Player's won't be happy with their favorite class/subclass/race/etc. until its broken. Even then they will find some level that they don't get everything they wanted.
Even then Ranger will always be difficult, because there are so many different visions of the class to cater to. You will never satisfy all of them with a single class.
Tasha's pushed things in the right direction and gave player's some versatility to execute their image of the Ranger and in general made how they play less dependent on the GM.
I am not entirely sure that is the case, as I would say that only an handful of classes have consistently reviewed as lacking and have been so throughout the life time of the game. As I have mentioned earlier most of the issue I see in the ranger class really comes down to it being released underdeveloped during a time when the teams were hyper focused on not "stepping on any other classes toes". It feels rushed especially when you think that they have a decent amount of class fantasy built around dual wielding and then make it difficult to use smoothly. Then they double down on ranger as archer through a lot of the spell list (then forget bard has magical secrets and can swift quiver before a ranger get access).
With the exception Monk and Sorcerer no other class really show the same level of dissatisfaction in the player base. By thinking it is just a preference bias that make any improvements impossible. They got the paladin as a class mostly right, as in most of the complaint I see about it being center around the nova potential being "too great" (which is more of a table's pacing issue) or that the player doesn't cast spells (playstyle preference not really an issue for everyone).
On Two weapon Fighting I think it suffers more from being basically tacked on in the base rule and then woefully under supported when feats are involved
I agree. The optional features in Tasha's are meant to be equal "power" options. Not upgrades.
I also agree that many people don't know what they want or not.
I can see that idea of them being variant features, but then they did add enhancements to feature as well so I did find it kind of odd that with the rangers options they went straight with replacements and no enhancements of existing feature.
Player's won't be happy with their favorite class/subclass/race/etc. until its broken. Even then they will find some level that they don't get everything they wanted.
Even then Ranger will always be difficult, because there are so many different visions of the class to cater to. You will never satisfy all of them with a single class.
Tasha's pushed things in the right direction and gave player's some versatility to execute their image of the Ranger and in general made how they play less dependent on the GM.
I am not entirely sure that is the case, as I would say that only an handful of classes have consistently reviewed as lacking and have been so throughout the life time of the game. As I have mentioned earlier most of the issue I see in the ranger class really comes down to it being released underdeveloped during a time when the teams were hyper focused on not "stepping on any other classes toes". It feels rushed especially when you think that they have a decent amount of class fantasy built around dual wielding and then make it difficult to use smoothly. Then they double down on ranger as archer through a lot of the spell list (then forget bard has magical secrets and can swift quiver before a ranger get access).
With the exception Monk and Sorcerer no other class really show the same level of dissatisfaction in the player base. By thinking it is just a preference bias that make any improvements impossible. They got the paladin as a class mostly right, as in most of the complaint I see about it being center around the nova potential being "too great" (which is more of a table's pacing issue) or that the player doesn't cast spells (playstyle preference not really an issue for everyone).
On Two weapon Fighting I think it suffers more from being basically tacked on in the base rule and then woefully under supported when feats are involved.
This is mostly it...
Ranger and Monk were consistently rated low in their surveys with ranger having a higher percentage of dissatisfaction than the rest by a fairly large margin. This kicked off the 6 or so versions of rangers that have been suggested by WotC at one point or another. Tashas then came out and seemingly a lot of the kerfuffle died down fast and now the community is focused on the Monk.
Sorcerer got some love in Tasha's as the new subclasses deal with the biggest issue with sorcerer (spells known) so Monk is left holding the bag for "least desirable class" now.
I find it fascinating that 3 of the least enjoyed (presumably) character classes by the majority (presumably) of players is the monk, sorcerer, and ranger. These 3 classes, perhaps more than any others, interweave and “rely on” their subclass’s for their definition and “power”. While most other classes get a few additional options or flavor from their subclasses, the 3 mentioned above get their punch from their subclasses.
I find that very telling about how the vocal, voting, survey completing portion of the D&D 5E community read, think, and feel about class+subclass game design and application.
