How powerful is Uncanny Dodge Really?

[Diarmuid]

A scenario came up in my last game where my (DM) opinion and that of one of the players contradicted on how something works. As should generally happen, my opinion was used for the scenario in question, but I also agreed to give it some further thought/investigation.

The player in question has Uncanny Dodge, which is described below (he is a Warblade, but the verbiage is the same except for mentions of specific Class names)



Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if he is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. If a barbarian already has uncanny dodge from a different class, he automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead




Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.


This hasnt been an issue at all for surprise rounds, or when he cant see his foes as those are clearly spelled out as examples of when this defense is applicable. What wasnt as obvious was the case of the character being Feinted against, and later I added Grappling (vs those not in the grapple) as another problematic occurrence.

To me, the ability doesnt read as "you can never be denied your dex bonus unless immobilized, and here's a couple examples of when that would apply". That's how the player is interpreting it, and I can see that reading applied to how it's written. I just dont necessarily agree and thing it reads "you arent denied your dex, even in these specific instances when you normally would be".

I'm no despot and I recognize it as a decent grey area so I was curious to get peoples' opinions on the interpretation and how they play it at their tables.

[Sacrieur]

That's exactly what it means, that's why it's uncanny.

"Before her senses would allow her to do so..."

Means, pretty effectively, that the character need not be aware of the danger. I realize this bit is fluff but it really spells out the spirit of the rule and prevents from people interpreting against the RAW. I believe the reason it was added was as a balancing mechanism for classes which wear lighter armor as a way of balancing out the fact people who wear heavy armor get a huge bonus to their AC when flat-footed and against invisible attackers. In this sense, it's not overpowered, and one of the best implemented class features in the game that's perfectly balanced.

[Psyren]

Feint and Grapple do not count as things Uncanny Dodge can beat.

The key thing your player needs to keep in mind is that "being flat-footed" and "being denied your Dexterity bonus to AC" are not the same thing. Flat-footed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#flatFooted) is a very specific condition with very specific causes - not acting yet in combat and balancing without 5 ranks in balance for instance. It does not refer to every single instance where you lose your Dex bonus to AC.

Being flat-footed causes you to lose your Dex bonus to AC, but the reverse is not true.

[OldTrees1]

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so.
Fluff justification for the effect.

She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.
The effect. Two specific causes for losing your Dex bonus to AC that this ability makes you immune to.

However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.
Apparently unneeded non sequitur clarification sentence. Sentence 2 did not mention a general case that immobilization would be a specific exception to nor mention immobilization specifically.

Now that is where RAW ends and Common Sense begins.

Remember that 1st sentence? If we continue to list the scenarios that fit the fluff of that 1st sentence we quickly exceed the 2 specific scenarios mentioned in the 2nd sentence while still not contradicting the 3rd sentence. So it is not a large leap for the DM(specifically the DM) to decide to houserule more specific scenarios to be covered by Uncanny Dodge.

In conclusion:
The player is wrong, Uncanny Dodge has a smaller mechanical scope than they thought. However the DM can and may or may not expand the mechanical scope in accordance to the fluff.

[The Viscount]

Why on earth wouldn't uncanny dodge negate feinting or grappling? Feinting denies Dex to AC, and Uncanny Dodge allows you to retain Dex to AC. It's clear cut. If they meant Uncanny Dodge to only apply to flatfooted, they would say "when flatfooted" instead of "even when flatfooted."

Related though, Uncanny Dodge cannot protect you from savage grapple.

[Sacrieur]

Feint and Grapple do not count as things Uncanny Dodge can beat.

I guess it's just too poorly worded for most people to make sense of. There should be a comma before the "even if".

"even if (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/even_if)" does not imply the following clause is a necessary condition.

"if (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if)" is ambiguous whether the following clause is a necessary condition (at least in everyday language).

[Psyren]

Why on earth wouldn't uncanny dodge negate feinting or grappling? Feinting denies Dex to AC, and Uncanny Dodge allows you to retain Dex to AC. It's clear cut. If they meant Uncanny Dodge to only apply to flatfooted, they would say "when flatfooted" instead of "even when flatfooted."

This does not necessarily follow - you can also interpret "even when flatfooted" as "being flatfooted is typically a heavily disadvantageous situation for other characters, but you even beat that. Go you!"

To read it your way is like reading "Even when struck by magic or magic weapons, an incorporeal creature has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source" to mean "all weapons have a 50% chance to harm incorporeals, not just magic ones."


I guess it's just too poorly worded for most people to make sense of. There should be a comma before the "even if".

"even if (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/even_if)" does not imply the following clause is a necessary condition.

"if (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if)" does imply the following clause is a necessary condition (at least in everyday language).

Agreed, it's one more example of poor editing in 3.5 for the pile. *Tosses*

[Sacrieur]

Actually if you have reservations OP, just modify the improved feint feat (which isn't all that great in the first place), to allow the attacker to bypass uncanny dodge (or any variant thereof, such as denying them half their dex bonus).

[Diarmuid]

Well, I guess it was too much to hope for an overwhelming swing to a single view point, heh.

@Psy - The confusion isnt denied dex =| flat - footed. It's whether the ability flatly prohibits all non-immobilization related denials of dex.

@Others - I guess I'm just too used to seeing black and white in code and computer rules. If it simply prohibits all non-immobilization denials of dexterity, then I would think the "even XYZ or ABC" would be completely superfluous and unnecessary, so since they are there they are to provide further clarification.

I wouldnt say to someone, "Hey, you got your driver's license..now you can operate motor vehicles, even cars and trucks".

Now, I may be injecting too much logic into a piece of work (PHB) that everyone will agree is filled with potential contradictions, unclear verbiage, etc. Hence, why I wanted to broach the subject and get a broader opinion on. I'm happy for the responses and will keep reading for more input.


