Flat Footed Immune [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

ShurikVch

2018-06-03, 06:01 AM

Also, Dark Foresight invocation, and Mark of Stars (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061106a&page=3) feat

No it doesn't.Except it's directly says:
Starting at 2nd level, a scout cannot be caught flat-footed and reacts to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so.Isn't it clear enough?

It directly references the barbarian class feature, which is the primary source for the ability.
Given that CA and the PHB conflict, the PHB takes precedence, and Uncanny Dodge for scout functions just like it does for barbarian.There we have the same issue as with the capstone of Knight of the Sacred Seal:
Apotheosis (Su): At 5th level, your type changes to outsider, and you gain the native subtype (see the perfect self monk class feature on page 42 of the Player's Handbook). You also gain damage reduction 10/magic.But the Perfect Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#perfectSelf) says:
At 20th level, a monk becomes a magical creature. She is forevermore treated as an outsider rather than as a humanoid (or whatever the monk’s creature type was) for the purpose of spells and magical effects. Additionally, the monk gains damage reduction 10/magic, which allows her to ignore the first 10 points of damage from any attack made by a nonmagical weapon or by any natural attack made by a creature that doesn’t have similar damage reduction. Unlike other outsiders, the monk can still be brought back from the dead as if she were a member of her previous creature type.See: a 20th-level monk is just "treated as an outsider ... for the purpose of spells and magical effects", not, actually, get the Outsider type.
So, does it mean 5th-level Knight of the Sacred Seal is an Outsider (native), or not?
For me - it's a clear case of "specific trumps general": 5th-level Knight of the Sacred Seal is an Outsider (native), and 2nd-level Scout cannot be caught flat-footed.

Remuko

2018-06-03, 08:00 AM

Also, Dark Foresight invocation, and Mark of Stars (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061106a&page=3) feat

Except it's directly says:Isn't it clear enough?
There we have the same issue as with the capstone of Knight of the Sacred Seal:But the Perfect Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#perfectSelf) says:See: a 20th-level monk is just "treated as an outsider ... for the purpose of spells and magical effects", not, actually, get the Outsider type.
So, does it mean 5th-level Knight of the Sacred Seal is an Outsider (native), or not?
For me - it's a clear case of "specific trumps general": 5th-level Knight of the Sacred Seal is an Outsider (native), and 2nd-level Scout cannot be caught flat-footed.

I agree with all of this.

Eldariel

2018-06-03, 08:48 AM

Cunning Legacy Weapon ability from Weapons of Legacy 2nd tier abilities does this. Unsurprisingly an absolute must have for all characters who can't get Foresight easily.

Also, taking an action works so as long as Initiative is rolled, e.g. casting Nerveskitter suffices.

Long_shanks

2018-06-03, 09:02 AM

It's a big investment, but 10 levels in Divine Oracle would give you what you want... If you want to go Wis-based/divine caster based archer, it could work.

Edit: Upon rereading the class, it's open to arcane casters as well. So, there is a possible arcane archer 2 build in there.

heavyfuel

2018-06-03, 09:55 AM

No it doesn't. It directly references the barbarian class feature, which is the primary source for the ability.
Given that CA and the PHB conflict, the PHB takes precedence, and Uncanny Dodge for scout functions just like it does for barbarian.

Hey, I totally agree with you on the intention, and that's definitely how I deal with it in my games. The strict RAW however, is that specific trumps general.

Also, taking an action works so as long as Initiative is rolled, e.g. casting Nerveskitter suffices.

This doesn't work. The requirement for not being flat-footed is not just acting in combat, but acting on your turn.

At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.

Eldariel

2018-06-03, 11:10 AM

This doesn't work. The requirement for not being flat-footed is not just acting in combat, but acting on your turn.

Oh, thanks for the correction. My bad.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-03, 11:16 AM

Hey, I totally agree with you on the intention, and that's definitely how I deal with it in my games. The strict RAW however, is that specific trumps general.

That's not how specific trump's general works either.

Scout is not trying to create an exception for itself (i.e.: "Unlike normal uncanny dodge, this one does <X>"). It is trying to change the definition of the class ability. The errata rules state that the PHB is the primary source for base class features. Since CA is trying to make a rule that is in conflict with the PHB, and is not otherwise stating that it is modifying or adding to existing rules, the PHB takes precedence.

DaytimeStar

2018-06-03, 12:01 PM

The last tier of Fell Conspiracy feat from Exemplars of Evil could grant you Flat Footed Immunity with conditions.

Zaq

2018-06-03, 01:51 PM

That's not how specific trump's general works either.

Scout is not trying to create an exception for itself (i.e.: "Unlike normal uncanny dodge, this one does <X>"). It is trying to change the definition of the class ability. The errata rules state that the PHB is the primary source for base class features. Since CA is trying to make a rule that is in conflict with the PHB, and is not otherwise stating that it is modifying or adding to existing rules, the PHB takes precedence.

It's not in conflict with the PHB, and I'm not sure what you mean about "making a new rule." The features are similar enough that it's worth referencing the original, but the Scout one has different provisions from the Barbarian one.

The next line down for the Scout is Fast Movement, which references the Monk version but also specifies how the Scout's version progresses. Do you also believe that the Scout's rate of improvement (+10 at 3rd, +20 at 11th) is in "conflict" with the PHB's version and therefore the Scout's Fast Movement progresses exactly the same way as the Monk's does? If not, why not?

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-03, 02:21 PM

It's not in conflict with the PHB, and I'm not sure what you mean about "making a new rule." The features are similar enough that it's worth referencing the original, but the Scout one has different provisions from the Barbarian one.

The next line down for the Scout is Fast Movement, which references the Monk version but also specifies how the Scout's version progresses. Do you also believe that the Scout's rate of improvement (+10 at 3rd, +20 at 11th) is in "conflict" with the PHB's version and therefore the Scout's Fast Movement progresses exactly the same way as the Monk's does? If not, why not?

No, because while the monk Fast Movement advances as indicated on its class table, the scout advances as the text indicates under its own Class Features.
That reference exists to notify you that the scout's bonus is an enhancement bonus, just as the monk's, and therefore does not stack with other effects that grant an enhancement bonus to movement speed (such as expeditious retreat) unlike the barbarian class feature of the same name. It also explicitly contains an exception to monk feature stating that it still functions when the scout is in light armor, unlike monk that loses the bonus speed while wearing any armor.

The difference is that the scout's Uncanny Dodge points you directly to the barbarian class feature of the same name while trying to change the function of that feature without any text afterwards to note that it is intentionally supposed to function differently; i.e.: "see the barbarian class feature, page 26 of the Player’s Handbook, except...". That's what makes it a conflict.

eggynack

2018-06-03, 02:40 PM

The difference is that the scout's Uncanny Dodge points you directly to the barbarian class feature of the same name while trying to change the function of that feature without any text afterwards to note that it is intentionally supposed to function differently; i.e.: "see the barbarian class feature, page 26 of the Player’s Handbook, except...". That's what makes it a conflict.
The scout class feature makes literally no attempt whatsoever to change the base functioning of uncanny dodge. It just says, "Look over here at this other text, which we can only assume that scout is inheriting." If the scout ability says it does a thing, then it does that thing. It can never overwrite the barbarian ability, but abilities function as they say they function.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-03, 02:51 PM

The scout class feature makes literally no attempt whatsoever to change the base functioning of uncanny dodge.

It explicitly says "a scout cannot be caught flatfooted... See the barbarian class feature for details." The barbarian class feature does no such thing. CA directly contradicts the PHB on the function of barbarian's Uncanny Dodge.

eggynack

2018-06-03, 03:05 PM

It explicitly says "a scout cannot be caught flatfooted... See the barbarian class feature for details." The barbarian class feature does no such thing. CA directly contradicts the PHB on the function of barbarian's Uncanny Dodge.
The ability doesn't even say to see the barbarian for more details. It literally just tells you to see the barbarian. And, critically, it never ever says, "See the barbarian to learn every single detail of the ability before you, because this ability is that one precisely." Abilities aren't always the same as the abilities they're based on. If an ability provides some different function from the ability it's based on, that means that you get the basic functionality of the original, modified by whatever is present in this new ability.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-03, 03:38 PM

The ability doesn't even say to see the barbarian for more details. It literally just tells you to see the barbarian. And, critically, it never ever says, "See the barbarian to learn every single detail of the ability before you, because this ability is that one precisely." Abilities aren't always the same as the abilities they're based on. If an ability provides some different function from the ability it's based on, that means that you get the basic functionality of the original, modified by whatever is present in this new ability.

So the scout is inheriting the barbarian class feature, except where it's not because it doesn't fit your notion of what the scout should be able to to do.

Got it.

eggynack

2018-06-03, 04:01 PM

So the scout is inheriting the barbarian class feature, except where it's not because it doesn't fit your notion of what the scout should be able to to do.

Got it.
No, the scout is inheriting the barbarian class feature, except where it's not because it doesn't match up with what is explicitly stated in the text. Abilities have the ability to define what they do.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-03, 06:53 PM

No, the scout is inheriting the barbarian class feature, except where it's not because it doesn't match up with what is explicitly stated in the text. Abilities have the ability to define what they do.

Correct. What they don't have is the ability to define what other abilities do, on account of the primacy rule as stated in the errata:

When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct.
...
The Player’s Handbook, for
example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC
races, and the base class descriptions.

Scout is directly contradicting the function of barbarian's Uncanny Dodge ("cannot be caught flat-footed" vs. "retains Dexterity bonus even when caught flat-footed"). It contains no text explaining this discrepancy. The PHB is the primary source for the Uncanny Dodge class feature. Therefore, Complete Adventurer is wrong, in exactly the same way the DMG is wrong when it tries to declare that the bonus damage from a ranger's favored enemy is precision damage:

Creatures blinded by darkness lose the ability to deal extra
damage due to precision (for example, a ranger’s favored enemy or
a sneak attack).

MaxMAnAtArms

2018-06-03, 07:27 PM

If you guys wanna duke it out about specifics please do so in PMs. Yes its not not saying the exact wording of the barb version. Since its the scouts version.

Want to thank those who pointed out effects feats class features. Im considering this forum post done and finished. you guys wanna fight over specifics vs general rulings. I got the perfect answer for it

What your DM says goes

Once again thank you all for imputs

Max ManAtArms

Edit:
Also just to point it out to you two folks. Straight out of the book it says this
"Starting at 2nd level, a scout cannot be caught fat-footed and reacts to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so" thats all for the scount. not how it works or what it does.

it then says to check the barbs version of it. (I am assuming to actually learn the ex abililty function)

Which then states this
"At 2nd level, a barbarian retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if he is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized."

