first blow can stun, incapacitate, or even kill the character unlike other blows.  

In 3.5, the FF rule actually gets worse the higher level the characters are (because DEX bonuses will typically be higher).  It gives a little "realism" to the use of hit points.  You can't take someone out if you can't cover all their remaining hit points in a blow.  Thus, rules like the Flat-Footed rule, making a target easier to hit, and the Massive Damage rule, bring a little "realism" to hit points.



Then, they took it a step further and used it as a mechanic for sneak damage.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 15, 2011)

Just reread the thread so, first: a response to a statement in the thread from a while back.







Water Bob said:


> But, he's disregarding that, thinking that the mechanical penalty to both Surprise and lost Initiative is the same: Flat-footed.



Flat-footed isn't a penalty that is inflicted for either being surprised or losing initiative - it is a _normal condition_ (literally a condition in the game-rule mechanics sense of "conditions") that is typically overcome by surprising others, or by WINNING initiative.



Arrowhawk said:


> First off, for everyone who tries to "justify" the FF rule from any realism perspective, you're just flat deluding yourselves at best and being disengenious at worst.



I'd advise being a _little_ less strident in tone there.  I know you're not trying to be insulting but it's VERY easy to read that as intolerably condescending.



> Example 1: Fighter A rolls a 2 on initiative and Fighter B rolls a 20. So Fighter A loses a +7 dex bonus and is easily hit with a 10. Fighter B moves 30ft in six seconds and Fighter A with inhuman Dexterity can take no action to avoid being hit.



That would be an inaccurate and misleading statement.  Fighter A is simply penalized to a degree giving fighter B an increased chance to hit.  Fighter A may still avoid being hit if his AC is otherwise high enough and/or Fighter B's attack roll is low enough.



> Example 2: Fighter A rolls a 20 and Fighter B rolls a 2. Fighter B still gets to move his Heavy Shield to retain its bonus, no matter where the attack from Fighter A comes from.



This is true only because for the sake of general combat rules simplification the game has removed FACING as a consideration.  In 1E/2E for example, a shield explicitly protected only a certain selection of areas around the character (and furthermore only protected against a limited number of attacks even then) so an attack from the flanks meant the shield and all associated bonuses did not apply to AC, attacks from behind meant shield AND dex bonuses could not apply.  Because 3E eliminates the specific position of opponents as a consideration in place of RELATIVE postiion of opponents (flanking now being a bonus granted when a combatant is required to divide his attentions to opposite sides at once) the bonus for having a shield MUST by default apply all around all the time.  There may be attacks which 3E decides can eliminate or circumvent a Shield Armor Bonus, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.

The situation in this example is not meant to be taken as a thoughtless defiance of realism but as a well-considered sympathy with simplified/unified game rules.



> This illustrates the ridiculusness of looking at the Flat-Footed Rule from a realism perspective. This is true for most games rules in RPG's when it comes to combat. D&D is an abstraction. It's not realism.



I hear you.  Really I do.  But if you want realism then you shouldn't play any version of D&D nor any other game that is even moderately similar to it in mechanics. Combat in D&D is SO abstracted it's almost laughable.  It's more laughable to me to claim that it's not realistic enough when it's not realistic AT ALL.



> The idea that someone that is quicker than any other human on the planet can watch a person who s/he is totally aware of...move 30ft and hit him with a bat before he can take any action to avoid being hit is wholly absurd.



Well D&D practically revels in absurdities as regards both the strengths and vulnerabilities of player characters and these only increase with character levels.  It is part and parcel of it being a game where characters assay "epic quests for fortune and glory," [PH]



> The core of this problem lies in how the whole Dex modifier table is set up.. Consider this... In NO DEX BONUS situations...a person who has a 3 Dex is easier to hit than a person who has a 5 Dex..right? And a person who has a 5 is easier to hit than someone who has a 10, agreed? (You see where this is going?) So how does it make sense that a person with a 20 Dex is just as easy to hit as a person with a 10 Dex? It doesn't.



As an aside I can't readily find a specific reference to a commonly accepted notion carried over from previous editions - that there is no AC lower than 10, even with penalties.  Without such a simple statement I guess we have to accept that a character in no armor with no other modifiers who otherwise has a -4 dex penalty is in fact AC 6.

However, dex is not intended as the be-all end-all of armor class - it's just a MODIFIER to AC.  Look at it this way:  It isn't a matter of a low dex character being given an illogical benefit, but a high dexterity character being denied the ability to ALWAYS leverage his natural advantage, typically by being in circumstances where he's caught unawares.  Dexterity /= awareness, fast reactions and being light on your feet doesn't make you more alert.



> D&D made the mistake of treating the Dex modifiers like everything else....above 10 you get a bonus, below, you get a penalty.



This I can agree with.  It is an inherent drawback to having a universal table for ability modifiers as well as a universal task resolution system.  Logically, not all ability scores apply and scale in the same way and not all tasks fit well a scale of granularity from 1-20.  Some things are pass/fail, some lend themselves to many degrees of failure or success, some should have many modifiers, others none at all.  Once upon a time I thought that 3E's design in this regard was simple and elegant.  Lately I've come to see it as not just simple, but actually misguided.  1E and 2E rules weren't necessarily superior in this regard, their ability modifiers needed to be changed too to better reflect the expected spread of ability scores for PC's when rolling d6's for their initial determination.  It was better to have bonuses accruing closer to scores of 10-11, but it was a mistake to have penalties similarly accrue closer to 10-11 just for the sake of having a cleaner looking table.



> The problem is that they abitrarily decided that anyone with a Dex up to 10...still gets _their_ bonus when compared to people with a worse Dex...but nobody with a Dex higher than 10 gets their bonus? How does that make a lick of sense?



Because as dexterity scores increase from 0 and approach 10 it isn't a matter of them gaining bonuses but of reducing their penalty.  As dexterity's increase above 10 as concerns being flat-footed it isn't a matter of characters with below 10 dex being given an extra advantage - they aren't because they still have their penalty.  It's a matter of the over-10 dex character facing the fact that his dexterity simply will not constantly apply in all circumstances.

At the outset of a battle surprise is decided without regard to dexterity.  It is a matter of AWARENESS of the presence of opponents.  Having surprise means that opponent reactions DO NOT apply.  The surprise round is all about the actions of the surprisers and opponents who would normally have a dexterity advantage don't yet have the opportunity to press that advantage regarding their AC.  The next step beyond surprise is initiative - a dex check.  At this point the natural dexterity of combatants DOES apply and grant them a POTENTIAL advantage, not a GUARANTEED advantage.  The dex bonus modifies the die roll improving their chances of acting before their opponents.

Your argument here implies that initiative should have no random element but instead simply proceed from highest dex to lowest.  Not an awful idea as a house rule but I see nothing wrong with the implication that can be drawn from RAW that there are any number of factors (best represented by a random roll) that might keep a high dexterity character at the same relative disadvantage as someone who has a dexterity that is simply lower than him, whether or not it's a dexterity that provides no bonus anyway.



> Once again, I'm going to tell all you people who are going to try and make up laws of nature about the existence or lack clumsiness as being an explanation. Don't go there. There is a *straight line improvement in armor class from a Dex of 3 up until infinity.*



Flat-footed condition and related matters of initiative isn't about reflecting real life nearly as much as it is about just adjudicating a game as effectively as possible. You seem to want to insist here that the baseline is an ability score of 0 and that anything above that provides a bonus even if that bonus is a negative integer.  The game rules on the other hand assume that the baseline is 10-11 and that positive integers are a bonus, and negative integers are a penalty.  At the risk of sounding insulting (given statements above that is NOT my intent) I don't think that's a matter of rationalizing the illogical rules as you insist it cannot be otherwise, but simply being rational about how the rules DO work.



> As written...the FF rule is poorly conceived...not because of what it suggests...but becauses of HOW it is presented and implemented. D&D makes a critical mistake in trying to implement this rule based on some real life analogy of being "flat-footed." It compounds this problem by using this completey broken "no dex bonus" mechanic which abitrary favors people with a 10-11 Dex over all others and the better your Dex...the more you get punished by the rule?!!?



Well, I remain unconvinced by this assertion that the rule is poorly conceived, broken, or arbitrary.  "It's screwed up _because_ it's screwed up," is a bit thin.



> Most importantly, change the No Dex bonus rule to a flat penalty. This way...EVERYONE is punished equally for being flat footed



Again I'd point out that it's not a penalty for being surprised or losing initiative, it's a reasonable condition to assume that characters are in until random elements are no longer a factor.



> Most high Dex classes don't wear armor



I think you have to be more specific about this.



> I would also use the flat penalty in ALL no dex bonus situations, excluding immobilization. As an illustration...a person with a Dex of 3...while in combat...is more difficult to hit than someone immobilized.



Not sure what you're getting at here.  "Immobile" is not a rule-listed condition.  Being Pinned means a character is immobile but has no dex effects.  Being Entangled is a -4 dex penalty.  Other conditions where the character can't move seem to all fall under the associated condition of Helpless, which carries an associated penalty of any dex being treated as 0.  Perhaps if you explain which of those you disagree with... or?



> Nevertheless, even when unaware of an attacker, their movements are slow and predictable. A person with a 20 dex in the same "blind" situation is going to move much quicker, with greater range, and with less predictability...even when not aware of the attacker. Ergo...it makes much more sense to apply a flat penalty.



Um... but UNAWARENESS of the attacker means that they cannot react to the attackers actions at all.  Their superior reactions would not help them react to anything but the impact of the weapon and then it's too late.  Again here you're assuming that a high dexterity must apply at all times and in all circumstances.  The rules are only attempting to reflect what _I_ thought (and still do actually) was obvious in that a dexterity bonus does NOT apply at all times and in all circumstances - but a dexterity penalty DOES always apply (although as I noted way up above I consider 10 to be a minimum armor class regardless of any and all penalties).



> Now the question I'm interested in hearing people answer is why didn't D&D use a flat penalty?



Just to be snarky: no you aren't - you repeatedly assert that anyone who thinks the RAW is sensible in this regard has mental issues.

[/snark]I'll be nice now.



> There are certainly "realistic" situations where one can be aware of an attack and still be caught off-guard. But don't apply the FF rule blindly. I would certainly allow for some situations, beyond having Uncanny Dodge, where characters are simply not caught flat footed for having failed to act.



Well it's not a matter of having _failed_ to act, but not being able to act first, however...

I do agree that the FF rule - along with EVERY OTHER RULE IN THE BOOK should not be applied blindly.  The rules do not and CANNOT cover all situations, all contingencies.



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> ...it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game.  Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook.



No matter what the rules say, if you have an issue with one of them (Flat-footed in this case) whether it's just in a particular circumstance or the rule in general - CHANGE it.

But again, I suggest going a bit easier on actually questioning the reasoning and intelligence of those who simply choose to disagree with you or do not share YOUR perspective on the rules.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 15, 2011)

The other thing that I was going to say (and didn't above) with regards to the DEX 20 question is that I think the designers realized that someone with a DEX 20 won't lose nish that often to someone with DEX 6, but the system gives the DEX 6 guy a chance to beat the DEX 20 dude.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 15, 2011)

Well, here we go. 



> Flat-footed isn't a penalty that is inflicted for either being surprised or losing initiative - it is a _normal condition_ (literally a condition in the game-rule mechanics sense of "conditions") that is typically overcome by surprising others, or by WINNING initiative.



  Incorrect.  You don't overcome being flat footed by "WINNING" initiative...you overcome it by acting.   You can win initiative and delay your action...and you're still flat footed.  The game rules decide that you somehow only able to use your natural ability to dodge attacks after you have taken an action...that before this decision on your part...you are unable to avoid any attacks by virture of movement (but we'll conveniently ignore the fact that a person with a 10 Dex can still avoid more attacks than a person with an 8 Dex.)

What you're arguing here is semantics.  Flat footed is a not a "normal" condition.  It is a contrived state invented by the game designers in order to facilitate other mechanics...namely Feats like Uncanny Dodge and to allow Rogues and high Dex characters an opportunity to have more impact in any given encounter.  There was no FF rule prior to 3.x

Let's get a grip on fantasy reality, here.  The idea that a person with superhuman dexterity (Read: 25) would be easier to hit than a slightly above average (Read: 12) guy standing next to him because he lost some conceptual thing called an "initiative" roll is an argument in fantasy...not reality.  Persistent application of a "normal condition" whereby all people whose Dex is above some arbitrary average score is nullified is patently absurd from any reality based perspective.

Let's revisit the definition of Dexterity according to d20srd:

"Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, *reflexes*, and balance."

"You apply your character’s Dexterity modifier to: ..." 

"Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can *react *to the attack."

Emphasis added.

The idea that a person with a 20 Dex wouldn't "react" *better* to losing initiative than a person with a 10 Dex...has literally no basis in reality given that one can raise a shield to avoid an attack and that a person with an 10 Dex is able to react better than a person with an 8 Dex.

Let's get this straight: The Flat Footed rule that eliminates all Dex ability above 11 does not represent reality...it represents an abstraction designed to facilitate other mechanics.   



> That would be an inaccurate and misleading statement. Fighter A is simply penalized to a degree giving fighter B an increased chance to hit. Fighter A may still avoid being hit if his AC is otherwise high enough and/or Fighter B's attack roll is low enough.



There is nothing in my example is misleading or inaccurate. Nor does asserting such make it true.  Fighter A isn't penalized to a "degree."  Fighter A gets zero Dex bonus...regardless of weather that Dex is 12 or 10,000.  Whether armor may protect Fighter A is irrelevant to the discussion, nevermind that I said Fighter A is _unarmored _in that example_._



> Flat-footed condition and related matters of initiative isn't about reflecting real life nearly as much as it is about just adjudicating a game as effectively as possible. You seem to want to insist here that the baseline is an ability score of 0 and that anything above that provides a bonus even if that bonus is a negative integer. The game rules on the other hand assume that the baseline is 10-11 and that positive integers are a bonus, and negative integers are a penalty. At the risk of sounding insulting (given statements above that is NOT my intent) I don't think that's a matter of rationalizing the illogical rules as you insist it cannot be otherwise, but simply being rational about how the rules DO work.



 Your'e falling into the same conceptual trap as Water Bob did in his response.   You're wanting to equate this idea with "penalty" and "bonus" with some change in state.   Such a proposition is not supperted by the_ linear progression_ of the ability modifiers.  It's irrelevant where you set the baseline....8 is better than 6, 10 is better than 8, and 12 is better than 10.  Every stop along that progression is a +1 improvement.  The labels of "penalty" and "bonus" do nothing to change that.

Let me put it this way...if you're playing a campaign that's all Elves, then the baseline really should be 12 not 10.  And doing so means there is no difference in the relative probability of being hit, making a saving throw, or using a ranged weapon.  Someone with a 12 is always going to be 1 better someone with a 10.  The "penalty/bonus" labels are simply that: labels. They have no effect on the magnitude of the bonuses.  Was this not made clear in my last post?  

But since the system isn't perfect, it runs into a problem with situations where someone should not get the full benefit of their Dexterity. The game still penalizes people who are lower than 10...but there is no logical reason to due so.   Saying that scores above 10 are a "bonus" is like saying they a "Koby Koby" and then making up some rule that Koby Koby doesn't apply in these situations.  It's abitrary.



> Because as dexterity scores increase from 0 and approach 10 it isn't a matter of them gaining bonuses but of reducing their penalty.



  Semantics.  Mathmatically, it's the same thing.  It's like arguing the glass isn't half full...it's half empty.



> As dexterity's increase above 10 as concerns being flat-footed it isn't a matter of characters with below 10 dex being given an extra advantage - they aren't because they still have their penalty. It's a matter of the over-10 dex character facing the fact that his dexterity simply will not constantly apply in all circumstances.



It's odd you don't see your own self contradiction in your response.  You ponit out that below 10, people still have their "penalty."  But a 6 has less penalty than a 4.  And a 10, less than a 6.   And that 10 is better than a 6..."in all circumstances."  Yet, you seem to believe it makes sense that a 12 isn't better than a 10 in all circumstances...nevermind that the linear progression of the modifiers implicitly signifying that there is no substantive change transitioning from penalty to no modifier to bonus?




> Having surprise means that opponent reactions DO NOT apply.



  Exactly.  Now do you see the hypocrasy by allowing Dex scores to make a Dex 8 character have better AC than a Dex 6 character...when reaction "DO NOT APPLY"  _This _is the problem that the game designers ran over in the crosswalk and then left the scene of the crime.  On one hand you're saying your inability to "react" affects your armor class...then arbitrarily deciding that...wait..no...you're not allowed to react if it improves your armor class..nevermind that mathmatically we're improving AC's going up from 3 to 10...and then simply stopping at 10.



> Your argument here implies that initiative should have no random element but instead simply proceed from highest dex to lowest.



  Not at all.  It's entirely feasible that somone with lower reaction times on average might react faster in any given circumstance.  The issue is that deciding to suddenly impose a brickwall filter on Dex above 10 is wholly ridiculous when you're allowing Dex to modify AC's below 10.

Look, it'd be one thing if D&D had some non-linear ability modifier table whereby the transition from Penalty to Neutral to Bonus has all these associated changes...but it doesn't.  Mathmatically the differene between 8 and 10 is the same difference between 10 and 12.   Only 12 doesn't get that bonus over 10 simply because THAT +1 is called a "bonus."   Silly.



> Flat-footed condition and related matters of initiative isn't about reflecting real life nearly as much as it is about just adjudicating a game as effectively as possible.



  There is nothing to be "adjuticated."  FF is simply a mechanic or "condition" as you labeled it to facilitate other mechanics.  D&D would suggest that ALL combatants start out FF before the act in an encounter.  Again, this is a condition, not a weighing of the facts.



> Again I'd point out that it's not a penalty for being surprised or losing initiative, it's a reasonable condition to assume that characters are in until random elements are no longer a factor.



  "reasonable"?  Based on what?  When two boxers or MMA fighters get in a ring, have you ever heard the ex-Boxer/MMA announcer say, "OOOh.  Looks like Rodriguez caught Martinez flat footed with that first punch"?  No.  There is no way to break down real life combat and know if someone won or lost initiative or simply delayed their action.  Nor do we know if anyone even _has _a Dex bonus or if someone got hit because he lost his Dex bonus or if the other guy just hit him irregardless of Dex bonus. 

Sure...people do get sucker punched.  People are caught "flat-footed" in some fights.  It defiintely happens.  And I believe it is entirely reasonable to say that any given person might be _less_ reactive in such a situation.  *But the idea that every single person on the planet whose quickness is above average, are all equally easy to hit in that situation goes beyond any rational argument.  *D&D makes such an argument...are you really trying to make that argument as well?



> Being Entangled is a -4 dex penalty.



  Perfect.  This so conveniently exposes the inconsistencies of Dex in this game.   Here, D&D has decided that a flat penalty is appropriate.   So no matter whether you get a "bonus" or a "penalty."  You are treated equally.  The fact that D&D uses flat Dex penalties means that all positions along the Ability Modifier table, Dexterity functions linearly.  Your penalty is not greater when you have a "bonus."   Nor are you penalized less because you already have a "penalty."   If "penalty" or "bonus" for Dex were somehow substantively different..then the game could not use a flat tax as it were.  The game would make some special rule for "bonus" and "penalty" conditions.



> Just to be snarky: no you aren't - you repeatedly assert that anyone who thinks the RAW is sensible in this regard has mental issues




Let's get a reality check here, MFH. Anyone who is going to seriously insist that the way these mechanics work are entirely logical and consistent has mental deficiencies.   The game is filled with illogical and inconsistent stuff. It's a freakin game about fantasy.  There is no logic to how the Weave works the Forgotten Realms, or why it works the way it does.  Or why weapons are +1 or why weapons can't have a bonus more than +5.    My question is why _in this case _did they do something that was internally inconsistent...and more importantly, does it make the game better or worse?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 15, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> My guess is that they wanted to have a first blood rule. The thought that the first attack can be more powerful than regular melee isn't new. Remember Classic Traveller has a rule like that--where the first blow can stun, incapacitate, or even kill the character unlike other blows.
> 
> In 3.5, the FF rule actually gets worse the higher level the characters are (because DEX bonuses will typically be higher). It gives a little "realism" to the use of hit points. You can't take someone out if you can't cover all their remaining hit points in a blow. Thus, rules like the Flat-Footed rule, making a target easier to hit, and the Massive Damage rule, bring a little "realism" to hit points.
> 
> ...



 I understand why a FF rule exists.  My question isn't about the existence...but _implementation _and whether it is a net positive or negative for the game.   

let's look at something you just wrote...

"_Thus, rules like the Flat-Footed rule, making a target easier to hit, and the Massive Damage rule, bring a little "realism" to hit points."_

Yet, that guy in your group seems to think it is contra-real.  I have a guy in my group who feels the same way.  So this idea that it brings "realism" is wholly subjective.  For some it's more real..for others...it's a step in the opposite direction of realism.

One of my earlier statements is an admonishment about using "realism" to justify things in RPG's.  I'd advise all DM's to stay away from that approach when debating rules.   There is no encylopedia or cannon on what makes a game more or less real.  You're essentially going to get yourself into an argument which is grounded in opinion and no one is going to win an opinion debate.  Instead, I suggest you talk about whether there is a net improvement in the game.   Does sacrificing some subjective believability allow for an improved game experience?  There is no universal answer to that question.

I'm electing to bring back the FF rule to my compaign because I want to see how the mechanic works in actual game play, not because it's more real.  Does it improve the value of Rogues and high Dex characters?  Does that make the game more enjoyable?  The other DM in the group doesn't think it'll make a big difference one way or the other, but as I mentioned, he feels the rule is not credible...and he's an experienced fencer and studied self defense.

As far as it being worse at higher level...I'm not sure that's true.  Remember, the higher your Dex, the more you benefit from this rule _on average _because you will be acting first.  Whether that's offset by the increased damage you take is impossible to know without trying to run some simulation more complex than anyone would bother to explore. 

As you noted earlier, the DM has a lot of ability to determine just how much impact these rules have by tailoring encounters and the creatures (i.e. low dex or high dex creatures).


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 16, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Let's get a reality check here, MFH. Anyone who is going to seriously insist that the way these mechanics work are entirely logical and consistent has mental deficiencies.



Good thing then that I wasn't trying to do so.  I was trying to point out that they work for the game.



> My question is why _in this case _did they do something that was internally inconsistent...and more importantly, does it make the game better or worse?



Fine.  You win.  It's as wildly inconsistent as most of the rest of the rules.  They did it, however, because it DOES make the game better.

If you don't make the game, you don't make the rules.  In the case of D&D, however, every DM (whether WotC wants you to or not, whether it's a good idea or not) gets to make the rules whatever he wants them to be.  Good luck.  I honestly do hope you find a method that works for you and those you game with.  I'll just leave you to it as it's clear to me you're not interested in even hearing differing opinions, just in getting everyone else to agree with yours - but enough with the accusations of mental deficiency in those who would simply dare question your conclusions.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 16, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Good thing then that I wasn't trying to do so.



Yes. It is a good thing.




> I was trying to point out that they work for the game.




In your opinion. Which you are entitled to. 



> Fine. You win.




I'm not trying to _win_ anything. I'm pointing out an objective fact about the game and asking if others have an explanation as to why the game was implemented in an internally inconsistent fashion. Most games try to remain internally consistent as much as possible. Did d20 3.x intentionally depart from that here, or was it unintended?



> It's as wildly inconsistent as most of the rest of the rules.



 That's another opinion, which you are once again entitled to. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that is irrelevant to this specific issue.



> They did it, however, because it DOES make the game better.



 And why is that? Why does it make the game better to impose penalties based on a viable mechanic...but then ignore bonuses? Let me put it to you another way....

Look at this as if it were Strength and not Dex. When would it make sense to impose a penalty on how much someone could carry if there were weaker than average, but...then refuse to allow anyone who is stronger than average to lift more? How would such an inconsistent treatment of strength make the game better?

Let me try another example:

The baseline Dex of 10, assumes _some_ agility.  It assumes you have more agility than the a person with an 8 Dex.  So why isn't a person with a 10 Dex penalized in situations where a person is unable to react to the attacker?  Why isn't _everyone _who can move, penalized when they can't react to the attack? Think about it like this....how does it make sense that the average person* is no worse off in terms of AC* if they can't react to an attack?  I understand that everyone is subject to Sneak Attack damage...but an average person suffers no AC penalty whether they can see the attack coming or not???  But we're going to impose a penalty on those who are the smallest margin better?  Really?  And that makes the game better, how exactly?



> I'll just leave you to it as it's clear to me you're not interested in even hearing differing opinions



 I'm interested in hearing opinions on things that are subjective. 

I'm not interested discussing whether 1+1= 2 or 3 or 11. A person may think such a thing is a matter of opinion, but then that person isn't living in reality and there is no benefit in trying to discuss math with them. If a person doesn't _understand_ why the No Dex Bonus rule is inconsistent...then I'm happy to explain the logic. But if a person insists that it _is_ consistent...or insists on coming up with some rationale that has no basis in the RAW or in any reality...then no, I'm not interested in getting into a debate. Let me put it another way. I'm here for a discussion on perception, not a debate on logic.




> but enough with the accusations of mental deficiency in those who would simply dare question your conclusions.



 How about you dispense with the histrionics? The rules as written with respect to Dex "modifiers" contradict themselves. This is no more an opinion than finding a coding error in a computer program. If the Dex modifier to AC is based on someone's ability to "react" then in situations where someone cannot "react," nobody's AC should be any different from anyone elses _based on Dex_ because nobody can react. Do you really think this is a matter of opinion? I suspect not. But your posts comes across like someone who blindly wants to defend whatever it is the rules say...regardless of any objective truth. 

I'm trying to understand what makes it logical for d20 to impose a mechanic that is not consistent. As such, let me readdress the obvious: 

On page 7 of the Players Handbook I, Core Rule Book 3.5. It says: 

"-- for example, you apply your character’s Dexterity
modifier to his or her Armor Class (AC). A positive
modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called​a penalty."

​When the game designerse started looking at combat, clearly there are situations where a person would not be able to avoid attacks by way of their Dexterity. So it makes sense to say whatever AC improvement that resulted from moving around...should be negated. The problem is that all abilities scores have the baseline set at Dex of 10. Thus, the way Dexterity was implemented made it impossible for them to uniformly eliminiate the "improvement." If the Dex baseline had been set at a Dex of 0, meaning you can't move at ALL, and you only went to positive modifiers, this problem could have been avoided entirely. This would have only required one additional column in the modifier table...the Dex AC modifier.

What I don't get is why they didn't do the same thing they did with Entangle. Why not just impose a flat penalty for situations where you aren't moving in response to the attacker, or your movement is restricted? The No Dex Bonus situations are generally not situations where a players is immobile or helpless. The person may still be moving...but just not in response to the attack. 

But wouldn't it be logical to say a person who is running (another No Dex Bonus situation) with a Dex of say 30 would still be able to avoid an attack better than someone with a Dex of 10?

As I've mentioned several times...I don't understand the brick wall filter on Dex above 10. How is the game better by not penalizing the average person who is balancing on a rope, but penalizing someone with only slightly better reflexes? I'm at a loss.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 16, 2011)

*Sometimes you really get denied your Dex bonus...*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc]‪Indiana Jones : Sword vs. Gun‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 16, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Sometimes you really get denied your Dex bonus...




I really dislike Arrowhawk's needlessly aggressive and dismissive posting style, but him posing the question "why don't you get your Dexterity _bonus_ while still applying your Dexterity _penalty_?" really isn't answered by that video at all.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I really dislike Arrowhawk's needlessly aggressive and dismissive posting style, but him posing the question "why don't you get your Dexterity _bonus_ while still applying your Dexterity _penalty_?" really isn't answered by that video at all.




I answered that question in post #90. The answer is: there is no answer as far as logic, but (a) it works in the game, and (b) the number of PCs / creatures in D&D with Dex below, say, 7 where a real penalty (2+) would come into play, that benefit from their opp getting denied their Dex bonus is so small that who cares? 

Now he is suggesting his alternative rule - a flat adjustment. The problem with a flat adjustment is that "*Sometimes you really get denied your Dex bonus...*"

See last post.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 17, 2011)

kitcik said:


> I answered that question in post #90. The answer is: there is no answer as far as logic, but (a) it works in the game, and (b) the number of PCs / creatures in D&D with Dex below, say, 7 where a real penalty (2+) would come into play, that benefit from their opp getting denied their Dex bonus is so small that who cares?
> 
> Now he is suggesting his alternative rule - a flat adjustment. The problem with a flat adjustment is that "*Sometimes you really get denied your Dex bonus...*"
> 
> See last post.




So, if the flat adjustment was as high as -5, and that guy had a 20 Dex, he'd be exactly where the system has him now. If he had less, he's worse off than where the system has him now.

I don't see your argument with that video as particularly compelling, as I don't think it directly refutes his proposition. Though, to be honest, I don't use the base 3.5 rule, nor do I support his flat penalty proposal (not that I'm against it, either).

As always, play what you like


----------



## kitcik (Jul 17, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> So, if the flat adjustment was as high as -5, and that guy had a 20 Dex, he'd be exactly where the system has him now. If he had less, he's worse off than where the system has him now.
> 
> I don't see your argument with that video as particularly compelling, as I don't think it directly refutes his proposition. Though, to be honest, I don't use the base 3.5 rule, nor do I support his flat penalty proposal (not that I'm against it, either).
> 
> As always, play what you like




Well, he actually mentioned a 30 Dex but that is besides the point.

In the video, the high Dex guy got surprise, but instead of wisely:
 - sneaking behind Indiana, or
 - charging Indiana, or
 - running away,
he rather chose to waste his surprise in a flourish so that combat was not started.

They then rolled initiative, Indiana won, caught the dude flat-footed and was able to draw his gun and blow him away before he could react. If the guy had not been flat-footed, he would have seen Indiana go for his holster and, using his supreme Dex, dove away (or whatever), reducing Indiana's hit chances.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 17, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Well, he actually mentioned a 30 Dex but that is besides the point.
> 
> In the video, the high Dex guy got surprise, but instead of wisely:
> - sneaking behind Indiana, or
> ...




How are you judging this guys Dexterity score? You seem to think he has an amazing Dexterity score, and that seems to be the basis of your argument. I really don't know where you're drawing it from, though.

Couldn't he just have a 6 Dexterity for all we know? Couldn't he have been flat-footed and taken a penalty on his AC? Or, couldn't he have a 6 Dexterity, acted first and tried to intimidate Indiana during the surprise round, and then got gunned down (with the same penalty to his AC)?

I'm not sure how the video is really supposed to support your argument, and I'm interested in hearing how you think it does.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 17, 2011)

Let me get this straight kitch.  You're showing us a fictional movie...where everyone is acting according to a script...as proof of something?

Yes, some people are caught flat footed.  What that would really mean in terms of a dex bonus is impossible to say.  But if a situation catches people so that they cannot react, then everyone's AC would be the _same_ with respect to a modifier.  More to the point, the average person would not go unpenalized.  The concept of being flat-footed means you can't react and you're at a disadvantage....no matter who you are.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 17, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Let me get this straight kitch.  You're showing us a fictional movie...where everyone is acting according to a script...as proof of something?
> 
> Yes, some people are caught flat footed.  What that would really mean in terms of a dex bonus is impossible to say.  But if a situation catches people so that they cannot react, then everyone's AC would be the _same_ with respect to a modifier.  More to the point, the average person would not go unpenalized.  The concept of being flat-footed means you can't react and you're at a disadvantage....no matter who you are.




As other posters have already pointed out, your "listening" skills are clearly suboptimal.

I agreed with the above in post #90 AND in the post you are referring too.

Hello? Are you actually reading anything besides your own posts?

Let me repeat that.

I agreed TWICE that the above 10 / below 10 discrepancy is illogical (although below 7 so rarely comes into play that I don't care and I think the rules work as is).

That said, your fix of a flat penalty does not work because "*Sometimes you really do lose you Dex bonus...*" See post above. Hmm, seems like I have said THAT before too. Please read this paragraph twice to be sure it sinks in.

Now, just as a bonus, let me say that YES, I used a depiction of a fantasy hero to illustrate a point about a fantasy game. Seemed logical at the time, but I see that doesn't matter because any point that disagrees with you cannot be logical. My bad.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 17, 2011)

kitcik said:


> I agreed TWICE that the above 10 / below 10 discrepancy is illogical .



I'm not debating whether it's logical. I'm asking why is it done this way?



> That said, your fix of a flat penalty does not work because "*Sometimes you really do lose you Dex bonus...*"



 Perhaps you're reading skills are the ones in question because I'm not denying that people can lose their ability to avoid attacks. I actually like the concept of a Flat Footed state. I like the design space it opens up in the game.

What you haven't addressed is why that inability to avoid attacks wouldn't result in a penalty to everyone (excluding those with Uncanny Dodge) with an average dexterity? The game says I'm penalzing some people and not others even though the situation says nobody can react.

You don't like the flat tax? No problem. What would you suggest? How do you equitably handle a situation where *people lose their ability to use their dexterity to avoid an attack?* Because remember, a person with a 10 is still using his dexterity to avoid attacks...just ask someone with an 8 Dex. I'm not asking if it comes up enough to be a problem in your campaign, I am asking how you would solve the issue.




> Now, just as a bonus, let me say that YES, I used a depiction of a fantasy hero to illustrate a point about a fantasy game. Seemed logical at the time***My bad.



 I shouldn't ask this...but I am only human. Let's just say this was a real life situation. How does one make assumptions about what happened interms of modifiers and rolls? Essentially I am asking JamesonCourage's question again.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 17, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I picked up a new player, and he insists that I'm playing the Flat-Footed rule wrong.
> 
> The way I read it, when a combat round starts, everybody rolls initiative.  Characters move and act in inititiave order.  On the first round, a character is considered flat-footed until his chance to act.
> 
> ...




