Ranger's species enemy, how strict are you?

[garhkal]

RE reactions.. IF say a player even AFTER KNOWING That there could be good gnolls, or lizard-men in the party STILLL took his species enemy AS Gnolls or lizard-men, how strict would you be, in how he's be allowed to treat/react towards said fellow PC?

[McDeath]

Oh man, that's tricky. I guess it paints Rangers as possible bigots with absolute prejudice vs their hated enemy. Dare you ask that at DF? You'd think it'd never come up but thre are CRPGs and other rpgs (some very close to D&D) that allowed it. Of course some of us played evil characters even and good "monsters."

This never can up. It gives good option for solid RP, and the demons in that character's soul as trauma from said hatred of their enemy caused. How far can a ranger go before he delves into madness and obsession to persue the destruction of his hated enemy?

This should have came up/been asked when complete book of himanoids came into being (or od&d or 1e even).

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Awesome question and topic! I've never really given it much thought.

In 1E, rangers automatically got "giant class" humanoids as species enemies. In 2E, they got to pick a specific species such as orcs or goblins. The rule is written strangely, saying the ranger must pick a species enemy before advancing to 2nd level. So he has to pick his enemy at 1st level. I've always ruled that to mean that he has to pick his enemy upon creation of the character. It just makes more sense to me that way. So the player would know who his ranger's species enemy was before joining the party.

In 2E it also says the ranger has "great enmity" towards his chosen enemy species and can only hide that hatred with great difficulty. He suffers a - 4 penalty on all reactions with his species enemy So I'd say the player should have to, at least initially, play his character's natural disdain for the species enemy PC. He probably won't want anything to do with that PC. There should be some intra-party strife, no different than when you have a wizard and a barbarian in the same party, only worse. I think this is an issue where you really have to have good roleplayers who can manage the roleplaying of the characters.

Alignment issues would come into play. If a good aligned gnoll, for example, joined the party and the ranger's species enemy was gnolls, the ranger could not simply attack or kill the gnoll because that would be an evil act. You may hate your teammate, but he's a good guy and has not done you wrong. It's an interesting and tricky situation.

[garhkal]

Oh man, that's tricky. I guess it paints Rangers as possible bigots with absolute prejudice vs their hated enemy. Dare you ask that at DF? You'd think it'd never come up but thre are CRPGs and other rpgs (some very close to D&D) that allowed it. Of course some of us played evil characters even and good "monsters."

This never can up. It gives good option for solid RP, and the demons in that character's soul as trauma from said hatred of their enemy caused. How far can a ranger go before he delves into madness and obsession to persue the destruction of his hated enemy?

This should have came up/been asked when complete book of himanoids came into being (or od&d or 1e even).

I've asked questions of a similar nature, on DF before, and had little problem..

In 2E, they got to pick a specific species such as orcs or goblins. The rule is written strangely, saying the ranger must pick a species enemy before advancing to 2nd level. So he has to pick his enemy at 1st level. I've always ruled that to mean that he has to pick his enemy upon creation of the character. It just makes more sense to me that way. So the player would know who his ranger's species enemy was before joining the party

Ive always interpreted that to mean, at 1st, they can still be 'choosing', BUT ONCE THEY HIT 2nd, they must have chosen.
And as per MY house rule on it,

Note #12, Unlike in 1e or the 2e PHB, a ranger, cannot select a BROAD group, such as all giants, or all goblinoids, he MUST select a specific 'type of beast'. THIS especially applies to Giants (must select which giant type) or Dragons (again, which color). However because of this, and to slightly offset it, some monsters often will have an “Includes” category, and some even have a “Related category”. IE Orcs include Orogs, and are related to half orcs. Or Ghouls include Ghasts, and are related to one of the new monsters, the Z-throk. Some do not have an “Includes category”, but do have a “related to” category, such as with Giant scorpions (related to Nemokai), while some only Have an “includes” category, but not a related to one. Anyone picking a ranger PC, is highly encouraged to Consult said chart, to help him (or her) better select what his species enemy will be!

