| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi! I have been crawling on the forums since I got into Pathfinder a few months ago and I quite like it. This is my first post so I hope to be clear.
Just a few general observations about Shatter Defenses/Deadly Stroke feats and the interaction with Uncanny Dodge.
The Uncanny Dodge ability states that this character "cannot be caught flat-footed" Shatter Defenses states "any shaken, frightened or panicked opponent hit by you is flat-footed".
Now, I would interpret this to mean that Shatter Defenses does not make a character with Uncanny Dodge flat-footed because I don't think flat-footed is a condition that can be gained.
Although this does not seem to be a very thorough shattering of the opponent's defenses, it seems to be working as intended except when you factor in Deadly Stroke.
Should Shatter defenses overcome this ability (Uncanny Dodge)?
Deadly Stroke already operates in a very small window (if the opponent is "stunned or flat-footed") so now the window becomes that much smaller. It also requires a significant feat commitment of 5, including itself, to obtain. Yet, a level 2 Barbarian or a level 4 rogue (or NPC's with Uncanny Dodge) are very capable of evading a full one half of this feat's functionality. That doesn't seem right.
I am currently making a character that will be investing in the Deadly Stroke tree (and bleeding), so I hope to maximize its usage though I recognize the limitations.
Thank you!
Yes, uncanny dodge does negate shatter defenses. There is nothing wrong with it balance wise, not every style of fighting is going to be effective against every opponent. It's no different than if you focus on critical hits (Critical focus, etc) and come up on an ooze or golem.
The only confusion is that sometimes flat-footed gets used as a quick way of saying denied your dex bonus. Hence why even rogues and barbarians have a flat-footed score. Because they can still get denied their dex bonus while not actually being flat-footed.
Flat-footed itself specifically states it is a condition gained by not having acted yet in combat.
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 Manuever 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.
Then notice shatter defenses says "flat-footed TO YOUR ATTACKS"... strongly implying to me that they meant denied your dex bonus. Then again they may have simply been trying to make clear the flat-footed status applies only against your characters attacks and does not apply to others or prevent them from making AoO's etc.
Anyways the point is that by RAW uncanny dodge does seem to defeat Shatter Defenses but you can make a very good argument to your DM that it's not RAI. It's worth a shot.
Yes, uncanny dodge does negate shatter defenses. There is nothing wrong with it balance wise, not every style of fighting is going to be effective against every opponent. It's no different than if you focus on critical hits (Critical focus, etc) and come up on an ooze or golem.
Ok I may be wrong but Golems (and by that I think you meant constructs) are not immune to critical hits (or precision based damage such as sneak attacks) and oozes are also immune to sneak attacks so your examples are kind of odd.
|
The only confusion is that sometimes flat-footed gets used as a quick way of saying denied your dex bonus. Hence why even rogues and barbarians have a flat-footed score. Because they can still get denied their dex bonus while not actually being flat-footed.
Flat-footed itself specifically states it is a condition gained by not having acted yet in combat.
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 Manuever 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.
Then notice shatter defenses says "flat-footed TO YOUR ATTACKS"... strongly implying to me that they meant denied your dex bonus. Then again they may have simply been trying to make clear the flat-footed status applies only against your characters attacks and does not apply to others or prevent them from making AoO's etc.
Anyways the point is that by RAW uncanny dodge does seem to defeat Shatter Defenses but you can make a very good argument to your DM that it's not RAI. It's worth a shot.
Being flat footed is a condition that commonly includes being denied your dex bonus to AC. However, there are ways (such as Uncanny Dodge) to be flat-footed, but NOT denied your dex bonus to AC. Similarly, there are situations where you are denied your dex bonus to AC (such as being tied up), but you are not specifically "flat-footed" (which is a condition directly linked to not having acted yet at the start of combat).
Shady points out a very common logical fallacy that gets made with these two conditions. Just because someone is not denied their dex bonus to AC does not mean they cannot be flat footed. This inductive argument is very easy to make a mistake in (just because all pumpkins are orange, doesn't mean everything orange is a pumpkin). This is only amplified by the fact that there are multiple overlapping conditions, that they each see limited exposure.
