Full time sneak attack?

[ClothedInVelvet]

The Citadel Elite prestige class (Sharn) has an ability called Combat Sense.

"Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel Elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows, learning to anticipate where an opponent will move. The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses."

My question: Does this mean that a Citadel Elite's attacks are often eligible for sneak attack dice because the target is denied his dexterity bonus?

This is granted the Citadel Elite's class level is higher than the target's dex bonus.

[Yuki Akuma]

The target is not denied his Dex bonus to AC. The Citadel Elite just gets to ignore them.

Subtle difference, but it's a difference.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Really? That's a difference?

So during the attack, I total up my attack bonuses, add them to my d20, and get a number. You add up your AC bonuses, add 10, and get a number. If my number is as high or higher than your number, I hit. If not, I miss.

But you not getting to add your dex bonus is not the same as you being denied that bonus?

[candycorn]

Really? That's a difference?

So during the attack, I total up my attack bonuses, add them to my d20, and get a number. You add up your AC bonuses, add 10, and get a number. If my number is as high or higher than your number, I hit. If not, I miss.

But you not getting to add your dex bonus is not the same as you being denied that bonus?

Yuki is using a very... unusual interpretation.

"denied dexterity bonus" is not a reserved game term. It's not in the glossary. Thus, we default to english.

"Denied" - not allowed to have; "dexterity bonus"

Your attack does not allow them to have their dexterity modifier to AC. That is denying dex, by any actual definition.

If the term were a reserved game term, Yuki would be right.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Interesting. I'd say that RAW works, although the wording is very weird.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Your attack does not allow them to have their dexterity modifier to AC. That is denying dex, by any actual definition.

No.


he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC

They're allowed their Dexterity bonus. The Citadel Elite just gets to ignore it. The modifier (ignoring Dex and dodge bonuses) is on the Elite, not on the defender.

If this said "the defender does not count their Dexterity bonus to AC against attacks, up to yada yada yada" then it would let you Sneak Attack, because it's modifying what the defender is allowed to do.

[CTrees]

I'm actually with the ignored=/=denied crowd, primarily because it *is* on the Elite, not the defender.

[candycorn]

No.



They're allowed their Dexterity bonus. The Citadel Elite just gets to ignore it. The modifier (ignoring Dex and dodge bonuses) is on the Elite, not on the defender.

If this said "the defender does not count their Dexterity bonus to AC against attacks, up to yada yada yada" then it would let you Sneak Attack, because it's modifying what the defender is allowed to do.

Here's the question: for an attack made by the Citadel Elite, does the defender gain the benefit of their dexterity modifier to AC? No.

Regardless of WHY the dex is not applying to AC, dex is not applying to AC. That's all you need.

Target: AC 10 + 4 dex + 8 Natural armor + 2 deflection = 24 AC
Target When Citadel Elite Attacks: 10 + 4 dex + 8 Natural armor + 2 deflection = 24 20 AC

See that? The dexterity is not applied to the target number to hit, which is known, in D&D, as Armor Class. This is basic, BASIC D&D.

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatstatistics.htm)


When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Simple as that. If you ignore it, that means that for your attack, dexterity does not apply to that armor class. That armor class is DENIED the dexterity modifier for that attack.

If it did not, then the target number (Armor Class) would increase. Armor Class is DEFINED as the minimum number that must be rolled on an attack to hit.

If that number lowers, for WHATEVER reason, that is an alteration to the armor class. If a bonus is disregarded, for WHATEVER reason, that bonus is denied to the target number that must be met or exceeded to hit.

(note: underlined text is the definition of Armor Class).

This is very, very basic. If this were food, it would be the rules equivalent of Gerber's Peas and Carrots. If it were inventions, it would be the lever.

[Morph Bark]

Here's the question: for an attack made by the Citadel Elite, does the defender gain the benefit of their dexterity modifier to AC? No.

Regardless of WHY the dex is not applying to AC, dex is not applying to AC. That's all you need.

Target: AC 10 + 4 dex + 8 Natural armor + 2 deflection = 24 AC
Target When Citadel Elite Attacks: 10 + 4 dex + 8 Natural armor + 2 deflection = 24 20 AC

See that? The dexterity is not applied to the target number to hit, which is known, in D&D, as Armor Class. This is basic, BASIC D&D.

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatstatistics.htm)



Simple as that. If you ignore it, that means that for your attack, dexterity does not apply to that armor class. That armor class is DENIED the dexterity modifier for that attack.

If it did not, then the target number (Armor Class) would increase. Armor Class is DEFINED as the minimum number that must be rolled on an attack to hit.

If that number lowers, for WHATEVER reason, that is an alteration to the armor class. If a bonus is disregarded, for WHATEVER reason, that bonus is denied to the target number that must be met or exceeded to hit.

(note: underlined text is the definition of Armor Class).

This is very, very basic. If this were food, it would be the rules equivalent of Gerber's Peas and Carrots. If it were inventions, it would be the lever.

Using your definition, someone with a Dexterity of 11 or lower would never apply a Dex bonus to AC, thus always being Sneak Attacked.

[Andreaz]

The difference is in the moment of application. The PrC goes "oh, look, you are very quick. Too bad I'm smarter than your quick".
While yes, there is no practical difference for the purpose of hitting things, the things being hit still have full use of their dex and can defend normally.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Using your definition, someone with a Dexterity of 11 or lower would never apply a Dex bonus to AC, thus always being Sneak Attacked.

On the contrary. A character might do this:
AC 10 + 0 dex + 8 Natural armor + 2 deflection = 20 AC

They are still applying their bonus, it's just that the bonus is 0. But against the Citadel Elite, that entire term is removed from the equation.


The difference is in the moment of application. The PrC goes "oh, look, you are very quick. Too bad I'm smarter than your quick".
While yes, there is no practical difference for the purpose of hitting things, the things being hit still have full use of their dex and can defend normally.

If you're taking a practical approach instead of a rules/legal approach, I think it is even more clear. If I'm fast enough to hit you like you're standing still, I'm quick enough to hit the vital organs that sneak attack targets.

[candycorn]

Using your definition, someone with a Dexterity of 11 or lower would never apply a Dex bonus to AC, thus always being Sneak Attacked.

Incorrect. Sneak attack explicitly states that whether the bonus exists is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the bonus would be allowed to apply if it did.

The difference is in the moment of application. The PrC goes "oh, look, you are very quick. Too bad I'm smarter than your quick".
While yes, there is no practical difference for the purpose of hitting things, the things being hit still have full use of their dex and can defend normally.
No, no they do not. Let's take a target with an AC of 35. That target's dexterity modifier is +8.

If a citadel elite attacks this person, and rolls a 29, he hits. This is explicitly because the dexterity does not apply. The moment of application is:

Make attack roll, add all applicable bonuses.
Compare attack roll vs armor class.
If attack roll >= armor class, then attack hits.

Now, armor class is specific for each attack. If someone is throwing alchemist's fire, some things, such as armor and natural armor do not apply.

But there is no "moment of application".

Rules state: Roll attack.
Compare to AC.
If Attack >= AC, you hit.

If a bonus is not allowed to apply to that AC, then the other character does not gain the benefit, and it is denied to that AC.

This is how english works. That is how mechanics work. There are no other moments to applicate. Any claim to the contrary is not supported by the rules.

[Morph Bark]

Incorrect. Sneak attack explicitly states that whether the bonus exists is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the bonus would be allowed to apply if it did.

In that case, if the Citadel Elite ignores the full Dexterity bonus, the Dexterity bonus would be +0. The bonus still exists and is allowed to apply, it just is +0. Hence the Citadel Elite does not gain Sneak Attack if he ignores the full Dexterity bonus.

QED

[Mr.Bookworm]

If a citadel elite attacks this person, and rolls a 29, he hits. This is explicitly because the dexterity does not apply. The moment of application is:

Why do you think Dexterity doesn't apply?

The modifier of the ability is clearly on the Citadel Elite, not on the defender. The target is not denied his Dexterity. The Citadel Elite gets to ignore a certain amount of bonuses for the purposes of the attack.

Even if it reduces the Dex bonus to +0, it is still applied.

[Gwendol]

This is the description of sneak attack from the SRD:

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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.

Emphasis on passage of note. In this case the target is denied a dexterity bonus to AC, and thus SA damage applies to all attacks that hit. I don't see why the semantics involved in the description of the Citadel Elit class can make any difference to the outcome. The target isn't allowed to add any DEX bonus to AC, thus is vulnerable to SA damage.

[BobVosh]

I would say no sneak attack from RAW, but allow from RAI cuz I'm nice to SA people.

That said this should be a ask your DM thing, as obviously people can argue on it.

[Mr.Bookworm]

The target isn't allowed to add any DEX bonus to AC, thus is vulnerable to SA damage.

No, it is allowed to apply it's Dex bonus. Even if the Citadel Elite feature reduces the Dex bonus to +0, it is still applying the bonus.

Semantics are important when discussing RAW.

[GoatBoy]

Ugh, this argument is giving me a headache. If I were WotC, I would haven just thrown in the towel and errata'd away the entire damn ability.

Oh, wait, they did. (http://www.4shared.com/document/Hrkew390/Sharn_City_Of_Towers_-_Errata.html)

[candycorn]

No, it is allowed to apply it's Dex bonus. Even if the Citadel Elite feature reduces the Dex bonus to +0, it is still applying the bonus.

Semantics are important when discussing RAW.

It makes no mention of reducing the bonus to 0. It flat out states that it disregards it entirely.

If semantics are important, then use them correctly.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Why do you think Dexterity doesn't apply?

The modifier of the ability is clearly on the Citadel Elite, not on the defender. The target is not denied his Dexterity. The Citadel Elite gets to ignore a certain amount of bonuses for the purposes of the attack.

Even if it reduces the Dex bonus to +0, it is still applied.

There is no reduction going on at all. It's ignoring. Removing it from the equation.

