How to Legally Overcome Flatfooted

[atom crash]

I have a problem with a Fighter pulling his weapon to attack and that initiates combat and he is flatfooted at the time.

I have no problem with this. As I wrote above, when the fighter went for his sword, the twitchy soldiers attacked. He never got his sword fully out of the sheath. Or maybe he already had it in hand but didn't have time to fully bring it to bear before the guards reacted. Maybe it was something else. But the end result is this: in the context of the game a certain mechanic was employed and after the fact the participants came up with a simple explanation to cover the mechanics.

That's not confusing results with expected game mechanics. That's taking the results of game mechanics and adding flavor text. The game mechanics don't tell me if my arrow pierces an orc's leg or just nicks his arm. I add that description according to the result of the die rolls.

I accept that by the rules, a character can be caught off guard and attacked repeatedly before he can adequately defend himself. I can also choose actions or feats that mitigate this disadvantage. It's just a product of the ruleset. Attempting to alter (I won't use the word "fix" as I see nothing broken) this would just result in a messier, more complicated ruleset, and it would mitigate the effectiveness of other options I could choose.

I cannot make you accept my way of thinking. I can only show you that there is a logical explanation for being caught flat-footed. Even if you are "alert" and watching out for an attack. No one can remain alert indefinitely, and you just can't possibly see everything, even if there is no facing.

You asked several posts back if you were the only one who sees a contradiction here. Perhaps others see a possible contradiction and are able to let it go for the sake of a simpler ruleset without adding more complicated mechanics. Heck, we've already suspended our disbelief enough to accept that magic works, so why not also accept that an otherwise alert fighter can be caught off guard from time to time?

 

[KarinsDad]

I cannot make you accept my way of thinking. I can only show you that there is a logical explanation for being caught flat-footed. Even if you are "alert" and watching out for an attack. No one can remain alert indefinitely, and you just can't possibly see everything, even if there is no facing.

Then why can you not get caught flat-footed on round two (shy of a feint) from a logical point of view (not a game mechanic point of view)?

Why is it logical that you can you get your Dex bonuses to a Reflex save on a trap anytime, but it is not logical that you cannot get your Dex bonuses to an attack in round one even though you were not surprised? Isn't this a contradiction in rules mindset?

You seem to be adapting your answer to fit the rules as opposed to adapting your answer to fit logic.

If WotC had designed the game such that flat-footed only occurred in the surprise round and not in round one, would you instead of giving examples why the current design is good, give examples as to why the alternative design is good?

Would we be agreeing that "flat-footed in round one" is inferior to "no flat-footed in round one" if that was how the rules were originally written?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Then why can you not get caught flat-footed on round two (shy of a feint) from a logical point of view (not a game mechanic point of view)?

Feint doesn't cause you to be flat-footed, it only denies Dex bonus.

You need something like Flick of the Wrist to cause someone to be flat-footed on round 2.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

What? The party has let itself be completely surrounded by NPCs of doubtful trustworthiness, and then they're astonished when the one they weren't watching as carefully as they should have suddenly attacks?

Sounds like a good job by the thieves' guild in setting up an attack.

Now you are being purposely obtuse.

In an earlier post, you gave an example of all of the PCs surrounding the Wizard so tightly that nobody could get near him and you called my example contrived.

When I gave a more reasonable example of the PCs surrounding the Wizard to protect him in a dangerous situation, you then mocked it as well.

Nice debating techniques Patryn. When in doubt, mock the example!

Are you telling us that PC Wizards and Sorcerers have 8 or more other PC protectors at all times in YOUR game as per your example? Or are you telling us that you cannot conceive of the party being closely surrounded in a game and still out of combat?

 

[KarinsDad]

Feint doesn't cause you to be flat-footed, it only denies Dex bonus.

You need something like Flick of the Wrist to cause someone to be flat-footed on round 2.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I have a problem with a Fighter pulling his weapon to attack and that initiates combat and he is flatfooted at the time.

Or, what if he already had his weapon out and decides to attack?