Rangers BTB normally just gain a “To hit” bonus of +4, vs their ‘chosen foe. BY this house rule, this expands, to both a “to hit bonus”, and “A damage bonus”.

When attacking their main chosen foe, they gain Both the standard +4 to hit bonus, but also (as with 1st edition rangers), gain a +1 per level, to the damage, however this caps out at a Maximum of what the weapon’s base damage they are using is, so if a ranger is using say a spear (capping out at 6hp), they can only gain +6 to their damage, from their ranger bonus!

When attacking someone in the “includes” category (If they have one), their to hit bonus drops to only a +2. and their damage bonus becomes +1 per TWO levels they have, with the “Max damage” cap still in place.

And when attacking those in their “Related to” category (If they have one), their Two hit bonus is only a +1, while if they are 5th or lower levels, their Damage is only +1. If their level is 6th or higher, their damage bonus is +2.

So if Ray the ranger, selected Ogres as his species enemy, at 6th level, he’d have +4 to hit and add +6 damage to his long sword vs ogres, +2 to hit and +3 to damage versus Merrow (as they are the “includes”), but only +1 to hit and +2 to damage if he fought Ettins whom are related. Where as if he had selected Ghouls, he’d gain +4/+6 vs ghouls, +2/+3 vs ghasts and +1/+2 vs Z-throk.

He suffers a - 4 penalty on all reactions with his species enemy

I've often wondered, is that because the 'npcs' just SEE the hatred flowing OFF the ranger??

Would get real irksome, once the ranger gets high enough level to start casting spells.. Though since he only gains animal and plant spells, there's no worry about "WOULD he heal his fellow party member"..

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

Ive always interpreted that to mean, at 1st, they can still be 'choosing', BUT ONCE THEY HIT 2nd, they must have chosen.

I think your interpretation is more correct and what they intended on in the rules. I could see the rationale being that since the PC is starting at 1st level, he has yet to encounter various species in order to determine which he hates. As he adventures and meets various species on the way to 2nd level, he finds one that he especially hates. The only problem with that, though, is that unless the DM provides encounters with various species, the ranger will have no encounters with those species, so how can he hate them? That's the reason I ended up twisting it a bit to where the ranger has a species enemy starting at 1st level, by assuming he's encountered various species while training and reaching 1st level.

So if Ray the ranger, selected Ogres as his species enemy, at 6th level, he’d have +4 to hit and add +6 damage to his long sword vs ogres, +2 to hit and +3 to damage versus Merrow (as they are the “includes”), but only +1 to hit and +2 to damage if he fought Ettins whom are related. Where as if he had selected Ghouls, he’d gain +4/+6 vs ghouls, +2/+3 vs ghasts and +1/+2 vs Z-throk.

My rangers are always a blend of the 1st and 2nd Edition rangers. I used to prefer the 2E version of species enemy, because it makes it more precise and doesn't give the ranger to a million different monsters, the way they did in 1E (which made no sense because tiny goblins and kobolds were considered "giant class" - I never understood the reasoning behind that). But now I'm re-thinking that because say the ranger picks gnolls as a species enemy - how often does the party meet gnolls? If it's very rarely, then the point of having a species enemy is kind of moot. It rarely ever comes into play. I understand the anti-giant class concept comes from Jack and the Bean Stalk and how he fought giants. I was thinking that it might be cool to simply allow rangers to use giants, all true giants (stone, frost, fire, hill, mountain, cloud, etc) as a "species" enemy. That would not include orcs and bugbears and kobolds and what not like in 1E. That does sort of intrude on the dwarves and gnomes vs. giants aspect though. Sorta cutting into their territory.

I toyed with the idea of allowing the ranger to pick a related species enemy. For example, goblinoid species enemy would include goblins, kobolds and hobgoblins. A "large humanoid" species enemy would include gnolls, bugbears, and orcs, etc. But then there's the issue of which monsters fit each "group" of species.

I'm very much leaning back towards just having them hate true giants as an enemy species.

I also prefer the 1E method of "+1pt/dam./level of the ranger" vs. species enemy over the +1/level thaco 2E method. The reason is that early on, the ranger's thaco and the poor AC of most species enemies makes the + to thaco irrelevant. The damage is awesome though because he becomes a wrecking machine. So I've always kept the 1E method.

