| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
    
Montreal
 | | 02/27/2007 8:59 AM |
| Another question. I'm definitely on a roll 
Blind fight allows you to keep your DEX bonus to AC against an invisible attacker (and the latter doesn't get his usual +2 bonus for being invisible).
Here are four hypothetical situations to clarify this in my mind. In each, an invisible rogue wants to attack Mr. B who has the blind fight feat.
Situation #1: The rogue is hiding behind a wall and backstabs Mr. B when he walks by. The rogue was hiding and hits Mr. B by surprise, i assume he looses his DEX bonus to AC in such a situation because he was flat-footed even if Mr. B has blind fight. Right?
Situation #2: Now say the invisible rogue is standing in the middle of a corridor, motionless, and Mr. B walks up to him not knowing that he's there, and the rogue attacks Mr. B. Does he loose his DEX bonus to AC in such a situaiton? The rogue was not hiding, only the invisibility allowed him not to be spotted, but obviously Mr. B wasn't aware of his presence (having failed the DC 30 spot check if you wish). I would say that Mr. B would probably be considered flat-footed in this case, and would again loose his DEX bonus, what do you say? The thing is, the blind fight feat specifically says that Mr. B should not loose his DEX bonus to AC against an invisible attacker. But how can he not be considered flat-footed in this case?
Situation #3: Mr. B is in the middle of a battle with a number of opponents. Thus, he is not flat footed. The rogue is hiding behind a wall and backstabs Mr. B when he walks by during the fight. Mr. B looses his DEX bonus to AC because the rogue was hiding, right?
Situation #4: Mr. B is in the middle of a battle with a number of opponents, thus not flat-footed again. The rogue is standing still in the middle of the room, Mr. B is not aware of his presence, and the rogue attacks him when he moves close to the rogue while battling other opponents. Does Mr. B get his DEX bonus to AC against the invisible rogue, considering that he is not aware of his presence, that he is not flat footed, that blind fight allows him to maintain his DEX bonus to AC against invisible opponents? Hehe. This one i don't know.
Sky
| |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Oryan77
Sergeant
955 Posts
| | 02/27/2007 10:29 AM |
| Posted By Skyscraper on 02/27/2007 8:59 AM
Situation #1: The rogue is hiding behind a wall and backstabs Mr. B when he walks by. The rogue was hiding and hits Mr. B by surprise, i assume he looses his DEX bonus to AC in such a situation because he was flat-footed even if Mr. B has blind fight. Right?
Situation #2: Now say the invisible rogue is standing in the middle of a corridor, motionless, and Mr. B walks up to him not knowing that he's there, and the rogue attacks Mr. B. Does he loose his DEX bonus to AC in such a situaiton? The rogue was not hiding, only the invisibility allowed him not to be spotted, but obviously Mr. B wasn't aware of his presence (having failed the DC 30 spot check if you wish). I would say that Mr. B would probably be considered flat-footed in this case, and would again loose his DEX bonus, what do you say? The thing is, the blind fight feat specifically says that Mr. B should not loose his DEX bonus to AC against an invisible attacker. But how can he not be considered flat-footed in this case?
Situation #3: Mr. B is in the middle of a battle with a number of opponents. Thus, he is not flat footed. The rogue is hiding behind a wall and backstabs Mr. B when he walks by during the fight. Mr. B looses his DEX bonus to AC because the rogue was hiding, right?
Situation #4: Mr. B is in the middle of a battle with a number of opponents, thus not flat-footed again. The rogue is standing still in the middle of the room, Mr. B is not aware of his presence, and the rogue attacks him when he moves close to the rogue while battling other opponents. Does Mr. B get his DEX bonus to AC against the invisible rogue, considering that he is not aware of his presence, that he is not flat footed, that blind fight allows him to maintain his DEX bonus to AC against invisible opponents? Hehe. This one i don't know.
#1. Yes, Mr. B is not aware that anyone is attacking him yet. So he loses his Dex bonus and can be sneak attacked. After the Rogue attacks, Mr. B is not flat-footed and he keeps his Dex bonus.
#2. You're always considered flat-footed if you are unaware of your opponent. If Mr. B doesn't know that there's an enemy about to pounce on him, Mr. B is flat-footed and loses his Dex bonus & can be sneaked attacked. After the Rogue attacks, Mr. B is not flat-footed and he keeps his Dex bonus. The invisibility isn't the factor...Mr. B not being aware of his opponent is the factor. The Rogue could stand there without being invisible and if Mr. B walked by with his eyes closed; he can be sneak attacked if he doesn't sense the Rogue's presence. So just having the spell active doesn't all of a sudden let Mr. B keep his Dex bonus.