I haven't read the thread yet, but, "Yes."

However, a caveat on the side of your player.  To me this only applies if:

a) The character was surprised.
OR
b) This is the first full round the character has been aware of the threat.
OR
c) The character could not have possibly concieved of the attacker as a threat before this round.

One thing I don't like is that many DMs tend to read this rule as if no meeting engagement is possible in D&D.  They tend to apply this rule as if every encounter is an ambush.  If the character has prepared himself for combat with a potential threat he has percieved, even if you haven't rolled for initiative yet, then he's not flatfooted.

This matters when the PC is put in an ambigious situation where he feels threatened but combat doesn't begin immediately.  If the PC declares he's readying himself for action and he can percieve the threat, then he's not flatfooted.  He still might lose the initiative but he's no longer unprepared for combat, and some who wishes to deny them their dex bonus will have to come up with an alternative plan.  

The way to look at this is to imagine that the character is always in combat whenever the encounter begins.  Four hundred yards up the round, a group of armed horsemen step out on to the road.  The party declares we are readying weapons and holding our ground.  The next round the horsemen turn and come up the road at a walk, and halt a minute later 60' from the party.  The party has been standing their ready for combat four 10 rounds, staring directly at their foes.  They can't be surprised and they they aren't flat footed, even if I don't roll for initiative at this time and even if they lose initiative when negotiations with the bandits break down .  Even if I don't roll initiative immediately, the game state at any time has to look exactly like I had rolled initiative at the earliest possible point and ran things round by round until that point.

If a PC quibbles with this, I typically start running everything round by round until they change their mind.

Full details about how I adjudicate this.  Imagine we have a situation where the party is at a ball, and there are secretly assassins at the ball who are planning a surprise attack.  Many different situations can arrise:

a) The assassin attack before the party has detected them.  They are flatfooted, and if they lose their initiative they are flat-footed in the next round.
b) The assassins have been observing the party for some time.  The party detects the assassins just as their target comes into the room.  Just as they do, the assassins are immediately aware that they have been observed and so attack immediately.  The party is not surprised, but they are flat-footed if they lose the initiative.
c) The assassins have their attention focused on the gaurds and are not aware that the party represents a threat.  The party detects the assassins, and just as they do, the assassins are are aware that their cover is blown and so attack.  Neither side is surprised, but either side is flat-footed if they lose the initiative.
d) The assassins have their attention focused on the gaurds.  The party detects the assassins but decides to observe them for while.  The assassins detect that they are being observed, but decide to wait and see what happens.  If combat begins at a later point, neither side can be surprised nor can either side be flat-footed provided both sides continue the observation.
e) The assassins have their attention focused on the gaurds.  The party detects that assassins and covertly observes them, but the assassins do not detect that the party is observing them and is not aware that they are a threat.  In this situation, if the assassins begin combat, they can be both surprised by the party (the effective equivalent of the party readying an action each round they observed the assassins) and if they lose initiative they will be flat footed.

And so forth.  Thus, just as we expect in the real world, an entire spectrum is possible between one side surprising the other and one side not.  A true meeting engagement is actually possible interpretting the rules this way.  This suggests to me that it is the correct and intended interpretation.

Obviously, when we break this situation down to the level of individual characters, any or all of the above are simultaneously possible.  Some assassins might surprise some party members while simultaneously being surprised and attacked by others, and so forth.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 17, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> I'm not debating whether it's logical. I'm asking why is it done this way?




That's a pointless question - if it is illogical, how can it matter why it was done? - you are just asking it to be rhetorical and force your opinion on others. Even when I agree with you, you have to find some way to disagree. It's actually hilarious.

To answer the question anyway, hey, it's a big undertaking to design a fantasy game that can not only depict every possible action in the real world, but can also depict how actions in a magical world filled with heroes will interact... using only dice and paper. Some shortcuts were taken. Deal with it.



Arrowhawk said:


> Perhaps you're reading skills are the ones in question because I'm not denying that people can lose their ability to avoid attacks. I actually like the concept of a Flat Footed state.




Again, due to a determined refusal on your part to actually read other peoples' posts (and even tho I asked you to read it twice), you have completely missed the point. Your suggestion to "fix" the FF state was to apply a flat penalty regardless of Dex. This solution does not work in cases where you are actually in a flatfooted state.



Arrowhawk said:


> What you haven't addressed is why that inability to avoid attacks wouldn't result in a penalty to everyone (excluding those with Uncanny Dodge) with an average dexterity? The game says I'm penalzing some people and not others even though the situation says nobody can react.




I didn't address that? Because I was pretty sure I did. And it was a pretty short post. I even agreed with you about it. I suggest you have someone else read my post to you and explain it. I am pretty sure I said "I agreed TWICE that the above 10 / below 10 discrepancy is illogical (although below 7 so rarely comes into play that I don't care and I think the rules work as is)."



Arrowhawk said:


> You don't like the flat tax? No problem. What would you suggest? How do you equitably handle a situation where *people lose their ability to use their dexterity to avoid an attack?* Because remember, a person with a 10 is still using his dexterity to avoid attacks...just ask someone with an 8 Dex. I'm not asking if it comes up enough to be a problem in your campaign, I am asking how you would solve the issue.




But that's the whole point. If the "issue" doesn't come up, it's not an issue. These are exactly where corners had to be cut to sacrifice "realism" for reasonably simple and workable game mechanics. You don't need to fix your refrigerator if you live on a glacier.



Arrowhawk said:


> I shouldn't ask this...but I am only human. Let's just say this was a real life situation. How does one make assumptions about what happened interms of modifiers and rolls? Essentially I am asking JamesonCourage's question again.




Again, a pointless question. I already gave my detailed explanation of what I think happened in game terms. You just stated in your last post that the flat-footed state does exist. You raise this for no reason but to find another reason to disagree.

Dude, let me just say it one more time with feeling.

1) I agree that the fact that you don't lose the advantage of a 10 Dex. vs a 3 Dex in a flat-footed state doesn't make sense.

2) I don't think a flat penalty fixes it. I think it makes the situation worse because it gives someone with a very high Dex an advantage vs. their aggressor in a case where they should be flat-footed.

3) I have no reason to devise a better fix because the situation rarely occurs and has no meaningful impact on anything. If you really want a fix, change all of the D&D mechanics related to all stats such that zero = no bonus and every 2 up from there is +!. This would require massive changes with little benefit, but would make your 6 Dex character feel better when caught flatfooted since his 10 Dex buddy would be no better off.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 17, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I haven't read the thread yet, but, "Yes."
> 
> However, a caveat on the side of your player.  To me this only applies if:
> 
> ...




Sorry I can't XP you but I like the assassin example and would rule similarly.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 17, 2011)

kitcik said:


> That's a pointless question - if it is illogical, how can it matter why it was done?



  Because the reason for doing it might be logical.  For example, imposing a flat foot state in every combat situation isn't logical...but it allows Rogues an oppoturnity to get in a Sneak Attack right at the start.  Not realistic, but logical in that it engenders a certain type of experience.  




> - you are just asking it to be rhetorical and force your opinion on others.



  What opinion would that be?  As I already stated, pointing out a logical inconsistency isn't a matter of an opinion.  It's done as a starting point.  If two people are going to have a scientific talk about the movement of heavenly bodies, they both have to acknowledge that the Earth is not the center of the Solar System.  We agree the No Dex Bonus isn't internally consistent...not the question is why?  What does the game achieve by doing this?  Is there a compelling reason to leave it as is, or is it just an oversight that could be changed to improve the game?



> To answer the question anyway, hey, it's a big undertaking to design a fantasy game that can not only depict every possible action in the real world, but can also depict how actions in a magical world filled with heroes will interact... using only dice and paper. Some shortcuts were taken. Deal with it.



 This suggests you believe it is an unintended screw up because the game is just too complicated for them to have notice it.  Opinion noted.



> Again, due to a determined refusal on your part to actually read other peoples' posts (and even tho I asked you to read it twice), you have completely missed the point. Your suggestion to "fix" the FF state was to apply a flat penalty regardless of Dex. This solution does not work in cases where you are actually in a flatfooted state.



  I'm not sure which is more distressing, you're lack of reading comprehnsion skills or your self contradiction?  First, I wasn't suggesting that the "fix" for the FF state was anything.  I was talking about the No Dex Bonus situation.  Second, I am not offering it as a fix, I was asky _why_ No Dex Bonus wasn't treated like Entangle.  

Third, and most importantly, you're overlooking something.   The No Dex Bonus situations are not places where people are completely immobile.  They are situations where people ability to react is _impaired_, not eliminated.  If someone could not react at all, they would be helpless.  They would not be able to use their shield.  Their Uncanny Dodge ability would not function.  

As far as the self contradiction...on one hand you agree that the way it's handled now is inconsistent and then you suggest the way FF is handled now does work?  So it makes no sense to do it this way...but it works?  Based on what exactly?  

The problem is you're hung up on this concept of "Bonus."  You keep referring to someone being denied their "bonus" in real life.  Please explain to me when we know someone's dexterity goes from a penalty, to no modifier, to a bonus in real life?   

The way I see it, either someone is completely unable to react to something...in which case everyone has the same Dex modifier...or that person's ability to react is hampered in some way, would you agree?  If so, when D&D talks about No Dex Bonus situations which of these two states are we talking about? 



> But that's the whole point. If the "issue" doesn't come up...



  It doesn't come up?  So are you saying that nobody in your campaign has a 10 or 12 Dex?  Because if they do...then the inconsistency is in full effect.   If some people are losing their AC modifier and some people are not effected, then the issue is prevelant in your campaign.  When your refrigerator breaks, if you're solution is to close your eyes and pretend that you live in Alaska...I suppose that is always an option.




> Again, a pointless question. I already gave my detailed explanation of what I think happened in game terms.



  Yes.  You explained what happened, but neither JamesonCourage nor I understand the basis for your explanation.  As Jameson asks....how do you know that this guy had a Dex bonus?  How do you know he lost initiative?  Assuming it was a real life situation.



> You just stated in your last post that the flat-footed state does exist. You raise this for no reason but to find another reason to disagree.



  What exactly are we disagreeing about?  We agree the current rule is inconsistent.  I'm asking if have an understanding as to why it would benefit the game to do this.  Where exactly is the disagreement?




> 2) I don't think a flat penalty fixes it.



 I never said it did.  



> I think it makes the situation worse because it gives someone with a very high Dex an advantage vs. their aggressor in a case where they should be flat-footed.



 I'm not sure I understand what you mean by an "advantage."  

Have you considered that the current rule gives the person with the very high Dex the most advantage because he's the least likely to be caught FF?

If I may, it appears you like the idea of being able to take away all of someone's dexterity benefits to AC and the more the Dex bonus...the more you want to penalize them for losing initiative.  I'm not sure I understand why you believe it's better for the game to inconsistently penalize players in this fashion?  Why should high Dex creatures suffer inordinately more for losing initiative?




> 3) ... with little benefit, but would make your 6 Dex character feel better when caught flatfooted since his 10 Dex buddy would be no better off.



  A subjective opinion about the benefit derived.  A "fix" could penalize everyone equally, but mean that everyone who was quicker was still better off.

One of the more fundamental questions that hasn't been addressed is whether being caught without a Dex Bonus (not automatically the same as being FF) was really meant to mean everyone was immobilized and couldn't move at all.  If immobilization was _not_ the intent, then someone who is quicker would be better off, and this is exactly the rationale imployed with Reflex Saves against traps.  The fact that you can use your shield bonus even when you don't get Dex bonus would be an argument that a player is able to react...to some degree.

 d20 has really crossed itself up with this rule.  I've been searching the web but have been unable to find a single discussion on any board that addresses this problem.


----------



## Ainamacar (Jul 17, 2011)

Ehhh, there are various ways to interpret flat-footed, and some of them will fit better or worse with the rules and the rules' various goals/simulations/abstractions, but it seems a bit premature to excoriate the rules (or other posters) when the very act of interpreting adds a whole heap of YMMV to the matter.  In any case, some of the recent comments veer pretty close to invective, and accurate or not they aren't as constructive as they could be.

In my opinion the initiative system/flat-footed condition meets some very important measures of consistency, whatever its other weaknesses.  For example, a creature with higher dexterity will always perform, statistically speaking, at least as well as an otherwise identical creature with lower dexterity on initiative checks.  I consider a violation of this rule far more worrying than one in which the precise nature of the scaling doesn't match our expectations.  (Rules that meet this measure only on average, but not in every possible individual case, like with exploding die weirdness in Savage Worlds, are an intermediate case.  I personally find that aspect of SW maddening from a design standpoint, even though I'd absolutely play the system without alteration.)

Secondly, a surprise round is strictly worse for the surprised creature compared to a normal combat.  That doesn't mean there aren't better rules, but flat-footed is really only one aspect of the surprise round, and in almost all cases much less significant than being unable to take an action.  If "flat-footed" means something different in those rounds, as long as the surprise-round one is strictly worse than the normal-round one the rule is still met.  So if someone wants to have flatfooted apply only during a surprise round, I find that perfectly consistent, but not necessary, by this measure.

The discontinuity in behavior below and above 10 Dex permit some interpretations that I feel are acceptable, if one is demanded.  For example, the base assumption may that before combat a creature is only as dextrous as the behavior it was performing beforehand.  Just standing/walking around, even if expecting combat, the creature may not be utilizing its Dexterity because there is no need.  For a humanoid, even those with Dexterity greater than 10, perhaps they react as those with 10 Dexterity because that's more-or-less how they were acting beforehand.  For those with less than 10 Dex, that is also how they were acting beforehand, because they can never do better.  I'm not saying this is "true", only that it is short-sighted to look at the usual linear progression of the math and assume that it must always hold.  Discontinuous behavior despite a small continuous change in some variable is, in fact, a very common feature of the real world and many areas of math/science.  With small discrete steps, as in RPGs, it is even less troublesome.  In fact, "critical hits" almost always have just that kind of feel.  How much better than 19 is a 20?

Here's a similar case.  Earlier in the thread there were examples of how initiative makes no  sense as a consistent measure of reaction time since anyone could get  into a "fighting mode" in the time it took someone else to charge 30'  and then attack.  That being the case, it would be better to ditch flat-footed in normal rounds.  Now, if increments of initiative were explicitly fractions of seconds that would be necessarily be troublesome.  However, the only thing initiative is actually required to determine in the rules is turn order, and the "gaps" between these actions is undefined.  I personally don't care for that interpretation, but it is defensible.

But even if some result of using the rules were objectively terrible, any "brokeness" could be from a rule itself, or another rule(s) it interacts with, or specifically the interaction of those rules.  For example, whether or not the preceding example with moving the first round is actually a problem, it isn't immediately clear whether any inconsistency is due to the nature of initiative and flat-footedness, the discrete turn-based action economy of D&D, or the specific interaction of those rules.  In my opinion the turn-based nature of the game is much more responsible since I can imagine playing the game using a continuous-time approach (though not while having much fun at the table) and exactly the same initiative rules to determine who goes first to remove the seeming inconsistency.  The turn-based nature of D&D is one of its central conceits, and when that leads to something weird, it is at least worth considering whether that conceit should extend to the situation in question.

My main point is that when we can't imagine how the game makes any sense sometimes it is worth changing the rules (or the entire system) and sometimes it is worth changing how we view the rules.  Away from the table both can be a fun and worthwhile exercise, but at the table it is usually better to let it ride.  In RPGs, and much else of life, I've learned that a paucity of imagination or knowledge is my problem more frequently than my pride would like.  Finally, George Box (a statistician) is attributed with a saying I also find commendable in RPG design: "All models are wrong, but some are useful."  How wrong and how useful are the relevant open questions, and I hope my comments are taken in that spirit.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 17, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Coming late to the discussion because it has just recently come up with my group.   Waterbob.  I'm in the same situation as your friend.   I read the RAW and it made little sense from a realism point of view.




Arrowhawk, you are new, so I'm just going to say that in general, if something seems to make no sense at all, your best first move is almost always to consider the fault lies with you.  If it still seems wierd after some deep thought, then the next best move is to sincerely ask for someone else's opinion.  Deciding to launch an all out attack on the position before you have done the first two things is bad tactical decision.  Typically, you don't make yourself seem as reasonable as you think you are being.

Your basic problem is with this conclusion:



> _This illustrates_ the ridiculusness of looking at the Flat-Footed Rule from a realism perspective....Defending such an outcome, _which is totally required based on the RAW_...is disengenious.



 - emphasis added by me

The phase 'this illustrates' and 'which is totally required based on the RAW' are IMO the source of your confusion.  The situation you describe does not describe a situation where either party is flat footed, and therefore neither the situation nor the outcome is required based on the RAW.

Looking at the example again:



> Two fighters with face each other in an arena, 30 ft apart.  Both are unarmored 1st level Fighters behind open gates and each can see the other.




If the two have been seeing each other for at least a round, then neither can be flat-footed.  Both have had a chance to act, even if they had nothing productive to do on their turn, they've both had a chance to act and therefore neither can be flat footed.  Combat has actually begun.  Nothing in the RAW requires us to wait until the gates open to roll for initiative.  In fact, if that was how we were to read the raw - and in my opinion its an inaccurate reading - then if I was the player of Fighter A, I would do everything in my power to game the system and try to force the DM to allow the initiative check before the gate opened.  I would declare, purely for the purpose of forcing the DM to switch on 'combat mode' that I was trying to hit the other fighter with a ranged touch attack - my spit or maybe a bit of sand from the arena floor, or that I wanted to ready my weapon to recieve a charge, or that I wanted to attempt combat intimidation to try to rattle my foe before the gate openned.

You see the basic problem with your scenario isn't the rules, but the DM.  The DM has delayed making the initiative roll past the point where the initiative first becomes relevant to the situation, and is now complaining about the lack of logic resulting in the rules after making this illogical ruling.  Initiatives are rolled whenever they are relevant.  If they would be relevant to the outcome and fail to roll them, you can't complain that the game state has become illogical because it is you that have decided to hand wave the game situation.  In fact, at my table, any player at any time for any reason can ask for an initiative check whenever they feel that the order of actions whether they are attack actions or not is relevant. 

Being flat-footed does not refer to a situation where two sides are aware of each other.  It refers to a sitaution where the two sides are not fully aware and not fully prepared and hense can be caught 'flat footed'.

If you do the same situation, only the two parties are literally flat footed and unware that they are about to be thrust into combat and unaware of the other party, then the plausiblity of the more agile character being caught flat footed returned.   Let's again suppose we have a meeting engagement.  

The same two gladiators are behind a solid gate, unaware of the nature of what is beyond.  Without warning, two heavy weights descend and both gates suddenly spring open.  Both fighters could be surprised, but they both roll spot checks (they are trivial as both fighters are in the others line of site) and so both see the threat.  There is no surprise round, so we roll initiative.  Because neither side has yet acted, both could be caught flat footed by this situation.  Fighter A has a huge advantage.  Normally he has much better reflexes than Fighter B, but for whatever reason today, he's hit by a bit of bad luck.  Instead of leaping into action as he ought, he's startled by the sudden movement of the gate and the sudden roar of the crowd.  His normal aclarity fails him and instead of paying attention, he's looking up at the stands, checking behind him to see what triggered the gate opening, thinking about the fact that his heart is racing, and generally overcoming his startled and confused state.  He's seen Fighter B, but he's not really putting the gravity of the situation together like he should.  His mind hasn't caught up to the moment and put his incredible grace into motion; he's just sort of strolling out of the gate without really putting himself on a sound defensive footing.  Meanwhile, Fighter B is normally a clumsy and slow footed sort, but even before the gate was opened, he happened to have stumbled in its direction and now finds himself weapon up running across the stadium oblivious to anything but that guy who is going to kill him.

Fighter A is, by an incredible bit of luck, flat footed with respect to Fighter B. 

Now, you can complain about the fact that the d20 fortune mechanic can be too random at time, and it can.  Sometimes guys with 7 strength manage to do feats of strength that guys with 20 strength failed at.   If that really bothers you, go to a smaller dice for initiative (like 1e) and reimplement the 'Bend Bars/Open Gates' check (like 1e).  But the basic problem here isn't the flat-footed rule.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 17, 2011)

Ainamacar, 

Before evaluating the substantive benefit of your post, I will say it is well mannered and raises some talking points without the resorting to histrionics.




> The discontinuity in behavior below and above 10 Dex permit some interpretations that I feel are acceptable, if one is demanded. For example...[/qoute]
> 
> Your tact here, is not uncommon but it is a curiousity to me whenever I see this approach.  I find it rather puzzling that when gamers are confronted with something that does not make sense, they invariably come up with some way to try and explain/rationalize it in a manner that requires the invention of various realities or assumptions.  Why go there?  Wouldn't it be more productive to acknowlege that based on the RAW, X rule is internally inconsistent?
> 
> ...


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 17, 2011)

Celebrim,

I appreciate the thoughtful response. 



> if something seems to make no sense at all, your best first move is almost always to consider the fault lies with you.



My first approach to any rule is:

1.  The rule is there to facilitate something...
2.  What was it intended facilitate...
3.  Is there a better way to facilitate what was intended?

But first, I don't get emotionally attached to the rules as written, but I also acknowledge that RPG's are never going to be 100% perfect for everyone.  These rules are as much, if not more, art as science.   Even worse, RPG's love to weave abstraction and simulation (simulating reality) in knot that can't be untangles without losing cohesion on the entire tapestry.   

As to the body of your post....



> The phase 'this illustrates' and 'which is totally required based on the RAW' are IMO the source of your confusion. The situation you describe does not describe a situation where either party is flat footed, and therefore neither the situation nor the outcome is required based on the RAW.




My point which may have been unclear, is that RAW aren't based on reality and if applied blindly, lead to ridiculous situations.  You probably didn't see this yet...or at all, but as I said to Water Bob, I wouldn't advocate using a FF rule in ALL combat situations.

As to your offered solutions...I don't have a problem with the FF rule after understanding why it's in the game.  As I've mentioned, I'm bringing it back to the campaign to see how it affects game play.   One of the group members hates the rule...but he agrees that allowing situations where the first to strike enjoys some substantive advantage is not wholly divorced from reality. 

Oddly enough, our real concern revolved around the associated "no dex bonus" associated with being FF'ed.  He and I both agree the No Dex Bonus rule is inconsistent and I'm trying to understand why this rule is set up like this before we go permanently changing it.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 17, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> One thing I don't like is that many DMs tend to read this rule as if no meeting engagement is possible in D&D. They tend to apply this rule as if every encounter is an ambush. If the character has prepared himself for combat with a potential threat he has percieved, even if you haven't rolled for initiative yet, then he's not flatfooted.




And, that's fine if you House Rule it that way, but what you're saying here isn't the printed rule, is it.

The RAW is clear that anyone who acts after others in the first roundis flat-footed until he finally acts.





> This matters when the PC is put in an ambigious situation where he feels threatened but combat doesn't begin immediately.




Such as entering a gladitorial combat ring.





But, if you read the Flat-Footed rule, it's not about perceived danger.  It's about who acts first in the first round.  Right or Wrong, that's how the rule is written.



> a) The assassin attack before the party has detected them. They are flatfooted, and if they lose their initiative they are flat-footed in the next round.




The assassin is not detected and thus has Surprise.  He gets a Surprise action then nish is thrown for the regular combat round.  

Characters are all flat-footed until they act.

The assassn is not flat-footed because he acted first!


----------



## Ainamacar (Jul 17, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Ainamacar,
> Before evaluating the substantive benefit of your post, I will say it is well mannered and raises some talking points without the resorting to histrionics.




Why thank you.   I hope the same is true below, although the content is a bit more pointed.



> Your tact here, is not uncommon but it is a curiousity to me whenever I see this approach.  I find it rather puzzling that when gamers are confronted with something that does not make sense, they invariably come up with some way to try and explain/rationalize it in a manner that requires the invention of various realities or assumptions.  Why go there?  Wouldn't it be more productive to acknowlege that based on the RAW, X rule is internally inconsistent?



(I will respond to your charge that the rules do not make sense in a moment.)

It needn't be a universal response, but it does have benefits.  When the game's rules coexist peacefully with some simple interpretation of actual outcomes, events, and states within the game world it can aid description, immersion, and even the broader narrative.  The world operates on its own rules, rules to which even the DM is usually bound, even if only voluntarily.  Sometimes it lets you arrive at unusual and unexpected events in the game in a way which can enhance play.  That is, emergent events.  This is not true of all players or playstyles.  Or more to the point, it is true to greatly varying degrees.  For those of whom it is true to a great degree, seeking consistency even when it is difficult can be part of the enjoyment, much like figuring out a complicated mystery.  One needn't be bound to this response, either.  For example, in my opinion the D&D economy is pretty much always a disaster if treated as a simulation of an actual setting's economy.  The wide variety of ways to treat how it relates to the setting, from "it applies only to PCs" to "it is strictly a tool for running the game" to "magic shops everywhere" to "OK, let's pretend this is how things actually work" leads to all sorts of different results.  I would never choose the last option in a campaign but would feel free to embrace other aspects of the rules as more reflective of the actual setting.  That doesn't necessarily mean my setting is more or less productive than yours, it means it is different.  It certainly doesn't mean that if I treat the economy as a conceit that I necessarily contradict myself if I treat initiative as having a closer relationship to the reality of the game world.



> I get the sense people feel benefited by tricking themselves that an otherwise illogical or inconsistent rule has some basis in reality in one instance and then in another, comforting themselves by acknowledging the rule system isn't based on reality.  I guess I'm confounded by the cognative dissonance that seems to weave itself in and out of these discussions.



I think you are operating under an unacknowledged premise which makes the rules seemingly illogical or inconsistent.  However, in the examples you've given earlier in the thread, it seems to me that the rules are illogical or inconsistent not with themselves, but with your premise about the game.  (I'll be restating this point frequently, so forgive me beforehand if you like horses...)  In my opinion, you have done exactly what you said I did, by treating the game rules as having "some basis in reality" and then evaluating the rules in light of them.

In fact, if we treat the rules as having a basis in reality at _any_ point (e.g. stronger characters can lift more), while simultaneously holding that they are an abstraction, there must be some conceptual relationship between the reality we want and the abstraction we're using.  I don't think that's bad, I think it's necessary, even if we differ on the where/how/why and extent of abstraction.  And we can still consider the rules as their own thing, to see if the rules without any additional assumptions are self-consistent.

Game rules are illogical or inconsistent if accepting them necessarily leads to a contradiction. (If by inconsistent you simply mean "has exceptions" then I agree that limiting exceptions is of value, but in that case your entire post seems like a drastic overreaction.  Exceptions to rules aren't necessarily illogical.)  Here is a made-up example for some RPG:
"A creature is dead when it has 0 hit points or fewer."
"The 'alive' condition and the 'dead' condition are mutually exclusive."
"Any creature touching the 'Sword of Life' is alive."
A creature is touching the Sword of Life and has -3 hit points.  Is this creature alive or dead?  _That_ is an inconsistent, illogical, self-contradictory rule set.  I have assumed nothing else about the rules, setting, or their relationship, except perhaps a trivial definition of "creature".  (That fixing these rules is easy is independent of the point, as is its apparent lack of undead, constructs, whatever.  Apparently such things do not exist in this hypothetical game.  Or the rules are incomplete, which is a wholly different topic.)

Let me quote various parts your original post at some length.  I will attempt not to take anything out of context.


> The idea that someone that is quicker than any other human on the planet can watch a person who s/he is totally aware of...move 30ft and hit him with a bat before he can take any action to avoid being hit is wholly absurd.



This assumes a relationship between Dex and quickness that isn't specified by the rules.  (BTW, if such a situation occurs I agree it is absurd, but I freely admit my premises.)



> Especially when that same person could wield a shield to block an attack in that same situation.



This assumes a mechanism or realism by which the shield blocks things which the rules do not require.  (Personally, I think the rule makes sense at the level of D&D's abstraction, something like stationary cover.  Would it be more realistic if reduced from its normal value?  Probably.  But that's just the point, the consideration here is not about the rules but about how the rules interact with the reality of the setting.)



> So how does it make sense that a person  with a 20 Dex is just as easy to hit as a person with a 10 Dex?  It  doesn't.



The premise is that having 20 Dex _always_ makes one easier to hit.  This isn't found in the rules, and in fact is contrary to the rules.



> The idea that D&D wanted a score of 10 to be neither help nor hindrance in face to face fighting doesn't change the fact that your always more able to dodge an attack the higher your Dex bonus is. To suddenly depart from this for unseen attacks above a Dex of 10 is illogical and arbitrary.



Again, you assume the rules are illogical because they don't match what you think Dex should be like.  The rules are completely self-consistent on this point: They set up a rule, and then specify an exception.



> As written...the FF rule is poorly conceived...not because of what it suggests...but becauses of HOW it is presented and implemented.



I think you are referring to what it would suggest with respect to the "reality" of the game world, although I may be mistaken.  If so, however, you are implicitly assuming that the reader of the rules has some set of premises about how the rules and the setting interact.  Once again, therefore, any contradiction is not necessarily due to the rules themselves.



> It compounds this problem by using this completey broken "no dex bonus" mechanic which abitrary favors people with a 10-11 Dex over all others and the better your Dex...the more you get punished by the rule?!!?



My illustration in the first post is about specifically this point.  You think of the rule as odd because a person with higher Dex loses more.  I think of it as consistent because the person with higher Dex still does at least as well as the person with 10.  (An extended argument about why I think the latter is preferable goes beyond the scope of this post.)  Would you complain that the person with 18 Dex loses more when asleep?  If not, why not?  And could you justify it without recourse to an idea about how such things should work in the reality of the setting?



> Most high Dex classes don't wear armor and a such, the FF rule is a ridiculous to the extent it makes a 20 dex character equal to a 10 dex character when neither is immobilized.



And here's the rub.  I read this as you being OK with rules regarding immobilized/asleep/etc... but that a different case where 10+ is mapped to 10 while 9 or less remains the same is bothersome.  Why?  Yes, they're different rules, with Dex behaving differently.  No, it doesn't follow that the former is logical and the latter is automatically illogical.

The rules for Dexterity bonuses are, so far as I can tell, perfectly  self-consistent.  Accepting them as written does not introduce  contradictions in their application.  Your assertions that these rules  are illogical or self-contradictory is only true with respect to the  rules and your unspoken premises.  I'm even fine with your adjustments, and think they have merit.  If I were to design 3.5 again, I probably would change how things work.  This doesn't mean I can't discover an internal coherence to the rules, whether intended or not.



> In any event, I'll just ask you, rather than assume, is there anything in the RAW that supports your rationale on the below/above 10 inconsistency? Are you a kinesiologist or physical therapist or an expert in any field that leads you to such an explanation?  Is there some real world example where above average dex people walk around in some latent state?  And more importantly, do you really think your explanation is the one used by the game designers?  Do you think the designers relied on _any_ real life explanation for the below/above 10 inconsistency?



Not a thing in RAW supports my rationale, although in my opinion it is superficially consistent with RAW.  I am neither a kinesiologist nor able to provide an expert opinion on whether that rule accurately models reality.  (Nor are the D&D designers, I'd wager, and I highly doubt they used my rationale.  I also think this is unimportant.)  As for a real-world example, I think even highly dextrous individuals will generally perform lengthy and thorough stretching and other warmups to achieve their athletic peak.  Though quite capable without doing so, they are also at increased risk of injury without such preparations.  The average Joe might perform in his average way without preparation.  Everyone would probably benefit from stretching, but is it plausible that the higher Dex people get greater benefit from doing so?  If so, then without stretching they will be performing below their nominal ability.  And if a flat-footed character in fact hasn't had time to make any significant movement then they'll be no better off than someone just walking around.

Regardless, it is all beside the point.  The below/above 10 is inconsistent with your own premises about how such things work, but do you think you should examine the peer-reviewed literature to justify your views?  



> So no, you don't actually subscribe to this theory...but you think it's somehow productive to try and invent a theory?



I didn't say whether or not I subscribed to that particular idea, I was suggesting it was possible.  There isn't one right way to imagine how the rules interact with the setting, although there may be wrong ways.  If even one sufficient explanation exists, than a rule isn't necessarily ridiculous.  I'm advocating the idea that sometimes a rule which seems ridiculous is waiting for the perspective in which it all makes sense.  This requires that one is willing to examine alternate perspectives.  The classic argument about what hit points represent is just such a discussion, and for some players realizing that hit point loss can be something besides "every hit is an axe buried in the flesh" is an incredibly freeing idea!



> I don't think anyone here has said the b/a 10 rules was "wrong."  The  question is whether it improves the game given that it is internally  inconsistent.  I think you're also blending the concepts of  discontinuity with internally consistency.  The two are separate  concepts and not mutually exclusive. I would argue that leveling up in  D&D is a discontinous event...but it is implemented in an internally  consistent method.
> 
> My question with b/a 10 is _why_ is it implemented in this fashion?  This is a question of my trying to understand how to _view_ the rules before I endeaver to change them.



I think you're moving the goalposts of the argument a bit here, given that you said the b/a 10 rules were illogical and should be changed.  If that isn't what you mean by "wrong", what the heck is?  And as before, I believe your assertion that the rules are internally inconsistent rests not on the rules themselves, but on your unstated premise of how Dexterity should work.  If my justification for the b/a 10 rules were satisfying to someone, why must they be compelled to think that rule is poor?  Perhaps an alternate perspective would lead to superior rules, and I have no objection to that search.

As for why the rules exist as they do, that is an independently interesting question, and it can certainly give guidance on how to view the system.  However, if the designers didn't have a compelling why, that doesn't mean such a why doesn't exist.  And if they did have a compelling why, we aren't required to adopt it, although in most cases it would probably be a good idea.

