Why do rangers have to be better fighters than fighters, better skill monkeys than rogues, and better spellcasters than druids and wizards? I would HOPE that rogues would be good at any skills they focused on as that is kind of their whole deal. That and sneak attack. That's it. These "BLANKs are better at BLANK than rangers are" conversations are crazy! That fact that rangers are compared to and argued about so feverishly 3 or 4 other classes is a major boon of the class.
Natural explorer is WAY more than expertise. Even if you or your table plays the interpretation of it's ability in the most damning and restrictive way, it is still way more than what any rogue can do.
It really boils down to expertise for the majority of its use and in the other uses its mostly handwaving checks so its not super engaging.
People play ranger for a lot of reasons....I personally play them because they have good spells and interesting subclasses (post PHB that is).
The fact that this poll shows people will mostly forgo Natural Explorer shows that it was not a huge motivator for a good percentage of the play base for Ranger.
I am glad Deft Explorer is an option now as I do not intend to ever use NE ever again....as do 61% of the people who took this survey!
Why do rangers have to be better fighters than fighters, better skill monkeys than rogues, and better spellcasters than druids and wizards? I would HOPE that rogues would be good at any skills they focused on as that is kind of their whole deal. That and sneak attack. That's it. These "BLANKs are better at BLANK than rangers are" conversations are crazy! That fact that rangers are compared to and argued about so feverishly 3 or 4 other classes is a major boon of the class.
Natural explorer is WAY more than expertise. Even if you or your table plays the interpretation of it's ability in the most damning and restrictive way, it is still way more than what any rogue can do.
It really boils down to expertise for the majority of its use and in the other uses its mostly handwaving checks so its not super engaging.
People play ranger for a lot of reasons....I personally play them because they have good spells and interesting subclasses (post PHB that is).
The fact that this poll shows people will mostly forgo Natural Explorer shows that it was not a huge motivator for a good percentage of the play base for Ranger.
I am glad Deft Explorer is an option now as I do not intend to ever use NE ever again....as do 61% of the people who took this survey!
I don't dislike the Tasha's variants at all. I know that more people use natural explorer than not. We, collectively here on these forums, are not even close to being a large enough or diverse sample of people to think about accurate results. It's fun and nice, but not scientifically sound.
I am glad Deft Explorer is an option now as I do not intend to ever use NE ever again....as do 61% of the people who took this survey!
You mean 61% when you only look at the most Biased version of the survey. Or are you ignoring that part. And the fact that the revised version of the question has it lowered to 50%? And that the revised version is still somewhat biased in favor of Deft Explorer over Natural Explorer?
"A ranger with FT in forest would naturally be drawn to issues that look unnatural or forced. leaves that make an odd symbol or letter. Objects out of place signaling significant locations or plants never found in the area." Or the artist isn't very good and the plants don't look natural, or they just think a type of flower is pretty and they put it in - sorry, but no, this doesn't work at all - I would call analyzing art a performance check.
"As for tools and NE how about a brewer and a specific wine made from flowers that only grow in one region. or a wine made with a drop of venom from a local creature or mushroom.(yes they really exist)" - ok, but unless I am mistaken when you are applying proficiency from multiple sources you can pick one, so you would either get NE or the tool prof.
"out of the box creativity" is a great thing, I love to home brew and come up with fun solutions, but some of these just can't work the way you describe.
Point 1. There is nothing to say a bard with performance and a ranger with forests can't both get the bonus. .Your interpretation would give a bard that has music training (and no art) an Equal bonus to a ranger who might have studied the same painting or similar part of theirs. That sounds ludicrous to me.
Point 2. Just wrong . If its an intelligence and you have proficiency you get double. Doesn't matter if its tool or skill.
Point 3. Please don't switch topics mid sentence to try and prove your dismissal of an unrelated point.
Point 1. Yeah - music and art have a HELL of a lot more in common than a Painting and the FOREST. So yes, the bard is gonna be better at studying that painting than your Ranger. Point 2. If it is an intel check and the tool doesn't matter, why bother specifying a brewer (a tool)? If it is irrelevant just say a ranger recognizing the flower used in a wine Point 3. I wasn't changing the topic, you basically accused me of not being able to think outside the box and I was providing examples of why your assumption was wrong.
I am glad Deft Explorer is an option now as I do not intend to ever use NE ever again....as do 61% of the people who took this survey!
You mean 61% when you only look at the most Biased version of the survey. Or are you ignoring that part. And the fact that the revised version of the question has it lowered to 50%? And that the revised version is still somewhat biased in favor of Deft Explorer over Natural Explorer?
