Shadow Evocation and Fire Resistance

[Andorn]

So. It's an illusion, imbued with shadowstuff, or something like that. So, if I emulate a fireball, what type of damage is it? It's not actually fire, but illusion, so is it in truth untyped arcane damage? What if I "nuke" someone who is immune to fire?

What about metamagic feats? Can I do energy substitution on an emulated fireball? Can I energy admix it? Is the admixed damage (lightning, for instance) actual lightning damage, or is it emulated too? Can I emulate an admixed spell, rather than admixing an emulated spell?

[eggynack]

You deal fire damage. Fire resistance works. The spell says you're copying a spell fully, and then makes a list of exceptions to that copy's sameness that does not include damage type. I don't think that either energy substitution or energy admixture can be applied to shadow evocation, because those feats specify that they can only be used on spells with energy descriptors, and shadow evocation definitely doesn't have an energy descriptor before or while you're casting it. It might pick one up on transit to the target, but by then it's too late. There might be some form of exception there with class features and stuff of that nature, like you can probably use energy substitution on a wall of fire, and in those cases it would seem to work normal style.

[Andorn]

Player Handbook says:

"You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow
to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of a
sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th
level or lower. (For a spell with more than
one level, use the best one applicable to
you.)"

So, if it deals real fire damage, instead of "quasi-real, illusory" fire damage, then the spell ought to pick up a virtual fire descriptor, like having a virtual feat. Seems to me that if FR affects it, then you should be able to substitute/admix it.



There is this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?57858-Metamagicked-spells-as-basic-spell

It goes back and forth on applying metamagic. Looking at the SRD, I see a contradiction:

"Magic Items and Metamagic Spells
With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.

Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell
A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell."

and:

"Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell
In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description."

So, what spell level is a metamagicked spell? It clearly says it "opnerates at its original level" (for purposes of DC on a spell scroll, for example), but it you stick a metamagic feat on it then it is too high to put it into a potion or wand. That is clearly inconsistent (gosh, who woulda thunk it?).

My question is, if you can scribe a scroll with a metamagicked spell, then why can't you emulate a metamagicked spell?

[eggynack]

It does seem to pick up a virtual descriptor, probably. It's just that it doesn't do so until it's already cast. So, just having the feat standing alone isn't gonna be sufficient. As for the second thing, I don't really see an inconsistency. Whatever else the game says about metamagic'd spells, the item rules specify how they work with items. Sure, the metamagic rules don't give items as an exception, but they don't need to. Specific overrides general, and the thing about items is the specific here. As for the last thing, because the game doesn't specify that you can do that with this spell. Shadow evocation just lets you copy a spell, not a metamagic'd spell. It could have said the latter had it wanted to. You're just gonna have to apply your metamagic to shadow evocation normal style.

[Necroticplague]

So, if it deals real fire damage, instead of "quasi-real, illusory" fire damage, then the spell ought to pick up a virtual fire descriptor, like having a virtual feat. Seems to me that if FR affects it, then you should be able to substitute/admix it. Note really. Something can deal fire damage without having the fire descriptor, that merely means that it does damage via high temperatures without drawing on energy from the Plane of Fire. Which is true in this case, as it's drawing energy from the Plane of Shadow instead. Just like how a spell can always be evil to use without having the [evil] descriptor (which would mean it does something evil, but doesn't draw on the power of the lower planes to do so).





So, what spell level is a metamagicked spell? It clearly says it "opnerates at its original level" (for purposes of DC on a spell scroll, for example), but it you stick a metamagic feat on it then it is too high to put it into a potion or wand. That is clearly inconsistent (gosh, who woulda thunk it?).

My question is, if you can scribe a scroll with a metamagicked spell, then why can't you emulate a metamagicked spell?
With the exception of a few very select metamagics (heighten and sanctum), a spell post-metamagic is the same level as pre-metamagic. So a Widened Maximized Fireball is still a level 3 spell, even though you cast it as using a level 9 spell slot. There's no contradiction is the crafting rules. A metamagiced scroll is the same cost as the original, unless it's Heightened or Sanctum'd (since it's still the same spell level as before). Taking advantage of this fact is generally considered cheesy, though.

As for Shadow Evocation emulation: it doesn't say the spell it emulates can have a metamagic applied. Thus, it can't. Maximized Fireball isn't a spell, Fireball is. However, there's nothing stopping you from applying metamagic to Shadow Evocation itself, whcih would then carry over to it's copied spell (i.e, a Maximized Shadow Evocation emulating a Fireball essentially produces a Maximized Fireball).

[Hogsy]

Note really. Something can deal fire damage without having the fire descriptor, that merely means that it does damage via high temperatures without drawing on energy from the Plane of Fire. Which is true in this case, as it's drawing energy from the Plane of Shadow instead. Just like how a spell can always be evil to use without having the [evil] descriptor (which would mean it does something evil, but doesn't draw on the power of the lower planes to do so).





With the exception of a few very select metamagics (heighten and sanctum), a spell post-metamagic is the same level as pre-metamagic. So a Widened Maximized Fireball is still a level 3 spell, even though you cast it as using a level 9 spell slot. There's no contradiction is the crafting rules. A metamagiced scroll is the same cost as the original, unless it's Heightened or Sanctum'd (since it's still the same spell level as before). Taking advantage of this fact is generally considered cheesy, though.

As for Shadow Evocation emulation: it doesn't say the spell it emulates can have a metamagic applied. Thus, it can't. Maximized Fireball isn't a spell, Fireball is. However, there's nothing stopping you from applying metamagic to Shadow Evocation itself, whcih would then carry over to it's copied spell (i.e, a Maximized Shadow Evocation emulating a Fireball essentially produces a Maximized Fireball).



Do you think that increasing the spell level by one (Shadow Evocation to 6 and Greater Shadow Evocation to 9) would be sufficient to make the damage "untyped"? It no longer takes on the element of the spell you're emulating, gaining its power through the Plane of Shadow. Or maybe creating a specific feat for Shadow Evocation/Conjuration which does exactly this sort of like how Spell Specialization works. You specialize in emulating a specific spell so when you emulate that one your connection to the plane of shadows is stronger and it deals "shadow" damage. Do you think something like that could work? Also I think there's a 3rd-party class that does something like this, I think it's called Nightblade. By the way, I understand that specializing in Illusion technically makes you an expert in Conjuration and Evocation as well because through those spells and with spell focus & spell specialization on Shadow Evocation/Conjuration you effectively increase the DC and power of a lot of spells but is it actually worth it that much? I understand the DC might be higher but you also give the target 2 rolls to dodge your spell. You could use Scorching Ray and Contagious Flame so they'd only roll a will save but still, it doesn't seem THAT strong to me except for the diversity it gives. Am I missing something?

[Âmesang]

There's no contradiction is the crafting rules. A metamagiced scroll is the same cost as the original, unless it's Heightened or Sanctum'd (since it's still the same spell level as before). Taking advantage of this fact is generally considered cheesy, though.

That doesn't seem to apply to epic scrolls or the circlets of blasting. :smallconfused:

Minor circlet of blasting:

(CL 6 × SL 3 × 1,800 gp [command word]) ÷ (5/1 per day) = 6,480 gp
Major circlet of blasting:

(CL 11 × SL 6* × 1,800 gp [command word]) ÷ (5/1 per day) = 23,760 gp

*Maximized spell effect, which treats it as a 6th-level spell for crafting purposes. Granted, the major circlet is also listed with a caster level of 17 instead of the minimum of 11, which is just odd. :smalltongue:

[Necroticplague]

That doesn't seem to apply to epic scrolls. :smallconfused:
Suprise, surprise. The rules in the book written by people who were utterly clueless as to how the game worked and was barely edited (protean have regeneration without any listed weakness, lists 'immunities' that aren't described anywehere in any detail; there's an undead creature with regeneration; the rules disagree as to whether a race is ECL 8 or ECL 4; the rules contradict as to when characters with LA are considered epic, just to name some examples off the top of my head) wrote something that wasn't based off of how the rules work, based on a misconception someone else had earlier made about how rules work (clearly, whoever wrote the section about metamagic items was under the impression that metamagic actually changed a spell's level, which is factually incorrect.)

Minor circlet of blasting:

(CL 6 × SL 3 × 1,800 gp [command word]) ÷ (5/1 per day) = 6,480 gp
Major circlet of blasting:

(CL 11 × SL 6* × 1,800 gp [command word]) ÷ (5/1 per day) = 23,760 gp

*Maximized spell effect, which treats it as a 6th-level spell for crafting purposes. Granted, the major circlet is also listed with a caster level of 17 instead of the minimum of 11, which is just odd. :smalltongue:

And items that don't use a formula for determining price are relevant to items that do because....? Those are wondrous items, not scrolls. While there are guidelines for prices, those aren't hard rules for them.

[Zombimode]

Do you think that increasing the spell level by one (Shadow Evocation to 6 and Greater Shadow Evocation to 9) would be sufficient to make the damage "untyped"? It no longer takes on the element of the spell you're emulating, gaining its power through the Plane of Shadow.

The problem I would have with this as DM is not a concern of power. Instead, you seem to have the causality backwards. Shadow Evocation does not deal damage because it uses energy from the plane of shadows. It can deal damage because it can create semi-real renditions of effects that happen to deal damage as one of their properties. A shadow evoked Fireball deals damage because the fire of a Fireball deals damage. The evoked spell emulates the properties of the real thing. An evoked fireball can only deal fire damage because thats causal (seriously, there is no term for "Kausalursache" in the english language?) for the fireballs damage.
If what you propose would be possible, the specific spell to evoke would not matter. All evoked spells could cause damage. But thats not the case. The spell to evoke DOES matter. An evoked Floating Disk can't deal damage, because there is nothing in the reality of the Disk that can deal damage. An evoked Lightning Bolt deals electricity damage because that's what an magic bolt of lightning does.

