I've been told a couple of times at 'ranger is a solid class as long as your DM isn't tight and never lets you face your favoured enemy'. This begs the question - how often SHOULD favoured enemies rear their ugly heads for the ranger to be balanced against the other classes? I ask this from the perspective of a rookie DM, not an embittered ranger player.
there are 32 favoured enemy options. Should, over a sufficiently long period of time, each type feature in one in every 32 encounters? Or should the DM specify the more common types of foe in a given campaign so that rangers can be tailored to said campaign? If so, how common should 'common' be? Does the class becomes overpowered if favoured enemy is applicable in the majority of encounters, or should that be the case?
|
I've been told a couple of times at 'ranger is a solid class as long as your DM isn't tight and never lets you face your favoured enemy'. This begs the question - how often SHOULD favoured enemies rear their ugly heads for the ranger to be balanced against the other classes? I ask this from the perspective of a rookie DM, not an embittered ranger player.
there are 32 favoured enemy options. Should, over a sufficiently long period of time, each type feature in one in every 32 encounters? Or should the DM specify the more common types of foe in a given campaign so that rangers can be tailored to said campaign? If so, how common should 'common' be? Does the class becomes overpowered if favoured enemy is applicable in the majority of encounters, or should that be the case?
As often as the logic of the quest dictates.
Well this is kind why I tend to skip favored enemy and go straight for favored terrain instead. Along with the Horizon walker, chances are you are going to run into favored terrain quite a bit. (Which creates favored enemy effects)
Otherwise I go for undead first. Though choosing my own race as a favored enemy means I will *always* run into one.
|
there are 32 favoured enemy options. Should, over a sufficiently long period of time, each type feature in one in every 32 encounters? Or should the DM specify the more common types of foe in a given campaign so that rangers can be tailored to said campaign? If so, how common should 'common' be? Does the class becomes overpowered if favoured enemy is applicable in the majority of encounters, or should that be the case?
Fighters get the Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization tree and Weapon Training, both of which are applicable 99.99% of the time.
Meanwhile, Rangers get Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, and Animal Companion and spells.
Having played both, I'd say that my Ranger competes well vs. my Fighter against his Favored Enemies and *slightly* under-performs against regular foes.
I'd say that at lower levels, it'd be more than fair to let the Ranger go up against his favored enemies at least 75% of the time. At higher levels, maybe drop down to 50% of the time, depending on how spread out the enemies are. Regardless, better the FE's come too often rather than not often enough. Better to err on the side of happy, successful player characters than pissed off, defeated ones.
Favored Enemy and Manyshot is a beautiful, beautiful thing, but it ain't broken. :)
(And remember, if the PC's are walking all over the bad guys, it's not 'cause the PC's are too strong, it's 'cause the bad guys are too weak.)
I'd say that at lower levels, it'd be more than fair to let the Ranger go up against his favored enemies at least 75% of the time. At higher levels, maybe drop down to 50% of the time, depending on how spread out the enemies are. Regardless, better the FE's come too often rather than not often enough. Better to err on the side of happy, successful player characters than pissed off, defeated ones.
That sounds like a good rule of thumb. 75% is quite a lot but I like to have enemy organizations rather than a 'new room, new monster' approach, so it should be doable. Thanks.
DM answer: well, that depends on lots of factors...
Player answer: as often as farking possible!
Just because a Ranger takes Favored Enemy X, that doesn't mean he's guaranteed to run into it regularly. There are no rules for FE rate of contact, simply because there can't be.
As a player, I made a conscious effort to get more mileage out of FE by selecting Hu-mon (my KM PC is an Elven Ranger.) That was a great choice for the Kingmaker AP, especially early on (when you're fighting lots of Hu-mon bandits.) I chose Undead for my second FE, and so far that choice hasn't paid off nearly as well as Hu-mon did. Far as I'm concerned, that's the way it goes. I made the choice and I have to live with it. The DM is in no way required to make sure that I get maximum use out of my Favored Enemy class feature.
Edited: spelling and clarity
Favored enemy (and favored terrain) is something the player should discuss carefully with the GM. As a GM I will do what I can to provide any ranger with opportunities to combat their favored enemy, but not to the point of breaking any plot or creating unreasonable situations. So it should be a careful choice.
