Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3558629" data-attributes="member: 2525">If WOTC publishes new rules that expands the definition of flat-footedness, then you are free to not accept those rules, but that doesn't mean they cannot validly expand the definition of their own rules.  And they don't have to say "We are officially hereby changing the definition" to do so.  They just have to do it.  And sometimes they can offer the curtesey of saying that's what they are doing, and sometimes we just have to read it and figure it out.  This is a case of the later.It's logical to look at the body of the rules and try and figure out what WOTC means, and in this case we can look at the body of rules, with an initial definition and then several other things that expand on that definition, and logically conclude that flat-footed can mean more than "beginning of the round".The "beginning of the round" was just a way to explain the rule at the time that rule was published, since at that time it was always at the beginning, and it made for an easy way to explain what they meant by that "not ready to react" kind of rule.  But now that we grok the ramifications of being flat-footed, they have explained that it doesn't HAVE to be at the beginning of the round - it just usually is at the beginning.I think, if you cannot see the folly of saying "WOTC has violated their own rule" when they publish an expansion on their own rule, you've gotten too lost in the minutae of rules debating to appreciate the big picture.  It's just some game rules - they are not perfect, not intended to be perfect, and not intended to always be read in a strict and literal manner.</blockquote>

Verification