Flat-Footed

[Water Bob]

However, have you brought up that you think this is a balance issue, and you don't want to hurt the balance of the game? And, if you have, what were his thoughts on it?

I have. I looked into not using the rule but found it too integrated into the game. We're playing the Conan RPG, which is a 3.5 clone, and he's playing a Barbarian character, which, in this game, benefits greatly when, at 4th level, his character gets Uncanny Dodge and becomes immune to being flat-footed. That, right there, is a reason to keep the rule in the game (as, without it, the Barbarian loses one of his most special class advantages).

He doesn't see it. He's so focussed on how unrealistic he thinks the rule is and how, in his mind, there's not any difference between being Surprised and losing nish.

I took another tact and told him to think about high level play. Being flat-footed still makes going first important where as, without it, a character is so strong with hit points and protective gear that he can take a blow first and not worry about it too much. The flat-footed rule makes nish important at all levels.

He didn't buy that either.

I really can't come up with anything more constructive here anymore, sorry.

Well, that's the problem.

He's got a strong, logical point. Here's one of his examples:

You sneak up on a guard from behind him. The guard is considered flat-footed.

You are in an argument, face-to-face, with a hated enemy. You know he's going to take a swing at you. If you lose nish, you are....flat-footed.

So, why are they the same?

If I could show him how being surprised was a worse off condition than just losing nish, I think that would satisfy him.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Well, that's the problem.

He's got a strong, logical point. Here's one of his examples:

You sneak up on a guard from behind him. The guard is considered flat-footed.

You are in an argument, face-to-face, with a hated enemy. You know he's going to take a swing at you. If you lose nish, you are....flat-footed.

So, why are they the same?

If I could show him how being surprised was a worse off condition than just losing nish, I think that would satisfy him.

Again, just hammer home the point that flat-footed simply means "you can't react immediately" while surprise means "your enemy gets a whole action on you."

A rogue sneaks up on a guard from behind. The guard is flat-footed and surprised. The rogue sneak attacks him with his surprise round, and then wins initiative and sneak attacks him again.

You're in an argument, face-to-face, with a hated enemy. You know he's going to take a swing at you, but you don't know when. When the enemy finally draws his sword in the middle of a sentence and attacks you, you're flat-footed. After that you can act normally, however, because you saw it coming and he didn't surprise you (and get an extra action).


Here's an idea: Send him to this site, which tests reaction time by changing the background color and testing how long it takes you to hit a button after it does. In this scenario, you know the background is going to change. The site explains the program in great detail and tells you exactly what's going to happen. There is no possible way that you don't know that the background color is going to change. Yet when it does, it still takes you a fraction of a second to react, because you don't know exactly when it's coming. If you try the test a few times in quick succession, though, your reaction time goes down by quite a bit, and after a few tries you can get it down pretty reliably.

That is being flat-footed; that is why your archenemy can walk up to you, start talking, and have you be flat-footed when he inevitably attacks--because the mind can't adjust from one state (white background, conversation) to another state (colored background, combat) instantaneously unless one has hair-trigger reflexes that react before you have to mentally process the change in state...and that's what Uncanny Dodge is.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I have. I looked into not using the rule but found it too integrated into the game. We're playing the Conan RPG, which is a 3.5 clone, and he's playing a Barbarian character, which, in this game, benefits greatly when, at 4th level, his character gets Uncanny Dodge and becomes immune to being flat-footed. That, right there, is a reason to keep the rule in the game (as, without it, the Barbarian loses one of his most special class advantages).

He doesn't see it. He's so focussed on how unrealistic he thinks the rule is and how, in his mind, there's not any difference between being Surprised and losing nish.

I took another tact and told him to think about high level play. Being flat-footed still makes going first important where as, without it, a character is so strong with hit points and protective gear that he can take a blow first and not worry about it too much. The flat-footed rule makes nish important at all levels.

He didn't buy that either.

What did he think in terms of it being a rule purely for the sake of balance?

Well, that's the problem.

He's got a strong, logical point. Here's one of his examples:

You sneak up on a guard from behind him. The guard is considered flat-footed.

You are in an argument, face-to-face, with a hated enemy. You know he's going to take a swing at you. If you lose nish, you are....flat-footed.

So, why are they the same?

If I could show him how being surprised was a worse off condition than just losing nish, I think that would satisfy him.

Okay, if this is how he sees things, and he's trying to be logical, then showing him that being surprised is worse isn't good enough.

If you tell him flat-footed from initiative means maybe being flat-footed for one round, while being surprised means maybe being flat-footed for two rounds, he's still going to complain, even though being surprised is obviously worse.

And that's because when you're flat-footed, it means you aren't defending yourself adequately at all. And he's correct in making that comparison (surprised to losing initiative). He wants to know why he doesn't defend himself as well after losing initiative, not when he's surprised. And realistically, you should be able to defend yourself better than when you're surprised (and you don't).

So, you won't win the realism argument with him. He's correct. However, if you tell him that's it's a balance issue, and that certain classes were given abilities with that system in mind (barbarians, rogues, etc.), then perhaps you can convince him to stomach it with no objections.

