Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
This is literally applying NE to squirrels, How can you not call this getting the bonus? Your terms and systems for determining knowledge application Probably cause you as much frustration as it does everyone else........ indicating it was not designers intent to have frustration rather than simple application.
I would argue that the fact that several of us have vastly different opinions on how this should be interpreted is not exactly making it "simple" application. In fact its the opposite if it creates mass confusion on how its supposed to be run. Most people find this ability at best mildly useful to useless as based on several surveys. No other class has gone through the ringer like Ranger to replace features such as this and the designers themselves have stated several times that it is a feature people do not like on average and that it involves something that most tables just do not engage in.
I do not hate the ranger...I like it a lot as a martial spellcaster its just barely beaten out by Paladin for overall best IMO. Even with my optimism for the class I find NE to be a terrible ability that I have never seen any table (and I have been with at least 5 rangers in my time) used to any real efficacy. Most people do not care as they simply like the class despite this feature but generally comment something else would be better.
WotC came out with Revised Ranger....then Mearls came out with his version...and then there were several other versions to "Fix" ranger. The community produced version after version to fix it as well.
Overall even if the ability is somewhat useful in the right scenario...its not useful enough evidently as an option to replace it was introduced. Yes you can still use NE and yes some people still find it useful (as they likely always did in their games) but I have yet to see a classes defining feature changed so much beyond Ranger...no other class had the extensive playtesting to fix its issues.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
You should get on board with our ranger one shot group experiment.
Ground Squirrels live in the forrest....but a species lives in the Desert as well.
Obviously a ranger with the Forrest for NE would know about the variety in their forrest...but why would they know about the variety in the desert? They wouldn't.
They may generally infer (regular nature check) but they do not hold specific information enough to invoke NE.
At best they could identify if the creature was one from a forest and then recall knowledge on that creature but if they are not from the biome why would they get NE for it?
Your already working under assumptions that we have said do not apply. You entire argument is very all or nothing. We've already stated that NE is not all or nothing.
At this point I think you need more justification, explain how an animal can exist in the environment on a Regular basis and not pertain to knowledge ecosystem. Whether its a food source for humans or animals or if it damages a food source for animals, It all is related to the environment. If the ranger can remember the necessary information they will roll high enough to succeed If the ranger doesn't they won't.
As discussed previously, even though by RAW NE gets you nothing about creatures, I do grant some degree of use. You would know if an animal is not native to the area, you would know generally how aggressive a given animal is on average, you would have a minimal knowledge of behavior and that's about it.
So in the example we have used, you are coming across an animal and it looks scared - you have not heard any noise suggesting some big horrible thing is in pursuit, there is no evidence that anything is out of the ordinary. So you asking "why is it scared" does not get you NE on an animal handling or insight check because the environment is irrelevant to the check. The simple fact that it is a creature that exist in the environment does not mean you 100% get NE. Regardless of the roll I am going to tell you that it isn't something that would normally react with fear to people. Even with a good roll the most you are getting is that "you reason that it has seen something it found deeply disturbing, but you can't imagine what that might have been".
RaW does not in any way state that NE does not apply to creatures.
This is purely a limit that your forcing on the ability.
And nothing your stating here is actual reasoning for why it does not apply. Other than if we take your incorrect statement about RaW into account that you refuse to apply it to animals. Even though animals are a part of the environments they live in.
Nor have we ever Said that it 100% does. But you give no actual reason for why it shouldn't. Just personal biases about how the ability does or does not work. And your personal rulings. We are not asking for your personal rulings. We are not talking about you as a DM. We are talking about this Objectively. Your Trying to turn it Subjective and reasoning that you think is obvious that your not entirely sharing.
The Animal Might not Apply. You are correct in this. But not for the reason you keep pushing repeatedly. There was a simple answer that you could have given. An Answer that has basically been made obvious many times in this thread. I'll even give it to you.
"The Animal in question is not normally part of the environments that your familiar with. Whether it's the environment that your in or the Environment that the animal is normally a part of."