My ranger started with goblinoids as favored enemy and then moved to dragons. He now is pretty much only interested in fighting dragons, so if the campaign doesn't involve dragons, I play a different character.
I agree with loaba, though I'd like to see more thematic choices for rangers specific for Golarion campaigns and also think a GM should accomodate players to some extend at least.
humanoids(orcs) and humanoid(goblinoids) could be bunched together in my opinion, with a little creativity you might make humanoid(elf-drow), vermin(spiders) and demons a fair choice for elf rangers, each choice more limited than the original subtype but linked thematically, while undead tends to be a fair enough choice by itself for near enough any level of play.
The GM should give the players oppurtunity to use their character abilities, though it might be rarely most FE are easy enough to implement even if they just play a relatively minor role in the current adventure, try to have one encounter with an FE at least. Change the clerics spells a bit to have planar ally and summon a demon or create an undead minion if that is what needed.
I agree with loaba, though I'd like to see more thematic choices for rangers specific for Golarion campaigns and also think a GM should accomodate players to some extend at least.
humanoids(orcs) and humanoid(goblinoids) could be bunched together in my opinion, with a little creativity you might make humanoid(elf-drow), vermin(spiders) and demons a fair choice for elf rangers, each choice more limited than the original subtype but linked thematically, while undead tends to be a fair enough choice by itself for near enough any level of play.
The GM should give the players oppurtunity to use their character abilities, though it might be rarely most FE are easy enough to implement even if they just play a relatively minor role in the current adventure, try to have one encounter with an FE at least. Change the clerics spells a bit to have planar ally and summon a demon or create an undead minion if that is what needed.
Drow are already elves, and covered by that FE...just like duergars and dwarves are.
In FR, 'Drow' as an FE covers drow and all types of creatures that serve them, but it's a morale bonus, like choosing organizations as your FE.
===Aelryinth
"Balance" is a nebulous term with subjective goalposts.
Couldn't agree more. The only thing I would really expect from the DM, is to caution the player about a patently bad choice.
DM: Are you sure you want to take Drow as your next FE? Do you realize the name of the next module is not Adventures in the Underdark?
Player: oh, right...
The ranger's chance to shine should not be mainly focused on the "favored enemy" unless those creatures are a major focus of the campaign itself. Rangers may be losing in the dpr contests against fighters but they bring much more than damage to the table. They can stealth like a rogue, they have tracking skills, knowledge, and after a bit useful divine magic.
In wilderness campaign, a Ranger is an incredible choice. You can do so many other things than just fighting. Now if you're in a primarily urban setting, well FE does become a little more important. Even in that situation, your skills can be tailored appropriately.
As the DM yes it's a good idea to make sure that the ranger's choices for favored enemy come up at some point. But also give the ranger character other chances to shine that highlight the other parts of being a ranger.
I don't necessarily agree here. I don't think there needs to be any active machinations on the DMs part. As long as he and player talk about some FE choices, and why some are better than others, you can let the chips fall where they may.
I agree with loaba, though I'd like to see more thematic choices for rangers specific for Golarion campaigns and also think a GM should accomodate players to some extend at least.
humanoids(orcs) and humanoid(goblinoids) could be bunched together in my opinion, with a little creativity you might make humanoid(elf-drow), vermin(spiders) and demons a fair choice for elf rangers, each choice more limited than the original subtype but linked thematically, while undead tends to be a fair enough choice by itself for near enough any level of play.
The GM should give the players oppurtunity to use their character abilities, though it might be rarely most FE are easy enough to implement even if they just play a relatively minor role in the current adventure, try to have one encounter with an FE at least. Change the clerics spells a bit to have planar ally and summon a demon or create an undead minion if that is what needed.
Drow are already elves, and covered by that FE...just like duergars and dwarves are.
In FR, 'Drow' as an FE covers drow and all types of creatures that serve them, but it's a morale bonus, like choosing organizations as your FE.
===Aelryinth
I am aware drow are elves, I mean to restrict your FE to drow and exclude other elves in that case
My highest level char is a 3.5 ranger (not yet converted to PF). His favored enemies are basically goblinoids and dragons. Even on a dragon-hunting campaign he generally finds himself fighting mostly non-favored enemies until they finally reach the dragon. He's an archer ranger with a hippogriff mount. I can't remember ever feeling that he wasn't a primary contributor to the party in combat, and is usually THE primary contributor to the party outside of combat. And against dragons, he is unequaled.
I think in PF there are some feats available to swap your FE by situation, and if so then I think my ranger would border on overpowered. His damage output against a FE is simply awesome.
I can't remember ever feeling that he wasn't a primary contributor to the party in combat
Long after we dispensed with the Hu-mon bandits, my Ranger is still one of the most reliable damage dealers in the party. He is far less situational than the Cavalier and not gimped like the the Fighter/Rogue multi-classer (who is much less gimped after Reincarnating as a female Elf...)
If you feel like you're being nerfed somehow, because your FE bonus never comes up, then I submit that you haven't made good choices in other areas or are ignoring other Class Features. For example, my Ranger makes regular use of spells like Gravity Bow and Hunter's Howl. Don't ignore that stuff, it really helps.
The DM should let the player know what types of creatures they will be fighting and in the general area for the first few levels so they can make wise choices. If there is also going to be a long term theme then let them know that as well.
But you do not need to pick every favored enemy they have for them, and you do not need to give them a tight list. I recommend giving them one solid enemy they can expect to see at least 20% of the time over the entire campaign. (Undead is often a good choice, but sometimes there are others.) Also let them know what is going to be heavy right off the bat.
After that the player should be able to get an idea from the game itself as well as do research and plan ahead based upon the campaign.
Finally, ask the player if there is a specific type he would like to see. If he/she picks something that works well for your game then let them run with it. If you need to throw in a couple of extra encounters with that creature then that is good too.
The DM should let the player know what types of creatures they will be fighting and in the general area for the first few levels so they can make wise choices. If there is also going to be a long term theme then let them know that as well.
But you do not need to pick every favored enemy they have for them, and you do not need to give them a tight list. I recommend giving them one solid enemy they can expect to see at least 20% of the time over the entire campaign. (Undead is often a good choice, but sometimes there are others.) Also let them know what is going to be heavy right off the bat.
After that the player should be able to get an idea from the game itself as well as do research and plan ahead based upon the campaign.
Finally, ask the player if there is a specific type he would like to see. If he/she picks something that works well for your game then let them run with it. If you need to throw in a couple of extra encounters with that creature then that is good too.
I don't much like to tell players what is coming, though I might hint at what not to take. So yea, I don't think the GM SHOULD let players know what is coming, but I'll examine the character and give the players some pointers if needed much like I will do with anyone.
GM's should reward well made characters though, and I do not mean optimized, and accomodate the characters so that the players have fun, I am much more inclined to spend a few hours preparing a scenario for players with colorful characters than to please the players that feel like they are missing out on their +4 to hit and damage all too often
I've been told a couple of times at 'ranger is a solid class as long as your DM isn't tight and never lets you face your favoured enemy'. This begs the question - how often SHOULD favoured enemies rear their ugly heads for the ranger to be balanced against the other classes? I ask this from the perspective of a rookie DM, not an embittered ranger player.
there are 32 favoured enemy options. Should, over a sufficiently long period of time, each type feature in one in every 32 encounters? Or should the DM specify the more common types of foe in a given campaign so that rangers can be tailored to said campaign? If so, how common should 'common' be? Does the class becomes overpowered if favoured enemy is applicable in the majority of encounters, or should that be the case?
That really depends - sometimes it's a case of having to 'steer' things a little. An underground campaign featuring drow and trolls is not a good place to specialise in aerial foes. On the other hand, if there is a general foe intended for a game that will crop up a lot, it's not a bad idea for the ranger to have them included.
Yeah, Hunter's Howl is pretty great, as is Instant Enemy.
Given those spells, a ranger is able to have at least one favored enemy in his encounters.
Granted, that can put the player in a bind by cutting him off of other spells if he's forced to use those other spells all the time.
If a would-be ranger thinks to ask what are the most common local menaces, they're entitled to at least a semi-helpful answer.
