Gotcha. Well I'm definitely in the sometimes category. Honestly I thought the sometimes category would essentially be the yes category because that's the nature of those abilities.
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?
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.
Because arguing that finding an arrow head can lead to knowing everything about a tribe of goblins down to their religious beliefs, including recent breaks in the tribe, is in no ways a stretch of the use of skills (which is exactly what those functions of NE and FE are). Riiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhtttttt.
Sorry, I forgot that bit of gold was in the Ranger Sucks thread and not this one.
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.
Because arguing that finding an arrow head can lead to knowing everything about a tribe of goblins down to their religious beliefs, including recent breaks in the tribe, is in no ways a stretch of the use of skills (which is exactly what those functions of NE and FE are). Riiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhtttttt.
Sorry, I forgot that bit of gold was in the Ranger Sucks thread and not this one.
The argument isn't the arrow head lets you know. The ranger recalls what he already knows and identifies which tribe out of several. big difference.
If the Tasha's optional replacement, deft explorer, is any indication of what kind of "power level" we should be expecting from from the natural explorer ability, it makes me think that one favored terrain is going to come up in play from time time to seldom, where two or three favored terrains get more and more useful and see more frequent use in game. As you get to two and three favored terrains the "cross pollination" of what and how many different skills, in which applications and situations, should become more and more frequent in game. The ability to apply the double proficiency bonus should come up more and more frequently. Same thing with favored enemy. By level 10 there are three different terrain types and two complete creature types that the ranger has some combination of double proficiency and/or advantage on with a variety of mental based skills. Additional skills form race, multiclass, background, or feats further rewards the ranger in this endeavor.
As a DM, you can either spend your time and effort making this all work in game, or you can spend your time and effort making this all NOT work in game. Which DM are you? (royal you, no one specific)
Thanks for quoting that Roscoe. Can't wait to see Fateless's response is. For someone with me blocked he sure does care what I have to say.
Note that I don't actually think any of these functions to be something out of the realm of being allowed by the DM. Just that I find it funny to be up someone's ass about painting checks after said arrowhead discussion, which is in fact about being able to recall such info from nothing more than an arrowhead. You can try to word that however you want Roscoe, but if the arrowhead is the only thing available when making those skill checks the Ranger is extrapolating information based off one thing. The arrowhead.
You don't see a person's posts if you have them blocked. If you've ever been responding to someone and they just keep plowing on in the conversation like you're not there that is a sign they may have you blocked.
If the Tasha's optional replacement, deft explorer, is any indication of what kind of "power level" we should be expecting from from the natural explorer ability, it makes me think that one favored terrain is going to come up in play from time time to seldom, where two or three favored terrains get more and more useful and see more frequent use in game. As you get to two and three favored terrains the "cross pollination" of what and how many different skills, in which applications and situations, should become more and more frequent in game. The ability to apply the double proficiency bonus should come up more and more frequently. Same thing with favored enemy. By level 10 there are three different terrain types and two complete creature types that the ranger has some combination of double proficiency and/or advantage on with a variety of mental based skills. Additional skills form race, multiclass, background, or feats further rewards the ranger in this endeavor.
As a DM, you can either spend your time and effort making this all work in game, or you can spend your time and effort making this all NOT work in game. Which DM are you? (royal you, no one specific)
I would argue its infinitely simpler to just give expertise in Survival or another ability of their choice and move on. There is much more effort inovled trying to get NE to work in the scenarios you mention vs. just a simple survival check to see if you know the location of where an arrow might be made.
NE makes you focus on specific topics instead of general ones so it will always be more complicated to run it vs. a simple skill that could apply to a wider variety of situations.
I agree completely Optimus. Constantly thinking about whether actions in the game constitute a bonus from NE or FE is exhausting and not conducive to immersive gameplay. It promotes number crunching and rules lawyering. Meanwhile expertise in survival works for anything that is survival. Same with expertise in any other skill. It's just way, way simpler, and because of that, leaves more room for energy to be spent on roleplaying the moment.
Wider variety of situations? Mmm... I don't know about that. At level 1 it seems, and is, less impressive than just plain expertise in one or two skills. At level 10 those two abilities stacked on themselves and with each other are firing on all cylinders! At least in my personal experience.
