They put a lot of work in to try and make changes to ranger... They felt it was worth the effort to do so to sell a product. In the original revised Ranger they mentioned the survey they did and how low ranger scored for these abilities. It lasted long enough that they tried again and eventually printed options to replace.
Jeremy also has a youtube vid specifically stating that catering to the revised ranger was a mistake. He made a statement saying realized that player satisfaction with PHB ranger was higher than they thought ( for the survey just before the revised option). He goes on to state that a limited group who were dissatisfied not the whole. I think there was a bit more about how the satisfaction surveys work and what the blind spots for surveys are. The vid is quite old and I will try to find it if I can.
the idea "new ranger options" make money actually hurts your opinion rather than supports the idea that it is flawed. New options are designed to create new demand. Fixes are usually made via errata. The fact that there have been so few ranger errata tells you that there is a belief that the abilities have a working function.
Yes... There was still demand for ranger options as people wanted it.
They got it via Tashas.
JC is consistently wrong on many things and contradicts himself all the time so I never put too much credit into what he says. Hell he even said the spell versatility was still in the book when it wasn't so I don't trust him for much.
Overall demand was there for it and they delivered on it.
They worked on options for ranger for literal years.
The community worked on ranger options for years.
It overtly clear that there was desire to see it changed on multiple fronts.
So your saying JC is wrong when he says "ranger is good" But he is right when he says "ranger is bad". sounds like "cherry picking to me" especially since you are taking older opinions into account rather than more recent ones.
Also The community has been re-writing and homebrewing every class. I've heard complaints about how broken and underpowered every class/subclass combo is(except hex blade Warlock and most paladins ) General desire to fix or change does not indicate Flaws with the system. it could easily be a reflection on human Psychology instead.
Not nearly to the extent ranger was by any means.
WotC had their own UA and homebrew for ranger class options far more than any class.
With the release of Tasha, it's just funny to note that we have so many different versions of the same class.
PHB Ranger. (2014)
UA: Spell-less Ranger. (2015)
UA: The Ranger (2015)
UA: The Ranger, Revised (2016)
Mike Mearls' Ranger. (2018)
And lastly, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020)
Revised Ranger, Spell less ranger, Mearls Ranger, Tashas all had core option changes to ranger. I never saw anything close to that for any other class besides the SP variant for sorcerer or the two versions of Artificer.
You bring all of this up. But fail to note that WoTC basically is saying that all of this was for the most part a failure by rejecting it. Which weakens your entire argument here. WoTC through their actions has shown us that these replacements and Alternatives We not the Answer your Claiming them to be. By Rejecting Some of these, Which a couple were rather well recieved over all. Your ignoring the fact that they came to the conclusion through their better access and understanding of the player base than the one that you have that Most of this Was not actually what people needed or even Wanted for the Ranger Class? That they boiled it all down to a small handful of optional skills that you can not only choose to take but actually outright state that you are fully able to mix and match them at will with the original abilities.
That Last Part should really mean a lot to you. They were designed specifically to be interchangable and Mixed with the Core Abilities. The Ones you are Saying Nobody wants. Clearly people want them if they went so far as to not only Take back proposed changes to the entire class but then the few changes they do offer they make Entirely and Wholely mixable and Compatible in Combination with Core Abilities that already existed in the PHB.
This right here alone is evidence that your being Biased and that the Player Base is perhaps not as represented by your opinion and your attempt to make that a majority as you think.
Even the newest poll. While it's still early and only has a few votes. is showing an interesting Trend. it is leaning heavily into people being mixed about them with the unbiased way it has stated things.
It's not a failure when it literally happened though...
We got alternative options. That's just the facts
Overall it shows the desire eventually won out.
That is false equivalency.
We got Options yes. But those options are not nearly what was done in many of the U.A's... Nor with the seeming intent of outright replacing things about the original ranger.
It went through iterations but came out.
We got options for alternative features.
It's that simple.... People wanted it and it happened.
I haven’t been pressed into anything, my stance on NE hasn’t changed at all. I am of the opinion that NE can be used in a broad way to apply to creatures, but I think you can argue that by RAW, NE doesn’t have to apply to creatures. You can point out all the text you want the environments are home to creatures, it is irrelevant to my interpretation of the way the feature works.
