Is this stated somewhere? In the book it says it lasts "for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell)".
Saying "as if you were concentrating" when talking about how this effect is dispelled is different to it being a concentration spell.
I'm less interested in if it stacks with Hunters Mark, and more interested in if it can be used in conjunction with any concentration spell (Zephyr Strike, Barkskin etc...)
Though the fact that it doesn't eat up your bonus action half the time allows for other interactions. 2 weapon fighting rangers now have a usable version of HM for them as well. I was a bit peeved as well first when I learned that it does use Concentration, but after having a look at the different interactions it opens up, I actually think it is not a bad feature.
There are other differences too though. For example, you can burn an HM on an enemy that you never actually manage to hit, but FF isn't expended without at least one guaranteed application of the damage.
And TWF isn't the only bonus action for Rangers - for example they could also be a Beastmaster or Drakewarden who isn't going to get HM on their bonus anyway. And of course it doesn't drain your spell slots. I think it's good for some builds, not so good for others. I do wish you could move it around like HM though. I think if we try it out and determine it's really not up to par, that's probably the houserule we'll add.
That's pretty much the main reason why most people are so dissatisfied with Favoured Foe lol
It's literally free damage. Would you rather have 2 uses of Hunter's Mark, or 2 Hunter's Marks and 2 Favored Foes?
Considering multiple Ranger subclasses also get damage buffs at 3rd level like Colossus Slayer or Slayer's Prey, they have to limit how many things you can stack simultaneously somehow.
At first I felt like the concentration requirement was the biggest problem with this feature, but at the moment, i'm more leaning towards considering the extremely limited number of uses to be the problem. I feel like having this be concentration but amuch higher number of uses (unlimited; 2PF/SR;?) would make for a much more interesting feature. You either concentrate on a spell or concentrate on dealing a little bit more damage, constantly juggling between the options. This would mean that, while in combat, the ranger is constantly in a state of utmost focus. This fits quite well with how i imagine the archetype.
I actually think the number of uses is fine; keep in mind how limited a Ranger's spell slots are. When you only have 3 or 4 at low levels you've got two uses of Favoured Foe, which means it's potentially a 50-66% increase in your resources if you use it instead of casting Hunter's Mark. Even by level 20 you've got 6 uses of Favoured Foe versus 15 spell slots, so it's still a 40% boost.
The builds that will benefit most are the ones that have multiple concentration spells they might want to switch between, as more resources mean you don't run out as fast. In fact for things like Lightning Arrow Favoured Foe has an interesting interaction in that you can trigger it after the Lightning Arrow hits, enabling you to stack it (since your concentration on Lightning Arrow is ending anyway). You can do the same with Zephyr Strike if you don't mind losing the mobility once you do your bonus force damage. In this kind of use-case it's about resources; it doesn't matter if one is worse, more is more, which matters on a half caster with limited resources.
On that basis you're probably also going to be using it on a build that tends towards two or fewer attacks per turn, so a ranged Ranger or a Beast Master, in which case the damage difference with Hunter's Mark is negligible.
For Rangers that favour maximum attacks, Hunter's Mark will be superior, but then you're probably building around that in the first place; these are your two weapon fighting Rangers. That said, while it's easy to think of Hunter's Mark as being triple damage for them, Favoured Foe does scale to a d8, and Hunter's Mark takes your bonus action both to cast it and to relocate it, so it's still not quite as high as you might think, except against a single boss.
Personally I think it's probably about right; I was initially disappointed Favoured Foe wasn't just free Hunter's Mark uses, but I think WotC have actually struck a good balance on it, as otherwise it'd be a no-brainer for nearly every Ranger. In its final form it's a good option to have available to choose from, but won't suit every build, and that means it's probably about right.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I actually think the number of uses is fine; keep in mind how limited a Ranger's spell slots are. When you only have 3 or 4 at low levels you've got two uses of Favoured Foe, which means it's potentially a 50-66% increase in your resources if you use it instead of casting Hunter's Mark. Even by level 20 you've got 6 uses of Favoured Foe versus 15 spell slots, so it's still a 40% boost.