Taking it a bit further...is "immobilized" even a defined status condition? What is/isnt immobilized? Is being tied up immobilized? If so, why isnt being grappled? Both restrict your ability to move, but both can be removed via a physical check of some sort. Pinned is the only status I can find that specifically uses the word "immobile".

[Korilith]

I always read that differently. There are lots of ways to lose your dex bonus to AC, including being immobilized. My reading of this feature limits the way that the character can lose their dex bonus to AC (if any) to only being immobilized.

[OldTrees1]

I guess it's just too poorly worded for most people to make sense of. There should be a comma before the "even if".

"even if (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/even_if)" does not imply the following clause is a necessary condition.

"if (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if)" is ambiguous whether the following clause is a necessary condition (at least in everyday language).

You are correct about "even if" vs "if" but while a comma would be good it is not sufficient to clear up the wording. The ability gives an immunity to a number of things and then specifies that number is at least 2(the 2 it specifically names). But while RAW does not explicitly say there are only 2, neither does it say there are more than 2. Given what we know about RAW, this is where RAW stops and RAI, common sense, and DM rulings take over using the 1st sentence as a guide. However we are no longer in RAW territory at that time (which is good since RAW is insufficient in unspecified cases).

[Diarmuid]

My question wasnt necessarily about "what is the exact RAW interpretation" but more the "how do people actually use/implement this at their tables".

The discussion on the whole is good, but the intention certainly wasnt to get into a RAW vs RAI debate.

[Psyren]

The PHB provides more color around this topic on page 137, in the combat rules:

"Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity."

If it meant it was to stop all instances of being denied Dex, it wouldn't have added the bold qualifier of "due to being flat-footed." It would have simply stopped at "avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC", or possibly added something like "including being flatfooted."


My question wasnt necessarily about "what is the exact RAW interpretation" but more the "how do people actually use/implement this at their tables".

The discussion on the whole is good, but the intention certainly wasnt to get into a RAW vs RAI debate.

But one generally follows from the other. How folks interpret the line it is more or less what they implement at their tables; hence the debate.

[Sacrieur]

My question wasnt necessarily about "what is the exact RAW interpretation" but more the "how do people actually use/implement this at their tables".

The discussion on the whole is good, but the intention certainly wasnt to get into a RAW vs RAI debate.

I only play Pathfinder, which is reworded and much more clear because of it.

But if I were to house rule it, I would just modify the improved feint feat to bypass it, which seems fair. Note that the pathfinder version explicitly mentions that it doesn't protect against feint.

[Diarmuid]

Sac, thanks so much for that insight. PF's version is exactly how I interpreted the 3.5 version. There's still a little grey area in that one for Grappling, but I think the wording is very specific about when it applies, and then gives one example of when it wouldnt and other scenarios would fall under that.

This still leaves a little ambiguity about what actually comprises "being immobilized", but I think that's a much easier cat so skin than the original issue.

[TheCrowing1432]

Yet another RAW vs RAI.


I believe it was intended for Immobilization to be the only cavet against Uncanny dodge.


But the wording is written in such away that it seems that Flat Footed and Invisible Attackers are the ONLY things that Uncanny Dodge protects against, instead of Everything except Immobilization.

[Sacrieur]

Sac, thanks so much for that insight. PF's version is exactly how I interpreted the 3.5 version. There's still a little grey area in that one for Grappling, but I think the wording is very specific about when it applies, and then gives one example of when it wouldnt and other scenarios would fall under that.

This still leaves a little ambiguity about what actually comprises "being immobilized", but I think that's a much easier cat so skin than the original issue.

So about grappling, a character with uncanny dodge would retain their Dex bonus while grappling (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#grappling) until they become pinned (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#pinned). I think it's one of the things that's more clear on the matter.

[The Viscount]

The PHB provides more color around this topic on page 137, in the combat rules:

"Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity."

If it meant it was to stop all instances of being denied Dex, it wouldn't have added the bold qualifier of "due to being flat-footed." It would have simply stopped at "avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC", or possibly added something like "including being flatfooted."

But that quote doesn't mention invisible attackers, which are mentioned in the main description of Uncanny Dodge, so it can't really clarify. I read it as mentioning flatfootedness since it's in a section on flatfooted. We're left at the beginning.


As for immobilization I don't think they well defined it in the PHB, pinning seems a sensible time to apply that. Sepia Snake Sigil immobilizes, but nobody uses that. Immobilized was introduced as a condition later, though.

[OldTrees1]

My question wasnt necessarily about "what is the exact RAW interpretation" but more the "how do people actually use/implement this at their tables".

The discussion on the whole is good, but the intention certainly wasnt to get into a RAW vs RAI debate.

Oh.
Personally I would expand Uncanny Dodge to include other cases. Those with Uncanny Dodge tend to need buffs anyways and buffing Uncanny Dodge is an easy addition. I would look at what PCs my players are playing before deciding on the Uncanny Dodge vs Feint issue of course. No reason to accidentally nerf those that don't need nerfing.

[Venger]

Feint and Grapple do not count as things Uncanny Dodge can beat.

The key thing your player needs to keep in mind is that "being flat-footed" and "being denied your Dexterity bonus to AC" are not the same thing. Flat-footed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#flatFooted) is a very specific condition with very specific causes - not acting yet in combat and balancing without 5 ranks in balance for instance. It does not refer to every single instance where you lose your Dex bonus to AC.

Being flat-footed causes you to lose your Dex bonus to AC, but the reverse is not true.

I think I see the issue here. You are reading "even if" as an exhaustive list, meaning it only gives you immunity to losing dex while flat-footed and by an invisible attacker.

