Pinned:
"A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check."
Escape Artist is a Dexterity skill.
Pinned creature is denied its Dexterity bonus.
Does this mean the use of Escape Artist for the exact purpose it's been designed for is impeded by the loss of Dex bonus???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all cases I know of "denied dexterity bonus" refers to armor class only. The pinned condition doesn't contain this clarification however. Personally I would rule it is AC only, but there is a strict RAW arguement for it being all dexterity bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to say that "denied Dex bonus" was only for AC/CMD... but then I realized I didn't know that for certain.
It very well could be that the pinned target is denied all Dex bonuses.
It would be really nice if you could pay someone to double check your content before it was published, so they could ensure all these inconsistencies never made it to print. But clearly there are no such people willing to do such a job. Huh. Oh well.
It makes sense that a big brawny gal pinning down a tiny dex-based dude would be able to cancel the quick tiny dude's ability to avoid incoming blows. However it puzzles me that the tiny dude wouldn't be able to use his dex escape the big brawny gal. Maybe her overwhelming strength also impedes his ability to wiggle free? I mean, she PINNED him down, after all... I need a ruling on this for a PFS game so I think I will seek out the answer in those channels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
The rules don't seem to be super clear on this, but a couple of thoughts:
1) If the creature takes a penalty to AC, it also takes it to CMD. While losing a dex bonus is not a penalty per se, it seems to be in the same vein of intent. Regardless it should certainly apply to CMD since part of the CMD value is based on the dex bonus.
2) Should it be just as easy to escape a grapple as a pin? I don't think so. The loss of dex certainly would make that the case. Note that "A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class." So the character, in addition to losing an additional 4 AC, also loses 4 CMD.
3) CMD and Escape artist are different things, so not perfectly clear they should receive all the same bonuses or suffer the same penalties. I think they should work the same, escape artist just being an option you can boost much more easily than increasing your CMD, if that is an important aspect for your character. And refer back to 2, escaping a grapple is easier than getting out of pinned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm 99% sure it's just referring to AC. Compare it to the Grappled condition:
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity.
The language used is different.
There's still the RAW argument, but it seems like the wording follows the conventions for only affecting AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an old thread on the subject.
I don't think there's a definitive answer.
Sounds like the general agreement of that thread was to deny completely one's dexterity bonus... correct me if I'm wrong. This avoids the flaw that the pinned condition is less severe than grappled condition, due to the fact that grappled condition gives you a -4 penalty to Dex (thus -2 to skills like Escape Artist). If we interpret that pinned condition only removes the dex bonus to "AC", then it's easier for a pinned victim to use Escape Artist than when he/she is grappled.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's search the CRB for the term "denied":
Seven occurrences (pgs. 70, 72, 92, 195, 379, 383, 563) use it strictly in the phrase "denied (a/his/her/its) dexterity bonus to (AC/Armor class)". There are two occurrences where it doesn't, which one being the pinned condition, and the other being the Duelist prestige class's Canny Defense ability, which grants an AC bonus.
Regarding pinned, The armor class rules say this:
"Pinned –4³ +0³
(...)
3 The defender is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class." pg. 195
Here the pinned condition's "denied its dexterity bonus" is specified as dex bonus to AC.
Seriously, the concept of "denied dex bonus" only exists in the rules in relation to AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the general agreement of that thread was to deny completely one's dexterity bonus... correct me if I'm wrong.
The most literal reading of the RAW is that you lose all dexterity bonuses, but some people felt this was not RAI:
The phrase is always "denied his DEX bonus to AC" but everybody, apparently even the devs, gets lazy and just says "denied his DEX bonus". We all do it. I do it. You do it. Devs do it.
The devs shouldn't do it in the official rules text, but I'm quite sure that is exactly what they did right here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just referring to AC so it wouldn't effect skills, and having a loss of dex by being pinned doesn't raise your AC.
Here is why:
You have ability modifiers. Modifiers can be positive or negative.
A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.
Some rules tell you to add your modifier. Some rules tell you to add your "bonus".
When you're pinned you lose your dex bonus.
However if your dex score is an 9 your modifier is -1. A -1 is not a bonus so the pinned character still applies that to their AC. They don't have a bonus to lose.