I've heard, multiple times, players say something like "I'm flanking him so he's flat footed", or "I don't need to flank him, he hasn't acted yet, and even though he's a rogue, I'm 4 levels higher then him". They are easy mistakes to make. So much so, that sadly, I think even the game developers make them. From the wording of Shatter Defenses, I can't imagine that they meant that you grant the flat-footed condition. Instead, I believe the RAI would be that any such opponents would be denied their dexterity bonus to AC. As such, I agree that the feat Shatter Defenses would be useless against any character with the Uncanny Dodge ability.
Actually, I do think that the game designers meant to grant the flat footed condition. In addition to being denied their dex bonus against you, it also gives them other penalties such as not being able to make AoO. I believe this is intentional.
Actually, I do think that the game designers meant to grant the flat footed condition. In addition to being denied their dex bonus against you, it also gives them other penalties such as not being able to make AoO. I believe this is intentional.
I'm undecided on this personally. I'm not sure making them "Flat-footed to your attacks" would prevent AoO's, except perhaps if you're performing a combat maneuver without the related feat.
|
Actually, I do think that the game designers meant to grant the flat footed condition. In addition to being denied their dex bonus against you, it also gives them other penalties such as not being able to make AoO. I believe this is intentional.I'm undecided on this personally. I'm not sure making them "Flat-footed to your attacks" would prevent AoO's, except perhaps if you're performing a combat maneuver without the related feat.
Or wanted to get a spell off while right in their face.. AKA, a paladin who is fighting someone could use this feat to get off a dispel magic off to make it easier to fight them.
I dont think this is a hard one. shatter defenses would work. Uncanny dodge says you cant be caught flat flooted. such as in a suprise or such that a rogue can't take advantage of his superior flanking position.
Shatter defense on the other hand is not taking advantage of or denying you dex, it is activily destroying any defeneses you have to create a sitution where you are denied your dex bonus. In this case i don't think uncanny dodge would prevent shatter defense, because the whole point of shatter defense would be to defeat things like uncanny dodge.
By RAW, uncanny dodge means you cannot be caught flat footed. Shatter defenses says your opponent if considered flat footed if shaken, frightened, etc.
Shatter defenses does not say it overcomes uncanny dodge so as I read the rules it is very clear that shatter defenses does not overcome the protection provided by uncanny dodge.
Ok I may be wrong but Golems (and by that I think you meant constructs) are not immune to critical hits (or precision based damage such as sneak attacks) and oozes are also immune to sneak attacks so your examples are kind of odd.
I was talking about the other critical hit feats, which the golem would be immune to.
I will also point out that Paladins would be immune to the effects of shatter defenses as well since they are immune to fear effects.
I was talking about the other critical hit feats, which the golem would be immune to.
Ah yes I see that now I was a little confused since you brought up critical focus which would help. HEHE But we're on the same page now.
I will also point out that Paladins would be immune to the effects of shatter defenses as well since they are immune to fear effects.
True. But how often would one fight a paladin outside of an evil campaign?
By RAW, uncanny dodge means you cannot be caught flat footed. Shatter defenses says your opponent if considered flat footed if shaken, frightened, etc.
Shatter defenses does not say it overcomes uncanny dodge so as I read the rules it is very clear that shatter defenses does not overcome the protection provided by uncanny dodge.
I agree with your point, but it would seem that Shatter Defenses should be renamed to Shatter (the Majority of) Defenses.
I was talking about the other critical hit feats, which the golem would be immune to.
It is my understanding that Golems are subject to bleed in Pathfinder (bleeding critical). Oozes can bleed, but it seems it would take a bit of work to figure out how.
I will also point out that Paladins would be immune to the effects of shatter defenses as well since they are immune to fear effects.
A fair point, however, I would believe mercenary Rogues and Barbarians will be in plentiful supply.
When fighting a Paladin it is rare to see many of them together.
Thanks for the replies.
By RAW, uncanny dodge means you cannot be caught flat footed. Shatter defenses says your opponent if considered flat footed if shaken, frightened, etc.
Shatter defenses does not say it overcomes uncanny dodge so as I read the rules it is very clear that shatter defenses does not overcome the protection provided by uncanny dodge.