You don't see a person's posts if you have them blocked. If you've ever been responding to someone and they just keep plowing on in the conversation like you're not there that is a sign they may have you blocked.
I agree completely Optimus. Constantly thinking about whether actions in the game constitute a bonus from NE or FE is exhausting and not conducive to immersive gameplay. It promotes number crunching and rules lawyering. Meanwhile expertise in survival works for anything that is survival. Same with expertise in any other skill. It's just way, way simpler, and because of that, leaves more room for energy to be spent on roleplaying the moment.
I want to clarify that I don't dislike the Tasha's stuff. On the contrary, I am very pleased they went with options instead of any hard errata. I get that many people want what you two (HeironymusZot and OptimusGrimus) are talking about. Clean. Simple. Straightforward. Different strokes for different folks, don't yuck my yum, etc. The Tasha's ranger gets a more focused, deeper penetrating, single skill based function with always on expertise in one skill specific, where the PHB ranger gets a less penetrating but wider use of application covering many skills. The Tasha's ranger is hyper focused on one skill, like a rogue, and the PHB has many skills that focus on specific regions and creature types. It's great! Putting that on a spectrum, from least wide and most penetrating to most wide and least penetrating, we have several classes and subclass that appear:
I agree completely Optimus. Constantly thinking about whether actions in the game constitute a bonus from NE or FE is exhausting and not conducive to immersive gameplay. It promotes number crunching and rules lawyering. Meanwhile expertise in survival works for anything that is survival. Same with expertise in any other skill. It's just way, way simpler, and because of that, leaves more room for energy to be spent on roleplaying the moment.
I want to clarify that I don't dislike the Tasha's stuff. On the contrary, I am very pleased they went with options instead of any hard errata. I get that many people want what you two (HeironymusZot and OptimusGrimus) are talking about. Clean. Simple. Straightforward. Different strokes for different folks, don't yuck my yum, etc. The Tasha's ranger gets a more focused, deeper penetrating, single skill based function with always on expertise in one skill specific, where the PHB ranger gets a less penetrating but wider use of application covering many skills. The Tasha's ranger is hyper focused on one skill, like a rogue, and the PHB has many skills that focus on specific regions and creature types. It's great! Putting that on a spectrum, from least wide and most penetrating to most wide and least penetrating, we have several classes and subclass that appear:
Thanks for quoting that Roscoe. Can't wait to see Fateless's response is. For someone with me blocked he sure does care what I have to say.
Note that I don't actually think any of these functions to be something out of the realm of being allowed by the DM. Just that I find it funny to be up someone's ass about painting checks after said arrowhead discussion, which is in fact about being able to recall such info from nothing more than an arrowhead. You can try to word that however you want Roscoe, but if the arrowhead is the only thing available when making those skill checks the Ranger is extrapolating information based off one thing. The arrowhead.
The Ranger ability Natural explorer: FT choice is what Grants the knowledge. The arrow head is what allows him to Identify which pieces of information apply. The ranger (per class mechanics) now has both the arrow head and pre-existing knowledge. The only way a dm should deny that given knowledge is if there is absolutely no way the ranger would have that information. They could have gotten information second hand, from study or books or even a Their natural magical connection to the world. The mechanics don't care how they got that knowledge only that it applies to the "related" rolls.
Most dms do not require justification for other classes when they gain a new proficiency knowledge, it just happens. The mechanics come first the justification second.
That being said there are plenty of things that can be inferred using your knowledge of the materials. IF a arrow head is made out of fish bone. You can infer some dietary habits and you may recall ideas about Sea deities Making general assumptions about the formation of said cultures. one example is the connection between mercury poisoning and amount of fish intake. The society would know about the poison even if they treat it as a curse or supernatural effect. Cultures are both influenced and develop around the materials involved in the area. This is literally what many archeologists do when studying minor civilizations with few remaining informative texts. This is where the roll comes in to play to determine if the clues were put together right.
why are you making your numbers as “expertise” for deft explorer... but when you compare to natural explorer you are removing proficiency all together?
its +2, then +3 and so forth. The player would still be PROFICIENT, they just would not have EXPERTISE. Hence, the advantage is much better for a long long long long time. Even discounting the advantage is for more than just 1 specific skill.
