Favoured Enemy seems kind of lame now


Advice

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, you can't choose anything other than animals, plants/fungi, dragons or beasts.
So no aberrations, undead, outsiders, constructs ,elementals or humanoids.

And you can't choose it more than once, so unless retraining is going to be a regular part of your adventures, you better hope your DM gives you enough of your chosen enemies to it worth taking.

Even then, all it does is let you Hunt Prey as a free action against the chosen enemy.

It really doesn't seem worth a feat slot to me.

Am i wrong? Did I miss something important about it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not great. I'd certainly house rule you can use it on other types of creatures. Still, action economy is nice if you CAN predict what type of enemy you will face, often you can. Combining it with things like Monster Hunter can be nice. Especially if you need to command an animal companion too.

Favored Terrain also doesn't really seem worth it until Wild Stride comes into play. Admittedly it makes for a pretty baller low level feat to retrain into at that point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not even like Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain were OP before...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, it's actually optional now, which means you can take it based on whether or not you can expect to fight a lot of x. It's pretty nice if you are, but no cause to take it if you aren't. Amd unlike PF1 you aren't stuck with a 90% non-functional class feature by default.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Or to put it another way, it's situational but that's okay because it's optional, you can talk to your GM about whether it's worth taking.


That's why 'i made the comment about retraining.

Unless every adventure you're going to have involves the one single creature type you've chosen, or you retrain fairly often, it doesn't seem worth taking. Not for such a weak effect.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ranger without Favored Enemy is also right on par with Fighter and Barbarian in combat in PF2. So that's a huge deal.

Favored Enemy can't be as powerful when it applies as it was in PF1 because of that fact. Now, as for the limited options on what to have as a Favored Enemy, there I'm less sure of the justification, though some creature types would be problematic.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Faenor wrote:
It's not even like Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain were OP before...

Maybe not overpowered, but I think Favored Enemy in PF1 is pretty powerful. At first, level I usually take Undead, giving me +2 to both attack and damage against a wide range of enemies as undead are usually prevalent. At 5th level, I get to take another favored enemy and my bonus to one favored enemy increases to +4. So taking something like Outsider (Evil) covers a lot of enemies, all Demon, all Devils, etc. Seeing how that I've faced either undead or demons more often than not in the scenarios that I've played thus far, that seems pretty powerful to me...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm betting a lot of the specific monster types for favored enemy are being held back for archetypes focused on hunting them. The CRB selection seems specifically tailored to wilderness explorer ranger types. Aberrant, outsider and undead hunter variants will probably be coming in the not so distant future. In PF1, there were a few too many APs where undead or evil outsider were such no brainers that it is not surprising that they were removed from the generic list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are also pushing Champions as the fiend fighting class, and Champions and clerics might be tied for undead fighting. So I wouldn't be shocked if they keep those things off the Ranger list.

Still, Giants seem they should have mad it on the ranger list, given the Golarion canon with the Black Arrows and such.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well that's the entire point of it isn't it? To be especially good at fighting one specific type of creature? Being better than the Fighter or Barbarian against one creature type isn't game breaking.

But what the feat currently gives you is meh at best. I just don't see it being worth a feat slot at all.
Every other feat of the same level is just straight up better . Except maybe Companions Cry?

I'd love to be proven wrong btw. Favoured Enemy is a big part of the flavour of the Ranger to me. (personal opinion only of course. ymmv)


Otha wrote:
Faenor wrote:
It's not even like Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain were OP before...
Maybe not overpowered, but I think Favored Enemy in PF1 is pretty powerful. At first, level I usually take Undead, giving me +2 to both attack and damage against all of 'em. At 5th level, I get to take another favored enemy and my bonus to all favored enemies increases to +4. If I take somethink like Outsider (Evil), I now get +4 to hit and damage on all Undead, Demons, Devils, and the like; if I crit, then I'm doing 12 damage on that alone. Seeing how that I've faced either undead or demons more often than not in the scenarios that I've played thus far, that seems pretty powerful to me...

