Once again though, the way you have phrased this you are applying a blanket condition. You have effectively said "if I am talking to a goblin in the forest I get both NE and FE no matter what the interaction is or what I asked, it just ALWAYS applies" and that isn't the case. ALL of these bonuses are situational. Sometimes they might apply, sometimes they might not and I am not sure the FE would even apply as directly interacting with them is not part of any bonus FE grants and seems to boil down to flavor text. That being said, I would probably let it apply in most interactions, but not all.
...
First, you are not using the word bulwark correctly, second I didn't say it was out without exception, I said I would need an example or scenario and so far I haven't heard a good one yet. I think we are getting close with the whole animal conversation, but we aren't there yet
I don't know why you felt to quote-reply twice, but no, I did not use bulwark incorrectly. Or, if I did, it's a weird hill for you to pick to make this stand on since I'm borrowing language directly from the PHB.
Hunter
Emulating the Hunter archetype means accepting your place as a bulwark between civilization and the terrors of the wilderness. As you walk the Hunter’s path, you learn specialized techniques for fighting the threats you face, from rampaging ogres and hordes of orcs to towering giants and terrifying dragons.
If you want to quibble that rangers are not literally a physical wall, fine, no one is going to argue with you. They're characters, not objects. But in the metaphorical sense...come on, guy. I want to believe we're all better than this.
And maybe I wasn't clear before, but I didn't say you had to be talking with a goblin in the forest. I said if they were from the forest. Let's put this another way. Say you choose the Underdark for NE and pick Humanoid (dwarf, elf) for your FE. Naturally, this would extend to the duergar and drow. You're familiar, if not knowledgeable, about their customs and traditions. If you're proficient with History, then that bonus applies to any check were the skill might apply to them even if you're not physically there because you still know it. And if they were above ground, say as part of a diplomatic envoy, then Insight would also apply because, again, you're familiar with their customs and way of speaking.
The rules don't outright prohibit Insight from gaining the benefit of doubling its proficiency bonus due to NE, so obviously, there has to be a method for incorporating that skill somewhere. Social dealing with the peoples who live there is the only logical answer.
This entire "thing" leads me to now believe there is a problem WITH the PHB ranger, but it's not BECAUSE of the PHB ranger. It's because of certain DMs. Never, ever, have I ever experienced anything even remotely resembling this thing of nitpick scrutiny either as a player or DM. It is...unbelievable. Utterly mind boggling. We are talking about whether or not a make believe character gets a 10% better chance to roll a die to accomplish something. The idea that this has to be this insanely descriptive in order to be justified is crazy, at best. So much, SO much, is hand waved by folks for the sake of "fun", or "storytelling", or "faster game play", or "less to keep track of", and yet here we are, trying to justify letting a character do what it is they are designed to do in the manner in which they are meant to do it because one person, playing the DM in this ridiculous "conversation", either doesn't understand what insight is, just pre-hates the ability for this class no matter what, is just purposefully being difficult, or something else that I can not understand. For me, at this point, the words "related to your favored terrain" are being put through the "RAW filter" to a point of...insert your own words here...
I'm glad Tasha's is here. So people, that I pity because they have zero other opportunities to play this game with anyone other than with a, from what I can tell, punishing DM stye, can play what they can call a ranger and skip this level of ridiculousness. Honestly. Adventuring gear, tools, divination magic, illusion magic, and SO MUCH MORE of this game is based on creativity, imagination, communication, and story, I can't believe that this level of scrutiny can exist. I refuse to believe that this is the kind of crazy hurdle jumping that someone would ever have to go through because they want to play a character that is "good at nature", but is apparently punished because they "should have played a scout". Sad. Idiocy. Bias. Sadism.
"You have been hired to investigate the possibility of a necromancer in the western woods outside of a town. Your group has been traveling the forest for three days. Each day the forest has grown more quiet than the last. As you push through into a small clearing you come across a [animal]. It looks frightened and is moving towards you, stopping as it sees you.
You ask "why is it afraid" I say - make an animal handling or nature check your call - "can I make an insight check instead?" sure go nuts. "can NE apply?" why?
Now, I already have an answer in mind and the justification, but before I put that I want you to tell me why in this instance you think NE should apply."
Alright. Keeping in mind that this is your scenario, and in no way would either nature or animal handling apply to the question asked in this situation, I'll bite.
I want to use insight with the natural explorer benefit added because I'm using my "proficiency" with the "insight" skill to "determine the true intentions" of this animal or "predict it's next move" by "gleaning clues from body language and changes in mannerisms" while using my "expertise" will all things "related" to my "favorite terrain" of "forest", including native inhabitants therein and intuit the animal's manner, mood, concerns, and base level state of mind from watching it's actions, movements, and mannerisms. Is it scared of me/us? Is is scared of something in a different direction? If so, which direction? Is it fearful, panicking, or on alert? Is it trying to run, or hide, or get to something or some place?
and I would respond that you can make a general nature check with expertise to know if this reaction is abnormal, but the actual insight check is a normal role -though if you have favored enemy beast you can have advantage.
If i insight said animal I should get the FT bonus as to what its going to do next. I should be able to identify the direction of said "fear" and know if its a common one or an uncommon one. I may even be able to tell if its a large or small threat. I could know if its a fast or slow threat. I should know if its about to attack. depending on how sensitive the creature is to magic I may even know if its a magical threat.
Earlier in this thread I stated it is unfair to add extra layers to successful attempts at things. While adding rolls alters probability, It is not the only way layers of success/difficulty can be added. You create extra mental loopholes to jump through. It becomes a natural gate because some players will not notice or bother trying. You stated you already had an answer. This means you already think you know if it should apply or not. If "yes It is related" you should just give it to the player instead of making them justify it. You make the ranger pcs parse out their phases in an exact manner for the exact way you want. It's Just like an old text-based adventure where you knew the solution but couldn't put in the command the way the game wanted. This is a layer of difficulty you add not the game rules.
Some of your expectations I do agree with, "know[ing] if its a common one or an uncommon one" would fall into FE, being able to tell that this creature is reacting with a level of fear that is uncommon I would say yes, that applies, but that is about where it ends. You do not get to know "if its a large or small threat. I could know if its a fast or slow threat". I would grant you that would would know "if its [, the scared animal is,] about to attack".
With "depending on how sensitive the creature is to magic I may even know if its a magical threat" are you suggesting that looking at this scared animal you should know if what it is afraid of is magical? That's a no ghost rider - that makes no sense, that would definetly be "unfair [and] add extra layers to successful attempts at things".
"You have been hired to investigate the possibility of a necromancer in the western woods outside of a town. Your group has been traveling the forest for three days. Each day the forest has grown more quiet than the last. As you push through into a small clearing you come across a [animal]. It looks frightened and is moving towards you, stopping as it sees you.
