For what it's worth, I do think that if the painting is representing an actual forest that exists in the world, a good History check should be able to determine what forest is being depicted. And I'd argue that NE applies to that specific check.
Though if it's just a generic forest borne out of the artist's imagination, this reasoning becomes flimsier.
This is the only example that has been provided that makes sense, I agree that if it were a painting of a castle and forest, and the question was "do I recognize the forest" I would grant NE on the Nature check. But so far that hasn't been the argument. The poster wants to find a hidden message in the painting - nope nope nope. NE would not apply and so far no one has provided an explanation of why it should.
I do not agree that you should be able to track/recall information about a creature with double prof. simply because you are in your favored terrain. That clearly overlaps with favored enemy.
Also the rogue in the party is just recalling things with Survival with expertise all the time regardless of where you are at or how much spin you have to put on something to get it to shoehorn into the terrain somehow.
Honestly I would find it kind of exhausting to have a ranger always trying to somehow make every check they want to make with double prof. by somehow trying to relate it back to a Forrest....its easier and much more conducive for everyone to just give him expertise in survival and move on.
Also a DM is allowed to give out ADV or set DCs as they see fit anyway...You could do all of this without having a class feature make you do it.
I would do the same for the fighter who is from Baulder's Gate know about the basic geopolitical climate in the area as he served as a guard. I would give him a potentially lower DC to know History about the town. I would give him ADV to track an enemy through the streets because he grew up there.
This is stuff I already do with my players based on their background and backstory....I do not need a class feature telling me to do it.
"Honestly I would find it kind of exhausting to have a ranger always trying to somehow make every check they want to make with double prof. by somehow trying to relate it back to a Forrest....its easier and much more conducive for everyone to just give him expertise in survival and move on. "
100% agreed. One of the problems illustrated by this conversation is that this player obviously wants to be able to do things ALL the time so they are creating all these crazy explanations for why they should. It is almost like NE is really limiting and situational as a feature and replacing it with something that just works all the time would be better.
This really resonates with me too. Does anyone actually like the player that is constantly asking what bonuses they can get to a roll? Having that play pattern baked into the ability is just...so tedious.
After the 3rd or 4th back and forth I would just tell them "I am taking away the first part of NE, you get Expertise in survival, Nature, and one skill of your choice - moving on"
I see a lot of anger and dislike for the way things work. in this thread, I have seen deliberate crass insults and phrases. I have seen deliberate miss-representation of statements of posts that don't share your same opinion. The point is not your opinion the point is how the skills actually work.
What I have not seen is a single proof from the mechanics that show your opinions actually match RAW mechanics.
I do not agree that you should be able to track/recall information about a creature with double prof. simply because you are in your favored terrain. That clearly overlaps with favored enemy.
Also the rogue in the party is just recalling things with Survival with expertise all the time regardless of where you are at or how much spin you have to put on something to get it to shoehorn into the terrain somehow.
Honestly I would find it kind of exhausting to have a ranger always trying to somehow make every check they want to make with double prof. by somehow trying to relate it back to a Forrest....its easier and much more conducive for everyone to just give him expertise in survival and move on.
Also a DM is allowed to give out ADV or set DCs as they see fit anyway...You could do all of this without having a class feature make you do it.
I would do the same for the fighter who is from Baulder's Gate know about the basic geopolitical climate in the area as he served as a guard. I would give him a potentially lower DC to know History about the town. I would give him ADV to track an enemy through the streets because he grew up there.
This is stuff I already do with my players based on their background and backstory....I do not need a class feature telling me to do it.
"Honestly I would find it kind of exhausting to have a ranger always trying to somehow make every check they want to make with double prof. by somehow trying to relate it back to a Forrest....its easier and much more conducive for everyone to just give him expertise in survival and move on. "
100% agreed. One of the problems illustrated by this conversation is that this player obviously wants to be able to do things ALL the time so they are creating all these crazy explanations for why they should. It is almost like NE is really limiting and situational as a feature and replacing it with something that just works all the time would be better.
This really resonates with me too. Does anyone actually like the player that is constantly asking what bonuses they can get to a roll? Having that play pattern baked into the ability is just...so tedious.
After the 3rd or 4th back and forth I would just tell them "I am taking away the first part of NE, you get Expertise in survival, Nature, and one skill of your choice - moving on"
I see a lot of anger and dislike for the way things work. in this thread, I have seen deliberate crass insults and phrases. I have seen deliberate miss-representation of statements of posts that don't share your same opinion. The point is not your opinion the point is how the skills actually work.
What I have not seen is a single proof from the mechanics that show your opinions actually match RAW mechanics.
There is no anger, there are plenty of snarky comments that I have made. Be warned this response will have some. I don't know what you would consider proof of how mechanics work. I don't think that I have ever misrepresented anyone given that I directly quote them - not sure how I can be more accurate than a direct quote? I have either here or in the 'Why Does Ranger Suck' (not sure where which discussion points have been made) been given specific examples of how a player thinks the feature of NE should work and I have rebuffed in very specific language why I don't think the feature would work in that way. I have not however seen a response to any specific push back.
The core issue is that the feature wording is a little vague and some players seem to use that as an open invitation. Correct me if I am wrong, but the feature part in dispute is
"When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in"
and the primarily concern is with the interpretation of "relatedto". A handful of the people seem to think that the ONLY qualification to "relate" something to a favored terrain is if it EXIST there. Is it an animal, plant, insect, or thing made of matter that could possibly exist in a forest [or other favored terrain option] - then I get NE is their attitude.
However, I disagree with that assessment and feel that you need more criteria than existence. Furthermore, some of the examples go beyond just knowing something. It seems that some of these people think that selecting forest means that you not only can use NE in that terrain, but being able to do certain activities there allows you to do them EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME. I am not gonna look for it but someone said that being able to predict the weather, and about six more activities you can do in a favored terrain you can do anywhere.
