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.
Any such survey is going to be flawed, and you know it.
In 2017, WotC estimated there were between 12-15 million people playing in North America alone. In May of 2019, Dungeon Vault estimated there were 13.7 million players around the world. And sales have only gone up. To get an accurate cross-section of the player base, you'd need to target every demographic and get thousands of respondents. And there just isn't a way for an open poll on the Internet to do that. It doesn't matter where you put it.
And you're just flat out wrong that no other class got a replacement ability. Clerics received Blessed Strikes, which can replace one of two features found in every single subclass. And while I understand why it's there, I think it's terribly designed. Rangers just received more optional features. Are they better? They're okay. Deft Explorer doesn't really begin to get combat applications until 6th-level, and that's just movement. Favored Foe isn't especially powerful and, frustratingly, competes for Concentration. And Nature's Veil is fine as a panic button in combat.
But giving those options to players isn't an acknowledgment that the features they can replace are bad. Rather, it's just giving vocal players what they think they want. It might sound cynical, but WotC is, first and foremost, selling a product.
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.
Any such survey is going to be flawed, and you know it.
In 2017, WotC estimated there were between 12-15 million people playing in North America alone. In May of 2019, Dungeon Vault estimated there were 13.7 million players around the world. And sales have only gone up. To get an accurate cross-section of the player base, you'd need to target every demographic and get thousands of respondents. And there just isn't a way for an open poll on the Internet to do that. It doesn't matter where you put it.
And you're just flat out wrong that no other class got a replacement ability. Clerics received Blessed Strikes, which can replace one of two features found in every single subclass. And while I understand why it's there, I think it's terribly designed. Rangers just received more optional features. Are they better? They're okay. Deft Explorer doesn't really begin to get combat applications until 6th-level, and that's just movement. Favored Foe isn't especially powerful and, frustratingly, competes for Concentration. And Nature's Veil is fine as a panic button in combat.
But giving those options to players isn't an acknowledgment that the features they can replace are bad. Rather, it's just giving vocal players what they think they want. It might sound cynical, but WotC is, first and foremost, selling a product.
Pretty convenient you would say a survey would not be viable if it would go against what you think is the truth... That's pretty bias thinking.
Cleric did get one but that's it.... And it's basically the same as the others so it's hardly worth mentioning. No where the extent ranger got.
It's obvious WotC got enough feedback to make a change and majority of people likely agree. And they are evidence enough people were disappointed by the features to warrant it.
WotC even stated this in their Revised Ranger UA. You can argue however you want but it's pretty obvious what people wanted.....
The optional replacements for the ranger class in Tasha’s are simply geared more towards organized play, one shot play, video game style play, and optimized combat focused play. Thats it. It isn’t a right/wrong or good/bad situation. Show me an optimizer that would play a knowledge domain cleric. Never will you see it. But that is a subclass. You can ignore it. Not so with the ranger class. So now those players can play their preferred way and play a ranger. Win/win!
The optional replacements for the ranger class in Tasha’s are simply geared more towards organized play, one shot play, video game style play, and optimized combat focused play. Thats it. It isn’t a right/wrong or good/bad situation. Show me an optimizer that would play a knowledge domain cleric. Never will you see it. But that is a subclass. You can ignore it. Not so with the ranger class. So now those players can play their preferred way and play a ranger. Win/win!
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.
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?
"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." - Half right. It doesn't say ANYTHING about them. It is the vague "related to". As discussed we have two different interpretations. I thing they gave the Ranger an ability specifically to deal with creatures that live in the world (FE) and an ability to deal with the world (NE). You can call that interpretation a "forced" perspective, but it is the one I have. That said, I do grant a degree of creature knowledge for NE, in case you missed it, below is my response to Opitmus's squirrel.
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. Why the second and not the first - the second example is knowing something about the environment, knowing what kind of wildlife exist there and how to use the environment to find that wildlife. The first is trying to, without ANY context, make a SPECIFIC determination about the INDIVIDUAL actions of a single creature.
"And nothing your stating here is actual reasoning for why it does not apply." - see above
"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." - First, you can't call my statement incorrect unless you can tell me where in the feature is uses the word "creature" and second, I don't refuse to apply it to animals, but my application is more broad.
"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." - None of this is "objective". This is not a debate in a vacuum, both of us are making a subjective call on how we see the feature. This isn't Action Surge, there is no clear rule that we are discussing. The entire point of this is that we have different ways we see this.
"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." - except no, this wasn't a polar bear in the forest, this was a creature native to the forest, again, see above for my reasoning.
"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." - Even without a roll I am going to give you the info that it is odd that it got this close and that it is clearly afraid, but not seemingly of you. If you want to make a check on why it is afraid go for it, but no NE as explained above, you have no context for it's source of fear.
"This is something that The player can work off of. It gives them options. It makes their Ability useful." - ok, but I just gave them knowledge without a check based on the sheer fact they are a ranger. I do not have to then give them NE just so they can have their ability be useful. In this case it isn't. Ten minutes later when it is time to make a perception check to notice the threat before they are on top of it they can get NE.
"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." - You seem to imply here that my not giving a player NE on this check even though I provide other opportunities to apply that same ability is somehow going to ruin the entire session for them when in reality no one remembers that time the DM said no to a single check in a session. In the grand scheme of things saying no in this instance has 0 impact on telling an enriched story.
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.
Any such survey is going to be flawed, and you know it.
In 2017, WotC estimated there were between 12-15 million people playing in North America alone. In May of 2019, Dungeon Vault estimated there were 13.7 million players around the world. And sales have only gone up. To get an accurate cross-section of the player base, you'd need to target every demographic and get thousands of respondents. And there just isn't a way for an open poll on the Internet to do that. It doesn't matter where you put it.
