D&D 5E Uncanny Dodge (Rogue)

[Joe Liker]

If you compare Uncanny Dodge with the 5th-level (-ish) features of other classes, you'll see that -- even when limited only to "attack roll" attacks -- it's extremely useful, and at least as powerful as what other classes get.

It's not meant to turn the rogue into a dodge-tank. It's not meant to let the rogue dodge absolutely anything that comes at him. It's meant to add a bit more survivability to a lightly-armored character who sometimes ends up in the cross-hairs.

 

[guachi]

Does Evasion work on Chain Lightning? Why or why not?

Chain Lightning:
A target must make a Dexterity saving throw... or
half as much damage on a successful one.

Evasion:When you are subjected
to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving
throw to take only half damage,

Snippage of original quote. Does lightning bolt allow a save for half damage? Yes. Therefore you can use Evasion.

 

[Mistwell]

You can't dodge what cannot miss.

But you can evade things that cannot miss? You know, since evade is a synonym for dodge....

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Dungeons and Dragons. It's right there in the title of the game. They breath fire, with no attack roll.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Again (we're having a repeat debate here now), the sentence starts with "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack..." and I think there is no question that a dragonborn breathing fire on you is an attack, so given there is no question you don't move on to the secondary rule. It's obviously an attack, it's labelled as an attack in the description, it uses the attack action, it's blatantly an attack.

 

[Mistwell]

The other way to view it is that an attack is something which involves an attempt to cause harm. That's the colloquial meaning of the term, but it's pretty fuzzy.

So it's not too fuzzy for invisibility but it is too fuzzy for Uncanny Dodge because...?

 

[Celtavian]

It's true there are certain spell effects that neither make attack rolls nor impose saving throws but still inflict damage (like Magic Missile). In order to keep things simple at my table, I'd keep to my prior statement that if there is no attack roll there can't be an Uncanny Dodge. Players may not like it, but it is consistent. It also prevents parsing the English language and gets the table back to killing stuff and role-playing.

Also, Celtavian, Mike Mearls has said you can only sneak attack once and on your turn. So you could use reaction attack from Sentinel for a sneak attack, but only if the reaction was on your turn.

The text from his tweets, which aren't official as only Mr. Crawford's rulings are: believe sneak attack is usable only on the rogue's turn and intent would be to avoid stacking with multiple attacks via multiple classing

Mearls did not say that as an absolute. He did say according to the rules, you can sneak attack on another's turn. That is where I learned it could be done. From Mearls own comments on Sneak Attack. There was a discussion on the wording. It says "Once per turn..." That means you can sneak attack on another character's turn. This was discussed elsewhere. From what I read, Mearls did agree that Sneak Attacking on another's turn was indeed possible.

 

[guachi]

What? He did say what I wrote. I quoted his tweets exactly. He may have said something at some other time, but since you have no quotes just your memory to back it up, I think I'm on more solid ground.

Tweets are dated September 11, 2014 at 11:56 PM. and September 12, 2014 at 12:24 AM. I'm looking at them right now with my own two eyes.

You can go here and look for yourself. http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/sneak/

Again, his word isn't final. Jeremy Crawford's is as he's the rules guy.

Personally, I'd have ruled you can sneak attack on another's turn but you can still only do it once between the time your turn begins and your next turn begins. It allows you to Ready an action and delay your sneak attack to your Reaction. "I ready my Action and wait for the first creature to come through the door and stabbity-stab him!" Or use sneak attack with Sentinel or something. But, still, only one.

EDIT: I want you to be correct that you can sneak attack on another's turn. I think it's intentional that the sneak attack says "once per turn" and not "once on your turn" or something. It's tough sometimes parsing whether a rule is natural language or using specific game terminology. Like this thread of when is an attack not an attack?

 

[Uller]

Snippage of original quote. Does lightning bolt allow a save for half damage? Yes. Therefore you can use Evasion.

I think you snipped out the important bits that make it not nearly so cut and dry.

Evasion says it is for area effects. Chain Lightning is most definitely not an area effect. It's targeted.

 

[Celtavian]

What? He did say what I wrote. I quoted his tweets exactly. He may have said something at some other time, but since you have no quotes just your memory to back it up, I think I'm on more solid ground.

Tweets are dated September 11, 2014 at 11:56 PM. and September 12, 2014 at 12:24 AM. I'm looking at them right now with my own two eyes.

You can go here and look for yourself. http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/sneak/

Again, his word isn't final. Jeremy Crawford's is as he's the rules guy.

Personally, I'd have ruled you can sneak attack on another's turn but you can still only do it once between the time your turn begins and your next turn begins. It allows you to Ready an action and delay your sneak attack to your Reaction. "I ready my Action and wait for the first creature to come through the door and stabbity-stab him!" Or use sneak attack with Sentinel or something. But, still, only one.

I'm not going to run it that way until some official errata comes out. They should have written it differently if the intent was to have it occur on the Rogue's turn. It would have been easy to write "Once during your turn..." They knew about Commander's Strike, Sentinel, and Opportunity attacks that allow you to attack on another's turn. There is zero reason to believe that Sneak Attack wouldn't allow you to get another deadly shot in if someone left you an opening like an AoO.

It even explains why they limited sneak attack to once per turn rather than per attack. A Sneak attack does less damage than other classes multiple attacks as you level. I would bet the original intent was to ensure that if a rogue did get a second sneak attack in round it was at most one time using a valuable resource like a reaction. If he makes the attack, he loses access to his Uncanny Dodge and the ability to use any other reaction spells like shield.

I will not be surprised if once Jeremy Crawford looks it over, he decides it is ok. It's not as though it is easy to do and has no cost for doing so like an extra attack. I think Mearls was mostly tossing out his immediate thought on the matter, which included the original idea of why Sneak Attacks don't work with multiple attacks. If Sneak Attack worked with multiple attacks including your bonus action and your reaction, it would get way out of hand. Limiting it to one attack on the rogue's turn and one possible reaction attack on another character's turn seems a sufficient limitation for a very limited attack.

That's my opinion on it.