Finally, I did not confuse discontinuity with internal consistency, although I did fail to specify what specifically I was referring to.  In this case, it was your statement that "There is a straight line improvement in armor class from a Dex of 3 up until infinity. The idea that D&D wanted a score of 10 to be neither help nor hindrance in face to face fighting doesn't change the fact that your always more able to dodge an attack the higher your Dex bonus is."  I took that to mean you found the change in behavior at 10 to be objectionable even though Dex itself usually leads to linear improvements.  My intent was to point out that the linear progression in Dex does not require things affected by Dex to change linearly, and that even we considered Dexterity to change continuously, points where things it affects change discontinuously are indeed possible and common.  In short, the change in behavior at 10 isn't necessarily illogical.



> I'll offer another approach.  Why not acknowledge that no game is 100% perfect and decide whether this is an instance where the designers may have let one slip through the cracks?   Why not ask:
> 1) Was this inconsistency intended?
> 2) What does it facilitate?
> 3) Is the game improved by tweaking it?
> ...



Those are fine guidelines, and indeed I am an inveterate rules tinkerer.  And I attempt to invent flavor/justifications to match rules.  And I gloss over conceits when I can't find decent alternatives.  None of these approaches is necessarily more productive, and in my opinion there is often feedback between them.  (I design a mechanic without any flavor, then figure out a post hoc justification.  It fits OK, but I can tweak the mechanic a little bit to fit even better, and so on.)   This has nothing to do with emotional attachments to rules or fooling myself about them.  To me, perfect (or "best-adapted") rules in a game marry game mechanics to the reality of the setting in a coherent fashion.  That means there are a lot of knobs I can turn to achieve this nirvana: Change the mechanics, change the setting, or change how I interpret their interaction.  Why should that last option be invalid?  This is the "There is no spoon" of game design: sometimes it is not the rules which bend, it is only myself.

So with respect (and admiration for some of your suggested changes), the inconsistent logic is yours: by pervasively assuming a view of the rules with which the rules are inconsistent, and then concluding that the rules themselves are inconsistent, you have begged the question.

Happy gaming.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 17, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> And, that's fine if you House Rule it that way, but what you're saying here isn't the printed rule, is it.




I house rule a lot of things, but this is not one of them.



> The RAW is clear that anyone who acts after others in the first round is flat-footed until he finally acts.




Yes, it is and that's exactly how I read it.  However, I don't arbitrarily post-pone 'the first round'.



> But, if you read the Flat-Footed rule, it's not about perceived danger.  It's about who acts first in the first round.




Yes, exactly.  So, if the character has acted, then we agree that he is not flat footed, right?



> The assassin is not detected and thus has Surprise.  He gets a Surprise action then nish is thrown for the regular combat round.
> 
> Characters are all flat-footed until they act.




That's what I just said.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 17, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> But first, I don't get emotionally attached to the rules as written, but I also acknowledge that RPG's are never going to be 100% perfect for everyone.




No disagreement there.  I probably have one of the more extensive house rule documents on the forum.  There are probably only 3-4 active posters with a homebrew system as far diverged from RAW as I have.



> My point which may have been unclear, is that RAW aren't based on reality and if applied blindly, lead to ridiculous situations.




This is certainly true, and I've seen the FF rule applied blindly quite a bit.  But the point I'm trying to make is that the rule doesn't require you to apply it blindly.  If you apply it consistantly, it's actually a very sensible and pretty well-thought out rule.  The problem is that a lot of DMs think that they are applying it consistantly, when in fact they are applying it very arbitrarily.  What I have been describing in this thread is how to apply the rule in a consistant fashion.

Where you see DMs applying the rule in an arbitrary fashion is when they decide to throw the initiative in an arbitrary fashion.  The rule makes no sense whatever if you decide to delay the throwing of initiative in to some arbitrary point after the encounter begins.  If the DM decides for whatever reason to delay initiative after the encounter has begun, then it will as you have observed lead to nonsense.  If on the other hand, you apply initiative consistantly, then plausiblity of the rule and what it is trying to describe becomes clear.



> You probably didn't see this yet...or at all, but as I said to Water Bob, I wouldn't advocate using a FF rule in ALL combat situations.




Not only do I apply it in all combat situations, but I apply it to all encounters.  That's the critical thing here.  Most encounters in D&D are assumed to begin with either surprise, or else immediate hostility by both parties.  In these situations the rule works well, I think you will agree.  Where the problem gets is with DMs who begin to construct encounters in a more complicated way where hostility doesn't immediately occur on the first round of the encounter, or may not even necessarily occur at all.  These DMs get themselves in to narrating situations that as you have pointed out make no sense at all by failing to, essentially, follow the rules.  The delay the initiative until they can no longer delay it, and ignore the fact that they have delayed the initiative roll and ignore also that both parties at this point have taken actions in the encounter.

What this leads to in my experience is a lot of disfunctional behavior on the part of the players who fear that every encounter is only one declaration away by the DM from turning into an ambush, and so do everything in their part to preempt the DM.  It's almost like playing a game of 'pounce' and trying to be the first one to declare, "I attack."  The natural result is a system that not only has departed from the intent of the RAW, which is to be a simulation of combat, but which as a result of that departure has forced the players into a hack-n-slash out of self-defense.  I mean, it's like playing an old west game where whoever reached for their gun first was always faster on the draw.  It's not only a violation logic, but of the genera you are supposedly emmulating.

And once again, this problem is not a result of following the RAW too closely, but of not following it closely enough.  The are breaking the rules, then blaming the rules for the results of their actions.



> Oddly enough, our real concern revolved around the associated "no dex bonus" associated with being FF'ed.  He and I both agree the No Dex Bonus rule is inconsistent and I'm trying to understand why this rule is set up like this before we go permanently changing it.




I'm not sure that it is inconsistant, and to the extent that it is inconsistant I know why it is inconsistant.  Start from the fluff and work backwards.  What does 'flat-footed' mean in terms of the fluff?  Well, it conjures up an image of someone who has been caught by surprise sufficiently that they haven't been able to move or take a defensive action of any sort.  This happens either because they were taken fully by surprise, or partly by surprise and they reacted too slowly to the danger.   So the idea here is that you and a group of goblins tumble into a clearing, you have no surprise round (either because everyone was surprised or no one was), and the guys who lose the initiative in that first round are the ones who were looking the other way at the time, and who jump at the noise, turn around and blink, and otherwise don't do what they need to do to.  In this situation, they are considered to be basically immobile, and maybe they even get hit before they fully turn around and are aware of the danger.

Earlier you said that someone spends six seconds charging across the gladiatorial arena and the target illogically doesn't react.  But in 3e D&D the whole of the round is six seconds long, with the important events being abstracted to have occurred in a somewhat linear fashion.  This does not mean that nothing happens in the first seconds of the round.  The round isn't understood to mean, "I do something for six seconds while everyone else does nothing, then the next person does something for six seconds, and then the next person on their turn does something for six seconds."  This would result in a round that is two minutes long.  Rather, things can actually happen in the first second or even first moment of a round.  When you lose initiative in a meeting situation where both sides are attacking while the other side is still 'flat footed', the ones that have good initiative are attacking in the first 3/10ths of a second or so of the round.  The guy that is still flat footed, may or may not have begun whatever action that the player will delclare when we get to his turn, but its entirely possible that he's been hit in the back by an opponent he has not yet even seen clearly.

You seem to feel that perfect consistancy means not denying the Dex bonus.  I disagree.  It doesn't matter how fast you are, if you aren't moving, then your speed is not yet of use to you.  I feel that perfect consistancy would be to treat flat-footed all as basically immobile targets having DEX 0 rather DEX 10.  Consistancy may not be realism, but that would be consistant.  Before this would be reasonable though, D&D would have to move to a resulution system where attacks were made against opposed rules (active defense), and that combat would be much more dangerous than D&D normally tolerates.  The only reason that D&D applies the DEX bonus to low Dex characters but not to high DEX ones is that its trying to make sure having a low DEX sucks.  The game says, "In this flat-footed situation high DEX is no help (beyond its ability to keep you out of the situation in the first place!), but low dex is still bad."  The current system is a comprimise between realism and gamability.  Not losing DEX at all when flat-footed is not to my mind more realistic.  That's why 'Uncanny Dodge' carries a supernatural connotation, you are reacting to danger that you couldn't yet know is there.  That goblin jumps out in a clearing while you are looking the other way and hurls a spear at you before you've even seen the spear and while you are just now thinking, "Goblins?!? I better draw my sword!", and yet, you uncannily sense the attack and dodge it anyway.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> But the point I'm trying to make is that the rule doesn't require you to apply it blindly.



  Actually it does.  What it seems you're really trying to convey is that you're starting the rule before it will have any significance.  There's no pointin arguing whether that's right or wrong...but ask yourself why the construct of FF was introduced in d20?  What were they trying to enable with this mechanic and are your decisions about when to start rolling initiative in concert with the intended mechanic or do they undermine it?  I am not suggesting one or the other, just posing the question.



> If you apply it consistantly, it's actually a very sensible and pretty well-thought out rule.



  I would disagree, but that's not worth debating...or I guess I'll debate that later in this post.  



> The problem is that a lot of DMs think that they are applying it consistantly, when in fact they are applying it very arbitrarily.



  The rule is black and white.  Everyone is FF until they act.  The only variable is when you consider them to have acted.  I hope you're not suggesting that when people decide to roll initiatve at point A versus point B, they are using the FF rule arbitrarily?



> Where you see DMs applying the rule in an arbitrary fashion is when they decide to throw the initiative in an arbitrary fashion.



  Ah...so you are trying to conflate issues. When you throw initiative it is wholly independent to a decision as to whether the FF rule applies.  The game doesn't offer you a decision on whether FF applies.  The RAW simply tell you _when_ it applies.   I think it hampers the discussion to roll FF and Initiative into one decision.   Consider this...the _decision_ when to roll for initiative is _always _arbitrary.  



> The rule makes no sense whatever if you decide to delay the throwing of initiative in to some arbitrary point after the encounter begins.



.  Bingo.   Since numerous people in this forum can't seem to agree when it's time to roll dice....the  FF rule, which depends on such a decision, is poorly conceived.  

Let me quote you the d20 Hypertext language on Initiative:

"At the start of a *battle*, each combatant makes an initiative check."​Emphasis added.

Now, if you want to interpret "battle" as two people 1000 yards apart who can see each other but haven't even decided if the other side is hostile...that's your perrogative.  But I would argue that a DM who elects to start the "battle" when one side declares the intent to injure the other and then moves to do so...is not being illogical.



> If the DM decides for whatever reason to delay initiative after the encounter has begun, then it will as you have observed lead to nonsense.



 Then we are in full agreement about the FF rule...we may just disagree on when it's appropriate to _roll_ initiative.  I'm not motivated nor interested in debating the appropriate time to roll initiative.  To each his own.



> Not only do I apply it in all combat situations, but I apply it to all encounters.



 ...which would be a blind application of the rule, but technically called for by the RAW.



> These DMs get themselves in to narrating situations that as you have pointed out make no sense at all by failing to, essentially, follow the rules.



  My preference would be to examine the rule.  The rules aren't based on reality...so our penchant for concocting believable encounters experiences friction when trying to adhere to the rules.  

Let's look at prime example:



> But in 3e D&D the whole of the round is six seconds long, with the important events being abstracted to have occurred in a somewhat linear fashion.




So on one hand, d20 tells us the entire round is six seconds i.e., everyone's actions have been resolve in six seconds, yet on the other hand, we fully resolve one creature's acts before we allow anyone with a lower initiative to act, or even react.   So what is it...is everyone acting simulatneously, in which case we should be able to move back as someone moves forward, or do we potentially have an infinite number of people who's actions progress and are completely resolved in a linear fashion, all acting within 6 seconds? And do you really think once a fight breaks out, everyone acts in the same order for the entire battle?

It's almost pure nonsense from a reality perspective.  There is nobody on the planet who can move 20 feet in full plate mail on foot before an olympic runner could move 10 feet unarmored.  I'm not taking about the first round...Im' talking about in the middle of any combat round.  And yet, this is what the combat system allows.  But we fully accepted it as a necessary evil in order to play the game.

The point I'm trying to make is that is that an illogical or unreal rule isn't a deal breaker so long as the parties involved agree that it is necessary for a better game.  But it's important to understand _why_ any particular rule might be set up so that in changing it, you don't break other things.



> And once again, this problem is not a result of following the RAW too closely, but of not following it closely enough.



  I would argue that you're on shaky ground if you consistently think the fault lies with the players.  If two rationale minds can disagree on how a rule is applied or is to be interpreted...then the rule is poorly written.  In the U.S. legal system such a law is considered unconstitutional and a court of a law will require that it be stricken.  Fortunately for RPG's, there is no such requirement or we would have nothing to play!



> Start from the fluff and work backwards.



 Ha.  That's signature worthy.



> Well, it conjures up an image of someone who has been caught by surprise sufficiently that they haven't been able to move or take a defensive action of any sort.



  Yup. And that would mean they couldn't even raise a shield or a buckler, to protect themselves...but we'll just ignore that won't we? 

Just for laughs...consider that when caught with no dex bonus, you still get the benefit of Two-Weapon Defense, a dexterity based benefit...nevermind that you supposedly can't act.




> Earlier you said that someone spends six seconds charging across the gladiatorial arena and the target illogically doesn't react...



  Honestly, I'm not trying to change how the combat round works.  I'm pointing out that it's not based on reality.  It's mechanic which allows the game to abstract combat sufficiently so that people can simulate it in the context of a dice game played with pen and paper.  There is really no need to bend oneself in a pretzel to imagine all these scenarios where it really makes sense.  If such an endeaver helps you as an individual...more power to you...but it's not a compelling rationale for a discussion.



> You seem to feel that perfect consistancy means not denying the Dex bonus.



  I don't feel that way at all.  I feel an "internal" consistency is when the rules as written don't lead to contradictory results.  I'm not even sure what a "perfect" consistency means in this context. 

If your Dex modifiers is based on your ability to "react" per the RAW...then in situations where you can't react....everyone has the _same_ modifier.  Like wise, if you can't react, then you couldn't lift a shield to block an attack or two attacks or even 10 attacks from all sides, as would be possible under the RAW.  And you certainly couldn't use your weapons to give you two weapon defense bonus....because you can't "react."  It's a black and white contradiction.  

Either you can't "react" or you can react and it's just a question of how much?   And if it's a question of much you can react, there is nothing in the rules which explains why those with a 10 are better than 8, but those with a 12 aren't better than a 10.  Certainly people an make up all kinds of half backed explanations about how Dexterity works, but the RAW don't support any of it.



> It doesn't matter how fast you are, if you aren't moving, then your speed is not yet of use to you.



  That's true.  But if you've been running down the hall and a creature jumps out at you...RAW say you are FF.  Even if you keep running, you're FF'd.  Make sense?  No.  

Again, let's ignore the FF'd rule and just talk about the no Dex Bonus rule...because that's where the issue lies.  We already agree on the fundamentals of the FF rule.   There are many situations where "no dex bonus" is allowed, but the character is moving.  Either they are climbing a wall, walking a tight rope, or in a Run action.  If two people were running, would you agree that the quicker person would be better at avoiding attacks?  Again, I'm not talking about being FF'd, I'm talking about two characters being denied the Dex Bonus because they are in the Run state.



> I feel that perfect consistancy would be to treat flat-footed all as basically immobile targets having DEX 0 rather DEX 10.



 If you mean to apply that to the No Dex Bonus rule...then technically, yes.  I would agree that that would be a consistent treatment of Dexterity in situations where "nobody can react."  You and I are on the same page about what it means to be internally consistent...given how the game defined the mechanics.  It's not realism...it's how the game itself has defined the mechanics at work.  Do I think this is the best solution for the game?  I don't know.  I'm still trying to find out if there is a dependent reason why things work this way.



> Before this would be reasonable though, D&D would have to move to a resulution system



  If by "reasonable" you mean playable or managable, then once again, you're groking prefectly.  The game's own mechancis are what create this _internal _inconsistency.  As to the solution...I don't specifically know what will solve it until I figure out _why_ it's set up this way.   If there _is _a reason, then in my opinion, a solution would have to consider the reason.  




> The only reason that D&D applies the DEX bonus to low Dex characters but not to high DEX ones is that its trying to make sure having a low DEX sucks.



  I don't think that's it because it's an over simplication of the resultant problem.



> The game says, "In this flat-footed situation high DEX is no help (beyond its ability to keep you out of the situation in the first place!), but low dex is still bad."



 I believe the implications are a bit more complex.   Once again, it's important to separate the FF rule from its "no dex bonus" implications.  The FF rule is most likely an attempt to capture an occurance in real life which lies between total suprise and total anticipation.   Second, it opens up a lot of design space in the game for Rogues/Barbs/Monks and feats which address Initiative rolls by way of feats.

The no dex bonus rule is pretty straight forward in concept:  If you aren't aware you are being attacked or you can't do anything about it...your ability to avoid attacks by way of Dex should be negated.  Only they couldn't eliminate the "modifier" because that would _help_ people with low scores.  So the simpliest thing to do is elminate the "bonus" side of the modifier.  While it doesn't make sense to squash everyone down to a 10 Dex...it probably seemed a greater evil to bring low dex people UP to a 10 Dex.

Let me put it another way.   It's not surprising that the idea of eliminating the "bonus" side of AC improvement made perfect sense to the players if you couldn't see an attack.  It's also not surprising that players _don't _stop to think that a 10 Dex is still getting a bonus when compared to an 8 Dex...and that Dex bonus can only be a result fof "reacting" to the threat.



> The current system is a comprimise between realism and gamability. Not losing DEX *at all *when flat-footed is not to my mind more realistic.



  I completely agree, but "realism" is not a leg to stand on in this game.  I fully understand it is human nature that we have at least some anchor point in realism to improve the immersive quality of a game.  But it is entirely subjective whether any given rule adds to realism or detracts from it.  Doing it because it is more "real" is just not a compelling argument or defense for an RPG which is riddled with unrealisms.



> That's why 'Uncanny Dodge' carries a supernatural connotation, you are reacting to danger that you couldn't yet know is there. [/qutoe I have no problem with Uncanny Dodge or how it is presented in the game.  It's simply a mechanic to facilitate the game.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 18, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I house rule a lot of things, but this is not one of them.




Well, I'm confused, then, because you said...




> Originally Posted by *Celebrim*
> 
> 
> _One thing I don't like is that many DMs tend to read this rule as if no meeting engagement is possible in D&D. They tend to apply this rule as if every encounter is an ambush. If the character has prepared himself for combat with a potential threat he has percieved, even if you haven't rolled for initiative yet, then he's not flatfooted._






And, according to the rules, a character who has prepared himself for combat with a potential thread he has perceived is still flat-footed until he gets to act in the first round.

In the above quote, you're saying that, regardless of initiative, a character can be considered not flat-footed.  If that's true, I'd sure like you to show me that in the rules.

...Which is why I said you must be House Ruling this.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Actually it does.  What it seems you're really trying to convey is that you're starting the rule before it will have any significance.




Huh?  No, I'm trying to convey that if you start the rule AFTER it starts to have significance, then you get illogical results.



> There's no pointin arguing whether that's right or wrong...but ask yourself why the construct of FF was introduced in d20?  What were they trying to enable with this mechanic and are your decisions about when to start rolling initiative in concert with the intended mechanic or do they undermine it?  I am not suggesting one or the other, just posing the question.




They are trying to model a situation where one side is acting before the other is ready.  My interpretation does not undermine this.  I merely suggest that not every encounter is an ambush.



> The rule is black and white.  Everyone is FF until they act.  The only variable is when you consider them to have acted.  I hope you're not suggesting that when people decide to roll initiatve at point A versus point B, they are using the FF rule arbitrarily?




I don't know what you hope or not, but that's what I'm suggesting.  Two individuals encounter each other.  Roll initiative.  If you delay that action, then you are being wholly arbitrary and you'll occassionally get wacky results.




> Ah...so you are trying to conflate issues. When you throw initiative it is wholly independent to a decision as to whether the FF rule applies.




No, they are entirely the same.  When you throw initiative entirely determines whether the FF rule applies, because as you say, the game doesn't offer a decision over whether it applies but it does tell you _when_ it applies.  When a DM arbitrarily decides the when, then he's arbitrarily applying the FF rule as well.



> Consider this...the _decision_ when to roll for initiative is _always _arbitrary.




No it's not.  You roll initiative whenever two groups encounter each other.  For various reasons, DM's decide not to do this.  They may decide that they don't want to give away metagame information (one side intends to attack, but the players aren't supposed to know that), or they may decide that they don't want to bias the players toward an expectation of combat that might not be real, or they may decide that combat is so remotely unlikely that there is no need to waste time rolling for initiative.  And all that is well and good, but anything that happens later in your game shouldn't depend on whether or not you decided to arbitrarily apply the rules at an earlier point.



> Bingo.   Since numerous people in this forum can't seem to agree when it's time to roll dice....the  FF rule, which depends on such a decision, is poorly conceived.




Numerous people can't agree on many different things.  That doesn't mean that the problem lies with the rule.  The best I can say is that the rule is poorly explained because the designers had expectations of simplistic hack-n-slash.  



> Let me quote you the d20 Hypertext language on Initiative:
> 
> "At the start of a *battle*, each combatant makes an initiative check."​Emphasis added.
> 
> Now, if you want to interpret "battle" as two people 1000 yards apart who can see each other but haven't even decided if the other side is hostile...that's your perrogative.  But I would argue that a DM who elects to start the "battle" when one side declares the intent to injure the other and then moves to do so...is not being illogical.




No, but they are being arbitrary.  It's pretty easy to show that.  'Intent to injure the other' and 'moves to do so' are very expansive categories.   Suppose a player says, "I want to quafe a potion of heroism."  Isn't that part of the battle?  Suppose we roll for initiative and one character says, "I want to quafe a potion of bull strength." and another says, "I want to run and leap behind the low stone wall." and another says, "I want to cast Prayer.", and another says, "I take a full round action to line up by shot.", and another says, "I take a double move to get around the opponents line.", and another says, "I cast invisibility.", and another says, "I want to ready my longspear to recieve a charge.", and another says, "I want to take a defensive stance and move at half speed toward the enemy.", and another says, "I want to use my Bard's Inspire Heroism ability."  Should after this the DM say, "Well, I guess we should roll for initiative again, because no one actually attacked."?  At the end of the round, everyone has already acted; are you suggesting that the battle hasn't already started at this point?

Suppose to lines of men form shield walls and begin advancing at each other across an open field.  Does the battle not begin until they reach each other?

Suppose the horse mounted highwaymen from the earlier example have every intention of launching an attack as soon as they are in range and are trying not to alarm the party by a swift and agressive approach.  Has the battle not begun just because the highwaymen are trying unsuccessfully to hide their intention to attack?

Look at your own example of the two gladiators.  You say the battle doesn't begin until the gates open, to which I replied, what if I try to make the battle begin before the gates open?  What if I hurl taunts to try to intimidate my foe?  What if I actually have some spell-like ability I can cast on the target through the gates?  What if I fling a stone at him?  Hasn't the battle therefore begun at that point because one side has taken an action?  Well, if that is true, hasn't the battle also already begun if both sides take defensive actions?



> Then we are in full agreement about the FF rule...we may just disagree on when it's appropriate to _roll_ initiative.  I'm not motivated nor interested in debating the appropriate time to roll initiative.




Then you are not really interested in debating the most relevant part of the FF rule.



> So on one hand, d20 tells us the entire round is six seconds i.e., everyone's actions have been resolve in six seconds, yet on the other hand, we fully resolve one creature's acts before we allow anyone with a lower initiative to act, or even react.   So what is it...is everyone acting simulatneously, in which case we should be able to move back as someone moves forward, or do we potentially have an infinite number of people who's actions progress and are completely resolved in a linear fashion, all acting within 6 seconds? And do you really think once a fight breaks out, everyone acts in the same order for the entire battle?




So, you aren't interested in debating when to throw initiative if you want the FF rule to obtain plausible results, but you are interested in initiating a 'debate' about whether turn based combat is realistic?  I put debate in scare quotes, because that's not going to be much of a debate.  I agree, abstract turn based combat is inherently unrealistic.  Even back in 1e, when when all actions had to be declared simultaneously and were resolved simultaneously, it was still inherently unrealistic.



> The point I'm trying to make is that is that an illogical or unreal rule isn't a deal breaker so long as the parties involved agree that it is necessary for a better game.  But it's important to understand _why_ any particular rule might be set up so that in changing it, you don't break other things.




And here I will fall on hubris; I'm pretty confident of my ability to see how the parts fit together.  That's why so many changes to the rules were required once I started changing a few.  However, this is one area where I didn't have to touch the rules to achieve what I wanted.  I just had to realize that they assumed a consistant application of initiative checks, and that when I wanted to get away from that for whatever reason, that I was 'breaking the rules' and needed to back up and treat every situation as if initiative was rolled in the first round of the encounter.



> In the U.S. legal system such a law is considered unconstitutional and a court of a law will require that it be stricken.




You know, the US Supreme court itself often interprets the law in two different ways.  Fortunately for our government, there is no requirement that there be universal agreement, or we'd have no laws.



> Yup. And that would mean they couldn't even raise a shield or a buckler, to protect themselves...but we'll just ignore that won't we?




No, I think the intention, right or wrong, is that if you have 8 square feet of shield on one side of you, it still interferes with an attackers ability to hit you, even if you aren't using it to actively defend yourself.  The real complaint I would have is that the shield protects you the same whether you are passively using it as cover or actively using it to parry and block attacks.  I've partially addressed that under my rules, but even if we had a rules system where there is both passive and active defense a shield could conceivably add to your passive defense.  I don't see anything inherently dumb in that.



> Honestly, I'm not trying to change how the combat round works.  I'm pointing out that it's not based on reality.




First of all, pet peeve here, but in proper English something 'based on reality' is not real.  When something is 'based on a true story' it means, 'this is not a true story'.  So to say that something is 'not based on reality' means that it is not not real, or that it is true.   Second of all, D&D combat is based on reality.  Sure, it's not perfectly realistic, but neither is it intended to be wholly fantastic.  There is intended to be a large amount of casual realism and plausibility about the game system to encourage suspension of disbelief and 'common sense' interaction with the game environment.  Thirdly, to the extent that you are just saying that the game system is merely based on reality, I don't think you are making a very important point.  Everyone agrees that D&D takes a large number of liberties with reality.  

What I am trying to say is that the flat footed rule, even though it takes liberties with reality, does not lead to nearly as impluasible results as you suggest provided that you apply it consistently.   If you apply it inconsistently, namely, "The battle begins, here, or there, or maybe here if I decide so, but not necessarily you know when the enemies make contact with each other because that would be crazy.  Maybe I'll decide the battle begins a couple rounds after that or maybe a couple of minutes, I'm not sure, and I'm not saying when until I do and you won't be able to predict that. Nor am I going to let you take an action until I say you can take an action, because you know, only the actions that I think should count as actions actually do."

The DM that treats the rule as above, is adding problems to the system that aren't found within it.



> That's true.  But if you've been running down the hall and a creature jumps out at you...RAW say you are FF.  Even if you keep running, you're FF'd.  Make sense?  No.




It makes perfect sense to me.  You didn't know there was a creature there.  Now it is.  You might not have time to alter your course of action - in this case running - to account for the sudden appearance of the creature.  And if you don't, then you are flatfooted with respect to that creature.  The initiative check arbitrates between those two possibilities.

Now, on the other hand, if the creature jumps out 100 yards away from you, wins initiative and cranks a heavy crossbow, and on your turn you keep running, then you are now longer flat footed because you have had time to consider the creature in your future plans. 

And the DM who said, well the battle hasn't already started because no one has attacked so we won't roll initiative until the creature fires, and that point you may or may not be flat footed even though you've had 6 seconds to prepare yourself is being... well, IMO he's being a jerk and a poor DM.  Of course, I don't know of DM's that actually do that in such a clear cut case, but I have heard of some who refuse to roll initiative in conceptually similar situations - like the above scenario with the horse mounted bandits.  I won't speculate on why they do that, so let's just generously grant that they may be confused.



> There are many situations where "no dex bonus" is allowed, but the character is moving.  Either they are climbing a wall, walking a tight rope, or in a Run action.  If two people were running, would you agree that the quicker person would be better at avoiding attacks?  Again, I'm not talking about being FF'd, I'm talking about two characters being denied the Dex Bonus because they are in the Run state.




Technically, the game only denies you a dex bonus if you are unskilled at the activity you are partaking in.  If you are skilled, then you aren't denied your Dex bonus.  If two people are running, for small differences in speed there is probably no difference in their ability to avoid attacks.  In know that in football (the gridiron variaty), the ability to be illusive is only partly related to straight line speed and many of the players who have demonstrated the highest skill in evasion weren't in fact particularly fast.  I would presume that they had special skill in running while being evasive, which in D&D I would model with the Run feat.

Whether a feat is the best way to model this is a wholly different question than whether or not is reasonable to say, "If you are dexterous, you must retain that same advantage regardless of your experience in the task you are pursuing."  Obviously, a high dex person maintains some natural advantage (a better untrained balance skill check, for instance), but D&D chooses to say that training and experience in the activity is far more important in many ways than native ability.  That doesn't to me seem to be obviously wrong.



> The no dex bonus rule is pretty straight forward in concept:  If you aren't aware you are being attacked or you can't do anything about it...your ability to avoid attacks by way of Dex should be negated.  Only they couldn't eliminate the "modifier" because that would _help_ people with low scores.  So the simpliest thing to do is elminate the "bonus" side of the modifier.  While it doesn't make sense to squash everyone down to a 10 Dex...it probably seemed a greater evil to bring low dex people UP to a 10 Dex.




I agree.  And it probably seemed an even greater evil to define down to 0 Dex, because that would have raised the argument with some rules lawyerish type that if they effectively had 0 Dex, then they technically ought to be immobile and hense helpless.  Likewise, the term of art, 'denied your Dex bonus' is such a useful one for encapsulating when certain effects like sneak attack are triggered, that it seemed a bigger problem to shatter this unified mechanic than retain the small loss of consistancy.  It was a case of unintended side effects.  Different langauge would have resulted in a different range of situations in which sneak attack and other mechanics would apply, which would have forced rebalancing the other ways of inflicting those other conditions.  And also I imagine that they didn't want to heighten D&D's existing problem with the extreme advantage that the side that wins initiative has in combat (which is unrelated to FF, and has more to do with the number of attacks each side has made in the middle of round N).

There could be some clean up here that would eventually elimenate the inconsistancy, but it would be a large amount of work for what I would argue has a very small impact on the game.  Misapplying the FF rule by arbitrary application of initiative checks however has a huge impact on the game and the metagame, and I believe that it unnecessarily drags the game toward 'hack-n-slash' because it leaves the players feeling that the DM can spring an ambush on them at any time - even if the see it coming - and there is nothing that they can do about it except instantly and unhesitantingly attack.   If you misinterpretation of the rules is leading to a game were negotiation, parlay, and NPC interaction is suppressed because the PC's are fearing (rightly) the DM metagaming against them, then you have a far more serious problem than the slight inconsistancy of low Dex being punished more than might be strictly fair (if that is what is going on).


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> And, according to the rules, a character who has prepared himself for combat with a potential thread he has perceived is still flat-footed until he gets to act in the first round.




That's internally nonsense.  In the first part of the sentence you say, "a character who has prepared himself with a potential thread he has perceived", which means that character has taken an action.  When did he take that action?  In the prior round!  So, how you can you claim that some later round is the 'first round', if actions have already been taken in prior round?  You are trying to say that the character exists in a state where he is both aware of the threat and has had time to act in response to it, and also he exists in a state where has not had time to act in response to it.  That's a contridiction.

The rules are very explicit.  If you have had time to act, you are not flatfooted.



> In the above quote, you're saying that, regardless of initiative, a character can be considered not flat-footed.  If that's true, I'd sure like you to show me that in the rules.




You just showed yourself.  The rules say that when a character has acted, then he is not flat-footed.  And clearly the character in the example has acted after percieving a potential threat, and therefore clearly has had time to act, and therefore clearly his place in the initiative order has already come up so that he could act.  If his turn in the initiative order has not already come up, then how could he have acted?

What you are trying to say is that a character's actions don't count as actions unless you as the DM deem that some mystical point has passed which only you are in control of and you allow the player to roll for initiative.



> ...Which is why I said you must be House Ruling this.




No, I'm not.  I'm being a such a stickler for the rules here that it seems like house ruling to you, much as someone who was a real stickler for the 1e rules - things like simultaneous secret declarations of intent, to AC vs. weapon modifiers, weapon reach vs. initiative, and so forth - might have seemed as if they had wierd house rules to someone who played in a more casual manner.  My guess is that at your table you call initiative at various points for various cinematic and personal reasons and reasons of convienence, and doing that would be a house rule.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 18, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> That's internally nonsense. In the first part of the sentence you say, "a character who has prepared himself with a potential thread he has perceived", which means that character has taken an action. When did he take that action? In the prior round!




I used that wording ("a character who has prepared himself with a potential thread he has perceived") because you had said it and to point out that actions before the combat starts do not count.



> When did he take that action? In the prior round!




See...that's ridiculous to say because all characters are taking actions prior to the round. If we went by what you said, then no character, ever, would be flat-footed.



Player: I'm going to head over to the trader. I need to see if I can obtain a new shield.

GM: Fine. You taking the shortcut through the ally again?

Player: Yes. I know it's late and that shortcut takes me through the maul, but I'll be on the look out for suspicious thugs.

