Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
Yeah Marthkus that is incorrect. The game delineates differences between the two.
Yeah Marthkus that is incorrect. The game delineates differences between the two.Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
Not really though.
Not really though.Yeah Marthkus that is incorrect. The game delineates differences between the two.Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
Because?
Because?Not really though.Yeah Marthkus that is incorrect. The game delineates differences between the two.Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
Because it is not?
Why do you think it is?
Not really though.Yeah Marthkus that is incorrect. The game delineates differences between the two.Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
Go a head and ask James Jacobs or PM any of the designers (they sometimes answer easy questions like this in a PM). They'll tell you that the two are different.
They are very, very similar, but they are still different.
It's like Grapple vs Pinnned. Pinned is a more severe case than Grappled, but the two don't stack. Flat-footed is a more severe case than Denied Dex, but they aren't the same.
Because?Not really though.Yeah Marthkus that is incorrect. The game delineates differences between the two.Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
Because it is not?
Why do you think it is?
You are the one that made a claim, you are the one that have to back up it.
|
Note that is says that you are denied your Dex bonus when flat-footed. Not that being Flat-footed means you are denied your Dex bonus. Flat-footed only occurs when specifically called out, such as at the start of combat. If the ability only says you are denied your Dex bonus (such as under the Feint option of the Bluff skill), then you are not Flat-footed as well.
Flat-footed is a condition that imposes all sorts of penalties, one of which is... that you're denied your Dex bonus to AC. But they're not the same.
For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.
For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.
Or neither can make AOOs.
For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.
Uh. Did you just miss the part where he said, if you are denied your dex to AC, you can still make AoOs?
Note that is says that you are denied your Dex bonus when flat-footed. Not that being Flat-footed means you are denied your Dex bonus. Flat-footed only occurs when specifically called out, such as at the start of combat. If the ability only says you are denied your Dex bonus (such as under the Feint option of the Bluff skill), then you are not Flat-footed as well.
Also note that dex-denied is not a condition.
Not really though.Yeah Marthkus that is incorrect. The game delineates differences between the two.Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
Go a head and ask James Jacobs or PM any of the designers (they sometimes answer easy questions like this in a PM). They'll tell you that the two are different.
They are very, very similar, but they are still different.
It's like Grapple vs Pinnned. Pinned is a more severe case than Grappled, but the two don't stack. Flat-footed is a more severe case than Denied Dex, but they aren't the same.
Grapple and pinned are both conditions though. dex-denied is not a condition. false analogy.
Uh. Did you just miss the part where he said, if you are denied your dex to AC, you can still make AoOs?For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.
I did miss the part where he provided a reason.
I did miss the part where he provided a reason.Uh. Did you just miss the part where he said, if you are denied your dex to AC, you can still make AoOs?For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.
Nowhere in the Core Rulebook does it state that having your dexterity denied prevents you from making AoOs.
Nowhere in the Core Rulebook does it state that having your dexterity denied prevents you from making AoOs.I did miss the part where he provided a reason.Uh. Did you just miss the part where he said, if you are denied your dex to AC, you can still make AoOs?For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.
Flat footed people cannot make AOOs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.
Uh, no... if you are denied dex, you can still make attacks of opportunity. If you are flat-footed, you can't make attacks of opportunity unless you have combat reflexes.
Here's a thought, dazed and stunned. When you are Dazed you take no actions, just stand there. When you are stunned, you drop everything you are holding, take no actions, takes a penalty to AC, and loses Dex to AC.
By the logic that being denied dex to AC = flat footed, Dazed would make you stunned because they both deny actions, and stunned also makes someone flat-footed. Since Dazed now = Stunned Dazed also makes a person flat-footed.
Man, Dazing Spell just went for awesome to Must. Have. territory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You see... someone who is Shaken takes a -2 to attack rolls. According to Marthkus' logic, that means everyone who takes a -2 to attack rolls for whatever reason is Shaken.
You see... someone who is Shaken takes a -2 to attack rolls. According to Marthkus' logic, everyone who takes a -2 to attack rolls for whatever reason is Shaken.
nope.
For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.Uh, no... if you are denied dex, you can still make attacks of opportunity. If you are flat-footed, you can't make attacks of opportunity unless you have combat reflexes.
Here's a thought, dazed and stunned. When you are Dazed you take no actions, just stand there. When you are stunned, you drop everything you are holding, take no actions, takes a penalty to AC, and loses Dex to AC.
