Flat-Footed

[Water Bob]

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. Our group has removed the Flat-Footed rule as it applies to acting first in combat. However, after much consideration, I'm considering its reintroduction.

I kept the rule, but we've yet had anyone caught flatfooted. Much depends on when initiative is thrown. It's true, we've had little combat in my new campaign. We've played just 4 sessions with a tad bit of combat and a lot of role playing.

In the little combat we've had, I had initiative thrown early enough that the FF rule didn't come into play. For example, we did a gladitorial-style combat with the characters entering into a ring. The ring was 80' in diameter, so the first combatant couldn't charge during the first round, and the second, after the first had moved into range, refused to charge thinking that the first had readied an action against a charge.

So, those two slowly, over three rounds, went into combat.

Game session V, coming up soon, starts off with combat. It will be our first major combat session. But even here, FF won't matter becuase I've already decided where nish will be thrown....as the PCs run around a bend in the road and come upon the bad guys. The distance, again, will be too far for FF to matter.





When I wrote this post, I hadn't really played out any combat yet, and it didn't dawn on my how, sometimes, nish is thrown and the PCs are too far away from the foes for FF to be considered.

That's an intersesting tool the GM has in his game-kit.

To suddenly depart from this for unseen attacks above a Dex of 10 is illogical and arbitrary.

Just to play Devil's Advocate: You're looking at the DEX penalty and bonus as a linear proposition. What if there is a point of diminishing returns? What if DEX 10 is that point of diminishing returns?

More plainly: DEX scores 9 or less represent a person's slow features. But as DEX 12+ represents a person's fast features, it also represents a finer line between benefits.

Thus, DEX 9 or less penalties apply, but DEX 12+ don't since, after a certain point (which is DEX 10), the advantage of having a higher DEX score isn't large enough to grant a bonus in certain situations....and acting quickly and ceasing the initiative in combat is one of those situations.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Just to play Devil's Advocate: You're looking at the DEX penalty and bonus as a linear proposition.

Which is exactly how it is implemented in 3.5. From 2 to 10000, every ability score has a +1 higher modifer than the score two points lower. In other words...it's a linear proposition (with the sole exception of a 1 being -5)

What if there is a point of diminishing returns? What if DEX 10 is that point of diminishing returns?

Hey, it's great to try and look at the game and see if it makes sense. But it's equally important not to try and invent logic to make sense of something that is implemented illogically. There is no concept of diminishing returns concept in 3.5 as it applies to ability scores. Ability score tables goes on ad infinitim and increases every two points. See above.

Thus, DEX 9 or less penalties apply, but DEX 12+ don't since, after a certain point (which is DEX 10), the advantage of having a higher DEX score isn't large enough to grant a bonus in certain situations....and acting quickly and ceasing the initiative in combat is one of those situations.

Ignoring the fact that you may be contradicting yourself, while that theory would explain the rule...it has as much basis in reality as saying, the god Tymor has decided to penalize those with Dex lower than 10 and reward those higher than 11....except that there is nothing the game that would support such a conclusion. I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's counterproductive to just make stuff up as a raison d'etre.

A better approach is to determine why the rule has been written that way. What goal were the designers trying to achieve and did they achieve it? I think we can all agree that no game system is 100% perfect as written. Is this such a case?

Look, I understand what it is you're trying to convey, but one of the problems I think that is tripping you up is the paradigm of "penalty" and "bonus." These terms, as applied to ability modifiers, are wholly arbitrary because the increases are a linear step function. The magnitude of the difference between having an 8 Dex and having a 12 Dex is neither greater nor smaller than if you made a Dex of 2 give you a +1 bonus and and increased the bonus from there on out. A Dex of 8 would give you a "bonus" of +4 and a Dex of 12 would give you a bonus of "+6." Net difference? +2. The same as it is now.

In other words, "penalty" and "bonus" are just labels based on a some arbitrary notion of what the average person's Dexerity would be. It doesn't not change the magnitude of the difference. If 3.5 decided that a Commoner's Dex is 16, so that anything below 16 is a "penalty" the difference between 8 and 12 would still be +2.

