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

[LokiDR]

As it says: "A flat-footed character can?t make attacks of opportunity." but not "A character who loses his Dex-Bonus to AC can?t make attacks of opportunity." you might still make AoOs against everybody even if feinted.
After all you lose the Dex-Bonus ONLY against the character that feinted you. Everyone else still has to go against your full AC.

So, there's no "Look behind you... a dragon" *gulpdownapotion* "Oh, must have mislooked"

Should there be? Think of a football player, trying to take the ball downfield. A defender comes up to tackle him, but he fakes right, avoids the tackle, and keeps moving. This simple "combat" should be something that D&D can handle. Is that bluff to move through a threatened space without an AoO?

 

[Caliban]

Should there be? Think of a football player, trying to take the ball downfield. A defender comes up to tackle him, but he fakes right, avoids the tackle, and keeps moving. This simple "combat" should be something that D&D can handle. Is that bluff to move through a threatened space without an AoO?

It could be another way of expressing a successful "Tumble" check.

 

[LokiDR]

It could be another way of expressing a successfuly "Tumble" check.

Does that concept really work with the idea of tumble? The manuver is even called a fake. The rules may say tumble, but I don't think that matches the concept. Tumble would be Jackie Chan trying to get past a person

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Should there be? Think of a football player, trying to take the ball downfield. A defender comes up to tackle him, but he fakes right, avoids the tackle, and keeps moving. This simple "combat" should be something that D&D can handle. Is that bluff to move through a threatened space without an AoO?

He avoids the tackle. Which means that the guy got an AoO and missed. More than likely a running back would have mobility. And a very high dex.

--Dork Spikey

 

[Snipehunt]

IMO, bluff better describes the football encounter than tumble or mobility. It's a fake - bluffing that you're giong one way, then going another. It should be resisted by sense motive - I'm really good at knowing when Marshall Faulk feints left, then runs right. Of course, 3.5 has the BAB issue now, but still . . .

And can you see Ricky Williams tumbling through the front four? Although he did wear that wedding dress on sports illustrated.

 

[Camarath]

"I am a human, even if I walk on the moon or on the mars."

There is no comma in the orginial sentence. The addition of a comma changes the meaning of a sentence separating it into two quasi-independent statements. The original sentence was not divided in this way.

Does this sentence say I'm not a human on earth ?

No, but we also can't conclude from this sentence anything about your humanity here on earth. You could be human on earth or a puppy we have no way of knowing from this sentence. How about if you die are you still a human or how about if you are polymorphed or reincarnated into a dog. Would you still be human? The sentence does not have anything to say on these matters. Since this sentence can not be construed to be a controlling authority on subjects it does not touch. We must use other souces to determine your humanity in situations not covered by the sentence. Since the normal tendencey of human beings is to remain human then in the absence of a situation that would make them inhuman, you should remain human on earth as well as walking on mars or the moon. But, it is not this sentence that allows you to do so. It is the normal laws governing the universe that mandate this tendency.

What is feint other than forcing someone to be flatfooted ?
You don't bar him from moving so he is not immobilized.."

He loses his dex bonus vs the one who feints him only he does not become flat-footed. A flat-footed character loses his dex bonus against all attacks for as long as he is flat-footed not just one.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I blame PirateCat!

You do? I blame Darkness, since he blatantly tried to frame Wiz for it.

My take is that UD does indeed protect against feinting. And people who argue that are just upset because they want to always be able to dish out huge damage with sneak attacks. If you want huge damage....PLAY A FIGHTER!

This sounds like "People with big cars try to compensate", a cliché usually used by those who have small cars and envy people with big cars.

I don't argue that because I want to sneak attack everyone with sneak attacks (we're talking about a mere two classes, anyway). I argue that because I know it is so.

Can I still make an AoO against the one who bluffed me (Given that he provokes one) ? Or can I only execute AoO against all other beings on the battlefield but not the one bluffing me ?

I say yes. You only lose your dex bonus for his next attack, not generally. You're still alert to him - he just has made you look into the wrong direction. You can still lash out if the opportunity arises.

Does that concept really work with the idea of tumble? The manuver is even called a fake. The rules may say tumble, but I don't think that matches the concept. Tumble would be Jackie Chan trying to get past a person

The guy who called it a Fake probably didn't know the rules very well

 

[mikebr99]

He avoids the tackle. Which means that the guy got an AoO and missed. More than likely a running back would have mobility. And a very high dex.

--Dork Spikey

And none of the tacklers are armed... and therefore don't threaten, so no AoOs.

 

[Artoomis]

I gotta believe that football players count as armed - much like a monk.

Personally, if a football player was coming at me I'd treat him like one great big nasty weapon!

 

[mikebr99]

Personally, if a football player was coming at me I'd treat him like one great big nasty weapon!

And so it would seem with basketball players also... if you pay attention to the news.


Mike