I've seen this topic around before, but apparently there is still some dispute, so let's see if we can put this puzzle to rest before 2017.
If a person has a DEX modifier of less then 0, does this affect their AC?
If at all possible, I'd like something as concrete and indisputable as possible, because I'm getting really sick of coming across this argument.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as a side note, being flat-footed only denies you your dexterity bonus to AC. Bonuses are always positive. If you have a dexterity penalty (a negative modifier), it still applies while flat footed.
from 'armor class'
Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers
Dexterity modifier, not bonus. Modifier. Which means yes a negative modiier applies.
Yeah, they do.
From the "Getting Started" section:
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance. This ability is the most important one for rogues, but it's also useful for characters who wear light or medium armor or no armor at all. This ability is vital for characters seeking to excel with ranged weapons, such as the bow or sling. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).
You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
-Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light.
-Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
-Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.
-Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth checks.
Bolded relevant portions.
So yes, they do. It says you apply your modifier to your AC. If you have a negative modifier, then you apply that negative modifier (called a penalty) to your AC.
There is no dispute. There never was a dispute. It's just Einstein's theory of infinite stupidity being proven right.
Who honestly thought otherwise?
Whoever they are, I'll throw the book at them.
Let me go get my Core Rulebook off the bookshelf...
never underestimate the human ability to fail basic reading comprehension.
Edit: from the "flat-footed" condition in Appendix 2 of the CRB "A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity."
Ironically the part you bolded makes it seem like you don't apply the penalty if flat footed, since it says modifier not bonuses.
Those people would get a book too.
Not according to the Combat section.
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.
It says you don't get a bonus. The penalty, if any, still applies.
Oh, nice. That means that you'd not apply your strength penalty to two-handed attacks or off-hand attacks.
You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
Oh, nice. That means that you'd not apply your strength penalty to two-handed attacks or off-hand attacks.
You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
Except that isn't what that says at all. Nothing about those two melee weapon exceptions says anything about removing the penalty. It just changes the bonus applied.
Except that isn't what that says at all. Nothing about those two melee weapon exceptions says anything about removing the penalty. It just changes the bonus applied.Oh, nice. That means that you'd not apply your strength penalty to two-handed attacks or off-hand attacks.
You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
It says that if you use a weapon two-handed, it doesn't apply your modifier to the damage roll, but instead applies 1-1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a penalty, you don't have a bonus. Therefore, it applies 1.5*0 = 0 to the damage roll.
This is consistent with the concept that bonuses and penalties are different and that language pertaining to bonuses do not apply to penalties (and vice versa). Or does this rule only apply when it is to the detriment of the player?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this is an issue of 'rule against the player every time' and more an issue of disagreeing with your reading.
Two handed weapons say they apply 1.5 times your strength bonus not because you can't receive a strength penalty, but because the 1.5x multiplier only applies to bonuses, i.e. someone with a strength less than 10 doesn't take 1.5 times the penalty.
It's odd that this is a question, since the "what makes sense if this were real life" answer mimics the rules entirely.
That set of heavy plate you're wearing, its weight inhibits your ability to be agile, but in no way serves to make you less clumsy. If you have really quick reactions, but are nonetheless caught entirely by surprise, your quick reactions aren't going to help you (as this is what "caught by surprise" means), if you're slow and uncoordinated no part about being "caught by surprise" is going to make you less so.
Except that isn't what that says at all. Nothing about those two melee weapon exceptions says anything about removing the penalty. It just changes the bonus applied.Oh, nice. That means that you'd not apply your strength penalty to two-handed attacks or off-hand attacks.
You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
It says that if you use a weapon two-handed, it doesn't apply your modifier to the damage roll, but instead applies 1-1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a penalty, you don't have a bonus. Therefore, it applies 1.5*0 = 0 to the damage roll.
This is consistent with the concept that bonuses and penalties are different and that language pertaining to bonuses do not apply to penalties (and vice versa). Or does this rule only apply when it is to the detriment of the player?
You are completely ignoring the first part.
