...It's hardly a shock that when we sit down to play our fantasy games, we choose to make characters like these, and not people like Xander or Jimmy Olsen or Lt. Ellen Ripley, normal folks who got dragged into adventure.
We all want to be Luke (or at least Han), not the guy who was saying 'stay on target, stay on target.'
I agree. Although, I base a LOT of my female characters on Ellen Ripley. The like idea of a strong-minded and determined heroine, not necessarily wearing a chainmail bikini. Ripley was really one of the first big-screen heroines who didn't play the victim and showed she could hold her own with the male-dominated casts, even outlasting a group of marines in Aliens.
I was merely expressing frustration with the extreme emphasis many players put on mechanical advantage over story and roleplaying that leads to a huge percentage of rangers being created with FE Human at first level.[joke] I really don't have this problem much, as my players would rarely choose something as sub-optimal as the Ranger in the first place. [/joke]
Seriously, though, it's all about having a good time.
Our entertainment media is full of characters like Conan, or Dread Pirate Wesley, or James Bond, who are just arbitrarily better at everything than anyone else around them, while the 'average schmoes caught up in danger' like the average H.P. Lovecraft protagonist, or the token quippy black dude who dies halfway through a Jason movie, is not exactly the stuff of which legends are made.
We are fed a constant diet of optimized movie characters and novel 'heroes,' like Jack Bauer or Richard Cypher or Repairman Jack or the Bride who are better, tougher, faster, smarter, more magical, bluer-blooded, etc. than others. It's hardly a shock that when we sit down to play our fantasy games, we choose to make characters like these, and not people like Xander or Jimmy Olsen or Lt. Ellen Ripley, normal folks who got dragged into adventure.
We all want to be Luke (or at least Han), not the guy who was saying 'stay on target, stay on target.'
One point I would make is that most movies tend to be dominated by single "Lone Wolf" heroes, and I don't think those make the best models for PF/D&D, which is {usually} based on a party of multiple characters who each have varying strengths and weaknesses. Better examples in cinema are Mission Impossible or X-Men. Best example, IMHO, is Firefly/Serenity. First time I watched that, I thought, OMG, they sound exactly like an adventuring group, with all their banter and well-defined roles.
It's funny... I've seldom thought of Human as the "best option." But maybe that's because I think of Favored Enemy as a combat boost--when really, the skill boosts are useful too. I haven't seen enough campaigns where we regularly fight humans that I'd want the boost to attack and damage against them, but the boost to Bluff, Perception, and Sense Motive? That might come in handy, especially in an urban campaign.
My general sense of usefulness of the different types:
Aberration: Unlikely to take at low level. A possible favored enemy for high levels, and a good one if doing a lot of underdark/dungeoncrawl/astral plane kind of campaign. And since something you're likely to take later, you usually have a practical rationale for doing so by the time you do.
Animal: While banal, it makes sense with hunter backgrounds, and is especially useful at low to mid levels when you well may be dealing with wolves, dire animals, and other local wilderness threats, as well as getting a boost to things like hunting food or tracking horse tracks to find your mounted enemies. Usually at some point you'll be dealing with wolves, snakes, bats, dire beasts, or even someone's unruly mount that this and will can come in handy.
Construct: Another one hard to imagine to be taken at first level, unless maybe you're from Eberron. Another campaign specific one, really, and another one more likely to see use at high level.
Dragon: Usually, most campaigns I've played in and run have had us face a dragon at some point. It's that whole "Dungeons and..."; it feels mandatory. :) While a 1st level ranger may not have KILLED a dragon at first level, it's quite possible to take the ability at first level--especially if you're from an area where dragon raids are common. Being able to recognize when a dragon attack is about to happen (Bonus to perception--"That dark shadow's not a cloud. Everybody to the storm cellar!") or even fool a young dragon (Bonus to bluff--"Let's put this pile of coins out here and maybe he'll focus on that rather than our livestock") could be useful for even a low level ranger. OTOH, while many campaigns feature a dragon, they're seldom frequent occurrences. The ability will be very handy when it's needed but probably not used often save in campaign specific circumstances.
Fey: Makes sense for a low level character who ranges a fey-riddled wood. Can be campaign specific.
Humanoid (aquatic): Unlikely save for a specific seafaring campaign (but great for a buccaneer flavored ranger!)