In PF1, when you gain a new favored enemy you only up one of your enemies by 2. So it would be 4 to undead and 2 to fiends, or vice versa.

If it did scale all of them favored enemy would be a lot stronger in PF1, honestly, but eventually having +10 against five different enemy types could also be a problem.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, sorry, I misspoke there Edge, corrected my post...


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The PF1 Favored Enemy ability was problematic for two reasons: (1) In many campaigns it would end up being largely useless if you didn’t encounter that creature-type very much. (2) In creature-type focused campaigns (e.g., Wrath of the Righteous, Giantslayer, Tyrant’s Grasp), it was vastly over-powered, making the Ranger far superior to the other martial classes.

This poses a dilemma: if you weaken it you make problem (1) even worse, if you strengthen it you make problem (2) even worse.

PF2 resolves the dilemma by reducing the power level and making it optional. So (1) isn’t a problem, because in campaigns that aren’t creature-type focused, you can just not take it. And (2) isn’t a problem because in a campaign focused on a creature-type, it’s now reasonably powered.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:

The PF1 Favored Enemy ability was problematic for two reasons: (1) In many campaigns it would end up being largely useless if you didn’t encounter that creature-type very much. (2) In creature-type focused campaigns (e.g., Wrath of the Righteous, Giantslayer, Tyrant’s Grasp), it was vastly over-powered, making the Ranger far superior to the other martial classes.

This poses a dilemma: if you weaken it you make problem (1) even worse, if you strengthen it you make problem (2) even worse.

PF2 resolves the dilemma by reducing the power level and making it optional. So (1) isn’t a problem, because in campaigns that aren’t creature-type focused, you can just not take it. And (2) isn’t a problem because in a campaign focused on a creature-type, it’s now reasonably powered.

Bingo.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Faenor wrote:
It's not even like Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain were OP before...

Favored Enemy was hella overpowered with Instant Enemy. You picked something common, like humanoid(human), put all the increases into that one enemy type, and then bought a wand of Instant Enemy. When you're rocking a +10 to hit and damage against any enemy you care to it's pretty amazing.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:
PF2 resolves the dilemma by reducing the power level and making it optional.

The trouble is that by putting both those changes in at once we're left with... something that costs a feat (an incredibly bottlenecked commodity), is highly situational and isn't even that particularly good when it does work.

That's a really bad combination.


How good it is might depend on what other actions you can use

Because i am not sure a free action should be underrated . I don’t think there are many so it is giving you haste on the first round of a relevant combat (relevant being the key part of course)

Action economy has always been king. I am not sure it is as much yet due to not playing but I guess that was the thought

Perhaps this should have been one of the few maths boosters (say a +1) in relevant combats. But it isn’t and as has been discussed as nauseam they are really limited those abilities


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Porridge wrote:
PF2 resolves the dilemma by reducing the power level and making it optional.

The trouble is that by putting both those changes in at once we're left with... something that costs a feat (an incredibly bottlenecked commodity), is highly situational and isn't even that particularly good when it does work.

That's a really bad combination.

It is, but in terms of design it's a really bad ability to begin with and it largely exists for legacy reasons. It honestly should never have existed, but it's now part of the identity of TTRPG rangers and it kind of has to show up in some form for the sake of players who are attached to the concept.

I think the best that can be done here is to just attach a GM note in the margins (something I think the book should just have in general) explaining when Favored Enemy is going to be a reasonable choice and when it isn't, so players are prompted to ask their GM if it's worth taking. Retraining is actually fairly easy, only taking like a week and not even necessarily costing money, so being wrong isn't devastating.

I just don't see how else they could make this work without it being obnoxious in more heavily themed campaigns, at least not without radically altering the concept to be more like "instead of hunting a particular kind of creature, you keep a list of bounties with you and there's X chance that you might recognize an enemy and gain these bonuses against them." Anything that makes it less campaign-dependent, because increasing the power to compensate for it potentially being situational is just bad balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Porridge wrote:
PF2 resolves the dilemma by reducing the power level and making it optional.

