Improved Uncanny Dodge

[Biggus]

Does someone attacking know they're not able to effectively flank someone with IUD

1) before attacking

2) only after attacking

3) never?

My instinct is to say 2), but as far as I know the rules are silent on this. Thoughts/opinions?

[H_H_F_F]

I usually go with 2 in my games for any effects rendering certain types of actions useless. Evasive target's negate power attack, IUD, CAdv longstaff, etc.

This seems like the most reasonable interpretation for the character's experience, as well as the best approach mechanically.

If a pc has already fought an enemy with such a capability, I tend to ask for spot checks with a DC of 20+ enemy CR. If they make it, they can tell from the enemy's stance before they make their first attack.

[Arkhios]

By default, creatures (including PC's) are unable to see their target's hit points or "vital status". Meaning, there's no actual visual cue to how many hit points your damage roll reduced the target's hit points. As much as you might want to think of Hit Points as meat, it's not (only) meat. Making the decision of whether to continue attacking the target or not based alone on how much you rolled damage is metagaming, imho, and not cool, to be honest.

However, Improved Uncanny Dodge can be perceived as though the target appears to be more aware of their surroundings, and uncannily able to dodge away from your attacks, when you would've normally hit the target thanks to flanking. In this situation, I would let an intelligent creature make an intelligence check (possibly with a DC equal to 5 + the base attack bonus they just used; including iteratives, if relevant to the attack roll; the lower your iterative that would've hit the target normally thanks to flanking, the easier it should be to deduce that hey, this guy's good at dodging!).

[Biggus]

I usually go with 2 in my games for any effects rendering certain types of actions useless. Evasive target's negate power attack, IUD, CAdv longstaff, etc.

This seems like the most reasonable interpretation for the character's experience, as well as the best approach mechanically.

If a pc has already fought an enemy with such a capability, I tend to ask for spot checks with a DC of 20+ enemy CR. If they make it, they can tell from the enemy's stance before they make their first attack.

Interesting approach. I'd be more inclined to call for a straight Wisdom check than Spot, but I can see the logic.


By default, creatures (including PC's) are unable to see their target's hit points or "vital status". Meaning, there's no actual visual cue to how many hit points your damage roll reduced the target's hit points. As much as you might want to think of Hit Points as meat, it's not (only) meat. Making the decision of whether to continue attacking the target or not based alone on how much you rolled damage is metagaming, imho, and not cool, to be honest.

It's true that hit points don't only represent damage, but that's a big part of what they represent. The PHB defines them as "a measure of a character’s health" (p.309) and "the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" (p.145). Based on that, you shouldn't be able to tell exactly how many HPs someone has lost, but you should be able to tell the difference between someone who's lost most of their HPs and someone who hasn't lost any.

Personally, I use vague terms like "appears completely unscathed", "definitely injured but still strong" and "badly injured" (similar to the "blooded" condition in 4E) to give my players a rough idea of what condition their opponents are in.


However, Improved Uncanny Dodge can be perceived as though the target appears to be more aware of their surroundings, and uncannily able to dodge away from your attacks, when you would've normally hit the target thanks to flanking. In this situation, I would let an intelligent creature make an intelligence check (possibly with a DC equal to 5 + the base attack bonus they just used; including iteratives, if relevant to the attack roll; the lower your iterative that would've hit the target normally thanks to flanking, the easier it should be to deduce that hey, this guy's good at dodging!).

An intelligence check after attacking seems reasonable.

What actually brought the question to my mind was the spell Critical Strike, where you do extra damage and are more likely to score a critical hit against a flanked foe, and I wondered if it would be possible to tell that the spell wasn't working, which seemed far from clear. Then it made me think that Rogues spends most of their time in combat trying to hit a vital spot, often using flanking to give them the opening they need, and that they would probably be able to tell that their opponent was able to avoid this happening when they twisted away at the last moment even when their senses shouldn't have had time to warn them of the attack.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho you go with 2)

Because sneak attacking requires the user to hit vital points to deal extra dmg. Improved Uncanny Dodge on the other hand prevents the extra dmg thus the hit is only a normal hit and not on an vital spot.
Which leads to the fact that the sneak attack user should be able to tell if they did hit the vital spot ( = attack counts as sneak attack and deals extra dmg) or if he did miss it and just deals normal dmg.

If the sneak attacker has preparation time and really want to know if his target has IUD or not, you could ask for a sense motive roll. Imho a sense motive roll should be able to determine how combat ready someone at the moment is. People who are always ready for combat (including sneak attacks and ambushes) have a specific mindset that is reflected in their behavior and habits.