If you keep trying to justify something on his terms (realism), then you're not going to succeed, because he's correct. It's not because he's stubborn (though he might be). It's because he has a valid point. Don't engage it. Tell him you can see his point, and you'd be okay with him houseruling it if he was running a game. But, for balance in your game, you're okay with playing it by RAW. You'd prefer balance within the game system for fun over realism in this one scenario, and that's your ruling.

Just express that to him. Be sincere, be honest, be compassionate. I mean, if you're playing with friends, people should be able to understand and move on. He might get a little frustrated if the rule ends up hurting someone in the party later on, but I think if you talk about it, he'll let it pass without too much commotion.

Remember, you're playing with friends. Friendship should always trump disagreements. Anyways, play what you like

 

[Ydars]

There is a reason the state is called 'flat-footed' because in swordplay, if you are not on the balls of your feet and in the correct stance, you cannot move properly to avoid blows or parry and you can't shift your weight to frame a blow of your own safely). Indeed, if you are flat footed, it is very difficult when test cutting (with a sharp sword) to get the sword to 'bite' into the material (it just bounces off even an orange carton full of water despite being razor sharp; I know this sounds surprising but it is totally true and is because straight swords have to be at a perfect angle to cut when moving fast)

When I used to study longsword, my instructor used to call the state of not being ready for combat 'flat-footed' and he had never been within a hundred miles of an RPG in his life. You literally are standing with your feet flat because unconsciously you are on the defensive and similarly, if you get your footwork wrong in the middle of a fight you can also end up flat-footed after combat has started.

It sounds to me like your player objects to the flat-footed rule because

a) he knows nothing about real sword combat and

b) he does not actually know the D&D 3.5 rules well enough to understand the difference between surprise and being flat-footed.

I would suggest he be given a copy of the 3.5 PHB and told to read it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

From the SRD:

Surprise:
If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin.
[...]
Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don’t get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.



Flat Footed:
A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

Really, this is VERY simple stuff and I'm no longer sure how or why there's even any argument about these rules, especially given that D&D is not now and never was intended to be an accurate combat simulation - it is designed and intended to portray HEROICS. Surprise rounds and the flat-footed condition are simply about giving opponents an advantage in combat. Where is the controversy here that this player seems determined to find?

 

[aboyd]

Now that I've read the OP's follow-up post, I want to come at this from a slightly different angle. It appears that you're now engaged in a back-and-forth debate with the guy. He's lured you in, and we've now bought into his premise that the rule must be justified, and we're all now working through that. I would like us to consider another angle: don't do it.

This debate won't end well. He's decided; he's clearly far more stubborn than any of us here on the forum are -- I'm watching all of us scrambling around his answers, trying to debate away his reasons, and he's just standing there like a rock, unmoving.

So, stop meeting him for street fights. Walk away, metaphorically speaking. Give him a decision and be done. Be comfortable with the fact that he will be uncomfortable.

Here's my thought. A few years ago the guys who run slashdot.org were bought out by a media company. And something happened that annoyed some other company. I don't remember what anymore, but slashdot.org is a big tech forum that believes in free speech, and I recall someone there posting something that Big Intimidating Company didn't like. Suddenly lawyers were involved, and the media company that now owned slashdot.org contacted the guys running the site and said, "Please stop. We are freaked out by this big bully company getting mad at your posts."

And then the guys who ran slashdot.org did something I didn't expect: they told the person they were talking with, "Sorry, we won't capitulate. Expect your day to get worse." And then they just left the parent company & management team to deal with that.

I remember thinking, "You can do that?!?!?" You can just tell someone that they're not going to get what they want, and that you're fine to leave them in an uncomfortable state? You can tell someone to manage their own feelings about the problem and just shrug if they can't handle it? Really?

It was all revelation to me, Mr. People Pleaser.

But I'm better at this now. I've tried it during a few hopeless arguments before, and sometimes it's what you have to do. The guy wants to draw you into a debate that only ends -- as far as he is concerned -- when you give in. But as we can see from this discussion, giving in has potential to undermine at least part of how the game is expected to work. It could have unforeseeable consequences. And of the consequences we can predict, it's pretty negative all around.

So it's time, in my opinion, to resolve this. Make a decision. When he balks, tell him that you understand it's going to be uncomfortable for him, but that you're OK with leaving him to sort through those feelings and decide if he wants to stay or not. If not, that's actually OK. He's stirring up a lot of stuff and making the game be more about the debate than about the fun. So maybe it's OK for him to bow out. But if he doesn't, be firm, and when he opts to stay, he's doing it with the full knowledge that you made a decision and he's got to accept that you run it by RAW.

(Of course, if you feel that you'd much prefer to capitulate or try to "design by committee" and keep engaging him hoping to find some compromise, then my entire post is moot.)

 

[Water Bob]

He's decided; he's clearly far more stubborn than any of us here on the forum are

That may be truer than you know, but that still doesn't make me feel better about giving him a better answer than just, "Well, the game was designed that way."

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?

