RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Okay, most (probably all) of us know how AC works. We also know that, just as high Dex scores give bonus AC, low Dex scores give a penalty. Now, the base AC of any given thing is 10 before any modifiers. If you have a low dexterity, then, you are easier to hit than someone with average dexterity because you aren't as good at avoiding blows. This is understandable. However.....
The AC to hit someone who is flat-footed is 10 (armor notwithstanding). If you have a low Dexterity, do you still apply its penalty to your AC when being attacked flat-footed or do you lose your penalty just as people with high Dex lose their bonuses in these situations. It seems kinda dumb to me that a clumsy person is easier to hit than anyone else when they don't know the attack is coming. I mean, no matter how bad you are at avoiding attacks, none of that matters when you don't know the attack is coming.
What's the opinion of the others out there? Is it easier to sneak attack a clumsy oaf than it is an elven dancer? My opinion: No. Discuss.
Director of Game Development
|
Realisticlly speaking, I think it'd be easier to hit the oaf because more than likely he's fatter than the waifish elven dancer, thus takes up more space and provides a slightly larger target.
But rule-wise I can't contribute any quotes cause I'm not near my books (NNMB), but I would rule that flat footed doesn't figure in Dex bonuses, so it shouldn't figure in Dex penalties.
That's my duece anyway.
The SRD states:
Flat-footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is "flat-footed", not yet reacting normally to the situation. A "flat-footed" character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.
Technically, the condition for being flat-footed addresses Dex bonuses by specifically stating that you lose the bonus. It says nothing about penalties.
From what I have read in the SRD and FAQs, penalties always apply, and in some cases stack.
I would agree. If a character with average or exceptional dexterity cannot react normally, it only makes sense that a character with a Dex penalty would be more worse off. The key here is 'react normally'. Reacting normally is subjective for each character and what is normal *to them*.
By not including the Dex penalty for a low Dex, it actually might make being flat-footed a benefit for a low-Dex character when compared to other characters.
For example: If a PC with Dex 10 and no armor is flat-footed, his AC would be 10. A PC with Dex 7 and no armor is AC 8 normally. So it doesn't make sense that their Dex would go up for being flat-footed (by not counting the penalty).
I'd say for the house rule, it should be dex 1 instead of 0, to avoid coup-de-grace on first round exploitation. Same -5 penalty, so that works.
Keep in mind, this change will greatly alter the value of heavy armor, deflection, natural armor, and uncanny dodge. Conversely, dexterity becomes less valuable without the addition of uncanny dodge, if only because regardless of score, flat-footed equalizes everyone.
Also, consider this from the monster's standpoint. A lot of monsters will be terribly vunerable in the first round of combat.
Finally, consider it from "everyman's" standpoint. If dex drops that much prior to first action in combat, everyone in the world is going to know and take advantage of that. Touch attacks will become the norm for "beggining of fight" tactics. Tanglefoot bags and rays of enfeeblement default to the weapon of choice for round 1. Consider these effects, both from the players side and the DMs side of the screen.
..if I were to change the rules, my change would be to treat anyone who is flatfooted as having a DEX of 0 (thus a base AC of 5).
I wouldn't advise that. That would actually compound the penalty for being flat-footed.
The AC baseline in the SRD is 10. I think that by dropping the AC to 5, you actually make being flat-footed worse than many of the other conditions in the DMG. Being stunned for example denies a character their Dex bonus and drops a -2 AC penalty.
So why would being flat-footed be worse than being stunned!!!?
Read the rules.
Of course, everyone has their own take on the game and their own house rules.
|
..if I were to change the rules, my change would be to treat anyone who is flatfooted as having a DEX of 0 (thus a base AC of 5).So why would being flat-footed be worse than being stunned!!!?
Read the rules.
Of course, everyone has their own take on the game and their own house rules.
"If I were to change ...."
Subjunctive mood, used for conditions false-to-fact. I have not made such a change, nor do I plan to. Why would you think that I had not read the rules, given that I provided the written answer?
That said, I'll provide an answer to your question: When you are stunned, you are trying to defend yourself, but ineffectually. When you are flat-footed, you are making no effort to defend yourself. That you would be less capable of defense in the latter case seems reasonable.
