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

[LokiDR]

Ok, we all agree that uncanny dodge prevents loss of dex from flat-footed or invisible attacker except where immobolized (and every other condition that has been expanded to like cowering).

This says nothing about being feinted: that is neither flat-footed, invisible attacker or immobilized.

So, you have an ability that you know gives you a certain benifit and others say that it also gives another benifit. But that is not the way the rules work. The fly spell doesn't allow you to move through a person's square by going through their legs: you still need tumble. It makes sense that complete control of your 3 dimentional movement would allow you to move around people better, but that simply isn't the way the RULES work. So, by this concept, uncanny dodge only gives you what uncanny dodge gives you. It doesn't say anything about feiting, so that is a condition it doesn't protect against.

Note: this is a good place to house rule, like AoOs. An oppent can AoO if they have a weapon out and you try to move past them even if you bluffed them or you are invisible. That doesn't make sense to some, so they house rule. This is similar. The barbarian cloeses his eyes to prevent sneak attack?!? Well, under the rules, that is his best option verses a high level rogue. If that strikes you as a silly point in the rules, change it. But the rules will always have silly points and uncanny dodge vs bluff is one of them.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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.

I do like rules comprised of words. What I don't like is everything with more than 10 words taking apart words like "even" in a RPG forum. We discuss rules here, not the meaning of single words pharisee-style.

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.

There's already an opposed roll involved which will solve if someone can fool you.

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.

It isn't as long it doesn't make you immune to sneak attacks.

Being restricted to light armor has nothing to do with the balance of uncanny dodge, and it shouldn't have. And the frequency of feints has nothing to do with it, either.

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."

So you still get your bonus even if your feet are stuck in concrete and you have hold person, power word stun, and entagle on you? Usually, this would rob me of my Dex bonus twice over, but because the enemy is invisible I suddenly get it back?

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

It does.

It tells you that you retain your Dex bonus even if you're flat footed - which will make you lose your Dex bonus otherwise. It also lets you retain your Dex bonus even if the attacker is invisible - which will make you lose your Dex bonus otherwise. However, uncanny dodge doesn't work when you can't move (in this case, you lose your Dex bonus and there's nothing you can do about it).

It lists the two situations where the ability applies and the one exception to the rule.

 

[Vurt]

An oppent can AoO if they have a weapon out and you try to move past them even if you bluffed them or you are invisible. That doesn't make sense to some, so they house rule.

This really isn't the discussion for it, and I'm only posting this here because I see it fairly often in my wanderings and don't want folks to harbor the wrong impression.

Invisible opponents don't draw Attacks of Opportunity. Check the 3.5 PHB p.152 under Total Concealment:

"If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if you're blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you."

And later in the same section:

"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...

-- Vurt

 

[Camarath]

I think at this point there are to reading of the sentence.

1)You retain you Dex bonus when flat-footed or when struck by an invisible attacker unless you are immobilized.
2)You retain your dex bonus unless immobilized this includes being caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.

Here are the resaons I think it is the first interpitatin is correct.
1) The statement is comprised of two senetences. IMO this means that the second sentence can change the meaning of the rule but not the first sentence.
2) I believe that the form used in this sentence is not infinitely permissive. In other word the only expectional situation that the sentence would, can, and does provied for are those specified in the conditional clause of the sentence.
3) IMO "She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)" can not be read indepndent of the conjuction that modifies it. So it is improper to say that this part of the sentence gives yoiu the ability to retain your dex in all situations because it is modifed by the conjunction if.
4) The adverb "even" can be moved or removed from the sentence with out changing the meaning of the sentence. In this case "even" modifies retains so as to make it clear that these are not normal circumstances to be retaining your dex bonus in. Here are three sentences that IMO have the same meaning.

• She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.
• She even retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.
• She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.

