|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
The scout archetype for the rogue gets an ability called skirmish, which states the following:
"Skirmisher (Ex): At 8th level, whenever a scout moves
more than 10 feet in a round and makes an attack action,
the attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was
flat-footed. If the scout makes more than one attack this
turn, this ability only applies to the first attack. Foes with
uncanny dodge are immune to this ability. This ability
replaces improved uncanny dodge."
Then there is the feat Sap Master from Ultimate combat, which states:
"Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal
nonlethal sneak attack damage to a flat-footed opponent,
roll your sneak attack dice twice, totaling the results as
your nonlethal sneak attack damage for that attack."
And the feat Bludeoner which states:
"Benefit: You take no penalty on attack rolls for using a
lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal damage."
"Special: A rogue with this feat can use a lethal bludgeoning
weapon to deal nonlethal damage with a sneak attack."
So if I move ten feet and make a ranged attack withint the appropriate range to deal nonlethal damage, do I get to roll my sneak attack damage twice? Had it simply said "as though denied thier Dexterity to AC" I would instantly say no, but it says "as if the target was
flat-footed".
??? I can see it either way. I would guess that RAI is no.
I'm ok with it because it's nonlethal. Even at double SA dice, you risk a lot if you don't knock 'em out.
If you do, your target's helpless, but not dead. Easy to take care of under ideal conditions if you want to kill, but just as often not. Somebody's got to take out those "real" hit points fairly soon.
Now for roleplay, taking out guards without killing them is cool and classy, in a PG, Xena sorta way. Love it for that. The good rogue who's out to get Mr. Big, but spare his misguided mooks, or steal the guffin with no one hurt is a great one in the right campaign.
GM Goblin King wrote: I'm ok with it because it's nonlethal. Even at double SA dice, you risk a lot if you don't knock 'em out.
If you do, your target's helpless, but not dead. Easy to take care of under ideal conditions if you want to kill, but just as often not. Somebody's got to take out those "real" hit points fairly soon.
Now for roleplay, taking out guards without killing them is cool and classy, in a PG, Xena sorta way. Love it for that. The good rogue who's out to get Mr. Big, but spare his misguided mooks, or steal the guffin with no one hurt is a great one in the right campaign.
Well...honestly I was just enamoured by the sheer number of dice I could roll (the original build involved feint, an earth breaker, and vital strike), allowing me to take someone out of the fight quickly (so long as they're not immune to sneak attack or nonlethal damage). Nonlethal damage heals per hour, so it'll take a while for any of them to get back up. Once they're KOd...then I stop being merciful and take them out execution style. While it's not explicitely stated, if you can coup de grace with a bow or crossbow point blank, there is no reason it can't work for a firearm.
I don't think there's supposed to be any difference between flatfooted and denied a dex bonus, so it basically comes down to "non flanking sneak attacks"
I should play mungo, the half orc rogue with a greatclub....
BigNorseWolf wrote: I don't think there's supposed to be any difference between flatfooted and denied a dex bonus, There is, actually. Quite a bit of difference. Flat-footed includes the denial of Dex bonus, the inability to take attacks of opportunity, and the inability to use immediate actions. Denied Dexterity bonus just means that.
Fozbek wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: I don't think there's supposed to be any difference between flatfooted and denied a dex bonus, There is, actually. Quite a bit of difference. Flat-footed includes the denial of Dex bonus, the inability to take attacks of opportunity, and the inability to use immediate actions. Denied Dexterity bonus just means that. can you find an ability where the distinction matters?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Fozbek wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: I don't think there's supposed to be any difference between flatfooted and denied a dex bonus, There is, actually. Quite a bit of difference. Flat-footed includes the denial of Dex bonus, the inability to take attacks of opportunity, and the inability to use immediate actions. Denied Dexterity bonus just means that. can you find an ability where the distinction matters? Uh, all of them?
For example, Feinting causes your opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus. If it caused flat-footedness instead, it would be much more powerful.
For feinting
If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target is made as if he were flat footed. This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
Would there be any difference then? Pathfinder has gone a long way towards cleaning up the terms, but they still mesh them on occasion.
Actually there would. In the first example, were the rogue to feint and move, he'd still provoke an attack of opportunity. In the second he would not, and if said rogue had Improved Feint, than all of his companions could walk right by without provoking AoO either for the round. That's a lot different than simply being denied Dex to AC.
Roaming Shadow wrote: Actually there would. In the first example, were the rogue to feint and move, he'd still provoke an attack of opportunity. In the second he would not, and if said rogue had Improved Feint, than all of his companions could walk right by without provoking AoO either for the round. That's a lot different than simply being denied Dex to AC. Nope, because he's only flat footed FOR the attack, not UNTIL the attack.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Nope, because he's only flat footed FOR the attack, not UNTIL the attack. My error, I meant to say Greater Feint:
Greater Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, base
attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent
to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the
beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his
Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus
against your next attack.
If that were to read as "flat footed", then he would indeed be flat footed for the round, not just the next attack. He doesn't lose his Dex just to you until your next turn, but simply loses it, in addition to losing it for the feinter's next attack.
Right, but by using that term, you open yourself up to exactly that kind of misunderstanding.
It's just like how Stunned (can't act, drop held items, -2 AC, lose Dex bonus to AC) includes the effects of Dazed (can't act). That's not a reason to remove Dazed from the game.
Now, is there any chance I could get you two to weigh in on my question?
I did
I don't think there's supposed to be any difference between flatfooted and denied a dex bonus, so it basically comes down to "non flanking sneak attacks"
-Shorter (and clearer :) ) answer: imho its legal. Batter up.
BigNorseWolf wrote: I did
I don't think there's supposed to be any difference between flatfooted and denied a dex bonus, so it basically comes down to "non flanking sneak attacks"
-Shorter answer: imho its legal. Batter up.
All right, just the way you said it the first time was a bit ambiguous. What had me wondering was if "as if the target was flat-footed" was good enough for "deal nonlethal sneak attack damage to a flat-footed opponent."
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
