Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Grizzled Gryphon 12-04-07, 11:32 AM	In my games, there are not nearly as many humanoid groups. For example, there is your basic humaniods, which is a group called Humanoids. In this group are Humans, Elves, Dwarfs, and there subraces. Halves of these races, too. Then there are Goblinoids. Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Trolls, and Ogres all fall into this group, becuase they tend to live together anyway. It is rather rare in my gamingworld to find a twon or whatnot of just goblins or hobgoblins, or Orcs. While this has little affect on game mechanics, I just realized one potentialy big one: A Ranger could take Humanoids as a favored enemy, and have his bonus to all of the above mentioned races. Or Goblinoids for the same affect. How un-balancing is this?
Krusk 12-04-07, 12:45 PM	Not really, favored enemy is actually a really weak mechanic -because it is entirly reliant on the DM to include your favored enemy- and the ranger is one of the weaker phb classes. giving them such a minor boost is probably not going to destroy your game. If you see a bunch of rangers suddenly, change it back but only in the rules part. Flavor wise they are the same, all living together and even calling themselves the same group. Mechanically though make people pick again.
Slapstick87 12-04-07, 12:59 PM	Personally I'd keep trolls and ogres in the "Giants" group though.
starfire311 12-04-07, 02:08 PM	Personally I'd keep trolls and ogres in the "Giants" group though. Personally, I hate the "giants" group... a giant is just a humanoid that is of size large or larger, why not just call them all humanoids, and use the sub-type of giant if you need to.
Orenmir 12-04-07, 02:45 PM	Personally, I hate the "giants" group... a giant is just a humanoid that is of size large or larger, why not just call them all humanoids, and use the sub-type of giant if you need to. That would screw up the mechanics with any spell or effect that states "works on humanoids only." There's a game-balancing reason why that line of text exists - to not make the spell or effect too powerful. The mechanics also work in reverse; for example: a Giant can't (nor shouldn't) be affected by an Enlarge Person spell. Removing that rule would expose abuse.
Grizzled Gryphon 12-04-07, 08:29 PM	That would screw up the mechanics with any spell or effect that states "works on humanoids only." There's a game-balancing reason why that line of text exists - to not make the spell or effect too powerful. The mechanics also work in reverse; for example: a Giant can't (nor shouldn't) be affected by an Enlarge Person spell. Removing that rule would expose abuse. Hmm, very true. There is a glaring example of why I like to ask about these things! However, I don't see it as being that much of a problem as far as the Ranger Favored Enemy goes. For spells and the like, I will use the regular types, so no Enlarge Person on the Ogre's.
Rustmonster 12-04-07, 09:01 PM	Personally, I hate the "giants" group... a giant is just a humanoid that is of size large or larger, why not just call them all humanoids, and use the sub-type of giant if you need to. I have a D&D mini, of a creature form Oriental Adventures, who is a medium sized Giant.
Naznarreb 12-05-07, 02:06 AM	It's probably not devastating, but there are a few reasons why you might consider not using it. First of all, unless your players are really into the "concept" of their character (I don't care if it gets the whole party killed, that's what Ranthnor would do, so that's what I'm doing!) then there is no reason to not take 'humanoid' as a favored enemy; it covers so much and is so powerful that they'll get to use it all the time. One of the cool things about the favored enemy concept is that it gives the ranger a chance to shine, to really show off and strut his stuff. This favored enemy class would come into play nearly all the time and would loose it's special status. It would become more like a static bonus to hit. Second, the favored enemy bonus implies that the ranger has studied his enemy and knows their ways well, better then other warriors. By lumping all those races in with each other, you're saying either 1) elves fight just like goblins fight just like humans fight just like trolls fight just like dwarves etc. or 2) the ranger has found the time and inclination to study all these races in sufficient detail to warrant the bonuses. Finally, it's really hard to find a plausible, character based reason why a ranger would choose to hunt all these creatures. Remember, rangers choose who they hunt, and it's a great way to establish some character depth without having to work too hard. He hates goblins because they carried off his sister when he was nine and helpless to protect her. She hates dwarves because drunken dwarven mercenaries killed her husband and infant son 15 years ago and she would love nothing more than see their vile race eradicated from face of the planet. What could all those different races have done to the character, simultaneously, to earn such unending wrath? The rule is not going to unhinge your game, but there are reasons to not lump all those monsters together. I agree with Krusk: if suddenly everyone in your games wants to play a ranger, you've probably made a mistake
Rustmonster 12-05-07, 09:23 AM	Second, the favored enemy bonus implies that the ranger has studied his enemy and knows their ways well, better then other warriors. By lumping all those races in with each other, you're saying either 1) elves fight just like goblins fight just like humans fight just like trolls fight just like dwarves etc. or 2) the ranger has found the time and inclination to study all these races in sufficient detail to warrant the bonuses. Then what about things like FA: Animal? Does an ape fight like a tiger fight like a shark fight like a zebra etc? FA: Aberation? A gibbering mouther fights like a Varguolie fights like a mindflayer etc? I really don't see much problem with it being FA: Humanoid, although, of course, humanoids get used alot, so you'd have to test it. As has been stated, it is a rather weak mechanic (although a fun on) anyway.