I.e A scout with the skill Uncanny Dodge (Ex) Cannot be caught flat footed. Then the effects of said abililty is " If said PC is caught flat-footed (some how) or hit by the invis npcs He still keeps his Dex. But he loses his Dex if Immobilized.

That is rather clear cut and explained out to me.

Edit 2 (chilled since the most common answer for rules at size 5 appearntly was "to much")

eggynack

2018-06-03, 07:33 PM

Correct. What they don't have is the ability to define what other abilities do, on account of the primacy rule as stated in the errata:
True. Scout cannot change how the barbarian's ability functions. And it doesn't. It only changes how it functions.

Scout is directly contradicting the function of barbarian's Uncanny Dodge ("cannot be caught flat-footed" vs. "retains Dexterity bonus even when caught flat-footed"). It contains no text explaining this discrepancy. The PHB is the primary source for the Uncanny Dodge class feature. Therefore, Complete Adventurer is wrong, in exactly the same way the DMG is wrong when it tries to declare that the bonus damage from a ranger's favored enemy is precision damage:
It doesn't "contradict" the functioning of barbarian uncanny dodge. It just does something a bit different. Specific overrides general, and there is no attempt, anywhere in the text, to alter the rules from the primary source.

If you guys wanna duke it out about specifics please do so in PMs. Yes its not not saying the exact wording of the barb version. Since its the scouts version.

Want to thank those who pointed out effects feats class features. Im considering this forum post done and finished. you guys wanna fight over specifics vs general rulings. I got the perfect answer for it

What your DM says goes

Once again thank you all for imputs

Max ManAtArms
Dude, chill. This stuff is more or less on topic, not significant in length on either an individual post or a thread pages basis, and, inevitably, doesn't stop anyone from saying anything pertinent to your question. This is even more true given that you apparently don't have much interest in how the thread progresses from here.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-03, 08:55 PM

It doesn't "contradict" the functioning of barbarian uncanny dodge. It just does something a bit different. Specific overrides general, and there is no attempt, anywhere in the text, to alter the rules from the primary source.

Scout is not trying to give itself an exception. By referencing the barbarian class feature, it is relying entirely on barbarian to supply the definition of Uncanny Dodge.

That "a scout cannot be caught flat-footed" is an editing oversight is made clear by the two example characters in the same book. The example bloodhound on page 30 and the example League of Boot and Trail member on page 177. Both of them have uncanny dodge from scout, and both of them use the same descriptive text that appears under the barbarian class feature, not what appears in the scout class text.

For further editing oversights, see the scout Evasion class feature. By relying on the monk definition, instead of referencing the rogue ability, a scout, by RAW, loses evasion if it is wearing any armor just as a monk does.

eggynack

2018-06-04, 02:18 AM

Scout is not trying to give itself an exception. By referencing the barbarian class feature, it is relying entirely on barbarian to supply the definition of Uncanny Dodge.
Whether scout is trying to give itself an exception or not, it is doing so. When an ability says it does a thing, that's a thing it does, in a way that applies precisely to that ability. The scout is relying on the barbarian text up until the exact point it starts providing its own, at which point it is relying on itself.

That "a scout cannot be caught flat-footed" is an editing oversight is made clear by the two example characters in the same book. The example bloodhound on page 30 and the example League of Boot and Trail member on page 177. Both of them have uncanny dodge from scout, and both of them use the same descriptive text that appears under the barbarian class feature, not what appears in the scout class text.

For further editing oversights, see the scout Evasion class feature. By relying on the monk definition, instead of referencing the rogue ability, a scout, by RAW, loses evasion if it is wearing any armor just as a monk does.
At least one thing here is quite possibly an editing oversight, but example characters have limited capacity to influence the functioning of abilities, and example characters are frequently horribly wrong.

Telonius

2018-06-04, 05:56 AM

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-04, 03:21 PM

At least one thing here is quite possibly an editing oversight, but example characters have limited capacity to influence the functioning of abilities, and example characters are frequently horribly wrong.

Indeed.
WotC is almost as notorious for incorrect statistic blocks as they are for the seemingly endless contradictory rules statements in their supplement books that necessitated the primacy mandate in the first place.

But when one source says to do something one way, and every other instance in the entire rest of the game (including two within the same book) says to do it another, I'm guessing the lone source is the one that's incorrect.

It seems to me that the Scout's text could either mean that the Scout is immune to being flat-footed, or immune to the effects of being flat-footed; and for details on what that means, see the description in Barbarian. (I don't see how you could read it another way). Flat-footed is defined as not yet having acted in combat. I'm pretty sure that they didn't intend that feature to mean that Scout always goes first, and the universe doesn't divide by zero if two Scouts get into combat with each other, so it can't mean that Scout is immune to being flat-footed. It's immune to the effects, not the condition itself.

Being immune to one of the effects of being flat-footed is exactly what Uncanny Dodge does. Being flat-footed means you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC and you cannot make attacks of opportunity. Uncanny Dodge allows you to retain your Dexterity bonus in this circumstance.

It's the text in the scout class feature description that is trying to change it to full-out immunity to the condition.

eggynack

2018-06-04, 04:39 PM

It seems to me that the Scout's text could either mean that the Scout is immune to being flat-footed, or immune to the effects of being flat-footed; and for details on what that means, see the description in Barbarian. (I don't see how you could read it another way). Flat-footed is defined as not yet having acted in combat. I'm pretty sure that they didn't intend that feature to mean that Scout always goes first, and the universe doesn't divide by zero if two Scouts get into combat with each other, so it can't mean that Scout is immune to being flat-footed. It's immune to the effects, not the condition itself.
Being flat-footed only necessarily means you must have acted if you aren't immune to it. It's a consequence of not acting, not the entire not acting object in itself. It thus doesn't matter whether you are immune to being flat-footed or immune to the consequences of it. If you're immune to being flat-footed, then what happens is that you haven't acted yet, and yet you do not have this condition. Consider something like immunity to nausea. That you cannot have the sleep condition applied to you does not mean that someone has not cast a stinking cloud on you. Nor does it mean that you are only immune to the effects of nausea. You are in a situation where you would ordinarily have this condition, and you do not.

But when one source says to do something one way, and every other instance in the entire rest of the game (including two within the same book) says to do it another, I'm guessing the lone source is the one that's incorrect.
It's not about some inductive confluence of evidence. It's about deductive RAW force, which is the inevitable victor in any RAW argument. All the discrepancies you've presented, and likely any you haven't, can pretty easily fit in with scout operating this way. Any other same-named ability that works slightly differently is just that. A same-named ability that works slightly differently. Example text that says otherwise is, y'know, wrong. This is all a wholly consistent RAW perspective. Your position is necessarily not consistent with RAW, because it denies the basic ability text itself.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-04, 04:54 PM

It's not about some inductive confluence of evidence. It's about deductive RAW force, which is the inevitably victor in any RAW argument. All the discrepancies you've presented, and likely any you haven't, can pretty easily fit in with scout operating this way. Any other same-named ability that works slightly differently is just that. A same-named ability that works slightly differently. Example text that says otherwise is, y'know, wrong. This is all a wholly consistent RAW perspective. Your position is necessarily not consistent with RAW, because it denies the basic ability text itself.

As opposed to your position, which denies the primacy rule, and yet is more RAW-consistent than mine for no reason other than it is yours.

eggynack

2018-06-04, 05:04 PM

As opposed to your position, which denies the primacy rule, and yet is more RAW-consistent than mine for no reason other than it is yours.
My position does not deny that rule. Again, scout makes no intent whatsoever to rewrite the barbarian's uncanny dodge ability. It would have to do so in order to fight the notion of primary and secondary sources, and it does not.

SirNibbles

2018-06-04, 05:58 PM

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-04, 06:14 PM

My position does not deny that rule. Again, scout makes no intent whatsoever to rewrite the barbarian's uncanny dodge ability. It would have to do so in order to fight the notion of primary and secondary sources, and it does not.

Scout relies entirely on barbarian to supply the definition of Uncanny Dodge, and then claims that it does something different.

You can clearly see the difference with the following ability that you yourself noted, which makes an exception to the Fast Movement definition supplied by monk by allowing the scout to wear armor.

eggynack

2018-06-04, 06:50 PM

Scout relies entirely on barbarian to supply the definition of Uncanny Dodge, and then claims that it does something different.
No, it doesn't. It relies on barbarian to supply the definition exactly up to the point that it states it does something different. Also, the scout part comes first, not second. Either way, nothing you've stated here is, "The basic definition of what a barbarian's uncanny dodge is is being changed." That's just not what, "See barbarian," means.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-04, 07:18 PM

That's just not what, "See barbarian," means.

Do tell, then, precisely what "See barbarian" means in the context of defining a class feature?

eggynack

2018-06-04, 07:44 PM

Do tell, then, precisely what "See barbarian" means in the context of defining a class feature?
It means, "This is what the ability you're looking at does, except where stated otherwise."

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-04, 07:55 PM

It means, "This is what the ability you're looking at does, except where stated otherwise."

Source for that?

eggynack

2018-06-04, 08:43 PM

Source for that?
Source for what? Basic text reading? It's not like, "See X class," is well defined anywhere in the game, as far as I know, in any direction. The source, ultimately, is the rule of specific versus general. Barbarian defines how uncanny dodge works in a general sense. Scout references that ability, so we can only assume it's inheriting that text, and the specifics of how the scout ability operates, according to that rule, overrides the general rule of the barbarian ability.

Ultimately, you have it precisely backwards. Scout makes no attempt to define barbarian. There is no text that can be cited which does that to any extent. Whatever "see barbarian" means, it's certainly not, "See barbarian to determine how we're going to change that ability." However, as you have noted, barbarian, by being cited text, is making an attempt to define this scout ability. And it fails when it becomes the general to this ability's specific.

MaxMAnAtArms

2018-06-04, 09:15 PM

Srsly Eggnack you seem to be hell bent on being dead set correct on this. The book clearly states The class isnt flat footed at level 2. Then it also then gains the effect of the barbain skill uncanny dodge.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex):Starting at 2nd level, a scout cannot be caught flat-footed and reacts to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. See the barbarian class feature.

