|
Offensive Defense (Ex)": When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round.
If i'm reading this correctly, every time I deal sneak attack damage, I get a dodge bonus to my ac for 1 round equal to the total amount of sneak attack dice. For example, a 5th level rogue hitting with 3d6 sneak attack dice on three separate attacks would get +9 dodge bonus for 1 round?
RAW: Yes
RAI: I think the goal is that you only get the dodge bonus once against whoever you used the Offensive Defense against
|
They haven't officially made the ruling, but have stated that they're leaning towards the bonuses not stacking, as the bonuses from the same source don't stack rule. So intent from the developers is that it's only a +3 to AC, not a +9. But the FAQ doesn't say that's how it works, just that's how they're leaning with the rules clarification.
|
|
Actually, they're leaning towards it only working on the creature you attacked, so that you can't attack weaker opponents to gain a bonus on a tougher opponent.
Also I believe there was talk of keeping helpless animals on ones person to sneak attack to gain a dodge bonus to AC. With the ruling they're leaning towards that would no longer work.
With that FAQ you can still use iteratives to attack and gain AC bonuses against multiple creatures. It makes cleave and TWF kind of tasty.
First, you only roll the Sneack Attack dice if you hit, and second, it's against all enemies. So (hits)x(SA dice per attack) = AC bonus.
But yes, Offensive Defense still officially stacks with itself. Of course, since nobody uses chained Rogue (since the Unchained Rogue) and Ninja (since the Teisatsu Vigilante) anymore, that doesn't have much effect even if one doesn't follow the 'official houserule suggestion' (man, that's a weird thing to type). Taking the cRogue's power level into consideration, the overall power level isn't exactly game breaking, anyway. Sure, a lvl9 Zap Master who hits every attack can get a +50 AC against every enemy, but his Fort and Will saves still suck, and he can be lucky if he hits half the attacks.
So if I attack X times that round, with Yd6 sneak attack, i would receive X×Y AC for that one creature?
No.
You can have Y dodge bonus against any one creature. If you successfully sneak attack multiple different creatures (X number of creatures) you could get Y bonus against them.
First, you only roll the Sneack Attack dice if you hit, and second, it's against all enemies. So (hits)x(SA dice per attack) = AC bonus.
But yes, Offensive Defense still officially stacks with itself. Of course, since nobody uses chained Rogue (since the Unchained Rogue) and Ninja (since the Teisatsu Vigilante) anymore, that doesn't have much effect even if one doesn't follow the 'official houserule suggestion' (man, that's a weird thing to type). Taking the cRogue's power level into consideration, the overall power level isn't exactly game breaking, anyway. Sure, a lvl9 Zap Master who hits every attack can get a +50 AC against every enemy, but his Fort and Will saves still suck, and he can be lucky if he hits half the attacks.
Look at the above quoted FAQ. You are incorrect.
correct, it's was kinda turned into their debilitating strike
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at the above quoted FAQ. You are incorrect.
"we haven’t reached a final decision", by the very definitions of the words, can not possibly be a decision. Changing (or keeping) the rules* would require such a decision. Therefore, the FAQ answer (that does't answer the question) can not possible be a ruling. Q.E.D.
*) The RAW are pretty clear in this case - Offensive Defense does stack with itself because dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses, and the "no stacking from same source" only applies to untyped bonuses. The answer they are leaning towards is completly reasonable, but would require a change to the existing text, i.e. an errata. Because right now, the solution they were leaning toward contradicts the RAW and if anyone wants to play it that way, it's a houserule.
If anyone wants to vocalize his/her disagreement, please quote some rules (because like it or not, an FAQ that says "we don't do anything yet" doesn't do anything yet).
Also, the official FAQ gets the rules wrong, which shows how much they actually worked on that "answer"...
Is this talent not available for unchained rogue?
To be precise, it got reworked into the Disoriented Debilitating Injury. But reading the vigilante talent again, a Vigilante seems to be able to use OD as normal (and not just vs unaware opponents like his own talents do).
|
Look at the above quoted FAQ. You are incorrect."we haven’t reached a final decision", by the very definitions of the words, can not possibly be a decision. Changing (or keeping) the rules* would require such a decision. Therefore, the FAQ answer (that does't answer the question) can not possible be a ruling. Q.E.D.
*) The RAW are pretty clear in this case - Offensive Defense does stack with itself because dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses, and the "no stacking from same source" only applies to untyped bonuses. The answer they are leaning towards is completly reasonable, but would require a change to the existing text, i.e. an errata. Because right now, the solution they were leaning toward contradicts the RAW and if anyone wants to play it that way, it's a houserule.
If anyone wants to vocalize his/her disagreement, please quote some rules (because like it or not, an FAQ that says "we don't do anything yet" doesn't do anything yet).
The FAQ does not say "We don't do anything yet," it says "This decision is not final," and thus liable to change. The PDT reserved the right to reverse the spell-like ability counting for prerequisites FAQ, but that doesn't mean is wasn't in effect before it was reversed. Ignoring a FAQ for being provisional is just silly.
FAQs change rules when they lead to weird interactions. It happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ does not say "We don't do anything yet, (...)
No, but they did say 'we haven't decided what to do yet', and I fail to see the difference (so I paraphrased it). Also, leaning towards something is (again) per definition not a decision.
They always have the right to change an FAQ later (and did that multiple times in the past), so 'reserving that right' doesn't make the slightest sense.
And just to make it clear, we aren't talking about some gray area that isn't covered by the rules, or some obscure rule from some splashbook most didn't even know existed. We are talking about very important and clear cut rules in the CRB.
Derklord, you and I have different opinions on it clearly.
While they say "we haven't reached a final decision" even though the FAQ wasn't 4 years ago, I take it as they have forgotten to revisit the topic and are standing by their statement that they made which is "no it doesn't stack and it's only good against the target".
You can rule differently for your home games, but I think most people would read that FAQ and decide to go with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how Dodge bonus always stack except when FAQratta comes around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Derklord, you and I have different opinions on it clearly.
While they say "we haven't reached a final decision" even though the FAQ wasn't 4 years ago, I take it as they have forgotten to revisit the topic and are standing by their statement that they made which is "no it doesn't stack and it's only good against the target".
You can rule differently for your home games, but I think most people would read that FAQ and decide to go with it.
Too bad they did not tell us their non-final decision. If they had, we might know what it is.
Leaning in a direction is not a decision, final or otherwise.
/cevah
But 4 years later after not revisiting the topic I think most people would assume your decision was final, and whatever it was has happened.
or that they became more unsure and thus never had an agreement to put forth as the rule.