Flat-Footed

[Water Bob]

Why don't you invite him to come over to ENWorld and argue his case himself?

Actually, I did that a few days ago. He's not really interested in what the masses have to say. He thinks the rule is bad, and until I can convince him otherwise with a logical argument that addresses the reality of the issue, he's going to continue to think the rule is bad--and the rest of us are all crazy for allowing it in the game.

 

[kitcik]

Tell him you will change the rule if he plays a straight rogue through L20.

 

[airwalkrr]

Tell him you will change the rule if he plays a straight rogue through L20.

As opposed to... a gay rogue?

Seriously though, this is a good point. Rogues receive (and were intended to receive) a substantial benefit from this rule. Denying them that benefit is a significant nerf bat to the rogue and any other class or creature with sneak attack.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As opposed to... Zorro?

Fix'd that for you.

 

[Jhaelen]

Actually, I did that a few days ago. He's not really interested in what the masses have to say. He thinks the rule is bad, and until I can convince him otherwise with a logical argument that addresses the reality of the issue, he's going to continue to think the rule is bad--and the rest of us are all crazy for allowing it in the game.

I think I know why he isn't interested in the opinions of others:
It's easier to convince a single person of something stupid than it is to convince plenty of people. He isn't interested in the opinion of others because he 'knows' he's pretty much alone with his opinion.

To be honest, I've used the same tactic quite often: I usually try to argue with the DM while the rest of the game group is not present. It's a lot easier to convince the DM of something when there aren't any dissenting voices present. Of course I'm only doing this because I wouldn't want to interrupt game play...

It's an exceptionally bad idea to trick a DM into a rule change he's later going to regret, though. From time to time you can even read posts from players who boast about how they managed to sneak broken stuff past their DMs.
They most often manage to do this by pointing out how their interpretation of the rules is 'much more realistic' or 'makes more sense'. So, when I read these signal phrases, all of my alarm bells go off.

Of course I might be completely off since it's difficult to judge when reading about someone on an internet forum but I really wouldn't waste my time trying to convince someone who isn't interested in being convinced.
Rules in a game can exist because of a variety of reason: realism, simplification, balance, etc. But every rule is there for _some_ reason.

RPGs by their very nature have more flexible rulesets than other types of games and tend to invite discussing the rules. But that's why there is a DM to make the final verdict. A player judges the rules from a player's point of view, the DM has to look at the whole picture.

 

[Dandu]

If he wants realism, introduce rules for broken bones and demand either weeks long recuperation for that player or that he get the Regenerate spell cast on him, which is the only RAW spell that deals with broken bones.

 

[kitcik]

And have him face opponents that are incorporeal or ectoplasmic.

 

[Jimlock]

I'm currently playing an 11th Lvl "roguish" character in a 3.5 game. The entire group is old school, having mostly played during the 2nd Edition years. (including me & the DM).
I started my character at 1st level and only came to realize the Flat-Footed rule at 3rd or 4th Lvl... don't remember exactly...
Point is, it changed everything for my character. Ever since we clarified the rule i often have the opportunity to make two attacks (with S.A.) before the enemy even moves (1-surprise round, 2-winning the initiative).
My DM had a hard time giving in to the RAW for he was used to the 2nd edition AD&D, as was I. But in the end he came to realize how it balanced out my character (yeah..the character was pretty weak considering the fact that there are psionists in the party!).
Anyway.. In the long term we came to realize how it not only helped my character, but the entire group as well. It now is much more important to the party to try and catch the enemy off guard. As in real life you try to take advantage of every given situation to strike first, to gain the advantage...
Otherwise, you just enter the room, you draw swords and wait for the dice to decide. Having the opportunity to act TWICE before the enemy, is a major advantage, and one worth thinking of how to obtain.
A real life surprise attack is much more lethal than one in the game. Having the opportunity to strike twice before the enemy acts, is far more close to reality for it might as well kill the enemy directly. So yes the rule is more realistic.
As mentioned before. Being Flat-footed does not mean you stare at the ceiling waiting for the battle axe to split you in two. It merely means that you haven't managed to bring your body to the best defensive position possible.
It can easily happen even if you are well aware of the enemy. Pretty realistic too.

I totally agree with all the pro-RAW posts above...
Cheers...

 

[kitcik]

The entire group is old school, having mostly played during the 2nd Edition years.

I would categorize that as "middle school." Old school is the basic set or, at least, 1st Edition.

 

[Greenfield]

Okay, here are some "abuses" of the Flat Footed rule:

Because flat footed opponents don't get to make Attacks of Opportunity, you can Sunder their weapons' belt before they can draw.

Hell, you can Sunder the blade on their belt for that matter.

You can do a Partial Charge on a surprise action to move past guards and cheap-shot the BBG first round.