And it doesn't much matter who brings the modifier to the table. The equation remains (quoting heavily from SRD):

"When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."

d20 + attack bonus ("Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier")+other modifiers [variable sign] "10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier"

If the [variable sign] needed for the equation is a > or an =, the attack hits. If it's a <, the attack misses. It doesn't matter who brings the modifier that cuts the Dexterity modifier out of the equation. If it's cut, it's cut.

[Gwendol]

And just how is that not the same as denying the target his DEX bonus to AC?
The description of the ability doesn't say the targets are flatfooted, because only up to the class level of DEX/Dodge bonuses to AC can be ignored. But on the other hand, the description of SA says that it applies when the target is denied a DEX bonus, which suggests it applies even to partial denial.

[Mr.Bookworm]

It makes no mention of reducing the bonus to 0. It flat out states that it disregards it entirely.

If semantics are important, then use them correctly.


The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses."

It is ignoring the bonuses, not the ability to apply them.

But, whatever, as GoatBoy pointed out up there, the Citadel Elite got hit hard with the nerfbat, so this is now a moot point.

[Gwendol]

And I say ignoring the bonus is the same as denying someone else that bonus. By the looks of the errata I believe someone at WoTC draw the same conclusion, and has acted accordingly.

[ClothedInVelvet]

That's not even nerfing. Removing 2 bonus feats, cutting out this controversial ability, and effectively removing +4 AC? That's murder.

Why do they give us nice things just to take them away? It's not like a Rogue/Swashbuckler/Citadel Elite is going to suddenly overpower a wizard or druid of equal level. Even a ToB character is better than this, pre-nerf.

[Morph Bark]

It makes no mention of reducing the bonus to 0. It flat out states that it disregards it entirely.

If semantics are important, then use them correctly.

I don't have the book myself, so if ClothedInVelvet incorrectly rephrased the ability in the OP, you are correct.


"Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel Elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows, learning to anticipate where an opponent will move. The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses."

My question: Does this mean that a Citadel Elite's attacks are often eligible for sneak attack dice because the target is denied his dexterity bonus?

This is granted the Citadel Elite's class level is higher than the target's dex bonus.

In the OP, ClothedInVelvet already seems to assume "ignore = deny". You apparently do as well:


Yuki is using a very... unusual interpretation.

"denied dexterity bonus" is not a reserved game term. It's not in the glossary. Thus, we default to english.

"Denied" - not allowed to have; "dexterity bonus"

Your attack does not allow them to have their dexterity modifier to AC. That is denying dex, by any actual definition.

If the term were a reserved game term, Yuki would be right.

Thing is, if I deny your argument as I am doing now, the effect is quite different from me ignoring the argument. This goes to show that they are not synonyms. Hence why I said the following:



Incorrect. Sneak attack explicitly states that whether the bonus exists is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the bonus would be allowed to apply if it did.

In that case, if the Citadel Elite ignores the full Dexterity bonus, the Dexterity bonus would be +0. The bonus still exists and is allowed to apply, it just is +0. Hence the Citadel Elite does not gain Sneak Attack if he ignores the full Dexterity bonus.

QED

So yeah.

[Gwendol]

What? The bonus always exists unless you take a penalty or damage to your dex!
If I'm ignoring a bonus to AC of my target (by making a touch attack, for example), then my target is being denied that AC bonus.

[GoatBoy]

I imagine that ten threads like this one, each ten times as long, led to the nerfing of the ability.

Eberron PrC's are more about flavour than power, if you ask me. Once again, I will mention the Thunder Guide in the Explorer's Guide. It has "give university lecture" as a class feature, for Host's sake! In fact, I'm going to change my sig. Right now.

[GoatBoy]

Okay, I mean, right now.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Exactly! I love the flavor. There's so much good here that is tough to accomplish with other classes. Even the entire Complete Scoundrel doesn't go near this flavor. It seems like many books are just about incorporating magic into non-magical classes. But Eberron has many cool flavors, cool ways of doing things. But why nerf it?

I would play a university professor if he had a ton of skills and respectability and such. But not if they nerf him to something a cleric can accomplish with well-selected domains by level 5.

[candycorn]

Thing is, if I deny your argument as I am doing now, the effect is quite different from me ignoring the argument. This goes to show that they are not synonyms. Hence why I said the following:
Yes, they are.

Synonyms don't alway have to mean exactly the same thing.

Fragrance and stench are synonyms, though the connotations are different.

Ignoring your bonus is denying you the ability to use it against you.
Ignoring an argument is denying someone the ability to use it against you.

See that? That's my argument, without all the straw men.

[Morph Bark]

What? The bonus always exists unless you take a penalty or damage to your dex!
If I'm ignoring a bonus to AC of my target (by making a touch attack, for example), then my target is being denied that AC bonus.

You forget one thing:


Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

If you have Dex 11 or less, you don't get a Dex bonus to AC. Does this mean you are denied your Dex bonus to AC? No.

The Citadel Elite ignores an amount of your Dex bonus to AC. Does this mean you are denied your Dex bonus to AC? No.

If he would make a touch attack instead of a normal attack, the target is being denied his armor and shield bonuses yes. If he would make an attack against a flat-footed target, the target would be denied his Dex and dodge bonuses yes. If he would make a non-touch attack against a non-flat-footed target, the target is not denied his Dex bonus.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about "denied =/= ignored". :smallconfused:


EDIT:


I imagine that ten threads like this one, each ten times as long, led to the nerfing of the ability.

Eberron PrC's are more about flavour than power, if you ask me. Once again, I will mention the Thunder Guide in the Explorer's Guide. It has "give university lecture" as a class feature, for Host's sake! In fact, I'm going to change my sig. Right now.

That is awesome. I have honestly never paid any attention to Eberron PrCs. I think I should now.


Yes, they are.

Synonyms don't alway have to mean exactly the same thing.

Fragrance and stench are synonyms, though the connotations are different.

Ignoring your bonus is denying you the ability to use it against you.
Ignoring an argument is denying someone the ability to use it against you.

See that? That's my argument, without all the straw men.

This made me check some online dictionaries, because I've always learned that synonyms are "words that mean the same thing".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/synonym gives me:


syn·o·nym (sn-nm)
n.
1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
2. A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.
3. Biology A scientific name of an organism or of a taxonomic group that has been superseded by another name at the same rank.


con·no·ta·tion (kn-tshn)
n.
1. The act or process of connoting.
2.
a. An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.
b. The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.
3. Logic The set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term; intension.

While I'm busy, might as well look up deny and ignore, that might help us. :smallsmile:


de·ny (d-n)
tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.


ig·nore (g-nôr, -nr)
tr.v. ig·nored, ig·nor·ing, ig·nores
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.

They have similarities, but they are not the same under any of them. I'm guessing you'll argue 4a and 4b, but to me neither one is the same as the definition of ignore, and that is if you want a very RAW reading of the dictionary.

I'm not even sure what straw man argument you mean to refer to, so there there would be an explanation in order.

[Barstro]

In that case, if the Citadel Elite ignores the full Dexterity bonus, the Dexterity bonus would be +0. The bonus still exists and is allowed to apply, it just is +0. Hence the Citadel Elite does not gain Sneak Attack if he ignores the full Dexterity bonus.

I think this is the most concise explanation there is.

In programming, it would be the difference between a value of zero and a value not existing. To humans, they seem the same. In a program, they can wind up being very different.

Ignored means the value exists, but is zero.
Denied means the value doesn't exist.

I think the most telling part is that the bonus isn't automatically completely ignored. In a real world sense, the Citadel Elite knows where his opponent is going to be, so he can get his weapon out there so the defender runs into it (thus, only needs to deal with armor). This is different from dex bonus not existing in the first place, and allowing a precise stab to be made.

But, this is a case where one more sentence should be added to the ability to clarify things.

[GoatBoy]

I would play a university professor if he had a ton of skills and respectability and such. But not if they nerf him to something a cleric can accomplish with well-selected domains by level 5.

I don't care what domains you picked, I ain't paying sh*t for one of your lectures. But the Thunder Guide? That guy is one BAMF. I mean, look at the character art! And even the name, "Thunder Guide." Are you a Thunder Guide? No, you're not. You're a cleric. Lame.

Sarcasm off.

Yes, it's pretty poor design to have this stuff present, and yet not make it appealing for players who want to be as mechanically strong as they can. You might be a "Citadel Elite," but you won't feel very elite with features like the class has. But maybe, just maybe, if reading about it inspires you to build a character who emulates it in deed, if not name, then the class has served its function. Even if no one ever actually takes levels in it.

[candycorn]

Ignored means the value exists, but is zero.
Denied means the value doesn't exist.
Ignored means the value exists, but it is excluded from consideration.
Denied means the value exists, but it is excluded from consideration.

Nothing makes a variable not exist. These things just make that variable not apply.


In both cases, the variable is not used.And in both cases, the variable exists. A target does not cease to have a dexterity modifier, just because you ignore it. It just doesn't factor in.


But, this is a case where one more sentence should be added to the ability to clarify things.
Only if you want it to mean what you're trying to say. If you're trying to actually take it for what it says? Then it's a-ok, and peachy keen.


The Citadel Elite ignores an amount of your Dex bonus to AC. Does this mean you are denied your Dex bonus to AC? No.
INCORRECT. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

It ignores the entire bonus. Then it places a maximum on the ability to ignore.

Practiced spellcaster provides a +4 to caster level. Then it places a maximum on the ability.

By the definition of the feat, practiced spellcaster doesn't "maybe kinda provide a caster level increase, in an amount equal to..."

No. It says it gives +4 CL. That is the default. Then it limits.

Citadel Elite says it ignores the target's Dex. Ignore means that for the purpose of the ability, it is not even in the equation. THEN it places a limit on that.

By default, the entire bonus is ignored. IF, and only if, the bonus exceeds a certain amount, it is not.

This isn't "kinda sorta maybe a bit" wishy washy hour.

