Troll Lord Games

I've been trying to understand what the ranger's combat marauder ability is in terms of the idea behind it (the fluff). It seems like its something a fighter should have and seems a powerful ability albeit limited to certain types. Don't understand why it only increases damage without any ability to hit better - that too seems odd with its description: ' intense training and study of enemies fighting techniques'

and do Humans count as humanoids for this ability?

any thoughts appreceiated

My interpretation was that only Monstrous Humanoids counted, considering the way the list is written. I don't think it would break anything to extend it to others, though, but I would expect that to come at some cost, such as marking creatures off of the original list.

I my C&C games we have had three ranger characters. All three of them wanted to take 'human' as their Combat Marauder enemy. Like Harry Joy, I had to make the call that humans for the purposes of combat marauder are not "humanoids."

If you let humans be the choice for this ability, then combat maurauder becomes VERY powerful (since most campaigns have lots of human enemies to fight).

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Honestly, I've never been in a campaign where there were lots of Human enemies to be killed. The one time I played a Ranger with Human as a Favored Enemy [3.x], I went months without battling another Human. Thing is, to make sense to me personally, there better be some pretty heavy backstory to explain any favored enemy choice beyond the standard, Human or otherwise. If, for instance, a Ranger player wanted to make Nagas a special foe you can be damned sure there's gonna be four pages of exposition to explain it. The same should apply with Humans. Usually however, the player will skimp on the story and jump straight to arguments when they pick Human, or at least it seems that way.

Omote wrote:
I my C&C games we have had three ranger characters. All three of them wanted to take 'human' as their Combat Marauder enemy. Like Harry Joy, I had to make the call that humans for the purposes of combat marauder are not "humanoids."

If you let humans be the choice for this ability, then combat maurauder becomes VERY powerful (since most campaigns have lots of human enemies to fight).

-O

Choice? Where's it say you have to choose ONE. I read the ability as applying to all "humanoids" as listed and all "giants" as listed with "and the like" being left up to CK discretion. Nowhere do I see anything indicating you must choose only one type of humanoid/giant.

As for humans, they are not humanoids or they would be specifically listed in the parenthetical examples given.

Edit: The only ability that requires a choice that I see is Favored Enemy. I would say an argument could be made for allowing a character to pick humans in this case, if that's who they have primarily fought (bandits and such). But this thread was specifically discussing Combat Marauder, which does not require a choice.
_________________
Laudir Agus Mir

Mythago wrote:
I've been trying to understand what the ranger's combat marauder ability is in terms of the idea behind it (the fluff). It seems like its something a fighter should have and seems a powerful ability albeit limited to certain types. Don't understand why it only increases damage without any ability to hit better - that too seems odd with its description: ' intense training and study of enemies fighting techniques'

and do Humans count as humanoids for this ability?

any thoughts appreceiated

For the why's and wherefore's you'd have to go back to the 1e AD&D Ranger who had this ability. That was where the idea first appeared. As to the damage aspect I see it as the ability to hit very vital areas on the creature in question. Something like knowing the precise place to hit to cause maximum pain. Of course like all combat this is an abstraction and should be treated as such.

For humans counting I am divided. Certainly humanoids are human enough for the ability to transfer to them as well. And a Ranger could spend some time fighting human brigands and bandits over goblinoid ones.

This is one of those area's where I would justify individual CK interperitation.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

In the old days of AD&D, there where humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Humanoids and humans were not the same. The idea for the ranger was that he was a protector of the woods and defended it from the forest destroying humanoid hordes and giants. That said, I could see a ranger variant that protected the "king's roads" and focused on killing human brigands and bandits, gaining the ability against humans. But then not against humans *and* humanoids.

I had forgot that classification system in my post. Going back to that helps to understand the way Rangers were done in C&C. In fact there is a lot of AD&D terminology that would help understand C&C better like sub-classes and the difference between human, demi-human and humanoid/goblinoid*.

*Yes I know Goblinoid isn't an AD&D term but it is one I have adopted for use in my games.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Stuie wrote:
Choice? Where's it say you have to choose ONE. I read the ability as applying to all "humanoids" as listed and all "giants" as listed with "and the like" being left up to CK discretion. Nowhere do I see anything indicating you must choose only one type of humanoid/giant.