[Andorn]

With the exception of a few very select metamagics (heighten and sanctum), a spell post-metamagic is the same level as pre-metamagic. So a Widened Maximized Fireball is still a level 3 spell, even though you cast it as using a level 9 spell slot. There's no contradiction is the crafting rules. A metamagiced scroll is the same cost as the original, unless it's Heightened or Sanctum'd (since it's still the same spell level as before). Taking advantage of this fact is generally considered cheesy, though.


Except you can't create a wand of maximized fireball, by rule. That is what I mean by inconsistent. You can maximize a scroll, but you aren't allowed to do a wand or other item.



As for Shadow Evocation emulation: it doesn't say the spell it emulates can have a metamagic applied. Thus, it can't. Maximized Fireball isn't a spell, Fireball is. However, there's nothing stopping you from applying metamagic to Shadow Evocation itself, whcih would then carry over to it's copied spell (i.e, a Maximized Shadow Evocation emulating a Fireball essentially produces a Maximized Fireball).

So, would you agree that you can energy substitute and energy admix a shadow evocation? And if so, what exactly are the effects?

[eggynack]

Except you can't create a wand of maximized fireball, by rule. That is what I mean by inconsistent. You can maximize a scroll, but you aren't allowed to do a wand or other item.

Don't your quotes say the exact opposite, that you’re definitely allowed to make wands that use metamagic? It wouldn't really be inconsistent either way, cause items are allowed to work differently, but it seems to work the way you seem to want it to work.

[Necroticplague]

Except you can't create a wand of maximized fireball, by rule. That is what I mean by inconsistent. You can maximize a scroll, but you aren't allowed to do a wand or other item. False. Unless the spell is Heightened to be made too high a level, you can still slap metamagic on a wand. A Maximized Fireball is a third level spell, and thus fits on a wand. The rules are perfectly consistent, they just say something different from what was intended.

So, would you agree that you can energy substitute and energy admix a shadow evocation? And if so, what exactly are the effects?

Nope. Those two particular metamagics require an energy designator from among acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. Shadow Evocations lack all such designators, always being an Illusion [Shadow], regardless of what spell it emulates.

[MisterKaws]

You can use substitution and admixture by using Snowcasting.

[Cruiser1]

So, what spell level is a metamagicked spell? It clearly says it "opnerates at its original level" (for purposes of DC on a spell scroll, for example), but it you stick a metamagic feat on it then it is too high to put it into a potion or wand. That is clearly inconsistent (gosh, who woulda thunk it?).
The confusion is because "spell level" can mean three different things. After all, we all know that going "up a level" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html) is ambiguous without further qualifying text. :smallwink:

There's a difference between "core spell level" for base spells, "spell effect level" that DC's and such are based on, and "spell slot level" for casting purposes. A Maximized Fireball Heightened by 1 has a "core spell level" of 3 for Fireball, a "spell effect level" of 4 (Heighten added 1), and a "spell slot level" of 7 (for preparing in and casting from). D&D makes use of all three types of "spell level", although the text indeed isn't always clear about which of the three is being used when you read "spell level".

The same concept applies in other areas of D&D. For example, a character's "INT" is ambiguous. It should really be qualified as "base unbuffed INT" or "current INT". For example, a character's "current INT" is used for most purposes, but "base unbuffed INT" is used to determine skill points when levelling up.

Similarly, "creature type" is ambiguous, and should really always be qualified as "base creature type" or "current creature type" in rules text. The ambiguity results in issues such as does Alter Self from non-Human to Human give you an arbitrary free racial bonus feat you can select every time you cast the spell? (If so, then Human is one of the worst races to play, since you don't have the ability to have a free adjustable feat, and polymorphing away from Human loses your racial bonus feat.) However, defining the Human bonus feat as tied to "base creature type" prevents the rules weirdness and/or abuse.

[Andorn]

False. Unless the spell is Heightened to be made too high a level, you can still slap metamagic on a wand. A Maximized Fireball is a third level spell, and thus fits on a wand. The rules are perfectly consistent, they just say something different from what was intended.


Please re-read the section of the SRD I posted. I'll isolate the important part:

"Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat)."

A spell only has a higher level after a metamagic feat if they are counting the higher spell slot required by application of the metamagic feat. There would be no reason for this statement, otherwise.

I suppose if you had spell thesis, and enough metamagic reducers to reduce maximize to a 0-level increase, then you could make a maximized fireball wand.

This is why I said the RAW was contradictory, it is trying to have it both ways. When the rules do that, they invalidate at least a portion of the rules, and by inference, all rules lose their divine infallibility. As do people who stake out an inflexible position and insist their own version of truth is also infallible.

So, please, does anyone have anything constructive to add, maybe drawn from some of the other open game content out there, that might provide a more sensible handing of the questions I've brought up?



game balance: noun. A philosophic system whereby any desirable game feature is rendered so costly or onorous to the player that nobody would ever want to make use of it, eliminating actual fun from any game. Often propounded by rules lawyers, whose only source of fun is ruining any fun that other people are having.

rules lawyer: Any individual who enjoys using language to tell other people what they can't do. They will adhere to any written text they can find, and even read into it things that aren't there, regardless of common sense. Rules lawyers have little or no social value, but if they can dictate the rules to others they gain a sense of authority which they are otherwise lacking. This validates their own existence, at the expense of everybody else's fun.

[Florian]

So. It's an illusion, imbued with shadowstuff, or something like that. So, if I emulate a fireball, what type of damage is it? It's not actually fire, but illusion, so is it in truth untyped arcane damage? What if I "nuke" someone who is immune to fire?

What about metamagic feats? Can I do energy substitution on an emulated fireball? Can I energy admix it? Is the admixed damage (lightning, for instance) actual lightning damage, or is it emulated too? Can I emulate an admixed spell, rather than admixing an emulated spell?

It deals fie damage because the text description of Fireball calls it out as dealing fire damage.

Any metamagic feat works on the Shadow spell you use, not on the spell you mimic. Admixture does nothing as the underlying Shadow Evocation... does nothing. Generally-use metamagic, like Maximize Spell work fine, though, being applied to any spell you mimic.

[Andorn]

The confusion is because "spell level" can mean three different things. After all, we all know that going "up a level" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html) is ambiguous without further qualifying text. :smallwink:

There's a difference between "core spell level" for base spells, "spell effect level" that DC's and such are based on, and "spell slot level" for casting purposes. A Maximized Fireball Heightened by 1 has a "core spell level" of 3 for Fireball, a "spell effect level" of 4 (Heighten added 1), and a "spell slot level" of 7 (for preparing in and casting from). D&D makes use of all three types of "spell level", although the text indeed isn't always clear about which of the three is being used when you read "spell level".


I agree that D&D uses the word "level" so much, so loosely, and in so many different ways that it is often ambiguous. Just look at bloodline levels.



The same concept applies in other areas of D&D. For example, a character's "INT" is ambiguous. It should really be qualified as "base unbuffed INT" or "current INT". For example, a character's "current INT" is used for most purposes, but "base unbuffed INT" is used to determine skill points when levelling up.


Actually, that isn't true. If you have wishes, you have a permanent, inherent bonus to int. I wouldn't call that "base unbuffed INT." If INT after receiving a wish was indivisible, then you could continue to apply wishes to INT with only practical, logistical limits. So, somewhere within that INT total is the actual base INT, which can only receive a maximum of 5 wishes. On the other hand, there is no limit to the number of times you can take the epic feat Great Intelligence. Gain a few levels, pop a stat point and another feat. Grow to middle age, get more INT. But more wishes??? NOOOOOO!!!!!!



Similarly, "creature type" is ambiguous, and should really always be qualified as "base creature type" or "current creature type" in rules text. The ambiguity results in issues such as does Alter Self from non-Human to Human give you an arbitrary free racial bonus feat you can select every time you cast the spell? (If so, then Human is one of the worst races to play, since you don't have the ability to have a free adjustable feat, and polymorphing away from Human loses your racial bonus feat.) However, defining the Human bonus feat as tied to "base creature type" prevents the rules weirdness and/or abuse.

Here's a question: A ranger can take favored enemy for "aberrations", and it counts against all aberrations. Same with fey, or outsiders. Regardless of how different each one is from all the others, different abilities, different defenses, different anatomies, the ranger is so expert at all of them he can inflict extra damage on them. But if he takes favored enemy humanoid, he has to pick a subtype, because humanoids are all just so dissimilar, I guess. He can't even mistake a half elf for a human or an elf. So if he has favored enemy half elves, if he hits someone and doesn't get his favored enemy bonus, he can be certain the person is either an elf, a human, or someone who is polymorphed, I guess.

[Florian]

Here's a question: A ranger can take favored enemy for "aberrations", and it counts against all aberrations. Same with fey, or outsiders. Regardless of how different each one is from all the others, different abilities, different defenses, different anatomies, the ranger is so expert at all of them he can inflict extra damage on them. But if he takes favored enemy humanoid, he has to pick a subtype, because humanoids are all just so dissimilar, I guess. He can't even mistake a half elf for a human or an elf. So if he has favored enemy half elves, if he hits someone and doesn't get his favored enemy bonus, he can be certain the person is either an elf, a human, or someone who is polymorphed, I guess.

What´s the question here? Stuff like favored enemy is balanced on (and designed around) the frequency you possibly meet different creature types.

[Andorn]

From Shadow Evocation:

"You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower. (For a spell with more than one level, use the best one applicable to you.)"

So, it is actually creating a version of the spell. Illusory, but a version of it. If it is truly a version of the spell, then wouldn't it get the spell's descriptor, too, automatically? I realize that it doesn't say it does this. However, it doesn't say it doesn't, either. It does say it is a version of the spell, but it fails to define the actual characteristics of that.



Personally, as a DM, I believe the spell stays a shadow spell. It does shadow damage, from the shadow substance. So, you cannot admix it after you create it. FR doesn't work, because it isn't actual fire damage. If the targets fail to recognize the spell as an illusion, their minds make the damage real, and the shadow magic does damage to them based on their belief. It is quite malleable, and insidious that way, which is why it is so suited to being blended in with illusions.