#3. Correct. You have to be aware of the person who is attacking you. If he didn't notice the Rogue in the battle, then he loses his Dex when the Rogue sneak attacks. But, after the Rogue attacks, Mr. B is not flat-footed and he keeps his Dex bonus.
#4. If the Rogue is standing in the middle of battle invisible and Mr. B failed to spot his shimmer & doesn't know he's there; Mr. B can be sneak attacked because he is unaware of the Rogues presense. And....after the Rogue attacks, Mr. B is not flat-footed and he keeps his Dex bonus.
I think you're overanalyzing things. It's pretty straight forward.
A. You can sneak attack if the target is unaware of your presense. That's all you need to know, "Does the guy with Blind-Fighting know the Rogue is there?" He doesn't? Then he's flat footed.
B. Having Blind-Fight doesn't mean you're immune to being surprised. All of your examples are "surprise" attacks because Mr. B doesn't know there's a Rogue around. But, once Mr. B knows there's a Rogue attacking him invisible, then he's no longer flat-footed and his Blind-Fighting kicks in to help against a Greater Invisible opponent if the Rogue can keep attacking while invisible.
| |
Miniatures for sale *more added 07/17/08*: Click here
I will buy your unwanted D&D WotC minis collection (DDM only). Email me your asking price! | |
| 
zenthrus
Commander
4836 Posts
SLC, UT
| | 02/27/2007 10:33 AM |
| #1: This scenario indicates that the rogue is initiating a surprise round. Since Mr. B has not acted during the surprise round, he is flat-footed and the flat-footed rules supercede the Blind-Fight feat, thus Mr. B loses his Dex bonus to AC during the initial attack and would regain it in future rounds assuming the rogue is still somehow invisibile.
#2: Rules for being flat-footed supercede the Blind-Fight feat (virtually no difference from the first scenario).
#3 and #4: Using DMG page 24 (rules for new combatants): If the rogue was included in the initial initiative order when combat was first established (which seems likely if he was in the room the whole time) Mr. B would not lose his Dex bonus to AC since he is not flat-footed (both he and the rogue had already acted in initiative order during a combat). If the rogue was not included in that initial initiative roll, Mr. B would like still retain his Dex bonus to AC because he would only be considered flat-footed during the first round in which the rogue entered combat (and the scenario implies that the rogue has been around for more than one round). Mr. B would only lose his Dex bonus to AC if the rogue was an aware new combatant entering combat and attacked Mr. B on the first round (which I would consider to be a surprise action due to the rogue being invisible).
| |
Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie?
Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers
Knight of the Large Dire Chicken
Have/Want List
Trade References | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/27/2007 11:31 AM |
| Thanks for your replies.
Oryan: it may be straightforward, but i have three answers (the two
above this reply and a third from WotC online help that i contacted
after having posted since i felt like having their feedback too) and
all three are different. Go figure
Below is WotC's answer to the same questions.
Everyone agrees on #1 and #2 (i just wanted to set the base of my question with these two scenarios). #3 and #4 there is disagreement.
#3: Oryan and WotC say Mr. B looses DEX bonus to AC, Zenthrus says he keeps it.
#4: Zenthrus and WotC say Mr. B has DEX bonus to AC, Oryan says he looses it.
If i understand correctly:
Oryan suggests that Mr. B looses his DEX bonus to AC whenever he is unaware of the rogue, i.e that he is considered flat-footed whenever he is unaware of the rogue, even if he is already battling opponents. Would he then only be flat-footed "relative to the rogue"? I do not recall having seen this in the rules before.
Zenthrus suggests that Mr. B looses his DEX bonus to AC whenever he is flat-footed, notwithstanding whether the rogue is invisible or hiding or whatnot.
WotC's answer appears to be: if you're not flat-footed *and* only the invisiblity prevents you from reacting to (or seeing) the rogue, then you keep your DEX bonus to AC. Their answer is somewhat unclear in my mind however. Plus... a visible but hiding rogue would then be better off than the invisible but non-hiding rogue, which makes little sense since being invisible is pretty much the quintessence of hiding.
I'll contact them again to clarify their position.