And you're just flat out wrong that no other class got a replacement ability. Clerics received Blessed Strikes, which can replace one of two features found in every single subclass. And while I understand why it's there, I think it's terribly designed. Rangers just received more optional features. Are they better? They're okay. Deft Explorer doesn't really begin to get combat applications until 6th-level, and that's just movement. Favored Foe isn't especially powerful and, frustratingly, competes for Concentration. And Nature's Veil is fine as a panic button in combat.
But giving those options to players isn't an acknowledgment that the features they can replace are bad. Rather, it's just giving vocal players what they think they want. It might sound cynical, but WotC is, first and foremost, selling a product.
Pretty convenient you would say a survey would not be viable if it would go against what you think is the truth... That's pretty bias thinking.
Cleric did get one but that's it.... And it's basically the same as the others so it's hardly worth mentioning. No where the extent ranger got.
It's obvious WotC got enough feedback to make a change and majority of people likely agree. And they are evidence enough people were disappointed by the features to warrant it.
WotC even stated this in their Revised Ranger UA. You can argue however you want but it's pretty obvious what people wanted.....
There's nothing convenient about it. I have no goddang clue what the majority of the player base thinks, and neither does anyone else here. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't know any better. The reality is you're not going to get accurate representation with a survey open to just anyone.
Squeaky wheels get the grease, but that doesn't mean the majority of wheels are squeaky.
You don't get to half-ass this and claim vicytory. If you want a statistical analysis, you have to put in the work.
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.
Any such survey is going to be flawed, and you know it.
In 2017, WotC estimated there were between 12-15 million people playing in North America alone. In May of 2019, Dungeon Vault estimated there were 13.7 million players around the world. And sales have only gone up. To get an accurate cross-section of the player base, you'd need to target every demographic and get thousands of respondents. And there just isn't a way for an open poll on the Internet to do that. It doesn't matter where you put it.
And you're just flat out wrong that no other class got a replacement ability. Clerics received Blessed Strikes, which can replace one of two features found in every single subclass. And while I understand why it's there, I think it's terribly designed. Rangers just received more optional features. Are they better? They're okay. Deft Explorer doesn't really begin to get combat applications until 6th-level, and that's just movement. Favored Foe isn't especially powerful and, frustratingly, competes for Concentration. And Nature's Veil is fine as a panic button in combat.
But giving those options to players isn't an acknowledgment that the features they can replace are bad. Rather, it's just giving vocal players what they think they want. It might sound cynical, but WotC is, first and foremost, selling a product.
Pretty convenient you would say a survey would not be viable if it would go against what you think is the truth... That's pretty bias thinking.
Cleric did get one but that's it.... And it's basically the same as the others so it's hardly worth mentioning. No where the extent ranger got.
It's obvious WotC got enough feedback to make a change and majority of people likely agree. And they are evidence enough people were disappointed by the features to warrant it.
WotC even stated this in their Revised Ranger UA. You can argue however you want but it's pretty obvious what people wanted.....
There's nothing convenient about it. I have no goddang clue what the majority of the player base thinks, and neither does anyone else here. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't know any better. The reality is you're not going to get accurate representation with a survey open to just anyone.
Squeaky wheels get the grease, but that doesn't mean the majority of wheels are squeaky.
You don't get to half-ass this and claim vicytory. If you want a statistical analysis, you have to put in the work.
I do! Its what WotC produces because that is literally their job to know what people want. So they did it and gave people what they wanted. Its not complicated.
"Vicytory"? I don't approach discussions with a mindset to win anything...its not a healthy way to live.
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.
Any such survey is going to be flawed, and you know it.
In 2017, WotC estimated there were between 12-15 million people playing in North America alone. In May of 2019, Dungeon Vault estimated there were 13.7 million players around the world. And sales have only gone up. To get an accurate cross-section of the player base, you'd need to target every demographic and get thousands of respondents. And there just isn't a way for an open poll on the Internet to do that. It doesn't matter where you put it.
And you're just flat out wrong that no other class got a replacement ability. Clerics received Blessed Strikes, which can replace one of two features found in every single subclass. And while I understand why it's there, I think it's terribly designed. Rangers just received more optional features. Are they better? They're okay. Deft Explorer doesn't really begin to get combat applications until 6th-level, and that's just movement. Favored Foe isn't especially powerful and, frustratingly, competes for Concentration. And Nature's Veil is fine as a panic button in combat.
But giving those options to players isn't an acknowledgment that the features they can replace are bad. Rather, it's just giving vocal players what they think they want. It might sound cynical, but WotC is, first and foremost, selling a product.
Pretty convenient you would say a survey would not be viable if it would go against what you think is the truth... That's pretty bias thinking.
Cleric did get one but that's it.... And it's basically the same as the others so it's hardly worth mentioning. No where the extent ranger got.
It's obvious WotC got enough feedback to make a change and majority of people likely agree. And they are evidence enough people were disappointed by the features to warrant it.
WotC even stated this in their Revised Ranger UA. You can argue however you want but it's pretty obvious what people wanted.....
There's nothing convenient about it. I have no goddang clue what the majority of the player base thinks, and neither does anyone else here. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't know any better. The reality is you're not going to get accurate representation with a survey open to just anyone.
Squeaky wheels get the grease, but that doesn't mean the majority of wheels are squeaky.
You don't get to half-ass this and claim vicytory. If you want a statistical analysis, you have to put in the work.
I do! Its what WotC produces because that is literally their job to know what people want. So they did it and gave people what they wanted. Its not complicated.
"Vicytory"? I don't approach discussions with a mindset to win anything...its not a healthy way to live.
If you want to work by that Logic. I'll point you entirely at the FAct that what they ended up releasing are abilities that are entirely Optional. You mentioned the UA's. AT least one of the UA's was written with the intention of actually replacing things that were listed in the PHB about Rangers and be a true whole sale replacement for parts of the class and one of the Subclasses. Yet this is not Actually what they did when it came time to print official material.
