| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Your skill with your chosen weapon leaves opponents unable to defend themselves if you strike them when their defenses are already compromised.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, base attack bonus +6, proficiency with weapon.
Benefit: Any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. This includes any additional attacks you make this round.
Since shatter defenses obviously isn't winding time backwards , should it just make an opponent denied dexterity rather than flat footed?
I suppose you could do an attack that provokes AO's but not provoke AO's?
I think in most cases losing your dex bonus to AC covers what shatter defences does.
Hmm how does this work with Come & Get Me?
I believe it is flat footed because it is supposed to enable Deadly Stroke, and presumably someone thought that allowing Deadly Stroke to work off of denied dex would be too easy to enable with invisibility/greater feint/etc.
Personally, I think rather than trying for an awkward flat-footed-but-only-kind-of-when-I'm-attacking-you state, it would have been fine to just make Shatter Defenses deny the target their dex bonus and key Deadly Stroke off of that condition instead.
That makes sense. Now does shatter defences beat uncanny dodge?
I think you're right I was reading it a bit wrong. I read it again and it is not worded like I thought it was. Doh. :)
We know what flat-footed means, I have no issues with it being adopted as a condition beyond its initial/primary function.
That makes sense. Now does shatter defences beat uncanny dodge?
that would be the downside to making someone flat footed vs just making them lose their dex. A feint or something similar can cost a rogue barbarian their dex bonus but they can't be flat footed...
Pretty sure they just used the wrong term here.
That makes sense. Now does shatter defences beat uncanny dodge?that would be the downside to making someone flat footed vs just making them lose their dex. A feint or something similar can cost a rogue barbarian their dex bonus but they can't be flat footed...
Pretty sure they just used the wrong term here.
Yeah a dex loss would be superior in that case.
Anyways, I think 7th Gate has it correct.
Barbs CAN become flat-footed, through such things as this ability.
Their uncanny dodge just means they don't start combat flat-footed.
See I thought that they could lose their dex to AC and not be flat footed ie: still make AO's.
However, I thought that they could never be caught flat footed.
Baring high level rogues that is.
|
At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the ability to react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to armor class if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to armor class if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her.
The general rule is that they can't be caught flat-footed, not merely that they don't start combat flat-footed.
Can't be caught flat-footed. NOT cannot become flat footed. The time that flat footed usually happens is before you acted in combat, aka someone getting the jump on you and you being unready, not in your combat stance, or caught flat-footed.
That even goes with the fluff beforehand, "gains the ability to react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so." Not, "gains the ability to never have a lowered guard" or something to indicate the immunity to flat-footed that is being suggested.
Can't be caught flat-footed. NOT cannot become flat footed.
so it applies only to grapple checks then?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't be caught flat-footed. NOT cannot become flat footed.
That is WAY too nit-picky for Paizo.
The time that flat footed usually happens is before you acted in combat, aka someone getting the jump on you and you being unready, not in your combat stance, or caught flat-footed.
That's the most common time to be caught flat-footed, but if you were to become flat-footed at a different time, and I hit you, then I have also caught you flat-footed.
If someone can't be caught flat-footed, they can't become flat-footed, because if you become flat-footed then someone can catch you flat-footed.
The fact that a character with uncanny dodge also keeps Dex to AC when attacked by invisible opponents also indicates that it isn't just supposed to apply in the beginning of combat, but also at other times when most characters would be unable to react to danger.
no, you've made me flat footed. you didn't "catch" me flat footed.
A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.
Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat
this is the flat-footed description. Again, it doesn't say that uncanny dodge can NEVER be flat-footed. Just that they "aren't flat-footed" before acting in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is flat-footed, which is not the same as being denied dex. Being flat-footed means no attack of opportunities. What they did not do was add something like "normally you can not be flat-footed once you act".
Basically here is how it works. You have the penalties(can't make AoO and no dex to AC) associated with being flatfooted, but only against the person who used the Shatter Defenses ability.