What's interesting for me is, again, why did they implement the game this way? Surely someone at WotC asked why not apply a flat penalty for everyone in a situation where they don't get to avoid an attack? Why punish someone with a Dex of 20 more than someone with a Dex of 16 and not punish someone with a Dex of 10 at all? After all, even an armor class of 10 assumes a person is not immobilized. So shouldn't the average person encounter a penalty if they are unable to avoid an attack or didn't see the attacker? I'm at a loss.

 

[Water Bob]

What's interesting for me is, again, why did they implement the game this way? Surely someone at WotC asked why not apply a flat penalty for everyone in a situation where they don't get to avoid an attack? Why punish someone with a Dex of 20 more than someone with a Dex of 16 and not punish someone with a Dex of 10 at all?

My guess is that they wanted to have a first blood rule. The thought that the first attack can be more powerful than regular melee isn't new. Remember Classic Traveller has a rule like that--where the first blow can stun, incapacitate, or even kill the character unlike other blows.

In 3.5, the FF rule actually gets worse the higher level the characters are (because DEX bonuses will typically be higher). It gives a little "realism" to the use of hit points. You can't take someone out if you can't cover all their remaining hit points in a blow. Thus, rules like the Flat-Footed rule, making a target easier to hit, and the Massive Damage rule, bring a little "realism" to hit points.



Then, they took it a step further and used it as a mechanic for sneak damage.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Just reread the thread so, first: a response to a statement in the thread from a while back.

But, he's disregarding that, thinking that the mechanical penalty to both Surprise and lost Initiative is the same: Flat-footed.

Flat-footed isn't a penalty that is inflicted for either being surprised or losing initiative - it is a normal condition (literally a condition in the game-rule mechanics sense of "conditions") that is typically overcome by surprising others, or by WINNING initiative.

First off, for everyone who tries to "justify" the FF rule from any realism perspective, you're just flat deluding yourselves at best and being disengenious at worst.

I'd advise being a little less strident in tone there. I know you're not trying to be insulting but it's VERY easy to read that as intolerably condescending.

Example 1: Fighter A rolls a 2 on initiative and Fighter B rolls a 20. So Fighter A loses a +7 dex bonus and is easily hit with a 10. Fighter B moves 30ft in six seconds and Fighter A with inhuman Dexterity can take no action to avoid being hit.

That would be an inaccurate and misleading statement. Fighter A is simply penalized to a degree giving fighter B an increased chance to hit. Fighter A may still avoid being hit if his AC is otherwise high enough and/or Fighter B's attack roll is low enough.

Example 2: Fighter A rolls a 20 and Fighter B rolls a 2. Fighter B still gets to move his Heavy Shield to retain its bonus, no matter where the attack from Fighter A comes from.

This is true only because for the sake of general combat rules simplification the game has removed FACING as a consideration. In 1E/2E for example, a shield explicitly protected only a certain selection of areas around the character (and furthermore only protected against a limited number of attacks even then) so an attack from the flanks meant the shield and all associated bonuses did not apply to AC, attacks from behind meant shield AND dex bonuses could not apply. Because 3E eliminates the specific position of opponents as a consideration in place of RELATIVE postiion of opponents (flanking now being a bonus granted when a combatant is required to divide his attentions to opposite sides at once) the bonus for having a shield MUST by default apply all around all the time. There may be attacks which 3E decides can eliminate or circumvent a Shield Armor Bonus, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.

The situation in this example is not meant to be taken as a thoughtless defiance of realism but as a well-considered sympathy with simplified/unified game rules.

This illustrates the ridiculusness of looking at the Flat-Footed Rule from a realism perspective. This is true for most games rules in RPG's when it comes to combat. D&D is an abstraction. It's not realism.

I hear you. Really I do. But if you want realism then you shouldn't play any version of D&D nor any other game that is even moderately similar to it in mechanics. Combat in D&D is SO abstracted it's almost laughable. It's more laughable to me to claim that it's not realistic enough when it's not realistic AT ALL.