If you want to tout what WoTC has done as proof. you do need to take details like this into account. Which you don't seem all that inclined to do.
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.
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?
"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." - Half right. It doesn't say ANYTHING about them. It is the vague "related to". As discussed we have two different interpretations. I thing they gave the Ranger an ability specifically to deal with creatures that live in the world (FE) and an ability to deal with the world (NE). You can call that interpretation a "forced" perspective, but it is the one I have. That said, I do grant a degree of creature knowledge for NE, in case you missed it, below is my response to Opitmus's squirrel.
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. Why the second and not the first - the second example is knowing something about the environment, knowing what kind of wildlife exist there and how to use the environment to find that wildlife. The first is trying to, without ANY context, make a SPECIFIC determination about the INDIVIDUAL actions of a single creature.
"And nothing your stating here is actual reasoning for why it does not apply." - see above
"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." - First, you can't call my statement incorrect unless you can tell me where in the feature is uses the word "creature" and second, I don't refuse to apply it to animals, but my application is more broad.
"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." - None of this is "objective". This is not a debate in a vacuum, both of us are making a subjective call on how we see the feature. This isn't Action Surge, there is no clear rule that we are discussing. The entire point of this is that we have different ways we see this.
"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." - except no, this wasn't a polar bear in the forest, this was a creature native to the forest, again, see above for my reasoning.
"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." - Even without a roll I am going to give you the info that it is odd that it got this close and that it is clearly afraid, but not seemingly of you. If you want to make a check on why it is afraid go for it, but no NE as explained above, you have no context for it's source of fear.
"This is something that The player can work off of. It gives them options. It makes their Ability useful." - ok, but I just gave them knowledge without a check based on the sheer fact they are a ranger. I do not have to then give them NE just so they can have their ability be useful. In this case it isn't. Ten minutes later when it is time to make a perception check to notice the threat before they are on top of it they can get NE.
"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." - You seem to imply here that my not giving a player NE on this check even though I provide other opportunities to apply that same ability is somehow going to ruin the entire session for them when in reality no one remembers that time the DM said no to a single check in a session. In the grand scheme of things saying no in this instance has 0 impact on telling an enriched story.
You only applied it to creatures once you were pressed into a situation of doing so by reaching A series of understandings.
Also You are aware that Creature does not explicitly have to be stated to actually apply to them don't you? you want me to point you to a word as proof that it has been used explicitly for you to accept it when it's not actually needed to count? you do realize that's what your asking for right. you trying to twist logic about absence of proof to actually prove that it works the way that you want it to.
You've even stated how it applies and how it can apply in this very post and then ignored it with the shifted goal post that instead I show you a different word that is easily contained within that simple phrase.
Before I even bother with most of the rest. We'll have to deal with just these two right now. Because most of the rest of this rather long post that you've made actually hinges entirely around these two points. Creatures Directly Relate to their environments. there is no getting around that.
So I'll make it simple for you how monsters Apply. There is a section in the monster manual dedicated to this. It's called Where Monsters Dwell. It's in the Introductory chapter of the book. You'll Find it interesting that it lists Examples of Different Kinds of Environments (some wholely covered in terms of NE and some not) and when it does so it lists things lie creatures that could be attached to those examples of different environments that can be considered as encounters in them and related to them.
That's where Creatures come into play with Natural Explorer without Natural Explorer having to say the word Creature. Because they are part of the environments listed in their stat blocks and thus tied to them.
On top of that I'll give you a nice little quote of the Paragraph just before that Example section which is clearly obviously not meant to be comprehensive.
The quote being...
This book contains ready-to-play, easy-to-run monsters of all levels, and for nearly every climate and terrain imaginable. Whether your adventure takes place in a swamp, a dungeon, or the outer planes of existence, there are creatures in this book to populate that environment.
Note the Bolded part in particular For one of the ways that they link together. Which means that they actually are in the Purview of Natural Explorer when it applies. NE may not cover nearly every climate and Terrain imaginable but it does cover a wide range of basics in the Terrain options that it does give.
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.
Any such survey is going to be flawed, and you know it.
In 2017, WotC estimated there were between 12-15 million people playing in North America alone. In May of 2019, Dungeon Vault estimated there were 13.7 million players around the world. And sales have only gone up. To get an accurate cross-section of the player base, you'd need to target every demographic and get thousands of respondents. And there just isn't a way for an open poll on the Internet to do that. It doesn't matter where you put it.
And you're just flat out wrong that no other class got a replacement ability. Clerics received Blessed Strikes, which can replace one of two features found in every single subclass. And while I understand why it's there, I think it's terribly designed. Rangers just received more optional features. Are they better? They're okay. Deft Explorer doesn't really begin to get combat applications until 6th-level, and that's just movement. Favored Foe isn't especially powerful and, frustratingly, competes for Concentration. And Nature's Veil is fine as a panic button in combat.
But giving those options to players isn't an acknowledgment that the features they can replace are bad. Rather, it's just giving vocal players what they think they want. It might sound cynical, but WotC is, first and foremost, selling a product.
Pretty convenient you would say a survey would not be viable if it would go against what you think is the truth... That's pretty bias thinking.
Cleric did get one but that's it.... And it's basically the same as the others so it's hardly worth mentioning. No where the extent ranger got.
It's obvious WotC got enough feedback to make a change and majority of people likely agree. And they are evidence enough people were disappointed by the features to warrant it.
WotC even stated this in their Revised Ranger UA. You can argue however you want but it's pretty obvious what people wanted.....
There's nothing convenient about it. I have no goddang clue what the majority of the player base thinks, and neither does anyone else here. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't know any better. The reality is you're not going to get accurate representation with a survey open to just anyone.
