| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
By the rules a person or creature is generally flat footed until they have acted in combat.
In other words If two people are standing 50 feet from each other weapons drawn and insulting each other the one who wins initiative can charge 50 feet and smack the other with his great axe while the looser of the initiative stands defenseless watches the enemy charge at him and takes an axe to the face.
While my example is extreme the point is that the initiative rule seems to assume that the defender would not take any active defense until they have actively attacked.
I think this rule is flawed.
stand in front of some one and make an offensive action at them and they will generally duck, block, step back, flinch or in some other way defend themselves. Yes I understand the game is not reality but the way I understand it the game turns represent things happening essentially simultaneously, thus the idea that a man can run 50 feet and the other person have no measurable response is a bit lubricious.
Flat footed on a surprise round is totally understandable, for a group of combat minded adventurers to be flat footed in the face of a known or possible enemy seems a bit silly.
I think the rule should be modified to account for this and rogue classes specifically receive an ability that helps them not lose out on their sneak attack bonus for winning initiative.
Am i mistaken or does this make any sense?
It's come up a lot at my table. It has caused some really heated arguments over RAW and "realism."
It IS entirely unrealistic to think that you can run 30 feet at someone with the intent to hit them (it's hard to disguise that intent through body language, too) and them have no clue it's coming.
It IS in the game rules however; I wonder if Paizo ever has issues like these come up in their office games...
i thought the rule was that you had to act. i didnt think it was specific to attacking. i have always played that hostile or high tension conversations like that where people are on edge, they are acting, they are conversing. if someone wanted to get the leg up and take a swipe at them flatfooted they would have to use the standard bluff or feint or whatever...
While my example is extreme
bahahaha...
Try this.
A fighter with a reach weapon and combat expertise is in a 15 foot wide corridor.
Three rogues come around the corner and win initiative.
They advance. Each are hit with the reach weapon (using BOTH clauses of combat reflexes) and then sneak attack the fighter.. because he's not ready for them yet.
With that being said though, i don't think its fair to deny rogues a major source of sneak attack this way.
Flat footed on a surprise round is totally understandable, for a group of combat minded adventurers to be flat footed in the face of a known or possible enemy seems a bit silly.I think the rule should be modified to account for this and rogue classes specifically receive an ability that helps them not lose out on their sneak attack bonus for winning initiative.
Am i mistaken or does this make any sense?
This kinda is in the rules already. In the case of the Mexican standoff example above, it's not unreasonable to assume that combat actually begun when weapons were drawn and both sides have been readying attack actions for a while now.
But for most cases, if someone react faster than you, I think it makes perfect sense that you're disadvantaged by this. Just look at your average Western. Plenty of examples of people being "flat-foot sneak attacked" ;)
there is no rule when "iniative" starts. When 2 men are shouting at each other, they might already be in combat and using all their actions to shout. So it is legal to deny flat-footedness.
BigNorseWolf
Flat-footed says no attacks-of-opportunity. I believe you want to use a loophole, however I can't see it.
And your example is less extreme as the rogues aren't seen beforehand (perception could change this).
So basicly you can start combat whenever you like and by that act first as long as you've seen an ennemy. (no punching the puppy in you bagpack).
there is no rule when "iniative" starts. When 2 men are shouting at each other, they might already be in combat and using all their actions to shout. So it is legal to deny flat-footedness.
BigNorseWolf
Flat-footed says no attacks-of-opportunity. I believe you want to use a loophole, however I can't see it.
And your example is less extreme as the rogues aren't seen beforehand (perception could change this).So basicly you can start combat whenever you like and by that act first as long as you've seen an ennemy. (no punching the puppy in you bagpack).
There is a rule when you have to check for initiative, namely when the combat starts. Even if two opponents are aware of each other there will be an initiative check as soon as they start a combat and the loser of this check will be flat-footed until the start of his turn. If you are going to say that he verbal fight in your example was already a combat than you should have checked for initiative before the verbal combat.
