Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Baratus114 11-24-07, 09:31 PM	We have a player who is a ranger that has dedicated himself to killing lycans who terrorize the countryside. He chose lycanthrope as a favored enemy and another player, a paladin, has started a big fru-fra about it because he thinks it should not be allowed. The DM said he did not mind lycan being a favored enemy but now the paladin will not let the game progress, he keeps arguing with the DM, and the DM does not know what to do. None of the rest of us mind having lycan as a favored enemy. I was wondering if you guys could discuss it and I will get the DM on here to read it so he can make up his own mind.
Baratus114 11-24-07, 09:32 PM	BTW, I am also a DM and have my own thoughts on the matter, but I figured an outside opinion, or hundreds, might get the job done easier.
StevenO 11-24-07, 10:54 PM	I was going to say "certainly, select Favored Enemy - Shapechanger" but then I picked up the PHB and noticed that it is missing from the table. It isn't in the SRD either. Now there are two was to view that. One is that the omission is just an oversight at add shapechanger to the possible selections. The second is that a shapechanger's body is morphic enough that it is impossible to become skilled at dealing with them. I think I'd allow Favored Enemy - Shapechanger directly and figure the PHB is just an omission. I don't think it is that powerful and the skill bonus could represent the ability to see through the disguise. If that is too strong then I'd treat the Shapeshift as whatever form it is currently closest to (not recommended) or at least pick a "sub-type" of shapeshifter. The last thing I'd do is forbid having any favored shapechangers but based on anatomy I can see why that too can be explained.
Bopple 11-24-07, 11:34 PM	There is an alternative paladin feature which gives you Favored Enemy(lycanthropes), in Champions of Valor. It's for followers of Clangeddin or Selune. Similar can be implemented as a house-rule, I guess.
Arco Versipellis 11-25-07, 12:10 AM	I agree with StevenO. Even if the extra damage wouldn't apply to shapechangers, I still think they should be able to be selected as a favored enemy, look at undead and constructs. However, I think the extra damage should apply. Any shapechanger that is immune to critical hits mighthave enough shapeshifting prowess to be immune to favored enemy bonuses, but not just any shapechangers. I would allow ay type or subtype of favored enemy, but that's just me.
Salla 11-25-07, 12:17 AM	By RAW, 'shapechanger' is not a valid subtype. He'd need to select humanoid (human) or (elf) or whatever, or Giant.
kuonji 11-25-07, 07:38 AM	I guess the big thing is why does the pally care? Is the player a big time rules lawyer or offended by something not specifically set down in the rules? Are all the enemies you fight lycanthropes and he's afraid of feeling inferior? (Of course if all the enemies were some other type that already was on the favored enemy list, would he still argue?) Try to get the the why behind the pallys objections, rather then focusing on the objection itself. Personally, I don't see any big deal with putting up a house rule and adding Lycanthrope to the favored enemy list. Honestly, if the DM lets it go and the rest of the group agrees, just put it to a vote or something and when everyone but the pally passes it, ask him to let it go.
RyndarLocke 11-25-07, 10:01 AM	I think Shapechangers is to broad a list. He should have picked Dopplegangers, or Rahkshasa, or perhaps, Were-Wolf.
Rood_Inverse 11-25-07, 10:06 AM	I back up the last poster. Make the player pick a specific type of were-beastie. I recommend were-badgers.
StevenO 11-25-07, 02:42 PM	I think Shapechangers is to broad a list. He should have picked Dopplegangers, or Rahkshasa, or perhaps, Were-Wolf. Shapechanger isn't really so broad when compared to things like Monstrous Humanoid or Abberation. Of the three listed a Rakshasa isn't a Shapechanger even if it can Change Shape. Now that I start looking "Shapechanger" isn't a creature type but is instead a substype which is probably why it isn't on the Ranger's list. Everything with a Shapechanger subtype already has a primary type as well which is probably what should be selected by the ranger. In the MM Shapechangers come from a variety of stock and while I still think Shapechanger could be a viable selection all those creatures still have a base type to select. To put this another way selecting Shapechanger as a Favored Enemy would be just like selecting an Elemental Type (Fire or such) or Aquatic.