"You apply your character's Strength modifier to... Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling."
A modifier can be either a bonus or a penalty. Rewording that sentence (without changing what it means at all):
"You apply your character's Strength bonus or penalty to... Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling."
The listed exceptions only changes the bonus part. It does nothing to change the penalty part.
The listed exceptions only changes the bonus part. It does nothing to change the penalty part.
Yes, I'd read it in the same way.
It didn't feel intuitive, but after some thoughts it made sense to me: A weak user of two-handed weapons shouldn't get an extra penalty for comitting his second hand. And if they dual-wield, why should the offhand weapon become stronger than the main one (assuming equal / nearly equal weapons)? So 100% Str penalty for two-handed and offhand seems alright.
I'm with the there never has been a question about this camp.
Now we are talking about "when a stat applies". Does a mounted Knight with a lance and shield get the (str X 1.5) mod for a 2 handed weapon?
While we are having heated discussions. I want add fuel to the fire. With another stupid question. My GM says, NO but I disagree.
Well, the FAQ says you still get the two handed bonus for Power Attack, so you should also get the two handed bonus from Strength as well.
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
However, the FAQ also says:
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
So, maybe? There is a bastard sword FAQ that says it is treated as one handed or two handed depending on how many hands you are currently wielding it with, which would agree with the second FAQ. Meaning it counts as how ever many hands you are currently wielding it with.
Except that isn't what that says at all. Nothing about those two melee weapon exceptions says anything about removing the penalty. It just changes the bonus applied.Oh, nice. That means that you'd not apply your strength penalty to two-handed attacks or off-hand attacks.
You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
It says that if you use a weapon two-handed, it doesn't apply your modifier to the damage roll, but instead applies 1-1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a penalty, you don't have a bonus. Therefore, it applies 1.5*0 = 0 to the damage roll.
This is consistent with the concept that bonuses and penalties are different and that language pertaining to bonuses do not apply to penalties (and vice versa). Or does this rule only apply when it is to the detriment of the player?
No, it applies because it's still a melee damage roll. The strength modifiers apply to all damage rolls. If it's a bonus, and you're using a specific sort of weapon (off-hand or two-handed), whatever bonus you receive is adjusted to compensate for it.
That's all that's saying.
It does nothing; NOTHING to circumvent that it's a melee damage roll, and as such, the strength modifier (which is a penalty) applies to it.
**EDIT**
Removed a statement that can be misconstrued as hostile, even though the intent is zero-tolerance for shenanigans.
|
There seems to be some weird conflict about the 1.5*Str thing. Here are my two cents. Say you have a PC with 7 Str. Say the blade does 1d6 then our damage would be 1d6-2. Now some seem to be claiming that if you switched to two hands with the blade that it would be 1d6+(-2)*(1.5)
Now from my interpretation, the wording seems to flip flop around the terms "bonus" and "modifier" and to me for the same reason that that flatfooted doesn't deny you your negative to me it makes no sense that wielding a weapon with two hands would make you "weaker"
Each ability score says that you add its modifier to XYZ.
People appear to be most hung up on what the term "modifier" means, since people think "modifier = bonus". The definition isn't in the common terms, (it really should be, potential errata?) but after a bit of digging, here's what we got:
...[A] modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty.
So, this tells us several things.
1. Modifiers are applied to dice rolls related to the listed ability (score). See the individual ability scores to determine what they usually default to benefitting.
2. Modifiers may apply to things that aren't dice rolls, such as uses per day, hit points, and so on. See the individual feature or ability to determine what modifier to utilize.
3. Modifiers are either positive (called a bonus), or negative (called a penalty), or even 0 (which is just called 0). This is binary (or more accurately, trinary), meaning it can only be one of those results at any given time.
Now that we have modifiers properly defined in relation to ability scores (and their purpose in general) how are people getting that a modifier, if it's a penalty, doesn't apply to the relevant statistics or features?