All of the “best classes” have a strong base class with most of the defining features coming from it, while these 3 “worst classes” have most of their real punch coming from their subclasses.
I kind of get this logic though, even if I personally disagree with it.
People see the base class as the defining aspect of their character, and rightly so. The subclass exists mostly to push the base class in a more specific and flavorful direction. I understand that logic.
Personally, I prefer that most of the flavor and mechanic comes from the subclass, as it makes my choice feel much more significant to both my character and the story. But I can't exactly fault people for seeing it the other way.
Like, if you look at Paladins, outside of Channel Divinity, the only functional difference they have between levels 3 and 15 are one Aura at level 7, and expanded spell lists. That's it. I find that tedious and boring. But I can understand why someone who is happy with Aura of Protection and Divine Smite would disagree.
What is almost as interesting is that they (R/S/M) are the three classes folks most want to MC into (or out of) (along with the warlock). How often do you hear of a fighter/rogue MC? In 1-3e it or the F/M, R/M or F/R/M Demi human was the standard old style MC. Now the only one I hear even a little bit about is the F/M and mostly folks go for the bladesinger instead. You dip into F, R, C, D, for 1-3 levels then either into another or back into your initial class for more of their upper level abilities.
What is almost as interesting is that they (R/S/M) are the three classes folks most want to MC into (or out of) (along with the warlock). How often do you hear of a fighter/rogue MC? In 1-3e it or the F/M, R/M or F/R/M Demi human was the standard old style MC. Now the only one I hear even a little bit about is the F/M and mostly folks go for the bladesinger instead. You dip into F, R, C, D, for 1-3 levels then either into another or back into your initial class for more of their upper level abilities.
Some of this is probably by design as they want character to feel like they are solid from the start and so all design really seem to be focused on levels 1-8 or so then the game kind of gets a bit wonky. I do remember watching an interview talking about the original editions and how when the game began they often retired character around mid levels so maybe the later levels of D&D having issues is a feature...
On those dip classes in 5e are very front loaded so (that adds to the issue people have with ranger) and with lackluster a capstone dipping just about anything is better than foe slayer.
With Tasha and proper play Foe Slayer is actually quite good. It still stacks with favored foe so you have up to 6 uses of it. I suspect that most folks are so damage oriented that they never stop to think that 3 points of damage at L20 is insignificant but that a 15% better hit chance is still quite significant- especially against high AC foes. If you use it to boost hit chances on bonus attacks (TWF) etc it can play a significant role, if you just tack on 3 points of damage it’s useless.
They probably could have had Foe Slayer add to attack and damage instead attack or damage, as it is limited to once/turn. While the any bonus to hit is great in bound accuracy, it just doesn't feel like a level 20 feature (even if it added to both attack and damage with each use).
With Favored Foe, For Slayer deals equivalent damage to a one handed long sword, a longbow, or a rapier. It doesn't take an additional attack roll to proc and you can always choose to forego the static bonus to damage for a bonus to attack instead. All this while requiring your concentration.
It has its uses. I'd say it's better than people give it credit for. It's basically a weaker but slightly more versatile Extra Attack, which is the Fighter's capstone (that nobody complains about.)
Is it amazing? No. Is it better than Favored Enemy/Foe Slayer? Eh. I still prefer FE most of the time. Is it totally worthless trash that needs to be jettisoned into orbit? Definitely not.
Things “feeling bad” are the cause of some of the most incorrect assessments of things in 5E.
I'm not sure who you're quoting as they said "it doesn't feel like a 20th level feature" which I'm inclined to agree with.
It's not bad but it's hardly amazing for a capstone.
Not the worst but not the best by any margin.
I think Foe slayer might be a level 11 feature at best, but that is case with much of the Ranger, features either come late for tier of play (if unique )or are copies of other class features. The later even applies to some of the hunter archetype feature options.
I really feel that these kinds of statements about the ranger class (nothing personal to you) is more feeling than hard data and actual play.