Meles_Meles 11-25-07, 04:35 PM	I think Lycanthrope is perfectly valid as a favoured enemy, and I'd allow it in any game I ran. There's a huge body of literature compiled as "were-beasts" for his character to have studied in-game. The transmission of lycanthropic disease is the same for all were-beasts. The triggers for shapechanging are the same for all were-beasts. Since a ranger can select "Animals" as a favored enemy, and badgers and elephants are definitely not more similar than were-wolves and were-tigers. Therefore, the category "Lycanthropes" isn't inappropriately broad. I'd suggest allowing it.
Marcus Majarra 11-25-07, 05:27 PM	The problem I see is that, deep down, the favored enemy bonus could also be summed up by knowing how the favored enemy thinks. Before becoming lycanthropes, were-creatures were normal creatures of their original types and acted as such. Their physiological changes reflect acquired abilities, and have nothing to do with the original mindset of the creature. Allowing for favored enemy (lycanthrope) is pretty much equivalent to allowing a kind of favored enemy based on certain abilities. An example of that could be favored enemy (10+ class levels). At this point, you're not selecting your favored enemy based on the nature of the creature, but based on what it can do. This, I feel, doesn't fall under the purview of your classical ranger, and better fits an alternate class ability (rarely) or a prestige class ability (commonly).
Balseraph 11-25-07, 08:00 PM	One can have favored enemy Humanoid: Goblinoid and that isn't deemed as overly broad, despite the fact that goblins and hobgoblins do not think or act anything like one another and only have superficial features in common physically. I think if a ranger can select that and can be assumed to have studied all goblinoids to the point of having a bonus against the whole lot, then picking Lyanthropes and studying all of them and their general habits wouldn't be too much of a stretch either.
Mock26 11-25-07, 09:32 PM	Favored enemy bonuse could come from sheer hatred. This is really a case where the DM has to decide on whether or not to invoke Rule 0 and allow it. I personally don't see any reason to not allow it. I am also curious as to what arguments the player of the paladin is using for not allowing it.
DMParadox 11-27-07, 11:39 AM	Allowing "Lycanthropes" for favored enemy is the same as allowing "Humanoid" without selecting a subtype. Here's the nuts and bolts. As I stated in the other thread: Lycanthrope is an applied template that adds "Shapeshifter" to the BASE type/subtype. It's not an actual race/subrace (type/subtype). The creature is still whatever base type/subtype, it can just change FORM to a werebear, wereboar, wererat, weretiger, or werewolf. The creature does not actually become the bear/boar/rat/tiger/wolf, it just uses that form. If a Ranger is allowed to take "Lycanthrope" or "Shapeshifter" as a favored enemy, benefits will be gained to ANY humanoid or giant that has that template which goes against the RAW. Same thing would happen if a Ranger was able to take "Humanoid" or "Outsider" without selecting a subtype. The benefit becomes too broad. But, also as I stated in the other thread. If a GM is going to allow it, it's their game. So be it. I just feel that it's too broad of a benefit so I don't allow it in my game.
Fuzzy_Chompers 11-27-07, 12:23 PM	The application of Lycanthropes as a favoured enemy strikes me as neither game-breaking nor out-of-character - if anything, the concept of a 'werewolf hunter' would be best supported by the Ranger class. I think it's a really flavourful thing for him to do.
DMParadox 11-27-07, 12:34 PM	The application of Lycanthropes as a favoured enemy strikes me as neither game-breaking nor out-of-character - if anything, the concept of a 'werewolf hunter' would be best supported by the Ranger class. I think it's a really flavourful thing for him to do. What race of Werewolves? Merfolk, dwarf, elf, hobgoblin, gnoll, gnome, halfling, human, orc, kobold, fire giant, frost giant, hill giant, stone giant? A "werewolf hunter" as you described, would have benefits against all of them. That's a bit much to me.
