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.
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.
Once again we seem to be back to “the fact that this is an animal that exist in my terrain means I automatically get NE on every check against it”
I am not sure how much value there is in continuing this if every dozen post I have to explain why NE is not an always on ability.
‘The good news is my semester is wrapping so I can figure out the game and we can actually play some DnD and not just talk about it. Then I can see how you guys are in actual play.
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.
Once again we seem to be back to “the fact that this is an animal that exist in my terrain means I automatically get NE on every check against it”
I am not sure how much value there is in continuing this if every dozen post I have to explain why NE is not an always on ability.
‘The good news is my semester is wrapping so I can figure out the game and we can actually play some DnD and not just talk about it. Then I can see how you guys are in actual play.
The feature doesn't apply to just any ability check. You have to be proficient in an Intelligence or Wisdom skill, too. ;)
But, seriously, the intent is rather clear. It's attitudes like yours that lead to people hating on the ranger, calling it a garbage class. Why shouldn't Natural Explorer be an "always-on" feature?
I think the only reason it isn’t always on is because of the way the Ranger is written. Wizards specifically made a feature for creatures (FE) and one for environments (NE). Then they made the descriptions broad and vague meaning they have to be interpreted. I know you think I am rigid in my interpretation, but I am not. By strictest RAW, NE shouldn’t apply to creatures at all, but even I allow it.
So as a DM, my interpretation is to say that for the most part, NE has to be about the environment. There has to be something about the check that in some way connects to the environment. Now if you want to play it in your game that it is always on and you have ten skills (which you can’t even have as a pure ranger unless you start taking feats) that you have expertise in all the time have at it.
There is a reason the revised ranger from 2017 did away with you picking a terrain and why the Tasha’s options are universal - because they know they messed up and it took them waaaay too long to fix it because they were terrified of what releasing a new version of a core class would do, but they did fix it finally and I would bet money that 6e sees a continuation of that progression and NE and FE disappear entirely.
I think the only reason it isn’t always on is because of the way the Ranger is written. Wizards specifically made a feature for creatures (FE) and one for environments (NE). Then they made the descriptions broad and vague meaning they have to be interpreted. I know you think I am rigid in my interpretation, but I am not. By strictest RAW, NE shouldn’t apply to creatures at all, but even I allow it.
So as a DM, my interpretation is to say that for the most part, NE has to be about the environment. There has to be something about the check that in some way connects to the environment. Now if you want to play it in your game that it is always on and you have ten skills (which you can’t even have as a pure ranger unless you start taking feats) that you have expertise in all the time have at it.
There is a reason the revised ranger from 2017 did away with you picking a terrain and why the Tasha’s options are universal - because they know they messed up and it took them waaaay too long to fix it because they were terrified of what releasing a new version of a core class would do, but they did fix it finally and I would bet money that 6e sees a continuation of that progression and NE and FE disappear entirely.
For the most part, Natural Explorer does pertain to the environment. And there's a lot of leeway with how it's meant to be used. That's perhaps the biggest source of contention over the class: people thinking they need to talk to the DM or otherwise metagame in order to play it effectively.
That said, creatures native to the environment are also part of that environment. The finer points about different elf or goblin communities aside, there are going to be common elements between them all if they live in a forest. There are necessities to surviving there, learned skills and perhaps even behaviors, that may transcend regional borders. The elves of the Ardeep Forest and Neverwinter Wood are distinct groups, but there may be shared customs between them that a ranger familiar with one group might recognize in the other.
And we know it's possible for the two features, Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, to work together. Favored Enemy allows for the granting of advantage both for Wisdom (skill]Survival[/skill]) checks to track and for Intelligence checks to recall information. This is compatible with Natural Explorer's ability to double one's proficiency bonus if already proficient. So a hypothetical ranger, proficient in History would get to roll with advantage and double their proficiency bonus if trying to recall lore about a FE native to one of their chosen terrains. Or to track them.
Admittedly, you've been silent on other skills. You haven't really weighed in on Intelligence skills. It's just the one social skill you have a problem with. A social skill which isn't prohibited from applying, or having the feature apply to, but you were all too keen to disregard anyway.
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.
This is all Patently False. Because by the definitions and the Organization of the Game. The Baron is not in fact an animal. He is more likely a humanoid. There is a defined difference between the two in the Context of the game regardless of your attempt to twist things. In the Context of the Game both are in fact Creatures. But both are not in fact animals. They are different Subsects of Creatures. The Baron wuold be in Fact Humanoid most likely primarily because of the structure of the game and the fact that it is largely humanoids that wuold be holding such a position as they are heavily dealt with in the context of the game, that you might refer to as people. though there is a small chance he comes under some other possible Subset such as Draconic, Monsterous, Abomination, or Even Abberation as examples. Which are all under the classification of creature but in the context of the game are different from Animal.