If the rule said "Do not apply the dex modifier" that would be different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. I will thus espouse the boards' suggestion that when pinned, one still retains the grappled condition's "-4 dex penalty" then, in regards to skills and Ref saves, and for low Dex characters that don't have an AC bonus i.e. they shouldn't get a better AC when pinned compared to grappled, by virtue of the pinned condition being "a more severe version of grappled". In short, you take -2 on skills and Ref saves when you're grappled, and you shouldn't lose those, at the very least, when you're pinned. Also, a DEX 10 character shouldn't be better off pinned than when grappled and considered DEX 6.
PINNED CONDITION, HOUSERULE:
--> -2 on Dex skills, Ref saves, and:
1. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -4 penalty to AC if Dex 14 or higher; or
2. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -5 penalty to AC if Dex 12 or 13; or
3. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -6 penalty to AC if Dex 10 or 11; or
4. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -7 penalty to AC if Dex 8 or 9; or
5. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -8 penalty to AC if Dex 6 or 7; or
6. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -9 penalty to AC if Dex 4 or 5; or
7. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -10 penalty to AC if Dex 2 or 3.
It's messy looking, but more accurate and makes for the pinned condition more severe for characters of all Dex scores.
PS: Wraithstrike --> I know low Dex PC's don't have a 'bonus' so to speak but I've added the wording 'denied Dex bonus to AC' above anyway because it is a trigger for certain abilities like Sneak Attack, i.e. "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. I will thus espouse the boards' suggestion that when pinned, one still retains the grappled condition's "-4 dex penalty" then, in regards to skills and Ref saves, and for low Dex characters that don't have an AC bonus i.e. they shouldn't get a better AC when pinned compared to grappled, by virtue of the pinned condition being "a more severe version of grappled". In short, you take -2 on skills and Ref saves when you're grappled, and you shouldn't lose those, at the very least, when you're pinned. Also, a DEX 10 character shouldn't be better off pinned than when grappled and considered DEX 6.
PINNED CONDITION, HOUSERULE:
--> -2 on Dex skills, Ref saves, and:
1. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -4 penalty to AC if Dex 14 or higher; or
2. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -5 penalty to AC if Dex 12 or 13; or
3. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -6 penalty to AC if Dex 10 or 11; or
4. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -7 penalty to AC if Dex 8 or 9; or
5. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -8 penalty to AC if Dex 6 or 7; or
6. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -9 penalty to AC if Dex 4 or 5; or
7. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -10 penalty to AC if Dex 2 or 3.It's messy looking, but more accurate and makes for the pinned condition more severe for characters of all Dex scores.
PS: Wraithstrike --> I know low Dex PC's don't have a 'bonus' so to speak but I've added the wording 'denied Dex bonus to AC' above anyway because it is a trigger for certain abilities like Sneak Attack, i.e. "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)"
Sneak attack also says "whether they have a bonus or not", which basically means anytime a situation would deny a bonus, and if they don't have one they suffer the results anyway".
Adding the "(whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)" makes it noticeably different from "lose your dex bonus".
The two situations are very different.
If you want to get into houserules vs the actual rules that changes the entire conversation. The devs have made it clear that the lose of dex only applies to AC.
At this point I'm kinda confused about the topic. Are you asking about the intent of the rules, or do you want to discuss how you wan to handle it in your game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was pretty sure Pinned and grappled DID stack, but I just checked and apparently I'm wrong.
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
So there you go, at least I learned something from this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes MrCha, that is the subject of debate in earlier threads: the FAQ made it official that pinned replaces grappled, thus we end up with the official pinned condition being more mild to low Dex creatures. Grappled is more favorable in many instances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wraithstrike: to clarify I did not add "(whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)"; that is actually how the official rule is written, but I think you're already aware of that; I'm just clarifying this wasn't from me. As for your confusion, I'm basically trying to figure out if pinned was meant to deny entire bonus to Dex for everything or just for AC. By RAW it denies the Dex bonus to everything, and then you're slapped with a -4 to AC on top of that. It's quite severe, and something that hugely impacts Escape Artist in a way I've never really noticed before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pinned will forever be more severe than grappled. Also a grappled opponent can full attack you, a pinned opponent cannot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pinned will forever be more severe than grappled. Also a grappled opponent can full attack you, a pinned opponent cannot.
