Scout's Charge and Skirmisher question

[JLendon]

Both Scout’s Charge and Skirmisher abilities say, “the attack deals sneak attack damage AS IF the target was flat-footed.” Does that mean that they ARE flat-footed to my attack? If not, why even mention anything other than “the attack deals sneak attack damage”?

[nicklas Læssøe]

because technically all of your attacks deal sneak attack damage, if the target is caught flat footed or is denied dex.

If they just wrote the attack does sneak attack damage, then it wouldnt overwrite the specific rule that sneak attack damage can only be given to creatures denied dex to ac. Now with that extra twist to the wording you get a special ability that automatically grants the bonus damage independent on if the target is actually denied dex.

This also means that they still recieve their dex to ac against your attack roll.

[Archaeik]

nicklas Læssøe wrote:

because technically all of your attacks deal sneak attack damage, if the target is caught flat footed or is denied dex.

If they just wrote the attack does sneak attack damage, then it wouldnt overwrite the specific rule that sneak attack damage can only be given to creatures denied dex to ac. Now with that extra twist to the wording you get a special ability that automatically grants the bonus damage independent on if the target is actually denied dex.

This also means that they still recieve their dex to ac against your attack roll.

No, they count as FF in all ways, including being denied dex vs your attack. This condition also counts for special attacks such as Deadly Stroke.

If you have an ability that lets you retain dex while FF, that's a separate issue. Such a defender would, as you say, still be subject to SA but not denied dex to AC.

[JLendon]

Thanks for getting back on this.

So far, we have one vote for NO, not denied dex, and one for YES, they would be denied it. Both make good arguements, too. Still undecided. Any further ideas?

To me, "AS IF" kind of sounds like it is does NOT give all the benefits of attacking vs flat-footed. If it did, then the wording should be that the foe IS considered flat-footed, allowing you to add your sneak attack damage.

[Jiggy]

"Does X as if condition Y was met", when Y is a condition normally required in order to do X, only means you get X. It does not mean that you get all other results of Y.

Basic reading comprehension, people.

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

I think they wanted to preserve the idea that a) normal sneak attack rules apply (like concealment), and b) sneak attack defenses (like being a higher level rogue) still work.

If they said, this attack does sneak attack damage, then people would interpret it to mean, does sneak attack damage REGARDLESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.

This would mean, for example, that a scout rogue is the only person in all Golarion who can sneak attack an ooze. They didn't want that, so you've got the wording that you see in front of you.

My own 2cp (and worth about as much) is that the opponent keeps their dex to AC, but you get to sneak attack anyway, just like you would IF they were flat-footed.

On the plus side, I would give you the +2 for charging.

[cartmanbeck]

rkraus2 wrote:

I think they wanted to preserve the idea that a) normal sneak attack rules apply (like concealment), and b) sneak attack defenses (like being a higher level rogue) still work.

If they said, this attack does sneak attack damage, then people would interpret it to mean, does sneak attack damage REGARDLESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.

This would mean, for example, that a scout rogue is the only person in all Golarion who can sneak attack an ooze. They didn't want that, so you've got the wording that you see in front of you.

My own 2cp (and worth about as much) is that the opponent keeps their dex to AC, but you get to sneak attack anyway, just like you would IF they were flat-footed.

On the plus side, I would give you the +2 for charging.

I agree with this interpretation, seems to me that they'd keep their Dex and Dodge bonuses to AC.