Saving Throws and Uncanny Dodge

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

darkclutches

Mar 18, 2015 21:03:47

A situation arose at the gaming table this evening, and while I have no problem with the adjudication, I'd like some input for my own enlightenment (BTW, this isn't to disparage our DM; he's doing a great job. He's just more generous than I am, I guess).

 

Our party was squaring off against a force which contained a cambion, and at one point said cambion nailed our rogue with his Fire Ray, but the rogue made his save and took only half damage. The Ray has a Ranged Spell Attack modifier, thus qualifying it as an attack. The rogue (level 5) then applied his Uncanny Dodge class feature to reduce the damage by another 50%, which received the DM's blessing, so he took only 25% of the total possible damage.

 

Now, our DM is out to run an enjoyable game, and I want to state emphatically that I have no problem with that. His game, his call, and I like his style. I'M NOT COMPLAINING, but what I'd like to know is how this meshes with the RAW. I'm inclined to think that this normally wouldn't be allowed. Under Uncanny Dodge it reads, "...you can use your reaction to halve the attack's damage against you." Since the damage of the attack has already been halved by a successful saving throw, the Uncanny Dodge feature would be redundant.

 

Thoughts?

#2

AaronOfBarbaria

Mar 18, 2015 21:20:30

Cambion uses fire ray, rolls 1d20+7 (a ranged spell attack roll), the total is greater than the rogue's AC so the rogue is hit.

 

There is no saving throw for half damage in the fire ray attack.

 

The rogue then uses Uncanny Dodge to halve the damage.

 

That's how the rules in the book handle it.

(Reply to #2)

darkclutches

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#4

Macv12

Mar 18, 2015 21:52:57

In principle, there's no conflict with halving damage that was already cut by a prior feature. A tiefling rogue could still cut the damage from Scorching Ray, for instance, despite already having resistance.

 

The existence of a spell that both requires a save for half damage and an attack roll is strange, though. I'm inclined to believe the DM made a mistake. But I'm also fine with considering any damaging action an "attack" (lower-case, informally defined), in the sense of "an act meant to cause harm."

(Reply to #4)

darkclutches

Macv12 wrote: