Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mrbunnyban 04-20-06, 09:58 AM	Okay, don't see much mention of this. So here goes. Has anyone noticed that the 3.5 ranger's favored enemy bonus towards a particular race can go really really high? Sure that means little to the players since it's all up to the GM to throw certain enemy races at them, but think what that means if the GM creates a nemesis for the player's to deal with? With favored enemy attuned to the player's race? And if I recall, ravored enemy bonuses still apply even if one is polymorphed (god knows why...could someone confirm or debunk this?). Think about it. A human player. An evil ranger dual wiedling twin +2 short swords of bane vs humans. Each hit from the little short swords carries extra damage from both enchantment, bane, and favored enemy. Even if the human is the party's fighter, that fighter is in a world of pain. Worse yet if the ranger is workng in a group so the whole party can't focus on that ranger. If the ranger was a drow with SR, it'd be tough for the mages to help out. (is there a search function for these forums?)
babysamurai 04-20-06, 10:06 AM	If the ranger was a drow with SR. Don't ever say that again!
Orchomenos 04-20-06, 10:13 AM	At least, in the example, the ranger is using twin short swords, not twin scimitars! :waits:
_Murandir_ 04-20-06, 10:39 AM	At least, in the example, the ranger is using twin short swords, not twin scimitars! :waits: *Shudders* Ranger....Drow.....Scimitar.....Bad.
danielinthewolvesden 04-20-06, 10:43 AM	Think about it. A human player. An evil ranger dual wiedling twin +2 short swords of bane vs humans. Each hit from the little short swords carries extra damage from both enchantment, bane, and favored enemy. (is there a search function for these forums?) You don't have to be Evil anymore to take Humans as a favoured enemy. In fact, most humans should take humans as a favoured enemy- he knows a lot about them already. Seacrh is down, and it's been down for a long time. Sorry. :weep:
Majick 04-20-06, 10:56 AM	i didn't think you could take a racial enemy from your own race...
legowarrior 04-20-06, 11:02 AM	Hell, that would be a benefit, even if you were good, like, if you were part of the watch, it would pay to have human, or whatever the dominate race as a favored enemy.
babysamurai 04-20-06, 11:07 AM	Yeah, it's true - Humans are usually the most common creature type in most campaign settings.
The_Shaman 04-20-06, 11:45 AM	Besides, a unless a ranger patrols an area with a lot of goblinoids or orcs chances are his/her biggest problem are humans, so favored enemy: humans is perfectly feasible even for humans. And if you steer the ranger towards a bounty hunter (i.e. the bloodhound PrC, or several others, including some good like the stalkers of Kharash), having humans as a favored enemy makes even more sense.
teclis 04-20-06, 12:18 PM	to the open poster: what are the odds that such a person exists? in most campeigns, pretty high actually. what are the odds that the enemy co-opts his help? if the enemy is an orc cheiftan, not that great, but if the enemy is a wealthy merchant or noble, pretty good. thus, having wealth and influence makes you dangerous! imagine that! what are the odds that a bunch of such people exist? again, not that great. thus, it makes for one interesting/challenging encounter, but little more than that. is it broken? if you think your PCs don't have a chance, why are you hunting them down with enemies they can't defeat? do you have it out for them? in short, rangers are dangerous to their favored enemies, whether they are PCs or NPCs hunting the PCs. nothing wrong with that.
00_Whupass 04-20-06, 12:39 PM	i didn't think you could take a racial enemy from your own race... That was a 3.0 limitation that was done away with, now any ranger can select their own race as their favored enemy, not just evil rangers as before.
BlaineTog 04-20-06, 01:19 PM	People, calm down about the Drizzt already. That hasn't been an actual problem for years. Sheesh. Think about it. A human player. An evil ranger dual wiedling twin +2 short swords of bane vs humans. Each hit from the little short swords carries extra damage from both enchantment, bane, and favored enemy. Even if the human is the party's fighter, that fighter is in a world of pain. Worse yet if the ranger is workng in a group so the whole party can't focus on that ranger. If the ranger was a drow with SR, it'd be tough for the mages to help out.Yep, that's pretty nasty. There are worse enemies for the party to face, however. (is there a search function for these forums?)Use google's site search function.
tuberov 04-20-06, 01:27 PM	Don't ever say that again! At least, in the example, the ranger is using twin short swords, not twin scimitars! *Shudders* Ranger....Drow.....Scimitar.....Bad. I take it this isn't the Drizzt fan club?
