Totally ludicrous, in my opinion.
Modifié par Dubious Maximus, 08 août 2011 - 05:18 .
Favored Enemies
Débuté par
Dubious Maximus
, août 08 2011 05:11
#1
Posté 08 août 2011 - 05:11
Dubious Maximus
-
- Members
- 8 messages
So, what makes Human, Elven, Half-Elven, Half-Orc, etc. anatomy so different that there isn't simply a "Medium sized Humanoid" category that covers all these races? I don't understand why special techniques and skills in hunting or fighting one of these races aren't applicable to every similar race. Is each humanoid race kept seperate for some metagame "balance" reason? I mean, take the undead FE category. How is it that a ranger can apparently master a set of skills that increases their effectiveness against everything from lowly skeletons and zombies, to vampires, liches, and wraiths, yet can't even master (as a single "set" if you will) techniques that are simultaneously effective against humans, and all associated half-breed races? The comparisons become even more absurd when you look at even more diverse categories such as Magical Beasts, or Abberations.
Totally ludicrous, in my opinion.
Totally ludicrous, in my opinion.
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 08 août 2011 - 05:43
painofdungeoneternal
-
- Members
- 1 799 messages
dem's the rules. You cannot please everyone. And we are using D&D 3.5 rules, and i really look at the rules as arbitrary.
Almost every rule has someone who really dislikes them and thinks they are ridiculous, and quite a few competing game systems have try to replace D&D by making things more real. I often hear these sorts of discussions, and just as often someone happens to know something more about the subject happens to have a decent reason. From what i've seen the D&D rules seem less crazy as you learn more about historical sources they are based upon, and get a better understanding of everything.
But then think about it this way. What if i was a ranger who studied apache indians back in the founding of the USA. I knew how they fight. I can use this to do better against them, and despite their being the same "race", that advantage would not work against middle eastern saracens, or other cultures. Know thy enemy, and you end up doing better. Your assumption is it's knowledge of anatomy, but anatomy is not as important as knowing how an enemy thinks.
That reasoning sounds great and all to me, but the real reason is if you gave rangers a + vs every race due to logic, well they'd just end up being better than fighters no matter what. Now they are better just against specific sets of enemies. It becomes a balance issue. The rules are important as is because the game was play tested with those arbitrary rules.
If you dislike a rule, go ahead and change it, it's rule zero after all in D&D. But respect the rules enough to understand that to change rules means you have to change more than one. ( ie remove perhaps the ranger spell casting or give them a +1 only when outdoors, or only non magical opponents, you cannot just change things without adverse effect )
( Also remember that the guys who wrote the rules, like Gygax, greenwood, and a lot of others, spent a lot of time trying to make things make sense, and really knew their history, and our modern view of how things work is not always how things were back then. )
Almost every rule has someone who really dislikes them and thinks they are ridiculous, and quite a few competing game systems have try to replace D&D by making things more real. I often hear these sorts of discussions, and just as often someone happens to know something more about the subject happens to have a decent reason. From what i've seen the D&D rules seem less crazy as you learn more about historical sources they are based upon, and get a better understanding of everything.
But then think about it this way. What if i was a ranger who studied apache indians back in the founding of the USA. I knew how they fight. I can use this to do better against them, and despite their being the same "race", that advantage would not work against middle eastern saracens, or other cultures. Know thy enemy, and you end up doing better. Your assumption is it's knowledge of anatomy, but anatomy is not as important as knowing how an enemy thinks.
That reasoning sounds great and all to me, but the real reason is if you gave rangers a + vs every race due to logic, well they'd just end up being better than fighters no matter what. Now they are better just against specific sets of enemies. It becomes a balance issue. The rules are important as is because the game was play tested with those arbitrary rules.
