Flat-Footed

[Arrowhawk]

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

The rule has signfiicance once people are in striking distance of each other. If neither party could potentially reach other to attack...in order to take advantage of someone with no dex bonus, then he rule has no significance. Any point after two sides could theorietically attack each other, the rule has signifiance.

They are trying to model a situation where one side is acting before the other is ready.

They already have that rule...it's called Initiative. I would argue the FF rule opens design space for things like Uncanny Dodge or Sneak Attack to be meaningful. If you roll Initl long before a Rogue could have any possibility of a Sneak Attack...like when both sides are behind iron gates....then you're immasculating the power of the rule. That's not a judgment, that's just an observation.

I merely suggest that not every encounter is an ambush.

I'm not sure what you mean by that...but the real life concept of Flat Footed probably arose from exactly that...catching somone unprepared for an attack.

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.

Emphasis added.

You know, as an FYI, the RAW says "battle" not "encounter." In fact the PHB says, "Every combatant starts out flat-footed."

When do adventurers in a tavern become combatants?

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?

It's your perrogative to decide when men on a battlefield transition from spectators to combatants if you're DMing a game.

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?

Then you would be making an abitrary decision as to when they go from being spectators to combatants.

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

I'm actually not interested in "debating" any of the rules. But discussions can be interesting.

...but you are interested in initiating a 'debate' about whether turn based combat is realistic?

Not trying to debate it...just making an observation...which you seem to agree with.

You know, the US Supreme court itself often interprets the law in two different ways.

That's not correct. There is only one correct interpretation at any time. Any conflicting interpretations are deemed overturned even those made by previous US Supreme Courts.

No, I think the intention, right or wrong, is that if you have 8 square feet of shield

A light buckler is not 8 square feet.

...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.

Really? So a state where you are adjudicated to not be able to take any reflexive action, an attacker is still going to be unable to avoid hitting a shield you haven't raised and is hanging on the edge of your arm...even when you approach from behind? And that's not inherently dumb?

How about this? The game says you are in a situation where you don't get your dex bonus...but you still get your reflex save....which includes your dex bonus? Not inherently dumb?

Everyone agrees that D&D takes a large number of liberties with reality.

They agree with that notion when it suits them....then they turn around and try and argue X rule describes some real life situation.

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.

I don't really have a beef with the FF rule...it's the no dex bonus that I'm trying to make sense of.

Technically, the game only denies you a dex bonus if you are unskilled at the activity you are partaking in.

Yeah, I'm talking about two people unskilled in running.

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.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm talking about two people equally unskilled but one with a much higher dex than the other...both being equally easy to hit. But we seem to agree that a high dex person should maintain some natural advantage if any reaction is possible.

It was a case of unintended side effects.

That was my first supposition. They couldn't dodge it (pun intended). They were on the this collision and they couldn't get the train to switch tracks.

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.

Does nobody play a high dex character???? A simple flat penalty would still convey a benefit to the FF rule without annihilating the advantage a higher dex person should have over a lower dex person when neither is "helpless."

Misapplying the FF rule by arbitrary application of initiative checks however has a huge impact on the game and the metagame

well, that's certainly one viewpoint.

 

[irdeggman]

Well, here we go.

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.)

Incorrect.

In D&D all you need to do is have the chance to act - if you ready an action you are no longer flat-footed since you have had a chance to act.


PHB pg 137

Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance
to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative
order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC
(if any) while flat-footed. (This fact can be very bad for you if you’re
attacked by rogues.) Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge
extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their
Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed
character can’t make attacks of opportunity.

 

[Celebrim]

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."

So? The PC doesn't know what the thug's intentions are, and he still doesn't. For all I know as a player, the thug is trying to cozen me with a lie so that he can close with me before attacking. There is a guy with a knife, you've given him a surprise round. We are now in battle, even if we manage resovle the situation peacefully.

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.

Then we have a very smart player. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not initiative should be thrown because you as the DM can't know ahead of time how the player is going to react. I mean, it's generally true that when threatened, I might respond by parley, negotiation, diplomacy and so forth.

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

Agreed, but having many reasons not to attack the thug is not the same as having many reasons not to throw initiative. What are the reasons for not throwing initiative at that point?