You ask "why is it afraid" I say - make an animal handling or nature check your call - "can I make an insight check instead?" sure go nuts. "can NE apply?" why?
Now, I already have an answer in mind and the justification, but before I put that I want you to tell me why in this instance you think NE should apply."
Alright. Keeping in mind that this is your scenario, and in no way would either nature or animal handling apply to the question asked in this situation, I'll bite.
I want to use insight with the natural explorer benefit added because I'm using my "proficiency" with the "insight" skill to "determine the true intentions" of this animal or "predict it's next move" by "gleaning clues from body language and changes in mannerisms" while using my "expertise" will all things "related" to my "favorite terrain" of "forest", including native inhabitants therein and intuit the animal's manner, mood, concerns, and base level state of mind from watching it's actions, movements, and mannerisms. Is it scared of me/us? Is is scared of something in a different direction? If so, which direction? Is it fearful, panicking, or on alert? Is it trying to run, or hide, or get to something or some place?
and I would respond that you can make a general nature check with expertise to know if this reaction is abnormal, but the actual insight check is a normal role -though if you have favored enemy beast you can have advantage.
In game I would just move on. Done.
But for the discussion here, that isn’t how those two different abilities work. And that’s not how those skills work.
Once again though, the way you have phrased this you are applying a blanket condition. You have effectively said "if I am talking to a goblin in the forest I get both NE and FE no matter what the interaction is or what I asked, it just ALWAYS applies" and that isn't the case. ALL of these bonuses are situational. Sometimes they might apply, sometimes they might not and I am not sure the FE would even apply as directly interacting with them is not part of any bonus FE grants and seems to boil down to flavor text. That being said, I would probably let it apply in most interactions, but not all.
...
First, you are not using the word bulwark correctly, second I didn't say it was out without exception, I said I would need an example or scenario and so far I haven't heard a good one yet. I think we are getting close with the whole animal conversation, but we aren't there yet
I don't know why you felt to quote-reply twice, but no, I did not use bulwark incorrectly. Or, if I did, it's a weird hill for you to pick to make this stand on since I'm borrowing language directly from the PHB.
Hunter
Emulating the Hunter archetype means accepting your place as a bulwark between civilization and the terrors of the wilderness. As you walk the Hunter’s path, you learn specialized techniques for fighting the threats you face, from rampaging ogres and hordes of orcs to towering giants and terrifying dragons.
If you want to quibble that rangers are not literally a physical wall, fine, no one is going to argue with you. They're characters, not objects. But in the metaphorical sense...come on, guy. I want to believe we're all better than this.
And maybe I wasn't clear before, but I didn't say you had to be talking with a goblin in the forest. I said if they were from the forest. Let's put this another way. Say you choose the Underdark for NE and pick Humanoid (dwarf, elf) for your FE. Naturally, this would extend to the duergar and drow. You're familiar, if not knowledgeable, about their customs and traditions. If you're proficient with History, then that bonus applies to any check were the skill might apply to them even if you're not physically there because you still know it. And if they were above ground, say as part of a diplomatic envoy, then Insight would also apply because, again, you're familiar with their customs and way of speaking.
The rules don't outright prohibit Insight from gaining the benefit of doubling its proficiency bonus due to NE, so obviously, there has to be a method for incorporating that skill somewhere. Social dealing with the peoples who live there is the only logical answer.
The double quote was just an unintentional glitch and perhaps I misread your context, it seemed to me like you were using bulwark as a way of saying the ranger can be the bridge between the wild and civilization. Chalk that up to text being an imperfect delivery medium. It wasn't so much a hill, just pointing out that you may not be conveying what I thought you were trying to.
As for "The rules don't outright prohibit Insight from gaining the benefit of doubling its proficiency bonus due to NE, so obviously, there has to be a method for incorporating that skill somewhere. Social dealing with the peoples who live there is the only logical answer." - You assume that the intent is that it HAS to work, that there is a logical answer, but it doesn't. In this example I would say that even though FE has no RAW mechanical advantage in talking to a FE, arguably the flavor text would support RAI to provide a mechanical effect and I would allow you advantage, but just because you are talking to a drow doesn't mean you get NE because Underdark is a favored terrain. So no, you don't get NE on the insight check; however, IF the drow was talking about something directly related to the underdark, then I would say yes, you can use NE on a nature/survival check to know if that is correct or not, regardless of whether they believe it or you believe them.
Now, all that being said, to talk a slight walk from that, if you were having a conversation with a drow and they made a statement trying to convince you of something directly related to the underdark and you asked "do I believe them" and you insisted on using insight (as I would've called for a nature or survival role), I would let NE apply, so congratulations, insight can get NE in the right situation.
"You have been hired to investigate the possibility of a necromancer in the western woods outside of a town. Your group has been traveling the forest for three days. Each day the forest has grown more quiet than the last. As you push through into a small clearing you come across a [animal]. It looks frightened and is moving towards you, stopping as it sees you.
You ask "why is it afraid" I say - make an animal handling or nature check your call - "can I make an insight check instead?" sure go nuts. "can NE apply?" why?
Now, I already have an answer in mind and the justification, but before I put that I want you to tell me why in this instance you think NE should apply."
Alright. Keeping in mind that this is your scenario, and in no way would either nature or animal handling apply to the question asked in this situation, I'll bite.
I want to use insight with the natural explorer benefit added because I'm using my "proficiency" with the "insight" skill to "determine the true intentions" of this animal or "predict it's next move" by "gleaning clues from body language and changes in mannerisms" while using my "expertise" will all things "related" to my "favorite terrain" of "forest", including native inhabitants therein and intuit the animal's manner, mood, concerns, and base level state of mind from watching it's actions, movements, and mannerisms. Is it scared of me/us? Is is scared of something in a different direction? If so, which direction? Is it fearful, panicking, or on alert? Is it trying to run, or hide, or get to something or some place?
and I would respond that you can make a general nature check with expertise to know if this reaction is abnormal, but the actual insight check is a normal role -though if you have favored enemy beast you can have advantage.
In game I would just move on. Done.
But for the discussion here, that isn’t how those two different abilities work. And that’s not how those skills work.
According to you, my interpretation is that I am ruling correctly on their application, regardless my response above should make you happy
Animal handling is moving, manipulating, and otherwise controlling or influencing an animal's behavior, movement, or actions. It is wisdom based as it is a method of simple communication of what you do and how you do it and what impact it has on the animal's reaction or willingness to abide. It also covers physically "handling" an animal. Think of holding a snake or small bird, riding a horse, or interacting with a chimpanzee. Strength animal handling and dexterity animal handling are two of my favorite skills with different abilities!
Insight (in regards to animals) is intuiting the animal's mood, demeanor, possible motivations, and perhaps next actions. It is the opposite of animal handling, and together they form communication as best as can be achieved between a beast and humanoid. Insight is responsive to signs given off by a creature with or without a common form of language, not asserting your desire onto one.
Animal Handling. When there is any question whether you can calm down a domesticated animal, keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal's intentions, the DM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. You also make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to controi your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver.
RAW, Animal Handling is how you do what you just said you use Insight for, when the target is an animal. That's the point of Animal Handling - social skills, but for animals. The other social skills are for non-animals - you don't roll persuasion on an animal, that's also animal handling. Etc.
Animal handling is moving, manipulating, and otherwise controlling or influencing an animal's behavior, movement, or actions. It is wisdom based as it is a method of simple communication of what you do and how you do it and what impact it has on the animal's reaction or willingness to abide. It also covers physically "handling" an animal. Think of holding a snake or small bird, riding a horse, or interacting with a chimpanzee. Strength animal handling and dexterity animal handling are two of my favorite skills with different abilities!
Insight (in regards to animals) is intuiting the animal's mood, demeanor, possible motivations, and perhaps next actions. It is the opposite of animal handling, and together they form communication as best as can be achieved between a beast and humanoid. Insight is responsive to signs given off by a creature with or without a common form of language, not asserting your desire onto one.
Animal Handling. When there is any question whether you can calm down a domesticated animal, keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal's intentions, the DM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. You also make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to controi your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver.
RAW, Animal Handling is how you do what you just said you use Insight for, when the target is an animal. That's the point of Animal Handling - social skills, but for animals. The other social skills are for non-animals - you don't roll persuasion on an animal, that's also animal handling. Etc.
yeah, I have argued that multiple times and just accepted that they want to do it as insight, but not get the NE
This entire "thing" leads me to now believe there is a problem WITH the PHB ranger, but it's not BECAUSE of the PHB ranger. It's because of certain DMs. Never, ever, have I ever experienced anything even remotely resembling this thing of nitpick scrutiny either as a player or DM. It is...unbelievable. Utterly mind boggling. We are talking about whether or not a make believe character gets a 10% better chance to roll a die to accomplish something. The idea that this has to be this insanely descriptive in order to be justified is crazy, at best. So much, SO much, is hand waved by folks for the sake of "fun", or "storytelling", or "faster game play", or "less to keep track of", and yet here we are, trying to justify letting a character do what it is they are designed to do in the manner in which they are meant to do it because one person, playing the DM in this ridiculous "conversation", either doesn't understand what insight is, just pre-hates the ability for this class no matter what, is just purposefully being difficult, or something else that I can not understand. For me, at this point, the words "related to your favored terrain" are being put through the "RAW filter" to a point of...insert your own words here...
I'm glad Tasha's is here. So people, that I pity because they have zero other opportunities to play this game with anyone other than with a, from what I can tell, punishing DM stye, can play what they can call a ranger and skip this level of ridiculousness. Honestly. Adventuring gear, tools, divination magic, illusion magic, and SO MUCH MORE of this game is based on creativity, imagination, communication, and story, I can't believe that this level of scrutiny can exist. I refuse to believe that this is the kind of crazy hurdle jumping that someone would ever have to go through because they want to play a character that is "good at nature", but is apparently punished because they "should have played a scout". Sad. Idiocy. Bias. Sadism.
It isn’t nitpicking, it is just that we are having very specific conversations. In an actual game this wouldn’t come up nearly as often and in game it wouldn’t be noticeable, but 100% of what we are doing is having the 1/25 conversation so yeah, it’s gonna seem like a bigger issue.
Fair enough. I concede that the game bundles intuit for beasts with the animal handling skill. Again, I don’t give a hoot about RAW as law. RAW isn’t what it used to be in this edition.
I continue to stand fast that insight can also be used, both by good sense and RAW guidance. And I stand fast that they would both benefit from the NE boost. Maybe not swamp/bunny, but certainly forest/bunny. Swamp/snake would work. Mountain/bunny.
Insight specifically says a creature. So if can very much be used on animals by the rules. If you are using RAW than you know that "animal" isn't a game term. "Beast" is, and "creature" is.
Fateless, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Arron slipped in a suggestion that FT bonus couldn't be used in the city. So he got you to switch the example location to outside the city boundaries confirming the idea that location matters (even though that wasn't your intent). It doesn't. Ranger knowledge is applicable and can be useful no matter where you are. This is the biggest mis-representation of ranger abilities people make. Only tracking abilities and some perception checks grow or shrink based on location of the ranger. Insight should never gain the bonus while standing in one spot and not apply while in another (assuming all other parts of the situation are the same). Its either related or its not. That's all I'm saying. I agree with the rest of your "Use case" scenarios.
Here's where your kind of getting caught up. Sometimes Where is Important. The argument is not and should not be that Where never has any meaning. Sometimes where you are is important. Sometimes however it's not about where you are but the things that those things can be attributed to such as in this case, Regions of Terrain.
We dont' want to go so far in the other direction that we disregard where you are as one of the variables that can make these skills work and something like Natural Explorer important and useful in a broader sense. Because Sometimes where you are affects it and that's easily understood. And we've never been argueing it isn't. But much like Bridging the Gap to gain understanding and acknowledgement that Insight can be used on much more than conversations directly with each other, That Natural Explorer through it's Favored Terrain has applicability outside of that Terrain as well and has wider applications for various situations. Which has often been the failure of Understanding when it comes to this ability.
Knowledge and understanding to some degree's is about layers. We've Established that Insight has Wider Use. We've then gone on to establish that it can be useful in regions other than the base assumption region of the city to show that it can be used in other Regions. This let's us do something To add onto that Further.
Let's take the Example of a Shadow Quickly descending on your caravan and is rapidly turning into something much larger than any normal bird can manage. Some of us can probably identify what this Shadow is through our Meta Knowledge. The Characters however don't have that luck. So they have some choices to make.
Perception and can probably tell them what it is.
Insight is going to be used to give the group understanding of why it's descending on them before it's too late.
Nature is probably the best one to understand details about what the thing that is descending is.
Natural Explorer can realistically be potentially added to all three of these rolls for the character making them.
Well First. Let's just outright say what that thing is for the knowledge of the group. This thing is a Roc. A bird technically classified as a Monstrosity because it is so much larger than most anything natural since it's full grown size rivals that of things like Ancient Dragons. It also tends to have a massive hunting range so it's considered native to several terrains though one obviously is it's home more than any other. And it's Dietary needs are such that even Giants and Whales can be prey to them while Cities, towns, and villages often are left unmolested because the tiny morsel's aren't worth the effort in places where they have plenty of ways to hide. Yet they will still have things like the remains of ships and Caravan's that they've carried off to make up their nests at times. Usually not caring about whatever treasures might have been inside so they just lay in their nests ignored.
