Flat-Footed

[Water Bob]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Then let's get dangerous!

 

[Jhaelen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.