Is there a clarification to shatter defenses?

[Elric VIII]

Shatter defenses (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shatter-defenses-combat---final) reads "any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. This includes any additional attacks you make this round."

Now, the way it reads to me is that any opponent that is both [shaken, frightened, or panicked] and [hit by you this round] is made flat-footed. However, it has been brought up to me that it can also be read as any opponent that is [hit by you this round] while [shaken, frightened, or panicked] is made [flat-footed]. Obviously, the former is more powerful than the latter.

Just to make it clear:

[X] = [shaken, frightened, or panicked]
[Y] = [hit by you this round]
[Z] = [flat-footed]

Scenario I: If [X] and [Y], then [Z].

Scenario II: If [Y] while [X], then [Z].


Which is the correct interpretation? Has there been any official word on this?

[Necromancy]

I think the idea here is to intimidate first, then once you hit them they become flat footed.

Seems situational to me, but pathfinder is full of garbage feats

[AnonymousPepper]

I think the idea here is to intimidate first, then once you hit them they become flat footed.

Seems situational to me, but pathfinder is full of garbage feats

Doesn't seem that bad, although it'd be way more useful if enemies were also flat-footed to everyone until the start of your next round.

Even so, pairs quite nicely with an Inquisitor, I'd think.

[BladeofObliviom]

I've found it solid, if situational for a core-only rogue, particularly if you want to land sneak attacks without relying on flankers or actual stealth. I once ran a Half-Orc Rogue with a pair of shortswords, taking advantage of dazzling display and the regular demoralize action to toss on the shaken status before tearing into my foes. It's not exactly gamebreaking, but it's certainly sort of cool to play Batman; using the fear of your enemies to weaken them and leave them vulnerable to a few well-placed blows.

As for the OP's question, I don't know if it's been further clarified. I've always used the stronger of the two interpretations as a GM though.

[Elric VIII]

Doesn't seem that bad, although it'd be way more useful if enemies were also flat-footed to everyone until the start of your next round.

Even so, pairs quite nicely with an Inquisitor, I'd think.

That's my plan. Inquisitor with enforcer and eventually quickening blistering invective will be nice alongside this. I just wanted to know if the feat was any good on its own or if it needed a lot of support. Scenario I seems like the most consistent with the language used, but one thing I've learned from D&D is that what is said and what is meant (and clarified in errata) has no correlation.

[Andreaz]

That's my plan. Inquisitor with enforcer and eventually quickening blistering invective will be nice alongside this. I just wanted to know if the feat was any good on its own or if it needed a lot of support. Scenario I seems like the most consistent with the language used, but one thing I've learned from D&D is that what is said and what is meant (and clarified in errata) has no correlation.It needs support only in the sense that you need a practical way to Shaken enemies. Enforcers, Cornugon Smashers, Black Seraph disciples and their ilk can do it seamlessly with the usual combat routines, so for them it's strong.

It also works better the more people get it. If inducing fear is reliable, everyone can take the three feats and enjoy the benefits even if they didn't cause the fear in the first place. Be mindful there are plenty enemies outright immune to fear, so if you aren't a Dread of a Black Seraph stylist you'll find your combo somewhat flawed.

[Elder_Basilisk]

It needs support only in the sense that you need a practical way to Shaken enemies. Enforcers, Cornugon Smashers, Black Seraph disciples and their ilk can do it seamlessly with the usual combat routines, so for them it's strong.

It also works better the more people get it. If inducing fear is reliable, everyone can take the three feats and enjoy the benefits even if they didn't cause the fear in the first place. Be mindful there are plenty enemies outright immune to fear, so if you aren't a Dread of a Black Seraph stylist you'll find your combo somewhat flawed.

I'd say limited rather than flawed. Just because trip doesn't work on fliers or gelatinous cubes does not mean a trip fighting style is flawed; it just needs that you need more than one strategy. The same is true for Shatter Defenses. It obviously takes some effort to make it work (and may or may not be worth that effort) but not working on every foe is a limitation rather than a flaw. Every tactic other than "just hit it and do damage" is limited in some ways by what foes it works on.

