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

[Ellington]

I have never liked the ranger's favored enemy mechanic. It's too situational, and a 'favored enemy' sounds like something that's tied into the character's backstory instead of its class. I think the ability to hunt a specific quarry is a lot better suited to the ranger, mechanically and thematically. I'd prefer favored enemy to become a feat or theme, ranger exclusive or not.

I agree with you on smite evil, however. If we are going for a LG only paladin, I would like to see him as a designated slayer of evil and not just a fighter that adds +X god damage to his attacks.

 

[Campbell]

I think Hunter's Quarry would have been more thematically appropriate if it functioned like an Avenger's Oath wherein you can't assign it to a new foe willy nilly. Rangers are hunters who seek out their prey with a single minded focus. If you catch a ranger's attention he will track you down to the ends of the earth. You could even include Ranger specific spells that interact with that ability. Of course I'm also a pretty big fan of the Ranger as bounty hunter archetype. I'd at least like to see that as an option.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think Hunter's Quarry would have been more thematically appropriate if it functioned like an Avenger's Oath wherein you can't assign it to a new foe willy nilly. Rangers are hunters who seek out their prey with a single minded focus. If you catch a ranger's attention he will track you down to the ends of the earth. You could even include Ranger specific spells that interact with that ability. Of course I'm also a pretty big fan of the Ranger as bounty hunter archetype. I'd at least like to see that as an option.

In Pathfinder the ranger has a spell that allows him to target something that isn't normally his Favored Enemy for a certain number of rounds.

 

[Lanefan]

I have no problem with Rangers having bonuses against Giants (or whatever, but for flavour reasons I far prefer it be Giants).

I do have a problem with 2-weapon Rangers who ought to have been Thieves instead; particularly if they are Drow. And did Rangers' fighting abilities get chopped in later editions, because they used to be pretty good in 1e - as good as Fighters, I think.

I don't think adventures should be designed around specific character abilities except in unusual cases...if for no other reason than who's to say that character will even still be around by the time the party gets to that adventure?

Lanefan

 

[Klaus]

I think Hunter's Quarry would have been more thematically appropriate if it functioned like an Avenger's Oath wherein you can't assign it to a new foe willy nilly. Rangers are hunters who seek out their prey with a single minded focus. If you catch a ranger's attention he will track you down to the ends of the earth. You could even include Ranger specific spells that interact with that ability. Of course I'm also a pretty big fan of the Ranger as bounty hunter archetype. I'd at least like to see that as an option.

A variation of the Avenger's Oath is interesting.

Back in the day, the 1e ranger had extra damage against "giant-class", which was ill-defined and ended up including everything from orcs to acual giants and titans.

My problem with Favored Enemy is not only that it is situational, it's that I've seen DMs try to determine what a PC ranger's FE should be ("no, you can't choose giant because you've never see a giant.", or "your first FE has to be animals, because that's what you grew up hunting").

Lastly, I'd prefer if a Favored Enemy-like function was tied to a specific monster knowledge skill (training in Dungeoneering = bonus against aberrations, and so on).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Hopefully Smite Evil and Detect Evil and Protection from Evil get dropped or changed.

How else are they going to make alignment optional?

 

[hafrogman]

I have no problem with Rangers having bonuses against Giants (or whatever, but for flavour reasons I far prefer it be Giants).

Here is a good example of unintended consequences. Originally the "giant" bonus represented a whole range of enemies, of all levels, and a healthy proportion of all the published monsters. But as more monsters were introduced, and eventually rangers were allowed to select a group, they became more narrowly defined and represented less of the enemies one might meet.

This post introduced a concept I quite liked: making the bonus be against ANY larger enemy. I think this strikes a nice balance between frequency of usefulness, flexibility for the DM, and respect for tradition.

I also like the relationship it sets up with the fighter. The fighter is a master of warfare, he's a soldier, fighting other soldiers, other humanoids armed and armored like he is. The ranger is the hunter of the giant beasts at the edge of civilization, the things that go bump in the night.

I do have a problem with 2-weapon Rangers who ought to have been Thieves instead; particularly if they are Drow. And did Rangers' fighting abilities get chopped in later editions, because they used to be pretty good in 1e - as good as Fighters, I think.

In 1e they were better than fighters.

In 2e, the change started. Two weapon fighting got introduced, and although they COULD wear any armor, a bunch of abilities stopped working with heavier armor.

3.5 in particular codified their nature as skirmishers more than direct fighters, to match more the way people had been picturing them through 2e. But this also lead to MAD. They had no particular mechanism for dealing damage beyond favored enemy bonuses. So they had to have a high strength to deal any damage, but they also needed high dex to function in light armor. It led to a dilution of the two different concepts, in my opinion. It wasn't that a 3.X ranger couldn't be as good a fighter, but just that it was thematically easy to fall into the trap of a high-dex melee type ranger who had no damage potential.

 

[Sunseeker]

3rd ed rangers had hunters quarry, it was a standard action, which gave you a +2 insight bonus to damage and attacks.

The issue with highly situational abilities is that they demand an incredibly high-level of communication on behalf of the DM. If my player rolls up a paladin because I told him we'd probably fight some zombies, and then for the rest of the game we're fighting golems or something, because that was what I planned or what the party got themselves into, I really think makes it difficult to surprise the players.

Secondly, I feel that, as always, the arcane caster is the least affected by these things. Sure, one or two of their spells don't work on one or two creatures, but by and large everything they have works on everything they attack. This quickly leads to caster-superiority when "Fireball" kills everything, while the Paladin is sitting around waiting for some demons to appear because he can only smite evil.

I mean, this is basically why every Paladin ever Prestiege-classed into Greyguard, because it avoided all the ridiculous restrictions.

I'm fine with SOME restrictions, but they should have a point, and make sense within the gameworld.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like character abilities that can be used when the player chooses, rather than when the DM chooses.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am not saying that abilities should apply all the time. In a long and varied campaign, I would expect that your abilities would sometimes apply, and sometimes not. It comes out in the wash over time.

My concepts of "balance" are applied a bit longer term, not moment to moment.