By the logic that being denied dex to AC = flat footed, Dazed would make you stunned because they both deny actions, and stunned also makes someone flat-footed. Since Dazed now = Stunned Dazed also makes a person flat-footed.
Man, Dazing Spell just went for awesome to Must. Have. territory.
I don't follow your logic. Both of those are separate conditions.
You see... someone who is Shaken takes a -2 to attack rolls. According to Marthkus' logic, everyone who takes a -2 to attack rolls for whatever reason is Shaken.nope.
That's what your logic implies.
Nowhere in the rules it's said that flat-footed is the same thing as denied your Dex bonus to AC. The simple fact that they use different terms "X causes you to be flat-footed" or "Y causes you to lose your Dex bonus to AC" implies they're different things.
I don't follow your logic.For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.Uh, no... if you are denied dex, you can still make attacks of opportunity. If you are flat-footed, you can't make attacks of opportunity unless you have combat reflexes.
Here's a thought, dazed and stunned. When you are Dazed you take no actions, just stand there. When you are stunned, you drop everything you are holding, take no actions, takes a penalty to AC, and loses Dex to AC.
By the logic that being denied dex to AC = flat footed, Dazed would make you stunned because they both deny actions, and stunned also makes someone flat-footed. Since Dazed now = Stunned Dazed also makes a person flat-footed.
Man, Dazing Spell just went for awesome to Must. Have. territory.
You have stated that because Denial of Dexterity is a symptom of Flat-footed, denial of dexterity must also prevent AoOs like Flat-footed, however we know that in the medical world that line of thought is incorrect.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why the hell are we trying to argue with an obvious troll?
You see... someone who is Shaken takes a -2 to attack rolls. According to Marthkus' logic, everyone who takes a -2 to attack rolls for whatever reason is Shaken.nope.That's what your logic implies.
Nowhere in the rules it's said that flat-footed is the same thing as denied your Dex bonus to AC. The simple fact that they use different terms "X causes you to be flat-footed" or "Y causes you to lsoe your Dex bonus to AC" implies they're different things.
It doesn't imply that.
Dex denied is defined in the rules as flat footed. They are interchangeable. Show a rules contradiction that would arise from that and that would be a way to prove me wrong.
You have stated that because Denial of Dexterity is a symptom of Flat-footed, denial of dexterity must also prevent AoOs like Flat-footed, however we know that in the medical world that line of thought is incorrect.I don't follow your logic.For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.Uh, no... if you are denied dex, you can still make attacks of opportunity. If you are flat-footed, you can't make attacks of opportunity unless you have combat reflexes.
Here's a thought, dazed and stunned. When you are Dazed you take no actions, just stand there. When you are stunned, you drop everything you are holding, take no actions, takes a penalty to AC, and loses Dex to AC.
By the logic that being denied dex to AC = flat footed, Dazed would make you stunned because they both deny actions, and stunned also makes someone flat-footed. Since Dazed now = Stunned Dazed also makes a person flat-footed.
Man, Dazing Spell just went for awesome to Must. Have. territory.
No, I said that they are the same thing. A is A
You see... someone who is Shaken takes a -2 to attack rolls. According to Marthkus' logic, everyone who takes a -2 to attack rolls for whatever reason is Shaken.nope.That's what your logic implies.
Nowhere in the rules it's said that flat-footed is the same thing as denied your Dex bonus to AC. The simple fact that they use different terms "X causes you to be flat-footed" or "Y causes you to lsoe your Dex bonus to AC" implies they're different things.
It doesn't imply that.
Dex denied is defined in the rules as flat footed. They are interchangeable. Show a rules contradiction that would arise from that and that would be a way to prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is on you. Denied Dex does just that. Flat-Footed does that and more. Think of Flat-Footed as a more severe version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The burden of proof is on you. Denied Dex does just that. Flat-Footed does that and more. Think of Flat-Footed as a more severe version.You see... someone who is Shaken takes a -2 to attack rolls. According to Marthkus' logic, everyone who takes a -2 to attack rolls for whatever reason is Shaken.nope.That's what your logic implies.
Nowhere in the rules it's said that flat-footed is the same thing as denied your Dex bonus to AC. The simple fact that they use different terms "X causes you to be flat-footed" or "Y causes you to lsoe your Dex bonus to AC" implies they're different things.
It doesn't imply that.
Dex denied is defined in the rules as flat footed. They are interchangeable. Show a rules contradiction that would arise from that and that would be a way to prove me wrong.
