[DM Issues] Feats vs Common sense.

[Yael]

In a past game, my party and I were on a ghost town. An empty town at day and full of undead at night. So, we were tracking a specific huge great sword-wielding undead (it was a cameo of Pyramid Head). Whatsoever, we entered into the city hall (or town hall) and I rolled a spot check.

Results:

[Me] 24, what do I see?
[DM] You can se a room that is quite a mess; pieces of paper scattered all over the floor, blood on the desks, and something unusual.
[Me] What's the unusual thing?
[DM] You can see a mark in the wood of the floor, the mark is like if someone carved it with a plow, moving from the entrace, going up the stairs, coming back and doing a lot of rounds. You can see that the wielder of that ''plow'' has been here a lot of times, because of the carvings.
[Me] I want to follow the marks.
[DM] Do you have Track?
[Me] But I'm not tracking, I'm following marks.
[DM] You know that following things on the floor is tracking, so if you do not have Track, then forget about tracking...
[Me] I'm not trying to track anything. I see a mark in the wood, it's a straight line, I'll follow the line; it's called: ''Common sense.''
[DM] But in D&D the ''Common Sense'' is replaced by feats. Think about it, what if you want to try to do the ''Spinning Halberd'' trick without the feat, just because it's as easy as doing a spin with your halberd...
[Me] But you need a feat for that BECAUSE it's a trick that you do with training, that you learn by the time, I mean, seriously, you need like 8 feats for that! (I was AFB)
[DM] Then, explain why do the feat Track exist if you only have to ''follow the track.''
[Me] It exist because you must learn how to TRACK things, following the footprints of the orc army one day after a snowy day. That's tracking. Following someone's trail by the air (DC100) it's TRACKING. But if you want to follow something like what you described me. Look, here's an example. You see arrows on the floor, obviously painted in order that people can follow them. The arrows are all pointing to a place in a straight line, okay?
[DM] Uh-huh?
[Me] Now, I CAN see the paintings, the symbols. I can go and follow the path because I'm not ''searching'' for the leftovers of the worker who did them, I'm just following the marks. It's as easy as that. I think that the orc with 3 int could get confused and enter in rage because of this, but not I. In RG I could be an average or else, but I would follow the line that that ''plow'' left in the wood floor. Now, can I follow the marks?!
[DM] Roll Track.
[Me] AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

What you playground think?

[Rhynn]

Your DM is a moron.

Anyone can follow marks on a floor. Not everyone can follow tracks in the wild. Two completely different things.

[MukkTB]

Anyone can follow marks on a floor. Not everyone can follow tracks in the wild. Two completely different things.

The mind boggles. Although, to be fair to the DM, if whoever went through there did it a lot it could be difficult to find the most recent trail. There might have been a miscommunication where the DM thought the goal was to follow the most recent marks to the bad guy instead of following the marks in general to see where they go past.

[Krazzman]

Your DM is a moron.

Anyone can follow marks on a floor. Not everyone can follow tracks in the wild. Two completely different things.

Jeah. I wouldn't say it this harsh but... the srd says:

Normal

Without this feat, you can use the Survival skill to find tracks, but you can follow them only if the DC for the task is 10 or lower. Alternatively, you can use the Search skill to find a footprint or similar sign of a creature’s passage using the DCs given above, but you can’t use Search to follow tracks, even if someone else has already found them.

But the Track feat is for FOOTPRINTS and other non-wanted stuff you leave behind, like fur scraps in thorn bushes or something like that...

[Rhynn]

Yeah, okay, I'll grant that you might not be able to tell which direction they're going and what's the latest, but if all you need to do is see ARE THEY THERE... plus, you know, the DC is almost certainly below 10, so Track is unnecessary.

Plus if the DM wants to quote rules, why did he let you find tracks with a Spot check instead of a Survival or Search check?

[Killer Angel]

[DM] You can see a mark in the wood of the floor, the mark is like if someone carved it with a plow, moving from the entrace, going up the stairs, coming back and doing a lot of rounds. You can see that the wielder of that ''plow'' has been here a lot of times, because of the carvings.

Some of these infos, should be obtained only with traking (the direction of the movement, for example), but really, once you see the marks, you don't need traking to follow them, 'til they remain clearly visible.

[Studoku]

I initially thought the DM might have a legitimate point- if the plowman had been there often enough, the tracks would've crossed over each other and made following one of them very difficult. Reading his assertions that you need a feat to do it just suggests he's just dumb though.

