UPDATE: Uncanny Dodge vs. Feint

[LokiDR]

I'm not going to support Artoomis because I think he can handle himself. But I do disagree with some of your points.

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.

If one of the goals of 3.5 was a clearer game, is it so much to ask that they deliver on the at promise?

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.

Ok, after that last UD thread, I know what you mean. But, as a community, we should agree (to some degree) what the rule means. We have designer intent, balance, and the language. Desigers might disagre an balance is highly subjective. That leave language. I still don't like pretending to be an english major, but it does help settle a question some times.

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.

Compare this to any story teller system or BESM. This brain surgury in compareson. D&D 3e and 3.5 seem custom built for rules lawers. This is the rules forum, so I would expect us here.

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.

It is a game, a mental exercise. TWF and flurry stacking is a perfect example. It was not intended, the designers have said as much. But how many attacks could you get? How much damage? This is the theory that brought us the smackdown thread that many have enjoyed. This is the metagame, the game about the game. It is still a game, and it is still fun, but don't think that the quibbling here does or should show up on game tables.

(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.)

If the Sage was official, we could finish the discussion faster. But he isn't offical, he isn't well thought out on a number of occasions, and that bothers at least me. The next time I play or run RPGA I can't just say "the Sage ruled..." without being told he isn't offical.

WotC promissed a "new age of gaming" a few years back when they bought TSR. Here it is, for better or worse. There are always miscontents, but that means the market is open for other games and variety is good.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

I never ignore the intent of the rules, but it is only through language that intent can be discerned.

Besides, it's fun.

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

Nor I. But an answer on intent would have made it easy to analyze "splat books" or third party products.

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.)

I ask because it is (was?) his job to clear up ambiguities. It was not his job to make up new rules. When he issued rules clarifications I accepted them as being the "rule." When he made up new rules I rejected them as being unofficial errata.

In this particular case I asked him to clear up the rules surrounding Uncanny Dodge by selecting one of statements of intent. Instead, he issued a "ruling" on Feint. I consider that to be only marginally helpful.

I am truly unsure of his staus. Is he the "offical" source of rules interpretations or not? It's important for convention tournaments and the like, not for campaigns where we make our own decisions anyway.

BTW - I never, ever called Skip "worthless." He has issued some more-or-less worthless opinions at times, but I don't fault him personally for that.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

The question wasn't "does UD stop feint?" it was "does UD only stop loss of dex from flatfooted and invisible attacker or does it provide protection against other circumstances"?.

I know he is busy, and know that it can cause problems if he sends a response before thinking it through, but sidestepping the intent of the question isn't really a nice thing to do. It just seems so politician.

By the way, I agree with the Sage in this case. But his response doesn't help discourse or thought about this game we play. Blindly following some person brings us closer to diablo, not further away.

 

[coyote6]

The question wasn't "does UD stop feint?" it was "does UD only stop loss of dex from flatfooted and invisible attacker or does it provide protection against other circumstances"?.

No, the (first) question was "Q. Does Uncanny Dodge trump losing your Dex Bonus to AC from an opponent using the Bluff skill to execute a feint?"

In other words, "does UD stop feint". And that was the question the Sage answered.

I've noticed that if you ask a question in the form, "Does X do Y?", then expand with "In other words..." -- everything after "In other words" tends to be (a) fairly complicated, and (b) not addressed by the Sage.

(FWIW, I've noticed this in questions I've written to the Sage.)

I've also noticed that he generally no longer provides much explanation with the answers; when 3e first came out, I exchanged a couple of rounds of emails asking questions, then asking "why", and getting replies. Later questions, I felt lucky if I got a reply at all, much less an exchange of any sort. I suspect he simply doesn't have the time.

In general, asking the Sage questions is like using commune -- you're better off using simple questions, and only asking small numbers of them at a time.

 

[Caliban]

If one of the goals of 3.5 was a clearer game, is it so much to ask that they deliver on the at promise?

