Flatfooted AC and Dex Penalty

[Hypersmurf]

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.

p120 doesn't state that one sub-term applies. It states that one sub-term does not apply : the bonus does not apply "when the character is flat-footed".

p8 states the condition under which the modifier does apply.

In the absence of that condition - "the character can react to the attack" - the modifier does not apply.

So if a character is flat-footed and cannot react to the attack, neither the sub-term (bonus) nor the modifier applies.

What is missing is an explicit definition of when a character "cannot react to an attack".

-Hyp.

 

[Mark]

p120 doesn't state that one sub-term applies. It states that one sub-term does not apply : the bonus does not apply "when the character is flat-footed".

p8 states the condition under which the modifier does apply.

In the absence of that condition - "the character can react to the attack" - the modifier does not apply.

So if a character is flat-footed and cannot react to the attack, neither the sub-term (bonus) nor the modifier applies.

What is missing is an explicit definition of when a character "cannot react to an attack".

-Hyp.

Ergo, you can safely imply that the penalty does apply because it is not explicitly stated otherwise, nor does it contradict anything that is otherwise explicitly stated. Correct?

Doesn't make sense to me either, but it does work within the framework of the rules. In essense it works like calling out "duck" to someone while behind them and them turning around to say "why" without ducking.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ergo, you can safely imply that the penalty does apply because it is not explicitly stated otherwise, nor does it contradict anything that is otherwise explicitly stated. Correct?

I'm thinking that it can lead to a difference between flat-footed "aware" and flat-footed "unaware", though. I think an unaware person should be considered unable to react to an attack, and therefore not incur their Dex penalty

-Hyp.

 

[Mark]

I'm thinking that it can lead to a difference between flat-footed "aware" and flat-footed "unaware", though. I think an unaware person should be considered unable to react to an attack, and therefore not incur their Dex penalty

-Hyp.

It's an interesting supposition but that, of course, would require an addition to the rules. I have a feeling that someone at WotC is scribbling lots of stuff down from these forums in preparation for 4E.

Some of the things in the recent Monte Cook interview by MoRuss suggest they might have made bigger changes to 3E if they had thought they would not have a public outcry (and possible lynchings). I imagine that down the line they'll be less squeamish about a lot of changes, I.E. Rangers, Monks, Magic System, AoOs, etc.

How's the weather in NZ, btw? (just curious)

 

[Hypersmurf]

How's the weather in NZ, btw? (just curious)

Hot, mostly, right now. Although we've had a few showers this last week, so it's been hot and humid.

-Hyp.

 

[Mark]

Not a comfortable combination.

Shall we agree to disagree on this thread subject or are we finding some middle ground? How do you feel about my approach of only allowing for implicit additions if they don't contradict rules as written? I'd hate to be considered a "hand licker"...

 

[Hypersmurf]

How do you feel about my approach of only allowing for implicit additions if they don't contradict rules as written?

Problem is, I'm not convinced they do, in this case

-Hyp.

 

[Mark]

Problem is, I'm not convinced they do, in this case

-Hyp.

I wish I could find the quote but somewhere I had read that you shouldn't try to read more into the rules than is written or you will find that you will run the risk of contradicting other rules as written. Errata aside, I think they work pretty well if I don't try to imply things unless a situation requres it and, again, avoid contradictions that would rise from implying things. Nevertheless, there's no perfect solution to all debates because at some point one party, or both parties, must give ground. *shrug*

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, Mark, same here. I *know* that it was clarified by someone (I think it was either the Sage or Sean) that they meant you only lost your bonus, not your penalty. I no longer have the quote in my notes.

Hyper's rationale is a good one and the rationale that the Alternity list came up with to explain why you lost both your Dex bonus or penalty when you were surprised. However, in 3E they said it was just the bonus.

IceBear

 

[Ranger REG]

This is ing boring.

Page 8 is correct in terms of whether you can react to an attack positively well (+) or negatively worse (-).

But as to the definition of flat-footed, a bonus is a positive modifier (a value with a "+" sign before it). No ifs, ands, or buts. If you do not have a positive modifier based on your Dex score, then you do not have a bonus to lose. Therefore your Dex negative modifier still apply.

To say that flat-footed denies you any modifier both positive and negative is to say that flat-footed improves the character's worse reaction to an attack, as if it's a good thing.