I do think it should be rewritten, but it is not the only ability in the history of 3.5/Pathfinder to apply the flat-footed condition after combat starts.
Examples of being flat-footed once you have already acted:
Basically here is how it works. You have the penalties(can't make AoO and no dex to AC) associated with being flatfooted, but only against the person who used the Shatter Defenses ability.
Thats the other thing that makes me think they used the wrong term: flat footed isn't a relative term: its on or off on the victim.
I do think it should be rewritten, but it is not the only ability in the history of 3.5/Pathfinder to apply the flat-footed condition after combat starts.
Examples of being flat-footed once you have already acted:
-that ones still during the surprise round. And definitely wouldn't catch the barbarian.
Paizo messing up twice doesn't preclude the idea of paizo messing up once.
I dont think they really messed up. They were just not as precise as they could have been.
There is another ability that I did not link to that said something like "...is treated as if they were flat-footed". I guess that is the language you would prefer, but for all intents and purposes it would do the same thing if they used that language as it does now.
Admittedly there may be a situation where the distinction matters, but I can't think of one.
Most people to include the writers would likely say anything that protected you from being flat-footed would also protect from the "as if you were flat-footed" ability also.
edit: Using acrobatics also makes you flat-footed, so that is more proof that you don't have to be in a situation to have not taken an action to be flat-footed.
edit2: This ability has the "as if" language". It is scout's charge.
As an aside I don't know why it did just use "denied dex" since that is all sneak attack needs.
-that ones still during the surprise round. And definitely wouldn't catch the barbarian.
The surprise round doesn't change the fact that you may have already acted. If you act in the surprise round you are still not flat-footed by the normal rules.
I think I see why Chesspwn thinks it works that way. I mean when I first read Shatter Defences I kind of thought the same thing. Then I read it again and read uncanny dodge again and I doubt it gets past uncanny dodge.
I remember a while ago I was looking at ways to defeat uncanny dodge and they seem to be very rare and they generally just get make the target lose Dex to AC.
Which to my knowledge is stuff like:
1, Feinting
2, Target is climbing
3, Target is using acrobatics to cross narrow surfaces/uneven ground
4, Target is tied up or unable to move
5, Vigilante abilities I think?
However, none of those make you flat footed except number 3 & 4 and I'm still not sure they do that to someone with uncanny dodge. Well 4 obviously prevents the target from making AO's.
Making the target denied Dex instead of Flat-footed would remove it as an option for the Kensai Magus, who needs it to reliably make use of Iaijutsu Focus. It also hurts the Rogue who took Sap Master, which also requires the Flat-footed condition for it to work.
Paizo messing up twice doesn't preclude the idea of paizo messing up once.
Why are you so adamant that it's a mistake, though?
Shatter Defenses (Combat): Hide
Your skill with your chosen weapon leaves opponents unable to defend themselves if you strike them when their defenses are already compromised.Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, base attack bonus +6, proficiency with weapon.
Benefit: Any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. This includes any additional attacks you make this round.
I just saw something...you don't really need to use a specific weapon now do you? I feel a Kensai argument forming. :(
|
|
A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.
Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.
this is the flat-footed description. Again, it doesn't say that uncanny dodge can NEVER be flat-footed. Just that they "aren't flat-footed" before acting in combat.
That doesn't follow. Let's look at the context.
1) A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed.
2) A flat-footed character [suffers penalties] unless they have the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.
3) Characters with Uncanny Dodge [don't suffer penalties] before they've acted.
Or in general terms:
1) A character who [situation] is [condition].
2) A [condition] character [suffers penalties], unless the character has [ability].
3) A character with [ability] doesn't suffer [penalties] in [situation]
Substitute a different situation and condition:
1) A character who [has been demoralized by the intimidate skill] is [shaken].
2) A [shaken] character [-2 to stuff], unless the character has [Aura of Courage].
3) A character with [Aura of Courage] doesn't [take -2 to stuff] when [demoralized by the intimidate skill].