With Knowing this. I think that this can give us something to build onto from the agreements that we've reached so far.
Of those 3 examples your knowledge dose not change with terrain (so 2-3 out of 3). You specifically brought up that the Roc can cross multiple terrain. If you are from a terrain clearly "related to rocs" you should get nature and insight no matter if you are in your chosen terrain or not.
Perception is a funny one because it does become situational. The rangers knowledge of what a rock sounds like will always remain the same (potentially providing a bonus). The difference is whether or not the environment hinders vision. an example would be a desert where the sun is brighter and there are Heat mirages might interfere. another example would be an ocean that causes sounds to eco and carry in funny ways. Still this affects wisdom checks not intelligence ones.
I hold to my point Knowledge based skills are not location dependent. It sounds weird to assume the ability that makes you chose a location (aka terrain) is not dependent on your location but its true for at least half the benefit. This is why so many people have a hard time with NE. It sounds counter intuitive to use it correctly.
Aaah. But see... That's where your getting caught up a bit. The Exact Terrain you are in may not change things about the Roc with 2 of the 3. But your Knowledge about a Terrain does in fact. This is part of the Sometimes that I was speaking of. Your getting too caught up in the black and white again. Your forgetting about the shades of grey. About the Sometimes. About why something might apply and you stopped at Where without considering the Why. The Roc is also unique because it actually does have several terrains. this means that it has several basic geographic region types that can be familiar with it. This is why I picked it. It's one of the more widely lenient examples that we can use. I could have picked something ridiculously Tight example but I did not for a reason.
Knowledge of Coast or Mountain For example. Where Some of it's preferred meals are known to frequently live and where it can be a potentially pretty general threat can cover the familiarity aspect that somebody from the Forest just would not have about the Roc because the Roc isn't good for hunting in that environment so is likely to bypass such an area that exists in it's overall domain. Much like Many people are safe in cities.
So a Ranger that is much more familiar with all things coastal water based, or mountainous are going to know not only what to look out for but how to identify it and what it might be after before a ranger or any other person merely proficient in the right skills is. And those that are merely proficient are going to manage it before somebody that isn't as often as not. I also picked it because it's a monstrosity. This means that it doesn't quite fit certain argument niche's for the sake of not getting into that mess. It is not strictly an animal. It is to an extent something different. Yet it's still well in the purview of a skill such as Insight without causing the conflict with Animal Handling.
This means that for different reasons you can Apply the Favored Terrain of Natural Explorer to the skills. For certain skills it is because of the environments of the threat. For others that I listed it's more likely it's about the environment you are in. This is why I picked the 3 skills that I did. Because it actually covers the sometimes issue on multiple levels. Not only Sometimes being in the area. But sometimes because of your familiarity of an area potentially outside of it.
Animal handling is moving, manipulating, and otherwise controlling or influencing an animal's behavior, movement, or actions. It is wisdom based as it is a method of simple communication of what you do and how you do it and what impact it has on the animal's reaction or willingness to abide. It also covers physically "handling" an animal. Think of holding a snake or small bird, riding a horse, or interacting with a chimpanzee. Strength animal handling and dexterity animal handling are two of my favorite skills with different abilities!
Insight (in regards to animals) is intuiting the animal's mood, demeanor, possible motivations, and perhaps next actions. It is the opposite of animal handling, and together they form communication as best as can be achieved between a beast and humanoid. Insight is responsive to signs given off by a creature with or without a common form of language, not asserting your desire onto one.
Animal Handling. When there is any question whether you can calm down a domesticated animal, keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal's intentions, the DM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. You also make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to controi your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver.
RAW, Animal Handling is how you do what you just said you use Insight for, when the target is an animal. That's the point of Animal Handling - social skills, but for animals. The other social skills are for non-animals - you don't roll persuasion on an animal, that's also animal handling. Etc.
yeah, I have argued that multiple times and just accepted that they want to do it as insight, but not get the NE
There is nothing that stops skills from overlapping and having multiple skills that do the same thing. The Game naturally supports this. As it does for the potential of different Attributes to sometimes apply.
So you are in fact correct that with an Animal Animal Handling does give you understanding of intent of an Animal. However. That does not negate Insight from doing the Same thing. They both do the same thing but with different limitations to what they apply to. The difference is that Animal Handling is much more limited. Insight is not. Insight in no way ever says that it applies to all creatures but Animals/beasts. It simply says all creatures. There is no Omission through Specificity involved.
Your attempts to make Insight Not Work because Animal Handling also applies are actually invalid and incorrect and completely put upon these two skills by you. Not by the Rules.
The Same issue happens to be with Natural Explorer. The restrictions that it can't work are being put there by you. Not by the rules. The Rules actually say these things can happen. I have not gone into overly specific situations to be childishly nitpicked in ways completely counter to the skills and Natural Explorer for a reason. This is what was being done in the other thread. If we are really going to go in depth about all of this so much that we are going to make this thread all about this one thing. I'm not in the mood to play that game. So i'm not going to.
For Example you complain that "Animals running away in fear" of something Tells you nothing and it's too general. It's meant to be general. It's meant to cover a lot of possibilities. Some of them have been gone into in more specifics by others. Some of them haven't. You've usually found reasons to attack most of them and say they are wrong because you are able to attack one detail or another. Treating some small detail as some reason to entirely invalidate the overall whole.
The animals fleeing from something is General because it is meant to be general. It is meant to be open for the Sometimes. Your need to ignore those instances of sometimes you don't agree with, even though you admit that the sometimes are there, are what I'm trying to address now. I'll get into further details when we really reach that point.
Which is part of why I brought up the situation with the Roc. Because this is something that fits in an interesting middle ground. One that is general but broad that further discussion can work to fill in details and build on the understanding of sometimes without just blanket penalizing anything repeatedly which is what this thread is largely devolving into.
Also, I'm sorry to have to say this but You are nitpicking. your repeatedly and avidly attacking little details to make the whole thing invalid without actually giving anything more than superficial reasoning. Many of your answers are "Oh no. This detail far to stretches beyond what should be possible." or "This other things does the same thing so this other thing shouldn't be valid" and others. You don't address what is possible short of that. You focus entirely on the little things and then pretending the overall thing can't happen from them because of a couple flaws. That is in fact Nitpicking.
I can give two primary definitions to Nitpicking for you to help understand why I'm saying this and where I am coming from.
"looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily."
"fussy fault-finding."
They both basically say the same thing just in different ways. And this is behavior that is coming up repeatedly.
