I trip the blog fantastic over at the Spes Magna site, this time waxing on and off about not designing scenarios to deliberately exclude PC abilities.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games @ Paizo.com
I trip the blog fantastic over at the Spes Magna site, this time waxing on and off about not designing scenarios to deliberately exclude PC abilities.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games @ Paizo.com
This blog post makes a good point, and I've definitely seen Advice forum threads expressing the sentiment (most recently in memory was one for the Witch's sleep hex, but there have been plenty of others).
One other idea: If the GM is simply pulling his hair out over vulnerable enemies and is considering just not putting the ranger's Favored Enemy into the mix, the GM should consider putting in a Favored Enemy of a higher CR. So for instance--let's say the GM had planned for a CR 7 Undead against the Undead FE Ranger, and he is considering swapping for a CR 7 Construct because the Ranger is too awesome against Undead. He could also use a CR 8 or even CR 9 Undead instead. Now, the Ranger gets to be awesome, and the party needs all the help it can get! (Note: Use this sparingly if you want it to be effective).
The flip-side of this issue is also interesting, and something you didn't discuss: It should be recognised that on the other side of the spectrum, there is something to be said for choosing a Favored Enemy wisely and not doing so in a prima donna fashion. By which I mean, if your campaign is in a vast desert kingdom and involves exploring tombs (and everyone else is on board with this), don't pick Favored Enemy (Humanoid: Merfolk) or whatever. At best, it's just a useless ability, and at worst, you have a GM who uses the normally-excellent techniques in your blog post and now that one player has hijacked the game.
For my part, I tend to instead advise a potential ranger player if their desired favored enemy choice will be Common, Uncommon, Rare, or Worthless for the oncoming campaign, and then if they still choose one that never comes up, then so be it. I come at it from the other direction because my players enjoy the verisimilitude of knowing that their characters are changing and adapting to have good abilities to match the story, rather than the story changing to match their abilities. That said, when I'm running a homebrew, if the theme/setting of the game hasn't been decided ahead of time, they can be set based on the desire of players to play a certain sort of character.
As there may be other players like mine, I would refine your suggestions as follows for a group like mine that prefers not to have the impression of tailor-made encounters. For such a group, try the following, in order:
1) Talk to the players before starting a campaign, and if any of them have a burning desire to play with niche abilities, choose the theme and/or setting of the game to allow that (if it doesn't bother the other players).
2) If you are mid-game, warn the player once that their choice will not be as useful.
3) If all else fails, use techniques discussed on blog post (but do it very subtly--players who don't want a tailor-made encounter will notice something where all the ducks are in a row for them like in the example on your blog post).
|
\
One other idea: If the GM is simply pulling his hair out over vulnerable enemies and is considering just not putting the ranger's Favored Enemy into the mix, the GM should consider putting in a Favored Enemy of a higher CR. So for instance--let's say the GM had planned for a CR 7 Undead against the Undead FE Ranger, and he is considering swapping for a CR 7 Construct because the Ranger is too awesome against Undead. He could also use a CR 8 or even CR 9 Undead instead. Now, the Ranger gets to be awesome, and the party needs all the help it can get! (Note: Use this sparingly if you want it to be effective).
I agree, but I also point to the tried and true "Do what would happen" approach to being a DM. That way you reward your Ranger if they pick an enemy they are likely to encounter, which is what they are generally trying to do.
It's like Paladins with fear effects, or Monks with poison. Sometimes your character is awesome, and that isn't a bad thing.
\
One other idea: If the GM is simply pulling his hair out over vulnerable enemies and is considering just not putting the ranger's Favored Enemy into the mix, the GM should consider putting in a Favored Enemy of a higher CR. So for instance--let's say the GM had planned for a CR 7 Undead against the Undead FE Ranger, and he is considering swapping for a CR 7 Construct because the Ranger is too awesome against Undead. He could also use a CR 8 or even CR 9 Undead instead. Now, the Ranger gets to be awesome, and the party needs all the help it can get! (Note: Use this sparingly if you want it to be effective).I agree, but I also point to the tried and true "Do what would happen" approach to being a DM. That way you reward your Ranger if they pick an enemy they are likely to encounter, which is what they are generally trying to do.