Archmagi1976 04-20-06, 01:44 PM	I take it this isn't the Drizzt fan club? This guy gets funny the first time, second and even third... But when I run a campaign with one of my PC's using dual scimitars... And the campaign revolved around Drow in General... First game the Drow showed up someone coined... "OMG we have the Token white skinned Drizzt!" After several guts bursting from laughter, falling chairs and a lot of MT's to come and help with the damage. Anyone who tried to mention that again, well... Smiting from the sky can work quite affectively except when the PC's are underground. I so wish I could have saved those villagers from the smiting as the PC's kept saying that fraze... :weep:
Zitchas 04-20-06, 02:47 PM	You'd be correct. Rangers, especially if they focus on getting their favored enemy bonus as high as possible, are capable of being extremely lethal towards a select small section of the gaming world. Or not so small, depending on the race chosen. Personally, human is usally the first racial enemy I chose, regardless of what race or alignment I happen to be, unless the campaign has a deffinite reason otherwise. From my point of view (and running off the description), the favored enemy is a particular race or creature that you've studied and trained to defeat. Although it can fit the crusading avenger out to reek vengeance on some race that offended her, there's nothing that requires it. For that matter, most training in combat is likely done against your mentor, instructor, or others of your race. I'd say that counts as having trained specifically to defeat them, no? As far as all the allergies to dual weapon wielding drow rangers, I think they've probably seen far, far too many attempts at creating imitations, both here and in their own campaigns. I personally don't have a problem with it; Menzoboran is filled with dualweapon wielding drow, after all. Probably more than a couple drow rangers, for that matter. Now, building a CG version thereof that uses two scimitars, now that's just rampant plagarism. Nothing wrong with trying, but why not build something new of their own?
BlaineTog 04-20-06, 03:07 PM	I take it this isn't the Drizzt fan club?They're overreacting. The Drizzt craze is dead, and has been for nigh years.
The_Shaman 04-20-06, 04:54 PM	Menzoboran is filled with dualweapon wielding drow, after all. Probably more than a couple drow rangers, for that matter. Now, building a CG version thereof that uses two scimitars, now that's just rampant plagarism. Nothing wrong with trying, but why not build something new of their own? Actually, there was a very good site focusing on underdark drow campaigns with mention of the several typical dark elf styles. Two-weapon fighting is the rarest, alongside the one counting on powerful and carry-through strikes (represented by power attack-cleave-great cleave). Now, I haven't read any of the drow-oriented supplements, but even if it's just fiction it may show that a drow need not fight with two swords. I swear, if I make a drow character he is going to go for improved initiative, and from then on probably in a direction similar to the Iaijutsu master from OA. Back on the ranger issue: Well, a ranger with humans as 2nd or even first favored enemy can indeed be dangerous. However, what is really weird is that the bonus to damage also applies to quite a few skills, which makes it even more beautiful. For example, the bluff bonus can often lead to great feints for a ranger-rogue, and the spot and listen ensure that a rogue/other ranger/what have you will have a really hard time getting sneaking up on you. What I'd really like to see though are more fighting styles. I always considered the two-weapon fighting probably THE least likely melee fighting style a self-taught combatant (or at least one with limited training, compared to the fighter or even paladin) would know. Now they've brought the archery in things look better, but if there were styles with a spear, staff or one-handed weapons it would imo fit the ranger much better.
Jaxgaret 04-20-06, 06:59 PM	What I'd really like to see though are more fighting styles. I always considered the two-weapon fighting probably THE least likely melee fighting style a self-taught combatant (or at least one with limited training, compared to the fighter or even paladin) would know. Now they've brought the archery in things look better, but if there were styles with a spear, staff or one-handed weapons it would imo fit the ranger much better. Dragon 326 has 5 alternate Ranger combat styles. Bear-Wrestling (unarmed combat), Mounted-Combat, Piscator (fighting with a net), Strong-Arm (typical power attacker), and Throwing.
alchemyprime 04-20-06, 10:50 PM	I may want to throw that type of enemy at my PCs. Except a githyanki ranger instead of human... Also, imagine running an Eberron campaign where you allow the PCs with INT mods of +1 or higher to have read Forgotten Realms fantasy novels... And involve a Spelljamming ship at one point that acted like a Gnomish Enterprise... And having a psionic samurai esque character who wants to go to Faerun and fight Drizzt head one, mano y mano, scimitar versus katana... I never should of allowed that. But I did. And now only my Mind Flayer Paladin NPC and Halfling Adept NPC care... Sigh...
