Uncanny Dodge

[JellyPooga]

Can we put the argument about Uncanny Dodge to bed already?

Any time Rogues come up in conversation, inevitably the question of whether Uncanny Dodge is an effective for mitigating damage comes into the discussion and it continues to baffle me that the one great argument against UD being the incredibly effective tool that it is...is multiple attacks.

Let's look at some facts about HP, Rogues and Uncanny Dodge.

1) Rogues have d8HD. On average, all other things being equal, that means they have (1+1/lvl)HP less than Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.
2) Uncanny Dodge halves the damage of up to one attack per round.
3) Therefore, in order for Uncanny Dodge to make the Rogues effective HP pool equal to that of a Fighter (etc.), it needs to be used against an attack or attacks that deal damage equal to twice your current level in a day. After that, any use gives the Rogue more effective HP than an equivalent level Fighter (etc.).

Let's put that into an example:

Bob the lvl.5 Fighter has 34HP (10+4*6).
Jim the lvl.5 Rogue has 28HP (8+4*5).

Both Jim and Bob have the same Race, Background, Con, Feats, etc. because all other things must be equal for this to be a fair comparison.

Jim and Bob get into a fight and start taking hits that deal a spookily similar amount of damage (I dunno why, maybe they're fighting Modrons or something?). On the first round, they each take a hit for 8 damage. Jim uses UD so only takes 4.
- Bob now has 26hp and Jim is down to 24hp.
Next round they both take another 8 damage. Jim uses UD again.
- Bob is down to 18hp, Jim is on 20hp.
It only gets better for Jim from here on out.

Ok, so let's take the argument that taking multiple hits makes UD ineffective. Let's go back and visit Bob and Jim...This time they're taking the same amount of damage per round, only it's over multiple attacks; let's say two per turn.
So, in the first round they both get hit by two attacks dealing 4 damage each, for a total of 8 damage. Jim uses UD on one of those attacks per round so only takes 6 damage. Jim will still be alive when Bob is dead. Without any other factors being involved, Jim will have surpassed Bobs effective HP total after the third round.

How about 4 attacks? Let's keep it at a total of 8 damage, so 2 damage per attack. Bob's taking 8/rnd, Jim's taking 7/rnd. On Round 5, Bob has 2hp left and Jim is on 0hp. Huzzah! We've finally proved that Rogues can't stand up to multiple attacks the same way that Fighters can! Except nothing does 2 damage per hit at level 5, let alone higher levels. Let's up the stakes a little and have each of those 4 attacks deal 8 damage each. That's 32 damage to Bob and 28 damage to Jim on round 1. Man, I guess you just can't save a Rogue. Or anyone for that matter; a round 2 TPK is bad news and definitely not balanced. Except next round, let's say Jim gets yo-yo healed up to 5hp from a Healing Word. Jim can now take an attack and still be standing and Bob can't. If they each continue to yo-yo heal (for a reasonable 5hp a go, assuming 1d4+3), Jim will continue to be able to consistently tank more damage/attacks than Bob. Sure, at 4 attacks hitting every round neither one is getting out of this alive, but the Rogue is absorbing more attacks because of Uncanny Dodge. Let's not forget that in these examples, this is raw damage. In order for 4 attacks to hit every round, at a reasonable hit rate of 60% (hitting AC:18 with a +6 bonus to hit) both Bob and Jim are each being attacked six to seven (6.67) times per round. That's a lot for level 5. Let's not ignore the efficiency of healing Jim compared to Bob, either.

In order for multiple attacks to be an effective foil to Uncanny Dodge, they need to be dealing either a ludicrously low amount of damage and/or to be in incredible numbers (i.e. either way, not a level appropriate encounter) for the comparison between a d10HD Class and the Rogue to even be a competition, because the advantage of the d10HD is per day and the advantage of Uncanny Dodge is per round. At level 20, Uncanny Dodge only has to mitigate 20 (ok, technically 21) points of damage a day (give or take some fudge factor due to HD healing on short rests) to give the Rogue equal effective HP to a d10HD Class; anything more than that pushes them into the the #2 spot of HP durability after the Barbarian. Note that 20 points of damage can be from one attack dealing 40 damage or from five attacks over five rounds, each dealing 8 damage...something that any level 5 party might face. I'll say that again; Uncanny Dodge, at level 5, can and will mitigate enough damage in a day to equalise the HP of a level 20 Rogue vs. Fighter, let alone their own level.

[Xihirli]

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that there was a debate revolving around uncanny dodge.

Are you just arguing that Uncanny Dodge is a good ability that meaningfully contributes to a rogue’s defenses? I don’t know anyone who vehemently disagrees with that.

[JackPhoenix]

There's an argument about Uncanny Dodge?

One thing to note is that UD damage halving is NOT resistance, so it stacks with one, if you can get both. Another effect of that is that UD does not have to be applied last in the calculations, like resistances do: If you have UD, HAM and resistance (somehow), you can use your reaction to halve the damage, deduce 3 (if it's non-magical P/B/S) and halve the result.

A tactical consideration is to WHEN to use UD. Sure, you can just drop it on the first attack that hits you, and it'll work, but if you expect more attacks coming, you may think about how much damage was rolled. If the first attack's damage was below average, you may hold out on using UD. I've seen a rogue using UD on the first attack to save few hit points only to be smacked with a massive crit right after. Of course, something like that is impossible to predict, so you'll need to gamble a bit.

