| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To avoid derailing a very useful errata thread...
"The exception proves the rule" is a saying that I have heard used on these forums several times. It seems to mean that if there is no general rule printed, but there is some related rule mechanic for some specific item or feat, that it must be the case that this is an exception override to a general rule that would say the contrary.
Logic and game rules don't really work like that though. It is trivially easy to find a counterexample. Reminder text is a specific rule mechanic statement in a specific item or feat that confirms or repeats and agrees with the general rule. Sometimes rules are deliberately left up to GM interpretation - at least in general. And then specific items can have their own ruling on it that applies to only that item.
"The exception proves the rule" is related to the actual game rule of Specific overrides general. In about the same way that Affirming the Consequent is related to Modus Ponens.
If a general rule exists, then a specific item can have a specific override for it.
But showing a specific rule in an item does not prove that a general rule to the contrary does or should exist.
For a more concrete example:
There is no general rule for whether a vehicle protects its driver, crew, passengers, or cargo from getting wet in the rain. That is left up to GM discretion and how they are describing the particulars of the vehicle. A Rowboat probably does not - if it is raining, then the occupants of a rowboat are getting wet. A Cutter likely does protect from rain for the cargo, passengers, and any crew not on the upper deck. And of course, one would hope that a Bathysphere wouldn't allow rain in.
But none of those actually say so.
So if at some point a Covered Wagon is printed that does specifically say that the cargo and passengers are protected from rain, that does not mean that a Cutter and a Bathysphere no longer does. The specific rule in Covered Wagon does not cause an implied general rule to be added saying that 'without a specific exception, no vehicle protects its occupants from rain.'
That isn't how logic works. And that isn't how game mechanics work.
Do you have any specific example ?
I find that in PF2, creating a new case--not necessarily an exception--inspires Paizo to make a rule explicit. For example, consider the Steed Form feat for summoners. As an addendum at the end of the feat, we find a rule "Riding Sapient Creatures Riding along on a sapient creature that isn't a minion requires a lot of coordination and timing. Both the riding creature and the mount regain only 2 actions at the start of their turns each round, as both the mount and the riding creature interfere with one another's actions. If you ride your eidolon, you reduce your total actions to 2 and continue to share actions normally—you don't reduce the number of actions twice."
For an animal companion mount, such as a champion's divine steed, the minion rules automatically reduced the rider's and the mount's actions to 2 each, since the rider has to Command an Animal and the mount gets only 2 action on all turns. We have had a few cases of an independent character riding another independent character, such as a sorcerer transforming into a dragon with Dragon Form and giving an aerial ride to a teammate, which was not covered by the animal companion rules. But the frequency of the summoner riding the eidolon is much higher, so Paizo made an explicit separate rule.
The summoner playtest had this rule in a side box on page 22, "RIDING INDEPENDENT CREATURES If a creature tries to ride your eidolon, both you and the riding creature each regain only 2 actions at the start of your turns each round, as both the eidolon and the riding creature interfere with one another’s actions. If you have the Hulking Evolution feat, you’re able to ride on your eidolon without this drawback." But Steed Form was not in the playtest, so in this case the exception was invented after the rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When there is no obvious RAW, having a line of text specific to a thing may mean it's an exception to a general unstated rule.
Why should we systematically assume otherwise ?
Why should we systematically assume it is only one way. That is exactly the point that I am trying to make.
Sometimes it does make sense that there is (or should be) some general rule that specific items override. But it doesn't always. And it shouldn't be assumed to.
Do you have any specific example ?
I'm assuming you mean a specific example of 'the exception proves the rule' being used egregiously wrong, yes?
While surprisingly resistant to the elements, a waterlogged, dirty, or battered deck may not function as desired,
So therefore, any other deck of card type items are not at all resistant to the elements and cannot be used while it is raining or snowing or windy. So items like a Cantrip Deck would be destroyed, or at least have their effects suppressed, if you attempt to pull them out and use them under any sort of weather conditions.
|
Playing Cards are made with Paper. Cantrip Decks and Scrolls are made with Parchment. They are completely different in their water resistance, so that's a false equivalence.