I also only give tracking skills to rangers and to a lesser degree barbarians, so I use the original percentage method of 1E vs. the 2E proficiency method. I find it easier to calculate chances to track due to rain, terrain, etc. using the percentage system.

've often wondered, is that because the 'npcs' just SEE the hatred flowing OFF the ranger??

Would get real irksome, once the ranger gets high enough level to start casting spells.. Though since he only gains animal and plant spells, there's no worry about "WOULD he heal his fellow party member"..

Yeah, that's how I've always interpreted it. The ranger has a hard time hiding his hatred, so his dirty looks, his hand moving instinctively towards his sword, his entire body language is picked up by his species enemy. Good point about him not having to heal his species enemy on the team. Without healing spells, that's one consideration not to worry about.

[McDeath]

Never had the ranger handbook (well pdf but never read it). Yeah, the damage of 1e is pretty awesome but I do like how the handbook settled related species. It is funny 2e nerfed the damage when some mobs are considerably stronger (mainly dragons).

Z-throk?

[garhkal]

I think your interpretation is more correct and what they intended on in the rules. I could see the rationale being that since the PC is starting at 1st level, he has yet to encounter various species in order to determine which he hates. As he adventures and meets various species on the way to 2nd level, he finds one that he especially hates. The only problem with that, though, is that unless the DM provides encounters with various species, the ranger will have no encounters with those species, so how can he hate them? That's the reason I ended up twisting it a bit to where the ranger has a species enemy starting at 1st level, by assuming he's encountered various species while training and reaching 1st level.

One of the two rangers i've had, actually became a ranger, BECAUSE HIS village, got wransacked BY a gnoll raiding party, so that's how he picked on them. ANother did similar with merrow (as he was a coastal ranger), i've had others do the same in their 'backround' write up.. BUT some waited, till they were ready to train for L2 to bother selecting, so they hopefully could get a decent feel for what was out there. Would be strange to go for orcs, in a desert area.. Or merrow if you were no where near the coast!

My rangers are always a blend of the 1st and 2nd Edition rangers. I used to prefer the 2E version of species enemy, because it makes it more precise and doesn't give the ranger to a million different monsters, the way they did in 1E (which made no sense because tiny goblins and kobolds were considered "giant class" - I never understood the reasoning behind that).

Hence why for my games, have a nice chart OF what monsters are there for the species enemy, BASED On what is commonly known..

I also prefer the 1E method of "+1pt/dam./level of the ranger" vs. species enemy over the +1/level thaco 2E method. The reason is that early on, the ranger's thaco and the poor AC of most species enemies makes the + to thaco irrelevant. The damage is awesome though because he becomes a wrecking machine. So I've always kept the 1E method.

That was why i added back IN the damage bonus, but kept the to hit bonus too.. BUT it's tiered, AND THE DAMAGE bonus caps based on what weapon you use.. MUCH like 2e's Combat and tactics mentioned "the grand master dart specialist who has 18.88 str, won't be getting +4 damge per dart as they are limited to max of +3, equal to what the dart does".. That is a rule i''ve LONG been using, that your Str or "level based' bonuses from certain skills, are CAPPED at the max damage of the weapon. So if using a spear, you can at most gain +6 from str, and +6 from other bonuses.. SO you wouldn't say be doing d6+20!

Yeah, that's how I've always interpreted it. The ranger has a hard time hiding his hatred, so his dirty looks, his hand moving instinctively towards his sword, his entire body language is picked up by his species enemy. Good point about him not having to heal his species enemy on the team. Without healing spells, that's one consideration not to worry about.

IT did suck for one player back in my first group, who was a ranger/cleric multi, since his species enemy was iirc, lizard-men, AND THE PARTY hAD one in it.. I flat out told him "Because of your hatred, if you DO try to heal/help the PC lizard-man, you'd be smacked with XP penalties.. DO IT too often and the god will be very displeased!".

He luckily took the hint.

Z-throk?

Check the thread for new undead...

