Not sure, but that's precisely why I like the Guide archetype so much.
I much prefer not having my main class ability be so at the whim of the GM.
my guess is 5-10%, altough they cluster up of course
or in other words about 1 room per dungeon.
it also depends on what they take, if the level 1 ranger takes dragon, well it's his own fault he won't fight any, altough perhaps he has to track one. Same for the lvl 20 ranger who takes goblin (altough I love to give them classlevels).
Out of the 32 favored enemy choices you can select a grand total of 5. So, that's a 16% statistical probability you'll encounter and be "proficient" in combat, at level 20, when you get your last favored enemy choice. Otherwise, you're kinda gimp comparatively to the rest of the party. As far as I know there are no feats that allow you to add more to this list either.
Out of the 32 favored enemy choices you can select a grand total of 5. So, that's a 16% statistical probability you'll encounter and be "proficient" in combat, at level 20, when you get your last favored enemy choice. Otherwise, you're kinda gimp comparatively to the rest of the party. As far as I know there are no feats that allow you to add more to this list either.
That assumes the frequency of them are all the same.
That is...so not true.
I did say it was a statistical probability. Anything else would be dishonest and it's unreliable to give any other type of number. It's contingent on the GM and the modules he's playing.
Also, I used a statistical standpoint to highlight just how easy it is to not encounter your favored enemy selections. IMO, as far as this mechanic is concerned, the ranger is gimp.
On average, I'd say it somewhere in the ball park of 10% on average.
However, some of them happen much more often. Undead seem to be all over the place (must be alot of necromancers scurrying around that no one ever sees).
Also, some are rare but very useful. Don't fight dragons very often, but when you do, you need all the help you can get.
Eh, maybe.
But except in the very rarest of campaigns, Humans and Undead are almost always safe bets.
And Favored Enemy (Things I Don't Like) works everywhere.
I don't think there is one right answer to tihs question. Humanoid human is what you end up tracking a lot though if someone went missing which has happened a few times at level 1 or other low levels.
Eh, maybe.
But except in the very rarest of campaigns, Humans and Undead are almost always safe bets.
And Favored Enemy (Things I Don't Like) works everywhere.
:D
Also, keep in mind in Pathfinder going to other planes is about as easy as waking up in the morning. So, sure, you may be tripping balls over undead today but go to the Abyss tomorrow and you're stroked. ;) So, given that there are entire planes devoted to certain creature types, you need to look at the broad-strokes view unless you know in advance which area/plane you'll be staying in most often. Still, if the GM decides to "make it interesting" they can snatch you away pretty much whenever they feel like it.
|
As a house rule, I allow rangers, whenever they're allow to select an additional favoured enemy, to change any of their existing enemies instead. So, for example, a ranger that took Humanoid (human) at first level, and Humanoid (goblinoid) at fifth, could take an addition enemy at 10th, or swap out one or both of his prior enemies instead (keeping his total at two).
|
I did say it was a statistical probability. Anything else would be dishonest and it's unreliable to give any other type of number. It's contingent on the GM and the modules he's playing.
Also, I used a statistical standpoint to highlight just how easy it is to not encounter your favored enemy selections. IMO, as far as this mechanic is concerned, the ranger is gimp.
Then to do a (pseudo) statistical analysis you should take the bestiary 1 and 2 and check how many monsters of each kind exist.
It would still be as doubtful as your previsions one, but it would have a slightly better pretense to be scientific.
I've never considered Favored Enemy to be my key ability with my Rangers. For me it was a nice supplemental when it came into play, but has never been the main rider for my Rangers.Not sure, but that's precisely why I like the Guide archetype so much.
I much prefer not having my main class ability be so at the whim of the GM.
I suppose I was using "key" to mean "iconic".
I still like the Guide better!
For me the iconic Ranger ability is his combat skills combined with that wilderness stealth scout skill package.I've never considered Favored Enemy to be my key ability with my Rangers. For me it was a nice supplemental when it came into play, but has never been the main rider for my Rangers.Not sure, but that's precisely why I like the Guide archetype so much.
I much prefer not having my main class ability be so at the whim of the GM.
I suppose I was using "key" to mean "iconic".
