A question that came up in yesterday's play, that I couldn't answer is the following:
If there is a character with 7 or 8 Dex and he is denied his Dex-Bonus to AC, eg. due to being flatfooted, does his total AC actually rise?
No. You lose you dexterity bonus. Not your dexterity modifier.
Bonuses are positive numbers, and penalties are negative numbers. Modifiers are both. So by losing your dexterity bonus, you are losing whatever positive modifier you have, but not whatever negative modifier you have.
The games definition of bonus:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Numerical values that are added, not subtracted.
|
I sort of have to laugh at this one, because a good friend of mine was playing a character (a dwarf cleric) with an 8 DEX that claimed he was harder to hit when he was flat-footed... because he was so clumsy that he would often dodge into attacks.
He kept up this claim even after I pointed out that you only lose your DEX bonus... that you keep all DEX penalties. So, we sum that up to role-playing?
I'm not disputing the accuracy of your response, but the logic used to clarify is horrible. You can very easily "add" a negative number to another number.
Mathematically, yes you can. But not by the rules. Bonuses are always added, while penalties are always subtracted. Mechanically, you only ever add bonuses, and subtract penalties. Thats there game definition.
The wording always bothered me, because it makes no sense mathematically. You can't really apply RAW to much of the rules text involving penalties because of it.
I don't see it explicitly stated, but it appears that in Pathfinder all bonuses are positive and all penalties are negative. It appears that the word "modifier" is used if it could go either way.
For example, in AC you don't add your dexterity bonus to it, you add your dexterity modifier.
And then it clearly states, "If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus,
your AC does not change."
Page 179 CRB: 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier +
other modifiers
SKR recently answered this one
It says "bonus," not "modifier," so it never drops below +0.
(I've done my best to hammer the writers into saying "bonus" when they mean "it's always going to be +0 or better," or when using "modifier" has the possibility of making no sense, such as "you can use this a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier," which would mean you could have negative uses per day. So trust whether it says "bonus" or "modifier" to mean exactly that. :))
|
I guess my abstraction of this issue confuses me. I can understand why a negative dex modifier negatively affects skill checks, but I do not understand why it should affect your AC at all.
If you are flat footed, I understand that to mean that someone could be right behind you, swing their weapon without you noticing, and hit you. How would your dexterity play into that, whether you had a positive or negative modifier.
Likewise, if you're in the middle of combat, and you have no dexterity, how can it be worse than 0? How can you move less than being still, as if you were flatfooted?
I guess my abstraction of this issue confuses me. I can understand why a negative dex modifier negatively affects skill checks, but I do not understand why it should affect your AC at all.
If you are flat footed, I understand that to mean that someone could be right behind you, swing their weapon without you noticing, and hit you. How would your dexterity play into that, whether you had a positive or negative modifier.
Likewise, if you're in the middle of combat, and you have no dexterity, how can it be worse than 0? How can you move less than being still, as if you were flatfooted?
You actually move into the blow? Which makes it easier to hit you.
|
I guess my abstraction of this issue confuses me. I can understand why a negative dex modifier negatively affects skill checks, but I do not understand why it should affect your AC at all.
If you are flat footed, I understand that to mean that someone could be right behind you, swing their weapon without you noticing, and hit you. How would your dexterity play into that, whether you had a positive or negative modifier.
Likewise, if you're in the middle of combat, and you have no dexterity, how can it be worse than 0? How can you move less than being still, as if you were flatfooted?
It's a general assumption that you're mobile...flat-footed people are not standing absolutely still...that would be the same as a 0 Dex. (-5 Dex mod)
Flat-footed is not motionless. It is the lack of ability to properly respond above the baseline. A Negative value is the lack of ability to properly respond below the baseline. Think of it as active vs inactive states.
Active state (a bonus): you are positively trying to dodge.
Inactive state: you are unable to positively dodge leaving you with your baseline dodging ability (up to 0).
- Gauss
|
|
Flat-footed is not motionless. It is the lack of ability to properly respond above the baseline. A Negative value is the lack of ability to properly respond below the baseline. Think of it as active vs inactive states.
Active state (a bonus): you are positively trying to dodge.
Inactive state: you are unable to positively dodge leaving you with your baseline dodging ability (up to 0).
Interesting perspective Gauss, could you refer me to some commentary to that effect?
If that is true, are you suggesting that the motionless state of a creature is translated into the +2 bonus granted by invisibility?
Let me spell out an example:
Fighter is immobile
Ninja is invisible
Ninja approaches Fighter, who is flat-footed, unaware, and immobile
Ninja attacks Fighter, who is *negated* his dex bonus (flat footed), and does not move at all (+2 to attack???)
Edit: I understand your logic regarding the baseline, I think. I mean your logic seems to circulate around the rules as they exist in the game, and not intuitive logic, or realism. I suppose I think the rule is a bit odd, nor do I understand the the balance implications that changing AC wording to "add your AC bonus" would have on the game.
Your edit is correct, it is something I struggled with a long time ago back in 3.0 until I realized that the difference between 'bonus' and 'no bonus' is as simple as lack of advanced responses rather than the lack of any responses.