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.

Well D&D practically revels in absurdities as regards both the strengths and vulnerabilities of player characters and these only increase with character levels. It is part and parcel of it being a game where characters assay "epic quests for fortune and glory," [PH]

The core of this problem lies in how the whole Dex modifier table is set up.. Consider this... In NO DEX BONUS situations...a person who has a 3 Dex is easier to hit than a person who has a 5 Dex..right? And a person who has a 5 is easier to hit than someone who has a 10, agreed? (You see where this is going?) 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.

As an aside I can't readily find a specific reference to a commonly accepted notion carried over from previous editions - that there is no AC lower than 10, even with penalties. Without such a simple statement I guess we have to accept that a character in no armor with no other modifiers who otherwise has a -4 dex penalty is in fact AC 6.

However, dex is not intended as the be-all end-all of armor class - it's just a MODIFIER to AC. Look at it this way: It isn't a matter of a low dex character being given an illogical benefit, but a high dexterity character being denied the ability to ALWAYS leverage his natural advantage, typically by being in circumstances where he's caught unawares. Dexterity /= awareness, fast reactions and being light on your feet doesn't make you more alert.

D&D made the mistake of treating the Dex modifiers like everything else....above 10 you get a bonus, below, you get a penalty.

This I can agree with. It is an inherent drawback to having a universal table for ability modifiers as well as a universal task resolution system. Logically, not all ability scores apply and scale in the same way and not all tasks fit well a scale of granularity from 1-20. Some things are pass/fail, some lend themselves to many degrees of failure or success, some should have many modifiers, others none at all. Once upon a time I thought that 3E's design in this regard was simple and elegant. Lately I've come to see it as not just simple, but actually misguided. 1E and 2E rules weren't necessarily superior in this regard, their ability modifiers needed to be changed too to better reflect the expected spread of ability scores for PC's when rolling d6's for their initial determination. It was better to have bonuses accruing closer to scores of 10-11, but it was a mistake to have penalties similarly accrue closer to 10-11 just for the sake of having a cleaner looking table.

The problem is that they abitrarily decided that anyone with a Dex up to 10...still gets their bonus when compared to people with a worse Dex...but nobody with a Dex higher than 10 gets their bonus? How does that make a lick of sense?

Because as dexterity scores increase from 0 and approach 10 it isn't a matter of them gaining bonuses but of reducing their penalty. As dexterity's increase above 10 as concerns being flat-footed it isn't a matter of characters with below 10 dex being given an extra advantage - they aren't because they still have their penalty. It's a matter of the over-10 dex character facing the fact that his dexterity simply will not constantly apply in all circumstances.

At the outset of a battle surprise is decided without regard to dexterity. It is a matter of AWARENESS of the presence of opponents. Having surprise means that opponent reactions DO NOT apply. The surprise round is all about the actions of the surprisers and opponents who would normally have a dexterity advantage don't yet have the opportunity to press that advantage regarding their AC. The next step beyond surprise is initiative - a dex check. At this point the natural dexterity of combatants DOES apply and grant them a POTENTIAL advantage, not a GUARANTEED advantage. The dex bonus modifies the die roll improving their chances of acting before their opponents.

Your argument here implies that initiative should have no random element but instead simply proceed from highest dex to lowest. Not an awful idea as a house rule but I see nothing wrong with the implication that can be drawn from RAW that there are any number of factors (best represented by a random roll) that might keep a high dexterity character at the same relative disadvantage as someone who has a dexterity that is simply lower than him, whether or not it's a dexterity that provides no bonus anyway.

Once again, I'm going to tell all you people who are going to try and make up laws of nature about the existence or lack clumsiness as being an explanation. Don't go there. There is a straight line improvement in armor class from a Dex of 3 up until infinity.