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.
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.
Once again we seem to be back to “the fact that this is an animal that exist in my terrain means I automatically get NE on every check against it”
I am not sure how much value there is in continuing this if every dozen post I have to explain why NE is not an always on ability.
‘The good news is my semester is wrapping so I can figure out the game and we can actually play some DnD and not just talk about it. Then I can see how you guys are in actual play.
You have not once in any way. Given valid reason why it does not apply to the Creature from a particular region when a characters expertise is from that region. Not Once.
You've nitpicked details to throw out the larger argument as I have said. Without addressing any details that actually fit and then called it a day. Well that Particular Forest Animal. That's a detail that works that you've often chosen to naysay incorrectly. Which I have attempted to point out to you before. But you have never actually given anything near an accurate reason as to why it doesn't fit. While demanding we give accurate and Detailed reasons why it might.
You've even admitted there can be detailed or even general reasons that it might be applied. But you refuse to in any way actually define that in most situations. Instead choosing to make blanket statements about details that you don't seem to Want.
Then you are complaining that we are back on this detail when it's a basic fundamental detail that fits what you've already agreed to.
I challenge you right now. Give me a reason. Give Me Why a Valid check in Detail would not apply to an animal From a Particular Environment that Natural Explorer can apply to which means any Intelligence or Wisdom Based Skills. And it has to be one Where it Truely Doesn't Apply. Not one where you decide it can be applied to one skill but not another because that's what you seem to be comfortable thinking those skill checks are ok. And this Reason cannot be simply because Another Skill does that thing. It has to be why your Familiarity with Forests environments and the things and situations that call it home cannot apply to that creature while the skill still functions.
I think the only reason it isn’t always on is because of the way the Ranger is written. Wizards specifically made a feature for creatures (FE) and one for environments (NE). Then they made the descriptions broad and vague meaning they have to be interpreted. I know you think I am rigid in my interpretation, but I am not. By strictest RAW, NE shouldn’t apply to creatures at all, but even I allow it.
So as a DM, my interpretation is to say that for the most part, NE has to be about the environment. There has to be something about the check that in some way connects to the environment. Now if you want to play it in your game that it is always on and you have ten skills (which you can’t even have as a pure ranger unless you start taking feats) that you have expertise in all the time have at it.
There is a reason the revised ranger from 2017 did away with you picking a terrain and why the Tasha’s options are universal - because they know they messed up and it took them waaaay too long to fix it because they were terrified of what releasing a new version of a core class would do, but they did fix it finally and I would bet money that 6e sees a continuation of that progression and NE and FE disappear entirely.
For the most part, Natural Explorer does pertain to the environment. And there's a lot of leeway with how it's meant to be used. That's perhaps the biggest source of contention over the class: people thinking they need to talk to the DM or otherwise metagame in order to play it effectively.
That said, creatures native to the environment are also part of that environment. The finer points about different elf or goblin communities aside, there are going to be common elements between them all if they live in a forest. There are necessities to surviving there, learned skills and perhaps even behaviors, that may transcend regional borders. The elves of the Ardeep Forest and Neverwinter Wood are distinct groups, but there may be shared customs between them that a ranger familiar with one group might recognize in the other.
And we know it's possible for the two features, Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, to work together. Favored Enemy allows for the granting of advantage both for Wisdom (skill]Survival[/skill]) checks to track and for Intelligence checks to recall information. This is compatible with Natural Explorer's ability to double one's proficiency bonus if already proficient. So a hypothetical ranger, proficient in History would get to roll with advantage and double their proficiency bonus if trying to recall lore about a FE native to one of their chosen terrains. Or to track them.
Admittedly, you've been silent on other skills. You haven't really weighed in on Intelligence skills. It's just the one social skill you have a problem with. A social skill which isn't prohibited from applying, or having the feature apply to, but you were all too keen to disregard anyway.
When it comes to this particular thread. i haven't even had the real chance yet to start talking about other Skills in an attempt to remain concise and Reach one controlled concensus at a time. He chose to start with Insight so that's where we've primarily been for several pages. i would have followed up with others afterwards. But he's shown similar distaste for other Intelligence and Wisdom Based skills in other threads such at the one he did for polling between PHB and Tasha's option preference and the Ranger Suck Thread. But I was going to tackle more of the rest of that in it's due time.