Humanoid (dwarf): Makes sense for racial hatreds or political relationships; OTOH not a lot of campaigns I know of spend a lot of time around dwarven settlements. Which may just be a flaw in inherent campaign design. ;)
Humanoid (elf): See dwarf. However, a great one for drow. Makes them better at both killing each other and surface elves.
Humanoid (giant): Fairly useful--usually at some point a party will be dealing with trolls, ogres, or giants. Great as mentioned for dwarves and gnomes.
Humanoid (goblinoid): I've seen this one come in handy a lot; goblins are a favorite horde race. Can come in handy even at high levels if GM is using goblins with class levels, but it's more valuable at low levels, usually.
Humanoid (gnoll): Sadly, I like gnolls, but I don't see them around very much. And it's not worth taking compared to a lot of other humanoid types, because, say, "goblinoid" covers goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears, and "elf" covers elves and drow, and "human" may cover one thing but they're very populous and likely to be encountered, etc. etc. etc. Gnolls, core only, cover... gnolls. And that's all.
Humanoid (gnome): In my world, gnomes have a complicated bureaucracy you NEED that bonus to bluff and sense motive for, but few take advantage of it. ;) Really, also campaign specific, but could especially be handy for the skill boosts, depending (even if you're not playing in my world :) ). Or like to go slaying svirfneblin.
Humanoid (halfling): Really, as wonderful thieves as they can be, I wonder why this is not taken more often that it is. Unlikely to be frequent opponents I guess, but I always feel like halflings are everywhere.
Humanoid (human): Been discussed enough, I think.
Humanoid (orc): About as useful as goblin, maybe slightly more or less so depending on campaign.
Humanoid (reptilian): Great for kobold hunters; slightly less useful than goblin or orc.
Humanoid (other): The fact that the category is "other" suggests "campaign specific."
Magical Beast: Another good one for hunters, and especially useful for wilderness campaigns.
Monstrous Humanoid: Generally but not always useful; I'd say about as useful as orc?
Ooze: While it's nice to have the bonuses when you do encounter one, they're not exactly common. OTOH, Gerag, Bane of Gelatinous Cubes is a concept that needs to be played at some point. :)
Outsider (air, earth, fire, water): Doing all the elemental ones at once. Campaign specific, possibly useful at higher levels where you know you might be planeswalking and/or facing certain enemies. Useful to help build up damage since elementals have DR. Also, if you face enemy spellcasters, you know a summoned one will probably be thrown at you at some point (likely an air elemental). But frequency of use is very variable. Unlikely to have a good explanation to take it at low levels.
Outsider (chaotic): More likely to be campaign specific, and unlikely to be taken at low levels.
Outsider (evil): VERY useful in a mid-high level typical fantasy campaign. Most high CR encounters, if not dragons, are devils and demons. Unlikely for a low level ranger, though a hatred/history/sense of destiny might lead them to study evil outsiders at length.
Outsider (good): Unlikely, unless you're in an evil campaign I guess.
Outsider (lawful): Campaign specific, but great if you've got inevitables on your tail. Unlikely at low levels.
Outsider (native): Is your campaign set in Sigil? Otherwise, probably not.
Plant: Another one that makes sense for the "protector of the magic forest"--the guy who knows which vines eat you and which ones don't is a great thing. Good conceptually, but very campaign dependent for usability. I haven't seen frequent shambling mound attacks outside of that one Gold Box game with the Moander theme.
Undead: Probably MY metagamey mechanical first choice in some circumstances, as most campaigns I've played in have had undead in them somewhere. Extra damage against them is useful, and maybe even that bonus to bluff or sense motive a vampire might be a good thing.
Vermin: Can be made to make sense for a lot of low level characters. Actually great for dungeon and underground adventures, and at low levels, the guy who knows how to outrun the spider swarm is a good thing. While campaign specific, can be useful. Far less useful once you're past, say, level 13 or so.
|
One point I would make is that most movies tend to be dominated by single "Lone Wolf" heroes, and I don't think those make the best models for PF/D&D, which is {usually} based on a party of multiple characters who each have varying strengths and weaknesses. Better examples in cinema are Mission Impossible or X-Men. Best example, IMHO, is Firefly/Serenity. First time I watched that, I thought, OMG, they sound exactly like an adventuring group, with all their banter and well-defined roles.
Good point, and I agree with that!
[River, as of the movie, unfortunately threw that convention on it's head, becoming the girl who can do anything, probably better than anyone else, but the point remains valid, that in a team game, everyone can't be River, and, for a healthy game, *nobody* should be River.]
