flat-footing people is probably harder than we (we being iaijutsu bros) hoped

[Elves]

This line from Rules Compendium has drawn attention from Iaijutsu Focus users:


If you're successfully hidden from another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible (see page 76).

Page 76 is the entry on invisibility, which confirms (as we know) that invisibility only denies Dex, rather than granting flat-footed.
So there are 2 ways to read the quote:

1) Being hidden with respect to another creature makes them flat-footed with respect to you, AND ALSO that creature treats you as invisible.
2) The first sentence is an error, and the text is self-correcting here because it refers us to page 76, which tells us that invisibility does not actually make enemies flat-footed, only denied Dex.

On rereading, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a mistake, and a case of the editor forgetting the rather esoteric distinction between flat-footed and denied Dex. Even reading strict RAW, the two sentences don't read as separate clauses -- there is no "and", "in addition" or other connective tissue -- so trying to parse them as such seems like a stretch.

So although I would rather it weren't the case, because it spoils a couple builds of mine, I think iaijutsu bros have to try a little harder to get their extra dice.


(Having flat-footed and denied Dex be separate is silly and confusing given how similar they are, and they should probably be condensed into one. But given that the game is as it is, the flat-footed restriction is on Iaijutsu Focus for a reason.)

[Rebel7284]

I see it as an implied AND. Seems like a good way to avoid a run-on sentence. Also seems reasonable to remind the reader that in addition to the flat footed condition, the invisible condition and all of its rules apply as well.

[Inevitability]

It seems to me that the two sentences aren't in contradiction: the creature is flat-footed and treats you as invisible. These are two separate conditions with two separate effects, which happen to partially overlap. It's not like there's anything wrong with a creature being simultaneously fatigued and entangled, just because these are both effects that prevent charges.

[OracleofWuffing]

Isn't the existence of the Rules Compendium already a RAW problem in and of itself? :smalltongue:

I'll also support the notion for the first reading, and that the text is not self-correcting. Being invisible doesn't make enemies flat-footed, but it also does not remove enemies being flat-footed for other reasons.

I know this isn't "strictly" a RAW argument, but consider if the text was formatted like this:
If you're successfully hidden from another creature,
that creature is flat-footed with respect to you.
That creature treats you as if you were invisible (see page 76).

If the second statement were to overwrite the first- instead of adding to it- we'd run into problems like "Fighters' Bonus Feats class feature overwrites their Weapon and Armor Proficiencies, because Bonus Feats do not grant Weapon and Armor Proficiencies (unless you spend a bonus feat for the corresponding proficiency)."

[Crichton]

Yeah, there's no contradiction to be 'corrected' here.



Text does what it says it does, and there's no conflict of text here to be resolved.

[Elves]

I see it as an implied AND.

It seems to me that the two sentences aren't in contradiction: the creature is flat-footed and treats you as invisible.

Yeah, there's no contradiction to be 'corrected' here.

But there is no "and". You can't insert words that aren't there and then be like "all good!". They are not phrased as separate statements, but as a single thought.

(And the editor's mistake here requires no great explanation.)

[JNAProductions]

They’re separate statements, with a period in between.
Both can apply, as they’re not contradictory.

[Elves]

A period doesn't make something a separate rule. Otherwise Rules Compendium would have as many rules as there are sentences. Some rules in RC are several sentences long.

The second sentence here reads as an elaboration on the first.

"You get a +2 bonus to attack that creature. You are treated as flanking the creature."

If you read this, which uses the same phrasing, is your attack bonus +2 or +4? Obviously, +2. It's part of reading English.

[JNAProductions]

That’s A valid reading.
When there’s multiple valid readings grammatically, but one makes a lot more sense within the rules, you go with that reading.

It’s not like the RAW was designed to be computer-code levels of precise either.

[Darg]

I'm not sure I understand the argument. Being hidden and being invisible are two separate conditions. One can be invisible without being hidden and vice versa. The quoted rule simply tells you that being hidden makes creatures unaware of you flat-footed to you. And also as you are hidden, they don't SEE you and thus don't have LoS hence the reference to invisibility as that is where those rules are located in the RC.


A period doesn't make something a separate rule. Otherwise Rules Compendium would have as many rules as there are sentences. Some rules in RC are several sentences long.

The second sentence here reads as an elaboration on the first.

"You get a +2 bonus to attack that creature. You are treated as flanking the creature."

If you read this, which uses the same phrasing, is your attack bonus +2 or +4? Obviously, +2. It's part of reading English.

Except you are ignoring the the words connecting the two sentences from the original quote. The way your example is written, the second sentence is easily read as separate from the first. Take a look at the original quote:


If you're successfully hidden from another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible (see page 76).

The bolded subjects are referring to the same thing, connecting the two sentences. Another factor your example is missing is that flanking includes a +2 bonus while being flat-footed does not include being invisible, or vice versa. A comparable example would be: "You gain reach against that creature. The creature is considered flanked by you as long as you threaten that creature."