[JellyPooga]

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that there was a debate revolving around uncanny dodge.

Are you just arguing that Uncanny Dodge is a good ability that meaningfully contributes to a rogue’s defenses? I don’t know anyone who vehemently disagrees with that.
There's an argument about Uncanny Dodge?
Just about any time the Rogue comes up in conversation, particularly melee Rogues, someone feels the need to point out the limitations of Uncanny Dodge, namely its ineffectiveness against multiple attacks and often how it conflicts with other reactions you might have (e.g. Sentinel attacks for off-turn Sneak Attack). There's a thread about Arcane Tricksters right now and it's been mentioned already (OP's first response calls UD "underwhelming" and another poster brings up the multiple attacks and opportunity cost issues on page 1).


One thing to note is that UD damage halving is NOT resistance, so it stacks with one, if you can get both. Another effect of that is that UD does not have to be applied last in the calculations, like resistances do: If you have UD, HAM and resistance (somehow), you can use your reaction to halve the damage, deduce 3 (if it's non-magical P/B/S) and halve the result.

A tactical consideration is to WHEN to use UD. Sure, you can just drop it on the first attack that hits you, and it'll work, but if you expect more attacks coming, you may think about how much damage was rolled. If the first attack's damage was below average, you may hold out on using UD. I've seen a rogue using UD on the first attack to save few hit points only to be smacked with a massive crit right after. Of course, something like that is impossible to predict, so you'll need to gamble a bit.

Both solid points. I'd add to the latter, also, that whether to use UD or another reaction is a serious consideration; using UD prevents you from making an Opportunity Attack, but that's also part of the gamble (and if you're not willing to gamble as a Rogue player...I mean, come on :smallconfused::smallamused:)

[tokek]

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that there was a debate revolving around uncanny dodge.

Are you just arguing that Uncanny Dodge is a good ability that meaningfully contributes to a rogue’s defenses? I don’t know anyone who vehemently disagrees with that.

Weirdly its cropped up again in the arcane trickster discussion.

Its such an edge case that you would have a better defensive reaction to use than uncanny dodge. It seems like the "surrounded and outnumbered" situation but why would a highly mobile rogue get into that situation very often? Or its the outnumbered by archers situation - but why would you not BA hide to mitigate their damage. Or if on the flattest of flat fields just go prone?

I don't think there should be a debate about how good uncanny dodge is but it does feel like there is one.

[Person_Man]

Its a very good ability. But the point about it competing for your Reaction is true. Rogues really want to make an Opportunity Attack when possible, to trigger Sneak Attack a second time. Which is fine - there should bd trade-offs.

[Dork_Forge]

I really don't understand why some people make this argument either, getting hit by multiple attacks doesn't invalidate it at all.


Its a very good ability. But the point about it competing for your Reaction is true. Rogues really want to make an Opportunity Attack when possible, to trigger Sneak Attack a second time. Which is fine - there should bd trade-offs.


IME this is really a forumite kind of thing, I've never seen players try to use this as a regular tactic it's just a nice bonus when they get to make OAs.

[Xihirli]

My party’s rogue will want her reaction because I took Commander’s Strike.
But like… I can only do so many of those, so I’m sure she’ll get some use out of Uncanny Dodge.

[stoutstien]

IME this is really a forumite kind of thing, I've never seen players try to use this as a regular tactic it's just a nice bonus when they get to make OAs.
Aye. I think a better statement would be that they have a very good opportunity attack threat potential. Smarter NPCs are going to eventually realize that getting those extra SA hurt (and are good at breaking concentration) but OTOH rogues have the ability to reduce and avoid direct damage themselves.
This means the overall kit is really good at interrupting the enemies' primary goal.

[LudicSavant]

Can we put the argument about Uncanny Dodge to bed already?

Any time Rogues come up in conversation, inevitably the question of whether Uncanny Dodge is an effective for mitigating damage comes into the discussion and it continues to baffle me that the one great argument against UD being the incredibly effective tool that it is...is multiple attacks.

Let's look at some facts about HP, Rogues and Uncanny Dodge.

1) Rogues have d8HD. On average, all other things being equal, that means they have (1+1/lvl)HP less than Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.
2) Uncanny Dodge halves the damage of up to one attack per round.
3) Therefore, in order for Uncanny Dodge to make the Rogues effective HP pool equal to that of a Fighter (etc.), it needs to be used against an attack or attacks that deal damage equal to twice your current level in a day. After that, any use gives the Rogue more effective HP than an equivalent level Fighter (etc.).

Let's put that into an example:

Bob the lvl.5 Fighter has 34HP (10+4*6).
Jim the lvl.5 Rogue has 28HP (8+4*5).

Both Jim and Bob have the same Race, Background, Con, Feats, etc. because all other things must be equal for this to be a fair comparison.

Jim and Bob get into a fight and start taking hits that deal a spookily similar amount of damage (I dunno why, maybe they're fighting Modrons or something?). On the first round, they each take a hit for 8 damage. Jim uses UD so only takes 4.
- Bob now has 26hp and Jim is down to 24hp.
Next round they both take another 8 damage. Jim uses UD again.
- Bob is down to 18hp, Jim is on 20hp.
It only gets better for Jim from here on out.

