|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
p. 159 wrote: You cover your tracks, moving at half your Speed. You don’t need to roll a Survival check to cover your tracks, but anyone tracking you must exceed your Survival
DC if it is higher than the normal DC to track.
I don't get this skill. Has anyone had a situation in P1 where something was trying to track them and the PCs had to try and cover their tracks via Ranger or Druid?
Alliteratively, what creature in the Bestiary is going to try and track the PCs in any nominal situation?
I'm at a loss here.
You're looking at it backwards. The point is the rules are available for both the players and the GM to calculate the DC.
So, if you're chasing a band of renegade goblin pyromaniacs fleeing the scene of a tragic accident at Ye Olde Fireworkse ande Gunpowdere Factorye you know what the DC is to have the PCs track the completely innocent bystanders.
N N 959 wrote: p. 159 wrote: You cover your tracks, moving at half your Speed. You don’t need to roll a Survival check to cover your tracks, but anyone tracking you must exceed your Survival
DC if it is higher than the normal DC to track.
I don't get this skill. Has anyone had a situation in P1 where something was trying to track them and the PCs had to try and cover their tracks via Ranger or Druid?
It would seem to make sense as an adaptation to in some of the Iron Fang Invasion AP, where you'er fleeing a goblin army. Or a The Greatest Game scenario.
JDLPF wrote: You're looking at it backwards. The point is the rules are available for both the players and the GM to calculate the DC.
So, if you're chasing a band of renegade goblin pyromaniacs fleeing the scene of a tragic accident at Ye Olde Fireworkse ande Gunpowdere Factorye you know what the DC is to have the PCs track the completely innocent bystanders.
Okay, but why is this skill given to Druids/Rangers? What is the point of putting this on a PC class other than to be used by NPCs?
N N 959 wrote: JDLPF wrote: You're looking at it backwards. The point is the rules are available for both the players and the GM to calculate the DC.
So, if you're chasing a band of renegade goblin pyromaniacs fleeing the scene of a tragic accident at Ye Olde Fireworkse ande Gunpowdere Factorye you know what the DC is to have the PCs track the completely innocent bystanders.
Okay, but why is this skill given to Druids/Rangers? What is the point of putting this on a PC class other than to be used by NPCs? I don't understand. Anyone can be trained in Survival skill, and anyone trained can Cover Tracks. If you are, and you're trying to flee or avoid pursuit, you can use this option.
N N 959 wrote:
Okay, but why is this skill given to Druids/Rangers? What is the point of putting this on a PC class other than to be used by NPCs?
It's not a class-specific ability. Anyone trained in Survival can Cover Tracks. (Also, villainous Druids or Rangers are a thing.)
Xenocrat wrote: I don't understand. Anyone can be trained in Survival skill, and anyone trained can Cover Tracks. If you are, and you're trying to flee or avoid pursuit, you can use this option. Who needs to cover tracks other than NPCs? I've never seen a written scenario where the PCs were being tracked by something and one PC's ability to cover tracks had any benefit whatsoever.
Yes, I can see the game would want this for some NPC Goblin Ranger who has been harassing a hamlet. But why is this being stuck on Classes (via Trackless Step) as some sort of substantive benefit?
Let me put it another way, out of 1000 players who build characters, how many of them would take Cover Tracks if it cost a feat?
There are several PFS scenarios that could have been written to make use of Cover Tracks. Anything dealing with the Aspis, really, but several of the more recent adventures have Awareness trackers. Using Cover Tracks to keep your awareness level low seems perfectly reasonable for a PC to be able to do.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
GM OfAnything wrote: There are several PFS scenarios that could have been written to make use of Cover Tracks. ??? So they weren't?
Quote: Anything dealing with the Aspis, really, but several of the more recent adventures have Awareness trackers. Using Cover Tracks to keep your awareness level low seems perfectly reasonable for a PC to be able to do. ??? Cover tracks is for moving through natural terrain, not for keeping a low profile while you investigate a murder.
I'll take that as a resounding, "no, Cover Tracks (Trackless Step) has no practical benefit for PCs."
Wouldn't any thief or criminal be interested in getting this feat?
I played a homebrew campaign where the party had to survive in the jungle and cover their tracks while investigating an ancient ruin as it was somewhat a of a race and they didn't want to reveal anything to npcs.
Vlorax wrote: Wouldn't any thief or criminal be interested in getting this feat? Sure, but thieves don't usually travel in a party when they come to rob your house, right?