Concerning the example of BigNorseWolf, he actually mentioned the wrong feat for the fighter, i.e. combat expertise instead of combat reflexes. However, in the example, he actually refers to the latter. Other than that, the example does work perfectly well. Even if the fighter was aware of the rogues before they came around the corner, he would still be flat-footed if he lost the initiative check and could still use his combat reflexes to make AoO before the rogues attack him with sneak attacks.
It doesn't always make sense, but mechanically, removing it would make sneak attack even more of a headache than it already is.
I believe you want to use a loophole, however I can't see it.
Combat Reflexes (Combat)
You can make additional attacks of opportunity.
Benefit: You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity bonus. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Normal: A character without this feat can make only one attack of opportunity per round and can't make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Special: The Combat Reflexes feat does not allow a rogue to use her opportunist ability more than once per round.
-People always forget this feat does 2 different things.
And whoops, i did call it combat expertise. Not used to combat expertise being ... well , anything more than a tax.
|
stand in front of some one and make an offensive action at them and they will generally duck, block, step back, flinch or in some other way defend themselves.
And that still happens even if you are flat-footed as you just lose any Dex Bonus to AC, you are not treated as if you had no Dex at all.
So while you may not be defending yourself as well as you normally would in a fight (i.e. having your Dex bonus added to your AC) you aren't exactly stood stock still as that would effectively mean your Dex was zero and you would actually take a -5 penalty to AC rather than any Dex bonus.
It doesn't always make sense, but mechanically, removing it would make sneak attack even more of a headache than it already is.
Unless your running an adventure for a party of rogues the vast majority of encounters begin with the opponents somewhat aware of each other. you may walk into a room and see a bunch of monsters which immediately jump up and attack, but at that critical moment both sides are sufficiently aware of each other that a defender can raise a sword and shield or actively try not to be killed. To be honest... outside of specific ambush actions, initiative round sneak attacks are probably the least used in the game. I mean in a single battle the majority of sneak attacks are made against flanked opponents not first round lucky strikes. thus modifying the general initiative rule to eliminate the automatic flat-footed clause should not cause major issues.
however... I dont think it would be difficult to say that rogues have an ability, lets call it unexpected strike, in which any time a rogue attacks in the first round of combat if the opponent has not yet made an action the rogue may treat the opponent as flat footed owing to the sudden and unpredictable nature of a rogues initial attack.
that way rogues do not lose out on this advantageous ability but no other situations have to suffer a rule that is totally counter intuitive and more often cause for armaments than entertainment.
Baroth, I was aware that initiative will have to be rolled, even if the beginning of the fight is only verbal, however being flat-footed while in a heated discussion is not that bad. In my opinion being flat-footed comes from not expecting violence, but in such a discussion as described you expect violence, you could require to player to ask for initative though.
@norse-wolf
sorry, yes it is a weird situation however you could interpret it as pure instinct to attack while not ready to defend properly.
So all in all, I don't think flat-footed is largely unbelievable. However the distinction between loose-dex-bonus and flat footed is weird and could have been made into one condition.
Unless one of the two involved in the standoff actually call for some offensive or defensive action, they're not combat-ready. If a player say "my fighter expects the enemy guy to suddenly go ballistic somewhere in the argument so he raises his shield and gets ready for that attack." << That's when I call for initiative because the enemy may "read" the getting ready and still get the jump on the fighter.
It's just a question of when combat starts.
If neither party declares "getting ready" or something similar, they're not, hence losing their Dex bonus.
While my example is extreme
bahahaha...
Try this.
A fighter with a reach weapon and combat expertise is in a 15 foot wide corridor.
Three rogues come around the corner and win initiative.
They advance. Each are hit with the reach weapon (using BOTH clauses of combat reflexes) and then sneak attack the fighter.. because he's not ready for them yet.
With that being said though, i don't think its fair to deny rogues a major source of sneak attack this way.
