Does having Uncanny Dodge make you immune to Feint maneuvers?
...That's it, pretty much.
Does having Uncanny Dodge make you immune to Feint maneuvers?
...That's it, pretty much.
Nope. You can still fall victim to feint.
From the SRD: "A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to Armor Class if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her."
-Weylin
Correct. Uncanny Dodge only affects flanking and being flat-footed. Losing your Dex bonus to AC through anything other than being flat-footed is outside the ability of Uncanny Dodge to prevent. Feint doesn't cause you to become flat-footed, it causes you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC; thus, Uncanny Dodge does nothing to prevent it (even without the specific mention).
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick response!
|
Correct. Uncanny Dodge only affects flanking and being flat-footed. Losing your Dex bonus to AC through anything other than being flat-footed is outside the ability of Uncanny Dodge to prevent. Feint doesn't cause you to become flat-footed, it causes you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC; thus, Uncanny Dodge does nothing to prevent it (even without the specific mention).Does having Uncanny Dodge make you immune to Feint maneuvers?
...That's it, pretty much.
Nope. You can still fall victim to feint.
From the SRD: "A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to Armor Class if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her."
-Weylin
I'm sure this is what Zurai meant - but for the sake of being thorough - It's IMPROVED Uncanny Dodge that affects flanking.
Furhermore, in addition to being the victim of a successful feint maneuver, other situations that cause you to "lose your dex" (as opposed to Flat-Footed condition) in which Uncanny Dodge will NOT assist with includes: running, climbing*, balancing, being restrained/grappled, immobilized and others.
Flat Footed typically only occurs during two aspects of the game: 1_) during initiative before you'd had a chance to act and 2_) being attacked by an unseen attacker. Both of these are aided by Uncanny Dodge.
Robert
* Provided you don't have a listed "climb" speed.
Flat Footed typically only occurs during two aspects of the game: 1_) during initiative before you'd had a chance to act and 2_) being attacked by an unseen attacker. Both of these are aided by Uncanny Dodge.
This is a common stance people take. However, I think it is actually a misconception. UD specifically defends against being flat-footed. IUD specifically defends against flanking. I have never seen in any printed rules where an invisible attacker renders you flat-footed. You are denied your Dex bonus to AC to attacks from an invisible attacker and they get an additional +2 to hit you. But that is not equal to being flat-footed. I do not believe that UD protects you against invisible attackers any more than it does against being feinted in combat.
|
|
Flat Footed typically only occurs during two aspects of the game: 1_) during initiative before you'd had a chance to act and 2_) being attacked by an unseen attacker. Both of these are aided by Uncanny Dodge.This is a common stance people take. However, I think it is actually a misconception. UD specifically defends against being flat-footed. IUD specifically defends against flanking. I have never seen in any printed rules where an invisible attacker renders you flat-footed. You are denied your Dex bonus to AC to attacks from an invisible attacker and they get an additional +2 to hit you. But that is not equal to being flat-footed. I do not believe that UD protects you against invisible attackers any more than it does against being feinted in combat.
from the core rules pg 34 under the barbarian's class description
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the ability to 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. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her. If a barbarian already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
It was this way in 3.5 also.
Robert
from the core rules pg 34 under the barbarian's class description
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the ability to 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. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her. If a barbarian already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
It was this way in 3.5 also.
Robert
All this says is that you cannot be caught flat-footed. Flat-footed is a specific condition that happens at specific times in combat:
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Nowhere in the PRD, that I have seen, does it say that you are flat-footed to attacks from an Invisible attacker:
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.
It says the invisible attacker ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC and gets +2 to attacks. It does not say "Renders opponent flat-footed and gains a +2 to attack."
All the UD description is saying is that you can never have the flat-footed condition, even if attacked by someone you didn't see coming. It definitely does not say that you are considered flat-footed from all attacks made by an invisible attacker and are therefore safe. The invisible attacker still ignores your Dex to AC and gets a +2 to attack; it just can't cause you to become flat-footed.
