Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="atom crash" data-source="post: 2111020" data-attributes="member: 22162">It is apparent to me that the designers intended for the PCs -- the heroes of the game -- to always have some chance to overcome any obstacle or escape some danger. With traps, you get your Reflex save, Dex mod intact. When rolling initiative, you can roll higher than your opponent and not get caught flat-footed. You get to add you Dex mod, and you can boost your initiative modifier with a single feat. When determining whether or not you're surprised, you can succeed at a spot or listen check, or even a sense motive check, to be aware of an opponent or an imminent attack and thus negate a surprise round.You always have at least a chance. You're not supposed to get caught in a situation where you have no chance to succeed. Now IIRC, judging from earlier posts, it seems in your game you often get screwed over by surprise rounds and being caught flat-footed. But I don't think that's the norm in most games.And what's difficult about imagining that, even if you're not surprised, someone else acts just a hair quicker than you?You don't always get a surprise round, so that would make no sense. (It would also seriously nerf the rogue.) How could you be caught flat-footed in a surprise round and then be able to react before you ever act in round one? It is possible to act on a surprise round and not be flat-footed in round one. It is perfectly reasonable that flat-footedness present in the surprise round carries over into round one until you act.  I'm merely using the path of least resistance to reconcile common sense and a ruleset I find adequate for covering most situations.Re-wiring the surprise round and flat-footedness is going to open a whole mess of worms. It's going to destroy combat reflexes as a viable feat. It's going to nerf the barbarian's and rogue's uncanny dodge, among other things. And since I don't find an overwhelming fault with the current rules, I don't think it's worth the effort to revise them.I know you disagree. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.</blockquote>

Verification