What hard data shows that a +5 to hit/damage on a single attack against specifically your favored enemies (limited to three or four chosen foe types) holds weight as a capstone feature? There are plenty of other classes/subclasses (including the Ranger itself) that get damage bonuses or bonuses to hit at much much earlier levels and none of those bonuses are limited by creature type.
To list a few
Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master (feat, 4th level): +10 damage (limited by a -5 to hit).
Colossus Slayer (Hunter Ranger feature, 3rd level): +1d8 damage (only limitation is foe must be below max health and once per turn)
Divine Strike (Life Cleric and others, 8th level): +1d8 damage (once per turn)
Archery Fighting style (Fighter feature, 2nd level): +2 to hit (limited by weapon type)
Potent Spellcasting (Light Cleric and others, 8th level feature): + WISDOM modifier to damage of a cantrip
None of these are exactly the same as Foe Slayer, but all demonstrate abilities which give a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage. All occur before 10th level and none of them are restricted by the types of creature you are attacking.
From what I can tell, the best case scenario is that a 20th level Ranger could use this feature to offset the penalty to hit by Sharpshooter or GWM, but by 20th level is generally isnt an issue for any class using these feats because they have a +6 prof modifier and a +5 from their attack stat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I really feel that these kinds of statements about the ranger class (nothing personal to you) is more feeling than hard data and actual play.
What hard data shows that a +5 to hit/damage on a single attack against specifically your favored enemies (limited to three or four chosen foe types) holds weight as a capstone feature? There are plenty of other classes/subclasses (including the Ranger itself) that get damage bonuses or bonuses to hit at much much earlier levels and none of those bonuses are limited by creature type.
To list a few
Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master (feat, 4th level): +10 damage (limited by a -5 to hit).
Colossus Slayer (Hunter Ranger feature, 3rd level): +1d8 damage (only limitation is foe must be below max health and once per turn)
Divine Strike (Life Cleric and others, 8th level): +1d8 damage (once per turn)
Archery Fighting style (Fighter feature, 2nd level): +2 to hit (limited by weapon type)
Potent Spellcasting (Light Cleric and others, 8th level feature): + WISDOM modifier to damage of a cantrip
None of these are exactly the same as Foe Slayer, but all demonstrate abilities which give a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage. All occur before 10th level and none of them are restricted by the types of creature you are attacking.
From what I can tell, the best case scenario is that a 20th level Ranger could use this feature to offset the penalty to hit by Sharpshooter or GWM, but by 20th level is generally isnt an issue for any class using these feats because they have a +6 prof modifier and a +5 from their attack stat.
This is it mostly....
The fact it's limited to a your enemies, is only once per turn, and is completely better as an accuracy bonus so the damage option is basically flavor text is why it's not great as a capstone.
It's just too limited to be considered great in my opinion. It's not bad but it's likely in the lower third of capstones but not the worst
The idea of a capstone isn't something in the game. It's an idea and term that we the community made up. Paladins get a thing at level 20 from their subclass. Fighters get a thing from their base class at level 20. Rangers get a thing at level 20 from their base class. Why do all of these things have a burning need from the community to be some kind of crazy power that is "appropriate for a capstone"? And what about level 19? Or level 17 or 16? At what point do we look at the combination of powers gained from class and subclass in tier 3 and 4 collectively? A level 20 ability at level 20 is not weighed across all classes the same, but the idea is the combination of abilities (including spells) accumulated over whatever number of levels we are looking at at that time weigh something in the same ballpark, but not even in the combat department, which is where most people use the terms like "strong", "underpowered", or "worst". How a class and subclass plays with the total combination of all of it's parts at a certain level is what is weighed.
Are the level 20 paladin ability gained from their subclasses awesome? Most of them seem to be popular. Most are a once per long rest, mostly for a minute, thing you can activate, many at the cost of an action, that admittedly do crazy cakes amazing stuff. It's thematic. It's potent. But it's limited (severely) and short lived. Fighter get another attack. Rangers get to increase their martial prowess via a very flexible (albeit math heavy application) and potent benefit. Granted it is situational for the handbook ranger. Tasha's players have a less situational but limited use version. At this level of the game rangers and paladins are NOT getting their martial contributions to the party from attacks more and more. Thier are getting it in other ways like magic power.