Denied Dex is not a separate condition. I will not make a house rule to make it such.
The burden of proof is always on those who are trying to do the convincing. I don't care that you guys are misinterpreting the rule, but that doesn't mean I agree with you. I was just coming in to point out that not everyone has been convinced by these half-baked arguments.
Why the hell are we trying to argue with an obvious troll?
Good question. I'll stop doing it.
Why the hell are we trying to argue with an obvious troll?Good question. I'll stop doing it.
And I'll continue to not make up house-rules. Everyone wins!
No, I said that they are the same thing. A is AYou have stated that because Denial of Dexterity is a symptom of Flat-footed, denial of dexterity must also prevent AoOs like Flat-footed, however we know that in the medical world that line of thought is incorrect.I don't follow your logic.For example, someone who is denied their Dex bonus to AC can still make AoO, while someone who is flat-footed can't.Or neither can make AOOs.Uh, no... if you are denied dex, you can still make attacks of opportunity. If you are flat-footed, you can't make attacks of opportunity unless you have combat reflexes.
Here's a thought, dazed and stunned. When you are Dazed you take no actions, just stand there. When you are stunned, you drop everything you are holding, take no actions, takes a penalty to AC, and loses Dex to AC.
By the logic that being denied dex to AC = flat footed, Dazed would make you stunned because they both deny actions, and stunned also makes someone flat-footed. Since Dazed now = Stunned Dazed also makes a person flat-footed.
Man, Dazing Spell just went for awesome to Must. Have. territory.
P->Q != Q->P
P: You are Flatfooted
Q: You are denied your dex bonus
The game makes a distinction between Q and P by differentiating their terminology. Being flatfooted is a condition with a few effects, one of which being loss of dex bonus, similarly to how a square is a rectangle, as it is a quadrilateral with perpendicular sides, but a rectangle is not a square, because all sides are not necessarily equal.
P->Q != Q->P
P: You are Flatfooted
Q: You are denied your dex bonusThe game makes a distinction between Q and P by differentiating their terminology. Being flatfooted is a condition with a few effects, one of which being loss of dex bonus, similarly to how a square is a rectangle, as it is a quadrilateral with perpendicular sides, but a rectangle is not a square, because all sides are not necessarily equal.
Let me fix that for you.
P->P = P->P
P: You are Flatfooted
Dex denied and Flatfooted are the same thing. A contradiction brought about by this premise will be convincing. Just saying that they are different is not convincing. Any argument with the premise that they are different is not convincing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dex denied and Flatfooted are the same thing. A contradiction brought about by this premise will be convincing. Just saying that they are different is not convincing. Any argument with the premise that they are different is not convincing.
You have shown zero evidence for this. Just saying they are the same is certainly not convincing.
Att hsi point I will say tels is right.
Dex denied and Flatfooted are the same thing. A contradiction brought about by this premise will be convincing. Just saying that they are different is not convincing. Any argument with the premise that they are different is not convincing.You have shown zero evidence for this. Just saying they are the same is certainly not convincing.
Att hsi point I will say tels is right.
I don't really care if you guys make up house rules by saying flat footed is a more severe form of dex denied. Where the latter is not even listed as a condition like ANY of the other parallel examples you guys are drawing from to make this conclusion.
Dex denied and Flatfooted are the same thing. A contradiction brought about by this premise will be convincing. Just saying that they are different is not convincing. Any argument with the premise that they are different is not convincing.You have shown zero evidence for this. Just saying they are the same is certainly not convincing.
Att hsi point I will say tels is right.
I don't really care if you guys make up house rules by saying flat footed is a more severe form of dex denied. Where the latter is not even listed as a condition like ANY of the other parallel examples you guys are drawing from to make this conclusion.
And the amount of evidence shown by marthkus reamains as zero.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you really that dense, or are you, as other are saying, trolling?
Uncanny dodge makes it clear there is a distinction between Flatfooted and being denied Dex to AC:
Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
See, the second sentence. She cannot be flat footed. Were the two conditions equal, the ability would stop right there, or else it would phrase itself as "She cannot be flat footed unless she is immobilized or if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her," like every other place in the rules states, when making an exception to a rule just brought up. As the two conditions are not equivalent, it says you may not be caught flatfooted, and are not denied your dex bonus when attacked by an invisible foe, but specifies that other methods of losing your dex bonus still apply (as they are not the same as being caught flatfooted)
I would strongly advice you take this particular argument to the Rules Questions forum and let this thread get back on track.