If that were true, then the second clause about losing dex while "immobilized" (not a real condition at the time the PHB was written, so meaningless) would be a non sequitur. It is there meaning that it applies any time that you would be denied your dex except when "immobilized" (which presumably means if you're paralyzed or something)

the examples of flatfoot and hit by an invisible enemy are just examples.

a few inches up, evasion says rogues can use it to dodge "even magical and unusual attacks." that doesn't mean that if an attack is nonmagical and not unusual, like a flame trap, that a rogue cannot dodge it with evasion. you don't read it this way, so you shouldn't read uncanny dodge this way either.


This does not necessarily follow - you can also interpret "even when flatfooted" as "being flatfooted is typically a heavily disadvantageous situation for other characters, but you even beat that. Go you!"
Right, that's what it's saying because "flatfooted and invisible enemy" is a non-exhaustive list. this is the point the viscount is making.


The PHB provides more color around this topic on page 137, in the combat rules:
color ≠ RAW

but yeah, the general consensus is not to nerf the weakest classes in the game so, uh, don't do that. let them have dex sometimes, it won't let them outshine casters, really.

[Psyren]

(not a real condition at the time the PHB was written, so meaningless)

Back up - why would you think this? "Poisoned" isn't on the condition list (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) either, does that mean it's impossible to be poisoned?

Not every term needs to have a game definition separate from the common sense one in order to be relevant to the game. At some point you do reach the end of the line and have to break out the dictionary.



a few inches up, evasion says rogues can use it to dodge "even magical and unusual attacks." that doesn't mean that if an attack is nonmagical and not unusual, like a flame trap, that a rogue cannot dodge it with evasion. you don't read it this way, so you shouldn't read uncanny dodge this way either.

So then nonmagical weapons do 50% damage to incorporeal creatures? Because that language uses "even" too, as I cited above.



color ≠ RAW

It is RAW, I literally gave you the page reference, come on mang.



but yeah, the general consensus is not to nerf the weakest classes in the game so, uh, don't do that. let them have dex sometimes, it won't let them outshine casters, really.

Who said anything about casters? :smallconfused:
I'm not nerfing anyone, I'm interpreting it the way I always have. From my perspective there is no change.

[falloutimperial]

In normal circumstances, all characters retain their dexterity bonus to AC. There are some effects that make characters lose their dexterity bonus to AC. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their dexterity bonus to AC, just like normal characters, and the ability lets them do so even if they are flatfooted or attacked by an invisible enemy.

Retaining your dexterity bonus to AC is an ability everyone has.


a few inches up, evasion says rogues can use it to dodge "even magical and unusual attacks." that doesn't mean that if an attack is nonmagical and not unusual, like a flame trap, that a rogue cannot dodge it with evasion. you don't read it this way, so you shouldn't read uncanny dodge this way either.

That clause is part of the fluff. The next sentence reads "If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage."

[TheIronGolem]

Oh.
Personally I would expand Uncanny Dodge to include other cases. Those with Uncanny Dodge tend to need buffs anyways and buffing Uncanny Dodge is an easy addition. I would look at what PCs my players are playing before deciding on the Uncanny Dodge vs Feint issue of course. No reason to accidentally nerf those that don't need nerfing.

I would count those poor souls trying to make Feint work as a combat tactic among those who don't need nerfing.

Uncanny Dodge is a little lackluster, to be sure, but the fix is not letting it shut down [what should be] a perfectly good combat maneuver.

[The Viscount]

Back up - why would you think this? "Poisoned" isn't on the condition list (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) either, does that mean it's impossible to be poisoned?

Not every term needs to have a game definition separate from the common sense one in order to be relevant to the game. At some point you do reach the end of the line and have to break out the dictionary.



So then nonmagical weapons do 50% damage to incorporeal creatures? Because that language uses "even" too, as I cited above.



It is RAW, I literally gave you the page reference, come on mang.



Who said anything about casters? :smallconfused:
I'm not nerfing anyone, I'm interpreting it the way I always have. From my perspective there is no change.

I'll address the points in order.

First: Immobilized is odd because the rest of the entry is worded in terms of defined game terms. It would be helpful to guide us to how immobile is immoble, since evasion for example mentions the rogue must be helpless.

Second: The Incorporeality is a poor example. Yes, it mentions "even." However, this follows a line that says simply "It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms." This informs the second line. Uncanny dodge is the first line; we can't refer to anything else, except the rest of the entry. I'll admit it isn't clear, but I question your certainty.

Third: You gave a page reference, but no indication of its supremacy over the original text. If you want that entry (which is secondary to the primary description of uncanny dodge) to supercede, then do you believe that uncanny dodge does not defend against invisibility? Because it doesn't mention. I know I'm repeating myself, but I literally gave it to you before. Come on mang.

Fourth: If you decrease the number of things uncanny dodge defends against, you are reducing the defensive power of rogues, barbarians, and associated other mundanes. This is nerfing them.

[Venger]

Back up - why would you think this? "Poisoned" isn't on the condition list (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) either, does that mean it's impossible to be poisoned?
No, because I never said that. We aren't talking about poison, we're talking about uncanny dodge.


Not every term needs to have a game definition separate from the common sense one in order to be relevant to the game. At some point you do reach the end of the line and have to break out the dictionary.
When a conversation turns to the dictionary definition of words, any exchange on views regarding RAW has been tapped out.


So then nonmagical weapons do 50% damage to incorporeal creatures? Because that language uses "even" too, as I cited above.
Again, I never actually said that because we're not talking about incorporeal creatures. we're talking about uncanny dodge, so rules on two unrelated things are not relevant.