Except that all of the text I am showing you is proving that your wrong. So it's not irrelevent. Not to the Discussion or actualy what is true by RaW which you keep trying to change based upon your choosing to interpret things a certain way. Rather than allowing your interpretation to be informed and Influenced by Raw. Which is an entirely flawed way to go about things.
And you may choose to say you weren't pressed into things. But your stance in your posts about how Animals apply has slowly and begrudgingly shifted as you have admitted to certain facts about them and about NE. Your attempts to backtrack do not negate that and things have shifted by those admissions. Even if you are resistant to those shifts that have taken place as a result. Your original stance would not have even allowed for Sometimes with Animals. You repeatedly and blatantly turned down all applications to animals at the start.
You can say that you are proving me wrong, but that is, like much of this, subjective. You can't say that something is true by RAW when there is no clear RAW. You can also claim that I have been "begrudgingly shifted" but that is also not accurate. I at no point ever said that NE can never be applied to anything. I have said that NE is situational and each situation has to be evaluated. Even with things that I discount like Insight I didn't say "No, this will NEVER be accepted" - I said you'd have to convince me.
And I wasn't turning down all applications, I was turning down the provided applications. Had a better example been given I might have accepted it. As I said in the prior post, I have to see a connection to the environment. That hasn't and isn't going to change.
I haven’t been pressed into anything, my stance on NE hasn’t changed at all. I am of the opinion that NE can be used in a broad way to apply to creatures, but I think you can argue that by RAW, NE doesn’t have to apply to creatures. You can point out all the text you want the environments are home to creatures, it is irrelevant to my interpretation of the way the feature works.
Except that all of the text I am showing you is proving that your wrong. So it's not irrelevent. Not to the Discussion or actualy what is true by RaW which you keep trying to change based upon your choosing to interpret things a certain way. Rather than allowing your interpretation to be informed and Influenced by Raw. Which is an entirely flawed way to go about things.
And you may choose to say you weren't pressed into things. But your stance in your posts about how Animals apply has slowly and begrudgingly shifted as you have admitted to certain facts about them and about NE. Your attempts to backtrack do not negate that and things have shifted by those admissions. Even if you are resistant to those shifts that have taken place as a result. Your original stance would not have even allowed for Sometimes with Animals. You repeatedly and blatantly turned down all applications to animals at the start.
You can say that you are proving me wrong, but that is, like much of this, subjective. You can't say that something is true by RAW when there is no clear RAW. You can also claim that I have been "begrudgingly shifted" but that is also not accurate. I at no point ever said that NE can never be applied to anything. I have said that NE is situational and each situation has to be evaluated. Even with things that I discount like Insight I didn't say "No, this will NEVER be accepted" - I said you'd have to convince me.
And I wasn't turning down all applications, I was turning down the provided applications. Had a better example been given I might have accepted it. As I said in the prior post, I have to see a connection to the environment. That hasn't and isn't going to change.
I don't know why you're saying there's no clear RAW when it's right there in black and white. It's been there for six and half years. Just look at the first paragraph again.
Natural Explorer
You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.
The feature only cares if (a) the Intelligence or Wisdom check is related to your favored terrain and (b) if you're proficient in the skill being used. And I don't see any "can" or "may" present. it's a mandatory application, not an optional one. You don't get to turn it down.
Seriously, you're behaving like it's okay to deny a bard or rogue Expertise if they can't convince you why they should benefit from it.
They could use Animal Handling or Nature on any Beast, and probably even a decent number of Monstrosities. But a panther in the jungle isn't the same as a mountain lion, even though they use the same stat block, so terrain matters. Likewise, being able to recall the History of a particular region, or recognize the heraldry of cultures that call it home, or even use Insight to glean their intentions, are all perfectly valid applications. After all, Wood Elves aren't the same as Sea Elves; or the Drow who call the Underdark home.
And they don't actually have to be in the terrain to use the feature. It just has to relate to the terrain.
Again, the feature doesn't use words like "can" or "may." It doesn't give a choice. It's not up to you, or anyone else, to deny, so don't.
