Two questions about feinting in Combat

[Celtavian]

Re

It could be assumed then that since being flatfooted doesn't allow one to make AoOs, then being denied one's dex bonus has the same effect.

That is how we play it, it is very logical.

The point Hypersmurf is missing is that both "flat-footed" and "denied dex bonus" are exactly the same thing using a different word, akin to a synonym. Thus, it follows logically that the same limitiations imposed upon a "flat-footed" person would be imposed upon a person "denied their dex bonus". The rules may not say one way or the other, but the effect is the exactly the same. It could well be argued that they should impose exactly the same limitations.

That's like saying "A character wielding a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls; a prone character takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls; therefore a wizard with a greataxe is prone."

It is not even close to the same. This is easily defeated thinking. Prone and non-proficient are entirely different situations. One is laying on the ground and one is not having the training to wield a weapon. You so often forget to think about what a rule means in the pseudo-real fantasy world of D&D.

While feinting and "flat-footed" could both be argued as being caught off guard by another attacker. When you are "flat-footed", you are caught off guard by a faster attacker (Lost initiative). When you are feinted against, you are caught off guard by an attacker with a special skill.(Bluff Skill) In both cases, you are caught off guard.

I see no reason, save a purely mechanical reason, that a person who is "denied their dex bonus" would get AOO's.

 

[Darklone]

If you do, they obviously came to their sense and took it out, 'cos it's not in there any more...

-Hyp.

No, Hyp, Sage advice agreed with you!
Somewhere it was stated explicitely that "flatfooted" and "losing your Dex bonus" have nothing (well not much) to do with each other...

Hmm. DMG perhaps?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

The point Hypersmurf is missing is that both "flat-footed" and "denied dex bonus" are exactly the same thing using a different word.

They bloody aren't!

If you have the Expert Tactitian feat, you get an extra attack against an opponent who is denied his Dex bonus. If you catch an enemy flat-footed, but he has Uncanny Dodge, he is not denied his Dex bonus, and Expert Tactitian does not trigger.

If your opponent is climbing, he is denied his Dex bonus. But you don't get extra damage from Iaijutsu Focus - that only applies when he is flat-footed.

If you are Blinking, your opponent is denied his Dex bonus. But that doesn't mean he can't take an AoO if you provoke one - that only applies if he's flat-footed.

They are two completely separate conditions. It happens that most people who are flat-footed are also denied their Dex bonus. That is the only connection between them.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, Hyp, Sage advice agreed with you!

Well, obviously.

The Sage is very wise.

-Hyp.

 

[JChung2003]

Being flat-footed is not the same thing as being denied your Dexterity bonus to AC.

DMG, pg. 84: "Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)."

There are other conditions that can cause you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC -- Hypersmurf mentioned a few of them in a previous post. Flat-footed is just one of the many conditions that can cause you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. It is not a synonym for losing your Dexterity bonus to AC.

The reason the distinction is important is because of rules that hinge on whether you are flat-footed as opposed to rules that hinge on whether you have been denied your Dexterity bonus to AC because of some condition.

Example: The Combat Reflexes feat allows you to make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

Example: The Uncanny Dodge class ability allows you to retain your Dexterity bonus to AC even if you were caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. You still lose your Dexterity bonus to AC while immobilized.

Example: When you are climbing or running, you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. However, you are not flat-footed and can still make attacks of opportunity while climbing or running, e.g., if you provoke an attack of opportunity while running and your enemy attempts to disarm you for his attack of opporunity, you can retaliate with an attack of opportunity, even without the Combat Reflexes feat.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Re: Re

That is how we play it, it is very logical.

If the original premise is flawed, then the conclusion will also be flawed, regardless of the quality of the logic therein.

The point Hypersmurf is missing is that both "flat-footed" and "denied dex bonus" are exactly the same thing using a different word, akin to a synonym.

As others have pointed out, this is nonsense.

Prone and non-proficient are entirely different situations. One is laying on the ground and one is not having the training to wield a weapon.

That was the point. That the assertion that "flat-footed and losing dex bonus are the same" is as absured as the assertion that "a mage wielding a greataxe must be prone."

You so often forget to think about what a rule means in the pseudo-real fantasy world of D&D.

Or read it, even.

I see no reason, save a purely mechanical reason, that a person who is "denied their dex bonus" would get AOO's.

"Purely mechanical" is what the rules are. That's like saying you see no reason, save a purely legal reason, that a criminal should go to jail.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

As others have pointed out, this is nonsense

We will have to disagree because I see stuff like this as nonsense...

When you are climbing or running, you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. However, you are not flat-footed and can still make attacks of opportunity while climbing or running, e.g., if you provoke an attack of opportunity while running and your enemy attempts to disarm you for his attack of opporunity, you can retaliate with an attack of opportunity, even without the Combat Reflexes feat.

Do you really think a person climbing or running should be able to take AOO's? Ever climb or run fast? I have, you wouldn't be able to do it. I guarantee it.

The point I am trying to make is that it should be looked at from the perspective of "if this were actually happening".

