Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9468144" data-attributes="member: 7030563">The back and forth you and I are having started when you claimed Hunter's Mark does not use bonus actions except on easy fights against numerous enemies.Favored Foe had nothing to do with it.No what you said was:"If you have to switch hunter's mark over and over again, that means your targets are dying over and over again. Which means the fight was not that hard to begin with or you just marked the wrong guys."You regularly have to switch Hunter's Mark over and over again in the vast majority of fights if you want to get damage out of it. as noted by Treantmonk, DNDShorts and Pack Tactics.Focusing on the guy you have marked is harder in melee as well.It can be nice, but it depends on what you gave up with that bonus action, it assumes you hit all 4 times and if you are talking about melee it assumes you can make it to all targets you need to hit.Not all of them and while some of my games are optimized, my posts on this thread have not been.  On the contrary YOU are the optimizer on this thread.In your defense of Hunter's Mark, you do not use a generic Ranger example using generic weapons.  When you mention 4d6 damage over 2 rounds above, or earlier when you noted how nick allows you to take your light attack without a bonus action.  You are talking about an optimized build using Light weapons and Nick in melee, and it is a build that is optimized specifically around using Hunter's Mark tactically.So making specific tactically-focused build choices to make the Hunter's Mark spell more effective is not optimizing, but me saying you need to move Hunter's Mark regularly means that my games are highly tactically optimized?  I think you have that backwards! No it was't.  There was nothing about Favored Foe in the first post of yours I replied to or the second.  And I don't think anyone had mentioned it on this thread at all at that point (although I did not read every post).[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.enworld.org/goto/post?id=9464716[/URL]No you still have not provided your assumptions on how many enemies are in an average combat and how many rounds it takes.  You have made sweeping statements with no evidence to back them up.</blockquote>

Verification