I've already well anticpated this complaint in prior posts. You are arguing that we don't need to throw initiative unless the PC acts in a certain way. But the sole purpose of this is to allow the NPC to hold the PC flat-footed indefinately, gaining the advantage of striking the PC flat-footed long after the PC has had plenty of oppurtunity to act and prepare himself for an attack. I listed a very long list of actions one might take on the first round of combat after you've thrown initiative that weren't attack actions. What if in response to the above scene, the player wants to take any of the above actions? Why are you arbitrarily treating taking that action differently depending entirely on something - whether or not you've thrown initiative - that does happen in the game world?

As for the example in the DMG, I'm very familiar with it. It's an almost exact port of the example in the 1e DMG to the 3.X system, and it was intended to show older players that the game hadn't really changed much. I have no serious problems with how it is run; and as far as initiative goes, I'd run it the same way. The DM gives the spider a surprise round where the spider takes a move action to drop on to the player. (As an aside, the 3.X rules are actually completely silent on the question of something landing on the back of a player, so this is all pretty much color in 3.X.) Then the DM rolls for initiative.

The DM rather arbitrarily decided that no spot check was required if the player's don't specificly 'look up', and although I wouldn't run it that way, he's in his rights to do so.

What I find really interesting is that you think you ran the scene with the thug exactly like the example in the DMG, when its very clear to me that you didn't. You're stuck on the idea that the DM threw initiative when the PC declared an attack. But in fact, while this is the usual manner, the DM would have still asked for initiative no matter what action the PC took. If the PC wanted to negotiate with the spider, initiative would still need to be thrown to see if the PC could get the spider's attention before it decided to bite it in the back of the neck.

And in fact, if you read the example you'll find out that the DM asks for initiative before the PC even declares what they are doing. In fact, he asks for initiative when all he knows is that one character wants to have a look at what is going on. So are you sure I'm the one that is delusional? I'm guessing you have pretty good reading comprehension skills, so how is it that you are able to read that scene and come away with evidence that isn't actually in the text?

If you want to demonstrate your position is correct, show me some official examples of play where it plays out like your thug scenario.

You say, "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"

Where is that in the rules? I don't see any forking path in the rules where you get to decide that. Show me an example of play like that. That's completely a house rule you areusing.

One thing that should be obvious is that in any scene with at least one side that immediately attacks will play out exactly the same whether you run it or I run it. It's only scenes where one side or both sides forgo immediately attacking (get that _they have forgone immediately attacking_ but you claim the intention of the rules is that people remain flat footed after that), where we are going to disagree. So show me the examples of play that demonstrate this forking path of surprise but not initiative thrown.

--instead giving his victim a chance to hand over his goods and leave the ally alive.

Even if we roll initiative, that's still a possibility. The way this scene ought to play out is we roll initiative, the PC determines that the opponent has the drop on him, and being a smart PC and knowing nothing about the opponent's level (for all I know the attacker is 10 levels higher than I am) he decides not to antagonize the attacker. My first action in combat like the above would probably be to use my free action to say something and attempt a bluff ("To the temple of Aravar to beg the brothers there for shelter for the night. I'm down on my luck and haven't a copper to my name.") or ("Well met brother, have you paid your dues to the guild this month?") or try a diplomacy check to improve the thugs attitude ("I off to the pub, but I've got two gold here and I only need one to get drunk. I'll let you have one if you let me pass in a hurry, because I've got a powerful thirst.")

 

[Celebrim]

They already have that rule...it's called Initiative. I would argue the FF rule opens design space for things like Uncanny Dodge or Sneak Attack to be meaningful.

I find them plenty meaningful in my own game.

If you roll Initl long before a Rogue could have any possibility of a Sneak Attack...like when both sides are behind iron gates....then you're immasculating the power of the rule. That's not a judgment, that's just an observation.

And a biased one at that. I could just as easily argue that you are making sneak attack far more powerful than intended - which incidently seems to have been the complaint of the OP's player. Moreover, you've also complained that it is illogical how FF works, but when I point out that much of the lack of logic is something you've add to the rules and which isn't found within them, you seem to want to cling to the unreality anyway even though it annoyed you.

I'm not sure what you mean by that...but the real life concept of Flat Footed probably arose from exactly that...catching somone unprepared for an attack.