I really feel that these kinds of statements about the ranger class (nothing personal to you) is more feeling than hard data and actual play.
What hard data shows that a +5 to hit/damage on a single attack against specifically your favored enemies (limited to three or four chosen foe types) holds weight as a capstone feature? There are plenty of other classes/subclasses (including the Ranger itself) that get damage bonuses or bonuses to hit at much much earlier levels and none of those bonuses are limited by creature type.
To list a few
Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master (feat, 4th level): +10 damage (limited by a -5 to hit).
Colossus Slayer (Hunter Ranger feature, 3rd level): +1d8 damage (only limitation is foe must be below max health and once per turn)
Divine Strike (Life Cleric and others, 8th level): +1d8 damage (once per turn)
Archery Fighting style (Fighter feature, 2nd level): +2 to hit (limited by weapon type)
Potent Spellcasting (Light Cleric and others, 8th level feature): + WISDOM modifier to damage of a cantrip
None of these are exactly the same as Foe Slayer, but all demonstrate abilities which give a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage. All occur before 10th level and none of them are restricted by the types of creature you are attacking.
From what I can tell, the best case scenario is that a 20th level Ranger could use this feature to offset the penalty to hit by Sharpshooter or GWM, but by 20th level is generally isnt an issue for any class using these feats because they have a +6 prof modifier and a +5 from their attack stat.
At 20th-level, it's almost never worth it to take the -5 penalty of GWM/SS without a way to offset it. It lowers your attack roll bonus to effectively +6. At 20th-level.
For context, Tiamat has an AC of 25. With the penalty to GWM/SS, you have to roll a 19 or 20 on the die if you want to hit her at all. The +10 to damage doesn't matter at all if you can't connect the attack.
Which isn't a defense or indictment of Foe Slayer in either way. Just pointing out that a creature that's suppose to challenge a 20th-level PC will have an AC that's too high to consistently land SS/GWM without ways to offset the penalty.
While Tiamat is, at best (or worst perhaps), a capstone foe for a large party of L20 characters and a bit much for most parties probably, when I started looking at CR22+ villains it quickly became apparent that most had ACs in/around 20+ without magic. If you add something like bracers (+3) to their starting AC they become very hard to hit. If you can’t counter the -5 to hit from SS/GWM or other feats/abilities you are going to miss most of the time.
Example: foe is an adult red dragon ( nearing ancient) - AC 19 base (dice roll of 10 to hit assumed) you need a +3 after proficiency to hit - possible with a magic prime weapon and nothing else. But if your taking the -5 then you have have the offsets to be hitting even 50% of the time. Now put a ring of protection on the dragon so the AC is now 20, and you need at least a +1 more just to hit if your trying for the extra damage you need +6 extra to offset and overcome the magic. Add bracers (+3, +4 total) for AC 23 and you need +4 after your proficiency.and +3 weapon just to hit, +9 to use SS/GWM and hit half the time.
That “poor” “capstone” +3 to hit suddenly looks mighty good, we all love to look at damage output but we also love to overlook the reality that first you have to actually hit the darn thing before you do any damage. Against capstone foes ( dragons, high end aberrations, demonlords, arch devils, etc) the extra damage from SS/GWM is actually off the table and you are using every bit of your extra +s just to hit. For rangers (where we have talked about favorite enemies and pretty much agreed that dragons, fiends and aberrations should be prominent on the list) this is a free +3 against the very things you are most likely to be taking on in the finale of your capstone adventure.
As a DM, I would be telegraphing the foe to select through the campaign by putting lots of lower level versions in as they progress so the ranger has a clue what to take so they should have the right ones when they need it.
Why wouldn’t a ranger have a wisdom score of 18 or 20 by level 20? They are getting as much damage from magic as they are shooting a bow at these levels.
Yep. The math is very solid. A plus to hit when you need it, if you need it, and if you don’t need it, free damage. Many of the ranger attack enhancement spells work when hitting a target, so hitting is of the upmost importance.
