Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5623939" data-attributes="member: 32740">Just reread the thread so, first: a response to a statement in the thread from a while back.Flat-footed isn't a penalty that is inflicted for either being surprised or losing initiative - it is a normal condition (literally a condition in the game-rule mechanics sense of "conditions") that is typically overcome by surprising others, or by WINNING initiative. I'd advise being a little less strident in tone there.  I know you're not trying to be insulting but it's VERY easy to read that as intolerably condescending. That would be an inaccurate and misleading statement.  Fighter A is simply penalized to a degree giving fighter B an increased chance to hit.  Fighter A may still avoid being hit if his AC is otherwise high enough and/or Fighter B's attack roll is low enough. This is true only because for the sake of general combat rules simplification the game has removed FACING as a consideration.  In 1E/2E for example, a shield explicitly protected only a certain selection of areas around the character (and furthermore only protected against a limited number of attacks even then) so an attack from the flanks meant the shield and all associated bonuses did not apply to AC, attacks from behind meant shield AND dex bonuses could not apply.  Because 3E eliminates the specific position of opponents as a consideration in place of RELATIVE postiion of opponents (flanking now being a bonus granted when a combatant is required to divide his attentions to opposite sides at once) the bonus for having a shield MUST by default apply all around all the time.  There may be attacks which 3E decides can eliminate or circumvent a Shield Armor Bonus, but I don't know of any off the top of my head. The situation in this example is not meant to be taken as a thoughtless defiance of realism but as a well-considered sympathy with simplified/unified game rules. I hear you.  Really I do.  But if you want realism then you shouldn't play any version of D&D nor any other game that is even moderately similar to it in mechanics. Combat in D&D is SO abstracted it's almost laughable.  It's more laughable to me to claim that it's not realistic enough when it's not realistic AT ALL. Well D&D practically revels in absurdities as regards both the strengths and vulnerabilities of player characters and these only increase with character levels.  It is part and parcel of it being a game where characters assay "epic quests for fortune and glory," [PH] As an aside I can't readily find a specific reference to a commonly accepted notion carried over from previous editions - that there is no AC lower than 10, even with penalties.  Without such a simple statement I guess we have to accept that a character in no armor with no other modifiers who otherwise has a -4 dex penalty is in fact AC 6. However, dex is not intended as the be-all end-all of armor class - it's just a MODIFIER to AC.  Look at it this way:  It isn't a matter of a low dex character being given an illogical benefit, but a high dexterity character being denied the ability to ALWAYS leverage his natural advantage, typically by being in circumstances where he's caught unawares.  Dexterity /= awareness, fast reactions and being light on your feet doesn't make you more alert. This I can agree with.  It is an inherent drawback to having a universal table for ability modifiers as well as a universal task resolution system.  Logically, not all ability scores apply and scale in the same way and not all tasks fit well a scale of granularity from 1-20.  Some things are pass/fail, some lend themselves to many degrees of failure or success, some should have many modifiers, others none at all.  Once upon a time I thought that 3E's design in this regard was simple and elegant.  Lately I've come to see it as not just simple, but actually misguided.  1E and 2E rules weren't necessarily superior in this regard, their ability modifiers needed to be changed too to better reflect the expected spread of ability scores for PC's when rolling d6's for their initial determination.  It was better to have bonuses accruing closer to scores of 10-11, but it was a mistake to have penalties similarly accrue closer to 10-11 just for the sake of having a cleaner looking table. Because as dexterity scores increase from 0 and approach 10 it isn't a matter of them gaining bonuses but of reducing their penalty.  As dexterity's increase above 10 as concerns being flat-footed it isn't a matter of characters with below 10 dex being given an extra advantage - they aren't because they still have their penalty.  It's a matter of the over-10 dex character facing the fact that his dexterity simply will not constantly apply in all circumstances. At the outset of a battle surprise is decided without regard to dexterity.  It is a matter of AWARENESS of the presence of opponents.  Having surprise means that opponent reactions DO NOT apply.  The surprise round is all about the actions of the surprisers and opponents who would normally have a dexterity advantage don't yet have the opportunity to press that advantage regarding their AC.  The next step beyond surprise is initiative - a dex check.  At this point the natural dexterity of combatants DOES apply and grant them a POTENTIAL advantage, not a GUARANTEED advantage.  The dex bonus modifies the die roll improving their chances of acting before their opponents. Your argument here implies that initiative should have no random element but instead simply proceed from highest dex to lowest.  Not an awful idea as a house rule but I see nothing wrong with the implication that can be drawn from RAW that there are any number of factors (best represented by a random roll) that might keep a high dexterity character at the same relative disadvantage as someone who has a dexterity that is simply lower than him, whether or not it's a dexterity that provides no bonus anyway. Flat-footed condition and related matters of initiative isn't about reflecting real life nearly as much as it is about just adjudicating a game as effectively as possible. You seem to want to insist here that the baseline is an ability score of 0 and that anything above that provides a bonus even if that bonus is a negative integer.  The game rules on the other hand assume that the baseline is 10-11 and that positive integers are a bonus, and negative integers are a penalty.  At the risk of sounding insulting (given statements above that is NOT my intent) I don't think that's a matter of rationalizing the illogical rules as you insist it cannot be otherwise, but simply being rational about how the rules DO work. Well, I remain unconvinced by this assertion that the rule is poorly conceived, broken, or arbitrary.  "It's screwed up because it's screwed up," is a bit thin. Again I'd point out that it's not a penalty for being surprised or losing initiative, it's a reasonable condition to assume that characters are in until random elements are no longer a factor. I think you have to be more specific about this. Not sure what you're getting at here.  "Immobile" is not a rule-listed condition.  Being Pinned means a character is immobile but has no dex effects.  Being Entangled is a -4 dex penalty.  Other conditions where the character can't move seem to all fall under the associated condition of Helpless, which carries an associated penalty of any dex being treated as 0.  Perhaps if you explain which of those you disagree with... or? Um... but UNAWARENESS of the attacker means that they cannot react to the attackers actions at all.  Their superior reactions would not help them react to anything but the impact of the weapon and then it's too late.  Again here you're assuming that a high dexterity must apply at all times and in all circumstances.  The rules are only attempting to reflect what _I_ thought (and still do actually) was obvious in that a dexterity bonus does NOT apply at all times and in all circumstances - but a dexterity penalty DOES always apply (although as I noted way up above I consider 10 to be a minimum armor class regardless of any and all penalties). Just to be snarky: no you aren't - you repeatedly assert that anyone who thinks the RAW is sensible in this regard has mental issues. [/snark]I'll be nice now. Well it's not a matter of having failed to act, but not being able to act first, however... I do agree that the FF rule - along with EVERY OTHER RULE IN THE BOOK should not be applied blindly.  The rules do not and CANNOT cover all situations, all contingencies. No matter what the rules say, if you have an issue with one of them (Flat-footed in this case) whether it's just in a particular circumstance or the rule in general - CHANGE it. But again, I suggest going a bit easier on actually questioning the reasoning and intelligence of those who simply choose to disagree with you or do not share YOUR perspective on the rules.</blockquote>

Verification