Ok, so let's take the argument that taking multiple hits makes UD ineffective. Let's go back and visit Bob and Jim...This time they're taking the same amount of damage per round, only it's over multiple attacks; let's say two per turn.
So, in the first round they both get hit by two attacks dealing 4 damage each, for a total of 8 damage. Jim uses UD on one of those attacks per round so only takes 6 damage. Jim will still be alive when Bob is dead. Without any other factors being involved, Jim will have surpassed Bobs effective HP total after the third round.

How about 4 attacks? Let's keep it at a total of 8 damage, so 2 damage per attack. Bob's taking 8/rnd, Jim's taking 7/rnd. On Round 5, Bob has 2hp left and Jim is on 0hp. Huzzah! We've finally proved that Rogues can't stand up to multiple attacks the same way that Fighters can! Except nothing does 2 damage per hit at level 5, let alone higher levels. Let's up the stakes a little and have each of those 4 attacks deal 8 damage each. That's 32 damage to Bob and 28 damage to Jim on round 1. Man, I guess you just can't save a Rogue. Or anyone for that matter; a round 2 TPK is bad news and definitely not balanced. Except next round, let's say Jim gets yo-yo healed up to 5hp from a Healing Word. Jim can now take an attack and still be standing and Bob can't. If they each continue to yo-yo heal (for a reasonable 5hp a go, assuming 1d4+3), Jim will continue to be able to consistently tank more damage/attacks than Bob. Sure, at 4 attacks hitting every round neither one is getting out of this alive, but the Rogue is absorbing more attacks because of Uncanny Dodge. Let's not forget that in these examples, this is raw damage. In order for 4 attacks to hit every round, at a reasonable hit rate of 60% (hitting AC:18 with a +6 bonus to hit) both Bob and Jim are each being attacked six to seven (6.67) times per round. That's a lot for level 5. Let's not ignore the efficiency of healing Jim compared to Bob, either.

In order for multiple attacks to be an effective foil to Uncanny Dodge, they need to be dealing either a ludicrously low amount of damage and/or to be in incredible numbers (i.e. either way, not a level appropriate encounter) for the comparison between a d10HD Class and the Rogue to even be a competition, because the advantage of the d10HD is per day and the advantage of Uncanny Dodge is per round. At level 20, Uncanny Dodge only has to mitigate 20 (ok, technically 21) points of damage a day (give or take some fudge factor due to HD healing on short rests) to give the Rogue equal effective HP to a d10HD Class; anything more than that pushes them into the the #2 spot of HP durability after the Barbarian. Note that 20 points of damage can be from one attack dealing 40 damage or from five attacks over five rounds, each dealing 8 damage...something that any level 5 party might face. I'll say that again; Uncanny Dodge, at level 5, can and will mitigate enough damage in a day to equalise the HP of a level 20 Rogue vs. Fighter, let alone their own level.

Forgive me if I missed it, but where are you accounting for Fighter features in this comparison? It looks like you're comparing to a d10 HD with nothing else attached, and HD size is not one of the larger variables in overall durability.


I'll say that again; Uncanny Dodge, at level 5, can and will mitigate enough damage in a day to equalise the HP of a level 20 Rogue vs. Fighter, let alone their own level.

When you say that, are you considering the Fighter's "effective HP" to be an HD size increase and nothing else?

Is your only goal here to say that Uncanny Dodge is more than a +1 HD bump? You'll probably find that uncontroversial.

[Talamare]

Rogue gets hit with a nasty 20~30 damage hit? Boom Half Damage, NOPE
Fighter gets hit with a nasty 20~30 damage hit? Don't worry, I have like 7 more HP than yall, I can take it.

[JellyPooga]

Forgive me if I missed it, but where are you accounting for Fighter features in this comparison? It looks like you're comparing to a d10 HD with nothing else attached, and HD size is not one of the larger variables in overall durability.

Features such as...?

- Armour Class? Rogues can have the same AC as a Fighter.
- Constitution? Race? Feats? See Armour Class.
- Second Wind? Granted, that gives the Fighter a static pool of healing, dependent on number of Short Rests; hard to evaluate just how effective this is to add to the Fighters effective HP pool, but it's a one&done 1d10+lvl. vs. potential (damage of attack/2) per round. If we're comparing 2nd Wind to Uncanny Dodge, of course I'd expect the ability gained at 5th level to be better than the one gained at 1st.

Anything else? I mean it's not just a comparison between Fighter and Rogue; I used that as an example, but the overall point is Rogues and Uncanny Dodge vs. any Class considered more durable (typically those with d10HD). Do you also want to include the impact of Cleric healing spells? A Necromancer Wizards Grim Harvest? In the grand scheme of things, precisely how a character is built and the features they have is going to have a greater impact than any one feature, true. A Hill Dwarf Rogue with Con 18, the Tough Feat and Moderately Armoured is going to be way more durable than an Elven Fighter with Con 12 and an archery/mobility focus. I'm evaluating the direct impact of Uncanny Dodge and that alone, with all other things being equal (including expurgating all other Class features of both the Rogue and whatever Class you care to compare it to). To include every other feature or factor that could possibly come into play would only muddy the waters, because so much of it is circumstantial, open to "what if" and "yeah, but" until the end of days. What's the point in saying that "Fighters are more durable than Rogues because they have higher AC", when that statement is not always going to be true? "What if" the Rogue has a bunch of magic armour? "Yeah, but" the Fighter can too. "What if" the Rogue poisons their enemy? etc. etc.

