D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Asisreo]

Even if the character describes it it's still a foregone conclusion. There's no choice involved, there's no risk the Ranger overcomes by using the right ability. Not even using the right spell. That's the big problem.

The same can be said for combat. Here me out.

When it comes to the actual mechanisms of combat, everything is pretty straightforward. HP subtracted by damage is current HP. Attack rolls are 1d20+mod+prof vs AC. Saves are 1D20+mod+prof vs 8+prof+mod. It seems very codified, but this is roughly the same as ability checks being 1d20+mod+prof vs DC. Travel Pace is a specific number. Long Jump distance is strength score. Holding Breath is 1+con minutes, etc.

Exploration is codified as well. The only difference is that there's a supposed to be a codification on the backend of combat. The DM determines certain DC's on-the-spot while a DM always has the creature's AC. When a player succeeds a grapple check, they impose or dispose a condition but when they succeed an animal handling check, anything may happen.

Except combat is only codified because DM's aren't proud enough to treat is as they do with exploration. That is, DM's aren't confident enough to not actually have those stats and wing the combat along.

You actually don't need AC, Saves, Attack Mods, or HP to run a combat encounter. You also don't need to have any specific monster they fight. The problem is that without those things, if the players learn it was ran like this, they'll feel they were railroaded and were never challenged, even if you arbitrarily changed AC before they rolled their attacks.

The same is with exploration. When you don't prepare distances, encounters (not just combat and talking), ability checks, and certain plain challenges beforehand, the players will feel like you've taken away portions of what they built. A player building for combat may feel cheated that the DM never makes stat blocks and always run combat with arbitrary numbers so why wouldn't someone that builds for exploration feel the same way?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Even if the character describes it it's still a foregone conclusion. There's no choice involved, there's no risk the Ranger overcomes by using the right ability. Not even using the right spell. That's the big problem.

so you're arguing that anything that is narrated, either by player or DM, should just be ignored and/or skipped? Well, let's just say I disagree with that. the game would be super boring for me if everything revolved around a dice roll

It's called "role playing" not "roll playing"

 

[Shardstone]

The issue with this mechanic is that it uses Concentration.

Most of Ranger's spells are Concentration. Their coolest spells are Concentration. But Hunter's Mark, and now Favored Foe, eats up that Concentration as well. Its a shame, because the other half-casters (Paladin and Artificer) don't need to Concentrate to get their damage buffs or core class features, only the Ranger does. Because of this, Paladin and Artificer have a lot more freedom when picking their spells. Given that Ranger is Spells Known and not Prepared, it makes spell selection feel even smaller.

Ranger feels very good if it has Favored Foe without Concentration. Suddenly I don't have to stress about what spells I pick. Make the Ranger Spells Prepared too and you have a much more fun class to play IMO.

 

[Undrave]

so you're arguing that anything that is narrated, either by player or DM, should just be ignored and/or skipped? Well, let's just say I disagree with that. the game would be super boring for me if everything revolved around a dice roll

It's called "role playing" not "roll playing"

If there's no chance of failure, or consequences, then what's the point of doing it? No matter what the ranger say they'll reach their destination without issue.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If there's no chance of failure, or consequences, then what's the point of doing it? No matter what the ranger say they'll reach their destination without issue.

The point is exactly what I said above. Because it adds to the game how and why that ability is important and valuable and what would happen if it didn't exist.

There are literally a million things we do in the game that have no chance of failure or consequences, but we role play them out anyway because it's fun. It's a game of pretend, often with a lot of acting. If you can't fundamentally grasp the concept of role playing and why it has value in a role-playing game, then I don't know what to say

 

[jgsugden]

A lot of people do not understand action economy, here. This is a great addition and puts the ranger high up on the efficiency scale.

 

[Minigiant]

IMHO, the answer to questions 2 and 3 is that the DMG doesn’t do a good job of giving DMs the tools to design interesting non-combat encounters.

This

Both the DMG and MM are heavily tilted to combat advice. D&D is combat tilted sure but it straight up offers little for running exploration. They set up exploration but offer little for the game of exploration.

Dungeons and Dragons is a game and outside of traps, tracking, and rations the exploration aspect isn't a game. It doesn't offer much outside if it and put the onus of adding an exploration game to D&D on the blinded DM.

If 2 of the 3 Charisma classes were boosted to Nine Hell's in 5e, their fans would be upset about the backbones social system of 5e and it no official variant rules.

 

[Undrave]

The point is exactly what I said above. Because it adds to the game how and why that ability is important and valuable and what would happen if it didn't exist.

There are literally a million things we do in the game that have no chance of failure or consequences, but we role play them out anyway because it's fun. It's a game of pretend, often with a lot of acting. If you can't fundamentally grasp the concept of role playing and why it has value in a role-playing game, then I don't know what to say

Yeah but that stuff doesn't normally take up one of your class features. That stuff isn't worth a Fighter's Fighting Style or a Rogue's Expertise. It's basically a background feature and favoured terrain should have been part of the Outlander background.

 

[Shardstone]

A lot of people do not understand action economy, here. This is a great addition and puts the ranger high up on the efficiency scale.

It does not, because it eats Concentration.

For reference, look at the Ranger spell list. At 9nth level, a Ranger only has TWO non-concentration combat spells. That's a whoooole lot of spells you can't use because of Favored Foe. That is not a good thing.

EDIT: Worse than imagined. Until a Ranger gets 5th level spells at 17th level, they still only have two non-concentration Combat Spells. At 17th level, that list expands to...four total non-concentration Combat spells.

Why are people defending this? The Favored Foe prevents you from using your very robust and interesting spell list, which is kept more limited by being Spells Known and not Spells Prepared. This is fundamentally not a good piece of design. What if the bard had to maintain concentration to use Bardic Inspiration? At least they'd still have more spells known, and at sooner levels...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah but that stuff doesn't normally take up one of your class features. That stuff isn't worth a Fighter's Fighting Style or a Rogue's Expertise. It's basically a background feature and favoured terrain should have been part of the Outlander background.

Now you're shifting the goal posts. First you were arguing that anything that is pre-resolved isn't worth talking about in a game, and now you're saying it's not worth a class feature. Which I disagree with as well.

I'd posit that an ability that automatically saves your party from certain death (or a least really bad things from happening) is worth a class feature, regardless if you have to roll for it or not.