Considering the fighter could have used his impressive CMB to disarm or trip each rogue trying to close with him to prevent their sneak attack, it's not that bad.
I think the existing rules for flat-footed are fine. Few enough classes can really take advantage of the condition, and rogues need all the help they can get. If it bothers someone that much, they should either play a class (or take a dip) that gives them uncanny dodge.
I think the existing rules for flat-footed are fine. Few enough classes can really take advantage of the condition, and rogues need all the help they can get.
A general rule of the game should not be balanced upon how it effects one single class or special situation. it should be based on general situations with feats or special abilities created which deal with the special situations.
Lets look at this in another way.
in all the vast possibilities of the game... outside of the specific instances of rogues and suprise attacks why should the rule work this way. In what way does this rule enhance the game, increase fun or better simulate intuitive realism.
do you feel that every single thing must be stated? you walking allong and come to a cliff, if no one in the groups says "i stop at the edge of the cliff" do they just walk off?
some things are just considered to happen even without specific expression.
I don't feel anything on the topic and you know what you're bringing up is a straw man argument. I don't think that every action requires statement. Stopping at a cliff edge, breathing, putting pants on in the morning... these are all things I have no issue taking for granted.
That said, please note that the topic at hand is the start of combat.
That's a bit less no-brainer, wouldn't you say? Assuming that PCs draw weapons, brace behind shields and are 100% combat-ready is a poor choice. As a DM, if my players said that was their SOP upon anything resembling disagreement, I'd automatically adjust every NPC's starting attitude down a notch.
"Shields up" is a defensive action that can escalate a conflict. When someone overtly acts, either offensively or defensively, that's got a good chance of raising someone's blood-pressure.
A general rule of the game should not be balanced upon how it effects one single class or special situation. it should be based on general situations with feats or special abilities created which deal with the special situations.
Straw man. My commentary was not attempting to justify balance on anything. It was a straightforward opinion that the existing rule isn't a big deal, because you asked for opinions on something you think is flawed.
Lets look at this in another way.in all the vast possibilities of the game... outside of the specific instances of rogues and suprise attacks why should the rule work this way. In what way does this rule enhance the game, increase fun or better simulate intuitive realism.
A better question is why shouldn't it work this way? It's a simple rule that doesn't seem to detract from the game or decrease players' fun (this is the first time I've ever seen someone really up in arms or annoyed by it). One combatant gets a jump on an opponent before he can fully prepare his defenses.
If you need a real-life situation to feel a better sense of intuitive realism so the rule doesn't continually nag at you, it reminds me of a time I got punched in the face. I knew we were about to fight, wasn't distracted, but the guy launched into me faster than I could believe and before I could react well.
Anguish your right I realized the argument was unfair and immediately went to rewrite it. looks like you got to it before i finished the rewrite was complete.
Wroy I know your just stating your opinion and I am not angry at you.
I simply think that the issue with initiative is one of those issues that many people generally find questionable but no one bothers to comment on. there are few people i speak to on the matter who greatly believe that it should be the way it is... they simply play that way because the rules say so.
however I have been in many situations where a player was upset because they were considered flat footed by an opponent that they were clearly ready for. not a surprise attack. but simply an opponent that they are aware of and facing when the DM says roll initiative and for no other reason than loosing the initiative they are considered flat footed.
also note. Its possible to be struck by an attack even when your expecting it you simply failed to defend yourself. Its also possible to be surprised by an opponent that is right in front of you such as with a feint or bluff.
The Mayweather vs Ortiz fight is an excellent example of this.
However once again these things are exceptions to the rule not the general reality.
I guess the core of my complaint is this.
the game rules assume that in the absence of explicit action a person is going to generally wait passively while an enemy runs 50, 30 or even 10 feet in a clearly aggressive manner.
I believe that this is simply flawed, instinct takes over, weapons held 'at the ready' or not people are going to actively defend themselves except in true surprise situations
IMO, you should be flat-footed when surprised. Not winning Initiative shouldn't necessarily means surprised. Therefore, I'm not a fan of the 'flat-footed until you act' rule.