Flat-footed condition and related matters of initiative isn't about reflecting real life nearly as much as it is about just adjudicating a game as effectively as possible. You seem to want to insist here that the baseline is an ability score of 0 and that anything above that provides a bonus even if that bonus is a negative integer. The game rules on the other hand assume that the baseline is 10-11 and that positive integers are a bonus, and negative integers are a penalty. At the risk of sounding insulting (given statements above that is NOT my intent) I don't think that's a matter of rationalizing the illogical rules as you insist it cannot be otherwise, but simply being rational about how the rules DO work.

As written...the FF rule is poorly conceived...not because of what it suggests...but becauses of HOW it is presented and implemented. D&D makes a critical mistake in trying to implement this rule based on some real life analogy of being "flat-footed." 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?!!?

Well, I remain unconvinced by this assertion that the rule is poorly conceived, broken, or arbitrary. "It's screwed up because it's screwed up," is a bit thin.

Most importantly, change the No Dex bonus rule to a flat penalty. This way...EVERYONE is punished equally for being flat footed

Again I'd point out that it's not a penalty for being surprised or losing initiative, it's a reasonable condition to assume that characters are in until random elements are no longer a factor.

Most high Dex classes don't wear armor

I think you have to be more specific about this.

I would also use the flat penalty in ALL no dex bonus situations, excluding immobilization. As an illustration...a person with a Dex of 3...while in combat...is more difficult to hit than someone immobilized.

Not sure what you're getting at here. "Immobile" is not a rule-listed condition. Being Pinned means a character is immobile but has no dex effects. Being Entangled is a -4 dex penalty. Other conditions where the character can't move seem to all fall under the associated condition of Helpless, which carries an associated penalty of any dex being treated as 0. Perhaps if you explain which of those you disagree with... or?

Nevertheless, even when unaware of an attacker, their movements are slow and predictable. A person with a 20 dex in the same "blind" situation is going to move much quicker, with greater range, and with less predictability...even when not aware of the attacker. Ergo...it makes much more sense to apply a flat penalty.

Um... but UNAWARENESS of the attacker means that they cannot react to the attackers actions at all. Their superior reactions would not help them react to anything but the impact of the weapon and then it's too late. Again here you're assuming that a high dexterity must apply at all times and in all circumstances. The rules are only attempting to reflect what _I_ thought (and still do actually) was obvious in that a dexterity bonus does NOT apply at all times and in all circumstances - but a dexterity penalty DOES always apply (although as I noted way up above I consider 10 to be a minimum armor class regardless of any and all penalties).

Now the question I'm interested in hearing people answer is why didn't D&D use a flat penalty?

Just to be snarky: no you aren't - you repeatedly assert that anyone who thinks the RAW is sensible in this regard has mental issues.

[/snark]I'll be nice now.

There are certainly "realistic" situations where one can be aware of an attack and still be caught off-guard. But don't apply the FF rule blindly. I would certainly allow for some situations, beyond having Uncanny Dodge, where characters are simply not caught flat footed for having failed to act.

Well it's not a matter of having failed to act, but not being able to act first, however...

I do agree that the FF rule - along with EVERY OTHER RULE IN THE BOOK should not be applied blindly. The rules do not and CANNOT cover all situations, all contingencies.

...it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook.

No matter what the rules say, if you have an issue with one of them (Flat-footed in this case) whether it's just in a particular circumstance or the rule in general - CHANGE it.

But again, I suggest going a bit easier on actually questioning the reasoning and intelligence of those who simply choose to disagree with you or do not share YOUR perspective on the rules.

 

[Water Bob]

The other thing that I was going to say (and didn't above) with regards to the DEX 20 question is that I think the designers realized that someone with a DEX 20 won't lose nish that often to someone with DEX 6, but the system gives the DEX 6 guy a chance to beat the DEX 20 dude.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Well, here we go.

Flat-footed isn't a penalty that is inflicted for either being surprised or losing initiative - it is a normal condition (literally a condition in the game-rule mechanics sense of "conditions") that is typically overcome by surprising others, or by WINNING initiative.

