Initiative and AC

[Stag]

One of the players in my group was adamant that being first in the initiative also denies the enemy their dex modifier to their AC for that character. Is this true? And if so where is it in the book?

[GreenETC]

Here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm)

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. 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.

[CrazyYanmega]

Wrong, by my view. Flat-footed means that the target is completely unaware of your presence from my point of view, or at the very least does not register you as a potential threat (if you are attacking allies who trust you). If the enemy is rolling initiative, they are not flat-footed.

[DarkSonic1337]

Wrong, by my view. Flat-footed means that the target is completely unaware of your presence from my point of view, or at the very least does not register you as a potential threat (if you are attacking allies who trust you). If the enemy is rolling initiative, they are not flat-footed.

While that makes some sense...that's not what the rules say by default. It's also an unnecessary nerf to Rogues.

What you're referring to is the surprise round, where they are flatfooted because they do not perceive the threat. What the OP is referring to is is the first round of combat, where you are flatfooted until your first turn. Initiative is in and of itself how fast opposing forces react to a situation. Like when you accidentally stumble across an unsuspecting enemy, both parties roll initiative to determine who reacts first. Going first in initiative is essentially reacting to entering a hostile situation faster than everyone else, so them being flatfooted does make sense to me.

[CrazyYanmega]

While that makes some sense...that's not what the rules say by default. It's also an unnecessary nerf to Rogues.

What you're referring to is the surprise round, where they are flatfooted because they do not perceive the threat. What the OP is referring to is is the first round of combat, where you are flatfooted until your first turn. Initiative is in and of itself how fast opposing forces react to a situation. Like when you accidentally stumble across an unsuspecting enemy, both parties roll initiative to determine who reacts first. Going first in initiative is essentially reacting to entering a hostile situation faster than everyone else, so them being flatfooted does make sense to me.

That's interesting. Thank you for that info. I'll pass it along to my group, as I am sure some of them would be pleased to hear this.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, it's rough for Rogues who rely on going first for sneak attack. Not only do you get DMs who are unaware of or (worse) refuse to go by the RAW, but an annoying issue I've found is they will also often call for initiative rolls way too early.

Either when the enemy is much further away (yeah, sometimes it's justified in big open plains, but not nearly as often as it seems to happen) than the rogue could ever hope to get within SA range and attack the first round, or in a lot of cases...before the enemy's actually "shown" itself. Like one time, I made a listen check and heard creatures swimming up to the surface of a pond to attack us. So...DM calls for init... *face palm* I win init, and just have to wait for them to take their turn to pop out of the water and no longer be flatfooted anyway. DM wouldn't let me opt to fail my listen check, I asked when I realized how my success was about to screw me over. :smallmad:

In general, there shouldn't be an initiative roll until one side is about to attack and is actually capable of making an attack. It's reactive, twitch-reflexes and all, after all. Other guy goes for his gun, you draw yours and shoot first sort of deal. Enemies bursting out of the ground to attack? Check to perceive them to see if they get a surprise round and if not, initiative happens as they're just popping out to see who strikes first. And so forth...

[nyjastul69]

One of the players in my group was adamant that being first in the initiative also denies the enemy their dex modifier to their AC for that character. Is this true? And if so where is it in the book?


No, this is not true. One is never denied there dex bonus to AC due to initiative order. One may find themselves flat-footed due to the initiative order, or other potential considerations. If one is flatfooted, one might, but not necessarily, lose their dex bonus to AC.

[CRtwenty]

No, this is not true. One is never denied there dex bonus to AC due to initiative order. One may find themselves flat-footed due to the initiative order, or other potential considerations. If one is flatfooted, one might, but not necessarily, lose their dex bonus to AC.

This is true. It's why abilities like Uncanny Dodge exist after all. :smallsmile:

[twistdement]

During Round 1 of combat you are flat footed until it is your turn. Stop trying to gimp rogues!

[nyjastul69]

During Round 1 of combat you are flat footed until it is your turn. Stop trying to gimp rogues!

Assuming your speakkng about sneak attack: being flat-footed doesn't help rogues. Flanking and denying dex to AC allow for SA. Flat-footed is not a condition that allows SA.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Assuming your speakkng about sneak attack: being flat-footed doesn't help rogues. Flanking and denying dex to AC allow for SA. Flat-footed is not a condition that allows SA.

From the second post in this very thread:

"You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. 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."

[nyjastul69]

From the second post in this very thread:

"You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. 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."

This correct. This was my point. Flat-footed is not a condition that allows SA.

[rmnimoc]

From the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm)
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC
Also from the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm)

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.

Can you explain to me how "Flat-footed is not a condition that allows SA."?
Doesn't "You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC" mean you are "denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"?

[nyjastul69]

Also from the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm)


Can you explain to me how "Flat-footed is not a condition that allows SA."?

You put my answer in the spoiler. Flat-footed is not a condition that allows for SA. There are exactly two conditions that allow for SA, deny one their dex to AC, or flank them. I understand that being caught flat-footed is a common way to be denied dex to AC, which allows for SA. Don't make the mistake of thinking flat-footed is the key component. It's denied dex to AC, it's a subtle but important distinction. The SA class feature is very clear.

[CRtwenty]

You put my answer in the spoiler. Flat-footed is not a condition that allows for SA. There are exactly two conditions that allow for SA, deny one their dex to AC, or flank them. I understand that being caught flat-footed is a common way to be denied dex to AC, which allows for SA. Don't make the mistake of thinking flat-footed is the key component. It's denied dex to AC, it's a subtle but important distinction. The SA class feature is very clear.

To be specific

You can make a sneak attack when a target is denied its DEX bonus to AC.

