UPDATE: Uncanny Dodge vs. Feint

[Camarath]

IMO situations not covered in the rule should not be affected by the rule. The rules that actually do deal with those situations should control what happens in those situations.

 

[Artoomis]

That sentence just means that there is an additional circumstance that she can see in, where she normally could not.

It in no way implies that there are other conditions she can see in where she normally could not.

As written, it states one additional condition in which she can she, but does not exclude other conditions that might perhaps be somewhat similar.

If you know WHY she can see in the dark, then you'd know if she could see in fog as well, You need to know that, because fog is kinda-sorta like darkenss and kinda-sorta not like darkness.

You probably still don't realy see what I mean. Your comments seem to pretty much dismiss my opinions and put words in my mouth about designer's opinions. That's a shame, really.

Ah, well. In the end, it does not really matter to me what you think. I just really would like it if I could really get across my concept to you, but I can't. Such is life.

 

[Caliban]

As written, it states one additional condition in which she can she, but does not exclude other conditions that might perhaps be somewhat similar.

I believe it does exclude them. If it didn't, it would say that there are other conditions.

You are trying attribute far to much meaning into that one word, and using it to make unnecessary assumptions about the Uncanny Dodge ability.

If you know WHY she can see in the dark, then you'd know if she could see in fog as well, You need to know that, because fog is kinda-sorta like darkenss and kinda-sorta not like darkness.

No, fog is water particles physically obscuring your vision. Darkness is the absence of light.
They are not "kinda-sorta" like each other.

Being able to see normally in one does not imply being able to see in the other.

You probably still don't realy see what I mean. Your comments seem to pretty much dismiss my opinions and put words in my mouth about designer's opinions. That's a shame, really.

You are the one who keeps trying to turn this into something personal between us. You are the one who called the Sages opinion worthless after you specifally asked for it.

Ah, well. In the end, it does not really matter to me what you think. I just really would like it if I could really get across my concept to you, but I can't. Such is life.

I understand your concept. It just doesn't fit the context of the rules, and you have been unreasonable about seeing anyone elses point of view. Instead you insist that everyone has to see it your way, and the rule has to be rewritten the way you want it to be rewritten for it to mean what the game designers want it to mean.

This was clarified a long time ago, and it hasn't changed. But you won't accept that. Yet you want to make it like I'm the one being unreasonable.

 

[Artoomis]

...You are the one who keeps trying to turn this into something personal between us...

Okay, enough. Moving on.....

 

[Felix]

Felix opens the door to this thread and tosses in a stun grenade

FOOM

Right. Everyone breathe deeply. Count to 10 before posting. Imagine this is a game we're talking about.

Ok.

The UD description as written with "even if" (and the DMG "regardless of") may be interpreted the way Caliban favors; it also may be interpreted the way Artoomis favors.

If anyone disagrees with this statement, this is the part of my post where you move on to the next post.
.
.
.
Still here? Ok.

Is simplicity a reliable way of determining meaning? It is subjective, so, no.

Is intent a reliable way of determining meaning? Were it so, Constitutional Law would be the easiest class in Law school ever, so, no.

Is syntax, semantics and logical rendering of the sentence a reliable way of determining meaning? One would think so, but this sentence is ambiguous (and you agree with me since you've read this far! ), and because it is ambiguous, grammar rules won't provide a clear answer, so, no.

What are we left with?

Perhaps the hope that an official fiat will come from WotC stating one way or another? Until we have this, until the ambiguity which is the root of the problem is cleared, we will reach no answer but only discover one another's opinions.

As for me, I think Uncanny Dodge is a representation of a preternatural awareness on the part of the character. I think it takes a reduction of mobility to void this awareness. I think that this interpretation of the rules is a valid one. I think I will disregard Skip's ruling because I dislike it for flavor reasons. I think it would be interesting to have professional logicians reduce the UD description to a mathmatical equation.

I think some folks here need to shake hands and make up. That, or settle your dispute outside. One or the other.

 

[Celtavian]

re

The uncanny dodge ability is a function of the senses. It allows a character to retain his Dexterity bonus when others cannot because they don’t have sufficient sensory information to do so, such as when one is surprised or facing an unseen foe.

I have always envisioned a person having feint used against them as being fully aware, but if the feint is successful, then the senses are fooled eliminating the dexterity bonus.

A rogue or barbarian with UD being feinted against is fully aware that an attack is coming, but if the feint is successful, they are fooled into improperly defending against it.

They should probably have listed under the Combat Feint maneuver that UD doesn't prevent a Combat Feint. They should know by now that many players will interpret the rule in the most beneficial way possible for them if it is not spelled out perfectly, and many DM's will give into such players because they don't want the hassle of arguing over a semi-ambiguous rule.

 

[Elvinis75]

My thoughts

Ok guys I have read this all the way through and have some questions and thoughts.
First is the SRD official?
If so it uses the word “if” the word if in functions is meant as a qualifier.
“ConditionA if conditionB or conditionC” means that conditionA is true when Conditions B or C are true. It doesn’t tell us anything further than that.
I agree that all other possibilities are not mentioned but in truth they don’t have to.
It would be nicer if it did, I agree. But there are other things to consider.
The Condition “retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)” is the default even without Uncanny Dodge. A person retains her “dex all the time” except when a condition specificly takes it away. So then any reasonable person expects that when an ability is listed it is assumed that they are going to explain how it differs from the normal condition that it is modifying. Now UD goes on to say even if INV and FF. The two conditions listed would normally remove the default condition but UD trumps them.
I see where some of you say that “even if” is not exclusionary.
They should have written it differently. However making it apply to other things makes a DM take a step that we have been told not to take. That is to assume things that are not stated.
To sum up UD is an special ability that adds additional capabilities to a character and spells out some conditions now do not apply that would cause a change in the default. I strongly believe that if they wanted UD to always apply they would have stated:
“She ‘always’ retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.” Beyond that it doesn’t always trump all other conditions rather it modifies the default condition adding more situations when it applies.

 

[Hannibal Barca]

Good...lord.

 

[Eltor Macnol]

Felix, I couldn't agree with you more. While it's good to see other's opinions and thoughts on an ambiguous matter to help making your own judgement, it's useless to argue so much about something that can't be concretely proven one way or another, independently of personal interpretations. And you put it excellently.

Save some of those stun grenades, they might come in handy in the future...