As other posters mentioned already, it isn't clear when combat starts. Obviously, initiative is when the game mechanics of combat starts, but in many (most?) scenarios, all parties are already alert and ready.
I like the concept of catching your opponent off-guard, but that should be achieved by surprising your opponent.
So as far as my games are concerned, you are flat-footed if you do not act in the surprise round.
my 2 cents...
'findel
I think the existing rules for flat-footed are fine. Few enough classes can really take advantage of the condition, and rogues need all the help they can get.
Rogues do need all the help they can get. I think "flat-footed" is not the way to fix their problem though.
Since someone bothered to make a thread about flat-footedness, I'm going to say I hate the rule, and I hate the term even more. Flat-footed. Let's see. I have my feet flat on the ground. Ever heard the phrase "keep your feet on the ground?" So I'm balanced, centered. But this is a bad thing. Gotcha.
The term means the opposite of what the rules describe. What the rules describe is "offguard." "Flat-footed" means you're ready.
It's the same thing with flanking. A "flank" is someone's side. A "flanking maneuver" attacks someone from the side. Yet RAW "flanking" means you have to have allies on opposite sides of the target, and regardless of who its facing, you both get the bonus. But someone on the target's side doesn't. What?
Someone in there likes to make up new definitions for words. It's bugged me for over 10 years.
...
But back to the rule. It needs to go away. (So does uncanny dodge.) In its place, rogues need better methods of getting sneak attack. Fixing stealth might solve the problem. Swift action feint/blind/etc. would solve it. An "uncanny attack" type ability that would allow the rogue to sneak attack regardless of condition/position a certain number of times per day would also solve it.
(...) I'm going to say I hate the rule, and I hate the term even more. Flat-footed. Let's see. I have my feet flat on the ground. Ever heard the phrase "keep your feet on the ground?" So I'm balanced, centered. But this is a bad thing. Gotcha.
I don't know, I was raised with the notion that having a flat foot (as opposed to an arched foot) meant that you weren't very agile. Kind of how being all thumbs relates to manual clumsiness (yet without an opposable thumb, you can't perform fine manipulations). IIRC, having a flat foot would make you fail the medical exam to get in the army (I wonder if that's still the case).
I know you're not being literal, but I don't think the intent of "flat-footed" is to make your figurative arches fall once per combat.
I know what the term is trying to convey, but I think the term itself is incredibly poor. Especially when you could just say you're "not ready" instead.
I'm still certain that 'being caught flat-footed' as an expression meaning 'unprepared' or 'not ready' existed much before D&D. My wife got friends that use this expression occasionally, and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't know what a roleplaying game is, never mind D&D.
Whether these expressions really mean what they literally say is debatable, but I think that the term 'flat-footed' as defined in D&D/PF conveys the cultural reference pretty well IMO.
'findel
Pathfinder is a little too rule heavy in general. Some work... some aren't so great.
I'm a little fuzzy on exactly WHEN the iniative in the 50' charge happened. They label speaking as a free action, drawing weapons as a move action... Sooooo Techniquely you already DID a couple of actions.
We're still new to the whole 3.x ruleset, so every couple months we discover something new that shows we'd been doing it all wrong... Some are cool and realistic, some are garbage... but since we're trying to learn the game, we aren't houseruling much. We just play them as we find them.
My CURRENT pet peeve... is the 'shooting through your allies gives a -4 to your attack... If they're in combat it's a -8.
Fine in principle... Untill your trying to shoot an ogre or troll past a python animal companion that's only sitting a foot... MAYBE two of the ground... How THAT is blocking my shot I don't know ;)
Some rules work.... some do not.
to be flat-footed in real life has to do with your stance in combat as opposed to when your standing around having a conversation.
if you have ever been in a fight or watched a fight you may notice that people in combat generally stand in a slight crouch with their weight on the balls of their feet which allows for quicker movement and balance.
