D&D 3.x [3.5] Uncanny Dodge = Immune to Feints?

[LokiDR]

This forgeds that you will lose your dex bonus if you're immobilized.

UD will protect you against losing your dex bonus when you're caught flat-footed or when attacked by an unseen enemy. Other situations aren't covered, and when you're immobilized, even UD won't help you against them.

That isn't what the 3.5 wording says.

Being Attacked while Balancing: You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing.

If it just said you lose your dex bonus to AC, I would agree. But there seems to have been a change that balancing (with 4 or less ranks) is the same a being flat-footed. Flat-footed is covered by UD. Chalk it up as another strange 3.5 change or a bad edit.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

When exactly was I talking about Balance?

 

[LokiDR]

When exactly was I talking about Balance?

Ooops, sorry. I thought you were talking about balance.

 

[Camarath]

Re: The solution...

I propose that we suggest that WotC clarify this poor wording by adopting one of the following clarifications:

1. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) when he is either caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker."

2. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) when he is caught flat-footed, struck by an invisible attacker, is subject to a feint from his opponent using the bluff skill, or otherwise loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for reasons other than being immobilized or otherwise having his movement restricted.

Which one you like depends on what you think was intended with the current rules. It WotC would accept one or the other, at least we'd know what we were supposed to do to be "official," for times when that is important.

I suggest that the first clarification be changed to.

1. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) when he is either caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker unless he is immobilized or otherwise has his movement restricted.

This is because the are some cases where he might be caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker wile immobilized and I don't think he should retain his Dex bonus in those situations.

 

[Enkhidu]

Re: Re: The solution...

I suggest that the first clarification be changed to.

1. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) when he is either caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker unless he is immobilized or otherwise has his movement restricted.

This is because the are some cases where he might be caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker wile immobilized and I don't think he should retain his Dex bonus in those situations.

Further clarification, emphasis mine:

1. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) when he is either caught flat-footed or struck by an unseen attacker...

This allows for UD to work in situations where an opponent attacks from a hidden position, and in cases where the character is in darkness (which, I believe, is the intent behind UD).

 

[Camarath]

I think an unseen attacker counts as an invisible attacker. But, how about is we say "an unseen or invisible attacker".

 

[Artoomis]

I don't think the further clarification on my first one is needed.

Let's say he is immobilized AND attacked by an invisible (or unseen) opponent. Well, he does not lose his Dex bonus to AC for being attacked by an unseen opponent, but does for his being immobilized.

Normal rules apply, and he loses his Dex bonus to AC. I think any further clarification only muddies the waters.

In fact, I'd to see statement number two simplified.

Perhaps:

2. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) whenever he is would have lost his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for being immobilized or otherwise having his movement restricted.

That's better.

 

[Camarath]

I don't think the further clarification on my first one is needed.

Let's say he is immobilized AND attacked by an invisible (or unseen) opponent. Well, he does not lose his Dex bonus to AC for being attacked by an unseen opponent, but does for his being immobilized.

Normal rules apply, and he loses his Dex bonus to AC. I think any further clarification only muddies the waters.

So you think no one will say based on your clarification that "any time one is caught flat-footed or attacked by an invisible opponent they retain thier dex bonus even if normal circumstances (including being immobilized) would deny it to them"? I think unless the circumstance were one can be attacked by an invisible opponent or caught flat-footed and still lose one's dex bonus are spelled out someone will asume that it is impossible to lose your dex bonus wile flat-footed or attacked by an invisible opponent.

In fact, I'd to see statement number two simplified.

Perhaps:

2. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) whenever he is would have lost his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for being immobilized or otherwise having his movement restricted.

That's better.

Are you really saying that you retain your dex bonus wile immobilized? Do you mean?

2. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) unless he would have lost his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for being immobilized or otherwise having his movement restricted.

 

[IanB]

I like how the thread merrily carries on ignoring the Sage response.

Anyway, if you accept the idea that the wording means you don't lose your dex bonus to a feint, doesn't the same logic apply to running?

I mean, clearly someone who is running isn't immobile, right?

 

[Camarath]

I like how the thread merrily carries on ignoring the Sage response.

What the sage spoke on this issue? Oh good I was getting really tired of all this thinking stuff. Anyway, the "sage" is all well and good but he does have a tendency not to explain, justify or even square his "rulings" with the rules and that annoys me. At least he is not WotC customer service.

Adressing the issue you broached, wile running you are not flat-footed or being attacked by an invisible opponent (usally) so IMO Uncanny Dodge has nothing to say on the issue.