Flat-Footed via Initiative & Deadly Stroke

[Chooky]

The question at hand is this, unless you have something akin to Uncanny Dodge, any creature can be caught flat-footed yes? So for example, if you roll well enough you can catch an Ooze flat-footed?

2nd part of the question is, since nothing in Deadly Stroke does it say anything about critical hit or precision damage, nothing is immune to the double damage effect from Deadly Stroke? Using the Ooze example again, even though Oozes can't be flanked or critically hit, it would still take double damage and even the 1 CON bleed as well, since it is not immune to bleed effects?

[aegrisomnia]

Hmm, tricky. The fluff text uses "well-placed" to describe the hit, which makes it sound like precision damage. Oozes say "precision damage, such as sneak attacks, and critical hits". Is DS like a sneak attack / critical hit? I'd rule so, and call oozes immune, although the base damage would still apply. Unless "precision damage" is a well-defined term that excludes DS, it sounds like a category rather than a mechanic. DS works because you hit them in a special way... but it shouldn't matter to the ooze how you hit it, since it doesn't have anywhere special to hit (hence, he "well-placed" fluff makes no sense).

[wraithstrike]

Deadly stroke specifically has to say "precision damage" in order to be subjected to the same rules. I have not read it, but if it does not say it in specific terms you are safe. Fluff/flavor is mutable and does not dictate rules.

[aegrisomnia]

wraithstrike wrote:

Deadly stroke specifically has to say "precision damage" in order to be subjected to the same rules. I have not read it, but if it does not say it in specific terms you are safe. Fluff/flavor is mutable and does not dictate rules.

Hmm, the entry doesn't say it. Are we sure that "precision damage" and "precision-based damage", used as game terms, are actually well-defined mechanically? That mechanics depend on them seems to imply that they are intended to be. That said, I wonder whether it's RAI that it doesn't apply to DS, or an oversight.

To the OP: of course, if these are well-defined terms mechanically, and DS doesn't say it, I guess there's a strong RAW argument for allowing it to work on Oozes.

[aegrisomnia]

Interesting. I dug these quotes up from another thread:

James Jacobs (Creative Director) wrote:

Precision damage is, alas, not defined as a term. It's more a descriptive element, which is probably not the best way to handle things in game. But basically, precision damage is limited to sneak attacks and the duelist's extra damage, as far as I can tell.

Sean K Reynolds (Developer) wrote:

Critical hits are not precision damage.

The first is particularly interesting, since it calls out the Duelist's precise strike as being precision damage (the text for the ability does not mention precision damage, though it does talk about things being immune to it). The gist is pretty clear: "precision damage" and "precision-based damage" were not intended to be well-defined, and it doesn't look like everything intended to be precision damage was labeled as such. I'll be interested to see if anybody has FAQ or rules links that are, perhaps, more recent than the above.

[wraithstrike]

The word "precision damage" is not defined, but whenever something is precision damage it is called out as such, or it will say anything that is not affected by precision damage is not affected by _____.

[Chooky]

I guess then by RAW standards, Deadly Stroke should work, but more because of inconsistencies in the rules than anything else? A usual case of "Technically yes but up to the DM", I guess I could live with that :)

[thundercade]

If "precision damage" or "precision-based" are not defined terms, and oozes "Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks..." then that means that Oozes do not take damage from something that does not have an exact definition. This means it's up to GM ruling, and any ruling is within RAW.

It's reasonable to consider Deadly Stroke "precision-based" damage, since that is not a defined term and it makes mechanical sense.

It is also reasonable to think that the paizo designers would have included wording within Deadly Stroke to say it doesn't effect things not affected by precision damage if that was the intent, as other things are worded that way. But nowhere in the RAW does it state that this is the method by which you determine whether or not something affects those types of creatures. A noticed consistency in wording is not a rule by default. Especially when it's agreed that the important term here, "precision damage" has no RAW definition.