I think a real question here, AaronWho, is as a DM would you EVER allow each/any of the wisdom and intelligence skills to benefit from the NE bonus. Several of us think you think not. I know Tasha's refocus the ranger's options in more of a physical direction and gives them a single little token expertise, but the original abilities are meant to be a wide net. I don't think all of them should apply all of the time, the opposite actually, but they should all be able to be applied at some point and in some situations. Your (I'm sorry for the negative spin on the language) "hang up" on the related to your favorite terrain can ONLY apply to dirt, plants, and the air, is a big sticking point. No one that grows up in the lands of Louisiana (forest? swamp?) isn't more knowledgable and familiar with alligators, snakes, crawfish, and other animals that live there. than the "average person". That is what some of us are driving home in this conversation. Perhaps the idea of forests in general versus a specific stretch of forests is what is holding you up? I could understand that point of view. But anything that falls under the umbrella of "BLANK is true in any/all of the BLANK terrain type" should be considered related to that terrain. So maybe not goblins and forests since not all forests have goblins and not all goblins live in forests, but certainly deer, owls, rabbits, etc., as they all live in forests and all forests have them.
Arcana
Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.
History
Your Intelligence (History) check measures your ability to recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations.
Investigation
When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Nature
Your Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles.
Religion
Your Intelligence (Religion) check measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults.
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 control your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver.
Insight
Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.
Medicine
A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness.
Perception
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
Survival
The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide your group through frozen wastelands, identify signs that owlbears live nearby, predict the weather, or avoid quicksand and other natural hazards.
You have not once in any way. Given valid reason why it does not apply to the Creature from a particular region when a characters expertise is from that region. Not Once.
You've nitpicked details to throw out the larger argument as I have said. Without addressing any details that actually fit and then called it a day. Well that Particular Forest Animal. That's a detail that works that you've often chosen to naysay incorrectly. Which I have attempted to point out to you before. But you have never actually given anything near an accurate reason as to why it doesn't fit. While demanding we give accurate and Detailed reasons why it might.
You've even admitted there can be detailed or even general reasons that it might be applied. But you refuse to in any way actually define that in most situations. Instead choosing to make blanket statements about details that you don't seem to Want.
Then you are complaining that we are back on this detail when it's a basic fundamental detail that fits what you've already agreed to.
I challenge you right now. Give me a reason. Give Me Why a Valid check in Detail would not apply to an animal From a Particular Environment that Natural Explorer can apply to which means any Intelligence or Wisdom Based Skills. And it has to be one Where it Truely Doesn't Apply. Not one where you decide it can be applied to one skill but not another because that's what you seem to be comfortable thinking those skill checks are ok. And this Reason cannot be simply because Another Skill does that thing. It has to be why your Familiarity with Forests environments and the things and situations that call it home cannot apply to that creature while the skill still functions.
Ok, using the example we have discussed, without hearing or seeing anything threatening you come across a scared animal and ask "what is it afraid of" NE will not apply. The environment has zero impact on the animal and is not related to why it is afraid.
I think a real question here, AaronWho, is as a DM would you EVER allow each/any of the wisdom and intelligence skills to benefit from the NE bonus. Several of us think you think not. I know Tasha's refocus the ranger's options in more of a physical direction and gives them a single little token expertise, but the original abilities are meant to be a wide net. I don't think all of them should apply all of the time, the opposite actually, but they should all be able to be applied at some point and in some situations. Your (I'm sorry for the negative spin on the language) "hang up" on the related to your favorite terrain can ONLY apply to dirt, plants, and the air, is a big sticking point. No one that grows up in the lands of Louisiana (forest? swamp?) isn't more knowledgable and familiar with alligators, snakes, crawfish, and other animals that live there. than the "average person". That is what some of us are driving home in this conversation. Perhaps the idea of forests in general versus a specific stretch of forests is what is holding you up? I could understand that point of view. But anything that falls under the umbrella of "BLANK is true in any/all of the BLANK terrain type" should be considered related to that terrain. So maybe not goblins and forests since not all forests have goblins and not all goblins live in forests, but certainly deer, owls, rabbits, etc., as they all live in forests and all forests have them.
Short answer is yes, all of those skill could potentially benefit from NE, but to varying degrees.
Investigation, Nature, Animal Handling, Perception, and Survival are going to come up most often and have the highest percentage of time they can be used, but will not apply 100% of the time. The easiest one is getting perception while in the environment.
Arcana, History, Religion, Insight, and Medicine could get NE, but unlike the above the chance is much smaller that they will benefit from NE.
So the first batch has a better than 50% chance that they could benefit NE, the second batch has a less than 50% chance that NE will apply, but neither does or does not work 100% of the time.
As a DM, I am going to build in opportunities for players to use their skills and abilities, but that doesn't mean I am going to have figured out a way that NE can apply everytime just because I know the Ranger has it. Even in the 1 shot when I know everyone has some ranger not EVERYTHING will benefit from NE.