Incorrect. You don't overcome being flat footed by "WINNING" initiative...you overcome it by acting. You can win initiative and delay your action...and you're still flat footed. The game rules decide that you somehow only able to use your natural ability to dodge attacks after you have taken an action...that before this decision on your part...you are unable to avoid any attacks by virture of movement (but we'll conveniently ignore the fact that a person with a 10 Dex can still avoid more attacks than a person with an 8 Dex.)

What you're arguing here is semantics. Flat footed is a not a "normal" condition. It is a contrived state invented by the game designers in order to facilitate other mechanics...namely Feats like Uncanny Dodge and to allow Rogues and high Dex characters an opportunity to have more impact in any given encounter. There was no FF rule prior to 3.x

Let's get a grip on fantasy reality, here. The idea that a person with superhuman dexterity (Read: 25) would be easier to hit than a slightly above average (Read: 12) guy standing next to him because he lost some conceptual thing called an "initiative" roll is an argument in fantasy...not reality. Persistent application of a "normal condition" whereby all people whose Dex is above some arbitrary average score is nullified is patently absurd from any reality based perspective.

Let's revisit the definition of Dexterity according to d20srd:

"Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance."

"You apply your character’s Dexterity modifier to: ..."

"Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack."

Emphasis added.

The idea that a person with a 20 Dex wouldn't "react" better to losing initiative than a person with a 10 Dex...has literally no basis in reality given that one can raise a shield to avoid an attack and that a person with an 10 Dex is able to react better than a person with an 8 Dex.

Let's get this straight: The Flat Footed rule that eliminates all Dex ability above 11 does not represent reality...it represents an abstraction designed to facilitate other mechanics.

That would be an inaccurate and misleading statement. Fighter A is simply penalized to a degree giving fighter B an increased chance to hit. Fighter A may still avoid being hit if his AC is otherwise high enough and/or Fighter B's attack roll is low enough.

There is nothing in my example is misleading or inaccurate. Nor does asserting such make it true. Fighter A isn't penalized to a "degree." Fighter A gets zero Dex bonus...regardless of weather that Dex is 12 or 10,000. Whether armor may protect Fighter A is irrelevant to the discussion, nevermind that I said Fighter A is unarmored in that example.

Flat-footed condition and related matters of initiative isn't about reflecting real life nearly as much as it is about just adjudicating a game as effectively as possible. You seem to want to insist here that the baseline is an ability score of 0 and that anything above that provides a bonus even if that bonus is a negative integer. The game rules on the other hand assume that the baseline is 10-11 and that positive integers are a bonus, and negative integers are a penalty. At the risk of sounding insulting (given statements above that is NOT my intent) I don't think that's a matter of rationalizing the illogical rules as you insist it cannot be otherwise, but simply being rational about how the rules DO work.

Your'e falling into the same conceptual trap as Water Bob did in his response. You're wanting to equate this idea with "penalty" and "bonus" with some change in state. Such a proposition is not supperted by the linear progression of the ability modifiers. It's irrelevant where you set the baseline....8 is better than 6, 10 is better than 8, and 12 is better than 10. Every stop along that progression is a +1 improvement. The labels of "penalty" and "bonus" do nothing to change that.

Let me put it this way...if you're playing a campaign that's all Elves, then the baseline really should be 12 not 10. And doing so means there is no difference in the relative probability of being hit, making a saving throw, or using a ranged weapon. Someone with a 12 is always going to be 1 better someone with a 10. The "penalty/bonus" labels are simply that: labels. They have no effect on the magnitude of the bonuses. Was this not made clear in my last post?

But since the system isn't perfect, it runs into a problem with situations where someone should not get the full benefit of their Dexterity. The game still penalizes people who are lower than 10...but there is no logical reason to due so. Saying that scores above 10 are a "bonus" is like saying they a "Koby Koby" and then making up some rule that Koby Koby doesn't apply in these situations. It's abitrary.

Because as dexterity scores increase from 0 and approach 10 it isn't a matter of them gaining bonuses but of reducing their penalty.

Semantics. Mathmatically, it's the same thing. It's like arguing the glass isn't half full...it's half empty.

