Flat-Footed

[Water Bob]

You probably shouldn't be asking about it in a D&D Legacy discussion subforum.

Isn't this where the 3.5 clone discussion takes place? I did use a "d20 System" tag.

Why, is D&D nish different?

 

[airwalkrr]

D&D "nish" is indeed quite different. It is effectively a Dexterity check. The only way to increase it are various feats or (usually prestige) class benefits.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Initiative is not in any way, shape or form a Reflex save. But you are correct that initiative is appropriately called for whenever the DM needs to determine who is able to act first in a situation.

See, to my thinking that would be just an opposed Dex check rather than an actual Initiative check. Even if there's little/no functional difference calling it an Initiative check means you're in combat, and combat has specific rules about how play then proceeds, what you can do and when. If it's not combat but you still need to determine who acts first - that's just a dexterity check. As I said, all intiative checks are dex checks, but not all dex checks are initiative checks. They do have different purposes and possibly different modifiers (e.g., Improved Initiative feat applies specifically to an intiative check but that would NOT apply to an opposed dexterity check OUTSIDE of combat.)

 

[Vegepygmy]

See, to my thinking that would be just an opposed Dex check rather than an actual Initiative check.

Initiative is just an opposed Dex check; the only way to change your Initiative modifier is through an effect like the Improved Initiative feat, which is essentially just giving you a +4 bonus to Dex checks made for initiative purposes.

Even if there's little/no functional difference calling it an Initiative check means you're in combat, and combat has specific rules about how play then proceeds, what you can do and when. If it's not combat but you still need to determine who acts first - that's just a dexterity check.

But what is the advantage of using Dexterity checks for non-combat situations where you need to determine who acts first and using Initiative checks for combat situations where you need to determine who acts first? Or looking at it another way, what is the rationale for giving a character with the Improved Initiative feat an advantage in "combat" situations but denying him that advantage in "non-combat" situations, especially when the difference between a "combat" and a "non-combat" situation is often quite blurry?

 

[irdeggman]

D&D "nish" is indeed quite different. It is effectively a Dexterity check. The only way to increase it are various feats or (usually prestige) class benefits.

This is the basis of why D&D init is different.

Also different classes get different Reflex sav bonuses.

Fighters get the slowest advancement, rogues the quickest.

So in the system you use, unless class bonuses are different - rogues get an increased benefit in their init checks than they do in D&D.

one because they generally have a higher Dex score (and thus a higher reflex save bonus or init bonus)

and two because they get a higher Reflex save bonus in addition to their Dex bonus.

 

[Jacob]

He thinks that, upon wining nish, that advantage of attacking first is enough of an advantage without making it easier for him to hit, too.

He thinks the flat-footed rule is a character killer, not only at low level, because one blow with normal damage can kill, but also at higher level when large bonuses are dropped to meet the flat-footed rule requirements.

He thinks it's just bad game design.

I don't agree with him at all, but I'll admit, I'm at a loss for how I'm going to effectively deal with him. He's the type of player who believes in what he says and lays out a well-though argument that is sometimes hard to topple even if you know he's wrong. Knowing he's wrong and stating a case that makes him understand how he's wrong are two different things.

And, with a rule like flat-footed, he may not be "wrong" at all, but just have a difference of opinion.

Note the bold text, because I think some focus needs to be put on that. This player is too focused on it being a negative towards him. Heck, it's not even a positive, even when it's a fact it can be used against the NPC. It's neutral, plain and simple. Also, it sounds like you have a combative PC who's only combative for the sake of it. Be wary.

As stated by many others, the 1st round with rolled initiative is meant to be dangerous for both sides. If it feels like something you can't control, that's the point. You control what actions you take, but the outcome isn't up to you. What is up to you is how you accept and react to it. That's where the fun is.

 

[Dross]

I picked up a new player, and he insists that I'm playing the Flat-Footed rule wrong.

That statement has been show to be itself incorrect.

He thinks its an overpowered, bad rule that needs to be changed.

