specifically the benefit of doubling your proficiency bonus in a single skill of your choice might not be as useful as expertise in all intelegence and wisdom checks as long as you be proficient and it is "related to your favored terrain", like a lot of things can be considered "related to your favored terrain" even if you are not currently in that terrain from using navigator's tools and water vechicle proficiency at sea if you choose coast to cook's utensils checks incorporating ingredients from your favored terrain to making some kind of skill check to recall lore about a creature or animal typically found within your favoured terrain, to handle animal checks directed at creatures native to your favoured terrain, wisdom (survival) checks to track in places where the terrain is very similar (for instance an arctic ranger in a tall mountain or vice versa following footsteps in the snow)
like yes technically speaking natural explorer provides benefits to skill use only, tool checks are ignored but i am confident that is a mere oversight, and yes i can see some characters who would prefer canny over natural explorer if they wanna focus on a skill that is neither wisdom or intelegence based (such as an fey wanderer with a charisma skill or a gloom stalker with stealth or a grapple focused ranger with strength (athletics)) or in situations were you want your ranger to be distinguished by their singlular focus on a single talent rather than their affinity for terrain such as making one focused on wisdom (survival) as a great tracker, wisdom (animal handling) for a beastmaster or wisdom (perception) for some kind of vigilant guardian like a horizon walker, yet it just seems like depending on the campaign you are in natural explorer might apply to your checks more often than canny would
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
It should not outperform the Nat explorer in its favored terrain at level 1. I mean look at all these shiny ribbons. Can't become lost, alert to danger (should not be surprised), moving stealthy at standard speed, difficult terrain doesn't slow the group. Expertise on 10 different skills if you have proficiency in them (so probably just Survival, Nature, Animal Handling, Investigation, and Perception). The real question is on average is it better to have the above at level 1, or expertise in a single skill anywhere you go and two languages.
"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.
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area."
for the sake of argument, i am temporarily ignoring the benefits of natural explorer that do not work outside your favored terrain (in other words all benefits except for doubled proficiency bonus in all checks related to your favored terrain) as it is hard to judge how often you will actually be in your favored terrain as it is so DM dependent, and i am ignoring the extra languages since it is hard to measure their power level. At the moment i am simply comparing the thing in natural explorer that lets you double your proficiency bonus with the thing in canny that lets you double your proficiency bonus, and trying to figure out what benefit is most likely to affect the most rolls in campaigns where you are in non-favored terrain at least 60% of the time, considering how vague "related to your favored terrain" can be interpreted as.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
So for example if you are playing in Frostmaiden and are creating a character for that, Natural Explorer with a favored terrain of arctic will damn near break the module in parts. You basically get to bypass all of the Arctic survival parts of the adventure. In my case I made the switch and took Survival as it is the most relevant skill to the ribbon abilities. In practice it is working OK. Instead of granted items I have to actually role play and roll Survival a bit more. The DM was giving me most of the ribbons without being crazy (I couldn't navigate through a blizzard for example, but I also wasn't pushing it because no Ranger would try). The party can become lost now. We can be ambushed. Goodberry already allowed us to bypass food needs. Tracking information keys off survival. I was never travelling alone. All of the travelling ribbons applied only when travelling for an hour or more anyway so weren't useful in combat. Overall I am not unhappy with the trade.
okay good for you but that still does not really answer the question of weather or not either feature will apply to more rolls over the course of an campaign even in situations were you are mostly not in your favored terrain, the thing that was the question i was asking with this post
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Outside of what I answered, I don't think its answerable. When you are outside your favored terrain you will require a TON of DM good will to make use of the "related to your favored terrain" mechanic. This leads back to the core question of the situationality of the original feature. You may have overlimited the discussion. I hope you get a better answer.
In Frost Maiden I basically spend my whole time in my original terrain, and it would have been better to keep the original. In most other campaigns probably not. I hope that helps.
I personally don't want to have to spend every proficiency check shoe horning in how my favored terrain of the arctic applies in a cold cave or city and trying to convince the GM.
This question is very campaign, character and DM specific so I don't think there is a definitive answer. Double proficiency in wis and int related to your favored terrain may not be as important to your character as expertise in athletics or acrobatics for example.