" However, as you have noted, barbarian, by being cited text, is making an attempt to define this scout ability. And it fails when it becomes the general to this ability's specific. " No. Its stating see barb for the effect of Uncanny dodge. Not saying level 2 scouts gain the uncanny dodge effect which also makes them flat footed immune.

Its saying (see above) level 2: Scouts cannot be caught flat footed. Then it also is giving them Uncanny dodge at level 2. There is a period separating the two sentences.

Scouts can be "made flat footed" but not caught flat footed.

I also pointed this out first page but you seemed to have cut out that portion when you qouted me to carry on "your point"

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-04, 09:18 PM

Source for what? Basic text reading? It's not like, "See X class," is well defined anywhere in the game, as far as I know, in any direction.

And yet you saw fit to declare it to be the most favorable interpretation to your position anyway.

The source, ultimately, is the rule of specific versus general.
"Specific over general" pertains solely to special abilities and effects that break established general rules. Evasion breaks the "area attacks do half damage rule". The rapier breaks the "weapon finesse only works on light weapons rule". Combat Reflexes breaks the "you can only make one attack of opportunity per round rule".

You are trying to apply that principle to an ability that breaks the established definition of the same ability. And that's why you are wrong.

Every single time an ability changes the function of another established ability the text will read "functions as <x>, except" as noted. The exception always comes after the ability that is being changed.

eggynack

2018-06-04, 10:46 PM

I also pointed this out first page but you seemed to have cut out that portion when you qouted me to carry on "your point"
I don't think I've ever seen that part, likely because it seems to be edited in 20 minutes after my post.

"Specific over general" pertains solely to special abilities and effects that break established general rules. Evasion breaks the "area attacks do half damage rule". The rapier breaks the "weapon finesse only works on light weapons rule". Combat Reflexes breaks the "you can only make one attack of opportunity per round rule".

You are trying to apply that principle to an ability that breaks the established definition of the same ability. And that's why you are wrong.

Every single time an ability changes the function of another established ability the text will read "functions as <x>, except" as noted. The exception always comes after the ability that is being changed.
So... you got a source for that?

MaxMAnAtArms

2018-06-04, 10:54 PM

I don't think I've ever seen that part, likely because it seems to be edited in 20 minutes after my post.

The Edit 20 mintues after yours was me "chilling" on my bold and large text.

I think its funny your still skipping over that part and the part on this page as well pointing out the sentence the book uses to explain its level 2 information.

Can you prove your half where general trumps specific in the books when the wording is explicitly different but saying to use info from another classes section?

eggynack

2018-06-04, 11:36 PM

The Edit 20 mintues after yours was me "chilling" on my bold and large text.
My post was like six minutes after yours. It seems plausible that it showed up after I'd already started my post, regardless of its specific timing. Either way, I must admit a tendency to not pay much attention to people after they've complained about the very fact that I'm having the discussion at all. Especially when they're trying to provide input on that very discussion.

I think its funny your still skipping over that part and the part on this page as well pointing out the sentence the book uses to explain its level 2 information.
I'm honestly not sure how your argument differs significantly from mine. My argument is that what is present in the barbarian does not, in any sense, overwrite the scout's text. That seems to be essentially what you're saying, with the additional note that parsing the text as a singular block is especially logical in this context. If your claim is simply that there is no contradiction that we have to negotiate by means of any particular rules paradigm, rendering the question of primacy or specificity pointless, I suppose that makes sense as a claim.

Can you prove your half where general trumps specific in the books when the wording is explicitly different but saying to use info from another classes section?
It seems to be just the way general versus specific functions, not in a rule sense but in an overriding meta-rule sense. Scout says how it functions, so that's how it functions, even if barbarian attempts to assert a shorter and less powerful version of the ability. The argument on the other side seems to be that barbarian has some sort of global claim on how uncanny dodge functions, and this means that a specific versus general argument is logical.

Jarmen4u

2018-06-05, 12:16 AM

Psyren

2018-06-05, 12:32 AM

Im wanting to double check as my google fu is bringing up allot of " heres this item that makes you keep dex or not be flanked etc etc"

Is there any known feat/class effect/Skill/power 3.5 dnd core or supplements books/draconiomicon (no dragon mags) that makes you Immune to being/becoming flat footed?

Im working on a build that uses archery. And ofc one of the major banes of range type is Deflection/snatch as well as magic spells wind wall and etc.

So im working on the first huddle flat footed which breaks the deflection feat chain due to condtion limiter on the feat.

" You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed."

Wait, if you're the archer, why are you trying to find ways (for your GM) to make Deflect Arrows always work against you? Shouldn't you be glad it doesn't, and focus on being sneaky?

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-05, 05:55 AM

After reading over this thread, I'm personally ruling that eggynack is in the right here, by the way he's interpreting the text. Saying "See barbarian" in no way changes the way Barbarian works or claims that the PHB version is the same as this version of Uncanny Dodge.

Thank you for your opinion, and you are certainly free to house-rule your games however you want, but that's not what my argument is, nor has ever been.

Scout isn't trying to change how barbarian works. It's trying to change how the Uncanny Dodge class feature works, in general.
Per the primacy rule, and especially because it is relying entirely on barbarian to supply the definition of Uncanny Dodge, it cannot do this.

By RAW there are exactly two versions of Uncanny Dodge. One is found in barbarian and the other is found in rogue, and for all other intents and purposes they are functionally identical. If you ever see the class feature printed anywhere else, this is how it functions, because the Player's Handbook is the primary source for the function of base class features. Any other class that tries change what this feature does (especially if it references one of these two classes directly) is wrong.
[/QUOTE]

So... you got a source for that?

Rules Compendium, pg. 13, Birth of a Rule, "It's Really an Exception" heading.

"Except as noted" will frequently be found when you actually read the various texts.

MaxMAnAtArms

2018-06-05, 06:03 AM

After reading over this thread, I'm personally ruling that eggynack is in the right here, by the way he's interpreting the text. Saying "See barbarian" in no way changes the way Barbarian works or claims that the PHB version is the same as this version of Uncanny Dodge.

Tony, you really need to relax; you're getting way too hostile over a complete hypothetical.

Max, you really need to understand that being the OP of the thread doesn't make you its moderator. Back off.

So i cant be said to be ignoring the whole post or trimming it down.

1: you agree with him. Okay.

2: So he is hostile vs the guy who is literally shutting everyone down and not posting there proof and evidence of his way is correct using srd or info from books from wotc?

3: I am the one who started this. I wish i was i would of locked it down since it went from what gave immune/feats/classes/magic etc. to One guy beating everyone's thoughts down cause "it says look at barb" last part is hostile on your half.

4: What is your interpretation of the sentence of the book? Uncanny Dodge (Ex):Starting at 2nd level, a scout cannot be caught fat-footed and reacts to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. See the barbarian class feature. I would much prefer your own words and thoughts (edit 407 fixed sentence)

Edit 405 am Just saw tonys post. Thanks for the information of book and page for rules.

Bronk

2018-06-05, 07:21 AM

Im wanting to double check as my google fu is bringing up allot of " heres this item that makes you keep dex or not be flanked etc etc"

Is there any known feat/class effect/Skill/power 3.5 dnd core or supplements books/draconiomicon (no dragon mags) that makes you Immune to being/becoming flat footed?

I'm not sure what level you're starting out as, so how about this: Become a wild shaping ranger, pump up your initiative, take the form of a dire tortoise (14HD), wear a pair of 'arms of the naga' or 'gloves of man', and go to town.

Dire tortoises always act in the surprise round, and with a high enough initiative modifier you have a good chance of never being flatfooted, with the side benefit that you can use a huge sized bow.

heavyfuel

2018-06-05, 08:39 AM

@Scout's Uncanny Dodge

It's like the "Factotum are good" argument all over again... :smallsigh:

How can a class feature that explicitly says "cannot be caught flat-footed" not work like that? Yes it's an oversight. Yes it's stupid. But it's oversighted stupid RAW.

Don't like it? Rule 0 it like I do. But you can't argue a class feature doesn't do precisely what it says it does.

By relying on the monk definition, instead of referencing the rogue ability, a scout, by RAW, loses evasion if it is wearing any armor just as a monk does.

There's no such clause for a Monk's evasion.

eggynack

2018-06-05, 09:06 AM

Rules Compendium, pg. 13, Birth of a Rule, "It's Really an Exception" heading.

"Except as noted" will frequently be found when you actually read the various texts.
The absolute structure you claimed as applies to the nature of exception based rules structures is very much not in this citation. There isn't really a single rule about the way the game operates in this citation. The actual text about how this operates is on page 5, order of rules application, which directly states that there exist layers beyond general rule and ability that contradicts that rule. To apply these layers to the situation at hand, you have general, which is the way that rogues and flat-footedness typically operate, then there's specific, which is how uncanny dodge operates, as per the barbarian, with regard to those general rules, and finally there's an exception, which is how scout uncanny dodge operates within the marginally larger uncanny dodge paradigm. So, there ya go. About as close as you're going to get for a rules citation on how games work.

Psyren

2018-06-05, 09:33 AM

Not sure why this was sent in PM but I'll respond to it here as it appears relevant to the topic.

I plan on being a "heavy" archer trooper. And the more i knew about flat footed for myself as well as for what my GM can pull on me. the better i can try and "counter" it.

I think your best counter would be to point out to your GM that most ways of ignoring the penalties to flat-footed don't actually negate the flat-footed condition, and so any NPCs with deflect arrows who aren't aware of you won't be able to block your shots. Personally though, I would expect the GM to simply handwave that bit of rules minutiae and allow the folks with uncanny dodge to use it in conjunction with Deflect Arrows. The whole point of uncanny dodge is that your reflexes work even when you're completely unaware of danger.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-05, 11:53 AM

The absolute structure you claimed as applies to the nature of exception based rules structures is very much not in this citation. There isn't really a single rule about the way the game operates in this citation. The actual text about how this operates is on page 5, order of rules application, which directly states that there exist layers beyond general rule and ability that contradicts that rule. To apply these layers to the situation at hand, you have general, which is the way that rogues and flat-footedness typically operate, then there's specific, which is how uncanny dodge operates, as per the barbarian, with regard to those general rules, and finally there's an exception, which is how scout uncanny dodge operates within the marginally larger uncanny dodge paradigm. So, there ya go. About as close as you're going to get for a rules citation on how games work.

Nope.
Scout and barbarian are on the same layer.
Barbarian is the primary source, and takes precedence over the contradiction present in the scout class feature description.