My Pointing this out isn't to attack. I'm not looking to Make you Defensive. I'm not always aware of the social tone that things can come across as from myself and I miss some from others. But the Truth of it all is I'm looking for Discussion and understanding between us. Your not the only one I'm clarifying certain mental stance issues with when it comes to actually regarding these things and how they work and the broader, in depth messy picture with and trying to build understanding on a higher level so we can get more into the depths of things. Bias's don't help to reach these kinds of things. I'd rather we move past such things and show our range of knowledge of the possibilities both for and against something like Natural Explorer and the Sometimes situations that it's very much built around because they are sometimes very close to each other.
The Truth is I'm not invested in a need to make it work or not work even though some might accuse me of otherwise. But, I really don't need one to be better than the other at the end of the day. I have never said that either set of abilities doesn't have value like so many others. I criticize the Ranger to some extent too for various other faults. Both with PHB things and with things that have been introduced as they've tried to fix things. But the Truth is if they don't work I can either fix them or avoid them as necessary when it comes to my own games. But these Forums primarily are about how they do or don't work on their own as well.
Jounichi can in fact tell you that he and I do not entirely agree with certain messy details about the Beast Master for example. Even though we do agree that it's still a bit of a mess I believe.
"You have been hired to investigate the possibility of a necromancer in the western woods outside of a town. Your group has been traveling the forest for three days. Each day the forest has grown more quiet than the last. As you push through into a small clearing you come across a [animal]. It looks frightened and is moving towards you, stopping as it sees you.
You ask "why is it afraid" I say - make an animal handling or nature check your call - "can I make an insight check instead?" sure go nuts. "can NE apply?" why?
Now, I already have an answer in mind and the justification, but before I put that I want you to tell me why in this instance you think NE should apply."
Alright. Keeping in mind that this is your scenario, and in no way would either nature or animal handling apply to the question asked in this situation, I'll bite.
I want to use insight with the natural explorer benefit added because I'm using my "proficiency" with the "insight" skill to "determine the true intentions" of this animal or "predict it's next move" by "gleaning clues from body language and changes in mannerisms" while using my "expertise" will all things "related" to my "favorite terrain" of "forest", including native inhabitants therein and intuit the animal's manner, mood, concerns, and base level state of mind from watching it's actions, movements, and mannerisms. Is it scared of me/us? Is is scared of something in a different direction? If so, which direction? Is it fearful, panicking, or on alert? Is it trying to run, or hide, or get to something or some place?
and I would respond that you can make a general nature check with expertise to know if this reaction is abnormal, but the actual insight check is a normal role -though if you have favored enemy beast you can have advantage.
In game I would just move on. Done.
But for the discussion here, that isn’t how those two different abilities work. And that’s not how those skills work.
According to you, my interpretation is that I am ruling correctly on their application, regardless my response above should make you happy
Nature Does not cover knowing the inner workings of how that animals is being in that moment. So he is correct that your interpretation is wrong. You'd have been more correct in matching the skills if you had at least said Animal Handling, though if it is an animal tied to the Terrain of Natural Explorer then the expertise bonus would still apply. Though the reason for animal handling is the same as using Insight. This happens to be a point where they overlap specifically. reading the behavior of the animal and intuiting the reasons behind it and what it will do next.
This is not just according to me. This is according to the objective purpose of all 3 skills and what they do. Nature can tell you it's agitated and something is wrong. But it doesn't necessarily give you any special knowledge into why it might be agitated or what it might actually do. This is one of the specific few reasons why you would hit why Nature would not apply to all the stuff that a Ranger knows that I said would be the smaller list when I listed them all out. Animal Handling and Insight however do exactly that. One specifically to animals/beasts and one to all creatures.
I wonder if AaronWho is trying to avoid here people doing what other people do with athletics and acrobatics. If that's the case, it's unnecessary. This is completely different.
This is a response to most of the last few replies.
I fully agree that skills can overlap, I have said if a player wants to use insight they can. Me saying NE doesn’t apply is not because you are using insight instead of something like animal handling, when I say NE doesn’t apply it doesn’t matter what skill you are using.
Yes, you can have general situations and it is possible that NE can apply to a general, but in my interpretation of the rules using insight on a scared animal depends on what you are trying to determine. If you are trying to determine exactly why this animal is scared and the only information you have is that it is scared, that isn’t enough to get NE, if you then ask why is it scared, you don’t really know because all you have is a scared animal. I would just give you if it is or isn’t unusual for that animal to be afraid of you without provocation.
I as a DM would never give a player something so generic though.
Ultimately I think NE is a cool tool for a Ranger, but I need to see a clear and logical relationship to a terrain before I will let you have it. It should NOT be something you are asking for. I would tell you NE applies when it does. If I didn’t say it does and you want it, you are gonna have to give me your reason. I may agree, I may not.
Jounichi1983 gave a situation that resulted in me seeing a way that insight would work and in a game and if that interaction were playing out I would see what they are trying to do and would work in elements that they could then use NE. If I can’t see a connection though, I am not going to give NE just because.
This is a response to most of the last few replies.
I fully agree that skills can overlap, I have said if a player wants to use insight they can. Me saying NE doesn’t apply is not because you are using insight instead of something like animal handling, when I say NE doesn’t apply it doesn’t matter what skill you are using.
Yes, you can have general situations and it is possible that NE can apply to a general, but in my interpretation of the rules using insight on a scared animal depends on what you are trying to determine. If you are trying to determine exactly why this animal is scared and the only information you have is that it is scared, that isn’t enough to get NE, if you then ask why is it scared, you don’t really know because all you have is a scared animal. I would just give you if it is or isn’t unusual for that animal to be afraid of you without provocation.
I as a DM would never give a player something so generic though.
Ultimately I think NE is a cool tool for a Ranger, but I need to see a clear and logical relationship to a terrain before I will let you have it. It should NOT be something you are asking for. I would tell you NE applies when it does. If I didn’t say it does and you want it, you are gonna have to give me your reason. I may agree, I may not.
Jounichi1983 gave a situation that resulted in me seeing a way that insight would work and in a game and if that interaction were playing out I would see what they are trying to do and would work in elements that they could then use NE. If I can’t see a connection though, I am not going to give NE just because.
NE isn't about necessarily about the outside factors of the animal. It's About the Animal itself. Because you well know certain environments and the things in it. It would apply because of the animal itself or not. Regardless of what your trying to understand about it.
Whether it's Insight or Nature or Animal Handling. You know that animal better because it's part of the environment you specialize in. So the Animal is what is applying the Natural Explorer bonus in that case if it applies. Not what your trying to get out of the animal. What you get out of the animal is the basis of the skill. The Natural Explorer is given because of your understanding of something for that environment. In this case the animal. If the animal is from your chosen Environment Natural Explorer applies. It doesn't care whether your trying to use Nature to undertand it's anatomy and collect it's poison or harvest parts from it, Or if your using Animal Handling or Insight to understand and predict it's behavior. Your more familiar with the animal either way. The skill says what your doing with the animal in this case. But the animal itself and it's natural place in a particular environment is giving you the Natural Explorer benefit.