If your DM uses travel/terrain frequently or loves to dish out lore and other info via rolls that benefit from natural explorer then I'd choose that one. If you know that isn't your DM's style and your character wants to be specialize in something besides fact finding maybe canny is a better option.
My anecdotal experience is that canny has been more useful to my ranger because I lean into that one skill. It's a real stretch to make check related to your forest terrain when you're deep in a dungeon without some help on the DM's part.
In the end it all comes down to what is fun to you and talk to your DM!
Many creatures are actually from multiple terrain types. its listed on the bottom of most monster stat blocks. so you could potentially get expertise in perception or even passive perception when being stalked by an enemy from you chosen terrain. some people don't agree.
Just as a note: Here is a rough list of monster terrain assignments. I usually allow coastal and underwater to merge. Some Of the unassigned actually belong in other groups as they are upgraded versions of other creatures that do belong in a Favored terrain and humanoids are kind of setting specific so also unassigned.
Many creatures are actually from multiple terrain types. its listed on the bottom of most monster stat blocks. so you could potentially get expertise in perception or even passive perception when being stalked by an enemy from you chosen terrain. some people don't agree.
that is taking the feature way past its limits i'd say, like being close with nature and exploring and stuff makes you see better, but only against these few creatures
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
why is it way past limits? many animals deliberately make sounds to hide under environmental conditions like wind but a ranger might recognize it. Knowing about the enemy also means you understand its stalking patterns or how it uses natural camouflage. A non familiar person might not even register a subtle smell but a ranger might immediately associate it with the creature involved. The game calls out specific mechanics and this accounts for them.
What other interpretation could this mean? "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 game also says skill checks do not have a great impact on cr for monsters why would this not apply to pcs.
DMG: Modifying a monster.
Step 17. Skill Bonuses p279
If you want a monster to be proficient in a skill, you can give it a bonus equal to its proficiency bonus on ability checks related to that skill. For example, a monster with sharp senses might have a bonus on Wisdom (Perception) checks, while a duplicitous monster might have a bonus on Charisma (Deception) checks.
You can double the proficiency bonus to account for heightened mastery. For example, a doppelganger is so good at deceiving others that its bonus on Charisma (Deception) checks is equal to double its proficiency bonus + its Charisma modifier.
Skill bonuses have no bearing on a monster's challenge rating.
The game also says skill checks do not have a great impact on cr for monsters why would this not apply to pcs.
Because, unlike monsters, pc's are supposed to do skill checks quite often. Saying that it doesn't matter invalidates a core class mechanic for both the rogue and the bard and to a lesser extend the ranger and the sorcerer (at least in tasha's).
I also disagree with your interpretation that the natural explorer benefits extent to the creatures that occur in that terrain, as then it is encroaching on the favored enemy feature which rangers get at the same level.
The two abilities call out different types of bonuses for a reason. Advantage for Favored enemy and double Proficiency for favored terrain. They are designed to be able to stack.
I Never said it didn't matter. I was implying that its highly valuable but it doesn't affect the Power of the PC Because the impact on damage is minimal ( generally limited to surprise rounds). CR is a measurement of damage potential.
The mention of rogue and bard abilities confirm in my mind that its part of the intended design because its similar in function but tailored to ranger specialization.
If any dm tried to say that a monster whose stat block calls out a terrain is not related to the terrain I would question his objectivity.
The two abilities call out different types of bonuses for a reason. Advantage for Favored enemy and double Proficiency for favored terrain. They are designed to be able to stack.
If any dm tried to say that a monster whose stat block calls out a terrain is not related to the terrain I would question his objectivity.
That would just mean you always have both bonusses up for your favored enemy because obviously the enemy you picked will have wandered around in the terrain you picked.
If the DM tried to say that a monster does relate to the terrain i would also question his objectivity. Especially so since to me, the intent of this ability seems to be geography and plants because there is already a coupled feature that handles creatures. In fact, there is no way to objectively rule this feature because of how subjective "related to" is.
It would actually not always apply because Favored enemy is survival/ tracking or intelligence. Perception can only be applied for Favored terrain. Intelligence checks are designed to stack but perception can't. So, your argument that its already covered is flawed but it is also flawed in assuming they can't over lap. The intent of the ability is not defined. What is defined is the monsters terrain and the type of check involved. How can these not be connected. It fits logically, It fits thematically, it fits mechanically.
