|
I am not a fan of this system.
Sometimes, when two people are talking to each other, and then one decides to start a combat, you're left thinking - can anyone be flat-footed?
If you see a dragon flying towards you before you engage in combat - can you be flat footed? Can it?
As far as I can see the only reason this system was invented was to give Rogues a chance to use Sneak damage.
And I think the rationale of this is a little flaky. Why can you *only* hit a vital spot when the target is denied its AC? I can understand that it might be easier when its denied its AC, same as any other sort of hit, but why deny it completely.
And I also think that the idea that a Rogue knows the vital spot of any sort of strange creature it encounters is a bit flaky too.
So - how about:
1) require that anyone make a basic Knowledge check (5+DC) for any non-animal or humanoid that it wishes to "precision" attack (as a free action, and once succeeded for a given opponent no longer needed),
2) allow a Rogue to do a "precision" attack as a full round action whenever it wants.
Then dispense with the whole flat-footed rule.
What do you think?
Richard
No game is ever going to simulate reality perfectly. Hit points themselves are 'flaky'. Restricting certain abilities to certain classes is…restricting and only makes the fluff meaningless. But that is an entire other thread.
G.U.R.P.S. and Heroes (and many others, I am sure) go into a great deal of trouble dealing with strikes to specific body parts. Perhaps you could modify Power Attack and give a bonus to its use to Rogues (to try and maintain one of their 'key' abilities). After all, we are talking about swapping chance to hit with increased damage…right?
|
|
I'm not trying to be overly critical of Pathfinder and 3rd ed (which introduced this flat-footed thing).
It's just that I find myself quite frequently in this dilemma about whether someone was behaving in a sufficiently threatening manner to constitute putting people on their guard. PCs, in particular, tend to argue that they're always on their guard, even against pretty girls in bars.
An additional problem with flat-footedness is that although the initiative system tries to resolve it globally, it's essentially relative. In other words, flat-footedness is a condition between two creatures.
For example, you are in a bar chatting to the pretty girl, when you get attacked by the barman. Ok, so you are flat-footed with respect to the bar-man, and then you start fighting so you no longer, and then suddenly the pretty girl lays into you, so you're temporarily flat-footed against her but not him.
Then she withdraws from combat and hides behind the bar, then pops out later and catches you flat-footed again (or maybe it was her friend that popped out - should there be a difference?)
I would just like to find an alternative to all of this.
Richard
If I remember correctly, Mutants & Masterminds pretty much leaves it up to the GM. Sure, there is a 'surprise round'. But deciding when someone is caught off guard is GM fiat. Personally, I am o.k. with that. As you point out, it really depends on the situation.
I'm not trying to be overly critical of Pathfinder and 3rd ed (which introduced this flat-footed thing).
It's just that I find myself quite frequently in this dilemma about whether someone was behaving in a sufficiently threatening manner to constitute putting people on their guard. PCs, in particular, tend to argue that they're always on their guard, even against pretty girls in bars.
An additional problem with flat-footedness is that although the initiative system tries to resolve it globally, it's essentially relative. In other words, flat-footedness is a condition between two creatures.
For example, you are in a bar chatting to the pretty girl, when you get attacked by the barman. Ok, so you are flat-footed with respect to the bar-man, and then you start fighting so you no longer, and then suddenly the pretty girl lays into you, so you're temporarily flat-footed against her but not him.
Then she withdraws from combat and hides behind the bar, then pops out later and catches you flat-footed again (or maybe it was her friend that popped out - should there be a difference?)
I would just like to find an alternative to all of this.
Richard
If they wish to be "always on their guard", they should take the feat Combat Reflexes which does exactly that. Otherwise, even if they are suspicious, if the antagonist wins initiative their attack is resolved in the split second of realization that it's time to rumble and the PC would be flat footed for it. It's been seen many times in novels, movies, and other stories that sometimes an attacker is simply very quick or deft, and even while being watched can somehow turn the tables on his opponent. This rule allows that to an extent.
Alternatively, if you are looking at something different...
Instead of applying Flat-Footed in those situations where there is NO surprise, give an AC penalty. I suggest -4 like trip/prone. Then you can say "i was on my guard" but he was still able to react fast enough to get a momentary advantage without triggering this condition you dislike so much.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
In encounters where both sides are aware of each other's presence, initiative rolls determine flat-footedness, regardless of how wary each side is. A group of disguised PCs trying to go through a city gate guarded by bad guys. The bad guys notice their hidden weapons and attack. Nobody is surprised, but one side might still be faster than the other and manage to catch them off-guard. Initiative determines who's flat-footed.
Adventurer Al is chatting up Sneaky Sue in a bar. Sue decides to attack Al with the dagger she's got hidden in her purse. Will Al be flat-footed? Al might get a Sense Motive check to notice her ill intent. He might also get a Perception check to notice the concealed weapon. Even if he blows those checks and she draws her blade, she still might not get the drop on him if he beats her initiative.
|
|
I understand the pros and cons of the current flat-footed system.
However, does anyone have any thoughts about the pros and cons of dispensing with this altogether and changing a rogue's sneak attack.
My latest thoughts now are to allow sneak attack damage on melee opponents who are threatened by another opponent, even if not necessarily flanked.
Richard
|
I have been thinking about handling initiative a little differently. If you declare your attack first you get a bonus to initiative, maybe as much as +10.
Everyone else is reacting to you and is flatfooted to everyone with a higher initiative than them.
Of course if you declared that you were expecting a sneak attack from the shady watchman you would get a similar modifier and have a chance to preempt his action.
Shane
If I'm having a casual conversation with a pretty girl at a bar I am in no way prepared for her to pull a dagger out of her purse and stab me with it. I would be pretty flat footed to that.Bah! Happens to me all the time...
He said, "Having a casual conversation with." If the girls you're with in bars keep stabbing you, it may be a sign you've stepped across the line from "casual conversation" to something less, um, socially acceptable.