Being Flat-Footed is a state that can deny you your DEX bonus to AC.

However a target can still be Flat-Footed and not be denied its DEX bonus (due to Uncanny Dodge or whatnot) which means that Flat-Footed does not always guarantee a sneak attack.

[nyjastul69]

To be specific

You can make a sneak attack when a target is denied its DEX bonus to AC.

Being Flat-Footed is a state that can deny you your DEX bonus to AC.

However a target can still be Flat-Footed and not be denied its DEX bonus (due to Uncanny Dodge or whatnot) which means that Flat-Footed does not always guarantee a sneak attack.

What this guy said. :) Although I thought I was pretty specific each time. Also, I'm not trying to be combative, but I have found this particular nuance in the game to an issue for some. The odd thing to me is that the SA class ability doesn't even reference flat-footed.

Edit: I should add that the distinction is exceptionally important for rogues because the methods that deny dex to AC are far more numerous than are the methods that create the flat-footed condition.

[rmnimoc]

You put my answer in the spoiler. Flat-footed is not a condition that allows for SA. There are exactly two conditions that allow for SA, deny one their dex to AC, or flank them. I understand that being caught flat-footed is a common way to be denied dex to AC, which allows for SA. Don't make the mistake of thinking flat-footed is the key component. It's denied dex to AC, it's a subtle but important distinction. The SA class feature is very clear.

I see what you are saying, I simply misunderstood what you were saying in your earlier post. You were saying that SA was made possible by the denial of AC (in this case caused by being flat-footed) rather than an intrinsic property of being flat-footed. I mistakenly believed you mean that being flat-footed in no way contributed or enabled one to be SA'd (which it does by causing one to lose their dex bonus to AC [with the exception of certain feats and class features]). I apologize for that misunderstanding.

[nyjastul69]

I see what you are saying, I simply misunderstood what you were saying in your earlier post. You were saying that SA was made possible by the denial of AC (in this case caused by being flat-footed) rather than an intrinsic property of being flat-footed. I mistakenly believed you mean that being flat-footed in no way contributed or enabled one to be SA'd (which it does by causing one to lose their dex bonus to AC [with the exception of certain feats and class features]). I apologize for that misunderstanding.

Sorry for the miscommunication. It's likely my overzealousness in trying to point out that particular nuance. I've just had so many rogues in my games simply not understand that difference that it's become a pet peeve of mine.

[Psyren]

You put my answer in the spoiler. Flat-footed is not a condition that allows for SA. There are exactly two conditions that allow for SA, deny one their dex to AC, or flank them. I understand that being caught flat-footed is a common way to be denied dex to AC, which allows for SA. Don't make the mistake of thinking flat-footed is the key component. It's denied dex to AC, it's a subtle but important distinction. The SA class feature is very clear.

The list of circumstances that cause one to be flat-footed but NOT lose their dex bonus to AC is slim enough that harping on the distinction is actually more misleading and creates more noise than not doing so.

[CRtwenty]

The list of circumstances that cause one to be flat-footed but NOT lose their dex bonus to AC is slim enough that harping on the distinction is actually more misleading and creates more noise than not doing so.

I disagree. I've seen players get confused over the issue at my own table and if this thread is any indication it's far from an uncommon problem.

[Psyren]

I disagree. I've seen players get confused over the issue at my own table and if this thread is any indication it's far from an uncommon problem.

I'm not talking about the fact that the two conditions are different. For all intents and purposes, they both enable sneak attack (since 90% of the time, FF leads to DD) - so while it's accurate to say that FF itself does not enable sneak attack, the vast majority of the time it triggers the condition that does.

[Lans]

During Round 1 of combat you are flat footed until it is your turn. Stop trying to gimp rogues!
Isn't it until you act? So fighters with combat reflexes and wizards with nervous skitter wouldn't be flat footed if they used those abilities

[GreenETC]

Isn't it until you act? So fighters with combat reflexes and wizards with nervous skitter wouldn't be flat footed if they used those abilities
Nah, the rules say it's before your first actual turn on the initiative order, so you're still flat-footed even if you activate a contingent Celerity and take three turns in Time Stop, or at least that's my understanding.

[Person_Man]

The precision damage rules are terrible. Easy house rule to consider: Replace Sneak Attack with Backstab or Ambush.

Backstab: The Rogue deals extra damage on every attack he makes against any creature which he Flanks. Creatures with the Improved Uncanny Dodge ability are immune to Backstab if they have a higher class level then the Rogue.

Ambush: The Rogue deals extra damage on every attack he makes against any creature during the Surprise Round and against any creature that is Stunned, Cowering, Blinded, Helpless, Disabled, Paralyzed, or Grappled by another creature other then the Rogue. Creatures with the Uncanny Dodge ability are immune to Ambush if they have a higher class level then the Rogue.

Nothing is immune. The end.

[Psyren]

Nothing is immune. The end.

That wrecks verisimilitude. If I'm flanking a Jotunblood Storm Giant and all I can reach is his big toe, no f-ing way am I striking any kind of vital spot.

This is also ambiguous, because you claim nothing is immune but then rely on Flanking, which several creature types are immune to (oozes, elementals, ghosts etc.) And yet, those creatures can apparently be Ambushed, confusing the issue even further.

[Slipperychicken]

That wrecks verisimilitude. If I'm flanking a Jotunblood Storm Giant and all I can reach is his big toe, no f-ing way am I striking any kind of vital spot.

Maybe the Rogue climbs the giant like Kratos and stabs him in the eye.

Maybe throw in a jump/climb check or something.

