Change how tracks are left.

[Red Ropes]

Very simple feedback, and it's more of a complaint.

I have been encountering RARE RACES on the surface that the tracking system more or less outs.

For no conceivable reason. A dragon in dragon humanoid shape or whatever unique racial template someone has, should not be outed to something a ranger dip can give you access to.

Tracks should be simplified to racial categories of

elven (for all elves, plus drow)
goblinoid
orcish
human (for humans and imaskari)

or something like that.

Something simple and something that doesn't out someone who literally just spent a 5% reward on something unique and is making incredible efforts to keep low key. It's also really outlandish for someone to be able to know precisely what race someone is by a footprint.

That's my feedback.

[three wolf moon]

I agree that races should be made more generic, but I would say that a male/female distinction be added, as the feet of males and females are very different; in real life, this is something that that investigators can easily tell about a footprint.

[CosmicOrderV]

Agreed, though like how inspect is supposed to work, I would think having undead favored enemy ought to distinct from humanoid and vampire, for example. Same with dragons, raksasha and whatever else.

[Kalopsia]

Agreed wholeheartedly. It simply doesn't make sense for tracks of most subraces to be discernible.
I still recall the discussions caused by subraces like Aasimar and Tiefling subraces being revealed when examined.
(viewtopic.php?f=37&t=16872)

What Liareth said back then is still very relevant today:

A system that openly screams "look, it's a tiefling" even though there are no visible physical traits undermines that approach. Systems should support players, not act as an obstacle to them.

The tracking system right now feels like such an obstacle. An obstacle with the potential to ruin many an otherwise amazing storyline.

Tracks cannot be counted as visible physical traits and should not reveal subraces.
Thus, I'd really appreciate tracking being brought in line with the examine update that resulted from the thread I linked above.

[Rigela]

Definitely doesn't make sense as it currently is. Especially as my ranger can evidently tell someone is X race from their tracks but are utterly clueless from looking at them. It makes for an odd disconnect and should really not be able to identify X magic race when they don't have identifiable marks to them that distinguishes from the general race they are part of.

Makes me feel awkward for ignoring things I am supposedly seeing. And even more awkward for how I would be meant to RP seeing/knowing it.

[WanderingPoet]

I have to disagree... Mostly.

I do agree with the sentiment that someone with a ranger dip shouldn't have access to that, but someone that is a high level ranger should be able to tell. For example, maybe you need 1 ranger level to count the number of 'recent' tracks, 5 will give you the size of the creature/armour of each, 10 gives you the race, and 20 gives you the subrace. Then those rangers that really invest in tracking become masters of tracking, rather than anyone that has a dip being a master ranger.

Keep in mind that tracking isn't just 'foot prints' - even within footprints there is the foot size, weight, stride length, footware shape. Outside of footprints there is odour, damage to the environment(such as a surfacer might accidentally trigger the poison mushrooms not knowing better), damage to other creatures (dead corpses from the travel, using differing weapon/weapon styles), environmental disturbances (animals will treat an unknown race differently from one well travelled), etc

There are lots of reasons a skilled ranger can figure out who passed, and that isn't even counting the fact that rangers have magic. In the real world a skilled hunter can tell the age, gender and subrace (black bear or brown) of animals while tracking it, so why wouldn't a skilled magical ranger be able to track bumbling (anyone not hiding their tracks) adventurers through natural terrain?

[Mythic]

I would agree with Poet, The system is a bit weird as it is.

Tie it to actual Ranger levels, or maybe even favored Enemy / Studied Enemy. So you can tell what might have passed by, if you have that as a favored then you get way more information?

A lot of things dont leave tracks anyway, and you can already just bash tracks to destroy them and not leave a trail

For rare/out there races, Then yeah it could easily be a roll which takes into account Favored/Levels, Terrain and otherwise.

[magistrasa]

I agree that favored enemy should be the only way to reveal these special races from tracks - and if that's not possible, don't show it to anyone. I feel embarrassed on a person's behalf every time I accidentally discover their vampirism just by looking at their footprints because I can't help but feel like it's knowledge I shouldn't know, or at least not so easily discover. It's the best way to out elves in the underdark pretending to be drow, or vice versa. It just feels kinda silly.