Regarding realism, it is a matter of perspective. A door swings out suddenly and is about to whack me in the head. I reflexively duck out of the way. How good I duck out of the way is based on a couple of factors. Am I good at ducking (not a dex penalty). Was I aware of the door swinging at my head? Then I may be able to intentionally duck (use all my dexterity) rather than just use my baseline reflexes.
Put another way, if the scale said you start at '0' and proceed up to infinity but when you are flat-footed you can only use up to a '+5' would we even have this discussion? Where the zero point is placed is not really an issue here. It is a mechanical construct. The scale is the same in either case.
Regarding +2 to attack. Due to invisibility the fighter is denied his dex bonus and the ninja has a +2 bonus to attack. This is in the rules for invisibility. That has nothing to do with flat-footed.
Assume the ninja has Greater Invisibility. He attacks the flat-footed fighter who is denied dex due to being flat-footed and denied dex for being attacked by an invisible creature. The ninja gets a +2 attack bonus due to being invisible.
Next round the ninja attacks again. He attacks the fighter, who is no longer flat-footed. But still the fighter is denied his dexterity bonus and the ninja has a +2 attack bonus.
- Gauss
|
|
A well articulated point, though my logical and perceived "realistic" leanings don't lend me to agree.
Regarding invisibility, please entertain my point. We can make a non-example out of it, but I want to get at the essence of being "immobile" in combat. A circumstance where in physical combat (ranged or melee), you literally have no awareness of an attack coming your way. I use invisibility as an example since it represents a circumstance where you have literally no knowledge of the attack coming your way. How is "immobility" (and thus no dex contribution to avoid an attack) different mechanically from being denied your dex bonus and/or being flat footed.
If you cannot find a difference, then the argument of "flat footed isn't immobile" falls apart, since mechanically it is identical, and indistinguishable.
If you cannot find a difference, then the argument of "flat footed isn't immobile" falls apart, since mechanically it is identical, and indistinguishable.
Someone else has pointed out that "immobility" only exists in the game mechanics when referring to helpless creatures (0 DEX, -5 modifier). "Immobility" as you describe it does not exist as a mechanic in the PFRPG system, so I'm not really sure what you're asking anyone to prove by asking them to show a mechanical difference between a mechanic that exists and one that you seem to have fabricated out of whole cloth.
Being unaware of an attack coming your way is not "immobility". Those concepts aren't even relatively synonymous. You're hammering hard on something that just isn't there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all know the rule. Arguing semantics just makes us all look like the restless, argumentative nerds the cool kids think we are. Let's move on.
Abadar, immobile is when you are unconscious or paralyzed etc. and has a -5 dex modifier. Unaware is not immobile. You are the one adding in the 'immobile' concept, not the game. You brought up immobility, nobody else. :)
Summary:
Having a 0 dexterity score (immobile) occurs when you are unconscious, paralyzed etc. and you are completely incapable of movement.
Being Flat-footed is not immobile, you still have limited reflexes but are not able to be proactive regarding your defense.
Edit: fixed my error
- Gauss
Kazaan, yeah yeah, sue me. Im tired. I meant score. :)
- Gauss
To all you player haters out there who attempt to suppress the understanding of game theory and mechanics... Stop it.
You realize Kazaan literally only reiterated the exact same things you already hand-waved away as "I'm trying to be realistic", right? We were answering your questions. "Imobile" (that it did not imply what you said it did) had already been answered. "Unaware" and "flat-footed" (that they did not mean "immobile") had already been answered.
Please don't insult the people who point out the flaws in your logic as "player haters". You asked questions, we answered them. Whether you liked the answers or not doesn't mean the answers were invalid, and to insult us for doing so is rude.
Imagine a really drunk person. So drunk that they're swaying a lot and having a hard time staying upright. If you attack the drunk guy and he sees you, his drunk reflexes will hamper him. If you attack him and he doesn't see you, the fact that he's swaying and fighting to stay upright will hamper him. So it doesn't matter whether or not he knows you're going to attack him, the fact that he's so drunk he has a Dex penalty is going to make it easier to punch him.
Replace "drunk guy" with "character with such a low Dex score that he has a Dex penalty," and you have the exact same situation: a character who is so inherently clumsy that whether or not he knows about an attack, his body's natural inclination is to make it easier for people to punch him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I was thinking of Jason when I wrote that... :)
It doesn't make your armor weaker. It just shows that you can't get out of the way very fast. AC 10 assumes "average" ability to move out of the way.
Based on your logic you wouldn't apply a strength penalty because just cause your weak doesn't mean your bones can't support the weight.
AC 10 is no armor. How is your AC being less affect y our armor if you have no armor?
|
|
Please don't insult the people who point out the flaws in your logic as "player haters". You asked questions, we answered them. Whether you liked the answers or not doesn't mean the answers were invalid, and to insult us for doing so is rude.
No offense intended to you Harita. I appreciated Kazaan's method of explanation most since I felt it broke it down in such a way that I understood best. My last comment was directed at anybody who fit that description in general, and specifically at Bruunwald in a sarcastic sense, intended to be just as sarcastic as his comment was (anywhere from not at all to very).
Seriously though, I personally enjoy getting into the nitty gritty, like I'm sure so many others do, to really understand the intent and mechanical purpose for each function. Nobody should be offended if the way they understand and explain things doesn't line up with my, or anyone else's way of understanding.