I'm making a Ranger for Kingmaker, so I'd thought I'd ask you DMs what is the most often encountered type of creature so far in the adventure and which type do you recommend to take as Favored Enemy?
I'm making a Ranger for Kingmaker, so I'd thought I'd ask you DMs what is the most often encountered type of creature so far in the adventure and which type do you recommend to take as Favored Enemy?
it depends...obviously
there is a good list in the players guide so
A ranger’s best choices for favored enemies in
Kingmaker include the following: animal, dragon, fey,
humanoid (boggard, human, giant, or reptilian), magical
beast, monstrous humanoid, plant, undead, and vermin.
Good favored terrain choices include forest, mountain,
plains, swamp, and water.
spoiler
i might go human myself
i might go human myself
I'll second that. It'll get some milage during the first AP and at 5th level (just after starting the 2nd AP), you'll get another and can re-evaluate then.
i might go human myselfI'll second that. It'll get some milage during the first AP and at 5th level (just after starting the 2nd AP), you'll get another and can re-evaluate then.
obviously human is the best choice.
its always the best choice
nice if folk try something different!! more fitting.
nice if folk try something different!! more fitting.
in this case, human makes sense. Lots of bandits. Giid aligned rangers would naturally make them a favored enemy
If I wanted sense, I wouldn't be asking for metagame advice from other DMs. :P
You can always build fluff around mechanics and vice-versa, anyways. I just think it's more profitable to it former as I'd rather not waste my class abilities on a fluff-wise stuff that won't matter ingame.
Also, some evil human-hating non-humans might also take Humans as favored enemies.
If I wanted sense, I wouldn't be asking for metagame advice from other DMs. :P
You can always build fluff around mechanics and vice-versa, anyways. I just think it's more profitable to it former as I'd rather not waste my class abilities on a fluff-wise stuff that won't matter ingame.
Also, some evil human-hating non-humans might also take Humans as favored enemies.
if your metagaming, take fey
Really? The fey are the dominant foes? Seems odd a bit...
Just a reminder, favored enemy doesn't imply hatred. You're just well trained of very familiar with a certain type of creature. Usually this means fighting them, but you also get various social bonuses. So Favored Enemy: Fey will help you fight the "bad ones" and RP with the "good ones."
before I decided to play my monk, I had a lycanthrope hunter all made up.
But one of the other players put together a fighter.
So I made a monk.
I dont think it really matters what your first favored enemy is.
like it has already been said 5th level will help you sort it all out.
Icant really see a "plant hunter"
When i was little, i had had a particularly nasty run in with a pansy now ALL plant creaures must die! Death to daisies!
Favored Enemy; Animal or Magical Beast is gonna be a good one too. Both of them make a good amount of sense.
Really? The fey are the dominant foes? Seems odd a bit...Lies! The fey are our allies! Sure they are odd looking and are prone to tricks but they are natural creatures, full of merriment and mirth.
Shame on you for even thinking such thoughts!Owlbears on the other hand... do not qualify as fey.
Surely you have heard of the Unseelie Court.
Just a reminder, favored enemy doesn't imply hatred. You're just well trained of very familiar with a certain type of creature. Usually this means fighting them, but you also get various social bonuses. So Favored Enemy: Fey will help you fight the "bad ones" and RP with the "good ones."
yep
there are a lot to fight and lot to RP with...
I personally feel magical beast is a very poor choice, judging from chapter 1 and 2 anyway.Favored Enemy; Animal or Magical Beast is gonna be a good one too. Both of them make a good amount of sense.
** spoiler omitted **
*cough*Owlbears*cough*
|
*cough*Owlbears*cough*I personally feel magical beast is a very poor choice, judging from chapter 1 and 2 anyway.Favored Enemy; Animal or Magical Beast is gonna be a good one too. Both of them make a good amount of sense.
** spoiler omitted **
Two encounters, one which can potentially be used to attack the Stag Lord and cronies. As opposed to the sheer amount of humans and animals fought in the first two chapters. Not convinced.