Neither is better than the other. Tasha’s offers an optional replacement. Not a change or errata. For many, players the streamlining and simplification of two languages and expertise in survival of the optional fits the game they are playing much better than the original, which is more open ended. The replacement also adds elements that are more valuable for a combat focused game, for people who want the ranger to be more of a tactical skirmisher then a woodsman. A swimming speed, a climbing speed, temporary hit points, and reduction of exhaustion levels all fit more in a combat encounter style of play. For a particular style of play, the original would be a better fit. It offers much more room for creativity, role-play, and use given the campaign, dungeon master, player, and environments. As folks have mentioned in other threads very recently, they prefer the scout rogue with expertise in both nature and survival to the Rangers “situational“ ability to get those same things. For that particular comparison I think of the rogue scout as a Boy Scout type of character. One that has been out camping a lot and read many books. They have a general level of expertise in all things nature and survival. They have a high functioning knowledge of these two skills that apply to all situations. It is their knowledge, ability, and expertise in those two skills that gives them their strength. I think of the original ranger ability more along the lines of an indigenous person, a fictional character like Tarzan, or a real life character like Steve Irwin that is a master of his native countriy’s wildlife and habitation. The original ranger ability rewards them for gaining proficiency in a variety of skills. I use the more liberal interpretation of the Rangers ability, in that, anything related to one of their favored terrain is fair game. Anytime you are interacting with any creature or plant life from your favored terrain gets it. You can apply the expertise anytime you were doing something that is in one way shape or form related to your favored terrain, even if is in a different environment, even a city. Obviously they would get these abilities while in their favored terrain, and if they’ve chosen their skill proficiencies specifically to boost this interaction they would have as many or more skills with expertise as a scout rogue while in their favored terrain. Race, background, class, feats, and multiclassing all can make a ranger more broadly knowledgeable about their favored terrain in general. Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, Religion, Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival, are all possible, with some being more obvious than others. The rogue is a master of “the skill(s)”, while they ranger is a master of “the land(s)”. The optional replacement moves the ranger away from this park ranger, Tarzan, Steve Irwin type of class to more of a combat focused class with a little taste of what the rogue does, which I’m told many more people prefer. So we all get the best of both worlds, literally. LOL!
It would actually not always apply because Favored enemy is survival/ tracking or intelligence. Perception can only be applied for Favored terrain. Intelligence checks are designed to stack but perception can't. So, your argument that its already covered is flawed but it is also flawed in assuming they can't over lap. The intent of the ability is not defined. What is defined is the monsters terrain and the type of check involved. How can these not be connected. It fits logically, It fits thematically, it fits mechanically.
Your argument, that my argument is flawed, is flawed in and off itself since i never said the benefits you get out of them can't overlap. My argument is that they SHOULDN'T overlap since in the design they clearly made them into two distict functions. At least they shouldn't overlap when the terrain you are in at that time is not related to your favored terrain.
Perception checks against your favored enemy are indeed not yet covered in the favored enemy ability. However, you already get a bunch of bonuses against your favored enemy. If they wanted to also give you always on perception bonus against your favored enemy, they would have given you an always on perception bonus against your favored enemy.
Just to show how variable the Nat Explorer bonuses are, let's list the things just in this thread that some of you assume is covered but is not explicitly covered:
tool checks vaguely related to the terrain
knowledge checks on creatures in the terrain
knowledge checks on creatures that are not in your terrain but their range includes it
extending the benefits to terrain that is "similar" to your terrain
generic perception checks within your terrain or against creatures from your terrain
None of this is a given. Your DM may allow none of it, and you can't cite a rule that says s/he's wrong. Related is an extremely vague term. This is on top of the well-known variability of actually ever being within your terrain.
You know what? I don't care which is better. I'm just going with Canny because I don't want to be that guy constantly annoying the DM with questions about whether my class feature applies. As a DM myself, I know how uncomfortable that can be because I want to let my players use their stuff but I also don't want to just be a complete pushover. So just keep in mind that it can put the DM in an awkward spot. Expertise in Survival gives you similar RP feel with a much clearer definition of what benefits you get.
It would actually not always apply because Favored enemy is survival/ tracking or intelligence. Perception can only be applied for Favored terrain. Intelligence checks are designed to stack but perception can't. So, your argument that its already covered is flawed but it is also flawed in assuming they can't over lap. The intent of the ability is not defined. What is defined is the monsters terrain and the type of check involved. How can these not be connected. It fits logically, It fits thematically, it fits mechanically.
