Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5623973" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Well, here we go. &nbsp;&nbsp; Incorrect.&nbsp; You don't overcome being flat footed by &quot;WINNING&quot; initiative...you overcome it by acting.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can win initiative and delay your action...and you're still flat footed.&nbsp; 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.)&nbsp;What you're arguing here is semantics.&nbsp; Flat footed is a not a &quot;normal&quot; condition.&nbsp; It is a contrived state invented by the game designers in order to facilitate other mechanics...namely Feats like Uncanny Dodge and to allow Rogues and high Dex characters an opportunity to have more impact in any given encounter.&nbsp; There was no FF rule prior to 3.x&nbsp;Let's get a grip on fantasy reality, here.&nbsp; The idea that a person with superhuman dexterity (Read: 25) would be easier to hit than a slightly above average (Read: 12) guy standing next to him because he lost some conceptual thing called an &quot;initiative&quot; roll is an argument in fantasy...not reality.&nbsp; Persistent application of a &quot;normal condition&quot; whereby all people whose Dex is above some arbitrary average score is nullified is patently absurd from any reality based perspective.&nbsp;Let's revisit the definition of Dexterity according to d20srd:&nbsp;&quot;Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance.&quot;&nbsp;&quot;You apply your character’s Dexterity modifier to: ...&quot; &nbsp;&quot;Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.&quot;&nbsp;Emphasis added.&nbsp;The idea that a person with a 20 Dex wouldn't &quot;react&quot; better to losing initiative than a person with a 10 Dex...has literally no basis in reality given that one can raise a shield to avoid an attack and that a person with an 10 Dex is able to react better than a person with an 8 Dex.&nbsp;Let's get this straight: The Flat Footed rule that eliminates all Dex ability above 11 does not represent reality...it represents an abstraction designed to facilitate other mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;There is nothing in my example is misleading or inaccurate. Nor does asserting such make it true.&nbsp; Fighter A isn't penalized to a &quot;degree.&quot;&nbsp; Fighter A gets zero Dex bonus...regardless of weather that Dex is 12 or 10,000.&nbsp; Whether armor may protect Fighter A is irrelevant to the discussion, nevermind that I said Fighter A is unarmored in that example.&nbsp;&nbsp;Your'e falling into the same conceptual trap as Water Bob did in his response.&nbsp;&nbsp; You're wanting to equate this idea with &quot;penalty&quot; and &quot;bonus&quot; with some change in state.&nbsp;&nbsp; Such a proposition is not supperted by the linear progression of the ability modifiers.&nbsp; It's irrelevant where you set the baseline....8 is better than 6, 10 is better than 8, and 12 is better than 10.&nbsp; Every stop along that progression is a +1 improvement.&nbsp; The labels of &quot;penalty&quot; and &quot;bonus&quot; do nothing to change that.&nbsp;Let me put it this way...if you're playing a campaign that's all Elves, then the baseline really should be 12 not 10.&nbsp; And doing so means there is no difference in the relative probability of being hit, making a saving throw, or using a ranged weapon.&nbsp; Someone with a 12 is always going to be 1 better someone with a 10.&nbsp; The &quot;penalty/bonus&quot; labels are simply that: labels. They have no effect on the magnitude of the bonuses.&nbsp; Was this not made clear in my last post?&nbsp; &nbsp;But since the system isn't perfect, it runs into a problem with situations where someone should not get the full benefit of their Dexterity. The game still penalizes people who are lower than 10...but there is no logical reason to due so.&nbsp;&nbsp; Saying that scores above 10 are a &quot;bonus&quot; is like saying they a &quot;Koby Koby&quot; and then making up some rule that Koby Koby doesn't apply in these situations.&nbsp; It's abitrary.&nbsp;&nbsp; Semantics.&nbsp; Mathmatically, it's the same thing.&nbsp; It's like arguing the glass isn't half full...it's half empty.&nbsp;It's odd you don't see your own self contradiction in your response.&nbsp; You ponit out that below 10, people still have their &quot;penalty.&quot;&nbsp; But a 6 has less penalty than a 4.&nbsp; And a 10, less than a 6.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that 10 is better than a 6...&quot;in all circumstances.&quot;&nbsp; Yet, you seem to believe it makes sense that a 12 isn't better than a 10 in all circumstances...nevermind that the linear progression of the modifiers implicitly signifying that there is no substantive change transitioning from penalty to no modifier to bonus?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Exactly.&nbsp; Now do you see the hypocrasy by allowing Dex scores to make a Dex 8 character have better AC than a Dex 6 character...when reaction &quot;DO NOT APPLY&quot;&nbsp; This is the problem that the game designers ran over in the crosswalk and then left the scene of the crime.&nbsp; On one hand you're saying your inability to &quot;react&quot; affects your armor class...then arbitrarily deciding that...wait..no...you're not allowed to react if it improves your armor class..nevermind that mathmatically we're improving AC's going up from 3 to 10...and then simply stopping at 10.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not at all.&nbsp; It's entirely feasible that somone with lower reaction times on average might react faster in any given circumstance.