• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Flat-Footed

Sometimes you really get denied your Dex bonus...

I really dislike Arrowhawk's needlessly aggressive and dismissive posting style, but him posing the question "why don't you get your Dexterity bonus while still applying your Dexterity penalty?" really isn't answered by that video at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I really dislike Arrowhawk's needlessly aggressive and dismissive posting style, but him posing the question "why don't you get your Dexterity bonus while still applying your Dexterity penalty?" really isn't answered by that video at all.

I answered that question in post #90. The answer is: there is no answer as far as logic, but (a) it works in the game, and (b) the number of PCs / creatures in D&D with Dex below, say, 7 where a real penalty (2+) would come into play, that benefit from their opp getting denied their Dex bonus is so small that who cares?

Now he is suggesting his alternative rule - a flat adjustment. The problem with a flat adjustment is that "Sometimes you really get denied your Dex bonus..."

See last post.
 

I answered that question in post #90. The answer is: there is no answer as far as logic, but (a) it works in the game, and (b) the number of PCs / creatures in D&D with Dex below, say, 7 where a real penalty (2+) would come into play, that benefit from their opp getting denied their Dex bonus is so small that who cares?

Now he is suggesting his alternative rule - a flat adjustment. The problem with a flat adjustment is that "Sometimes you really get denied your Dex bonus..."

See last post.

So, if the flat adjustment was as high as -5, and that guy had a 20 Dex, he'd be exactly where the system has him now. If he had less, he's worse off than where the system has him now.

I don't see your argument with that video as particularly compelling, as I don't think it directly refutes his proposition. Though, to be honest, I don't use the base 3.5 rule, nor do I support his flat penalty proposal (not that I'm against it, either).

As always, play what you like :)
 

So, if the flat adjustment was as high as -5, and that guy had a 20 Dex, he'd be exactly where the system has him now. If he had less, he's worse off than where the system has him now.

I don't see your argument with that video as particularly compelling, as I don't think it directly refutes his proposition. Though, to be honest, I don't use the base 3.5 rule, nor do I support his flat penalty proposal (not that I'm against it, either).

As always, play what you like :)

Well, he actually mentioned a 30 Dex but that is besides the point.

In the video, the high Dex guy got surprise, but instead of wisely:
- sneaking behind Indiana, or
- charging Indiana, or
- running away,
he rather chose to waste his surprise in a flourish so that combat was not started.

They then rolled initiative, Indiana won, caught the dude flat-footed and was able to draw his gun and blow him away before he could react. If the guy had not been flat-footed, he would have seen Indiana go for his holster and, using his supreme Dex, dove away (or whatever), reducing Indiana's hit chances.
 

Well, he actually mentioned a 30 Dex but that is besides the point.

In the video, the high Dex guy got surprise, but instead of wisely:
- sneaking behind Indiana, or
- charging Indiana, or
- running away,
he rather chose to waste his surprise in a flourish so that combat was not started.

They then rolled initiative, Indiana won, caught the dude flat-footed and was able to draw his gun and blow him away before he could react. If the guy had not been flat-footed, he would have seen Indiana go for his holster and, using his supreme Dex, dove away (or whatever), reducing Indiana's hit chances.

How are you judging this guys Dexterity score? You seem to think he has an amazing Dexterity score, and that seems to be the basis of your argument. I really don't know where you're drawing it from, though.

Couldn't he just have a 6 Dexterity for all we know? Couldn't he have been flat-footed and taken a penalty on his AC? Or, couldn't he have a 6 Dexterity, acted first and tried to intimidate Indiana during the surprise round, and then got gunned down (with the same penalty to his AC)?

I'm not sure how the video is really supposed to support your argument, and I'm interested in hearing how you think it does.

As always, play what you like :)
 

Let me get this straight kitch. You're showing us a fictional movie...where everyone is acting according to a script...as proof of something?

Yes, some people are caught flat footed. What that would really mean in terms of a dex bonus is impossible to say. But if a situation catches people so that they cannot react, then everyone's AC would be the same with respect to a modifier. More to the point, the average person would not go unpenalized. The concept of being flat-footed means you can't react and you're at a disadvantage....no matter who you are.
 

Let me get this straight kitch. You're showing us a fictional movie...where everyone is acting according to a script...as proof of something?

Yes, some people are caught flat footed. What that would really mean in terms of a dex bonus is impossible to say. But if a situation catches people so that they cannot react, then everyone's AC would be the same with respect to a modifier. More to the point, the average person would not go unpenalized. The concept of being flat-footed means you can't react and you're at a disadvantage....no matter who you are.