I'm under the impression that the flat-footed criterium is the proper one to apply here after reading some more, although it's kind of weird to think that Mr. B would maintain his DEX bonus to AC against an invisible opponent who's presence is unknown to him. But then again, that would be the purpose of the feat, would it not?
Sky
|
| Invisible vs blind fight | | | |
| Response (Chris L.) | 02/27/2007 10:47 AM | Thank you for contacting us.
Unfortunately no... if
the character is flat-footed, without uncanny dodge, they would lose their Dex
bonus to AC whether their opponent is invisible or not.
Situation 1:
Correct. The rogue catches their opponent by surprise... without the benefit of
uncanny dodge, they would be considered flat-footed and without their Dex bonus
to AC.
Situation 2: Still loses their Dexterity bonus to AC... due to
being flat-footed and unaware of their opponent.
Situation 3:
Right.
Situation 4: In this case... you are already in battle, and would
retain your Dexterity bonus to AC... since you're not flat-footed as
well.
I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would
appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to
fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update
your question please click
here.
Chris.
Customer Service Supervisor
Wizards of the
Coast |
|
|
|
| |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/27/2007 11:53 AM |
| Thinking more about this: the criterium of "being aware of the invisible opponent" doesn't make sense in my mind (which is what i used before today, by the way). How can you be aware of an invisible opponent? Would this happen once you know that there's is one? So you need to either be able to detect him or spot him? Detecting him renders the blind fight feat useless anyway, so you need to spot him? If you hear a noise, how can you be sure that this is an invisible opponent (as opposed to a ghost sound, for example)? If someone tells you that there is an invisible opponent in the room, you suddenly benefit from your feat even though you can't see him? I don't see this working very well. By definition, the idea of being invisible is that others don't see you and consequently aren't aware of you (but they might be aware that "there is an invisible creature somewhere", which is pretty thin to rely on during a battle).
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/27/2007 12:01 PM |
| Okay, go another reply.
So the criterium is: if the blind fighter is not flat-footed, he keeps his DEX bonus to AC in whatever circumstance.
Which means that this is also true against a hiding character, which is not what i was doing up to now. Even if someone is hiding you keep your DEX bonus to AC if you're already fighting. Weird, isn't it? Although mechanically speaking i guess it makes sense.
Below the new answer from WotC.
Sky
|
| Invisible vs blind fight | | | |
| Response (Chris L.) | 02/27/2007 11:54 AM | If you're not already flat-footed (a condition that
only exists prior to your first action in combat) then you would get your
Dexterity bonus against attacks made by an invisible attacker. Whether or not
this is affected by your knowledge of the attacker's existence isn't specified
in the rules. Your DM is free (you if you're the DM) to rule that if you're
simply not aware of the attacker on any level that you would still lose your Dex
bonus, however an argument can be made otherwise based on the fact that the
rules don't say this is the case.
That said... the other poster is
correct. You lose your Dex bonus to AC whenever you're flat-footed (uncanny
dodge nonwithstanding), whether the rogue is invisible or hiding or
whatnot.
I apologize if I confused the issue.
We would appreciate
your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to
fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update
your question please click
here.
Chris.
Customer Service Supervisor
|
| |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Oryan77
Sergeant
955 Posts
| | 02/27/2007 12:10 PM |
| Ah yeah, that's a whole other bag of worms. Interpreting "what it means
to be surprised" was an issue I had when I first started DM'ing 3rd ed.
Back in 2nd ed, we determined surprise rounds by whether or not you
noticed a guy attacking you, not whether or not you noticed the guy.
But 3rd ed seems to say that if you know a person is there, you aren't
surprised.
So for example, if you're talking to a guy at a desk, the guy at the
desk might have a loaded hand xbow underneath his desk aimed right at
you that you didn't know about. He might get a free surprise attack
since you weren't expecting him to attack you yet. But according to 3e,
he can never get a surprise attack because you're aware that he's right
in front of you. So I go with the 3e ruling now...the guy wouldn't get
a surprise attack since you're aware of him.
The reason I think Mr. B is flat-footed in both #3 & #4 is because
I don't believe the Rogue should be considered part of the same
encounter. No one knows he's there, so he's a "secret" encounter.
I do that because of this:
The PC's are about to fight 4 guys that they see infront of them &
1 guy they don't see who's invisible, and you say "roll initiative".
Everyone is giving their initiative orders to the guy in charge of
initiatives. When the DM gives him 5 NPC initiatives...what's everyone
say? "Oh, there's 5 guys?"
