Ask a Simple Question, Get a simple answer

[PhaedrusXY]

Sneak attack works whenever you are denied your Dex bonus to AC. It is dependent on the bonus itself being denied, not on the condition that makes it so. 

Right. And the underlined parts here

would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

are talking about the same thing: they cover creatures that don't actually have a Dex bonus to AC (i.e. their Dex sucks). The rogue can still sneak attack them while they are flat-footed because they would lose their Dex bonus to AC... if they had one.

Also, even if you do read it the way being argued by mavriskyla (and you shouldn't... because of what I just posted, and others have said), it still wouldn't work. A person with Uncanny Dodge wouldn't be denied their Dex to AC while flat-footed, because they have Uncanny Dodge. See, I can use silly semantics too?

[Kuroimaken]

are talking about the same thing: they cover creatures that don't actually have a Dex bonus to AC (i.e. their Dex sucks). The rogue can still sneak attack them while they are flat-footed because they would lose their Dex bonus to AC... if they had one.

Which is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Condition for sneak attack: target is denied Dex bonus to AC.
Uncanny Dodge: retain Dex bonus to AC when flat-footed and against invisible opponents. Therefore, cannot be denied Dex bonus to AC.

In other words, he's denying the trigger. Even in 3.0 it was this way, and they kept it in Improved Uncanny Dodge, so why the hell would they change it around ONLY for regular UD?

It has nothing to do with semantics, it's simple logic.

[PhaedrusXY]

Which is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

WTF... you're disagreeable even when someone is agreeing with you? It is relevant because that is the text that was causing confusion. So a clarification of what it actually means is highly relevant.

It has nothing to do with semantics, it's simple logic.

Do you even know what either of those words means?

[Bell]

Q606. This has been bugging me for days.  339?  I just started seeing people use it recently. I seem to recall that it refers to the WotC forums, but I don't know why I think that or what the reference is. Can someone explain it to me?

[TheWordSlinger]

A606: I believe it was/is the board number of the WotC CharOp boards.

[BowenSilverclaw]

Q607: Is there a comprehensive list of familiars outside of the PHB that are available at level 1 somewhere?

[Runestar]

Q607: Is there a comprehensive list of familiars outside of the PHB that are available at level 1 somewhere?

Crystalkeep, creatures PDF for 3.5. Hasn't been updated in quite a while though, but its existing list is still fairly exhaustive.

[Kuroimaken]

Which is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

WTF... you're disagreeable even when someone is agreeing with you? It is relevant because that is the text that was causing confusion. So a clarification of what it actually means is highly relevant.

It has nothing to do with semantics, it's simple logic.

Do you even know what either of those words means?

Taken to PM, if you still care.

[SixthDeclension]

Q608: Is there any way to get turn or rebuke dead attempts without a dip or PrC that has spellcasting?

[jameswilliamogle]

Q609: Anyone know what happened to JanusJones?

[PhaedrusXY]

Q608: Is there any way to get turn or rebuke dead attempts without a dip or PrC that has spellcasting?

I don't think so.

[Runestar]

Q608: Is there any way to get turn or rebuke dead attempts without a dip or PrC that has spellcasting?

I don't think so.

There should be an item that grants some form of turn undead. Could be in Player's guide to faerun? Can't remember off hand how powerful it is though.

[SixthDeclension]

Q609: Anyone know what happened to JanusJones?

Hasn't posted since August.

[ksbsnowowl]

Q608: Is there any way to get turn or rebuke dead attempts without a dip or PrC that has spellcasting?

A608:  Shapechanging into a Kir'lanan (the gargoyle-looking creatures) from the back of the the FRCS grants the ability to rebuke undead.

[woodenbandman]

Q609: Should an Attack of Opportunity be counted as a strenuous action, and cause a staggered character to faint? It doesn't specifically call out attacks of opportunity, but all other attacks cause fainting.

[Negative Zero]

A609: An attack is an attack. Because an attack of opportunity is an attack made in response to another's action, it would logically need to be done faster, and therefore be even more strenuous.

[JaronK]

Q608: Is there any way to get turn or rebuke dead attempts without a dip or PrC that has spellcasting?

A608:  There's a spell less Paladin variant in UA, and another I believe in CC.  Both grant Turn Undead and don't give spellcasting.

JaronK

[Ralp]

Q610: Metamorphosis isn't in the polymorph subschool or based on alter self or anything like that.  When I manifest it, I assume I keep my base attack bonus, right?  Is this spelled out anywhere, or just happens to be the case since nothing states otherwise?

[DetectiveJabsco]

A610: Your HD stay the same, and your BaB is based off your HD.
Also Based on this

"A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal."

It would be safe you need a normal attack to have a rule against extra attacks.

[Zarothar]

Q611: How on EARTH does Metapower (Complete Psionics) work? The text is just ridiculously confusing.  I can't figure out either the RAW or the RAI.

So, you choose one power (example: Energy Missile) to be permanently modified by a metapsionic feat you know. So, wait, is that a free modification? Does that mean I can have a twinned Energy Missile for no cost? Or do you still pay the cost as usual (subject to the reduction for all powers in the next sentence)?

Right, then it says that the cost of modifying the chosen power with metapsionic feats is reduced by 2 PP. So, sweet, ALL metapsionic feats cost less on this power? Awesome.

So, when you manifest the modified power with that metapsionic feat, you must still obey the restrictions of that feat. Er... Does this modify the previous sentence? Or does it mean that the permanent modification still requires focus to be expended? What's the deal, here? Well, that latter interpretation wouldn't make sense, right? I mean, it says that the metapower can be used "normally" with other metapsionic feats.

BUT WAIT. The Special section just throws everything into confusion. We're talking about reducing specific metapsionic feats, now? So, wait, the modification isn't free (fair enough) and it only applies to a single metapsionic feat (LAME)? But that directly contradicts the body of the feat text! What the hell, man? 

So, yeah, anyone know how this stupid thing is supposed to work?

To my mind, the most fair way would be like some sort of Arcane Thesis... All metapsionic feats cost 2 pp less with the particular power selected, and the metapsionic feat you select makes it so you don't need to expend Psionic Focus to use it with that power. So, you could do something like Overchannel (expending your focus) and apply Maximise (expending Psicrystal focus) on an already-Empowered Energy Missile. The PP adjustment would be +2 from Maximise (+4-2) and +0 from the inherent Empowered effect (+2-2).

But that's just my theory of how I think it should work, not how it actually does. It may just make one particular metapsionic feat cost less for one particular power... Which is what the special section would imply, but not the rest of the feat!

Any ideas?