I should also like to point out at this juncture that your only answer to the two example characters not matching the text of the scout class was, "sometimes statistics blocks are incorrect."

...yes. and sometimes the class description is the part that is incorrect. Like when it contradicts the source of an inherited ability.

eggynack

2018-06-05, 02:20 PM

Nope.
Scout and barbarian are on the same layer.
Barbarian is the primary source, and takes precedence over the contradiction present in the scout class feature description.
Scout and barbarian are not on the same layer in these terms. Sure, they're both classes, but scout uncanny dodge is citing barbarian uncanny dodge, which puts it on a greater layer of specificity. You were talking about things saying, "Except as follows," before, but a lot of the instances of that text are on things that are on the "same layer". For example, orb of acid and orb of cold are inarguably hanging out in similar spaces, and yet the latter still operates through the use of exception. According to your same layer argument, this should be impossible. More to the point, if any spell is on the same specificity layer as any other spell (or the same thing as applies to abilities), then orb of acid has the exact same authority over what orb of cold does as orb of cold, which renders the text ambiguous.

And, I will note again, your argument does not function at all. There is nothing in scout that attempts to change anything about barbarian. That is not a thing that is happening. Your entire argument is based on this notion of primacy that has literally nowhere to apply.

I should also like to point out at this juncture that your only answer to the two example characters not matching the text of the scout class was, "sometimes statistics blocks are incorrect."

...yes. and sometimes the class description is the part that is incorrect. Like when it contradicts the source of an inherited ability.
That is the only argument that is necessary. If I am wrong, then stat blocks have no part in my wrongness, and, if I am right, then the stat blocks will not render me wrong. They are irrelevant to RAW arguments.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-05, 04:18 PM

Scout and barbarian are not on the same layer in these terms. Sure, they're both classes, but scout uncanny dodge is citing barbarian uncanny dodge, which puts it on a greater layer of specificity. You were talking about things saying, "Except as follows," before, but a lot of the instances of that text are on things that are on the "same layer". For example, orb of acid and orb of cold are inarguably hanging out in similar spaces, and yet the latter still operates through the use of exception.

The difference, of course, being that Orb of Cold explicitly says, "this spell functions like Orb of Acid, except...".

There is a distinct lack of a certain word in the scout class description that would make it's relationship with barbarian function the same way. You are implying that word's existence existence when there is no logical reason to.

Let's also consider Orb of Acid and Lesser Orb of Acid. Those spells have two entirely different functions and do not reference each other at all. Aside from the name, the only thing they have in common is, school, spell range and elemental damage type. You could delete the italic fluff text and rename them Acidic Ray and Corrosive Bolt and it would change nothing in the rules about how they function.

And, I will note again, your argument does not function at all. There is nothing in scout that attempts to change anything about barbarian. That is not a thing that is happening. Your entire argument is based on this notion of primacy that has literally nowhere to apply.

Scout is relying on the definition of Uncanny Dodge from the Player's Handbook class feature of the same name. You know this because the book tells you in the introduction that, "Complete Adventurer makes use of the information in the three D&D core rulebooks—Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual." Whenever the book tells you to "See <x> on page <y> of <insert book>, it is giving you a bibliographic citation. By not expressly telling you "except" or providing any follow-up text after that citation, it is relying on the cited source to supply the definition of the thing in question. And it is then proceeding to argue with the source about what that definition is. That is why the primacy rule applies.

The "specific trumps general" rule doesn't apply because that is literally not a rule at all. It is a turn of phrase used to describe the nature of the 3.5 D&D rules as an "exception-based rules system". Trying to apply it as some kind of catch-all to every possible situation (like the text-trumps-table rule that is explicitly spelled out in the errata documents) renders the primacy rule spelled out in those same documents meaningless. Because you can just claim that every single discrepancy between any book and the Core books irrelevant on account of the supplement creating an exception for that particular instance. That is not a helpful construct for interpreting Rules As Written on any conceivable level.

If I am wrong, then stat blocks have no part in my wrongness, and, if I am right, then the stat blocks will not render me wrong. They are irrelevant to RAW arguments.

That is irrelevant philosophical waxing if I have ever seen it.

One's rightness or wrongness in any given matter is determined through the use of tools of verification, which in this case can certainly consist of empirical observations. Consistency in use is a perfectly valid tool through which you can verify the truth of a given statement, especially when dealing with the rigid, hierarchical nature of an exception-based ruleset.

To put this argument it in a simpler way, whenever you encounter an apparent discrepancy in the rules there are exactly two ways of handling it: the sensible way, and the silly way.

We don't even have to leave Complete Adventurer for a relevant example: when reading through the Vigilante prestige class, you might note that the table indicates indicates a vigilante receives 20 3rd-level spells per day upon reaching 7th level in the class. How might you rule upon this mildly abrupt leap of one 3rd-level spell per day at 6th level to 20 at the next level?

The sensible way: "Hm. That's odd. There is a strange dash next to the numbers in the 3rd-level spells column at 5th and 6th level that is not present anywhere else on the table, and no text in the 4th-level spells column after level 5 where there most definitely should be. Clearly, this is a typesetting error, and the ones column of numbers under 3rd-level spells should be placed in the 4th-level spells column instead."

The silly way: "The rules are rules! The text says 20 3rd-level spells per day at 7th level! I'm going to make a great build based on this rule."

Now apply that same logic to the scout's Uncanny Dodge:

The sensible way: "Huh. That's odd. I don't remember Uncanny Dodge working like that. Let me check the source material. ...Nope, that's not what Uncanny Dodge normally does at all. There's nothing in the text that says or even suggests that scout is supposed to be different in this regard, plus all the example scouts use the text exactly as it appears in the source material. That means this is probably an editing oversight, and the primacy rule should apply here. Scout's Uncanny Dodge functions like barbarian's does."

The silly way: "Awesome! This say something different then the source material and since specific always trumps general that means scout has a totally unique version of Uncanny Dodge that is way better than the version found in every other base class ever printed in Edition 3.5 of D&D! If you ever need Uncanny Dodge, definitely dip scout for it because their version is the best!"

One of those approaches is based on common sense and pragmatic interpretation of the text. The other is rules-lawyering.

eggynack

2018-06-05, 05:16 PM

The difference, of course, being that Orb of Cold explicitly says, "this spell functions like Orb of Acid, except...".
Sure, but you have insisted that two things on the same "level" can not run up against this exception based rule set. Clearly, it is possible for two objects at a similar level to have this sort of relationship, which means that relative level is essentially unimportant.

There is a distinct lack of a certain word in the scout class description that would make it's relationship with barbarian function the same way. You are implying that word's existence existence when there is no logical reason to.
The word "except" doesn't really need to be present to create an exception though. If a game object says it functions like a different game object, and then provides a specific way it functions differently, then that is, itself, an exception. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that orb of cold did not have the word "except". Instead, it's just like, "This spell functions like orb of acid. It deals cold damage, and the target is blinded." There are two ways to parse this. These effects could be on top of the existing effects from orb of acid, or they could be instead. Somewhat ambiguous. However, one meaning we definitely cannot attribute is that it functions identically to orb of acid. There is no universe in which this spell does not deal cold damage or blind the target.

Scout is relying on the definition of Uncanny Dodge from the Player's Handbook class feature of the same name. You know this because the book tells you in the introduction that, "Complete Adventurer makes use of the information in the three D&D core rulebooks—Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual." Whenever the book tells you to "See <x> on page <y> of <insert book>, it is giving you a bibliographic citation. By not expressly telling you "except" or providing any follow-up text after that citation, it is relying on the cited source to supply the definition of the thing in question. And it is then proceeding to argue with the source about what that definition is. That is why the primacy rule applies.
Just saying that you do a different thing is itself providing an exception. Most exceptions don't expressly state themselves as such. They just tell you that they let you do a thing that you're not ordinarily supposed to do. Complete adventurer does make use of information in the core rulebooks, but it also obviously provides its own rules, particularly as regards its own game objects. In the worst case scenario, scout is telling you that the definition of uncanny dodge is wrong specifically with regard to the scout. In the best case scenario, it's just adding some stuff to the original ability. In no scenario does scout tell you anything about the general functioning of uncanny dodge outside of the context of the class.

The "specific trumps general" rule doesn't apply because that is literally not a rule at all. It is a turn of phrase used to describe the nature of the 3.5 D&D rules as an "exception-based rules system". Trying to apply it as some kind of catch-all to every possible situation (like the text-trumps-table rule that is explicitly spelled out in the errata documents) renders the primacy rule spelled out in those same documents meaningless. Because you can just claim that every single discrepancy between any book and the Core books irrelevant on account of the supplement creating an exception for that particular instance. That is not a helpful construct for interpreting Rules As Written on any conceivable level.
That uncanny dodge does the specific thing uncanny dodge does is not a rule? Don't see how that could possibly be the case. As long as a supplement is trying to change a game object specific to that source, it does, in fact, apply every single time. Where primacy applies instead is with something like that rule in complete warrior about how prestige class prerequisites function. Even in that case, the rule still applies within the context of complete warrior. It is simply superseded by the primary source, the DMG, in the context of any other book. Similarly, scout has no capacity whatsoever to change how barbarian functions. That would be true even if scout were like, "Barbarian functions like this." Barbarian is the primary source for barbarian. But, y'know, scout is the primary source for scout. That's a really big issue with your argument, actually.

That is irrelevant philosophical waxing if I have ever seen it.

One's rightness or wrongness in any given matter is determined through the use of tools of verification, which in this case can certainly consist of empirical observations. Consistency in use is a perfectly valid tool through which you can verify the truth of a given statement, especially when dealing with the rigid, hierarchical nature of an exception-based ruleset.

To put this argument it in a simpler way, whenever you encounter an apparent discrepancy in the rules there are exactly two ways of handling it: the sensible way, and the silly way.
There's a third way to encounter an apparent discrepancy. The RAW way. If there is a RAW unambiguous way to parse a piece of text, then that is a valid way to interpret that text, regardless of any surrounding empirical information, and similarly regardless of how silly that interpretation may be. If the RAW is ambiguous on this matter, then we may need to turn to surrounding data to tell us how to parse some text, but my argument is that the RAW is unambiguously in my favor on this one. We shouldn't necessarily stick to the RAW in all cases, but the very basis of this discussion is how this ability functions in a RAW sense, with the broadly accepted note that this functioning may be a bit silly with or without example text. Stat blocks are on a strictly lower level than all the other objects we're discussing, so, unless all those objects are proven irrelevant, the stat blocks are going to be irrelevant.