Now according to the rules of awareness...if simply rolling initiative
determines whether or not Mr. B is flat-footed vs the invisible Rogue,
then why was everyone surprised that there's a 5th initiative?
Shouldn't they have been "aware" of the 5 guys presence?
I say no, and I don't tell them about the 5th initiative until he's made his sneak attack.
| |
Miniatures for sale *more added 07/17/08*: Click here
I will buy your unwanted D&D WotC minis collection (DDM only). Email me your asking price! | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/27/2007 12:43 PM |
| Interesting discussion.
I don't interpret the 3rd Ed rules as you do i believe Oryan. My understanding of your crossbow under the desk example, is that there has been no initiative yet, no visible threat, and consequently the person standing in front of the desk is flat-footed.
Where it becomes somewhat ironic, is that the person standing in front will not be flat-footed if he's battling with a different person entirely but still does not expect the person at the desk to fire a crossbow.
In other words, flat-footedness is absolute according to my understanding of WotC rules. It does not intergrate whether you are aware or not of one particular opponent or another. Either you're flat-footed or you're not.
In come the invisibility rules: against an invisible opponent, you loose your DEX bonus to AC and the opponent gets +2 to hit. Exception: if you have blind fight.
So it makes sense really.
You seem to propose rules where your awareness of each particular opponent determines whether you keep your DEX bonus to AC against these opponents. Where i don't understand how the rules you propose work, is: what does the blind fight feat give you? I understand that you say that you need to be aware of an invisible attacker to benefit from your blind fight feet and maintain your DEX bonus to AC, but how can you be aware of such an opponent if you can't see him? Isn't that the very essence of invisibility: the perfect hiding magic so that others will be unaware of you?
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
zenthrus
Commander
4836 Posts
SLC, UT
| | 02/27/2007 12:53 PM |
| Awareness of opponent only matters for the purposes of determining a surprise round. Once combat ensues, it makes little difference (as far as the rules are concerned) whether or not you notice someone sneaking up on you/hiding/invisible/whatnot. The exception, as I noted above, is if a new combatant enters the fray (and the rules for new combatants are pretty unambiguous).
I find it odd that WotC would rule Mr. B loses his Dex bonus since he is engaged in battle and therefore not considered flat-footed. Interesting discussion  | |
Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie?
Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers
Knight of the Large Dire Chicken
Have/Want List
Trade References | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/27/2007 1:21 PM |
| I think WotC agree with you Zenthus - he modified his opinion in the second post i believe.
This being said: the new combatant rule doesn't seem to change anything.
Forgetting about the entire invisibility and blind fight thing for a second...
The only question to resolve is whether or not a creature is flat-footed or not. If so, DEX bonus lost. We all know how to resolve flat-footedness, so we'll skip this part.
New combatant on round 1 or round 10? No change: is the target flat-footed or not? That's all that needs answering.
Since flat-footedness is an absolute condition, i.e. either you're flat-footed for all your enemies or your not, then whether or not your opponent is hiding or visible in plain sight, changes nothing. Whether your opponent arrives on round 1 or on round 10, changes nothing either.
In comes invisibility: as per the rules, the target of an attack by an invisibile creature looses his DEX bonus to AC.
In comes blind fight: you keep you DEX bonus to AC against attacks by invisible creatures. Apart if you're flat footed of course.
Use the hide skill to make a sneak attack? Only possible outside of the combat round structure, i.e. when you can catch your opponent flat-footed.
Where these rules make little sense is that when Mr. B fights with other creatures, and retires to the rear of the combat scene to cast healing spells, he'll still benefit from his DEX bonus to AC against the invisible or hiding rogue that comes out to pierce him with his rapier. No sneak attack against Mr. B here.
Of course, as suggested by WotC, a house rule can be made here. But that's another matter, and i don't think at the outset that i'd like to go there anyway.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Oryan77
Sergeant
955 Posts
| | 02/27/2007 1:26 PM |
| I think we're talking about 2 separate things here.
Your flat-footed discussion is based on whether or not someone has acted yet after initiative has been started. In that case, yes, Mr. B is not flat-footed if he has already acted in the round. But that's in regards to the rule "You are considered flat-footed if you have not acted yet during the first round of combat".
Since Mr. B is unaware of the invisible Rogues presence on the battle field (he never even knew the guy was in the fight), then the Rogue can catch Mr. B flat-footed with a sneak attack if Mr. B doesn't spot his invisible body first.
Let me try to simulate what I'm talking about, maybe that's easier:
Mr. B steps on the field and sees 4 enemies.