Quote: I played a homebrew campaign where the party had to survive in the jungle and cover their tracks while investigating an ancient ruin as it was somewhat a of a race and they didn't want to reveal anything to npcs. Okay, that makes sense. So how does only one person getting the feat help? What's the point of one person in your party being able to move at full speed and cover their tracks if the other 3-5 members half to move at half-speed?
How is this ever beneficial to a Ranger/Druid who travels in a party? Even if said individual goes off scouting, when has a GM every used Track for the NPCs to follow the PC?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I can actually see PCs using this in several scenarios.
Any scenario where they are in the wild and being chased by enemies. Cover Tracks will make it slightly more difficult for the enemies to find them.
Similarly, in a babysitter mission, where you have to get "Important NPC" from Point A to Point B while traveling through hostile territory, I could see using this to make it more difficult for enemies to find you and hit your failure condition.
Scouting scenarios. These are scenarios where you are trying to gather valuable intel on what the other side is doing, but you don't want them to know you were there. (More explicitly: sending a PC to scout an enemy encampment.)
In each case it is about making sure the other side has difficulty finding you and/or your party.
The biggest difficulty for the scenario where the PCs use this skill is that, in almost all cases, the encounters are 'scripted' to occur, and trying to obfuscate their passage won't make any difference.
I mean, has anyone ever read any adventure or module, ever, where there's instructions to the GM to account for the PCs covering their tracks?
N N 959 wrote: Vlorax wrote: Wouldn't any thief or criminal be interested in getting this feat? Sure, but thieves don't usually travel in a party when they come to rob your house, right?
The majority of Heists in fiction involve crews of people. Just off the top of my head, Ocean's 11,12,13,10. Sneakers, Ant-Man, every Mission Impossible movie, The Bank Job, The Town, The Italian Job, Heat, Baby Driver.
I could go on but I'm pretty sure I've made my point.
Vlorax wrote: N N 959 wrote: Vlorax wrote: Wouldn't any thief or criminal be interested in getting this feat? Sure, but thieves don't usually travel in a party when they come to rob your house, right?
The majority of Heists in fiction involve crews of people. Just off the top of my head, Ocean's 11,12,13,10. Sneakers, Ant-Man, every Mission Impossible movie, The Bank Job, The Town, The Italian Job, Heat, Baby Driver.
I could go on but I'm pretty sure I've made my point. Was your point that none of your examples involve burglary of personal houses, and therefore they were all nonresponsive to his question?
Xenocrat wrote: Vlorax wrote: N N 959 wrote: Vlorax wrote: Wouldn't any thief or criminal be interested in getting this feat? Sure, but thieves don't usually travel in a party when they come to rob your house, right?
The majority of Heists in fiction involve crews of people. Just off the top of my head, Ocean's 11,12,13,10. Sneakers, Ant-Man, every Mission Impossible movie, The Bank Job, The Town, The Italian Job, Heat, Baby Driver.
I could go on but I'm pretty sure I've made my point. Was your point that none of your examples involve burglary of personal houses, and therefore they were all nonresponsive to his question? I haven’t seen every movie on his list, but Ant-man and the Italian Job both have crews breaking into houses.
But I think his point was more that a criminal crew working together is not only an established thing, but that the feat in question would be quite beneficial to said crew.
N N 959 wrote: GM OfAnything wrote: There are several PFS scenarios that could have been written to make use of Cover Tracks. ??? So they weren't? You are unhealthily preoccupied with what has already been done. What does it matter that a past scenario didn't use a mechanic that didn't exist? The point is the story that was told could have benefited from having and using Cover Tracks. Future scenarios of the same vein will be better for having it.
Quote: Quote: Anything dealing with the Aspis, really, but several of the more recent adventures have Awareness trackers. Using Cover Tracks to keep your awareness level low seems perfectly reasonable for a PC to be able to do. ??? Cover tracks is for moving through natural terrain, not for keeping a low profile while you investigate a murder.
I'll take that as a resounding, "no, Cover Tracks (Trackless Step) has no practical benefit for PCs."
The scenarios I am referring to occur in the jungle, wholly or in part. Last time I checked, jungle was considered a natural terrain...
Vlorax wrote: N N 959 wrote: Vlorax wrote: Wouldn't any thief or criminal be interested in getting this feat? Sure, but thieves don't usually travel in a party when they come to rob your house, right?
The majority of Heists in fiction involve crews of people. Just off the top of my head, Ocean's 11,12,13,10. Sneakers, Ant-Man, every Mission Impossible movie, The Bank Job, The Town, The Italian Job, Heat, Baby Driver.
