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

[Camarath]

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,

I personally do not believe that the rules have been crafted and intergraded as diligently as a I would like. I have no idea what the writer actually intended. I think they meant for it to apply in only the two states situations but how can I know for sure?

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.

I disagree about this rule but there have been so many things I have needed to house rule to some extent it doesn't really bother me one way or another. By the way, I don't really like feinting in combat and have house ruled it to where each additional feint in combat faces a +5 accumulative penalty for each successful feint made by that character this encounter.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

So, can all situations not covered in the rules be expanded to maximum utility? I should be able to get past people if I have the fly spell because I can just cruise along the ceiling.

I think abilities only give you what they say they give you.

 

[Artoomis]

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

I think our analysis is wayyyy beyond anything that anyone at WotC would have done in constructing tehse sentences. Nonetheless:


Even:
1 a : EXACTLY, PRECISELY b : to a degree that extends : FULLY, QUITE <faithful even unto death> c : at the very time
2 a -- used as an intensive to emphasize the identity or character of something <he looked content, even happy> b -- used as an intensive to stress an extreme or highly unlikely condition or instance <so simple even a child can do it> c -- used as an intensive to stress the comparative degree <he did even better> d -- used as an intensive to indicate a small or minimum amount <didn't even try>

I'd say that definition 2b is closest here, wouldn't you?

If:
1 a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that


I see no exclusivity (is that a word?) implied here anywhere.

"If" can be exclusionary when used like the following:

"You may go out and play if you clean your room."

In this case, it would appear that the only condition that would allow you to play is if you clean your room. However, due to the lack of any statement limiting the choice to only claening your room to be allowed out, it would be perfectly legitimate to ask if there was any other action that might allow you to go and play. Such a question would be entirely out-of-line if the statement had been:

"You may go out and play only if you clean your room."

The word "only" is not implied in the first instance, and makes all the difference.

KaeYoss - it is very difficult, if not impossible, to anaylze rules without taking a good look at the words and sentence construction. This is very similar to analyzing and applying statutes in the law, and one of the reasons we have so many lawyers.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

For what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation. But it still gives me a headache. I knew there was a reason I didn't become an english major

 

[AGGEMAM]

By the way, I don't really like feinting in combat and have house ruled it to where each additional feint in combat faces a +5 accumulative penalty for each successful feint made by that character this encounter.

Isn't that covered by this table:

Bluff Examples
Example Circumstances Sense Motive Modifier
The target wants to believe you. -5
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20

 

[Camarath]

I think our analysis is wayyyy beyond anything that anyone at WotC would have done in constructing tehse sentences.

Sadly, I think this is very true.

I'd say that definition 2b is closest here, wouldn't you?

Yes.

If:
1 a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that?

I think 1a fits best.

I see no exclusivity (is that a word?) implied here anywhere.

"If" can be exclusionary when used like the following:

"You may go out and play if you clean your room."

In this case, it would appear that the only condition that would allow you to play is if you clean your room. However, due to the lack of any statement limiting the choice to only claening your room to be allowed out, it would be perfectly legitimate to ask if there was any other action that might allow you to go and play.

Wlie I see your point. But the possiblity of additional situations where you retain your Dex bonus does not necessitate them. My point is in the sentence you provided there is only one stated way to go out and play. Can there be others? Yes. Do we know what they are? No. Can you go out and play if you preform any action you wish? I don't think so.

Such a question would be entirely out-of-line if the statement had been:

"You may go out and play only if you clean your room."

The word "only" is not implied in the first instance, and makes all the difference.

IMO is it not nessecery to cover every situation where you retain your dex bonus in this sentence. It is only nessecary to cover those situation wher you would normally not retain your dex bonus that the ability now allows you to. If the ability allows you to retain your Dex in all situation the sentence need state that. I think that for the sentence to do what you want it to it would need to say "She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) in all situations even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.".

 

[Caliban]

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.

No, that's not all you did. You were uncivil, so you got an uncivil response.

I think I will leave to your debate on the definition of "is" now.

 

[AGGEMAM]

No, that's not all you did. You were uncivil, so you got an uncivil response.

Relax, he already apologized.

 

[Darkness]

Right, please take it easy, guys.

Also, the fault lies with WotC - not with any of y'all.

- Darkness

 

[AGGEMAM]

Also, the fault lies with WotC - not with any of y'all.

I blame PirateCat!