There's also a problem in that the DM probably did this wrong - althought the final outcome would have been the same.

A better way would have been, as soon as the Fighter announced he was going for his sword, for everyone to roll initiative then.

If he wanted to draw it stealthily, then he should have made a Sleight of Hand roll vs. the soldiers' Spot rolls - assuming he could hide it at all.

It would then have played out like:

PC: I draw my sword and attack!
DM: You're just going to draw in plain sight and attack the guards?
PC: Yes!
DM: Fine - your hand moves towards your sword's hilt. The guards notice the obviously hostile gesture. Everyone roll initiative.

Then, if the guards won initiative, they could ready actions to attack if the fighter actually drew, delay, attack outright, etc. If the fighter won initiative, then the DM could describe how he was faster on the draw than the guards were expecting, and he gets to go first, etc.

There are many, many ways to explain this both in RL and mechanically, and still get the same in-game effect.

 

[IcyCool]

You seem to be adapting your answer to fit the rules as opposed to adapting your answer to fit logic.

If WotC had designed the game such that flat-footed only occurred in the surprise round and not in round one, would you instead of giving examples why the current design is good, give examples as to why the alternative design is good?

Would we be agreeing that "flat-footed in round one" is inferior to "no flat-footed in round one" if that was how the rules were originally written?

Probably, because this is a Rules forum. You know, where we discuss the Rules.

Seriously though, why should it make a difference if someone is arguing strictly by the rules?

As to your other question, after the first round of combat, everyone is now in a whirling melee (figuratively), very aware of where the threats are (e.g. that longsword) and full of adrenaline. But in that first round, everyone is tensed up, waiting for someone to make the first move, unsure of where the threat is coming from (e.g. is he going to throw a knife or hit me with his longsword?).

As far as the movement and AOO is concerned, one could have a very similar complaint about the tumble rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Now you are being purposely obtuse.

No, I'm not. Thanks for the personal attacks, though.

In an earlier post, you gave an example of all of the PCs surrounding the Wizard so tightly that nobody could get near him and you called my example contrived.

I also called my own example contrived - because they are.

When I gave a more reasonable example of the PCs surrounding the Wizard to protect him in a dangerous situation, you then mocked it as well.

No, I didn't mock it. I did, however, point out that the wizard isn't completely defended by any stretch of the imagination - and it's impossible for the bodyguards to watch all the thieves all the time. Want to determine if they're quick enough on their toes to notice the thief who suddenly decided to make for the Wizard?

That's what initiative rolls are for.

Nice debating techniques Patryn. When in doubt, mock the example!

Are you telling us that PC Wizards and Sorcerers have 8 or more other PC protectors at all times in YOUR game as per your example? Or are you telling us that you cannot conceive of the party being closely surrounded in a game and still out of combat?

Nice debating technique, KD. When in doubt, construct some strawmen.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's not in the SRD, so I can't give you the exact text, but somewhere in the Combat section of the PHB (or, possibly, buried in the DMG) is something to the effect of:

"Some players will want to ready actions outside of combat - as in, I ready an action to shoot whatever comes through that door. Don't let them do this. The Ready action only applies inside of combat. Outside of combat use initiative rolls."

I'll see if I can find the exact text elsewhere, however.

I was unclear on that question.

The question is:

What is to prevent the King's Guard from starting combat by readying an action to attack any partitioner who disobeys the rules and gets within 20 feet of the King?


It is not readying out of combat, it is starting combat (even if nobody else is aware that combat started) by readying an action.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, I didn't mock it. I did, however, point out that the wizard isn't completely defended by any stretch of the imagination - and it's impossible for the bodyguards to watch all the thieves all the time. Want to determine if they're quick enough on their toes to notice the thief who suddenly decided to make for the Wizard?

PRECISELY.

In combat, they CAN protect him in that scenario.

Out of combat, even if they are prepared, they CANNOT. All because of how the rules of "in combat" and "out of combat" are written.

That is the entire point that you are avoiding.