The trouble is that by putting both those changes in at once we're left with... something that costs a feat (an incredibly bottlenecked commodity), is highly situational and isn't even that particularly good when it does work.

That's a really bad combination.

Are the "free stance" monk/fighter feats bad? Because they give the action bonus to everything, but are available at much higher levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They're okay, but as you point out they give the action bonus reliably.


The restricted races are a bit limiting but I am sure we will see means of expanding the same concept out with class archetypes in the future.

If you are choosing the feat and aren't going to get use out of it, it is in a similar position as it was in PF1e. Although arguably better since hunt target, a good option, is given to you by default and IS flexible.

My only issue is that it only functions on rolling of initiative, still. One more action in the first round of combat is pretty powerful.

Regarding feats, just because you can push one lane the entire way, doesn't mean that this is the right option. I was seeing a person on reddit saying that you couldn't be a spellcasting ranger with tracking abilities because they had to take all the ranged weapon class feats. Being hyper specialised isn't quite as necessary as it used to be and diversifying for flavour is punish far less.


Out of curiosity, what is the difference between an animal and a beast in PF2?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the difference between an animal and a beast in PF2?

Beasts are what were called 'Magical Beasts' in PF1. So the difference is that beasts are magical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the difference between an animal and a beast in PF2?
Beasts are what were called 'Magical Beasts' in PF1. So the difference is that beasts are magical.

It's a bit more broad than that, although the majority are former Magical Beasts. But Beasts also include a lot of formerly "Monstrous Humanoids" from PF1. Lamia, Centaur, etc.

The Wendigo also got reclassified from Outsider to Beast.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was talking conceptually rather than saying all conversions were exact. Beasts are something that would be an Animal (or occasionally a Humanoid, I suppose) but have significant innate magic...which makes them something else entirely.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad that Favored Enemy is not so strong that I can't just take something else instead of trying to anticipate what's around here to fight.

The "for maximum benefit, know the future" dynamic with Favored Enemy/Terrain in PF1 was my least favorite part of the class.


I am so grateful that Favored terrain/enemy are not core features of a Ranger. That they suck is just a bonus.

Always hated class features that depend on DM charity to make them work.

Sure, there are "light" charity features, such as favorite elemental damage vs. elemental resistance, damage type of primary weapon vs damage reduction.

But favored terrain/enemy is always binary and that was a terrible design.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
So no aberrations, undead, outsiders, constructs ,elementals or humanoids.

Well it CAN work on them, you just have to dress them up as your favored enemy first. ;)

"the GM determines whether it applies against a creature disguised as a favored enemy." So put a shambling mound costume on a mummy and your DM might let it work. LOL I feels like an episode of scooby doo.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Am i wrong? Did I miss something important about it?

No. This a really bad feat for Rangers. It reminds me of a lot of the feats in PF1 that seemed as if they were created to facilitate suboptimal thematic NPCs. A feat like this going to make a lot of sense for Rangers in a campaign setting that are at war against X (provided X is one specific types).

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ranger without Favored Enemy is also right on par with Fighter and Barbarian in combat in PF2. So that's a huge deal.

In the Playtest, that was so far from the truth, it's not even funny. The Paladin in our group put out double the damage I put out, if not triple. There's no way a Ranger is on par with a Fighter given the action economy cost of Hunt Prey and the fact that a Fighter gets Attacks of Opportunity. I am not that familiar with a Barbarian, but the unlimited Rage is a decided advantage over a Ranger's prey-only advantage.

This statement also completely misses the point of Favored Enemy.

Otha wrote:
Maybe not overpowered, but I think Favored Enemy in PF1 is pretty powerful.

It is meant to be powerful. It is explicitly designed to let a Ranger shine in the limited context that it applied.

Unicore wrote:
I'm betting a lot of the specific monster types for favored enemy are being held back for archetypes focused on hunting them. The CRB selection seems specifically tailored to wilderness explorer ranger types.

