|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 10:26AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
'Flat footed' is great for full surprise scenarios, but terrible for a non-surprise fight.
Two warriors are facing off, and will engage in a sword fight to the death.
Both are well trained in fencing and have seen countless bloody battles.
One is a 'Fighter' and one is a 'Rogue'
When the battle begins, with both combatants standing with drawn blades, ready to skewer each other...The rogue somehow 'sneak attacks' the fighter.
Why? because the fighter has not acted yet. That seems quite illogical to me.
It seems all non rogue characters have brain damage, and must stand still with drool hanging from their mouths until the rogue impales them to wake them up.
Now, if the battle started with the fighter unaware of the rogue, or if he was not prepared for battle, it might make sense for a rogue to get in a cheap shot, if that's what rogues are good at. Still silly, because fighters certainly would know how to get in cheap shots as well.
My point here is not that I like fighters better than rogues.
I just never thought the flat footed rules made any logical sense.
I am very dissapointed to see such a bad game mechanic survive into 4th edition.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 10:32AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
The example combat you cited (sounds like a gladitorial match) probably should assume that both combatants are 'readied' before either combatant goes, and as a DM I'd probably enforce that. Say that both of them are in initiative and holding their actions until the fight actually starts.
The flat-footed condition of 3rd edition and the First Strike ability of the 4th edition Rogue are both intended to simulate an encounter where a surprise round might occur and the combatants haven't been staring at each other for several rounds straight with the intent to kill.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 11:09AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2003
|
I agree with both posters. Flat-footed situations can be silly, but there's a way around it that doesn't seem to require house rules.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 11:46AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2005
|
I rather like the mechanic, although some tweaking could be needed, but not much. As for the fighter vs rogue issue, well, I may not be a battle hardened fighter, but I've been in enough fights to know that sometimes making the first move can be better and doesn't always start by who physically moves first.
If two combatants are standing at the ready and can clearly see each other, often or not it comes down to perception. The fighter may be a seasoned warrior, but if initiative represents both physical and mental readiness, then it could easily show the the fighter didn't anticipate the precise moment the rogue would act, which is a huge combat advantage. I think combat advantage is used to really let the rogue do what it does best, take even the smallest weakness, even when prepared, and exploit it to no end.
A good fighter knows to attack a rogue first and keep the pressure up, his martial prowess and survivability should keep him going, while not allowing a rogue time to observe or study. Every moment you spend watching an opponent, is a moment he is watching you as well.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 12:40PM
#5
|
|
|
Okay, look at any comic book or novel where two people are having a confrontation, staring each other right in the face, when one of them attacks. What does the other guy always say?
"I didn't realize he was that fast!"
That's what flat-footed before you act is. You weren't expecting the opponent to move so quickly.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 12:42PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
4e has rather toned it down though... it would seem that only rogues get combat advantage vs an opponent who hasn't gone yet, other characters don't.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 12:48PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2003
|
The example combat you cited (sounds like a gladitorial match) probably should assume that both combatants are 'readied' before either combatant goes, and as a DM I'd probably enforce that. Say that both of them are in initiative and holding their actions until the fight actually starts.
That's exactly how I've always seen that type of combat. The fighter and the rogue have been acting, but due to the rules of the combat, they have been taking no actions to fight each other yet. The rogue would not get his combat advantage for being the first to attack, because the fighter has already acted, but has not attacked.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 12:50PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
The example combat you cited (sounds like a gladitorial match) probably should assume that both combatants are 'readied' before either combatant goes, and as a DM I'd probably enforce that. Say that both of them are in initiative and holding their actions until the fight actually starts.
The flat-footed condition of 3rd edition and the First Strike ability of the 4th edition Rogue are both intended to simulate an encounter where a surprise round might occur and the combatants haven't been staring at each other for several rounds straight with the intent to kill.
That's my point! Flat footed needs to be used for surprise only. That is NOT what they are planning to do.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 12:54PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2009
|
I'm rather intrigued by the possibilities of the "combat advantage" state. The rogue gets it against a flat-footed opponent, but other classes could get different benefits for different situations. For example, a mounted fighter and/or paladin could get combat advantage against any non-mounted opponent, or a barbarian could get combat advantage against any foe who caused him damage in the preceding round. I imagine arcane and divine classes could have some truly weird options with combat advantage...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2008 - 12:59PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
I rather like the mechanic, although some tweaking could be needed, but not much. As for the fighter vs rogue issue, well, I may not be a battle hardened fighter, but I've been in enough fights to know that sometimes making the first move can be better and doesn't always start by who physically moves first.
If two combatants are standing at the ready and can clearly see each other, often or not it comes down to perception. The fighter may be a seasoned warrior, but if initiative represents both physical and mental readiness, then it could easily show the the fighter didn't anticipate the precise moment the rogue would act, which is a huge combat advantage. I think combat advantage is used to really let the rogue do what it does best, take even the smallest weakness, even when prepared, and exploit it to no end.
A good fighter knows to attack a rogue first and keep the pressure up, his martial prowess and survivability should keep him going, while not allowing a rogue time to observe or study. Every moment you spend watching an opponent, is a moment he is watching you as well.
Just my thoughts.
The fighter should be able to take the rogue by surprise just as easily if both are ready. If surprised, I can live with the rougue getting a bonus. Its still illogical, because a fighter would destroy somene they caught unprepared as well.
I will rephrase my point.
Flat footed type rules are ok with surprise.
Flatfooted is not logical when there is no surprise.
The start of a fight is not a logical time to allow flat footed UNLESS there is surprise.
Surprise is not AUTOMATIC every time any fight starts!
That is what they are doing in 4th, and it makes no sense.
Explain to me why a rogue, or anyone for that matter, should automaticly surprise every foe he fights regardless of how the fight starts every single time...but wait! even more illogical..only the first round! you forget how to do it after the fight starts!
It defies logic.
I would also debate that not knowing the precise moment your foe plans to attack is a 'huge combat advantage'.
Are you saying that after the first swing the combatants then DO know the precise moment of each attack to follow for the rest of the battle? I do not see the logic there.
The fighter should always have the advantage in a straight up fight.
The rogue should always have the advantage when he sneaks up and or takes his enemy by surprise.
|
|
|