5)"Even if" does not mean the same thing as "such as". Such as is a conjunction that lists examples. Even if is a conjunction that lists conditions.
6) I have yet to see any reson to conclude that any part of this sentence applies to all exceptional circumstances.
7) It seems very odd to me to phrase the ability in this way if you meant for it to mean basically that you retain you dax bonus unless immobilized. I can not come up with any rational which would cause me to write it the way it is written if the second interpretation is what I meant. I can do so for the first interpretation.
8) From a game play and game balance stand point the first interpretation seems to me to be better balanced and easier to use.

 

[Artoomis]

Camarath. I disagree (of course, that's not news ).

In a nutshell, I cannot see any reason to write the two sentences the way they are if I wanted to have readers draw your conclusion.

I have often seen folks misread "even if", "such as," "for example," "regardless of" and similar terms to preface an exclusive list.

Those terms do not, in any way, preface an exclusive list. In the contrary, in every case where such terms are properly used they preface a list that is most definately not exclusive.

We both have already submitted examples demonstrating this fact.

Edit: What you (and others) are doing is implying the words "...and only if..." into that first sentence. As in: "...even if, and only if, ..."

 

[Number47]

Camarath, I have to say that you take great pains to decipher the meaning of the sentences themselves. The overall question is still one of, do these sentences actually convey the rule they intend to? Your analysis is only pertinent if you believe that the designers, copywriters and editors crafted the sentence with the care that you deconstructed it.

On another note, I think it is balanced for UD to protect against feinting. The primary purpose of uncanny dodge is to protect against sneak attacks. Sure, it lets you keep your Dex bonus to AC if you have one, but that is usually small (especially for a barbarian, not that small for a rogue). If you have no bonus to Dex, then the only thing UD does for you is protect you from sneak attacks. I do not like this protection taken away quite so easily, especially if the rogue in question is not the requisite 4 levels higher. Under your interpretation, a 10th-level barbarian flanked by 2 10th-level rogues cannot be sneak attacked due to flanking, but they can both simply feint every round and quickly dispatch him anyways.

 

[Camarath]

I do like rules comprised of words. What I don't like is everything with more than 10 words taking apart words like "even" in a RPG forum. We discuss rules here, not the meaning of single words pharisee-style.

I am sorry if you think this discussion sullied the forum. Artoomis presented an argument which was based (IMO) on a faulty reading of the sentence centered on the meaning of the word even and the grammatical function of the word if. My intention in carrying on this discussion was to try and show him why he was wrong in his interpretation of the rule not to quibble about the meaning of irrelevant words. I was not as successful in this as I had hoped to be so it became a bit extended. But the point of the discusion was allways the rules not the words.

 

[Artoomis]

Bye the way, much to my surprise when I first looked at the titile of this thread, my conclusion is that you are, indeed, immune to feints if you have uncanny dodge.

I never thought I 'd go there, to tell you the truth, but that seems to me to be the way it was intended to work.

It is easily within the reading of the rules, but it is also quite reasonable to rule the other way, though decidely not because there are only two conditions where uncanny dodge applies.

 

[Camarath]

What you (and others) are doing is implying the words "...and only if..." into that first sentence. As in: "...even if, and only if, ..."

What I believe you are doing is ignoring the inherent exclusionary nature of the word if.

 

[LokiDR]

Invisible opponents don't draw Attacks of Opportunity. Check the 3.5 PHB p.152 under Total Concealment:

"If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if you're blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you."

And later in the same section:

"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."

-- Vurt

Ok, so it was changed in 3.5. I was wondering. But the silly situation existed in 3.0 and so people house ruled it. Enough apparently house ruled to convince the designers to change it in 3.5.

Now, it might be a matter of concensus on uncanny dodge stopping feint. Does it make sense? I think on some level it does, see barbarian with eyes closed. Is it over powered? Ok, that is different, and where I don't think uncanny should be expanded. It was bumped up in level progressions after all. I still think it is really powerful and is still one of the ways that rogues can be made pretty pointless in combat. There are enough of those, we don't need more.