Changing Favored Enemy?

[Nonlethal Force]

What if rangers could do something similar? They might still find themselves with the wrong FE prepared (just like wizards find themselves wishing they hadn't swapped a spell they did) but it make it more likely they aren't hosed for a level's worth of encounters.

The favored enemies might have to come from a list of creatures known. 2 at first level, then 1/level thereafter. A 10th level ranger would choose 3 of them (+4/+4/+2, or +6/+2/+2), and could switch them every morning if he liked.

This is a really cool idea, Cheiromancer, thanks for posting it. Each ranger could set up a list of catagories each time they get a new FE. For a ranger with 3, they could have two lists: a +6, +2, and +2 list OR a +4, +4, and +2 list. I like the idea of being able to have two in each category and allowing them to swap it in the morning - like while the cleric is preparing spells the ranger is studying the book on his enemies.

On a related note - and perhaps this goes too far in the "house rules" direction, so please forgive me ...

But what about a FE that scales with the ranger. They'r most powerful category can only have 1 FE, the next most powerful can have 2, the third most powerful can have 3, the fourth most powerful can have 4. That'd be a way to scale down the power that comes with versatility, yet still alow versatility to exist! Rangers who have two levels at the same bonus would have to arbitrarily designate one as higher than the other, and it would forever be that way.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

"Hatred"? Are we back in 1996 again?

That depends. Are we in a politically correct 2007?

Most of the FE examples I've seen players select were based off hatred for something the FE did to their characters. That may not be PC to say, but it's true.

Of course, there could be other reasons. But let's not be so dismissive of the most obvious.

 

[hong]

That depends. Are we in a politically correct 2007?

Most of the FE examples I've seen players select were based off hatred for something the FE did to their characters. That may not be PC to say, but it's true.

What a strange example of political correctness to use. It's almost... politically correct.

Of course, there could be other reasons. But let's not be so dismissive of the most obvious.

The most obvious reason for me is a creature type that has a history of being opposed to that particular character's clan/tribe/nation/alignment, regardless of personal feelings. In fact, I don't think I've seen a ranger character who actually had a personal hatred for any favoured enemy, or at least more so than the normal antipathy felt between opposing groups in a D&D world.

 

[Cheiromancer]

This is a really cool idea, Cheiromancer, thanks for posting it. Each ranger could set up a list of catagories each time they get a new FE. For a ranger with 3, they could have two lists: a +6, +2, and +2 list OR a +4, +4, and +2 list. I like the idea of being able to have two in each category and allowing them to swap it in the morning - like while the cleric is preparing spells the ranger is studying the book on his enemies.

Thanks! I'm glad you like it. Although I was thinking that the ranger would have a bunch at +0 that could be subbed in for a greater bonus. For instance, a first level ranger might have a +2 against elves, but he could retrain to make it +2 against aberrations. It is like a +2/+0 which can be swapped. At 2nd level he could add another +0 monster; giants, say. So it would be technically +2/+0/+0, but the +2 could be against any of those three creatures. Maybe 1 creature type known per level is too much... but there are 32 on the list in the PHB, so it's not like you are going to run out anytime soon.

But what about a FE that scales with the ranger. They'r most powerful category can only have 1 FE, the next most powerful can have 2, the third most powerful can have 3, the fourth most powerful can have 4. That'd be a way to scale down the power that comes with versatility, yet still alow versatility to exist! Rangers who have two levels at the same bonus would have to arbitrarily designate one as higher than the other, and it would forever be that way.

So a 10th level ranger couldn't have a +4/+4/+2 breakdown? He'd have to have a +6/+2/+2? That would be too restrictive. Or do you see him maintaining three lists: one of critters that can get up to +6 FE bonus, another that can get up to +4, and any other can only get a +2?

So if elves were a +6, aberrations and giants were +4, and the other creatures known were +2... he could either have elves at +6 and any two at +2, or two of elves, aberrations and giants at +4 and any other known enemy as the +2. Still seems unnecessarily restrictive.

I'd prefer it as he can choose +6/+2/+2 or +4/+4/+2 from a list of 11 known enemies.

***

Although I am tempted to limit the FE bonus for certain classes of creatures. Take aberrations, for instance. The only thing they have in uncommon is that they have bizarre anatomies and psychologies. But there are any number of ways they can be bizarre; two aberrations can differ from each other as much as either differs from a human. In the absence of any kind of commonality, what justifies the +6 FE bonus a 10th level ranger could get against them? You could say something similar about outsiders of a particular subtype; but perhaps there is something metaphysical that the ranger is tapping into. Now if they choose a particular race ("Beholderkin" or something) then I could see getting an unlimited bonus.

Hmmm. It's probably not worth the effort to inject "realism" into this. And in any case it would deserve its own thread.

 

[frankthedm]

Although I am tempted to limit the FE bonus for certain classes of creatures. Take aberrations, for instance. The only thing they have in uncommon is that they have bizarre anatomies and psychologies. But there are any number of ways they can be bizarre; two aberrations can differ from each other as much as either differs from a human. In the absence of any kind of commonality, what justifies the +6 FE bonus a 10th level ranger could get against them? You could say something similar about outsiders of a particular subtype; but perhaps there is something metaphysical that the ranger is tapping into. Now if they choose a particular race ("Beholderkin" or something) then I could see getting an unlimited bonus.

Hmmm. It's probably not worth the effort to inject "realism" into this. And in any case it would deserve its own thread.

I feel the damage bonus should be Supernatural for most types. If the differences between Elf and human can screw the bonus up, Hydras and griffons should be different favored enemy fields too.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

So a 10th level ranger couldn't have a +4/+4/+2 breakdown? He'd have to have a +6/+2/+2? That would be too restrictive. Or do you see him maintaining three lists: one of critters that can get up to +6 FE bonus, another that can get up to +4, and any other can only get a +2?

So if elves were a +6, aberrations and giants were +4, and the other creatures known were +2... he could either have elves at +6 and any two at +2, or two of elves, aberrations and giants at +4 and any other known enemy as the +2. Still seems unnecessarily restrictive.

FWIW, here is what I was thinking:

Ranger - 10th level - would have 3 groups. That'd be 6 FE according to my above thought. Let's say ... dwarf, elf, gnoll, gnome, human, and orc. Not that I'd actually pick 'em that way.

So, he could have:

+6 dwarf
+2 elf, gnoll
+2 gnome, human, orc

Or ...

+4 dwarf
+4 elf, gnoll
+2 gnome, human, orc

On any given day he could swap elf/gnoll, but not have both. He could also choose between gnome/human/orc, but only one of the three.

At 15th level, the ranger could have a group of one, two, three, and four. They could be broken down to be:

+8/+2/+2/+2, +6/+4/+2/+2, +4/+4/+4/+2

If I did my math correctly.