| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my home game, I have much bigger favored enemy categories.
Things like "animals + magical beasts + vermin," or "evil outsiders + aberrations," or "all uncivilized humanoids" (the latter including goblinoids, orcs, giants, and monstrous humanoids) would make a more useful ability, so that there's a good chance you'll encounter at least one in any given adventure. As is, it's too much like playing Bingo: "Ooh! I got humanoid! Now for the down column!" DM: "...orc!" Player: "Damn, my match would have been humanoid... goblin. Better luck next time!"
How is it a mess?
"Pick a type of enemy from this list. It adds a +2 to stuff."
How complicated is that?
How big is the list? 16 types.
How many do you get by level 20? Just 5. Only 3 at level 10.
Are you equally good against those types? No.
Is each type of favored enemy equally useful? No.
Which ones are the best? Hard to say precisely, as it is also highly campaign dependant.
Are the best choices at low levels still good at high levels? No.
It's a major part of how Rangers work, but it is a mess in how useful it is and how easy it is to make it so it hardly matters at all. It's as bad as the mess a new player can get into trying to pick feats. Favored Terrain is at least a little easier to manage.
Unlike a Paladin's Smite Evil for instance, which is good almost all the time since typically the vast majority of enemies are evil.
There are some Ranger archetypes that fix this problem.
All of this is fixed with a little GM responsibility.
A simple "Hey this campaign will be pretty Undead heavy, though monstrous humanoids and aberrations will be fairly common too, just a heads-up" is something most GMs should be including as part of their game synopsis, especially when new players are involved. You wouldn't not tell the guy who wanted to be a mariner that the game would be mostly in caves, just like you wouldn't not tell the guy who wants to take FE: Plant that plant enemies never show up.
In my home game, I have much bigger favored enemy categories.
Things like "animals + magical beasts + vermin," or "evil outsiders + aberrations," or "all uncivilized humanoids" (the latter including goblinoids, orcs, giants, and monstrous humanoids) would make a more useful ability, so that there's a good chance you'll encounter at least one in any given adventure. As is, it's too much like playing Bingo: "Ooh! I got humanoid! Now for the down column!" DM: "...orc!" Player: "Damn, my match would have been humanoid... goblin. Better luck next time!"
I agree. I'd like to see the FE choices being less specific. It's a bit wierd that you can get a substantial bonus against a flying lion that breathes poison and can turn invisible (Magical Beast), but not against a ordinary lion (Animal).
e.g.: Ousiders could simply be divided in (all alignment subtypes) and (all elemental subtypes). Two types instead of 8. I just don't know where I'd put native outsiders. I can see that a single type for every humanoid ever would be too much, but do we really need a different type for every single race? Kirth's suggestion of civilized and uncivilized races would be far more useful.
It's not spoilers at all. It's the same thing Paizo APs do.
Look at Carrion Crown. It's pretty obvious what to expect in a given book just from the covers. "Ghosts. Constructs. Werewolves. Aberrations. More undead".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when did fighters get Favored Enemy
when did fighters get Favored Enemy
When Cayden Cailean was on one of his binges. Right after ascending his favorite goat/sex toy to the ranks of the divinity.
when did fighters get Favored EnemyWhen Cayden Cailean was on one of his binges. Right after ascending his favorite goat/sex toy to the ranks of the divinity.
what the-
how dare you
And the Paizo APs doing proves it's not spoilers how?It's not spoilers at all. It's the same thing Paizo APs do.
Look at Carrion Crown. It's pretty obvious what to expect in a given book just from the covers. "Ghosts. Constructs. Werewolves. Aberrations. More undead".
While I'm not a fan of the class feature and agree it could've been better(seriously, people pounce on instant enemy for a reason!), I think the thing was that usually your campaign has a theme so its safe to say the campaign about undead has some undead. A spoiler might be that the final boss's dragon is actually an Aeon unleashed from a tomb, and the final boss himself is an elf Wizard named Ezekiel who you met in town earlier. Wouldn't have seen either of those things coming!