It says it ignores dex modifier. There are limits and restrictions, but that is the CRUX of the ability. You are presenting a structurally similar argument that is flawed, and defeating that, rather than the actual text of the ability.

That is the definition of a Straw Man.

That is what people who are wrong do to make themselves seem right.

[The Glyphstone]

Only if you want it to mean what you're trying to say. If you're trying to actually take it for what it says? Then it's a-ok, and peachy keen.

The fact that this thread exists is pretty conclusive evidence that your statement here is false...

[ClothedInVelvet]

The fact that this thread exists is pretty conclusive evidence that your statement here is false...

As the OP, I believe I can speak to why the thread exists.

I found a class feature that, when combined with another class feature, seemed to synergize very well. However, because most of the other synergies for the latter class feature explicitly state that they are synergies (or use language that makes it clear), I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything glaringly obvious.

I'm not a great rules expert, and I often find loopholes that turn out to be nothing because there's a rule somewhere else that precludes it. So I wanted to confirm my suspicion. Then I learned that that Wizards committed first degree murder on this class, and now I can only use it in games where I'm the DM (limiting its role to that of an NPC) and games where the DM has never heard of errata. :smallwink:

[Morph Bark]

Citadel Elite says it ignores the target's Dex. Ignore means that for the purpose of the ability, it is not even in the equation. THEN it places a limit on that.

By default, the entire bonus is ignored. IF, and only if, the bonus exceeds a certain amount, it is not.

This isn't "kinda sorta maybe a bit" wishy washy hour.

It says it ignores dex modifier. There are limits and restrictions, but that is the CRUX of the ability. You are presenting a structurally similar argument that is flawed, and defeating that, rather than the actual text of the ability.

That is the definition of a Straw Man.

That is what people who are wrong do to make themselves seem right.

This is why I mentioned that I do not have the book and quoted ClothedInVelvet's first post, because I, for one, do not wish to be making arguments about something while someone else is arguing about an entirely different thing.

Hence why there was no Straw Man Argument. We were simply arguing different things altogether. I hope you realize that.

[Adamantrue]

Just to clarify something about Dodge bonuses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#dodgeBonus):
Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have. Because of this line, I assume that the "Dodge bonus" is negated first, and then followed by the "Dexterity bonus".

So, assuming an awfully high "Dodge bonus" (say from Combat Expertise & other sources), this ability wouldn't allow a Sneak Attack because the "Dexterity bonus" was never ignored/denied. Correct?

[candycorn]

The fact that this thread exists is pretty conclusive evidence that your statement here is false...

The fact that there is a disagreement is not conclusive evidence that the matter is unclear.

It is conclusive evidence that two people or groups disagree. Anything beyond that is inferring information that is not supported.

There are issues where the rules are ambiguous, or cannot be implemented without additional ruling. Take, for example, the sneak attack requirement that rogues must be able to see and reach an enemy's vitals. No clarification on how that is achieved or prevented. That's an issue that is unclear.

This is an issue where people disagree on the meaning of a word.
Ignore (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignore)
To refrain from noticing or recognizing.

Deny (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deny)
to withhold something from
to refuse to recognize or acknowledge;

In this case, the bonus from dexterity is being withheld from applying to AC for this attack. That is denied.

The rules are not recognizing dexterity in the calculation of AC. They refuse to acknowledge AC with dexterity. That is ignored and denied.

Those are the definitions of the words. They are from an acknowledged credible source. They do not support "ignore still means its there". They support "something that is ignored is not acepted or recognized in any way".

People are trying to make all sorts of arguments against these truths. Those arguments are not founded in rules, or the meanings of the words used. They are merely attempting to justify their opinion, and are presenting disinformation to do it.

[Morph Bark]

Could someone please tell me if the following quote actually states the exact wording of the Citadel Elite ability, and, if it doesn't, give the actual exact wording of it? Because it's what this whole argument prettymuch falls on. If the following is the exact wording, candycorn is incorrect. If it isn't and the whole Dex bonus is ignored when it is lower than the CE's class level, s/he is correct.


"Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel Elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows, learning to anticipate where an opponent will move. The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses."

[Larpus]

Isn't that whole ignore the dodge bonus similar to a touch attack where instead of armor you ignore dodge?

Is there any effect that keys off not having an armor bonus and what its interaction with touch attacks would be? If yes, the answer might be there.

Still, semantics all you want, I honestly can't think of any sane DM who would allow ignore = deny in this case and if he does, prepare to be assaulted by many full teams of Citadel Elite Rogues...

[Gwendol]

If you have Dex 11 or less, you don't get a Dex bonus to AC. Does this mean you are denied your Dex bonus to AC? No.

The Citadel Elite ignores an amount of your Dex bonus to AC. Does this mean you are denied your Dex bonus to AC? No.

If he would make a touch attack instead of a normal attack, the target is being denied his armor and shield bonuses yes. If he would make an attack against a flat-footed target, the target would be denied his Dex and dodge bonuses yes. If he would make a non-touch attack against a non-flat-footed target, the target is not denied his Dex bonus.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about "denied =/= ignored".

The answer to your second question above is "YES" (or rather, YES you are denied CE CL DEX bonus to AC). If someone wields a weapon or has a class feature, or is under the effect of a spell that would allow them to ignore a DEX bonus to AC, then that target is denied that DEX bonus to AC. I mean, you say it yourself in the following sentence using the touch attack analogy: Touch attack=ignore armor and natural armor bonus to AC=target is being denied armor and natural armor bonus to AC.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Could someone please tell me if the following quote actually states the exact wording of the Citadel Elite ability, and, if it doesn't, give the actual exact wording of it? Because it's what this whole argument prettymuch falls on. If the following is the exact wording, candycorn is incorrect. If it isn't and the whole Dex bonus is ignored when it is lower than the CE's class level, s/he is correct.

That is the exact wording, though not the entire thing. There's also an example.

"Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel Elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows, learning to anticipate where an opponent will move. The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses. For example, a 4th-level Citadel Elite fighting a displacer beast (Dex 15, Dodge) in the Depths of Sharn negates its +2 Dex bonus to AC as well as its +1 dodge bonus from the Dodge feat, bringing its total AC from 16 to 14. The same character fighting a hellcat (Dex 21, Dodge) negates 4 points of the creature's +5 Dexterity bonus to AC, and cannot negate its dodge bonus. Thus, he attacks the hellcat as if its AC were 17 rather than 21."

Oh if only command+C, command+v worked for all things.

[Mr.Bookworm]

This is very, very basic. If this were food, it would be the rules equivalent of Gerber's Peas and Carrots. If it were inventions, it would be the lever.


[/b]This is how english works. That is how mechanics work. There are no other moments to applicate. Any claim to the contrary is not supported by the rules.


If semantics are important, then use them correctly.


See that? That's my argument, without all the straw men.


Only if you want it to mean what you're trying to say. If you're trying to actually take it for what it says? Then it's a-ok, and peachy keen.

That is the definition of a Straw Man.

That is what people who are wrong do to make themselves seem right.


People are trying to make all sorts of arguments against these truths. Those arguments are not founded in rules, or the meanings of the words used. They are merely attempting to justify their opinion, and are presenting disinformation to do it.

Candycorn, will you knock it off? You've been rude and confrontational throughout this entire thread, which is completely unnecessary and counterproductive in a debate like this.

You interpret it one way, we interpret it another. Simple as that. Declaring that you are right and your opponents are lying in an attempt to justify their opinions is both dishonest and incredibly rude.

[Morph Bark]

Still, semantics all you want, I honestly can't think of any sane DM who would allow ignore = deny in this case and if he does, prepare to be assaulted by many full teams of Citadel Elite Rogues...

In my head I'm already calling characters using the ignore = deny clause "Citadel Elitists". :smalltongue:


The answer to your second question above is "YES". If someone wields a weapon or has a class feature, or is under the effect of a spell that would allow them to ignore a DEX bonus to AC, then that target is denied that DEX bonus to AC. I mean, you say it yourself in the following sentence using the touch attack analogy: Touch attack=ignore armor and natural armor bonus to AC=target is being denied armor and natural armor bonus to AC.

Could you please give a few examples? The times I've seen these they say "you deny the target their Dex bonus to AC" rather than "you ignore the target's Dex bonus to AC". It's possible I've seen the latter but simply forgotten about it though.

Also, I don't say "Touch attack=ignore armor and natural armor bonus to AC", please do note that.

[The Glyphstone]

The bit of it ignoring Dodge bonuses as well is the clincher to the No side, I'd say.

Let's say a 4th-level Citadel Elite attacks a monster with Dex 12, who is using Total Defense for a +4 Dodge bonus. If he chooses to ignore 4 points of Dodge bonus, obviously there is no sneak attacking. But if he chooses to ignore 3 points of Dodge and 1 point of Dex bonus, suddenly he gets to sneak attack, despite the two attacks being identical in every fashion including their target number to-hit.

[Larpus]

Could someone please tell me if the following quote actually states the exact wording of the Citadel Elite ability, and, if it doesn't, give the actual exact wording of it? Because it's what this whole argument prettymuch falls on. If the following is the exact wording, candycorn is incorrect. If it isn't and the whole Dex bonus is ignored when it is lower than the CE's class level, s/he is correct.
Just checked it, it is indeed worded exactly like that, however the PrC itself is only 5 levels long, so the hard cap for that ignoration is 5.

Not sure if the fact that there's a cap or not makes any actual difference, but if I were the DM I'd rule that since there is a cap, the target is not denied the bonus, you're just getting to bypass it out of sheer last moment reflex (without denying), so you simply don't have the time needed to set up your sneak attack.

If anyone here ever did martial arts, you'll know that while you can in fact still strike someone out of sheer reflex before you actually notice the person moved, that's somewhat of a "lucky blow" in that it usually doesn't happen exactly what you planned or is nowhere as precise as you originally planed it to be.

EDIT: Whoops, no real-life physics on D&D.

[Morph Bark]

That is the exact wording, though not the entire thing. There's also an example.

"Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel Elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows, learning to anticipate where an opponent will move. The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses. For example, a 4th-level Citadel Elite fighting a displacer beast (Dex 15, Dodge) in the Depths of Sharn negates its +2 Dex bonus to AC as well as its +1 dodge bonus from the Dodge feat, bringing its total AC from 16 to 14. The same character fighting a hellcat (Dex 21, Dodge) negates 4 points of the creature's +5 Dexterity bonus to AC, and cannot negate its dodge bonus. Thus, he attacks the hellcat as if its AC were 17 rather than 21."

Oh if only command+C, command+v worked for all things.

Thank you, CIV. :smallsmile:

I'm with Glyphstone's argument on this one.

Plus, I've been thinking throughout this argument that a negative Dex modifier to AC would function quite differently under the various interpretations presented, the only one of which that would make sense would be if "ignore =/= deny". The argument was bigger than that though, but since it wasn't necessary to present, I did not, so it's kinda fallen back in my head. If it comes back up, I'll present it, if anyone would like so or it is necessary.

[GoatBoy]

Could someone please tell me if the following quote actually states the exact wording of the Citadel Elite ability, and, if it doesn't, give the actual exact wording of it? Because it's what this whole argument prettymuch falls on. If the following is the exact wording, candycorn is incorrect. If it isn't and the whole Dex bonus is ignored when it is lower than the CE's class level, s/he is correct.

Technically, this is the exact wording:

"Combat Sense (Ex): At 2nd level, the Citadel elite develops an intuitive ability to avoid danger and gains a +1 insight bonus to Armor Class.
Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows. The character gains a +1 insight bonus on attack rolls. "

The ability everyone is arguing about no longer exists.

Which is probably because it is literally impossible to answer the original question. It might as well be worded, "While Schrodinger's cat is alive, the character gains a +2 bonus to whatever."

No one here is right. No one here is even wrong. The ability is now undefined. Divide by zero. Who blew up Cyre? When will Xoriat come back? Not written anywhere. Answer is immaterial.

The only rule that applies here is rule zero. If you use either interpretation, you're in homebrew territory. Here be dragons. I award you no points, and may the Host have mercy on your soul.

[ClothedInVelvet]

I'm going to try to explain this in a moderate way, because I'm not particularly passionate about this. I hope I don't offend anyone.

When a target is "denied his dexterity bonus," he cannot apply his dexterity bonus to his AC. When the CE attacks, his opponent doesn't get to apply his dexterity bonus to his AC. Whatever you call it, however it looks, this is what happens.

As for the negative bonus argument, I think I can see where it's going. I'll try to head it off by pointing out that the CE can ignore the bonus. He doesn't have to, and conceivably if the negative bonus was large enough, he wouldn't ignore it. But he might if he was going to do +10d6 on a hit.

[Larpus]

Goatboy is completely right, there is an errata on that book.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm going to try to explain this in a moderate way, because I'm not particularly passionate about this. I hope I don't offend anyone.

When a target is "denied his dexterity bonus," he cannot apply his dexterity bonus to his AC. When the CE attacks, his opponent doesn't get to apply his dexterity bonus to his AC. Whatever you call it, however it looks, this is what happens.

As for the negative bonus argument, I think I can see where it's going. I'll try to head it off by pointing out that the CE can ignore the bonus. He doesn't have to, and conceivably if the negative bonus was large enough, he wouldn't ignore it. But he might if he was going to do +10d6 on a hit.

There's no such thing as a 'negative bonus', though - the rules define a negative stat modifier as a 'penalty' instead. So if unless 'ignore =/= deny', a CE could never sneak attack any monster with Dex 8 or lower, because he's only allowed to ignore bonuses, not penalties.

[ClothedInVelvet]

There's no such thing as a 'negative bonus', though - the rules define a negative stat modifier as a 'penalty' instead. So if unless 'ignore =/= deny', a CE could never sneak attack any monster with Dex 8 or lower, because he's only allowed to ignore bonuses, not penalties.

Then no rogue could sneak attack a character with Dex 8 or lower. The sneak attack entry demands that they be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC. Actually, maybe they could always sneak attack someone with Dex 8 or lower because all of them are denied any dexterity bonus to AC.

[The Glyphstone]

Then no rogue could sneak attack a character with Dex 8 or lower. The sneak attack entry demands that they be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC. Actually, maybe they could always sneak attack someone with Dex 8 or lower because all of them are denied any dexterity bonus to AC.

Or be flat-footed, remember.

I'd forgotten about the 'whether they have a Dex bonus or not' clause, but that's as good evidence either way:


The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)

If ignore=deny, then the CE would be able to Sneak Attack any monster, even ones with Dex 20+, because he's ignoring 'a Dex bonus', though not the monster's entire Dex bonus. Every condition in the game that denies Dex-to-AC is an all-or-nothing deal, so this being a variable-scaling effect that might not even ignore their full Dex bonus should seal it.

[Doughnut Master]

It also might be useful to look at other instances of deny vs ignore.

Targets are denied their dex bonus when they are
Blind
Helpless
Flatfooted
Balancing < 5 ranks
Climbing
etc.

All of these are physical limitations imposed upon the defender that limits their abilities to effectively dodge blows. The CE places no limitations upon the defender, but gives the attacker the extra edge.

Yes, the end result is that the defender is effectively denied a dexterity bonus versus that one particular attacker, but the defender's ability to dodge duck dip dive and dodge remains unhindered.

[Piggy Knowles]

Can dictionary definitions become a sort of Godwin's Law for RAW debates? Seriously, every time I see people start pulling out dictionary definitions when arguing over whether or not something is RAW, I know that the conversation has gone way beyond what is reasonable, or what I want to read.

"As a discussion about the Rules As Written grows longer, the probability of someone pulling out a dictionary to refer to a game term approaches 1." That sounds about right.

The ability was errata'd, because it was written stupidly - so stupidly that it is inciting a bunch of seemingly reasonable people to start skimming their dictionaries for any subtle differences between the words "ignore" and "deny."

[dextercorvia]

It also might be useful to look at other instances of deny vs ignore.

Targets are denied their dex bonus when they are
Blind
Helpless
Flatfooted
Balancing < 5 ranks
Climbing
etc.

All of these are physical limitations imposed upon the defender that limits their abilities to effectively dodge blows. The CE places no limitations upon the defender, but gives the attacker the extra edge.

Yes, the end result is that the defender is effectively denied a dexterity bonus versus that one particular attacker, but the defender's ability to dodge duck dip dive and dodge remains unhindered.

Remember that being invisible makes the target of your attack denied their dex bonus just for your attack. That seems fairly comparable to the original CE ability.

[Morph Bark]

Can dictionary definitions become a sort of Godwin's Law for RAW debates? Seriously, every time I see people start pulling out dictionary definitions when arguing over whether or not something is RAW, I know that the conversation has gone way beyond what is reasonable, or what I want to read.

"As a discussion about the Rules As Written grows longer, the probability of someone pulling out a dictionary to refer to a game term approaches 1." That sounds about right.

The ability was errata'd, because it was written stupidly - so stupidly that it is inciting a bunch of seemingly reasonable people to start skimming their dictionaries for any subtle differences between the words "ignore" and "deny."

In my defense, I often check English dictionaries because it's my third language.

Also, I don't ever argue RAW, because it does not exist.

[Keld Denar]

but the defender's ability to dodge duck dip dive and dodge remains unhindered.

Yay Dodgeball reference!

I'm gonna agree with the ignore != deny group. Being "denied your dex" or "losing your dex" is a pretty standard game definition. True, it isn't in the glossary in the back, but several other things aren't either and yet they are explained elsewhere in the book.

You can be "denied your dex bonus" even if you don't have a dex bonus. That alone proves that even if someone reduces the total value of your dex bonus, possibly even to 0, it still isn't "denied", because otherwise creatures with a +0 or lower dex modifier would ALWAYS be "denied" their dex. No, CE simply lowers a foes dex bonus, if it applies, when they try to hit them. Its the same thing as effectively adding +X to your attack roll, where X is equal to your class level or your opponents dex + dodge bonus, whichever is less.


Incorrect. Sneak attack explicitly states that whether the bonus exists is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the bonus would be allowed to apply if it did.
According to your very own quote, you defeat your own arguement. As you said, Sneak Attack doesn't care if the bonus exists. It only cares if you are denied it. CE lowers the bonus. If it lowers it to 0, then the bonus is 0, just the same as it would be 0 for a creature that doesn't have a dex bonus because it has a 10 dex. It doesn't "deny" it, it just changes the effective value. So the CE's foe would get to apply his Dex bonus, that bonus is just 0 (because the CE class ability reduces it).

If anyone is reading too much into the ability, its you.

[Curmudgeon]

That is the exact wording, though not the entire thing. There's also an example.

"Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel Elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows, learning to anticipate where an opponent will move. The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses. For example, a 4th-level Citadel Elite fighting a displacer beast (Dex 15, Dodge) in the Depths of Sharn negates its +2 Dex bonus to AC as well as its +1 dodge bonus from the Dodge feat, bringing its total AC from 16 to 14. The same character fighting a hellcat (Dex 21, Dodge) negates 4 points of the creature's +5 Dexterity bonus to AC, and cannot negate its dodge bonus. Thus, he attacks the hellcat as if its AC were 17 rather than 21."

The bit of it ignoring Dodge bonuses as well is the clincher to the No side, I'd say.

Let's say a 4th-level Citadel Elite attacks a monster with Dex 12, who is using Total Defense for a +4 Dodge bonus. If he chooses to ignore 4 points of Dodge bonus, obviously there is no sneak attacking. But if he chooses to ignore 3 points of Dodge and 1 point of Dex bonus, suddenly he gets to sneak attack, despite the two attacks being identical in every fashion including their target number to-hit.
Since ClothedInVelvet provided the quote including example, we know that the Combat Sense (attack) ability doesn't include a choice about what AC bonuses get ignored in what order: it's always DEX bonus and dodge bonus: the order stated in the ability description.