This is why magic items always "make their will save". It is an illusion, and the item isn't affected by the elemental fire/physical force/whatever, and doesn't (generally) have a mind to make the damage real. The shadow stuff isn't powerful enough to cause inert magic items physical damage. So, if you don't want to blow up treasure, use shadow spells.

However, if the caster is detail-oriented, and specifies what they do as they go about emulating these evocations, I allow them a lot of flexibility. If they know how a fireball looks and feels and sounds and smells, and practice their illusions (you have to practice and practice to get it right), and state what they are doing, I don't give automatic illusion saving throws. Unless the opponent has a reason (or the whim) to disbelieve, they don't get a will save, because they have accepted that what they are seeing/experiencing is real.

If the caster is familiar with what a maximized, or energy-substituted, or admixed spell looks like, then I let them emulate it.
Of course, as the spell gets crazier, it is more likely that the opponents won't accept what they are seeing at face value. A really smart caster will mix in illusions with real evocations. If the opponents are convinced that the next spell is an illusion, and so don't bother to dodge.....SPLAT, no save.

A good way to adjudicate this is for the DM to write down what they think the player will do before the player announces their action. If the DM got it right, then the opponents treat the spell correctly. If the DM got fooled, then the opponents are flat-footed and get plastered.

Of course, if the opponents have spellcraft and can identify what spell is being cast, that changes things. There are a number of feats that can affect that, though, some that let casters intentionally mislead their opponents.....

[Florian]

You´re right that it stays an Illusion/shadow spell. But it mimics some energy types, that is the quasi-reality of it.

[Necroticplague]

Please re-read the section of the SRD I posted. I'll isolate the important part:

"Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat)."

A spell only has a higher level after a metamagic feat if they are counting the higher spell slot required by application of the metamagic feat. There would be no reason for this statement, otherwise.I did re-read the relevant rules. Several times.

Yes, there is a reason. It's indicating that if you can't use metamagic that increases it's spell level over the cap for those types of items. Fortunately, the vast majority of metamagics don't raise the level of the spell. The metamagics themselves only say they increase the slot used to cast it. The exceptions are Heighten and Sanctum.

Do also note that metamagic added in this way isn't free. You need a higher caster level in order to cast such a spell, and thus make the item. For example, the cost of a maximized fireball wand would be 11(caster level needed to cast it)*3(spell level)*750=24750 GP, contrasted to a normal fireball wand, which would cost 5(minumum caster level needed to cast it)*3(spell level)*750=11250. So adding that Maximized more than doubled the price of the wand.


This is why I said the RAW was contradictory, it is trying to have it both ways. When the rules do that, they invalidate at least a portion of the rules, and by inference, all rules lose their divine infallibility. As do people who stake out an inflexible position and insist their own version of truth is also infallible.

So, please, does anyone have anything constructive to add, maybe drawn from some of the other open game content out there, that might provide a more sensible handing of the questions I've brought up? Where's the contradiction? "If it changes the spell level, it still counts"+ "most of these don't change the spell level"= "most of these don't count". You're trying to force the rules to say something they don't. In fact, you're trying to make the rules say something they explicitly say isn't true (that all metamagic changes the level of a spell). The rules aren't trying to have it both way, you are. A Maximized fireball is still a third level spell (this is very clear, as Maximize itself doesn't say it increases the spell level). You can put third level spells on wands. Thus, you can put a maximized fireball on a wand. I'm not seeing anything that contradicts this.
Or in more formal logic:
All p are q
s is a p.
:.s is a q.
Where p is "a third level spell", q is "able to be put on a wand" and s is "Maximized Fireball".

[Cruiser1]

The same concept applies in other areas of D&D. For example, a character's "INT" is ambiguous. It should really be qualified as "base unbuffed INT" or "current INT". For example, a character's "current INT" is used for most purposes, but "base unbuffed INT" is used to determine skill points when levelling up.

Actually, that isn't true. If you have wishes, you have a permanent, inherent bonus to int. I wouldn't call that "base unbuffed INT." If INT after receiving a wish was indivisible, then you could continue to apply wishes to INT with only practical, logistical limits. So, somewhere within that INT total is the actual base INT, which can only receive a maximum of 5 wishes. On the other hand, there is no limit to the number of times you can take the epic feat Great Intelligence. Gain a few levels, pop a stat point and another feat. Grow to middle age, get more INT. But more wishes??? NOOOOOO!!!!!!
By "base unbuffed INT" I mean your INT in an antimagic field or if you get disjuncted. That means "original character creation INT" + "original racial INT bonus" + "level up INT points" + "aging INT bonus" + "inherent INT bonus" + "epic feat INT bonus". That's opposed to "current INT", which is "unbuffed INT" + INT bonuses from magic items and buffs. Either way, it shows the importance of clear definitions of terminology, which D&D often doesn't do very well, leading to ambiguity.

For example, the abuse of casting Polymorph Any Object twice in a row to make it permanent would go away if the spell just clarified that its duration is based on the difference between the new creature type specified by the spell and the target's unbuffed "base creature type" (instead of "current creature type"). Right now the spell just refers to "original state", which is ambiguous whether that just means "current creature type" right before the spell was cast, or "base creature type" independent of buffs. People of course usually choose to interpret it as the former, because that makes the spell much more powerful in TO exercises.

[Andorn]

By "base unbuffed INT" I mean your INT in an antimagic field or if you get disjuncted. That means "original character creation INT" + "original racial INT bonus" + "level up INT points" + "aging INT bonus" + "inherent INT bonus" + "epic feat INT bonus". That's opposed to "current INT", which is "unbuffed INT" + INT bonuses from magic items and buffs. Either way, it shows the importance of clear definitions of terminology, which D&D often doesn't do very well, leading to ambiguity.

For example, the abuse of casting Polymorph Any Object twice in a row to make it permanent would go away if the spell just clarified that its duration is based on the difference between the new creature type specified by the spell and the target's unbuffed "base creature type" (instead of "current creature type"). Right now the spell just refers to "original state", which is ambiguous whether that just means "current creature type" right before the spell was cast, or "base creature type" independent of buffs. People of course usually choose to interpret it as the former, because that makes the spell much more powerful in TO exercises.

Yeah, a good rule of thumb is all rules should be written in absolutes, rather than references relative to some other condition of a character. It would be less ambiguous. And more examples would be good. And playtesting. And proper editing.

A few things to add to unbuffed INT: bloodline levels, some PrCs give stat increases, along with paragon races. Oh, and templates. Oh, and a Chameleon's Ability Boon(Ex).

Now, about that anti-magic thing, Mystra empowers her Chosen to cast spells in an anti-magic shell, so presumably they can take effect there as well. So I guess you could have a buffed character in an anti-magic shell. Also, somewhere recently I saw a PrC or something that let a character ignore an anti-magic shell (not a WotC product).

Now, the weave is a Faerun thing, it doesn't exist on other planes. So if Faerun characters go to the outer planes, presumably they can cast higher level spells, without Mystra's interference? So it begs the question, if they can do it there, why not on Faerun too? Especially if they are shadow weave users?

If anybody is getting the idea that I take RAW with a huge dose of salt, kudos to you. People who quote RAW to me as if I'm going to give that more weight than it actually deserves are generally wasting everybody's time. When I bring up these sorts of questions, I'm looking for a possible thread of common sense underlying the broken rules, so I can get it to work and integrate it in a way that provides some consistency with the existing framework of my world.

[Telonius]

*Maximized spell effect, which treats it as a 6th-level spell for crafting purposes. Granted, the major circlet is also listed with a caster level of 17 instead of the minimum of 11, which is just odd. :smalltongue:

The caster level listed is the item's caster level, not the minimum caster level required to create the item. (Those two are the same for some types of items, but not for Wondrous items). It's mostly important for showing how hard it is to dispel it. You don't need a 20th-level caster to create Sovereign Glue; it's just really hard to dispel.

[Andorn]

The caster level listed is the item's caster level, not the minimum caster level required to create the item. (Those two are the same for some types of items, but not for Wondrous items). It's mostly important for showing how hard it is to dispel it. You don't need a 20th-level caster to create Sovereign Glue; it's just really hard to dispel.

The caster level is the minimum required. That is why it is hard to dispel, because of the level of the creator.

[Andorn]

What´s the question here? Stuff like favored enemy is balanced on (and designed around) the frequency you possibly meet different creature types.

The question is, why are such decisions made for such spurious reasons, instead of what makes sense in-game? All game system rules should make sense in-game. If they don't then they need to be changed.

[Necroticplague]

Here's a question: A ranger can take favored enemy for "aberrations", and it counts against all aberrations. Same with fey, or outsiders. Regardless of how different each one is from all the others, different abilities, different defenses, different anatomies, the ranger is so expert at all of them he can inflict extra damage on them. But if he takes favored enemy humanoid, he has to pick a subtype, because humanoids are all just so dissimilar, I guess. He can't even mistake a half elf for a human or an elf. So if he has favored enemy half elves, if he hits someone and doesn't get his favored enemy bonus, he can be certain the person is either an elf, a human, or someone who is polymorphed, I guess.
This statement is innaccurate on several levels:
1.Actually, Outsiders also require you to select subtypes. It's not just "outsider" it's outsider (evil), or outsider (good), ect.
2. Actually, half-elf and elf both fall under the same favored enemy, since half-elves are humanoid (elf). There's no favored enemy (half-elf).
3. How would a character know when a metagame construct isn't working?
4. Polymorph specifically says that you gain they type and subtype of the new form, so someone polymorphed into a half-elf is weak against Favored Enemy (elf).

[eggynack]

4. Polymorph specifically says that you gain they type and subtype of the new form, so someone polymorphed into a half-elf is weak against Favored Enemy (elf).
True, though there are other form swapping things, like alternate form, that do not change type.

[Andorn]

This statement is innaccurate on several levels:
1.Actually, Outsiders also require you to select subtypes. It's not just "outsider" it's outsider (evil), or outsider (good), ect.
2. Actually, half-elf and elf both fall under the same favored enemy, since half-elves are humanoid (elf). There's no favored enemy (half-elf).