It seems like if you play a ranger in their game with NE, you know alllll about everything that exist in that terrain... I know we've never been in THIS forest, but you see those bear tracks, I can tell you that those tracks belong to a brown bear that weighs 407.3 pounds, his name is Greg and he is 5 years old, his birthday is in July, his favorite food is salmon from the river 1.7 miles to the west of here and he likes to shit in a cave due west and sleeps in a cave to the north. If you want to find him I can 100% due that because I will get Expertise and Advantage on my role!
What I have not seen is a single proof from the mechanics that show your opinions actually match RAW mechanics.
I mean, the RAW is the DM lets you get away with whatever they think fits the description.
I've personally never met a DM that interprets NE nearly as liberally as you're suggesting. More often than not I see narrow, very literal interpretations of the feature used in games.
But if you do find a DM willing to let NE essentially be double proficiency to every skill whenever you want, obviously it becomes one of the most powerful features in the game instead of the ribbon feature it tends to be at other tables. For people who play at stricter tables who treat NE less flexibly, they might be drawn more to DE's more generalized mechanics instead.
You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.
Yeah I'm not really sure what kind of RAW mechanical proof anyone could expect to get to out of any side of a debate around this function of Natural Explorer. That's easily one of the biggest reasons NE has the reputation it does. It's one of the abilities where WotC decided to use incredibly vague language and never correct or clarify it. There is literally no precedence for what "relates to" means in D&D vernacular.
There is no proof. Just anecdotes of how people have experienced themselves or their DM handling the ability.
What I have not seen is a single proof from the mechanics that show your opinions actually match RAW mechanics.
I mean, the RAW is the DM lets you get away with whatever they think fits the description.
I've personally never met a DM that interprets NE nearly as liberally as you're suggesting. More often than not I see narrow, very literal interpretations of the feature used in games.
But if you do find a DM willing to let NE essentially be double proficiency to every skill whenever you want, obviously it becomes one of the most powerful features in the game instead of the ribbon feature it tends to be at other tables. For people who play at stricter tables who treat NE less flexibly, they might be drawn more to DE's more generalized mechanics instead.
There's really not much else more to say.
I think that sums it up pretty well and was something I was planning to say - if you are playing in a game where you can use it all the time, by all means, use that sucker non-stop.
You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.
Yeah I'm not really sure what kind of RAW mechanical proof anyone could expect to get to out of any side of a debate around this function of Natural Explorer. That's easily one of the biggest reasons NE has the reputation it does. It's one of the abilities where WotC decided to use incredibly vague language and never correct or clarify it. There is literally no precedence for what "relates to" means in D&D vernacular.
There is no proof. Just anecdotes of how people have experienced themselves or their DM handling the ability.
Maybe another poll is in order 😅
I would love to see a big survey from WtoC on people's feedback on the ranger changes.
I do not agree that you should be able to track/recall information about a creature with double prof. simply because you are in your favored terrain. That clearly overlaps with favored enemy.
Also the rogue in the party is just recalling things with Survival with expertise all the time regardless of where you are at or how much spin you have to put on something to get it to shoehorn into the terrain somehow.
Honestly I would find it kind of exhausting to have a ranger always trying to somehow make every check they want to make with double prof. by somehow trying to relate it back to a Forrest....its easier and much more conducive for everyone to just give him expertise in survival and move on.
Also a DM is allowed to give out ADV or set DCs as they see fit anyway...You could do all of this without having a class feature make you do it.
I would do the same for the fighter who is from Baulder's Gate know about the basic geopolitical climate in the area as he served as a guard. I would give him a potentially lower DC to know History about the town. I would give him ADV to track an enemy through the streets because he grew up there.
This is stuff I already do with my players based on their background and backstory....I do not need a class feature telling me to do it.
If your already getting something from Favored Foe then it doesn't really matter if favored Terrain would do it to now does it? Regardless of if your actually in your favored Terrain.
The Rogue in the Party doesn't necessarily have Expertise in Survival. So this is a false equivalency. And even if it does it's not necessarily as naturally skilled at it as the Ranger is. Without building the Rogue Specifically for this niche... which means taking away from other things the rogue might be wanting to do. The Rogue even with Expertise isn't necessarily doing any better than the Ranger even with Expertise. Regardless of what Terrain they are actually in. Because the Rangers likely proficiency in Survival combined with his natural focus on Wisdom is going to balance things out. Also the Ranger is not somehow completely banned from picking up Expertise themselves if they want to get it. Which does not shut off all the other Functions of Natural explorer if they do. And in fact by doing so they can pick up an additional skill that might actually have ways to apply Natural Explorer to anyway.
And if you get tired of the Ranger trying to tie everything back to forests or mountains. Let's not pretend this is only a Ranger thing and there aren't always players that we are going to run into in various games that are always going to try to relate everything they do to Skills they do have good numbers in over skills they don't have good numbers in. Let's instead realize that the same reason that Players do this, because there are sometimes reasonable alternatives, Might actually have some merit when it comes to Rangers instead of being Hard no on Rangers but letting it slide elsewhere.
You say your already giving Advantage and various things out for things like having grown up in Baldur's Gate. It really shouldn't be that hard to apply the same thing to Rangers and the various things that are in and have to do with their Favored Terrain as well. Or possibly their Favored Foe. It's just another thing like the Background and the backstory that is shaping the character.
There is no "letting it slide elsewhere". What, you think I am going to give you a hard time about trying to apply expertise to a painting because it has trees in it and then 20 minutes later I call for a history check to see if anyone recognizes the name of a town where a tragedy took place and the Bard says "ooh, I suck at that, can I make a performance check?" you think I am gonna say yes? No, that request is just as nonsensical as yours.