I still like the Guide better!
Me too.
I've never considered Favored Enemy to be my key ability with my Rangers. For me it was a nice supplemental when it came into play, but has never been the main rider for my Rangers.Not sure, but that's precisely why I like the Guide archetype so much.
I much prefer not having my main class ability be so at the whim of the GM.
Same here. And considering the fighting style trees for the class, I never considered the sometime lack of a favored enemy to fight, to be a gimp. I figured when they designed the class, they gave the FE feature a fairly low design cost.
Same here. And considering the fighting style trees for the class, I never considered the sometime lack of a favored enemy to fight, to be a gimp. I figured when they designed the class, they gave the FE feature a fairly low design cost.I've never considered Favored Enemy to be my key ability with my Rangers. For me it was a nice supplemental when it came into play, but has never been the main rider for my Rangers.Not sure, but that's precisely why I like the Guide archetype so much.
I much prefer not having my main class ability be so at the whim of the GM.
To me the fighting style trees are the most UNiconic part of the ranger. I can understand Archery (Robin Hood, Legolas) but Two Weapon Fighting has nothing to do with wilderness, hunting, scouts or anything that the ranger is supposed to be. It's there because of Drizzt.
Then you try to expand on the that and get fighting styles that are appropriate, flavor wise, for the ranger, like mounted combat and natural weapon, and others not so much, like Two Handed Weapon and Weapon and Shield.Being a master of weapons should be the Fighters schtick and the fighting style of the Ranger seem to step on his toes a little to hard to my tastes.
Of course, once Instant Enemy comes out, a Ranger can apply his bonuses to nearly any enemy that's important enough.
Who knew the terrasque was so surprisingly human-like? But when it really counts, it turns out it is.
If you have an antagonistic GM who deliberately avoids putting in favoured enemies that you have, use that to your advantage. You don't want to meet dragons? Take dragon as a favoured enemy. Do the same for any others that might be troublesome like undead.
:P
Same here. And considering the fighting style trees for the class, I never considered the sometime lack of a favored enemy to fight, to be a gimp. I figured when they designed the class, they gave the FE feature a fairly low design cost.I've never considered Favored Enemy to be my key ability with my Rangers. For me it was a nice supplemental when it came into play, but has never been the main rider for my Rangers.Not sure, but that's precisely why I like the Guide archetype so much.
I much prefer not having my main class ability be so at the whim of the GM.
To me the fighting style trees are the most UNiconic part of the ranger. I can understand Archery (Robin Hood, Legolas) but Two Weapon Fighting has nothing to do with wilderness, hunting, scouts or anything that the ranger is supposed to be. It's there because of Drizzt.
Then you try to expand on the that and get fighting styles that are appropriate, flavor wise, for the ranger, like mounted combat and natural weapon, and others not so much, like Two Handed Weapon and Weapon and Shield.
Being a master of weapons should be the Fighters schtick and the fighting style of the Ranger seem to step on his toes a little to hard to my tastes.
If anything, the ranger weapon styles serve to define the combat role that the character takes? If for example the ranger takes the crossbow fighting style, then the manner in which he is going to approach combat is going to be very different from that of a two handed weapon ranger. The issue then comes to being one of just how the fight works out at a cinematic level, with the two handed weapon ranger most likely charging in at the side of the party fighter/barbarian, and the crossbow mastery one being much more of the sniper, helping protect the casters of the party as they fighters and barbarians of the party carve the opposition to shreds where they excel.
In essence however, the different fighting styles can give you a way to further personalise the ranger. After all, one who wilfully throws themselves into the midst of combat with a single weapon in their hands will possibly have a different outlook to life than one who goes in with a sword in one hand and a shield in the other. Also, the fighting styles give the ranger a way to adapt to what the party needs.
I know for example in a campaign that I ran recently, the ranger was actually the person with the highest kill count, using a combination of archery and his hawk animal companion.