Creative Director
|
Two encounters, one which can potentially be used to attack the Stag Lord and cronies. As opposed to the sheer amount of humans and animals fought in the first two chapters. Not convinced.*cough*Owlbears*cough*I personally feel magical beast is a very poor choice, judging from chapter 1 and 2 anyway.Favored Enemy; Animal or Magical Beast is gonna be a good one too. Both of them make a good amount of sense.
** spoiler omitted **
There are an awful lot of magical beasts overall in the AP. And often they end up being significant encounters. So while the magical beast ranger might not get his favored enemy bonus often, when it DOES kick in, it will often do so in major encounters.
I usually let my ranger players defer choosing their initial favored enemy until after the first couple of nights of play, so they get a feel for what they will be facing and usually know which foes they have faced that they despise or fear the most. This also makes for better roleplaying, as there is a reason for choosing it as a favored enemy beyond just guessing what will give you the most in-game benefit. I tend to frown on taking human, which is frankly the best guess in most situations since almost every character is eventually going to fight a lot of humans, unless there is a good character backstory reason for it.
|
|
I usually let my ranger players defer choosing their initial favored enemy until after the first couple of nights of play, so they get a feel for what they will be facing and usually know which foes they have faced that they despise or fear the most. This also makes for better roleplaying, as there is a reason for choosing it as a favored enemy beyond just guessing what will give you the most in-game benefit. I tend to frown on taking human, which is frankly the best guess in most situations since almost every character is eventually going to fight a lot of humans, unless there is a good character backstory reason for it.
I'm allowing the Ranger in my kingmaker campaign to switch them around somewhat, but only when he levels and gets a favoured enemy bonus (every 5 levels I believe). This is working out pretty well so far.
making a ranger with the idea of "what will give you the most in game bonus" is one of the worst "meta-game" styles ive ever seen.
ITs flair, its backgroud (you can always choose a different favored at 5th)
what would be the drawback to playing a dwarven ranger with goblins as a favored enemy in kingmaker? he wouldnt come to this place because there arent many goblins?
he can always choose magical beasts or something at level and make that his dominant one.
The last time we had a ranger in a AP. IT was an elven devil hunter, with urban as favored terrain (which you would think would make tons of sense for the last AP that just ended) The reason why the charcter was made that was because the character came to westcrown and lived there for over 100 years. Urban and devil hunter were in the characters backround, the characters family (according to campaign trait) was from the whispering woods, whichis in nearby cheliaxian wilderness and litered with evil outsiders.
But as you probably now know, the actual hated enemy bonus didnt come up that much. In fact the entire party was killed by a medusa sorceror.
making a ranger with the idea of "what will give you the most in game bonus" is one of the worst "meta-game" styles ive ever seen.
** snip **
But as you probably now know, the actual hated enemy bonus didnt come up that much. In fact the entire party was killed by a medusa sorceror.
I know what you're saying and I feel ya', but on the other hand, many players like to create a character who they feel is *effective* in addition to being flavorful. Had that favored enemy bonus come into play against the medusa sorceror, you might have a party still alive today.
Making a ranger with the idea of "what will give you the most in game bonus" is just the player's way of trying to make a character with as great a potential for making an impact on the game world as possible. We all like to feel like we're making a difference. If the game is destined to combat demon princes on the abyss, I'd want to create a character who is effective in that environment rather than one specialized in combating orcs.
Remember that every character deserves their time to shine. The ranger class is somewhat unusual in that her time to shine is generally when he's fighting his favored enemy. So it's natural for the player to want her character to shine more frequently, given the choice, rather than less frequently. Isn't it?
Additionally, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. For example, if the GM shares with the player that the campaign is likely to focus on drow at the high end, then it is not unreasonable for the player to create a background describing his character's hatred of drow due to their destruction of his family, enslavement of his village, etc. And the DM can even lead the character down this path by helping the player craft the backstory without ever actually revealing that drow are going to be the primary objective in the end-game.
Some food for thought.