Also, since the example uses negate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negate) ("to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of") we've got a much closer match to the sneak attack requirement ("any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC") than "ignore".

Of course it's a DM's call because there's no explicit enabling of sneak attack from Combat Sense (attack) ─ if the DEX bonus denied is within the number of Citadel Elite levels, naturally ─ but with the example included it's very close to matching the RAW requirement.

This will still never enable sneak attack if the target has more than +5 DEX bonus, and will deny Craven bonus damage if you get the Citadel Elite levels that high, but it looks well within ordinary DM discretion.

[Adamantrue]

You can be "denied your dex bonus" even if you don't have a dex bonus. That alone proves that even if someone reduces the total value of your dex bonus, possibly even to 0, it still isn't "denied", because otherwise creatures with a +0 or lower dex modifier would ALWAYS be "denied" their dex. No, CE simply lowers a foes dex bonus, if it applies, when they try to hit them. Its the same thing as effectively adding +X to your attack roll, where X is equal to your class level or your opponents dex + dodge bonus, whichever is less.


According to your very own quote, you defeat your own arguement. As you said, Sneak Attack doesn't care if the bonus exists. It only cares if you are denied it. CE lowers the bonus. If it lowers it to 0, then the bonus is 0, just the same as it would be 0 for a creature that doesn't have a dex bonus because it has a 10 dex. It doesn't "deny" it, it just changes the effective value. So the CE's foe would get to apply his Dex bonus, that bonus is just 0 (because the CE class ability reduces it).

If anyone is reading too much into the ability, its you. So, this argument interprets the ability as functioning like the Max Dex Bonus for Armor, where you could have your Dex bonus reduced to Zero by Half Plate, but it doesn't make you vulnerable to Sneak Attacks in and of itself?

[Keld Denar]

Sure, that example accurately reflects my arguement. A character in Half Plate, even if they have a Dex of 12+, receives a total bonus of +0 to their AC, just the same as a person with a +4 Dex mod facing a 4th level CE would receive a total bonus of +0. Neither are "denied their Dex", even though neither get to apply their dex in that situation.

Unless I'm missing something and wearing Half Plate suddenly makes you more vulnerable to Sneak Attacks.

[DoughGuy]

The Citadel Elite prestige class (Sharn) has an ability called Combat Sense.

"Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel Elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows, learning to anticipate where an opponent will move. The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses."My question: Does this mean that a Citadel Elite's attacks are often eligible for sneak attack dice because the target is denied his dexterity bonus?

This is granted the Citadel Elite's class level is higher than the target's dex bonus.

I believe by RAI the sentence about not gaining a bonus inplies that it is the equivalent of a bonus to attack, but instead of a + to the attacker it is a - to the defender.

I would say that the attacker does not get SA damage as there is a possibility for the character to have a dex bonus still if their bonus is high enough. Ignoring a limited amount of something is not the same as denying all of that same thing.

[Curmudgeon]

I would say that the attacker does not get SA damage as there is a possibility for the character to have a dex bonus still if their bonus is high enough. Ignoring a limited amount of something is not the same as denying all of that same thing.
It's exactly the same if negating that limited amount negates all of it. Thus Combat Sense (attack) is a conditional enabler for sneak attack: it's sometimes good enough, and sometimes not. It isn't a simple either/or ability, but then simplicity has never been a D&D game requirement. :smallwink:

[DoughGuy]

I believe that the example using the word "negate" is not meant in the way that you have interpreted it but simply as a way of conveying that a negative modifier is applied to the opponents dex modifier to a minimum of zero. I wouldnt use the word negate since it is not used in the description of the ability, only in an example.

[Keld Denar]

Curmudgeon, what's your take on the half plate example mentioned above? Does any rogue (not a Citadel Enforcer, ANY rogue) get to SA a foe wearing half plate simply for wearing half plate? His Dex bonus is negated by the half plate.

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon, what's your take on the half plate example mentioned above? Does any rogue (not a Citadel Enforcer, ANY rogue) get to SA a foe wearing half plate simply for wearing half plate? His Dex bonus is negated by the half plate.
Absent any other rules, it would. However, since there's an explicit exception provided in the RAW, it does not. From page 122 of Player's Handbook, and also here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm):
Even if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing a Dexterity bonus to AC. For example, a rogue can’t sneak attack a character just because you’re wearing half-plate. There's no similar exception provided for Combat Sense (attack), so the normal rules (i.e., it can enable sneak attack if the number of Citadel Elite levels is sufficient) should apply.

[Doughnut Master]

It's exactly the same if negating that limited amount negates all of it. Thus Combat Sense (attack) is a conditional enabler for sneak attack: it's sometimes good enough, and sometimes not. It isn't a simple either/or ability, but then simplicity has never been a D&D game requirement. :smallwink:


Although, that would go back to the character in full plate being more vulnerable to sneak attack than the character in leather.

[candycorn]

Curmudgeon, what's your take on the half plate example mentioned above? Does any rogue (not a Citadel Enforcer, ANY rogue) get to SA a foe wearing half plate simply for wearing half plate? His Dex bonus is negated by the half plate.

It's not the same.


This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Dexterity-related abilities.

Even if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing a Dexterity bonus to AC.
This explicitly states that it sets the maximum dex bonus to AC to a specific number. It then states that lowering to 0 does not count as losing a dex bonus to AC.

Citadel explicitly ignores Dexterity to AC. Not part of it. Not some of it. Not half of it. ALL of it. That's the default. Then, it limits the ability to a maximum equal to the class levels.


The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC See? Ignore the bonus. Not "partially kinda reduce a bit of it". That's something you all are saying, because, once the limit is established, some dexterity bonus can remain.

to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses.and that's the limit.

So, Ignore the bonus. If the bonus is greater than the allowed amount, then only some of the bonus will be ignored. But the default is: The bonus is ignored.

So, we have Max Dex from armor, which explicitly states it does not count as losing a dexterity bonus.
We have Citadel Elite, which states that the target loses their dex bonus to AC, within limits. It does not state that it doesn't count as losing a dexterity bonus.

There are differences between the two.


Although, that would go back to the character in full plate being more vulnerable to sneak attack than the character in leather.
No, it wouldn't.


Even if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing a Dexterity bonus to AC.No matter what else happens here, this text here explicitly states that what you are saying does not, and can not happen.

Source: Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#maximumDexBonus).

[Curmudgeon]

Although, that would go back to the character in full plate being more vulnerable to sneak attack than the character in leather.
Not as a RAW matter, no, but as a matter of practicality it likely would.

A character in half-plate has armor with MDB of 0. If that character had a +5 DEX modifier, you'd need the maximum 5 ranks of Citadel Elite to be able to negate all of that, even though it's of no benefit to the character's AC. Practically speaking, though, it's rare for someone to have a high DEX bonus and wear armor with an MDB limit that prevents them from benefiting from that DEX bonus. So someone wearing plate armor is more likely to have a low DEX bonus and thus if you've got 4+ levels of Citadel Elite you would probably think plate armor designates a good target for your Combat Sense (attack) ability. That's a reasonable tactical conclusion whether or not you've got sneak attack.

[Doughnut Master]

I see. Although, this ability seems closer to the effects of armor and encumbrance than the things that lead to a sneak-attackable denial of dexterity bonus.

As far as I can tell, while the former are incremental, the latter are binary.

[candycorn]

I see. Although, this ability seems closer to the effects of armor and encumbrance than the things that lead to a sneak-attackable denial of dexterity bonus.

As far as I can tell, while the former are incremental, the latter are binary.

I see it exactly opposite.

One is "ignore dexterity modifier to AC" (citadel), the other is, "you can have dexterity modifier, to a maximum of this" (armor max dex).

One is "even if this reduces the bonus to 0, you aren't denied dex" (armor max dex), the other does not say that, or anything similar.

In order for you to reach an opposing ruling, and equate these similar, you need to ignore these discrepancies.

I'm not in the habit of ignoring rules to determine the rules.

EDIT: On a side note, this would work well with skill tricks and psionic feats that allow you to resolve attacks as touch attacks.

[Keld Denar]

You keep separating that phrase out. I don't think you are allowed to do that. Basically, you guys are turning an ability that looks like its intended to make high dex foes easier to hit into an ability that screws low dex characters. It just doesn't...add up.

[candycorn]

You keep separating that phrase out. I don't think you are allowed to do that. Basically, you guys are turning an ability that looks like its intended to make high dex foes easier to hit into an ability that screws low dex characters. It just doesn't...add up.

You are, and in fact, the rules of english grammar do that.

"Free meal, to a maximum of $25 dollars."
"Free meal" is the benefit.
"to a maximum of $25 dollars" is the limitation on that benefit.

That is how it works.

Also, we are turning an ability that looks like it is intended to negate dexterity into an ability that negates dexterity. The ability doesn't "screw" anyone. It's one more way to get sneak attack dice. Low dex characters have all sorts of ways to become immune to precision damage. This no more screws them than, say, a pixie rogue screws them.

You're overdramatizing the effect this has on game balance. Overall effect, if you use the correct ruling: Sneak attack, an ability with tight restrictions and numerous obstacles to use, becomes a bit easier to use. This has the effect of making it easier to use on low dex creatures, such as giants, and heavy armor characters, in exchange for an investment of several mid to high levels in a Prestige Class.

Overall effect, if you use your ruling: Sneak attack, an ability with tight restrictions and numerous obstacles to use, gains no benefit from a situation that should benefit it, both logically, and by the rules.

Final analysis: Benefit is low for price paid, even under the more powerful (and correct) version. Benefit does not unduly imbalance the game, even under the more powerful (and correct) version.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

This whatyacallit prc doesn't deny Dex to AC. Where did you get that idea? All it's doing is it lowers your opponents Dex bonus to AC for your attacks. An attack bonus basically. Do you deny Dex bonus to AC when your PC gets a bonus to his attack that's greater then your opponents Dex?
The prcs class feature doesn't specifically state that it denies Dex bonus to AC and that's the end of the argument, if you ask me.

