The question is regarding the following pieces of text:
Stunned: ". . . . takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC."
. . . .
Pg. 199:
[Last paragraph of Performing A Combat Maneuver] "If your target is Stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll against it."
. . . .
"Any penalties to your AC also apply to your CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to CMD."
. . . .
So the way I'm reading this is, when you Stun an opponent, it loses its Dex bonus to CMD and takes a further -2 penalty, while you get +4 to Combat Maneuvers against it. Is this correct, and if so, is this intentional?
The only way I can see this not totaling out to that is if flat-footed meant *only* creatures that hadn't yet acted in combat. Yet it seems to me that the developers would have intended creatures to be denied their Dex bonus if a hidden creature attempted a combat maneuver on them in the middle of combat ...
The question is regarding the following pieces of text:
Stunned: ". . . . takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC."
. . . .
Pg. 199:
[Last paragraph of Performing A Combat Maneuver] "If your target is Stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll against it.". . . .
"Any penalties to your AC also apply to your CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to CMD."
. . . .
So the way I'm reading this is, when you Stun an opponent, it loses its Dex bonus to CMD and takes a further -2 penalty, while you get +4 to Combat Maneuvers against it. Is this correct, and if so, is this intentional?
The only way I can see this not totaling out to that is if flat-footed meant *only* creatures that hadn't yet acted in combat. Yet it seems to me that the developers would have intended creatures to be denied their Dex bonus if a hidden creature attempted a combat maneuver on them in the middle of combat ...
That is correct. Stunning is terrible/awesome depending on which side of it you are on.
Losing dex to AC does not equal flat-footed. Flat-footed does mean loss of dex however because being flat-footed is a condition just like being, prone, sickened and so on that carries certain penalties.
Well, flat-footed and denied dex to AC (while they have the same effect on the character's AC/CMD) are distinct things. However, any bonus or penalty that is applied to a creatures touch AC is applied to its CMD also. If a creature is denied its Dex to AC, then it doesn't get to apply it to its CMD either.
Now, it is possible that, when adding the CMD mechanic, the devs forgot that applications to touch AC apply to CMD (actually, somewhat likely, as many early NPCs didn't get the proper bonuses applied to their CMDs), and that the two should not stack, by RAW they do.
It's sort of like getting attack by an invisible opponent (by RAW) gives you a -2 to AC and them a +2 to hit, or a 4 point accuracy differential. Many argue that the wording (when it was introduced in 3.x) was two ways of saying the same thing but, because it was poorly worded, by RAW both modifiers applied. This could well be another case. Check with your GM. If you are the GM, use Rule 0 to interpret this if you feel that it ought to be one way or the other.
Well, flat-footed and denied dex to AC (while they have the same effect on the character's AC/CMD) are distinct things. However, any bonus or penalty that is applied to a creatures touch AC is applied to its CMD also. If a creature is denied its Dex to AC, then it doesn't get to apply it to its CMD either.
Now, it is possible that, when adding the CMD mechanic, the devs forgot that applications to touch AC apply to CMD (actually, somewhat likely, as many early NPCs didn't get the proper bonuses applied to their CMDs), and that the two should not stack, by RAW they do.
It's sort of like getting attack by an invisible opponent (by RAW) gives you a -2 to AC and them a +2 to hit, or a 4 point accuracy differential. Many argue that the wording (when it was introduced in 3.x) was two ways of saying the same thing but, because it was poorly worded, by RAW both modifiers applied. This could well be another case. Check with your GM. If you are the GM, use Rule 0 to interpret this if you feel that it ought to be one way or the other.
Derp. I was focusing on the "Flat-footed creatures don't apply Dexterity to CMD" and trying to decide if being denied a dex bonus counted as flat-footed . . . while completely ignoring that if a creature can't apply their Dex bonus to AC, that alone would affect CMD as per the other clause.
Though if we wanted to get devilishly technical, one could say that not being able to apply a Dex bonus to AC isn't a penalty }:)
Anyway, some stuff like this I pitch with my players (especially since one of them is playing a Monk). But they better hope that I don't wind up with a high-level Monk NPC in the upcoming adventure path, because if I pull off a Stun, I guarantee I'm going for a Trip and then whatever other combat maneuvers would benefit a victim without Dex bonus to CMD and effectively a -10.
I think concerro was simply stating that flat-footed is a subset of denied Dex to AC, which is also what I was trying to say.