Shannon
|
making a ranger with the idea of "what will give you the most in game bonus" is one of the worst "meta-game" styles ive ever seen.
** snip **
But as you probably now know, the actual hated enemy bonus didnt come up that much. In fact the entire party was killed by a medusa sorceror.
I know what you're saying and I feel ya', but on the other hand, many players like to create a character who they feel is *effective* in addition to being flavorful. Had that favored enemy bonus come into play against the medusa sorceror, you might have a party still alive today.
Making a ranger with the idea of "what will give you the most in game bonus" is just the player's way of trying to make a character with as great a potential for making an impact on the game world as possible. We all like to feel like we're making a difference. If the game is destined to combat demon princes on the abyss, I'd want to create a character who is effective in that environment rather than one specialized in combating orcs.
Remember that every character deserves their time to shine. The ranger class is somewhat unusual in that her time to shine is generally when he's fighting his favored enemy. So it's natural for the player to want her character to shine more frequently, given the choice, rather than less frequently. Isn't it?
Additionally, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. For example, if the GM shares with the player that the campaign is likely to focus on drow at the high end, then it is not unreasonable for the player to create a background describing his character's hatred of drow due to their destruction of his family, enslavement of his village, etc. And the DM can even lead the character down this path by helping the player craft the backstory without ever actually revealing that drow are going to be the primary objective in the end-game.
Some food for thought.
Shannon
I find that rather hard to believe, since Drow "Don't Exist" in Golarion. They do, but no one knows and if they did know, the Elves would kill them.
making a ranger with the idea of "what will give you the most in game bonus" is one of the worst "meta-game" styles ive ever seen.
ITs flair, its backgroud (you can always choose a different favored at 5th)
what would be the drawback to playing a dwarven ranger with goblins as a favored enemy in kingmaker? he wouldnt come to this place because there arent many goblins?
he can always choose magical beasts or something at level and make that his dominant one.The last time we had a ranger in a AP. IT was an elven devil hunter, with urban as favored terrain (which you would think would make tons of sense for the last AP that just ended) The reason why the charcter was made that was because the character came to westcrown and lived there for over 100 years. Urban and devil hunter were in the characters backround, the characters family (according to campaign trait) was from the whispering woods, whichis in nearby cheliaxian wilderness and litered with evil outsiders.
But as you probably now know, the actual hated enemy bonus didnt come up that much. In fact the entire party was killed by a medusa sorceror.
Asking what is a good favored enemy pre-play is like the fighter asking if there are swords in this campain. Totally legit. Asking the ranger to throw away his best combat-related class ability on background fluff that will not affect the campain is like asking the fighter to sink his lv1 feats into Skill Focus (Craft: Carpentry) and Skill Focus (Profession: Lumberjack) since he grew up in the sticks.
Also, most adventure paths (by paizo anyway) suggest Favored Enemies in the players guide. If someone were to choose Orc in my kingmaker campain, I would caution them that neither in part 1, nor 2, will there be a single orc. Not even a half-orc. I would recommend Human, Fey, Magical Beast or Giant, and tell him to tie that into his backstory. After all, all he needs to do is to go into the word document and replace the word "Orc" with "Troll", making the sentence "Trolls killed my entire village, making me vow to not rest until I have slain three trolls for every villager that died that night."
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.
I find that rather hard to believe, since Drow "Don't Exist" in Golarion. They do, but no one knows and if they did know, the Elves would kill them.
You are assuming a game in by-the-book Golarion.
The point is that Favored Enemy should be worked out between the Player and the GM. They need to work together to find an enemy that makes since for the character and will be useful in the campaign.
Since we are really talking about a ranger's first favored enemy, it really needs to be relevant to the first few levels of a campaign. A character's second choice can be bumped to +4 immediately, so if they've figured out what the big bad guy is they'll have a chance to specialize long before the final confrontation.
|
Creative Director
|
I find that rather hard to believe, since Drow "Don't Exist" in Golarion. They do, but no one knows and if they did know, the Elves would kill them.
