Uncanny Dodge - Flatfooted vs. Denied Dex to AC

[MongooseFamiliar]

I run it as UD lets one keep their dex bonus unless they do something to give it up: Climb, Run*, Balance or become helpless. I let them keep UD while blind too.

Yikes. Glad I'm not a ninja in your campaign. As it is, I'm going to have to clarify/negotiate with my DM. Many thanks to everyone for your perspectives on this subject, I really appreciate it.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The main reason for *my* confusion is that I often see "flat-footed" used interchangably with "denied dexterity bonus."

For example, the Acrobatic Backstab trick from the Complete Scoundrel reads: "Move through foe's space to render it flat-footed."

"Flat-footed" as defined in the PHB refers specifically to characters losing their dexterity bonus <b>at the beginning of a battle.</b>

Would you rule that Uncanny Dodge negates the Acrobatic Backstab trick or no?

If you use the OA 3.0 rules for Iajitsu Focus, it is important to distinguish between "flat-footed" and "denied dexterity bonus".

 

[MongooseFamiliar]

If you use the OA 3.0 rules for Iajitsu Focus, it is important to distinguish between "flat-footed" and "denied dexterity bonus".

It's also important for those of us playing ninjas who have Sudden Strike rather than Sneak Attack, though it also pertains to rogues.

 

[RigaMortus2]

It's also important for those of us playing ninjas who have Sudden Strike rather than Sneak Attack, though it also pertains to rogues.

Not really. In both examples, you would apply Sudden Strike either way. You apply Sudden Strike if your opponent is flat-footed OR when they are denied their dexterity bonus to AC.

An Iajitsu Focus user ONLY applies their bonus damage from Iajitsu Focus when their opponent is flat-footed but NOT when they are simply "denied their dexterity bonus to AC".

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would. Uncanny Dodge makes the character immune to being flat-footed. If a circumstance makes someone flat-footed, that circumstance doesn't work on someone with Uncanny Dodge.

If the same circumstance uses different wording -- "denies the target its Dex bonus to AC" -- then it works whether the target has Uncanny Dodge or not.

Yup. So Balancing without 5 ranks in Balance is okay (since it makes you flat-footed and thus denies Dex bonus to AC), but Running isn't (since it simply denies Dex bonus to AC).

-Hyp.

 

[Pickaxe]

Sentence two

The second sentence is what really causes the confusion here. Without it, interpreting Uncanny Dodge as applying broadly would be stretching the RAW. But, just as the first sentence implies the restricted conditions to which UD applies, the second sentence looks like it's clarifying which conditions don't apply to UD. So, if you want to be a "loose constructionist," you could look at the second sentence as identifying the one and only condition that causes you to lose your Dex bonus to AC even if you have UD. (To address the OP's stated confusion on flat-footed versus "denied Dex," I always thought of it as "denied" being an effect, and "flat-footed" being one the conditions that results in that effect.)

Having said that, I tend to agree that the "strict constructionist" view probably makes the most sense. I think this is just another case of a rule that could use a little expansion of its text for clarity.

I would also agree with equating "struck while blinded" with "attacked by an invisible opponent." Yes, "blinded" and "invisible opponent" are not the same thing, but that's because blindness has effects that apply even when there are no opponents (such as half move, no running). The description of "invisible" is "visually undetectable," which is true when you face a blind opponent.

--Axe

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would also agree with equating "struck while blinded" with "attacked by an invisible opponent."

In 3E, it explicitly stated that while blind, attackers were considered invisible.

In 3.5, it does not; and if you take it as implicit, the disadvantages of being blind increase.

In 3.5, an invisible attacker gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls, while a blind defender takes a -2 penalty to AC.

If you declare that since the (otherwise visible) attacker is 'visually undetectable' to the blind defender, and therefore considered invisible, the defender takes the -2 to AC, but the attacker also gains a +2 bonus to his attack, for a net difference of 4 (rather than 2) in the chance to hit the blinded opponent vs a non-blinded opponent.

-Hyp.

 

[MongooseFamiliar]

....You two make my head hurt.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

In 3E, it explicitly stated that while blind, attackers were considered invisible.

In 3.5, it does not; and if you take it as implicit, the disadvantages of being blind increase.

In 3.5, an invisible attacker gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls, while a blind defender takes a -2 penalty to AC.

If you declare that since the (otherwise visible) attacker is 'visually undetectable' to the blind defender, and therefore considered invisible, the defender takes the -2 to AC, but the attacker also gains a +2 bonus to his attack, for a net difference of 4 (rather than 2) in the chance to hit the blinded opponent vs a non-blinded opponent.

-Hyp.

That makes a for funny result. If an invisible attacker walks up to a pair of enemies, one of whom is blinded, he can attack the not-blinded enemy with a net +2 to hit, or the blinded enemy for a net +4 to hit. Neither one can see him, because he is visually undetectable. But the blind guy can't see him more.

 

[PallidPatience]

If you want to rationalize it, you can think of it as the not-blinded man being able to pick up on minor visual cues that there is someone there, even if he can't see him. The wind, though we cannot see it, moves things as it passes. So might an invisible person kick up dust, etc.