I would not give a stunned character his dexterity bonus to CMD (but would make him/her retain a dexterity penalty, a la flat-footed AC). Since dexterity is a bonus applied to armor class (that is not armor, natural armor or shield), and such bonuses to AC are applied to CMD, and the character is not allowed to apply this bonus to his armor class, I would hold that a stunned character would not apply any dex bonus to CMD. I would, as stated above, make them retain a dexterity penalty, should they have one. "Flat-footed" is often referenced erroneously when "denied dexterity to AC" seems ought to have been used.
So, even by strict RAW, a stunned creature does not apply a dex bonus to CMD and a maneuver-using attacker would gain a +4 to his maneuver check.
Thank you gentlemen, I think that brings a satisfying conclusion to the matter.
Although, I must wonder; besides increasing Wisdom, what resources might a Monk have to increase the DC on his Stunning Fist, using only Pathfinder material (IE no Complete Warrior, Oriental Adventures)? There have also been concerns about actually pulling off a Stun. I know I had trouble doing that when I played a Monk in 3.25, and two of my players had similar experiences. Since we're preferring to downsize legacy resources, that would only make it harder.
I think concerro was simply stating that flat-footed is a subset of denied Dex to AC, which is also what I was trying to say.
I was saying the opposite. Being denied dex is one of the penalties for being flat-footed. Flat-footed causes loss of dex, not the other way around.
Does being denied dex mean you are flat-footed?-->no
Does being flat-footed mean you are denied dex?-->yes
Thank you gentlemen, I think that brings a satisfying conclusion to the matter.
Although, I must wonder; besides increasing Wisdom, what resources might a Monk have to increase the DC on his Stunning Fist, using only Pathfinder material (IE no Complete Warrior, Oriental Adventures)? There have also been concerns about actually pulling off a Stun. I know I had trouble doing that when I played a Monk in 3.25, and two of my players had similar experiences. Since we're preferring to downsize legacy resources, that would only make it harder.
Ability Focus will give it another +2. It is in the bestiary, but it affect special attacks that are EX or SU.
I don't think this is quite as powerful as your think.
Under condition summaries: appendix 2...
Flat footed = denied Dex, but denied Dex does not mean flat footed
Stunned = -2 AC and denied dex, it does not have penalty to cmdThe stunned creature would defiantly lose the -2 as stated in stunned, but it does not take a penalty to it's dex (Cmd specifically states," penalty to ac"). Rather it's dex no longer applies to ac. Based on this,, i don' think you would get the additional minus (dex score here) to cmd. Instead, the attacker gets +4 bonus cmb because the target is stunned and dc for the manuver would be cmd-2, because of stun also. Net bonus of 6 to cmb not including any other potential modifiers to the situation.
I know i wrote this one a little unclearly, but i hope it is clear enough to get my meaning across.
Not at all, that was in fact one outcome I had wondered about in the original post.
We agree that losing a Dex bonus to AC is not the same thing as flat-footed. After all, the (only) situation that comes to mind is Immediate actions -- you can't perform Immediate actions when you're flat-footed. Which just means before you act in combat -- you can still activate Immediate actions when you're denied your Dex bonus in the middle of combat. Admittedly, I can't think of other distinctions.
So now we're looking at the other clause. Any penalty that applies to AC also applies to CMD. The question is, if an effect doesn't allow you to apply your Dex bonus to AC, does that cause you to lose the Dex bonus to CMD?
I don't think this is quite as powerful as your think.
Under condition summaries: appendix 2...
Flat footed = denied Dex, but denied Dex does not mean flat footed
Stunned = -2 AC and denied dex, it does not have penalty to cmdThe stunned creature would defiantly lose the -2 as stated in stunned, but it does not take a penalty to it's dex (Cmd specifically states," penalty to ac"). Rather it's dex no longer applies to ac. Based on this,, i don' think you would get the additional minus (dex score here) to cmd. Instead, the attacker gets +4 bonus cmb because the target is stunned and dc for the manuver would be cmd-2, because of stun also. Net bonus of 6 to cmb not including any other potential modifiers to the situation.
I know i wrote this one a little unclearly, but i hope it is clear enough to get my meaning across.
Being stunned also means you drop anything you are holding. It is like a free disarm if they fail the fort save.
Heh, I'd forgotten about that.
When a high level Monk with seven attacks has Stunned an opponent and Tripped them, I figured disarming them would be the next item on the agenda. Guess I'd better cross that one off ...