Your argument, that my argument is flawed, is flawed in and off itself since i never said the benefits you get out of them can't overlap. My argument is that they SHOULDN'T overlap since in the design they clearly made them into two distict functions. At least they shouldn't overlap when the terrain you are in at that time is not related to your favored terrain.
Perception checks against your favored enemy are indeed not yet covered in the favored enemy ability. However, you already get a bunch of bonuses against your favored enemy. If they wanted to also give you always on perception bonus against your favored enemy, they would have given you an always on perception bonus against your favored enemy.
we have switched from the point that was never addressed.
Is a monster that's stat block with a listed "favored terrain" related to that terrain? Yes or No.
If the first part is YES then you must ,by RAW, be allowed to use double proficiency when making a wisdom check if proficient.
specifically the benefit of doubling your proficiency bonus in a single skill of your choice might not be as useful as expertise in all intelegence and wisdom checks as long as you be proficient and it is "related to your favored terrain", like a lot of things can be considered "related to your favored terrain" even if you are not currently in that terrain from using navigator's tools and water vechicle proficiency at sea if you choose coast to cook's utensils checks incorporating ingredients from your favored terrain to making some kind of skill check to recall lore about a creature or animal typically found within your favoured terrain, to handle animal checks directed at creatures native to your favoured terrain, wisdom (survival) checks to track in places where the terrain is very similar (for instance an arctic ranger in a tall mountain or vice versa following footsteps in the snow)
like yes technically speaking natural explorer provides benefits to skill use only, tool checks are ignored but i am confident that is a mere oversight, and yes i can see some characters who would prefer canny over natural explorer if they wanna focus on a skill that is neither wisdom or intelegence based (such as an fey wanderer with a charisma skill or a gloom stalker with stealth or a grapple focused ranger with strength (athletics)) or in situations were you want your ranger to be distinguished by their singlular focus on a single talent rather than their affinity for terrain such as making one focused on wisdom (survival) as a great tracker, wisdom (animal handling) for a beastmaster or wisdom (perception) for some kind of vigilant guardian like a horizon walker, yet it just seems like depending on the campaign you are in natural explorer might apply to your checks more often than canny would
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
It should not outperform the Nat explorer in its favored terrain at level 1. I mean look at all these shiny ribbons. Can't become lost, alert to danger (should not be surprised), moving stealthy at standard speed, difficult terrain doesn't slow the group. Expertise on 10 different skills if you have proficiency in them (so probably just Survival, Nature, Animal Handling, Investigation, and Perception).
The real question is on average is it better to have the above at level 1, or expertise in a single skill anywhere you go and two languages.
"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.
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
for the sake of argument, i am temporarily ignoring the benefits of natural explorer that do not work outside your favored terrain (in other words all benefits except for doubled proficiency bonus in all checks related to your favored terrain) as it is hard to judge how often you will actually be in your favored terrain as it is so DM dependent, and i am ignoring the extra languages since it is hard to measure their power level. At the moment i am simply comparing the thing in natural explorer that lets you double your proficiency bonus with the thing in canny that lets you double your proficiency bonus, and trying to figure out what benefit is most likely to affect the most rolls in campaigns where you are in non-favored terrain at least 60% of the time, considering how vague "related to your favored terrain" can be interpreted as.
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
So for example if you are playing in Frostmaiden and are creating a character for that, Natural Explorer with a favored terrain of arctic will damn near break the module in parts. You basically get to bypass all of the Arctic survival parts of the adventure. In my case I made the switch and took Survival as it is the most relevant skill to the ribbon abilities. In practice it is working OK. Instead of granted items I have to actually role play and roll Survival a bit more. The DM was giving me most of the ribbons without being crazy (I couldn't navigate through a blizzard for example, but I also wasn't pushing it because no Ranger would try). The party can become lost now. We can be ambushed.
Goodberry already allowed us to bypass food needs. Tracking information keys off survival. I was never travelling alone. All of the travelling ribbons applied only when travelling for an hour or more anyway so weren't useful in combat.