Who said anything about casters? :smallconfused:
I'm not nerfing anyone, I'm interpreting it the way I always have. From my perspective there is no change.
you did. like fumble rules, this hurts mundanes and leaves casters unscathed. they don't care about uncanny dodge. barbarians and rogues and such do, not wizards and clerics.

sure, I never said there was. your game to your game: sure no change. RAW to your game, there's a change, because uncanny dodge now only works in two very specific circumstances.

[Psyren]

No, because I never said that. We aren't talking about poison, we're talking about uncanny dodge.

Actually, you were saying "immobilized" isn't a "condition," which is true. However, that doesn't make it "meaningless."



When a conversation turns to the dictionary definition of words, any exchange on views regarding RAW has been tapped out.

Which is fallacious, because RAW eventually relies on you to know at least some definitions outside the game in order to work. For example, what is wind?



Again, I never actually said that because we're not talking about incorporeal creatures. we're talking about uncanny dodge, so rules on two unrelated things are not relevant.

Actually, you were saying the use of "even" means that the part before that is inclusive, which I demonstrated isn't always the case.



you did. like fumble rules, this hurts mundanes and leaves casters unscathed. they don't care about uncanny dodge. barbarians and rogues and such do, not wizards and clerics.

So what? My goal here isn't the mundane pity-party, it's interpreting the text that WotC wrote.



sure, I never said there was. your game to your game: sure no change. RAW to your game, there's a change, because uncanny dodge now only works in two very specific circumstances.

The point of this discussion is that we are interpreting RAW. Not "my game."

[Curmudgeon]

Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.
The "even if" construction is vague. The situations specifically mentioned are included, but whether situations not mentioned are also included is unclear.

If your Bluff check result exceeds your target’s Sense Motive check result, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
We don't have a RAW answer, so it has to be a DM's call. My personal approach is to decide based on relative power. Uncanny Dodge is low-to-middling in terms of effectiveness. Feinting, on the other hand, is distinctly weak. Best efforts with all the options in the game let you feint as a free action (Invisible Blade Uncanny Feint) but still only once per round, and all the feinter's investment in Bluff is automatically opposed by the enemy's BAB even if they haven't any Sense Motive ranks. So, even though Rogue is my favorite class, it's fairer to give primacy to the feinter.

[KoDT69]

As far as the whole "grappling = immobilized" I would disagree on this premise: Even though you are in a physical struggle, does not expressly mean that you are stationary. On the contrary you may be in constant motion, fighting for leverage or whatever. A super skilled Rogue or Barbarian may very well be able to maintain a grapple and still have some form of mobility and awareness of other threatening enemies. The caveat emptor being if you are definitely LOSING a grapple and are being pinned or locked-down in some specifically stated manor. Regardless if RAW or RAI support this, I have seen it in real life.

[nyjastul69]

As far as the whole "grappling = immobilized" I would disagree on this premise: Even though you are in a physical struggle, does not expressly mean that you are stationary. On the contrary you may be in constant motion, fighting for leverage or whatever. A super skilled Rogue or Barbarian may very well be able to maintain a grapple and still have some form of mobility and awareness of other threatening enemies. The caveat emptor being if you are definitely LOSING a grapple and are being pinned or locked-down in some specifically stated manor. Regardless if RAW or RAI support this, I have seen it in real life.

The rules clearly state that when in a grapple one is not immobilized. One can move a grapple with the appropriate checks.

[Curmudgeon]

The rules clearly state that when in a grapple one is not immobilized. One can move a grapple with the appropriate checks.
Being pinned is part of being in a grapple.
If You’re Pinned by an Opponent

When an opponent has pinned you, you are held immobile (but not helpless) for 1 round.

[nyjastul69]

Being pinned is part of being in a grapple.

I don't understand your point. Because one is grappled does not make one pinned. Maybe I misread what was being referenced to.

Edit: As usual, you are correct. Mea Culpa.

[ace rooster]

It seems pretty clear cut to me. A character retains their dex to ac if flat footed or struck by an invisible attacker. Any other condition that denys dex still works.

Edit: And by works I mean that it still denys dex.

The clause about immobilisation is required because of that guy (you know the one) who would insist that uncanny dodge lets them add dex to AC against attacks by invisible attackers even if immobilised, despite the fact that they would lose their dex to AC against from non invisible opponents. That guy could (and probably would) still argue that feints don't work against uncanny dodge if they are flat footed, even though they do if they are not. :smallsigh:

It would allow you to retain your dex to AC against an invisible grappler, but you would still lose it against attackers outside the grapple.

The third uncanny dodge from assassin clarifies it further by putting the subclause in brackets.



Uncanny Dodge (Ex)

Starting at 2nd level, an assassin retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) regardless of being caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. (He still loses any Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.)

If a character gains uncanny dodge from a second class the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below).



As for how powerful it is, it completely shuts down most ranged sneak attack builds. Skirmish and the like also produce dodge bonuses which require dex to AC to function, which makes retaining it important. It doesn't counter active attempts to deny dex, but it does get rid of most of the situations where your defenses don't work as an unintended side effect of an encounter.

[Andreaz]

I let uncanny dodge protect against feint, but not grapple. Feinting is, after all, tricking you so you don't quite see where the attack's coming from.
Uncanny dodge lets you react despite your senses.

[Sacrieur]

It seems pretty clear cut to me. A character retains their dex to ac if flat footed or struck by an invisible attacker. Any other condition that denys dex still works.

See my earlier post about "if" vs. "even if". I'll give you some examples:

"You should take out a better insurance policy even if you think you're a safe driver."

This does not mean that you should take out a better insurance policy only if you're a safe driver, it's saying you should do it regardless of whether or not you think you're a safe driver. There's a comma that should be added to improve clarity, but that's what the sentence means. "Even if" is an adverb and not a conjunction.

