Hey there!
So ... the Favored Enemy is damn weak as it stands and SO circumstantial (APG has a really good option for it, though). So I'm less than satisfied.
Instead, I'm thinking I'll run it like a parallel to Weapon Training in that the Weapon Training just keeps getting better, right?
Now, WT is also weapon and not enemy dependent, so to account for that my thought is to keep the increasing bonuses as consistent across the board (like weapon training 1 just keeps getting better - follow?), and instead have each new Favored Enemy just go into the rangers pool of 'studied foes' (for lack of a better term on the fly).
So ... the bonus #'s continuously increase from +1 to +5.
Favored Enemies will begin with 1 and then end with 5 different types, ALL of which, when encountered, get the bonus #'s applied in play.
Does this sound horrible or off-kilter somewhere?
My thought is that it just makes FA more reliable of a boon for rangers overall while still leaving the targets highly selective and situational.
Wait, what?
You want to make Favored Enemy like Weapon Training? I keep reading this post and I can't make out what you're getting at, sorry.
I believe Neverwinter Nights 2 did it like this. Every 5 levels you gained a new favored enemy, but you only had one favored enemy bonus (+1, +1/5 levels) that applied to every favored enemy you had. Honestly, I don't see a problem with it; it's inherently weaker at lower levels when its needed most and stronger at higher levels from a strict analytical approach. +5 to five seperate enemy classes is technically better than +4/+4/+4/+4/+2 with an even spread, though in campaigns with heavy favoritism it's easy to get +10/+2/+2/+2/+2.
|
I think my issue (other than not quite understanding what the OP is actually suggesting) is that I don't agree with the actual premise. I don't think Favored Enemy is weak at all and it's not much more situational than a rogue’s disarm device shtick or the cleric's channel vs undead shtick just to name a few examples ...
Just my opinion of course!
Also don't forget that Favored Enemy applies to more than just attack and damage rolls, it also grants the bonus on some VERY nice skills against them. While yes, the damage portion of it can be somewhat low, it's still amazing, as long as the GM and player have some communication.
I think he means that rangers will start off with one favoured enemy at +1, and end up with five favoured enemies, each of which is at +5.
Is that right?
Yes, this is it exactly (for clarification).
I think my issue (other than not quite understanding what the OP is actually suggesting) is that I don't agree with the actual premise. I don't think Favored Enemy is weak at all and it's not much more situational than a rogue’s disarm device shtick or the cleric's channel vs undead shtick just to name a few examples ...
Just my opinion of course!
I'm with you on that. I don't see anything wrong with Favored Enemy as it stands, I really can't see why everyone thinks it's so bad.
|
So, the monster that the ranger has the most practice against, and probably has the best character-driven reason to be fighting against (because he became an adventurer after orcs murdered his parents) is the one that he's always going to be least effective against? That seems backwards to me.
I suppose that is what happens if the ranger never refocuses, but the mechanic (my variant, I mean) isn't meant to represent a ancestral or lifelong foe but rather a method of training against one type of enemy. As the ranger gains experience, his ability to exploit that training increases, but he must meet new challenges (refocusing) to apply what he learns to old foes.
And the refocusing doesn't make much sense from a role-playing point of view; having a favoured enemy ought to take something mroe than thinking about dragons for a few hours and them bam! you're an expert on how to kill them...
As with many things that are bound up in the fiction of the game, it's up to the GM's creativity to make the mechanic "feel real".
Is the problem that the refocusing can be done in a day or is it that there is refocusing at all?
|
|
Is the problem that the refocusing can be done in a day or is it that there is refocusing at all?
For me, I tend to not like refocusing or retraining mechanics unless they require a decent period of time. Otherwise they don't seem realistic and break verisimilitude for me.
In the case of the Ranger's Favored Enemy and Terrain, for example, these class abilities represent significant amounts of time (certainly many weeks or months) spent studying, learning, picking up bits of information, tactics etc. To be able to simply somehow "lose" all that accumulated knowledge about a specific terrain or enemy over a few hours and then suddenly "gain" that same volume of knowledge about a different terrain or enemy just doesn't make sense to me.
Not a criticism in any way, just my opinion. Of course, as I mentioned before, I have no problem at all with the Ranger's Favored Enemy and Terrain abilities as written - I think they are actually very cool and well designed.