True enough, but evil outsiders include demons, devils, mephits, daemons, and hordes of other disparate things. I think my point stands.



3. How would a character know when a metagame construct isn't working?
4. Polymorph specifically says that you gain they type and subtype of the new form, so someone polymorphed into a half-elf is weak against Favored Enemy (elf).

Fine. Alter self. Disguise self. Your point doesn't invalidate my example of how silly many of the rules are.

Suppose the ranger was an Eladrin, in a campaign based in Arborea? From that perspective, humanoids would be the outsiders, and subject to being lumped together, as most foes would be other planar beings. If you are going to use a frequency-of-occurance play balance argument, then the rule must change depending on the context of the campaign.

To my mind, applicability of favored enemy should be based on similarity, not frequency. Rangers kill orcs well because they know where the heart and other vital organs are. Of course, if favored enemy granted a morale bonus, it might be different.

"Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger may select a type of
creature from among those given on Table 3–14: Ranger Favored
Enemies. Due to his extensive study on his chosen type of foe and
training in the proper techniques for combating such creatures, the
ranger gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and
Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this
type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against
such creatures."

What is described in the Player Handbook is a competence bonus (it isn't called that, but it should be), not a morale bonus.

And what about the fey type? Pixie, Nixie, Sprite, Dryad, Nymph, Satyr, Jermlaine, Sirine, Ocean Strider, Spirit of the Land, Glaistig, Petal, Ragewalker, Redcap, Shimmering Swarm, Splinterwaif, Thorn, Joystealer, Lunar Ravager, Verdant Prince, Uldra, Banshrae, Frostwind Verago, Jaebrin Trickster, Ruin Chanter, Shaedling, Master of the Hunt, the Feytouched (many different creatures that become fey), Fossergrim, Half-Fey Centaur (because no centaur seems complete without butterfly wings), Kelpie, Oread, Shadar-Kai, Spriggan, Wendigo, Faun, and who knows how many in all the sourcebooks that have been published for the various campaigns.

[sarcasm=on]
I can see why a level 1 ranger could so easily master fighting all these different types of creatures, but not be able to apply their knowledge of human anatomy to also gain their favored enemy bonus against half-elves, elves, and orcs. Yup, makes perfect sense.
[sarcasm=off]

Too bad WotC never bothered to figure out what fey actually were, or why so many disparate creatures are related. Fey are used more as props than an integral part of any campaign. Liches get better treatment.

[eggynack]

It's about more than just vital organ location, by my reckoning. It's about knowing how they move, how they fight, their culture, their style, their scent, the way they tend to breathe before attempting a finishing blow, their tactics, their history, their everything. In any case, at some point in the analysis of any game you're likely to hit a point where there's necessary abstraction for the sake of balance. It's just how things are, and the occasional oddity of favored enemy is a part of that. You don't want every ranger to pick exactly the same favored enemy, cause that makes things boring, and I'd prefer an occasionally wonky ability to a boring one.

[Necroticplague]

Suppose the ranger was an Eladrin, in a campaign based in Arborea? From that perspective, humanoids would be the outsiders, and subject to being lumped together, as most foes would be other planar beings.
Er, Outsider doesn't just mean "someone from a different plane from me". A Human is Humanoid, regardless of your perspective, because Humanoid (and Outsider) have specific definitions. All that campaign setting means is that Favored Enemy (Arcanist) would apply to pretty much everything (since most creatures will be outsiders with SLAs, or magical beasts with SLAs).


If you are going to use a frequency-of-occurance play balance argument, then the rule must change depending on the context of the campaign.

Honestly, in my own games, I just houserule it all to be strictly type-based, if only for simplicity. My setting cosmopolitan enough that it still works out. TBH, I find it weirder how it means that templates can change what FE is useful while keeping most of the creature the same. Like FE (Human) not working on Feral Hums (who are Monstrous Humanoids, not Humanoids).

[Andorn]

It's about more than just vital organ location, by my reckoning. It's about knowing how they move, how they fight, their culture, their style, their scent, the way they tend to breathe before attempting a finishing blow, their tactics, their history, their everything.


So, pixie = Ocean Strider = half-Fey Centaur = Frostwind Verago, but Human != half-elf, because they are just so dissimilar. Got it.



In any case, at some point in the analysis of any game you're likely to hit a point where there's necessary abstraction for the sake of balance.


Ah, there it is, the nonsensical source of so much inconsistency, as "designers" try to design systems that treat everybody the same, rather than acknowledging actual differences.



It's just how things are, and the occasional oddity of favored enemy is a part of that. You don't want every ranger to pick exactly the same favored enemy, cause that makes things boring, and I'd prefer an occasionally wonky ability to a boring one.

[sarcasm=on]
Yeah, treating the Petal and the Shadar-Kai identically makes the world so much more interesting. Wouldn't want to bore people by treating each as a unique type of creature. Meanwhile the half-elf living next door to the human is just so radically different he leaves the ranger befuddled.
[sarcasm=off]

Watching a warlock use twin ray on his eldritch blast is wonky. Giving a ranger what is effectively a competence bonus to damage against a Petal, and allowing him to apply the class skill against the Master of the Hunt and the Shadar-Kai identically, is just stupid.

[Andorn]

Er, Outsider doesn't just mean "someone from a different plane from me". A Human is Humanoid, regardless of your perspective, because Humanoid (and Outsider) have specific definitions. All that campaign setting means is that Favored Enemy (Arcanist) would apply to pretty much everything (since most creatures will be outsiders with SLAs, or magical beasts with SLAs).


But a definition like "outsider" is a relative definition...relative to a humanocentric, "prime" material world. From the point of view of an Eladrin in Arborea, a human is the outsider. Humans, orcs, half-elves, elves, what's the difference? They're all humanoid with the outsider subtype, from the Eladrin's point of view. An Eladrin wizard using Summon Prime Monster V (or whatever) might get humans or elves to come fight for them, under magical compulsion.



Honestly, in my own games, I just houserule it all to be strictly type-based, if only for simplicity. My setting cosmopolitan enough that it still works out. TBH, I find it weirder how it means that templates can change what FE is useful while keeping most of the creature the same. Like FE (Human) not working on Feral Hums (who are Monstrous Humanoids, not Humanoids).

On my world, humanoid means any warm-blooded (usually) mammal with the brain in the head, eyes in front, heart, lungs, liver and kidneys in roughly the same places. Hit them in the same place and they all bleed the same. Take favored enemy(humanoid) and you're good to go.


Another terrible favored enemy category is undead. Lich, skeleton, vampire, mummy, shadow, ghost, dracolich, all very different creatures (not to mention fully-manifested ghosts from Ghostwalk), so how does knowing how to fight one help you on the others?

[eggynack]

So, pixie = Ocean Strider = half-Fey Centaur = Frostwind Verago, but Human != half-elf, because they are just so dissimilar. Got it.
It's not a perfect system, but it leaves you closer than an anatomy assessment does. More to the point, humanoids tend to have a lot more detail applied to their culture and abilities. Seriously, there's a whole book, races of destiny, about humans, and then another second book, races of stone, about dwarves. Clearly humans and dwarves are crazy different, and so are other humanoids that get lotsa detail like that. On that basis, I could easily point out more differences between humans and dwarves than between pixies and ocean strider, just because there's more things that can be different in the first place.


Ah, there it is, the nonsensical source of so much inconsistency, as "designers" try to design systems that treat everybody the same, rather than acknowledging actual differences.
It's a pretty reasonable source, I think, trying to make a game interesting to build things in.


[sarcasm=on]
Yeah, treating the Petal and the Shadar-Kai identically makes the world so much more interesting. Wouldn't want to bore people by treating each as a unique type of creature. Meanwhile the half-elf living next door to the human is just so radically different he leaves the ranger befuddled.
[sarcasm=off]
The petal and the shadar-kai are already pretty different without also having the difference applied by getting different favored enemy slots. They don't need more differentiation. Meanwhile, rangers need as much differentiation as they can get their hands on, given that they have a total of two combat styles, a handful of spells, and the universally granted feats as their major native sources of differentiation. It'd be a worse situation if, on top of that, every single ranger in the entire world had humanoid as their favored enemy, not least because it'd create the weird feeling of a universe of people with humanoid vendettas.

[Andorn]

It's not a perfect system, but it leaves you closer than an anatomy assessment does. More to the point, humanoids tend to have a lot more detail applied to their culture and abilities. Seriously, there's a whole book, races of destiny, about humans, and then another second book, races of stone, about dwarves. Clearly humans and dwarves are crazy different, and so are other humanoids that get lotsa detail like that. On that basis, I could easily point out more differences between humans and dwarves than between pixies and ocean strider, just because there's more things that can be different in the first place.


Favored enemy isn't about diplomatic relations and cultural differences, it is about where to hit them to kill them.



It's a pretty reasonable source, I think, trying to make a game interesting to build things in.


Making the game "interesting" by putting in silly rules strikes me as a very odd idea. To me, it makes the game more annoying. More annoying = less interesting. Self-defeating. Arguments trying to defend it get more and more convoluted for the simple reason that the rule was bad to start with. The rule was bad because the reasoning behind it was bad. Heaping more badness upon it won't fix it.

Appropriating from Monty Python:

"Ah ha! Now, we see the <appropriate noun> inherent in the system!"



The petal and the shadar-kai are already pretty different without also having the difference applied by getting different favored enemy slots. They don't need more differentiation.


Sigh, the point is the Petal and the Shadar-Kai are so different they should never be lumped together into the same favored enemy category. Yet, stupidly, they are.



Meanwhile, rangers need as much differentiation as they can get their hands on, given that they have a total of two combat styles, a handful of spells, and the universally granted feats as their major native sources of differentiation.


I'm not sure, but I *think* you mean that as part of the game system, rangers need to be differentiated from other classes, so they are actually something different, rule-wise. Of course, last time I looked, Rangers get spells, and Fighters don't. And, they get different spells than Paladins or Bards. I don't see how "differentiation" justifies grouping all fey together into a single favored enemy category.



