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.
Not to pick you out specifically, because I have seen several people say this, but I find that hilarious.
The only way taking Humans as a Favored Enemy gives the most mechanical advantage is if the DM makes it so. So if it annoys you so much, stop throwing adventures full of human antagonists at your players. Work with the Ranger's player on a backstory that gives the character a different favored enemy, and be sure to include enough of those enemies to make them not regret the choice.
If you want to see more varied choices for something like this, you as the DM need to be the catalyst for such change.
|
There's a problem with that Moro. Specifically the 'gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type' line.
Not just human antagonists. Every human NPC you run across. Is every shopkeep and official in the campaign going to be nonhuman? Unlikely. Most games have humans as the dominant race. Prolific breeding and all. So you're likely to get to use FE: Human every session when you even step foot into a village.
|
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.
Have you ever worked with a player on making sure their favored enemy gets incorporated into the game? Because really that's the catch. I vastly prefer to have a more interesting character but if my favored enemy is evil outsider and I spend 10 levels before I encounter one then I'm going to be more than a little frustrated.
Arguably your character would be frustrated too because in theory he's spent a considerable amount of time and effort learning how to kill them and never met one.
"Why am I chasing goblins all day, I'm a DEMON HUNTER!!"
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.'
Interestingly, when I played in my wife's Buffy RPG, I built a Slayer out of a White Hat character base - she was probably the most overall effective Slayer in the party (there were three, it being post Season 7 and all), even though her whole schtick was that she was never as good at what she wanted to do than other people, particularly her sister. But Drama points really make White Hats remarkably effective.
I like FE: Human a fair amount, but I've encountered only a few characters who've taken it. One memorable ranger in 2e, when the Ranger only got one favored enemy - he had FE: Halfling. It was not easy to work them into the campaign.
|
I have a ranger in an upcoming Kingmaker game. He's going to have FE: Human, for one reason only: nothing else makes any sense.
He doesn't HAVE any enemies, really. He's a trapper in the Greenbelt, a fairly popular guy, but keeps mostly to himself. He doesn't HATE animals, he takes no pleasure in killing them, doesn't even have any particular knowledge about HOW to kill them - he sets traps out near streams and in valleys, he comes back, they're full. Animals aren't enemies to him.
Having no enemies, but having human anatomy and BEING A HUMAN, he knows the most about how to hurt humans. He knows that bandits have begun to plague his swath of land, stories have told that they're human - at least most of them - and that's good enough for him. He's read enough human tracks (they're everywhere, since humans are the most populous race), talked to enough sketchy guys from caravans and whatnot - he's good to go.
I'm not sure what other Favored Enemy he could really have? Perhaps I should pick Dragon?
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.Have you ever worked with a player on making sure their favored enemy gets incorporated into the game? Because really that's the catch. I vastly prefer to have a more interesting character but if my favored enemy is evil outsider and I spend 10 levels before I encounter one then I'm going to be more than a little frustrated.
Arguably your character would be frustrated too because in theory he's spent a considerable amount of time and effort learning how to kill them and never met one.
"Why am I chasing goblins all day, I'm a DEMON HUNTER!!"
Yes, I have, and have tried to steer players away from FEs that would not prove useful at all. Very rarely some devoted roleplayer will still want to take it for flavor, but usually they take the hint. The trick is doing it in a way that doesn't give away too much about the future of the campaign, thus allowing the whole party to metagame and plan for upcoming opponents. I usually do so by giving broad hints about the areas and environments where the party is most likely to be adventuring.
|
I put a post in the thread that spawned this one, re a change I made in my 3.5 game, to spread the FE bonuses out.
Would this cure some of the perceived problem?
Basically, the player does not want to be sat with a useless ability for five levels, until he can change it, but if he knows that the next small bump is at level 3, he may be willing to gamble more?
There's a problem with that Moro. Specifically the 'gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type' line.
Not just human antagonists. Every human NPC you run across. Is every shopkeep and official in the campaign going to be nonhuman? Unlikely. Most games have humans as the dominant race. Prolific breeding and all. So you're likely to get to use FE: Human every session when you even step foot into a village.
