D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Feinting & Uncanny Dodge

[Olgar Shiverstone]

How do you think feinting should interact with Uncanny Dodge?

Does Uncanny Dodge take precedence (you retain the Dex bonus despite failing the Sense Motive Check)? Or does the Bluff check effectively disable UD?

I suspect the former, but would kind of prefer the latter (since it makes Sense Motive a worthwhile purchase for more classes). Or if the former is true, it would be nice if the Improved Feint feat allowed feint to bypass uncanny dodge (got to be some additional benefit for spending two feats besides the action change -- IF doesn't even grant a bonus to the check, unlike most of the other "Improved" feats).

 

[hong]

The language for feinting doesn't look like it's changed from 3.0 (except for adding BAB to your Sense Motive check), so it would be treated the same as before. Uncanny dodge doesn't help.

 

[mikebr99]

As far as I can tell... Uncanny Dodge ONLY helps against flanking... but correct me if I'm wrong.


Mike

 

[the Jester]

Uncanny dodge only lets you maintain your dex bonus when flat-footed or struck by an invisible opponent (or, with improved uncanny dodge, when flanked).

Feinting doesn't make you flat-footed or make your opponent unseen; it makes you lose your dex bonus against his next attack. Uncanny dodge won't help you out in this situation, just as it can't help when you lose your dex bonus because you're running, climbing, etc.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Uncanny dodge only lets you maintain your dex bonus when flat-footed or struck by an invisible opponent (or, with improved uncanny dodge, when flanked).

Except that the description on uncanny dodge doesn't restrict retaining the Dex bonus to when flatfooted or struck by an individual attacker. From the rogue's class description:

"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC, even if flatfooted or struck by an invisible attacker" (emphasis mine).

The only listed exception is when immobilized. The ", even" seems to extend the benefit beyond just the two conditions listed (otherwise, omit the comma and "even", and the ability is restricted to two conditions: flatfooted, and struck by an invisible attacker).

Hence my question.

 

[Branduil]

Well, feinting sucks now anyway since you can add your BAB to your sense motive checks against feints.

 

[Sejs]

Well, feinting sucks now anyway since you can add your BAB to your sense motive checks against feints.

Couldn't disagree with you more. It means that the seasoned veteran warrior with 15 levels of fighter can't be hoodwinked by any given first level rogue with 4 ranks in bluff and a moderate charisma.

Means if you want to keep feinting people, you'll have to keep developing more and more skill at it as your opponents likewise get more and more skillful at the fight. That's a good thing, in my oppinion.

 

[Caliban]

Except that the description on uncanny dodge doesn't restrict retaining the Dex bonus to when flatfooted or struck by an individual attacker. From the rogue's class description:

"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC, even if flatfooted or struck by an invisible attacker" (emphasis mine).

The only listed exception is when immobilized. The ", even" seems to extend the benefit beyond just the two conditions listed (otherwise, omit the comma and "even", and the ability is restricted to two conditions: flatfooted, and struck by an invisible attacker).

Hence my question.

That's exactly the same text as in 3.0, and it was ruled in the FAQ that it only helps against invisible opponents, being flat-footed, or being flanked if you have the improved version.

The bit about being immobilized is so that you can't claim to keep your Dex bonus again invisible attack when you are immobilized. (Which would lead to the odd circumstance of losing your dex bonus if you are immobilized and can see your attacker, but keeping it if you are immobilized but your attacker is invisible.)

 

[Snipehunt]

I think the "even if" language is meant to be limiting to those two circs - flatfooted or invisiible. IIRC, there are lots of things that lose dex bonuses - encumbrance, helpless, balancing, etc. I don't think uncanny dodge was meant to overcome all of them, just the two listed. Especially b/c there could always be new spells and feats that take away a dex bonus, although I guess you could have a blanket rule that any new spell or feat has to specifically say it overcomes UD, or it doesn't.

But why add that "even" to the description and make it so confusing? If they meant to change UD, it's a pretty big change, and you'd think they would have talked about it. If it isn't, you'd think they would have left it alone.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That seems like stretching an overly literal interpretation of the sentence. Your interpretation would leave room for arguments that characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their dex bonus even when stunned (which is technically not immobilized in the same way that holds immobilize a character) or when held but able to move through the fly spell (interpreted as a purely mental action). Your interpretation would also have people with Uncanny Dodge retain their dex bonus when climbing.

The ", even" may seem to extend the benefit beyond the two listed conditions but shouldn't be assumed to extend it to every conceivable situation. A similarly pedantic reading could go as follows: "She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC" just like everyone else does in most situations with the added benefit that she retains it "even if flatfooted or struck by an invisible attacker"--two situations in which most people do not retain their dex bonusses.

Except that the description on uncanny dodge doesn't restrict retaining the Dex bonus to when flatfooted or struck by an individual attacker. From the rogue's class description:

"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC, even if flatfooted or struck by an invisible attacker" (emphasis mine).

The only listed exception is when immobilized. The ", even" seems to extend the benefit beyond just the two conditions listed (otherwise, omit the comma and "even", and the ability is restricted to two conditions: flatfooted, and struck by an invisible attacker).

Hence my question.