log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It's not ranger vs paladin situations where I'm worried about strict overshadowing - what they do is different enough that they can be tweaked into specialties easily enough. It's ranger vs rogue where you've two sneaky dex guys with high mobility and expertise on their skills.
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
I think this is .... optimistic. The ranger is of course going to out-sneak the rogue for example and it's not even close. +10 to the entire party's stealth checks is overwhelming. And if the ranger wants to play face they can do a surprisingly good job as a fey wanderer.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I think this is .... optimistic. The ranger is of course going to out-sneak the rogue for example and it's not even close. +10 to the entire party's stealth checks is overwhelming. And if the ranger wants to play face they can do a surprisingly good job as a fey wanderer.
Pass Without Trace benefits the rogue as well, nearly all the time. The Rogue also can get unbeatable stealth at-will. Neither of them need PWOT if they have Stealth Expertise, and the Rogue alone has Hide as a bonus action before level 10 or whatever.

And the ranger adding their wisdom to face checks doesn’t make them as good as the rogue. They can get an edge on one skill by using their one expertise, and the rogue will still be better at everything else.

So, yeah, only if the ranger focuses on an aspect of play will they challenge the rogue out of combat, and then only in that one aspect.
 

Pass Without Trace benefits the rogue as well, nearly all the time. The Rogue also can get unbeatable stealth at-will. Neither of them need PWOT if they have Stealth Expertise, and the Rogue alone has Hide as a bonus action before level 10 or whatever.
Pass Without Trace benefits the rogue - who knows they are being carried by the ranger because +10 is such a huge difference. PWOT is (a) the difference between a 5 succeeding and failing in many cases and (b) enables the entire party to stealth which automatically makes characters with it the stealth kings because they can sneak the entire party with them when the rogue simply can't.
And the ranger adding their wisdom to face checks doesn’t make them as good as the rogue.
How so? Even if we grant the rogue expertise they get Cha + 2*prof on face checks, whereas a focused ranger is getting Cha + Wis + Prof - not much difference there, especially with some magical backing. There's not much between the two. That is, of course, assuming that the rogue specs face.
They can get an edge on one skill by using their one expertise, and the rogue will still be better at everything else.
How so? The rogue doesn't get Expertise on that many skills. It's only level 11 where the really get good.

And the rogue never gets ranger type stuff like seeing through the eyes of animals. The ranger (with Tasha's options) should always be the better scout.
So, yeah, only if the ranger focuses on an aspect of play will they challenge the rogue out of combat, and then only in that one aspect.
You do realise pass without trace is only one single spell - you don't need much focus for that. So the ranger can manage stealth plus whatever they focus on, possibly plus a couple of other things.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Pass Without Trace benefits the rogue - who knows they are being carried by the ranger because +10 is such a huge difference.
The rogue is practically impossible to find by most monsters without it.
It’s also a team game. Hasting the Barbarian doesn’t make any Barbarian I’ve ever seen feel like the Wizard is carrying them.
A player who feels that way should consider playing video games, instead.
PWOT is (a) the difference between a 5 succeeding and failing in many cases and (b) enables the entire party to stealth which automatically makes characters with it the stealth kings because they can sneak the entire party with them when the rogue simply can't.
You’ve moved the goalposts with that last. The ranger is a great exploration support class, though not as good as they should be. The Rogue is a better forward scout in anything but the wilderness, and wins there too if the ranger is siding Deft Explorer and the Rogue is wilderness focused.
How so? Even if we grant the rogue expertise they get Cha + 2*prof on face checks, whereas a focused ranger is getting Cha + Wis + Prof - not much difference there, especially with some magical backing. There's not much between the two. That is, of course, assuming that the rogue specs face.
It’s only fair to assume the rogue “specs face”, if we are assuming the Ranger is taking the “be okay at being a face” subclass.
Further, the Ranger will have lower charisma. They are fairly close at level 3 and 4, but the gap just widens from there.

At level 3, ranger has maybe +6 (prof+14 wisdom+14Charisma), +8 using Deft Explorer to Expertise 1 face skill, at best. More likely a point lower, because they still need Con to not suck.