The Answer was actually simple why it would not apply. But your so resistant to applying it at all that you were refusing to see reasons why it would apply to know why it wuoldn't.
Now let me give you an easy answer why it would apply. "The Animal in question is one that normally wouldn't approach humans but is more afraid of something else than it is of you. Since your familiar with this Environment or the Environment of the animal in question to know what is normal for it. You would get an Insight or Animal Handling roll with Expertise to realize that it is running away from something it is much more afraid of which may be a threat to you as well by the way it's behaving. But you have to be successful on the roll to understand it's behavior to know that."
This is something that The player can work off of. It gives them options. It makes their Ability useful. But it doesn't give them specific information from this particular situation. Though other situations with other rolls might actually give them specifics. This gives them a moment to prepare for a threat. To choose to try and avoid the threat. Or even attempt to go after the threat. Thus enriching the Story. Is completely within NE's actual usability despite your constant attempts to try to limit it into nothing from your biases and Facilitates Role Play. Which is half the point of D&D. Even in groups that are primarily about the combat.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
I ignore/discount it because its not applicable to me or my tables 99% of the time...its just the truth. Nobody cares about it because it requires more actiive effort TO care about it than literally any other ability in the game. We have to have 6 page discussions on its applicability and we still all see it vastly differently.
Most other abilities are cut and dry and do not require such elaborate discussion. Instead they naturally flow into the game and just....work. You don't have to work to make them work....they just do.
Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
This is literally applying NE to squirrels, How can you not call this getting the bonus? Your terms and systems for determining knowledge application Probably cause you as much frustration as it does everyone else........ indicating it was not designers intent to have frustration rather than simple application.
I would argue that the fact that several of us have vastly different opinions on how this should be interpreted is not exactly making it "simple" application. In fact its the opposite if it creates mass confusion on how its supposed to be run. Most people find this ability at best mildly useful to useless as based on several surveys. No other class has gone through the ringer like Ranger to replace features such as this and the designers themselves have stated several times that it is a feature people do not like on average and that it involves something that most tables just do not engage in.
I do not hate the ranger...I like it a lot as a martial spellcaster its just barely beaten out by Paladin for overall best IMO. Even with my optimism for the class I find NE to be a terrible ability that I have never seen any table (and I have been with at least 5 rangers in my time) used to any real efficacy. Most people do not care as they simply like the class despite this feature but generally comment something else would be better.
WotC came out with Revised Ranger....then Mearls came out with his version...and then there were several other versions to "Fix" ranger. The community produced version after version to fix it as well.
Overall even if the ability is somewhat useful in the right scenario...its not useful enough evidently as an option to replace it was introduced. Yes you can still use NE and yes some people still find it useful (as they likely always did in their games) but I have yet to see a classes defining feature changed so much beyond Ranger...no other class had the extensive playtesting to fix its issues.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
You should get on board with our ranger one shot group experiment.
While thats interesting....I feel that it is an attempt to make me care about NE by having a one shot that would show how you place it (based on some of this discussion a bit overabundantly so) into a world. Its not a real representation of the ability naturally showing up into the game but rather a focused attempt at getting people to like it.
The simple fact you would need to put together a one shot and put this kind of effort to show how useful the ability can be is FAR more work than the other classes have to do to show their worth/value.
If the ability does not naturally come out as valuable to a majority of people then I do believe its a poor ability for the system. In another game or in a game with a huge amount of exploration (not most games by WotC own admittance) then I can see its worth. But in most games its just not going to be something most people are interested in. They won't completely discard it....but it will certainly not be a defining feature for them which IMO an ability like this should be for ranger.
Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
This is literally applying NE to squirrels, How can you not call this getting the bonus? Your terms and systems for determining knowledge application Probably cause you as much frustration as it does everyone else........ indicating it was not designers intent to have frustration rather than simple application.
