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

[ECMO3]

The Rogue will probably do less damage, tbh, unless they can very reliably get a reaction attack and avoid needing to use their reaction for uncanny dodge, but will still outdo the ranger in nearly every other part of the game, unless the rogue ignores a given aspect of the game and the ranger focuses on it.

That one I don't have direct experience with, though. My only experience with a rogue and ranger in the same group, both are multiclassed.

Ranger with favored terrain is better than a Rogue in exploration (in his terrains), but worse than a Rogue elsewhere.

With the new Tasha's rules though a 1-level Rogue dip to at the start before taking Ranger and deft explorer is an awesome build - Rogue gets you 2 extra skills, 2 extra expertise, thieves tools, thieves cant and 1d6 sneak attack.

I am playing a Goblin right now that is a 1st level Rogue 3rd level Fey Wanderer. She has 5 skills that are +6 or higher and two more that are +4 and that is even after using 1 expertise on athletics with an 8 strength (+3). As a Goblin she gets most of cunning action too, with only a 1-level dip. She has can put Hunters Mark, Sneak Attack, Fury and Dreadful Strike all on the same attack.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why is this even still a question? Jeremy Crawford stated in no uncertain terms that you can’t concentrate on Favored Foe and a spell at the same time, in his answer to B. Dave Walters, cited in the first post.

 

[Azzy]

Back to the original topic... My DM allowed us to respec our characters with the class options from Tasha's when it came out. I passed on FF after pondering it for a while. It just doesn't strike me as particularly good—especially for a Monster Slayer Ranger. Both Hunter's Mark and Slayer's Prey are just better in every way.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Back to the original topic... My DM allowed us to respec our characters with the class options from Tasha's when it came out. I passed on FF after pondering it for a while. It just doesn't strike me as particularly good—especially for a Monster Slayer Ranger. Both Hunter's Mark and Slayer's Prey are just better in every way.

Yep. FF should be something rangers get in addition to Favored Enemy, but for some reason they made all the ranger features substitutions rather than additions, where most classes got mostly additions.

I just make the new ranger features additions — all of them. With the paladin‘s new Channel Divinity to spell slots buff, that makes rangers about as good of casters as paladins, and the rangers now have a lot of features, but most are situational and/or non-combat, so they don‘t seem at all overpowered.

 

[NotAYakk]

Why is this even still a question? Jeremy Crawford stated in no uncertain terms that you can’t concentrate on Favored Foe and a spell at the same time, in his answer to B. Dave Walters, cited in the first post.

Because SA isn't the rules of D&D, nor should it be. It is advice.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because SA isn't the rules of D&D, nor should it be. It is advice.

Sure, and if the question was “how should concentration on Favored Foe work?” that might be a salient point. But we still seem to be arguing what the intent is when the person who wrote the rule clearly stated their intent almost a year ago, and it’s in the very first post of this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yep. FF should be something rangers get in addition to Favored Enemy, but for some reason they made all the ranger features substitutions rather than additions, where most classes got mostly additions.

I just make the new ranger features additions — all of them. With the paladin‘s new Channel Divinity to spell slots buff, that makes rangers about as good of casters as paladins, and the rangers now have a lot of features, but most are situational and/or non-combat, so they don‘t seem at all overpowered.

Absolutely this. I treat them as additions, as well.

 

[NotAYakk]

[Mispost]

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, if you want original intent, then clearly SA isn't reliable. It has given clearly opposite rulings for the same rule over time; if SA was a faithful representation of the original intent, that isn't possible.

And it has been a long time since they wrote the rules.

Stealth/Hiding in 5e is vague enough that it clearly took multiple iterations with multiple editorial passes with multiple people weighing in. It is not a single author's voice there.

The fact it isn't clear and it is vague was clearly intentional, as 4e hiding rules and errata where just prior. 4e rules attempted to be clear, and they iterated repeatedly on it, finally settling down on a clear set of mechanics for hiding. These mechanics where much laughed at, but they where very concrete.

5e was worded quite differently than either the original 4e rules or the errata'd 4e rules. It was left vague. Any claim that the 5e stealth rules where written to be clear clear interpreted mechanically at all is not a plausible claim, I don't care if you are the lead author or Gary Gygax reborn.

We aren’t talking about stealth (in this thread…), we’re talking about Favored Foe (for some reason…)

 

[NotAYakk]

We aren’t talking about stealth (in this thread…), we’re talking about Favored Foe (for some reason…)

Lol, deleted it. Somehow I got threads crossed.