We don't even have to leave Complete Adventurer for a relevant example: when reading through the Vigilante prestige class, you might note that the table indicates indicates a vigilante receives 20 3rd-level spells per day upon reaching 7th level in the class. How might you rule upon this mildly abrupt leap of one 3rd-level spell per day at 6th level to 20 at the next level?

The sensible way: "Hm. That's odd. There is a strange dash next to the numbers in the 3rd-level spells column at 5th and 6th level that is not present anywhere else on the table, and no text in the 4th-level spells column after level 5 where there most definitely should be. Clearly, this is a typesetting error, and the ones column of numbers under 3rd-level spells should be placed in the 4th-level spells column instead."

The silly way: "The rules are rules! The text says 20 3rd-level spells per day at 7th level! I'm going to make a great build based on this rule."

With the above in mind, yeah, the former is seemingly the correct RAW interpretation, and the latter is the one you should probably use.

Now apply that same logic to the scout's Uncanny Dodge:

The sensible way: "Huh. That's odd. I don't remember Uncanny Dodge working like that. Let me check the source material. ...Nope, that's not what Uncanny Dodge normally does at all. There's nothing in the text that says or even suggests that scout is supposed to be different in this regard, plus all the example scouts use the text exactly as it appears in the source material. That means this is probably an editing oversight, and the primacy rule should apply here. Scout's Uncanny Dodge functions like barbarian's does."

The silly way: "Awesome! This say something different then the source material and since specific always trumps general that means scout has a totally unique version of Uncanny Dodge that is way better than the version found in every other base class ever printed in Edition 3.5 of D&D! If you ever need Uncanny Dodge, definitely dip scout for it because their version is the best!"

One of those approaches is based on common sense and pragmatic interpretation of the text. The other is rules-lawyering.
So... you agree that scout gets this ability by RAW? If you do, then I really don't much care beyond that. If you don't, then I dunno why it matters whether it's silly or not. If it's not RAW, then it's not RAW. The fact that you disagree with me about whether it's RAW is what renders this extra stuff kinda irrelevant. Once we're agreed on that, then we can talk about which way it should actually be ruled.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-05, 06:13 PM

The word "except" doesn't really need to be present to create an exception though.
Something does.
For feats, it's the "Normal" portion of the description.
For anything else, there's MasterCard... or the word "except"

This is literally the definition of "exception-based".

If a game object says it functions like a different game object, and then provides a specific way it functions differently, then that is, itself, an exception.

Scout says nothing of the sort. It says "Uncanny Dodge does <x>. See this source material for details." where <x> is something entirely different from the source material.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that orb of cold did not have the word "except". Instead, it's just like, "This spell functions like orb of acid. It deals cold damage, and the target is blinded."

There is one way to parse that. It's a rules dysfunction because such a spell cannot both function exactly as the other spell and do something different simultaneously.

Just saying that you do a different thing is itself providing an exception. Most exceptions don't expressly state themselves as such.
Provide one other legitimate example of something in D&D 3.5 that functions slightly differently than the thing it is based on without that entry using the words "normally" or "usually", "except", "rather", or "specific".

I'll wait.

Don't see how that could possibly be the case. As long as a supplement is trying to change a game object specific to that source,

Uncanny Dodge is not specific to Complete Adventurer. It is specific to the Player's Handbook, as is specifically noted in the text of scout.

That's a really big issue with your argument, actually.

Secondly, neither Complete Adventurer nor Complete Warrior exist in a vacuum. You cannot play a game using only those two books. It's very clearly spelled out in the introduction that the Core 3.5 rulebooks are required to play a game and that those two are supplements to those core rules. So hypotheticals regarding the rules without considering the Core books are irrelevant because you will always be considering the Core books when adjudicating the texts of CA, CW and every other 3.5 supplement, ever.

Similarly, scout has no capacity whatsoever to change how barbarian functions.

This is not my position, and it never has been.
Stop strawmanning.

That you have consistently and repeatedly had to ignore that my actual position is "Scout claims Uncanny Dodge functions in a way it does not" and instead try to argue against something else is a really bad sign, y'know.

There's a third way to encounter an apparent discrepancy. The RAW way. If there is a RAW unambiguous way to parse a piece of text, then that is a valid way to interpret that text, regardless of any surrounding empirical information, and similarly regardless of how silly that interpretation may be.

This is categorically untrue:

Let’s face it: No set of rules can cover every possible
circumstance in a game meant to mimic life in a fantasy
world. The rules clear up as much as possible, assuming the
DM can make a judgment in a situation that the rules don’t
cover or that they don’t cover adequately. DMs are expected
to use knowledge of existing rules, common sense, realworld
knowledge, and a sense of fun when dealing with
such special cases. Knowledge of the existing rules is key,
because the rules often do cover similar cases or combine
to make such judgment calls unnecessary.

You are expected to interpret the Rules As Written with a thorough and complete knowledge of related rules as well as a judicious application of common sense.
Trying to play this game strictly through the Rules As Written will leave you with an unplayable game.

If the RAW is ambiguous on this matter, then we may need to turn to surrounding data to tell us how to parse some text, but my argument is that the RAW is unambiguously in my favor on this one.
And that is an opinion based on your flawed understanding of the manual of style in which the D&D sourcebooks are written, as well as incorrect notions of how you should and should not be interpreting rule text with considerations towards what "Rules As Written" actually means.

You are not required to agree with me on these points. I cannot force you to be correct. But that doesn't make it okay to push your own unfounded notions about how you want the class to function onto a public forum as thought it actually does.

We shouldn't necessarily stick to the RAW in all cases, but the very basis of this discussion is how this ability functions in a RAW sense, with the broadly accepted note that this functioning may be a bit silly with or without example text.

You'd be surprised how much you can stick to the Rules As Written when you don't go into them assuming that they are mostly nonsense that was written by aliens with only a tenuous understanding of the English language rather than by a group of talented professionals who quite literally get paid to write things for a living. And then stop trying trying to parse them out in such a way that supports only your presupposed conclusions about them being bad.

Stat blocks are on a strictly lower level than all the other objects we're discussing, so, unless all those objects are proven irrelevant, the stat blocks are going to be irrelevant.

There's nothing wrong with questioning a stat block. But when that stat block agrees with the primary source and disagrees with it's own class, it's definitely not something you can just hand-wave away.

You might as well be saying, "This thing provides evidence that countermands my point but we can safely ignore it until I am proven wrong by evidence that is more to my liking."

What kind of logic is that?

eggynack

2018-06-05, 08:28 PM

Something does.
For feats, it's the "Normal" portion of the description.
For anything else, there's MasterCard... or the word "except"
Literally nothing needs to be present. Consider, say, eschew materials. Literally the entire pertinent text is, "You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component." No normal section, no use of the word "except", just a straight up fact that is in contravention of the standard rules for material components.

This is literally the definition of "exception-based".
No, it's not. A rules system that is exception based only requires that the specific thing be distinct from the general rule, not that the exception is explicitly stated to be an exception. The canonical example is monopoly, with, "Go to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200". Nowhere is it explicitly stated that there is an exception. Instead, the exception is implicit, because ordinarily you would do those things, but the game says you do not. Explicitly saying, "This right here is an exception to a normal rule," is convenient, and it can remove ambiguities in some circumstances, but it is no in way the definition of "exception based".

Scout says nothing of the sort. It says "Uncanny Dodge does <x>. See this source material for details." where <x> is something entirely different from the source material.
It actually doesn't say "for details". You keep adding that, and I'm not sure why. And the text never says, "Uncanny dodge does <x>," in any kind of generally applicable sense. It literally just has the name "uncanny dodge" and then starts telling you what that ability does. When an ability with a given name says it does a thing, nowhere is it implied that any other ability with the same name will do the same thing.

There is one way to parse that. It's a rules dysfunction because such a spell cannot both function exactly as the other spell and do something different simultaneously.
I disagree. I think that, "This works just as orb of cold does in the game currently," Is a wholly functional and logical way of parsing this ability.

Provide one other legitimate example of something in D&D 3.5 that functions slightly differently than the thing it is based on without that entry using the words "normally" or "usually", "except", "rather", or "specific".

I'll wait.
Already did. Material components usually function in one way. Eschew components is an exception to that functioning. The only thing close to anything on your list of words is something that doesn't apply to the core functioning of the feat at all. Anything after the first sentence is essentially reminder text that can be removed, telling you things the feat doesn't do instead of the exception based thing it does.

Uncanny Dodge is not specific to Complete Adventurer. It is specific to the Player's Handbook, as is specifically noted in the text of scout.

That's a really big issue with your argument, actually.
Scout uncanny dodge is specific to scout.

Secondly, neither Complete Adventurer nor Complete Warrior exist in a vacuum. You cannot play a game using only those two books. It's very clearly spelled out in the introduction that the Core 3.5 rulebooks are required to play a game and that those two are supplements to those core rules. So hypotheticals regarding the rules without considering the Core books are irrelevant because you will always be considering the Core books when adjudicating the texts of CA, CW and every other 3.5 supplement, ever.

Not really sure why this matters. Of course the core books are a necessary inclusion to any game. I've never constructed any argument that relies on their non-existence.

This is not my position, and it never has been.
Stop strawmanning.
If it's not your position, then you're wrong. The primary/secondary rules apply when a secondary source tries to change the rule of a primary source. If scout isn't trying to change the barbarian, then it is not trying to change a primary source's rule, but is instead making a claim as regards the scout itself, so primary/secondary does not apply.

That you have consistently and repeatedly had to ignore that my actual position is "Scout claims Uncanny Dodge functions in a way it does not" and instead try to argue against something else is a really bad sign, y'know.
But scout does not claim uncanny dodge functions in a way it does not. It claims that the scout ability uncanny dodge functions in a specific way. If I've been misstating your actual points, it seems I've been doing so in a charitable manner.

This is categorically untrue:

You are expected to interpret the Rules As Written with a thorough and complete knowledge of related rules as well as a judicious application of common sense.
Trying to play this game strictly through the Rules As Written will leave you with an unplayable game.
It is not categorically untrue. Some circumstances cannot be purely interpreted through RAW. Far from claiming this is not the case, I have said that it is absolutely the case. Some circumstances can be purely interpreted through RAW. This is one of those.