That's one theory. I'm going with another: Paizo is intentionally holding back other options to help sell splat book and campaign settings. I entirely expect future APs and settings will expand the Ranger's choices.

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Well that's the entire point of it isn't it? To be especially good at fighting one specific type of creature? Being better than the Fighter or Barbarian against one creature type isn't game breaking.

Exactly. This was the art of Favored Enemy. This one of the thing that made the Ranger class a unique experience.

Quote:
I'd love to be proven wrong btw. Favoured Enemy is a big part of the flavor of the Ranger to me.

It is, but for optimizers/powergamers/class dippers, it was frustrating. There's a mindset among some players that if an ability isn't useful all the time, then you're paying an opportunity cost for a feat. And for some reason, the limited usefulness of FE is a lightning rod, more so than other situational abilities.

Porridge wrote:
The PF1 Favored Enemy ability was problematic for two reasons: (1) In many campaigns it would end up being largely useless if you didn’t encounter that creature-type very much. (2) In creature-type focused campaigns (e.g., Wrath of the Righteous, Giantslayer, Tyrant’s Grasp), it was vastly over-powered, making the Ranger far superior to the other martial classes.

That's overstated. FE is meant to be useless if you don't encounter the enemy type. There are 32 creature types on the Ranger's FE list. How often do you expect you'll encounter one of those 32 if the encounters were random? Even at 20th level with 5 favored enemy types, your hit rate should be fairly low.

As far as "overpowered," I'll simply have to disagree. I play PFS and the obvious choice is taking Humans. IME, Pathfinders fight humans more than any other creature type. I've never been considered "overpowered." Sure, at 1st level if you're getting a +2 against Goblins, that's going to be significant. But the creature types you fight change and become more varied, so that bonus gets diluted. My Ranger took Evil Outsiders during the Worldwound campaign and I don't think I've used it once since the campaign ended. Worse, the benefit didn't work against a creatures immune to precision damage...you know...like elementals? PFS authors seem to looooove them some Huge elementals (so annoying).

Porridge wrote:
PF2 resolves the dilemma by reducing the power level and making it optional. So (1) isn’t a problem, because in campaigns that aren’t creature-type focused, you can just not take it. And (2) isn’t a problem because in a campaign focused on a creature-type, it’s now reasonably powered.

Paizo didn't resolve the problem, because there was no problem. There was a vocal minority whose focus is on the mechanics and didn't appreciate the art. As it stands now, FE is not "reasonable." A free action to designate a prey against animal or beast or plant, is laughable. There isn't even a way to quantify or even remotely accurately predict the DPS benefit of such an ability given the factors that go into using Hunted Prey. This means the benefit conveyed is meant to be more narrative than functional.

Helric wrote:
It is, but in terms of design it's a really bad ability to begin with and it largely exists for legacy reasons. It honestly should never have existed, but it's now part of the identity of TTRPG rangers and it kind of has to show up in some form for the sake of players who are attached to the concept.

Whether it "should" have existed is beside the point. It did exist and those of us who played Ranger and enjoyed the class, appreciated it. It stands to reason that if Paizo is going to create a "Ranger" for PF2 they'd need to incorporate concepts from the previous versions.

I wasn't "in love" with PF1 FE, but as I said, it had its place and gave the class some dominion. The PF2 version is ridiculously bad.

1. As has been mentioned, you choose ONE of the options and there is no improvement or expansion of that choice at a later date.

2. As written, the ability ONLY works when you roll Initiative:

Favored Enemy wrote:
When you roll initiative and can see an enemy that belongs to the chosen category, you can Hunt Prey as a free action, designating that enemy.

So whooptie, you get ONE free Hunt Prey designation against the creature type you've chosen, IF you can see it. Are you kidding? For those of you who haven't played the Ranger in PF2 yet, there are often opportunities to designate your Prey before initiative, like when you've been tracking it or encounter the creature and the GM hasn't rolled init, at which point you wouldn't need this.

