Do you play the "You're Flatfooted 'til your Initiative" rule?

[Mistwell]

It seems like that vote is off even from the responses here (unless you play the rule as written every single time, you're not playing it by the rules)

But for example - Thanee - I know we aren't playing it that way in the Non-Iconic Adventure.
I'm fairly sure most online games aren't using it.
I've seen/played in probably 8 different ones, and with my 6 or 7 different RL groups, that encompasses almost a hundred people, and they never mentioned it, or to my knowledge used it.

I guess asking the Rules Forum of the most knowledgeable 3E Message Board is not the place to get a feel for the common game , so maybe it's just that you guys are the uncommon ones in relation to this rule.

Honestly, I agree with Thanee that you probably have simply not noticed the rule, but that it was there in many of your games. I mean, most of the time the PC's are going to go first. And most DMs are not going to announce the AC of the creature you are attacking, so you simply don't know it has been a bit easier to hit those creatures on the first round. In addition, even if the creature is going before you are, you still might not know the DM is taking into account the fact that your Dex is not applying to your AC that first round. You just happen to get hit more often in the first round. It's not one of those rules you would announce all the time, despite it being in use.

This is not a controversial rule. In all the years of being on EnWorld, I cannot recall anyone every complaining about it (and we complain about EVERYTHING here). I've never seen a house rule about it in the house rules. I've never heard mention of it over on the WOTC boards or Monte Cook boards either. And, with 125 votes from people who use it all the time (94.70%), and another 5 votes from people who use it most of the time (3.79%), and only 2 votes from people who do not use it (1.52%), one of which is proabably you, and perhaps the other vote from another player in your game, you are looking at one of the most nearly unanimous votes I have ever seen in a poll here on EnWorld.

Face it, it's not us, it's you. If you want to house-rule it, more power to you. But don't try to claim it's some obscure, uncommonly used rule that most people house-rule. It isn't. It's one of your basic, run of the mill, almost universally used rules.

 

[mkletch]

Here is my problem with the initiaitve system: readied actions. First of all, the DMG recommends no readied actions before initiative. This is absurd. Look at the example under initiative in the DMG. Orcs on one side of a door, the adventurers on the other, and both aware that the other is there. They take several rounds to prepare, cast spells, etc. But, an orc cannot ready an action with a bow to shoot the first person coming through the doorway. So, this orc archer has had two rounds to get set, draw the bow and wait. But the door opens, the rogue that beat him on initiative charges him, sneak attacks and kills him before he fires. The orc should even be allowed to fire before the door is all the way open. All of this because you do not roll initiative until the door is opened. Initiative does not get rolled until the door is all the way open - an on/off state system like an early '80s computer game (Telengard, anybody?).

Such patently absurd results should either 1) not be possible under the rules (perhaps too lofty a goal), or 2) be explicit exceptions, where the DM or the players can negate or avoid these stupid results. A simplistic (not simple; that is a different meaning), rigid system does not make the game easier. The mind rebels against things that simply cannot be. Initiative kills me intellectually, though my current character has a +20 to initiative, and I almost always go first (+11 Dex, +4 imp. init, +5 for an item duplicating Kaupaer's Skittish Nerves from MoF).

Now, I can see one reason for not having the roll before actual contact (i.e. the door opening), and that is the refocus action. If you can refocus before the contact occurs, that screws things up a bit. But if you disallow refocus until after the actual contact, you might as well roll for initiative when both sides are aware. If both sides want to open the door, who actually does it? No way to tell, because there has been no initiative roll.

Why no readied actions? Some 'flavor' reason that either Monte or the 3E rules committee had, but no mechanics reason I can see. If the party is sneaking down the hall, and a barbarian wants to ready an action to throw an axe at anything that comes around the nearby corner, why not allow that readied action? Same goes for the monsters, also, of course.

