Flat-Footed

[Arrowhawk]

But the point I'm trying to make is that the rule doesn't require you to apply it blindly.

Actually it does. What it seems you're really trying to convey is that you're starting the rule before it will have any significance. There's no pointin arguing whether that's right or wrong...but ask yourself why the construct of FF was introduced in d20? What were they trying to enable with this mechanic and are your decisions about when to start rolling initiative in concert with the intended mechanic or do they undermine it? I am not suggesting one or the other, just posing the question.

If you apply it consistantly, it's actually a very sensible and pretty well-thought out rule.

I would disagree, but that's not worth debating...or I guess I'll debate that later in this post.

The problem is that a lot of DMs think that they are applying it consistantly, when in fact they are applying it very arbitrarily.

The rule is black and white. Everyone is FF until they act. The only variable is when you consider them to have acted. I hope you're not suggesting that when people decide to roll initiatve at point A versus point B, they are using the FF rule arbitrarily?

Where you see DMs applying the rule in an arbitrary fashion is when they decide to throw the initiative in an arbitrary fashion.

Ah...so you are trying to conflate issues. When you throw initiative it is wholly independent to a decision as to whether the FF rule applies. The game doesn't offer you a decision on whether FF applies. The RAW simply tell you when it applies. I think it hampers the discussion to roll FF and Initiative into one decision. Consider this...the decision when to roll for initiative is always arbitrary.

The rule makes no sense whatever if you decide to delay the throwing of initiative in to some arbitrary point after the encounter begins.

. Bingo. Since numerous people in this forum can't seem to agree when it's time to roll dice....the FF rule, which depends on such a decision, is poorly conceived.

Let me quote you the d20 Hypertext language on Initiative:

"At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check."
​

Emphasis added.

Now, if you want to interpret "battle" as two people 1000 yards apart who can see each other but haven't even decided if the other side is hostile...that's your perrogative. But I would argue that a DM who elects to start the "battle" when one side declares the intent to injure the other and then moves to do so...is not being illogical.

If the DM decides for whatever reason to delay initiative after the encounter has begun, then it will as you have observed lead to nonsense.

Then we are in full agreement about the FF rule...we may just disagree on when it's appropriate to roll initiative. I'm not motivated nor interested in debating the appropriate time to roll initiative. To each his own.

Not only do I apply it in all combat situations, but I apply it to all encounters.

...which would be a blind application of the rule, but technically called for by the RAW.

These DMs get themselves in to narrating situations that as you have pointed out make no sense at all by failing to, essentially, follow the rules.

My preference would be to examine the rule. The rules aren't based on reality...so our penchant for concocting believable encounters experiences friction when trying to adhere to the rules.

Let's look at prime example:

But in 3e D&D the whole of the round is six seconds long, with the important events being abstracted to have occurred in a somewhat linear fashion.

So on one hand, d20 tells us the entire round is six seconds i.e., everyone's actions have been resolve in six seconds, yet on the other hand, we fully resolve one creature's acts before we allow anyone with a lower initiative to act, or even react. So what is it...is everyone acting simulatneously, in which case we should be able to move back as someone moves forward, or do we potentially have an infinite number of people who's actions progress and are completely resolved in a linear fashion, all acting within 6 seconds? And do you really think once a fight breaks out, everyone acts in the same order for the entire battle?

It's almost pure nonsense from a reality perspective. There is nobody on the planet who can move 20 feet in full plate mail on foot before an olympic runner could move 10 feet unarmored. I'm not taking about the first round...Im' talking about in the middle of any combat round. And yet, this is what the combat system allows. But we fully accepted it as a necessary evil in order to play the game.

The point I'm trying to make is that is that an illogical or unreal rule isn't a deal breaker so long as the parties involved agree that it is necessary for a better game. But it's important to understand why any particular rule might be set up so that in changing it, you don't break other things.

And once again, this problem is not a result of following the RAW too closely, but of not following it closely enough.

I would argue that you're on shaky ground if you consistently think the fault lies with the players. If two rationale minds can disagree on how a rule is applied or is to be interpreted...then the rule is poorly written. In the U.S. legal system such a law is considered unconstitutional and a court of a law will require that it be stricken. Fortunately for RPG's, there is no such requirement or we would have nothing to play!

Start from the fluff and work backwards.

Ha. That's signature worthy.

Well, it conjures up an image of someone who has been caught by surprise sufficiently that they haven't been able to move or take a defensive action of any sort.

Yup. And that would mean they couldn't even raise a shield or a buckler, to protect themselves...but we'll just ignore that won't we?

Just for laughs...consider that when caught with no dex bonus, you still get the benefit of Two-Weapon Defense, a dexterity based benefit...nevermind that you supposedly can't act.

Earlier you said that someone spends six seconds charging across the gladiatorial arena and the target illogically doesn't react...

Honestly, I'm not trying to change how the combat round works. I'm pointing out that it's not based on reality. It's mechanic which allows the game to abstract combat sufficiently so that people can simulate it in the context of a dice game played with pen and paper. There is really no need to bend oneself in a pretzel to imagine all these scenarios where it really makes sense. If such an endeaver helps you as an individual...more power to you...but it's not a compelling rationale for a discussion.

You seem to feel that perfect consistancy means not denying the Dex bonus.

I don't feel that way at all. I feel an "internal" consistency is when the rules as written don't lead to contradictory results. I'm not even sure what a "perfect" consistency means in this context.

