Also Things like Dragons, Beholders, Elementals, and Djinn can all lie to you but none of them are humanoids. So the argument clearly only for humanoids goes bust right htere. There are just too many creatures that aren't humanoid that verbal and non-verbal communication is capable with for it to just be about humanoids. If it was just about humanoids they wouldn't have bothered with the word Creature in the first place. The whole thing in that sentence about lies or knowing something's next move are also just placeholder examples. They are not the be all and End All of uses for that particular part of insight.
Edit: Also. Overlap in skills capabilities also does not invalidate a use of a skill. it just creates a situation where there are two ways to approach the same thing and both may be applicable. This is not unheard of in D&D and is actually accepted as possible in the rules in many ways.
When I said humanoids I didn't mean the creature type, it was my way of saying something that can actually speak a language.
I provided a perfectly reasonable example with the cart in the woods but to further ensure no other checks are involved, assume the ranger is actually listening to the story in a tavern where there is no possibility of actually examining the site before deciding to believe them or not.
Was that in the other thread? I have no recollection of anything involving a cart in the woods.
How about A party is traveling through a forest and Meets a broken down wagon. The cleric driving the wagon is named Schrodinger. He starts telling the tale about how a certain creature stalked the wagon and then describes the actual attack. Is he lying or telling the truth?
The rangers Knowledge can provide insight into the story signaling red flags. Wait this terrain is too rocky for tracks to get that deep over a 10min rainstorm the ground wouln't be soft enough? Wait you said a creature attacked when the plant right next to the wagon irritates the sinus of said creature?
They could also confirm some ridiculous part that is true. the bright sunny day where the cleric claims it rained but the only wet spot is next to some broken casks. His knowledge of the mud/clay in the area would allow quick estimates to if the rainstorm out of nowhere timeline is reasonable.
This is the example I said cart one place and wagon in the original post. so the goal is to determine if the story about being attacked is true even if the story were repeated in a tavern. Should the rangers knowledge of the terrain allow him to recognize the truth or false hoods in the full recounting of events.
How about A party is traveling through a forest and Meets a broken down wagon. The cleric driving the wagon is named Schrodinger. He starts telling the tale about how a certain creature stalked the wagon and then describes the actual attack. Is he lying or telling the truth?
The rangers Knowledge can provide insight into the story signaling red flags. Wait this terrain is too rocky for tracks to get that deep over a 10min rainstorm the ground wouln't be soft enough? Wait you said a creature attacked when the plant right next to the wagon irritates the sinus of said creature?
They could also confirm some ridiculous part that is true. the bright sunny day where the cleric claims it rained but the only wet spot is next to some broken casks. His knowledge of the mud/clay in the area would allow quick estimates to if the rainstorm out of nowhere timeline is reasonable.
This is the example I said cart one place and wagon in the original post. so the goal is to determine if the story about being attacked is true even if the story were repeated in a tavern. Should the rangers knowledge of the terrain allow him to recognize the truth or false hoods in the full recounting of events.
An interesting theory, but I would disagree about the checks you would use to get there. If you ask me "do I believe his story" I am going to call for an insight check, if you then say "do I get NE" - I would say no, why? If you then explained any of the above then I am going to say, interesting, I like the way you are thinking, in that case give me a nature check to see if the damage looks like it was made by the animal, or a survival check to know if it really did rain or if the tracks do look right.
So yes, your example is good in that it would be a way to try and possibly apply NE to a check, but it is bad in that it isn't really an insight check anymore. You have your doubts, but the way you are trying to confirm your suspicion has nothing to do with reading the individual, but rather investigating the details of his story.
Don't get me wrong, I love that you are trying to use your skills in a way that makes sense, I am just saying that I am going to let you do that, just not with insight as it no longer really applies to what you are trying to accomplish.
How about A party is traveling through a forest and Meets a broken down wagon. The cleric driving the wagon is named Schrodinger. He starts telling the tale about how a certain creature stalked the wagon and then describes the actual attack. Is he lying or telling the truth?