&nbsp; The issue is that deciding to suddenly impose a brickwall filter on Dex above 10 is wholly ridiculous when you're allowing Dex to modify AC's below 10.&nbsp;Look, it'd be one thing if D&amp;D had some non-linear ability modifier table whereby the transition from Penalty to Neutral to Bonus has all these associated changes...but it doesn't.&nbsp; Mathmatically the differene between 8 and 10 is the same difference between 10 and 12.&nbsp;&nbsp; Only 12 doesn't get that bonus over 10 simply because THAT +1 is called a &quot;bonus.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Silly.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is nothing to be &quot;adjuticated.&quot;&nbsp; FF is simply a mechanic or &quot;condition&quot; as you labeled it to facilitate other mechanics.&nbsp; D&amp;D would suggest that ALL combatants start out FF before the act in an encounter.&nbsp; Again, this is a condition, not a weighing of the facts.&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;reasonable&quot;?&nbsp; Based on what?&nbsp; When two boxers or MMA fighters get in a ring, have you ever heard the ex-Boxer/MMA announcer say, &quot;OOOh.&nbsp; Looks like Rodriguez caught Martinez flat footed with that first punch&quot;?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; There is no way to break down real life combat and know if someone won or lost initiative or simply delayed their action.&nbsp; Nor do we know if anyone even has a Dex bonus or if someone got hit because he lost his Dex bonus or if the other guy just hit him irregardless of Dex bonus. &nbsp;Sure...people do get sucker punched.&nbsp; People are caught &quot;flat-footed&quot; in some fights.&nbsp; It defiintely happens.&nbsp; And I believe it is entirely reasonable to say that any given person might be less reactive in such a situation.&nbsp; But the idea that every single person on the planet whose quickness is above average, are all equally easy to hit in that situation goes beyond any rational argument.&nbsp; D&amp;D makes such an argument...are you really trying to make that argument as well?&nbsp;&nbsp; Perfect.&nbsp; This so conveniently exposes the inconsistencies of Dex in this game.&nbsp;&nbsp; Here, D&amp;D has decided that a flat penalty is appropriate.&nbsp;&nbsp; So no matter whether you get a &quot;bonus&quot; or a &quot;penalty.&quot;&nbsp; You are treated equally.&nbsp; The fact that D&amp;D uses flat Dex penalties means that all positions along the Ability Modifier table, Dexterity functions linearly.&nbsp; Your penalty is not greater when you have a &quot;bonus.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Nor are you penalized less because you already have a &quot;penalty.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; If &quot;penalty&quot; or &quot;bonus&quot; for Dex were somehow substantively different..then the game could not use a flat tax as it were.&nbsp; The game would make some special rule for &quot;bonus&quot; and &quot;penalty&quot; conditions.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Let's get a reality check here, MFH. Anyone who is going to seriously insist that the way these mechanics work are entirely logical and consistent has mental deficiencies.&nbsp;&nbsp; The game is filled with illogical and inconsistent stuff. It's a freakin game about fantasy.&nbsp; There is no logic to how the Weave works the Forgotten Realms, or why it works the way it does.&nbsp; Or why weapons are +1 or why weapons can't have a bonus more than +5.&nbsp; &nbsp; My question is why in this case did they do something that was internally inconsistent...and more importantly, does it make the game better or worse?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5623973, member: 6679551"] 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.) What you're arguing here is semantics. Flat footed is a not a "normal" condition. It is a contrived state invented by the game designers in order to facilitate other mechanics...namely Feats like Uncanny Dodge and to allow Rogues and high Dex characters an opportunity to have more impact in any given encounter. There was no FF rule prior to 3.x Let's get a grip on fantasy reality, here. The idea that a person with superhuman dexterity (Read: 25) would be easier to hit than a slightly above average (Read: 12) guy standing next to him because he lost some conceptual thing called an "initiative" roll is an argument in fantasy...not reality. Persistent application of a "normal condition" whereby all people whose Dex is above some arbitrary average score is nullified is patently absurd from any reality based perspective. Let's revisit the definition of Dexterity according to d20srd: "Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, [B]reflexes[/B], and balance." "You apply your character’s Dexterity modifier to: ..." "Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can [B]react [/B]to the attack." Emphasis added. The idea that a person with a 20 Dex wouldn't "react" [B]better[/B] to losing initiative than a person with a 10 Dex...has literally no basis in reality given that one can raise a shield to avoid an attack and that a person with an 10 Dex is able to react better than a person with an 8 Dex. Let's get this straight: The Flat Footed rule that eliminates all Dex ability above 11 does not represent reality...it represents an abstraction designed to facilitate other mechanics. There is nothing in my example is misleading or inaccurate. Nor does asserting such make it true. Fighter A isn't penalized to a "degree." Fighter A gets zero Dex bonus...regardless of weather that Dex is 12 or 10,000. Whether armor may protect Fighter A is irrelevant to the discussion, nevermind that I said Fighter A is [I]unarmored [/I]in that example[I].