So we have the roleplaying aspect of the game, which is not really a rigid system like combat, but it fairly well covered by the rules. Then there is the combat system, which is a rigid, cyclic system. The real problem is that there is not a single rule that governs how you switch from one to the other. If you trump the roleplaying with the combat system, then you might as well play a CRPG. If you allow the roleplaying piece to trump the combat system, then it is a chaos that is open to abuse by players and DM.

Any discussion of intiative will simply put gamers on either side of this split. IMO, more of the 'situation' should be applicable to the start of combat. Otherwise, there is no reason to do any of the roleplaying. As it is, you set up your situation via roleplaying, lose the die roll anyway, and all was for naught. Pure hack and slash - which is fine if that is all you want, but if you want even a tiny bit of roleplaying, that initiaitive-based trainwreck presented in the DMG is not going to give it to you. It will only be more difficult to accommodate as you want to add roleplaying to your game.

Annoying. Almost, but not quite enough to give up 3E, unless house rules bend the iron decree of the DMG, and the other gamers accept it. If you have gamers who are powergaming, reality-phobic rules lawyers, you are SOL.

-Fletch!

 

[Thanee]

Here is my problem with the initiaitve system: readied actions. First of all, the DMG recommends no readied actions before initiative. This is absurd. Look at the example under initiative in the DMG. Orcs on one side of a door, the adventurers on the other, and both aware that the other is there. They take several rounds to prepare, cast spells, etc. But, an orc cannot ready an action with a bow to shoot the first person coming through the doorway. So, this orc archer has had two rounds to get set, draw the bow and wait. But the door opens, the rogue that beat him on initiative charges him, sneak attacks and kills him before he fires. The orc should even be allowed to fire before the door is all the way open. All of this because you do not roll initiative until the door is opened. Initiative does not get rolled until the door is all the way open - an on/off state system like an early '80s computer game (Telengard, anybody?).

I'm not so sure about that. In this situation, I'd have started combat by rolling initiative in the moment, the two groups became aware of each other. No surprise round, as both groups were aware of the other.

Now, I can see one reason for not having the roll before actual contact (i.e. the door opening), and that is the refocus action.

Don't have a problem there. Refocus is a redundant action anyways. It's just a limited Delay.

So we have the roleplaying aspect of the game, which is not really a rigid system like combat, but it fairly well covered by the rules. Then there is the combat system, which is a rigid, cyclic system. The real problem is that there is not a single rule that governs how you switch from one to the other.

Well, I think there is one. The rules about awareness. As soon as one group becomes aware of another, initiative is rolled (with a surprise round if not all combatants are aware of each other).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Victim]

Everygame I've been in had used the rule. I never really cared because my bard would get hit anyway - I can't believe that she's still alive with a 12 AC - and my cleric had a dex penalty and eventually found a magic item with uncanny dodge.

 

[Destil]

re: Readied Actions & Initative

Here is my problem with the initiaitve system: readied actions. First of all, the DMG recommends no readied actions before initiative.

...

Why no readied actions? Some 'flavor' reason that either Monte or the 3E rules committee had, but no mechanics reason I can see. If the party is sneaking down the hall, and a barbarian wants to ready an action to throw an axe at anything that comes around the nearby corner, why not allow that readied action? Same goes for the monsters, also, of course.

I see it as pure rules mechanics. If you allow readied actions outside of combat, it lessens the (already lessened, compared to pervious editions) value of your initiative bonus, down-playing the tactictal advantage of high Dex and the Improved Initiative feat.


Edit: Also, there's no cost to do this, you would, in effect, get a free suprise round. So, really, it's handeled in the rules: If you're aware and the're not, you get your suprise round, which you can use to do anything you could ready. If you're both equaly aware, well... you may not be able to react fast enugh. Where as in combat when you ready you give up an action in order to gain that edge, activly watching (and already having gone through initative, so you know you're fast enugh to react).

