Tracking

[Cadfan]

"likely" is not supported by the rules.

Yes, it is. Lets try again.

The archery ranger has wisdom as his secondary attribute. He is automatically trained in Nature. If the ranger chooses to be trained in Perception, it is likely that his Perception score will be the highest of any character in the game who doesn't pay feats to try to catch up. And it is likely that his perception score will be equal or better to characters who DO spend feats to catch up. Further, he is likely to have the Nature (or Dungeoneering, one or the other) skill that allows him to do things like identify animal tracks, which is of nontrivial value to a tracker.

So, assuming similar investments of resources, a Ranger beats every other class at tracking.

If another class spends MORE resources than the Ranger (they use a feat on skill training: perception), they will probably just equal him at tracking. The only class likely to be better would be a cleric. A wizard or paladin might equal him, depending on build. Meanwhile, the Ranger still has the Nature skill, which gives him an edge, and if he really wants to fight over who the best tracker is, he can spend a feat of his own for Skill Focus: Perception.

I don't even consider tracking to be all that fundamental to the Ranger, so I don't know why I'm arguing about this, except that someone is wrong on the internets so I must spring into action.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Nnote that page 187, PHB, Perception skill info, has a FIND TRACKS table.
So I'd agree that you find the tracks, but to decipher them IMHO, would require a Nature skill challenge.

IE the rogue could find tracks....humanoid footprints...but a series of nature checks would be needed over time, to work out the actual type and number of creatures, weight/armour (as carrying bulk woudl affect tracks, so heavy = armour or carrying stuff) etc etc.

Also, places where tracks ran out: hard ground, Nature checks would give likely plaes to find more tracks, by working out their course, suitable paths, disturbed wildllife etc.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Nnote that page 187, PHB, Perception skill info, has a FIND TRACKS table.
So I'd agree that you find the tracks, but to decipher them IMHO, would require a Nature skill challenge.

IE the rogue could find tracks....humanoid footprints...but a series of nature checks would be needed over time, to work out the actual type and number of creatures, weight/armour (as carrying bulk woudl affect tracks, so heavy = armour or carrying stuff) etc etc.

Also, places where tracks ran out: hard ground, Nature checks would give likely plaes to find more tracks, by working out their course, suitable paths, disturbed wildllife etc.

Agreed, except that I would take it one step further. Instead of just a base nature check for all monsters, I would probably ask for whatever skill is required for the specific monsters lore check (unless I am mistaken it varies between the diffirent knowledge checks).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Perhaps the designers meant exactly what the rules say- that Perception is the skill for tracking, and that's that?

Is there some kind of problem with that?

The point is that Joe Public will read the ranger description, think "cool, that's the kind of character I want to have" and yet the ranger class has nothing which supports it.

It was either pointless and misleading flavour text at best, or they just couldn't be bothered to do anything with tracking in the end at worst.

 

[Nikosandros]

The point is that Joe Public will read the ranger description, think "cool, that's the kind of character I want to have" and yet the ranger class has nothing which supports it.

It was either pointless and misleading flavour text at best, or they just couldn't be bothered to do anything with tracking in the end at worst.

Thanks for expressing my point much better than I did...

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Uhm, wot? Options are bad? Versitility is the "other side"? How is the capacity for other classes to get tracking a bad thing?

I believe the answers he would give are: no, no, and it's not. In other words, you're agreeing with him.

So the only reason to go ranger is to be the best two weapon fighter or archer?

Yup, pretty much. If you want a dedicated tracker, pick whatever class you want and take Skill Training (Perception), possibly another skill training to support it (something like Nature), and maybe even skill focus. It's easiest to specialize in tracking with a ranger, though, as has been pointed out. With equal feat expenditure and expected ability scores, the ranger will always pull out ahead. If the other guy spends one more feat, he'll be equal or slightly behind (unless the other guy is a cleric), and may not have the appropriate supporting skill.

 

[dagger]

Well we agree that rangers are good at finding tracks.....I never said otherwise. Other than FINDING tracks they are not a ranger in any way. The rules as written (IN the ranger class description) still do not support any other ranger type things like identifying tracks.

Several others agree with me, the only reason to be a ranger is to be the best at two-weapon fighting or archery.

Yes, it is. Lets try again.

The archery ranger has wisdom as his secondary attribute. He is automatically trained in Nature. If the ranger chooses to be trained in Perception, it is likely that his Perception score will be the highest of any character in the game who doesn't pay feats to try to catch up. And it is likely that his perception score will be equal or better to characters who DO spend feats to catch up. Further, he is likely to have the Nature (or Dungeoneering, one or the other) skill that allows him to do things like identify animal tracks, which is of nontrivial value to a tracker.

So, assuming similar investments of resources, a Ranger beats every other class at tracking.

If another class spends MORE resources than the Ranger (they use a feat on skill training: perception), they will probably just equal him at tracking. The only class likely to be better would be a cleric. A wizard or paladin might equal him, depending on build. Meanwhile, the Ranger still has the Nature skill, which gives him an edge, and if he really wants to fight over who the best tracker is, he can spend a feat of his own for Skill Focus: Perception.

I don't even consider tracking to be all that fundamental to the Ranger, so I don't know why I'm arguing about this, except that someone is wrong on the internets so I must spring into action.

 

[AGFlynn]

Very disappointing. I have a 12th lvl 3.5 Ranger who uses tracking a lot and it has proven extremely useful, very core to what he is and does.
There's a lot I like about 4e but the more I see things like this the more I feel that it's just incomplete. I've been saying since the beginning it appeared that the designers were spending more time justifying and pushing a new edition than actually working on it (which is a pretty unfair thing to say, I know).
I've just seen too many minor points that seem half-developed or glossed over. The whole masterwork armor thing, for example, seems poorly thought out and tacked on. Plus the explanation of MW armor is baffling and very badly written.
I honestly think the developers should have taken another year with the whole thing, just my opinon.
Yeah, yeah, I know you'd never arrive at perfection with a ruleset so complicated, so don't bite my head off. But would it really have hurt to wait until it was maybe a little closer to perfect?
At least it can be updated through D&D Insider on the fly down the road.

 

[webrunner]

I don't really understand.. how does being the only class with Perception and Nature as class skills, as well as generally high Wis, not make you a better tracker, as written? I mean, it's possible to not choose those class skills, but if they had a utility power, it's quite possible your character wouldn't choose that power, so that ranger also wouldn't be good at tracking. The book also says they're 'masters of the bow and blade' while the rules are that they're masters of the bow or blade.


Put another way: Can you make a character other than a ranger as good tracker, without sacrificing anything other than 2 trained skills?

 

[Nikosandros]

I honestly think the developers should have taken another year with the whole thing, just my opinon.

This is the topic for another thread, but I have the suspicion that, at some point, the development cycle for 4th edition was cut short by one year (or maybe six months).