Grizzled Gryphon 12-05-07, 06:56 PM	Second, the favored enemy bonus implies that the ranger has studied his enemy and knows their ways well, better then other warriors. By lumping all those races in with each other, you're saying either 1) elves fight just like goblins fight just like humans fight just like trolls fight just like dwarves etc. or 2) the ranger has found the time and inclination to study all these races in sufficient detail to warrant the bonuses. ?? I don't get what you are saying, unless you misunderstood my first post. Here is a condensed version: The biggest change is there are not as many creature types as far as the Ranger is concerned. Mainly, the Humaniods are lumped together to some degree. Humans, Elves, Half Elves, and Dwarves are all lumped into the Humaniod group. The reason for this is in my campaign world, there are no more elven kingdoms or dwarven kingdoms. The best you will find is an occasional city of (mostly) one of those two races. The vast majority of the Elves and Dwarves have integrated there societies into the Human society. The other group is Gobliniods. The races in this group are Goblins, Bugbears, hobgoblins, Orcs, Ogres, and Trolls. As an organized society, the Gobliniods are the main antagonists to the Human societies. When it comes to favored enemy bonuses concerning any of these races, you aren't going to learn about one without learning about the others.
Dog_O_War 12-06-07, 11:25 AM	IMO favored enemy represents a vast cultural knowledge on the creature type in question. While the 'animal' category has many, many varying species, they generally fight the same, have the same anatomy, intelligence, etc... Abberations would represent not similar anatomies, int, culture, etc... but the very few vital spots they all have in common, as well as the tell-tale signs that indicate a creature is an abberation as opposed to a magical beast. Humanoids, while very similar, will have slightly different anatomies, weak spots, tactics, habits and territories, and to study one would be a full-time job. (that and having a +2 bonus versus all of them would break most games; remember this bonus gets to a possible +10) OP, unless you plan on throwing alot of these "humanoids" or "goblinoids" at them in mixed groups, I wouldn't count it as a problem.
Rustmonster 12-06-07, 02:27 PM	IMO favored enemy represents a vast cultural knowledge on the creature type in question. While the 'animal' category has many, many varying species, they generally fight the same, have the same anatomy, intelligence, etc... Abberations would represent not similar anatomies, int, culture, etc... but the very few vital spots they all have in common, as well as the tell-tale signs that indicate a creature is an abberation as opposed to a magical beast. Humanoids, while very similar, will have slightly different anatomies, weak spots, tactics, habits and territories, and to study one would be a full-time job. (that and having a +2 bonus versus all of them would break most games; remember this bonus gets to a possible +10) OP, unless you plan on throwing alot of these "humanoids" or "goblinoids" at them in mixed groups, I wouldn't count it as a problem. With humanoids, the anatomy is more or less the same for each. Heart, neck, head, crotch (if you really want to hurt them :P ) are all easy to distinguish from on to the other. Now, what I don't understand, is how you think the difference between a gibbering mouther and a mind flayer is less than the difference between an orc and a human. Ones a blob of formless mouths and eyes, and one is human-shaped. With the orc an human, one is human-shaped, and the other is human-shaped. Yes, the orc is bumpier, but all the vitals are in the same place. Kinda the same with animals too. The difference between a shark and a bear are less than those between an orc and a human? Sharks and bears, heck, even tigers and bears fight with completly different tactics. Why isn't their a distinction?
Dog_O_War 12-06-07, 06:22 PM	With humanoids, the anatomy is more or less the same for each. Heart, neck, head, crotch (if you really want to hurt them :P ) are all easy to distinguish from on to the other. Now, what I don't understand, is how you think the difference between a gibbering mouther and a mind flayer is less than the difference between an orc and a human. Ones a blob of formless mouths and eyes, and one is human-shaped. With the orc an human, one is human-shaped, and the other is human-shaped. Yes, the orc is bumpier, but all the vitals are in the same place. Kinda the same with animals too. The difference between a shark and a bear are less than those between an orc and a human? Sharks and bears, heck, even tigers and bears fight with completly different tactics. Why isn't their a distinction? Shape has nothing to do with anatomy. Look at orcs and the yellow orcs that an Orcwort plant spawns. As I said; it involves more than vitals, and includes tactics, common weaknesses, habits, etc... While PC's of said races may act the same due to how a given player plays characters, he is an exception. Also, who is to say that dwarves don't have an internal anatomy similar to the Thing from marvel? Favored enemy involves long periods of study and stalking, of killing, and often hatred. These things are - in D&D - tangible; enough to give you a bonus, anyway. Also, tactics for animals go as follows; attack or flee. Never; fake attack, then lure into pit-trap, or; get caster first, then fighter, cleric, etc... How one moves on a battlefield and looks for openings on an individual target is not tactics. The closest an animal gets to tactics are the ways wolves hunt. But even then it is still attack or flee, never "the wolf holds his action, attempting to disrupt your spell!"