I would argue that the fact that several of us have vastly different opinions on how this should be interpreted is not exactly making it "simple" application. In fact its the opposite if it creates mass confusion on how its supposed to be run. Most people find this ability at best mildly useful to useless as based on several surveys. No other class has gone through the ringer like Ranger to replace features such as this and the designers themselves have stated several times that it is a feature people do not like on average and that it involves something that most tables just do not engage in.
I do not hate the ranger...I like it a lot as a martial spellcaster its just barely beaten out by Paladin for overall best IMO. Even with my optimism for the class I find NE to be a terrible ability that I have never seen any table (and I have been with at least 5 rangers in my time) used to any real efficacy. Most people do not care as they simply like the class despite this feature but generally comment something else would be better.
WotC came out with Revised Ranger....then Mearls came out with his version...and then there were several other versions to "Fix" ranger. The community produced version after version to fix it as well.
Overall even if the ability is somewhat useful in the right scenario...its not useful enough evidently as an option to replace it was introduced. Yes you can still use NE and yes some people still find it useful (as they likely always did in their games) but I have yet to see a classes defining feature changed so much beyond Ranger...no other class had the extensive playtesting to fix its issues.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
You should get on board with our ranger one shot group experiment.
While thats interesting....I feel that it is an attempt to make me care about NE by having a one shot that would show how you place it (based on some of this discussion a bit overabundantly so) into a world. Its not a real representation of the ability naturally showing up into the game but rather a focused attempt at getting people to like it.
The simple fact you would need to put together a one shot and put this kind of effort to show how useful the ability can be is FAR more work than the other classes have to do to show their worth/value.
If the ability does not naturally come out as valuable to a majority of people then I do believe its a poor ability for the system. In another game or in a game with a huge amount of exploration (not most games by WotC own admittance) then I can see its worth. But in most games its just not going to be something most people are interested in. They won't completely discard it....but it will certainly not be a defining feature for them which IMO an ability like this should be for ranger.
That’s not really the idea, point, or hopefully execution. We are attempting to do what you’ve just stated and see it in real games. Seeing as you are someone who hasn’t had the pleasure of seeing come up in real games I thought you’d jump at the chance. This is literally the point. To play games and stop arguing about one another’s personal experiences.
Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
This is literally applying NE to squirrels, How can you not call this getting the bonus? Your terms and systems for determining knowledge application Probably cause you as much frustration as it does everyone else........ indicating it was not designers intent to have frustration rather than simple application.
I would argue that the fact that several of us have vastly different opinions on how this should be interpreted is not exactly making it "simple" application. In fact its the opposite if it creates mass confusion on how its supposed to be run. Most people find this ability at best mildly useful to useless as based on several surveys. No other class has gone through the ringer like Ranger to replace features such as this and the designers themselves have stated several times that it is a feature people do not like on average and that it involves something that most tables just do not engage in.
I do not hate the ranger...I like it a lot as a martial spellcaster its just barely beaten out by Paladin for overall best IMO. Even with my optimism for the class I find NE to be a terrible ability that I have never seen any table (and I have been with at least 5 rangers in my time) used to any real efficacy. Most people do not care as they simply like the class despite this feature but generally comment something else would be better.
WotC came out with Revised Ranger....then Mearls came out with his version...and then there were several other versions to "Fix" ranger. The community produced version after version to fix it as well.
Overall even if the ability is somewhat useful in the right scenario...its not useful enough evidently as an option to replace it was introduced. Yes you can still use NE and yes some people still find it useful (as they likely always did in their games) but I have yet to see a classes defining feature changed so much beyond Ranger...no other class had the extensive playtesting to fix its issues.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
You should get on board with our ranger one shot group experiment.
While thats interesting....I feel that it is an attempt to make me care about NE by having a one shot that would show how you place it (based on some of this discussion a bit overabundantly so) into a world. Its not a real representation of the ability naturally showing up into the game but rather a focused attempt at getting people to like it.
The simple fact you would need to put together a one shot and put this kind of effort to show how useful the ability can be is FAR more work than the other classes have to do to show their worth/value.