[WanderingPoet]

I agree that favored enemy should be the only way to reveal these special races from tracks - and if that's not possible, don't show it to anyone. I feel embarrassed on a person's behalf every time I accidentally discover their vampirism just by looking at their footprints because I can't help but feel like it's knowledge I shouldn't know, or at least not so easily discover. It's the best way to out elves in the underdark pretending to be drow, or vice versa. It just feels kinda silly.

If you don't want your character to know, then just ignore it.

Elves -should- be able to tell if a drow is walking through the forest, and drow -should- be able to tell if an elf is wandering the underdark. They're racial enemies; their rangers should know the difference between their own people and their hated foe.

Still; if it was based off ranger level (and/or studied enemies) it'd be a lot less of an issue in my opinion - at least then you'd have to invest in ranger to be able to tell that it's a dragon clomping through; rather than just a dip for some free spell focuses/discipline.

[magistrasa]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your sentiment there, Poet, but there's some undeniable merit to it. Elves and drow are already supposed to be able to innately differentiate between themselves, no ranger levels required. A halfling or gnoll without much experience with one or the other probably should not be able to tell the difference by looking at tracks without studying them as a favored enemy implies. Is my 3 level ranger dip character looking at the ground and saying "hmmm, it appears this fellow was skipping giddily through the meadow, definitely a wood elf" or "wow I've never seen such menacing footprints in my life, I sense a drow in these lingering goth energies"

Telling someone to ignore mechanically granted information is pretty awful advice. "What You See Is What You Get" is the golden rule of the server. Once people start picking and choosing what's valid and what isn't, we get into some dirty territory where there's no consistency in player experience and immersion gets thrown out the window. Spamming Detect Evil to fish for 1's sure is cheap, but it's a mechanic that is there for the sake of roleplay consequences and ignoring those results because it is silly invalidates the whole system. I'd rather that system be repaired, and the silliness replaced with something sensible.

[Red Ropes]

*sniffs a footprint*

"ahh... vampire girl feet"

This is more or less my entire argument the current state of the system. Old, gives too much information with little investment and ignores biology and other categories. It ignores shape changing and logistic situations. Drow and surface elves are quite literally the same still and if you desire the "sporting chance" to figure them out - in a more vague, kinder system...

You could. A suspicious group of "elven figures" wandering through the forests fully warded at approximately 12 AM is definitely suspect, especially if they're also traveling with other key figures like gnolls, kobolds, and other creatures. Their willingness to eschew such partners would allow their little game to play out with less suspicion obviously.

...and then, if they're disguised. You break it using the other, fairer system we currently have. Rangers get spot and lore as skills. If you want to break those and find out who someone is, use that and lore. But some of our 5% races are confined to mortal forms that no one should be able to to see right through. It's part of their power and gimmick. You have to like, actively, roleplay with those people to figure them out.


I think the ideal would be, based on investments in skills and maybe even countered by the track leaver's own skills...

Age of Tracks
General Phenotype
Gender (unless the race doesn't have lore stated dimorphism, some do!)

[WanderingPoet]

I agree with the first half of what you said magistrasa - to be clear, I definitely agree that low level rangers shouldn't be able to tell much about tracks. In many cases the 'subraces' also make no sense - a vampire/aasimar/tiefling are highly unlikely to have differing tracks from their related race. However, goblin and kobold are subraces of halflings and it doesn't make sense that they would pass for halfling either.

Telling someone to ignore mechanically granted information is pretty awful advice. "What You See Is What You Get" is the golden rule of the server. Once people start picking and choosing what's valid and what isn't, we get into some dirty territory where there's no consistency in player experience and immersion gets thrown out the window

I disagree, although I think I understand your point. I would counter with: You as a player will always have more information than your character; if you always provide all information that you know then your character lacks any weaknesses/flaws. For example; if you die and are revived then you as a player know who killed you; but it's up to you AND has been encouraged by staff that you don't actually remember. Reading a track is similar, you can choose to not let your character understand some of the significance of tracks; or choose to not allow a passed disguise check actually mean you broke the disguise; or not realize that the body of the person you killed that says "Bob (Vampire)" is a vampire because your character doesn't know what a vampire is; etc in order to build better stories.

