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

[Artoomis]

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.

Correct. Here's the actual rule:

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...

BTW, Flanking is defined as:

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...

I'm a little uncertain as to how this works with invisible opponents in 3.5. I don't know if there is a rule change in 3.5, but it appears that invisible characters do indeed threaten the spaces arsound them (this is specifically mentioned in "withdraw" where an invisble opponent gets an AoO).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Needless to say, I am less than convinced by the sage's answer.

Well, he gave quite an unambiguous answer. This is what was wanted

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

You can think this is a better question as much as you like. Mine was straight-to-the-point, as was the anwer:

No UD against feinting.

If you need an official document signed by god and three of his notaries that this is so, I cannot help you.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, he gave quite an unambiguous answer. This is what was wanted



You can think this is a better question as much as you like. Mine was straight-to-the-point, as was the anwer:

No UD against feinting.

If you need an official document signed by god and three of his notaries that this is so, I cannot help you.

Oh, come on now. When he gets simple questions and generates simple respones he has been wrong in the past and he has gone back on his positions before.

This rarely happens when the qeustion is phrased in such a way so as to make him think about his answer instead of giving a knee-jerk response, which seems to be the case here.

Hopefully he'll answer my question and clear this up once and for all. I don't think his answer to your question did that.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hopefully he'll asnwer my question and clear this up once and for all. I don't think his answer to your question did that.

I hope that too. And I hope that this will satisfy the last disbelievers. This thread is far too long by half. It degraded from a simple question to a discussion that's more appropriate to a commitee discussing a spelling reform than to a RPG Board.

 

[Artoomis]

I hope that too. And I hope that this will satisfy the last disbelievers. This thread is far too long by half. It degraded from a simple question to a discussion that's more appropriate to a commitee discussing a spelling reform than to a RPG Board.

It has been quite a discussion!!

P.S. I hate it when I get quoted with a typo. I can go back and fix my typo, but there it is in a quote for all to see and scoff . Not that I am accusing anyone of being scoffers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Sorry, this is only the second time in a week that I've been able to connect to ENWorld - apparently there was a router down in Washington, or something.

Being unable to see an opponent does, indeed, cause you to "treat them as invisible". They get a +2 to attack rolls against you, you lose your Dex bonus uinless you have Blindfight or Uncanny Dodge, you suffer a 50% miss chance on attacks made against them. In 3.5 you would be unable to take any AoOs against them.

And in the Main FAQ, they made up a new rule, unsupported by anything in the text, as follows:

Suppose an ally of mine is attacking one foe, then I
somehow become invisible, draw my sword, and move to
the other side of that foe, thus flanking the foe. Does my ally
still get a flanking bonus even if I am invisible?
You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and
who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can’t see
you, you don’t provide a flanking bonus to any ally.
Sharp readers will note that this means you cannot flank a
blind creature; however, truly blind creatures are effectively
flanked already (the can’t use their Dexterity bonus to AC and
you a +2 bonus to attack them). Creatures with the blindsight
ability effectively “see” within blindsight range and can be
flanked.

If I have my eyes closed, I can't see you, and therefore you and your ally cannot flank me. If I have Uncanny Dodge, I do not lose my Dex bonus against opponents I cannot see. Therefore, I cannot be sneak attacked, even though you and your ally are rogues 4 levels higher than me.

Alternatively, as has been pointed out, I can turn my back on one of you using the rules for Gaze Attacks, treating you as invisible. You can gain flanking bonuses (and invisible bonuses!), since I can see your ally, but your ally cannot, since I cannot see you. If your ally is doing +9d6 sneak attack damage on every flanking attack, it's not a bad idea!

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Unfortunately that hinges on you being able to turn your back on anything, there are two problem with that; 1) There are no facing in D&D and you see in all direction at the same time, 2) You cannot turn your back on something you cannot see, since are nothing to indicate where he is.

Futhermore, closing your eyes deliberately renders you effectively blinded for the round, thereby being flanked by default.

EDIT: Btw, there is another one down in Sidney or something like that. Anyway welcome back!

 

[Camarath]

I never liked the Main FAQ's stance on flanking. It always seemed from the rules that the bonus that depended on you and your ally's actions rather than the perceptions of creature you were flanking.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

I want you think about that statement for a minute. "Being unable to see an opponent doesn't make him invisible." So, what is invisible if it isn't the lack of ability to see the invisble thing? If you have your eyes closed, all creatures around you are effectively invisible, and get bonuses as appropriate. Likewise complete darkness when they have darkvision and you don't.

I would like to post a link to the original thread, but I can't find it. Perhaps you can ask Hypersmurf directly.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unfortunately that hinges on you being able to turn your back on anything, there are two problem with that; 1) There are no facing in D&D and you see in all direction at the same time, 2) You cannot turn your back on something you cannot see, since are nothing to indicate where he is.

Except that the rules for Gaze Attacks specifically provide for turning your back on an individual creature.

Futhermore, closing your eyes deliberately renders you effectively blinded for the round, thereby being flanked by default.

... unless you have Uncanny Dodge, in which case you don't lose your Dex bonus while blind.

I never liked the Main FAQ's stance on flanking. It always seemed from the rules that the bonus that depended on you and your ally's actions rather than the perceptions of creature you were flanking.

I hate the Main FAQ's stance on flanking, and ignore it... except when it comes up in ocnversation like this

-Hyp.