It'd be a worse situation if, on top of that, every single ranger in the entire world had humanoid as their favored enemy, not least because it'd create the weird feeling of a universe of people with humanoid vendettas.

As opposed to the weird feeling you get at the idea of rangers hunting down pixies and dryads? I feel a LOT better about rangers hunting down other humans than I do about that.

[Necroticplague]

But a definition like "outsider" is a relative definition...relative to a humanocentric, "prime" material world. From the point of view of an Eladrin in Arborea, a human is the outsider. Humans, orcs, half-elves, elves, what's the difference? They're all humanoid with the outsider subtype, from the Eladrin's point of view. An Eladrin wizard using Summon Prime Monster V (or whatever) might get humans or elves to come fight for them, under magical compulsion. Actually, the definition for Outsider is not reliant on where you are in any way. You're thinking of the [extraplanar] subtype (which is relevant, and changes based on where you are). Outsiders are creatures formed of the essence/material of an Outer Plane (mostly planes of alignment, but there are a couple exceptions). Regardless of where they are, an eladrin is formed of the Chaotic and Good energies of Arborea, so it's an Outsider. Humanoids, on the other hand, are not formed of such energy or material. Thus, no matter where they are, or relative to whom, they aren't Outsiders because they don't meet the definition, though they may be extraplanar.



On my world, humanoid means any warm-blooded (usually) mammal with the brain in the head, eyes in front, heart, lungs, liver and kidneys in roughly the same places. Hit them in the same place and they all bleed the same. Take favored enemy(humanoid) and you're good to go.


Another terrible favored enemy category is undead. Lich, skeleton, mummy, shadow, ghost, dracolich, all very different creatures, so how does knowing how to fight one help you on the others?
O.k, now I'm confused. Are you trying to argue that the incredibly specific ones should be broadened, or broad ones should be made more specific? I personally agree with the former, but not the latter. Being of a creature type means you share at least some features with all other creatures of that type. Thus, there's some common thread that can be exploited against all of them.
For example: All undead are animated by negative energy. Thus, if you know how negative energy flows through undead creatures, you can strike a more devastating blow against all of them

[Andorn]

Actually, the definition for Outsider is not reliant on where you are in any way. You're thinking of the [extraplanar] subtype (which is relevant, and changes based on where you are). Outsiders are creatures formed of the essence/material of an Outer Plane (mostly planes of alignment, but there are a couple exceptions).
[quote]

Those planes were named "outer" by humans, from their point of reference. What does an Eladrin call his plane?

Answer: home. From his perspective, the PM is outer, other "outer" planes are neighbors.

[quote]
Regardless of where they are, an eladrin is formed of the Chaotic and Good energies of Arborea, so it's an Outsider. Humanoids, on the other hand, are not formed of such energy or material. Thus, no matter where they are, or relative to whom, they aren't Outsiders because they don't meet the definition, though they may be extraplanar.


Again, "outer" is from the perspective of a human. Talk to an Eladrin some time, see what they think about it.



O.k, now I'm confused. Are you trying to argue that the incredibly specific ones should be broadened, or broad ones should be made more specific? I personally agree with the former, but not the latter. Being of a creature type means you share at least some features with all other creatures of that type. Thus, there's some common thread that can be exploited against all of them.


Well, I think some of both is in order. Either that, or the concept needs to be revisited entirely. Combat techniques work against a certain body type. But, combat is also influenced by style. Fighting a guy with a sword is quite different from fighting a monk, or a wizard.

So, rangers really need more of a matrix. You can learn techniques against certain combat styles, like swords, or maces, or unarmed, or tentacled horrors, or multi-headed critters. And, you can learn techniques against certain body types, like where the vital areas are, avoiding wing buffets, tail whips, and where to sink your sword/spear, or what the joints are you want to crush with your mace. So, if you specialize against swords, and against humanoids, then you get to apply bonuses that stack, if you're facing a human or elf with a sword in his hand. If the human has a mace, then only one bonus applies. If the human also has two tentacles coming out of his back, and you have tentacled horror specialty, then you're in fat city. If you have multi-headed specialty, and the ettin has swords and two tentacles, then thank your DM for making you almost as relevant as the wizard.



For example: All undead are animated by negative energy. Thus, if you know how negative energy flows through undead creatures, you can strike a more devastating blow against all of them

You're better off learning to stake the vamp, batter the skeleton with a mace, draw your ghost touch blade against the ghost, burn the mummy, and smashing the lich's phylactery.

[eggynack]

Favored enemy isn't about diplomatic relations and cultural differences, it is about where to hit them to kill them.
It can be about both. Everyone knows basically where to hit a human to kill them. It's the ranger that knows more, all the weird minutiae, and that knowledge is directly translated into power. Also, more importantly, those books have mechanical stuff too. I can point to more purely mechanical differences between a human and a dwarf, even if those differences are subtler.


Making the game "interesting" by putting in silly rules strikes me as a very odd idea. To me, it makes the game more annoying. More annoying = less interesting. Self-defeating. Arguments trying to defend it get more and more convoluted for the simple reason that the rule was bad to start with. The rule was bad because the reasoning behind it was bad. Heaping more badness upon it won't fix it.
It's not about having a silly rule. It's about having a normal rule, rangers being better able to attack and track foes that they've studied, and that rule not having a plausible implementation that avoids both imbalance between options and the gaps between different categories having different sizes. This is a game first and foremost, and that dictates that you're usually going to want the second problem over the first, because the first problem causes the actual game to become stale and boring.


I'm not sure, but I *think* you mean that as part of the game system, rangers need to be differentiated from other classes, so they are actually something different, rule-wise. Of course, last time I looked, Rangers get spells, and Fighters don't. And, they get different spells than Paladins or Bards. I don't see how "differentiation" justifies grouping all fey together into a single favored enemy category.
No, I mean that there should be differentiation between two characters that both choose ranger as a class.



As opposed to the weird feeling you get at the idea of rangers hunting down pixies and dryads? I feel a LOT better about rangers hunting down other humans than I do about that.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that it'd be weird if literally every ranger hated and/or studied humanoids. It'd be equally weird if every ranger hated and/or studied pixies, but that's not what your desired rules would cause.

[Necroticplague]

Those planes were named "outer" by humans, from their point of reference. What does an Eladrin call his plane?

Answer: home. From his perspective, the PM is outer, other "outer" planes are neighbors.
Actually, those outer planes were named such before humans even existed. That's because cosmology is not relative. There actually is a center, an inner and an outer. You have the Material, Shadow, and Ethereal at the center, surrounded by the Inner Planes, surrounded by Outer Planes, with the whole thing suspended in the Astral. Even worldly planeswalkers use those terms, because they're factually correct.



Again, "outer" is from the perspective of a human. Talk to an Eladrin some time, see what they think about it.Outer is not from the perspective of a human. It's from a perspective of the cosmology. There are certain planes called Inner (planes of energy and elements), and Outer (planes of alignment, mostly). They are actually physically arranged in such a fashion. And there are definite traits of Outer planes that set them apart (i.e, the formation of Outsiders from it's energy and material, the fact petitioners go there, the fact it has an alignment, the fact it contains the realms of a few gods on it). Arborea is, physically, and objectively, on the outside corner of the cosmology.


So, rangers really need more of a matrix. You can learn techniques against certain combat styles, like swords, or maces, or unarmed, or tentacled horrors, or multi-headed critters. And, you can learn techniques against certain body types, like where the vital areas are, avoiding wing buffets, tail whips, and where to sink your sword/spear, or what the joints are you want to crush with your mace. So, if you specialize against swords, and against humanoids, then you get to apply bonuses that stack, if you're facing a human or elf with a sword in his hand. If the human has a mace, then only one bonus applies. If the human also has two tentacles coming out of his back, and you have tentacled horror specialty, then you're in fat city. If you have multi-headed specialty, and the ettin has swords and two tentacles, then thank your DM for making you almost as relevant as the wizard. That sounds horrifically over-complicated for no real benefit.


You're better off learning to stake the vamp, batter the skeleton with a mace, draw your ghost touch blade against the ghost, burn the mummy, and smashing the lich's phylactery.Yes. Learning 5 different things is much easier than learning one thing that works against all of them.

[eggynack]

You're better off learning to stake the vamp, batter the skeleton with a mace, draw your ghost touch blade against the ghost, burn the mummy, and smashing the lich's phylactery.
That's not favored enemy. That's just knowledge. You get a bonus from using a mace by, y'know, actually using a mace, not by studying a creature for years. You're treating this stuff way too literally. Favored enemy is all about the details, about the specifics. And humanoids have a lot more specifics than outsiders.

[Andorn]

It's not about having a silly rule. It's about having a normal rule, rangers being better able to attack and track foes that they've studied, and that rule not having a plausible implementation that avoids both imbalance between options and the gaps between different categories having different sizes. This is a game first and foremost, and that dictates that you're usually going to want the second problem over the first, because the first problem causes the actual game to become stale and boring.


As soon as you stick the word "balance" in there you change the rule from one that makes sense in game to one that doesn't. Sure, it's a game, but it is one designed to emulate a world and the way it works. When the rules you assign have "balance" instead of "accurate reflection of the internal consistency of the world" as their reason, you will end up out in wierdoland.



No, I mean that there should be differentiation between two characters that both choose ranger as a class.


Well, Rangers have far more differentiation than fighters do, as they have spells to pick. Different rangers pick different fighting styles, feats, and spells. Favored enemy is fine, too, I have no problem with the concept. It is the specific groupings rangers have to choose from that violate the internal consistency criteria I mentioned above, and I have a problem with that.



You misunderstand. I'm saying that it'd be weird if literally every ranger hated and/or studied humanoids. It'd be equally weird if every ranger hated and/or studied pixies, but that's not what your desired rules would cause.

I think it would be less weird for all rangers to hate humans, than it would be for any ranger in particular to hate pixies. After all, you don't have to hate all humans to take humans as a favored enemy. From a practical perspective, many of your enemies will be humans, as humans do more to wreck the environment than do elves, or fey, or even dragons (for a different reason, dragons are fairly rare, generally). So, I can see a ranger having to battle humans (and some other humanoids, particularly dwarves and orcs) more frequently than any other species.