[Amphetryon]

<snip>
In general, there shouldn't be an initiative roll until one side is about to attack and is actually capable of making an attack. It's reactive, twitch-reflexes and all, after all. Other guy goes for his gun, you draw yours and shoot first sort of deal. Enemies bursting out of the ground to attack? Check to perceive them to see if they get a surprise round and if not, initiative happens as they're just popping out to see who strikes first. And so forth...
While I understand why this makes sense from a gamist perspective (for lack of a better term springing to mind), is there specific verbiage in the DMG - or elsewhere in the rules set - that backs up this interpretation of when Initiative should be rolled?

[Psyren]

Maybe the Rogue climbs the giant like Kratos and stabs him in the eye.

Maybe throw in a jump/climb check or something.

Unless the rogue has a climb speed, I'd be pretty skeptical about pulling this off in < 6 seconds. (And what is the giant doing while this is going on?)

[Slipperychicken]

Unless the rogue has a climb speed, I'd be pretty skeptical about pulling this off in < 6 seconds. (And what is the giant doing while this is going on?)

It's all in the Climb skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/climb.htm). If you do well enough, then you can go pretty darn fast.


With a successful Climb check, you can advance up, down, or across a slope, a wall, or some other steep incline (or even a ceiling with handholds) at one-quarter your normal speed. A slope is considered to be any incline at an angle measuring less than 60 degrees; a wall is any incline at an angle measuring 60 degrees or more.


Accelerated Climbing
You try to climb more quickly than normal. By accepting a -5 penalty, you can move half your speed (instead of one-quarter your speed).

The giant might take an AoO or something unless the Rogue succeeds at a Tumble check to move into/through its space.


I know it's not RAW (because RAW wants you to stab the giant's toe until it dies), but I feel like this ruling is reasonable.

[Psyren]

Let's think about this. Half speed is still 10-15ft. for most rogues; a gargantuan creature meanwhile is anywhere from 2x to 4x that height. You're also not climbing a static wall or tree, you're climbing something (someone) that, even if he doesn't notice you, is bucking and heaving all over as he swings at/parries/tries to squash your flanking partner. (And if he does notice you, the situation is likely to deteriorate quite rapidly.)

On top of all that, Climb uses strength (likely to be a dump stat for most rogues.)

Also, Kratos is many things, but I wouldn't call him a rogue.

[Humble Master]

In response to the main question of the thread until you take your turn in combat you are Flat-Footed, thus denied your Dex bonus, thus vulnerable to Sneak Attack.


Maybe the Rogue climbs the giant like Kratos and stabs him in the eye.

Maybe throw in a jump/climb check or something.*cough* Shadow of the Colossus *cough*

But as Psyren said it is pretty unreasonable to say a Rouge would be able to scramble up a massive giant, in the middle of a fight, stab him in a weak spot, and then clamber down. Also, some creatures having weak spots just doesn't make sense. Golems you can at least argue might have specific points integral to their structural integrity but what about Oozes? They don't have an anatomy or can move their "organs" around.

[Buufreak]

Generally loving this discussion in full. The ideas of when a sneak attack can and can not be used, as well as jumping the gun on initiative really gets me thinking back to how often things get a chance to really mess up. However, isn't there something that claims you can't flank against a creature 2 sizes larger than you?

[Psyren]

Generally loving this discussion in full. The ideas of when a sneak attack can and can not be used, as well as jumping the gun on initiative really gets me thinking back to how often things get a chance to really mess up. However, isn't there something that claims you can't flank against a creature 2 sizes larger than you?

There's no such rule as far as I can see; so long as the flankers (creatures on the outside) have greater than 0ft. reach, they can flank an enemy no matter how big their opponent is. Two halflings can flank the Tarrasque.

You may be thinking of grapple, which does have a two size limit.

[Buufreak]

There's no such rule as far as I can see; so long as the flankers (creatures on the outside) have greater than 0ft. reach, they can flank an enemy no matter how big their opponent is. Two halflings can flank the Tarrasque.

You may be thinking of grapple, which does have a two size limit.

Oops, nice catch. I didn't think it sounded right. However it does sound somewhat foolish to think two of the smallest spiders could somehow gain a combat advantage over a great wyrm.

[Psyren]

Oops, nice catch. I didn't think it sounded right. However it does sound somewhat foolish to think two of the smallest spiders could somehow gain a combat advantage over a great wyrm.

Well again, you need reach, i.e. at least Small size. Spiders would likely be Tiny (or smaller) and thus could not flank.

[Invader]

I'd like to see numbers on how initiative compares to AC in regards to not getting hit. I'm sure some of our more mathematical members could reason it out but Int is my dump stat.

[Amphetryon]

Well again, you need reach, i.e. at least Small size. Spiders would likely be Tiny (or smaller) and thus could not flank.

Really, this is primarily an issue with the designers thinking in terms of Small/Medium PCs against Medium/Large opponents. Two Halflings could theoretically Flank a Colossal+ Great Wyrm without issue, but creatures relatively as small against the Halfling as the Halfling is against the Great Wyrm are not able to Flank. It's kind of a known dysfunction.

[Slipperychicken]

Really, this is primarily an issue with the designers thinking in terms of Small/Medium PCs against Medium/Large opponents. Two Halflings could theoretically Flank a Colossal+ Great Wyrm without issue, but creatures relatively as small against the Halfling as the Halfling is against the Great Wyrm are not able to Flank. It's kind of a known dysfunction.

The rules kind of break down for size categories below Small (and even those just treat them as medium creatures on the game board) because the 5ft square is the smallest increment the system recognizes.

Unless you did something strange like have a fractal grid, of course. Just subdivide each 5x5ft square into 2.5x2.5ft squares, 1.25x1.25ft squares, and so on as necessary for smaller-scale combat.