So if Natural Explorer applies to Nature as your saying because of your familiarity of the animal. The same is true for Insight or Animal Handling for example.
That connection you see form Jounichi's Post. That is what I am talking about when I am saying sometimes and why it applies in a general term. That connection can be applied in other ways. But you seem to be taking a hard stance of "I refuse to make those connections myself and will only accept them if you give them to me" even while admitting they exist. While that is moving in a direction of understanding. That's still making people jump through a lot of hoops when these are connections that you could be making yourself as well. But you seem to refuse to participate in this. As a DM or as a Player it's kind of your job to an extent to help in making these connections. Not just shove it off entirely on the other person. This is part of why the role of DM is difficult to really get a full grasp on.
So you are in fact correct that with an Animal Animal Handling does give you understanding of intent of an Animal. However. That does not negate Insight from doing the Same thing. They both do the same thing but with different limitations to what they apply to. The difference is that Animal Handling is much more limited. Insight is not. Insight in no way ever says that it applies to all creatures but Animals/beasts. It simply says all creatures. There is no Omission through Specificity involved.
By this same logic you can use Animal Handling to gauge the intent of the local baron because people are technically animals. So why ever take Insight if AH pretty much covers its primary use? For the corner cases where you need to figure out the intentions of plants? This just sounds like rogues arguing that they can jump with Acrobatics because they have a low strength but don't want to suffer any consequences for it.
There seems to be this assumption that people would like the OG Ranger more if everyone played the class this way. Honestly, I think it's the opposite and this kind of discourse is why it's disliked in the first place. The Ranger stretching every possible check to fall under NE/FE with logic like "Insight can work on animals too even though it's an explicitly stated domain of Animal Handling" does not make the Ranger seem fun or popular. It makes it tedious to play with and it makes the other players dislike the feature and the player trying to exploit it.
So you are in fact correct that with an Animal Animal Handling does give you understanding of intent of an Animal. However. That does not negate Insight from doing the Same thing. They both do the same thing but with different limitations to what they apply to. The difference is that Animal Handling is much more limited. Insight is not. Insight in no way ever says that it applies to all creatures but Animals/beasts. It simply says all creatures. There is no Omission through Specificity involved.
By this same logic you can use Animal Handling to gauge the intent of the local baron because people are technically animals. So why ever take Insight if AH pretty much covers its primary use? For the corner cases where you need to figure out the intentions of plants? This just sounds like rogues arguing that they can jump with Acrobatics because they have a low strength but don't want to suffer any consequences for it.
There seems to be this assumption that people would like the OG Ranger more if everyone played the class this way. Honestly, I think it's the opposite and this kind of discourse is why it's disliked in the first place. The Ranger stretching every possible check to fall under NE/FE with logic like "Insight can work on animals too even though it's an explicitly stated domain of Animal Handling" does not make the Ranger seem fun or popular. It makes it tedious to play with and it makes the other players dislike the feature and the player trying to exploit it.
Welcome to my world. I keep arguing that NE/FE aren’t blanket abilities and can’t always apply, that there has to be more than “this exist in a forest”.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't know why you felt to quote-reply twice, but no, I did not use bulwark incorrectly. Or, if I did, it's a weird hill for you to pick to make this stand on since I'm borrowing language directly from the PHB.
If you want to quibble that rangers are not literally a physical wall, fine, no one is going to argue with you. They're characters, not objects. But in the metaphorical sense...come on, guy. I want to believe we're all better than this.
And maybe I wasn't clear before, but I didn't say you had to be talking with a goblin in the forest. I said if they were from the forest. Let's put this another way. Say you choose the Underdark for NE and pick Humanoid (dwarf, elf) for your FE. Naturally, this would extend to the duergar and drow. You're familiar, if not knowledgeable, about their customs and traditions. If you're proficient with History, then that bonus applies to any check were the skill might apply to them even if you're not physically there because you still know it. And if they were above ground, say as part of a diplomatic envoy, then Insight would also apply because, again, you're familiar with their customs and way of speaking.
The rules don't outright prohibit Insight from gaining the benefit of doubling its proficiency bonus due to NE, so obviously, there has to be a method for incorporating that skill somewhere. Social dealing with the peoples who live there is the only logical answer.
This entire "thing" leads me to now believe there is a problem WITH the PHB ranger, but it's not BECAUSE of the PHB ranger. It's because of certain DMs. Never, ever, have I ever experienced anything even remotely resembling this thing of nitpick scrutiny either as a player or DM. It is...unbelievable. Utterly mind boggling. We are talking about whether or not a make believe character gets a 10% better chance to roll a die to accomplish something. The idea that this has to be this insanely descriptive in order to be justified is crazy, at best. So much, SO much, is hand waved by folks for the sake of "fun", or "storytelling", or "faster game play", or "less to keep track of", and yet here we are, trying to justify letting a character do what it is they are designed to do in the manner in which they are meant to do it because one person, playing the DM in this ridiculous "conversation", either doesn't understand what insight is, just pre-hates the ability for this class no matter what, is just purposefully being difficult, or something else that I can not understand. For me, at this point, the words "related to your favored terrain" are being put through the "RAW filter" to a point of...insert your own words here...
I'm glad Tasha's is here. So people, that I pity because they have zero other opportunities to play this game with anyone other than with a, from what I can tell, punishing DM stye, can play what they can call a ranger and skip this level of ridiculousness. Honestly. Adventuring gear, tools, divination magic, illusion magic, and SO MUCH MORE of this game is based on creativity, imagination, communication, and story, I can't believe that this level of scrutiny can exist. I refuse to believe that this is the kind of crazy hurdle jumping that someone would ever have to go through because they want to play a character that is "good at nature", but is apparently punished because they "should have played a scout". Sad. Idiocy. Bias. Sadism.
and I would respond that you can make a general nature check with expertise to know if this reaction is abnormal, but the actual insight check is a normal role -though if you have favored enemy beast you can have advantage.
Some of your expectations I do agree with, "know[ing] if its a common one or an uncommon one" would fall into FE, being able to tell that this creature is reacting with a level of fear that is uncommon I would say yes, that applies, but that is about where it ends. You do not get to know "if its a large or small threat. I could know if its a fast or slow threat". I would grant you that would would know "if its [, the scared animal is,] about to attack".