As dexterity's increase above 10 as concerns being flat-footed it isn't a matter of characters with below 10 dex being given an extra advantage - they aren't because they still have their penalty. It's a matter of the over-10 dex character facing the fact that his dexterity simply will not constantly apply in all circumstances.

It's odd you don't see your own self contradiction in your response. You ponit out that below 10, people still have their "penalty." But a 6 has less penalty than a 4. And a 10, less than a 6. And that 10 is better than a 6..."in all circumstances." Yet, you seem to believe it makes sense that a 12 isn't better than a 10 in all circumstances...nevermind that the linear progression of the modifiers implicitly signifying that there is no substantive change transitioning from penalty to no modifier to bonus?

Having surprise means that opponent reactions DO NOT apply.

Exactly. Now do you see the hypocrasy by allowing Dex scores to make a Dex 8 character have better AC than a Dex 6 character...when reaction "DO NOT APPLY" This is the problem that the game designers ran over in the crosswalk and then left the scene of the crime. On one hand you're saying your inability to "react" affects your armor class...then arbitrarily deciding that...wait..no...you're not allowed to react if it improves your armor class..nevermind that mathmatically we're improving AC's going up from 3 to 10...and then simply stopping at 10.

Your argument here implies that initiative should have no random element but instead simply proceed from highest dex to lowest.

Not at all. It's entirely feasible that somone with lower reaction times on average might react faster in any given circumstance. The issue is that deciding to suddenly impose a brickwall filter on Dex above 10 is wholly ridiculous when you're allowing Dex to modify AC's below 10.

Look, it'd be one thing if D&D had some non-linear ability modifier table whereby the transition from Penalty to Neutral to Bonus has all these associated changes...but it doesn't. Mathmatically the differene between 8 and 10 is the same difference between 10 and 12. Only 12 doesn't get that bonus over 10 simply because THAT +1 is called a "bonus." Silly.

Flat-footed condition and related matters of initiative isn't about reflecting real life nearly as much as it is about just adjudicating a game as effectively as possible.

There is nothing to be "adjuticated." FF is simply a mechanic or "condition" as you labeled it to facilitate other mechanics. D&D would suggest that ALL combatants start out FF before the act in an encounter. Again, this is a condition, not a weighing of the facts.

Again I'd point out that it's not a penalty for being surprised or losing initiative, it's a reasonable condition to assume that characters are in until random elements are no longer a factor.

"reasonable"? Based on what? When two boxers or MMA fighters get in a ring, have you ever heard the ex-Boxer/MMA announcer say, "OOOh. Looks like Rodriguez caught Martinez flat footed with that first punch"? No. There is no way to break down real life combat and know if someone won or lost initiative or simply delayed their action. Nor do we know if anyone even has a Dex bonus or if someone got hit because he lost his Dex bonus or if the other guy just hit him irregardless of Dex bonus.

Sure...people do get sucker punched. People are caught "flat-footed" in some fights. It defiintely happens. And I believe it is entirely reasonable to say that any given person might be less reactive in such a situation. But the idea that every single person on the planet whose quickness is above average, are all equally easy to hit in that situation goes beyond any rational argument. D&D makes such an argument...are you really trying to make that argument as well?

Being Entangled is a -4 dex penalty.

Perfect. This so conveniently exposes the inconsistencies of Dex in this game. Here, D&D has decided that a flat penalty is appropriate. So no matter whether you get a "bonus" or a "penalty." You are treated equally. The fact that D&D uses flat Dex penalties means that all positions along the Ability Modifier table, Dexterity functions linearly. Your penalty is not greater when you have a "bonus." Nor are you penalized less because you already have a "penalty." If "penalty" or "bonus" for Dex were somehow substantively different..then the game could not use a flat tax as it were. The game would make some special rule for "bonus" and "penalty" conditions.