But as Psyren said it is pretty unreasonable to say a Rouge would be able to scramble up a massive giant, in the middle of a fight, stab him in a weak spot, and then clamber down. Also, some creatures having weak spots just doesn't make sense. Golems you can at least argue might have specific points integral to their structural integrity but what about Oozes? They don't have an anatomy or can move their "organs" around.

The Rogue would have to make several difficult checks at DC 25 or more, expend movement, and risk an AoO, which would in my opinion accurately represent the difficulty of climbing a monster mid-combat. And it also has precedence in fantasy (like the mumakil scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=132WIdxvgdo#t=0m15s)from LotR, for example).

As for the Ooze, I'm not sure how one would get around that, aside from taking a penalty (-4 seems reasonable) to stab any "moving organs" it might possess.

[TuggyNE]

That wrecks verisimilitude. If I'm flanking a Jotunblood Storm Giant and all I can reach is his big toe, no f-ing way am I striking any kind of vital spot.

In your zeal to unambiguously disprove a general statement, I fear you have inadvertently chosen the single most ambiguous test case possible. As such, I recommend you try again. Perhaps with animate lumps of rock and earth, or perhaps lumpy blobs of protoplasm.

[Faily]

Isn't it until you act? So fighters with combat reflexes and wizards with nervous skitter wouldn't be flat footed if they used those abilities

Combat Reflexes allows you to make Attacks of Opportunity even when caught flat-footed, but it does not remove the penalty of being denied your Dexterity to your AC.

Normally, a flat-footed person cannot make Attacks of Opportunity.

Making an Attack of Opportunity does not count as "acting on your turn". Combat Reflexes just embodies the idea of someone reacting before they have fully taken in the situation, as the name says "combat reflexes". :smallwink:

[Psyren]

In your zeal to unambiguously disprove a general statement, I fear you have inadvertently chosen the single most ambiguous test case possible. As such, I recommend you try again. Perhaps with animate lumps of rock and earth, or perhaps lumpy blobs of protoplasm.

I specifically didn't address oozes and elementals because his language for Backstab already addresses them. (They can't be flanked, and so they can't ever be "enemies that the rogue flanks.")

Counter-intuitively however, those types can be Ambushed - and I addressed that incongruity above already. So no, no need to try again actually.

[nyjastul69]

The list of circumstances that cause one to be flat-footed but NOT lose their dex bonus to AC is slim enough that harping on the distinction is actually more misleading and creates more noise than not doing so.

I understand your point. My experience is different however. I've not ever run into a situation where clarification of the rules was confusing to a player. YMMV of course.

[TuggyNE]

I specifically didn't address oozes and elementals because his language for Backstab already addresses them. (They can't be flanked, and so they can't ever be "enemies that the rogue flanks.")

Ah, my apologies for inadvertently committing the same error. :smallredface:

It's the more vexing because I was certain that elementals were, in fact, subject to flanking as one would expect, but for whatever reason they are not. :smallsigh:

Fortunately, ghosts are not immune to flanking (in either 3.5 or PF), so there's that.

1
All things considered, though, my basic point still stands, and is in fact rather reinforced: if the only test case you can muster against a particular provision is one that is highly dubious and much-debated, reconsider whether you really want to try that.

[Psyren]

Ah, my apologies for inadvertently committing the same error. :smallredface:

No worries!


It's the more vexing because I was certain that elementals were, in fact, subject to flanking as one would expect, but for whatever reason they are not. :smallsigh:

Well, it does make sense. Their bodies are totally amorphous - where is the weak spot on a water elemental? And while an earth elemental may have some rocks in its form that are lower quality than others, it's not like their structure depends on them.



Fortunately, ghosts are not immune to flanking (in either 3.5 or PF), so there's that.

Good call, I forgot that ghost touch weapons let you sneak attack incorporeals in PF.



All things considered, though, my basic point still stands, and is in fact rather reinforced: if the only test case you can muster against a particular provision is one that is highly dubious and much-debated, reconsider whether you really want to try that.

No, it doesn't, and no I don't need to reconsider anything. "Not being able to reach a vital spot" is a pretty basic consideration for sneak attack and one that is indeed likely to come up in play, particularly since a lot of rogue-players gravitate towards Small races.

It's the one that requires the most GM adjudication, sure, but that just means it's not talked about in RAW-happy message boards as much.

[Amphetryon]

The rules kind of break down for size categories below Small (and even those just treat them as medium creatures on the game board) because the 5ft square is the smallest increment the system recognizes.

Unless you did something strange like have a fractal grid, of course. Just subdivide each 5x5ft square into 2.5x2.5ft squares, 1.25x1.25ft squares, and so on as necessary for smaller-scale combat.

Is it your contention that this is in no way related to the bias toward Small/Medium Creatures (the ones that occupy a 5' square), or are you merely picking a nit?

[Lanaya]

That wrecks verisimilitude. If I'm flanking a Jotunblood Storm Giant and all I can reach is his big toe, no f-ing way am I striking any kind of vital spot.

And it wrecks verisimilitude that a fighter could do any reasonable damage in that situation. No matter how long he spends hitting that big toe with his great big power attacking greatsword, he's not going to do any real damage to the giant. But mundane characters already get shafted enough without also being restricted to only doing what would be physically possible in our universe, or even being restricted to things that make sense. It doesn't make any sense for a 20th level barbarian to survive a colossal dragon's breath weapon either, but people would be quite right to complain if every CR-appropriate enemy simply instant-killed any non-magical character.

[Psyren]

And it wrecks verisimilitude that a fighter could do any reasonable damage in that situation.