All of these statements are true, and they make logical sense together. It's even something you might expect to read under the Intimidate skill, if Aura of Courage were the only ability that protected from fear effects (similar to uncanny dodge for flat-footedness). However, we cannot conclude that a character with Aura of Courage is only immune to the shaken condition when demoralized by the intimidate skill.
For that we have to refer to the actual text of the ability. As already stated I think "caught flat footed" ought to be interpreted generally as written. If it were meant to be more limited, then Uncanny Dodge should have used the text "she does not begin combat flat-footed and does not lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible" which is both clear and natural sounding.
In contrast, the phrase "cannot become flat-footed" feels weird and unnatural because in general usage the wording "caught flat-footed" is overwhelmingly more common. Paizo does not make a habit of being technically precise - they're going to use the natural-sounding term even if it is not quite as precise.
see to me the phrase, "caught flat-footed", is clearly referencing to not being surprised. While things like shatter defense that makes them flat-footed are obviously not "catching them off guard" but forcing them to a certain condition.
the phrase could have been, "cannot be flat-footed" is a natural and flowing way of expressing total immunity. To me, forcing them to be flat-footed is no way of catching them.
My further support is the glossary of flat-footed, which says that a barb doesn't have penalties before acting. While they easily could have said are immune to this condition. can't be caught in this condition. Or many other phrases that make it clear that their exemption isn't only "before they have acted in combat" but since it says that, to me at least, it's conveying the intent that it's not immunity, but ignoring only one, the main source of the condition.
|
|
When I google "define flat-footed," basically every non-medical usage of the term includes the word "caught" or "catch." It's part of the idiom.
"Cannot be flat-footed" is smoother than "can't become flat-footed" but I still think that the author would have thrown "caught" in there just because it sounded right.
The glossary also starts with "A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed." If we can accept that a character can be flat-footed at a time other than when they have not yet acted in combat - that is, that the glossary definition of flat-footed is applied generally despite defining the term in context of start of turn - we should also accept that the glossary discussing uncanny dodge in the context of start of turn does not itself prevent uncanny dodge from applying elsewhere.
see to me the phrase, "caught flat-footed", is clearly...Are you perhaps a non-native speaker? "Caught flat-footed" is a semi common phrase, in certain circles. It is (originally) a fighting term for when you attack someone who has their weight primarily supported by the heels of their feet. As in, their feet are flat on the ground. Proper stance for most martial arts involve shifting the weight to the balls of your feet so that you can move quickly.
The usage of caught makes sense here. Saying someone cannot BE flat-footed, in a literal sense, means they are in capable of putting their foot all the way down.
It is just the common phrasing, you are putting alot of effort into making it very slightly imply something. Occam's razor?
If they wanted to make clear that it only applies at the beginning of combat, they would not do so by droping the word "caught" in there and trust that all the players would follow multiple abstract logic leaps to arrive at that conclusion.
The ability would read "A barbarian is not flat footed before acting in combat".
See I feel you're proving my point.
In a fighting term it's before they have their stance, which is before they act in combat. Barbs are in a combat stance before needing to act.But if I pull some "cheap trick" or something that forces you back onto your heels or makes you flat-footed, then it doesn't matter that you were already in your combat stance.
Sorry I'm just not seeing it. I don't see uncanny dodge granting character immunity to flat-footed. I see it as they wont ever naturally be flat-footed. I don't see how forcing them to be flat-footed is "catching them flat footed". I made them flat-footed and now I'm attacking while they are flat-footed. catching them flat-footed means that they were naturally flat-footed and you came in while they were in that state.
I welcome people to stop discussing this with me. Unless you can provide some new rule source to allude to immunity I don't think I'll be converted. So far half of the examples used I feel just support my view, but you tack on at the end, "so my view is right".
Can't be caught flat-footed. NOT cannot become flat footed.That is WAY too nit-picky for Paizo.
Nothing is too nit-picky for the Internet.