| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The way things are written it appears as if Uncanny dodge does not keep a defender from losing his DEX bonus against invisible attackers. Is this correct?
The way things are written it appears as if Uncanny dodge does not keep a defender from losing his DEX bonus against invisible attackers. Is this correct?
What makes you think that?
UNCANNY DODGE
"...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. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her."
So you are saying that people with Uncanny Dodge retain their DEX bonus against invisible attackers?
The rule is confusing, because since it references invisible attackers, you think that it has some interaction with them. However, since invisibility denies your dex bonus to AC and uncanny dodge prevents being flat-footed (which is one but not the only cause of losing your dex), it does not have much of an effect. (I suppose the rogue could make an attack of opportunity against them.)
An equivalent wording of the rule would be:
"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 an orc. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her."
I suspect that there is confusion between flat-footed and being denied dex to AC. Since the former is the most common way to cause the latter and the latter is the most common effect of the former, there is a tendency to use them interchangeably, even though they are different concepts.
Well the wording changed from the 3.5 version which specifically says the rogue keeps her Dex to AC when flat-footed or attacked by an invisible attacker.
It looks as if they tried to clean up the wording for PF, but in the process destroyed the ability. I think the intent was for it to work the same; otherwise why mention invisible attackers since they have nothing to do with flat-footedness?
I agree the flat-footed vs denied Dex to Ac bugs me to no end, especially since the latter is the more common condition but everyone wants to say flat-footed all the time. One of the easiest ways to clean up the rules would be to remove all mention of flat-footed except for when referring to initiative issues, and to substitute 'Denied dexterity to AC' in its place for all other matters.
Oh, I'd note that even in 3.5 an invisible attacker still got the +2 to hit against a creature with uncanny dodge, even if the creature wasn't denied its Dex to AC.
The wording of flat-footed and uncanny dodge has not change by a single word since 3.5. I think what you are looking for is this: Blind Fight
|
Uncanny Dodge does two things; prevents you from being caught flat-footed in a suprise round and the first round of combat, and keep your from losing your dex to AC against invisible attackers. That's it.
Any other factor that strips DEX to AC works; being successfully feinted, climbing, balancing, being tied up, paralyzed, or otherwise becoming immobile.
--Vrock Candy.
|
Uncanny Dodge does two things; prevents you from being caught flat-footed in a suprise round and the first round of combat, and keep your from losing your dex to AC against invisible attackers. That's it.
Any other factor that strips DEX to AC works; being successfully feinted, climbing, balancing, being tied up, paralyzed, or otherwise becoming immobile.
--Vrock Candy.
Uncanny Dodge prevents you from being flatfooted to an invisible attacker. The invisible condition denies your enemies Dex bonus to AC, not make them flatfooted.
|
|
Just so we are all on the same page, here are the relevant sections of the rulebook:
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.
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.
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.
I put in bold the wording that triggered this thread. It is odd to even mention "even if the attacker is invisible" since "flat-footed" has nothing to do with invisibility.
I think you all are focusing on one effect of being flat-footed, and not all the effects. In addition to being denied your dexterity bonus to AC, flat footed also prevents you from making attacks of opportunity. What Uncanny Dodge does for a rogue or barbarian who would otherwise be caught flat-footed at the beginning of the round by an invisible attacker is give them the ability to make an attack of opportunity if they have some means other than sight to pinpoint the invisible attacker's location.
Uncanny dodge does not prevent a rogue or barbarian from being denied their dexterity bonus to AC against an invisible attacker, rather the feat Blind Fight is the only way for a character to not be denied their dexterity bonus to AC versus an invisible attacker.
The wording of flat-footed and uncanny dodge has not change by a single word since 3.5. I think what you are looking for is this: Blind Fight
The wording for the description of Uncanny Dodge is what was changed. Please read the 3.5 SRD for the rogues Uncanny Dodge ability and then the PF CRB description for the rogues Uncanny Dodge and you will see what I mean.
Father Dale is right. This is the 3.5 SRD description:
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.
The d20 SRD description is MUCH clearer--an Uncanny Dodger cannot lose her Dex bonus to being flat footed AND, as a separate benefit, does not lose her Dex bonus to AC if attacked by an invisible opponent.
The Pathfinder rules inexplicably smashes the two together. We see from what Twowlves quoted that being flat-footed and losing your Dex bonus to AC to an invisible attacker are still two different thing--and I think it's reasonable to extrapolate from the rules that losing your Dex bonus to AC due to being attacked by an invisible opponent supercedes flat-footedness--a fighter in the midst of combat will not be flat-footed, but will still lose the Dex bonus to AC if attacked by someone who is invisible.
