rings of blinking and rogues

[drnuncheon]

Harangue them for a while if you like - I'm done responding to your flames.

I'm very sorry you think I was flaming you, since I try my best not to do that - I prefer to let my arguments stand on the logic of the position and not on emotion. I think I have been extremely polite throughout this topic, and I am a bit irritated at the implication that I need to "chill" and "think calming thoughts".

I suspect you have a very different definition of what constitutes a 'flame' than I do, since in no case did I make a personal attack on you. If you care to tell me which pieces of my posts you took offense to, I will be more than happy to apologize directly.

J

 

[Murrdox]

I think everyone's cool here... let's not confuse logical disagreements with personal attacks. Sometimes the two are easily confused and hard to distinguish.

 

[green slime]

Man, I get a headache everytime this topic comes up;

blink, ghost touch weapons, ethereal, incorporeality, seeing invisible, ...

Makes me glad there are places like this where I can feel like I almost understand it... Until it actually comes up in game...

 

[Piratecat]

Hey, it's okay to disagree, as long as no one gets personal about it. You guys were just dancing along the edge of "snippy," which could be worse. Thanks for trying to work it out politely.

 

[green slime]

*Pokes PC in his good eye*

Wadda ya mean disagree?

Personal? Snippy?!?!

I'll learn ya, I will...

What a minute.... polite?!?!?!

Aha, 'twas them other fellas...

Sorry 'bout that eye...

Can I getcha some Whiskas?

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Uncanny Dodge, for example, helps you against invisible attackers, no matter what the nature of their invisibility. It relies only on visibility, no matter what kind. It defeats Blink Effect #1. Since Blink Effect #1 is what allows an attacker to attack as though he was invisible, he no longer gets that benefit while attacking. However, all the effects for Blink Effect #2 still apply.

I agreewith the first part of your statement. Uncanny Dodge does help you against invisible attackers, no matter what the nature of their invisibility. The fact that it functions versus invisibility is clearly stated in the feat. The fact that it works against an ability SIMILAR to invisibility is NOT stated in the feat. I'm not sure where you get the information that Uncanny Dodge relies solely on visibility, either. And I'm also unsure where in the rules it tells you that you may divide an ability or spell effect into components such as "Effect #1" and "Effect #2" unless the spell specifically states that you can consider them separate effects. You are clearly extrapolating your own rationales as to why and how the feats and spell functions when the rules, as they are written, say nothing of the sort.

I can appreciate the creative thinking and I even acknowledge that your ideas are coherent and logical. But they are in no way official, because they do not follow the rules as written. I'm not even saying that I would not use your house rule as I think that it is a plausible explanation, but it IS, despite all logic, a house rule.

(edited for readability)

 

[hong]

I agreewith the first part of your statement. Uncanny Dodge does help you against invisible attackers, no matter what the nature of their invisibility. The fact that it functions versus invisibility is clearly stated in the feat. The fact that it works against an ability SIMILAR to invisibility is NOT stated in the feat.

PotAto, potatOe.

You are splitting hairs to no great effect.

I'm not even saying that I would not use your house rule as I think that it is a plausible explanation, but it IS, despite all logic, a house rule.

What you need is a "Skip disagrees with me, therefore he's wrong" hat.


Hong "on special all this week" Ooi

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Hong: As always, I find your opinions entertaining. That won't change the way the rules are written, but it does make you look a bit spiteful.

 

[hong]

Hong: As always, I find your opinions entertaining. That won't change the way the rules are written,

Oh, that's good. I wouldn't want to have my argument pulled out from under me.

but it does make you look a bit spiteful.

I think you'll need to do better than that if you want to make it into my sig.


Hong "how much spite do you want today?" Ooi

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

I wouldn't want to have my argument pulled out from under me.

I'm curious as to what, precisely, your argument is.

I think you'll need to do better than that if you want to make it into my sig.

There's a dubious honor. Flame on, brother.