Flat-Footed

[aboyd]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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

 

[Dross]

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]

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?

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]

Good points:

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

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.

...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:

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.

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.

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?

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

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."

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.

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

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

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.