DM calls out initiatives.
Enemy #1 goes first, then Mr. B, & then the other 3 enemies go.
Since Mr. B hasn't acted yet, he is flat-footed. Enemy #1 attacks Mr. B who has no Dex bonus.
Mr. B then gets to act and he regains his Dex bonus. He attacks Enemy #4 who is flat-footed since he hasn't acted yet.
Everyone else finally makes an action.
But, before the 1st round is over, all of a sudden Mr. B is attacked! There was a 5th enemy he didn't know existed! The invisible Rogue pops out of nowhere and sneak attacks Mr. B. Since Mr. B wasn't "aware" of the Rogue, he had no reason to be on red alert vs an invisible opponent. Therefore, the Rogue catches him flat-footed, Mr. B loses his Dex bonus, and the Rogue sneak attacks him. Mr. B doesn't get to use his Blind Fighting because he didn't know he needed to be dodging an invisible opponent.
That could be a DM call I guess. But to me, that's like saying that because "God aka DM" calls out for initiative order, people on earth are suddenly aware that there may be an invisible opponent about to attack. I think of being flat-footed as meaning, "You weren't prepared for that opponent yet". If you knew what you were up against, then you're aware & prepared. If a new invisible rogue opponent that you didn't realize you had to deal with attacks you, I don't think you were prepared for that opponent yet.
Now say, the Rogue has Greater Invisibility up. After the Rogues first attack on Mr. B, Mr. B now knows there's an invisible enemy near him. He's aware of the Rogues presence, so he can now fight blindly without being flat-footed.
What I'm getting at is, Blind Fighting is not an immunity to being flat-footed. There's other ways to become flat-footed other than simply because your being attacked by an invisible guy. All a Rogue needs to do to get sneak attacks on you is to catch you while you're distracted (no Dex bonus).
It's all how you choose to interpret the rules/situaton. If you think that Mr. B is aware of a possible invisible rogue in the battle, simply because Mr. B is in battle & on high alert vs any threat, then it makes just as much sense as my interpretation.
| |
Miniatures for sale *more added 07/17/08*: Click here
I will buy your unwanted D&D WotC minis collection (DDM only). Email me your asking price! | |
|
Oryan77
Sergeant
955 Posts
| | 02/27/2007 1:40 PM |
| Posted By zenthrus on 02/27/2007 12:53 PM
The exception, as I noted above, is if a new combatant enters the fray (and the rules for new combatants are pretty unambiguous).
See, that's my angle. I consider the invisible Rogue a "new" combatant since Mr. B doesn't know he has to deal with him yet.
If Mr. B didn't see the Rogue, that's part of your "surprise round".
If Mr. B is aware of everyone but the Rogue, then the Rogue wins the surprise round and is the only character that gets to make 1 action before the round starts (because Mr. B sees the other enemies, so they can't act in a surprise round, & the other enemies see Mr. B, so he can't act in a surprise round). If the Rogue doesn't attack Mr. B yet, he will still "surprise" Mr. B when he does attack and show his presence later on to Mr. B.
You guys are forgetting that if no one spotted the Rogue before combat, then the Rogue is the ONLY guy that gets a surprise round action.
Same scenario:
Mr. B sees the enemies ahead and doesn't need to roll a spot check for a surprise round (neither do those enemies that see Mr. B). But, as DM, I would secretely roll Mr. B's spot check vs the Rogues invisibility so the player isn't aware of anything. If he fails to see the Rogue, the Rogue is the only character that gets to act in a surprise round.
The Rogue is too far to attack, so he moves as close to Mr. B as he can.
Then initiatives start.
If Mr. B still doesn't spot the invisible rogue, he's still unaware of the Rogue and has no reason to Fight Blindly or dodge a new opponents attacks.
When it's the rogues turn, once he's close enough & if Mr. B still fails his spot checks, the Rogue catches Mr. B flat-footed.
If in your #4 scenario Mr. B saw the Rogue at the start of combat and the Rogue turns invisible...then yes, Mr. B is aware of the Rogue and isn't flat-footed when the Rogue attacks him because Mr. B has blind fighting. But the way you wrote the scenario made me think that Mr. B never knew the Rogue was part of the combat until Mr. B spots him or the Rogue reveals his presence.
| |
Miniatures for sale *more added 07/17/08*: Click here
I will buy your unwanted D&D WotC minis collection (DDM only). Email me your asking price! | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/27/2007 2:53 PM |
| I understand what you're saying Oryan. However i don't think it's supported by the rules, however logical you may find it to be.