I don't much like to tell players what is coming, though I might hint at what not to take.
I won't go so far as to say entitled, but it doesn't hurt to point 'em in the right direction. What does hurt is to be absolutely unhelpful. I mean, why would you be like that?
Humans??? REALLY?!?
Do you guys who hate humans with such unbridaled passion... allow any in you party?
If I was a DM, I'd probably veto such blatant PvP suggestions.
Humans??? REALLY?!?
Do you guys who hate humans with such unbridaled passion... allow any in you party?
If I was a DM, I'd probably veto such blatant PvP suggestions.
Are you trolling, or what?
Why is Hu-mon, or Elf, or any other selection on the Favored Enemy list unacceptable? And more importantly, how is this relevant to this thread?
Humans??? REALLY?!?
Do you guys who hate humans with such unbridaled passion... allow any in you party?If I was a DM, I'd probably veto such blatant PvP suggestions.
Are you trolling, or what?
Why is Hu-mon, or Elf, or any other selection on the Favored Enemy list unacceptable? And more importantly, how is this relevant to this thread?
That's a little harsh. Phantom1592 might have been a little strident in tone, but it's a legitimate concern. I'd have great difficulty trying to get a party to stay together in such an environment. Excellent role-play potential, but sucks from a gaming perspective.
I won't go so far as to say entitled, but it doesn't hurt to point 'em in the right direction. What does hurt is to be absolutely unhelpful. I mean, why would you be like that?If a would-be ranger thinks to ask what are the most common local menaces, they're entitled to at least a semi-helpful answer.
I don't much like to tell players what is coming, though I might hint at what not to take.
I don't mind giving background and area details if it fits the campaign I am planning, but that is not saying that the local known menaces will play a major part in the coming adventure, it is not a given that they are frequently supplied with FE to fight just because they chose to pick it.
If there isn't much trouble implementing those foes in my planned campaign I will drop in an encounter to have the player take advantage of his abilities, but there are no guarantees.. if the players choose take extreme efforts to avoid random encounters then they might never come in conflict with the rangers FE
Humans??? REALLY?!?
Do you guys who hate humans with such unbridaled passion... allow any in you party?If I was a DM, I'd probably veto such blatant PvP suggestions.
That's a little harsh. Phantom1592 might have been a little strident in tone, but it's a legitimate concern. I'd have great difficulty trying to get a party to stay together in such an environment. Excellent role-play potential, but sucks from a gaming perspective.Are you trolling, or what?
Why is Hu-mon, or Elf, or any other selection on the Favored Enemy list unacceptable? And more importantly, how is this relevant to this thread?
You really wanna derail the thread? 'Cause we can...
What is remotely wrong with an Elven Ranger, who took Hu-mon FE, and now travels with Hu-mon companions? Does FE mean that I automatically can't stand you, in any situation, ever? What do you base that on?
For me, Hu-mon FE, means that I know how to effiently deal with you, in a martial manner, if I so choose. It doesn't rule me or my actions.
Humans??? REALLY?!?
Do you guys who hate humans with such unbridaled passion... allow any in you party?
If I was a DM, I'd probably veto such blatant PvP suggestions.
Having FE humans does not necesarily mean that the ranger hates humans, or if he does that he hates all humans. Though most likely has extensive experience killing humans and/or otherwise exploiting their weaknesses, the character might be a vigilante urban ranger or possibly a pit fighter, or possibly crusades against certain human organizations/groups
The ranger really should work with the GM to pick at least the initial favorite enemy.
Example: If I were running Legacy of Fire I'd suggest that the ranger choose Gnoll for favored enemy. The reason his ranger is hired is due to his experience with gnolls, instead of the other rangers in the area that are experts in other areas.
I like campaigns with themes. This particular ranger should be the right PC for the job, that's why he's the hero of the story.
I always caution my players on things like ranger's favored enemy to try to think as long term as they intend to play the character. If they pick a favored enemy of goblinoid because they are in a low level goblinoid campaign, that works for that campaign, but when that campaign is over, if that ranger plays in future campaigns, "goblinoid" may not fit the future campaign.
I try to tie things like that to backstory so that it's consistent no matter what the current campaign is.
I always caution my players on things like ranger's favored enemy to try to think as long term as they intend to play the character. If they pick a favored enemy of goblinoid because they are in a low level goblinoid campaign, that works for that campaign, but when that campaign is over, if that ranger plays in future campaigns, "goblinoid" may not fit the future campaign.
I try to tie things like that to backstory so that it's consistent no matter what the current campaign is.
I think that's cool, to be mindful of what the player has taken for FE. Be that as it may, I don't think a player needs to get too worked up over the selection. A Ranger's FE is only one Class Feature, of many. It's a powerful one too, but that's because it's not always on. You're not guaranteed to always be facing your FE. And that's cool, because you also have your companion and spells etc.
|
If your player picks a favored enemy and never encounters it he is going to be a little frustrated and disappointed. My suggestion is he should encounter that enemy often enough that the player feels rewarded for taking that choice. Paizo tends to broadcast good favored enemy choices in their adventure paths and I think it's a great suggestion. If you are a GM consider discussing the choice with your player or adding or modifying your campaign so your player sees at least a few of his favored enemy.
Many people suggest taking FE (Human) because players get frustrated with having a 'wasted' class feature. Instead of having your player take a boring option (that often doesn't make role playing sense) work with them to give them viable options that they will bump into at least one in every five to ten encounters. If it's a less common favored enemy, for example favored enemy (Dragon), consider making a few key encounters with that creature type in your adventure. Being able to shine at a key moment is often more rewarding than being able to wipe up tons of more mundane encounters.
Feel free to coach your player against options that you are certain they will never encounter. You can do this without being cheesy or spoiling your campaign and your player will appreciate it.
On the other end of the spectrum it's arguable that some favored enemies come up too often. I've seen Paizo APs where nearly 50% of the enemies are in the ranger's favored enemy list. Some adventures naturally favor certain classes (Undead/ Dragon/ Evil Outsider heavy campaign with paladins for example) and that's perfectly reasonable. If it seems the ranger is hogging the lime-light and more than half of your encounters are with a favored enemy consider either mixing up your encounters or putting some additional threats in that allow other characters to shine.
For the TL:DR Crowd:
Often enough that the player feels rewarded for making the choice but not so often that he overshadows the rest of your group.
You really wanna derail the thread? 'Cause we can...
What is remotely wrong with an Elven Ranger, who took Hu-mon FE, and now travels with Hu-mon companions? Does FE mean that I automatically can't stand you, in any situation, ever? What do you base that on?
For me, Hu-mon FE, means that I know how to effiently deal with you, in a martial manner, if I so choose. It doesn't rule me or my actions.
Not trolling at all.
We just see the FE concept a bit differently. I still see them as the old-school 'species enemy' where they are your most hated enemy, and if there is one on the field of battle, THAT is the one that you go after...
An elven ranger has Every right to despise and hate humans, but that same ranger should not be any more willing to travel in a party of humans than a paladin should with a priest of an evil god... It goes against everything that he believes in. If it's an all Elf game... then Human is QUITE thematic.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the 'I know how to effiently deal with you, in a martial manner' mentality, when an arrow to the heart kills dead a human/elf/orc/dwarf... and their anatomies are all similiar...
But to tie it back into the thread, If you choose 'Human' as a FE... then 80% of all creatures encountered will fall into it, including party members and all npcs in town...
that just strikes me as a bit cheesy.
You really wanna derail the thread? 'Cause we can...
What is remotely wrong with an Elven Ranger, who took Hu-mon FE, and now travels with Hu-mon companions? Does FE mean that I automatically can't stand you, in any situation, ever? What do you base that on?
For me, Hu-mon FE, means that I know how to effiently deal with you, in a martial manner, if I so choose. It doesn't rule me or my actions.
Not trolling at all.
We just see the FE concept a bit differently. I still see them as the old-school 'species enemy' where they are your most hated enemy, and if there is one on the field of battle, THAT is the one that you go after...
An elven ranger has Every right to despise and hate humans, but that same ranger should not be any more willing to travel in a party of humans than a paladin should with a priest of an evil god... It goes against everything that he believes in. If it's an all Elf game... then Human is QUITE thematic.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the 'I know how to effiently deal with you, in a martial manner' mentality, when an arrow to the heart kills dead a human/elf/orc/dwarf... and their anatomies are all similiar...