Votan 04-20-06, 11:04 PM	Personally, human is usally the first racial enemy I chose, regardless of what race or alignment I happen to be, unless the campaign has a deffinite reason otherwise. Hmmm.... I usually find undead to be more generally useful but human is a typical second choice once you get the obvious "they are scary and exist at all levels" monsters out of the way.
babysamurai 04-21-06, 05:16 AM	They're overreacting. The Drizzt craze is dead, and has been for nigh years. Actually, I think you're the one who is overreacting. We only mentioned it in passing (with humour) - you've brought it up twice in this thread (with shaking fists)...wierd.
mrbunnyban 04-21-06, 08:21 AM	Wooo...I didn't even mention the dreaded name. I rather thought the mention of a dual-wielding drow ranger would get a rise from some people. BTW, I caught the humor of the first few posters. :) I did notice that favored enemies effects their Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival abilities as well. So we get a sneaky, charming ranger who disguises himself to get a drop on the players, can't creep up on him, and he tracks them wherever they run. Even if he works solo, he'll seriously keeps the party on their toes. I wonder how many evil DMs out there are willing to pit an anti-player ranger against the party? It doesn't even have to be an evil ranger nowadays, heh. While we're on the topic- anyone have any ideas what favoured enemies are most common apart from humans and undead?
aotrscommander 04-21-06, 09:02 AM	I'd have thought - for evil rangers in particular - Elf or Dwarf wouldn't be a bad choice. There's nothing so fun as having a high level ranger with Bane Bow and Human, Dwarf and Elf as favourted enemies attacking the party. I mean, I've never encountered a party that consist mainly of halflings, right? Well, except for THAT party. And they didn't have a proper cleric either. And the ranger didn't use a bow OR two weapons. You'd almost think they had never played D&D, wouldn't you? I would think that for more reasonable characters (!) that Orc or goblinoid would be pretty common. Mind you, we never play on any of D&D's official worlds, so I don't know what else is as common in a 'normal' D&D world.
babysamurai 04-21-06, 09:17 AM	Wooo...I didn't even mention the dreaded name. I rather thought the mention of a dual-wielding drow ranger would get a rise from some people. BTW, I caught the humor of the first few posters. :) While we're on the topic- anyone have any ideas what favoured enemies are most common apart from humans and undead? Thank god some people on these boards actually have a sense of humour. As for good favoured enemies - in the campaign I'm running the Ranger in the party has focused on Outsiders (evil)...and man, it's very useful, because it affects Demons/Devils/Yugoloths/Demodands etc.
Sunrider 04-21-06, 10:39 AM	A specialist dragonslayer or undead slayer archer can be a lot of fun to play - archery suddenly looks a lot more attractive when you can do an extra 60 damage per round to these monsters (extra 120 if the bow has the Splitting enchantment).
mrbunnyban 04-22-06, 12:50 PM	Let's do a little math, as this forum is wont to do. Let's say we have a level 20 ranger with 18 str, armed with two bane vs humans kukri +5, with the feats Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kukri), Improved critical (Kukri), Weapon Focus (Kukri). Using light armour or less, the ranger will gain the virtual feat Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. So we're looking at 4 attacks with the main hand and 3 more offhand attacks. Also assuming favoured enemies has been pumped into humans. So against a human: Damage from one hit from main hand =[1d4(kukri) +4(str mod) +5(enchanment) +10(favored enemy) +2d6(bane)] = 1d4 +19 + 2d6 or 28.5 expected damage or 22 min damage 0r 35 max damage Damage from one hit from offhand =[ 1d4(kukri) +2(1/2 str mod) +5(enc) +10 (FE) +2d6 (bane) ] = 1d4 +17 +2d6 or 26.5 expected damage or 20 min damage or 33 max damage Assuming all hits connect, average damage without criticals = 4(28.5) + 3(26.5) = 193.5 expected damage per round Assuming all hits connect, min damage without criticals = 4(22) + 3(20) = 148 min damage per round Assuming all hits connect, max damage without critcals = 4(35) + 3(33) = 239 max damage per round Okay, what about critical hits? No point calculating more than one hit for cirticals. A single critical hit with the main hand on average = 2d4 + 2*19 + 2d6(unchanged by critical) = 47.5 expected damage on one critical hit to a max of 58 damage A single critical hit on average on the offhand = 2d4 + 2*17 + 2d6 = 43.5 expected damage on one critical hit to a max of 54 damage Further assuming 30% chance of critical hits (improved criticals on a kukri give a threat range of 15-20), then we get for expected damage 0.7*193.5 + 0.3[ 4(47.5) + 3(43.5)] = 0.7*193.5 + 0.3*320.5 = 135.45 +96.15 = 231.6 expected damage per round, assuming all hits connect and critical threat rolls are always made That's all awesomely high, considering no spells or enchantments were cast on the ranger and I didn't pull out anything from any book other than the player's handbook. Few other 'uber' builds can make such a claim. "Human" can easily be replaced by the Gm for whatever race the players is. In any case, this just shows how bad a race-killer character can get.
