A new twist on the Ranger's favoured enemy

[Quickbeam]

Our group is about to commence a brand new campaign set in Eberron, and one of the players (Joshua Dyal to be exact) is playing a Shifter Ranger. While tossing around ideas of which race to select for his character's initial favoured enemy, another player jokingly suggested clerics. This suggestion was borne out of frustartion related to a PC played in a previous campaign, and so we all had a chuckle at the remark.

But then the seed began to germinate, and the group sort of asked itself, "why not?" We could find no compelling reason to prevent Josh's PC from selecting "clerics" as his favoured enemy. And since it would contribute to a very interesting backstory and plotline, we approved the suggestion for our campaign.

Anyone else have thoughts on choosing a class for the Ranger's favoured enemy?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Anyone else have thoughts on choosing a class for the Ranger's favoured enemy?

Balance-wise, I think it's perfectly valid. I have a hard time reconciling it with the mechanics of Favored Enemy, however. Does a cleric wearing platemail boots leave different tracks than a fighter wearing platemail boots? Where exactly does a ranger stab a cleric so that the holy-roller takes more damage than a druid stabbed in the same place?

Make adjustments to the benefits provided by Favored Enemy, and these objections go away. Or, if what I'm talking about doesn't make your forehead scruntch, simply ignore me, of course.

 

[Vrecknidj]

If the idea behind a favored enemy is that the ranger has studied a particular kind of enemy and learned how to stalk them (Listen, Spot) and not be tricked by them (Sense Motive, Bluff), then maybe. But, if the idea is that he's learned how to cause them damage by studying their anatomy, then I don't see how classes will work as favored enemies.

First, the argument against your notion: there's nothing particular about a cleric's anatomy that indicates that studying clerics increases ones chance of causing them damage. I mean, just about any race can take cleric levels.

Second, the argument for your notion: clerics have plenty in common regarding their study of religious texts, their knowledge of gods, their ability to receive and cast spells, etc. In this regard, a ranger might study how clerics do "clericky" things and have the skill-based advantages.

So, overall, I suppose I'd allow it, but I'd remove the damage bonus.

Dave

 

[ARandomGod]

If the idea behind a favored enemy is that the ranger has studied a particular kind of enemy and learned how to stalk them (Listen, Spot) and not be tricked by them (Sense Motive, Bluff), then maybe. But, if the idea is that he's learned how to cause them damage by studying their anatomy, then I don't see how classes will work as favored enemies.

First, the argument against your notion: there's nothing particular about a cleric's anatomy that indicates that studying clerics increases ones chance of causing them damage. I mean, just about any race can take cleric levels.

Second, the argument for your notion: clerics have plenty in common regarding their study of religious texts, their knowledge of gods, their ability to receive and cast spells, etc. In this regard, a ranger might study how clerics do "clericky" things and have the skill-based advantages.

So, overall, I suppose I'd allow it, but I'd remove the damage bonus.

Dave

You could still get a bonus... perhaps to hit? (Secretly that's even better than damage....) Or to be specific anti-cleric only an ability to make wounds less responsive to divine healing, etc.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

An attack bonus would only be reasonable if all clerics followed the same martial tradition, but it might work if you were to specify a particular church as the object of his ire. Perhaps a bonus to saves vs. clerical spells?

 

[Quickbeam]

You know what's so great about your replies thus far? They all clearly indicate that we essentially ignored what's at the heart of receiving a favoured enemy bonus.

I find that hysterical given that four out of the five players in our group are very experienced DM's. I suppose this just illustrates how a "neat" idea can completely replace rational thought sometimes .

 

[blargney the second]

There's always the "hate" school of thought about rangers. It's not so much that they've studied a particular enemy as they hate their guts and will do anything to track them down and kill them.

I think your idea's cool.
-blarg

 

[Storyteller01]

IMC, rangers are allowed to take clerics of particular dieties as hated enemies (same as choosing a group or organization). Of course, IMC, clerics are... not liked too well. God Hunters are always out to get you.

the Mage Hunter (slightly tweaked) for the Iron Kindoms campaign setting works very well for this

 

[Quickbeam]

Thanks blarg and ST01. Overall I would agree with the early reply posts in this thread, that choosing a class sort of misses the boat on what the favoured enemy bonus was designed to represent. But as blarg points out, we viewed things purely from a hate perspective and let a good motivational storyline fill in the rest.

IMO some of the best House Rules are centered around enhancing the campaign story and supporting creative gameplay.

Thanks for the feedback thus far...and for tolerating my arbitrary use of the Old English favoured in lieu of favored .

 

[ARandomGod]

There's always the "hate" school of thought about rangers. It's not so much that they've studied a particular enemy as they hate their guts and will do anything to track them down and kill them.

I think your idea's cool.
-blarg

But the hate rule was removed in recent incarnations... as now you can take your own race as a favored enemy without being evil or psychopathic.