Favored Enemy

[Shane Walden]

I guess Sorcerer. Do I win?

I have never really given the question thought. They both seem to have their advantages, their own flavor.

Shane

[legallytired]

I really don't get how anyone should be received with a rebuke because he's in the player seat. If the OP can add this new thread why can't he take a look around at the myriad of other threads? His prerogative.

This stuff is in his hands and he's making the choice to come here and ask a question answered in the Player's Guide knowing he will be getting more than the content of the Player's Guide. It is just natural that the thread will lead to other information.

Dragon is up there in the player's guide and I wouldn't really recommend any of my players to take it as a first choice.

Will he choose the best favored enemy possible for the AP? Is there such a thing? Will this choice really affect his 6 months from now game?

I really have no idea how knowing that bandits are more common in the first book, for example, will lead to a character that is less story-driven. This is purely in the player's hands.

Does every ranger needs to have his family/village killed or whatever by his favored enemy? I know this is just an example you mentioned but I'm really tired of this trope. Jimmy is taking the path of the ranger.. better exile him before his future favored enemy pillages our village!

[thenovalord]

any of the recommendations in the PG will keep him busy

...and yeah there needs to be thread called "the other 19 reasons why X is my favoured enemy" given that the #1 is 'they wiped out my village'.

[Shane Walden]

legallytired wrote:

This stuff is in his hands and he's making the choice to come here and ask a question answered in the Player's Guide knowing he will be getting more than the content of the Player's Guide. It is just natural that the thread will lead to other information.

But he's not asking a question that is answered in the Player's Guide. He is asking "what is the most often encountered type of creature" and is openly asking for "meta-game advice from other DMs". The answer is certainly included among the options in the Player's Guide, but the player has to choose and may not pick that one option. He is looking for an advantage that allows him to circumvent that decision. And, unfortunately, other DMs are willing to assist him.

Shane

[Shane Walden]

thenovalord wrote:

any of the recommendations in the PG will keep him busy

I agree. The PG recommendations are solid. The advice it gives is some of the best that can be given without taking meta-game info too far.

Shane

[tonyz]

The way I see it is that the swordlords of Restov, while not at all clued-in about the nature of what's really going on in the Stolen Lands, do know what's coming out of them and have a bit of info about things further in. So it makes sense that they would pick someone who was expert in dealing with animals and humans over, say, someone who was a trained demon-hunter from Mendev. No demons here, after all.

That said, it's up to the player. As DM I'll tell him what he (or the guys selecting him) would reasonably have known, but if he wants to pick marshmallow Peeps for his favored enemy despite my advice, so be it.

[Snorter]

legallytired wrote:

I really don't get how anyone should be received with a rebuke because he's in the player seat. If the OP can add this new thread why can't he take a look around at the myriad of other threads? His prerogative.

Of course he can.

And he'd be just as much of a cheat.

A player should work with the GM to pick an enemy from the creatures known to be common in the area.
If a GM's being coy, or unhelpful, then that's a bad call by the GM, IMO, but there's a list of common creature types in the Players' Guide.

Why don't we post every chapter boss statblock in this thread, so he can make an even more educated guess?

[Snorter]

And, lest anyone wrongly assume I'm some kind of anti-player Killer GM, I do recognise the frustration of having a poor favoured enemy choice.

That's why, since 3.5, I split the level 5/10/15/20 bonuses up, and give them out in smaller chunks, earlier and more often.

Instead of two +2 bonuses (one existing, one new) at levels 5/10/15/20, I give one +2 bonus (existing or new) at levels 3/5/8/10/13/15/18/20, with the understanding that the bonus doesn't go over 4 for any single category.

The ranger then has a far more versatile list of enemies, that come up more often, and he doesn't have to wait 5 levels to add a creature that just revealed it's a menace to the campaign.

[EDIT: found the doc; the relevant text explaining the changes to my players are as follows]

Revised Ranger

This revised version of the ranger attempts to avoid PCs or NPCs having inordinately large bonuses vs. 2 or 3 specific categories of creatures, and nothing vs anything else, which can create several unbalancing or unsatisfying effects.
In practice, either these creatures do not appear often enough to justify the choice, thus negating one of the key features of the class, and leaving the player dissatisfied with what he/she sees as an underpowered character, or else they are the main focus of a scenario or campaign, and thus the player can seem to have an unfair advantage, sailing through encounters that would otherwise prove challenging.
It can appear unrealistic for a ranger to suddenly gain a large bonus against a category of creatures that he/she has shown no interest in before, especially if that category has few unifying features (eg aberrations).
It can also be frustrating for players when the DM introduces a major new threat to the campaign world, just after the ranger PCs have chosen their new favoured enemies at levels 5, 10, etc, and will not get another chance for another 5 more levels.
Players creating replacement characters midway through a campaign can (sometimes rightly) be accused of meta-gaming or abusing player knowledge if they choose to have a high bonus vs. the optimum opponent, especially if it is a secretive one not known to be in the campaign area.
Problems can also occur when PCs face opponents with ranger levels, whose favoured enemies all seem to be the common PC races, leading to accusations of bias, and being a ‘killer DM’. The fact that an NPC was legal is no consolation to a player who lost a well-loved PC to a Manyshot attack, each shot of which dealt double-figure HP before any damage dice were rolled.
This revised version of the class therefore attempts to address the above, by smoothing the acquisition of, and putting a cap of (+4) on, any individual favoured enemy bonus. To compensate for this, more than 5 categories of enemy may be chosen, and individual bonuses are granted earlier and more often (whilst still granting the same total bonus/5 levels as before).

