Favored Terrain & Favored Enemy

[gamerprinter]

Not always, but I design about half my encounters with the PCs in mind always. I've got paladin types who want fight evil outsiders and undead, I've got Rangers who want to fight giants and monstrous humanoids, I've got rogues who want to find guys with lots of gold in their pockets - when I design an encounter I look for opportunities to allow each player to shine above the rest.

I tailor my encounters half the time to one player or another - always. Sometimes I deliberate create a non-applicable to specific encounter to keep them on my toes. I feel its my job to entertain and challenge my gamers and that means letting them fight who they want to from time to time.

What's the problem with that? Why wouldn't you do that?

GP

PS: I see a ghillie suit as great for bog lands, since its a Scottish hunter camo thing, but when you think of modern snipers that change with their terrain well they get to see more terrain in modern day, than most locals centuries ago. In other words someone from Scottland is unlikely to know anything about a dessert, so shouldn't have a natural affinity to hiding in it. Its not smart to use modern analogies to medieval times - they are apples and oranges in mindset, they don't apply.

 

[Kaisoku]

Comparing D&D to medieval times is a big no-no as well. The game replaces technology with magic, and makes the world far and beyond anything like a medieval setting (most people in D&D are likely not dying of thirst or small injuries, similar to today, with how easy some of this magic is accessed).

The simple fact is these adventurers are traveling to such a wide variety of terrains (one AP I'm running has desert, cold, plains, mountains, underground, swamp and forest all in a fairly small area).
Why couldn't a Ranger, especially a 12th level ranger who's already picked 2 terrains, have experienced a wide variety of landscapes, such that he could learn how to apply his new found concept against more than the specific terrains he decided to excel at.

I can see how and why they did it, but I can also see how it can work in a wider concept (such as back in 3.5e).

Honestly, the ghillie suit isn't that big a feat of engineering... rather, it's simply a new way of thinking (make a suit that can easily be adjusted to add bits of your terrain). Considering what a 12th level character is capable of, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief that he can come up with a suit that he can adjust to a given natural terrain.

Considering it's an extraordinary ability, and not supernatural or spell-like, so he isn't going all "chameleon" like, the only way this makes sense is if he knows how to make his appearance look like his surroundings. Since that is the basic concept of the suit... comparison to modern is quite valid here.

.

Regarding the "pandering to a specific class", you really didn't address the concerns I posited.
I'm talking about letting players know in advance what's coming up (and possible metagame issues around it), and forcing the DM to make his encounters obviously about one player (oh, that orc is there because of my class ability, etc). If a DM doesn't pander to the class for whatever reason (forgetful, not part of the story, etc), then it automatically weakens the character, and can cause hurt feelings in the more immature.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

It's a balancing act for sure. And you get two types of players - those that don't mind a little metagame knowledge to inform their choices, and those that flat out don't want to know. Those that don't want to know usually (in my experience) aren't the types to complain when their choices go awry.

I've been a subscriber to the APs since Legacy of Fire. In the Player's Guide for Legacy of Fire the author's didn't make specific recommendations for Rangers' favored enemies. But that was also the last Players Guide that was also a beefy regional guide, and they DID come right out and say "Gnolls are the most common monsters in Katapesh, and arguably the most dangerous." If that's not an invitation for Rangers to jump right on, I don't know what is. In every Players' Guide since then, the authors come right out and give a list of the best choices for Favored Enemies. Not just one or two; there are a lot to choose from and no Ranger's gonna get 'em all.

I personally like this approach - actually the entire idea of a player's guide for the AP and all of the information in them. It allows players to make characters relevant to the adventure, with useful skill sets and other choices. And the AP is plenty big enough to throw a variety of encounters in - some will be right up the Ranger's alley, some will cater more to the casters, some to the skill monkeys.

I don't see anything wrong with GMs 'catering' to their players - in this regard at least - as long as each character gets his or her turn to be 'catered' to.

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't see it as metagame knowledge, I see it as the ranger's knowledge of where he/she lives. Isn't it possible that her town/tribe gets regularly raided by orcs and giants, and the town has been raided 4 times by each during her lifetime. So now all grown up and ready to be a ranger, wouldn't that person be aware of what major threats are found in the region? Thus orcs and giants become her first two choices. She can learn the other threats as she gains experience to know what her next selection will be.

