Lycanthropes seem to have a lot in common, at least as much as everything in the Dragon type have with one another, or the Monstrous Humanoid type, but, because Lycanhropes are one specific type of monster, and because they are a template that is applied to various base "types" of monsters,
there is no easy way to create a ranger that actually wants to specialize in killing lycanthropes.
Even though they have a specific subtype, no subtypes that cross Type barriers are listed in the Ranger's allowed favored enemies.
I'm thinking that rangers should either be able to take lycanthropes specifically, or be allowed the shapeshifter subtype as one of their choices of favored enemies. I guess I'm just hung up on the gothic horror monster hunter type, but your Van Helsing's and Van Richten's could, under 3.5, hunt vampires and ghouls all day long, but unless they really hated humans they probably wouldn't get any benefit from lycanthrope hunting lore, which seems strange.
(I won't even get into the fact that Knowledge: Local technically gives you information about a human werewolf, but Knowlege: Nature lets you know about a hill giant wereboar, but I'll have to remember that for the skills section).
|
This makes perfect sense - so long as there's a very concise explanation as to what type of creatures fall into a "shape-changer" category.
So far I'm thinking; Lyncanthropes, Dopplegangers, and Haraknin (Fiend Folio - fought a bunch of them in Shackled City - sort of a human/hell-hound shape-changer.)
Robert
|
|
Robert i agree
but i will go really specific
its not the same hunting a werewolf than a wererat
if a ranger wants to speciallice in hunting ...
ok no... the OP is right there should be a rule that lets Ranger have favored enemy (lycantrope)
otherwise it would be fair to ask that the "Undead" becomes divided in Specific type of undead
its not the same hunting a Vampire (which is a template and enters in Undeads) than a Lich (which is a template) than killing a ghoul (which could be easily made into a template)
so in general lycantropes should have an option for themseles specified in the rules...
James! Jason! cany comments on this?
Lycanthropes seem to have a lot in common, at least as much as everything in the Dragon type have with one another, or the Monstrous Humanoid type, but, because Lycanhropes are one specific type of monster, and because they are a template that is applied to various base "types" of monsters,
there is no easy way to create a ranger that actually wants to specialize in killing lycanthropes.I'm thinking that rangers should either be able to take lycanthropes specifically, or be allowed the shapeshifter subtype as one of their choices of favored enemies. I guess I'm just hung up on the gothic horror monster hunter type, but your Van Helsing's and Van Richten's could, under 3.5, hunt vampires and ghouls all day long, but unless they really hated humans they probably wouldn't get any benefit from lycanthrope hunting lore, which seems strange.
I'm totally cool with that idea.
I'd think Lycanthrope is a better option than Shapechanger.But I can see Lycantrophe being chosen as a Favored Enemy as reasonable.
|
KnightErrant: most lycans from the MM have the Humanoid (human) or Giant type, so if your ranger takes both of these, chances are he's ready for a lycanthrope.
PS: in the Realms there are additional organizations which qualify for ranger favored enemy class features. Malarites, Red Wizards, Zhentarim, etc. (i.e. I've never met a non-malarite bad lycan and a non-selunite good lycan in a Realms campaign before... so... metagame away!)
This makes perfect sense - so long as there's a very concise explanation as to what type of creatures fall into a "shape-changer" category.
How about creatures with the 'Shapechanger' subtype?
How about creatures with the 'Shapechanger' subtype?
Heh . . . that was pretty much what I was thinking myself. Just allowing the subtype to be viable as a favored enemy should work just fine.
|
|
Heh . . . that was pretty much what I was thinking myself. Just allowing the subtype to be viable as a favored enemy should work just fine.
How about creatures with the 'Shapechanger' subtype?
...buuuuuuuuuut you don't really lose out by taking humans and giants as favored enemies either. This gives you way more options than just "shapechangers" which is very limiting in terms of sheer monster volumes out there...
You do lose. Dwarves and elves and halflings can be lycanthropes too.
If you just take human, indeed, you miss out on dwarven werebadgers, halfling wererats, elven werewolves, gnomish werewolverines, goblin wereweasels, gnoll werehyenas, etc.
I haven't seen any of the above in 20 years of gaming. Always good old "werewolves" 90% of the time (i.e. human subtype)
Okay, discounting that I've seen a few other species worth of lycanthropes, and thrown a few at players, thematically speaking, I'm not sure I like the ranger getting a bonus because he's good at hunting and killing humans when he goes after werewolves . . . or to put it another way, for the ranger to train in stalking and killing humans in order to get better hunting lycanthropes.
|
|
I see your RP angle there Knight, but rules-wise, I'm just saying that your ranger will be much more efficient with humanoid (human) and giant as favored enemy...
The only way you could convince *me* to take fave enemy lycans is with an inside tip of the hat from my DM, i.e. "hey buddy... I plan to use LOTS of were-things... LOTS!"
:)
I disagree, Purple Dragon Knight. Taking Favored Enemy Human and Giant takes two spots, and gives no bonus at all against a slightly more exotic lycanthrope. Worst of all, as KnightErrant pointed out, it means you're just as good at slaughtering the townsfolk as the werewolves.
I think Favored Enemy (Shapechanger subtype) would be a bit too broad, although possibly not too powerful, as a lot of "shapechangers" do not have the subtype (Rakshasa for instance).
