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: 5626195" data-attributes="member: 6679551">The rule has signfiicance once people are in striking distance of each other. If neither party could potentially reach other to attack...in order to take advantage of someone with no dex bonus, then he rule has no significance. Any point after two sides could theorietically attack each other, the rule has signifiance.    They already have that rule...it's called Initiative. I would argue the FF rule opens design space for things like Uncanny Dodge or Sneak Attack to be meaningful. If you roll Initl long before a Rogue could have any possibility of a Sneak Attack...like when both sides are behind iron gates....then you're immasculating the power of the rule. That's not a judgment, that's just an observation.   I'm not sure what you mean by that...but the real life concept of Flat Footed probably arose from exactly that...catching somone unprepared for an attack.   Emphasis added.  You know, as an FYI, the RAW says "battle" not "encounter." In fact the PHB says, "Every combatant starts out flat-footed."  When do adventurers in a tavern become combatants?   It's your perrogative to decide when men on a battlefield transition from spectators to combatants if you're DMing a game.   Then you would be making an abitrary decision as to when they go from being spectators to combatants.   I'm actually not interested in "debating" any of the rules. But discussions can be interesting.   Not trying to debate it...just making an observation...which you seem to agree with.   That's not correct. There is only one correct interpretation at any time. Any conflicting interpretations are deemed overturned even those made by previous US Supreme Courts.  A light buckler is not 8 square feet.  Really? So a state where you are adjudicated to not be able to take any reflexive action, an attacker is still going to be unable to avoid hitting a shield you haven't raised and is hanging on the edge of your arm...even when you approach from behind? And that's not inherently dumb? How about this? The game says you are in a situation where you don't get your dex bonus...but you still get your reflex save....which includes your dex bonus? Not inherently dumb?   They agree with that notion when it suits them....then they turn around and try and argue X rule describes some real life situation.  I don't really have a beef with the FF rule...it's the no dex bonus that I'm trying to make sense of.   Yeah, I'm talking about two people unskilled in running.   I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm talking about two people equally unskilled but one with a much higher dex than the other...both being equally easy to hit.  But we seem to agree that a high dex person should maintain some natural advantage if any reaction is possible.  That was my first supposition. They couldn't dodge it (pun intended). They were on the this collision and they couldn't get the train to switch tracks.  Does nobody play a high dex character???? A simple flat penalty would still convey a benefit to the FF rule without annihilating the advantage a higher dex person should have over a lower dex person when neither is "helpless."   well, that's certainly one viewpoint.</blockquote>

Verification