We have two choices that I can see: go with the clearer 3.5 wording (Uncanny Dodgers cannot lose the Dex to AC to an invisible attacker IN ADDITION TO never being caught flat-footed), or assume that they meant to change the rule (Uncanny Dodgers DO lose their Dex to AC from an invisible attacker, not because they are flat-footed, but because of the separate effects of the invisible condition).
My guess is the Devs did want to change the rule (maybe somehow being to uncannily dodge someone you don't know is there is just a little too uncanny), but didn't reword the ability well enough. Or there was a copy-paste hiccup, who knows.
We have two choices that I can see: go with the clearer 3.5 wording (Uncanny Dodgers cannot lose the Dex to AC to an invisible attacker IN ADDITION TO never being caught flat-footed), or assume that they meant to change the rule (Uncanny Dodgers DO lose their Dex to AC from an invisible attacker, not because they are flat-footed, but because of the separate effects of the invisible condition).My guess is the Devs did want to change the rule (maybe somehow being to uncannily dodge someone you don't know is there is just a little too uncanny), but didn't reword the ability well enough. Or there was a copy-paste hiccup, who knows.
The second choice is correct. Uncanny dodge was revised from providing a blanket protection against loss of Dex to AC in 3.5 to simply protecting the loss of Dex to AC when the Rogue is flatfooted in Pathfinder. The portion of text involving invisible attackers was probably left in accidentally during the revision and should be removed in errata.
The second choice is correct. Uncanny dodge was revised from providing a blanket protection against loss of Dex to AC in 3.5 to simply protecting the loss of Dex to AC when the Rogue is flatfooted in Pathfinder. The portion of text involving invisible attackers was probably left in accidentally during the revision and should be removed in errata.
I'd disagree.
First, the 3.5 Uncanny Dodge wasn't a 'blanket protection' against loss of Dex to AC. It simply prevented the loss of Dex to AC from two conditions: a) being flatfooted, and b) being attacked by an invisible attacker. A rogue with uncanny dodge could still be denied his Dex to AC from any number of reasons: stunned, paralyzed, running, grappled, feinted, etc..
(I'd also note that in 3.5 Uncanny Dodge didn't prevent the flatfooted condition, it simply alleviated the biggest drawback of it; a 3.5 rogue with uncanny dodge could still be flatfooted, they just kept their Dex to AC, but they still wouldn't be able to make attacks of opportunites. Also, certain 3.5 spells from the non-core books depended on targets being flat-footed, so uncanny dodge didn't stop these from working on a rogue.)
Second, the wording used in the new PF version is confusing. In one sentence it says that a rogue simply cannot be flatfooted (which implies they can still make AoOs before their first turn in initiative even without Combat Reflexes), and then says 'even if the attacker is invisible.' But I think its really really clear that the intended meaning of uncanny dodge is to include the benefit against invisible attackers. Otherwise, why is that language about invisible attackers even in there? I mean, they cut out a phrase just a few words before that, why did they not cut out the part about invisible attackers too if the whole point of the change was so that it didn't work against invisible attackers? Seems that if the intent was that it wouldn't work against invisible attackers then there was no need to even lose the first part at all.
Thus, you end up having to argue that the intended change was to lose the part that wasn't lost and to keep the part that was!
I think what happened was that some person(s) involved in the redesign were using the terms 'flat-footed' and 'denied dexterity to AC' interchangeably in places. The writer of the PF Uncanny Dodge language may have actually been thinking that being attacked by an invisible creature makes you 'flatfooted;' I know I've played with people who say this. This also happens elsewhere in the book; one example being that pinned characters are 'flat-footed.' What? How is a pinned character someone 'who has not yet acted yet during a combat?' So what may have been intended was an expanding of the uncanny dodge ability, not a limiting of it. The intent was perhaps to remove all negative conditions that come from being flat-footed, including being unable to make AoOs, and not just a keeping of Dex to AC. And arguably, it might also have been intended to help rogues and barbarians who somehow get pinned; that might be a stretch though.
So I think the choices are probably best put as either a) the intent was for the character with uncanny dodge to keep its Dex to AC if flatfooted or attacked by an invisible attacker (the 3.5 way), and the reason for the inconsistency is that they were trying to clean up the language a little bit and it got muddled in the process or the writer was just confused about the differences between flatfooted and denied Dex to AC, or b) the intent was to treat it as the 3.5 way, but also to allow uncanny dodge characters to avoid the flatfooted condition all together, allowing them to make AoOs when they haven't reached their turn yet in initiative, becuase yet again the writer may have been confused about being flatfooted against an invisible attacker. And finally option c) the same as b) but also its intended to work against other conditions that the book labels as "flat-footed" but which really should be denied Dex to AC, such as the pinned condition.
