UPDATE: Uncanny Dodge vs. Feint

[Caliban]

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.

Certain people are insisting on a very specific phrasing before they will believe the intent of the rules. So specific, that it addresses loopholes only they can percieve.

I think certain people are expecting way to much out of the game designers. The game designers aren't english majors, lawyers, or technical writers. They don't write things that tightly.

Any rules arguement that relies on overly precise grammatical structures is doomed to failure when you actually manage to get a clear answer from the "official" source. (It doesn't matter which official source you choose: Andy Collins, Skip Williams, etc.)

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.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

A "Design goal" is just that: A goal.

They are saying that they will try to achieve this.

It does not imply a promise to succeed, it implies a good faith attempt.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Any rules arguement that relies on overly precise grammatical structures...

See the recent debate on whether the two sentences:

"If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

"If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

... mean two completely different things or not...

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

See the recent debate on whether the two sentences:

"If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

"If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

... mean two completely different things or not...

-Hyp.

I can't tell. Are agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me?

It's pointless to continue this debate. The original question didn't even have a subject! "Are [sheep] agreeing with me"? "Are [game designers] agreeing with me"?

You'd think serious message posters would playtest their messages before releasing them to the general public. Don't they know what we're like?

... ahem.

Um, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you.

I think rules should be written to prevent ambiguity. I think intent can't always be divined from context, and game designers don't always agree on what the intent was. I'd prefer to see things defined explicitly.

I honestly have no idea if a failed save can kill with the new Harm, or not.

I don't know whether the new Darkness spell is intended to create an area as bright as candlelight, or to create an area no brighter than candlelight.

These spells have completely changed from 3E, so "precedent" is no longer applicable as a benchmark, and I haven't seen designer comment on either issue. The wording should have been clearer.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

It's pointless to continue this debate. The original question didn't even have a subject! "Are [sheep] agreeing with me"? "Are [game designers] agreeing with me"?

Sorry. My linguistic abilities have been steadily eroding since this all began...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sorry. My linguistic abilities have been steadily eroding since this all began...

What's the line? "I can feel myself getting stupider..."?



-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

My line is "Mee blaah."

Artoomis, I can understand Caliban to a certain extent: You mail the Sage about something, he answers though it's not his job, but his answer is short.

You complain.

Why did you mail to him if he's not official at all?

For the UD problem... the 3.0 FAQ was pretty clear about the problem and UD didn't really change, so my question stays the same:
Why do you try to interprete a change into something? Nothing changed there.

 

[Celtavian]

re

He gave you a simple answer because trying to justify why it does or does not work against feints simple creates more arguments.

Official answer: Uncanny Dodge doesn't work against feints.

Justification is per the person running the game. Why complicate the answer with some abstract reason why it works that way that many would just tear apart anyhow.

 

[Celtavian]

I think rules should be written to prevent ambiguity. I think intent can't always be divined from context, and game designers don't always agree on what the intent was. I'd prefer to see things defined explicitly.

In some cases, Harm is not one of them.

I honestly have no idea if a failed save can kill with the new Harm, or not.

You do so, you know that every version of the spell ever written did not kill its target. the new version is not a death spell and does not kill its target whether or not the save is failed.

It doesn' have the [death] descriptor which is another indicator that it cannot kill even on a failed save. The hit point damage is a new mechanic, but the intent is the same as all previous versions of the spell.

It is not a direct damage spell doing dice damage. It is an attempt to balance an overly powerful spell while not making it worthless. It is not a perfect attempt, but it is clear that the intent of the spell is the same as previous versions.

I don't argue that it wasn't written well, but I do argue that the intent is clear.

I don't know whether the new Darkness spell is intended to create an area as bright as candlelight, or to create an area no brighter than candlelight.

Yes, the change to Darkness spells was pathetic whether or not the change was poorly explained.

These spells have completely changed from 3E, so "precedent" is no longer applicable as a benchmark, and I haven't seen designer comment on either issue. The wording should have been clearer.

I agree for Darkness since the spell itself has changed, not just the mechanic. Heck, I don't even think this spell should be named Darkness anymore it has changed so much.

For Harm I vehemently disagree. The intent of the spell is exactly the same as previous versions save for it has been balanced according to the maximum affect it can have. The intent of the spell has not changed. It was never meant to kill and it is clear that they did not intend it to do so now. Though I admit that the wording is a bit off.

 

[Iku Rex]

I am not sure who is the "offical" source for rules interpretations anyway.

"Noone", that's who.

Andy Collins refuses to answer rules questions, and WotCs Game Support cannot help you unless you have a simple RTFM question.