Uncanny Dodge and the Dodge bonus - Yes or No?

[Nathan Wolf]

I agree with woodelf that the RAW do not establish a clear cause and effect relationship.

"A condition (C) that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) (X) also makes you lose dodge bonuses (Y)."

C leads to X. C also leads to Y.

IMHO more accurately represents the grammar in the above sentence than

C leads to X. X leads to Y.

"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker."

For her, these two values of C do not lead to X. This has nothing to do with Y.

-- nathan

 

[Lamoni]

I agree with woodelf that the RAW do not establish a clear cause and effect relationship.

I also agree. If you try hard enough, you can get another interpretation out of it. But, if you aren't in your English class disecting sentences, then it is pretty clear to most everyone that you don't lost dodge bonuses whenever you can keep your dex bonus.

Even woodelf, who did most of the arguing for the rule's ambiguity agrees that you should keep the dodge bonuses. That leaves one person who thinks or thought otherwise (maybe he has changed his mind), and everyone else who has posted here is in agreement. If it was a poll, you would probably get a 99 to 1 ratio... or at least a 97 to 3 ratio.

Of course, as a DM, you can make the rules whatever you want. By the RAW, it is clear to most people how it is supposed to be handled or how it would be handled in any official tournament.

Oh, I also wanted to say thanks for the "almost uncanny" comment posted earlier. I too chuckled.

 

[Coredump]

I want to disagree. Just because a rule can be twisted to look a certian way if you squint at it with one eye while the sun is going down.... does not make the rule ambiguous.

Yes, a true rules lawyer may be able to create a case in court, but that does not mean it is unclear.

.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I agree with woodelf that the RAW do not establish a clear cause and effect relationship.

"A condition (C) that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) (X) also makes you lose dodge bonuses (Y)."

C leads to X. C also leads to Y.

IMHO more accurately represents the grammar in the above sentence than

C leads to X. X leads to Y.

I read the whole situation like this:

Where (C) is a condition, (C2) is a condition in which a character has Uncanny Dodge, (X) is a condition in which a PC loses Dexterity bonus to AC, (Y) is a PC's dodge bonuses.

Given X (and only X) = -Y
If C = X, then C = -Y
C2 /= X, therefore C2 /= -Y

 

[Nathan Wolf]

I can see that as well.

So if C = X, then C = X and Y;

therefore if C != X, just stop calculating since there's no reason to affect Y.

I like that, and it supports what is to me a more reasonable interpretation (and a bit less math during combat). Though it can be seen both ways, count my vote with the majority.

-- nathan