The rangers Knowledge can provide insight into the story signaling red flags. Wait this terrain is too rocky for tracks to get that deep over a 10min rainstorm the ground wouln't be soft enough? Wait you said a creature attacked when the plant right next to the wagon irritates the sinus of said creature?
They could also confirm some ridiculous part that is true. the bright sunny day where the cleric claims it rained but the only wet spot is next to some broken casks. His knowledge of the mud/clay in the area would allow quick estimates to if the rainstorm out of nowhere timeline is reasonable.
This is the example I said cart one place and wagon in the original post. so the goal is to determine if the story about being attacked is true even if the story were repeated in a tavern. Should the rangers knowledge of the terrain allow him to recognize the truth or false hoods in the full recounting of events.
An interesting theory, but I would disagree about the checks you would use to get there. If you ask me "do I believe his story" I am going to call for an insight check, if you then say "do I get NE" - I would say no, why? If you then explained any of the above then I am going to say, interesting, I like the way you are thinking, in that case give me a nature check to see if the damage looks like it was made by the animal, or a survival check to know if it really did rain or if the tracks do look right.
So yes, your example is good in that it would be a way to try and possibly apply NE to a check, but it is bad in that it isn't really an insight check anymore. You have your doubts, but the way you are trying to confirm your suspicion has nothing to do with reading the individual, but rather investigating the details of his story.
Don't get me wrong, I love that you are trying to use your skills in a way that makes sense, I am just saying that I am going to let you do that, just not with insight as it no longer really applies to what you are trying to accomplish.
Here is the thing. Your saying I would. Your always finding reasons why it is subjective and only your viewpoint counts. Your only finding reasons to say no. Even though your being given valid open reasons for things. Your still only finding reasons to dislike it and find reasons why it is useless.
It doesnt' stop being an insight check Just because it also involves something else. This is just like the issue with Animal Handling. Just because it is involving something else or overlaps with another skill does not make it not work. But you repeatedly decide things just don't work if they can be overlapped into something else or give reasons to ignore it because you don't want to make a connection. An Ordered Investigative Mind is going to do things in an Ordered manner. And it isn't all about reading just the individual.
This goes back to another Example where Sherlock Holmes can Apply. he was very insightful. But it was as often because of an ordered set of clues about the person as the person themselves. Noticing something in the environment that does not fit while the person is talking about things that happened in their environment can still be a use of insight to tell if they are lying. Just because somebody using Investigate can reach a similar conclusion does not invalidate that. But you are repeatedly subjectively pushing all of that aside because you have decided that Insight cannot be used.
Insight is used any time you are relying on intuition, hunches, or gut feelings. It can apply to environments in the sense of changes in mood or tone. A sudden hush sweeping through a forest or the calm before a storm are both valid uses of the insight skill. Likely these would be passive checks but NE would still apply.
The rules could have simply said the ranger gets the double proficiency bonus on nature and survival checks if proficient. But they don’t. They specifically mention all intelligence amd wisdom skills (if proficient) are capable.
Perhaps AaronWho would give us an example of how insight would work.
I'm a fan - and I realize this is a house rule - of applying the logic of grapples and shoves to other skill overlaps. There, the skill you roll to resist is athletics or acrobatics, your choice, because both apply. When two or more skills overlap to such an extent both clearly apply, I like letting the character's controller choose which skill to roll.
A good example is animal handling vs other social skills when rolled against a beast, in particular one with high Int and a language so we don't get into weird weeds (Persuasion on a normal earthworm doesn't even make sense, that's what Animal Handling is for). But supposing you're interacting with a Giant Owl, I would let you e.g. choose Animal Handling or Insight in most Insight cases, since AH broadly speaking is usually how you roll Insight on beasts, but Insight is for people, and the Owl is both.
A weirder corner case (regardless of whether you agree with my house rule or not) is interacting with someone who has been polymorphed, since they adopt the new creature's type *and mental stats*, despite retaining the core of their personality.
