D&D 5E Abilities....Which check would you use?

[Li Shenron]

A character (not a ranger) has found some animal tracks and wants to try and determine information from them, including what type of creature made them, how many there are, and whether any are injured. What kind of check would you have them make?

1. Wisdom (Survival)

2. Wisdom (Perception)

3. Intelligence (Investigation)

4. Intelligence (Nature)

5. Some other combination, like Intelligence (Survival) or Wisdom (Investigation)?

"When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check."

"Your Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles."

"The GM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks"

As usual, the 5e skill system is far from being compartmentalized, as there is overlapping everywhere.

In this case, I would certainly exclude generic Perception and use something more specific.

If you want to learn more details rather than just noticing things, I'd go with an Intelligence check (there is a general trend about preferring to use Wisdom when dealing with tasks that country/wilderness-dwellers are supposed to know best, as if they are supposedly low-Intelligence, which is frankly insulting).

Nature seems more appropriate for identifying the creature (track shapes is quite straightforward lore), but Investigation is for the rest. Survival specifically mentions tracking however.

Maybe with multiple bits of knowledge at stake, I would actually call for multiple rolls. You can of course just say the Ranger makes a Survival check and get done with it... how about you ask the Druid to know exactly which creatures with Knowledge (Nature), and the party's detective (whoever she is) to tell how many and in what conditions with Intelligence (Investigation), and the Ranger to follow the tracks with Survival (Wisdom)? Now you have a group effort where 3 players participate to and with at least 8 possible hard-combinations of the outcome.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In cases where the character needs to take a physical action, yes. In cases like this, where what's called for is largely happening in the character's head, the result is apt to be ambiguous. If we are too picky about naming approaches, we risk the, "Well, *how* do you search the room? What *exactly* do you look at?" that was a hallmark of previous editions, and more recently replaced with just "I search" without need for any particularly stated approach.

The character is really scouring the inside of their head for anything they know that applies. So, give them the benefit of the doubt, and apply the best option. If that gives them something that bears closer examination with one particular skill, they can follow on with that.

The slippery slope argument is weak. Asking for an approach so that you aren't assuming character actions isn't the same thing as pixel bitching for gotchas. The former is a hood technique for running where you assume character competence and are matching in game action to the resolution mechanics. The latter is adversarial gotcha games. Please stop insisting that anyone asking for an approach is playing adversarial gotcha games.

I'm honestly rather tired of saying this, often for many pages, as other posters continue to insist they understand goal and approach and its just pixel bitching.

Approach is where the player has the opportunity to move the resolution needke in their favor, not where the DM is trying to trip up the players. If your trying to ID the tracks, as in the OP, and you dump statted INT, then your approach is how you get to try to sway things in your favor. If you frame your action in terms of, "Bob the Ranger, using his long years of ranging his favored woodlands and the knowledge he gained at the feet of the druids, to determine what dangerous creatures keft these tracks." This reminds the DM of all the things Bob the Ranger has stacked up for success in this regard. The DM could decide to grant auto-success, or advantage, or still ask for a check. If you don't provide this, your relying on the DM to maybe remember and/or just guess what you're doing, but most certainly a check will be called.

Note the complete lack of specific action -- no CSI procedure at all -- in the above. Yet, the DM doesn't have to guess at all as to what the character is doing in the fiction and so can easily adjuducate. This is a game of many players and the DM already has most of the work. Expecting the ither players to do their bit by providing enough in their action declaration to adjudicate should be the norm, not something that has to be constantly defended from slippery slope arguments.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Probably, but not definitely. After all, we are looking at character knowledge, not player knowledge. I never penalize a player for having no clue how to do something that their character may not even have to think about before doing. So unless the player happens to also be a hunter or a boy/girl scout, you are not going to get a detailed answer from them. This is where the player making a good background for their character comes into play also. This kind of thing can give modifiers or advantage or disadvantage on the skill check too.

Right, but the action was just looking at the tracks, not recalling cool character backgrounds to the fore. If the player actually provides the skills his character has as part of the action deckaraction, then they aren't relying on the DM to remember those background details -- they're telling the DM about them again.

I don't understand the pushback on this. It's literally the chance for the player to get the best chance for success by framing the challenge within the character's strengths, but it gets treated like the DM being super picky.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A character (not a ranger) has found some animal tracks and wants to try and determine information from them, including what type of creature made them, how many there are, and whether any are injured. What kind of check would you have them make?

1. Wisdom (Survival)

2. Wisdom (Perception)

3. Intelligence (Investigation)

4. Intelligence (Nature)

5. Some other combination, like Intelligence (Survival) or Wisdom (Investigation)?

This sort of information is in the purview of Rangers, so why would a character who isn't a ranger be able to learn it? It detracts from the class to allow non-rangers to do what rangers can do. At best, a Wisdom (Survival) check could be used to follow the tracks (as per the PHB Survival description), but if I did allow extra information to be gleaned I would only do so with disadvantage on the check.

I know others have said you can do this or do that, but I don't like taking away or lessening key features from other classes.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This sort of information is in the purview of Rangers, so why would a character who isn't a ranger be able to learn it? It detracts from the class to allow non-rangers to do what rangers can do. At best, a Wisdom (Survival) check could be used to follow the tracks (as per the PHB Survival description), but if I did allow extra information to be gleaned I would only do so with disadvantage on the check.

