Survival for basic track identification

[Dark Schneider]

Usually if want to get detailed info from tracks, you have to use Investigation. But sounds reasonable allow to use Survival for some basic info?, like get the number of creatures and/or their sizes, and generic types (based on footprint, if a beast, humanoid, etc.).
So not much detailed info but some.

[hymer]

In our games we absolutely let you track exclusively with Wis (Survival) if you so wish. There is no mention of tracks specifically in the description of the investigation skill, but there is under survival.

[Tanarii]

Tracking is done using Wisdom (Survival). See DMG 244, which also provides DCs for the DM to use. That allows you to follow the trail, not gain information about it.

Also see the PHB adventuring chapter, engaging in Tracking means you cannot use Passive Perception to detect threats. You'll automatically be surprised in case of an ambush. You may also miss some traps, ones you could have become aware of the threat of by Passive Perception.

A Ranger automatically gets information about creatures being tracked: their number, sizes, and how long ago they passed. And they have to be in their chosen terrains to do so. Due to the phrasing "while tracking" I've always assumed you need to pass the initial check to track. And that the ranger ability to do so was exclusive. But YDMMV.

Of course, a DM might also set a Investigation check to determine some information about tracks that have been found. That'd be at the DMs discretion, just like setting any other check. But tracking, following the trail, is explicitly a Wisdom (Survival) check.

[Dark Schneider]

But

Investigation. When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check
I remember Sherlock Holmes investigating tracks to deduce what happened based on clues.
So if you want to determine how many creatures, if some were captives, etc., is not that Investigation?


Survival. The GM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide your group through frozen wastelands, identify signs that owlbears live nearby, predict the weather, or avoid quicksand and other natural hazards.

So as I understand to track is Survival, to get details is Investigation. But getting some info (out of specific Ranger favorite terrain or possible feats) by skills, and in the case of tracks (very related with Survival), then allow it.
I think only allowing it for the specific case of "Ranger at favorite terrain" is too restricted, the skills should allow to do things like that.

I put an example:
You reach the entrance of a cave, you want to determine the creatures number and size inside. With Investigation is supposed you can get that info, but because are tracks, then allow to get some info with Survival. Maybe Intelligence (Survival)? Or simply Wisdom (Survival) would be fine.

[yellowrocket]

Int skills arent going to get you anything from a cave entrance and neither will wisdom unless whatever is in there left a distinguished mark of some kind. MAYBE if there's an obvious mark or specific fur an INT nature check but a background in investigation isnt going to give you those kinds skills to recognize something, except maybe the presence of the clues. Itd be a nature or survival (and survival is explicitly wisdom based in the books, ydmmv) check to learn anything from them.

If you've never had a chance to visit a real cave I suggest you do sometimes. It's a surreal experience going through tiny passageways, sometimes the entrance being one of the smallest, in to massive cavern complexes. And if youve never seen it, wildlife is capable of fitting through some deceptively tiny places.

[hymer]

You reach the entrance of a cave, you want to determine the creatures number and size inside.
The only way to determine that is to go in and look. By looking for clues outside, you may be able to get some sort of range on the numbers ("probably only one, maybe two or three" or "quite many, at least half a dozen"). But that's just how many creatures are regularly in and out of the cave. And the tracks could be misleading: There could be a giant bat in that cave, and there would be no tracks from it outside. Or the cave used to be used by goblins, and there are many tracks from them, but a few hours ago an owlbear took over the cave. The one passage of an owlbear may be a lot harder to spot than the continual passage of many goblins.
The tracks (if there are any, which is up to the DM; a cave rather implies rocky conditions) could also help you identify the type of creature. But you may only see that they are medium creatures with boots on. They could be hobgoblins, orcs, humans, and any number of other things. Tracks only tell you so much. A really good roll might get you a better clue ("slim, light boots; maybe half-elves or drow, and probably not orcs or dwarves").
The DM can make it as simple or as complicated as s/he likes.


With Investigation is supposed you can get that info
The DM can decide that you can get information of that sort with Int (Investigation), sure. But it need not be from tracks. You could get a clue that the creatures inside the cave are, say, orcs, because you notice and old, scrawled eye of Gruumsh on the wall. Clearly this was an orc cave at one time, and maybe it still is.


but because are tracks, then allow to get some info with Survival. Maybe Intelligence (Survival)? Or simply Wisdom (Survival) would be fine.
If the DM determines that some information is available from searching outside the cave, and that the clue to that information is from tracks specifically, the DM should certainly allow Wis (survival) to interpret the tracks. But if the clue is something else, then Wis (survival) may not apply at all. If the clue is a shred of cloth caught on a bush outside, then you could argue that survival could be used as well as investigation. In which case I'd let the player choose which skill to use. But if the clue is recalling the information gathered earlier about how the troll cave entrance they were looking for was a hole between two geological strata, say, then wis (survival) wouldn't make much sense. Int (investigation) on the other hand, would.

[Dark Schneider]

Remember that all that involving "if there is something" is included in the DC for the skill check. For the case they don't want to leave anything, Pass without Trace.

So the mechanic of "something passed", they left some tracks (could be even faeces in the case of bats), and you want to find them and deduce, all that is handled by the use of a skill and the DC, as is not like an auto-success, then all that has been taken in consideration in game mechanics.