I'm a fan - and I realize this is a house rule - of applying the logic of grapples and shoves to other skill overlaps. There, the skill you roll to resist is athletics or acrobatics, your choice, because both apply. When two or more skills overlap to such an extent both clearly apply, I like letting the character's controller choose which skill to roll.
A good example is animal handling vs other social skills when rolled against a beast, in particular one with high Int and a language so we don't get into weird weeds (Persuasion on a normal earthworm doesn't even make sense, that's what Animal Handling is for). But supposing you're interacting with a Giant Owl, I would let you e.g. choose Animal Handling or Insight in most Insight cases, since AH broadly speaking is usually how you roll Insight on beasts, but Insight is for people, and the Owl is both.
A weirder corner case (regardless of whether you agree with my house rule or not) is interacting with someone who has been polymorphed, since they adopt the new creature's type *and mental stats*, despite retaining the core of their personality.
Winter Wolves and Worgs do technically have their own languages. Winter Wolf is one that can be potentially understood but not really spoken by most creatures. And they tend to understand a couple of other languages enough to basically follow conversations. Worgs can actually speak in more than one language including their own language. Guardian Wolves understand both Elven and Common but don't have a language of their own. For whatever reason nothing past the Dire Wolf is labeled beast so All 3 of these beasts are technically Monstrosities because of their size and capabilities. But we have to remember that Monstrosity is the catch all category covering many things that are basically just "Monsters" in the strictest sense in some way. Though some of them like these 3 are still essentially semi-supernatural beasts that are tied to particular kinds of regions or groups of humanoids. So what this can really mean is that Animal Handling probably wouldn't be entirely appropriate but Insight Would be. yet they are still something that could potentially be covered in knowledge of a region.
Winter Wolves are afterall still Arctic creatures. And Worg's are still Forest Creatures at their core.
Here is the thing. Your saying I would. Your always finding reasons why it is subjective and only your viewpoint counts. Your only finding reasons to say no. Even though your being given valid open reasons for things. Your still only finding reasons to dislike it and find reasons why it is useless.
It doesnt' stop being an insight check Just because it also involves something else. This is just like the issue with Animal Handling. Just because it is involving something else or overlaps with another skill does not make it not work. But you repeatedly decide things just don't work if they can be overlapped into something else or give reasons to ignore it because you don't want to make a connection. An Ordered Investigative Mind is going to do things in an Ordered manner. And it isn't all about reading just the individual.
This goes back to another Example where Sherlock Holmes can Apply. he was very insightful. But it was as often because of an ordered set of clues about the person as the person themselves. Noticing something in the environment that does not fit while the person is talking about things that happened in their environment can still be a use of insight to tell if they are lying. Just because somebody using Investigate can reach a similar conclusion does not invalidate that. But you are repeatedly subjectively pushing all of that aside because you have decided that Insight cannot be used.
Of course I am saying I would, I can only offer an answer as to what I would do or how I interpret the rule.
As a player, in that cart question if I want to doubt a specific aspect of his story I would specifically ask about that thing, not a generic "do I believe him". If I said to any DM I have ever played with "looking at the cart, does the damage look consistent with an animal attack" all of them are going to call for a check, none of them are going to call for that check as Insight. Yes, at the core I am saying that I don't believe this guy, but how I am trying to confirm that has nothing to do with Insight.
The rules could have simply said the ranger gets the double proficiency bonus on nature and survival checks if proficient. But they don’t. They specifically mention all intelligence amd wisdom skills (if proficient) are capable.
Perhaps AaronWho would give us an example of how insight would work.
Yes, but they do so in the most vague and open to interpretation way possible. As to how insight would work in a way that connects to NE....
I genuinely can't think of an example of how you would apply insight as it relates to a terrain. Nor have I seen one provided. In the cart scenario if the DM wants to give the player the option of using insight on the person in addition to a nature/survival check fine, but I would argue that the nature/survival check is the only one that NE might apply to depending on which scenario you are trying to investigate.