If a ranger is standing in the swamp or Underdark, or whatever is their favored terrain, I as a DM will basically give them the NE bonus on anything and everything, following the normal rules of course.. I'd have to be convinced NOT to apply it. If a character has invested that much more into their skill proficiency pool, multiclassing, feats, etc., then that is their reward for doing so. The bonuses are situational, therefore, if they are in that situation they get the entirety of everything on a silver platter. Outside of their favored terrain it does have to relate, but (shocker) I am pretty generous with that as a DM. Animal handling, insight, and nature, are going to have the NE bonus more often than not when it comes to normal beasts, bunnies, wolves, horses, etc. If they have favored enemy creature "beasts" then they will get the NE bonus and advantage when appropriate (tracking and knowledge checks).
It just doesn't make good game design sense to deny it requiring a strong(strict) interpretation of the term related.
At level 2 a bard gets at least half proficiency on every check. A ranger gets double that but on roughly half the skills (most of them non-encounter skills) and are still gated by a loose connection to terrain so if should apply to maybe 1 or 2 checks per adventuring day.
As a thought experiment.... think if the ability was reworked to allow ranger to call on his Knowledge on any intelligence or wisdom check granting expertise a certain number of times. How many times would it take to break the class (or give them a mathematical advantage over every other skill based ability)? this should give an Idea as to roughly what percent of the time the ranger should be expected to apply his bonus.
I haven’t been pressed into anything, my stance on NE hasn’t changed at all. I am of the opinion that NE can be used in a broad way to apply to creatures, but I think you can argue that by RAW, NE doesn’t have to apply to creatures. You can point out all the text you want the environments are home to creatures, it is irrelevant to my interpretation of the way the feature works.
Except that all of the text I am showing you is proving that your wrong. So it's not irrelevent. Not to the Discussion or actualy what is true by RaW which you keep trying to change based upon your choosing to interpret things a certain way. Rather than allowing your interpretation to be informed and Influenced by Raw. Which is an entirely flawed way to go about things.
And you may choose to say you weren't pressed into things. But your stance in your posts about how Animals apply has slowly and begrudgingly shifted as you have admitted to certain facts about them and about NE. Your attempts to backtrack do not negate that and things have shifted by those admissions. Even if you are resistant to those shifts that have taken place as a result. Your original stance would not have even allowed for Sometimes with Animals. You repeatedly and blatantly turned down all applications to animals at the start.
You can say that you are proving me wrong, but that is, like much of this, subjective. You can't say that something is true by RAW when there is no clear RAW. You can also claim that I have been "begrudgingly shifted" but that is also not accurate. I at no point ever said that NE can never be applied to anything. I have said that NE is situational and each situation has to be evaluated. Even with things that I discount like Insight I didn't say "No, this will NEVER be accepted" - I said you'd have to convince me.
And I wasn't turning down all applications, I was turning down the provided applications. Had a better example been given I might have accepted it. As I said in the prior post, I have to see a connection to the environment. That hasn't and isn't going to change.
I hate to tell you this. But it's not as subjective as your claiming. The only thing that is subjective is your desire to ignore them. Which is the only form of Irrelevancy to quotes from the book that exists in this situation. Your choosing to ignore the proof and decide your opinion cannot be swayed. It doesn't somehow make your opinion Objectively correct or my proof somehow more subjective so that your ignoring it is somehow more justified and correct.
And when you started. You were turning down all examples. Even ones that you later said could and would work. Your refusal to acknowledge connections does not in any way remove them from the actual game, Objectivity, Or the use of Natural Explorer anywhere but at your table as a homebrew rule.
It just doesn't make good game design sense to deny it requiring a strong(strict) interpretation of the term related.
At level 2 a bard gets at least half proficiency on every check. A ranger gets double that but on roughly half the skills (most of them non-encounter skills) and are still gated by a loose connection to terrain so if should apply to maybe 1 or 2 checks per adventuring day.