If your Dex modifiers is based on your ability to "react" per the RAW...then in situations where you can't react....everyone has the same modifier. Like wise, if you can't react, then you couldn't lift a shield to block an attack or two attacks or even 10 attacks from all sides, as would be possible under the RAW. And you certainly couldn't use your weapons to give you two weapon defense bonus....because you can't "react." It's a black and white contradiction.

Either you can't "react" or you can react and it's just a question of how much? And if it's a question of much you can react, there is nothing in the rules which explains why those with a 10 are better than 8, but those with a 12 aren't better than a 10. Certainly people an make up all kinds of half backed explanations about how Dexterity works, but the RAW don't support any of it.

It doesn't matter how fast you are, if you aren't moving, then your speed is not yet of use to you.

That's true. But if you've been running down the hall and a creature jumps out at you...RAW say you are FF. Even if you keep running, you're FF'd. Make sense? No.

Again, let's ignore the FF'd rule and just talk about the no Dex Bonus rule...because that's where the issue lies. We already agree on the fundamentals of the FF rule. There are many situations where "no dex bonus" is allowed, but the character is moving. Either they are climbing a wall, walking a tight rope, or in a Run action. If two people were running, would you agree that the quicker person would be better at avoiding attacks? Again, I'm not talking about being FF'd, I'm talking about two characters being denied the Dex Bonus because they are in the Run state.

I feel that perfect consistancy would be to treat flat-footed all as basically immobile targets having DEX 0 rather DEX 10.

If you mean to apply that to the No Dex Bonus rule...then technically, yes. I would agree that that would be a consistent treatment of Dexterity in situations where "nobody can react." You and I are on the same page about what it means to be internally consistent...given how the game defined the mechanics. It's not realism...it's how the game itself has defined the mechanics at work. Do I think this is the best solution for the game? I don't know. I'm still trying to find out if there is a dependent reason why things work this way.

Before this would be reasonable though, D&D would have to move to a resulution system

If by "reasonable" you mean playable or managable, then once again, you're groking prefectly. The game's own mechancis are what create this internal inconsistency. As to the solution...I don't specifically know what will solve it until I figure out why it's set up this way. If there is a reason, then in my opinion, a solution would have to consider the reason.

The only reason that D&D applies the DEX bonus to low Dex characters but not to high DEX ones is that its trying to make sure having a low DEX sucks.

I don't think that's it because it's an over simplication of the resultant problem.

The game says, "In this flat-footed situation high DEX is no help (beyond its ability to keep you out of the situation in the first place!), but low dex is still bad."

I believe the implications are a bit more complex. Once again, it's important to separate the FF rule from its "no dex bonus" implications. The FF rule is most likely an attempt to capture an occurance in real life which lies between total suprise and total anticipation. Second, it opens up a lot of design space in the game for Rogues/Barbs/Monks and feats which address Initiative rolls by way of feats.

The no dex bonus rule is pretty straight forward in concept: If you aren't aware you are being attacked or you can't do anything about it...your ability to avoid attacks by way of Dex should be negated. Only they couldn't eliminate the "modifier" because that would help people with low scores. So the simpliest thing to do is elminate the "bonus" side of the modifier. While it doesn't make sense to squash everyone down to a 10 Dex...it probably seemed a greater evil to bring low dex people UP to a 10 Dex.

Let me put it another way. It's not surprising that the idea of eliminating the "bonus" side of AC improvement made perfect sense to the players if you couldn't see an attack. It's also not surprising that players don't stop to think that a 10 Dex is still getting a bonus when compared to an 8 Dex...and that Dex bonus can only be a result fof "reacting" to the threat.

The current system is a comprimise between realism and gamability. Not losing DEX at all when flat-footed is not to my mind more realistic.

I completely agree, but "realism" is not a leg to stand on in this game. I fully understand it is human nature that we have at least some anchor point in realism to improve the immersive quality of a game. But it is entirely subjective whether any given rule adds to realism or detracts from it. Doing it because it is more "real" is just not a compelling argument or defense for an RPG which is riddled with unrealisms.

That's why 'Uncanny Dodge' carries a supernatural connotation, you are reacting to danger that you couldn't yet know is there. [/qutoe I have no problem with Uncanny Dodge or how it is presented in the game. It's simply a mechanic to facilitate the game.

 

[Water Bob]

I house rule a lot of things, but this is not one of them.

Well, I'm confused, then, because you said...

Originally Posted by Celebrim
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.

And, according to the rules, a character who has prepared himself for combat with a potential thread he has perceived is still flat-footed until he gets to act in the first round.

In the above quote, you're saying that, regardless of initiative, a character can be considered not flat-footed. If that's true, I'd sure like you to show me that in the rules.

...Which is why I said you must be House Ruling this.

 

[Celebrim]

Actually it does. What it seems you're really trying to convey is that you're starting the rule before it will have any significance.

Huh? No, I'm trying to convey that if you start the rule AFTER it starts to have significance, then you get illogical results.

There's no pointin arguing whether that's right or wrong...but ask yourself why the construct of FF was introduced in d20? What were they trying to enable with this mechanic and are your decisions about when to start rolling initiative in concert with the intended mechanic or do they undermine it? I am not suggesting one or the other, just posing the question.

They are trying to model a situation where one side is acting before the other is ready. My interpretation does not undermine this. I merely suggest that not every encounter is an ambush.

The rule is black and white. Everyone is FF until they act. The only variable is when you consider them to have acted. I hope you're not suggesting that when people decide to roll initiatve at point A versus point B, they are using the FF rule arbitrarily?