The rules could have simply said the ranger gets the double proficiency bonus on nature and survival checks if proficient. But they don’t. They specifically mention all intelligence amd wisdom skills (if proficient) are capable.
Perhaps AaronWho would give us an example of how insight would work.
Yes, but they do so in the most vague and open to interpretation way possible. As to how insight would work in a way that connects to NE....
I genuinely can't think of an example of how you would apply insight as it relates to a terrain. Nor have I seen one provided. In the cart scenario if the DM wants to give the player the option of using insight on the person in addition to a nature/survival check fine, but I would argue that the nature/survival check is the only one that NE might apply to depending on which scenario you are trying to investigate.
Fair enough. And I guess this is why so many people dislike these abilities. They are ambiguous in nature and only as reliable as your familiarity with your DM.
The abilities of the level 1 ranger want to reward wisdom and intelligence. I guess I always just think it's pretty clear cut.
The rules could have simply said the ranger gets the double proficiency bonus on nature and survival checks if proficient. But they don’t. They specifically mention all intelligence amd wisdom skills (if proficient) are capable.
Perhaps AaronWho would give us an example of how insight would work.
Yes, but they do so in the most vague and open to interpretation way possible. As to how insight would work in a way that connects to NE....
I genuinely can't think of an example of how you would apply insight as it relates to a terrain. Nor have I seen one provided. In the cart scenario if the DM wants to give the player the option of using insight on the person in addition to a nature/survival check fine, but I would argue that the nature/survival check is the only one that NE might apply to depending on which scenario you are trying to investigate.
How would you use insight ever? I'm attempting to separate the two. Break it down a bit.
Remember the goal of the cart story was to determine if the person was lying. so in a situation where you know the terrain but cannot examine it it would be Insight but with a bonus to the check. situations like a retelling in court or in a immediate threat-trust situation. time may be a factor it could be an ambush or a were creature who as soon as you look away takes the surprise attack. But the ranger might immediately know that This person couldn't have slipped in the mud while his friend fell over because its a down hill slope(or too rocky or what ever natural reason)
If you were to require a second check you now have created a second layer dramatically affecting probability. basically making it a 2 part check when the bard would only have one.
in this situation there is a balance issue where the dm should know if its a factor but the player might not have details that the pc would. Placing the skill switch into very meta territory (no pun intended, really it was on second read I noticed )
You are actually creating situations where the expert trained in Both insight and Ranger stuff (like the lone ranger) are actively punished for using their skills. First ranger is a MAD Class and IMO the FT and FE are the one thing that makes it viable. most rangers I've seen usually have a higher wisdom than int. so at level 1 assuming an insight check with wisdom 14 you have 2wis+2Prof no expertise because nature is the ruling. now compare That to a nature check usually +0 or +1 on most ranger builds I've seen That would be INt (1or 2) + 4 (double prof) which is approximately one different. but.. it requires double the choice investment (2 skills instead of one) Basically to under cut player builds. the NE bonus on insight however rewards skill synergy.
you've created the situation "Some" players complain about unnecessarily . If you as a dm just knew nature was involved the roll would be made and done. The second option of asking the player to justify their actions or switching to nature disconnects other players at the table and makes them feel like their playing with Patrick Rothfuss so the others feel like the ranger is cheating when they are within game rules. (Patrick Rothfuss is a sweet talker who can convince JC any roll is a skill he's good at. He's Basically the ultimate rules lawyer. see acquisitions incorporated)
Remember the goal of the cart story was to determine if the person was lying. so in a situation where you know the terrain but cannot examine it it would be Insight but with a bonus to the check. situations like a retelling in court or in a immediate threat-trust situation. time may be a factor it could be an ambush or a were creature who as soon as you look away takes the surprise attack. But the ranger might immediately know that This person couldn't have slipped in the mud while his friend fell over because its a down hill slope(or too rocky or what ever natural reason)
If you were to require a second check you now have created a second layer dramatically affecting probability. basically making it a 2 part check when the bard would only have one.