As for humans, they are not humanoids or they would be specifically listed in the parenthetical examples given.

Edit: The only ability that requires a choice that I see is Favored Enemy. I would say an argument could be made for allowing a character to pick humans in this case, if that's who they have primarily fought (bandits and such). But this thread was specifically discussing Combat Marauder, which does not require a choice.

Ah I was confusing the two abilities., My bad.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Dristram wrote:
The idea for the ranger was that he was a protector of the woods and defended it from the forest destroying humanoid hordes and giants.

Thats a very interesting bit of additional conception stuff that I have not read - maybe obvious with hindsight - but its good to have this for the record. Very Aragorn really. I still don't fully get what the Marauder HP bonus represents as such. I would have thought that it would have bestowed a hit bonus too.

As an idea maybe a Ranger could use the marauder bonus in a flexible way as plus to hit, or damage or Ac vs humanoids or a mix for any one turn.

Humans do not count. Neither do dwarves, elves, and halflings. They can, of course, if the CK wishes too, but it is not meant to include PC races. I asked this same question about two years ago. Serleran and I think Gideon responded.

In the 3rd printing of the PH there is a list of (humanoids).

I think if you look at the classifications in the M&T you will not see elves, dwarves, etc... referred to as humanoids. I don't know for sure, because ever since having my answer I never looked. I just remembered it is the same way it was in 1E and 2E. (In 2E Rangers were meant to be against non humans, but didn't get the same damage bonus.)

As for my campaign I redefined humanoids a bit to include "groups" that are identified as enemies of the Rangers "people".

For example I include the forces of Unklar for the Ranger in my game, so irregardless of their race the Ranger gets to use their bonus. I have also given Paladins a similar ability to use as a alternative to their 9th level Smite Evil ability. Which the Paladin in my campaign took.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

I'd agree- i don't think it was meant to be used on dwarves, elves, humans, etc. It was meant to emulate the 1st Ed Ranger's ability against `giant-class' creatures.

Combat Marauder is one of the easiest abilities to tweak, however. I let my rangers pick any two monster types.

-Fizz

Omote wrote:
Ah I was confusing the two abilities., My bad.

-O

Ok - 'cause I read, re-read, and had my 10-year-old son read the description of Combat Marauder, because I thought "if Omote said it, it must be right. Right?"
_________________
Laudir Agus Mir

Dristram wrote:
In the old days of AD&D, there where humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Humanoids and humans were not the same. The idea for the ranger was that he was a protector of the woods and defended it from the forest destroying humanoid hordes and giants. That said, I could see a ranger variant that protected the "king's roads" and focused on killing human brigands and bandits, gaining the ability against humans. But then not against humans *and* humanoids.

Here's how I work Combat Marauder:
Combat Marauder: Rangers possess an extraordinary ability to combat their most common foes; goblinoids, orcs and giants, due to intense training and study of their enemys fighting techniques. When fighting bugbears, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, orcs or giants (giants, trolls, ogres and the like) a ranger inflicts extra damage. This damage bonus is equal to +1 per level of the ranger (to a maximum of +8 at level 8 and beyond).
A 5th level ranger would inflict an additional 5 hit points of damage for each successful hit against an humanoid or giant.

Goblinoid, orcish or giant rangers gain Combat Marauder bonuses against both humans and demihumans. At the DMs discretion the listed enemy races may be altered to better suit the rangers background or campaign setting. Sahuagin rangers, for example, would typically apply Combat Marauder bonuses against humans, elves, tritons, ixitxachitl and locathah.

I have no problems using combat marauder against humanoids, either monstrous or not, but I also have a caveat that prevents it from being used in every situation.

I'd have fun with a half-orc ranger of lawful evil alignment that felt elfs were a threat to his livelihood so he declared personal war against them... hence, CM bonuses.

I've been thinking about staggering the damage bonus with a to hit bonus, every fourth level. So, at 4th +1/+3, at 8th +2/+6, at 12th +3/+9, etc.

catenwolde wrote:
I've been thinking about staggering the damage bonus with a to hit bonus, every fourth level. So, at 4th +1/+3, at 8th +2/+6, at 12th +3/+9, etc.

Heck, one could also argue for just staggering the damage bonus, just because of how potent the ability is. +1 per 2 levels or something like that.