As per the rules, you cannot be flat footed against one opponent while not being flat-footed against the others. Either you're flat footed or you're not. It's an absolute value. The awareness or non-awareness of an opponent changes nothing to the DEX bonus to AC if you're not flat-footed. If Mr. B is already battling others (i.e. he's not flat footed) and he has blind fight, he will not loose his DEX bonus to AC against the rogue whatever the circumstance.
This is the relevant portion of the email from the WotC employee who answered my question:
********
If you're not already flat-footed (a condition that only exists prior to your first action in combat) then you would get your Dexterity bonus against attacks made by an invisible attacker. Whether or not this is affected by your knowledge of the attacker's existence isn't specified in the rules. Your DM is free (you if you're the DM) to rule that if you're simply not aware of the attacker on any level that you would still lose your Dex bonus, however an argument can be made otherwise based on the fact that the rules don't say this is the case.
That said... the other poster is correct (Sky's note: he's referring to Zenthrus and answers my comment about Zenthrus' argument). You lose your Dex bonus to AC whenever you're flat-footed (uncanny dodge nonwithstanding), whether the rogue is invisible or hiding or whatnot.
*********
If you see anything in the rules that contradict this approach, please refer me to them. Of course, as suggested above, you can house rule that if Mr. B is not aware of the rogue he looses his DEX bonus to AC, and that would not be unreasonable IMO. But i won't go there myself and simply continue with circumstance bonuses on the fly.
This being said, your point about the player's knowledge of a 5th combatant relies on the fact that you ask players to keep the initiative count. I don't so the meta-gaming by players to know about an invisible opponent does not occur in my case. I say this because you come back to this point in explaining your argument.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Oryan77
Sergeant
955 Posts
| | 02/27/2007 3:48 PM |
| I apologize, I always do this. I forget that the term "flat-footed" refers only to 'losing your Dex bonus at the beginning of a round'. I always use that term when I'm talking about a person being denied their Dex bonus at any time. For example, if you're being flanked, I always say "Your considered flat-footed". It's just easier for me to use the term than to say you don't get your dex bonus. Sorry about that. I should have remembered that people don't use the term the way I do 
But if I'm wrong that a person isn't denied their Dex bonus from attacks they didn't see coming, that's news to me. I look at invisible Rogues as being like the Feint attacks, only they don't have to roll an opposed check or spend an extra action to attack since the target already won't be aware the attack is coming.
BTW, I would have even told my players they are flat-footed when getting hit by a Feint attack It's just so much easier to say!
| |
Miniatures for sale *more added 07/17/08*: Click here
I will buy your unwanted D&D WotC minis collection (DDM only). Email me your asking price! | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/28/2007 11:18 AM |
| Gotcha.
I also learned through the responses received yesterday from WotC that a non-flat-footed character would retain his DEX bonus to AC if attacked by a hiding rogue. I was also using the "unaware" criterium. I'm under the impression that this question has been asked before, as reading between the lines the WotC employee suggests that being unaware of an opponent may be house ruled to remove the DEX bonus to AC against that opponent and appears to say that not for the first time.
However, i think an argument can be made that the rule still makes sense. When a person is not flat-footed, i.e. he's in battle position, perhaps he is covering or defending his vital spots more thoroughly, thus preventing a sneak attack. Enough to keep DEX bonus to AC? This is where it's questionable.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Wraithborne
Commander
3546 Posts
West Virginia
| | 03/01/2007 5:20 AM |
| Posted By Oryan77 on 02/27/2007 10:29 AM #1. Yes, Mr. B is not aware that anyone is attacking him yet. So he loses his Dex bonus and can be sneak attacked. After the Rogue attacks, Mr. B is not flat-footed and he keeps his Dex bonus.
This is not entirely correct. Since it was a surprise attack, if the rogue wins initiative, Mr. B is still flat footed until his turn.
| |
The year: 1994. From out of space comes a runaway planet, hurtling between the Earth and the Moon, unleashing cosmic destruction! Man's civilization is cast in ruin!
Two thousand years later, Earth is reborn...
A strange new world rises from the old: a world of savagery, super science, and sorcery. But one man bursts his bonds to fight for justice! With his companions Ookla the Mok and Princess Ariel, he pits his strength, his courage, and his fabulous Sunsword against the forces of evil.
He is Thundarr, the Barbarian!
| |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |