Tracking

[Larry Hunsaker]

Perhaps the 4E designers intended tracking to be resolved using the Skill Challenge mechanic. You could design a skill challenge for it with those skills mentioned above and set the DCs based on how difficult the tracking is or the complexity could also reflect this. This could be a challenge where there would be quite a lot of time between the skill checks to see if you ultimately succeed or fail. So you may need, for example, 6 successes before 3 failures, but you will be testing for those 6 successes over many hours or days, and so it may turn out you spend lots of time tracking and invest lots of hours/days but ultimately fail, but you will not know that unless you do spend all that time trying. Could be a skill challenge that builds the suspense over many encounters. You could basically resolve it check by check and have many encounters between the checks before you finally either succeed or fail. You could even get bonuses to the checks based on how the encounters you faced in the mean time went (maybe you captured one of the group you were tracking who fell behind to to a rear guard attack against you and he spills his guts giving you bonuses to your next skill checks).

 

[Cadfan]

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?

 

[Wolfwood2]

I started running 'Keep on the Shadowfell' last Wednesday. The players wanted to do some tracking, and in the absence of rules I set it up as an off-the-cuff skill challenge. (I had to guess on setting DCs.)

Basically I just started tossing obstacles in their way until they got 6 successes or 3 failures. First a Bluff check when releasing the monster so as to not make it suspcious about their intention to follow it (failed). Second a Nature check to look for a good place to pick up the trail (succeeded). Third a Peception check when the trail led to some rocky, boulder-strewn land (succeeded). Fourth the monster ducked through a bramble bush, so the halfling made an Acrobatics check to crawl behind its trail while the dwarf made an Endurance check to bull a trail through for the others (fail, fail, at which point I declared the trail lost).

It worked pretty well.

 

[Surgoshan]

You could also do an opposed check. Perception (tracker) vs Nature (trackee).

 

[dagger]

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?

Yes because at this point the only reason to be a ranger is to be the best at two weapon fighting or archery.

 

[Vempyre]

Yes because at this point the only reason to be a ranger is to be the best at two weapon fighting or archery.

That's why they defined the ranger as a striker.

The ranger has perception on his class list anyway allowing him to track well, which very few others have, so what's the problem? That a rogue can do it too? 4E is specifically trying to avoid a general group/type abilities that only one class can do except for the wizard who's the only controller.

 

[Jawa1972]

I think having perception for tracking with (nature/dungeoneering/streetwise) as a supporting skill works very well for tracking. Rogue's and Rangers can track but the choice of other skills that match the environment change the chance of success. i'll probably allow a +2~4 bonus for the supporting skill.

Here are three examples:
Gruf Ironbeard, A dwarf ranger with dungeoneering who spent most of his life hounding goblin raiders in the caves and tunnels of his mountain home has advantages in caves.
Salliandra Treehugger, an elf rangerwith the nature skill find tracking in the forest easy but lacking dungoneering she lack the experience to easily track in the Icky Caverns of Doom.
Sly the Rogue, a human rogue finds it easy to track a band of kidnappers through the streets of Waterdeep, something that both rangers would find more dificult.

 

[Nikosandros]

That's why they defined the ranger as a striker.

The ranger has perception on his class list anyway allowing him to track well, which very few others have, so what's the problem? That a rogue can do it too? 4E is specifically trying to avoid a general group/type abilities that only one class can do except for the wizard who's the only controller.

The "problem" is that the part of the description that I quoted isn't matched at all by the rules.

More in general, I would have liked for the classes to have cool and special stuff to do outside of combat too.

 

[dagger]

That's why they defined the ranger as a striker.

The ranger has perception on his class list anyway allowing him to track well, which very few others have, so what's the problem? That a rogue can do it too? 4E is specifically trying to avoid a general group/type abilities that only one class can do except for the wizard who's the only controller.

Then just have 4 classes.....and call one of them striker.

 

[helium3]

The "problem" is that the part of the description that I quoted isn't matched at all by the rules.

More in general, I would have liked for the classes to have cool and special stuff to do outside of combat too.

Well . . . just because there's flavor text in the class description doesn't mean there has to be corresponding crunch. Perhaps that tells you right there why there aren't any specific tracking rules in the core books.

The designers think a class should have an ability, so they mention it in the flavor text. But, since that ability can't ever really affect what they consider crucial to game balance, they don't bother to create any specific rules. They're assuming most groups will be willing and happy to come up with their own house rules about how to handle tracking. Some groups will use a skill challenge, some groups will use a skill check, others will turn it into a power or a feat and some might even make it a ritual.

At least, that's my theory. It sorta matches up with other ambiguities I've run into in the PHB. It's either that or the folks that wrote it left out a lot of pretty obvious "corner cases" or whatever they're called.