D&D 5E (2014) Favored Enemy needs a simple Damage +2

[Sailor Moon]

I must have imagined all the dart specialists, blade singers, and broken stuff I did with skills & powers when that came out then.

Some people put numbers first, some don't. D&D and almost every other rpg in existence is prone to some kind of optimization and number crunching for the most part.

But to each their own, for about 5 years back in the 90's I was a huge white wolf fan, and did the same thing and got into the same discussions, about the game not being about the numbers when it clearly was you could totally break the math and abuse the mechanics of that game too and it was supposed to be a new age of "roleplaying".

I played Bladesingers all the time and you really didn't have to worry too much about number crunching except for the usual +5 sword, girdle of giant strength, elven chain etc...

 

[Minigiant]

The issue is that you guy are looking at the wrong number.

The numbers to care about is 3.

nondetection is 3rd level.

'SCRY ON THAT YOU EVIL MAGE! Send all your henchmen into the forest to find me. Small groups as that's the only way to search the whole thing."

 

[Schmoe]

The issue is that you guy are looking at the wrong number.

The numbers to care about is 3.

nondetection is 3rd level.

'SCRY ON THAT YOU EVIL MAGE! Send all your henchmen into the forest to find me. Small groups as that's the only way to search the whole thing."

3 being the number, thou shalt not count 2, nor 4, and 5 is right out.

 

[SkidAce]

I want the fighter to be the best overall "fighter" ,and the ranger to be the best fighter versus his favored enemy....i.e. "I am the hunter and stalker of orcs, that they fear the night and the sound of the wind."

 

[SilverfireSage]

In any sizable town I expect there to be a fiend or undead within range.

If you're in Thay, sure. Most towns should not have fiends or undead in them. You are clearly playing a very different campaign than I run.

The animal companion is essentially a trap option, plain and simple. Paladins effectively get a better version at 5th level in "Find Steed" that has a 1 mile telepathic communication, can attack/help on its own, and most importantly doesn't cost them their entire subclass options. Plus the revolving door of dead pets makes your guy seem kind of a jerk. At least the familiar/steed that dies isn't some poor real animal you suckered into traveling with you.

I've written a tonnnnnn about the animal companions and their use. So have other people. They are not a trap option. In fact, they look like it on the front, but are actually very potent in their own right. I will not repost the reasons why here.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If you're in Thay, sure. Most towns should not have fiends or undead in them. You are clearly playing a very different campaign than I run.

Apparently, since we don't spend a sizable amount of time farting around safe towns. I play D&D, where sizable towns normally have some kind of monsters hiding in a 1 mile radius, be they sewers, or what not. Otherwise I guess the ranger can know that an area is safe for about a whole 1 minute per spell level sacrificed. The ability is actually pretty lame, not some uber utility ability.

The animal companion is essentially a trap option, plain and simple. Paladins effectively get a better version at 5th level in "Find Steed" that has a 1 mile telepathic communication, can attack/help on its own, and most importantly doesn't cost them their entire subclass options. Plus the revolving door of dead pets makes your guy seem kind of a jerk. At least the familiar/steed that dies isn't some poor real animal you suckered into traveling with you.

I've written a tonnnnnn about the animal companions and their use. So have other people. They are not a trap option. In fact, they look like it on the front, but are actually very potent in their own right. I will not repost the reasons why here.

Sorry man, just because you've written a lot on how to make a speed bump companion suck less doesnt make them good. Paladins get a better animal companion a 2nd level spell and don't have to crap away their damage.

 

[Coredump]

Paladins cannot conjure not befriend a pack of wolves.

That's the thing. A ranger gets the wilderness from the class and get the stronger versions of many of them. It's expensive to get them all elsewhere.

Um.... you do realize I was supporting and agreeing with you...right?

 

[Coredump]

But to each their own, for about 5 years back in the 90's I was a huge white wolf fan, and did the same thing and got into the same discussions, about the game not being about the numbers when it clearly was you could totally break the math and abuse the mechanics of that game too and it was supposed to be a new age of "roleplaying".

I think you are proving his point. The game was about storytelling, it was not about the numbers. This is evidenced because when people like you (and me to be completely honest) made it about the numbers, you would "totally break" the game.

That is because you (we) were not playing it as intended.

I broke Vampire, I broke Shadowrun, I broke Gurps.... doesn't mean the game was about the numbers... it was about working together to play a game... instead of playing the game, I decided to break it. Yay me.


Of course, in this case, I think the Ranger numbers work out pretty well. Summon Animals, Summon woodland beings, perception, stealth, archery, hunters mark, evasion, horde breaker, survival, no get lost, etc etc the numbers work out pretty well.... just not tops in combat.

 

[Coredump]

I want the fighter to be the best overall "fighter" ,and the ranger to be the best fighter versus his favored enemy....i.e. "I am the hunter and stalker of orcs, that they fear the night and the sound of the wind."

I would say "the ranger to be the best adversary versus his favored enemy". The fighter will still be better once the battle starts, but the Ranger will be better at tracking the orcs, hiding from the orcs, sneaking up on the orcs, detecting hidden orcs or orcish traps, knowing where the orcs tend to live, and being able to set up an ambush or surprise attack.

I think of it as the difference between a soldier and a bounty hunter. The soldier is better in the actual fight, but the bounty hunter is better at making sure a fight happens, and happens on the bounty hunter's terms.

 

[Paraxis]

I think you are proving his point. The game was about storytelling, it was not about the numbers. This is evidenced because when people like you (and me to be completely honest) made it about the numbers, you would "totally break" the game.

That is because you (we) were not playing it as intended.

I broke Vampire, I broke Shadowrun, I broke Gurps.... doesn't mean the game was about the numbers... it was about working together to play a game... instead of playing the game, I decided to break it. Yay me.


Of course, in this case, I think the Ranger numbers work out pretty well. Summon Animals, Summon woodland beings, perception, stealth, archery, hunters mark, evasion, horde breaker, survival, no get lost, etc etc the numbers work out pretty well.... just not tops in combat.

Very good point and well said. Oh, and I agree about the ranger, I think it works out fine and extra damage to a few types of monsters never worked well in 3e. I just don't like people saying the game isn't about the numbers, numbers matter. I have played with people who make silly useless characters because they want to roleplay and it is a pet peeve of mine.

But issue dropped.