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

[Artoomis]

*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:



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.

Caliban, you are reading the FAQ and drawing the WRONG conclusion. In absolutely NO WAY does this FAQ entry restrict the uncanny dodge ability to only two circumstances. What is DOES do is point out a list of conditions that are either the two metioned already OR are the same as "immobilized."

That's it.

This time, there is little doubt in my mind you are wrong, Caliban. The limitation on uncanny dodge is NOT restricted to only the two examples in the description. It may or may not cover all situation that are not "immobilized," but it certainly is not restricted to only the two listed instances.

Clarification from WotC is sorely needed so that DMs can decide when it does and does not apply. The obvious question to be answered by WotC is the Bluff/Fient question, but there may be others.

I'm a little surprised you don't agree with me in this one, Caliban. I am not being hyper-technical or anything on this one. It's a simple plain reading of the text as presented in the PHB.

 

[AGGEMAM]

If I had written the rules and meant it to say what you say, Artoomis, I would just have written: "Uncanny Dodge prevents you from loosing your dex bonus (if any) except if you are immobilized."

So you see I still think you're wrong in your interpretation, but until either of us finds anything that unquestionably supports either standpoint, we'll just have to agree on disagreeing.

 

[Artoomis]

If I had written the rules and meant it to say what you say, AGGEMAM, I would just have written: "Uncanny Dodge prevents you from loosing your dex bonus (if any) when caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker."

As written, the language simply does not restrict Uncanny Dodge to only being effective in two circumstances.

 

[Caliban]

This time, there is little doubt in my mind you are WRONG, Caliban.

Hey, bite me, m'kay?

 

[Artoomis]

Hey, bite me, m'kay?

Wow! Not very nice, eh? Especially considering you reprimanded Spikey for making a "personal attack" for calling you "silly."

All I did was state that you are wrong.

 

[Vurt]

Hey folks, let's please try and keep it civil.

I'm also of the opinion that Uncanny Dodge only helps against flat-footedness and invisible attackers, which to me seems to be in line with a power/ability for a class of that level. Otherwise it seems to me that it would eclipse Improved Uncanny Dodge, and I'm sure that's not the intent of the ability.

-- Vurt

 

[AGGEMAM]

All I did was state that you are wrong.

Nope. You shouted it. Not very nice in my book.

 

[Artoomis]

Nope. You SHOUTED it. Not very nice in my book.

Okay, I'll go back and edit it to only italics.

I prefer to "play nice."

EDIT: Done. I had a little trouble finding it as it was buried in the middle of my post, where I had used caps a couple of times for emphasis, as opposed to shouting. Sorry guys, sometimes I use caps when I should use bold or italics simply because it is easier (less typing).

 

[AGGEMAM]

You could just use the alt-i, or alt-b option, if you wanted a simpler method.

 

[Artoomis]

You could just use the alt-i, or alt-b option, if you wanted a simpler method.

Well, what do you. This is cool.

This works, too. Thanks.