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

[Ran]

Hey, is it just me or anyone else understands things this way:

Uncanny Dodge: retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if he is caught flatfooted or struck by an invisible attacker. However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

Sneak Attack: The rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

Feintig in Combat: If your Bluff check result exceeds this special SenseMotive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make
against it.

As I see things (and it seems I am the only one...)

To be clear here I will start explaining how I see things:

1. Sneak attack is applied whenever your target is in a situation that he should loose his dex, even if he keeps it for any reason.

2. Uncanny dodge is applicable at every situation but immobilized (or the like).

3. Feinting in combat generates a situation where you are denied your dex bonus to ac.

Conclusion: If you have uncanny dodge you still are sneak attacked because you retain your dex bonus to ac but should loose it, as such when someone sucessfully feints you are sneak attacked at his next attack.


Okay, my vision on sneak attack here is the key, and I have never thought it any other way, until now... but it was how I understood from my very first read of the books...

 

[Enkhidu]

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?

It's not been ignored - the Sage did clarify what the intent behind UD was. However, that doesn't fix UD's poor wording in the rules, it only makes it so that we know the intent behind the wording, and can adjust that wording accordingly.

 

[Darklone]

As Hyp once pointed out... it's still possible to avoid being flanked by rogues who are highleveled enough to flank you by simply closing your eyes.

Funny, but works.

I would have liked to see this clarified rather than anything else.

 

[AGGEMAM]

As Hyp once pointed out... it's still possible to avoid being flanked by rogues who are highleveled enough to flank you by simply closing your eyes.

No. Closing your eyes won't prevent you from being flanked.

When you are flanked you do not loose your dex bonus (if any), but you are simply subject to sneak attacks.

FLANKING
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

Sneak Attack: ...
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

 

[Particle_Man]

As Hyp once pointed out... it's still possible to avoid being flanked by rogues who are highleveled enough to flank you by simply closing your eyes.

Funny, but works.

I would have liked to see this clarified rather than anything else.

Actually, I don't think it does. If there is more than one reason why you would be subject to a sneak attack, then you have to counter all of them simultaneously or you are still going to be subjec to that sneak attack. A PC that closes his eyes, and then is immobilized, is still going to lose that dex bonus, and hence be subject to a sneak attack. Similarly, a PC that closes his eyes, but is flanked by mega-high level rogues, is still flanked by mega-high level rogues. So said PC still subject to a sneak attack. This has the advantage of avoiding the silliness of the Barbarian closing his eyes to gain an advantage in combat.

Note: If one has a blanket immunity to all sneak attacks (like not being subject to critical hits (like being a vampire)) then one is, in effect simultaneously countering all possible reasons for why one should be subject to a sneak attack.

Edited for clarity, and a preemptive counter-argument.
[Oh, and insert Snoopy's Suppertime Dance on reading what the Sage said about feint].

 

[Kae'Yoss]

To be clear here I will start explaining how I see things:

1. Sneak attack is applied whenever your target is in a situation that he should loose his dex, even if he keeps it for any reason.

No. You have to actually lose your dex bonus to get sneak attacked. You might be confused that you can lose your dex bonus even if you don't have one. This means that people with dex 11 or lower (which don't have a dex bonus as their modifier is 0 or even negative, so it's a penalty) won't have a lower AC when in a situation where they lose their dex bonus (e.g. being caught flat-footed or attacked while climbing or balancing...). But they're still suspect to the other negative effects of losing your dex bonus (suspect to sneak attack).

2. Uncanny dodge is applicable at every situation but immobilized (or the like).

As we all know by now, I disagree. UD only speaks of being caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker, not about other things like feinting. And even then it won't help you if you're immobilized.

3. Feinting in combat generates a situation where you are denied your dex bonus to ac.

Yes. But you're not flat-footed.

Conclusion: If you have uncanny dodge you still are sneak attacked because you retain your dex bonus to ac but should loose it, as such when someone sucessfully feints you are sneak attacked at his next attack.

No. If you keep your dex bonus, you won't be suspect to sneak attack. So if you're caught flat-footed but have UD, you won't be sneak-attacked. UD is for reducing the situations where you can get sneak-attacked

 

[Artoomis]

Needless to say, I am less than convinced by the sage's answer. It is not uncommon for him to reverse himself when he answers off-the-cuff like this:

In a message dated 8/7/03 11:35:54 AM, kaeyoss@xxxxx.xxx writes:
<< Could you give me an official answer that Uncanny Dodge won't help you against feinting? >>

Uncanny dodge offically does not help you against feinting.

I formulated what I think is a better question and sent it off before seeing this answer:

Q. Does Uncanny Dodge trump losing your Dex Bonus to AC from an opponent using the Bluff skill to execute a feint?

More generally, which of the following rewordings of Uncanny Dodge meets the intent of the Uncanny Dodge ability to retain a Dexterity bonus to AC?

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


or

2. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) except whenever he loses it for being immobilized or otherwise having his movement restricted.

Number one is limited to only two conditions, number two is more general. The original language can be read either way, thus the need for clarification.

Thanks,

William Westwater

 

[LokiDR]

Actually, I don't think it does. If there is more than one reason why you would be subject to a sneak attack, then you have to counter all of them simultaneously or you are still going to be subjec to that sneak attack. A PC that closes his eyes, and then is immobilized, is still going to lose that dex bonus, and hence be subject to a sneak attack. Similarly, a PC that closes his eyes, but is flanked by mega-high level rogues, is still flanked by mega-high level rogues. So said PC still subject to a sneak attack. This has the advantage of avoiding the silliness of the Barbarian closing his eyes to gain an advantage in combat.

Note: If one has a blanket immunity to all sneak attacks (like not being subject to critical hits (like being a vampire)) then one is, in effect simultaneously countering all possible reasons for why one should be subject to a sneak attack.

Edited for clarity, and a preemptive counter-argument.
[Oh, and insert Snoopy's Suppertime Dance on reading what the Sage said about feint].

Hyp didn't say that closing your eyes is a protection from flanking, though if you close your eyes, your opponents get sneak attack because they are invisible to you.

The trick Hyp stated works as follows (IIRC, and 3.0) From the gaze attack rules, you can turn your back on a creature and treat it as invisible. From a sage/FAQ ruling on flanking, an invisible creature can not provide a flanking bonus.

So, if you are flanked by a rogue and basic fighter, you can turn your back on the fighter, losing your dex against him and granting him +2 to hit, and treating him as invisible. Since he is invisible, he can't grant flanking bonuses to the rogue, so the rogue loses sneak attack.

 

[AGGEMAM]

So, if you are flanked by a rogue and basic fighter, you can turn your back on the fighter, losing your dex against him and granting him +2 to hit, and treating him as invisible. Since he is invisible, he can't grant flanking bonuses to the rogue, so the rogue loses sneak attack.

Being unable to see an opponent doesn't make it him invisible. Doesn't work, sorry. But a link to the thread would be appreciated.

 

[Camarath]

Sneak Attack: The rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

1. Sneak attack is applied whenever your target is in a situation that he should loose his dex, even if he keeps it for any reason.

Okay, my vision on sneak attack here is the key, and I have never thought it any other way, until now... but it was how I understood from my very first read of the books... [/B]

Ran you are interpretation of Sneak Attack is wrong. Sneak Attack does not let you sneak attack regardless of whether the actually lose their Dex bonus or not. It lets you sneak attack regardless of whether they actually have a Dex bonus to lose, but only if they would actually lose it.