I mean by that that if you accept the alternative interpretation, of initiative being thrown at some arbitrary point after the battle /combat /encounter/ engagement has begun, then you are arguing that its not possible to have a battle where some one isn't caught unprepared for an attack. That in my opinion should be discarded as complete nonsense on the face of it. It doesn't stand to reason that the first round of every combat is an ambush, even when the fighters are fully aware of the other, observing each other before the punch is thrown, and had oppurtunity to ready themselves. If the rules offer an alternative - and they clearly do - then it should be obvious that the alternative is the intended approach.

ou know, as an FYI, the RAW says "battle" not "encounter." In fact the PHB says, "Every combatant starts out flat-footed."

When do adventurers in a tavern become combatants?

Whenever it will matters whether any of them are flat-footed, or whenever it matters in what order they take their actions. If the party walks into a tavern planning to roll the bartender because he's behind on his protection money payments to their boss, the party doesn't get caught flat-footed by anyone they can observe in the bar. Combat begins when they open the door, even if the party is trying to conceal their intention to attack the bartender when they reach the bar.

It's your perrogative to decide when men on a battlefield transition from spectators to combatants if you're DMing a game.

I suppose that it is, though the rules are quite clear, you do this once they observe the opposing force.

Then you would be making an abitrary decision as to when they go from being spectators to combatants.

How is 'On the round they observe the opponent every single time' applying the rule arbitrarily? Arbitrary means "by random choice or personal whim, lacking any reason or system". As far as I can tell, I'm the only one offering a systematic approach. If that is your definition of arbitrary, what is your definition of consistent?

A light buckler is not 8 square feet.

No, but I think they made the decision to treat all shield bonuses the same regardless of source. I only pointed out a fairly large shield to try to explain the basis of the reason. The reasoning still applies to a shield of only 1 square foot, and of course could be made even more strongly by talking about shields of 12 square feet.

Really? So a state where you are adjudicated to not be able to take any reflexive action, an attacker is still going to be unable to avoid hitting a shield you haven't raised and is hanging on the edge of your arm...even when you approach from behind? And that's not inherently dumb?

No, because 3e made the decision to simplify the game by not tracking facing. That may or may not be inherently dumb, but the logical result of that is that 'behind' loses a particular meaning. And again, I suspect this is a simplification based on lowest common denominator. It becomes more immediately obvious that the shield is an impediment to my flat footed attack when I'm attacking from 20 yards away with a ranged weapon. It's less obvious that a shield that isn't shifted to thwart an attack is an impediment, buts its easy to imagine that its more of an impediment to an attack than no shield would be. It's not obvious to me that its clearly the wrong way to handle it, because any more 'right' way to handle it would involve very large increases in the complexity of the system. Given the level of abstraction, it might be more realistic than the alternative.

How about this? The game says you are in a situation where you don't get your dex bonus...but you still get your reflex save....which includes your dex bonus? Not inherently dumb?

Now we are going very far afield indeed. Are you still trying to prove that the game isn't realistic?

They agree with that notion when it suits them....then they turn around and try and argue X rule describes some real life situation.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I don't have to agree that a simulation is a perfect simulation in order to believe it describes some real life situation. I had a professor that studied forest fires. He's modelling program had trees growing on a grid, which is wholly unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't describe real life situations. I worked for another professor that studied protein folding. His proteins folded on 90 degree angles in perfect little cubes, which is also unrealistic, but doesn't mean that it wasn't describing some real life situation. Sure, you can refine the model with higher and higher levels of computation, but unless you want to game on a large Beowulf cluster I wouldn't recommend it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm talking about two people equally unskilled but one with a much higher dex than the other...both being equally easy to hit. But we seem to agree that a high dex person should maintain some natural advantage if any reaction is possible.

No we don't. I mean that if you are engaged in some rhythmic activity like running, it's not at all clear to me that you are harder to hit while running than someone less good at dodging, unless you've extensively practiced dodging while running.

Does nobody play a high dex character???? A simple flat penalty would still convey a benefit to the FF rule without annihilating the advantage a higher dex person should have over a lower dex person when neither is "helpless."

