PDA

View Full Version : An ignored rule [3.5]



SciChronic
2013-06-15, 01:17 PM
So in 3.5, during combat you should be considered flat-footed until you start taking your actions in a round, yet most people tend to ignore this rule, is there any reason why most people do so?

edit: oops wrong sub-forum, feel free to move.

Lord Vukodlak
2013-06-15, 01:18 PM
So in 3.5, during combat you should be considered flat-footed until you start taking your actions in a round, yet most people tend to ignore this rule, is there any reason why most people do so?
My group doesn't ignore it and the rule only applies to the first round of combat. See Initiative in the SRD or PHB

Flat-Footed
At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.

And in How Combat Works starting Flat-foot is step 1. But Step 5 is to repeat step 4&5 until combat ends.

SciChronic
2013-06-15, 01:36 PM
ah, that explains a lot, the section for initiative in PHB is rather misleading :smallannoyed:


A player is flat-footed until he or she takes an action i feel as if they could have worded that better...

Rhynn
2013-06-15, 01:37 PM
So in 3.5, during combat you should be considered flat-footed until you start taking your actions in a round, yet most people tend to ignore this rule, is there any reason why most people do so?

Who the heck ignores that rule? That's pretty freaking vital: it's why surprise gets you a real advantage on the first round of combat, and it's one of the ways to apply sneak attack damage (and take down weaker opponents fast)! That's the only time you are even flat-footed, except when you get feinted (when you're only considered flat-footed against one opponent). Like, that's the definition of the condition.


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.

Edit: Ah, okay. I misread and missed that you'd misunderstood the rule.

Lord Vukodlak
2013-06-15, 02:06 PM
ah, that explains a lot, the section for initiative in PHB is rather misleading :smallannoyed:

i feel as if they could have worded that better...

Well they do word it better the line before it is "At the start of battle."

Slipperychicken
2013-06-15, 03:03 PM
Because it's work to remember it.

Sith_Happens
2013-06-15, 10:37 PM
I've never seen anyone ignore that rule. It's kind of important.

BWR
2013-06-16, 02:22 AM
None of the groups I've come across have ignored or misinterpreted that rule. It cost me a character on one occasion, and very nearly so on others.

Killer Angel
2013-06-16, 04:11 AM
ah, that explains a lot, the section for initiative in PHB is rather misleading :smallannoyed:

i feel as if they could have worded that better...

:smallconfused:



Flat-Footed
At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed

Honestly, many rules in 3.5 are unclear, but this is not one of them.

SiuiS
2013-06-16, 06:26 AM
ah, that explains a lot, the section for initiative in PHB is rather misleading :smallannoyed:

i feel as if they could have worded that better...

Well, actions count in combat, it doesn't say action for the turn, so any action at all negates flat footed until it resets. It's still intuitive.

And most groups don't ignore this, it's just that when an enemy actually gets the drop on you they also get surprise, which makes it look like one big rule instead of a lot of fiddly ones. In slowly building fights, people often perform actions before combat "begins" specifically to avoid this; I know interpolated combat begins with readying actions (an action) and prepping to draw weapons or moving into position or even using social skills.


:smallconfused:

Honestly, many rules in 3.5 are unclear, but this is not one of them.

Easy mistake, but still a mistake; The SRD is NOT the player's handbook.

JusticeZero
2013-06-16, 04:14 PM
That's also because the "start of the turn" is "when the character in question gets to act". There is no one global turn point that you can point at and say "there is where the round starts", it's just a perpetual wheel.

TuggyNE
2013-06-16, 05:13 PM
Easy mistake, but still a mistake; The SRD is NOT the player's handbook.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the printed version doesn't say that? Because if so, errata is a thing, and criticizing their pre-errata text is a bit unfair. Or are you saying that the text in question is actually not from the PHB at all?

SiuiS
2013-06-16, 05:21 PM
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the printed version doesn't say that? Because if so, errata is a thing, and criticizing their pre-errata text is a bit unfair. Or are you saying that the text in question is actually not from the PHB at all?

The first half. I've seen dozens o people have arguments over word choice quibbles because one used the SRD and one used the PHB and they have different texts in some places. I, personally, give more weight to the physical book over Internet sources for example; an SRD entry which conflicts with the book text in a way that is not clearly superior won't fly at my table.