53% and yes even then that's the majority of users who took the survey.
Natural Explorer doubles your proficiency in wisdom and intelligence skills that you are proficient with when related to your favored terrain. It does not give you advantage on rolls. It does not help if you are not proficient in a skill. It does not help in straight wisdom and intelligence checks because those are not skills you are proficient with.
My ranger was proficient in athletics, intimidation (soldier background), and stealth. So Natural Explorer only helped with survival, investigation, and perception when related to certain terrains. If the Tasha's options were out back when I played the ranger, I would have preferred Deft Explorer.
There is also Tool proficiencies. Its less reliable but sometimes a dm will allow a tool when Puzzle solving or gathering information in place of a general check.
Side note: Favored enemy allows advantage even if not proficient in intelligence checks .
Not only do Tool Proficiencies potentially count as well. If one were to get into the tool proficiency materials from Xanathar's there can be clues and ideas for several ways to use them for Natural Explorer and a whole lot of very useful ways to use it outside of Natural Explorer. I really recommend that people take a look at it. There is all kinds of value to it. Like Brewers being able to make various kinds of healing potions if they just have a little time. At least a couple of basic ones a weak.
And that's just one exmple of general usage. But Natural Explorer specific could be that any ranger with Natural Explorer could percieve and understand the secret message in a painting with a forest and castle motif if Forest is a favored Terrain that many people aren't going to realize.
Xanathar's actually does a fair bit to enhance the exploration and environmental parts of the game that I recommend All DM's read a few times over and Players at least have a passing familiarity with.
I am sorry but claiming "with Natural Explorer [you] could percieve and understand the secret message in a painting with a forest and castle motif if Forest is a favored Terrain" is a ludicrous claim. Also saying "there can be clues and ideas for several ways to use [tools] for Natural Explorer" makes no sense. How are you connecting tools to NE?
it's ludicrous to you. But then we're aware your rather against most anything to do with Natural Explorer.
lol, not against it, I just think some of the things I am seeing people claim are really outside the scope.
Ok, pretend I am your DM, explain to me how your favored terrain being the forest helps you analyze a painting of a castle in a forest for hidden messages?
Pretend I'm in your game and your my DM? With what I've seen? That's easy. The two answers are either. "Fine. Let me change my character to another class" Or "I'm sorry but I cannot play in this game anymore. Your biases and restrictions are far too stifling for any interesting kind of play or usage of powers that my character has that you clearly dislike." Depending purely on how I'd seen you be on other things. But I have mostly only dealt with you about rangers so far so Right now I'd lean towards the first one. But I'd be keeping the second response in mind.
Because the Truth is. I had an explanation response typed up. I deleted it. Why you might ask?
Because it has been clear with your biases and the way you shoot anything and everything down that you would have just written it off and naysayed it. Your response was obvious before I even finished so i didn't bother. Which means I'm either going to play something your not biased against. Or I'm going to not play in your game.
I want the written response because if I asked you to justify it and you pulled up that clip, I am going to tell you "So your response is, hey Sherlock Holmes the WORLDS GREATEST DETECTIVE who has studied art, literature, music, and is basically written to be the smartest person on the planet can do it, therefore my run of the mill ranger who has no cultural background should be able to do it because he likes trees and there are trees in it?"
I am not set in stone on this. You can try an change my mind, but so far you haven't even tried.
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.
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.
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.
The town had some trees in it though so the ranger gets double prof to their history check because forests also have trees.
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.
The town had some trees in it though so the ranger gets double prof to their history check because forests also have trees.
/s
lol!
Yeah I kind of feel some of these are this level of stretch TBH
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.
Natural Explorer doubles your proficiency in wisdom and intelligence skills that you are proficient with when related to your favored terrain. It does not give you advantage on rolls. It does not help if you are not proficient in a skill. It does not help in straight wisdom and intelligence checks because those are not skills you are proficient with.
My ranger was proficient in athletics, intimidation (soldier background), and stealth. So Natural Explorer only helped with survival, investigation, and perception when related to certain terrains. If the Tasha's options were out back when I played the ranger, I would have preferred Deft Explorer.
There is also Tool proficiencies. Its less reliable but sometimes a dm will allow a tool when Puzzle solving or gathering information in place of a general check.
Side note: Favored enemy allows advantage even if not proficient in intelligence checks .