Right. So being IN the terrain certainly makes it much clearer as to when a skill is related to a favored terrain. When I look at Tasha's optional replacement for NE I ask myself if this is meant to be "equal in power" to the original ability or "a boost in power" over the original. Personally I feel Tasha's in general is a power creep book, more so than any other we've seen from WotC, but the replacement abilities are closer to being equal power. They seem to me to be more universally usable, ESPECIALLY for things like DDAL and other organized play. Any non campaign based group, really. They have more video game style mechanics that are less applicable to world building and world exploration. That being said, the Tasha's optional replacement abilities, at level 10, get you: 1. 2 languages, a skill expertise, +5 speed, climbing speed, swimming speed, temporary hit points, and a exhaustion mitigation mechanic. At level 10, the original NE gets you more (3 in total) terrain types to possibly apply expertise to skills and make traveling safer, faster, more survivable, etc. The time, place, manner, and scope of how and when the ranger has opportunities to use this ability with the skill they have should grow as the character progresses in levels. I understand your view on the limitations of the ability. I just personally think it makes a only small positive difference (10%-20%) when the DM says "yes" and makes a bigger negative difference when the DM says "no".
You have not once in any way. Given valid reason why it does not apply to the Creature from a particular region when a characters expertise is from that region. Not Once.
You've nitpicked details to throw out the larger argument as I have said. Without addressing any details that actually fit and then called it a day. Well that Particular Forest Animal. That's a detail that works that you've often chosen to naysay incorrectly. Which I have attempted to point out to you before. But you have never actually given anything near an accurate reason as to why it doesn't fit. While demanding we give accurate and Detailed reasons why it might.
You've even admitted there can be detailed or even general reasons that it might be applied. But you refuse to in any way actually define that in most situations. Instead choosing to make blanket statements about details that you don't seem to Want.
Then you are complaining that we are back on this detail when it's a basic fundamental detail that fits what you've already agreed to.
I challenge you right now. Give me a reason. Give Me Why a Valid check in Detail would not apply to an animal From a Particular Environment that Natural Explorer can apply to which means any Intelligence or Wisdom Based Skills. And it has to be one Where it Truely Doesn't Apply. Not one where you decide it can be applied to one skill but not another because that's what you seem to be comfortable thinking those skill checks are ok. And this Reason cannot be simply because Another Skill does that thing. It has to be why your Familiarity with Forests environments and the things and situations that call it home cannot apply to that creature while the skill still functions.
Ok, using the example we have discussed, without hearing or seeing anything threatening you come across a scared animal and ask "what is it afraid of" NE will not apply. The environment has zero impact on the animal and is not related to why it is afraid.
The environment having Zero impact on the animal is never true. The question is not does the environment apply. The question is if it is the right environment. You are always determined to say no. The Animal always has an environment it is attached to and always has an environment it is in. There is no way to escape this. There is no way to disconnect the animal from Environment. But it is possible for the type of environment to be Wrong for the use of NE.
You have not once in any way. Given valid reason why it does not apply to the Creature from a particular region when a characters expertise is from that region. Not Once.
You've nitpicked details to throw out the larger argument as I have said. Without addressing any details that actually fit and then called it a day. Well that Particular Forest Animal. That's a detail that works that you've often chosen to naysay incorrectly. Which I have attempted to point out to you before. But you have never actually given anything near an accurate reason as to why it doesn't fit. While demanding we give accurate and Detailed reasons why it might.
You've even admitted there can be detailed or even general reasons that it might be applied. But you refuse to in any way actually define that in most situations. Instead choosing to make blanket statements about details that you don't seem to Want.
Then you are complaining that we are back on this detail when it's a basic fundamental detail that fits what you've already agreed to.
I challenge you right now. Give me a reason. Give Me Why a Valid check in Detail would not apply to an animal From a Particular Environment that Natural Explorer can apply to which means any Intelligence or Wisdom Based Skills. And it has to be one Where it Truely Doesn't Apply. Not one where you decide it can be applied to one skill but not another because that's what you seem to be comfortable thinking those skill checks are ok. And this Reason cannot be simply because Another Skill does that thing. It has to be why your Familiarity with Forests environments and the things and situations that call it home cannot apply to that creature while the skill still functions.
Ok, using the example we have discussed, without hearing or seeing anything threatening you come across a scared animal and ask "what is it afraid of" NE will not apply. The environment has zero impact on the animal and is not related to why it is afraid.
The environment having Zero impact on the animal is never true. The question is not does the environment apply. The question is if it is the right environment. You are always determined to say no. The Animal always has an environment it is attached to and always has an environment it is in. There is no way to escape this. There is no way to disconnect the animal from Environment. But it is possible for the type of environment to be Wrong for the use of NE.
but again, it simply being an animal that exist in the environment is not sufficient
You have not once in any way. Given valid reason why it does not apply to the Creature from a particular region when a characters expertise is from that region. Not Once.
