UPDATE: Uncanny Dodge vs. Feint

[Caliban]

He seems to not like it when rules analyses get beyond the trivial, though.

That's not really true and you know it. I don't like it when it goes beyond rules and into pointless grammer quibbling and language parsing.

Well, that's fine. But allow those of use who wish to explore further to have our fun, would you? We aren't hurting anybody, and it's a great intellectual exercise. It most certainly is appropriate to the "Rules' forum.

It's not "exploring" it's obsfucating.
When you take it to the extremes that it was in the Uncanny dodge debate, you actually make it less comprehensible than it was before.

 

[Artoomis]

That's not really true and you know it. I don't like it when it goes beyond rules and into pointless grammer quibbling and language parsing.

It's not pointless, it's analyzing language to try and understand what the rule is supposed to be. It seems to me that you don't like any analysis that has any complexity at all. That's fine.

If the rules were written correctly this would not be an issue.

It's not "exploring" it's obsfucating.
When you take it to the extremes that it was in the Uncanny dodge debate, you actually make it less comprehensible than it was before.

It's most certainly is not "obsfucating." It's intellectual debate. If you don't like it, fine. I'm not asking everyone to agree with me, only to understand my position and state their own, such that we all can make a more intelligent decision on what we think the rules state.

I like it best when I can see that someone has understood my position well and still has an opposing view.

Sorry, Caliban, but recently your position seems to be that you don't want to hear any sort of complex argument. Or maybe it's just that you don't want to hear any of my arguments? In any case, you seem to be rejecting any argument that focuses on analyzing use of the English language.

I don't see why you don't simply ignore those threads. There are not that many of them.

 

[Snipehunt]

Umm. Grammar quibling and language parsing are the only way to figure out what the rules mean. I can't remember the number of times somebody argued with me for hours over what seemed to me to be a perfectly clear rule. It's only pointless in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, wait - that now sounds like a new supernatural ability for the eye tyrant. Ray of pointlessness - you are trapped for 1 round/level in a meaningless debate over whether "it cannot" and "cannot" mean different things.

 

[MadScientist]

I don't even understand this argument.

Uncanny Dodge: At 2nd level and above, the barbarian retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) if caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. At 5th level, the barbarian can no longer be flanked. The exception to this defense is that a rogue at least four levels higher than the barbarian can still flank.

The Uncanny Dodge description gives three very specific situations in which the character retains their Dex bonus to AC, despit being in a situation in which they would normally lose it; when flat-footed, when struck by an invisable attacker and when flanked. Being the victim of a feint is not one of these specified situations. Where is the ambiguity? What possible explanation could there be for Uncanny Dodge not applying to feints other than that being the designed intent? No reasoning is necessary, either Uncanny Dodge is effective against feints or it is not. In this case it seems to me that it obviously is not.

 

[Caliban]

It's not pointless, it's analyzing language to try and understand what the rule is supposed to be. It seems to me that you don't like any analysis that has any complexity at all. That's fine.

The Uncanny Dodge rule was pretty clear by any normal use of the english language.

You succeeded in making it less clear by overanalyzing it.

It wasn't a poorly written rule. I certainly have no problem understanding it.

And I do reject overly complex arguements because they generally have no place in the 3e ruleset.

The rules were written with the intent of being simple and streamlined.

If your arguement relies on complex grammer analysis, then it's most likely incorrect, because that's now how the rules were written. So yes, it's pointless.

Some rules really are poorly written and vague. Recognize them and move on. Either ask for clarification or make up your own mind.

If the rule seems to have an obvious meaning, then that is most likely the correct one. If you can interpret it to be something completely different by changing emphasis on certain words and doing a multi-paragraph grammer analysis, then that's probably not the correct interpretation.

You may not like the fact that the rules really aren't very complex when you examine their basic elements, but that's the way it is.

 

[Darkness]

By the way...

All DMG prestige classes with UD say:
He retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) regardless of being caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. (He still loses any Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.)