But I don't think theres really anyway to gather that the intent was for it to NOT work against invisible attackers.
First, the 3.5 Uncanny Dodge wasn't a 'blanket protection' against loss of Dex to AC. It simply prevented the loss of Dex to AC from two conditions: a) being flatfooted, and b) being attacked by an invisible attacker. A rogue with uncanny dodge could still be denied his Dex to AC from any number of reasons: stunned, paralyzed, running, grappled, feinted, etc..
You're right, my original post was lost and my rewrite was badly written. Thanks for correcting me.
I think what happened was that some person(s) involved in the redesign were using the terms 'flat-footed' and 'denied dexterity to AC' interchangeably in places.
That may have been the reason why the invisible attacker was left in the description. But regardless if it was accidental or intentional though mistaken, the Uncanny Dodge ability needs an errata re-write.
The second choice is correct. Uncanny dodge was revised from providing a blanket protection against loss of Dex to AC in 3.5 to simply protecting the loss of Dex to AC when the Rogue is flatfooted in Pathfinder. The portion of text involving invisible attackers was probably left in accidentally during the revision and should be removed in errata.
I'd disagree.
First, the 3.5 Uncanny Dodge wasn't a 'blanket protection' against loss of Dex to AC. It simply prevented the loss of Dex to AC from two conditions: a) being flatfooted, and b) being attacked by an invisible attacker. A rogue with uncanny dodge could still be denied his Dex to AC from any number of reasons: stunned, paralyzed, running, grappled, feinted, etc..
Well, if you take the sentence literally, the first part is a statement, "retains his Dex to AC", followed by example, "even if flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker". The 'even if' does not mean 'only these causes', it means 'it happens....but what about flat-footed or invisibility?....yes, even if those'. And they specifically stated that he is still denied when immobilized, the only way the rogue can't "dodge", they didn't say feinted or anything else. Those omissions are significant.
Now, in Pathfinder, they clearly did change things, but I think it's more a matter of confusing Flat-footed with Denied Dex to AC. After all, feinting does not make a target flat-footed, it denies Dex to AC.
Since they included the line that Rogues can still be feinted, it would seem they are NOT just talking about flat-footed.
In other words we need James Jacobs or Jason Buhlman to end this debate...
Nah, it'd show intent.
and intent is an element of premeditation, don't do it!
Wait, been watching too many crime dramas lately.....
The rule is confusing, because since it references invisible attackers, you think that it has some interaction with them. However, since invisibility denies your dex bonus to AC and uncanny dodge prevents being flat-footed (which is one but not the only cause of losing your dex), it does not have much of an effect. (I suppose the rogue could make an attack of opportunity against them.)
You can't make an attack of opportunity against an invisible foe, nor can you make one if you are blind.
Edit:Page 197
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an
opponent with total concealment, even if you know what
square or squares the opponent occupies.
The rule is confusing, because since it references invisible attackers, you think that it has some interaction with them. However, since invisibility denies your dex bonus to AC and uncanny dodge prevents being flat-footed (which is one but not the only cause of losing your dex), it does not have much of an effect. (I suppose the rogue could make an attack of opportunity against them.)
An equivalent wording of the rule would be:
"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 an orc. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her."
One might wonder why they didn't write "She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized or if an attacker is invisible"
;-)
Uncanny Dodge prevents you from being flatfooted to an invisible attacker. The invisible condition denies your enemies Dex bonus to AC, not make them flatfooted.Uncanny Dodge does two things; prevents you from being caught flat-footed in a suprise round and the first round of combat, and keep your from losing your dex to AC against invisible attackers. That's it.
Any other factor that strips DEX to AC works; being successfully feinted, climbing, balancing, being tied up, paralyzed, or otherwise becoming immobile.
--Vrock Candy.
Adding something to a text that doesn't matter is a bit odd isn't it?
Uncanny Dodge prevents you from being flatfooted to an invisible attacker.
So what would that mean is game play?
What's the difference between a flatfooted or non flatfooted creature being attacked by an invisible attacker? My anser, none. If you lose your dex bonus you lose your dodge bonus and you can't make an attack of opportunity against an invisible foe.
Nah, it'd show intent.
+1
What's the difference between a flatfooted or non flatfooted creature being attacked by an invisible attacker? My anser, none. If you lose your dex bonus you lose your dodge bonus and you can't make an attack of opportunity against an invisible foe.
