Web - flat footed or not?

[Baskineli]

If someone is entangled in web (the spell), is he flat-footed or not? Is he denied his dexterity bonus?

[Keld Denar]

I'd say no. It doesn't specify, but I'd think most likely no.

My grounds are that entangled gives you a penalty to your dex. If you were flatfooted, it would instead say that you are denied your dex. While it could possibly both deny dex and give a penalty, its extremely unlikely.

Also of note, for all intents and purposes, entangle from web is the exact same entangle as the entangle spell. The only difference is that a web can block line of sight and line of effect due to its 3 dimensional nature and opacity.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The spell will tell you if you are denied your Dexterity bonus. As lussmanj points out, the only specific condition inflicted by the spell is the Entangled condition, which does not deny the use of one's Dex bonus. Any further penalties outside of this condition are explicitly listed in the spell description.

[Chronos]

Also of note, for all intents and purposes, entangle from web is the exact same entangle as the entangle spell.

Web also puts some additional constraints on movement, beyond those of normal entanglement.

[FireSpark]

This very question came up in last Sunday's game, when we got jumped by a handful of spiders. According to the description of the webbing, it causes a creature to be entangled. Look up the entangled status, and you'll see that you are denied your Dexterity-bonus to AC, but you're not flat-footed.

[OzymandiasVolt]

In addition, flat-footed causes denied Dexterity, but denied Dexterity does NOT cause flat-footed.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Look up the entangled status, and you'll see that you are denied your Dexterity-bonus to AC...

Uh, where does it say that?

Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell.

[Anxe]

My ruling has always been that they count as losing their dex bonus if they have no bonus left. So if a monster had a +2 Dex bonus to AC then being entangled means they lose their dex bonus.

This is my house ruling though, not RAW.

[Person_Man]

Shhalahr is correct. Anything else is just a house rule. FYI, there are plenty of other spells that DO deny their targets their Dex bonus. Web just isn't one of them.

I'd also add that the only time that anyone is Flat Footed is when they have yet to act in combat. As far as I know, nothing else makes you Flat Footed. As a result of being Flat Footed, you lose your Dex bonus to AC and can't make AoO until you act. But losing your Dex bonus to AC does not make you Flat Footed.

To put it in simpler terms: If its hot outside, I eat ice cream. But just because I'm eating ice cream, it does not mean that its hot outside. There are many other things in the world that can make me eat ice cream. I think its called the converting a conditional fallacy, but its been several years since my game theory and logic classes, so I forget the terms. Anyone know the correct definition?

[Chronos]

My ruling has always been that they count as losing their dex bonus if they have no bonus left. So if a monster had a +2 Dex bonus to AC then being entangled means they lose their dex bonus.

This is my house ruling though, not RAW.

So under your rules, someone with a 9 dex is always vulnerable to sneak attacks, even without any spells? That's pretty harsh.

[Vaynor]

My ruling has always been that they count as losing their dex bonus if they have no bonus left. So if a monster had a +2 Dex bonus to AC then being entangled means they lose their dex bonus.

This is my house ruling though, not RAW.

It is still a bonus, however. Just a negative one. So, unless explicitly stated the Dex bonus is completely denied, they are not subject to sneak attacks or similar effects.

[Anxe]

So under your rules, someone with a 9 dex is always vulnerable to sneak attacks, even without any spells? That's pretty harsh.

No. That rule is only if someone is entangled.
And to Vaynor. RAW sucks in numerous places, so I make my own rulings. They've worked for me since 3.0 came out, so I figure they'd work pretty good for other people.

[Vaynor]

Just saying, this rule seems perfectly functional, not much point in changing it IMHO.

[squishycube]

It is still a bonus, however. Just a negative one. So, unless explicitly stated the Dex bonus is completely denied, they are not subject to sneak attacks or similar effects.

A negative modifier is called a penalty, a positive modifier is called a bonus. d20 does differentiate between these, for example with bows: Any strength penalty you have gets deducted from damage, a strength bonus however is ignored.

[Vaynor]

A negative modifier is called a penalty, a positive modifier is called a bonus. d20 does differentiate between these, for example with bows: Any strength penalty you have gets deducted from damage, a strength bonus however is ignored.

Yes, but according to sneak attack you must be denied your bonus. Your bonus has not been denied, it has been lowered.

[Nowhere Girl]

I'd also add that the only time that anyone is Flat Footed is when they have yet to act in combat. As far as I know, nothing else makes you Flat Footed.

Balancing does unless you have at least 5 ranks in the Balance skill. It specifically states that you're considered flat-footed.

Oddly enough, while climbing, you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (normally), but it doesn't say anything about being flat-footed specifically.

Certain feats and abilities can also make someone else flat-footed again (Surprising Riposte and Gloom Razor come immediately to mind), but those are unusual cases.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

To put it in simpler terms: If its hot outside, I eat ice cream. But just because I'm eating ice cream, it does not mean that its hot outside. There are many other things in the world that can make me eat ice cream. I think its called the converting a conditional fallacy, but its been several years since my game theory and logic classes, so I forget the terms. Anyone know the correct definition?

You are indeed correct.

"If X then Y", does not necessarily imply that "If Y then X."