If the ability does not naturally come out as valuable to a majority of people then I do believe its a poor ability for the system. In another game or in a game with a huge amount of exploration (not most games by WotC own admittance) then I can see its worth. But in most games its just not going to be something most people are interested in. They won't completely discard it....but it will certainly not be a defining feature for them which IMO an ability like this should be for ranger.
It's not that WotC doesn't make games that employ the exploration pillar. It does. It's that some of the loudest voices only care about combat. And, to a degree, it both makes sense and is WotC's fault. Looking back on 3.X, its spinoff Pathfinder, and 4E, they were all tactically-minded games. And even the PHB doesn't really include the rules for exploration. Those are in the DMG, and they're a little underwhelming. Even the actual rules for running a dungeon are only 2-3 pages long.
People care about combat, so that was front-loaded. And while people might not like the ranger because they see features which don't immediately contribute to combat, the sheer fact that it can still keep up in combat while still having these non-combat features is a testament to how well it's designed.
But if you never think about a feature, that's your problem.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
I ignore/discount it because its not applicable to me or my tables 99% of the time...its just the truth. Nobody cares about it because it requires more actiive effort TO care about it than literally any other ability in the game. We have to have 6 page discussions on its applicability and we still all see it vastly differently.
Most other abilities are cut and dry and do not require such elaborate discussion. Instead they naturally flow into the game and just....work. You don't have to work to make them work....they just do.
Your choosing to make it irrelevant doesn't make it the truth that it IS Irrelevant. your not being objective about it. It doesn't take any more real effort to care about than many other abilities that you actually have to remember and use when appropriate. It's just like those abilities you, and sometimes the DM as well, have to get used to using them. Just like you have to get used to using so many other rules, abilities, and other features of the game.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
I ignore/discount it because its not applicable to me or my tables 99% of the time...its just the truth. Nobody cares about it because it requires more actiive effort TO care about it than literally any other ability in the game. We have to have 6 page discussions on its applicability and we still all see it vastly differently.
Most other abilities are cut and dry and do not require such elaborate discussion. Instead they naturally flow into the game and just....work. You don't have to work to make them work....they just do.
Your choosing to make it irrelevant doesn't make it the truth that it IS Irrelevant. your not being objective about it. It doesn't take any more real effort to care about than many other abilities that you actually have to remember and use when appropriate. It's just like those abilities you, and sometimes the DM as well, have to get used to using them. Just like you have to get used to using so many other rules, abilities, and other features of the game.
But the reality is it is... Its just what people want.
The proof is in the Tashas Black Pudding.... People want these features to be more combat/mechanic focused to the extent it was made as an option to change when no other core feature got that.
It's just how it shook out....I didn't make it that way but it's how it be.
Make a survey where ever you want I ensure you the result will always favor the new options.
Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
This is literally applying NE to squirrels, How can you not call this getting the bonus? Your terms and systems for determining knowledge application Probably cause you as much frustration as it does everyone else........ indicating it was not designers intent to have frustration rather than simple application.
I would argue that the fact that several of us have vastly different opinions on how this should be interpreted is not exactly making it "simple" application. In fact its the opposite if it creates mass confusion on how its supposed to be run. Most people find this ability at best mildly useful to useless as based on several surveys. No other class has gone through the ringer like Ranger to replace features such as this and the designers themselves have stated several times that it is a feature people do not like on average and that it involves something that most tables just do not engage in.
I do not hate the ranger...I like it a lot as a martial spellcaster its just barely beaten out by Paladin for overall best IMO. Even with my optimism for the class I find NE to be a terrible ability that I have never seen any table (and I have been with at least 5 rangers in my time) used to any real efficacy. Most people do not care as they simply like the class despite this feature but generally comment something else would be better.
WotC came out with Revised Ranger....then Mearls came out with his version...and then there were several other versions to "Fix" ranger. The community produced version after version to fix it as well.
Overall even if the ability is somewhat useful in the right scenario...its not useful enough evidently as an option to replace it was introduced. Yes you can still use NE and yes some people still find it useful (as they likely always did in their games) but I have yet to see a classes defining feature changed so much beyond Ranger...no other class had the extensive playtesting to fix its issues.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
You should get on board with our ranger one shot group experiment.