I base a LOT of my female characters on Ellen Ripley. The like idea of a strong-minded and determined heroine, not necessarily wearing a chainmail bikini. Ripley was really one of the first big-screen heroines who didn't play the victim and showed she could hold her own with the male-dominated casts, even outlasting a group of marines in Aliens.
Yeah, she's a definite go-to example of a good action heroine. I think the movie was made stronger by the decision to cast Sigourney Weaver, and not someone who looked like Pam Anderson or Angelina Jolie. Ripley was more of an everywoman.
One point I would make is that most movies tend to be dominated by single "Lone Wolf" heroes, and I don't think those make the best models for PF/D&D, which is {usually} based on a party of multiple characters who each have varying strengths and weaknesses. Better examples in cinema are Mission Impossible or X-Men. Best example, IMHO, is Firefly/Serenity. First time I watched that, I thought, OMG, they sound exactly like an adventuring group, with all their banter and well-defined roles.Good point, and I agree with that!
[River, as of the movie, unfortunately threw that convention on it's head, becoming the girl who can do anything, probably better than anyone else, but the point remains valid, that in a team game, everyone can't be River, and, for a healthy game, *nobody* should be River.]
Indeed her player definately spent some time on the optimization boards during the break between series and movie. Gotta figure out what those feat/class combos were. I want 'fend off horde of reavers unscathed' skillz
Good point, and I agree with that![River, as of the movie, unfortunately threw that convention on it's head, becoming the girl who can do anything, probably better than anyone else, but the point remains valid, that in a team game, everyone can't be River, and, for a healthy game, *nobody* should be River.]
OT:
Here's a thought. Why don't you start with your character's backstory and then create the mechanics around it? I think you'll end up with more unique and memorable character that way, rather than one of a million cookie-cutter rangers with FE Human.
I did. Or could it be that any backstory that results in FE: Humans is automatically suspicious to you?
Am I the only one boggled at the thought that someone wants people to stop taking FE: human because it's too common?
Seriously, if anything, I'd rather rangers take it MORE often as it leads to more interesting stories. I'm pretty dang tired of "Well I have FE orcs because they're evil, you see."
I did. Or could it be that any backstory that results in FE: Humans is automatically suspicious to you?
Here's a thought. Why don't you start with your character's backstory and then create the mechanics around it? I think you'll end up with more unique and memorable character that way, rather than one of a million cookie-cutter rangers with FE Human.
Nope. I just get suspicious when nearly every backstory happens to end up with FE Human, which (oh, what a coincidence!!!) happens to grant the most mechanical advantage.
Please forgive the sarcasm. I realize there are a lot of players out there who do things other than for pure mechanical advantage, and do not mean to cast aspersions at any individual's character-building choices. Just pointing to a general trend in my, and I suspect many other, campaigns.
I did. Or could it be that any backstory that results in FE: Humans is automatically suspicious to you?
Here's a thought. Why don't you start with your character's backstory and then create the mechanics around it? I think you'll end up with more unique and memorable character that way, rather than one of a million cookie-cutter rangers with FE Human.
Nope. I just get suspicious when nearly every backstory happens to end up with FE Human, which (oh, what a coincidence!!!) happens to grant the most mechanical advantage.
Please forgive the sarcasm. I realize there are a lot of players out there who do things other than for pure mechanical advantage, and do not mean to cast aspersions at any individual's character-building choices. Just pointing to a general trend in my, and I suspect many other, campaigns.
DO you also get suspicious when fighters take weapon focus? Or when clerics take selective channel, barbarians extra rage, wizards combat casting? There are some basic character choices that just plain make sense for a certain kind of character. Is there something wrong with making those choices for that reason? Does making one or even a few choices purely for mechanical advantage mean that the character cannot have an interesting or well developed character?
Am I the only one boggled at the thought that someone wants people to stop taking FE: human because it's too common?
Seriously, if anything, I'd rather rangers take it MORE often as it leads to more interesting stories. I'm pretty dang tired of "Well I have FE orcs because they're evil, you see."
I would have the same reaction to FE Orcs if I saw almost every player taking it for pure mechanical advantage as well. In actual fact, very few players take FE Orcs because very few campaigns will feature orcs beyond the first few levels.
