Oracle, Natures Whispers and AC

[Exeetor]

So question is something I see discussed all over the place but no official answer has been given.

Does the Charisma AC given from Natures Whispers (Nature Oracle) get capped by gear in the same way as Dex does or not.
This question originates from that a simmilar ability from Lore Mystery (Sidestep Secret) give the same type of bonus but directly states that you are capped on charisma in the same way as you are from dex from gear.
While this text is not present on Natures Whispers. It instead states that Conditions that make you loose dex to AC still apply to you (such as flatfooted).

After scouring the internet I just cannot find any official ruling on this.
The only real ruling is the baseline of "if you swap stat X from stat Y, the same restrictions apply for the new stat".
But since one rule directly states that armor-restriction apply while the other does not and both are from the same book an official ruling would be great here.

[zza ni]

if 'conditions that make you loose dex to ac still apply' then this includes conditions that make you loose part of the dex. such as armor max dex. the fact you don't loose all of your dex is that it depend on the armor you use. if some armor would say '0 dex to armor' it would be easy to apply. the fact each armor have a different score to max out doesn't change the fact that if you have more dex you loose some dex bonus.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Nature’s Whispers says you may add your CHA modifier instead of your DEX modifier to AC and CMD, but that does not change the fact it is still considered a DEX bonus. By specifying you can use your CHA modifier instead of your DEX modifier means all you are doing is replacing the number. All other rules about AC are unchanged including maximum DEX bonus. Increasing your AC is a function of DEX not CHA. If it is not considered a DEX bonus the ability does not function at all. The formula for AC is 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + DEX bonus + other modifiers.

If it did not count as a DEX bonus it would have wording similar to the paladin’s smite Evil. Smite evil directly states you gain a deflection bonus equal to their CHA modifier.

In programing terms DexBonus = ChaModifier.

Under the equipment section in the core rule book, it states that “even if the characters DEX bonus to AC drops to 0 this situation does not count as losing his DEX bonus to AC”. That statement calls into question the idea that the losing DEX bonus covers the MAX DEX bonus.

[Melkiador]

It's not unusual for reminder text to cloudy entire rules interpretations. For instance, it's not actually required for an archetype to say that an ability is being modified, when an ability is modified. It just makes the archetype more readable.

[Exeetor]

Melkiador wrote:

It's not unusual for reminder text to cloudy entire rules interpretations. For instance, it's not actually required for an archetype to say that an ability is being modified, when an ability is modified. It just makes the archetype more readable.

As I wrote. I know all the "if you replace one with another" stuff.

I still want some kind of official statement since there are two abilities from the same book that does the same thing with different texts on how to do handle AC from armor. One stating u do as you say and the other omitting it for something else (like becomming flatfooted).

My gut-feeling says that you just do as you say above but I dont like to have to go by gut-feeling when I do rules. I want a clear statement and the big problem is that Nature and Lore both are from the same book and should have the same text if they work the same way. Since they dont there could be wiggle-room here.

Ergo would love a statement from Pazio.

[zza ni]

As I said, by your own account it still has the rule that when you lose dex bonus you lose the cha bonus.
This is not spelled out to say only in cases when you lose ALL of the dex bonus you will lose ALL the cha bonus, so any effect that make you lose any dex bonus will make the same cha bonus lost. so armor max dex still is in effect.

The fact it is spelled out to do so in another ability that resemble it doesn't mean it has to be spelled out here too, the rule already cover it as is.

[Diego Rossi]

Exeetor wrote:

] Ergo would love a statement from Pazio.

Paizo last official reply for Pathfinder 1 was made Aug 29, 2017, 01:44 pm. I doubt they will respond now.

About the different texts of similar abilities: Paizo books are written by several contributors, often freelancers. They don't use the same writing styles and there aren't clear guidances on how they should write, so textual differences are normal even if the effect is exactly the same.

[Melkiador]

The Advanced Race Guide added 3 different types of racial weapons that modify the races’s natural attacks. All three had different wording that could be interpreted in different ways. Being from the same source doesn’t mean much if those authors weren’t collaborating

[Azothath]

it is the GM's job to straighten out conflicts in the game.

There have been questions over the years on this exact issue with no comment from Paizo. Paizo was always super slow to issue FAQs or corrections so the usual official answer is "they thought it was clear enough". PF1 has been on its own for some time with an update for PFS a year after publication ceased.

for Oracle Nature mystery just do what it says, substitute CHA for DEX then follow the rules for DEX. No need to read into it or make it more complicated than it is.