Not only do Tool Proficiencies potentially count as well. If one were to get into the tool proficiency materials from Xanathar's there can be clues and ideas for several ways to use them for Natural Explorer and a whole lot of very useful ways to use it outside of Natural Explorer. I really recommend that people take a look at it. There is all kinds of value to it. Like Brewers being able to make various kinds of healing potions if they just have a little time. At least a couple of basic ones a weak.
And that's just one exmple of general usage. But Natural Explorer specific could be that any ranger with Natural Explorer could percieve and understand the secret message in a painting with a forest and castle motif if Forest is a favored Terrain that many people aren't going to realize.
Xanathar's actually does a fair bit to enhance the exploration and environmental parts of the game that I recommend All DM's read a few times over and Players at least have a passing familiarity with.
I am sorry but claiming "with Natural Explorer [you] could percieve and understand the secret message in a painting with a forest and castle motif if Forest is a favored Terrain" is a ludicrous claim. Also saying "there can be clues and ideas for several ways to use [tools] for Natural Explorer" makes no sense. How are you connecting tools to NE?
it's ludicrous to you. But then we're aware your rather against most anything to do with Natural Explorer.
lol, not against it, I just think some of the things I am seeing people claim are really outside the scope.
Ok, pretend I am your DM, explain to me how your favored terrain being the forest helps you analyze a painting of a castle in a forest for hidden messages?
Pretend I'm in your game and your my DM? With what I've seen? That's easy. The two answers are either. "Fine. Let me change my character to another class" Or "I'm sorry but I cannot play in this game anymore. Your biases and restrictions are far too stifling for any interesting kind of play or usage of powers that my character has that you clearly dislike." Depending purely on how I'd seen you be on other things. But I have mostly only dealt with you about rangers so far so Right now I'd lean towards the first one. But I'd be keeping the second response in mind.
Because the Truth is. I had an explanation response typed up. I deleted it. Why you might ask?
Because it has been clear with your biases and the way you shoot anything and everything down that you would have just written it off and naysayed it. Your response was obvious before I even finished so i didn't bother. Which means I'm either going to play something your not biased against. Or I'm going to not play in your game.
I want the written response because if I asked you to justify it and you pulled up that clip, I am going to tell you "So your response is, hey Sherlock Holmes the WORLDS GREATEST DETECTIVE who has studied art, literature, music, and is basically written to be the smartest person on the planet can do it, therefore my run of the mill ranger who has no cultural background should be able to do it because he likes trees and there are trees in it?"
I am not set in stone on this. You can try an change my mind, but so far you haven't even tried.
I'm not the one that linked Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps you should go back and look at the names on Posts. But the sherlock holmes clip was accurate. He was applying his knowledge in one place to something completely different. He didnt' know why the painting was flawed. What he knew about was Astronomy and Historical Events. Then from that he figured out that the painting was wrong. He applied knowledge about the stars to something that people like you would deem completely out of the realm of being about seemingly completely unrelated subjects and basically got his expertise bonus applied to understand why the painting was fake. That version of Sherlock Holmes doesn't understand Art like certain previous versions before him. And it had nothing to do with Culture. But the Fundamentals to why he was able to do it still apply.
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.
The town had some trees in it though so the ranger gets double prof to their history check because forests also have trees.
/s
lol, I know you are joking but I think that some of these people would try and claim that if the town was next to a forest they do get the bonus - makes as little sense as your joke, but somehow they want to argue that.
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.
The town had some trees in it though so the ranger gets double prof to their history check because forests also have trees.
/s
lol, I know you are joking but I think that some of these people would try and claim that if the town was next to a forest they do get the bonus - makes as little sense as your joke, but somehow they want to argue that.
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.
Natural Explorer doubles your proficiency in wisdom and intelligence skills that you are proficient with when related to your favored terrain. It does not give you advantage on rolls. It does not help if you are not proficient in a skill. It does not help in straight wisdom and intelligence checks because those are not skills you are proficient with.
My ranger was proficient in athletics, intimidation (soldier background), and stealth. So Natural Explorer only helped with survival, investigation, and perception when related to certain terrains. If the Tasha's options were out back when I played the ranger, I would have preferred Deft Explorer.
There is also Tool proficiencies. Its less reliable but sometimes a dm will allow a tool when Puzzle solving or gathering information in place of a general check.
Side note: Favored enemy allows advantage even if not proficient in intelligence checks .
Not only do Tool Proficiencies potentially count as well. If one were to get into the tool proficiency materials from Xanathar's there can be clues and ideas for several ways to use them for Natural Explorer and a whole lot of very useful ways to use it outside of Natural Explorer. I really recommend that people take a look at it. There is all kinds of value to it. Like Brewers being able to make various kinds of healing potions if they just have a little time. At least a couple of basic ones a weak.