Check these out to see past conversations I have had about this:
Detailed Question about UD vs. Invisibility.
Detailed Answer.
|
|
Nowhere in the PRD, that I have seen, does it say that you are flat-footed to attacks from an Invisible attacker:
You're not flat footed against an invisible target. you lose your Dex. This I agree with.
However, as I copied and pasted, Uncanny Dodge allows the person to keep their Dex when flat footed and/or when attacked by an unseen opponent.
Its really quite that simple. Uncanny Dodge helps in 2 situations. 1 - while flat footed - defined as during intiative before you have had a chance to act yet. And 2 - while being attacked by an invisible (or otherwise unseen) opponent.
It doesn't say under flat-footed that being attacked by an unseen opponent causes you to flat-footed, and it doesn't say under invisibility that when you are so, you catch others flat-footed. It does say under invisibility that you cause the opponent to the lose the Dex mod. And uncanny dodge to combat that states that you keep you dex when flat footed and when being attacked by an unseen opponent - two situation that would ordinarily cause one to lose their Dex (and dodge) bonuses to AC - but NOT when someone has Uncanny Dodge. Not in either situation.
Robert
I agree that RAW, Uncanny Dodge doesn't prevent you from losing Dex bonuses to AC against invisible opponents.
What I don't get, though, is why the description says you're not able to be caught "flat-footed" against invisible opponents. Even in a surprise round, if you're not flat-footed against them, you still lose your Dex bonus and are subject to everything else...so what does it matter if you're flat-footed or not? You're still subject to sneak attacks, and your AC is the same. Is there an effect that only works against true flat-footedness and not against "merely" losing your Dex bonus that I'm not thinking of?
The only things Flat-Footed denies is Dex to AC and attacks of opportunity. So I guess maybe you could make an AOO against an invisible person in a surprise round with UD, if you made a perception check to notice where they were moving...but they'd still have the standard miss chance for attacking someone with concealment. Anyone have any other benefits of UD against invisbles?
You're not flat footed against an invisible target. you lose your Dex. This I agree with.
However, as I copied and pasted, Uncanny Dodge allows the person to keep their Dex when flat footed and/or when attacked by an unseen opponent.
You are mis-quoting your own quote. You have to inject words into the actual description to make it say that.
Nowhere in the UD description does it say that UD "allows the person to keep their Dex when flat footed and/or when attacked by an unseen opponent."
What it says is that you cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible. There is a big difference in what you are saying and what the actual wording of UD is saying.
Its really quite that simple. Uncanny Dodge helps in 2 situations. 1 - while flat footed - defined as during intiative before you have had a chance to act yet. And 2 - while being attacked by an invisible (or otherwise unseen) opponent.
No, it prevents you from ever being caught flat-footed. It does not prevent you from losing your Dex to AC against an invisible attacker.
It doesn't say under flat-footed that being attacked by an unseen opponent causes you to flat-footed, and it doesn't say under invisibility that when you are so, you catch others flat-footed. It does say under invisibility that you cause the opponent to the lose the Dex mod. And uncanny dodge to combat that states that you keep you dex when flat footed and when being attacked by an unseen opponent - two situation that would ordinarily cause one to lose their Dex (and dodge) bonuses to AC - but NOT when someone has Uncanny Dodge. Not in either situation.
That’s not what it says at all. It doesn't say you keep your Dex when flat-footed or attacked by an invisible attacker. It very explicitly states you can never be caught flat-footed even if your attacker is invisible. But, while the invisible attacker cannot catch you flat-footed, he is still quite able to deny you Dex to AC and get a +2 to hit you.
What I don't get, though, is why the description says you're not able to be caught "flat-footed" against invisible opponents. Even in a surprise round, if you're not flat-footed against them, you still lose your Dex bonus and are subject to everything else...so what does it matter if you're flat-footed or not? You're still subject to sneak attacks, and your AC is the same. Is there an effect that only works against true flat-footedness and not against "merely" losing your Dex bonus that I'm not thinking of?