If the campaign is constructs and undead, if the existence of them occurs at the start of the campaign so none of the locals could be prepared for that, recommending constructs and undead would be metagame knowledge - that might be an exception to such foreknowledge.

It really depends on the setting, the intended campaign, the prepublished adventure used, but except for extraordinary circumstances such as what is mentioned in the previous paragraph, I wouldn't consider it metagame knowledge for the ranger to guess ahead of time the major threats.

If the player is brand new to the setting that real person won't be able to guess the surrounding threats, so I provide that as background information, something that would be known to the ranger.

Is that metagaming? I don't think so.

GP

PS: the point is I pander to all members of the party, and allow each to shine in their moment ahead of the other characters, sometimes I don't pander to anyone and keep it mixed. But I never exclude a party member by limiting the encounters to strengths they don't have - that is wrong/bad/fun to any gaming party. I don't screw over my players.

PPS: its like having a rogue in the party, but as a DM I never put any traps or locked doors or only include monsters with uncanny dodge, now the rogue will never be able to do what their designed for, same applies to a Ranger's FE, a Paladin's smite evil (not having evil monsters only neutral ones, for example.) I don't see this as pandering to anyone, I see this is creating adventures that are fun for the classes the Players chose.

 

[gamerprinter]

Comparing D&D to medieval times is a big no-no as well.

I see your point, but then I design my own settings and create my own maps - my worlds tend to be heavily influenced by earth-history analogs, and my worlds make geographic/geologic sense, even when I include magically altered terrain and such - there's a logic to the world. I don't place tundra next to desert, next to jungle. Some whacko places in the FR might do that, but none of my settings.

I sometimes don't keep in mind the intended setting someone else might be playing in might make absolutely no sense - my worlds aren't like that. So I don't think like that.

My latest setting intended for publication is set in an analog Europe set in the Iron Age - so I always think in historic terms and it works perfectly for the worlds I design. I'm sure the typical D&D setting and what I create are apples and oranges.

So excuse my logic, it works different than even the majority, I think.

Regarding your point about injuries and health care. Cleric spells cost money, most people are poor, most people don't receive the care of a cleric and die of injury, illness and disease on a regular basis - like the real world. Sure magical healing exists, and those in power and those who are adventurers are the exception to the rule. Modern health care doesn't exist in most fantasy worlds I'm familiar, and I'm not even including the ones I design.

GP

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

PS: the point is I pander to all members of the party, and allow each to shine in their moment ahead of the other characters, sometimes I don't pander to anyone and keep it mixed. But I never exclude a party member by limiting the encounters to strengths they don't have - that is wrong/bad/fun to any gaming party. I don't screw over my players.

PPS: its like having a rogue in the party, but as a DM I never put any traps or locked doors or only include monsters with uncanny dodge, now the rogue will never be able to do what their designed for, same applies to a Ranger's FE, a Paladin's smite evil (not having evil monsters only neutral ones, for example.) I don't see this as pandering to anyone, I see this is creating adventures that are fun for the classes the Players chose.

Thank you! My points exactly - in fact, I almost put a paragraph in my previous post along the same lines as your Rogues and traps point.

I'd give you XP, but apparantly I've done so for another post recently enough that I can't quite yet.

 

[Kaisoku]

The difference between a Rogue's trapfinding or a Paladin's smite evil is that these are far, far broader in application compared to the Favored Enemy.

The Paladin gets a normal bonus against anything evil. That's basically 90% of what you'll be fighting if you are playing a Paladin (usually).
The bonus against Dragons, Undead and Outsiders are also quite a large spread, but that's just a "small extra" too.

In a world built around normal expectations, traps and trapped things will come up on a regular basis. Now, this could depend on the campaign... but then a campaign focused around surviving on a deserted island (a la Lost), gives plenty of warning to not waste your time training certain skill sets.