GM: Well, it is, in deed, late. Dusk. And, about mid-way through the ally, a thug does step out into your way. He's brandishing a stiletto in his hand, blade bare. "Hold it there, laddy," he snears at you, "where ye be running off too this fine night?"

Player: I'm not messing around. I pull my dagger and take a swipe at him.

GM: OK, roll nish.

Player: I got a 14.

GM: The thug rolled 18. He attacks first, and you're flat-footed. As soon as he sees your arm dart to your weapon's handle, he flashes his stilletto right towards your face!

Player: Wait a minute....I can't be flat-footed because I had an action right before the combat started.

GM: You're always doing something right before the combat starts. That doesn't count. You're flat-footed until you act within the combat round.

Player: Whatttt????



See....your argument about being flat-footed doesn't hold water when compared to the rule as written. 

Again, if you House Ruled this, that's fine. It's your game. But don't delude yourself that you're playing this by the book. You're not.


On page 133 of the 3.5 PHB, under "How Combat Works", what does it say? The first bullet point says: Each combatant starts out flat-footed.

That means, when you start combat, every character is considered flat-footed. That doesn't mean, as you say, that a character can do something prior to the combat in order to be considered not flat-footed.

As it says on pg. 133, first Surprise is considered, then nish is rolled, then characters act in nish order. And, all characters remain flat-footed until they act.

And, remember, that Surprise cannot happen if both sides of the combat are aware of each other--so Surprise prolly won't happen that often (mostly ambush situations).  Therefore (and accoriding to pg. 133), Combat starts on either the Surprise round or when initiative is thrown.  That's the "magical point", as you say, when combat begins, according to the rules.






> I'm being a such a stickler for the rules here that it seems like house ruling to you, much as someone who was a real stickler for the 1e rules - things like simultaneous secret declarations of intent, to AC vs. weapon modifiers, weapon reach vs. initiative, and so forth - might have seemed as if they had wierd house rules to someone who played in a more casual manner.




I think you need to go back and read the rule!  You've got it wrong, and you're playing using a false assumption about the rule. 


Now, if you like the way you play the rule, that's great. More power to ya. Just know that you've House Ruled it. You're not playing RAW.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> See...that's ridiculous to say because all characters are taking actions prior to the round.  *If we went by what you said, then no character, ever, would be flat-footed*.



 - emphasis added

I'm going to try to keep my response short, but this is the heart of where you are going wrong.  

All characters take actions all the time; I agree.  That's trivially true.  It does not follow that any action taken stops you from being flat-footed.

But it does follow that any action taken after you are aware of an enemy does stop you from being flatfooted, because, that's literally the rules.

We start counting the rounds at the point the two characters become aware of each other.  

We'll consider why in your example, because it's a pretty unambigious and clear cut case:



> Player:  I'm going to head over to the trader.  I need to see if I can obtain a new shield.
> 
> GM:  Fine.  You taking the shortcut through the ally again?
> 
> ...




Alright, so, you've already departed from the rules so don't be surprised if the rules stop making sense from here on out.  I don't really know what is going on in your scenario because you've suspended the rules.  

The first thing that should happen here is that there should be at least one and perhaps two opposed rolls between the two sides that have just encountered each other.  First, there should be the NPC's hide roll opposed by the PC's spot roll to determine whether the NPC achieves surprise.  If he doesn't achieve surprise, then the he doesn't necesarily get to act first.  Secondly, there could have concievably been a hide/move siliently roll by the NPC's spot/listen to see if the PC ambushed the ambusher!  Maybe the ambusher had been distracted or dozed off a bit when the PC entered the ally and failed to notice him the in the gloom.  You are apparantly running this whole show by arbitrary fiat, so its no wonder that you feel entitled to continue to do so.  And not to put too fine a point on it, but if the above example is how you run your game, you are probably in fact cheating.

Thirdly, assuming the PC isn't surprised, why didn't you roll initiative at this point?  This is an obvious combat situation with the knives out?  What's your excuse? Why have you automaticly assumed that the NPC got the drop on the PC and that he gets to act first?  It's almost like you are being vague and arbitrary in the application of your rules to gaurantee the NPC has a winning hand.  You've essentially assigned the initiative to the NPC via narration here, and you are apparantly trying to prolong the PC's flatfooted state indefinately.



> Player:  I'm not messing around.  I pull my dagger and take a swipe at him.




Ok, this is dumb move by the PC, because if he was surprised he's potentially flatfooted.  A better move by the PC would be to try to wait out the surprise by taking pretty much any other action than trying to win a battle of reflexes with an unknown attacker.  However, sure, a lot of PC's are dumb this way.




> Player:  Wait a minute....I can't be flat-footed because I had an action right before the combat started.




I never said that actions before the combat started effect flat-footed at all.  And secondly the player is wrong.  The player has not yet taken an action since encountering the NPC.  So the scenario you have set up here is not comparable with the scenario you described, namely: "a character who has prepared himself with a potential threat he has perceived".  This PC has done nothing to prepare himself to deal with a potential threat he has percieved.   



> GM:  You're always doing something right before the combat starts.  That doesn't count.  You're flat-footed until you act within the combat round.




The GM is right, I have no quibble with that.



> See....your argument about being flat-footed doesn't hold water when compared to the rule as written.




Errrmmm.... you know, when you can't describe my argument correctly, you are in no position to make that judgement.  Nor am I delusional.



> On page 133 of the 3.5 PHB, under "How Combat Works", what does it say?  The first bullet point says:  Each combatant starts out flat-footed.




Yes.



> That means, when you start combat, every character is considered flat-footed.  That doesn't mean, as you say, that a character can do something prior to the combat in order to be considered not flat-footed.




But I didn't say that, did I?



> As it says on pg. 133, first Surprise is considered, then nish is rolled, then characters act in nish order.  And, all characters remain flat-footed until they act.




None of that contridicts what I have said.

Let's back up and do this right.

Let's assume the PC in your example was surprised.  On the surprise round, the NPC steps out, brandishes his dagger, and tries to intimidate the PC.  Surprise round is now over.  We roll initiative.  The NPC wins with an 18 and does what?  Presumably he readies an action to stab the PC if he moves, or he attacks and hits the PC flatfooted.  But he does something, although I notice that it seems you like to keep what the NPC has done nicely ambigious.  Have you decided what the NPC's ready action is at this point?  Because PC's are usually limited to declaring a single ready trigger, and you seem to have given the NPC the ability to be ready for anything.  Assuming the NPC is trying to rob the character, he probably readies an attack action if the player moves and tries to be intimidating.  That seems to be what you are implying.  Now, it is the PC's turn.  He gets to do something.  It doesn't matter what he does, it could be draw a dagger, it could be bluff the NPC, it could be try to use diplomacy to obtain a more favorable relationship with the NPC, it could be to respond with intimidation of his own, it could be do one of the above and take the full defensive action.  However, after he acts, doing whatever it is he does, the character is no longer flatfooted. 

Now, if in round two, the NPC tries to stab me then if you claim I'm flatfooted then I'm not the one with a problem understanding the rules.  And if you skip the surprise check and the initiative roll and everything else in the rules and decide after not following the rules in the 1st round, that in the 2nd or 5th round of the encounter that now we roll for initiative and then you say that because I lost initiative on the 5th or 10th round of the battle that I'm flatfooted, then again I'm not the one with a problem with the rules.  Don't try to claim that you are playing by the RAW if you do that.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 18, 2011)

Let me ask you something....



Celebrim said:


> We start counting the rounds at the point the two characters become aware of each other.




Do you always roll initiative as soon as two characters become aware of each other?

I have a thread about this: asking GMs when they throw nish. I think there are situations where you'll want to throw nish as soon as two characters are aware of each other. A gladiator entering a ring where he knows he's going to fight the other guy to the death, is a good example.

But, by far, I think most GMs do not roll initiative at this point. I think most people wait for the last possible moment to go into tactical combat rounds. They keep the game in "scenes" as long as possible before going into the slower, tactical, combat mode that the game refers to as "combat".




I'll say this too, in response to your quote above. If you're not throwing nish (and you're not playing a Surprise round), then you're not in combat (by the rules). And, if you're not in combat, you can't be counting rounds.

So, it comes down to my question: Do you always throw initiative as soon as two characters are aware of each other?







BTW, you're incorrect here, too, when you said of my example:



> The first thing that should happen here is that there should be at least one and perhaps two opposed rolls between the two sides that have just encountered each other. First, there should be the NPC's hide roll opposed by the PC's spot roll to determine whether the NPC achieves surprise. If he doesn't achieve surprise, then the he doesn't necesarily get to act first.




The thug was behind 100% cover, so the PC does not get a Spot check to notice the thug. There was no way for the PC to notice the thug unless the thug was making noise (the PC would get a Listen check), but he didn't.

By-the-book, I should have said that the thug passed a Listen check himself to hear the PC's approach. But, with the PC's boots slapping on the cobblestones, I, as GM, considered that a DC 5. The thug has Listen +5, so success is automatic. No need to bog the game down with rolls like this when their outcome is obvious.

At this point, the thug could have taken Surprise on the PC, but Surprise only allows for a Standard Action. Thus, the thug would have to wait for the PC to pass and then throw his stilletto--the thug's only weapon--at the PC.

The thug, instead, decided to step out and confront his victim. Maybe he could get the wayward traveler to give up his goods without the thug having to fight him.

By the rules, that's what happened in that scenario--IF THE TWO WERE IN COMBAT.

But....the two weren't in combat, where they? Nope. So, the encounter is not bound by the Combat rules--not unitl Combat ensues.

When the PC decided to attack the thug, that aggressive act indicates the start of combat. Initiative is rolled, which the thug won.

All of that is completely RAW.







EDIT: In post #123 above, you say...



> You roll initiative whenever two groups encounter each other.




That not what the rules say. I think this is where your logic is straying from RAW.

The rules say that you roll initiative at the start of a battle. If you're not going to have a battle, then you don't need to roll initiative. You can stay in "scenes".



For example, with my PC-in-the-ally example, the thug jumps out and tells the PC to give him all his goods. The PC may have done just that--handed over all his goods.

The entire encounter could have been played out without resorting to combat. No combat means no initiative required.







EDIT 2:  By the way, you should look at the Combat example starting on pg. 8 of the 3.5 DMG.

You said:



> The first thing that should happen here is that there should be at least one and perhaps two opposed rolls between the two sides that have just encountered each other. First, there should be the NPC's hide roll opposed by the PC's spot roll to determine whether the NPC achieves surprise.




And, I told you above that combat had not started yet, so what you suggest here is not necessary.

You also said:



> You are apparantly running this whole show by arbitrary fiat, so its no wonder that you feel entitled to continue to do so. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if the above example is how you run your game, you are probably in fact cheating.




Now, I want you to read the Combat example given in the DMG, starting on pg. 8.  At the top of page. 9, you'll see that the GM in that example ran his game the exact way that I described in my example.

See how the GM automatically gave Surprise to the spider, and the spider rolled the touch attack to land on one of the PC's shoulders?

That's exactly the same type of action that happened in my example.  The PC could not see the thug behind 100% cover, and I saw no reason to give the PC a Listen check to the PC (if there's nothing to hear, there's no need for a check....the thug was extremely quiet, lying in wait behind his cover for someone to come down the ally).

The thug could have taken advantage of a Surprise round, but, as I said above, I decided that he wouldn't start the combat at that point--instead giving his victim a chance to hand over his goods and leave the ally alive.

Like the spider plopping on the character's shoulder, about to bite her, the GM rolled initiative just when the first attack throw was indicated.

And, what do ya know....I did the same thing in my example!


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Do you always roll initiative as soon as two characters become aware of each other?




Only when I'm following the rules to the letter.  If I decide not to follow the rules to the letter, then I compensate for it by assuming that the game state is equivalent to where it would be had I been following the rules to the letter.  To do otherwise would be patently unfair.



> I think most people wait for the last possible moment to go into tactical combat rounds.  They keep the game in "scenes" as long as possible before going into the slower, tactical, combat mode that the game refers to as "combat".




Ok sure, that's fine and all so long as handwaving the rules doesn't result in an unfair ruling.  If you decide to arbitrarily handle a combat for part of its duration without rules, then you are going to have to be very careful when you switch to using rules.

And I have a problem with running a combat as a 'scene' if it means that the outcome is going to be different than running it as a 'combat'.  Especially when it seems you are making it the sole progative of the DM to determine which way we are going to resolve it.



> I'll say this too, in response to your quote above.  If you're not throwing nish (and you're not playing a Surprise round), then you're not in combat (by the rules).  And, if  you're not in combat, you can't be counting rounds.




What gives you the right under the rules to 'not play a surprise round' or to 'forgo throwing initiative' or 'not count rounds'?  I mean, sure, I can understand why you'd do this in situations where combat is very unlikely, like say between the PC and the NPC shield merchant, but why are you doing it in explicit combat sitautions?  And, why if you are doing it, are you content to obtain results that are radically different than what you'd obtain if you stuck to the rules?



> So, it comes down to my question:  Do you always throw initiative as soon as two characters are aware of each other?




In any situation like the one you just described, yes I do.  Every single time.  I'm not going to run a clear combat situation as anything other than a combat situation.  I don't always throw initiative when the characters pop into a tavern to buy a room, or go down to the greenseller to buy some strawberries, but if combat between the PC and the greenseller occurs at some point I mitigate the effects of my decision to forgo the initiative check by ensuring that the game state matches where it would be if I had rolled the initiative as soon as the two characters are aware of each other.



> The thug was behind 100% cover, so the PC does not get a Spot check to notice the thug.




Ok, that's fine.  But as a side note, are you suggesting then that anyone who ambushes from behind 100% cover automatically achieves surprise?  Do your players know that?  Because even if we concede that, you are ignoring the fact that though the DC to hear the PC is only a 5 (a trivial check for your NPC), the DC to pin point the location of the sound is a 25 - a check that that NPC can only make if he gets completely lucky.  But surprisingly or not, your NPC leaps out from cover precisely when the PC is where he wants the PC to be even though he doesn't know exactly where the PC is (or for that matter who he is).



> At this point, the thug could have taken Surprise on the PC, but Surprise only allows for a Standard Action.




So rather than following the rules and getting only a standard action, the thug took some option not in the rules that allows for more than a standard action?  And you claim this is RAW?



> Thus, the thug would have to wait for the PC to pass and then throw his stilletto--the thug's only weapon--at the PC.




And we clearly wouldn't want that.  I mean all these rules and restrictions on the advantages you can have when you surprise someone are suggesting that the thug might not automaticly have the advantage!



> The thug, instead, decided to step out and confront his victim.




Which is apparently not an action and apparently not playing out the surprise and which apparently despite this he gets to do before the player turns around and runs just as if he's won the initiative even though you haven't rolled?  



> Maybe he could get the wayward traveler to give up his goods without the thug having to fight him.




Which is fine, but now you are letting the thug have his cake and eat it too. He gets to spend an arbitrary number of rounds negotiating with the PC, but the PC remains completely flatfooted with respect to the NPC the whole time.  Now we've obtained a situation that is impossible under the rules, and we are back to the ridiculous Arrowhack has been pointing out under this scenario.



> By the rules, that's what happened in that scenario.




By the rules?  You by own admission just threw the rules out the window because they didn't obtain the results you wanted.



> When the PC decided to attack the thug, that aggressive act indicates the start of combat.




Why doesn't the aggressive act of the thug indicate the start of combat?  You are using your stance as DM to manipulate the rules to the NPC's advantage, forgo the rules when it is to the NPC's favor to do so, and then applying them when it is in the NPC's favor to do so.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> EDIT:  In post #123 above, you say...
> 
> That not what the rules say.  I think this is where your logic is straying from RAW.
> 
> The rules say that you roll initiative at the start of a battle.




The battle started when the thug stepped out with a knife.  Technically we could have been counting rounds before that (and might have been!), but that is the point where the battle begins.

There are several reasons, outlined in the previous posts why we should think that that is so.  You have done nothing to address any of my questions regarding the abitrary and often contridictory nature of your decision regarding when the battle starts.



> If you're not going to have a battle, then you don't need to roll initiative.  You can stay in "scenes".




Sure, but if you might have a battle then you are better off rolling initiative.  And if you are going to use the excuse of 'scenes' to obtain a different result than you would by running the battle as a combat, then you certainly should roll initiative instead.  At the very least, nothing in the rules suggests that the thug stepping out with a knife isn't the start of the battle (which definitively shows that I'm within the RAW), and if in fact stepping out with a knife is something that the thug gets to do by virtue of obtaining surprise (which even you have conceded), then the rules STRONGLY imply that throwing initiative is the thing you do next.  The rules don't say, "You get a surprise round... and then possibly an arbitrarily long scene passes.. and then you throw initiative"



> For example, with my PC-in-the-ally example, the thug jumps out and tells the PC to give him all his goods.  The PC may have done just that--handed over all his goods.




Yes, and if we ran this as a combat, he still might have done that.  There is nothing that says I have to use an attack action on every round of a combat.  



> The entire encounter could have been played out without resorting to combat.  No combat means no initiative required.




Sure, if the encounter never features anything that requires knowing who goes first, then we obtain the same results from not throwing initiative that we do by throwing it.   But the point is that you've got two different resolution paths depending on where it matters when you throw initiative, and as I've abundantly shown in prior posts - I'm the only one applying the rules in a non-arbitrary and consistant manner in which the DM is removing from himself the temptation to metagame on behalf of one party or the other.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 18, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> The battle started when the thug stepped out with a knife.




No.

What if the thug stepped out with a knife...and preceeded to give it to the PC saying, "I finally found you.  This was your father's stilletto.  I have grave news.  He's dead.  And, he left you...this."

Or, what if the PC decided not to fight the thug because the PC was only 1st level, and the player had no idea what level the thug was.

Or maybe the PC was low on hit points and didn't want risk losing his character there in that ally.

Or, maybe, the PC knew that one of his buddies wasn't far behind him, and he thought he'd try to "stall" the thug until the odds were better on the PC's side.

Or, maybe, the player decided to try to roleplay and reason with the thug rather than go straight into combat.

The point is:  There are many reasons not to start combat at that point.





I think I was editing my post above a second time when you were posting.  You may want to read EDIT 2, above, and check out the combat example in the DMG.

You'll find that it is a lot more like the way I am describing things than  your take on them.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> Huh? No, I'm trying to convey that if you start the rule AFTER it starts to have significance, then you get illogical results.



 The rule has signfiicance once people are in striking distance of each other. If neither party could potentially reach other to attack...in order to take advantage of someone with no dex bonus, then he rule has no significance. Any point after two sides could _theorietically _attack each other, the rule has signifiance.





> They are trying to model a situation where one side is acting before the other is ready.



 They already have that rule...it's called Initiative. I would argue the FF rule opens design space for things like Uncanny Dodge or Sneak Attack to be meaningful. If you roll Initl long before a Rogue could have any possibility of a Sneak Attack...like when both sides are behind iron gates....then you're immasculating the power of the rule. That's not a judgment, that's just an observation. 



> I merely suggest that not every encounter is an ambush.



 I'm not sure what you mean by that...but the real life concept of Flat Footed probably arose from exactly that...catching somone unprepared for an attack. 



> Two individuals *encounter *each other. Roll initiative. If you delay that action, then you are being wholly arbitrary and you'll occassionally get wacky results.




Emphasis added. 

You know, as an FYI, the RAW says "battle" not "encounter." In fact the PHB says, "Every *combatant *starts out flat-footed." 

When do adventurers in a tavern become combatants? 



> Suppose to lines of men form shield walls and begin advancing at each other across an open field. Does the battle not begin until they reach each other?



 It's your perrogative to decide when men on a battlefield transition from spectators to combatants if you're DMing a game. 



> Look at your own example of the two gladiators. You say the battle doesn't begin until the gates open, to which I replied, what if I try to make the battle begin before the gates open?



 Then you would be making an abitrary decision as to when they go from being spectators to combatants. 



> Then you are not really interested in debating the most relevant part of the FF rule.



 I'm actually not interested in "debating" any of the rules. But discussions can be interesting.




> ...but you are interested in initiating a 'debate' about whether turn based combat is realistic?



 Not trying to debate it...just making an observation...which you seem to agree with. 



> You know, the US Supreme court itself often interprets the law in two different ways.



 That's not correct. There is only one correct interpretation at any time. Any conflicting interpretations are deemed overturned even those made by previous US Supreme Courts.



> No, I think the intention, right or wrong, is that if you have 8 square feet of shield



 A light buckler is not 8 square feet.



> ...but even if we had a rules system where there is both passive and active defense a shield could conceivably add to your passive defense. I don't see anything inherently dumb in that.



 Really? So a state where you are adjudicated to not be able to take _any _reflexive action, an attacker is still going to be unable to avoid hitting a shield you haven't raised and is hanging on the edge of your arm...even when you approach from behind? And that's not inherently dumb?

How about this? The game says you are in a situation where you don't get your dex bonus...but you still get your reflex save....which includes your dex bonus? Not inherently dumb?




> Everyone agrees that D&D takes a large number of liberties with reality.



 They agree with that notion when it suits them....then they turn around and try and argue X rule describes some real life situation.



> What I am trying to say is that the flat footed rule, even though it takes liberties with reality, does not lead to nearly as impluasible results as you suggest provided that you apply it consistently.



 I don't really have a beef with the FF rule...it's the no dex bonus that I'm trying to make sense of.




> Technically, the game only denies you a dex bonus if you are unskilled at the activity you are partaking in.



 Yeah, I'm talking about two people unskilled in running.




> Obviously, a high dex person maintains some natural advantage (a better untrained balance skill check, for instance), but D&D chooses to say that training and experience in the activity is far more important in many ways than native ability. That doesn't to me seem to be obviously wrong.



 I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm talking about two people equally unskilled but one with a much higher dex than the other...both being equally easy to hit.  But we seem to agree that a high dex person should maintain some natural advantage if any reaction is possible.



> It was a case of unintended side effects.



 That was my first supposition. They couldn't dodge it (pun intended). They were on the this collision and they couldn't get the train to switch tracks.



> There could be some clean up here that would eventually elimenate the inconsistancy, but it would be a large amount of work for what I would argue has a very small impact on the game.



 Does nobody play a high dex character???? A simple flat penalty would still convey a benefit to the FF rule without annihilating the advantage a higher dex person should have over a lower dex person when neither is "helpless." 



> Misapplying the FF rule by arbitrary application of initiative checks however has a huge impact on the game and the metagame



 well, that's certainly one viewpoint.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Well, here we go.
> 
> Incorrect.  You don't overcome being flat footed by "WINNING" initiative...you overcome it by acting.   You can win initiative and delay your action...and you're still flat footed.  The game rules decide that you somehow only able to use your natural ability to dodge attacks after you have taken an action...that before this decision on your part...you are unable to avoid any attacks by virture of movement (but we'll conveniently ignore the fact that a person with a 10 Dex can still avoid more attacks than a person with an 8 Dex.)




Incorrect.

In D&D all you need to do is have the chance to act - if you ready an action you are no longer flat-footed since you have had a chance to act.


PHB pg 137



> Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle,* before you have had a chance
> to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative
> order), *you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC
> (if any) while flat-footed. (This fact can be very bad for you if you’re
> ...


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> No.
> 
> What if the thug stepped out with a knife...and preceeded to give it to the PC saying, "I finally found you.  This was your father's stilletto.  I have grave news.  He's dead.  And, he left you...this."




So?  The PC doesn't know what the thug's intentions are, and he still doesn't.  For all I know as a player, the thug is trying to cozen me with a lie so that he can close with me before attacking.  There is a guy with a knife, you've given him a surprise round.  We are now in battle, even if we manage resovle the situation peacefully.



> Or, what if the PC decided not to fight the thug because the PC was only 1st level, and the player had no idea what level the thug was.




Then we have a very smart player.  However, that has nothing to do with whether or not initiative should be thrown because you as the DM can't know ahead of time how the player is going to react.  I mean, it's generally true that when threatened, I might respond by parley, negotiation, diplomacy and so forth. 



> The point is:  There are many reasons not to start combat at that point.




Agreed, but having many reasons not to attack the thug is not the same as having many reasons not to throw initiative.   What are the reasons for not throwing initiative at that point?

I've already well anticpated this complaint in prior posts.  You are arguing that we don't need to throw initiative unless the PC acts in a certain way.  But the sole purpose of this is to allow the NPC to hold the PC flat-footed indefinately, gaining the advantage of striking the PC flat-footed long after the PC has had plenty of oppurtunity to act and prepare himself for an attack.  I listed a very long list of actions one might take on the first round of combat after you've thrown initiative that weren't attack actions.  What if in response to the above scene, the player wants to take any of the above actions?  Why are you arbitrarily treating taking that action differently depending entirely on something - whether or not you've thrown initiative - that does happen in the game world?

As for the example in the DMG, I'm very familiar with it.  It's an almost exact port of the example in the 1e DMG to the 3.X system, and it was intended to show older players that the game hadn't really changed much.  I have no serious problems with how it is run; and as far as initiative goes, I'd run it the same way.  The DM gives the spider a surprise round where the spider takes a move action to drop on to the player.  (As an aside, the 3.X rules are actually completely silent on the question of something landing on the back of a player, so this is all pretty much color in 3.X.)  Then the DM rolls for initiative.

The DM rather arbitrarily decided that no spot check was required if the player's don't specificly 'look up', and although I wouldn't run it that way, he's in his rights to do so.

What I find really interesting is that you think you ran the scene with the thug exactly like the example in the DMG, when its very clear to me that you didn't.  You're stuck on the idea that the DM threw initiative when the PC declared an attack.  But in fact, while this is the usual manner, the DM would have still asked for initiative no matter what action the PC took.  If the PC wanted to negotiate with the spider, initiative would still need to be thrown to see if the PC could get the spider's attention before it decided to bite it in the back of the neck.

And in fact, if you read the example you'll find out that the DM asks for initiative before the PC even declares what they are doing.  In fact, he asks for initiative when all he knows is that one character wants to have a look at what is going on.   So are you sure I'm the one that is delusional?  I'm guessing you have pretty good reading comprehension skills, so how is it that you are able to read that scene and come away with evidence that isn't actually in the text?

If you want to demonstrate your position is correct, show me some official examples of play where it plays out like your thug scenario.

You say, "The thug could have taken advantage of a Surprise round, but, as I said above, I decided that he wouldn't start the combat at that point"

Where is that in the rules?  I don't see any forking path in the rules where you get to decide that.  Show me an example of play like that.  That's completely a house rule you areusing.

One thing that should be obvious is that in any scene with at least one side that immediately attacks will play out exactly the same whether you run it or I run it.  It's only scenes where one side or both sides forgo immediately attacking (get that _they have forgone immediately attacking_ but you claim the intention of the rules is that people remain flat footed after that), where we are going to disagree.   So show me the examples of play that demonstrate this forking path of surprise but not initiative thrown.



> --instead giving his victim a chance to hand over his goods and leave the ally alive.




Even if we roll initiative, that's still a possibility.   The way this scene ought to play out is we roll initiative, the PC determines that the opponent has the drop on him, and being a smart PC and knowing nothing about the opponent's level (for all I know the attacker is 10 levels higher than I am) he decides not to antagonize the attacker.  My first action in combat like the above would probably be to use my free action to say something and attempt a bluff ("To the temple of Aravar to beg the brothers there for shelter for the night.  I'm down on my luck and haven't a copper to my name.") or ("Well met brother, have you paid your dues to the guild this month?")  or try a diplomacy check to improve the thugs attitude ("I off to the pub, but I've got two gold here and I only need one to get drunk.  I'll let you have one if you let me pass in a hurry, because I've got a powerful thirst.")


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> They already have that rule...it's called Initiative. I would argue the FF rule opens design space for things like Uncanny Dodge or Sneak Attack to be meaningful.




I find them plenty meaningful in my own game.



> If you roll Initl long before a Rogue could have any possibility of a Sneak Attack...like when both sides are behind iron gates....then you're immasculating the power of the rule. That's not a judgment, that's just an observation.




And a biased one at that.  I could just as easily argue that you are making sneak attack far more powerful than intended - which incidently seems to have been the complaint of the OP's player.   Moreover, you've also complained that it is illogical how FF works, but when I point out that much of the lack of logic is something you've add to the rules and which isn't found within them, you seem to want to cling to the unreality anyway even though it annoyed you.



> I'm not sure what you mean by that...but the real life concept of Flat Footed probably arose from exactly that...catching somone unprepared for an attack.




I mean by that that if you accept the alternative interpretation, of initiative being thrown at some arbitrary point after the battle /combat /encounter/ engagement has begun, then you are arguing that its not possible to have a battle where some one isn't caught unprepared for an attack.  That in my opinion should be discarded as complete nonsense on the face of it.  It doesn't stand to reason that the first round of every combat is an ambush, even when the fighters are fully aware of the other, observing each other before the punch is thrown, and had oppurtunity to ready themselves.  If the rules offer an alternative - and they clearly do - then it should be obvious that the alternative is the intended approach.



> ou know, as an FYI, the RAW says "battle" not "encounter." In fact the PHB says, "Every *combatant *starts out flat-footed."
> 
> When do adventurers in a tavern become combatants?




Whenever it will matters whether any of them are flat-footed, or whenever it matters in what order they take their actions.  If the party walks into a tavern planning to roll the bartender because he's behind on his protection money payments to their boss, the party doesn't get caught flat-footed by anyone they can observe in the bar.  Combat begins when they open the door, even if the party is trying to conceal their intention to attack the bartender when they reach the bar.



> It's your perrogative to decide when men on a battlefield transition from spectators to combatants if you're DMing a game.




I suppose that it is, though the rules are quite clear, you do this once they observe the opposing force.



> Then you would be making an abitrary decision as to when they go from being spectators to combatants.




How is 'On the round they observe the opponent every single time' applying the rule arbitrarily?  Arbitrary means "by random choice or personal whim, lacking any reason or system".  As far as I can tell, I'm the only one offering a systematic approach.  If that is your definition of arbitrary, what is your definition of consistent?   



> A light buckler is not 8 square feet.




No, but I think they made the decision to treat all shield bonuses the same regardless of source.  I only pointed out a fairly large shield to try to explain the basis of the reason.  The reasoning still applies to a shield of only 1 square foot, and of course could be made even more strongly by talking about shields of 12 square feet.



> Really? So a state where you are adjudicated to not be able to take _any _reflexive action, an attacker is still going to be unable to avoid hitting a shield you haven't raised and is hanging on the edge of your arm...even when you approach from behind? And that's not inherently dumb?




No, because 3e made the decision to simplify the game by not tracking facing.  That may or may not be inherently dumb, but the logical result of that is that 'behind' loses a particular meaning.   And again, I suspect this is a simplification based on lowest common denominator.  It becomes more immediately obvious that the shield is an impediment to my flat footed attack when I'm attacking from 20 yards away with a ranged weapon.   It's less obvious that a shield that isn't shifted to thwart an attack is an impediment, buts its easy to imagine that its more of an impediment to an attack than no shield would be.  It's not obvious to me that its clearly the wrong way to handle it, because any more 'right' way to handle it would involve very large increases in the complexity of the system.  Given the level of abstraction, it might be more realistic than the alternative.   



> How about this? The game says you are in a situation where you don't get your dex bonus...but you still get your reflex save....which includes your dex bonus? Not inherently dumb?




Now we are going very far afield indeed.  Are you still trying to prove that the game isn't realistic?



> They agree with that notion when it suits them....then they turn around and try and argue X rule describes some real life situation.




Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.  I don't have to agree that a simulation is a perfect simulation in order to believe it describes some real life situation.  I had a professor that studied forest fires.  He's modelling program had trees growing on a grid, which is wholly unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't describe real life situations.  I worked for another professor that studied protein folding.  His proteins folded on 90 degree angles in perfect little cubes, which is also unrealistic, but doesn't mean that it wasn't describing some real life situation.   Sure, you can refine the model with higher and higher levels of computation, but unless you want to game on a large Beowulf cluster I wouldn't recommend it.



> I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm talking about two people equally unskilled but one with a much higher dex than the other...both being equally easy to hit.  But we seem to agree that a high dex person should maintain some natural advantage if any reaction is possible.




No we don't.  I mean that if you are engaged in some rhythmic activity like running, it's not at all clear to me that you are harder to hit while running than someone less good at dodging, unless you've extensively practiced dodging while running.



> Does nobody play a high dex character???? A simple flat penalty would still convey a benefit to the FF rule without annihilating the advantage a higher dex person should have over a lower dex person when neither is "helpless."




As I said, it would be possible to remove the inconsistancies by changing the langauge of 'denied dex bonus' to 'suffering a penalty to dexterity', but this change would probably be a very large change for what I think is a very small gain.  However, if it bothers you, by all means make those ammendments in your house rules.  I've no problem with DM's customizing their game to their sensibilities provided they do so skillfully.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> How about this? The game says you are in a situation where you don't get your dex bonus...but you still get your reflex save....which includes your dex bonus? Not inherently dumb?




THe rules talk about Dex bonus to AC and Dex bonus to reflex saves.  The two numbers may be the same thing but the situations they apply in are not.

You can be denied your Dex bonus to AC and still be allowed your Dex modifier (or bonus) to reflex save.

From the FAQ



> *Exactly when can a character make a Reflex saving
> throw? The saving throw section on the PH says Reflex
> saves depend on a character’s ability to dodge out of the
> way. Does that mean you can’t make Reflex saves if you
> ...


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> In D&D all you need to do is have the chance to act - if you ready an action you are no longer flat-footed since you have had a chance to act.
> 
> ...




