Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 5951791" data-attributes="member: 114">I think you've got most of your factual points wrong here, I'm afraid.This is why:1. In 1e and earlier, rangers got bonus against 'giant class' but that wasn't just giants - it included goblins, orcs, ogres etc too. So it was a useful damage bonus against the foes you fought at low level and stayed useful against the higher level giant foes too.2. In 3e the campaign doesn't necessarily move away from favoured enemies as viable foes as level increases. Take Dragons, Demons or Undead (if DM allowed damage bonus against them - many did) for example - they all have foes available across the entire CR spectrum. You've got to work pretty hard to pick a favoured enemy which really is limited. Nor does it force the DM in any way - unless the DM plans a game with no dragons, or no demons, in which case it is simple for him to tell a player not to pick that foe because it will never exist. The PC doesn't fight them all the time, but occasionally they come up and on those occasions he gets a decent bonus.3. In your opinion the ranger is just a woodland tracker and hunter, but I must point out that it doesn't match the abilities that the class has *ever* had - it has *always* had a knack for targeting some particular group of foes. That isn't to say that it is fine for you to have your own vision for what a ranger class should be - more power to you! I'm certainly not intending to try to tell you what you should like... but I did think it was worth shining some extra light on some of the issues you brought up.Personally I *really* liked the 3.5e rangers favoured enemy - it grew organically with the character, and so as a campaign progressed he could stay with older enemies or focus on newer ones that looked like they were going to be around for a while.Cheers</blockquote>

Verification