Two questions about feinting in Combat

[Darklone]

I do have to agree though that they could have simplified the whole thing a bit by extending flatfootedness

Kinda: You are flatfooted against invis opponents, when you are stunned etc.

Wow, this would have answered AoOs against invis opponents but you would have run into problems with the Combat Reflexes ruling...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wow, this would have answered AoOs against invis opponents but you would have run into problems with the Combat Reflexes ruling...

What problem?

I have no qualms about allowing someone with Combat Reflexes to make an AoO against an invisible opponent they didn't know was there.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Nah, there IS no problem (due to the actual ruling). I was trying to point out that a ruling kinda "You are flatfooted anytime you lose your dex bonus" would result in problems kinda:

Guy with Combat Reflexes against invisible guy: AoO.

Guy with Combat Reflexes stunned: No AoO.

Though both should be flatfooted if they lose their dex bonus... whatever. I do think that I was not able to clarify what I wanted to say, but there is a reason why flatfooted is not the same as losing your dex bonus

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Well, Hypersmurf, before you and I go into a long tangent again, I will just say that sometimes I am offended by the way you present yourself as well. When I read your posts, I feel you are trying to imply that your way is the only way it should run, as in purely by the rules without thinking about the situation. Maybe I am misinterpreting your feelings on the matter due to the message board medium where it is difficult to convey tone and emotion.

My basic perspective is that I have been playing D&D for 20 odd plus years, since I was a young boy. I have heard so many people complain that 3rd edition D&D is too rules oriented. I strongly disagree with this assertion because I still to this day think of the rules as guidelines for handling different game situations, not absolute laws that must be followed without thought to their application.

In this case, I found this particular reply offensive:

How on earth do you get from A to B?

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 was obvious to me how he got from A to B and it was quite logical and consistent to assume that "loss of dex" would indicate no AOO's given that a "flat-footed" person did not get AOO's. The only tangible game effect of being "flat-footed" is the loss of dex and the loss of AOO's.

As I have been continually stating, "loss of dex" is loss of ability to react, even in the case of being "flat-footed". The game designers did design these rules with the "real" world in mind. The question they ask is "How do we design a rule to emulate this real world phenomena?" Based on this assumption, I can see how a person would come to the conclusion that "loss of dex" would have the same effect as being "flat-footed. Any other interpretation is rather inconsistent, in my opinion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

The question they ask is "How do we design a rule to emulate this real world phenomena?" Based on this assumption, I can see how a person would come to the conclusion that "loss of dex" would have the same effect as being "flat-footed. Any other interpretation is rather inconsistent, in my opinion.

There are four conditions to represent a character who is scared.

Shaken, Frightened, Panicked, and Cowering.

They all arise because the character is afraid.

That doesn't mean that a Shaken character drops what he's holding, or must flee in terror, or loses his Dex bonus. It's a different condition to the other three.

There are two ways that a character whose ability to react is diminished is represented. Flat-footed, and denied Dex bonus. They are two different conditions, with different effects.

Is this less consistent or less logical than having four conditions to represent fear?

-Hyp.

 

[Bauglir]

Re: Re

Well, Hypersmurf, before you and I go into a long tangent again, I will just say that sometimes I am offended by the way you present yourself as well. When I read your posts, I feel you are trying to imply that your way is the only way it should run, as in purely by the rules without thinking about the situation. Maybe I am misinterpreting your feelings on the matter due to the message board medium where it is difficult to convey tone and emotion.

While your opinion is valid, and while equating the two conditions seems to be largely a good ruling, it is nonetheless a house rule. This forum is meant expressly for questions and interpretations of the rules as written, nomatter how wacky, or in other words "without thinking about the situation" (just look at any of the blade barrier threads )

Hypersmurf is merely pointing out the situation as it is covered in the rules, and correctly.

My basic perspective is that I have been playing D&D for 20 odd plus years, since I was a young boy. I have heard so many people complain that 3rd edition D&D is too rules oriented. I strongly disagree with this assertion because I still to this day think of the rules as guidelines for handling different game situations, not absolute laws that must be followed without thought to their application.

D&D 3e may or may not be too rules oriented (this is of course a matter of opinion), however the entire point of this forum is to get a rules oriented perspective.