If it is leading to more interesting stories in your campaigns, great, but that hasn't been my experience. It generally goes something like: "Um, I want to have FE Human because I think that is what we will face more often than anything else over the course of the campaign, and now let me think of something to justify that decision. Oh, oh, I had a brilliant idea! I'm a bounty hunter!" Fun idea first time around. Snoresville the fifth time.
|
Fair enough. I'm just a bit tired of players taking FE human for the sole reason that it is likely the best choice mechanically. I actually wish that it were not an option, to force people to be a little more unique and creative. However, I suppose tha same player who is always looking for the most mechanical advantage is just going to pick the next best FE mechanically then.
Because having a cool class ability that you only get to use once in a blue moon sucks? I mean really this isn't that surprising.
I much prefer when a GM works with a player and says "Here are some suggestions for favored enemies that will work well in this campaign, maybe you can work this into your backstory". This is what I do with my players and the AP players guides have similar advice. Failing that, it's an integral part of the class and as a player I want to be able to get some use out of my class abilities.
Picking favored enemy dragon because your character saw a dragon flying overhead when he was 12 is cool but ultimately you have just tossed that class ability out the window unless your GM tosses a few dragons your way.
Ideal is -> Player builds a character with cool ideas and GM writes in the players FE so he can get use
Nearly as good -> GM clues in player and player writes appropriate back story
A decent compromise -> Player is in the dark and falls back to expedience
Failing that -> Player takes the "high road" and uses his class ability on a creature he will likely never see
DO you also get suspicious when fighters take weapon focus? Or when clerics take selective channel, barbarians extra rage, wizards combat casting? There are some basic character choices that just plain make sense for a certain kind of character. Is there something wrong with making those choices for that reason? Does making one or even a few choices purely for mechanical advantage mean that the character cannot have an interesting or well developed character?I did. Or could it be that any backstory that results in FE: Humans is automatically suspicious to you?
Here's a thought. Why don't you start with your character's backstory and then create the mechanics around it? I think you'll end up with more unique and memorable character that way, rather than one of a million cookie-cutter rangers with FE Human.
Nope. I just get suspicious when nearly every backstory happens to end up with FE Human, which (oh, what a coincidence!!!) happens to grant the most mechanical advantage.
Please forgive the sarcasm. I realize there are a lot of players out there who do things other than for pure mechanical advantage, and do not mean to cast aspersions at any individual's character-building choices. Just pointing to a general trend in my, and I suspect many other, campaigns.
Not quite, although I certainly applaud those players inventive enough to try different builds. I guess I think of favored enemy as a little different because it's very title seems to imply that it should be rich with backstory. This is what the character prefers to fight and has trained specifically to fight. In a fantasy world rich with magical and mundane beasties of every variety, should that always be humans? I would say no.
|
[River, as of the movie, unfortunately threw that convention on it's head, becoming the girl who can do anything, probably better than anyone else, but the point remains valid, that in a team game, everyone can't be River, and, for a healthy game, *nobody* should be River.]
Indeed her player definitely spent some time on the optimization boards during the break between series and movie. Gotta figure out what those feat/class combos were. I want 'fend off horde of reavers unscathed' skillz
Or just slept with the GM.
A hand job might be +1 build point?
A BJ? 2, maybe 3?
Fair enough. I'm just a bit tired of players taking FE human for the sole reason that it is likely the best choice mechanically. I actually wish that it were not an option, to force people to be a little more unique and creative. However, I suppose tha same player who is always looking for the most mechanical advantage is just going to pick the next best FE mechanically then.Because having a cool class ability that you only get to use once in a blue moon sucks? I mean really this isn't that surprising.
I much prefer when a GM works with a player and says "Here are some suggestions for favored enemies that will work well in this campaign, maybe you can work this into your backstory". This is what I do with my players and the AP players guides have similar advice. Failing that, it's an integral part of the class and as a player I want to be able to get some use out of my class abilities.
Picking favored enemy dragon because your character saw a dragon flying overhead when he was 12 is cool but ultimately you have just tossed that class ability out the window unless your GM tosses a few dragons your way.
Ideal is -> Player builds a character with cool ideas and GM writes in the players FE so he can get use
Nearly as good -> GM clues in player and player writes appropriate back story
A decent compromise -> Player is in the dark and falls back to expedience
Failing that -> Player takes the "high road" and uses his class ability on a creature he will likely never see
Generally agree with you, but would point out the FE Dragons works out very cool if and when you do meet that dragon (and seems to happen to least once or twice in every AP).
Not quite, although I certainly applaud those players inventive enough to try different builds. I guess I think of favored enemy as a little different because it's very title seems to imply that it should be rich with backstory. This is what the character prefers to fight and has trained specifically to fight. In a fantasy world rich with magical and mundane beasties of every variety, should that always be humans? I would say no.
