| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had this discussion on a forum and we had very different opinions on the interaction of two feats (namely Shatter Defenses and Cornugon Smash*).
I believe it all rounds down to the unclear wording of Shatter Defenses.
As it is, it can be read in two ways, both valid.
This is the original text:
"Any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. [...]"
Depending on if the subject of "hit" is "opponent" or "shaken, frightened or panicked opponent", there's two ways the feat can read.
1- IF an opponent is shaken, frightened or panicked AND it was hit this round.
2- IF an opponent was hit this round WHILE shaken, frightened or panicked.
I've asked many people (both on the forum and on the Stackexchange Q&A site, to see if there was a problem with my English reading and to ask about the presence of other rules that made this clear) and they all have been telling me that the correct option is #2, but none of them has been able to deny that #1 is viable as well.
Consequently, I'm suggesting to rework the feat into
1- Any opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks as long as it's shaken, frightened or panicked and until the end of your next turn. [...]
2- Whenever you hit a shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent, that opponent is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. [...]
(Using whenever and hit is coherent with the wordings on several other feats like Blinding Critical, Deafening Critical or Medusa's Wrath)
People of the forums:
A- Do you have a better wording for option #1?
B- What do you think?
*If my first hit is a successful cornugon smash, under 1# my second attack is against a flat-footed enemy, under #2 I must hit again to activate Shatter Defenses. This basically changes both my attack chances and my ability to sneak attack during that second attack.
I read it the first second way: You would need to hit him while he is [insert condition].
But I'm not a native english speaker too, so I might miss something.
Edit: correction, good catch Choranth
Wouldn't that be the second way, HectorVivis?
If you need an attack to create a condition, then that attack is not against a target suffering from a condition.
IOW: you hit target then cause condition. As such, your first hit is not against a target suffering from a condition and thus it doesn't become flat-footed from that initial attack.
Just to be clear:
1) Any shaken, frightened, or panicked (opponent hit by you this round) is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. [...]
2) Any (shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent) hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. [...]
Hit and demoralize, then if they're shaken, then you have a shaken creature who you've hit and shattered defenses works on that creature.
No, definitely #2 - you must hit a creature that is already shaken, frightened, or panicked. That is precisely how the sentence reads, and that is the point of the feat chain (Dazzling Display to shaken them, then hit them the next round to make them flat-footed, then use Deadly Stroke the following turn).
You've provided quite a few different wordings that could have been used if it was meant to be #1. The parenthetical in #1 don't really make much sense.
It doesn't even have to be hit on your turn, but rather the entire round. You hit and then it behind shaken, then you will have your conditions met to shatter until your next turn is over.
Three turns to set that up seems totally wrong imo.
That's a bit of an artifact from the Alpha version of Pathfinder, which had quite a few three-round chains. This was one of the better ones so it lasted. Dazzling Display affects a large group of enemies, so it's valuable in its own right.
It also means that dazzlying display is anti synergy with shatter defenses because it takes so long to do.
Just as long as any default Intimidate. If you're a Barbarian with the Glare or a Thug who can do it faster, there are other synergies (e.g. Howl rage power, additional time for shaken, etc.).
Once nice combo is Dazzling Display by you, then a scare or fear spell by an ally to make everyone who the Display worked on run automatically (since Demoralize will stack with the auto-shaken of fear). Anyone you didn't manage to Demoralize *and* made the save (probably the toughest) will still be subject to Shatter Defenses because they'll still be shaken by fear. Not to mention standing alone most likely.
If you strictly stay to PRD books, dazzing display and shatter defenses are making sense.
I didn't play it to high level, but my rogue(thug)/fighter is really good when it comes to make the enemy flee, or get debuff for casters.
With the right choice of feats/traits/other, such as intimidating prowess, it's really fun.
My build rely on either dazzling display+Shatter Defences or Feint+Vital Strike with a greatsword. The Omen Trait helps for action economy from time to time too.
Shatter defenses was useful for me, I don't see why you didn't like it for SA ? I'm not sure I understood what you said about flanking and stuff ^^".
I have plan some variations for this build, like replacing vital strike for cleave, or using firearms and the trait that makes you like one size category larger for intimidate when you have a firearm. Switching fighter to another class could be interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear:
1) Any shaken, frightened, or panicked (opponent hit by you this round) is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. [...]
2) Any (shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent) hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. [...]
Grammatically, there's not any difference between those two: they both express exactly the same concept.
It might help if you split up all the statements in the sentence. These are (in order):
1) An opponent is shaken, frightened, or panicked.
2) That opponent is hit by you this round.
3) That opponent is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn.
Done this way, it's much more clear that the opponent must be shaken, frightened, or panicked before the hit. There's honestly no way to get to the reading you're after from this sentence.
Now, the sentence as it stands is a bit of a mess, and I pity any translator who has to deal with it. If I were going to reword the feat to make it more translatable, I would start wit:
"If you hit an opponent that is shaken, frightened, or panicked, that opponent becomes flat-footed to all your attacks until the end of your next turn."