in this situation there is a balance issue where the dm should know if its a factor but the player might not have details that the pc would. Placing the skill switch into very meta territory (no pun intended, really it was on second read I noticed )
You are actually creating situations where the expert trained in Both insight and Ranger stuff (like the lone ranger) are actively punished for using their skills. First ranger is a MAD Class and IMO the FT and FE are the one thing that makes it viable. most rangers I've seen usually have a higher wisdom than int. so at level 1 assuming an insight check with wisdom 14 you have 2wis+2Prof no expertise because nature is the ruling. now compare That to a nature check usually +0 or +1 on most ranger builds I've seen That would be INt (1or 2) + 4 (double prof) which is approximately one different. but.. it requires double the choice investment (2 skills instead of one) Basically to under cut player builds. the NE bonus on insight however rewards skill synergy.
you've created the situation "Some" players complain about unnecessarily . If you as a dm just knew nature was involved the roll would be made and done. The second option of asking the player to justify their actions or switching to nature disconnects other players at the table and makes them feel like their playing with Patrick Rothfuss so the others feel like the ranger is cheating when they are within game rules. (Patrick Rothfuss is a sweet talker who can convince JC any roll is a skill he's good at. He's Basically the ultimate rules lawyer. see acquisitions incorporated)
Patrick Rothfuss is far more interesting in either Systems he's far less intimately knowledgeable in or with a DM he doesn't readily know how to manipulate. But yes. He is very prone to switching things around to his advantage at every opportunity in his most regular groups.
I wasn't really thinking of it full enough to mention it before. But in regards to other players. It does create a different problem with the group as well. If you let one player roll one thing and then make another player justify things just because they have a potential bonus to it and then end up after the justification telling them to roll something completely different. You can very easily create inadvertent situations of "Well if I'd known I could roll that then I would have asked to roll that!" because there are plenty of times that they are actually better at other skills but feel competent enough in the skills mentioned to make the roll anyway and you could always end up shifting it to the skill they were much better in and would have rather rolled but were under the impression that it did not apply. which can cause strife either amongst the group or between the players and the DM.
Though you do also point out a way that I must be odd. With my Rangers if I'm really going to outright dump a stat it's usually Charisma on the excuse that being a nature person I'm just not good with people in various ways since most animal based things aren't charisma based naturally in 5e. Int tends to be one of my higher stats after dex and wis usually.
Remember the goal of the cart story was to determine if the person was lying. so in a situation where you know the terrain but cannot examine it it would be Insight but with a bonus to the check. situations like a retelling in court or in a immediate threat-trust situation. time may be a factor it could be an ambush or a were creature who as soon as you look away takes the surprise attack. But the ranger might immediately know that This person couldn't have slipped in the mud while his friend fell over because its a down hill slope(or too rocky or what ever natural reason)
If you were to require a second check you now have created a second layer dramatically affecting probability. basically making it a 2 part check when the bard would only have one.
in this situation there is a balance issue where the dm should know if its a factor but the player might not have details that the pc would. Placing the skill switch into very meta territory (no pun intended, really it was on second read I noticed )
You are actually creating situations where the expert trained in Both insight and Ranger stuff (like the lone ranger) are actively punished for using their skills. First ranger is a MAD Class and IMO the FT and FE are the one thing that makes it viable. most rangers I've seen usually have a higher wisdom than int. so at level 1 assuming an insight check with wisdom 14 you have 2wis+2Prof no expertise because nature is the ruling. now compare That to a nature check usually +0 or +1 on most ranger builds I've seen That would be INt (1or 2) + 4 (double prof) which is approximately one different. but.. it requires double the choice investment (2 skills instead of one) Basically to under cut player builds. the NE bonus on insight however rewards skill synergy.
you've created the situation "Some" players complain about unnecessarily . If you as a dm just knew nature was involved the roll would be made and done. The second option of asking the player to justify their actions or switching to nature disconnects other players at the table and makes them feel like their playing with Patrick Rothfuss so the others feel like the ranger is cheating when they are within game rules. (Patrick Rothfuss is a sweet talker who can convince JC any roll is a skill he's good at. He's Basically the ultimate rules lawyer. see acquisitions incorporated)
I wasn't calling for a 2 part check, I can see I used poor phrasing. I would allow either insight on the the person telling the story or nature/survival to investigate some aspect of his story.