Perhaps I should have said, "Delay" your initiative wth a capitol D....let's looks at the d20 source

*Delay*

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, *you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat*. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point. 
You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen.* You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action* (as you can with a readied action). 
​When you *D*elay, your first "regular turn" occures when you decide your new initiative score.  You cannot Delay your action and avoid being flat footed.  Either you take your initiative as rolled, or you substitute your roll for a lesser number and you are treated as having actually rolled that number, in which case you are FF to all those with a higher initiative in that first round even though you technically _won_ initiative.  The "Ready" action is different.

Nice try, though.  



> THe rules talk about Dex bonus to AC and Dex bonus to reflex saves. The two numbers may be the same thing but the situations they apply in are not.
> 
> You can be denied your Dex bonus to AC and still be allowed your Dex modifier (or bonus) to reflex save.



  Yes...the same ability has the same modifier on both activities...based on the same ability of reflex, agility, and and manual dexterity.   So a situation which denies one but not the other is illogical and internally inconsistent.  The game tries to explain itself around this by adding in notions of "luck" and "miraculous factors."  Yet none of these factors seem to have any modifier to speak of.   Only one thing affects a "reflex" save...and that's reflexes...which come from your Dexterity.  Concocting bogus elaborate reasons why one applies and one doesn't...is just that...bogus.  It's like saying we're going to allow any Halfing with a Strength of 14 to treat it as a 25.  

"See, there's this magic stone at the center of the earth that causes this effect, that's why it's plausible."  Right.  Gotcha.

Look it's a game...so we set the inconsistencies aside because it serves a purpose: probably game balance.  One can imagine that if Reflex saves were denied or severely hampered based on the Flat Footed state, arcane spell caster with high Dex and Improved Initiative would be way more powerful than they were intended to be.  As it stands now, the only people who arguably gain the most are Rogues with Sneak Attack.  A most likely intended consequence.

I don't care if the game departs from reality or consistency.  What I am curious about is _why _it is done in any particular situation.  In the case of Reflex saves...it seems pretty obvious.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Perhaps I should have said, "Delay" your initiative wth a capitol D....let's looks at the d20 source
> 
> *Delay*
> 
> ...




Well, since you can't choose to "delay" until your first regular turn in the initiative order, when you choose not to act - you have met the criteria specified.  It does not say you need to act only that you had the chance to act.  It says that you can act normally on your new intiative, it does not say that you didn't have the chance to act.



> Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you *have had a chance
> to act* (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative
> order), you are flat-footed


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> And a biased one at that. I could just as easily argue that you are making sneak attack far more powerful than intended - which incidently seems to have been the complaint of the OP's player.



  iirc, the OP's member was complaining about the believability of the rule...the idea that someone can move 30' before someone else can even lift a spear to prepare for an attack.   Players in my own compaign also reject the credibility of a rule which states that all combatants start FF.  Any rule which blindly and universally applies a state to all characters is going to run into believability problems for people.   It's really not that difficult to understand.



> Moreover, you've also complained that it is illogical how FF works



  No.  I pointed out that it is illogical how the No Dex Bonus rule works.  Whether it's associated with the FF rule or not.   I've already said the FF rule is not wholly divorced from reality. 



> ..but when I point out that much of the lack of logic is something you've add to the rules and which isn't found within them



  I haven't added anything to the rules.  You're the one here telling everyone that if they don't interpret the start of a battle the way you do, they are doing it wrong.  Your justification isn't based on any scientific reasoning...just your opinion on how the rules were meant to work.   More power to you, hombre.  More power to you. 




> I mean by that that if you accept the alternative interpretation, of initiative being thrown at some arbitrary point after the battle /combat /encounter/ engagement has begun, then you are arguing that its not possible to have a battle where some one isn't caught unprepared for an attack.



  Given that the RAW say "Every combatant starts out flat footed."  Yes...it is not possible to have two combatants start out not being flat footed.  Put another way....every battle begins with everyone being flat footed.  RAW.



> That in *my opinion *should be discarded as complete nonsense on the face of it. *It doesn't stand to reason *that the first round of every combat is an ambush, even when the fighters are fully aware of the other, observing each other before the punch is thrown, and had oppurtunity to ready themselves. If the rules offer an alternative - and they clearly do - then it should be obvious that the alternative is the intended approach.



  This is why Water Bob says you're "house ruling it."  You've read the rules and the literal interpetation which follows the RAW "doesn't stand to reason."  So you're reinterpeting the rules to give you a solution that jibes with a subjective sense of credibility.  Guess what....you're not alone.



> I suppose that it is, though the rules are quite clear, you do this once they observe the opposing force.



 So when you're flying overhead in a transport helicopter and see the opposing forces far out of the range of anyone's weapons the battle has begun?



> How is 'On the round they observe the opponent every single time' applying the rule arbitrarily?



  Because you're equating observing of a creature as being tantamount to making everyone a combatant.  The rules don't automatically require such a determination.  Maybe "arbitrary" connotes something pejorative that is unitended on my part.  Let's call it a subjective decision since you clearly claim you have a  systematic approach.




> No, but I think they made the decision to treat all shield bonuses the same regardless of source.



  Clearly.  It's illogical, but it makes the game easier to play.  Simplicity = Better as perceived by WotC in this instance.  Sometimes they think Complex = Better.  As I said, it's an art not a science.



> I only pointed out a fairly large shield to try to explain the basis of the reason.



 I dont' think that's the basis of the reasoning at all.  But that's irrelevant to the discussion.   



> No, because 3e made the decision to simplify the game by not tracking facing.



  Fairly self evident .  Simplier = Better once again in this instance.




> That may or may not be inherently dumb, ***
> Now we are going very far afield indeed. Are you still trying to prove that the game isn't realistic?



  I was merely repeating your own approach to evaluation a rule.  Making the point that a lot of things may be "inherently dumb"  but that isn't automatically a deal breaker in an RPG (though it probably should be).




> Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.



  Perhaps my point was not clear.  When you argue that a rule is good because it simulates reality, and then you defend a rule that undermines realism because you claim the game isn't meant to simulate reality, you are being self contradictory.  People want to pick and choose when realism is necessary and sufficient and when lack of realism is forgivable and sufficient.  By definiation that is arbitrary behavior in the pejorative sense of the word.




> No we don't. I mean that if you are engaged in some rhythmic activity like running, it's not at all clear to me that you are harder to hit while running than someone less good at dodging...



  You just used the example of football players.  Some of them are harder to tackle while running than others.  They all can be considered to have the same Run feat by virtue of being profesional "Running" backs.  D&D would mandate that the entire league of NFL running backs are all equally easy to hit while running.  Sorry, that is beyond ridiculous.  The no dex rule _is _broken.  The question is why.



> As I said, it would be possible to remove the inconsistancies by changing the langauge of 'denied dex bonus' to 'suffering a penalty to dexterity', but this change would probably be a very large change for what I think is a very small gain. However, if it bothers you, by all means make those ammendments in your house rules. I've no problem with DM's customizing their game to their sensibilities provided they do so skillfully.




The fix would be very simple.  

1)  Anything without a Dexterity or a Dex of 0-1 has an unarmored AC of 5.

2)  Ability scores for Dex with respect to AC are thus:  

2-3 +1
4-5 +2
6-7 +3
8-9 +4
10-11 +5

You get the idea.

3)  When you lose your Dex bonus...you go to a Dex of 0.

Problem solved.  This puts a person with a Dex of 10 at AC of 10...which is excatly what it is now.  

Since the game has decided that Reflex Save is independent of your Dex bonus...Saves aren't affected.  You can continue to use the existing modifier table for REF saves.  Alternatively, you could set everyone's base Save at -5 and use the new table.

Does this introduce other probems in the game?  At first blush I don't see any, but i don't have all the rules memorized to know for certain.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 18, 2011)

Well I'm flat footed, check it and see
I got initiative of a lowly three
Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed

You don't have to read my mind
To know what I have in mind
DM you oughta know
Now you move so fast
Let me tell you I'm aghast
I wanna know why I am so slow

Now it's up to you, we can make a secret homebrew
Just me and you, I'll show you realism so true

That's why I'm flat footed, check it and see
I got initiative of a lowly three
Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed

If it feels alright
Maybe we can play all night
Shall I roll up a rogue?
But you've got to give me a sign
Come on, some kind of sign
Tell me, do you watch Jackie Chan? Don't let that zombie get the drop on me.

Are you smart enough? Will you show me that realism stuff?
Is my timing right? Did you make a ruling for me tonight?

Yeah I'm flat footed, check it and see
I got initiative of a lowly three
Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed

Now it's up to you, we can make a secret homebrew
Just me and you, I'll show you realism so true

Well I'm flat footed, check it and see
I got initiative of a lowly three
Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed

Flat footed, every night
Flat footed, you're looking for a fight
Flat footed, now you're driving me crazy
Flat footed, I think this rule is lazy
Flat footed, I'm a little bit slow
Flat footed, you're a little bit shy
Flat footed, your realism is low
Flat footed, for your (flat footed) [&^%#&*&^%]ing thing
Did you hear what I said?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

> Well, since you can't choose to "delay" until your first regular turn in the initiative order, when you choose not to act - you have met the criteria specified. It does not say you need to act only that you had the chance to act. It says that you can act normally on your new intiative, it does not say that you didn't have the chance to act.



You can decide to "Delay" your initiative whenever you want.  You just can't raise your initiative to something higher than you rolled.   The Delay option is a metagame option, i.e. it happens out of the context of the game and in the context of the people rolling the dice.  You are considered to have ROLLED the lower initiative.  Like rerolling your saving throw by virtue of a Luck feat.   

In the Delay option, you "voluntarily reduce your own Initiative *result*" and accept a lower number as your _actual _number.  It's black and white.  Your "result" of initiative has been changed...ergo your PC has not had a chance to act within the game itself.

But hey, house rule it anyway you'd like.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> You can decide to "Delay" your initiative whenever you want.  You just can't raise your initiative to something higher than you rolled.   The Delay option is a metagame option, i.e. it happens out of the context of the game and in the context of the people rolling the dice.  You are considered to have ROLLED the lower initiative.  Like rerolling your saving throw by virtue of a Luck feat.
> 
> In the Delay option, you "voluntarily reduce your own Initiative *result*" and accept a lower number as your _actual _number.  It's black and white.  Your "result" of initiative has been changed...ergo your PC has not had a chance to act within the game itself.
> 
> But hey, house rule it anyway you'd like.




Wrong.

You declare your actions on your turn in the initiative order - not at the beginning of the round. You can't declare "delay" until it is your turn in the initiative order.

You may house-rule it otherwise, but actions are declared on your turn in the intiative order - and if your turn is after someone else's then you can choose what to do based on the outcome of actions that occur before your turn in the intitiative order.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> The Delay option is a metagame option, i.e. it happens out of the context of the game and in the context of the people rolling the dice.  You are considered to have ROLLED the lower initiative.  Like rerolling your saving throw by virtue of a Luck feat.





Where do you get this from?

Delay is not a metagame option - it is an in-game one where the PC chooses to watch what is going on before deciding to actually do something.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

> You declare your actions on your turn in the initiative order




That's right.  And when you DELAY your Inititave, you have a LOWER initative as a result.   What part of the phrase "voluntarily lower your initiative RESULT" are you not comprehending?

The real human being person making a decision lower his initiative "result" does not constitue an action which removes the flat footed status.

It's clear you're just trying to score ego points by trying to prove me wrong on some inconsequential aspect of the fundamental discussion.  If you can't understand the rules as written...I'm not going to continue to debate them with you.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> That's right.  And when you DELAY your Inititave, you have a LOWER initative as a result.   What part of the phrase "voluntarily lower your initiative RESULT" are you not comprehending?
> 
> The real human being person making a decision lower his initiative "result" does not constitue an action which removes the flat footed status.
> 
> It's clear you're just trying to score ego points by trying to prove me wrong on some inconsequential aspect of the fundamental discussion.  If you can't understand the rules as written...I'm not going to continue to debate them with you.




Woa.

I have no idea what kind of day you are having to get that kind of reaction from my posts.

I am merely quoting the rules.

The RAW on being flat-footed does not say "act" it clearly states that when you "may act".

The rules on declaring actions are also pretty straight forward and that you only declare on your turn in the initiative order.

In fact free actions are accomplished only on your turn in the initiative order (unless specifically stated otherwise, like the rules for talking where it says you may do those even if it is not your turn).

"Not an action" actions (from the Rules Compendium pg 7)

"Some actions are so minor that they aren't even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else."

RC pg 8 also has "delay" as "No Action"

Pg 43 of the Rules Compendium has a side bar "Those who hesitate, win" talking about the stretic advantages of "delaying" - so someone at WotC didn't consider it a "metagaming action", but rather a viable stretic one.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

> The RAW on being flat-footed does not say "act" it clearly states that when you "may act".



  That's right.   You may not act when it is NOT your initiative.  If you make a decision as person to lower your PC's initiative score...then your character may only act on this new initiativ score.  

Making decisions about your "Initiative Result" is metagaming.  Making decisions about acting is not.   You seem to be conflating the "Ready" act with the "Delay" act.   What you describe is the Ready act, where you are simply waiting at some point to take _more_ action.  

Think of it this way.  The Delay action is no different than voluntarily applying a negative modifier to your Initiative Roll, before you roll it.  The advantage is you can decide retroactively how much of modifer you took.  As a result you get information on the actions of others who "may act" before you "may act."  It's no different than actually rolling the Initiative you take.   

Clearly some people think there is a tatical advantage to getting their Initiative later in the round.  If this is true, then people who have high Dex would perceive an injustice.  WotC said were going to give people an option of voluntarily taking a lower result if they feel it gives them a tactical advangtage.  It's a modifier to the actual ROLL, not to the character's actions.

It's plain English Duane, a "lower Initiative *result*" means you initiative is lower.   Since the game specifically talks about "initiative" being lower...and not simply "acting" later...the game is dealing with the metagame concept of Initiative.  

There is nothing in the Delay rules which state _when _I need to declare I want a lower result.  If I act on my initiative, then clearly I have elected not to Delay my roll.

Pehraps you're getting hung up on the header.  The word "Delay" does suggests the character is waiting.  But the rules make it explicit, you're changing your actual Initiative "result" i.e. what you rolled on the die plus modifiers.


----------



## PureGoldx58 (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> That's right.   You may not act when it is NOT your initiative.  If you make a decision as person to lower your PC's initiative score...then your character may only act on this new initiativ score.
> 
> Making decisions about your "Initiative Result" is metagaming.  Making decisions about acting is not.   You seem to be conflating the "Ready" act with the "Delay" act.   What you describe is the Ready act, where you are simply waiting at some point to take _more_ action.
> 
> ...




Why are you still typing? You aren't in a debate, your opinion can't be swayed in anyway. Just stop. 

As for my input "May Act"- Has had the opportunity to do something other than ready an action. Ergo on their turn in the initiative they other than having moved or attacked but had the chance to do so they readied an action. They have had the opportunity to act therefore, not flat-footed. You are reading far into the wording which I like, it makes for interesting games.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

> Woa.
> 
> I have no idea what kind of day you are having to get that kind of reaction from my posts.



  When you start a response with:

"Wrong."

My "combatant" flag is tripped and suddenly I feel like someone controlling me just rolled for initiative.   I am still trying to determine if i was caught flat footed?  These things are so hard to gauge.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

> Why are you still typing? You aren't in a debate, your opinion can't be swayed in anyway. Just stop.



Why aren't you typing this to irdeggman. Is he clearly acting like his opinion can be swayed?  He wsa the one wh started this exchange by telling me I was wrong.  Or do your bias filters prevent you from assessing the situation fairly?


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> iirc, the OP's member was complaining about the believability of the rule...the idea that someone can move 30' before someone else can even lift a spear to prepare for an attack.   Players in my own compaign also reject the credibility of a rule which states that all combatants start FF.




Right.  I understand that.

Let's break this down.

I claim that there is a unversal standard for when initiative applies that handles the flatfooted condition in a way that is consistantly believable.  I see the two as related.  I cited multiple examples showing that if you consistantly applied the rules in the manner that they were written that the results in varying situations were what you would intuitively expect.

You claim there is no universal standard for when initiative applies, and that the throw for initiative is a matter of DM fiat.  You also claim that that the flat footed rule results in unbelievable situations which requires the DM to fiat overrule whether the flatfooted condition applies.  You come up with an example that demonstrates the implausibility of the flat footed rule, and the implausibility of it depends almost entirely on the fact that you've subjected the throw of the initiative to DM fiat.  

To which I respond, yeah, it's bad rule if you break it blindly.  That shouldn't be very difficult to understand.   



> I haven't added anything to the rules.  You're the one here telling everyone that if they don't interpret the start of a battle the way you do, they are doing it wrong.




Well, I don't know about 'wrong', but they certainly aren't following the rules.



> Given that the RAW say "Every combatant starts out flat footed."  Yes...it is not possible to have two combatants start out not being flat footed.  Put another way....every battle begins with everyone being flat footed.  RAW.




Yes, but again, that's not what I suggested.  Every battle does begin with everyone being flat footed, but not every battle begins with at least someone being flat footed at the time of the first attack.  By ignoring the non-attack actions that transpire at the start of the battle, you set up a situation where every battle is an ambush - even if it involves a set peice engagement where the two sides are marching at each other across a large field.  



> This is why Water Bob says you're "house ruling it."  You've read the rules and the literal interpetation which follows the RAW "doesn't stand to reason."  So you're reinterpeting the rules to give you a solution that jibes with a subjective sense of credibility.  Guess what....you're not alone.




No, I've read the rules and the strict literal interpretation of the RAW gives reasonable results.  I've then noticed that a lot of people give unreasonable metagame interpretations, and then complain about the unreasonable results that follow up on that.  I'm therefore pointing out that by a strict reading of the rules, these highly unreasonable situations don't happen.   So therefore, which of us is more likely to be reading the rule correctly?



> So when you're flying overhead in a transport helicopter and see the opposing forces far out of the range of anyone's weapons the battle has begun?




Yes, because you have observed the enemy.  In battle speak, you have made contact with the enemy.   And for the purposes of the rules we must make the battle begin no latter than that point, else we are ignoring whatever actions that the transport crew may have taken in response to seeing the opposing force and according to this model of combat that is critical.  It's nonsensical to suggest that though the transport Helicopter crew has detected the enemy and responded to the threat, that they still must be treated as if they were oblivious to the threat.  The rules do not say that.  They say as soon as you have observed a foe and had a chance to act, regardless of the act you take, you can no longer be treated as oblivious to the threat.



> Because you're equating observing of a creature as being tantamount to making everyone a combatant.  The rules don't automatically require such a determination.




The rules do for combat encounters.  You aren't required to run every encounter as a combat encounter, but if there is hostility or potential hostility present then you probably should.   To do otherwise leads to wierdness.  



> Let's call it a subjective decision since you clearly claim you have a  systematic approach.




How is it subjective?  According to the rules, you have no choice but to throw initiative.  It's subjective to delay.



> Perhaps my point was not clear.  When you argue that a rule is good because it simulates reality, and then you defend a rule that undermines realism because you claim the game isn't meant to simulate reality, you are being self contradictory.




To my knowledge, I haven't done so.  I was pointing out that there isn't a binary relationship here.  A rule can be good because it simulates reality, even if it isn't perfectly realistic.   A rule which 'undermines realism', as you put it, can still be defended on the grounds that it simulates reality.  The question then becomes, "If it is good to simulate reality, why is not not better to simulate reality more perfectly?"  The answer is, sometimes a more perfect simulation of reality has some other cost.  Typically there is diminishing margins of return.  A more realistic rule is better than a less realistic rule, but past a certain point the complexity of each increasingly realistic rule undermines the advantage gained by increasing realism.



> People want to pick and choose when realism is necessary and sufficient and when lack of realism is forgivable and sufficient.  By definiation that is arbitrary behavior in the pejorative sense of the word.




Not only is that not arbitrary by definition, but speaking as someone who has at times made his living writing modelling software and designing engineering solutions, the degree of accuracy of the model can often be definitively shown to be necessary and sufficient and the amount of error introduced by the simplifying assumtions can likewise be show to be forgivable and sufficient over a wide range of conditions and certainly the ones you are interested in.  



> You just used the example of football players.  Some of them are harder to tackle while running than others.  They all can be considered to have the same Run feat by virtue of being profesional "Running" backs.  D&D would mandate that the entire league of NFL running backs are all equally easy to hit while running.




If they all have the run feat, then they are not all equally easy to hit while running.  You are denied your dex bonus when running if you have the Run feat.



> The fix would be very simple.




Speaking as some one who tweaks the SRD quite a lot, I disagree.  But by all means, have at it. 



> Since the game has decided that Reflex Save is independent of your Dex bonus...Saves aren't affected.




Reflex saves aren't independent of your dex bonus.  Anything that changes your dex bonus changes your reflex save.


----------



## PureGoldx58 (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Why aren't you typing this to irdeggman. Is he clearly acting like his opinion can be swayed?  He wsa the one wh started this exchange by telling me I was wrong.  Or do your bias filters prevent you from assessing the situation fairly?




I apologize I was typing that to the both of you, even though your defensive statements are getting old.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> You can decide to "Delay" your initiative whenever you want.  You just can't raise your initiative to something higher than you rolled.   The Delay option is a metagame option, i.e. it happens out of the context of the game and in the context of the people rolling the dice.  You are considered to have ROLLED the lower initiative.  Like rerolling your saving throw by virtue of a Luck feat.
> 
> In the Delay option, you "voluntarily reduce your own Initiative *result*" and accept a lower number as your _actual _number.  It's black and white.  Your "result" of initiative has been changed...ergo your PC has not had a chance to act within the game itself.
> 
> But hey, house rule it anyway you'd like.





Bob who plays Rob the Rogue disagrees with your point of view though.

DM:Everyone roll initiative...the surprise round the orcs got is over...
Bob: Yey I rolled a 20...+8...I play first.
DM:Ok, what you want to do?
Bob: Well...I can't flank anyone...I think I will delay
DM: Ok you wizard go next
Wizard: hmm I throw my mighty magic missiles on their leader
DM: Ok you hit the leader hard in the face...Bob wanna play now?
Bob: No, not yet.
DM: Ok Ranger you next
Ranger: Ok I move back drawing my bow, and then I hit with one arrow on leaders face.
DM: Whatever....you miss the face, but you hit him on his throat...Bob wanna play now?
Bob: No dude....I can't flank with myself...''Rob looks nervously around waiting for John the Fighter to back him up like he always does''
DM:Ok...now its the orcs turn...every one charges at you Bob...whats your flat footed AC?
Bob: But I had the chance to act 3 times already!
DM: That was a metagame decision changing the result of your initiative...maybe you had the chance to act like 3 times already, but Rob is *just THAT SLOW*. Sorry pal.
Bob: But then how do I make Rob wait for his flanking buddy to get into position?
DM: You have to get cursed and ready a partial charge....yeah that would work alright.
Bob: But I said that  Rob in game waits to act...he had the chance to act too!
DM: Bob....I would ask ''Rob you wanna play?'' not ''Bob you wanna play?'' if it was in game. Now what was your flat-footed AC again?


Bob thinks that it makes no sense.
Rob admires John the fighter because he is always faster than him. *ALWAYS*. and he *ALWAYS *helps him in every single combat. 

Rob thought he was the fastest rogue in Waterdeep, but it is clear that the 8 DEX Fighter will always top him.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

> You claim there is no universal standard for when initiative applies



 I said there is no universal standard for when a battle starts or people become combatants.  You have a definition that is subjective...it is not scientific.  You're making assumptions about outcome and basing your opinion on that.  If you don't have a repeatable and consistent method for how you do it, then it would be arbitrary.



> That shouldn't be very difficult to understand.



 You remember when you said you'd fall on hubris?  It's hubris on your part to believe that your determination of when people become combatants is correct and eveyone else's is wrong if it does not agree with yours...when the very thing we're talking about has no basis in science. 



> No, I've read the rules and the strict literal interpretation of the RAW gives reasonable results.



  That's not what you said.  You said that if there were an alternative intepretation that gave you resaonable results, then clearly that alternate interpretation was the one intended.   Subjective.  Which makes it neither right nor wrong.



> ...but not every battle begins with at least someone being flat footed at the time of the first attack.



  Let me just throw something out there for you to consider...

The concept of being flat footed doesn't really serve a purpose if you aren't within striking distance.

Just throwing that out there.



> The rules do for combat encounters.



 Here, I think is your blindspot.  You're using metagame information to decide whether any encounter could result in a battle.  If it _could_ result in a battle, you are treating it like a battle from the start.  If not, and it turns into a battle, then you go back and damage control it.   The problem is that making _predictions_ about whether any given encounter is going to lead to a battle involves hueristics.  But you're convincing yourself it is some scientificly obvious methodology.   That's my take on it.

Have you spoken to anyone at WotC about how you determine when it's time to roll Initiative...and by extension...apply the FF rule? I fear they might say that there is no right answer!!!



> To my knowledge, I haven't done so.



  My apologies...I did not mean "you" personally, I meant you as in when oneself does this.  I always do that and expect people to know when I'm speaking on a general level rather than personal.  My bad.



> Not only is that not arbitrary by definition, but speaking as someone who has at times made his living writing modelling software and designing engineering solutions, the degree of accuracy of the model can often be definitively shown to be necessary and sufficient and the amount of error introduced by the simplifying assumtions can likewise be show to be forgivable and sufficient over a wide range of conditions and certainly the ones you are interested in.



  Hold up.  You're way off the mark here.  I'm talking about rationales in arguments.  Someone says, "I like this because it's chocolate ice cream" ....then later in another argument, they say" i hate this because it's chocolate ice cream"   Deciding when you like or hate something for the same attribute is by definiation ...arbitrary.  This is what people do with their "realism" arguments.

You're talking about the sufficiency of a model.  A statistical model's value is based on its predictive accuracy.   That has nothing to do with someones arguments for why they like or dislike something for the same attribute.



> Reflex saves aren't independent of your dex bonus. Anything that changes your dex bonus changes your reflex save.



  I'm talking about whether you _get_ the modifier...not whether the modifier changes.  You get REF saves and the bonus modifier even in stuations where you lose your dex modifier to AC because of a no dex modifier state...or am I missing something?



> Speaking as some one who tweaks the SRD quite a lot, I disagree. But by all means, have at it.



  Do you have any construcive criticism to add on my suggestion or are you just invested in disagreeing someone fix something with a simple solution?

Considering my solution, obviously the idea of being caught "with no dex bonus" now becomes a more more dire consequence.  Which would illuminate the fundamental problem in the inartful use of the term "no dex bonus" as a concept.  But to the extent that an a 10 Dex person who suddenly finds themselves at -5 AC seems egregious, I wonder how the same reaction does not result when a 30 Dex person finds themselves at -10 to AC as they do now?

I agree that fixing the problem exposes a bigger problem with what WotC really intended when it tried to identify situations where players couldn't react...above a certain modifier but were still penalized below it.  This is why I am leaning towards a flat tax on AC for no dex bonus situations.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 18, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> As for the example in the DMG, I'm very familiar with it. It's an almost exact port of the example in the 1e DMG to the 3.X system, and it was intended to show older players that the game hadn't really changed much. I have no serious problems with how it is run; and as far as initiative goes, I'd run it the same way. The DM gives the spider a surprise round where the spider takes a move action to drop on to the player. (As an aside, the 3.X rules are actually completely silent on the question of something landing on the back of a player, so this is all pretty much color in 3.X.) Then the DM rolls for initiative.




Yup. Just like the rules say. Just like my example.

The DM rolls for nish just as the first aggressive action is about to happen--the spider biting the PC that he dropped on.




See, the rule allow the GM to throw initiative when a battle is about to occur. I think you're throwing nish way too early, but that's your perogitive.

The part I've been saying about your interpretation of the rules is that you think actions prior nish being thrown influence initiative. This is plain not true, according to RAW.

Now, it might make sense. I'm thinking of doing it my encounter I described in the other thread: Where I'm thinking of having the Grath warrior start the round with an action readied. But, I admit, that's outside the rules.

You don't seem to think that action I may take is outside the rules.









> What I find really interesting is that you think you ran the scene with the thug exactly like the example in the DMG, when its very clear to me that you didn't.




What we could do is post a new thread with your interpretaton of the rules and see how many d20 3.5 players tell you that you are incorrect.









kitcik said:


> Well I'm flat footed, check it and see
> I got initiative of a lowly three
> Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
> I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed
> ...






Hey! You're stealing my fluff!

I wrote the original... HERE . That's the second time I posted it.

And, it was a little ditty that went like this...



> This discussion reminds me of a little ditty I wrote a while back to the tune of Foreigner's "Hot Blooded"...
> 
> Well, I'm Flatfooted, check it and see
> I rolled an initiative of only a three
> ...


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 18, 2011)

> Bob thinks that it makes no sense.



  Then Bob should"

1) Ask the DM to explain a rule he doesn't understand;

2) Resort to a dictionary to grok words like "result" and "voluntarily lower"

3) Taking courses in reading comprehension.

The problem with your dialogue example is that Bob is ambiguous about what he wants to do in the context of his options.  The DM should say are you going to "voluntairly lower your initative" or are you going to use a free action, standard, or move to "prepare to take an action later."

Which is it?


----------



## kitcik (Jul 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Then Bob should"
> 
> 1) Ask the DM to explain a rule he doesn't understand;
> 
> ...




Boo. Where's the negative XP button.

Rob hater.

Boo.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 18, 2011)

*Nerd minds think alike...*



Water Bob said:


> Hey! You're stealing my fluff!
> 
> I wrote the original... HERE . That's the second time I posted it.
> 
> And, it was a little ditty that went like this...




OK, I like it. Props to you, I was too late.

Note that mine addresses the OP though


----------



## anest1s (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Then Bob should"
> 
> 1) Ask the DM to explain a rule he doesn't understand;
> 
> ...




Sadly Bob thinks that voluntarily means that he has an option to do or not to do so something....result means that he is flat footed.Yeah, I know, Bob is simple minded. 

The DM told him to get courses in reading comprehension too, but like I said poor Bob is simple minded. He decided that he just has to accept being slower than his 8 dex pal than taking lengthy courses. See, sometimes the John just decides to attack someone randomly. So poor Bobs' ready action= waste action. So he thinks slower than 8 is better than dead.


(Now Bob aside, you can't possibly imagine how many times I would be flat footed, if I waited from the fighter to get the clue, and Delay was they way you say)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 19, 2011)

Anest1s has got this one correct; sorry, Arrowhawk.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> So poor Bobs' ready action= waste action. So he thinks slower than 8 is better than dead.



That's probably an intended trade-off, on the one hand you may waste an action...on the other, you're flat footed to everyone who goes before you. 



> (Now Bob aside, you can't possibly imagine how many times I would be flat footed, if I waited from the fighter to get the clue, and Delay was they way you say)



 I consider that it would force you to act sooner rather than later and minimize your ability to always flank people with little or no penalty.  Which you don't like, so it's better to interpret a "voluntarily lower of initative result."  As as an opportunity to act....and then saying you delay your action to Flank as a Delay...instead of a Ready action...which is what it would be.

Even if the plain English of the rule was ambiguous, the penalties imposed by the Ready action would suggest that it would be unacceptable to give Full Round actions while simultaneously avoiding being FF. I think the intent is force the players to sacrifice one benefit for another...not give them both benefits. That's an opinion.

I realize the rule as I've stated it, hurts your character and you're predisposed to hating it...but I'm being obective about it as I have no vested interest in interpreting the rule one way or the other.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> ...I'm being obective (sic) about it...




I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> Sadly Bob thinks that voluntarily means that he has an option to do or not to do so something...




Yeah...I can see how you can misinterpret that. But the voluntarily refers to the lowering of your initative...not your acting.

To put it another way...to Delay means to metagame and say your Initiative hasn't come up yet. We're all going to recognize that my 28 is really an 8. The benefit being that I, as a person, have more tactical information which translates into potentially more tactical opions, like flanking, later in the round. 

Yet another way to think of it is that the game didn't intend for you to be better off than someone who actually rolled an 8, which you would be if Delay meant you were no longer FF'd. WotC just wanted palyers to have the option of saying that you rolled an 28-X instead of a 28. 

Whether the pros outweigh the cons in any given situation is left for the player to decide.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> I realize the rule as I've stated it, hurts your character and you're predisposed to hating it...but I'm being obective about it as I have no vested interest in interpreting the rule one way or the other.




Sorry, but you are wrong. My DMs would never consider me flat footed if I Delayed, so I am not really biased- I won't defend a rogue who plays in your group and whom I don't even know either, just because I happen to play a rogue too. I also know that I can't change your opinion, so that wasn't my point either. 




Arrowhawk said:


> That's probably an intended trade-off, on the one hand you may waste an  action...on the other, you're flat footed to everyone who goes before  you.




But I find such statements interesting enough...why would they intend such a trade off? I mean, clearly John could use his strength from the beginning of the combat or even before that. I invested on my dexterity though...and I have to pay something...why so? 

Without Delay keeping you flat footed, the higher the DEX I have the less I get flat footed...but when I am flat footed I really, really suck.
If the Delay keeps me flat footed, then I have to trade off between sucking on attacking and sucking on defending. Now if I was a fighter I would still have my feats, my heavy armor, my heavy shield etc etc...plus I wouldn't care about the rogue.


About the ready action...sadly I don't want to depend on out-of game instructions to the Fighter. He wouldn't like it either. The DM wouldn't like it too. So why would he force me to do that?



Arrowhawk said:


> Even if the plain English of the rule was ambiguous, the penalties  imposed by the Ready action would suggest that it would be unacceptable  to give Full Round actions while simultaneously avoiding being FF. I  think the intent is force the players to sacrifice one benefit for  another...not give them both benefits. That's an opinion.




I am afraid I am unaware of the penalties of a ready action. Ready action isn't Delay...it is great in just a few situations, but not really connected with Delay.

And then if you are right. What that so much needed penalty on rounds after the first would be?