As a side note, always bothers me when the book cover is of a yeti, and one of the players goes "Hmm... I think we're fighting a yeti." Well, it either bothers me or I laugh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the Paizo APs doing proves it's not spoilers how?
Just because you can technically call something a "spoiler" doesn't make it a bad thing.
For example, the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Player's Guide specifically suggests that players be able to deal with giants:
Is this a spoiler? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it a good idea? Is it reasonable? YES. That's why the player's guide exists... to *guide players*. It provides information and options to help players create characters that will fit in well with the setting and adventure successfully in the campaign's dangerous situations.
Really?
You can't think of ANY other reason a player might want to know what kind of enemies might be common?
Not a SINGLE ONE?
REAALLY?
The problems seems to be that some option are limited while other are broad. Parciculary evil outsider is incredibly broad, Devils have few in comon with demons.
I particulary do not like FE, I would have prefered a weaker but always On ability.
I dunno, I kinda like situational abilities that are considerably powerful. As long as it's not too situational or too powerful. Having a bunch of constantly active minor bonuses is okay, but not as exciting, IMO.
A class shouldn't depend too much on its situational ability, but having a few situations where they excel can be really fun. How well this works depends on how situational and useful those abilities are. It's a nice balance, but one very difficult to get right.
Rangers are very well balanced in that regard... (Except for the fact that FE is too specific, IMO). Even if they never face their FE, they still have their BAB, combat style, spells, skills and animal companions. Not bad at all.
Really?
You can't think of ANY other reason a player might want to know what kind of enemies might be common?
Not a SINGLE ONE?
REAALLY?
All I can think of now is SNL's "Really?!" sketches. Pretty funny.
Naturally there's going to be some general setting discussion about what a campaign will be like. Listing all the major groups of enemies the party will be facing for the next 15 levels IS quite absurd though. As is giving updates every 5 levels on what they'll face the next 5 levels. It breaks immersion.
In RotR, all a player has to do is read the Player's Guide to determine that Giants and Goblins will show up. That's plenty of information for a good level 1 FE choice. After that, they just play the game. Future FE choices will be based on knowledge gained through gameplay. It won't break immersion at all.
I haven't seen any break in immersion in the rangers I've played. Not ever. That's just a subjective observation from experience, though.
As far as I can see, any break in immersion or very poorly chosen FEs will likely be the result of not reading the player's guide, poor communication from a GM, or a choice of flavor at the expense of mechanics (which can be ok, I'm not judging).
edit: spelling and not judging
Nobody ever recommends archetypes that replace FE. It is an amazing ability that gives them an extraordinary ability to wreck any encounter that includes his FE much like Smite wrecks solo BBEGs.
Simply because you (falsely) believe something does not make it true.
I'm surprised to find such a voracious defense of metagaming on this. That's the only real way to get FE to work.
I don't think people are supporting metagaming, more so trying to defend FE. It has its ups and downs.
In most games there is a reasonable amount of meta-gaming in telling the players where they are so they know what kind of characters to make, though probably not telling you which favored enemy to take. However new players do need help, so its no an awful idea.
So... bout' fighters. Wasn't this thread about them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised to find such a voracious defense of metagaming on this.
DM: "The kingdom has been overrun by hobgoblin armies! Heroes are needed!"
PC: "I take favored enemy: goblinoids!"DM: "That's metagaming! Bad player, BAD! Just for that, I will now be running Age of Worms instead of Red Hand of Doom."
I'm surprised to find such a voracious defense of metagaming on this.DM: "The kingdom has been overrun by hobgoblin armies! Heroes are needed!"
PC: "I take favored enemy: goblinoids!"
DM: "That's metagaming! Bad player, BAD! Just for that, I will now be running Age of Worms instead of Red Hand of Doom."
PC: Well I'm taking favored enemy worm instead then! Sounds like there'll be a lot of worms involved. I mean, its an age of them right? That's got be... more than 2?
As a side note, I like building the character around the campaign plot if I can, rather than hoping that there's some weird reason I might want to do something that doesn't fit the character. For a ranger, having your first favored enemy in one of the campaigns plots opens up some roleplay moments. YMMV of course.