I could go on but I'm pretty sure I've made my point. No, you haven't made your point, in fact, you've unwittingly proven mine. The point is if you use a crew, then what good is it for ONE person to be able to cover their tracks if the rest can't? That is the point.
Even more apropos is the fact that a Ranger and Druid don't act as cat burglars i.e. rob people as individuals. So once again I ask, what is the point of Trackless Step in the context of how games are actually run?
N N 959 wrote: The point is if you use a crew, then what good is it for ONE person to be able to cover their tracks if the rest can't? That is the point. One person can cover the tracks of the entire group.
Page 317 wrote: You cover the group’s tracks to prevent pursuit, rolling a Survival check to determine how successful you are. Covering tracks forces you to move at half your travel Speed unless something grants you the ability to move at full Speed while covering tracks. You still have to move as slowly as the slowest person whose tracks you are trying to cover.
GM OfAnything wrote: You are unhealthily preoccupied with what has already been done. What does it matter that a past scenario didn't use a mechanic that didn't exist? Demonstratively false.
PRD - Favored Terrain wrote: A ranger traveling through his favored terrain normally leaves no trail and cannot be tracked (though he may leave a trail if he so chooses). The mechanic for Trackless Step has been apart of the Ranger bag of tricks since as long as I've been playing PF. Have you ever had an NPC track a Ranger such that the Ranger knew or had a reason to use this aspect of Favored Terrain? Have you ever played or GM'd an adventure where the fact that the Ranger was untraceable had any substantive benefit to the Ranger?
The problem that you're not getting is that people don't write scenarios with this as a necessary or useful aspect of the encounter. Despite the fact that it's been existence since Day One of the CRB. I've played Rangers for years, and this had never come up as something having any benefit for obvious reasons: 1) There is no point to covering your tracks if the rest of the party can't do likewise; 2) The game does not encourage, reward, or endorse players doing things as soloist; 3) You can't have an encounter hinge on NPCs following/not following tracks; 4) Even if you violate #3, the player would not have any idea that covering their tracks would have been beneficial because they aren't privy to what NPCs are doing that they can't see.
Quote: The point is the story that was told could have benefited from having and using Cover Tracks. Future scenarios of the same vein will be better for having it. Since it's already been part of the game mechanics and you're conceding it hasn't been used, I fail to see how that will change in the future.
Quote: The scenarios I am referring to occur in the jungle, wholly or in part. Last time I checked, jungle was considered a natural terrain... It sure is. And was there any aspect of the scenario that required the NPCs to track the PCs such that ONE the party character leaving no tracks was of any benefit?
Thebazilly wrote: N N 959 wrote: The point is if you use a crew, then what good is it for ONE person to be able to cover their tracks if the rest can't? That is the point. One person can cover the tracks of the entire group.
Page 317 wrote: You cover the group’s tracks to prevent pursuit, rolling a Survival check to determine how successful you are. Covering tracks forces you to move at half your travel Speed unless something grants you the ability to move at full Speed while covering tracks. You still have to move as slowly as the slowest person whose tracks you are trying to cover. Okay, let's say Paizo issue an FAQ that clarifies that Trackless Step allows you to cover the tracks of the entire group, not just yourself.
I'll ask again, in what actually game encounter is this useful?
Actually, let me rephrase the questions, in P1, Druids and Rangers get Pass without trace: One creature touched per level and tracking becomes "impossible" without magic. Have you ever seen this used?
Vlorax wrote: N N 959 wrote: Vlorax wrote: Wouldn't any thief or criminal be interested in getting this feat? Sure, but thieves don't usually travel in a party when they come to rob your house, right?
The majority of Heists in fiction involve crews of people. Just off the top of my head, Ocean's 11,12,13,10. Sneakers, Ant-Man, every Mission Impossible movie, The Bank Job, The Town, The Italian Job, Heat, Baby Driver.
I could go on but I'm pretty sure I've made my point. Let's readdress this post in the context of Trackless Step working on the whole party....none of these heist movies involve detectives tracking these groups through natural terrain. Heist movies involve the characters defeating securities system and social manipulation. They don't involve detectives physically tracking bad guys back to their lair or hideout. Chasing, yes, tracking, no. And technically, Ant Man broke into the house alone and Oscorp alone (but with ants), nor was he tracked, Henry Pymm had laid a trap for him and Yellow Jacket did as well.
Culach wrote: I can actually see PCs using this in several scenarios.