Squeaky wheels get the grease, but that doesn't mean the majority of wheels are squeaky.
You don't get to half-ass this and claim vicytory. If you want a statistical analysis, you have to put in the work.
I do! Its what WotC produces because that is literally their job to know what people want. So they did it and gave people what they wanted. Its not complicated.
"Vicytory"? I don't approach discussions with a mindset to win anything...its not a healthy way to live.
If you want to work by that Logic. I'll point you entirely at the FAct that what they ended up releasing are abilities that are entirely Optional. You mentioned the UA's. AT least one of the UA's was written with the intention of actually replacing things that were listed in the PHB about Rangers and be a true whole sale replacement for parts of the class and one of the Subclasses. Yet this is not Actually what they did when it came time to print official material.
If you want to tout what WoTC has done as proof. you do need to take details like this into account. Which you don't seem all that inclined to do.
Optional yes but there all the same and it was ranger who got them.
It does not take too much logic to show that people wanted it enough they felt they could sell books by having it there.
It's the only class to get this kind of attention to having full on replacement options for it's foundation features and the only class to have multiple attempts to do so before something was published.
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
With this kind of time and attention it's hard to believe that it was not something that a majority of people wanted. Why put so much effort into it if only a small vocal group wanted it? They wouldn't is the answer as it's not in their nor the community's best interest.
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
Also You are aware that Creature does not explicitly have to be stated to actually apply to them don't you? you want me to point you to a word as proof that it has been used explicitly for you to accept it when it's not actually needed to count? you do realize that's what your asking for right. you trying to twist logic about absence of proof to actually prove that it works the way that you want it to.
You've even stated how it applies and how it can apply in this very post and then ignored it with the shifted goal post that instead I show you a different word that is easily contained within that simple phrase.
Before I even bother with most of the rest. We'll have to deal with just these two right now. Because most of the rest of this rather long post that you've made actually hinges entirely around these two points. Creatures Directly Relate to their environments. there is no getting around that.
So I'll make it simple for you how monsters Apply. There is a section in the monster manual dedicated to this. It's called Where Monsters Dwell. It's in the Introductory chapter of the book. You'll Find it interesting that it lists Examples of Different Kinds of Environments (some wholely covered in terms of NE and some not) and when it does so it lists things lie creatures that could be attached to those examples of different environments that can be considered as encounters in them and related to them.
That's where Creatures come into play with Natural Explorer without Natural Explorer having to say the word Creature. Because they are part of the environments listed in their stat blocks and thus tied to them.
On top of that I'll give you a nice little quote of the Paragraph just before that Example section which is clearly obviously not meant to be comprehensive.
The quote being...
This book contains ready-to-play, easy-to-run monsters of all levels, and for nearly every climate and terrain imaginable. Whether your adventure takes place in a swamp, a dungeon, or the outer planes of existence, there are creatures in this book to populate that environment.
Note the Bolded part in particular For one of the ways that they link together. Which means that they actually are in the Purview of Natural Explorer when it applies. NE may not cover nearly every climate and Terrain imaginable but it does cover a wide range of basics in the Terrain options that it does give.
I haven’t been pressed into anything, my stance on NE hasn’t changed at all. I am of the opinion that NE can be used in a broad way to apply to creatures, but I think you can argue that by RAW, NE doesn’t have to apply to creatures. You can point out all the text you want the environments are home to creatures, it is irrelevant to my interpretation of the way the feature works.
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
Yes... There was still demand for ranger options as people wanted it.
They got it via Tashas.
JC is consistently wrong on many things and contradicts himself all the time so I never put too much credit into what he says. Hell he even said the spell versatility was still in the book when it wasn't so I don't trust him for much.
Overall demand was there for it and they delivered on it.
They worked on options for ranger for literal years.
The community worked on ranger options for years.
It overtly clear that there was desire to see it changed on multiple fronts.
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
Yes... There was still demand for ranger options as people wanted it.
They got it via Tashas.
JC is consistently wrong on many things and contradicts himself all the time so I never put too much credit into what he says. Hell he even said the spell versatility was still in the book when it wasn't so I don't trust him for much.
Overall demand was there for it and they delivered on it.
They worked on options for ranger for literal years.
The community worked on ranger options for years.
It overtly clear that there was desire to see it changed on multiple fronts.
So your saying JC is wrong when he says "ranger is good" But he is right when he says "ranger is bad". sounds like "cherry picking to me" especially since you are taking older opinions into account rather than more recent ones.
Also The community has been re-writing and homebrewing every class. I've heard complaints about how broken and underpowered every class/subclass combo is(except hex blade Warlock and most paladins ) General desire to fix or change does not indicate Flaws with the system. it could easily be a reflection on human Psychology instead.
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
Yes... There was still demand for ranger options as people wanted it.
They got it via Tashas.
JC is consistently wrong on many things and contradicts himself all the time so I never put too much credit into what he says. Hell he even said the spell versatility was still in the book when it wasn't so I don't trust him for much.
Overall demand was there for it and they delivered on it.
They worked on options for ranger for literal years.
The community worked on ranger options for years.
It overtly clear that there was desire to see it changed on multiple fronts.
So your saying JC is wrong when he says "ranger is good" But he is right when he says "ranger is bad". sounds like "cherry picking to me" especially since you are taking older opinions into account rather than more recent ones.
Also The community has been re-writing and homebrewing every class. I've heard complaints about how broken and underpowered every class/subclass combo is(except hex blade Warlock and most paladins ) General desire to fix or change does not indicate Flaws with the system. it could easily be a reflection on human Psychology instead.
Not nearly to the extent ranger was by any means.
WotC had their own UA and homebrew for ranger class options far more than any class.
With the release of Tasha, it's just funny to note that we have so many different versions of the same class.
