Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

[APG] Offensive Defense (Rogue Talent)


Rules Questions

Qadira

so I was just perusing the APG errata a few minutes ago when I came across the Offensive Defense rogue talent. I noticed that it was changed to say dodge bonus, and a pretty decent bonus at that. My question is that if you hit an opponent multiple times in a single round with sneak attack, and since Dodge bonuses stack, do you get the bonus from each attack? It doesn't say any exception in the errata to make this any different, and in the section where it explains bonuses it just says "dodge bonuses stack with each other" without giving any clause to the same source triggering multiple times, so I was just double-checking.

Am I right in this assumption that it can stack with itself?


The same source clause still steps in unless otherwise stated -- same dodge bonuses from different sources stack as always though.

Qadira

That clause is only stated for untyped bonuses or circumstance bonuses, as the rest specifically state that they do not stack. Dodge says that they stack with other dodge bonuses, and lists no exception whether it matters if it's from the same source. From my memory though, I cannot recall any dodge bonus before this that would have been able to stack. From all my digging, I cannot find anything that covers this


Rules wrote:
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.

Other dodge bonuses -- not the same dodge bonus multiple times.

Qadira

Rules wrote:
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Rules wrote:

Bonus (Circumstance)

A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.

My point is that in other places they specify that they can stack with other things unless they arise from the same source, but they do not with dodge. In every other type of bonus they take great pains to state how they stack, and dodge has nothing saying anything about the same source. Pointing out the word "other" is meaningless because there is no other qualifying statement like they put in other places. It is another bonus.


You missed the line -- it's my fault I was subtle with it last time -- I'll point it out again:

Rules wrote:
Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply against touch attacks.

It says other dodge bonuses for a reason -- that reason being it doesn't stack with the same dodge bonus.

I don't care about what the untyped bonuses or circumstance bonus language is -- I care about what the dodge bonus states -- and it states it stacks with other dodge bonuses -- as opposed to all dodge bonuses.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry if you're pulling at straws and arguing over semantics. Regardless if it's the same source, it is another dodge bonus. Being sarcastic and posting the same thing with bigger letters doesn't get your point across very well, it just makes you seem like a jerk.


I figured you missed it the first time and wanted to be sure you saw it the second. I'm not being sarcastic either -- I can be, but I'm not. I did feel that I was a bit subtle the first time since it can be easy to miss a single bolded word. I also explained where I was getting the distinction that I was drawing from. That's the way I tend to be -- check my posts in other threads in the rules forum and you'll find more of the same.

Beyond that: it isn't "another source" if it is the same source. I would suggest that arguing otherwise is semantics more than me pointing out that the words are completely different is.

But hey if you have the answer already why ask?

Qadira

I didn't say it was another source, I said it was another bonus, as in the same source triggered a second time and produced a second bonus, thereby making it count as an other bonus. What I wanted was to be clearly proven wrong, and if I couldn't be proven wrong by the rules, maybe this could be the chance for "the team" to catch this and clarify what the intent was. Granted, the chance of an official answer is relatively low, but hey, I can dream.

I noticed your bolding the first time, which is why I went in and found that they went into much more detail in other sections but left that section devoid of such clauses. And as I said, this is the first thing I've seen that has the ability to produce more than one dodge bonus from the same source, so they probably didn't need that line in there before now.

If you sincerely weren't trying to be sarcastic, I'm sorry for retaliating, but tone doesn't translate over text. I posted a new point, and from my perspective I saw the same point posted in bigger letters at me.

EDIT: And to be clear- I'm all for it not stacking. At higher levels that is a huge bonus and it should not stack with itself for the same target. But, at the same time, if a player were to take it and try that, I would like a better answer for them than "because I'm the GM and I say so". Saying that "the creators of the mechanic say so" would be much better


No problems -- like you said things don't translate well over the net.

I'm more than comfortable stating this doesn't stack and for the reasons I mentioned above as well as a feel for the RAI of the situation (as much as it does and does not matter at the same time).

However an FAQ on it certainly can't hurt either.


Have a queston about this talent and how it reads, now compared to how it used to read.

I noticed the change from circumstance to dodge, while comparing the online srd and the actual book.

There is an extra line on the online site, and am a bit confused, it says it is a +1 circumstance per sneak attack die that is rolled, while my print version just has +1 dodge ( nothing about per sneak attack die that is rolled)

I think the book is probably correct, but its not useful or tempting to take that, and on a site note from reviewing the previuos post if it were per die rolled, adding the dodge bonus would just be adding the bonus for each die, not per target hit, which makes a bit more sense to me.

Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on this

Cheliax

Tuffon wrote:

Have a queston about this talent and how it reads, now compared to how it used to read.

I noticed the change from circumstance to dodge, while comparing the online srd and the actual book.

There is an extra line on the online site, and am a bit confused, it says it is a +1 circumstance per sneak attack die that is rolled, while my print version just has +1 dodge ( nothing about per sneak attack die that is rolled)

I think the book is probably correct, but its not useful or tempting to take that, and on a site note from reviewing the previuos post if it were per die rolled, adding the dodge bonus would just be adding the bonus for each die, not per target hit, which makes a bit more sense to me.

Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on this

You might want to check the errata, the rules have been changed.

The PRD is correct.


PRD wrote:
Offensive Defense** (Ex): When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round.

If a flanking TWF with +3d6 Sneak Attack hits target with two weapons dealing two attacks, does that give the rogue +6 to his AC for one round?

Just want a bit more clairification to wrap my head on this. I had no idea how nice a talent this has become.

Greg

Andoran

Greg Wasson wrote:


If a flanking TWF with +3d6 Sneak Attack hits target with two weapons dealing two attacks, does that give the rogue +6 to his AC for one round?

Just want a bit more clairification to wrap my head on this. I had no idea how nice a talent this has become.

Greg

I'd go with no. Stacking it up like that seems...wrong. still, as you can see from the discussion above, it definitely gets you +3 AC, and that's pretty cool all on it's own.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'd go with no. Stacking it up like that seems...wrong. still, as you can see from the discussion above, it definitely gets you +3 AC, and that's pretty cool all on it's own.

Yep, my gut is telling me this as well. And if it were asked in the game I am DMing, I would not be sure how to rule it.

As a player of a rogue that gets that gets drenched in cans of Whoop Azz, I find myself leaning to the arguement of, " But I rolled six sneak dice this turn!" So when I am not certain, and want to be fair, I ask here.

Appreciate your input, Deadmanwalking.

Greg


KaeYoss helped to knock some sense into me on another thread. It is a singular bonus because of the singular source not stacking rule. For some reason I thought it was attacks that were the source.

However, the source is Rogue talent (offensive defense). So, first attack gives the reward to AC. Second attack cannot because of Rogue Talent (offensive defense)was already used as a source for AC.

Greg

Andoran

Greg Wasson wrote:

KaeYoss helped to knock some sense into me on another thread. It is a singular bonus because of the singular source not stacking rule. For some reason I thought it was attacks that were the source.

However, the source is Rogue talent (offensive defense). So, first attack gives the reward to AC. Second attack cannot because of Rogue Talent (offensive defense)was already used as a source for AC.

Greg

On the bright side, multiple attacks are still useful with it, since you need to hit once to use it, and they up your odds of that significantly.


The rogue in my game just picked that up and we were wondering the same thing. He has 5 attacks and 7d6 sneak attack. Potentially getting +35 AC is quite a bit. His AC is already 36. I think 71 AC (52 touch) is just a bit too much. I think I will have to let him know that he will have to be happy with his +7 AC.

Qadira

Apart from the whole does it / doesn't it stack thing (and the abesence of any rules text stating that dodge bonuses from the same source don't stack), the fact that this thing now gives you bonus dodge AC against everything (as opposed to the original version, which only granted the AC bonus against the guy you were attacking) seems weird. Attack the BBEG, miss, and you're easy to hit. Attack a random level 1 Commoner in the same room, and even the BBEG can't hit you... for some unknown reason...

... In fact, I can see carrying a bag of kittens to slaughter whenever you need an AC boost could be a helpful tactic with this monster of a 'trick' now... ;)


ProfPotts wrote:

Apart from the whole does it / doesn't it stack thing (and the abesence of any rules text stating that dodge bonuses from the same source don't stack), the fact that this thing now gives you bonus dodge AC against everything (as opposed to the original version, which only granted the AC bonus against the guy you were attacking) seems weird. Attack the BBEG, miss, and you're easy to hit. Attack a random level 1 Commoner in the same room, and even the BBEG can't hit you... for some unknown reason...

... In fact, I can see carrying a bag of kittens to slaughter whenever you need an AC boost could be a helpful tactic with this monster of a 'trick' now... ;)

That problem is easy to deal with: kittens are not combatants even if you are attacking them. I don't allow metagamy BS like that in my games. I don't even bother explaining it to the players. Everyone knows it's BS. Those who try are just trying to get one over on the GM. There isn't anyone who honestly thinks that this should work. They know that they are pushing the limits.


fyi... if you actually look at the APG errata there won't be any BS from your players.

errata says replace "+1 circumstance bonus to AC" with "+1 dodge bonus to AC per sneak attack die rolled"

...the remainder of that sentence says "...against that creature for 1 round."

So you don't gain this dodge bonus against everyone, just the target you successfully sneak attacked. (still a great talent!)


MrBoJangles wrote:


fyi... if you actually look at the APG errata there won't be any BS from your players.

errata says replace "+1 circumstance bonus to AC" with "+1 dodge bonus to AC per sneak attack die rolled"

...the remainder of that sentence says "...against that creature for 1 round."

So you don't gain this dodge bonus against everyone, just the target you successfully sneak attacked. (still a great talent!)

But if you look at the PRD (which is supposedly up to date on errata?) that's not what it says. The 'against that creature' bit is missing.


My up to date APG PDF does not have the 'against that creature' clarification either.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber
Symar wrote:
My up to date APG PDF does not have the 'against that creature' clarification either.

