Level 20 Capstone Abilities

[Hawk Diesel]

I like this for a ranger capstone:

Foe slayer: At 20th level, you become an unparalleled hunter of your enemies. Versus your favored enemies you cannot be surprised and have advantage on all attack rolls, ability checks (including initiative) and saves. Favored enemies have disadvantage on attack rolls.

It has the flavor of knowing your favored enemy so well that you get foresight against them. You know your favored enemy so well that you can predict what they are going to do and when they are going to do it.

While I understand that the Favored Enemy mechanic is one of the more unique and central aspects of the class, it relies too greatly on DM fiat to be useful.

What I mean by that is if your DM chooses to throw favored enemies into your battles, then it's great. If the DM doesn't, then it's useless. IMO, class abilities should not be the sole purview of the DM.

 

[snickersnax]

While I understand that the Favored Enemy mechanic is one of the more unique and central aspects of the class, it relies too greatly on DM fiat to be useful.

What I mean by that is if your DM chooses to throw favored enemies into your battles, then it's great. If the DM doesn't, then it's useless. IMO, class abilities should not be the sole purview of the DM.

I guess its always going to a problem if you build a character around a special set of circumstances and the DM doesn't play with you. The same could be said of a rogue character who specializes in picking locks and disabling traps and the DM never has any locks or traps for you. Or the 8 charisma, 8 intelligence barbarian that the DM decides should star in a high-society mystery requiring a bunch of successful charisma checks to resolve. The issue isn't that class abilities not be the sole purview of the DM. It's that the adventure not be the sole purview of the DM. When the DM sets up an adventure, the character can always say..." Yeah, that's my thing".

I think of the Witcher (from the book). He doesn't hunt "sentient" creatures (he basically does monsters, undead and fiends).
Jack the giantslayer. That's what he does... hunt giants. Cezar the wolfhunter in Ladyhawe (admittedly a minor character) specializes in wolves.
Literature is filled with these foe slaying ranger guys and they are fun to play.

Adventures for rangers don't always have to involve their favored enemies, but any good DM should recognize the opportunity for a major story arc involving the favored enemy of the ranger in the party.

My original intention with my change to Foe slayer was to keep the flavor of the RAI "You become an unparalleled hunter of your enemies". which RAW doesn't do (you gain wis bonus on one attack or damage/turn) that's probably much less than 10% increase in damage output hardly a demonstration of unparalleled hunter of your enemies.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I guess its always going to a problem if you build a character around a special set of circumstances and the DM doesn't play with you. The same could be said of a rogue character who specializes in picking locks and disabling traps and the DM never has any locks or traps for you. Or the 8 charisma, 8 intelligence barbarian that the DM decides should star in a high-society mystery requiring a bunch of successful charisma checks to resolve. The issue isn't that class abilities not be the sole purview of the DM. It's that the adventure not be the sole purview of the DM. When the DM sets up an adventure, the character can always say..." Yeah, that's my thing".

But as you said, you are talking about builds. Builds are specifically player based choices to represent their character within the mechanics and abilities of their class. Very few mechanical class abilities are limited to affecting only certain types of creatures, and those that do are either minor powers (cleric's channel divinity: turn undead) or functions normally against any creature, with a slight bump to specific kinds of creatures (paladin's divine smite ability). Only the ranger class has abilities that are strictly limited in their use to be against specific creatures. From my perspective, this is poor design and creates a huge gap in playability between the ranger and other classes. This would be exaggerated even further if the favored enemy was the base of their capstone, given that no other capstone creates such limitations on their use.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The Revised Ranger's Foe Slayer works against all enemies, which alone made it a viable capstone even with everything else staying the same.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

The Revised Ranger's Foe Slayer works against all enemies, which alone made it a viable capstone even with everything else staying the same.

That's true, but it's also mechanically inferior to most of the other capstones. You get to add wisdom modifier to only one attack per round, and then must choose whether it's attack or damage? That seems 1) much more complicated than it needs to be and bucks the trend of 5e to reduce record keeping and 2) is just weird thematically. Why does their wisdom suddenly modify their attacks? It is a purely mechanical benefit with little thought as to how this ability demonstrates the epitome of what a ranger could reach.