"You should take out a better insurance policy if you're an unsafe driver."

This means exactly what you're reading. Note that it is ambiguous about whether or not you should take out a better insurance policy or not if you're an unsafe driver, just that if you are, you should. If I wanted to mean that you should only take out a better policy if you're an unsafe driver then I would use the phrases "only if" or "if and only if".



The clause about immobilisation is required because of that guy (you know the one) who would insist that uncanny dodge lets them add dex to AC against attacks by invisible attackers even if immobilised, despite the fact that they would lose their dex to AC against from non invisible opponents. That guy could (and probably would) still argue that feints don't work against uncanny dodge if they are flat footed, even though they do if they are not. :smallsigh:

Feints don't work against Uncanny Dodge. I don't know how you could think they do other than the fact you believe they should.



It would allow you to retain your dex to AC against an invisible grappler, but you would still lose it against attackers outside the grapple.

The third uncanny dodge from assassin clarifies it further by putting the subclause in brackets.

You're not immobile while grappling. That's why the pinned condition exist which explicitly says you're immobile. It mentions this in several places in the PHB.

---

I'll go ahead and write a dissertation about why Uncanny Dodge is not overpowered.

First things first, it SHOULD be worded, "She always retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized, such as being pinned or helpless."

The way Uncanny Dodge works is that you permits the Barbarian and Rogue to keep their AC high in regular combat situations so they can realistically compete with fighters who wear heavy armor. This said, heavy armor still has its own advantages and disadvantages.

The first advantage of heavy armor is that you can use it for free, in most cases. The classes that do use it give it to you as a free proficiency so it doesn't even take up a class feature. Uncanny Dodge is a whole class feature. The second is that heavy armor is far less expensive than having a high Dex bonus. Since having a similar AC bonus with Uncanny Dodge and a chain shirt requires a Dex score of 18. The third is that you keep this armor bonus even if immobilized.

The advantage of Uncanny Dodge, then, is that you can retain a higher movement speed. Another is that you can't be sneak attacked as easily.

It's really a very fair trade off between agility and defense. I made a chart to illustrate the differences:




Condition
Heavy Armor
Uncanny Dodge
Dex Alone


Blinded
✔
✔




Checked
✔
✔
✔


Cowering
✔
✔



Dazed
✔
✔
✔


Dazzled
✔
✔
✔


Disabled
✔
✔
✔


Entangled
✔
✔
✔


Flat-Footed
✔
✔



Vs Feint
✔
✔



Grappling
✔
✔
*


Helpless
✔




Vs Invisible
✔
✔



Paralyzed
✔




Pinned
✔




Stunned
✔





* Dex bonus is retained against opponents in the grapple.

[The Viscount]

As for the assassin uncanny dodge, that is indeed quite clear. The question now arises whether it should be viewed as a clarification to uncanny dodge or a separate kind that works slightly differently. I'm for the first, but I don't know how the RAW works here.

[ace rooster]

See my earlier post about "if" vs. "even if". I'll give you some examples:

"You should take out a better insurance policy even if you think you're a safe driver."

This does not mean that you should take out a better insurance policy only if you're a safe driver, it's saying you should do it regardless of whether or not you think you're a safe driver. There's a comma that should be added to improve clarity, but that's what the sentence means. "Even if" is an adverb and not a conjunction.


To extend your example further, what if you don't have a car? If we take as our initial statement to be

"you should take out a better insurance if you have a car and are not a safe driver"

And then modify it by

"You should take out a better insurance policy even if you think you're a safe driver."

By your interpretation everyone should get insurance whether they have a car or not. The reason it doesn't work that way is because there is an implied statement that applies to everyone.

"You retain your dodge bonus to AC (except when you don't)."

and uncanny dodge modifies it by removing two specific items from the "(except when you don't)" list. "Even if" can narrow the scope of a sentence as well as clarify or expand it.




Barbarian and assassin uncanny dodge function the same as each other (though worded differently), and the same as one interpretation of the rogue ability, and all three explicitly stack levels. This implies to me that they are intended to have the same function. Secondly, for the rogue version to grant dex to AC against everything, anytime, it would be worded more strongly. I know RAI =| RAW, but if RAW is not clear (which it is not given we are having this discussion) then RAI does become important.

[OldTrees1]

To extend your example further, what if you don't have a car? If we take as our initial statement to be

"you should take out a better insurance if you have a car and are not a safe driver"

And then modify it by

"You should take out a better insurance policy even if you think you're a safe driver."

By your interpretation everyone should get insurance whether they have a car or not. The reason it doesn't work that way is because there is an implied statement that applies to everyone.

"You retain your dodge bonus to AC (except when you don't)."

and uncanny dodge modifies it by removing two specific items from the "(except when you don't)" list. "Even if" can narrow the scope of a sentence as well as clarify or expand it.
Your last part's intended meaning was ambiguous, so you may or may not have been saying what I am about to say.

Consider:
"you should take out a better insurance if you have a car even if you are a safe driver"
Reasonable sentence
"you should take out a better insurance even if you are a safe driver"
Does not imply getting better insurance if you don't have a car. Nor does it state you should get better insurance if you are not a safe driver. Nor does it state you should not get better insurance if you are not a safe driver.

Hence we learn that the form "[statement], even if [condition]" leaves "if not [condition], then [statement]/not [statement]" unspecified. One might even say we learned why it is unspecified(the dropped "if [condition]" clause).

[ace rooster]

Your last part's intended meaning was ambiguous, so you may or may not have been saying what I am about to say.