mvincent 11-27-07, 01:57 PM	From WotC's Sage advice (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20071106a): "Q: Dear Sage Can a ranger take lycanthropes or Humanoids (shapechangers) as a favored enemy? --Mark A: Yes and no. A ranger who takes favored enemy Humanoid (human) gets its favored enemy bonus against Humanoid lycanthropes that have the human subtype, and a ranger who takes favored enemy Giant gets the bonus on lycanthropes that are of that type, and so on, but there is not type or subtype combination available to the rangers that encompasses all lycanthropes." That said, I see no problem with a DM allowing favored enemy (lycanthrope) as a house-rule. It is definitely not too broad, and I see no reason for another player to complain. Maybe the player merely wishes to be acknowledged for being 'technically' correct according to the rules (which he technically is). If he complains after it has been acknowledged as a house rule, then he may not be aware of rule zero.
yrogerg 11-27-07, 10:13 PM	It seems that the approach I take is a bit of a middle path between the options people have presented. I would just add Humanoid (Shapechanger) to the FE list. There's a few reasons I like this solution: -It conforms to the existing standards for type and subtype: Humanoids and Outsiders are subdivided by subtype, other types aren't. -It provides the opportunity to apply FE to previously non-covered races that make sense, such as Changelings and Shifters. -It's a decent compromise. Instead of needing to split FE between the dozen or so common humanoid subtypes, a dedicated lycanthrope hunter can actually build significant bonuses in Humanoid (shapechanger) and Giant. The only really problem is that there are a lot of times when the bonuses will need to be added "behind the screen" to keep the players from instantly knowing what they're fighting/tracking/talking to/whatever. Still, this doesn't hurt the flavor all that much. A lycanthrope hunter might simply know "in his gut" that there's something not quite right with that guy, with a healthy dose of knowledge on how to track a target that's constantly changing appearance to throw others off the trail added in. I'm generally not a fan of simply sticking to the existing FE list, however. Basically, it means that FE suffers from the opposite problem of the Cleric's spell list. Instead of becoming more powerful with each splatbook, it becomes incrementally less powerful, as more and more new races that don't qualify get introduced.
Watsyurname529 11-27-07, 10:28 PM	First let me say that I would allow Fav Enemy (Lycanthrope). It isn't game breaking, overpowered, etc. Also, you could say that you've studied the actual were-form of the creatures and therefor you know how to fight them when they've changed. So then the bonuses only apply when they are in Hybrid or Animal form. That probably would fit the flavor of Favored Enemy better. I can see how you would argue that the Fav Enemy bonus shouldn't apply while they are in Human form, as they are the humanoid with the lycanthrope curse. So I would allow it but only if the creature was in Hybrid or Animal form, not in the humanoid form. Now, if you have Fav Enemy (Orc), and the lycanthrope was an orc, then that Fav Enemy would work when it's in Orc form, not Hybrid or Animal form. I think that is a viable compromise between the arguements I've read through the thread.
yrogerg 11-27-07, 10:36 PM	Allowing "Lycanthropes" for favored enemy is the same as allowing "Humanoid" without selecting a subtype. Here's the nuts and bolts. As I stated in the other thread: Lycanthrope is an applied template that adds "Shapeshifter" to the BASE type/subtype. It's not an actual race/subrace (type/subtype). The creature is still whatever base type/subtype, it can just change FORM to a werebear, wereboar, wererat, weretiger, or werewolf. The creature does not actually become the bear/boar/rat/tiger/wolf, it just uses that form. You do realize that "base type" simply means their type before the template is applied, right? Once the template is applied, they actually *are* that type and subtype. Or are Zombies, Vampires, and Liches suddenly not Undead, or Incarnate Constructs suddenly not Living Constructs? Yes, the creature still has their *END* (not their base) type and subtype, no matter what thier form, but this is specifically provided for in the entry: Lycanthropes don't have the Animal type, so the issue of them "actually becoming" animals is moot. If a Ranger is allowed to take "Lycanthrope" or "Shapeshifter" as a favored enemy, benefits will be gained to ANY humanoid or giant that has that template which goes against the RAW. Same thing would happen if a Ranger was able to take "Humanoid" or "Outsider" without selecting a subtype. The benefit becomes too broad. And a ranger who's taken Undead gains the benefits against all humanoids, giants, and anyone else that has a template that makes them Undead. Dragons gains the benefits against half-dragons and dragonblooded everywhere. And so on. Moreover, the solution I've suggested -adding Humanoid (shapechanger) to the list- would actually apply to a very narrow list, one that is considerably narrower than, say, Humanoid (Human) or Humanoid (Elf), let alone the more common Type-only FEs. But, also as I stated in the other thread. If a GM is going to allow it, it's their game. So be it. I just feel that it's too broad of a benefit so I don't allow it in my game.[/QUOTE] What race of Werewolves? Merfolk, dwarf, elf, hobgoblin, gnoll, gnome, halfling, human, orc, kobold, fire giant, frost giant, hill giant, stone giant? A "werewolf hunter" as you described, would have benefits against all of them. That's a bit much to me. Sort of like how FE: Giant gives you bonuses against all Ogres, Trolls, Ettins, Fire Giants, Frost Giants, Hill Giants, Stone Giants, Storm Giants, Cloud Giants etc? Or how FE: Monstrous Humanoids covers everything from Medusas to Hags to Minotaurs? Talk about broad. Remember, it's only Humanoids that are subdivided by subtype. Lycanthropes are typically a very small subset of these two types, however. Mechanically, you'd probably get more benefit from taking Humanoid (Human) or Humanoid (Goblinoid) in most campaigns.