If we are talking favored enemy, then the obvious best choice is gnolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Red hand of doom the characters know absolutely nothing about the hobgoblin treat.
Bad example, then. But if it's like any other AP, the "hobgoblin threat" disappears after a couple sessions and is replaced by some other threat, and your PC is now permanently gimped because he's all specked out for something that's now obsolete. That seems to be punishment enough.
Sticking to something I actually have read, for something like Rise of the Runelords, if you haven't figured out by the end of the 3rd adventure that
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised to find such a voracious defense of metagaming on this.
It's a common gentleman's agreement, in my experience, that GMs provide a little guidance on favored enemy. No matter whether the player is new or not.
If you consider that dirty metagaming, then, well, okay, I guess. If it's metagaming, then I'll disagree and say that I consider it an instance of positive metagaming.
Incidentally, I think Paizo does this for its adventure paths. I've only read a few of the players guides, but the ones I did read, such as Skull and Shackles, have advice for players who are going to play as rangers on what favored enemies/terrains will fit in well with the AP.
The Player's Guides even go as far as to say exactly what CLASSES work well in the AP, usually.
Favored Enemy is one thing i never quite got asking the DM for advice with, even when i played rangers. Way i always thought about it, the favored enemy should be worked into the characters backstory, not the backstory worked around what favored enemy is most useful?
just how i have alwaya viewed it.
Favored Enemy is one thing i never quite got asking the DM for advice with, even when i played rangers. Way i always thought about it, the favored enemy should be worked into the characters backstory, not the backstory worked around what favored enemy is most useful?
just how i have alwaya viewed it.
Ditto, but there's this weird thing where you need to balance your role play and mechanics to stay effective sometimes. Varies from game to game, so YMMV. I much prefer the approach where I never have to meta game, and I can focus on characters, but that's something I reserve for my own home games/house rules more than anything.(luckily, you can always just pick someone you don't like roleplay and another for your favored enemy, even if it isn't perfect it works for roleplay!)
So... where'd all the fighters go? Are they extinct?
I can see why a new player would have trouble picking his Favored Enemies... Luckly, though, there are a few types that most people know are likely to come up sooner or later: Undead and Dragons are pretty easy choices (when I first played a 3.0 Ranger, I remember thinking "Well, this is a fantasy world, so zombies and vampires are a thing right? And the game is named Dungeons & Dragons, that as good a suggestion as any other..."). Aberrations, Evil Outsiders and Monstrous Humanoids sound dangerous enough for a player to pick them as FE.
That said, I agree that FE is something a new player might be conflicted about. The GM should offer advice.
Other than that, Rangers are perfect for new players, IMHO.
Yeah, and dms can get really focused on throwing specific monsters at you (this can work with campaign modules as with second darkness where just taking a dip in ranger and favored enemy drow is a damn fine idea).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ditto, but there's this weird thing where you need to balance your role play and mechanics to stay effective sometimes. Varies from game to game, so YMMV. I much prefer the approach where I never have to meta game, and I can focus on characters, but that's something I reserve for my own home games/house rules more than anything.(luckily, you can always just pick someone you don't like roleplay and another for your favored enemy, even if it isn't perfect it works for roleplay!)
So... where'd all the fighters go? Are they extinct?
i actually agree, why i always took humans as my favored enemy at level one if nothing else sprung out to me for the character, it would always be effective, and can always be rationalized as anyone who has grown up in arduous times most likely has come into conflict with humans at one point or another
What i never particularly liked is the ranger who takes favored enemy: undead, even though his backstory never has him coming intoo conflict with one before in his life, but even then i have never been one to tell anyone else how to play there character so the point is moot.
If we are talking favored enemy, then the obvious best choice is gnolls.
Anyone can get gnolls as a virtua FE via an achievement feat. That's a no brainer.
Should have more achievement feats out there.
With the advent of instant enemy, FE choices become much less vital. Being able to tailor your FE to the BBEG of the moment takes a lot of the sting out of FE choices.
One of the interesting things about the Jade Crown AP is that FE:Goblins is useful in the first and last three books of the AP, because a lot of the oni have Goblin as a subtype.
