Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

[Andezzar]

Um, no?

The rules say you can't track a creature in water. There's only one person (i.e. you) who has somehow twisted that sentence into anything relating to water bottles.

I kind of agree with nedz. Even though we all know what the writers intended to write (because we know how scent works IRL), they unfortunately wrote that any water thwarts scenting attempts no matter where the water is in relation to the trail.

Water, particularly running water, ruins a trail for air-breathing creatures.

So no matter where the water is, it ruins the trail. Humanoids are mostly water, some of it even moves propelled by a central pump.....

[PallentisLunam]

I kind of agree with nedz. Even though we all know what the writers intended to write (because we know how scent works IRL), they unfortunately wrote that any water thwarts scenting attempts no matter where the water is in relation to the trail.So no matter where the water is, it ruins the trail. Humanoids are mostly water, some of it even moves propelled by a central pump.....

With that line of reasoning the presence of an ocean on the other side of the campaign world ruins tracking by scent in a desert.

[Andezzar]

With that line of reasoning the presence of an ocean on the other side of the campaign world ruins tracking by scent in a desert.

Exactly.

You either use the rule about the prime material plane or you get those weird results. Doing the former however has other problems. IRL scent works quite differently, even from creature to creature.

And then there is the problem with non-animal (possibly extraplanar) scent trackers. We have no real world experience to fall back on with those.

[PallentisLunam]

Exactly.

You either use the rule about the prime material plane or you get those weird results. Doing the former however has other problems. IRL scent works quite differently, even from creature to creature.

And then there is the problem with non-animal (possibly extraplanar) scent trackers. We have no real world experience to fall back on with those.

That's like saying the presence of darkness anywhere negates the ability of any creature to see without darkvision or blindsight. The impediment must be present and in play for it to be an impediment.

[Andezzar]

That's like saying the presence of darkness anywhere negates the ability of any creature to see without darkvision or blindsight. The impediment must be present and in play for it to be an impediment.

Even with the expected meaning, the scent ability does not work like the animal sense. Yes water masks the molecules that have settled on the ground or other surfaces, but it does not somehow negate the molecules that are still in the air. The rule however does not specify how water is supposed to negate the trail. What happens if the tracked creature goes over a bridge that crosses a stream? What happens if the creature just crosses the stream without going quite a bit up- or downstream?

Yes you could read darkness that way, but contrary to scent, here you can use the rules about the prime material plane without problems. Other planes are still a problem.

[Troacctid]

I kind of agree with nedz. Even though we all know what the writers intended to write (because we know how scent works IRL), they unfortunately wrote that any water thwarts scenting attempts no matter where the water is in relation to the trail.

So no matter where the water is, it ruins the trail. Humanoids are mostly water, some of it even moves propelled by a central pump.....

Water ruins a trail. So, if a trail has water, it is ruined. In the absence of water, the trail is not ruined (unless something else ruins it). That's how that construction works in the English language. It's not grammatically necessary to clarify the relative positions of the water and the trail in order for the meaning to be clear, much like how if I said "Fire burns wood," it would be understood that I'm referring to the application of fire to the wood, and not the general existence of fire in some location in the universe.

This would be an example of a deliberate misunderstanding, not a dysfunction.

[PallentisLunam]

Yes you could read darkness that way, but contrary to scent, here you can use the rules about the prime material plane without problems. Other planes are still a problem.

I like Troacctid's response so I won't add to it except for; No, you could not read darkness that way. Such is my whole point. And I don't understand where you're coming from with this other planes nonsense. If the other plane in question has an earth like atmosphere, which most of them do to some degree, then it can be assumed that scent works the same where there that it would in the real world.

[Andezzar]

Water ruins a trail. So, if a trail has water, it is ruined. In the absence of water, the trail is not ruined (unless something else ruins it). That's how that construction works in the English language. It's not grammatically necessary to clarify the relative positions of the water and the trail in order for the meaning to be clear, much like how if I said "Fire burns wood," it would be understood that I'm referring to the application of fire to the wood, and not the general existence of fire in some location in the universe.

This would be an example of a deliberate misunderstanding, not a dysfunction.

How can a scent trail have water? It's not like footprints in soft ground or broken branches. As I said earlier it works through molecules of odors that are on surfaces and those that travel through the air. The rules tell us that water ruins the trail. There is no qualifier saying that it only ruins part of the trail. This actually tells us that the Scent ability does not work like real world scent. And since it works differently we cannot assume that it otherwise works like IRL so we have to go by what the rule explicitly says. It says water ruins a trail. It neither specifies where the water has to be to do that, nor how much water is sufficient to do that.

Capping scent at 120 ft (strong source of odor upwind) also has nothing to to with real life.

[Troacctid]

How can a scent trail have water? It's not like footprints in soft ground or broken branches. As I said earlier it works through molecules of odors that are on surfaces and those that travel through the air. The rules tell us that water ruins the trail. There is no qualifier saying that it only ruins part of the trail. This actually tells us that the Scent ability does not work like real world scent. And since it works differently we cannot assume that it otherwise works like IRL so we have to go by what the rule explicitly says. It says water ruins a trail. It neither specifies where the water has to be to do that, nor how much water is sufficient to do that.

Capping scent at 120 ft (strong source of odor upwind) also has nothing to to with real life.