PHB Ranger. (2014)
UA: Spell-less Ranger. (2015)
UA: The Ranger (2015)
UA: The Ranger, Revised (2016)
Mike Mearls' Ranger. (2018)
And lastly, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020)
Revised Ranger, Spell less ranger, Mearls Ranger, Tashas all had core option changes to ranger. I never saw anything close to that for any other class besides the SP variant for sorcerer or the two versions of Artificer.
I would say that fact there has been so many attempts to redo, tweek, adjust, or whatever the ranger class, is proof in and of itself how divided and unclear the community is about what a ranger is, how it should function, and role role it should play in the game. This is one of those "...some of the people, some of the time..." kind of things.
Also You are aware that Creature does not explicitly have to be stated to actually apply to them don't you? you want me to point you to a word as proof that it has been used explicitly for you to accept it when it's not actually needed to count? you do realize that's what your asking for right. you trying to twist logic about absence of proof to actually prove that it works the way that you want it to.
You've even stated how it applies and how it can apply in this very post and then ignored it with the shifted goal post that instead I show you a different word that is easily contained within that simple phrase.
Before I even bother with most of the rest. We'll have to deal with just these two right now. Because most of the rest of this rather long post that you've made actually hinges entirely around these two points. Creatures Directly Relate to their environments. there is no getting around that.
So I'll make it simple for you how monsters Apply. There is a section in the monster manual dedicated to this. It's called Where Monsters Dwell. It's in the Introductory chapter of the book. You'll Find it interesting that it lists Examples of Different Kinds of Environments (some wholely covered in terms of NE and some not) and when it does so it lists things lie creatures that could be attached to those examples of different environments that can be considered as encounters in them and related to them.
That's where Creatures come into play with Natural Explorer without Natural Explorer having to say the word Creature. Because they are part of the environments listed in their stat blocks and thus tied to them.
On top of that I'll give you a nice little quote of the Paragraph just before that Example section which is clearly obviously not meant to be comprehensive.
The quote being...
This book contains ready-to-play, easy-to-run monsters of all levels, and for nearly every climate and terrain imaginable. Whether your adventure takes place in a swamp, a dungeon, or the outer planes of existence, there are creatures in this book to populate that environment.
Note the Bolded part in particular For one of the ways that they link together. Which means that they actually are in the Purview of Natural Explorer when it applies. NE may not cover nearly every climate and Terrain imaginable but it does cover a wide range of basics in the Terrain options that it does give.
I haven’t been pressed into anything, my stance on NE hasn’t changed at all. I am of the opinion that NE can be used in a broad way to apply to creatures, but I think you can argue that by RAW, NE doesn’t have to apply to creatures. You can point out all the text you want the environments are home to creatures, it is irrelevant to my interpretation of the way the feature works.
Except that all of the text I am showing you is proving that your wrong. So it's not irrelevent. Not to the Discussion or actualy what is true by RaW which you keep trying to change based upon your choosing to interpret things a certain way. Rather than allowing your interpretation to be informed and Influenced by Raw. Which is an entirely flawed way to go about things.
And you may choose to say you weren't pressed into things. But your stance in your posts about how Animals apply has slowly and begrudgingly shifted as you have admitted to certain facts about them and about NE. Your attempts to backtrack do not negate that and things have shifted by those admissions. Even if you are resistant to those shifts that have taken place as a result. Your original stance would not have even allowed for Sometimes with Animals. You repeatedly and blatantly turned down all applications to animals at the start.
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
Yes... There was still demand for ranger options as people wanted it.
They got it via Tashas.
JC is consistently wrong on many things and contradicts himself all the time so I never put too much credit into what he says. Hell he even said the spell versatility was still in the book when it wasn't so I don't trust him for much.
Overall demand was there for it and they delivered on it.
They worked on options for ranger for literal years.
The community worked on ranger options for years.
It overtly clear that there was desire to see it changed on multiple fronts.
So your saying JC is wrong when he says "ranger is good" But he is right when he says "ranger is bad". sounds like "cherry picking to me" especially since you are taking older opinions into account rather than more recent ones.
Also The community has been re-writing and homebrewing every class. I've heard complaints about how broken and underpowered every class/subclass combo is(except hex blade Warlock and most paladins ) General desire to fix or change does not indicate Flaws with the system. it could easily be a reflection on human Psychology instead.
Not nearly to the extent ranger was by any means.
WotC had their own UA and homebrew for ranger class options far more than any class.
With the release of Tasha, it's just funny to note that we have so many different versions of the same class.
PHB Ranger. (2014)
UA: Spell-less Ranger. (2015)
UA: The Ranger (2015)
UA: The Ranger, Revised (2016)
Mike Mearls' Ranger. (2018)
And lastly, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020)
Revised Ranger, Spell less ranger, Mearls Ranger, Tashas all had core option changes to ranger. I never saw anything close to that for any other class besides the SP variant for sorcerer or the two versions of Artificer.
You bring all of this up. But fail to note that WoTC basically is saying that all of this was for the most part a failure by rejecting it. Which weakens your entire argument here. WoTC through their actions has shown us that these replacements and Alternatives We not the Answer your Claiming them to be. By Rejecting Some of these, Which a couple were rather well recieved over all. Your ignoring the fact that they came to the conclusion through their better access and understanding of the player base than the one that you have that Most of this Was not actually what people needed or even Wanted for the Ranger Class? That they boiled it all down to a small handful of optional skills that you can not only choose to take but actually outright state that you are fully able to mix and match them at will with the original abilities.
That Last Part should really mean a lot to you. They were designed specifically to be interchangable and Mixed with the Core Abilities. The Ones you are Saying Nobody wants. Clearly people want them if they went so far as to not only Take back proposed changes to the entire class but then the few changes they do offer they make Entirely and Wholely mixable and Compatible in Combination with Core Abilities that already existed in the PHB.
