Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 898491" data-attributes="member: 5834">ReWell, 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: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.</blockquote>

Verification