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

[Hypersmurf]

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

Ah, but that's where we get horribly sneaky.

If I'm flanked by two rogues four levels higher than me, I close my eyes. Since I have Uncanny Dodge and they're effectively invisible, I don't lose my Dex bonus, and since I'm blind I can't be flanked... therefore I can't be sneak attacked.

Then, on my next action, I open my eyes, make my full attack with no penalties, and then close my eyes again.

The rogues have two options... make their full attacks as normal, with no sneak attack damage, or Ready an attack action to get a single shot in each while my eyes are open.

Under 3.5, I give up any chance to get in an AoO while my eyes are closed, but if they're Readying actions or Full Attacking, they won't be provoking many AoOs anyway...

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Listen up, Hyp, I didn't think I'd have to say this, but appearantly I do.

I'm sometimes very ironic. When I said read your own quote, I meant that if the Sage can read the rules as he does ignoring even stated rules, then I can read his replys as I see fit.

So when he writes the below stated, I only see the highlighted part.

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.

Off course I know that a creature is not flanked when it is blinded. But that does change the fact that the Sage is wrong about the character not being flanked, because that would mean invisible players do not threaten any area at all, since that is the only premise of being flanked, ie two friendlies on opposite sides of an opponent each threatening that opponent.

 

[AGGEMAM]

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.

All my three dictionearies say excately the same thing; 'as if' means 'as it would be if'. Now I know that in english slang you can use the 'as if' statement ironically, but I don't think WotC is quite there yet.

 

[Darklone]

Ah, but that's where we get horribly sneaky....
-Hyp.

EEEEEKS!

In that case my "Cow from Outer Space!" DM tool to avoid sneaky tactics WITHOUT style would hit the unfortunate character as well as his player...

 

[AGGEMAM]

If I'm flanked by two rogues four levels higher than me, I close my eyes.

And wait to die ...

2 rogues 4 levels higher than you is an EL of your level +8. No sane DM would let you survive that anyway.

 

[Darklone]

And wait to die ...

2 rogues 4 levels higher than you is an EL of your level +8. No sane DM would let you survive that anyway.

Rogues lvl16 against a barbarian lvl12 in melee? Not so sure... I'd say it depends how many sneak attacks they'd land before he counters them

OTOH, I've seen a lvl2 barbarian mop the floor with a lvl7 rogue.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Rogues lvl16 against a barbarian lvl12 in melee? Not so sure... I'd say it depends how many sneak attacks they'd land before he counters them

16th level rogues would probably have crippling strike and the quicker than the eye feat and the bluff skill maxed out.

They will be able to make a sneak attack every round on the brb, because fienting doesn't require that your opponent can see you, just that he is aware of you.

So that is 16d6 hp and 4 str damage each round just in bonus damage. Let's just say that it it's around 60 hp of damage each round, I'd say the brb last one round, since he has on average 120 hps and he probably lost the initiative.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

EEEEEKS!

In that case my "Cow from Outer Space!" DM tool to avoid sneaky tactics WITHOUT style would hit the unfortunate character as well as his player...

So it was you who created the CFOS? All hail to the great Bovinator From Beyond The Stars!

(Is that one of the sacred cows that need to be slaugtered? )

 

[LokiDR]

Off course I know that a creature is not flanked when it is blinded. But that does change the fact that the Sage is wrong about the character not being flanked, because that would mean invisible players do not threaten any area at all, since that is the only premise of being flanked, ie two friendlies on opposite sides of an opponent each threatening that opponent.

You expect people to follow an arugement you state is based on an intentional misinterpretation? Why should anyone listen to that?

The FAQ doesn't just clarify the rules, it does invent new rules. Not flanked while blind is one of those. But it comes from WotC, is based on problems that people who play the game have, and is reviewed before being published. The FAQ is official, you are not. A stupid rule in the FAQ is like a stupid rule in any rule book: it is the rule, but you are free to ignore that or any rule for your game.

I am starting to agree with Hyp that the no-flanking unless you see the flankers is stupid. But there should be some way to ignore a piddly creature a higher level rogue is using for flanking, which is where I like the new FAQ rule. I don't like blindfolded barbarians, even if the idea is kinda nifty. I really don't like blinking barbarians, since that is just powergaming. That is why I use house rules.

 

[AGGEMAM]

You expect people to follow an arugement you state is based on an intentional misinterpretation? Why should anyone listen to that?

Because most people here knows that I do that on occasion?

I thought it was obvious that I was ironic following the flow of the conversation. Try reading it reading it again with that in mind.

EDIT: But to illustrate how stupid the rule is; take it to ridiculuos conclusion. If you close your eyes, then your opponents can't attack you except with ranged weapons. Why? Because you can't see them so they can't threaten you. And if they can't threaten you then they can't threaten anyone. And you can only make melee attacks on opponent you threaten. I choose to ignore such a rule.