Rustmonster 12-06-07, 06:53 PM	Shape has nothing to do with anatomy. Look at orcs and the yellow orcs that an Orcwort plant spawns. As I said; it involves more than vitals, and includes tactics, common weaknesses, habits, etc... While PC's of said races may act the same due to how a given player plays characters, he is an exception. Also, who is to say that dwarves don't have an internal anatomy similar to the Thing from marvel? Favored enemy involves long periods of study and stalking, of killing, and often hatred. These things are - in D&D - tangible; enough to give you a bonus, anyway. Also, tactics for animals go as follows; attack or flee. Never; fake attack, then lure into pit-trap, or; get caster first, then fighter, cleric, etc... How one moves on a battlefield and looks for openings on an individual target is not tactics. The closest an animal gets to tactics are the ways wolves hunt. But even then it is still attack or flee, never "the wolf holds his action, attempting to disrupt your spell!" I still don't get your point. So, what if I was fighting an orc and all he did was attack or flee (let's say he was stupid)? If I have FA: Animal, does that mean I understand it's tactics? Shouldn't my bonus only aply to enemies using "humanoid" tactics? What if they don't decide to fight the caster first? Does that mean they don't aply for that bonus? What if a mindflayer decided to attack the caster first? Does that mean that FA: Humanoid would work on him, because he used "humanoid" tactics? Really, and orc fight like a human fight like an elf. They swing, dodge, parry, whatever. There isn't a "racial tactic" for each race. It depends on the individual or group. And what about different classes? So, a monk attack the same as a fighter? If anything, what you said has made me feel more like they should just have FA: Humanoid. Humanoids fight with the same basic tactics and in the same basic manor. And still, you haven't answered my question: Why do you think that Humanoids attack with such varying tactics from one another that they deserve different FA, while you also seem to think that mindflayers attack with the same tactics as gibbering mouthers?
Dog_O_War 12-07-07, 11:51 AM	I still don't get your point. So, what if I was fighting an orc and all he did was attack or flee (let's say he was stupid)? If I have FA: Animal, does that mean I understand it's tactics? Shouldn't my bonus only aply to enemies using "humanoid" tactics? What if they don't decide to fight the caster first? Does that mean they don't aply for that bonus? What if a mindflayer decided to attack the caster first? Does that mean that FA: Humanoid would work on him, because he used "humanoid" tactics? Really, and orc fight like a human fight like an elf. They swing, dodge, parry, whatever. There isn't a "racial tactic" for each race. It depends on the individual or group. And what about different classes? So, a monk attack the same as a fighter? If anything, what you said has made me feel more like they should just have FA: Humanoid. Humanoids fight with the same basic tactics and in the same basic manor. And still, you haven't answered my question: Why do you think that Humanoids attack with such varying tactics from one another that they deserve different FA, while you also seem to think that mindflayers attack with the same tactics as gibbering mouthers? So the dwarves in your games are short, tough humans. The elves are graceful, pointy-eared humans. The Orcs, green-skinned tribal humans that are really strong. For you I would suggest that you change it to the above; a single category of "humanoids" to cover all the flavors of vanilla you've got there. You are also putting words into my mouth; I never said that mind-flayers attack the same as gibbering mouthers. This is what I said; Originally posted by ME Abberations would represent not similar anatomies, int, culture, etc... but the very few vital spots they all have in common, as well as the tell-tale signs that indicate a creature is an abberation as opposed to a magical beast. Abberations are akin to aliens in the game of D&D. They have commonalities to represent such. Mind-flayers are from the end of time; come back to rule us all, while Aboleths are from the beginning; older than dragons. Common traits like this are what ties them together; their alien monstrousity and unique-ness. The ranger with abberations as a favored enemy will have specialized in hunting tactics against these strange foes. They know to look for clear blood instead of red, black, or blue when stalking a wounded Beholder; They know that a gibbering mouther lacks the perception of a "normal" creature, and hunts it based off of these facts.
Rustmonster 12-07-07, 04:34 PM	Abberations are akin to aliens in the game of D&D. They have commonalities to represent such. Mind-flayers are from the end of time; come back to rule us all, while Aboleths are from the beginning; older than dragons. Common traits like this are what ties them together; their alien monstrousity and unique-ness. The ranger with abberations as a favored enemy will have specialized in hunting tactics against these strange foes. They know to look for clear blood instead of red, black, or blue when stalking a wounded Beholder; They know that a gibbering mouther lacks the perception of a "normal" creature, and hunts it based off of these facts. Yes, I understand. But you are using a double standard. You are saying that the Ranger has knowledge of all those various and usually completly different creatures when he has FA: Abberation. Yet you say it is not also reasonable that I can have knowledge of various humanoids by taking FE: Humanoid? I learn "to look for clear blood instead of red, black, or blue when stalking a wounded Beholder" and "know that a gibbering mouther lacks the perception of a "normal" creature", yet I can not likewise know how different forms of humanoid work under the same FE? Also, something as vague as "one was from the beggining of time, one from the end" does not really make any sense as to why they would be similar enough to count in the same FE. That argument makes no sense. I'm guessing gibbering mouthers were not from either the start or end of time. Yet they are still in that group. That's like saying "knowledge of cave men gives me knowledge of future men, because they are from opposite ends of a spectrum". I'm guessing that dwarves and elves were created around the same time. Is that connection less meaningful than the one you stated?