While thats interesting....I feel that it is an attempt to make me care about NE by having a one shot that would show how you place it (based on some of this discussion a bit overabundantly so) into a world. Its not a real representation of the ability naturally showing up into the game but rather a focused attempt at getting people to like it.
The simple fact you would need to put together a one shot and put this kind of effort to show how useful the ability can be is FAR more work than the other classes have to do to show their worth/value.
If the ability does not naturally come out as valuable to a majority of people then I do believe its a poor ability for the system. In another game or in a game with a huge amount of exploration (not most games by WotC own admittance) then I can see its worth. But in most games its just not going to be something most people are interested in. They won't completely discard it....but it will certainly not be a defining feature for them which IMO an ability like this should be for ranger.
It's not that WotC doesn't make games that employ the exploration pillar. It does. It's that some of the loudest voices only care about combat. And, to a degree, it both makes sense and is WotC's fault. Looking back on 3.X, its spinoff Pathfinder, and 4E, they were all tactically-minded games. And even the PHB doesn't really include the rules for exploration. Those are in the DMG, and they're a little underwhelming. Even the actual rules for running a dungeon are only 2-3 pages long.
People care about combat, so that was front-loaded. And while people might not like the ranger because they see features which don't immediately contribute to combat, the sheer fact that it can still keep up in combat while still having these non-combat features is a testament to how well it's designed.
But if you never think about a feature, that's your problem.
Again I'm not saying I hate ranger... It does just fine in combat.
But it's features like NE are just very underwhelming to many (I would argue a majority) and it's obvious WotC agrees as they gave alternatives to it when they didn't to any other core class features
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
I ignore/discount it because its not applicable to me or my tables 99% of the time...its just the truth. Nobody cares about it because it requires more actiive effort TO care about it than literally any other ability in the game. We have to have 6 page discussions on its applicability and we still all see it vastly differently.
Most other abilities are cut and dry and do not require such elaborate discussion. Instead they naturally flow into the game and just....work. You don't have to work to make them work....they just do.
Your choosing to make it irrelevant doesn't make it the truth that it IS Irrelevant. your not being objective about it. It doesn't take any more real effort to care about than many other abilities that you actually have to remember and use when appropriate. It's just like those abilities you, and sometimes the DM as well, have to get used to using them. Just like you have to get used to using so many other rules, abilities, and other features of the game.
But the reality is it is... Its just what people want.
The proof is in the Tashas Black Pudding.... People want these features to be more combat/mechanic focused to the extent it was made as an option to change when no other core feature got that.
It's just how it shook out....I didn't make it that way but it's how it be.
Make a survey where ever you want I ensure you the result will always favor the new options.
Except that even with a somewhat loaded poll in these very forums. That's not how things really measured out when you gave them any kind of options other than voting for Tasha's.
If you don't believe me. Go check the poll. Even with answers Weighted quite noticably in Tasha's favor on the updated question. It only managed 60% at most in favor of Tasha's. That's not really favoring the new options. So no. Polls don't actually favor you. All they show is that the Loudest non-majority got what they wanted in the revised options. And we can't be sure how many might not have voted at all because none of the answers actually matched how they felt.
Yet I said that people would try to use this excuse repeatedly didn't I?
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
I ignore/discount it because its not applicable to me or my tables 99% of the time...its just the truth. Nobody cares about it because it requires more actiive effort TO care about it than literally any other ability in the game. We have to have 6 page discussions on its applicability and we still all see it vastly differently.
Most other abilities are cut and dry and do not require such elaborate discussion. Instead they naturally flow into the game and just....work. You don't have to work to make them work....they just do.
Your choosing to make it irrelevant doesn't make it the truth that it IS Irrelevant. your not being objective about it. It doesn't take any more real effort to care about than many other abilities that you actually have to remember and use when appropriate. It's just like those abilities you, and sometimes the DM as well, have to get used to using them. Just like you have to get used to using so many other rules, abilities, and other features of the game.
