The Paladin can smite evil to gain his Paladin level to damage, and double level to damage vs evil outsiders, evil dragons, and undead. So this begs the question, why doesnt the Ranger get his level to damage vs his favored enemys?
I understand smite evil is only useable so many times per day and the Ranger gets 5 favored enemys (vs the virtual 3 that the Paladin gets, though Im not saying Rangers should get double there level), but I think this change would really bring the Ranger up to par in its niche, plus it would be even more incentive to stay in class.
I have always thought so, too, over the years, but there many feats and items that now add good damage based on favored enemy...the imbalance does not seem as bad as it used to.
This is true for 3.5 my friend, not so for Pathfinder (at least not yet).
Basically because you can go with Favored Enemy:Humanoid (Humans) and get a bonus against a huge percentage of antagonists, particularly in urban campaigns. Further favored enemy also provides utility out of combat situations rather than just being a "striker" bonus.
Favored Enemy is an always on effect while smite evil is a limited use ability. What scales for one doesn't work for the other.
Etc, etc.
Basically because you can go with Favored Enemy:Humanoid (Humans) and get a bonus against a huge percentage of antagonists, particularly in urban campaigns. Further favored enemy also provides utility out of combat situations rather than just being a "striker" bonus.
Favored Enemy is an always on effect while smite evil is a limited use ability. What scales for one doesn't work for the other.
Etc, etc.
Also, Favored Enemy works against EVERY member of that race, where I believe Smite evil must be decalred against a single opponent.
So, while our Ranger in battle with a bunch of human Hellknights could do favored enemy damage to all of them, the paladin will only be able to Smite Evil against one of them.
The bonus also works on skill checks used to "hunt" your favored enemy. It's more than just a hit & damage bonus. It's very in character the way it's written.
Smite does the most damage and good to hit but is the most limited as it's only on evil and limited a number of times per day.
Favored Enemy hits a bit better in the long run than but does less damage. As well offers bonus to skills. It's limited to the enemies you select and it always one.
How this plays out is the if you have ranger fighting their favored enemy who just happens to be evil so that Paladin can smite the Ranger gets to use their power more often. If you 4 bad guys the ranger is using their power on any he attacks. The Paladin is selecting one of the 4 to smite. So if both were level 10 the Paladin is smiting one for +4 to hit +10 damage assuming and 18 Chr. The Ranger is doing +6 to hit and damage. Once the Paladins chosen enemy for the smite is dead they no longer gain that bonus with expending an additional smite. The ranger e keeps hitting with +6 to hit and damage.
I think if favored enemy was +1 to and damage per ranger level that power would be too power, much more powerful than the Paladins smite.
If I remember rightly thats how rangers were done in 1E, level as bonus damage
I guess my thought process here was most opponents you face in a given campaign are evil, which provides the Paladin ample oppurtunities to use his smite evil, however a Ranger can go long periods or even a whole campaign whithout ever seeing a favored enemy.
Although I will say I hadnt considered the repercussions from favored enemy (humans), mostly cause I like to roleplay the anamosity I feel towards my favored enemies, and Ive never taken humans or even thought to, due to that fact.
I guess my thought process here was most opponents you face in a given campaign are evil, which provides the Paladin ample oppurtunities to use his smite evil, however a Ranger can go long periods or even a whole campaign whithout ever seeing a favored enemy.
Although I will say I hadnt considered the repercussions from favored enemy (humans), mostly cause I like to roleplay the anamosity I feel towards my favored enemies, and Ive never taken humans or even thought to, due to that fact.
However, I think you missed part of my point. It still doesn't matter that most opponents are evil. The point is that the Paladin has to assign his SE to a SINGLE target. The ranger gets his bonuses vs ANYONE who fits the criteria.
That's why it's more balanced this way.
Smite Evil is one of the benefits of taking a Paladin with the restriction of Alignment/ Roleplaying options. And Paladins SHOULD be better at facing demons than Rangers. They're !@$#@$%# Paladins! Well, not literally !@$#@#%#. That would break the vows of some of the orders, I would imagine.
Otherwise, it's just Munchkinning the Ranger too much.
However, I think you missed part of my point. It still doesn't matter that most opponents are evil. The point is that the Paladin has to assign his SE to a SINGLE target. The ranger gets his bonuses vs ANYONE who fits the criteria.
That's why it's more balanced this way.
Smite Evil is one of the benefits of taking a Paladin with the restriction of Alignment/ Roleplaying options. And Paladins SHOULD be better at facing demons than Rangers. They're !@$#@$%# Paladins! Well, not literally !@$#@#%#. That would break the vows of some of the orders, I would imagine.
Otherwise, it's just Munchkinning the Ranger too much.