Your being entirely disongenuous when you say "Only has trees in it." That's not what I said. i specifically said Forest. Not simply trees. There is a difference in that which I used which you are choosing not to use in defense of your argument. You purposely narrow a lot of things down beyond what they should be or subtly recategorize things so that they do not fit when it suits you and this is just another way of you doing it by purposely changing words and meanings of what was said to suit you.
Your making False Equivalency arguments yet again when your making these changes and then making an outlandish claim that does not have anything at all to do with what I said.
By the Way. Understanding a Painting? That's not performance anyway. Nothing to do with Painting is performance. It never has been. And it's Definitely not in 5e. If you Read things like Xanathar's instead of just throwing fits about how Tool proficiencies don't work you might know that. Or if you even just read the PHB about tool Proficiencies and how they work you might have been able to apply some logic there. Proficiency in Painting Supplies gives you understanding about Paintings which can be applied elsewhere.
Yes, you said forest, I was deliberately using the word trees because it is a silly argument to make. I don't care if you are standing before a 10 foot by 50 foot painting (done in a photo-realistic style) of a forest. I am not giving you a NE bonus because forest is a favored terrain. It just doesn't make sense. Art is 100% subjective and style has a huge part in it. The reason I used performance is because I was specifically tying it to a skill. But yes, painting is a tool you can have proficiency in, but you don't add proficiency from multiple sources.
So for example, if your ranger wanted to examine the painting and I called for a performance check (a skill few rangers take) and you are proficient with Painters Supplies, you can add your proficiency bonus to the roll. Tools help characters add a bonus to skills they don't have or to straight checks when applicable.
In either case, you are not applying NE to a painting. As far as Xanathar's it references Investigation or Perception when studying a painting (also checks you could make, I just like performance because it doesn't get used much), but those are skills you are probably already proficient in, therefore your tool bonus wouldn't apply.
It references possible skills. Not all Skills. Not all applications of all skills. Nor all Modifiers to those Skills. Interestingly Enough though. Investigation is an Intelligence Skill and Perception is a Wisdom Skill. Both Skills that Natural Explorer can and should potentially Augment that your ignoring.
But it's Reference to Investigation and Perception is in regards to giving Advantage or Expertise when involving both a Skill Proficiency and a TOOL proficiency on Figuring it out. Which Not only means that the Tool Proficiency is being Applied But is Key to that Interaction. But your conveniently ignoring that it's located in a section about doing things like Giving Advantage or Expertise when combining both Tools and Skills. So if you Decided it was Expertise Worthy then you would be functionally doing the Same thing as Natural Explorer but for a Different Reason. Yet the Same basic Logic to do so.
So tell me. Why does the Basic Logic apply in one place but not Another. Simply because a Book Tells you to apply it even though it tells you it's only giving examples of usage?
Also. Again with this insistence on performance checks. Painting is not Performance. It's not covered in it. It almost never will be. This is what the Painting Supplies Proficiency is for instead. Performance only covers active Entertainment so it is all about things you do with an Active Audience at the time you do it. Painting is not an Entertainment Skill unless it is combined with an Active Audience.
"Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment."
It is literally your showmanship skill in essence. You could be a completely piss poor Painter with no talent in it what so ever but you could still paint in front of an Audience to great success on your Performance roll.
Guarantee WAY more time has been spent here arguing about the nature of painting checks than has been spent actually making them in the last 7 years of 5E's existence.
Skill checks can be used in odd, circumstantial ways because they purposely left them super open ended for the DM to fill in the blank. Can it end now?
I do not agree that you should be able to track/recall information about a creature with double prof. simply because you are in your favored terrain. That clearly overlaps with favored enemy.
Also the rogue in the party is just recalling things with Survival with expertise all the time regardless of where you are at or how much spin you have to put on something to get it to shoehorn into the terrain somehow.
Honestly I would find it kind of exhausting to have a ranger always trying to somehow make every check they want to make with double prof. by somehow trying to relate it back to a Forrest....its easier and much more conducive for everyone to just give him expertise in survival and move on.
Also a DM is allowed to give out ADV or set DCs as they see fit anyway...You could do all of this without having a class feature make you do it.
I would do the same for the fighter who is from Baulder's Gate know about the basic geopolitical climate in the area as he served as a guard. I would give him a potentially lower DC to know History about the town. I would give him ADV to track an enemy through the streets because he grew up there.
This is stuff I already do with my players based on their background and backstory....I do not need a class feature telling me to do it.
If your already getting something from Favored Foe then it doesn't really matter if favored Terrain would do it to now does it? Regardless of if your actually in your favored Terrain.
The Rogue in the Party doesn't necessarily have Expertise in Survival. So this is a false equivalency. And even if it does it's not necessarily as naturally skilled at it as the Ranger is. Without building the Rogue Specifically for this niche... which means taking away from other things the rogue might be wanting to do. The Rogue even with Expertise isn't necessarily doing any better than the Ranger even with Expertise. Regardless of what Terrain they are actually in. Because the Rangers likely proficiency in Survival combined with his natural focus on Wisdom is going to balance things out. Also the Ranger is not somehow completely banned from picking up Expertise themselves if they want to get it. Which does not shut off all the other Functions of Natural explorer if they do. And in fact by doing so they can pick up an additional skill that might actually have ways to apply Natural Explorer to anyway.
And if you get tired of the Ranger trying to tie everything back to forests or mountains. Let's not pretend this is only a Ranger thing and there aren't always players that we are going to run into in various games that are always going to try to relate everything they do to Skills they do have good numbers in over skills they don't have good numbers in. Let's instead realize that the same reason that Players do this, because there are sometimes reasonable alternatives, Might actually have some merit when it comes to Rangers instead of being Hard no on Rangers but letting it slide elsewhere.
You say your already giving Advantage and various things out for things like having grown up in Baldur's Gate. It really shouldn't be that hard to apply the same thing to Rangers and the various things that are in and have to do with their Favored Terrain as well. Or possibly their Favored Foe. It's just another thing like the Background and the backstory that is shaping the character.
