We've had a discussion IMC about the use of uncanny dodge in relation to various ways of losing your dexterity bonus to armor class, exemplified by climbing and balancing.
My question is, does uncanny dodge let you retain your Dexterity bonus to AC while climbing?
Rule quotes:
Uncanny dodge wrote:
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, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC 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.
Climb wrote:
While climbing, you can’t move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
Acrobatics wrote:
[On Balancing] While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any).
That uncanny dodge works while balancing is quite clear, as you explicitly become flat-footed, and this is exactly what uncanny dodge helps against. Climb is less clear. On one hand, Climb does not explicitly say you are flat-footed. On the other hand, separating flat-footed from having no Dexterity to AC might be over-thinking, and the the two might mean exactly the same, being just a variation of language.
Also, uncanny dodge explicitly cites "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." - both cases of losing Dex bonus while not being flat-footed. This could mean that these are the only two examples of this applying and that uncanny dodge helps against all other cases of losing your Dexterity bonus to AC.
I am leaning towards reading flat-footed and losing dexterity bonus to AC is one and the same, and that uncanny dodge helps against both unless explicitly stated otherwise. It also encourages rogues and barbarians to act more heroic.
That uncanny dodge works while balancing is quite clear, as you explicitly become flat-footed, and this is exactly what uncanny dodge helps against. Climb is less clear. On one hand, Climb does not explicitly say you are flat-footed. On the other hand, separating flat-footed from having no Dexterity to AC might be over-thinking, and the the two might mean exactly the same, being just a variation of language.
No, they're quite different -- against an invisible opponent, for example, you lose your Dex bonus to AC but only against that opponent and you're not flat-footed generally.
You can also lose your Dex bonus to AC by carrying too much weight. You can lift up to double your heavy load (misnamed "maximum load" in some instances), but you lose your Dex modifier when doing it. It makes sense, but of course it's also not an instance of flat-footed.
Loss of Dex bonus to AC and bring flat-footed are two different things - it just happens that one can appear within the other.
Being flat-footed means losing your Dex bonus to AC and being unable to make Attacks of Opportunity. So an ability (Uncanny Dodge) which allows you to ignore the flat-footed condition does not exempt you from other effects which simply deny you your Dex bonus to AC - other than an invisible attacker as UD explicitly states.
So the climb example is clear, UD does nothing for you.
The balance example can be read two ways:
a) while balancing the character suffers the following:
i) the character is considered flat-footed
ii) the character also loses their Dex bonus to AC
or
b) while balancing, the character is flat-footed, which means they lose their Dex bonus to AC.
In a), UD will save you from being flat-footed but not from losing Dex bonus to AC so the nett effect is that you can still make AoOs while balancing. In b), UD is effective.
There are plenty of effects that deny the Dex bonus to AC. Orfamay Quest has mentioned encumbrance, but consider also running, being stunned or squeezing through a space less than half your width.
Interestingly, it also appears that whilst Uncanny Dodge allows you to keep your Dex bonus to AC against an invisible attacker, it doesn't help you if you're blinded, e.g. In the dark, at least by RAW. I like that nuance though; it reinforces the idea that an invisible creature can still be noticed by other visual cues.
Flat-footed is a specific condition that not only denies you your DEX bonus to AC, but also denies you the ability to make AoOs and can allow other attackers to use certain class abilities and feats on you.
So denial of DEX is part of the flat-footed condition, but it is not the condition itself. It's relatively easy to deny a target its DEX bonus; it's far more challenging to impose the flat-footed penalty on it.
In regards to the original question, by RAW Uncanny Dodge does what it says it does, and nothing more. Climbing doesn't impose the flat-footed condition on you, so Uncanny Dodge offers no benefit there. That said, from a personal GM perspective I would probably allow someone with UD to retain his DEX bonus while climbing.
If it was meant to work in all case for which you'd be denied Dex to AC, they'd just say that...
"Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She is never denied her Dexterity bonus to AC unless she is immobilized or an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her."
But it specifically calls out the instances of being caught flat-footed and (separately) you're not denied Dex to AC vs an invisible opponent. Climb doesn't list being flat-footed, therefore it isn't flat-footed, thus Uncanny Dodge doesn't work when climbing by default.