No, but the DM doesn't need to make all of the NPCs you interact with human, or even the vast majority of them. The bottom line is that DMs in particular shouldn't be complaining about this...if anything, the complaints should be reversed.
Rename the thread [MY DM HAS THIS THING FOR HUMAN NPCS BECAUSE...]
"Man, I am so tired of feeling as if I am being forced into taking Humans as a favored enemy of my Rangers, but I pretty much have to if I want to feel as if my character is as useful as the Fighter or Paladin."
There's a problem with that Moro. Specifically the 'gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type' line.
Not just human antagonists. Every human NPC you run across. Is every shopkeep and official in the campaign going to be nonhuman? Unlikely. Most games have humans as the dominant race. Prolific breeding and all. So you're likely to get to use FE: Human every session when you even step foot into a village.
No, but the DM doesn't need to make all of the NPCs you interact with human, or even the vast majority of them. The bottom line is that DMs in particular shouldn't be complaining about this...if anything, the complaints should be reversed.
Rename the thread [MY DM HAS THIS THING FOR HUMAN NPCS BECAUSE...]
"Man, I am so tired of feeling as if I am being forced into taking Humans as a favored enemy of my Rangers, but I pretty much have to if I want to feel as if my character is as useful as the Fighter or Paladin."
Interesting reversal on my original gripe. You're right that the DM has a lot more control over the world than the player. Most worlds certainly have a lot of humans in them, and in most published worlds, humans are one of, if not, THE dominant race. However, a world (or part of a world) dominated by dwarves or halflings or orcs certainly is plausible. However, that would just change the default to FE Whatever is most common in this world rather than FE Human.
I guess I also am not that sympathetic to the feeling that players are "forced" to take the most optimized choice. Optimization, particularly in its extremes, is an option, not a requirement.
There's a problem with that Moro. Specifically the 'gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type' line.
Not just human antagonists. Every human NPC you run across. Is every shopkeep and official in the campaign going to be nonhuman? Unlikely. Most games have humans as the dominant race. Prolific breeding and all. So you're likely to get to use FE: Human every session when you even step foot into a village.
No, but the DM doesn't need to make all of the NPCs you interact with human, or even the vast majority of them. The bottom line is that DMs in particular shouldn't be complaining about this...if anything, the complaints should be reversed.
Rename the thread [MY DM HAS THIS THING FOR HUMAN NPCS BECAUSE...]
"Man, I am so tired of feeling as if I am being forced into taking Humans as a favored enemy of my Rangers, but I pretty much have to if I want to feel as if my character is as useful as the Fighter or Paladin."
Interesting reversal on my original gripe. You're right that the DM has a lot more control over the world than the player. Most worlds certainly have a lot of humans in them, and in most published worlds, humans are one of, if not, THE dominant race. However, a world (or part of a world) dominated by dwarves or halflings or orcs certainly is plausible. However, that would just change the default to FE Whatever is most common in this world rather than FE Human.
I guess I also am not that sympathetic to the feeling that players are "forced" to take the most optimized choice. Optimization, particularly in its extremes, is an option, not a requirement.
All I am saying is that if you are the DM, and this is your complaint, you are being silly, as it is completely within your power to nip this in the bud by giving them a very good reason to NOT take Humans as a Favored Enemy.
Interesting reversal on my original gripe. You're right that the DM has a lot more control over the world than the player. Most worlds certainly have a lot of humans in them, and in most published worlds, humans are one of, if not, THE dominant race. However, a world (or part of a world) dominated by dwarves or halflings or orcs certainly is plausible. However, that would just change the default to FE Whatever is most common in this world rather than FE Human.
I guess I also am not that sympathetic to the feeling that players are "forced" to take the most optimized choice. Optimization, particularly in its extremes, is an option, not a requirement.
But choosing uncommon options for a character is just as much if not more of an 'option' rather then a requirement as well.
All I am saying is that if you are the DM, and this is your complaint, you are being silly, as it is completely within your power to nip this in the bud by giving them a very good reason to NOT take Humans as a Favored Enemy.
Ok, my ranger hates *insert dominant humanoid race here*. They spit on my parents grave and I hate them for it so I am taking FE: (dominant humanoid race).