The Deck of Mischief is a more sturdy set of Playing Cards, and it's not like getting waterlogged destroys them, it merely makes them unhappy. That's the only comparison you can make with that item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I would read it the other way around, that since nothing is specified for a Cantrip deck, nothing happens. In this way, it being specified for the Deck of Mischief means it's an exception to the rule that nothing happens.
You might read it that way. I probably would as well. But others might not. And neither case is proven.
And that is my point. The exception is not proof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might read it that way. I probably would as well. But others might not. And neither case is proven.
And that is my point. The exception is not proof.
I mean, it is pretty clear once you take out the fluff text (as in, the text which have no bearing on the rules) :
"a waterlogged, dirty, or battered deck may not function as desired"
The actual important text only say that this magical object can misfunction if it's battered, waterlogged or dirty. Which imply only that normal magical object don't misfunction in these conditions, which I think most people would agree is indeed "the rule" (considering the usual adventuring day, most of a player gear wouldn't work after a only a few encounter if it was the case).
In the end, AceofMoxen is right here, an exception isn't absolute proof, but it sure is evidence toward it. So when a rule is unclear, finding an exception to it does help figuring out what's intended, at least until things are made clearer (throught, for exemple, an errata or some clarification about the rules).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, AceofMoxen is right here, an exception isn't absolute proof, but it sure is evidence toward it. So when a rule is unclear, finding an exception to it does help figuring out what's intended, at least until things are made clearer (throught, for exemple, an errata or some clarification about the rules).
Yes. As long as other things are taken into consideration. Primarily balance considerations. Also fun and enjoyment considerations.
Remember that there are at least three reasons for some piece of equipment, a creature, a feat, or other such things to have a specific rule listed.
1) A specific rule could be an override of a general rule.
2) A specific rule could be a rule for only the one thing when in general the ruling is deliberately left up to the GM and the rest of the players at the table (such as if an animal companion can use combat maneuvers if they don't have hands).
3) A specific rule could be in agreement with the general rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, AceofMoxen is right here, an exception isn't absolute proof, but it sure is evidence toward it. So when a rule is unclear, finding an exception to it does help figuring out what's intended, at least until things are made clearer (throught, for exemple, an errata or some clarification about the rules).
I don't entirely agree. When you have a specific rule that references something in an unclear way, it's possible that there's an inferable general rule but it is also equally possible that the specific rule itself is in error, or that the entire situation is being misunderstood in some other way (like the specific rule not actually being a specific rule, or the general state being intentionally ambiguous).
This entire thread is, after all, in response to an attempt to create a general rule based on what turned out to be an editing mistake (you were there so you know this).
So if a specific rule doesn't make sense, or references something that doesn't exist, it's only evidence that we have incomplete information about what the designers expect.
I don't entirely agree. When you have a specific rule that references something in an unclear way, it's possible that there's an inferable general rule but it is also equally possible that the specific rule itself is in error, or that the entire situation is being misunderstood in some other way (like the specific rule not actually being a specific rule, or the general state being intentionally ambiguous).
This entire thread is, after all, in response to an attempt to create a general rule based on what turned out to be an editing mistake (you were there so you know this).
So if a specific rule doesn't make sense, or references something that doesn't exist, it's only evidence that we have incomplete information about what the designers expect.
I absolutely agree that when we need to rely on an exception to extrapolate the actual rule, it's a sign that some clarification or errata is needed. But as long as we don't have those, we can only work with what we have in order to guess what's the actual intended rule, and these "exceptions that prove the rule" are sometime all that we have. They might be unintended consequences from paizo, but as long as nothing is directly confirmed, the existence of the exception point toward the existence of the rule. It shouldn't be considered gospel and 100% for sure confirmed, but it's still point toward it.
Even in the other thread, I wasn't saying that the exception was absolute proof of the rule, but rather that it pointed toward that rule, and that now paizo needed to either confirm it (and errata a bunch of other stuff), or errata the exception (which apparently they will since they admited it was a mistake).
I guess a more accurate way to phrase it would be "the exception is circumstancial evidence to the rule", but it's a bit less catchy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From how I read it, that's exactly the opposite of the OP's point. This is because what Person A sees as an "exception" might only be a restatement of Paizo's rule/default/etc., something Person B might very well understand. Yet the OP's also not saying it's evidence for Person B's POV. It's simply poor evidence not worth over-analyzing when we're adults who can decide what works best for our tables (which Paizo wholeheartedly advises and encourages).