Oh snap... that is... oh my...
By RAW it denies the Dex bonus to everything
No it doesn't, because that concept doesn't exist within the rules. The term "denied (his/her/its) dexterity bonus" always refers to AC, nothing else.
for low Dex characters that don't have an AC bonus i.e. they shouldn't get a better AC when pinned compared to grappled
They don't. Grappled imposes a -2 AC from the -4 Dex. pinned makes the target lose any dex bonus to AC (a penalty is not a bonus, so it's not lost), and imposes an additional a -4 AC penalty.
Since I'm not sure if you have actually understood it, the "loses/denied dexterity bonus to AC" thing does not change the AC of a creature that has less than 12 dexterity, period. No creature ever gains AC from that.
I don't think pinned includes the -4 dexterity (RAW it definitely doesn't, as "you do not take both the penalties"). Yes, that makes pinned a little bit easier to escape via Escape Artist (and no penalty to reflex saves), but it's still a way worse condition.
Adding the "(whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)" makes it noticeably different from "lose your dex bonus".
No it doesn't. That's simply explanatory text with no actual effect on the rules.
Also a grappled opponent can full attack you, a pinned opponent cannot.
To be clear, a pinned creature can't attack at all.
By RAW it denies the Dex bonus to everythingNo it doesn't, because that concept doesn't exist within the rules. The term "denied (his/her/its) dexterity bonus" always refers to AC, nothing else.
I suppose there's a FAQ on this yes?
Let's search the CRB ...
Regarding pinned, The armor class rules say this:
"Pinned –4³ +0³
(...)
3 The defender is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class." pg. 195Here the pinned condition's "denied its dexterity bonus" is specified as dex bonus to AC.
Did this not answer the question? I thought this answered the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One rule says: "A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus."
Another rule, listing to modifiers to Armor Class, says of pinned creatures: "The defender is denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class."
If the pinned creature is denied its Dexterity bonus (for all purposes), then it is by definition denied its Dexterity bonus to its Armor Class. The two rules are not contradictory.
(I would rule that the pinned condition doesn't have a special unique Dexterity rule that exists nowhere else and ruins the Escape Artist skill, but I don't think this can be proven.)
Did this not answer the question? I thought this answered the question.Let's search the CRB ...
Regarding pinned, The armor class rules say this:
"Pinned –4³ +0³
(...)
3 The defender is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class." pg. 195Here the pinned condition's "denied its dexterity bonus" is specified as dex bonus to AC.
I agree with Matthew. I'm not sure it does answer the question...
The typo could be either in the footnote or in the pinned condition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to quote any rules or anything, but yeah, the pinned condition only removes your dex bonus to AC. Nothing else.
The phrase appears in the CRB nine times. Eight of these are absolutely clearly only about AC. Saying that the ninth occurence is not just about AC when the concept isn't adressed anywhere else (not in the skill rules, for instance), is, in my opinion, disingenuity.
Also note that originally (up to the 4th printing of the CRB), Pinned made the target flat-footed, they changed that to the "denied dexterity bonus" in the 5th printing (after this FAQ, which talks about "dexterity bonus" while the actual erratum also added "to AC"). Since such changes mustn't break the formatting, adding "to its armor class" was simply not possible with the limited aviable space.
The CRB isn't written to be the most precise rule document. The devs have said so, and there are plenty examples of where one cannot play the game as strictly written without it breaking down (that the polymorph rules RAW don't apply to Wild Shape even though they reference that ability being a perfect example).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The phrase appears in the CRB nine times. Eight of these are absolutely clearly only about AC. Saying that the ninth occurence is not just about AC when the concept isn't adressed anywhere else (not in the skill rules, for instance), is, in my opinion, disingenuity.
Is it, though? the pinned condition is meant to hold someone down or against a wall or in an armlock immobile in place, i.e. to "pin" someone so they can't move. How far fetch and out of the realm of imagination would it be to posit that all uses of Dex are pretty much canceled in that case? I can see someone fighting back with sheer strength, but once you're pinned, I can easily imagine one having a much harder time trying to wriggle out of someone's grasp with dexterity...