locustechpriest 12-07-07, 07:01 PM	I'm going to agree with Rustmonster on this one. Animals have similar reactions due to similar intellect, human-shaped things (humies, mon. humies, giants) fight similarly simply by nautre of thier limbs (weapons). Aberrations as a whole, however, are distinct and bizarre, having little or no connection, by definition. I propose that humaniod subtypes and (to a lesser extent) the distinction of giants are less necessary than (currently non-existant) subtypes for aberrations. As has been said, any knowledge concerning mindflayers will render no aid whatsoever when combatting gibbering mouthers. You cannot say the same (unless you are a faithful of Cyric) about dwarves and elves. Dwarves might not snipe with longbows from the trees, but neither do they rush you and try to engulf you with their amorphous mass, which lends enough similarities for me. I'm not about to say, "lets blindly throw away humanoid subtypes and merge it with giants", but given some work, I see it as entirely reasonable.
ragoftag 12-08-07, 12:37 AM	This is highly reliant upon the GM playing straight with the players. When the player is selecting his FE, it is incumbent upon the GM to let him/her know 'Goblins are rare in my game' or 'Ogres and Trolls are different from Giants'. Failing to notify the Ranger of such modifications is no different from informing a Wizard that he must use components that cost a GP per spell level, but the Cleric gets to cast for free...in the middle of melee. I played a ranger in a recent game where Gnolls were on the list, but the GM had them marked as 'rare' and Orcs as "common' (thus, my second choice). Aberrations, as a group, were not allowed as FE as they have few similarities, but individuals kinds were. All rolls to detect, track, etc. were lower for FE than any Knowledge skill a Wizard could hope for, but my third FE was still Magical Beasts. bad move when we went after the Aboleths! He counted FE as a Save Bonus! After all, you know their tricks!
Dog_O_War 12-08-07, 09:56 AM	I'm going to agree with Rustmonster on this one. Animals have similar reactions due to similar intellect, human-shaped things (humies, mon. humies, giants) fight similarly simply by nautre of thier limbs (weapons). Aberrations as a whole, however, are distinct and bizarre, having little or no connection, by definition. I propose that humaniod subtypes and (to a lesser extent) the distinction of giants are less necessary than (currently non-existant) subtypes for aberrations. As has been said, any knowledge concerning mindflayers will render no aid whatsoever when combatting gibbering mouthers. You cannot say the same (unless you are a faithful of Cyric) about dwarves and elves. Dwarves might not snipe with longbows from the trees, but neither do they rush you and try to engulf you with their amorphous mass, which lends enough similarities for me. I'm not about to say, "lets blindly throw away humanoid subtypes and merge it with giants", but given some work, I see it as entirely reasonable. Yeah... so dread guards, mummies, vampires, mithril golems, etc...should all be in the same category just because they possibly fight the same. With their limbs, and the weapons attached. That makes even more sense than abberations. Again, it COULD be the tactics, mannerisms, int, etc... that a creature employs that grants FA bonuses, or it could be hatred, common weaknesses, tell-tale signs a group of enemies share, etc... It is a combination of things that makes a group unique. In some recent books, it has been suggested that organizations can also take the place of the standard FA; this serves to reinforce my position. How and why? The Harpers organization from Faerun; a group of different races that share commonalities; it is not just weak points, type, or tactics that makes them a FA target; it could be tactics, but it could also be hatred, mannerisms, etc... that allow the bonus. Who's to say? Point is, they vary greatly as a mind-flayer COULD be a harper scout. He's nothing like his other dwarven and elven allies, yet you clock the same bonus. The point here is try not to focus on a single aspect of "why" you gain the FA bonus; it is never just one thing. Also, being distinct and bizzare and having no connection is a connection.
locustechpriest 12-08-07, 02:34 PM	Yeah... so dread guards, mummies, vampires, mithril golems, etc...should all be in the same category just because they possibly fight the same. With their limbs, and the weapons attached. If you read my post, you will note that I do not mention undead or constructs. I actually left it up to you to fill in the many gaps in my explaination, because I figured it would be a simple and intuitive task. Forgive my failure, if you will. I did not by any means intend to say that having hands *alone* was sufficient cause for creatures to be grouped together as Favored Enemies. I was hoping that using *both* anatomy and intellect as examples would show that I was considering many options, while not stating them explicitly. Undead should probably be subdevided as well; I can imagine quite clearly the differences in fighting mindless, incorporeal, or mindfull undead. All in all the currrent system has dozens of wonderful logical flaws. Also, being distinct and bizzare and having no connection is a connection. Tell me how knowing about one kind of aberration gives you any insight at all into *all* other aberrations. While I don't deny that their wierdness is a common factor, I *do* deny that this petty commonality is of any use at all to a ranger. I'm saying that the aberration type, by definition, cannot logically work with the Favored Enemy class feature -- not as a unit.