[Keld Denar]

What I ment was that you are turning an ability to make a foe easier to hit (by lowering their dex/dodge bonus), into an ability that enables sneak attack without having to meet any of the qualifications. Its almost like persistant Greater Invis, minus the 50% miss chance.

Doesn't that strike you as a little off?

I guess it doesn't matter anyway, since the ability technically doesn't exist anymore. I still stand by my opinions though, and I don't feel like they are any less valid because you disagree with them.

There is a mechanical difference between:
AC = armor + shield + dex

and

AC = armor + shield

even if dex = 0

and that difference is "does this foe qualify for Sneak Attack".

[candycorn]

This whatyacallit prc doesn't deny Dex to AC. Where did you get that idea? All it's doing is it lowers your opponents Dex bonus to AC.

Directly from the text of the ability.

"IGNORES dexterity modifier" - benefit
"to a maximum of" - limit on benefit.

That is not "lower". That's "ignore". It only works the way you state if you physically erase text from the ability, and replace it with text that agrees with you.

What I ment was that you are turning an ability to make a foe easier to hit (by lowering their dex/dodge bonus), into an ability that enables sneak attack without having to meet any of the qualifications. Its almost like persistant Greater Invis, minus the 50% miss chance.While making a foe easier to hit is certainly one benefit of denying someone's dex to AC, it is not the only benefit.

Compare to Pixie. Pixie, a +4 LA template, available at level 4. Ignores Dex to AC (no limit). Host of other SLA's, as well.

Citadel Elite, a 5 level prestige class, available at level 6, and using a highly limited resource (Mid range Character levels): Ignores dex (to a limit of the levels taken). Ignores Dex to AC (limit: +1 per level).


Doesn't that strike you as a little off?Nope. Seems less powerful than current commonly available options, that are allowed at levels earlier than this.


I guess it doesn't matter anyway, since the ability technically doesn't exist anymore. I still stand by my opinions though, and I don't feel like they are any less valid because you disagree with them.And they're no more correct, for the standing.


There is a mechanical difference between:
AC = armor + shield + dex

and

AC = armor + shield

even if dex = 0
Correct. This is the latter. If dex is written in, then it's not being ignored, now is it? It's being recognized.

and that difference is "does this foe qualify for Sneak Attack".Agreed on that point.

What you're not grasping is that this does not "LOWER" dex bonus. It flat out "IGNORES" it. It completely disregards anything it covers.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

That's the first time I see "ignores" used as "denies" in a D&D rulesbook.
Ignores - as in the prcs ability - only up to 5 points of Dex bonus. If it would be +5, then it would be lowered to +0, but it would still be THERE.
Denies - as in that what actually matters for Sneak Attack - gets rid of ALL the Dex bonus, no matter how high it is. It could be +100, but when denied, it is threated as +0 and you're "Denied".
It doesn't matter that the ability "ignores" something. For Sneak Attack only "Denied" or "Flat-footed" matters.


That is not "lower".
Yes it is. Up to 5 points. See? Lower.

[candycorn]

That's the first time I see "ignores" used as "denies" in a D&D rulesbook.
Ignores - as in the prcs ability - only up to 5 points of Dex bonus. If it would be +5, then it would be lowered to +0, but it would still be THERE.No. It wouldn't. That's kinda what "ignore" means. If you write it in, you're not ignoring it. If you write in "bonus = 0", you are recognizing the bonus, which means you are not ignoring it. If you are not ignoring it, and it is within the limits prescribed by the ability, then you are violating the rules.

Denies - as in that what actually matters for Sneak Attack - gets rid of ALL the Dex bonus, no matter how high it is. It could be +100, but when denied, it is treated as +0 and you're "Denied".
Underlined statements are wrong. "no matter how high it is" is never listed as a restriction on sneak attack in the book, and exists only in your own personal opinion. That's not RAW.

Also, when dex is denied, it is not treated as +0. It is not considered at all.

As Keld said, there is a difference between:
10+ 3(armor) + 2(shield) +2 (natural) +0(dex)
and
10+ 3(armor) + 2(shield) +2 (natural)

[Anarchy_Kanya]

That's kinda what "ignore" means.
http://www.answers.com/topic/ignore
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.
Because something is ignored doesn't mean it's not there.

[candycorn]

http://www.answers.com/topic/ignore
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.
Because something is ignored doesn't mean it's not there.

If the attack disregards the dexterity bonus, it is not there.

See, when you take something, reduce it to 0, and include it in the "calculate AC" party, you are REDUCING it, not IGNORING it.

When you take something, throw it out on the lawn, and not let it participate in the discussion at all... THEN you are ignoring it.

See, if it was there? Then it would contribute to AC. It does not.

[Keld Denar]

Whats the difference between:

AC = armor + shield + dex (+0)

AC = armor + shield + dex (+3 with 3 ignored)

AC = armor + shield + dex (+5 with 4 ignored)

and

AC = armor + shield

The last case is when you are flat footed, or balancing. The dex term isn't there. It is denied. This happens if you are balancing, or your foe is invisible, or you are flat footed, whatever.

The first 3 are when you aren't denied your dex. You still have the bonus, its just partially or completely ignored. Even if its +0, its still there, because you haven't been denied it. Just like you aren't denied the dex bonus you'd normally get in half plate (which has a MDB of +0), so long as you don't have another condition that also denies you your dex.

That is the case that I'm arguing. Even if a CE can ignore your dex bonus, you still have it because you haven't met a condition that denies it to you. He just treats it differently. Because you haven't been denied your dex, you don't automatically qualify as "SA-able".

[Anarchy_Kanya]

It's still there.
"Ignores up to 5 points" =/= "Denies".
Grasp the difference between "Ignore" and "Deny", then come back.

[candycorn]

It's still there.

Ok. Someone has a dexterity of 20. They are wearing a mithril breastplate +1, and using a heavy steel shield+2. The character has 2 natural armor, and a +1 ring of protection.

Calculate AC:
10+ 6 (armor) + 4(shield) +2 (NA) + 1(deflection) +5 (dex) = 28

Calculate AC (ignore dex):
10+ 6 (armor) + 4(shield) +2 (NA) + 1(deflection) +5 (dex) = 28

...Buh? No, it can't be in the equation if we get to ignore it.

10+ 6 (armor) + 4(shield) +2 (NA) + 1(deflection) +5 (dex) = 23
THERE we go... That's right now. The bonus to AC is ignored. Not reduced. Not limited. Ignored.

See there.... If it's still there, it's included. Since obviously it's NOT included, and since the ability certainly doesn't say it's reduced to 0, like you keep trying to say, then it's not there. Because it's not recognized when it comes time to calculate AC.


"Ignores up to 5 points" =/= "Denies".
Ignores Dexterity bonus to AC, to a maximum of 5 =/= "ignores up to 5 points".

Use the text of the ability, verbatim, if you're going to try to justify.

Grasp the difference between "Ignore" and "Deny", then come back.
Please be civil.

Ignore (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignore): to refrain from noticing or recognizing
Deny (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deny): to refuse to recognize or acknowledge

To refrain from recognizing
To refuse to recognize.

Hm.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

To refrain from recognizing - It's still there.
To refuse to recognize - It's not there.

Hm.


Please be civil.
Believe me, I am.

[candycorn]

To refrain from recognizing - It's still there.
To refuse to recognize - It's not there.

Buh? Really? Ok, I'm disregarding future posts from you. If you're not going to have the courtesy to justify the difference between:
"it's not recognized" and "it's not recognized"
with something more than just "it's there" and "it's not there" without so much as an ounce of rationalization, or explanation for the... interesting brand of logic you seem to be using...

Then I will just assume that your statements are unsupported intentionally.
And if you cannot do us the courtesy of supporting your statements with actual reason, logic, and fact...

...then I will not take the effort to dispute them with anything other than:
You're wrong.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Ignore - to refrain from noticing or recognizing;
overlook; slight, disregard, neglect - ergo, it is still there.
Deny - to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true;
to refuse to agree or accede to;
to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of;
to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of;
to refuse to recognize or acknowledge;
dispute, controvert, oppose, gainsay. Deny, contradict both imply objecting to or arguing against something. To deny is to say that something is not true - ergo, it's not there.


You're wrong.
No u.

[candycorn]

Ignore - to refrain from noticing or recognizing;
overlook; slight, disregard, neglect - ergo, it is still there.
Deny - to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true;
to refuse to agree or accede to;
to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of;
to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of;
to refuse to recognize or acknowledge;
dispute, controvert, oppose, gainsay. Deny, contradict both imply objecting to or arguing against something. To deny is to say that something is not true - ergo, it's not there.


No u.

Requoting the same source text, with the same complete lack of explanation or reasoning, does not qualify as explanation.

Armor Class is, quite simply, the number that an attacker must roll to hit you. That is in the rules. In this case, that number does not include the bonus from dexterity.

Therefore, if an attack gets to ignore a bonus, then that bonus is not considered in determining the target number that must be hit. If it were "there", as you seem to insist, without logic or reasoning, then it would contribute to AC, and thus, ignoring the bonus would merely be a pointless denial of reality.

Since it is not, I must conclude that the only denial of reality is occurring in your reasoning. This functions 100% identical to Spell Turning. Right down to the part where something is only partially turned/ignored.

It is not there in both cases. If you wish to make a case otherwise, then MAKE A CASE. Give an explanation. Without an explanation and support, there is no credibility.

[Morph Bark]

:smallconfused: This is still going on? And here I thought the simplicity of it was bared already.


Citadel explicitly ignores Dexterity to AC. Not part of it. Not some of it. Not half of it. ALL of it. That's the default. Then, it limits the ability to a maximum equal to the class levels.