I don't know what you hope or not, but that's what I'm suggesting. Two individuals encounter each other. Roll initiative. If you delay that action, then you are being wholly arbitrary and you'll occassionally get wacky results.

Ah...so you are trying to conflate issues. When you throw initiative it is wholly independent to a decision as to whether the FF rule applies.

No, they are entirely the same. When you throw initiative entirely determines whether the FF rule applies, because as you say, the game doesn't offer a decision over whether it applies but it does tell you when it applies. When a DM arbitrarily decides the when, then he's arbitrarily applying the FF rule as well.

Consider this...the decision when to roll for initiative is always arbitrary.

No it's not. You roll initiative whenever two groups encounter each other. For various reasons, DM's decide not to do this. They may decide that they don't want to give away metagame information (one side intends to attack, but the players aren't supposed to know that), or they may decide that they don't want to bias the players toward an expectation of combat that might not be real, or they may decide that combat is so remotely unlikely that there is no need to waste time rolling for initiative. And all that is well and good, but anything that happens later in your game shouldn't depend on whether or not you decided to arbitrarily apply the rules at an earlier point.

Bingo. Since numerous people in this forum can't seem to agree when it's time to roll dice....the FF rule, which depends on such a decision, is poorly conceived.

Numerous people can't agree on many different things. That doesn't mean that the problem lies with the rule. The best I can say is that the rule is poorly explained because the designers had expectations of simplistic hack-n-slash.

Let me quote you the d20 Hypertext language on Initiative:

"At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check."
​

Emphasis added.

Now, if you want to interpret "battle" as two people 1000 yards apart who can see each other but haven't even decided if the other side is hostile...that's your perrogative. But I would argue that a DM who elects to start the "battle" when one side declares the intent to injure the other and then moves to do so...is not being illogical.

No, but they are being arbitrary. It's pretty easy to show that. 'Intent to injure the other' and 'moves to do so' are very expansive categories. Suppose a player says, "I want to quafe a potion of heroism." Isn't that part of the battle? Suppose we roll for initiative and one character says, "I want to quafe a potion of bull strength." and another says, "I want to run and leap behind the low stone wall." and another says, "I want to cast Prayer.", and another says, "I take a full round action to line up by shot.", and another says, "I take a double move to get around the opponents line.", and another says, "I cast invisibility.", and another says, "I want to ready my longspear to recieve a charge.", and another says, "I want to take a defensive stance and move at half speed toward the enemy.", and another says, "I want to use my Bard's Inspire Heroism ability." Should after this the DM say, "Well, I guess we should roll for initiative again, because no one actually attacked."? At the end of the round, everyone has already acted; are you suggesting that the battle hasn't already started at this point?

Suppose to lines of men form shield walls and begin advancing at each other across an open field. Does the battle not begin until they reach each other?

Suppose the horse mounted highwaymen from the earlier example have every intention of launching an attack as soon as they are in range and are trying not to alarm the party by a swift and agressive approach. Has the battle not begun just because the highwaymen are trying unsuccessfully to hide their intention to attack?

Look at your own example of the two gladiators. You say the battle doesn't begin until the gates open, to which I replied, what if I try to make the battle begin before the gates open? What if I hurl taunts to try to intimidate my foe? What if I actually have some spell-like ability I can cast on the target through the gates? What if I fling a stone at him? Hasn't the battle therefore begun at that point because one side has taken an action? Well, if that is true, hasn't the battle also already begun if both sides take defensive actions?

Then we are in full agreement about the FF rule...we may just disagree on when it's appropriate to roll initiative. I'm not motivated nor interested in debating the appropriate time to roll initiative.

Then you are not really interested in debating the most relevant part of the FF rule.

So on one hand, d20 tells us the entire round is six seconds i.e., everyone's actions have been resolve in six seconds, yet on the other hand, we fully resolve one creature's acts before we allow anyone with a lower initiative to act, or even react. So what is it...is everyone acting simulatneously, in which case we should be able to move back as someone moves forward, or do we potentially have an infinite number of people who's actions progress and are completely resolved in a linear fashion, all acting within 6 seconds? And do you really think once a fight breaks out, everyone acts in the same order for the entire battle?

So, you aren't interested in debating when to throw initiative if you want the FF rule to obtain plausible results, but you are interested in initiating a 'debate' about whether turn based combat is realistic? I put debate in scare quotes, because that's not going to be much of a debate. I agree, abstract turn based combat is inherently unrealistic. Even back in 1e, when when all actions had to be declared simultaneously and were resolved simultaneously, it was still inherently unrealistic.

The point I'm trying to make is that is that an illogical or unreal rule isn't a deal breaker so long as the parties involved agree that it is necessary for a better game. But it's important to understand why any particular rule might be set up so that in changing it, you don't break other things.

And here I will fall on hubris; I'm pretty confident of my ability to see how the parts fit together. That's why so many changes to the rules were required once I started changing a few. However, this is one area where I didn't have to touch the rules to achieve what I wanted. I just had to realize that they assumed a consistant application of initiative checks, and that when I wanted to get away from that for whatever reason, that I was 'breaking the rules' and needed to back up and treat every situation as if initiative was rolled in the first round of the encounter.

In the U.S. legal system such a law is considered unconstitutional and a court of a law will require that it be stricken.

You know, the US Supreme court itself often interprets the law in two different ways. Fortunately for our government, there is no requirement that there be universal agreement, or we'd have no laws.

