Flat-Footed

[Aluvial]

and now he's infected one of the others....

You need to quarantine.

 

[Empirate]

As far as I can tell, being flat-footed is a world apart from being surprised. The two are not the same thing: when you're surprised, you are flat-footed in the surprise round AND you don't even get to act.

So awareness that is going to go down has nothing to do with the flat-footed rule.
Combat is a highly dynamic, hectic situation, in which everybody is constantly moving around as much as they can, trying to get hits in while dodging others, trying to dissuade others from attacking by feinting, riposting etc. The abstract D&D combat system translates this into a Dex bonus to armor class.

Prior to you starting to move around a lot, i.e. prior to your first turn, you're NOT moving around in combat-fashion. You're an easier target. Your opponent doesn't have to worry about your already incoming attack just yet. "He who strikes first often strikes last" - that's what the flat-footed rule is about.

The situation in which everybody is aware that this is going to be combat at some point is much different from a situation that has actually turned into a combat. People may be on their toes before, but only the first strike lets loose the dogs of war, so to speak.

Inititative is not a Wis or Int check, so it's not about awareness. It's a Dex check, so it's about pure quickness. When your player argues that hitting first is ample reward for getting a high Initiative, he discounts the fact that first hits wouldn't differ from second or third hits then. I believe they should differ in that they'd be easier to get in - which is exactly what the flat-footed rule provides.

You can play it the way your player argues it should be, sure. But I believe it detracts from tactics (and many character schticks, like Sneak Attack), is not in any way more logical (in fact IMO it's less logical, within and without the system), and upsets game balance through several far-reaching consequences. All in all, it's just not worth it.

 

[Hexer]

Well it COULD very well be meant as a realism rule I think.

I practice a martial art for a few years now and I've noticed this several times in sparring rounds:
I face my sparring partner and both of us are totally aware that the round (the fight in case of an encounter in game) is about to start. Even though I'm totally aware of that, I dont know what the other person has in mind, what they will try to do first. If I havent done sparring with them before I might even have no idea about how they go about fighting.
It has happend several times that as soon as our teacher started the round, I imediately recieved a (for me totally surprising) strike at my weapon hand.
In sparring this is "ok" as it just shows me what I did wrong, causes me some pain depending on how hard the strike was and enables me to not make the same mistake again.
In a real fight this might actually be fatal because I wouldnt be wearing protectors or he might be wielding something that goes right through any protection I might be wearing which certainly WOULD change what happens during the rest of the fight.

 

[Empirate]

While I must admit I do feel bad about endorsing a real life argument in a D&D debate... my point exactly, Hexer!

 

[ThatGuyThere]

I've had this debate with my players. We resolved it, together, by deciding to leave it as it is in the book.

In D&D, there's a strong mechanical advantage to acting first - it's plausible (and with high-level rocket-tag, likely) that those who act first can act decisively, and prevent your reaction. Acting first is gold, and catching the other guy flat-footed is part of that.

...but acting <second> - if you're sure you can survive the first action - is actually the larger <tactical> advantage. This is most noticeable (or was for my group) in low-mid-level play, say, 6th to 8th. If there are two groups, both 40 ft away from each other, they get really hesitant to close or charge, because neither wants to expose themselves to counterattack; they have to "pay" (in actions) to move up, and their opponents don't. The "flat-footed until you act" is actually another small reward for 'having' to go first - while you pay in the action-economy to close the distance, and lose the tactical advantage of making your opponent commit first, you gain the (slight) advantage of your foes being flat-footed.

Regarding "what if we all know there's a fight coming", I don't buy it, for similar reasons as mentioned above. If everyone knows a fight's coming, nobody's <surprised> - but those who haven't acted are still flat-footed (which isn't the same thing - which might be part of your player's problem). A flat-footed character, effectively, has "lost" initiative; this is the penalty for losing that mini-game. Everyone knew the bunch was coming, but only the punch-er knew <exactly> when.

(And if the punch-ee wins initiative, well, the punch-er telegraphed his moves a little early, or something similar.)

 

[Water Bob]

That's not what's bugging the player. Yeah, it might be nice, and yeah, he might use the advantage if it's kept in-game, but he thinks the rule is bad for PCs and NPCs.

Yes. He thinks it's just a plain bad rule that makes no sense to him. If his character is aware of a possible threat, he doesn't find it logical or realistic that his character has even a chance of being easier to hit than normal.

I agree with him. If everyone is aware, I just discount the rule.

I've considered that. But, I'm afraid I'd invoke the rule of unintended consequences if I did.

The d20 game is a complex system. Tweaking or removing one part could casue problems down the road.

Flat-footed is ingrained all over the game. Rogues thrive on flatfooted targets. There's Feats and special abilities and conditions that all deal with being flatfooted.

If I remove the nish flat-footed part, it will only bring up the same argument with another circumstance in the game where Flatfooted is addressed.

And, those that have Feats or special abilities that allow them to use dodge or parry while flatfooted have their advantage removed if the rule is removed from initiative.

Not going with Flat-Footed as written can cause all sorts of unforseen problems.

He seems logical to me (but maybe that's because I agree with him), so I think you can talk this through. If he knows you're trying to preserve game balance for both PCs and NPCs, and you're trying to do this impartially (like he's trying to do with the rule), I think he'll be more willing to accept your view, and your decision.

He's logical but probably too-much single-minded. Once he decides on something, it's THE LAW, and everybody else is wrong unless a nuclear blast wakes him up and shows him the other side of the issue.

As far as I can tell, being flat-footed is a world apart from being surprised.

He would agree with you, then ask why, then, are combatants who are totally aware of each other, penalized on the first round of the fight?

