Rangers and tracking

[Mal Malenkirk]

So with that logic then he is a non-wilderness ranger. That is fine but a ranger is essentially an outdoorsman so you are taking that part away.

Ranger is just a word tacked on a set of abilities. And I am not taking anything away, just selecting those abilities that fit the character.

That expert tracker thing is a great feat since it's entirely optional. My ranger would instead take something that better defines him as a duelist such as Prime Strike.

But to including a mechanic that insure that ALL rangers are by definition great tracker is too restrictive.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Ranger is just a word tacked on a set of abilities. And I am not taking anything away, just selecting those abilities that fit the character.

That expert tracker thing is a great feat since it's entirely optional. My ranger would instead take something that better defines him as a duelist such as Prime Strike.

But to including a mechanic that insure that ALL rangers are by definition great tracker is too restrictive.

I'm inclined to side with Mal here. What if you want just an archer? Not an outdoorsy, tree-hugging hippie archer. Just a guy who's good (really good) with a bow? Ranger is pretty much your only option, so it's good that it doesn't have a bunch of extra baggage on top. Same thing goes for a dual-wielding warrior (though less so now, with the tempest fighter).

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

Personally, I think certain class bonuses wouldn't be a problem. Races get a bonus to skills, why not classes.

Ranger
+2 to Nature, Dungeoneering.

Rogue
+2 to Stealth, Thievery.

Cleric
+2 to Heal, Religion

Druid
+2 to Nature, Heal/Religion?

Fighter
+2 Athletics, Intimidate?

Etc. Perhaps just a +1, to make it not too extreme seeing as trained gives +5 in it self.

Perhaps their could be a choice between several options.

If you were to give class bonuses to 2 skills, what class/skills would anyone else suggest?

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

Ranger is just a word tacked on a set of abilities. And I am not taking anything away, just selecting those abilities that fit the character.

That expert tracker thing is a great feat since it's entirely optional. My ranger would instead take something that better defines him as a duelist such as Prime Strike.

But to including a mechanic that insure that ALL rangers are by definition great tracker is too restrictive.

It isn't restrictive, anymore so than their other abilities. If you were to give a nature +2 and you don't want to use it then don't. The ranger can't use magic, they can't fly at will, they can't turn into animals, there is a lot they can't do - that isn't restrictive. It's just a class. Some people are trying to push for a classless system, but D&D isn't.

You are talking about wasting a feat on something they should get for free, so you are talking about taking something away. You can still have your Prime Strike.

What they should have done is create a specific archer class that is like an archer soldier type that has nothing to do with 2WF and nature. If anything it should be better at archery than the ranger.

So in a way I agree with what some are saying, I just think the problem is there is a missing class/es, not that the Ranger should be some kind of general class catch all. And the ranger is nature based.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I am sure this has been discussed before just wanted to know where a good thread for it may be found. Does anyone else wonder why rangers do not get bonuses to tracking? Is it because everyone can take a skill and be that good at it. I just think it would be better and make some sense. That may also imply that Druids and Wardens should as well. I may be missing some information and they do somewhere so if they do please tell me.

There was a lot of discussion when 4e came out, which was largely based around the expectations which the class description gives, but then doesn't follow up on.

For instance:

"As a ranger you possess almost supernaturally keen senses and a deep appreciation for untamed wilderness. With you knowledge of the natural world, you are able to track enemies through nearly any landscape, using the smallest clue to set your course, even sometimes the calls and songs of beasts and birds"

A fair few people were rather surprised to read this and then find nothing that actually supports the ranger in doing this!

(it doesn't help that tracking was added to the overloaded Perception skill, rather than being placed with the perhaps more appropriate Nature and Dungeoneering skills)

Cheers

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It isn't restrictive, anymore so than their other abilities. If you were to give a nature +2 and you don't want to use it then don't. The ranger can't use magic, they can't fly at will, they can't turn into animals, there is a lot they can't do - that isn't restrictive. It's just a class. Some people are trying to push for a classless system, but D&D isn't.

You are talking about wasting a feat on something they should get for free, so you are talking about taking something away. You can still have your Prime Strike.

What they should have done is create a specific archer class that is like an archer soldier type that has nothing to do with 2WF and nature. If anything it should be better at archery than the ranger.

So in a way I agree with what some are saying, I just think the problem is there is a missing class/es, not that the Ranger should be some kind of general class catch all. And the ranger is nature based.

I understand your point, but here's the way I think about it. If you want to give rangers a +2 to tracking, then would it not be fair to also give all the other classes a +2 to something? Essentially it seems to me you are adding a class feature, so either the class should give something else up, or you open the door to the demand for all classes to have some such extra feature. Where does it end?

ANY class can take a skill focus feat in any feat. That already allows a fairly significant increase in the character's skill roll. Thus a ranger could take either the new MP feat or skill focus (which is more broadly applicable).

If you DO want to provide the 'classic ranger feel' there is nothing wrong with creating a new ranger build and giving it a unique class feature in place of TWF or AR. He'll be a bit less effective in combat, but not drastically so. He could even get a couple of class features. Lets say +2 to tracking and he can designate a specific monster race as an 'enemy' and get +2 to hit against them or something like that. I seem to recall that 2e rangers had some similar thing.

Builds and class features are always IMHO the way to go with stuff like this.

 

[Storminator]

(it doesn't help that tracking was added to the overloaded Perception skill, rather than being placed with the perhaps more appropriate Nature and Dungeoneering skills)

Cheers

IMC (not yet begun!) I will require Nature trained to track outdoors, and Dungeoneering trained to track underground. Perhaps Streetwise trained to track in town.

None of this tracking ability without ever setting foot outdoors for me!

PS

 

[DdraigGoch]

Yeah, tracking really needs to be covered by nature (dungeoneering underground). Perceptive ability is an important component of tracking, but I feel the WIS part of nature deals with this. Tracking is about your understanding of the land and ecology, and I don't just mean for identification. Its about your knowledge of movement, soils, weather, behavior, and all sorts of other things covered by nature. Reducing such an amazing and deep skill to "can you see the disturbance" is really not accurate. Seeing the disturbance (spoor is the "technical" term) is the EASY part, understanding it is the real skill.

 

[nute]

IMC, tracking is done as a Skill Challenge, where Perception is always useful (you might not know exactly what you're looking for, but you'll know it when you see it), and either Nature/Dungeoneering/Streetwise can also be usable (to know specifically what you're looking for) and in some very specific cases, skills like Thievery ("Hey, you can tell that door's had its hinges oiled recently, he may have snuck in there!") or Arcana ("You smell the remnants of patchouli, the eladrin may have Fey Stepped across the bridge...").

This way, most classes who should be able to track can do so, it's just that Rangers tend to automatically be trained in at least one of the applicable skills.

 

[Ceraus]

I impose a penalty to tracking checks equal to how much a PC's Perception exceeds the relevant environment skill.

In practice, this means a tracking check is done using a PC's worst check (between Perception and Nature/Dungeoneering/other). This has scarcely affected the party tracker in the passage to 4E.

However, using some kind of skill chellenge seems like a good idea.