It's your character. You get to choose if your character understands the information presented to you. You would have to respect that someone else can read the tracks and understand information your character failed to, but I disagree that there is any immersion being broken or lack of consistency because your character is flawed.

@RedRopes
The limitations of the game engine making drow/other elves share a model doesn't mean that the characters (especially elven rangers or rangers that study elves) can't tell the difference between the two. People of such -vastly- different upbringings are going to act very different from eachother, which includes how they travel. If a drow wants to pretend they are an elf then there is a system for that: Bluff/Perform.

Going off your suggestion it -would- be great if disguise (and stealth imo) affected tracks; as you're actively masking what you are then it should mask your tracks against a spot check.

-----
What do you both (and others) think of:
- If you're a ranger you can detect tracks - this shows you creature size/armour weight (medium in heavy armour)
- If you share a race with the creature then you can see what race(along with armour weight) it is
- If you have a favoured enemy/studied enemy then you can see their race/subrace (along with armour weight)
- At 20 ranger you can see all the races (along with armour weight) BUT but not see the subrace except for favoured/studied/racial enemies
- If they're disguised then you have to beat their bluff/perform with spot as if you saw them disguised
- Special races would require you to have the favoured enemy for the special race - such as dragon for dragons/halfdragons, undead for vampires, outsiders for aasimar/tiefling, etc - otherwise they show up as the base race

EDIT - and yes, age of tracks please!

[Hazard]

Maybe unpopular opinion, but I just never felt like tracks were something that should be ranger only. Do I think rangers should get it for free? Yes, they should get it for free. But a druid, is entirely incapable of reading tracks even as an animal. I feel like high lore/spot/search or a combo investment should also award a player with the ability to track. There a bunch of 'nature' races we allow and as far as I know they can't read tracks either.

I can tell you that playing any sort of nature orientated character is a little awkward when someone asks your savage who has lived their entire life in the wilderness, at one with the world, "Tracks. Can you read them?" ... Nope. I can't. Sorry, lol.

Tracking isn't beyond any of you, as humans. It's a skill you could learn surprisingly fast if you bothered to. Having such a mundane ability exclusive to a single class seems a bit much.

While I was typing this up I thought 'Huh. Rewarding int investments/RP builds is a good idea.' Until I remembered that this would just result in nearly all wizards and rogues being able to track. Maybe that part needs more fleshing out!

It's still always felt weird that druids can't track. I have some suggestions to do with this and wildshape that I'm saving for when that part of the forums opens up again, but one idea that was floating around my head was allowing druids to track only while wildshaped (animal forms/totem, not elemental/dragon). Would be fun to shift into something with better senses and sniff out some tracks, and would give an actual use to wildshape for non-totems, besides being cute until level 12.

As for how tracks are left, I 100% agree that it needs a change. Some of the things you can pick up are a little silly. Dragons are a good example. Something like that you may really want to keep secret, and you have an inherent and powerful ability to disguise yourself as a mortal... Except for your ... feet? What? lol.

[magistrasa]

Personally, I think tracking should be tied to the Search skill and -investigate command, which I do enjoy currently as a fun little RP gimmick, but could be interesting to see get a little more usefulness. Especially since it crosses over with divination - so maybe in addition to favored enemy insights, people with divination focii might be able to discern those special 5% races through, I dunno, planar attunements or what have you, while everyone else would just see mundane information.

[goblinhero]

A few things:

- yes, would be nice to have tracking tied to level/skill/favoured enemies in some combination to determine how much you can tell
- have you tried talking a walk with a RL hunter? You'd be amazed at what they are able to tell about that deer up ahead. They look at a lot of other things than the footprints
- that you have found drow tracks does not mean that you -know- the elf-like figure in front of you is said drow. These are highly traveled forests. So, "There are indications that a drow has passed through here within the last day" != "You are a drow!??!!!"

[Tarkus the dog]

*sniffs a footprint*

"ahh... vampire girl feet"

my experience so far

[Irongron]

Tracking could use some work overall, but yes; I think it a bit of no brainer that one shouldn't be able to tell if someone is a dragon in humanoid form or a vampire. If the suggestion box was open I'd definitely approve that.