Mock26 11-27-07, 10:40 PM	What race of Werewolves? Merfolk, dwarf, elf, hobgoblin, gnoll, gnome, halfling, human, orc, kobold, fire giant, frost giant, hill giant, stone giant? A "werewolf hunter" as you described, would have benefits against all of them. That's a bit much to me. Not necessarily. A werewolf hunter could only have benefits against those merfol, dwarves, elves, hobgoblins, gnolls, gnomes, halflings, humans, orcs, kobolds, fire giants, frost giants, hille giants, and/ot stone giants who also happen to be lycanthropes.
yrogerg 11-27-07, 10:43 PM	. So I would allow it but only if the creature was in Hybrid or Animal form, not in the humanoid form. Now, if you have Fav Enemy (Orc), and the lycanthrope was an orc, then that Fav Enemy would work when it's in Orc form, not Hybrid or Animal form. I think that is a viable compromise between the arguements I've read through the thread. Fair enough, though, as I said, I would simply apply them "behind the screen". My rationale would be that the Lycanthrope entry does state pretty clearly that the base creatures' attitudes, outlooks, and even appearance change drastically when they become Lycanthropes, even in humanoid form. It stands to reason that someone devoted to tracking them would become reasonably well-versed in tell-tale signs and better be able to pick up on these cues as to the creatures true nature. This would translate in-game into the skill bonuses granted by FE (Spot and Sense Motive are key, here: if these don't get factored in whether the player knows a creature's true identity or not, we have a problem). Honestly, it's no more of a stretch than some of the distinctions between types themselves. Similarly, it wouldn't be too difficult to justify the bonuses to damage, though it would depend heavily on how you explain them in the first place.
Rood_Inverse 11-28-07, 08:50 PM	Someone said something abouit adding bonuses "behind the scenes" to keep rangers from knowing what's going on, but still having a "gut feeling." Assume a ranger has "giants" as his FE, but he's never seen or fought an actual, living, breathing troll before. Would he need a round to study and realize, "This guy fights like a troll, I know how to beat him!" before getting his bonus? I'm not trying to hamstring the ranger... But in this "behind the scenes" issue, would it be fair to keep him from getting bonuses until he makes his appropriate check? You don't know someone's a fan of chess master Kasparov until you see him use Kasparov's Gabit (imaginary, example move). But when you see that, you know you've got him beat, since you already learned the counter. ...or something like that...
Watsyurname529 11-28-07, 09:06 PM	Yrogerg makes some good points about the FE applying to human form. As I said before, I would allow FE Lycanthropes and probably either apply it to all forms, or just hybrid/animal form. Although the point of FE is that through the Ranger training and adventuring, the Ranger has fought/studied the creature and learned how to fight it more effectively. He doesn't use one set move/counter for fighting, he develops many small tactics and modifies his fighting style so that he can damage them more effectively. And in studing your enemy, you should be able to reconize them on sight and therefor adjust to fight them. Also, with the chess thing. Knowing how to counter the move is fine in all, but you live to see it multiple times and develop the counter. A Ranger's enemy usually doesn't live to learn how to counter the move; that's what the Ranger does, he lives through fighting and learns the enemy's tactics and counters.