Rules Compendium clarifies that it is only flowing water that ruins an odor trail. So water running over the trail will wash away the scent. My understanding is that a similar phenomenon occurs in real life, so this shouldn't be surprising.

[Andezzar]

Again the RC tells us that flowing water ruins the trail entirely. That does not happen IRL AFAIK. It also does not tell us where the running water has to be in relation to the rail. It especially does not tell us that the water needs to flow over the trail.

[Troacctid]

Again the RC tells us that flowing water ruins the trail entirely.

"Entirely" is your word, not the text's.

It also does not tell us where the running water has to be in relation to the rail. It especially does not tell us that the water needs to flow over the trail.

As I said, in English, it doesn't need to.

[georgie_leech]

As I said, in English, it doesn't need to.

It's a bit like claiming a sign that says "Outside Food Prohibited" in a movie theater is nonsensical because it tries to ban all food outdoors. That's really not how English works.

[Andezzar]

"Entirely" is your word, not the text's.

Yes, but the rule does not give any restrictions or mitigating factors, so it is entirely not partially. It also means that after the interaction with water the creature does at best leave a ruined trail, whatever that may entail. A ruined trail is not defined anywhere. Is a ruined trail the same as no trail? What about future movement of the creature? does it create a new trail? The rule says nothing about those issues, so it is dysfunctional.

As I said, in English, it doesn't need to.

Yes, that is how English works. We all know what the intention is, but what matters is what is written. To use georgie_leech's example. "outside food prohibited" can actually mean that all food is prohibited outside. It however is intended as short hand for "It is prohibited to consume food bought from someone other than the cinema within the cinema" I assume, or are they also prohibiting bringing your bag of groceries with you? See, even without resorting to the obviously unintended but correct meaning the sign is ambiguous.

[Kurald Galain]

It's a bit like claiming a sign that says "Outside Food Prohibited" in a movie theater is nonsensical because it tries to ban all food outdoors. That's really not how English works.

Precisely. A sign "outside food prohibited" on a cinema does not allow that cinema to sue the local farmers (who are, after all, growing food outside).

Now that this thread is near its limit, we should really make two threads: one thread for twisting grammar like this, and one for unforeseen consequences of rules combinations.

[Andezzar]

Precisely. A sign "outside food prohibited" on a cinema does not allow that cinema to sue the local farmers (who are, after all, growing food outside).

What the cinema can or cannot do based on posting the sign is a totally separate issue. It has nothing to do with the ambiguity of what is written on the sign.

[nedz]

I'm being tracked. So I get out my water bottle, open it, and up end it behind me as I move along. The water flows out of the bottle and splashes on to the ground.

We all know the RAI here, but that is true of many things in these threads.

[Troacctid]

I'm being tracked. So I get out my water bottle, open it, and up end it behind me as I move along. The water flows out of the bottle and splashes on to the ground.

We all know the RAI here, but that is true of many things in these threads.

Of course after you ruin that trail, you'll leave a new trail after that point, so it won't stop them from tracking you, although it should slow them down (since they will need a new Search or Survival check to locate the new trail) and increase the DC ("Tracked party hides trail" for +5).

There are certainly dysfunctions in this portion of the text, though. For instance, flowing water ruins a trail, but no other liquid does. Also, the rules are written as if all creatures breathe either air or water, but not both: a creature that can breathe both air and water can use its scent ability to track in the water, but will also have its trail ruined by water, so, huh?

[Andezzar]

Of course after you ruin that trail, you'll leave a new trail after that point, so it won't stop them from tracking you, although it should slow them down (since they will need a new Search or Survival check to locate the new trail) and increase the DC ("Tracked party hides trail" for +5).

This would maybe help against normal tracking (water on footprints can disguise them) but it shouldn't do anything to the odor a creature leaves behind. And even if it did work, there is no rule saying that the trail before the water and the trail after the water aren't still part of the same ruined trail.

[Jormengand]

I went ahead and did it because no-one else was.

[nedz]

I went ahead and did it because no-one else was.

Good. IIRC Forum rules bar people from creating thread extensions if they have already made on before, well until the thread count reaches 50, otherwise I would have done this myself.

[Charizander]

Is it my imagination, or did the writers not have any clue as to what "range" means on spell effects? Range is how far away from you the origin of an effect can originate from, but lightning bolt has a 120 foot range and starts at your fingertips. How does that work, exactly? And that's by no means the only one. Range is hardly ever used properly. But since you can't have a spell's area affect anything outside its range, this forces spells to be written incorrectly to function at all and completely negates what range actually is.

It also screws up how Widen and Enlarge feats function. A lot of the time, you have to use both simultaneously, or neither have an effect.

[edit] And on that note, how does lightning bolt work on a creature without fingers?

[nedz]

What you are describing is how Ranged worked in AD&D.

This is how it works in 3.5

Range

A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted. Standard ranges include the following.

Also, lightning bolt starts from a corner of your square.

And yes several metamagic feats get screwed by this: what happens when you apply Sculpt Spell to Lightning Leap ? was recently mentioned up-thread.

[CrazyYanmega]

Hopefully not thread necromancy...

I didn't see this one in the Completely Dysfunctional Handbook.

Harpoons lodge fully in any creature no matter the size. Furthermore, harpoons function perfectly fine against swarms.

[nedz]

Cool, but please post all future dysfunctions in the new thread.