There seems to be some weird conflict about the 1.5*Str thing. Here are my two cents. Say you have a PC with 7 Str. Say the blade does 1d6 then our damage would be 1d6-2. Now some seem to be claiming that if you switched to two hands with the blade that it would be 1d6+(-2)*(1.5)
Now from my interpretation, the wording seems to flip flop around the terms "bonus" and "modifier" and to me for the same reason that that flatfooted doesn't deny you your negative to me it makes no sense that wielding a weapon with two hands would make you "weaker"
It uses the term "bonus," so that if you're using such weapons with a strength penalty, you aren't reducing the penalty for off-hand weapons, or increasing the penalty for two-handed weapons.
That wording is very deliberate, because if they didn't do that, people would increase or decrease strength penalties due to weapon handedness, when that's not the intent they're trying to convey.
In short, you only ever apply 1x Strength modifier as a penalty. The only time you adjust your Strength modifier would be for a bonus, and that varies based on what sort of weapon you're using, such as one-handed, two-handed, ranged, thrown, TWF, and so on.
If it comes up just have them look at the AC of a huge or bigger dragon and you can see that AC penalty factored in.
|
|
Each ability score says that you add its modifier to XYZ.
People appear to be most hung up on what the term "modifier" means, since people think "modifier = bonus". The definition isn't in the common terms, (it really should be, potential errata?) but after a bit of digging, here's what we got:
...[A] modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty.So, this tells us several things.
1. Modifiers are applied to dice rolls related to the listed ability (score). See the individual ability scores to determine what they usually default to benefitting.
2. Modifiers may apply to things that aren't dice rolls, such as uses per day, hit points, and so on. See the individual feature or ability to determine what modifier to utilize.
3. Modifiers are either positive (called a bonus), or negative (called a penalty), or even 0 (which is just called 0). This is binary (or more accurately, trinary), meaning it can only be one of those results at any given time.
Now that we have modifiers properly defined in relation to ability scores (and their purpose in general) how are people getting that a modifier, if it's a penalty, doesn't apply to the relevant statistics or features?
One there are times where the text states that you are denied your "bonus" that verbiage isn't consistent across all texts. So if the text for flat-footed AC said that you were denied your "modifier" and not your "bonus" then your AC would increase with a negative dex.
While they are sometimes inconsistent, the words are used with intent. Two handed weapons say that you add 1.5 times your Strength bonus, Flat-footed says you're denied your bonus, damage says you add your modifier.
If it comes up just have them look at the AC of a huge or bigger dragon and you can see that AC penalty factored in.
Stat blocks aren't a particularly accurate means of gauging rules consequences.
As much as I'd like for that to be true, they've been wrong time and time again in relation to what the written rules allow, sometimes in multiple instances in the same stat block.
If they were ironclad and errata'd properly, I'd be inclined to agree, but they usually aren't, and it's a shame (and as such, is unreliable, even if certain aspects do match up to the written rules).
Huh I have never noticed this can you give me some example I would like to check it out. I can typically reverse engineer most mosnters but I haven't done it as much in PF.
Each ability score says that you add its modifier to XYZ.
People appear to be most hung up on what the term "modifier" means, since people think "modifier = bonus". The definition isn't in the common terms, (it really should be, potential errata?) but after a bit of digging, here's what we got:
...[A] modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty.So, this tells us several things.
1. Modifiers are applied to dice rolls related to the listed ability (score). See the individual ability scores to determine what they usually default to benefitting.
2. Modifiers may apply to things that aren't dice rolls, such as uses per day, hit points, and so on. See the individual feature or ability to determine what modifier to utilize.
3. Modifiers are either positive (called a bonus), or negative (called a penalty), or even 0 (which is just called 0). This is binary (or more accurately, trinary), meaning it can only be one of those results at any given time.
Now that we have modifiers properly defined in relation to ability scores (and their purpose in general) how are people getting that a modifier, if it's a penalty, doesn't apply to the relevant statistics or features?