See? Ignore the bonus. Not "partially kinda reduce a bit of it". That's something you all are saying, because, once the limit is established, some dexterity bonus can remain.
and that's the limit.

So, Ignore the bonus. If the bonus is greater than the allowed amount, then only some of the bonus will be ignored. But the default is: The bonus is ignored.

Bolded the part that matters.

It does not ignore all of it, see the exact wording ClothedInVelvet posted:


That is the exact wording, though not the entire thing. There's also an example.

"Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel Elite applies the same intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well as avoiding blows, learning to anticipate where an opponent will move. The character does not gain a bonus on his attack roll, but he can ignore the target's Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC, to a maximum of the character's class level in total bonuses. For example, a 4th-level Citadel Elite fighting a displacer beast (Dex 15, Dodge) in the Depths of Sharn negates its +2 Dex bonus to AC as well as its +1 dodge bonus from the Dodge feat, bringing its total AC from 16 to 14. The same character fighting a hellcat (Dex 21, Dodge) negates 4 points of the creature's +5 Dexterity bonus to AC, and cannot negate its dodge bonus. Thus, he attacks the hellcat as if its AC were 17 rather than 21."

Oh if only command+C, command+v worked for all things.

Isn't this a straw man like you mentioned earlier?


Also, let it be known that I far from agree with Anarchy Kanya's ways here.

[candycorn]

If you would like further evidence:
Disregard (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disregard): to pay no attention to; leave out of consideration; ignore


Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.When something is disregarded (ignored), then that means that such bonus is not included, by RAW text.

Not "kinda sorta maybe reduced".
Not "there, but 0".
Not "ergo, it's there"

Not included. When you buy a remote control, and batteries are not included, there aren't a couple dead batteries in the case. They're NOT THERE.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

What does touch attack has to do with denying Dex bonus to AC? :smallconfused:

Re: Reasoning
It was already pointed out by others. You just chose to ignore it. Let me put it for you in simple words, one last time:
When you ignore something, you still acknowledge its existence.
When you deny something, you don't acknowledge its existence, it's not there for you.

[candycorn]

What does touch attack has to do with denying Dex bonus to AC? :smallconfused:

Re: Reasoning
It was already pointed out by others. You just chose to ignore it. Let me put it for you in simple words, one last time:
When you ignore something, you still acknowledge its existence.
When you deny something, you don't acknowledge its existence, it's not there for you.

Simple. Touch attacks are an example of what happens when the rules ignore a bonus.

It is not included.
It goes so far as to actually state that in very simple, very direct terms.

If you ignore something, you do not acknowledge it in any way. Your reasoning is flawed.

It is flawed because you cannot deny existance, only application. Dexterity modifiers exist. When you are flat-footed, blind, cowering, and successfully feinted... You still have a dexterity modifier. It still exists.

It just does not apply to AC.

When you disregard, or ignore something, you do not include it. You leave it out of consideration (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disregard).

Deny is used in multiple ways. I am denying your argument. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. I'm saying it's not correct.
I can deny someone a license. That doesn't mean that licenses don't exist. Only that that person doesn't get one.
I can deny someone passage. That doesn't mean that passage doesn't exist.
Only that I am not allowing someone to do it.
I can deny dexterity to armor class. That doesn't mean that dexterity modifiers don't exist.
Only that it cannot be used to calculate armor class.

Just like disregarding, or ignoring it. You are attempting to misuse a word out of context, and you compound that with incorrect reasoning.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Ignore =/= Deny.

As you seem to not understand that, further discussion is pointless.

[candycorn]

Ignore =/= Deny.

As you seem to not understand that, further discussion is pointless.

Disregard = Ignore
Disregard = Leave out of consideration.

Therefore, if we ignore a dexterity modifier to AC, we disregard it. We leave it out of consideration. When we add all our little pluses and minuses, we do not add that one. It's not there.

It's not "ergo, it's there". It's explicitly stated that, in that calculation, it is left out.

You can say what you like about equal, and not equal.

It does not make you correct.

I understand your point.

Your point, however, is wrong.

Deny, in this context, means "disallow". It disallows the bonus from being applied.
Ignore, in this context means "leave out". It disallows the bonus from being applied.

In this case, in this context, they are functionally identical.

As a matter of fact, there's no indication that it allows reduction at all.

Ignore dex to AC. Maximum for this=PrC Level.

Dex modifier 1, PrC level = 4. Within maximum, bonus ignored.

Dex modifier 6, PrC level =4. Not within maximum, cannot be ignored.

A globe of invulnerability cannot stop a 6th level spell, and does not reduce it. The class states that it ignores dexterity modifiers. It states the limit to that ability to ignore. If the modifier exceeds that limit, then the ability cannot ignore it. It doesn't "partially ignore it". It doesn't "ignore some of it".

Either it does, or it doesn't.

[HunterOfJello]

Why has this thread gotten to its 4th page? The description was obviously written badly and not considered properly in the context of precision damage abilities.

Regardless of the text of Sharn: City of Towers, the entire class was errata'd on the wotc website (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a), as mentioned on the first page. The wotc staff obviously agreed with all of you that the writing is too haphazard to be understood clearly by all readers and killed the class.


Page 164: Citadel Elite
The Citadel elite’s combat sense ability should be
changed as follows:
Combat Sense (Ex): At 2nd level, the Citadel elite
develops an intuitive ability to avoid danger and gains a
+1 insight bonus to Armor Class.
Beginning at 4th level, a Citadel elite applies the same
intuitive sense to striking opponents in combat as well
as avoiding blows. The character gains a +1 insight
bonus on attack rolls.
In addition, the Citadel elite does not get any bonus
feats.

This thread is 3 pages past being pointless.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Find me a quote in a rulebook that says "ignoring Dex bonus to AC gives you Sneak Attack damage".


Why has this thread gotten to its 4th page? The description was obviously written badly and not considered properly in the context of precision damage abilities.

Regardless of the text of Sharn: City of Towers, the entire class was errata'd on the wotc website (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a), as mentioned on the first page. The wotc staff obviously agreed with all of you that the writing is too haphazard to be understood clearly by all readers and killed the class.



This thread is 3 pages past being pointless.
We aren't allowed to discuss hypothetical rule issues?

[ClothedInVelvet]

I too am surprised this is on its forth page. But I guess we come to forums to discuss minute details that will only matter in the rarest of rare circumstances (someone plays a rogue/Citadel Elite in a game that ignores errata).


Anyway, I think the emphasis on ignore =?= deny is a bit misplaced. In the example, the word negate is used. Does that sway anyone's perspective?

Because I'm caught up in the methodology of the thread:

Negate: nullify, make ineffective, deny the existence of...

[candycorn]

Find me a quote in a rulebook that says "ignoring Dex bonus to AC gives you Sneak Attack damage".

Find me a quote in a rulebook that says "denying dexterity modifier to AC means that the dexterity modifier does not exist".

The entry in the SRD for sneak attack does not use reserved game terms. When a target denied dexterity modifier to AC... in other words, when a character is not allowed to add their dexterity modifier to AC.

Normally, permission exists to add dexterity modifier to AC. Some rule effects revoke that permission. That is what is being denied. The permission no longer exists to add dexterity to AC. And that is what "denied dexterity" means. They are disallowed permission to add it. It can't deny the existence of a dexterity modifier. Nothing does that. Even something with a nonability for dex has a -5 modifier. All it can do is deny permission to apply it.

When you ignore it, it is not added. That is the same thing.

Trying to reduce my argument to a statement like that is strawmanning. Good day to you. Best of luck in your future endeavours. As the ability does not exist, there is no further point debating this with you.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Anyway, I think the emphasis on ignore =?= deny is a bit misplaced. In the example, the word negate is used. Does that sway anyone's perspective?
Yeah, no. That's part of an example and not the rules text.


Find me a quote in a rulebook that says "denying dexterity modifier to AC means that the dexterity modifier does not exist".
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#armorClass

Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, nothing happens.)
Which means you don't have it in that particular instance.
Now it's your turn to provide your quote.

[candycorn]

Which means you don't have it in that particular instance.
Now it's your turn to provide your quote.

No. You still HAVE it. You just can't USE it.

There is a difference.

Say I buy a computer. I take it to my house, only to find out that I have a power outage.

Does my computer cease to exist, because I cannot use it? No. It exists. I have it.

You are making a leap between "cannot use this" and "this does not exist".

That is unsupported.

[Morph Bark]

Anyway, I think the emphasis on ignore =?= deny is a bit misplaced. In the example, the word negate is used. Does that sway anyone's perspective?

It sure did matter to me, though it only solidified my perspective.


I too am surprised this is on its forth page. But I guess we come to forums to discuss minute details that will only matter in the rarest of rare circumstances (someone plays a rogue/Citadel Elite in a game that ignores errata).

Same here. So while the two lovebirds continue their song, let's just talk about something else:

Ponies!

[ClothedInVelvet]

I do love that this discussion is already 1,000,000 times more technical than the original sources. I know this will throw more fuel on the fire, but I can't help pointing it out.

I quote from SRD:
"Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, nothing happens.)"

We're arguing over how much of a distinction there is between negate, deny, and ignore. And SRD uses "you can't use your Dexterity bonus". I hope next time they write a rulebook, they'll realize how it's going to be used.

As for other subjects:
Goblins (http://www.goblinscomic.com/) updated!
So did Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal (http://www.smbc-comics.com/). And now I'm sad that I don't have a retractable beard.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I think I know why touch attacks "ignore" armor and natural armor, but Dex must be "denied". It's quite simple, basic logic pretty much:
You can't deny your opponent his armor or natural armor bonus. You would have to somehow make them physically disappear. You have to ignore it. It's still there, but you strike past or through it.
On the other hand you can deny your opponent his Dex bonus by simply surprising him or using a special ability.


Say I buy a computer. I take it to my house, only to find out that I have a power outage.

Does my computer cease to exist, because I cannot use it? No. It exists. I have it.
A computer is a physical thing. A Dex bonus is not. If you can't use it, it practically does not exist.

