Where Fate Points Go . . .

[BhilJhoanz]

All of your comments are perfectly reasonable and fine house rules but we chose to use rules strictly (in most cases) so that there will be no confusion -- combat is an abstraction after all and I'd prefer for it to go as efficiently as possible so that we can get on with the story. Pausing every round to consider whether the rules fit the situation and how they should be changed gets in the way of the story -- it also opens up room for players to bitch when things don't go their way and try to come up with elaborate reasons for house rulings that would work to their advantage.

What's more, had the situation been reversed (me with the init and sneak attacks) I would have been very bothered to have the DM take away a core class ability of mine that was granted by the printed rules -- I think the rest of you would have been too!

I accepted my fate boldly and would do it again -- That's why I have a 10 Reputation (Brave)!

 

[Plane Sailing]

FWIW the DMG is quite clear that if two sides are aware of one another before they are able to engage in combat (the precise example is the PC's hear the Orcs, the orcs noticed them through the spyhole) then neither side is flatfooted at the start of combat.

Perhaps the Conan rules specify this differently, I don't know. BhilJhaonz comments seem to suggest that they are supposed to follow the established d20 rules.

The quote from the SRD about the flatfooted condition is the general statement without any of the information about conditions which modify whether or not people are flatfooted at the start of the combat.

At the start of a duel neither person should be flatfooted because they are both ready for it - unless the Pirate manages a bluff or something, and that is what the feint rules are normally for (at least in D&D, I don't know if they carry over in Conan yet)

Cheers

 

[slaughterj]

Here's the relevant portions of the 3.5 D&D SRD I found:

HOW COMBAT WORKS
Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds. Combat follows this sequence:
1. Each combatant starts out flat-footed. Once a combatant acts, he or she is no longer flat-footed.
2. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents at the start of the battle. If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds of combat begin. The combatants who are aware of the opponents can act in the surprise round, so they roll for initiative. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take one action (either a standard action or a move action) during the surprise round. Combatants who were unaware do not get to act in the surprise round. If no one or everyone starts the battle aware, there is no surprise round.
3. Combatants who have not yet rolled initiative do so. All combatants are now ready to begin their first regular round of combat.
4. Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest).
5. When everyone has had a turn, the combatant with the highest initiative acts again, and steps 4 and 5 repeat until combat ends.

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.

Though the above does not seem to include it, I'm with Plane Sailing that both sides can start combat without being flatfooted. For instance, you've got two street gangs 30' apart, yelling at one another, gesturing with weapons, etc. Under the rules above, strictly followed, without going Plane Sailing's route, one gang member with the highest initiative could all of sudden dash 30' over to the other gang, and attack one of them, and the victim will be flatfooted?! I don't care for that, and will run it looser, with flat-footed only being in certain circumstances. Also, this doesn't nerf the Thieves, who can get Improved Feint and Bluff/Attack in the same round to get their sneak attack in straight-up combat.

 

[Mayhem]

I'm curious about the "one fate point later - captured by the picts" thing.

I thought "left for dead" meant exactly that. Your opponents consider you dead, therefore why would they take you prisoner? Not much call for dragging dead guys home, stripping them and tying them to stakes.

Sounds like you are being short-changed.

 

[Johannixx]

Also, this doesn't nerf the Thieves, who can get Improved Feint and Bluff/Attack in the same round to get their sneak attack in straight-up combat.

That's true, and I also think that Thieves/Rogues shouldn't be in the front lines anyway. While the main strength of the party is gesturing/taunting/whatever, the Thieves should be sneaking up behind to get their Sneak Attacks in (since the bad guys aren't aware of the Thieves' presence, they're flat-footed against the Thieves' attacks).

 

[InsomNY]

For instance, you've got two street gangs 30' apart, yelling at one another, gesturing with weapons, etc. Under the rules above, strictly followed, without going Plane Sailing's route, one gang member with the highest initiative could all of sudden dash 30' over to the other gang, and attack one of them, and the victim will be flatfooted?!

Actually, 30 feet isn't all that far for somebody to run up and thump you; the reason the electrode cords on a taser are 21-25 feet long is that a person with a knife is close enough to get to you and kill you at 18 feet or less even if you shoot him, according to police studies. When the situation switches from threats and gestures to actual fighting, the person who decides to take sudden action is going to have the advantage. Watch some footage of a riot sometime; you'll see that it's possible to get the drop on somebody even when you know he's there.

 

[VincentDarlage]

I thought "left for dead" meant exactly that. Your opponents consider you dead, therefore why would they take you prisoner? Not much call for dragging dead guys home, stripping them and tying them to stakes.

Sounds like you are being short-changed.

And how do you know he didn't choose the Destiny option? Being captured actually allowed him to uncover a plot. Being captured instead of Left for Dead and scalped (for proof of the kill) is plausible, minor, and not overwhelmingly beneficial to the player characters, so it meets the requirements... At the very least, it allowed him to keep his hair.

