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.
Right. I understand that.
Let's break this down.
I claim that there is a unversal standard for when initiative applies that handles the flatfooted condition in a way that is consistantly believable. I see the two as related. I cited multiple examples showing that if you consistantly applied the rules in the manner that they were written that the results in varying situations were what you would intuitively expect.
You claim there is no universal standard for when initiative applies, and that the throw for initiative is a matter of DM fiat. You also claim that that the flat footed rule results in unbelievable situations which requires the DM to fiat overrule whether the flatfooted condition applies. You come up with an example that demonstrates the implausibility of the flat footed rule, and the implausibility of it depends almost entirely on the fact that you've subjected the throw of the initiative to DM fiat.
To which I respond, yeah, it's bad rule if you break it blindly. That shouldn't be very difficult to understand.
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.
Well, I don't know about 'wrong', but they certainly aren't following the rules.
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.
Yes, but again, that's not what I suggested. Every battle does begin with everyone being flat footed, but not every battle begins with at least someone being flat footed at the time of the first attack. By ignoring the non-attack actions that transpire at the start of the battle, you set up a situation where every battle is an ambush - even if it involves a set peice engagement where the two sides are marching at each other across a large field.
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.
No, I've read the rules and the strict literal interpretation of the RAW gives reasonable results. I've then noticed that a lot of people give unreasonable metagame interpretations, and then complain about the unreasonable results that follow up on that. I'm therefore pointing out that by a strict reading of the rules, these highly unreasonable situations don't happen. So therefore, which of us is more likely to be reading the rule correctly?
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?
Yes, because you have observed the enemy. In battle speak, you have made contact with the enemy. And for the purposes of the rules we must make the battle begin no latter than that point, else we are ignoring whatever actions that the transport crew may have taken in response to seeing the opposing force and according to this model of combat that is critical. It's nonsensical to suggest that though the transport Helicopter crew has detected the enemy and responded to the threat, that they still must be treated as if they were oblivious to the threat. The rules do not say that. They say as soon as you have observed a foe and had a chance to act, regardless of the act you take, you can no longer be treated as oblivious to the threat.
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.
The rules do for combat encounters. You aren't required to run every encounter as a combat encounter, but if there is hostility or potential hostility present then you probably should. To do otherwise leads to wierdness.
Let's call it a subjective decision since you clearly claim you have a systematic approach.
How is it subjective? According to the rules, you have no choice but to throw initiative. It's subjective to delay.
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.
To my knowledge, I haven't done so. I was pointing out that there isn't a binary relationship here. A rule can be good because it simulates reality, even if it isn't perfectly realistic. A rule which 'undermines realism', as you put it, can still be defended on the grounds that it simulates reality. The question then becomes, "If it is good to simulate reality, why is not not better to simulate reality more perfectly?" The answer is, sometimes a more perfect simulation of reality has some other cost. Typically there is diminishing margins of return. A more realistic rule is better than a less realistic rule, but past a certain point the complexity of each increasingly realistic rule undermines the advantage gained by increasing realism.
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.
Not only is that not arbitrary by definition, but speaking as someone who has at times made his living writing modelling software and designing engineering solutions, the degree of accuracy of the model can often be definitively shown to be necessary and sufficient and the amount of error introduced by the simplifying assumtions can likewise be show to be forgivable and sufficient over a wide range of conditions and certainly the ones you are interested in.
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.
If they all have the run feat, then they are not all equally easy to hit while running. You are denied your dex bonus when running if you have the Run feat.
The fix would be very simple.
Speaking as some one who tweaks the SRD quite a lot, I disagree. But by all means, have at it.
Since the game has decided that Reflex Save is independent of your Dex bonus...Saves aren't affected.
Reflex saves aren't independent of your dex bonus. Anything that changes your dex bonus changes your reflex save.