"This round" is an unnecessary qualifier, since "until the end of your next turn" already tells us that we are in rounds and that the effect lasts one round.* I don't think it adds anything, and it seemed to causing confusion in this case. If someone can come up with a case where you can hit an opponent in something other than the current round, I'd revisit that call, or potentially change "If" to "Each round when".
I also suggest "becomes" rather than "is" because the order of events was confusing to the OP.
If you're still concerned about the sequence, just add "already" in front of "shaken", and that should clear it up.
======
Now, if you want to make use of this feat, I suggest starting with the Enforcer feat:
"Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt."
One hit with nonlethal damage, and you can take advantage of this feat for the rest of the combat, really.
*Interesting question: what happens if you delay your next turn…?
^^ I find it quite good to have at least 3 or 4 rogue level: You lost only 1 BAB, fortitude and will save (that one is painful), but you gain 2d6, an ability like trapfinding or something you trade, rogue talents (some are pretty good), and a sheep-ton of skills.
After that, you can take a more biggie class. I'd like to build a little more on a ranger (so sad favored enemy doesn't give bonus on intimidate!) or a warpriest (I'll soon try it in an arena-oriented game and begin as a warpriest, we'll see were it goes).
Another interesting perspective I'll try is the half-orc inquisitor. You get so much bonus to intimidate that it's nasty.
But I see now what you say about Shatter Def and I must agree, without a way to get AoO, it's not the best choice.
Clearly #2.
#1 is not a viable choice.
"Any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. [...]"
Ok, I get it that for some reason I'm unfamiliar with reading "any shaken, frightned, panicked opponent hit by you this round" can't be read as "any shaken, fightened, panicked opponent that you also have hit this round".
Not being a native English speaker, I can't really see why it is so. Is it because there's a fixed order in which the sentence must be parsed?
I wonder which is the native language of CWheezy and Human Fighter, because they also seem to have read that as I initially had.
Because, when I make my second attack I ask myself: am I attacking an opponent? Check. Is it shaken, frightened or panicked? Check. Have I hit him this round? Check.
I'm also not a native English speaker and after reading it I think that 1 works RAW.
If you first hit the target and then make him shaken, frightened or panicked, then this shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent was hit by you this round, thus he should become flat footed. As long as he becomes shaken, frightened or panicked in the same round in which you hit him, then the condition is met. It doesn't specify that the target must be under one of those conditions when you hit him, it only specifies that he must have been under one of these conditions at some point this round.
If the opponent had to be shaken, frightened or panicked at the moment that you hit him (as proposed in option 2) then why does it specify "this round"? Why doesn't it just say, "any shaken, frightened or panicked opponent hit by you is flat-footed until..."?
RAI on the other hand I think it's clear that it should be 2, the flavor text of the feat says as much. It would be great if they gave this feat some errata by removing "this round" from the text.
Ok, I get it that for some reason I'm unfamiliar with reading "any shaken, frightned, panicked opponent hit by you this round" can't be read as "any shaken, fightened, panicked opponent that you also have hit this round".
Not being a native English speaker, I can't really see why it is so. Is it because there's a fixed order in which the sentence must be parsed?
I wonder which is the native language of CWheezy and Human Fighter, because they also seem to have read that as I initially had.
Because, when I make my second attack I ask myself: am I attacking an opponent? Check. Is it shaken, frightened or panicked? Check. Have I hit him this round? Check.
Yes, you can think of it as an order of operations thing. As written, you first need to have an afflicted target then you need to hit that target while it's afflicted. If you read it any other way then you could have a case where you hit a target which then gets afflicted by someone after you suddenly becoming flat-footed until the end of your next turn.
If you read it any other way then you could have a case where you hit a target which then gets afflicted by someone after you suddenly becoming flat-footed until the end of your next turn.
Are you telling us that if it worked that way it wouldn't be kosher?
I hit my opponent, then my ally casts fear, next turn that opponent is flat-footed to my attacks... maybe it's not what you expected from the feat but I can't see why a feat that really worked like that would not be ok.
If you read it any other way then you could have a case where you hit a target which then gets afflicted by someone after you suddenly becoming flat-footed until the end of your next turn.Are you telling us that if it worked that way it wouldn't be kosher?
I hit my opponent, then my ally casts fear, next turn that opponent is flat-footed to my attacks... maybe it's not what you expected from the feat but I can't see why a feat that really worked like that would not be ok.
You could certainly have it work that way if everyone at your table is cool with it. However, the current way the feat is constructed (and I believe the intent) is clearly not to have it work that way.
I read it as the target needs to have the condition before you hit them.
This makes Gory Finish useful, or using your surprise round standard action to Intimidate.
I was using this with nightmare weaver on a drow, it worked out well
I read it as the target needs to have the condition before you hit them.
What do you mean, before you make the hit that's required in the feat or before you make the hit where the enemy is flat-footed?