In line with the other minor tweak I'm considering (see the "Do You See What I See?" thread), would it really be that bad to allow bane weapons (and the ranger class ability feature) to apply to all humanoids equally, rather than have subsets for every major grouping of species? It just seems to me that the difference in physiologies isn't great enough to negate those bonuses, especially when there is only one category for such vast, diverse groups of beings as magical beasts and undead. So, what say you all?
|
In line with the other minor tweak I'm considering (see the "Do You See What I See?" thread), would it really be that bad to allow bane weapons (and the ranger class ability feature) to apply to all humanoids equally, rather than have subsets for every major grouping of species? It just seems to me that the difference in physiologies isn't great enough to negate those bonuses, especially when there is only one category for such vast, diverse groups of beings as magical beasts and undead. So, what say you all?
It certainly would simplify things. I guess it depends on the campaign world. If someone's homebrew world had lots of humanoids and very few sentient non-humanoids, then the current system might make more sense. But if there are a lot of non-humanoids running around, then I think you method might be easier.
In line with the other minor tweak I'm considering (see the "Do You See What I See?" thread), would it really be that bad to allow bane weapons (and the ranger class ability feature) to apply to all humanoids equally, rather than have subsets for every major grouping of species? It just seems to me that the difference in physiologies isn't great enough to negate those bonuses....
Well I think the specificity is more of a game balance issue than a logical one - I personally don't think it would impact balance all that much, but I think that is the reason it was written that way.
For logic, I think it has to do with an emotional intensity the Ranger has for a specific species that fuels the bonus rather than any special understanding of anatomical quirks. For bane weapons it could be that the weapon works on the target creature because it was crafted (in part) from the target creature - or something they specifically loathe.
The other logic component (for Rangers) is that the bonus flows from an understanding of how those creatures move and fight rather creating weak spots, rather than actual weaknesses in the creatures in the creatures body. This applies less to bane weapons.
In the end though if you wanted to open up the "type" on the bane weapon to the whole type rather than the species on humanoids I would add another +1 equivalency to the creation cost.
The Ranger I would allow to the degree it fits the characters backstory - say gobliniods rather than humanoids, something along those lines.
In line with the other minor tweak I'm considering (see the "Do You See What I See?" thread), would it really be that bad to allow bane weapons (and the ranger class ability feature) to apply to all humanoids equally, rather than have subsets for every major grouping of species? It just seems to me that the difference in physiologies isn't great enough to negate those bonuses, especially when there is only one category for such vast, diverse groups of beings as magical beasts and undead. So, what say you all?
I think that the Bane ability is vastly different than the Ranger's ability to have a favored enemy. Here's how I see it: if you take all humanoids and lump them into the same group, you now have a (bane)weapon that acts as +2 higher and does an extra 2d6 dmaage against pretty much anything that walks on two legs and is not a giant. Goblins, Orcs, Aventi, Humans, Elves, gnomes, etc. That's a mighty big grouping and I would probably balance it out by adding maybe 2 to the base of what it already costs to make a bane weapon.
In my mind, I rationalize the construction of creating one of these weapons by having a bit of blood of the creature the weapon is bane against. So if it's just a bane of humans, then any human will work (due to the human blood); if it's a bane against magical beasts, then the blood of any magical beast should do it because of the magical properties in it's blood. The same with lycanthropes, undead (though maybe it's the negative energy it disrupts instead), giants, etc. If it was a banes against all humanoids, that it would take a whole lot of blood from a whole lot a creatures.
The Ranger ability let's you get a bonus to spot, bluff, listen, survival, etc - due to your intimate familiarity with orcs (or whatever), who just don't act like humans, goblins or gnomes, IMO.
I agree with Celric and I like the rationale offered. The bane weapon being focused on the blood (or life-force) of a specific creature makes good sense to me; as does the explanation of the magical beast catagory. So, I guess I'm not voting affirmative on the idea of broadening the catagories to include all humanoids.
I'm not sure what the original connection was in the mind of the OP but the ranger's natural enemy and bane weapons are two completely different things in my mind. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.
Though a ranger who is keen on the whole favored enemy thing would probably seek out a bane weapon that hurts his favored enemy. At least in that way they're related. I also suspect that many bane weapons were commissioned by rangers to be used against their favored enemies. I also agree with the point that with the range of humanoid races that can be played as PCs and the number of times that PCs face humanoids in the game, having a humanoid bane weapon (one that affects all humanoids) might be more of a liability than a help.
I agree with Celric and I like the rationale offered. The bane weapon being focused on the blood (or life-force) of a specific creature makes good sense to me; as does the explanation of the magical beast catagory. So, I guess I'm not voting affirmative on the idea of broadening the catagories to include all humanoids.
I'm not sure what the original connection was in the mind of the OP but the ranger's natural enemy and bane weapons are two completely different things in my mind. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.
The link I made was the fact that they are broken into the exact same categorizations. Also, if you read the FRCS, it is implied that the ranger's abilities come from knowledge relating to the physiology of the creatures he has chosen as his foes, not a particular hatred against them. The evidence for this is that a ranger in the FR has the option of choosing members of an organization as his favored enemies, in which case his bonuses are morale bonuses and stack with no others. So, following that logic, a normal favored enemy selection doesn't account for emotion, but rather training in the anatomy and fighting styles of the chosen foe, which I have trouble thinking would be all that different between various groups of humanoids. Just so you know a bit more of where I'm coming from.