Forked - Flatfooted and the beginning of combat.

[catsclaw227]

So far me and everyone else in the thread agrees. Where we radically depart from each other is everyone else in the thread seems to be arguing that if neither side attacks immediately, then they cannot take ready actions, or move actions, or other sorts of 'combat actions' and hense both sides remain flat footed indefinately until one side takes an attack action, at which point we roll initiative and the winners surprise the losers (catch them flat-footed). That is, if the bandits take a move action, ready an action, and use their free action to speak, because this is somehow 'out of combat' and all such actions would be illegal.

Flat footed by the way means:

unprepared
Synonyms: asleep, asleep on the job, daydreaming, flat-footed, inattentive, napping, spaced out, unalert, unready, unsuspecting, unvigilant, unwatchful, zoned out

So what everyone else is saying is effectively that no matter what you do, no matter how alert you are, no matter how on gaurd you are, you can't prepare for an attack so you will always be unready, unvigilant, zoned out, and unwatchful.

In context of the rules terminology and the meanings of these rules-based terms, then ready actions, or move actions, or other sorts of 'combat actions' CAN only be used in combat. Prior to rolling initiative, no one is in combat. Yes, this might sound unintuitive, but this is how the rules for 3.x are spelled out. And if we are playing 3.x rules, then we should generally abide by the structure of the rules unless, as a DM, you want to add in a house rule.

And regarding the meaning of flat-footed, I would disagree that it means unprepared.

Flat-footed
A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

The SRD states that flat-footed is applied to those who have not yet acted during a combat, and "not yet reacting normally to the situation." I would say that this is only loosely synonymous with "unprepared".

 

[Celebrim]

DM: "You are walking down the hallway, when out of a side passage comes an Orc taking your completely by surprise. He 5 ft steps from around a corner and then shoots a crossbow bolt..."
Player: "Umm, I readied my action to attack anything I could see. I think the 5-ft step around the corner puts him into sight. I shoot an arrow at him and kill him before he gets a chance to attack."
DM: "But he surprised you...you had no idea he was there. How do you react faster than he does?"
Player: "I was ready for someone to attack me."
DM: "But so was he. He KNEW you were coming. He heard you. You only suspected there might be an enemy somewhere in this entire dungeon."
Player: "Yeah, but I said the words 'I ready my action'. It's an ancient mantra that makes you faster than everyone else."

The logic of which makes just as much sense as what you've been saying. After all, it is perfectly consistant with your interpretation of what initiative means: namely, "you quick draw your dagger and slash his throat(getting sneak attack) even before he has a chance to raise his sword in defense(flat footed)." If you can do that and believe that's perfectly logical, what makes the above situation offensive?

And, please, where have I said that you are not flat footed against a target you are unaware of?

And when you have competing readied actions, work out who goes first and then come back to this situation. Surely the orc in this situation gets a chance to use the rules too? Try working the delay action into that if you are going to look at it this way. This is ground already covered.

And any event if you aren't aware, since when can you act in a surprise round to do anything, readied action or not?

The replies are going further and further afield and forcing me to go off on more and more tangents, when my assertion was very very basic. If you are aware and have have acted, then you are no longer flat-footed.

 

[Celebrim]

In context of the rules terminology and the meanings of these rules-based terms, then ready actions, or move actions, or other sorts of 'combat actions' CAN only be used in combat.

There is an invisible creature in the room and the attackers fail a listen check. The players are hustling to reach some goal and they decide to split up. The invisible attacker uses a buff with a duration in rounds and tries to attack (surprise round) but rolls a 1 misses. If some players act in certain ways on an initiative count better than the invisible attacker (that they still aren't aware of) they might be able to move to a situation that they cant' be attacked in. What happens on the players turn and are we 'in combat' now? Can the PC's take 'in combat' actions, like move actions, ect. despite the fact that there characters still don't actually know they are being attacked?

Prior to rolling initiative, no one is in combat. Yes, this might sound
unintuitive, but this is how the rules for 3.x are spelled out. And if we are playing 3.x rules, then we should generally abide by the structure of the rules unless, as a DM, you want to add in a house rule.

What guidelines does 3.x give for when and when you can't roll for initiative? Does 3.x clearly define 'start of the battle' as anything other than 'roll for initiative' and does it define any point where we clearly must stop being 'in battle' especially if we are still aware of a potential enemy? If not, how am I outside the rules?

I am abiding by the structure of the rules. From my perspective, you are the one trying to make them very narrowly applicable to set peice engagements only since you aren't addressing the very basic point.

The SRD states that flat-footed is applied to those who have not yet acted during a combat, and "not yet reacting normally to the situation." I would say that this is only loosely synonymous with "unprepared".