And to be 100% factual, the part about denying dex in regards to 'pinned' occurs twice, not nine times: once in the AC mod table, and once under the pinned condition description.
As to your point on why they changed the wording to "denied dex bonus" instead of "flat-footed", it seems to actually support the idea that the entire Dex bonus is lost, otherwise they would have left it as "flat-footed", which is exactly what you're arguing for: a denying of one's dex to AC.
Flat-Footed
A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.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.
Editor’s Note: reference from immediate action rules: You cannot take immediate actions while flat-footed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The change from flat-footed was likely more about allowing you to take immediate actions.
For example, the immediate action you have to take to try to escape when someone casts liberating command on you. If pinned made you flat-footed, then the spell would never help you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW it denies the Dex bonus to everythingNo it doesn't, because that concept doesn't exist within the rules.
If a rule doesn't exist elsewhere within the rules, that doesn't prove it doesn't exist here. Pathfinder is full of weird one-off rules that don't quite work like anything else.
Normally you can take free actions whenever you take move actions, but not if you're Nauseated.
Normally you never provoke AoO when you take a five-foot step, but you do if you're tiny and you move into an enemy's space.
Normally, you penetrate most kinds of DR when you use a +5 weapon, but not if it's a +5 bow.
Rules like this are usually a bad idea; they make the game more confusing, and a GM could reasonably decide to ignore them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And to be 100% factual, the part about denying dex in regards to 'pinned' occurs twice, not nine times: once in the AC mod table, and once under the pinned condition description.
This is a straw man fallacy. I didn't say the phrase appeared nine times "in regards to 'pinned'", only that it appears nine times. Which means you haven't actually adressed my argument, only a straw man version of it.
There're seven other absolutely occurences of the phrase where it explicitly is only about AC, one that only makes sense when it's talking about AC*, and zero where denying the dex bonus to anythign else but AC is in any way mentioned.
So there's nine uses of the phrase, eight of them are about definitely AC, zero of them are definitely about other things, and one that's ambiguous. Yes, leaning towards the zero side rather than the eight side for the ambiguous one is indeed disingenuous, because it goes against how the book is written.
*) The Duelist ability per this FAQ.
How far fetch and out of the realm of imagination would it be to posit that all uses of Dex are pretty much canceled in that case?
Ignoring the lack of relevance of real life logic to a rule debate, why does this FAQ not explaint the alleged "denied dex to everything" stuff that they had just invented?
ut to adress what you said, I can totally see how someone e.g. pinning you to a wall makes it actually easier to slip out compared to when someone has their arms around you, even if my movement is otherwise more restricted.As to your point on why they changed the wording to "denied dex bonus" instead of "flat-footed", it seems to actually support the idea that the entire Dex bonus is lost, otherwise they would have left it as "flat-footed", which is exactly what you're arguing for: a denying of one's dex to AC.
This argument is unsound, because there is a notable difference between flat-footed and denied dex bonus.
That you didn't adress my point of the lack of space for the erratum is very telling. Your entire post consists of a false attribution fallacy, a straw man fallacy, and an argument with a false premise; with not a single proper counterargument.
If a rule doesn't exist elsewhere within the rules, that doesn't prove it doesn't exist here.
When the game first came out, and for the next two years, the concept definitely didn't exist (at least not in the CRB). That much is clear.
Do I have a telepathic bond reaching back through time to the writers when they wrote that erratum to be able to know as an absolute truth what they intended? No. But just like I'm absolutely certain that the polymorph rules are supposed/intended to apply to supernatural abilities as well, I'm absolutely certain that the pinned condition's "denied dexterity bonus" is supposed/intended to only apply to AC. Dev comments like this (from a guy who at the time the erratum was made was "a critical part of the design team") and FAQs like this and this show that very similar phrases are supposed to be mechanically identical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally, you penetrate most kinds of DR when you use a +5 weapon, but not if it's a +5 bow.
Wait what? source please! I may have been overly permissive in previous games I have GMed... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, leaning towards the zero side rather than the eight side for the ambiguous one is indeed disingenuous, because it goes against how the book is written.
