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

[Camarath]

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.)

I believe the opposite is true.

Stupid fienting why not just put a blurb in there stating whether or not Uncanny Dodge prevents feinting. Is that so hard? You would almost think this never came up in play testing. But how could that be? You have a rogue and a barbarian how long can you play with those two classes with out this issue arising. What did I just pay $90 for, tweaked classes and poorly integrated rules. Bah, those are available online for free!

 

[Wyckedemus]

Yeesh

And as a DM, I would judge that a rule to trump another rule only applies to the rules that are specifically mentioned in its description. To assume other rules are also to be trumped, is still an assumption, and therefore should not be used as a core rule. A badly worded rule does not give any more abilities than what is written. Any assumptions or additions are houserules IMO. >~ This is especially true for league play or RPGA play, as there should be a baseline that commonwealth campaigns must prescribe to.

There are so many grammar problems in 3.0 and 3.5 where rules are not written well or codified properly. The books aren't perfect, true. It just isn't possible. And in the past FAQ's and Sage Advice tried to stick to the baseline of "If it doesn't specifically state it, it doesn't apply." That practice isn't perfect either, but it's probably the most commonly supported way to adjudicate most rulings.

Therefore in closing, I would rule that a successful use of a skill that pits wit vs wit (in the form of feinting in combat) is not trumped by Uncanny Frogs.

Of course, if they choose to amend the Uncanny Frogs rule by including feinting in combat in the list of things it protects against, I would accept that ruling as well. And I would debate why it would make sense. But as of right now, there is something wrong with the idea of two powerful rogues dueling for power in a thieves guild duking it out like fighters. No bluffing and feinting with the wit and panache that comes with it. No mind games and getting the drop on the other guy. It's all about smack-talk and higher ground and who can slug it out best. Bleh.

....wannabe rogue who must match wits with his equals, rather than match brawn. (After all, I'm a skinny cutter trying to make my way outta the gutter, berk. Yer just in the way... Now I don't think I can take ya right here and now ye slackjawed sod, but that huge gelugon Mercykiller behind you might just do my job for me. *wince* Oh! Did my shiv stick itself in your ear? Sorry, but it must suck to be you, berk. Shoulda never made a mark of a Sigilan native. You cutpurses from the Prime really are clueless....)

 

[Darkness]

Once more with feeling

... And people who argue that are just upset because they want to always be able to dish out huge damage with sneak attacks. ...

Oh, look - an ad hominem argument.
While not a flame per se it's still too inflammatory for a thread that's been through all this.

So cut it out and stick to constructive debate instead.
That goes for everyone else as well, of course.

- Darkness

 

[Camarath]

Re: Yeesh

There are so many grammar problems in 3.0 and 3.5 where rules are not written well or codified properly. The books aren't perfect, true. It just isn't possible.

Thats true I do not expect the books to be prefect. I would like them to be but I don't expect them to be. What I did expect was that there would be less of these kinds of issues in 3.5 not more. But I guess ragging on WotC isn't going to help with this problem in the here and now.

And in the past FAQ's and Sage Advice tried to stick to the baseline of "If it doesn't specifically state it, it doesn't apply." That practice isn't perfect either, but it's probably the most commonly supported way to adjudicate most rulings.

This is the principle I have been trying to assert and support.

 

[roguekitsune]

Re: I will unite you all...against me!

The reason I hold this is that bluff is not only designed to fool the visual senses. It can fool the other senses as well (auditory is the most common use of bluff, in fact). Thus, if Joe the barbarian closes his eyes vs. Cecil the rogue, then Cecil might scratch his foot in the dirt towards Joe's right, or kick a pebble that way. Joe turns to the right, and Cecil stabs Joe from the "wrong" direction (how sinister!) . Sneak attack goodness!

On the other hand, the purpose of uncanny dodge is to allow the character to react quickly. Quick enough to avoid the feint.

 

[Eye Tyrant]

I only wish I had enough time to argue/discuss this issue...

 

[AGGEMAM]

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

And neither should you. You have made your pov very clear, and even argued for it.

I disagree with yours (and others) interpretation, but that does mean I don't have respect for it. The rules as written certainly and without even streching it allows for both interpretations.

So what we are discussing is the intent of the rules. This is as a subjective issue as religion or politics are.

Therefore I suggest that everyone refrain from badmouthing eachothers pov, because a) it not constructive in any way, and b) because we wont know anything for sure until WotC releases some form of errata and/or FAQ that is related to this subject.

 

[LokiDR]

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."

I think there isn't a strong enough implication for any dex-denying ability to be covered by Uncanny Dodge to say feint is covered. So, in an offical game, I would expect a judge to not allow UD vs feint.

Just because the offical rule might be stupid doesn't mean it isn't the offical rule. House rule might be too strong a term for it. Why don't I just say that UD doesn't effect feint is what I expect RPGA to follow.

 

[Enkhidu]

And neither should you. You have made your pov very clear, and even argued for it.

I disagree with yours (and others) interpretation, but that does mean I don't have respect for it. The rules as written certainly and without even streching it allows for both interpretations.

So what we are discussing is the intent of the rules. This is as a subjective issue as religion or politics are.

Therefore I suggest that everyone refrain from badmouthing eachothers pov, because a) it not constructive in any way, and b) because we wont know anything for sure until WotC releases some form of errata and/or FAQ that is related to this subject.

Personally, I've gotten to the point where every time I see a badly worded rule, I automatically decide which way the rule should be interpreted and simply rewrite the rule. Then I wonder why the authors didn't do it in the first place.

Example: if Uncanny Dodge is as broad as can be interpreted from what is written, wouldn't it have been simpler to say "At 2nd level, a barbarian retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) at all times, including all cases where he would otherwise be denied that Dexterity bonus. However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized."

Or, if the actual intent was the other way: "At 2nd level, a barbarian retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) if he is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, he can still lose his Dexterity bonus to AC through all other normal means."

Makes you wonder if they worded it that vaguely on purpose...

 

[Oldtimer]

Slightly of at a tangent, have you noticed that UD now protects you from sneak attacks if attacked when balancing?

In 3.0 you where "off balance", a condition from the "immobilized" category, therefore UD didn't help. In 3.5 you're flat-footed, something which UD clearly helps against.

Go figure...

/Mikael