In order to evaluate Uncanny Dodge, you cannot include every possible factor to judge it on its own merit. Judged compared to other features or entire builds is a whole other argument and largely an unfair comparison. I cannot claim, for example, that Expertise in Stealth is useless or underwhelming just because you cannot hide in plain sight without magical assistance or because Pass Without Trace exists. On it's own merit, it is useful and powerful; PWT is only available at 1st level to one Race (to my knowledge), whilst Expertise is available at that level to any Rogue or V.Human willing to take a Feat for it. It takes until at least level 3 to get magical assistance toward Stealth (largely speaking) and even then they do different things for different purposes. Why compare them?

[Witty Username]

I agree that Uncanny Dodge is useful. I am kinda weirded out that the fighter isn't using second wind in the example though.

[stoutstien]

Rouges have compounding defensive features compared to fighter (most subclasses) who have fairly linear features in that regard.

Rouges are tough because they can do something like CA disengage and place themselves in a position where the enemy needs to use a secondary attack option then apply UD on top of that. The fighter is more likely just going to rely on higher AC, easier/higher HP recovery, and static reduction features to come to the same end.

Now subclasses like the rune knight are the monkey wrench in this because they have a lot going for them in both regards and most of their mitigation is sharable with allies.

[Psyren]

No one is saying Uncanny Dodge isn't good. But having Uncanny Dodge + having other options is even better. It came up in the AT thread because they have options that other rogues don't, it's that simple.

Also, of course it's going to be especially good at level 5. Almost nothing you face will have multiattack at level 5. Looking at the basic rules, every single monster at CR 10 and CR 11 (for example) have multiattack.

[JellyPooga]

I agree that Uncanny Dodge is useful. I am kinda weirded out that the fighter isn't using second wind in the example though.

2nd Wind is hard to evaluate over the course of a day. Short Rests are very campaign and player-base dependent. Assuming 2 short rests, the fighter is getting an additional 18+(3xlvl) additional HP. At lvl.5 that's a total (including HD difference) of 39hp that Uncanny Dodge must mitigate, or 78 raw damage taken over the course of the day. If we want to include HD healing from short rests too, we can add a further (average) of 5hp, for 44hp to mitigate. 10 hits of 10 damage each over 10 rounds is not that unusual in an active adventuring day at that level and for a Rogue with 14 Con, they will have roughly 38 (base)hp plus 25hp HD healing, for a total HP in a day of 63; enough to weather that damage and be efficient compared to the Fighter. And that excludes any outside healing either might get, which favours the Rogue.

edit Apologies if any of the maths here is wrong, it's off the top of my head and from a phone on my way to work! I assume some inaccuracy!

[Talamare]

2nd Wind is hard to evaluate over the course of a day. Short Rests are very campaign and player-base dependent. Assuming 2 short rests, the fighter is getting an additional 18+(3xlvl) additional HP. At lvl.5 that's a total (including HD difference) of 39hp that Uncanny Dodge must mitigate, or 78 raw damage taken over the course of the day. If we want to include HD healing from short rests too, we can add a further (average) of 5hp, for 44hp to mitigate. 10 hits of 10 damage each over 10 rounds is not that unusual in an active adventuring day at that level and for a Rogue with 14 Con, they will have roughly 38 (base)hp plus 25hp HD healing, for a total HP in a day of 63; enough to weather that damage and be efficient compared to the Fighter. And that excludes any outside healing either might get, which favours the Rogue.

(5.5 + Level) * 3
At level 5 that's 10.5 * 3 or 30.5 HP
30.5 HP is equivalent to 30.5 raw damage over the course of the day

If you want to include HD from Healing, at level 5 you get 2 HD back from a Long Rest
Rogue HD is 4.5, Fighter is 5.5.
That's 2 more HP that a Fighter will have over a Rogue

That's 32.5 HP with HD,

Edit - if we add in the raw Base HP difference that's 38.5 HP

Edit 2 -

Bob the lvl.5 Fighter has 34HP (10+4*6).
Jim the lvl.5 Rogue has 28HP (8+4*5).
To be fair, having +38 HP per day when we are talking about characters who have less than 38 HP is quite significant.

[Xihirli]

Rogue gets hit with a nasty 20~30 damage hit? Boom Half Damage, NOPE
Fighter gets hit with a nasty 20~30 damage hit? Don't worry, I have like 7 more HP than yall, I can take it.

Let's not forget that fighters often have 2~4 AC more than a Rogue, and have a 1/short rest ability to heal 1d10+level hp as a bonus action.
Sure, Rogues can devote resources to improving their AC up to the level fighters can just get with heavy armor, but the fighter gets to use those same resources and might improve their defenses as well. From level 1, a fighter can use a shield, while a rogue can't.

