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

[Artoomis]

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.

In this case, it appears the FAQ is out-and-out wrong. Certainly in 3.5 this FAQ entry would not be true as invisible creatures do threaten spaces as normal, per at least the "Withdraw" entry. Threatening you opposite your ally is the condition needed for flanking.

It is a bit odd that you get a flanking bonus even though you cannot see your ally to take advantage of the flanking, but that is the way the rules are written.

I wish the FAQ would stop creating new rules and only clarify ones where there is confusion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In this case, it appears the FAQ is out-and-out wrong. Certainly in 3.5 this FAQ entry would not be true as invisible creatures do threaten soaces as normal.

That hasn't changed from 3E.

I wish the FAQ would stop creating new rules and only clarify ones where there is confusion.

I get the impression the Sage took a flavour description for flanking bonuses - "The defender has to split his attention between two attackers" (which doesn't appear anywhere in the rules) - and made a rule out of it. It first showed up in a Sage Chat transcript, and then appeared (slightly modified) in the FAQ on the next update.

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

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

Yes, but you're also flanked by default, and that doesn't change by having UD.

See your own quote.

EDIT: Btw, please send me a shipment of the stuff the Sage is smoking, it must be really really good.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

The gaze attack rules specifically superceed the "no facing" idea, as turning your back is likened to wearing a blindfold. You can see the creature, but you are effectively ignoring it by turning your back. The example does not use any spells, so all involved are normally visible.

Also, being blinded is not the same as being flanked. You might want to clean up your verbage there.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Also, being blinded is not the same as being flanked. You might want to clean up your verbage there.

Why? If the Sage can see non-existant rules, so can I!

 

[LokiDR]

Why? If the Sage can see non-existant rules, so can I!

Ok, then I say the rules say you don't exist. I win!

And flat-footed is different than flanked. If you want to ignore core rules, be my guest, but I don't think that belongs in the rule forum.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Ok, then I say the rules say you don't exist. I win!

I still the Sage waterpipe go: blub blub blub, so I guess I'm still here.

And flat-footed is different than flanked.

I never said otherwise, check if you want.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, but you're also flanked by default, and that doesn't change by having UD.

See your own quote.

"... truly blind creatures are effectively flanked already (they can’t use their Dexterity bonus to AC and you receive a +2 bonus to attack them)."

If you are flanking: You receive a +2 bonus to attacks, and you can sneak attack.

If you are invisible: You receive a +2 bonus to attacks, and you can sneak attack.

By "effectively flanked", he means that the consequences of being blind are the same as the consequences of being flanked. However, if you have an ability - like Uncanny Dodge - that negates the penalties for being blind that are the same as the penalties for being flanked, you're not "effectively flanked" any more, are you?

-Hyp.

 

[Ran]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ran
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have read the post I noticed that how i (and my group) handle sneak attack differs from the norm, and i just pointed that even when it seems clear it can be quite unclear... Anyway, i like our way, uncanny dodge is a lot good the way we play, but I gotta talk to everyone about how we are gonna use it.

And besides, how we handle it doesn't give us a problem like closing eyes or ud vs feint...

------------------------------------------

Okay, I will continue the topic.

1. Uncanny Dodge is very unclear, but from all statements I have read (FAQ and so on) it become clear that the even then is not supposed to create more situations, it speaks about those that everyone already use their Dex bonus, or penalties, so Uncanny Dodge is applied, in fact, whenever you are attacked by invisible foes and/or you are caught flat footed, no others. But it leaves some problems still...

2. When you are fighting two rogues that are flanking you and you only have Uncanny Dodge (not the improved) you are subject to sneak attacks because of flanking, but closing your eyes (and thus making them invisible) doesn't help you, and I will have to go on non-rules to say why. Uncanny Dodge allows you to retain your Dex bonus to AC when attacked by an invisible foe based on your preternatural reaction and to do so you must have clues to where the attack is coming from, when you close your eyes you are, in fact, making absolutely everything invisible, and you must defend yourself from every single position, that makes a bad defense, no edx bonus to ac anymore, even with Uncanny Dodge, and by being as flanked they mean that you are defending yourself from more than one side, like in flanking, but since it is from far more, Uncanny Dodge would never apply, and your clues would, in fact, be reduced a lot.

Synthesis.
--Flanked: watching enemies that are on opposite sides of you, improved uncanny dodge addresses this situation, since you kind of learn to fight without the need of looking directly at one or the other foe.
--Attacked by invisible: you are wathcing every clue to "where the enemy is coming" that usually helps just a moment before he strikes, what is enough for someone with Uncanny Dodge to retain his Dex bonus to AC.
--Eyes Shut: You are unable to "detect" the attack before it strikes home, making you an easy target you are in a situation that you have to defend from everywhere, which makes you open vital spots to every single direction, you cannot retain dex on ac because you are, in fact, unable to react, you don't have a clue to the attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As I have read the post I noticed that how i (and my group) handle sneak attack differs from the norm, and i just pointed that even when it seems clear it can be quite unclear...

The key is the word "would".

"Any time he would be denied his Dex bonus to AC" doesn't refer to "He would be denied his Dex bonus to AC if he didn't have Uncanny Dodge".

It refers to "He would be denied his Dex bonus to AC... but he doesn't have one!"

The cleric with the Dexterity of 10 who is caught Flat-Footed would be denied his Dex bonus (if he had one).

The barbarian with the Dexterity of 10 and Uncanny Dodge who is caught Flat-Footed wouldn't be denied his Dex bonus (if he had one)... because he has Uncanny Dodge. Therefore he cannot be Sneak Attacked while Flat-Footed.

-Hyp.