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.
the terrains are never listed in the actiual stat blocks in any of the core rulebooks, it is just a quirk of how dnd beyond likes to categorize things, the information on what terrains are appropriate comes from tables at the back of the dungeon master's guide and volo's guide to monsters, and besides just becuase you are interacting with an creature that is like tangentially related to your favored terrain it does not mean that the feature should apply, like there is no such thing as an RAW interpretation of this feature anyways becuase there is no hard, rigid, game mechanical definition on what "related to" even means, it will always be up to interpretation and up to the DM.
Also the tables just details them as "terrain/ places this monster can typically be found within", the exact words "favored terrain" do not show up there
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
The DMG and Volo's appendices are still raw. The favored "Favored terrain" term isn't needed in the appendices because each specific terrain is defined as a favored terrain making a more specific connection to the needed sub grouping. This is a mechanical in game relation.
Where is the statement "terrain/ places this monster can typically be found within" ? …. because it is not in the appendices. "Typically found" still is justification that its related and the dm should state a reason its not if he denies its use.
A hunter trained Alaska would be better able at finding an elk than one trained in the desert. Guess what? I just bought a book called "All things related to the Arctic and everything". but it doesn't talk about penguins and polar bears or whales or seals.
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.
You might get a bonus on recognizing a creature from that terrain, i'll give you that. However, as i stated before, the feature gives you a bonus to checks related to the terrain bu not necessarily to every single thing you might have encountered while strolling around in your terrain. While animals might certainly live in your terrain, i wouldn't say they are by definition part of the terrain. Just because you are good at tracking animals in forests doesn't mean you are just as good at tracking forest animals when they move through mountains since you need a whole different set of skills for that. In your campaign world elves might only live in forests but i wouldn't give you those bonuses every time you interact with an elf.
If you really want to be a god at tracking animals, take favored enemy animals
If you really want to be a god at tracking animals, take favored enemy animals
if you wanna do that you should be using deft explorer to gain expertise in survival and then also favored enemy (beast) ("animals" are not a creature type)
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
One of my least favorite things in these kinds of posts is when folks complain about the ranger's abilities being "poor", "underpowered", or "situational", and at the same time use the most restrictive interpretation of said abilities possible.
1. Is it a skill you are proficient with? Yes.
2. Is the use of this skill related to one of your favored terrains? Yes.
Great! You get an extra +2 to +6 for this skill check.
Also, players never get "to make skill checks". By RAW a DM calls for a skill check and allows the paler to make one. So having permanent expertise in a skill verves situational expertise in a skill should take no more talk or table time if playing by the rules.
Also, players never get "to make skill checks". By RAW a DM calls for a skill check and allows the paler to make one. So having permanent expertise in a skill verves situational expertise in a skill should take no more talk or table time if playing by the rules.
”...The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand...”
”...Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill--for example, “Make a Wisdom (Perception) check.” At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check. In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes a normal ability check...”
the terrains are never listed in the actiual stat blocks in any of the core rulebooks, it is just a quirk of how dnd beyond likes to categorize things, the information on what terrains are appropriate comes from tables at the back of the dungeon master's guide and volo's guide to monsters, and besides just becuase you are interacting with an creature that is like tangentially related to your favored terrain it does not mean that the feature should apply, like there is no such thing as an RAW interpretation of this feature anyways becuase there is no hard, rigid, game mechanical definition on what "related to" even means, it will always be up to interpretation and up to the DM.
Also the tables just details them as "terrain/ places this monster can typically be found within", the exact words "favored terrain" do not show up there
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
The DMG and Volo's appendices are still raw. The favored "Favored terrain" term isn't needed in the appendices because each specific terrain is defined as a favored terrain making a more specific connection to the needed sub grouping. This is a mechanical in game relation.
Where is the statement "terrain/ places this monster can typically be found within" ? …. because it is not in the appendices. "Typically found" still is justification that its related and the dm should state a reason its not if he denies its use.
A hunter trained Alaska would be better able at finding an elk than one trained in the desert. Guess what? I just bought a book called "All things related to the Arctic and everything". but it doesn't talk about penguins and polar bears or whales or seals.
You might get a bonus on recognizing a creature from that terrain, i'll give you that. However, as i stated before, the feature gives you a bonus to checks related to the terrain bu not necessarily to every single thing you might have encountered while strolling around in your terrain. While animals might certainly live in your terrain, i wouldn't say they are by definition part of the terrain. Just because you are good at tracking animals in forests doesn't mean you are just as good at tracking forest animals when they move through mountains since you need a whole different set of skills for that. In your campaign world elves might only live in forests but i wouldn't give you those bonuses every time you interact with an elf.
If you really want to be a god at tracking animals, take favored enemy animals
that is not how it works, terms such as RAW and RAI always relate to interpretations of the rules, never to the straight text or tables.
if you wanna do that you should be using deft explorer to gain expertise in survival and then also favored enemy (beast) ("animals" are not a creature type)
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
One of my least favorite things in these kinds of posts is when folks complain about the ranger's abilities being "poor", "underpowered", or "situational", and at the same time use the most restrictive interpretation of said abilities possible.
1. Is it a skill you are proficient with? Yes.
2. Is the use of this skill related to one of your favored terrains? Yes.
Great! You get an extra +2 to +6 for this skill check.
Also, players never get "to make skill checks". By RAW a DM calls for a skill check and allows the paler to make one. So having permanent expertise in a skill verves situational expertise in a skill should take no more talk or table time if playing by the rules.
Here’s the link.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores
”...The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand...”
”...Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill--for example, “Make a Wisdom (Perception) check.” At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check. In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes a normal ability check...”