This is an oversimplification, and not one that makes sense as drow are elves anyway; if you want to be an anti-drow ranger, you just pick "Humanoid (elf)" as your favored enemy and your'e good to go.
Drow do exist in Golarion, and the people know it. They're just not as overwhelming a presence on the surface and are more mythological and mysterious. Now that the Second Darkness adventure path has come and gone, we don't need to be coy about drow in Golarion.
They're unlikely to show up often as enemies, and certainly a LOT less often than in a Greyhawk or FR adventure, but people have heard about them. And the elves' take on it is more or less covered in Second Darkness; it's a complicated relationship that I won't start dissecting here for the sake of keeping spoilers out of it.
|
|
I find that rather hard to believe, since Drow "Don't Exist" in Golarion. They do, but no one knows and if they did know, the Elves would kill them.
This is an oversimplification, and not one that makes sense as drow are elves anyway; if you want to be an anti-drow ranger, you just pick "Humanoid (elf)" as your favored enemy and your'e good to go.
Drow do exist in Golarion, and the people know it. They're just not as overwhelming a presence on the surface and are more mythological and mysterious. Now that the Second Darkness adventure path has come and gone, we don't need to be coy about drow in Golarion.
They're unlikely to show up often as enemies, and certainly a LOT less often than in a Greyhawk or FR adventure, but people have heard about them. And the elves' take on it is more or less covered in Second Darkness; it's a complicated relationship that I won't start dissecting here for the sake of keeping spoilers out of it.
Yeah, but that's assuming the Second Darkness adventure path has happened yet in the timeline. Which it may or may not have.
|
Creative Director
|
Yeah, but that's assuming the Second Darkness adventure path has happened yet in the timeline. Which it may or may not have.
It's not that simple. While Second Darkness may or may not have happened, we HAVE published it. The reveal of how Golarion's drow work is out of the bag, in other words, and now that that's done, the "mystery" is no longer as much a mystery to anyone who wants to find out.
While we don't assume our adventures happen in any particular order, we do assume that in the real world they are indeed read.
If we'd said during Rise of the Runelords "Drow exist but folks don't know much about them," that's partially saying, "Drow exist but we're not ready to tell you how they differ from other game worlds when they're in Golarion."
Now that we have, it's more or less up to every GM to decide how they want to handle drow in their Golarions. But we no longer have to be coy about it ourselves.
making a ranger with the idea of "what will give you the most in game bonus" is one of the worst "meta-game" styles ive ever seen.
Depends on how you ask it.
"I'm making a ranger. Given that the game suggests we're aware of the setting, what types of enemies would my ranger be prepared to fight against?"
Same question, different wording.
If I had a ranger with a favored enemy that never appeared in the AP, I'd be asking myself why the ranger trained to fight an enemy that he's never seen before in his life, and that nobody he knows has ever encountered before. And that's not the type of question that inspires awesome roleplaying, but more confusion and irritation.
|
Creative Director
|
Making a ranger without the GM helping you pick a workable choice for favored enemy and favored terrain is analogous to making a fighter who specializes in longswords but then refusing to use a longsword, or making a wizard and then deciding he's illiterate, or making a cleric and giving him a Wisdom of 9 or lower.
The fact that several of the ranger's abilities are dependent on the nature of the campaign shouldn't equate to "If you play a ranger, you're gambling that you can read the GM's mind."
In other words... metagaming is not only sometimes good for the game and the right choice to make, but it's at times REQUIRED if you're going to play some characters.
This is why every Adventure Path we make, we make a Player's Guide, and in those Player's Guides we include a section for rangers that lists all of the good favored enemy choices.
Kinda like how the cairn wight just happens to be carrying whatever crazy weapon you want him to for your party...
Though I do miss the flip side of that argument, too. In the olden days, one of the reasons you chose longsword as your main weapon was that the vast majority of magical bladed weapons out there were longswords. So in choosing a khopesh (for example), you're making a conscious choice to wield an unusual weapon, knowing that you're probably not going to find a cool magical version of it.