[Halaster Blackcloak]

McDeath wrote:

Never had the ranger handbook (well pdf but never read it). Yeah, the damage of 1e is pretty awesome but I do like how the handbook settled related species. It is funny 2e nerfed the damage when some mobs are considerably stronger (mainly dragons).

I never liked the various class handbooks. It seemed all they did was ramp up powers like 3E did.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

One of the two rangers i've had, actually became a ranger, BECAUSE HIS village, got wransacked BY a gnoll raiding party, so that's how he picked on them. ANother did similar with merrow (as he was a coastal ranger), i've had others do the same in their 'backround' write up.. BUT some waited, till they were ready to train for L2 to bother selecting, so they hopefully could get a decent feel for what was out there. Would be strange to go for orcs, in a desert area.. Or merrow if you were no where near the coast!

I love writing background like that into the character! It fleshes them out so well. And that makes quite a lot of sense. How could you end up with a species enemy of merrow, as you point out, if you grew up far away from any coast? The in-game logic should be...well...logical!

Hence why for my games, have a nice chart OF what monsters are there for the species enemy, BASED On what is commonly known..

Do you mean a list of all the monsters they can choose, or lists of monsters that fit certain categories?

That was why i added back IN the damage bonus, but kept the to hit bonus too.. BUT it's tiered, AND THE DAMAGE bonus caps based on what weapon you use.. MUCH like 2e's Combat and tactics mentioned "the grand master dart specialist who has 18.88 str, won't be getting +4 damge per dart as they are limited to max of +3, equal to what the dart does".. That is a rule i''ve LONG been using, that your Str or "level based' bonuses from certain skills, are CAPPED at the max damage of the weapon. So if using a spear, you can at most gain +6 from str, and +6 from other bonuses.. SO you wouldn't say be doing d6+20!

Hmmm. I never saw that rule of capping STR damage to the max damage of the weapon, although that really does sort of make sense. Still, I do love the idea of a ranger being able to hit an orc or a gnoll (his species enemy) with a long sword and do +14 damage or more! I've always hated thaco bonuses because thaco goes down so quickly for fighters that they're soon able to hit just about anything with a roll higher than 2.

IT did suck for one player back in my first group, who was a ranger/cleric multi, since his species enemy was iirc, lizard-men, AND THE PARTY hAD one in it.. I flat out told him "Because of your hatred, if you DO try to heal/help the PC lizard-man, you'd be smacked with XP penalties.. DO IT too often and the god will be very displeased!".

He luckily took the hint.

That's what I would have told him as well! Gotta play the cleric as a cleric and the character as the character. None of that "well he's in my party so he gets a pass" nonsense.

[garhkal]

I love writing background like that into the character! It fleshes them out so well. And that makes quite a lot of sense. How could you end up with a species enemy of merrow, as you point out, if you grew up far away from any coast? The in-game logic should be...well...logical!

That's why as DM i retain veto power over someone's choice on species enemy.. SUCH AS one player who wanted HUMAN as his enemy... As a half elf ranger, in a party OF HUMANS...

Do you mean a list of all the monsters they can choose, or lists of monsters that fit certain categories?

ITs more an example.. BUT it does list relationship. If they wish to grab something NOT on that list, we can work on what may or may not count as related/includes..

Hmmm. I never saw that rule of capping STR damage to the max damage of the weapon, although that really does sort of make sense. Still, I do love the idea of a ranger being able to hit an orc or a gnoll (his species enemy) with a long sword and do +14 damage or more! I've always hated thaco bonuses because thaco goes down so quickly for fighters that they're soon able to hit just about anything with a roll higher than 2.

ITS one of the BEST THINGS imo that the skills and powers books came up with.. So you no longer have someone say wielding a hand axe or war-hammer, doing d4 damage, but adding in +9 from str, just because he's wearing giant girdle.

That's what I would have told him as well! Gotta play the cleric as a cleric and the character as the character. None of that "well he's in my party so he gets a pass" nonsense.

Which is why i write up each priesthood's "Deity sheet", so each player HAS a list of what his god is about, holy days, spells they can use, granted powers/down sides, AND A BLURB on what they can cast spells on..

