“Lose your Dexterity bonus to AC” really needs a specific condition name.

[St Fan]

What I am saying is that losing your Dexterity bonus to AC is a common condition, and yet it doesn’t have a clear designation. Because of this, it is often conflated with flat-footed, despite the conditions being distinct, and losing the Dexterity bonus is just a part of it.

My suggestion would be to name it the “vulnerable” condition.

With this in mind, the full effects of these two conditions are as follow:

Vulnerable:
• Temporarily lose any Dexterity bonus to AC (Dexterity penalties remains);
• Temporarily lose any Dodge bonus;
• Become susceptible to special attacks aimed specifically at vulnerable individuals (most notably, sneak attack).

Flat-footed:
• Become Vulnerable (unless you have Uncanny Dodge)
• Cannot make attacks of opportunity (unless you have Combat Reflexes)
• Cannot take immediate actions
• Cannot take some specific defensive moves (notably Deflect Arrows)
• Become susceptible to special attacks aimed specifically at flat-footed individuals (notably a Iaijustu attack or the Hit-and-Run Tactics ACF)

Now, I would be interested in listing all situations that makes you flat-footed and/or vulnerable, especially those where the wording ends up ambiguous between the two because of this former lack of clear nomenclature, and in which of either categories you think they should fit. Let’s see...

Flat-footed:
• Before your initiative turn in a fight
• While balancing (unless you have 5 ranks or more in Balance)
• Against the first attack with an invisible weapon (see Bladeshimmer, Complete Scoundrel)
• Against the first attack after a successful Sleight of Hand (see skills, Complete Warrior)
• Against the first attack after a successful Acrobatic Backstab (skill trick, Complete Scoundrel)
• Against an Escape Attack from a grappled opponent (skill trick, Complete Scoundrel)
• Against the first attack with an Hidden Blade (skill trick, Complete Scoundrel)
• Against a Sudden Draw attack of opportunity (skill trick, Complete Scoundrel)
• Against a Flick of the Wrist quick-draw (feat, Complete Warrior)

Vulnerable:
• Part of the Cowering condition
• Part of the Flat-Footed condition (unless you have Uncanny Dodge)
• Part of the Helpless/Paralyzed conditions (Dexterity equals 0)
• Part of the Stunned condition
• When Grappling, except against the opponent grappled
• When blinded or fighting an invisible opponent (unless you have Uncanny Dodge or Blind-Fight)
• Off-balance in a water environment (unless you have freedom of movement)
• While climbing (unless you take a -20 penalty on the Climb check)
• While running (unless you have the Run feat)
• Against the first attack after failing a check opposing a Feint
• Against a weapon thrown with the Neraph Throw feat (Planar Handbook)

Please contribute...

[Gruftzwerg]

I get what you mean, but you have made the wrong assumption here.

"Lose your Dexterity bonus to AC" ain't a real condition, it's the penalty given for several (!) possible conditions.

Further "vulnerable" is misleading. "Unable to react properly" would come close but still to vague imho to cover all conditions where your "lose your dex bonus to ac"..

edit: and what do you want us to do (contirbute)? Spamming request mails to WotC to re-release 3.5 with some corrections we demand?^^

[St Fan]

No, I meant contribute to the list of situations that can get someone flat-footed or vulnerable, since the one I've given is far from exhaustive.

And "Unable to react properly" describe much more closely flat-footed than vulnerable.

[denthor]

Here is your complete list.

When the DM says it applies.

[Darg]

Losing your Dex bonus to AC does not mean you lose your dodge bonuses. Take fainting for example. Dodge bonuses still apply. So your vulnerable condition does not apply to all situations that you lose your dex bonus.

What you are specifically wanting is an identifiable name that is easy to say and understand as symbolizing a specific scenario. To apply to situations where you lose dodge bonuses you would have to say vulnerable and unable to dodge or maybe extra vulnerable.

[rrwoods]

Losing your Dex bonus to AC does not mean you lose your dodge bonuses.

Yes it does:


A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items. Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have. Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply against touch attacks.

[St Fan]

Losing your Dex bonus to AC does not mean you lose your dodge bonuses. Take feinting for example. Dodge bonuses still apply. So your vulnerable condition does not apply to all situations that you lose your dex bonus.

What you are specifically wanting is an identifiable name that is easy to say and understand as symbolizing a specific scenario. To apply to situations where you lose dodge bonuses you would have to say vulnerable and unable to dodge or maybe extra vulnerable.


Well, that's where you're completely wrong. From the SRD, in the modifier types section about Dodge bonus: (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#dodgeBonus)

"Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have."

So no, Dodge bonuses don't still apply after a feint.

Edit: Oh, look, a ninja.

Anyway, that's why I think it needs a specific condition name, since it has several effects. Otherwise, some can easily forget about this Dodge bonus part, as demonstrated above.

And also, because the condition still hits you even if you have no Dexterity bonus to AC to lose.

[Darg]

Alright, proven wrong.

You could call it "nondodgeable" or "indodgeable." Creating new words is fine. Vulnerability generally refers to a creatures weakness against a damage type.

[Saint-Just]

Losing your Dex bonus to AC does not mean you lose your dodge bonuses. Take fainting for example.

I am sure that fainting normally results in loss of consciousness and concomitant lose of Dex bonuses, Dodge bonuses and your tiny hat. You were probably thinking about getting the vapors which any high-class (and level) lady should be able to do without losing combat effectiveness.


Alright, proven wrong.

You could call it "nondodgeable" or "indodgeable." Creating new words is fine. Vulnerability generally refers to a creatures weakness against a damage type.