Dog_O_War 12-10-07, 11:24 AM	If you read my post, you will note that I do not mention undead or constructs. I actually left it up to you to fill in the many gaps in my explaination, because I figured it would be a simple and intuitive task. Forgive my failure, if you will. I did not by any means intend to say that having hands *alone* was sufficient cause for creatures to be grouped together as Favored Enemies. I was hoping that using *both* anatomy and intellect as examples would show that I was considering many options, while not stating them explicitly. Actually, if you had read closely at my creature list, you'd realize that these (well, except for the dread guard) are all sentient, and thus most likely to employ the same tactics as their original type/creator. I was showing you (and Rustmonster) that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but is not a duck, you shouldn't get the bonus (if your FA is ducks, so to speak). You may get a bonus, if say that mummy/vampire/golem were all apart of the organization, B.A.D., and they were your favored enemy. Undead should probably be subdevided as well; I can imagine quite clearly the differences in fighting mindless, incorporeal, or mindfull undead. All in all the currrent system has dozens of wonderful logical flaws. You're talking a major rules change, not to mention a major hinderance that the ranger class could do without. You could technically sub-divide the categories of FA to the point that you were picking on one sex of a single species, but this is tedious, and not fun for a game. Having the categories as they are were for (I am assuming) to keep common monsters, as well as uncommon monsters as a viable choice for a FA. Orcs in some campaigns are as common as a morning constitutional, but so are goblins and ogres. Why would you lump three very numerous, very common enemies into one category? If you're going to fight them all the time, then choosing (humanoid) as a FA is such a large advantage, you might as well just given the ranger weapon spec. with every weapon he'll ever wield. When they are rare, then the ranger probably won't choose them, unless they will be implemented and are going to be powerful otherwise (ie: dragons). To lump and subdivide creatures together based on tactics is a viable option, but not a pratical one. They are already divided into types, and can you say that you'd honestly take FA: gibbering mouther, and expect it to provide as awesome a benefit as FA: Orc? Tell me how knowing about one kind of aberration gives you any insight at all into *all* other aberrations. While I don't deny that their wierdness is a common factor, I *do* deny that this petty commonality is of any use at all to a ranger. I'm saying that the aberration type, by definition, cannot logically work with the Favored Enemy class feature -- not as a unit. They are alien to the material plane, but have made their homes here. They are aliens to our terrans; they are their own category. In a game where people were mindflayers, aboleths, and beholders, I might then subdivide the category, but as it stands lumping aliens with aliens seems like the right decision.
Rustmonster 12-10-07, 02:15 PM	Actually, if you had read closely at my creature list, you'd realize that these (well, except for the dread guard) are all sentient, and thus most likely to employ the same tactics as their original type/creator. I was showing you (and Rustmonster) that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but is not a duck, you shouldn't get the bonus (if your FA is ducks, so to speak). You may get a bonus, if say that mummy/vampire/golem were all apart of the organization, B.A.D., and they were your favored enemy. That makes no sense, as you were basiclly also saying (in relation to the abberation thing), "if it doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, and isn't a duck, you get the FE bonus". And, although I accidentally erased the rest of your post from the quote, the perceived mechanical advantage you have stated is non-existant. There are a vast majority of monsters who are not humanoids. If every enemy you meet in a campaign was a humanoid, then yes, the bonus would be pretty good. Then again, that's the same if the campaign only had giants in it, and you took FE: Giant. Truth is, games will 99.9999% of the time have more than one type of monster. It's not "Weapon spec. for every weapon they will ever use", it's "sometimes, if you are lucky, you get a bonus similar to weapon spec against particular monsters". Besides, there will still be two humanoid groups, as the OP said. Even half the humanoids in the game doesn't equal the number of vastly-differing abberations in the game.
Rustmonster 12-10-07, 02:23 PM	They are alien to the material plane, but have made their homes here. They are aliens to our terrans; they are their own category. Well, there are also many monsters who live on the material plane. Is that a vague enough connection for you?:P Wouldn't that mean Giants, Humanoids, Animals, many Magical Beasts, etc, should be the same group?:P In a game where people were mindflayers, aboleths, and beholders, I might then subdivide the category, but as it stands lumping aliens with aliens seems like the right decision. So, in that group, would you say that Humanoid is one group for FE? That sounds illogical. "The creatures of your type are divided, but no other ones are"? What if they were dragons? Would you split it by colour? Really, this whole thing is getting silly. I don't even know what you think is wrong with the OPs rule anymore. To summerize the situation he is addressing: Currently, all FE except Humanoid affects vast groups of creatures. But for some reason, Humanoid is split into one-creature groups. That makes no sense. Some give hundreds of creatues, some give one. He is simply making it so that you gain a few more FE targets with FE: Humanoid/Goblinoid to make it on par in size with the other groups. Now, I ask you, why is that a bad thing?