[Segev]

It looks to me like the "[x] while [y]" requirement is the right one.

As worded, it says "Any [x] opponent [y] by you..." This construction indicates that you're applying the additional condition of "flat-footed" to an already [x] opponent when you [y] them.

While you can interpret it the other way, it is a stretch of the context. The way such a situation is more likely to be worded if intended to allow you to treat anybody who you've hit who later becomes shaken et al as flat-footed is: "Any opponent you have hit this round is flat-footed as long as they are [x]."

The wording as provided implies you need to hit an [x] opponent to apply the flat-footed condition.

Now, you can make the argument either way; I just think that this is more clearly RAI as well as RAW, rather than merely RAW, given how it's worded. Since there's potential ambiguity, "ask your DM," is the only real answer. But if I were DMing, I'd rule it as I outlined, for the reasons I outlined.

[Barstro]

Shatter defenses (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shatter-defenses-combat---final) reads "any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. This includes any additional attacks you make this round."


[X] = [shaken, frightened, or panicked]
[Y] = [hit by you this round]
[Z] = [flat-footed]

I think your formula is incorrect.
[X] = [shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent] ie; opponent is the object, and shaken, frightened, or panicked is a status that the object must already have.
IF X AND Y THEN Z (But even that is logically wrong, because it implies that X and Y can happen in either order. Y should be simply "hit")

Either way, your second scenario is the correct one.

While you have not said it or even implied it, I will state for people who find this post in the future; Flat-footedness is only in relation to you, not anyone else.

[Feint's End]

Agree with the 2 posters above me. It should be the second one. Makes sense by RAW and RAI. First mentally weakening your foe and then slicing them to pieces.

[Psyren]

Now, the way it reads to me is that any opponent that is both [shaken, frightened, or panicked] and [hit by you this round] is made flat-footed. However, it has been brought up to me that it can also be read as any opponent that is [hit by you this round] while [shaken, frightened, or panicked] is made [flat-footed]. Obviously, the former is more powerful than the latter.


Maybe I'm tired but I'm really not grokking what the difference between these two constructions is supposed to be. The feat is straightforward - if an opponent is feared (Sh,Fr,Pa) and you hit them, they're treated as flat-footed for the rest of that turn and all of your next one (whether you hit them again or not.) If you full-attack, the first hit will trigger it and the remaining hits get the bonus.

[Elric VIII]

I think your formula is incorrect.
[X] = [shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent] ie; opponent is the object, and shaken, frightened, or panicked is a status that the object must already have.
IF X AND Y THEN Z (But even that is logically wrong, because it implies that X and Y can happen in either order. Y should be simply "hit")

Either way, your second scenario is the correct one.

While you have not said it or even implied it, I will state for people who find this post in the future; Flat-footedness is only in relation to you, not anyone else.

Well, the "opponent" part is implied in all variables, so I just left it out. To be thorough, I should have said [opponent hit by you], [shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent], and [opponent is flat-footed]. Since the entire formula is my relation to the opponent. That it could happen in any order is what I am questioning. From a reality standpoint, I could see shaking the courage of a real person by either intimidating them, then hitting them or hitting them, then intimidating them. However, from a D&D standpoint, I know that lots of useless and nearly do-nothing feats exist (I mean, if you play truenamer by RAW, there's a feat that makes it harder to use your class features :smalltongue: ).



Maybe I'm tired but I'm really not grokking what the difference between these two constructions is supposed to be. The feat is straightforward - if an opponent is feared (Sh,Fr,Pa) and you hit them, they're treated as flat-footed for the rest of that turn and all of your next one (whether you hit them again or not.) If you full-attack, the first hit will trigger it and the remaining hits get the bonus.

For the first one, "feared and hit" implies that the events can happen in either order. As I said above, it does make sense to me that it could occur in such a way. The second one requires them to be feared before the hit occurs.

What you are saying is "if an opponent is first feared (Sh,Fr,Pa) and then you hit them..." The lack of conjunctive adverbs makes it open-ended. I deduced your meaning from the example you provided, but such an example is not provided for the feat.

