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

[ForeverSlayer]

I politely disagree.

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

With the rogue it makes sense, with the ranger not so much.

Just slapping a d6 onto the closest thing to you is just flat out lame. The whole point of the ranger class since the beginning was to be able to have an advantage over certain types of creatures. Believe it or not, it wasn't two weapon fighting. The concept of the ranger has always been the wilderness warrior who made it their passion to hunt certain types of creatures with a vengeance for whatever reason you could come up with. The ranger would be good at killing anything but he was even better at killing those certain creatures that were his special enemy. He would spend his time learning the ins and outs of those special enemies so he got things like bonuses when fighting, tracking or dealing with creatures of that type. It actually gives some depth to the class concept. Throwing on a d6 against anything is just lazy design in my opinion.

 

[slobster]

I personally think that adding +X damage whenever attacking a goblinoid is lazy design. But lazy design is not necessarily bad design (though lazy design is probably more likely to be bad). So my problem with favored enemy isn't that it's lazy design, my problem is that it forms a major focus of the 3.x ranger class, and that in most combats the ranger is therefore denied most of what supposedly makes them special.

I would be fine with favored enemy as a small part of the class, with most of their class abilities being more universally useful. That way you still feel awesome and are mechanically rewarded when your favored enemy shows up for a beatdown, but you aren't gimped in every other fight into being a fighter, but worse.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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?

We don't know that it's going to be a Smite "Evil" ability like the 3rd edition paladin had.

Regardless of a given creature’s actual nature, a paladin can judge it unworthy and smite it with divine power that energizes his or her sword blow.

Sounds to me like it will be able to Smite anything it deems unworthy.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I personally think that adding +X damage whenever attacking a goblinoid is lazy design. But lazy design is not necessarily bad design (though lazy design is probably more likely to be bad). So my problem with favored enemy isn't that it's lazy design, my problem is that it forms a major focus of the 3.x ranger class, and that in most combats the ranger is therefore denied most of what supposedly makes them special.

I would be fine with favored enemy as a small part of the class, with most of their class abilities being more universally useful. That way you still feel awesome and are mechanically rewarded when your favored enemy shows up for a beatdown, but you aren't gimped in every other fight into being a fighter, but worse.

You are actually looking at the class wrong. Favored Enemy is an extra of the class just like Sneak Attack is an extra for the rogue. You don't always get to flank an opponent so you don't always get to use Sneak Attack. Well the same goes with the ranger, you can fight anything with no problem at all but when you go up against that spell creature you go above the norm, just like with the Paladin and evil creatures.

 

[slobster]

You are actually looking at the class wrong. Favored Enemy is an extra of the class just like Sneak Attack is an extra for the rogue. You don't always get to flank an opponent so you don't always get to use Sneak Attack. Well the same goes with the ranger, you can fight anything with no problem at all but when you go up against that spell creature you go above the norm, just like with the Paladin and evil creatures.

This might be true if, without the favored enemy bonus, the ranger was a combatant comparable to other classes. He isn't. But I fear that now we may tangent off into a discussion of whether a ranger's skills and other out-of-combat abilities compensate for a lack in his combat abilities, which would really derail this thread.

I'll just say that I like the hunter's quarry ability because it rewards tactical play, something that I enjoy. I'm fine with favored enemy as long as it isn't the focus of the class and you have a way to make sure that the choices made stay relevant (choosing goblinoids at 1st means that it's useless by 20th, whereas choosing dragons early on so that you can stack up the bonuses for later levels means gimping yourself for the early levels, and no matter what you choose it isn't helpful if you never fight them).

 

[am181d]

Sounds to me like it will be able to Smite anything it deems unworthy.

Thanks. I clearly did not read that closely enough the first time.

That's actually pretty weird. "I name thee EVIL, shifty merchant, and thou shalt feel my WRATH!"

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION]
Yeah, the favored enemy is true to the 1e ranger and all later rangers save 4e (I don't remember the OD&D version). However it does require one of 3 conditions in order to see use:

(1) The ranger player & DM discuss the main antagonists ahead of time so the ranger player knows which favored enemies to pick.

Or

(2) The DM provides a diversity of monsters for the PCs to face (encompassing all the monsters on the ranger favored enemies list), so the ranger can have their moment of spotlight.

Or

(3) The DM takes into account the ranger's favored enemies when designing/choosing adventures, making sure to include that enemy.

Nothing wrong with any of that, and I like the favored enemy better than straight up damage, but it does have implications that require DM adjudication. Part of 4e's unspoken design philosophy was removing the need for DM adjudication from character rules (actually, from most rules). So 5e is coming at it from a very different tactic - according to what they've said - in that they want to encourage improvisation and DM adjudication.

 

[AngryMojo]

It's also possible that what a paladin deems "unworthy" has more mechanical backing than just whatever the player feels like smiting at the time.

And a ranger gaining extra damage with every attack isn't necessarily bad or wrong, just another way of playing the game. Think of it more like target prioritization or a weapon specialization.

 

[n00bdragon]

I wholeheartedly agree with this topic. If the ranger and the paladin can be useful all the time what's the point of playing of wizard? Rangers should have to make smart choices in what they choose to be bigoted against, otherwise everyone is equally good and thus no one is special.

 

[Pickles JG]

@ForeverSlayer
Yeah, the favored enemy is true to the 1e ranger and all later rangers save 4e (I don't remember the OD&D version). However it does require one of 3 conditions in order to see use:

(1) The ranger player & DM discuss the main antagonists ahead of time so the ranger player knows which favored enemies to pick.

Or

(2) The DM provides a diversity of monsters for the PCs to face (encompassing all the monsters on the ranger favored enemies list), so the ranger can have their moment of spotlight.

Or

(3) The DM takes into account the ranger's favored enemies when designing/choosing adventures, making sure to include that enemy.

Or
(4) The bonus is small & flavourful honing the efficiency of the ranger rather than moving him form ineffectual to dominating.

I think the favoured enemy bonus is dumb relating back to someone mary suing Aragorn in the 70s, but if you have to have it make it a pleasant bonus rather than a win/lose toggle (see turn undead also)