E.g. a mounted fighter who is always ready for combat will never hold the rains with both hands. He will use his off hand for the rains and expose that shoulder to the front. While the main-hand is near his weapons to draw and the shoulder is pulled back to hide a bit what your hand is doing.

You can also watch any self defense video about this topic. Combat readiness is a combination of the right posture/movement with the habits to observe the surroundings in a specific way (reaction time training is oddly least priority here). And higher level fighters are able to tell if your are ready/aware or not.

[KillianHawkeye]

I generally agree with letting the player know after their attack is resolved about this kind of stuff. However, if the character also has Improved Uncanny Dodge, I'd probably say they can tell just by looking. I figure they'd be familiar enough with the skills involved, assuming they both have the same general body type (e.g., human-shaped).

[Ashtagon]

Based on the fact that if you hit someone with damage reduction, it is immediately obvious that their DR i working, I'd say the same should be true for a lot of other attacks that get converted into misses or lesser attacks. You might not know the specific game mechanic causing the weaker attack, but you will know something affected your attack, and fluff descriptions could well be enough to pin it down to a highly probable cause.

[Gruftzwerg]

I generally agree with letting the player know after their attack is resolved about this kind of stuff. However, if the character also has Improved Uncanny Dodge, I'd probably say they can tell just by looking. I figure they'd be familiar enough with the skills involved, assuming they both have the same general body type (e.g., human-shaped).

I agree for the most part with the "when they both have IUD", but imho you should at least spending an action on observing the target in some/any way to get the desired into. Rushing onto the enemy on first sight without time to think shouldn't give this info.

[KillianHawkeye]

I agree for the most part with the "when they both have IUD", but imho you should at least spending an action on observing the target in some/any way to get the desired into. Rushing onto the enemy on first sight without time to think shouldn't give this info.

I suppose at least calling for a Spot check to notice it right away makes sense.

[Gruftzwerg]

I suppose at least calling for a Spot check to notice it right away makes sense.

yeah a spot DC of 5-10ish would be fine I guess (when you have IUD yourself).

[Zanos]

By default, creatures (including PC's) are unable to see their target's hit points or "vital status". Meaning, there's no actual visual cue to how many hit points your damage roll reduced the target's hit points. As much as you might want to think of Hit Points as meat, it's not (only) meat. Making the decision of whether to continue attacking the target or not based alone on how much you rolled damage is metagaming, imho, and not cool, to be honest.
I don't agree here. The books go out of their way to call out that spellcasters can tell when their spells are resisted or saved against, and that you can tell when your attack has less impact due to damage reduction. I think that experience adventures should have some idea of how much they're hurting their opponent. Do you not describe an attack as a light wound or a graze when you roll a 1d8 on your crossbow, or as a direct hit when a player rolls an 8?

In any case I'd also go with 2 here. With DR as a lose precedence the fluff for most abilities that are reducing incoming damage should have some kind of observable effect.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think a better way to think about this is to rephrase the question:

Do you tell your players when they're not getting the flanking bonus that they're expecting to get? Or do you keep it a secret and adjust their roll total or the enemy's AC value "behind the screen"?

Personally, I just tell them when they're making their attack rolls. IMO, it's just easier.

So I'm changing my answer to 1.5: Tell them when they attack rather than before or after (unless there's a reason to tell them before as in my previous posts).

[Edea]

"...you manage to stab him, but his body flexes and twitches right before your steel connects. No matter how deft your approach or how distracting your ally seems to be, you just can't manage to land a hit on a sweet spot. It's as if he's got eyes in the back of his head..."

Like that, maybe?

[KillianHawkeye]

"...you manage to stab him, but his body flexes and twitches right before your steel connects. No matter how deft your approach or how distracting your ally seems to be, you just can't manage to land a hit on a sweet spot. It's as if he's got eyes in the back of his head..."

Like that, maybe?

I'd probably say more simply that "He seems able to react easily to having foes on either side. You don't get flanking."

This way I'd give the info when they're about to roll rather than as I'm narrating the results. I try not to obfuscate the rules when I'm DMing unless the enemy is using some rare or unique ability that could legitimately catch the characters by surprise.

[Biggus]

Thanks for the replies all, I think I'm going to go with 2). I like the idea that a character who has IUD themselves can spot it in others if they spend a round observing them before attacking though, I might well use that.