Again, you're making the assumption that the writers of the book were wrong or did a typo. I'm not saying you're wrong about that, but it would be incorrect to state that they were wrong with a 100% certainty. Call me disingenuous or that it's a straw man or whatever else is cool sounding these days, but the statement that this is a typo is your opinion based on your observation of similar language in other sections of the book. It's a reasonable assumption yes, based on the fact that the AC mod table says so. However is this the original intent? probably, but not certainly. I'm personally puzzled with the fact that the grappled condition gives you a Dex penalty, and the pinned condition doesn't. Denying the whole Dex mod to everything would fix that. Are you of the opinion that the grappled condition's -4 dex penalty also only applies to AC?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Normally, you penetrate most kinds of DR when you use a +5 weapon, but not if it's a +5 bow.Wait what? source please! I may have been overly permissive in previous games I have GMed... :P
It was a late FAQ. One of the last ones issued for 1E, I think.
Magic Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: When a ranged weapon shares its enhancement bonus with its ammunition, does this count as “true” enhancement bonus or more like a temporary bonus like greater magic weapon? In other words, does the shared enhancement bonus allow the arrow to bypass damage reduction as if it was cold iron, silver, adamantine, and aligned?
No, other than the ways indicated in the Core Rulebook (if the ranged weapon is at least +1, they count as magic, and if the ranged weapon is aligned they count as that alignment as well) the enhancement bonus granted to ammunition from the ranged weapon doesn’t help them overcome the other types of damage reduction. Archers and other such characters can buy various sorts of ammunition or ammunition with a high enhancement bonus to overcome the various types of damage reduction.
Oh, man, I... haaaaaaaaaaate that, actually. Wow. That's... ouchies.
:(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, man, I... haaaaaaaaaaate that, actually. Wow. That's... ouchies.
:(
SSShhhhhhhhh. Just ignore it, it can't hurt you.
Honestly I'd forgotten that FAQ even existed.
It's kind of dumb because you can get durable arrows of every material and just use those, it's not a significant cost at higher levels. About the only thing you have a problem with is alignment based DR. And really, every archer is going to get clustered shots anyways, and mostly ignore the effects of DR even if they don't penetrate it.
Yes, leaning towards the zero side rather than the eight side for the ambiguous one is indeed disingenuous, because it goes against how the book is written.Again, you're making the assumption that the writers of the book were wrong or did a typo.
Honestly your argument is the one saying there was a typo, Derklord's argument is they left out a part to save space.
There are 2 references in the CRB to being denied your DEX bonus while Pinned, and one IS referencing AC. That means either the one that references AC is a typo or the one that doesn't reference AC is a space-saver.
Nobody can be 100% sure, but we can be about 90% sure since this follows the convention for every other instance of this wording and is backed up by another source referencing pinned.
If you're here looking for help with a ruling then you've found it.
If you're here looking for an FAQ you won't get one. The rules of the forum say "Don't ask for FAQs, we'll give them when we think they're needed", and to be honest they're unlikely to do any more FAQs for PF1 at this point anyway.
If you're here looking for people to back you up in the belief you already have then ... well go nuts I guess. What you do in your games doesn't affect me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are 2 references in the CRB to being denied your DEX bonus while Pinned, and one IS referencing AC. That means either the one that references AC is a typo or the one that doesn't reference AC is a space-saver.
I'm not persuaded that a footnote to a table talking about AC modifiers is compelling enough to override what the pinned condition itself says. It looks to me more like a reminder that pinned also removes your dex bonus, which of course affects your AC if you have a dex bonus. Table footnotes are rather on the bottom side of the rules authority totem pole.
I'd actually like to go back and look at all the page # references that were made above where the phrase "dex bonus to AC" is made, to see the context these statements are being made in. I just need to find my CRB, and feel compelled enough to actually do it :).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah unfortunatly I leant my CRB to a friend, so I can't actually check it myself =P
But assuming Derklord's quotes were correct (and they usually are) everything's pointing toward it referencing AC.
You're not going to get 100% on this, but there's a lot more pointing to it only affecting AC than the other way round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the fact that I can't think of any other effect in the game that just completely removes your attribute bonus universally. Even Feeblemind doesn't do that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the fact that I can't think of any other effect in the game that just completely removes your attribute bonus universally. Even Feeblemind doesn't do that!