And I am sorry, that you have never seen a straight wisdom or straight intelligence check in any campaign you have been in. But I can safely assure you. This is a real thing, that can and does happen.
For ease of use we will assume that the both players have the same Wisdom modifier and we will set that at a static +3. Giving the Ranger a +5 when they are in their terrain it does give them an edge, but they get trounced outside of that.
Level
Deft Exp
Nat Exp (out)
Nat Exp (in)
1-4
7
5
10
5-8
9
6
11
9-12
11
7
12
13-16
13
8
13
17+
15
9
14
I didn't say that "[I] have never seen a straight wisdom or straight intelligence check in any campaign you have been in" I said that I have never heard of anyone letting NE function on one.
Have you all taken into account that while the averages are comparable, expertise raises the minimum and maximum values when rolling?
also, there are many ways to gain advantage on various rolls, but the game system seems more limited when finding bonuses to add to rolls because of bounded accuracy. This affects saves, checks and attack rolls.
this is why enhanced ability is a level 2 spell that can be upcast to target more people, and skill empowerment is a level 5 spell that cannot be upcast to target more people.
why are you making your numbers as “expertise” for deft explorer... but when you compare to natural explorer you are removing proficiency all together?
its +2, then +3 and so forth. The player would still be PROFICIENT, they just would not have EXPERTISE. Hence, the advantage is much better for a long long long long time. Even discounting the advantage is for more than just 1 specific skill.
And I am sorry, that you have never seen a straight wisdom or straight intelligence check in any campaign you have been in. But I can safely assure you. This is a real thing, that can and does happen.
For ease of use we will assume that the both players have the same Wisdom modifier and we will set that at a static +3. Giving the Ranger a +5 when they are in their terrain it does give them an edge, but they get trounced outside of that.
Level
Deft Exp
Nat Exp (out)
Nat Exp (in)
1-4
7
5
10
5-8
9
6
11
9-12
11
7
12
13-16
13
8
13
17+
15
9
14
I didn't say that "[I] have never seen a straight wisdom or straight intelligence check in any campaign you have been in" I said that I have never heard of anyone letting NE function on one.
How are you getting the numbers in this chart? They don't make any sense to me.
Gotcha. Well I'm definitely in the sometimes category. Honestly I thought the sometimes category would essentially be the yes category because that's the nature of those abilities.
I would be willing to bet 15 years easy, lol
Yeah, most of the discussion is about if and when NE applies. We have spun that off into another thread though. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/107051-natural-explorer-ne?page=2#c23
Because arguing that finding an arrow head can lead to knowing everything about a tribe of goblins down to their religious beliefs, including recent breaks in the tribe, is in no ways a stretch of the use of skills (which is exactly what those functions of NE and FE are). Riiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhtttttt.
Sorry, I forgot that bit of gold was in the Ranger Sucks thread and not this one.
The argument isn't the arrow head lets you know. The ranger recalls what he already knows and identifies which tribe out of several. big difference.
If the Tasha's optional replacement, deft explorer, is any indication of what kind of "power level" we should be expecting from from the natural explorer ability, it makes me think that one favored terrain is going to come up in play from time time to seldom, where two or three favored terrains get more and more useful and see more frequent use in game. As you get to two and three favored terrains the "cross pollination" of what and how many different skills, in which applications and situations, should become more and more frequent in game. The ability to apply the double proficiency bonus should come up more and more frequently. Same thing with favored enemy. By level 10 there are three different terrain types and two complete creature types that the ranger has some combination of double proficiency and/or advantage on with a variety of mental based skills. Additional skills form race, multiclass, background, or feats further rewards the ranger in this endeavor.
As a DM, you can either spend your time and effort making this all work in game, or you can spend your time and effort making this all NOT work in game. Which DM are you? (royal you, no one specific)
Thanks for quoting that Roscoe. Can't wait to see Fateless's response is. For someone with me blocked he sure does care what I have to say.