In almost every setting, humans make up the majority of movers and shakers in the world.
Quite frankly, if FE: Humans has the highest benefit, that means you're most likely fighting humans the most...which means most rangers would train specifically to fight humans, since clearly they're the most prolific threat.
Not quite, although I certainly applaud those players inventive enough to try different builds. I guess I think of favored enemy as a little different because it's very title seems to imply that it should be rich with backstory. This is what the character prefers to fight and has trained specifically to fight. In a fantasy world rich with magical and mundane beasties of every variety, should that always be humans? I would say no.In almost every setting, humans make up the majority of movers and shakers in the world.
Quite frankly, if FE: Humans has the highest benefit, that means you're most likely fighting humans the most...which means most rangers would train specifically to fight humans, since clearly they're the most prolific threat.
And thus the cookie cutter. Please give me ranger A30947625302 please, exactly the same as ranger A30947625301. Character creation done. OK, if that's what you want, but bores me to tears.
Not quite, although I certainly applaud those players inventive enough to try different builds. I guess I think of favored enemy as a little different because it's very title seems to imply that it should be rich with backstory. This is what the character prefers to fight and has trained specifically to fight. In a fantasy world rich with magical and mundane beasties of every variety, should that always be humans? I would say no.
I dont think favored enemy represents anything more thematically then weapon training does. Do you question that the fighters seem to always pick the better weapon categories for this and then follow it up with weapon focus, weapon spec etc for a weapon in that class? This represents years of training before and during the fighters adventuring career, and he could have chosen any of dozens of weapons but he probably chose among swords or axes and not gnome pick, or heavy flail right? Probably more are choosing bow then sling right? Is there something wrong with that? Is something lost from the game because the unique and interesting choice of sling as a ranged weapon for a fighter goes unused because bows are hands down better?
And thus the cookie cutter. Please give me ranger A30947625302 please, exactly the same as ranger A30947625301. Character creation done. OK, if that's what you want, but bores me to tears.Not quite, although I certainly applaud those players inventive enough to try different builds. I guess I think of favored enemy as a little different because it's very title seems to imply that it should be rich with backstory. This is what the character prefers to fight and has trained specifically to fight. In a fantasy world rich with magical and mundane beasties of every variety, should that always be humans? I would say no.In almost every setting, humans make up the majority of movers and shakers in the world.
Quite frankly, if FE: Humans has the highest benefit, that means you're most likely fighting humans the most...which means most rangers would train specifically to fight humans, since clearly they're the most prolific threat.
You realize how many hundreds of potential mechanical combinations there are for rangers who have the same favored enemies right? And in addition to that, how varied backstories and personalities could still be right? Favored enemy while important doesnt define the character completely. It is one aspect of them. Even if they all choose the same, that doesnt make them cookiecutter. It just means they have this one similarity.
I could be a bow wielding ranger who favors enemies because i am a half orc abandoned by my human mother, and feel neglected by society. I can be a 2 weapon fighting ranger who specializes in daggers that specializes in humans because i am a tracker for an army that also fights against other human nations. I could be a crossbow weilding vital striking ranger that is a hired killer. I could be a double sword wielding highly defensive bodyguard ranger, who protects my liege from human assasins...
|
|
And thus the cookie cutter. Please give me ranger A30947625302 please, exactly the same as ranger A30947625301. Character creation done. OK, if that's what you want, but bores me to tears.
Then give your players the leg up so they can feel effective AND have a cool backstory. Likewise players taking favored terrain desert then finding out it's an arctic adventure is going to suck.
If every fighter is a two-handed falchion wielder because it does 25% more damage than any other fighter build, then everything is all good right?
Anytime something is a must have ability to the point that you are gimping yourself if you do not take it, there is probably something out of balance.
FE: Human is significantly better than just about any other FE choice.
|
|
If every fighter is a two-handed falchion wielder because it does 25% more damage than any other fighter build, then everything is all good right?
Anytime something is a must have ability to the point that you are gimping yourself if you do not take it, there is probably something out of balance.
FE: Human is significantly better than just about any other FE choice.
Eh, absent any information human is significantly better. With a little prep other options are equally viable. FE: Goblinoid or Undead work better than human for the first 5 levels of RotRL. Favored enemy gnoll is better than human for Legacy of Fire.
Rangers can be swingy which is one weakness of the class.