When you have been feebleminded, your int/cha are set to 1. You no longer have a int/cha bonus to be applied. You have a -4 penalty applied. So while it doesn't explicitly say you lose the bonus, it is implied by virtue of an effective change to your ability score changes your bonus/penalty. This is the same if you had taken ability damage/drain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Big guy pins down the nimble rogue with no muscle mass. --> rogue not going anywhere.
Dragon sits on the mage. --> mage not going anywhere.
Removing the dex bonus isn't so far-fetched IMO. They could have gone the way of feeblemind and set the Dex to 1, but removing Dex bonus seems fair for having been rendered immobile... The next worst thing is 'helpless' when you're tied up, and that is Dex 0, btw.
A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier).
==================
PS: I'm still puzzled as to how to handle pinned characters with Dex 13 or less; I've posted a huge cumbersome houserule above, which I think properly penalize low dex victims of a pin by simulating the grappled -4 dex penalty (-2 to AC) for all low dex scores, in addition to the pinned -4 AC penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, for those committing to the remove dex bonus thing and still want to worsen the penalty, just have it be a Dex -4 penalty effect (minimum 1), and remove any bonus remaining.
That way it caps at +/- 0 to whatever bonuses, but applies a possible penalty to them, if they're 13 or less. It doesn't have to be that complex, I don't think.
Edited for hopeful clarity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, you're making the assumption that the writers of the book were wrong or did a typo.
No I'm not. An assumption is when one supposes something without evidence. What I did was make a presumption, i.e. I supposed something based on evidence and probability. Yes, what I say is only probably the intend, but it's that with a very high probability.
Also, I don't presume "that the writers of the book were wrong or did a typo", but rather that they only had very limited space to make their erratum, and thus couldn't fit the "to its armor class" or even just "to its AC" in. I also presume that the writers assumed that everyone understood that "denied dex bonus" is the same as "denied dex bonus to AC".
And because you seem to not know it: A straw man is an informal fallacy were one constructs a deliberately wrong version of another person's argument to appear of having addressed the argument, without actually having done so. Which is exactly what you did when your "to be 100% factual" was about something different from what I said.
Are you of the opinion that the grappled condition's -4 dex penalty also only applies to AC?
No, because there are rules on ability score penalties, while there are no rules on them being "denied" to anything but AC. That there are rules on the former but not on the latter actually supports my position!
I'm personally puzzled with the fact that the grappled condition gives you a Dex penalty, and the pinned condition doesn't. Denying the whole Dex mod to everything would fix that.
Only for creatures with 14 or more dex. I also don't see why it's a problem in the first place. The pinned condition is powerful enough as it is.
Table footnotes are rather on the bottom side of the rules authority totem pole.
No they aren't. They're just as valid and important as anything in the table.
I'd actually like to go back and look at all the page # references that were made above where the phrase "dex bonus to AC" is made, to see the context these statements are being made in.
"She must be aware of the attack and able to react to it in order to execute her defensive roll—if she is denied her Dexterity bonus to AC, she can’t use this ability."
"Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack."
"The defender is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class."
"The death attack fails if the target detects the assassin or recognizes the assassin as an enemy (although the attack might still be a sneak attack if the target is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class or is flanked)."
"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."
"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."
The only one occurance of the word "denied" in relation to rules (there's one that is about the GM not allowing a deus-ex-machina) lacking the "to AC" or "to armor class", appart from the later-edited-in pinned condition, is this:
"Canny Defense (Ex): When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level as a dodge bonus to her Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus." Not only is the ability solely about an AC bonus, this FAQ says "She loses that Int-based AC bonus under any situation where she's denied her Dex bonus to AC."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." pg. 68, Sneak Attack
"She must be aware of the attack and able to react to it in order to execute her defensive roll—if she is denied her Dexterity bonus to AC, she can’t use this ability." pg. 69, Defensive Roll rogue talent
"Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack." pg. 90, Bluff
"The defender is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class." pg. 195, armor class modifier table, footprint for helpless and pinned
"The death attack fails if the target detects the assassin or recognizes the assassin as an enemy (although the attack might still be a sneak attack if the target is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class or is flanked)." pg. 378, Assassin's Death Attack
"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see." pg. 382, Dragon Disciples's Blindsense
"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see." pg. 561, Blindsight and Blindsense
The only one occurance of the word "denied" in relation to rules (there's one that is about the GM not allowing a deus-ex-machina) lacking the "to AC" or "to armor class", appart from the later-edited-in pinned condition, is this:
"Canny Defense (Ex): When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level as a dodge bonus to her Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus." Not only is the ability solely about an AC bonus, this FAQ says "She loses that Int-based AC bonus under any situation where she's denied her Dex bonus to AC."