Note that I don't actually think any of these functions to be something out of the realm of being allowed by the DM. Just that I find it funny to be up someone's ass about painting checks after said arrowhead discussion, which is in fact about being able to recall such info from nothing more than an arrowhead. You can try to word that however you want Roscoe, but if the arrowhead is the only thing available when making those skill checks the Ranger is extrapolating information based off one thing. The arrowhead.
People block one another here?!?! What does that do?! Does anyone have ME blocked?!?!
You don't see a person's posts if you have them blocked. If you've ever been responding to someone and they just keep plowing on in the conversation like you're not there that is a sign they may have you blocked.
I would argue its infinitely simpler to just give expertise in Survival or another ability of their choice and move on. There is much more effort inovled trying to get NE to work in the scenarios you mention vs. just a simple survival check to see if you know the location of where an arrow might be made.
NE makes you focus on specific topics instead of general ones so it will always be more complicated to run it vs. a simple skill that could apply to a wider variety of situations.
I agree completely Optimus. Constantly thinking about whether actions in the game constitute a bonus from NE or FE is exhausting and not conducive to immersive gameplay. It promotes number crunching and rules lawyering. Meanwhile expertise in survival works for anything that is survival. Same with expertise in any other skill. It's just way, way simpler, and because of that, leaves more room for energy to be spent on roleplaying the moment.
Simpler? Yes.
More effort involved? Yes.
More complicated to run? Yes.
Wider variety of situations? Mmm... I don't know about that. At level 1 it seems, and is, less impressive than just plain expertise in one or two skills. At level 10 those two abilities stacked on themselves and with each other are firing on all cylinders! At least in my personal experience.
😢
I want to clarify that I don't dislike the Tasha's stuff. On the contrary, I am very pleased they went with options instead of any hard errata. I get that many people want what you two (HeironymusZot and OptimusGrimus) are talking about. Clean. Simple. Straightforward. Different strokes for different folks, don't yuck my yum, etc. The Tasha's ranger gets a more focused, deeper penetrating, single skill based function with always on expertise in one skill specific, where the PHB ranger gets a less penetrating but wider use of application covering many skills. The Tasha's ranger is hyper focused on one skill, like a rogue, and the PHB has many skills that focus on specific regions and creature types. It's great! Putting that on a spectrum, from least wide and most penetrating to most wide and least penetrating, we have several classes and subclass that appear:
Scout Rogues - Tasha's Rangers - Knowledge Clerics - PGB Rangers - Bards
That's a lot of nice options!
Agreed. I'm glad they are options and I think ultimately it's probably the best approach to keep everyone happy.
The Ranger ability Natural explorer: FT choice is what Grants the knowledge. The arrow head is what allows him to Identify which pieces of information apply. The ranger (per class mechanics) now has both the arrow head and pre-existing knowledge. The only way a dm should deny that given knowledge is if there is absolutely no way the ranger would have that information. They could have gotten information second hand, from study or books or even a Their natural magical connection to the world. The mechanics don't care how they got that knowledge only that it applies to the "related" rolls.
Most dms do not require justification for other classes when they gain a new proficiency knowledge, it just happens. The mechanics come first the justification second.
That being said there are plenty of things that can be inferred using your knowledge of the materials. IF a arrow head is made out of fish bone. You can infer some dietary habits and you may recall ideas about Sea deities Making general assumptions about the formation of said cultures. one example is the connection between mercury poisoning and amount of fish intake. The society would know about the poison even if they treat it as a curse or supernatural effect. Cultures are both influenced and develop around the materials involved in the area. This is literally what many archeologists do when studying minor civilizations with few remaining informative texts. This is where the roll comes in to play to determine if the clues were put together right.
yes sensei
Have you all taken into account that while the averages are comparable, expertise raises the minimum and maximum values when rolling?
also, there are many ways to gain advantage on various rolls, but the game system seems more limited when finding bonuses to add to rolls because of bounded accuracy. This affects saves, checks and attack rolls.
this is why enhanced ability is a level 2 spell that can be upcast to target more people, and skill empowerment is a level 5 spell that cannot be upcast to target more people.
How are you getting the numbers in this chart? They don't make any sense to me.
What is the updated favorite terrain?