And that is an opinion based on your flawed understanding of the manual of style in which the D&D sourcebooks are written, as well as incorrect notions of how you should and should not be interpreting rule text with considerations towards what "Rules As Written" actually means.
Obviously I do not agree that my understanding of how the rules operate in this context are flawed. That is what you are trying to prove, not a thing you can assume.

You are not required to agree with me on these points. I cannot force you to be correct. But that doesn't make it okay to push your own unfounded notions about how you want the class to function onto a public forum as thought it actually does.
This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. I think that the rules are straightforwardly on my side here.

You'd be surprised how much you can stick to the Rules As Written when you don't go into them assuming that they are mostly nonsense that was written by aliens with only a tenuous understanding of the English language rather than by a group of talented professionals who quite literally get paid to write things for a living. And then stop trying trying to parse them out in such a way that supports only your presupposed conclusions about them being bad.

I assume neither when evaluating RAW. The text is the text. Anything else is an assumption of intent that we're making. Who the writers were and how they were feeling when writing the books is not only lacking in pertinence to the question of what rules are written, it's something that we are largely incapable of accessing. For all I know, the writer of the scout fully intended the meaning I'm arguing for, and a completely different writer was responsible for the stat blocks, and misunderstood what this uncanny dodge was doing. RAI is a troubled mode of rules parsing as a result.

There's nothing wrong with questioning a stat block. But when that stat block agrees with the primary source and disagrees with it's own class, it's definitely not something you can just hand-wave away.

You might as well be saying, "This thing provides evidence that countermands my point but we can safely ignore it until I am proven wrong by evidence that is more to my liking."

What kind of logic is that?
What kind of logic is that? The exact precise logic that you are trying to rely upon. To quote the primary source rules, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." Obviously, the actual text of the scout's uncanny dodge is the primary text relative to some stat block that is premised on the class. I do not ignore these kinds of things baselessly. I ignore stat blocks because they are, as far as I can tell, universally irrelevant to how we should parse the rules, because they will always be secondary relative to the game objects that make up the stat blocks. If there is a situation where they are pertinent, this is not it.

Separately, gotta point out something here. I have literally no emotional investment in the idea that scout uncanny dodge does this. The exact first time I considered this question was within the context of this very thread, at which point I read the arguments, read the source, and came to a conclusion. There seems to be this weird understanding of me as biased in favor of this reading of the scout. I have no idea where such a bias would come from.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-05, 10:26 PM

Literally nothing needs to be present. Consider, say, eschew materials. Literally the entire pertinent text is, "You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component." No normal section, no use of the word "except", just a straight up fact that is in contravention of the standard rules for material components.

Firstly:

Benefit
You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. (The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.) If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component at hand to cast the spell, just as normal.
Try again.

Secondly:

Already did. Material components usually function in one way. Eschew components is an exception to that functioning. The only thing close to anything on your list of words is something that doesn't apply to the core functioning of the feat at all. Anything after the first sentence is essentially reminder text that can be removed, telling you things the feat doesn't do instead of the exception based thing it does.

That you think it is perfectly fine to ignore sections of rules text when they don't support your position does not surprise me in the slightest.

No, it's not. A rules system that is exception based only requires that the specific thing be distinct from the general rule, not that the exception is explicitly stated to be an exception. The canonical example is monopoly, with, "Go to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200". Nowhere is it explicitly stated that there is an exception. Instead, the exception is implicit, because ordinarily you would do those things, but the game says you do not. Explicitly saying, "This right here is an exception to a normal rule," is convenient, and it can remove ambiguities in some circumstances, but it is no in way the definition of "exception based".

...In all the discussions that I have had with friends regarding game design and what games fall under various types of systems, never once has Monoply been suggested to be an example of exception-based game design.

It's a turn-based, zero-sum competition where luck is the dominant factor. The rules (http://landlordsgame.info/games/mn-raiford/mn-1932-rules.html) are straightforward, with each individual piece of equipment having a single consistent function. There are no general rules for the Chance and Community Chest cards. Their function is supplied entirely by the individual cards themselves. The rules proceed from start to finish, making liberal use of "If-then" definitions, and do not cross-reference each other to any significant degree. The phrase "Do Not Pass Go" was to clarify that the "Go to jail" chance card does not advance your piece around the board (as people sometimes argued it should). Hence, not passing Go, or passing anything else. That the entire process for playing the game can be summarized in a simple seven-point bulleted list is a testament to it's utter lack of complexity.

In fact, most articles (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2013/02/game-design-by-exception.html) that I've seen on the subject refer to D&D as the textbook example of exception-based design. Here's a blog post (http://www.mostdangerousgamedesign.com/2013/02/how-to-make-games-for-everyone.html) that casually mentions Monopoly entirely separate from the subject of exception-based design.

So with respect, I'm going to have to assume that you pulled this example directly out of your ass.

It actually doesn't say "for details". You keep adding that, and I'm not sure why.
Because that's how citations work.
They supply relevant details to the thing they are attached to.

It literally just has the name "uncanny dodge" and then starts telling you what that ability does. When an ability with a given name says it does a thing, nowhere is it implied that any other ability with the same name will do the same thing.

The part where it says, "See barbarian", very much implies it does the same thing as this other ability with the same name(when it clearly does not).
That's how citations work.

Scout uncanny dodge is specific to scout.

No it's not.
It is sending you to barbarian as part of it's definition.
That's how citations work.

If it's not your position, then you're wrong. The primary/secondary rules apply when a secondary source tries to change the rule of a primary source. If scout isn't trying to change the barbarian, then it is not trying to change a primary source's rule, but is instead making a claim as regards the scout itself, so primary/secondary does not apply.
Scout is not inventing the Uncanny Dodge ability. It is sending you to the Player's Handook while simultaneously disagreeing what you find there.
In the world of rule adjudication, this is known as a discrepancy.

But scout does not claim uncanny dodge functions in a way it does not. It claims that the scout ability, whose definition is inherited and supplied entirely by barbarian's uncanny dodge functions in a specific way that it doesn't.
Fixed that for you.

It is not categorically untrue. Some circumstances cannot be purely interpreted through RAW. Far from claiming this is not the case, I have said that it is absolutely the case. Some circumstances can be purely interpreted through RAW. This is one of those.

It's that last part of your original claim... that RAW is RAW regardless of how silly or incongruous it is... that is categorically untrue. If your interpretation of RAW doesn't at least pay lip service to the basic tenants of common sense, then your interpretation of RAW is wrong.

I assume neither when evaluating RAW. The text is the text. Anything else is an assumption of intent that we're making. Who the writers were and how they were feeling when writing the books is not only lacking in pertinence to the question of what rules are written, it's something that we are largely incapable of accessing. For all I know, the writer of the scout fully intended the meaning I'm arguing for, and a completely different writer was responsible for the stat blocks, and misunderstood what this uncanny dodge was doing. RAI is a troubled mode of rules parsing as a result.

... :confused:
https://i.imgur.com/fltNqZf.png
How many authors did you think this book had?

What kind of logic is that? The exact precise logic that you are trying to rely upon. To quote the primary source rules, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." Obviously, the actual text of the scout's uncanny dodge is the primary text relative to some stat block that is premised on the class. I do not ignore these kinds of things baselessly. I ignore stat blocks because they are, as far as I can tell, universally irrelevant to how we should parse the rules, because they will always be secondary relative to the game objects that make up the stat blocks. If there is a situation where they are pertinent, this is not it.
Scout is not the primary source for Uncanny Dodge.
The Player's Handbook is.
The stat blocks disagree with the class description in scout, and agree with the primary source.
Twice.

You are, and have always been, attaching your own personal definitions to this same material mean in order to support your conclusion. Nowhere in the rules does it say that scout's Uncanny Dodge is unique to scout, with "unlike other versions of this ability...", or anything similar.

That assumption is coming directly from you. Probably from the same place you got your Monopoly example.

Separately, gotta point out something here. I have literally no emotional investment in the idea that scout uncanny dodge does this. The exact first time I considered this question was within the context of this very thread, at which point I read the arguments, read the source, and came to a conclusion. There seems to be this weird understanding of me as biased in favor of this reading of the scout. I have no idea where such a bias would come from.

If it's not a bias towards scout, then it's a bizarre general inability to accept that your approach is incorrect.

I've provided multiple citations and direct quotes. You are responding to those with nopes and feelings.

For someone without any investment, you are picking a very strange hill to die on here.

eggynack

2018-06-06, 12:12 AM

Firstly:

Try again.

Secondly:

That you think it is perfectly fine to ignore sections of rules text when they don't support your position does not surprise me in the slightest.
You have 100% missed the point. I'm not saying we should ignore that text for the purpose of understanding the rules. I'm saying that that text could be eliminated without impacting the functioning. Check out the following feat:

Eschew Materials: You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component.

Now, tell me how this feat doesn't work. How have I changed the feat's functioning? This text could be present. I would never claim otherwise. That doesn't mean it had to be present.

Anyway, screw it. Where are these words in the text of cleave? This is an exception to the rules regarding how many attacks are made in a round, and yet none of the words you're talking about are present.

...In all the discussions that I have had with friends regarding game design and what games fall under various types of systems, never once has Monoply been suggested to be an example of exception-based game design.

It's a turn-based, zero-sum competition where luck is the dominant factor. The rules (http://landlordsgame.info/games/mn-raiford/mn-1932-rules.html) are straightforward, with each individual piece of equipment having a single consistent function. There are no general rules for the Chance and Community Chest cards. Their function is supplied entirely by the individual cards themselves. The rules proceed from start to finish, making liberal use of "If-then" definitions, and do not cross-reference each other to any significant degree. The phrase "Do Not Pass Go" was to clarify that the "Go to jail" chance card does not advance your piece around the board (as people sometimes argued it should). Hence, not passing Go, or passing anything else. That the entire process for playing the game can be summarized in a simple seven-point bulleted list is a testament to it's utter lack of complexity.

In fact, most articles (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2013/02/game-design-by-exception.html) that I've seen on the subject refer to D&D as the textbook example of exception-based design. Here's a blog post (http://www.mostdangerousgamedesign.com/2013/02/how-to-make-games-for-everyone.html) that casually mentions Monopoly entirely separate from the subject of exception-based design.

So with respect, I'm going to have to assume that you pulled this example directly out of your ass.
I've seen it mentioned before. I agree that it's an incredibly simple game. That's why it's a good example. I dunno why you have to be arbitrarily aggressive about some game design based argument that is not particularly predicated on how widely used said argument is. And you're wrong about Monopoly. The general functioning of "Go to this square" cards is that you travel around the board. Some of the cards are explicit about the fact that you're passing go, but others, like the utility card, are not. Going to jail is an exception to this general rule.

