Druid's Trackless Step

[Sithobi1]

Being found!= being tracked. It's the difference between a Search check to see a footprint and a Search check to track someone.

 

[Nellisir]

Question for those saying a druid with trackless step cannot be tracked via smell:


Are they then also immune to the Scent ability?

No.

 

[brendan candries]

Being found!= being tracked. It's the difference between a Search check to see a footprint and a Search check to track someone.

almost correct, but it takes survival to track

 

[Cheiromancer]

Let's say we have a class feature, Protective Trance, and a spell, Protective Aura.

The class feature says "While the character is in a protective trance, he takes no damage from any attack."

The spell says "The subject takes no damage from any attack, even a force effect."

Does the character in a protective trance take damage from a Spiritual Weapon?

One interpretation of the maxim "the exception proves the rule" would lead one to infer from the spell description that force effects normally trump wording like "the subject takes no damage from any attack." But not in the case of protective aura. Since "the exception proves the rule" it must be the case that, except for protective aura force attacks do trump protective effects, including Protective Trance. This interpretation is related to the assumption that irrelevant information would not be included in a rule, and so because the rule mentioned force effects it must be relevant.

Of course, this being D&D, one might eventually conclude that the spell description was just badly written. Or maybe the class ability. Or both.

From the straight dope:

THE LAST WORD ON EXCEPTIONS

Dear Cecil:

I hate to have to correct Cecil Adams, but the business about "the exception proves the rule" in the latest Straight Dope seems way wide of the mark. The proverb's meaning must be expounded not in the context of natural or psychological law but of civil law. Alan Bliss, in A Dictionary of Words and Phrases in Current English, has the following to say about the origin of this phrase: "Exception probat regulam [Lat.], the exception proves the rule. A legal maxim of which the complete text is: exceptio probat [or (con)firmat] regulam in casibus non exceptis--`the fact that certain exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is valid in all other cases.'"

The application is this. Suppose a law is stated in such a way as to include an exception, e.g., "Parking is prohibited on this street from 7 AM to 7 PM, Sundays and holidays excepted." The explicit mention of the exception means that NO other exceptions are to be inferred. Thus we should take the Latin verb probare in the maxim to have the sense of "to increase the force of." --Hugh Miller, Chicago

Dear Hugh:

Hmm. It grieves me to say this, but you're right. While the interpretation I gave, namely that the exception tests the rule, has a long history (it dates back at least to 1893), I'll concede that your take on it is the original sense of the proverb.

That said, your example could use a little work. We need something that better conveys the import of this ancient maxim. I have just the thing--an illustration from the Roman orator Cicero, sometimes cited as the source of the legal doctrine in question.

Cicero was defending one Bilbo. (No relation to Frodo.) Bilbo was a non-Roman who was accused of having been illegally granted Roman citizenship. The prosecutor argued that treaties with some non-Roman peoples explicitly prohibited them from becoming Roman citizens. The treaty with Bilbo's homeboys had no such clause, but the prosecutor suggested one should be inferred.

Nonsense, said Cicero. "Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi non sit exceptum ..." Oops, I keep forgetting how rusty folks are on subjunctives. Cicero said, if you prohibit something in certain cases, you imply that the rest of the time it's permitted. To put it another way, the explicit statement of an exception proves that a rule to the contrary prevails otherwise.

You can see where an argument like this would come in handy in traffic court. What's more, it's basically what Kyle Gann was arguing in his letter, although his "psychological" angle obscured matters a bit. Accordingly I withdraw my more abrupt comments.

Still, whatever the original significance of the proverb, we should recognize that its many latter-day interpretations have taken on a life of their own. Since there is not much chance of stamping these out en masse, we may as well resign ourselves to trying to boost the sensible interpretations and suppress the rest. Here it seems to me that the interpretation I initially favored, that the exception tests the rule, comes off pretty well.

I am delighted to find ammunition for this view in H.W. Fowler's respected Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1965), which distinguishes five possible senses of "the exception proves the rule." Sense #1 is the legal (i.e., your) interpretation; senses #3, #4, and #5 are popular constructions of the saying, which Fowler regards as more or less slipshod. But he thinks more highly of sense #2, which we may state this way: an apparent exception to a rule may serve on closer examination to strengthen it. By way of example he writes:

"We have concluded by induction that Jones the critic, who never writes a kindly notice, lacks the faculty of appreciation. One day a warm eulogy of an anonymous novel appears over his signature; we see that this exception destroys our induction. Later it comes out that the anonymous novelist is Jones himself; our conviction that he lacks the faculty of appreciation is all the stronger for the apparent exception when once we have found out that, being self-appreciation, it is outside the scope of the rule--which, however, we now modify to exclude it, saying that he lacks the faculty of appreciating others. Or again, it turns out that the writer of the notice is another Jones; then our opinion of Jones the first is only the stronger for having been momentarily shaken. These kinds of exception are of great value in scientific inquiry, but they prove the rule not when they are seen to be exceptions, but when they have been shown to be either outside of or reconcilable with the principle they seem to contradict."

This is not far removed from "the exception tests the rule." Under the somewhat embarrassing circumstances, that's about the best I can expect.

--CECIL ADAMS

 

[brendan candries]

Most squares have 4 corners.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Most squares have 4 corners.

The norms of communication (brevity, relevance, informativeness, etc.) can be grouped under the heading of "cooperative behavior." If someone is joking, being sarcastic, lying, etc., then they won't follow those norms.

An obvious tautology falls outside those norms- it's something that "goes without saying" and so shouldn't be said. If someone says that most squares have 4 corners people would try to find an interpretation that would make this count as informative, as opposed to an obvious tautology. Failing that, they would think that you are trying to make a joke or something.

 

[Sejs]

Most squares have 4 corners.

Mary has three children. Half of them are boys.

 

[Baramay]

A question regarding the topic. Is there a feat or spell anywhere that is similar to the ability of the bloodhound (p.30 Complete Adventurer) to track the trackless?

I have always found trouble with absolutes in DnD. 2nd edition had the cloak of poisonous or something result put it on-no save your dead. 3rd edition gave the cloak a very high DC. I was impressed. A 1st level commoner did not have much of a chance but my 20th level dwarven fighter with Great Fortitude has a decent chance to live.

I am hoping there is a feat somewhere or a counterspell to reveal a trail. If not help me make one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am hoping there is a feat somewhere or a counterspell to reveal a trail. If not help me make one.

I have a vague memory of a spell in Complete Adventurer that refreshes a trail, but it may only work on old trails, rather than non-existent ones.

There's a spell in Spell Compendium (again, from memory - might be PHBII) that tells you the direction (but not the distance) to your target, and a general feeling of their state of health.

Then there's Discern Location and the like, of course.

-Hyp.

 

[Baramay]

I have a vague memory of a spell in Complete Adventurer that refreshes a trail, but it may only work on old trails, rather than non-existent ones.

There's a spell in Spell Compendium (again, from memory - might be PHBII) that tells you the direction (but not the distance) to your target, and a general feeling of their state of health.

Then there's Discern Location and the like, of course.

-Hyp.

Those are good spells. I believe the spell from SC that you are speaking of is implacable pursuer. Which would work but is a 4th level spell. So one would need to be a 14th level ranger to have it. A blackguard or assassin would have to be 12th level. A bit much to overcome a 1st level spell. Would a spell to counter pass w/o trace be alright at 2nd level? As long as you still had to make a skill check to track?