Humanoids?

[Treebore]

Elves, Dwarves, halflings, humans, and gnomes are classified as humanoids. The Ranger Marauder ability says it works against humanoids.

I don't like this implication, and the marauder ability does not clearly exclude these races. In fact it implicates that they are included.

So what is the intended use of Combat Marauder with regards to the class races?

I know perfectly well the "you are the CK, so whatever..." answer. What I want is the intent and exact meaning of the Combat Marauder in accordance with the rules. What exactly is the description supposed to mean?

[Colin Chapman]

IIRC from the development discussions, it is left open for that very reason. In some campaigns the marauders a Ranger has to face may well most commonly be members of their own or other playable races. For example, if human bandits, thugs, barbarian raiders, and other scum plague a given area more than orcs or goblins, it simply makes a lot of sense that Rangers in those areas have the ability to fight them as effectively as any other marauder. Also, some campaigns are all but human-centric, and have few if any other races. Then there's also the logical point of this: is human/elf/dwarf, etc. anatomy and fighting style, etc. so far removed from that of bugbears, gnolls, kobolds, orcs, etc. (themselves very different indeed in terms of physiology and fighting style from each other), that the Combat Marauder bonuses should only apply to the latter group, not the former? Finally, there is the other important point to consider: Rangers are no longer a *Good only* class either; Evil Rangers exist, and furthermore, class levels can be applied as special abilities to monsters if desired. In some regards, you need to consider the Ranger as a *commando/spec. forces soldier*. Such folks learn to most effectively combat their most common enemy: other people. The old idea that learning to better kill your fellow man/elf/whatever makes you *Evil* has gone the way of the dinosaur, thankfully.

So, the open-ended approach is there for a number of reasons, and it does come down to CK decision as a result.

Hope that helps?

cheers!

Colin

[Rigon]

I have to agree with Colin. Why wouldn't a ranger be effective against dwarves/elves/ect? I beleive the key word here is humanoid. IMC, I let rangers use combat maurader against anything that is classified as humanoid.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[Colin Chapman]

Ultimately, the open-ended approach allows folks to define it as openly or narrowly as they want. Some CKs, for example, will restrict the CM ability to non-Playable humanoid races. Others to any humanoid not of the character's actual species. Others again will leave it wide open to apply to all humanoids.

cheers!

Colin

[Treebore]

OK, I was interpreting it the 1E/2E way, which didn't include elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and humans. At least that is how I and everyone I ever played under interpreted the Ranger ability.

I can see the reasoning. I think I could live with defining it as any humanoid or giant that belongs to a group of humanoiods or giants that threatens civilized areas. That way if it is wild elves or a human barbarian tribe that attacks civilized areas they could get the bonus, but not against every elf, human, etc...

[Combat_Kyle]

I give rangers the bonus against all creatures with the humanoid classification. They each have two arms, two legs a head and a central nervous system that are similar. A ranger does more damage aginst them because he knows just where to hit them.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

[Philotomy Jurament]

I make this campaign-specific. My take on it is that the ranger is trained to fight a certain class of enemy that he is "holding the frontier" against. In other words, it isn't just that the enemy is man-shaped and he knows where to hit them. I think every trained fighter, not just rangers, knows where those vital areas are. IMC, it's not just knowledge of anatomy, but also the fact that the ranger has made a special study of certain enemy tactics, combat styles, weaknesses, et cetera. He specializes in those enemies.

For my campaign, that would include the 1st edition list of "giant class" humanoids. It might also include the soldiers of the unfriendly human kingdom to the south. But it wouldn't include the friendly elves that live to the west.

All of that would vary by campaign setting and ranger background, of course.

[Treebore]

So how do you explain why fighters don't get the bonus, since their primary enemy is "humanoids"? Same argument could be made for Monks, Barbarians, Rogues, and assasssins. I feel I have to have a narrower definition in an attmept to avoid these very good arguments.

[Colin Chapman]

Treebore wrote:
So how do you explain why fighters don't get the bonus, since their primary enemy is "humanoids"? Same argument could be made for Monks, Barbarians, Rogues, and assasssins. I feel I have to have a narrower definition in an attmept to avoid these very good arguments.

They already do. Assassins and Rogues, for example, reflect their knowledge of how to deal swift death via the Back/Death/Sneak Attack abilities. Monks have ever increasing unarmed damage potential which can account for more lethal strikes and knowledge of how to hit opponents just so (as well as Stunning Attack and Quivering Palm). Fighters have the highest BtH of any class, reflecting general expertise against ALL foes, as well as Combat Dominance and Extra Attack reflecting their very broad expertise of fighting any opponent, and of being able to effectively deal with masses of weaker foes; the Fighter is a generalist vs. the Ranger's specialist. Barbarians could easily be argued to be lacking in such finesse and knowledge as the extremely specialised Ranger possesses, seeing as how they rely on might and berserk rage to hew and cleave through foes.

So, in many regards, each class already accounts for such knowledge, albeit in different ways, and with different outcomes and foci.

cheers!

Colin

[Philotomy Jurament]

Treebore wrote:
So how do you explain why fighters don't get the bonus, since their primary enemy is "humanoids"? Same argument could be made for Monks, Barbarians, Rogues, and assasssins. I feel I have to have a narrower definition in an attmept to avoid these very good arguments.

I view it as a matter of specialization and degree. For example, both Fighters and Rangers train for general combat. But a Fighter puts extra emphasis on mastery of his chosen weapons, and puts that specialization to use whenever he wields his weapons. A Ranger, on the other hand, puts extra emphasis on knowing his favored enemies. Both Fighters and Rangers might use longswords, but the specialized Fighter will be better with his sword. Both of them fight humanoids, but the Ranger has some extra knowledge that he can put to use to gain an advantage.