More specifically, Denied Dex to AC is a sub-status that's included in the broader status of Flat-footed. By default, all flat-footed characters are denied Dex to AC, though the reverse isn't necessarily true.
More specifically, Denied Dex to AC is a sub-status that's included in the broader status of Flat-footed. By default, all flat-footed characters are denied Dex to AC, though the reverse isn't necessarily true.
By this logic, uncanny dodge should protect against losing your Dexterity bonus.
Actually that logic should be reversed. Flat-footed is a sub-status of Denied Dex to AC. You have Denied Dex as your overall "condition" where Flat-footed is a "sub-condition" of this.
Flatfooted is a specific condition. It includes the following:
Denied Dex to AC
Cannot make AoOs
Uncanny Dodge does two very specific things; it allows you to:
1) Not be caught flat-footed.
2) Not be Denied Dex to AC vs an invisible opponent.
If you're denied Dex to AC because you're flat-footed, then UD blocks that. But if you're denied Dex to AC from any other source (being immobilized, being feinted, etc) Uncanny Dodge does nothing. Another example, Combat Reflexes, among other things, lets you make AoOs even while flat-footed. Does that mean that it works for conditions or situations other than being flat-footed that deny you from making AoOs?
Or another illustration. Being Paralyzed, Sleeping, Bound, or Unconscious all lead to the Helpless condition. So, an affliction by any one of those statuses causes the Helpless condition in turn. Does that mean that immunity to Paralysis means that the Sleep status doesn't make you Helpless? Of course not.
Kazaan, you makes a couple very good points with your examples of Combat reflexes and the relation of several statuses to the Helpless condition.
However, you emphasized that Uncanny Dodge allows the Rogue to "Not be Denied Dex to AC vs an invisible opponent".
A straightforward interpretation infers that Uncanny Dodge works when attacked by an opponent subject to an invisibility spell or ability. However, I think the part you bolded means to indicate "an opponent the Rogue cannot see" - that is, an opponent that is simply not visible to the Rogue - whether due to that attacker successfully hiding or using an Invisibility spell or ability, or the area is under natural or magical darkness, or the Rogue has been blinded, or even just blindfolded.
In this case, invisible means what it means in normal English; not visible. That could be by magical invisibility or it could be due to darkness or the Rogue being blinded. But there are other ways you can be denied your Dex to AC, even though the attacker is plainly visible.
Improved Deadshot (Ex): At 7th level, when a crossbowman attacks with a crossbow as a readied action, his target is denied its Dexterity bonus to its AC. This ability replaces armor training 2.
In this case, for example, the attacker is plainly visible, but the use of the Improved Deadshot ability causes the target to be denied Dex to AC. It's not flat-footed and it's not denied Dex to AC because the attacker is invisible, therefore Uncanny Dodge doesn't kick in.
I would rule that the Uncanny Dodge ability of the Rogue and other classes overrides Improved Deadshot and other abilities/feats that ordinarily deny a target its Dexterity bonus to AC - except when the attacker's ability either explicitly counters abilities like Uncanny Dodge, or relies on fooling/misdirecting the target, as in the Feint action.
Orich: There are no abilities I know of that explicitly overcome Uncanny Dodge. Not Feint certainly, but it certainly does work overcome it. No particular reason Improved Deadshot would not overcome it (although it seems similar to a 'flat-footed for this attack' effect).
Being flat-footed and being denied your dexterity bonus to AC are absolutely different things. Being FF means you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC. But being FF also means you cannot take attacks of opportunities. You also can't take immediate actions.
I would rule that the Uncanny Dodge ability of the Rogue and other classes overrides Improved Deadshot and other abilities/feats that ordinarily deny a target its Dexterity bonus to AC - except when the attacker's ability either explicitly counters abilities like Uncanny Dodge, or relies on fooling/misdirecting the target, as in the Feint action.
This isn't a discussion about what houserules you'd make on the matter. It's a discussion about what's actually meant by the rules. Uncanny Dodge only works to counter the flat-footed status and the loss of Dex to AC caused by being attacked by an attacker you can't see. Just as being bound or feinted will still cause you to lose Dex to AC, a Crossbowman with Improved Deadshot holds his readied crossbow attack until the target is in a momentarily compromised position; a position or movement where they couldn't dodge even if they saw it coming. Same goes for the Pinned condition; Uncanny Dodge won't prevent Pinned from making you lose Dex to AC. The burden of exception is on the part of the ability denying AC; it has to state, explicitly, that Uncanny Dodge prevents the loss to be a specific exception to a more general rule.