And that's just one exmple of general usage. But Natural Explorer specific could be that any ranger with Natural Explorer could percieve and understand the secret message in a painting with a forest and castle motif if Forest is a favored Terrain that many people aren't going to realize.
Xanathar's actually does a fair bit to enhance the exploration and environmental parts of the game that I recommend All DM's read a few times over and Players at least have a passing familiarity with.
I am sorry but claiming "with Natural Explorer [you] could percieve and understand the secret message in a painting with a forest and castle motif if Forest is a favored Terrain" is a ludicrous claim. Also saying "there can be clues and ideas for several ways to use [tools] for Natural Explorer" makes no sense. How are you connecting tools to NE?
it's ludicrous to you. But then we're aware your rather against most anything to do with Natural Explorer.
lol, not against it, I just think some of the things I am seeing people claim are really outside the scope.
Ok, pretend I am your DM, explain to me how your favored terrain being the forest helps you analyze a painting of a castle in a forest for hidden messages?
Pretend I'm in your game and your my DM? With what I've seen? That's easy. The two answers are either. "Fine. Let me change my character to another class" Or "I'm sorry but I cannot play in this game anymore. Your biases and restrictions are far too stifling for any interesting kind of play or usage of powers that my character has that you clearly dislike." Depending purely on how I'd seen you be on other things. But I have mostly only dealt with you about rangers so far so Right now I'd lean towards the first one. But I'd be keeping the second response in mind.
Because the Truth is. I had an explanation response typed up. I deleted it. Why you might ask?
Because it has been clear with your biases and the way you shoot anything and everything down that you would have just written it off and naysayed it. Your response was obvious before I even finished so i didn't bother. Which means I'm either going to play something your not biased against. Or I'm going to not play in your game.
I want the written response because if I asked you to justify it and you pulled up that clip, I am going to tell you "So your response is, hey Sherlock Holmes the WORLDS GREATEST DETECTIVE who has studied art, literature, music, and is basically written to be the smartest person on the planet can do it, therefore my run of the mill ranger who has no cultural background should be able to do it because he likes trees and there are trees in it?"
I am not set in stone on this. You can try an change my mind, but so far you haven't even tried.
I'm not the one that linked Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps you should go back and look at the names on Posts. But the sherlock holmes clip was accurate. He was applying his knowledge in one place to something completely different. He didnt' know why the painting was flawed. What he knew about was Astronomy and Historical Events. Then from that he figured out that the painting was wrong. He applied knowledge about the stars to something that people like you would deem completely out of the realm of being about seemingly completely unrelated subjects and basically got his expertise bonus applied to understand why the painting was fake. That version of Sherlock Holmes doesn't understand Art like certain previous versions before him. And it had nothing to do with Culture. But the Fundamentals to why he was able to do it still apply.
I know you didn't post the clip, but you did say you had a written explanation where as the other poster only provided a clip.
In that clip it was a painting supposedly from the 17th century containing a star that wasn't in the sky until the 19th century and that is how he figured it out. The situation that has been provided is applying NE to finding a secret message in a painting of a forest. Two wildly different scenarios.
If you put an art curator and a park ranger in a room and said to them "look at this painting of the forest" - the curator 'might' find a hidden message depending on what it is. The park ranger isn't going to be looking for a hidden message unless you tell them to and even then the likelyhood of them finding it is slim.
If we are going to apply the Sherlock situation to this it would have to be something like "You are looking at a painting of [specific forest name]" A ranger who's favored terrain is forest, but who hasn't been in that particular forest isn't going to know that something is off unless it is really obvious. A ranger who took deft explorer standing next to them with a high enough roll may recognize that the mushrooms in it (despite being a forest mushroom) don't grow in that forest, but it still proves nothing because it is ART.
I have yet to be provided a scenario in which it makes sense that NE should apply to a painting.
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.
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.
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"
In this discussion I was trying to think why I don't remember using the proficiency bonus thing, and then I realized that I never really used NE as it is in the PHB. I started playing in 2017 and shortly after I did, the UA Revised Ranger came out and I immediately switched to it. It's NE is streamlined, no selection, you just can do things...
You are a master of navigating the natural world, and you react with swift and decisive action when attacked. This grants you the following benefits: • You ignore difficult terrain. • You have advantage on initiative rolls. • On your first turn during combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have not yet acted.