Shaftiel 12-10-07, 02:38 PM	Sounds fine to me. From a mechanics standpoint, I'm going to go with Krusk - it doesn't seem like it would unbalance anything too much, and if it does, you can change it back. FA bonus is pretty weak anyway. From a flavor standpoint, still seems fine. As some posters have pointed out, "abberation," "magical beast," "undead," "evil outsider," etc. already show more variation both in physiology and psychology than your "humanoid" group. Heck, if you have use enough supplements, there are dozens of unique types of fey, plants, and everything else with very distinct tactics and psychologies. I do a similar thing in my campaign - the category is called "mortals" and primarily includes humans, dwarves, and halflings. Been running it for a couple of years and no problems yet. Granted, rangers are a bit nastier than normal, but not so much that anyone thinks it a problem in any way. -Shaftiel
Dog_O_War 12-10-07, 03:01 PM	That makes no sense, as you were basiclly also saying (in relation to the abberation thing), "if it doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, and isn't a duck, you get the FE bonus". And, although I accidentally erased the rest of your post from the quote, the perceived mechanical advantage you have stated is non-existant. There are a vast majority of monsters who are not humanoids. If every enemy you meet in a campaign was a humanoid, then yes, the bonus would be pretty good. Then again, that's the same if the campaign only had giants in it, and you took FE: Giant. Truth is, games will 99.9999% of the time have more than one type of monster. It's not "Weapon spec. for every weapon they will ever use", it's "sometimes, if you are lucky, you get a bonus similar to weapon spec against particular monsters". Besides, there will still be two humanoid groups, as the OP said. Even half the humanoids in the game doesn't equal the number of vastly-differing abberations in the game. Abberations look abberant, act abberant, and are abberant, so FA: abberations applies. Just because a shapeshifter is in human form doesn't mean you get FA: humans against it; game don't work that way. The OP said that because this group is all together, he's lumping them into the same category. Nothing wrong with that. It's a factional thing at that point though, not because they are all goblinoids, which is a distinction I've been trying to make. I'm just saying that the categories were set up to (most likely) provide opponents that are across the entire level spectrum, and to include some monsters that you otherwise will only fight once, but will be a very tough fight. If you had FA: gibbering mouther, you will be severely disappointed. If you have FA: Orc, you most likely will not be, because of the commonality of the monster. While alternate humanoids may be rare in the OP's game (like elves and dwarves), that doesn't matter if you are fighting the "rare" dwarves every 2nd session. The only way it would matter is if you were a serial killer, attempting to end the race by killing all the NPC dwarves you come across. You continue to argue on the abberation end, but you forget that this is not about abberations, and that in a 'standard' game the FA system you propose would totally and utterly suck due to over-specialization. As I had said before; abberations are alien. I'll add to this; Magical beasts, while not all the same, with wildly varying intelligences, shapes, and sizes, share certain commonalities; That is their beast-like appearence. It is not completely alien, as you can tell what a worg, griffon, winter wolf, and sphinx all look like (sphinx may be monstrous humanoid; ignore if it is). They are a category of monsters you will probably never fight in any significant number, so lumping them into one category is justified. I've never heard of any mass griffon attacks, worg-political take-overs, or winter wolf army regulars. to focus on one of these would be foley, as you out-grow them thanks to their limited CR ranges. Unless your DM is throwing 20th level ninja worgs at you when you're epic, you'll be severely disappointed from FA:worg. Humanoids share a very special FA; they are usually an opponent right up to 20th level in a given campaign. While the group the OP described may be "limited in numbers", they might not be limited in use. It is this distinction that must be taken into account when determining a group of favored enemies, not the tactics, int, habits, or type; these are the RP justifications I had offered as to why you would get the bonus. If I say that I glean the bonus against abberations due to knowledge of weak points, then so be it. If I say, " 'cause I hate the alien scum that they are!" then so be it. Having to choose such a narrowly defined category as FA: gibbering mouther because you define them as too far away from the others in the category is unreasonable. Maybe now my position is clear on the matter.
locustechpriest 12-10-07, 05:08 PM	My example for undead was not to make FE:ghost, FE:zombie, FE:vampire... etc. It was lumping things with *reasonable* similarities. Most tactics against a zombie/skeletion or other mindless undead will be ineffective or useless against an incorporeal or intelligent one. Same for the other groupings. That's my logic there. I don't think it will hurt the ranger too badly, when you see mindless undead, chances are some necromonger is pumping them out like a factory. Same for vampires. If you are specializing so much, you just might tend to *seek out* your favored enemy. (Exorcists for example?) I'd do something like that for aberrations. A good deal of them are amorphous. There you go, that is one category that will be simple enough to study in lump without destroying the plausibility of the game world. I don't know a whole lot of aberrations off the top of my head, but we could probably lump them into just a few categories. I don't oppose making the game balanced, I support it, so long as my world isn't absurd because of it. All in the name of fun, for we are in fact playing a game. That being said, Dog O War, you have a good stance and I can agree with some of it, I just find some things more important to me and my game. Good luck, and good gaming.