But the reality is it is... Its just what people want.
The proof is in the Tashas Black Pudding.... People want these features to be more combat/mechanic focused to the extent it was made as an option to change when no other core feature got that.
It's just how it shook out....I didn't make it that way but it's how it be.
Make a survey where ever you want I ensure you the result will always favor the new options.
Except that even with a somewhat loaded poll in these very forums. That's not how things really measured out when you gave them any kind of options other than voting for Tasha's.
If you don't believe me. Go check the poll. Even with answers Weighted quite noticably in Tasha's favor on the updated question. It only managed 60% at most in favor of Tasha's. That's not really favoring the new options. So no. Polls don't actually favor you. All they show is that the Loudest non-majority got what they wanted in the revised options.
Yet I said that people would try to use this excuse repeatedly didn't I?
60% is a majority....
So yeah majority of people. I would put money on the majority of people always voting for the new features over NE.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
I ignore/discount it because its not applicable to me or my tables 99% of the time...its just the truth. Nobody cares about it because it requires more actiive effort TO care about it than literally any other ability in the game. We have to have 6 page discussions on its applicability and we still all see it vastly differently.
Most other abilities are cut and dry and do not require such elaborate discussion. Instead they naturally flow into the game and just....work. You don't have to work to make them work....they just do.
Your choosing to make it irrelevant doesn't make it the truth that it IS Irrelevant. your not being objective about it. It doesn't take any more real effort to care about than many other abilities that you actually have to remember and use when appropriate. It's just like those abilities you, and sometimes the DM as well, have to get used to using them. Just like you have to get used to using so many other rules, abilities, and other features of the game.
But the reality is it is... Its just what people want.
The proof is in the Tashas Black Pudding.... People want these features to be more combat/mechanic focused to the extent it was made as an option to change when no other core feature got that.
It's just how it shook out....I didn't make it that way but it's how it be.
Make a survey where ever you want I ensure you the result will always favor the new options.
Except that even with a somewhat loaded poll in these very forums. That's not how things really measured out when you gave them any kind of options other than voting for Tasha's.
If you don't believe me. Go check the poll. Even with answers Weighted quite noticably in Tasha's favor on the updated question. It only managed 60% at most in favor of Tasha's. That's not really favoring the new options. So no. Polls don't actually favor you. All they show is that the Loudest non-majority got what they wanted in the revised options.
Yet I said that people would try to use this excuse repeatedly didn't I?
60% is a majority....
So yeah majority of people. I would put money on the majority of people always voting for the new features over NE.
60% on a Biased Poll is not a majority. It's a trick. And you would do well to remember that when looking at polls. If it can only manage 60% when the question leans entirely in it's favor. With the massive margin for error that there is actually going to be. The Real answer is likely at least 10% lower.
But you have a bias that agrees with the bias of the question. So your willfully ignoring those kinds of details. Bad way to bet your money.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
I ignore/discount it because its not applicable to me or my tables 99% of the time...its just the truth. Nobody cares about it because it requires more actiive effort TO care about it than literally any other ability in the game. We have to have 6 page discussions on its applicability and we still all see it vastly differently.
Most other abilities are cut and dry and do not require such elaborate discussion. Instead they naturally flow into the game and just....work. You don't have to work to make them work....they just do.
Your choosing to make it irrelevant doesn't make it the truth that it IS Irrelevant. your not being objective about it. It doesn't take any more real effort to care about than many other abilities that you actually have to remember and use when appropriate. It's just like those abilities you, and sometimes the DM as well, have to get used to using them. Just like you have to get used to using so many other rules, abilities, and other features of the game.
But the reality is it is... Its just what people want.
The proof is in the Tashas Black Pudding.... People want these features to be more combat/mechanic focused to the extent it was made as an option to change when no other core feature got that.
It's just how it shook out....I didn't make it that way but it's how it be.
Make a survey where ever you want I ensure you the result will always favor the new options.