The rules could have simply said the ranger gets the double proficiency bonus on nature and survival checks if proficient. But they don’t. They specifically mention all intelligence amd wisdom skills (if proficient) are capable.
Perhaps AaronWho would give us an example of how insight would work.
Yes, but they do so in the most vague and open to interpretation way possible. As to how insight would work in a way that connects to NE....
I genuinely can't think of an example of how you would apply insight as it relates to a terrain. Nor have I seen one provided. In the cart scenario if the DM wants to give the player the option of using insight on the person in addition to a nature/survival check fine, but I would argue that the nature/survival check is the only one that NE might apply to depending on which scenario you are trying to investigate.
How would you use insight ever? I'm attempting to separate the two. Break it down a bit.
Any conversation where you think the other person or speaking creature may be lying. Or something like "how do they seem, are they nervous", " do I think they are up to something", "does that seem like he is lowballing/overcharging me" - things like that
Another example I suppose. Insight can be used not only to determine a creature's basic intentions towards you but also towards others. So you can use insight to detect hostility or to detect any changes in attitude based on detection of hostility by any surrounding creature. For example a traveler in the woods may or may not be hostile, an insight check made against the traveler doesn't benefit from NE but an insight check made against local squirrels to see if they think he's hostile does. The player need not be passive in this regard as local squirrels can be encouraged with food and speak with animal spells to follow the party around.
The rules could have simply said the ranger gets the double proficiency bonus on nature and survival checks if proficient. But they don’t. They specifically mention all intelligence amd wisdom skills (if proficient) are capable.
Perhaps AaronWho would give us an example of how insight would work.
Yes, but they do so in the most vague and open to interpretation way possible. As to how insight would work in a way that connects to NE....
I genuinely can't think of an example of how you would apply insight as it relates to a terrain. Nor have I seen one provided. In the cart scenario if the DM wants to give the player the option of using insight on the person in addition to a nature/survival check fine, but I would argue that the nature/survival check is the only one that NE might apply to depending on which scenario you are trying to investigate.
How would you use insight ever? I'm attempting to separate the two. Break it down a bit.
Any conversation where you think the other person or speaking creature may be lying. Or something like "how do they seem, are they nervous", " do I think they are up to something", "does that seem like he is lowballing/overcharging me" - things like that
The rules could have simply said the ranger gets the double proficiency bonus on nature and survival checks if proficient. But they don’t. They specifically mention all intelligence amd wisdom skills (if proficient) are capable.
Perhaps AaronWho would give us an example of how insight would work.
Yes, but they do so in the most vague and open to interpretation way possible. As to how insight would work in a way that connects to NE....
I genuinely can't think of an example of how you would apply insight as it relates to a terrain. Nor have I seen one provided. In the cart scenario if the DM wants to give the player the option of using insight on the person in addition to a nature/survival check fine, but I would argue that the nature/survival check is the only one that NE might apply to depending on which scenario you are trying to investigate.
How would you use insight ever? I'm attempting to separate the two. Break it down a bit.
Any conversation where you think the other person or speaking creature may be lying. Or something like "how do they seem, are they nervous", " do I think they are up to something", "does that seem like he is lowballing/overcharging me" - things like that
But only a person? Not an animal?
Not unless it is speaking to the entire party somehow
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I said humanoids I didn't mean the creature type, it was my way of saying something that can actually speak a language.
Was that in the other thread? I have no recollection of anything involving a cart in the woods.
