Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 1135688" data-attributes="member: 5890">Hardly - it tends to be a good idea within 3E and derivatives to avoid using the flavour text (ie - sentences containing no defined rules terms) when debating rules, or else all sorts of odd things come about, the least of which is confusion over the meaning of given words - witness your own thread on improved familiar. Given that, I also gave two possibilities - one of which ignores the flavour text, and goes for the logical meaning of the sentence in question, and the other which goes for the &quot;this is probably what they meant&quot; meaning.If you honestly think that giving two points of view with almost totally opposite end results is one-sided reporting, I really don't think it's possible to have a conversation with you.Point out where it gives the reason for loss of dex bonus under 'run'. It's not there, nor is it sensible to think that someone running is doing so with their eyes closed (or else they'd be able to react, especially with finely tuned reactions such as those granted from uncanny dodge). I'll admit that a reading of climb probably stops uncanny dodge from working with it, assuming that you accept that the flavour text in this case is actually rules text (ie - climb specifically says you can't move to get out of the way of things, and uncanny dodge says it helps you react to things). That's for the liberal reading.For the more restricted reading, it only helps against being flat-footed or against invisible opponents.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 1135688, member: 5890"] Hardly - it tends to be a good idea within 3E and derivatives to avoid using the flavour text (ie - sentences containing no defined rules terms) when debating rules, or else all sorts of odd things come about, the least of which is confusion over the meaning of given words - witness your own thread on improved familiar. Given that, I also gave two possibilities - one of which ignores the flavour text, and goes for the logical meaning of the sentence in question, and the other which goes for the "this is probably what they meant" meaning. If you honestly think that giving two points of view with almost totally opposite end results is one-sided reporting, I really don't think it's possible to have a conversation with you. Point out where it gives the reason for loss of dex bonus under 'run'. It's not there, nor is it sensible to think that someone running is doing so with their eyes closed (or else they'd be able to react, especially with finely tuned reactions such as those granted from uncanny dodge). I'll admit that a reading of climb probably stops uncanny dodge from working with it, assuming that you accept that the flavour text in this case is actually rules text (ie - climb specifically says you can't move to get out of the way of things, and uncanny dodge says it helps you react to things). That's for the liberal reading. For the more restricted reading, it only helps against being flat-footed or against invisible opponents. [/QUOTE]

Verification