Ok I may be wrong but Golems (and by that I think you meant constructs) are not immune to critical hits (or precision based damage such as sneak attacks) and oozes are also immune to sneak attacks so your examples are kind of odd.I was talking about the other critical hit feats, which the golem would be immune to.
I will also point out that Paladins would be immune to the effects of shatter defenses as well since they are immune to fear effects.
if you were actually right there would be no need for improved uncanny dodge. if you were right the "feint" action would not work on uncanny dodge.
if you were actually right there would be no need for improved uncanny dodge. if you were right the "feint" action would not work on uncanny dodge.
Feint denies the target their dex bonus. Not actually the same thing as flat-footed.
Improved Uncanny Dodge prevents flanking which is entirely separate.Shatter Defenses says it makes the person flat-footed. Therefore anything that says it prevents being flat-footed defeats it. I agree Shatter Defenses was probably intended to deny them their dex bonus not actually make them flat-footed but he's not wrong about the RAW.
RAW=Rules as written. Just going by the words on the paper with a strict interpretation.
RAI=Rules as intended. Looking past the wording and seeing what the designers may have actually meant but worded poorly/incorrectly.
I think you may be making the mistake I originally mentioned. That flat-footed is just another way of saying "denied your dex bonus." It's often used that way but it's not supposed to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, uncanny dodge means you cannot be caught flat footed. Shatter defenses says your opponent if considered flat footed if shaken, frightened, etc.
Shatter defenses does not say it overcomes uncanny dodge so as I read the rules it is very clear that shatter defenses does not overcome the protection provided by uncanny dodge.
Ok I may be wrong but Golems (and by that I think you meant constructs) are not immune to critical hits (or precision based damage such as sneak attacks) and oozes are also immune to sneak attacks so your examples are kind of odd.I was talking about the other critical hit feats, which the golem would be immune to.
I will also point out that Paladins would be immune to the effects of shatter defenses as well since they are immune to fear effects.
Uncanny dodge says you can't be caught flat-footed. It doesn't say anything about being made flat-footed.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uncanny Dodge protects against one very specific condition: flat-footed. A lot of confusion happens when players, DMs, and even designers on occasion use the term flat-footed when it shouldn’t be used. In a lot of instances people say flat-footed as a blanket term to describe anything that denies a combatant their DEX bonus, but in fact that is wrong. Flat-footed is a specific condition that only happens in the beginning of combat before a combatant has had the opportunity to move (IE: Ready/Prepare themselves for combat). However, Uncanny Dodge does not protect you from ever losing your DEX bonus to AC.
Feint: This combat action does not make you opponent flat-footed. It denies them their DEX bonus to AC. Therefore, Uncanny Dodge does not protect against it.
Invisible attackers: Also do not make their target flat-footed. They get a +2 to attacks and they ignore their opponents DEX bonus to AC, which is similar but still a different condition than being flat-footed. So UD would protect against being caught flat-footed by an invisible attacker, but IMO it would not negate the invisible attackers bonuses/advantage for being invisible, which is a separate condition. That is RAW, some people will disagree with me based on RAI arguments.
Shatter Defenses: By RAW, Shatter Defenses makes your opponent flat-footed to your attacks, and UD protects from being flat-footed. By strict adherence to RAW I think UD defeats SD. That said, IMO it shouldn’t. This is my take and it is a RAI based argument so very much up to interpretation, there are a few reasons I feel UD should not protect from SD:
1) They way the feat is worded. The feat says it makes you flat-footed and in fact it can’t do that. The only time you can be flat-footed is in the beginning of combat before you have moved. A feat can’t rewind time to the first round of combat before you have moved and make you “flat-footed” by the definition of the flat-footed condition. Shatter Defenses doesn’t represent you being unprepared to defend yourself in the first rounds of combat. It represents you being intimidated to the point where fear is locking up your muscles and not allowing you to react the way your instincts would otherwise allow you to.