But to tie it back into the thread, If you choose 'Human' as a FE... then 80% of all creatures encountered will fall into it, including party members and all npcs in town...
that just strikes me as a bit cheesy.
Just to point out: Who's to say that the character simply isn't, oh, a bounty hunter or such? They go out there to capture other characters. If most of the bounties they go after are human thieves, then why shouldn't they take FE: Human? And why would that automatically mean that they hate ALL humans?
Besides, the way I've always seen FE's. You've studied the race and both their physiology and psychology, plus you know exactly where to hit/shoot for the most damage. Sure, you aren't a rogue with sneak attack, but in some ways you're simply better because you know how they can or can't move. You hit them in ways that its simply harder for them to get out of the way of.
We just see the FE concept a bit differently. I still see them as the old-school 'species enemy' where they are your most hated enemy, and if there is one on the field of battle, THAT is the one that you go after...
That is the old way, certainly. I don't prescribe to that theory, certainly not for my particular Ranger character.
Quick Note on Hu-mon encounters in my KM campaign.
- I don't attack NPCs or PCs
We haven't run into Hu-mon encounter since, oh, half-way through the second chapter (I think.)
My take on a related but slightly different question: How My Ranger Stopped Encountering Undead. :)
You know... spelling Human that way makes your elf sound like a Ferengi. :)
Ack! They clothe their women!
You really wanna derail the thread? 'Cause we can...
What is remotely wrong with an Elven Ranger, who took Hu-mon FE, and now travels with Hu-mon companions? Does FE mean that I automatically can't stand you, in any situation, ever? What do you base that on?
For me, Hu-mon FE, means that I know how to effiently deal with you, in a martial manner, if I so choose. It doesn't rule me or my actions.
Not trolling at all.
We just see the FE concept a bit differently. I still see them as the old-school 'species enemy' where they are your most hated enemy, and if there is one on the field of battle, THAT is the one that you go after...
An elven ranger has Every right to despise and hate humans, but that same ranger should not be any more willing to travel in a party of humans than a paladin should with a priest of an evil god... It goes against everything that he believes in. If it's an all Elf game... then Human is QUITE thematic.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the 'I know how to effiently deal with you, in a martial manner' mentality, when an arrow to the heart kills dead a human/elf/orc/dwarf... and their anatomies are all similiar...
However their psychology and fighting styles are very different. A dwarf with an axe and shield will show different openings and opportunities than an elf swordsman, for example, and attack in different ways.
But to tie it back into the thread, If you choose 'Human' as a FE... then 80% of all creatures encountered will fall into it, including party members and all npcs in town...
that just strikes me as a bit cheesy.
Actually, it strikes me as very logical:
- Humans are common, so you are likely to get to use it more often.
- Humans (or your own race) are the race you are most intimately familiar with, so logically it's one you would know better than any others how best to fight.
- Favoured enemy does not mean hatred. It means the kind of foe you know the best, that's all.
I fail to see why it's cheesy, and I fail to see why it would lead to party strife. I can see it being abused by players that want to cause strife, but that's a different story in which your problem is the player, not the character.
In one way, it's not a good choice: humans (except those with character levels) seldom have huge numbers of hit points, so being able to do massive damage to them has limited use. They might make up a substantial proportion of BBEGs, but not all of them, and in any event lieutenants are likely to be things like giants, dragons, and other monsters. I can see it being of great use to (and very logical to be used by) an Urban Ranger, in the social context, but not really any other kind.
However their psychology and fighting styles are very different. A dwarf with an axe and shield will show different openings and opportunities than an elf swordsman, for example, and attack in different ways.
mmmm.. I don't think there would be any more psychological and fighting style differences between a Dwarf axe/shield and elf swordsman... then there would be between a Shackles pirate and a Linnorn king barbarian/viking...
Humans are SOOOOO vast and different between each other, that i have a hard time justifying bonuses against the whole race.
If you had to clarify it a bit more, like Humans: Chelaxians... or Human: Varisians... Then I could buy the psychological aspects of it.