There's also the fact that, from a second reading of your account, I got the impression that the tracks went back and forth between two points- in which case it'd be bloody obvious which two points they were.

I'd have definitely let you follow them without track, though without track you wouldn't be able to tell things like how many times the journey had been, if it was just one person wearing the plow (as opposed to lots of them at once), or how old the trail was.

I would like to see the DMs actual account of course. Would be interesting.

As for the solution, if your DM's feels that strongly about RAW over common sense, die and make a diplomancer.

[Eldan]

You know what? Start a D20 modern game. Then, the first time he tries to drive a car, have him have a horrible accident, since he can't read the road surface markings without the track feat and crosses over into the opposite lane.

[valadil]

My general response to that is that you can use some feats untrained for a huge penalty. I don't think the penalty is enough to offset the obviousness of the markings in this case.

[SethoMarkus]

By RAW, this probably would fall under the DC 10 limit for tracking without the feat (using Survival). Since the tracks are literally gouged into the floor, I would consider them to be on "very soft ground" for a base DC of 5 (holds deep, clear impressions). For each time he walked back and forth I'd count it as an additional person (-1 per 3 creatures), assuming it was the same general path from A to B each time. I don't believe that the +1 per 24 hours since the tracks were left should come into play, considering the gouge marks don't fade with time, but even if the GM were to add that, the -1 for additional "creatures" would nearly negate the tracks. Plus, you only need to follow the most recent tracks. So, we're looking at something right around DC 5 at the end of the day. Even an a character with no ranks in Survival (can be used untrained) has a 1 in 4 chance of following the tracks at that DC.

Also, let's not ignore the silliness of this whole scenario. If the tracks are gouged into the floor, why is there a need for track at all? I know that was kind of the OP's point, but it is still worth mentioning. By the DM's logic, every character should have to roll a Spot check to avoid walking into a closed door, or a Balance check not to trip over their own feet.

[Scow2]

Yeah... your GM blew it.

If the GM doesn't want a player tracking clues he gives, he shouldn't give those clues.

[The Rose Dragon]

Honestly, if this was a True20 game (the closest system to D&D I am familiar with), I wouldn't let you notice so much detail with just a Notice check. Notice would only give you immediate impressions, with a Search check required for any detail like blood on the desks or markings on the ground, and certainly for any sort of directionality.

So, yeah, there is a problem, but the problem is not requiring Track, the problem is giving detail unwarranted by the roll, and getting upset when you wanted to use that detail.

[Ashtagon]

A strict reading of RAW would give you "there are tracks here, and tracks there, but you can't really tell if they are connected. Yeah, they line up and all that, and they are definitely in both places, but maaaybe someone simply did it that way to mislead you".

Tracking is actually one of those skills that is really badly designed, in that success/failure turns into either you reach the next site of interest in the adventure, or the adventure ends with no indication of where to go next. The way it should have been designed, it should affect the speed at which you can follow the tracks for all but the faintest of tracks (those you aren't really intended to be able to follow).

[Kazemi]

It sounds like your DM had the rules for his plan decided, but was unable to put it into words/story properly.

If some of his paths overlap at times, you could accidentally jump from your original trail to last month's trail. So maybe you did need Survival or Search to determine which exit belonged to the entrance you had been initially following. Though an ideal DM would have this worked out already, there are times when your players notice something obvious that you missed. He might deserve some slack

[SethoMarkus]

A strict reading of RAW would give you "there are tracks here, and tracks there, but you can't really tell if they are connected. Yeah, they line up and all that, and they are definitely in both places, but maaaybe someone simply did it that way to mislead you".

If it were normal tracking out in the wilderness I would completely agree with you. However, this is more akin to following the slime trail left by a slug. The characters may not be able to tell how long ago the trail was left, or which direction the creature was headed, but they should be able to tell the path between points A and B.

Really, it is up to the DM to decide, but I feel they should make the difference between the example given by the OP and following sporadic tracks in the wilderness. Even in RAW there's still the Rule of Cool; they just are called "situational modifiers to the DC."

[Craft (Cheese)]

By the DM's logic, every character should have to roll a Spot check to avoid walking into a closed door, or a Balance check not to trip over their own feet.

Worse: You need a *feat* to be able to even attempt these things. If you don't have the feats, you auto-fail.

[Jay R]

The ability to act intelligently in a game is obviously limited by the player's intelligence. But it is equally limited by the DM's intelligence.