The enlightened comments here have thoroughly answered the question by now.
Sometimes, common sense has to enter into our evaluation of how game mechanics interact. "Uncanny Dodge" is all about sensing danger in time to react to it. Some danger is very hard to react to - most people don't get to act in the surprise round when THEY are the ones surprised. Most people remain flat-footed until their first turn in combat. Most people are easy for invisible attackers to hit. "Uncanny Dodge" gives them, well, an "uncanny" knack for sensing those kinds of dangers just in time to protect themselves normally.
So, keep that in mind when deciding what it does and does not interact with. When you're clinging to the side of a cliff and someone in plain sight attacks you, you know the attacker is there but you just can't protect yourself well because you're clinging to the cliff face. It doesn't matter whether your "uncanny" sense of danger tells you the attacker is there or not - you still cannot defend yourself properly.
Likewise, if you're slowed down by a very heavy load, or carefully balancing on a tightrope, or whatever else is making it impossible to defend yourself from a known attacker. An "uncanny" awareness of danger doesn't matter in these situations - everyone else who has a normal, perfectly "canny" sense of their attackers loses their DEX bonus to AC, and so does anyone with "uncanny" awareness of the same attackers.
In other words, if your inability to protect yourself is based on not being able to sense the danger in time to react normally to it, Uncanny Dodge should help. If your inability to protect yourself is based on physically not being able to get out of the way of attackers even when you know they're attacking you, then Uncanny Dodge should not matter.
Sure, that's not entirely RAW, but it is entirely obvious, and the developers have stated many times that we need to read these rules with common sense, so there it is.
This isn't a discussion about what houserules you'd make on the matter.
Indeed.
Where I wrote "I would rule that the Uncanny Dodge ability..." I meant: "I believe the rules intend that the Uncanny Dodge ability..."
I see that you disagree strongly.
Kazaan wrote:
The burden of exception is on the part of the ability denying AC; it has to state, explicitly, that Uncanny Dodge prevents the loss to be a specific exception to a more general rule.
Respectfully, Kazaan, I disagree. I think it would be reasonable to argue that the ability denying AC would have to either specifically indicate that it also defeats Uncanny Dodge, or describe its action such that it fits the existing exceptions (target unable to act/feinted) if it intends to override that special ability as well.
I suppose you argue that since Uncanny Dodge specifically calls out just one non-flat-footed case of loss of dexterity bonus to AC that it cures, one ought to assume that is the original intent, and therefore any new cases of denying Dexterity bonus must specify that Uncanny Dodge defeats them if that's the intended behavior. I retort that if that was true, then Uncanny Dodge need not reference Feint as it does, since I don't see how an invisible attacker feints their opponent.
If the text of Uncanny Dodge said only that it prevented the Flat-footed condition and in addition the loss of Dexterity bonus to AC against an invisible opponent, I would find little opportunity for interpretation. However, because the ability asserts that the character can react before their senses would normally allow them to and does not stipulate that its ability to prevent loss of dexterity bonus applies ONLY when that loss is due to the opponent being invisible, and furthermore goes on to clarify that it does not work when the character is immobilized or feinted, I infer that unless the character is unable to physically react , the character with Uncanny Dodge can react to attacks that normally deny dexterity bonus to AC.
A source of some uncertainty about uncanny dodge comes from the specific wording - for example, it works against "invisible" opponents - invisible is a condition, whose description references the invisibility special ability, but it doesn't work if the character is "immobilized" - and immobilized is not a condition, but a description that several conditions fit. You and I agree that the Uncanny Dodge works against any opponent not visible to the character for whatever reason, not only those with the invisible condition, and we agree that the climbing character does not regain his dexterity bonus to AC due to Uncanny Dodge, because while obviously not immobile, the character cannot dodge normally.
You expect abilities that deny the dexterity bonus to AC to explicitly state that Uncanny Dodge constitutes an exception, concluding that otherwise Uncanny Dodge has no effect against those abilities. In contrast, I expect to interpret whether Uncanny Dodge applies based upon rules I infer from the text of Uncanny Dodge (i.e., it doesn't help if the character is unable to move or has been bluffed, otherwise it does), possibly modified by the text of the specific rule that normally takes away dexterity bonus to AC.
