| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If a rogue with the offensive defense rogue talent and 4d6 sneak attack dice hits a flanked target twice and deals 4d6 sneak attack twice, how much of a bonus to AC does offensive defense provide then? +4? (for the number of sneak attack dice rolled per attack) or +8 (for the total sneak attack dice rolled in that round)?
prototype00
8. Dodge bonuses stack.
8. Dodge bonuses stack.Dodge bonuses from separate sources stack. +4.
So one for and one against so far?
prototype00
Yea, I was dumb and said 8. It's 4.
Despite being separate attacks that generate it, I still think it's the same action.
8. Dodge bonuses stack.Dodge bonuses from separate sources stack. +4.
We're trying to figure this out in our group as well. Can you point me to where it says that Dodge bonuses from separate sources stack?
By my reading of the APG, I think this would in fact be a +8 AC against that target?
Hmm, the PRD has this to say about Dodge Bonuses:
Dodge Bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
So it looks like it does in fact stack with each other.
+8 it is, I guess.
Hmm, the PRD has this to say about Dodge Bonuses:
Dodge Bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.So it looks like it does in fact stack with each other.
+8 it is, I guess.
Follow up question. By my reading of the talent, it doesn't specify whether you'd get the AC bonus against just the creature you hit OR all creatures.
Thoughts on that?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
+8 vs all, it's the rogue's one nice thing
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hmm, the PRD has this to say about Dodge Bonuses:
Dodge Bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.So it looks like it does in fact stack with each other.
+8 it is, I guess.
Follow up question. By my reading of the talent, it doesn't specify whether you'd get the AC bonus against just the creature you hit OR all creatures.
Thoughts on that?
PRD doesn't limit it to the creature that was hit.
I suspect RAI is that it's only against the creature(s) that got sneak attacked.
Really would like an official answer that the Offensive Rogue Talent provides an AC Dodge Bonus against all.
Ok, first, the thread is almost nine years old, and second, Paizo released an FAQ where they said they were thinking about changing things... but they never did. From the FAQ in March 2012 up to the end of them releasing FAQs for PF1 (August 2017), they never followed through on their announcement. So, who knows? Maybe they forgot about it, maybe they thought that this way, cRogue has at least one thing going for it, maybe they realized that cRogue is such a ridiculously weak class that it barely qualifies as a PC class and needs any help it can get.
I would tell you with absolute certainty which of these it is, but I seem to have misplaced my crystal ball. What I can tell you is that RAW, Offensive Defense stacks with itself (and works against everyone).
So we're saying that a 20th level Rogue with +15/+10/+5 and with Greater Two Weapon Fighting would get a +60 to her AC if all 6 attacks hit in a round? That just doesn't seem like RAI to me.
A Rogue with Greater TWF landing all six attacks? Lol. Is this one of those bag of rats tricks?
Because we all know that nobody with Greater TWF lands all their attacks... definitely not the Rogue. Lol.
I jest, but Rogues are terrible. As for Offensive Defense, it stacks with itself and the bonus applies to your AC versus everyone. Not because it was designed to be especially powerful, but because it was written really poorly. And their inaction is our gain.
Was trying to figure out why this was so much more powerful than I remember it being. Looking at the FAQ is seems my APG is a 1st printing which had the "weak" version of the talent. Which is probably why I never gave it a second glance.
The FAQ pretty much states.
RAW: It stacks with it's self and applies to everyone
RAI: It does not stack with its self and it only applies to the enemy hit.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
|
So we're saying that a 20th level Rogue with +15/+10/+5 and with Greater Two Weapon Fighting would get a +60 to her AC if all 6 attacks hit in a round? That just doesn't seem like RAI to me.A Rogue with Greater TWF landing all six attacks? Lol. Is this one of those bag of rats tricks?
Because we all know that nobody with Greater TWF lands all their attacks... definitely not the Rogue. Lol.
I jest, but Rogues are terrible. As for Offensive Defense, it stacks with itself and the bonus applies to your AC versus everyone. Not because it was designed to be especially powerful, but because it was written really poorly. And their inaction is our gain.
An unbuffed rogue using strength for his to hit bonus? Sure.
A moderately buffed one, with haste, decent weapons for a level 20, some basic buff and flanking or invisible (the whole argument is moot if he isn't dealing his sneak damage) on average would hit 4 times out of 7 attacks against a typical CR 20 monster with 36 AC. Pretty decent by itself, the problem is when you compare him to someone with a full BAB. But that is a problem that all the classes with a 3/4 BAB have.
The Cut and Paste Editing of the rules to make Pathfinders, strikes once again!
Actually, it's the opposite:
The 3.5 Player's Handbook explicitly prevents any same-source stacking, but that text was not copied into the CRB.
"" 3.5 PHB pg. 305
"" 3.5 PHB pg. 310
For comparison, here's the respective entry from the CRB's shoddy-excuse-for-a-glossary:
"" CRB pg. 11 There is no entry for "modifier". Because Pathfinder has no rule binding glossary (a grave mistake), the primary source for stacking rules are the "Bonus Types" rules in the magic section (CRB pg. 208), which are supposed to only be for "Special Spell Effects" (so says the header for that section), but have to govern how feats and other non-magical things work. That text was mostly copied from 3.5, but the sentence "Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source." was added. They could have made the second sentence seperate and applying to all bonuses, but they didn't.
RAI: It does not stack with its self and it only applies to the enemy hit.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
No. It's the RAI of some but not all of the people on the Paizo Design Team at the time of writing of that FAQ (as evident by the "we haven’t reached a final decision" part). The intend of the writers and editors of the CRB, the intend of the writers and editors the talent, the intend of the writers and editors of the erratum for the 2nd printing of the APG, and the intend of the PDT during the years after the FAQ, where they never made an official ruling, is completely unknown. If anything, lack of a followup FAQ indicates that the PDT asd a whole never did establish that as their RAI.
@The 60 AC thing: Sap Master can double that!