I think a far simpler solution would for Lycanthropes to gain the animal type as well. Creatures typically only have one type, but they already gain skill points, BAB, etc., as an animal, in addition to whatever the base type was.
So your typical werewolf would be like one of the following:
Medium Humanoid, Animal (Human, Shapechanger)
Medium Animal (Augmented Humanoid, Human, Shapechanger)
Medium Humanoid (Human, Augmented Animal, Shapechanger)
A dual designation like this, while seemingly very useful for things like Inevitables that are sort of construct outsiders, should only apply to shapechangers that actually shift from one form to another. It's the separate Hit Dice that really make the distinction. Other creatures should really only have one type.
|
I'd personally allow for characters to take creature SUBTYPES as favored enemies. There is already a precedent for this in 3.5 rules, as one of the newest Monster Manuals (can't remember whether it was four or five) featured Monstrous Humanoids with the goblinoid subtype and explicitly stated that a character with Favored Enemy (humanoid [goblinoid]) would get the benefits of his favored enemy ability while fighting said goblinoids, even though they weren't humanoids by RAW.
This would open up a lot of possibilities for characters: you could have "law-givers", characters that specialize in fighting creatures with the "chaotic" subtype. You could have the aforementioned lycanthrope hunters, specializing in enemies with the "shapechanger" subtype. Furthermore, you could even have "spirit slayers", characters that specialize in fighting against incorporeal creatures and even Rangers that specialize in creatures with the "fire" subtype.
This wouldn't, in my humble opinion, break the game, as Favored Enemy is already a rather weak ability (as it is highly situational and scenario-dependent). Giving a character a broader array of creatures he can fight with that ability would increase the Ranger's effectiveness across the board. Also, you may have noticed that I proposed alignment subtypes as eligible for this: this wouldn't be game-breaking, as the only creatures in D&D core that have alignment subtypes are Outsiders, so you wouldn't get you Favored Enemy (Evil) bonus on all attacks against evil creatures, just against those with the evil subtype. Furthermore, the "fire" subtype wouldn't be game-breaking either, as it would mostly cover creatures from the Elemental Plane of Fire (or their setting-dependent version) and would allow a character to fight the inhabitants of that plane without having to get both Favored Enemy (Elemental) and Favored Enemy (Outsider [Fire]).
The only exception to the rule would be the "extraplanar" subtype. No Ranger should be allowed to simply choose said subtype as their favored enemy, as this would lead to all Rangers choosing that (since there are extraplanar creatures across the board amongst most of the common creature types).
EDIT: I would also make an exception with the "augmented humanoid" and other such subtypes unless the player had a really good in character explanation for it. (Maybe the character fights against what he sees as abominations to the ideals of a natural humanoid, such as half-supernatural humanoids, lycanthropes, templated undead and such? Who knows. I might let that fly if it was appropriate for the character.)
EDIT AGAIN: The Aquatic subtype is a tricky one, as I think that should be somehow tied to Favored Terrain rather than Favored Enemy. The only instance where I could see that favored enemy being problematic would be in a seafaring or aquatic campaign where most (if not all) foes will have said subtype.
|
|
Like I said: if the DM gives you a tip that lots of weird lycans are gonna be in his game, go ahead and ask him to bend the rules to allow "shapechangers" as favored enemy.
If you have no such advance knowledge and you're expecting a normal D&D campaign, bending the rules to allow "shapechangers" is a horrible choice for a ranger, any way you cut it.
For max efficiency, pick magical beasts, humans, giants and dragons, in that order.
Lycanthropes seem to have a lot in common, at least as much as everything in the Dragon type have with one another, or the Monstrous Humanoid type, but, because Lycanhropes are one specific type of monster, and because they are a template that is applied to various base "types" of monsters,
there is no easy way to create a ranger that actually wants to specialize in killing lycanthropes.Even though they have a specific subtype, no subtypes that cross Type barriers are listed in the Ranger's allowed favored enemies.
I'm thinking that rangers should either be able to take lycanthropes specifically, or be allowed the shapeshifter subtype as one of their choices of favored enemies. I guess I'm just hung up on the gothic horror monster hunter type, but your Van Helsing's and Van Richten's could, under 3.5, hunt vampires and ghouls all day long, but unless they really hated humans they probably wouldn't get any benefit from lycanthrope hunting lore, which seems strange.
(I won't even get into the fact that Knowledge: Local technically gives you information about a human werewolf, but Knowlege: Nature lets you know about a hill giant wereboar, but I'll have to remember that for the skills section).
The very best way maybe to create a PrC. Such as a Fangwatch Hunter or something along those lines
I'd allow lycans as species enemy, I'd prolly even throw the ranger a bone for making a less optimal choice for the sake of making a memorable character.
I'd definitely allow it, and the first thing I'd do is figure out a way to introduce a major group of lycanthropes into the campaign as an enemy. This way you don't so much reward the player's choice as validate it. By choosing lycanthropes he's expressed an interest in fighting a specific type of enemy, and he picked a great one in lycanthropes. As a GM, I love it when players so clearly indicate what they want to do, and I try to encourage it by giving them what they want.
Besides, lycanthropes can be fit into pretty much any campaign setting or type, scale easily along with the PCs, and are inherently cool. There are a lot worse favoured enemy choices.
CR