*I'm on my phone, sorry for the formatting (I usually quote and hyperlink)
Does the Magus Arcana: Prescient Attack
Make an opponent count as flat-footed?
|
No, flat-footed is a specific condition that normally applies only when a creature is surprised and before its first round.
Prescient Attack allows the Magus to negate the target dexterity bonus but doesn't make it flat-footed.
It can enable things like sneak attacks from the Magus, but it doesn't enable things that require the target to be flat-ffoted.
Benefit: The magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as an immediate action after hitting a target with a weapon attack, allowing him to anticipate his opponent’s defenses. The target is denied its Dexterity bonus against the magus’s attacks until the end of the magus’s next turn.
That's what I thought thank you. You see it enough times being suggested as a way to get flat footed you eventually start to believe it
That's what I thought thank you. You see it enough times being suggested as a way to get flat footed you eventually start to believe it
Well people conflate it because the most common reason people want flat-footed is sneak attack, however denied dex also enables sneak attack and is very similar to flat-footed in terms of what it does.
But denied dex isn't equal flat-footed.
And there are a few things that specifically require flat-footed, and it makes them much harder to use.
They should be the same IMO because the conditions in PF1 need a good shakeup. However RAW they aren't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well Flat-Footed also means you can't take AoOs or use immediate actions, so it would be a more serious debuff.
Now whether that needs changing is another discussion ...
This is another case of being denied the Dexterity bonus without specifying to A.C. In this case, it is written «against attacks». While we all understand the intent, I could construe a meaning where it means the target doesn't get its Dex bonus to a save for example, as a fireball is an attack, per the Sanctuary spell.
|
|
This is another case of being denied the Dexterity bonus without specifying to A.C. In this case, it is written «against attacks». While we all understand the intent, I could construe a meaning where it means the target doesn't get its Dex bonus to a save for example, as a fireball is an attack, per the Sanctuary spell.
It loses it only against the magus.
This is another case of being denied the Dexterity bonus without specifying to A.C. In this case, it is written «against attacks». While we all understand the intent, I could construe a meaning where it means the target doesn't get its Dex bonus to a save for example, as a fireball is an attack, per the Sanctuary spell.
First, it's not "per the Sanctuary spell", there's an actual section in the magic rules about what is classified as an "attack" for the sake of spells (CRB pg. 208), second, that section is only about the use of that word in spell descriptions, and third, please stop with that "denied dexterity bonus is about something other than AC" stuff. It's a gross misinterpretation of the rules because it utterly ignores obvious writer intend. It's like Shield Master - yes, the words by literal reading allow you to ignore all penalties, but everyone knows that it's only about TWF penalties.
After every single instance of "loses dex bonus", "denied dex bonus" , or "retains dex bonus" in the CRB was about AC, writers sometiems omitted the "to AC" part because they thought it redundant. That's not a change in the rules, it a change in the language.
Derklord and Agénor are referencing THIS THREAD, but it's probably worth leaving that where it is, or taking it back to the original thread if you want to continue it.
Yeah, let's not drag that topic into this thread, please.
I was indeed only poking fun at poorly written rules, not in the least believing this instance of the rules made sense stricto sensu.
In general, I see the rules as a tool for supporting interesting narration. Rules of poor quality hinder narration, I do my best not to let this happen at the tables where I play.
All right then! I don't get bringing up an argument that one doesn't agree with, but I'm glad the issue is resolved.