2) Again the wording of the feat. It says it makes the opponent “flat-footed to YOUR attacks” which is different than having the flat-footed condition. In the feat description in PRD there is a link to the flat-footed condition where it plainly states, a condition that only applies in the beginning of combat before you have acted, which is not the case with Shatter Defenses. Then it describes the effects of the condition: denied DEX bonus to AC and unable to take AoOs. So are the developers really saying this feat makes you flat-footed, which is impossible after you have acted in combat, OR are they conveying that you become effectively flat-footed gaining the hindrances associated? My opinion is that they made the mistake of using flat-footed as a blanket term for denied DEX to AC, and possibly unable to make AoOs against you. My opinion is that this feat doesn’t make your opponent flat-footed but instead gives them the same negatives associated with it, but for different reasons.
3) Similarity to Feint. Why does Feint deny your DEX bonus to AC when SD and Catch of Guard render you flat-footed? My opinion is that it was an error in terminology. I can see why UD would protect against CoG making you flat-footed. But why should UD protect against SD but not Feint, they are almost the same thing, in one instance you are bluffing someone into defending the wrong way, in the other you are intimidating them to the point of inaction. Neither of those has anything to do with “reacting before you senses would normally allow.” IMO it should say denies DEX bonus to AC rather than renders flat-footed.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Feint: This combat action does not make you opponent flat-footed. It denies them their DEX bonus to AC. Therefore, Uncanny Dodge does not protect against it.
Invisible attackers: Also do not make their target flat-footed. They get a +2 to attacks and they ignore their opponents DEX bonus to AC, which is similar but still a different condition than being flat-footed. So UD would protect against being caught flat-footed by an invisible attacker, but IMO it would not negate the invisible attackers bonuses/advantage for being invisible, which is a separate condition. That is RAW, some people will disagree with me based on RAI arguments.
Shatter Defenses: By RAW, Shatter Defenses makes your opponent flat-footed to your attacks, and UD protects from being flat-footed. By strict adherence to RAW I think UD defeats SD. That said, IMO it shouldn’t. This is my take and it is a RAI based argument so very much up to interpretation, there are a few reasons I feel UD should not protect from SD:
1) They way the feat is worded. The feat says it makes you flat-footed and in fact it can’t do that. The only time you can be flat-footed is in the beginning of combat before you have moved. A feat can’t rewind time to the first round of combat before you have moved and make you “flat-footed” by the definition of the flat-footed condition. Shatter Defenses doesn’t represent you being unprepared to defend yourself in the first rounds of combat. It represents you being intimidated to the point where fear is locking up your muscles and not allowing you to react the way your instincts would otherwise allow you to.
2) Again the wording of the feat. It says it makes the opponent “flat-footed to YOUR attacks” which is different than having the flat-footed condition. In the feat description in PRD there is a link to the flat-footed condition where it plainly states, a condition that only applies in the beginning of combat before you have acted, which is not the case with Shatter Defenses. Then it describes the effects of the condition: denied DEX bonus to AC and unable to take AoOs. So are the developers really saying this feat makes you flat-footed, which is impossible after you have acted in combat, OR are they conveying that you become effectively flat-footed gaining the hindrances associated? My opinion is that they made the mistake of using flat-footed as a blanket term for denied DEX to AC, and possibly unable to make AoOs against you. My opinion is that this feat doesn’t make your opponent flat-footed but instead gives them the same negatives associated with it, but for different reasons.
3) Similarity to Feint. Why does Feint deny your DEX bonus to AC when SD and Catch of Guard render you flat-footed? My opinion is that it was an error in terminology. I can see why UD would protect against CoG making you flat-footed. But why should UD protect against SD but not Feint, they are almost the same thing, in one instance you are bluffing someone into defending the wrong way, in the other you are intimidating them to the point of inaction. Neither of those has anything to do with “reacting before you senses would normally allow.” IMO it should say denies DEX bonus to AC rather than renders flat-footed.
I tend to agree with you Shadowlord. Thanks for your input, that was well written and made a lot of sense.
You're welcome. Hewever, keep in mind that per RAW my opinion would be incorrect. However, based on what I see in similar feats and effects and my opinion/interpretation of RAI, that is my take.
You're welcome. Hewever, keep in mind that per RAW my opinion would be incorrect. However, based on what I see in similar feats and effects and my opinion/interpretation of RAI, that is my take.
someone has a definition by the GMs on this issue?