Guardian1 11-28-07, 09:09 PM	What I imagine the paladin problem to be is that he doesn't want the ranger to risk accidentally killing a good aligned lycanthrope (yes, they do exist :OMG!). Even if the ranger is good-aligned (which I imagine is the truth, based on the fact that the party has a paladin and there's no mention of alignment issues), the lycanthrope issue can still be a problem. If a person who is an okay guy most of the time turns into a big, slobbering, destructive killing machine once a month, that person's friends and family are still going to focus on the person, not the beast within. That could cause problems, especially if the ranger kills a lycan who happened to be in a rich family. Can we say bounty on the ranger's head? What I suggest is that the ranger's player downplay the favored enemy aspect a little bit. Basically, the ranger could use his knowledge of lycanthropes to help cure those who want to be cured, leave the natural good-aligned ones alone (if I remember right, natural lycans keep their alignment even in hybrid and animal form), and kill the evil lycans that are causing trouble. The ranger could also used this knowledge for education. Teaching peasants and other people how to recognize lycans, and the proper methods for fighting those lycans that cause problems. Going at the lycans-as-FE thing like that could work. Baratus114, suggest this to your ranger and paladin players. See what they think.
Mock26 11-28-07, 09:15 PM	For characters that start at 1st level I actually don't give any bonuse the first time the encounter their favored enemy and the next two times they fight their favored enemy they only get half of their bonus. My thinking behind this is that you can study something from here to eternity but often there is a HUGE difference between studying something and how that something acts in the real world. If a Ranger takes giants as his favored enemy you can pretty much bet that he has NEVER fought a one of the giantkind when he starts out at first level. When he first fights a giant it takes him a while to actually put to practice what he has only read about or learned at the knee of his mentor/teachers. After that first battle he is better at putting it into practice but he is still getting into the flow of things. Once he has fought them a couple more times he can fully grasp and put into practice what he has learned. I also assume that there are enough similarities between all giantkind that he doesn't have to go through this learning process for all the different types. As for the idea of having him identify what he is fighting as a favored enemy I assume that he has studied enough and been given detailed descriptions and/or studied drawings to know all of his favored enemy. If it is a brand new species, though, I think I'll use Rood_Inverse's example and require a knowledge check to notice the similarities between what he has studied and this new species of monster.
yrogerg 11-28-07, 11:30 PM	Although the point of FE is that through the Ranger training and adventuring, the Ranger has fought/studied the creature and learned how to fight it more effectively. He doesn't use one set move/counter for fighting, he develops many small tactics and modifies his fighting style so that he can damage them more effectively. And in studing your enemy, you should be able to reconize them on sight and therefor adjust to fight them. Also, with the chess thing. Knowing how to counter the move is fine in all, but you live to see it multiple times and develop the counter. A Ranger's enemy usually doesn't live to learn how to counter the move; that's what the Ranger does, he lives through fighting and learns the enemy's tactics and counters. This is a good point, and actually is a better elaboration of the Ranger's bonus to damage. By this standard, I could still see damage being applied whether or not the Ranger knows what they're fighting. After all, if the Ranger incorporates these tactics and fighting styles into their normal combat style, they would be "always on", and still apply. Flavor-wise, it may be that the Ranger develops a habit of always aiming for a particular spot on creatures he fights, or that he's developed a fighting style that would ordinarily take advantage of his favored creatures' instincts and biases, without being ineffective against everyone else.
yrogerg 11-28-07, 11:43 PM	If a Ranger takes giants as his favored enemy you can pretty much bet that he has NEVER fought a one of the giantkind when he starts out at first level. Why? Don't your characters ever have things like backstory? The 1st level rangers I've encountered usually didn't get there by reading books about their favored enemies, but actually encountering them, learning to think like they think, hunting them down -often with allies- and so forth. The ranger should really be coming to the table knowing how to use his 1st level abilities to the fullest. It's no different from the Fighter, Paladin, or any class, really.