==Aelryinth
Favored Enemy is one thing i never quite got asking the DM for advice with, even when i played rangers. Way i always thought about it, the favored enemy should be worked into the characters backstory, not the backstory worked around what favored enemy is most useful?
just how i have alwaya viewed it.
Say your backstory says you're an orc slayer, so you take orcs as a favored enemy. The DM knows that 90% of the enemies in the upcoming campaign are hobgoblins, with no orcs in sight. He might (a) drop you a hint that you can swap "orc" for "goblinoid" without in any way invalidating your backstory. Or (b) he can potentially swap out all the hobgoblins for orcs, but that's a LOT more work for him, and he's already overworked. But in either case, part of the ongoing narrative is that you're thrust into the spotlight because of your backstory.
Or you and the DM can (c) just accept that your backstory as an orc-killer is nothing but a dead-end, and you might as well not bothered to have come up with it at all, because it's nothing but so much wasted ink -- indeed, you might as well be a "commoner-slayer," and there's really no reason at all for you to be a hero of this story.
So, yeah, maybe it's "metagaming" for the DM to tip you a nod, but as noted above, it's good metagaming.
Why gnolls ?
Why gnolls ?
There is a campaign trait, Gnoll Killer, that increased your favored enemy against gnolls by 2. Instant Enemy allows you to treat a foe as your favored enemy, and that extra 2 happens to apply. So ideally you can crank up your favored enemy against one type(gnoll), and then instant enemy and insta-gib someone by doing that.
Say your backstory says you're an orc slayer, so you take orcs as a favored enemy. The DM knows that 90% of the enemies in the upcoming campaign are hobgoblins, with no orcs in sight. He might (a) drop you a hint that you can swap "orc" for "goblinoid" without in any way invalidating your backstory. Or (b) he can potentially swap out all the hobgoblins for orcs, but that's a LOT more work for him, and he's already overworked. But in either case, part of the ongoing narrative is that you're thrust into the spotlight because of your backstory.
Or you and the DM can (c) just accept that your backstory as an orc-killer is nothing but a dead-end, and you might as well not bothered to have come up with it at all, because it's nothing but so much wasted ink -- indeed, you might as well be a "commoner-slayer," and there's really no reason at all for you to be a hero of this story.
So, yeah, maybe it's "metagaming" for the DM to tip you a nod, but as noted above, it's good metagaming.
I dont aprticularly see that as a bad thing thought, your playing a renowned orc slayer who signs on to a adventuring party who doesnt happen to be fighting orcs, that is the risk of playing such a specialized class. Which yes if there was no way to recover from it yeah it would be bad, but it has so much potential for you to evolve how you character learns how to fight these goblinoid foes culminating with him tkaing them as his fifth level favored enemy.
Until then its hardly like your useless with a fantastic skill list, 6 skill points a level, wild empathy, etc.
Why gnolls ?There is a campaign trait, Gnoll Killer, that increased your favored enemy against gnolls by 2. Instant Enemy allows you to treat a foe as your favored enemy, and that extra 2 happens to apply. So ideally you can crank up your favored enemy against one type(gnoll), and then instant enemy and insta-gib someone by doing that.
This feat also stacks with it, effectively giving you a whole extra 'leveling' of favored enemy. Instant enemy allows you to turn those bonuses into unrestricted smites.
Why gnolls ?
Shouldn't you just be happy that it's not rabbits?
Ditto, but there's this weird thing where you need to balance your role play and mechanics to stay effective sometimes. Varies from game to game, so YMMV. I much prefer the approach where I never have to meta game, and I can focus on characters, but that's something I reserve for my own home games/house rules more than anything.(luckily, you can always just pick someone you don't like roleplay and another for your favored enemy, even if it isn't perfect it works for roleplay!)
So... where'd all the fighters go? Are they extinct?
i actually agree, why i always took humans as my favored enemy at level one if nothing else sprung out to me for the character, it would always be effective, and can always be rationalized as anyone who has grown up in arduous times most likely has come into conflict with humans at one point or another
What i never particularly liked is the ranger who takes favored enemy: undead, even though his backstory never has him coming intoo conflict with one before in his life, but even then i have never been one to tell anyone else how to play there character so the point is moot.