[/I] Your'e falling into the same conceptual trap as Water Bob did in his response. You're wanting to equate this idea with "penalty" and "bonus" with some change in state. Such a proposition is not supperted by the[I] linear progression[/I] of the ability modifiers. It's irrelevant where you set the baseline....8 is better than 6, 10 is better than 8, and 12 is better than 10. Every stop along that progression is a +1 improvement. The labels of "penalty" and "bonus" do nothing to change that. Let me put it this way...if you're playing a campaign that's all Elves, then the baseline really should be 12 not 10. And doing so means there is no difference in the relative probability of being hit, making a saving throw, or using a ranged weapon. Someone with a 12 is always going to be 1 better someone with a 10. The "penalty/bonus" labels are simply that: labels. They have no effect on the magnitude of the bonuses. Was this not made clear in my last post? But since the system isn't perfect, it runs into a problem with situations where someone should not get the full benefit of their Dexterity. The game still penalizes people who are lower than 10...but there is no logical reason to due so. Saying that scores above 10 are a "bonus" is like saying they a "Koby Koby" and then making up some rule that Koby Koby doesn't apply in these situations. It's abitrary. Semantics. Mathmatically, it's the same thing. It's like arguing the glass isn't half full...it's half empty. It's odd you don't see your own self contradiction in your response. You ponit out that below 10, people still have their "penalty." But a 6 has less penalty than a 4. And a 10, less than a 6. And that 10 is better than a 6..."in all circumstances." Yet, you seem to believe it makes sense that a 12 isn't better than a 10 in all circumstances...nevermind that the linear progression of the modifiers implicitly signifying that there is no substantive change transitioning from penalty to no modifier to bonus? Exactly. Now do you see the hypocrasy by allowing Dex scores to make a Dex 8 character have better AC than a Dex 6 character...when reaction "DO NOT APPLY" [I]This [/I]is the problem that the game designers ran over in the crosswalk and then left the scene of the crime. On one hand you're saying your inability to "react" affects your armor class...then arbitrarily deciding that...wait..no...you're not allowed to react if it improves your armor class..nevermind that mathmatically we're improving AC's going up from 3 to 10...and then simply stopping at 10. Not at all. It's entirely feasible that somone with lower reaction times on average might react faster in any given circumstance. The issue is that deciding to suddenly impose a brickwall filter on Dex above 10 is wholly ridiculous when you're allowing Dex to modify AC's below 10. Look, it'd be one thing if D&D had some non-linear ability modifier table whereby the transition from Penalty to Neutral to Bonus has all these associated changes...but it doesn't. Mathmatically the differene between 8 and 10 is the same difference between 10 and 12. Only 12 doesn't get that bonus over 10 simply because THAT +1 is called a "bonus." Silly. There is nothing to be "adjuticated." FF is simply a mechanic or "condition" as you labeled it to facilitate other mechanics. D&D would suggest that ALL combatants start out FF before the act in an encounter. Again, this is a condition, not a weighing of the facts. "reasonable"? Based on what? When two boxers or MMA fighters get in a ring, have you ever heard the ex-Boxer/MMA announcer say, "OOOh. Looks like Rodriguez caught Martinez flat footed with that first punch"? No. There is no way to break down real life combat and know if someone won or lost initiative or simply delayed their action. Nor do we know if anyone even [I]has [/I]a Dex bonus or if someone got hit because he lost his Dex bonus or if the other guy just hit him irregardless of Dex bonus. Sure...people do get sucker punched. People are caught "flat-footed" in some fights. It defiintely happens. And I believe it is entirely reasonable to say that any given person might be [I]less[/I] reactive in such a situation. [B]But the idea that every single person on the planet whose quickness is above average, are all equally easy to hit in that situation goes beyond any rational argument. [/B]D&D makes such an argument...are you really trying to make that argument as well? Perfect. This so conveniently exposes the inconsistencies of Dex in this game. Here, D&D has decided that a flat penalty is appropriate. So no matter whether you get a "bonus" or a "penalty." You are treated equally. The fact that D&D uses flat Dex penalties means that all positions along the Ability Modifier table, Dexterity functions linearly. Your penalty is not greater when you have a "bonus." Nor are you penalized less because you already have a "penalty." If "penalty" or "bonus" for Dex were somehow substantively different..then the game could not use a flat tax as it were. The game would make some special rule for "bonus" and "penalty" conditions. Let's get a reality check here, MFH. Anyone who is going to seriously insist that the way these mechanics work are entirely logical and consistent has mental deficiencies. The game is filled with illogical and inconsistent stuff. It's a freakin game about fantasy. There is no logic to how the Weave works the Forgotten Realms, or why it works the way it does. Or why weapons are +1 or why weapons can't have a bonus more than +5. My question is why [I]in this case [/I]did they do something that was internally inconsistent...and more importantly, does it make the game better or worse? [/QUOTE]

Verification