So why wouldn't I change the rules? First, because it's more work to make the change than to leave the rules alone. Second, because I think the penalty for being flat-footed is too great as it is. There's a difference between an attack when you are expecting nothing and an attack from the shadows when you are jumping at shadows. The latter case is probably nearer the norm for adventuring characters. In that case, I find it quite unlikely that you could manage a charge attack from 40-80 feet away without allowing for a reaction of any sort.
If I were to make any change it would be to apply a base penaly for being flatfooted. Lets say a -4 to AC. That way the clumsy characters remain screwed and the characters/creatures with super heroic reflexes can still make use of their amazingness.
Also I apply dex penalties as in the RAW. I can't fully justify applying the dex penalty since the wording of flat footed suggests their is no cognitive effort of the characters part to react. I just think PCs with penalties should suffer them as often as applicable.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Yes, I knew that penalties still applied according to the RAW, but look at it this way: The AC for a Medium-sized, inanimate object is 10. So, if an archer sneaks up over a hill and sees three targets to choose from and those targets are a crippled and withered old man in tattered rags, an elven bladesinger with no armor, and an armoire... the elf and the armoire are EASIER to hit than the old man for some reason? It just seems bizarre to me. Why is the old man with 6 Dex easier to hit than the piece of freaking FURNITURE?
I'm not really arguing with the way the rule works, I just wanted to see if anyone else thinks its kind of silly.
Edit: I just realized something... aren't inanimate objects treated as having 0 Dex, thus reducing their AC to 5 in this example and defeating my entire argument?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That said, I'll provide an answer to your question: When you are stunned, you are trying to defend yourself, but ineffectually. When you are flat-footed, you are making no effort to defend yourself. That you would be less capable of defense in the latter case seems reasonable.
Another side effect of such a rule is that it makes heavy armor better (which may be relevant depending on your position with regards to that issue). Characters in heavy armor presumably already have a low Dex modifier and depend on their armor for their AC. Characters in lighter armor who rely on their Dex modifier suffer a much larger penalty for being flat footed (they lose the positive bonus due to their Dex _and_ take another -5 penalty on top of that.)
The rule would also make invisibility/hiding better (which I believe makes you flat-footed with respect to your attacker, but I might be making that up and it only causes you to lose your Dex bonus).
There seems to be a huge amount of confusion over a topic that's really simple. Let's take the elf, say with 16 Dex, and the old man, with 6, and the Armoire. For simplicity's sake, they've all got no additional armor bonuses.
Normal AC: Elf- 13 (Base 10, +3 Dex), old man- 8 (Base 10, -2 Dex), Armoire- 5 (Base 10, -5 Dex for effective score of 0)
Flat-footed: Elf- 10 (Base 10, looses Dex bonus), old man- Still 8 (Base 10, -2 for Dex penalty, which is kept), Armoire- Still 5 (Base 10, -5 Dex for effective score of 0)
The old man is still easier to hit than the elf, even flat footed. His AC didn't magically go up. The armoire remains easiest to hit of all. Makes a lot of sense to me.
So where's the confusion/what's the issue on the block here? Are you noting that the elf effectively took a -3 to AC, while the old man and armoire's ACs remain unchanged? I can see an argument along those lines, though I'm personally not worried with it enough to bother with "resolving" it.
Flat footed AC, to my knowledge, will never be better than normal AC, since the only difference is the loss of several modifiers. Now, there may be disproportional modifications to flat footed AC vs. normal AC for characters with varying Dex scores, but again, that's not [i]too[/b] big of an issue for most people.
Your results may vary. Flat footed ACs have a low risk of dependency. In clinical trials, side effects included increased hits and sneak attacks. If you find youself being sneak attacked while on flat footed AC, contact your DM immediately. Flat footed AC is not for everybody. Player characters and non-player characters with a high Dexterity score should avoid flat footed AC. Please do not operate such characters while on flat footed AC.
Flat footed AC; Ask your DM today!
A clumsy man doesn't suddenly become more dextrous just because he's been caught unawares.