Yup. And that would mean they couldn't even raise a shield or a buckler, to protect themselves...but we'll just ignore that won't we?

No, I think the intention, right or wrong, is that if you have 8 square feet of shield on one side of you, it still interferes with an attackers ability to hit you, even if you aren't using it to actively defend yourself. The real complaint I would have is that the shield protects you the same whether you are passively using it as cover or actively using it to parry and block attacks. I've partially addressed that under my rules, but even if we had a rules system where there is both passive and active defense a shield could conceivably add to your passive defense. I don't see anything inherently dumb in that.

Honestly, I'm not trying to change how the combat round works. I'm pointing out that it's not based on reality.

First of all, pet peeve here, but in proper English something 'based on reality' is not real. When something is 'based on a true story' it means, 'this is not a true story'. So to say that something is 'not based on reality' means that it is not not real, or that it is true. Second of all, D&D combat is based on reality. Sure, it's not perfectly realistic, but neither is it intended to be wholly fantastic. There is intended to be a large amount of casual realism and plausibility about the game system to encourage suspension of disbelief and 'common sense' interaction with the game environment. Thirdly, to the extent that you are just saying that the game system is merely based on reality, I don't think you are making a very important point. Everyone agrees that D&D takes a large number of liberties with reality.

What I am trying to say is that the flat footed rule, even though it takes liberties with reality, does not lead to nearly as impluasible results as you suggest provided that you apply it consistently. If you apply it inconsistently, namely, "The battle begins, here, or there, or maybe here if I decide so, but not necessarily you know when the enemies make contact with each other because that would be crazy. Maybe I'll decide the battle begins a couple rounds after that or maybe a couple of minutes, I'm not sure, and I'm not saying when until I do and you won't be able to predict that. Nor am I going to let you take an action until I say you can take an action, because you know, only the actions that I think should count as actions actually do."

The DM that treats the rule as above, is adding problems to the system that aren't found within it.

That's true. But if you've been running down the hall and a creature jumps out at you...RAW say you are FF. Even if you keep running, you're FF'd. Make sense? No.

It makes perfect sense to me. You didn't know there was a creature there. Now it is. You might not have time to alter your course of action - in this case running - to account for the sudden appearance of the creature. And if you don't, then you are flatfooted with respect to that creature. The initiative check arbitrates between those two possibilities.

Now, on the other hand, if the creature jumps out 100 yards away from you, wins initiative and cranks a heavy crossbow, and on your turn you keep running, then you are now longer flat footed because you have had time to consider the creature in your future plans.

And the DM who said, well the battle hasn't already started because no one has attacked so we won't roll initiative until the creature fires, and that point you may or may not be flat footed even though you've had 6 seconds to prepare yourself is being... well, IMO he's being a jerk and a poor DM. Of course, I don't know of DM's that actually do that in such a clear cut case, but I have heard of some who refuse to roll initiative in conceptually similar situations - like the above scenario with the horse mounted bandits. I won't speculate on why they do that, so let's just generously grant that they may be confused.

There are many situations where "no dex bonus" is allowed, but the character is moving. Either they are climbing a wall, walking a tight rope, or in a Run action. If two people were running, would you agree that the quicker person would be better at avoiding attacks? Again, I'm not talking about being FF'd, I'm talking about two characters being denied the Dex Bonus because they are in the Run state.

Technically, the game only denies you a dex bonus if you are unskilled at the activity you are partaking in. If you are skilled, then you aren't denied your Dex bonus. If two people are running, for small differences in speed there is probably no difference in their ability to avoid attacks. In know that in football (the gridiron variaty), the ability to be illusive is only partly related to straight line speed and many of the players who have demonstrated the highest skill in evasion weren't in fact particularly fast. I would presume that they had special skill in running while being evasive, which in D&D I would model with the Run feat.

Whether a feat is the best way to model this is a wholly different question than whether or not is reasonable to say, "If you are dexterous, you must retain that same advantage regardless of your experience in the task you are pursuing." Obviously, a high dex person maintains some natural advantage (a better untrained balance skill check, for instance), but D&D chooses to say that training and experience in the activity is far more important in many ways than native ability. That doesn't to me seem to be obviously wrong.

The no dex bonus rule is pretty straight forward in concept: If you aren't aware you are being attacked or you can't do anything about it...your ability to avoid attacks by way of Dex should be negated. Only they couldn't eliminate the "modifier" because that would help people with low scores. So the simpliest thing to do is elminate the "bonus" side of the modifier. While it doesn't make sense to squash everyone down to a 10 Dex...it probably seemed a greater evil to bring low dex people UP to a 10 Dex.

I agree. And it probably seemed an even greater evil to define down to 0 Dex, because that would have raised the argument with some rules lawyerish type that if they effectively had 0 Dex, then they technically ought to be immobile and hense helpless. Likewise, the term of art, 'denied your Dex bonus' is such a useful one for encapsulating when certain effects like sneak attack are triggered, that it seemed a bigger problem to shatter this unified mechanic than retain the small loss of consistancy. It was a case of unintended side effects. Different langauge would have resulted in a different range of situations in which sneak attack and other mechanics would apply, which would have forced rebalancing the other ways of inflicting those other conditions. And also I imagine that they didn't want to heighten D&D's existing problem with the extreme advantage that the side that wins initiative has in combat (which is unrelated to FF, and has more to do with the number of attacks each side has made in the middle of round N).