It's like Paladins with fear effects, or Monks with poison. Sometimes your character is awesome, and that isn't a bad thing.
Yep--that is the thrust of the second half of my post (after where you quoted). My group wouldn't have it any other way. One of my GMs actually came to me for advice due to running a published AP where our Paladin density was wreaking havoc (3/6 Paladins and everything smitable, usually for double damage on the first attack)--considering our group's preferences, I pointed out that the bad guys, knowing our identities and having a lot of resources, could hire non-evil mercenaries above and beyond what the AP includes, and it would still be "Do what would happen", even if it isn't exactly what was written in the AP.
|
I like the advice about tailoring the occasional encounter to allow the PCs strengths to shine, down to stuff like allowing the wizards ranks in Linguisitics to be of some use. Very cool.
I'm somewhat spoiled by superhero games, where the setup is often 'plow through hapless mooks, feeling like a *superhero,*' and then really challenging fight with big bad or team evil. Sometimes it feels like D&D adventures are all about making *every* fight a CR appropriate nail-biter, and never allowing the PCs to really shine with the occasional encounter that allows them to show off how awesome they have become.
In encounter design, that's pretty much the gold standard, the big challenging encounter, and not the 'mook fights,' since that's the king of thing one expects in a paid-for adventure, and the adventure writer can't psychically intuit what sort of abilities or skills or whatnot are going to be showcased by your particular team of PCs anyway. It's the kind of thing that a good GM can add, and the best adventure writer can't necessarily provide, tailored stuff for your particular team of PCs to help your players enjoy the game.
the gmg talks about this. until he read that section he hadn't thought about things like npc suddenly all spreading out because a pc got fireball (not because they saw him cast it, but because it is in his spell book) similar problem with cleave or great cleave.
I think a lot of this advice applies the same to the favoured enemy issue.
or you guys could play the ranger - guide variant that just pretty much smites anything he wants to :)
"If that ranger isn’t encountering orcs and/or undead at least 50% of the time, then you need to stop and examine the adventures your running. "
You don't mean 50% of encounters do you?
I think part of the problem with favored enemy is that many choices (goblin, orc, kobold,...) are great up until about level 3-4, then never get used again, while others are the opposite (outsiders, dragons,) that never get used until the mid levels. This makes some choices (undead, humans,) just better. There are also some campaigns that focus on a single type of creature (drow, giants, aberrations) where favored enemy can be a bonus in the majority of encounters.
I'm not sure what the best solution would be, as I don't like the idea of swapping out favored enemies ("Those goblins who burned my village and slayed my family when I was a boy aren't so bad after all.") But I do feel that perhaps there should be some kind of mechanic that would make kobold a valid choice. Perhaps combine some creature types- kobold/dragon, orc/giant, gnoll/animal goblin/magical beast?
As to the general concept of playing to the parties strengths, I have to agree. Many times I have tried to set things up so that characters can do things that their class normally would not be good at, and players don't enjoy it much. They want to be doing what they are best at.
The flip side is that players don't want to be forced into a situation where their only option is to use the single thing that will keep them alive. For example, I found APL+3 dragon encounters to be more of an exercise in frustration then fun.
Something else to consider -- using favored enemy regularly doesn't mean using his first favored enemy regularly -- it could be his second or even third such choice -- but at least he's getting to use it.
First, thanks for the feedback, comments, et cetera. :)
One other idea: If the GM is simply pulling his hair out over vulnerable enemies and is considering just not putting the ranger's Favored Enemy into the mix, the GM should consider putting in a Favored Enemy of a higher CR.
Good point. This also applies to Fergie's "problem with favored enemy" below.
The flip-side of this issue is also interesting, and something you didn't discuss: It should be recognised that on the other side of the spectrum, there is something to be said for choosing a Favored Enemy wisely and not doing so in a prima donna fashion. By which I mean, if your campaign is in a vast desert kingdom and involves exploring tombs (and everyone else is on board with this), don't pick Favored Enemy (Humanoid: Merfolk) or whatever.