You've nitpicked details to throw out the larger argument as I have said. Without addressing any details that actually fit and then called it a day. Well that Particular Forest Animal. That's a detail that works that you've often chosen to naysay incorrectly. Which I have attempted to point out to you before. But you have never actually given anything near an accurate reason as to why it doesn't fit. While demanding we give accurate and Detailed reasons why it might.
You've even admitted there can be detailed or even general reasons that it might be applied. But you refuse to in any way actually define that in most situations. Instead choosing to make blanket statements about details that you don't seem to Want.
Then you are complaining that we are back on this detail when it's a basic fundamental detail that fits what you've already agreed to.
I challenge you right now. Give me a reason. Give Me Why a Valid check in Detail would not apply to an animal From a Particular Environment that Natural Explorer can apply to which means any Intelligence or Wisdom Based Skills. And it has to be one Where it Truely Doesn't Apply. Not one where you decide it can be applied to one skill but not another because that's what you seem to be comfortable thinking those skill checks are ok. And this Reason cannot be simply because Another Skill does that thing. It has to be why your Familiarity with Forests environments and the things and situations that call it home cannot apply to that creature while the skill still functions.
Ok, using the example we have discussed, without hearing or seeing anything threatening you come across a scared animal and ask "what is it afraid of" NE will not apply. The environment has zero impact on the animal and is not related to why it is afraid.
The environment having Zero impact on the animal is never true. The question is not does the environment apply. The question is if it is the right environment. You are always determined to say no. The Animal always has an environment it is attached to and always has an environment it is in. There is no way to escape this. There is no way to disconnect the animal from Environment. But it is possible for the type of environment to be Wrong for the use of NE.
but again, it simply being an animal that exist in the environment is not sufficient
At this point I think you need more justification, explain how an animal can exist in the environment on a Regular basis and not pertain to knowledge ecosystem. Whether its a food source for humans or animals or if it damages a food source for animals, It all is related to the environment. If the ranger can remember the necessary information they will roll high enough to succeed If the ranger doesn't they won't.
Ground Squirrels live in the forrest....but a species lives in the Desert as well.
Obviously a ranger with the Forrest for NE would know about the variety in their forrest...but why would they know about the variety in the desert? They wouldn't.
They may generally infer (regular nature check) but they do not hold specific information enough to invoke NE.
At best they could identify if the creature was one from a forest and then recall knowledge on that creature but if they are not from the biome why would they get NE for it?
At this point I think you need more justification, explain how an animal can exist in the environment on a Regular basis and not pertain to knowledge ecosystem. Whether its a food source for humans or animals or if it damages a food source for animals, It all is related to the environment. If the ranger can remember the necessary information they will roll high enough to succeed If the ranger doesn't they won't.
As discussed previously, even though by RAW NE gets you nothing about creatures, I do grant some degree of use. You would know if an animal is not native to the area, you would know generally how aggressive a given animal is on average, you would have a minimal knowledge of behavior and that's about it.
So in the example we have used, you are coming across an animal and it looks scared - you have not heard any noise suggesting some big horrible thing is in pursuit, there is no evidence that anything is out of the ordinary. So you asking "why is it scared" does not get you NE on an animal handling or insight check because the environment is irrelevant to the check. The simple fact that it is a creature that exist in the environment does not mean you 100% get NE. Regardless of the roll I am going to tell you that it isn't something that would normally react with fear to people. Even with a good roll the most you are getting is that "you reason that it has seen something it found deeply disturbing, but you can't imagine what that might have been".
Ground Squirrels live in the forrest....but a species lives in the Desert as well.
Obviously a ranger with the Forrest for NE would know about the variety in their forrest...but why would they know about the variety in the desert? They wouldn't.
They may generally infer (regular nature check) but they do not hold specific information enough to invoke NE.
At best they could identify if the creature was one from a forest and then recall knowledge on that creature but if they are not from the biome why would they get NE for it?
Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
Why the second and not the first - the second example is knowing something about the environment, knowing what kind of wildlife exist there and how to use the environment to find that wildlife. The first is trying to, without ANY context, make a SPECIFIC determination about the INDIVIDUAL actions of a single creature.
Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
This is literally applying NE to squirrels, How can you not call this getting the bonus? Your terms and systems for determining knowledge application Probably cause you as much frustration as it does everyone else........ indicating it was not designers intent to have frustration rather than simple application.
Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
This is literally applying NE to squirrels, How can you not call this getting the bonus? Your terms and systems for determining knowledge application Probably cause you as much frustration as it does everyone else........ indicating it was not designers intent to have frustration rather than simple application.
