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

[Artoomis]

The FAQ also says this

Uncanny dodge allows you to keep your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class when flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.
It doesn’t help you if you’re immobilized.

This does not help your argument. In that section of the FAQ it is addressing whether certain other condition ALSO let you keep your DEX bonus, and concluded that all those other conditions include being immobilized.

That can not be read to be a statement that Uncanny Dodge allows you to keep your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class ONLY when flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker, as it was not addressing that point.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Correct.

And strangely the subject about feinting and uncanny dodge which I know was there in an earlier version have been removed.

So I guess we will go unresolved on this issue.

 

[Camarath]

As far as dictionary definitions, if "even" is being used "used as an intensive to stress an extreme or highly unlikely condition or instance" the problem is that the"extreme or unlikely condition" is not clearly defined in this case.

Yes the "extreme or unlikely condition"s are spelled out in the sentence they are listed in the conditional clause after the word if. Also what definition of even are you using? I don't see any definition that fits what you seem to think it means.

If I said "you could go to the fair even if I can't come with you" would this mean that under any set of circumstances you will be able to go the the fair? No it does not, it only spells out two circumstances where you can go to the fair the normal defualt situation where I can come with you and the situation where I can not go with you. In both those circumstances you can go to the fair. If the fair burns down does the sentence cover that? No it does not, that is beyond the scope of the sentence, so you may not be able to go to the fair in that case even though the sentence uses "even if".

The two conditions mentions are teh ones being used to "stress" the underlying fact that you retain your Dex bonus, and cannot be construed to be an all-inclusive list of conditions where you retain your Dex bonus under normal rules of English and the definition of the word "even."

You are wrong about this as well. The function of the conjuntion if is to limit the action of the verb retains. This means that it forces the verb to only apply in the spelled out circumstances. Under the normal rules of english one can not change the meaning of words and the rules of grammer to suit one's own purposes, as you have done here. "If" does not mean "including" it means "in the event that". You will need to find a word in this sentence that serves to make the sentence inclusive. And, as we have seen even does not serve that function and neither does retain because it is modifed by a limiting conjuction. Thus unless you can find a definition for the word if that means "including" or "for example" your assertion is baseless. If you have additional "rules of English" that trump both grammer and the meaning of words please do share them.

Here I have replaced if with it's definition. This sentence has the same meaning as the orginal sentence.
"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even in the event that she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker."

Certainly I am. Let me give you a hyopthetical example using the same language:

Jack has extremely sensitive feet. His feet are sore when he stands even if he wears his orthotic supports or his fleece insoles. However, his feet are comfortable in his bunny slippers.

Now, let me ask you, WHEN are Jack's feet sore? Prety much always, except in his bunny slippers, right? The reading of this is the same as Uncanny Dodge.

Jacks feet are sore by default thus he retains his soreness unless some situation relieves of it. The sentance lists two conditions that would normaly relieve his soreness but do not. This does not preculed other non-specified circumstance form relieving his soreness. Then, in the second sentence an example of a situation where his soreness is relieved is given. This second sentence is seaperate form the first sentence and does not limit the possible situations where his soreness might be relieved. It only specifes one instance where the soreness in his feet is relieved. What if Jack takes a large dose of pain killers does the sentence prevent this from relieving Jack soreness? No it does not, it only prevents Jack's "orthotic supports or his fleece insoles" from relieving his soreness. If Jack's bunny slippers were the only way to relieve his soreness the second sentence would need to state that. The second sentence is not exclusive just as the first sentence is not inclusive.

 

[Camarath]

Try replacing "even if" with regardless of" in my example above. It comes out the same. [/B]

Regardless (despite everything) of (used as a function word to indicate the application of a verb) does in this case mean the same as even (used as an intensive to stress an extreme or highly unlikely condition or instance) if (in the event that). Both modify the appilcation of the verb retain limiting it's scope to the wile flat-footed or when attacked by an invisible attacker.