______

About your second post.

Give me a way to Delay in game then. Rob would love that. He may even be able to curse John in his mind, for slowing him down.


----------



## SolitonMan (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Yeah...I can see how you can misinterpret that. But the voluntarily refers to the lowering of your initative...not your acting.
> 
> To put it another way...to Delay means to metagame and say your Initiative hasn't come up yet. We're all going to recognize that my 28 is really an 8. The benefit being that I, as a person, have more tactical information which translates into potentially more tactical opions, like flanking, later in the round.
> 
> ...




Except that you can act and delay.  For example, when my turn comes up in the initiative order, I can drop my longspear (free action), quick draw my longsword (free action), shout at my enemy,"Come and get me, craven coward!!" (free action) and delay.  When I finally do act, my initiative is set at whatever count I act on for the rest of the combat, unless I take any other delay or ready actions.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> My DMs would never consider me flat footed if I Delayed, so I am not really biased



 But if they read my interpretation of the rules...and they agreed with it...then you would be upset?  Correct?  



> I won't defend a rogue who plays in your group and whom I don't even know either



 We don't have any PC rogues in our group.  No one has had attempted to use Delay in our campaign yet.



> But I find such statements interesting enough...why would they intend such a trade off?



 For the same reason they put FF in the game to begin with.  Look, in the PHB, the first or second rule in the "Combat" section is: 

Everyone starts out flat footed.

That's a big deal if you're a rogue or a high dex character.  Especially when the RAW say you lose your ENTIRE dex bonus...regardless of what it is.   But if you have a Dex of 10, you get away scott free.  Pray tell me how does that makes sense in terms of balance?

There are all kinds of decisions the WotC made with regards to penalties, conditions, modifiers that leave one scratching his head going, hunh?



> I mean, clearly John could use his strength from the beginning of the combat or even before that. I invested on my dexterity though...and I have to pay something...why so?



 The TWF have been asking that since 3.0.  I have a suspicion of what the answer is...but that's another topic.



> Without Delay keeping you flat footed, the higher the DEX I have the less I get flat footed...but when I am flat footed I really, really suck.



 Dude, you're preaching to the choir.   The problem is not with being FF...it's with the NO DEX BONUS.  If it were just a flat tax...it wouldn't be so egregous to high dex characters who lose Init. 

But again, statistically, you are least likely to be caught flat footed...so maybe that's why the game shrugged on the nastyness of no dex bonus...and subsequently being FF'd



> If the Delay keeps me flat footed, then I have to trade off between sucking on attacking and sucking on defending.



 So wait...you think it's unfair to make you choose between being good at one or the other?



> Now if I was a fighter I would still have my feats, my heavy armor, my heavy shield etc etc...plus I wouldn't care about the rogue.



 Grass is always greener on the other side, isn't it?  I'm sure the fighter would LOVE Uncanny Dodge...which you can't get as a pure Fighter.   Several dice of Sneak Attack damage would be pretty snazzy too.  

Honestly, all the classes can't be balanced.  It's not possible.  What you hope for is that you each class has meaningful purpose.



> About the ready action...sadly I don't want to depend on out-of game instructions to the Fighter. He wouldn't like it either. The DM wouldn't like it too. So why would he force me to do that?



  So saying, "I ready an action to flank anyone the fighter attacks within my 30' radius" is in voilation of someone's sense of decorum?



> I am afraid I am unaware of the penalties of a ready action. Ready action isn't Delay



  Go here:

Special Initiative Actions :: d20srd.org



> And then if you are right. What that so much needed penalty on rounds after the first would be?



 Not sure I understand the question?


Just out of raw curiosity, after your DM lets you delay your action....what is your Iniatitive in the next round?  Do you still keep your 28 and get to decide if you want to Delay all over again?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> Except that you can act and delay. For example, when my turn comes up in the initiative order, I can drop my longspear (free action), quick draw my longsword (free action), shout at my enemy,"Come and get me, craven coward!!" (free action) and delay. When I finally do act, my initiative is set at whatever count I act on for the rest of the combat, unless I take any other delay or ready actions.



 That would be a Ready Action, not a Delay.  If you could take Free actions during your initiative ...then Delay would say that.  Instead, it says...

"By choosing to delay, you take *no action *and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act."

Emphasis added.    

So techincally your Free actions violate the requirements of a Delay.  The DM should you require to state a trigger for whatever action you're going to take later in the round.

Both Delay and Ready change your initative order.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> About your second post.
> 
> Give me a way to Delay in game then. Rob would love that. He may even be able to curse John in his mind, for slowing him down.




I would use the Ready action and state your trigger so that John knows what he has to do to enable it.  If John doesn't get the hint and do it, then you have my permisison to beat him with a wet noodle.

In the meantime, can you make TWF not suck in the hands of a pure Ranger?


----------



## kitcik (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Yeah...I can see how you can misinterpret that. But the voluntarily refers to the lowering of your initative...not your acting.
> 
> To put it another way...to Delay means to metagame and say your Initiative hasn't come up yet. We're all going to recognize that my 28 is really an 8. The benefit being that I, as a person, have more tactical information which translates into potentially more tactical opions, like flanking, later in the round.
> 
> Yet another way to think of it is that the game didn't intend for you to be better off than someone who actually rolled an 8, which you would be if Delay meant you were no longer FF'd. WotC just wanted palyers to have the option of saying that you rolled an 28-X instead of a 28.




This is a pathetic grasping at straws after you have been proven wrong again and again.

You know what the "voluntary" refers to because you wrote the game? No? Oh, you know what the voluntary means b/c you are the all-knowing. Sorry, my bad.

Delay is metagaming to get more info? Why do you say that? Because otherwise your point would have less validity? It couldn't possibly be that my character is waiting for more info? Wouldn't they want tactical info? Maybe flanking? No, of course not, they are flat-brained as well as flat footed in the Arroganthawk multiverse.

WOTC didn't want the higher Dex to have an advantage, they just wanted you to be able to say you rolled differently? This is your logic? Really? Are you smarter than a 5th grader?



Arrowhawk said:


> That would be a Ready Action, not a Delay.  If you could take Free actions during your initiative ...then Delay would say that.  Instead, it says...
> 
> "By choosing to delay, you take *no action *and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act."
> 
> ...




On the other hand, I actually agree 100% with you here. Taking free actions on your original initiative would preclude a delay. You could only do a ready action.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> This is a pathetic grasping at straws after you have been proven wrong again and again.
> 
> You know what the "voluntary" refers to because you wrote the game? No? Oh, you know what the voluntary means b/c you are the all-knowing. Sorry, my bad.
> 
> ...




Been waiting to release that all day?  Out of curiosity, is making a post like that release stress like a bowel movement or are you all tensed up from having to roll Initiative on account of  your becoming a combatant?



> On the other hand, I actually agree 100% with you here.



Hey, even a blind squirrel like me can dig up a nut once in awhile.  I promise not to do it again.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 19, 2011)

Did someone say something?

...


...


Nope, must've just heard the toilet flushing.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> Nope, must've just heard the toilet flushing.



 That was kind of funny. I think I may have even lol'd.

EDIT:

Wait...let me check my diaper....yup...I lol'd.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 19, 2011)

*The One Action To End All Surprises!*



			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> *Speak*
> In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.




I take an action! I am no longer flat-footed!

But all kidding aside, this is from the SRD:



			
				 d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Flat-Footed
> At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act *(specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order*), you are flat-footed.




As far as I can tell, in between the person who acted before your first regular turn and your first turn, you are no longer flat-footed.



			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act.




So, using the Delay Action is a no action:



			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> The Combat Round
> When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions.
> 
> ...
> ...




It doesn't look like "no actions" can be used before your first initiative count, as far as I can tell. To that end, I think you would cease to be flat-footed the moment before your first turn. You can then take a no action to Delay Action, but you may not do this before your turn (as "Not an Action" is a type of action, and actions must be done on your initiative).

In fact, If we look closely at the wording of "Not an Action" we won't find it saying that it is, in fact, not an action. It's only saying that it is not even considered a free action. It is still found, oddly enough, under "Action Types" in both the d20 SRD and the 3.5 PHB (page 138-139).

To that end, I think taking a "no action" is a type of action.

The only rebuttal I see possible is that the "you take no actions" wording in the Delay Action section is somehow different from "Not an Action." If that's the case, I'm not sure how else you would determine when you get to use it other than by initiative order (as it's a combat action, and initiative determines when you can make decisions).

As we noted earlier, you are flat-footed "before you have had a chance to act *(specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order*)" and that Delay Action lowers your initiative. The problem I see there is that you've had to reach your first initiative once in order to choose to delay, and you are no longer flat-footed moments before that first initiative count.

Anyways, just my thoughts on it. Not that this really matters that much to me, personally. As always, play what you like


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

SolitonMan said:


> Except that you can act and delay.  For example, when my turn comes up in the initiative order, I can drop my longspear (free action), quick draw my longsword (free action), shout at my enemy,"Come and get me, craven coward!!" (free action) and delay.  When I finally do act, my initiative is set at whatever count I act on for the rest of the combat, unless I take any other delay or ready actions.




You can't take free actions if you delay unless they specifically state that they can be done anytime (like speaking does), drop an item or quick draw do not say you can do them anytime - so you must do them on your turn in the initiative order (which by delaying has now changed).

Rules Compendium pg 43

"By choosing to delay, you take no action on your regular turn, then act normally on whatever initiaitive count you decide. You voluntarily change your initiative for the rest of the combat. You can specify this new initiative count, or you can just wait until a certain time and act then."

RC defines delay as a "no action" which is why you can perform it.  Technically a 5 ft step is also a no action, so I guess you could take a 5 ft step and delay also (doesn't mean I would run it that way only that the rules seem to allow it).


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> I would use the Ready action and state your trigger so that John knows what he has to do to enable it.  If John doesn't get the hint and do it, then you have my permisison to beat him with a wet noodle.





That is of course metagaming.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

Why delay is not metagaming.

RC pg 43 (excerpts)

"Those who hesitate, win

Some say that battles are wn or lost on initiative, but that's not always true. SOmetimes it's best to keep your options open and choose your moment, rather than leting it choose you.

Delay is a cleric's best friend. Someone's going to get hurt badly this round, but you don't know who. Your attack options just aren't going to cut for this fight, and you know from past experience tht keeping the barbarian or wizard up and causing mass destruction is more efective than a smack or two from your mace, If you delay, you can be at a wounded or downed ally's side, cast a healing spell, and have him up and fighting again withour a wasted round between."

This is probably the most commonly used delay option in our games.

Others involve waiting to see how the battle field plays out in order to choose the correct spell.

Now maybe we have different meanings for what metagaming is.

I define it as using out of game knowledge for in game advantage.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> But if they read my interpretation of the rules...and they agreed with it...then you would be upset?  Correct?



Maybe yes, maybe not...but I won't go back to edit everything I wrote so far and make it more biased.




> That's a big deal if you're a rogue or a high dex character.  Especially when the RAW say you lose your ENTIRE dex bonus...regardless of what it is.   But if you have a Dex of 10, you get away scott free.  Pray tell me how does that makes sense in terms of balance?



Well, John almost always will play last. Rob will almost always play first. John sucks against touch attacks, Rob against being flat footed. 
So Rob should trie to hit the caster in his turn to save John, and John should help Rob to flank.



> Dude, you're preaching to the choir.   The problem is not with being FF...it's with the NO DEX BONUS.  If it were just a flat tax...it wouldn't be so egregous to high dex characters who lose Init.
> 
> But again, statistically, you are least likely to be caught flat footed...so maybe that's why the game shrugged on the nastyness of no dex bonus...and subsequently being FF'd



I don't think anyone minds sucking because the dice said so...but sucking because the DM said so is wwaaaay different situation.



> So wait...you think it's unfair to make you choose between being good at one or the other?



If I don't delay I won't be able to flank for sure...however I will have to risk some AoOs, and be kinda lucky to flank, even if I delay. Likewise I can still get hit many times when not flatfooted too.

So I don't really get something good if I accept something bad for my character. Instead I have to guess what hurts me less.



> Grass is always greener on the other side, isn't it?  I'm sure the fighter would LOVE Uncanny Dodge...which you can't get as a pure Fighter.   Several dice of Sneak Attack damage would be pretty snazzy too.
> 
> Honestly, all the classes can't be balanced.  It's not possible.  What you hope for is that you each class has meaningful purpose.



 That would justify houseruling ''all spellcasters are immortal in my world'' to you?



> So saying, "I ready an action to flank anyone the fighter attacks within my 30' radius" is in voilation of someone's sense of decorum?



It hurts their sense of ''standard action''. 



> Not sure I understand the question?



What is that, that makes the Delay so different when used on the first round and when used on second or third round? I mean, if you say that it is unacceptable to not be flat footed, and thats a balance between Delay and Ready Action....and since Ready Action is the same no matter if it is first round or not...why the ''balance'' has to change after the first round?



> Just out of raw curiosity, after your DM lets you delay your action....what is your Iniatitive in the next round?  Do you still keep your 28 and get to decide if you want to Delay all over again?



You play after the guy you waited to play after.



> I would use the Ready action and state your trigger so that John knows  what he has to do to enable it.  If John doesn't get the hint and do it,  then you have my permisison to beat him with a wet noodle.



John thinks he shouldn't metagame and actually choses an other target on purpose. DM gives exp penalty for out of game comments. And Rob wouldn't ask for help in-game even if we was about to die. True story.



> In the meantime, can you make TWF not suck in the hands of a pure Ranger?



Well actually there are many ways to do this. He should take combat reflexes,then draw his weapons while moving for a single attack. (The rapid shot ranger has to get bow out and throw an arrow)

He then hits with two weapons every time he can full attack, or he gets an AoO and a normal attack every time he can't full attack. Combat reflexes may even give more attacks.

And then he can have a flank party with the rogue, to counter the -2 for two weapon fighting...something that with a bow would have to take 2 feats to counter.

Poor ranged ranger has to run away when someone comes next to him though...and probably gets disarmed rather quickly. 

Really, the ranger with TWF is a strange example to prove weakness...


----------



## SolitonMan (Jul 19, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> You can't take free actions if you delay unless they specifically state that they can be done anytime (like speaking does), drop an item or quick draw do not say you can do them anytime - so you must do them on your turn in the initiative order (which by delaying has now changed).
> 
> Rules Compendium pg 43
> 
> ...




Whatever.  My example is how we've played it since 2003.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> As far as I can tell, in between the person who acted before your first regular turn and your first turn, you are no longer flat-footed.



 It seems the point of confusion here is what it means to "voluntarily lower your initiative result." This is plain English and I'm at a loss why this is so obscure to people.

If the game wanted to talk about your character waiting round, they would have simply used plaing English to say something like, "Your character waits around to take an action." 

Instead, the rule specifically talks about the the metagame...your initiative "result" (= what you rolled + modifiers was) and what you technically changed it to.




> So, using the Delay Action is a no action



 The rule says "you take no action." The rule does not say that a Delay is a "no action." Nor does the game define an action called "no action." The WotC is simply trying to tell people that some things that can happen don't fit into the "Action" category, so you don't need to account for them as an "Action" within the frame work of free, standarad, move, etc." Blinking your eyes is an action. But that does not register on the "Action" detector so the game says it's not considered an action_...in terms of the game counter._ 



> It doesn't look like "no actions" can be used before your first initiative count, as far as I can tell.



 Technically, you're character is frozen in time (with the exception that you can face any direction you want and block an infinite number of attacks) until his/her Initiative. Guess what happens when you Delay? You substitute your original "result" for a lower "result." So you are still frozen in time until your Init comes up. 



> To that end, I think you would cease to be flat-footed the moment before your first turn.



 That's right.



> You can then take a no action to Delay Action, but you may not do this before your turn



 That's not what the rule says. The rule specifically does not tell you when you can decide to "voluntarily lower your initiative result." Under the RAW, after everyone rolls Init, but before the first person takes any action, I can tell the DM to lower my Init to 1. I don't have to wait until it's my turn to make that declaration...because it's a metagame decision. Alternatively, I can wait until the right moment and tell the DM I want to act NOW. This can be a huge advantage. Thus, if you roll a high Init, you have options than if you roll a low Init.



> (as "Not an Action" is a type of action, and actions must be done on your initiative).



 I submit, you're misreading the text. "Not an action" is not a "type" of action. It's saying that some actions are not tracked within the context of Actions. It's like if the rules defined these things as Weapons...and has a heading called "Not a Weapon." Not a Weapon is not a category of weapons. It's category of things that are _not_ weapons..._in the context of the game_.



> To that end, I think taking a "no action" is a type of action.



 You can...not act. Or you can take a Standard Action to prepare yourself to act later...or, you can "voluntarily lower your initative result" and gain the benefit of acting later in the round...but you can't take a "no action" action. You simply choose not to act ..and foregoe any action on your initiative. You would no longer be flat footed...and you would no longer be able to act until your next turn.



> The only rebuttal I see possible is that the "you take no actions" wording in the Delay Action section is somehow different from "Not an Action."



 Plain English for "teh" win!



> If that's the case, I'm not sure how else you would determine when you get to use it other than by initiative order (as it's a combat action, and initiative determines when you can make decisions).



 I don't follow. The RAW says you can make that determination at any point...if you don't elect to change your Init "result" then you have to act on your original roll. It's not that complicated. 



> The problem I see there is that you've had to reach your first initiative once in order to choose to delay



 Show me where in the RAW is says you have to wait till your Init turn to choose to Delay? You have to wait until your Init to choose Ready...not Delay. What is true is that the last point at which you can _choose _to Delay is the original Init result.



> Anyways, just my thoughts on it. Not that this really matters that much to me, personally. As always, play what you like



 Ditto.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> Why delay is not metagaming. ***
> 
> Now maybe we have different meanings for what metagaming is.
> 
> I define it as using out of game knowledge for in game advantage.



  That's the gist of it, though the term is a little broader in application.  Your hang up is a result of your not understanding what I'm referring to.   Lowering your init "result" is the metagame decision in a Delay action.   Acting on the information you gain from your metagame decision is not metagaming.

Hanging out and doing nothing to see what happens is not metagaming, assuming we ignore the plausability that the guy who acts last would have the perfect knowlege of the decisions and results of an infinfite number of combatants who went before him.

The Ready action is not metagaming.  Going last and acting on the info you observe, because your Init "result" is the lowest, is not metagaming.  If you go back an read what I typed, that should be evident to you. If you are predisposed to interpreting my statements in a way that you can argue against them....then I can see how it's easy to convince yourself that this is what I was saying.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

anest1s said:


> I don't think anyone minds sucking because the dice said so...but sucking because the DM said so is wwaaaay different situation.



 So if the DM says I have a rule whereby you roll the dice and if you get the lowest roll, you suck...that's okay? Because essentially that's what the No Dex rule says.



> If I don't delay I won't be able to flank for sure



 That's not true. The Ready action gives you the same option to flank...you just have identify the situation which triggers your flanking action. 



> So I don't really get something good if I accept something bad for my character. Instead I have to guess what hurts me less.



 If you act first...you kill first and avoid retaliation. If you act last, you can die first...but you may be in a better position to retaliate. It's a trade off. 



> That would justify houseruling ''all spellcasters are immortal in my world'' to you?



 First off, I'm talking about moderate imbalance, not cosmic. If spellcaster can't be killed, what would be the point of them playing with other adventurers. So your house rule has made all other characters obsolete. The other classes no longer serve a _purpose_. Gross imbalances in classes or in the rules can make other classes unnecessary. But in a PnP game, the adventures are supposed to be tailored to the party, so minor differences...like damage dealt by TWF first S&B...are minimized if even noticable. The problem arises in video games where stats are easily maintained and the majority of advancement comes from straight combat. In PnP, perfect, or even decent balance between classes is not mandatory. Purpose...is always mandatory.



> It hurts their sense of ''standard action''.



 Which is the WotC explicitly saying we're not going to give you something for free. If you want to take advantage of a tactical situation...while retaining your other beneifts, there's a cost.



> What is that, that makes the Delay so different when used on the first round and when used on second or third round?



 The FF rule. Because that is what you're complaining about. You don't want to be caught FF'd. But you want to be able to act last with a Full Actoin. In the first round, those two are mutually exclusive. Why wouldn't WotC want to preserve the impact of the FF rule in the first round? Leting high dex characters not only avoid being FF and simultaneously get the full benefit of acting last...was something they obviously didn't want to allow. Kind of like making Rangers lose 1d8 of hit points at first level...then charging them for TWF...forcing them to wear light armore to get benefits...and a host of other things they did to the class. It's their art. They think the game is better because of it.



> I mean, if you say that it is unacceptable to not be flat footed, and thats a balance between Delay and Ready Action....and since Ready Action is the same no matter if it is first round or not...why the ''balance'' has to change after the first round?



 So it seems odd that Delay only has this penatly of remaining FF in the first round because Ready doesn't suffer any additional penalty in the first round? 

My response is that what Delay and Ready do are independent of each other. They operate on two different completely different mechanics, so if one suffers or seems to have variable benefits...it's not relevant to the other. Ready is an "in-game" action. Delay is "I want a lower Initiative result." The may allow the same tactical outcomes...but that is coincidental. Remember, the Ready action allows you to "interrupt" someone elses actions. a Ready can stop a spellcaster from casting. You can't do that with Delay. They are designed for two different goals...even though there is overlap in how they can be used.

If your'e asking why shouldn't Delay be the same benefit regardless....I don't have an answer. I still haven't seen an explanation why no Dex Bonus is better for the game the way it works now. I mean, the game could have said you roll for Init every round. The game could have said every round, you start FF because you don't know what's going to happen next. <shrug>



> John thinks he shouldn't metagame and actually choses an other target on purpose.



 John is probably metagaming all over the place and just being arbitrary about what metagaming is acceptable and what is not. Is it in-character for a Fighter in the party to not recognize the benefit of helping his teammate flank? Deciding not to metagame and _specifically_ picking a target you can't flank as a result....is metagaming. 



> Really, the ranger with TWF is a strange example to prove weakness...



 Except that every credible statistical analysis I have seen involving TWF in a pure ranger shows it's weaker than any other combat oriented option. You can certainly create extreme cases where it holds its one...but Feat for Feat...it's weaker than S&B and THF. So you stick Rangers with a Combat style that does weaker damage on average and lowers their AC by as much as half a dozen against traditional S&B. Wait...why were Rangers even given TWF to begin with? Is Legolas is more representative of the class than Aragorn? Whatever.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

For those of you wanting to not be FF at all...here is the solution:

*Immediate Action*

An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time — *even if it's not your turn*. ​ 
So since everyone has an option to take an Immediate action...no one is ever FF because he "may" have acted. Problem solved Bob.  Don't you just love rules in RPG's?


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> The rule says "you take no action." The rule does not say that a Delay is a "no action." Nor does the game define an action called "no action." The WotC is simply trying to tell people that some things that can happen don't fit into the "Action" category, so you don't need to account for them as an "Action" within the frame work of free, standarad, move, etc." Blinking your eyes is an action. But that does not register on the "Action" detector so the game says it's not considered an action_...in terms of the game counter._
> I submit, you're misreading the text. "Not an action" is not a "type" of action. It's saying that some actions are not tracked within the context of Actions. It's like if the rules defined these things as Weapons...and has a heading called "Not a Weapon." Not a Weapon is not a category of weapons. It's category of things that are _not_ weapons..._in the context of the game_.
> 
> You can...not act. Or you can take a Standard Action to prepare yourself to act later...or, you can "voluntarily lower your initative result" and gain the benefit of acting later in the round...but you can't take a "no action" action. You simply choose not to act ..and foregoe any action on your initiative. You would no longer be flat footed...and you would no longer be able to act until your next turn.




Rules Compendium pg 7, 8 & 9 Define "no action" and "not an Action" as action types.

Pg 7 under "Action Types"
. . . . 

"Not an Action" {see my earlier quote for the actual text}

Pg 8 & 9

"Actions in Combat"

Under No Action

5-foot step
Attack of Opportunity
Cover from mount (DC 15 Ride check)
Delay
Duel of Wills (intimidate)
Fight Defensively
Guide Mount with Knees (DC 5 Ride check)
Identify spell being cast (Spellcraft check, DC 15 + spell level)
Make COncentration check
Make a passive Listen check or Spot check
Stay in saddle (DC 5 Ride check)

PHB pg 141

Actions in Combat

No Action -
5 foot step
Delay

PHB p 138-139

Action types

Standard
Move Action
Full-round Action
Free Action
Not an Action
Restricted Activity

So the rules actually do say that Delay is a no action and defines not an action as an action type.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> So if the DM says I have a rule whereby you roll the dice and if you get the lowest roll, you suck...that's okay? Because essentially that's what the No Dex rule says.




Yea its ok...because the NPCs will fail too, and I won't fail more because I of my class.



> That's not true. The Ready action gives you the same option to flank...you just have identify the situation which triggers your flanking action.



 Its not the same. Its weaker. You need to have the power to see the future to say they are the same. If the orcs play first than the fighter no kind of ready action can give you a flank. Except if you can predict where the orc will move, so you will move next to where it will move and then ready for having the fighter also moving where you predicted. Sorry, but...it just doesn't work.


> If you act first...you kill first and avoid retaliation. If you act last, you can die first...but you may be in a better position to retaliate. It's a trade off.



Its not a balanced trade off. I already did my part of the trade when I was putting an above 10 DEX score and I was giving that 10 to my STR, crippling myself forever.


> First off, I'm talking about moderate imbalance, not cosmic. If spellcaster can't be killed, what would be the point of them playing with other adventurers. So your house rule has made all other characters obsolete. The other classes no longer serve a _purpose_. Gross imbalances in classes or in the rules can make other classes unnecessary. But in a PnP game, the adventures are supposed to be tailored to the party, so minor differences...like damage dealt by TWF first S&B...are minimized if even noticable. The problem arises in video games where stats are easily maintained and the majority of advancement comes from straight combat. In PnP, perfect, or even decent balance between classes is not mandatory. Purpose...is always mandatory.



 I don't know what S&B is. The cosmic imbalance was an extreme example. My point was, that you can't say its ok to nerf that rogue, because other things are imbalanced too.



> Which is the WotC explicitly saying we're not going to give you something for free. If you want to take advantage of a tactical situation...while retaining your other beneifts, there's a cost.



 You just say that Ready action can do the same thing, but cheaper, if you metagame good. Then you say they had that planned, because they wanted you to pay. But why would they make you pay for not metagaming?




> The FF rule. Because that is what you're complaining about. You don't want to be caught FF'd. But you want to be able to act last with a Full Actoin. In the first round, those two are mutually exclusive. Why wouldn't WotC want to preserve the impact of the FF rule in the first round? Leting high dex characters not only avoid being FF and simultaneously get the full benefit of acting last...was something they obviously didn't want to allow. Kind of like making Rangers lose 1d8 of hit points at first level...then charging them for TWF...forcing them to wear light armore to get benefits...and a host of other things they did to the class. It's their art. They think the game is better because of it.



 Are you trying to prove that the FF rule is crap, by making other rules to make you flat footed? And you call me biased? 

Why they obviously wouldn't want that, when if the rules are the way I read them, they actually allow that? Giving examples of other rules you don't like doesn't prove much to me...





> The may allow the same tactical outcomes...but that is coincidental. Remember, the Ready action allows you to "interrupt" someone elses actions. a Ready can stop a spellcaster from casting. You can't do that with Delay. They are designed for two different goals...even though there is overlap in how they can be used.



 So, now that you proved that those two are different....why Delay should have a penalty? Its different enough to assume that it can't be ''better'' than Ready Action. And if its not ''better'' than Ready Action, but just different, why should there be a penalty, in comparison with the Ready Action that has no penalty?


> If your'e asking why shouldn't Delay be the same benefit regardless....I don't have an answer. I still haven't seen an explanation why no Dex Bonus is better for the game the way it works now. I mean, the game could have said you roll for Init every round. The game could have said every round, you start FF because you don't know what's going to happen next. <shrug>



 I think there is a variant where you roll initiative every round, but I don't think anyone would ever use it....even though it would greatly benefit the rogues, and would make the game more tactical.



> John is probably metagaming all over the place and just being arbitrary about what metagaming is acceptable and what is not. Is it in-character for a Fighter in the party to not recognize the benefit of helping his teammate flank? Deciding not to metagame and _specifically_ picking a target you can't flank as a result....is metagaming.




You are right...but you can't force an other player to do something.
You are stuck with asking for help from John...when you could delay and instead offer help (and get the kill too). 



> Except that every credible statistical analysis I have seen involving TWF in a pure ranger shows it's weaker than any other combat oriented option. You can certainly create extreme cases where it holds its one...but Feat for Feat...it's weaker than S&B and THF. So you stick Rangers with a Combat style that does weaker damage on average and lowers their AC by as much as half a dozen against traditional S&B. Wait...why were Rangers even given TWF to begin with? Is Legolas is more representative of the class than Aragorn? Whatever.




Don't get me wrong, but I don't think this thread is about rangers and I don't know what THF is either.

___

Bout your second post.
Good try, but like you point out for the last pages when your turn is, is what defines when you are flat footed. 
The argument is that your regular turn is when you decide to Delay, and not when you decide to play...because you had an option to act then. 

Now if you say that you can have an immediate action just when you delay...hell you are right. This means that you aren't flat footed any more, even when with your understanding of the rules. 


Anyway one last question. Why you consider regular, the delayed initiative order, and not the original one? I mean, regular implies something normal, not a tricky option that is available and you may or may not use...?


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> It seems the point of confusion here is what it means to "voluntarily lower your initiative result." This is plain English and I'm at a loss why this is so obscure to people.




I think it is because "before you have had a chance
to act" is likewise plain English, only the latter is what defines being flat-footed not the former.

Being flat-footed does not state anywhere act on your intiative order number only have had the chance to act.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> So the rules actually do say that Delay is a no action and defines not an action as an action type.




*slaps head*

The rule says "you *take* no action."   It does not say you "take No Action."  Nor does it say you "take a No Action action."  

I tell you what.  You give me $100 and in return I'll give you as much "no money" as you want in return and we'll call it even.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> *slaps head*
> 
> The rule says "you *take* no action." It does not say you "take No Action." Nor does it say you "take a No Action action."
> 
> I tell you what. You give me $100 and in return I'll give you as much "no money" as you want in return and we'll call it even.




Mr. Clinton, I think the correct analogy would be:
"I will *give* you no money."
"You will give me No Money."


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> "Actions in Combat"
> 
> Under No Action
> 
> ...




Money your Character Can Have

A Lot of Money
Not So Much Money
No Money

Under your analysis, "No Money" is a type of money you can have.

Do you understand the process of defining things as not a part of a category is not the same as making those thing a part of the category?

Do you understand why the game needs to define various things as not being an Action...like staying in the saddle?


----------



## anest1s (Jul 19, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> Rules Compendium pg 7, 8 & 9 Define "no action" and "not an Action" as action types.
> 
> Pg 7 under "Action Types"
> . . . .
> ...






Arrowhawk said:


> *slaps head*
> 
> The rule says "you *take* no action."   It does not say you "take No Action."  Nor does it say you "take a No Action action."
> 
> I tell you what.  You give me $100 and in return I'll give you as much "no money" as you want in return and we'll call it even.




So a 5ft step is no action either. And not a ''No Action'' action. Since they are listed together.

If I give you 100$ and you give me infinite 0,000001$ which are no money, then I think you've got a deal sir.  Now pay up infinite money


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

anest1s said:


> So a 5ft step is no action either. And not a ''No Action'' action. Since they are listed together.



 The 5-foot step is a fudge in the game. If it's No Action, then why can't I take a 100 No Actions and get through the entire dungeon on the first round? 


Did you see the category defined as "Action Type Varies." Clearly Action Type Varies is it's own action type....there's no way they meant..."the action type varies depending on the action." They clearly meant to create a specific action called Action Type Varies.

Such are the conclusions this logic leads us to.



> If I give you 100$ and you give me infinite 0,000001$ which are no money, then I think you've got a deal sir. Now pay up infinite money



 I hope you're not a math teacher .


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

> I think it is because "before you have had a chance
> to act" is likewise plain English, only the latter is what defines being flat-footed not the former.
> 
> Being flat-footed does not state anywhere act on your intiative order number only have had the chance to act.



  I think the problem is it is ambigous for various readers to determine who is supposed to be making the decision to Delay.

People here are interpreting the "voluntarily lower your initiative result" with the idea that their character is making the decision...and is thus taking no action...by choice..and thus eliminating the FF flag.

Other people are deciding that you can't Delay until its your turn...and this coincides with your _character_ having an opportunity to act.   But the rule does not say you have to wait till your turn to make the Delay decision.  So the decision to Delay has nothing to do with what your character decides...but what you decide.  Your "Delay" is the lowering of an init "result"...not the waiting to act.  The distinction is crucial to the rule.

Think of it this way...the way its written in plain English, you're substituting your Init roll for something else.  It would have been trivial for them to state it as the "character preparesto act...but waits"  

Let me try this:  If they wanted you to be able to simply delay your acting....why not do that with the Ready action?   Why would you create a Ready act that imposes a Standard action fee?  On the off chance you might interrupt a spell caster?

Doesn't it make more sense that WotC would give you an option to voluntarily swap out our init roll for something lower?  

Look, i've offered my rationale.   It's not beyond the realm of possibilities that the writer of this rule was incompetent and meant to write the rule how you interpret it but simply couldn't find the language to be precise.  Yeah...that's a possibility.  But it's more likely he meant it the way its written: You're changing your actual roll to be something lower...ergo, since you can't act until your Init turn, your _character_ has no opportunity act until you've decided what the roll actually is.