Agreed wholeheartedly. The player needs to get with the program of the campaign. Choosing as a FE an aquatic humanoid (as you note) would be a very silly thing to do in a desert-based campaign. You hit the solution to this problem dead center with this advice:
1) Talk to the players before starting a campaign, and if any of them have a burning desire to play with niche abilities, choose the theme and/or setting of the game to allow that (if it doesn't bother the other players).
Setting up a campaign ought to be a collaborative affair. In my current campaign, one of my players is running a ranger. One of the party's early adventures dealt with mites. The player hadn't yet decided on his ranger's FE; he thought fey would make sense given the early conflicts with the mites. The player, however, was concerned that once he chose "fey" he'd never encounter them again. I assured him that would not be the case if he decided fey needed to be his PC's FE. Since then, I've tossed out several fey-related plot hooks, some of which the party hasn't (yet) pursued.
"If that ranger isn’t encountering orcs and/or undead at least 50% of the time, then you need to stop and examine the adventures your running. "
You don't mean 50% of encounters do you?
Do I mean literally every other encounter, or that every adventure needs to be 50% FE? No. But, over the course of things, the ranger ought to be bumping into his favored enemies quite often. So, using my current campaign again, the first several sessions focused almost entirely on fey enemies. Since that arc ended, the party hasn't encountered any fey at all. IMO, that's fine. The "fey menace" is still there, operating in ways the players suspect as well as in ways they don't have a clue about.
In short, I put those hooks out there. If the party doesn't follow the fey-related hooks, then my ranger's player can't really complain about not getting to use his FE bonuses against fey creature.
I think part of the problem with favored enemy is that many choices (goblin, orc, kobold,...) are great up until about level 3-4, then never get used again....
Rogue Eidolon hits this "problem" right between the eyes. I can make orcs or kobolds a challenge for characters of any level. Sure, the party may goon-sweep a lot such creatures, but where it matters, the ranger's FE bonuses can still be given a chance to shine. In my most recent Quid Novi? e-letter, the Chance Encounter was full stats for a dragonbreath white kobold admixer 6, weighing in at CR 7 due to equipment. Between her and her describe retinue, she'd likely steamroller a 3rd-4th level party, but a higher-level group, not so much.
Thus, there is a "mechanic that would make kobold a valid choice" built into the monster advancement rules. It might require a bit more work, but it can be done.
It also depends if I had a witch or something not good against undead or other things immune to mind affecting abilities if I was playing a ranger in the party I may take favored enemy undead to shore up a weakness.
Yes playing in something that will never come up just leads to frustration.
Heck I even thought of doing something similar with oddball langauges like thassilonian that almost never get used. One example I thought of was have someone write a secret family recipe in Thasilonian and have them translate it and then reward them at the inn family recipe with free room and board for returning the recipe after skill checks.
A good strategy when you have a DM like this is to next time pick favored enemies of the creature types you least want to face and not ones that will probably show up the most. You don't need FE if your already keeping the scary stuff out of the game anyway (undead is actually a pretty good choice for that)
A good strategy when you have a DM like this is to next time pick favored enemies of the creature types you least want to face and not ones that will probably show up the most. You don't need FE if your already keeping the scary stuff out of the game anyway (undead is actually a pretty good choice for that)
Ha! :)
I was once told horror stories of a DM that had a player running a ranger. The DM actually went through the pre-made scenario he was going to run and replaced the ranger's FEs with non-FEs so that the adventure wouldn't be "unbalanced" by the ranger. IMO, that's just a step removed from making everything immune to magic because that pesky wizard keeps doing stuff with his spells.
A good strategy when you have a DM like this is to next time pick favored enemies of the creature types you least want to face and not ones that will probably show up the most. You don't need FE if your already keeping the scary stuff out of the game anyway (undead is actually a pretty good choice for that)Ha! :)
I was once told horror stories of a DM that had a player running a ranger. The DM actually went through the pre-made scenario he was going to run and replaced the ranger's FEs with non-FEs so that the adventure wouldn't be "unbalanced" by the ranger. IMO, that's just a step removed from making everything immune to magic because that pesky wizard keeps doing stuff with his spells.
