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

[Klaus]

Just a final thought on Hunter's Quarry/Sneak Attack:

To benefit from Sneak Attack, a rogue must maneuver into position, either by flanking with an ally or resorting to a trick or to Stealth. To benefit from Hunter's Quarry, a ranger must come close to his target, enough to single it out as a quarry, and then must focus on it, which might entail skirmishing around the fight to keep that enemy within range/reach.

So, although the abilities "affect everything", they still require an effort on the player's part to benefit from them.

 

[Kinak]

I love favored enemy. In my last two d20 campaigns, we've had rangers who were so perfect for the favored enemy mechanic. I think it adds a lot of flavor to the game and those characters.

But I'd still rather it be optional. Choosing a favored enemy when there isn't a clear in-character option is just awkward.

In a perfect world I'd prefer a slightly more difficult to apply Quarry ability (watch your enemy, learn its ways) with a Favored Enemy feat letting you automatically treat the chosen enemy type as though they're your Quarry. If you know orcs already, you don't need to study them, just go straight for the kill.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Surmos]

I like the Ranger's Quarry, Warlock's Curse, Paladin's Divine Challenge and Rogue's Sneak Attack in the Fourth Edition. They were flexible and made combat interesting. They did not become useless because the dungeon master never used certain monsters or did not consider anything intrinsically aligned.

I will accept the old limited forms of Favoured Enemy and Smite Evil IF they are on top of the other more generally applicable class features, sort of delightful fluff in most situations like Turn Undead is.

I sorta agree with this.
When I first saw these mechanics I thought they were "too mechanical"and lacked flavor. This isn't the case though. More than ever it's clear that mechanics like "Favored Enemy" fit more flavor than the mechanical benefit. If it came down to it I also would rather FE be a separate bonus/benefit Rangers get.

Keep in mind that 4E did sort of homogenize classes, but across each edition each class has some kind of roll.
So as a point to the Ranger(my favorite class) and also for the DM (my second favorite class,lol) if I was given a damage bonus I would want the conditions that cause it to trigger to happen just as often as any other class. That a part of what I consider "balance". As a DM I shouldn't have to necessarily choose monsters just to make that class shine. Even if I did, who is to say the stint of time I use the FE monsters balance out when compared to the length of the campaign?

As I have said a lot before, I would rather have the mechanics balanced and be adjusted and house ruled based on flavor rather than the other way. Flavor SHOULD be in the game. I don't believe game balance had to necessarily suffer for this to happen.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why doesn't UMD count? You can't sit there and say a class is worthless, ask me to prove that it's not but limit me in what I can use.

I've played rogues in 3.0 and 3.5 so I'm right. Not my fault that you limit yourself when playing a class.

Because magic items you have are not a default part of your character. You might have a Ring of Three Wishes at your disposal and use that as an attempt to say that Rogues aren't useless (or any applicable magic item)... but that in no way means others players will have things like that too.

For all the complaints people had about how magic items were baked in as a default part of a character's advancement and how that was a bad thing... you can't now use magic items as a default part of the 3E Rogue's advancement and expect people to accept your claim that that's how the Rogue's supposed to be built and played.

 

[Herschel]

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.

Actually, you're looking at Hunter's Quarry wrong. It isn't just "slap a d6" on something, it's Taking a good, solid look at the closest enemy to you (whom you have the best view of) and discern his weaknesses and exploit them. You can't just quarry anything on the map, you can only quarry the enemy you have the best view of.

 

[eamon]

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

You can't design a fun, engaging adventure, at least not in the way you suggest. Fun and engagement aren't specific details like which monster you'll use where and what it will say. Fun and engagement emerge from your overall design and execution of the adventure.

Aiming for fun and engagement isn't some deep insightful DM-ing technique; it's not actionable advice at all.

And that means the following is a fallacy:

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.

Ignoring the players when designing an adventure sure saves time, but it's the opposite of engaging! You're basically saying you want the player's choices not to matter. To be clear; I'm not suggesting that's what you actually do...

In any RPG you're going to have to cater to decisions of your players; different parties have different strengths which by design: players' choices matter. I've you've a party of stealthy thieves, consider that they'll try to sneak past an encounter. If you've a suave diplomat, you can expect him to try and use that strength. If you've few ranged PC's, they'll avoid fighting at a distance if they can. If you don't cater to these implicit wishes, your game will be less engaging and less fun.