Fighters get really good at attacking. Clerics can call upon their God nearly at will, Wizards get really good at casting spells. Rangers... maybe hit or damage things better for... reasons?

 

[Barolo]

I guess its always going to a problem if you build a character around a special set of circumstances and the DM doesn't play with you. The same could be said of a rogue character who specializes in picking locks and disabling traps and the DM never has any locks or traps for you. Or the 8 charisma, 8 intelligence barbarian that the DM decides should star in a high-society mystery requiring a bunch of successful charisma checks to resolve. The issue isn't that class abilities not be the sole purview of the DM. It's that the adventure not be the sole purview of the DM. When the DM sets up an adventure, the character can always say..." Yeah, that's my thing".

I think of the Witcher (from the book). He doesn't hunt "sentient" creatures (he basically does monsters, undead and fiends).
Jack the giantslayer. That's what he does... hunt giants. Cezar the wolfhunter in Ladyhawe (admittedly a minor character) specializes in wolves.
Literature is filled with these foe slaying ranger guys and they are fun to play.

Adventures for rangers don't always have to involve their favored enemies, but any good DM should recognize the opportunity for a major story arc involving the favored enemy of the ranger in the party.

My original intention with my change to Foe slayer was to keep the flavor of the RAI "You become an unparalleled hunter of your enemies". which RAW doesn't do (you gain wis bonus on one attack or damage/turn) that's probably much less than 10% increase in damage output hardly a demonstration of unparalleled hunter of your enemies.

While I agree with most of what you have written, I tend to disagree with the last sentence. The bonus seems small, but as you can apply it after the die roll, that potentially means the bonus will be applied to attacks only to convert misses into hits, and if all attacks hit, then it will be applied to damage. I know I does not guarantee to turn a miss into a hit every time, but still, if a ranger decided to go full WIS after maximizing their primary attack stat, a floating +5 to hit every single round can have a big impact if well used.

For me, it is the same with the rogue capstone. If someone just tries to compare numbers or tries to come up with some DPR calculation, these will surely undervalue the true potential of those abilities. When the player has the saying to when and how to apply such benefits, they can accrue to much higher and dramatically relevant results.

But as you said, you are talking about builds. Builds are specifically player based choices to represent their character within the mechanics and abilities of their class. Very few mechanical class abilities are limited to affecting only certain types of creatures, and those that do are either minor powers (cleric's channel divinity: turn undead) or functions normally against any creature, with a slight bump to specific kinds of creatures (paladin's divine smite ability). Only the ranger class has abilities that are strictly limited in their use to be against specific creatures. From my perspective, this is poor design and creates a huge gap in playability between the ranger and other classes. This would be exaggerated even further if the favored enemy was the base of their capstone, given that no other capstone creates such limitations on their use.

Actually, there was another thread where a lot of people were complaining that the spell repertoire of the sorcerer did not give enough support for an elemental-based spellcaster unless their element of choice was fire. This could be extended to a wizard who would like to specialize in one element too, I guess, considering that both classes share a lot of spells, and most of the better damaging spells available for both classes are fire-based. By that token, any campaign that features a lot of demons and devils will devalue fire-based spells in general, isn't that true? Now, some will argue that spellcasters, specially the wizard, do have other damaging options. Well, in the same campaign against a lot of fiends, a lot of the other non-fire spells will still be suboptimal. Moreover, as the game reaches the higher levels, these spellcasters will be better served by either carefully choosing spells that target the fiend's worse saves, or by employing spells that do not target saves at all, as fiends suited for higher level play usually have very high primary saves and spell resistance. Now, doesn't it all amount to the spellcaster having to select their spells and adapt according to the campaign? Why is this so much different than a ranger choosing favored enemies that actually fit well into the campaign?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I went in a different direction for my ranger capstone:

Master of the Wild
At 20th level, your senses, intuitions, and experience provide you with a profound understanding of your environment. As a bonus action, you can gain knowledge of the surrounding territory as though you had cast the commune with nature spell.​