A face rogue, even with only 14 Cha (I’ve seen plenty of swashbucklers with 16 Cha), will have +6 to probably 2 of 3 Cha skills, for those 2 levels. At 5 they pull ahead further. And the Rogue has 1 more class skill, and 3 more expertise skills, than the ranger.
Hell, a scout can face better and scout just as well as the ranger. At will.
How so? The rogue doesn't get Expertise on that many skills. It's only level 11 where the really get good.
4 expertise by level 6, plus cunning action, 4 skills from class, and thieves tools for free. Thief can Use An Object as a bonus action and effectively has a climb speed at level 3. Scout has expertise on 6 skills by level 6, two of which are Survival and Nature without using up any of their 4 skill proficiencies. Arcane Trickster (at will) can pick pockets and work locks and traps from 30ft away, and it’s invisible.

Ranger cannot compete with that without burning spell after spell, the best of which are all concentration.

Favored Foe helps here, by easing the need to turn spell slots into damage, but not by much.
And the rogue never gets ranger type stuff like seeing through the eyes of animals. The ranger (with Tasha's options) should always be the better scout.
Neither class natively has find familiar, but both have a subclass than can get either that spell or a pet. The ranger again, can pull ahead with a spell slot, but not if the rogue decides to focus on that, or even just get a familiar.

The ranger will likely be better at survival checks, but most of the time they’ll be even on perception, and the rogue will be better at stealth. The ranger can’t use Pass Without Trace and Beast Sense at the same time, and is best off scouting with the rogue, with PWOT up and letting the rogue take the lead.

A Scout with Stealth, Athletics, Investigate, and Perception as their Expertise skills, or Arcane Trickster, or a Thief with Ritual Caster, wins this contest easily.
You do realise pass without trace is only one single spell - you don't need much focus for that. So the ranger can manage stealth plus whatever they focus on, possibly plus a couple of other things.
The ranger is spending a 2nd level spell slot, and concentration. It’s a great spell, but a ranger that is relying on it to be great at stealth...is only situationally great at stealth.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The ranger is fun to play, if often frustrating.

But the rogue is one of the best all around classes in the game, especially if an adventuring day is longer than 1 fight and some talking.
 

The rogue is practically impossible to find by most monsters without it.
So the rogue can sneak past your average monster but struggles with the experts. Meanwhile a ranger occasionally stumbles - but can waltz past the experts and can guide the entire party past average monsters.
It’s only fair to assume the rogue “specs face”, if we are assuming the Ranger is taking the “be okay at being a face” subclass.
Further, the Ranger will have lower charisma. They are fairly close at level 3 and 4, but the gap just widens from there.
If the rogue specs full face then the ranger's greater flexibility will crush them. Spells are really useful.
A face rogue, even with only 14 Cha (I’ve seen plenty of swashbucklers with 16 Cha), will have +6 to probably 2 of 3 Cha skills, for those 2 levels.
Sure they will. And if they do they don't have expertise in stealth or thieves tools. They can do anything but only get expertise to a few skills.
At 5 they pull ahead further. And the Rogue has 1 more class skill, and 3 more expertise skills, than the ranger.
Indeed. But skills aren't everything. A wis of 14 on a fey wanderer (I've seen 16 Wis on rangers just as I've seen 16 Cha on rogues) is almost a match for expertise.

But you talk about skills? The Tasha's ranger has two more languages which closes that gap (and languages are another type of face skill that cost a skill slot). Expertise is slightly better than a wisdom bonus but only slightly. So when you take languages into account you're getting the ranger more or less matching the rogue even before having to go above and beyond.
Thief can Use An Object as a bonus action and effectively has a climb speed at level 3.
This is a matter of interpretation and we have competing tweets from Mearls and Crawford on the subject of what climb speed actually is intended to mean (damn fuzzy rules) but being able to climb fast is not as I understand it the same as having a climb speed. Having a climb speed to me (and to Mearls) involves being natural when climbing and not having to make rolls when others would (it's not spider climb that allows for along ceilings without rolling). Thieves are just faster.
It’s a great spell, but a ranger that is relying on it to be great at stealth...is only situationally great at stealth.
A ranger is by default very good at stealth without PWOT. A rogue is very slightly better at stealth. But a ranger with PWOT makes Batman seem clumsy and obvious; a rogue just wants to be Batman.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So the rogue can sneak past your average monster but struggles with the experts. Meanwhile a ranger occasionally stumbles - but can waltz past the experts and can guide the entire party past average monsters.