It feels like a stretch of verisimilitude to have your monsters start dropping cool magical khopeshes just because the main fighter made an exceedingly odd choice of primary weapon. But I guess to a certain extent that speaks to the newer style of gaming where the challenges are level-appropriate and the general approach is to provide a sense of fun by ensuring success.
I tend to enjoy the old style where the fun came in overcoming non-level-appropriate obstacles by cleverness and imagination. A player could take pride in a high-level character because she was lucky, skilled, and clever enough to not have gotten the character killed instead of just length of playtime being the key to success.
That's one of the things that appeals to me about Kingmaker. In the sandbox style of play, we're throwing back to that era of wandering encounters and non-level-appropriate challenges. During our first session, I let everyone know that there WILL be challenges beyond the group's ability to handle at that time. I made it explicitly clear that the group will need to take responsibility for determining when a challenge is too difficult and taking the appropriate actions to save their own lives. And they like that. I think they too feel a little over-protected by the current trend in gaming and look forward to being really challenged by an open world where anything can happen and their choices really do make a significant difference in the world around them.
Shannon
So in choosing a khopesh (for example), you're making a conscious choice to wield an unusual weapon, knowing that you're probably not going to find a cool magical version of it.
It feels like a stretch of verisimilitude to have your monsters start dropping cool magical khopeshes just because the main fighter made an exceedingly odd choice of primary weapon.
I tend to allow a transfer of enchantment through a low-cost ritual (100gp or so). That way I can have the verisimilitude of the foes using whatever weapon they prefer, but still allow the players to gain the rewards of a nice item. Otherwise it feels like all magic items get sold for cash. Of course, lower-level items that are now fairly common (+1 weapons in my level 14 game) are still just collected for sale.
Though I do miss the flip side of that argument, too. In the olden days, one of the reasons you chose longsword as your main weapon was that the vast majority of magical bladed weapons out there were longswords. So in choosing a khopesh (for example), you're making a conscious choice to wield an unusual weapon, knowing that you're probably not going to find a cool magical version of it.
It feels like a stretch of verisimilitude to have your monsters start dropping cool magical khopeshes just because the main fighter made an exceedingly odd choice of primary weapon. But I guess to a certain extent that speaks to the newer style of gaming where the challenges are level-appropriate and the general approach is to provide a sense of fun by ensuring success.
I tend to enjoy the old style where the fun came in overcoming non-level-appropriate obstacles by cleverness and imagination. A player could take pride in a high-level character because she was lucky, skilled, and clever enough to not have gotten the character killed instead of just length of playtime being the key to success.
You see it as "I think it's odd that more monsters are dropping or finding khopeshes"
I see it as "Oh thank god someone isn't taking a bloody longsword for once"
That you wouldn't find the magical version of it didn't make the weapon any more awesome. On the contrary, it just made wanting to use a khopesh more annoying and difficult. It was all punishment and no reward.
|
Making a ranger without the GM helping you pick a workable choice for favored enemy and favored terrain is analogous to making a fighter who specializes in longswords but then refusing to use a longsword, or making a wizard and then deciding he's illiterate, or making a cleric and giving him a Wisdom of 9 or lower.
The fact that several of the ranger's abilities are dependent on the nature of the campaign shouldn't equate to "If you play a ranger, you're gambling that you can read the GM's mind."
In other words... metagaming is not only sometimes good for the game and the right choice to make, but it's at times REQUIRED if you're going to play some characters.
This is why every Adventure Path we make, we make a Player's Guide, and in those Player's Guides we include a section for rangers that lists all of the good favored enemy choices.
I agree completely.
But I also have to be honest that there is a significant difference in my mind between providing one of my characters with the advice found in the Player's Guide about good favored enemy choices in the campaign and one of my players coming on these boards and explicitly asking for and receiving metagame information. It is a matter of degree that this post pushed too far for me. After another poster quoted the specific text from the PG, that should have been sufficient. I would hope that further inquiries from the same player for aditional metagame information would be met with a consistant "talk to your GM". Alas, it appears I hope for too much.
