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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5625305" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Because the reason for doing it might be logical.  For example, imposing a flat foot state in every combat situation isn't logical...but it allows Rogues an oppoturnity to get in a Sneak Attack right at the start.  Not realistic, but logical in that it engenders a certain type of experience.      What opinion would that be?  As I already stated, pointing out a logical inconsistency isn't a matter of an opinion.  It's done as a starting point.  If two people are going to have a scientific talk about the movement of heavenly bodies, they both have to acknowledge that the Earth is not the center of the Solar System.  We agree the No Dex Bonus isn't internally consistent...not the question is why?  What does the game achieve by doing this?  Is there a compelling reason to leave it as is, or is it just an oversight that could be changed to improve the game?  This suggests you believe it is an unintended screw up because the game is just too complicated for them to have notice it.  Opinion noted.   I'm not sure which is more distressing, you're lack of reading comprehnsion skills or your self contradiction?  First, I wasn't suggesting that the "fix" for the FF state was anything.  I was talking about the No Dex Bonus situation.  Second, I am not offering it as a fix, I was asky why No Dex Bonus wasn't treated like Entangle.   Third, and most importantly, you're overlooking something.   The No Dex Bonus situations are not places where people are completely immobile.  They are situations where people ability to react is impaired, not eliminated.  If someone could not react at all, they would be helpless.  They would not be able to use their shield.  Their Uncanny Dodge ability would not function.   As far as the self contradiction...on one hand you agree that the way it's handled now is inconsistent and then you suggest the way FF is handled now does work?  So it makes no sense to do it this way...but it works?  Based on what exactly?   The problem is you're hung up on this concept of "Bonus."  You keep referring to someone being denied their "bonus" in real life.  Please explain to me when we know someone's dexterity goes from a penalty, to no modifier, to a bonus in real life?    The way I see it, either someone is completely unable to react to something...in which case everyone has the same Dex modifier...or that person's ability to react is hampered in some way, would you agree?  If so, when D&D talks about No Dex Bonus situations which of these two states are we talking about?     It doesn't come up?  So are you saying that nobody in your campaign has a 10 or 12 Dex?  Because if they do...then the inconsistency is in full effect.   If some people are losing their AC modifier and some people are not effected, then the issue is prevelant in your campaign.  When your refrigerator breaks, if you're solution is to close your eyes and pretend that you live in Alaska...I suppose that is always an option.    Yes.  You explained what happened, but neither JamesonCourage nor I understand the basis for your explanation.  As Jameson asks....how do you know that this guy had a Dex bonus?  How do you know he lost initiative?  Assuming it was a real life situation.   What exactly are we disagreeing about?  We agree the current rule is inconsistent.  I'm asking if have an understanding as to why it would benefit the game to do this.  Where exactly is the disagreement?   I never said it did.    I'm not sure I understand what you mean by an "advantage."   Have you considered that the current rule gives the person with the very high Dex the most advantage because he's the least likely to be caught FF? If I may, it appears you like the idea of being able to take away all of someone's dexterity benefits to AC and the more the Dex bonus...the more you want to penalize them for losing initiative.  I'm not sure I understand why you believe it's better for the game to inconsistently penalize players in this fashion?  Why should high Dex creatures suffer inordinately more for losing initiative?    A subjective opinion about the benefit derived.  A "fix" could penalize everyone equally, but mean that everyone who was quicker was still better off. One of the more fundamental questions that hasn't been addressed is whether being caught without a Dex Bonus (not automatically the same as being FF) was really meant to mean everyone was immobilized and couldn't move at all.  If immobilization was not the intent, then someone who is quicker would be better off, and this is exactly the rationale imployed with Reflex Saves against traps.  The fact that you can use your shield bonus even when you don't get Dex bonus would be an argument that a player is able to react...to some degree.  d20 has really crossed itself up with this rule.  I've been searching the web but have been unable to find a single discussion on any board that addresses this problem.</blockquote>

Verification