D&D 5E Tracking without "tracking" feature, tripping without "trip"

[Mistwell]

It's a very robust (and fun!) system -- not to be knocked without trying it in play! Whether it's right for D&D is a legitimate question, but it shouldn't be removed out of hand.

Removed?

It's not the current D&D rule, it's not the playtest D&D rule, you're asking to add it to the game, not remove it.

And it's not for D&D Next. Next is, in part, about giving the power back to the DM. This sort of rule does not fit with the theme of Next, unless it's in the storygame add-on.

 

[Kobold Stew]

...removed [from the discussion] out of hand...

Apologies if that was not clear to you.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] It doesn't need to be a rule necessarily, it's more the idea of making failure interesting with real consequences...to address the repetition of skill checks in a pile-on fashion. D&D Next has lots of "guidelines" (e.g. in the exploration & interaction sections), so this sort of thing would fit in fine I think.

 

[Mistwell]

As guidelines for DMs? Sure. Just...not as a rule.

 

[the Jester]

IMO, the Ranger's tracking ability seems to say that the Ranger is automatically great at tracking, rather than that others cannot track. It says that the Ranger automatically succeeds under many circumstances. The way I'd rule it is that where a Ranger automatically succeeds, other characters would have to make a check. That seems to me the intent.

That's how I read it, too.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I'd like to see some Optional Guidelines/Suggestions in the DMG for Degress of success and failure for D20 checks. I know Lore checks in 4th, and possibly 3rd had varying levels of success on information passed back to the party based on the number rolled. I want to see something similar for skill/ability checks.

I'll have to work on something like this for my game.
Although I plan on having critical fumbles introduce Complications of some sort.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd like to see some Optional Guidelines/Suggestions in the DMG for Degress of success and failure for D20 checks. I know Lore checks in 4th, and possibly 3rd had varying levels of success on information passed back to the party based on the number rolled. I want to see something similar for skill/ability checks.

I'll have to work on something like this for my game.
Although I plan on having critical fumbles introduce Complications of some sort.

Maybe as part of an add-on module, but you're adding levels of complexity to the game which 5e is expressly attempting to reduce for the core game.

 

[CAFRedblade]

Maybe as part of an add-on module, but you're adding levels of complexity to the game which 5e is expressly attempting to reduce for the core game.

Oh, I agree, it's adding a new level of complexity to the game.
But there is probably(I have no verifiable proof of this, it's just a guess) a large enough audience to create a module for this type of complexity. Other game systems have various degrees of success mechanics.

Technically the Critical Hit in combat is a type of additional complexity in this vein, based on rolling a 20.

Otherwise I'll be glad to ponder and test out a few ideas in this area for my home game.

 

[Zaruthustran]

IMO, the Ranger's tracking ability seems to say that the Ranger is automatically great at tracking, rather than that others cannot track. It says that the Ranger automatically succeeds under many circumstances. The way I'd rule it is that where a Ranger automatically succeeds, other characters would have to make a check. That seems to me the intent.

I think that was the intent as well. My beef is that tracking is a pretty common activity in games. Right now, if a character wants to track, the only rules that cover that activity are in the Classes pdf, as a class feature for a single class.

Since the word "tracking" is not mentioned anywhere else, the implication is that only rangers can track. Under literal RAW, neither the Bounty Hunter ("You track down and capture fugitives...") nor the Guide ("leading others along rarely used tracks and paths.") can even attempt to track, unless they're also a Ranger. No more than a Fighter can attempt to Channel Divinity.

Or unless the DM and player use their own initiative, and create their own subsystem for a Wisdom or Int ability check. But that subsystem will either A) vary from the Tracking rules listed in the Ranger feature, or B) match the Ranger feature's rules, which dilutes the value of that feature / essentially means the Ranger doesn't get a 1st level class feature.

Experienced DMs and players will get past this in an instant. "Let's see, let's go with a DC 15 to track somebody, and -2 to the DC for each additional person or favorable condition, and +2 to the DC for each inclement situation like time, weather, terrain, or whatnot. Make a Wis or Int check."

But new players? Players who have never played a tabletop RPG? The rules should be written with them in mind. Or at least, organized in such a way that a newbie can easily figure things out.



My wish would be for the "Tracking" feature to be renamed "Expert Tracker", and then reference how that feature interacts with a the general Tracking rules--which would be located in How to Play or Backgrounds and Skills.

It's mostly an organizational/conceptual issue.

 

[Garthanos]

Curious how y'all handle attempts to track by characters that lack the ranger's "tracking" feature. Or attempts to trip by creatures without the fighter's "trip" feature.

My concern is that DMs, particularly novice DMs, will not allow those activities if the character lacks those specific class features. I call it the Tarkin Effect, where the more the rules define, the more they squeeze out creative interaction with the game.

Me, I'd allow tracking if the character had the Guide, Bounty Hunter, or similar background. Maybe with a Int or Wis check (search or perception) to determine efficiency. Trip would simply be an opposed Str or Dex check against target's choice of Str or Dex, as either an attack or an action.

Curious how others would rule.

Of course they are allowed same as in 4e if somebody wants to knock something prone they describe how.. and it usually ends up in a attribute check or a skill check (In 4e I would allow numerous possible skills ... arcana for trying it with a magehand) with a dc associated ... the fighters abilities that knock something down in 4e aren't called trip (Knockdown assault for an at-will example) also deal damage. I dont like the name of the fighter ability in Next it implies unskilled use to me.