This right here alone is evidence that your being Biased and that the Player Base is perhaps not as represented by your opinion and your attempt to make that a majority as you think.
Even the newest poll. While it's still early and only has a few votes. is showing an interesting Trend. it is leaning heavily into people being mixed about them with the unbiased way it has stated things.
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
Yes... There was still demand for ranger options as people wanted it.
They got it via Tashas.
JC is consistently wrong on many things and contradicts himself all the time so I never put too much credit into what he says. Hell he even said the spell versatility was still in the book when it wasn't so I don't trust him for much.
Overall demand was there for it and they delivered on it.
They worked on options for ranger for literal years.
The community worked on ranger options for years.
It overtly clear that there was desire to see it changed on multiple fronts.
So your saying JC is wrong when he says "ranger is good" But he is right when he says "ranger is bad". sounds like "cherry picking to me" especially since you are taking older opinions into account rather than more recent ones.
Also The community has been re-writing and homebrewing every class. I've heard complaints about how broken and underpowered every class/subclass combo is(except hex blade Warlock and most paladins ) General desire to fix or change does not indicate Flaws with the system. it could easily be a reflection on human Psychology instead.
Not nearly to the extent ranger was by any means.
WotC had their own UA and homebrew for ranger class options far more than any class.
With the release of Tasha, it's just funny to note that we have so many different versions of the same class.
PHB Ranger. (2014)
UA: Spell-less Ranger. (2015)
UA: The Ranger (2015)
UA: The Ranger, Revised (2016)
Mike Mearls' Ranger. (2018)
And lastly, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020)
Revised Ranger, Spell less ranger, Mearls Ranger, Tashas all had core option changes to ranger. I never saw anything close to that for any other class besides the SP variant for sorcerer or the two versions of Artificer.
You bring all of this up. But fail to note that WoTC basically is saying that all of this was for the most part a failure by rejecting it. Which weakens your entire argument here. WoTC through their actions has shown us that these replacements and Alternatives We not the Answer your Claiming them to be. By Rejecting Some of these, Which a couple were rather well recieved over all. Your ignoring the fact that they came to the conclusion through their better access and understanding of the player base than the one that you have that Most of this Was not actually what people needed or even Wanted for the Ranger Class? That they boiled it all down to a small handful of optional skills that you can not only choose to take but actually outright state that you are fully able to mix and match them at will with the original abilities.
That Last Part should really mean a lot to you. They were designed specifically to be interchangable and Mixed with the Core Abilities. The Ones you are Saying Nobody wants. Clearly people want them if they went so far as to not only Take back proposed changes to the entire class but then the few changes they do offer they make Entirely and Wholely mixable and Compatible in Combination with Core Abilities that already existed in the PHB.
This right here alone is evidence that your being Biased and that the Player Base is perhaps not as represented by your opinion and your attempt to make that a majority as you think.
Even the newest poll. While it's still early and only has a few votes. is showing an interesting Trend. it is leaning heavily into people being mixed about them with the unbiased way it has stated things.
It's not a failure when it literally happened though...
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
Yes... There was still demand for ranger options as people wanted it.
They got it via Tashas.
JC is consistently wrong on many things and contradicts himself all the time so I never put too much credit into what he says. Hell he even said the spell versatility was still in the book when it wasn't so I don't trust him for much.
Overall demand was there for it and they delivered on it.
They worked on options for ranger for literal years.
The community worked on ranger options for years.
It overtly clear that there was desire to see it changed on multiple fronts.
So your saying JC is wrong when he says "ranger is good" But he is right when he says "ranger is bad". sounds like "cherry picking to me" especially since you are taking older opinions into account rather than more recent ones.
Also The community has been re-writing and homebrewing every class. I've heard complaints about how broken and underpowered every class/subclass combo is(except hex blade Warlock and most paladins ) General desire to fix or change does not indicate Flaws with the system. it could easily be a reflection on human Psychology instead.
Not nearly to the extent ranger was by any means.
WotC had their own UA and homebrew for ranger class options far more than any class.
With the release of Tasha, it's just funny to note that we have so many different versions of the same class.
PHB Ranger. (2014)
UA: Spell-less Ranger. (2015)
UA: The Ranger (2015)
UA: The Ranger, Revised (2016)
Mike Mearls' Ranger. (2018)
And lastly, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020)
Revised Ranger, Spell less ranger, Mearls Ranger, Tashas all had core option changes to ranger. I never saw anything close to that for any other class besides the SP variant for sorcerer or the two versions of Artificer.
You bring all of this up. But fail to note that WoTC basically is saying that all of this was for the most part a failure by rejecting it. Which weakens your entire argument here. WoTC through their actions has shown us that these replacements and Alternatives We not the Answer your Claiming them to be. By Rejecting Some of these, Which a couple were rather well recieved over all. Your ignoring the fact that they came to the conclusion through their better access and understanding of the player base than the one that you have that Most of this Was not actually what people needed or even Wanted for the Ranger Class? That they boiled it all down to a small handful of optional skills that you can not only choose to take but actually outright state that you are fully able to mix and match them at will with the original abilities.
That Last Part should really mean a lot to you. They were designed specifically to be interchangable and Mixed with the Core Abilities. The Ones you are Saying Nobody wants. Clearly people want them if they went so far as to not only Take back proposed changes to the entire class but then the few changes they do offer they make Entirely and Wholely mixable and Compatible in Combination with Core Abilities that already existed in the PHB.
This right here alone is evidence that your being Biased and that the Player Base is perhaps not as represented by your opinion and your attempt to make that a majority as you think.
Even the newest poll. While it's still early and only has a few votes. is showing an interesting Trend. it is leaning heavily into people being mixed about them with the unbiased way it has stated things.