Does this help ease the worries of Ranger-favouring players?

[Snorter]

Kamelguru wrote:

IMO, a good GM won't let a player make a character that will suck. If I were to GM Age of Worms, I would say that the Enchanter should really reconsider his specialization, as the AP is 90% undead.

You sure about that?

I'm not saying they aren't there, but they're not exactly front-loaded.
Anyone who took your advice at level 1 might find themselves bored for quite some time.

By the time they do come in force, the PCs will have had in-character enough of a heads-up to justify the choice.

[legallytired]

I don't think all the choices in the AP will keep the ranger busy. As I mentioned earlier, dragon is really a poor choice for the first part of the AP. Depending on the frequency and the speed of the game, the ranger could end up using one of his key features in only one encounter for quite a few months of playing this AP(correct me if I'm wrong).

There are numerous threads where anyone could read pretty much all the stat blocks of the monsters in the first book of the AP at least. (The adaptation to 6 players thread, for example)

This fellow is asking a question knowing it is meta gaming(even mentioning it in the OP) and the answer is just easily attainable whether or not people in this thread answer his question by quoting the player's guide or by simply pointing out the choices that make more sense. Will choosing the "best" favored enemy throw out the balance in the game? Maybe in the case of a campaign such as the City of the Spider Queen where 75% of the monsters are of the same type.. but I find the encounters to be pretty diverse in this AP.

I understand some of you guys are seeing this as cheating. I wouldn't really go this far. I do admit it is of poor taste and should be decided with the help of the GM..but I don't think any information given out so far will take out any of the fun for the player or GM involved.

I think your revised Favored Enemy is a great idea Snorter. I'll be trying it out if any of my players opt for the ranger.

[cappadocius]

thenovalord wrote:

...and yeah there needs to be thread called "the other 19 reasons why X is my favoured enemy" given that the #1 is 'they wiped out my village'.

Top 10 Reasons To Select 'Humans' as Your Favored Enemy in Kingmaker:

10: The Sword Lords are explicitly looking for people to control the bandits in the Green Belt.
09: The PC is a bounty hunter, who tracks fugitives through the trackless wilderness.
08: Humans are the most common dangerous animal in Golarion.
07: Humans drop better magical loot than Giant Beavers.
06: The PC is a fabulously wealthy aristocrat, overcome with ennui, and seeks to hunt "The Most Dangerous Game"
05: He'll need that +2 to Bluff to convince Oleg that the Giant Beaver head he brought in to the trading post actually came from a Tatzlwyrm.
04: The PC wants to be the Kingdom's spymaster, and that untrained Knowledge skill check to identify humans is really handy for picking out secret Doppelganger, Lycanthrope, Aranea, and polymorphed Dragon infiltrators.
03: The PC was orphaned as a child and raised by wild humans, so he is familiar with their mysterious and beautiful ways.
02: Human skin makes the best lampshades.

And the Number One Reason To Select 'Humans' as Your Favored Enemy in Kingmaker:

01: A marauding band of humans wiped out the PC's village, and he swore revenge.

[Snorter]

legallytired wrote:

I think your revised Favored Enemy is a great idea Snorter. I'll be trying it out if any of my players opt for the ranger.

Thanks; it's getting some use in my current game. One player is a Scout/Ranger, and he took a feat that allows levels in both to stack, for the purposes of Skirmish and Favored Enemy, which allowed the second bonus to kick in early.

[Dazylar]

Snorter wrote:

legallytired wrote:

I think your revised Favored Enemy is a great idea Snorter. I'll be trying it out if any of my players opt for the ranger.

Thanks; it's getting some use in my current game. One player is a Scout/Ranger, and he took a feat that allows levels in both to stack, for the purposes of Skirmish and Favored Enemy, which allowed the second bonus to kick in early.

As the player concerned, I have to say I like it. There was a slight skepticism that Snorts wanted it to stop me overpowering on the bonuses versus undead that would have been very useful towards the end of the AOW AP, but the fact that the swift hunter feat allows skirmish on crit immune creatures (i know, not PF relevant, or Kingmaker relevant but still) makes up for it.

Next choice - constructs! Or possibly humans :-) And it's only two more levels! And then two more til the next one!

[Snorter]

Dazylar wrote:

Next choice - constructs! Or possibly humans :-) And it's only two more levels! And then two more til the next one!

Or after last session; Eidolons!