Any scenario where they are in the wild and being chased by enemies. Cover Tracks will make it slightly more difficult for the enemies to find them.
Great, have you ever read any scenario or AP where this is used? Does this mechanic come up at all in the playtest scenarios?
Quote: Similarly, in a babysitter mission, where you have to get "Important NPC" from Point A to Point B while traveling through hostile territory, I could see using this to make it more difficult for enemies to find you and hit your failure condition. Great, same questions as above.
Quote: Scouting scenarios. These are scenarios where you are trying to gather valuable intel on what the other side is doing, but you don't want them to know you were there. (More explicitly: sending a PC to scout an enemy encampment.) Awesome, same questions as above.
Quote: In each case it is about making sure the other side has difficulty finding you and/or your party. It sure is. Now, can you name a single PF authored scenario or AP where the party's ability or inability to cover the tracks had any substantive change on the encounter?
The question isn't "can you imagine how to make this useful," the questions is has anyone played a scenario where this mechanic is useful. The point here is Paizo has created an essentially useless feat and then stuck the Ranger with it, instead of providing something actually useful in the context of how this game has been played for over a decade.
JDLPF wrote: I mean, has anyone ever read any adventure or module, ever, where there's instructions to the GM to account for the PCs covering their tracks? This.
N N 959 wrote: JDLPF wrote: I mean, has anyone ever read any adventure or module, ever, where there's instructions to the GM to account for the PCs covering their tracks? This. Yes, I have. There was a module I ran years ago, by Troll Lord Games I believe, where you have to find a group of monsters who were raiding caravans to the local town. Part of the plot is trying to find the monster's base camp without getting caught, so there is a bit of cat and mouse going on between the PCs and the monster highwaymen. There was some discussion in the GM notes about different ways players could avoid capture by the bad guys, including hiding their tracks.
But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because ostensibly no writer ever used a similar mechanic as a plot point in a previously published module that somehow means Paizo can't design a rule to cover what is frankly a common occurrence in fantasy fiction? To pick just a couple of probably better known examples, the novel the Eye of the World by Robert Jordan and the movie Willow both involve scenes where the heroes are trying to evade capture by bad guys in the wilderness. A few scenes like that appear in the Song of Ice and Fire as well. Or, heck, large chunks of the Lord of Rings involve scenes of either tracking or avoiding enemies in the wilderness.
If you don't want to use the rule, don't. It doesn't make the book worthless for you if it appears in there. Meanwhile, if someone wants to include something that in their home adventures, or even better, sees the mechanic in the book and wants to include it as part of the adventure, that's a good thing, right?
N N 959 wrote: Culach wrote: I can actually see PCs using this in several scenarios.
Any scenario where they are in the wild and being chased by enemies. Cover Tracks will make it slightly more difficult for the enemies to find them.
Great, have you ever read any scenario or AP where this is used? Does this mechanic come up at all in the playtest scenarios?
Quote: Similarly, in a babysitter mission, where you have to get "Important NPC" from Point A to Point B while traveling through hostile territory, I could see using this to make it more difficult for enemies to find you and hit your failure condition. Great, same questions as above.
Quote: Scouting scenarios. These are scenarios where you are trying to gather valuable intel on what the other side is doing, but you don't want them to know you were there. (More explicitly: sending a PC to scout an enemy encampment.) Awesome, same questions as above.
Quote: In each case it is about making sure the other side has difficulty finding you and/or your party. It sure is. Now, can you name a single PF authored scenario or AP where the party's ability or inability to cover the tracks had any substantive change on the encounter?
The question isn't "can you imagine how to make this useful," the questions is has anyone played a scenario where this mechanic is useful. The point here is Paizo has created an essentially useless feat and then stuck the Ranger with it, instead of providing something actually useful in the context of how this game has been played for over a decade. I can think of at least one in the Mwangi that could have used it, I also seem to remember one in Irresen that could have used it as well, as long as it worked for the group, but since the mechanic didn't exist, wasn't an option. Most scenarios where this mechanic SHOULD have been used, hand waved it because PLOT. With a new mechanic that doesn't have to happen.
When I gave you several options for how it could be used you asked if we had seen it in the past. The problem with that line of thinking is that it is in the wrong direction. You should be asking "will this come up in the future?"
I say yes, and you will likely reply with "but no one has said it has come up before so it likely won't in the future." This is false logic. Just because a thing hasn't been seen in the past does not preclude it from happening in the future.
What is my basis for thinking we will likely see something using it in the future? The fact that this mechanic exists and is fairly prominent.