Here's one final thing to consider.  If the Delay was executed by the character in game...then why couldn't he declare a trigger and interrupt something as soon as he witnessed it?  The obvious answer is because the _character_ isn't delaying.  The _character_ hasn't had its init turn come up becase the _player_ took a lower number.  If you want the _character_ to delay, then you need to Ready an action...for which WotC imposes a cost.

I don't think there's much more to cover on this.  You can respond..and I'll read it...but I think I've been repeating myself for like the last 10 posts.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> The 5-foot step is a fudge in the game. If it's No Action, then why can't I take a 100 No Actions and get through the entire dungeon on the first round?



 See? no action is actually an action. Glad you finally agree. 



> I hope you're not a math teacher .



Why, you don't like paying math teachers? 


I think I am gonna repeat myself, but well....I still wanna know the answer


> Anyway one last question. Why you consider regular, the delayed  initiative order, and not the original one? I mean, regular implies  something normal, not a tricky option that is available and you may or  may not use...?


----------



## anest1s (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Let me try this:  If they wanted you to be able to simply delay your acting....why not do that with the Ready action?   Why would you create a Ready act that imposes a Standard action fee?  On the off chance you might interrupt a spell caster?



 You just said Ready Action before that Ready Action is different than delay. I thought we got past that point. So you are back to saying that Ready Action and Delay are somehow the same thing?



> Doesn't it make more sense that WotC would give you an option to voluntarily swap out our init roll for something lower?



It is there, we can see it. We have the chance to act, but *voluntarily *we don't. We Delay. 




> Here's one final thing to consider.  If the Delay was executed by the character in game...then why couldn't he declare a trigger and interrupt something as soon as he witnessed it?  The obvious answer is because the _character_ isn't delaying.  The _character_ hasn't had its init turn come up becase the _player_ took a lower number.  If you want the _character_ to delay, then you need to Ready an action...for which WotC imposes a cost.



 You cant interrupt with delay. DUH!! 



> I don't think there's much more to cover on this.  You can respond..and I'll read it...but I think I've been repeating myself for like the last 10 posts.




Then point out the answers to my posts...clearly I somehow missed them!
No need to retype, just quote yourself, to make it easier!


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 19, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> You can't take free actions if you delay unless they specifically state that they can be done anytime (like speaking does), drop an item or quick draw do not say you can do them anytime - so you must do them on your turn in the initiative order (which by delaying has now changed).
> 
> Rules Compendium pg 43
> 
> ...






This is actually supported by the *Official WOTC D&D FAQ*, that says...

*Can you take a free action and a standard action as part
of a readied action? For example, suppose I ready an action
to attack the first monster to come into melee range. A
monster comes into range, and I take an attack—can I also
shout, cast a quickened spell, or use some other free action?​*
Using a strict reading of the ready rules (on page 160 of the​_PH​_​​), the answer is no. While the ready action allows you to
combine a 5-foot step as part of the readied action, it doesn’t
say anything about allowing free actions.

Furthermore, the first sentence of the second paragraph
under the Ready heading (“You can ready a standard action, a
move action, or a free action.”) seems to support this, as it
clearly sets up a free action as one of the three options, rather
than including it as an addition to be included along with either
of the other two options.

Since speaking is generally defined as a free action you can
perform “even when it isn’t your turn” (see the _PH _144), you
don’t need to combine a shout with the readied action. You can
simply perform it any time you want, including right before or
after taking a readied action. The same is true of any spell (or
action) that you can cast (or perform) when it isn’t your turn,
such as _feather fall, _or any spell whose casting time is 1​
immediate action. (The immediate action is defined in several
recent rulebooks, including the _XPH _and _CAr_. It is reprinted
here for your reference.) You couldn’t cast a quickened spell,
though, since that can’t be done when it isn’t your turn.​*Immediate Action​*Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very
small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of
effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift
action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—
even if it is not your turn. Using an immediate action on your
turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your
swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate
action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have
used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn
(effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is
equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You​also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flatfooted.




 




Arrowhawk said:


> For those of you wanting to not be FF at all...here is the solution:
> 
> *Immediate Action*
> 
> An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time — *even if it's not your turn*. ​So since everyone has an option to take an Immediate action...no one is ever FF because he "may" have acted. Problem solved Bob. Don't you just love rules in RPG's?




No one is ever flat-footed.  

Yeah...I don't think that's correct.  Othwise, the flat-footed concept would not be in the game.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

anest1s said:


> I don't know what S&B is.




Sword and Board - ancient D&D slang for sword and shield fighting style




> Don't get me wrong, but I don't think this thread is about rangers and I don't know what THF is either.




Two handed fighting (like using a two handed weapon).



> Bout your second post.
> Good try, but like you point out for the last pages when your turn is, is what defines when you are flat footed.
> The argument is that your regular turn is when you decide to Delay, and not when you decide to play...because you had an option to act then.




Yes I do and the text "before you have had a chance to act" is pretty clear in its meaning.



> Now if you say that you can have an immediate action just when you delay...hell you are right. This means that you aren't flat footed any more, even when with your understanding of the rules.




It depends on what the immediate action is, but when you delay you can not interupt anyone else's actions (hence no Attacks of Opportunity) so if the immediate action does not interrupt anyone else's actions then yes you can perform it (some immediate actions by definition do interupt some one else's actions - so they can't be done).



> Anyway one last question. Why you consider regular, the delayed initiative order, and not the original one? I mean, regular implies something normal, not a tricky option that is available and you may or may not use...?




I believe that the authors chose the phrase "(specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order)" to separate the surprise round from the regular round. Technically in the surprise round whether you act or not you are "flat-footed" and they wanted to make a distinction between the surprise round (not a regular turn) and the regular combat round.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> The 5-foot step is a fudge in the game. If it's No Action, then why can't I take a 100 No Actions and get through the entire dungeon on the first round?




Because you can only take 1 5 ft step a round and then only if you do no other movement in that round (part of the requirements of the 5 ft step).

If it didn't say that, then your point could be well taken.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 19, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> It depends on what the immediate action is, but when you delay you can not interupt anyone else's actions (hence no Attacks of Opportunity) so if the immediate action does not interrupt anyone else's actions then yes you can perform it (some immediate actions by definition do interupt some one else's actions - so they can't be done).




Thanks for the answers  you weren't the one I was expecting to reply though...

Well I disagree with that. I think that you can't interrupt your opponent means that you can't decide that your turn starts after your opponents move action and before his standard action, like you can with Ready Action. AoO looks highly irrelevant...


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

Rules Compendium pg 110 "You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action"


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 19, 2011)

anest1s said:


> Thanks for the answers  you weren't the one I was expecting to reply though...
> 
> Well I disagree with that. I think that you can't interrupt your opponent means that you can't decide that your turn starts after your opponents move action and before his standard action, like you can with Ready Action. AoO looks highly irrelevant...




Possibly.

But in general when WotC says interupt someone's actions they mean that you actions causes their action to be stopped before it happens and yours must be resolved first.

In general delay means you either go before or after some one else, and not while they are going - so I tend to agree with you, but it might be a conditional ruling depending on what is going on.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 19, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> I believe that the authors chose the phrase "(specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order)" to separate the surprise round from the regular round. Technically in the surprise round whether you act or not you are "flat-footed" and they wanted to make a distinction between the surprise round (not a regular turn) and the regular combat round.




Excellent observation, assuming its accurate.  I had not keyed into that specific use of the word "regular" and as such I didn't understand what anesti1 was asking.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 20, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> If the game wanted to talk about your character waiting round, they would have simply used plaing English to say something like, "Your character waits around to take an action."




I'm assuming that this also applies to other things?


			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Two-Weapon Fighting
> If *you* wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.



 Two-Weapon Fighting is dictating the penalties you take, not your character. Interesting.


			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Trip
> *You* can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.



Trip is the same way.


			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Overrun
> *You* can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move. (In general, you cannot take a standard action during a move; this is an exception.) With an overrun, you attempt to plow past or over your opponent (and move through his square) as you move. You can only overrun an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. You can make only one overrun attempt per round.



As is overrun.


			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Bull Rush
> *You* can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge. When you make a bull rush, you attempt to push an opponent straight back instead of damaging him. You can only bull rush an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.



As is bull rush.


			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Disarm
> As a melee attack, *you* may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.



As is disarm.

In fact, none of these maneuvers reference your character! They just say "you" may attempt something. Shouldn't, by all rights, the game say "*[your character]* can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge" or "with an overrun, *[your character]* attempts to plow past or over your opponent (and move through his square) as you move"?

I really don't find your assertion of them saying "you" instead of your character being all that compelling.



> I don't follow. The RAW says you can make that determination at any point...if you don't elect to change your Init "result" then you have to act on your original roll. It's not that complicated.
> 
> Show me where in the RAW is says you have to wait till your Init turn to choose to Delay? You have to wait until your Init to choose Ready...not Delay. What is true is that the last point at which you can _choose _to Delay is the original Init result.




Whoa, whoa. You're claiming "The RAW says you can make that determination at any point" but asking me to show where in the RAW it says I have to wait until my initiative to choose to Delay. I'd like to see where it says you can make that determination before your turn, please.

Delay, in the SRD, in it's entirety:







			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Delay
> By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.
> 
> You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action).
> ...




Please, show me where it says you can use the delay action any time you'd like, even if it's not your initiative. Since, as far as I can tell, there's no such wording (though your wording of "The RAW says you can make that determination at any point" seems to indicate that this isn't the case). 

It says "You can specify this new initiative result" but it does not say when you can take that action.

As far as I can tell from the combat section, choosing what you'll be doing takes place on your turn (on your initiative).

And, as far as I can tell, initiative decides who can make decisions in what order. 


			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Initiative Checks
> At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll. Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).



Initiative specifically mentions characters acting in order, not necessarily taking actions. If you still think the player is taking the action, I'd like to see why you think that, as even combat maneuvers say "you" instead of "your character" when being described.

The last sentence seems to imply, at least to me, that delaying or readying an action changes things specifically "_in every round that follows_" and not the first round. In the first round, it seems implied that the character will able to take an action (clear flat-footed moments before his initiative), choose to take no actions by delaying, and then potentially acting later on.

As always, play what you like


----------



## kitcik (Jul 20, 2011)

*The final word?*

OK, so the question at hand is whether Delay is:

a) A metagame decision by the player which therefore does not require the character to do anything or make any decision - simply the alteration of a die roll, or

b) A decision by the character, whereby the character is choosing to delay their full round action until later later in the round.

Let's see...

We know that:



> Delay: *Delay is a nonaction* you use to put off your turn until a point in the initiative order that's more favorable to you. You act normally (that is you can choose from the menu of actions noted in Part One) when you finally decide to act. When you finally take your delayed action, your initiative number changes, as noted on page 160 of the Player's Handbook. If you delay until another creature's turn, you can choose to act either before or after that creature acts, but of you choose to act before the creature, you must do so before you know what that creature will do.




And we also know that:



> Nonaction: *A nonaction is an activity that* effectively takes no time at all (as opposed to a free action, which takes an insignificant amount of time), but it nevertheless *involves some effort on your part*.





So it would seem that I have been disillusioned - the all-knowing Arrowhawk is definitively wrong.

*SHOCKING!*


----------



## anest1s (Jul 20, 2011)

kitcik said:


> *SHOCKING!*




I am no math teacher, but I am shocked!


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 20, 2011)

> Rules Compendium pg 110 "You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action"



 So according to RAW, you can perform two Standard Actions in one round, right? The first is the Ready...the second is the Standard Action you declared. Does it say you somewhere that you can only peform on attack action per round?

I'm wondering if this Ready action allows a contradiction that slipped through the cracks...

FYI

d20 Source...http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullRoundActions

There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions.
​You'll notice that "No Action" is specifically not defined as an action "type."


----------



## anest1s (Jul 20, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> So according to RAW, you can perform two Standard Actions in one round, right? The first is the Ready...the second is the Standard Action you declared. Does it say you somewhere that you can only peform on attack action per round?
> 
> I'm wondering if this Ready action allows a contradiction that slipped through the cracks...




You either have no clue about the rules and you are learning them now, or you are obviously trolling. I won't just assume things and I will go for the first. Probably you should read the rules a bit more. 

You can move then ready an other standard, move, swift or free action. Ready Action says that you do what you said you will do later. If RA was anything less than a standard action then you would be able to have two standard actions in a round. Now you just transfer your action to the ''future''.


No offense intended.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 20, 2011)

I like Delay, but Ready should be written differently AND have a different effect.

Something like:

Ready: Ready is a nonaction that allows you to ready any of the following actions: standard, move or swift. Free actions cannot be readied and any free actions you wish to take during your turn must be taken at the time you declare the ready action (i.e. on your initiative). Essentially, it is a way to split your turn so that part of your turn occurs at one point of the round and a second part, the readied part, occurs later. The readied part only occurs if the "trigger" occurs prior to the beginning of your next turn, otherwise the readied part of your turn is lost.

For example, you could initiate a maneuver (swift action), make a single attack on an opponent you are adjacent to (standard action), and declare that you are readying a move action to head directly for the door if the statue in the room animates into a dragon. If the statue begins to animate, you interrupt that action and move as indicated (likely provoking an AoO from the opponent next to you) prior to the dragon becoming fully animated. If the statue does not animate, you lose your move action that turn.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 20, 2011)

> Two-Weapon Fighting is dictating the penalties you take, not your character. Interesting.




You really want to ride this train? 

So you think they game is telling your character he has -6 in one hand and -10 in the other? Because your charcter is definitely aware of Weapon modifiers and ability modifiers and the amount of xp he has to the decimal. But nah man, that ain't metagaming. I'm sure Rafael Nadal knows just how much XP he needs to get to the next level and how much XP he get from the last tennis match.


Let's look at page 8. PHB
REROLLING​

If *your* scores are too low, *you* may scrap them and roll all six scores again. *Your* scores are considered too low if the sum of *your* modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if *your* highest score is 13 or lower.​

​Gee, I didn't know my _character_ was rolling his scores. Because it obviously can't be referring to me as a player or Arrowhawk could possibly be right about the "you" referring to the actual person in the Delay action...can't be having that so we'll just burry our head in the sand and concoct whatever nonsense we can to make sure he isn't correct. 

Now if I my character can only find some dice to roll...with a 1 Strength.​ 



> The RAW says you can make that determination at any point" but asking me to show where in the RAW it says I have to wait until my initiative to choose to Delay. I'd like to see where it says you can make that determination before your turn, please.



​ 
It's implicit by virtue of it _not_ telling you when you have to make the determination. Like it's implicit that I can cross the street because the city statutes don't explicitly tell me I cannot cross the street. The Delay action also states, "you take no action."

If you voluntarily lower your Init roll....then your _character_ does not have the option of action until your new Init comes up. 

If you want to interpret that as your _character _voluntarily knowing his Init "result." Be my guest.




> ...it seems implied that the character will able to take an action (clear flat-footed moments before his initiative), *choose* to take no actions by delaying, and then potentially acting later on.



 Except that's not what it states, does it? It says you choose to Delay...and "you take no action." The first precludes the other. You don't "choose" to take no action...you choose to "voluntarily lower your initiative result" and that decision precludes your character's ability to make a decision about acting. 

You're inferring a choice is made about taking no action when none is offered. Let me put it to you this way...what action could you possible make and still Delay? None. So if you can't take an action...becauses you chose to Delay, it is sophistry to say that you _chose _not to take an action. You never had the option to begin with...because you chose to Delay. The decision to Delay occurs before your character is is given the decision to act. Once you chose to Delay...your character was precluded from acting...."you take no action." 

Unfortunately, d20 RAW do not offer your _character_ an option to do nothing, not be flat footed, and take an action later in the round. Those three together are precluded by the rules. You get two out of the three. You choose which two you want.


As always, play what you like


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 20, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Ready: Ready is a nonaction that allows you to ready any of the following actions: standard, move or swift. Free actions cannot be readied and any free actions you wish to take during your turn must be taken at the time you declare the ready action (i.e. on your initiative).




This is incorrect, though.  The rules specifically state that you can ready a free action.

You just can't take a free action along with a different action that you have readied.

If you ready a free action, the free action ends up costing you the same as a standard action.

And, as I said in my XP to you above, the rules are written poorly in that it seems that the very act of readying is a standard action.

What the Ready action does is allow you to take your Standard Action later in the round if it is triggered.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 20, 2011)

> Probably you should read the rules a bit more.



...didn' you say this a few posts back?



> I am afraid I am unaware of the penalties of a ready action.



Just sand bagging?




> Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).




So if it costs you a Standard Action to Ready...it would seem you are getting two Standard Actions if you can "ready" a Standard Action.  Are you readying the Standard Action that it costs you?  The rule seems a bit confusing on what the total Action costs is.

I'm not trolling, just wondering how other people are reading something that appears to be a contradiction.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 20, 2011)

> And, as I said in my XP to you above, the rules are written poorly in that it seems that the very act of readying is a standard action.



  <Arrow high fives Bob>


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 20, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> So if it costs you a Standard Action to Ready...it would seem you are getting two Standard Actions if you can "ready" a Standard Action.  Are you readying the Standard Action that it costs you?  The rule seems a bit confusing on what the total Action costs is.
> 
> I'm not trolling, just wondering how other people are reading something that appears to be a contradiction.




I read it that by stating ready is a standard action (that in and of itself does nothing) it prevents you from taking 2 standard actions.

If it was a non-action then you could take a standard action and then use your non-action to ready another standard action for later.

By making it a standard action you are prevented from taking 2 in a round.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 20, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> I read it that by stating ready is a standard action (that in and of itself does nothing) it prevents you from taking 2 standard actions.




I thought the same thing and researched it.  You can find the thread in this forum.

I thought that "Readying" an action was a standard action, and that you could also ready a different standard action.

So, I incorrectly thought a character would take two standard actions in a round. The 1st would be him readying the action.  The second would be whatever action he readied.

As it turns out, that is not correct.

A character can only take one Standard Action per round.  He can take a standard action + a move action.  He can take two move actions.  Or, he can take a full round action.

He cannot take two standard actions.



The Ready Action basically allows you to take your one Standard Action later in the round.  You take the action when it is triggered.  The trigger is whatever you describe.

So, this is a legal Ready Action:

Thrallan walks up to the top of the bluff to look out over the plain, then he readies his spear, throwing it at the first enemy he sees.

Moving up to the plain his his Move action.  His Standard Action is the throwing of the spear, but he won't do that until he sees an enemy.

As soon as he sees an enemy, he'll throw his spear at that target before the enemy gets to take his actions for the round.





Here's another legal Ready Action:

Silaigne looks out over the battlefield from his position on the rock.  When the ranks of the enemy pass the edge of the forrest, he'll give the command for the archers to commence a cloud of arrows over them.

Silaigne first uses his standard action for the Spot Check, and he's readying a free action--his command for the archer to fire.  The command is triggered by the bad guys passing the edge of the forrest.





Here's one more legal Ready Action:

The PC party is in full retreat beind chased by a family of trolls.  Arttigne decides to cover his fellows escape.  He swings around to face the oncoming trolls with his sword eager to taste their green blood.

Arttigne uses his Move action to retreat from the trolls and then turn to face the enemy.  He then readies his sword to attack the first troll that enters his threatened area.  That's a standard action triggered by the first troll to enter a 5' square around the character.




The D&D FAQ makes it clear that you cannot take a Free Action along with a Readied Action.  Thus, Arttigne could not yell to his companions, "I've got the rear!  Keep moving!" when he is taking his attack throw at an oncoming troll.  But, Arttigne could use a free action and say those very words during his Move action, when he was running behind the other PCs.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 20, 2011)

> Delay: *Delay is a nonaction* you use to *put off your turn* until a point in the initiative order that's more favorable to you.



 This is a change to how Delay is described in the original source material and it certainly muddies the waters. 

Skip has changed the definition of Delay to exclude anything about voluntarily lower the "result." To "put off your turn" takes it farther from a metagame decision and closer to a character decision, but not unequivocably. If you change how a rule is written and you change the words used in articulating it...that will often change what it means and how it is interpreted. It's odd there's nothing about whether that eliminates the FF status...because that's the biggest question.

The way this is written, given with their deciding to create a "nonaction" it's still not clear whether this constitutes a condition to eliminate FF. 

While the FF rule says when he "may act," I wouldn't be surprised to hear Skip say Delay still doesn't eliminate FF.

The only caveat is that _even_ under this new definition, your choice is quantized. In other words, you can't act upon your _character_ becomeing aware of something...you can only act based on the new Init number you choose. This still comes off as a metagame process.

You'll note that staying on a horse as result of a DC check is another "nonaction" and I'm pretty sure taking the nonactivity before your Init does not stop you from being FF'd before your Init turn came up. 

With the WotC respone, I'd throw my hands up in the air and say I'm not sure whether a Delay is definitely an activity or qualifies as a decision not to act that would allow you to avoid FF'd. IMO, the WotC answer makes it ambiguous.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 20, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> You really want to ride this train?




Let's go. (Of note: I'm not sure why you're text sizes are randomly in your post, or why they're messing with my text size outside of your quotes, but I really don't feel like messing with it at the moment [or probably later on]).



> So you think they game is telling your character he has -6 in one hand and -10 in the other? Because your charcter is definitely aware of Weapon modifiers and ability modifiers and the amount of xp he has to the decimal. But nah man, that ain't metagaming. I'm sure Rafael Nadal knows just how much XP he needs to get to the next level and how much XP he get from the last tennis match.




The game is dictating that the character takes the penalties, not you. They are using "you" in place of "your character".



> Let's look at page 8. PHB
> REROLLING​
> 
> If *your* scores are too low, *you* may scrap them and roll all six scores again. *Your* scores are considered too low if the sum of *your* modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if *your* highest score is 13 or lower.​
> ...





It's like they use different contexts in different areas of the book 



> Gee, I didn't know my _character_ was rolling his scores. Because it obviously can't be referring to me as a player or Arrowhawk could possibly be right about the "you" referring to the actual person in the Delay action...can't be having that so we'll just burry our head in the sand and concoct whatever nonsense we can to make sure he isn't correct.






> Now if I my character can only find some dice to roll...with a 1 Strength.​




I'm yet to see you demonstrate your point. The combat section gives penalties or actions that your character takes. Delay is within the combat section. When the SRD says about Delay, "you take no action" do you mean that you, out of character, take no actions? You cannot do anything as a player? No, it is specifically referencing the character. To that end, if it is referencing the character, there is no reason to believe that the character acts out of initiative differently than normal, unless you twist things to be in your view.



> ​
> It's implicit by virtue of it _not_ telling you when you have to make the determination. Like it's implicit that I can cross the street because the city statutes don't explicitly tell me I cannot cross the street. The Delay action also states, "you take no action."
> 
> If you voluntarily lower your Init roll....then your _character_ does not have the option of action until your new Init comes up.
> ...




It's implicit, huh? The writing is obviously saying "your character takes no actions" not the player. To that end, if the subject of the writing is the character, it seems to be _implicitly_ saying that your character is delaying his actions. There was no shift of subject from character to player within the Delay section I quoted for you.



> Except that's not what it states, does it? It says you choose to Delay...and "you take no action." The first precludes the other.





Why? Why does choosing to take no actions preclude not acting? Actions and acting are different things within the game.



> You don't "choose" to take no action...you choose to "voluntarily lower your initiative result" and that decision precludes your character's ability to make a decision about acting.




When you delay (a choice), the character's initiative is then altered. You have the order backwards.



> You're inferring a choice is made about taking no action when none is offered. Let me put it to you this way...what action could you possible make and still Delay?





Chance to act does not mean the same as taking an action.



> None. So if you can't take an action...becauses you chose to Delay, it is sophistry to say that you _chose _not to take an action.




Except it's implied that your character has chosen to delay, passing on his actions for now rather than act yet.



> You never had the option to begin with...because you chose to Delay. The decision to Delay occurs before your character is is given the decision to act. Once you chose to Delay...your character was precluded from acting...."you take no action."




Again, the subject of the Delay quote was obviously the character (as the player can still act, it is obviously not aimed at the player). If the character can therefore choose to delay, he has had the ability to act. He can only decide to act on his initiative (barring explicit exceptions, such as speaking, of which Delay is not one), which brings him out of flat-footed.



> Unfortunately, d20 RAW do not offer your _character_ an option to do nothing, not be flat footed, and take an action later in the round. Those three together are precluded by the rules. You get two out of the three. You choose which two you want.
> 
> 
> As always, play what you like




You can houserule that, yes. As always, play what you like


----------



## kitcik (Jul 20, 2011)

kitcik said:


> I like Delay, but *Ready should be written differently AND have a different effect.
> 
> Something like:*
> 
> Ready: Ready is a nonaction that allows you to ready any of the following actions: standard, move or swift. Free actions cannot be readied and any free actions you wish to take during your turn must be taken at the time you declare the ready action (i.e. on your initiative).






Water Bob said:


> This is incorrect, though.  The rules specifically state that you can ready a free action.
> 
> You just can't take a free action along with a different action that you have readied.
> 
> If you ready a free action, the free action ends up costing you the same as a standard action.




Umm "incorrect" ???

As you can see from the text you deleted, I was specifically suggesting a CHANGE in the rules. By definition, a change in the rules cannot follow the rules it is changing... at least last time I checked.

And you wonder why people don't like your posting style...


----------



## kitcik (Jul 20, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> With the WotC respone, I'd throw my hands up in the air and say I'm not sure whether a Delay is definitely an activity or qualifies as a decision not to act that would allow you to avoid FF'd. IMO, the WotC answer makes it ambiguous.




After 15 pages of thread I say ok to that. 

IMHO, this is not a "change" but simply a clarification of what seemingly 99% of us agreed on anyway based on our reading of the original write-up. But that is neither here nor there, just an opinion.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 20, 2011)

kitcik said:


> As you can see from the text you deleted, I was specifically suggesting a CHANGE in the rules.




My mistake then.  I read your post and saw you were talking about change, but I thought you were supporting the up-thread comment that a Free Action cannot be Readied.




> By definition, a change in the rules cannot follow the rules it is changing... at least last time I checked.
> 
> And you wonder why people don't like your posting style...




Pretty snarky for a Moderator, don't you think?  Even if you feel like you've been slighted, is a snarky reply how you want ENWorlders to handle that type of thing?  Encouraging conflict instead of diffusing it?

Lead by example and all?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Pretty snarky for a Moderator, don't you think?  Even if you feel like you've been slighted, is a snarky reply how you want ENWorlders to handle that type of thing?  Encouraging conflict instead of diffusing it?
> 
> Lead by example and all?




I don't think he's a mod, Water Bob. He's a community supporter -I think that means he kicks $3 a month to the site for some cool features, and to support the site (also a good thing).


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 20, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't think he's a mod, Water Bob. He's a community supporter -I think that means he kicks $3 a month to the site for some cool features, and to support the site (also a good thing).




Gotcha.

The color on the name threw me off.  I'm glad he's not a mod, acting that way.







kitcik said:


> OK, I like it. Props to you, I was too late.
> 
> Note that mine addresses the OP though




Here's another little ditty I wrote, this time to the tune of "Shattered" by the Rolling Stones.



Staggered, staggered. 
Down and out he steps and swings 
I’m barely standing on my feet 
Look at me, I’m in tatters! 
I’ve been staggered 
Staggered 

It’s getting alarming 
I'm sure I don't look so charming 
Life and loss at this meet and greet 
My Adam’s apple 
People dressed like armored cans 
Combat addicts 
Some kind of magic 
Staggered 

A left and a right and a slam, bam, thank you ma’am. 
Look at me, I’m in tatters 
I’ve been staggered 
Staggered 

All this clangy-clinky-clacky-ching-aling about 
What’s a matter with me? What’s a matter with you? 
This round’s been seeing me in tatters (staggered, staggered) 
Swing my glove and swing my axe 
Enemy rolls a critical for success, success, success, success 
Does it matter? (any more) 
I’ve been staggered 
Staggered 

Ahhhh, look at me, I’m staggered 
I’ve been staggered 
Yeah, look at me. I’ve been staggered 

Pride and joy go out the window 
During this round, I’m not my best 
Swing and pound while the blood trickles to my feet 
And look at me. I’m in tatters, yeah 
I’ve been battered, but what does it matter 
Does it matter, uh-huh 
Does it matter, un-huh, I’ve been shattered 

Don’t you know my hit points have been going down, down, down, down, down 
To live through this round you must be tough, tough, tough, tough, tough! 
You got orcs on the left side 
Bugbears up in front 
What a mess I’m in. This round’s in tatters, and I’ve been staggered 
My brain’s been battered, splattered all over the captain 

Uh-huh, this round is for the monster goblins 
Go ahead, bite the big one, don’t mind the maggots, huh 
Shadoobie, my brain’s been battered 
My friends don’t come around with aide 
Pitter, patter, go their feet, I'm bitter as they scatter, scatter, scatter, scatter 
Pile it up, pile it up high on a platter 

I’ve been staggered


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> The D&D FAQ makes it clear that you cannot take a Free Action along with a Readied Action.  Thus, Arttigne could not yell to his companions, "I've got the rear!  Keep moving!" when he is taking his attack throw at an oncoming troll.  But, Arttigne could use a free action and say those very words during his Move action, when he was running behind the other PCs.




Actualy he could.



> Speak
> In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform *even when it isn’t your turn*. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> My mistake then.  I read your post and saw you were talking about change, but I thought you were supporting the up-thread comment that a Free Action cannot be Readied.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As someone else said, not a mod. In fact, I got threadbanned from the archery thread, even though IMHO I didn't say anything impolite there.

Not so here - I apologize. I was mad at AH and took it out on you. My bad.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Here's another little ditty I wrote, this time to the tune of "Shattered" by the Rolling Stones.




I like that one too!


----------



## kitcik (Jul 20, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't think he's a mod, Water Bob. He's a community supporter -I think that means he kicks $3 a month to the site for some cool features, and to support the site (also a good thing).




Features? meh

But the enjoyment I get from the site is way more than $0.10 per day worth!


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 20, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Let's go. (Of note: I'm not sure why you're text sizes are randomly in your post, or why they're messing with my text size outside of your quotes, but I really don't feel like messing with it at the moment [or probably later on]).



 I copied the quote from a PDF format. It came out small and I didn't care that I over sized it. But it resulted in my later text being shrunk so I had to manually resize that as well.



> The game is dictating that the character takes the penalties, not you. They are using "you" in place of "your character".



 That stands to reason. But the game, at least by the RAW, and not the clarificaiton, was talking about the lower of an init result which is not something your _character_ would do. Like when it says you roll your ability scores. YOU, the person don't have abilities scores...but your character does. My construction of the inartful use of "you" by WotC involves looking at what a _character_ would do versus a _player._  So in the original text of Delay, they change context just like they do when they talk about ability scores.  Both are, imo, poor examples of how one should write rules for a game.

I should hope we can both agree that WotC does a lousy job of being consistent with whether it meams you the person or you the player. If you look at PHB, there are many many instances when the game says "your charcter" instead of just "you." Clearly there are some instances where they feel it is necessary to specify, some where they think it's obviosu, and a whole lot of instances where they don't seem to think it matters.



> It's like they use different contexts in different areas of the book



 Yes, no, and they don't seem to think the context is even an issue.




> I'm yet to see you demonstrate your point.



 I think I made above. 



> The combat section gives penalties or actions that your character takes. Delay is within the combat section. When the SRD says about Delay, "you take no action" do you mean that you, out of character, take no actions? You cannot do anything as a player? No, it is specifically referencing the character. To that end, if it is referencing the character, there is no reason to believe that the character acts out of initiative differently than normal




1. See my stuff about ability scorse above. WotC has no qualms about referring to you the player and you the character in the same sentence you using the same "you."

2. I actually had a discussion about this with the other DM last night. Surpised to find out, he said I was being too literal with the reading. His approach was to ignore the "literal" reading and constuct what he believed was their intended meaning. In essence, he would not give WotC the benefit of the doubt that WotC could accurately describe what it meant. Given how Ready is written and how a lot of other things don't make sense...as written. I can see his point.

But the story ain't over. When I explained to him something you disagreed with below....he changed his opinion. He said the stronger argument is that it is far more likely that the game would not want to give you the option of both delaying your action AND avoiding being FF. He and I both agree that the game has gone to such lengts to impose this FF state on everyone, it would be nonsensical for them to let people so easily slip out of it. 

3. Even the new reading of "put off your turn" is ambiguous. _Characters_ don't know whose turn it is. Characters act. Do you think two boxers in a ring know whose turn it is? Maybe that's a bad example, because they wouldn't know what round it was if not for the lady carrying the sign . But seriously, when we talk of turns, AC, Action Types, 5-foot step, these are metagame concepts. Do you even know what your Strength is without referencing it based on how much you can lift? What about your Dex modifier? Or your Charisma? Do you know what your wife's Charisma is? Have you ever seen a group of players have an internal discussion about who has the highest skill rank in a skill before the party attempts to use the skill? Metagaming.

Let's get back to the heart of the matter...being FF. Let's be honest, even if Water Bob had not quoted the WotC FAQ, does anyone really think the Immediate Action would have been a legitimate way to avoid being FF? No. I used the example to point out that the RAW is poorly written in many cases. This applies to the FF state where people want to read the "may act" and your character's decision to Delay as being a point at which he "may act." WotC said, we don't care what the RAW says, an IA doesn't stop being FF. What does that tell you James? If the FF rule were written accurately, they wouldn't need to say that would they? So neither acting nor having the option to act is really the determining factor with being FF. You can still take a "nonaction" activity and be flat footed. In fact, you can elect to fail your Ride DC check, a decision to act/non act, and still be flat footed, wouldn't you agree?