As I said, D&D feats fall everywhere on the spectrum between pile of garbage (hello toughness) and the most powerful thing ever (remember item familiars).

[Psyren]

They have to have had the condition before you hit them in order for SD to trigger. It will apply to any hit you land after they have the condition, but not retroactively.

[Barstro]

Well, the "opponent" part is implied in all variables, so I just left it out.

By leaving it out, you lost the meaning. You cannot hit a shaken opponent if the opponent is not shaken yet.

As Psyren said, it cannot be done retroactively.

[Elric VIII]

By leaving it out, you lost the meaning. You cannot hit a shaken opponent if the opponent is not shaken yet.

As Psyren said, it cannot be done retroactively.

Correct, but you can have an opponent who is shaken and has been hit by you in the same round. It does not really lose the meaning because the language leaves out the temporal indicators. Regardless of the order of the events, it is possible to have someone who is both [an opponent who is shaken] and [an opponent who has been hit by you] at the end of your round. What is not possible both ways is to have [a shaken opponent that has been hit by you]. Do you see what I mean? the presence of the word "and" in the feat makes it so that [X] & [Y] = [Y] & [X] without conjunctive adverbs (words like next, then, also, furthermore, etc).

I do appreciate the help, but it seems like I'm just getting opinions. Obviously the opinion of the DM (after considering my arguments) would be sufficient for me to accept the ruling.

[Psyren]

Do you see what I mean?

I'm sorry, but I really don't. Again, the feat is straightforward.

If you disagree with what I wrote in #13, please elaborate on why and we can go from there.

[Barstro]

I think the problem is that you are reading "hit" to mean "that was hit", allowing for the condition to come later in the round. I see nothing to suggest that it can be that way. You must hit an opponent who already had the condition when you land the hit.

EDIT

Regardless of the order of the events, it is possible to have someone who is both [an opponent who is shaken] and [an opponent who has been hit by you] at the end of your round.
And that is the point that Psyren and I have said about it. Shatter Defenses so clearly states that the Opponent must already be under the condition when you hit him that we have trouble understanding how you can interpret it differently.

But, your DM will be the decider.

[mashlagoo1982]

Maybe I'm tired but I'm really not grokking what the difference between these two constructions is supposed to be. The feat is straightforward - if an opponent is feared (Sh,Fr,Pa) and you hit them, they're treated as flat-footed for the rest of that turn and all of your next one (whether you hit them again or not.) If you full-attack, the first hit will trigger it and the remaining hits get the bonus.

I'm with you on this one... I see no difference between the two statements.

Both state the condition the opponment must be in [shaken, frightened, or panicked] and what must be done [hit by you this round] to trigger the desired outcome [made flat-footed].

[Segev]

The argument - which I am not espousing - goes that the target must:

1) Be hit by you this round
2) Have one of the list of conditions which includes shaken

This would thus mean that you could hit somebody, they could become Shaken due to something else, and then they're flat-footed.

The obvious way that definitely works under all interpretations presented is that they are shaken, then you hit them, and they thus become flat-footed.

The question is whether you can reverse the order of applying "hit this round" and "shaken."

I would rule "no," as a DM, but I can see - though not agree with - the contrary argument. It is technically readable in the RAW, even if it does not seem to be supported by the context in which the RAW is written.

[Psyren]

I think the problem is that you are reading "hit" to mean "that was hit", allowing for the condition to come later in the round.

Ah, I see now. Yeah this is clearly not what they meant; RAI is given by the feat description:


Your skill with your chosen weapon leaves opponents unable to defend themselves if you strike them when their defenses are already compromised.

"Already" = "had the condition prior to being struck." This is what allows the feat to trigger.

[Elric VIII]

Ah, I see now. Yeah this is clearly not what they meant; RAI is given by the feat description:



"Already" = "had the condition prior to being struck." This is what allows the feat to trigger.


Yeah, this part is what actually gives the feat some temporal perspective. I did notice this yesterday.

I appreciate the discussion.