Given:

My question: How has PF changed in relation to invisible attackers attacking a character with uncanny dodge?

PF mentions those with UD not being flat-footed to an invisible attacker. But, isn't that. . . unhelpful information?

• You're already losing your Dexterity bonus to AC versus an invisible attacker.
  
• You can't make an attack of opportunity against a target with total concealment (invisible).

And since being flat-footed means a character "loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity", do you get no real bonus against an invisible attacker other than the lack of the "flat-footed" status?

Why include any text referencing an invisible attacker?

I assume UD relies on more senses or "a sixth sense based on years of fighting", that goes beyond the ability to see your opponent, and therefore they have to make that distinction. That is why they call it Uncanny.

I assume UD relies on more senses or "a sixth sense based on years of fighting", that goes beyond the ability to see your opponent, and therefore they have to make that distinction. That is why they call it Uncanny.

Right. But the PF version gives you no real aid against an invisible attacker. Why mention it in the text? Am I missing something about being flat-footed that would help you out against an invisible attacker?

Sneak attack damage. If you're not flatfooted, you aren't sneak attacked, even if the attacker is invisible.

Sneak attack damage. If you're not flatfooted, you aren't sneak attacked, even if the attacker is invisible.

False. Sneak Attack isn't based on being flat-footed, it's based on being denied Dexterity bonus. Flat-footed is the most common way to achieve that goal, but being invisible does it as well.

However, being invisible doesn't create the flat-footed condition.

Invisible

Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.

You merely lose your Dex bonus to AC. As written, a rogue that hasn't yet had her turn come up in the initiative order is not flat-footed, but still loses her Dex bonus to AC against an invisible attacker.

Since Zurai was right about sneak attack not being based on being flat-footed, a "flat-footed" rogue with uncanny dodge is vulnerable to sneak attack by an invisible rogue.

Just to be sure I understand...
By the letter of the new rule a rogue or barbarian is not protected from invisible sneak attackers by uncanny dodge, ever, isn't it?
They were under 3.5 ruling but now they need the blind-fighting feat.

Meabolex, I think you're right.

This is unfortunate rewording. Invisible attackers do not catch foes flatfooted: they gain a bonus and ignore the foe's Dex bonus.

The 3.5 Uncanny wording had that covered. The PF wording does not, and that "even" implies that it should. You are right that there is no good reason (in the finished PF rules) to re-word it in this way, and every reason to contra-word it back to something like the original.

Errata note would be good on this at some point.

It can be just me, but I do not think a rogue loses dex bonus to AC against an invisible attacker still.

I only see the added note about feint being a significant change.

Remco -

"Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible."

The invisible attacker does not catch the rogue flat-footed by default. It does gain a bonus to attack and denies the rogue her Dex bonus.

By the wording of the PF Uncanny Dodge, therefore, the rogue loses her Dex bonus, and the invisible attacker gains its bonus.

Is that the intent? I'm thinking not, right? And I think you too. So the wording is faulty. The 3.5 wording had this covered.

It's not a biggie, but it needs changing at some point.

In my opinion, "flat-footed=being denied your dex bonus to AC." That's how it's listed on the character sheet.

I've always looked at it this way and that's how I see it. So the way I look at it, uncanny dodge would protect against any instances where the rogue (or barbarian) would be denied their dex bonus to ac.

I really haven't the foggiest clue on why the ability was worded like it was. I think they wanted feint to work against a character with uncanny dodge. It's created some strange consquences though.

It does need to be errataed. There are a MULTITUDE of ways to interrpret this ability.

Just to be sure I understand...

By the letter of the new rule a rogue or barbarian is not protected from invisible sneak attackers by uncanny dodge, ever, isn't it?
They were under 3.5 ruling but now they need the blind-fighting feat.

Right. The UD does nothing to help against invisible attackers. Blind-Fight helps against invisible attackers in melee -- ranged invisible attackers always get a sneak attack.

However, being invisible doesn't create the flat-footed condition.

Right, but invisibility essentially makes all your opponents flat-footed in relation to you without actually being flat-footed. It's not the same thing, but it might as well be. That's the whole point of my question; there's no benefit of not being considered flat-footed to an invisible attacker. Why have the text to define that ability?

In my opinion, "flat-footed=being denied your dex bonus to AC." That's how it's listed on the character sheet.

Some of the Paizo staff would agree with you (unfortunately). But according to the rules, "flat-footed" means "you haven't acted in combat yet".

TheDrone wrote:

In my opinion, "flat-footed=being denied your dex bonus to AC." That's how it's listed on the character sheet.

Some of the Paizo staff would agree with you (unfortunately). But according to the rules, "flat-footed" means "you haven't acted in combat yet".

I believe there are other ways to be flat-footed (balancing, climbing without a climb speed, failing a swim check, etc). I don't have my books with me at the moment so please excuse if some are in error.

In general flat footed is a stronger penalty. It seems in this case that it is simply a question of semantics here, and as anyone who has revised a paper multiple times will know errors like these are bound to crop up.

It makes for a decent errata (but to invisibility mind you rather than uncanny dodge).

You will note that uncanny dodge will let you make AOOs before you can act (in essence a poor man's combat reflexes).

-James

TheDrone wrote:

In my opinion, "flat-footed=being denied your dex bonus to AC." That's how it's listed on the character sheet.

Some of the Paizo staff would agree with you (unfortunately). But according to the rules, "flat-footed" means "you haven't acted in combat yet".

Mostly...

Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

In fact it's both. You are flat-footed at the beginning of combat until you act. Other things can also cause you to be flat-footed though.

As to the question, sure if you want to read it absolutely by the letter of the law, an invisble attacker may still lose their Dex bonus to AC. However I would take this as a "copy-paste" error, and that uncanny dodge would allow the Rogue to not lose it's dexterity bonus to AC versus invisible attackers.

I may be way off base here but reading the description of invisibility quoted above... the rogue is not denied their ac to dex by the invis attacker. the attacker ignores their ac bonus. so they get to hit you flatfooted ac with a +2 but the rogue is never denied their ac bonus directly and would not be subject to the said sneak attack.

but that is only if you take the exact wording of the quote

False. Sneak Attack isn't based on being flat-footed, it's based on being denied Dexterity bonus. Flat-footed is the most common way to achieve that goal, but being invisible does it as well.

This.

I have come across this issue many times, and this is how I have always ruled it:

1. Not having acted yet in a combat applies the flat-footed condition to a character. There are other ways to become flat-footed, but this is the most common.
   
2. The flat-footed condition commonly denies a character from applying their dexterity bonus to their armor class. There are other conditions that similarly denies a character from applying their dexterity bonus to their armor class, but being flat-footed is the most common.
   
3. Being denied their dexterity bonus is one condition that would all a character to be susceptible to the Sneak Attack ability of a Rogue. There are other conditions (such as being flanked) that would also allow a character to be susceptible to the Sneak Attack ability of a Rogue.

Under 3.5, a character with Uncanny Dodge would still gain the flat-footed condition (item 1), not be denied their dex bonus (item 2), and thus be immune to sneak attacks created through such (item 3).

Under Pathfinder, a character with Uncanny Dodge would not gain the flat-footed condition (item 1), though can lose their dex bonus through other methods (2nd sentence of item 2).

Clear as mud?