-Fizz

Providing both an attack bonus and a damage bonus is excessive, in my opinion. There is no need to make th ranger that much better than the fighter when engaging in these select foes, seeing as the ranger will already hit nearly as often, for more damage.

edit: oops, this was a reply to Fizz.

Sure, but after a certain point it actually becomes a moot point anyway - when you are fighting 1HD (or even 2HD) humanoids, by mid to high levels the ranger is simply getting an auto-KIA, especially when you figure in the probable Strength and magical weapon bonuses. Against giants, it starts to become a nasty attack, but not a killer. This is one reason why it's so much weaker than the combination of the Fighter's multiple attacks and lower to hit/damage bonuses - if you only have to cause 4-8hp of damage to KIA something, then more attacks and more accurate attacks are better every time.

Still, an effective class skill, especially against boosted hp leader types.

serleran,

I see your point, and like I said it was just an option to ponder for now. Still, the effect certainly wouldn't make the Ranger a better fighter than the, well, Fighter, even against humanoids.

At 4th level, the Fighter is +1/+1 (effectively +2/1 due to the BtH edge) with 2 attacks, while the Ranger would be +1/+3. At 8th level, the Fighter is +2/+2 (effectively +3/+2) with 3 attacks, while the Ranger would be at +2/+6. edit: that's just counting the bonuses over basic BtH, obviously.

If you keep the Combat Dominance limitation of 1d6 HD, then its worse for the Fighter, but it seems common enough to dump the limit (as I do). The Fighter still has a slight to it edge, even then, and the Ranger still has enough of a damage edge to KIA. Favored Enemy choice can shift things in the Ranger's favor, but I'm okay with that, since it's so specific.

Cheers

I've always assumed that Combat Marauder meant that the Ranger was making a flurry of attacks.

A marauder is mobile as opposed to static. So the combat is not just smacking somebody with a sword but smacking and smacking and smacking.

And that would be why it does a lot more damage.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

CharlieRock wrote:
I've always assumed that Combat Marauder meant that the Ranger was making a flurry of attacks.

A marauder is mobile as opposed to static. So the combat is not just smacking somebody with a sword but smacking and smacking and smacking.

And that would be why it does a lot more damage.

No, i think marauder is referring to the enemy. Marauder, meaning one who attacks or raids places. Ergo, Combat Marauder means the ranger knows how to fight said marauder. It's not a comment on how the ranger is fighting it, but of what the ranger is fighting.

-Fizz

Fizz wrote:
No, i think marauder is referring to the enemy. Marauder, meaning one who attacks or raids places. Ergo, Combat Marauder means the ranger knows how to fight said marauder. It's not a comment on how the ranger is fighting it, but of what the ranger is fighting.

-Fizz

I've never thought of it like that. And that may just dampen some enthusiasm for this class since the guy that plays one calls it his "Marauder" and not his "Ranger" character.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

CharlieRock wrote:
I've never thought of it like that. And that may just dampen some enthusiasm for this class since the guy that plays one calls it his "Marauder" and not his "Ranger" character.

Well, nothing says the ranger can't be a marauder himself. He just happens to be good at fighting them. The marauder knows how to fight marauders.

Does he get the bonus to damage against himself then? Heh.

-Fizz

serleran wrote:
I have no problems using combat marauder against humanoids, either monstrous or not, but I also have a caveat that prevents it from being used in every situation.

I'd have fun with a half-orc ranger of lawful evil alignment that felt elfs were a threat to his livelihood so he declared personal war against them... hence, CM bonuses.

This is where I go with it for C&C. Halfling "scouts" get the bonus against gnolls, gnomes vs. kobods, and orc/gnoll/etc. scouts get the bonus against humans or demi-humans.

BB
_________________
Fantasy Roleplaying Supplements for Basic, Expert, and Advanced games, free for download or print-on-demand and available now! http://www.barrataria.com/

Fizz wrote:
Well, nothing says the ranger can't be a marauder himself. He just happens to be good at fighting them. The marauder knows how to fight marauders.

Does he get the bonus to damage against himself then? Heh.

-Fizz

Kind of, sort of ... we apply marauder bonus to attacks against humans. Yeah, humans are humanoid. So if he attacks a mirror version of himself (or himself somehow) he would get that bonus.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!