As such, one should be aware of what their source is, compared to te source of their partner in a discussion. It's much easier to be on the same side and explore differences than at each otsr'a throats over printing versions.

EDIT: better example; drowning.

Drowning was used for tricks to boost your skills. Sado/masochism spells, pain link or whatever, and delay death. Cause an infinite damage chain reaction which gives you all +infinite to all skills. The "cure" was 'dunk your head in water until you drown, your HP becomes 0'. That didn't work for me. Why?

The players handbook says about drowning "your HP goes down to zero", so if it's already lower? You stay there.
The PHB doesn't have rules for recovering from drowning; unless you use storm wrack, you're dead (not that I would enforce this, but it's a handy tool when discussing technicalities).

Apparently, later sources have drowning set your HP to zero. Totally and completely different assumptions come with setting as opposed to reducing.

Lord Vukodlak
2013-06-16, 06:51 PM
Easy mistake, but still a mistake; The SRD is NOT the player's handbook.
Except when the two entries exactly match one another save for one tiny line I've put in bold.

Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. (This fact can be very bad for you if you’re attacked by rogues.) Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Doesn't matter if they were reading the SRD or PHB the entry is the same. This didn't happen because one person read the PHB and another the SRD its exactly the same either way. Also the passage on drowning in the SRD matches the DMG entry on page 309.
This happen from misreading the rules to begin with.

TuggyNE
2013-06-16, 07:08 PM
The first half. I've seen dozens o people have arguments over word choice quibbles because one used the SRD and one used the PHB and they have different texts in some places. I, personally, give more weight to the physical book over Internet sources for example; an SRD entry which conflicts with the book text in a way that is not clearly superior won't fly at my table.

Besides Lord Vukodlak's counterpoint, I again note the existence of errata, which d20srd.org applies, and printed books do not (you have to go and look them up and then remember the changes or put them on post-its or something). If the official errata changes something in the physical book, how can you interpret the resulting difference between the SRD and printing as anything other than an error in the book?

Generally, the only differences besides that are due to omissions in the SRD (like the highlighted line in the quote); if it's not an omission, it's almost certainly errata.

Lord Vukodlak
2013-06-16, 10:15 PM
Generally, the only differences besides that are due to omissions in the SRD (like the highlighted line in the quote); if it's not an omission, it's almost certainly errata.

Or monsters and spell names that don't fall under the OGL

TuggyNE
2013-06-16, 10:34 PM
Or monsters and spell names that don't fall under the OGL

Yeah. Most of those are just omitted, but all the "Mage's X" are Mordenkainen's, and so on.

SiuiS
2013-06-17, 04:39 AM
Except when the two entries exactly match one another save for one tiny line I've put in bold.

Sure, but if someone says " my PHB says this" and the response is "My SRD says this" then there is a clear misunderstanding. that was my point.

Drowning I think got updated in the rules compendium, but it's been at least six years since I cared.



Generally, the only differences besides that are due to omissions in the SRD (like the highlighted line in the quote); if it's not an omission, it's almost certainly errata.

The small cosmetic differences cause different extrapolations sometimes. I've seen it quite often, but then I've also seen blatant misunderstanding, so mileage and all that.

Yes, it is likely errata, but not everyone uses the errata.

TuggyNE
2013-06-17, 05:48 AM
Yes, it is likely errata, but not everyone uses the errata.

I would like to once again ask: whyever not? Or, as past me said,
If the official errata changes something in the physical book, how can you interpret the resulting difference between the SRD and printing as anything other than an error in the book?

I don't understand the mindset of taking an uncorrected error as gospel when the correction is not that hard to find.

SiuiS
2013-06-17, 08:16 AM
I would like to once again ask: whyever not? Or, as past me said, [...] I don't understand the mindset of taking an uncorrected error as gospel when the correction is not that hard to find.

Well, two reasons that have come up are either, not everyone has the same idea of resource use – I've seen and played games where there was no digital component, for example – and because the errata fixes a problem that was not a problem for the group.
Sorry. Didn't answer before because it wasn't germane.