Mock26 11-29-07, 12:01 AM	Why? Don't your characters ever have things like backstory? The 1st level rangers I've encountered usually didn't get there by reading books about their favored enemies, but actually encountering them, learning to think like they think, hunting them down -often with allies- and so forth. The ranger should really be coming to the table knowing how to use his 1st level abilities to the fullest. It's no different from the Fighter, Paladin, or any class, really. If they had actually fought a giant (or any other enemy) in the past then they wouldn't be starting at 0 experience points.
yrogerg 11-29-07, 08:42 AM	If they had actually fought a giant (or any other enemy) in the past then they wouldn't be starting at 0 experience points. So first level characters have never overcome any challenges before the game starts? In their backstories? Most people I've played with understand that stuff that happens in backstory doesn't actually count towards experience gained. If it makes you feel better, you can imagine that the backstory-PCs were "0th level" like they were in 2e, or that the transition from NPC class to PC class "costs" experience. Really, it doesn't matter. But you're putting a pretty heavy restriction on what can and can't have happened to a character before the game starts, with this. Then there's the fact that you're applying this to Rangers, specifically. Why not Fighters, Monks, Rogues, Barbarians, Paladins, Sorcerers? They've never used any of their abilities in combat, either, by your logic, so why are they able to function fully at 1st level?
Marcus Majarra 11-30-07, 08:55 AM	Then there's the fact that you're applying this to Rangers, specifically. Why not Fighters, Monks, Rogues, Barbarians, Paladins, Sorcerers? They've never used any of their abilities in combat, either, by your logic, so why are they able to function fully at 1st level? Quite right. The fact is: the fact that the characters are 1st-level is enough to indicate that, regardless of the favored enemy bonus, they won't fare better against, say, a CR 8 giant. The difference is minimal, considering the chances the ranger of hitting the giant (or surviving long enough to get a chance to attack, much less hit). The expected damage of the ranger is proportionate to the challenge the ranger is facing. I see nothing that warrants cutting down on class bonuses.
AngelofCthulhu 11-30-07, 09:01 AM	Shapechanger isn't really so broad when compared to things like Monstrous Humanoid or Abberation. Of the three listed a Rakshasa isn't a Shapechanger even if it can Change Shape. Actually, Shapechanger is more broad than Aberration or Monstrous Humanoid. While Aberration and Monstrous Humanoid are types, Shapechanger is a subtype, so it can pop up in Aberration, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, Magical Beast, Outsider, Dragon, etc. Other than the fact they can change their shape, almost nothing holds these various creatures in common (even less than brings aberrations together).
StevenO 11-30-07, 01:46 PM	There may be many more creatures with the Shapechanger subtype in later MMs but just using the 3.5 MM I certainly wouldn't say that "Shapechanger" is a broad as Aberations and such. Looking at MM pg4 you get a listing of monsters by type and subtype. There are 25 types of Aberations listed, 12 types of Monstrous Humanoids (granted these are somewhat related anatomically), 46 types of Magical Beast, 18 types of undead, and yet only 6 types of Shapechanger. Granted Lycanthrope can be applied to several other types/subtypes and the some of the bigger groups are physically similiar I certainly wouldn't say that Shapechanger is nearly as broad as some other categories that ARE allowed as Favored Enemy.
Mock26 11-30-07, 02:05 PM	My players like the favored enemy restriction that I have put in place for my game. I apply this to all bonuses that, in my opinion, are applied to monsters, such as the ranger's favored enemy bonus. Other bonuses which are derived solely from training I allow. And, the impact on the characters is minimal, but my group finds the impact also realistic. Apparently we view training differently. It works for for me and my group, and that is what is important.