It is just saying that you are never flat-footed, even if you can't see who attacked you. The conditions of being attacked by an invisible attacker are similar to those of being flat-footed but they are not the same and UD only protects you from being flat-footed. If you want to be protected against invisible attackers getting the +2 to attack and denying your Dex to AC you have to get the Blind Fighting feat.
|
|
I find this arguement and its interpretations silly and circular.
I concede the wording that you indicate, is not verbatim how it is practiced.
But let me ask you this:
IF we assume you are 100% accurate.
Then IF being attacked by an unseen oppenent denies the defender his dexterity.....
And IF Uncanny protects one's DEX mod from being flat footed, even if the attacker is invisible.......
BUT if the attacker is invisible, he denies the defender his DEX mod anyways,
Then why bother putting that UcD protects one from being flat footed even against an unseen opponent - IF an unseen opponent is still going to get to deny someone their DEX mod to AC? It seems superfluous and extraneous to make that circumstantial disclaimer that only is contradictory to what you're interpreting.
Let me share the SRD from 3rd edition
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.
So it's not this ongoing misnomer that you indicated it to be. It has always been that other retain their dexterity when attacked by invisible target.
The wording the PF Barbarian is slightly different, but I'm sure it's meant to indicate the same thing.
Robert
|
|
Furthermor, you cannot make an AoO against someone who in invisible due to the concealment rules that you may not make an AoO attack against someone with total concealment (read - invisible).
So if your presumptions are true - then why bother even putting the addendum about invisible attackers in the descriptions of Uncanny Dodge?
Because you're stating that an invisible attacker would still deny someone their DEX, and the persons who has uncanny dodge who can now make an AoO when they woudln't ordinarily be able to do so when flat-footed - still cannot because of concealment rules.
So if your presumptions are accurate - it's a waste of print to have put the blurp about the invisible attacker.
Robert
|
|
It is just saying that you are never flat-footed, even if you can't see who attacked you.
But if that we're true, what's the point of not being flat-footed against an invisible attacker, IF the invisible attacker can still deny your dex modifier?
What then is the benefit of pointing that out?
The conditions of being attacked by an invisible attacker are similar to those of being flat-footed but they are not the same and UD only protects you from being flat-footed.
To what benefit? In your thinking, what benefit does someone with uncanny dodge have against an invisible attacker that a person who does not have uncanny dodge have against them? It makes them
"not flat-footed, but they still lose their Dex mod?" What then is the benefit? If the answer is none ......they why is it listed specifically?Robert
|
|
What I see is, even if an invisible opponent ambushed a rogue or barbarian with Uncanny Defense said rogue or barbarian would not be flat-foooted. The wording in the ability is to cover that possibility.
-Weylin
Once again, I completely agree with you, Weylin. And the definition of flat-footed is that along with the ability to make an AoO against someone before it would normally be your turn, you get to maintain your dexterity against said target.
And I agree that even an invisible target attacking you on a surprise round or before you had a chance to act - still does not deny someone their dex if they had uncanny dodge.
Robert
I find this arguement and its interpretations silly and circular.
You can find it silly and circular all you want, that still doesn't change the way RAW is worded. And PF RAW for UD doesn't support it defending against invisible attackers.
Then why bother putting that UcD protects one from being flat footed even against an unseen opponent - IF an unseen opponent is still going to get to deny someone their DEX mod to AC? It seems superfluous and extraneous to make that circumstantial disclaimer that only is contradictory to what you're interpreting.
Flat-footed is a condition that makes you vulnerable to EVERY enemy around you as well as not allowing you to take AoO even against opponents you can see. That is the condition you are protected from with UD.
You are not protected from being vulnerable against someone you can't see at all. Blind Fighting is what does that.
Let me share the SRD from 3rd edition
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.