This is the example I said cart one place and wagon in the original post. so the goal is to determine if the story about being attacked is true even if the story were repeated in a tavern. Should the rangers knowledge of the terrain allow him to recognize the truth or false hoods in the full recounting of events.
An interesting theory, but I would disagree about the checks you would use to get there. If you ask me "do I believe his story" I am going to call for an insight check, if you then say "do I get NE" - I would say no, why? If you then explained any of the above then I am going to say, interesting, I like the way you are thinking, in that case give me a nature check to see if the damage looks like it was made by the animal, or a survival check to know if it really did rain or if the tracks do look right.
So yes, your example is good in that it would be a way to try and possibly apply NE to a check, but it is bad in that it isn't really an insight check anymore. You have your doubts, but the way you are trying to confirm your suspicion has nothing to do with reading the individual, but rather investigating the details of his story.
Don't get me wrong, I love that you are trying to use your skills in a way that makes sense, I am just saying that I am going to let you do that, just not with insight as it no longer really applies to what you are trying to accomplish.
Here is the thing. Your saying I would. Your always finding reasons why it is subjective and only your viewpoint counts. Your only finding reasons to say no. Even though your being given valid open reasons for things. Your still only finding reasons to dislike it and find reasons why it is useless.
It doesnt' stop being an insight check Just because it also involves something else. This is just like the issue with Animal Handling. Just because it is involving something else or overlaps with another skill does not make it not work. But you repeatedly decide things just don't work if they can be overlapped into something else or give reasons to ignore it because you don't want to make a connection. An Ordered Investigative Mind is going to do things in an Ordered manner. And it isn't all about reading just the individual.
This goes back to another Example where Sherlock Holmes can Apply. he was very insightful. But it was as often because of an ordered set of clues about the person as the person themselves. Noticing something in the environment that does not fit while the person is talking about things that happened in their environment can still be a use of insight to tell if they are lying. Just because somebody using Investigate can reach a similar conclusion does not invalidate that. But you are repeatedly subjectively pushing all of that aside because you have decided that Insight cannot be used.
Insight is used any time you are relying on intuition, hunches, or gut feelings. It can apply to environments in the sense of changes in mood or tone. A sudden hush sweeping through a forest or the calm before a storm are both valid uses of the insight skill. Likely these would be passive checks but NE would still apply.
The rules could have simply said the ranger gets the double proficiency bonus on nature and survival checks if proficient. But they don’t. They specifically mention all intelligence amd wisdom skills (if proficient) are capable.
Perhaps AaronWho would give us an example of how insight would work.
I'm a fan - and I realize this is a house rule - of applying the logic of grapples and shoves to other skill overlaps. There, the skill you roll to resist is athletics or acrobatics, your choice, because both apply. When two or more skills overlap to such an extent both clearly apply, I like letting the character's controller choose which skill to roll.
A good example is animal handling vs other social skills when rolled against a beast, in particular one with high Int and a language so we don't get into weird weeds (Persuasion on a normal earthworm doesn't even make sense, that's what Animal Handling is for). But supposing you're interacting with a Giant Owl, I would let you e.g. choose Animal Handling or Insight in most Insight cases, since AH broadly speaking is usually how you roll Insight on beasts, but Insight is for people, and the Owl is both.
A weirder corner case (regardless of whether you agree with my house rule or not) is interacting with someone who has been polymorphed, since they adopt the new creature's type *and mental stats*, despite retaining the core of their personality.
Winter Wolves and Worgs do technically have their own languages. Winter Wolf is one that can be potentially understood but not really spoken by most creatures. And they tend to understand a couple of other languages enough to basically follow conversations. Worgs can actually speak in more than one language including their own language. Guardian Wolves understand both Elven and Common but don't have a language of their own. For whatever reason nothing past the Dire Wolf is labeled beast so All 3 of these beasts are technically Monstrosities because of their size and capabilities. But we have to remember that Monstrosity is the catch all category covering many things that are basically just "Monsters" in the strictest sense in some way. Though some of them like these 3 are still essentially semi-supernatural beasts that are tied to particular kinds of regions or groups of humanoids. So what this can really mean is that Animal Handling probably wouldn't be entirely appropriate but Insight Would be. yet they are still something that could potentially be covered in knowledge of a region.
