Tracking

[Lord Sessadore]

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.

How do you define a ranger? Why don't we start there.

My definition of a ranger: someone who lives in the wild, usually forests, skilled woodsman (or dungeonman, or what-have-you), pretty good with animals and tracks and the like, and in combat: lightly armored, fast, mobile, usually stealthy, and deadly.

Is that close?

 

[Alkiera]

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

The only reason to go 18-wheeler is to carry the most cargo.

Just as true, just as bad an argument. If you're going to make a TWF character, you should be a ranger. Same with archery; no one else gets near as many powers that allow for ranged weapons.

4E classes are primarily designed about what they do IN COMBAT. They do have preferences toward what to do out of combat (wizard has rituals, pally has social skills, rogue has sneaky stuff, ranger has environmental skills, etc), but those abilities are not set in stone. If you want to be the oblivious ranger, choose skills other than perception. If you want to be a boorish paladin, you are free to do so. If you want to be the naturalist cleric you can pick up perception and nature with a couple feats, and be a pretty good tracker by level 2, or 1 if human.

What if you wanted to be a woodsman, with a 2h axe? Ranger doesn't support that... but if you choose fighter, and add a few skill training feats, you're good to go.

This is freeing you from the class definitions for out-of-combat scenarios; unlike 3.x where if you wanted to find traps, you HAD to have rogue levels. If you wanted to track, you HAD to have ranger levels. Your class can either aid your out-of-combat desires, or fight them. You can be a wizard who is a master of lock picking and sneaking; but you'll either give up some magical power to do so, or not be quite as good as the rogue, whose combat abilities synergize with theft and sneakiness.

Freedom! Free yourself from the 3.x class-is-everything mindset!

 

[AGFlynn]

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?

Well, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you actually describe the ranger as a superior tracker in the fluff, it would stand to reason you'd actually deal with it in the class mechanics. Even something as simple as a flat bonus to tracking would have sufficed.
You read the blurb then go looking for the crunch and come up with "?"
In 3.5 there was a lot of attention paid to tracking, how different conditions and terrain affect it etc. etc.
My 3.5 ranger uses tracking all the bloody time -- it was a major strength when it came time to find an invisible foe or figure out which way to go.
Justifiying referring to the ranger as a superior tracker in his/her description then not even explaining that this is so simply because by defaukt they are the best at tracking is not acceptable.

 

[sunrisekid]

In 3.5 there was a lot of attention paid to tracking, how different conditions and terrain affect it etc. etc.
My 3.5 ranger uses tracking all the bloody time -- it was a major strength when it came time to find an invisible foe or figure out which way to go.

Is it possible that these game elements were present precisely because you play a ranger who's good at tracking? As a DM, I do this all the time - provide fun challenges that put the spotlight on the character's strengths.

Justifiying referring to the ranger as a superior tracker in his/her description then not even explaining that this is so simply because by defaukt they are the best at tracking is not acceptable.

I see your point but disagree. The example of an invisible foe, which your DM chose to challenge you with and further chose to permit the use of tracking to deal with said challenge, is table-specific.

Broadly speaking, I don't see D&D diminished by leaving tracking as fluff, role-playing, or story-telling fodder. Whether a character really succeeds at tracking is always by DM fiat, regardless of dice and a table full of conditional modifiers.

Perhaps the issue would feel like less of an affront if the book clearly stated that successful use of tracking is under DM purvue. I don't have access to a DMG at this point so won't comment further.

 

[webrunner]

Well, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you actually describe the ranger as a superior tracker in the fluff, it would stand to reason you'd actually deal with it in the class mechanics. Even something as simple as a flat bonus to tracking would have sufficed.
You read the blurb then go looking for the crunch and come up with "?"
In 3.5 there was a lot of attention paid to tracking, how different conditions and terrain affect it etc. etc.
My 3.5 ranger uses tracking all the bloody time -- it was a major strength when it came time to find an invisible foe or figure out which way to go.
Justifiying referring to the ranger as a superior tracker in his/her description then not even explaining that this is so simply because by defaukt they are the best at tracking is not acceptable.

I suppose this is a case where we simply disagree. I look at the fluff saying it's a superior tracker, and then look at the crunch and see that they're better at tracking.

For your later point, "Justifiying referring to the ranger as a superior tracker in his/her description then not even explaining that this is so simply because by defaukt they are the best at tracking is not acceptable." this is something I disagree with as well: A ranger and a non-ranger, the ranger is a superior (read: better) tracker.

There isn't much in the way of actual tracking rules but that's a different problem then rangers aren't good at tracking which, RAW, they are.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

Except for being the only class with Wisdom as an important stat AND Perception as a class skill.

I don't know, I guess I can't figure out what would be better. The Ranger class tends to have the best Perception bonus. Perception is the skill for tracking. Therefore Rangers are the best trackers. What else should be done? Bear in mind that making Rangers into the ONLY trackers is probably a very bad thing.

And don't forget that Rangers have attendant skills that work well with tracking, like Nature, which covers foraging for food, and identifying things like animal tracks.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you actually describe the ranger as a superior tracker in the fluff, it would stand to reason you'd actually deal with it in the class mechanics. Even something as simple as a flat bonus to tracking would have sufficed.
You read the blurb then go looking for the crunch and come up with "?"
In 3.5 there was a lot of attention paid to tracking, how different conditions and terrain affect it etc. etc.
My 3.5 ranger uses tracking all the bloody time -- it was a major strength when it came time to find an invisible foe or figure out which way to go.
Justifiying referring to the ranger as a superior tracker in his/her description then not even explaining that this is so simply because by defaukt they are the best at tracking is not acceptable.

But if the rogue has been stripped of his exclusive trap-finding skills for greater party diversity, should the ranger not also be stripped of his exclusive tracking skills? If the ranger does indeed start off with Nature and Perception, then he will have quite the head start on tracking, just as the 3E ranger did.

 

[Valdier]

I think I really like the idea of returning synergy bonuses here...

Trained in Nature: +2 when tracking outdoors in a natural environment
Trained in Dungeoneering: +2 when tracking in caves and underground
Trained in Streetwise: +2 when tracking in cities.

 

[AGFlynn]

There isn't much in the way of actual tracking rules but that's a different problem then rangers aren't good at tracking which, RAW, they are.

That's true, they do end up being superior trackers, RAW. But don't you think that after an introduction like that, somewhere it should have been explained that there's no feat that makes them especially good, nor a class ability, they just end up that way due to available skills and inherent modifiers?
It's really not a big deal and I could easily make my ranger a better tracker. I just saw the fluff and went looking for an explanation to justify it.

 

[AGFlynn]

Is it possible that these game elements were present precisely because you play a ranger who's good at tracking?

Yes, that's true. But he excels at tracking and also everything else bundled into survival: gathering food, finding the safest place to make camp, finding water, etc. The survival skill is actually a very nice package. Combined with the tracking feat and rules it was a very useful combination of toolkits.