Overall I am not unhappy with the trade.
okay good for you but that still does not really answer the question of weather or not either feature will apply to more rolls over the course of an campaign even in situations were you are mostly not in your favored terrain, the thing that was the question i was asking with this post
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Outside of what I answered, I don't think its answerable. When you are outside your favored terrain you will require a TON of DM good will to make use of the "related to your favored terrain" mechanic. This leads back to the core question of the situationality of the original feature. You may have overlimited the discussion. I hope you get a better answer.
In Frost Maiden I basically spend my whole time in my original terrain, and it would have been better to keep the original. In most other campaigns probably not. I hope that helps.
I personally don't want to have to spend every proficiency check shoe horning in how my favored terrain of the arctic applies in a cold cave or city and trying to convince the GM.
This question is very campaign, character and DM specific so I don't think there is a definitive answer. Double proficiency in wis and int related to your favored terrain may not be as important to your character as expertise in athletics or acrobatics for example.
If your DM uses travel/terrain frequently or loves to dish out lore and other info via rolls that benefit from natural explorer then I'd choose that one. If you know that isn't your DM's style and your character wants to be specialize in something besides fact finding maybe canny is a better option.
My anecdotal experience is that canny has been more useful to my ranger because I lean into that one skill. It's a real stretch to make check related to your forest terrain when you're deep in a dungeon without some help on the DM's part.
In the end it all comes down to what is fun to you and talk to your DM!
Many creatures are actually from multiple terrain types. its listed on the bottom of most monster stat blocks. so you could potentially get expertise in perception or even passive perception when being stalked by an enemy from you chosen terrain. some people don't agree.
Just as a note: Here is a rough list of monster terrain assignments. I usually allow coastal and underwater to merge. Some Of the unassigned actually belong in other groups as they are upgraded versions of other creatures that do belong in a Favored terrain and humanoids are kind of setting specific so also unassigned.
Number of creatures assigned to a terrain:
Artic 51
Costal 67
Desert 119
Forest 201
grass land 121
hill 133
Mountain 111
swamp 96
underdark 236
Underwater 30
Urban 148
Unassigned 866
that is taking the feature way past its limits i'd say, like being close with nature and exploring and stuff makes you see better, but only against these few creatures
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
why is it way past limits? many animals deliberately make sounds to hide under environmental conditions like wind but a ranger might recognize it. Knowing about the enemy also means you understand its stalking patterns or how it uses natural camouflage. A non familiar person might not even register a subtle smell but a ranger might immediately associate it with the creature involved. The game calls out specific mechanics and this accounts for them.
What other interpretation could this mean? "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 game also says skill checks do not have a great impact on cr for monsters why would this not apply to pcs.
DMG: Modifying a monster.
If you want a monster to be proficient in a skill, you can give it a bonus equal to its proficiency bonus on ability checks related to that skill. For example, a monster with sharp senses might have a bonus on Wisdom (Perception) checks, while a duplicitous monster might have a bonus on Charisma (Deception) checks.
You can double the proficiency bonus to account for heightened mastery. For example, a doppelganger is so good at deceiving others that its bonus on Charisma (Deception) checks is equal to double its proficiency bonus + its Charisma modifier.
Skill bonuses have no bearing on a monster's challenge rating.
Because, unlike monsters, pc's are supposed to do skill checks quite often. Saying that it doesn't matter invalidates a core class mechanic for both the rogue and the bard and to a lesser extend the ranger and the sorcerer (at least in tasha's).
I also disagree with your interpretation that the natural explorer benefits extent to the creatures that occur in that terrain, as then it is encroaching on the favored enemy feature which rangers get at the same level.
The two abilities call out different types of bonuses for a reason. Advantage for Favored enemy and double Proficiency for favored terrain. They are designed to be able to stack.
I Never said it didn't matter. I was implying that its highly valuable but it doesn't affect the Power of the PC Because the impact on damage is minimal ( generally limited to surprise rounds). CR is a measurement of damage potential.
The mention of rogue and bard abilities confirm in my mind that its part of the intended design because its similar in function but tailored to ranger specialization.
If any dm tried to say that a monster whose stat block calls out a terrain is not related to the terrain I would question his objectivity.
That would just mean you always have both bonusses up for your favored enemy because obviously the enemy you picked will have wandered around in the terrain you picked.
