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

[Neonchameleon]

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]

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.

 

[fearsomepirate]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

 

[Rabulias]

Clattery Clankles, the Noise Domain Cleric.

Public Service Announcement: Do not eat or drink while reading ENWorld. You nearly killed me with this!

 

[Iry]

Clattery Clankles, the Noise Domain Cleric.

This is glorious. Someone make the Noise Domain immediately!

 

[fearsomepirate]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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]

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?