Except that even with a somewhat loaded poll in these very forums. That's not how things really measured out when you gave them any kind of options other than voting for Tasha's.
If you don't believe me. Go check the poll. Even with answers Weighted quite noticably in Tasha's favor on the updated question. It only managed 60% at most in favor of Tasha's. That's not really favoring the new options. So no. Polls don't actually favor you. All they show is that the Loudest non-majority got what they wanted in the revised options.
Yet I said that people would try to use this excuse repeatedly didn't I?
60% is a majority....
So yeah majority of people. I would put money on the majority of people always voting for the new features over NE.
60% on a Biased Poll is not a majority. It's a trick. And you would do well to remember that when looking at polls. If it can only manage 60% when the question leans entirely in it's favor. With the massive margin for error that there is actually going to be. The Real answer is likely at least 10% lower.
But you have a bias that agrees with the bias of the question. So your willfully ignoring those kinds of details. Bad way to bet your money.
Then please post a survey where ever you like and see what the response is.
You should get on board with our ranger one shot group experiment.
Your already working under assumptions that we have said do not apply. You entire argument is very all or nothing. We've already stated that NE is not all or nothing.
RaW does not in any way state that NE does not apply to creatures.
This is purely a limit that your forcing on the ability.
And nothing your stating here is actual reasoning for why it does not apply. Other than if we take your incorrect statement about RaW into account that you refuse to apply it to animals. Even though animals are a part of the environments they live in.
Nor have we ever Said that it 100% does. But you give no actual reason for why it shouldn't. Just personal biases about how the ability does or does not work. And your personal rulings. We are not asking for your personal rulings. We are not talking about you as a DM. We are talking about this Objectively. Your Trying to turn it Subjective and reasoning that you think is obvious that your not entirely sharing.
The Animal Might not Apply. You are correct in this. But not for the reason you keep pushing repeatedly. There was a simple answer that you could have given. An Answer that has basically been made obvious many times in this thread. I'll even give it to you.
"The Animal in question is not normally part of the environments that your familiar with. Whether it's the environment that your in or the Environment that the animal is normally a part of."
The Answer was actually simple why it would not apply. But your so resistant to applying it at all that you were refusing to see reasons why it would apply to know why it wuoldn't.
Now let me give you an easy answer why it would apply. "The Animal in question is one that normally wouldn't approach humans but is more afraid of something else than it is of you. Since your familiar with this Environment or the Environment of the animal in question to know what is normal for it. You would get an Insight or Animal Handling roll with Expertise to realize that it is running away from something it is much more afraid of which may be a threat to you as well by the way it's behaving. But you have to be successful on the roll to understand it's behavior to know that."
This is something that The player can work off of. It gives them options. It makes their Ability useful. But it doesn't give them specific information from this particular situation. Though other situations with other rolls might actually give them specifics. This gives them a moment to prepare for a threat. To choose to try and avoid the threat. Or even attempt to go after the threat. Thus enriching the Story. Is completely within NE's actual usability despite your constant attempts to try to limit it into nothing from your biases and Facilitates Role Play. Which is half the point of D&D. Even in groups that are primarily about the combat.
This Right here Optimus. This says so much about your outlook and your opinion on things. You ignore and discount it. you don't bother to think about it. That's not objective or say how well it works or it doesn't work. But it does say a lot for why people might find it useless. Which you've made leanings towards in the past and shows a lot why some of your responses about it are very all or nothing and usually leaning towards nothing.
But this is not a reflection on the actual ability itself. Its a reflection on how you consider it and your own willingness to actually use it.
I ignore/discount it because its not applicable to me or my tables 99% of the time...its just the truth. Nobody cares about it because it requires more actiive effort TO care about it than literally any other ability in the game. We have to have 6 page discussions on its applicability and we still all see it vastly differently.
Most other abilities are cut and dry and do not require such elaborate discussion. Instead they naturally flow into the game and just....work. You don't have to work to make them work....they just do.