Uncanny dodge makes it clear there is a distinction between Flatfooted and being denied Dex to AC:See, the second sentence. She cannot be flat footed. Were the two conditions equal, the ability would stop right there, or else it would phrase itself as "She cannot be flat footed unless she is immobilized or if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her," like every other place in the rules states, when making an exception to a rule just brought up. As the two conditions are not equivalent, it says you may not be caught flatfooted, and are not denied your dex bonus when attacked by an invisible foe, but specifies that other methods of losing your dex bonus still apply (as they are not the same as being caught flatfooted)Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
hmmmmm
Invisibility does not say that your opponent is denied their dex bonus, it says you ignore their dex bonus.
Immobilized is not a listed condition.
Feint does make your target flat-footed to a melee attack from you and therefore must be specified that it still works.
You still haven't answered my primary question:Uncanny dodge makes it clear there is a distinction between Flatfooted and being denied Dex to AC:See, the second sentence. She cannot be flat footed. Were the two conditions equal, the ability would stop right there, or else it would phrase itself as "She cannot be flat footed unless she is immobilized or if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her," like every other place in the rules states, when making an exception to a rule just brought up. As the two conditions are not equivalent, it says you may not be caught flatfooted, and are not denied your dex bonus when attacked by an invisible foe, but specifies that other methods of losing your dex bonus still apply (as they are not the same as being caught flatfooted)Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
hmmmmm
Invisibility does not say that your opponent is denied their dex bonus, it says you ignore their dex bonus.
Immobilized is not a listed condition.
Feint does make your target flat-footed to a melee attack from you and therefore must be specified that it still works.
Are you really that dense, or are you, as other are saying, trolling?
Also note that dex-denied is not a condition.So? You can still be denied your Dex bonus without being flat-footed.
I read that as: "So? You can still be flat-footed without being flat-footed."
Very confusing.
You still haven't answered my primary question:Are you really that dense, or are you, as other are saying, trolling?
That's mean.
And you were actually trying to make an argument.
When you change the words as written, that can happen.I read that as: "So? You can still be flat-footed without being flat-footed."
Very confusing.
Just clarifying that to me they are the same thing. Saying that they are different isn't a great way to make a point.
|
|
Just clarifying that to me they are the same thing. Saying that they are different isn't a great way to make a point.
For your consideration. Since I know you will only accept Word of God, I am reviewing past threads for dev clarifications.
No, it does not, Marthkus.
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).
Furthermore, on the table of combat modifiers, the superscript 2 on the 'invisible' row refers to this line beneath it:
The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.
So they mean the same thing, just written differently. Now, here's what feint and flat-footed say:
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. 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.
At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.
So, a successfully feinted target is denied Dex the same way a target from an invisible attack would be. Invisible attackers do not treat their targets as flat-footed. Ergo, circumstances which deny the target Dex mod to AC are not the same thing as flat-footed.
You're correct about one thing: immobilized, like denied-dex to AC, is not a specified condition. It's not a perfect system, as I'm sure we're all aware; some things are going to slip through the cracks and not be defined occasionally.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just clarifying that to me they are the same thing. Saying that they are different isn't a great way to make a point.For your consideration. Since I know you will only accept Word of God, I am reviewing past threads for dev clarifications.
Ah well there we go.
I was wrong.
You know, if Markthus is really this serious about his interpretation that denied dex = flat-footed, I bet he's also the kind of guy who argues he can still attack when he's dead because dead isn't defined in the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was wrong.
I commend you for admitting that, especially on a message board. Hopefully we can let this go now and cut down on the sniping.
You know, if Markthus is really this serious about his interpretation that denied dex = flat-footed, I bet he's also the kind of guy who argues he can still attack when he's dead because dead isn't defined in the rules.
Oh god, not that again. I still remember that one thread from the rules forum, with people arguing over what is and isn't an object in reference to recently dead bodies.
You know, if Markthus is really this serious about his interpretation that denied dex = flat-footed, I bet he's also the kind of guy who argues he can still attack when he's dead because dead isn't defined in the rules.Oh god, not that again. I still remember that one thread from the rules forum, with people arguing over what is and isn't an object in reference to recently dead bodies.
That's weird. The dead condition specifically says that the soul leaves the body. AKA You are no longer in the body. So go ahead and full-attack. Not that it would do much since you are no longer in your body or necessarily a ghost.