I see that for Deadshot you invent rationale for why it applies regardless of Uncanny Dodge, that the Crossbowman is using an ability to strike specifically when his opponent is momentarily compromised such that his opponent could not react, regardless of Uncanny Dodge. I think that you give this ability more power than intended. I am curious whether there are any other cases where an attacker can deny their target its dexterity bonus to AC without either depending on some other condition previously applied to the target, or on attacker interaction with the target, as in a Feint
So far as I could find, Improved Deadshot is the only exemplar of an attack ability causing the target to be denied Dex to AC by its own right. Also, Deadshot must be a crossbow attack made as a readied action so it's already pretty limited. Invisible is a condition, but the word can also be used generically referring to any creature that cannot be seen (by darkness, blindness, etc).
Denied Dex to AC, however, only has mechanical meaning; there's no ambiguity. Just because Flat-Footed causes you to be denied Dex to AC doesn't mean that being denied Dex to AC causes you to be flat-footed, just the same that just because both being Bound and being Asleep causes you to be Helpless doesn't mean that if you're helpless, you're necessarily Bound or Sleeping and it doesn't mean that being Bound means you're Asleep. That's the fallacy of False Equivalency.
Regarding Feint being mentioned in the UD block, sometimes they put reminders and clarifications for more common errors people might make such as thinking since UD prevents flat-footed, and flat-footed causes Denied Dex to AC, and Feint also causes Denied Dex to AC, UD prevents being Feinted. But they're not going to call out every ability specifically because they only have so much room in the book. It's a more efficient use of space to put the burdeon on these specific abilities as to whether their Denied Dex to AC can be blocked by UD, but they didn't just want to make it cause Flat-footed because of other reasons (didn't want it to deny AoOs, for example).
Moreover, as stated by SKR, the more frequent problem among writers seems to be using Flat-footed when they really mean Denied Dex to AC. They're trying to cut down on sources of flat-footed so when something actually does use the term Denied Dex to AC, it's far more likely that it was really and truly deliberate.
Orich, there are many abilities that say a target loses their dexterity to AC. There are very few things that refer to making a target Flat Footed. Uncanny dodge specifically says "cannot be flat-footed". It then states they don't lose their dex bonus against Invisible but do lose it against to other situations.
Now why it would be nice if they had specified a default "you lose dex unless otherwise specified Uncanny Dodge helps" or "you don't lose dex unless Uncanny Dodge specifically doesn't help", but the perponderance of examples (2 to 2) suggests that the default is intended to be "uncanny dodge doesn't help against non-flat-footed loss of dex unless it specifically says it does". The few general references from Designers I've seen would seem to support this (albeit I've never seen them specifically address it).
The real issue to me is the strictness of the terms. Do the authors distinguish between flat-footed and denied Dex to AC, or are they used as synonymous conditions? And how well is this kept up in all the different supplements?
Assuming they are NOT synonymous, we can have a discussions about the exact borderline between the conditions, but I'm afraid such a discussion would be endless. There are too many border cases. My baseline for such a discussion would be that uncanny dodge helps against anything having to do with perception, while not helping against anything related to inability to move. Except that some of the original examples countermand this - Feint is basically a perception effect, while balancing is basically an inability to move.
Since the case here is so muddled, I feel the interpretation than the conditions (flat-footed and denied Dex to AC) in fact ARE synonymous and that uncanny dodge apples except when stated it does not (against feints and when immobilized). As immobilized in d20 parlance means being physically helpless and thus Dex 0, the only really relevant case is to be feinted.
SKR is on record as explicitly saying that flat-footed and denied Dex are two very different things that should not be used interchangeably. IIRC, the context of the comment was discussing the Sap Adept feat chain which requires you to make a sneak attack against a flat-footed target. He clarified that just because a sneak attack can be made against any target denied Dex to AC, it doesn't mean that all sneak attacks qualify for Sap Adept/Master; the target must have the more specific and restrictive flat-footed condition so you can't just Feint someone to use Sap Adept on them.