It's not a failure when it literally happened though...
We got alternative options. That's just the facts
Overall it shows the desire eventually won out.
That is false equivalency.
We got Options yes. But those options are not nearly what was done in many of the U.A's... Nor with the seeming intent of outright replacing things about the original ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Any such survey is going to be flawed, and you know it.
In 2017, WotC estimated there were between 12-15 million people playing in North America alone. In May of 2019, Dungeon Vault estimated there were 13.7 million players around the world. And sales have only gone up. To get an accurate cross-section of the player base, you'd need to target every demographic and get thousands of respondents. And there just isn't a way for an open poll on the Internet to do that. It doesn't matter where you put it.
And you're just flat out wrong that no other class got a replacement ability. Clerics received Blessed Strikes, which can replace one of two features found in every single subclass. And while I understand why it's there, I think it's terribly designed. Rangers just received more optional features. Are they better? They're okay. Deft Explorer doesn't really begin to get combat applications until 6th-level, and that's just movement. Favored Foe isn't especially powerful and, frustratingly, competes for Concentration. And Nature's Veil is fine as a panic button in combat.
But giving those options to players isn't an acknowledgment that the features they can replace are bad. Rather, it's just giving vocal players what they think they want. It might sound cynical, but WotC is, first and foremost, selling a product.
Pretty convenient you would say a survey would not be viable if it would go against what you think is the truth... That's pretty bias thinking.
Cleric did get one but that's it.... And it's basically the same as the others so it's hardly worth mentioning. No where the extent ranger got.
It's obvious WotC got enough feedback to make a change and majority of people likely agree. And they are evidence enough people were disappointed by the features to warrant it.
WotC even stated this in their Revised Ranger UA. You can argue however you want but it's pretty obvious what people wanted.....
The optional replacements for the ranger class in Tasha’s are simply geared more towards organized play, one shot play, video game style play, and optimized combat focused play. Thats it. It isn’t a right/wrong or good/bad situation. Show me an optimizer that would play a knowledge domain cleric. Never will you see it. But that is a subclass. You can ignore it. Not so with the ranger class. So now those players can play their preferred way and play a ranger. Win/win!
I won't argue with that one bit!
"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." - Half right. It doesn't say ANYTHING about them. It is the vague "related to". As discussed we have two different interpretations. I thing they gave the Ranger an ability specifically to deal with creatures that live in the world (FE) and an ability to deal with the world (NE). You can call that interpretation a "forced" perspective, but it is the one I have. That said, I do grant a degree of creature knowledge for NE, in case you missed it, below is my response to Opitmus's squirrel.
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.
Why the second and not the first - the second example is knowing something about the environment, knowing what kind of wildlife exist there and how to use the environment to find that wildlife. The first is trying to, without ANY context, make a SPECIFIC determination about the INDIVIDUAL actions of a single creature.
"And nothing your stating here is actual reasoning for why it does not apply." - see above
"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." - First, you can't call my statement incorrect unless you can tell me where in the feature is uses the word "creature" and second, I don't refuse to apply it to animals, but my application is more broad.
"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." - None of this is "objective". This is not a debate in a vacuum, both of us are making a subjective call on how we see the feature. This isn't Action Surge, there is no clear rule that we are discussing. The entire point of this is that we have different ways we see this.
"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." - except no, this wasn't a polar bear in the forest, this was a creature native to the forest, again, see above for my reasoning.
"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." - Even without a roll I am going to give you the info that it is odd that it got this close and that it is clearly afraid, but not seemingly of you. If you want to make a check on why it is afraid go for it, but no NE as explained above, you have no context for it's source of fear.
"This is something that The player can work off of. It gives them options. It makes their Ability useful." - ok, but I just gave them knowledge without a check based on the sheer fact they are a ranger. I do not have to then give them NE just so they can have their ability be useful. In this case it isn't. Ten minutes later when it is time to make a perception check to notice the threat before they are on top of it they can get NE.
"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." - You seem to imply here that my not giving a player NE on this check even though I provide other opportunities to apply that same ability is somehow going to ruin the entire session for them when in reality no one remembers that time the DM said no to a single check in a session. In the grand scheme of things saying no in this instance has 0 impact on telling an enriched story.
There's nothing convenient about it. I have no goddang clue what the majority of the player base thinks, and neither does anyone else here. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't know any better. The reality is you're not going to get accurate representation with a survey open to just anyone.
Squeaky wheels get the grease, but that doesn't mean the majority of wheels are squeaky.
You don't get to half-ass this and claim vicytory. If you want a statistical analysis, you have to put in the work.
I do! Its what WotC produces because that is literally their job to know what people want. So they did it and gave people what they wanted. Its not complicated.
"Vicytory"? I don't approach discussions with a mindset to win anything...its not a healthy way to live.
If you want to work by that Logic. I'll point you entirely at the FAct that what they ended up releasing are abilities that are entirely Optional. You mentioned the UA's. AT least one of the UA's was written with the intention of actually replacing things that were listed in the PHB about Rangers and be a true whole sale replacement for parts of the class and one of the Subclasses. Yet this is not Actually what they did when it came time to print official material.
If you want to tout what WoTC has done as proof. you do need to take details like this into account. Which you don't seem all that inclined to do.
You only applied it to creatures once you were pressed into a situation of doing so by reaching A series of understandings.
Also You are aware that Creature does not explicitly have to be stated to actually apply to them don't you? you want me to point you to a word as proof that it has been used explicitly for you to accept it when it's not actually needed to count? you do realize that's what your asking for right. you trying to twist logic about absence of proof to actually prove that it works the way that you want it to.
You've even stated how it applies and how it can apply in this very post and then ignored it with the shifted goal post that instead I show you a different word that is easily contained within that simple phrase.
