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

[Caliban]

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

Yeah, it only states two things that it protects from. That's pretty damn clear to me.

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?

No, they made you react to the wrong thing. You react just fine, it's just that they fooled you. That's what feinting does.

Uncanny Dodge doesn't give you an unbeatable sense motive in combat.

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

I see nothing that gives a good case for expanding the ability beyond what is expressly stated.

Using vague inferences to make uncanny dodge the uber ability simply doesn't fly in my book.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Uber ability.

rofl

That's good.

--Amazed Spikey

Edit: If you won't capitilate that "even if" can mean two things and that its not crystal clear, well, you are silly.

 

[Skinwalker]

Using vague inferences to make uncanny dodge the uber ability simply doesn't fly in my book.

I'd have to agree, especially with the plethora of classes that have access to Uncanny Dodge in 3.5. Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, Ranger...did I miss any? Anyway, that's 1/3 of the Core classes!IMO, giving all these classes immunity to the Feint maneuver does not seem fair or balanced.

 

[Caliban]

Uber ability.

rofl

That's good.

--Amazed Spikey

Edit: If you won't capitilate that "even if" can mean two things and that its not crystal clear, well, you are silly.

Make personal attacks all you want. I had expected better.

And I would call an ability that makes you essentially immune to sneak attacks an "uber ability". That is not what Uncanny Dodge is meant to be.

 

[coyote6]

I'd have to agree, especially with the plethora of classes that have access to Uncanny Dodge in 3.5. Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, Ranger...did I miss any? Anyway, that's 1/3 of the Core classes!

Monks and rangers get Evasion, not Uncanny Dodge.

 

[The Souljourner]

I'll say it again. The wording is simply not clear enough to draw a conclusion one way or the other. Anyone who thinks it's obvious one way or the other should read this thread again and tell me why there is so much discussion if it's so obvious.

I'm really unsure what the intent was. I could easily see it going both ways.

I suppose we'll have to wait for official word before we can be sure.

-The Souljourner

 

[Caliban]

I'll say it again. The wording is simply not clear enough to draw a conclusion one way or the other. Anyone who thinks it's obvious one way or the other should read this thread again and tell me why there is so much discussion if it's so obvious.

I'm really unsure what the intent was. I could easily see it going both ways.

I suppose we'll have to wait for official word before we can be sure.

-The Souljourner

*sigh*

It has been officially ruled on.

When I said it was in the FAQ, I meant it. The entry posted earlier is not the one I was referring to. It's an old answer, and there is an updated one later in the FAQ. Really Artoomis, you should know that the FAQ often has more than one entry for a particular issue.

Now that I'm home from work, I'll copy here for you:

D&D Main FAQ, Page 9, 5/8/03:

If a rogue were blinded, stunned, or suffering any other
physical problem that would normally cause her to lose her
Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, would her uncanny dodge
ability still allow her to keep that bonus? I’m basically
wondering what conditions can cause you to lose the
benefits of uncanny dodge.

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. Here’s a quick
summary of the relevant conditions:

Blinded: When you’re blinded, all your opponents are
effectively invisible to you. If you have uncanny dodge, you
retain your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class when blinded, but
you still suffer all the other effects of blindness.

Cowering: This condition leaves you frozen in fear, which
means you’re immobile. Therefore you lose your Dexterity
bonus to Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge.

Flat-Footed: Uncanny dodge negates the effects of this
condition.

Grappled: When you’re grappled, you’re immobile, so you
lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, even if you have
uncanny dodge.

Held: You’re helpless and therefore immobile. Uncanny dodge doesn’t alleviate this condition or its effects.

Helpless: When you’re helpless, you’re immobile, so you
lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, even if you have
uncanny dodge.

Incapacitated: You’re helpless and therefore immobile.
Uncanny dodge doesn’t alleviate this condition or its effects.

Pinned: When you’re pinned, you’re also grappled (and
therefore immobile), so you lose your Dexterity bonus to
Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge.

Stunned: This condition leaves you unable to act. You’re
immobile when stunned, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to
Armor Class, even if you have uncanny dodge.

Unfortunately this list doesn't mention bluff/feint, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't defeat Uncanny Dodge.

However, I'm equally sure certain people will not even accept what is in the FAQ.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Anyone who thinks it's obvious one way or the other should read this thread again and tell me why there is so much discussion if it's so obvious.

Surely not. I won't read a thread where people quarrel about the exact meaning of words like "even". I'm here for roleplaying discussion, not about the revision of the next Oxford dictionary.

Unfortunately this list doesn't mention bluff/feint, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't defeat Uncanny Dodge.

However, I'm equally sure certain people will not even accept what is in the FAQ.

Too true.


But to me, it's so crystal clear: The description lists the two cases that make UD different from the standard rule (being flat-footed and facing and invisible character) and a situation where it is negated (being immobilized).

The whole situation is uncanny because you can react to someone you cannot even see or you should not be able to react to. Some kind of 6th sense. Precognition, whatever.

With feinting, you aren't flatfooded, and the attacker isn't invisible (an invisible attacker cannot faint anyway, since you have to see him if he is to distract you). He just made you react in the wrong way, which makes you off-balance.

Plus, if UD gave you the power never to lose your dex bonus again (except when you cannot move) it would be to powerful IMO.

 

[Camarath]

I won't read a thread where people quarrel about the exact meaning of words like "even". I'm here for roleplaying discussion, not about the revision of the next Oxford dictionary.

Like it or not, the rules are comprised of words and the meaning of those words determines the meaning of the rules. If you have a means of communication that directly conveys meaning rather than relying on words to do so, then maybe we can convert and save ourselves all this potental ambiguity and misunderstanding.

 

[roguekitsune]

Maybe I should just stay out of this, but I thought I would weigh in anyways. I've been playing rogues and have put a lot of thought into how to best use their abilities.

I believe uncanny dodge does prevent the Dex loss from a feint. My reasoning is that uncanny dodge is in effect as long as the barbarian or rogue has freedom of movement. If immobilized, grappled, etc., the subject is physcially restricted, cannot move freely and therefore loses his Dex bonus. When caught flat-footed or attacked by an invisible foe, there is nothing restricting the subject's movement (though the subject's reaction may be delayed). The same with a feint: nothing physically (or mentally) restricts the subject's freedom of movement, allowing him to retain his Dex bonus. (Should he fall for a feint, uncanny dodge still allows the subject to throw himself out of the way of the actual strike at the last moment.)

If you think this is too powerful, I would suggest letting a feint from a foe five-levels-higher than the subject work normally, similar to what's described for flanking under uncanny dodge. Personally, I don't think uncanny dodge is too powerful. Rogues are only proficient with light armor, barbarians with light and medium. The two situations mentioned in the text are already the most common circumstances in which uncanny dodge would be used. Allowing uncanny dodge to defeat other less common strategies such as feint wouldn't be unbalancing.