[3.5] Updating Improved Uncanny Dodge

[Gen Melchett]

From the improved uncanny dodge description:


This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target has barbarian levels.

Since the PHB numerous other classes that grant sneak attack have been introduced. Has anyone ever house ruled the ability so that any character with four more levels than the target in a class (or combination of classes) which grants sneak attack can overcome this ability?

For example: A Rogue 6, Dirty Fighter 2, Assassin 1 could flank and gain sneak attack against a Barbarian 5.

[Biggus]

Given that the Assassin's SA entry says "this is *exactly* like the Rogue ability of the same name" there's an argument to be made that this should be the default interpretation...

[Segev]

Given that the Assassin's SA entry says "this is *exactly* like the Rogue ability of the same name" there's an argument to be made that this should be the default interpretation...

It definitely is the intent, but technically, SA being "exactly like the Rogue's ability" on the ninja doesn't mean that the ninja levels count as rogue levels for purposes of Uncanny Dodge.

But like I said, it's clearly the intent, so I'd run it that way as a house rule if nothing else. There's niche protection, and then there's being silly. "No, no, you have to have Rogue levels to SA a Barbarian. Being a 20th level Spellthief or Ninja doesn't count."

[Troacctid]

Honestly it has literally never come up.

[Gen Melchett]

Yeah I think in the future I'll certainly house rule it to work that way for anyone with sneak attack, sudden strike or even the Unseen Seer damage bonus. The level 20 Spellthief/Ninja scenario really bugged me. Not as much as the dumb as bricks level 2 half-orc barbarian being immune to all those d6's from a level 20 ranged sneak attack build, but whatever... :furious:

Thanks all for the input!

[StreamOfTheSky]

On a similar note, when Evasion was first written, there were no "Reflex: Partial" saving throws, only Reflex: Half. So unlike Mettle and its variants, by RAW, Evasion does nothing to help against Reflex: Partial spells.

I house rule Evasion to apply to those saves as well, and suggest other DMs to do so.

[Doctor Awkward]

So unlike Mettle and its variants, by RAW, Evasion does nothing to help against Reflex: Partial spells.

And nor should it. Evasion is specifically only for reducing damage.

In the case of bands of steel a successful reflex save is the difference between being entangled or immobilized and stuck in place.

In the case of deadfall, a successful Reflex save will prevent you only from falling prone. There is no save to reduce the damage.


All spells that are labeled as "Saving Throw: Reflex partial" are offering some other effect besides doing damage.

[Biggus]

technically, SA being "exactly like the Rogue's ability" on the ninja doesn't mean that the ninja levels count as rogue levels for purposes of Uncanny Dodge.

What are you basing this on? As far as I can see, it depends how you interpret the words "exactly like".

[Segev]

What are you basing this on? As far as I can see, it depends how you interpret the words "exactly like".

A, say, 10th level Barbarian is immune to sneak attack unless the sneak attacker has at least 14 rogue levels.

Even if the 20th level Ninja's SA functions just like the Rogue's, he still technically only has 20 levels of Ninja, and zero levels of Rogue.

The 10th level Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge doesn't care how many levels of Ninja you have; he's immune to SA from anybody who doesn't have at least 20 levels of Rogue.

If the Ninja's ability says "Treat your Ninja level as Rogue levels for all SA purposes," this makes him qualify to hit that Barbarian with SA, but otherwise, it does not.

(Incidentally, because the Ninja has "Sudden Strike," not "Sneak Attack," if it did not say it functioned exactly like the Rogue's ability/stacked with it/counted as it/etc., the fact that it is not "Sneak Attack" would mean that the Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge would do nothing to protect him from it!)

[magic9mushroom]

A, say, 10th level Barbarian is immune to sneak attack unless the sneak attacker has at least 14 rogue levels.

Even if the 20th level Ninja's SA functions just like the Rogue's, he still technically only has 20 levels of Ninja, and zero levels of Rogue.

The 10th level Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge doesn't care how many levels of Ninja you have; he's immune to SA from anybody who doesn't have at least 20 levels of Rogue.

If the Ninja's ability says "Treat your Ninja level as Rogue levels for all SA purposes," this makes him qualify to hit that Barbarian with SA, but otherwise, it does not.

(Incidentally, because the Ninja has "Sudden Strike," not "Sneak Attack," if it did not say it functioned exactly like the Rogue's ability/stacked with it/counted as it/etc., the fact that it is not "Sneak Attack" would mean that the Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge would do nothing to protect him from it!)

Um.

First, I think you mean "14 levels of Rogue", not "20 levels of rogue".

Second, Improved Uncanny Dodge indeed doesn't do anything against Sudden Strike - because flanking doesn't allow Sudden Strike in the first place.

Third, Uncanny Dodge does work against Sudden Strike, despite it not being "as Sneak Attack" (except for prereqs), as Sudden Strike procs off "denied Dex to AC" and Uncanny Dodge prevents the barbarian being denied Dex to AC.