There could be some clean up here that would eventually elimenate the inconsistancy, but it would be a large amount of work for what I would argue has a very small impact on the game. Misapplying the FF rule by arbitrary application of initiative checks however has a huge impact on the game and the metagame, and I believe that it unnecessarily drags the game toward 'hack-n-slash' because it leaves the players feeling that the DM can spring an ambush on them at any time - even if the see it coming - and there is nothing that they can do about it except instantly and unhesitantingly attack. If you misinterpretation of the rules is leading to a game were negotiation, parlay, and NPC interaction is suppressed because the PC's are fearing (rightly) the DM metagaming against them, then you have a far more serious problem than the slight inconsistancy of low Dex being punished more than might be strictly fair (if that is what is going on).

 

[Celebrim]

And, according to the rules, a character who has prepared himself for combat with a potential thread he has perceived is still flat-footed until he gets to act in the first round.

That's internally nonsense. In the first part of the sentence you say, "a character who has prepared himself with a potential thread he has perceived", which means that character has taken an action. When did he take that action? In the prior round! So, how you can you claim that some later round is the 'first round', if actions have already been taken in prior round? You are trying to say that the character exists in a state where he is both aware of the threat and has had time to act in response to it, and also he exists in a state where has not had time to act in response to it. That's a contridiction.

The rules are very explicit. If you have had time to act, you are not flatfooted.

In the above quote, you're saying that, regardless of initiative, a character can be considered not flat-footed. If that's true, I'd sure like you to show me that in the rules.

You just showed yourself. The rules say that when a character has acted, then he is not flat-footed. And clearly the character in the example has acted after percieving a potential threat, and therefore clearly has had time to act, and therefore clearly his place in the initiative order has already come up so that he could act. If his turn in the initiative order has not already come up, then how could he have acted?

What you are trying to say is that a character's actions don't count as actions unless you as the DM deem that some mystical point has passed which only you are in control of and you allow the player to roll for initiative.

...Which is why I said you must be House Ruling this.

No, I'm not. I'm being a such a stickler for the rules here that it seems like house ruling to you, much as someone who was a real stickler for the 1e rules - things like simultaneous secret declarations of intent, to AC vs. weapon modifiers, weapon reach vs. initiative, and so forth - might have seemed as if they had wierd house rules to someone who played in a more casual manner. My guess is that at your table you call initiative at various points for various cinematic and personal reasons and reasons of convienence, and doing that would be a house rule.

 

[Water Bob]

That's internally nonsense. In the first part of the sentence you say, "a character who has prepared himself with a potential thread he has perceived", which means that character has taken an action. When did he take that action? In the prior round!

I used that wording ("a character who has prepared himself with a potential thread he has perceived") because you had said it and to point out that actions before the combat starts do not count.

When did he take that action? In the prior round!

See...that's ridiculous to say because all characters are taking actions prior to the round. If we went by what you said, then no character, ever, would be flat-footed.



Player: I'm going to head over to the trader. I need to see if I can obtain a new shield.

GM: Fine. You taking the shortcut through the ally again?

Player: Yes. I know it's late and that shortcut takes me through the maul, but I'll be on the look out for suspicious thugs.

GM: Well, it is, in deed, late. Dusk. And, about mid-way through the ally, a thug does step out into your way. He's brandishing a stiletto in his hand, blade bare. "Hold it there, laddy," he snears at you, "where ye be running off too this fine night?"

Player: I'm not messing around. I pull my dagger and take a swipe at him.

GM: OK, roll nish.

Player: I got a 14.

GM: The thug rolled 18. He attacks first, and you're flat-footed. As soon as he sees your arm dart to your weapon's handle, he flashes his stilletto right towards your face!

Player: Wait a minute....I can't be flat-footed because I had an action right before the combat started.

GM: You're always doing something right before the combat starts. That doesn't count. You're flat-footed until you act within the combat round.

Player: Whatttt????



See....your argument about being flat-footed doesn't hold water when compared to the rule as written.

Again, if you House Ruled this, that's fine. It's your game. But don't delude yourself that you're playing this by the book. You're not.


On page 133 of the 3.5 PHB, under "How Combat Works", what does it say? The first bullet point says: Each combatant starts out flat-footed.

That means, when you start combat, every character is considered flat-footed. That doesn't mean, as you say, that a character can do something prior to the combat in order to be considered not flat-footed.

As it says on pg. 133, first Surprise is considered, then nish is rolled, then characters act in nish order. And, all characters remain flat-footed until they act.

And, remember, that Surprise cannot happen if both sides of the combat are aware of each other--so Surprise prolly won't happen that often (mostly ambush situations). Therefore (and accoriding to pg. 133), Combat starts on either the Surprise round or when initiative is thrown. That's the "magical point", as you say, when combat begins, according to the rules.

I'm being a such a stickler for the rules here that it seems like house ruling to you, much as someone who was a real stickler for the 1e rules - things like simultaneous secret declarations of intent, to AC vs. weapon modifiers, weapon reach vs. initiative, and so forth - might have seemed as if they had wierd house rules to someone who played in a more casual manner.

I think you need to go back and read the rule! You've got it wrong, and you're playing using a false assumption about the rule.


Now, if you like the way you play the rule, that's great. More power to ya. Just know that you've House Ruled it. You're not playing RAW.

 

[Celebrim]

See...that's ridiculous to say because all characters are taking actions prior to the round. If we went by what you said, then no character, ever, would be flat-footed.

- emphasis added

I'm going to try to keep my response short, but this is the heart of where you are going wrong.