If every fighter is a two-handed falchion wielder because it does 25% more damage than any other fighter build, then everything is all good right?
Anytime something is a must have ability to the point that you are gimping yourself if you do not take it, there is probably something out of balance.
FE: Human is significantly better than just about any other FE choice.
Eh, absent any information human is significantly better. With a little prep other options are equally viable. FE: Goblinoid or Undead work better than human for the first 5 levels of RotRL. Favored enemy gnoll is better than human for Legacy of Fire.
Rangers can be swingy which is one weakness of the class.
And there in lies the root of the ranger's problems. The bonus is completely binary. Either you get the full bonus, or you get nothing.
A fighter who chooses to specialize in an exotic, hard to find weapon can always pick up crafting feats and make the weapon himself. A ranger who picks the wrong FE is SOL.
Thus it only make sense to pick an enemy that you know you will be facing. Picking anything else is dicey at best.
|
|
And there in lies the root of the ranger's problems. The bonus is completely binary. Either you get the full bonus, or you get nothing.
A fighter who chooses to specialize in an exotic, hard to find weapon can always pick up crafting feats and make the weapon himself. A ranger who picks the wrong FE is SOL.
Thus it only make sense to pick an enemy that you know you will be facing. Picking anything else is dicey at best.
Somewhat. The standby FEs (Human, undead, giant, monstrous humanoid, etc) serve fairly well in random games or organized play.
Which goes back to 'cookie cutter' rangers I guess. Personally this doesn't bother me too much. Class features aren't the only think that add to role playing.
|
Identical character sheets is not a problem. If someone can't play a different character with the exact same stats, that's a problem with the player's ability to roleplay. Cookie cutter characters is a symptom of an unimaginative player, and banning them from making a mechanical choice will not fix that.
But does that mean your favored enemy is the employees or the company, some guy named oscar, or low quality cold cuts?Every time I see this thread in the listing, I can't help hearing the following...
OH, my ranger has a first enemy, it's O.S.C.A.R.
My ranger has a second enemy, it's M.A.Y.E.R.
;)
All of the above (I'm actually allergic to most of their products). Just not sure which order I'm taking them.
Trying to catch up. However, it seems like there is a tone in the posts that FE : Human is a bad choice because it's mechanically the most sound.
Honestly, the whole concept of a favored enemy is that it is something you (A) Hate!, or (B) always fight. A ranger does not always have to have a hatred for his FE, it's just the one he knows best how to deal with.
If the campaign has 80% of the antagonists as Human, then it is not only perfectly acceptable, but even probably, that 80% of the rangers in the world will have Human as a FE (if not first, then second).
That's not metagaming or minmaxing, it's dealing with the reality of the world you are in.
Now, if the background of the character is he's the grandson of a famous vampire hunter, then undead makes more sense perhaps. But, there should be no shame in taking FE:Human if 80% of the antagonists are human.
To put it another way, you're much more likely to survive if you can kill humans quickly at 1st to 5th level, rather than dragons. Since you won't see a dragon (unless it's the inside of his gullet) until 5+ in all likelyhood. Humans you'll fight constantly. This means there's a built in 'evolution' factor leading to rangers who survive to 6th level more than likely having FE: Human.
Look, we have people that take Favored Enemy: Human in the real world. We call them psychologists and sociologists.Not to mention sociopaths and psychopaths.
Do dogs have favored enemy: squirrel?
and humanoid: human (mailman) ; )
I dont think favored enemy represents anything more thematically then weapon training does. Do you question that the fighters seem to always pick the better weapon categories for this and then follow it up with weapon focus, weapon spec etc for a weapon in that class? This represents years of training before and during the fighters adventuring career, and he could have chosen any of dozens of weapons but he probably chose among swords or axes and not gnome pick, or heavy flail right? Probably more are choosing bow then sling right? Is there something wrong with that? Is something lost from the game because the unique and interesting choice of sling as a ranged weapon for a fighter goes unused because bows are hands down better?
Not quite, although I certainly applaud those players inventive enough to try different builds. I guess I think of favored enemy as a little different because it's very title seems to imply that it should be rich with backstory. This is what the character prefers to fight and has trained specifically to fight. In a fantasy world rich with magical and mundane beasties of every variety, should that always be humans? I would say no.
I agree with what you seem to be getting at here, and yes I do get bored with seeing the exact same fighter builds over and over again, as well. I really, really appreciatew the folks who are creative and break the molds. I do think some of the flavor of the game is lost when character concepts are driven purely by mechanics. But that's just me.
