D&D 5E Am I missing something with Favored Foe?

[doctorbadwolf]

...No you can’t?

What??

The argument seems to be that you can burn all your favored foe uses at together. I don’t think it works that way, but several people do.

 

[Lord Twig]

One of the major problems of ranger is that the popular TWF style doesn't work well with other ranger features because of its dependence on bonus actions.

So along comes Favored Foe that doesn't require a bonus action. Yay, right? Wrong. Unfortunately it only applies to a single attack, making it no more useful for a TWF ranger than anyone else.

Ranger probably needs a class feature to allow them to do something like cast a bonus action ranger spell while also making a TWF attack or something, like the orc needs a racial feature allowing them to initiate barbarian rage when they use Aggressive. Both are situations where the game basically punishes you for playing to type.

For my own house rule I just allow Favored Foe to add damage to all attacks. After 5th level "all attacks" means 2, unless you are two-weapon fighting, then it is 3. Hardly overpowering. Also remember this is for one target only, if that target goes down, or you just decide to attack someone else, you don't get the damage. You have to use another use to add the damage to another target and you only get a number of uses equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest. So yeah, not feeling it is overpowered and a much needed boost. I'm really disappointed that they limited it to once per round in the book.

 

[Charlaquin]

The argument seems to be that you can burn all your favored foe uses at together. I don’t think it works that way, but several people do.

But it requires concentration. You can’t concentrate on multiple instances of the same effect. If you could, you could do it with Hunter’s Mark too.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But it requires concentration. You can’t concentrate on multiple instances of the same effect. If you could, you could do it with Hunter’s Mark too.

Hey I already said I don’t think they’re right

 

[Charlaquin]

Hey I already said I don’t think they’re right

Right, I just don’t follow the logic that leads them to that conclusion. There are cases of disagreement over rules interpretation where I can see where the other person is coming from even if I disagree with their conclusion. This is not one of those cases.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Right, I just don’t follow the logic that leads them to that conclusion. There are cases of disagreement over rules interpretation where I can see where the other person is coming from even if I disagree with their conclusion. This is not one of those cases.

Soemthing about the “every time you deal damage” part, some folks are reading as meaning you can use a “stack” of FF each time you hit, and that it isn’t a separate effect, somehow. It’s...strained, at best.

 

[jgsugden]

So, when a paladin gets to add damage to an attack without using an action, people say it is potentially overpowered. A less effective version is, on the other hand, useless?

Having played a ranger recently, this is useful. My Archer / Sorcerer shoots once, boosts the damage, then shoots again, then quickens a haste and shoots a third time (negating the favored foe). It is just a free mini smite. I also use it when we're cleaning out fodder and I don't want to waste a spell slot. It is not the signature ability of the ranger, but it is fine.

 

[Lord Twig]

So, when a paladin gets to add damage to an attack without using an action, people say it is potentially overpowered. A less effective version is, on the other hand, useless?

Having played a ranger recently, this is useful. My Archer / Sorcerer shoots once, boosts the damage, then shoots again, then quickens a haste and shoots a third time (negating the favored foe). It is just a free mini smite. I also use it when we're cleaning out fodder and I don't want to waste a spell slot. It is not the signature ability of the ranger, but it is fine.

That just seems incredibly wasteful. I mean, sure, an extra 3-4 damage, 3 times a day isn't nothing, but it is pretty close to nothing. Especially since it should last a whole combat and add (assuming just 4 rounds of combat) 14 damage, 3 times a day. Which is moderately better, but unlikely to really make a significant difference in combat. I think the fact that you are so willing to give up a long rest limited ability that lasts a minute after just the first round shows just how worthless you think the ability is. If it was actually valuable, you wouldn't waste it so readily.

 

[NotAYakk]

So, when a paladin gets to add damage to an attack without using an action, people say it is potentially overpowered. A less effective version is, on the other hand, useless?

Having played a ranger recently, this is useful. My Archer / Sorcerer shoots once, boosts the damage, then shoots again, then quickens a haste and shoots a third time (negating the favored foe). It is just a free mini smite. I also use it when we're cleaning out fodder and I don't want to waste a spell slot. It is not the signature ability of the ranger, but it is fine.

Paladins can smite when concentrating on another spell. Rangers cannot FF.

Paladin smite dice at level 5 is 14d8 with up to 6d8 per round. FF used as a smite is 2d4 with up to 1d4 per round. Paladin smites are literally 10x larger than FF is.

Paladin smites are large enough the Paladin can optimize for crit fishing; doing so with tiny FF doesn't work.

Pal 6/Sorc 14 has buckets and buckets of smite dice; no such technique exists for Rangers.

I mean, whispers bard smites are paladin smite tier, but as a smite, FF sucks.

As a HM replacement it sucks.

Design wise, adding a concentration requiring feature in a concentration heavy class who quickly gains a better concentration requiring version is a bad design.

 

[fearsomepirate]

That is quoting the rules

The reading that it escalates is not that crazy given how it is worded.

So with that reading, you deal 1d4 first round, 2d4 next, etc.

Or the next paragraph, also written poorly:

Reading that as "you can mark the same enemy up to proficiency bonus times" isn't a huge stretch.

That isn't what people who think it sucks reads as, but it is easy to read it that way.

The 5e team seems to get actively worse at writing rules as time goes on.