Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 1642795" data-attributes="member: 1757">I didn't suggest that a "because" was necessary, woodelf. A correlative relationship is sufficient to reach the conclusion I did. Two simple quotes:"A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.""She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker." When does a character lose his dodge bonus to AC? When he is exposed to a condition that makes him lose his Dex bonus to AC. Does a rogue with UD lose his Dex bonus to AC when flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker? No.Thus, has the character been exposed to "[a] condition that makes [him] lose [his] Dexterity bonus to AC"? No.Thus, does the character lose his dodge bonuses? Clearly, no.If the rule stated that "a condition that normally would make you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses," then I'd say it'd be at least somewhat ambiguous in favor of loss of dodge bonuses. But that's not what the rule says. In fact, it creates a strict correlative relationship between actual loss of Dex bonus and loss of dodge bonus; no actual loss of Dex bonus therefore means no loss of dodge bonuses.</blockquote>