Melpomene 11-30-07, 02:17 PM	Can't you make a shapeshifter-specific Bane weapon?
mvincent 11-30-07, 02:31 PM	Can't you make a shapeshifter-specific Bane weapon?Nope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#bane) (although Shifter’s Sorrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#bane) is fairly close)
McPoyo 11-30-07, 05:23 PM	You guys are overthinking this a tad. Lycanthrope have to consist of either A) a humanoid creature and an animal, or B) a monstrous humanoid and an animal. You don't have Dragon were-displacerbeasts, after all. Favored enemy Humanoid (Subtype X) or Favored Enemy Monstrous Humanoid covers normal forms, and Favored Enemy (Animal) covers shifted forms. In terms of hybrid forms, I would personally allow either one to work, but not to stack. Your choice on that one might be different, but it's an effective amalgam of the two forms, that probably wouldn't take too much thought to adjust an inch or two to compensate for with that sword strike, after all.
mvincent 11-30-07, 05:37 PM	Favored enemy Humanoid (Subtype X) or Favored Enemy Monstrous Humanoid covers normal formsMonstrous Humanoids cannot become Lycanthropes, but Giants can. Favored Enemy (Animal) covers shifted forms.Nope. The base creature’s type does not change, even when in animal form.
yrogerg 11-30-07, 11:20 PM	Nope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#bane) (although Shifter’s Sorrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#bane) is fairly close) Huh. Unless I'm mistaken, the Shifter's Sorrow is priced *cheaper* than a +1Bane /+1 Bane Alchemical Silver Double Sword, despite the fact that it has an extra property.
Sinis 12-01-07, 07:16 PM	We have a player who is a ranger that has dedicated himself to killing lycans who terrorize the countryside. He chose lycanthrope as a favored enemy and another player, a paladin, has started a big fru-fra about it because he thinks it should not be allowed. The DM said he did not mind lycan being a favored enemy but now the paladin will not let the game progress, he keeps arguing with the DM, and the DM does not know what to do. None of the rest of us mind having lycan as a favored enemy. I was wondering if you guys could discuss it and I will get the DM on here to read it so he can make up his own mind. Sure, pick Lycanthropes as a favoured enemy. No, it's not perfectly legal by the RAW, but seriously, who cares? And while you're at it, allow Lycanthrope-bane weapons. I mean, when you select "Elves", you get the whole gamut of elves. Moon elves, drow, sun elves, grey elves, wild elves, wood elves. Elves. And you know what's weird, they're all completely different (except Wood & Wild, which I could never tell apart). So, you get these arbitrary bonuses against the tall pointy-eared folks, no matter what culture they come from (drow vs. others), no matter how they behave (drow vs. others) and no matter what they look like (... drow... vs. others). Is it really so out of the question that a ranger has trained himself to fight the enormous variety of infective anthropomorphic animals? Werewolf, wererat, wereboar, werebear, wereporpoise. Is there diversity really so damn different than elven diversity that gets broadbrushed by the same ability? And really, who the :censored: cares? It'd be insanely stupid that there were no rangers who could hunt lycanthropes, and no weapons made to kill lycanthropes (i.e. Lycanthrope-bane) because their creature type was too damn hard to nail down. Doesn't anyone see how stupid this is? Frankly the Paladin in your group is just being a :censored: and maybe needs to be booted. Oh, who am I kidding. The people on these boards are too hung up on rules, and my voice is as equally loud as everyone else's. I tell you, the best games I've ever enjoyed are the ones where the rules aren't these brick walls that people defend, and players get to do completely reasonable :censored:ing things that aren't explicitly in the rules. Chances are the OP isn't even going to read this. TLDR version: Just let him pick "Humanoid (Lycanthrope)" or even "Humanoid (Shapechanger)". It's stupid that he can't.
strenoth 12-09-07, 07:03 PM	i woudl allow Lycanthropes as a specific type of Favored Enemy. I would not allow 'shapechanger' though I woudl likely work towards making groups of them that fit thematically if a playerwanted to focus on such things.
sblaxman 12-28-07, 08:36 PM	Just play 2E and say, "sure thing, lycanthrope is perfectly fine" and you're all done. Seriously though, if it's not in the rules, make the rule if you like it. That's the 0th rule (paraphrased). The 3.? type/subtype/template thing just confuses everything all up, but most of you seem to use it, so I'll try to work within those bounds. If you can pick "undead" or "animal", which are about as broad as you can get, then lycans are just fine... If you need to be a rule jockey say shapechangers, but that is way out of character (a dopleganger or a mimic as absolultely no connection to a lycan). Like someone else said, I'd probably restrict it to while in their lycan forms for both balance and roleplaying. You are hunting down the were-rat, but find it in gnome form (it was a small were-rat), you would feel a lot different about just striking it down than if it was in were-form. But that's more flavor and up to the DM
DM_Kelaos 12-30-07, 12:22 AM	I would have two things to say: 1) Why does the paladin care? 2) I think that Lycanthrope is an appropriate Favoured Enemy, especially if it fits well with the character's background. Hope you make a decision that you can all agree on!