It is an animal level instinctive reaction even to those relatively unfamiliar with violence unless they are in some form of shock. The very first response to any hostile act is to instinctively crouch slightly, raise your arms and avoid the attack my dodging, blocking, or counter attacking in some way.
In game terms being flat-footed means essentially to be unable to fully react to the incoming attack.
Rogues get to treat a flanked opponent as flat-footed not because the person is actually flat-footed but so as to simulate a rogues careful timing of his attack for when the enemy is distracted by the flank partner on the other side.
If the chance to be being flat footed on initiative is absolutely essential to the game then assume that a critical fail on initiative means your flat footed, or allow a reflex save based on the difference in initiative rolls to see if the looser was at least able to reflexively assume a defense
rogues on the other hand can be given a special ability or to allow them to continue to get that jump on an opponent. I also like the suggestion that rogues get a swift action bluff, feint, or slight of hand check to catch an opponent off-guard or 'flat-footed' even in one on one face to face combat.. although there would probably have to be a penalty should they fail the attempt.
I'm a little fuzzy on exactly WHEN the iniative in the 50' charge happened. They label speaking as a free action, drawing weapons as a move action... Sooooo Techniquely you already DID a couple of actions.
haha... good point. I always tell my GM that my character generally walks around with her weapon in hand so I guess from now on if I lose initiative I will just tell my GM that when the enemy moves forward I yell out as a free action "I see you and am ready to fight" thus I will have acted and am not flat footed ^_^
... Untill your trying to shoot an ogre or troll past a python animal companion that's only sitting a foot... MAYBE two of the ground... How THAT is blocking my shot I don't know
LOL so true. but then again I just kind of falls into the category of , general rule works like this but the GM or special rules should account for special situations.
to be flat-footed in real life has to do with your stance in combat as opposed to when your standing around having a conversation.
if you have ever been in a fight or watched a fight you may notice that people in combat generally stand in a slight crouch with their weight on the balls of their feet which allows for quicker movement and balance.
While instinctive, that is a decidedly sub-optimal stance. Having your weight on the balls of your feet means you're overbalanced forward. In modern boxing/mma this generally isn't a problem because people generally don't pull. They're more interested in smash.
'Findel may have a point about an expression I've never heard, but even so I contend the expression doesn't mean what it purports to mean--in that it's a misnomer.
If you're on the balls of your feet, you cannot transfer force, nor can you resist force coming at you from any direction. You're practically falling down. The phrase "you fall upward" exists in martial arts for this exact reason. The only way to correct this error is to have your weight evenly distributed between the base of your toes and your heel. That is how an arch works--both bases of the arch have to be evenly on the ground.
While instinctive, that is a decidedly sub-optimal stance. Having your weight on the balls of your feet means you're overbalanced forward. In modern boxing/mma this generally isn't a problem because people generally don't pull. They're more interested in smash.
My good friend taught me boxing before he got his own club. He kept correcting me on my 'bouncy-ness' as I was instinctively on my toes, ready to react quickly (a natural 'style' as a I'm naturally more agile than strong).
One day he decided to teach me a lesson and caught me on the 'upbeat'. It didn't hurt (I saw it coming and could block easy) but he sent me flying across the room. Had I been in a ring I would have been caught in a corner unable to escape the upcoming blows in time.
Proper grounding IS essential in a fight.
Perhaps I underestimate boxers.
Either that or your friend is an exceptional one.
Perhaps I underestimate boxers.
Either that or your friend is an exceptional one.
I like to think that he was good, but I don't think he was exceptional. His point was exactly what you said:
If you're on the balls of your feet, you cannot transfer force, nor can you resist force coming at you from any direction.
For those having trouble with the verisimilitude of it, another consideration:
Let us look at 'Fighter Joe'. Fighter Joe has been arguing with Warrior Ron about some misunderstanding over the bar tab, at a range of 50' (they took it out into the streets or something). Warrior Ron, tired of Fighter Joe's mouth, draws out his weapon and continues his ranting. Fighter Joe, seeing the weapon, readies his shield and draws his own blade.