In addition, you are skilled at navigating the wilderness. You gain the following benefits when traveling for an hour or more: • Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel. • Your group can’t become lost except by magical means. • Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger. • If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace. • When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would. • While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
So I can't say I have any direct experience, but I do know that I would never ask for a lot of what has been described.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't dislike the Tasha's variants at all. I know that more people use natural explorer than not. We, collectively here on these forums, are not even close to being a large enough or diverse sample of people to think about accurate results. It's fun and nice, but not scientifically sound.
You mean 61% when you only look at the most Biased version of the survey. Or are you ignoring that part. And the fact that the revised version of the question has it lowered to 50%? And that the revised version is still somewhat biased in favor of Deft Explorer over Natural Explorer?
Feel like this thread has done a pretty good job highlighting why NE is such a problematic feature, at the very least.
Point 1. Yeah - music and art have a HELL of a lot more in common than a Painting and the FOREST. So yes, the bard is gonna be better at studying that painting than your Ranger.
Point 2. If it is an intel check and the tool doesn't matter, why bother specifying a brewer (a tool)? If it is irrelevant just say a ranger recognizing the flower used in a wine
Point 3. I wasn't changing the topic, you basically accused me of not being able to think outside the box and I was providing examples of why your assumption was wrong.
53% and yes even then that's the majority of users who took the survey.
I want the written response because if I asked you to justify it and you pulled up that clip, I am going to tell you "So your response is, hey Sherlock Holmes the WORLDS GREATEST DETECTIVE who has studied art, literature, music, and is basically written to be the smartest person on the planet can do it, therefore my run of the mill ranger who has no cultural background should be able to do it because he likes trees and there are trees in it?"
I am not set in stone on this. You can try an change my mind, but so far you haven't even tried.
"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.
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.
The town had some trees in it though so the ranger gets double prof to their history check because forests also have trees.
/s
lol!
Yeah I kind of feel some of these are this level of stretch TBH
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.
I'm not the one that linked Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps you should go back and look at the names on Posts. But the sherlock holmes clip was accurate. He was applying his knowledge in one place to something completely different. He didnt' know why the painting was flawed. What he knew about was Astronomy and Historical Events. Then from that he figured out that the painting was wrong. He applied knowledge about the stars to something that people like you would deem completely out of the realm of being about seemingly completely unrelated subjects and basically got his expertise bonus applied to understand why the painting was fake. That version of Sherlock Holmes doesn't understand Art like certain previous versions before him. And it had nothing to do with Culture. But the Fundamentals to why he was able to do it still apply.
lol, I know you are joking but I think that some of these people would try and claim that if the town was next to a forest they do get the bonus - makes as little sense as your joke, but somehow they want to argue that.
How would you use the first part of that ability?
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.
I know you didn't post the clip, but you did say you had a written explanation where as the other poster only provided a clip.
In that clip it was a painting supposedly from the 17th century containing a star that wasn't in the sky until the 19th century and that is how he figured it out.
The situation that has been provided is applying NE to finding a secret message in a painting of a forest. Two wildly different scenarios.
If you put an art curator and a park ranger in a room and said to them "look at this painting of the forest" - the curator 'might' find a hidden message depending on what it is. The park ranger isn't going to be looking for a hidden message unless you tell them to and even then the likelyhood of them finding it is slim.
If we are going to apply the Sherlock situation to this it would have to be something like "You are looking at a painting of [specific forest name]" A ranger who's favored terrain is forest, but who hasn't been in that particular forest isn't going to know that something is off unless it is really obvious. A ranger who took deft explorer standing next to them with a high enough roll may recognize that the mushrooms in it (despite being a forest mushroom) don't grow in that forest, but it still proves nothing because it is ART.
I have yet to be provided a scenario in which it makes sense that NE should apply to a painting.
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 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"
In this discussion I was trying to think why I don't remember using the proficiency bonus thing, and then I realized that I never really used NE as it is in the PHB. I started playing in 2017 and shortly after I did, the UA Revised Ranger came out and I immediately switched to it. It's NE is streamlined, no selection, you just can do things...
You are a master of navigating the natural world, and you react with swift and decisive action when attacked. This grants you the following benefits:
• You ignore difficult terrain.
• You have advantage on initiative rolls.
• On your first turn during combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have not yet acted.
In addition, you are skilled at navigating the wilderness. You gain the following benefits when traveling for an hour or more:
• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
So I can't say I have any direct experience, but I do know that I would never ask for a lot of what has been described.