[eggynack]

As soon as you stick the word "balance" in there you change the rule from one that makes sense in game to one that doesn't. Sure, it's a game, but it is one designed to emulate a world and the way it works. When the rules you assign have "balance" instead of "accurate reflection of the internal consistency of the world" as their reason, you will end up out in wierdoland.
It's not nearly as inconsistent as you claim. It is very much possible to justify a lot of this stuff, as I and others have done. There's not necessarily a perfect explanation of everything, but it's close enough for most purposes.



Well, Rangers have far more differentiation than fighters do, as they have spells to pick. Different rangers pick different fighting styles, feats, and spells. Favored enemy is fine, too, I have no problem with the concept. It is the specific groupings rangers have to choose from that violate the internal consistency criteria I mentioned above, and I have a problem with that.

But the alternate grouping causes other problems. There is no world without problems.


I think it would be less weird for all rangers to hate humans, than it would be for any ranger in particular to hate pixies. After all, you don't have to hate all humans to take humans as a favored enemy. From a practical perspective, many of your enemies will be humans, as humans do more to wreck the environment than do elves, or fey, or even dragons (for a different reason, dragons are fairly rare, generally). So, I can see a ranger having to battle humans (and some other humanoids, particularly dwarves and orcs) more frequently than any other species.

I'm saying that there'd be more humanoid haters than there would likely be of every other type of creature combined, which is a somewhat different situation, and a rather weird one.

[Andorn]

Actually, those outer planes were named such before humans even existed. That's because cosmology is not relative. There actually is a center, an inner and an outer. You have the Material, Shadow, and Ethereal at the center, surrounded by the Inner Planes, surrounded by Outer Planes, with the whole thing suspended in the Astral. Even worldly planeswalkers use those terms, because they're factually correct.


Says who? You should take a look as cosmology from a native of Arborea. You have Sigil in the middle of the Outlands, surrounded by and co-terminous with the "outer" planes. Outside them is the astral. Floating in the astral plane are the crystal spheres. Above them is the ethereal, accessed from the crystal spheres adrift in the astral plane. Floating in the ethereal are the elemental planes, touching where they meet the para-elemental planes (although these planes aren't actually arcs, the true geometry has more than 3 dimensions). This entire structure lies between the positive and negative energy planes, which are coterminous with everything.

Growing through the Outlands is Yggdrasil, with roots and branches touching(entering) many of the different planes.

Finally, all planes/contents cast shadows, which collectively form the plane of shadow. Yggdrasil casts a shadow as well, which may be traversed to different planes (not always the same ones) as Yggdrasil.

So, what about this model puts the PM in the middle, and makes the outer planes "outer"? Humanocentric thinking, only.

In fact, the "outer" planes existed long before the individual crystal spheres were formed. The Outlands were the original "PM", if there is such a thing as a "prime" material plane.



Outer is not from the perspective of a human. It's from a perspective of the cosmology. There are certain planes called Inner (planes of energy and elements), and Outer (planes of alignment, mostly). They are actually physically arranged in such a fashion. And there are definite traits of Outer planes that set them apart (i.e, the formation of Outsiders from it's energy and material, the fact petitioners go there, the fact it has an alignment, the fact it contains the realms of a few gods on it). Arborea is, physically, and objectively, on the outside corner of the cosmology.


Not from the perspective of an Arborean. And not from the perspective of a planar historian, either.



That sounds horrifically over-complicated for no real benefit.

Yes. Learning 5 different things is much easier than learning one thing that works against all of them.

That is true, but it is also true that if your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail, even if that isn't really the best way to approach each individual problem.

[Florian]

The question is, why are such decisions made for such spurious reasons, instead of what makes sense in-game? All game system rules should make sense in-game. If they don't then they need to be changed.

Simply put, that can´t work when talking about a set of "generic" rules. There is a marked difference between "Core" and "Setting" and as long as people should be able to home-brew settings, adapting the core rules to do so, you simply can´t dictate what would make "in-game sense" without enforcing what that "in-game" means.

[Andorn]

Simply put, that can´t work when talking about a set of "generic" rules. There is a marked difference between "Core" and "Setting" and as long as people should be able to home-brew settings, adapting the core rules to do so, you simply can´t dictate what would make "in-game sense" without enforcing what that "in-game" means.

Some rules, like armor making you harder to hit instead of reducing damage, are done for playability. It is a compromise, that still on average approximates you taking less damage over all during a fight, while eliminating the need for tracking damage to armor, and a lot of other tedious stuff that few people want to do.

But rules that are created out of some misplaced sense of "balance", like the favored enemy humanoid must take a subtype, because otherwise the bonus will count against too many foes, is pretty lame. It isn't done to make the game play better, it is done to reduce the strength of a character, when the character with that ability should be a bit stronger in battle.

This has nothing to do with "setting", or any other convoluted argument. It's just common sense that if your training makes you better in combat against humans, because you know where to hit them, how they move, etc, that you will be able to apply that training to other very similar opponents as well. After all, there aren't such racial restrictions on training that gives you more BAB. If ranger training vs favored enemy is only good against certain races, then why isn't all melee training so restricted?

These decisions have nothing to do with the character's capabilities, they only have to do with the vision of the designer, and how the game is "balanced".

Make the rules make sense, and leave it up to DMs to balance their games, they can handle it.

Actually, it has occurred to me that the favored enemy problem may be an artifact of 1st edition AD&D. There, rangers had bonuses too, like against orcs. But now there are different types of orcs, so they had to make the favored enemy thing more general. Plus, orcs are no longer species orc, they are humanoids, subtype orc.

The whole thing is such a kludge. And grouping all undead together, evil/good outsiders into huge groups, and especially aberrations or fey together is just silly, there is far too much variety in each of those groups for specialized training against one group to carry over to other creatures in the same broad category.

I mean, we have humanoids, mostrous humanoids, and then we have aberrations. Or, in other words, a generalized "monster" category. Lame.

Anyway, this has strayed waaaaay off topic. The original topic was about the damage type of shadow magic, and whether or not energy resistance was effective, and what metamagic feats could be applied.

[eggynack]

But rules that are created out of some misplaced sense of "balance", like the favored enemy humanoid must take a subtype, because otherwise the bonus will count against too many foes, is pretty lame. It isn't done to make the game play better, it is done to reduce the strength of a character, when the character with that ability should be a bit stronger in battle.
The issue actually isn't that sort of balance. Rangers could easily have their favored enemy bonus apply to everything all the time, and they'd still be stuck in tier 4. The issue is balance between favored enemy types. Favored enemy (humanoid) would make the choice associated with favored enemy an illusory one, and illusory choices are a bad thing in a game.


This has nothing to do with "setting", or any other convoluted argument. It's just common sense that if your training makes you better in combat against humans, because you know where to hit them, how they move, etc, that you will be able to apply that training to other very similar opponents as well. After all, there aren't such racial restrictions on training that gives you more BAB. If ranger training vs favored enemy is only good against certain races, then why isn't all melee training so restricted?
Favored enemy is fundamentally distinct from other melee training, because it's necessarily contained in the minutiae. You're getting all wrapped up in this issue of, say, humans versus elves, but what's so different about killing a human versus killing an ape, or killing some giant? There are differences, certainly, but they're not huge differences, and a lot of it is going to fall down to size, something that's clearly not a big concern to the system. Where to hit them is almost never an issue, cause that's going to be clear to just about anyone. You keep asserting that it's all about these big combat things, but it's just not. Regardless of the possible truth of your claim that the categories are weird, you're wrong about the underlying operation of the ability, and there's nothing convoluted about it.

The culture matters, and the way the creature thinks and talks, and how they smell and eat matters. Everything matters. That's what makes the ranger's favored enemy distinct from the fighter's weapon specialization. More importantly, it's about an instinctual sense of those things. You don't have to know the history of humans, but you do have to have some feeling as to the context of them. Otherwise, this would just be a standard byproduct of knowledge. And, in that overall context, favored enemy definitely makes at least some more sense than in your model.

[Andorn]

The issue actually isn't that sort of balance. Rangers could easily have their favored enemy bonus apply to everything all the time, and they'd still be stuck in tier 4. The issue is balance between favored enemy types. Favored enemy (humanoid) would make the choice associated with favored enemy an illusory one, and illusory choices are a bad thing in a game.


I can't make heads or tails of your point here, so I'll just comment that it's probably because it's late at night.



Favored enemy is fundamentally distinct from other melee training, because it's necessarily contained in the minutiae. You're getting all wrapped up in this issue of, say, humans versus elves, but what's so different about killing a human versus killing an ape, or killing some giant?


Well, I picked human vs half-elf, because they were the most similar humanoids I could think of, to best illustrate my problem with the game rule. But as I proposed above, instead of using a race, use a body type, to know where to do your damage. So, any critter that has its heart in the right place would fit the bill, if you have training against that type. Now, fighting critters larger than you takes some extra training, to deal with their reach and such, so humanoid traing would have reduced applicability against them.



There are differences, certainly, but they're not huge differences, and a lot of it is going to fall down to size, something that's clearly not a big concern to the system. Where to hit them is almost never an issue, cause that's going to be clear to just about anyone. You keep asserting that it's all about these big combat things, but it's just not. Regardless of the possible truth of your claim that the categories are weird, you're wrong about the underlying operation of the ability, and there's nothing convoluted about it.


No, that isn't what my problem is. My problem is, they lump together radically different creatures (like fey, or aberrations), and say "OK, training against this group is effective against all of them, but not against any other creature, even if it is more similar than the disparate creatures in this group are to each other." meanwhile, training against humanoids, which SHOULD be effective against all of them, is restricted to only being effective against one subtype. That is sheer NONSENSE.

My problem is this rule is based on "game balance", not actual common sense and internal consistency. It is irrational, and insults my intelligence. If the rule is going to be you have to pick just one creature within the category of humanoid, then you should have to pick one creature within aberrations or fey or undead. They are treating the different groups inconsistently, and the distinction they are making is ass backwards. They specify that the most similar subtypes most be treated separately, while the most disparate subtypes are treated identically, and that defies all common sense.