[Deepbluediver]

What version of the game was this? I'm really only familiar with 3.5/PF, but if I where to interpret it in the most rules-literal way possible with what I know, it would require a Track check, but one with a modifier so low that it would be almost impossible to fail.

Edit: Alternatively, start making a Spot check in every single 5-ft. square, since you can apparently find the tracks that way. Most people last about 1 minute of you doing the exact same thing over and over again, and asking the exact same question before they crack.

[Deophaun]

The ability to act intelligently in a game is obviously limited by the player's intelligence. But it is equally limited by the DM's intelligence.

I'm sure the DM is quite smart. He probably just didn't take the required feat to make intelligent decisions.

[Scow2]

A strict reading of RAW would give you "there are tracks here, and tracks there, but you can't really tell if they are connected. Yeah, they line up and all that, and they are definitely in both places, but maaaybe someone simply did it that way to mislead you".

Tracking is actually one of those skills that is really badly designed, in that success/failure turns into either you reach the next site of interest in the adventure, or the adventure ends with no indication of where to go next. The way it should have been designed, it should affect the speed at which you can follow the tracks for all but the faintest of tracks (those you aren't really intended to be able to follow).

Tracking, as designed, works fine (Aside from 3.5's arbitrary bull**** of "You need to be trained to beat a DC 10 check." Why can't the cutoff point be DC 20, with the Track feat giving a +10? ... honestly, I feel Trapfinding should work that way too, so a low-level rogue can still find the traps he's supposed to without taking 20 each time.) Stupidly obvious trails can be detected and tracked by anyone. Harder trails require the feat, and in a pinch it's POSSIBlE to substitute Search for Survival if you don't have the feat, but that requires a tedious process of "Find a clue indicating the direction the target moved, head in that direction, look for another clue" - definitely NOT viable for long-range or complex paths. The track feat lets you intuitively follow someone at a steady pace - and if you're good enough at it, also overtake them.

Track's biggest problem tends to be DM interpretation and implementation, by making it either "This is the ONLY clue you have" or "You can't do this" - an attitude expressed in your post. By moving faster or slower, you can change the modifier on the check, without making it possible for Durrhurr McClueless to be able to track anything (if at a painfully slow speed).

Track works best as a feat/class feature when it's one of many tools for an adventure, and one that the GM is aware of enough that he doesn't reflexively say "No, the trail's too cold", but doesn't take into account so much that it offers no advantage or, worse, is required to overcome a problem.

[shadow_archmagi]

Tell him that you want to stand on the current mark, and see if there's another mark in front of you. Then tell him you walk to that mark, and check for another mark in front of you. That way you're not tracking, you're just arbitrarily moving from clue to clue in a way that's exactly like tracking.

Then scream and stab out your eyes with a pair of D4s, shouting "YOU DID THIS TO ME"

[Slipperychicken]

Pathfinder allows Tracking checks to be made with Survival rolls, no feat required. It's one of the many things in the skill system I think PF improved upon, and a fine houserule for 3.5.

[Amphetryon]

It seems to me that the issue is the DM over-shared information to begin with, which he may have been better served by requiring a (low DC) Survival check to find the marks indicated. Once he gave you that info, the Track Feat became essentially superfluous, and you had reasonable grounds for being upset.

[Lord Torath]

Stick the end of your 10' pole (what? You don't have one!?!?!? Borrow the barbarian's spear, then) in the groove and say you're going to push the end along the "furrow" left by the plow until the furrow ends. When you get to the stairs, pull it out, and start the process over again at the top of the staircase.

Tracking should be used when it's not obvious. Wolf prints in fresh mud? No problem. Bloodstained boot prints across the kitchen floor? Piece of cake. The same wolf prints when they leave the mud, and enter the regular forest? Tracking might be required for that. But, of course, that's really nothing anyone else here hasn't said.

Best of luck to you, and let us know a: what you did to get around 'tracking,', and b: how it turned out.

[Yael]

I'm sure the DM is quite smart. He probably just didn't take the required feat to make intelligent decisions.

Haha.

We were playing 3.0 + 3.5 (every 3.0-3.5 material allowed, except for Star Wars Saga and other non-related planes, we could have traveled there, though.

I think you all are right, about the information giving. But that's not my fault. I was the rogue doing the spot check so my team won't get a Surprise Party Fiddlesticks (it happened before, fear golems...), we didn't know about the undead problem at that point, yet.