As other posters have already pointed out, your "listening" skills are clearly suboptimal.

I agreed with the above in post #90 AND in the post you are referring too.

Hello? Are you actually reading anything besides your own posts?

Let me repeat that.

I agreed TWICE that the above 10 / below 10 discrepancy is illogical (although below 7 so rarely comes into play that I don't care and I think the rules work as is).

That said, your fix of a flat penalty does not work because "Sometimes you really do lose you Dex bonus..." See post above. Hmm, seems like I have said THAT before too. Please read this paragraph twice to be sure it sinks in.

Now, just as a bonus, let me say that YES, I used a depiction of a fantasy hero to illustrate a point about a fantasy game. Seemed logical at the time, but I see that doesn't matter because any point that disagrees with you cannot be logical. My bad.
 

I agreed TWICE that the above 10 / below 10 discrepancy is illogical .
I'm not debating whether it's logical. I'm asking why is it done this way?

That said, your fix of a flat penalty does not work because "Sometimes you really do lose you Dex bonus..."
Perhaps you're reading skills are the ones in question because I'm not denying that people can lose their ability to avoid attacks. I actually like the concept of a Flat Footed state. I like the design space it opens up in the game.

What you haven't addressed is why that inability to avoid attacks wouldn't result in a penalty to everyone (excluding those with Uncanny Dodge) with an average dexterity? The game says I'm penalzing some people and not others even though the situation says nobody can react.

You don't like the flat tax? No problem. What would you suggest? How do you equitably handle a situation where people lose their ability to use their dexterity to avoid an attack? Because remember, a person with a 10 is still using his dexterity to avoid attacks...just ask someone with an 8 Dex. I'm not asking if it comes up enough to be a problem in your campaign, I am asking how you would solve the issue.


Now, just as a bonus, let me say that YES, I used a depiction of a fantasy hero to illustrate a point about a fantasy game. Seemed logical at the time***My bad.
I shouldn't ask this...but I am only human. Let's just say this was a real life situation. How does one make assumptions about what happened interms of modifiers and rolls? Essentially I am asking JamesonCourage's question again.
 
Last edited:

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

The way I read it, when a combat round starts, everybody rolls initiative. Characters move and act in inititiave order. On the first round, a character is considered flat-footed until his chance to act.

So...

If Caelis rolls a 15 Inititiative, and Thrallan rolls an 11, Caelis can walk up to Thrallan, attack him, and Thrallan will be considered flat-footed.

Thrallan is no longer flat-footed once the initiative count reaches him.

It seems pretty black and white to me. Is this how you see it?

I haven't read the thread yet, but, "Yes."

However, a caveat on the side of your player. To me this only applies if:

a) The character was surprised.
OR
b) This is the first full round the character has been aware of the threat.
OR
c) The character could not have possibly concieved of the attacker as a threat before this round.

One thing I don't like is that many DMs tend to read this rule as if no meeting engagement is possible in D&D. They tend to apply this rule as if every encounter is an ambush. If the character has prepared himself for combat with a potential threat he has percieved, even if you haven't rolled for initiative yet, then he's not flatfooted.

This matters when the PC is put in an ambigious situation where he feels threatened but combat doesn't begin immediately. If the PC declares he's readying himself for action and he can percieve the threat, then he's not flatfooted. He still might lose the initiative but he's no longer unprepared for combat, and some who wishes to deny them their dex bonus will have to come up with an alternative plan.

The way to look at this is to imagine that the character is always in combat whenever the encounter begins. Four hundred yards up the round, a group of armed horsemen step out on to the road. The party declares we are readying weapons and holding our ground. The next round the horsemen turn and come up the road at a walk, and halt a minute later 60' from the party. The party has been standing their ready for combat four 10 rounds, staring directly at their foes. They can't be surprised and they they aren't flat footed, even if I don't roll for initiative at this time and even if they lose initiative when negotiations with the bandits break down . Even if I don't roll initiative immediately, the game state at any time has to look exactly like I had rolled initiative at the earliest possible point and ran things round by round until that point.

If a PC quibbles with this, I typically start running everything round by round until they change their mind.