IE for Vorka (one of my new gods)

Priests of Vorka, have a natural enmity to those who follow Laranni, due to Laranni hating bows. Ergo, priests of Vorka do not cast any spells period, on those who follow Laranni. Just like those who worship Laranni do not cast spells on those who follow Vorka.
They are very amenable with priests of the elven god Solonor, due to his also being an archery focused god, and as such can cast spells on Solonorian priests up to 5th level.
They like Sarajin, so will cast spells up to 4th level for them. For all the other human deities, they are restricted to 3rd and lower, with the exception of Peoni, who they will always pay back the Peonian's kindness.
They are similarly, limited to 3rd and lower levels for any of the dwarven priests.
They are kindly to the other 2 elven gods followers, but so far, not so much with the Halfling ones, who are like the dwarves, limited to 3rd level and under.
For Lizard-men, they are limited to 4th level spells, but as many of the good Gnolls, are often worshipers, all of the 3 main encampments are considered all to be 'of the faith', even if that specific Gnoll does not revere Vorka.
For non-priests, regardless of race, only 1st and 2nd level spells, can be cast directly on them..

Or for Clangeddin, one of the dwarven gods

Clangeddin by dint of being the god of battle, is well disposed to priests of both Laranni and Sarajin, but this also puts his clergy at odds with both those of Peoni and Save'k'nor, the former due to her priestesses being pacifists, the latter because of their alliances with mages. Clangeddin's priests are instructed to always cast spells to aid and help those non-dwarven allies, when engaged in battle, especially with giants. This however, does NOT extend to breaking the “all dwarf restriction” on casting spells on Gnolls or Lizard-men’s cap of 2nd and lower level spells.
In regards to the human specific deities, they will often put those who give faith and dues to Laranni or Sarajin, before others. So if a priest has 3 healing spells left at the end of the day, and 2 Larannian worshipers are in need, and there's 3 who say worship Vorka or Halea, he will heal those who worship Laranni, using his last one on the most needy of the latter 3. This means, they are limited by the deities dictates, to only casting spells of 1st to 3rd level, on non-dwarves, except after a battle, in which case anything up to 5th level, are fair game. However, spells such as raise dead, are still kept only for use on fellow dwarves.
For Halfling gods, regardless of whom worshiped, they can cast up to 4th level spells.

They are Loathed to help out elves, and will only cast the most minor (1st level) of their magics on elves. This is regardless of whom the elf pays lip service to. And this is ONLY after they have helped fellow Dwarves first, then halflings, Then humans..

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

That's why as DM i retain veto power over someone's choice on species enemy.. SUCH AS one player who wanted HUMAN as his enemy... As a half elf ranger, in a party OF HUMANS...

I don't blame you. That's insane. Virtually every person I've ever known to play a ranger has played a human ranger (rarely a half-elf, only one played an elf). Does he hate his own race?

ITs more an example.. BUT it does list relationship. If they wish to grab something NOT on that list, we can work on what may or may not count as related/includes..

The reason I asked is that I want to make a list of associated species, i.e. goblins, hobgoblins and kobolds are goblinoid races, kuo-toa, locatha (sp?) and sahuagin are aquatic humanoids, etc. I was curious how you grouped them.

ITS one of the BEST THINGS imo that the skills and powers books came up with.. So you no longer have someone say wielding a hand axe or war-hammer, doing d4 damage, but adding in +9 from str, just because he's wearing giant girdle.

My dart did one point of damage and...an extra +12 damage because I threw it so hard! Yeah, that does seem odd!

Which is why i write up each priesthood's "Deity sheet", so each player HAS a list of what his god is about, holy days, spells they can use, granted powers/down sides, AND A BLURB on what they can cast spells on..

That's a great idea. Let the player know all his obligations and duties as a cleric or priest.

[garhkal]

If you wish, i can send you the chart i made later... It shows how I see the relationships...

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Yeah, that'd be awesome, thanks! I need to group them somehow and I never got around to it.

[garhkal]

Check your inbox.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Cool, thanks!