Shane
|
|
I just feel that a character's background should justify his favored enemy choice.
Something like, "Goblins killed my family and ran off with my little sister. So I hate goblins and have studied them so thoroughly that I understand their natures, habits, and how to kill them better than most."
Here what we have is - some knobs online told me that the most common monsters that my character would face are goblins, so my favored enemy should be goblins.
That's why your character can pick aditional favored enemies, to adjust to the campaign and story-line.
Perhaps your GM is simply much more permissive than I am. Then again, I trust my players to not so blatantly fish for metagame info.
Shane
But I also have to be honest that there is a significant difference in my mind between providing one of my characters with the advice found in the Player's Guide about good favored enemy choices in the campaign and one of my players coming on these boards and explicitly asking for and receiving metagame information. It is a matter of degree that this post pushed too far for me. After another poster quoted the specific text from the PG, that should have been sufficient. I would hope that further inquiries from the same player for aditional metagame information would be met with a consistant "talk to your GM". Alas, it appears I hope for too much.
Thing is, we won't begin playing Kingmaker for another 6 months or so, and we're not yet sure who'll DM it. I just know that we'll play it and I like making characters, so I did it a bit early. I can't really ask two guys who are potential DMs: "Hey, do you mind going through all of the encounters of Kingmaker and tell me which enemies are dominant?"
I just feel that a character's background should justify his favored enemy choice.
Something like, "Goblins killed my family and ran off with my little sister. So I hate goblins and have studied them so thoroughly that I understand their natures, habits, and how to kill them better than most."
How about: "__________ killed my family and ran off with my little sister. So I hate _________ and have studied them so thoroughly that I understand their natures, habits, and how to kill them better than most."
Where ________ is the dominant creature in a campaign? It'd be kinda stupid to focus your character on killing goblins and find out when campaign starts that there are no goblins. That's why you need some advice on that one.
|
|
Uh, you do know that those two examples are not exclusive in the least. You can easily ask what things you should be expecting to fight often and then make the choice make sense for your character, especially when people are expressing the opinion that the information in the Player's Guide is misleading.
I'm really not getting why trying to make an educated choice is such a bad thing.
I didn't mean to suggest that making an educated decision is a bad thing. I am actually all for it. An educated decision can be made without being given specific, meta-game information. That is why the OP should be talking to his GM about it and not asking for meta-game information on a messageboard. Yes, I now understand that he might not have a GM yet for this campaign, but this doesn't change anything.
The assumption seems to be that this character is designed, not as a person in a fantasy world with a real history and life story that justify his abilities and growth, but instead as a plot device. His knowledge and experience reflect events and challenges that have yet to happen. Future events and challenges that are absolutely unknowable to him without some meta-game information.
Shane
Seems quite silly to define your character by her favored emnemy imo. I don't understand your line of thougt, Shane. Especially since favored ennemies are recommended in the Player's Guide.
You shouldn't have to adjust to the campaign later on, that is just bad reasoning and stops a player from using one of the main feature of his class.
Really not a matter of bein permissive and I don't see how you can perceive it as such.
So you got one player who is seeking revenge against creatures he will most likely never meet(goblins) for the next 16 levels.. And he even gets ridiculously better at fighting those goblins over time without ever fighting any.
So much for the story.
It is never a good idea to keep players in the dark about that kind of information.
|
|
Here is what a decision during character creation about Favored Enemy looks like to me.
GM- "Lets see. Well Jimmy, as far as favored enemy goes, some options that tie into this campaign pretty well are; animal, dragon, fey, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, plant, undead, and possibly vermin. What do you think?"
Now the player has to make a decision. That decision can end up being a great decision or a not so great decision. There might be some back and forth, but in the ends it is the player's decision and he is taking a chance. What it isn't going to be is a pointless decision because all of these choices are justified by the campaign. Other characters face simiilar decisions; school choices for arcane casters, domain choices for divine.
The OP's goal was to learn the single most common monster encountered in the campaign. This will not result in a educated decision, he wants the meta-game information to make the decision for him.