There is no "letting it slide elsewhere". What, you think I am going to give you a hard time about trying to apply expertise to a painting because it has trees in it and then 20 minutes later I call for a history check to see if anyone recognizes the name of a town where a tragedy took place and the Bard says "ooh, I suck at that, can I make a performance check?" you think I am gonna say yes? No, that request is just as nonsensical as yours.
Your being entirely disongenuous when you say "Only has trees in it." That's not what I said. i specifically said Forest. Not simply trees. There is a difference in that which I used which you are choosing not to use in defense of your argument. You purposely narrow a lot of things down beyond what they should be or subtly recategorize things so that they do not fit when it suits you and this is just another way of you doing it by purposely changing words and meanings of what was said to suit you.
Your making False Equivalency arguments yet again when your making these changes and then making an outlandish claim that does not have anything at all to do with what I said.
By the Way. Understanding a Painting? That's not performance anyway. Nothing to do with Painting is performance. It never has been. And it's Definitely not in 5e. If you Read things like Xanathar's instead of just throwing fits about how Tool proficiencies don't work you might know that. Or if you even just read the PHB about tool Proficiencies and how they work you might have been able to apply some logic there. Proficiency in Painting Supplies gives you understanding about Paintings which can be applied elsewhere.
Yes, you said forest, I was deliberately using the word trees because it is a silly argument to make. I don't care if you are standing before a 10 foot by 50 foot painting (done in a photo-realistic style) of a forest. I am not giving you a NE bonus because forest is a favored terrain. It just doesn't make sense. Art is 100% subjective and style has a huge part in it. The reason I used performance is because I was specifically tying it to a skill. But yes, painting is a tool you can have proficiency in, but you don't add proficiency from multiple sources.
So for example, if your ranger wanted to examine the painting and I called for a performance check (a skill few rangers take) and you are proficient with Painters Supplies, you can add your proficiency bonus to the roll. Tools help characters add a bonus to skills they don't have or to straight checks when applicable.
In either case, you are not applying NE to a painting. As far as Xanathar's it references Investigation or Perception when studying a painting (also checks you could make, I just like performance because it doesn't get used much), but those are skills you are probably already proficient in, therefore your tool bonus wouldn't apply.
It references possible skills. Not all Skills. Not all applications of all skills. Nor all Modifiers to those Skills. Interestingly Enough though. Investigation is an Intelligence Skill and Perception is a Wisdom Skill. Both Skills that Natural Explorer can and should potentially Augment that your ignoring.
But it's Reference to Investigation and Perception is in regards to giving Advantage or Expertise when involving both a Skill Proficiency and a TOOL proficiency on Figuring it out. Which Not only means that the Tool Proficiency is being Applied But is Key to that Interaction. But your conveniently ignoring that it's located in a section about doing things like Giving Advantage or Expertise when combining both Tools and Skills. So if you Decided it was Expertise Worthy then you would be functionally doing the Same thing as Natural Explorer but for a Different Reason. Yet the Same basic Logic to do so.
So tell me. Why does the Basic Logic apply in one place but not Another. Simply because a Book Tells you to apply it even though it tells you it's only giving examples of usage?
Also. Again with this insistence on performance checks. Painting is not Performance. It's not covered in it. It almost never will be. This is what the Painting Supplies Proficiency is for instead. Performance only covers active Entertainment so it is all about things you do with an Active Audience at the time you do it. Painting is not an Entertainment Skill unless it is combined with an Active Audience.
"Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment."
It is literally your showmanship skill in essence. You could be a completely piss poor Painter with no talent in it what so ever but you could still paint in front of an Audience to great success on your Performance roll.
First, as a DM you can call for any thing you want. And as the DM in this scenario, I am going to call for performance in that instance. I don't care what the book says, I am making a judgement call.
Second, as to "But it's Reference to Investigation and Perception is in regards to giving Advantage or Expertise when involving both a Skill Proficiency and a TOOL proficiency on Figuring it out." That isn't how tools work. Proficiency bonus' never stack. You can only ever apply proficiency from one source. You can give a player advantage if they have proficiency in both the skill you are calling for and a related tool, but that is not an official rule, though I would likely grant advantage. Expertise is also not something granted by having by a tool and skill as, again, you don't add your proficiency from more than one source. You have to gain expertise through something like the artificer tools or features from rogue, bard, or ranger (de), or a feat.
I do not agree that you should be able to track/recall information about a creature with double prof. simply because you are in your favored terrain. That clearly overlaps with favored enemy.
Also the rogue in the party is just recalling things with Survival with expertise all the time regardless of where you are at or how much spin you have to put on something to get it to shoehorn into the terrain somehow.
Honestly I would find it kind of exhausting to have a ranger always trying to somehow make every check they want to make with double prof. by somehow trying to relate it back to a Forrest....its easier and much more conducive for everyone to just give him expertise in survival and move on.
Also a DM is allowed to give out ADV or set DCs as they see fit anyway...You could do all of this without having a class feature make you do it.
I would do the same for the fighter who is from Baulder's Gate know about the basic geopolitical climate in the area as he served as a guard. I would give him a potentially lower DC to know History about the town. I would give him ADV to track an enemy through the streets because he grew up there.
This is stuff I already do with my players based on their background and backstory....I do not need a class feature telling me to do it.
If your already getting something from Favored Foe then it doesn't really matter if favored Terrain would do it to now does it? Regardless of if your actually in your favored Terrain.