Ok, ok, I concede, it was just a thought and you all have proven the merits of the current ways to me.
And theres no need to be throwing the M word around all willy nilly like. ;)
|
Quoting myself from a previous thread.
This is why I think Favored Enemy should be adjusted to something like Chosen Quarry. While it is most often considered the training of someone in ways of killing a hated foe, it doesn't have to be so.
I played a dwarven ranger/wizard with Favored Enemy: Human as a scholar of his people who had studied the ways of humans to be a better emissary between their peoples. I could easily see a local sheriff having FE: Human because he's spent so much time interacting with them, knowing when someone is hiding something, and just how to hit a crook to take them down quicker.
Hatred of a favored enemy is a stereotype that needs to be broken.
However, I think you missed part of my point. It still doesn't matter that most opponents are evil. The point is that the Paladin has to assign his SE to a SINGLE target. The ranger gets his bonuses vs ANYONE who fits the criteria.
That's why it's more balanced this way.
Smite Evil is one of the benefits of taking a Paladin with the restriction of Alignment/ Roleplaying options. And Paladins SHOULD be better at facing demons than Rangers. They're !@$#@$%# Paladins! Well, not literally !@$#@#%#. That would break the vows of some of the orders, I would imagine.
Otherwise, it's just Munchkinning the Ranger too much.
Ok, ok, I concede, it was just a thought and you all have proven the merits of the current ways to me.
And theres no need to be throwing the M word around all willy nilly like. ;)
It also depends on the campaign, I have been in wilderness campaigns where we faced alot of neutral enemies (animals and such).
But the big thing is paladin smite is vs 1 target. Ranger favored enemy is vs every target of that type. A paladin will only ever be smiting one guy, a ranger facing a half dozen of his favored enemies (like a squad of goblins or something) will get the bonus against each of them.
However, I think you missed part of my point. It still doesn't matter that most opponents are evil. The point is that the Paladin has to assign his SE to a SINGLE target. The ranger gets his bonuses vs ANYONE who fits the criteria.
That's why it's more balanced this way.
Smite Evil is one of the benefits of taking a Paladin with the restriction of Alignment/ Roleplaying options. And Paladins SHOULD be better at facing demons than Rangers. They're !@$#@$%# Paladins! Well, not literally !@$#@#%#. That would break the vows of some of the orders, I would imagine.
Otherwise, it's just Munchkinning the Ranger too much.
Ok, ok, I concede, it was just a thought and you all have proven the merits of the current ways to me.
And theres no need to be throwing the M word around all willy nilly like. ;)
LOL, sorry. Not saying that you were trying to Munchkin the ranger (you were just asking questions).
But this sort of thing comes up with certain players who want to have every advantage everyone else gets.
(had one player who wanted to get Sneak Attack and spellcasting as fighter feats in 3.5)
Then again, I've always seen the ranger as a woodlands/ tracker character first and a damage dealer second.
(had one player who wanted to get Sneak Attack and spellcasting as fighter feats in 3.5)Then again, I've always seen the ranger as a woodlands/ tracker character first and a damage dealer second.
On a side note, I allowed 1d6 SA damage as a combat feat back in 3.5, and another 1d6 as an improved version. It never seemed to be very OP for the "dirty fighter" that took them. Then again, we didn't have a big munchkin problem in our group.
Smite does the most damage and good to hit but is the most limited as it's only on evil and limited a number of times per day.
I'd be willing to lay good money that if you kept track of every encounter throughout the overwhelming majority of adventures, the Paladin's smite bonus could be applied to more than twice as many foes as the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus.
Edit: that's not to say I am at all for increasing the bonus that the Ranger receives (except for maybe allowing the scaling bonus to apply to all of a Ranger's Favored Enemy choices). I am however all for a broadening of the Favored Enemy categories, so that this nifty little class feature can come in handy quite a bit more often. I'd also like to see a bit of a tie-in between what Knowledges are considered class skills for the Ranger and what the Ranger picks for Favored Enemies.
Also, I splee gud.
|
|
I'd be willing to lay good money that if you kept track of every encounter throughout the overwhelming majority of adventures, the Paladin's smite bonus could applied to more than twice as many foes as the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus.
Are we talking actual applications of the bonus, or theoretical applications of the bonus?
Smite does the most damage and good to hit but is the most limited as it's only on evil and limited a number of times per day.I'd be willing to lay good money that if you kept track of every encounter throughout the overwhelming majority of adventures, the Paladin's smite bonus could be applied to more than twice as many foes as the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus.