All characters take actions all the time; I agree. That's trivially true. It does not follow that any action taken stops you from being flat-footed.

But it does follow that any action taken after you are aware of an enemy does stop you from being flatfooted, because, that's literally the rules.

We start counting the rounds at the point the two characters become aware of each other.

We'll consider why in your example, because it's a pretty unambigious and clear cut case:

Player: I'm going to head over to the trader. I need to see if I can obtain a new shield.

GM: Fine. You taking the shortcut through the ally again?

Player: Yes. I know it's late and that shortcut takes me through the maul, but I'll be on the look out for suspicious thugs.

GM: Well, it is, in deed, late. Dusk. And, about mid-way through the ally, a thug does step out into your way. He's brandishing a stiletto in his hand, blade bare. "Hold it there, laddy," he snears at you, "where ye be running off too this fine night?"

Alright, so, you've already departed from the rules so don't be surprised if the rules stop making sense from here on out. I don't really know what is going on in your scenario because you've suspended the rules.

The first thing that should happen here is that there should be at least one and perhaps two opposed rolls between the two sides that have just encountered each other. First, there should be the NPC's hide roll opposed by the PC's spot roll to determine whether the NPC achieves surprise. If he doesn't achieve surprise, then the he doesn't necesarily get to act first. Secondly, there could have concievably been a hide/move siliently roll by the NPC's spot/listen to see if the PC ambushed the ambusher! Maybe the ambusher had been distracted or dozed off a bit when the PC entered the ally and failed to notice him the in the gloom. You are apparantly running this whole show by arbitrary fiat, so its no wonder that you feel entitled to continue to do so. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if the above example is how you run your game, you are probably in fact cheating.

Thirdly, assuming the PC isn't surprised, why didn't you roll initiative at this point? This is an obvious combat situation with the knives out? What's your excuse? Why have you automaticly assumed that the NPC got the drop on the PC and that he gets to act first? It's almost like you are being vague and arbitrary in the application of your rules to gaurantee the NPC has a winning hand. You've essentially assigned the initiative to the NPC via narration here, and you are apparantly trying to prolong the PC's flatfooted state indefinately.

Player: I'm not messing around. I pull my dagger and take a swipe at him.

Ok, this is dumb move by the PC, because if he was surprised he's potentially flatfooted. A better move by the PC would be to try to wait out the surprise by taking pretty much any other action than trying to win a battle of reflexes with an unknown attacker. However, sure, a lot of PC's are dumb this way.

Player: Wait a minute....I can't be flat-footed because I had an action right before the combat started.

I never said that actions before the combat started effect flat-footed at all. And secondly the player is wrong. The player has not yet taken an action since encountering the NPC. So the scenario you have set up here is not comparable with the scenario you described, namely: "a character who has prepared himself with a potential threat he has perceived". This PC has done nothing to prepare himself to deal with a potential threat he has percieved.

GM: You're always doing something right before the combat starts. That doesn't count. You're flat-footed until you act within the combat round.

The GM is right, I have no quibble with that.

See....your argument about being flat-footed doesn't hold water when compared to the rule as written.

Errrmmm.... you know, when you can't describe my argument correctly, you are in no position to make that judgement. Nor am I delusional.

On page 133 of the 3.5 PHB, under "How Combat Works", what does it say? The first bullet point says: Each combatant starts out flat-footed.

Yes.

That means, when you start combat, every character is considered flat-footed. That doesn't mean, as you say, that a character can do something prior to the combat in order to be considered not flat-footed.

But I didn't say that, did I?

As it says on pg. 133, first Surprise is considered, then nish is rolled, then characters act in nish order. And, all characters remain flat-footed until they act.

None of that contridicts what I have said.

Let's back up and do this right.

Let's assume the PC in your example was surprised. On the surprise round, the NPC steps out, brandishes his dagger, and tries to intimidate the PC. Surprise round is now over. We roll initiative. The NPC wins with an 18 and does what? Presumably he readies an action to stab the PC if he moves, or he attacks and hits the PC flatfooted. But he does something, although I notice that it seems you like to keep what the NPC has done nicely ambigious. Have you decided what the NPC's ready action is at this point? Because PC's are usually limited to declaring a single ready trigger, and you seem to have given the NPC the ability to be ready for anything. Assuming the NPC is trying to rob the character, he probably readies an attack action if the player moves and tries to be intimidating. That seems to be what you are implying. Now, it is the PC's turn. He gets to do something. It doesn't matter what he does, it could be draw a dagger, it could be bluff the NPC, it could be try to use diplomacy to obtain a more favorable relationship with the NPC, it could be to respond with intimidation of his own, it could be do one of the above and take the full defensive action. However, after he acts, doing whatever it is he does, the character is no longer flatfooted.

Now, if in round two, the NPC tries to stab me then if you claim I'm flatfooted then I'm not the one with a problem understanding the rules. And if you skip the surprise check and the initiative roll and everything else in the rules and decide after not following the rules in the 1st round, that in the 2nd or 5th round of the encounter that now we roll for initiative and then you say that because I lost initiative on the 5th or 10th round of the battle that I'm flatfooted, then again I'm not the one with a problem with the rules. Don't try to claim that you are playing by the RAW if you do that.

 

[Water Bob]

Let me ask you something....

We start counting the rounds at the point the two characters become aware of each other.

Do you always roll initiative as soon as two characters become aware of each other?