 

[argo]

All of your comments are perfectly reasonable and fine house rules but we chose to use rules strictly (in most cases) so that there will be no confusion -- combat is an abstraction after all and I'd prefer for it to go as efficiently as possible so that we can get on with the story. Pausing every round to consider whether the rules fit the situation and how they should be changed gets in the way of the story -- it also opens up room for players to bitch when things don't go their way and try to come up with elaborate reasons for house rulings that would work to their advantage.

Fair enough, and if that is what you and your group enjoy then more power to you! For my group I find that I play with DM's who are confident in their ability to adjudicate rules on the fly and players who trust their DM not to screw them and are willing to roll with the punches if it makes for a better game. I find that for us it doesn't slow down the game any (or at least not much) and makes for some exciting encounters.

I accepted my fate boldly and would do it again -- That's why I have a 10 Reputation (Brave)!

There is no "applause" smiely so I will have to settle for this
You = 8)

 

[VincentDarlage]

For my group I find that I play with DM's who are confident in their ability to adjudicate rules on the fly and players who trust their DM not to screw them and are willing to roll with the punches if it makes for a better game.

I adore your insulting tone. It so happens when the combat ensued that he asked if initiative should be rolled again, I said yes. He responded that whoever loses will be flat-footed and I merely shrugged and rolled initiative. My pirate won- he fired, end of story. There wasn't an issue to adjudicate until it popped up on this board.

I do adjudicate extremely well on the fly, having DM'd for 22 years, and I don't screw the players. I don't fudge the dice to turn 1's into hits or any such nonsense. I have complete confidence in my ability to deliver a fantastic game. In this case, the player reminded me of the rule and I went with it. Please refrain from insulting players and DMs you do not know, as that is really, truly unfair.

Again, there was NOTHING to adjudicate until it showed up on this board and other people who were not there started putting in their two cents worth.

 

[argo]

For my group I find that I play with DM's who are confident in their ability to adjudicate rules on the fly and players who trust their DM not to screw them and are willing to roll with the punches if it makes for a better game.

I adore your insulting tone. It so happens when the combat ensued that he asked if initiative should be rolled again, I said yes. He responded that whoever loses will be flat-footed and I merely shrugged and rolled initiative. My pirate won- he fired, end of story. There wasn't an issue to adjudicate until it popped up on this board.

I did not intend to insult you (or anyone else) and I apoligize if I wasn't clear enough. As I said in my earlier post, if you felt that this situation didn't need to differentate from the strict rule than that is just fine. I was simply pointing out a difference in styles of DMing because that is what the discussion was about, BhilJhoanz was sharing his experience with one style of gaming and I was sharing my experience with another style. I believe that there is no "right" way to play but you can become a better player and DM by thinking about all the different ways to play.

Again, I'm sorry I didn't express myself more clearly and you took things the wrong way. From BhilJhoanz's posts it sounds as though you are running a very good game since he seems to be having a lot of fun. No hard feelings?

 

[OggSmash]

From reading the text, a sneak attack can only occur in 2 situations, the victim is denied his dodge or parry bonus from an attack or is flanked.


Yet to me this seems very unbalanced. Just because a person or side loses initiative does not mean he is standing there with his thumb in his rear. I can see flanking and flat out true flat footed (surprised) as a sneak attack opening, but not in a one on one declared duel. I know combat is meant to be deadly and fearful, but in this case I think the definition of flat footed is applied way too broadly, and allows sneak attacks to be used in many game situations that though allowed by the rules seem out of place. Personally I deny the loser of initiative his Str or Dx bonus to his base parry/dodge bonus, but do not deny the base bonus in most initiative situations, and do not allow him to be sneak attacked by a head on opponent he was headed to meet in combat just because he lost initaitive.

To each his own though And as long as players and NPCs have the same rewards or bane from the system I see nothing wrong with it. But it seems very unbalanced to me if every battlefield veteran of many hard wars can be killed head on by anyone with a sneak attack in a head on fight where he and his opponent were well aware of one another prior to initiative. Seems to me this rule on flat footed/surprise and the whole issue of sneak attacks needs some cleaning up.

 

[BhilJhoanz]

The OGL rules on the matter are very clear -- before one's init. order you are considered flat footed -- in other words, while you may be aware of a threat, your opponent has acted just a bit faster than you.

Some people would have chosen to house rule the situation differently -- we did not. In this case it was a 2nd level Soldier (me) vs a Pirate Captain (I'm guessing 7th level). He cleaned my clock, as should have happened. Had the roles been reversed I would have expected the same outcome!

For a GM to override a rule that allows an inherent class benefit (sneak attacks) seems unfair to me. It would be as if he had said to a scholar -- you can't cast spells because it's too cheery out today to give the evil eye!