Not so. If you're strong enough to lift a house and you have a glowing sword that can shear through steel like it was a cloud, then yeah, you can really **** up an elephant's shinbone, or parry a hammer coming at you with the momentum of a speeding sedan, even if you're not giant-sized yourself.

But the point you're failing to grasp here is that none of those acts rely on precision. You don't need to hit a vital spot to hack someone off at whatever spot you can reach while fending off their blows, or to topple them off balance. You do however need it to hit an organ, nerve junction, blood vessel or joint that you simply can't reach from where you are.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Not so. If you're strong enough to lift a house and you have a glowing sword that can shear through steel like it was a cloud, then yeah, you can really **** up an elephant's shinbone, or parry a hammer coming at you with the momentum of a speeding sedan, even if you're not giant-sized yourself.

But the point you're failing to grasp here is that none of those acts rely on precision. You don't need to hit a vital spot to hack someone off at whatever spot you can reach while fending off their blows, or to topple them off balance. You do however need it to hit an organ, nerve junction, blood vessel or joint that you simply can't reach from where you are.

I dunno.... imagine a tiny metal pick being jammed between your big toe and the nail.

I would think it would be quite painful...

Fighter can use his toothpick-sized weapon to hurt the giant somehow with his martial skillz, why can't the crafty rogue find a way to do damage, too?

[Psyren]

"Pain" doesn't translate to HP damage though, otherwise Symbol of Pain would be able to kill.

The toothpick in your question isn't actually relevant - for the fighter, it's the force behind the toothpick that counts. A hurricane can drive a blade of grass through a tortoise-shell, that doesn't mean that grass can naturally slice turtles up. It's the force that matters. And we see this all the time mechanically; it's the damage from strength that carries the majority of the load in fight (particularly with force-multipliers like PA, or 2-handing a weapon), not whatever dice you're happening to roll for the weapon itself.

The rogue does have a way to do damage - reach a vital spot. That might mean a reach weapon, or changing size himself, or using a ranged attack while concealed etc. Or it might mean helping the fighter topple the giant so the rogue can reach his throat/eyes/belly - teamwork.

[olentu]

"Pain" doesn't translate to HP damage though, otherwise Symbol of Pain would be able to kill.

The toothpick in your question isn't actually relevant - for the fighter, it's the force behind the toothpick that counts. A hurricane can drive a blade of grass through a tortoise-shell, that doesn't mean that grass can naturally slice turtles up. It's the force that matters. And we see this all the time mechanically; it's the damage from strength that carries the majority of the load in fight (particularly with force-multipliers like PA, or 2-handing a weapon), not whatever dice you're happening to roll for the weapon itself.

The rogue does have a way to do damage - reach a vital spot. That might mean a reach weapon, or changing size himself, or using a ranged attack while concealed etc. Or it might mean helping the fighter topple the giant so the rogue can reach his throat/eyes/belly - teamwork.

My my. Let us hope that nobody ever tries a dex based fighter with low strength in one of your games.

[Psyren]

My my. Let us hope that nobody ever tries a dex based fighter with low strength in one of your games.

Why? There are ways of getting dex to damage. I'm talking about the basic scenario, obviously.

[olentu]

Why? There are ways of getting dex to damage. I'm talking about the basic scenario, obviously.

Shall we say that the inability to even damage several categories of creatures, as evidenced by the inability to pick up houses, makes the option much less desirable.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Cripes, I meant a lot of pain as in "massive damage." Why did I even bother?


Shall we say that the inability to even damage several categories of creatures, as evidenced by the inability to pick up houses, makes the option much less desirable.

Don't bother, he's convinced that a small rogue cannot possibly harm a giant, there's no point in arguing with him. You could concoct countless scenarios like slicing the giant's ankle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_tendon_rupture) so he can't walk and can hardly stand and so forth, and it won't make any difference. When it comes to rogues doing what they're supposed to do, it's not realistic, so too bad. And when you try to point out realistic ways the rogue could do it, the game doesn't support that level of detail, so nya.

[Psyren]

Shall we say that the inability to even damage several categories of creatures, as evidenced by the inability to pick up houses, makes the option much less desirable.

I have no idea what you're on about. Yeah, if you intentionally play a low-strength fighter without switching your damage stat away from strength, you're probably going to have a bad time. Did you need me to tell you that? :smallconfused:



Don't bother, he's convinced that a small rogue cannot possibly harm a giant, there's no point in arguing with him. You could concoct countless scenarios like slicing the giant's ankle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_tendon_rupture) so he can't walk and can hardly stand and so forth, and it won't make any difference. When it comes to rogues doing what they're supposed to do, it's not realistic, so too bad. And when you try to point out realistic ways the rogue could do it, the game doesn't support that level of detail, so nya.

I wasn't aware your ankle was a particularly vital area :smalltongue: I sprained mine the other day and blood was everywhere.

[TuggyNE]

Well, it does make sense. Their bodies are totally amorphous - where is the weak spot on a water elemental? And while an earth elemental may have some rocks in its form that are lower quality than others, it's not like their structure depends on them.

That's reasonable to explain why they aren't subject to precision damage. It doesn't much help to explain why they can't be flanked, though.


No, it doesn't, and no I don't need to reconsider anything. "Not being able to reach a vital spot" is a pretty basic consideration for sneak attack and one that is indeed likely to come up in play, particularly since a lot of rogue-players gravitate towards Small races.

It's the one that requires the most GM adjudication, sure, but that just means it's not talked about in RAW-happy message boards as much.

It's ambiguous, highly dubious, and much-debated not because it will never come up in play, but because on the occasions it comes up in discussions (on boards like this one; I've seen several such topics) the discussion is never resolved to one side or another: the debate continues acrimoniously until exhausted or locked. As such, attempting to use that as the basis for your argument is unwise prima facie: it is not a basis that gives you any kind of consensus to build on.