After a few more terse moments of shouting, Fighter Joe tells Warrior Ron in no uncertain terms that Ron's ancestry is undoubtedly polluted by the genes of a horse on his father's side of the equation. Warrior Ron then charges, leaving Fighter Joe 'flat-footed'. Why?
Because the initial attack is always the most dangerous. There are unlimited options or attack vectors for Ron to come from. Perhaps he'll do a handtrick with his sword and come over the top of Fighter Joe's shield in the Iron Chicken. Perhaps Warrior Ron will be feinting high then hitting low. Perhaps it will be a thrust, perhaps a shoulder swing. Maybe even a cross-swing backhandedly. Each of these comes from a different point of defense, and makes Fighter Joe have to worry about which one Warrior Ron will ACTUALLY use. He's literally defending from above and over his head to the tip of his ankles and on both sides of his body...and trying to do so with a light shield! Once Ron's swing has been made, his number of reasonable choices for a followup swing goes WAY down and Fighter Joe can get into the flow of things, working on the ebb and flow of established combat. Then his natural skill of movement and his shield come into play fully.
@atarlost Agreed
@Apoth You over thought that one a bit :)
@hudax and laura: Dont mistake centering your weight on the balls of your feet with standing on your toes. in a combat stance you dont simply stand on your tip toes or bounce like a rabbit. almost every successful fighting stance in the world consists of one foot in front of the other with weight centered on the balls of the feet (not standing tip toe) your heels may be touching the ground but your weight should not be centered on the heel or arch, this creates a much more stable yet versatile position from which to move and absorb blows. this is not only the correct way to do things but it is also somewhat instinctive hence my gripe over the flat-footed rule.
of course my years of military and martial arts training as well as both competitive and combative fighting may be totally wrong.
|
My CURRENT pet peeve... is the 'shooting through your allies gives a -4 to your attack... If they're in combat it's a -8.
In the core it only says enemies can provide you with soft cover, and in that I think they are refering to the -4 for being in melee, not a second helping. No where in the shooting into melee is it stated that it is -8, so not sure where you got that. It sounds like a house ruling based on the first part I mentioned.
In the core it only says enemies can provide you with soft cover, and in that I think they are refering to the -4 for being in melee, not a second helping. No where in the shooting into melee is it stated that it is -8, so not sure where you got that. It sounds like a house ruling based on the first part I mentioned.
Archer-------->Friend->Orc
Shooting through your friends means that the enemy has a +4 cover bonus to AC
Them being in combat with your friends means you have a -4 to hit.
The net result is a -8 to attack, which is why as an archer you need to take precise shot to drop it to -4.
|
|
In the core it only says enemies can provide you with soft cover, and in that I think they are refering to the -4 for being in melee, not a second helping. No where in the shooting into melee is it stated that it is -8, so not sure where you got that. It sounds like a house ruling based on the first part I mentioned.Archer-------->Friend->Orc
Shooting through your friends means that the enemy has a +4 cover bonus to AC
Them being in combat with your friends means you have a -4 to hit.
The net result is a -8 to attack, which is why as an archer you need to take precise shot to drop it to -4.
Where in the core does it say your allies provide cover against you? The only way you can justify it is reversing what is said about enemys provding you with soft cover on 196, though that would be stacking two negatives of the same category. If you can not stack bonuses from the same category, I would rule you can not do the opposite.
@hudax and laura: Dont mistake centering your weight on the balls of your feet with standing on your toes. in a combat stance you dont simply stand on your tip toes or bounce like a rabbit. almost every successful fighting stance in the world consists of one foot in front of the other with weight centered on the balls of the feet (not standing tip toe) your heels may be touching the ground but your weight should not be centered on the heel or arch, this creates a much more stable yet versatile position from which to move and absorb blows. this is not only the correct way to do things but it is also somewhat instinctive hence my gripe over the flat-footed rule.
of course my years of military and martial arts training as well as both competitive and combative fighting may be totally wrong.