(I will get round to ploughing through yet more of the outstanding suggestions before too long)

[MoreThanThree]

*sniffs a footprint*

"ahh... vampire girl feet"

my experience so far

That's a good point. Aren't all characters supposed to be wearing.....
....shoes?!

[The Kriv]

Regarding identifying Drow. Here's a good example of why Rangers should be able to tell drow from normal elf tracks.


one of the above creatures is Drow. Can you identify it just by looking at it's size?


These creatures from left to right are: human, sun elf, wood elf, moon elf, drow, and wild elf.


Did you spot the drow? Hmm.. are you a ranger?


Regarding "TRACK" and having it unlinked specifically from Ranger:

In D&D, the ability to find tracks are nothing special. You just need to have high enough SEARCH.
BUT... To identify or otherwise FOLLOW the tracks direction requires the feat: TRACK.

Having the TRACK feat allows you to use the SURVIVAL skill (which NWN chose not to implement) to follow the tracks.

Rangers are given the TRACK feat for free as a class feature. Other class builds SHOULD NOT be allowed to identify tracks simply by having high search and/or spot skill. However, being able to find that tracks exist? yeah. make that Search. If you have crap for search.. you shouldn't even see the tracks at all.

I would suggest/offer if there is any change to the current system that it would be as follows:

1) you need a search skill to even know a creature leaves tracks behind. And if you do not have Ranger Levels, then all you see are that tracks exist.

2) Increased Ranger Levels = increased information on what are gained by looking at them.

3) I would add the 'direction' of the tracks (entering/leaving) also tied to Ranger Level information.


If this were to go into the suggestion box... these would be the three main points that I would modify the existing system.


----
Being to identify specific subraces of elves IMO:

Identifying drow tracks from elf tracks should be left alone. (see above)

But tie identifying sub-races to Ranger-Favored Enemy (with the exception of elf/drow as stated). If you have a Favored Enemy of any TYPE of creature... then you should be able to discern between the sub-races of those creatures.


example: A ranger may know how to identify and follow bear tracks.. but knowing the difference between a mountain grizzly and a brown bear should be reserved to Rangers who have "Animal" as a favored enemy.


--

Addendum:

A lot of what has been written above I think comes from people's own perception of what they 'think' Tracking should or shouldn't be.

I did a little digging and found an online resource that outlines the TRACK feat as it exists on page 101 of the D&D 3.5 player's handbook rules.

https://dndtools.net/feats/players-hand ... ack--2952/



Also.. an online resource from a tabletop D&D home campaign lists how this particular DM has interpreted the Tracking rules more specifically... (this is one possible interpretation, but one that I found to be very reasonable, maybe you do too.)

Code: Select all

TRACKING

    The DM provides only general information, not exact details. At his discretion, the DM may give more precise or 
less specific information than suggested in Table 19. The information may be ambiguous ("The tracks resemble
those of a large bird, though they could have been made by some sort of reptilian creature.") but the DM
shouldn't intentionally mislead the ranger (for instance, by telling him the tracks were definitely made by a bird
when in fact they were made by a reptile). The parenthetical comments in Table 19 indicate how a DM might
respond to a ranger studying tracks that were made by a pair of juvenile red dragons, each with a human rider.

Table 19: Identification Check Results

Ranger
Level		Information Received

1-2		General type of creature
("A dragon or other large reptilian creature.")

3-4		Specific type of creature and where it was heading
("Some kind of dragon, probably red. It appears to have been headed to the mountains to the north.")

5-6		Probable number of creatures
("Looks like two of them.")

7		Approximate size and/or age
("From the length of the prints, the dragons were probably juveniles.")

8		Pace of creatures
("There's no indication of haste; they were probably taking their time.")

9		How recently the trail was made
("The tracks were made within the last three or four hours.")

10+		Special conditions of creatures: wounded or healthy, mounts, etc.
("The unusual depth of the prints and the space between steps indicates the dragons had riders. 
A tiny scrap of cloth is similar to the material worn by soldiers in this area. The riders were probably human.")
  