I was aware that 3.0 and 3.5 versions of UD were written differently. I was not debating 3.5 I was debating PF. I believe PF reworded it to make it clearer due to all the confusion about UD even in 3.5 rules. Many people used it to say that Rogues and Barbarians were immune to feinting as well, which is clearly not the case anymore due to the rewrite of the ability.
If it was reworded, then until an erratum comes out I will trust that it was worded with the exact intent of the PF design team. I don’t think they just screwed up when trying to copy & paste the rules. It is pretty clear that they only intend for UD to protect against the flat-footed condition. Not make you invulnerable to attacks from enemies you can't see.
So it's not this ongoing misnomer that you indicated it to be. It has always been that other retain their dexterity when attacked by invisible target.
Again, I wasn't debating 3.5 rules. PF obviously changed the entry. I believe they did that for a reason. I believe it was because by 3.5 RAW UD was protecting against far more than it was intended to. PF revised it and now it only protects against being caught flat-footed.
The wording the PF Barbarian is slightly different, but I'm sure it's meant to indicate the same thing.
I am quite sure it is indicating exactly what it was intended to indicate. That UD protects from being flat-footed. If the PF design team intended to change it, which they clearly did, then I am confident the ability does exactly what they intended it to do by RAW. If and when errata comes out to change that, or an official ruling is posted on these forums from a design team member, saying it is supposed to work differently I will abide by that. Until then RAW is clear, if you don't like that, then house-rule it.
Furthermor, you cannot make an AoO against someone who in invisible due to the concealment rules that you may not make an AoO attack against someone with total concealment (read - invisible).
Yeah, I am aware of that. But you can still make AoO against his visible buddies or him if he becomes visible, since you are not flat-footed.
Once again, I completely agree with you, Weylin.
You do realize he was agreeing with my RAW references in that post:
Really dont see the room RAW-wise to debate it. Shadowlords references are accurate.
.
As for why it no longer applies to invisible attackers in PF RPG, personally I would assume it's probably so the ability isn't as all-mighty as it was in 3.5 and also to prevent rendering Blind Fighting a worthless feat to Rogues and Barbarians.
As for why they left that bit about invisible attackers not being able to catch you flat-footed. I would assume that has a lot to do with still being able to act in surprise rounds (even when it's an invisible attacker who initiates combat) as well as still being able to take possible AoO on the invisible guy's visible buddies or even him if he becomes visible.
Beyond that I would say: I don't really know why the team worded it the way they did, and neither do you, so there is no point in trying to argue RAW based on designer's intentions when you have no idea what their intentions were. RAW is RAW. We also don't know why they felt the need to include that you can still lose your Dex bonus to AC if feinted. Of course you can: UD protects against being flat-footed, Feinting doesn't make you flat-footed it simply denies you your Dex to AC (IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS AN INVISIBLE ATTACKER DENIES YOUR DEX TO AC). So, like I said: If errata or other official word from designers comes down saying UD protects against invisible attackers, GREAT! Until then, RAW no longer supports it.
Furthermor, you cannot make an AoO against someone who in invisible due to the concealment rules that you may not make an AoO attack against someone with total concealment (read - invisible).
...
So if your presumptions are accurate - it's a waste of print to have put the blurp about the invisible attacker.
Yeah, I missed that. Nice catch/reminder. I was way past needing to go to bed at that point.
And yeah, that was kind of my point. I agree with their interpretation that RAW, UD does nothing for you, and I agree with you that it makes no sense to mention it in the first place...and I was trying to find if there was some crazy edge or corner case where it might make a difference. It's a completely nonsensical line as it stands, unless someone else can come up with a better scenario than my failed AoO one.
|
|
Furthermor, you cannot make an AoO against someone who in invisible due to the concealment rules that you may not make an AoO attack against someone with total concealment (read - invisible).
...
So if your presumptions are accurate - it's a waste of print to have put the blurp about the invisible attacker.Yeah, I missed that. Nice catch/reminder. I was way past needing to go to bed at that point.