This contradicts the first quote.
So you COULD say that you will default to the first statement, and being shown that he is wrong, can't really argue over its power as that is not a Rules Argument but a Preference discussion. Since he was arguing Rules initially he should not change the goal posts.


I wonder if the new player comes from another system though?
And I wonder if he is mixing up Surprise with "Flat Footed until Acted."

Also, as a new player there should be an understanding that he has agreed to the rules as run by the DM, at least in the short term (yes there can be issues with this, but there should be that understanding).

Given his argument: If Caelis and Thrallan are shouting at each other, and the situation goes to blows, then we roll iniative and start the fight...BUT, he says, neither Caelis or Thrallan should be flatfooted because both were expecting to enter the fight.

He asks, "Why would one have such an advantage over the other for only the first punch?"

Isn't his argumentof having the advantage for only 1 round at odds with having the advantage AT ALL?
And being aware of the other party removes the surprise round, rules wise.
(I think it was) Hextor that gave a perfect example about what the flat footed rule represents in a "real world" situation.

Playing advocate: I'd also argue that having an argument does not always mean expecting to enter a fight (it can escalate, sure). Otherwise was your new player expecting you to hit him in the nose as Dandu suggested?

He's the type of player who believes in what he says and lays out a well-though argument that is sometimes hard to topple even if you know he's wrong. Knowing he's wrong and stating a case that makes him understand how he's wrong are two different things.

And, with a rule like flat-footed, he may not be "wrong" at all, but just have a difference of opinion.

Rules wise he is wrong. That was the initial argument we were given.

Power wise:
I would note that Skill focus gives +3 to rolls, Improved Initiative provides the (equal) largest bonus in CORE feats to you, implying the importance/power WANTED in getting initiative first.

I don't see that as overpowered personally.

 

[Water Bob]

I wonder if the new player comes from another system though?

Comes from another "edition", as I mentioned above. He's used to 2E AD&D.

And I wonder if he is mixing up Surprise with "Flat Footed until Acted."

He thinks that the defense penalty should be applied to Surprise. He thinks that, when flat-footed, the person is just standing there. If he's not using his DEX to defend himself, his AC is just like that had he been surprised.

So, he'd say: If someone is coming at your weilding a two-handed battle-axe, you're not just going to stand there and take the blow. You're going to attempt to dodge or parry or something to get out of the way.

His argument is this: If a person decides not to defend himself, his AC is the same as if he was flat-footed. Why isn't the person defending himself if the character knows a blow is coming?

That's why he's associating it with Surprise.

 

[Jhaelen]

He thinks that the defense penalty should be applied to Surprise. He thinks that, when flat-footed, the person is just standing there.

I'd say he's thinking too much...

So, he'd say: [...]
His argument is this: [...]

... and he's arguing too much

Why don't you invite him to come over to ENWorld and argue his case himself?
(Or maybe better not...)

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd say he's thinking too much...
... and he's arguing too much

Why don't you invite him to come over to ENWorld and argue his case himself?
(Or maybe better not...)

I don't see that particular conversation being fair. This forum seems pretty against many proposed rules changes (it is the Legacy forum, so it's somewhat understandable), and I see him showing up to state his case against at least one person who thinks he "thinks too much."

I know exactly what this player means. I think it's somewhat disingenuous for either side to completely dismiss the argument of the other, as both have made good points. As I said, if nothing else, present it to your player as a game balance issue. Certain classes, such as rogues, benefit from the game by capitalizing on this advantage. The game was balanced with this in mind. If you're cautious to change the rule because you suspect there are other consequences attached to it, express that feeling to him.

I have very reasonable players, and I know that mine would grudgingly agree to play along if I told them that the game balance had that in mind, even if they disagreed. I'd say try this approach. If he agrees to go along with it, even if he thinks it's wrong, what's the big deal one way or the other if it's more or less realistic?

Again, though, I played 3.x disregarding that rule for years without issue. I'm sure others would be affected by it. Depends on the group, the game, and the party dynamic. At the end of the day, have fun, and play what you like