Forked - Flatfooted and the beginning of combat.

[billd91]

For the simple reason that you claim that a being alert to a threat that has taken an action is still flatfooted, which is a clear violation of both the intention of and letter of the rules. And you've been very clear about why you want to bend the rules, because you think that rogues aren't powerful enough without your interpretation and because you are clearly emotionally invested in a certain cinematic outcome.

Sorry, I don't think that's even close to the intention or letter of the rules. Flat-footed basically just means that you haven't taken your first action in combat yet. The flat-footed character could certainly be alert to the threat and still be flat-footed simply because they haven't reached their initiative yet and thus not actually had time to react. That's a far cry from not being alert to a threat.

In game terms, thanks to the glossary in the 3.5 PH, flat-footed means:

Especially vulnerable to attacks at the beginning of a
battle. Characters are flat-footed until their first turns in the
initiative cycle. A flat-footed creature loses its Dexterity bonus to
Armor Class (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

And that's pretty much it by the rules. It has nothing to do with not being alert.

Note that feinting does not actually cause the target to be "flat-footed". It just causes the target to lose their Dex bonus to AC for the next attack by the feinting character.

 

[Celebrim]

It seems to me this is just a discussion over whether it is possible to catch someone who is alert momentarily off-guard at the start of action, and also when that action really starts.

Yes, that's the heart of it.

Sports have been used for analogy, so I will use sports again.

The problem with analogies is that you can use them to prove anything. Most people select an analogy with the purpose of proving a point they already believe and they force the analogy to conform to the point they are trying to prove. This isn't evidence - it's begging the question. Nevertheless, I'll try to show where your analogy goes wrong and I think I'll make some progress precisely because you are able to see how wrong your analogy is:

I don't consider it a perfect system. It's very unusual for someone to get a full 6 seconds of activity without response from opponents. That is the abstraction of 6 second rounds though.

Yes, but its also you misusing the rules when trying to describe the situation.

In football, the offense knows the snap count and therefore have an advantage on the start of action over the defense. In most games I've seen, it's not that unusual for a defensive lineman, linebacker, or safety to get a jump on an offensive lineman and go through a gap or around the outside untouched. The offensive line isn't surprised that the defense is acting.

Right. They aren't surprised, they just lost initiative. And while D&D isn't really designed to handle the 10th or 20th of second intervals of football at the level of a deep simulation, essentially the problem is that they lost initiative badly because the defender anticipated the snap count really well and they in turn didn't explode out of their stance the way they are supposed to.

It's not a very good illustration of the game condition of flat-footed though. There is however in football a pretty good illustration of what flat footed means, and that's when someone on the offence gets the snap count wrong and the ball is snapped while they are still anticipating additional time to pass. In that case, the offensive player is often really caught literally 'flat footed' by the defender because they haven't risen out of their stance and planted their feet properly, and when this happens it usually means that there will be a blown play. Flat-footed means in the D&D context 'being surprised', which is pretty much what it means in the normal use of language. We can see this to be true because flat-footed is the condition you are in when you are surprised, and you remain that way until you get a chance to act, and whereever it is actually used in the game its almost always associated with some sort of surprise.

All I've been saying is that sometimes just maybe people aren't surprised and are in fact readied and on gaurd. Is that so hard to believe?

 

[Celebrim]

Sorry, I don't think that's even close to the intention or letter of the rules. Flat-footed basically just means that you haven't taken your first action in combat yet. The flat-footed character could certainly be alert to the threat and still be flat-footed simply because they haven't reached their initiative yet and thus not actually had time to react.

Oh good grief, are people even reading?

"The flat-footed character could certainly be alert to the threat and still be flat-footed simply because they haven't reached their initiative yet and thus not actually had time to react."

That's true, and I agree with it. So if I agree with it, do you even know what you are disagreeing with?

Note that feinting does not actually cause the target to be "flat-footed". It just causes the target to lose their Dex bonus to AC for the next attack by the feinting character.

Sorry, you are indeed correct. I should have said, "There are alot of ways a target can be denied its DEX bonus other than flat-footed". Nonetheless, my point about this allowing a sneak attack still stands, which was what I was addressing.

 

[billd91]

Oh good grief, are people even reading?

"The flat-footed character could certainly be alert to the threat and still be flat-footed simply because they haven't reached their initiative yet and thus not actually had time to react."