I liked the post up thread a bit that spoke about swordfighting--I think that's the "logic" of the rule. My player didn't buy it, but I'm not sure anything will sway him.

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.

That makes sense to me.

I'm going with the rule as written, but these folks are making a strong case.

I wish I had a stronger case than just to say, "Well, dem's the rules!"

I'd like to be able to talk to my player and show him how the rule makes sense in real life.

So it's time, in my opinion, to resolve this. Make a decision.

The decision has been made. I'm sticking with RAW. I understand that the rule needs to stay the way it is.

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.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That may be truer than you know, but that still doesn't make me feel better about giving him a better answer than just, "Well, the game was designed that way."

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.

He does indeed have a valid argument. I'll get to that below.

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?

He shouldn't be. I can see a penalty to AC. That'd account for poor defense until someone gains their bearing. But to have the exact same mechanic that applies to being completely surprised apply to a fight where you knew it was coming? I don't like it, and neither does he.

I liked the post up thread a bit that spoke about swordfighting--I think that's the "logic" of the rule. My player didn't buy it, but I'm not sure anything will sway him.

Well, I think his problem is that the two conditions (being caught completely unaware and adjusting to combat you know is coming) share one mechanic. That's understandable.

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.

That makes sense to me.

That makes sense to me, too.

I'm going with the rule as written, but these folks are making a strong case.

Awesome. I'm glad you've decided, it's important to do as a GM. I don't run my game with this rule, but most other GMs (rare though they may be) that I play with (rare though it is... my players always make me GM) use the RAW. That's fine by me. GM's game, GM's rules

I wish I had a stronger case than just to say, "Well, dem's the rules!"

I'd like to be able to talk to my player and show him how the rule makes sense in real life.

No unified mechanic will make sense to him when addressing the two situations. And how can it, reasonably?

The decision has been made. I'm sticking with RAW. I understand that the rule needs to stay the way it is.

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.

Okay, here's where I get to how his argument is reasonable (and logical). Look at the other threads in this forum. People are constantly making calls based on common sense.

Look at the Hide thread. People talking about facing, out-of-combat facing, cover or concealment, hiding in plain sight through magical or supernatural means versus extraordinary means, somebody having concealment or cover because the guy on watch is facing the other way (and thus his own head provides the ability to make Hide checks), etc.

I'm sure you use common sense when you're GMing. Pretty much every GM does, when the rules are hazy or don't cover something. That's normal. Now, as it's well established that common sense has a place in the game, he is reasonably expecting it to be applied here.

You may not want to change the rule. I totally support your decision to make that call, overriding the player. Sometimes the game rules have to bypass simulation. I understand that.

That's why I suggest talking to him from a balance perspective. He's correct when he thinks that there should not be a unified mechanic for those two situations. Maybe flat-footed for surprised rounds make more sense, and a flat -2 to AC for people who haven't acted yet. Or maybe flat-footed for everyone, and those who haven't acted yet can roll a Reflex save against an attack to see if they're flat-footed.

Or, like you've chosen, it's time to play by RAW. If that's the case, tell him you've made the decision for balance reasons, and that you don't want to micromanage combat anymore than it already is. That's perfectly valid. And it's your game.

I'm also under the impression they're fairly new players, so tell them you might be willing to house rule more when everyone is used to playing the game... maybe right around the time they make new characters and can branch away from all being one class. The more you learn, the more you can make exceptions. That's almost universally true.

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.

If you want that type of in-game reason, you're going to find your argument wanting. If you want an out-of-game reason... well, I hope I've helped.

At the end of the day, it's about fun. It's your game, you make the rules. Play what you like

 

[Ydars]

I too, am glad you have decided to stick to RAW; because not doing so fundamentally changes the balance of the game.

Look at it another way; how many combats have you ever seen where each person acted whilst everyone else stood around frozen. That is the way D&D combat works; it is an abstraction.

If you want to really convince your friend, take him LARPing; he will soon understand that being flatflooted is like being rooted to the spot. You can know an attack is coming and still be 'on the back foot' when it actually comes.

 

[Jimlock]

While there is logic to what he says, logic can also be found in the flat-footed rule as it is. An extra round (surprise round) IS a big deal.

To simulate a surprise round correctly (as in real-life) you 'd have to render characters "helpless" ...as long as they are surprised, cause that's what they really are in most cases. But that wouldn't be much fun would it?

IMO, changing the flat-footed rule in favor of your player, would require that you:

1-Change the Rogue class (and all related PrCs) to compensate for the loss in power (uncanny dodge, less chances to Sneak, less chances to strike twice with benefits)

2-Find a way to compensate for the loss in power regarding all Players/Classes/Special abilities/Feats that rely on/use the flat-footed rule...a high Initiative... hell even Dex as a stat loses out....

3- Find a way to un-break/re-balance all "immediate actions" which, for all their power cannot be used while flat-footed (thank god for that!)

4-Find a way to rebalance important rules... that i'm sure i'm missing out...

In Fact, if i was in your shoes, i would say to the player that i don't really have the time to rewrite the books because of one rule... that actually works quite well as it is!