Before I even bother with most of the rest. We'll have to deal with just these two right now. Because most of the rest of this rather long post that you've made actually hinges entirely around these two points. Creatures Directly Relate to their environments. there is no getting around that.
So I'll make it simple for you how monsters Apply. There is a section in the monster manual dedicated to this. It's called Where Monsters Dwell. It's in the Introductory chapter of the book. You'll Find it interesting that it lists Examples of Different Kinds of Environments (some wholely covered in terms of NE and some not) and when it does so it lists things lie creatures that could be attached to those examples of different environments that can be considered as encounters in them and related to them.
That's where Creatures come into play with Natural Explorer without Natural Explorer having to say the word Creature. Because they are part of the environments listed in their stat blocks and thus tied to them.
On top of that I'll give you a nice little quote of the Paragraph just before that Example section which is clearly obviously not meant to be comprehensive.
The quote being...
Note the Bolded part in particular For one of the ways that they link together. Which means that they actually are in the Purview of Natural Explorer when it applies. NE may not cover nearly every climate and Terrain imaginable but it does cover a wide range of basics in the Terrain options that it does give.
Optional yes but there all the same and it was ranger who got them.
It does not take too much logic to show that people wanted it enough they felt they could sell books by having it there.
It's the only class to get this kind of attention to having full on replacement options for it's foundation features and the only class to have multiple attempts to do so before something was published.
They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
With this kind of time and attention it's hard to believe that it was not something that a majority of people wanted. Why put so much effort into it if only a small vocal group wanted it? They wouldn't is the answer as it's not in their nor the community's best interest.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
I haven’t been pressed into anything, my stance on NE hasn’t changed at all. I am of the opinion that NE can be used in a broad way to apply to creatures, but I think you can argue that by RAW, NE doesn’t have to apply to creatures. You can point out all the text you want the environments are home to creatures, it is irrelevant to my interpretation of the way the feature works.
Yes... There was still demand for ranger options as people wanted it.
They got it via Tashas.
JC is consistently wrong on many things and contradicts himself all the time so I never put too much credit into what he says. Hell he even said the spell versatility was still in the book when it wasn't so I don't trust him for much.
Overall demand was there for it and they delivered on it.
They worked on options for ranger for literal years.
The community worked on ranger options for years.
It overtly clear that there was desire to see it changed on multiple fronts.
So your saying JC is wrong when he says "ranger is good" But he is right when he says "ranger is bad". sounds like "cherry picking to me" especially since you are taking older opinions into account rather than more recent ones.
Also The community has been re-writing and homebrewing every class. I've heard complaints about how broken and underpowered every class/subclass combo is(except hex blade Warlock and most paladins ) General desire to fix or change does not indicate Flaws with the system. it could easily be a reflection on human Psychology instead.
Not nearly to the extent ranger was by any means.
WotC had their own UA and homebrew for ranger class options far more than any class.
With the release of Tasha, it's just funny to note that we have so many different versions of the same class.
PHB Ranger. (2014)
UA: Spell-less Ranger. (2015)
UA: The Ranger (2015)
UA: The Ranger, Revised (2016)
Mike Mearls' Ranger. (2018)
And lastly, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020)
Revised Ranger, Spell less ranger, Mearls Ranger, Tashas all had core option changes to ranger. I never saw anything close to that for any other class besides the SP variant for sorcerer or the two versions of Artificer.
I would say that fact there has been so many attempts to redo, tweek, adjust, or whatever the ranger class, is proof in and of itself how divided and unclear the community is about what a ranger is, how it should function, and role role it should play in the game. This is one of those "...some of the people, some of the time..." kind of things.
Except that all of the text I am showing you is proving that your wrong. So it's not irrelevent. Not to the Discussion or actualy what is true by RaW which you keep trying to change based upon your choosing to interpret things a certain way. Rather than allowing your interpretation to be informed and Influenced by Raw. Which is an entirely flawed way to go about things.
And you may choose to say you weren't pressed into things. But your stance in your posts about how Animals apply has slowly and begrudgingly shifted as you have admitted to certain facts about them and about NE. Your attempts to backtrack do not negate that and things have shifted by those admissions. Even if you are resistant to those shifts that have taken place as a result. Your original stance would not have even allowed for Sometimes with Animals. You repeatedly and blatantly turned down all applications to animals at the start.
You bring all of this up. But fail to note that WoTC basically is saying that all of this was for the most part a failure by rejecting it. Which weakens your entire argument here. WoTC through their actions has shown us that these replacements and Alternatives We not the Answer your Claiming them to be. By Rejecting Some of these, Which a couple were rather well recieved over all. Your ignoring the fact that they came to the conclusion through their better access and understanding of the player base than the one that you have that Most of this Was not actually what people needed or even Wanted for the Ranger Class? That they boiled it all down to a small handful of optional skills that you can not only choose to take but actually outright state that you are fully able to mix and match them at will with the original abilities.
That Last Part should really mean a lot to you. They were designed specifically to be interchangable and Mixed with the Core Abilities. The Ones you are Saying Nobody wants. Clearly people want them if they went so far as to not only Take back proposed changes to the entire class but then the few changes they do offer they make Entirely and Wholely mixable and Compatible in Combination with Core Abilities that already existed in the PHB.
This right here alone is evidence that your being Biased and that the Player Base is perhaps not as represented by your opinion and your attempt to make that a majority as you think.
Even the newest poll. While it's still early and only has a few votes. is showing an interesting Trend. it is leaning heavily into people being mixed about them with the unbiased way it has stated things.
It's not a failure when it literally happened though...
We got alternative options. That's just the facts
Overall it shows the desire eventually won out.
That is false equivalency.
We got Options yes. But those options are not nearly what was done in many of the U.A's... Nor with the seeming intent of outright replacing things about the original ranger.