If anything I find the favored enemies list a little broken.
by picking humans and undead you tent do get a very good spread. some things like dragons and specific outsiders may never show up in a campeign.
and others like beasts or goblins may only be usefull in the begining levels.
like i said...
my characters usually pick Human, undead, monstrous or magical beasts and after that does not matter.
what really matters is stacking one ability very high and using the instant enemy spell on big battles.
maxed favored enemy + instant enemy is the ultimate use of favored enemy
|
|
Same here. And considering the fighting style trees for the class, I never considered the sometime lack of a favored enemy to fight, to be a gimp. I figured when they designed the class, they gave the FE feature a fairly low design cost.I've never considered Favored Enemy to be my key ability with my Rangers. For me it was a nice supplemental when it came into play, but has never been the main rider for my Rangers.Not sure, but that's precisely why I like the Guide archetype so much.
I much prefer not having my main class ability be so at the whim of the GM.
To me the fighting style trees are the most UNiconic part of the ranger. I can understand Archery (Robin Hood, Legolas) but Two Weapon Fighting has nothing to do with wilderness, hunting, scouts or anything that the ranger is supposed to be. It's there because of Drizzt.
Then you try to expand on the that and get fighting styles that are appropriate, flavor wise, for the ranger, like mounted combat and natural weapon, and others not so much, like Two Handed Weapon and Weapon and Shield.
Being a master of weapons should be the Fighters schtick and the fighting style of the Ranger seem to step on his toes a little to hard to my tastes.
You are considering an effect what is a consequence (i.e. Drizzt stile of combat).
1ed the ranger had a specialization bonus only in the bow but at the same time he was the guy without the shield and with an high dexterity.As those were the only requirements necessary to use 2 weapons and it was necessary to be what now is called a switch hitter, almost all rangers were bow user and 2 weapon fighters.
Two handed weapons simply weren't good enough to make them preferable to fighting with two weapons.
So Drizzt is a two weapon fighter because when he was created most rangers were bow user and 2 weapon fighters, not the reverse.
When 3.0 was created the developers simply formalized that.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There is no real consensus on this. If Paizo's APs are any measure, they can be fairly commonly encountered, up to 50% or even higher for a bit. If you are coming at this from a GMs perspective I would say often enough the player doesn't feel its wasted but not so often it makes the other players feel underrated :D
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To me the fighting style trees are the most UNiconic part of the ranger. I can understand Archery (Robin Hood, Legolas) but Two Weapon Fighting has nothing to do with wilderness, hunting, scouts or anything that the ranger is supposed to be. It's there because of Drizzt.I'm quite sure Aragorn uses two weapon (possibly a weapon and a torch) at some point in lord or the rings. And he's much more a ranger then Legolas.
Are you thinking of the movie or the book? I don't recall Aragorn using two weapons in the book (but I might be wrong, its been a bit). The movie well after the whole D&D two weapon thing.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In the book he doesn't have a functional sword for the Weathertop fight so he's single weapon fighting with a torch.Are you thinking of the movie or the book? I don't recall Aragorn using two weapons in the book (but I might be wrong, its been a bit). The movie well after the whole D&D two weapon thing.To me the fighting style trees are the most UNiconic part of the ranger. I can understand Archery (Robin Hood, Legolas) but Two Weapon Fighting has nothing to do with wilderness, hunting, scouts or anything that the ranger is supposed to be. It's there because of Drizzt.I'm quite sure Aragorn uses two weapon (possibly a weapon and a torch) at some point in lord or the rings. And he's much more a ranger then Legolas.
Yeah, I thought something of the sort, I certainly didn't recall him with two weapons in the book. Though I thought he used the torch because they were only damaged by fire or something along those lines.
...1ed the ranger had a specialization bonus only in the bow but at the same time he was the guy without the shield and with an high dexterity.
As those were the only requirements necessary to use 2 weapons and it was necessary to be what now is called a switch hitter, almost all rangers were bow user and 2 weapon fighters.
Two handed weapons simply weren't good enough to make them preferable to fighting with two weapons.So Drizzt is a two weapon fighter because when he was created most rangers were bow user and 2 weapon fighters, not the reverse.
When 3.0 was created the developers simply formalized that.
Don't know if it was true, but I heard that it actually came from one of the developers watching the old robin hood movies. every one of the old ones had 1 quiet guy in the band of merry men who used 2 short blades.