If the rogue specs full face then the ranger's greater flexibility will crush them. Spells are really useful.

Sure they will. And if they do they don't have expertise in stealth or thieves tools. They can do anything but only get expertise to a few skills.

Indeed. But skills aren't everything. A wis of 14 on a fey wanderer (I've seen 16 Wis on rangers just as I've seen 16 Cha on rogues) is almost a match for expertise.

But you talk about skills? The Tasha's ranger has two more languages which closes that gap (and languages are another type of face skill that cost a skill slot). Expertise is slightly better than a wisdom bonus but only slightly. So when you take languages into account you're getting the ranger more or less matching the rogue even before having to go above and beyond.

This is a matter of interpretation and we have competing tweets from Mearls and Crawford on the subject of what climb speed actually is intended to mean (damn fuzzy rules) but being able to climb fast is not as I understand it the same as having a climb speed. Having a climb speed to me (and to Mearls) involves being natural when climbing and not having to make rolls when others would (it's not spider climb that allows for along ceilings without rolling). Thieves are just faster.

A ranger is by default very good at stealth without PWOT. A rogue is very slightly better at stealth. But a ranger with PWOT makes Batman seem clumsy and obvious; a rogue just wants to be Batman.
You have a conclusion that you won’t deviate from, apparently.

None of this post actually refutes the points I’ve made, and I’m not going to go in circles.
 

You have a conclusion that you won’t deviate from, apparently.

None of this post actually refutes the points I’ve made, and I’m not going to go in circles.
You have a conclusion that you won't deviate from, apparently.

I have refuted most of your points and adapted slightly on the rare occasion you made a valid one and expanded where the difference is one of understanding. That you keep repeating and not engaging means that we can agree that this will go in circles.
 

So the rogue can sneak past your average monster but struggles with the experts. Meanwhile a ranger occasionally stumbles - but can waltz past the experts and can guide the entire party past average monsters.

By 5th level, your average rogue will have a minimum stealth roll of 10. He'll beat most monsters most of the time in normal lighting conditions, and in darkness, so few monsters have a PP above 15 (or blindsight/tremorsense) that failing a stealth check will be virtually unheard of.

That said, I don't see how there's even a debate over whether the Ranger is better than the Rogue at some things. Just by virtue of being a half caster, any competently built Ranger will have options open that the Rogue doesn't. A Beastmaster with Goodberry and Spike Growth can do things no single-classed rogue can do. It's just how it is.
 

By 5th level, your average rogue will have a minimum stealth roll of 10. He'll beat most monsters most of the time in normal lighting conditions, and in darkness, so few monsters have a PP above 15 (or blindsight/tremorsense) that failing a stealth check will be virtually unheard of.
A rogue will indeed beat most monsters most of the time under normal lighting conditions (and in darkness if they have darkvision). By contrast a level 5 ranger is only likely to have a stealth of +7 so will occasionally fail.

However it's the really hard jobs where the ranger excels. If you're e.g. trying to sneak into an order of clerics or trying to filch something from a dragon's hoard you want a ranger. They can't do it all the time - but a +17 stealth for the really hard missions at level 5 puts them reliably beyond almost anything without exceptional supernatural senses.

