UPDATE: Uncanny Dodge vs. Feint

[Caliban]

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

That's kind of my point. In general, the simplest ruling is the one intended by the authors. That's been shown time after time when these things come up.

 

[Artoomis]

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

He retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) regardless of being caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. (He still loses any Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.)

Not helpful, unfortunately. Same problem. "Regardless of" does not imply that the list that follows is an exclusive list.

I know you'd like it to mean that it is restricted to the list, but English does simply not work that way.

Sometimes "even if," "regardless of," "such as," "for example," and similar phrases are misunderstood to be a preface an exclusive list. Such phrases do not preface exclusive lists though.

Examples of phrases that DO preface exclusive lists are:

Only if.."
Only when..."

Sometimes the "only" may be implied, but if that's what was intended it should be spelled out to avoid confusion.

 

[drnuncheon]

Umm. Grammar quibling and language parsing are the only way to figure out what the rules mean.

That belief is based on the unproven (and unfounded, IMO) assumption that the 3e rules are written with perfect grammar.

Obviously, as we've seen, something can be perfectly clear to two people, and yet they can have completely different interpretations of what is being said. The sentence may have seemed perfectly clear to the writer as being one way or the other, and they may be sitting around saying 'damn, how did they even get that from what I wrote?' (I suspect this happens with great frequency.)

Oh, and Quasqueton:

The 'even if' could be there because the default condition for a person is having a Dex bonus to AC. She remains in that default condition even if she is in one of these other two conditions that normally causes the loss of such a bonus.

To construct another analogy, it would be like saying:

"She is able to see, even in complete darkness."

Do you think that means that she can see without her eyes or when blindfolded? I don't. I think that it states the default condition (she is able to see) and adds an exception to what would normally be an exception.

J

 

[LokiDR]

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

So darkness, UD, harm and the others that have been mentioned are perfectly clear because you say they are? If it was 1 person, I might agree, but many people seem to have opposite views on this that so perfectly clear to you. So we debate. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. I think any rule that several people can say is clearly one thing and another group say is clearly the oppsite is poorly written by any standards of writing.

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

The editor isn't an english major? They need a new editor. What did he major in, Russian? Some one needs to be responsible for the language being clear, even if they are imperfect. In cases of mistakes, WotC should suck it up, post FAQ, and get on with it.

As for being lawers, I ask you what the hell 3.5 is if not the mother of all counter rule-lawering. They closed loopholes and changed gobs of layout and grammer. They focused on updating the language and elinating holes. If you say it is your goal to fix things and don't fix things, I tend to think you did something wrong. Not fulfilling a stated goal is something that annoys me. I don't care if it was a politician or game company. I guess I am the only person who thinks people should stick to their word.

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

How many designers have left WotC since this grand D&D 3e thing started? Do they all agree? Even Skip isn't offical apparently. Andy isn't answering rule questions and customer support is worthless. Trying to get a straight answer out of that tangled mess is doomed to failure.

So then there is intent from context. Another great place to find answers. We can throw examples back and forth how either entirely different case makes perfect sense. This won't give any more of a clear answer than the "offical" folks.

Game balance is nice to look at, but everyone runs a different game what is broken to you is standard fair to me. Even the things that were called "broken" in 3e many didn't agree with. This will never get a clear answer.

All of the english examples with UD were valid. People were trying to understand what was written. Here of all places it would be nice to say "it really doesn't say that". But no, it is just more vague language. All the attempts to understand it were just as valid as asking someone official, determining intent from context, or game balance.

All of the above are part and parcel of D&D rule debate here. None are invalid, all have their place, and no one should ever try to stop any of them.

 

[MadScientist]

The issue here is deciding what the intent of the designers was when they wrote the UD description.

1) If their intent was that UD protected the character from losing their Dex bonus to AC in ALL conditions EXCEPT when immobilized that is probably how the discription would have been stated.

2) If you look at the description from the 3.0 SRD it is very clear. Uncanny Dodge only allows you to retain Dex bonus to AC when flat-fooded or attacked by an invisable attacker.

3)The sage has stated that feint is not affected by Uncanny Dodge.

All these indicate the intent of the disigners was that Uncanny Dodge only affects the explicitly stated conditions, i.e. when flat footed and when attacked by an invisable attacker.

In order to conclude the alternative we have to beleive that based on the use of the word even in the desicription, the reader is expected to divine that Uncanny Dodge protects against ALL cases where you lose your dex bonus to AC, except when immobilized. These conditions include while cowering, while grappling, when stunned, and when successfuly feinted against. We also have to assume that the Sage made an incorrect ruling and that they decided to change UD from 3.0 to 3.5 using a very subtle change in wording that could be easily interpeted as being equivalent to the old description. (Indeed I would never have thought that anyone would take the new description to mean that UD prevents loss of Dex bonus to AC in nearly every situation.)

It doesn't make much sense to pick out two of these conditions, state them explicitly and ignore the others. It does not make much practical sense that UD would allow you to retain Dex bonus to AC while stunned, grappling or cowering either IMO.

Even if we accept that the description has two possible interpretations, it seems unlikely that the designers intent was anything other than to have UD protect against the two explicitly stated conditions.