Malcadon 12-10-07, 10:16 PM	In my games, there are not nearly as many humanoid groups. For example, there is your basic humaniods, which is a group called Humanoids. In this group are Humans, Elves, Dwarfs, and there subraces. Halves of these races, too. Then there are Goblinoids. Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Trolls, and Ogres all fall into this group, becuase they tend to live together anyway. It is rather rare in my gamingworld to find a twon or whatnot of just goblins or hobgoblins, or Orcs. While this has little affect on game mechanics, I just realized one potentialy big one: A Ranger could take Humanoids as a favored enemy, and have his bonus to all of the above mentioned races. Or Goblinoids for the same affect. How un-balancing is this? Unbalanced? The Ranger class is not unbalanced, its just [LAME]! They nerfed their combat abilities so they can cast spells (I dont know WHY is class needs to cast spells, as I have never seen ANY spell-casting rangers in any of the books I have read), and the Favored Enemy ability is just useless! I think of the D&D-type Ranger as a whinny, tree-hugging, animal-loving hippy peace-nick! The only house rule I have on Rangers, is that I use the Borderer class from the Conan RPG game as my Ranger. Other then being able to kick ass without EVER needing spells or magic items (being from a low-magic setting) they have a Favored Terrain ability that is way more useful then Favored Enemy. Personally, I hate the "giants" group... a giant is just a humanoid that is of size large or larger, why not just call them all humanoids, and use the sub-type of giant if you need to. I use "giant" as a sub-type for normal, but enlarged creatures (animals & humanoids). I also like to apply other sub-types as well, so elves, nymphs & dryads are Humanoid (fay), and what is normally called "Giants" (plus ogres and Trolls) are classed as Humanoid (giant). I also rename Outsiders to Spirits.
blade265 12-10-07, 10:55 PM	If you want to group all Humanoids because there all the same, 1 head, 2 arms, 2 legs and 1 body + the sameish vital areas. The problem is that while they are all similar in some respects, they are different. Going on this definition some outsiders could be classed as humanoid, they have 1 head, 1 body, 2 arms and 2 legs and the sameish vital spots, the only thing stopping them from being classed as humanoid is their supernatural and extraordinary abilities. The same could be said about other creatures as well. By definition, Astral Deva, Planetars, Solars could almost be classed as humanoid, will you add them to humanoid as well? Humanoid Type: a humanoid usually has two arms, two legs and one head, or a humanlike body torso, arms and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well developed societies.
Dog_O_War 12-11-07, 11:39 AM	Unbalanced? The Ranger class is not unbalanced, its just [useless]! They nerfed their combat abilities so they can cast spells (I dont know WHY is class needs to cast spells, as I have never seen ANY spell-casting rangers in any of the books I have read), and the Favored Enemy ability is just useless! I think of the D&D-type Ranger as a whinny, tree-hugging, animal-loving hippy peace-nick! The only house rule I have on Rangers, is that I use the Borderer class from the Conan RPG game as my Ranger. Other then being able to kick ass without EVER needing spells or magic items (being from a low-magic setting) they have a Favored Terrain ability that is way more useful then Favored Enemy. I find that if the Ranger sucks in a game, it's cause the game sucks. I've played plenty of rangers, and I've found that I end up being the most effective person in most every situation, as well as the one most likely to survive. Need to be sneaky? Hide and move silently as class skills. Need to find a sneak? Spot and listen as class skills. Creature dependant ability? Play a ranger in a creature type-heavy game. Full base attack AND evasion? I'd buy that for a dollar. Free feats that prove useful when you have a DM that believes in weather and terrain other than sunny, summer, and temperate europe. Don't wanna cast spells? You got plenty of options to dump 'em thanks to splat books. Want to cast spells? Again thanks to splat books there are plenty of good spells; that and with the zen archery feat you still only need two good stats, one of which is your casting stat. Ran out of food and need to survive in the wild? there are a few options here, but only the ranger does it in style; this is coolness factor +1. COOLNESS FACTOR! Basically the class as all sorts of quirky and cool abilities that are too often overlooked in an average game. Full base attack is a 4th level spell for clerics, and like a 6th or 7th level spell for mages. Permenently. For free. In order for spellcasters to replicate this they often have to jump through a dozen hoops and dedicate their lives to what the ranger does naturally. Also, a spell casting ranger has a major advantage of healing items - like wands - which can prove invaluble if the cleric or druid of the party is dropped. I've had clerics bleed to death because no one in the party (rogue, wizard, and barbarian) could use either the heal skill or a wand of cure effectively (our rogue did have UMD, but just couldn't roll the DC in the two rounds the cleric bled). I find that if a situation does not exist where the ranger's advantages are happening, then I'll drag the situation to a place where they become a factor. Like luring a group of orcs into a thick forest for the dwarven ranger to out-manuevre them, or the half-elf ranger that stalks undead with his bow. 1d8+9 piercing is still good enough to bring down skeletons with a single arrow.
ragoftag 12-11-07, 10:03 PM	This crawled into the lunch conversation to the following end: It is a GM's responsibility to review and cull his world of what he is not going to use. Further, he is allowed to modify the definition and in-game effect of Favored Enemy (among other things on a list too long to get into...). Even got an example: FE-Wizards: +2 to DC for a Wizard casting defensively, + 2 to hit such a wizard, Spellcraft becomes a Class skill at +2 with +1 synergy for every 5 ranks, +2 to all saves from 'cast' magic by an identified Wizard (not sorcerer), and more that I forget. Oh, yeah, Wizards are at +2 to spot your hostility towards them.The gist of the table was that 'cookie cutter' isn't always good or bad, but tailoring can turn a nice suit into righteous duds. Build your own world and fix broken details like FE if you see fit.