As I said, it would be possible to remove the inconsistancies by changing the langauge of 'denied dex bonus' to 'suffering a penalty to dexterity', but this change would probably be a very large change for what I think is a very small gain. However, if it bothers you, by all means make those ammendments in your house rules. I've no problem with DM's customizing their game to their sensibilities provided they do so skillfully.

 

[irdeggman]

How about this? The game says you are in a situation where you don't get your dex bonus...but you still get your reflex save....which includes your dex bonus? Not inherently dumb?

THe rules talk about Dex bonus to AC and Dex bonus to reflex saves. The two numbers may be the same thing but the situations they apply in are not.

You can be denied your Dex bonus to AC and still be allowed your Dex modifier (or bonus) to reflex save.

From the FAQ

Exactly when can a character make a Reflex saving
throw? The saving throw section on the PH says Reflex
saves depend on a character’s ability to dodge out of the
way. Does that mean you can’t make Reflex saves if you
can’t move?

A character can attempt a Reflex save anytime she is
subjected to an effect that allows a Reflex save. A Reflex save
usually involves some dodging, but a Reflex save does not
depend completely on a character’s ability to move around. It
also can depend on luck, variations in the effect that makes the
save necessary in the first place, and a host of other miraculous
factors that keep heroic characters in the D&D game from
meeting an untimely fate.
In most cases, you make Reflex saves normally, no matter
how bad your circumstances are, but a few conditions interfere
with Reflex saves:
• If you’ve suffered Dexterity damage or Dexterity
drain, you must use your current, lower Dexterity
modifier for your Reflex saves.
• If you’re cowering, you lose your Dexterity bonus (if
any). The maximum Dexterity bonus you can have
while cowering is +0, and that affects your Reflex
saves accordingly.
• If you’re dead, you become an object. Unattended
objects can’t make saving throws.
• If you’re entangled, your effective Dexterity score
drops by –4, and you must use your lower Dexterity
modifier for Reflex saves.
• If you’re exhausted, your effective Strength and
Dexterity scores drop by –6, and you must use your
lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves.
• If you’re fatigued, your effective Strength and
Dexterity scores drop by –2, and you must use your
lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves.
• If you’re frightened or panicked, you have a –2
penalty on all saving throws, including Reflex saving
throws.
• If you’re helpless, your Dexterity score is effectively
0. You still can make Reflex saves, but your
Dexterity modifier is –5. You’re helpless whenever
you are paralyzed, unconscious, or asleep.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Incorrect.

In D&D all you need to do is have the chance to act - if you ready an action you are no longer flat-footed since you have had a chance to act.


PHB pg 137

Perhaps I should have said, "Delay" your initiative wth a capitol D....let's looks at the d20 source

Delay

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.
You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action).

​

When you Delay, your first "regular turn" occures when you decide your new initiative score. You cannot Delay your action and avoid being flat footed. Either you take your initiative as rolled, or you substitute your roll for a lesser number and you are treated as having actually rolled that number, in which case you are FF to all those with a higher initiative in that first round even though you technically won initiative. The "Ready" action is different.

Nice try, though.

THe rules talk about Dex bonus to AC and Dex bonus to reflex saves. The two numbers may be the same thing but the situations they apply in are not.

You can be denied your Dex bonus to AC and still be allowed your Dex modifier (or bonus) to reflex save.

Yes...the same ability has the same modifier on both activities...based on the same ability of reflex, agility, and and manual dexterity. So a situation which denies one but not the other is illogical and internally inconsistent. The game tries to explain itself around this by adding in notions of "luck" and "miraculous factors." Yet none of these factors seem to have any modifier to speak of. Only one thing affects a "reflex" save...and that's reflexes...which come from your Dexterity. Concocting bogus elaborate reasons why one applies and one doesn't...is just that...bogus. It's like saying we're going to allow any Halfing with a Strength of 14 to treat it as a 25.

"See, there's this magic stone at the center of the earth that causes this effect, that's why it's plausible." Right. Gotcha.

Look it's a game...so we set the inconsistencies aside because it serves a purpose: probably game balance. One can imagine that if Reflex saves were denied or severely hampered based on the Flat Footed state, arcane spell caster with high Dex and Improved Initiative would be way more powerful than they were intended to be. As it stands now, the only people who arguably gain the most are Rogues with Sneak Attack. A most likely intended consequence.

