Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6665255" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Speaking in terms of the class' D&D legacy, 1E rangers had spells (both druid and magic-user!), but the closest they got to favored enemy was a hard damage bonus against "bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls."Speaking in terms of the character archetype outside of D&D, favored-enemy-type characteristics rarely appear.  Artemis didn't have it, Robin Hood didn't have it, Natty Bumppo didn't have it, Allen Quatermain didn't have it, Tarzan didn't have it, Aragorn and Legolas didn't have it, the Lone Ranger didn't have it, and the "ranger" or "hunter" classes in most other RPGs don't have it.  If anything, I'd say characters who excel at fighting a particular kind of opponent are more likely to be paladins, rogues, or fighters (St. George, Jack the Giant Killer, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) than rangers.  Wilderness types tend to be big on adaptability, after all.Speaking in terms of game design, a ranger with FE doesn't hold his own against a fighter.  A fighter's got abilities that can increase her damage output no matter what kind of enemy she's fighting.  If a ranger does more damage against certain foes, but less damage against everybody else, that's a spotlighting problem:  the character is going to be in the spotlight for an entire encounter or even adventure, then out of the spotlight for several other adventures.  4E and 5E deemphasizing this element of the ranger's identity was a major step forward for the class, and I can't get behind a rewrite which reverses that.</blockquote>

Verification