D&D 5E (2014) Is favored enemy and natural explorer really that bad?

[Undrave]

So, what happens if you don't encounter your favoured enemy?

You wish you had picked a better class. Look, I came up with it on the spot, so I dunno.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You wish you had picked a better class. Look, I came up with it on the spot, so I dunno.

It actually goes to the heart of why 5e nerfed the ability into oblivion.

In earlier editions, if you encountered your favoured enemy, you where awesome. But if they didn't show up you where just a sub-par fighter. So 5e made it fluff, so it didn't matter if your favoured enemy never showed up. Because you have know way of knowing in advance what to choose.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The basic flaw in the Ranger's design is analogous to the flaw in the CR system. They came up with a numerical scoring system and a formula that gives the appearance of rigor, but is actually a joke.

In the case of the Ranger, IIRC they had a way of scoring combat vs ribbon abilities. So, in this scheme, having tons of Ribbons makes up for not having a lot of combat abilities. Except, the reality is a combat ability is not worth one, two, three, or thirty ribbon abilities. It's comparing apples and automatic weapons.

Now, fortunately, the Ranger is not actually bad at combat. It takes a little effort to massage a solid warrior out of the class, but it can absolutely be done. However you will still have a lot of junk on your sheet that is largely useless. It will always feel like it is nowhere close to the equal of the Paladin that you would expect a d10-half-caster to be. There are things you can do to fix this, and I've posted my house rules here, and junk like Favored Enemy ain't it.

Really, the only good thing about Favored Enemy is you don't really feel as obligated to take Hunter's Mark as one of your very few known spells.

 

[Undrave]

It actually goes to the heart of why 5e nerfed the ability into oblivion.

In earlier editions, if you encountered your favoured enemy, you where awesome. But if they didn't show up you where just a sub-par fighter. So 5e made it fluff, so it didn't matter if your favoured enemy never showed up. Because you have know way of knowing in advance what to choose.

How about make it a revenge ability? Once per short rest you get automatic hit on a creature that attacked you? And it also recharges if you get hit by a critical hit. I could see the Ranger baiting an opportunity attack out of someone for the sole purpose of being set up for their auto-hit revenge move? That would make for a more dynamic play style.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Favored enemy should be some mild bonus, and you should be able to change the enemy type after a long rest.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How about make it a revenge ability? Once per short rest you get automatic hit on a creature that attacked you? And it also recharges if you get hit by a critical hit. I could see the Ranger baiting an opportunity attack out of someone for the sole purpose of being set up for their auto-hit revenge move? That would make for a more dynamic play style.

That's pretty much the idea behind replacing "favoured enemy" with "favoured foe". Remember it has to be a relatively weak ability because ranger was balanced on the basis of favoured enemy making no contribution in combat.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

For my own personal games, I simply added to Favored Enemy that the Ranger could cast Hunter's Mark on an enemy of that type without expending a spell slot. It worked pretty well at low levels, the only time a player played the class, although I have no idea if that would become too good once you have 3 Favored Enemies.

 

[Xeviat]

Had rangers had the ability to change favored enemies and terrain on a long, then short rest, and it not be entirely up to the DM whether or not they get to use their main features, then yes those abilities would have been fine exchanges for the rogues expertise. As it stood, a DM could end up always using them, never using them, or somewhere in between; it was difficult to know what the balance point was supposed to be. They removed "undead and constructs can't be sneak attacked" for a reason.

 

[Horwath]

Also if you want clean and simple, 1st level rangers should get Rogue(Scout) 3rd level ability:
extra proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival.

 

[billd91]

And big YES to this bolded part AND part of DM highlighting the Ranger saving the party is to get the Ranger player to give a few narrative nuggets themself on how their character awesomed their way through said the hazards of their favored terrain.

Yeah, a lot of the ranger's issues stem from DM failure's to make it worthwhile and interesting. Of course, the ranger design is vulnerable to it in ways other classes aren't...