I have a thread about this: asking GMs when they throw nish. I think there are situations where you'll want to throw nish as soon as two characters are aware of each other. A gladiator entering a ring where he knows he's going to fight the other guy to the death, is a good example.

But, by far, I think most GMs do not roll initiative at this point. I think most people wait for the last possible moment to go into tactical combat rounds. They keep the game in "scenes" as long as possible before going into the slower, tactical, combat mode that the game refers to as "combat".




I'll say this too, in response to your quote above. If you're not throwing nish (and you're not playing a Surprise round), then you're not in combat (by the rules). And, if you're not in combat, you can't be counting rounds.

So, it comes down to my question: Do you always throw initiative as soon as two characters are aware of each other?







BTW, you're incorrect here, too, when you said of my example:

The first thing that should happen here is that there should be at least one and perhaps two opposed rolls between the two sides that have just encountered each other. First, there should be the NPC's hide roll opposed by the PC's spot roll to determine whether the NPC achieves surprise. If he doesn't achieve surprise, then the he doesn't necesarily get to act first.

The thug was behind 100% cover, so the PC does not get a Spot check to notice the thug. There was no way for the PC to notice the thug unless the thug was making noise (the PC would get a Listen check), but he didn't.

By-the-book, I should have said that the thug passed a Listen check himself to hear the PC's approach. But, with the PC's boots slapping on the cobblestones, I, as GM, considered that a DC 5. The thug has Listen +5, so success is automatic. No need to bog the game down with rolls like this when their outcome is obvious.

At this point, the thug could have taken Surprise on the PC, but Surprise only allows for a Standard Action. Thus, the thug would have to wait for the PC to pass and then throw his stilletto--the thug's only weapon--at the PC.

The thug, instead, decided to step out and confront his victim. Maybe he could get the wayward traveler to give up his goods without the thug having to fight him.

By the rules, that's what happened in that scenario--IF THE TWO WERE IN COMBAT.

But....the two weren't in combat, where they? Nope. So, the encounter is not bound by the Combat rules--not unitl Combat ensues.

When the PC decided to attack the thug, that aggressive act indicates the start of combat. Initiative is rolled, which the thug won.

All of that is completely RAW.







EDIT: In post #123 above, you say...

You roll initiative whenever two groups encounter each other.

That not what the rules say. I think this is where your logic is straying from RAW.

The rules say that you roll initiative at the start of a battle. If you're not going to have a battle, then you don't need to roll initiative. You can stay in "scenes".



For example, with my PC-in-the-ally example, the thug jumps out and tells the PC to give him all his goods. The PC may have done just that--handed over all his goods.

The entire encounter could have been played out without resorting to combat. No combat means no initiative required.







EDIT 2: By the way, you should look at the Combat example starting on pg. 8 of the 3.5 DMG.

You said:

The first thing that should happen here is that there should be at least one and perhaps two opposed rolls between the two sides that have just encountered each other. First, there should be the NPC's hide roll opposed by the PC's spot roll to determine whether the NPC achieves surprise.

And, I told you above that combat had not started yet, so what you suggest here is not necessary.

You also said:

You are apparantly running this whole show by arbitrary fiat, so its no wonder that you feel entitled to continue to do so. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if the above example is how you run your game, you are probably in fact cheating.

Now, I want you to read the Combat example given in the DMG, starting on pg. 8. At the top of page. 9, you'll see that the GM in that example ran his game the exact way that I described in my example.

See how the GM automatically gave Surprise to the spider, and the spider rolled the touch attack to land on one of the PC's shoulders?

That's exactly the same type of action that happened in my example. The PC could not see the thug behind 100% cover, and I saw no reason to give the PC a Listen check to the PC (if there's nothing to hear, there's no need for a check....the thug was extremely quiet, lying in wait behind his cover for someone to come down the ally).

The thug could have taken advantage of a Surprise round, but, as I said above, I decided that he wouldn't start the combat at that point--instead giving his victim a chance to hand over his goods and leave the ally alive.

Like the spider plopping on the character's shoulder, about to bite her, the GM rolled initiative just when the first attack throw was indicated.

And, what do ya know....I did the same thing in my example!

 

[Celebrim]

Do you always roll initiative as soon as two characters become aware of each other?

Only when I'm following the rules to the letter. If I decide not to follow the rules to the letter, then I compensate for it by assuming that the game state is equivalent to where it would be had I been following the rules to the letter. To do otherwise would be patently unfair.

I think most people wait for the last possible moment to go into tactical combat rounds. They keep the game in "scenes" as long as possible before going into the slower, tactical, combat mode that the game refers to as "combat".

Ok sure, that's fine and all so long as handwaving the rules doesn't result in an unfair ruling. If you decide to arbitrarily handle a combat for part of its duration without rules, then you are going to have to be very careful when you switch to using rules.

And I have a problem with running a combat as a 'scene' if it means that the outcome is going to be different than running it as a 'combat'. Especially when it seems you are making it the sole progative of the DM to determine which way we are going to resolve it.

I'll say this too, in response to your quote above. If you're not throwing nish (and you're not playing a Surprise round), then you're not in combat (by the rules). And, if you're not in combat, you can't be counting rounds.

What gives you the right under the rules to 'not play a surprise round' or to 'forgo throwing initiative' or 'not count rounds'? I mean, sure, I can understand why you'd do this in situations where combat is very unlikely, like say between the PC and the NPC shield merchant, but why are you doing it in explicit combat sitautions? And, why if you are doing it, are you content to obtain results that are radically different than what you'd obtain if you stuck to the rules?