Ninja is actually a really bad example for this question, because Improved Uncanny Dodge is the only one with the "four levels higher" text - Uncanny Dodge can't be bypassed that way. So it doesn't actually matter whether Ninja levels count as Rogue levels.

[Crake]

Um.

First, I think you mean "14 levels of Rogue", not "20 levels of rogue".

He did say 14 levels of rogue though..


Second, Improved Uncanny Dodge indeed doesn't do anything against Sudden Strike - because flanking doesn't allow Sudden Strike in the first place.

I imagine they're talking about pathfinder ninja which does get sneak attack.

[Albions_Angel]

So while Improved Uncanny Dodge may or may not prevent Sudden Strike damage from a ninja, I think we all need to look at Uncanny Dodge, the 2nd level barbarian ability.

The barbarian never loses their dex even if flat footed, or the opponent is invisible.

Sudden Strike triggers if the opponent is denied their dex. Unless houseruled (and it should be, because Ninja's are already weaker than rogues), Sudden Strike NEVER works on a 2nd level barbarian unless they are immobilized.

[heavyfuel]

The barbarian never loses their dex even if flat footed, or the opponent is invisible.

Sudden Strike triggers if the opponent is denied their dex. Unless houseruled (and it should be, because Ninja's are already weaker than rogues), Sudden Strike NEVER works on a 2nd level barbarian unless they are immobilized.

Pretty sure you can still Feint creatures with Uncanny Dodge, but I'm AFB right now.

If this is true, you could Feint and Sudden Strike

[Zombimode]

Pretty sure you can still Feint creatures with Uncanny Dodge, but I'm AFB right now.

If this is true, you could Feint and Sudden Strike

You can. Uncanny Dodge prevents loosing your Dex bonus to AC when flat-footed or vs. undetected opponents.

[Segev]

Yeah, sorry, made a hash of the rules in my examples.

My core point was that you can reasonably rule it to extend to sneak-attack-like effects, and the classes that grant them, because otherwise the RAW are a little silly-specific due to their age.

But, yes, there are a lot of fiddly things that do and do not work per the strict reading of the RAW centering around the name of the ability ("Sneak Attack") and the specific classes whose levels get around the Barbarian feature (i.e. "Rogue").

[StreamOfTheSky]

And nor should it. Evasion is specifically only for reducing damage.

In the case of bands of steel a successful reflex save is the difference between being entangled or immobilized and stuck in place.

In the case of deadfall, a successful Reflex save will prevent you only from falling prone. There is no save to reduce the damage.


All spells that are labeled as "Saving Throw: Reflex partial" are offering some other effect besides doing damage.
And I completely disagree.

In general, Fortitude and Will are much more devastating saves to fail / partially fail anyway, and Mettle covers both of them. Letting Evasion do the same thing for Reflex is only fair, not in any possible way overpowered. None of these spells existed when Evasion was written, it's a blatant oversight that (shocker) WotC never addressed.

As for your examples...
How is reacting fast enough to be entangled rather than held immobile vs. avoiding it completely any different than avoiding half of the damage from an AoE vs. avoiding all of it?
Deadfall does damage without a save to reduce it and has a save to avoid falling prone, so I guess it would be awkward to have Evasion let you avoid the damage, too...
OH WAIT, we already have a similar example of this w/ the Orb spells (no save for the damage, save only prevents dazed or similar conditions) and Mettle and...it prevents you from being damaged! Phew...not a problem after all!

[magic9mushroom]

Yeah, sorry, made a hash of the rules in my examples.

My core point was that you can reasonably rule it to extend to sneak-attack-like effects, and the classes that grant them, because otherwise the RAW are a little silly-specific due to their age.

But, yes, there are a lot of fiddly things that do and do not work per the strict reading of the RAW centering around the name of the ability ("Sneak Attack") and the specific classes whose levels get around the Barbarian feature (i.e. "Rogue").

Yeah, the RAW certainly doesn't let non-rogues bypass Improved Uncanny Dodge, which is a clear oversight. It should be levels in the class that grants Sneak Attack.

I'm pretty sure that's the only loophole in the UD/IUD vs. precision damage rules, though. UD and IUD prevent Sneak Attack via removing its required conditions (e.g. a 5th-level barb or 8th-level rogue doesn't just not get Sneak Attacked when flanked - they aren't flanked), so they'd work against anything else that requires those conditions (e.g. UD vs. Sudden Strike).

You don't need to extend the "four levels higher" thing to Sudden Strike or Skirmish, because they don't trigger on flanking. TTBOMK Sneak Attack is unique there.

[Doctor Awkward]

OH WAIT, we already have a similar example of this w/ the Orb spells (no save for the damage, save only prevents dazed or similar conditions) and Mettle and...it prevents you from being damaged! Phew...not a problem after all!

That's not what "lesser effect" means.

A lesser effect is the difference between "fatigued" and "exhausted". As is seen with ray of exhaustion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfExhaustion.htm). Mettle would negate that spell entirely on a successful save. The same as with radiant assault (SPC 167) where on a failed Will save you take full damage and are dazed, vs taking half damage on a successful save and being dazzled.