As a thought experiment.... think if the ability was reworked to allow ranger to call on his Knowledge on any intelligence or wisdom check granting expertise a certain number of times. How many times would it take to break the class (or give them a mathematical advantage over every other skill based ability)? this should give an Idea as to roughly what percent of the time the ranger should be expected to apply his bonus.
if we judge by Rogues which have long been able to muster up somewhere between 4 and 6 expertise skills (assuming they didn't put at least one into a tool). It takes a lot of expertise to unbalance things. Though people playing said Rogues and Bards just to be skill monkeys and make all the exciting and information rolls might end up feeling somewhat put out much sooner than that to find out they have new competition.
I don't know why you're saying there's no clear RAW when it's right there in black and white. It's been there for six and half years. Just look at the first paragraph again.
Natural Explorer
You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.
The feature only cares if (a) the Intelligence or Wisdom check is related to your favored terrain and (b) if you're proficient in the skill being used. And I don't see any "can" or "may" present. it's a mandatory application, not an optional one. You don't get to turn it down.
Seriously, you're behaving like it's okay to deny a bard or rogue Expertise if they can't convince you why they should benefit from it.
They could use Animal Handling or Nature on any Beast, and probably even a decent number of Monstrosities. But a panther in the jungle isn't the same as a mountain lion, even though they use the same stat block, so terrain matters. Likewise, being able to recall the History of a particular region, or recognize the heraldry of cultures that call it home, or even use Insight to glean their intentions, are all perfectly valid applications. After all, Wood Elves aren't the same as Sea Elves; or the Drow who call the Underdark home.
And they don't actually have to be in the terrain to use the feature. It just has to relate to the terrain.
Again, the feature doesn't use words like "can" or "may." It doesn't give a choice. It's not up to you, or anyone else, to deny, so don't.
As DMs, we should be on the players' side.
I am "saying there's no clear RAW" because for the possibly millionth time "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain" - the phrase related to is not clear AT ALL. It is ENTIRELY subjective. So no, it is not black and white, and it isn't "a mandatory application". Yes, it "doesn't use words like "can" or "may." but it does use the words related to. Nor is this ANYTHING like Expertise. which is black and white and use very clear language.
I will read the description of Natural Explorer to some coworkers who don't play DnD and see what they think that feature means.
I haven’t been pressed into anything, my stance on NE hasn’t changed at all. I am of the opinion that NE can be used in a broad way to apply to creatures, but I think you can argue that by RAW, NE doesn’t have to apply to creatures. You can point out all the text you want the environments are home to creatures, it is irrelevant to my interpretation of the way the feature works.
Except that all of the text I am showing you is proving that your wrong. So it's not irrelevent. Not to the Discussion or actualy what is true by RaW which you keep trying to change based upon your choosing to interpret things a certain way. Rather than allowing your interpretation to be informed and Influenced by Raw. Which is an entirely flawed way to go about things.
And you may choose to say you weren't pressed into things. But your stance in your posts about how Animals apply has slowly and begrudgingly shifted as you have admitted to certain facts about them and about NE. Your attempts to backtrack do not negate that and things have shifted by those admissions. Even if you are resistant to those shifts that have taken place as a result. Your original stance would not have even allowed for Sometimes with Animals. You repeatedly and blatantly turned down all applications to animals at the start.
You can say that you are proving me wrong, but that is, like much of this, subjective. You can't say that something is true by RAW when there is no clear RAW. You can also claim that I have been "begrudgingly shifted" but that is also not accurate. I at no point ever said that NE can never be applied to anything. I have said that NE is situational and each situation has to be evaluated. Even with things that I discount like Insight I didn't say "No, this will NEVER be accepted" - I said you'd have to convince me.
And I wasn't turning down all applications, I was turning down the provided applications. Had a better example been given I might have accepted it. As I said in the prior post, I have to see a connection to the environment. That hasn't and isn't going to change.
I hate to tell you this. But it's not as subjective as your claiming. The only thing that is subjective is your desire to ignore them. Which is the only form of Irrelevancy to quotes from the book that exists in this situation. Your choosing to ignore the proof and decide your opinion cannot be swayed. It doesn't somehow make your opinion Objectively correct or my proof somehow more subjective so that your ignoring it is somehow more justified and correct.