Sunrider 04-22-06, 01:39 PM	If you're a specialist undead- or dragon-slayer, you can also throw in Bane (for an extra 2d6+2 damage) and Holy (for another 2d6). If you specialise in fighting devils or demons, you can even make it an extra 8d6+4 damage (Evil Outsider Bane, Lawful/Chaotic Outsider Bane, Holy, Anarchic/Axiomatic). That's a helluva lot of damage...
travellersside 04-22-06, 01:45 PM	Actually, I think you've made a calculation error: Bane also makes the weapon count as an additional +2 versus its target. This means that you should be treating these weapons as +7... So up the damage another few notches.
MonkeyPaladin 04-22-06, 02:08 PM	I don't see it as a big deal, if they have favored enemy: giants, they can whip the encounters with trolls and ogres, but then in the fight with the black slime along the way it won't help them. If you take bane you're taking it over an enchantment that can hurt everyone. I mean, unless the DM has a pet monster they like to use all the time I think it balances out.
mrbunnyban 04-22-06, 08:35 PM	Methinks you guys have misunderstood Bane's description. Bane: A bane weapon excels at attacking one type or subtype of creature. Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the bane quality upon their ammunition. +2d6 is a big enough boost already - Methinks that 'effective enchanment bonus' is in regard to bypassing damage reduction. You don't actually get another +2 to hit and +2 to damage. Compare that to the descrip of Holy weapons: Holy: A holy weapon is imbued with holy power. This power makes the weapon good-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all of evil alignment. It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the holy power upon their ammunition. See? You bane and holy/unholy/Anarchic/Axiomatic are all very similar, only that the holy weapons and the like will bypass damage reduction outright since they are a higher level enchanment. Sunrider & Monkey Paladin: No doubt if the ranger was a player it's up to the encounters the GM throws. Please reread the first post. The context is that the ranger is the GM's pet monster he likes to use, and the favoured enemy is the player's race. See how powerful a nemesis this NPC becomes? Why doesn't anyone read the first post nowadays?
Shedeo 04-22-06, 08:53 PM	Well, to me the most "useful" creatures to take as favored enemies are,... Humans, for all of the reasons stated above. Undead, Constructs, and Oozes, because all of them are immune to extra damage from critical hits. Granted, Constructs and Oozes arent exactly commonplace in most campaigns, but as far as what the ability grants and what kinds of enemies it would be useful against, these three would probly be some of the better, since they usually give people fits, least when it comes to the damage department, since a lot of them have DR and other things.
Nephlite 04-22-06, 09:38 PM	Methinks you guys have misunderstood Bane's description. Bane: A bane weapon excels at attacking one type or subtype of creature. Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the bane quality upon their ammunition. +2d6 is a big enough boost already - Methinks that 'effective enchanment bonus' is in regard to bypassing damage reduction. You don't actually get another +2 to hit and +2 to damage. Nope, you get both. +2d6+2 damage. You get +2d6 and +2 enhancement . This allows you to hurt Epic creatures because you need +6 enhancement which means a +4 bane (whatever that epic creature was) weapon works. You can't bypass DR in 3.5 because magic is all you need.
travellersside 04-23-06, 07:51 AM	In 3.5, there are only 2 weapon-enhancement-specific DRs: Magic (+1 or better) and Epic (+6 or better) It's an 'effective enhancement' because you don't get the other perks, such as hardness and hitpoints. But you get the to-hit and to-damage mods. It's a +1 mod that counts as +2 with bonus damage versus some critters, and +0 aganst everything else. Compare Bane to Holy. Since most of the things you fight are likely to be evil, Holy is extremely useful. But you could well go days/weeks/months without encountering a creature vulnerable to your Bane weapon. The thing is that Bane is extremely useful, but only in a very limited situation - when facing its target. Otherwise, it's valueless, which is why it's so cheap. This is also what makes an artificer so deadly - they can custom-make a temporary Bane weapon for the task at hand. They can even make a stack of Bane ammunition and hand them out to the rest of the party! I recommend Aberrations as a Favoured enemy - there's enough of them at multiple levels that it's always handy, and against some of them, you want to take them out asap - anything that can help you notice them and kill them quicker is a bonus.
trizzdan 04-23-06, 09:46 PM	In my experience this issue has been solved by "forcing" pc's when choosing humans as a favored enemy to make it a particular sect I.E. cult of the dragon, zhentarium agents... ( we play forgotten realms). As humans are very diverse in general it would be hard to group them all together as using the same tactics, rutines,behaviors, motives. etc... by doing this it keeps a good balance and doesn't allow rangers to become more powerful then his companions at comprable levels
KnightErrant 04-24-06, 04:03 PM	Personally when I play rangers I take construct, undead, outsider (evil), and human. Abberations would be a good choice as well undead and evil outsiders have a habit of appearing in my DM's campaigns
Sae Cael Oanar 04-24-06, 06:35 PM	(elves) snags half-elves and elves in one, not bad because they can both be fairly prevelant races in a given campaign.