 

[Quasqueton]

The Uncanny Dodge rule was pretty clear by any normal use of the english language.

You succeeded in making it less clear by overanalyzing it.

It wasn't a poorly written rule. I certainly have no problem understanding it.

You know, I find that funny. I agree that the UD rule is written clearly. But for some reason I come to the exact opposite understanding of it.


"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized."


She retains her [smooth complexion] even if she is [set on fire] or [dowsed with acid]. However, she still loses her [smooth complexion] if [she decomposes after death].

So, can her skin be blemished by a dagger cut? By frostbite? By bee stings?

Or is her smooth complexion *only* protected against fire and acid?



He cannot be killed even if caught in an atomic blast or thrust into the sun. However, he can still die of old age.

So, can a sword in the heart kill him? Can decapitation? How about starvation? Or is he only protected against an atomic bomb and the sun's core.



I don't usually participate in these kinds of threads, because it does get down to silly dissecting of words (and I'm a professional editor). But this answer seems so simple and obvious to me that I'm rather surprised that some folks are arguing it. And then Skip gives an answer that seems contrary to what is written.

Why is the word "even" in this definition of UD? Without that word, there would be only two conditions in which UD is helpful. But with "even," in the definition, it means the two conditions listed are just examples of situations for which UD is helpful.

I'm amazed that this argument has gone on so long, and so heated.


I wouldn't enter this debate even if you gave me a hundred dollars or told me I'd meet a beautiful girl. However, I would put in my thoughts if there were no other threads to respond to.

Well, no one gave me $100, and I've not heard of any beautiful girls in this thread, so I guess that means I have to put in a response.

Quasqueton

 

[Artoomis]

The Uncanny Dodge rule was pretty clear by any normal use of the english language.

Wrong. It was written poorly, without doubt.

...The rules were written with the intent of being simple and streamlined...

Right. But, in a few cases they failed. Fortunately, it's only in a fairly small number of places that they failed.

... If the rule seems to have an obvious meaning, then that is most likely the correct one. ...

Agreed The Uncanny Dodge rule is very obvious to me that it is not restricted to only the two cases mentioned. It's really, really obvious - I don't even need to look hard.

I know you don't agree. That does not make it any less so, though.

I even went through simple examples of why this is so, like:

"Jack has extremely sensitive feet. His feet are sore when he stands even if he wears his orthotic supports or his fleece insoles. However, his feet are comfortable in his bunny slippers."

This "rule" is a basically the same as the Uncanny Dodge "rule." Do you think Jack has sore feet ONLY when he wears his orthotic supports or fleece insoles?

Certainly not, right?

Same logic and clear, plain language. Not tortured in the least.

I don't know why the fact that I see this as being very clear makes my reading in any way hyper-techynical, as you seem it think it is.

Now, is this what they meant to do with the rule? I am genuinely unsure.

 

[RigaMortus]

FWIW, I agree with Artoomis in that the wording is unclear and could be taken to mean that there are other conditions that UD could apply to. However, to keep things simple, I would rule (for my game) that UD only works vs. the two situations under the description. JMHO of course.

 

[Caliban]

Wrong. It was written poorly, without doubt.

Wait, I can do this too.

"Wrong. It wa clearly written, without a doubt"

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's poorly written.

Right. But, in a few cases they failed. Fortunately, it's only in a fairly small number of places that they failed.


Agreed The Uncanny Dodge rule is very obvious to me that it is not restricted to only the two cases mentioned. It's really, really obvious - I don't even need to look hard.

But you do need to look, don't you.

It doesn't say it applies to anything else, so it doesn't. It lists what it applies to. Anything else is something you are reading into it, beyond what is stated.

You have trouble with this, I understand. So ask for clarification.

Oh, wait you did. And then said it was worthless. How useful.

For further support of the actual intent, check out the passage that Darkness pointed out. They actually did rewrite the language in all the prestige classes in the DMG.