Thanks. After reading these in context, I draw the opposite conclusion you do. We can't extrapolate the specific rules in each of these instances to be the general rule.
Sneak Attack: Loss of dex to ac is one of several possible conditions to trigger sneak attack. This could be either the specific loss of dex to ac, or a general loss of dex bonus (which would include AC, ref save, dex based skills, dex check, etc). Nothing about this implies that loss of dex bonus to ac is the only type of loss of dex bonus that could be applied.
Defensive Roll talent: Againt the loss of a dex to ac is just a qualifier on whether the ability can be used or not. Loss of dex to saves wouldn't matter. But loss of dex to ac or loss of dex bonus altogether prevents using it.
Death Attack: Just a rewording of sneak attack conditions.
Feint: Tells what happens when you successfully use feint. There isn't a "feint to remove dex bonus to reflex, or all dex bonus" because feint is a combat thing, not a general cripple the enemy thing.
The AC table footnote: See my dicussion of it upthread. Of all of these examples, this, IMO, is actually the strongest argument for the case. And I don't find it a particularly strong argument.
Blindsense: The rules already tell us that being unable to see your opponent removes your dex bonus to ac. (See invisibility, blinded condition, etc). The text here is just telling us that blindsense doesn't change that. This text on these pages is unnecessary, but helpful in clarifying what blindsense does and does not change.
Canny Defense: Despite developer claims about limited book space, they included the text that a flat-footed or dex denied character also loses this bonus. This is simply reminder text, because there is already a rule that dodge bonuses (which this is called out as) are lost when a character loses its dex bonus to ac.
None of these indicate that the only type of loss that can be taken to dex bonus is an AC one. It just so happens that all the cases (excpet pinned) where it comes up is within a context of some effect triggering of this condition, or correctly determing AC because of other conditions.
RAW, pinned definately removes the dex bonus to everything dex related. RAI, I'm not convinved by these examples is any different. I'd need an example of something that could result in a AC target OR a reflex save required (or a skill being used) that states that only the dex to ac bonus is lost. e.g, some example that includes a context of more than just a triggering condition for an attack against AC (sneak attack) or reitarates rules that are already in place (being unable to see an attacker or canny defense).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Derklord and bbangerter: two great posts with a lot of thoughts put into them. Thank you very much!
@Derklord: thanks for explaining the straw man thing... it wasn't my intent to mislead, just to clarify that this dex bonus loss language was only found twice in the book in regards to the pinned condition; you are correct that loss of dex to AC is found in many many places throughout dozens of Paizo books (usually involving things revolving around sneak attack, uncanny dodge, or similar abilities)
it wasn't my intent to mislead, just to clarify that this dex bonus loss language was only found twice in the book in regards to the pinned condition
The thing is that my argument was that if we look beyond the pinned condition, we see the phrase having but one meaning. So while it may not have been a deliberate straw man, the effect was the same - you did not actually adress my argument.
Since the writer of a new book or an erratum writes the new rules in the context of the existing rules, I think looking beyond just the condition is a mandatory thing to do to understand the erratum writer's intend. I mean, if a new class's spellcasting ability would omit the usual sentence that "In addition, (s)he receives bonus spells per day if (s)he has a high <whatever> score (see Table 1–3 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).", we would still presume that to be the case based on the fact that every other spellcasting class works like that. I simply do the same here.
This is the reason I used the word "disingenuity" - you have to deliberately not look at anything else to come up with that reading, something I consider a dishonest way of interpreting rules. You'd have to close your eyes to any contrary evidence (just look at bbangerter doing just that in their last post, discounting the purely one-sided examples as an "It just so happens"), and that's something only done if one does not want the truth.