If you think about it the +3 from foe slayer is actually a fairly major deal - where do you get bonuses to hit from? Proficiency, attack stat, and magic weapon (and foe slayer).
so, the fighter has +6 prof., +5 stat bonus and +3 weapon bonus for a total of +14 so they hit AC24 half the time, if they try to use GWM they hit AC 19 half the time. the ranger gets foe slayer so their to hit is +17 not 14 so they hit AC 27 half the time and even if they use SS they hit AC22 half the time. That difference is major at that level.
they only caveat (sort of) is belts of giant strength which can boost a strength stat bonus above the +5 - but rangers can wear them as well so they still get a 15%better chance to hit when compared to the fighter with the same belt.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am not entirely sure that is the case, as I would say that only an handful of classes have consistently reviewed as lacking and have been so throughout the life time of the game. As I have mentioned earlier most of the issue I see in the ranger class really comes down to it being released underdeveloped during a time when the teams were hyper focused on not "stepping on any other classes toes". It feels rushed especially when you think that they have a decent amount of class fantasy built around dual wielding and then make it difficult to use smoothly. Then they double down on ranger as archer through a lot of the spell list (then forget bard has magical secrets and can swift quiver before a ranger get access).
With the exception Monk and Sorcerer no other class really show the same level of dissatisfaction in the player base. By thinking it is just a preference bias that make any improvements impossible. They got the paladin as a class mostly right, as in most of the complaint I see about it being center around the nova potential being "too great" (which is more of a table's pacing issue) or that the player doesn't cast spells (playstyle preference not really an issue for everyone).
On Two weapon Fighting I think it suffers more from being basically tacked on in the base rule and then woefully under supported when feats are involved
I can see that idea of them being variant features, but then they did add enhancements to feature as well so I did find it kind of odd that with the rangers options they went straight with replacements and no enhancements of existing feature.
.
This is mostly it...
Ranger and Monk were consistently rated low in their surveys with ranger having a higher percentage of dissatisfaction than the rest by a fairly large margin. This kicked off the 6 or so versions of rangers that have been suggested by WotC at one point or another. Tashas then came out and seemingly a lot of the kerfuffle died down fast and now the community is focused on the Monk.
Sorcerer got some love in Tasha's as the new subclasses deal with the biggest issue with sorcerer (spells known) so Monk is left holding the bag for "least desirable class" now.
I find it fascinating that 3 of the least enjoyed (presumably) character classes by the majority (presumably) of players is the monk, sorcerer, and ranger. These 3 classes, perhaps more than any others, interweave and “rely on” their subclass’s for their definition and “power”. While most other classes get a few additional options or flavor from their subclasses, the 3 mentioned above get their punch from their subclasses.
I find that very telling about how the vocal, voting, survey completing portion of the D&D 5E community read, think, and feel about class+subclass game design and application.
All of the “best classes” have a strong base class with most of the defining features coming from it, while these 3 “worst classes” have most of their real punch coming from their subclasses.
I kind of get this logic though, even if I personally disagree with it.
People see the base class as the defining aspect of their character, and rightly so. The subclass exists mostly to push the base class in a more specific and flavorful direction. I understand that logic.
Personally, I prefer that most of the flavor and mechanic comes from the subclass, as it makes my choice feel much more significant to both my character and the story. But I can't exactly fault people for seeing it the other way.
Like, if you look at Paladins, outside of Channel Divinity, the only functional difference they have between levels 3 and 15 are one Aura at level 7, and expanded spell lists. That's it. I find that tedious and boring. But I can understand why someone who is happy with Aura of Protection and Divine Smite would disagree.
What is almost as interesting is that they (R/S/M) are the three classes folks most want to MC into (or out of) (along with the warlock). How often do you hear of a fighter/rogue MC? In 1-3e it or the F/M, R/M or F/R/M Demi human was the standard old style MC. Now the only one I hear even a little bit about is the F/M and mostly folks go for the bladesinger instead. You dip into F, R, C, D, for 1-3 levels then either into another or back into your initial class for more of their upper level abilities.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Some of this is probably by design as they want character to feel like they are solid from the start and so all design really seem to be focused on levels 1-8 or so then the game kind of gets a bit wonky. I do remember watching an interview talking about the original editions and how when the game began they often retired character around mid levels so maybe the later levels of D&D having issues is a feature...