Most monsters with eight or lower dex in the MM and SRD are listed as having a flat footed AC equal to their normal AC, implying that the designers of the game intended no additional penalty to AC for flatfooted creatures with a Dex penalty.
That being said, I don't see the application of that penalty to flat footed AC as being illogical or game breaking. I know very few players in my game experience who take a dex penalty anyway, and if they do, they should feel it. I know I do everytime I slam my head against a low ceiling or trip on my own gargantuan feet. *grin*
There seems to be a huge amount of confusion over a topic that's really simple.
I think that this was a result of a solution being offered before it was discerned that that there was, in fact, no problem. So now we have a debate regarding the solution to a problem that does not exist. Some days this place can be surreal.
Most monsters with eight or lower dex in the MM and SRD are listed as having a flat footed AC equal to their normal AC, implying that the designers of the game intended no additional penalty to AC for flatfooted creatures with a Dex penalty.
I don't find this. Now I've only glanced at a couple of creatures but on the two I looked at there seemed to be a dex penalty for being flat footed.
Animated Object, Huge
Dex = 8
Flat footed AC = 13 (10 base +6 Natural Armour Bonus -2 Huge Size = 14 throw in the Dex penalty of -1 and we get the listed 13.
Basalisk
Dex = 8
Flat-Footed AC = 16 (10 +7 natural armour bonus -1 Dex)
What's the opinion of the others out there? Is it easier to sneak attack a clumsy oaf than it is an elven dancer? My opinion: No. Discuss.
It's always bugged me that clumsy characters lose nothing by being flat-footed. There is a difference, after all, between a totally immobile clumsy person and a clumsy person who is nevertheless attempting to dodge incoming attacks.
In my revamp, I made flat-footedness reduce any character to a base Dex mod of -4 which is only modified by racial mods. Having read this thread though, I think it'll be better to just apply a flat penalty for flat-footedness. Thanks all!
Before you go changing what happens to a flat footed character, remember that much of the language on various abilities is rather specific for a reason. A prime example of this is the rogue's sneak attack, which works any time they attack someone who is denied their dex bonus, or when the rogue is flanking.
As written, the flat-footed condition automatically implies that the rogue would get to use his sneak attack, because the affected character is denied their dex bonus (if any).
Now, any given group might just take for granted that the rogue still gets his sneak damage against a flat-footed person, regardless the wording of the house rule. But sneak attack might not be the only thing concerned with such language. And not everyone's going to take that for granted. So, keep your group's members in mind when making these changes, and remember that the language is so specific to make the rules more easily inter-connected and less cumbersome (imagine having to print every situation that applies, rather than just relying on the 'denied dex bonus' qualifier).
I think the whole flat footed thing needs a big hairy eyeball; meaning take a hard look at it. The whole idea that if two groups see each other and move to combat; you are flat footed until your initiative is just crazy. This is not a sneak attack; you know the attack is coming; you expect it; why are you flat footed just because it not yet your turn to swing.
Most monsters with eight or lower dex in the MM and SRD are listed as having a flat footed AC equal to their normal AC, implying that the designers of the game intended no additional penalty to AC for flatfooted creatures with a Dex penalty.I don't find this. Now I've only glanced at a couple of creatures but on the two I looked at there seemed to be a dex penalty for being flat footed.
Animated Object, Huge
Dex = 8
Flat footed AC = 13 (10 base +6 Natural Armour Bonus -2 Huge Size = 14 throw in the Dex penalty of -1 and we get the listed 13.Basalisk
Dex = 8
Flat-Footed AC = 16 (10 +7 natural armour bonus -1 Dex)
And what are these creatures' "walking around" AC? Probably the same, meaning no "additional" penalty (as being say, stunned or entangled would apply.). Sorry to split hairs, but my original comment might not have been as eloquently worded as I intended, owing to the early hour and lingering sickness.
Like I said, as clumsy as I personally am, I can understand being easy to hit from a low dex. I did ren-faires for years, and often during combat with wooden weapons or bokans, a kid half my size and age could strike me several times before I could get one solid lick in.
Granted that one hit, from a bastard or great sword, would be enough to send a kid that size sprawling, but with my low initiative, they often had time to get a few more in there before questioning their decision to spar.