3. At level 19, you'll need to retrain this. Now, most of us probably won't ever get to that point, but a feat that has to be retrained, is a bad design.

4. This benefit is kind of pointless for Outwit when it should be as beneficial for that choice as any other, if not more beneficial.

PossibleCarrage wrote:
I'm glad that Favored Enemy is not so strong that I can't just take something else instead of trying to anticipate what's around here to fight.

Yes, the I-like-it-because-its-so-crappy-I-won't-ever-take-it is the foundation of good game design. I hope Paizo is patting itself on the back.

There's no way anyone should choose FE. If I were Paizo, I'd seriously consider changing it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Discussions that lay blame at "optimizers" for balancing something I don't feel have the potential to be very productive, as it assumes someone who cares about balance is playing the game wrong and makes higher concept balance discussions extremely difficult to have without them being derailed into extended discussions about whether the conversation should exist at all.

The concern that Favored Enemy was overnerfed to "appease" optimizers could easily be turned around if it wasn't nerfed at all, as you could argue the optimizers were responsible for keeping a clearly broken part of the game intact so that they can lord their system mastery and genre-savvy fourth wall breaking prescience over players who just wanted to roleplay.

For those who care about the flavor of favoored enemy, I don't think the overall power of the ability is particular important. What's important is that you're angry, angry about DRAGONS. You don't even need the Favored Enemy feat to sell that part of your character, simply carrying gear like grappling hooks and giant beartraps conveys the idea that your character is very serious about catching and killing dragons. What the feat does is give you noticeable but not overbearing bonus to do that thing.

This is important, because it means the Ranger's overall power budget doesn't need to be lowered to account for them popping off the second a dragon's involved. They don't trivialize encounters with their enemy (meaning their big dragon fights can be exciting and dramatic), so that leaves them more room to be well-rounded characters that have interesting things to say and do outside of a minmaxed, overspecialized "I can only ever kill dragons" ranger that's a complete and utter potato outside of that context.

As for balance as a concept in general, a core tenet of PF2 is that balance matters. Not every player is individually going to care to know why their choices are balanced, but balance is necessary to acccomodate a wider range of players and playstyles without one person being overberaing while they're just trying to have fun. Stuff like Favored Enemy being smoothed out to avoid overcontextualized power spikes is part of why PF2 has so much more creative freedom to explore new flavorful character concepts, precisely because stuff has been balanced to where you can make many arbitrary choices without it negatively impacting your overall efficacy.

It's fine to not be particularly interested in balance discussions, but painting people who have those discussions as the bad guys taking toys away isn't really fair or productive. You can make a case that a particular feat, ability, class, what have you is too weak or too strong without framing it as "maybe it was too strong/weak, but only a bad roleplayer would care about that."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the difference between an animal and a beast in PF2?
Beasts are what were called 'Magical Beasts' in PF1. So the difference is that beasts are magical.

It's a bit more broad than that, although the majority are former Magical Beasts. But Beasts also include a lot of formerly "Monstrous Humanoids" from PF1. Lamia, Centaur, etc.

The Wendigo also got reclassified from Outsider to Beast.

As far as I can tell, the distinction between Animal and Beast is in the creature's intelligence. Vermin, which were rolled into the Animal type (Which I like for purely taxonomic reasons), all seem to have an Int mod of -5, while all traditional animals, or dumb magical beasts, like the bulette or purple worm, have an Int mod of -4. Beasts, by contrast, have an Int mod of -3 or higher, but are animalistic enough to not qualify as humanoids.

At least that's what my combing of the book has shown me so far. It's possible I'm wrong, but even if I am it's a definite trend in the monster design.


The other thing to remember for those comparing it to Stance Savant and similar feats: Stance Savant is level 12. Favoured Enemy is level 4.

One of those has a much larger opportunity cost.