My experience has been that if an option is perceived as providing a .001% advantage then the majority of players will take that option.
There are 2 problems here.
1. Rangers are required to take a race they will be sure to encounter for optimization. A ranger without favored enemies is not much better in combat than a warrior. This is a mechanical problem with the ranger class.
2. Without input from the GM, min-maxers will pick a safe bet. In most campaign worlds humans are the safe bet. If you make another species dominant, your merely change the choice. The reasons for the choice remains the same. The player who thinks this way will make the same choice then come up with a background to justify it. In many cases, min-maxers are also more about combat encounters and less interested in RP, so their background story to justify the FE is often cliche.
If you fix #1, then #2 becomes less of an issue.
But choosing uncommon options for a character is just as much if not more of an 'option' rather then a requirement as well.
Interesting reversal on my original gripe. You're right that the DM has a lot more control over the world than the player. Most worlds certainly have a lot of humans in them, and in most published worlds, humans are one of, if not, THE dominant race. However, a world (or part of a world) dominated by dwarves or halflings or orcs certainly is plausible. However, that would just change the default to FE Whatever is most common in this world rather than FE Human.
I guess I also am not that sympathetic to the feeling that players are "forced" to take the most optimized choice. Optimization, particularly in its extremes, is an option, not a requirement.
Yep. I would never say it wasn't. I might say it a more interesting and potentially entertaining option, but I would never say it is the only option. That's essentially my point. You're never "forced" to do anything in examples like this. Don't let the math and only the math dictate your choices, or your character's life. Create fun, interesting and unique characters, play them well, and enjoy yourself.
Yep. I would never say it wasn't. I might say it a more interesting and potentially entertaining option, but I would never say it is the only option. That's essentially my point. You're never "forced" to do anything in examples like this. Don't let the math and only the math dictate your choices, or your character's life. Create fun, interesting and unique characters, play them well, and enjoy yourself.
The problem is your presumption that letting the math dictate your choice is some how counter to creating fun, and interesting characters. For me a character that is not mechanically sound will never be fun to play regardless of how unique or well developed his background and personality are. If I were in your game, and I mistook your clues as to what was a good favored enemy (choosing something that ended up rarely if ever appeared in or out of combat) i would be extremely frustrated and likely not enjoy the character as much as I could have regardless of how much work I put into his development.
Like everything else its relative to your preferences.
|
|
I played with a guy who's Elven ranger took Elves as his favoured enemy, since he hated the Drow (what a huge stretch, I know). He wouldn't take the advantage on normal elves though, and would argue that it only applied to Drow, through and through. Finally we convinced him that he probably knows how to kill elves quite well after living with them for a couple 100 years.
Yep. I would never say it wasn't. I might say it a more interesting and potentially entertaining option, but I would never say it is the only option. That's essentially my point. You're never "forced" to do anything in examples like this. Don't let the math and only the math dictate your choices, or your character's life. Create fun, interesting and unique characters, play them well, and enjoy yourself.The problem is your presumption that letting the math dictate your choice is some how counter to creating fun, and interesting characters. For me a character that is not mechanically sound will never be fun to play regardless of how unique or well developed his background and personality are. If I were in your game, and I mistook your clues as to what was a good favored enemy (choosing something that ended up rarely if ever appeared in or out of combat) i would be extremely frustrated and likely not enjoy the character as much as I could have regardless of how much work I put into his development.
Like everything else its relative to your preferences.
Preferences, as you say. Personally, I kind of resent feeling railroaded into certain character development choices because of the math. Mechanically sound is also a matter of opinion. I agree that I might get frustrated if my character wasn't good at anything (although that has never happened to me in D&D), but he certainly doesn't need to be perfectly optimized for me to have fun with him.
Actually, the only time in 30+ years fo roleplaying that I was unsatisfied with the character I had was playing a post-Holocaust game called aftermath in which the GM tried to incorporate two brand new characters, including mine, into a long-running campaign. Aftermath is a skills-based game, and the older characters simply had more skills in eveything than we newbies. There wasn't a single thing we could do that they couldn't do better. I felt kind of like a low-level henchman in D&D just along for the ride with some high-level characters. I've never felt the same way in PF/D&D. Our very talented GM course-corrected quickly, however.
|
|
No, but the DM doesn't need to make all of the NPCs you interact with human, or even the vast majority of them. The bottom line is that DMs in particular shouldn't be complaining about this...if anything, the complaints should be reversed.There's a problem with that Moro. Specifically the 'gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type' line.