So the rule of thumb (if not whole hand) comes out to "the exception proves GMs must adjudicate because it may or may not be alluding to a rule", which is to say pointing at exceptions makes for poor grounding. A rule only exists when it's communicated, so it's a stretch to be beholden to one that's written nowhere. A major element of PF2's design philosophy is that GMs should use their reasoning more than subjugate themselves to legalistic rules interpretations, much less nonexistent rules vaguely discerned through indirect, unreliable means.
In other words, PF2 RAW has explicitly stated that RAW is no longer king, so there's no reason even to base an argument on "RA-hinted at" (if we should even be arguing).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs are only human beings. Some appreciate having some written word with which to adjudicate in game.
Which is why we have this Rules forum BTW.
Most GMs would "appreciate having written word with which to adjudicate in game" (outside of improvisational storytellers that would likely gravitate to a different RPG). Having such a rule would be the best case scenario, even if one chooses to deviate from it, hopefully with purpose rather than arbitrarily.
Yet the context here seems to be navigating when there's no rule, no written word as a foundation, so then drawing inferences from surrounding language as if there's a "hidden rule" which IMO is an oxymoron (or the work of diabolic forces, a state I wouldn't attribute to Paizo). I'd say that if there's no rule, it's better to adjudicate based on (IMO stronger) factors than inference, like game balance, PF2 mechanical principles, narrative value, specific table/campaign anomalies, etc. Heck, if a direct rule makes no sense, we're supposed to override it (according to RAW), so how much less should we defer to an indirect "rule" from our own speculation?And navigating this grey territory is where help of the Rules Forum's combined insight can aid greatly (even if some see fuzzy non-RAW as beyond this forum's purpose).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another very good example: the question of swapping out granted spells in repertoire.
Sorcerer has a specific rule that states that Bloodline Granted spells cannot be swapped out of Repertoire. Bard Muse also adds a 1st level spell to Repertoire, Oracle Mystery adds a Cantrip to Repertoire, and Psychic, like Sorcerer, adds a spell to Repertoire at each spell level.
But there is no general rule about whether or not you can swap out Repertoire spells given by class features.
So is the Sorcerer rule in agreement with the unstated general rule that you cannot swap out those granted spells? Or is the Sorcerer rule an exception to the unstated general rule that you can swap out those granted spells?
|
Another very good example: the question of swapping out granted spells in repertoire.
Sorcerer has a specific rule that states that Bloodline Granted spells cannot be swapped out of Repertoire. Bard Muse also adds a 1st level spell to Repertoire, Oracle Mystery adds a Cantrip to Repertoire, and Psychic, like Sorcerer, adds a spell to Repertoire at each spell level.
But there is no general rule about whether or not you can swap out Repertoire spells given by class features.
So is the Sorcerer rule in agreement with the unstated general rule that you cannot swap out those granted spells? Or is the Sorcerer rule an exception to the unstated general rule that you can swap out those granted spells?
Yeah that's a good example. I think most people would expect that any class feature that gives you a specific list of things (spells, specific bonus feats, ...) doesn't allow you to retrain/swap them into something else that wasn't on the menu.
But I don't know what section of the CRB states that general rule.
On the whole I'm a believer in that unwritten general rules are a bad thing and we should avoid that. This thing is a principle that should be an actual written rule, and then we don't need to repeat it in every "menu" class feature again. Lots of repetitive specific rules bloats the book and increases the chance that it gets missed somewhere.
That said, while this is a good example of a nebulous general rule, I don't think you can extend it to a principle that exceptions always or never prove the rule. You need to analyze it on a case by case basis.
it's not like getting waterlogged destroys them, it merely makes them unhappy. That's the only comparison you can make with that item.Every once in a while I am sharply reminded that I hang out in a place where most of the posters spend significant parts of their lives pretending to be elves and dwarves.
Eh, I pretend to be a human here.
Regarding exception text? I’ll agree with ‘suggests but isn’t explicit evidence’ about a ‘general rule’. Bring on the table variations!