The Ranger on the other hand, needs to pick a specific creature type (and in the case of Outsiders or Humanoids, a specific aligned or subtype).
It's really, really easy to simply never have a single Gnoll in an entire campaign, but the Ranger could easily pick that as a background thing, and now the DM is stuck.

Granted, there's ways to try and get around that... but the fact that you have to have ways around it is why some of us don't like the ability.

It's not that you have to accommodate the class/character at all that's at issue.. it's the degree of accommodation that's needed, and it all ties into the inflexibility and specificity of the ability.

_
To put it simply: I can build a fairly believable world, focusing on the story elements and verisimilitude without having to resort to worrying over most classes' abilities.
With some (such as Favored Enemy), I have to pay special attention. With a simple change in the mechanic, I wouldn't have to.

You suggest fixing it at the DM/Player discussion side. We are suggesting that there's also the option of fixing it from the game mechanics side.

 

[gamerprinter]

Oh and while I agree that the Ranger's favored enemy is very specific, unlike the Paladin's smite evil or Rogue's trapfinding - I honestly didn't realize you were talking about changing the ranger's class feature until your last post.

Still, as I said previously it depends on the world you're playing in or adventure you choose. Besides my players generate their characters in front of me and if the player writes down 'gnoll' as I watch them - I will say with metagame intentions, "oh, don't pick gnoll, there are no gnolls in such and such place." So if a player brings a ranger to the table with a monster that won't ever appear, I tell them that. In fact I'll tend them to erase their FE monster choices and suggest some primary ones in the game they're playing. It might only show up 1 in 10 encounters, but I do guide them to realistic selections. I usually recommend FE: Humanoid (human) as the first choice, as human encounters will be the most common, unless it is a goblin campaign or construct campaign, etc.

My campaigns are never vanilla, so general monster choices from the Bestiary don't serve as a guide to my rangers. I describe the typical monsters that are available and ensure to mention two or three times the FE choices. 15 different expected monsters (though there may yet be many more, these are the most common). A ranger can only pick five so will never hit all encounters, but is guaranteed to run into their choices sometimes.

If you want to change the ranger class feature, that's fine and really up to you, but as I say, I think its a decent class feature.

I've even created a new class and given favored enemy as one of its class features, because I think its that good, rather than 'that bad' as in your opinion. And I make it mandatory that the first FE is human for that class. The class is the Celtic Clan Warrior and the enemy clan they feud with or the 'Roman' like human race is the specific clan enemy and not humans in general. Clan Warrior is the primary class in that campaign.

GP

 

[Starbuck_II]

You could let them for a rounds a day, change your FE to anoyther type.
Hunter's Quarry: At level 4, as a swift action, you can add a FE to your list of FE. This lasts for Ranger lv in rounds each day (does not need be consecutive). Can be ended as a swift action.
The new temporary FE gets bonuses as the highest FE bonus you currently have.
Example, Frodo the halfing Ranger has a Favored Enemy of Orcs (granting +2 hit/damage to them). His party encounters a group of Gnolls.

He activates as a swift action, his Hunter's Quarry. It last for up to 4 rounds that day. His adds Gnolls to his favored Enemies (granting +2 hit/damage to them).
The battle ends after 3 rounds so he ends the ability as a swift action. He has 1 rd left that day. But he is glad he had that bonus even temporarily.

You could grant this instead of Hunter's Bond or in addition.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

You could let them for a rounds a day, change your FE to anoyther type.
Hunter's Quarry: At level 4, as a swift action, you can add a FE to your list of FE. This lasts for Ranger lv in rounds each day (does not need be consecutive). Can be ended as a swift action.
The new temporary FE gets bonuses as the highest FE bonus you currently have.
Example, Frodo the halfing Ranger has a Favored Enemy of Orcs (granting +2 hit/damage to them). His party encounters a group of Gnolls.

He activates as a swift action, his Hunter's Quarry. It last for up to 4 rounds that day. His adds Gnolls to his favored Enemies (granting +2 hit/damage to them).
The battle ends after 3 rounds so he ends the ability as a swift action. He has 1 rd left that day. But he is glad he had that bonus even temporarily.

You could grant this instead of Hunter's Bond or in addition.

I like this - have to give it some thought, but I may start using it as a house rule. Thanks!