Track and Survival should have been separate

[Grindle]

It's annoyed me at times that Track checks are based on the Survival skill. Take for example, a bloodhound. A bloodhound should be great at tracking, but there's no reason it should be particularly great at surviving in the wilderness.

You can get around this by saying things like "on Survival checks made to Track", but that's really fixing a problem that shouldn't exist. I think the designers were too ranger-focused when they designed Survival/Track.

[Snowbluff]

Next you will be telling me that Disable Device and Pick Lock make sense as separate skills. Or that spellcraft should be 4 skills: determining a spell's material, somatic, vocal components (to figure out what spell it is), and identifying a spell effect.

[Frathe]

Next you will be telling me that Disable Device and Pick Lock make sense as separate skills. Or that spellcraft should be 4 skills: determining a spell's material, somatic, vocal components (to figure out what spell it is), and identifying a spell effect.

Huh? Disable Device (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm) and Open Lock (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/openLock.htm) are separate skills.

And that Spellcraft example seems nearly irrelevant. His point is that you can know about footprints/scenting without being connected to the wild. Spellcraft just involves knowing about and identifying magic, a single thing.

[Snowbluff]

Huh? Disable Device (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm) and Open Lock (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/openLock.htm) are separate skills.

I never said they were not seperate skills. I am saying that the distinction is mere skill point tax rather than a logical decision.

If survival covers tracking, I think it works. The game has enough skills in it.

[Frathe]

I never said they were not seperate skills. I am saying that the distinction is mere skill point tax rather than a logical decision.

If survival covers tracking, I think it works. The game has enough skills in it.

But the distinction is logical. It's the difference between opening a lock so you can get through, and disabling (messing up) a lock so no one can get through.

The complaint actually came up because Grindle is trying to make a detective class and it bothered him that to make them good at tracking, you'd have to give them Survival as a class skill. Detectives should be able to follow footprints, but they're also known for being urban. (Please don't mention Urban Tracking. It's pretty different and they're getting that too anyway.)

[Duke of Urrel]

Surely a detective class can use some other skill for tracking, such as Search skill. This is a character class that you're inventing, right? So why not make it a class feature that detectives make Search checks to track criminals, instead of Survival checks? Problem solved!

[Psyren]

Weren't they separate in 3.0? (Intuit Direction and Wilderness Lore or something.) You could just do that again.

But I personally think it was more to do with the classes - the ones that were good at tracking also tended to be good at "roughing it." (Barbarians, Rangers, Druids etc.) So when it came time to cut the number of skills down, there was no real benefit to keeping them separate for the majority of players of the game.

[Synovia]

And that Spellcraft example seems nearly irrelevant. His point is that you can know about footprints/scenting without being connected to the wild. Spellcraft just involves knowing about and identifying magic, a single thing.

I don't think I've ever met anyone who can track game who hasn't been good in the wilderness/able to find food/etc/ use a compass/etc.. They're skills that generally go hand in hand.

[Amphetryon]

Surely a detective class can use some other skill for tracking, such as Search skill. This is a character class that you're inventing, right? So why not make it a class feature that detectives make Search checks to track criminals, instead of Survival checks? Problem solved!
Fortunately, Urban Tracking (Cityscape, 64) is a thing that exists to allow for detective work like you describe. Admittedly, it doesn't go off Search, but it goes off a logical Skill for gathering information about criminal whereabouts.

[Synovia]

But the distinction is logical. It's the difference between opening a lock so you can get through, and disabling (messing up) a lock so no one can get through.

Its a distinction that doesn't make a lot of sense. If you can open a particular lock, you can mess up the lock.



The complaint actually came up because Grindle is trying to make a detective class and it bothered him that to make them good at tracking, you'd have to give them Survival as a class skill. Detectives should be able to follow footprints, but they're also known for being urban. (Please don't mention Urban Tracking. It's pretty different and they're getting that too anyway.)

Then make a new skill.

Also, detectives can't really follow footprints. There aren't really any footprints in an urban environment.

[Flickerdart]

Also, detectives can't really follow footprints. There aren't really any footprints in an urban environment.
Tracks left by a bloodied shoe, dirt tracked into rooms from the outside, things knocked over, bits of thread from clothing snagged on pointy bits...

[Morcleon]

Tracks left by a bloodied shoe, dirt tracked into rooms from the outside, things knocked over, bits of thread from clothing snagged on pointy bits...