Being flat-footed does more than just penalize your AC. It also prevents you from making opportunity attacks (doesn't matter in the case of an invisible attacker) or immediate actions (does potentially matter in the case of an invisible attacker).
I think it's pretty obvious that Uncanny Dodge is intended to allow a character to retain his or her dexterity bonus to AC against an invisible attacker. The wording is a bit off, but the intent is there.
Yes, it would be nice if: either Invisibility said enemies are flat-footed to an invisible attacker or Uncanny Dodge said that the character retains his or her Dex bonus to AC when flat footed or attacked by an invisible attacker.
Being flat-footed does more than just penalize your AC. It also prevents you from making [...] immediate actions (does potentially matter in the case of an invisible attacker).
Good point. So a rogue may use Resiliency and a Barbarian may use Clear Mind.
But being attacked by an invisible attacker doesn't make you flat-footed. Perhaps they just want to remind the reader of this.
But being attacked by an invisible attacker doesn't make you flat-footed. Perhaps they just want to remind the reader of this.
Yeah, the water is definitely muddy. I'm generally on the side of "the intent is for invisible attackers to not ignore dex/dodge", but there's enough question as to the intent in my mind that I go with what's actually written.
In v3.5 there was an (often missed) distinction between flat-footed and losing your dexterity bonus. Many people thought they were on and the same when they really weren't.
I was under the impression that, that had changed in Pathfinder so that the two WERE the same. That is, flat-footed meant you lost your dex bonus and vice versa. If this is the case, wouldn't the debate in this thread be largely moot?
In v3.5 there was an (often missed) distinction between flat-footed and losing your dexterity bonus. Many people thought they were on and the same when they really weren't.
I was under the impression that, that had changed in Pathfinder so that the two WERE the same. That is, flat-footed meant you lost your dex bonus and vice versa. If this is the case, wouldn't the debate in this thread be largely moot?
No, there's still the distinction that being flat-footed prevents you from using AoOs or Immediate Actions, while being denied Dex does not. I just double-checked to be sure of that, because you did raise a good question.
|
|
More fuel for the fire:
Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and
improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an
improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flatfooted
against any attacks you make with an improvised
melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with
an improvised weapon.
and again, here:
Shatter Defenses (Combat)
Your skill with your chosen weapon leaves opponents
unable to defend themselves if you strike them when their
defenses are already compromised.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, base
attack bonus +6, proficiency with weapon.
Benefit: Any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent
hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the
end of your next turn. This includes any additional attacks
you make this round.
Hmmm....
More fuel for the fire:
Two quotes? Why would they add more fuel to the fire?
We all agree there's a distinction between being flat-footed and being denied Dex and no one is denying there is a game term called flat-footed.What's your point?
|
|
More fuel for the fire:Two quotes? Why would they add more fuel to the fire?
We all agree there's a distinction between being flat-footed and being denied Dex and no one is denying there is a game term called flat-footed.
What's your point?
They reference the flat-footed condition? I'm not really sure of the significance myself. It doesn't really relate to Uncanny Dodge except that UD protects against the feats quoted.
Sure, but "She cannot be caught flat-footed" is not the problem. No one is denying UD gives you this protection. The problem is whether UD protects you from Invisible attackers.
The way things are written it appears as if Uncanny dodge does not keep a defender from losing his DEX bonus against invisible attackers. Is this correct?What makes you think that?
UNCANNY DODGE
"...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. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her."
Playing off of your post:
If the invisible attacker can't make the opponent lose dex when he catches them off guard then how does the person lose dex when they know the invisible attacker is there.
Bring flat-footed means you lose dex to AC, and you can't make attacks of opportunity. If you are immune to being flat-footed then you should be immune to both parts of it, not just half, unless it is specifically stated that you only get to ignore part of the condition.
As an example if there were an ability that said stunned creatures can't act when stun, but don't drop their weapons they would get partial immunity since being stunned forces you to drop any help items.
|
|
More fuel for the fire:Two quotes? Why would they add more fuel to the fire?
We all agree there's a distinction between being flat-footed and being denied Dex and no one is denying there is a game term called flat-footed.
What's your point?
Because we have here two feats, both unique to pathfinder, that use "Flat-footed" in a way not seen before, and seemingly as shorthand for "denied Dex bonus". Now you can become flat-footed after having already acted in the combat, but only in regards to a single foe, and only in regards to attacks from that foe.
Or does it somehow make more sense that if you've been hit by "Shatter Defenses" that you now cannot make attacks of opportunity in response to.. more attacks? I guess if it's a set up to use sunder/bull-rush/disarm etc without the "Improved" feats for these maneuvers, but it sure looks like they were using "flat-footed" as shorthand for "denied Dex bonus" while writing Pathfinder.