Edit: that's not to say I am at all for increasing the bonus that the Ranger receives (except for maybe allowing the scaling bonus to apply to all of a Ranger's Favored Enemy choices). I am however all for a broadening of the Favored Enemy categories, so that this nifty little class feature can come in handy quite a bit more often. I'd also like to see a bit of a tie-in between what Knowledges are considered class skills for the Ranger and what the Ranger picks for Favored Enemies.
Also, I splee gud.
I haven't found that with the Ranger. One reason is these message board when it comes to Adventure Paths. Player can quickly figure out which favored enemy is the best to pick for which AP. When it come to my own games I'm careful to take into consideration a Rangers favored enemy and give the Ranger plenty of opportunity to use. Of course if the player insists on going where that enemy won't exist I can't help that but if the favored enemy is Gnolls and the players are adventuring in Gnoll territory then they will meat all kinds of Gnolls.
I'd be willing to lay good money that if you kept track of every encounter throughout the overwhelming majority of adventures, the Paladin's smite bonus could applied to more than twice as many foes as the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus.Are we talking actual applications of the bonus, or theoretical applications of the bonus?
This is true. But a Paladin has to be more discerning with WHO he uses his SE against.
|
|
A paladin has a limited number of targets he can apply the bonus to. The ranger can apply it to any number of targets. This difference will be lessened or increased depending on the pace of encounters. A paladin able to get all of his smites back between every encounter will shorten the gap between the number of targets he affects and the number the ranger does. If the paladin has to fight all day, without recovering his smites, his number of targets will remain static. He affects X per day while the ranger affects a greater number of targets every combat.
Also, would we count every time the ranger gained a bonus from FE on skill checks? A ranger with humans as FE could get that in roleplay encounters where the paladins smite will never come into play.
I think, even only counting actual times the characters get to use the bonus, the ranger and paladin will be equal, with the ranger having more variance while the paladin is constant.
A paladin has a limited number of targets he can apply the bonus to. The ranger can apply it to any number of targets. This difference will be lessened or increased depending on the pace of encounters. A paladin able to get all of his smites back between every encounter will shorten the gap between the number of targets he affects and the number the ranger does. If the paladin has to fight all day, without recovering his smites, his number of targets will remain static. He affects X per day while the ranger affects a greater number of targets every combat.
Also, would we count every time the ranger gained a bonus from FE on skill checks? A ranger with humans as FE could get that in roleplay encounters where the paladins smite will never come into play.
I think, even only counting actual times the characters get to use the bonus, the ranger and paladin will be equal, with the ranger having more variance while the paladin is constant.
As long as the Ranger has foreknowledge of what types of antagonists he might be facing, I would agree.
As long as the Ranger has foreknowledge of what types of antagonists he might be facing, I would agree.Undead, Abberation, Magical Beast, Outsider(Evil), Humanoid(Human).
Chances are anywhere in Gollarion will have enemies of these types. These are the broadest categories in the game, and thus the most likely to be encountered at any given time.
Yes, but if Ranger decides to focus his FE on a particular role, for whatever reason such as roleplaying, ect, at 20th level he will have a +10 vs only one type and a +2 vs all others, making this benefit much more limited. While a +2 is nice, it is nothing to gasp at, especially at 20th level.
|
I can offer a bit of real world insight, for what it's worth(can the phrase 'real world' even be applied to a game?:)
In our weekly Council of Thieves game, we have both a Paladin and a Ranger (I play the Ranger) Both characters can do decent damage normally and excellent damage when under optimum circumstances i.e Paladin using Smite Evil and Ranger fighting a Favored Enemy. I have found both to be very balanced and I have certainly never felt like my Ranger is not holding up well against the Paladin in the damage dealing area.
To the OP, it is certainly an interesting thought, but I think the Ranger is just fine as is (well, except for the whole spell thing, but that's a different thread ... ;) )
|
|
I find it quite generous that in PF, a human ranger has no restrictions on taking other humans as his favored enemy...used to be where only evil rangers could do that, right?
And it was as stupid a restriction then as it would be now.
This is why I think Favored Enemy should be adjusted to something like Chosen Quarry. While it is most often considered the training of someone in ways of killing a hated foe, it doesn't have to be so.
I played a dwarven ranger/wizard with Favored Enemy: Human as a scholar of his people who had studied the ways of humans to be a better emissary between their peoples. I could easily see a local sheriff having FE: Human because he's spent so much time interacting with them, knowing when someone is hiding something, and just how to hit a crook to take them down quicker.
Hatred of a favored enemy is a stereotype that needs to be broken.
One thing that might be worth noting is that flat boni to damage is most useful when the character is doing many attacks per round - and whether being an archer or a dual-wielder, this comes more natural to the ranger.
Not saying that the paladin can't do two-weapon fighting or archery, he's great at it, but he doesn't get bonus feats towards it.
