IMHO, when one says "no reasonable person would interpret" this in a certain way, particularly where there does seem to be genuine ambiguity over meaning over "lost," that does seem like a veiled personal attack that all but calls someone as "unreasonable." But please don't let me interfere with y'all's mob.
I'm not insinuating that at all, and mean no offence to Ovinomancer (as it seems like even he wouldn't even rule that way in an actual game, but is instead arguing a point that it is a possible intepretation). The "reasonable person" is a concept that comes from criminal law, and I'm applying it here (since we're rules lawyering). I do offer my apologies if this was taken as an offense.
Sure. Reasonable people might also conclude that casting spells are farcical. The ranger ability is already supernatural, after all. So now we're splitting hairs over which supernatural ability is reasonable?
Tautological. To know the way I must first know the way.
Seems like a wrong turn to take the pass, then, doesn't it?
It wasn't.
I don't get it.
Similarly, I rule that a party always knows where the ranger is as long as they are within their favoured terrain. After all, if we don't know where someone is, we could possibly describe that person as lost. 'Unable to be found' is a dictionary definition of 'lost', after all. Unfortunately this works for enemies, too. Rangers cannot evade pursuit in their favoured terrain.
Works for me. It's a poorly written ability, all told.
Works for me. It's a poorly written ability, all told.
Works for me. It's a poorly written ability, all told.
I would add that while @Ovinomancer ’s interpretation wouldn’t fly in real life, I would totally buy it in a fantasy context. Rangers are supposed to be masters of the wilderness, so they should be able to perform extraordinary feats in their favored terrain.
