Under the entry for the ranger's Favored Terrain ability it says that: "A ranger traveling through his favored terrain normally leaves no trail and cannot be tracked (though he may leave a trail if he so chooses)."
Does the 'cannot be tracked' part of it extend to creatures who track by scent or other non-visual means? Does he suddenly stop having a smell? Also, what does it mean by 'traveling normally'? I assume this means on foot as opposed to, say, on a wagon where he would realistically be unable to hide the deep ruts it would leave.
Thanks in advance.
|
The travel bonus is for the ranger alone, though I suspect most GMs will extend it to his animal companion and possibly a mount. I wouldn't extent it to a horse and wagon though.
The scent thing isn't so much that he has no smell but that he cannot be tracked. So he walks along creek-beds, hops from stone to stone, swings from tree vines, rubs skunk scent on himself, whatever it takes to throw them off his trail. There isn't any single specific way they avoid getting tracked, the assumption is that they are the experts on the place and know whatever tricks there are to avoid getting followed.
Under the entry for the ranger's Favored Terrain ability it says that: "A ranger traveling through his favored terrain normally leaves no trail and cannot be tracked (though he may leave a trail if he so chooses)."
Does the 'cannot be tracked' part of it extend to creatures who track by scent or other non-visual means? Does he suddenly stop having a smell?
Sure, why not?
It's a well known trick to travel up and down streams to throw dogs off your scent - they know where you went into the water but not where you came out, or even if you went upstream or down.
It's also a relatviely well-known trick to use something really smelly to mask your own scent. That's where the term "red herring" (meaning 'something that is misleading') came from: masking your scent with a smelly fish to mislead scent-hounds that are tracking you.
Also, what does it mean by 'traveling normally'? I assume this means on foot as opposed to, say, on a wagon where he would realistically be unable to hide the deep ruts it would leave.
You might want to read that again. It does not say "traveling normally", it says "normally leaves no trail". In other words, read it like this: "A ranger normally leaves no trail when he travels through his favored terrain, nor can he be tracked..."
So normally he leaves no trail, but he can if he wants to (which would be the 'abnormally' part).
And I agree, if he is not the one making his trail, then he's not likely to be able to hide it. So if his horse is leaving footprints, or his wagon is leaving ruts, or his skis are leaving trails in the snow, or whatever, then it's a fair bet he cannot hide his tracks.
Although, supposedly, dragging branches behind you while you're mounted or even on a wagon can erase your tracks. I don't know if that's really true, but it sure gets used a lot by Fantasy authors in a great many novels.
I know it doesn't say 'traveling normally' verbatim but the context is similar. The problem here is that it doesn't define what 'normal' is. The wording is the confusing part, which is why I was curious if the supposed 'abormal' part referred to his choosing to leave a trail or his mode of travel (by horse or wagon, etc...). I.e; what constitutes -not- being 'normal'?
I have no issue with scent being foiled by it, that makes sense. I was only wanting to make sure that is what was intended as there are other things that exist to deal with scent tracking specifically (such as the Conceal Scent feat in the Osirion companion book). Still, I figure asking here would settle the disagreement in the group.
I know it doesn't say 'traveling normally' verbatim but the context is similar.
Not similar at all.
Ther eis a big difference between "The ranger travels normally" and "The ranger normally leaves no trail when he travels".
The first case can definitely be confusing, but that isn't what the book says - it's only in your mind because you are misreading it. The book says the other one; read it again if you still aren't sure.
The problem here is that it doesn't define what 'normal' is.
Normal is what he usually does. Usually, he walks carefully and leaves no trail. It's easy for him so it's automatic. Thus, he normally travels this way.
But sometimes he wants to leave a trail. This is abnormal for him, but he can do it if he wants to.
The wording is the confusing part, which is why I was curious if the supposed 'abormal' part referred to his choosing to leave a trail or his mode of travel (by horse or wagon, etc...). I.e; what constitutes -not- being 'normal'?
To put it yet another way, the word "normally" is an adverb that is modifying the phrase "leaves no trail". It is not modifying "travels" at all. If it were to modify "travels" then it would have to be right before it ("normally travels") or right behind it ("travels normally").
Because this adverb is right in front of "leaves no trail", this is the phrase that is being modified.
So he "normally leaves no trail when he is traveling in his favored terrain".
I have no issue with scent being foiled by it, that makes sense. I was only wanting to make sure that is what was intended as there are other things that exist to deal with scent tracking specifically (such as the Conceal Scent feat in the Osirion companion book). Still, I figure asking here would settle the disagreement in the group.
Hopefully I've put it in a disagreement-settling light.
You might want to read that again. It does not say "traveling normally", it says "normally leaves no trail". In other words, read it like this: "A ranger normally leaves no trail when he travels through his favored terrain, nor can he be tracked..."
It was four in the morning when I read it. I believe I originally read it as something akin to a split infinitive ('to boldly go' as opposed to 'to go boldly').
Stepping away from semantics and back to the question of the original post...
The point (and why it is similar) is that whether the context is seen as how he is travelling or his status of leaving a trail or not, 'normally' is in there and the word implies a state of being not normal. The original question is what is 'not normal' here? Either way you choose to interpret it there could be extenuating circumstances that would make the ability unfeasible or impossible. I think I've gleaned thusfar that 'normally' can be defined as only the ranger and animal companion, moving at a reasonable speed (possibly his base land speed?), and not extending to other modes of transport like horses and wagons. Scent tracking does not apply. Sounds like an answer to me.
The whole reason it comes up is because I've dealt with rules-lawyers of the worst kind and many players who like to 'interpret' what the writer meant in ways that can be entirely off-base. This is what happens when there is only one or two sentences describing an effect but little or nothing explaining the how or why. Sure, the reasonable assumption could be made on how this simple ability should work... but that assumes reasonable players now, doesn't it?
I honestly think the word 'normally' could have been omitted entirely... especially considering the amount of stink that one little word has raised at the table.