[Crichton]

Page 76 is the entry on invisibility, which confirms (as we know) that invisibility only denies Dex, rather than granting flat-footed.



Why are you coming into this with the assumption that being hidden must be just like Invisible and so only denies Dex, but doesn't ALSO grant flat-footed? Don't let your a priori assumptions skew the way you read rules




The first sentence is an error, and the text is self-correcting here because it refers us to page 76, which tells us that invisibility does not actually make enemies flat-footed, only denied Dex.

On rereading, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a mistake, and a case of the editor forgetting

(And the editor's mistake here requires no great explanation.)


Why is your first response here to think that 'a mistake was made' when nothing here is contradictory to any other rules text anywhere?



You can't insert words that aren't there and then be like "all good!". They are not phrased as separate statements, but as a single thought.


No one needs to insert anything...


Flat-footed (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#flatFooted) is a condition
Invisible (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#invisible) is also a condition
Being hidden from a creature grants you both conditions with respect to that creature.
Two conditions, two sentences. Zero rules-conflicts or contradictory statements.

[Elves]

You know, I'm surprised people disagree. This flat-footed thing is something I rules lawyered in favor of on this forum in the past. But I re-read the text today and was like "Alright, let's be realistic about what's actually going on here." In other words, this post is meant as an "OK, you guys were right" — only for everyone to say no!

It may be that, all these years later, only the diehard rules lawyers like myself are left in this place. So I will say to the fellow diehards, I do have a disagreement with the way the RAW/RAI divide is often understood in this community — I think that reading RAW is when we turn our reading comprehension on, not turn it off.

In this case, I think the natural reading is to read these sentences as a single thought. And I think if you detach for a moment and come back to it like I did you will also see that.



That’s A valid reading.

So, say the text said:


If you're successfully hidden from another creature, you gain a +2 bonus on attacks against it. That creature treats you as if you were invisible (see page 76).

By the same logic many are using, these are separate sentences, both can exist independently, and there's no necessary redundancy between them. So clearly you get a +4 bonus on attacks against the creature — +2 from being hidden, +2 from being invisible, right? Yet that's obviously not what the text means. The second sentence is an elaboration on the first, not a separate rule.

[Darg]

By the same logic many are using, these are separate sentences, both can exist independently, and there's no necessary redundancy between them. So clearly you get a +4 bonus on attacks against the creature — +2 from being hidden, +2 from being invisible, right? Yet that's obviously not what the text means. The second sentence is an elaboration on the first, not a separate rule.

I think people are confused at what you are arguing. Are you arguing that invisibility makes creatures flat-footed to you? If you are, I don't think anyone is going to agree with you for the simple fact that the context of the quote is about how being hidden interacts with the game mechanics.

[Khatoblepas]

Just because the effects of both conditions overlap somewhat doesn't mean that you don't have the effect of both. And you need the effects of both to be hidden.

A purely invisible creature would provoke attacks of opportunity from the target when performing actions that provoke them. If you were standing in front of a creature, invisible, and drink a potion, you'd still provoke an AoO, even though they would have to guess which square you're in.

A purely flat footed character would be unable to take advantage of AoOs, but would still be able to see you, which isn't very hidden.

So being hidden protects you from both being seen, and being attacked by a creature for, say, casting a spell behind them. Just because both deny the opponent Dex to AC doesn't mean they aren't distinct things! The writers knew what they were doing - I can't see any way this wasn't intended by them, or that it is written in such a way that it is "a mistake" or a parsing error. Being hidden protects you from AoOs and enemies can't see you.

[Batcathat]

On rereading, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a mistake, and a case of the editor forgetting the rather esoteric distinction between flat-footed and denied Dex. Even reading strict RAW, the two sentences don't read as separate clauses -- there is no "and", "in addition" or other connective tissue -- so trying to parse them as such seems like a stretch.

I don't see why forgetting to include "and" is a less likely mistake than forgetting how the rules work and repeating themselves for no reason (since why not just say "That creature treats you as if you were invisible" if that's the only part that matters?).

[Elves]

Before getting into the weeds, I want to point out another problem with this text that might change some of your minds: there is no such thing as being flat-footed "with respect to" someone else. Unlike being denied Dex to AC, flat-footed is a condition that you either are or not. There is no such thing as being "stunned with respect to" someone else, "fatigued with respect to" someone else, and so on. By contrast, being denied Dex to AC is not a condition, and is something that's relative — for example, you are denied Dex vs attacks by an invisible opponent.

In other words, the "with respect to" language does not actually make sense when talking about being flat-footed. But it does make sense when talking about being denied Dex. This seems like further evidence that the writer is confusing the two.

There are some abilities that treat an opponent as flat-footed against specific attacks, but being flat-footed "with respect to another creature" doesn't make sense, for the same reason you could theoretically be treated as stunned vs an attack, but could not be "stunned vs. a creature". This is illustrated by the Tome of Battle maneuvers: either the target is flat-footed vs. an attack, or is rendered flat-footed period. I guess you could argue that the RC text is shorthand for "with respect to you[r attacks]", but then you're adding even more phantom words.