Given WotC's statement on an IA and the Delay action, I would still give the most weight to whether it is your "turn/initiative" as the deciding factor. I would argue, or I would give more weight to the argument that a Delay is the changing of your turn...you "put off your turn" as such, you remain FF until you take your turn. Would it totally blow me away if WotC said Delaying was intended to be a valid way to avoid the FF flag? No...but it would rank up there with the implementation of the "No Dex Bonus" as things that don't make a lot of game design sense. 

But as I stated above, I'm not so wedded to the idea that a Delay is strictly a metagame decision. It's not unreasonable for a person to come to the conclusion, given the rewording and the introduction of this "nonaction" activity, that Delay is not metagaming and that it removes the FF status. Though one doesn't necessarily determine the other.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 20, 2011)

Just, for the record, @"Water Bob", Ready _is_ a Standard action.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 20, 2011)

> IMHO, this is not a "change" but simply a clarification of what seemingly 99% of us agreed on anyway based on our reading of the original write-up. But that is neither here nor there, just an opinion.



 You have humble opinions?

In most cases, I would agree with you that these articles are generally meant as clarifications, not rule changes. And it's unlikely that he specifically intended to change the rule. But then he defined this thing called a "nonaction" activity as a specific type of activity and neither the term nor the category has been defined in the original rules, so he's creating rules. He defined Delay as a "nonaction" instead of saying you "take no action." Technically that is a change to the rule. Whether it has a material effect is not clear.

The other thing to remember is that often when one clarifies something, you are clarifying it with respect to one thing or another, or put it terms that convey a different aspect of the rule. As such, rewording your definition can introduce amibiguity into things that were previous unambiguous...like using pronouns without adequately identifying the subject. It's important to note that Skip does _not _talk about how Delay affects being FF, so the conclusion is that this was not something he was attempting to clarify....or he would have stated it outright, like someone did with Immediate Action. 

It's unforunate there isn't a FAQ on this very question. Anyone know Skips email?


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 20, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> It's unforunate there isn't a FAQ on this very question. Anyone know Skips email?




Skip stopped doing Sage Advice about 3 years (maybe a little less) before Dungeon Mag folded - Andy Collins was the last Sage if I recall correctly.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 20, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Let's get back to the heart of the matter...being FF. Let's be honest, even if Water Bob had not quoted the WotC FAQ, does anyone really think the Immediate Action would have been a legitimate way to avoid being FF? No.




Well other than the fact that you can't take an immediate action if you are flat-footed taking one to avoid being flat-footed makes no sense (and is of course against the rules)



> But as I stated above, I'm not so wedded to the idea that a Delay is strictly a metagame decision. It's not unreasonable for a person to come to the conclusion, given the rewording and the introduction of this "nonaction" activity,




I get from your posts that you still don't think that "no action" and "not an action" were never defined in the rules?

I pointed out where earlier

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5627883-post181.html

But also on pg 139 of the PHB defines not an action



> Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not
> even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all
> to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else.
> For instance, using the Use Magic Device skill (page 85) while
> ...




See also Rules Compendium pg 7

Now you could get real literal and say that "no action" and "not an action" aren't the same thing, but I think the evidence in the books (and FAQ) point to the opposite conclusion.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Jul 20, 2011)

Well, I'm glad the language has gotten a bit more polite, but I feel the general tone of this thread is "I'm right, you're wrong!"

First thing's first: RAW is an *interpretation*.  This means, among other things, that what one gets from it is an *opinion*.  An opinion, because it is not actual fact, cannot be right or wrong.  Much of what has gone down in this thread is argumentative rabble that, even with supporting evidence of the opinion, is still *only* an opinion.  An opinion or belief on its own is not harmful.  If you are pained by an external thing, it is not the thing that disturbs you, but your judgment about it.  I'm under the impression many people in this thread are being judgmental, specifically with regards to not only others' opinions and thought, but the person's own opinions about himself and his work.  I also believe English really fails for not having a gender-neutral personal pronoun to use in these kinds of discussions. "It" is inappropriate for use when describing a person in the vast majority of cases.

Having said that, I'd like to continue discussion of Flat-Footed and Delay by saying that, by my interpretation of RAW, a Delay Action is most definitely an Action, thus it qualifies for negating FF.  In essence, choosing to act later is an act in and of itself.

In regards to the topic of Flat-Footed needing a rework, I can make arguments in favor of different parts.  As is, it does make things simple by denying one's full Dex bonus.  In a way, it could be more complex to say it's a flat penalty due to having to discuss and agree upon a certain specific penalty.  Simply denying the Dex bonus makes things, well, simple.  The game is already crunchy enough as-is, so little bits of help here and there can and do tend to make it more fun.  My personal take is I'd leave it where it is.

On the topic of the guy in the alleyway, the issue at heart is "When is rolling Initiative appropriate?"

I'll edit in my thoughts on that once I've reread the encounter and the relevant discussion on it.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 20, 2011)

> Well other than the fact that you can't take an immediate action if you are flat-footed taking one to avoid being flat-footed makes no sense (and is of course against the rules)



 Right. I didn't see the last sentence under the Immediate Action definition. However...

*Speak*

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform *even when it isn’t your turn*. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
​There is no rule that says you can't speak when flat-footed. Your character has a chance to speak ..*before his or her turn*. Therefore before he has had a chance to act. Under the logic employed by people who are posting, speaking would remove the FF status. 

"Hey, Orc about to attack me!" ....weird...I saw the orc...warned my teamates about him...and yet...I was totally unprepared for the attack.

Moving on....



> I get from your posts that you still don't think that "no action" and "not an action" were never defined in the rules?



 I'll simply quote you the action types in d20Srd....again:

There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions. 
​I will again point out that "no action" or "nonaction" does not exist as an action "type." Yes, the rules defined things that are _not _considered actions...like staying in the saddle on a DC check...or blinking your eyes. But that is different than defining a category of actions as "No Action." 

I'll try saying this to you again: A category of "Things That Are Not Weapons" is not a category of weapons...it is a categorization of things that are _not_ weapons. Is this really what we are discussing here?

If Skip wants to go and create some new category called "nonaction" activities, more power to him.

EDIT:

Let me ask you irdeg, if I wanted to give players examples of things that should not be counted as actions?  How else would I do it without creating Header and adding a table of examples were I listed things that were not considered actions?  I'm really curious how you expect the rules to identify things that need not be tracked and allow you to index that information later, without giving it a label?


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 21, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Right. I didn't see the last sentence under the Immediate Action definition. However...
> 
> *Speak*
> 
> ...




Now this is a good one.

Nothing actually stops this, but how we play is that until it is your turn (either in surprise round or acual round) you can't speak.

Again, this does require interpretation of the rules - or more precisely (as you and others have pointed out) things not written down.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 21, 2011)

A free action that you can take when it isn't your turn is now called an Immediate Action, a phrase that wasn't used when the PHB was first published.

And since you can't take an Immediate Action when you're flat footed, the idea of taking the "speak" action to break your own flat-footed status falls apart.

In short, I'm casting Dispel BS on it.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 21, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> A free action that you can take when it isn't your turn is now called an Immediate Action, a phrase that wasn't used when the PHB was first published.
> 
> And since you can't take an Immediate Action when you're flat footed, the idea of taking the "speak" action to break your own flat-footed status falls apart.
> 
> In short, I'm casting Dispel BS on it.




Actually it is not - they are different.

Some free actions that you could take even if it wasn't your turn (like casting feather fall) have been reclassifed as immediate actions, but not all - speaking is still a free action.

An immediate action is a "swift" action that you can take even if it is not your turn.

Speaking is a free action and does not count as using your swift action for the next round.

As I said Arrowhawk has a good point with this example, I can still disagree with his conclusions but this one example (speaking) is at least questionable per the RAW.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 21, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> Actually it is not - they are different.



 So the Dispel BS cancels itself out?



> Some free actions that you could take even if it wasn't your turn (like casting feather fall) have been reclassifed as immediate actions, but not all - speaking is still a free action.
> .



 Riddle me this...

If casting Feather Fall is now an Immediate Action...which you can't take FF'd. What happens when you are FF'd and someone knocks you off a 100' cliff? 

And FYI, you realize of course I'm simply claiming that the Speak action presents a loophole with regards to being FF, so the "chance to act" really shouldn't be the dispositive indicator. I would not agree that the Speak loophole should be used to avoid being FF'd...even if Skip came to my house to tell me it should.

EDIT:
And yeah, kittyitch, my BS DC is like a Google Plex give or take a zero, so don't even try.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 21, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> If casting Feather Fall is now an Immediate Action...which you can't take FF'd. What happens when you are FF'd and someone knocks you off a 100' cliff?




By RAW? You drop like a stone. One could argue your initiative would come up sometime during the fall, but I think under RAW if you fall during a turn (be it yours or someone else's), then you fall during that turn - as if no time takes place - except to the extent the fall is > 150' (which then rolls into the next round). Or something like that.

That is messed up. Bad RAW! Sit! Stay!




Arrowhawk said:


> EDIT: And yeah, kittyitch, my BS DC is like a Google Plex give or take a zero, so don't even try.




Why do you think your Bluff / Intimidate check is so high when your Charisma is so low?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 21, 2011)

> Why do you think your Bluff / Intimidate check is so high when your Charisma is so low?



  Well, I realize humans are ugly to insects...or whatever that is on your Avatar.


----------



## kitcik (Jul 21, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Well, I realize humans are ugly to insects...or whatever that is on your Avatar.




A thri-kreen monk. My jump skill is ridiculous (currently 65 at ECL 9). Will make a good DC for the Swooping Dragon Strike maneuver when I multiclass to warblade. Not exactly optimal, but he's fun...


----------



## Jimlock (Jul 22, 2011)

what the **** is going on in this thread???

....(pffffff... I have to read all those pages...)...


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 22, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> So the Dispel BS cancels itself out?
> 
> Riddle me this...
> 
> If casting Feather Fall is now an Immediate Action...which you can't take FF'd. What happens when you are FF'd and someone knocks you off a 100' cliff?




There was a lengthy thread on this very topic.

Basically my logic in interpretation of the rules is this. . .

Per the RAW all of your movement is resolved on your turn in the initiative order.

The trap (which is much harder than being pushed but substitute "attacker" here) makes its attack on it's turn (let's say it was a surprise).

So the surprise attack is successful, you now will fall on your turn (when all of your movement is resolved).

So on your turn your start to fall - but are no longer flat-footed so can cast feather fall.

That is my logic.

I note that my interpretation still allows for all of the acitons to work pretty much as written and essentially requires no house-rules (or further brain wracking on how to handle things).


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 22, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> There was a lengthy thread on this very topic.
> 
> Basically my logic in interpretation of the rules is this. . .
> 
> Per the RAW all of your movement is resolved on your turn in the initiative order.



 Per the d20srd, if you are Bull Rushed, you are moved during the attacker's turn and you provoke AoO as a result. I don't see how one can come to a reading that would resolve the attacker's movements on the attacker's turn and the defender's movements on the defender's turn. That would lead to a situation where for who knows how many intervening turns, the Attacker was actually past the Defender...then suddenly the defender blinks to the Defender's position as a result of the Bull Rush?

Now i'll throw my wooden shoe in the machine...what happens if it's a 30' fall and there is a creature who is waiting next to the square in which you'll fall, and the creature's turn comes up before yours? Do you just hang in mid-air until it's your turn...out of the creature's reach?



> The trap (which is much harder than being pushed but substitute "attacker" here) makes its attack on it's turn (let's say it was a surprise).



 What do you mean by "is much harder"? Do mean harder to resolve?



> So the surprise attack is successful, you now will fall on your turn (when all of your movement is resolved).



 So an object which is knocked over by a creature would never fall because it does not have a turn?



> I note that my interpretation still allows for all of the acitons to work pretty much as written and essentially requires no house-rules (or further brain wracking on how to handle things).




I think there are two things at work here. The first is that WotC wants to allow people to "react" to various situations without that incurring some Action tax and preventing the character from taking a Full Round action on that character's regular turn. Which is why they categorize things that are "no action" or "nonaction" activities: You can do these things and still take your Full Round action. 

The second problem is making sure these things are not construed in a way that suggests that the character "had a chance to act before his regular turn." This is crucial to preserving the FF status. With an Immediate Action, they just flat out said, you can't do this FF'd. Problem solved. I doubt anyone considered the impact to Feather Fall and being FF'd when you get knocked off a cliff (but you never know). It's also a safe bet they overlooked the free action Speak option...but there's little doubt they do not intend this to remove FF'd even though, RAW, would technically allow it. Like Celebrim would argues...if the literal meaning of the rules seems self contradictory...then you are forced to look for an alternative interpretation that gives meaning to the words. I believe this is called "construction" with respect to contract law. 

I'm not done twisting your corpus collosum in a knot irdeg. Let's say you fall off a 10' ledge while being FF'd, but you make your Reflex save and take no damage. Are you still FF'd when other creatures come over to attack you...before you've had your turn?


----------



## kitcik (Jul 22, 2011)

irdeggman said:


> Basically my logic in interpretation of the rules is this. . .
> 
> Per the RAW all of your movement is resolved on your turn in the initiative order.
> 
> ...




1) OK, well I don't have feather fall, but luckily I am going to Delay... and never fall.

2) OK, I got pushed on initiative 18, my init is 11, luckily my barbarian friend's init is on 12 and he will grab me so I don't fall.

These two situations are ludicrous and I challenge your "logic."


----------



## anest1s (Jul 22, 2011)

kitcik said:


> 1) OK, well I don't have feather fall, but luckily I am going to Delay... and never fall.
> 
> 2) OK, I got pushed on initiative 18, my init is 11, luckily my barbarian friend's init is on 12 and he will grab me so I don't fall.
> 
> These two situations are ludicrous and I challenge your "logic."




Delay is an ''non action'' action, so you would fall.

Well. If someone pushes you over a cliff, and at the same time your barbarian friend sees whats gonna happen and rushes to save you...why not? Every action happens at the same time after all...


----------



## kitcik (Jul 22, 2011)

anest1s said:


> Delay is an ''non action'' action, so you would fall.




I agree with this, but it is not your "turn" and you are not allowed to "move." Therefore, by your own logic, you would not fall.



anest1s said:


> Well. If someone pushes you over a cliff, and at the same time your barbarian friend sees whats gonna happen and rushes to save you...why not? Every action happens at the same time after all...




You have just nerfed lord knows how many spells, effects, feats, etc. You push me, but all my buds can stop me before I have any chance of actually moving? Somehow, this does not seem like the rule.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 22, 2011)

kitcik said:


> I agree with this, but it is not your "turn" and you are not allowed to "move." Therefore, by your own logic, you would not fall.




Wait, when it became *my* logic?  


I don't think falling is a move action- I think its a ''no action''. Whether it happens on your turn or on someone others its debatable.



kitcik said:


> You have just nerfed lord knows how many spells, effects, feats, etc. You push me, but all my buds can stop me before I have any chance of actually moving? Somehow, this does not seem like the rule.




Well, where is the rule then? I won't have a problem to follow it if I find it.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 22, 2011)

Anest1s,

I have a question...why doesn't "Rob" use his 28 Init to move first and Sneak Attack the bad guys? I'm curious why you always wait for a flanking maneuver to present itself? Why Delay...why not just strike first and get the advantage of everyone _else_ being FF'd?

To answer another question you posed awhile back. I think you were asking why should Delay present you with a trade off, particularly in the first round. Let me offer another perspective...

The "trade-off" is the most crucial aspect of what defines an actual _decision. _If one choice is always superior to the other...then it really isn't a _choice_. I'm not saying that Delay was unequivocably meant to present you with that choice, if it is meant to be one such as this: 

1) Delay - Being FF'd and getting a Full Round action with no trigger, or 

2) Ready - not being FF'd, forced to declare a trigger, and only getting a partial action later.

...neither one of those is universally superior to the other. So the better you are at evaluating the trade-offs given your situation, the more you are rewarded as _player_ for figuring out which one to use. 

Obviously not everything is meant to be a decision. Sometimes a game doesn't want you to choose and may simply be offering you a reward or forcing you down a path. But when it does, the only way to make the decision meaningful is to present trade-offs or consequences. That's my take on it.

EDIT:
To address your "first round" trade-off question...consider this:

In the first round, a Delay leaves you FF'd. After the first round, you are no longer run that risk. Compare that to Ready, in which you _avoid_ the FF statuts in the first round....but in later rounds, that is no longer a benefit. So in essence BOTH options are changed. The Ready action becomse _less_ attractive and the perceived _cost is higher _after the first round because you no longer need to avoid being FF'd. Likewise, Delay no longer leaves you exposed so it is a more attractive option. 

Strictly in regards to _being FF"d, _one might say that:
Delay is less attractive in the First round, but more attractive in later rounds. Ready is more attractive in the First round, but less attractive in later rounds.

Also consider that in most cases, you are only going to use Delay or Ready once or twice in combat. Both lower your init order for the _entire _combat and you may not have any lower to go after your first use of either. So you really need to think about which one you want to use, the first time you use it.

EDIT: EDIT:
And this would be in contrast to my previous notion that Delay and Ready were conceived wholly independent of each other.  From a game design perspective, I think it makes more sense that they were intended to provide a player with two options, neither of which was superior to the other.  Obviously that's an opinion.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 22, 2011)

anest1s said:


> Delay is an ''non action'' action, so you would fall.



  Not sure I follow.  The Delay itself is the "nonaction."  That's not the same as saying "you _can _take a non action."    But whatever...forget I responded to this.




> Well. If someone pushes you over a cliff, and at the same time your barbarian friend sees whats gonna happen and rushes to save you...why not? Every action happens at the same time after all...




Guess what?  You can do this.  But....your buddy Conan has to have had a higher Initiative than the guy doing the pushing.  AND Conan has to use the Ready action and declared the trigger of moving to catch you if someone pushes you off.

Guess what whappens when the DM hears the characters are prepared for this...or the Players hear the DM is ready for this?  One of the real downsides of the Ready acton is that if you declare your trigger to the DM or the DM to the players, the opposing side will have trouble not metagaming with that information. "Hmm...maybe I won't rush into the room now that I know someone is going to cut me off from behind as soon as I enter...."

I wonder how many DM's and players right down their trigger on a piece of paper instead of saying it out loud?  Not that you wouldn't have a big debate about something written unclearly.  "You said "the" monster...this is not "the" monster...this is "a" monster.  Believe me.."the" monster hasn't shown up yet...and besides..my thri-keen rejects the idea that he is a monster!  He's done loads of community service in the last month."


----------



## anest1s (Jul 22, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Anest1s,
> 
> I have a question...why doesn't "Rob" use his 28 Init to move first and Sneak Attack the bad guys? I'm curious why you always wait for a flanking maneuver to present itself? Why Delay...why not just strike first and get the advantage of everyone _else_ being FF'd?




They were surprised, the opponents weren't flat footed.



Arrowhawk said:


> To answer another question you posed awhile back. I think you were asking why should Delay present you with a trade off, particularly in the first round. Let me offer another perspective...
> 
> The "trade-off" is the most crucial aspect of what defines an actual _decision. _If one choice is always superior to the other...then it really isn't a _choice_. I'm not saying that Delay was unequivocably meant to present you with that choice, if it is meant to be one such as this:
> 
> ...




You have a point.
But there are more options than two:
1) Delay - Being FF'd and getting a Full Round action with no trigger, or 
2) Ready - not being FF'd, forced to declare a trigger, and only getting a partial action later.
3) Total Defense - Lose your action, but keep your high initiative and possibly draw some attacks
4) Attack - Lose your sneak attack but at least do something
5) Other option - whatever

I just feel that the 1) and 2) are too weak compared to the other options. They are one step behind every other option available. Ready is very situational, so it may worth it - but it will worth it if used when needed, not as a cheap partial Delay. Delay on the other hand just makes you play later, and you pay that privilege by having to play later every turn. Why to make it even worse, when other options are still there? 

I mean, except from doing something and waiting for something else to happen (Ready Action) you should be able to wait a moment to see what everyone else will do before you strike with all your might (Delay), all that in-game.

After all, if you had rolled initiative 2+ rounds before, and you just did nothing on your turns, you wouldn't be flat footed. I see it like that, except that you do nothing on the first half-sec of your turn.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Jul 22, 2011)

As I see it, a character who rolls high on his initiative and gets to act first is still acting first, period, even if he decides to "delay." Delaying on its own is an action, if extremely minor.  Not acting first in a round has its own drawbacks: namely not getting to be the first in the round to influence the course of the rest of the round, including later rounds.  This is another tradeoff.  Being Flat-Footed until the chosen later time is counter-intuitive to the fact that the character, no matter delaying, still got a higher initiative roll.  The character chooses to act later in each subsequent round, so not being FF is a fair tradeoff in my eyes.

About the whole flanking thing: A rogue's Sneak Attack requires the target be denied its Dex bonus OR flanked.  Flat-Footed denies the Dex bonus, thus a Rogue going first in initiative can still make an SA against an applicable target.  Regular Uncanny Dodge prevents losing one's Dex bonus, thus a character with UD needs to be flanked by a Rogue in order for SA to work. A character with Improved Uncanny Dodge has an even stronger defense since he can't be flanked except by a Rogue of four levels higher.  If I were a Rogue or other class with SA, I'd most definitely use that first opportunity.  Improved Initiative is a solid feat choice for that reason.  Even so, a Rogue would do well to invest in a Warning or Eager item to make sure surprises don't happen.

On the topic of falling: From what I gather by the rules, if an opponent forces your character to fall the "action" is started on the opponent's turn but is resolved on the character's turn.  This would allow Feather Fall for example.  If an ally came up in between the two initiatives, he could run up and try to catch his falling ally.  My best guess is it'd require either a Climb check or a Balance check.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 22, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Not sure I follow.  The Delay itself is the "nonaction."  That's not the same as saying "you _can _take a non action."    But whatever...forget I responded to this.



 The fall happens instantly...however it happened at the end of the monsters turn. If the victim falls instantly, then on the beginning of everyone else it is already down the cliff. So it happens instantly at the beginning of the victims turn, or at the end of the attackers turn? Considering that they are happening at the same time, it feels strange to rule that he is already down.

However I suspect that thats how it should work by the rules (I just can't find it anywhere  )

Is there a limit on how many Immediate actions you can have in one round?



> Guess what?  You can do this.  But....your buddy Conan has to have had a higher Initiative than the guy doing the pushing.  AND Conan has to use the Ready action and declared the trigger of moving to catch you if someone pushes you off.
> 
> Guess what whappens when the DM hears the characters are prepared for this...or the Players hear the DM is ready for this?  One of the real downsides of the Ready acton is that if you declare your trigger to the DM or the DM to the players, the opposing side will have trouble not metagaming with that information. "Hmm...maybe I won't rush into the room now that I know someone is going to cut me off from behind as soon as I enter...."
> 
> I wonder how many DM's and players right down their trigger on a piece of paper instead of saying it out loud?  Not that you wouldn't have a big debate about something written unclearly.  "You said "the" monster...this is not "the" monster...this is "a" monster.  Believe me.."the" monster hasn't shown up yet...and besides..my thri-keen rejects the idea that he is a monster!  He's done loads of community service in the last month."



I don't know about that. If the players can guess my next move then it is so because I wanted them to...so I wouldn't metagame into not doing it  

And what kind of DM announces his Ready Action to the players? 

For the last part... DM vs players= DM wins...so not a real problem.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Jul 22, 2011)

anest1s said:


> Is there a limit on how many Immediate actions you can have in one round?



An Immediate action uses up the Swift action for the round, meaning only one per round.  To quote the http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActionsSRD


> Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift  action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use  another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if  you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn  (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent  to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an  immediate action if you are flat-footed.



Something to note though is the Chain Spell metamagic works on Immediate spells.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 22, 2011)

The entire question highlights the artificial nature of turn-based games.

12 people each take their actions, functionally one after another, each ostensibly taking six seconds, and yet the entire sequence takes only six seconds in total.

It's an inherent flaw in the mechanics of all such games, yet I can't think of any way to change it.  Truly simultaneous actions would be impossible for any human being to manage, as a DM.  In the real world we call it "the fog of war", and it's a rare person who can keep their head and their focus during the chaos of close combat.

In game, we're supposed to be those rare people, the exceptional ones, the heroes and villains of the scene.

Outside of the game world though, we get to pick at, and make fun of, the odd rule mechanics used to impose order on what is essentially contained madness.

Welcome to D&D!


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 22, 2011)

> you should be able to wait a moment to see what everyone else will do before you strike with all your might (Delay), all that in-game.



 Given Skips use of "put off your turn," it's possible that's exactly what they meant it to do. 

Conversely, the RAW's use of "lower your initiative result" would suggests you don't have the option to just hang out and act when you feel like it. Instead, we'll just say you rolled a 2 instead of 28....in fact, the game says you can explicitly state what you want your new "count/number" to be.

I would agree with the general sentiment that it seems like you should just be able to wait till you're ready to act....but why wouldn't that just be a foregoing of your turn? Continuing that thought...I might also agree that the game says, your moment of indecision costs you the opportunity to act...you're not flat footed, but you did nothing. Thus the game's definition of "Inaction" in the SRD. In other words, it wouldn't seem legal to have your _character _wait till the very end of a six second turn....then do all the things you would normally do in six seconds. Why is that different than actually rolling a lower Init? Because a lower Init would mean you're still FF'd.   _This could be specifically why the Ready action is considered a Standard Action.  To penalize your character for becomeing aware earlier in the round._

So your in-game options would be: 1) You act; 2) You prepare to act; or 3) You do nothing. Delay would then be a metagame option to simply swap out your roll for something lower. But I freely admit that Skip deciding to suddenly define Delay specifically as a "nonaction" moves it out of the metagame-scape and squarely into the _character-_scape. There would be no need to do this if it were strictly metagame. Of course this assumes Skip is even thinking about metagame versus game. I could still see Skip saying we aren't removing the FF status if you Delay under the same tortured logic (and need to empower Sneak Attack) that one loses a "bonus" to Dex, while a penalty still applies.

Round and round we go....

Thanks Skip. Next time why don't you just poke my eyes out and I'll have an easier time of figuring out these rules.


----------



## anest1s (Jul 23, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> _This could be specifically why the Ready action is considered a Standard Action.  To penalize your character for becomeing aware earlier in the round._



 Uh...but...RA is very different than Delay...you can act in an other guys turn - obviously having a full round action within an other guys turn would be overkill. 

I am not talking about waiting 5 sec and doing everything on the last...the change of initiative reflects just moments of waiting, in which you see what other ppl do. Sure, you can also start moving and then wait- but you need a trigger, which limits you to something you have predicted.

Here is a common situation where you have to delay.
The barbarian wants to start a fight. Now, he gets a surprise round, because most ppl failed their (sense motive, spot, whatever) checks or didn't expect him to do so. You however as a proper rogue, know what will happen. And you obviously win initiative. 

Now, if you act before the barbarian, later, when you are within that annoying circle of truth, you will be the one who started the fight. Thats bad.
So you have to Delay, or Ready Action. 
Well, good luck predicting what said barbarian is gonna do. 
Edit: You won't lose your turn more or less one way or an other. However you will still be *slow * 

And...who is Skip?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jul 25, 2011)

*A resoution of Delay*

I was reading the Rules of the Game, All About Initiative articles.. 
Rules of the Game: All About Initiative (Part Three)

And Skip says this...

Ready has advantages and disadvantages when compared to delay. The main advantage ready has over delay is that you resolve your readied action before the event that triggers it and you sometimes can disrupt a foe's action, such as when you ready an action to distract a spellcaster.

The main disadvantage ready has versus delay is that you can ready only a standard or move action -- you don't get a full round's worth of actions when you ready.​He never mentions the FF'd flag in reference to Delay or Ready.  It seems highly unlikely that if Delay left you flat footed...he would fail to mention it as one of the advantages vs disadvantages.  Based on this omission, I have to conclude that if Ready removes the FF flag, so does Delay.

Oh, and a bone for Celebrim.  Skip talks a lot about when to roll for initiative.  He basically states it's a DM's call.  But line of sight, with no regard to distance, is a reasonable justification.  

Also, Per Skip, PC's that hear a creature behind a door and bust in for a surpise round, and he says you don't roll Init, _until after the door is opened_.  But you can still get caught flat footed depending on how the DM wants to handle it.

There still are no initiative checks because a surprise round represents a flurry of unexpected activity before a battle begins in earnest. After the party uses their surprise actions, everyone makes initiative checks. None of the PCs will be flat-footed, even if they don't act early in the initiative order, because they acted during the surprise round​Later, he offers this.

You could make things tougher on the attackers by skipping the surprise round. The attackers could prepare themselves as noted earlier, but the encounter would not truly begin until the door opens. At that point, both parties would be aware of each other and initiative checks would be in order.* If you choose this approach, it's reasonable to assume that the attackers might be flat-footed until their first actions.* The party might know a battle is coming, but they're still subject to a moment of uncertainty when the actual event begins.​Emphais added.

In any event, I think this brings the discussion to a close on my part.



anest1s said:


> And...who is Skip?




Skip Williams, was one of the writers for the PHB 3.5 and the guy who was writing Rules of the Game articles for 3.5.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 27, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> I was reading the Rules of the Game, All About Initiative articles..
> Rules of the Game: All About Initiative (Part Three)
> 
> And Skip says this...
> ...



​Why does Skip say that if you Ready an action that yo dont' get a full round's worth of actions?

In the PHB example that he cites, it says: For instance, if you move up to an open door and then ready an action to swing your sword at whatever comes near....

So, what's happening here? The character gets his Move action when he moves up to the open door. And, he gets his Standard action in the form of a swing of his sword when that action is triggered. The character got both his Move and Standard action (if triggered).

How did the character not get a full round's worth of actions?

Does the quote mean if the readied action isn't triggered, then the character doesn't get a full round's worth of actions?







EDIT:  There's another thing that skip says that is confusing.  "*Ready:* Ready is a standard action that allows you to prepare another standard action or a move action at some later point in the round. You must specify some condition that triggers your readied action."

If Ready is a standard action...and it allows you to prepare another standard action, then the character is taking two standard actions in a round.

Plus, this doesn't fit with the example from the PHB where the character moves to the doorway (a Move action) and then prepares to attack an enemy that walks through.  If the Ready is a standard action, then this character is getting a Move action, then a standard action (the Ready), and then the attack standard action if triggered.  That would be three actions during the round.

So....something is smelly with Skip's description here.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 27, 2011)

He means "all at once."

If you ready, for instance, you cannot take the Full Attack action; the best you can do is move and then get a single attack.

EDIT:

Gawd. Dammit. Water. Bob.

I thought we beat that "Two standard actions" things out of you a long time ago. 

Ready *IS* a standard action, which lets you prepare another standard, move, or free action to take later on, given a set of triggers.

You still only have 1 standard action per round; you're just paying it in advance of actually doing anything.

Seriously.  You're wrong on this.  Accept it, and give up this line of argumentation.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 27, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Seriously. You're wrong on this. Accept it, and give up this line of argumentation.




I'm playing it the way you are, but if you look at the line "Ready is a standard action that allows you to prepare another standard action....", that sure as heck looks like he's talking about two standard actions in the same round.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 27, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I'm playing it the way you are, but if you look at the line "Ready is a standard action that allows you to prepare another standard action....", that sure as heck looks like he's talking about two standard actions in the same round.




... *sigh*

Ready is a standard action which allows you to prepare a standard action, a move action, a free action, or a switft action to take at a later time under specific circumstances.

You are paying for your prepared action in advance.  You are not somehow getting multiple standard actions in the same round.

I mean, by that logic, someone who readies to move later on in the round is getting two move actions _and_ a standard action in the same round.  You're not; you're just spending your action in advance.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 27, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> ... *sigh*
> 
> Ready is a standard action which allows you to prepare a standard action, a move action, a free action, or a switft action to take at a later time under specific circumstances.
> 
> You are paying for your prepared action in advance. You are not somehow getting multiple standard actions in the same round.




...  *long sigh*

The quote says that "Ready", which is the act of preparing the action, is a standard action.  Then, the quote says it allows you to prepare for ANOTHER standard action.  That indicates two standard actions, the Ready and the action you prepare.



Now, the example doesn't support this.  So, I think what he means, and what you mean (but do not communicate well) is that if you ready an action for use later, it becomes a standard action.

For example, normally a Free Action does not count against your actions for the round, but if you ready a Free Action for use later after it is triggered, then it counts as a Standard Action.

And, because you can only have one Standard Action per round, you can't take a Standard Action before you ready an action.  For example, you couldn't attack and then ready another attack.  But, you could Move and then Ready an attack.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Jul 27, 2011)

You guys are just getting lost in the wordplay.  Both of you agree, essentially, that technically by RAW it's giving two standard actions on that line or two.  However, the actual example shows that using a Ready action means you initiate a Standard like normal on your turn, but finish it later on in response to something you specified.  The actual readied action takes up a standard regardless of whether the response took less effort than a standard, such as a move.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 27, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> You guys are just getting lost in the wordplay.  Both of you agree, essentially, that technically by RAW it's giving two standard actions on that line or two.  However, the actual example shows that using a Ready action means you initiate a Standard like normal on your turn, but finish it later on in response to something you specified.  The actual readied action takes up a standard regardless of whether the response took less effort than a standard, such as a move.



You know, if you're just going to go and get all reasonable on us like that, then I'm just not going to talk to you any more. 

I mean, I had 30 gp on this thread carrying on for at least two more pages!  How dare you go and force common sense into the mix.  How dare you!

<grumble grumble...>


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Jul 27, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> You know, if you're just going to go and get all reasonable on us like that, then I'm just not going to talk to you any more.
> 
> I mean, I had 30 gp on this thread carrying on for at least two more pages!  How dare you go and force common sense into the mix.  How dare you!
> 
> <grumble grumble...>



To quote and modify a Monty Python line: I  in your general direction!


----------