Claxon wrote:
Faenor wrote:
It's not even like Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain were OP before...
Favored Enemy was hella overpowered with Instant Enemy. You picked something common, like humanoid(human), put all the increases into that one enemy type, and then bought a wand of Instant Enemy. When you're rocking a +10 to hit and damage against any enemy you care to it's pretty amazing.

The other thing is that for this to work, you had to do something incredibly unintuitive: all your other favoured enemies had to be things you'd never encounter.

N N 959 wrote:
Worse, the benefit didn't work against a creatures immune to precision damage...you know...like elementals? PFS authors seem to looooove them some Huge elementals (so annoying).

This is not remotely accurate. It is untyped and not precision.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
Discussions that lay blame at "optimizers" for balancing something I don't feel have the potential to be very productive

That's not what my response is about. Paizo didn't "balance" Favored Enemy. In order to argue that something is "balanced" you need to provide some verifiable metric. You can't do that with Favored Enemy, then or now. The effectiveness of situational abilities is dependent on the circumstances under which they operate and there is no normative example for a feat like this. So what you have are a bunch anecdotes and theorycrafting.

Quote:
..as it assumes someone who cares about balance is playing the game wrong and makes higher concept balance discussions extremely difficult to have without them being derailed into extended discussions about whether the conversation should exist at all.

No, it doesn't assume people are playing the game wrong. "Balance" discussions for context based abilities aren't really scientific, they are emotional and anecdotal. What is "balanced" isn't something that Paizo has provided any metric for. Paizo can't prove anything is "balanced." What they are really doing is attempting to make things feel fair.

Quote:
The concern that Favored Enemy was overnerfed to "appease" optimizers could easily be turned around...

Actually, it can't Optimizers didn't like Favored Enemy because it's not something that can be definitively understood in terms of benefit. As PossibleCabbage and Igor complain, they don't like the uncertainty of the benefit. This is a psychological issue, not a statistical one. When you make a statement that something is "overpowered" and provide no empirical analysis to back it up, you're operating on perception.

Quote:
for keeping a clearly broken part of the game

FE wasn't "broken" by any definition based on game design. The feat does exactly what it was meant to do. Just because you as a player don't like the experience it engendered doesn't mean it was "broken." I don't really like the spell casting paradigm in D&D, but that doesn't make it "broken."

Quote:
For those who care about the flavor of favoored enemy, I don't think the overall power of the ability is particular important.

If by power you mean something that grants actual agency and effectiveness, then it is absolutely important. Calling the class a Ranger means nothing if it isn't given mechanical tools that facilitate effecting the game in a way consistent with that label. The very fact that you are given mechanical benefits is what makes it a "favored" enemy. The degree to which feats and abilities create an experience consistent with the concept is directly correlated to the benefit conveyed.

Quote:
What's important is that you're angry, angry about DRAGONS.

This is one of the most common misrepresenations of FE. Favored Enemy isn't about "ANGER" or hate. In fact, no where in the description of the Ranger class is there any emotional disposition about Favored Enemy.

PF1 Ranger wrote:
Knowledgeable, patient, and skilled hunters, these rangers hound man, beast, and monster alike, gaining insight into the way of the predator

Favored Enemy is about the Ranger's craft. Sure, you can adapt that to hatred or anger, but that isn't the basis of the ability so reducing it down to simple aggression misses the point.

Quote:
This is important, because it means the Ranger's overall power budget doesn't need to be lowered to account for them popping off the second a dragon's involved. They don't trivialize encounters with their enemy (meaning their big dragon fights can be exciting and dramatic), so that leaves them more room to be well-rounded characters that have interesting things to say and do outside of a minmaxed, overspecialized "I can only ever kill dragons" ranger that's a complete and utter potato outside of that context.

This, I completely agree with. Context-based supremacy is a tried and true method of game design. FE gave that to the Ranger. Sure, it might prove more consistently beneficial in some campaigns than others, but then no mechanic is perfect. There are trade-offs with any of the mechanics chosen to implement unique class experiences.

