Conditions with -2 ac and loss of dex

[Bad Sintax]

I've always been a little confused by the conditions that cause a negative AC and the loss of dex modifiers. For instance Blinded, Cowering, Stunned : -2 to AC, loses dex bonus to AC, etc.

Which is applied first?

AC 20 (+8 armor, +2 dex) – if you take a -2 to AC that takes you to 18, then lose your dex mod, and you are still at 18. If you lose your dex mod first, then take the -2 to AC, you are at 16.

AC 16 (+5 dex, +1 dodge) – if you take a -2 to AC that takes you to 14, then lose your dex mod and that takes you to 10. If you lose your dex mod first, then take -2 to AC that takes you to 8.

I guess the question is: what is the -2 to AC? It seems strange that these conditions call for a blanket reduction and then a reduction of a specific part.

I assume that in order to get the most out of the penalty, you lose the dex mod first, then take the -2 to AC. But if that is the case, why is it not listed in that order on any of those three conditions? All three say, take a -2 to AC, and loses its Dex bonus to AC. Wouldn't it be clearer if it said: creature loses its dex bonus to AC, then takes an additional -2 penalty to armor class, and if so, why isn't it written that way? OR better yet, creature is flatfooted with a -2.

Or is it meant to punish dex based characters more than armored ones, by making them take the -2 to AC first, then losing dex. The idea being that being blind or stunned would be worse for a dodger than a tin can?

[Nullpunkt]

AC is calculated as

10 + bunch of modifiers

The order of the modifiers does not matter at all. It's called commutative, look it up if you want (in wikipedia, not the PRD).

Why the rules call for a blanket reduction and then an additional penalty is probably there so that PCs with a negative DEX modifier don't game the system by trying to get a condition that makes them lose their DEX "bonus" without any additional consequences.

[BloodyManticore]

The -2is added to the misc slot so its like. +8. +2. -2 so 18 then you lose your dex mod so its +8 +0 -2 for 16

[blahpers]

You're over thinking it.

In your first case, both paths lead to AC 16, in the second case, both paths leac to AC 8. You don't get to lower the Dex bonus by 2--you remove the Dex bonus and take a separate -2 penalty.

[Bizbag]

They are both applied; as they are separate penalties. The first character would be at AC 16, the second at 8.

What's confusing you seems to be that you believe the -2 is a penalty to your Dex bonus to AC. It's not; it's a flat -2 penalty. Your Dex bonus or lack thereof is a separate penalty, and yes, it penalizes Dex-heavy characters more. They usually are at an advantage due to lower check penalties, faster movement and more useful defense types (since it defends against touch), and in this case they're not at an advantage.

[RainyDayNinja]

The penalty is not typed. It's not a -2 to your Dex bonus; it's a -2 overall.

[Ciaran Barnes]

There is no order of application. Both penalties are applied, and I have yet to find the case where that leaves the possibility of more than one result.

In your first example, let assume the character has a dexterity of 14 (+2 AC) and a magic breastplate (+8 AC), for a total of 20 AC, 18 flat-footed AC, and 12 touch AC. Loss of dex bonus causes us to look at flat-footed AC, and a -2 brings this to a final total of 16 AC. If we applied the -2 penalty first that would give us 18 AC, 16 flat-footed AC, and 10 touch. Looking at the flat-footed AC at this point still gives us 16 AC.

In your second example, let us assume the character has a dexterity of 20 (+5 AC) and the dodge feat, for a total of 16 AC, 10 flat-footed AC, and 16 touch AC. Loss of dexterity causes us to look at flat-footed AC, and the -2 brings this to a final total of 8 AC. If we applied the -2 penalty first that would give us 16 AC, 8 flat-footed AC, and 14 touch AC. Looking at the flat-footed AC at this point still gives us 8 AC.

Applying one penalty or the other does not allow us to ignore the other, and this is how you came up with different results. Yes, there is a blanket reduction as well as a specific one and yes, it has a greater impact on nimble unarmored characters.

[Majuba]

The larger question is whether all the -2's should stack, if you have blind and stunned characters. They certainly *do* as written, since penalties explicitly stack. Sometimes however they seem to arise from similar circumstances.

At least it was clarified that blind (-2 AC) + invisible (+2 to hit) do not stack.

[blahpers]

Was it? That sounds like an interesting citation.

[James Risner]

Bad Sintax wrote:

AC 20 (+8 armor, +2 dex) – if you take a -2 to AC that takes you to 18, then lose your dex mod, and you are still at 18. If you lose your dex mod first, then take the -2 to AC, you are at 16.

AC 16 (+5 dex, +1 dodge)

It doesn't work that way. You take both, apply both and end up at AC 16 (20 - 2 - DEX of +2 is the same as 20 - DEX of +2 - 2 = 16)

The second is 16 - 2 - DEX of +5 - 1 Dodge (loss if Dex loss) = 8

[Bizbag]

blahpers wrote:

Was it? That sounds like an interesting citation.

It makes sense to me; it's the same penalty/bonus expressed differently: the defender cannot see the attacker, so there is an advantage of 2.

[blahpers]

I agree; I just wanted to see the ruling. : )

[Majuba]

blahpers wrote:

I agree; I just wanted to see the ruling. : )

I'm sorry, I don't recall where.

[blahpers]

No worries. I'll check it out when I can.