[Hazard]

Regarding identifying Drow. Here's a good example of why Rangers should be able to tell drow from normal elf tracks.


one of the above creatures is Drow. Can you identify it just by looking at it's size?


These creatures from left to right are: human, sun elf, wood elf, moon elf, drow, and wild elf.


Did you spot the drow? Hmm.. are you a ranger?


Regarding "TRACK" and having it unlinked specifically from Ranger:

In D&D, the ability to find tracks are nothing special. You just need to have high enough SEARCH.
BUT... To identify or otherwise FOLLOW the tracks direction requires the feat: TRACK.

Having the TRACK feat allows you to use the SURVIVAL skill (which NWN chose not to implement) to follow the tracks.

Rangers are given the TRACK feat for free as a class feature. Other class builds SHOULD NOT be allowed to identify tracks simply by having high search and/or spot skill. However, being able to find that tracks exist? yeah. make that Search. If you have crap for search.. you shouldn't even see the tracks at all.

I would suggest/offer if there is any change to the current system that it would be as follows:

1) you need a search skill to even know a creature leaves tracks behind. And if you do not have Ranger Levels, then all you see are that tracks exist.

2) Increased Ranger Levels = increased information on what are gained by looking at them.

3) I would add the 'direction' of the tracks (entering/leaving) also tied to Ranger Level information.


If this were to go into the suggestion box... these would be the three main points that I would modify the existing system.


----
Being to identify specific subraces of elves IMO:

Identifying drow tracks from elf tracks should be left alone. (see above)

But tie identifying sub-races to Ranger-Favored Enemy (with the exception of elf/drow as stated). If you have a Favored Enemy of any TYPE of creature... then you should be able to discern between the sub-races of those creatures.


example: A ranger may know how to identify and follow bear tracks.. but knowing the difference between a mountain grizzly and a brown bear should be reserved to Rangers who have "Animal" as a favored enemy.


--

Addendum:

A lot of what has been written above I think comes from people's own perception of what they 'think' Tracking should or shouldn't be.

I did a little digging and found an online resource that outlines the TRACK feat as it exists on page 101 of the D&D 3.5 player's handbook rules.

https://dndtools.net/feats/players-hand ... ack--2952/



Also.. an online resource from a tabletop D&D home campaign lists how this particular DM has interpreted the Tracking rules more specifically... (this is one possible interpretation, but one that I found to be very reasonable, maybe you do too.)

Code: Select all

TRACKING

    The DM provides only general information, not exact details. At his discretion, the DM may give more precise or 
less specific information than suggested in Table 19. The information may be ambiguous ("The tracks resemble
those of a large bird, though they could have been made by some sort of reptilian creature.") but the DM
shouldn't intentionally mislead the ranger (for instance, by telling him the tracks were definitely made by a bird
when in fact they were made by a reptile). The parenthetical comments in Table 19 indicate how a DM might
respond to a ranger studying tracks that were made by a pair of juvenile red dragons, each with a human rider.

Table 19: Identification Check Results

Ranger
Level		Information Received

1-2		General type of creature
("A dragon or other large reptilian creature.")

3-4		Specific type of creature and where it was heading
("Some kind of dragon, probably red. It appears to have been headed to the mountains to the north.")

5-6		Probable number of creatures
("Looks like two of them.")

7		Approximate size and/or age
("From the length of the prints, the dragons were probably juveniles.")

8		Pace of creatures
("There's no indication of haste; they were probably taking their time.")

9		How recently the trail was made
("The tracks were made within the last three or four hours.")

10+		Special conditions of creatures: wounded or healthy, mounts, etc.
("The unusual depth of the prints and the space between steps indicates the dragons had riders. 
A tiny scrap of cloth is similar to the material worn by soldiers in this area. The riders were probably human.")
  

Heights and size can vary. On average, yes, easily identifiable but there could be exceptions and maybe in the server's case there should be? I don't have a strong opinion on this. I only think we shouldn't be able to tell if someone is secretly a dragon/vampire.