Consider:
"you should take out a better insurance if you have a car even if you are a safe driver"
Reasonable sentence
"you should take out a better insurance even if you are a safe driver"
Does not imply getting better insurance if you don't have a car. Nor does it state you should get better insurance if you are not a safe driver. Nor does it state you should not get better insurance if you are not a safe driver.

Hence we learn that the form "[statement], even if [condition]" leaves "if not [condition], then [statement]/not [statement]" unspecified. One might even say we learned why it is unspecified(the dropped "if [condition]" clause).

Apologies, I think you misunderstood what I meant (which was saying pretty much the same as you), and so disagreed with me, and then I misunderstood what you were saying because I thought you were of the opposite opinion, and disagreed with you. :smallredface:



Incidently, there is nothing in the grapple rules about a pinned target being denied their dex to AC against grappling attackers. They lose their dex to AC against attackers outside the grapple, but this happens anyway. Against other grapplers you take a -4 to AC from the pin, but nothing says you lose dex. Given that the only definition of immobile I can find is in spell targeting and includes grapplers anyway (and doesn't say that you lose dex as a function of being immobile, though all examples do cause it), I don't see anything to suggest that you lose dex in addition to the -4 penalty.

[OldTrees1]

Apologies, I think you misunderstood what I meant (which was saying pretty much the same as you), and so disagreed with me, and then I misunderstood what you were saying because I thought you were of the opposite opinion, and disagreed with you. :smallredface:

You lost me.

You and Sacrieur were arguing. Your argument revolved around "even if". I responded to one of your posts in that argument. So at most I could have misunderstood what you meant and rephrased what you meant. There was not enough interaction yet for what you just described there(you described a 3 post chain when only 2 posts occurred).

So to make a stab at verifying: Is your position that Uncanny Dodge's wording lacks specificity as to what does and does not get ignored? If so, then I agree with you.

[ace rooster]

You lost me.

You and Sacrieur were arguing. Your argument revolved around "even if". I responded to one of your posts in that argument. So at most I could have misunderstood what you meant and rephrased what you meant. There was not enough interaction yet for what you just described there(you described a 3 post chain when only 2 posts occurred).

So to make a stab at verifying: Is your position that Uncanny Dodge's wording lacks specificity as to what does and does not get ignored? If so, then I agree with you.

Oh, right that makes more sense. I was thinking I was talking to one person.

No that is not my position. My position is that 99% of the time characters retain their dex to AC. Hit by poison, you retain your dex to AC. Even injured characters retain their dex to AC. In short, the default statement is that characters retain their dex to AC. There are special cases that modify this default, such as flat footed or invisible attackers or grappling, and these are more specific and so trump the general rule. Uncanny dodge further modifies two of these conditions, and is more specific for these two conditions. "you retain your dex to AC" is the general rule anyway, and then overruled by conditions, so simply stating it again explicitly does not make it more specific than rules denying dex to AC. Any rules denying dex to AC are more specific except in the two cases explicitly mentioned, and so are used.

In order for uncanny dodge to be more specific it would need to say something like "you retain your dex to AC in all conditions except immobility".

[Sacrieur]

Oh, right that makes more sense. I was thinking I was talking to one person.

No that is not my position. My position is that 99% of the time characters retain their dex to AC. Hit by poison, you retain your dex to AC. Even injured characters retain their dex to AC. In short, the default statement is that characters retain their dex to AC. There are special cases that modify this default, such as flat footed or invisible attackers or grappling, and these are more specific and so trump the general rule. Uncanny dodge further modifies two of these conditions, and is more specific for these two conditions. "you retain your dex to AC" is the general rule anyway, and then overruled by conditions, so simply stating it again explicitly does not make it more specific than rules denying dex to AC. Any rules denying dex to AC are more specific except in the two cases explicitly mentioned, and so are used.

In order for uncanny dodge to be more specific it would need to say something like "you retain your dex to AC in all conditions except immobility".

"Before her senses would allow her to..."

In your version, a rogue would lose their Dex bonus if she were blinded. But that's obviously not the case since the rule explicitly states that senses aren't a factor in her ability to dodge. Your reading of this rule is completely unsubstantiated by the RAW.



To extend your example further, what if you don't have a car? If we take as our initial statement to be

"you should take out a better insurance if you have a car and are not a safe driver"

And then modify it by

"You should take out a better insurance policy even if you think you're a safe driver."

By your interpretation everyone should get insurance whether they have a car or not. The reason it doesn't work that way is because there is an implied statement that applies to everyone.

It does work that way and it's not an interpretation. "even if" is a synonym for "regardless"; in fact regardless is its definition. The implied statement isn't that it applies to everyone, just to the reader (or whomever it was addressed to), that's why it uses "you" and not "everyone".



"You retain your dodge bonus to AC (except when you don't)."

and uncanny dodge modifies it by removing two specific items from the "(except when you don't)" list. "Even if" can narrow the scope of a sentence as well as clarify or expand it.

That's how you want it to read, but there's no basis for believing it should be that way. The grammar, the fluff, and the balance are all consistent with always keeping your Dex bonus so long as you're not immobile.



Barbarian and assassin uncanny dodge function the same as each other (though worded differently), and the same as one interpretation of the rogue ability, and all three explicitly stack levels. This implies to me that they are intended to have the same function. Secondly, for the rogue version to grant dex to AC against everything, anytime, it would be worded more strongly. I know RAI =| RAW, but if RAW is not clear (which it is not given we are having this discussion) then RAI does become important.

Of course they do, since "regardless" and "even if" mean the exact same thing. And yes, they all provide the same function: giving Dex-based characters a way of having a comparable AC to armored fighters in most combat situations.

[OldTrees1]

Oh, right that makes more sense. I was thinking I was talking to one person.