But to get a bonus against an entire race because 'they think and move like a human' seems off...
Actually, it strikes me as very logical:
...
- Humans are common, so you are likely to get to use it more often.
Ohhh.. I understand that picking it as a bonus is logical... It gives the most mechanical benefits for sure...
That reasoning doesn't make it seem LESS cheesy to me though ;)
Picking options for the absolute best abilities, regardless of how they work for the 'character'... Call it what you want. Min/max, Optimizing, Cheesy... All means the same to me :)
|
|
Humans are common and they like to fight. So rangers are likely to get a lot of practice fighting against them.
Humans are a boring Favored Enemy though and ultimately not really a 'favored enemy' so much as the guy it's best to be good at fighting.
"Gnolls killed my family so I hunt them as often as I can"
Great roll playing stuff.
"Humans are common and like to fight"
Boring!!
Don't get me wrong, if I'm clueless about the setting and my GM doesn't seem like he's going to work with me I'll go FE (Human). If there is a chance to make it work with your character's story and the setting you are playing in then it's a lot more fun and interesting to pick a more interesting favored enemy.
In Rise of the Runelords (Giant or Undead)
In Legacy of Fire (Gnolls)
In Carrion Crown (Undead or Magical Beast)
Ohhh.. I understand that picking [human] as a bonus is logical... It gives the most mechanical benefits for sure...
Really, the most? I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that. Not every game or AP is the same. Second Darkness didn't feature a lot of Hu-mon encounters, but it did focus quite a bit on Drow.
That reasoning doesn't make it seem LESS cheesy to me though ;)
And Hated Species seems cheesy to me. To each his own, yeah?
Picking options for the absolute best abilities, regardless of how they work for the 'character'... Call it what you want. Min/max, Optimizing, Cheesy... All means the same to me :)
And now you're using polarizing terms, rather than being gracious enough to say "I play the way that I think is best."
In Pathfinder, Favored Enemy represents a hunter's trained eye, nothing more.
Slavers took my little sister and I've dedicated my life to bringing criminals to justice.
How much backstory you put into your favorite enemy is up to you.
As often as the logic of the quest dictates.I've been told a couple of times at 'ranger is a solid class as long as your DM isn't tight and never lets you face your favoured enemy'. This begs the question - how often SHOULD favoured enemies rear their ugly heads for the ranger to be balanced against the other classes? I ask this from the perspective of a rookie DM, not an embittered ranger player.
there are 32 favoured enemy options. Should, over a sufficiently long period of time, each type feature in one in every 32 encounters? Or should the DM specify the more common types of foe in a given campaign so that rangers can be tailored to said campaign? If so, how common should 'common' be? Does the class becomes overpowered if favoured enemy is applicable in the majority of encounters, or should that be the case?
Thread ended for me right here, you cant accomodate if he picks something like dragon so why do it for the rest of them? Just do your thing and the player will probably keep up.
|
This is one of those situations where GM / Player communication is very important. Before a new game, I make sure to find out what every one of my players is planning on playing and discussing the sort of themes that may prove more difficult during the campaign and which may prove to be highly beneficial . . .
Translation; if a player intends to play a ranger, I ask him what sort of concept he has for that ranger. Will he go down the ranged path? Two-weapon fighting? Favored enemy, or terrain? I let my players know ahead of time what general challenges they can expect; i.e., the game takes place primarily in the mountainous region known for abandoned dwarf citadels after a long war with giants. Primary means of transportation will be airships. The southern reaches have always been plagued by goblins and wyverns.
After that discussion, I let the player decide how he wants to proceed with minor input if he comes up with something that I know will cause him no end of strife; "Y'know, that aquatic druid build might be a little tricky. Go for it, though if you want some interesting RP and problem solving!"
In the above example, the party ranger went with ranged weapons and favored terrain "Mountains," and "Underground." He actually did pretty well, and saved a few butts when things got unpleasant. The other party members were never outshined by him, though, so I don't think our little strategy talk had any negative impact on the game as a whole.
So, I think that, in the end, the best answer for "How often should a favored enemy / terrain pop up in a game?" would be this:
As often as is fun for the whole group.