On those dip classes in 5e are very front loaded so (that adds to the issue people have with ranger) and with lackluster a capstone dipping just about anything is better than foe slayer.
With Tasha and proper play Foe Slayer is actually quite good. It still stacks with favored foe so you have up to 6 uses of it. I suspect that most folks are so damage oriented that they never stop to think that 3 points of damage at L20 is insignificant but that a 15% better hit chance is still quite significant- especially against high AC foes. If you use it to boost hit chances on bonus attacks (TWF) etc it can play a significant role, if you just tack on 3 points of damage it’s useless.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
They probably could have had Foe Slayer add to attack and damage instead attack or damage, as it is limited to once/turn. While the any bonus to hit is great in bound accuracy, it just doesn't feel like a level 20 feature (even if it added to both attack and damage with each use).
Things “feeling bad” are the cause of some of the most incorrect assessments of things in 5E.
With Favored Foe, For Slayer deals equivalent damage to a one handed long sword, a longbow, or a rapier. It doesn't take an additional attack roll to proc and you can always choose to forego the static bonus to damage for a bonus to attack instead. All this while requiring your concentration.
It has its uses. I'd say it's better than people give it credit for. It's basically a weaker but slightly more versatile Extra Attack, which is the Fighter's capstone (that nobody complains about.)
Is it amazing? No. Is it better than Favored Enemy/Foe Slayer? Eh. I still prefer FE most of the time. Is it totally worthless trash that needs to be jettisoned into orbit? Definitely not.
I'm not sure who you're quoting as they said "it doesn't feel like a 20th level feature" which I'm inclined to agree with.
It's not bad but it's hardly amazing for a capstone.
Not the worst but not the best by any margin.
I think Foe slayer might be a level 11 feature at best, but that is case with much of the Ranger, features either come late for tier of play (if unique )or are copies of other class features. The later even applies to some of the hunter archetype feature options.
I really feel that these kinds of statements about the ranger class (nothing personal to you) is more feeling than hard data and actual play.
What hard data shows that a +5 to hit/damage on a single attack against specifically your favored enemies (limited to three or four chosen foe types) holds weight as a capstone feature? There are plenty of other classes/subclasses (including the Ranger itself) that get damage bonuses or bonuses to hit at much much earlier levels and none of those bonuses are limited by creature type.
To list a few
None of these are exactly the same as Foe Slayer, but all demonstrate abilities which give a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage. All occur before 10th level and none of them are restricted by the types of creature you are attacking.
From what I can tell, the best case scenario is that a 20th level Ranger could use this feature to offset the penalty to hit by Sharpshooter or GWM, but by 20th level is generally isnt an issue for any class using these feats because they have a +6 prof modifier and a +5 from their attack stat.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This is it mostly....
The fact it's limited to a your enemies, is only once per turn, and is completely better as an accuracy bonus so the damage option is basically flavor text is why it's not great as a capstone.
It's just too limited to be considered great in my opinion. It's not bad but it's likely in the lower third of capstones but not the worst
Very fair.
The idea of a capstone isn't something in the game. It's an idea and term that we the community made up. Paladins get a thing at level 20 from their subclass. Fighters get a thing from their base class at level 20. Rangers get a thing at level 20 from their base class. Why do all of these things have a burning need from the community to be some kind of crazy power that is "appropriate for a capstone"? And what about level 19? Or level 17 or 16? At what point do we look at the combination of powers gained from class and subclass in tier 3 and 4 collectively? A level 20 ability at level 20 is not weighed across all classes the same, but the idea is the combination of abilities (including spells) accumulated over whatever number of levels we are looking at at that time weigh something in the same ballpark, but not even in the combat department, which is where most people use the terms like "strong", "underpowered", or "worst". How a class and subclass plays with the total combination of all of it's parts at a certain level is what is weighed.