And when you started. You were turning down all examples. Even ones that you later said could and would work. Your refusal to acknowledge connections does not in any way remove them from the actual game, Objectivity, Or the use of Natural Explorer anywhere but at your table as a homebrew rule.
Please point out any example that you think I was "turning down all examples. Even ones that you later said could and would work". Because I don't know of any example that I said no to that I then said yes to since the way I evaluate applicability hasn't changed at all.
I have also never claimed the my "opinion [is] Objectively correct" - I have stated that ALL of this is entire conversation and thread is subjective. Almost nothing here is objective.
I strongly believe the original intent with the wording of NE was to allow for more openness and flexibility for the player and DM. But even I can clearly see that it has caused more disagreements, confusion, and player heartbreak than creativity and character/campaign immersion over the years. I dislike that they tried to leave a lot of the game open-ended only to be criticized and scolded for NOT being rules heavy enough. Oh well.
I strongly believe the original intent with the wording of NE was to allow for more openness and flexibility for the player and DM. But even I can clearly see that it has caused more disagreements, confusion, and player heartbreak than creativity and character/campaign immersion over the years. I dislike that they tried to leave a lot of the game open-ended only to be criticized and scolded for NOT being rules heavy enough. Oh well.
I think its because most other features are more "tight" when it comes to how they interact with the world. They tried a few different things with subclasses but not classes in that regard.
I strongly believe the original intent with the wording of NE was to allow for more openness and flexibility for the player and DM. But even I can clearly see that it has caused more disagreements, confusion, and player heartbreak than creativity and character/campaign immersion over the years. I dislike that they tried to leave a lot of the game open-ended only to be criticized and scolded for NOT being rules heavy enough. Oh well.
I think its because most other features are more "tight" when it comes to how they interact with the world. They tried a few different things with subclasses but not classes in that regard.
I guess I always saw it as appropriate for the ranger class. Combat classes are more "tight" as most of combat is. While much of the use of skills and especially exploration and travel in the game is very "loose". So it read and mad sense to me from the start.
I strongly believe the original intent with the wording of NE was to allow for more openness and flexibility for the player and DM. But even I can clearly see that it has caused more disagreements, confusion, and player heartbreak than creativity and character/campaign immersion over the years. I dislike that they tried to leave a lot of the game open-ended only to be criticized and scolded for NOT being rules heavy enough. Oh well.
I think its because most other features are more "tight" when it comes to how they interact with the world. They tried a few different things with subclasses but not classes in that regard.
I agree.
Yeah if they had been a bit more vague with other features it might feel more natural to apply/run but for some reason it makes NE seem "loose" with how to run it.
I strongly believe the original intent with the wording of NE was to allow for more openness and flexibility for the player and DM. But even I can clearly see that it has caused more disagreements, confusion, and player heartbreak than creativity and character/campaign immersion over the years. I dislike that they tried to leave a lot of the game open-ended only to be criticized and scolded for NOT being rules heavy enough. Oh well.
I agree that the ranger was given a lot of room to go off book, and I can appreciate that, but I think the failure is that they left it open and provided 0 guidance. Would it have killed them to include a small paragraph giving an example of how NE can be used. They included in Xanathar's how tools can apply to different skills, they could have included something like this for NE - if not in the PHB then in an erratta at least. But no, they printed a vague feature that allows a DM to give as much or as little latitude as they want and then never said anything again. There aren't even any Sage Advice's about it.
I strongly believe the original intent with the wording of NE was to allow for more openness and flexibility for the player and DM. But even I can clearly see that it has caused more disagreements, confusion, and player heartbreak than creativity and character/campaign immersion over the years. I dislike that they tried to leave a lot of the game open-ended only to be criticized and scolded for NOT being rules heavy enough. Oh well.
I agree that the ranger was given a lot of room to go off book, and I can appreciate that, but I think the failure is that they left it open and provided 0 guidance. Would it have killed them to include a small paragraph giving an example of how NE can be used. They included in Xanathar's how tools can apply to different skills, they could have included something like this for NE - if not in the PHB then in an erratta at least. But no, they printed a vague feature that allows a DM to give as much or as little latitude as they want and then never said anything again. There aren't even any Sage Advice's about it.