locustechpriest 12-11-07, 10:49 PM	I'm going to deviate from the FE argument here, cause it looks like we understand eachother's standpoints. I've gleaned wisdom from everyone (even if I don't agree completely). Long story short, I'm going to praise some people to let them know I don't hate the world. :D I use "giant" as a sub-type for normal, but enlarged creatures (animals & humanoids). I also like to apply other sub-types as well, so elves, nymphs & dryads are Humanoid (fay), and what is normally called "Giants" (plus ogres and Trolls) are classed as Humanoid (giant). I also rename Outsiders to Spirits. I do like this, quite a bit. I wouldn't automatically say enlarged creatures get the Giant subtype. Naturally Large creatures have grown up fighting big-style, but those magically gifted with temporary size will probably still fight like a little person. Do you class Mon. Humies as Humanoid (monstrous)? All in all, yes, I agree with the way you handled that, it makes things easier to handle/more intuitive. While a lot of people seem to subscribe to the fallicy that "simplicity is stupidity," I am among those who realize that simplicity without lost content and functionality is, in fact, the Holy Grail of gaming. :D
Malcadon 12-13-07, 11:46 AM	I find that if the Ranger sucks in a game, it's cause the game sucks. I've played plenty of rangers, and I've found that I end up being the most effective person in most every situation, as well as the one most likely to survive. Basically the class as all sorts of quirky and cool abilities that are too often overlooked in an average game. Full base attack is a 4th level spell for clerics, and like a 6th or 7th level spell for mages. Permenently. For free. In order for spellcasters to replicate this they often have to jump through a dozen hoops and dedicate their lives to what the ranger does naturally. Also, a spell casting ranger has a major advantage of healing items - like wands - which can prove invaluble if the cleric or druid of the party is dropped. I've had clerics bleed to death because no one in the party (rogue, wizard, and barbarian) could use either the heal skill or a wand of cure effectively (our rogue did have UMD, but just couldn't roll the DC in the two rounds the cleric bled). I still play and enjoy Rangers, but not the D&D types. My biggest gripe them is how they cast spells. Its feels as natural as a Paladin with Necromantic spells. I just use a sightly altered one from the Conan RPG called the Borderer. At its core the Borderer play like a ranger, but with some changes to make it more of a rugged frontiers-man then a tree-hugging warden of an enchanted forest. The major difference between them is that Borderers have a d10 Hit Dice, no animal companion or wild empathy, no spells-casing ability (this is from a setting where magic that is unnatural and scary), Favored Terrain instead of Favored Enemy (seeing how their primary enemies are Picts), Trapping is added to Combat Style Mastery, bonus feats (akin to a Fighter), and an odd ability that is lost on most D&D gamers called Heroic Sacrifice (to hold off an unstoppable force and going out in a blaze of blood and glory so others can have a chance make it out alive - Battle of Alamo or Thermopylae anybody?). All and all, a better fighter and an ability that is just for role-playing (Conan is less about rule-layering then D&D, it only problem is it arbitrary use of the messy D20 system). I do like this, quite a bit. I wouldn't automatically say enlarged creatures get the Giant subtype. Naturally Large creatures have grown up fighting big-style, but those magically gifted with temporary size will probably still fight like a little person. Do you class Mon. Humies as Humanoid (monstrous)? All in all, yes, I agree with the way you handled that, it makes things easier to handle/more intuitive. While a lot of people seem to subscribe to the fallicy that "simplicity is stupidity," I am among those who realize that simplicity without lost content and functionality is, in fact, the Holy Grail of gaming. :D I knocked down the classifications to: Beast (basically animals), Construct, Humanoid, Ooze, Plant, Spirit, Undead and Vermin Sub-types are: Aberration (typically magically browed horrors), Air, Angel, Aquatic, Cold, Demon, Devil, Dragon (and they also count as Reptilian), Earth, Fire, Giant, Goblinoid, Incorporeal, Native, Reptilian, Shapeshifter (sounds better then Shapechanger), Swarm, Water and others. I count Chimeras as Beast (aberration), Elementals are Spirit ([elemental sub-type]) and Monstrous Humanoids are ether Humanoid Beast or Humanoid (aberration). I dont subscribe to the "simplicity is stupidity" ether! Heavy rule sets are only for rule-layers & wargamers, and they get in the way of any true role-playing. To bad Wizards has not learn this! :rolleyes:
locustechpriest 12-13-07, 08:10 PM	I knocked down the classifications to: Beast (basically animals), Construct, Humanoid, Ooze, Plant, Spirit, Undead and Vermin Sub-types are: Aberration (typically magically browed horrors), Air, Angel, Aquatic, Cold, Demon, Devil, Dragon (and they also count as Reptilian), Earth, Fire, Giant, Goblinoid, Incorporeal, Native, Reptilian, Shapeshifter (sounds better then Shapechanger), Swarm, Water and others. I count Chimeras as Beast (aberration), Elementals are Spirit ([elemental sub-type]) and Monstrous Humanoids are ether Humanoid Beast or Humanoid (aberration). That sounds precisely like something I started to do (but I don't know what happened to all of that, I get distracted..). :D I'm gonna steal this.