I don't care if the game departs from reality or consistency. What I am curious about is why it is done in any particular situation. In the case of Reflex saves...it seems pretty obvious.

 

[irdeggman]

Perhaps I should have said, "Delay" your initiative wth a capitol D....let's looks at the d20 source

Delay

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.
You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action).

​

When you Delay, your first "regular turn" occures when you decide your new initiative score. You cannot Delay your action and avoid being flat footed. Either you take your initiative as rolled, or you substitute your roll for a lesser number and you are treated as having actually rolled that number, in which case you are FF to all those with a higher initiative in that first round even though you technically won initiative. The "Ready" action is different.

Well, since you can't choose to "delay" until your first regular turn in the initiative order, when you choose not to act - you have met the criteria specified. It does not say you need to act only that you had the chance to act. It says that you can act normally on your new intiative, it does not say that you didn't have the chance to act.

Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance
to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative
order), you are flat-footed

 

[Arrowhawk]

And a biased one at that. I could just as easily argue that you are making sneak attack far more powerful than intended - which incidently seems to have been the complaint of the OP's player.

iirc, the OP's member was complaining about the believability of the rule...the idea that someone can move 30' before someone else can even lift a spear to prepare for an attack. Players in my own compaign also reject the credibility of a rule which states that all combatants start FF. Any rule which blindly and universally applies a state to all characters is going to run into believability problems for people. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Moreover, you've also complained that it is illogical how FF works

No. I pointed out that it is illogical how the No Dex Bonus rule works. Whether it's associated with the FF rule or not. I've already said the FF rule is not wholly divorced from reality.

..but when I point out that much of the lack of logic is something you've add to the rules and which isn't found within them

I haven't added anything to the rules. You're the one here telling everyone that if they don't interpret the start of a battle the way you do, they are doing it wrong. Your justification isn't based on any scientific reasoning...just your opinion on how the rules were meant to work. More power to you, hombre. More power to you.

I mean by that that if you accept the alternative interpretation, of initiative being thrown at some arbitrary point after the battle /combat /encounter/ engagement has begun, then you are arguing that its not possible to have a battle where some one isn't caught unprepared for an attack.

Given that the RAW say "Every combatant starts out flat footed." Yes...it is not possible to have two combatants start out not being flat footed. Put another way....every battle begins with everyone being flat footed. RAW.

That in my opinion should be discarded as complete nonsense on the face of it. It doesn't stand to reason that the first round of every combat is an ambush, even when the fighters are fully aware of the other, observing each other before the punch is thrown, and had oppurtunity to ready themselves. If the rules offer an alternative - and they clearly do - then it should be obvious that the alternative is the intended approach.

This is why Water Bob says you're "house ruling it." You've read the rules and the literal interpetation which follows the RAW "doesn't stand to reason." So you're reinterpeting the rules to give you a solution that jibes with a subjective sense of credibility. Guess what....you're not alone.

I suppose that it is, though the rules are quite clear, you do this once they observe the opposing force.

So when you're flying overhead in a transport helicopter and see the opposing forces far out of the range of anyone's weapons the battle has begun?

How is 'On the round they observe the opponent every single time' applying the rule arbitrarily?

Because you're equating observing of a creature as being tantamount to making everyone a combatant. The rules don't automatically require such a determination. Maybe "arbitrary" connotes something pejorative that is unitended on my part. Let's call it a subjective decision since you clearly claim you have a systematic approach.

No, but I think they made the decision to treat all shield bonuses the same regardless of source.

Clearly. It's illogical, but it makes the game easier to play. Simplicity = Better as perceived by WotC in this instance. Sometimes they think Complex = Better. As I said, it's an art not a science.

I only pointed out a fairly large shield to try to explain the basis of the reason.

I dont' think that's the basis of the reasoning at all. But that's irrelevant to the discussion.

No, because 3e made the decision to simplify the game by not tracking facing.

Fairly self evident . Simplier = Better once again in this instance.

That may or may not be inherently dumb, ***
Now we are going very far afield indeed. Are you still trying to prove that the game isn't realistic?