My disapointment with this thread is as much about the replies the OP got from other GMs as it is with his stated goal. Had each poster in-turn given advice along the lines of "magical beast would work" or "your character will run into some fey" or even "there are going to be quite a few humanoids floating around" then that would have been fine. In the end they would have said pretty much exactly what the Player's Guide did. Instead the OP got answers like this . . . .
if your metagaming, take fey
All of this amounts to "Please help me make the single most powerful decision for my character instead of giving me options and encouraging me to decide." and then "Ok, here you go."
Perhaps my sense of the game is different. It bothers me that the story matters so little that meta-gaming and min-maxing are openly supported and encouraged.
Shane
any can cut and past what they like
Shane
I put bags more on a number of posts than what you credited me thanks
1. The ways the rules are written HUMAN is always best
2. if the guide gives 6 suggestions, then choose one of them , and work it into your background. Their is no need to aks the question when the guide gives....erm.....guidance
If someone asks 'what is the best favoured enemy to choose' the answer must come from spoilers, and therefore is metagamey from teh off
if the story matters for you, then you shouldnt even be reading this thread!!!!!
|
|
Seems quite silly to define your character by her favored emnemy imo. I don't understand your line of thougt, Shane. Especially since favored ennemies are recommended in the Player's Guide.
You shouldn't have to adjust to the campaign later on, that is just bad reasoning and stops a player from using one of the main feature of his class.
Really not a matter of bein permissive and I don't see how you can perceive it as such.
So you got one player who is seeking revenge against creatures he will most likely never meet(goblins) for the next 16 levels.. And he even gets ridiculously better at fighting those goblins over time without ever fighting any.
So much for the story.It is never a good idea to keep players in the dark about that kind of information.
The goblins were not meant to be a Kingmaker appropriate example, but instead just an example of thought process.
I definately have no problem with recommended favored enemies. My problem is with a player coming on the messageboards to ask for specific meta-game information from GMs outside his own game and recieve support instead of a rebuke.
Shane
|
|
any can cut and past what they like
Shane
I put bags more on a number of posts than what you credited me thanks
1. The ways the rules are written HUMAN is always best
2. if the guide gives 6 suggestions, then choose one of them , and work it into your background. Their is no need to aks the question when the guide gives....erm.....guidance
If someone asks 'what is the best favoured enemy to choose' the answer must come from spoilers, and therefore is metagamey from teh off
if the story matters for you, then you shouldnt even be reading this thread!!!!!
Actually, the fact that the story matters to me is why I am reading these threads and the fact that it matters to my players is why they are not.
Reading the AP forums typically helps me present an even more consistant and engaging story for my group.
Shane
|
|
2. if the guide gives 6 suggestions, then choose one of them , and work it into your background. Their is no need to aks the question when the guide gives....erm.....guidanceIf someone asks 'what is the best favoured enemy to choose' the answer must come from spoilers, and therefore is metagamey from teh off
I agree. There is a stark difference of degree between the Player's Guide's "guidance", and what was given in this thread.
Shane
2. if the guide gives 6 suggestions, then choose one of them , and work it into your background. Their is no need to aks the question when the guide gives....erm.....guidanceIf someone asks 'what is the best favoured enemy to choose' the answer must come from spoilers, and therefore is metagamey from teh off
I agree. There a stark difference of degree between the Player's Guide's "guidance", and what was given in this thread.
Shane
The problem is you really cant ask the question "what is the best favoured enemy" cos the answer is always human, as i said earlier
is like asking "what better, wizard or sorceror?"
there is only one answer
I would be interested to see if anyone, having read the guide, decides to
a) take a different enemy not suggested
b) spends a lot of the mods frustrated at not meeting his choice!!
THE good thing about the nature of the modules is its very flexible so you could chop n change beasties for other beasties
One of the 7 players in my group has a druid dedicated to fighting Lammashtu. She isnt in the mod, but I have thrown in little sub-currents here and there.
The AP is perfect for this sort of tweak