[Hael]

Hmm, I don't think anyone disputes that UD is an ok reaction, particularly in that tier1-2 range. Its just better (as a percent of damage mitigated) against one big hit than it is against many attacks. Indeed, its good for what the rogue as a skirmisher is built for, which is more about killing things that are isolated.

What's a little more problematic is the implied notion that a Rogue, with a d8 hd and ~16-17 AC is going to somehow equalize what a fighter brings to the table mitigation wise. And that's definitely false, and not particularly close. The AC differential alone makes a big difference in a bounded accuracy system.

Put it this way, if you get surprised and are surrounded by 3 fire giants, who do you think has a bigger chance of survival, the fighter or the (non AT) rogue?

[Talamare]

Put it this way, if you get surprised and are surrounded by 3 fire giants, who do you think has a bigger chance of survival, the fighter or the (non AT) rogue?

Whichever one was specifically building Tank

If neither? The Rogue
If both? The Rogue

[Hael]

Whichever one was specifically building Tank

If neither? The Rogue
If both? The Rogue

Ok fair enough, you will need to demonstrate this for me. Pick whatever build you want for your tank rogue, I choose an EK with fighting style defense, plate, shield and the shield spell.

How do you propose to best this?

[stoutstien]

Ok fair enough, you will need to demonstrate this for me. Pick whatever build you want for your tank rogue, I choose an EK with fighting style defense, plate, shield and the shield spell.

How do you propose to best this?
Can the rogue use the climb on larger creature rules?

[Psyren]

Can the rogue use the climb on larger creature rules?

You mean the rule that would involve contesting each giant's +11 Athletics check at CR 9?

[stoutstien]

You mean the rule that would involve contesting each giant's +11 Athletics check at CR 9?

It's acrobatics for the larger creature
to avoid them athletics to use an action to remove you but even then it's not hard to beat that with rogue.

[Psyren]

It's acrobatics for the larger creature but even then it's not hard to beat that with rogue.

I think you meant the smaller uses acrobatics (the larger one uses athletics), and sure it's doable but not guaranteed. Nor does climbing on one of them necessarily protect you from the other two (or even that one), that's entirely a DM call.

[Amechra]

One thing to note is that UD damage halving is NOT resistance, so it stacks with one, if you can get both.

This is actually one of those things that can make Barbarian/Rogue multiclasses sweet. Rage + Uncanny Dodge lets you laugh at a surprising amount of damage.

[stoutstien]

I think you meant the smaller uses acrobatics (the larger one uses athletics), and sure it's doable but not guaranteed. Nor does climbing on one of them necessarily protect you from the other two (or even that one), that's entirely a DM call.

Nope I'm looking at the rules right now and it's acrobatics to avoid the smaller one gets to pick. Either way it's a good way for something like a thief to eat the giants' action pool up to deal with.

Everything is DMs call which is kinda the point of poking holes in white room stuff like this. Table play rarely ends up with two sides mindlessly swinging at each other.

[Psyren]

Nope I'm looking at the rules right now and it's acrobatics to avoid the smaller one gets to pick.

The smaller gets to pick what they roll. The big guy uses athletics.


Either way it's a good way for something like a thief to eat the giants' action pool up to deal with.

You're assuming they need to take that action. All climbing on the giant guarantees them is advantage to hit, any other benefits are up to the DM. And certainly the other two giants aren't losing any actions.



Everything is DMs call which is kinda the point of poking holes in white room stuff like this. Table play rarely ends up with two sides mindlessly swinging at each other.

Sure, but the chances of the rogue being caught out of position of the rest of the party is a bit higher than the fighter, given their job description and all.

[Greywander]

I can see this being more of an issue for AT rogues, who have more things they could spend a reaction on. But bringing up multiattack enemies just seems like a weird angle to pursue if you're trying to talk down Uncanny Dodge. Multiattack can still miss. If a creature with two attacks misses you with one of them then it's not really different from a creature without multiattack hitting you on their only attack. It's much more likely that you'll be taking attacks from multiple enemies rather than multiple attacks from one enemy.

Uncanny Dodge is really good at countering singular powerful attacks. It's much less effective against many weaker attacks. That's just what game balance looks like. Uncanny Dodge is more effective against a single dragon than it is against a horde of goblins. But the same could be said about Sneak Attack, so really this is just doubling down on the rogue's role as a boss-killer, not a mook-sweeper.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think JellyPooga is just using a d10 hit die to demonstrate the power of Uncanny Dodge for those that don't immediately see it, rather than say a rogue is as tough or tougher than a fighter.

If you're resorting to a variant rule to prove your point, well... I don't think that's quite helpful. So let's assume a rogue that can't climb onto large creatures.

[JackPhoenix]

If you're resorting to a variant rule to prove your point, well... I don't think that's quite helpful. So let's assume a rogue that can't climb onto large creatures.

Not that it helps much even if he can. If the goal is to survive as long as possible, Dodge or the rogue's mobility (if possible) would serve better.

[Witty Username]

Can the rogue use the climb on larger creature rules?

Alright, this topic is now more important.

Where are those rules at? I assume DMG?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Alright, this topic is now more important.

Where are those rules at? I assume DMG?

Yes, under chapter 9 dungeon master workshop, combat options.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not that it helps much even if he can. If the goal is to survive as long as possible, Dodge or the rogue's mobility (if possible) would serve better.
Agreed. But I think it may be hinging on the idea that depending on your location on the creature the DM might say it can't reach the rogue to attack it.

[Witty Username]

Agreed. But I think it may be hinging on the idea that depending on your location on the creature the DM might say it can't reach the rogue to attack it.

I mean, if it is a fire giant like the example they might respond by jumping into a pit of lava, dealing 18d10 damage to the rogue trying to be cheeky.

[Corran]

Let's put that into an example:
This comparison is misleading, because it's incomplete. You are comparing directly one thing for two classes that contribute differently to other aspects of combat (such as damage, or how easy it is to apply it where you want the most, or endurance against bursts, or stickiness, etc). You also take away the AC values, which is a no-no when you are trying to reach the kind of conclusion it seems to me you want to reach (especially since AC is what makes the typical -non EK- fighter tanky, ie against many low-attack hitting enemies). The values you neglect (as equal for both characters) in order for the comparison to be fair, is what makes your findings less useful for anything relating to actual play. I'll stop critiquing now and I'll try to discuss.

Before going further, let me just opine briefly on uncanny dodge. It's decent, but not great. There are some situations where it can be really good, and I'll come back to that, but for the most part is only as useful as a lack of good off combat healing is allowing it to be.

In term of game design, I think it's excellent. What does your typical melee rogue do? They attack, and if they hit they run away, very appropriate. But if they miss they try once more with their off hand, because missing your enemy sacks as we all know. But then they cannot run away, and with AC and HP values that would not be difficult to overcome for your typical big bad or strong brute (ie the kind of enemy that the rogue might struggle a little more hitting because of said enemy's AC value pressumably), rogue players will have to make a very uncomfortable decision of either forgoing their second chance to inflict some damage or of attempting so but then sticking around for what would most likely be a very unpleasant end turn. Uncanny dodge fits very nicely in there to get you out of this awkward dilemma most(?) of the time. A little underwhelming maybe compared to what you would expect from a 5th level feature when other classes get extra attack and 3rd level spells, especially since cunning action (which is great in the way that it is) comes online at level 2, but that's not too important IMO because this comparison is not consequential.

Other than that, the value of uncanny dodge is mostly defined by its opportunity cost. Not that of forgoing the potential to use your reaction to apply damage (though that matters too), but mainly the opportunity cost of having to act as a typical melee frontliner who sticks next to the enemies' faces. That's how you make the most of uncanny dodge and what you seem to suggest in your example. But why a rogue would do that? Especially when they dont have to, since they have access to stuff like sneak attack from range or mobility baked in? The better question actually is, when the rogue should do that? There are times, and during these times uncanny dodge is very nice to have. But that's not always. And even in such cases you cn still be better off using your reaction offensively, sometimes maybe even saving it up for an OA (even if you or an ally dont attempt to have the enemy provoke it). With uncanny dodge there will be times when you'll be able to tank a LOT better than your typical fighter. And in these cases it might be good to do this and that's the value of uncanny dodge. Outside of these cases you'll only use it to reduce the healing required in between combats, and it can also b useful in the off chance you are dragged into a prolongued fight with few rest opportunities (eg while being chased by something that proved too dangerous to hit and run against, or massive fights like making a last stand against waves of enemies, or being in a city under siege, etc).

But what if you decide to play as the typical frontliner and stick next to enemies? Is uncanny dodge that good to make this worth doing? No. Because it wont protect you as well as the fighter's armor will against hordes (though it probably wont be a huge difference if we are looking isolated at defense). It also wont let you perform as well as a fighter could offenssively, both dpr and nova wise. The fighter "has to" (kind of) stay in melee so that they can rip the benefits of their melee specialization. Defense wise they can be vulnrable, so they may need a bit of babysitting (at least IME, may not be true for everyone). Your average fighter does not want to stay in melee and get pummeled to death, but they can be built in such a way that risking it is worth it (particularly if allies help you stay alive). Going into melee blindly with uncanny dodge backing you up, will seldom be a good decision. Because you are trading the liabilities of the fighter on a class where one of its main benefits is that it doesn't have to suffer them, for just a small part of the offensive value that a fighter can get to. At these times uncanny dodge will really be useful, but the way I see it, when trying to play optimally, these times will be carefully chosen. So it wont be that often that uncanny dodge will be of great importance. This is why I said in the beginning that's I think it's nice but not great. Because you dont need to rely on it too often.

[tokek]

In term of game design, I think it's excellent. What does your typical melee rogue do? They attack, and if they hit they run away, very appropriate. But if they miss they try once more with their off hand, because missing your enemy sacks as we all know. But then they cannot run away, and with AC and HP values that would not be difficult to overcome for your typical big bad or strong brute (ie the kind of enemy that the rogue might struggle a little more hitting because of said enemy's AC value pressumably), rogue players will have to make a very uncomfortable decision of either forgoing their second chance to inflict some damage or of attempting so but then sticking around for what would most likely be a very unpleasant end turn. Uncanny dodge fits very nicely in there to get you out of this awkward dilemma most(?) of the time. A little underwhelming maybe compared to what you would expect from a 5th level feature when other classes get extra attack and 3rd level spells, especially since cunning action (which is great in the way that it is) comes online at level 2, but that's not too important IMO because this comparison is not consequential.