There is explicitly no save for the damage component of orb of acid. Only for the sickened condition. There is additionally no lesser effect with orb of acid. On a save, the condition is negated entirely.

Mettle does not affect the results of the saving throw for orb of acid at all.

[magic9mushroom]

That's not what "lesser effect" means.

Yes, it is.


If he makes a successful Will or Fortitude save against an attack that normally would have a lesser effect on a successful save (such as any spell with a saving throw entry of Will half or Fortitude partial), he instead completely negates the effect.


Mettle is an ability that allows a creature to shrug off magical effects that are reduced in efficacy when the subject makes a successful Will or Fortitude saving throw, such as any spell with a saving throw entry of Will partial or Fortitude half. By making a successful saving throw, a creature that has mettle instead negates such an effect.


ORB OF FIRE
[...]
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial

Mettle is really, really good.

[Doctor Awkward]

Yes, it is.







Mettle is really, really good.

I see "negate the effect" over and over again, but not once do I see "negate the entire spell".

There is no save for the damage from Orb of Acid. Mettle does not apply.

[noob]

I see "negate the effect" over and over again, but not once do I see "negate the entire spell".

There is no save for the damage from Orb of Acid. Mettle does not apply.

Can you mention a spell which have the same effect but weaker and that is fort partial?
There is barely any of those.
Most of the time succeeding in a partial save replace entirely an effect by another distinct effect (that can actually be more dangerous for you so succeeding in a save can make you subject to a more dangerous effect) or remove one of the effects.
The save is not "against an effect" it is against the entire spell.
you do not save against orb of x secondary effect: you save against orb of x or else they would write "fort negate" on the individual effect and "no save" on the damage effect.

[Doctor Awkward]

Can you mention a spell which have the same effect but weaker and that is fort partial?

Ray of exhaustion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfExhaustion.htm). Exhaustion is explicitly a worse version of fatigue.

Cause fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/causeFear.htm). Frightened is explicitly a worse version of shaken.

Cloudkill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm). A creature with more than 6 HD takes 1d4 Con damage per round. Half that on a successful save. This is explicitly a lesser effect of what you suffer on a failed save.


The save is not "against an effect" it is against the entire spell.
you do not save against orb of x secondary effect: you save against orb of x or else they would write "fort negate" on the individual effect and "no save" on the damage effect.

The text of Orb of Acid, and every other Fort/Will/Ref partial spell makes it abundantly clear that this is not the case. You are saving against a specific effect, hence why they all have "; see text" in the saving throw line so you know to look for which specific effect allows a save. The rest of the spell result goes on regardless of the result of the save. Mettle only applies to spells and attacks that allow for a save for a "lesser effect". There is no lesser effect when saving against the Orb line. The secondary effect is negated. Mettle does not apply.

[magic9mushroom]

I see "negate the effect" over and over again, but not once do I see "negate the entire spell".

There is no save for the damage from Orb of Acid. Mettle does not apply.


Mettle is an ability that allows a creature to shrug off magical effects that are reduced in efficacy when the subject makes a successful Will or Fortitude saving throw, such as any spell with a saving throw entry of Will partial or Fortitude half. By making a successful saving throw, a creature that has mettle instead negates such an effect.

"Any spell with a saving throw entry of Will partial or Fortitude half" is an example ("such as") of "magical effects that are reduced in efficacy when the subject makes a successful Will or Fortitude saving throw". "Such an effect" refers back to "magical effects [...]", of which "any spell [...]" is an example. Ergo, the spell with such a saving throw entry is negated.

I will note that there are spells like this with a saving throw entry of "None and Fortitude negates". Mettle isn't flat-out stated to apply to those.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I will note that there are spells like this with a saving throw entry of "None and Fortitude negates". Mettle isn't flat-out stated to apply to those.

Agreed. Mettle does not apply to such spells. Whether or not you personally think Orb spells should have had their saving throw entry written as "None and Fortitude Negates", they are Fortitude Partial by RAW, and thus Mettle applies.

Really not sure why one would go out of their way to houserule something such that it takes away power from the non-casters that they have over the casters by RAW....but if that's your thing, whatever. I personally think it's great when the caster's spell completely fails because the martial has that nifty Mettle ability. :smallsmile:

So anyway...I see no reason not to apply Evasion to Reflex: partial spells. If any at all existed in the PHB, I would agree the designers definitively never intended it to apply to those spells. But those spells didn't exist until later, so it seems like an oversight more than anything.
Even with that houserule, Mettle is still way better than Evasion...

[magic9mushroom]

Really not sure why one would go out of their way to houserule something such that it takes away power from the non-casters that they have over the casters by RAW....but if that's your thing, whatever. I personally think it's great when the caster's spell completely fails because the martial has that nifty Mettle ability. :smallsmile:

Master Abjurer (easily the best Master Specialist) does get an ability which is basically Evasion + Mettle, although it only works on spells and only for (spell level) rounds after casting an abjuration spell.