If you dislike a rule, go ahead and change it, it's rule zero after all in D&D. But respect the rules enough to understand that to change rules means you have to change more than one. ( ie remove perhaps the ranger spell casting or give them a +1 only when outdoors, or only non magical opponents, you cannot just change things without adverse effect )
( Also remember that the guys who wrote the rules, like Gygax, greenwood, and a lot of others, spent a lot of time trying to make things make sense, and really knew their history, and our modern view of how things work is not always how things were back then. )
#4
Posté 08 août 2011 - 12:10
dunniteowl
-
- Members
- 1 559 messages
I'll just chime in and agree that it's a stupid ruling. I believe it was done when they changed how they looked at all the creatures in the MM. They put all the creatures into "classes" of a certain type. It used to be that you did have to choose vampires over liches, versus skeletons or zombies when choosing an Favored Enemy. And it makes sense for the most part. Again, though the argument for that rule falls apart most readily when you agglomerate a varied wild bunch of creatures into a class and then choose FE by classes instead of individual species.
Rangers, in their heyday (which, IMO was AD&D 2.0) skillswise relative to other classes, chose their favored enemies by a single race/species. Now it's an entire class of creatures. For a class of character, this actually makes the selection a bit more powerful when it comes to slicing and dicing, but as a logical rule, it falls pretty flat.
The idea, though about orcs, vs, goblins, vs kobolds, say, as humanoids also isn't sound as an argument, because it is not just the anatomical differences (which are slight) it's their way of culture, their way of fighting, how to inflict the most damage is not necessarily only physical damage. Knowing what frightens them, what emboldens them, what makes them so angry they forget tactics or strategy, or what panics them all are taken into account. Of course, there are anatomical differences too that might make a difference, but it isn't just that.
I agree that the way FE is selected now isn't as 'good' as it once was, but as pain said, 'dem's da rules.' In my module design (on paper for PnP) I don't even worry about that, because via Rule 0, I can do pretty much whatever I wish and damn the rules, full speed ahead. And so I do some things very differently. Here in NWN2-Land, I follow the rules the devs put into place and accept any decent changes to them via scripting that others have instituted.
It's an adjustment, though not one too shocking or hard to deal with for me. I suggest you manage in the same fashion. It's better for your digestion.
dunniteowl
Rangers, in their heyday (which, IMO was AD&D 2.0) skillswise relative to other classes, chose their favored enemies by a single race/species. Now it's an entire class of creatures. For a class of character, this actually makes the selection a bit more powerful when it comes to slicing and dicing, but as a logical rule, it falls pretty flat.
The idea, though about orcs, vs, goblins, vs kobolds, say, as humanoids also isn't sound as an argument, because it is not just the anatomical differences (which are slight) it's their way of culture, their way of fighting, how to inflict the most damage is not necessarily only physical damage. Knowing what frightens them, what emboldens them, what makes them so angry they forget tactics or strategy, or what panics them all are taken into account. Of course, there are anatomical differences too that might make a difference, but it isn't just that.
I agree that the way FE is selected now isn't as 'good' as it once was, but as pain said, 'dem's da rules.' In my module design (on paper for PnP) I don't even worry about that, because via Rule 0, I can do pretty much whatever I wish and damn the rules, full speed ahead. And so I do some things very differently. Here in NWN2-Land, I follow the rules the devs put into place and accept any decent changes to them via scripting that others have instituted.
It's an adjustment, though not one too shocking or hard to deal with for me. I suggest you manage in the same fashion. It's better for your digestion.
dunniteowl
#5
Posté 08 août 2011 - 12:47
kamal_
-
- Members
- 5 259 messages
Favored enemy half elves or half orcs: you understand how to best insult their heritages, causing them to make mistakes in battle due to being furious at you.
Favored enemy outsider: "haha I'm a Prime and I'm kicking your butt." Planers generally don't like Primes, so see half breed races as above.
Favored enemy outsider: "haha I'm a Prime and I'm kicking your butt." Planers generally don't like Primes, so see half breed races as above.