As for allowing classes other than ranger to track, I've never played a game of D&D in my life where the DM wouldn't allow my druid to turn into a wolf or something and track a person. Tracking being stuck behind 1 class just doesn't make sense. Anyone can learn to track. I'm a super boring human who spends most of their time at the computer playing fantasy games and I'm able to retain skills for simple tracking so I think that a fictional character who has and does spend their entire life being mystically and magically in tune with nature, should track.

Also are you SURE about only rangers being able to track in 3.5? Druids also get the survival skill and as far as I know druids can use survival to track. Anyone can use survival to track but they can't track as well as a ranger. Difficult tracks with a higher DC, such as faint tracks on a hard surface by an obscure creature I would want to call a ranger in for that.

This is taken from the link you provided: "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."

^ To me this implies that you can track without the track feat (which we don't have so players can't take, but probably would) and even without track or survival you can use search to find a footprint or similar sign. To me this is more than seeing there 'are' tracks, but being able to see what kind of track it is. If you find a footprint, something with feet came. If you find a talon print in the mud, I think your character with search should be able to tell that an ogre didn't leave that talon print (depending on character's int score).

We're just talking about basic tracks here, and we're still ignoring the fact that a druid can turn into any number of animals that could effortlessly track in comparison to a person. We're also playing NWN where we don't have the luxury of having every feat/skill available to us. I don't think players should be limited by skills and feats they don't have if they weren't even able to take them. We should do what is fun and cool and what makes sense.

There are characters who are entirely savage and wild. Think of the wildest wild elf who's ever wilded, just wilding on their wildsome all the time for a few wild centuries. Pretty wild. Am I to believe that they never once in their very long life learned the most basic of survival skills that a human child could learn? To read tracks? That's a very silly thing to imagine.

[three wolf moon]

It's true that drow are the smallest of elves, but almost every female elf on Arelith has the shortest height as their height.

[The Kriv]

As for allowing classes other than ranger to track, I've never played a game of D&D in my life where the DM wouldn't allow my druid to turn into a wolf or something and track a person. Tracking being stuck behind 1 class just doesn't make sense.

If I were the DM and you as a druid turned into a wolf, I would certainly allow you to track seeing how in wolf form you would ahve the sense of smell, and not use footprints to do the tracking. *winks*

Neither have I ever played in a game of D&D in my life who didn't allow someone who had the FEAT of "track" to find/follow tracks.

I'd certainly say that evolving how tracking works to allow non-rangers to be able to do it certainly would be cool. But keeping it within the spirit of how it is supposed to work (i.e. tied to a feat) would be the way to go. Just saying "Oh i'm really good at Search. and therefore I should be able to Track" that's hogwash.

[Hazard]

As for allowing classes other than ranger to track, I've never played a game of D&D in my life where the DM wouldn't allow my druid to turn into a wolf or something and track a person. Tracking being stuck behind 1 class just doesn't make sense.

If I were the DM and you as a druid turned into a wolf, I would certainly allow you to track seeing how in wolf form you would ahve the sense of smell, and not use footprints to do the tracking. *winks*

Neither have I ever played in a game of D&D in my life who didn't allow someone who had the FEAT of "track" to find/follow tracks.

I'd certainly say that evolving how tracking works to allow non-rangers to be able to do it certainly would be cool. But keeping it within the spirit of how it is supposed to work (i.e. tied to a feat) would be the way to go. Just saying "Oh i'm really good at Search. and therefore I should be able to Track" that's hogwash.

Since we're so limited in what feats and skills we can invest in, do you think tying ability to track to the 'Trackless Step' feat would be appropriate? This would allow rangers, druids and (I think) wild dwarves, wild elves and forest gnomes to track. Could be justified by, hey if they're good enough with their survival skills to hide, sneak and not leave tracks in the wilderness, maybe they're also good enough to read basic tracks. Thematically I think it fits nicely and would allow someone to play the wilderness dwelling character they imagined. It also wouldn't mess with builds/require rebuilding characters.

Maybe that's too many that can track, and I still feel like rangers should have the advantage. I have a list of suggestions I'm waiting to post when that section is unlocked on how to improve non-totem wildshape so that it actually has a use. One idea was to give certain animal shapes like wolf the ability to track. This way a druid could track by RPing their senses but would still have to use an action to take a mechanically weak form to do it and lose casting ability. Pretty vulnerable, but they get to sniff around.