[Lans]

"Pain" doesn't translate to HP damage though, otherwise Symbol of Pain would be able to kill.
.

What about power word pain?

[olentu]

Cripes, I meant a lot of pain as in "massive damage." Why did I even bother?



Don't bother, he's convinced that a small rogue cannot possibly harm a giant, there's no point in arguing with him. You could concoct countless scenarios like slicing the giant's ankle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_tendon_rupture) so he can't walk and can hardly stand and so forth, and it won't make any difference. When it comes to rogues doing what they're supposed to do, it's not realistic, so too bad. And when you try to point out realistic ways the rogue could do it, the game doesn't support that level of detail, so nya.

Oh, I don't bother because of him. I know that in situations like these it is unlikely that positions will change. But perhaps I can save someone who was on the fence from making a bad decision.


I have no idea what you're on about. Yeah, if you intentionally play a low-strength fighter without switching your damage stat away from strength, you're probably going to have a bad time. Did you need me to tell you that? :smallconfused:

Oh, I am sure that the one could change their damage stat. But since giants and the like are immune to the damage of a character that is not strong enough to lift a house then it does not really matter in the end.

Edit: I suppose that crit based builds would likewise be a bad idea. Even those that can surpass the minimum required strength to deal damage would clearly be denied their critical hits.

[Psyren]

What about power word pain?

Mind-affecting; They think they're being hurt, so they are (matrix-style). Note that if you're immune to that sort of thing you take no damage.


That's reasonable to explain why they aren't subject to precision damage. It doesn't much help to explain why they can't be flanked, though.

They're amorphous and so have total control over their forms and structure. Art often depicts them with two forward-facing eyes or a rudimentary face but if you think about it, that convention isn't necessary at all. A water elemental, even one with "eyes" could simply place on on the front and one on the back to watch attackers from both sides. With no "brain" to process the strange information and get confused by it, they effectively have all-around vision and therefore can't be flanked.

Oozes are the same way - their bodies are simply too mutable for a "front" and a "back" to matter to them or carry the same limitations that it does for a more complex (and rigidly structured) organism.


It's ambiguous, highly dubious, and much-debated not because it will never come up in play, but because on the occasions it comes up in discussions (on boards like this one; I've seen several such topics) the discussion is never resolved to one side or another: the debate continues acrimoniously until exhausted or locked. As such, attempting to use that as the basis for your argument is unwise prima facie: it is not a basis that gives you any kind of consensus to build on.

I'm not looking for consensus - as you rightly said, that's impossible on an issue that requires GM adjudication since all GMs are different. I'm simply saying why I think it's reasonable for the rules to have limited SA in this way and why I think simply being a flanker or having concealment are inadequate on their own.



Oh, I am sure that the one could change their damage stat. But since giants and the like are immune to the damage of a character that is not strong enough to lift a house then it does not really matter in the end.

I'm not sure where you got "immune" from or why you feel the need to put words in my mouth that I didn't use - but if you're swinging at a creature with triple-digit hit points and using strength to damage on a low-strength build, well... he may not be immune to your damage outright, but it's going to take you so long to kill him that he might as well be. So I guess we can agree that far at least.

[olentu]

I'm not sure where you got "immune" from or why you feel the need to put words in my mouth that I didn't use - but if you're swinging at a creature with triple-digit hit points and using strength to damage on a low-strength build, well... he may not be immune to your damage outright, but it's going to take you so long to kill him that he might as well be. So I guess we can agree that far at least.

Who ever said that the character is not getting dex to damage.

Also, I just realized another thing. Without having the kind of strength you described how would such a character, say, parry a hammer coming at him with the momentum of a speeding sedan. Sure having a high dex can make it less likely that they are hit, but that does not mean that they are never hit.

Ah yes, I suppose it was perhaps putting words in your mouth to assume things like very big creatures being immune to critical hits scored by little creatures. So I may as well ask if in such a scenario the bigger creature will be unable to be critically hit.

[Treblain]

If we're talking about revising the sneak attack rules to help rogues, then why does it need to be 'precision' damage to begin with? Why can't it just be a sneak attack, in which the rogue is able to do more damage because the target isn't able to defend itself? It doesn't have to be a matter of finding a super-special weak spot in a giant's toe. Exploiting a tactical vulnerability is just as roguish as targeting a physical one.

HP is abstract, and precision damage doesn't make sense with it. If you're fighting a high-level human BBEG with hundreds of hit points, and the rogue sneak attacks him with a dagger for 30 or 40, the DM can't say "You stabbed him in a vital organ, just very lightly." The rogue evidently wasn't hitting some vital spot, even though this was supposedly precision damage.

[Psyren]

Who ever said that the character is not getting dex to damage.

If they are then we don't actually disagree on anything, there's no problem.



Also, I just realized another thing. Without having the kind of strength you described how would such a character, say, parry a hammer coming at him with the momentum of a speeding sedan. Sure having a high dex can make it less likely that they are hit, but that does not mean that they are never hit.

Seems like you answered your own question here.



Ah yes, I suppose it was perhaps putting words in your mouth to assume things like very big creatures being immune to critical hits scored by little creatures.

Where in the crit rules does it say they rely on reaching a vital spot?

Crits have all kinds of possible justifications but are generally fluffed as the attacker being lucky or the target being unlucky. SA has one.

[olentu]

If they are then we don't actually disagree on anything, there's no problem.



Seems like you answered your own question here.



Where in the crit rules does it say they rely on reaching a vital spot?

Crits have all kinds of possible justifications but are generally fluffed as the attacker being lucky or the target being unlucky. SA has one.