With "depending on how sensitive the creature is to magic I may even know if its a magical threat" are you suggesting that looking at this scared animal you should know if what it is afraid of is magical? That's a no ghost rider - that makes no sense, that would definetly be "unfair [and] add extra layers to successful attempts at things".
In game I would just move on. Done.
But for the discussion here, that isn’t how those two different abilities work. And that’s not how those skills work.
The double quote was just an unintentional glitch and perhaps I misread your context, it seemed to me like you were using bulwark as a way of saying the ranger can be the bridge between the wild and civilization. Chalk that up to text being an imperfect delivery medium. It wasn't so much a hill, just pointing out that you may not be conveying what I thought you were trying to.
As for "The rules don't outright prohibit Insight from gaining the benefit of doubling its proficiency bonus due to NE, so obviously, there has to be a method for incorporating that skill somewhere. Social dealing with the peoples who live there is the only logical answer." - You assume that the intent is that it HAS to work, that there is a logical answer, but it doesn't. In this example I would say that even though FE has no RAW mechanical advantage in talking to a FE, arguably the flavor text would support RAI to provide a mechanical effect and I would allow you advantage, but just because you are talking to a drow doesn't mean you get NE because Underdark is a favored terrain. So no, you don't get NE on the insight check; however, IF the drow was talking about something directly related to the underdark, then I would say yes, you can use NE on a nature/survival check to know if that is correct or not, regardless of whether they believe it or you believe them.
Now, all that being said, to talk a slight walk from that, if you were having a conversation with a drow and they made a statement trying to convince you of something directly related to the underdark and you asked "do I believe them" and you insisted on using insight (as I would've called for a nature or survival role), I would let NE apply, so congratulations, insight can get NE in the right situation.
CAKE FOR EVERYONE!
According to you, my interpretation is that I am ruling correctly on their application, regardless my response above should make you happy
Animal Handling. When there is any question
whether you can calm down a domesticated animal,
keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal's
intentions, the DM might call for a Wisdom (Animal
Handling) check. You also make a Wisdom (Animal
Handling) check to controi your mount when you attempt
a risky maneuver.
RAW, Animal Handling is how you do what you just said you use Insight for, when the target is an animal. That's the point of Animal Handling - social skills, but for animals. The other social skills are for non-animals - you don't roll persuasion on an animal, that's also animal handling. Etc.
yeah, I have argued that multiple times and just accepted that they want to do it as insight, but not get the NE
It isn’t nitpicking, it is just that we are having very specific conversations. In an actual game this wouldn’t come up nearly as often and in game it wouldn’t be noticeable, but 100% of what we are doing is having the 1/25 conversation so yeah, it’s gonna seem like a bigger issue.
Fair enough. I concede that the game bundles intuit for beasts with the animal handling skill. Again, I don’t give a hoot about RAW as law. RAW isn’t what it used to be in this edition.
I continue to stand fast that insight can also be used, both by good sense and RAW guidance. And I stand fast that they would both benefit from the NE boost. Maybe not swamp/bunny, but certainly forest/bunny. Swamp/snake would work. Mountain/bunny.
Insight specifically says a creature. So if can very much be used on animals by the rules. If you are using RAW than you know that "animal" isn't a game term. "Beast" is, and "creature" is.
Aaah. But see... That's where your getting caught up a bit. The Exact Terrain you are in may not change things about the Roc with 2 of the 3. But your Knowledge about a Terrain does in fact. This is part of the Sometimes that I was speaking of. Your getting too caught up in the black and white again. Your forgetting about the shades of grey. About the Sometimes. About why something might apply and you stopped at Where without considering the Why. The Roc is also unique because it actually does have several terrains. this means that it has several basic geographic region types that can be familiar with it. This is why I picked it. It's one of the more widely lenient examples that we can use. I could have picked something ridiculously Tight example but I did not for a reason.
Knowledge of Coast or Mountain For example. Where Some of it's preferred meals are known to frequently live and where it can be a potentially pretty general threat can cover the familiarity aspect that somebody from the Forest just would not have about the Roc because the Roc isn't good for hunting in that environment so is likely to bypass such an area that exists in it's overall domain. Much like Many people are safe in cities.
So a Ranger that is much more familiar with all things coastal water based, or mountainous are going to know not only what to look out for but how to identify it and what it might be after before a ranger or any other person merely proficient in the right skills is. And those that are merely proficient are going to manage it before somebody that isn't as often as not. I also picked it because it's a monstrosity. This means that it doesn't quite fit certain argument niche's for the sake of not getting into that mess. It is not strictly an animal. It is to an extent something different. Yet it's still well in the purview of a skill such as Insight without causing the conflict with Animal Handling.
This means that for different reasons you can Apply the Favored Terrain of Natural Explorer to the skills. For certain skills it is because of the environments of the threat. For others that I listed it's more likely it's about the environment you are in. This is why I picked the 3 skills that I did. Because it actually covers the sometimes issue on multiple levels. Not only Sometimes being in the area. But sometimes because of your familiarity of an area potentially outside of it.
There is nothing that stops skills from overlapping and having multiple skills that do the same thing. The Game naturally supports this. As it does for the potential of different Attributes to sometimes apply.
So you are in fact correct that with an Animal Animal Handling does give you understanding of intent of an Animal. However. That does not negate Insight from doing the Same thing. They both do the same thing but with different limitations to what they apply to. The difference is that Animal Handling is much more limited. Insight is not. Insight in no way ever says that it applies to all creatures but Animals/beasts. It simply says all creatures. There is no Omission through Specificity involved.
Your attempts to make Insight Not Work because Animal Handling also applies are actually invalid and incorrect and completely put upon these two skills by you. Not by the Rules.
The Same issue happens to be with Natural Explorer. The restrictions that it can't work are being put there by you. Not by the rules. The Rules actually say these things can happen. I have not gone into overly specific situations to be childishly nitpicked in ways completely counter to the skills and Natural Explorer for a reason. This is what was being done in the other thread. If we are really going to go in depth about all of this so much that we are going to make this thread all about this one thing. I'm not in the mood to play that game. So i'm not going to.
For Example you complain that "Animals running away in fear" of something Tells you nothing and it's too general. It's meant to be general. It's meant to cover a lot of possibilities. Some of them have been gone into in more specifics by others. Some of them haven't. You've usually found reasons to attack most of them and say they are wrong because you are able to attack one detail or another. Treating some small detail as some reason to entirely invalidate the overall whole.
The animals fleeing from something is General because it is meant to be general. It is meant to be open for the Sometimes. Your need to ignore those instances of sometimes you don't agree with, even though you admit that the sometimes are there, are what I'm trying to address now. I'll get into further details when we really reach that point.
Which is part of why I brought up the situation with the Roc. Because this is something that fits in an interesting middle ground. One that is general but broad that further discussion can work to fill in details and build on the understanding of sometimes without just blanket penalizing anything repeatedly which is what this thread is largely devolving into.