Because that's how citations work.
They supply relevant details to the thing they are attached to.
It's just weird that you keep adding that to the quotes.

The part where it says, "See barbarian", very much implies it does the same thing as this other ability with the same name(when it clearly does not).
That's how citations work.
It implies that it's going to do the same thing, but that's not necessarily going to be the case. An implication is not going to trump an explicit statement of the object's operation.

No it's not.
It is sending you to barbarian as part of it's definition.
That's how citations work.
Regardless of what it sends you to, what an ability actually does is inevitably self-contained. That's how abilities work.

Scout is not inventing the Uncanny Dodge ability. It is sending you to the Player's Handook while simultaneously disagreeing what you find there.
In the world of rule adjudication, this is known as a discrepancy.
Scout is inventing its own uncanny dodge ability. It could have invented it by simply telling you that it's identical to the barbarian ability, or it could have been completely different. What's actually there is an ability that is mostly the same, with some explicit differences. It doesn't "disagree" with what it finds there. It just says a different thing, and that's fine, because abilities can do that.

Fixed that for you.
An ability can't really be wrong about itself, and I obviously disagree that the scout ability is 100% the barbarian ability. Particularly because it says different words.

It's that last part of your original claim... that RAW is RAW regardless of how silly or incongruous it is... that is categorically untrue. If your interpretation of RAW doesn't at least pay lip service to the basic tenants of common sense, then your interpretation of RAW is wrong.
It is not remotely categorically untrue. RAW is sometimes silly. It sometimes defies common sense. That's why it's RAW instead of, say, RAI or RACSD. You're just misstating what RAW is here.

... :confused:
https://i.imgur.com/fltNqZf.png
How many authors did you think this book had?
Wasn't sure. Kinda surprising that it's so few, given that the book is part of a massive company with tons of employees. Did the thing really have no editors or anything? Either way, kinda a minor point. Maybe the dude forgot that he wrote the ability different, and copy/pasted from the barbarian.

Scout is not the primary source for Uncanny Dodge.
The Player's Handbook is.
The stat blocks disagree with the class description in scout, and agree with the primary source.
Twice.
Scout is the primary source for what the scout is, and part of what the scout is is the scout's uncanny dodge ability. Moreover, regardless of the primacy of the thing the stat blocks are referring to, the stat blocks are decidedly less primary than the class itself.

You are, and have always been, attaching your own personal definitions to this same material mean in order to support your conclusion. Nowhere in the rules does it say that scout's Uncanny Dodge is unique to scout, with "unlike other versions of this ability...", or anything similar.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding how the game rules operate to reach this conclusion. Abilities are the ultimate arbiter of what those abilities do. That's basically the end of it. If an ability turns out identical to another, then, yeah, that ability is not unique to the class that has it. If the ability is not identical to any other, then the ability is, definitionally, unique. The rules directly say that the scout's uncanny dodge is unique to the scout when the ability has rules distinct from other uncanny dodges. Same way that ranger hide in plain sight and assassin hide in plain sight are different, not because they say, "Unlike other versions of this ability," but because the abilities literally just say different things.

If it's not a bias towards scout, then it's a bizarre general inability to accept that your approach is incorrect.

I've provided multiple citations and direct quotes. You are responding to those with nopes and feelings.

For someone without any investment, you are picking a very strange hill to die on here.
It's a strange assumption that someone who disagrees with you must do so on some basis that is not a direct and logical reading of the rules. Why do you have the bizarre inability to accept that your approach is incorrect? That question is just as absurd applied to you as it is applied to me.

tterreb

2018-06-06, 02:19 AM

Umbral disciple's embrace of shadow (MoI):

"If the miss chance granted by this ability is 20% or higher, you also gain the ability to hide in plain sight—that is, you can use the Hide skill even while being observed. See the ranger class feature, page 48 of the Player's Handbook. Embrace of shadow is usable at will."

Does this mean it functions as the ranger's HiPS? Disregard the miss chance and it only works in natural terrain?

Or how about shadowspy (Complete Champion)?

"Hide in Plain Sight (Su): Beginning at 9th level, you can use the Hide skill even while being observed, as long as you are in a sunlit location. See the ranger class feature (PH 48)"

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-06, 05:56 PM

Anyway, screw it. Where are these words in the text of cleave? This is an exception to the rules regarding how many attacks are made in a round, and yet none of the words you're talking about are present.
No it's not: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions)

What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
Not every single feat provides an exception to a rule. Some of them just provide a bonus.
A bonus isn't breaking an established rule. It's adding something new in addition to them.

I've seen it mentioned before. I agree that it's an incredibly simple game. That's why it's a good example. I dunno why you have to be arbitrarily aggressive about some game design based argument that is not particularly predicated on how widely used said argument is. And you're wrong about Monopoly. The general functioning of "Go to this square" cards is that you travel around the board. Some of the cards are explicit about the fact that you're passing go, but others, like the utility card, are not. Going to jail is an exception to this general rule.
You have this really weird way of labeling every single thing that is different an exception.
Since I was apparently somehow too subtle, no, Monopoly does not have an exception-based ruleset.
There is no general rule regarding the actions of any of the drawn cards. The rule is, "If he stops on the space marked COMMUNITY CHEST, he takes the top most Community Chest card, and does as his card directs. If he stops on CHANCE, he does the same thing as with Community Chest."
The effect of a drawn card is supplied entirely by the card. In order for your assertion to be correct, the rules would have to say, "Whenever a card tells you do advance, you move your piece forward along the board until you arrive at the square in question."

Regardless of what it sends you to, what an ability actually does is inevitably self-contained. That's how abilities work.
No, it isn't.
There are many abilities that are indeed self-contained. Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm#hideinPlainSight) has it's own version of Hide In Plain Sight. It functions entirely differently from the shadowdancer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/shadowdancer.htm#hideInPlainSight) and assassin's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm#assassinHideinPlainSight) version. Neither of the prestige classes reference ranger in any way, nor make any attempt rely on anything else to supply the definition of their abilities. nor is there any need for them to. The dark template from Tome of Magic also has it's own version of Hide in Plain Sight that doesn't rely on anything else to define how it functions.

It doesn't "disagree" with what it finds there. It just says a different thing, and that's fine, because abilities can do that.

They can, but that's not what scout is doing.

Wasn't sure. Kinda surprising that it's so few, given that the book is part of a massive company with tons of employees. Did the thing really have no editors or anything? Either way, kinda a minor point. Maybe the dude forgot that he wrote the ability different, and copy/pasted from the barbarian.

Or maybe "the dude" forgot that he wrote the ability incorrectly in the first place and then copied the text for his statistics blocks from the primary source.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding how the game rules operate to reach this conclusion. Abilities are the ultimate arbiter of what those abilities do. That's basically the end of it. If an ability turns out identical to another, then, yeah, that ability is not unique to the class that has it. If the ability is not identical to any other, then the ability is, definitionally, unique. The rules directly say that the scout's uncanny dodge is unique to the scout when the ability has rules distinct from other uncanny dodges. Same way that ranger hide in plain sight and assassin hide in plain sight are different, not because they say, "Unlike other versions of this ability," but because the abilities literally just say different things.

Speaking of fundamentally misunderstanding how game rules operate, they also say this starting with the Monster Manual 3 in each errata document going forward:

When the text within a product contradicts itself, our
general policy is that the primary source (actual rules
text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as in
a monster’s statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to
the rule will be called out specifically.

Do you understand the point of my word-search exercise now?
Whenever something is intended to break an existing rule, this fact is made abundantly clear in some way.

If it's not specifically stated to be an exception, it is a discrepancy.
Scout could have gone about the business of defining it's very own version of Uncanny Dodge independent of any other class. But it doesn't do that. So it functions just like barbarian's does because it is relying on it to supply the definition.

...also I do apologize for not leading with this quote. I would have, but I could not for the life of me remember exactly where I saw this printed until today.

It's a strange assumption that someone who disagrees with you must do so on some basis that is not a direct and logical reading of the rules. Why do you have the bizarre inability to accept that your approach is incorrect?
Because my approach to the rules is based on thorough observations of specific pieces of text, rather than making assumptions about how the text functions based on nothing but a personal interpretation.

Umbral disciple's embrace of shadow (MoI):

"If the miss chance granted by this ability is 20% or higher, you also gain the ability to hide in plain sight—that is, you can use the Hide skill even while being observed. See the ranger class feature, page 48 of the Player's Handbook. Embrace of shadow is usable at will."

Does this mean it functions as the ranger's HiPS? Disregard the miss chance and it only works in natural terrain?

Hide in Plain Sight is not capable of defining everything about the function of Embrace of Shadow, only the specific aspect of Hide In Plain Sight. Since you are instructed to use it as a ranger does, it functions only when are in an area of natural terrain (and meet the 20% miss chance prerequisite).

And what in the hell is that last sentence supposed to mean? "Embrace of shadow is usable at-will?" For one thing, that's not creating an exception because supernatural abilities are generally used at-will. It's up to specific abilities to establish a limit. Secondly, you don't use Embrace of Shadow at all. It's an essentia receptacle that creates a passive effect when you invest into it. And to top it off they mis-capitalized the ability, undoubtedly just to trigger my OCD. I love Magic of Incarnum to pieces but, my God, does that book have some horrendous editing issues.

Or how about shadowspy (Complete Champion)?

"Hide in Plain Sight (Su): Beginning at 9th level, you can use the Hide skill even while being observed, as long as you are in a sunlit location. See the ranger class feature (PH 48)"

Because it also directly references ranger, it creates a discrepancy with a primary source, and therefore functions just like the ranger version does (even though this is probably against the intent of the author).

Shadowspy could have created it's own version of Hide in Plain Sight with it's own unique function, just like the aformentioned shadowdancer, assassin, and dark template do. Or even like the Luiren Marchwarden out of Shining South does (HiPS anywhere within the confines of its march), or Stalker of Kharash out of Book of Exalted Deeds (HiPS whenever it has one quarter or better cover or concealment), or Dark Lantern from Five Nations (HiPS whenever. Period. ...so broken). All of these examples are completely self-contained, and define their unique ability all on their own.