This conversation is beginning to take on a certain surreal quality.

 

[catsclaw227]

I am abiding by the structure of the rules. From my perspective, you are the one trying to make them very narrowly applicable to set peice engagements only since you aren't addressing the very basic point.

First, I am not trying to make anything narrowly applicable to anything. I have posted once to this thread. I was simply stating that if one is playing 3.x rules, then unless you houserule, you go by what the rules state.

The SRD states that flat-footed is applied to those who have not yet acted during a combat, and "not yet reacting normally to the situation." I would say that this is only loosely synonymous with "unprepared".

This conversation is beginning to take on a certain surreal quality.

As far as I am concerned, "not yet reacting normally" is not the same as "unprepared". Have you ever been prepared for something, but got off to a poor start? I have. That is what I believe that initiative means with regards to flat-footed.

Ask an athlete if they have prepared well before an event or a game, yet got off to a poor start.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Ask an athlete if they have prepared well before an event or a game, yet got off too a poor start.

Hell, ask a sprinter how important it is to be first off the blocks ... even though every runner is prepared for the gun.

Losing initiative doesn't mean you're surprised. It simply means you haven't acted in the combat. And if you haven't acted in the combat, you're flat-footed.

 

[Hussar]

You are getting hung up on particulars of an example. The example works just fine if it occurs in the forest and the ready action is, "I shoot whenever someone comes within 30'."

However, there are several problems with this.

First, you can no longer surprise anyone. A surprise round is far more useful than a readied action. A readied action has to be very specific, such as your example of someone within 30 feet.

However, if the enemy orc approaches to 35 feet, doesn't see you, but for whatever reason, turns around and walks away, you can't shoot him. Or, a line of orcs stops at 35 feet, see you, and shoot you and you cannot do anything because of your readied action. You could lose the readied action, but then we're back into regular initiative and you might still lose and be flat footed anyway.

Flat footed by the way means:

Quote:
unprepared
Synonyms: asleep, asleep on the job, daydreaming, flat-footed, inattentive, napping, spaced out, unalert, unready, unsuspecting, unvigilant, unwatchful, zoned out
So what everyone else is saying is effectively that no matter what you do, no matter how alert you are, no matter how on gaurd you are, you can't prepare for an attack so you will always be unready, unvigilant, zoned out, and unwatchful.

Never, ever apply real world definitions to game terms. In that direction lies madness.

 

[Primal]

I thought of another example where allowing this sort of thing becomes a problem.

You have a party who makes listen checks but fails to hear enemies behind the door. The enemies don't hear the PCs. They all ready actions to attack the next enemy they see as soon as the door is opened. Someone opens the door, they all get a free attack, then initiative is rolled. They win and get to hit the monsters again.

This is the way the game normally DOES work if the PCs are aware and the enemies are not. The PCs get a surprise round. However, if you allow readying out of combat, it allows the PCs to essentially get a surprise round against every encounter even if they fail to perceive them.

Especially cunning parties say "As I'm walking down the hallway, I roll for initiative assuming there might be enemies somewhere in this dungeon. I'm readying an action every round to attack the first enemy I see while using a move action to keep moving." in order to get surprise rounds against every encounter, even against monsters that surprise THEM.

I certainly don't think it makes much sense for the following to happen:

DM: "You are walking down the hallway, when out of a side passage comes an Orc taking your completely by surprise. He 5 ft steps from around a corner and then shoots a crossbow bolt..."
Player: "Umm, I readied my action to attack anything I could see. I think the 5-ft step around the corner puts him into sight. I shoot an arrow at him and kill him before he gets a chance to attack."
DM: "But he surprised you...you had no idea he was there. How do you react faster than he does?"
Player: "I was ready for someone to attack me."
DM: "But so was he. He KNEW you were coming. He heard you. You only suspected there might be an enemy somewhere in this entire dungeon."
Player: "Yeah, but I said the words 'I ready my action'. It's an ancient mantra that makes you faster than everyone else."

I wholeheartedly agree with this, and your description really nails it -- that's *exactly* how it eventually began to work in the groups I played with! I don't think 3.0 rules explicitly denied using 'Ready' outside combat, and when 3.5 did, some of the guys persistently claimed that "You should be able to be constantly on guard in the dungeon... if I never let my guard down, I'm still in 'Combat Mode', right? So, I keep moving forward and readying each round..." (which is why it *still* works this way in some of the groups I game with).

 

[Celebrim]

However, there are several problems with this.

First, you can no longer surprise anyone. A surprise round is far more useful than a readied action. A readied action has to be very specific, such as your example of someone within 30 feet.

I don't consider that a bug. I will say that I think that there needs to be better guidelines as to what constitutes a valid trigger. Right now its too open to DM judgement (or lack there of).

However, if the enemy orc approaches to 35 feet, doesn't see you, but for whatever reason, turns around and walks away, you can't shoot him.

I've had this very situation happen to me when hunting whitetail deer. You think to yourself, "I'll fire when the deer gets to X", and then something happens and it drifts off and suddenly you no longer have a clean shot and you are thinking to yourself, "Why didn't I fire when I had the chance?"

 

[Celebrim]

Losing initiative doesn't mean you're surprised. It simply means you haven't acted in the combat. And if you haven't acted in the combat, you're flat-footed.

See, I agree with both of these statements. Where we seem to mainly disagree is over where we can say 'combat' has begun. Various people have tried to define where it 'must' begin, but their definitions are generally suitably broad as to encompass what I have claimed.

As for those people that claim that the ready action would always let you go first, there are numerous problems with this claim, but the most inassailable one if your PC's try to rules lawyer you over it is have all of the monsters that achieve suprise ready an action in response to the players attack. By the rules, this lets them always attack first. It's not the ideal situation, but it does have the advantage of turning the player's own bad interpretation of the rules against them. Of course, you can really rub it in by using their own interpretation in even more deginerate ways, but what you are really going for is to just stop them from trying to rules lawyer. The correct interpretation is that even if you have a readied action, if you are surprised, you can't act for a complete action. All having a readied action at the begining of combat gets you is you effectively win initiative, but then may find yourself unable to act at all on the first round of combat because you where prepared for the wrong thing or you give up a full attack action where you may have wanted it. It does not fix everything.

And in any event, whether or not you can hold readied actions 'outside of combat' (a phrase I continue to find absolutely meaningless), that debate is not central to my main point which is, if you are aware of a threat and take an action, you are no longer flatfooted.

 

[Celebrim]

One last thing. I believe I'm applying the rules as written. I asserted at the beginning of the thread that the heart of this debate was however that I and almost everyone else regularly applied a house rule at the table, and it was the wide use of that house rule that was causing the trouble. That house rule is, "You don't have to roll initiative at the start of an encounter." Every DM, including me, avoids rolling initiative at the start of at least some encounters, either because no one in the scene is 'on gaurd', or the probability of combat is IMO low (which is actually a form of railroading), or because I don't want to give away that the probability of combat is high and thus spoil the natural reactions of the players. But not rolling initiative in a situation where a threat is present is precisely what leads to this argument.

If you roll initiative at the start of every scene where a threat is or might be present or where either side is on their gaurd, the whole argument goes away and if I was presented with rules lawyerish players, then that's precisely how I would handle it. We'd roll initiative at the beginning of every encounter regardless until such time as the players shut up and agreed to not try to run the game.

Secondly, as to the 'can you take a combat action out of combat', my interpretation of when the game is in a combat state is when there is some character NPC or PC that wants to take a combat action. There really aren't any other guidelines in the rules. If the PC offers a combat action, its not my place to say, "No, you can't do that because we are not in combat now." I'm not a DM that says, "No.", and my reading of the rules is precisely from a 'say, "Yes"' position. If the player offers the proposition, "As I cautiously move down the corridor, I huddle behind my shield.", whether the players knows it or not (because the player may be new and therefore makes propositions without game language) that player is asking to take a full defense action on this round (and for as long as they advance down the corridor). I consider it to be frank bad DMing to say, "Ok, I hear your proposition but I'm going to say 'No' to it. Even though I have tools in the rules for arbitrating your proposition, I'm going to rule that your reasonable action and clear intention has no game effect." The thing is, taking a full defensive action doesn't fix everything. For one thing, you give up making attacks of opportunity during the surprise round, which can be huge, and you give up taking double moves. For another, you can't take any other standard action while moving. For another, you lose your dodge bonus whenever you are flatfooted so it doesn't help you much if you get surprised. But if you don't have combat reflexes and don't have anything better to be doing, moving around in a defensive posture is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and I don't see any reason to say 'No' to it. And frankly, given that its provided for by the rules, my suspicion is that there is a bit of adversarial DMing going on here.

If you can describe something which is reasonable and which even a 5 year old can do, its my job to say 'Yes' to it, not to try to figure out how to say, 'No' That's the guiding philosophy of my game refereeing. It's not merely my job to enforce the rules. My job is turn player propositions into concrete rules. The rules say that if a player proposes to do nothing but defend themselves, they recieve a small bonus to defense in exchange for small penalties in other ways. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, so I go with it.