Also, I'm sorry to have to say this but You are nitpicking. your repeatedly and avidly attacking little details to make the whole thing invalid without actually giving anything more than superficial reasoning. Many of your answers are "Oh no. This detail far to stretches beyond what should be possible." or "This other things does the same thing so this other thing shouldn't be valid" and others. You don't address what is possible short of that. You focus entirely on the little things and then pretending the overall thing can't happen from them because of a couple flaws. That is in fact Nitpicking.
I can give two primary definitions to Nitpicking for you to help understand why I'm saying this and where I am coming from.
They both basically say the same thing just in different ways. And this is behavior that is coming up repeatedly.
My Pointing this out isn't to attack. I'm not looking to Make you Defensive. I'm not always aware of the social tone that things can come across as from myself and I miss some from others. But the Truth of it all is I'm looking for Discussion and understanding between us. Your not the only one I'm clarifying certain mental stance issues with when it comes to actually regarding these things and how they work and the broader, in depth messy picture with and trying to build understanding on a higher level so we can get more into the depths of things. Bias's don't help to reach these kinds of things. I'd rather we move past such things and show our range of knowledge of the possibilities both for and against something like Natural Explorer and the Sometimes situations that it's very much built around because they are sometimes very close to each other.
The Truth is I'm not invested in a need to make it work or not work even though some might accuse me of otherwise. But, I really don't need one to be better than the other at the end of the day. I have never said that either set of abilities doesn't have value like so many others. I criticize the Ranger to some extent too for various other faults. Both with PHB things and with things that have been introduced as they've tried to fix things. But the Truth is if they don't work I can either fix them or avoid them as necessary when it comes to my own games. But these Forums primarily are about how they do or don't work on their own as well.
Jounichi can in fact tell you that he and I do not entirely agree with certain messy details about the Beast Master for example. Even though we do agree that it's still a bit of a mess I believe.
Nature Does not cover knowing the inner workings of how that animals is being in that moment. So he is correct that your interpretation is wrong. You'd have been more correct in matching the skills if you had at least said Animal Handling, though if it is an animal tied to the Terrain of Natural Explorer then the expertise bonus would still apply. Though the reason for animal handling is the same as using Insight. This happens to be a point where they overlap specifically. reading the behavior of the animal and intuiting the reasons behind it and what it will do next.
This is not just according to me. This is according to the objective purpose of all 3 skills and what they do. Nature can tell you it's agitated and something is wrong. But it doesn't necessarily give you any special knowledge into why it might be agitated or what it might actually do. This is one of the specific few reasons why you would hit why Nature would not apply to all the stuff that a Ranger knows that I said would be the smaller list when I listed them all out. Animal Handling and Insight however do exactly that. One specifically to animals/beasts and one to all creatures.
I wonder if AaronWho is trying to avoid here people doing what other people do with athletics and acrobatics. If that's the case, it's unnecessary. This is completely different.
I can't wait until we start breaking down the perception skill into sight, hearing, and smell.
This is a response to most of the last few replies.
I fully agree that skills can overlap, I have said if a player wants to use insight they can. Me saying NE doesn’t apply is not because you are using insight instead of something like animal handling, when I say NE doesn’t apply it doesn’t matter what skill you are using.
Yes, you can have general situations and it is possible that NE can apply to a general, but in my interpretation of the rules using insight on a scared animal depends on what you are trying to determine. If you are trying to determine exactly why this animal is scared and the only information you have is that it is scared, that isn’t enough to get NE, if you then ask why is it scared, you don’t really know because all you have is a scared animal. I would just give you if it is or isn’t unusual for that animal to be afraid of you without provocation.
I as a DM would never give a player something so generic though.
Ultimately I think NE is a cool tool for a Ranger, but I need to see a clear and logical relationship to a terrain before I will let you have it. It should NOT be something you are asking for. I would tell you NE applies when it does. If I didn’t say it does and you want it, you are gonna have to give me your reason. I may agree, I may not.
Jounichi1983 gave a situation that resulted in me seeing a way that insight would work and in a game and if that interaction were playing out I would see what they are trying to do and would work in elements that they could then use NE. If I can’t see a connection though, I am not going to give NE just because.
NE isn't about necessarily about the outside factors of the animal. It's About the Animal itself. Because you well know certain environments and the things in it. It would apply because of the animal itself or not. Regardless of what your trying to understand about it.
Whether it's Insight or Nature or Animal Handling. You know that animal better because it's part of the environment you specialize in. So the Animal is what is applying the Natural Explorer bonus in that case if it applies. Not what your trying to get out of the animal. What you get out of the animal is the basis of the skill. The Natural Explorer is given because of your understanding of something for that environment. In this case the animal. If the animal is from your chosen Environment Natural Explorer applies. It doesn't care whether your trying to use Nature to undertand it's anatomy and collect it's poison or harvest parts from it, Or if your using Animal Handling or Insight to understand and predict it's behavior. Your more familiar with the animal either way. The skill says what your doing with the animal in this case. But the animal itself and it's natural place in a particular environment is giving you the Natural Explorer benefit.
So if Natural Explorer applies to Nature as your saying because of your familiarity of the animal. The same is true for Insight or Animal Handling for example.
That connection you see form Jounichi's Post. That is what I am talking about when I am saying sometimes and why it applies in a general term. That connection can be applied in other ways. But you seem to be taking a hard stance of "I refuse to make those connections myself and will only accept them if you give them to me" even while admitting they exist. While that is moving in a direction of understanding. That's still making people jump through a lot of hoops when these are connections that you could be making yourself as well. But you seem to refuse to participate in this. As a DM or as a Player it's kind of your job to an extent to help in making these connections. Not just shove it off entirely on the other person. This is part of why the role of DM is difficult to really get a full grasp on.
By this same logic you can use Animal Handling to gauge the intent of the local baron because people are technically animals. So why ever take Insight if AH pretty much covers its primary use? For the corner cases where you need to figure out the intentions of plants? This just sounds like rogues arguing that they can jump with Acrobatics because they have a low strength but don't want to suffer any consequences for it.
There seems to be this assumption that people would like the OG Ranger more if everyone played the class this way. Honestly, I think it's the opposite and this kind of discourse is why it's disliked in the first place. The Ranger stretching every possible check to fall under NE/FE with logic like "Insight can work on animals too even though it's an explicitly stated domain of Animal Handling" does not make the Ranger seem fun or popular. It makes it tedious to play with and it makes the other players dislike the feature and the player trying to exploit it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Welcome to my world. I keep arguing that NE/FE aren’t blanket abilities and can’t always apply, that there has to be more than “this exist in a forest”.