Flatfooted AC and Dex Penalty

[IceBear]

I'm not assuming page 8 is wrong. Someone, The Sage, Monte, Sean (someone ) stated that you only lose your bonus, not your penalty.

IceBear

 

[Hypersmurf]

Someone with a Dex penalty isn't supposed to get a "bonus" for being flat-footed.

Is someone who is attacked flat-footed considered to perform any sort of defensive action?

In other words - a character with 10 Dex caught flat-footed is not penalised in any way. A character with 24 Dex - who can normally dodge exceptionally well - behaves just as well/poorly as the 10 Dex.

Are they dodging "a little bit"? Or basically standing still?

To look at it another way - is a character with a Dex penalty just not as good at dodging as a normal person... or is he so bad at dodging that he ends up stepping in the way of blows that would otherwise have missed?

-Hyp.

 

[IceBear]

I know, we had this same discussion on the Alternity list because there was a similar rule in Alternity and that was the same reasoning we used.

However, it has been clarified by someone from WotC quite sometime ago that only the bonus is lost, not the penalty.

We could debate about whether or not that's realistic, and your last point is a very good one (one that I happen to agree with), but it has been clarified that the intent of the rule (and we all know that I'm a big fan of intent - right Artoomis ) was that only the bonus is lost.

IceBear

 

[Mark]

I'm not assuming page 8 is wrong. Someone, The Sage, Monte, Sean (someone ) stated that you only lose your bonus, not your penalty.

IceBear

Exactly. When it says "modifier" it means you apply either the bonus or the penalty and when it says "bonus" it means only the bonus applies to those situations. As I said before...

Seems that according to the rules, you cannot be nimble if you don't know what hit you, but you can be clumsy in all situations...

It might not jibe with what some would consider fair but it is the rule unless there is official errata or a ruling from the Sage that's been called "official" (not all are, right?) that says otherwise.

(shields are armor, shields are armor, shields are armor...)

 

[Hypersmurf]

It might not jibe with what some would consider fair but it is the rule unless there is official errata or a ruling from the Sage that's been called "official" (not all are, right?) that says otherwise.

But unless there is official errata or an official ruling, the rules say both.

However, it has been clarified by someone from WotC quite sometime ago that only the bonus is lost, not the penalty.

See, that solves the problem Pointing to the glossary doesn't

-Hyp.

 

[Mark]

But unless there is official errata or an official ruling, the rules say both.

I must be missing something. How does it say both? From what I have read, in one case is says "modifier" which means in that case both the bonus and penalty can be brought to bear. In other cases it says "bonus", in which case the penalty doesn't apply but the bonus can be brought to bear. I don't mean to be dense but that is what I am reading.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How does it say both? From what I have read, in one case is says "modifier" which means in that case both the bonus and penalty can be brought to bear.

... "provided the character can react to the attack".

An unaware character presumably can't react - after all, they're unaware. An unaware character is considered flat-footed. Being flat-footed is the reason given for why an unaware character loses his Dex bonus.

Now, "provided the character can react" obviously doesn't apply to a motionless or helpless character, because the rules explicitly state that a Dex modifier does apply in that situation (-5 for an effective Dex of 0), so it would seem that "being flat-footed" is one of the likely situations that the phrase is referring to.

And if he can't react, then his Dex modifier doesn't apply.

If it's been officially clarified otherwise, that's fine. But I maintain that in the absence of that clarification, the PHB provides for either interpretation

-Hyp.

 

[Mark]

... "provided the character can react to the attack".

An unaware character presumably can't react - after all, they're unaware. An unaware character is considered flat-footed. Being flat-footed is the reason given for why an unaware character loses his Dex bonus.

Now, "provided the character can react" obviously doesn't apply to a motionless or helpless character, because the rules explicitly state that a Dex modifier does apply in that situation (-5 for an effective Dex of 0), so it would seem that "being flat-footed" is one of the likely situations that the phrase is referring to.

And if he can't react, then his Dex modifier doesn't apply.

If it's been officially clarified otherwise, that's fine. But I maintain that in the absence of that clarification, the PHB provides for either interpretation

-Hyp.

I see what you are saying.

You're saying that in the case of...

PHB p8 says "You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to AC, provided the character can react to the attack."

...the inverse is implicit, since you have examples such as...

PHB p120 says "You can't use your Dex bonus to AC while flat-footed."

...and...

Glossary also says "Flat-footed creatures cannot use their Dex bonuses to AC".

...which are actually exceptions (IMO) that are explicitedly stated even though those examples strictly state "bonus". My rule of thumb in all cases where I would have to extrapolate something, or consider something implicit, is not to do that, especially if there are examples where that implicit ruling would cause a contradition in what is explicit. Therefore I would think that what you are saying is implicit in what is explicit on page 8, is not implicit in what is explicit on page 8 because it causes a contradiction in the other two examples of what is explicit on page 120 and the glossary. But that's just me, of course...

 

[Hypersmurf]

My rule of thumb in all cases where I would have to extrapolate something, or consider something implicit, is not to do that...

Uh...

So when a rule states that "X happens, provided Y", you don't feel that in the absence of condition Y, X should not happen?

Example : "While the familiar is within arm's reach, the master gains Alertness."

I take that to mean that while the familiar is not within arm's reach, the master does not gain the benefits of Alertness.

But that's only because I consider it implicit. Do you disagree with my interpretation?

-Hyp.

 

[Mark]

Uh...

So when a rule states that "X happens, provided Y", you don't feel that in the absence of condition Y, X should not happen?

Example : "While the familiar is within arm's reach, the master gains Alertness."

I take that to mean that while the familiar is not within arm's reach, the master does not gain the benefits of Alertness.

But that's only because I consider it implicit. Do you disagree with my interpretation?

-Hyp.

I can only agree if the only way to gain Alertness is by having a familiar within arm's reach.

There are many ways in which a modifier can be applied and some situations where only the bonus, or possibly the penalty, will apply. In the former, they use the term modifier, but in the latter they use the sub-term (if you will). I take the glossary application, and that on page 120, as examples where only the one sub-term applies and the citing on page 8 to require both sub-terms (or "modifier" in this case). I think they were writing explicitly in all three instances, and by that logic there is no contradiction.

You're falling into a trap of allowing your implication to cast fallibility upon the rules, rather than allow an explicit interpretation to cast fallibility upon your assumption of implicity.

The contradiction is not in the explicit interpretation. The contradiction only follows your implicit interpretation.