Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5626728" data-attributes="member: 6679551">iirc, the OP's member was complaining about the believability of the rule...the idea that someone can move 30' before someone else can even lift a spear to prepare for an attack.&nbsp;&nbsp; Players in my own compaign also reject the credibility of a rule which states that all combatants start FF.&nbsp; Any rule which blindly and universally applies a state to all characters is going to run into believability problems for people.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's really not that difficult to understand.&nbsp;&nbsp; No.&nbsp; I pointed out that it is illogical how the No Dex Bonus rule works.&nbsp; Whether it's associated with the FF rule or not.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've already said the FF rule is not wholly divorced from reality. &nbsp;&nbsp; I haven't added anything to the rules.&nbsp; You're the one here telling everyone that if they don't interpret the start of a battle the way you do, they are doing it wrong.&nbsp; Your justification isn't based on any scientific reasoning...just your opinion on how the rules were meant to work.&nbsp;&nbsp; More power to you, hombre.&nbsp; More power to you. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Given that the RAW say &quot;Every combatant starts out flat footed.&quot;&nbsp; Yes...it is not possible to have two combatants start out not being flat footed.&nbsp; Put another way....every battle begins with everyone being flat footed.&nbsp; RAW.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is why Water Bob says you're &quot;house ruling it.&quot;&nbsp; You've read the rules and the literal interpetation which follows the RAW &quot;doesn't stand to reason.&quot;&nbsp; So you're reinterpeting the rules to give you a solution that jibes with a subjective sense of credibility.&nbsp; Guess what....you're not alone.&nbsp;&nbsp;So when you're flying overhead in a transport helicopter and see the opposing forces far out of the range of anyone's weapons the battle has begun?&nbsp;&nbsp; Because you're equating observing of a creature as being tantamount to making everyone a combatant.&nbsp; The rules don't automatically require such a determination.&nbsp; Maybe &quot;arbitrary&quot; connotes something pejorative that is unitended on my part.&nbsp; Let's call it a subjective decision since you clearly claim you have a&nbsp; systematic approach.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Clearly.&nbsp; It's illogical, but it makes the game easier to play.&nbsp; Simplicity = Better as perceived by WotC in this instance.&nbsp; Sometimes they think Complex = Better.&nbsp; As I said, it's an art not a science.&nbsp;&nbsp;I dont' think that's the basis of the reasoning at all.&nbsp; But that's irrelevant to the discussion.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Fairly self evident .&nbsp; Simplier = Better once again in this instance.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I was merely repeating your own approach to evaluation a rule.&nbsp; Making the point that a lot of things may be &quot;inherently dumb&quot;&nbsp; but that isn't automatically a deal breaker in an RPG (though it probably should be).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Perhaps my point was not clear.&nbsp; When you argue that a rule is good because it simulates reality, and then you defend a rule that undermines realism because you claim the game isn't meant to simulate reality, you are being self contradictory.&nbsp; People want to pick and choose when realism is necessary and sufficient and when lack of realism is forgivable and sufficient.&nbsp; By definiation that is arbitrary behavior in the pejorative sense of the word.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You just used the example of football players.&nbsp; Some of them are harder to tackle while running than others.&nbsp; They all can be considered to have the same Run feat by virtue of being profesional &quot;Running&quot; backs.&nbsp; D&amp;D would mandate that the entire league of NFL running backs are all equally easy to hit while running.&nbsp; Sorry, that is beyond ridiculous.&nbsp; The no dex rule is broken.&nbsp; The question is why.&nbsp; &nbsp;The fix would be very simple.&nbsp; &nbsp;1)&nbsp; Anything without a Dexterity or a Dex of 0-1 has an unarmored AC of 5.&nbsp;2)&nbsp; Ability scores for Dex with respect to AC are thus:&nbsp; &nbsp;2-3 +14-5 +26-7 +38-9 +410-11 +5&nbsp;You get the idea.3)&nbsp; When you lose your Dex bonus...you go to a Dex of 0.&nbsp;Problem solved.&nbsp; This puts a person with a Dex of 10 at AC of 10...which is excatly what it is now.