Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MadScientist" data-source="post: 1078638" data-attributes="member: 5277">The issue here is deciding what the intent of the designers was when they wrote the UD description. 1) If their intent was that UD protected the character from losing their Dex bonus to AC in ALL conditions EXCEPT when immobilized that is probably how the discription would have been stated. 2) If you look at the description from the 3.0 SRD it is very clear. Uncanny Dodge only allows you to retain Dex bonus to AC when flat-fooded or attacked by an invisable attacker.3)The sage has stated that feint is not affected by Uncanny Dodge.All these indicate the intent of the disigners was that Uncanny Dodge only affects the explicitly stated conditions, i.e. when flat footed and when attacked by an invisable attacker.In order to conclude the alternative we have to beleive that based on the use of the word even in the desicription, the reader is expected to divine that Uncanny Dodge protects against ALL cases where you lose your dex bonus to AC, except when immobilized. These conditions include while cowering, while grappling, when stunned, and when successfuly feinted against. We also have to assume that the Sage made an incorrect ruling and that they decided to change UD from 3.0 to 3.5 using a very subtle change in wording that could be easily interpeted as being equivalent to the old description. (Indeed I would never have thought that anyone would take the new description to mean that UD prevents loss of Dex bonus to AC in nearly every situation.)It doesn't make much sense to pick out two of these conditions, state them explicitly and ignore the others. It does not make much practical sense that UD would allow you to retain Dex bonus to AC while stunned, grappling or cowering either IMO.Even if we accept that the description has two possible interpretations, it seems unlikely that the designers intent was anything other than to have UD protect against the two explicitly stated conditions.Edit: Spelling and stuff.</blockquote>

Verification