I would argue that the fact that several of us have vastly different opinions on how this should be interpreted is not exactly making it "simple" application. In fact its the opposite if it creates mass confusion on how its supposed to be run. Most people find this ability at best mildly useful to useless as based on several surveys. No other class has gone through the ringer like Ranger to replace features such as this and the designers themselves have stated several times that it is a feature people do not like on average and that it involves something that most tables just do not engage in.
I do not hate the ranger...I like it a lot as a martial spellcaster its just barely beaten out by Paladin for overall best IMO. Even with my optimism for the class I find NE to be a terrible ability that I have never seen any table (and I have been with at least 5 rangers in my time) used to any real efficacy. Most people do not care as they simply like the class despite this feature but generally comment something else would be better.
WotC came out with Revised Ranger....then Mearls came out with his version...and then there were several other versions to "Fix" ranger. The community produced version after version to fix it as well.
Overall even if the ability is somewhat useful in the right scenario...its not useful enough evidently as an option to replace it was introduced. Yes you can still use NE and yes some people still find it useful (as they likely always did in their games) but I have yet to see a classes defining feature changed so much beyond Ranger...no other class had the extensive playtesting to fix its issues.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Once again we seem to be back to “the fact that this is an animal that exist in my terrain means I automatically get NE on every check against it”
I am not sure how much value there is in continuing this if every dozen post I have to explain why NE is not an always on ability.
‘The good news is my semester is wrapping so I can figure out the game and we can actually play some DnD and not just talk about it. Then I can see how you guys are in actual play.
The feature doesn't apply to just any ability check. You have to be proficient in an Intelligence or Wisdom skill, too. ;)
But, seriously, the intent is rather clear. It's attitudes like yours that lead to people hating on the ranger, calling it a garbage class. Why shouldn't Natural Explorer be an "always-on" feature?
I think the only reason it isn’t always on is because of the way the Ranger is written. Wizards specifically made a feature for creatures (FE) and one for environments (NE). Then they made the descriptions broad and vague meaning they have to be interpreted. I know you think I am rigid in my interpretation, but I am not. By strictest RAW, NE shouldn’t apply to creatures at all, but even I allow it.
So as a DM, my interpretation is to say that for the most part, NE has to be about the environment. There has to be something about the check that in some way connects to the environment. Now if you want to play it in your game that it is always on and you have ten skills (which you can’t even have as a pure ranger unless you start taking feats) that you have expertise in all the time have at it.
There is a reason the revised ranger from 2017 did away with you picking a terrain and why the Tasha’s options are universal - because they know they messed up and it took them waaaay too long to fix it because they were terrified of what releasing a new version of a core class would do, but they did fix it finally and I would bet money that 6e sees a continuation of that progression and NE and FE disappear entirely.
For the most part, Natural Explorer does pertain to the environment. And there's a lot of leeway with how it's meant to be used. That's perhaps the biggest source of contention over the class: people thinking they need to talk to the DM or otherwise metagame in order to play it effectively.
That said, creatures native to the environment are also part of that environment. The finer points about different elf or goblin communities aside, there are going to be common elements between them all if they live in a forest. There are necessities to surviving there, learned skills and perhaps even behaviors, that may transcend regional borders. The elves of the Ardeep Forest and Neverwinter Wood are distinct groups, but there may be shared customs between them that a ranger familiar with one group might recognize in the other.
And we know it's possible for the two features, Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, to work together. Favored Enemy allows for the granting of advantage both for Wisdom (skill]Survival[/skill]) checks to track and for Intelligence checks to recall information. This is compatible with Natural Explorer's ability to double one's proficiency bonus if already proficient. So a hypothetical ranger, proficient in History would get to roll with advantage and double their proficiency bonus if trying to recall lore about a FE native to one of their chosen terrains. Or to track them.
Admittedly, you've been silent on other skills. You haven't really weighed in on Intelligence skills. It's just the one social skill you have a problem with. A social skill which isn't prohibited from applying, or having the feature apply to, but you were all too keen to disregard anyway.
This is all Patently False. Because by the definitions and the Organization of the Game. The Baron is not in fact an animal. He is more likely a humanoid. There is a defined difference between the two in the Context of the game regardless of your attempt to twist things. In the Context of the Game both are in fact Creatures. But both are not in fact animals. They are different Subsects of Creatures. The Baron wuold be in Fact Humanoid most likely primarily because of the structure of the game and the fact that it is largely humanoids that wuold be holding such a position as they are heavily dealt with in the context of the game, that you might refer to as people. though there is a small chance he comes under some other possible Subset such as Draconic, Monsterous, Abomination, or Even Abberation as examples. Which are all under the classification of creature but in the context of the game are different from Animal.