Edit: Spelling and stuff.

 

[Quasqueton]

Oh, and Quasqueton:

The 'even if' could be there because the default condition for a person is having a Dex bonus to AC. She remains in that default condition even if she is in one of these other two conditions that normally causes the loss of such a bonus.

To construct another analogy, it would be like saying:

"She is able to see, even in complete darkness."

Do you think that means that she can see without her eyes or when blindfolded? I don't. I think that it states the default condition (she is able to see) and adds an exception to what would normally be an exception.

If it is the default condition, why even state it? Easier, clearer, and more accurate to say, "She is able to see in complete darkness." Would anyone then question, "Well, can she see in daylight?" Would anyone ask, "Can she see without her eyes?" "Or when blindfolded?"

Hmmm. Someone probably would ask that.

If the statement "She is able to see, even in complete darkness," was a game rule, there would even be questions like, "Can he see? In light?"



"Here, take my car keys and don't give them back to me, even if I beg."

Will you give them back if I simply ask politely? Or if I threaten you?


"It's a good movie to see, even if you have to rent it on DVD."

Is it a good movie if you see it in the theater? Or if you buy it on DVD?


I just don't see the other interpretation. It was quite obvious to me, and still is. I've never read/heard a statement where "even if" was used in the manner that some here are saying it is supposed to be in this rule.

Quasqueton

 

[Snipehunt]

That belief is based on the unproven (and unfounded, IMO) assumption that the 3e rules are written with perfect grammar.

Obviously, as we've seen, something can be perfectly clear to two people, and yet they can have completely different interpretations of what is being said. The sentence may have seemed perfectly clear to the writer as being one way or the other, and they may be sitting around saying 'damn, how did they even get that from what I wrote?' (I suspect this happens with great frequency.)
-snip-

J

Of course. And no one expects perfection.

But I'm at a loss as to how you can know what a rule is without reading it (language) and analyzing the structure of the language (grammar). Once you start doing that, you end up with clear rules (no need to interpret ambiguous language and grammar) or unclear rules.

Unclear rules then need to be analyzed somehow. I guess occam's razor is as good as any to apply, but I disagree that "the simplest answer is usually correct." Generally, when the rules are ambiguous, "simplicity" is also in the eye of the beholder (there it is again!).

Is uncanny dodge simpler (by its language) if it applies all the time, or only to flat-footed or invisible? IMO, the simpler interpretation is "it always applies." But that's wrong. Simplicity didn't clear anything up for me.

Maybe D&D needs a canon of interpretation! Intent, body of language, simplicity, excess wordage, etc. Just what we need.

 

[Caliban]

If it is the default condition, why even state it? Easier, clearer, and more accurate to say, "She is able to see in complete darkness." Would anyone then question, "Well, can she see in daylight?" Would anyone ask, "Can she see without her eyes?" "Or when blindfolded?"

Hmmm. Someone probably would ask that.

If the statement "She is able to see, even in complete darkness," was a game rule, there would even be questions like, "Can he see? In light?"

Well, according to Artoomis "She is able to see, even in complete darkness" means that there should be many other conditions she can see in as well. According to Artoomis, it could be interpreted so that she could see while blind-folded, when in dense fog, or she is blinded. After all, the "even if" is not restrictive ,and could NEVER be reasonably interpeted as such.

Or am I misundertanding the line of reasoning he is using?

 

[Artoomis]

Well, according to Artoomis "She is able to see, even in complete darkness" means that there should be many other conditions she can see in as well. According to Artoomis, it could be interpreted so that she could see while blind-folded, when in dense fog, or she is blinded. After all, the "even if" is not restrictive ,and could NEVER be reasonably interpeted as such.

Or am I misundertanding the line of reasoning he is using?

Yes, you are misunderstanding.

She is able to see, even in complete darkness.

IS complete darkenss the ONLY condition in which she can see. No.

See - it's not an exclusive condition.

This does NOT mean she can see when blindfolded. It does mean there may be other conditions in which she can see. How about fog - can she see in fog? I don't know - I can't say from that one sentence.

But it's SO EASY to make these staements better. For example:

She can see even in complete darkness. However, she still cannot see through obscurement such as thick fog.

See how easy that was?

 

[Quasqueton]

From the SRD, under the Devil listing:

—See in Darkness (Su): Some devils can see perfectly in darkness of any kind, even that created by a deeper darkness spell.

So, can devils see perfectly only in a deeper darkness spell? [The phrase "of any kind" is an unfortunate inclusion for this point.]

And since I've got the SRD open . . .

Demons are a race of creatures native to chaotic evil-aligned planes. They are ferocity personified and will attack any creature just for the sheer fun of it—even other demons.

A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn’t have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill.

Can a druid with ranks in HA handle her animal companion?

If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the animal companion if the companion moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the animal again, even if it returns to the druid before the duration expires.

A druid and her animal companion can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (animal).

So can a druid and her animal share spells if the spell *does* affect the animal type?





OK, that's enough copy & pasting for one point. Do your own search for "even" in the SRD.

Quasqueton