That's true, and I agree with it. So if I agree with it, do you even know what you are disagreeing with?

If you're agreeing with it, then why are you disagreeing with Majoru Oakheart, whose description of catching someone flatfooted simply because they failed to win initiative is spot on? Your responses, saying that being alert and yet flat-footed is a violation of the rules, that he's bending the rules, or that catching someone flatfooted when they're expecting a fight is surreal, say that you don't agree with how flat-footed works by the rules.

Now, the difference between the two of you may have more to do with when to roll the iniative dice. By rolling them way early, such as when it's not even clear that timing will be an issue and putting everyone into intitiave order long before any combat action is taken, you effectively negate any chance of flat-footedness when the actual attacking occurs - except for those encounters in which attacks are made immediately. In this case, there is no 100% right answer. The DM is able to call for initiatives whenever he feels it's appropriate or to facilitate the orderly resolution of actions, combat and non-combat. If I'm planning on having a good BBEG monologue, I usually wait until the PCs say they're going to do something. It means that a good initiative roll could catch the BBEG flatfooted... which is fine with me. It's one of the conventional benefits of getting the BBEG to monologue.

 

[Rykion]

Yes, but its also you misusing the rules when trying to describe the situation.

I wasn't specifically talking about my football analogy at this point. Someone who wins initiative at the start of combat gets 6 full seconds of actions without any fear of an attack of opportunity. I don't know any rule I'm misusing.

Right. They aren't surprised, they just lost initiative. And while D&D isn't really designed to handle the 10th or 20th of second intervals of football at the level of a deep simulation, essentially the problem is that they lost initiative badly because the defender anticipated the snap count really well and they in turn didn't explode out of their stance the way they are supposed to.

If he isn't flat-footed, the offensive lineman still gets an attack of opportunity. The defender wouldn't be blowing past untouched in that case. The real way the analogy falls apart for D&D is the use of 5 foot spaces. Defenders wouldn't be able to move through the line at all in D&D without special feats.

 

[Celebrim]

Your responses, saying that being alert and yet flat-footed is a violation of the rules...

I didn't say that.

that catching someone flatfooted when they're expecting a fight is surreal

I didn't say that either.

Try again.

After completely misquoting me, you do however get into where the heart of the argument really resides. If there is 'no 100% completely right answer' to when you roll for initiative, you then have to accept that it is at least possible that a fight would start with no one flat footed, correct?

In my opinion, getting an alert BBEG to monologue to the extent that he is flatfooted when the players interrupt him would require a bluff check opposed by the BBEG's sense motive. As a character flaw, I can see you having a BBEG who is particularly easy to get monologuing and who thus has a penalty on a sense motive check, but I can't really see ruling that anyone - BBEG or PC - is always flatfooted in the middle of an encounter nor can I imagine myself denying a request by a PC at the beginning of an encounter to 'roll initiative' so that he can't (easily) be caught flat-footed later on and then objecting to the player not doing anything that constitutes an attack on his proceeding turns or even for the entire duration of the encounter.

 

[Celebrim]

If he isn't flat-footed, the offensive lineman still gets an attack of opportunity. The defender wouldn't be blowing past untouched in that case.

I've rarely seen a defender blow through the line absolute untouched, except in the case of a missed assignment, which doesn't really have anything to do with initiative.

The real way the analogy falls apart for D&D is the use of 5 foot spaces. Defenders wouldn't be able to move through the line at all in D&D without special feats.

Or the Tumble skill. But yeah, the analogy falls apart in all sorts of places, because D&D wasn't really designed to allow an accurate representation of footbal..

 

[catsclaw227]

It wrecked the one where the DM was forced to remove flatfootedness from the game. That's an extreme reaction, and my guess is the DM did it because he recognized how broken your account of the rules is and didn't realize that the world as you described it is not the world as the rules describe it.

Seems to me that the way he is describing how flat-footed works is spot on with the rules. And others agree.

Maybe its possible that your disagreement with Majoru Oakheart has nothing to do with the topic? I don't know, but it seems like there is a dance of semantics going on and in reality the rules for flat-footed are clear.