Yes. The zero guidance and/or examples really hurts not having and would really help to have.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
There are also things like Examples of things that can be encountered in various terrains in things like the DMG and other books. Even the Adventure Modules are ideas and examples about how some things can link together for Natural Explore. And this is all In a pillar of the game that most relies on the imagination of the Group and the type of Story that they are trying to tell so by default it has to be the most open. So the examples can really only go so far.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
That's part of the ranger's problem. The way things are laid out, the ranger needs those supplemental books to really shine. Beast Masters, in particular, need the Monster Manual so they have the full range of possible companions. And we didn't have real guidance on where beasts would be found until Xanathar's. Before then, it was left entirely up to the DM.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
That's part of the ranger's problem. The way things are laid out, the ranger needs those supplemental books to really shine. Beast Masters, in particular, need the Monster Manual so they have the full range of possible companions. And we didn't have real guidance on where beasts would be found until Xanathar's. Before then, it was left entirely up to the DM.
Beasts had terrains in their descriptions before Xanathar's. I know because I ran stuff before that book came out and I would somtimes use those Terrain listings about where they are more often found for ideas for either random or set encounters that might groups might run into.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It went through iterations but came out.
We got options for alternative features.
It's that simple.... People wanted it and it happened.
You can say that you are proving me wrong, but that is, like much of this, subjective. You can't say that something is true by RAW when there is no clear RAW. You can also claim that I have been "begrudgingly shifted" but that is also not accurate. I at no point ever said that NE can never be applied to anything. I have said that NE is situational and each situation has to be evaluated. Even with things that I discount like Insight I didn't say "No, this will NEVER be accepted" - I said you'd have to convince me.
And I wasn't turning down all applications, I was turning down the provided applications. Had a better example been given I might have accepted it. As I said in the prior post, I have to see a connection to the environment. That hasn't and isn't going to change.
I don't know why you're saying there's no clear RAW when it's right there in black and white. It's been there for six and half years. Just look at the first paragraph again.
The feature only cares if (a) the Intelligence or Wisdom check is related to your favored terrain and (b) if you're proficient in the skill being used. And I don't see any "can" or "may" present. it's a mandatory application, not an optional one. You don't get to turn it down.
Seriously, you're behaving like it's okay to deny a bard or rogue Expertise if they can't convince you why they should benefit from it.
They could use Animal Handling or Nature on any Beast, and probably even a decent number of Monstrosities. But a panther in the jungle isn't the same as a mountain lion, even though they use the same stat block, so terrain matters. Likewise, being able to recall the History of a particular region, or recognize the heraldry of cultures that call it home, or even use Insight to glean their intentions, are all perfectly valid applications. After all, Wood Elves aren't the same as Sea Elves; or the Drow who call the Underdark home.
And they don't actually have to be in the terrain to use the feature. It just has to relate to the terrain.
Again, the feature doesn't use words like "can" or "may." It doesn't give a choice. It's not up to you, or anyone else, to deny, so don't.
As DMs, we should be on the players' side.
If a ranger is standing in the swamp or Underdark, or whatever is their favored terrain, I as a DM will basically give them the NE bonus on anything and everything, following the normal rules of course.. I'd have to be convinced NOT to apply it. If a character has invested that much more into their skill proficiency pool, multiclassing, feats, etc., then that is their reward for doing so. The bonuses are situational, therefore, if they are in that situation they get the entirety of everything on a silver platter. Outside of their favored terrain it does have to relate, but (shocker) I am pretty generous with that as a DM. Animal handling, insight, and nature, are going to have the NE bonus more often than not when it comes to normal beasts, bunnies, wolves, horses, etc. If they have favored
enemycreature "beasts" then they will get the NE bonus and advantage when appropriate (tracking and knowledge checks).It just doesn't make good game design sense to deny it requiring a strong(strict) interpretation of the term related.
At level 2 a bard gets at least half proficiency on every check. A ranger gets double that but on roughly half the skills (most of them non-encounter skills) and are still gated by a loose connection to terrain so if should apply to maybe 1 or 2 checks per adventuring day.