Only the first two are actually 'footprints'. The others are just clues. :smallwink:

Most urban settings would have enough normal wear & tear on the ground to make it quite difficult to actually see footprints.

[Oko and Qailee]

TBH it sounds more like "pick lock" is a specific subset of disable device...

[Greenish]

TBH it sounds more like "pick lock" is a specific subset of disable device...Pick Lock and Disable Device are subsets of Larceny. :smallwink:

[Elderand]

You can separate things in millions of skills, or group them up together to have just a couple giant skill. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

[Deophaun]

Pick Lock and Disable Device are subsets of Larceny Thievery. :smallwink:
Edited for 4e.

In order to "fix" all the skills that "make no sense" being together, you would wind up with a list of probably several hundred different activities that "make sense" being trained individually. Essentially, you don't want 3.5's skill system. You want 5e's.

[Greenish]

Pick Lock and Disable Device are subsets of Larceny Thievery Larceny. :smallwink:
Edited for 4e.Counter-edited for Legend.

[Flickerdart]

Pick Lock and Disable Device are subsets of Larceny Thievery Larceny. POWER ATTACK :smallwink:


Edited for 4e.


Counter-edited for Legend.
Edited for Barbarians.

[hamishspence]

It's annoyed me at times that Track checks are based on the Survival skill. Take for example, a bloodhound. A bloodhound should be great at tracking, but there's no reason it should be particularly great at surviving in the wilderness.

It's a dog- dogs are generally fairly good survivors when they go feral.

[Grindle]

Only the first two are actually 'footprints'. The others are just clues. :smallwink:.

Well, the SRD suggests Track isn't just for footprints:


Firm Ground
Most normal outdoor surfaces (such as lawns, fields, woods, and the like) or exceptionally soft or dirty indoor surfaces (thick rugs and very dirty or dusty floors). The creature might leave some traces (broken branches or tufts of hair), but it leaves only occasional or partial footprints.

[Greenish]

It's a dog- dogs are generally fairly good survivors when they go feral.Mmn, bloodhound isn't such a great PrC, so the DM might allow you to take the feral template.

[hamishspence]

There's also a Survivor PRC in Savage Species ... :smallamused:

[Scow2]

Best skill for Track is Profession(Train Engineer).

Joking aside - Search is what you use to find specific clues to point in a direction, but you need a set of canny 'survival'-type subskills to intuitively follow a path. Furthermore, a hard-boiled, streetwise Private Investigator-type detective IS trained in Survival, which is not just for wilderness excursions - the underside of a blighted urban cityscape can be just as treacherous if not moreso than anything out in the forests and mountains and swamps.


There's also a Survivor PRC in Savage Species ... :smallamused:A more mislabeled PrC has never been.

[T.G. Oskar]

Open Lock should be a subset of Disable Device. After all, Disable Device also covers Sabotage, which isn't really the point of Larceny. Perhaps Thievery, but Sabotage is mostly an offensive use of DD while disabling traps is mostly defensive (you're lowering the target's defenses so that you don't spring them, instead of disabling the target's offenses and defenses).

However, I don't find why Track has to be separate from Survival. After all, Track goes as far as the DM wants to. Urban Tracking covers tracking stuff in the city pretty well, and it should cover footprints and whatnot.

Also, 5e skill system? That's basically the specialties options of many other games. You want 2e non-weapon proficiencies for that. But then, you'd need upwards of 20 skill points per level JUST for the melee classes, and around 40 for the skilled ones.

[molten_dragon]

It's annoyed me at times that Track checks are based on the Survival skill. Take for example, a bloodhound. A bloodhound should be great at tracking, but there's no reason it should be particularly great at surviving in the wilderness.

You can get around this by saying things like "on Survival checks made to Track", but that's really fixing a problem that shouldn't exist. I think the designers were too ranger-focused when they designed Survival/Track.

They should definitely stay the same skill. This game has WAY too many skills as it is.

[navar100]

Tracking is just a DM plot device disguised as an ability anyway. When following tracks you arrive where you need to be precisely when the DM wants you to. If the path splits, doesn't matter which way you go. It's possible one path does not lead to destination you really want, but the DM has plans for that path anyway by obviousness since the DM put that split in the path there purposely. Some DMs don't care which split path you take. You arrive where you need to be for either choice or your first choice always leads to some other encounter the DM wants to run first before you head back. If you use tracks to identify creatures that were in the area, you only know the information if the DM wanted you to know anyway. If for some reason the DM needs the identity of the creatures unknown, if you even find tracks at all you only get vague answers.