It's not totally wrong, it's a fine point. I guarantee no one you've ever fought has the knowledge to take advantage of your front-weightedness. And I also bet you did well enough, so why would you question success?
You're right about the heels. That is too far back. But the weight should be in the center of the foot. For any action.
Would you lift weights using the stance you describe? Try it, and then try shifting your weight back 1 inch so it's where I describe. You will feel the weight in your bones instead of your muscles. Your calves will thank me, if nothing else.
To emulate that feeling in a fight is the goal. To do so, bend your knees a bit more (ie: sink 1 inch) and tuck your hips slightly.
You will find it is more powerful offensively and defensively, and you will be just as mobile if not more so (because you will have more force driving your legs with your feet flat on the ground).
I don't care about the term anymore, I would prefer if you became an even better fighter. Just try it.
Where in the core does it say your allies provide cover against you? The only way you can justify it is reversing what is said about enemys provding you with soft cover on 196, though that would be stacking two negatives of the same category. If you can not stack bonuses from the same category, I would rule you can not do the opposite.
Sorry, wish it worked that way but it doesn't (bolding mine):
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
The rule is for all creatures, including your enemies. And since the rules work the same for good guys and bad guys, soft cover applies to everyone. If you're a fighter toe-to-toe with an enemy, and an enemy archer shoots at you from behind him, you get cover. Thus, the same applies to when you're shooting at an enemy with a friend in the way.
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
Also note here, that the penalty for shooting into melee is a -4 to your attack roll. The Soft Cover provides +4 to the target's AC. Not to mention the causes of the two modifiers are different. Soft Cover could exist without the melee penalty, and vice versa. They definitely, without question, stack. Thus, there's an effective -8 to your attack roll (or +8 to their AC, however you want to look at it). This is why Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot are such important feats.
I guarantee no one you've ever fought has the knowledge to take advantage of your front-weightedness. And I also bet you did well enough, so why would you question success?
Actually much of my training is in mixed martial arts which has a strong foundation in judo and ju-jutsu which are designed to take advantage of inertia and imbalance. In other words, yes there is a front weighted bias in a normal combat stance however the stance provides greater stability for both attack and defense in all other situations and it is relatively easy to counter various techniques that attempt to pull you forward or overbalance you to your front although these techniques are still sometime used for surprise value.
Would you lift weights using the stance you describe?
a combat posture and a weight lifting posture are two entirely different things.
You will feel the weight in your bones instead of your muscles. Your calves will thank me, if nothing else.
interestingly what your talking about is exactly why a person would be considered "flat footed" when standing around in a more or less relaxed state (walking, talking to people, looking around) you tend to balance on your heals or arch because its more stable and relaxed for the purpose of standing or walking casually. However your less able to maneuver and react making such a stance poor for combat.
To emulate that feeling in a fight is the goal. To do so, bend your knees a bit more (ie: sink 1 inch) and tuck your hips slightly.
Actually this is mostly correct. add, widen your stance and put one foot in front of the other a comfortable distance to add stability from all angles. Its possible that we have essentially the same view but a different descriptive grasp of it.
I don't care about the term anymore, I would prefer if you became an even better fighter. Just try it.
I say this totally without threat or malice I would love to spar with you and go over the details of stance and maneuver in person. one of us may learn something or we may learn we are on the same sheet speaking different languages.
Actually this is mostly correct. add, widen your stance and put one foot in front of the other a comfortable distance to add stability from all angles. Its possible that we have essentially the same view but a different descriptive grasp of it.
I'll buy that. I was going to go into more detail on precisely that but thought it was too wordy in an already wordy post.
I say this totally without threat or malice I would love to spar with you and go over the details of stance and maneuver in person. one of us may learn something or we may learn we are on the same sheet speaking different languages.
It would be easier, wouldn't it? Sometimes words just fail.