Makes me want to go digging for alternate ranger articles...
Unearthed Arcana had Favored Environment, but the PF ranger already gets that.
I'm a subscriber. :) I don't remember it having an alternative to Favored Enemy tho. :P
The only ones I know of are the Gnome and Elf racial substitution levels from Races of Stone and the Wild respectfully.
Dragon 324, Class Acts has a ranger without favored enemy. It's not exactly an ability substitution, but a full on variant class. They essentially get smite evil in place of favored enemy though.
If I remember rightly thats how rangers were done in 1E, level as bonus damage
Was flipping through my 1E PHB and this is correct, they get their Ranger level as a bonus to damage against bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs and trolls.
I have always thought so, too, over the years, but there many feats and items that now add good damage based on favored enemy...the imbalance does not seem as bad as it used to.
And try running a 3.5 Ranger without those very few feats. Rangers got pretty shafted over the years and I don't think Pathfinder necessarily fixed what was really broken.
And try running a 3.5 Ranger without those very few feats. Rangers got pretty shafted over the years and I don't think Pathfinder necessarily fixed what was really broken.
Interesting ... what *do* you see as broken, then? I'm truly interested in this ... haven't heard it much before.
And try running a 3.5 Ranger without those very few feats. Rangers got pretty shafted over the years and I don't think Pathfinder necessarily fixed what was really broken.Interesting ... what *do* you see as broken, then? I'm truly interested in this ... haven't heard it much before.
Well, the whole Favored Enemy thing is already rather hit or miss. Pathfinder did bump up the Ranger TWF compared to Ranged Ranger a good bit. TWF Ranger was shafted in 3.5 w/o supplements. Rangers never got alot of the improvement the other classes did from the various supplements. The casting list is weak and sparse as well. The problem with the Ranger is it is a better thematic class than it is a playable class.
The Ranger is very playable. I don't see why it's not.
The Ranger is very playable. I don't see why it's not.
The Ranger is like a lame Fighter if you don't run into a fair number of FE to fight.
Well, the whole Favored Enemy thing is already rather hit or miss.
Agreed. I saw a variant where the ranger chose favored enemies "per day", more or less, and I liked that.
EDIT: The problem is to a high extent that all rangers would look more or less the same, since the choices are so imbalanced. Both for their hunter's bond or whatever it's called, and because favored enemies can't be changed, and because of that you usually have to pick those you are certain to face.
Humans, undead are tier one with a wide margin. You're almost certain to meet those in more or less all campaigns.
Magical beasts, evil outsiders are tier two. In a high-level campaign, evil outsiders are tier one. You have a good chance of meeting these on a semi-regular basis.
All others are tier three. Either you risk never meeting them in a campaign over say a 5-level span (fey, constructs) or they are generally so weak you don't need to worry much about them after level 3 (animals, kobolds)
Agreed. I saw a variant where the ranger chose favored enemies "per day", more or less, and I liked that.
Well, the whole Favored Enemy thing is already rather hit or miss.
That would increase its usability, but it hits the same pit fall of having to know what you are going to be facing.
That would increase its usability, but it hits the same pit fall of having to know what you are going to be facing.Agreed. I saw a variant where the ranger chose favored enemies "per day", more or less, and I liked that.
Well, the whole Favored Enemy thing is already rather hit or miss.
Kind of the same situation a wizard has, though for a bit of a larger extent. But favored enemy shouldn't always work, you have to do a bit of background checks on an area. That makes sense for a ranger, and with ranks in Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (nature) and so on, they should have a decent chance of getting to use it. If you're going into a forest, you might "prepare" FE Animals and Magical Beasts and if you're going into the Elven City of High Magic, you might prepare FE Humans and Constructs.
|
|
Huh ... you know, until a few months ago, I'd never really heard the 'Rangers are broken" thing, and I only really hear it now said by a handful of people on these boards. Not criticizing, just commenting.
I've always been a fan of rangers (although not as much a fan of the spells obviously), have played my share of them over the years, including in 3.5 and always found the class to be very balanced and fun to play. I'm actually playing a Ranger in our weekly Council of Thieves game and he DEFINATELY does not feel like a lame fighter! Against normal foes, he's fine ... against Favored Enemies he is pretty devastating!
The issue of Favored Enemies has come up before. Yes, it can be situational, but again, as has been pointed out before, the same argument could in theory be made of a Cleric that never faces undead not being able to use his channel ability, or a Rogue never encountering a lock or trap, or Paladin only ever encountering neutral enemies and not being able to use his Smite Evil ability. Honestly, Favored Enemy is NOT a 'broken' class ability.
Besides, if the ability really bothers you, take Human as your primary enemy - as many others has said before, you face plenty of them right?
Just my opinion!