I suppose you could use the same argument for the anatomy concept (i.e. Fighters know anatomy, but Rangers know it better because they specialize in it). I just prefer a more targeted and setting-dependent approach.

[Colin Chapman]

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
I view it as a matter of specialization and degree. For example, both Fighters and Rangers train for general combat. But a Fighter puts extra emphasis on mastery of his chosen weapons, and puts that specialization to use whenever he wields his weapons. A Ranger, on the other hand, puts extra emphasis on knowing his favored enemies. Both Fighters and Rangers might use longswords, but the specialized Fighter will be better with his sword. Both of them fight humanoids, but the Ranger has some extra knowledge that he can put to use to gain an advantage.

I suppose you could use the same argument for the anatomy concept (i.e. Fighters know anatomy, but Rangers know it better because they specialize in it). I just prefer a more targeted and setting-dependent approach.

Bingo.
cheers!

Colin

[Jackal]

I hope this doesn't violate the NDA (if it does please let me know or remove it...lol) but during playtesting I asked the same question. Davis said that character races were not included as marauders (marauders are just that, those who rape civilized lands on a regular basis, etc).

Having said that, I'm sure it was left as is (instead of saying monstrous humanoids) for the very reasons mentioned above. This way you can make the call. In my games I go with what Davis said during playtesting but that's only because I happen to like it that way. lol

[Colin Chapman]

Jackal wrote:
I hope this doesn't violate the NDA (if it does please let me know or remove it...lol) but during playtesting I asked the same question. Davis said that character races were not included as marauders (marauders are just that, those who rape civilized lands on a regular basis, etc).

Having said that, I'm sure it was left as is (instead of saying monstrous humanoids) for the very reasons mentioned above. This way you can make the call. In my games I go with what Davis said during playtesting but that's only because I happen to like it that way. lol

Hey mate. I remember that during the playtest the various approaches got batted back and forth an awful lot (as with most things; those were the days, eh? ), which is why I think they settled on an explanation that was more open to interpretation in the end. I'm glad they did, personally, rather than restrict it more; I always favour more wiggle room for CK interpretation, even if I don't always make use of it myself.
cheers!

Colin

[Maliki]

This never even crossed my mind that the PC races could be viewed as humanoids/marauders. I guess this is a carry over from 1st/2nd where the PC races were refered to as demi-humans. IMC the ranger will not get his bonus verses the PC races.

[Jackal]

Colin Chapman wrote:
Hey mate. I remember that during the playtest the various approaches got batted back and forth an awful lot (as with most things; those were the days, eh? ), which is why I think they settled on an explanation that was more open to interpretation in the end. I'm glad they did, personally, rather than restrict it more; I always favour more wiggle room for CK interpretation, even if I don't always make use of it myself.
cheers!

Colin

Could very well be. lol Either way, like you, I'm glad they left it as is. This way it can easily go either way with no fuss.

[Ghul]

What Maliki said.

IMC, there are humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Rangers' abilities only work against the humanoids (goblins, orcs, giants, etc.)

--Ghul

[miller6]

Ghul wrote:
What Maliki said.

IMC, there are humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Rangers' abilities only work against the humanoids (goblins, orcs, giants, etc.)

--Ghul

I never understood why rangers should have a specialization against humanoids anyway (short of the J.R.R.Tolkein reference to fighting orcs and goblins). So what if they deal with them alot? They probably hide most of the time since humanoids mostly travel in numbers (unless it's a scout patrol). Better to give them a bonus against animal-types due to knowing how wild creatures react. Now if humanoids meant werebears, wereboars and werewolves, I'd be more likely to agree.

Otherwise, it's a pointless bonus if you ask me.

Brian Miller

"Just so you know, goblin Clakkity players have a bonus verus rangers."

[Rigon]

Ghul wrote:
What Maliki said.

IMC, there are humans, demi-humans, and humanoids. Rangers' abilities only work against the humanoids (goblins, orcs, giants, etc.)

--Ghul

Hm, never thought of it that way. I think I have to agree with you.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[serleran]

There is a problem in the fact that there is a classification of monsters known as "humanoid" and that of the description of humanoid, meaning "having two arms, two legs, and a head, walking upright, and generally possessing some form of sentience." In fact, both reference the same thing, which is problematic, at least, as far as this debate is concerned, considering that a human ranger whose never encountered a dwarf gets the same bonus against it as he does the orc he's battled millions of times. However, because humanoids, in both senses, are the same thing, it does make sense... they will have related anatomies, related tactics, related structures, because, at their core... they are "like humans." The monstrous humanoids, those having odd physicalities, strange magical powers, and other features, are not so affected, because of these differences.

Remember, that it is possible for things which are not of the playable sort (without special treatment) to have the same abilities, so that a goblin ranger gets the same bonuses as the human ranger does against him. This, I believe, is a most necessary point to not forget.

[Combat_Kyle]

I am in the same school of thought as serl, I think the bonus should apply to all humanoids (including playable races) but think, if they fight a ranger of any race (huma, elf etc) that abilitycan be used against the PCs. And personally I like to use nasty bits like this against the palyers. Just think a 5th level dwarf ranger with a +1 bearded axe and a 16 Str does a MINIMUM of 11 damage when he hits. THink about that and thrown one of these suckers at your party.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

[Julian Grimm]

I tend to agreee that it should go against the PC races as well. If you think about it some rangers will fight bandits that are completly human and would warrent the bonus against them.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog