| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I know this has been brought up in the past, but since the new errata are out, I wanted to double check with this:
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible.
Now, this is the definition of flat-footed:
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.
Compare this to the 3.5 version of Uncanny Dodge:
She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed.
SOOOOO....
A 3.5 Barbarian or Rogue with Uncanny Dodge would not lose their Dex bonus to AC before they've acted in a fight, but they STILL COULD NOT MAKE ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY until they've had their first turn.
Contrariwise, a Pathfinder Barbarian or Rogue just simply is never flat-footed, meaning NOT ONLY do they not lose their Dex to AC before their first turn in combat, they ALSO ARE ABLE to make attacks of opportunity before acting on their first turn. (Tangentially, this also means the Combat Reflexes feat, which allows you to make AOOs while flat-footed, is only useful to them for the extra AOOs.)
Wow. That's pretty powerful for an ability a Barbarian gets at level 2.
Is this really what was intended? Thanks.
I know this has been brought up in the past, but since the new errata are out, I wanted to double check with this:
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible.Now, this is the definition of flat-footed:
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.Compare this to the 3.5 version of Uncanny Dodge:
She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed.SOOOOO....
A 3.5 Barbarian or Rogue with Uncanny Dodge would not lose their Dex bonus to AC before they've acted in a fight, but they STILL COULD NOT MAKE ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY until they've had their first turn.
Contrariwise, a Pathfinder Barbarian or Rogue just simply is never flat-footed, meaning NOT ONLY do they not lose their Dex to AC before their first turn in combat, they ALSO ARE ABLE to make attacks of opportunity before acting on their first turn. (Tangentially, this also means the Combat Reflexes feat, which allows you to make AOOs while flat-footed, is only useful to them for the extra AOOs.)
Wow. That's pretty powerful for an ability a Barbarian gets at level 2.
Is this really what was intended? Thanks.
If they do not lose their Dex, and able to act normally, why not get the AoO's?
If they do not lose their Dex, and able to act normally, why not get the AoO's?
For arguments' sake, I would say that it's reasonable to assume that they are able to react quickly enough to fully defend themselves even if someone gets the jump on them, but are not fully ready to go on the offensive yet. You are, after all, Uncannily DODGING, not uncannily striking.
Sort of like--if you sneak up behind me and try to grab me, I might be reflexive enough leap away from you, but I'm not able to yet smack you for the indignity because I'm still kind of shaken by your getting the jump on me to begin with.
Now, I don't think you're necessarily wrong---but the reason I want a clarification is because--
a) Uncanny Dodge is already a pretty potent ability, even in 3.5, and I'm not sure why they felt the need to revise that ability.
b) A lot of people, even game designers, confuse "flat-footed" to simply mean "lose your Dex to AC" and forget about the AOO part.
It may well have been intentional, I'm just checking.
If they do not lose their Dex, and able to act normally, why not get the AoO's?For arguments' sake, I would say that it's reasonable to assume that they are able to react quickly enough to fully defend themselves even if someone gets the jump on them, but are not fully ready to go on the offensive yet. You are, after all, Uncannily DODGING, not uncannily striking.
Sort of like--if you sneak up behind me and try to grab me, I might be reflexive enough leap away from you, but I'm not able to yet smack you for the indignity because I'm still kind of shaken by your getting the jump on me to begin with.
Now, I don't think you're necessarily wrong---but the reason I want a clarification is because--
a) Uncanny Dodge is already a pretty potent ability, even in 3.5, and I'm not sure why they felt the need to revise that ability.
b) A lot of people, even game designers, confuse "flat-footed" to simply mean "lose your Dex to AC" and forget about the AOO part.
It may well have been intentional, I'm just checking.
Or your reaction could be to kick me in the junk or elbow me in the head...
Or your reaction could be to kick me in the junk or elbow me in the head...
If they do not lose their Dex, and able to act normally, why not get the AoO's?For arguments' sake, I would say that it's reasonable to assume that they are able to react quickly enough to fully defend themselves even if someone gets the jump on them, but are not fully ready to go on the offensive yet. You are, after all, Uncannily DODGING, not uncannily striking.
Sort of like--if you sneak up behind me and try to grab me, I might be reflexive enough leap away from you, but I'm not able to yet smack you for the indignity because I'm still kind of shaken by your getting the jump on me to begin with.
Now, I don't think you're necessarily wrong---but the reason I want a clarification is because--
a) Uncanny Dodge is already a pretty potent ability, even in 3.5, and I'm not sure why they felt the need to revise that ability.
b) A lot of people, even game designers, confuse "flat-footed" to simply mean "lose your Dex to AC" and forget about the AOO part.
It may well have been intentional, I'm just checking.
I think you're kind of missing my point, hon. (Not to mention trying to chop down a tree when I'm trying to contend with a forest.)
The name "uncanny dodge" suggests defensive training, not offensive training. (And if I'm able to retaliate instantly, it could be because I have the Combat Reflexes feat.)
Or your reaction could be to kick me in the junk or elbow me in the head...
If they do not lose their Dex, and able to act normally, why not get the AoO's?For arguments' sake, I would say that it's reasonable to assume that they are able to react quickly enough to fully defend themselves even if someone gets the jump on them, but are not fully ready to go on the offensive yet. You are, after all, Uncannily DODGING, not uncannily striking.
Sort of like--if you sneak up behind me and try to grab me, I might be reflexive enough leap away from you, but I'm not able to yet smack you for the indignity because I'm still kind of shaken by your getting the jump on me to begin with.
Now, I don't think you're necessarily wrong---but the reason I want a clarification is because--
a) Uncanny Dodge is already a pretty potent ability, even in 3.5, and I'm not sure why they felt the need to revise that ability.
b) A lot of people, even game designers, confuse "flat-footed" to simply mean "lose your Dex to AC" and forget about the AOO part.
It may well have been intentional, I'm just checking.
I think you're kind of missing my point, hon. (Not to mention trying to chop down a tree when I'm trying to contend with a forest.)
The name "uncanny dodge" suggests defensive training, not offensive training. (And if I'm able to retaliate instantly, it could be because I have the Combat Reflexes feat.)
I guess my point is I'm in the same boat...I could see it going either way. BUT...
If you go by the name alone, it does heavily imply it's defense only.
|
b) A lot of people, even game designers, confuse "flat-footed" to simply mean "lose your Dex to AC" and forget about the AOO part.
I think Paizo may have done this, but now I am thinking maybe they have merely extended the circumstances underwhich someone is considered flatfooted, and now flatfooted is a condition which can occur because someone hasn't acted yet, but can also occur for other reasons.
So for example someone with UNcanncy Dodge would never lose their Dex bonus to CMD, even if they lost their Dex bonus to AC because Dex is only lost from CMD when Flat Footed (and Uncanny Dodge prevents you from ever being flatfooted).
I always thought the intent was just to avoid losing dex to AC versus opponents that have concealment.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is my understanding right if I say:
Uncanny Dodge shelters person from:
-flatfooted condition before acting in combat
-flatfooted condition while moving on narrow surfaces (but you still loose Dex bonus to AC)
-flatfooted condition while Pinned
-Shatter Defences feat
-Catch Off Guard feat
Uncanny Dodge doesnt shelter from condition when Dexterity bonus is removed from AC:
-being target of feint in combat
-moving on narrow surfaces
-using climb skill (vs climb speed)
-running (vs Run feat)
Also:
-invisible enemies still get +2 to hit targets with Uncanny Dodge ability (see Blind Fight feat)
-you can do AoO before acting in combat (same ability can be gained from Combat Reflexes feat)
Phew.. I have been thinking this a lot, but it finally cleared things up (?) after writing it all down. After all it seems that rules are pretty functional, but hard to gather up from all the rule materia.
Any errors or anything to add to my list?
ps. Ledge Walker Rogue talent seems to have big flaw on its design
|
|
PRD says: "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 Dex Bonus is retained against feinting.
Re balancing on narrow or uneven surface I guess they would lose their Dex bonus to AC because the skill explicitly states them seperately "While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any)." The balancing character could still make AoO though :)
This is different from 3.5 where it said "You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).", here the loss of Dex to AC is a result of being flat-footed so someone with Uncanny DOdge would keep Dex bonus.
PRD says: "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 Dex Bonus is retained against feinting.
I think you meant Dex Bonus is NOT retained against feinting. If this is not a typo, I'm confused as to how what you quoted means what you say it means.
|
|
I think you meant Dex Bonus is NOT retained against feinting. If this is not a typo, I'm confused as to how what you quoted means what you say it means.PRD says: "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 Dex Bonus is retained against feinting.
Doh! Completely misread that, thanks for pointing it out. I read "lose" as "use", i.e. "A rogue with this ability can still use her Daxterity bonus to AC.."
I stand corrected :)
(edited)
Ok, DeathQuaker, thanks for pointing out the rule change.Oh, I checked out my PF Core Rulebook, it is the 2nd print iirc. Uncanny Dodge (barbarian) says "She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible.".
So, not really a rule change due to the Errata. I think it just tries to clarify that you don't loose your Dex to AC even against invisible characters.I agree that in 3.5 worked different.
Yup. As I'd noted it'd been brought up before, and in fact due to the wording you listed. IIRC, the general sentiment amongst those discussing, at least last time I checked, was that "flat-footed" had been confused for "loses dex bonus to AC" (because you are not flat-footed to an invisible attacker, but you do lose your dex bonus when both being attacked by an invisible attacker and when you are flat-footed) -- and that therefore they'd meant to keep the ability essentially the same as in 3.5.
Thus the errata clarifies the ability for Pathfinder in a way that surprises me.