The culture matters, and the way the creature thinks and talks, and how they smell and eat matters. Everything matters. That's what makes the ranger's favored enemy distinct from the fighter's weapon specialization. More importantly, it's about an instinctual sense of those things. You don't have to know the history of humans, but you do have to have some feeling as to the context of them. Otherwise, this would just be a standard byproduct of knowledge. And, in that overall context, favored enemy definitely makes at least some more sense than in your model.

If favored enemy was a morale bonus, where the bonuses were based on cultural hatred or something, then those distinctions, "the way they walk and talk" would matter. But that isn't how the training is described, and the actual bonus is unnamed. Yeah, there are some fluff bonuses to favored enemy, but the meat is the combat stuff, or in other words, where you stick your sword. Against humanoids, that's pretty much the same whoever you fight. Against aberrations or fey, well, that could be a serious problem, as some of them are radically different. Again, if it was a morale bonus "Aberrations are all freaks and totally creep me out, death to them all!" then okay, I can see that. But that isn't how the bonuses are described, they are competence bonuses based on knowledge and training. So, what if you're fighting a totally new aberration that is unlike anything you've ever heard of before? Well, if a ranger has aberration as favored enemy, not a problem, the way the rules currently stand.

D&D abstracts a lot of the details in combat. That is as it should be, as D&D is not a wargame, it is a roleplaying game. But those abstractions should adhere as close to common sense as possible, or they just jar any intelligent being, who every time they encounter one of these kludges they stop and go "WTF?" That just kicks you out of the game. it's like reading a novel, where half the words are mis-spelled. After a while (a short while, if you are very literate), it is just so annoying that you can't concentrate on the story line any more.

[eggynack]

I can't make heads or tails of your point here, so I'll just comment that it's probably because it's late at night.
Okay, you're playing a ranger. One of the options is favored enemy (humanoid). Is it ever correct to pick anything else? Or does that one option outperform other options to such an extent that you're necessarily taking a power hit by venturing outside that one option? If the latter is the case, then you never really had a choice in the first place. The ability may as well just be called, "Favored enemy (humanoid)," for all that the rest of the options matter.


Well, I picked human vs half-elf, because they were the most similar humanoids I could think of, to best illustrate my problem with the game rule. But as I proposed above, instead of using a race, use a body type, to know where to do your damage. So, any critter that has its heart in the right place would fit the bill, if you have training against that type. Now, fighting critters larger than you takes some extra training, to deal with their reach and such, so humanoid traing would have reduced applicability against them.
I know where someone's heart is, and I have had virtually zero training in the field. Favored enemy has absolutely zero to do with knowing where various organs are.


If favored enemy was a morale bonus, where the bonuses were based on cultural hatred or something, then those distinctions, "the way they walk and talk" would matter. But that isn't how the training is described, and the actual bonus is unnamed. Yeah, there are some fluff bonuses to favored enemy, but the meat is the combat stuff, or in other words, where you stick your sword. Against humanoids, that's pretty much the same whoever you fight. Against aberrations or fey, well, that could be a serious problem, as some of them are radically different.

You're really missing the point here. The idea is that these factors are influencing the way that you fight the enemy, not giving you morale. Your understanding of their culture, and other things on that same level, is giving you a deeper understanding of their nature, and thus is letting you fight them more efficiently. "Where you stick your sword," is not a significant element of favored enemy, because fighters also know where to stick a sword. It's frigging basic training.


D&D abstracts a lot of the details in combat. That is as it should be, as D&D is not a wargame, it is a roleplaying game. But those abstractions should adhere as close to common sense as possible, or they just jar any intelligent being, who every time they encounter one of these kludges they stop and go "WTF?" That just kicks you out of the game. it's like reading a novel, where half the words are mis-spelled. After a while (a short while, if you are very literate), it is just so annoying that you can't concentrate on the story line any more.
The thing is, your common sense about the ability just seems wildly off base. Yes, there's some oddity to the fact that you have humanoids separated out, and fey all clumped together, but you're blowing that oddity out of proportion, predicated on your inaccurate assessment of the ability's operation.

[Florian]

I can't make heads or tails of your point here, so I'll just comment that it's probably because it's late at night.

The issue here is that you will, when going strictly by RAW, have so-and-so-many encounters until you have a level up and/or hit level 20 and the core game is finished for good.

The Favored Enemy types have to be balanced on that number, nothing else.

To go back to the previous discussion, when you change the frequency of certain types, you also change the intended balance behind Favored Enemy. Example: An All-Fey-Enemies Campaign should call for introducing subtypes to Fey to still be balanced.

[Necroticplague]

Okay, you're playing a ranger. One of the options is favored enemy (humanoid). Is it ever correct to pick anything else? Or does that one option outperform other options to such an extent that you're necessarily taking a power hit by venturing outside that one option? If the latter is the case, then you never really had a choice in the first place. The ability may as well just be called, "Favored enemy (humanoid)," for all that the rest of the options matter.

In my experience, favored enemy (Humanoid) is one of the least useful options. Templates, feats, and PRCs make it very easy to go from Humanoid to something else, but going from something else to humanoid relatively rare, so you'd expect most things wouldn't be humanoid.

[Andorn]

Okay, you're playing a ranger. One of the options is favored enemy (humanoid). Is it ever correct to pick anything else? Or does that one option outperform other options to such an extent that you're necessarily taking a power hit by venturing outside that one option? If the latter is the case, then you never really had a choice in the first place. The ability may as well just be called, "Favored enemy (humanoid)," for all that the rest of the options matter.


Well, it depends on whether or not you think you will ever have to kill humanoids. Maybe humanoids are rare in the campaign. That's one way for a DM to nerf favored enemy, I guess. If your nation is battling a horde of gnome shadow illusionists, then take favored enemy(shadow monsters), or how about favored enemy(arcanists) from UA? If your nation is under attack from Phaerimm, then that ought to be your first choice. What you choose is situational.

I'm more concerned at the moment with whether or not the rules make sense. If they don't make sense, then they are bogus and must be fixed.



I know where someone's heart is, and I have had virtually zero training in the field. Favored enemy has absolutely zero to do with knowing where various organs are.


Well, that is just not true. From PHB: "Due to his extensive study on his chosen type of foe and training in the proper techniques for combating such creatures, the ranger gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures."

Clearly, his training gives him improved techniques for doing damage...hitting the creature in better spots.



You're really missing the point here. The idea is that these factors are influencing the way that you fight the enemy, not giving you morale. Your understanding of their culture, and other things on that same level, is giving you a deeper understanding of their nature, and thus is letting you fight them more efficiently. "Where you stick your sword," is not a significant element of favored enemy, because fighters also know where to stick a sword. It's frigging basic training.


"Where you stick your sword" is the only possible justification for doing more physical damage to your opponent. The other bonuses are obviously cultural, but not that one, unless you are culturally-encouraging your opponent to impale himself onto your sword point?



The thing is, your common sense about the ability just seems wildly off base. Yes, there's some oddity to the fact that you have humanoids separated out, and fey all clumped together, but you're blowing that oddity out of proportion, predicated on your inaccurate assessment of the ability's operation.

"Wildly" off base? Fey and aberrations are the two most wildly-disparate groups of creatures I can think of, outside of "deity". Well, I guess "arcanists" could give them a run for their money, if you want to adopt the option from UA. Undead, evil outsiders, and good outsiders aren't far behind. The single group that is most homogeneous is humanoid. Yet, it is the only group where you are required to pick a subtype.

"Some" oddity? Out of proportion compared to what??? This rule is just dumb. The only reason for is a misapplication of the vague concept of "play balance". Someone just didn't like the idea of giving bonuses against elves, dwarves, and humans, and so ginned up this subtype rule. They should have just eliminated the category of humanoids, and added "orcs" and "goblinoids".

[Florian]

Depends entirely on what exactly you play and how focused it is. The whole Paizo APs are a pretty good example that three solid FE picks, supplemented by fitting FT, will be relevant throughout the entire campaigns.

[eggynack]

In my experience, favored enemy (Humanoid) is one of the least useful options. Templates, feats, and PRCs make it very easy to go from Humanoid to something else, but going from something else to humanoid relatively rare, so you'd expect most things wouldn't be humanoid.
The thing you become is pretty well distributed though, and a lot of humanoids aren't going to be using one of those things. I don't doubt that humanoid is going to be a bad choice in some campaigns, but it seems like a neutrally very strong choice, given how many NPC's are humanoid.

Well, it depends on whether or not you think you will ever have to kill humanoids. Maybe humanoids are rare in the campaign. That's one way for a DM to nerf favored enemy, I guess. If your nation is battling a horde of gnome shadow illusionists, then take favored enemy(shadow monsters), or how about favored enemy(arcanists) from UA? If your nation is under attack from Phaerimm, then that ought to be your first choice. What you choose is situational.
The game had to make certain assumptions about how the world would look, and one of those assumptions is that most characters are humanoids.



Well, that is just not true. From PHB: "Due to his extensive study on his chosen type of foe and training in the proper techniques for combating such creatures, the ranger gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures."

Clearly, his training gives him improved techniques for doing damage...hitting the creature in better spots.
Even if it is about hitting in the right place, it's not really going to be about where that place is. It's going to be about knowing enough about your opponent that you can hit them in that place, and that, again, comes down to the details.


"Where you stick your sword" is the only possible justification for doing more physical damage to your opponent. The other bonuses are obviously cultural, but not that one, unless you are culturally-encouraging your opponent to impale himself onto your sword point?

Even assuming you're correct here, which as my response above shows isn't necessarily the case, the presence of the other bonuses means that hit location and body type is fundamentally incapable of being the only factor. If damage were the only bonus, then there'd at least be some vague possibility of body type being the thing to look at, but it's not, so you cannot just look there. I don't think you really look there at all, because where to hit is so much less important than how you hit there, but that's secondary to the fact that there are all these other bonuses to look at.



