Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 1077052" data-attributes="member: 284">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />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. 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 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />, but it's the Sage who everyone jumps on.  Good thing we have you to tell us the difference.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification