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

[Ran]

The key is the word "would".
<snip>
It refers to "He would be denied his Dex bonus to AC... but he doesn't have one!"

Yeah, it was that which I noticed by then, and in fact it IS unclear too, edited last post to include my vision on htings, with "correct" Uncanny Dodge comprehension and sneak attack...

 

[Hypersmurf]

--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.

Except that the FAQ is quite clear that when you're Blind, you retain your Dex bonus to AC with Uncanny Dodge, because all opponents are treated as invisible, and Uncanny Dodge lets you retain Dex bonus against an invisible opponent.

-Hyp.

 

[Ran]

Except that the FAQ is quite clear that when you're Blind, you retain your Dex bonus to AC with Uncanny Dodge, because all opponents are treated as invisible, and Uncanny Dodge lets you retain Dex bonus against an invisible opponent.

-Hyp.

I see, but still you are unable to keep your vital spots covered, making them a target for those that know how to exploit the defense failure, so you are sneak attacked, not because of being flanked, not because of loosing dexterity bonus to AC, but for being blinded.

The 3.0 DMg is stated under blinded that you allow everyone a +2 bonus to hit AS IF everyone was invisible, so you are AS IF attacked by invisible foes, but not quite, so sneak attacked...

edit: sorry, must be hungry, ate some letters...

 

[Hypersmurf]

[c]The 3.0 DMg is stated under blinded that you allow everyone a +2 bonus to hit AS IF everyone was invisible, so you are AS IF attacked by invisible foes, but not quite, so sneak attacked...[/B]

You're adding that "but not quite" all by yourself.

"He has a 50% chance to miss in combat, loses his positive Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and grants a +2 bonus on attack rolls to enemies that attack him, just as if all his enemies were invisible. "

No "but not quite" - "just as if".

-Hyp.

 

[Ran]

You're adding that "but not quite" all by yourself.

"He has a 50% chance to miss in combat, loses his positive Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and grants a +2 bonus on attack rolls to enemies that attack him, just as if all his enemies were invisible. "

No "but not quite" - "just as if".

-Hyp.

Well, I agree with you!!!!


Anyway the just as if for me can be read just like which, in turn, means it is not the same, just close, but not the same...

edit: it seems that just we two are arguing on it still, or it is just we that don't go to get some sleep...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Anyway the just as if for me can be read just like which, in turn, means it is not the same, just close, but not the same...

"Just like" means "exactly the same".

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Anyway the just as if for me can be read just like which, in turn, means it is not the same, just close, but not the same...

Just means exactly or precisely and "as if" means as it would be if. Like means having the characteristics of: similar to. This is a big difference in meaning. "Just like" does not mean the same at all as "just as if". "Exactly as it would be if" means the same as "just as if".

 

[Camarath]

"... 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)."

I reject the "sage's" ruling in this case because I think his ruling not only has no support in the rules but abrogates the rules in a flagrant and distasteful manner.

In my opinion the rules can not be read in such a way that one can reasonably assume that either being flanked is same as struck by an invisible attacker or that flanking requires perception one the part of the one being flanked. It is my contention that if you are being flanked by two invisible attackers that not only should they be able to flank but they should a +4 bonus to attack you (+2 flanking +2 invisible).

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is my contention that if you are being flanked by two invisible attackers that not only should they be able to flank but they should a +4 bonus to attack you (+2 flanking +2 invisible).

Oh, I agree completely.

My argument is solely based on the premise that the Sage's ruling is accepted.

I personally don't use the Sage's ruling... but in the situation where the FAQ is considered authoritative, it seems an inescapable conclusion to me that someone with Uncanny Dodge and their eyes closed can be sneak attacked neither through flanking nor the invisibility/blindness condition, whatever level the rogues doing the attacking are.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Hey, didn't you guys watch all those cheap Kungfu movies where the hero closes his eyes to fight better ?

OTOH, someone who fights blind voluntarily gives up other things, so I would let him do it.