UPDATE: Uncanny Dodge vs. Feint

[Artoomis]

You know, a couple of you guys have a point.

I won't ask the Sage any more questions. Since he is no longer the offical rules clarifier, I guess there is no point unless I simply want an opinion on one way that one might like to play the game.

While that is valuable, I don't need that. I am more than capable of making my own decisions on how I think the game should be played.

What I would like is someone to answer questions about rules intent. I still don't know what was intended with Uncanny Dodge. The language indicates that it should probabaly apply to all situations that do not restrict your movement, but I am not sure that's what they meant to do.

Oh well.

Why do I ask?? I'll tell you. I like to know what the rule really states, and then use that as a basis for deciding which way the rule will work in my own campaign. After all, the current rules system is supposed to be this fantastic system that unambiguously addresses nearly every situation, at least according to WotC marketing folks! The DM is not supposed to have to decide things like whether Uncanny Dodge trumps Feint, that's supposed to be crystal clear from the rules.

*sigh*

 

[drnuncheon]

I must have ignored the previous thread. Where is there any ambiguity in Uncanny Dodge?

"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized."

Let's apply it to feint. Follow these simple steps:

1. Are you flat-footed?
   
   The 'Feinting in Combat' section of the Bluff skill does not indicate that the target becomes flat-footed, it only indicates that the target is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC (which is a different condition).
   
2. Are you being attacked by an invisible opponent?
   
   The 'Feinting in Combat' section of the Bluff skill does not indicate that the attacker becomes invisible.

Therefore, Uncanny Dodge does not apply. It's not that difficult of a test.

J
waiting for someone to say that only female rogues get Uncanny Dodge

 

[Darklone]

Female Rouges

 

[Artoomis]

I must have ignored the previous thread. Where is there any ambiguity in Uncanny Dodge?

"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized."...

Uncanny dodge may be read in one of two ways:

> 1. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) when he is either caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.
>
> or
>
> 2. ... retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) except whenever he loses it for being immobilized or otherwise having his movement restricted.

The "even if" language would normally imply that the two conditions listed were not the only conditions that apply.

Some agree with me, some do not. Uncanny Dodge was poorly written and needs clarification. Clearly you think [#1] above is correct. I think that the "even if" language as well as the "however" sentence are totally unneeded unless there are other conditions to which Uncanny Dodge applies.

I don't really want to have that debate again, I just wanted you to understand the issue.

 

[Darklone]

I don't really want to have that debate again, I just wanted you to understand the issue.

I do understand your issue, Artoomis, I had the same isssues with 3.0 Uncanny Dodge and got it clarified there.

IMC, I still houserule UD to help while running and climbing, e.g. situations where you are not fooled by others or encumbered/immobilized. But that's only a houserule.

 

[Artoomis]

I do understand your issue, Artoomis, I had the same isssues with 3.0 Uncanny Dodge and got it clarified there.

IMC, I still houserule UD to help while running and climbing, e.g. situations where you are not fooled by others or encumbered/immobilized. But that's only a houserule.

That depends on your definition of "house rule." I think you've simply interpreted the rule in a certain way - I'd not call that a "house rule," but a "rules interpretation."

To me, that's the difference between making up your own rules (which is fine) and stating how you believe the rules work (also fine).

Maybe that's only semantics, though.

 

[Zenon]

I'm tired of the overwrought semantic quibbling that certain people go through whenever they don't like a rule, and the language of the rule is loose enough for them to try and twist it to something else.

I'm tired of people trying to treat the rules like a technical manual or legal document instead of what they are: a game document. They simply were not written that tightly. It 's a game, not rocket science.

Caliban is now my Official ENWorld Hero.

 

[drnuncheon]

The "even if" language would normally imply that the two conditions listed were not the only conditions that apply.

Some agree with me, some do not. Uncanny Dodge was poorly written and needs clarification. Clearly you think [#1] above is correct. I think that the "even if" language as well as the "however" sentence are totally unneeded unless there are other conditions to which Uncanny Dodge applies.

Congratulations. That is one of the most tortured readings I have ever seen on these boards.

The 'however' language is necessary to prevent this situation: Character is immobilized (loses Dex bonus to AC) but attacked by an invisible attacker (gets dex bonus from Uncanny Dodge). Character argues 'I get my Dex bonus against invisible attackers so I should get it, despite being immobilized!'

Also, 'even if' does not imply 'at all times' by itself, only when used with 'at all times' or a similar construction. In this case, it is used to denote the fact that Uncanny Dodge makes an exception in those two particular cases, where normally a character would lose their Dex bonus.

If you have to torture the rules into meaning what you think they mean by resorting to arguments based on grammar and semantics, the rules probably don't mean what you think they do.

J

 

[Artoomis]

Congratulations. That is one of the most tortured readings I have ever seen on these boards.

The 'however' language is necessary to prevent this situation: Character is immobilized (loses Dex bonus to AC) but attacked by an invisible attacker (gets dex bonus from Uncanny Dodge). Character argues 'I get my Dex bonus against invisible attackers so I should get it, despite being immobilized!'

Also, 'even if' does not imply 'at all times' by itself, only when used with 'at all times' or a similar construction. In this case, it is used to denote the fact that Uncanny Dodge makes an exception in those two particular cases, where normally a character would lose their Dex bonus.

If you have to torture the rules into meaning what you think they mean by resorting to arguments based on grammar and semantics, the rules probably don't mean what you think they do.

J

Sheesh. My reading is the most straightforward reading of this rule. Limiting it to only the two conditions names is, indeed, a tortured reading of this rule.

It's not MY fault it was written so poorly. As written, it strongly implies that there are more conditions exists for which Uncanny Dodge woud apply.

But, again, I don't want to debate this here. I just wanted to point out the issue and let it alone. We obviously will not agree on this one.

 

[Artoomis]

Caliban is now my Official ENWorld Hero.

He used to be mine, too.

He seems to not like it when rules analyses get beyond the trivial, though.

Well, that's fine. But allow those of use who wish to explore further to have our fun, would you? We aren't hurting anybody, and it's a great intellectual exercise. It most certainly is appropriate to the "Rules' forum.

Everyone will decide for themselves what to do in their own campaigns - and my discussion gets much less technical when in General Discussion or House Rules, where I, admittedly, don't post too often.

Also, there is the smallest chance that such discussion will prompt WotC to hire some excellent technical writers for the next edition.