The other point about that +10 is that it's what the untrained Dex 10 wizard has under Pass Without Trace. and yes it will get past almost anyone. For the average to tough jobs the rogue is better - but for the truly hard jobs you want a ranger (or a monk of shadow - and my monk of shadow was where I really noticed the difference in play, with the ability to teleport across open ground also helping).
That said, I don't see how there's even a debate over whether the Ranger is better than the Rogue at some things. Just by virtue of being a half caster, any competently built Ranger will have options open that the Rogue doesn't. A Beastmaster with Goodberry and Spike Growth can do things no single-classed rogue can do. It's just how it is.
Quite!
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
By 5th level, your average rogue will have a minimum stealth roll of 10. He'll beat most monsters most of the time in normal lighting conditions, and in darkness, so few monsters have a PP above 15 (or blindsight/tremorsense) that failing a stealth check will be virtually unheard of.

That said, I don't see how there's even a debate over whether the Ranger is better than the Rogue at some things. Just by virtue of being a half caster, any competently built Ranger will have options open that the Rogue doesn't. A Beastmaster with Goodberry and Spike Growth can do things no single-classed rogue can do. It's just how it is.
Sure. Never disputed the ranger can do stuff the rogue can’t. On a limited basis.

The Rogue isn’t going in danger of being overshadowed, however, because the rogue is much better when spells aren’t involved, and rarely that outclassed even when spells are used.

For instance, if I have a BM ranger and a rogue in the party, even with beast sense, I’m not sending the Ranger’s pet scouting. The rogue is better at it. 🤷‍♂️

The ranger came cast a 2nd level spell to be better at stealth than anyone, with concentration, but cannot give that benefit to their pet and send the pet ahead, nor use pwot and beast sense, even if pwot had a greater range.

The rogue is past the point where more bonus rarely matters, and doesn’t have to spend resources for it. An arcane trickster can also use invisibility, or save their level 2 slots for shadowblade, and can get a familiar that will never cost a spell slot and needs no extra investment to be a scout pet.

Point is, the Ranger catches up to other classes with Tashas, but it’s not going to make the rogue feel overshadowed. The rogue can compete or exceed the ranger any time the ranger can’t afford to spend spells, and will have a wider range of situations where they are very good.

Especially Scout and Arcane Trickster.
 

For instance, if I have a BM ranger and a rogue in the party, even with beast sense, I’m not sending the Ranger’s pet scouting. The rogue is better at it. 🤷‍♂️

Players who dictate to other players what they're allowed to do tend not to be popular at any given table.

The ranger came cast a 2nd level spell to be better at stealth than anyone, with concentration, but cannot give that benefit to their pet and send the pet ahead, nor use pwot and beast sense, even if pwot had a greater range.

Being able to bring more firepower when scouting isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. If PWOT is up, you can go scouting with Clattery Clankles, the Noise Domain Cleric.

Spells are a major class feature of the Ranger, so saying "if the Ranger doesn't have spells" is like saying, "if the Rogue can't get Sneak Attack." Of course, even if a Ranger has used all its spells, it generally hits a little harder than the Rogue and has a few other tricks.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Players who dictate to other players what they're allowed to do tend not to be popular at any given table.
Don’t be obtuse. No one is talking about dictating anything.
Being able to bring more firepower when scouting isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. If PWOT is up, you can go scouting with Clattery Clankles, the Noise Domain Cleric.
+10 added to 0 doesn’t make disadvantage on stealth guy good at stealth.
Spells are a major class feature of the Ranger, so saying "if the Ranger doesn't have spells" is like saying, "if the Rogue can't get Sneak Attack." Of course, even if a Ranger has used all its spells, it generally hits a little harder than the Rogue and has a few other tricks.
Good thing I didn’t say that. I indicated that the ranger has limited spell slots, fewer skills, especially in a game with a lot of traps and locks and such in which case rogue essentially has 5 skills, and the ranger has at most 1 skill expertise where the rogue has 4.

The suggestion that the ranger makes the rogue look bad with Tasha’s options is absurd, which is the claim that started this argument.

And if we are comparing rogue and ranger, we should be comparing scout or arcane trickster rogue. Scout has 2 extra skills both expertise, on top of everything else, and the arcane trickster has invisible mage hand and access to Wizard spells.

If the rogue is feeling overshadowed by the ranger, something has gone wrong, and it isn’t the class design.
 



Don’t be obtuse. No one is talking about dictating anything.