But the author for Shadowspy done goofed.
RAW is RAW, whether you like it or not... though I would certainly house-rule otherwise for any Shadowspy player in one of my games.

eggynack

2018-06-06, 09:13 PM

Not every single feat provides an exception to a rule. Some of them just provide a bonus.
A bonus isn't breaking an established rule. It's adding something new in addition to them.
By the rules, a character is not allowed to automatically take an extra attack following the killing of a target. Unless you think they can, this is decidedly an exception to this rule.

You have this really weird way of labeling every single thing that is different an exception.
Since I was apparently somehow too subtle, no, Monopoly does not have an exception-based ruleset.
There is no general rule regarding the actions of any of the drawn cards. The rule is, "If he stops on the space marked COMMUNITY CHEST, he takes the top most Community Chest card, and does as his card directs. If he stops on CHANCE, he does the same thing as with Community Chest."
The effect of a drawn card is supplied entirely by the card. In order for your assertion to be correct, the rules would have to say, "Whenever a card tells you do advance, you move your piece forward along the board until you arrive at the square in question."
Okay, so the player does what the card directs. What happens when the player takes "Advance to Illinois Avenue" which is, verbatim, the text on one of the cards, and does so from the chance square immediately prior to go? Do they, or do they not, collect $200? If they do, then the "Go to Jail" card, in explicitly stating that you do not collect $200 for passing go, is an exception to that rule. If they do not, then "Advance to St. Charles Place", which explicitly tells you to collect $200 if you pass go, is an exception to that rule. There is at least one place in which the rules necessarily make use of exceptions in order to function. It's not "weird" to label differences as exceptions. Exceptions are how the vast majority of rule sets in existence function.

No, it isn't.
There are many abilities that are indeed self-contained. Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm#hideinPlainSight) has it's own version of Hide In Plain Sight. It functions entirely differently from the shadowdancer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/shadowdancer.htm#hideInPlainSight) and assassin's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm#assassinHideinPlainSight) version. Neither of the prestige classes reference ranger in any way, nor make any attempt rely on anything else to supply the definition of their abilities. nor is there any need for them to. The dark template from Tome of Magic also has it's own version of Hide in Plain Sight that doesn't rely on anything else to define how it functions.

Providing examples that are self-contained in no way proves that there are abilities that are not self-contained. I'm not saying that abilities cannot reference other abilities, but, ultimately, the text of an ability determines what the ability does, whether that text has a reference or not.

They can, but that's not what scout is doing.
The scout isn't saying a different thing? Looks a lot like it is, and it looks a lot like that's the source of the argument.

Or maybe "the dude" forgot that he wrote the ability incorrectly in the first place and then copied the text for his statistics blocks from the primary source.
Of course that's a possibility. I'm just saying we have no way of knowing for sure, which is a big flaw with intention based readings.

Speaking of fundamentally misunderstanding how game rules operate, they also say this starting with the Monster Manual 3 in each errata document going forward:

Do you understand the point of my word-search exercise now?
Whenever something is intended to break an existing rule, this fact is made abundantly clear in some way.

The actual rules text for the scout is the actual rules text for the scout. An ability is the primary source for itself. There's nothing in the text that explicitly tells you to favor something besides that primary source. Thus, the scout is right about what the scout does.

If it's not specifically stated to be an exception, it is a discrepancy.
That's not the sort of exception that either I or the text is talking about. I mean, jeez, the rule you're citing explicitly says, "Within a product." Is Barbarian inside of Complete Adventurer? If not, then this rule does not apply. Where this rule would apply is if, say, a stat block told you that it was the arbiter of how an ability functioned.

Scout could have gone about the business of defining it's very own version of Uncanny Dodge independent of any other class. But it doesn't do that. So it functions just like barbarian's does because it is relying on it to supply the definition.
But it does do that, part way. Abilities don't have to be completely different any more than they have to be completely the same. The scout says it's based off this one ability, and also that it does this one thing. Both things are true.

Because my approach to the rules is based on thorough observations of specific pieces of text, rather than making assumptions about how the text functions based on nothing but a personal interpretation.
My approach is wholly rules based. You've just taken an incorrect reading to what primacy means.

Doctor Awkward

2018-06-07, 10:47 PM

By the rules, a character is not allowed to automatically take an extra attack following the killing of a target. Unless you think they can, this is decidedly an exception to this rule.

Okay, so the player does what the card directs. What happens when the player takes "Advance to Illinois Avenue" which is, verbatim, the text on one of the cards, and does so from the chance square immediately prior to go? Do they, or do they not, collect $200? If they do, then the "Go to Jail" card, in explicitly stating that you do not collect $200 for passing go, is an exception to that rule. If they do not, then "Advance to St. Charles Place", which explicitly tells you to collect $200 if you pass go, is an exception to that rule. There is at least one place in which the rules necessarily make use of exceptions in order to function. It's not "weird" to label differences as exceptions. Exceptions are how the vast majority of rule sets in existence function.

There's a difference between containing something that is an exception, and an exception having a specific and important meaning within the context of the rules.
The mere presence of exceptions does not make a ruleset and exception-based system.

In chess you can move a pawn two spaces forward instead of one if you haven't yet moved it. You can also castle your rook and your kind if you haven't moved either of them yet and there are no other pieces between them. While you can call these "exceptions" to the normal movement of the pieces, such a label has no relevant meaning to the rules. In all other instances, the rules on how the various pieces move is absolute.

In Hold 'Em Poker, play proceeds around the table according to an absolute set of rules, and the winner is determined by a rigid modular table that ranks the various combinations of cards.

Exceptions are not the only way in which rules can be modified. Sometimes rules changes are additive, being written with the intent to add something new (like an extra attack for killing an opponent), rather than to break a previous rule.

Providing examples that are self-contained in no way proves that there are abilities that are not self-contained. I'm not saying that abilities cannot reference other abilities, but, ultimately, the text of an ability determines what the ability does, whether that text has a reference or not.

The scout isn't saying a different thing? Looks a lot like it is, and it looks a lot like that's the source of the argument.

Of course that's a possibility. I'm just saying we have no way of knowing for sure, which is a big flaw with intention based readings.

The actual rules text for the scout is the actual rules text for the scout. An ability is the primary source for itself. There's nothing in the text that explicitly tells you to favor something besides that primary source. Thus, the scout is right about what the scout does.

That's not the sort of exception that either I or the text is talking about. I mean, jeez, the rule you're citing explicitly says, "Within a product." Is Barbarian inside of Complete Adventurer? If not, then this rule does not apply. Where this rule would apply is if, say, a stat block told you that it was the arbiter of how an ability functioned.

But it does do that, part way. Abilities don't have to be completely different any more than they have to be completely the same. The scout says it's based off this one ability, and also that it does this one thing. Both things are true.

My approach is wholly rules based. You've just taken an incorrect reading to what primacy means.

I think we are rapidly approaching an impasse, largely caused by your interpretation of what an "exception" means within the context of the 3.5 rules.

You went into the situation with scout's Uncanny Dodge, made an immediate judgement about how you thought it should operate, and then used the claim that scout was creating an "exception" for itself with how its ability functions to dismiss any and all evidence that suggests your interpretation is incorrect.

This method of interpreting the rules functionally renders them meaningless. The reason why the rules make it abundantly clear when something is an exception to a general rule is so you can tell when a discrepancy happens that requires further investigation.

You aren't arguing the Rules As Written here. You're arguing Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong.

And as an aside, you should have recommended Elemental Scion of Zilargo, instead. That version of Uncanny Dodge, by RAW, actually does function how you want the scout's to function.

eggynack

2018-06-07, 11:26 PM

There's a difference between containing something that is an exception, and an exception having a specific and important meaning within the context of the rules.
The mere presence of exceptions does not make a ruleset and exception-based system.
Honestly not all that sure why this distinction matters. The Monopoly rule set contains some things handled by way of exceptions to general rules, done in a way where the overwriting of the base rule occurs without much in the way of, "Normally this happens," or, "Here there be exceptions," preamble. This specific case, the go to jail card, is one such exception.

Exceptions are not the only way in which rules can be modified. Sometimes rules changes are additive, being written with the intent to add something new (like an extra attack for killing an opponent), rather than to break a previous rule.
This is just semantics. Just about any rules modification can be structured as an exception to some general rule. You usually want a set of super baseline rules that don't work by exception, but, the more rules there are, the more of them it can make sense to call an exception.

I think we are rapidly approaching an impasse, largely caused by your interpretation of what an "exception" means within the context of the 3.5 rules.

You went into the situation with scout's Uncanny Dodge, made an immediate judgement about how you thought it should operate, and then used the claim that scout was creating an "exception" for itself with how its ability functions to dismiss any and all evidence that suggests your interpretation is incorrect.

This method of interpreting the rules functionally renders them meaningless. The reason why the rules make it abundantly clear when something is an exception to a general rule is so you can tell when a discrepancy happens that requires further investigation.
My assessment of the situation is based on one fundamental thing. Abilities do what they say they do. If an ability says it does a thing, then it does that thing. Your reading of what an exception is is, in my opinion, overly narrow. When a rule is in opposition to another rule, then you have a contradiction that needs resolving. When that happens, the lowest level thing is generally correct. By that I mean, the baseline is that you can attack this many times, that you can do these sorts of things, that these things operate in this way, and then what happens after can be considered as either exceptions or additions, depending on your perspective. Honestly doesn't matter which.

Just as cleave "added" the ability to attack more times, so too did the scout add the ability to do this. Clearly cleave is adding a thing that wasn't present in the rules in general. Why cannot the scout do the same regarding uncanny dodge? And, of course, whether you want to call the scout an exception or not, it is decidedly more specific regarding itself than the barbarian is. The barbarian provides the general rule for how this kind of uncanny dodge works, and the scout tells you how scout uncanny dodge works specifically.

But, in all of this discussion of exceptions, you've really ignored one of the most important things I've been talking about. Cause you've totally misinterpreted what the primary source rules mean. The list of things that the PHB is definitely the primary source for is pretty small. Said list is rules for playing the game, playing PC races, and using base class descriptions. We can assume that some other things are probably on that list. How the wizard works, how a specific spell operates, stuff like that. The PHB is not, in any sense, the primary source for how the scout works. The primary source for how the scout works is Complete Adventurer.

And as an aside, you should have recommended Elemental Scion of Zilargo, instead. That version of Uncanny Dodge, by RAW, actually does function how you want the scout's to function.
I'm pretty sure that I have recommended literally nothing for the purposes of this thread.