I know others have said you can do this or do that, but I don't like taking away or lessening key features from other classes.

What about the party that has no Ranger? Or how about a scenario where the Ranger who is scouting ahead gets ambushed by some predators, knocked out, and carried off to be eaten later.. you won’t allow the rest of the party to try to track the enemy to rescue their friend? The Ranger might be the best at tracking, but it should not preclude other characters who have invested in Survival or other pertinent skills from trying to succeed on a tracking related action.

 

[5ekyu]

The slippery slope argument is weak. Asking for an approach so that you aren't assuming character actions isn't the same thing as pixel bitching for gotchas. The former is a hood technique for running where you assume character competence and are matching in game action to the resolution mechanics. The latter is adversarial gotcha games. Please stop insisting that anyone asking for an approach is playing adversarial gotcha games.

I'm honestly rather tired of saying this, often for many pages, as other posters continue to insist they understand goal and approach and its just pixel bitching.

Approach is where the player has the opportunity to move the resolution needke in their favor, not where the DM is trying to trip up the players. If your trying to ID the tracks, as in the OP, and you dump statted INT, then your approach is how you get to try to sway things in your favor. If you frame your action in terms of, "Bob the Ranger, using his long years of ranging his favored woodlands and the knowledge he gained at the feet of the druids, to determine what dangerous creatures keft these tracks." This reminds the DM of all the things Bob the Ranger has stacked up for success in this regard. The DM could decide to grant auto-success, or advantage, or still ask for a check. If you don't provide this, your relying on the DM to maybe remember and/or just guess what you're doing, but most certainly a check will be called.

Note the complete lack of specific action -- no CSI procedure at all -- in the above. Yet, the DM doesn't have to guess at all as to what the character is doing in the fiction and so can easily adjuducate. This is a game of many players and the DM already has most of the work. Expecting the ither players to do their bit by providing enough in their action declaration to adjudicate should be the norm, not something that has to be constantly defended from slippery slope arguments.

Just to be clear tho, this definition of approach if I read you correct does not require any specific action of the character to be stated? There was no guidance as to what the character is doing, just the player stating a list of factors that they want the gm to consider.

So, whether or not the character is standing stock still in place or moving around the scene checking for stuff is not needed in the "approach" method, just that you the player get a chance to list all the stuff that went into your background that applies.

Cool.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What about the party that has no Ranger? Or how about a scenario where the Ranger who is scouting ahead gets ambushed by some predators, knocked out, and carried off to be eaten later.. you won’t allow the rest of the party to try to track the enemy to rescue their friend? The Ranger might be the best at tracking, but it should not preclude other characters who have invested in Survival or other pertinent skills from trying to succeed on a tracking related action.

As I wrote, a simple Wisdom (Survival) check will allow anyone to follow tracks (as per the PHB), but the Ranger is the class which can discern greater amounts of information. Why would you take away one of their key abilities and allow any character to do it? If I did allow them the chance to glean additional information, the DC would be high or with disadvantage.

Skills are important, but class trumps skill IMO and at our table, but to each their own...

 

[5ekyu]

This sort of information is in the purview of Rangers, so why would a character who isn't a ranger be able to learn it? It detracts from the class to allow non-rangers to do what rangers can do. At best, a Wisdom (Survival) check could be used to follow the tracks (as per the PHB Survival description), but if I did allow extra information to be gleaned I would only do so with disadvantage on the check.

I know others have said you can do this or do that, but I don't like taking away or lessening key features from other classes.

To me it's not lessening or taking away from the ranger. The ranger gets some of these features automatically in their favored terrain and that still holds.

But allowing the chance of these for other characters as ability checks of various types for non-rangers and rangers outside their favored terrains does not "lessen" that ranger ability.

 

[DND_Reborn]

To me it's not lessening or taking away from the ranger. The ranger gets some of these features automatically in their favored terrain and that still holds.

But allowing the chance of these for other characters as ability checks of various types for non-rangers and rangers outside their favored terrains does not "lessen" that ranger ability.

LOL, fine. As usual you and I must agree to disagree, but that is hardly surprising considering our track record.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

As I wrote, a simple Wisdom (Survival) check will allow anyone to follow tracks (as per the PHB), but the Ranger is the class which can discern greater amounts of information. Why would you take away one of their key abilities and allow any character to do it? If I did allow them the chance to glean additional information, the DC would be high or with disadvantage.

Skills are important, but class trumps skill IMO and at our table, but to each their own...

Sorry for my glossing over that bolded part. I swear things become less visible when trying to reply on a phone. I should learn to wait until I'm back at my laptop...

Anyway, agreed! The Ranger certainly might be more likely to auto-succeed/roll with advantage and/or gain deeper knowledge, while the non-Ranger might be more likely to have a higher DC and/or have disadvantage and/or just gain basic knowledge - depending on the goal and approach. But not always - a Barbarian with an outlander background might be just as able to discern certain tracks as a Ranger. Nonetheless, in general I agree with your premise that the Ranger should own the tracking spotlight.