Here is another example that I have vivisected for you.
People do not catch fire even if shaken or exposed to sunlight. However, people do burn if exposed to a very high electrical current. People do not catch fire is the normal state for people it does not mean people never catch fire. Even if specifies two non-exclusive situations where other objects might catch fire but people do not. Shaken or exposed to sunlight are the two conditions where people do not catch fire talked about in the sentence. However means in spite of that or on the other hand it is used in this case as a transition form talking about circumstances where people are not flammable to one where they are. People do burn states an action that people may do. If specifies under what circumstances they will preform the action. Exposed to a very high electrical current is the situation under which people preform the action. This does not prevent people form catching fire or burning in other situations were people would do so. These sentences only indicate that people do not catch fire from being shaken or exposed to sunlight and do catch fire if exposed to a very high electrical current. Any other conjecture and conclusions about situations not covered here are founded on persumption and a misunderstanding of the grammatical structure of these sentences.

 

[Artoomis]

Camarath, your analysis proves my point exactly. The "even if" conditions are NOT the exclusive conditions that apply.

The "However" in your example is listing an exeption the more general statement that people do not burn.

Thanks for supporting my argument, unintentional though it was on your part.

Among other things, you've AGAIN pointed out the need for clarification from WotC.

 

[Camarath]

It would be nice to have clerification. The my point of contention is you have stated that you retain your Dex bonus in all circustance you would normally lose it. This is not true, the only time you retain your Dex when you normally would lose it is in the specified conditions. If you can not understand the difference between retaining your Dex bonus when you normaly would do so and retaining it when you would normally lose it I don't see how I can explain it to you.

 

[Artoomis]

It would be nice to have clerification. The my point of contention is you have stated that you retain your Dex bonus in all circustance you would normally lose it. This is not true, the only time you retain your Dex when you normally would lose it is in the specified conditions. If you can not understand the difference between retaining your Dex bonus when you normaly would do so and retaining it when you would normally lose it I don't see how I can explain it to you.

Your own example show how the two conditions listed are not the exclusive conditions where you keep your Dex bonus.

When else? Good question. I believe that the "However..." sentence IMPLIES (but does not state clearly) that the "when else" is when not immobilized.

But it needs clarification.

 

[Camarath]

Camarath, your analysis proves my point exactly. The "even if" conditions are NOT the exclusive conditions that apply.

You are correct there are many other situation were you would retain your dex bonus and people would not burn. It is only exclusive with regard to conditions in which something that would normally happen will does not now happen.

The "However" in your example is listing an exeption the more general statement that people do not burn.

It s not an exclusive exemption, many other thing can and do cause people to burn and characters to lose their dex bonus other than the stated situation.

Thanks for supporting my argument, unintentional though it was on your part.

It is a measure of how poor your understanding of this kind of grammatical construction is that you can not see what supports and whet undermines your argument. Do you really think that an interpretation concluding that the sentence states a general tendency, that may or may not apply to a given circumstance based on it's governing principles, and then gives specific exemptions to the normal application of those principles supports your conusion that the stated tendency functions in all situations?

 

[Camarath]

Your own example show how the two conditions listed are not the exclusive conditions where you keep your Dex bonus.

That is very true. You do not lose you dex bonus walking down a hall, you do not loose it when making an attack, and you do not lose it in any other circumstance where a normal character would not lose his Dex bonus. As I have said they are only exclusive exemptions to the way things function normally not exclusive conditions to having your dex bonus.

When else? Good question. I believe that the "However..." sentence IMPLIES (but does not state clearly) that the "when else" is when not immobilized.

That is a separate sentence that only provides one condition in which the character loses their dex bonus. It still does not preclude other conditions form doing the same. I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that the second sentence implies that it's condition is the only condition that would cause you lose your dex bonus.

 

[Artoomis]

Camarath:

Your last post was getting very close to a personal attack. Just a caution to play nice, please.

Anyway, I have backed off my position slightly because of your argument, but still maintain that the two conditions listed are NOT exclusive and that your very logic supports that position.

I realize that you may not see how you are supporting my argument, and that's okay. English grammar is somewhat inexact at best, and even worse is the typical American use of English grammar.

When reading statments like teh one we are arguing about, you have to not only look to the precise (or imprecise) grammar but also try and discern what is implied. Well-educated folks can disagree over this.