Flat Footed Immune

[eggynack]

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]

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 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 that I've seen on the subject refer to D&D as the textbook example of exception-based design. Here's a blog post 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.

...

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]

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 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 that I've seen on the subject refer to D&D as the textbook example of exception-based design. Here's a blog post 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.

...

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]

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]

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:

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 has it's own version of Hide In Plain Sight. It functions entirely differently from the shadowdancer and assassin's 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).

Spoiler: Unrelated Embrace of Shadow rant

Show

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]

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 has it's own version of Hide In Plain Sight. It functions entirely differently from the shadowdancer and assassin's 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]

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]

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.