Taking humans as favored can be so OP. Good choice. That can be very baller. Oh you are human, hmm, humans are vulnerable *chop* there.
I prefer the Guide smite-like FE, it is strong but limited per day, it not situation but the player have to plan when to use it.The problems seems to be that some option are limited while other are broad. Parciculary evil outsider is incredibly broad, Devils have few in comon with demons.
I particulary do not like FE, I would have prefered a weaker but always On ability.
I dunno, I kinda like situational abilities that are considerably powerful. As long as it's not too situational or too powerful. Having a bunch of constantly active minor bonuses is okay, but not as exciting, IMO.
A class shouldn't depend too much on its situational ability, but having a few situations where they excel can be really fun. How well this works depends on how situational and useful those abilities are. It's a nice balance, but one very difficult to get right.
Agree with you Nicos. I never liked the FE so I just went crazy happy when we got the Guide archetype.
FE is a problem and instant enemy is a patch that comes too late and is too powerful. Then there are magic toys that are too expensive that let you swap FE.Edit:
Problem is that you are stuck with your FE for 4 levels and when you get a new FE you can’t change the old one.
Let’s say you play once a week. It takes aprox. 3 weeks (or 2,5 weeks) to gain a new level.
At level 1 you pick FE orks because the players guide and GM hints there will be many orks so you play 4 sessions (4 weeks) and it ends with the party stopping the ork threat. No more orks and now you are stuck with FE orks until level 5. This meens you have to play 8 weeks without getting to use you FE class ability. This sucks
The next time I play a ranger I will go with the Guide. If I for some reason have to play a ranger with FE class feature I will pick one of the two obvious choices: FE undead or FE human. At higher levels say level 10, FE evil outsider is rock solid as well. At least if you lay an AP.
@Kirth Gersen: I do like your fix of the FE problem. If I get to GM Pathfinder I will use your version or just let payers change one FE once every level.
Favored Enemy is one thing i never quite got asking the DM for advice with, even when i played rangers. Way i always thought about it, the favored enemy should be worked into the characters backstory, not the backstory worked around what favored enemy is most useful?
just how i have alwaya viewed it.
I bet that you could name a good number of animals native to your home state, however you'd probably have a much harder time telling me what animals are native to the wilds of the Brazilian rain forest. (unless your from there, then that statement makes no sense.) It's not metagaming to use common knowledge that your character would have gained by living in an area for his entire life. If you ask your gm and he says, well we'll be in Geb so there are a bunch of undead around. Thats not metagaming. now if you ask and he says, hey I know we're playing in geb but the bbeg is actually a gold dragon. That is metagaming.
Why gnolls ?There is a campaign trait, Gnoll Killer, that increased your favored enemy against gnolls by 2. Instant Enemy allows you to treat a foe as your favored enemy, and that extra 2 happens to apply. So ideally you can crank up your favored enemy against one type(gnoll), and then instant enemy and insta-gib someone by doing that.
Oh, I forgot this one existed. Also, Favored Enemy (Human) would not be so useful outside the absurdly humanocentric Golarion.
In my home game, I have much bigger favored enemy categories.
Things like "animals + magical beasts + vermin," or "evil outsiders + aberrations," or "all uncivilized humanoids" (the latter including goblinoids, orcs, giants, and monstrous humanoids) would make a more useful ability, so that there's a good chance you'll encounter at least one in any given adventure. As is, it's too much like playing Bingo: "Ooh! I got humanoid! Now for the down column!" DM: "...orc!" Player: "Damn, my match would have been humanoid... goblin. Better luck next time!"
Broadening the Favored Enemy categories does seem like a good idea. As it is, a lot of them are just too narrow to really be useful, unless you're in a campaign/module that's specifically focused on them (Like Favored Enemy Halfling). Plus the aforementioned problems of some favored enemy types always being rare encounters (dragons) or confined to a narrow range of levels (Orcs/Goblins/Gnolls and the like are all fairly rare after level 3 in a non-focused campaign).