If the DM tried to say that a monster does relate to the terrain i would also question his objectivity. Especially so since to me, the intent of this ability seems to be geography and plants because there is already a coupled feature that handles creatures. In fact, there is no way to objectively rule this feature because of how subjective "related to" is.
It would actually not always apply because Favored enemy is survival/ tracking or intelligence. Perception can only be applied for Favored terrain. Intelligence checks are designed to stack but perception can't. So, your argument that its already covered is flawed but it is also flawed in assuming they can't over lap. The intent of the ability is not defined. What is defined is the monsters terrain and the type of check involved. How can these not be connected. It fits logically, It fits thematically, it fits mechanically.
I think this is a very good example of how much you are in the hands of a reasonable GM with both of these abilities.
Neither is better than the other. Tasha’s offers an optional replacement. Not a change or errata. For many, players the streamlining and simplification of two languages and expertise in survival of the optional fits the game they are playing much better than the original, which is more open ended. The replacement also adds elements that are more valuable for a combat focused game, for people who want the ranger to be more of a tactical skirmisher then a woodsman. A swimming speed, a climbing speed, temporary hit points, and reduction of exhaustion levels all fit more in a combat encounter style of play. For a particular style of play, the original would be a better fit. It offers much more room for creativity, role-play, and use given the campaign, dungeon master, player, and environments. As folks have mentioned in other threads very recently, they prefer the scout rogue with expertise in both nature and survival to the Rangers “situational“ ability to get those same things. For that particular comparison I think of the rogue scout as a Boy Scout type of character. One that has been out camping a lot and read many books. They have a general level of expertise in all things nature and survival. They have a high functioning knowledge of these two skills that apply to all situations. It is their knowledge, ability, and expertise in those two skills that gives them their strength. I think of the original ranger ability more along the lines of an indigenous person, a fictional character like Tarzan, or a real life character like Steve Irwin that is a master of his native countriy’s wildlife and habitation. The original ranger ability rewards them for gaining proficiency in a variety of skills. I use the more liberal interpretation of the Rangers ability, in that, anything related to one of their favored terrain is fair game. Anytime you are interacting with any creature or plant life from your favored terrain gets it. You can apply the expertise anytime you were doing something that is in one way shape or form related to your favored terrain, even if is in a different environment, even a city. Obviously they would get these abilities while in their favored terrain, and if they’ve chosen their skill proficiencies specifically to boost this interaction they would have as many or more skills with expertise as a scout rogue while in their favored terrain. Race, background, class, feats, and multiclassing all can make a ranger more broadly knowledgeable about their favored terrain in general. Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, Religion, Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival, are all possible, with some being more obvious than others. The rogue is a master of “the skill(s)”, while they ranger is a master of “the land(s)”. The optional replacement moves the ranger away from this park ranger, Tarzan, Steve Irwin type of class to more of a combat focused class with a little taste of what the rogue does, which I’m told many more people prefer. So we all get the best of both worlds, literally. LOL!
Your argument, that my argument is flawed, is flawed in and off itself since i never said the benefits you get out of them can't overlap. My argument is that they SHOULDN'T overlap since in the design they clearly made them into two distict functions. At least they shouldn't overlap when the terrain you are in at that time is not related to your favored terrain.
Perception checks against your favored enemy are indeed not yet covered in the favored enemy ability. However, you already get a bunch of bonuses against your favored enemy. If they wanted to also give you always on perception bonus against your favored enemy, they would have given you an always on perception bonus against your favored enemy.
Just to show how variable the Nat Explorer bonuses are, let's list the things just in this thread that some of you assume is covered but is not explicitly covered:
None of this is a given. Your DM may allow none of it, and you can't cite a rule that says s/he's wrong. Related is an extremely vague term. This is on top of the well-known variability of actually ever being within your terrain.
You know what? I don't care which is better. I'm just going with Canny because I don't want to be that guy constantly annoying the DM with questions about whether my class feature applies. As a DM myself, I know how uncomfortable that can be because I want to let my players use their stuff but I also don't want to just be a complete pushover. So just keep in mind that it can put the DM in an awkward spot. Expertise in Survival gives you similar RP feel with a much clearer definition of what benefits you get.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
we have switched from the point that was never addressed.
Is a monster that's stat block with a listed "favored terrain" related to that terrain? Yes or No.
If the first part is YES then you must ,by RAW, be allowed to use double proficiency when making a wisdom check if proficient.