Hmm.. That's not what I said now was it?

Making the game clearer does not mean rewriting it to your personal preference of how to express certain concepts.

If you think it does, then you have issues.

And since when does a "design goal" become a "promise" anyway?

 

[LokiDR]

In general, asking the Sage questions is like using commune -- you're better off using simple questions, and only asking small numbers of them at a time.

"Oh great D&D Sage, hear this plea."

I know he is busy, but I can still be annoyed by it.

 

[LokiDR]

Hmm.. That's not what I said now was it?

Making the game clearer does not mean rewriting it to your personal preference of how to express certain concepts.

If you think it does, then you have issues.

He isn't the only one that thinks it is unclear, so I don't think this is a case of personal preference. This wasn't made clearer, and with balance and flat-footedness, it got worse.

And my issues have nothing to do with rabbit season.

And since when does a "design goal" become a "promise" anyway?

Well, not to tread on english that much, but you say you are going to do something it is normally considered a promise, if less formal.

 

[kreynolds]

Well, not to tread on english that much, but you say you are going to do something it is normally considered a promise, if less formal.

Well, I can promise you that I don't promise a damn thing unless I say "promise" in there somewhere. I don't take that word lightly, so I can't really share that opinion.

 

[Caliban]

I never ignore the intent of the rules, but it is only through language that intent can be discerned.

Bull. It can be discerned by asking the authors, it can be discerned by checking similar rules/situations, and it in many cases is can be discerned by using a little common sense.

Saying that every rule in the book has to be taken in isolation and judged only on it's text isn't true, and only leads to people debating the rule until it is meaningless.

Besides, it's fun.

It sure was fun watching you use the phrase "even if" to stretch the Uncanny Dodge ability to include just about every situation imaginable.

A intelligent debate can be "fun", interesting, and educational. The recent debate on Uncanny Dodge and Feint was none of the above.

Nor I. But an answer on intent would have made it easy to analyze "splat books" or third party products.

His job isn't to help you "analyze things". It's to answer questions about the rules. It is preferable that he give detailed explanations, but it's really not required of him.

I ask because it is (was?) his job to clear up ambiguities. It was not his job to make up new rules.

I thought his job was to answer rules questions. I don't recall seeing anything that says he has to clear up ambiguities in the core rules everytime. I'm sure he tries, but that's not actually his job.

It's supposed to be the R&D departments job to actually clear up ambiguities. Bang up job they did , but it's the Sage who everyone jumps on.

When he issued rules clarifications I accepted them as being the "rule." When he made up new rules I rejected them as being unofficial errata.

Good thing we have you to tell us the difference.

In this particular case I asked him to clear up the rules surrounding Uncanny Dodge by selecting one of statements of intent. Instead, he issued a "ruling" on Feint. I consider that to be only marginally helpful.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Since when do you get to dictate to him how he should answer questions?

You were asking him to rewrite the rule. He isn't supposed to do that sort of thing anymore. If you want it rewritten, e-mail Andy Collins. He's the head of the R&D department.

BTW - I never, ever called Skip "worthless." He has issued some more-or-less worthless opinions at times, but I don't fault him personally for that.

Is his opinion only "worthless" when he disagrees with your opinion, and doesn't give you anything to debate?

What if he had agreed with your stance, without any further explanation? Would that have also been worthless?

Besides, his answer makes it pretty clear what he thinks the intent is.

And if he had said that Uncanny Dodge does protect against Feint, I would known what he thought the intent was, even though I would have disagreed with it.

But then, I have always thought that Uncanny Dodge clearly stated what it protected against, and felt no need to read any extra protections into it.

 

[Snipehunt]

I'm just glad there's an answer to the feint question.

Intent is the wiggliest thing ever, IMO unreliable. We still debate 140 years later the intent of the Union and Confederacy in the civil war. And what if there isn't any intent? A lot of the rules problems discussed here are problems b/c nobody really thought about it before.