Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Camarath" data-source="post: 1061437" data-attributes="member: 11987">Hi, nice to have you here. I am glad you found our debate interesting. I think what we were trying to accomplish with our grammatical analysis was to extranct an "offical" ruling by spelling out what exactly the sentence can mean and can't not mean. Unfortunately the construction used in this case has a lot of overtones which obfuscate it's precise meaning. But if there is one rule we all here at ENworld can agree on I think it is rule 0. And it can and does trump any interpritation of this rule by us or by WotC. I don't think we have reached consensus on this issue. So I dont think we will be able to argee on a single ruling. But feel free to use any of our arguments to support your stance. (You can use mine at least. I probably should not speak for others.) I do think WotC had ample opportunity (a whole new revised release) to deal with this issue and feel that they were to some extent negligent here. If you really need some sort of ruling on this issue here are two interpretations which I feel represent to two main stances on this issue (both in my own words).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. I do not think it would be unbalanced either way you wanted to rule it. But that also depends on how big a role feinting plays in your campaign. Does Uncanny Dodge trump this rule? Does this rule trump Uncanny Dodge? Does Uncanny Dodge apply here? I think that all depends on how the DM chooses to interpret Uncanny Dodge and it's interaction with this rule. Not a bad ruling if that is how you want to play it like that. It does have some precedent with the Uncanny Dodge and flanking rule. I don't really think the issue has that big of an impact on the game, to tell the truth. Maybe or maybe it just wasn't worth it to them to throughly test and revise the rules. Adding new content is much easier than integrating the exiting rules (and new rules) in such a way as to find and clarify these issues.</blockquote>

Verification