Other than that, the value of uncanny dodge is mostly defined by its opportunity cost. Not that of forgoing the potential to use your reaction to apply damage (though that matters too), but mainly the opportunity cost of having to act as a typical melee frontliner who sticks next to the enemies' faces. That's how you make the most of uncanny dodge and what you seem to suggest in your example. But why a rogue would do that? Especially when they dont have to, since they have access to stuff like sneak attack from range or mobility baked in? The better question actually is, when the rogue should do that? There are times, and during these times uncanny dodge is very nice to have. But that's not always. And even in such cases you cn still be better off using your reaction offensively, sometimes maybe even saving it up for an OA (even if you or an ally dont attempt to have the enemy provoke it). With uncanny dodge there will be times when you'll be able to tank a LOT better than your typical fighter. And in these cases it might be good to do this and that's the value of uncanny dodge. Outside of these cases you'll only use it to reduce the healing required in between combats, and it can also b useful in the off chance you are dragged into a prolongued fight with few rest opportunities (eg while being chased by something that proved too dangerous to hit and run against, or massive fights like making a last stand against waves of enemies, or being in a city under siege, etc).



With my arcane trickster the value here is much more with the hit and run. If I choose to go in and Booming Blade then disengage I know I won't be able to get more than 30' away from them. So if they choose to take the additional 2d8 damage they can come and hit me, that's when uncanny dodge comes into play.

There are considerations for that decision of course. If its a monster with a lot of individually weak attacks then I will probably attack and dash instead, that way I take one weak AOO and get outside its melee threat range to negate the rest of its attacks. Against a monster with one big nasty attack the disengage is far better and that is when uncanny dodge is at its best.

I'm not saying you can't build a tank rogue but I do think that largely that is not what people do and uncanny dodge remains a great feature for keeping your rogue in the fight. Any ability that has a good chance of keeping you in the fight is a damn good ability.

Why would I booming blade? Well it does more damage and also as it happens that character got hold of a magic rapier which swings the decision even more towards melee hit and run style. Also - I had a couple of levels of playing them as a ranged rogue and it got boring being a stationary gun turret.

[stoutstien]

Not that it helps much even if he can. If the goal is to survive as long as possible, Dodge or the rogue's mobility (if possible) would serve better.

True. I was mostly poking fun at the premise of trying to compare mitigation in this way. Climbing on larger creature was just the first thing I thought of.

[LudicSavant]

This comparison is misleading, because it's incomplete. You are comparing directly one thing for two classes that contribute differently to other aspects of combat (such as damage, or how easy it is to apply it where you want the most, or endurance against bursts, or stickiness, etc). You also take away the AC values, which is a no-no when you are trying to reach the kind of conclusion it seems to me you want to reach (especially since AC is what makes the typical -non EK- fighter tanky, ie against many low-attack hitting enemies). The values you neglect (as equal for both characters) in order for the comparison to be fair, is what makes your findings less useful for anything relating to actual play.

This is a good summation of the issue.


the overall point is Rogues and Uncanny Dodge vs. any Class considered more durable (typically those with d10HD).

The thing is, you didn't actually compare "Rogue and Uncanny Dodge vs (insert 'class considered more durable')."

You just compared Uncanny Dodge to 6 hit points.


Features such as...?

Such as, well, Fighter features! Second Wind, Fighting Style, Subclasses, Bonus Feats, Armor/Shield proficiency, and so forth. If a Fighter's considered durable, these are the features that make them so. The d8->d10 HD bump is a footnote by comparison, it's one of the smallest variables at work here.

[da newt]

Of note, you can use UD to mitigate the damage of an OpAtt which really helps support the skirmisher who uses CU Dash too.

UD is very nice, but it doesn't turn a rogue into a great tank.

[Segev]

Speaking as the one who called it "underwhelming" in the other thread, it is mainly that it doesn't feel nearly as game-changing as what other classes get at level five. Martials get Extra Attack. Spellcasters get third level spells, which are a major breakpoint in what magic can do (fly and fireball are there, for instance). Monks not only get extra attack, but stunning strike!

Rogues get +1d6 sneak attack and Uncanny Dodge. The former is an incremental thing that happens every two levels. The latter doesn't have the "big flavor" angle to make you feel more rogue-like, and doesn't have the game-changing oomph of 3rd level spells, extra attack, or stunning strike.

Evasion is apparently too good to get before level seven, or I would say that was the more iconic rogue feature that might work, there, at least as a flavor thing. It also may be more game changing due to letting the rogue dance in the wizard's fireball blast zone.

Like I said; Uncanny Dodge is just underwhelming as a level five feature for a class.

[stoutstien]

Speaking as the one who called it "underwhelming" in the other thread, it is mainly that it doesn't feel nearly as game-changing as what other classes get at level five. Martials get Extra Attack. Spellcasters get third level spells, which are a major breakpoint in what magic can do (fly and fireball are there, for instance). Monks not only get extra attack, but stunning strike!

Rogues get +1d6 sneak attack and Uncanny Dodge. The former is an incremental thing that happens every two levels. The latter doesn't have the "big flavor" angle to make you feel more rogue-like, and doesn't have the game-changing oomph of 3rd level spells, extra attack, or stunning strike.