 

[VincentDarlage]

Yet to me this seems very unbalanced. Just because a person or side loses initiative does not mean he is standing there with his thumb in his rear.

As a fan of cowboy movies, I have noticed that in the duel scenes (the gunfight in the centre of town) that the ducking/dodging doesn't start happening until both parties have fired, presuming the duel lasts that long. They stand there with their thumbs in their ass, as you put it, until they fire their shot.

It is wrong to nerf a class ability with a house rule. The thief/pirate who gets the jump on anyone, surprise or otherwise, will do very well. Besides, weakening the flat-footed rule doesn't just hurt the thief/pirate, it also weakens the other classes who have class abilities that allow them to retain their dodge or dex bonuses when flat-footed, as well as weakening the usefulness of feats such as Zingaran Surprise and Improved Feint and so forth.

 

[OggSmash]

Make no mistake I do believe in a full flat footed situation where a sneak attacker "gets the drop" on an opponent or has him flanked. I can even see several initiative situations where it can happen. But definitely NOT all initiative situations. I dont really care how clear the rules are, they make any loss of initiative into the same situation defensively that would exist if an attacker grabbed you from behind after stalking you and ambushing you. Personally I dont allow a sneak attack in all initiative winning situations; just how gullible can the warriors in the Hyborian age be?

I choose to liken initiative in a front on fight to a ring fight situation. One boxer can come out and KO the other boxer very early, but this is much more a critical hit situation than a case of surprise attack. By the same token a boxer who is clearly outclassed by another could in a "dirty" situation clean the other's clock by going up to him after the fight to shake hands and then sucker punching him. There are two very different situations and a true "sucker punch" can only take place in one of them.

By the rules as written the sneak attackers are gettting sucker punches against oponents who know they are there and are fighting them straight on (without improved feint or some sort of "set up"). I dont see any nerfing of abilities in putting some more qualifiers on when a sneak attack takes place, or more specifically more qualifiers on when a target is truly flat footed rather then just having lost iniative in all situations. Yes in many initiative situations I would allow the loser to be 100% flat footed, and would allow it on an improved feint. But clearly these are not the same situation as two wary combatants facing off. My point is the rule for being flat footed is too broad. I dont think it nerfs sneak attacks or feats one bit to not allow a sneak attack just because a defender lost iniative in a front on fight.

As for the level 2 soldier losing to the level 7 pirate, heh the sneak attack was just injury to insult as he would have kicked your rear without it. I am not saying there was anything wrong with the way the encounter was handled, heck it was by the book, but I think the GM should feel free to exercise his own judgement in interpretation of the rules, as they are guidelines, not tax codes.

As for the gun fight analogy, keep in mind real gun fights from the old west generally played out a whole lot differently than TV or movies. But I see your point, there ARE initiative situations where a defender is truly flat footed, I just dont think every initiative situation will qualify, and yes it takes two more seconds to make a call on it, but I prefer a sneak attack to be a bit more plausible than it is presented in the rules.

 

[VincentDarlage]

I think the GM should feel free to exercise his own judgement in interpretation of the rules, as they are guidelines, not tax codes.

That is, and always has been, the case.

 

[GhostWolf69]

Bringing this thread back on topic with Fate Points. Here are some uses I allow in my game (inspired/stole from "Spycraft d20"):

1. Left for dead
2. Automatic success at anything
3. After a Threat is rolled, if you spend a Fate Point ou don't have to roll again to see if you score a Critical... it IS a critical baby!
4. If the DM roll a natural 1 you can spend a Fate Point to make him fail and fumble really bad.

/Wolf

 

[S'mon]

Bringing this thread back on topic with Fate Points. Here are some uses I allow in my game (inspired/stole from "Spycraft d20"):

1. Left for dead
2. Automatic success at anything
3. After a Threat is rolled, if you spend a Fate Point ou don't have to roll again to see if you score a Critical... it IS a critical baby!
4. If the DM roll a natural 1 you can spend a Fate Point to make him fail and fumble really bad.

/Wolf

2 uses I'm allowing:

PC can choose to spend a FP to get a 20 on any d20 roll they make, including attacks and threats to confirm crits.

PC can choose to make a Dodge/Parry roll vs an enemy attack before enemy rolls, and can thus spend an FP to get a 20 - equivalent to +10 DV vs a single attack.

 

[sanseveria]

I've decided to allow a second roll for hp as a character gains a level. He rolls, and if he doesn't like the result he may use a fate point to roll again, but this time he is stuck with the result, no matter what that may be.

As far as being flat-footed, I've always ruled that if everyone is aware of their enemies, then no one starts the battle flat-footed. It's allot simpler, plus I've discovered that crafty thieves and pirates will find ways to turn the battle to their advantage so as to make use of their sneak attack.

SS