Flat-Footed

[kitcik]

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.

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

 

[Arrowhawk]

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]

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]

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]

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?

You said this,

"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."

Why, as gamers, are we served by inventing elaborate mechanisms or non-scientific rationales for rules that don't make sense? Why is this such a common approach on these types of forums? I'm kind of at a loss here.

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.

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?

I'm not saying this is "true",

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

I would propose that this is more construcve/productive than embarking on some intrepretation of reality to explain away something...when we all agree that RPG's are one large abastraction to begin with. I don't think we are served by tricking ourselves into thinking that something makes sense when it doesn't. I think that as individuals we are much better off learning to recognize inconsitent logic for what it is ,rather than fooling ourselves into ignoring it. There is no reason for us to be emotionally attached to the rules having to make sense. It's a game.

Discontinuous behavior despite a small continuous change in some variable is, in fact, a very common feature of the real world. That it appears in an RPG doesn't automatically make it wrong.

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.

 

[Arrowhawk]

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]

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]

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?

I would propose that this is more construcve/productive than embarking on some intrepretation of reality to explain away something...when we all agree that RPG's are one large abastraction to begin with. I don't think we are served by tricking ourselves into thinking that something makes sense when it doesn't. I think that as individuals we are much better off learning to recognize inconsitent logic for what it is ,rather than fooling ourselves into ignoring it. There is no reason for us to be emotionally attached to the rules having to make sense. It's a game.

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]

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]

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.