You have not once in any way. Given valid reason why it does not apply to the Creature from a particular region when a characters expertise is from that region. Not Once.
You've nitpicked details to throw out the larger argument as I have said. Without addressing any details that actually fit and then called it a day. Well that Particular Forest Animal. That's a detail that works that you've often chosen to naysay incorrectly. Which I have attempted to point out to you before. But you have never actually given anything near an accurate reason as to why it doesn't fit. While demanding we give accurate and Detailed reasons why it might.
You've even admitted there can be detailed or even general reasons that it might be applied. But you refuse to in any way actually define that in most situations. Instead choosing to make blanket statements about details that you don't seem to Want.
Then you are complaining that we are back on this detail when it's a basic fundamental detail that fits what you've already agreed to.
I challenge you right now. Give me a reason. Give Me Why a Valid check in Detail would not apply to an animal From a Particular Environment that Natural Explorer can apply to which means any Intelligence or Wisdom Based Skills. And it has to be one Where it Truely Doesn't Apply. Not one where you decide it can be applied to one skill but not another because that's what you seem to be comfortable thinking those skill checks are ok. And this Reason cannot be simply because Another Skill does that thing. It has to be why your Familiarity with Forests environments and the things and situations that call it home cannot apply to that creature while the skill still functions.
When it comes to this particular thread. i haven't even had the real chance yet to start talking about other Skills in an attempt to remain concise and Reach one controlled concensus at a time. He chose to start with Insight so that's where we've primarily been for several pages. i would have followed up with others afterwards. But he's shown similar distaste for other Intelligence and Wisdom Based skills in other threads such at the one he did for polling between PHB and Tasha's option preference and the Ranger Suck Thread. But I was going to tackle more of the rest of that in it's due time.
They don’t want it to work. That is the conversation killer here. Good information...
https://youtu.be/E2z4ZECoYvE
I think a real question here, AaronWho, is as a DM would you EVER allow each/any of the wisdom and intelligence skills to benefit from the NE bonus. Several of us think you think not. I know Tasha's refocus the ranger's options in more of a physical direction and gives them a single little token expertise, but the original abilities are meant to be a wide net. I don't think all of them should apply all of the time, the opposite actually, but they should all be able to be applied at some point and in some situations. Your (I'm sorry for the negative spin on the language) "hang up" on the related to your favorite terrain can ONLY apply to dirt, plants, and the air, is a big sticking point. No one that grows up in the lands of Louisiana (forest? swamp?) isn't more knowledgable and familiar with alligators, snakes, crawfish, and other animals that live there. than the "average person". That is what some of us are driving home in this conversation. Perhaps the idea of forests in general versus a specific stretch of forests is what is holding you up? I could understand that point of view. But anything that falls under the umbrella of "BLANK is true in any/all of the BLANK terrain type" should be considered related to that terrain. So maybe not goblins and forests since not all forests have goblins and not all goblins live in forests, but certainly deer, owls, rabbits, etc., as they all live in forests and all forests have them.
Arcana
Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.
History
Your Intelligence (History) check measures your ability to recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations.
Investigation
When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Nature
Your Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles.
Religion
Your Intelligence (Religion) check measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults.
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 control your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver.
Insight
Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.
Medicine
A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness.
Perception
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
Survival
The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide your group through frozen wastelands, identify signs that owlbears live nearby, predict the weather, or avoid quicksand and other natural hazards.
Ok, using the example we have discussed, without hearing or seeing anything threatening you come across a scared animal and ask "what is it afraid of" NE will not apply. The environment has zero impact on the animal and is not related to why it is afraid.
Short answer is yes, all of those skill could potentially benefit from NE, but to varying degrees.
Investigation, Nature, Animal Handling, Perception, and Survival are going to come up most often and have the highest percentage of time they can be used, but will not apply 100% of the time. The easiest one is getting perception while in the environment.
Arcana, History, Religion, Insight, and Medicine could get NE, but unlike the above the chance is much smaller that they will benefit from NE.
So the first batch has a better than 50% chance that they could benefit NE, the second batch has a less than 50% chance that NE will apply, but neither does or does not work 100% of the time.
As a DM, I am going to build in opportunities for players to use their skills and abilities, but that doesn't mean I am going to have figured out a way that NE can apply everytime just because I know the Ranger has it. Even in the 1 shot when I know everyone has some ranger not EVERYTHING will benefit from NE.
