D&D 5E Uncanny Dodge (Rogue)

[Uller]

I can't use uncanny dodge against the dragon's wing attack because it requires a save and not an attack roll so it is not technically an attack? (Sorry...couldnt resist...)

 

[Chocolategravy]

Solution: 3 levels of barbarian, half damage from everything.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How does one roll with a fire ray? How does one roll with an electrical shock? You can dodge Fire Bolts, Scorching Rays, and the like...what's the difference from dodging a disintegrate ray? You don't take the brunt of the damage because you reacted quickly enough to remove yourself from harm. Isn't that intent?

Is taking a quarter damage all that powerful once a round? What if you need your reaction for something else like getting hammered by a death knight or a purple worm? I don't see how it becomes too powerful to work against anything that is an attack from another creature. You get the hell out of dodge.

Evasion works against everything with Dex saves. It basically acts as Damage Resistance to anything that gives a Dex save. Is it that much more powerful if you can use your single reaction to lower the damage to a quarter? Not really. A lot of the time against Dex effects, you'll take no damage. It doesn't make much sense you couldn't get out of the way of a disintegrate ray or similar attacks that have to hit a target full on.

I wouldn't focus so much on the quarter damage, that was a minor point.

Instead, look at what purpose Evasion serves if Uncanny Dodge works as you describe. Uncanny Dodge would do what Evasion does without requiring a save, and also work against ANY effect requiring a save and ANY attack roll. That's pretty great.

Compared to that, Evasion is pretty tame.

 

[Celtavian]

All I know is there are a lot of things that requires saves other than dex saves that you could picture a rogue dodging. They don't require attack rolls. I don't see why Uncanny Dodge wouldn't work against them. I guess I'll see how my group wants to handle it. Personally, I'm for allowing it if it seems reasonable like dodging dragon wings, disintegrate ray, or something similar. One time a round for a reaction doesn't seem over-powered to me. You only get one reaction a round. You might not even be targeted by something that does damage. It doesn't help against hold spells, sleep, and the like. Then there are all kinds of extra attacks like multi-attacking creatures that do tons of extra damage, legendary actions, and lair actions that can mess you up bad. You have to choose wisely amongst them all with your Uncanny Dodge.

Uncanny Dodge is a very cool ability. Over-powered it will not be if you allow it against all types of attacks including attacks that are resolved with saving throws. It reduces damage, nothing else.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I do think that the wording is a little vague, so it's a case of interpretation. I would interpret it as only for attacks that require an attack roll. I think that was the intent of the ability based on the wording and how attacks are described in the PHB.

 

[aramis erak]

All other saves aren't covered under evasion. Therein lies the issue.

There are wisdom and constitution saves that do damage. Does Uncanny Dodge work against them? Evasion only works against dexterity saves, right?

Let's say a wizard casts disintegrate against your rogue. It's a constitution save. It doesn't require an attack roll. Would it be impossible to see a rogue using Uncanny Dodge against a disintegrate ray? I think not. Is a disintegrate an attack? Does it hit you?

I think Uncanny Dodge would be effective against a disintegrate spell that focuses a ray at you. But according to some, only if the attack uses an attack roll is it effective. It would be nice to see this cleared up. It will greatly weaken Uncanny Dodge against non-dexterity based attacks that don't require an attack roll, but it will at least provide clarity. I imagine the as more spells come out, Uncanny Dodge will get weaker and weaker as casters choose spells that don't require attack rolls and do damage against a save other than dex.

You can't dodge what cannot miss.

 

[guachi]

If there was no attack roll made, there can be no hit. No hit means no uncanny dodge.

This game isn't PvP. You don't have to worry about other players casting non-attack roll spells against your rogue.

 

[pkt77242]

If there was no attack roll made, there can be no hit. No hit means no uncanny dodge.

This game isn't PvP. You don't have to worry about other players casting non-attack roll spells against your rogue.

What? If there is no attack roll there can be no hit. So the Dragon's fire breath doesn't hit you or the wizard's disintegration spell doesn't hit you?

I am not sure where I fall in this debate but the way you framed it doesn't make sense.

 

[guachi]

Some spells and effects are attacks. They use attack rolls. The only thing that qualifies as an attack is something that uses an attack roll. Casting a spell on someone and imposing a saving throw isn't an attack as it doesn't use an attack roll.

PHB p193 under the Making an Attack heading: Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure. Skip ahead a few sentences and move on to page 194. If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple. If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

Ergo, no attack roll means no attack. If you aren't attacking you can't trigger Uncanny Dodge as it clearly states "when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack"



There is nothing vague about the wording. There is no ambiguity. No attack roll = no attack = no Uncanny Dodge.

 

[pkt77242]

Some spells and effects are attacks. They use attack rolls. The only thing that qualifies as an attack is something that uses an attack roll. Casting a spell on someone and imposing a saving throw isn't an attack as it doesn't use an attack roll.

PHB p193 under the Making an Attack heading: Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure. Skip ahead a few sentences and move on to page 194. If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple. If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

Ergo, no attack roll means no attack. If you aren't attacking you can't trigger Uncanny Dodge as it clearly states "when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack"



There is nothing vague about the wording. There is no ambiguity. No attack roll = no attack = no Uncanny Dodge.

Actually "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple. If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" doesn't necessarily mean what you want it to mean. Just because it states that doesn't meant that other things that don't require attack rolls aren't attacks it just means if there is a question then default to that, it doesn't specifically rule out things without attack rolls from being attacks, though from your argument you have already made up your mind so this probably isn't worth my time. This reminds me of the time when I was buying a car and I said that I liked the grey color, the salesman said it isn't grey, let me go look up the color, and he came back and said "it is metallic gunmetal", and I said "yep, it is grey." You can argue that the rules didn't intend for uncanny dodge to protect against those things and I may agree with you but when you want to say that a dragon's breath weapon or a fireball spell isn't an attack because it doesn't have an attack roll, I might give you a weird look that says "really?".

As I have pointed out, I am not sure which way I would rule if I had to.