&nbsp; &nbsp;Since the game has decided that Reflex Save is independent of your Dex bonus...Saves aren't affected.&nbsp; You can continue to use the existing modifier table for REF saves.&nbsp; Alternatively, you could set everyone's base Save at -5 and use the new table.&nbsp;Does this introduce other probems in the game?&nbsp; At first blush I don't see any, but i don't have all the rules memorized to know for certain.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5626728, member: 6679551"] iirc, the OP's member was complaining about the believability of the rule...the idea that someone can move 30' before someone else can even lift a spear to prepare for an attack. Players in my own compaign also reject the credibility of a rule which states that all combatants start FF. Any rule which blindly and universally applies a state to all characters is going to run into believability problems for people. It's really not that difficult to understand. No. I pointed out that it is illogical how the No Dex Bonus rule works. Whether it's associated with the FF rule or not. I've already said the FF rule is not wholly divorced from reality. I haven't added anything to the rules. You're the one here telling everyone that if they don't interpret the start of a battle the way you do, they are doing it wrong. Your justification isn't based on any scientific reasoning...just your opinion on how the rules were meant to work. More power to you, hombre. More power to you. Given that the RAW say "Every combatant starts out flat footed." Yes...it is not possible to have two combatants start out not being flat footed. Put another way....every battle begins with everyone being flat footed. RAW. This is why Water Bob says you're "house ruling it." You've read the rules and the literal interpetation which follows the RAW "doesn't stand to reason." So you're reinterpeting the rules to give you a solution that jibes with a subjective sense of credibility. Guess what....you're not alone. So when you're flying overhead in a transport helicopter and see the opposing forces far out of the range of anyone's weapons the battle has begun? Because you're equating observing of a creature as being tantamount to making everyone a combatant. The rules don't automatically require such a determination. Maybe "arbitrary" connotes something pejorative that is unitended on my part. Let's call it a subjective decision since you clearly claim you have a systematic approach. Clearly. It's illogical, but it makes the game easier to play. Simplicity = Better as perceived by WotC in this instance. Sometimes they think Complex = Better. As I said, it's an art not a science. I dont' think that's the basis of the reasoning at all. But that's irrelevant to the discussion. Fairly self evident . Simplier = Better once again in this instance. I was merely repeating your own approach to evaluation a rule. Making the point that a lot of things may be "inherently dumb" but that isn't automatically a deal breaker in an RPG (though it probably should be). Perhaps my point was not clear. When you argue that a rule is good because it simulates reality, and then you defend a rule that undermines realism because you claim the game isn't meant to simulate reality, you are being self contradictory. People want to pick and choose when realism is necessary and sufficient and when lack of realism is forgivable and sufficient. By definiation that is arbitrary behavior in the pejorative sense of the word. You just used the example of football players. Some of them are harder to tackle while running than others. They all can be considered to have the same Run feat by virtue of being profesional "Running" backs. D&D would mandate that the entire league of NFL running backs are all equally easy to hit while running. Sorry, that is beyond ridiculous. The no dex rule [I]is [/I]broken. The question is why. The fix would be very simple. 1) Anything without a Dexterity or a Dex of 0-1 has an unarmored AC of 5. 2) Ability scores for Dex with respect to AC are thus: 2-3 +1 4-5 +2 6-7 +3 8-9 +4 10-11 +5 You get the idea. 3) When you lose your Dex bonus...you go to a Dex of 0. Problem solved. This puts a person with a Dex of 10 at AC of 10...which is excatly what it is now. Since the game has decided that Reflex Save is independent of your Dex bonus...Saves aren't affected. You can continue to use the existing modifier table for REF saves. Alternatively, you could set everyone's base Save at -5 and use the new table. Does this introduce other probems in the game? At first blush I don't see any, but i don't have all the rules memorized to know for certain. [/QUOTE]

Verification