Ah, but you are forgetting about the question of verisimilitude. Earlier your answer was due to strength and a very magical weapon. It does not apply here.

No, not really considering that even characters with high dexterity still get hit.

The glossary.

[Psyren]

Ah, but you are forgetting about the question of verisimilitude.

Hitting hard due to "luck" (as opposed to hitting hard due to a reachable vital spot) is easily justified. Perhaps your target stumbled. Perhaps he was a bit more exposed than usual, and an area that is normally better protected or less debilitating was so for that one attack. Perhaps he shifted slightly just as you struck and actually pushed himself more onto your blade. Things like that.

And the nice thing about crits from a verisimilitude standpoint is that, if you're not doing a whole lot of damage normally, the crit isn't going to dramatically change that. Sneak attack is very different because the bonus is totally independent of your own physical prowess. A rogue 20 with 4 Strength who manages to sneak attack with a thumbtack is going to do 10d6 extra damage, a massive boost over what he is capable of normally. But that same rogue critting with that same thumbtack on a non-sneak attack is going to do only a point or two more damage. Do you see the difference now?



No, not really considering that even characters with high dexterity still get hit.

Why would they? Dex applies to AC.


The glossary.

Not sure what this bit means.

[olentu]

Hitting hard due to "luck" (as opposed to hitting hard due to a reachable vital spot) is easily justified. Perhaps your target stumbled. Perhaps he was a bit more exposed than usual, and an area that is normally better protected or less debilitating was so for that one attack. Perhaps he shifted slightly just as you struck and actually pushed himself more onto your blade. Things like that.

And the nice thing about crits from a verisimilitude standpoint is that, if you're not doing a whole lot of damage normally, the crit isn't going to dramatically change that. Sneak attack is very different because the bonus is totally independent of your own physical prowess. A rogue 20 with 4 Strength who manages to sneak attack with a thumbtack is going to do 10d6 extra damage, a massive boost over what he is capable of normally. But that same rogue critting with that same thumbtack on a non-sneak attack is going to do only a point or two more damage. Do you see the difference now?



Why would they? Dex applies to AC.



Not sure what this bit means.

Hitting hard due to luck does not really seem justified when striking an object that has no point that is more vital then another. Also it is not really what I was talking about. I was more talking about how your answer to this

And it wrecks verisimilitude that a fighter could do any reasonable damage in that situation. No matter how long he spends hitting that big toe with his great big power attacking greatsword, he's not going to do any real damage to the giant. But mundane characters already get shafted enough without also being restricted to only doing what would be physically possible in our universe, or even being restricted to things that make sense. It doesn't make any sense for a 20th level barbarian to survive a colossal dragon's breath weapon either, but people would be quite right to complain if every CR-appropriate enemy simply instant-killed any non-magical character.

Was this

Not so. If you're strong enough to lift a house and you have a glowing sword that can shear through steel like it was a cloud, then yeah, you can really **** up an elephant's shinbone, or parry a hammer coming at you with the momentum of a speeding sedan, even if you're not giant-sized yourself.

But the point you're failing to grasp here is that none of those acts rely on precision. You don't need to hit a vital spot to hack someone off at whatever spot you can reach while fending off their blows, or to topple them off balance. You do however need it to hit an organ, nerve junction, blood vessel or joint that you simply can't reach from where you are.
Which rather does not cover dex based characters. Dex based characters do not have strength to "really **** up an elephant's shinbone" or to "parry a hammer coming at you with the momentum of a speeding sedan" meaning that they will rather do no damage and get killed to death when struck by an attack. The fact crits are a problem is a different thing.


And yet characters with high dexterity can still get hit. Seriously, are you actually arguing that characters with high dexterity can never get hit. I am guessing that the answer is no, but I have certainly heard more absurd things before so you will have to confirm.


To explain what I mean, recall that you asked

Where in the crit rules does it say they rely on reaching a vital spot?

Crits have all kinds of possible justifications but are generally fluffed as the attacker being lucky or the target being unlucky. SA has one.
It was my intent for this

The glossary.
To be interpreted as a response to the aforementioned question.

[WrathMage]

Here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm)

See thanks to this I realise where I have been going wrong with this for the last 14 years (since 3.0). Just when you think you know the rules properly...

Thanks for enlightening me, teach me not to re-read the rules every once in a while.

[georgie_leech]

Psyren, what is it you imagine a DEX-based damager does to make DEX completely replace swinging harder to increase damage?

[Psyren]

Psyren, what is it you imagine a DEX-based damager does to make DEX completely replace swinging harder to increase damage?

I can't answer that without knowing exactly how you're getting Dex to damage. For instance, the Agile property does it via magic, so it doesn't have to be rationalized at all. Similarly, Shadow Blade does it via blade magic transforming your Dex into speed/momentum with an esoteric technique. Neither of those necessarily mean "exclusively striking vital areas."


Hitting hard due to luck does not really seem justified when striking an object that has no point that is more vital then another.

And which perfect object would that be? Rules Compendium states that a critical can be explained not only by "vital organs" but also due to "points of weakness" or simply "differentiation from one portion of the body to another." The third is the most telling in this situation, since any creature that isn't totally amorphous will have simple differentiation even if those areas couldn't typically be called "vital." Which is why a crit is possible even against some creatures that are difficult to SA.



Also it is not really what I was talking about. I was more talking about how your answer to this

Was this

Which rather does not cover dex based characters.

It's not supposed to cover them - that's my point. The specific ability they use to get dex to damage is what does that. As I said more than once earlier in the thread, I was speaking about the general case - every ability that grants Dex to damage is an exception to the general rule. the general rule is that you only get Str to damage.