Sildatorak 12-30-07, 02:29 AM	I allow humanoid (shapechanger) in my campaigns because I think it was an oversight in the table in 3.5. "So they got rid of the shapechanger and beast types? Just delete those and copy/paste the table; we've got a lot more work to do with the ranger." I don't think that anyone would take lycanthrope even if I offered it, it is such a specific category that it seems hardly worthwhile from a mechanical point of view. Also, if you want to resolve this peacefully, you'll have to figure out the reasons the paladin's player really cares. If it is because it isn't strictly by the rules, inform him of rule 0, point out the examples in the DMG of tweaking class features, and tell him that you aren't just changing things willy-nilly but with careful thought. If it is because he is a dick, hit him with a chair.
Sinis 12-31-07, 11:16 AM	I allow humanoid (shapechanger) in my campaigns because I think it was an oversight in the table in 3.5. "So they got rid of the shapechanger and beast types? Just delete those and copy/paste the table; we've got a lot more work to do with the ranger." I don't think that anyone would take lycanthrope even if I offered it, it is such a specific category that it seems hardly worthwhile from a mechanical point of view. Also, if you want to resolve this peacefully, you'll have to figure out the reasons the paladin's player really cares. If it is because it isn't strictly by the rules, inform him of rule 0, point out the examples in the DMG of tweaking class features, and tell him that you aren't just changing things willy-nilly but with careful thought. If it is because he is a dick, hit him with a chair. Specifically, "Humanoid (Shapechanger)" is the correct category. A friend of mine and I were discussing this, and we figured that it was a design oversight, and the table was only meant to serve as examples of what you can pick.
Cifer 01-03-08, 08:40 PM	Humanoid (Shapechanger) or even just Shapechanger subtype sounds fair game to me. Of course you get a lot of monsters in theory, but seriously: When was the last time you met a fire giant wereturtle? Chances are that if the campaign touches upon were-creatures, it'll be two or three races at most, much less than what the ranger would get from Animals, Monstrous Humanoids or the extra-broad category Undead. If you need to be a rule jockey say shapechangers, but that is way out of character (a dopleganger or a mimic as absolultely no connection to a lycan). It has no connection that is described by the rules, but why not say that the constant ability to easily change shapes does impose a few physical and mental similarities on the creatures? For example, all shapeshifters might usually react to being hit by moving vital organs out of the way and getting some bone plating in the direction of the hit - which can be exploited by one knowing that since he can twist his strike at the last second so they'll shift into the attack rather than out of it.
Sinis 01-04-08, 11:55 AM	It has no connection that is described by the rules, but why not say that the constant ability to easily change shapes does impose a few physical and mental similarities on the creatures? For example, all shapeshifters might usually react to being hit by moving vital organs out of the way and getting some bone plating in the direction of the hit - which can be exploited by one knowing that since he can twist his strike at the last second so they'll shift into the attack rather than out of it. Shapechangers are shapechangers. As I said earlier, when you have "Favoured Enemy: Humanoid (Elf)" it applies to all the varieties of elf. Same with "Giant" even though Trolls and Storm Giants have just about nothing in common. I don't see why we have to dance around the rules with explanations. Seriously, "Humanoid (Shapechanger)" is a perfectly narrow category.
Kuronue 01-04-08, 11:02 PM	As one who has allowed "Outsider (native)" Favored Enemies (was a paladin using a prestige class to gain FE, and in fact the class was tailored towards something else but we worked together to redo it for hunting native outsiders since it fit in with the "OMG Non-human-thingies are breeding with our precious humans WTF do we do?! BURN THEM ALL!!" mentality I dictated that most of the NPC in this particular culture have), I say Humanoid (shapechanger) would be just fine. The bonus is pretty minor anyway, really, nothing game-breaking, and won't apply in 90% of cases in the first place. And it's none of the Paladin's business.