One there are times where the text states that you are denied your "bonus" that verbiage isn't consistent across all texts. So if the text for flat-footed AC said that you were denied your "modifier" and not your "bonus" then your AC would increase with a negative dex.
While they are sometimes inconsistent, the words are used with intent. Two handed weapons say that you add 1.5 times your Strength bonus, Flat-footed says you're denied your bonus, damage says you add your modifier.
Those are game terms deliberately written there to follow the intended consequences behind those effects. They aren't the least bit inconsistent, and you've already explained why they aren't inconsistent.
Modifiers which aren't a bonus (AKA positive) won't be affected by things that target bonuses. Similarly, modifiers which aren't a penalty (AKA negative) won't be affected by things that target penalties.
It's really not that difficult to process. I just think people choose not to process it because they enjoy the shenanigans that ensue.
Huh I have never noticed this can you give me some example I would like to check it out. I can typically reverse engineer most mosnters but I haven't done it as much in PF.
The most common ones I'm aware of are with Defending weaponry and Bashing spiked shields having inconsistent damage. I don't know the exact ones, but creatures with those items in their stat blocks will give you enough proof.
Huh live and learn ill look it up when I get a chance you might have changed my world view.
|
|
I have run into some sources using modifier in place of bonus, but i don't feel like searching for it. But those are certainly the exception as I only remember running across it once or twice. But I think it is common sense when and where what applies and that the margin of error is low enough that you should go by the verbiage on whether it states "bonus, negative, or modifier."
|
Huh I have never noticed this can you give me some example I would like to check it out. I can typically reverse engineer most mosnters but I haven't done it as much in PF.
Several of the NPC printed in the NPC codex have stat and rule errors. As an example, potions of personal use spells are a very common mistake.
A few creature have errors in the skill point, other errors are less common, especially if you have the second or later print of a book.
The good to know! Thanks for informing me on all this. Uh one question do they errata those kind of mistakes eventually?
Generally, yes. There are "errata" threads down in Paizo Products, and a couple of people on the boards are highly dedicated statblock nitpickers, who while they aren't always correct, certainly keep Paizo on their toes.
If you were to follow the strict reading of the rule, I do believe that a negative strength modifier would be dropped when fighting with two hands. I don't really think this is the intent, but it appears to be written that way.
It states that the EXCEPTION is that the damage is 1.5 x Str Bonus. Not that this is added to the base.
If it said you added 1/2 your base Str Bonus, then it would account for strength penalties that don't gain any bonuses. But as written, it REPLACES the normal rules, it doesn't add to them, or create an IF, THEN logic that many of us have probably applied all along.
Furthermore, this would be a nice way to give some sort of bonus to those that have a weaker strength. I mean really, shouldn't they hit harder when they are using two hands like everyone else? It's not like adding a second limb to the attack would be exactly the same as just one limb.
Again, I never looked at this before or played this way, and still won't. But, as I always state, if you apply the logic to Dexterity one way, you need to apply it to Strength the SAME way.
How does it replace the normal rules?
Modifiers come in positive, negative, and neutral categories (a lot like protons, electrons, and neutrons, if it helps).
If a modifier is a bonus, then it's affected by things related to that bonus. If a modifier is a penalty, then it's affected by things related to that penalty. If a modifier grants neither a bonus or a penalty, then it's not affected by either subjects.
The base rules regarding Strength and the extraneous rules (AKA flat-footed stuff) regarding Dexterity don't change any of those factors. As written, the bonus increase for Strength and weapon types only applies for a bonus. If it's a penalty, then those rules don't apply to that, because a penalty isn't a bonus, it's a penalty. They're separately defined game terms.
The same applies for Flat-footed stuff; it nullifies bonuses, not penalties. If you're still suffering from a penalty, that penalty still applies, because the Flat-footed condition doesn't say you're no longer suffering from penalties, it says you're no longer benefiting from bonuses.
I've explained the rules on this enough times now; it's really not that difficult to grasp, both RAW and RAI, and at this point I no longer care, because all this is pointing out is how correct Einstein's theory of human stupidity is.