No that is not my position. My position is that 99% of the time characters retain their dex to AC. Hit by poison, you retain your dex to AC. Even injured characters retain their dex to AC. In short, the default statement is that characters retain their dex to AC. There are special cases that modify this default, such as flat footed or invisible attackers or grappling, and these are more specific and so trump the general rule. Uncanny dodge further modifies two of these conditions, and is more specific for these two conditions. "you retain your dex to AC" is the general rule anyway, and then overruled by conditions, so simply stating it again explicitly does not make it more specific than rules denying dex to AC. Any rules denying dex to AC are more specific except in the two cases explicitly mentioned, and so are used.

In order for uncanny dodge to be more specific it would need to say something like "you retain your dex to AC in all conditions except immobility".

In that case we can pick up at my first reply.

"[statement], even if [condition]"
Example: You should get better insurance, even if you are a safe driver.

As you pointed out this example seems like it has an omitted if clause("if you have a motor vehicle").

However let us quickly examine the opposite of the condition. What if you are not a safe driver, what should you do? You should get better insurance right?

Taking both of these points into account we can see:
A) Omitted if clauses can exclude cases
B) The opposite of the condition could be an included case

From this we can note that "[statement], even if [condition]" is an ambiguous construction since it has omitted information about some potential excluded and included cases.

Note: I am discussing whether the native ambiguities in the English language resulted in Uncanny Dodge's wording having unspecified cases. I am not discussing how a DM ought to/would rule in those cases.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Uncanny Dodge only protects against losing Dex to AC due to being flatfooted (note, it doesn't make you immune to flatfooted, so you still can't take attacks of opportunity w/o Combat Reflexes and so forth, it just protects against the AC loss portion of flatfooted) or attacked by an invisible foe (which any reasonable person would extrapolate to also include being attacked while blinded).

That's it. There's lots of other ways to lose dex to AC that have nothing to do w/ being flatfooted. This is a good thing. Uncanny Dodge is a level 2 feature for Warblades and Barbarians. If it shut down any form of dex to AC loss, rogues would be pretty hosed. I mean, they are already (1/4 of the monster manual is outright immune to sneak attack, iirc), but it'd be even worse.

[tonberrian]

It's worth pointing out that there are a handful of differently worded versions of Uncanny Dodge out there, and some do make you immune to being flatfooted entirely. I want to say that the Scout's version (in Complete Adventurer) or the Whisperknife's (in Races of the Wild) does.

[Curmudgeon]

It's worth pointing out that there are a handful of differently worded versions of Uncanny Dodge out there, and some do make you immune to being flatfooted entirely. I want to say that the Scout's version (in Complete Adventurer) or the Whisperknife's (in Races of the Wild) does.
The Scout Uncanny Dodge does.
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a scout cannot be caught flat-footed and reacts to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. Whisperknife's UD says this:
You retain your Dexterity bonus to AC even if caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.

[HurinTheCursed]

I stand with The Viscount, Sacrieur and Venger's RAW interpretation.

"even if" just lists some exemples case where Uncanny Dodge applies, not the exhautive list of cases.
"even if" it is not a "if and only if".

Being immobilized is a specific exception to the Uncanny Dodge exception (She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC), but it is not clear it is the only one (if and only if). Since there is no other exception or rule given in the text, there is however no reason to add any other exception where Uncanny Dodge doesn't apply.

Then, even having played both rogue and barbarian characters, I hardly ever saw these grey areas in uncanny dodge into play and none of the RAW interpretation breaks D&D. Even if the RAW arguments don't fully convince a DM, he could rule in favor of the balance in the party, probably ruling by the PRO rogue/barbarian RAW interpretation.

[Sacrieur]

It's worth pointing out that there are a handful of differently worded versions of Uncanny Dodge out there, and some do make you immune to being flatfooted entirely. I want to say that the Scout's version (in Complete Adventurer) or the Whisperknife's (in Races of the Wild) does.

The Scout is a good example of bad class design. The damage is done, but one of the rules for designing a class is to retain 100% consistency with previous content. If the class ability is "Uncanny Dodge" then it should have the same meaning (and same wording, unless you have to change it for clarity) as any Uncanny Dodge that came before it. Often when designing a class there's a lot of research that needs to go into not reinventing the wheel.

You can tell who did and didn't put in the effort and just slapped it down without looking back at it from things like this. The sad thing is that because WotC slapped their seal on it, it's suddenly official content even though it's barely even past an alpha stage and nowhere near completed.

[Psyren]

Uncanny Dodge only protects against losing Dex to AC due to being flatfooted (note, it doesn't make you immune to flatfooted, so you still can't take attacks of opportunity w/o Combat Reflexes and so forth, it just protects against the AC loss portion of flatfooted) or attacked by an invisible foe (which any reasonable person would extrapolate to also include being attacked while blinded).

That's it. There's lots of other ways to lose dex to AC that have nothing to do w/ being flatfooted. This is a good thing. Uncanny Dodge is a level 2 feature for Warblades and Barbarians. If it shut down any form of dex to AC loss, rogues would be pretty hosed. I mean, they are already (1/4 of the monster manual is outright immune to sneak attack, iirc), but it'd be even worse.

This. A lot of the folks whining about how this interpretation means "we hate martials" or whatnot seem to forget that rogues are martials too and they need to be able to damage barbarians somehow.

[AzraelX]

Here's information quoted from 2003 FAQs and Q&As, courtesy of Skip Williams (one of the creators of the 3.0 PHB, DMG, and MM). Hope it helps to clear things up.


Uncanny dodge does not make you immune to feints.

Blinded: When you’re blinded, all your opponents are effectively invisible to you. If you have uncanny dodge, you retain your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class when blinded, but you still suffer all the other effects of blindness.

Cowering: This condition leaves you frozen in fear, which means you’re immobile. Therefore you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge.

