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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6670054" data-attributes="member: 92511">Soooo, you obviously have no idea about the ranger or its history of the game called D&D, then, do you?1e, yes, had a massive damage bonus to a wide range of "giant class" humanoids...which originally included: actual giants, all goblinoids, gnolls, orcs, kobolds, ettins, ogres, ogre magi, and trolls...which was then expanded with the release of Unearthed Arcana to include basically anything that might be described as a monstrous or savage humanoid.In 2e this was downgraded in scope, though no less an integral part of the ranger's story and class. Instead of +1 per level to damage, to a flat +4 to hit against a chosen "species" of creature. Just one. You were also at a -4 penalty to conceal your hatred ["enmity"] for these creatures and were directed that you should seek them out and fight them prior to and to the exclusion of other foes when the opportunity presented itself.3e...primary class feature, Favored Enemy. +2 to certain skills and +2 damage against a monster category or humanoid race at 1st level. Adding more/additional Favored enemies every 5 levels.I have no idea how 4e displayed it. But how you can possibly assert, with any semblance of a straight face, that favored enemy was never ["since 1e"] a major ranger feature, if not defining feature, is patently and irrefutably false. Likewise the assertion that the 1e ranger was an amalgam of disparate features that didn't make sense, when the class was explicitly created for some one who wanted to play the character of Aragorn from the LotR series [the books, incidentally, not the movies. Feel the need to clarify that not knowing your age.], and thus modeled after that character is similarly misguided if not deliberately disingenuous.</blockquote>

Verification