And thus the cookie cutter. Please give me ranger A30947625302 please, exactly the same as ranger A30947625301. Character creation done. OK, if that's what you want, but bores me to tears.Not quite, although I certainly applaud those players inventive enough to try different builds. I guess I think of favored enemy as a little different because it's very title seems to imply that it should be rich with backstory. This is what the character prefers to fight and has trained specifically to fight. In a fantasy world rich with magical and mundane beasties of every variety, should that always be humans? I would say no.In almost every setting, humans make up the majority of movers and shakers in the world.
Quite frankly, if FE: Humans has the highest benefit, that means you're most likely fighting humans the most...which means most rangers would train specifically to fight humans, since clearly they're the most prolific threat.
You realize how many hundreds of potential mechanical combinations there are for rangers who have the same favored enemies right? And in addition to that, how varied backstories and personalities could still be right? Favored enemy while important doesnt define the character completely. It is one aspect of them. Even if they all choose the same, that doesnt make them cookiecutter. It just means they have this one similarity.
I could be a bow wielding ranger who favors enemies because i am a half orc abandoned by my human mother, and feel neglected by society. I can be a 2 weapon fighting ranger who specializes in daggers that specializes in humans because i am a tracker for an army that also fights against other human nations. I could be a crossbow weilding vital striking ranger that is a hired killer. I could be a double sword wielding highly defensive bodyguard ranger, who protects my liege from human assasins...
I understand what you are saying, and players who are good character creators will always be able to come up with interesting backstories and builds, that I in general will be more than happy with. You do realize that not every player, and probably not even the majority of players, fit that description, don't you? There are many, many players out there who do absolutely no backstory at all or at most a very minimal backstory, and for whom their character is little more than a sheet of numbers. I do think there is a problem when the mechanics dictate that one of many options, in any phase, is the obvious choice, at least for me. Maybe I'm just too easily bored.
@Brian Bachman: Consider for a minute, would you suggest a sorcerer should take "reduce person", and "feather fall" as their first 2 spells to avoid being cookie cutter characters? Why would you suggest a ranger should toss out his first level power for a similar reason?
Nope, but sorcereres, in my opinion, have more strong and balanced options to choose from for 1st level spells than rangers. Taking something different certainly is not the same as "tossing it out", it's just being willing to take a less than perfectly optimal (and generic) build to make a more diverse, and hopefully more interesting. character.
Look, we have people that take Favored Enemy: Human in the real world. We call them psychologists and sociologists.
Or psychopathic serial killers :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, we have people that take Favored Enemy: Human in the real world. We call them psychologists and sociologists.Or psychopathic serial killers :)
StabbityDoom ninja'd you on that one. ;) (Hmm, is there a correlation there?)
I remind you, a player can play five different characters with the exact same character sheet. Cookie cutter characters are a symptom of unimaginative players, and taking choices away will not fix that.
Also, you might look at Kirth's revamp of the FE catagories here.
Table copied for convenience.
Animals, magical beasts, and vermin
Arcanists1
Constructs and oozes
Dragons
Fey and plants
Giants and monstrous humanoids
Humanoids (civilized)2
Humanoids (uncivilized)3
Outsiders (elemental) and elementals
Outsiders (lower planar) and aberrations
Outsiders (upper planar)
Outsiders (other: native, astral, shadow, etc.)
Undead
1 From Complete Mage: the bonuses granted apply to any character capable of casting arcane spells or using invocations (but not other spell-like abilities).
2 In a standard setting, this includes humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, etc.
3 In a standard setting, this includes orcs, goblinoids, reptilian humanoids, etc.
Look, we have people that take Favored Enemy: Human in the real world. We call them psychologists and sociologists.Or psychopathic serial killers :)StabbityDoom ninja'd you on that one. ;) (Hmm, is there a correlation there?)
I remind you, a player can play five different characters with the exact same character sheet. Cookie cutter characters are a symptom of unimaginative players, and taking choices away will not fix that.
Also, you might look at Kirth's revamp of the FE catagories here.
Table copied for convenience.
** spoiler omitted **
Unfortunately (or fortunately, since I'm not a big fan of thought police), you can't force someone to have an imagination. I've never taken FE Human away as an option, although I have considered it. I just express frustration that it seems to be all some people ever take, because of its presumed mechanical advantage. I guess what I'm really getting at is a general dislike for rules that, because of inherent mechanical advantage, encourage less diversity in characters. They obviously don't enforce it, but they do encourage it for players to whom mechanical advantage and optimization is the main driving factor of character design. There are a lot of them. I'm just a cranky old dude with one opinion, though.