Flat-Footed: Uncanny dodge negates the effects of this condition.

Grappled: When you’re grappled, you’re immobile, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge.

Held: You’re helpless and therefore immobile. Uncanny dodge doesn’t alleviate this condition or its effects.

Helpless: When you’re helpless, you’re immobile, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge.

Incapacitated: You’re helpless and therefore immobile. Uncanny dodge doesn’t alleviate this condition or its effects.

Pinned: When you’re pinned, you’re also grappled (and therefore immobile), so you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge.

Stunned: This condition leaves you unable to act. You’re immobile when stunned, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge.

There are a few ways creatures can avoid sneak attacks from unseen foes. For example, the blindsight special quality allows creatures to “see” the unseen, and the uncanny dodge class feature allows characters to retain their Dexterity bonuses against foes they cannot see.

Uncanny dodge lets you use your Dexterity bonus while flat-footed, but it doesn’t keep you from becoming flat-footed. Note that uncanny dodge also does not allow you to make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

If the character is actually rendered immobile (or nearly immobile) by some physical or magical effect, uncanny dodge doesn’t help. If you’re a barbarian hanging by your fingers and toes on a rock face, your feral senses don’t improve your mobility. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus, and you’re subject to sneak attack. Grappling is a similar situation—if you’re in another creature’s grasp (or if you’re grasping another creature), you lose your Dexterity bonus despite any uncanny dodge ability you might have.

Creatures with the improved grab special attack can retain their Dexterity bonuses while grappling by taking a –20 penalty on any grapple checks they make. There’s no reason why a character couldn’t take that penalty and also retain his Dexterity bonus while grappling.
That is how powerful uncanny dodge really is.

[Curmudgeon]

Here's information quoted from 2003 FAQs and Q&As, courtesy of Skip Williams (one of the creators of the 3.0 PHB, DMG, and MM). Hope it helps to clear things up.
You appear to have missed the various comments around these parts on Skip and his integration of house rules into the FAQ and "Rules of the Game" online articles. You're not going to clear anything up. :smallsigh:

[nyjastul69]

You appear to have missed the various comments around these parts on Skip and his integration of house rules into the FAQ and "Rules of the Game" online articles. You're not going to clear anything up. :smallsigh:

Just because Skip did interject opinions and house rules, without clarification, does not make all of his statements invalid. Not that you said this, mind you.

[Curmudgeon]

Just because Skip did interject opinions and house rules, without clarification, does not make all of his statements invalid. Not that you said this, mind you.
No, I didn't say that. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that most of what Skip wrote was correct. Alas, that helps not at all, because you've still got to go back to the rulebooks to verify everything he wrote in order to weed out the rules which are purely his invention. :smallmad:

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, in this case, Skip was almost 100% correct (the bit about Uncanny Dodge making you immune to flatfooted entirely was mistaken....except for Scout, apparently). The rules are clear on when Uncanny Dodge applies, and what he said is backed up by them completely. The blinded thing might not be true by a ludicrously strict RAW reading, but I don't care about people who wax on about all the things you can do while dead, so that's not my concern.

There are even more ways to lose dex w/o being flatfooted. Like running w/o the Run feat. Or climbing (there are ways to retain dex to AC when climbing, but I can't recall them at the moment).

[danzibr]

Interesting. Before this thread I never thought UD applies to more than being flat footed and against invisible attackers. I read it like this:

1st sentence is fluff.
2nd sentence is crunch.
3rd sentence gives you an exception to when the second sentence applies.

So if you're flat footed but paralyzed you don't keep your Dex modifier.

[Psyren]

Paralysis, being pinned and the like clearly beat UD because those would count as being "immobilized." The point of contention are ways to lose your Dex when you can still move - being feinted and being grappled without being pinned. Stunned isn't clear either - you can't act but you may not be "immobilized."

[danzibr]

Paralysis, being pinned and the like clearly beat UD because those would count as being "immobilized." The point of contention are ways to lose your Dex when you can still move - being feinted and being grappled without being pinned. Stunned isn't clear either - you can't act but you may not be "immobilized."
Right right. I could've been more clear. I mean the 2nd sentence gives us the two situations in which UD is useful.

[Sacrieur]

I'm going to flip this whole thread over.

seriously wotc wtf

[TheIronGolem]

I'm honestly surprised to see this many people on a RAW-savvy forum think Uncanny Dodge shuts down feinting.

I also cannot imagine for the life of me why you would want it to. I love playing dodge-monkeys, and I resent the difficulty they have in staying competitive against attack bonuses after the low levels in 3.X/PF. Nevertheless, there is both a narrative need and a game-balance need for other martial concepts to be able to adjust their tactics to deal with dodge-monkeys.

Consider all the various moments in fiction where someone is fighting an opponent who keeps avoiding their attacks, but finally defeats them with some variation of "predict where they'll be a split second from now and attack that spot". Feinting allows those moments to be represented in-game, and it has no dependency on magic or gimmicky items like tanglefoot bags that aren't suited to a lot of character concepts.

And really, aren't feint-specialists handicapped enough already without a single low-level class feature telling them "Eff your build, your tactics, and the unreasonably high feat tax you paid to support them"?

That said, I do like Uncanny Dodge making you straight-up immune to being flat-footed like it does in PF.

[StreamOfTheSky]

That said, I do like Uncanny Dodge making you straight-up immune to being flat-footed like it does in PF.

Oh, absolutely. I like that too. I don't like that PF makes the crux of Uncanny Dodge (not flatfooted at the start of combat) a trait (ie, half a feat) that anyone can take at level 1 (Defensive Strategist). But a mixed bag on something is about as good as it gets w/ PF, so I'll take it.