Please step away from the 4th edition "effect everything" abilities.

[ForeverSlayer]

Now what I mean by that is the "Hunter's Quarry" ability and now the Smite everything ability of the upcoming Paladin.

This is not what I want out of the next iteration of D&D. I want "Smite Evil" I want the ranger's "Favored Enemy(Humanoids)" etc.... I don't want every class with a unique ability to work universally. Really the point of special abilities is the fact that they stand above other abilities in certain circumstances, that's what makes them special.

What makes sense is a ranger who specializes in a type of foe and gaining advantages when fighting that foe not having a universal hunter's quarry that works on everything. If that's going to be the case then it needs to be called something else.

 

[slobster]

Just to be clear, are you against rangers having a hunter's quarry-like feature because you prefer the favored enemy mechanic? Or are you against any class having a feature that universally improves its damage?

In your opinion, would it be ok for rangers to have favored enemy while a separate character class (scouts or something) have hunter's quarry? Could paladins have smite evil while slayers get smite anything?

 

[CM]

On the other hand, I like not having to cater to the decisions of my players when designing adventures. I like to feel confident that that they will not find things too easy or too difficult depending on their choices.

I'd rather design a fun, engaging adventure than worry about providing the correct ratio of constructs or undead or evil outsiders or whatnot.

 

[hafrogman]

I'd rather just see them go away all together, at least as class mechanics. They aren't good abilities to build a class around, too limited to tied to adventure setup. The 4e versions were just ways to provide "make-up" damage to keep the damage up in general. I think there are more elegant ways to do that.

I could see them coming back as feats/themes . . . the kind of thing that doesn't matter as much if it doesn't apply.

 

[Umbran]

They aren't good abilities to build a class around, too limited to tied to adventure setup.

I don't think you should tie adventure setup to class abilities. Tie adventure setup to characters - and I don't mean the stats, I mean the people.

If the Ranger hates giants, make giants a foe - whether the ranger gets special bonuses against giants is aside the point.

 

[AngryMojo]

Or include it as a module one way or the other. Easy way to make everyone happy.

 

[hafrogman]

If the Ranger hates giants, make giants a foe -

I agree.

whether the ranger gets special bonuses against giants is aside the point.

I don't agree quite so much.

If there's no bonus then it's all good. The ranger wrote an element into his backstory and the DM incorporated it into the campaign and we have a memorable and interesting interaction.

But if there IS a bonus then is the ranger class balanced around the idea that they always have their favored enemy bonus? That they never have it? Or is the bonus so small as to be largely inconsequential . . . and therefore kind of bland.

But most of all I don't think a ranger should need to hate a specific race (or simply obsess over one) just to be a ranger.

 

[Klaus]

Now what I mean by that is the "Hunter's Quarry" ability and now the Smite everything ability of the upcoming Paladin.

This is not what I want out of the next iteration of D&D. I want "Smite Evil" I want the ranger's "Favored Enemy(Humanoids)" etc.... I don't want every class with a unique ability to work universally. Really the point of special abilities is the fact that they stand above other abilities in certain circumstances, that's what makes them special.

What makes sense is a ranger who specializes in a type of foe and gaining advantages when fighting that foe not having a universal hunter's quarry that works on everything. If that's going to be the case then it needs to be called something else.

I politely disagree.

I prefer a ranger or rogue that can find a weak spot in anything he hunts.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't think you should tie adventure setup to class abilities. Tie adventure setup to characters - and I don't mean the stats, I mean the people.

I don't agree with you on this part because that is what 4th edition did and I don't like those types of games. I don't want my abilities to almost always work in every situation, I'm not talking about the dice rolls.

I like to have games where my class abilities may be hampered by a certain type of creature or situation. To me, and my group, that is one of the challenges of the game. It causes me to look outside the box when I can't rely on my abilities.

 

[am181d]

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but:

The latest Paladin blog said there WOULD be a Smite Evil ability.

Where does this "I don't want the Paladin to be able to smite everything." thing come from?