I am speaking only about AOO's, which I should clarify, in this particular instance. I am going off not the literal interpretation of the rule, but the literary interpretation of the rule. As in "what sort of logical reasoning are the game designers giving for this rule?"

I am saying that it is logical to deny AOO's for the loss of dex, period, because the assertion is that the loss of dexterity comes from the inability to act. All situations that you lose your dexterity from are situations in which you are somehow inhibited from acting. The way I see it is that "flat-footed" and "loss of dex to AC" are synonmymous not from a literal perspective, but from a pseudo-realistic perspective. That is the difference in our opinions.

For example, if I am a DM, and a player wishes to use Bluff to get past a guard who is defending a hallway without provoking AOO's. I let him do this, even if the rules don't perfectly indicate that they should be able to.

I must admit that I am beginning to agree with Gary Gygax and a few others on this board who say that D&D is becoming far to legalistic for many players such as Hypersmurf.

This is a rules forum. There is room for exact interpretations and other perspectives of how a rule should run. Why? The House Rules forum , in my experience, is for pure House Rules, rules that do not exist in the game or are vastly different from the exact rules.

My interpretation of the "flat-footed" versus "denied dex" does not fall into this category save for legalistic players who follow the rules like they are playing a video game or debating the law. Rules are situational for those who like to think about the actual situation rather than the mechanic. The mechanic is a guideline to help you arbitrate situations.

I feel that it is valid viewpoint and a logical one to assess that "flat-footed" and "denied dex bonus" would disallow AOO's. If I or anyone else voice this interpretation, then it should be left for the person reading to decide whether they feel such a ruling better fits THEIR vision of how AOO's should happen.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

If you have the Expert Tactitian feat, you get an extra attack against an opponent who is denied his Dex bonus. If you catch an enemy flat-footed, but he has Uncanny Dodge, he is not denied his Dex bonus, and Expert Tactitian does not trigger.

Pointless. Uncanny dodge obviously allows a person to react. I allow them to take AOO's as well. There is no other loss of benefit for being flat-footed besides Dex and AOO's.

If your opponent is climbing, he is denied his Dex bonus. But you don't get extra damage from Iaijutsu Focus - that only applies when he is flat-footed.

But you get sneak attack. Another inconsistent rule.

If you are Blinking, your opponent is denied his Dex bonus. But that doesn't mean he can't take an AoO if you provoke one - that only applies if he's flat-footed.

We don't give AOO's against Blinking or Invisible opponents. Why would you get an AOO against an opponent who you can't detect?

Really, forget the rule and tell me why you would?

They are two completely separate conditions. It happens that most people who are flat-footed are also denied their Dex bonus. That is the only connection between them.

The only difference is the causes. The effect is for the most paft the same. Personally, I have no clue why the game designers created such contradictions in the rules. I truly don't.

They are contradictory because the "loss of dex" and "flat-footed" are both supposed to be instances where the players are considered "unable to react". Don't you think that should affect AOO's as well?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

I must admit that I am beginning to agree with Gary Gygax and a few others on this board who say that D&D is becoming far to legalistic for many players such as Hypersmurf.

[blink] I don't think it's becoming far too legalistic for me at all...

This is a rules forum. There is room for exact interpretations and other perspectives of how a rule should run.

But when the original poster asks "How do the AoOs work then?" and you claim "The point Hypersmurf is missing is that both 'flat-footed' and 'denied dex bonus' are exactly the same thing using a different word", you're giving him incorrect information.

Mechanically and in the rules, the two conditions are completely separate.

If you choose to treat them as the same in your campaign, that's your prerogative. But to say that I'm missing the point and that they are exactly the same thing when they are not is misleading, inaccurate, and, to be blunt, offensive.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

Pointless. Uncanny dodge obviously allows a person to react. I allow them to take AOO's as well. There is no other loss of benefit for being flat-footed besides Dex and AOO's.

And vulnerability to Iaijustu Focus attacks.

Uncanny Dodge isn't intended to allow AoOs while flat-footed. That's what the Combat Reflexes feat is for. Combat Reflexes isn't intended to allow Dex Bonus while flat-footed. That's what Uncanny Dodge is for.

Do you allow someone with Combat Reflexes to retain their Dex bonus while flat-footed or against an invisible opponent?

But you get sneak attack. Another inconsistent rule.

How is it inconsistent? The two abilities are reliant upon two different conditions.

We don't give AOO's against Blinking or Invisible opponents. Why would you get an AOO against an opponent who you can't detect?

You can detect someone who is blinking. They're right there, for half the time. You can certainly see them drinking a potion in front of you. There's just a 50% chance they will blink out just as you try to hit them.

They are contradictory because the "loss of dex" and "flat-footed" are both supposed to be instances where the players are considered "unable to react". Don't you think that should affect AOO's as well?

Some people can react defensively where a normal person cannot. Some people can react offensively where a normal person cannot. Some circumstances make it difficult for a normal person to react offensively, and some defensively.

The two conditions and the various abilities allow those situations to be covered.

-Hyp.