If you don't use tracking at all you'll get to where you need to be anyway, and the DM has an excuse to run the preliminary encounter he wanted beforehand. You'll never know the identity of creatures you weren't supposed to know anyway or if you are supposed to know an NPC will eventually tell you.

[Grindle]

It's a dog- dogs are generally fairly good survivors when they go feral.

My point was that a bloodhound would be better at tracking than other dogs, but not any better at general survival.

[Greenish]

My point was that a bloodhound would be better at tracking than other dogs, but not any better at general survival.Tracking breed: the creature gains a +4 bonus on Survival checks made to follow tracks.

Or, the game is not concerned with such minor details.

[Roog]

Tracking is just a DM plot device disguised as an ability anyway. When following tracks you arrive where you need to be precisely when the DM wants you to.

If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.

If all the DM has is a railroad, then everything looks like a DM plot device.

[Scow2]

My point was that a bloodhound would be better at tracking than other dogs, but not any better at general survival.
The "Scent" feature gives a bonus to Survival checks for tracking by scent, but not other survival checks.

[Grindle]

The "Scent" feature gives a bonus to Survival checks for tracking by scent, but not other survival checks.

The Scent feature doesn't give a bonus, it completely changes the rules for tracking.

[tiercel]

Tracking is just a DM plot device disguised as an ability anyway. When following tracks you arrive where you need to be precisely when the DM wants you to.

I realize this is blue text and all, but it takes only minimal effort to branch the railroad lines:

if (Track.good) then {
PCs.find.bad.guy;
PCs.do.recon.intel and/or PCs.ambush.bad.guy;
} else {
PCs.wander.lost;
bad.guy.ambushes.PCs;
}

(I've seen people rail against Track as "useless" enough times that I feel compelled to answer that DMs actually CAN allow for class abilities other than "full spellcasting" to be useful.)

Heck, 3.5 already has skill taxes on stuff like Hide and Move Silently being separate skills (which you might be able to justify philosophically, but if you are trying to make a stealthy character you pretty much have no choice to be max both, generally). And yes, I know there are alternative systems for these skills, but the point is that systems of 3.x > 3.5 typically don't split 3.5 skills into more skills, they tend to merge them into fewer skills.

[TuggyNE]

if (Track.good) then {
PCs.find.bad.guy;
PCs.do.recon.intel and/or PCs.ambush.bad.guy;
} else {
PCs.wander.lost;
bad.guy.ambushes.PCs;
}

OT: that is the weirdest pseudo-OO psuedocode I've ever seen, I think. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I realize this is blue text and all, but it takes only minimal effort to branch the railroad lines:

if (Track.good) then {
PCs.find.bad.guy;
PCs.do.recon.intel and/or PCs.ambush.bad.guy;
} else {
PCs.wander.lost;
bad.guy.ambushes.PCs;
}



I like this algorithm because it makes tracking useful for something without penalizing groups that don't have it too much. If successful tracking = surprise round, then the scouts will want to scout more and you get lots of RP potential. (e.g. "Aragorn" telling the noisy cleric to wait in camp.)

[Flickerdart]

There are issues with that, though:
a) If "Aragorn" is discovered, he doesn't have the help of the noisy cleric and will probably die (never split the party!);
b) If the bad guys are careful and keep an eye on their trail, "Aragorn" will be discovered;
c) If word gets out that the adventurer group operating in this area has a high-level ranger, the bad guys will be careful and keep an eye on their trail.
d) Even if "Aragorn" is not discovered, by the time he goes back and gets the cleric and comes back, the situation may have changed.

[Psyren]

There are issues with that, though:
a) If "Aragorn" is discovered, he doesn't have the help of the noisy cleric and will probably die (never split the party!);
b) If the bad guys are careful and keep an eye on their trail, "Aragorn" will be discovered;
c) If word gets out that the adventurer group operating in this area has a high-level ranger, the bad guys will be careful and keep an eye on their trail.
d) Even if "Aragorn" is not discovered, by the time he goes back and gets the cleric and comes back, the situation may have changed.

Indeed, which is why rangers aren't very good scouts.