As a thought experiment.... think if the ability was reworked to allow ranger to call on his Knowledge on any intelligence or wisdom check granting expertise a certain number of times. How many times would it take to break the class (or give them a mathematical advantage over every other skill based ability)? this should give an Idea as to roughly what percent of the time the ranger should be expected to apply his bonus.
I hate to tell you this. But it's not as subjective as your claiming. The only thing that is subjective is your desire to ignore them. Which is the only form of Irrelevancy to quotes from the book that exists in this situation. Your choosing to ignore the proof and decide your opinion cannot be swayed. It doesn't somehow make your opinion Objectively correct or my proof somehow more subjective so that your ignoring it is somehow more justified and correct.
And when you started. You were turning down all examples. Even ones that you later said could and would work. Your refusal to acknowledge connections does not in any way remove them from the actual game, Objectivity, Or the use of Natural Explorer anywhere but at your table as a homebrew rule.
if we judge by Rogues which have long been able to muster up somewhere between 4 and 6 expertise skills (assuming they didn't put at least one into a tool). It takes a lot of expertise to unbalance things. Though people playing said Rogues and Bards just to be skill monkeys and make all the exciting and information rolls might end up feeling somewhat put out much sooner than that to find out they have new competition.
I am "saying there's no clear RAW" because for the possibly millionth time "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain" - the phrase related to is not clear AT ALL. It is ENTIRELY subjective. So no, it is not black and white, and it isn't "a mandatory application". Yes, it "doesn't use words like "can" or "may." but it does use the words related to. Nor is this ANYTHING like Expertise. which is black and white and use very clear language.
I will read the description of Natural Explorer to some coworkers who don't play DnD and see what they think that feature means.
Please point out any example that you think I was "turning down all examples. Even ones that you later said could and would work". Because I don't know of any example that I said no to that I then said yes to since the way I evaluate applicability hasn't changed at all.
I have also never claimed the my "opinion [is] Objectively correct" - I have stated that ALL of this is entire conversation and thread is subjective. Almost nothing here is objective.
I strongly believe the original intent with the wording of NE was to allow for more openness and flexibility for the player and DM. But even I can clearly see that it has caused more disagreements, confusion, and player heartbreak than creativity and character/campaign immersion over the years. I dislike that they tried to leave a lot of the game open-ended only to be criticized and scolded for NOT being rules heavy enough. Oh well.
I think its because most other features are more "tight" when it comes to how they interact with the world. They tried a few different things with subclasses but not classes in that regard.
I agree.
I guess I always saw it as appropriate for the ranger class. Combat classes are more "tight" as most of combat is. While much of the use of skills and especially exploration and travel in the game is very "loose". So it read and mad sense to me from the start.
Yeah if they had been a bit more vague with other features it might feel more natural to apply/run but for some reason it makes NE seem "loose" with how to run it.
I agree that the ranger was given a lot of room to go off book, and I can appreciate that, but I think the failure is that they left it open and provided 0 guidance. Would it have killed them to include a small paragraph giving an example of how NE can be used. They included in Xanathar's how tools can apply to different skills, they could have included something like this for NE - if not in the PHB then in an erratta at least. But no, they printed a vague feature that allows a DM to give as much or as little latitude as they want and then never said anything again. There aren't even any Sage Advice's about it.
Yes. The zero guidance and/or examples really hurts not having and would really help to have.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
There are also things like Examples of things that can be encountered in various terrains in things like the DMG and other books. Even the Adventure Modules are ideas and examples about how some things can link together for Natural Explore. And this is all In a pillar of the game that most relies on the imagination of the Group and the type of Story that they are trying to tell so by default it has to be the most open. So the examples can really only go so far.
That's part of the ranger's problem. The way things are laid out, the ranger needs those supplemental books to really shine. Beast Masters, in particular, need the Monster Manual so they have the full range of possible companions. And we didn't have real guidance on where beasts would be found until Xanathar's. Before then, it was left entirely up to the DM.
Beasts had terrains in their descriptions before Xanathar's. I know because I ran stuff before that book came out and I would somtimes use those Terrain listings about where they are more often found for ideas for either random or set encounters that might groups might run into.