Not liking Cover Tracks is one thing, but auto-dismissing when others give reasons and ways that it could, and SHOULD, be used, well...
Personally, I hope to see scenarios where it IS used, because it is a neat little mechanic that saw use in several myths, stories, and legends, most prominently Robin Hood.
Kelber wrote: Yes, I have. There was a module I ran years ago, by Troll Lord Games I believe... So you've identified one module in 3rd party content, out of how many total scenarios, and you think this is a valid data point or disproves the problem?
Quote: But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because ostensibly no writer ever used a similar mechanic as a plot point in a previously published module that somehow means Paizo can't design a rule to cover what is frankly a common occurrence in fantasy fiction? This isn't about fantasy fiction, this is about stuff that is used in actual game play, remember? Paizo is allegedly providing us with "balanced" classes. It's ridiculous for Paizo to give Rangers/Druids a feat that has no practical use in lieu of something else. Can you identify another feat handed out to other classes that literally has had zero use in Paizo's published content?
Yes, in theory it would be great to be able to cover one's tracks. In practice, it has zero value.
Culach wrote: I can think of at least one in the Mwangi that could have used it, I also seem to remember one in Irresen that could have used it as well, as long as it worked for the group, but since the mechanic didn't exist, wasn't an option. Most scenarios where this mechanic SHOULD have been used, hand waved it because PLOT. With a new mechanic that doesn't have to happen.. The Pass without trace spell has been in PF since the CRB. It is currently available to druid 1, hunter 1, occultist 1, ranger 1, shaman 1. It allows a 6th level caster to make the entire party untraceable by nonmagical means.
Rangers have had Trackless Step for themselves as part of Favored Terrain. Never, ever, ever, had an opportunity to use it.
So your logic kind of blows up in your face. The mechanic has been there since Day One and it's never used. Even when it's as simple as casting a 1st level spell.
N N 959 wrote: Kelber wrote: Yes, I have. There was a module I ran years ago, by Troll Lord Games I believe... So you've identified one module in 3rd party content, out of how many total scenarios, and you think this is a valid data point or disproves the problem?
Quote: But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because ostensibly no writer ever used a similar mechanic as a plot point in a previously published module that somehow means Paizo can't design a rule to cover what is frankly a common occurrence in fantasy fiction? This isn't about fantasy fiction, this is about stuff that is used in actual game play, remember? Paizo is allegedly providing us with "balanced" classes. It's ridiculous for Paizo to give Rangers/Druids a feat that has no practical use in lieu of something else. Can you identify another feat handed out to other classes that literally has had zero use in Paizo's published content?
Yes, in theory it would be great to be able to cover one's tracks. In practice, it has zero value.
No, I was answering the question you and JDLPF asked. I think my entire answer made it clear that I don’t think the lack of use in prior modules is a valid method, by itself, for determining whether a proposed new mechanic is good or not.
I think this kind of feat could see use, especially if you have a player who wants to do that kind of thing and has a GM who tries to deliver play experiences the players want. It may have zero value to you, but I’m betting other players would love having access to this feat.
I don’t think that one feat, which never *has* to be chosen, is going to unbalance a class all by itself. If you could show there was some other feat that was both necessary to keep ranger/druids balanced and somehow didn’t make the book because of this feat, then I might agree with you. Instead, though, you’re arguing that the mere existence of the option weakens the class, which I don’t buy.
Kelber wrote: No, I was answering the question you and JDLPF asked. I think my entire answer made it clear that I don’t think the lack of use in prior modules is a valid method, by itself, for determining whether a proposed new mechanic is good or not. This isn't a new mechanic, it's been in existence since the CRB was published. Why do people keep insisting it's new?
Quote: It may have zero value to you, but I’m betting other players would love having access to this feat. It hasn't had any value to anyone in PF published content. So that qualifies as useless. And sorry, even if you find it contemplated once in the 200 or so published scenarios, you're actually proving the point.
The mechanic has been apart of the game since Day One. And it essentially has never been used. You can't name a single PF scenario where this mechanic was anticipated or beneficial despite it being available.
I just did a word search on all the playtest scenarios. Doomsday and the three PFS scenarios. There are zero references to Cover Tracks only one PFS scenario ask the party to use Survival to track something.
Cover Tracks isn't being used or referenced at all in the playtest.
Quote: I don’t think that one feat, which never *has* to be chosen, is going to unbalance a class all by itself. You cant prove that one feat unbalances any class. The problem is no feat should be totally pointless/worthless in the context of how the game is played. By denying Rangers something that's actually useful, it screws over the class. Can you identify any other hard-coded ability given to each class that has no practical benefit? If you can, I'll totally concede the point.