But let's put a Psychic Rogue through the same situation:

a) If you're discovered, you have myriad ways of getting away like dimension door and flight. And with the ability to shrink down to Fine (without reducing your speed), control ambient light and sound, and even morph into objects or innocuous animals, your chances of getting found are slim. DHI means they cannot surprise you in turn. And if it comes to a fight, you can hold your own well with an Astral Construct flanking buddy/mount, no-save-just-suck entangle/grease on your pursuers, or even teleporting/plane-shifting to safety as an Elocater.

b-c) See (a), with the added benefit that you can actually scout far beyond your line of sight, so watching their trail doesn't help them much even if they know you're after them.

d) You have instant radio by leaving your psicrystal with the party, which can describe everything you see and lead the party to you. Or vice versa - have your psicrystal tail them (it's just as skillful as you are) and relay its visuals to you.

[Grindle]

I agree that some skills (like Open Lock and Disable Device) that could be combined are separate, while others that could be separate are combined (like Survival and Track).
Everyone (at least in this thread) seems to think that all skills that can be lumped together should be lumped together, for reasons like "there are already too many skills" or "___ is just a skill point sink". I don't see why more skills couldn't be separated, and skill point allotments increased to make up for it. Sure, players would have to allot more skill points per level, but it would allow more specialization.

For example, if Open Lock and Disable Device are separate and you're giving 12 skill points, a player could put all those points in Open Lock. If you're combining skills and only give 8 skill points to make up for the decreased number of skills, a player only can get 8 ranks in the combined skill, and won't be as good at opening locks.

People seem to think that skills should be extensions of classes (like Survival for rangers, or a Thievery skill for Rogues), but I don't see why they need to work like that.

[Flickerdart]

For example, if Open Lock and Disable Device are separate and you're giving 12 skill points, a player could put all those points in Open Lock. If you're combining skills and only give 8 skill points to make up for the decreased number of skills, a player only can get 8 ranks in the combined skill, and won't be as good at opening locks.

Except nobody is decreasing the number of skill points after merging skills. The point of merging skills is that it allows characters to become skilled at a variety of things, not just one or two skills.

Your example also doesn't really make sense in the context of how 3.5 does skills. Say there are two Rogues. One is operating on a merged skill list and has only 4 skill points per level, and another has the regular list but with 8 points. The regular Rogue could max out Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Open Lock, Disable Device, Search, and Tumble. The modified Rogue could max out Stealth, Disable Device, Perception, Arcobatics, and have exactly the same modifiers to all of the skills the original Rogue had, plus better mods for all the other stuff Acrobatics covers.

[Frathe]

Except nobody is decreasing the number of skill points after merging skills. The point of merging skills is that it allows characters to become skilled at a variety of things, not just one or two skills.

He didn't say anyone was decreasing the number of skill points after merging. Actually read his post. He proposed increasing the number of skill points after splitting.

His point was that splitting skills allows people to specialize their characters more, giving players more choice. Is that a bad thing? Your example seems to be stuck thinking what skills are appropriate for a Rogue (as he said, people seem to think of skills as tied to class).

[molten_dragon]

He didn't say anyone was decreasing the number of skill points after merging. Actually read his post. He proposed increasing the number of skill points after splitting.

His point was that splitting skills allows people to specialize their characters more, giving players more choice. Is that a bad thing? Your example seems to be stuck thinking what skills are appropriate for a Rogue (as he said, people seem to think of skills as tied to class).

Yeah, but splitting skills up won't fix the problem of certain skills being tied to certain classes. That has more to do with how class skills and cross-class skills work than it does how many skills there are in the game.

Plus fewer skills = simpler. Why have 150 skills and give everyone 50 skill points per level when you could instead have 15 skills that cover all the same in-game actions and give everyone 5 skill points per level. The latter makes for far less bookkeeping.

[Frathe]

Yeah, but splitting skills up won't fix the problem of certain skills being tied to certain classes. That has more to do with how class skills and cross-class skills work than it does how many skills there are in the game.You're missing a lot of the point. Flickerdart was only discussing evenly distributing skill points to thief-appropriate skills. If you have more skills, people can stay within their class skills but also further personalize their character.


Plus fewer skills = simpler. Why have 150 skills and give everyone 50 skill points per level when you could instead have 15 skills that cover all the same in-game actions and give everyone 5 skill points per level. The latter makes for far less bookkeeping.

Yes, but it also allows for much less character specialization. You want to be a thief who focuses on picking locks, instead of disabling traps? Too bad; they're a single skill now.