While thats interesting....I feel that it is an attempt to make me care about NE by having a one shot that would show how you place it (based on some of this discussion a bit overabundantly so) into a world. Its not a real representation of the ability naturally showing up into the game but rather a focused attempt at getting people to like it.
The simple fact you would need to put together a one shot and put this kind of effort to show how useful the ability can be is FAR more work than the other classes have to do to show their worth/value.
If the ability does not naturally come out as valuable to a majority of people then I do believe its a poor ability for the system. In another game or in a game with a huge amount of exploration (not most games by WotC own admittance) then I can see its worth. But in most games its just not going to be something most people are interested in. They won't completely discard it....but it will certainly not be a defining feature for them which IMO an ability like this should be for ranger.
That’s not really the idea, point, or hopefully execution. We are attempting to do what you’ve just stated and see it in real games. Seeing as you are someone who hasn’t had the pleasure of seeing come up in real games I thought you’d jump at the chance. This is literally the point. To play games and stop arguing about one another’s personal experiences.
It's not that WotC doesn't make games that employ the exploration pillar. It does. It's that some of the loudest voices only care about combat. And, to a degree, it both makes sense and is WotC's fault. Looking back on 3.X, its spinoff Pathfinder, and 4E, they were all tactically-minded games. And even the PHB doesn't really include the rules for exploration. Those are in the DMG, and they're a little underwhelming. Even the actual rules for running a dungeon are only 2-3 pages long.
People care about combat, so that was front-loaded. And while people might not like the ranger because they see features which don't immediately contribute to combat, the sheer fact that it can still keep up in combat while still having these non-combat features is a testament to how well it's designed.
But if you never think about a feature, that's your problem.
That’s the funny thing to me. It MORE than keeps up in combat, pre Tasha’s! Some many “terrible abilities” and yet people still play them. Says a lot.
Your choosing to make it irrelevant doesn't make it the truth that it IS Irrelevant. your not being objective about it. It doesn't take any more real effort to care about than many other abilities that you actually have to remember and use when appropriate. It's just like those abilities you, and sometimes the DM as well, have to get used to using them. Just like you have to get used to using so many other rules, abilities, and other features of the game.
But the reality is it is... Its just what people want.
The proof is in the Tashas Black Pudding.... People want these features to be more combat/mechanic focused to the extent it was made as an option to change when no other core feature got that.
It's just how it shook out....I didn't make it that way but it's how it be.
Make a survey where ever you want I ensure you the result will always favor the new options.
Again I'm not saying I hate ranger... It does just fine in combat.
But it's features like NE are just very underwhelming to many (I would argue a majority) and it's obvious WotC agrees as they gave alternatives to it when they didn't to any other core class features
Except that even with a somewhat loaded poll in these very forums. That's not how things really measured out when you gave them any kind of options other than voting for Tasha's.
If you don't believe me. Go check the poll. Even with answers Weighted quite noticably in Tasha's favor on the updated question. It only managed 60% at most in favor of Tasha's. That's not really favoring the new options. So no. Polls don't actually favor you. All they show is that the Loudest non-majority got what they wanted in the revised options. And we can't be sure how many might not have voted at all because none of the answers actually matched how they felt.
Yet I said that people would try to use this excuse repeatedly didn't I?
60% is a majority....
So yeah majority of people. I would put money on the majority of people always voting for the new features over NE.
60% on a Biased Poll is not a majority. It's a trick. And you would do well to remember that when looking at polls. If it can only manage 60% when the question leans entirely in it's favor. With the massive margin for error that there is actually going to be. The Real answer is likely at least 10% lower.
But you have a bias that agrees with the bias of the question. So your willfully ignoring those kinds of details. Bad way to bet your money.
Then please post a survey where ever you like and see what the response is.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/109221-natural-explorer-and-deft-explorer-multi-choice
Get a 403 for that link....
Also I would think you would do it for NE as thats literally the title of this thread but thats fine too....I think Favored Foe sucks BTW.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/109225-natural-explorer-and-deft-explorer
Much better thanks!