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

[Guimuss]

Very funny, based on how it is written, FF does stack. All because you are not used to this or you believe it cannot does not mean it can't. It if the wording, good or bad, it can stack.

Secondly, FF does not state that it uses concentration. You only lose it if you lose concentration as if it were a spell. So i don't see how it can't stack with HM. if you can't look beyond the rules you put in your own head you can't see how it works. If they wanted it to take concentration it would explicitly say it, just like the spells, and they can correct that in the next book.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Very funny, based on how it is written, FF does stack. All because you are not used to this or you believe it cannot does not mean it can't. It if the wording, good or bad, it can stack.

Secondly, FF does not state that it uses concentration. You only lose it if you lose concentration as if it were a spell. So i don't see how it can't stack with HM. if you can't look beyond the rules you put in your own head you can't see how it works. If they wanted it to take concentration it would explicitly say it, just like the spells, and they can correct that in the next book.

No. You have to maintain concentration. If you can lose concentration, it is an ability that requires concentration. You can only have concentration on one effect. That’s a general rule. FF provides no specific rule to counter the general rule.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Very funny, based on how it is written, FF does stack. All because you are not used to this or you believe it cannot does not mean it can't. It if the wording, good or bad, it can stack.

Secondly, FF does not state that it uses concentration. You only lose it if you lose concentration as if it were a spell. So i don't see how it can't stack with HM. if you can't look beyond the rules you put in your own head you can't see how it works. If they wanted it to take concentration it would explicitly say it, just like the spells, and they can correct that in the next book.

"As if concentrating on a spell" means what it says. You lose concentration on a spell if you are concentrating on another spell. So too you lose concentration on this if you are concentrating on another spell or spell-like effect. It's not well worded, but if the writers meant for this to be the one and only use of a concentration like thing in 5e that doesn't follow normal concentration rules they would say so explicitly. The fact that they just throw in phrasing of "as if concentrating" without further explanation is a sign they intended for it to follow standard concentration rules and didn't think people needed to be reminded, yet again, how concentration works.

 

[Guimuss]

Very funny, based on how it is written, FF does stack. All because you are not used to this or you believe it cannot does not mean it can't. It if the wording, good or bad, it can stack.

Secondly, FF does not state that it uses concentration. You only lose it if you lose concentration as if it were a spell. So i don't see how it can't stack with HM. if you can't look beyond the rules you put in your own head you can't see how it works. If they wanted it to take concentration it would explicitly say it, just like the spells, and they can correct that in the next book.

No. You have to maintain concentration. If you can lose concentration, it is an ability that requires concentration. You can only have concentration on one effect. That’s a general rule. FF provides no specific rule to counter the general rule.

I get w does it specify that you are 'using'

"As if concentrating on a spell" means what it says. You lose concentration on a spell if you are concentrating on another spell. So too you lose concentration on this if you are concentrating on another spell or spell-like effect. It's not well worded, but if the writers meant for this to be the one and only use of a concentration like thing in 5e that doesn't follow normal concentration rules they would say so explicitly. The fact that they just throw in phrasing of "as if concentrating" without further explanation is a sign they intended for it to follow standard concentration rules and didn't think people needed to be reminded, yet again, how concentration works.

I get what you say, where does it specify that you are 'using' concentration again? Out doesn't. The wording says 'as if' so it's broken broken using the same rules that would break concentration but it doesn't use it. Otherwise it would state that it uses your concentration just like your spells. You cannot just imagine their intent. WotC is a huge company that has learned how wording works from their thousands of cards created through MTG alone. It does not state it uses it or give a key word starting it uses it, so please show me further proof that would force it use use concentration and not just drop when it is lost. To me the wording makes perfect sense and I'm not having to see what they 'intended' or interpret something different. In the end i want this find out for everyone but i can't change my thoughts if you are based on something that isn't there. Did i miss something in the time book? Again get me some facts, not your opinion.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In the end i want this find out for everyone but i can't change my thoughts if you are based on something that isn't there. Did i miss something in the time book? Again get me some facts, not your opinion.