Full details about how I adjudicate this. Imagine we have a situation where the party is at a ball, and there are secretly assassins at the ball who are planning a surprise attack. Many different situations can arrise:

a) The assassin attack before the party has detected them. They are flatfooted, and if they lose their initiative they are flat-footed in the next round.
b) The assassins have been observing the party for some time. The party detects the assassins just as their target comes into the room. Just as they do, the assassins are immediately aware that they have been observed and so attack immediately. The party is not surprised, but they are flat-footed if they lose the initiative.
c) The assassins have their attention focused on the gaurds and are not aware that the party represents a threat. The party detects the assassins, and just as they do, the assassins are are aware that their cover is blown and so attack. Neither side is surprised, but either side is flat-footed if they lose the initiative.
d) The assassins have their attention focused on the gaurds. The party detects the assassins but decides to observe them for while. The assassins detect that they are being observed, but decide to wait and see what happens. If combat begins at a later point, neither side can be surprised nor can either side be flat-footed provided both sides continue the observation.
e) The assassins have their attention focused on the gaurds. The party detects that assassins and covertly observes them, but the assassins do not detect that the party is observing them and is not aware that they are a threat. In this situation, if the assassins begin combat, they can be both surprised by the party (the effective equivalent of the party readying an action each round they observed the assassins) and if they lose initiative they will be flat footed.

And so forth. Thus, just as we expect in the real world, an entire spectrum is possible between one side surprising the other and one side not. A true meeting engagement is actually possible interpretting the rules this way. This suggests to me that it is the correct and intended interpretation.

Obviously, when we break this situation down to the level of individual characters, any or all of the above are simultaneously possible. Some assassins might surprise some party members while simultaneously being surprised and attacked by others, and so forth.
 
Last edited:

I'm not debating whether it's logical. I'm asking why is it done this way?

That's a pointless question - if it is illogical, how can it matter why it was done? - you are just asking it to be rhetorical and force your opinion on others. Even when I agree with you, you have to find some way to disagree. It's actually hilarious.

To answer the question anyway, hey, it's a big undertaking to design a fantasy game that can not only depict every possible action in the real world, but can also depict how actions in a magical world filled with heroes will interact... using only dice and paper. Some shortcuts were taken. Deal with it.

Perhaps you're reading skills are the ones in question because I'm not denying that people can lose their ability to avoid attacks. I actually like the concept of a Flat Footed state.

Again, due to a determined refusal on your part to actually read other peoples' posts (and even tho I asked you to read it twice), you have completely missed the point. Your suggestion to "fix" the FF state was to apply a flat penalty regardless of Dex. This solution does not work in cases where you are actually in a flatfooted state.

What you haven't addressed is why that inability to avoid attacks wouldn't result in a penalty to everyone (excluding those with Uncanny Dodge) with an average dexterity? The game says I'm penalzing some people and not others even though the situation says nobody can react.

I didn't address that? Because I was pretty sure I did. And it was a pretty short post. I even agreed with you about it. I suggest you have someone else read my post to you and explain it. I am pretty sure I said "I agreed TWICE that the above 10 / below 10 discrepancy is illogical (although below 7 so rarely comes into play that I don't care and I think the rules work as is)."

You don't like the flat tax? No problem. What would you suggest? How do you equitably handle a situation where people lose their ability to use their dexterity to avoid an attack? Because remember, a person with a 10 is still using his dexterity to avoid attacks...just ask someone with an 8 Dex. I'm not asking if it comes up enough to be a problem in your campaign, I am asking how you would solve the issue.

But that's the whole point. If the "issue" doesn't come up, it's not an issue. These are exactly where corners had to be cut to sacrifice "realism" for reasonably simple and workable game mechanics. You don't need to fix your refrigerator if you live on a glacier.

I shouldn't ask this...but I am only human. Let's just say this was a real life situation. How does one make assumptions about what happened interms of modifiers and rolls? Essentially I am asking JamesonCourage's question again.

Again, a pointless question. I already gave my detailed explanation of what I think happened in game terms. You just stated in your last post that the flat-footed state does exist. You raise this for no reason but to find another reason to disagree.

Dude, let me just say it one more time with feeling.

1) I agree that the fact that you don't lose the advantage of a 10 Dex. vs a 3 Dex in a flat-footed state doesn't make sense.

2) I don't think a flat penalty fixes it. I think it makes the situation worse because it gives someone with a very high Dex an advantage vs. their aggressor in a case where they should be flat-footed.

3) I have no reason to devise a better fix because the situation rarely occurs and has no meaningful impact on anything. If you really want a fix, change all of the D&D mechanics related to all stats such that zero = no bonus and every 2 up from there is +!. This would require massive changes with little benefit, but would make your 6 Dex character feel better when caught flatfooted since his 10 Dex buddy would be no better off.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top