It was obvious to me how he got from A to B and it was quite logical and consistent to assume that "loss of dex" would indicate no AOO's given that a "flat-footed" person did not get AOO's. The only tangible game effect of being "flat-footed" is the loss of dex and the loss of AOO's.

They are not the same thing. To be flat-footed is to be completely unaware of your opponent (and does not in all cases lead to loss of dex). To lose one's dex bonus is to be for some reason unable to defend against an opponent, be it that they are invisible, or have tricked you into looking the other way momentarily.

As I have been continually stating, "loss of dex" is loss of ability to react, even in the case of being "flat-footed". The game designers did design these rules with the "real" world in mind. The question they ask is "How do we design a rule to emulate this real world phenomena?" Based on this assumption, I can see how a person would come to the conclusion that "loss of dex" would have the same effect as being "flat-footed. Any other interpretation is rather inconsistent, in my opinion.

I think your views would get a better analysis here.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Is this less consistent or less logical than having four conditions to represent fear?

There are different words to represent fear in real life as well as per the words listed. Each word is a different word for representing fear, and if you take a look around, you will find that there are different types of fear.

Just off the top of my head I can think of the following situations where the types of fear are very different:

1. "Shell-shocked"

2. Phobia

3. Mob Panic

4. Outright horror

Depending on the situation, people will react with different levels of fear based on their psychological make-up. I always assumed the four types of a fear were a simplistic way to represent differing levels of fear, natural and unnatural, in D&D.

"Loss of Dex" on the other hand does not represent different levels of ability to react. I ask you once again to look at each situation that causes a "loss of dex" to AC, and explain how come it is different than being "flat-footed" other than pure mechanical reasons. Then you will understand why you can make the logical jump from "A to B" for denying AOO's.

Maybe you won't use an analogy that makes the person who made such a "leap of logic" seem like they are stupid as you implied about nimisgod. There are other ways to look at situations and apply the game mechanics.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

"Loss of Dex" on the other hand does not represent different levels of ability to react. I ask you once again to look at each situation that causes a "loss of dex" to AC, and explain how come it is different than being "flat-footed" other than pure mechanical reasons.

Climbing in a ship's rigging. You are unable to dodge well, and are therefore denied your Dex bonus to AC. You are not prevented from making melee attacks, however. If someone beside you drinks a potion, why should you not be able to make that melee attack as an Attack of Opportunity?

You're not flat-footed. You're not prevented from making attacks. You're merely unable to dodge well.

-Hyp.

 

[Rel]

Re: Re

Well, Hypersmurf, before you and I go into a long tangent again, I will just say that sometimes I am offended by the way you present yourself as well. When I read your posts, I feel you are trying to imply that your way is the only way it should run, as in purely by the rules without thinking about the situation. Maybe I am misinterpreting your feelings on the matter due to the message board medium where it is difficult to convey tone and emotion.

Celtavian, I don't think there is anything wrong with the way in which you desire to rule the "Flatfooted vs. Dex Denied" situation. I agree that it solves a number of issues that I have some minor peeves with (Invisibility vs. AoO being the foremost).

Nonetheless, I disagree with your assertion that Hypersmurf is in any way trying to imply that "his" way is "the only way it should run". What I consistently see from him is:

1) Rule cites. Usually with page numbers.
2) FAQ cites.
3) Sage rulings. Often accompanied by Hyp's opinion about them.

In other words, I hear Hyp say: "Here's what the rules say. Make of that what you will."

That is why he is one of my favorite posters, despite my moderate dislike of Der Schlumfen as a group.

 

[maddman75]

Celt - I actually agree with both of you. You're both right, just talking about different things.

Hypersmurf is saying "Losing Dex and flatfootedness are two seperate conditions". Actually, if you look at the wording being flatfooted *causes* you to lose your dex. In addition to being vulnerable to certain other effects. And he's right.

You are saying "That is too narrow a view. There are many situations where that would not be reasonable, and I as a DM would deny the character AoOs even if they had just lost dex, and not technically flat-footed". While I agree that the smurf has the letter of the law, I'd agree with you 'in the field'. If a character is climbing up a rock wall, he ain't getting no stinkin AoOs from me.

But that is a house rule. A good one, but the original poster wanted to know what the letter of the law was.