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: 5625982" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Actually it does.  What it seems you're really trying to convey is that you're starting the rule before it will have any significance.  There's no pointin arguing whether that's right or wrong...but ask yourself why the construct of FF was introduced in d20?  What were they trying to enable with this mechanic and are your decisions about when to start rolling initiative in concert with the intended mechanic or do they undermine it?  I am not suggesting one or the other, just posing the question.   I would disagree, but that's not worth debating...or I guess I'll debate that later in this post.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   The rule is black and white.  Everyone is FF until they act.  The only variable is when you consider them to have acted.  I hope you're not suggesting that when people decide to roll initiatve at point A versus point B, they are using the FF rule arbitrarily?   Ah...so you are trying to conflate issues. When you throw initiative it is wholly independent to a decision as to whether the FF rule applies.  The game doesn't offer you a decision on whether FF applies.  The RAW simply tell you when it applies.   I think it hampers the discussion to roll FF and Initiative into one decision.   Consider this...the decision when to roll for initiative is always arbitrary.   .  Bingo.   Since numerous people in this forum can't seem to agree when it's time to roll dice....the  FF rule, which depends on such a decision, is poorly conceived.   Let me quote you the d20 Hypertext language on Initiative: "At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check." Emphasis added. Now, if you want to interpret "battle" as two people 1000 yards apart who can see each other but haven't even decided if the other side is hostile...that's your perrogative.  But I would argue that a DM who elects to start the "battle" when one side declares the intent to injure the other and then moves to do so...is not being illogical.  Then we are in full agreement about the FF rule...we may just disagree on when it's appropriate to roll initiative.  I'm not motivated nor interested in debating the appropriate time to roll initiative.  To each his own.  ...which would be a blind application of the rule, but technically called for by the RAW.   My preference would be to examine the rule.  The rules aren't based on reality...so our penchant for concocting believable encounters experiences friction when trying to adhere to the rules.   Let's look at prime example:    So on one hand, d20 tells us the entire round is six seconds i.e., everyone's actions have been resolve in six seconds, yet on the other hand, we fully resolve one creature's acts before we allow anyone with a lower initiative to act, or even react.   So what is it...is everyone acting simulatneously, in which case we should be able to move back as someone moves forward, or do we potentially have an infinite number of people who's actions progress and are completely resolved in a linear fashion, all acting within 6 seconds? And do you really think once a fight breaks out, everyone acts in the same order for the entire battle? It's almost pure nonsense from a reality perspective.  There is nobody on the planet who can move 20 feet in full plate mail on foot before an olympic runner could move 10 feet unarmored.  I'm not taking about the first round...Im' talking about in the middle of any combat round.  And yet, this is what the combat system allows.  But we fully accepted it as a necessary evil in order to play the game. The point I'm trying to make is that is that an illogical or unreal rule isn't a deal breaker so long as the parties involved agree that it is necessary for a better game.  But it's important to understand why any particular rule might be set up so that in changing it, you don't break other things.   I would argue that you're on shaky ground if you consistently think the fault lies with the players.  If two rationale minds can disagree on how a rule is applied or is to be interpreted...then the rule is poorly written.  In the U.S. legal system such a law is considered unconstitutional and a court of a law will require that it be stricken.  Fortunately for RPG's, there is no such requirement or we would have nothing to play!   Ha.  That's signature worthy.   Yup. And that would mean they couldn't even raise a shield or a buckler, to protect themselves...but we'll just ignore that won't we?  Just for laughs...consider that when caught with no dex bonus, you still get the benefit of Two-Weapon Defense, a dexterity based benefit...nevermind that you supposedly can't act.    Honestly, I'm not trying to change how the combat round works.  I'm pointing out that it's not based on reality.  It's mechanic which allows the game to abstract combat sufficiently so that people can simulate it in the context of a dice game played with pen and paper.  There is really no need to bend oneself in a pretzel to imagine all these scenarios where it really makes sense.  If such an endeaver helps you as an individual...more power to you...but it's not a compelling rationale for a discussion.   I don't feel that way at all.  I feel an "internal" consistency is when the rules as written don't lead to contradictory results.  I'm not even sure what a "perfect" consistency means in this context.  If your Dex modifiers is based on your ability to "react" per the RAW...then in situations where you can't react....everyone has the same modifier.  Like wise, if you can't react, then you couldn't lift a shield to block an attack or two attacks or even 10 attacks from all sides, as would be possible under the RAW.  And you certainly couldn't use your weapons to give you two weapon defense bonus....because you can't "react."  It's a black and white contradiction.   Either you can't "react" or you can react and it's just a question of how much?   And if it's a question of much you can react, there is nothing in the rules which explains why those with a 10 are better than 8, but those with a 12 aren't better than a 10.  Certainly people an make up all kinds of half backed explanations about how Dexterity works, but the RAW don't support any of it.   That's true.  But if you've been running down the hall and a creature jumps out at you...RAW say you are FF.  Even if you keep running, you're FF'd.  Make sense?  No.   Again, let's ignore the FF'd rule and just talk about the no Dex Bonus rule...because that's where the issue lies.  We already agree on the fundamentals of the FF rule.   There are many situations where "no dex bonus" is allowed, but the character is moving.  Either they are climbing a wall, walking a tight rope, or in a Run action.  If two people were running, would you agree that the quicker person would be better at avoiding attacks?  Again, I'm not talking about being FF'd, I'm talking about two characters being denied the Dex Bonus because they are in the Run state.  If you mean to apply that to the No Dex Bonus rule...then technically, yes.  I would agree that that would be a consistent treatment of Dexterity in situations where "nobody can react."  You and I are on the same page about what it means to be internally consistent...given how the game defined the mechanics.  It's not realism...it's how the game itself has defined the mechanics at work.  Do I think this is the best solution for the game?  I don't know.  I'm still trying to find out if there is a dependent reason why things work this way.   If by "reasonable" you mean playable or managable, then once again, you're groking prefectly.  The game's own mechancis are what create this internal inconsistency.  As to the solution...I don't specifically know what will solve it until I figure out why it's set up this way.   If there is a reason, then in my opinion, a solution would have to consider the reason.      I don't think that's it because it's an over simplication of the resultant problem.  I believe the implications are a bit more complex.   Once again, it's important to separate the FF rule from its "no dex bonus" implications.  The FF rule is most likely an attempt to capture an occurance in real life which lies between total suprise and total anticipation.   Second, it opens up a lot of design space in the game for Rogues/Barbs/Monks and feats which address Initiative rolls by way of feats. The no dex bonus rule is pretty straight forward in concept:  If you aren't aware you are being attacked or you can't do anything about it...your ability to avoid attacks by way of Dex should be negated.  Only they couldn't eliminate the "modifier" because that would help people with low scores.  So the simpliest thing to do is elminate the "bonus" side of the modifier.  While it doesn't make sense to squash everyone down to a 10 Dex...it probably seemed a greater evil to bring low dex people UP to a 10 Dex. Let me put it another way.   It's not surprising that the idea of eliminating the "bonus" side of AC improvement made perfect sense to the players if you couldn't see an attack.  It's also not surprising that players don't stop to think that a 10 Dex is still getting a bonus when compared to an 8 Dex...and that Dex bonus can only be a result fof "reacting" to the threat.   I completely agree, but "realism" is not a leg to stand on in this game.  I fully understand it is human nature that we have at least some anchor point in realism to improve the immersive quality of a game.  But it is entirely subjective whether any given rule adds to realism or detracts from it.  Doing it because it is more "real" is just not a compelling argument or defense for an RPG which is riddled with unrealisms.</blockquote>

Verification