And yet characters with high dexterity can still get hit. Seriously, are you actually arguing that characters with high dexterity can never get hit.

No, I'm saying they wouldn't need to parry/batter aside a swing with strength because that's presumably not the kind of fighting style a Dex-based character would be using.

Remember that D&D combat is an abstraction - the two parties aren't standing there perfectly motionless until their turn in the initiative order. It's assumed that they are trading/checking blows, shuffling, hopping or even leaping about in place as they slash and parry. So when a Str-based character lands a hit, it's because he created an opening by swatting aside his opponent's defense or something similar. When a dex-based character does so, it's by flowing around their attack or something similar.



To explain what I mean, recall that you asked

It was my intent for this

To be interpreted as a response to the aforementioned question.

See the Rules Compendium expansion on that mentioned above. As I said before, Crit does not necessarily mean "vital area."

[bekeleven]

"Pain" doesn't translate to HP damage though, otherwise Symbol of Pain would be able to kill.


What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher power.
Pain is a perfectly adequate explanation for dealt precision damage.

[Psyren]

Pain is a perfectly adequate explanation for dealt precision damage.

Er... that passage doesn't say anything about pain? This seems like a non sequitur.

[bekeleven]

Er... that passage doesn't say anything about pain? This seems like a non sequitur.

If hit points represent the endurance required to continue after injury, a sort of battle stamina, then someone twisting a knife in your toe could deal more hit point damage than someone just poking it. You seemed to be implying that hit points directly correlate to the body's ability to function despite injury, and 0 HP is simply when the body shuts down, no longer able. My point was that hit points are significantly more abstract.

Similarly, getting your Achilles tendon cut could easily translate into less ability to take punishment and keep going. So I disagree that you can't sneak attack an ankle because it's not "a vital area."

[Nerd-o-rama]

That wrecks verisimilitude. If I'm flanking a Jotunblood Storm Giant and all I can reach is his big toe, no f-ing way am I striking any kind of vital spot.

This is also ambiguous, because you claim nothing is immune but then rely on Flanking, which several creature types are immune to (oozes, elementals, ghosts etc.) And yet, those creatures can apparently be Ambushed, confusing the issue even further.

Just to go back to the original argument, you could be hitting a larger target in the femoral artery, the hamstring, or some other equivalent important piece of anatomy in the leg. They might not be as vulnerable as the eye (for example), but they're still vital spots that can be struck to inflict exceptional wounds on a target or otherwise provide a tactical advantage. Part of being a rogue is knowing where to hit anything where it will cause the most damage, just like part of being a rogue is knowing how to stand in the one precise spot where the Acid Orb isn't.

EDIT: Sorry, I missed the post explaining why I wasn't seeing dozens of versions of this post, in that this argument seems to have happened already. I also missed a more general explanation of "you do more damage because the target can't defend himself properly and you know how to exploit that" and that frankly makes more sense.

Also, >D&D, >Verisimilitude, but I'm sure someone brought that up already.

[Lanaya]

I can't answer that without knowing exactly how you're getting Dex to damage. For instance, the Agile property does it via magic, so it doesn't have to be rationalized at all. Similarly, Shadow Blade does it via blade magic transforming your Dex into speed/momentum with an esoteric technique. Neither of those necessarily mean "exclusively striking vital areas."

Sure, sneak attack is now an esoteric technique. That would explain rather nicely why only rogues do bonus damage against unaware targets. Is sneak attacking a giant's toe reasonable now?

[olentu]

And which perfect object would that be? Rules Compendium states that a critical can be explained not only by "vital organs" but also due to "points of weakness" or simply "differentiation from one portion of the body to another." The third is the most telling in this situation, since any creature that isn't totally amorphous will have simple differentiation even if those areas couldn't typically be called "vital." Which is why a crit is possible even against some creatures that are difficult to SA.



It's not supposed to cover them - that's my point. The specific ability they use to get dex to damage is what does that. As I said more than once earlier in the thread, I was speaking about the general case - every ability that grants Dex to damage is an exception to the general rule. the general rule is that you only get Str to damage.



No, I'm saying they wouldn't need to parry/batter aside a swing with strength because that's presumably not the kind of fighting style a Dex-based character would be using.

Remember that D&D combat is an abstraction - the two parties aren't standing there perfectly motionless until their turn in the initiative order. It's assumed that they are trading/checking blows, shuffling, hopping or even leaping about in place as they slash and parry. So when a Str-based character lands a hit, it's because he created an opening by swatting aside his opponent's defense or something similar. When a dex-based character does so, it's by flowing around their attack or something similar.



See the Rules Compendium expansion on that mentioned above. As I said before, Crit does not necessarily mean "vital area."

Well since you said those feet have no vital areas I took that to mean that all areas were equally vital, not that the giant's feet were completely unrelated to the rest of the creature. But yes, the rules compendium. The first sentence of the section on critical hits is "A critical hit is an attack that deals more damage, indicating a hit to a vital area." Please note that it says "vital area" not "vital organs" meaning that it can easily encompass the various descriptions in the next sentence. As you can see the rules compendium does nothing to diminish my point, and, if anything, only reinforces it.

Well if your explanation was not supposed to cover them please feel free to provide one that does. Since this is not really part of the rules, as we are discussing fluff and DM fiat, the rule being general or specific does not really matter. For the fluff to maintain cohesion it must cover all the rules.

And yet dex based characters still get hit.

Why yes, it is normally an abstraction. However since we are trying to be more realistic the abstraction must be explained realistically. Also dex based characters still get hit. Also there is the problem of dex based characters not having the strength to deal damage.

As the rules compendium and the glossary agree I merely chose to give the glossary reference since it was likely to be more available.