Cartographer teleporting through walls

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Which is why there exists ambiguity in the writing - it is, in fact, a poorly constructed sentence.  

It isn't, though, regardless of people's efforts to find real ambiguity when it isn't there

Conditions for using the feature and what it does are set ("On your turn, you can spend an amount of movement equal to half your Speed (round down) to teleport to an unoccupied space you can see"), then two use cases are defined ("within 10 feet of yourself", or "within 5 feet of a creature that is within 30 feet of you and holding one of your Adventurer’s Atlas maps"), with one final condition added ("You can’t use this benefit if your Speed is 0")

English grammar isn't algebra (far, far from it lol), but arguing that "you can see" applies to only one of those use cases and not the other is like arguing that ab(x + y) doesn't equal abx + aby. If they wanted b to only apply to x and not y, they really should have said so

I'm speaking here as someone who's both playing a Cartographer artificer in a weekly game and has every incentive to buy into this argument, and someone who earns their living as a writer and editor. The sentence structure isn't the problem here. wagnarokkr's Rule of Cool approach is a far better one than this sort of grammatical pretzel logic if you want to argue for being able to teleport to a spot you cannot see -- an ability, I might add, that isn't available in a spell until dimension door at 4th level, unless I'm forgetting one

You can teleport through a Wall of Force or through a glass wall, or through a wall that has any hole/window/door in it.

I have often used similar abilities (Misty Step) to get in and out of a Wall of Force or a ForceCage (Cha. check required)

Ambiguity exists when the same rule can be read in two different ways.  In law, when we want to show a rule is ambiguous, there is a very simple test we apply--we use letters to break up where the clauses sit without changing the underlying terms.  If there are two or more ways to add parentheticals that result in a clear and grammatically correct writing, then the underlying rule is ambiguous.  It does not matter if one reading might be "more easy" than the other in its original form - if you can read the same thing different ways, there is an ambiguity.  This is why, when I write actual statutes, I always specifically include the listed parenthetical signals--it is a much easier way of removing ambiguity without having to turn over backwards to address all the ways English can be twisted.  Wizards does not do this in D&D (they do in Magic's Comprehensive Rules) because it looks a bit formalistic and messy and is not exactly easy for laypeople to read.  That is a perfectly valid stylistic choice that sometimes might cause confusion, as in this case, but, more often than not, is going to be fine.  

Applying this test here clearly shows the ambiguity.  Both the below sentences are grammatically correct and unambiguous - but only are such because of the placement of the signals within.  Thus, the underlying sentence contains, on its face, an ambiguity.  There really should be no question of that - it is plain to see for anyone with a basic understanding of how to write and interpret rules.  But, the fact folks are continuing to argue against it sort of proves my point above - the human mind is preconditioned to accept its reading and will interpret sentence structure in such a way as to fixate on those preconditions.   Not sure I have anything else to say on this subject beyond that, so probably will not be posting again on this thread unless someone raises something novel. 

Portal Jump. On your turn, you can spend an amount of movement equal to half your Speed (round down) to teleport to an unoccupied space you can see (a) within 10 feet of yourself or (b) within 5 feet of a creature that is within 30 feet of you and holding one of your Adventurer’s Atlas maps. You can’t use this benefit if your Speed is 0.

Portal Jump. On your turn, you can spend an amount of movement equal to half your Speed (round down) to teleport to an unoccupied space (a) you can see within 10 feet of yourself or (b) within 5 feet of a creature that is within 30 feet of you and holding one of your Adventurer’s Atlas maps. You can’t use this benefit if your Speed is 0.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Ambiguity exists when the same rule can be read in two different ways.  In law, when we want to show a rule is ambiguous, there is a very simple test we apply--we use letters to break up where the clauses sit without changing the underlying terms.

This is not a legal document though, and there's no reason to treat it as such

As an editor, I look for confusion and ambiguity all the time. I also have to ask myself whether a particular reading is something that could reasonably be arrived at, or if it's just nitpicking/finding issues for the sake of finding issues. This is firmly in the latter category. A handful of people getting lost in the weeds on grammar does not indicate a sentence's meaning is ambiguous

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Ambiguity exists when the same rule can be read in two different ways.  In law, when we want to show a rule is ambiguous, there is a very simple test we apply--we use letters to break up where the clauses sit without changing the underlying terms.

 

This is not a legal document though, and there's no reason to treat it as such

As an editor, I look for confusion and ambiguity all the time. I also have to ask myself whether a particular reading is something that could reasonably be arrived at, or if it's just nitpicking/finding issues for the sake of finding issues. This is firmly in the latter category. A handful of people getting lost in the weeds on grammar does not indicate a sentence's meaning is ambiguous

 
Since I did say I would respond to novel arguments, I’ll bite. 

Your argument is essentially dismissing my analysis on the grounds that “Your analysis, which is based upon how to read rules systems, is not applicable in reading this rule system.  We should instead apply my analysis, which is about reading non-rule systems, to this rule system.”   I think it is pretty clear why that is a silly argument, and why the rules system analysis - which demands a level of specificity beyond that of plain writing - is more applicable.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Ambiguity exists when the same rule can be read in two different ways.  In law, when we want to show a rule is ambiguous, there is a very simple test we apply--we use letters to break up where the clauses sit without changing the underlying terms.  If there are two or more ways to add parentheticals that result in a clear and grammatically correct writing, then the underlying rule is ambiguous.  It does not matter if one reading might be "more easy" than the other in its original form - if you can read the same thing different ways, there is an ambiguity.  This is why, when I write actual statutes, I always specifically include the listed parenthetical signals--it is a much easier way of removing ambiguity without having to turn over backwards to address all the ways English can be twisted.  Wizards does not do this in D&D (they do in Magic's Comprehensive Rules) because it looks a bit formalistic and messy and is not exactly easy for laypeople to read.  That is a perfectly valid stylistic choice that sometimes might cause confusion, as in this case, but, more often than not, is going to be fine.  