Winter Wolves are afterall still Arctic creatures. And Worg's are still Forest Creatures at their core.
Of course I am saying I would, I can only offer an answer as to what I would do or how I interpret the rule.
As a player, in that cart question if I want to doubt a specific aspect of his story I would specifically ask about that thing, not a generic "do I believe him". If I said to any DM I have ever played with "looking at the cart, does the damage look consistent with an animal attack" all of them are going to call for a check, none of them are going to call for that check as Insight.
Yes, at the core I am saying that I don't believe this guy, but how I am trying to confirm that has nothing to do with Insight.
Yes, but they do so in the most vague and open to interpretation way possible. As to how insight would work in a way that connects to NE....
I genuinely can't think of an example of how you would apply insight as it relates to a terrain. Nor have I seen one provided. In the cart scenario if the DM wants to give the player the option of using insight on the person in addition to a nature/survival check fine, but I would argue that the nature/survival check is the only one that NE might apply to depending on which scenario you are trying to investigate.
Fair enough. And I guess this is why so many people dislike these abilities. They are ambiguous in nature and only as reliable as your familiarity with your DM.
The abilities of the level 1 ranger want to reward wisdom and intelligence. I guess I always just think it's pretty clear cut.
How would you use insight ever? I'm attempting to separate the two. Break it down a bit.
Remember the goal of the cart story was to determine if the person was lying. so in a situation where you know the terrain but cannot examine it it would be Insight but with a bonus to the check. situations like a retelling in court or in a immediate threat-trust situation. time may be a factor it could be an ambush or a were creature who as soon as you look away takes the surprise attack. But the ranger might immediately know that This person couldn't have slipped in the mud while his friend fell over because its a down hill slope(or too rocky or what ever natural reason)
Patrick Rothfuss is far more interesting in either Systems he's far less intimately knowledgeable in or with a DM he doesn't readily know how to manipulate. But yes. He is very prone to switching things around to his advantage at every opportunity in his most regular groups.
I wasn't really thinking of it full enough to mention it before. But in regards to other players. It does create a different problem with the group as well. If you let one player roll one thing and then make another player justify things just because they have a potential bonus to it and then end up after the justification telling them to roll something completely different. You can very easily create inadvertent situations of "Well if I'd known I could roll that then I would have asked to roll that!" because there are plenty of times that they are actually better at other skills but feel competent enough in the skills mentioned to make the roll anyway and you could always end up shifting it to the skill they were much better in and would have rather rolled but were under the impression that it did not apply. which can cause strife either amongst the group or between the players and the DM.
Though you do also point out a way that I must be odd. With my Rangers if I'm really going to outright dump a stat it's usually Charisma on the excuse that being a nature person I'm just not good with people in various ways since most animal based things aren't charisma based naturally in 5e. Int tends to be one of my higher stats after dex and wis usually.
I wasn't calling for a 2 part check, I can see I used poor phrasing. I would allow either insight on the the person telling the story or nature/survival to investigate some aspect of his story.
Any conversation where you think the other person or speaking creature may be lying. Or something like "how do they seem, are they nervous", " do I think they are up to something", "does that seem like he is lowballing/overcharging me" - things like that
Another example I suppose. Insight can be used not only to determine a creature's basic intentions towards you but also towards others. So you can use insight to detect hostility or to detect any changes in attitude based on detection of hostility by any surrounding creature. For example a traveler in the woods may or may not be hostile, an insight check made against the traveler doesn't benefit from NE but an insight check made against local squirrels to see if they think he's hostile does. The player need not be passive in this regard as local squirrels can be encouraged with food and speak with animal spells to follow the party around.
But only a person? Not an animal?
Not unless it is speaking to the entire party somehow