Then, once we have this, the point is the skill/s to use for that. Wisdom (Survival) says clearly that is for tracking, not deducing (unless much specific case), as WIS is not for that, for deducing is INT.
About using Nature (or any other involved) for identifying the creature, OK I also know, but let it aside at this moment to simplify. Let's focus on getting some info even if you don't know exactly about the creatures. This is, number, size, generic type (anybody can see difference between a horse and humanoid footprint, or a canine, if found).

[hymer]

Remember that all that involving "if there is something" is included in the DC for the skill check. For the case they don't want to leave anything, Pass without Trace.

So the mechanic of "something passed", they left some tracks (could be even faeces in the case of bats), and you want to find them and deduce, all that is handled by the use of a skill and the DC, as is not like an auto-success, then all that has been taken in consideration in game mechanics.
As a DM you can rule that way, but there is no particular reason why anyone else should unless they particularly want to. If there is a secret door, the DM sets the DC(s) and type(s) of check to find it. But you cannot find a secret door where there is none, so there is no DC to set for that check. The DM decides whether there is a secret door.
Likewise, if there are no tracks (for any number of reasons), there is no DC to reach. The most you would get from a check in that situation is "You don't find any trace or tracks of anyone inside."

[yellowrocket]

Int skills arent going to get you anything from a cave entrance and neither will wisdom unless whatever is in there left a distinguished mark of some kind. MAYBE if there's an obvious mark or specific fur an INT nature check but a background in investigation isnt going to give you those kinds skills to recognize something, except maybe the presence of the clues. Itd be a nature or survival (and survival is explicitly wisdom based in the books, ydmmv) check to learn anything from them.

If you've never had a chance to visit a real cave I suggest you do sometimes. It's a surreal experience going through tiny passageways, sometimes the entrance being one of the smallest, in to massive cavern complexes. And if youve never seen it, wildlife is capable of fitting through some deceptively tiny places.

[GlenSmash!]

You describe what your character does like "I examine the tracks to determine numbers/types of creatures/direction/time since the tracks were left."

The DM then decides if you succeed, fail, or if a check is called for. If a check is called for the DM will determine what which type of check, and set the DC.

Last time I did this I said "I examine the tracks looking for prints that are larger than a medium sized creature would make" The DM called for a survival check and I rolled. It turns out there was. It turns out they were made by ogres.

[Dark Schneider]

Last time I did this I said "I examine the tracks looking for prints that are larger than a medium sized creature would make" The DM called for a survival check and I rolled. It turns out there was. It turns out they were made by ogres.
Well I meant something like that, basic info. I agree Survival could give this kind of info.

@yellowrocket Survival is WIS but there is also the rule about using different ability for checkings if appropriate, so for trying to get detailed info from tracks, I see INT (Investigation) because is the natural skill for that purpose or INT (Survival), because the specific case of tracks, could be fine.

Maybe it was not well exposed. Use WIS (Survival) to get info based on common sense. Common sense allows to count, compare sizes, or distinguish shapes. If want more specific info, then lore is required.
To determine the quality of that info, check roll with a DC depending the conditions. Then depending on success you could give slight info (there are more than 3 and less than 8) or if succeed by 5 or more give more detailed info (there are 3-5, or exact number, to your discretion).
Remember that we are not experts, so what we think is not possible, a professional maybe could, and also is a game, many other non-possible things are possible (like grappling an ogre or dragon :P ).
I think based on how fresh are the tracks (older ones would be more deteriorated) so you could discern which ones to discard in the count, and etc.etc. all that can summarize into a skill check with a DC can be used in any case if we see how the game works and the things we can do on it.

[Tanarii]

I think only allowing it for the specific case of "Ranger at favorite terrain" is too restricted, the skills should allow to do things like that.I don't disagree with your sentiment. But I also think that the Ranger class feature should DO something.

If you allow it to automatically happen on a successful tracking wisdom (survival) check, but without additional skill checks, then others should be required to first make a tracking check and then also make additional checks to determine these things.

If you allow the ranger to automatically determine these things even on a failed tracking wisdom (survival check), then it might be appropriate to allow others to skip a tracking check first, and just do it with some other check.


Remember that all that involving "if there is something" is included in the DC for the skill check.Not really. Some DMs like to use PC ability checks as a way to determine state-of-the-world, or state-of-the-character. But that's by no means normal, outside one specific type of check.

Many DMs do PC checks for to determine if a character knows something or not, "Knowledge checks"*. That's common enough to be "normal".

Other than that, some rare DMs will have PC checks determine if a lock is pick-able or a trap is disarm-able or a door is break-able, or it can never be done. But very few will have a PC check determine if a cliff-face is icy, a river is a rapid, a gap is 5ft or 25ft, or secret doors or traps actually exist or not. And what you're stating sounds remarkably like the latter.

*If you stop to think about it, this is conceptually bizarre. Knowledge checks were a built in part of the rules in 3e and 4e, and most of us accepted it, without thinking about how our own characters knowledge was this quantum thing that didn't exist or not exist until we needed it, and rolled a die. But it's not a built in part of 5e Lore checks. Of course, many previous editions DMs continue doing it due to inertia anyway.