"Wildly" off base? Fey and aberrations are the two most wildly-disparate groups of creatures I can think of, outside of "deity". Well, I guess "arcanists" could give them a run for their money, if you want to adopt the option from UA. Undead, evil outsiders, and good outsiders aren't far behind. The single group that is most homogeneous is humanoid. Yet, it is the only group where you are required to pick a subtype.
They're the most homogeneous in terms of body shape, but they're very much not homogeneous in terms of style and background.


"Some" oddity? Out of proportion compared to what??? This rule is just dumb. The only reason for is a misapplication of the vague concept of "play balance". Someone just didn't like the idea of giving bonuses against elves, dwarves, and humans, and so ginned up this subtype rule. They should have just eliminated the category of humanoids, and added "orcs" and "goblinoids".
So now orcs just have their own type? That seems like a weirdly long way to go to make favored enemy fit your mindset.

[zergling.exe]

One thing to say: If favored enemy is about hitting vital spots for bonus damage, how is it any different from sneak attack, which is explicity hitting vital spots for bonus damage? It makes more sense if there is some reason other than vital spots.

[Slithery D]

If realistic rules are your concern, I agree that the favored class humanoid divisions don't make much sense, but I'd first start worrying about violations of the square-cube law and the limitations of non-magical biology. Do your giants collapse into jelly and your dragons fall out of the sky when someone with an anti-magic field jumps on their back?

Someone should use Shadow Evocation to burn this thread down.

[Andorn]

The thing you become is pretty well distributed though, and a lot of humanoids aren't going to be using one of those things. I don't doubt that humanoid is going to be a bad choice in some campaigns, but it seems like a neutrally very strong choice, given how many NPC's are humanoid.
/quote]

I agree. And that is why they stuck in the rule about picking a humanoid subtype. It had nothing to do with whether or not the rule made sense physically, and everything to do with how powerful they perceived it to be. That is my complaint.

[quote]
The game had to make certain assumptions about how the world would look, and one of those assumptions is that most characters are humanoids.


Yes, they did, and they do. Most players do, as well. They make assumptions, and don't question them. Most of the time, they aren't even aware that they have preconceived assumptions.



Even if it is about hitting in the right place, it's not really going to be about where that place is. It's going to be about knowing enough about your opponent that you can hit them in that place, and that, again, comes down to the details.


Well, swords swing in certain ways. If we are going to differentiate between how different races swing their swords, then we should be taking into account how different classes swing their swords. Or, can an elf not train a human in the human style of swinging a sword? Or, is there an "elf style", so if a human has the elf style, then favored enemy(human) won't work on him?

Should we be concerned about the stylistic differences between rogues, barbarians, fighters, warblades, and swordsages? Honestly, I think those are more legitimate differences than the generic differences between humans, half-elves, elves, orcs, and dwarves. If we're going to start handing out bonuses against some groups but not others, let's do it in the most legitimate way possible.



Even assuming you're correct here, which as my response above shows isn't necessarily the case, the presence of the other bonuses means that hit location and body type is fundamentally incapable of being the only factor. If damage were the only bonus, then there'd at least be some vague possibility of body type being the thing to look at, but it's not, so you cannot just look there. I don't think you really look there at all, because where to hit is so much less important than how you hit there, but that's secondary to the fact that there are all these other bonuses to look at.


How can you say body type is not the main factor for damage, when the races in question are grouped by body type (humanoid)!?!???



They're the most homogeneous in terms of body shape, but they're very much not homogeneous in terms of style and background.


Not very homogeneous, compared to what??? Let's calibrate our homogeniality scale to the differences between a pixie and an ocean strider, a skeleton and a vampire, a mephit and Jubilex, or an illithid and a beholder. After all, if you pick favored enemy fey, undead, evil outsider, or aberration, by rule these creatures are treated homogeneously. The ranger gets identical bonuses, both cultural and combat, in each case.



So now orcs just have their own type? That seems like a weirdly long way to go to make favored enemy fit your mindset.

In 1st Edition AD&D orcs had their own type.

[Andorn]

One thing to say: If favored enemy is about hitting vital spots for bonus damage, how is it any different from sneak attack, which is explicity hitting vital spots for bonus damage? It makes more sense if there is some reason other than vital spots.

Who said it was any different? It is treated more or less the same. You learn how to fight these types of creatures, and you do more damage to them. The rule treats vastly disparate creatures homogeneously, but insists that more homogeneous creatures be treated separately. That violates common sense.

[Andorn]

If realistic rules are your concern, I agree that the favored class humanoid divisions don't make much sense, but I'd first start worrying about violations of the square-cube law and the limitations of non-magical biology. Do your giants collapse into jelly and your dragons fall out of the sky when someone with an anti-magic field jumps on their back?

Someone should use Shadow Evocation to burn this thread down.

Well, a T-Rex was 35 feet long, and it wasn't the biggest of the predatory dinosaurs. So, I don't have a problem with giants that don't exceed those dimensions. Of course, cloud, fire, and storm giants are magical in nature, but I'd have to study their individual cases to make a ruling on how an anti-magic shell would debilitate them.

Draconomicon went out of its way to try to justify dragon flight, but I'm not convinced. I think dragon flight is magically-assisted. In my view, a dragon (beyond size large) in an anti-magic shell would have to glide to a landing.

Other immensely-huge creatures need some way of supporting their body...either it rests on an underlying structure (huge molds/oozes), or it is supported/reinforced by magic (terrasque or enormous deity avatars), or it is magically-lightened (dragons), or the creature is bouyed by water (huge sea critters), or lives in a low gravity environment (astral dragons).

[eggynack]

Well, swords swing in certain ways. If we are going to differentiate between how different races swing their swords, then we should be taking into account how different classes swing their swords. Or, can an elf not train a human in the human style of swinging a sword? Or, is there an "elf style", so if a human has the elf style, then favored enemy(human) won't work on him?

Should we be concerned about the stylistic differences between rogues, barbarians, fighters, warblades, and swordsages? Honestly, I think those are more legitimate differences than the generic differences between humans, half-elves, elves, orcs, and dwarves. If we're going to start handing out bonuses against some groups but not others, let's do it in the most legitimate way possible.
I would assume that it's more of an underlying thing. A subconscious way that an elf acts in combat. You can't train in it, and you can't really untrain it.




How can you say body type is not the main factor for damage, when the races in question are grouped by body type (humanoid)!?!???
How can you say that body type is the main factor for damage when you've already pointed out how different body types can be without leaving a category? Creatures are grouped by type, not body type.


Not very homogeneous, compared to what??? Let's calibrate our homogeniality scale to the differences between a pixie and an ocean strider, a skeleton and a vampire, a mephit and Jubilex, or an illithid and a beholder. After all, if you pick favored enemy fey, undead, evil outsider, or aberration, by rule these creatures are treated homogeneously. The ranger gets identical bonuses, both cultural and combat, in each case.
What even is ocean strider culture? Do they have a culture that's especially difficult to learn? Is there anything especially complex about them? They're not super simple, but they're not overly complex either.



In 1st Edition AD&D orcs had their own type.
Sure, but 3.5 has a pretty complex type system. Getting it that granular seems like it could be annoying, given how much stuff a type defines.

In any case, I think there's another way to read this ability. You've discarded the notion of this stuff being based on hatred for the type, because the ability talks about what you know of the type, but I don't think it should be discarded so easily. Yes, your instinctual knowledge drives your power, but something drives that instinctual knowledge, and that thing, is usually going to be negative feelings towards the type. It drives you to spend large quantities of time thinking about aberrations, and hating aberrations, and whatnot. Which, in turn, means that what you've tossed aside as a "morale bonus", can be reintroduced as your underlying driver.

And, moreover, this goes to justify the fact that you look at these small swaths of humanoids. Because there are so many of them, and because they represent a dominant aspect of the culture, it makes sense that just humans could act as the target of your hatred. It's not necessarily that you understand their culture that makes you good at humans, but that you hate their culture that makes you hate them, and the difference between their culture and that of elves that makes you hate elves. Meanwhile, you might hate all aberrations for a completely different reason, because they're an afront against nature or something, and you might hate giants cause they're too tall. Point being that the degree to which you can direct hate, or focus, at a particular group is going to be roughly proportional to how large and dominant that group is, and an underlying assumption of the ability is that the groups are segmented such that each possible favored enemy is about as big a segment of the enemy population as any other.

[Necroticplague]

Favored Enemy applying damage bonus isn't necessarily a result of anatomy. It could also be knowing their psychology enough that you know when they're vulnerable (which explains why you can take favored enemy and get a bonus to damage roll against things that don't have anatomies, like oozes).

That being said, my biggest complaint about favorite enemy is the genericness. It seems like different creatures should require vastly different tactics to fight, so Favored Enemy should provide different bonuses depending on the chosen Enemy, not just some boring +numbers.

[Andorn]

Favored Enemy applying damage bonus isn't necessarily a result of anatomy. It could also be knowing their psychology enough that you know when they're vulnerable (which explains why you can take favored enemy and get a bonus to damage roll against things that don't have anatomies, like oozes).

That being said, my biggest complaint about favorite enemy is the genericness. It seems like different creatures should require vastly different tactics to fight, so Favored Enemy should provide different bonuses depending on the chosen Enemy, not just some boring +numbers.

Well, that is half the basis of my complaint. Disparate creatures are grouped together and the ranger is given a generic bonus against the group, while comparatively homogeneous creatures are kept separate. The other half of the basis of my complaint is why this was done...some designer thought it was too powerful, or distasteful for rangers to get bonuses against all humanoid races, so they stuck in this rule, and called it play balance. It's arbitrary and contrary to common sense, and really kinda insulting to players, that we are just supposed to accept it, or that the assumption is that we are too stupid to even notice.

Or even worse, that people are so brainwashed by the fact that the rule is printed in a book to even question it. I run into so many people on these boards who just dogmatically parrot what is in the books that it just boggles my mind. D&D is a fantasy game, people who play it are supposed to have more imagination and ability to think for themselves than that.