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

[Camarath]

I am sorry I did not mean to attack you.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

Sorry, but nothing in that sentence or you grammar analysis support your conclusion that the two exemptions listed are the ONLY two. On the contraray, your own analysis supports the conclusion that other exemptions may (and indeed are likely to) exists.

 

[Artoomis]

I am sorry I did not mean to attack you.

No worries. It was just a caution anyway, I was not insulted. I love a good debate like we are having.

 

[Caliban]

*shrug* I don't care what semantic shenanigans you try to pull, the base level of Uncanny Dodge only specifies two conditions it protects against, and it protects against those conditions so long as you are not immobilized.

It does not protect against any other condition than those listed.

This was clarified very clearly in 3.0, and nothing has changed since.

If you have Uncanny Dodge you still lose your dex bonus when:

A) You are Running (unless you have the Run feat).
B) You are succesfully Bluff/Feinted
C) You are Climbing (unless you have a Climb speed)
D) You are Cowering
E) You are Stunned
F) You are Off-Balance

Each of those conditions reduces your mobility or your ability to react to the point where Uncanny Dodge cannot help you (barring any special ability that lets you keep your mobility).

 

[Camarath]

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.

Arg... why did the have to phrase it this way? One can be very clear with english if one wants to be. This sentence could have been meant to say what I think you are saying. But IMO it doesn't actually say that. Why add this unnecessary layer of ambiguity. They could have said either, You retain you Dex bonus when flat-footed or when struck by an invisible attacker unless you are immobilized (which is what I think it means) or the could have said, You retain your dex bonus unless immobilized this includes being caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker (which is what I think you mean). I am prefectly happy to agree to disagree. And agin I apologize for attacking you I got carried away in my frustration over this poorly worded rule.

 

[Camarath]

Sorry, but nothing in that sentence or you grammar analysis support your conclusion that the two exemptions listed are the ONLY two. On the contraray, your own analysis supports the conclusion that other exemptions may (and indeed are likely to) exists.

Nothing in the sentence say how many total exemptions there are or can be to the normal rules. It only provides for two exemptions itself. So one can conclude that it either that it provides an exemption in every case one would normally lose ones dex bonus (which I think goes beyond what the sentence allows) or that the sentence itself only provides an exemption in the cases it mentioned with out precluding other exemptions from other sources. I quess you could also interpret the sentence to include or exclude each non-listed situation where a character would normally lose their dex bonus on a case per case basis if you wanted to. But IMO that would have to be a house rule.

No worries. It was just a caution anyway, I was not insulted. I love a good debate like we are having.

I also enjoy a debate like this.

 

[Artoomis]

Camarath, we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

I do not see anything that would limit the execptions to only those two. On the contrrary, I see a solid argument that those two are merely examples, and that if you are not immobilized (or hampered in movement, per the FAQ clarification), you keep your Dex bonus.

 

[Camarath]

Camarath, we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

Ok, I have no problem with that. Thanks for the debate.

 

[Number47]

Alfonse the Rogue has come across Brunk the Barbarian. Brunk isn't aware of him because Alfonse is some distance away and invisible to boot. Now, Alfonse happens to know that Brunk is a barbian of some power and also that Alfonse can get a huge reward for bringing in Brunk's head. Brunk seems to be wounded, so maybe Alfonse can take him with a single shot to the vitals. Unfortunately, Alfonse also knows that if he were to sneak up and attack Brunk invisibly, he still would not get the drop on the guy because of his famous barbian's senses. So, the only way to get the drop on the guy is to become visible and make his presence known.

Now, I know that the rules are rules and storyline is storyline, but I personally have trouble seeing how Brunk can react so exceptionally to an invisible attacker that he isn't even aware of while still getting stabbed in the vitals by a rogue with clever tongue. Not to mention, I think that allowing a rogue to get off sneak attacks with relative ease against barbians (and other rogues) needlessly weakens the Uncanny Dodge ability.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

*shrug* I don't care what semantic shenanigans you try to pull, the base level of Uncanny Dodge only specifies two conditions it protects against, and it protects against those conditions so long as you are not immobilized.

It does not protect against any other condition than those listed.

This was clarified very clearly in 3.0, and nothing has changed since.

If you have Uncanny Dodge you still lose your dex bonus when:

A) You are Running (unless you have the Run feat).
B) You are succesfully Bluff/Feinted
C) You are Climbing (unless you have a Climb speed)
D) You are Cowering
E) You are Stunned
F) You are Off-Balance

Each of those conditions reduces your mobility or your ability to react to the point where Uncanny Dodge cannot help you (barring any special ability that lets you keep your mobility).

Do you have anything to back this up, because it doesn't make any sense.

You are saying that someone who I'm in combat with who is feinting has reduced my ability to react more than someone I'm not even aware of?

Where is this so clear, because the faq entry that was quoted above is NOT clear. And Camarath has done a fine job of pointing out that grammatically that sentence is showing some examples, not the whole inclusive set of situations.

--Lurker Spikey