The Rogue in the Party doesn't necessarily have Expertise in Survival. So this is a false equivalency. And even if it does it's not necessarily as naturally skilled at it as the Ranger is. Without building the Rogue Specifically for this niche... which means taking away from other things the rogue might be wanting to do. The Rogue even with Expertise isn't necessarily doing any better than the Ranger even with Expertise. Regardless of what Terrain they are actually in. Because the Rangers likely proficiency in Survival combined with his natural focus on Wisdom is going to balance things out. Also the Ranger is not somehow completely banned from picking up Expertise themselves if they want to get it. Which does not shut off all the other Functions of Natural explorer if they do. And in fact by doing so they can pick up an additional skill that might actually have ways to apply Natural Explorer to anyway.
And if you get tired of the Ranger trying to tie everything back to forests or mountains. Let's not pretend this is only a Ranger thing and there aren't always players that we are going to run into in various games that are always going to try to relate everything they do to Skills they do have good numbers in over skills they don't have good numbers in. Let's instead realize that the same reason that Players do this, because there are sometimes reasonable alternatives, Might actually have some merit when it comes to Rangers instead of being Hard no on Rangers but letting it slide elsewhere.
You say your already giving Advantage and various things out for things like having grown up in Baldur's Gate. It really shouldn't be that hard to apply the same thing to Rangers and the various things that are in and have to do with their Favored Terrain as well. Or possibly their Favored Foe. It's just another thing like the Background and the backstory that is shaping the character.
There is no "letting it slide elsewhere". What, you think I am going to give you a hard time about trying to apply expertise to a painting because it has trees in it and then 20 minutes later I call for a history check to see if anyone recognizes the name of a town where a tragedy took place and the Bard says "ooh, I suck at that, can I make a performance check?" you think I am gonna say yes? No, that request is just as nonsensical as yours.
Your being entirely disongenuous when you say "Only has trees in it." That's not what I said. i specifically said Forest. Not simply trees. There is a difference in that which I used which you are choosing not to use in defense of your argument. You purposely narrow a lot of things down beyond what they should be or subtly recategorize things so that they do not fit when it suits you and this is just another way of you doing it by purposely changing words and meanings of what was said to suit you.
Your making False Equivalency arguments yet again when your making these changes and then making an outlandish claim that does not have anything at all to do with what I said.
By the Way. Understanding a Painting? That's not performance anyway. Nothing to do with Painting is performance. It never has been. And it's Definitely not in 5e. If you Read things like Xanathar's instead of just throwing fits about how Tool proficiencies don't work you might know that. Or if you even just read the PHB about tool Proficiencies and how they work you might have been able to apply some logic there. Proficiency in Painting Supplies gives you understanding about Paintings which can be applied elsewhere.
Yes, you said forest, I was deliberately using the word trees because it is a silly argument to make. I don't care if you are standing before a 10 foot by 50 foot painting (done in a photo-realistic style) of a forest. I am not giving you a NE bonus because forest is a favored terrain. It just doesn't make sense. Art is 100% subjective and style has a huge part in it. The reason I used performance is because I was specifically tying it to a skill. But yes, painting is a tool you can have proficiency in, but you don't add proficiency from multiple sources.
So for example, if your ranger wanted to examine the painting and I called for a performance check (a skill few rangers take) and you are proficient with Painters Supplies, you can add your proficiency bonus to the roll. Tools help characters add a bonus to skills they don't have or to straight checks when applicable.
In either case, you are not applying NE to a painting. As far as Xanathar's it references Investigation or Perception when studying a painting (also checks you could make, I just like performance because it doesn't get used much), but those are skills you are probably already proficient in, therefore your tool bonus wouldn't apply.
It references possible skills. Not all Skills. Not all applications of all skills. Nor all Modifiers to those Skills. Interestingly Enough though. Investigation is an Intelligence Skill and Perception is a Wisdom Skill. Both Skills that Natural Explorer can and should potentially Augment that your ignoring.
But it's Reference to Investigation and Perception is in regards to giving Advantage or Expertise when involving both a Skill Proficiency and a TOOL proficiency on Figuring it out. Which Not only means that the Tool Proficiency is being Applied But is Key to that Interaction. But your conveniently ignoring that it's located in a section about doing things like Giving Advantage or Expertise when combining both Tools and Skills. So if you Decided it was Expertise Worthy then you would be functionally doing the Same thing as Natural Explorer but for a Different Reason. Yet the Same basic Logic to do so.
So tell me. Why does the Basic Logic apply in one place but not Another. Simply because a Book Tells you to apply it even though it tells you it's only giving examples of usage?
Also. Again with this insistence on performance checks. Painting is not Performance. It's not covered in it. It almost never will be. This is what the Painting Supplies Proficiency is for instead. Performance only covers active Entertainment so it is all about things you do with an Active Audience at the time you do it. Painting is not an Entertainment Skill unless it is combined with an Active Audience.
"Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment."
It is literally your showmanship skill in essence. You could be a completely piss poor Painter with no talent in it what so ever but you could still paint in front of an Audience to great success on your Performance roll.
First, as a DM you can call for any thing you want. And as the DM in this scenario, I am going to call for performance in that instance. I don't care what the book says, I am making a judgement call.
Second, as to "But it's Reference to Investigation and Perception is in regards to giving Advantage or Expertise when involving both a Skill Proficiency and a TOOL proficiency on Figuring it out." That isn't how tools work. Proficiency bonus' never stack. You can only ever apply proficiency from one source. You can give a player advantage if they have proficiency in both the skill you are calling for and a related tool, but that is not an official rule, though I would likely grant advantage. Expertise is also not something granted by having by a tool and skill as, again, you don't add your proficiency from more than one source. You have to gain expertise through something like the artificer tools or features from rogue, bard, or ranger (de), or a feat.
Showing that you didn't Read Xanathar's. Because the section your pulling from is all about basically making tool proficiencies and skills stack to achieve extra bonuses.
First of all these posts are getting ridiculous to even look at. You can delete the chain of quotes so that you're left with what you want and have something that is readable.