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Actually, there was another thread where a lot of people were complaining that the spell repertoire of the sorcerer did not give enough support for an elemental-based spellcaster unless their element of choice was fire. This could be extended to a wizard who would like to specialize in one element too, I guess, considering that both classes share a lot of spells, and most of the better damaging spells available for both classes are fire-based. By that token, any campaign that features a lot of demons and devils will devalue fire-based spells in general, isn't that true? Now, some will argue that spellcasters, specially the wizard, do have other damaging options. Well, in the same campaign against a lot of fiends, a lot of the other non-fire spells will still be suboptimal. Moreover, as the game reaches the higher levels, these spellcasters will be better served by either carefully choosing spells that target the fiend's worse saves, or by employing spells that do not target saves at all, as fiends suited for higher level play usually have very high primary saves and spell resistance. Now, doesn't it all amount to the spellcaster having to select their spells and adapt according to the campaign? Why is this so much different than a ranger choosing favored enemies that actually fit well into the campaign?

That is a relatively easier fix though. You can easily say instead of fireball, it becomes acid ball. Cone of Cold can become Cone of Radiance.

 

[Barolo]

That is a relatively easier fix though. You can easily say instead of fireball, it becomes acid ball. Cone of Cold can become Cone of Radiance.

Do you think this needs fixing? Is it really interesting when everything is the same, just colors changing? One of the things I miss the most from earlier editions are monsters such as golems, that were practically impervious to magic. Nobody needs to be at full capacity at every given situation. When facing golems, some people could end up feeling it was the "wrong" option to have selected the whole wizard class to begin with, not just a feature inside the class, which favored enemy is for a ranger.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Do you think this needs fixing? Is it really interesting when everything is the same, just colors changing? One of the things I miss the most from earlier editions are monsters such as golems, that were practically impervious to magic. Nobody needs to be at full capacity at every given situation. When facing golems, some people could end up feeling it was the "wrong" option to have selected the whole wizard class to begin with, not just a feature inside the class, which favored enemy is for a ranger.

I don't see it as "everything is the same, just colors changing." But magic and spell variety as a limiting factor in the mechanics of a sorcerer or wizard is a separate problem than the mechanical problems of the ranger. One can use existing spells to create new spells with slight adjustments or variations quite easily in order to create greater variety, the easiest of which is to change energy type. No, these are technically "cannon" or "RAW" spells, but it works, and can help a sorcerer or wizard achieve a particular theme while maintaining their mechanical benefits of their chosen class/archetype.

As for the monsters you miss from earlier editions, there's nothing saying you couldn't bring those back. I am not arguing that every class needs to be optimal in every situation. However, there is absolutely no major class ability that limits the use of an ability in the ways that favored enemy does. The only one that, as written, is more reliant on DM fiat is the Wild Sorcerers Tides of Chaos ability. Regardless of what you're fighting or what the situation, 90+% of all class abilities can be at least attempted. Only favored enemy limits the situations in which they can be used. Now mind you, this is not necessarily a bad thing. But it needs to be at best a minor ability that the ranger can do without, and should not be used as the focus for a capstone.

Finally, as to your point regarding how a player chooses their abilities or spells, it is perfectly acceptable to play a character that adapts to the encounters of the game. But what if you start the game at a a level higher than first and invest in abilities to fit your concept? What if you have a vision for how your character/hero develops their powers? What if their powers are not based on their adventuring experience, but rather hidden powers that are already defined but require certain stresses to unlock? There are many ways to play, and none of them are wrong. It is different if you have a fire sorcerer in mind that you want to play, but end up fighting a lot of monsters with fire resistance. There are abilities and feats that can allow you to continue to feel useful (Elemental Adept for starters, which can be used as a basis for another feat that allows one to damage creatures with an element despite normally being immune). These are easier matters to adjust, since a fire sorcerer can still cast spells against any creature or in any encounter so long as they have a spell slot. Additionally, as you mentioned, they can choose to use other spells if they know them. A ranger with favored enemy is in a different category. If this is supposed to be their defining ability around which a capstone is created, the ability must be useful even when not facing their favored enemy. Otherwise, theoretically they could go their entire adventuring career without ever fighting their favored enemy. Such an ability is completely reliant on the DM to play ball and throw the ranger so goblins or orcs or undead.

Of course, this is my perspective and how I view the design of 5e, and how I adapt the game to meet the needs of myself and my group.