Just to be snarky: no you aren't - you repeatedly assert that anyone who thinks the RAW is sensible in this regard has mental issues

Let's get a reality check here, MFH. Anyone who is going to seriously insist that the way these mechanics work are entirely logical and consistent has mental deficiencies. The game is filled with illogical and inconsistent stuff. It's a freakin game about fantasy. There is no logic to how the Weave works the Forgotten Realms, or why it works the way it does. Or why weapons are +1 or why weapons can't have a bonus more than +5. My question is why in this case did they do something that was internally inconsistent...and more importantly, does it make the game better or worse?

 

[Arrowhawk]

My guess is that they wanted to have a first blood rule. The thought that the first attack can be more powerful than regular melee isn't new. Remember Classic Traveller has a rule like that--where the first blow can stun, incapacitate, or even kill the character unlike other blows.

In 3.5, the FF rule actually gets worse the higher level the characters are (because DEX bonuses will typically be higher). It gives a little "realism" to the use of hit points. You can't take someone out if you can't cover all their remaining hit points in a blow. Thus, rules like the Flat-Footed rule, making a target easier to hit, and the Massive Damage rule, bring a little "realism" to hit points.



Then, they took it a step further and used it as a mechanic for sneak damage.

I understand why a FF rule exists. My question isn't about the existence...but implementation and whether it is a net positive or negative for the game.

let's look at something you just wrote...

"Thus, rules like the Flat-Footed rule, making a target easier to hit, and the Massive Damage rule, bring a little "realism" to hit points."

Yet, that guy in your group seems to think it is contra-real. I have a guy in my group who feels the same way. So this idea that it brings "realism" is wholly subjective. For some it's more real..for others...it's a step in the opposite direction of realism.

One of my earlier statements is an admonishment about using "realism" to justify things in RPG's. I'd advise all DM's to stay away from that approach when debating rules. There is no encylopedia or cannon on what makes a game more or less real. You're essentially going to get yourself into an argument which is grounded in opinion and no one is going to win an opinion debate. Instead, I suggest you talk about whether there is a net improvement in the game. Does sacrificing some subjective believability allow for an improved game experience? There is no universal answer to that question.

I'm electing to bring back the FF rule to my compaign because I want to see how the mechanic works in actual game play, not because it's more real. Does it improve the value of Rogues and high Dex characters? Does that make the game more enjoyable? The other DM in the group doesn't think it'll make a big difference one way or the other, but as I mentioned, he feels the rule is not credible...and he's an experienced fencer and studied self defense.

As far as it being worse at higher level...I'm not sure that's true. Remember, the higher your Dex, the more you benefit from this rule on average because you will be acting first. Whether that's offset by the increased damage you take is impossible to know without trying to run some simulation more complex than anyone would bother to explore.

As you noted earlier, the DM has a lot of ability to determine just how much impact these rules have by tailoring encounters and the creatures (i.e. low dex or high dex creatures).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Let's get a reality check here, MFH. Anyone who is going to seriously insist that the way these mechanics work are entirely logical and consistent has mental deficiencies.

Good thing then that I wasn't trying to do so. I was trying to point out that they work for the game.

My question is why in this case did they do something that was internally inconsistent...and more importantly, does it make the game better or worse?

Fine. You win. It's as wildly inconsistent as most of the rest of the rules. They did it, however, because it DOES make the game better.

If you don't make the game, you don't make the rules. In the case of D&D, however, every DM (whether WotC wants you to or not, whether it's a good idea or not) gets to make the rules whatever he wants them to be. Good luck. I honestly do hope you find a method that works for you and those you game with. I'll just leave you to it as it's clear to me you're not interested in even hearing differing opinions, just in getting everyone else to agree with yours - but enough with the accusations of mental deficiency in those who would simply dare question your conclusions.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Good thing then that I wasn't trying to do so.

Yes. It is a good thing.

I was trying to point out that they work for the game.

In your opinion. Which you are entitled to.

Fine. You win.

I'm not trying to win anything. I'm pointing out an objective fact about the game and asking if others have an explanation as to why the game was implemented in an internally inconsistent fashion. Most games try to remain internally consistent as much as possible. Did d20 3.x intentionally depart from that here, or was it unintended?