Prior to you starting to move around a lot, i.e. prior to your first turn, you're NOT moving around in combat-fashion. You're an easier target. Your opponent doesn't have to worry about your already incoming attack just yet. "He who strikes first often strikes last" - that's what the flat-footed rule is about.

This is actually a good explaination. I may use that with him. Thanks for illuminating it for me.

I practice a martial art for a few years now and I've noticed this several times in sparring rounds:

Thanks. Your real life experience supports what Empirate said above. I'm going to throw this at my player an try to see what sticks.

 

[Hexer]

Empirate and I posted pretty much at the same time there and we basically said the same thing

but yea, real fighting often seems to be a case of "show me your best strike" kinda as the first action can VERY well be decisive for the outcome of a fight, especially if you dont know your opponent yet (meaning you didnt have time to adjust to the other persons "style" so to say)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

If everyone is aware, I just discount the rule. Who wouldn't attempt to dodge, parry, block, twist, etc. when everyone is aware that combat is about to happen?

This really should be the issue at question. 3E determines surprise as a matter of who is aware of the presence of others. Flat-footed however, is a matter of having PREPARED for combat. Just because two people are arguing or highly suspicious of each others motivations doesn't mean EITHER of them is actually in a combat stance of some sort and ready for any potential attack.

Let me use this example of an argument between an NPC and a PC. The only person at the game table who knows what the NPC is actually expecting is the DM. The only person at the table who knows what the PC is expecting is the player. If neither has a weapon drawn then even if they are expecting that this will end in combat neither of them is actually PREPARED for actual combat. The first one to say the character draws a weapon is the one who actually has the initiative - and therefore the advantage over the other who, though he may have "expected" combat, clearly is not in a position to parry with his weapon, right? It can be safely assumed further that if he's not ready to parry with anything then he's not ready to dodge any incoming blows either.

Now suppose one of them declares that he draws a weapon and DOESN'T attack? Well, if the opponent draws a weapon in turn THEN it can be argued that neither of them is flat-footed.

There is a LOT of room for DM adjudication here. If the player STATES, "I prepare to defend myself against his sudden attack, but don't actually draw my weapon," then the DM could decide that he's not actually flat-footed for the next round, say. But this is NOT a state of readiness one can keep up indefinitely. You can't walk through life ready to defend yourself instantly from any unpredicted attack. Circumventing the penalties of being flat-footed without some sort of feat or class ability should be something that can at best be accomplished for a round - preparation against imminent attack (and if that attack doesn't take place as expected then you're back to square one), but AS A RULE it is far more sensible to simply assume that you are flat-footed until you ACTUALLY act in a round.

 

[Water Bob]

Flat-footed however, is a matter of having PREPARED for combat. Just because two people are arguing or highly suspicious of each others motivations doesn't mean EITHER of them is actually in a combat stance of some sort and ready for any potential attack.

This, and your example, are a good way of putting it, I think, saying, in a different way, what some of the posters above has said.

Now suppose one of them declares that he draws a weapon and DOESN'T attack? Well, if the opponent draws a weapon in turn THEN it can be argued that neither of them is flat-footed.

This is an interesting example.

Let's say your in a game. The PCs are in the local tavern. For color, you've been describing some loud mouths sitting at a table not far away.

One of them gets up to go to the head and he bumps into the PCs' table. "Hey, you maggots, " he says to the player characters, "stay out of my way, or I'll piss on you."

The players take up the challenge. The fighter in the party stands, looks the NPC straight in the eye, and says, "Well, whip it out then, and try pissing on me."

The other PCs stand up and give their comrad room with the jerk.

Now, the DM has an impromptu role playing momen on his hands that can easily degrade into a fight.

The NPC smiles a toothy grin at the fighter, takes a step closer to him, and jabs his finger into the fighter's chest, "You look like a toilet to m...."

"That it!" The player interjects. "My fighter hits him, right in mid-speech. I'm rolling my attack!"

Now, some DM would roll initiative here, and some would automatically give nish to the fighter. Either way, one of them is going to be flat-footed.

Where one DM would give the fighter automatic nish, based on the encounter, and aother DM would think that the NPC was expecting the fight and should have a chance to act first, therefore rolling nish normally between the two, I'd go ahead and roll nish but give the PC Fighter a +2 circumstance bonus on the throw.

But, how you handle it doesn't really matter--unless you automatically rule that neither is flat-footed.

I don't really think that should be the case, and I'd stick to RAW.

If the player STATES, "I prepare to defend myself against his sudden attack, but don't actually draw my weapon," then the DM could decide that he's not actually flat-footed for the next round, say.

Here, too, I'd give the player a circumstance bonus (probably +2) on his nish throw but not automatically make him not flat-footed.

 

[Empirate]

The example given by the Man in the Funny Hat sounds to me like trouble has already started, but both sides give the other a chance to back off. Mechanically speaking, initiative has been rolled, but both parties have decided to delay on their first turn (or do anything but attack, anyway). That way, when one side decides to take an action other than delaying, nobody's flat-footed.

I have actually used initiative rolls for things other than combat in the past - and sometimes these situations devolved into actual combat after a moment. In these instances, flat-footedness didn't come up, because everybody had already acted.

E.g. an unsavory guy wants to hastily leave the tavern after overhearing the PCs' plot-relevant talk; one of the PCs had already spotted him and wants to step between him and the exit before he can get away. I call for initiative rolls to see whether he can block the NPC's path quickly enough, or whether he must run after him.

Initiative: PC wins, steps smartly into the NPC's way, and says "where you goin', eh?". Uses his turn to talk as a free action, and delays to see how the other will respond.

NPC quickly scans the room and replies "None of your business. Step aside, or I'll make you!" Draws a knife as a move action and makes an intimidate check to demoralize as a standard action.

Both have acted now, and even though combat has not actually been joined, neither of them is flat-footed.