Non-, in-, or undodgeable would refer to something that cannot be dodged. "Dodgeless" would be morphologically proper but it sounds... uninspiring. I agree that "vulnerable" would be ok description of that situation in the vacuum but it's already taken in D&D

I was trying to invent something came up with "off balance" and then looked it up and it was already taken too.

[rrwoods]

Thesaurus.com gives a few synonyms for "flat-footed", some of which might be useful here if 3.5 hasn't already taken them to mean something else:

* inattentive -- this could work, but to me is a little to explicitly mental rather than physical.
* unalert -- similar, possibly a little better though
* unready -- this is a word? apparently! my pick would be this one, even though it's a tad clunky to read and say
* unvigilant -- clunkier than "unready", and also has mental connotations
* unwatchful -- same

I'm leaving out ones I think are obviously bad but you can hit thesaurus.com yourself and see them :)

[Biggus]

Vulnerability generally refers to a creatures weakness against a damage type.

Good point. "Exposed" maybe?

[DarkSoul]

"Off-balance"?

[Saint-Just]

"Off-balance"?

Already taken, as I said. NoDXtoAC and +2 to the attacker's attack rolls. The only place I can find it used is "walking the tightrope" in PHB, but I remember it being used in some other book.

[GrayDeath]

So, you`ve gotten "Out of Dodge?"







Badum-tiss!








Ok, ok, I´ll see myself out.....

[St Fan]

Okay, I can see the argument against using "vulnerable", since it is indeed already used.

"Exposed" sounds like the best proposition till now, closest in meaning.

Maybe "feinted" otherwise, though this sounds like limited to the Feint maneuver...

Let's see other synonyms on the Wiktionary... "defenseless", "unguarded", "unprotected"... maybe.
"Unguarded" isn't bad, if taken in the sense of "lowering your guard"...

[Darg]

In the sense of "unguarded," what about "off-guard?" People get caught off-guard all the time.

[_RAGNAR_]

I get what you mean, but you have made the wrong assumption here.

"Lose your Dexterity bonus to AC" ain't a real condition, it's the penalty given for several (!) possible conditions.

Further "vulnerable" is misleading. "Unable to react properly" would come close but still to vague imho to cover all conditions where your "lose your dex bonus to ac"..

edit: and what do you want us to do (contirbute)? Spamming request mails to WotC to re-release 3.5 with some corrections we demand?^^



pretty much this

why do we need a name for a penalty? (really why do we need a NEW name?) It has a name "lose your dexterity bonus to AC" is its name

Its a penalty that comes about from conditions of which there are many. I'm unsure what problem is being solved its been working fairly well for a couple years...

[St Fan]

why do we need a name for a penalty? (really why do we need a NEW name?) It has a name "lose your dexterity bonus to AC" is its name

Its a penalty that comes about from conditions of which there are many. I'm unsure what problem is being solved its been working fairly well for a couple years...

Because "lose your dexterity bonus to AC" doesn't describe it correctly. It's "lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (but not your malus), lose your Dodge bonus and become susceptible to special attacks such as Sneak Attacks".

Hence it needs a name to clarify exactly what the condition imply, and to stop confusing it with flat-footed.

And yes, "off-guard" is probably the best suggestion.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Here's an important one tucked away in the Rules Compendium: if you are hidden with respect to a creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. This also means that total concealment causes the flat-footed condition in foes in most circumstances and that invisibility causes both the flat-footed condition and the loss of Dex to AC separately (I can't think of a situation where that second one would be relevant, though, since Uncanny Dodge explicitly covers loss of Dex to AC from invisible opponents).

[DMVerdandi]

butterfingers or clumsy

[St Fan]

Here's an important one tucked away in the Rules Compendium: if you are hidden with respect to a creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. This also means that total concealment causes the flat-footed condition in foes in most circumstances and that invisibility causes both the flat-footed condition and the loss of Dex to AC separately.

Just as I was saying: the two conditions not being clearly distinct in the rules can cause this kind of redundancy.


(I can't think of a situation where that second one would be relevant, though, since Uncanny Dodge explicitly covers loss of Dex to AC from invisible opponents)

Mmmhh... ya know, there might be a circumstance where this can get important: the very rare creatures that happen to be plain immune to being flat-footed, but not gifted with Uncanny Dodge (nor Blind-Fight or see invisible)...

[Gruftzwerg]

Here's an important one tucked away in the Rules Compendium: if you are hidden with respect to a creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. This also means that total concealment causes the flat-footed condition in foes in most circumstances and that invisibility causes both the flat-footed condition and the loss of Dex to AC separately (I can't think of a situation where that second one would be relevant, though, since Uncanny Dodge explicitly covers loss of Dex to AC from invisible opponents).

Slight correction. Invisibility doesn't make anyone lose his Dexterity bonus to AC. It's just that an invisible attacker ignores Dex bonus to AC. This is a significant difference.

Again, "losing Dex bonus to AC" ain't a specific condition. It's a penalty for certain conditions (like an invisible attacker). There is no consistence in the situations that it comes up. E.g. When one of several enemies is invisible, you don't lose your Dex bonus for AC for everything. Since it isn't a condition, but merely the penalty against the invisible attacker.

With this in mind, try again to find a all-including-word for "losing Dex bonus to AC".
And not to forget, it has to be distinguishable from the penalty "threat your (Str &) Dex score effectively as 0"

___
Really, I don't have any ill intentions, but I don't know how else to explain how pointless this is..^^
The problem is that it is a penalty that comes up in several very different situation and that some conditions (like invisibility) are on the enemy, of the one "losing the Dex bonus to AC"(but he doesn't lose it, it just gets ignored for the specific attacker as said..)...
It comes up when you aren't aware of something, as well as when your movement is hindered in "specific" (!not to heavy) ways.