 

[Legildur]

I play a 10th Halfling Rogue (Improved Init) with a crossbow of speed. No flat-footed status would seriously hamper his scouting ability. Our Sorcerer just got Improved Invisibility and it can get untidy for opponents subject to sneak attacks, but I digress.

Flat-footed status really makes a difference in the opening round.

We also play the partial actions only in the first round deal and it is a great option in our group's opinion. Otherwise either side could really dominate a combat with full-actions.

 

[Leopold]

flatfooted and winning init is the key to a decisive battle..you lose init and you will be at a severe disadvantage later on in the battle..not make it unwinnable but if the enemy has the drop on you your life is going to be a tad bit difficult..

 

[mkletch]

Re: re: Readied Actions & Initative

The rules about awareness. As soon as one group becomes aware of another, initiative is rolled (with a surprise round if not all combatants are aware of each other).

I'm sorry, but when you are being continuously rules lawyered, page 61 in the DMG is Truth. We agreed via democratic process to let the awareness take over, but the whining is getting old.

I see no problem with readied actions outside of combat either.

I see it as pure rules mechanics. If you allow readied actions outside of combat, it lessens the (already lessened, compared to pervious editions) value of your initiative bonus, down-playing the tactictal advantage of high Dex and the Improved Initiative feat.

If it all comes down to a single die roll to determine if one side gets to do anything or is merely dead, that is a bit silly. If you readied an action outside of combat, you get the action. Then normal surprise/initiative sequence takes place.

Well, if you don't see it, no amount of discussion by me will burn through. If the roleplaying has no effect on combat, then it is just trivial filler. I'm not a diceless player, or roleplaying guru, but I recognize that, whatever one's personal gaming tastes, roleplaying has to have a valid and useful role in the game, or you are playing a game not much different than Monopoly - a rigid rules system with no story or flexibility.

-Fletch!

 

[Mistwell]

Fletch, I think you are exagerating the effect of using the rules, nor is it necessarily "rules lawyering" to follow the rules. What exactly is wrong with starting combat the moment one side becomes aware of the other side, and rolling initiative then? How is that not within the rules, and if it is, why wou;dn't that address both sides of this topic?

 

[mkletch]

Fletch, I think you are exagerating the effect of using the rules, nor is it necessarily "rules lawyering" to follow the rules. What exactly is wrong with starting combat the moment one side becomes aware of the other side, and rolling initiative then? How is that not within the rules, and if it is, why wou;dn't that address both sides of this topic?

I did address both sides in my first post. I agree, it is not rules-lawyering to play by the rules. But it is rules-lawyering to use the rules to prevent, inhibit or twist the plot or story or situation into something not originally intended. There is a plot to an adventure, right? There is roleplaying, story, some timy shred of reality? Heck, even Diablo had a plot.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using awareness; it is the position that I support. It would, theoretically, be overruled by the rules text and examples presented in the DMG.

The spouse of the fighter/rogue in our campaign feels that she is being cheated of possible sneak-attacks, because opponents who have been aware for several rounds (and not acted against us, but still have acted) are not flat-footed at the beginning of combat. If the thing had the option of initiating combat, then it should not be flat-footed, IMO. The issue is after the initiative roll. If it has not acted after the initiative roll, theoretically it is flat-footed, regardless of what happened before the roll. Read my previous post and the example of PC and orcs separated by a door on page 61 of the DMG. The example can be extended only slightly to produce an absurd result. Roleplaying and story refereeing must then make up for it, IMO, and that is the responsibility of the DM. Others may not agree, and say that combat rules trump any other aspect of the game.

If you agree that, if the initiative sequence produces an absurd result it should be used anyway, only then should you have selected the first option in this poll. If something is completely whacked, and for example, a fully prepared and aware opponent loses initiative and dies before it can act, then you play "by the rules" as they are explicitly set out in the PH and DMG.

We tweak it a little, and only a little, and only when it makes sense, and all but one person agrees (even the player of the rogue/fighter agrees). Going against that is rules-lawyering...

-Fletch!