[CosmicOrderV]

I feel like the -investigate method is the best idea so far, though I might expound upon RedRopes' creature list. Things like kobolds, for example, are going to be a bit distinct from almost everything else.

Instead some sweeping generalizations, to represent the difficulty in really differentiating certain races:

Imp, Fey -- "Small Magical Beast"
Kobolds, Troglodytes -- "Small Reptilian"
Halflings, gnomes, goblins -- "Small Humanoid"
Aasimar, Tiefling, Raksasha -- "Medium Magical Beast"
Dragon (Human form), Yuan-Ti -- "Medium Reptilian"
Elves, humans, half-elves, dwarves, hobgoblins, Vampires, Deep Imaskari -- "Medium Humanoid"
Orcs, Orogs, Half-orcs -- "Large Humanoid"
Trolls, ogres -- "Giant Humanoid"
Dragon (Dragon form) -- "Giant Reptilian"

Favored Enemy Bonus? Then you can see their specific creature type. Like Dragon (for Dragons and kobolds), Undead (for Vampires), Elf (for all variety), Outsider (for Imps and Raksasha). I don't really know what goes into coding, so this might not even be practical, but I think it would be a more fun approach. That or just using the same identification methods as inspecting a character to identify race, and fixing Favored Enemies to reveal more information.

As for the rest, breaking it down to tiers like the Kriv mentioned would be rad. Something like this.

15 Search / 10 Lore: General creature types. Like those above, and that's it.

20 Search / 10 Lore: General creature types and the direction each track was heading.

25 Search / 10 Lore: General creature types, their current health (e.g.: Badly Wounded or Uninjured), and directions they were heading.

30 Search / 20 Lore: General Creature types, their current health, armor they wore, and direction they were heading.

35 Search / 25 Lore: General Creature types, their gender, their current health, armor they wore, and direction they were heading.

Divination Foci? It includes their Attunement.

Since druids don't get access to Search, and they can't read tracks anyways, this keeps the status quo. I liked the idea of animal shapes being able to Track, though, so I imagine maybe when a druid is Wild Shaped, they get an invisible bonus to the search based aspect of their 'Tracking' check. That bonus being equal to their Lore skill. This way, they don't get it for free, as it would still require a Lore investment, and they also have to burn a Wild Shape to do it.

And if you don't meet the skill requirements? The server just hits you with a, "You cannot tell anything from the tracks."

All this said, I think it could be cool, as well, to see a craftable item--boots--and their only property is to disguise tracks. Like, no matter what, wearing these boots, you appear as "Medium Humanoid" -- with the exception that Favored Enemy bonuses still reveal the truth.

[Beard Master Flex]

It might sound weird but tracking is a significant contributor to my enjoyment on this server for the last 10 years. I’ve never played a character who hasn’t had trackless steps/ tracking because I absolutely love its value as an RP tool.

I’d argue that the information one can glean from tracking is relatively innocuous and unless seriously metagamed with a very negative attitude (which should be reported) I have a hard time picturing situations from my experience where tracking ‘worked’ that didn’t having something meaningful stem from it.

Anecdotally tracking works in an exciting way a very small margin of the time anyway... the other times it mostly results in a modicum of wasted time that wholly comes at the cost to the player of the ranger for making the investment in the first place. (One I readily make for the few times something fun and cool happens)

I do agree that being able to track disguised dragons is a bit silly because I can’t imagine that happening in a way that isn’t super silly. Magical dragons are elite teir creatures. And I can’t picture how that would be fun.

But everything else, even vampires I think is fine.

Ranger tracking is NOT mundane real life tracking. These are magical sentinals of the natural world who read physical signs but may also consort with animals, spirits, elements whatever you want to picture it.

And having some loner appear out of the bushes to point out that this is a Drow track and not an elf track because she just ~knows~ *Clint Eastwood stink eye* is 100% what being a ranger is about.

Works for Vampires too in my opinion. And if there are situations where something lame and silly happens I would rather that be reported then simplify a tool that has given myself and people I know I’ve RP’d with a lot of fun over the years.

That’s my shake!