| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Greetings all.
I was going through some character classes this morning and was looking at sneak attack, afterwards I looked at the invisible condition and I noticed it said "attacks made by a character with the invisible condition ignores the opponents dexterity bonus to AC". So, my question is: Is ignoring an opponent's dexterity bonus to AC the same as denying them their dexterity bonus to AC for the purpose of sneak attack?
I apologize if I missed something in the rules, as is bound to happen from time to time, or if this has been discussed before. I didn't see an answer in the entry for rogue's sneak attack, invisible, or invisibility.
All quotes are from the d20pfsrd.
Thanks.
Invisibility:
The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
Invisibility can be made permanent (on objects only) with a permanency spell.
Invisible:
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
Sneak attack (rogue):
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
See Precision Damage & Critical Hits FAQ for more information.
That's why "Vanish" as a major magic talent is a thing for my half-elven rogue.
Hmm. You know, I've been playing Pathfinder for the last 6-7 years, and I have never noticed the phrasing used in that sentence before.
I think that it is safe to assume that they are considered to be the same thing for the purposes of sneak attack, or else the entirety of PFS is doing it wrong; but that is an interesting choice of words they used.
Note that uncanny dodge wouldn't work if invisibility didn't deny the dex bonus on the target.
Uncanny dodge: ...She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible...
That clause does nothing unless you assume that "ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)" is the same thing as "loses her dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible". Its definitely intended to be the same.
Note that uncanny dodge wouldn't work if invisibility didn't deny the dex bonus on the target.
Uncanny dodge: ...She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible...
That clause does nothing unless you assume that "ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)" is the same thing as "loses her dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible". Its definitely intended to be the same.
Ohhhh, ok I see what you are getting at. It would have been nice if Paizo put that somewhere that made sense. ><
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ohhhh, ok I see what you are getting at. It would have been nice if Paizo put that somewhere that made sense. ><Note that uncanny dodge wouldn't work if invisibility didn't deny the dex bonus on the target.
Uncanny dodge: ...She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible...
That clause does nothing unless you assume that "ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)" is the same thing as "loses her dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible". Its definitely intended to be the same.
i'm starting to say this more and more, but strict readings of the rules get you no where.
don't sweat the exact wording not being the same if it's mechanically the same thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ohhhh, ok I see what you are getting at. It would have been nice if Paizo put that somewhere that made sense. ><Note that uncanny dodge wouldn't work if invisibility didn't deny the dex bonus on the target.
Uncanny dodge: ...She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible...
That clause does nothing unless you assume that "ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)" is the same thing as "loses her dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible". Its definitely intended to be the same.
i'm starting to say this more and more, but strict readings of the rules get you no where.
don't sweat the exact wording not being the same if it's mechanically the same thing.
This.
Wording is not standardized. All your going to get from slicing syntax that finely is a headache.
Ohhhh, ok I see what you are getting at. It would have been nice if Paizo put that somewhere that made sense. ><Note that uncanny dodge wouldn't work if invisibility didn't deny the dex bonus on the target.
Uncanny dodge: ...She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible...
That clause does nothing unless you assume that "ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)" is the same thing as "loses her dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible". Its definitely intended to be the same.
i'm starting to say this more and more, but strict readings of the rules get you no where.
don't sweat the exact wording not being the same if it's mechanically the same thing.
This.
Wording is not standardized. All your going to get from slicing syntax that finely is a headache.
You'll be surprised how often varied syntax and wording is used to interpret rules. As an example, the debate around Item Mastery fairly recently that had some people pulling hairs over the source of a spell-like ability.
You'll be surprised how often varied syntax and wording is used to interpret rules. As an example, the debate around Item Mastery fairly recently that had some people pulling hairs over the source of a spell-like ability.
Not really, I tend to get involved in about half of those arguments.
I also buy aspirin in bulk :(
Just know I'm giving you a pat on the back in sympathy because you are made of sterner stuff than me.
Ohhhh, ok I see what you are getting at. It would have been nice if Paizo put that somewhere that made sense. ><Note that uncanny dodge wouldn't work if invisibility didn't deny the dex bonus on the target.
Uncanny dodge: ...She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible...
That clause does nothing unless you assume that "ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)" is the same thing as "loses her dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible". Its definitely intended to be the same.
i'm starting to say this more and more, but strict readings of the rules get you no where.
don't sweat the exact wording not being the same if it's mechanically the same thing.
This.
Wording is not standardized. All your going to get from slicing syntax that finely is a headache.
I think there is a minor difference between "someone ignoring your Dex-Bonus" and "you loosing your Dex-Bonus". If you loose your Dex-Bonus, everyone attacking you ignores your Dex-Bonus (e.g. because you are paralyzed). If an opponent is invisible, only this opponent ignores your Dex-Bonus.
Sorry, forgot about that (it's "just" +2 to Attack and the special rule for rogue's sneak that is messing with me). will switch it with invisibility.