And yeah, that was kind of my point. I agree with their interpretation that RAW, UD does nothing for you, and I agree with you that it makes no sense to mention it in the first place...and I was trying to find if there was some crazy edge or corner case where it might make a difference. It's a completely nonsensical line as it stands, unless someone else can come up with a better scenario than my failed AoO one.
Well, overall Shadow provides pretty good case that the RAW seems to have changed the way it used to be that we've all been doing.
I don't know at this point which way is right, but I'll concede there's enough evidence in the wording to establish that it has been changed.
I'm not sure if it's a good change or not - if indeed it has been changed.
If it was changed, then my point that the line only seems to confuse things further and unnecessary is quite accurate.
I'm not convinced it is suppose to be changed - but as I said - the wording is just as likely if not more, to imply that it has.
But at least you too can see the inconsistency in the wording.
Robert
It would probably be a good point to put into the errata threads or needs official ruling threads.
I have thrown it on the things you might have missed thread.
Yeah here are a few links to start with:
This is where I posted it on the "Things you might have missed" thread.
Things You Might Have Missed.
Here is the "Official Ruling Needed" thread:
Official Ruling Needed.
And here is ONE of the Errata threads, there is a bigger one somewhere but I can't find it:
Errata.
There is a really big errata thread floating around somewhere but I don’t have the link to it anymore and can’t seem to find it with the search.
As for why it no longer applies to invisible attackers in PF RPG, personally I would assume it's probably so the ability isn't as all-mighty as it was in 3.5 and also to prevent rendering Blind Fighting a worthless feat to Rogues and Barbarians.
As for why they left that bit about invisible attackers not being able to catch you flat-footed. I would assume that has a lot to do with still being able to act in surprise rounds (even when it's an invisible attacker who initiates combat) as well as still being able to take possible AoO on the invisible guy's visible buddies or even him if he becomes visible.
Beyond that I would say: I don't really know why the team worded it the way they did, and neither do you, so there is no point in trying to argue RAW based on designer's intentions when you have no idea what their intentions were. RAW is RAW. We also don't know why they felt the need to include that you can still lose your Dex bonus to AC if feinted. Of course you can: UD protects against being flat-footed, Feinting doesn't make you flat-footed it simply denies you your Dex to AC (IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS AN INVISIBLE ATTACKER DENIES YOUR DEX TO AC). So, like I said: If errata or other official word from designers comes down saying UD protects against invisible attackers, GREAT! Until then, RAW no longer supports it.
I have no problem with UD working in that way... it just doesn't make sense and is not consistent within itself in how it's written.
As written, you're saying that an invisible foe can stalk me, and attack me to start combat, and I keep my dex bonus to AC. But after that initial attack, when I'm also on higher alert now and know someone I can't see is attacking me, I LOSE my dex bonus to AC when I just had my dex bonus to AC when I had no idea he was there in the first place? How does that make ANY sort of sense at all?
I wouldn't house rule that UD makes you keep your dex bonus to AC vs. invisible attackers, I would house rule that you would lose your dex bonus to invisible attackers at all times until you get Improved Uncanny Dodge.
I have no problem with UD working in that way... it just doesn't make sense and is not consistent within itself in how it's written.
As written, you're saying that an invisible foe can stalk me, and attack me to start combat, and I keep my dex bonus to AC. But after that initial attack, when I'm also on higher alert now and know someone I can't see is attacking me, I LOSE my dex bonus to AC when I just had my dex bonus to AC when I had no idea he was there in the first place? How does that make ANY sort of sense at all?
I have said no such thing. What I said is that UD protects you against being flat-footed. I did not say that you keep your Dex bonus to AC in a surprise round against an invisible attacker. You may not be flat-footed but you are still going to lose your Dex because the invisible attacker denies your Dex to AC regardless of whether or not the situation would normally call for you to be flat-footed. First round or Surprise round doesn’t affect the invisible attacker's ability to do that in any way.