There also one strong evidence I didn't explicitly mention yet: The duelist ability uses the phrase "If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus." - no "to AC" in sight. That means this is the exact same phrase the pinned condition uses. Now, this FAQ which explains the sentence uses the phrase "She loses that Int-based AC bonus under any situation where she's denied her Dex bonus to AC.", which means without any doubt that the writer(s) of that FAQ (released after the erratum to pinned) consider(s) the two phrases to be identical.
@bbangerter: You're grossly misinterpreting the evidence, and I think you do that deliberately because you don't want to accept the truth. All your picking-the-bones is just trying to hide the truth, which is that 8 out of 9 occurences of the prase in the CRB are explicitly about AC. The contexts that the phrase is used in don't matter, because I'm comparing the phrases and not the context. You're trying to focus on the contexts because you know you can't beat my actual argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if a new class's spellcasting ability would omit the usual sentence that "In addition, (s)he receives bonus spells per day if (s)he has a high <whatever> score (see Table 1–3 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).", we would still presume that to be the case based on the fact that every other spellcasting class works like that.
I wouldn't. I'd say, "A literal reading of the RAW is that this class does not get bonus spells from their casting attribute modifier. Either it's a mistake, or Paizo wanted this class to work differently for some reason." Then I'd decide if I wanted to house-rule it, based on which interpretation seems most fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I like pinned taking away the Dex Mod altogether for the simple fact that it would make Reflex saves more difficult, which seems realistic and creates a neat desperation tactic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the writer of a new book or an erratum writes the new rules in the context of the existing rules, I think looking beyond just the condition is a mandatory thing to do to understand the erratum writer's intend. I mean, if a new class's spellcasting ability would omit the usual sentence that "In addition, (s)he receives bonus spells per day if (s)he has a high <whatever> score (see Table 1–3 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).", we would still presume that to be the case based on the fact that every other spellcasting class works like that. I simply do the same here.
I'd give the spell casters the bonus spells, because there is a general rule under the abilities section which states:
The table also shows bonus spells, which you’ll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.
This applies to all spellcasters, and is not specific only to some casters.
@bbangerter: You're grossly misinterpreting the evidence, and I think you do that deliberately because you don't want to accept the truth. All your picking-the-bones is just trying to hide the truth, which is that 8 out of 9 occurences of the prase in the CRB are explicitly about AC. The contexts that the phrase is used in don't matter, because I'm comparing the phrases and not the context. You're trying to focus on the contexts because you know you can't beat my actual argument.
Let's assume for the moment, that the only place the rules talked about loss to dex was the pinned condition (written as it currently is) and the sneak attack ability, written as it currently is?
Should we assume that pinned only applies to loss of dex to AC in that scenario? Or would we read it as pinned causes a general loss. And sneak attack would apply to both a general loss AND any future specific loss to AC? I'd expect most people would say pinned is a general loss.
So now we add a second ability, the mentions specific dex to AC loss. Does that change what pinned does? Should it? We can continue adding more and more. Is there some specific number where specific rules about specific things in specific contexts suddenly change what the pinned condition actually does? If there is, you aren't applying rules logic consistantly. If there are 1000 specific rules that talk about loss of dex to AC, does that mean that is the only kind there is? Does that mean a future ability could not cause a loss of dex to skills? Or a loss of dex to saves? Or a loss of dex to initiative rolls? If it does changed based on a number of mentions, does it suddenly change back if a new ability that causes loss of dex bonus to something other than AC?
On a side note to that, only feint and flat-footed (that I am aware of) causes a loss of a dex to AC. The other mentions are all things that either trigger off that loss to AC specifically, or re-asserting rules that are already in place.
And more specifically this portion
You're trying to focus on the contexts because you know you can't beat my actual argument.
No, because context is extremely important. Which is interesting because you took something out of context above to try and prove your point. Here is the complete context of the duelist Canny Defense
When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level as a dodge bonus to her Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
It already mentions it is a dodge bonus to AC. So when it mentions "this bonus" the context already tells us to AC, because it was a dodge to AC bonus. Adding "to AC" again in the paragraph is superflous.
Finally, if the best you can do to counter my argument is make veiled insults about my intellectual honesty.... well, I think you should depart from the discussion if you can't show why context doesn't matter, or can't show why loss to AC is a general rule (all the specific rules that mention loss to AC doesn't make that the general rule).