UPDATE: Uncanny Dodge vs. Feint

[Artoomis]

The Sage's Response. A rather no-logic answer to a rather good question, I think. He failed to answer the real issue of Uncanny Dodge by not choosing (1) or (2) below. I suspect it was not Skip answering, but have no way to confirm this than than to point out that the answer came from "TSRsage@aol.com," certainly not the same e-mail he's used before, nor the "thesage@wizards.com" address I used to send him the question. Disappointing. I consider his answer of no value as it did not address the underlying issue and is of no help in addressing any other times when Dex armor bonus is denied.

> Q. Does Uncanny Dodge trump losing your Dex Bonus to AC from an opponent using the Bluff skill to execute a feint?
>
> More generally, which of the following rewordings of Uncanny Dodge meets the intent of the Uncanny Dodge ability to retain a Dexterity bonus to AC?
>
> 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.
>
> Number one is limited to only two conditions, number two is more general. The original language can be read either way, thus the [need] for clarification.
>

Uncanny dodge does not make you immune to feints.

<<That's it. That's his answer>> *sigh*

 

[Xarls Taunzund]

I sent pretty much the same question, worded differently, but with two different selections, and got the exact same asnwer.

 

[Endur]

TSRsage is his real email address. Since he does not work for wizards anymore, I doubt he has access to a wizards email address.

And, yes, that is a typical response. One sentence: "uncanny dodge doesn't work against feints."

 

[Darklone]

Estimating the typical amount of emails he gets per day, I guess he'll has to answer that way.

And IMHO: He answers the question quite nice, the rest is written in the PHB

*ducks flames*

 

[Caliban]

"I didn't get the answer I wanted, therefore it is of no value"

Typical

 

[AGGEMAM]

Well, he now answered it twice, and with the same result. So I'm pretty sure (not 100%, only 90% or so) that he'll do the same next time he is asked.

And yes, TSRsage is his right e-mail, though I think it is filtered to only accept mails forwarded from WotC.

 

[Artoomis]

"I didn't get the answer I wanted, therefore it is of no value"

Typical

Caliban - why do you do this?

You used to be the most neutral rules-oriented person I debated here. I agred with you sometimes, I disagreed sometimes, and sometimes I was even convinced that my position was wrong. Now I keep seeing things that look a lot like personal attacks. Have a greviously offended you in some way?

In this case, it is not the actual answer I have a problem with, it is the lack of response to the key question which would give guidance for future questions regarding Uncanny Dodge.

I do appreciate getting a reponse at all, but reponses like this are of little value unless all you want is for someone to tell you"do it this way" with no explanation or guidance for how to answer similar questions in the future.

Ah well, since Skip no longer works for WotC, I am not sure who is the "offical" source for rules interpretations anyway.

 

[LokiDR]

"I didn't get the answer I wanted, therefore it is of no value"

Typical

I think the answer lacks value because it lacks basis or reasoning. If any person on these boards gave that answer I would say much the same. This wasn't a poll, it was a request for some thought.

 

[Caliban]

Caliban - why do you do this?

Why do you make posts like the one that started this thread?

I see this all the time. People send a question to the Sage, and then call it worthless when it isn't answered exactly the way they want, or without the amount of detail they want.

You used to be the most neutral rules-oriented person I debated here. I agred with you sometimes, I disagreed sometimes, and sometimes I was even convinced that my position was wrong. Now I keep seeing things that look a lot like personal attacks. Have a greviously offended you in some way?

I'm just tired of the attitude that the rules have to be re-written to conform to your particular understanding of the enlish language or they don't apply to you.

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.

It's not you personally, it's the attitude that you and some others have been exhibiting. 3.5 isn't being treated like a game anymore. The intent of the rules are ignored in favor of demonstrating your ability to parse the language until it loses all meaning. It's gotten old, and I'm losing patience with it.

In this case, it is not the actual answer I have a problem with, it is the lack of response to the key question which would give guidance for future questions regarding Uncanny Dodge.

What other conditions do you need to ask about? In his last answer in the FAQ, he went through every condition or status in the DMG that causes you to lose your Dex bonus, and stated whether Uncanny Dodge applied or not.

Feinting isn't a condition listed in the DMG, so he didn't make a ruling on it at that time.

You asked him about feinting, and he answered.

What other conditions or situations are there that he has not covered? I can't think of any.

I do appreciate getting a reponse at all, but reponses like this are of little value unless all you want is for someone to tell you"do it this way" with no explanation or guidance for how to answer similar questions in the future.

Ah well, since Skip no longer works for WotC, I am not sure who is the "offical" source for rules interpretations anyway.

That's the other typical response when you don't like the Sage's answer. "He's not official anyway".

It's the same old game.

If you don't like the answer it's "The Sage disagrees with me, therefore I'm right."

If you do like the answer it's "The Sage agreess with me, therefore I'm right."

Why even bother asking?

(Note: I'm not saying you should blindly follow the Sage, but calling him worthless and "not official anyway" when you disagree with him calls in to question your intentions for asking him in the first place.)

 

[coyote6]

I think the answer lacks value because it lacks basis or reasoning. If any person on these boards gave that answer I would say much the same. This wasn't a poll, it was a request for some thought.

I'm not sure why he'd need to give a basis or reasoning; it's a pretty clear-cut proposition -- UD either protects against feints or it doesn't. Given the fairly simple question, I wouldn't expect him to provide a detailed explanation of why (especially when "why" is probably "because that's the way the designers intended for it to work"). It's not like he's contradicting anything stated in the book.

(Besides, if he gives reasons for his answer, he just invites debate on those reasons. I'm sure he knows that by now. Largely, he's going to just answer questions, not provide explanations.)