Best idea for the Ranger's "Favored Enemy" mechanic.

Chris_Nightwing

First Post
I'll just chime in with the love..

Favoured Enemy: Ooze
Escape Artist +3
Weak Spot: You can critically hit creatures otherwise immune
Acid Resistance: You have advantage on saves against acid
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Kavon

Explorer
I like Orzel's favored enemy version. I hope WotC considers it for Next, instead of just plain-jane bonuses to hit and damage.
Actually, I hope they don't just stop there.

Give these sort of interesting abilities for more of those 'plain-jane bonuses to hit and damage', I'd say! ^^
 

Li Shenron

Legend
Another vote for this here! :) No more whining that the DM is putting too few oozes or feys in the campaign!

The solution to THAT is simple- you either have specific FE types or general FE types in the game, but not both. IOW, there would either be FE: Undead OR FE: Vampire (and FE: Ghoul and FE: Wraith, etc.), but not both within the same system.

Expanding on this: if Next is to be modular, one module of the FE rules would use general types, another expressly incompatible version would have more specific FE types.

IMHO they are not incompatible at all with this proposal. No need for multiple modules here, and actually this idea allows the designers more room for additional FE abilities to put in splatbooks.
 


Mengu

First Post
To play devil's advocate, isn't this the fiddly conditional stuff people didn't like about 4e? Paragon paths like Giant Slayer, Wyrm Hunter, Draconic Antithesis, Cerulean Adept and the like had features that gave you something appropriate for the "foe slayer" type concepts, and that something got a little better if you were facing the exact foe (Giant/Dragon/Aberration/etc). These sorts of features typically got passed up for the flat boring bonuses such as Kensei, Pitfighter, Stormwarden, and such, because the former bonuses were either too conditional, hard to remember, or time consuming to apply.

Personally, I love the conditional stuff, I find it flavorful, and tactically engaging, but can they make the mechanics smooth and appealing?
 

KidSnide

Adventurer
This is a great idea. Essentially, this becomes the ranger's answer to rogue schemes. This favored enemy idea is -- appropriatelly -- more combat oriented (whereas the rogue's schemes are well anchored in the exploration / interaction pilars), but it's a collection of abilities that are pulled together with the favored enemy providing the conceptual cohesion.

Presumably, a core book would provide a small number (maybe 4 to 7) of good choices. Naturally, other favored enemies would work well in splat books and campaign settings. Plus, a collection of playtested favored enemy components would allow DMs to mix-and-match to create appropriate favored enemies for their own worlds.

-KS
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
IMHO they are not incompatible at all with this proposal. No need for multiple modules here, and actually this idea allows the designers more room for additional FE abilities to put in splatbooks.

I was simply addressing the relative power issue. On average, more general FE types that cover a broad range of critters are going to be more powerful than FE types that cover only a single creature type, as was illustrated in the example I was responding to.

Could general vs specific be balanced? Certainly, most obviously by giving bigger bonuses to specific FE types than to the more general FE types. But that would add a layer of unnecessary complexity. Better, IMHO, that only specific or general FE types be used in any one campaign.
 
Last edited:


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
That and/or just have and publish standard formats for general and specific types- a set specific combat bonus, a skill bonus and ________, so DMs could make their own with some semblance of balance.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top