I think the reading is as clear as you do, but I take the opposite opinion. So I'll present the reading I see.

Let's start by removing the brackets: "...you continue to mark the favored enemy for one minute or until you lose your concentration."

"Your concentration" points to a thing -- concentration, a game term, defined in the PHB. which gives specific ways of losing it. If you are losing it, then you are using it.

Now, does the bracket change any of that? "...(as if you were concentrating on a spell)" Nothing changes. It confirms that it works like the spell, which it might, since this is not a spell but a feature.

But, pretty clearly to my eye, it is a feature that uses concentration.

Does this help?

 

[Mannahnin]

Yup. It's concentration. The "as if" part is clarifying that this is just like other concentration, except that it's not from a spell, since the baseline concentration rules in the PH only provide examples of concentration from spells.

 

[NotAYakk]

The first design problem with FF is because level 1 PCs have a damage budget.

Monk: 1d8+1d4+stat*2. (13)
TWF fighter: 2d6+stat*2 (13)
GWF fighter: 2d6B1 (8.3)+stat (12.3)
Rogue TWF: 2d6+stat + 2 chances at 1d6 (13.5+)

TWF Ranger: 2d6+stat + 2 chances at 1d4 (12.5+)
GWF Ranger: 2d6+1d4+stat (12.5)

This is right in line with other high damage options.

The second problem is the Ranger Dip. If the 1d4 was per-hit, then a Fighter 11/Ranger 1 would probably be an over-strong dip. Then again, Hex 1 is already about as good (1/day +4 damage/tap and 19-20 range plus Hex, vs 4/day 2.5 damage/tap).

 

[billd91]

Very funny, based on how it is written, FF does stack. All because you are not used to this or you believe it cannot does not mean it can't. It if the wording, good or bad, it can stack.

Secondly, FF does not state that it uses concentration. You only lose it if you lose concentration as if it were a spell. So i don't see how it can't stack with HM. if you can't look beyond the rules you put in your own head you can't see how it works. If they wanted it to take concentration it would explicitly say it, just like the spells, and they can correct that in the next book.

If your interpretation were correct, then the two effects would not entirely stack. They'd stack only if done in a particular order - hunters mark first, then favored foe because going in the opposite direction (FF then HM) would break concentration since casting a concentration spell breaks concentration. And, frankly, that would be a usability mistake far worse than not being explicit that FF requires concentration.

The easiest and most functional interpretation is that FF itself requires concentration and, therefore, breaks concentration on prior spells.

 

[Guimuss]

If your interpretation were correct, then the two effects would not entirely stack. They'd stack only if done in a particular order - hunters mark first, then favored foe because going in the opposite direction (FF then HM) would break concentration since casting a concentration spell breaks concentration. And, frankly, that would be a usability mistake far worse than not being explicit that FF requires concentration.

The easiest and most functional interpretation is that FF itself requires concentration and, therefore, breaks concentration on prior spells.

A great representation of how it would, or shouldn't work. I'll think about this one for a while because i totally understand the order which it must go and agree. Butt instead of wasting your time asking for another description I'm going to think about why it can't still go the other way before getting stuck, unless the answer is that based on rules it must be written to work either way out it just doesn't work at all. Thanks for the thought.

 

[Guimuss]

I think the reading is as clear as you do, but I take the opposite opinion. So I'll present the reading I see.

Let's start by removing the brackets: "...you continue to mark the favored enemy for one minute or until you lose your concentration."

"Your concentration" points to a thing -- concentration, a game term, defined in the PHB. which gives specific ways of losing it. If you are losing it, then you are using it.

Now, does the bracket change any of that? "...(as if you were concentrating on a spell)" Nothing changes. It confirms that it works like the spell, which it might, since this is not a spell but a feature.

But, pretty clearly to my eye, it is a feature that uses concentration.

Does this help?

That fits also help. As i told another, I'll have to look over it all and think about it for a bit so i know which method seems more correct, thanks for the insight, want to make sure my kobold ranger is played right.