The builds that will benefit most are the ones that have multiple concentration spells they might want to switch between, as more resources mean you don't run out as fast. In fact for things like Lightning Arrow Favoured Foe has an interesting interaction in that you can trigger it after the Lightning Arrow hits, enabling you to stack it (since your concentration on Lightning Arrow is ending anyway). You can do the same with Zephyr Strike if you don't mind losing the mobility once you do your bonus force damage. In this kind of use-case it's about resources; it doesn't matter if one is worse, more is more, which matters on a half caster with limited resources.
On that basis you're probably also going to be using it on a build that tends towards two or fewer attacks per turn, so a ranged Ranger or a Beast Master, in which case the damage difference with Hunter's Mark is negligible.
For Rangers that favour maximum attacks, Hunter's Mark will be superior, but then you're probably building around that in the first place; these are your two weapon fighting Rangers. That said, while it's easy to think of Hunter's Mark as being triple damage for them, Favoured Foe does scale to a d8, and Hunter's Mark takes your bonus action both to cast it and to relocate it, so it's still not quite as high as you might think, except against a single boss.
Personally I think it's probably about right; I was initially disappointed Favoured Foe wasn't just free Hunter's Mark uses, but I think WotC have actually struck a good balance on it, as otherwise it'd be a no-brainer for nearly every Ranger. In its final form it's a good option to have available to choose from, but won't suit every build, and that means it's probably about right.
Hmm, i'm mainly trying to see it as an excuse to not constantly use hunter's mark but maybe my starting point is just wrong. Tbh, since i'm playing a horizon walker, even the current version might be very strong contender against hunters mark.
I play a BM Ranger archer (revised Ranger to this point). The FE makes sense for me if I took humanoids. Because, in RR you get ALL humanoids. Tashas Ranger takes away all humanoids and sets it back to “pick 2.” That’s a huge deal for me. I’ll be going to the tashas iteration for the kind-of-hunters-mark thing. I’m just built in a way that it would make a big difference.
That's actually not true. "As if" is not the same as concentrating on a spell. You lose concentration on a spell only 3 ways: casting another concentration spell, taking damage or being incapacitated. It is meant to stack with Hunter's mark or anything else concentration. Otherwise, it would say it would just be a concentration spell.
"You lose concentration on spells when you start concentrating on something else" is really just your interpretation, not what the concentration rule states. Now obviously we can all play this the way we like, but until they clarify their thinking Rules as intented, Rules as written is most certainly stacks.
The term "as if concentrating on a spell" is used in very specific circumstances. Mostly it shows that you use the same rules as a spell (even though it isn't) and concentration is being use. It also specifically points out that the ability is not a spell. There are several reasons why identifying it as not a spell is important. dispel magic, wild shapes, spell casting restrictions, stuff like that.
the dmg states : Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.
This implies your "as if" interpretation is not taking balance into account and more support would be needed to assume that it dose not end when casting a spell.
I'm curious, can you stack Favored Foe and Hunter's Mark together?
No, since you can't concentrate on both at the same time.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Is this stated somewhere? In the book it says it lasts "for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell)".
Saying "as if you were concentrating" when talking about how this effect is dispelled is different to it being a concentration spell.
I'm less interested in if it stacks with Hunters Mark, and more interested in if it can be used in conjunction with any concentration spell (Zephyr Strike, Barkskin etc...)
Seriously? Damn. They really give and then they take away with the ranger hey.
Though the fact that it doesn't eat up your bonus action half the time allows for other interactions. 2 weapon fighting rangers now have a usable version of HM for them as well. I was a bit peeved as well first when I learned that it does use Concentration, but after having a look at the different interactions it opens up, I actually think it is not a bad feature.
There are other differences too though. For example, you can burn an HM on an enemy that you never actually manage to hit, but FF isn't expended without at least one guaranteed application of the damage.
And TWF isn't the only bonus action for Rangers - for example they could also be a Beastmaster or Drakewarden who isn't going to get HM on their bonus anyway. And of course it doesn't drain your spell slots. I think it's good for some builds, not so good for others. I do wish you could move it around like HM though. I think if we try it out and determine it's really not up to par, that's probably the houserule we'll add.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It's literally free damage. Would you rather have 2 uses of Hunter's Mark, or 2 Hunter's Marks and 2 Favored Foes?