So, it comes down to my question: Do you always throw initiative as soon as two characters are aware of each other?

In any situation like the one you just described, yes I do. Every single time. I'm not going to run a clear combat situation as anything other than a combat situation. I don't always throw initiative when the characters pop into a tavern to buy a room, or go down to the greenseller to buy some strawberries, but if combat between the PC and the greenseller occurs at some point I mitigate the effects of my decision to forgo the initiative check by ensuring that the game state matches where it would be if I had rolled the initiative as soon as the two characters are aware of each other.

The thug was behind 100% cover, so the PC does not get a Spot check to notice the thug.

Ok, that's fine. But as a side note, are you suggesting then that anyone who ambushes from behind 100% cover automatically achieves surprise? Do your players know that? Because even if we concede that, you are ignoring the fact that though the DC to hear the PC is only a 5 (a trivial check for your NPC), the DC to pin point the location of the sound is a 25 - a check that that NPC can only make if he gets completely lucky. But surprisingly or not, your NPC leaps out from cover precisely when the PC is where he wants the PC to be even though he doesn't know exactly where the PC is (or for that matter who he is).

At this point, the thug could have taken Surprise on the PC, but Surprise only allows for a Standard Action.

So rather than following the rules and getting only a standard action, the thug took some option not in the rules that allows for more than a standard action? And you claim this is RAW?

Thus, the thug would have to wait for the PC to pass and then throw his stilletto--the thug's only weapon--at the PC.

And we clearly wouldn't want that. I mean all these rules and restrictions on the advantages you can have when you surprise someone are suggesting that the thug might not automaticly have the advantage!

The thug, instead, decided to step out and confront his victim.

Which is apparently not an action and apparently not playing out the surprise and which apparently despite this he gets to do before the player turns around and runs just as if he's won the initiative even though you haven't rolled?

Maybe he could get the wayward traveler to give up his goods without the thug having to fight him.

Which is fine, but now you are letting the thug have his cake and eat it too. He gets to spend an arbitrary number of rounds negotiating with the PC, but the PC remains completely flatfooted with respect to the NPC the whole time. Now we've obtained a situation that is impossible under the rules, and we are back to the ridiculous Arrowhack has been pointing out under this scenario.

By the rules, that's what happened in that scenario.

By the rules? You by own admission just threw the rules out the window because they didn't obtain the results you wanted.

When the PC decided to attack the thug, that aggressive act indicates the start of combat.

Why doesn't the aggressive act of the thug indicate the start of combat? You are using your stance as DM to manipulate the rules to the NPC's advantage, forgo the rules when it is to the NPC's favor to do so, and then applying them when it is in the NPC's favor to do so.

 

[Celebrim]

EDIT: In post #123 above, you say...

That not what the rules say. I think this is where your logic is straying from RAW.

The rules say that you roll initiative at the start of a battle.

The battle started when the thug stepped out with a knife. Technically we could have been counting rounds before that (and might have been!), but that is the point where the battle begins.

There are several reasons, outlined in the previous posts why we should think that that is so. You have done nothing to address any of my questions regarding the abitrary and often contridictory nature of your decision regarding when the battle starts.

If you're not going to have a battle, then you don't need to roll initiative. You can stay in "scenes".

Sure, but if you might have a battle then you are better off rolling initiative. And if you are going to use the excuse of 'scenes' to obtain a different result than you would by running the battle as a combat, then you certainly should roll initiative instead. At the very least, nothing in the rules suggests that the thug stepping out with a knife isn't the start of the battle (which definitively shows that I'm within the RAW), and if in fact stepping out with a knife is something that the thug gets to do by virtue of obtaining surprise (which even you have conceded), then the rules STRONGLY imply that throwing initiative is the thing you do next. The rules don't say, "You get a surprise round... and then possibly an arbitrarily long scene passes.. and then you throw initiative"

For example, with my PC-in-the-ally example, the thug jumps out and tells the PC to give him all his goods. The PC may have done just that--handed over all his goods.

Yes, and if we ran this as a combat, he still might have done that. There is nothing that says I have to use an attack action on every round of a combat.

The entire encounter could have been played out without resorting to combat. No combat means no initiative required.

Sure, if the encounter never features anything that requires knowing who goes first, then we obtain the same results from not throwing initiative that we do by throwing it. But the point is that you've got two different resolution paths depending on where it matters when you throw initiative, and as I've abundantly shown in prior posts - I'm the only one applying the rules in a non-arbitrary and consistant manner in which the DM is removing from himself the temptation to metagame on behalf of one party or the other.

 

[Water Bob]

The battle started when the thug stepped out with a knife.

No.

What if the thug stepped out with a knife...and preceeded to give it to the PC saying, "I finally found you. This was your father's stilletto. I have grave news. He's dead. And, he left you...this."

Or, what if the PC decided not to fight the thug because the PC was only 1st level, and the player had no idea what level the thug was.

Or maybe the PC was low on hit points and didn't want risk losing his character there in that ally.

Or, maybe, the PC knew that one of his buddies wasn't far behind him, and he thought he'd try to "stall" the thug until the odds were better on the PC's side.

Or, maybe, the player decided to try to roleplay and reason with the thug rather than go straight into combat.

The point is: There are many reasons not to start combat at that point.





I think I was editing my post above a second time when you were posting. You may want to read EDIT 2, above, and check out the combat example in the DMG.

You'll find that it is a lot more like the way I am describing things than your take on them.