I wouldn't house rule that UD makes you keep your dex bonus to AC vs. invisible attackers, I would house rule that you would lose your dex bonus to invisible attackers at all times until you get Improved Uncanny Dodge.
If you are going to house-rule it I would house-rule it into UD, because that is where it used to be in 3.5 anyway. It makes no sense to add it to IUD because all IUD does is say you can no longer be flanked unless the attacker has 4 more levels of Rogue/Barbarian than you.
Thank you. That is exactly the thread I was searching for.
|
|
I find it mildly amusing (if a bit frustrating) that I have read through ALL of the links' you've all provided and in each of the cases of threads, there are people who are 100% in agreement with your assessment - and others who 100% agree with my understanding, and some others yet who just don't know; and thoughout all 6 links, and further links that they've led to, including an unofficial official FAQ wiki that comprises actual answers from the game designers, not one comment from an actual designer to resolve the issue once and for all.
Me: I still believe it is meant to be per 3.5 FAQs and understanding that the invisible creature still gains the +2 to attack rolls, but does not ignore ones DEX when said target possesses Uncanny Dodge.
I'll agree it isn't worded perfect enough to grant that without question - but it's what I believe was the intent
I will still await official word however, and evolve as necessary.
Robert
I have said no such thing. What I said is that UD protects you against being flat-footed. I did not say that you keep your Dex bonus to AC in a surprise round against an invisible attacker. You may not be flat-footed but you are still going to lose your Dex because the invisible attacker denies your Dex to AC regardless of whether or not the situation would normally call for you to be flat-footed. First round or Surprise round doesn’t affect the invisible attacker's ability to do that in any way.
What's the difference between an invisible attacker and a hidden attacker?
So you are saying that an invisible attacker would cause an uncanny dodger to lose his dex bonus reguardless of the situation. But if a rogue that were stealthed in the bushes taking short bow shots to a perceptionless barbarian with uncanny dodge, the barbarian would KEEP his dex bonus to AC just because the rogue is not invisible? That seems a little silly to me.
What's the difference between an invisible attacker and a hidden attacker?
Actually, there is no difference, as far as I can tell. FAQ has said before that creatures attacking from Stealth are considered invisible for purposes of denying Dex and qualifying for Sneak Attack, which makes perfect sense to me. What differences should it really make if you didn't see the guy because he was invisible vs because he was well hidden?
So you are saying that an invisible attacker would cause an uncanny dodger to lose his dex bonus reguardless of the situation. But if a rogue that were stealthed in the bushes taking short bow shots to a perceptionless barbarian with uncanny dodge, the barbarian would KEEP his dex bonus to AC just because the rogue is not invisible? That seems a little silly to me.
Nope, I never said anything like that either. I would say that since what I said above applies, "Attacking from Stealth is considered virtually the same as attacking from invisibility" that UD would not protect from that either. Remember, only IUD says anything about "it takes a Rogue/Barbarian of 4 lvls higher to flank you" and that is just for flanking in IUD. UD doesn't say anything about that and all it does is protect you from being flat-footed.
So, an invisible/hidden attacker cannot make you flat-footed. However, they are still capable of denying your Dex to AC because you didn't see them and therefore couldn't properly defend.
|
|
So, an invisible/hidden attacker cannot make you flat-footed. However, they are still capable of denying your Dex to AC because you didn't see them and therefore couldn't properly defend.
And therein lies the silly part as far as I'm concerned.
You can't be caught flat-footed - so that means you would be able to keep your DEX and be able to make an Attack of Opportunity; but since he's invisible, and "denies your DEX" despite not being flat-footed, defeats that part of the ability, and since he's invisible you can't make an attack of opportunity on him anyways, so it defeats that part of the ability also - thus the fact that UD prevents you from being flat-footed from an invisible attacker is about as useful as a pile of carbon.
And this is not an attack on you Shadow - I've come to terms that your strict reading of the rule is following what is said to the letter - it's the wording that I think is misleading and thus I'm disinclined to follow it as rigidly as you do.
Robert