The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
I guess I have a number of different but similar questions about sneak attack.
If a target's dexterity bonus from a base score of 10 or 11 and thus it has a +0 modifier to AC, is it considered denied it's dexterity bonus to AC since it receives no bonus from it's dexterity ability score?
If a target's dexterity bonus from a base score of 9 or lower and thus it has a -1 or greater penalty to AC, is it considered denied it's dexterity bonus to AC since it receives no bonus from it's dexterity ability score?
If a target's armor has a max dex bonus of +0, and thus gains no dexterity bonus to AC, is the target considered denied it's dexterity bonus to AC?
No.
No.
No.
Not having a modifier (or having a negative mod) is completely different than being in a situation where you are denied having that modifier apply.
No.
No.
No.Not having a modifier (or having a negative mod) is completely different than being in a situation where you are denied having that modifier apply.
That has always been my first thought. There are specific circumstances where "is denied their dexterity bonus to AC" shows up specifically in print. My instinct is to say "It only works when it specifically says those works but...at the same time...
A +0 modifier could be considered a penalty or a bonus that could go either way
A +0 max dex bonus to AC is a circumstance though, and it denies you your dex bonus to AC. The mail of the armor is restricting your movement and you are just asking to get a blade slid between them or get bludgeoned in a way that cracks open your skull because you can't move out of the way fast enough.
Being clumsy and getting a penalty on dexterity may mean that you are unable to avoid strikes to your juicy vital points, so it would make sense that someone taking a penalty to AC would be more vulnerable to sneak attacks all the time than someone who would otherwise gain a bonus but is circumstantially denied this bonus.
Even if a character's Dex bonus to Armor Class drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing his Dex bonus to Armor Class.
So that answers questions one and three fairly explicitly.
No.
No.
No.Not having a modifier (or having a negative mod) is completely different than being in a situation where you are denied having that modifier apply.
That has always been my first thought. There are specific circumstances where "is denied their dexterity bonus to AC" shows up specifically in print. My instinct is to say "It only works when it specifically says those works but...at the same time...
A +0 modifier could be considered a penalty or a bonus that could go either way
A +0 max dex bonus to AC is a circumstance though, and it denies you your dex bonus to AC. The mail of the armor is restricting your movement and you are just asking to get a blade slid between them or get bludgeoned in a way that cracks open your skull because you can't move out of the way fast enough.
Being clumsy and getting a penalty on dexterity may mean that you are unable to avoid strikes to your juicy vital points, so it would make sense that someone taking a penalty to AC would be more vulnerable to sneak attacks all the time than someone who would otherwise gain a bonus but is circumstantially denied this bonus.
Not quite, and this has more to do with game balance then with realism. Giving rogues the ability to attack characters and NPCs with a low dexterity score at will was - understandably - considered too powerful.
Being clumsy and getting a penalty on dexterity may mean that you are unable to avoid strikes to your juicy vital points, so it would make sense that someone taking a penalty to AC would be more vulnerable to sneak attacks all the time than someone who would otherwise gain a bonus but is circumstantially denied this bonus.Not quite, and this has more to do with game balance then with realism. Giving rogues the ability to attack characters and NPCs with a low dexterity score at will was - understandably - considered too powerful.
If a character has a +0 dexterity modifier, they still count as having a dexterity bonus for this purpose. It just happens to be +0.
A character that has a +0 dexterity modifier due to heavy armor, also still counts as having a dexterity bonus. Just as if they had a Dexterity of 10.
Likewise a character with a negative dexterity modifier still has a dex "bonus" in this case - else they might rightly claim that their AC woud actually go up .
Actually, if they are denied their bonus, according to the definition of AC in the combat chapter, they must still apply their penalty:
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.
Bolded for emphasis.
"denied Dex bonus to AC" is a specific (sub)condition separate from the value of Dexterity modifier. Certain conditions impose that state upon the character - having negative Dexterity modifier is not being denied Dex bonus to AC.
|
No.
No.
No.Not having a modifier (or having a negative mod) is completely different than being in a situation where you are denied having that modifier apply.
That has always been my first thought. There are specific circumstances where "is denied their dexterity bonus to AC" shows up specifically in print. My instinct is to say "It only works when it specifically says those works but...at the same time...
A +0 modifier could be considered a penalty or a bonus that could go either way
A +0 max dex bonus to AC is a circumstance though, and it denies you your dex bonus to AC. The mail of the armor is restricting your movement and you are just asking to get a blade slid between them or get bludgeoned in a way that cracks open your skull because you can't move out of the way fast enough.
Being clumsy and getting a penalty on dexterity may mean that you are unable to avoid strikes to your juicy vital points, so it would make sense that someone taking a penalty to AC would be more vulnerable to sneak attacks all the time than someone who would otherwise gain a bonus but is circumstantially denied this bonus.
This is the rules board, not this is how I wanna make it work to make my character uber board. Please leave your rationalizing and circumspect logic at the door please. If you wanna discuss the merits of what you want from a game balance point, well that can be welcomed...but otherwise take the rationalizing to the houserule and suggestion board.
If you MUST have an explaination to the rule set, think of it this way, the denied dex condition means that you are in a condition where you can't properly dodge an attack like you normally would...like looking over your shoulder when the rogue goes, hey behind you. Even if your a clumsy oaf, your not gonna randomly look over your shoulder for no good reason, and as such, you have no opening to go for the kidney.