Showing that you didn't Read Xanathar's. Because the section your pulling from is all about basically making tool proficiencies and skills stack to achieve extra bonuses.
And you're showing you need to reread Xanathar's. Those tool proficiency rules never mention granting expertise. They talk about advantage, extra information or providing automatic success on a different skill check related to the situation.
Fateless, I'm perplexed by how adamant you are with defining how Painting checks can and cannot be handled in D&D. Painting, like all art, is inspired and influenced by infinite things. Knowledge from all parts of life can be applied to painting, whether it be the act of doing it or understanding it. And yet somehow you have your finger on the dial, and know exactly what can and cannot apply to painting in D&D. The irony of having someone endlessly arguing for the broad application of skills using NE being super uptight about what can and cannot be used for Painting makes it all the more confusing.
First of all these posts are getting ridiculous to even look at. You can delete the chain of quotes so that you're left with what you want and have something that is readable.
Showing that you didn't Read Xanathar's. Because the section your pulling from is all about basically making tool proficiencies and skills stack to achieve extra bonuses.
And you're showing you need to reread Xanathar's. Those tool proficiency rules never mention granting expertise. They talk about advantage, extra information or providing automatic success on a different skill check related to the situation.
Fateless, I'm perplexed by how adamant you are with defining how Painting checks can and cannot be handled in D&D. Painting, like all art, is inspired and influenced by infinite things. Knowledge from all parts of life can be applied to painting, whether it be the act of doing it or understanding it. And yet somehow you have your finger on the dial, and know exactly what can and cannot apply to painting in D&D. The irony of having someone endlessly arguing for the broad application of skills using NE being super uptight about what can and cannot be used for Painting makes it all the more confusing.
The whole Painting thing really depends on the backstory of the painter and the purpose its trying to serve. There are times when It would apply and there are times when it wouldn't. The problem is when the backstory or reasoning is underdeveloped. some people are defaulting to "no it doesn't apply" some are defaulting to "yes it does unless proven other wise."
There are clearly times when the knowledge would grant a bonus and other times when it wouldn't.
I think the situation should be if it is an undefined situation and the ranger skills are being underutilized, this is an opportunity to allow a ranger a bonus chance to be the expert. Clues hidden in paintings are given usually to have a deliberate chance of success. the party that catches it has an easier time or gets a reward. The party that misses it is at a slight disadvantage in some upcoming scenario. In the game its an instance of "chekhov's Painting." its meant to be interacted with so, The question should be "which Class is this clue designed for?" the answer can be both the bard and the ranger. but to assume is always one or always not the other is a disservice to the game and setting.
And again, we are debating whether the ranger does or does not get an extra 10% bump on any of these activities. If it doesn't really matter that much, let them! If it does matter a lot, and it isn't being abused or intentionally power gamed, let them!
People let other classes do silly stuff all of the time. I have a list, but here is one right off the bat: familiars acting on or right after the casters turn automatically. Hard no. THAT is game changing. Letting a ranger that TOOK painting as a proficiency and has a moment to apply it AND their love and knowledge of nature to a check in game is not only fantastic role play, it literally wouldn't effect the game. And if it did, how awesome would that be?! Very!
First of all these posts are getting ridiculous to even look at. You can delete the chain of quotes so that you're left with what you want and have something that is readable.
Showing that you didn't Read Xanathar's. Because the section your pulling from is all about basically making tool proficiencies and skills stack to achieve extra bonuses.
And you're showing you need to reread Xanathar's. Those tool proficiency rules never mention granting expertise. They talk about advantage, extra information or providing automatic success on a different skill check related to the situation.
Fateless, I'm perplexed by how adamant you are with defining how Painting checks can and cannot be handled in D&D. Painting, like all art, is inspired and influenced by infinite things. Knowledge from all parts of life can be applied to painting, whether it be the act of doing it or understanding it. And yet somehow you have your finger on the dial, and know exactly what can and cannot apply to painting in D&D. The irony of having someone endlessly arguing for the broad application of skills using NE being super uptight about what can and cannot be used for Painting makes it all the more confusing.
The whole Painting thing really depends on the backstory of the painter and the purpose its trying to serve. There are times when It would apply and there are times when it wouldn't. The problem is when the backstory or reasoning is underdeveloped. some people are defaulting to "no it doesn't apply" some are defaulting to "yes it does unless proven other wise."
There are clearly times when the knowledge would grant a bonus and other times when it wouldn't.
I think the situation should be if it is an undefined situation and the ranger skills are being underutilized, this is an opportunity to allow a ranger a bonus chance to be the expert. Clues hidden in paintings are given usually to have a deliberate chance of success. the party that catches it has an easier time or gets a reward. The party that misses it is at a slight disadvantage in some upcoming scenario. In the game its an instance of "chekhov's Painting." its meant to be interacted with so, The question should be "which Class is this clue designed for?" the answer can be both the bard and the ranger. but to assume is always one or always not the other is a disservice to the game and setting.
I wasn't defaulting to Yes it does unless you prove otherwise. I was Defaulting to there are times it can apply, I was not argueing that there weren't times where it wouldn't. Just that sometimes it does.
And Since you've shown Me Heiron's Post. he's Not Correct Either. There is a difference for arguing against something that is clearly pretty much entirely outside of a skills ability Or requires a very narrow set of specific circumstance for that to apply and something that is sometimes in the skills ability just in general. I have not argued for Skills to do anything outside of what they are listed as doing any time. I have only Argued for the Sometimes things that apply based upon what those skills can already do when combined with certain areas of expertise. That is a great difference and saying I'm being overly narrow about something not naturally in the purview of a skill is not the same thing.
I wasn't defaulting to Yes it does unless you prove otherwise. I was Defaulting to there are times it can apply, I was not argueing that there weren't times where it wouldn't. Just that sometimes it does.