A person is flat-footed if they haven't yet taken an action in combat. Initiative is rolled at the start of a combat to determine who goes in what order. Combat actions can only be taken in combat (and therefore initiative has already been rolled). The Ready action (and Total Defense) are combat actions.

Isn't this easy to understand?

 

[billd91]

Your responses, saying that being alert and yet flat-footed is a violation of the rules...

I didn't say that.

You sure did.

For the simple reason that you claim that a being alert to a threat that has taken an action is still flatfooted, which is a clear violation of both the intention of and letter of the rules.

that catching someone flatfooted when they're expecting a fight is surreal

I didn't say that either.

You sure did.

I tried to explain to him that the concept was that you were simply caught off guard because you weren't "on the balls of your feet", "in a fighting stance", "knowing where to expect the attack from", "having your weapon in the right grip", and similar concepts that model the "I'm ready, but I'm not QUITE ready" concept of flatfootedness.

Again. Surreal.

Maybe it's your one-liner responses that need work. They don't appear to be conveying the ideas you want to convey if you say I'm "misquoting" you.

In my opinion, getting an alert BBEG to monologue to the extent that he is flatfooted when the players interrupt him would require a bluff check opposed by the BBEG's sense motive. As a character flaw, I can see you having a BBEG who is particularly easy to get monologuing and who thus has a penalty on a sense motive check, but I can't really see ruling that anyone - BBEG or PC - is always flatfooted in the middle of an encounter nor can I imagine myself denying a request by a PC at the beginning of an encounter to 'roll initiative' so that he can't (easily) be caught flat-footed later on and then objecting to the player not doing anything that constitutes an attack on his proceeding turns or even for the entire duration of the encounter.

Note that, assuming they PCs haven't gone in guns blazing, it's a non-violent encounter so far. And it could be that way for minutes, hours even, before swords are drawn. Should they be assumed to be in combat readiness the whole time? I'm just not seeing it, myself.

I certainly can see denying a PC request to roll initiative if they're not taking actions in which timing is important. If they want to remain alert and not flat-footed, that's what initiative modifiers are for. Reacting quickly enough to not easily give someone the opportunity to catch you flat-footed. I might, depending on how they describe their readiness, give them a +2 circumstance bonus or so.

 

[Celebrim]

You sure did.

Your quote has the attribute of not saying what you said I said? I'm not seeing how you can actually quote me and then continue to say that it says something I didn't say. Did you read what you quoted?

I repeat I did not say that being alert and being flatfooted is a violation of the rules, and I did not say that catching someone flatfooted when they're expecting a fight is surreal.

Once again, for maybe the 20th time in this thread, it has been my contention that if you are alert to a threat but haven't yet taken an action that you are flatfooted, but if you are alert to a threat but have taken an action that you are not flatfooted. A being alert to a threat that has taken an action is not flatfooted; but that doesn't mean that any alert being is not flatfooted. Obviously, those that have not yet acted are still flatfooted. That is what I said and what I've always said, and the line you quote says that.

Likewise the completely out of context quote 'Surreal.' does not say, "catching someone flatfooted when they're expecting a fight is surreal". I thought I had already made it perfectly clear and at length that what I thought surreal was the contortions necessary to justify, "I'm ready, but I'm not QUITE ready". You are either ready are you are not ready. If you aren't quite ready, then you are not ready.

Person #1: "Are you ready?"
Person #2: "Yes."
Person #1 does whatever.
Person #2: "Wait. Wait. When I said I was ready I didn't mean I was ready ready."

And speaking of contortions:

Note that, assuming they PCs haven't gone in guns blazing, it's a non-violent encounter so far. And it could be that way for minutes, hours even, before swords are drawn. Should they be assumed to be in combat readiness the whole time? I'm just not seeing it, myself.

Ok, sure, concievably if the scene went on for hours and hours there might be a lapse in readiness, but I haven't even addressed that nor for that matter do the rules particularly address long duration actions all that well (it's only in 3rd edition that we first get formal notions of fatigue, for example). But sure, if the scene went on for hours and hours with both sides tensely holding themselves ready, at some point readiness might lapse. The rules don't address such things directly, but I suppose an endurance check would be in order or some such. However, why do we need to assume such a complication in order to establish that not all fights begin as ambushes? I don't need to address such a circumstance to make my central point, which is, once again, that according to the rules once an alert character has taken an action, he is no longer flatfooted.