Are the level 20 paladin ability gained from their subclasses awesome? Most of them seem to be popular. Most are a once per long rest, mostly for a minute, thing you can activate, many at the cost of an action, that admittedly do crazy cakes amazing stuff. It's thematic. It's potent. But it's limited (severely) and short lived. Fighter get another attack. Rangers get to increase their martial prowess via a very flexible (albeit math heavy application) and potent benefit. Granted it is situational for the handbook ranger. Tasha's players have a less situational but limited use version. At this level of the game rangers and paladins are NOT getting their martial contributions to the party from attacks more and more. Thier are getting it in other ways like magic power.
At 20th-level, it's almost never worth it to take the -5 penalty of GWM/SS without a way to offset it. It lowers your attack roll bonus to effectively +6. At 20th-level.
For context, Tiamat has an AC of 25. With the penalty to GWM/SS, you have to roll a 19 or 20 on the die if you want to hit her at all. The +10 to damage doesn't matter at all if you can't connect the attack.
Which isn't a defense or indictment of Foe Slayer in either way. Just pointing out that a creature that's suppose to challenge a 20th-level PC will have an AC that's too high to consistently land SS/GWM without ways to offset the penalty.
While Tiamat is, at best (or worst perhaps), a capstone foe for a large party of L20 characters and a bit much for most parties probably, when I started looking at CR22+ villains it quickly became apparent that most had ACs in/around 20+ without magic. If you add something like bracers (+3) to their starting AC they become very hard to hit. If you can’t counter the -5 to hit from SS/GWM or other feats/abilities you are going to miss most of the time.
Example: foe is an adult red dragon ( nearing ancient) - AC 19 base (dice roll of 10 to hit assumed) you need a +3 after proficiency to hit - possible with a magic prime weapon and nothing else. But if your taking the -5 then you have have the offsets to be hitting even 50% of the time. Now put a ring of protection on the dragon so the AC is now 20, and you need at least a +1 more just to hit if your trying for the extra damage you need +6 extra to offset and overcome the magic. Add bracers (+3, +4 total) for AC 23 and you need +4 after your proficiency.and +3 weapon just to hit, +9 to use SS/GWM and hit half the time.
That “poor” “capstone” +3 to hit suddenly looks mighty good, we all love to look at damage output but we also love to overlook the reality that first you have to actually hit the darn thing before you do any damage. Against capstone foes ( dragons, high end aberrations, demonlords, arch devils, etc) the extra damage from SS/GWM is actually off the table and you are using every bit of your extra +s just to hit. For rangers (where we have talked about favorite enemies and pretty much agreed that dragons, fiends and aberrations should be prominent on the list) this is a free +3 against the very things you are most likely to be taking on in the finale of your capstone adventure.
As a DM, I would be telegraphing the foe to select through the campaign by putting lots of lower level versions in as they progress so the ranger has a clue what to take so they should have the right ones when they need it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Why wouldn’t a ranger have a wisdom score of 18 or 20 by level 20? They are getting as much damage from magic as they are shooting a bow at these levels.
Yep. The math is very solid. A plus to hit when you need it, if you need it, and if you don’t need it, free damage. Many of the ranger attack enhancement spells work when hitting a target, so hitting is of the upmost importance.
If you think about it the +3 from foe slayer is actually a fairly major deal - where do you get bonuses to hit from? Proficiency, attack stat, and magic weapon (and foe slayer).
so, the fighter has +6 prof., +5 stat bonus and +3 weapon bonus for a total of +14 so they hit AC24 half the time, if they try to use GWM they hit AC 19 half the time.
the ranger gets foe slayer so their to hit is +17 not 14 so they hit AC 27 half the time and even if they use SS they hit AC22 half the time. That difference is major at that level.
they only caveat (sort of) is belts of giant strength which can boost a strength stat bonus above the +5 - but rangers can wear them as well so they still get a 15%better chance to hit when compared to the fighter with the same belt.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.