Not just human antagonists. Every human NPC you run across. Is every shopkeep and official in the campaign going to be nonhuman? Unlikely. Most games have humans as the dominant race. Prolific breeding and all. So you're likely to get to use FE: Human every session when you even step foot into a village.
Humans vastly outnumber non-humans in almost every campaign setting and most fantasy fiction. In these worlds if the players encounter primarily non-humans it's a little strange. I prefer a game world where humans are dominant, then non-humans are more scarce and special.
I don't see FE human being better as a problem, it gives rangers a decent option at first level which will likely be valid for the life of the character. There will certainly be long stretches in most adventures where encounters with humans are more rare and that's fine also.
But the question shouldn't always be "what kind of creature do I encounter most often"?
It should sometimes be, "What kind of creature do I need that extra bonus to skill check/hit most?"
And I don't think the two are the same.
Unless you're playing an extremely focused, all human campaign where all the enemies are human (and you could say that about any of the favored enemy choices)--what is that +2/4/6 etc really getting you? "I have a +34 to bluff the level 2 Expert into giving me a better discount." In other words, even if a majority of NPCs in a campaign are human, how often will they be high level/skilled enough that the FE bonuses you get are actually the difference between success and failure?
Compare to getting a bonus to Bluff to trick a Devil into a contract in which he gets a losing deal, or doing just enough damage that you hurt a Dragon beyond its DR score. Those, at least in my experience, are going to be the moments you will remember your FE bonus shining.
YES, there will be times that an extra bonus against a human might really come in handy, but ultimately probably about as circumstantially as anything else.
|
|
Fan fact: In a party of all humans and half-humans, an opponent with FE: Human is quite scary.
|
|
Yep. I would never say it wasn't. I might say it a more interesting and potentially entertaining option, but I would never say it is the only option. That's essentially my point. You're never "forced" to do anything in examples like this. Don't let the math and only the math dictate your choices, or your character's life. Create fun, interesting and unique characters, play them well, and enjoy yourself.
Favored enemy is kind of an interesting power in that the very lottery nature of it means that there are some encounters where you get to really shine. Just encountering an enemy that's on your FE list makes that player grin with anticipation. Generally you hear a player noticeably perk up "Wait that's a XXXX isn't it? They're one of my Favored Enemies.". I agree, if a player's favored enemy is human this is lessened a bit but if their have FE is uncommon they so rarely get to use it it's far worse because they never get that excitement. As I said above, a GM working with the player is the best of both worlds.
IMO Favored Enemy (Dragon) is one of the worse choices because the reward is so rare. Most parties bump into one or two dragons ever. If you are playing in a dragon heavy campaign where you will run into one dragon per level or so then it's a decent. As a GM I don't care for it because dragons just aren't something you can add to a campaign so it winds up being an unused bit of flavor text.
Fun, unique characters have almost nothing to do with class features and everything to do with what the player brings to the table.
The rangers I played long ago as I am the only DM/GM now for years didn't pick their first FE until several adventures into the runs. This way, I had some good stories. X just stomped my guts out and that just is.not.happening.again!
If I were starting a Ranger today, I would do the same thing and call it a backstory.
@Brian Bachman Someone actually still PLAYS Aftermath! Thought that died with Morrow Project (My favorite Post Holocaust Game) and Twilight 2000! I can see that game being a nightmare for new players to come into if a GM / Players don't help tailor the newbies in skills and gear. Nothing like having a bolt action rifle, side by SG and a .38 revolver when the guys around you are all packing M14s, Spas12s and Desert Eagle .44s. And your skills are 14 and theirs are all 20s with Walk and Control Points. Lots of fun there!! I heard that Aftermath! has come out with a Magic System now and a Fantasy Campaign Guide. Lol, halfling with a sawed off SG! Mage with an Uzi, new meaning for Magic Missiles! There's an image!!
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~