Applying this test here clearly shows the ambiguity.  Both the below sentences are grammatically correct and unambiguous - but only are such because of the placement of the signals within.  Thus, the underlying sentence contains, on its face, an ambiguity.  There really should be no question of that - it is plain to see for anyone with a basic understanding of how to write and interpret rules.  But, the fact folks are continuing to argue against it sort of proves my point above - the human mind is preconditioned to accept its reading and will interpret sentence structure in such a way as to fixate on those preconditions.   Not sure I have anything else to say on this subject beyond that, so probably will not be posting again on this thread unless someone raises something novel. 

Portal Jump. On your turn, you can spend an amount of movement equal to half your Speed (round down) to teleport to an unoccupied space you can see (a) within 10 feet of yourself or (b) within 5 feet of a creature that is within 30 feet of you and holding one of your Adventurer’s Atlas maps. You can’t use this benefit if your Speed is 0.

 

Portal Jump. On your turn, you can spend an amount of movement equal to half your Speed (round down) to teleport to an unoccupied space (a) you can see within 10 feet of yourself or (b) within 5 feet of a creature that is within 30 feet of you and holding one of your Adventurer’s Atlas maps. You can’t use this benefit if your Speed is 0.

 

 I really appreciate the way you laid out the ambiguity here. I tend towards the second interpretation but I think you've really clearly laid out the situation. :-)

I would argue to the second because your maps allow you to replace the map with sight in general for magic regarding your mapholders. You know where they are all the time, as long as they're on the same plane. It makes sense that for a jump that isn't to a mapholder, though, that you'd need to see the space.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Your argument is essentially dismissing my analysis on the grounds that “Your analysis, which is based upon how to read rules systems, is not applicable in reading this rule system.  We should instead apply my analysis, which is about reading non-rule systems, to this rule system.”   I think it is pretty clear why that is a silly argument, and why the rules system analysis - which demands a level of specificity beyond that of plain writing - is more applicable.

And yet, we have been told repeatedly over the last decade or so that the rules of D&D 5e are quite intentionally written in plain language

You poring over those rules like they are a legal document that must define every term with precision and be able to withstand a court challenge is exactly what I was talking about when it comes to scanning for issues that go beyond what a casual reader would find. That's a great skill to have in your profession. You're not on the clock, though

Placing “you can see” before either option would imply both, having it after the 10’ reference but before the separator “or’ is more ambiguous.  At least to me. 8)

The DnDBeyond post for the subclass also phrased it as: "nearby visible space or adjacent to an ally holding your map within 30 feet." (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/2109-forge-your-story-with-5-inventive-artificer)

There are plenty of spells/features that specify for both options you need to be able to *see*. Therefore I interpret as only needing to see for the first option. Plus, it fits with the theme of the subclass.

Detect Thoughts: "target a creature you can see within 30 feet OR a creature within 30 feet that you detected with the spell" - Everyone rules that you don't need to see the second option.

Branches of The Tree: "...or be teleported to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of yourself or in the nearest unoccupied space you can see." - Specifically says in both that you need to see.

Deflect Attacks: "If you do so, choose a creature you can see within 5 feet of yourself if the attack was a melee attack or a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself that isn’t behind Total Cover if the attack was a ranged attack" - Specifically says in both that you need to see.

Upon reflection, I think that, while the sentence is absolutely structurally ambiguous, there's only one correct reading.

And that's because I don't think one can reasonably unbind "you can see" from "unoccupied", and, unless you wan't to argue that the second half allows teleporting to an occupied space, despite having no rules text to explain how that works, that forces the reading where you have to see the space you're teleporting to in either case.

It's still careless rules construction on their part, though.

Is it really careless when even the official rule books more or less say “these are guidelines and the DM can follow them as they see fit.”

Quote from bthec18 >>

Is it really careless when even the official rule books more or less say “these are guidelines and the DM can follow them as they see fit.”

 Yes. "You don't have to follow the rules we give you" is completely different from the rules being ambiguously written.

The game will work even if DMs at different tables read the rules differently, but it creates extra friction when different people at the same table read the intention differently.

Quote from jl8e >>

Upon reflection, I think that, while the sentence is absolutely structurally ambiguous, there's only one correct reading.

And that's because I don't think one can reasonably unbind "you can see" from "unoccupied", and, unless you wan't to argue that the second half allows teleporting to an occupied space, despite having no rules text to explain how that works, that forces the reading where you have to see the space you're teleporting to in either case.

It's still careless rules construction on their part, though.

They also did give the Cartographer an ability that lets them bypass sight requirements, and made it very explicit they were doing so. It's just not Portal Jump

Positioning. The target knows the location of all other map holders that are on the same plane of existence as itself. When casting a spell or creating another effect that requires being able to see the effect’s target, a map holder can target another map holder regardless of sight or cover, so long as the other map holder is still within the effect’s range.