I was merely repeating your own approach to evaluation a rule. Making the point that a lot of things may be "inherently dumb" but that isn't automatically a deal breaker in an RPG (though it probably should be).

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Perhaps my point was not clear. When you argue that a rule is good because it simulates reality, and then you defend a rule that undermines realism because you claim the game isn't meant to simulate reality, you are being self contradictory. People want to pick and choose when realism is necessary and sufficient and when lack of realism is forgivable and sufficient. By definiation that is arbitrary behavior in the pejorative sense of the word.

No we don't. I mean that if you are engaged in some rhythmic activity like running, it's not at all clear to me that you are harder to hit while running than someone less good at dodging...

You just used the example of football players. Some of them are harder to tackle while running than others. They all can be considered to have the same Run feat by virtue of being profesional "Running" backs. D&D would mandate that the entire league of NFL running backs are all equally easy to hit while running. Sorry, that is beyond ridiculous. The no dex rule is broken. The question is why.

As I said, it would be possible to remove the inconsistancies by changing the langauge of 'denied dex bonus' to 'suffering a penalty to dexterity', but this change would probably be a very large change for what I think is a very small gain. However, if it bothers you, by all means make those ammendments in your house rules. I've no problem with DM's customizing their game to their sensibilities provided they do so skillfully.

The fix would be very simple.

1) Anything without a Dexterity or a Dex of 0-1 has an unarmored AC of 5.

2) Ability scores for Dex with respect to AC are thus:

2-3 +1
4-5 +2
6-7 +3
8-9 +4
10-11 +5

You get the idea.

3) When you lose your Dex bonus...you go to a Dex of 0.

Problem solved. This puts a person with a Dex of 10 at AC of 10...which is excatly what it is now.

Since the game has decided that Reflex Save is independent of your Dex bonus...Saves aren't affected. You can continue to use the existing modifier table for REF saves. Alternatively, you could set everyone's base Save at -5 and use the new table.

Does this introduce other probems in the game? At first blush I don't see any, but i don't have all the rules memorized to know for certain.

 

[kitcik]

Well I'm flat footed, check it and see
I got initiative of a lowly three
Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed

You don't have to read my mind
To know what I have in mind
DM you oughta know
Now you move so fast
Let me tell you I'm aghast
I wanna know why I am so slow

Now it's up to you, we can make a secret homebrew
Just me and you, I'll show you realism so true

That's why I'm flat footed, check it and see
I got initiative of a lowly three
Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed

If it feels alright
Maybe we can play all night
Shall I roll up a rogue?
But you've got to give me a sign
Come on, some kind of sign
Tell me, do you watch Jackie Chan? Don't let that zombie get the drop on me.

Are you smart enough? Will you show me that realism stuff?
Is my timing right? Did you make a ruling for me tonight?

Yeah I'm flat footed, check it and see
I got initiative of a lowly three
Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed

Now it's up to you, we can make a secret homebrew
Just me and you, I'll show you realism so true

Well I'm flat footed, check it and see
I got initiative of a lowly three
Come on baby, why can't I dodge?
I'm flat footed, I'm flat footed

Flat footed, every night
Flat footed, you're looking for a fight
Flat footed, now you're driving me crazy
Flat footed, I think this rule is lazy
Flat footed, I'm a little bit slow
Flat footed, you're a little bit shy
Flat footed, your realism is low
Flat footed, for your (flat footed) [&^%#&*&^%]ing thing
Did you hear what I said?

 

[Arrowhawk]

Well, since you can't choose to "delay" until your first regular turn in the initiative order, when you choose not to act - you have met the criteria specified. It does not say you need to act only that you had the chance to act. It says that you can act normally on your new intiative, it does not say that you didn't have the chance to act.

You can decide to "Delay" your initiative whenever you want. You just can't raise your initiative to something higher than you rolled. The Delay option is a metagame option, i.e. it happens out of the context of the game and in the context of the people rolling the dice. You are considered to have ROLLED the lower initiative. Like rerolling your saving throw by virtue of a Luck feat.

In the Delay option, you "voluntarily reduce your own Initiative result" and accept a lower number as your actual number. It's black and white. Your "result" of initiative has been changed...ergo your PC has not had a chance to act within the game itself.

But hey, house rule it anyway you'd like.