Quote: If you could show there was some other feat that was both necessary to keep ranger/druids balanced and somehow didn’t make the book because of this feat, then I might agree with you Wild Empathy has had practical value in games I've played (but now costs a Class feat). Favored Terrain has had value and isn't even available. Endurance would be a better option. Even a bonus to straight Track feat would be more useful. At least one of the PFS scenarios actually gives players a chance to track something.
You want to keep a Cover Tracks mechanic in the game? Great. Just give Ranger's something else that's actually useful more than once a decade in real time.
Quote: You want to keep a Cover Tracks mechanic in the game? Great. Just give Ranger's something else that's actually useful more than once a decade in real time. I think your mistake was not starting the thread with this, which I agree with emphatically.
Secret Wizard wrote: Quote: You want to keep a Cover Tracks mechanic in the game? Great. Just give Ranger's something else that's actually useful more than once a decade in real time. I think your mistake was not starting the thread with this, which I agree with emphatically. Good point as my goal isn't to get ride of Cover Tracks, but get Paizo to recognize that Trackless Step is essentially pointless and it hurts the class to get stuck with a mechanic that isn't utilized in actual game play, regardless of how thematically appropriate it might be.
N N 959 wrote: Secret Wizard wrote: Quote: You want to keep a Cover Tracks mechanic in the game? Great. Just give Ranger's something else that's actually useful more than once a decade in real time. I think your mistake was not starting the thread with this, which I agree with emphatically. Good point as my goal isn't to get ride of Cover Tracks, but get Paizo to recognize that Trackless Step is essentially pointless and it hurts the class to get stuck with a mechanic that isn't utilized in actual game play, regardless of how thematically appropriate it might be. OK, yeah, I don’t disagree with that. I legitmately understood your posts to mean, “I don’t like this option, so remove this option and replace with something more to my liking.” With that clarification, I can’t and won’t quibble that there should be other options available.
Kelber wrote: OK, yeah, I don’t disagree with that. I legitmately understood your posts to mean, “I don’t like this option, so remove this option and replace with something more to my liking.” With that clarification, I can’t and won’t quibble that there should be other options available. Yeah, I actually like the concept of Trackless Step, but it's worthless. So I started the thread, hoping someone might clue me in on all these times I should have been casting pass without trace or that I was benefiting from being untraceable in my favorite terrain, because I haven't seen it in 8 years of playing.
If the feat actually was useful like any of the other things given to other classes at 5th level:
Alchemist: mutagen crafting - you craft mutagens
Barbarian: Deny advantage - You are not treated as flat-footed by creatures of your level or lower that are flanking you.
Fighter: Bravery -When you succeed at a Will save against a fear effect, treat it as a critical success instead
Monk: Metal Strikes - Your unarmed attacks are treated as cold iron and silver.
Ranger: Trackless Step - you get the benefit of Cover Tracks in natural terrain. So yeah...Cover Tracks...useful when exactly?
Look, stick it on the Ranger, but then give the Ranger something else with it that actually comes up in game play, like Wild Empathy.
Secret Wizard wrote: Quote: You want to keep a Cover Tracks mechanic in the game? Great. Just give Ranger's something else that's actually useful more than once a decade in real time. I think your mistake was not starting the thread with this, which I agree with emphatically. I agree as well. If it was a feat I'd never bother taking it. If it was possible to cover tracks for the whole party and it resulted in a +1 to survival or stealth, I'd be excited to take it though. Even if the bonus was just for the rest of the party and not for me. And it still fits, as the ranger already has a number of feats designed to help out other party members.
BeatenPinata wrote: I agree as well. If it was a feat I'd never bother taking it. If it was possible to cover tracks for the whole party and it resulted in a +1 to survival or stealth.... Yes. Let Trackless Step give +1 conditional bonus to initiative and stealth in natural terrain and suddenly it's actually useful and worthy of a level 5 ability.
I have seen pass without trace used, and for its intended purpose. Had a ranger protecting the party that was trying to flee from a pack of monsters that just killed a dragon and was on their trail. Used it for 4 days as often as they could. The rogue then talked the ranger into going to most of their heist from then on, to cover their tracks. My group would use this skill and have had to make other checks in its place, nice to see it have a specific place now.
K-Ray
Cool. Glad someone got use out of it. So that's once in how many encounters?
Recent threads in Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells
|