Hey no dragon fight at the end sounds great to me ;)
I think from the GM side of things avoiding a ranger's FE is not just ridiculous, but also unnecessary. Consider that FE bonus is what makes the ranger's combat output match a fighter or raging barbarian. If the fighter of your group isn't a problem, why would the ranger be?
Additionally, it seems like much of the time a ranger's choice of FE isn't arbitrary. There's something about that character's personality and/or backstory that led to this selection. Isn't it part of the campaign to explore these aspects of your PCs, not just the ranger but all of them?
*grin*
Love the discussion, just sad I can't read the original blog! (stupid work proxy blocker :( )
In any event...
YES!! Games should always be oriented towards the players. Always. They should never be oriented *away* from the Players. Does this mean that every Orc hunting Ranger gets to pwn orcs every fight? No. it means that in *many* fights he gets to use his ability. Like the trapless quests for the trapmonkey rogue... the NPC-less villages for the Face...
As gamemasters, our job (by contract, mind you :) ) is to give the players a game that is fun to play and 'difficult' to win. (Win, in the context of 'accomplishing a mission', like saving the Princess or recovering the stolen idol ;) Not win as in, I am 2-0-1 in D&D... lol)In an effort to get to that goal (fun, memorable...) we give the players challenges, but they give back the ability to beat those challenges. It's a give and give until the final product is, "Do you remember how we beat that dragon?" "Yeah, that was cool..."
When a player runs a Ranger, I always recommend Undead, Giant, Evil Outsider as FEs. If I am running a specific campaign, then the majority enemy will be *highly* recommended. I would also discourage someone that wanted to take Humanoid (Halfling)... really? Did that picked pocket when you were first level really hurt that much? lol
A similar conversation can be started for Rogue Talents: should a rogue be left in a vacuum for deciding talents, should a GM 'cater' to the talents (I took Bleeding Attack and all we ever fight are Skeletons!)... Of course all things work together. In an undead campaign when a Rogue wants to take Bleeding Attack, I would ask, "Are you sure?" and count the player foolish for taking an ability that will be 90% useless... Just as if he takes Honeyed Words, there may be more opportunity for social interactions from that point on...
GNOME
I try to work with the ranger. I usually suggest in a normal campaign to take goblins or humans at low level, and then take level appropriate enemies along the way. I also usually suggest humanoids, because my personal style is I usually have them going against sentient antagonists. I have no issue tossing class levels onto humanoids to keep the CRs appropriate, so those are usually safe choices. I've actually had 6th level goblin rangers attacking a party (they were 10th level at the time, had 15 6th level goblins in tree platforms firing at the party).
I think part of the problem with favored enemy is that many choices (goblin, orc, kobold,...) are great up until about level 3-4, then never get used again....Rogue Eidolon hits this "problem" right between the eyes. I can make orcs or kobolds a challenge for characters of any level. Sure, the party may goon-sweep a lot such creatures, but where it matters, the ranger's FE bonuses can still be given a chance to shine.
I love adding class levels to low-level monster races, especially orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, and their like.
Also remember that Favored Enemy has been rewritten:
At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th level), the ranger may select an additional favored enemy. In addition, at each such interval, the bonus against any one favored enemy (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by +2.
So, if you choose "Humanoid (goblinoid)" at first level and don't expect to encounter many after level 4, choose wisely at level 5 (evil outsiders, perhaps) and double up with +4 to the new enemy, leaving goblinoids at +2. The same dynamic can happen again at level 10, where you might decide to choose dragons and take +6 vs dragons, and so on. With a little common sense and some guidance from your GM, this pattern should get you quite a bit of use out of your highest FE bonus at any given level range. And, should you encounter a powerful goblin at 17th level, you certainly won't mind having a +2 FE bonus against them!