[Darg]

Just because the effects of both conditions overlap somewhat doesn't mean that you don't have the effect of both. And you need the effects of both to be hidden.

A purely invisible creature would provoke attacks of opportunity from the target when performing actions that provoke them. If you were standing in front of a creature, invisible, and drink a potion, you'd still provoke an AoO, even though they would have to guess which square you're in.

A purely flat footed character would be unable to take advantage of AoOs, but would still be able to see you, which isn't very hidden.

So being hidden protects you from both being seen, and being attacked by a creature for, say, casting a spell behind them. Just because both deny the opponent Dex to AC doesn't mean they aren't distinct things! The writers knew what they were doing - I can't see any way this wasn't intended by them, or that it is written in such a way that it is "a mistake" or a parsing error. Being hidden protects you from AoOs and enemies can't see you.

Total concealment already prevents AoOs. Invisibility is total concealment. Being hidden means creatures are unaware of you. Which is the whole reason being hidden provides the flat-footed condition and invisibility does not.

Personally, I think the RC is making the statements from the perspective of initiating combat, not hiding in combat. Thus the hiding itself isn't providing the flat-footed condition. That said, you do have to take a -20 to the hide check to be hidden for an attack. Then again I think the RC does a really poor job for two reasons. First, that it doesn't state that what is unstated should be assumed to no longer be a rule. Second, it should have noted where the RC differs from the original rules. Because of these things the RC is a source of contention and can even be erroneous in a few cases depending on how you think the rules should be read.


Before getting into the weeds, I want to point out another problem with this text that might change some of your minds: there is no such thing as being flat-footed "with respect to" someone else. Unlike being denied Dex to AC, flat-footed is a condition that you either are or not. There is no such thing as being "stunned with respect to" someone else, "fatigued with respect to" someone else, and so on. By contrast, being denied Dex to AC is not a condition, and is something that's relative — for example, you are denied Dex vs attacks by an invisible opponent.

In other words, the "with respect to" language does not actually make sense when talking about being flat-footed. But it does make sense when talking about being denied Dex. This seems like further evidence that the writer is confusing the two.

There are some abilities that treat an opponent as flat-footed against specific attacks, but being flat-footed "with respect to another creature" doesn't make sense, for the same reason you could theoretically be treated as stunned vs an attack, but could not be "stunned vs. a creature". This is illustrated by the Tome of Battle maneuvers: either the target is flat-footed vs. an attack, or is rendered flat-footed period. I guess you could argue that the RC text is shorthand for "with respect to you[r attacks]", but then you're adding even more phantom words.

The RC just sucks as a resource when it comes to where the rules differ. That it's supposed to override and update previously written rules, it does a poor job of explaining them with them being done out if context. Like I said earlier, the flat-footed condition is likely stated with the assumption of hiding being used to initiate combat as that is the default source beyond balancing.

[icefractal]

A number of games (such as 4E, IIRC) make an explicit distinction between Invisible and Hidden, with the latter being a superset of the former. So it doesn't seem at all odd to me.

As far as:
If you're successfully hidden from another creature, you gain a +2 bonus on attacks against it. That creature treats you as if you were invisible (see page 76).I would call that poor wording, because it could be read either way. But not a case of "clearly the +2 is just a reminder" because it isn't clear, it's ambiguous.

In terms of the actual rule -
* If I read it "context free" (to the extent I can), then it's two separate things (which happen to overlap).
* If I base it off "what makes sense (to me) in the fiction" then it makes sense that if you don't know an opponent is even there, then you're flat-footed against them.

From that second perspective, HiPS (or even hiding in some adjacent shrubbery right after stabbing someone) doesn't seem very different from invisibility unless the foe in question has reason to think you've left entirely. But that's a problem with how hiding in combat works (maybe it shouldn't always grant "hidden"), not with what "hidden" means.

[rel]

Someone recently suggested that the 'behind the curtain' sidebar from p136 of the DMG is a good way to resolve such issues.
It basically states that if the rules don't specify otherwise, things work as you would expect them to in the real world.

What do people think?

[Chronos]

While a good guideline in general, that doesn't really help here, because the real-world rules for flatfootedness, dex bonuses to AC, and iajitsu aren't clear, either.

I think the real resolution to this is to just house-errata the rules for iajitsu to say "...against an enemy denied their dex bonus" instead of "...against a flatfooted enemy", because that's clearly what the designers thought they were saying.

[Elves]

You can read it however you want guys (the first reading does at least give that poor maligned Spring Attack feat chain a little bit of value for iaijutsu'ers), but I wanted to share my view.

After rereading the text, it struck me that the way the paragraph is written sounds like it's expressing a single thought. I think that's the most natural reading of it.

The slight confusion between flat-footed and denied Dex is very understandable — certainly would not be the biggest error in RC.