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

[LokiDR]

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

Improved Grapple? That sounds like tackle to me. But this is house rule tangent that doesn't say much about UD vs feinting.

 

[Artoomis]

Improved Grapple? That sounds like tackle to me. But this is house rule tangent that doesn't say much about UD vs feinting.

Agreed, but nothing new is coming up on that topic anyway, so what the heck!?!

 

[Zaruthustran]

Alfonse the Rogue has come across Brunk the Barbarian. Brunk isn't aware of him because Alfonse is some distance away and invisible to boot. Now, Alfonse happens to know that Brunk is a barbian of some power and also that Alfonse can get a huge reward for bringing in Brunk's head. Brunk seems to be wounded, so maybe Alfonse can take him with a single shot to the vitals. Unfortunately, Alfonse also knows that if he were to sneak up and attack Brunk invisibly, he still would not get the drop on the guy because of his famous barbian's senses. So, the only way to get the drop on the guy is to become visible and make his presence known.

Now, I know that the rules are rules and storyline is storyline, but I personally have trouble seeing how Brunk can react so exceptionally to an invisible attacker that he isn't even aware of while still getting stabbed in the vitals by a rogue with clever tongue.

Well, using the FAQ wording, the barbarian's uncanny dodge ability is based on "feral senses". The rogue's feint (not bluff) fools those senses.

The rogue fients left, the barbarian's eyes perceive the feint and he dodges right, but whoops--the attack actually comes from the right and the barbarian dodges right onto the rogue's sword. Doh!

It's not so hard to imagine.

However, the problem with the example above is that a blind and deaf barbarian with some kind of weird disease that deprives him of his senses of taste, smell, and touch *still gets his uncanny dodge*. I guess that's why they call it a "sixth sense".

-z

 

[Artoomis]

...The rogue fients left, the barbarian's eyes perceive the feint and he dodges right, but whoops--the attack actually comes from the right and the barbarian dodges right onto the rogue's sword. Doh!

It's not so hard to imagine...
-z

Of course, it's also not so hard to imagine that the barbarian dodges to the right and then, using his uncanny senses, realizes that's where the attack is coming and manages to twist his body out of the way (retaining his dex bonus).

Either way is easily justifed in many ways. I think the language supports my way of looking at it, but others disgaree.

Thus the need for errata.

Meantime, I'll rule that uncanny dodge trumps a feint.

 

[LokiDR]

Either way is easily justifed in many ways. I think the language supports my way of looking at it, but others disgaree.

Thus the need for errata.

Meantime, I'll rule that uncanny dodge trumps a feint.

I don't think uncanny dodge says anything about feinting. But I don't like english enough to debate the meaning/use of "if".

 

[Artoomis]

I don't think uncanny dodge says anything about feinting. But I don't like english enough to debate the meaning/use of "if".

You're quite right. The text does not say whether or not Uncanny Dodge trumps a Feint. It does strongly imply that Uncanny Dodge trumps some other conditions besides the two listed, though.

A Feint seems to be about the only other condition that denies you your Dex bonus but is not involving restricted mobility.

 

[LokiDR]

You're quite right. The text does not say whether or not Uncanny Dodge trumps a Feint. It does strongly imply that Uncanny Dodge trumps some other conditions besides the two listed, though.

Forget implies. That is an english semantic arguement that makes my head hurt. I think it implies the opposite. We will never get anywhere with vague english in first place.

So forget all implication and look at just what we agree is there: flat footed, invisible attacker, and immobile (sage expanded to mean climbing, ect). It doesn't say feint, so it doesn't affect feint. It is the simplist explanation: no english degree needed

If you don't like it, there are house rules. We could go back to "feint to avoid an AoO". I think that makes sense, but acknowledge that is not what is in the rules. So, it is a house rule, even though I think the official rule is stupid. The logic expands feinted to be the same as flat footed against me. That is the kind of logic that makes UD trump feint. That is why I think they are both house rules.

A Feint seems to be about the only other condition that denies you your Dex bonus but is not involving restricted mobility.

Untill some 3rd party book, campaign setting, or module invents a new one. I have to think the designers were smart enough to realize that this was going to happen sometime. Wait, they didn't fix this after the 3.0 discussion. Nevermind, all the designers are stupid. Bad designers, no cookie.

 

[Artoomis]

If you don't like it, there are house rules. We could go back to "feint to avoid an AoO". I think that makes sense, but acknowledge that is not what is in the rules. So, it is a house rule, even though I think the official rule is stupid. The logic expands feinted to be the same as flat footed against me. That is the kind of logic that makes UD trump feint. That is why I think they are both house rules.

I'm not sure I follow you here. As currently presented in the PHB, you can rule either way without it being a House Rule.

We each have our opinions as to what the rule actually states. In a case like this I would not call either ruling a "house rule."

 

[Camarath]

I think you can also look at this as a case of which rule trumps the other.
Quote from SRD
"If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it."

This rule specificly addresses a character retaining there dex bonus in this situation. The Uncanny Dodge Rule does not do this. So IMO the rule that specifically addresses the situation trumps the general or vague rule.

 

[Artoomis]

I think you can also look at this as a case of which rule trumps the other.
Quote from SRD
"If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it."

This rule specificly addresses a character retaining there dex bonus in this situation. The Uncanny Dodge Rule does not do this. So IMO the rule that specifically addresses the situation trumps the general or vague rule.

You are exactly right about one rule trumping another. The Uncanny Dodge rule trumps the Feint rule.

(I'll forgoe revisting the logic of why this is true.)