[candycorn]

I think I know why touch attacks "ignore" armor and natural armor, but Dex must be "denied". It's quite simple, basic logic pretty much:
You can't deny your opponent his armor or natural armor bonus. You would have to somehow make them physically disappear. You have to ignore it. It's still there, but you strike past or through it.
On the other hand you can deny your opponent his Dex bonus by simply surprising him or using a special ability.

Armor bonuses are not something physical or tangible.
A heavy shield provides a +2 Shield bonus.
The bonus is not the shield. The bonus is +2, and it applies to armor class. The bonus cannot physically disappear, because the bonus is nothing more than a number. That's what bonuses are. Numbers.
When you deny someone their dexterity modifier, it's still there. They just cannot use it. A surprised character with an 18 dexterity still has an 18 dexterity. They still have a dexterity modifier of +4. They just cannot use it.

Again, your "simple, basic logic" is flawed.

[ClothedInVelvet]

I think I know why touch attacks "ignore" armor and natural armor, but Dex must be "denied". It's quite simple, basic logic pretty much:
You can't deny your opponent his armor or natural armor bonus. You would have to somehow make them physically disappear. You have to ignore it. It's still there, but you strike past or through it.
On the other hand you can deny your opponent his Dex bonus by simply surprising him or using a special ability.


I told myself I wouldn't get heavily involved here, but this seems a bit... out there. You're trying to come up with ways to make a distinction? That's probably unnecessary. And now we're getting into practical matters.

If I am superman (faster than a speeding bullet), and I can move so quickly that my entire strike occurs before you can blink (reflex save DC 1,000), can I make a sneak attack?

I would say so. I'm not removing your dexterity bonus, I'm just ignoring it because I'm moving so quickly.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I would say so. I'm not removing your dexterity bonus, I'm just ignoring it because I'm moving so quickly.
Surprise round. Opponent is flat-footed. That constitutes Sneak Attack damage.


Armor bonuses are not something physical or tangible.
An armor bonus comes from an armor. It is physical and tangible object, right?

[ClothedInVelvet]

Surprise round. Opponent is flat-footed. That constitutes Sneak Attack damage.

Sure, but the rules only specify one surprise round at the beginning of combat. What if I trade a few rounds of blow/parry with him first.

[candycorn]

Surprise round. Opponent is flat-footed. That constitutes Sneak Attack damage.


An armor bonus comes from an armor. It is physical and tangible object, right?

Light comes from light bulbs. That means that light is physical and tangible, then?

Ideas come from people. Are ideas physical and tangible?

Dodging comes from muscles moving. Is dodging tangible?

Flawed logic. Again.

Just because an armor bonus represents armor does not mean that the bonus is physical, any more than the imaginary armor your imaginary character wears is. It's a conceptual representation of the protection that armor provides in a game system. It is a mathematical value. No more, no less.

By the rules, bonuses aren't 35 pounds of chain links. They are positive modifiers. They are numbers. That's it.

Any attempt to state otherwise is misinformation.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Sure, but the rules only specify one surprise round at the beginning of combat. What if I trade a few rounds of blow/parry with him first.
I don't know why I even bothered... Aren't you going into extremes here? Supermans superspeed is beyond scope of a D&D character. In D&D you have to somehow acquire abilities or feats that enable you to make your opponent flat-footed. Maybe Superman has them all? His obviously an epic level character. Or he has a homebrew special power called superspeed?


Just because an armor bonus represents armor does not mean that the bonus is physical, any more than the imaginary armor your imaginary character wears is. It's a conceptual representation of the protection that armor provides in a game system. It is a mathematical value. No more, no less.
You take away the armor and the armor bonus goes away. Funny, huh?
And check again that post your so hung up on, because I corrected a slight misunderstanding. Or nevermind, I quote it:

You can't deny your opponent his armor or natural armor bonus. You would have to somehow make them physically disappear.
It was quite obvious from the context that I meant actual armor and not just the numbers.

[candycorn]

You take away the armor and the armor bonus goes away. Funny, huh?


That's correct. As I said: That BONUS (the numerical modifier that applies to armor class) represents the protection that the Armor gives.

That doesn't mean that the bonus IS the armor, any more than the light IS the lightbulb. Bonuses are numbers used in simple comparative mathematical operations. Denying a bonus does not mean that the bonus does not exist. It just means that it does not apply. Denying an armor bonus is not denying the armor. It's denying the protection that the armor provides. Armor provides no protection against a touch attack. The bonus is disregarded. It is not considered in calculations.

And check again that post your so hung up on, because I corrected a slight misunderstanding.

You'll need to be a bit more specific, as I have taken exception with every flawed post you've made here.


It was quite obvious from the context that I meant actual armor and not just the numbers.
In that case, it's irrelevant, as the actual armor doesn't get added to anything. Armor is what you wear. Armor bonuses are what make it harder to hit you.
Saying that the armor bonus cannot be denied because the armor is physical is flawed. No matter how you phrase it, these rules are not ignoring armor, or agility. They're ignoring bonuses. And every bonus is equally intangible. They're all just numbers. Saying you can ignore one intangible thing and not another because this one represents something imaginary that is really there?

That's what you're going with?

Really?

[Anarchy_Kanya]

You can't deny your opponent his armor or natural armor bonus. You would have to somehow make them physically disappear.
It was quite obvious from the context that I meant actual armor and not just the numbers. so, yeah, you can stop with your strawmans now.
I'm still waiting on that rules quote.

[candycorn]

It was quite obvious from the context that I meant actual armor and not just the numbers. so, yeah, you can stop with your strawmans now.

It's not a strawman. You're arguing that you can can't deny an armor bonus (which is a number), because the imaginary armor that the number represents is physically there.

You can't deny that in the imaginary construct that is the game, the armor is there. But the armor bonus exists outside of that. It is an abstract number, used by players. The fighter may wear chainmail, but he doesn't know of it's +4 bonus to armor class. That only exists OUTSIDE of the game.

You are using in game differences that don't extend out of game to justify an incorrect opinion of out of game differences.

It's like saying that a turtle can outrun a person on land because it swims faster in the water.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I'm still waiting on that rules quote...

[candycorn]

I'm still waiting on that rules quote...

You point out anything official that says "cannot use" = "does not exist", and I'll get it for you, right away.

And not the other way around. If something does not exist, it cannot be used, but just because something cannot be used does not mean it doesn't exist.

In other words, all baseballs are round, but not all round things are baseballs.

Regardless of what you like to say about "ignore" and "deny", the text is, if the dexterity bonus "cannot be used". If the armor class cannot receive benefit from the character's dexterity modifier, it cannot be used. Modifiers have one purpose. To be used in mechanical calculations. If they cannot apply to those, then they cannot be used.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

You point out anything official that says "cannot use" = "does not exist", and I'll get it for you, right away.

And not the other way around. If something does not exist, it cannot be used, but just because something cannot be used does not mean it doesn't exist.

In other words, all baseballs are round, but not all round things are baseballs.
No quote then. Go figures.

[candycorn]

"Sometimes you can't use your dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexterity bonus to AC."

This is the only determining factor for denying dexterity to AC. It is functionally identical to ignore, in this context. If you wish to tout context, while constructing your house of cards on a liferaft, on the open ocean, in a hurricane, validate your own text to the rigor you expect of mine.

It cannot be done, because your arguments contain more holes than a sponge. And each time I point one out, you move on, without admitting the flaw, to another point.

This is pointless. This is irrelevant. You don't adhere to common courtesy, either in debate or civility. You seem to enjoy dirty comments and digs at people more.

I have time for neither.

Good bye.

[Partysan]

Sorry guys but I'm with the no SA croud here.

If I deny you the use of your dexterity bonus, it means you are not dodging better because you are more dextrous. You still are more dextrous but you can't use it to dodge better. It's YOU who is not dodging better, because you are denied the use of the ability.

If however I ignore your dexterity bonus you are still dodging better, I just don't care. I neutralize your better dodging (or part of it) with an ability of my own. In that case the difference lies in me, not you.

The fluff of the ability seems to support this. The enemy still dodges better, but you are smart enough to anticipate their evasive moves and still hit them. It doesn't say they can't dodge, just that you can hit them anyway.

[Adamantrue]

It CANNOT be the same as denying a Dex bonus, and Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#dodgeBonus) is why:
Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have.
For example, a 4th-level Citadel Elite fighting a displacer beast (Dex 15, Dodge) in the Depths of Sharn negates its +2 Dex bonus to AC as well as its +1 dodge bonus from the Dodge feat, bringing its total AC from 16 to 14. The same character fighting a hellcat (Dex 21, Dodge) negates 4 points of the creature's +5 Dexterity bonus to AC, and cannot negate its dodge bonus. Thus, he attacks the hellcat as if its AC were 17 rather than 21. The Displacer Beast in the example had its Dex bonus reduced, but was able to keep its Dodge bonus (which had to be reduced as well). As such, his Dex bonus was still allowed to apply, it was just reduced to Zero.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Oh yeah. Good points. :D
There's also this gem (which I didn't notice earlier because I'm stupid :smallredface:):
"Sometimes you can't use your dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexterity bonus to AC."
When Citadel Elite ignores a part of his enemies Dex bonus, his enemy can still react to blows, the Elite is just smart enough to not care about it.

[Curmudgeon]

It CANNOT be the same as denying a Dex bonus, and Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#dodgeBonus) is why: The Displacer Beast in the example had its Dex bonus reduced, but was able to keep its Dodge bonus. As such, his Dex bonus was still allowed to apply, it was just reduced to Zero.
You misread that. The DEX bonus still applied because it was reduced to one, not zero.

[Adamantrue]

So...if the Hellcat's Dex was reduced to Zero, it wouldn't be allowed to apply its Dodge bonus? Then why bother mentioning negating the Displacer Beast's Dodge bonus, when it had its Dex already negated? The CE still had to negate the Dodge bonus.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Closed For Review