I understand what you are saying, and players who are good character creators will always be able to come up with interesting backstories and builds, that I in general will be more than happy with. You do realize that not every player, and probably not even the majority of players, fit that description, don't you? There are many, many players out there who do absolutely no backstory at all or at most a very minimal backstory, and for whom their character is little more than a sheet of numbers. I do think there is a problem when the mechanics dictate that one of many options, in any phase, is the obvious choice, at least for me. Maybe I'm just too easily bored.
Ofcourse i know that many players dont fit that description. But I think those players will create characters you find boring regardless of their favored enemy choice. I think the problem lies in a different area entirely. And saying 'you cant take FE human' is not going to help bring the two of you closer in a game you can enjoy together. I think dealing with your difference at the source (how you treat backstory and roleplay) is a far better way to deal with the problem.
I understand what you are saying, and players who are good character creators will always be able to come up with interesting backstories and builds, that I in general will be more than happy with. You do realize that not every player, and probably not even the majority of players, fit that description, don't you? There are many, many players out there who do absolutely no backstory at all or at most a very minimal backstory, and for whom their character is little more than a sheet of numbers. I do think there is a problem when the mechanics dictate that one of many options, in any phase, is the obvious choice, at least for me. Maybe I'm just too easily bored.Ofcourse i know that many players dont fit that description. But I think those players will create characters you find boring regardless of their favored enemy choice. I think the problem lies in a different area entirely. And saying 'you cant take FE human' is not going to help bring the two of you closer in a game you can enjoy together. I think dealing with your difference at the source (how you treat backstory and roleplay) is a far better way to deal with the problem.
I agree. And, much as I have been tempted, I have never told a player they can't take FE Human. It's not all about me in my campaign. I just wish mechanical advantage were not so obvious in some cases, this just being one example of many possible, so that more variety and creativity would be encouraged, even for those who are not by nature creative. If mechanical advantage were less easy to discern, players would be more likely to look at all the choices available and create more varied characters.
I agree. And, much as I have been tempted, I have never told a player they can't take FE Human. It's not all about me in my campaign. I just wish mechanical advantage were not so obvious in some cases, this just being one example of many possible, so that more variety and creativity would be encouraged, even for those who are not by nature creative. If mechanical advantage were less easy to discern, players would be more likely to look at all the choices available and create more varied characters.I understand what you are saying, and players who are good character creators will always be able to come up with interesting backstories and builds, that I in general will be more than happy with. You do realize that not every player, and probably not even the majority of players, fit that description, don't you? There are many, many players out there who do absolutely no backstory at all or at most a very minimal backstory, and for whom their character is little more than a sheet of numbers. I do think there is a problem when the mechanics dictate that one of many options, in any phase, is the obvious choice, at least for me. Maybe I'm just too easily bored.Ofcourse i know that many players dont fit that description. But I think those players will create characters you find boring regardless of their favored enemy choice. I think the problem lies in a different area entirely. And saying 'you cant take FE human' is not going to help bring the two of you closer in a game you can enjoy together. I think dealing with your difference at the source (how you treat backstory and roleplay) is a far better way to deal with the problem.
So make it less obvious, mix up your world. Put the players in a primarily dwarven region, and let them know it. Have a campaign based around repelling the undead army of a vampire. Give the players a reason to try something different.
Lots of interesting stuff
That's what I do. We're just starting Kingmaker now. FE Human would still be a good mechanical choice for that one, but so would FE Animal and FE Fey, in my opinion. No one has yet indicated to me that they will be playing a ranger, but I bet someone will, given the emphasis on wilderness exploration.
Look, we have people that take Favored Enemy: Human in the real world. We call them psychologists and sociologists.Or psychopathic serial killers :)StabbityDoom ninja'd you on that one. ;) (Hmm, is there a correlation there?)
I remind you, a player can play five different characters with the exact same character sheet. Cookie cutter characters are a symptom of unimaginative players, and taking choices away will not fix that.
Also, you might look at Kirth's revamp of the FE catagories here.
Table copied for convenience.
** spoiler omitted **
I like that.
Another idea I was playing around with: You get +2 to attack and damage rolls when fighting in your favored terrain. This bonus does not stack with your favored enemy bonus.
That way even if you cannot get your FE bonus, you still have a shot at getting a lesser favored terrain bonus.