You explicitly said that if there's a Ranger and a Rogue in the party, you won't be sending the Ranger's Companion on any scouting. Why is this your decision? Are you the Ranger? Because presumably, if a Ranger chose a stealthy Companion, such as a Panther, he intends to use it. I frequently see parties with multiple stealthy character put more than one of them up front, since I've also seen a lot of solo scouts get turned into ghoul snacks.

+10 added to 0 doesn’t make disadvantage on stealth guy good at stealth.

Even with disadvantage, you will beat nearly everything in the MM the vast majority of the time, especially if you're in darkness. I've seen it successfully used for the entire party countless times, yes, including the Noise Domain cleric.

The suggestion that the ranger makes the rogue look bad with Tasha’s options is absurd, which is the claim that started this argument.

Right, but then you later made the equally ridiculous claim that the rogue meets or exceeds the Ranger at everything if all the Ranger's spell slots have been expended. This is simply not true. Multiattacking alone gives the Ranger options the Rogue lacks, and of course, the conclave features also do things Rogues can't replicate.

And if we are comparing rogue and ranger, we should be comparing scout or arcane trickster rogue. Scout has 2 extra skills both expertise, on top of everything else, and the arcane trickster has invisible mage hand and access to Wizard spells.

Okay. Here are some things I have frequently seen Rangers do:
-Help the entire party sneak past something or launch a surprise attack using Pass Without Trace
-Use Spike Growth to keep enemies at bay while the party whittled them down.
-Use a Companion to provide melee threat while staying out of range.
-Spend the day's unused slots on Goodberry
-Generally higher damage (especially if spell-enhanced)

I wouldn't say it "overshadows" the Rogue, and I'm one of the the class's biggest critics regarding its ribbon-centric design, but it definitely has access to things that rogues, AFAIK, can't replicate.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I wouldn't say it "overshadows" the Rogue
Okay, argument done then. 🤷‍♂️

edit: sorry, that’s a bit dismissive.

Look, I don’t really care about nitpicking over details, and have exhausted my patience for this particular argument.

The rogue is, at worst, competitive with the ranger in any area the rogue focuses on, and has less opportunity cost to focus on something like stealth, and is at that level all the time, without spending any resources.

The argument started because another poster claimed the rogue would be overshadowed by a post-Tasha’s ranger, largely “because pwot”, and that claim was absurd, and I have thoroughly debunked it.

The ranger has to spend their only expertise to be almost as good as the rogue at stealth, or can spend a second level spell slot to temporarily be as good and help the team not suck at it. There is no rational argument that the above equates to the ranger overshadowing the rogue in stealth.

As for the “dictating” nonsense, all I can do is roll my eyes at the pedantry and move on.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
By the way, by the numbers, Sneak Attack is equal in average damage to the estimated damage output of a full caster, using the DMG damage by spell level table, over a long enough day that the cast uses all of thier spell slots, if we include the weapon damage in the calculation. Sneak Attack by itself falls behind if we view it in a vacuum, but of course there is no dealing SA without the weapon damage. As well, the rogue will crit more often, and can double their damage in a round by attacking as a reaction (and doing so is fairly easy with sentinel and in some campaigns, mage slayer).

Obviously spells are often worth more than that table suggests, and some spells punch above their level, but the idea that a half caster is outclassing the rogue because they have spells is pretty weird. As well, the rogue has much more at will out of combat prowess, and in many aspects of play has prowess that the ranger simply cannot compete with without MC or feats.

The Ranger manages to not be as frustrating at early levels, with Tasha's, though it still has crappy high level features, but it's not going to outclass or overshadow anyone else unless you optimize the ranger and not another PC at the table.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Spells are a major class feature of the Ranger, so saying "if the Ranger doesn't have spells"
This is still irritating me. Show me where I said "if the ranger doesn't have spells".
You explicitly said that if there's a Ranger and a Rogue in the party, you won't be sending the Ranger's Companion on any scouting.
Are you intentionally failing to understand what a hypothetical statement to make a point is, or is this a genuine misunderstanding?
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top