There's also something elegant about PF1 FE. At each stage, you're choosing things that you most likely representative of what you're fighting. Working as intended, this naturally normalizes the benefit because a 1st level character isn't normally going to choose Dragon. Yes, if you start at level 20, you can metagame the choices, but even so, at level 20, the Ranger is hardly a class that is pushing the boundaries of the campaign.

Quote:
As for balance as a concept in general, a core tenet of PF2 is that balance matters.

This has been a core tenant since AD&D 2.0. The difference is how one decides what is balanced and what context you're considering. Let me make this clear. The game cannot be truly "balanced." There is no way to prove balance because outcomes are context driven and the circumstances under which any class/feat/ability can be evaluated is essentially limitless.

Quote:
Not every player is individually going to care to know why their choices are balanced, but balance is necessary to acccomodate a wider range of players and playstyles without one person being overberaing while they're just trying to have fun.

Well, I might agree Paizo approaches the game from this paradigm, but it's not balance that makes classes fun to play, its purpose. Non-trivial purpose. People need to feel like their choices matter. That their actions matter in determining the outcome. You can't balance the game for every class, but you can make every class feels like it has a non-redundant purpose in the game.

Quote:
Stuff like Favored Enemy being smoothed out to avoid overcontextualized power spikes is part of why PF2 has so much more creative freedom to explore new flavorful character concepts, precisely because stuff has been balanced to where you can make many arbitrary choices without it negatively impacting your overall efficacy

I disagree. Freedom of concepts has nothing to do with "overcontextualized power spikes." Freedom of concepts has to do with undefined roles and open build options. What is ironic is that PF2 actually goes farther than PF1 in locking down roles (at least at present). There is far less freedom in doing what you what in PF2. The difference is, as Squiggit has posted in the past, is that Paizo stripped the theme from classes and commoditized it. So people who just wanted the mechanics are happier. Now, the can have a "Ranger" without having to play a traditional Ranger.

As I've posted, I believe the vocal majority on the forums represents a very mechanics driven mindset. So I can totally see how the minimization of narrative baggage is an "improvement" from that perspective. But if you're trying to get new players in, then you need compelling themes and you need themes that work. You need feats that are compelling and I'm sorry, a once-per-combat-free-action-to-hunt-prey-on-a-fungi, isn't really in that ballbark, imo. YMMV.


Cyouni wrote:
This is not remotely accurate. It is untyped and not precision.

You're right. I'm conflating it with sneak attack because neither work on Invisible creatures and FE does work on Elementals.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I loved Rangers and FE, it was very thematic (I'm really good at killing these m!!!@!!+!$#~s in particular), they were my second favourite class after Barbarians.

It wasn't broken in the sense that it completely negated challanges in P1, but it did turn you into a god of slaughter that outclassed the Fighter and usually the Barbarian.

Porting it as is into P2 would have been broken with the new math.

Yes this version is limited, but then, Retraining is a core option now, so swap it out as needed. None of those monsters left? Get rid of it.

I can foresee them doing what they did near the end of P1 with the Expertise Feats and giving unique and specific bonuses and abilties against specific creatures rather than flat number boosts.

Now if I can get stuff vs Humans back we be good.


Rysky wrote:
Now if I can get stuff vs Humans back we be good

No man escapes the manhunters!


Rysky wrote:
Porting it as is into P2 would have been broken with the new math.

For combat, I think so. But, FE also gave non-combat bonuses, some of which were stripped and put into the Outwit path. I don't really get Outwit. I tried to go that route for an Age of Ashes Ranger and it just didn't make any sense.

Grand Lodge

N N 959 wrote:
Calling the class a Ranger means nothing if it isn't given mechanical tools that facilitate effecting the game in a way consistent with that label.

I think you hit the nail on the head here, at least for me. Maybe Paizo should make a name change to the PF2 Ranger kinda like Prince did; they could call it the ‘class formerly known as Ranger’...