Evasion is apparently too good to get before level seven, or I would say that was the more iconic rogue feature that might work, there, at least as a flavor thing. It also may be more game changing due to letting the rogue dance in the wizard's fireball blast zone.

Like I said; Uncanny Dodge is just underwhelming as a level five feature for a class.

I can understand that sentiment. rouges are an odd case because they have such steady features it can be hard to be excited about them. They don't get extra attack so at first it's like they are missing out of that potential 100% damage increase but then you look back and see you got half of that at lv 3 and the other half at lv 5. from lv 1-5 they do get a similar potential damage increase just not in one big gob. Uncanny Dodge is likewise. seems like a bland option for lv 5 until you start adding in cunning action and subclass features.

[Segev]

I can understand that sentiment. rouges are an odd case because they have such steady features it can be hard to be excited about them. They don't get extra attack so at first it's like they are missing out of that potential 100% damage increase but then you look back and see you got half of that at lv 3 and the other half at lv 5. from lv 1-5 they do get a similar potential damage increase just not in one big gob. Uncanny Dodge is likewise. seems like a bland option for lv 5 until you start adding in cunning action and subclass features.

They probably should have gotten a subclass feature at level 5, then. Even a ribbon that made something feel like it had "graduated" from newbie levels.

Personally, having been thinking about it, I think I'd have made Uncanny Dodge be:


When you are required to make a saving throw, you may use your reaction to change the saving throw into a Dexterity save.

This is "uncanny dodging" because you're dodging poison, mind whammies, restraints, attacks on your personality, etc., which is an uncanny set of things to dodge. It also synergizes very nicely with Evasion at level 7, allowing total negation of damage from non-Dex-save effects by converting them to Dex saves. Only once per round, which doesn't seem like much of a restriction until you recall that few fights are against only one thing.

[stoutstien]

They probably should have gotten a subclass feature at level 5, then. Even a ribbon that made something feel like it had "graduated" from newbie levels.

Personally, having been thinking about it, I think I'd have made Uncanny Dodge be:



This is "uncanny dodging" because you're dodging poison, mind whammies, restraints, attacks on your personality, etc., which is an uncanny set of things to dodge. It also synergizes very nicely with Evasion at level 7, allowing total negation of damage from non-Dex-save effects by converting them to Dex saves. Only once per round, which doesn't seem like much of a restriction until you recall that few fights are against only one thing.

The subclass levels for rogue are really strung out. The class could use a restructuring in that regard.

[Talamare]

They probably should have gotten a subclass feature at level 5, then. Even a ribbon that made something feel like it had "graduated" from newbie levels.

Personally, having been thinking about it, I think I'd have made Uncanny Dodge be:



This is "uncanny dodging" because you're dodging poison, mind whammies, restraints, attacks on your personality, etc., which is an uncanny set of things to dodge. It also synergizes very nicely with Evasion at level 7, allowing total negation of damage from non-Dex-save effects by converting them to Dex saves. Only once per round, which doesn't seem like much of a restriction until you recall that few fights are against only one thing.

"You're ugly!"
Rogue does a barrel roll.

[Dr.Samurai]

Personally, having been thinking about it, I think I'd have made Uncanny Dodge be:

When you are required to make a saving throw, you may use your reaction to change the saving throw into a Dexterity save.

This is "uncanny dodging" because you're dodging poison, mind whammies, restraints, attacks on your personality, etc., which is an uncanny set of things to dodge. It also synergizes very nicely with Evasion at level 7, allowing total negation of damage from non-Dex-save effects by converting them to Dex saves. Only once per round, which doesn't seem like much of a restriction until you recall that few fights are against only one thing.

"You're ugly!"
Rogue does a barrel roll.
I... quite like this a lot actually :smallamused:.

[Greywander]

This is "uncanny dodging" because you're dodging poison, mind whammies, restraints, attacks on your personality, etc., which is an uncanny set of things to dodge. It also synergizes very nicely with Evasion at level 7, allowing total negation of damage from non-Dex-save effects by converting them to Dex saves. Only once per round, which doesn't seem like much of a restriction until you recall that few fights are against only one thing.
I'm not sure if I'd want to replace Uncanny Dodge with this, but I really like the concept. It fits perfectly with something I've said before, which is that high level martial classes should get mythical abilities, the sort of things you see in folklore and mythology. My example for rogues was being able to steal intangibles, but being able to dodge things like poison or mental attacks is also on point.

[Xihirli]

The subclass levels for rogue are really strung out. The class could use a restructuring in that regard.

Absolutely. One at level three and then nothing until NINE!? Why? Everyone else gets something between levels 6 and 7.

Of course if I get to rewrite the PHB, everyone’s early level abilities are more spaced out to avoid dipping. And Rangers get a double subclass like Warlocks do, one being Favored Terrain and the other being Favored Foe.

[PhantomSoul]

Absolutely. One at level three and then nothing until NINE!? Why? Everyone else gets something between levels 6 and 7.

I do still wonder how that ended up being the actual printed version...


Of course if I get to rewrite the PHB, everyone’s early level abilities are more spaced out to avoid dipping.

Or at least classes aren't so front-loaded more generally, which could also mean having (non-spell) features later on that actually make you want to take more levels