Considering multiple Ranger subclasses also get damage buffs at 3rd level like Colossus Slayer or Slayer's Prey, they have to limit how many things you can stack simultaneously somehow.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
At first I felt like the concentration requirement was the biggest problem with this feature, but at the moment, i'm more leaning towards considering the extremely limited number of uses to be the problem. I feel like having this be concentration but amuch higher number of uses (unlimited; 2PF/SR;?) would make for a much more interesting feature. You either concentrate on a spell or concentrate on dealing a little bit more damage, constantly juggling between the options. This would mean that, while in combat, the ranger is constantly in a state of utmost focus. This fits quite well with how i imagine the archetype.
I actually think the number of uses is fine; keep in mind how limited a Ranger's spell slots are. When you only have 3 or 4 at low levels you've got two uses of Favoured Foe, which means it's potentially a 50-66% increase in your resources if you use it instead of casting Hunter's Mark. Even by level 20 you've got 6 uses of Favoured Foe versus 15 spell slots, so it's still a 40% boost.
The builds that will benefit most are the ones that have multiple concentration spells they might want to switch between, as more resources mean you don't run out as fast. In fact for things like Lightning Arrow Favoured Foe has an interesting interaction in that you can trigger it after the Lightning Arrow hits, enabling you to stack it (since your concentration on Lightning Arrow is ending anyway). You can do the same with Zephyr Strike if you don't mind losing the mobility once you do your bonus force damage. In this kind of use-case it's about resources; it doesn't matter if one is worse, more is more, which matters on a half caster with limited resources.
On that basis you're probably also going to be using it on a build that tends towards two or fewer attacks per turn, so a ranged Ranger or a Beast Master, in which case the damage difference with Hunter's Mark is negligible.
For Rangers that favour maximum attacks, Hunter's Mark will be superior, but then you're probably building around that in the first place; these are your two weapon fighting Rangers. That said, while it's easy to think of Hunter's Mark as being triple damage for them, Favoured Foe does scale to a d8, and Hunter's Mark takes your bonus action both to cast it and to relocate it, so it's still not quite as high as you might think, except against a single boss.
Personally I think it's probably about right; I was initially disappointed Favoured Foe wasn't just free Hunter's Mark uses, but I think WotC have actually struck a good balance on it, as otherwise it'd be a no-brainer for nearly every Ranger. In its final form it's a good option to have available to choose from, but won't suit every build, and that means it's probably about right.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I wish it would have been made as transferable upon downing the foe to a new foe without having to expend another use of the ability.
Yep, I'd say that's the one thing they missed out on.
However, it's still worth taking, as doesn't use spell slots. I use it (FF) as my last resort, rather than the starting point
Hmm, i'm mainly trying to see it as an excuse to not constantly use hunter's mark but maybe my starting point is just wrong. Tbh, since i'm playing a horizon walker, even the current version might be very strong contender against hunters mark.
I play a BM Ranger archer (revised Ranger to this point). The FE makes sense for me if I took humanoids. Because, in RR you get ALL humanoids. Tashas Ranger takes away all humanoids and sets it back to “pick 2.” That’s a huge deal for me. I’ll be going to the tashas iteration for the kind-of-hunters-mark thing. I’m just built in a way that it would make a big difference.
That's actually not true. "As if" is not the same as concentrating on a spell. You lose concentration on a spell only 3 ways: casting another concentration spell, taking damage or being incapacitated. It is meant to stack with Hunter's mark or anything else concentration. Otherwise, it would say it would just be a concentration spell.
"You lose concentration on spells when you start concentrating on something else" is really just your interpretation, not what the concentration rule states. Now obviously we can all play this the way we like, but until they clarify their thinking Rules as intented, Rules as written is most certainly stacks.
The term "as if concentrating on a spell" is used in very specific circumstances. Mostly it shows that you use the same rules as a spell (even though it isn't) and concentration is being use. It also specifically points out that the ability is not a spell. There are several reasons why identifying it as not a spell is important. dispel magic, wild shapes, spell casting restrictions, stuff like that.
the dmg states : Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.
This implies your "as if" interpretation is not taking balance into account and more support would be needed to assume that it dose not end when casting a spell.