It's as wildly inconsistent as most of the rest of the rules.

That's another opinion, which you are once again entitled to. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that is irrelevant to this specific issue.

They did it, however, because it DOES make the game better.

And why is that? Why does it make the game better to impose penalties based on a viable mechanic...but then ignore bonuses? Let me put it to you another way....

Look at this as if it were Strength and not Dex. When would it make sense to impose a penalty on how much someone could carry if there were weaker than average, but...then refuse to allow anyone who is stronger than average to lift more? How would such an inconsistent treatment of strength make the game better?

Let me try another example:

The baseline Dex of 10, assumes some agility. It assumes you have more agility than the a person with an 8 Dex. So why isn't a person with a 10 Dex penalized in situations where a person is unable to react to the attacker? Why isn't everyone who can move, penalized when they can't react to the attack? Think about it like this....how does it make sense that the average person is no worse off in terms of AC if they can't react to an attack? I understand that everyone is subject to Sneak Attack damage...but an average person suffers no AC penalty whether they can see the attack coming or not??? But we're going to impose a penalty on those who are the smallest margin better? Really? And that makes the game better, how exactly?

I'll just leave you to it as it's clear to me you're not interested in even hearing differing opinions

I'm interested in hearing opinions on things that are subjective.

I'm not interested discussing whether 1+1= 2 or 3 or 11. A person may think such a thing is a matter of opinion, but then that person isn't living in reality and there is no benefit in trying to discuss math with them. If a person doesn't understand why the No Dex Bonus rule is inconsistent...then I'm happy to explain the logic. But if a person insists that it is consistent...or insists on coming up with some rationale that has no basis in the RAW or in any reality...then no, I'm not interested in getting into a debate. Let me put it another way. I'm here for a discussion on perception, not a debate on logic.

but enough with the accusations of mental deficiency in those who would simply dare question your conclusions.

How about you dispense with the histrionics? The rules as written with respect to Dex "modifiers" contradict themselves. This is no more an opinion than finding a coding error in a computer program. If the Dex modifier to AC is based on someone's ability to "react" then in situations where someone cannot "react," nobody's AC should be any different from anyone elses based on Dex because nobody can react. Do you really think this is a matter of opinion? I suspect not. But your posts comes across like someone who blindly wants to defend whatever it is the rules say...regardless of any objective truth.

I'm trying to understand what makes it logical for d20 to impose a mechanic that is not consistent. As such, let me readdress the obvious:

On page 7 of the Players Handbook I, Core Rule Book 3.5. It says:

"-- for example, you apply your character’s Dexterity

modifier to his or her Armor Class (AC). A positive
modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called​

a penalty."


​

When the game designerse started looking at combat, clearly there are situations where a person would not be able to avoid attacks by way of their Dexterity. So it makes sense to say whatever AC improvement that resulted from moving around...should be negated. The problem is that all abilities scores have the baseline set at Dex of 10. Thus, the way Dexterity was implemented made it impossible for them to uniformly eliminiate the "improvement." If the Dex baseline had been set at a Dex of 0, meaning you can't move at ALL, and you only went to positive modifiers, this problem could have been avoided entirely. This would have only required one additional column in the modifier table...the Dex AC modifier.

What I don't get is why they didn't do the same thing they did with Entangle. Why not just impose a flat penalty for situations where you aren't moving in response to the attacker, or your movement is restricted? The No Dex Bonus situations are generally not situations where a players is immobile or helpless. The person may still be moving...but just not in response to the attack.

But wouldn't it be logical to say a person who is running (another No Dex Bonus situation) with a Dex of say 30 would still be able to avoid an attack better than someone with a Dex of 10?

As I've mentioned several times...I don't understand the brick wall filter on Dex above 10. How is the game better by not penalizing the average person who is balancing on a rope, but penalizing someone with only slightly better reflexes? I'm at a loss.

 

[kitcik]

Sometimes you really get denied your Dex bonus...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc]‪Indiana Jones : Sword vs. Gun‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]