That means that we need an updated errata, correct?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
leo1925 wrote:
Symar wrote:
My up to date APG PDF does not have the 'against that creature' clarification either.
That means that we need an updated errata, correct?

Not trying to commit thread necromancy, just trying to figure out if this question of the AC bonus applying only to the target of the attack or to everyone had been answered, as I couldn't seem to find anything, but the errata does seem to conflict directly with the PRD (and maybe the pdf? I don't have the pdf to check, but someone above said it did).

Is it a dodge bonus against only the target of the attack, or is it a general dodge bonus to AC?


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber
Bascaria wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Symar wrote:
My up to date APG PDF does not have the 'against that creature' clarification either.
That means that we need an updated errata, correct?

Not trying to commit thread necromancy, just trying to figure out if this question of the AC bonus applying only to the target of the attack or to everyone had been answered, as I couldn't seem to find anything, but the errata does seem to conflict directly with the PRD (and maybe the pdf? I don't have the pdf to check, but someone above said it did).

Is it a dodge bonus against only the target of the attack, or is it a general dodge bonus to AC?

I think that this is one of the "ask the DM" situations but my opinion is to go with the PRD.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Seems like the RAW PRD would be:
1. Dodge bonuses stack, including from multiple attacks using this talent.
2. The bonus applies to all creatures.

Seems powerful, but wondering if I've missed anything? Seems to be a few things in the rules that have explicitly been removed to make it read this way.


R00K wrote:

Seems like the RAW PRD would be:

1. Dodge bonuses stack, including from multiple attacks using this talent.
2. The bonus applies to all creatures.

Seems powerful, but wondering if I've missed anything? Seems to be a few things in the rules that have explicitly been removed to make it read this way.

Seems like it.


Don't stack. Btw, if you want to act differently in your game, do it. It's not mine, so I don't care :)


If a rogue has Sap Mastery and Offensive Defense and his normal SA is 3d6, would he get a +3 or a +6 AC?


From my hard cover APG (2nd printing) (no mention of the against 1 target)

Offensive Defence** (Ex) : When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round.

Still would only apply +3 AC total regardless of the number of attacks on 3d6 sneak attack.

Sap master doubles the sneak attack dice? or adds extra dice of damage equal to the current amount of sneak attack dice?


This question was raised over a year ago. 16 people have tagged it for FAQ.

Is there an official clarification?


As a general rule I never let bonus from same source add at itself.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ!

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Pawns Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
FAQ!

This is a real good way to go with this talent. Thumps up!

Shadow Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
FAQ!

I've seen the faq comment. I'd do it differently given the context and the way "other things usually work".

I would call this "The Jackie Chan Talent". You are using your sneak attack to turn your target into an unwitting and unwilling meat shield.

The one bonus from one source rule is questionable since a two-weapon fighter can get sneak dice on more than one target etc. and "using up" multiple attacks for a momentary safety edge is not unreasonable.

So how I would run this feat:

(1) the bonus would stack; if you can get multiple attacks with sneak then you earned the stack in your build and play.

(2) the bonus would work against all attackers, not just the target.

(3) the bonus -ends- if the target providing the bonus dies no matter when or why.

(4) the bonus -ends- if the rogue and the target providing the bonus are separated by one or more squares no matter when or why.

-- If I were rewriting this from scratch I would have the rogue -trade- dice for AC maybe. Or maybe have a low-talent that trades and an advanced talent that doesn't require the trade.

I know this feat sounds a little insane but in terms of play balance it actually works. And the banter and play would be outstanding. Rogue gets in and uses meat-shield tactic to use minion as buff against big-bad. Rogue accidentally, or big-bad deliberately, kills minion and whoops, there you are. Alternately the rogue has to keep finding ways to flank-n-stab minions to survive proximity to big bad, thus distributing his attacks or dealing with being cornered etc.

Given that a ninja can use a ki point to walk through walls and suh this talent isn't that unbalanced as described above. Given the number of things you would have to stack into the character to make this truly abusive it ends up being as fair as any of the many other stacked feat corner-cases in the system.

I consider it good practice to encourage players to treat physical positioning etc as a very rewarding but very risky game of chess.

Plus I like theatrics from players and getting the rogue to step into a position where he could flank or gang-up, and in so doing probably opening himself to flank etc., just to do his sneak attack in hopes of -not- killing a guy so that he can be safe to take his secondary attack against a big-bad is just glorious theater. 8-)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
FAQ!
The linked FAQ wrote:
...and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself.

Quick question re: this passage.

If I use TWF and attack with both weapons, does the dodge bonus of each weapon's attack apply because each weapon is a different source, or does only one count because the source is considered to be Offensive Defense?

and if I am using a non-lethal attack and Sap Master it counts for all SA dice, right?


The source is Offensive Defense, so attacks from two different weapons would not stack. As for part two, I'm inclined to say yes, but ask your DM.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I agree with BitOBear re: the meat shield interpretation. It's definitely in character for the rogue, and it isn't broken provided the other ambiguity is patched up (namely the multiple sneak attacks). Please consider applying the AC bonus from one sneak attack to all attacks against the rogue.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / [APG] Offensive Defense (Rogue Talent) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.