D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Uncanny Dodge = Immune to Feints?

[bigglesandginger]

FAQ's poor grammer

The FAQ uses the same poor grammer the rule does when describing Uncanny Dodge. It would appear that WotC use "even if" to mean "here is an absurde example that is also included".

Caliban quotes the FAQ - which I cannot be bothered to go read, so taking it as truth - as saying in several places (Grappled and Helpless): "... you’re immobile, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge."

This either means that immobility removes DEX bonus including characters with Uncanny Dodge, or it means that immobility removes DEX from characters that have Uncann Dodge only.

From the grammer argument (which appears solid - not being an English major) it would seem that Uncanny Dodge has a weakness - immobility. All characters without Uncanny Dodge get to keep their DEX bonus. This not only is silly (and counter intuitive - not that D&D is intuitive just look at AC) but undoubtably goes against other rules that would claim otherwise for immobility. I would say this leaves one of two options. Either the FAQ is to be ignored (a valid grammer argument) or WotC thinks "even if" means "including but not a complete list".

 

[Particle_Man]

Hmmm....we seem to have left feinting behind.

Ok, so what about the guy who ignores, turns back on, closes eyes?

Well, I'd say feints are still possible (you could feint with sounds, etc.)

But what about flanking? there seems to be two interpretations that people want the spirit of the rules to have.

a) Some way for a person in the middle to ignore a weak opponent and concentrate defending vs. a stronger one.

b) Some way to avoid silliness of someone fighting better by closing his eyes.

I guess one question would be, does an invisible character in meelee with you get an Aoo if you do something risky in combat? (Like, cast a spell without casting defensively). I certainly don't want a wizard to improve his odds of getting a spell off by closing his eyes.

Following that idea, then closing one's eyes, ignoring a person, etc., could avoid a gaze attack, but doesn't protect one from other attacks from that opponent. One is still threatened.

Back to uncanny dodge. The "don't lose dex bonus due to opponents being invis." leads to interesting situations.

First, the high level rogue, Joe Fighter, and the barbarian being flanked. Can the barbarian ignore Joe Fighter in order to focus attention on the high-level rogue and avoid sneak attacks from said rogue? If I follow the Aoo idea above, then Joe Fighter still threatens the barbarian, so the barbarian is still subject to the sneak attack from the high-level rogue.

Similarly, if the barbarian is between two high-level rogues, then he should still be subject to sneak attacks, if the Aoo idea holds, even if the rogues are not seen by virtue of the barbarian closing his eyes.

I admit that this may not follow the letter of the rules. And there is room for the intuition that one should be able to ignore a weak opponent to avoid sneak attacks by the stronger one. So all of this is IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Something to resolve in 4.0?

 

[LokiDR]

Because most people here knows that I do that on occasion?

I thought it was obvious that I was ironic following the flow of the conversation. Try reading it reading it again with that in mind.

Ok, I said that you should check your verbage where you state flanking and invisible are the same thing. You go on to state you can mangle rules if you want to. It wasn't obvious (at least to me) that you were just making a joke.

EDIT: But to illustrate how stupid the rule is; take it to ridiculuos conclusion. If you close your eyes, then your opponents can't attack you except with ranged weapons. Why? Because you can't see them so they can't threaten you. And if they can't threaten you then they can't threaten anyone. And you can only make melee attacks on opponent you threaten. I choose to ignore such a rule.

Is this another joke?

The FAQ doesn't prevent threatening. "You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can’t see you, you don’t provide a flanking bonus to any ally." The new rule it is adding is that a foe must see a person on the other side from you to be flanked by you. This isn't advanced english. You are trying to invent problems that don't exist.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Is this another joke?

Not entirely. I'm musing on the inconsistant language used by the Sage here. After the lines you have quoted he states:

Sharp readers will note that this means you cannot flank a blind creature

That is not true at all, if it were it would impliment all the silliness I noted above. Of course you can flank a blind creature, you just don't get a flanking bonus from doing so. Just as you can crit or sneak attack an undead all you want it just doesn't do any extra damage to it or has any effect on it what-so-ever.

If he stand by his rule, he should also note that you cannot use UD when you are unable to see your enemy. Which would be equally silly.

 

[LokiDR]

Not entirely. I'm musing on the inconsistant language used by the Sage here. After the lines you have quoted he states:



That is not true at all, if it were it would impliment all the silliness I noted above. Of course you can flank a blind creature, you just don't get a flanking bonus from doing so. Just as you can crit or sneak attack an undead all you want it just doesn't do any extra damage to it or has any effect on it what-so-ever.

Oh, I agree they aren't winning any english awards here.

But I think your english is also weak. You can not sneak attack undead. It isn't a matter of you did it and they ignore it, it is that you just can't do it. If you had some special ability based on scoring a sneak attack, it would not work on undead, since you can't sneak attack them.

In the same way, you can't flank a blind creature, but they (most likely) suffer more problems anyway. The loophole in this is the blind barbarian. That is as silly as the rule goes. How does not being flanked equate to "If you close your eyes, then your opponents can't attack you except with ranged weapons." You are deeply twisting the statement.

If he stand by his rule, he should also note that you cannot use UD when you are unable to see your enemy. Which would be equally silly.

Where did you get that from? UD is about retaining your dex even when flat-footed or struck from an invisible creature. It says nothing about needing any sense, technically. I fail to see how the new FAQ flanking rule prevents UD. I sounds like you are just making up random crap here.

 

[AGGEMAM]

But I think your english is also weak.

That wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone ... (hint hint)

You can not sneak attack undead.

You're right, I just noticed that they changed it from 'Immune to' to 'Not subject to' in 3E5, so I concede that point.

Off course I'm deeply twisting his statement, it deserves it. He shouldn't close a loophole by opening another.

 

[LokiDR]

Off course I'm deeply twisting his statement, it deserves it. He shouldn't close a loophole by opening another.

The new flanking rule didn't close any loophole. It just made some flavor text into a rule.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The new flanking rule didn't close any loophole. It just made some flavor text into a rule.

Flavour text that doesn't appear anywhere in the core books, too

Although it does fix the problem of the pixie-who-wasn't-there.

In theory, by the non-FAQ'd rules, an invisible ally could wander around the battlefield completely undetected, never actually taking part in the combat... but as long as he holds a weapon, his allies can make sneak attacks whenever he's opposite them...

In my opinion, though, that's a smaller problem than the ones the FAQ introduces.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Flavour text that doesn't appear anywhere in the core books, too

Although it does fix the problem of the pixie-who-wasn't-there.

In theory, by the non-FAQ'd rules, an invisible ally could wander around the battlefield completely undetected, never actually taking part in the combat... but as long as he holds a weapon, his allies can make sneak attacks whenever he's opposite them...

In my opinion, though, that's a smaller problem than the ones the FAQ introduces.

-Hyp.

Ah, it was the invisible flavor text that was flanking for the Sage. got it.

I think the ignoring of 1 combatant to focus on the other is good. I think the blind barbarian is kinda broken, but not overly. It at least has style, albeit Chop-Socky style. The Blinking Barbarian you came up with is just lame, style and power wise. I think I will allow all of them and just personally hit any player who uses the blinking barbarian.