2 Questions

[Infiniti2000]

Indeed. Excellent post, Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hyp for the win!

 

[KarinsDad]

But the exclusions exist elsewhere - otherwise the 'typically it might' case doesn't exist.

If the law says that you can only follow someone as long as they don't cross state or federal borders, then "I will follow you" can be presumed to include "unless you cross a state or federal border".

"I will follow you, even if you leave the state" means that you're negating the standing exclusion on following him across state borders. But because there still exists an exclusion on following him across a federal border, he can reasonably expect that leaving the country will get you off his tail.

Same with Uncanny Dodge. The normal rule is that one retains one's Dex bonus, except when flat-footed, attacked by an invisible creature, successfully feinted, immobilised, grappled, etc.

But a rogue with Uncanny Dodge has an ability that removes some of those exceptions. He retains his Dex bonus, even if flat-footed or attacked by an invisible creature. Those two exclusions are struck from the list.

The others remain.

Fair enough.

 

[Zen]

Everyone always talks about how much D&D helps with basic math, but not enough is said about the workout it gives your grammatical skills.

Thanks for the answers!

--Z

 

[Space Coyote]

"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 think I see what some people are saying. Look at it this way, using this dialogue as an example:

Rule-maker: "She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC." (An all-encompassing statement)
Player: "What if she is flat-footed?"
Rule-maker: "Even if she is caught flat-footed."
Player: "Does she get her Dexterity when attacked by someone invisible?"
Rule-Maker: "Even if she is struck by an invisible attacker."

If separated that way, the first part seems to imply that a character with Uncanny Dodge retains their Dexterity bonus under any situation (except immobilization) and the parts after the "even" are just to clarify that, yes, this applies to those 2 situations *as well*. As opposed to being "limited" to those 2 situations.

 

[KarinsDad]

Btw, I would like to point out two things:

1) If "even if" means what Hyp says it does, they would not need the sentence about immobility. They could have just said that the Rogue gets the Dex for Flat-Footed and Invisible Attackers.

2) Although the 3.5 FAQ does not talk about Uncanny Dodge, the 3E FAQ does. The 3E ruling was that Uncanny Dodge would not work when the character has a physical or magical impediment such as grapple or climbing, it would work against sensory ones such as surprise or invisibility.

So, ones that are explicitly listed as losing the Dex are:

Climbing
Cowering
Grappling
Held
Helpless
Incapacitated
Pinned
Stunned

The ones that are explicitly listed as not losing Dex are:

Blind
Flat-Footed
Invisible Attacker

Feint would fall into this second category of being sensory "faked out", not physically or magically impaired.

It also more closely matches the sentence "a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so". It matters not what your opponent does or the state of your opponent, it matters whether you can react to him or not.

 

[Legildur]

I think this is the most reasonable reading. It could have been phrased better, but, well... it wasn't!

Yeah, he should have used the 'punch in the face/kick in the nuts' analogy instead!

KarinsDad, I like your inclusion of feint in the 'sensory fake' grouping, but I don't feel comfortable with it on a rules basis. I think that feint trumps uncanny dodge, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad, I like your inclusion of feint in the 'sensory fake' grouping, but I don't feel comfortable with it on a rules basis. I think that feint trumps uncanny dodge, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Well, there is no proof.

Just like accordiing to RAW, Uncanny Dodge works against an Invisible Attacker, but does not work against attackers if you are Blind. The two are similar, but not (by RAW) the same.


And what happens when an Invisible Attacker attempts to Feint you? Well, Feint still trumps Uncanny Dodge because you are losing the Dex bonus for a different reason.

In fact, what is interesting is that Feint has a penalty against nonhumanoid creatures "because it is difficult to read their body language". How do you read their body language if they are invisible?

So as a Rogue, you can Feint an Invisible Rogue Enemy even though he is invisible (and you cannot read his body language) and he can Feint you because your Uncanny Dodge does not protect you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just like accordiing to RAW, Uncanny Dodge works against an Invisible Attacker, but does not work against attackers if you are Blind. The two are similar, but not (by RAW) the same.

Although they were in 3E It's a change that had some follow-on effects that weren't properly tidied up...

-Hyp.