 

[eamon]

An issue here is that 3e's favored enemy was... less than ideal. The effect was too large, and the class too dependent on it as a balancing factor. Not to mention the fact that as a PC focus goes, it's an unfortunate one in that the PC cannot play to it very easily since he probably gets little say in encounter design. Simultaneously, it's not an easy trait to cater for as a DM since you've probably made these decisions in a way to support the campaign and switching opponents might not be easy or make much sense in the story. If you've a campaign centering on repelling an orc invasion, a ranger that hates aberrations won't get a good change, and a ranger that focuses on orcs will get too much.

So 3e's favored enemy has problems - but that doesn't mean that PC effectiveness has to be uniform - just that that specific approach isn't good.

I think the OP is right in that some abilities should interact with the game world, but such abilities need to be carefully selected - if they require planning an entire campaign around, it's not OK. They shouldn't be major, and it's best if the player can influence their use or at least have a good idea before starting out whether it'll be applicable in the campaign.

 

[CM]

Ignoring the players when designing an adventure sure saves time, but it's the opposite of engaging! You're basically saying you want the player's choices not to matter. To be clear; I'm not suggesting that's what you actually do...

In any RPG you're going to have to cater to decisions of your players; different parties have different strengths which by design: players' choices matter. I've you've a party of stealthy thieves, consider that they'll try to sneak past an encounter. If you've a suave diplomat, you can expect him to try and use that strength. If you've few ranged PC's, they'll avoid fighting at a distance if they can. If you don't cater to these implicit wishes, your game will be less engaging and less fun.

I think you missed my point--this thread is about combat. Considerations such as negotiation or stealth are irrelevant. My point is that reducing PC specialization frees up the DM a great deal in potential adventure design, and this holds true for combat, exploration and social situations.

Of course you can argue that in doing so every character ends up looking the same (and that is one of the primary complaints about 4th edition), but I never felt that argument held any water.

 

[Herschel]

Of course you can argue that in doing so every character ends up looking the same (and that is one of the primary complaints about 4th edition), but I never felt that argument held any water.

Yeah, because it simply doesn't. Anyone who has actually played 4E actually understands this. Heck, you can say a Wizard and a Swordmage have a Close Burst 1 power and just take the damage in to account, not even any riders/effects. If you try to play the Wizard like the Swordmage, all you get is a dead Wizard. The burst 1 is useful for a Swordmage pretty much all the time, for the Wizard, not so much.

 

[eamon]

I think you missed my point--this thread is about combat. Considerations such as negotiation or stealth are irrelevant. My point is that reducing PC specialization frees up the DM a great deal in potential adventure design, and this holds true for combat, exploration and social situations.

Of course you can argue that in doing so every character ends up looking the same (and that is one of the primary complaints about 4th edition), but I never felt that argument held any water.

Combat, Exploration, Diplomacy - it doesn't really matter. The campaign will be more fun if you cater to your players.

Even if it's purely combat, and even in 4e (which is probably the most easily balanced since as the OP points out there's little variation in what effects what), you'll have PC's that are good against solo's and PC's that are good against hordes of minions. Regardless of your personal opinion of solo's and minions, the PC with his huge bursts will appreciate it if you introduce a horde of minions now and then; whereas the solo executioner will appreciate it if you let him run roughshod over a solo now and then. And irrespective of their strengths, different players want different things from the game, which it's helpful to cater too as well.

This is no different whether its combat, exploration or diplomacy: catering to players (or at least considering them) is part of DM-ing.

I don't want a return of 3e's mechanics for favored enemy - I'm not disagreeing with you here. I'm objecting to the tired, unhelpful tip to be fun and engaging. Obviously a game should be fun and engaging; saying it doesn't make it happen. The advice is way too abstract; as is demonstrated by the subsequent advice to not cater to your players. And it certainly isn't an argument to only have "effect everything" abilities.

How about damage types with their accompanying resistances/vulnerabilities? Those are an example of rules for effects that are somewhat specific. There's been rumors of a possible revival of weapon-damage types (e.g. bludgeoning vs. slashing etc.), do you think that's a good idea?

I think that game rules that encourage adapting your strategy to the task are a good thing; so I think that the general idea of moving away from "effect everything" abilities is good but the OP is looking in the wrong place. I'd much rather see limits to things like expertise (4e), weapon focus (3e/4e), weapon specialization (3e) and magic weapon bonuses so that PC's aren't hyper-specialized to the point that they need to keep using the same tool.