Otha wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Calling the class a Ranger means nothing if it isn't given mechanical tools that facilitate effecting the game in a way consistent with that label.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, at least for me. Maybe Paizo should make a name change to the PF2 Ranger kinda like Prince did; they could call it the ‘class formerly known as Ranger’...

Okay, that made me laugh.


Seems like very solid combat boost VS those types.
As said, Ranger is already on-par martial combatant,
and Free Hunt Prey really takes that to next level.
If you don't fight those types alot, don't take it.
Retraining is core mechanic, which works well with it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Yes this version is limited, but then, Retraining is a core option now, so swap it out as needed. None of those monsters left? Get rid of it.

That's some quality flavor. "I've trained all my life in hunting the wild beasts of this land, I've honed my craft specifically t- oh, we're heading into dragon territory? nevermind all of that."

Quandary wrote:


and Free Hunt Prey really takes that to next level

If it was free hunt prey maybe, but it's not. It's free hunt prey once per combat when you roll initiative against a specific enemy.


I've been thinking about how to make FE actually worth it. I think the answer is to just give it to the Ranger for free. Keep it out of the Dedication to stop poaching.


I’d not be surprised if there was an eventual follow up feat choice that gave them some sort of status or circumstance bonus against that creature type on attacks. (Like in the APG) Which would be fine as long as they never print instant enemy. Which btw wtf was that writer thinking. Whomever wrote that or blood money or original snowball should have really thought things through before doing that.


I would like it if, in the future, we get some specified bonuses against certainty types. Each favored type could be its own feat that grants unique bonuses.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Yes this version is limited, but then, Retraining is a core option now, so swap it out as needed. None of those monsters left? Get rid of it.
That's some quality flavor. "I've trained all my life in hunting the wild beasts of this land, I've honed my craft specifically t- oh, we're heading into dragon territory? nevermind all of that."

That's not the flavor for P2's FE. It's "You have studied a specific type of wild creature and can hunt it more easily."


Arakasius wrote:
I’d not be surprised if there was an eventual follow up feat choice that gave them some sort of status or circumstance bonus against that creature type on attacks. (Like in the APG) Which would be fine as long as they never print instant enemy. Which btw wtf was that writer thinking. Whomever wrote that or blood money or original snowball should have really thought things through before doing that.

I'm expecting something much the same. A feat which allows you to swap your favored animal, much like there is a feat that permits you to swap your favored terrains, for example, or making the ability to designate prey a free action throughout combat rather than simply at the start.


I don’t mind them doing that, as long as it takes a while. The terrain switch takes an hour. There is nothing broken with that. It was the swift action to get massive att/dmg boost against any creature on the fly that was broken. I don’t mind them getting a mechanical bonus if they’re hunting some dangerous creature in their lair.

I still think there will be some follow up feat for a circumstance bonus though, even if it’s something like what crossbow ace gives. (Not sure if it would be attack or damage focused or both)

I do wonder about the wording of enemy though. It seems not a very good worded feat for future proofing the way they have it. Originally I thought it was because they thought outsiders were too strong as a choice. But looking at the bestiary they have demon as demon and fiend which is fine. A nice way would be to have it be the most specific type in their classification, so demon and not fiend and it would have been nice if the bestiary would have classified that. (I guess they sorta do as the left most racial tag) That’s likely what I would do if a player ever took ranger and that feat. Regardless them very specifically typing it does mean things like giant slipped through the cracks which seems wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Yes this version is limited, but then, Retraining is a core option now, so swap it out as needed. None of those monsters left? Get rid of it.
That's some quality flavor. "I've trained all my life in hunting the wild beasts of this land, I've honed my craft specifically t- oh, we're heading into dragon territory? nevermind all of that."

I dunno, I could easily imagine the flavor being that you learn you are going to be fighting dragons, and then spend the next few weeks studying up on all of their weaknesses. Because of this intense studying about a different topic, you become a bit worse at remembering things about other creatures.

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Favoured Enemy seems kind of lame now All Messageboards