Denied DEX, Loosing DEX, dont get a DEX bonus ... are all part of a special situation in which you dont get your DEX bonus (if any) to your AC. It is the counterpart of 'you get a bonus to X'.
There is only one 'flatfooted' condition but there are many cases in which you 'dont get a DEX bonus'.
Apple != Pear
A pinned creature is denied his DEX but it can make AoO with a bite (bite = verbal action, GM call). A flatfooted character is denied his DEX and cannot make AoO.
A Bite attack isn't a "verbal action", it's a melee attack. Verbal Actions refer to speaking, not just using your mouth for something. Buccal is the word for "of or relating to the mouth" and would include biting and eating as well as speaking.
A better example would be climbing. You can make an AoO while climbing, provided it uses a weapon not hand-associated or that you were clinging with one hand and had a hand-associated weapon available (ie. quickdraw a dagger, wear brass knuckles, etc).
Wording of the published rules contributes to the mistake of identifying the condition "flat-footed" with one of its two effects. The texts of several feats assert that the defender is "flat-footed" to certain attacks, not that the defender *is* flat-footed. For example, Catch Off Guard specifies:
Quote:
Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon
Since armed attacks do not provoke AoO (per the table "Actions in Combat" following the PRD description of "Attacks of Opportunity", this use of "flat-footed" appears to indicate only that these opponents lose their dexterity (and dodge) bonus to AC. Contrast this with the feat Blade Binder, which does specify that the target becomes flat-footed.
Aside - I'm frustrated that I can't find any information about "Osiriani Blade Binding", mentioned in the Blade Binder feat description at d20pfsrd on either the paizo or the d20pfsrd websites. I guess it's a campaign-setting-specific combat maneuver. It's the one paizo-authored feat I could find online that indicated the opponent *became* "flat-footed".
Flat-footed can apply if you attempt a maneuver for which you lack the Improved feat. Also, there are some abilities, such as Sap Adept, which require the target to be flat-footed to work. The existence of certain rare abilities to render a target "flat-footed against your attacks" is very pertinent to those abilities (ie. Shatter Defenses).
So if I apply Shatter Defenses to an opponent, then try to use my attack to trip them (but I lack Improved Trip), the target cannot take an AoO because they are considered flat-footed. I can also use Sap Master and/or Sap Adept to make my sneak attacks stronger against such an opponent. If Shatter Defenses merely rendered them Denied Dex to AC, then they could still take AoOs and the Sap feats wouldn't work on them. Such abilities are, and should be, few and far between with significant requirements to attain but the issue SKR brought up was that some writers were conflating the two conditions in certain instances; especially in splat books.
there are some abilities, such as Sap Adept, which require the target to be flat-footed to work.
Sap Adept is not one of those. Sap Master, for which Sap Adept is prerequisite, is.
Kazaan wrote:
The existence of certain rare abilities to render a target "flat-footed against your attacks" is very pertinent to those abilities (ie. Shatter Defenses).
So if I apply Shatter Defenses to an opponent, then try to use my attack to trip them (but I lack Improved Trip), the target cannot take an AoO because they are considered flat-footed. I can also use Sap Master and/or Sap Adept to make my sneak attacks stronger against such an opponent.
Not Sap Adept, only Sap Master.
Kazaan wrote:
If Shatter Defenses merely rendered them Denied Dex to AC, then they could still take AoOs and the Sap feats wouldn't work on them. Such abilities are, and should be, few and far between with significant requirements to attain but the issue SKR brought up was that some writers were conflating the two conditions in certain instances; especially in splat books.
That some writers may have conflated flat-footed with denied dexterity bonus is interesting with respect to ongoing support; if it's about Paizo products it's one level; third party is another.
Feinting causes someone to lose dex against your next melee attack, but does not mean they can not make AoO's against you, if you were to go for a combat maneuver instead of a normal attack. However if feinting caused them to be flat-footed that AoO would not take place. Therefore they are not the same.
Aside - I'm frustrated that I can't find any information about "Osiriani Blade Binding", mentioned in the Blade Binder feat description at d20pfsrd on either the paizo or the d20pfsrd websites. I guess it's a campaign-setting-specific combat maneuver. It's the one paizo-authored feat I could find online that indicated the opponent *became* "flat-footed".
Osiriani Blade Binding is from Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting p 119. It is in a sidebar, and except for the name is not product identity.