I wasn't referring to you (possibly not anyone in this thread) but some of the "no crowd" seems to think we both are in the "always yes category". I only referenced your post because it was part of the topic context and was too lazy to preform "quote surgery". I think we agree on many points and even when we disagree I would at least trust you to try to be fair and cordial about it.
I wasn't defaulting to Yes it does unless you prove otherwise. I was Defaulting to there are times it can apply, I was not argueing that there weren't times where it wouldn't. Just that sometimes it does.
I wasn't referring to you (possibly not anyone in this thread) but some of the "no crowd" seems to think we both are in the "always yes category". I only referenced your post because it was part of the topic context and was too lazy to preform "quote surgery". I think we agree on many points and even when we disagree I would at least trust you to try to be fair and cordial about it.
I'm fairly certain I'm the only one in the "always yes category".
I wasn't defaulting to Yes it does unless you prove otherwise. I was Defaulting to there are times it can apply, I was not argueing that there weren't times where it wouldn't. Just that sometimes it does.
I wasn't referring to you (possibly not anyone in this thread) but some of the "no crowd" seems to think we both are in the "always yes category". I only referenced your post because it was part of the topic context and was too lazy to preform "quote surgery". I think we agree on many points and even when we disagree I would at least trust you to try to be fair and cordial about it.
I do try to be cordial enough usually, though frustration might slip out on occasion. But I'm pretty poor about certian social cues to realize that sometimes things sound colder or harder than meant. Like I didn't realize you were meaning general overall that there may be some being that way. which is why I clarified.
What is the No and Yes distinction? Is it about deft explorer vs natural explorer. Or is it about no combining NE + FE bonuses or yes?
The yes or no or sometimes is in reference to the painting question and Favored terrain. More generally about how to determine when the bonus applies for either NE or FE (because of the "related" term)
This is the only example that has been provided that makes sense, I agree that if it were a painting of a castle and forest, and the question was "do I recognize the forest" I would grant NE on the Nature check. But so far that hasn't been the argument. The poster wants to find a hidden message in the painting - nope nope nope. NE would not apply and so far no one has provided an explanation of why it should.
I see a lot of anger and dislike for the way things work. in this thread, I have seen deliberate crass insults and phrases. I have seen deliberate miss-representation of statements of posts that don't share your same opinion. The point is not your opinion the point is how the skills actually work.
What I have not seen is a single proof from the mechanics that show your opinions actually match RAW mechanics.
There is no anger, there are plenty of snarky comments that I have made. Be warned this response will have some. I don't know what you would consider proof of how mechanics work.
I don't think that I have ever misrepresented anyone given that I directly quote them - not sure how I can be more accurate than a direct quote?
I have either here or in the 'Why Does Ranger Suck' (not sure where which discussion points have been made) been given specific examples of how a player thinks the feature of NE should work and I have rebuffed in very specific language why I don't think the feature would work in that way. I have not however seen a response to any specific push back.
The core issue is that the feature wording is a little vague and some players seem to use that as an open invitation. Correct me if I am wrong, but the feature part in dispute is
"When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in"
and the primarily concern is with the interpretation of "related to". A handful of the people seem to think that the ONLY qualification to "relate" something to a favored terrain is if it EXIST there. Is it an animal, plant, insect, or thing made of matter that could possibly exist in a forest [or other favored terrain option] - then I get NE is their attitude.
However, I disagree with that assessment and feel that you need more criteria than existence. Furthermore, some of the examples go beyond just knowing something. It seems that some of these people think that selecting forest means that you not only can use NE in that terrain, but being able to do certain activities there allows you to do them EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME. I am not gonna look for it but someone said that being able to predict the weather, and about six more activities you can do in a favored terrain you can do anywhere.
It seems like if you play a ranger in their game with NE, you know alllll about everything that exist in that terrain...
I know we've never been in THIS forest, but you see those bear tracks, I can tell you that those tracks belong to a brown bear that weighs 407.3 pounds, his name is Greg and he is 5 years old, his birthday is in July, his favorite food is salmon from the river 1.7 miles to the west of here and he likes to shit in a cave due west and sleeps in a cave to the north. If you want to find him I can 100% due that because I will get Expertise and Advantage on my role!
I mean, the RAW is the DM lets you get away with whatever they think fits the description.
I've personally never met a DM that interprets NE nearly as liberally as you're suggesting. More often than not I see narrow, very literal interpretations of the feature used in games.
But if you do find a DM willing to let NE essentially be double proficiency to every skill whenever you want, obviously it becomes one of the most powerful features in the game instead of the ribbon feature it tends to be at other tables. For people who play at stricter tables who treat NE less flexibly, they might be drawn more to DE's more generalized mechanics instead.
There's really not much else more to say.
Yeah I'm not really sure what kind of RAW mechanical proof anyone could expect to get to out of any side of a debate around this function of Natural Explorer. That's easily one of the biggest reasons NE has the reputation it does. It's one of the abilities where WotC decided to use incredibly vague language and never correct or clarify it. There is literally no precedence for what "relates to" means in D&D vernacular.
There is no proof. Just anecdotes of how people have experienced themselves or their DM handling the ability.
Maybe another poll is in order 😅
I think that sums it up pretty well and was something I was planning to say - if you are playing in a game where you can use it all the time, by all means, use that sucker non-stop.
I would love to see a big survey from WtoC on people's feedback on the ranger changes.
It references possible skills. Not all Skills. Not all applications of all skills. Nor all Modifiers to those Skills. Interestingly Enough though. Investigation is an Intelligence Skill and Perception is a Wisdom Skill. Both Skills that Natural Explorer can and should potentially Augment that your ignoring.