Right. So being IN the terrain certainly makes it much clearer as to when a skill is related to a favored terrain. When I look at Tasha's optional replacement for NE I ask myself if this is meant to be "equal in power" to the original ability or "a boost in power" over the original. Personally I feel Tasha's in general is a power creep book, more so than any other we've seen from WotC, but the replacement abilities are closer to being equal power. They seem to me to be more universally usable, ESPECIALLY for things like DDAL and other organized play. Any non campaign based group, really. They have more video game style mechanics that are less applicable to world building and world exploration. That being said, the Tasha's optional replacement abilities, at level 10, get you: 1. 2 languages, a skill expertise, +5 speed, climbing speed, swimming speed, temporary hit points, and a exhaustion mitigation mechanic. At level 10, the original NE gets you more (3 in total) terrain types to possibly apply expertise to skills and make traveling safer, faster, more survivable, etc. The time, place, manner, and scope of how and when the ranger has opportunities to use this ability with the skill they have should grow as the character progresses in levels. I understand your view on the limitations of the ability. I just personally think it makes a only small positive difference (10%-20%) when the DM says "yes" and makes a bigger negative difference when the DM says "no".
Other related opinions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2z4ZECoYvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw_v0tCEwnw
The environment having Zero impact on the animal is never true. The question is not does the environment apply. The question is if it is the right environment. You are always determined to say no. The Animal always has an environment it is attached to and always has an environment it is in. There is no way to escape this. There is no way to disconnect the animal from Environment. But it is possible for the type of environment to be Wrong for the use of NE.
but again, it simply being an animal that exist in the environment is not sufficient
At this point I think you need more justification, explain how an animal can exist in the environment on a Regular basis and not pertain to knowledge ecosystem. Whether its a food source for humans or animals or if it damages a food source for animals, It all is related to the environment. If the ranger can remember the necessary information they will roll high enough to succeed If the ranger doesn't they won't.
Ground Squirrels live in the forrest....but a species lives in the Desert as well.
Obviously a ranger with the Forrest for NE would know about the variety in their forrest...but why would they know about the variety in the desert? They wouldn't.
They may generally infer (regular nature check) but they do not hold specific information enough to invoke NE.
At best they could identify if the creature was one from a forest and then recall knowledge on that creature but if they are not from the biome why would they get NE for it?
As discussed previously, even though by RAW NE gets you nothing about creatures, I do grant some degree of use. You would know if an animal is not native to the area, you would know generally how aggressive a given animal is on average, you would have a minimal knowledge of behavior and that's about it.
So in the example we have used, you are coming across an animal and it looks scared - you have not heard any noise suggesting some big horrible thing is in pursuit, there is no evidence that anything is out of the ordinary. So you asking "why is it scared" does not get you NE on an animal handling or insight check because the environment is irrelevant to the check. The simple fact that it is a creature that exist in the environment does not mean you 100% get NE. Regardless of the roll I am going to tell you that it isn't something that would normally react with fear to people. Even with a good roll the most you are getting is that "you reason that it has seen something it found deeply disturbing, but you can't imagine what that might have been".
Even if it was a forest squirrel in the forest in the scenario given they are still not getting NE. If they ask "do I know how to find squirrels here" then they will be simply told "yes you know that there are a handful of species that can be found here" and can get NE on the survival check to find one.
Why the second and not the first - the second example is knowing something about the environment, knowing what kind of wildlife exist there and how to use the environment to find that wildlife. The first is trying to, without ANY context, make a SPECIFIC determination about the INDIVIDUAL actions of a single creature.
This is literally applying NE to squirrels, How can you not call this getting the bonus? Your terms and systems for determining knowledge application Probably cause you as much frustration as it does everyone else........ indicating it was not designers intent to have frustration rather than simple application.
I would argue that the fact that several of us have vastly different opinions on how this should be interpreted is not exactly making it "simple" application. In fact its the opposite if it creates mass confusion on how its supposed to be run. Most people find this ability at best mildly useful to useless as based on several surveys. No other class has gone through the ringer like Ranger to replace features such as this and the designers themselves have stated several times that it is a feature people do not like on average and that it involves something that most tables just do not engage in.
I do not hate the ranger...I like it a lot as a martial spellcaster its just barely beaten out by Paladin for overall best IMO. Even with my optimism for the class I find NE to be a terrible ability that I have never seen any table (and I have been with at least 5 rangers in my time) used to any real efficacy. Most people do not care as they simply like the class despite this feature but generally comment something else would be better.
WotC came out with Revised Ranger....then Mearls came out with his version...and then there were several other versions to "Fix" ranger. The community produced version after version to fix it as well.
Overall even if the ability is somewhat useful in the right scenario...its not useful enough evidently as an option to replace it was introduced. Yes you can still use NE and yes some people still find it useful (as they likely always did in their games) but I have yet to see a classes defining feature changed so much beyond Ranger...no other class had the extensive playtesting to fix its issues.
Do I hate NE? No....its hard to hate something you never even think about.