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.
More fuel for the fire:Two quotes? Why would they add more fuel to the fire?
We all agree there's a distinction between being flat-footed and being denied Dex and no one is denying there is a game term called flat-footed.
What's your point?Because we have here two feats, both unique to pathfinder, that use "Flat-footed" in a way not seen before, and seemingly as shorthand for "denied Dex bonus". Now you can become flat-footed after having already acted in the combat, but only in regards to a single foe, and only in regards to attacks from that foe.
Or does it somehow make more sense that if you've been hit by "Shatter Defenses" that you now cannot make attacks of opportunity in response to.. more attacks? I guess if it's a set up to use sunder/bull-rush/disarm etc without the "Improved" feats for these maneuvers, but it sure looks like they were using "flat-footed" as shorthand for "denied Dex bonus" while writing Pathfinder.
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.
Which is why I think it was intended that the two be the same in Pathfinder, and any rules written to the contrary were just badly written or overlooked.
That's my belief/hope anyways. I may just start a separate thread in which I ask a game designer up front whether shorthand was meant to be the same thing as losing one's Dexterity bonus and vice versa.
OMG!!! Really?!?!?!
It should be obvious to a reasonable person, based on the MASS of evidence in the SRD and DnD 3.5, that someone is being lazy with the term "flat-footed".
The aforementioned feats would not make you flat-footed, they would deny you your Dex bonus to AC.
Come on.
Remember, this is the internet, and full of unreasonable people.
You rang? :P
Honestly, wraithstrike's devil's advocate post raised a good point that has given me a lot of pause. I've got all kinds of doubts over the intent of the rule. It's about as clear as mud to me. I'm still sticking with the letter of the rules for now, but it wouldn't take much more persuading to kick me over to the side of "Uncanny Dodge partially protects against invisible opponents" (it still wouldn't help against the attack bonus invisible creatures get even if the target got to use their dex/dodge bonuses to AC).
I just re-read the PH and the SRD. Paizo definitely changed the main language of Uncanny Dodge: "Retains his Dex bonus to AC, even if caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker" changed to "Can't be caught flat-footed, even if struck by an invisible attacker".
This looks like nothing so much as an attempt to clear up the language.....but made it muddier. Since 'flat-footed' and 'denied Dex bonus' are still two separate things, the change makes no sense (it ignores the rules terminology). I still say, someone has been sloppy with term 'flat-footed'.
However, I can see the merit of a change, but it would significantly weaken Uncanny Dodge. Rogues can be frustrating when they ALWAYS keep their Dex bonus to AC. Question is, did they intend to take that away from Rogues and Barbarians and just didn't get the editing done?
Edit
Since 'flat-footed' and 'denied Dex bonus' are still two separate things, the change makes no sense (it ignores the rules terminology).
It makes sense if they mean what the rules say. You are not flat-footed, but you lose your dex bonus vs against invisible attackers.
I would say Uncanny dodge does not keep a defender from losing his DEX bonus against invisible attackers. Nor does it keep him losing his dex when he climbs or runs.
There is a difference between loosing your dex bonus and being flat-footed. I'm sure Jason knows this.
Uncanny dodge is still a VERY good ability.
Heh. Actualy, it's funny, but the best description of Uncanny Dodge is in the Flat-footed description:
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.
Uncanny Dodge is Spider-Sense, it's like a Jedi power, it allows you to move out of harms way from unseen foes or attacks, as long as you can move.
So:
Q. Does Uncanny Dogde works against invisible creatures?
A. Yes, you retain your Dex bonus against invisible creatures, but you can't make AoO agains foes you can't see (total concealment).
Q. Does Uncanny Dodge works whem I'm blinded or in total darkness?
A. Yes, you retain your Dex bonus when you're blinded, but you can't make AoO agains foes you can't see (total concealment).
Q.If I have Uncanny Dodge, can I make AoO in a surprise round?
A. Yes, you can make AoO in a surprise round and before you have acted in the first round of combat.
Q.If I have Uncanny Dodge, does that mean I'm "immune to flat-footed"?
A. No. You are still flat-footed in any situation where you would be flat-footed and your movements are restricted, like climbing.
You also still lose your Dex bonus to AC if you can't move, like while grappled, held, helpless, incapacitated, pinned, stunned or paralyzed.
Uncanny Dodge also doesn't work when you lose your Dex bonus to AC due to psychological problems, like feint or fear (your body can move, but your mind commands it not to).