But it's Reference to Investigation and Perception is in regards to giving Advantage or Expertise when involving both a Skill Proficiency and a TOOL proficiency on Figuring it out. Which Not only means that the Tool Proficiency is being Applied But is Key to that Interaction. But your conveniently ignoring that it's located in a section about doing things like Giving Advantage or Expertise when combining both Tools and Skills. So if you Decided it was Expertise Worthy then you would be functionally doing the Same thing as Natural Explorer but for a Different Reason. Yet the Same basic Logic to do so.
So tell me. Why does the Basic Logic apply in one place but not Another. Simply because a Book Tells you to apply it even though it tells you it's only giving examples of usage?
Also. Again with this insistence on performance checks. Painting is not Performance. It's not covered in it. It almost never will be. This is what the Painting Supplies Proficiency is for instead. Performance only covers active Entertainment so it is all about things you do with an Active Audience at the time you do it. Painting is not an Entertainment Skill unless it is combined with an Active Audience.
"Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment."
It is literally your showmanship skill in essence. You could be a completely piss poor Painter with no talent in it what so ever but you could still paint in front of an Audience to great success on your Performance roll.
Guarantee WAY more time has been spent here arguing about the nature of painting checks than has been spent actually making them in the last 7 years of 5E's existence.
Skill checks can be used in odd, circumstantial ways because they purposely left them super open ended for the DM to fill in the blank. Can it end now?
First, as a DM you can call for any thing you want. And as the DM in this scenario, I am going to call for performance in that instance. I don't care what the book says, I am making a judgement call.
Second, as to "But it's Reference to Investigation and Perception is in regards to giving Advantage or Expertise when involving both a Skill Proficiency and a TOOL proficiency on Figuring it out." That isn't how tools work. Proficiency bonus' never stack. You can only ever apply proficiency from one source. You can give a player advantage if they have proficiency in both the skill you are calling for and a related tool, but that is not an official rule, though I would likely grant advantage. Expertise is also not something granted by having by a tool and skill as, again, you don't add your proficiency from more than one source. You have to gain expertise through something like the artificer tools or features from rogue, bard, or ranger (de), or a feat.
Showing that you didn't Read Xanathar's. Because the section your pulling from is all about basically making tool proficiencies and skills stack to achieve extra bonuses.
First of all these posts are getting ridiculous to even look at. You can delete the chain of quotes so that you're left with what you want and have something that is readable.
Like this:
And you're showing you need to reread Xanathar's. Those tool proficiency rules never mention granting expertise. They talk about advantage, extra information or providing automatic success on a different skill check related to the situation.
Fateless, I'm perplexed by how adamant you are with defining how Painting checks can and cannot be handled in D&D. Painting, like all art, is inspired and influenced by infinite things. Knowledge from all parts of life can be applied to painting, whether it be the act of doing it or understanding it. And yet somehow you have your finger on the dial, and know exactly what can and cannot apply to painting in D&D. The irony of having someone endlessly arguing for the broad application of skills using NE being super uptight about what can and cannot be used for Painting makes it all the more confusing.
The whole Painting thing really depends on the backstory of the painter and the purpose its trying to serve. There are times when It would apply and there are times when it wouldn't. The problem is when the backstory or reasoning is underdeveloped. some people are defaulting to "no it doesn't apply" some are defaulting to "yes it does unless proven other wise."
There are clearly times when the knowledge would grant a bonus and other times when it wouldn't.
I think the situation should be if it is an undefined situation and the ranger skills are being underutilized, this is an opportunity to allow a ranger a bonus chance to be the expert. Clues hidden in paintings are given usually to have a deliberate chance of success. the party that catches it has an easier time or gets a reward. The party that misses it is at a slight disadvantage in some upcoming scenario. In the game its an instance of "chekhov's Painting." its meant to be interacted with so, The question should be "which Class is this clue designed for?" the answer can be both the bard and the ranger. but to assume is always one or always not the other is a disservice to the game and setting.
And again, we are debating whether the ranger does or does not get an extra 10% bump on any of these activities. If it doesn't really matter that much, let them! If it does matter a lot, and it isn't being abused or intentionally power gamed, let them!
People let other classes do silly stuff all of the time. I have a list, but here is one right off the bat: familiars acting on or right after the casters turn automatically. Hard no. THAT is game changing. Letting a ranger that TOOK painting as a proficiency and has a moment to apply it AND their love and knowledge of nature to a check in game is not only fantastic role play, it literally wouldn't effect the game. And if it did, how awesome would that be?! Very!
I wasn't defaulting to Yes it does unless you prove otherwise. I was Defaulting to there are times it can apply, I was not argueing that there weren't times where it wouldn't. Just that sometimes it does.
And Since you've shown Me Heiron's Post. he's Not Correct Either. There is a difference for arguing against something that is clearly pretty much entirely outside of a skills ability Or requires a very narrow set of specific circumstance for that to apply and something that is sometimes in the skills ability just in general. I have not argued for Skills to do anything outside of what they are listed as doing any time. I have only Argued for the Sometimes things that apply based upon what those skills can already do when combined with certain areas of expertise. That is a great difference and saying I'm being overly narrow about something not naturally in the purview of a skill is not the same thing.
I wasn't referring to you (possibly not anyone in this thread) but some of the "no crowd" seems to think we both are in the "always yes category". I only referenced your post because it was part of the topic context and was too lazy to preform "quote surgery". I think we agree on many points and even when we disagree I would at least trust you to try to be fair and cordial about it.
I'm fairly certain I'm the only one in the "always yes category".
What is the No and Yes distinction? Is it about deft explorer vs natural explorer. Or is it about no combining NE + FE bonuses or yes?
I do try to be cordial enough usually, though frustration might slip out on occasion. But I'm pretty poor about certian social cues to realize that sometimes things sound colder or harder than meant. Like I didn't realize you were meaning general overall that there may be some being that way. which is why I clarified.
The yes or no or sometimes is in reference to the painting question and Favored terrain. More generally about how to determine when the bonus applies for either NE or FE (because of the "related" term)